My friend Ilya Somin misunderstands me, and at great length.
The lack of libertarian tolerance for ambiguity is an unfortunate thing. “Be more precise,” Ilya says. He says this of a jeremiad against bright-line-ism. There are no bright lines, even within the domains Ilya thinks most clearly delineated. When is coercion justified with regard to property? Libertarians disagree. What constitutes property rightfully obtained? Libertarians disagree.
Note, please. Those who claim to know exactly what “libertarian” means are cherry-picking their way through a thicket of intellectual history. Todd Seavey, Ilya, and Matt Yglesias all seem to think they know very well. I doubt they’d converge on the same definition. Here is a book about the history of the libertarian movement by the very man who edited my piece. Libertarianism isn’t very old. The book is 741 pages.
A political philosophy of limited government is a means to an end. For a great many though by no means all libertarians, the end is individual liberty, understood as the ability to pursue one’s singular aims. For some, support of limited government is, as Tim Lee puts it, “one facet of a broader liberal worldview.” It would be beyond pointless to construct an argument about what supporters of small government “ought” to care about. My Reason piece argues merely that supporters of small government who care about liberty ought to care also about culture, in part because culture and individualism are very often at odds.
Ilya says we cannot know what cultural norms are conducive to liberty broadly construed. What are his evidentiary standards? They are clearly far more stringent in the social realm than in the realm of property rights. We can know which cultural norms are conducive to liberty in much the same way we can known which pattern of property allocation is conducive to liberty. Are we sure in either case? No. Also, evolution is just a theory.
Here Ilya again wants precision, but here again bright lines are perilous to draw. It’s hard to say at exactly what age a girl can freely choose to marry. This is not a good reason for someone who cares about individualism to be agnostic on the issue of child marriage.
Finally:
Kerry claims that most libertarians assume that “social pathologies such as patriarchy and nationalism are not the proper concerns of the individualist.”
I do not claim this and I don’t believe it. The ‘most’ is Ilya’s. The essay was meant for the minority of libertarians, like Seavey, for whom government is a leviathan so totalizing that thought beyond its influence is rendered impossible.
Will your long-winded speeches never end? What ails you that you keep on arguing?
[...] Howley responds to my post criticizing her essay on libertarianism and culture, here. I don’t think her response actually answers most of my main points, however. Kerry [...]
I’m repeating here the comment I left at Volokh Conspiracy. There’s a second part I’ll add as a separate comment although they go together.
I thought Howley’s piece was hopelessly confused–yet, it has served the purpose of stimulating good discussion.
Howley opens with a vignette about Min, a young Chinese woman who takes advantage of the economic liberty existing in that country now to shrug off her family’s traditionalist expectations, get a job, live on her own, and take control of her own life. Does Howley simply want us to cheer for Min? Well bravo I say, and (I speculate) so say we all. But I never got a clear statement of whether she wants government coercion to control what cultural values families may teach and model for their children. The problem there is that government power levers that serve Howley’s preferences today may just as well serve other preferences tomorrow.
“Not every threat to liberty is backed by a government gun,” she says. Right. It may be backed by a private gun or knife or fist. Libertarians oppose coercion by private actors as well as by governments. Does she understand that?
How ley says, “But when a libertarian claims that his philosophy has no cultural content–has nothing to say, for instance, about society’s acceptance of gays and lesbians–he is engaging in a kind of cultural politics that welcomes the paternalism of the mob while balking at that of the state.” But her uncritical reference to “society’s acceptance” is purely collectivist. “Society” is not a person who “accepts.” Individuals accept, or prefer, or choose with whom to socialize or engage in business. The word “mob” conjures up a violent and coercive group, thereby muddling the issue. Her essay is filled with such muddling straw-man rhetoric.
At the same time, I’ll grant that a libertarian attitude does tend to be tolerant of individuals making different choices and does tend to oppose paternalism. At UPJ, I’m rather famous (or notorious) for ranting against paternalistic administrative policies toward students. So I could be quite sympathetic to some of Howley’s themes if her essay wasn’t such a mess.
One other point I would like to offer. Strict libertarians long ago drew a distinction between liberty and “freedom.” Liberty is the absence of aggressive force and fraud. Freedom is about being able to do whatever you want. It’s a bad mistake to confuse the two. Example: If you’re a cab driver (owning your own cab, say) and I want a ride, your choice not to pick me up does indeed mean I’m not free to ride in your cab; but it is no infringement of my liberty. Another example: Fred is not free to marry Jill if Jill chooses Bob. But Jill’s choice in no way infringes on Fred’s liberty.
Allan Walstad says ” Liberty is the absence of aggressive force and fraud. Freedom is…”
Not true. Although I disagree with her, if you are going to criticize Howley for “muddling” or stretching definitions, you should refrain from doing it yourself.
Kerry Howley – there’s nothing wrong with libertarians (or democrats) “caring about” or even being involved in cultural issues. The danger —and a danger it is— is involvement AS a libertarian. Libertarianism, like any other political movement, necessarily moves the government. So any cultural issue the party or movement involves itself in necessarily extends the reach of government toward that issue.
subpatre: “Allan Walstad says ” Liberty is the absence of aggressive force and fraud. Freedom is…”
Not true. Although I disagree with her, if you are going to criticize Howley for “muddling” or stretching definitions, you should refrain from doing it yourself.”
I’m doing no such thing. I am drawing the distinction that thoughtful strict libertarian thinkers have drawn for decades–a distinction I illustrated with two examples. An inability or unwillingness to recognize and deal with that distinction is incompatible with coherent argument from a libertarian standpoint. It conduces to endorsement of all manner of infringements on liberty in the name of “freedom.”
Allan Walstad claims he is “drawing the distinction that thoughtful strict libertarian thinkers have drawn for decades–a distinction I illustrated with two examples. ”
1) It is a definition unsupported by contemporary dictionaries (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberty) or usage, and
2) trivial to reverse, demonstrating the non-distinction: ‘… Fred is not at liberty to marry Jill if Jill chooses Bob. But Jill’s choice in no way infringes on Fred’s freedom.’
So indeed, Wallstad’s example is the exact ‘muddling’ he decries.
subpatre, you are not going to undermine a distinction that libertarian thinkers have drawn for decades by appealing to some generic dictionary. The whole point here has to do with how the word is used, or has been used, or would best be used, by libertarians. Your supposed debunking of my second example again simply appeals to common everyday usage. Even I will often use “freedom” and “liberty” interchangeably in common parlance. The distinction is often phrased in terms of “positive ” versus “negative” liberty. I inculcated my understanding of this 20-25 years ago from classic libertarian literature including Libertarian Party literature that I can’t put my finger on at the moment for you. As I pointed out, without some such principled distinction one is open to all sorts of infringements of liberty in the name of “freedom.” This is one of the ways Howley’s essay is hopelessly muddled. Coercion is an infringement of liberty. The fact that others may not care to deal with you, or may think poorly of you, is not.
Kerry,
I’m all for caring about people experiencing private liberty, in a general sense. I’m all for fostering private institutions that I perceive as liberty-fostering. For example, as a secular atheist, I like the idea of donating money to the Secular Students’ Alliance.
But your argument seems to entail I do much more than this. How would I, if I wanted to, foster liberty per your theory? Attempt to convince people who are voluntary in traditional (evangelical, Orthodox Jewish) lifestyles to view their lifestyles as liberty-depriving and to abandon them? Gently prod monogamous people to experiment with polyamorous structures because of the historical patriarchism associated with monogamy? Encourage Min’s sisters to be more like Min, even if they’re content in a traditional, “liberty-constraining” lifestyle?
Pendulum,
I can’t speak for Kerry, but as a libertarian who was raised as an Orthodox Jew and has serious doubts about the social expectation of life-long monogamy, I personally take it as part of my libertarian project to attempt to convince Orthodox Jews to view their lifestyles as liberty-depriving and to abandon them, and also to gently prod monogamous people, not necessarily to experiment with polyamory, but to at least tolerate and respect those who do, and to perhaps consider it as an alternative to divorce or cheating.
I don’t expect other libertarians to share these same projects. But I do consider these projects to be libertarian projects, tied together in various ways with a thick conception of libertarianism.
Chandran Kukathas lays out the two approaches libertarians can take in dealing with internally illiberal but external peaceful communities in his paper, “Two Constructions of Libertarianism.”
[...] says she wants libertarians to be more feminist, in this blog entry last week and in the course of her sparring with Ilya Somin, who also disagrees with her. Since she’s donated eggs (as she discussed at one of our Lolita [...]
[...] Kerry Howley responds to some of the comments: A political philosophy of limited government is a means to an end. For a great many though by no means all libertarians, the end is individual liberty, understood as the ability to pursue one’s singular aims. For some, support of limited government is, as Tim Lee puts it, “one facet of a broader liberal worldview.” It would be beyond pointless to construct an argument about what supporters of small government “ought” to care about. My Reason piece argues merely that supporters of small government who care about liberty ought to care also about culture, in part because culture and individualism are very often at odds. [...]
Top Stuff. keep it up, but more links to other sites would help me more too.