Originally appeared in Idei in Dialog '
It is true that in Romania we have parties without doctrine and doctrine without the party. Served plain, but it's confusing, because it places the wrong reproaches. He designates a State of things, some of which may not be and so should not be changed. For example, the fact that the Romanian intellectuals not to waste his life to support systematic theoretical 7,10 as de facto interventionismului is a cause for joy, not reproach. Then, in terms of classical liberalism, or avatar or with exotic names, libertarianismul, incoerentei do not have doctrinal reproach directed both at the level of both parties at the institutional level. Given the electoral and institutional structure of the application in which the request may be expressed, parties may not be liberal. The more absurd it would be to libertarienilor personnel from Romania as not make the party. Not only because the parties are forced to pay for political services financiers disambiguated; but also because of the barriers to market entry policy. It takes a huge degree of coordination and mobilization for raising the required number of signatures for existence and then exceeding the minimum threshold for entry into Parliament. It is difficult to be absorbed in large parties, due to psychological barriers. Most libertarienilor are intellectuals, forced in a way more or less sinister, depending on generation, to develop in the absence of a culture of sparkling debate. Their profile does not allow any minimum permeability to compromise, nor the endurance required for coalitions and collective action.
Allow them but, for the first time in Romanian history, to articulate and refine the discussion circles in answers to questions about the law and the State, on the basis of individual liberty and private property as ordering principles of social interaction. What importance does this, it's hard to say. What is certain is that the State grows well thanks and without a philosophy politics etatista in intellectual centres coagulata civic. For as in the lack of theory, type aware intuitions or stangist not a thick carpet of leaves ready to be swept. They are rooted in practices and incentives structures repeated. And just as statist incentives structures are maintained primarily by State mechanisms, and liberal doctrines feed off the incentives associated with market practices. Libertarianismul not pull roots from Adam Smith, he's not doing than noticing the advantages of functional patterns of behavior already. In the 17th century, the Dutch managed to withstand the tide "civilizator" Spanish toll, interlocking and religious uniformity not because both arguments, but because they want to protect the property and the diversity of consumer goods. Catholics oppose the Inquisition because they would burn our clients and business partners and promotes the freedom of the word because they were performing presses print anything for profit. Reflections about private property and individual liberty come barely harden and subsequently to systemise the advantage of pre-existing patterns of interaction.
How can we synthesize these reflections? In a broad sense, the solutions to social problems and libertarian are those that permit a higher degree of freedom for all the individuals involved. Libertarienii support firmer guarantees of private property and free exchange than those offered by the status quo. At the same time, regardless of their own preferences, they consider the call to neindreptatit the power of the State to enforce the highest standards of personal and social ethics.
Regarding things from the perspective of economic doctrine, according to which libertarianismul is increasingly more services now provided by the State can and must be provided by the market and voluntary associations.
From the perspective of social order, or if you want advice from the perspective of politics, libertarian is to book the more physical force upon the use or have stolen, or have initiated themselves, and it can be used increasingly less against those who have committed other alleged errors or mistakes.
At first glance it is not clear why grids economic and political refers to the same thing. And yet, they in different ways of figuring out an agenda, an agenda that does not exceed the maximum freedom for all. A good example of past service in the field of State administration in the field of the free market (even if incomplete) is that of pensions. Typically, in such cases we are talking about privatization. Privatisation but not only change the owner of the funds. Desfiintand State monopoly, it brings with it a host of new options for all individuals, who enjoy the freedom to choose among several insurance providers of the service and of the freedom to provide the service themselves. The privatisation of the service do not signify nothing more than an infusion of new permissions, permission to exit from State-run sole arrangement and entrance contracts and joint ventures with other individuals or agencies. Privatization means freedom. According to the political perspective of the unique arrangement of State-monopolized ceases to be blocked by a law administered under threat of physical restraint.
Freedom not merely exchange the increasing number of options. From a practical standpoint, the increasing number of options would be an irrelevance if new features wouldn't be even more appealing than those we have at present. Freedom brings the guarantee of services contracts. Framework laws requiring suppliers-under threat of coercion-physical compliance with standards of quality are the fruit of naivitatii. In terms of freedom of contracts of sale, consumers would be enough incentive to potential suppliers serve to get to market and beat the competitors heaven or incompetent. Framework laws of the workers ' protection are another example of naivete. What would happen in the absence of supra-fiscalizarii employment contracts and legal suprareglementa of firms producing the maintenance? Employees would be sufficiently protected by the freedom of employers willing to offer alternative, working conditions better. If the laws in question have today a utility, it is only due to the market entry barriers built by other laws.
A single item will be enough to maintain the machine capable of protecting the interests of all, in damage to anyone: freedom of contracts.
Up to that point in history, we recognize, resigned, the State solutions merit issues himself created them; After all, we all share the sad fate moral agents of living to fix their own mistakes. With the only difference that they pay their money themselves, from its work.
The comic effect is due, of course, antropomorfizarii State in his posture, a game or a shortcut followed by libertarian to simplify rationalizations. For example, the image offered by Mancur Olson of sedentary banditului which protects us from bandits itineranti, or "theory of classes" We divided into master and slave, a relationship insulates software from within complex processes: that the charges violate the owner's consent. But use of the interdependence between the pan and statulsta citizens-slaves can't camouflage the fact that fault distribution is uniform. From ignorance and idleness, we each follow a system of rules by which we constrangem in unnecessary ways each other.
The logic of liberty contracts should be applied with consistency to all services, from food and shelter to the culture, health, the environment or in the neighborhood, currency, security and judicial services. Even if, through the varied and complex paths, most of the time the problems are solved better by using the same formula of a fascinating freedom of others: robustness we serve and protect us.
Libertarianismul is the ideology of libert[1]y. But it is not a mere ideology among others. I don't oppose, say, "Justice ideology" whatever this. At a deep level, is a meta-ideology, a fundamental procedure that allows for a peaceful process of experimentation with different ideologies: freedom of association allows me to go out and get into any groups and networks seeking organized after any rules of Justice seem to me straight. After any rules, and with anyone, provided they don't anybody live fortez after my rules.
It cites des nonagresiunii imperative of libertarianism, libertarian or use physical force only upon those who have stolen or have initiated a themselves. The message sounded unusually simple and overflowing. It's not surprising that people are rushing to get him away before he understands that his claims are actually small. He did not propose a set of criteria for weighing the good and bad behavior, but merely a response to the social problem of coordination. Why support libertarienii as many behaviors that today are felonies should be legalized, and the violation of property and liberty must be strictly demarcated as lasting legal? Not because they would be more serious than moral mistakes others, but because otherwise we will not benefit from the huge productive potential of decentralized mechanisms of Exchange and voluntary association. They did not say that the theft of an insulin vials to save the life of a diabetic is a moral mistake. Just as, in the judgment of being acted a relentless, you need to be prepared-with moral consciousness reconciled its legal consequences-supports of the theft. Bet there's theory and moral fault, but the consistency of the legal proceedings aimed to decrease the level of conflict and to increase the degree of coordination.
Libertariana theory of rights is indeed a theory parcimonioasa. As long as you don't kill (not someone's right to life does), it doesn't hurt (not someone's health law does), not Mar (does not right to liberty) and do not steal (not does ownership) can fulfill the rules of righteousness i.t and not doing anything. But the merit of simplicity is to eliminate the conflict. For almost a century we are seeing inflation "rights". We are aware that on the other face of the coin of a person's rights is submitted to a duty to others treat in a certain way. Conflicts between rights are conflicts between debts. For example, a positive nurse needs resources, which inevitably are owned by someone. The so-called positive rights may not be applied under the constraint of law than in its own right at the expense of others ' possessions. When we follow a theory which compels us to raped and to secure one's property, in the best case, peaceful cohabitation is saved by arbitrary political solutions and unstable. Moreover, we face the risk of social turmoil and deprivation of economic nature. Just because I accepted the theory of Justice with supplementation of positive rights I end up losing the freedom and real access to aggravate cheap and quality services.
If anyone is wondering why the traditional formulation of the theory of the rights to "life, liberty, property" was replaced by the American Constitution with parents rights to "life, liberty and the right to seek happiness", the answer is simple: Madison enumerate inalienable rights, and the "property" referred to in the more physical possessions, which had to be alienabile, meaning precisely the constitutional approach being to generalize the economic exchange. From the legal point of view, pursuit of happiness means something else, namely that power which cannot be ceded nor the State, nor anyone within any institutional game: the right to enter and get out of the contracts and voluntary associations.
Moving things from the ideas in the local landscape, we must recognize that the main representatives of transition towards freedom in these 20 years are not theorists of liberty. But millions of economic agents, are looking for profits, were able to show everyone the benefits of capitalist society. In a way that indirectly and unintentionally, entrepreneurs have been able to show that favors private property management and technological innovations, as free exchange can put them in the service of the consumer and that however taxe, strangled by regulations and fraud protected politically, market environment has managed to sustain economic growth.
In a good measure, ignorance and political voting absenteeism in the urban environment I think is just reflectiei on this phenomenon. Election campaign trying to boost the sadoughi, visceral fail but to produce disgust of those who sense the engines of economic growth are widely dispersed and only works in spite of, not because of centralized plans and strategies for development. Unfortunately, only goes up to reflection half and ignore the dark face of things. Nothing more favorable appearance of new bodies, agencies, offices and Government regulatory commissions and compulsion than apathy with which we pay taxes, we accept with which conformity as a young man to be closed four years for drug possession and naturalness with which are absurd legal proceedings unnecessary.
[1] Loan words from my friend and colleague Andrei Merrill.
