Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why I Am Not a Libertarian
I recently listened to Tom and Sal’s podcast on libertarianism, but didn’t quite get in on the follow-up debate. So I thought I’d offer my critique in a separate post, as a non-libertarian who’s been trying to define libertarianism for years, with a little help from my Ricochet friends.
Here’s my current view on this. Libertarianism is best understood as a school of thought. It’s not the sort of thing for which it would be appropriate to draw up clear-cut identity conditions (as Tom and Sal were endeavoring to do). It has its own tradition, complete with revered thinkers such as Rand, Hayek, and Friedman. It has its own lingo and established relationships to particular disciplines (notably economics). But the difference between a libertarian and, say, a small-government conservative may have more to do with background and influence than with actual content.
In the podcast, Sal compared libertarianism with Christianity, making the point that there can be a broad range of perspectives that still meaningfully fit under one big tent. I see what he’s driving at, but the analogy is problematic, not only because Christianity involves explicit admission rituals (e.g. baptism), but also because Christianity is defined by some rather striking claims that non-Christians are very unlikely to affirm. To claim with any plausibility the title “Christian,” you must believe that a man lived in Palestine two millennia ago — and was God. You must believe that he literally died and came back to life again. And you must believe that there is a holy book that records these events, which was divinely inspired. These are weighty claims. You won’t find many people who declare, “Oh, I believe all of that of course, but I would never consider myself a Christian.” We can quibble about the dirty details, but that’s insider baseball. For most normal purposes, the sheep and goats aren’t so very hard to separate here (particularly in a world where Christianity is becoming more counter-cultural, which is steadily minimizing the incentives to pretend to believe.)
I can’t see that libertarianism has any equivalent claims that would enable us to neatly separate members from non-members. Libertarians want the government to be smaller, and they value individual rights and autonomy. But plenty of people share those views without regarding themselves as libertarians. I don’t believe it’s possible to tailor a definition that is specific enough to exclude all non-libertarians, while including everyone who plausibly claims the title.
This really shouldn’t bother us too much, because we’re constantly using loosely-defined terms in meaningful discourse. “Conservative,” for instance. Or “patriot.” Or “educated citizen.” We deal with somewhat-imprecise terms all the time. Why is it a problem here?
I think it seems like a problem to many people because for many, the appeal of libertarianism lies in its appearance of being highly consistent and principled, without relying on a complex metaphysics to press its claims. Libertarianism is very similar in that respect (for non-accidental reasons) to the branch of ethics known as “utilitarianism.” Like libertarianism, utilitarianism can hang its flag on some beguilingly simple and reasonable-seeming claims. (“Individuals should be permitted to do whatever they like, so long as no one else is harmed.” “The right thing to do is whatever brings the most happiness to the greatest number of people.”) Like utilitarianism, the devil ends up being in the details, and the more we try to work out those details, the more we find ourselves hamstrung between 1) a distinctive philosophy with meaningful content, which most people nevertheless find implausible and unattractive, and 2) a philosophy which is reasonable and probably true, but so flexible as to add virtually nothing to pre-existing theories.
My point isn’t that we need to abandon libertarianism. I have benefitted greatly from my interactions with thoughtful libertarians. I would suggest, though, that we should probably abandon the goal of defining “libertarianism” in some very precise way. At the same time, we may need to give up on the idea that libertarianism can live up to its appeal, on the surface, as a philosophy that ostensibly justifies the demand for small government without needing to rely on metaphysically complex claims about human good.
If libertarianism is more of an intellectual tradition, or school of thought, then identifying with it doesn’t clearly commit you to very much, although it will be suggestive of many things. Because metaphysical minimalism is a noteworthy characteristic of this school of thought, it is probably highly misleading to say (as Tom and Sal both did on the podcast) that their lack of religious faith “has nothing to do with” their libertarianism. There may not be a direct and obvious connection, but there are good reasons why libertarianism and atheism tend to overlap substantially. Libertarians like Mollie Hemingway or Midget Faded Rattlesnake would then be unusual libertarians in noteworthy respects, which in fact I think they are. But that doesn’t mean they’re fakers! They do have some meaningful relationship to the libertarian intellectual tradition. They just bring an unusual set of external commitments to the table, which make them atypical but also interestingly distinctive.
Similar claims, I think, could be made of many other characteristics that Tom and Sal rejected as “not libertarian.” They may not be membership conditions for self-identifying as libertarian, but they’re related, for reasons we could explain.
I have never self-identified as a libertarian. I doubt I ever will, even though I realize that there are self-declared libertarians whose views are quite similar to mine on most of the bellweather questions. Here are my own reasons for not being libertarian:
1) Metaphysical minimalism is, if not per se a membership condition, at least a highly characteristic feature of libertarianism. It seeks to justify small government in a way that avoids weighty claims about human nature, or the nature of the universe broadly speaking. As a Catholic Aristotelian, I dislike metaphysical minimalism. I’m willing ally myself to some of its adherents, but I’m not going to wear their colors.
2) Libertarianism is associated with a set of thinkers; for intellectual types, claiming the label tends to signify that these thinkers were highly influential on your in your formative years. (I suspect that has a lot to do with Mollie’s identification, though I haven’t discussed it with her.) I respect Hayek, Friedman, et al., but they were not my formative influences.
3) I see libertarianism as historically contingent. It arose in response to the overgrowth of the modern state. That’s fine and reasonable up to a point, but my own tradition (Catholic Aristotelianism) has far more historical breadth. So I don’t see much point in claiming the additional label; to me it feels like jumping out of a lake and into a stream.
All of these reasons are, to varying extents, personal and idiosyncratic. Libertarianism is an interesting flavor of conservatism, which I’ve come to appreciate more these past few years, but it won’t ever be a good description of me. Figuring out who it does describe might be more fruitful than trying to generate explicit membership requirements.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
And making sure they cannot live next to like minded people. That too.
Complete agreement here, I support federalism, and most of my libertarian philosophy is aimed at the federal government, not local.
The real world? Is it utopian to say individuals should have the right to make their own personal choices, even when others don’t agree with the wisdom of those choices? Is it too dangerous to allow such rampant liberty? Which is more dangerous for real world society, individuals making poor choices, or government having too much power over those choices?
The “mere” conceit is best suited to those who are unconverted and open to conversion. BTW, that was Lewis’s intent:
Exploring boundary conditions isn’t useful for evangelism and witness.
Conservatives and Libertarians will usually agree on avoiding the trespasses of government.
It’s what to do about the trespasses of others where we split, because we define trespasses in wholly different ways.
A libertarian considers it a trespass if a meth user alters his consciousness and runs his car into mine.
A conservative considers it a trespass if the meth user alters his consciousness. The harm is alleged to be more abstract – that he isn’t being productive, might be influencing others, may end up on welfare, etc.
I’d say it goes further than that; see what Shlueter says about the harm principle as a form of rationalism or radical skepticism that undermines reason itself. The harm principle understood as libertarians’ Archimedean point is inherently wrapped up with libertarians’ making the category mistake — one sees this all the time on Ricochet — of applying the “knowledge problem” of economics to moral knowledge. Again, read Shlueter’s essay, he explains this very well.
Abstract harm is an very poor basis for law. Someone could claim abstract harm from nearly every choice anyone else makes. If that is the standard, individual choice is out the window, only choices that promote the ‘common good’ are acceptable. That is the basis of socialism!
Agreed. And abstract harm was a major part of the conservative objection to gay marriage.
BTW, when we said that “libertarians have a narrower definition of harm” than say, SoCons, the point wasn’t to deny that the harm existed, but that it’s sufficiently difficult to apply legal remedy to fix harms as they become more abstract.
Stipulating that this point is uncontroversial and rather obvious, I’d say that the average libertarian has a much lower tolerance for attempting to fix this than the average conservative.
That last paragraph builds a straw man – the same thing y’all libertarians carp about when your positions are mis-represented.
Few conservatives care what some person unconnected to them does with his consciousness. Similarly, I can’t recall ever hearing a complaint about what Mr. XXY the slacker could have been contributing. Busybodiedness is a nasty trait, but not a particularly conservative one.
Most conservatives do, however, care about negative impacts to them personally, to those to whom they’re connected, and to the society they live in. At society’s scope, free use of strong drugs synergizes with other ills to cause exactly those effects.
Here’s where libertarianism is unequal to the question. A focus on individual liberty is essential, but it’s not a complete orientation for an adult in a healthy society. Responsibility is futile without liberty to discharge it, liberty exercised in spite of responsibility is libertine.
Libertarianism is the political philosophy of the gifted adolescent. It’s great within some safe realms, it’s full of promise, but it hasn’t filled out yet. Is that why the variation among libertarians themselves?
So, libertarians are OK with someone using meth, so long as they don’t run into your car. The reason, its abstract to codify such judgements about using harmful drugs. Have you ever been around meth users, producers, or those who work professions to pay for their habits?
Wow!
First, it is easy to say meth is illegal because it is highly addicitive and destroys human beings, not just autos. Any libertarian who argues that society should be free to mutulate themselves, well, OK. But not my society. Drug abuse, mutalation and other abusive pleasures are destructive in some pretty clear ways which don’t need to be spelled out here.
While many prefer to be libertarians, it is kind of like saying, I won’t judge you or what you do if you don’t harm me. So, do as you please. Then we all can pay for a lifetime of institutional confinement when the drug user is in a vegetative state. Who is made free by that? Unless libertarianism allows us to flush the helpless who excercised their free-will to get high? Is that an option? Euthanasia?
This to me is a philosophical conundrum for those who want to make it so. Conservativism and libertarians don’t really share much in common. Not hard to say. Like Progressivism these ism’s all start at the same place and end in very different places, sometimes passing very close to each other, like planets in a universe. Seperate but not the same or that similar.
And it was excellent. Sal gives a clear and complete statement of the relation of the individual to the state according to responsible and libertarian principles. Ok to call that capital-ell Libertarianism?
I think the conventional Libertarian vision of the limited state, chartered only to protect individuals from (direct?) harm by other individuals (and other nations?) places Libertarianism near the right end of a simple spectrum of “how much power should the state have.” It’s an attractive place to begin, but is it useful in reasoning about the problem of Tommy’s meth user and my neighborhood’s meth and crime epidemic?
I also liked the podcast, stylistically. No intro music, no intro banter, this isn’t the housewives’ morning show, right to the point. Good two-man push-pull dialog from the start where Tom sets up Sal for the main thesis. I’ll probably listen to the rest.
The Changeling or I, Mudd?
OK, so I expect both you two to get a laugh out of this:
More than one Ricochetian has recommended to me Written on the Heart, a Christian Aristotelian take on natural law. Well, I finally read the darn thing.
What struck me most as I was reading is that Aristotle’s “city” – an “association of associations” is what I would call an “economy”, and Aristotle’s “excellence” and “golden mean” are both instances of constrained optimization.
Yes, even “excellence” is just constrained optimization, because the “purpose” or “function” of an object is only realistically defined according to its constraints. (I could elaborate with examples, but if you asked yourself, for example, “What excellence does Tylenol have?” you’d quickly get the idea.)
As usual, when I read excerpts from Aristotle or works written about Aristotle, I came away grateful to Aristotle for his pioneering exploration of human thought, but with the impression that later generations really have improved on it, in part by seeing connections that unify metaphysical ideas, like thinking of two almost opposite-sounding ideas, “excellence” and “the golden mean”, as special instances of optimization under constraints.
Two points on this:
I personally have no problem with our statist marriage system. Sure, I can envision a non-statist version that I’d probably prefer under hypothetical future circumstances. But I’m perfectly happy keeping and strengthening the one we have for the foreseeable future.
Secondly, I want to stress that there is a world of difference between esteeming, approving, partaking of, and defending a social institution such as marriage and seeking or cheering on its abolition. Even the libertarians who don’t like statist marriage aren’t seeking a future lead by hedonismbot.
Barfly and James Madison you’ve both admitted to exactly what I said of conservatives.
Putting it in more flowery terms isn’t a denial.
I don’t think you quite have it right. Conservatives want meth use to be illegal not because of some abstract idea of harm. We have to pay for the health and welfare of the meth user. There simply aren’t meth users who aren’t dependent on us. Meth users and pot smokers are not the same. The day JM and BF don’t have to pay to keep the meth addict from dying of exposure or hunger, I think is the day they no longer care whether meth use is legal or not.
You are still in the abstract.
Also, are you then asserting that all things which cause homelessness must be outlawed? You do realize that eventually leads to a governmental battle against homelessness, and since we are in the abstract here, you end up with Bernie Sanders’ free college for everyone.
Pure Libertarianism ultimately makes the claim that there is a moral right to do something that is a moral wrong, or to do something without even first deciding whether it is a moral wrong, so long as it does not violate the Libertarian harm principle. This means that, whatever virtues Libertarianism have, it cannot be considered a serious philosophy in the traditional sense. Claiming that there is a moral right to do a moral wrong is logically and philosophically incoherent. At best, libertarianism can be considered a useful practical approach to political issues, not a serious philosophy.
No. What is constantly being missed is that Libertarians are certainly in the public square to argue for virtue.
We just don’t countenance the evangelical laziness of legislating it. That’s the big government SoCons.
Tommy,then what is the moral or philosophical justification …as opposed to a merely practical justification… For distinguishing between crimes with victims and crimes without victims as the only factor in deciding whether coercive legislation can be enacted against it? Yes, it’s immoral to victimize people. But it may be immoral to do other things as well. The common factor is the immorality of the actions, whether the actions are victimless or not.
And this doesn’t even address the fact that it’s very very hard to draw a line defining a victimless crime in the first place.
I doubt Tommy would disagree with you on morality. He is a devout Catholic himself, after all. The question is rather whether the law should punish all immoral actions, and if it shouldn’t (and I think even Catholic Natural Law says it shouldn’t), how shall we distinguish between those immoralities which ought to be punished by law and those which shouldn’t?
I’m never going to make an argument for anything in absolute terms. All things in life require a balance.
I certainly see a need to balance harm and punishment, but as MFR points out not all things need to be punished. Gravity will always be an issue. Immediacy too – after all habeas corpus has been suspended at times without the necessity of anyone claiming it therefore had to be done away with.
There are laws that address crimes that are mala in se (crimes wrong in and of themselves, for instance direct harms like rape and murder) and crimes that are mala prohibita (crimes that are only against the law because we have prohibited them, like fishing without a license).
Harms to person and property we’d probably never haggle over. But the more attenuated the harm of an action, the more the libertarian will argue that legal proscription is not the answer, rather evangelical and community pressures. If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work. Freedom to be of lesser moral standing is a real freedom.
Ah, yes – I thought so. When I refer to your meth addict and my neighborhood, I believe you only see the meth addict, the individual. I say there is both a societal and an individual dimension of Tweak’s behavior.
If you like, I can phrase it purely from an individual perspective: I say that while Tweak’s behavior is his own business, his effects on other individuals while small is nonzero. Summed over a drug culture full of Tweaks, however, the impact to each individual in the society becomes appreciable – and becomes everyone’s concern.
That is very different from caring what Tweak has going on in his head.
So you’re one of the those guys who joined the Mayor of New York for outlawing certain sized sodas because sugar leads to health problems in the poor, who go on the public dole when they get sick and to quote you, “…the impact to each individual in the society becomes appreciable – and becomes everyone’s concern.”
No, I’m not, and putting words in another’s mouth is no way to argue or convince. I’ll forget your taunt, and restate: I believe some libertarians have such a monomania regarding liberty that they forget responsibility.
No. I’m asserting that the objection to drug use isn’t based in an abstract concept that drug addicted people are bad for society. I am asserting that the objection to drug use (and let us define, within the scope of this comment, that “objection to drug use” means making some drugs illegal) is based in the fact that we have to pay for the people. So we are directly “harmed.”
That said, the logical conclusion is not that anything that causes homelessness should be outlawed. The logical conclusion is that we should let people live (and die) with their own decisions. That is, let them die in the street, if that is how they’ve chosen to live.
Understand, I am, at lease conceptually, in favor of legalizing drugs. Just so long as we also eliminate all public funding of drug rehabilitation, welfare for drug addicts, etc.
Cue the wearing of sackcloth, and the rending of garments.
And you, sir, prove what I said early on. You fell for the most well known trap. The second, and only slightly less well know, is never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line. And you will have known that I am no Sicilian, so I clearly cannot choose the meth in front of you.
MFR, Tommy, it seems to me that many libertarians use the moral language of liberty to defend the legality of immoral actions that may be considered victimless. For example, arguing that there is a moral right to be a prositute or to produce pornography and that outlawing prostitution or pornography is an immoral infringement of basic liberty. It doesn’t distinguish between actions that we truly do have the moral liberty to do and those which we don’t but which for practical reasons we may also choose not to outlaw. What libertarian, when confronted with an effort to outlaw pornography, would respond only with a list of reasons why outlawing it would cause certain other unintended harmful consequences?
Who argued that?
Haha!