The Perverse Libertarian Urge
So I've had this discussion several times. Why does it matter if non-libertarians call themselves libertarians? What else should they call themselves?
The truth is, I don't care too much, I just find it irritating. Libertarianism gets a free ride because people are lazy. I also think it would be premature to say that it doesn't matter - the psychology of party/ideological affiliation is complicated. I've heard, for instance, that most people identify with a political party before forming opinions on most policy issues. Causality doesn't always run the direction we might like it to.
Mostly, though, I just think it's silly. Stephen Colbert often asks Democrats and/or liberals whether George Bush is a great president or the greatest president. If they try to give another answer, he says, "Sorry, those are the only two options." When they refuse to choose one, he says, "I'll put you down for 'great.'" This is essentially what pseudo-libertarians are doing, except that they don't seem to get the joke.
More importantly, "libertarian" is a pretty bad alternative. It's ludicrous that people like Alan criticize liberals for being bad at economics, then turn around and call themselves libertarians. This is an error that is very much of the "out of the frying pan, into the fire" sort. Read some libertarian blogs and see how good their grasp of economics is. You'll rapidly come to appreciate that worshipping the market is different from understanding it. Among my favorites was an argument for privatization of the police force. Now, I understand that reasonable libertarians don't believe this. Partly, though, that's because reasonable libertarians aren't libertarians.
In fact, ultimately the real problem with calling yourself a libertarian is that it associates you with libertarians. It's the same reason I would never call myself a Green even though I agree with many of their positions (I assume they favor higher gas taxes, gay marriage, etc.). I'm not really arguing in favor of the term "liberal," I just think it's vastly better, because more reasonable, than the term libertarian. Ultimately I think people are just being lazy, and if they delved deeper they would recoil from libertarianism.
[update: fixed typo]
The truth is, I don't care too much, I just find it irritating. Libertarianism gets a free ride because people are lazy. I also think it would be premature to say that it doesn't matter - the psychology of party/ideological affiliation is complicated. I've heard, for instance, that most people identify with a political party before forming opinions on most policy issues. Causality doesn't always run the direction we might like it to.
Mostly, though, I just think it's silly. Stephen Colbert often asks Democrats and/or liberals whether George Bush is a great president or the greatest president. If they try to give another answer, he says, "Sorry, those are the only two options." When they refuse to choose one, he says, "I'll put you down for 'great.'" This is essentially what pseudo-libertarians are doing, except that they don't seem to get the joke.
More importantly, "libertarian" is a pretty bad alternative. It's ludicrous that people like Alan criticize liberals for being bad at economics, then turn around and call themselves libertarians. This is an error that is very much of the "out of the frying pan, into the fire" sort. Read some libertarian blogs and see how good their grasp of economics is. You'll rapidly come to appreciate that worshipping the market is different from understanding it. Among my favorites was an argument for privatization of the police force. Now, I understand that reasonable libertarians don't believe this. Partly, though, that's because reasonable libertarians aren't libertarians.
In fact, ultimately the real problem with calling yourself a libertarian is that it associates you with libertarians. It's the same reason I would never call myself a Green even though I agree with many of their positions (I assume they favor higher gas taxes, gay marriage, etc.). I'm not really arguing in favor of the term "liberal," I just think it's vastly better, because more reasonable, than the term libertarian. Ultimately I think people are just being lazy, and if they delved deeper they would recoil from libertarianism.
[update: fixed typo]
posted by James | 12:15 AM
10 Comments:
This would be wittier and more potent if it weren’t so late... Fortunately it doesn’t have to be.
My argument is purely about signaling general political stances. I'm assuming the limited framework people tend to use when discussing politics: an economic/social axis and a liberal/conservative axis. This yields liberals, conservatives, moderates, libertarians, and, for lack of a better term, Dixiecrats. As someone who thinks he's on the left on social issues and on the right on economic issues (well, I'm definitely on the right among my peers, who I send most of my signals to), I check off the libertarian quadrant (not Libertarian; this isn't about parties). Facile? "Lazy?" Don't hate the player; hate the game.
Of course, the degree of these preferences matters. "Libertarian" would be the wrong label for me if it suggested anarcho-capitalism; I'd be better off with the lesser error of implying, roughly, that I'm with the Democrats on economic issues (or whatever "liberal" entails). The thing is, I don't think libertarianism suggests extremism. For instance, I consider The Economist libertarian. Reason isn't crazy from what I've read. And everyone knows the Randroids are on the fringe. Furthermore, I do think I'm meaningfully on the economic right (once again, at least among my peers). And I want to emphasize this when I'm constantly confronted with fundamental economic illiteracy from liberals. I suspect libertarians, even foolish ones, are more likely to have a grasp of basic economic concepts. Even if they don't, they're at least more likely to respect economic reasoning. I’ve heard a fair amount of dogmatic disdain for economics from liberal students, and it typically hasn’t been treated as extremist. For instance, “I hate Posner and his economic determinism” and “the Coase Theorem isn’t realistic” were not meet with much resistance in small group discussions.
Obviously there are extremists and idiots in every political direction. All I’m saying is that in a world of limited labels, “libertarian” is what you call someone who: generally agrees with the Becker-Posner Blog; thinks there are endemic problems with large scale representative government that significantly limit its efficacy and efficiency, even in areas in which the market is hardly perfect; is wary of paternalism and overcriminalization; is “pro globalization”; and has no desire to be grouped with people who take Freud and Marx even somewhat seriously.
Admittedly, my disdain for the economic (far?) left may be primarily a result of my greater exposure to it (I did take Machala on American foreign policy and Hussain on [anti]globalization; I also go to NYU). And maybe I’ve just met the good libertarians. So I guess “liberal” is the safe choice, since it’s colloquially more encompassing. But why play it safe when you can piss off James?
Alan, your description of a "libertarian" would come very close to describing Paul Krugman. This should give you pause.
It may have been true at one time that economic analysis was foreign to leftists, but that is no longer the case, if it ever was. Leftists routinely mobilize economic arguments in favor of universal health care, environmental regulation, wealth redistribution, etc. Self-identified libertarians may not be as extreme as I have depicted them, but in that case I think "libertarians" would be barely cognizable to actual libertarians.
Why not just affiliate yourself with my favorite political party from "Futurama," the Antisocialists? It satisfies your strange craving to maximize your distance from certain econ skeptics, and it's also funny.
"Why does it matter if non-libertarians call themselves libertarians?"
This is an extremely Bushian (Colbertiste?) way of framing the question, because part of our dispute is over what a libertarian is, and you're assuming your preferred conclusion. Alan's usage -- meaning, roughly, hands-off both on social issues and on many economic issues -- is both inherently sensible and somewhat widely used. It's silly to artificially limit the term to the most extreme specimens. In Europe, a lot of people call themselves "socialists;" they're not fakes just because they don't believe everything should be subjected to social decision-making.
And the empirical argument ("But libertarian actually means extremist") just doesn't hold up. As Alan points out, look at Reason mag, which contains a wide variety of viewpoints, some crazy, some not, but is emphatically "libertarian."
Concede?
P.S. I think distancing myself from anti-economists is one of my more understandable (and palatable) cravings, given that failing to think like an economist in a broad sense (i.e., at the margin, about both short- and long-term consequences, about all affected parties, empirically) is failure to meaningfully think at all. (It is useful to often split infinitives.)
There are two issues here, somewhat intertwined. It's true that I assumed victory in the terminological debate, perhaps too soon (more later).
The main debate centers around people I know who acknowledge that they aren't libertarians, but use the term as shorthand because they are so disgusted by liberals. Essentially their logic is this. "I'm not a liberal, because a lot of liberals shy away from economic argumentation, and it is of supreme importance that I not be associated with such people. I'll call myself a libertarian and hope everyone understands that I'm just signaling that I know economics." The reason this is so perverse, as I pointed out, is that libertarians tend to be really bad at economics.
Now, it's true that this does feed back into our political terminology. I started my original post by laying out what I think is a reasonable distinction: if your factual and normative beliefs lead you to conclude that massive government intervention is sometimes a godd idea, you're not a libertarian. However, I'm willing to deal with the argument that we really are all libertarians. As I noted previously, this argument is also perverse. Look again at Alan's definition. Welcome, Paul Krugman, to the political philosophy known as "libertarianism." I'm a libertarian, and I believe in socialized medicine, higher taxes, and stricter environmental regulation.
So I think it's simply absurd to define "libertarian" this way. No reasonable person would do it. If you need a way to describe yourself, and you're socially liberal and economically neoliberal, I suggest, "I'm socially liberal and economically neoliberal." Otherwise I suggest, "I'm an Antisocialist."
The original post is absurd—you could make the same claim about the labels "conservative" and "liberal". They mean different things to different people and I don't really identify with either of them. I don't like "libertarian" for the some of the reasons you don't and because of Randroids, but if you pushed me on it I'd probably admit that I was one. Your definition of "libertarian" is much like Ann Coulter's definition of "liberal".
"Liberal" tends to mean socialist leaning, so if you're a "fiscal conservative" or "economic neoliberal" what the hell are you going to call yourself? To distill it, libertarian = supports more liberties than others = supports economic freedom (small government) and social freedom (civil liberties). I don't see what's so contentious about it.
I have a feeling you were sexually abused by a free-market liberal when you were young.
Alan: Reason is decent, except for that ridiculous pro-QWERTY/anti-Dvorak article that was supposed to demonstrate the superiority of market forces or some shit.
I bet this is the kind of libertarian that James hates.
"Your definition of "libertarian" is much like Ann Coulter's definition of "liberal"."
This is a really good analogy.
I don't know much about Ann Coulter, but this analogy strikes me as inapt. I take it that Ann Coulter uses an expansive definition of liberal so as to tarnish people. I'm using a restrictive definition of libertarian so as to prevent people from being tarnished. Or have I misunderstood what Coulter is up to?
I imagine Ann Coulter's definition of "liberal" is pretty broad, but the relevant point is that it's derogatory and daft. I'm not going to waste any more time trying to track it down, but I did find this gem of an interview.
I don't think I can sum up my position much better than this:
Tarun: hmmm... so explain this libertarian thing to me
im reading the post
me: james is just being obstinately obtuse
i mean, i may be wrong about the meaning of "libertarian"
but i think he thinks it's more extreme than it really is
and i'm winning!
Tarun: well it seems to me you guys are arguing about whether its legitimate to call yourself a libertarian because you're repulsed by liberal ignorance about economics
me: that's not the only reason
it's also b/c i like a freer market than liberals
Tarun: right
me: but i'm still very socially liberal (pro gay marriage and all that)
Tarun: i mean that was what i was talking about
sounds like you call yourself a libertarian because you are a libertarian
me: so i figure i'll call myself libertarian even though i'm not a whacko
and james thinks if i’m not a whacko i'm not really a libertarian
so i think he's a whacko
Tarun: well you will concede that paul krugman is not a libertarian yeah?
me: i don't know enough about him, but i guess he's not
but what about dave, will, dice, etc. who seem to have similar politics to me
they all identify as libertarian
becker-posner seems libertarian
economist seems libertarian
Tarun: right
i think all those things are true
me: also, i so like the signaling argument
i think identifying as libertarian sends the message to many people
that i'm a consequentialist who thinks economically and not in terms of moral fluff
Tarun: well the signalling argument should lead you to classify paul samuelson as a libertarian
i imagine
me: i really don't know much about him
anyway, i guess i'm just slightly libertarian
but if you count that term as equally broad and valid as conservative, liberal, etc.
(remember the axes)
then that's where i am
Tarun: fair enough
Post a Comment
<< Home