On Libertarianism
Libertarianism really irritates me. I think this is because I find it alluring at times, but always end up repulsed by it. Meanwhile plenty of otherwise intelligent people claim to be libertarians. I'll examine the strains of libertarianism I've encountered, and then try to explain my antipathy towards it. The last paragraph sums it up pretty well, so skip to it if you want the short version.
So let's start out with definitions. Some libertarians are "principled" libertarians, who see liberty as the primary or the only value. Many of these libertarians have a very strange conception of liberty (more later). While the language of absolutism is very common among utilitarians, few are actually "pure" or "absolute" libertarians. In other words, almost all of us would prefer a world with minor infractions on liberty but universal prosperity to a world with no incursions on liberty but universal poverty.
Far more libertarians have more or less reasonable values (freedom, but also prosperity, safety, etc.), but they have crazy factual beliefs that lead them to favor "libertarian" positions. These "instrumental" libertarians would be willing to trade away some liberty in exchange for longer lifespans, more literacy, and so on. They just happen to believe that this tradeoff isn't necessary. Good things come from liberty, and bad things come from regulation of human behavior.
This class of libertarians shades gradually into reasonable people who call themselves libertarians. These people might place a high but not infinite value on liberty, and might believe that in the majority of cases people can solve their problems through consensual arrangements. All of that is reasonable. It's not far from my viewpoint. At some point, though, simply valuing liberty doesn't make you a libertarian. I draw the line subjectively, but basically you're not a libertarian if you acknowledge substantial areas in which liberty must be curtailed for social purposes.
A final definitional point. Liberty is obviously a vague term. I don't have a rigorous definition, I take it to mean the ability to do what you want. Obviously there are fine points that I am ignoring. Importantly, though, a lot of libertarians have a truly crazy definition of liberty, in which it is defined as the inverse of the government's power to intrude into people's lives. This ignores other threats to liberty. Also, liberty isn't just the absence of external restraint. I think literacy expands freedom, and in some sense constitutes it. The same goes for all kinds of things that libertarians subvert to their truncated conception of liberty.
So I'll write another post explaining the specific problems with libertarianism, but I actually think I've spelled out my big objections. It's unreasonable in its pure form. It's unrealistic in its instrumental form (this is the claim I will defend in future posts). However, liberty is in fact a good means to many social ends, as well as basic happiness and dignity. This leads many people to self-identify as libertarians even though they recognize the validity and utility of substantial infringements on liberty. This inflates their reported numbers and pisses me off. Finally, libertarians are overly suspicious of the government, and this suspicion stems in part from their refusal to recognize that many government programs expand liberty. This in turn stems from their sterile conception of liberty. Sloppiness and wishful thinking have given libertarianism too much clout, or at least too many purported adherents, and it should be curtailed.
So let's start out with definitions. Some libertarians are "principled" libertarians, who see liberty as the primary or the only value. Many of these libertarians have a very strange conception of liberty (more later). While the language of absolutism is very common among utilitarians, few are actually "pure" or "absolute" libertarians. In other words, almost all of us would prefer a world with minor infractions on liberty but universal prosperity to a world with no incursions on liberty but universal poverty.
Far more libertarians have more or less reasonable values (freedom, but also prosperity, safety, etc.), but they have crazy factual beliefs that lead them to favor "libertarian" positions. These "instrumental" libertarians would be willing to trade away some liberty in exchange for longer lifespans, more literacy, and so on. They just happen to believe that this tradeoff isn't necessary. Good things come from liberty, and bad things come from regulation of human behavior.
This class of libertarians shades gradually into reasonable people who call themselves libertarians. These people might place a high but not infinite value on liberty, and might believe that in the majority of cases people can solve their problems through consensual arrangements. All of that is reasonable. It's not far from my viewpoint. At some point, though, simply valuing liberty doesn't make you a libertarian. I draw the line subjectively, but basically you're not a libertarian if you acknowledge substantial areas in which liberty must be curtailed for social purposes.
A final definitional point. Liberty is obviously a vague term. I don't have a rigorous definition, I take it to mean the ability to do what you want. Obviously there are fine points that I am ignoring. Importantly, though, a lot of libertarians have a truly crazy definition of liberty, in which it is defined as the inverse of the government's power to intrude into people's lives. This ignores other threats to liberty. Also, liberty isn't just the absence of external restraint. I think literacy expands freedom, and in some sense constitutes it. The same goes for all kinds of things that libertarians subvert to their truncated conception of liberty.
So I'll write another post explaining the specific problems with libertarianism, but I actually think I've spelled out my big objections. It's unreasonable in its pure form. It's unrealistic in its instrumental form (this is the claim I will defend in future posts). However, liberty is in fact a good means to many social ends, as well as basic happiness and dignity. This leads many people to self-identify as libertarians even though they recognize the validity and utility of substantial infringements on liberty. This inflates their reported numbers and pisses me off. Finally, libertarians are overly suspicious of the government, and this suspicion stems in part from their refusal to recognize that many government programs expand liberty. This in turn stems from their sterile conception of liberty. Sloppiness and wishful thinking have given libertarianism too much clout, or at least too many purported adherents, and it should be curtailed.
posted by James | 9:55 PM
4 Comments:
I don't think the number of libertarians is inflated; quite the opposite. I think libertarianism gets a bad name because of Ayn Rand freaks. What would you call socially liberal and economically neoliberal people?
Dice's objection is the same as what I've heard Alan say to you previously (Will may have implicitly or explicitly agreed; I don't remember). I'm sympathetic to that view myself. More basically, though, I think it's silly to have a debate over the best definition of the word, "libertarian."
Yeah. When I have to use one word to express my politics, I use "libertarian" because it conveys the general stances Dice referred to. Most people - at least most college students - who identify as "liberal" are overly suspicious of market solutions. Some claim to evaluate policies based solely on their effects on social welfare, but often miss the mark. I suspect a significant reason for this is that these people lack basic training in thinking like an economist. It's amazing the kind of errors people make when they haven't consciously examined fundamental concepts, such as supply and demand and ex ante vs. ex post reasoning. (People should at least read books like this.) The other broad anti-market group is, of course, the haters, such as the stereotypical anti-globalization protester who rails against free trade in broad terms and doesn't have a sophisticated response to the claim that sweatshops generally advance social welfare. These people suck, and I want to readily distinguish myself from them. Sure, I risk associating myself with Randroids and the people James disses, but it's a price I'm willing to pay. They may take my live, but they'll never give me something to lose.
Well said.
Post a Comment
<< Home