What Constitutes a Libertarian?

Have you ever tried to define a political philosophy?  Have you ever tried to define your own political philosophy?  Have you ever tried to define your political philosophy, accepted a label and then found that label was being used by people whose political philosophies you disagreed with?

I have done all three.  Conservative has always been a broad brush label.  Virtually every position on every issue can be adopted as part of a conservative ideology.  I tried liberal but the problem is that it gets confused with modern liberalism, which is different.  I don't mind classical liberal but it's a bit of a mouthful so I call myself a libertarian (not much shorter I know, but you never have to explain how you are different to a modern liberal - which is a plus).

Then I read these comments at GavPolitics.  Oliver Leftwing a libertarian?  I surely hope not.   My definition of a libertarian has always been more like this.  Okay, that might be a bit strong but it is definitely along the right lines.

I don't buy the argument that wanting to allow people to opt out of defence spending is libertarian.  There are very few things a libertarian believes that government should do but defence is one of them.  I don't know what Leftwing's views are on the right to self-defence but I suspect he is more of a modern liberal on that as well.  As for redistribution, that is an absolute no-go area for any libertarian.

I could go looking for another label to explain my philosophy, individualist perhaps, but I think I'm going to stick with libertarian.  Being libertarian does not mean being a slightly leftish Tory.  David Davis is far more a libertarian than Leftwing is.  I like my label and if I have to work slightly harder to explain it to people then I am more than ready for the challenge.

Comments

[Gavin Ayling]

Defence is absolutely an obligation of the state, just as policing is, but what Letwin was suggesting is that those who do not support the government's use of violence to solve problems (myself not included) should not have to pay for that part of the government's provision. Their overall tax payment would not be different, only it would be put towards more humanitarian means of influence.

I do think a libertarian can be comfortable with this - the freedom to live your life peacefully is entirely satisfied by allowing tax redirection for the individual paying it. I wonder what your thoughts are on the Tax Parliament I previously mooted...

[Mark]

Gav,

I suppose it depends to some extent on what you expect our military to do.

If the military is only used for defensive purposes then it would be impossible to opt out. Anyone living in the UK would benefit from the threat of violence as a deterrent to attacks. Thus one might consider allowing a person an opt-out only on the proportion of defence spending that goes on aggression. Unfortunately the modern world has blurred the lines more than a little. Can a foreign war ever be fought for defensive reasons? I think probably.

I instintively like the idea of a tax parliament. A tax parliament would proably vote for a more efficient tax regime and lower spending. As you point out, there is some overlap between taxation and policy, such as with tax credits and with earmarked taxes like the license fee. There is also overlap the other way. Could a policy parliament require lawyers to do a certain amount of pro-bono work for instance. Could they require business to offer discounts to certain groups. These would effectively be taxes but not counted as tax. Finally, I assume that borrowing limits would be set by the tax parliament but how would schemes like PFI (through which Labour may have borrowed up to £100bn off the books) be administered.

I know I am putting a lot of technical details on you. It stikes me that most countries have separately elected bicameral legislatures with different but overlapping duties. In fact I belive that Britain was run for a long time with parliament setting the level of tax and the King setting policy details. The idea is therefore far from unworkable. An alternative would be to have a single flat tax (such as a 3*3 and allow the people to vote directly on the level of tax - based on the median voter's preference)

The one part I do object too is setting taxes according to the electorates preferred level of spending. I think taxes should pay just for the things we need from the state and that the people should keep the rest.