Libertarianism and political unity

'Libertarianism', the modern-day equivalent of classical liberalism, is the doctrine that advocates individual liberty, free markets, and the minimal state apparatus. Harnessed by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and President Ronald Reagan in the UK and the USA respectively during the 1980s, prevalent ideas concerning the state's role in social and economic affairs underwent a paradigm shift.

That shift was indeed a needed one. The Thatcher/Reagan revolution was not a universally happy one, but did break the lethargic spell of socialism and helped to restore the long-term self-respect and confidence of those two nations. Writing as a Briton, had it not been for Mrs Thatcher's radical programme of privitisation, deregulation and tax cuts, I doubt Messers Blair and Brown would have enjoyed such a rosy economic picture.

Yet I have concerns with libertarian philosophy as a whole - with the central philosophical assumption - the idea that by maximising individual liberty in the economic and social spheres you arrive at man's best possible outcome.

I have two specific objections, both based on the missing notion of unity within libertarian thought:

1. The assumption that wealth disparities don't matter, so long as everyone is getting richer.

2. The tacit assumption that social policy doesn't matter.

1.

I have never heard an adequate libertarian response to the problem of human inequality. We are told that material inequality is unimportant, providing everyone is getting better off. And yet how would a libertarian respond to the problem of 'ghettoisation' and the vast social divides that now afflict Britain and America?

Does this honestly not matter?

I am not going to comment on whether the bottom 20% have made gains or losses over the past 25 years, as my objection lies with the view that the degree of material inequality doesn't matter.

You don't have to be a socialist to appreciate that excessive human inequality produces unhealthy social outcomes.

If national unity is something to be desired then disparities in wealth are clearly detrimental to this sensible political objective. A sense of unity is important for many reasons. It helped the West remain strong during the Cold War. It will help us again in the struggle against religious extremism. But most importantly, a sense of national unity helps to foster national prospertity and a happy people.

Capitalism, in its extreme variant, gives rise to stark inequalities, which undermine the unity I speak of.

The very things libertarians rightly desire - a free, happy self-reliant people - are undermined if all energy is given to the economic imperitive and none to questions of political unity.

This isn't an argument for socialism, or indeed the 'corporatism' of fascist states.

But it is to say that perhaps institutions such as the welfare state, the national minimum wage, and trade union laws help to balance economic dynamism (fuelled by light regulation and a low tax regime) with the basic level of material equality that is needed for a coherent national spirit.

Libertarians have no regard for the lessons of Benjamin Disraeli, the nineteenth century British Prime Minister, who understood the need for 'one nation' policies.

Coming up.... Libertarians and social cohesion.