EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
The Bulgarian libertarian movement has been gaining serious popularity in recent years. This seems to be unpopular with a certain part of society, as a number of articles have appeared in the past few months that directly attack both the entire philosophy and the personalities of specific libertarians. These comments – intentionally malicious or not – are often related to emotional reactions to a given position, from which erroneous generalizations are made. Therefore, in this text we will try to dispel some of the common myths and misconceptions related to Bulgarian libertarianism:
Misconception 1: "If one libertarian said it, then all libertarians are like that"
Libertarians in Bulgaria – and in principle – are not a sect. Among the libertarian community, both among the members of the organization Bulgarian Libertarian Society and those who are not members of it, there are quite a few differences on a number of issues. The same is true among the followers of these ideas around the world.
What unites most libertarians is a very simple and straightforward idea: personal freedom is the highest human right and everyone must take personal responsibility for their own actions. This is where the principles of distrust of state institutions and other monopolistic regulatory bodies that interfere in the personal lives of each of us and tell us how many chips to eat, how to educate our child, or how noisy a vacuum cleaner we can use come from.
Thus, libertarians are united by a simple principle: Everyone should be free to decide their own fate, as long as they do not violate the life, health, and property of other people. From here, countless differences logically follow. One person may think eating chips is wonderful, another may think it is harmful, and a third may not care at all. All of these people are libertarians, as long as they do not want to impose their own views on others by force through state regulatory bodies. Apply the same principle about “chips” to the negative attitude towards driving diesel cars, teaching Turkish in schools, or using animals for medical purposes. All of us libertarians may have different points of view on these issues, but none of us wants to impose our own subjective point of view on everyone else by force, but would rather strive to convince others of our rightness voluntarily.
The approach to these issues is different for another reason too – the libertarian movement as such unites several more narrowly specialized political movements. In Bulgaria, libertarians are called people with anarcho-capitalist principles, those who like minarchism and classical liberals, as well as many people who may have more centrist political views, but economically follow the philosophy of the Austrian School of Economics. More on this below, however.
Misconception 2: Libertarians are fascists (Nazis, alt-right, etc. )
Here the fallacy is probably justified by the long-standing communist propaganda in Bulgaria, which presented Hitler's fascism and National Socialism as some kind of alternative to Stalin's communism. What the majority of libertarians try to explain and for which they receive criticism from the Bulgarian political class is that there is no essential difference between National Socialism and... Stalin's International Socialism. Both ideologies are equally evil, equally inhumane and equally centralizing all power in the hands of the state.
Cultural opposition to progressive ideas about quotas for women, quotas for minorities, and so on (“affirmative action”) is not fascism. The basic idea that libertarians stand behind – the most ardent defender of which is the black American intellectual Thomas Sowell – is that such policies actually harm minorities or historically oppressed groups, deepen this inequality, and promote the topic of sexism or racism without it being really relevant. The fundamental idea is that a person should be valued solely on the basis of their personal skills and qualities, regardless of their gender, race, sexual orientation, etc., and should not receive either advantages or disadvantages based on these qualities. This is the opposite of fascism.
Misconception 3: Libertarians want to shut down the government immediately
As discussed above, libertarianism unites at least three slightly different political concepts: anarcho-capitalism, minarchism, and classical liberalism. What does each of them mean and what do their proponents aim for?
We start with the one that is closest to our present-day life and we can approximately find a somewhat more serious number of representatives in the world who profess it: classical liberalism. Libertarians – classical liberals do not want to close the state. For them, it is an important element that can ensure the protection of the values of the free society that we strive to create. However, the idea of the state is limited to these functions: protection of private property, protection of the community from external enemies, ensuring equality and a fair trial (which are also the functions of the state for the “minarchists”) – but also small interventions in other spheres of life, related to infrastructure, education, social security, culture, nature conservation and the like.
However, all this should happen as a last resort, if the potential of private initiative has been exhausted – and not as a leading state policy. The current situation is that the state takes care of roads 100%, environmental protection 100% and education 99%. These are perhaps the most problematic sectors in Bulgaria and for classical liberals it is obvious that it is ridiculous to expand the power of the state in these areas and that countries that are much freer in the economic sphere, such as Switzerland, New Zealand or Ireland, have more success both in business and in protecting their environment or the standard of living of people.
For minarchists, the state should be limited to police, courts, and the army. Public funds (i.e., taxes) should be used only for these three things, to ensure the protection of society from external enemies, from internal contradictions, and to have a secure way to resolve disputes between individuals. The state is legitimate here too and has legislative power, but it should not interfere in people's private lives or in their economic decisions.
Anarcho-capitalists are those who believe that the state is illegitimate. Their main thesis is that taxes are an illegitimate seizure of property by force, i.e. aggression. Something that is unacceptable from a libertarian point of view. For the anarcho-capitalist, the state is an institution that supposedly protects the property rights of citizens by systematically violating these very property rights, which is a complete contradiction for him.
Another key thesis of the anarcho-capitalists is that not everyone agrees with everything the state decides – how much money to allocate to healthcare, whether marijuana should be banned, or whether to rebuild a new, crumbling National Gallery with millions of leva.
Besides not everyone agreeing – it is impossible for all people to agree on all issues. It is impossible to manage common property, because the “owners” are too many and have too many different ideas, so everything must be privately owned (both by individuals and by associations, companies, etc. – for example, 1000 people can own a park). Disputes will be resolved by private courts, everyone will protect their property with private security guards (instead of a state-funded police force), and “laws” will be formed from natural rights that vary according to culture.
The most important thing for our topic is that all these people (classical liberals, minarchists, anarcho-capitalists) think in the same direction: the state today interferes too much in the decisions of individuals, both in terms of personal life and in the economy. This is what unites libertarians, but this does not mean that all libertarians are anarchists and want revolution and the closure of the state.
Misconception 4: Libertarians are Russophiles
One of the most stupid misconceptions is the idea that libertarians are Russophiles (or, to be more correct, "Putinophiles"). The absurdity of this myth is easily refuted. On the one hand, the idea is fueled by the position of some American libertarians in relation to the war in Syria. However, the thesis of American libertarians is completely different from the Bulgarian context: for them, US intervention in the Middle East is an unnecessary waste of tax money on a problem that does not concern the American taxpayer and creates additional problems in a desert far from home.
However, we are in Bulgaria. On the one hand, for us, aggressive Russian foreign policy could be a much more serious (and difficult to overcome) problem than for the US. From this point of view, we are much more sensitive to the topic. The situation is similar with many libertarians in Central and Eastern Europe. You will hardly find a libertarian who supports Putin's policy.
But this does not mean that the alternative – the aggressive foreign policy of the US – should be automatically supported. Criticism of the foreign policy of the US – or including the policy of the entire NATO, or the EU – against Russia is a right that all of us in the liberal democratic world actually have the right to exercise. An interesting debate, for example, was sparked by the topic of economic sanctions related to the Russian occupation of Crimea. And if for some libertarians they do not have a good effect, since they do not harm the Russian political class and the main culprits of the aggression in Ukraine, but only ordinary Russian citizens; for others they are simply insufficient, and the West should have responded to force with force. A libertarian does not mean a pacifist (By the way, it does not mean a militarist either. See point 1).
Misconception 5: Libertarians are GERB-ers
In recent months, the Bulgarian Libertarian Society and the EKIP website have been full of criticism of the ruling government – positions on health policy, restrictions on cash payments or other proposals of the Ministry of Finance and the government as a whole. Over the years, the BLO has organized a dozen protests, demonstrations and actions – in direct opposition to the policies coming from the GERB majorities (the last such protest was in September). There are dozens of articles and media appearances with similar content.
Libertarians have taken a firm stance against any form of centralization and nationalization over the past 4 years, whether they were made by a government in power, a government in resignation, during an election campaign, or by interim rulers. A chance for a broader commentary on more political forces (the main criticisms in history have been towards GERB, since they have ruled the longest in recent years) could have been made especially during the election campaign, where it can again be noticed that every idea for increasing state power and more political regulation of our lives was criticized – no matter who uttered it.
So, the absurdity of this myth that libertarians (and the BLO organization in particular) have political biases towards GERB is obvious. Of course, this does not mean that some libertarians do not have preferences for one or another political formation or a specific politician. Libertarians, however, are often politically and civically active people. Many of them have their own political preferences, which, however, are personal – libertarians are both people who consider voting to be a meaningless act, and those who have actively participated in political campaigns.
Misconception 6: Libertarians are Sorosoids
The meaning of the term “Sorosoids” is not entirely clear, judging by how indiscriminately it is thrown around, but let’s say it refers to organizations affiliated with the Open Society Institute. It is mainly used by far-right or left-wing fringe elements, heavily influenced by Russian propaganda. As long as libertarians have no common ground with Putin’s politics or nationalists, there is some validity.
At the same time, the majority of libertarians are quite skeptical of the activities of organizations such as the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, which are one of the main lobbyists in support of the "positive discrimination" policies we discussed above. Because such policies represent direct interference by the state in relations between citizens - freedom of association (i.e. the right to "discriminate" against people you do not want to communicate with, work with, or do business with) is a fundamental principle of libertarianism. Not to mention that far from eliminating any inequality, such policies actually artificially create it, effectively legally privileging some social groups over others.
Let me reiterate – this does not mean that libertarians have anything against Roma, homosexuals or prisoners. In fact, there are many people among libertarians who work actively and dedicatedly in causes related to improving the lives of these disadvantaged groups. The libertarian position is simply that we should work with people, not through political tools, banning words that can be interpreted as offensive specifically to this or that group, and imposing politically correct speech.
Misconception 7: Libertarians are fans of Donald Trump
The reason for this misconception is that almost all Bulgarian libertarians criticized Hillary Clinton more than Donald Trump during the 2016 US presidential campaign. And there are clear reasons for this - at the very least, the billionaire's campaign rhetoric included good positions on tax policy, regulatory policy, and healthcare.
At the same time, since Bulgarian libertarians have an affinity for American politics, they did not see in Trump the threat to Bulgaria and Eastern Europe that other people saw. And they turned out to be right – NATO is becoming stronger and more aggressive in Eastern Europe, and Trump and his administration hold quite categorically anti-Putin positions. In fact, from criticisms of “Trump is a friend of Russia” months ago, now the main position of the progressive left is that Trump is too aggressive in foreign policy (behavior in North Korea, for example) and will lead us to World War III.
But libertarians around the world – and in Bulgaria – can’t possibly fully like what Trump and his administration have proposed. He’s been criticized enough for his protectionism, his debt increase, and of course, his rollback of some of the better policies he promised during the campaign.
These positions are not absolute and do not apply to every libertarian. In fact, the main difference between mainstream analysts and mass libertarians is that the latter do not see the world in “black” and “white”. They believe that Donald Trump and his administration are not necessarily the greatest evil in the world and that every breath they take is not an irreversible step towards the destruction of the world, but that they have both good and bad policies.
Misconception 8: Libertarians hate the poor/sick/orphans/retirees and want to leave them in misery
The libertarian view of social policy is focused primarily on the voluntary element. No one (including the wealthiest) should be forced to pay for the support of the socially disadvantaged, those in difficult circumstances, or those who have made bad decisions and have not provided for their old age.
At the same time , libertarians are aware that for a society to function normally, it must have social systems. A better and fairer social policy in the eyes of a libertarian is one related to small communities, voluntary charity, the church or non-religious charitable organizations, mutual aid societies, insurance, and others - as the Bulgarian social system actually functioned to a large extent before September 9th.
In short, libertarians don't believe that the poor, the hungry, the marginalized (the Roma, for example), or the retired shouldn't receive aid. They simply believe that this aid should come voluntarily, not be a forcible expropriation from the rest of the citizens.
Libertarians believe that when this assistance comes from the state (i.e. from politicians with the money of their fellow citizens and neighbors), these people become politically dependent and are used when needed by the parties.
Misconception 9: Libertarians are poor inexperienced teenagers/rich sons who don't understand the consequences of their actions
The fact is that the psychological profile of libertarians often includes systematic logical thinking, typical of people with interests in natural sciences, programming and IT. Libertarians are often freedom-loving contrarians (people who stand against the prevailing opinion) turned entrepreneurs . Or economists who came to philosophy because of the serious role of the market in it.
At the same time, among libertarians there are people of all ages, genders, social backgrounds, sexuality, experience, professions, etc. There are libertarians who have stable careers, those with families, people with their own businesses, people who work in the non-governmental sector and are involved in art, ecology, culture, education, charity, etc. It is difficult to make generalizations, but perhaps the most accurate summary is that the majority of libertarians take care of themselves or their families and have enough life experience to know which action leads to which consequences.
The real political messages that libertarians send - through protests, official positions in discussions of laws, media appearances, etc. - are based mostly on the experience of proven economists and philosophers, as well as on their actual application in countries where economic freedom is at a higher level than in Bulgaria today.
Misconception 10: Libertarians protect big business and corporations, and don't care about workers
The principled position of libertarians is to defend free exchange. In this context, the right of workers and employers to negotiate without a third party monopolist of violence exerting influence in any direction of the transaction.
Will certain businesses demand privileges from the state – so-called “corporate welfare benefits”, protection from competition through trade protectionism and artificial barriers to entry into the relevant market. Or will politically empowered unions push for administratively determined wages, high social security benefits and regulated working hours? There is no difference for the libertarian.
To be pro-market means to defend the competition and meritocracy that come from the free choices that all participants in market exchange make. And those who make those choices should bear the full brunt of both the positives and the negatives, without political patronage. The principle that libertarians defend in this regard is "private gains, private losses," not "private gains, socialized losses," as happens when the state provides patronage to this or that business.
