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:
Nov '11
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Fred Cole
PracticalMary:
Libertarianism should...
Why do you think it doesn't? I'd argue that it does so even more than conservatism. · 17 minutes ago
As I mentioned from what I have read (not just people's views here) people as property- even if their own property and the ultimate results of this. Brought up before as the idea of being free to be a slave, or being free to kill yourself. I am not talking about laws and nitpicking particular situations (these are complicated and individual too), but the ultimate reality of this kind of philosophy. It becomes the party of death just like the 'caring' liberals who find themselves fighting for death on these issues. I would like to stay and discuss but must go (that's why even messier than usual) and will check back in on Monday morning, however the thread will be old. I'm sure it will come up again, though. One more thing- I just reread Victor Frankl and it reminded me of how scared we should be, among other things and gave me second thoughts about even being Libertarian Leaning. Wish the party would stick to economics.
Apr '11
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Amy Schley:
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. · Jul 20 at 5:28pm
You have the property rights you contracted for. If you want a license to manufacture your own copies of the invention, you should purchase that. Libertarians are split on patent law, but your freedom to specify what property rights you are and are not selling is hardly intrinsically anti-libertarian. It is true that a lot of libertarians take the short event-horizon view and say, for instance, that the Fee Tail should have been abolished, but limiting freedom of contract to increase freedom of action is a kind of statist/ leftist form of libertarianism.
Contract-based slavery is, of course, the reductio ad absurdum of this argument, and one of its more common forms.
May '11
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Contract based slavery is an oxymoron. It's not slavery if you agree to work for someone.
Edited on July 22, 2012 at 4:38amThe military would be something akin to what you're probably thinking of. When you enlist you agree to obey lawful orders from those above you whether you like it or not, including being ordered to do something that is going to get you killed. But it's not slavery, though conscripted soldiers could be considered term slaves.
Neither libertarians nor conservatives are against voluntary enlistment in the military, even if they might disagree on what the military does.
Apr '12
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Fred has been most generous with his explanation of the NAP. I’d like to be equally so, but it’s hard, because to me the libertarian fixation on coercive force seems like a mistake in itself. Nevertheless, here’s the clearest I can get, in a concise package. It is permissible to initiate force against someone in the event that:
(1) I have the relevant authority to do so, and
(2) It is in the person’s best interests OR in some third party’s interests and not a violation of the dignity of the one coerced, and
(3) The means of coercion used are not intrinsically immoral or disproportionate to the situation at hand.
All three of those would call for considerable further development, obviously. We would need to know how a person gets authority, and what violates a person’s dignity, and how we decide what is in his best interests, and what means of force are permissible and proportionate. That’s why I say: coercion is not a basic moral concept for me. So it isn’t really a good place to start when explaining my moral views.
Feb '12
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
James Of England
You have the property rights you contracted for. If you want a license to manufacture your own copies of the invention, you should purchase that. Libertarians are split on patent law, but your freedom to specify what property rights you are and are not selling is hardly intrinsically anti-libertarian. It is true that a lot of libertarians take the short event-horizon view and say, for instance, that the Fee Tail should have been abolished, but limiting freedom of contract to increase freedom of action is a kind of statist/ leftist form of libertarianism.
Contract-based slavery is, of course, the reductio ad absurdum of this argument, and one of its more common forms. · 50 minutes ago
Let's take a more pointed example then -- you invent a better mousetrap and I independently develop the same better mousetrap. If you beat me to the patent office, you can prevent me from legally selling my property.
Thus, patents are a right granted by a government, not natural law.
(Copyright law is a different case, as it in theory allows for concurrent development.)
Apr '12
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
I watched the Friedman interview, which was quite interesting, but it didn’t delve as far as I would have liked into the relationship between pragmatic and moral considerations for the libertarian. I’m still trying to figure out what most basically defines libertarianism, before we start breaking out into all the different flavors. So, the freedom-maximizing objective is relatively easy to understand, even if the devil is in the details. But is it our moral right to live in such a society, or is it simply the best way, pragmatically speaking, to organize one? Or is it both together? It seemed pretty clear in the interview that Friedman would accept both the pragmatic and the moral claim. We can’t improve society by restricting people’s freedoms, but even if we could, we shouldn’t.
Must one be committed to both, though, in order to call oneself a libertarian? This seems like a particularly pressing question for people like Amy, who want to draw a pretty sharp line between the things they approve of, and the things they think government should restrict. Take something like, say, prostitution. (cont)
Apr '12
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Let’s agree for the sake of argument that this is a destructive sort of transaction, for everyone involved, and that it could be effectively eliminated simply by outlawing it. Must you maintain that this could never be in society’s best interests, appearances to the contrary? The alternative, of course, is to claim that it could be in society's interests (and the interests of the individual) to outlaw prostitution, but that we still shouldn't do it. But in that case... why not, if people would be better off?
Self-described libertarians seem mostly to view themselves is ideologically motivated; that's come up at various points in the thread. I think most all of us here at Ricochet agree that the government does too much. I personally might be comfortable with a fairly high level of regulation in many areas of life, if I trusted the relevant authorities to do it effectively and prudently. Since they usually don't, less interference is preferable. But I don't see why a person would have a thick view of human nature, and yet prefer a political theory that disregards the important moral facts contained within that view.
May '11
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
I haven't ever seen conservatism reduced to a few basic principles that all conservatives agree on. Why should all libertarians be required to do so?
Jun '10
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
If we all agreed that it was a "destructive sort of transaction, for everyone involved, and that it could be effectively eliminated simply by outlawing it," we wouldn't have anything to argue about. ;)
The difference of opinion that we have is the very difference between our political philosophies; the libertarian thought is that, regardless of how much better we think we can run other people's lives, we are probably wrong. Even if right, we should still think twice... and again... and again... before using the covert and overt forces of government to achieve compliance with our aims. Conservatives and progressives disagree, albeit for different reasons.
Regarding prostitution, if some woman wants to add remuneration to her sex life and she can find men willing to play by her rules, then bully for her. The proper role for government, as in other industries, is to regulate the trade to ensure the health and safety of all involved. My (or our) distaste for the practice is irrelevant.
Edited on July 22, 2012 at 5:55amJun '10
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Fred Cole
That is also what I was trying to say. Thank you, Casey, you said it better than I could. · 15 hours ago
I don't know about that, you seem to be holding your own pretty well.
Still... you da mang. Thanks.
Jun '10
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Mister D
What he said. · 12 hours ago
Thanks, buddy.
Jun '10
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Joseph, that's for the Libertarian Party. What gives? You aren't fooled by that business are you? The LP is not based on libertarianism -- it was created to be anti-Republican, to vent peoples' spleens and to pretend that they are grown-ups. Don't be fooled.
Jun '10
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Larry Koler
Joseph, that's for the Libertarian Party. What gives? You aren't fooled by that business are you? The LP is not based on libertarianism -- it was created to be anti-Republican, to vent peoples' spleens and to pretend that they are grown-ups. Don't be fooled. · 17 minutes ago
Is there no libertarian thread that you won't attempt to hijack?
Jun '10
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Larry Koler
Joseph, that's for the Libertarian Party. What gives? You aren't fooled by that business are you? The LP is not based on libertarianism -- it was created to be anti-Republican, to vent peoples' spleens and to pretend that they are grown-ups. Don't be fooled. · 38 minutes ago
I wasn't actually advocating joining, my point was that's how you become a "card carrying" member. There has a to be some official organization to join to truly call someone a "card carrying" anything.
Whereas, if you're talking small-l libertarian, then as this thread illustrates there are many different flavors. But to me the term "card carrying" implies membership in a formal organization.
Nov '10
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Rachel, I find it scary that an aversion to unilateral coercion does not number among your basic moral precepts.
Have you considered a career as a bureaucrat?
I know many bureaucrats who would gladly endorse your three-point charter.
.
Rachel Lu: Nevertheless, here’s the clearest I can get, in a concise package. It is permissible to initiate force against someone in the event that:
(1) I have the relevant authority to do so, and
(2) It is in the person’s best interests OR in some third party’s interests and not a violation of the dignity of the one coerced, and
(3) The means of coercion used are not intrinsically immoral or disproportionate to the situation at hand.
All three of those would call for considerable further development, obviously. We would need to know how a person gets authority, and what violates a person’s dignity, and how we decide what is in his best interests, and what means of force are permissible and proportionate. That’s why I say: coercion is not a basic moral concept for me. So it isn’t really a good place to start when explaining my moral views. · 4 hours ago
Jan '11
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Casey Taylor
...
The difference of opinion that we have is the very difference between our political philosophies; the libertarian thought is that, regardless of how much better we think we can run other people's lives, we are probably wrong. Even if right, we should still think twice... and again... and again... before using the covert and overt forces of government to achieve compliance with our aims. Conservatives and progressives disagree, albeit for different reasons.
...
Yes; right there!
Nov '10
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
True enough.
But even if we do know better how to run someone's life, that someone's life is still not ours to run.
People can own things, but not other people.
Not even a little bit.
.
LowcountryJoe
Casey Taylor
...
The difference of opinion that we have is the very difference between our political philosophies; the libertarian thought is that, regardless of how much better we think we can run other people's lives, we are probably wrong. Even if right, we should still think twice... and again... and again... before using the covert and overt forces of government to achieve compliance with our aims. Conservatives and progressives disagree, albeit for different reasons.
...
Yes; right there! · 0 minutes ago
Nov '10
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Still, the case of a suicidal person does raise a prima facie difficulty for libertarianism. Abiding by the NAP violates the ethical intuition that one should, in some instances, consider physically restraining a suicide contemplator, out of an overriding duty of care.
Here's my take.
The NAP is an ethical principle designed to promote decent behaviour between sane adult humans. One complication is that sanity, adultness, and humanness are matters of degree. Where these are absent, or in short supply, the NAP no longer applies, or applies to a lesser degree.
Note: this does not mean the NAP is invalid per se.
In the case of some suicidal people, then, the application of the NAP may be suspended, because those people are temporarily not sane: their judgment of their life's worth has been accidentally impaired by severe depression.
Another consideration is that severe depression usually lifts (although it can recur). So, a suicidal person may change their view of their life's worth. What, then, is their real underlying view?
Does libertarianism require that third-parties ally themselves only with a person's views right now, if those views are known to be unstable? I think not always.
Edited on July 22, 2012 at 10:31amDec '11
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
I dont know why nobody has answered the title question.
You become a card carrying Libertarian by changing your party affiliation to the LP, and donate......
Mar '12
Re: What Does It Take To Be A Card-Carrying Libertarian?
Fred Cole: 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.
Since the various value systems include permissiveness for abortion and euthanasia, and since I subscribe to the natural (or moral) law, my impression of Libertarianism is that it fails at exactly that point.
While I concur on some of the Libertarian positions, which seem generally conservative to me, I am at a remove in regard to abortion and euthanasia. That is where I find Libertarianism failing. That is where we part company.