THE REVOLVING ORANGE
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Why I am not a Libertarian
This post was inspired by a discussion thread on Lib Dem Voice about self-styled libertarian Mark Littlewood resigning from the Lib Dems to take up the post of Director General of the IEA. The thread has attracted a lot of comments from sympathisers with Mr Littlewood, others who regard him as some kind of Satanic Thatcherite infiltrator and a couple from people like me who just see him as a mildly irritating media tart. The interesting part of the discussion was concerned with whether or not libertarians have a place in the Liberal Democrats.
I'd like to say first of all that, in spite of the title of this post, I am a libertarian in the general sense because I seek to promote liberty. For the same reason I would also call myself a liberal, which is the term that has been used for a promoter of liberty in this country for the last 200 years. The reason why people are now choosing to call themselves libertarians in preference to calling themselves liberals is that they want to identify themselves as being in favour of liberal economics (in some sense). A great many people who currently claim the title liberal would reject economic liberalism as being authoritarian in practice. I'm not one of them, but I'm still not comfortable calling myself a libertarian when describing my politics.
The reason for this is that there is already a party in the US called the Libertarian Party (it now has an imitator in the UK). The LP occupies positions on property rights and other human rights that would lead it to reject all forms of redistribution. As a result it is against antitrust, would not promote employee share ownership and would eliminate the welfare state without challenging vested interests in our society. The LP does not have ownership of the term "libertarian" and there are many different thinkers who accept that label for themselves who wouldn't accept the tenets of the LP's constitution. However, it is the LP that has supplied the popular meaning of the political term "libertarian" for a great many people. When people describe themselves as libertarians they are therefore associating themselves with positions that in a lot of Lib Dem cases I suspect they don't really support. It is for this reason that I avoid the term like the plague.
Instead I have tended to call myself a liberal, or, if more definition is needed, a social and economic liberal. The thought that occurs to me after reading the thread that sparked this off is that perhaps a new term is needed for people on my wing of the party. Too many people seem to associate economic liberalism with warmed over Thatcherism. The position that I occupy, and I'm not alone in this, could be called distributivist or mutualist in that I want to see workers and service users take ownership and control over more of the public and private sectors. Simply cutting back the state and letting the corporations rule isn't what I'm aiming at at all. However, distributivism and mutualism only describe part of an agenda and as words they probably don't mean much to most of the general public.
The term I'd pick out for myself is radical liberal. I don't think there is another thoroughgoing radical agenda on the table aside from one incorporating distributivism. If the term doesn't mean much in itself I think it is at least suggestive in practice. Also, "radical liberal" feels right. It sounds like someone who is on the side of the dispossessed and not at all like a Tory or a right winger. Anybody else who wants to be a radical liberal too is more than welcome to borrow the term.
I'd like to say first of all that, in spite of the title of this post, I am a libertarian in the general sense because I seek to promote liberty. For the same reason I would also call myself a liberal, which is the term that has been used for a promoter of liberty in this country for the last 200 years. The reason why people are now choosing to call themselves libertarians in preference to calling themselves liberals is that they want to identify themselves as being in favour of liberal economics (in some sense). A great many people who currently claim the title liberal would reject economic liberalism as being authoritarian in practice. I'm not one of them, but I'm still not comfortable calling myself a libertarian when describing my politics.
The reason for this is that there is already a party in the US called the Libertarian Party (it now has an imitator in the UK). The LP occupies positions on property rights and other human rights that would lead it to reject all forms of redistribution. As a result it is against antitrust, would not promote employee share ownership and would eliminate the welfare state without challenging vested interests in our society. The LP does not have ownership of the term "libertarian" and there are many different thinkers who accept that label for themselves who wouldn't accept the tenets of the LP's constitution. However, it is the LP that has supplied the popular meaning of the political term "libertarian" for a great many people. When people describe themselves as libertarians they are therefore associating themselves with positions that in a lot of Lib Dem cases I suspect they don't really support. It is for this reason that I avoid the term like the plague.
Instead I have tended to call myself a liberal, or, if more definition is needed, a social and economic liberal. The thought that occurs to me after reading the thread that sparked this off is that perhaps a new term is needed for people on my wing of the party. Too many people seem to associate economic liberalism with warmed over Thatcherism. The position that I occupy, and I'm not alone in this, could be called distributivist or mutualist in that I want to see workers and service users take ownership and control over more of the public and private sectors. Simply cutting back the state and letting the corporations rule isn't what I'm aiming at at all. However, distributivism and mutualism only describe part of an agenda and as words they probably don't mean much to most of the general public.
The term I'd pick out for myself is radical liberal. I don't think there is another thoroughgoing radical agenda on the table aside from one incorporating distributivism. If the term doesn't mean much in itself I think it is at least suggestive in practice. Also, "radical liberal" feels right. It sounds like someone who is on the side of the dispossessed and not at all like a Tory or a right winger. Anybody else who wants to be a radical liberal too is more than welcome to borrow the term.
Labels: distributivism, liberalism, libertarianism
¶ 3:44 pm 3 comments
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Nick Clegg's Liberal Moment
Just prior to the Lib Dem conference, Nick Clegg published a pamphlet called "The Liberal Moment". The most reported part of this document was the section that argued that the Liberal Democrats should be seeking to replace Labour as the main "progressive" party in British politics. I think this is exactly the right attitude to take, we have a surfeit of small-c conservatism between the main parties in this country. The principles that were set out in the rest of the pamphlet as being the basis for a liberal agenda were exactly right as well. The problem is that we have become used to politicians making overblown rhetorical statements about fairly inconsequential changes in policy. Rhetoric alone is massively devalued because there is no expectation that action will follow. If The Liberal Moment is to be taken seriously in years to come then it needs to be backed up with hard policy.
The single most exciting section in the document is the one where Clegg anounces his intention to give workers a right to a stake and a say in the running of their companies. This was a key plank of the Liberal program from th '30s until the '60s. It was radical then, it's never been implemented and so it's still radical now. Transferring ownership of schools and other parts of the public services to the service users would be a logical way to extend the approach and start delivering "Ownership for All", as this agenda was originally styled.
My hope is that the party leadership go for this and the membership back them. Ashdown made noises in this sort of direction, but never followed up with policy. Clegg must go further, or the Lib Dems will stagnate.
The single most exciting section in the document is the one where Clegg anounces his intention to give workers a right to a stake and a say in the running of their companies. This was a key plank of the Liberal program from th '30s until the '60s. It was radical then, it's never been implemented and so it's still radical now. Transferring ownership of schools and other parts of the public services to the service users would be a logical way to extend the approach and start delivering "Ownership for All", as this agenda was originally styled.
My hope is that the party leadership go for this and the membership back them. Ashdown made noises in this sort of direction, but never followed up with policy. Clegg must go further, or the Lib Dems will stagnate.
Labels: liberalism, mutualism, radicalism
¶ 12:49 pm 0 comments
