I think that there is much to disagree with concerning particular beliefs in the broad category of libertarianism — for example, I probably disagree with a large percentage of libertarians on moral philosophy —, but the disagreements that George Monbiot raises show a lack of critical reasoning and comprehension of the broad libertarian world view. Apparently, Monbiot believes that libertarians ought to revert to being modern progressive liberals, because this is what he thought libertarianism was about all along. His superficial analysis, though, shows more than a misunderstanding of libertarianism: a lack of understanding of the events that surround him.

The broad theme in his opinion piece is that “right wing” libertarians are willing to throw the “99-percent” under the bus, in favor of greed and the wealthy. He points to the rejection of social welfare policies and regulations as evidence of misguided advocacy. But, in the midst of his tirade, Monbiot fails to acknowledge the existence of much more powerful forces of social distortion: collusion between the wealthy and the government. By accepting only the superficial analysis, he fails to recognize the possibility of a much deeper cause between the rise of the “1-percent” and the apparent stagnation of the “99.”

This collusion does not only exist in the most obvious form, corporate welfare, but has subtle manifestations throughout the economy. Note, for instance, that he blames a lack of regulation for the recent financial crisis. The fact of the matter is that where the crisis originates is in one of the most heavily regulated areas of banking: capital reserves and the types of assets invested into. To control this, governments created rules that included the American recourse rule and the European Basel accords, now which have been “strengthened” as a result of the recent crisis. No less, note that the financial losses during the crisis were heavily concentrated amongst investment banks (eliminating the myth that the supposed “repeal” of the Glass–Steagall Act had anything to do with anything). Of course, few point the fingers at the gradually changing currency system — from gold backed to fiat — or whatever public–private collusion may exist, through, just a few examples, corporate laws, the Federal Reserve, and government promises.

What libertarians emphasize is the historical breakdown of the “rules of the game,” for lack of a better term, of the division of labor (for one quick example, consider the “rules” or relationships that govern an unregulated banking system). This breakdown occurs because of the misuse of power by the State. It’s also worth consideration, as illustrated in the banking example, that oftentimes the rules are distorted or eliminated gradually. One intervention leads to another, because it’s found that the intervention has unintended consequences. Banking offers the perfect example, because this describes the evolution of the American banking system following the American Civil War. It also leads us straight to the recent financial crisis, where it was capital regulations that drove the concentration of investment into mortgage backed assets. So, yes, libertarians have reason to doubt regulation, especially when they consider the rules of a free market much more robust, in general (there may be exceptions, like the fair distribution of justice — but, what is “fair” must be defined), to those of the State.

Note, libertarians don’t suggest that the market is a utopia; usually, free-market economists like to emphasize the concept of a market process, that gradually evolves, providing society with evolving, or progressing, market and social institutions. This includes institutions like those of law and justice (see, for instance, the works of David Hume and his rejection of Locke’s natural law). But, to admit that the market isn’t a utopia is not to admit that the State can provide that utopia. It’s only to recognize that the market process generally leads to superior results to alternative processes, like that of the evolution of political institutions. In fact, to many libertarians, preference for markets shows a rejection of utopia (this isn’t true for all libertarians).

Monbiot is right, though, to reject the simplistic delineation of freedom that many libertarians have accepted. What is freedom and what is right is ultimately a question that can only be answered subjectively; i.e. it’s a mater of preference. Ideology shouldn’t be chosen on the subjective, because that leaves room for disagreement and conflict over preferences. Rather, political ideology should be chosen with regards to what processes better cope with the intrinsic subjective nature of human preferences and ideals. This idea, I’d like to think, is behind the Hayekian concept of “spontaneous order.” It’s the individual’s drive to attain ends that ultimately overcomes disagreement, stimulating cooperation over conflict. This is what libertarianism is about.

No, libertarians do not protect the “rights” of the greedy, in the sense that Monbiot accuses them. Libertarians only want to return to a process of social evolution that allows for the emergence of restraining relationships (which necessarily reduce freedom, in at least some sense), and discard the misguided artificial restraints of the State, which have historically shown not only to be inadequate but also to be most favorable to the “1-percent.” I admit that all of this is presented as self-evident, as if refusing to acknowledge room for debate. This isn’t my intention. Please, debate — criticism and the surfacing of error is what drives scientific discovery —, but debate the right ideas.