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.”

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?

So indeed, Wallstad’s example is the exact ‘muddling’ he decries.

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.”

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.

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.