Argument: A growing alliance that defies party lines and the definitions of the last century

A libertarian agenda is one that draws people from across the political spectrum. The crisis in the financial sector has confirmed for many that government and large financial institutions have simply got too close. Republicans say they can reduce the size of government but never do, Democrats say they can regulate corporations but show no sign of doing so.

The primary reason why people can approach libertarianism from across the political spectrum is that, as a philosophy, it doesn’t seek to judge individual policies. So policies traditionally associated with the left – the legalization of drugs or gay rights – as well as those of the right - independence for schools and reducing taxation – both fall within a Libertarian agenda that simply says that none of these issues are any business of the state [i] .

[i] Brian Micklethwaite. “How to Win The Libertarian Argument”. 1990

Candidate 1: "It is impossible in any modern state to pretend that the state simply isn’t there or that individuals on their own can act against multinationals or government departments and agencies.

The Libertarian perspective is the stuff of fantasy; neither taxes nor markets are going anywhere anytime soon however much a ragbag of theorists may wish for it.

Benjamin Franklin argued that “All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his matchcoat and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public Convention. Hence, the public has the rights of regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it. All the property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it.” [i]

The point is that an individual cannot walk up to a chemical plant and tell them to move it, only a government, elected through collective action can do that.

[i] Franklin, Benjamin, ‘Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris’, 25 December 1783, in The Founders’ Constitution, Vol. 1. Chapter 16, Document 12, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s12.html"
Candidate 2: "The appropriate response, in a democracy, to a hegemonic political class is not to scrap the State altogether but simply to vote for someone else.

It is also interesting to note the large number of people who are claiming that ‘nothing can be done’ or that ‘voting never changes anything’ are themselves elected representatives.

In those countries where there is a dominance of two major parties, those parties also tend to reflect a wide diversity of views, thus in the United States and Britain there can be as much division within the parties as between them.

The fact that there is a broad consensus on certain key issues, such as the general structure of the economic model, reflects not the imposition or a worldview but the assumption of a worldview shared by the vast majority in those societies."
Candidate 3: "Experience teaches us that if you simply remove the government then those who are currently strong get stronger and those who are weak get destroyed. Tackling issues such as prejudice in the workplace, health and safety, protecting the vulnerable, managing immigration and a million others require not only the involvement of the state but for a government that is actively engaged in countering private interests. To allow the market to run unfettered seems unlikely to protect the rights of the individual but, rather would cede hard fought rights to the rapacious interests of corporations.

Without compulsion by government, it is unlikely that the disadvantaged in society would be paid much heed [i] .

[i] "Libertarianism". Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy"

Experience teaches us that if you simply remove the government then those who are currently strong get stronger and those who are weak get destroyed. Tackling issues such as prejudice in the workplace, health and safety, protecting the vulnerable, managing immigration and a million others require not only the involvement of the state but for a government that is actively engaged in countering private interests. To allow the market to run unfettered seems unlikely to protect the rights of the individual but, rather would cede hard fought rights to the rapacious interests of corporations.

Without compulsion by government, it is unlikely that the disadvantaged in society would be paid much heed [i] .

[i] "Libertarianism". Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
