Ive recently been engaged in political discussions with some friends who practice Nichiren Buddhism, in particular about matters pertaining to libertarian ideas. Its been interesting, both in terms of how poorly understood the basics of libertarianism are by some folks, and by the failure to see the (what I believe to be) essential connection between Buddhist and libertarian principles and ideas.
According to Charles Murray (What It Means to Be a Libertarian, Broadway Books, 1997):
The American Founders created a society based on the belief that human happiness is intimately connected with personal freedom and responsibility. The twin pillars of the system they created were limits on the power of the central government and protection of individual rights. . . . A few people, of whom I am one, think that the Founders insights are as true today as they were two centuries ago. We believe that human happiness requires freedom and that freedom requires limited government.
The correct word for my view of the world is liberal. Liberal is the simplest anglicization of the Latin liber, and freedom is what classical liberalism is all about. The writers of the nineteenth century who expounded on this view were called liberals. In Continental Europe they still are. . . . But words mean what people think they mean, and in the United States the unmodified term liberal now refers to the politics of an expansive government and the welfare state. The contemporary alternative is libertarian. . . .
Libertarianism is a vision of how people should be able to live their lives-as individuals, striving to realize the best they have within them; together, cooperating for the common good without compulsion. It is a vision of how people may endow their lives with meaning - living according to their deepest beliefs and taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
It is this vision, so nicely described by Mr. Murray, that makes so much sense to me; it is this vision that explains why I consider myself to be both a libertarian and a Buddhist. Indeed, it is this vision which explains why I cannot imagine being the latter without also being the former.
Of course I understand the pitfalls of a pure libertarian approach in terms of humanistic concerns. If anyone has read Ayn Rand, arguably the Great Mom of modern libertarian thinking (although you will get a LOT of argument from folks like Rothbard, Murray and some others), one will understand how her objectivist philosophy tends to look pretty chilly and almost entirely devoid of compassion (intentionally so, according to Rand herself). But I see something beyond that, as I think that we as Buddhists can and should.
Murrays notion above of taking responsibility for the consequences of our actions is pure Buddhism 101. I submit that, if Buddhists are to engage in the public arena, and in politics in particular - which I believe that we, as responsible citizens and as Boddhisattvas of the Earth are obliged to do then we should do so with a clear understanding of our own responsibilities and how best to interact with others. I believe that Buddhism 101 plus Libertarianism 101 is the perfect combination of a philosophy for enabling that engagement. David Boaz wrote (Libertarianism: A Primer, Free Press 1997):
Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property - rights that people have naturally, before governments are created. In the libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force - actions like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud.
If thats not Buddhist, I dont know what is.
And for all you synchronicity fans in the audience, consider this. Buddhism emerged on this planet about 2,500 years ago, give or take a few centuries (depending on who you ask and whos counting) in India. It traveled west to east over the centuries, diminished, evolved, reemerged, and finally (according to we Nichiren Buddhists) was revitalized in medieval Japan, where it sat for the next bunch of centuries, ready but not growing much.
The principles of liberty as a basis for government (democracy) emerged about 2,500 years ago, give or take a few centuries, in Greece, where democracy had a brief Golden Age and then imploded, to meander east to west through various experiments, evolutions, repressions and so forth, to begin a revitalization in medieval England, finding expression in the Magna Carta and in English common law.
You know the rest of the story. Democracy, in its most exuberant classical liberal (libertarian) form, took hold in the New World and a nation was born based on the principles of life and liberty and individual responsibility. Belligerent at times, to be sure (Dont Tread on Me), but vibrant and vital. Jump forward to the end of the repressive regime in Japan that had prevented the teachings of Nichiren Buddhism to be widely spread and taught. Liberty ended that regime and it was the injection of liberty into that society that enabled this Buddhism to emerge from it and begin to spread. All of us today are able to learn about and practice this Buddhism because liberty met it, and it was good.
Coincidence?
While we await derogatory comments from my modern liberal friends, you can read some other definitions, and find some good information about libertarianism in general, here:
http://www.theihs.org/subcategory.php/44.html
Comments
Excellent blog. I have voted Libertarian for many years. Understanding the principle of something, beyond it's mere fashion, or appeal, is very difficult. I am also a member of the NRA, a membership which I have always felt uncomfortable with. NRA members tend to also be people who want the right to own guns because they love guns. There again is the fashion of the thing, the appeal.
Those who wish peace and hate guns tend to vote to remove the right to own and carry guns. Fashion, not principle. I fear for this Country's basic freedoms and rights. We make decisions based on our own likes and dislikes instead of principles which we understand, uphold and defend.
Libertariansim is truly based on those principles.
Rev. Greg
Thanks, Greg. I am also a member of the National Rifle Association, and for the same reasons (I believe) as you. I have owned guns in the past, and enjoyed shooting from time to time, but I am no hunter, and I do not currently own a gun nor do I particularly wish to. My wife is uncomfortable with them around, and I feel quite secure where we live.
However, I understand exactly why the Framers wrote that right into the Constitution (and it was not to protect the right to shoot a duck once a year). While I do not agree with everything the NRA supports and carries on about, the right to keep and bear arms is so foundational to who we are and to liberty itself that I feel almost obligated to support the main group fighting the barbarians at the gates, in this regard.
Show me a country that has had a free and armed populace that has been successfully taken over by its own government and I'll consider changing my mind. (Actually, I probably would not, even if such an exception existed.)
Cheers!
Andy
Andy,
The sentiments you ascribe to Libertarianism are held in common with every other party in the USA. Your quotes could have been the preamble to the Democratic, Republican, Green and who knows what other parties you want to think of. The difference of course lay in the policy prescriptions imagined by all parties to get us to that place where every individual can enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
One of my favorite quotes is from David Brin: "We should never forget that we are members of a civilization". That civilization brings many marvels of technology and an unparalleled standard of living for the maximum number of people. And, there are membership dues. The instrument of communication you use (the internet) to proclaim your Libertarianism was created by taxpayer dollars. The resources you used to purchase the computer you typed this on comes to you via a financial system created and maintained by collective authority of the people expressed through the people's instrument, the government. The transportation system you used to bring the computer home was placed there by the collective action of your entire community known as your government. With the exception of any stray arts and crafts you may have acquired from individual artisans, every single thing you possess and use to protect, feed and clothe you and your family comes to you via the organized collective action of that artificial creation of the government: the corporation. This infrastructure is not, and should not be, free. It requires your taxes and your active civic participation.
The framers of the Constitution envisioned a Government by the people, of the people, and for the people. The notion that only a puny, emasculated government will suffice in getting us near that individual's level of liberty is simply an argument that the framers of the Constitution failed.
In practical terms, one can uphold the principles of individual liberty better with the efficient utilization of government to better the lives of it's people. Many tasks that are necessary to achieve maximum benefit for maximum number of people are best done collectively. The common defense. Economic infrastructure. The efficient and fair policing of the marketplace, so that people have enough trust to engage in commerce with each other. Providing for the general welfare -- extremely important, for if there is no safety net, our own liberties will be curtailed simply by virtue of a large % of the populace in desperation for survival.
Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party shows no understanding of virtually any of this. Nor does it show any understanding that oppression does not merely come at the hands of government, nor does the power to rule over people. Throughout American history the struggle goes on between powerful economic elites and the (hopefully) equally powerful democratic political system. That creative tension has built the greatest economic power in the history of mankind and allowed the largest number of people to live lives with a great amount of personal liberty. Libertarianism snaps that tension by removing one side of the balance, allowing economic elites to run roughshod against those with fewer resources. That's not the American way and even more so, that's not the Buddhist way.
My two cents.
Kind Regards,
Richard
Andy,
I completely agree with you and the others on this comments page -- with the exception of Richard, of course, who is completely wrong and apparently diluted on the concept coercion - particularly how it applies to politics.
Libertarian sentiments cannot be Authoritarians (be they Republicrat, Green, or any other shade of socialist). Let's not forget that the "policy prescriptions" presently employed by both sides of the one ruling party call for forcible theft and fraud as a means of achieving allegedly noble ends.
All of the technological advances that Richard mentions were developed by individuals seeking to benefit others (for some profit or livelihood). The internet started with colleges (and the military sadly) until private entrepreneurs marketed it. The resources needed to purchase my computer came from what I could prevent the government from stealing (and debasing via a fraudulent fiat currency scheme imposed by force upon the citizenry). The roads (the infrastructure Richard refers to) were built by people, not governments. The highway system government did demand and steal the money to foist on people, led to where no demand wanted to go, and now is blamed for "suburban sprawl."
In the 20th Century alone, some 170 million people have been murdered by their own government. To paraphrase Richard, "in practical terms, one CANNOT uphold the principles of individual liberty by utilizing government." The general welfare clause was never meant to be a sanction for theft. It meant government could not take action to benefit one segment of the people over another (as taxation and other forms of federal tyranny have done ever since) - it meant the general welfare of all.
If Richard really looked at it, he would see that the struggle between economic elites has been about controlling the government, because then you can control the only organization with the "legal" right to steal, kill and defraud. And to this day, those who desire to steal, kill and defraud, seek the power of our "extra-constitutional" federal government.
Perhaps my only qualm with Andy's post is equating Ayn Rand with "pure" libertarianism. I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged quite a bit - but I've never thought of her as "the Great Mom of modern libertarian thinking." Personally, I'd much prefer Dr. Mary Ruwart (http://www.ruwart.com) :)
On a more personal note, I don't know what the "standard" order is, if there is one. But I actually "discovered" Buddhism as a result of my libertarian, anti-authoritarian readings and learnings. And it has appealed to me for the very reasons of you mention - the belief that the initiation of force (or threat of force) to coerce others - is wrong.
No other political philosophy today can make that claim. DemReps, Greens and all believe that stealing money from your neighbor - for a good cause - is proper and good. That it teaches an underlying and inherent disrespect for the life, liberty and property of others is irrelevant to them (though some will talk of a "moral breakdown" in America without batting an eye over their inclinations toward theft and fraud).
Christians who otherwise believe murder and theft are wrong, yet support government theft and murder have always been a small mystery to me. Somehow it seems almost more mystifying coming from a Buddhist.
"The state represents violence in a concentrated and organized form." - Gandhi
In the end, no good has ever come from government - and never will. Ultimately it will be about what it has always been about: people being enlightened. Today, only Buddhism and Libertarianism seem to be attempting to do that.
C
Well, Ayn Rand was my intro to libertarianism, but I soon came to prefer the more philosophically sophisticated approach of von Hayek. - Brian
Andy,
I also agree with you. Recently I spoke with some students from Nepal. They told me they were so suprised at how "un free" we were here in the US.
I think perhaps we should hold our politicians as accountable as we would hold ourselves, or atleast as much as we try to hold SGI accountable.