Libertarianism versus Anarchism

Posted on by Ben Carron

The Libertarian Party is the fastest growing and third largest political party in the United States. Each year, more and more Americans become disillusioned with the two party system that has dominated American politics and are looking at other parties and other ideologies. A large group of these people believe that when it comes to government, less is more. Less regulation, less federal spending and less people telling them how they should be living their lives. Per their official website, the Libertarian Party states that libertarians “strongly oppose any government interference into their personal, family, and business decisions. Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another.” If it’s not hurting them and not hurting others, then the government doesn’t need to be a part of it. However, there must be a balance, as complete opposition to the state falls into the territory of anarchism.

What is Libertarianism?

Libertarianism rejects the control of the government over its citizens and advocates heavily for individual rights. Essentially, Libertarians just want to be left alone to be free to live their lives, and not be coerced by the Federal government. While Democrats and Republicans clash over issues such as immigration, drugs, abortion, law enforcement, and most recently the morality of our capitalist system, libertarians argue that government involvement in these areas infringes on their rights, not only as an American, but as a human being.

The libertarian philosophy supports drug decriminalization, open borders, LGBTQ+ rights, property rights, and free-market economy. With the ideas of freedom and self-ownership in mind, Libertarians consider themselves free-thinkers independent of the conservative/liberal dichotomy. Despite this, left and right wing philosophy do exist within the realm of libertarianism. The spectrum of libertarianism lies mostly with the issue of natural resources. The extent to which an individual believes in the equal distribution of natural resources is a key indicator of their right or left tendency within the libertarian philosophy. Advocating for natural resources to be distributed more evenly would put someone on the left end of libertarianism, and vice versa.

Libertarianism versus Anarchy: Understanding the Key Differences

Increasingly more Americans each year are breaking away from the Democrat/Republican dichotomy and embracing libertarianism, valuing their rights and freedom above all else. Libertarianism is a valuable and necessary philosophy for any democratic system; however, there comes a point where the focus on freedom and self-ownership can devolve into a lack of order and poor judgement. While many libertarians would argue that the effects of the state on its citizens are generally harmful and limiting, there are many inherent problems in the anarchist stance towards an established state.

The rejection of government institutions entirely is where the potential for anarchy begins to creep into the picture. Anarchism is a philosophy that is skeptical of all forms of authority and their intentions. The Russian revolutionary anarchist Mikhail Bakunin famously claimed that “If there is a State, there must be domination of one class by another and, as a result, slavery; the State without slavery is unthinkable—and this is why we are the enemies of the State.” While Libertarians are also skeptical of governmental power structures, anarchists view the authority of the state as an enemy force that they must continue to work against.

Libertarians are not advocating for abolition of government, as anarchists do. Rather, they understand that limited governmental structures are required to allow a free society to function without chaos and harm to others, providing safety for its citizens. A government that allows its citizens to participate in the open market, to be free to own property, firearms, and live according to their own desires and orientations is not a bad thing to them. If it was, a dedicated Libertarian Party wouldn’t exist in the first place.

Anarchist philosophy, such as the beliefs espoused by Bakunin, places trust in the hands of the people and seeks to abolish systems of power that are “repressive”. This philosophy becomes problematic in that it empowers people to act with full freedom and autonomy, which opens up the possibility of causing violence or danger to others, thereby infringing on their ability to live their lives and be as free as possible. When those who have adopted anarchist ideology use it as a means of acting violently in an attempt to dismantle the system, personal freedom is no longer the goal and society can quickly turn into unsafe territory. Libertarians are not advocating for an overthrow of the system, rather they are looking for a political solution that gives the power back to the people, rather than increasing government scope and power as well as government debt, which Libertarians feel will inevitably negatively affect the people.

Currently, there is no anarchist part in the US in any form in mainstream politics, but the Libertarian party is growing every year. In the 2016 US presidential election, Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson received 3.27% of the national vote with over 4 million votes, which though small, was the highest result for a third party candidate since Ross Perot in 1996. Compared to the party’s 2012 presidential election, which saw Libertarians win just under 1% of the vote, this is a sign of the party’s growth and increasing interest of Americans in other options beyond Democrats and Republicans. The 2020 Libertarian Party presidential candidate is Jo Jorgensen, an academic and political activist from South Carolina. It is anticipated that she will be on the ballot in all 50 states.

 

Ted Cruz vs. Rand Paul: Telling Them Apart

Posted on by Matt Di Sandro

For many Americans, the last time Rand Paul and Ted Cruz were seen together was the 2016 Republican presidential debates. At some points in the political news cycle surrounding the Republican primaries, their drama and banter even rivaled the controversy surrounding Trump. But even harder to remember is the friendship the Senators shared going back to Rand Paul’s public endorsement of Ted Cruz during the 2012 Senate election in Texas.

Regardless of their ups and downs with each other, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz currently serve as Senators for Kentucky and Texas respectively. Cruz has even mentioned that he often sits next to Paul during the Senate Republicans’ daily lunch. In addition to the agreeable but unpredictable aspects of the two Senators’ friendship, their policy platforms provide key areas of concurrence and contention.

Differences

Rand Paul and Ted Cruz disagree on foreign policy. Sen. Paul maintains his ideal of small government regardless of whether he’s referring to domestic or foreign policy. He believes that the US should not police foreign affairs. Ted Cruz told ABC News’ Jonathan Karl “I don’t agree with him on foreign policy. I think U.S. leadership is critical in the world.” This means that whenever Cruz is faced with a foreign policy decision, he is likely to pursue a more aggressive approach. This can be seen in Sen. Cruz’s denunciation of the US taking part in peace negotiations with terrorists.

Ted Cruz and Rand Paul also differ on their views of marijuana. Rand Paul has advocated for a more liberal policy at the federal level as he was 1 of 3 Senators that introduced the Compassionate Access, Research, Expansion, and Respect States Act (CARERS) which would have legalized medical marijuana. Paul is also vocal in support for lighter sentencing on drug offenses. While Paul has opted for a libertarian approach, Cruz takes a notably federalist stance on the drug. Instead of taking action at the federal level in one direction or the other, Ted Cruz would rather let states individually decide.

More broadly, the difference between Cruz and Paul can be viewed through the lens of their appeal to voters. When announcing his bid for the 2016 presidency, Cruz did so at the biggest Evangelical Christian university in the country, Liberty University. In his rhetoric, Ted Cruz routinely brings up his Christian upbringing of a father who works as a pastor. Although this allows Cruz to rally a significant conservative base among states such as Texas that have a majority of Evangelicals among GOP voters, he has a much harder time appealing to non-Evangelical conservatives. In contrast, Rand Paul’s platform often attracts more than just conservative voters. He has introduced liberal legislation such as the Justice for Breonna Taylor Act which prohibits no-knock warrants in order to combat specific forms of police brutality. In addition to this bill, Paul has worked across the aisle with Democrats such as Cory Booker to seek criminal justice reform, another seemingly Leftist legislation. Although Paul has a better opportunity to broaden his base outside of his party, in comparison to Cruz, Paul’s liberal views certainly make him less popular among many staunchly conservative and Evangelical Christian voters.

Common Ground

In spite of their differences, the senators can certainly agree on a lot. Within the Republican Party, Paul and Cruz represent the anti-establishment wing. They are both members of the informal Tea Party Caucus, a group within the Senate Republicans that typically fosters members that are more conservative than their Republican counterparts. In addition, Rand Paul is a self-proclaimed libertarian conservative and Ted Cruz is considered a social conservative who tends toward libertarianism. Given this ideological overlap, the Senators ultimately agree that the present state of government is too big. Thus, they advocate for downsizing of government intervention with respect to both fiscal and social issues.

More specifically, in their pursuit of the idea of small government, both of the Senators would like to get rid of the Department of Education. Ted Cruz wants to go even further and get rid of the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In eliminating these responsibilities at the federal level, Paul and Cruz hope to delegate the power among these departments to state and local jurisdiction.

Another area of concurrence is their view on healthcare. Sen. Cruz and Paul both see the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) as a significant overreach of federal intervention. They both point out that Obamacare has vastly increased premiums and limited the number of choices that many people have. Instead, the Senators advocate for a free-market approach that creates competitive pricing and allows patients to choose private health insurance across state lines.

In terms of taxes, both are supportive of a flat tax rate. Rand specifically argues for a 14.5% income tax rate for all Americans while Cruz has advocated for a 10% rate. They would also like to abolish the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) which is a bureau under the Department of the Treasury that is responsible for collecting taxes and enforcing federal statutory tax law. In pushing for a flat tax rate and limited regulatory power, they seek to drastically simplify the system and create more equitable demands for taxes.

Their ideal of limited federal intervention and free markets also extends to other stances on the economy. They see regulations and taxation as interfering with capital gains and entrepreneurship. In addition to the siphoning of money directly, Cruz and Paul see regulation in the capital market as deterring investment. More broadly, they hope that decreased regulation of markets will incentivize individuals to start their own small private firms.

In pursuing their political platforms, the Senators are known for their prolific filibusters. Rand Paul’s longest filibuster of 13 hours helped push the confirmation of John Brennan as the director of the CIA off the agenda. Cruz stood and talked for a 21-hour filibuster to defund Obamacare. Reinforcing their similarity in Senatorial tactics, Ted Cruz was even at Rand Paul’s filibuster cheering him on.

Moving Forward

Paul and Cruz will be up for reelection in the years 2022 and 2024 respectively. They are likely to maintain their seats as they both have strong conservative bases in their home states. It’s possible that we even see one or both of them throw their hat in the ring for the 2024 presidency. Hate them or love them, it looks like their presenceーfilibusters and banter includedーwill continue being a facet of conservative libertarianism in the US Senate and Washington as a whole.

 

Liberalism vs. Libertarianism

Posted on by Matt Di Sandro

Liberalism and libertarianism emerged as two distinct political ideologies in the late 20th century. At its core, libertarianism rejects government power and regulation in any form. In contrast, liberalism supports government interference in respect to some policy issues.

Separating the Two Ways of Thinking

Liberals today denounce government’s role in imposing a rigid conception of marriage or women’s reproductive rights. However, they take no issue with increasing the government’s power to regulate guns, corporations or wealth distribution. Liberals embrace the use of government power to address economic problems. An example of a liberal platform can be viewed on the Democratic Party website here. Liberals generally advocate for high income tax brackets as well as high corporate taxes. They contend that these types of regulations and mechanisms of redistribution help funnel resources to the most needy through publicly-funded programs such as Social Security and Medicare. This toleration of authoritative power makes liberals distinct from libertarians.

Being a liberal means being on the “left” side of the political spectrum. This generally involves a belief system that embraces empathetic policies such as leniency towards immigrants and healthcare for all. Liberals also back the idea that government should use its power to address climate change. In practice, legislation from the left helps regulate the economy for the purpose of promoting the livelihood of the public. They emphasize the role of government in helping the needy. Libertarians argue that these actions by government are over-extending and thus putting unnecessary pressure on economic opportunities and free enterprise.

Libertarianism is not as complicated as liberalism. From drugs to corporations, libertarians say that the government has one good option: to stay out of it. The ideology does not believe in using power or regulation as a means of promoting economic growth or civil rights. In practice, this translates into minimal taxes and very little government interference in the economy. They believe that this allows entrepreneurship and small business to flourish through free enterprise without the pressures of taxes or regulation. For instance, Rand Paul, a libertarian conservative in the Senate, supports a flat tax rate and lower government spending in order to move towards a more balanced budget. In addition to identifying government regulation as a harmful force on small corporations, libertarians argue that regulatory bodies such as the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) can limit the potential for capital gains.

Libertarians believe that this sort of freedom is also conducive to addressing other issues. For example, free markets are seen as creating competitive and lower prices in healthcare and education. But, while conservatives agree with these ideas, libertarians take it one step farther. Contrary to Republican’s dedication to the War on Terror, the Libertarian Party advocates for small government in foreign policy as a means of promoting peace. In addition to foreign and economic policy, libertarians maintain that government does not have a right to infringe upon social aspects of American civilization such as female reproductive decisions and gun ownership. For more information on their platform, the Libertarian Party has posted its platform on issues here.

Given the current COVID crisis, libertarians stand fervently against tightened regulations on individuals and businesses. Rand Paul, a self-identified “libertarian conservative,” has introduced S. 3922, the Coronavirus Regulatory Repeal Act, which forces federal agencies to justify imposed regulations. This firmly opposes liberal politician’s willingness to advocate for regulations as a means of preserving the livelihood of the public. Rather than trust the government to implement crisis management at the expense of personal freedom (such as forcing people to wear masks), libertarians will claim that regulations actually hinder the efficiency of recovery during this crisis. Rand Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie, a libertarian in the House, also denounced exercising government power fiscally as they opposed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) which provides $2 trillion in relief for the crisis. No matter how big the emergency, a true libertarian would likely never tolerate an increase in authoritative power as a means of solving it.

Politicians

Cory Booker helps demonstrate the difference between libertarian and liberal policy issues because of his varying views on policy issues. He is usually considered liberal with his advocacy of programs such as the Affordable Care Act and requirements of comprehensive background checks for gun owners. But, his supportive attitude towards charter schools is clearly libertarian in its aim to give both profit-driven entities and consumers less limitations in education.

Justin Amash was a longstanding Republican Party member before officially declaring himself a member of the Libertarian Party in 2020. Despite his withdrawal from a campaign for the presidency, Amash ideology is clearly informed by libertarianism with his aim to use free markets and privatization to address foreign trade and industries such as education and healthcare. In addition, he supports maximizing civil liberties such as the freedom to own a gun.