What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
I’ve noticed that a lot of Ricochetti seem to self-identify as libertarians. This is interesting to me because I haven’t personally known a lot of real, grown-up libertarians. Undergraduate students, in my experience, are often quite attracted to libertarianism; in fact, they generally divide pretty neatly between the libertarians and the socialists. As they age, however, many move on to something a little more substantial.
That, at any rate, is how I tend to think about it. Libertarianism has always seemed a bit juvenile to me, which is not, of course, to deny that very smart people can sometimes get stuck in it. (I think utilitarianism is rather juvenile too, but it’s captured the loyalties of some very intelligent people in academic philosophy.) It could be, however, that I only think that because of the circumstantial fact that most of the libertarians I’ve known were themselves juveniles, and not particularly sophisticated mouthpieces for the philosophy. I’m willing to revisit the question.
I can’t really commit right now to tackling an extended reading list, which I would presumably need to do in order to get a nuanced perspective on the many flavors of libertarianism. But it would help a lot if I could get an answer to the above question. What must a person commit to in order to qualify as a libertarian? And, for those of you who identify yourselves with libertarianism, what’s the attraction?
Before you answer, it might help if I stated what I believe to be the attraction for the undergraduates. Libertarianism is what I like to call a “low buy-in” view. The “buy-in” I have in mind is something like, “commitment to a definite view of human nature, and to normative claims about how human beings should live”. Aristotelian, virtue-oriented moral theories are thus “high buy-in”. You have to commit to a lot to get on board with these theories. Utilitarianism, by contrast, has a very low buy-in. In its crudest form, it doesn’t ask you to commit to much of anything except that pleasure is good and pain bad.
Undergraduates love the low buy-in. I think it’s mainly because, being simpletons themselves, they hate to think that other people might know better than them, and even more to think that they should submit to the wisdom others in deciding how to live. Accordingly, they flock to low buy-in views, and the ones that most value opportunity become libertarians, while the security-lovers become socialists.
What’s the attraction for the more-mature conservative, though? To be sure, there are plenty of reasons for a non-moral relativist to favor limited government. In the first place, government tends to be inefficient at most jobs. Also, a person living in a pluralist society might pragmatically recognize that a small, relatively neutral government is the most optimal of the realizable options. Finally, there is the deep truth that some level of freedom is necessary for human beings to achieve full moral maturity, and exercise the virtues. Conservatives at different times have articulated all of these as reasons for favoring limited government, but it seems to me that they are not, per se, libertarian reasons (which is not necessarily to say that they are incompatible with libertarianism). The first two are too pragmatic; the libertarian sees small government as a requirement of justice. The third doesn’t clearly justify as limited a government as most libertarians seem to think we should have.
I’ll stop here, and hope other people offer their thoughts. But just to remind you, the two questions are, first, what most fundamentally defines a libertarian? And second, what’s the attraction of this view for mature conservatives?
- Comment (135)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (15)
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
I will take a shot. I don't buy your "low buy-in" analysis. In my view, individual freedom is the highest and best goal for any society. When we promote individual freedom, we show respect for all human beings in the belief and hope that each will act rationally with compassion for others. Rational behavior with free markets will benefit all, not equally, but with equal opportunity. An understanding of economics, particularly the Austrian school, helps explain what you call mature libertarianism.
Government by its very nature limits freedom. Unrestrained, a democracy results in a tyranny by the majority. Government is about one group of people telling everybody else what they must do or must not do.
As in driving, we need rules of the road to govern our relations, but those rules enforced by the government should be minimal.
As I see it, that is libertarianism in a nutshell.
Nov '11
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Those are two really good questions.
Different people think libertarianism means different things, just the way different people think conservatism and liberalism mean different things.
I reject your notion, as you define it, that libertarianism has a low buy-in. Frankly I'm a libertarian because of my moral beliefs, and libertarianism is the only "system" logically consistent with those moral beliefs.
What could be the appeal? Logical and moral consistency, which is lacking in both conservatism and liberalism.
Apr '12
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Could you say a bit more, Fred, about what sorts of moral beliefs incline one towards libertarianism?
Dec '10
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
David Carroll: I will take a shot. I don't buy your "low buy-in" analysis. In my view, individual freedom is the highest and best goal for any society. When we promote individual freedom, we show respect for all human beings in the belief and hope that each will act rationally with compassion for others. Rational behavior with free markets will benefit all, not equally, but with equal opportunity. An understanding of economics, particularly the Austrian school, helps explain what you call mature libertarianism.
Government by its very nature limits freedom. Unrestrained, a democracy results in a tyranny by the majority. Government is about one group of people telling everybody else what they must do or must not do.
As in driving, we need rules of the road to govern our relations, but those rules enforced by the government should be minimal.
As I see it, that is libertarianism in a nutshell. · 6 minutes ago
Good summary! I consider myself to be a libertarian who also believes that our super-power military is one the most important guarantors of our liberties and freedoms.
Nov '11
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Peter did an interview with Milton Friedman for Uncommon Knowledge, I will defer to that interview.
Apr '12
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
I think maybe I wasn't too clear about the "low buy-in" concept. Sorry! It's my own lingo, developed to help my ethics students sort through the different moral philosophies that we study in their introductory ethics course. But they are subjected to 100-plus hours of lecturing on the topic, and I'm not going to do that to you.
Maybe this will help. Thomas Hobbes bills his own view as having the lowest possible buy-in. He says, in effect, that his political theory will be the best one for human beings no matter what they might happen to want. So, with respect to the question, "What makes human beings thrive?", you need not commit yourself to anything in order to justify being a Hobbsean. Says Hobbes.
I am not suggesting that libertarians have no significant moral commitments. That is clearly untrue. But it seems to be fairly neutral about human nature, and about what (beyond freedom, which practically everybody claims to value in some form) enables human beings to thrive. And I think it involves some commitment to the idea that government should be fairly neutral on these questions.
Nov '11
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Well there' one specific moral principle I had in mind: The non-agression principle (NAP). Thatis the principle that it is morally wrong to initiate the use of force (including coercion and fraud) against another.
Nov '11
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Libertarianism is about the role proper role (if any) of government. One can be a Christian or an athiest or a Randite or Amish. It is simplyabout the role of government and consistant application of principles.
May '12
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
I have some Libertarian values on certain subjects, but don't consider myself a card carrying member. Like you I have been informed by others at Ricochet, specifically Fred Cole and Mollie.
The role of government to me is a critical component and the Libertarians here are very consistent on this issue.
The area of Libertarian thinking I find most interesting is the discussions and debates about the effects of exercising one's personal liberty may have on the liberty of others. Once the discussion moves away from the role of government the discussion gets more dynamic and more interesting.
Apr '12
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
It's easy to achieve an obvious consistency when your list of commitments is short and simple. If you are interested in a wider variety of complex goods, you may have to work harder to harmonize them. As far as religion goes, all you're really saying is that you as an atheist libertarian are willing to welcome people of all faiths to your camp. Whether they can enter without violating their other commitments might be another question.
By the way: why believe the NAP? It seems intuitively false to me.
Mar '11
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
To expand on Brent's point above, most libertarians and conservatives seem to be in general agreement about the role of government (except perhaps with regards to military spending and a few other items).
Where the big differences come up is the role of non-governmental institutions in setting standards for the organization of society. In fact, in that sense, both liberals and conservatives seem to agree with each other more than with libertarians: both former groups feel that humans cannot peacefully co-exist without a dominant moral and/or cultural authority. For liberals, this is the state, while for conservatives, it tends to be either the church, or a codified notion of Judeo-Christian tradition.
I think the big open question is this: can humans remain moral beings without a universally recognized moral authority? As a squishy libetarian, my answer is yes - but only given the proper incentives.
Mar '11
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
I think it is easy to protray libertarianism as immature because it proposes incredibly simple solutions to incredibly difficult problems. The sentiment "do whatever you want until it hurts your fellow citizen" sounds as naively far-fetched as Google's "don't be evil."
The best counter-example to this argument is Milton Friedman. Ever pragmatical, he realized (in my very humble reading of him) that libertarianism is a method with which to slowly mold the world as it exists, not an attempt to reconstruct it to resemble one's inner idealist fantasy.
I think honest libertarians must admit that their ideal world will never come close to fruition, and indeed probably couldn't last long even if it did. But that doesn't mean moving incrementally in that direction will not benefit society and individuals greatly.
Nov '11
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
The NAP seems intuitively false? How so?
Aug '10
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
One's attitude towards libertarianism depends entirely on the basic premise one uses to define it.
"Do what you want as long as you don't hurt anybody," is a really weak line of persuasion.
"No human has the right to use coercion or force against any other human except to prevent the use of coercion or force," is a much more persuasive way of describing the core philosophy, IMHO.
Apr '12
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Well, I coerce my children to do things (or stop doing them) all the time. That's basically my job. If I were walking by a cliff and someone was preparing to throw himself off, I would intervene if it were in my power to do so. I don't know how broadly you define "coerce", but I'm quite happy to put social pressure on people to be polite (which includes positive, not exclusively negative, obligations), to get jobs or otherwise make contributions to society, and a myriad of other good things.
Since it's not really good for us to be left totally to our own devices, I don't see why there should exist any prima facie obligation against coercion.
Mar '11
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Misthiocracy
"Do what you want as long as you don't hurt anybody," is a really weak line of persuasion.
"No human has the right to use coercion or force against any other human except to prevent the use of coercion or force," is a much more persuasive way of describing the core philosophy, IMHO. · 2 minutes ago
I agree - I was merely trying to depict/caricature the "immature" reasoning that some, like Rachel Lu, might hear from college libertarians.
Jul '12
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
I stopped reading at this point. I'm 52, so having my views dismissed as "juvenile" taxes my patience. And telling people that they are "stuck" in their opinions is just the Marxist "false consciousness" canard with a new coat of paint. These are not serious arguments.
Nov '11
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Well, I didn't specify, Rachel, but the NAP applies to adults in their dealings with other adults.
Dec '10
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Rachel Lu
Well, I coerce my children to do things (or stop doing them) all the time. That's basically my job. If I were walking by a cliff and someone was preparing to throw himself off, I would intervene if it were in my power to do so. I don't know how broadly you define "coerce", but I'm quite happy to put social pressure on people to be polite (which includes positive, not exclusively negative, obligations), to get jobs or otherwise make contributions to society, and a myriad of other good things.
Since it's not really good for us to be left totally to our own devices, I don't see why there should exist any prima facie obligation against coercion.
Perhaps we could reword your comment ... Because college professors are mostly left-wing Marxist ideologues, who have done immeasurable harm to the culture and society by indoctrinating young impressionable minds with their destructive ideology, it has become necessary to coerce colleges to immediately fire all professors and eliminate the position of college professor.
I'm beginning to see your point about the value of coercion.
Apr '12
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Fred: That seems kind of arbitrary, particularly since, in my mind, moral maturity matters more than physical. (There's some correlation, but it's far from perfect.) But we could stipulate that the guy on the cliff is an adult. I think you're right that the principle is defining to libertarianism, but I still don't really get why it's compelling.