Editor’s Note: Mark D. Friedman is a retired attorney, now practicing political philosophy without a license. His book, Nozick’s Libertarian Project: An Elaboration and Defense (London: Continuum International Publishing), will be released in May. For a fuller discussion of rights-based libertarianism, please visit his site NaturalRightsLibertarian.com. He is a regular contributor to On The Wing.
LEFT, RIGHT AND CENTER
By Mark D. Friedman
I have been repeatedly called “right-wing” because I have dared to publicly argue that, as a general rule, only voluntary arrangements between consenting adults have moral legitimacy. And, consequently, the role of the state should be limited to a few core functions that are essential for the exercise of moral agency. The purpose of this essay is to determine whether I am guilty as charged, and more broadly to examine whether the traditional left/right distinction retains any conceptual usefulness in our political discourse.
Those in our society that favor an expansive role for the state are fond of labeling their political adversaries as “right-wing” because of the unpleasant connotations of this term. There exists a strong tendency for people to associate the “right” or at least the “far right” with fascist political ideas. Accordingly, labeling someone as a right-winger is intended to discredit them by associating their politics with a horrible, appalling ideology.
But the attempted linkage of libertarianism with the “right wing” and thus indirectly to suggest fascist sympathies, is justified neither by history or logic. The left/right dichotomy appears to have its roots in the politics of the French Revolution. In the national assembly formed during this period, the supporters of the monarch and the aristocracy sat on the right, while the revolutionary elements sat on the left. But, while Louis XVI was an autocrat, he was no “fascist,” since this term has its origins in post-WWI Italian politics and Mussolini was its champion.
Moreover, the small businessmen and shopkeepers of the day generally cast their lot with the revolutionaries, rather than the king, so I see no historical basis for associating free market capitalism with the right. Moreover, the attempt to somehow link laissez faire capitalism with authoritarian political structures is premised on an illogical interpretation of the political universe. Those who use “right-wing” in this way must envision a single ideological axis, with Soviet style communism at the extreme “left” and adjacent to it, some form of democratic socialism (something like what they imagine is practiced in Sweden). In the center of this spectrum lies “liberal democracy,” which takes the form of a heavily regulated economy, incorporating ambitious redistributive programs intended to protect the less “fortunate.” On the “right” side of this continuum, they imagine unfettered capitalism, followed at the extreme right, by fascism.
The only problem with this cosmology is that it is as false a representation of the political world as the Ptolemaic model was of the physical one. While communism and fascism are no doubt different ideologies, it does not follow that they are opposites. Without getting caught up in the enormous controversy regarding the range of political beliefs that constitutes fascism, it may safely be said that these ideologies differ primarily in what they regard as the essential purpose of the state. In at least the “standard” formulation, the fascist state is by nature extremely nationalistic and militaristic, while the communist state has as its essential role the creation and maintenance of a classless society.
However, in his seminal The Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek debunked this worldview, observing that the critical distinction is between those societies that respect the rule of law, and those that don’t. Accordingly, fascism and communism are simply two different variants of a collectivist philosophy that exalts the objectives of the state at the expense of the individual. To drive home this point, Hayek devotes an entire chapter of his book, to detailing the socialist roots of Nazi ideology, and it is perhaps worth reminding my readers that Nazi is an acronym for National Socialist German Workers’ Party, a title that does not, obviously, exude warmth towards the capitalist system.
Fascism and communism are alike in rejecting private property rights. In Marxist theory, all property ownership should ultimately be communal, but during the socialist transition phase, the state will own and manage the means of production. While fascist states may find it convenient to harness the efficiency of private management of property, its ultimate title rests with the state. Thus, were an industrialist under Hitler’s dictatorial rule to defy his political objectives, he would simply be dispossessed, and sent to the nearest death camp.
In stark contrast, libertarians of all stripes agree on the stringency of individual property rights. There is both a moral and practical basis for this commitment. First, people have a right to their justly earned income. Second, as expressed eloquently by the noted historian Richard Pipes in his Property and Freedom:
The right to property in and of itself does not guarantee civil rights and liberties. But historically speaking, it has been the single most effective device for ensuring both, because it creates an autonomous sphere in which, by mutual consent, neither the state nor society can encroach: by drawing a line between the public and the private, it makes the owner co-sovereign, as it were. Hence it is arguably more important than the right to vote.
I argue in depth in support of both of these points in my book.
Thus, libertarians see the political world divided between those who desire an expansive role for the state (“statists”) and those who don’t (“individualists”). It is for this reason that I emphatically reject the accuracy of the right-wing epithet. The libertarian philosophy has no connection with fascism, and in fact is committed to core principles that are completely at odds with both communism and fascism. To use the term “right-wing” to refer to those who defend laissez faire capitalism, is to reveal one’s own superficial understanding of the political world.
However, I am happy to be called an “anti-egalitarian,” for this is the implication of defending the justice of capitalism. While I recognize the moral necessity of a safety net for those who are in desperate need through no fault of their own, I deny that there is anything intrinsically good about equal outcomes. Hey, wouldn’t it be great if we were all as equally poor as your typical North Korean?
