Spain's Libertarian Debate: From Free Market to Article 128

Libertarianism: From Free Markets to Article 128 of the Constitution

Are there libertarians in Spain? This question, posed in an economics forum, has evolved into a nearly three-year dispute over what liberalism actually is and whether anyone truly practices it. The short answer: almost no one agrees. The long version includes Rothbard, Hayek, Mises, and Ron Paul in the same paragraph as Article 128 of the Spanish Constitution, which subordinates all national wealth to the general interest. The result is a clash between those who believe free markets reduce obstacles for everyone and those who argue they only allow a few to live well while the majority endures.

What is libertarianism according to its defenders?

The initial premise is textbook: maximum individual freedom, minimal state, inherent natural rights. Locke, Adam Smith, and Rousseau are cited as inspirations, with Rothbard, Hayek, Mises, and Ron Paul as contemporary developers. The pillars listed are freedom of expression as the most fundamental good, the non-aggression principle, individual self-sufficiency, and voluntarism. On paper, this sounds like tax cuts, deregulation, and voluntary agreements between individuals.

The first response received is not a nuance but a blunt assertion: "It’s all a lie; even liberals don’t want a free market." From that point on, the tone rises.

The recurring accusation: this used to be called fascism

One of the most repeated arguments holds that what is today called liberalism or libertarianism was previously known as fascism, and that the real goal is to set the rules of the game in favor of an elite. The argument is completed by a concrete proposal: the State must have the power to redistribute wealth and generate public services. There are no nuances in that intervention, nor in the response claiming that when liberalism doesn't add up, it funds fascism to impose privileges by force.

In contrast, the debate's most articulated rebuttal appears: fascism and libertarianism are by definition opposites. Fascism would be the collusion of state and economic powers to subjugate the people; libertarianism, precisely, would combat that emergence by promoting the limitation of state power. It is argued that whoever funds fascism to maintain privileges by force is not liberal. Another matter is that false liberals exist who only want freedom for themselves.

Article 128 settles the discussion

Here the debate ceases to be theoretical and becomes constitutional. A participant invokes Article 128 of the Spanish Constitution, which subordinates all wealth of the country, regardless of ownership, to the general interest, and recognizes public initiative in economic activity. The response is immediate: the common good is secondary to individual rights and can only prevail in exceptional cases. The counterargument is that Title I of the Constitution, regarding fundamental rights, takes precedence, and that Article 128 is not the supreme norm.

The discussion gets tangled with Nordic countries. It is claimed they are protectionist and that their sectoral agreements are stronger than workers' statutes, citing an example of a business attempt to bypass them that allegedly failed. The reply: a State can be liberal and protectionist externally, and Scandinavian countries participate in every imaginable market. No one yields.

Singapore, China, and the undefined third way

In another part of the exchange, a disorienting comparison emerges: a supposed Francoist third way is preferred, which China and Singapore would have demonstrated as a better system. The response comes with data: Singapore is one of the countries with the highest economic freedom in the world, with public spending at 15% of GDP, compared to 33% in China and 47% in Spain. And it is a representative democracy. Equating Singapore with China makes no sense, it is concluded.

The exchange closes with an attempt to lower the temperature that fails: "I think you're out of your mind, honestly. Let's drop it."

Suspicion regarding those who call themselves liberals

Another line of criticism points directly to the names of Spanish media liberalism. It is maintained that those who claim to be liberals today are not so in 99% of cases, that the origin of the word is Spanish and has nothing to do with what certain pundits sell, and some of the most cited are labeled hypocrites. The underlying argument: they earn from the public sector while preaching free markets.

The response to that criticism is immediate: if someone earns from the public sector and preaches freedom for themselves but slavery for others, they are not a liberal, they are an opportunist. And of those, it is added, there are in all camps.

Natural law seen by some, denied by others

The final stretch of the exchange moves to legal philosophy. Do you not believe you have a natural right to your own life? Does the State give it to you? The answer is sharp: nature does not give rights, it gives obligations. A right is something acquired, given by a State, a tribe, or a collective that regulates the environment into which one is born. For it to be a right, someone external must grant it by definition. What some call natural law, others call state-dependent law.

And amidst all this, a definition summarizes the skepticism: there are no natural rights, only natural desires. Desiring to live, desiring to possess something, desiring to act or think without coercion. That others recognize that desire and respect and protect it is, certainly, just another desire.

---

In the end, the initial question remains unanswered. Libertarians exist in Spain, yes, but each has their own definition of what that means, and none seems willing to accept their neighbor's. Meanwhile, the free market waits for someone to agree on what it actually is.