libertarian manifiestoprinthitsone

7/27/2019 Libertarian Manifiestoprinthitsone

1/8

CHAPTER 8: ECONOMIC JUSTICE AND WELFARE 349that n societieswith sufficient resources,he right to welfare shouldbe unconditional.On this view, the right to receive benefits should not dependon one's attitude or be-havior-on one's willingness to work, for example-but simply on need.Two other

'"articles n this chapter also focus on issues egarding welfare, more particularly, thesocial-welfare system n the United States.Charles Murray argues hat all social-welfare programs should be taken out of the hands of the federal governmentandleft to local governments.Nancy Fraser s concernedwith the way the welfare sys-tem nterprets women's needsand he different assumptions nderlying thosesocial-welfare programs whose primary recipients are women and those designedprimar-ily with men in mind.

JaneS. Zembaty

What Libertarianism IsJohn Hospers

JohnHosperss professor meritus f philosophy t the Universityof Southern aliforniaand past editor of Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. His books include Human Conduct: Prob-lems of Ethics (1972), Libertarianism: A Political Philosophy for Tomorrow (1971), Under-standing the Arts (1982), and An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis (3d ed., 1988).Hospersdefends two ideas central to libertarianism: (1) Individuals own theirown lives. They, therefore, have the right to act as they choose unless theiractions interfere with the liberty of others to act as they choose. (2) The only ~appropriate function of government is to protect human rights, understood as Unegative rights (i.e., rights of noninterference). f \'o/"~~ :d II . IThe political phi,losophy hat is called ibertarianism (from the Latin libertas, iberty)c,Ao:D\ !is the doctrine that every person s the owner of his own life, and that no one is the II"-owner of anyone else's life; and that consequentlyevery human being has he right q:to act in accordance with his own~j ~ unless hoseactions nfringe on the equalliberty of other human beings to act in accordancewith their choices.There are ~everalother ~ays of stating the s~e libertarian thesis:. Oll-l1;IY)1 No one ,~ anyone else.s ~aster, and no one ,~ anyone else's slave.Smce am P'" i/~c.l..the one to decIde how my hfe IS o be conducted,Just as you decIdeabout yours, I ftfr'Jhave no right (even f I had the power) to make you my slave and be your master,nor have you the right to become he masterby enslavingme. Slavery s orced servi-tude, and since no one owns the life of anyoneelse, no one has the right to enslave \'

;,rII;

Reprinted with permission of Nelson-Hall Inc., Publishers from Tibor R. Machan, ed., The Liber- j;,tarian Alternative (1974). ,

'\

,If

..Jf~;{\ !


2/8

350 CHAPTER8: ECONOMIC USTICEAND WELFARE

another. Political theories past and present have traditionally been concerned wiwho should be the master (usually the king, the dictator, or governmentbureaucracand who should be the slaves, and what the extent of the slavery should be. Libetarianism holds that no one has the right to use force to enslave the life of anothor any portion or aspect of that life.2 Other men's lives are not yours to dispose of. I enjoy seeing operas; but operare expensive to produce. Opera-lovers often say, "The state (or the city, etc.) shousubsidize opera, so that we can all see t. Also it would be for people's bettermecultural benefit, etc." But what they are advocating is nothing more or less than igalized plunder. They can't pay for the productions themselves, and yet they wto see opera, which involves a large number of people and their labor; so what thare saying in effect is, "Get the money through legalized force. Take a little bit moout of every worker's paycheck every week to pay for the operas we want to seeBut I have no right to take by force from the workers' pockets to pay for what I w

Perhaps t would be better if he did go to see opera-then I should try to convinhim to go voluntarily. But to take the money from him forcibly, because in my opiion it would be good for him, is still seizure of his earnings, which is plunder.Besides, if I have the right to force him to help pay for my pet projects, hasn'tequally the right to force me to help pay for his? Perhaps he in turn wants the goemment to subsidize rock-and-roll, or his new car, or a house in the country? Ifhave the right to milk him, why hasn't he the right to milk me? If I can be a morcannibal, why can't he too?We should beware of the inventors or utopias. They would remake the world acording to their vision-with the lives and fruits of the labor of other human being:;;, Is it someone' s utopian vision that others should build pyramids to beautify the:lei1scape? Very well, then other men should provide the labor; and if he is iri a positioof political power, and he can't get men to do it voluntarily, then he must campthem to "cooperate"-i..e. he must enslave them.

A hundred men might gain great pleasure from beating up or killing just one isignificant human being; but other men's lives are not theirs to dispose of. "In ordto achieve the worthy goals of the next five-year-plan, we must forcibly collectivizthe peasants. . ."; but other men's lives are not theirs to dispose of. Do you want toccupy, rent-free, the mansion that another man has worked for twenty years to buyBut other men's lives are not yours to dispose of. Do you want operas so badly theveryone is forced to work harder to pay for their subsidization through taxes? Bother men's lives are not yours to dispose of. Do you want to have f~me~al carat the expense of other people, whether they wish to provide it or not? But this woulrequire them to work longer for you whether they want to or not, and other men'lives are not yours to dispose of.

The reedom to engage n any type of enterprise, o produce, to own and control property,to buy and sellon .the ree market; is derived from the rights to life, liberty, and property. . . which are stated in the Declaration of Independence. . . [but] when a government guar-anteesa "right" to an education or parity on arm products or a guaranteedannual in-come, t is staking a claim on theproperty of one group of citizens or the sakeof another


3/8

I

CHAPTER 8: ECONOMIC JUSTICE AND WELFARE 3513 No human being should be a nonvoluntary mortgage on the life of another. Icannot claim your life, your work, or the products of your effort as mine. The fruitof one man's labor should not be fair game for every freeloader who comes alongand demands t as his own. The orchard hat hasbeencarefully grown, nurtured, andharvestedby its owner should not be ripe for the plucking for any bypasserwho has

a yen for the ripe fruit. The wealth that somemen have produced should not be fairgame for looting by government, o be used for whatever purposes ts representa-:-tives determine,no matter what their motives in so doing may be. The theft of yourmoneyby a robber s not ustified by the fact that he used t to help his injured mother.It will already be evident that libertarian doctrine is embedded n a view of therights of man. Each human being has the right to live his life as he chooses,com-patibly with the equal ight of all other humanbeings o live their lives as hey choose.All man's rights are implicit in the above statement.Each man has the right tolife; any attempt by others o take it away from him, or even to injure him, violatesthis right, through the use of coercion againsthim. Each man has he right to liberty:to conduct his life in accordancewith the alternativesopen to him without coerciveaction by others.And every man has he right to property: to work to sustainhis life(and the lives of whichever others he chooses o sustain,such as his family) and toretain the fruits of his labor.Peopleoften defend he rights of life and iberty but denigrateproperty rights, andyet the right to property is as basic as he other two; indeed, without property rightsno other rights arepossible.Depriving you of property s depriving you of the meansby which you live.. . . All that which an individual possesses y right (including his life and property) areJorally his to use, dispose of and even destroy, as he sees it. If] own my life, then it fol-lows hat] am ree to associatewith whom] pleaseand not to associatewith whom] please. ~ t'iIf] own my knowledgeand services, t follows that] may ask any compensation] wish or Uproviding them or another, or] may abstain rom providing themat all, if] so choose. f )] own my house, t follows that] may decorate t as ] please and live in it with whom] I /")1please. If] c~ntrol ~y own business, tfollows t~at] may charge what] please!or my pro~- h ~ucts or services,hire whom please and not hire whQm please.All that which] own m rf/

;1' fact, ] ~y dis~oseof as ] .choose o in reality. For anyone o attempt o limit my reedom p~i to do so IS o vlolate my rights., Wheredo my rights end? Whereyours begin. ] may do anything] wish with my ownlife, liberty and property without your consent,. but] may do nothing with your life, lib-erty and property without your consent. If we recognize the principle of man's rights, it

'\ follows that the individual is sovereign of the domain of his own life and property, and issovereign of no other domain. To attempt to interfere forcibly with another's use, disposalor destruction of his own property is to initiate force against him and to violate his rights.I haveno right to decidehow you shouldspend our time or your money. canmake hat decision or myself,but not for you, my neighbor. may deploreyour choiceof life-style,and ~aytalk with you about t p~ovided ou arewil.iing o lis- iten to me. But I haveno nght to use orce o change t. Nor have the nght to de- :

how you shouldspend hemoneyyou haveearned. may appeal o you to giveit to the Red Cross, and you may prefer to go to prizefights. But that is your deci-


4/8

352 CHAPTER 8: ECONOMIC JUSTICE AND WELFARE

sion, and however much I may chafe about it I do not have the right to interfereforcibly with it, for exampleby robbing you in order to use he money nwith my choices. (If I have the right to rob you, have you also the right to rob me?)When I claim a right, I carve out a niche, as t were, n my life, saying n effect,"This activity I must be able to perform without interference rom others. For youand everyoneelse, his is off limits." And so I put up a "no trespassing"sign, whichmarks off the area of my right. Each ndividual's right is his "no trespassing"signin relation to me and others. may not encroachupon his domain any more than heupon mine, without my consent.Every right entails a duty, true-but the duty is onlythat of forbearance-that is, of refraining from violating the other person's right. Ifyou have a right to life, I have no right to take your life; if you have a right to theproducts of your labor (property), I have no right to take it from you without your

consent.The non-violation of these ights will not guarantee ou protection againstnatural catastrophes uch as floods and earthquakes, ut it will protect you againstthe aggressiveactivities of other men. And rights, after all, have o do with one's re-lations to other human beings, not with one's relations to physical nature.Nor were these ights createdby government;governments-some governments,obviously not all-recognize and protect the rights that individuals already have..Governments egularly forbid homicide and theft; and, at a more advancedstage,protect individuals against such things as ibel and breachof contract. . . .l Government is the most dangerous institution known to man~Throughout historyit has violated the rights of men more than any individual or group of individualscould do: it haskilled people, enslaved hem, sent hem to forced labor and concen-'tra:tioncamps,and regularly robbed and pillaged them of the fruits of their expendedlabor. Unlike individual criminals, governmenthas the power to arrestand try; un-like individual criminals, it can surround and encompass person otally, dominat-ing every aspectof one's life, so that one has no recourse rom it but tocountry (and n totalitarian nations even hat is prohibited). Governmenthistory has a much sorrier record than any individual, even that of a ruthlessmurderer. The signs we seeon bumper stickersare chillingly accurate: Beware:Government s Armed and Dangerous."The only proper role of government,according o libertarians, s that of thetector of the citizen against aggressionby other individuals. The government,course, should never nitiate aggression; ts proper role is as the embodimentofretaliatory use of force against anyonewho initiates its use.If each ndividual had constantly to defend himself against possible aggressors,he would have to spend a considerableportion of his life in target p~actice,karateexercises,and other meansof self-defenses, nd evenso he would probably beless againstgroupsof individuals who might try to kill, maim, or rob him. Hehave ittle time for cultivating thosequalities which are essential o civilized life, norwould improvements n science,medicine, and the arts be likely to occur. The tunc,tion of government s to take this responsibility off his shoulders: he governmentundertakes o defend him againstaggressors nd to punish them if they attack him;When the government s effective in doing this, it enables he citizen to go abouthisbusinessunmolestedand without constant ear for his life. To do this, of course,gov-


5/8

CHAPTER 8: ECONOMIC JUSTICE AND WELFARE 353must have physical power-the police, to protect the citizen from aggres-sion within its borders, and the armed forces, to protect him from aggressorsout-side. Beyond that, the governmentshould not intrude upon his life, either to run hisbusiness, r adjusthis daily activities,or prescribe is personalmoral code.Government,hen,undertakeso be he ndividual'sprotector; ut historicallygov-have gone far beyond this function. Since they already have the physicalpower, heyhavenot hesitatedo use t for purposesar beyond hat which wasen-trusted o them n the irst place.Undertakingnitially to protect ts citizensagainstaggression,t hasoften tself become n aggressor-a ar greater ggressor,ndeed,than he criminals againstwhom t was supposedo protect ts citizens. Governmentshave done what no private citizen can do: arrest and mprison individuals without atrial andsend hem o slave aborcamps.Governmentmusthavepower n order obe effective-and yet the very meansby which alone t can be effective make t vuJ-nerable o the abuseof power, eading to managing he lives of individuals and even

inflicting terror upon them.What then should be the function of government?,n a word, the protection ofhuman rights.1 The right to life: libertarians support all such egislatien;:as-wiIfprotecthumanbeingsagainst he useof force by others, or-example, aws againstkilling, attemptedkilling, maiming, beating, and all kinds of physical violence.2 The right to liberty: there should be no laws compromising in any way free-dom of speech,of the press, and of peaceableassembly.There should be no cen-sorshipof ideas,books, films, or of anything else by government.3 The right to property: libertarians support egislation that protects he property

rights of individuals againstconfiscation,nationalization, eminent domain, robbery,trespass,raud and misrepresentation, atent and copyright, libel and slander.Someonehas violently assaulted ou. Should he be legally liable? Of course.He.. hasviolated one of your rights. He has knowingly injured you, and since he has ni-tiatedaggression gainst ou he shouldbe made o expiate.has negligently left his bicycle on the sidewalk where you trip over itin the dark and njure yourself. He didn't do it intentionally; he didn't meanyou anyharm. Should he be legally liable? Of course;he has, however unwittingly., injuredyou, and since he injury is causedby ,him and youare"the victim, he should pay. I,Someoneacross he street s unemployed.Should you be taxed extra to pay forhis expens~s?Not at all. You have not injured him, you are not responsible or thefact that he is unemployed (unlessyou are a senatoror bureaucratwho agitated orfurther curtailing of business,which legislationpassed,with the result that your neigh-bor was laid off by the curtailed business).You may voluntarily wish to help himout, or better still, try to get him a ob to put him on his feet again; but since you haveinitiated no aggressiveact against him, and neither purposely nor accidentally in-jured him in any way, you should not be legally penalized or the fact of his unem-ployment. (Actually, it is just suchpenalties hat increaseunemployment.)One man, A, works hard or yearsand inally earnsa high salary as a professionalman. A secondman, B, prefersnot to work at all, and o spendwastefully what money

~~~3 .'~~'\C' ~


6/8

354 CHAPTER 8: ECONOMIC JUSTICE AND WELFAREhe has (through inheritance), so that after a year or two he has nothing left. At theend of this time he has a long siege of illness and lots of medical bills to pay. He de-mands that the bills be paid by the government-that is, by the taxpayers of the land,including Mr. A.But of course B has no such right. He chose to lead his life ina certain way-thatwas his voluntary decision. One consequence of that choice is that he must dependon charity n caseof later need.Mr. A chosenot to live thatway. (And f everyonelived like Mr. B, on whom would he depend in case of later need?) Each has a rightto live in the way he pleases, but each must live with the consequences of his owndecision (which, as always, fall primarily on himself). He cannot, in time of need,claim A' sbeneficence as his right. . . .\ Laws may be classified into three types: (1) laws protecting individuals against~ ~ themselves, such as laws against fornication and other sexual behavior, alcohol, and~ drugs; 2) awsprotectingndividualsagainst ggressionsy other ndividuals,suchas aws against murder, robbery, and fraud; (3) laws requiring people to help one an-other; for example, all laws which rob Peter to pay Paul, such as welfare.Libertarians reject the first class of laws totally. Behavior which harms no oneelse is strictly the individual's own affair. Thus, there should be no laws against be-coming intoxicated, since whether or not to become intoxicated is the individual'sown decision; but there should be laws against driving while intoxicated, since thedrunken driver is a threat to every other motorist on the highway (drunken drivingfalls into type 2). Similarly, there should be no laws against drugs (except the pro-hibition of sale of drugs to minors) as ong as the taking of these drugs poses no threatto anyone else. Drug addiction is a psychological problem to which no present so-lution exists. Mpst of the social harm caused by addicts, other than to themselves, isthe result of thefts which they perform in order to continue their habit-and then thelegal crime is the theft, not the addiction. The actual cost of heroin is about ten centsa shot; if it were legalized, the enormous traffic in illegal sale and purchase of it wouldstop, as well as the accompanying proselytization to get new addicts (to make moremoney for the pusher) and the thefts performed by addicts who often require eightydollars a day just to keep up the habit. Addiction would not stop, but the crimes would:it is estimated that 75 percent of the burglaries in New York City today are performedby addicts, and all these crimes would be wiped out at one stroke through the legal".ization of drugs. (Only when the taking of drugs could be shown to constitute a threatto others, should it be prohibited by law. It is only laws protecting people againstthemselves that libertarians oppose.)Laws should be limited to the second class only: aggression by individuals againstother individuals. These are laws whose function is to protect human beings againstencroachment by others; and this, as we have seen, is (according to libertarianism)the sole function of government.Libertarians also reject the third class of laws totally: no one should be forced bylaw to help others, not even to tell them the time of day if requested, and certainlynot to give them a portion of one's weekly paycheck. Governments, in the guise ofhumanitarianism, have given to some by taking from others (charging a "handlingfee" in the process, which, becauseof the government's waste and inefficiency, some-


7/8

CHAPTER 8: ECONOMIC JUSTICE AND WELFARE 357times is several hundred percent). And in so doing they have decreasedncentive,violated the rights of individuals, and owered he standardof living of almost every-one.All such aws constitute what libertarians call moral cannibalism. A cannibal nthe physical senses a personwho lives off the flesh of other humanbeings.A moralcannibal s one who believeshe has a right to live off the "spirit" of other humanbe-ings-who believes hat he has a moral claim on the productive capacity, time, andeffort expendedby others.It has become ashionable o claim virtually everything that one needsor desiresas one's right. Thus, many people claim that they have a right to ajob, the right tofree medical care, o free food and clothing, to a decenthome, and so on. Now if oneasks,apart rom any specific context, whether t would be desirable f everyonehadthese hings, onemight well sayyes. But there s a gimmick attached o eachof them:At whose expense? obs, medical care, education, and so on, don't grow on trees.Theseare goods and servicesproduced only by men.Who, then, s'to provide them,and under what conditions?If you have a right to a ob, who is to supply t? Must an employer supply it evenif he doesn't want to hire you? What if you are unemployable,or incurably lazy? (Ifyou say "the governmentmust supply it," does hat mean hat a ob must be createdfor you which no employer needsdone,and hat you must be kept in it regardlessofhow much or little you work?) If the employer s forced to supply it at his expenseeven f he doesn't need you,\then sn't he being enslaved o that extent? What everhappened o his right to conduct his life and his affairs in accordance with hischoices?

If you have a right to free medical care, hen, since medical care doesn't exist innature as wild applesdo, somepeople will have to supply it to you for free: that is,they will have o spend heir time and money and energy aking care of you whethertheywant o or not. Whateverhappenedo their right to conduct heir ives as heys~e it? Or do you have a right to violate theirs?Can herebe a right to violate rights?All those who demand his or that as a "free service" are consciously or uncon-sciously evading the fact that there is in reality no such thing as free services.Allman-madegoods and servicesare the result of human expenditure of time and ef-fort. There s no such hing as "something or nothing" in this world. If you demandsomething ree, you are demanding hat other men give their time and effort to you,:"ithout compensation. f they voluntarily choose o do this, there s no problem; butIf you demand hat they be orced to do it, you are nterfering with their right not todo it if they so choose. Swimming in this pool ought to be free!" says he indignantpasserby.What he means s that others should build a pool, others should providethe materials, ndstill othersshould un t andkeep t in functioningorder,so thathe can use t without fee. But what right has he to the expenditureof their time andeffort? To expectsomething for free" is to expect t to bepaid for by others whetherthey choose o or not.Many questions,particularly about economic matters, will be generatedby the

\ libertarianaccount f human ightsand herole of government. houldgovernmenthave no role in assisting he needy, n providing social security, n legislating min-

~iJ i '~~' i 'c \ " c


8/8

356 CHAPTER 8: ECONOMIC JUSTICE AND WELFARE

imum wages, n fixing prices and putting a ceiling on rents, n curbing monopolies,in erecting tariffs, in guaranteeingobs, in managing the money supply? To theseand all similar questions he libertarian answerswith an unequivocal no."But then you'd let people go hungry " comes he rejoinder. This, the libertarianinsists, s precisely what would not happen;with the restrictions removed, he econ-omy would flourish as never before. With the controls taken off business,existingenterpriseswould expand and new oneswould spring nto existencesatisfying moreand more consumerneeds; millions more people would be gainfully employed n-steadof subsistingon welfare, and all kinds of researchand production, released romthe strangleholdof government,would proliferate, fulfilling man's needsand desiresas never before. It has always been so whenever government has permitted men tobe free traders on a free market. But why this is so, and how the free market s thebest solution to all problems relating to the material aspectof man's life, is anotherand far longer story. . . .NOTE1 William W. Bayes, "What Is Property?" The Freeman,July 1970, p. 348.

QUESTIONS '11 Some ibertariansargue hat from a moral standpoint here s no difference between he ac~

tions of an ordinary thief and those of a governmentwhen it seizesmoney from some qorder o supportothers.They assumehat f the former are wrong, then so are he atter. Ar~they correct?2 Do you agree hat the governmentshould have no role in assisting he needy?What rea-sonscan you advance o defend your answer?

A Moral Case or SocialismKai Nielsen

Kai Nielsen s professoremeritusof philosophy at the University of Calgary, Canada.the author of Equality and Liberty: A Defenseof Radical Egalitarianism (1985), God, Scep-ticismandModemity (1989), and Ethics without God (1990).Nielsen puts forth a moral case or socialism.He identifies and explicatesacluster of values hat are basic to our culture-freedom and autonomy, equality,justice, rights, and democracy-and then compares pure socialism" and "purecapitalism" in Tespect o thesevalues.Nielsen concludes hat a socialist system smuch more ikely to exemplify our basic values han a capitalist system.

Reprinted ith pennissionrom CriticalReview, ol. 3, SummerlFall1989,p. 542-552.

libertarian manifiestoprinthitsone

Documents