The main program provisions of the libertarian party in any country of the world (as well as their general worldview as a whole) are unrecognizably different from the ideas of the political establishment that are more familiar to every layman. Political philosophy, designed to put an end to the very idea of aggressive violence against a person by the state, proposes to introduce its own, non-standard terms, provisions and political plans. And while some are diligently deciding whether to attribute this trend to the camp of the "right" or "left", while others point out the archaism of such a classification and a more perfect device of libertarianism in comparison with other political currents, we will analyze in detail the whole essence and, most importantly, the meaning this philosophy.
The essence of the idea
The English term libertarianism comes from the French libertaire, which means "anarchist" in Russian. Nevertheless, libertarianism in its modern sense is fundamentally different from the ideas of the complete elimination of any signs of statehood.
First of all, the current is focused not on the state or any social class, but on a person asa single individual who has the right to defend his freedom and rights without violating them in relation to other people. This is what is considered the mainstay of the idea of libertarianism.
From the state, libertarians demand, first of all, minimal interference both in the private life of citizens and in the economic sphere. Specific theses are the complete abolition of social support, the rejection of taxation and antitrust regulation. The range of tasks that depend specifically on the state (what entrepreneurs, according to libertarian supporters, will not be able to cope with as effectively on their own) should be as narrow as possible with voluntary civil payment (the so-called "voluntary taxes" - payment for quality provided public services, similar to the services of private companies).
However, many political scientists, thinkers and specialists, upon detailed examination of many nuances and subtleties, find their positions extremely utopian and bordering on fantasy. In addition, libertarian views are often criticized by numerous skeptical opponents as "impractical" and "out of touch with natural realities."
From the Beginnings: A Detailed History of Ideology
The very concept of "libertarian" first appears in an essay by the American philosopher William Belsham in 1789.
The significant growth of libertarianism as a special philosophical trend occurred at the end of the 19th century. This happened after the ban on the freedom of the press of anarchist materials in France,what was the terrorist attack of Auguste Vaillant on December 9, 1893). At that time, the term secured the meaning of the anarchist movement, whose French representatives began to widely use the word libertaire as a euphemism and a replacement for the former anarchiste.
In 1985, the newspaper Le Libertaire was founded, and the philosophy of "liberal socialism" in those days was born precisely because of its identification with anarchism. In his work, Belsham sharply criticized the ideas that he attributed to libertarianism, contrasting them with the teachings of religious determinism.
However, later the meaning of this concept changed to the modern definition.
At the present stage of development
Only in the 40s of the last century, through the efforts of the American politician Leonard Reed (founder of the Foundation for Economic Education), did this term acquire its current meaning. Libertianism implies broad economic and personal freedom with the most limited state intervention in public life.
David Nolan, as one of the founders of the American Libertarian Party, in 1970 outlined a clearer framework for this philosophy. It contrasts with the boundaries of left-wing liberalism, whose representatives prioritize "personal freedoms", right-wing conservatism (the current focuses exclusively on "economic freedoms") and authoritarianism (tight state control with the distribution of income from rich to poor).
Key messages in libertarian politics
Ideaslibertarianism is formed from the works of eminent thinkers of the XVII-XVIII centuries: John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine.
- Individualism. The main subject of the ideas of libertarianism is a person, a person. People are free to make a free choice and subsequently be responsible for it, without limiting other members of society in this right. Accordingly, an individual with such an ideology has not only freedoms, but also certain duties. Recognition of the dignity of each individual person as a top priority creates another important thesis of the libertarian vision of the system - a complete ban on aggressive violence.
- Personal rights. The rights of the individual to protect his person, freedom and property are not bestowed by the state apparatus. They are predetermined from the very beginning by nature, which is reflected in the legalization of the acquisition and free carrying of weapons in the programs of libertarians.
- Legal rule. Anarchist permissiveness is rejected at the root by libertarians. The ultimate goal of the doctrine is to build a society of freedom within the framework of the law. People, in turn, are subject to generally accepted rules of law, which are aimed at protecting the freedom of each person.
- Restrictions on government work. The concentration of power is strongly disliked by libertarians. Their ideas on statehood involve the separation and limitation of power (the abolition of taxation with subsequent replacement with voluntary civil financing of public services, the abolition of the legalization of the minimum wage, the removalrestrictions on immigration, waiving conscription and compulsory schooling).
In addition, libertarians oppose restrictions on immigration, government control of the media, medicine, and urban zoning regulations. The most recognizable of the entire list of their program theses is the legalization of most or absolutely all drugs known to science (on this issue, the opinions of libertarians may differ). This, of course, is extremely ambiguously perceived by both society and opponents of this philosophy.
A special approach to the issue of the economy
Libertarian ideas are to some extent mixed with the Austrian school of economic theory. She emphasizes her own conclusions about the ineffectiveness of government intervention in the economy, often with devastating consequences. Libertarianism likewise supports the idea of a free market governed primarily by its own participants.
The emphasis in market relations with this approach shifts from mathematical models of research to the psychological characteristics of the behavior of participants and consumers. At the same time, contracts and transactions should have maximum freedom and transparency, state regulation in this case is completely excluded.
According to this approach, reducing the influence of state regulatory mechanisms in the economy, minimizing antitrust provisions and eliminating mandatory taxation as a resultwill make people freer and more prosperous.
Which label is right for them?
Based on all the above positions of libertarians on a whole range of issues and provisions, they themselves categorically deny their belonging to any political camp. They do not recognize themselves as either left or right wing. This also denies the classification of libertarianism as a symbiosis of liberal and conservative thoughts (even taking into account the similarity of their ideas with the ideas of these two political directions).
The basic set of principles of any libertarian determines his main position: supporters of this movement will always be on the side of personal freedom and responsibility, advocating a reduction in state control of the free market and the individual. Liberals call for maximizing the freedom of the privacy of every citizen, but advocate for a fair amount of state control in the economic sector. Conservatives, in turn, advocate a more open and government-free financial world, but there is a certain regulation of personal freedoms in their programs.
Libertarians see themselves above these two camps, offering their theses about a high degree of freedom, both economic and individual freedom. They consider "supporters of a totalitarian state" as their direct opponents, including socialists, communists, fascists, Marxists, statesmen and populists.
Differences between liberals, libertariansand Conservatives
Let's make an even more contrasting comparison between these three political forces, showing all the obvious differences and features not only of the Libertarian Party, but also of conservatives and liberals:
| Liberal | Libertarian | Conservative | |
| Economic issues | |||
| Should the government impose duties, quotas and embargoes on international trade? | Yes, customs duties keep jobs in the country, and embargoes will help fight right-wing dictators in authoritarian countries who infringe on our interests. | No, such trade barriers violate the right to free trade of citizens and foreigners, while reducing overall labor productivity. | Yes, trade barriers help to protect and maintain the competitiveness of strategically important industries, and embargoes are a reliable tool in the fight against leftist dictators who infringe on the interests of our state abroad. |
| Minimum wage should be set at a legal level? | Yes, in the name of everyone's right to a satisfactory wage, otherwise many employers will only pay a living wage. | No, because this is a violation of the right of the employee and the employer to conclude an agreement at mutual discretion. | No, employers should be able to hire only the best workers while adhering to market-competitive floor prices. |
| Taxation is the only waypaying government functions? | Yes, because not many will be willing to pay for things like welfare for the poor, education, environmental protection and many other public services. | No, because taxation is the legal equivalent of theft and should be replaced by voluntary payment for public services, many of which are quite capable of being performed by private and charitable organizations. | Yes, because not everyone will volunteer to pay for national defense, law enforcement, strategic national industries and many other vital government services. |
| Should the government help domestic businesses in tough economic times? | Yes, it will help keep jobs in a difficult time, but corporations should be excluded from such assistance so as not to receive excess profits at the expense of the state. | No, government assistance to certain enterprises is possible only by robbing other enterprises and taxpayers. | Yes, the government should help businesses stay afloat, thereby encouraging free enterprise. |
| How should the government deal with the budget deficit? | Raise taxes for the we althy without cutting social spending. | Cut all government spending and taxes as much as possible to stimulate economic growth. The government is limited only to issues of national defense and ensuring constitutional rightscitizens. Pay off debts by saving expenses. | Borrow additional funds to support government spending without cutting the budget and defense spending. In the long term economic growth to return the national debt. |
| Strategic Directions | |||
| How should the government regulate nuclear power? | Due to high environmental risks, as well as insoluble problems with the disposal of nuclear waste, the construction of nuclear power plants should be stopped, and the existing ones should be closed. | The state must leave the nuclear energy sector in order for this niche to be occupied by competitive private companies with full responsibility for current and potential obligations. | The state should pay attention to the promotion of the nuclear industry, because it is a source of inexpensive energy. At the same time, its development should be encouraged, which ensures minimal environmental pollution in comparison with other energy sources. |
| Should the government send troops to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries when necessary? | Yes, if these measures will help protect human rights, help foreign indigents and overthrow right-wing dictators. | No, no government has the power to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries except in response to an aggressive attack. | Yes, if it contributes to the fight against terrorism, the overthrow of leftist dictators or the protection of interestsour state abroad. |
| Should there be conscription? | Yes, but only during wartime. | No, because universal conscription is formal slavery, and slaves don't make good defenders of freedom. | Yes, a country must always have human resources trained in military affairs in order to be able to give a crushing rebuff to a potential enemy at any time. |
| Should the state own and control the media? | Yes, the country needs a public broadcasting system and the government should control media advertising that targets children. | Media owners should be responsible for the content of their publications without government interference, and consumers will decide what is allowed in their home. | The state should not own the press or TV, but any broadcasting system should be severely punished for publishing materials prohibited by law. |
| Social aspects | |||
| How to solve Social Security bankruptcy? | Increasing payroll taxes will provide older people with a well-deserved rest and a government social security program. | We consider the social security system untenable, which is why it needs to be done away with, leaving older workers and pensioners to choose between a one-time large payment of funds or annual payments under the current social system. provision in lieu of future pensions. | Reducing pensions and increasing pensionage. In addition to mandatory measures, introduce voluntary savings pension accounts controlled by the government. When absolutely necessary, borrow money to keep the system afloat. |
| Are children legally required to go to school? | Yes, because it is impossible to fully rely on the fact that parents will be able to give their child a proper education. | No, the compulsory school attendance law is a violation of the rights of parents and children to freely decide on their child's education. | Yes, quality education for children everywhere is paramount to becoming a he althy nation in every sense. At the same time, not all parents will be able to give their child a similar level of education. |
| Should parents be allowed to teach their children at home? | Perhaps, but the state will still need to control that parents do not teach their child fanatical, illegal or anti-scientific ideas. | Yes, the government should not have a leading role in education. There should be neither regulation nor punishment for parents who choose to teach their children at home. | Yes, even taking into account the fact that some parents, when homeschooling their children, would not be able to provide them with the proper level of the educational process. Public schools don't work perfectly either, but improved government oversight of schools, coupled with standardized testing, will help address this problem by engaging more parents with their children.into the public education system. |
| Should the law restrict citizens' possession of firearms? | Yes, guns kill people and lead to heinous consequences and crimes when freely wielded. All licensing, storage and use processes should be very tightly regulated. If these measures do not help, the right to own weapons should remain only with law enforcement agencies and the military. | No, possession of firearms is the right of every person's choice without violating the rights of others. Only its use for criminal purposes should be punished. | No, in general, infringements on the part of the law are unacceptable here. Rigid, critical selection among the entire mass of those who want to own weapons, as well as some restrictions on firearms allowed for possession, their licensing, storage and use rules. However, in general, a citizen always has the right to protect himself and loved ones with weapons, but there must certainly be a punishment in case of its illegal use. |
| Should the state regulate the sexual life of the population, including prostitution? | Not in general, but the legalization of prostitution should be regulated to protect public he alth and also protect women from exploitation. | No, because consensual sexual relations between adults do not violate anyone's rights. | Yes, adultery, fornication, prostitution, homosexuality should be outlawed for the sake of preserving traditional family and religiousvaluables. |
| What policy should the state have in relation to abortion? | A woman has the right to an abortion, and if she is unable to pay for it, then it must be done at the expense of taxpayers. | The government should not force anyone to fund someone else's abortion. The libertarian camp is divided on this issue, with some considering it the right of every woman, while others consider it a violation of the unborn child's right to life. | Abortion, except in cases of rape and incest, is a crime and should be subject to appropriate criminal pen alties. |
| Is legalization of drugs such as marijuana, heroin, cocaine acceptable? | It is possible to legalize only soft drugs (such as marijuana), but their production and sale should be regulated by the state and taxed. | Yes, the peaceful use of drugs does not violate the rights of others and realizes the right of each person to control his own body. | No, because of the catastrophic consequences of drugs, which they absolutely always carry in themselves, they cannot be legalized under any circumstances. The fight against drugs must be even tougher with the increase in the severity of the relevant laws. |
| Should the state abandon immigration restrictions? | Although we will provide assistance at the government level to people who are oppressed for political reasons, however, their number should be significantly limited,so that they do not take away jobs from compatriots. | Yes, all individuals, regardless of their place of birth, have equal mobility rights. | No, migrants should benefit the country in which they arrived, as well as the population of this country. Let's assume a limited admission of foreign high-class professionals in the speci alties demanded in the country, and not a flurry of cheap, uneducated labor, taking away jobs from the people and contributing to the growth of crime and disease. |
Thus, we see the whole essence and main provisions of the policy of libertarians, as well as their similarities and differences with similar liberal and conservative views in certain positions. In general, of course, it can be argued that libertarianism has absorbed some ideas from both camps. However, with its special position, which is different from others on the above issues, it clearly does not fit the label of "a typical mixture of liberalism and conservative currents".
Please also note that some theses and provisions in the program of the parties of each of the above movements in different countries may vary slightly.
US Libertarian Party: history of formation and political activity
The proclamation by Richard Nixon on August 15, 1971 of the starting point for the "new economic policy", based on freezing the level of prices and wages, as well as on the abandonment of the "gold standard", served as an impetus for fierce debates on television and strikesdissatisfied.
It was at that time that the Libertarian Party of the USA was created. Although its composition was not numerous, as was the number of supporters, however, this event clearly did not go unnoticed by the Americans.
The beginning of this new political force was laid by David Nolan on December 11 of the same year, together with a group of his like-minded people. Firmly convinced that such government actions were in no way consistent with the basic precepts of the founding fathers of American statehood, they developed a new party program that was fundamentally different from what the Democrats and Republicans proposed.
Building all the main provisions of their policy on the basis of libertarian ideas, they offer the following key theses: a market economy free from state interference, the absence of barriers and restrictions in international trade, as well as US non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, the expansion of personal rights and freedoms of citizens.
Some similarities in their program regarding economic aspects are observed in the politics of the Republican Party.
Russian approach: domestic libertarian positions
In 2008, the Libertarian Party of Russia was formed, the program of which is similarly developed on the basis of the ideas of this philosophy.
The basic principle is a complete ban on aggressive violence against another person or his property, contrary to the prohibition of this person. It is on this position that their political position is built:
- The right to self-defense (legalization of firearms).
- Freedom of thought, religion, association, etc.
- Case law.
- Total immunity to private property.
- Abandoning the concept of intellectual property rights.
- Minimizing government influence on private and public life.
Decentralization of law enforcement agencies, the contractual basis of the army service and tax cuts are still an integral part of the program that the Libertarian Party of Russia represents.
The leader of the organization puts constitutional and judicial reforms at the forefront of political priorities, considering the Constitution of the Russian Federation to be extremely inconsistent in terms of civil liberties and restricting them in many ways.
However, in addition to the general provisions of the program, based entirely on the ideas of this philosophy, the party has some specific plans to reform medicine. According to them, the provision in this area is extremely scarce and ineffective, which affects the quality of medical and diagnostic services provided to citizens in an extremely negative way. Giving citizens the right to choose their own medical care and insurance methods within the free market is what the Libertarian Party of Russia initially insists on. The financing of charitable structures, following their program, must necessarily be free fromtaxation.
At the moment, the party led by the current leader, who is Andrei Shalnev, clearly lacks wider popularity among the people. However, with sharp and dynamic changes in the general situation in the country, the harbingers of which are increasingly looming on the horizon in modern turbulent times, the positions of libertarians can noticeably gain weight in the domestic political arena.
How the Libertarian Party of Ukraine drew up its program
In the CIS countries, libertarian ideas as a whole have spread at quite different times and times. Another reflection of the ideas of this philosophy on the Ukrainian political platform was the association 5.10, founded by entrepreneur and people's deputy Gennady Balashov. The Libertarian Party of Ukraine prioritizes a radical reform of the tax collection system, the essence of which predetermined the name of the party: the introduction of a 5% sales tax and a 10% social tax.
The focus of their program is on economic change. They consist in the classical libertarian principle of the gradual reduction of state control in this area. The party also proposes the introduction of a contractual basis for military service, the complete elimination of restrictions on the circulation of currencies and ensuring freedom of possession of weapons. The race for the presidency is not just an ordinary candidate from the Libertarian Party, but its founder himself - Gennady Balashov.
However, 5.10, like any libertarian party, shares some common criticismsopponents who characterize such ideas as quasi-anarchic and inappropriate. Despite the size of Balashov's capital, he had no real influence on the political life of Ukraine.
