The Monkey Cage

Have events started a death spiral of libertarianism? I’m not so sure. It seems to me that Ron Paul did better than he would have 10 years ago, that the “Tea Parties,” while ineffectual, demonstrated that the ideology still has some appeal out there, and that American NIMBY-ism (which seems to me distinctly tied in to American conservativism (not the same thing as libertarianism, obviously, but often a fellow traveler), as it values “my” freedom over freedom for all) seems to persist.

On the one hand, I could see your Ron Pauls and Glenn Becks as death spasms. On the other hand, if you’re right about American libertarianism having successfully implanted itself into the mythos of the Founders, I wonder if that means it could survive the current harsh climate for it.

Can there really be a death of libertarianism if it hasn’t even been born? At what point was this libertarianism you describe actually alive and thriving?

And I’m affraid you’ve committed a classic fallacy in asserting that somehow “the libertarian focus…break[s] down the human ties that give us our real identities and make life worth living.” That is such an absurd comment and it only serves to prepetuate the myth that because libertarianism focuses on indiviudal voluntary action, the goal of libertarianism must be survivalists out in the woods.

It is fascinating to read the lament about how mechanistic classic liberalism a.k.a libertarianism is

Libertarianism is as opposed to Keynesianism (social democratic) and socialism a worldview for the whole human.

It is always fascinating to read the Orwellian Newspeak perception of classic liberalism compared to socialism and social democracy.

Socialism and social democracy only focus on mans material well being.

The tyranny of dead ideas always proclaims classic liberalism to be dead. The only dead ideas are socialism and the idea that you can plan and regulate the economy.

The current crisis is a typical example of when a mixed economy fails.

I too have been wondering about the ability of what you call American libertarianism, or free market ideology, to withstand the events of the past few years. For me its less about the politicians and media freaks, but rather about the power of those few ideas (anti-govt, anti-tax, unregulated market interaction in all areas of life) to define American politics and policy.

At first I was skeptical of the ability of those libertarian ideas to continue to deeply influence American politics, but I am starting to suspect that (contra Keynes) the ideas are merely props in the hands of entrenched interests, who will use the many veto points of American politics and policy to maintain the status quo.

It seems that the true hollowness of American libertarianism is that it is blind to the practical realities of power being brought to bear on individuals, of powerful interests perpetuating themselves.

Is there any good research as to how many people in the US may consider themselves part of this group.

I commend Steven for letting us know where he’s headed up front and not making apologies for taking a side. It makes it easier to remember that we’ll be getting essentially the prosecutor’s side of the case in his entries. I’d be suspicious if he tried to pretend he was able to present the lib. side objectively given his stated perspective - all too often, essays like that end up presenting just strawmen for the other side, which is worse than just leaving it to their opponents to speak for themselves.

Getting a handle on what constitutes libertarianism is not that simple. Constitutional scholar Randy Barnett (author of “The Lost Constitution”) professes to be libertarian. Check out his 9/17/08 speech to the libertarian Cato Institute available via SSRN at:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1432854

titled: “Is the Constitution Libertarian?” He thinks “The Lost Constitution” needs to be restored to achieve individual liberty and limited government, the goal of libertarians.

Query: Can a democracy of 300+ million survive as libertarian?

Jason and Matt — I agree that we see so many examples in our politics today that seem to indicate the resilience of America’s (simplistic) libertarianism. But one of the things I tried to focus on in my post today is the change that is occurring within libertarianism’s own natural constituency (business interests).

I drafted a whole long paragraph comparing this moment in our history to the Glorious Revolution, but cut it because I didn’t want to focus too much on my own work (on John Locke). But the analogy was this — although Whigs had been carping at the Stuart monarchy for 20+ years, they made little headway until James II took actions that drove natural members of his coalition (some aristocrats and upper gentry) into the Whig fold. Then all of a sudden Whig ideology became the dominant mode of thinking, and Locke published The Two Treatises to take part in that conversation (though it was a bit too radical to be widely accepted).

I think this somewhat like the place we are right now. Libertarian ideological and economic assumptions are being questioned from the inside, and a 25-year trend of anti-libertarian thinking might finally see its day.

That big business is considered natural constituency of libertarianism in the US shows how libertarianism has been perverted by the influence of right-wingers using the rhetoric to defend corporatism.

See, when corporate interests talk about holding back government, they mean only the parts that may hinder them. The stuff that HELPS them (“intellectual property” law, regulations that fall on smaller competitors & local businesses disproportionately, limited liability, the legal status of corporations as immortal paper persons, rules making it increasingly difficult for labor to organize for their interests) they’re A-OK with, even going as far as to deny that they count as regulations.

I doubt the changes we are/will be undergoing are more significant than the New Deal, maybe the Great Society. Libertarianism has always been dead, and it has always been “the day” of anti-libertarian thinking.

Regarding the Founders, I’d say they were more socially conservative and much more “small government” than the mainstream today.

Is business the natural constituency of libertarianism? Adam Smith didn’t think so. Roy Childs didn’t, nor did Gabriel Kolko. Is the business community now so different from that described by Steve Teles’ “Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement” in the days before the Federalist Society?

“Philosophically, the libertarian focus on the freestanding individual leads us into a sort of solipsism, breaking down the human ties that give us our real identities and make life worth living.”

Claiming that libertarianism leads to the breakdown of human ties is not only a provocative indictment, it demonstrates that you haven’t a clue as to what you are talking about. Libertarians love community. They disagree, however, on the use of force as a means of generating the so-called, “human ties that give us our real identities and make life worth living.” Most libertarians want to live in sociable communities with neighbors that help and look out for one another. They want to engage in commerce, volunteer for causes, and share resources with their friends and neighbors. What libertarians find immoral is the creation of non-voluntary relationships imposed by the brute force of the state.

Libertarianism in NOT the ideal-typical, borderline sociopathic, ethic of the individual popularized by Ayn Rand. Yes, libertarianism prizes the pursuit of individual human freedom. However, if you are going to take the radical step and argue that a society which puts individual human freedom first is incompatible with a society constituted by deep human ties; you at least need to demonstrate how that occurs.

Although Ayn Rand herself denied being a libertarian, that might have just been due to bad experiences with Rothbard and so many would include her. I personally can’t bring myself to read her and instead look to Max Stirner. Stirner was, if anything, more an advocate of sociopathy than Rand but at the same time he spoke of a Union of Egoists in which multiple individuals could pursue their egoistic ends through each other. A more relevant thinker though might be Albert Jay Nock, who spoke often of the distinction between Government (which is a good and necessary thing) vs the State (which is of course Our Enemy).

The problem is not that libertarianism is dead - the problem is that a majority of the people who claim to be libertarians are nothing of the sort. The libertarian movement has been thoroughly and discreditably hijacked by wolves wearing sheep’s clothing. A big clue is the lamguage being used on libertarian discussion forms, which has become indistinguishable from the language used by authoritarians.
Despite what many people would have you believe, Ron Paul is not a libertarian on many issues. He appears to believe that state coercion in the regulation of abortion is perfectly OK. That does not look like libertarian thinking to me. Sure, he is against the Federal Reserve, but that clarion call has been embraced by all manner of people from libertarians through to complete deluded paranoid conspiracy-theory wingnuts.
If American libertarianism wants to survive, it needs to boot out the strange bedfellows who are currently dragging it into a primordial stew of angry authoritarianism. Right now, I have serious doubts that many libertarians can tell the wood from the trees.

“their outsized … influence on the politics of the past 30 years”

HA!

Before we sign the libertarian ideology’s death certificate, let’s first look at why it has become such a pervasive ideology in American political and economic culture and why it is still useful. Your critique of modern libertarianism focuses on the negative aspects of Libertarianism without realizing the promise that exists in its basic premises. It is not necessary to conclude that our current circumstances will (or even should) lead to the demise of libertarianism. Political theorists, such as you, should take a more proactive (and optimistic) approach—breaking apart the libertarian faith to discern what can be salvaged and what can be revised to better accord with our current social and political needs. I believe that this is not a far cry from what you are actually arguing for. The “libertarian impulse”, and its presumption of liberty, are an essential part of our American history.

Before we begin the task of revision, let’s understand how the libertarian impulse, with its free market creed and entrepreneurial ethos, became an essential part of the American vision of self. The disciples of Hamilton enchanted the nation with a dream of wealth. Figures like Carnegie would later come embody this dream emboldening the capitalist spirit and it’s ideological twin, libertarianism. We want to believe that, in our system, we will succeed in spite of our meager beginnings.

Property ownership has always been an intimate part of the “American Dream.” This dream of new and greater wealth serves as the protectorate of wealth in general. Because we all strive to achieve it, there has never been a successful movement in the United States to abolish it.

Our lust for wealth partnered with our belief that we are all born with an equal opportunity to enter into the marketplace is the essence our entrepreneurial spirit. The tenants of capitalism (specifically individualism and free markets) have become intimately tied to our unique “Americanism.” This is largely because the ideology was able to flourish in a society that is uniquely American—the absence of aristocracy and feudalism. America developed outside of the confines of economic restrictions found in a feudal society; because of this it has always been a land of comparatively free entrepreneurial activity.

There are certain historic circumstances that further solidified the libertarian impulse as a popular, if not canonical, belief in American political thought. After the Civil War, Americans experienced a spectacular growth in capitalism at the same time that we experienced a growth in political freedom with the passage of the Civil War (Reconstruction) Amendments. If you partner this with the fact that the New Deal came on the eve of the Red Scare, we might be able to better understand why American tend to associate an increase in state economic control with a decrease in civil liberties. When you compare these two major historical events, and see the positive correlation between free market capitalism and expanding civil rights, it becomes easier to see why the Libertarian ideology has such great force and lore.

One could easily counter my previous claim by mentioning the fact that the Reconstruction Amendment actually enable further state action—enabling Congress to pass sweeping legislation such as the Civil Rights Act. This brings me to my next point: what can we salvage and what needs to be amended in the libertarian creed to better accord with other fundamental values in our society.

Perhaps the most important part of the libertarian ideology, and the part that is most certainly worth salvaging, is its Presumption of Liberty. This presumption places the burden on the government to demonstrate that a restriction is both necessary and proper. Indeed, many libertarians (including Professor Randy Barnett from Georgetown Law) believe in an expansion of individual freedom. This expansion includes going beyond those listed in the Bill of Rights (and the judicially recognized right of privacy). Looking to the 9th and 14th amendment, we find that the state must respect more than a mere handful of liberties.

I believe the crux of your critique to be the priority that modern libertarians give to property rights and the right of contract over other “natural rights.” And this is where I believe things need to be revised. This over-emphasis of property rights has enabled the individual’s right to himself to supercede his obligation to his community.

If we look at our current economic plight, we see this tension in full force. Large scale health care and economic reform will require that individuals be willing to cede their individual economic and political power for the sake of the larger community. This means that we would have to sublimate a large part of our libertarian instinct—specifically, our absolutist entrepreneurial ethos. However, if we are to do this then our government must take seriously the burden placed upon it by our Constitution.

I don’t know that we have seen this type of responsible action enacted by the State in its current economic “reform.” Today we see banks extracting special benefits from the State. Because of this you see a libertarian reflex or reaction pervading multiple levels of society. Individuals are unwilling to cede more to the government than we already do, only for the government to turn around and give individuals who acted irresponsibly with their liberty the license to do it again. As a result of this and past events, we view government paternalism as the gateway to political corruption, and the death of liberty.

Yale professor William Sumner once said: “The trouble is that a democratic government is in greater danger than any other of becoming paternal, for it is sure of itself, and ready to undertake anything, and its power is excessive and pitiless against dissentients.”

However, we must not confuse our natural suspicion of the states with a rejection of it. Often a growth in government results in the protection of fundamental individual rights. A great example of this, as mentioned previously, is the 14th Amendment, which expanded the power of Congress and the courts to protect against state infringements of individual rights.

Our libertarian impulse, our natural suspicion of the state to interfere with all of our rights (not just our property rights), is a healthy (if not essential) part of our democratic process. Without it, as the Sumner quote suggests, our government might needlessly grow in a way that is excessive, and, indeed, dangerous. If we moderate the lust for wealth that underlies modern libertarianism, and open up the presumption of liberty to include all individuals rights, then libertarianism becomes something that is certainly worth saving.