Was Gandhi a Libertarian?

Economics Political Theory
, , , ,
1

I am an objectivist and hence my philosophical base is Individualism.

Recently, one of my friend raised an issue on Mahatma Gandhi, by terming him as a Libertarian. I found it wrong and infact disturbing and I opposed him, but my friend stated that Gandhi supported the idea of “Organized Anarachy”.

I have alreay mentioned that I am an objectivist, I am a fan of Ayn Rand, but I consider myself as Anarcho_capitalist too, Obviously for me, “Capitalist” of anarchocapitalism is more important than Anarchy of anarcho-capitalism.

Gandhi can surely be called as Miniarchist (not in randian sense) because he opposed central government control. Yet he was not anarchist in the sense of Anarcho-capitalists. His basic aim was providing an organized anarchy by means of Miniarchial socialism, by means of Trusteeship.

In His own words,

I am inviting those people who consider themselves as owners today to act as trustees, i.e., owners, not in their own right, but owners in the right of those whom they have exploited.
Supposing I have come by a fair amount of wealth—either by way of legacy, or by means of trade and industry—I must know that all that wealth does not belong to me; what belongs to me is the right to an honourable livelihood, no better than that enjoyed by millions of others. The rest of my wealth belongs to the community and must be used for the welfare of the community. --Mahatma Gandhi!

As I am an Objectivist and an opponent of collectivism, hence I cannot take the idea of Gandhi being termed as Libertarian easily. If Mahatma Gandhi was Libertarian, than it means that

Radical Egalitarianism is a Libertarian Concept.

Collectivism is a Libertarian Concept.

Racism is a Libertarian concept.

Communism and socialism are Libertarian concept.

And my friend actually ignored all this just because somehow, gandhi supported the idea that State is Violent in nature hence anarchy is the proper Non-violent state.

I wrote about it here–Was Gandhi a Libertarian?

My question is, "for libertarians, is anarchy alone the major concept of interest? Will they be ready to sacrifice the principles of Individualism, Natural Rights, Capitalism, Individual sovereignty and Self-Dependence if they somehow establishes Anarchy?

Or, is Socialism/communism possible in a state of Anarchy such as the Utopian one dreamed by Gandhi, the RamRajya, where Gandhi openly invited every one to accept Trusteeship.

Will Libertarians agree for an anarchist society that claims that each member should work to his maximum potential but should take Only according to his minimal needs? And if someone declines to accept that criteria, he will be banished from that community “Peacefully”?

Is principle of Non-Aggression and Anarchy so important for Libertarians that they would accept such community welfare motivated terms? Will Anarcho-capitalists agree to accept anarcho-communism just because it is also anarchic?

2

Libertarianism is the opposite of collectivism.

I mean, it basically says, “thou shalt not initiate aggression against thy neighbor.” i.e, don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t rape, don’t enslave.

And on the other side of the libertarian coin is ‘private property rights’.

Even if a collectivist society formed out of anarchy (post-fall of government), I would still fight that. I mean, that is to say,.. hmm.. Anarchy=Voluntary society. So whatever society forms, it must be a voluntary one, one must not be forced into it. Otherwise, it’s just coercion. And I’d fight it. Because to me, it is wrong. I would not give up my individualism, my self-ownership, or my “right” to keep what I make by the sweat of my brow.

To make this a bit cliche (for the mises forum and certain people), here is a quote by Rothbard that might be relevent: “Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism.”

I don’t know if this answers your question? Because I answered from my view point, my own subjective preference, and no one elses. I can’t speak for my fellow libertarians.

[edit] Just an opinion here, mind you, but… I always thought Ghandi was a bit of a ass.

3

Well I made a case for Gandhis method on fighting an aggressor and how the biggest reason why people hate Gandhi is because of the statist brainwashing where state solves all its problems using violence but then teaches its kids in public school to use non-violent methods to solve their own private disputes(the two people replied on this post before me have already called Gandhi names, that proves my point)

We all agree that using violence against state is futile, and it will never really work, but then using peaceful non-violent methods on a rapist won’t work equally. So the principle I came up with where the Gandhian pacifism and libertarian non-initiation of aggression both fits together is:

If the aggressor’s right and wrong are twisted around, his polarities are reversed, if what you consider right is wrong for them, and what you consider is wrong is right for them, then there is no way you could win against them by responding to their aggression with more aggression.

http://www.reasonforliberty.com/inspiration/was-gandhi-a-libertarian.html

4

why?

5

I answer for myself, and that is the answer to your question. I will not initiate violence. If you do, I will forgive you once maybe twice even it becomes my choice at this point. If you keep violating me, you become an enemy, if I can crush you now I will, if I can’t I’ll work on it.

That wasn’t meant personally to you, just meant to show the difference between pacifism and libertarianism with regards to violence.

6

Gandhi was economically illiterate! For that he should be prosecuted and convicted for intellectual negligence.

His “pacifist” philosophy is not compatible with the Libertarian non-aggression principle and so his type of Anarchy should never be confused with Anarcho-Capitalism. Anarcho-Capitalism assumes no pacifism, but simply dismantles the State’s monopoly on law and defense and hands them over to the market place.

7

DD5

Gandhi did not support state’s monopoly in law, I am sorry but this is your ignorance about Gandhi, as I said a lot more people(especially with right wing backgaround) hate Gandhi because of Cognitive Dissonance.

Gandhi supported(and by that I mean as much as Hoppe supports Anarchist society and private production of defense), a system of third part arbitration called as ‘Panchayat’, it does exist in India now but has been completely ruined by the Government interference.

In Panchayat system any dispute(legal or otherwise) was solved in the village by picking up a common arbitrator, the enforcement of punishment was done by ostracization, which was a really strong and effective method.

http://www.reasonforliberty.com/ethics/third-party-arbitration-in-india.html

8

No, those are anti-individualistic, thus anti-libertarian.

Gandhi can be considered a left-libertarian, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhism

9

Andrew Carnegie also had similar philanthropic sentiments–and I doubt that anybody on this forum would say that Carnegie was anti-capitalist. Ghandi was simply expressing his opinion: love thy neighbor as thyself, he who has two coats must share with him who has none, we are all in this together, etc. You’ll notice that he used himself as an example, saying that is what he would do, and that is what he would “invite” others to do–not that they should be forced to do it. Ghandi, after all, was a pacifist, not somebody who would throw you in jail for tax evasion!

Mohandas K. Ghandi, in my opinion, was perhaps one of the greatest libertarians who ever lived.

10

I appreciate his ‘invitation’ but I’m not getting aboard that boat

11

The best description of Ghandi is as a Tolstoyean. His political beliefs are best understood in context of The Kingdom of God is Within You, and Leo Tolstoy’s political philosophy.

12

  1. Libertarianism has different meanings, particularly outside the ; double check to see if he meant “libertarian” in the common usage of the word.

  2. My question is, "for libertarians, is anarchy alone the major concept of interest? Will they be ready to sacrifice the principles of Individualism, Natural Rights, Capitalism, Individual sovereignty and Self-Dependence if they somehow establishes Anarchy?

This could obviously vary dramatically from person to person. I for example, care more for what happens to make me content than a fixed political principle.

  1. Also did Gandhi give more individual liberty to than the did? If so, he could be “more libertarian” relatively speaking. To me that would be the most important thing to look at when talking about political figures (I won’t pretend to know the answer to that question).
13

Gandhi certainly believed in the non-agression principle, which is the major part of libertarianism. Other than not believing in the right to self-defense, he is libertarian (and since he would not initiate agression against those who exercise self-defense, that probably doesn’t even matter)

14

Shazam

Other than not believing in the right to self-defense

Except that Gandhi never said that people have no right to self-defense(through violence). One thing you must understand about Gandhi, a statement like “Gandhi didn’t believe in the right to _____”, is inherently wrong. Gandhi would never support a positive right, or a right which takes away something from someone using violence, because he clearly sees the violence involved in it. Here is Gandhi on Gun Control(on British taking away arms from Indians):

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.”

15

I’m finding out that many, many people from the past sought out libertarian ideas. Even Nostradamus prophesized in a way that told about the 2008 financial crisis, if you believe in that sort of thing. He said:

The copies of gold & silver inflated,
which after the theft were thrown into the lake
at the discovery that all is exhausted & dissipated by debt.
All scripts and bonds will be wiped out

Interesting.

16

I’ll give a bureaucrat’s backside about Nostradamus and his ilk when someone correctly predicts events using his prophecies, rather than retroactively interpreting his words as referring to some past event. Otherwise, it has all the credibility of Wicca and tea leaf reading to me.

17

If you think you or someone else can predict thw future, then you’re on wrong forum.

18

Haha. I’m not saying that he predicted the financial crisis, or anything for that matter. I’m saying that he prophesized in regards to gold/silver money being copied into fiat money. I don’t think he had any specific event in mind when he talked about this. I just think it’s interesting how you can look back in history and see people in his time (and even in the Bible) talking about money being inflated and dissipated by debt since we were talking about Gandhi versus libertarian theory in history.