I saw a nice quote from some “libertarian” outfit describing their core belief that I think points to the essential difference between pro-democracy liberalism and one version of anti-democracy “libertarianism.” Let’s discuss that this week.
Recall the traditional American liberal ethos is that everyone should be able to do as they please unless what they want to do harms another or conflicts with what another wants to do. In these interpersonal conflict of preference situations, we need laws to resolve conflict. The liberal ethos proposes the best way to make such laws is democratic government because the ethics involved are ultimately subjective and everyone’s views in a given society are important to consider and, of course, the views of the people may change over time, evolve. The tricky bit from the perspective of liberalism is determining when the interpersonal conflict of preferences rises to the level at which law becomes necessary and when it’s more simply a matter of someone’s possibly overly delicate sensibilities being offended or what have you.
The “libertarian” version, cited in the aforementioned passage, was that everyone should be able to express their “rights,” unless they conflict with the “rights” of others. The proposed resolution of any conflicts of “rights” was conspicuously absent. Also conspicuously absent was any mention of whether the relevant “rights” were meant to be legal artifacts and, if so, what manner of government determined or defined them, or simply ethical “rights” each person decided in his or her own mind based on ethics, religion, etc. In rhetorically slick but philosophically sloppy “libertarianism,” the two meanings of “rights” seem often run together resulting in the idea the only legitimate government is an authoritarian government reflecting one’s own personal view of ethics in every particular. I say that’s one version of “libertarianism” because it suggests a resolution of at least some interpersonal conflicts on the basis of “rights.” There’s another version that follows bad economics in the conservative style to simply ignore or dismiss interpersonal conflict. That other version of “libertarianism” uses selective perceptive to support existing power relationships, particularly economic power relationships, and to suggest certain resolutions of interpersonal conflicts are more consistent with “liberty” or “freedom” than others. But let’s return to the more explicitly “rights” based version today and the contention the only legitimate government is an authoritarian government reflecting one’s own personal view of ethics in every particular.
To be clear, a right wing, non-democratic, authoritarian government that reflects conservative ethical views in every particular, particularly relating to the definition, distribution, use of economic power, defends those views against democracy, is basically fascism. However, by adding one’s own content in a sympathetic way, one can make “libertarianism” say whatever one likes. The devil is in the details. What “rights” are we talking about? Where are they coming from? Who specifies them? Who enforces them? How are conflicts resolved? One can construct a version consistent with liberalism, in which the “rights” are legal rights meant to resolve certain interpersonal conflicts and defined by democratic government according to the ethical views of the voters, with conflicts between rights resolved similarly. Similarly, one can construct a version consistent with anarchism, in which the “rights” involved are ethical “rights” determined by each individual, everyone can make up their own list, no one need follow any law, and violent conflict is used to resolve any conflict.
“Libertarianism” is not a serious, coherent political philosophy. It’s a studiously confusing, misleading bit of right wing political rhetoric. However, in practice, most “libertarians” tend to see themselves as above the laws of democracy. “Libertarianism” is typically an appeal to the ego. The typically incredulous indictment of democracy from a “libertarian” is, “Are you willing to allow other people, democracy, ‘mob rule,’ make a law that conflicts what you believe is your right, as a matter of ethics?” The answer, of course, is usually yes, but not always. Living in a society requires such compromise. But one may hold some subjective ethical principles too important to justify remaining part of a society, one may feel the need to become an outlaw, a criminal, a revolutionary. In the old USA, some living in slave states did that over the issue of slavery, and I applaud them. I suppose if slavery were reinstated today through democratic vote and “orginalist” constitutional interpretation, I might become an outlaw, a criminal, to follow my own ethics. But if one is embedded in any society it’s fair for that society to expect one to follow the law, and if one doesn’t, one should be prepared to accept the consequences. Outlaws, criminals, are a dime a dozen, and for so many reasons. It’s not unusual. If that’s all “libertarians” are saying, that if democracy delivers an unwelcome verdict, let’s say, on the definition, distribution, use of economic power, they reserve the right to become criminals, outlaws, in pursuit of their own ethics relating to those issues, that’s fine. They can join the ranks of criminals, outlaws, if they’re willing to pay the consequences, of course. But, no, I don’t think I can really support a fascist government with them at the helm to ensure they’ll never have to face that awkward decision, while others do.
If you feel people should be able to do as they please unless their preferences harm others or conflict with others’ preferences to some level of significance, in which case democracy should create laws to resolve those conflicts, you support liberalism, not “libertarianism.” Just thought you’d like to know.
