Liberty and equality: a rebuke of libertarianism.
While it may shock some to hear it, libertarians are philosophically opposed to both liberty and equality. Libertarianism is the philosophy espoused by the Libertarian Party. (*) Libertarians often claim that their positions are more consistent than those of liberals because libertarians support not only social and political liberty, but also economic liberty. That is a fallacious comparison. The liberal position is in fact more consistent. Dodd Harris of Ipse Dixit strongly defends libertarianism by criticizing the notion of equality of result, and attempts to hook me with that notion’s sharp, serrated barb. (†)
Harris was responding to a brief aside I had made in an earlier article. In that article, I had noted that Eric Raymond, as a libertarian, supports liberty but not equality. (‡) I admit that in writing that I digressed obtusely, but nevertheless it is truthful as to political matters germane to the topic discussed therein. As I criticized Raymond’s “Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto,” I contrasted his putative support, as a libertarian, for religious liberty with his misrepresentation and demonization of one religion, namely Islam. In defense of Raymond’s manifesto one might say that he was merely proffering his criticism of Islam which must be protected as a matter of free speech. Yet, that is not the import of Raymond’s manifesto, which calls for political opposition to the “stultifying religion” that could only be Islam. (§) Facing a political document that calls for the opposition to a religion qua religion—to Islam for being Islam—it is right to criticize Raymond’s manifesto for its call for repression. Therefore, I have.
Like other libertarians including Dodd Harris, Eric Raymond is very much a unique and interesting individual; thus, for certainty’s sake let’s drill down and focus on the policies of libertarianism, as exemplified by the Libertarian Party (LP). The LP tends to politically support liberty on some issues, but never philosophically. For example, the LP supports free speech and opposes censorship. (**) On this, the LP politically sides with the liberal position of the Democratic Party and the ACLU. In contrast to that of the LP, the conservative position of the Republican Party is opposed to the liberal position on such issues as flag burning and physician-patient conversations about abortion procedures. Philosophically, however, the LP does not support liberty. The LP does not support free speech on the basis of liberty, but on some other basis. While libertarians champion liberty in some arenas, such as free speech, they do so not for the sake of liberty as a coherent ideal; they do so for reasons of their own convenience.
This takes us back to Dodd Harris. First, I can’t recommend his web log highly enough. (††) I read it myself every day. After a few moments of glancing over it, one becomes aware of a peculiar phenomenon utterly absent from today’s American Left—fun. Reading Harris is a pleasure. Not only does he have an interesting point of view, there is on his site a sense of humor and a lightheartedness that we all-too-sober Leftists sorely lack. We have become so drab and boring that Al Gore has all but become the Democratic Party’s official comedian. We on the Left need to learn from the Dodd Harris’s of the world and laugh a little. It wouldn’t hurt to start with more than a few laughs at our own expense, either. I could stand to lighten up myself.
Harris’s challenge to me is predicated on this not simply being a result of definitional confusion. Do we mean the same thing by liberty? We do, though it is incumbent upon me to better explain my position, and why the argument against equality of result is inapposite. After reading Harris’s challenge, I knew I had some rereading to do. I turned back to Ronald Dworkin’s Taking Rights Seriously, particularly chapters 11 and 12. I’ll try to follow in the wake of Dworkin’s argument, but all errors here are of course mine.
Harris argues, essentially, that individuals are born with unlimited freedom. For the purpose of forming a more perfect union, a community of individuals, such as Americans, may cede some of their freedom to government. Such a government is limited in its powers by the existence of explicit negative rights held by citizens, such as that the government shall not have the power to limit the freedom of speech. It is important that these are negative rights and not positive rights. I stress that I am not a lawyer, and that this is not legal advice. Another of these negative rights is that the government shall not have the power to limit the right to freely use property. Due to the latter negative right, the free market is expected to exist. This free market of scarce goods will naturally have winners and losers, and thus there will not be equality of result. Some will accrue more wealth than others. For justice, government must simply honor its limits; negative rights must not be breached. So long as this occurs, no one has cause to complain under libertarianism. This political philosophy is deeply flawed.
Jeremy Bentham throws the first dash of cold water on the flames of libertarianism. Bentham advocates utilitarianism, under which the actions of government, if just, must maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This could be a point of attack against libertarianism, but ultimately fails to become so. Bentham’s utilitarianism could justify the government in sharply limiting the property rights of a community, should that cause more pleasure than pain. Nevertheless, it is also possible that, depending on the desires of a community, the enactment of libertarianism as law maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain. Due to this possibility, Bentham does not provide an adequate critique of libertarianism.
In rereading Dworkin, I was reminded that he draws upon John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism, but far more heavily than I had previously believed. In On Liberty, J.S. Mill rejected Bentham’s utilitarianism. To illustrate the conflict, focus on just one realistic example. It is conceivable that 95% of a community could deeply want the other 5% of the population to live servile, profoundly unhappy lives. This schadenfreude of the majority would mean that to uphold the pleasure and pain principle, the minority must suffer. (‡‡) The 5% would be very pained to live so unhappily, but the 95% would be very pleased to know that the 5% were suffering. Therefore, the total pleasure would outweigh the total pain, and Bentham’s utilitarianism would side with tyranny.
Libertarianism is vulnerable to the very same charge as is Bentham. Taking a defensive stance, a libertarian could say that all individuals deserve liberty, and that the 5% should not be forced to suffer. To force the 5% to suffer is a deprivation of their liberty and is contrary to libertarianism. That defense falls flat. A libertarian supports liberty for all individuals. If the 95% did truly want the remaining 5% to suffer terribly, then a libertarian is in no position to deny them their schadenfreude because the enforced suffering is the expression of the majority’s liberty. A libertarian might wonder why. Libertarianism’s fundamental tenet is that property rights are inviolate. The 95% can force the 5% to suffer by the working of their property rights. Economic coercion can achieve the same results as coercion of another type. Libertarians agree with liberals on the need to close off other avenues of repression, but would allow any repression to take place under the guise of property rights. Practically, this may befall a minority in the manner of a monopoly, a trade cartel, or other economic mechanism. The Libertarian Party opposes monopolies, but, capriciously, opposes antitrust law, the only protection against them. (§§) Libertarianism recognizes a need for government to actively protect the rights of the minority so long as that minority is not being coerced by the influence of others’ property rights. If a tyrannical majority is using property rights to harm a minority, that is acceptable to libertarianism. Thus libertarianism does willingly support tyranny. Liberalism is different. Liberalism recognizes the need to protect minority rights in all spheres of life.
The above is an example of the problem of libertarianism identified by Ronald Dworkin as the distinction between liberty as license and liberty as independence. Drawing on J.S. Mill, Dworkin observes that liberty as license is utterly incoherent. Liberty as license is freedom from restraint in general—similar to the negative rights advocated by Harris. Defenders of liberty as license advocate various levels of liberty. At one extreme, no one should be prevented from committing murder or any wicked act. Libertarians and other defenders of liberty as license attempt to stanch the flow by arguing that an individual has liberty, but not the liberty to do anyone else harm. That is unworkable. There is no way for the law to reliably distinguish between the vague concepts of harm and non-harm. Moreover, libertarianism will allow harm done to others if predicated on the basis of property rights. Under libertarianism, the 95% could decide to economically isolate the 5% and force them to live in hunger and deprivation.
In contrast, liberty as independence demands equality of treatment and opposes affronts to personality and dignity. As Harris concedes, liberty and equality are meaningless without each other. If one person has more freedom of speech than another, than in fact freedom of speech as a specific right is diminished. Liberty as independence encompasses those specific rights that are justified by being fundamental. Fundamental rights include the freedom of speech and of religion. The right to free use of property is an important right, but it is not fundamental. This is because, unlike the exercise of fundamental liberties, the free use of property in many instances is known to cause harm to others. Liberty as independence does not mandate equality of result. Thus, the free market and free enterprise are supported. Liberty as independence would not, however, allow a monopoly or a trade cartel to seize control of a great amount of private property and wreak havoc on a hapless minority—or a hapless majority, for that matter.
The current large political issues that divide liberals and libertarians are whether to legislate universal health care and whether to cut taxes, and, if so, which taxes to cut. These are interesting discussions of policy that most likely will not involve fundamental rights. As for universal health care, that is a good idea. I don’t believe that Americans would ever want universal health care, however, if it meant long waits for treatment, slow medical innovation, and limitation on choice of physician. Nevertheless, there is a public health need to universally cover some medical services. Tentatively, I’m supporting universal health coverage for some predefined, narrowly construed, medical conditions. One condition that might be worth covering universally is HIV/AIDS. By offering universal coverage, we can better slow the spread of the disease. Perhaps other medical services should take precedence, however. In this age of terrorism, it could be wise for the government to freely distribute a smallpox vaccine to the entire population.
As for taxes, it would probably be economically beneficial to cut taxes further. With the size of our economy, our government should be able to afford to temporarily run a slightly higher budget deficit. There will probably be more economic benefits, short-term and long-term, if the bulk of tax cuts go to the middle class. I recognize that my proposals may be flawed or incomplete. I have called on the Left to come up with new ways to implement our ideals, and I do so again.
While libertarianism is practically supportive of political liberty and social liberty, it does so for reasons other than that of a philosophical commitment to liberty or equality. Libertarianism supports liberty as license, which is incoherent. It is not clear why libertarians offer support for some forms of liberty but not others. In contrast, liberalism defends all forms of liberty. The most thorough, most consistent, and most prominent ideal of libertarianism is the creation of sacrosanct property rights, which a libertarian would have overrule any liberty. As Dodd Harris says, “Since I understand that property rights are the foundation of all other rights, this is my primary concern.” This is particularly problematic because the absoluteness of the property rights advocated by libertarians would serve the cause of certain members of our society, and harm certain others. On the other hand, by guaranteeing a fundamental right such as the freedom of speech to all individuals, there is no telling who will benefit and who will be harmed.
I must conclude that libertarianism is fundamentally unsound and unjust. In the sense that its proponents advocate liberty, they do so incoherently. There is no political merit to libertarianism at all, nor does it deserve its name. Libertarianism deserves none of its devoted followers.
For the interested, other criticisms of libertarianism are available on the web. (***)
November 12th, 2002 at 12:26
An excellent reply, Andrew. I cannot but disagree, however. Libertarians are concerned with the freedom of individuals. I did not "concede" that liberty and equality are inseparable - that point is the crux of my argument. We assert the primacy of property rights because sacrosanct property rights are the only way to ensure that individuals who ‘mix their labour with the land’ (literally or, in a division of labour society, figuratively) are free to enjoy the fruits of that labour. Ansent such freedom, no other freedoms are meaningful because, if another can wrest the fruits of one’s labour from one by force for any purpose, then society becomes a collected of groups aligned for the purpose of deciding which other groups, weaker than themselves, are to be fleeced for the benefit of the strong.
So, libertarians oppose such things as anti-trust laws because monopolies can only endure with the sanction if law. The market will ensure that no "natural monopoly" can persist which attempts to use monopolistic levels of market share to abuse its customers - such a firm would become inefficient and unresponsive to their customer, all but engraving an invitation to an upstart competitor to create a better, cheaper alternative. That is just one example of how the market is almost always a fairer, more trustworthy arbiter than government.
Also, the mere possibility that property rights could conceivably - but only under some unlikely and fairly specific circumstances - lead to a ‘tyranny of the majority’ does not really do as much to undermine the case for property rights as much as you assert. Such a condition could only persist if backed up by force of law - a use of the law’s coercive force that no libertarian would countenance. In the real world, there will always be people who will buck such efforts and, absent the force of law to restrain them, the majority attempting to impsoe such a regime would fail.
I made it quite clear, I thought, that I was not discussing "liberty as license" (which, in my parlance, would be "freedom to"). Thorough and reasonable though this piece is, I do not believe you have adequately answered my original contention. To do so, you must explain how equality - on an individual level - is better protected by liberal policy proposals which seem, to me, to be focused on the alleged rights of groups.
That said, I commend you for noting one very cogent truth: Libertarians often favour liberty as an end in itself and not for philosophical reasons. This was, in fact, Ayn Rand’s chief complaint about the Libertarian Party. My own problems with the LP - and the reason I am what is generally referred to as a "small ‘l’ libertarian despite having once been a dues-paying member of the LP - are broader and are mostly concentrated on pragmatic concerns, but this lack of fundamental philosophical principle is a major contributing factor to the LP’s apparently permanent failure as a viable political force.
November 12th, 2002 at 12:28
Separately from the above, I would like to thank you most profusely for your kind words about me and my site. They are most gracious and, naturally, I found them quite gratifying. I have been enjoying your site a great deal, as well, most especially for its calm, reasonable tone and willingness to ask - and answer - some of the more difficult questions facing the Left (a willingness I, and it seems you, find is generally in short supply).