In their June 9th issue, Newsweek has an article entitled “Is Wal-Mart Too Liberal?“, examining conservative shareholders’ criticisms of Wal-Mart and ilk.
Here’s an excerpt: “…the right-leaning Free Enterprise Action Fund (FEAF), a tiny libertarian mutual fund, filed resolutions with 20 companies this spring, including Wal-Mart. Most of the FEAF resolutions argue that companies should be more skeptical and resistant as environmentalists push them to reduce their carbon footprint.”
It’s been about ten years since then-friend-now-ex-boyfriend Kevin Gaughen first got me thinking critically about politics, and, in doing so, inculcated in me some pretty strong libertarian leanings. I’m no longer a Libertarian (with a big L) in any sense, although I still have some attachment — perhaps mostly sentimental — to the libertarian (little l) ideals. I think actions like what’s reported above are a big part of why I’ve abandoned the big L.
In my mind, one of the foundations of the libertarian philosophy is the belief that individuals and companies can be more effective and efficient than government in addressing a wide range of issues. For me, Libertarianism was appealing because it included room to be voluntarily compassionate and responsible, without, as Rand would put it, the threat of a gun. But organizations like the FEAF, at least as Newsweek casts them, aren’t arguing against government forcing companies to be greener, they’re apparently against the greening itself, and maybe even against Wal-Mart offering better benefits to low-wage workers.
I thought libertarianism was about opposing government mandates, not opposing voluntary social responsibility.
I think the example you cite provides an excellent example of the fundamental flaw of Libertarianism — it’s an incomplete philosophy. Under Libertarianism, individuals have the freedom to do whatever they please, provided they do not interfere with the freedom of others, with the government present only to resolve disputes that might occur (and possibly to provide a national defense). And don’t get me wrong, I’m a staunch supporter of personal liberties. Outside of love, there’s nothing worth fighting for and defending more than freedom.
The problem with Libertarianism isn’t what it is — it’s what it lacks. It has no moral compass. It has no sense of broader purpose. And aside from individual freedom, it values nothing, regardless of the consequences. It’s true that Libertarianism allows “room to be voluntarily compassionate and responsible,” but it equally accepts uncompassionate and destructive behavior. So, even as climate change threatens to destroy the planet, a group like FEAF can continue to promote is sole, self-stated goal of increasing profits for companies and shareholders under the banner of Libertarianism.
That isn’t to say I recommend completely abandoning Libertarianism because I believe it can serve as a strong foundation for a greater philosophy. And yes, that philosophy might mean involving the government in some solutions to our shared problems. Republicans and pure Libertarians cry about the need for less government, and I agree that in many cases this is a good thing, especially in terms of protecting personal liberties (the funny thing is that Republicans often seem willing to allow the government to interfere in these areas — except when it comes to guns, of course — but I digress). But the government also can do positive things when harnessed to achieve common goals that we, as a society, decide are important. For example, although both involve intervention, there’s a big distinction (one I feel is ignored too often) between the case of the government infringing on my right to speak freely and the case of the government helping to ensure that all of our residents have access to affordable health insurance.
I started my political life as a Republican, evolved into a Libertarian and now have become something else … I’m not sure it even has a name. But my philosophy seeks to have a nation in which elections and governance turn on the excellence of ideas, rather than money from powerful interests. It seeks to begin to bridge the many divides that cut across the nation — and the world — by encouraging a new understanding and respect for the role all segments of our society, a development that might allow us to forge a true social compact. And it seeks a recommitment to freedom to help protect and promote the development of our nation and all of its residents, with Libertarianism as its bedrock.
In the end, Libertarianism is a lot like me. It’s not inherently bad; it’s just missing a little direction and needs a complement to work properly.