Libertarianism, Socialism and Humanism
Dean Sayers

Because I have not much space I will take only a short amount of time to discuss the relations and comparable and contrasting elements of these three philosophies. It is important to first state that I refer to the three as they are in their secular being; that is, the image of each doctrine I use will be dialectical and analytic in nature. The ideology will not be associated with the platform a party or person relating to it may have but the platform that logically follows its core principle. I will have to forego a penetrating discussion of the mechanics of the ideas and instead attempt to be concise and broad.

Libertarianism is expressed in the phrase, “You may do what you can until it limits what I can do.” Libertarianism seeks to insure that each person has as many rights as possible; “They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”- B. Franklin.

Socialism seeks to end the exploitation of man, who is argued to have been made into a commodity in the post-primitive states. Socialism seeks to cease the practice of man as a means to an end; man should only be the end. One of it’s tenets is that material wealth is not in itself representative of any rights which may be possessed, but only through it’s usage does it gain power and relevance to society; material as a whole should be used for the lifting up of all men and their rights, not only of those able to make a claim to it as a possession. Private property rights are subsumed for public commodity rights; the essence of material worth as relating to human needs is brought out so that it may be made attainable by all people. Socialist doctrine is represented in the following: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” - Marx.

Humanism is the promotion of man. The end of all its strivings is in the benefit of man himself. Humanism by definition implies a general equity between men, as the supreme goal is the lifting up of the human and his essence, not of any arbitrary or subjective qualities he may have. Humanism can be described as the love of one’s fellow man, as it is expressed biblically: “Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself...” – Leviticus 19:18.

Libertarianism is Humanist, in that it is the allowance for each man to be his own. The ideal is to be free from inhibition, both physically and mentally, as well as one can be without encroaching on other’s rights. One’s ability to make and act upon free decisions is his potency and the condition to be a free man. To be free is also to be equal to another man; it cannot remain true to itself by conceding that a person can be allowed fewer rights than another. The development of the free man’s potency is the final aim (Escape From Freedom ©1941 by Erich Fromm [New York, New York: Avon/Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965], pg. 184).

Socialism is also an inherently Humanist ideal, as its accomplishment is to raise the human above his place as a commodity by ceasing the usage of him as a means to an end, and returning him to his former place as the end for which all labor is done.

It follows that Libertarianism and Socialism are linked, not only in that they are both intrinsically Humanist, but also in that they both seek to insure the greatest degree of freedom for all people. Libertarianism presupposes itself to be Socialist, because rights to property, being rights must also be afforded equally amongst all people: just as people have equal rights in that we may use our potency to do whatever we desire until it limits other’s freedoms, we also have equal commodity rights – not in that all people have the right to possess commodities, but that all people have the right to nourish themselves as far as they need or as far as commodities are available. Under “Capitalistic Libertarianism” a person may be forced to live on another’s land and hence have no choice but to give up certain rights, therefore the Libertarian principle of equal freedom is inapplicable to Capitalism. Under a society governed by Socialist principles, Thoreau would not have been imprisoned. Unless all people are free to possess equal rights to the land, libertarianism can not be said to be practiced in its principled form.

This issue is not only limited to the practice of land possession. Other necessary objects, such as water, food and other natural resources are pertinent to these issues as well. If a state finds itself caught between assuring a person’s right to possessions and the people’s need for whatever commodity they may represent, the contradiction is not in the granting of his rights and the people’s need for the commodity, but in the bloating of his rights and the suffocation of others’.

Interestingly, all three of the discussed philosophies appear to be representative of the same aims as egalitarianism, which is described as “Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people” by the American Heritage Dictionary (© 2000 by Houghton Mifflin [Dictionary.com]). These ideas need not only to be more exhaustively researched and discussed in the open, but to be used to question the rightness of the actions of any power base. We should consider the roles of objectivity, principles and consistency in our lives if we are to have any real understanding of ethics, whether the question of them is purely academic or relevant to the many social realms of our existence.

These ideals may seem complicated and unrealizable, but, contrarily, they are the ideals by which all men’s consciences are governed. When a group works together for a common goal, one feels the urge to give each person a fair share, depending on the amount of effort provided and their needs. This can be seen in tribal societies in which all members give what they can according to their profession and the procured commodities are shared amongst all. Few would knowingly agree that a man should be imprisoned for doing less than infringing on other’s rights. People are interested in their selves, but rationally are aware that it is unethical to allow people to be impoverished when one has wealth; this is responsible for the person’s urge to give to charity and to one’s neighbors and family. Humanism is an indispensable trait of humanness because every one of the cited actions is preceded by a love of one’s fellow man.

Originally 2/24/2004