In a recent comment, Jim Glass make a few critical points about libertarian’s approach to policy implementation, particularly a tendency among libertarians to argue for the abstract ideal while paying insufficient attention to the messy real world process of moving towards that ideal. I agree that libertarians are certainly prone to this, although I’m not sure it’s more common among libertarians than anyone else along the political spectrum. However, there is one part of his comment where I think an additional perspective is worth considering.
Glass notes, citing research from Jonathan Haidt, that libertarians rank the lowest “in empathy and compassion.” Accusations of lacking compassion is not an uncommon thing to hear. And there’s certainly some truth to it for some libertarians. I’d be lying if I said I’d never met any libertarians who really did fulfill the stereotype of the cold-hearted brute, indifferent to the suffering of others.
But there’s another take I have in mind. To tie it all together nicely, I’ll also cite something from the work of Haidt. In his book The Coddling of the American Mind, Haidt talks about peanut allergies and how various institutions have reacted to them. Years ago, if you had a nut allergy, it was up to you to make sure you avoided peanuts. In more recent years, and some would say more compassionate times, things have moved in the opposite direction. I’ve been on flights where it was announced that because there was a single passenger on board who had a peanut allergy, peanuts would not be made available to any passengers. Not only that, but passengers were forbidden from even bringing their own peanuts onboard.
Haidt cites research suggesting the substantial increase in nut allergies in recent years is actually a result of this very form of compassion. He writes:
I don’t have the requisite medical expertise to judge how authoritative this study was, but for the sake of thought experiment, let’s assume these findings are correct. If being ever more protective of nut allergies leads to a situation where a greater and greater percentage of the population will end up suffering from that very condition, then it’s not at all clear that such protective efforts are the truly compassionate approach. It can be argued that the older approach is in fact what a maximally compassionate person would prefer, given the constraints we face.
Adam Smith wrote in The Theory of Moral Sentiments that what we consider compassionate or merciful can change when we take a step back and consider the larger picture. Using the example of how we might feel pity for a criminal facing the terror of his judgment, Smith writes (emphasis added):
To one perspective, saying we should be less proactive about nut allergies might seem lacking in compassion or empathy. But to another perspective, that seemingly uncompassionate approach can be motivated by a compassion that is, in Smith’s words, more generous and comprehensive, a more enlarged compassion felt for all mankind.
I think many libertarians are motivated by this more generous and comprehensive view of compassion. If libertarians were truly indifferent to the suffering of the poor and weak, as is often alleged, it’s very odd that so many libertarians spill so much ink arguing about why libertarian policies would be especially beneficial to the poor and weak. Nor does it make much sense why libertarians object that so much of the state’s intervention is on behalf of the rich and politically powerful, often at the expense of the poor and politically weak.
Again, I’m not claiming this is the sole motivation for every libertarian. But it is a real motivation, and a strong one. And I find it’s arguments rooted in this motivation which libertarianism’s opponents are most likely to overlook and least likely to engage.
Kevin Corcoran is a Marine Corps veteran and a consultant in healthcare economics and analytics and holds a Bachelor of Science in Economics from George Mason University.
READER COMMENTS
Dylan
Aug 24 2022 at 11:39am
You raise good points, and indeed, the ink that prominent libertarianish writers have spilled arguing for the benefits of their policies to the poor and weak is one reason I’m as libertarian leaning as I am. But, I think it is a mistake to conflate the opinions of a small set of writers with the larger (although not that large) libertarian movement. Not that this is at all conclusive, but notice the difference in opinions of a writer for Reason magazine and those of the commentators, I think you would be hard pressed to say they are motivated by compassion.
Even on this site, take Robc, who recently made a comment that he’d be willing to endure a generation of chaos to make the world better for his great-grandchildren. I get the sentiment, but that much chaos hardly seems compassionate, even with a more comprehensive version of compassion.
Same on the peanuts, once we have people who are severely allergic, lessening that restriction will certainly lead to some extra deaths, hospital visits, and certainly a lifetime of extreme vigilance on the behalf of peanut allergy sufferers. Is that balanced out by having fewer people with peanut allergies in the future? I don’t know, like you, I don’t think the answer is obvious. Perhaps the better thing would be getting rid of peanuts altogether? (Not a proposal! In fact, reading this post got me to go an open a big jar of Planters)
Kevin Corcoran
Aug 24 2022 at 1:05pm
Hey Dylan!
It seems like we largely agree on the broad strokes, but there are a few points in your comment where I don’t have the confidence you have. For example, while we both agree that the Smithian sympathetic view does not describe the totality of libertarian motivations, it’s not clear to me that it’s held by only a small set of the libertarian movement. I can’t help but notice that even among libertarians who rightfully hold a reputation for being utter deontological absolutists, who would rather see the sky fall and civilization destroyed than endure the slightest violation of their asserted axioms, a lot of time gets spent arguing how their policies would also be particularly beneficial to the poor. One wonders why Rand spent any time in her novels describing how the poor would actually suffer under the policies she opposed, if she considered such suffering totally irrelevant.
Also, regarding protections for peanut allergies, you say “lessening that restriction will certainly lead to some extra deaths, hospital visits, and certainly a lifetime of extreme vigilance on the behalf of peanut allergy sufferers.” You twice use the word “certainly” to describe things that strike me as not at all certain. Are you certain, for example, that as a result of all of these restrictions, there have, in fact, been measurably fewer instances of severe allergic reactions than before? I’m not certain of that at all. It could be true, but maybe it’s not? Maybe the rate of severe reactions is lower, but the total amount is higher, because more people are vulnerable than otherwise would have been. To my knowledge, no advocate of these kinds of restrictions has even tried offering data saying “See! As a result of these policies, severe peanut allergy incidents have reduced by x% over the last ten years!” And it’s not clear to me that people with food allergies today need be significantly less vigilant than those of a generation ago. Again, to be clear, I’m not asserting anything in particular, I’m just saying what you are declaring to be “certain” doesn’t seem so obvious to me.
One thing that does seem certain to me, though, is that millions of people who might otherwise have been able to enjoy the experience of a chocolate peanut butter cup will never know what that’s like, for as long as they live.
robc
Aug 25 2022 at 10:46am
There is a CS Lewis piece (can’t remember which one off top of my head) in which he discusses some sci-fi story about people having to abandon Earth and colonize another planet, but to do it, they had to give up all the standard characteristics of humanity (compassion, empathy, love, etc). Lewis preferred extinction to that. I think most (but not all!) deontologists would agree. I think most utilitarians (but not all!) would prefer the colonization and change.
Dylan
Aug 25 2022 at 2:08pm
I think we do largely agree, my only disagreement is that I don’t think we can assume that the subset of those that write about libertarian issues are representative of the wider group that hold generally libertarianish beliefs. I admit, I don’t have a lot to base that on other than the kinds of surveys that Haidt relies on (which could easily fall prey to not capturing the more comprehensive Smithian view) and my own anecdotal experience with libertarians I’ve engaged with. The latter seem to sometimes offer up the benefits to the poor as a kind of pragmatic argument strategy, but I’ve found that when pushed they tend to fall back on more dentological arguments like “taxation is theft.” I’ve rarely got the feeling that the motivating factor for many (most?) libertarians is a genuine concern for the less fortunate. But that could just be my own biases.
Well, first thing is I need to proofread more, as the duplicate certainly wasn’t intended. As to your questions, my intuition is that we likely would have been better off if we never instituted the restrictions in the first place. But, now that we have, it also seems clear that removing the restrictions will not be Pareto-improving. Some number of individuals (which is greater than it would have been when we first started freaking out about peanut allergies) would very likely be hurt if they were to suddenly disappear. It may be better from a strictly utilitarian point of view though.
Mark Z
Aug 24 2022 at 1:17pm
Compassion seems rather overrated as a virtue in public policy. It massively overvalues whoever is affected in the most direct and emotionally salient way by the policy in question. For any difficult, complex question, compassion may lead people astray as easily as it can assist them in reaching the right decision. Often the best judge is one who is utterly insensitive to appeals to pathos.
Dylan
Aug 24 2022 at 3:03pm
You may be right, I honestly don’t know, but good luck getting elected or having general success in public policy with that approach.
robc
Aug 25 2022 at 10:02am
I am not one that usually claims to be compassionate, I fit the stereotypical libertarian who is strong in systemization and low in empathy. I am undiagnosed, but I am pretty sure I am somewhere on the spectrum (my daughter is diagnosed and it is clearly genetic in her case).
But that example clearly fits the Smithian comprehensive compassion model. Those great-grandchildren are very hypothetical, for one thing. I am 53, my daughter is 6. So on two dimensions they are hypothetical. One, I have no idea if my daughter will ever have a kid, much less grandkids. And two, even if she does, what are the odds I will live to see them?
They are clearly a stand-in for “the world of the future”. And I don’t see how wanting to make the world I will never see a far better place isn’t a sign of Smithian compassion. I will admit my lack of empathy for my fellow current generation may make the decision easier. But I am not suggesting it from some sort of utilitarian calculation (although I think a utilitarian would have to agree), but because IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Aug 24 2022 at 10:35pm
Not a good example. The problem peanut problem seems to be parents are overprotecting their children, preventing them from developing healthy immune responses. How much should accommodation (what kind? how costly?) should the non-allergic public give to the allergic (regardless of the blame they or their parents may have for their condition) is s separate problem.
Kevin Corcoran
Aug 25 2022 at 12:01pm
This is part of what I’m getting at. You suggest this is just a problem of parents being overprotective. I agree they are being overprotective too. But what you call overprotectiveness, they call compassion, and they would insist using a less protective approach is itself a sign that you lack compassion.
Second, the reason Haidt looked into the nut issue wasn’t because parents as such were being overprotective – it was a result of institutional rules. If you read his book, he opens the discussion with a description of how his three year old son’s preschool was banning nuts.
This was explicitly justified to protect children who might have undetected nut allergies, and failing to support this was a sign that you lacked compassion. The school insisted that even if it was confirmed that not a single child had a nut allergy, all these things would still be banned. The end result, however, is to create more children who will suffer from the very affliction from which you’re trying to protect them.
Haidt goes on to point out parallels between this approach and how schools and other institutions, explicitly in the name of compassion, have bent over backwards to make sure nobody ever feels singled out, excluded, unwelcome, that everyone feels positively affirmed, etc. He argues that these very efforts, made in the name of compassion, actually make children worse off. Another snippet:
Again, you might just say that this is simply people being overprotective. And again, I’d point out that what you call overprotective, they call compassion, and they would insist that if you didn’t support protecting children in this way, it shows you lack compassion. Meanwhile, I would say that a more enlarged sense of compassion says children should be subjected to these stresses.
Brandon Berg
Aug 25 2022 at 8:14am
I also question whether the research that supposedly shows that libertarians are less compassionate is actually measuring differences in compassion or disagreements about who deserves compassion more.
Leftists make a show of compassion for criminals and vagrants, but this often manifests as an apparent indifference towards people who have to live with the reality of high crime rates and ubiquitous public intoxication.
In other words, leftists tend to prioritize those who are worst off, even (especially?) if through their own fault, whereas libertarians tend to have more compassion for those making a good-faith effort to solve their own problems.
A survey designed by a left-leaning researcher is likely to be biased towards detecting left-wing compassion.
Kevin Corcoran
Aug 25 2022 at 12:22pm
I suspect you’re right. I vaguely recall a few years back a study was released by a sociologist arguing that studying economics made students into worse people, where “being a worse person” was basically defined as “disagreeing with left-wing sociologists about economic policy.” But it’s only a vague memory, and I might be remembering the details in a self-serving way, so take this comment with several sprinkles of salt.
Henri Hein
Aug 25 2022 at 3:53pm
I think I know the study you mention. Steve Landsburg wrote about it (or something similar) in Can You Outsmart an Economist:
Kevin Corcoran
Aug 25 2022 at 4:18pm
That sounds about right! Thank you for finding that for me – it’s at least within a ballpark of what my memory was telling me, so I think I was approximately correct.
David Henderson
Aug 26 2022 at 6:10pm
I remember that. I was involved in that discussion. One of the authors was that economic comedian, who really IS funny. However, he got pretty nasty, especially to me. I’ve forgotten his name but I can check if you want.
Henri Hein
Aug 25 2022 at 3:03pm
I personally accept the ‘coddling’ theory of peanut allergies. It goes with the theory of anti-fragility.
I’m less sure about libertarians. The point you make is surely true for some of them. I have also met, at least on-line, libertarians that were almost Nietzschiean in their disregard for the weak.
I am also reminded of the surveys Daniel Klein did on the economic knowledge for the various ideological groups – liberals, conservatives, libertarians. In his article “I Was Wrong, and So Are You,” he wrote about how libertarians and conservatives bomb on economic questions that challenge their position, just like liberals do on those questions that challenge theirs. The tidbit I remember in particular was this question:
If you can’t see that a dollar means more to a poor person than a rich person, I think you view the world in a way that makes it difficult to come up with the type of universal compassion optimizers we want, or even understand their value.
Kevin Corcoran
Aug 25 2022 at 4:16pm
Hey Henri –
As mentioned in my post, I too have met libertarians who were as cold hearted and indifferent as the stereotypes would suggest. I don’t know the distribution of motives or dispositions among libertarians with any precision. However, both you and Dylan cite encounters with online libertarians, or people in comment sections, or things of that nature. I take that with a grain of salt – for example, there may be a selection bias going on. It might be that people of an uncaring disposition are more likely to be found shouting about it on internet forums, which may make them seem more representative of a school of thought than they really are. Or maybe not – I genuinely don’t know.
But I hesitate to judge the general character of any movement based on its loudest online proponents, libertarian or otherwise.
Comments are closed.