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:
Feb '12
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
My belief in libertarian policies derives from the three rights John Locke described -- life, property, and liberty. I have the right to live free of bodily assault. I have the right to control what is mine. I have the right to think, say, write, publish, worship, travel, and generally act as I please so long is it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights to their own life, property, or liberty.
Now, I also believe in living one's life under conservative principles. While as a libertarian, I feel that prostitution, drug abuse, and organ sales should be legal (after all, if you don't have the right to control your own body, can you truly own anything else?), I also don't approve of the first two activities.
Likewise, a conservative would support patent laws -- they're prescribed by the Constitution, after all. A libertarian does not. If I don't have the right to disassemble a patented invention I have purchased and then make my own version with materials I have purchased, I don't actually own what I have purchased. The right to control my property has been denied.
Nov '11
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Arbitrary means
There's really not anything arbitrary about the NAP. It is a very clear line: It's wrong to initiate force against other people.
But, let's turn it around, since you're just not buying what I'm selling, and let me put the question directly to you, Rachel:
Under what circumstances is it moral for one person to initiate force against another person?
Nov '11
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
I don't want to derail this excellent discussion, so I'll consider this a side track:
There are two forms of libertarianism, I've only mentioned the more extreme.
The second form of libertarianism is Consequentialist Libertarianism. That's the Milton Friedman version, the less extreme version.
This is the above mentioned Uncommon Knowledge with Milton Friedman, and he explains it very clearly starting at like the 2:05 mark.
That would be a government consistent with the maximum freedom for the individual consistent with his own values as long as he doesn't interfere with anyone else doing the same.
That UK episode is actually an amazing explanation of libertarianism. Milton Friedman was amazing at explaining libertarianism.
Apr '12
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Thanks, Amy and Fred. And yes, obviously I should check out the Uncommon Knowledge link.
Fred, perhaps "ad hoc" would express what I meant better than "arbitrary". It does seem rather odd to me, though, that the central moral principle of a philosophy simply would not apply to children. Pragmatically, it is obvious why children must be coerced at times, but I'm more inclined to view that as the sort of counterexample that points towards a problem with the principle. Children are, after all, human beings with the same moral value as adults. (Or anyway, so it seems to me.) So if they're just going to be left out like that, it seems we should be able to draw some categorical distinction, and I think that would be hard to do in a clear and principled way.
I don't affirm any single, clear principle concerning the permissibility of coercion. Many circumstances might be relevant, including our relationship to the person in question (different kinds of authority might come into play here), and the person's level of moral development. Sorry, I know that's not very helpful.
Feb '12
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
It might be more accurate to say it doesn't apply to those for whom one acts in loco parentis. The non-aggression principles certainly applies to other people's children. But if a person needs a legal guardian, either from youth, age, or mental incapacity, the relationship between guardian and ward is obviously not the same as one's relationship with any random person.
Nov '10
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Rachel Lu:
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 [...]
<3
As to what defines a real libertarian, I'd say one requirement is an unwavering commitment to the belief that people, in general, make better decisions for themselves than other people would make for them.
I am slightly confused by your attack on utilitarianism, though. It's not a philosophy that most people readily embrace. (At least not openly. When you get down to it, I think everyone is a utilitarian.) Certainly no undergrad I ever knew subscribed to it. And I think it takes some cleverness to see why it's not nearly as morally bankrupt as it would first appear to be.
Edited on July 21, 2012 at 5:40amApr '12
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
So, thinking through this more, I thought I might add: I value freedom for all three reasons mentioned at the end of the post, but the third is specially important to me. We cannot be coerced into being virtuous and fully rational. Our highest fulfillment is possible only when we are free, and our greatest freedom is realized through becoming fully rational and virtuous. That is why we rightly yearn for freedom.
Developmentally, though, we need to grow into it gradually. That's why it's all right to coerce young children quite a lot, with the appropriate level of coercion gradually lessening as we mature. (Authority also comes into the picture, but we'll set that complication to the side for now.) But that's kind of a best-case scenario; some people are still morally infantile even when they're physically mature, and most of us fall at least somewhere short of the mark. So, we're best off when we have freedom, but not more than we can handle.
The property point Amy raised is interesting, though. I'll think about that more.
Apr '12
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Not JMR
It's not a philosophy that most people readily embrace. (At least not openly. When you get down to it, I think everyone is a utilitarian.) Certainly no undergrad I ever knew subscribed to it. And I think it takes some cleverness to see why it's not nearly as morally bankrupt as it would first appear to be. · 27 minutes ago
Really? Interesting. That's not my experience at all. After studying Aristotelianism, I can almost see the students breathing sighs of relief when we get to John Stuart Mill. "We just knew ethics didn't need to be that complicated!" Then we start discussing Bernard Williams and integrity and Peter Railton and all those complications... and they get depressed again. Yes, it's rather amusing.
Apr '12
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
By the way, I'm interested: do the libertarians here think it's okay to pull the guy (adult stranger) back from the cliff edge when he appears ready to throw himself off? Or should I respect his autonomy and let him jump, (assuming there are no innocent people down below to be crushed or whatever)?
I think I see the "in loco parentis" relationship as being somewhat less singular than in the view Amy and Fred seem to be describing. It's a special relationship, but we have many relationships that are special to varying degrees, and we are (appropriately) subject to all manner of different authorities and pressures. Government is just one in the mix.
Dec '11
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Extreme libertarianism may not be desirable in the end, but right now I think I have moved more in line with libertarian thinking simply becaue the government has grown so intrusive in so many areas that I just want them to back off. Even the war on drugs seems a pointless waste of time and money when 1) states are undermining it with pot legalization, and 2) kids are finding new "legal" highs like bath salts. God help us all if Nanny Bloomberg gets in the White House.
Perhaps if the government tide started to recede, and I didn't feel the intrusion and incompetence at every turn, I might ease up on my libertarian leanings, but I fear that day is far off.
Dec '11
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Rachel Lu: By the way, I'm interested: do the libertarians here think it's okay to pull the guy (adult stranger) back from the cliff edge when he appears ready to throw himself off? Or should I respect his autonomy and let him jump, (assuming there are no innocent people down below to be crushed or whatever)?
I think I see the "in loco parentis" relationship as being somewhat less singular than in the view Amy and Fred seem to be describing. It's a special relationship, but we have many relationships that are special to varying degrees, and we are (appropriately) subject to all manner of different authorities and pressures. Government is just one in the mix. · 2 hours ago
No, because that's my choice, my decision to let him go. If he wants to kill himself, he can do it when I'm not around. My conscience is my guide, not my government.
Jun '10
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
I think undergrads are attracted to libertarianism and the socialism because they tend to be more idealistic and radical at that age. Both suggest programs of radical changes to remake our society, laws, and institutions to conform to a simple, logically coherent philosophy.
As people get older, settle down into homes, careers, and families, they tend to lose that radical passion and adopt more pragmatic, incrementalist views. They also tend to become somewhat more cynical and world-weary and roll their eyes at the more ambitious schemes of younger generations.
Jun '10
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
To directly answer the question posed by your title: go here, fill out the form, pay $25, and they'll send you a membership card in the mail. :-)
Jun '10
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Rachel, I think you may be starting from a false premise. Libertarianism is a broad political philosophy, not an ethical worldview whole within itself. Mendel touched on this a little bit in his general comparison and contrast of liberalism and conservatism. The moral argument informs the political philosophy, not the other way around. Most libertarians, no matter where they stand on various issues, came to be libertarians because they understand that there can be no such thing as a societal good that also harms individuals; individuals comprise society. So how to accommodate 324 million individuals? We can do it with an ever-expanding bureaucracy that invents rights for favored constituencies, or we can recognize that there are essential, natural rights, that should not be abrogated, and reject those who would. The government that governs best, to paraphrase the man, governs least. That's the focus of libertarianism.
Nov '11
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Amy Schley
It might be more accurate to say it doesn't apply to those for whom one acts in loco parentis. The non-aggression principles certainly applies to other people's children. But if a person needs a legal guardian, either from youth, age, or mental incapacity, the relationship between guardian and ward is obviously not the same as one's relationship with any random person. · 8 hours ago
Thank you, Amy. That's what I meant to say, you just said it a lot better than I did.
Nov '11
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
That is also what I was trying to say. Thank you, Casey, you said it better than I could.
Nov '11
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
You shouldn't extrapolate the opinions of one or all libertarians on this board to represent all libertarians. Kimchi is a Korean side dish, it is essentially spiced and pickled cabbage. They say there are as many recipes for kimchi as there are households in Korea.
There isn't one libertarian position for anything. It's like with liberals and conservatives, different people hold different positions, many hold positions in common, but there isn't one uniform answer. Now take that notion and apply it to a group of people who subscribe to what Sen. Santorum called "radical individualism" and you'll find even less uniformity.
However, the way you phrased your question leads me to believe you already realize this. If so, bully for you.
Edited on July 21, 2012 at 2:09pmNov '11
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
As to your cliff question, which I'll answer, I want to ask again the question I put to you directly in an earlier post:
Under what circumstances is it moral for one person to initiate force against another person?
(And to clarify: This question assumes we're talking about adults.)
Now, if you want my answer, my answer is sadly no. If a man was about to throw himself off a cliff, I wouldn't use physical force to stop him. I would talk to him, I would engage with him, I would use all my capacities to try to persuade him not to jump, but I would consider it immoral to, say, jump on him and wrestle him to the group to keep him from hurting himself.
This is a good question though, because it allows you to draw clear lines, and it has extremely broad applications.
Dec '11
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Don't ask me. According to Fred I am a squish =).
Everything essentially boils down to mine, yours, and ours. I believe the things that our mine is subject to my regulation, and the things that are ours are subject to the public regulation. Which is why I think its perfectly OK to regulate public behavior subject to the public will, public spaces are ours. I can in fact tell you that "no you really cant wave your penis at schoolchildren on the street." The smaller we can push the regulation of public behavior the greater the broader national happiness. There are nearly infinite ways that people will choose to organize themselves, and it is OK for those people to ask us to respect their spaces. There is national space for both communes, nudists and the amish.
It is entirely moral to initiate force against someone who is initiating force against some third party.
Edited on July 21, 2012 at 2:19pmNov '11
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Guruforhire: Don't ask me. According to Fred I am a squish =).
It is entirely moral to initiate force against someone who is initiating force against some third party. · 0 minutes ago
Edited 0 minutes ago
Damn right! You are a squish!
However, there is no squishiness in what you said in this post.
If we have public parks (which unfortunately we do), then someone has to set the rules (don't wave your penis at children) for basic behavior in those parks. The problem is, that since "everybody" owns them, the rules can be contentious. For example, the penis thing may seem obvious, but what about smoking? What about sex in the park if no one is watching. Additionally, if the rules are enforced in an arbitrary manner, since its a government park and government enforcement, it's subject to the 14th Amendment.
The rules are then subject for debate and democracy, meaning who shouts the loudest and who gives the most money, rather than market forces.