Philosophical dogma and infighting within the liberty movement
Fellow Examiner Eric Field tends to think Gov. Gary Johnson has a “lackluster” knowledge of libertarian philosophy and economics due to a June 2nd interview with Robert Wenzel of Economic Policy Journal.
Apparently, not pledging fealty to Murray Rothbard and/or Ludvig von Mises is an act of heresy. While Austrian economics certainly play an important role – there is a boom-bust cycle and good reason to fear it – so does public choice economics. So does common sense.
My gripe with Wenzel, Smith, and any other persons claiming one man’s theories as the libertarian gospel is this: they are creating a climate of cultist dogma as opposed to free thinkers. The liberty movement is larger than all the different sects, schisms, and divisions. It doesn’t matter if you’re anarcho-capitalist, classical liberal (hello!), minarchist, market anarchist, bleeding heart libertarian, or paleo-libertarian.
Libertarianism is, at its core, about individual liberty, which grants us the right to be different. Whether our philosophical influences are all uniform is irrelevant, so long as they (largely) lead us to the same conclusions.
So to all our brethren in the liberty movement, we agree on about 95% of everything! Why must we constantly talk of infighting? Instead, we should be sharing ideas and information in a conjoined effort to educate the rest of the statist population about the magic of individual liberty, free markets, and non-aggression.
I’ll start with a simple quote that, for me, hits the nail on the head:
Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power, not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men.
–John Locke, The Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690)
Or as our favorite fictional libertarian, Ron Swanson, would say, “Life, liberty, and property. That’s John Locke.”
Will Wilkinson once said he “heard some good things about individualism. Maybe some of us should try it.” Perhaps we should all make an effort to be a little bit more “inscrutably idiosyncratic,” more Wilkinsonsonian.
Image via Google Images
___
UPDATE: Over at The LRC Blog, Laurence Vance joins the anti-Johnson, Rothbard-or-bust refrain. Vance shared his feelings about Johnson and Jeffrey Miron (Director of Economics at Harvard – I know, a free market Prof. at Harvard – and economic advisor to the Johnson campaign) back in January, so this latest screed isn’t exactly a surprise (and while we’re on the topic of Rothbardian righteousness, here’s a 1992 piece from Murray showing his solidarity with…David Duke!). I find it ironic when libertarians grant any one person a monopoly over their own thinking and seek to burn heretics that diverge in any manner. While I respect Vance and the good people at Lew Rockwell, what the fuck do they think any of this circular firing squad shit is really going to accomplish? Locke, Smith, Hume, Hayek, and Friedman weren’t anarcho-capitalists, does that mean they’re statists and shall be disregarded? If so, I guess I’m throwing my lot in with the statists.
UPDATE II: Here’s that darned statist Keynesian, Gary Johnson, with CBSNewsOnline.com
What’s that saying about opening your mind until your brain falls out?
Liberty is a logical, intellectual and philosophical science. Our revolution is a logical, intellectual and philosophical revolution. The political means of the advancement of the ideas of liberty will not be fruitful. Only education will prevail, and only the educated can educate. Gary Johnson is not educated in the firm ideas of liberty.
Mr. Schlesinger writes as if this is minor infighting of 5% of these ideas. This debate is necessary and important, and keeps the movement fresh and youthful. However, evidenced in the interview by Bob Wenzel’s softball questions, Gary Johnson is still working on understanding the first 95%. This is not someone we need out in front, attempting to educate others in the ideas of liberty.
The success of the ideas of liberty rely solely on education. We need an educator, and an educator must first be educated. Gary Johnson can be that person, but he has work to do.
Of course education is important in advancing, broadening, and cultivating a youthful liberty movement, but that’s why we have the Institute for Humane Studies. This debate is stupid and petty. Just think about the line of reasoning being advanced: “Johnson hasn’t read books by someone I think is super awesome, therefore he doesn’t understand libertarianism.”
Johnson cited the classical liberal Milton Friedman as a big influence on him, and Wenzel all but called Milton Friedman a Republican in response, as if to whitewash Friedman’s legacy. A REPUBLICAN! You call that helpful? What’s helpful is having two people like Ron Paul and Johnson out there, speaking about incorporating the values of liberty into public policy in very different ways.
Perhaps those who find Paul’s first principle style to not be their cup of tea will be more swayed and educated by the way Johnson talks about issues. And ditto the other way around. Maybe someone listening to Paul becomes more inspired than listening to Johnson’s wonky style. But why does that mean Gary Johnson is a “fake libertarian” who doesn’t get the first 95% of what libertarianism is supposed to be all about? It’s almost as if Johnson’s flaw is that he isn’t a died in the wool libertarian from the moment he sprung from the womb.
What this debate seems to be about, is trying to wrestle control over the way libertarianism is discussed in public and who represents “real” libertarians. If that is the goal, then it won’t do anything close to what you want and will retard the movement rather than expand it. The average unwashed miscreant voter doesn’t care one iota about the non-agression principle. You know why? Because they don’t have any clue what that is.
They don’t give a damn about Rothbard, Hayek, Mises, Locke or any other libertarian/classical liberal thinkers for that matter; not even the ones I love and cherish. They only have time to watch a little TV, check out cable news for a few minutes, and maybe read a little bit of a newspaper. This whole thing seems like an exercise in futility. I’m more libertarian than you! No I am! Who wants to join that movement?
Why can’t libertarians just accept that not all people under the banner agree 100%, yet understand that in the grand scheme of things, when compared to the other 99% of people, we’re basically perfect bedmates. Whether or not you agree that the state’s monopoly on coercion is justified, or that a universal basic income would be a good idea, or that wealth transfers and coerced distributions are the most grotesque form of coercion, or that traffic signs are basically a gun to your head, or that we should have a consumption tax instead of the current tax code, or gradually legalize drugs (starting with marijuana) might be a good idea so as not to freak out 99% of the populace who think we’re crazy for suggesting it, this so-called “debate” is making mountains out of molehills.
There is no “best” way to educate people about libertarianism. Whenever I talk politics with non-libertarians and argue on first principle grounds, their eyes roll and they can’t grasp what you’re saying. The best way to educate people is to enlighten them about the policy implications of certain ideas, not to tell them to read a book by an author that casts Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty as “surprisingly and distressingly, an extremely bad, and, I would even say, evil book.”
I have a great affinity for Bruno Leoni (who Rothbard also wasn’t fond of), but whether or not someone has read Leoni doesn’t hinge on whether I think they are a real libertarian or not.
But maybe Rothbard’s flock can’t help themselves; after all, they seem to be acting like him, with their rejection of anything but him, or those who swear fealty to him. Did you know that when asked at a debate what book he would want everyone to read, Ron Paul said Bastiat’s The Law and not a book by Rothbard? TAR THE BASTARD!
That was great Brad, thanks.
Gary Johnson 2012
Brad, I’m afraid that your argument is premised on a strawman.
Furthermore, reading Bastiat is great. But Johnson has not done it. Johnson’s named “libertarian” hero was Friedman, to whom he attributed the opposite actions than correspond with reality. In fact, had Friedman truly done what Johnson gave him credit for, it would have been a great achievement. The sad fact that the opposite is the truth gives Johnson zero credit on the one hand, and digs himself a ditch with people who take very seriously the intellectual superstructure that libertarians must use to make sense of the world around them on the other.
This is not an example of Rothbardian chest pounding. This is an example of having standards of torch bearers. I applaud Johnson for wishing to stand up, even if it is somewhat superficial and intellectually “squishy,” to use the word of a friend, and support liberty. But in order to support liberty in a way that is ultimately helpful one must first understand it. I would venture to say that a good rule of thumb for a leader on whose shoulders is placed the task of education must at least be better read than the majority of the flock he plans to lead; in this case libertarians, a very well-read bunch. Many have pointed to Johnson’s good instincts and attempted to pass instinct off as sufficient. Again, I applaud his good instinct, but a musician has only that much worth as his time in the practice room; instincts takes even the best only so far. Johnson will be eaten alive in any debate with a Keynesian, because he has not done his homework.
None of this is to say, and I haven’t heard this from anyone, that Johnson or his efforts are not welcome into the libertarian camp, nor that Johnson himself is not a libertarian–Wenzel certainly did not make that claim. However, the arguement made is that education, intense education, is the most important aspect of a front man to a movement hinged on education.
I have to say, Brad, that your response smacks of anti-intellectualism. I would hope that is not your attitude.
Cheers!
So being governor for eight years while governing as the epitome of an anti-Keynesian (never raising taxes, slashing the number of state workers, vetoing an unprecedented number of spending bills, and creating a regulatory environment that made New Mexico a pillar of job creation) equals practice? All Johnson has to do is point to his record as governor to disprove Keynesianism. Doesn’t seem that tough a task.
Did you listen to the interview that initiated this whole conversation?
Milton Friedman, Johnson’s named libertarian influence, is a Keynesian in principle; he concedes practically every argument to the Keynsians, but places arbitrary limitations on those principles and calls a step further than these arbitrary limitations bad. Sound economics displays that these principles are all wet, and not only is following these principles to the point of the Keynesians’ desires bad, but following them at all is detrimental both to liberty and to capital accumulation.
Later in the interview when given the standard Austrian/libertarian arguments regarding the business cycle and the ABCT, Johnson gives the standard Keynesian arguments against ABCT. Krugman could not have stated the arguments better than Johnson.
The Chicago School is merely a more free-market friendly group of intellectual Keynesians. Johnson does not realize that, because he has not done his homework, regardless of what his tenure as governor of New Mexico demonstrates. Furthermore, states do not have cental banks; therefore, there is no record of his actions with regard to a central bank. Keep in mind that so far as Johnson has stated his views and his understanding of economics and the role of a central bank–a vitally important facet of libertarian education–he has gotten nearly everything wrong. Moreover, he has clearly demonstrated that he would choose incorrectly all those individuals with whom he may surround himself who may help him make decisions in this regard.
None of this lends confidence to your statement that “all Johnson has to do is point to his record as governor to disprove Keynesianism.”
Gov. Johnson’s economic platform: End the Federal Reserve, cut the entire federal gov’t by 43% (that includes treasury, military, medicare, and medicaid), stop printing money, return to competing currencies (like gold, silver, etc), end all income taxes on people and businesses, repeal regulations, end subsidies and corporate welfare, no tariffs, free markets, balance the budget, and VETO any bill where expenditures exceed revenue. And the problem with this platform is… ? Too Keynesian? Which part?
Libertarianism is not synonymous with Austrian economics and anarcho-capitalism, unless you define libertarianism as belief in such. Many people use libertarian and classical/market liberal as interchangeable, put I suppose you would disagree and see libertarianism and classical/market liberalism as two diametrically opposed philosophies.
Here’s a good libertarian (or I guess I have to qualify, someone who calls themselves a libertarian) critique of Austrian economics:
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm
Excerpt: “While the substantive contributions of Austrian economists to economics are significant, their sum from Human Action on is small compared to the progress that neoclassical economics has made over the same time period. The ten good ideas listed in section 4.3 are only the beginning of what economists have learned since 1949 – in spite of the large deadweight cost of mathematics and econometrics. Mises and Rothbard certainly produced an original alternate paradigm for economics – and applied this paradigm to a number of interesting topics. Unfortunately, the foundations of their new paradigm are unfounded, and their most important applied conclusions unsound or overstated. The reasonable intellectual course for Austrian economists to take is to give up their quest for a paradigm shift and content themselves with sharing whatever valuable substantive contributions they have to offer with the rest of the economics profession – and of course, with the intellectually involved public. In sum, Milton Friedman spoke wisely when he declared that “there is no Austrian economics – only good economics, and bad economics,” to which I would append: “Austrians do some good economics, but most good economics is not Austrian.”
And here’s Hayek in 1967 arguing for (gasp) monetary easing by central banks in dire times:
“The habit of thinking in terms of an alternative between “full employment” and a state of affairs in which there are unemployed factors of all kinds available is perhaps the most dangerous legacy which we owe to the great influence of the late Lord Keynes. That so long as a state of general unemployment prevails, in the sense that unused resources of all kinds exist, monetary expansion can be only beneficial, few people will deny. But such a state of general unemployment is something rather exceptional, and it is by no means evident that a policy which will be beneficial in such a state will also always and necessarily be so in the kind of intermediate position in which an economic system finds itself most of the time, when significant unemployment is confined to certain industries, occupations, or localities.
Of a system in a general state of unemployment it is roughly true that employment will fluctuate in proportion with money income, and that if we succeed in increasing money income we shall also in the same proportion increase employment. But it is just not true that all unemployment is in this manner due to an insufficiency of aggregate demand and can be lastingly cured by increasing demand.”
If you think that people such as Friedman, Hayek, and those at places like Cato/Mercatus/Reason are just essentially Keynesian statists, which is a perfectly fine thing to believe (which also helps me understand your aversion to Johnson), our disagreements are clearly irreconcilable and our two camps should simply go our separate ways.
To Craig: Outside of the aforementioned interview and the Republican debates, I’m afraid I am ignorant of Johnson’s positions. In these, his performance has been unsatisfactory to say the least. Instead of on principle, he bases his policy on what is palatable. He states in the Wenzel interview that he looks for more freedom in policies, fine. However, he certainly fails in his drug policy to understand that more freedom includes the legalization of all drugs–not just marijuana. He also fails in foreign policy to realize that all U.S. bases in foreign countries, and not just some bases, must be closed. He came off as incredibly moderate on foreign policy in the Republican debates. He fails at aiming towards low taxes by supporting the Fair Tax. I have to assume that since you did not mention that he aimed at eliminating the Income Tax that he does not wish to do so, because I do not myself know. But it does not matter, because even if he did, he merely wants to replace it with something else. That is not a common libertarian position that I am aware of. In fact, while all of these positions would certainly result in more than less liberty–with the exception of the Fair Tax replacing (if not appending!) the Income Tax–they are not the consistent and radical application of principles of self-ownership.
However, we are discussing economic positions. All those positions, if they are true, and assuming that he wishes to take them all the way and not just some of the way, sound great. It is a very libertarian sounding platform. Kudos to Johnson! There is one problem that I noticed in the interview. When he mentioned abolishing the Fed, he qualified the statement by saying that he thought that regional banks could take over some of the operations of the Fed. That is unfortunate, because I cannot count a single function of the Fed that would be part of a free market of individuals acting voluntarily.
But all of this is beside the points raised. In fact, your response, Craig, to my comment does not address my argument. My argument is that libertarianism will prevail outside of politics, the realm of fighting to wield power of legal violence; that libertarianism can only prevail through education–a philosophical revolution. In order to refute my argument, you have to refute that claim, if you can’t everything that I have asserted stands.
Because if it is true that libertarianism, being a philosophical movement, may only be spread through education, then it is obvious that Johnson is not a sufficient means to that end. His position sounds great, and if he were to become president, and follows through on his platform, he would likely make a damn good president–especially when compared to what we will likely end up getting. But he will not be president; not even close. Perhaps closer than ever before, but that is due to Ron Paul’s influence and not Johnson’s. Even if Johnson won it would not mean a triumph of libertarianism any more than Obama’s inauguration is a triumph of Progressivism. Johnson is not fit to be an educator at this point in time directly because he is ignorant of the principles, and if he attempts to educate at his current level of understanding he will more than likely confuse people first encountering the intellectual framework of liberty or whose affiliation with such is still in its infancy.
Both Brad and now you, Craig, have attacked arguments that I did not make. Brad continually attacks my non-existent argument that Johnson is not libertarian, and that only Rothbardians are libertarian. Now he is attacking Austrian economics, cluelessly I might add (more on that later). I have shown both of you what in my argument must be refuted; and heck, I’ll even get you started: Show me how the political means, over the philosophical means, can ultimately prevail. To demonstrate this you must clearly show both how an idea can spread through violence, and how a movement based on non-violence can stay pure by justifying and engaging in violence in order to succeed. Demonstrating those two points is the only way that this debate can be won.
Nevertheless, the most telling aspect of his actions in the last year that shows that he ultimately does not know anything about the fundamentals of liberty and the movement is that he dared to run against Ron Paul on the Republican ticket. This tells me that he is clueless. Any true believer of liberty would have gotten behind Paul, obviously the most experienced, most visible educator in the movement today, and promoted him in the highly visible platform that is the presidential race. That he failed to do this gives rise to the notion that he may not be as informed and eager for liberty as he says, or that he is an egotistic, self-serving politician. Not that either makes him a bad guy in the slightest, but it certainly does not qualify him to be a leader in the movement.
To Brad: Since you are so insistent on making up my definition of libertarianism for me, I’ll save you the trouble of guessing and just tell you. A libertarian, to me, is an individual who accepts and applies to problems of human cooperation the non-aggression principle. That’s it. How one comes to the NAP does not matter; what matters is that the NAP is supreme in their worldview. An example: All Randian Objectivists are libertarians, because they dogmatically arrive at the NAP, but not all libertarians are Objectivists. Another example: Some libertarians come to the NAP through the Christian teachings of Jesus, but not all libertarians are Christian. Some people just intuit the NAP, or realize that the Golden Rule is a good idea.
Some avenues to the NAP are stronger than others. For instance, Lockean metaphysics are rather weak logically to get to self-ownership, but it is good from there. Hoppean/Kantian argumentation ethics to get to self-ownership is pretty strong, and then just follows Locke from there. Knowledge of all of these principles and theories best suites an individual to be an educator.
However, once one accepts the NAP they are libertarian. Libertarians can then be criticised for not following the principle consistently, far enough, or for being ignorant of the conclusions of the NAP. Johnson is guilty of all three. Better informed, and therefore ideologically rock solid, libertarians are also familiar with arguments for property and the logical conclusions thereof, etc.
That is my view.
Regarding Austrian economics being conflated with libertarianism, the two could not be more separate; Austrian economics is a school of thought regarding a value-free science grounded on certain epistemological and methodological considerations, and libertarianism is a political and moral ideology–necessarily holding values. They do not mix intellectually. They are as far away from each other as Is is from Ought. If I say that a minimum wage law is immoral, I am saying so as a libertarian. If I say that a minimum wage law will cause unemployment, I am saying so as a student of economics. Economics is merely a tool, and the debate between the various schools of thought is regarding the considerations of the science as it pertains to logic, method, and epistemology.
I am very familiar with the essay by Caplan. I came across it in my second year of economics study. As I read it, I noticed how poor the arguments were with respect to the arguments made by the Austrian school. Caplan founded his entire critique on a series of strawman arguments easily dispatched. Even at my then fledgling level of understanding of the arguments of the Austrian school I was able to see where Caplan missed the boat. And in many places he misses the boat hard. You have quoted a section of the conclusion, but I am not sure why, except to find a person, any person, who calls themselves a libertarian and who critisizes, or even rejects, the Austrian tradition. If it is just criticism, then you may look at the entirety of the best Austrian scholars who call themselves libertarian, as each have critisized certain aspects of the school at different points, and have on occasion disagreed with each other, in an attempt to advance knowledge.
Either way, what is the point you are trying to make? Does this somehow justify Johnson’s ignorance of the Austrian school? I wonder, somewhat ironically, what his grasp of the Public Choice school is.
Regarding Hayek, are you wanting me to explain why he is wrong or right? Is his acceptance of monetary easing in extremely limited scenarios supposed to somehow validate the neo-mercantilism of Keynes and his accolytes? Does it justify counter-cyclical policy in general? Does any of this justify the failure of Johnson to understand it well enough that he may inspire others to know more and why they must know more, which is the entire point of debate in this thread? I am not quite sure what you are trying to argue here, but I do know that it is addressed to an argument that I never once made.
Regarding the organizations you mentioned, I have not been happy with much of the work and focus coming out of Cato and Reason, and I find Johnson’s way of thinking, while certainly libertarian, very much in line with that way of thinking. Cato and Reason are very wishy-washy with libertarianism, i.e. the ethical construct, and while they pay lip service to the NAP, they do not follow it to its logical conclusion, and depending on the topic, they don’t follow it very far at all. In fact, in the past those of Cato and Reason have been very hostile to those that are more logically consistent and rigorous with the NAP.
I tend to disagree with the general strategy each employs to advance liberty; they seem to be very preoccupied with pleasing and reformng those in power, and hence tend to stay around the sources of power. However, to be accepted by those in power, to get close enough to those in power that they may try to make a difference, much of their positions have to be heavily diluted to be more palatable. This tends to result in similar diluted applications of the NAP by students of those organizations. Therefore, since the organization’s scholars in their attempt to be respectable by those in power, those affiliated accept but do not apply the NAP consistently or rigorously enough, and tend to be libertarian only to the degree that they apply the NAP. With Mercatus I am less familiar, so I can’t really comment.
Regarding going separate ways if there are irreconcilable differences, the only differences that I have witnessed are intellectual dishonesty in the form of refusal to follow to the logical end the ideas of self-ownership and the NAP. I don’t think that is necessarily irreconcilable. There will just be much more debate.
The overall argument I am making in this thread is that I think Johnson is a really nice, likely very bright, very fine individual, whose athletic and business achievements are admirable, but whose knowledge and experience at this point in time of libertarian arts does not qualify him to be a standard torch bearer of the same.
With respect to definitions of libertarianism, I would not mind hearing yours, Brad.
Sorry for the long response to both of you, but I try to address each point I find important if I can.
No doubt we are in FULL agreement that the liberty movement is a philosophical one. I’m not even pretending to refute that. However, we disagree on the existence of a Rothbardian/Austrian/NAP philosophical litmus test. I’m afraid it makes further engagement in this thread a bit futile, but I’ll try my best to respond and make some final points.
Gov. Johnsnon doesn’t have to be an educator, that’s why places like the Institute for Humane Studies and Mercatus Center exist (amongst countless others). Today’s libertarian philosophers like Matt Zwolinski, Jason Brennan, Roderick Long, John Tomasi, Nigel Ashford, and Will Wilkinson are doing a fine job without politicians. Besides, Johnson is a man of action. He lives libertarianism without consulting an academic checklist – individulaist, self made millionaire from a company he started that originally had one employee (himself), adventurer, outdoorsman, former Governor that was elected and reelected in a 2-1 Democratic state by governing as a (to borrow Wenzel’s word choice even though its completely amorphous) “hardcore libertarian.”
I did mention, in my previous comment, the elimination of all income taxes – corporate and personal. The Fair Tax is not the ideal policy, agreed. But it is an improvement, and we can’t expect to go from the current, horribly flawed and “rigged” tax code to a stateless society over night. You need to take measures to incrementally bring about change – a Marginal Revolution, if you will (apologies to Tyler Cowen).
This is where the drug issue comes into play as well. Johnson has said on many occasions that he wants everything legalized. But first he wants to legalize pot to show the world that the sky won’t collapse as a result. Not to mention trying to legalize all drugs in one fell swoop is completely unpalatable to the masses, even to those currently favoring full marijuana legalization. Again, no stateless society will be achieved over night.
You’re saying Johnson is not fit to be an educator. I’m saying he isn’t an educator, nor is he trying to be, nor should he be. He is, and always has been the boss, the executive…the one that actually does stuff (I think Elizabeth’s comment below concisely captures my sentiments). This is not to put down academia or education by any stretch. Johnson has a great academic libertarian philosopher and economist as his chief economics advisor, Jeffery Miron.
Most of my daily reading material is produced by academics like those previously mentioned in this comment. I swear no fealty to any one man, idea, or theory. Libertarianism does not seek to deprive us of our freewill. Putting down Cato and Reason for not preaching the NAP and towing the Rothbardian line is quite short sided. The movement is bigger than all of this.
I’m afraid, however, that the strict followers of Rothbard are coming dangerously close to imitating Rothbard’s life. That is to say, he castigated people from his circle that didn’t subscribe to him and his ideas 100% of the time. That’s no way to grow a movement. Supporting David Duke doesn’t help either:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html
I am glad to hear of our agreement.
Regarding the supposed litmus test, it is a decent test of a person’s views to be knowledgeable of libertarian, economic, and philosophical theory, but it is by no means conclusive. Noting actions over time is always the best indicator. However, what helps me be able to trust that a candidate or a similar torch bearer will not sway or make huge mistakes that may harm the movement is his general knowledge of these disciplines with regard to liberty. That helps me know that the individual in question will not likely sway from the movement, and will keep his moral compass on course for the duration of his leadership. That is not to say that a person of this knowledge will not make mistakes, but it helps to know, because the likelihood of someone pursuing due diligence in this regard is convicted in the principles and will not sell out (for instance Rand Paul, who is not convicted by the principles of liberty). That is why I insist on candidates and similar torch bears having a deep understanding of the academic tenets of libertarianism; the pragmatism of the casual libertarianism may lead one astray–deep knowledge of libertarianism makes such an occurrence less likely.
You did mention in your comment Johnson’s opposition to and plans for abolishment of the Income Tax; I somehow missed it when I read it before mentioning its absence in my last response.
If it is not clear in my argument, I should iterate this point. I do not argue that Johnson cannot bring people in to liberty; my concern is the quality of libertarian that is likely the result. An emphasis on pragmatism does not make me confident. I do not know if he inspires people to read and to study. People that do not in my experience make large mistakes and to some extent misrepresent the position of liberty. I wish to avoid that. I try to avoid it in my own proselytizing; hence, i am constantly reading and growing as a liberty advocate. In four and a half years, I am far more skilled at explaining the various tenets of liberty that Johnson seems to be after thirty plus years. That worries me, and is the main gripe I have with him. As I become more familiar I may change my mind. I think it would be great to count on another strong advocate of liberty, but so far, and this is the crux of it, nothing that I have seen to this point inspires confidence. I hope I am wrong!
I am fine with incremental success, and understand that such is the likely route that any success towards liberty will take. However, it is very important that the ultimate goal be full, unabridged individual liberty and with no apologies for it.
You bring up the drug policy debate and what is and what is not palatable. I think I can illustrate another main point and concern of mine, and ultimately the difference between a Ron Paul and a Gary Johnson highly visible educator. While Paul pushed everyone to legalize marijuana, he never shied away from always teaching that the principle for the legalization of harder drugs is the same, and that on principle the government should stay out of people’s lives in this regard, even though saying such is very unpopular. Johnson, on the other hand, stops at marijuana and does not teach the principle. If Johnson is not going to use his spotlight for the chance to disseminate correct ethical principles from the point of view of libertarianism, then what is the point? That is why I view Johnson to be in practice merely a less bad establishment candidate, and why he does not inspire confidence or excite me.
I would be interested to know how you come to the conclusion that not preaching the NAP is short-sighted. To me not preaching the NAP is not preaching libertarianism. But I can be convinced otherwise by a good argument. I really am eager to hear one, but right now I don’t know that there is one.
Regarding Rothbard’s castigation, I have never read or heard of Rothbard throwing people out of his circles. In fact, the contrary is constantly true if I understand the relevant history correctly. Rothbard was notoriously cast out of Ayn Rand’s circle, for instance. Then there is always someone new toss him aside. Another notorious case is Rothbard’s shameful castigation from the Cato crowd by the likes of Ed Crane and the brothers Koch. Time and time again we see Rothbard being inclusive, he was always about coalitions with those that he disagreed (Paleo-ism, The New Left, etc.), but his ideological purity and insistence on principle made him a lot of enemies. If you know of evidence of Rothbard tossing some undeserving disciple out of his circle, I would be very interested to see it.
“To me not preaching the NAP is not preaching libertarianism.”
This is exactly my point. The NAP is not, by itself, libertarianism. Its part of a series of ideas, philosophies, and theories that fall under the libertarian umbrella.
Asserting the above quote is actually, in my opinion, antithetical to libertarianism. Its really about freewill and individual liberty, liberation from force and authority, and the freedom to derive your ideas, philosophical leanings, and principles from any number of sources – be them Locke, Smith, Bastiat, Hume, Leoni, Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, and/or others. Even Thomas Jefferson. Its an amalgamation, not a one size fits all mandate.
I think we actually agree on far more than the we strive to give each other credit for (especially in this thread).
I think the argument is largely semantical at this point. But I feel that there is still an element to your argument that is not quite correct. To me, the NAP means exactly “freewill and individual liberty, liberation from force and authority [assuming authority here is not some absurd anarcho-communistic definition], and the freedom to derive [one's] ideas, philosophical leanings, and principles from any number of sources…” But to you, as I understand you, the quoted material above does not mean the NAP; in fact, you wrote it for the expressed reason of differentiating it from the NAP. When I say NAP I mean how one gets to the NAP and then what the logical conclusions of the NAP mean–it’s all encompassing; but all of the quoted material above is merely the logical necessity of the NAP and therefore not substantially different. I feel that my assertion, far from being antithetical to libertarianism, is the very essence of the doctrine.
However, a thought experiment might help us nail down this point. Consider that an anarco-syndicalist wishes to live in his preferred society, yet does not wish to coerce anyone else to live in his preferred society. He wishes for others to join him voluntarily, and submit to the tenets of anarcho-syndicalism voluntarily. Does this make him libertarian?
I would answer yes and no. His methods are libertarian, but his values overall are not. Yet, the consistent libertarian influenced by the NAP would not have a problem with any of this.
According to what I surmise is your definition of libertarianism, he is strongly libertarian. This definition works, but it is getting so broad as to begin to become meaningless.
If I have misrepresented your view, would you mind elaborating to help me understand?
By the way, I have enjoyed the discussion.
Thanks, enjoying it on this end as well!
What I was attempting to say (might have failed in that endeavor) in my previous comment is that it is entirely possible to be philosophically aligned with the NAP without ever really reading about it specifically.
Its also possible to convey the message of the NAP without mentioning it by name. In the marketplace of ideas, some people respond to different syntax. Rod Long does a great job of explaining:
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/09/the-libertarian-three-step-program/
I hope that makes sense!
Dumbledore said it best:
“It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.”
Johnson can’t quote from the required reading list by heart, but he governed like a Libertarian for eight years, his record shows us his choices.
Well said!
I have also really enjoyed the discussion in this thread. I too believe we agree far more than disagree. I just wanted to quickly add, in regards to my “definition” of libertarianism, or what I think makes someone a libertarian — I personally do not really adhere to a fixed definition. What I would say, generally, is that libertarians hold the individual over the state, see liberty as the default position, and believe in strong individual liberty, freed markets, and a non-interventionist foreign policy, broadly speaking. I certainly consider deontological and strict adherents to the NAP libertarians, just as I consider left-wing market anarchists, and classical liberal/bleeding heart libertarians (BHL) all libertarians. I do not think that to be a libertarian one must ground their philosophical base in the idea of the person as a self-owner and the NAP. Nor do I believe that one who allows for the limited provision of governmental provided social goods such as a social insurance program or vouchers is not a libertarian. I think libertarianism encompasses all of these wide ranging views. Personally, I consider myself part of the classical liberal/BHL subset. I favor a mixed natural rights/consequentialist approach. I personally do not treat property rights as moral absolutes and do not believe that justice is simply reducible to property rights. I hold economic liberties (freedom to contract, rights of ownership) and personal liberties (speech, thought, association) on similar footing and embrace such ideas as positive rights and that the moral justification of libertarian institutions depends on their ability to provide fair opportunities for all, as well as the interests of the least well off (i.e. the poor and vulnerable). Certainly negative liberty matters a great deal, but I don’t think that is all that matters, nor do I believe it should take precedence over other competing moral concerns.
I find these two principles outlining a libertarian conception of justice as articulated by philosopher Kevin Vallier, highly attractive:
1- Each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of equally extensive basic civic, religious, political and economic rights and liberties.
2- Social and economic distributions should maximize the cooperative surplus and provide all with fair opportunities and a threshold of primary goods below which no one can accidentally and reliably fall.
I would agree that, in your thought experiment, the individual is a strong libertarian. Here’s a link to another fascinating thought experiment, for anyone who may be interested:
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/02/social-justice-vs-self-ownership-the-case-of-libertarians-great-and-small/
As you said, these are constructive and important dialogues to have, and I appreciate your willingness to mix it up. And as always, thanks for reading!
Rothbard wrote an endorsement of
Senator Mark Hatfield for president in his Libertarian Forum. Hatfield was good on the war but lousy on economics
Great point! Thanks for reading!