It is difficult to give an overarching definition of Libertarianism because there are many different types. However, there are still some core principles that most Libertarians share. Libertarians generally believe that the less government, the better. They believe in personal liberty, from the right to full wages to the right to free speech. They believe in peace.

It’s also difficult to trace Libertarianism to a single thinker, though it is sometimes traced to the English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704 c.e.). Locke is famous for coming up with the idea that everyone is entitled to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.” This was modified in the Declaration of Independence to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

The primary thinkers we will studying here are Immanuel Kant, Robert Nozick, and Ayn Rand. Nozick’s treatment of Libertarianism is the most thorough and well-respected in the philosophical tradition (which is why we’ll mostly be studying his ideas), but some of Kant’s ideas lay the foundation for the sense of personal liberty that Libertarianism supports.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804 c.e.) and Treating People as Ends

Immanuel Kant is famous within philosophy for his formulation of something called “the Practical Imperative.” This imperative basically says that humans should never be used as a means, and should be treated as ends in themselves. When we use a knife to cut through rope, we are using that knife as a means to cut through the rope. We don’t place any value on the knife itself, except insofar as it can cut. Kant’s point is that we should never treat people the way we treat knives, or other material things. As a matter of fact, when people feel that they’ve been violated by others, they often use the phrase “You used me!” People do not like being treated as things, and Kant targets such treatment of people as immoral. One of the most basic rights of people is to be treated as ends in themselves.

According to Libertarianism, a society where everyone is treated as an end is a good society. Nobody can own or use anyone else; this is a basic right. The rights of individuals are extremely important, perhaps fundamentally important. Now, properly speaking, Kant was not a Libertarian (in fact, his ideas influenced the Liberal philosopher John Rawls and Rawls' famous work A Theory of Justice). He discussed the Categorical Imperative as a component of an entire theory of morality. Nevertheless, in its pure defense of personal liberty, his idea can be seen as a precursor to contemporary Libertarianism.

Robert Nozick (1938-2001 c.e.)

Robert Nozick was an American philosopher who taught philosophy at Harvard for most of his career. His major work is Anarchy, State, and Utopia in which he lays out his Libertarian position.

In the preface of the book, Nozick notes the importance of individual rights: “Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights). So strong and far reaching are these rights that they raise the question of what, if anything, the state and its officials may do” (p. ix). Here we see something similar to Kant’s ideas above.

Nozick goes so far as to say that taxes are a violation of rights. He compares taxation to forced labor. Taxation also forces the person who needs material goods for happiness to be in a worse position than the person who only needs basic subsistence for happiness. In other words, taxation treats people as a means, rather than an end. It gives some people rights over others because it involves appropriating other people’s actions as though they are goods to be distributed. It allows some people to own other people, and this is a violation of basic human rights, says Nozick.

The Function of the State

at all? Nozick is not an anarchist, so he suggests that some sort of central state is necessary to uphold basic human rights. For humans to be treated as ends instead of means, we need a state. Here, most Libertarians and certainly all Socialists agree. It’s when we ask about how much power the state should have that we get disagreements.

At a minimum, Nozick claims, a state must have a monopoly over the use of force. That is, citizens are not permitted to use force against each other, but the state is permitted to use force in, for example, the enforcement of contracts or deserving punishment. The alternative is anarchy, where disputes are settled arbitrarily without any outside agency with respected authority. There are two primary functions of a state for Nozick: 1) A monopoly on the use of force and 2) protection of the rights of all citizens of the state.

What’s interesting is that this is a minimal state! And yet, many people still probably don’t feel comfortable giving up that much power to any state—anarchists.

The second half of Nozick’s book is called “Beyond the Minimal State?” As the question mark implies, Nozick investigates whether we should have anything beyond the minimal state, as described by the two functions above. Nozick’s answer is “no.” Being a Libertarian, he sees anything beyond the minimal state as a violation of people’s rights.

(continued below)

The Entitlement Theory

An important part of political philosophy concerns the distribution of goods (material possessions, property, etc.). How do people get the goods that they have? Should all goods be evenly distributed? If some people have more goods than others, should the state rectify the situation to make the distribution more equal?

Nozick answers these questions with the entitlement theory, which says that there are three principles of justice concerning the possession of goods:

1. A person is entitled to some good if she acquires it through a natural process (for example, if she builds her own house)
2. A person is entitled to some good if it is transferred to him from another person (for example, as a gift)
3. No one is entitled to a good except through repeated applications of 1 and 2

It should be obvious right away that this theory is opposed to socialism, which advocates a more equitable distribution of goods. But what about acquiring goods in the first place? What if someone acquires goods through an unjust process (by stealing, for example)? Is this person entitled to it? Or what if something is stolen and then given to someone else? Is this other person who was given the good entitled to it? To get at these questions, Nozick turns to John Locke (mentioned above).

Locke’s Theory of Acquisition

Nozick borrows from John Locke’s theory of acquisition. Locke says that “mixing your labor with something” makes you the owner of that thing. But can we infringe others’ rights just by coming to own something ourselves? This is why Locke also says that you are entitled to something if you mixed your labor with it, and if there is enough good left in common for others. For example, if you dig into some land and find a natural spring, then build your house around it, you have total rights to that spring unless it is the only spring in an area where other humans live too. If other humans have no water to sustain their lives, then you have not left enough good in common for others.

Private Property

All of this talk of acquiring goods brings us to the idea of private property (if you own a good rather than the state or any other citizen, it is private property). Karl Marx sees private property as an evil of Capitalism, but Nozick sees it differently. Are people who do not own private property put in a worse situation by people who do own private property? Nozick feels that the existence of private property is actually beneficial to society. For one, if separate individuals control resources (goods) rather than the state, then experimentation is encouraged because there is no central controlling agency (like the government) preventing new methods from being tried out. Private property also lets people decide what sort of financial risks they wish to bear. It provides alternate employment for those who can’t find someone to hire them.

Nozick feels that the free operation of the market will not violate anyone’s rights, as long as Locke’s idea that there be enough good left in common for others is not violated. The operation of the free market allows private property to be acquired and distributed according to the entitlement theory laid out above.

Why Equality?

Critics of Libertarianism (or the free market) often suggest that goods should be distributed fairly and equitably. But Nozick wonders why this should be the case. Why should the rest state of the system be equality? Why must differences in people be justified? Why should we compensate every inequality between people? Forcing equality into a system (with Socialism, for example) is not a fair trade off when the freedom of citizens is at stake.

Proponents of Socialism tend to downplay the differences between people, but at the same time want to buttress human liberty and autonomy. However, there is no better way to denigrate a person’s autonomy than by nullifying natural endowments by wanting to achieve some sort of egalitarian ideal. Goods don’t come to us as a result of them falling out of the sky; goods must be made or produced.

Also, often one person’s greater intelligence can benefit others (with a scientific breakthrough in medicine like vaccines). Just because some people “win” in society it does not mean other people have to “lose.”

Is Envy the Motivation for Equality?

The idea that everyone has an equal entitlement over the goods produced in a society might really be founded on envy, Nozick suggests. People at the lower tiers of society might yearn for egalitarianism not because they think that a person in a higher tier’s goods are undeserved, but because they are deserved! In other words, the lower tier may be envious. People tend to judge each other based on their differences with others. If everyone in society is as brilliant as Aristotle, then Aristotle himself becomes the norm, and even Aristotle can have low self-esteem. Should the mere fact that others have more cause us to reduce their situation because their having more causes envy in others? This is like asking a racially mixed couple to stop dating because it pisses some fundamentalist racist people off.

The question also remains, as Nozick points out: would someone in favor of egalitarianism in practice support the worsening of their own situation to better someone else’s? This has never been proven.

(continued below)

Ayn Rand (1905-1982 c.e.): Philosopher or Celebrity?

Ayn Rand is often seen as a philosophical foundation for the Republican party (mostly by Fox news anchors), though this characterization of Rand isn’t necessarily accurate. For one, Rand was a staunch atheist. Like Friedrich Nietzsche (whom we are studying as well) she thought that the idea God is a harmful fiction that keeps people from realizing their own potential. Rand was a Russian/American who wrote several novels, the most famous of which is probably Atlas Shrugged. Sometimes her philosophy is referred to as "Objectivism."

Robert Nozick had read and studied Rand, and he wasn’t the biggest fan. For example, Rand says that property rights follow from the right to life. But Nozick points out that, at most, what follows from the right to life is to strive for whatever one needs to live without violating anyone else’s rights, not property rights. We need to understand what property rights entail before we can say that property rights follow from the right to life.

This lack of rigor is an example of why Rand is sometimes seen by academics as being a bit idealistic and naïve. She came up with interesting ideas, but she did not develop them or anticipate objections and contradictions. Still, does this mean we should write Rand off as a charlatan? Are her ideas irrelevant because she made some mistakes? I would suggest that the answer is “no.” However, I would also suggest that someone interested in Libertarianism study Nozick over Rand.

So what are Rand ’s central points? And how do they tie in with Libertarianism? Rand was a big supporter of Capitalism and people using their intelligence to understand the world. She loved philosophy and ideas, and she thought people should not be made to feel guilty because they have achieved while others haven't. If you've made your fortune, why should you feel guilty that your next door neighbor can barely pay his rent? Rand said that people do not need God and they don't need religion; they need their mind. It is the human mind that discovered the atom, went to space, figured out that we are revolving around the sun, etc. These things were not discovered by religion, according to Rand.

As Rand puts it in her book For the New Intellectual: "Who are to be the new intellectuals? Any man or woman who is willing to think. All those who know that man's life must be guided by reason, those who value their own life and are not willing to surrender it to the cult of despair in the modern jungle of cynical impotence, just as they are not willing to surrender the world to the Dark Ages and the rule of the brutes" (p. 49).

Rand thought that people should use their minds within Capitalism to exercise their freedom and realize their dreams. She thought that no person should have to work to support another. No one should use their intelligence for anything but achieving their own happiness otherwise we will end up working with "no chance of an extra ration, till the Cambodians have been fed and the Patagonians have been sent through college" (For the New Intellectual, p. 125, reprinted from Atlas Shrugged).

Rand was against altruism. She even suggested that altruism and Capitalism are opposites. Is this true? Can a person fully embrace Capitalism and still be altruistic? Although Rand embraced the idea that altruism should not be sought, this leaves Libertarians to ponder whether they see altruism as something that can be reconciled with their beliefs.

Is Libertarianism Egotistical and Inhumane?

Libertarianism is often critiqued for being unconcerned with foreign countries. Thus it is often seen as an “uncaring” perspective because it seemingly puts the concerns of the country one resides in above the concerns anyplace else in the world. Of course, there is no proviso in Libertarianism that says there can’t be citizens who use their wealth for philanthropy (creating charities, for example). But will they? And Libertarianism does not exclude trade with other countries (but it does exclude war).

But beyond this, Libertarianism does seem to embrace a philosophy that says: “I’ve got mine and I don’t care whether anyone else has theirs.” There is no sense of sympathy for people who may not have reaped the benefits of the free market the way others have. What can Libertarians do to alleviate this perception? Or should they do anything?

In my view, Libertarianism is not a fully developed political philosophy, and it makes it all the more exciting that there are unanswered questions. Where will Libertarianism go? What sort of future does it have? Only time will tell…