The main programmatic provisions of the libertarian party in any country in the world (as well as their general worldview as a whole) are unrecognizably different from the ideas of the political establishment more familiar to every inhabitant. Political philosophy, designed to put an end to the very idea of ​​aggressive violence against a person by the state, suggests introducing its own, non-standard terms, positions and political plans. And while some are diligently deciding to attribute this trend to the camp of the “right” or “left”, while others point to the archaic nature of such a classification and a more perfect system of libertarianism in comparison with other political movements, we will analyze in detail the whole essence and, most importantly, the meaning this philosophy.
Essence of the idea
The English term libertarianism comes from the French libertaire, which in translation into Russian means "anarchist". Nevertheless, libertarianism in its modern meaning is fundamentally different from the ideas of the complete elimination of any signs of statehood.
First of all, the current is not oriented towards the state or any social class, but towards a person as an individual person, who has the right to protect his freedom and rights without violating them in relation to other people. This is what is considered the reference point of the idea of ​​libertarianism.
From the state, libertarians are required first of all minimal interference both in the personal 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 depending on the state (something that entrepreneurs, according to libertarian supporters, will not be able to cope as efficiently on their own), must be as narrow as possible with voluntary civilian payment (the so-called "voluntary taxes" - payment for quality public services provided, by analogy with the services of private companies).
However, many political scientists, thinkers and specialists, when examining in detail many of the nuances and subtleties of their position, find them extremely utopian and bordering on science fiction. Moreover, libertarian views are often criticized by numerous skeptical opponents as “impractical” and “divorced from natural realities”.
From the very beginning: a detailed history of the emergence of ideology
The very concept of “libertarian” first appears in an essay by the American philosopher William Belsham in 1789.
A significant increase in libertarianism as a special philosophical movement occurred at the end of the 19th century. This happened after the prohibition of freedom of the press of anarchist materials in France, the reason for which was the terrorist attack of Auguste Vayan on December 9, 1893). At that time, the term secured the meaning of an anarchist movement, the French representatives of which began to widely use the word libertaire as a euphemism and replace the former anarchiste.
The newspaper Le Libertaire was established in 1985, and the philosophy of “libertal 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 teaching of religious determinism.
However, in the future, the meaning of this concept has changed to a modern definition.
At the present stage of development
Only in the 40s of the last century, the efforts of the American politician Leonard Reid (founder of the Economic Education Fund) did this term gain its current meaning. Libertianism presupposes broad economic and personal freedom with the most limited state intervention in public life.
David Nolan, one of the founders of the American Libertarian Party, in 1970 highlighted a more distinct framework for this philosophy. It contrasts with the borders 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 points in libertarian politics
The ideas of libertarianism are formed from the works of eminent thinkers of the XVII-XVIII centuries: John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Payne.
- Individualism . The main subject of libertarianism is a person, a person. People are free to make free choices and subsequently be responsible for them, without restricting the remaining members of society in this right. Accordingly, an individual with such an ideology has not only freedom, but also certain responsibilities. Recognizing the dignity of each individual 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 an individual to protect his personality, freedom and property are not granted by the state apparatus. They are predetermined initially by nature, which is reflected in the legalization of the acquisition and free carrying of weapons in the programs of libertarians.
- The rule of law . Anarchist permissiveness by libertarians is rejected radically. 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 norms of law, which are aimed at protecting the freedom of every person.
- Government restrictions . The concentration of power causes libertarians a strong antipathy. Their ideas on statehood issues include the separation and limitation of power (abolition of taxation, followed by voluntary civilian financing of public services, the abolition of the legalization of the minimum wage, the removal of restrictions on immigration, the refusal of universal military service and compulsory schooling).
In addition, libertarians oppose restrictions on immigration, state control of the media, medicine, and urban zoning rules. The most recognizable of the whole list of their program theses is the legalization of most or absolutely all drugs known to science (the opinions of libertarians may differ on this issue). This, of course, is extremely ambiguously perceived both by society and by opponents of this philosophy.
A special approach to the issue of economics
The ideas of libertarianism are mixed to some extent with the Austrian school in the theory of economics. She emphasizes her own conclusions about the inefficiency of government intervention in the economy, often with devastating consequences. Libertarianism likewise supports the idea of ​​a free market, regulated mainly by its direct 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 avoiding mandatory taxation will ultimately make people more free and secure.
Which label is right for them?
Based on all the above positions of the 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 the left or right wing. At the same time, the classification of libertarianism as a symbiosis of liberal and conservative thoughts is also denied (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 for a reduction in the control of the free market and personality by the state. Liberals call for maximizing the freedom of personal life of every citizen, however, they advocate a fair share of state control in the economic sector. Conservatives, in turn, advocate a more open and free from government regulation of the financial world, but in their programs there is a certain regulation of freedoms in the personal plan.
Libertarians see themselves above these two camps, offering their theses on a high degree of freedom, both economic and individual freedom. They consider their direct opponents to be “supporters of a totalitarian state”, which include socialists, communists, fascists, Marxists, statesmen and populists.
The differences between liberals, libertarians and conservatives
Let us give 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 establish duties, quotas and embargoes in international trade? | Yes, customs duties preserve jobs in the country, and embargoes will help fight right-wing dictators in authoritarian countries that 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 protect and maintain the competitiveness of strategically important industries, and the embargo is a reliable tool in the fight against left-wing dictators who infringe on the interests of our state abroad. |
| Minimum wage should be set at the legal level? | Yes, in the name of everyone’s right to a satisfactory income, otherwise many employers will only pay a living wage. | No, because it is a violation of the right of the employee and the employer to conclude a contract at mutual discretion. | No, employers should be able to hire only the best workers, adhering to minimum prices set by market competition. |
| Is taxation the only way to pay for government functions? | Yes, since far from many will be willing to pay for such things as benefits for the poor, education, environmental protection and many other services of the state. | No, because taxation is a legalized analogue of theft and should be replaced by voluntary payment of public services, many of which are quite capable of performing private and charitable organizations. | Yes, after all, not everyone will express a desire to voluntarily pay the costs of national defense, law enforcement agencies, strategically important sectors of national industry and many other vital services of the state. |
| Should the government help domestic businesses in difficult economic times? | Yes, this will help preserve jobs in difficult times, but corporations should be excluded from such assistance in order not to receive superprofits at the state expense. | No, the government can only help some enterprises by robbing other companies and taxpayers. | Yes, the government should help businesses stay afloat, thereby stimulating free enterprise. |
| How should the government solve the problem of budget deficits? | Raise taxes for wealthy citizens without cutting funding for social programs. | Cut as much as possible all government spending and taxes to stimulate economic growth. The government is limited only to issues of national defense and ensuring the constitutional rights of citizens. Pay debts due to cost savings. | Borrow additional funds to support government spending without cutting budget and defense spending. In the long run, economic growth will repay national debt. |
| Strategic directions |
| How should the government regulate nuclear power? | Due to high environmental risks, as well as due to insoluble problems with the disposal of nuclear waste, the construction of nuclear power plants should be discontinued, and 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, since it is a source of low-cost energy. At the same time, its development should be encouraged, ensuring minimal environmental pollution in comparison with other energy sources. |
| Should the government, if necessary, send troops to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries? | Yes, if these measures contribute to the protection of human rights, assistance to poor foreign citizens and the overthrow of right-wing dictators. | No, no government has the authority to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries, with the exception of a response to an aggressive attack. | Yes, if this contributes to the fight against terrorism, the overthrow of left dictators or the protection of the interests of our state abroad. |
| Should there be conscription? | Yes, but only in wartime. | No, because universal military service is formal slavery, and you cannot make good defenders of freedom from slaves. | Yes, a country should always have human resources trained in military affairs, in order to be able to give a crushing rebuff to a potential enemy at any moment. |
| Should the state own and control the media? | Yes, the country needs a public broadcasting system, and the government should control media advertising for children. | Media owners should themselves be responsible for the content of their publications without government intervention, and consumers will decide for themselves what is allowed in their home. | The state should not own a press or TV, however, any broadcasting system should be severely punished for publishing materials prohibited by law. |
| Social aspects |
| How to solve the problem of bankruptcy of social security? | An increase in taxes on payroll funds will provide older people with well-deserved rest and the state social insurance program. | We consider the social security system insolvent, which is why we need to end it, leaving older workers and pensioners to choose between a one-time large payment of funds or annual payments according to the current social system. collateral instead of future pensions. | Reduction of pensions and increase in retirement age. In addition to mandatory measures, introduce voluntary funded pension accounts controlled by the government. If absolutely necessary, borrow money to keep the system afloat. |
| Are children required by law to be required to attend school? | Yes, since it is impossible to fully rely on the fact that parents will be able to give their child the proper education. | No, the law on compulsory school attendance is a violation of the rights of parents and children to freely decide on the education of the child. | Yes, high-quality universal education of children is paramount for becoming a healthy nation in all senses. However, not all parents will be able to give their child a similar level of education. |
| Can parents be allowed to teach children at home? | Perhaps, however, the state will still need to ensure that parents do not teach their child fanatical, illegal or unscientific ideas. | Yes, the government should not have a leading role in education. In relation to parents who prefer to teach their children at home, neither regulation nor punishment should be provided. | Yes, even taking into account the fact that some of the parents in the home schooling of their children could not provide them with an appropriate level of educational process. Public schools also do not work ideally, but improving state control over schools, coupled with standardized testing, will help solve this problem by attracting more parents with their children to the public education system. |
| Should the law restrict citizens' possession of firearms? | Yes, weapons kill people and lead to monstrous consequences and crimes in free possession. All licensing, storage and use processes must be very strictly regulated. If these measures do not help, the right to own weapons should remain only with law enforcement agencies and the military. | No, the possession of firearms is the right of everyone to choose, not violating the rights of others. Only its use for criminal purposes should be punished. | , . , , , , . , . |
| , ? | , , . | , - . | , , , , . |
| ? | , , . | - - . : , . | , , . |
| , , , ? | (, ), . | , . | , - , , . . |
| ? | , , . | , . | , , , . , , . |
, , . , , , , . , , " ".
, .
:
15 1971 " ", , " ", .
. , , .
11 . , - , , , .
, : , , , .
, , .
:
2008 , .
. :
, - , .
, .
, , . , , . - , . , , .
, , . , , .
. 5.10, . , : 5% 10% .
Their program focuses 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 freedom of ownership of weapons. The race for the presidency is not just an ordinary candidate from the libertarian party, but its founder, Gennady Balashov, is directly involved.
Nevertheless, for 5.10, as well as for any party of a libertarian sense, some similar features of criticism of opponents, characterizing such ideas as quasianarchic and inappropriate, are characteristic. Despite the size of Balashov’s capital, he had no real influence on the political life of Ukraine.