Many people, even sophisticated political commentators, think that libertarianism is internally inconsistent. How else could you assess this philosophy, they plaintively ask? After all, supporters of this view favor the legalization of prostitution, certainly a left-wing position, as well as elimination of the minimum wage law, a stance not only associated with conservatives, but the far right. Libertarians favor the legalization of gay marriage, again a left-liberal position, alongside opposition to rent control, a view held by most right-wingers. These seeming contradictions can be multiplied almost without end. For example, supporters of the freedom philosophy want to legalize drugs, all of them, pornography (except for children) and gambling, along with their “progressive” cousins, and, also, in step with the right, get rid of the Federal Reserve, the FDA, and privatize the post office.
Political scientists have concocted a left-right spectrum according to which libertarians register as moderates. This is because they tend to answer all the personal liberties questions as do those on the left, and all economics queries along with members of the right. And, yet, take it from me, libertarians are not moderates by any stretch of the imagination. Rather, they are extremists on both sides of this political spectrum.
What is going on here? What is going on is that libertarians are the only logically consistent group in the entire realm of political economy. They support liberty in both the personal and the economic realms, whereas socialists and conservatives register on the liberty scale in only one of these dimensions, one each.
Oregon is the only state to have legalized addictive drugs, in addition to marijuana. They vote overwhelmingly blue. They see so clearly that it is unjust to stop adults from placing substances in their bodies which may well be harmful. But they do not at all appreciate the fact that prohibiting consenting adults to enter into a labor contract stipulating pay of less than $7.25 per hour is also a violation of liberty. Red state voters see so clearly that it is impermissible to prevent consenting adults from conducting commercial exchanges through the financial intermediation of gold, not fiat currency. They appreciate that profit maximization benefits society and that forced redistribution of money from rich to poor does not. But when it comes to the right to provide sexual services for pay, these insights pale into insignificance. Only libertarians favor all sorts of economic and personal rights without exception.
But are not some of these practices vices? Of course they are. Some people consider excessive profit making and addictive drug taking as evils. But the law, at least from the libertarian point of view, is not supposed to stop all of immorality. We all have iniquitous thoughts do we not? If the police could require all of us to be entirely moral in thought and deed, we would all be in jail, including them, of course. Mere vices should not be considered crimes. Our legal system should be a more limited one; it should only stamp out crimes with victims, such as murder, rape, arson, theft, assault and battery, etc.
Another problem with the one-dimensional left-right spectrum is that it is supposed to place people and institutions whose views are similar close to each other, and place great geographical distance between those who diverge in this manner. But what to do about Hitler an extreme rightist, and Stalin, a man of the left? There may not be a “dime’s worth of difference” between the two of them in terms of rhetoric, but on the basis of action, they are identical twins in terms of mass murder. Mother Teresa must be placed on the left side of the one-dimensional left-right spectrum. So must we place her cheek by jowl with Stalin? Perish the thought. Ditto for Ron Paul and Hitler; both can be placed on the right, an inaccurate a placement as can be imagined.
A much better way of looking at political economy than a one-dimensional left right spectrum is a two dimensional cross. The vertical axis indicates “good” at the top (adherence to libertarian principles) and bad at the bottom (utter rejection of them). The horizontal axis is the usual left right spectrum. Then, we can place Stalin at the lower left, Mother Teresa at the upper left, Ron Paul in the upper right, and Hitler at the lower left. Then and only then can geographical placement be congruent with political philosophy and behavior.
Chemists have a table of the elements. Biologists divide up what they study into genus and species. Political scientists need a far more accurate organizational tool than the one which now misleads them.
Walter E. Block is Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics at Loyola University New Orleans
READER COMMENTS
Chris
Nov 14 2021 at 11:01am
I have not found libertarians to be consistent in love for the gold standard. I certainly am no fan, though I line up 100% behind the other positions called out (along with completely free trade and open borders).
Matthias
Nov 14 2021 at 10:49pm
George Selgin has some good material on the gold standard.
His position is in favour of free competition between providers of money. He likes the historic gold standards of eg Canada and Scotland, but thinks it’s unlikely free competition would return us to a gold standard these days.
nobody.really
Nov 15 2021 at 8:38am
Which of the authors on this blog support a return to the gold standard? I suspect we’d find greater support for cybercurrency (which kinda does represent free competition among providers of currency).
Sumner emphasizes the importance of designing policy around maintaining a target NGDP. Could you do that under a gold standard?
Jon Murphy
Nov 15 2021 at 11:00am
I think you’re making a similar mistake as Walter Block is in the original post: mistaking policy for principles. Consistency should not be measures by what policies one supports (though that may be related) but rather the principles one holds.
Jonathan Murphy
Nov 14 2021 at 11:31am
This is a very strong claim you fail to support at all. In fact, you smuggle in a hidden assertion:
The hidden assertion is that liberty is the only margin along which politics exists. But it is not. There are many other values which people have: tradition, universal benevolence, militarism, nationalism, etc.* Further, you treat liberty as the highest and only good. Sure, that may be, but that is a subjective call. It’s quite easy to see the consistencies of both right-wing and left-wing politics when seen through their respective lenses.
Consequently, in defense of libertarianism, you too glibly dismiss the liberalism of Adam Smith, Hayek, Mises, Bastiat, etc. For example, Smith throughout TMS and WN makes distinctions between direct liberty and overall liberty, distinctions that spill into modern discourse (for better or for worse).
To claim libertarianism is the only consistent philosophy is too strong a claim, especially given the mess the political side of the philosophy is in (and one need only look at a lot of the self-contradictory writings of Rothbard to see contradictions within libertarianism. For A New Liberty is full of inconsistencies, not just chapter to chapter, but within chapters as well).
*NB: I make no claim about the reasonableness of these values.
KevinDC
Nov 14 2021 at 8:28pm
I agree, I think Professor Block is making far too strong a claim here. Rawls, for example, is explicit about how in his philosophical system, economic liberties are less important than other liberties – and may who have followed in his tradition are equally clear that they think economic freedom is of a lower level of importance. One might think they are mistaken and undervalue economic freedoms (I certainly do!). You could even say they make a more fundamental mistake by thinking economic freedom is different from, say, political freedoms, and there is only freedom, with divisions like “economic vs political freedom” being false categories. But these claims wouldn’t make Rawlsians inconsistent, it would merely make them wrong.
There’s a line from G. E. Moore in Principia Ethica that comes to mind in moments like these, were Moore equates mistakes in ethical and philosophical reasoning as no different from making mathematical mistakes:
Joseph
Nov 14 2021 at 1:00pm
I am curious why exactly you put Hitler on the far right. As far as I know economically he was not a liberal at all. Welfare state, nationalisation of main industries, it was really not that far.
https://www.econlib.org/how-socialist-was-national-socialism/
It is funny by the way how multiple “fact-checkers” cite killing of socialist and communist politicians as a proof Nazis where not left-wing as though they never heard of a political struggle.
Matthias
Nov 14 2021 at 10:50pm
Especially since in the communist countries like the Soviet Union or PR China the nominally leftists government was the busiest killer of communists.
Mark Brady
Nov 14 2021 at 1:50pm
Yes, two axes make for a more useful analysis than one left/right axis, and this has long been recognized. See, e.g., David Nolan’s eponymous chart (1969). However, as Jon Murphy points out, the two-dimensional analysis has distinct limitations, to say the least. Surely libertarianism, and the classical liberal tradition, do have something important to say about foreign relations and the military, don’t they?
Matthias
Nov 14 2021 at 10:57pm
You can add arbitrarily many axes.
At some point is becomes a trade-off between explaining real world differences vs making your classification to complicated.
I suspect in terms of explaining politics in one country at one point in time, the one axis model can be fairly successful, especially for a two party system.
That’s probably because it says more about political tactics than about policy preferences.
The one axis system breaks down in usefulness when comparing between countries and over long periods of time.
As another example, see also the Catholic church: these days (and also looking at their scripture) they are fairly pro wealth free redistribution. But they are also fiercely against abortions.
Those things are on opposite ends of the political spectrum in the US.
Similarly, support for free trade vs tariffs has bounced between political poles in the US. Or support for free speech vs censorship.
Billy Kaubashine
Nov 14 2021 at 2:51pm
Libertarians have a longer list of things that are “None of Government’s Business” than than many who identify as Left or Right. Many of us who believe in limited government find ourselves in agreement with Libertarians on more issues than we do with Progressives and Conservatives.
That said, it’s always possible to take a good thing too far. I would argue that a pro-active foreign policy and defense posture, and secure national borders don’t belong on the list of things that are “None of Government’s Business”. Some Libertarians would disagree with me.
Matthias
Nov 14 2021 at 11:01pm
Switzerland, Singapore and eg the Scandinavian countries do well with their foreign policy as far as I can tell.
I don’t think any libertarian country would need anything more pro-active than them.
(And if you suggest that those countries can only get away with their non-interventionalism because they are small, I guess that an argument in favour of breaking up larger countries?)
nobody.really
Nov 15 2021 at 9:59am
I’d suggest they get away with non-interventionism because they are free riders–enjoying the benefits provided by nations with larger militaries (mostly) willing to defend an international order, including an order that involves international trade, upon which these smaller nations depend.
I agree with Walter Block that hard-core libertarianism/anarchy seems to have greater internal consistency than most other political persuasions. And I agree with other commenters here that this internal consistency is acquired by simply ignoring/denying many things that voters find desirable–and that may simply be necessary for anyone to compete with nations that have developed greater capacity for collective action (including war).
What is the hard-core libertarian response to Nazi tanks invading nation after nation? Heck, Arrow demonstrated that the concept of “consent of the governed” is just an illusion, so no government has legitimacy, so no collective action is warranted. Each individual is entitled to defend his own property. You can guess how that will turn out.
Collective action is the libertarian downfall. What remedy should hard-core libertarians living on the Marshall Islands propose for addressing sea-level rise? Or the spread of infectious disease? Or wanting to build roads, pipelines, or transmission lines without the benefit of eminent domain? Or protect intellectual property?
Block claims that “supporters of the freedom philosophy want to legalize … pornography (except for children)….” Why the exception? If you and I had nothing to do with other people’s choice to create a child, what business is it of ours if they use their children for pornography, or prostitution, or meat?
The easy way to make libertarianism consistent is to simply avert your eyes from such questions. Once you admit that you DO care, that you DO want the state to intervene, you’ve entered onto the long, slippery slope of inconsistency–along with the rest of us.
robc
Nov 14 2021 at 6:05pm
robc’s 2 rules of libertarianism seem appropriate to post here:
Everyone agrees with libertarians about something.
No two libertarians agree about anything.
Matthias
Nov 14 2021 at 11:02pm
I don’t understand the second rule.
Surely no two libertarians agree about everything, but they would agree about many or even most things?
robc
Nov 15 2021 at 9:28am
It is primarily a joke, sort of a herding cats comment.
Neither are literally true. But they have truthiness.
As an example of the 2nd, Scott Sumner and I probably agree on most everything. But he is a utilitarian while I am a deontologist, so we get there via different paths. Or, as I would put it: he is wrong.
But even more than that, you get shades of difference. Ask 10 libertarians a policy question and you will get 12 different proposals in return.
nobody.really
Nov 15 2021 at 10:28am
We can’t even find two libertarians who agree on the second rule!
(Al Franken remarked that the only time he ever voted for a politician he agreed with entirely was when he voted for himself–and only during his first campaign.)
KevinDC
Nov 14 2021 at 8:18pm
I’m not sure I buy this. I’ve certainly heard my share of criticism of libertarianism, but I’ve never encountered anyone charging libertarianism as internally inconsistent on the grounds that some policy positions seem right wing and others seem left wing. This could just be a lack of exposure on my part – maybe there are people saying this and I’ve just never heard it before? Specific examples of someone making this charge would have been helpful. In my experience, most peoples boilerplate definition of libertarianism is “economically conservative and socially liberal” – even critics of libertarianism often use this basic descriptor. If there’s anyone out there saying “economically conservative and socially liberal, therefore contradictory!” I’ve yet to hear it.
This immediately brought to mind a passage I really liked from The Servile Mind by Kenneth Minogue. Forgive the long quotation:
Todd Moodey
Nov 15 2021 at 9:12am
The passage from Minogue’s work is fantastic. Thanks for sharing it.
Regards,
Todd Moodey
robc
Nov 15 2021 at 9:32am
The Minogue quotation reminded me of this:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” — C. S. Lewis
Mactoul
Nov 15 2021 at 2:10am
Libertarians deny moral authority to the community. That’s the essence of it. They would have each man a stranger to another man, even though they may be physically neighbors.
The progressives deny particularity and thus seek world government. They would make each man a neighbor even though they may be living continents away.
Only, the conservatives maintain proper distinction between neighbors and strangers.
Jonathan Murphy
Nov 15 2021 at 6:51am
Really? That’s news to me. With only very few exceptions (and none of them I would consider serious thinkers of the philosophy), libertarians put huge emphasis on community and freedom of association. Indeed, socialization and community are often key elements of the philosophy (see, for example, Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments or pretty much anything Hayek has written).
Mactoul
Nov 15 2021 at 9:59pm
Adam Smith was not libertarian.
Jon Murphy
Nov 16 2021 at 6:55am
Agreed (though I’d say the broad definition used by both Block and, implicitly, you would mean Smith falls into that category) but my point remains. Society is crucial to libertarian thought.
KevinDC
Nov 15 2021 at 8:05am
This statement just seems strange to me. It seems to be implying the only way for neighbors to not be strangers to each other is by wielding authority over each other. But…why would that be? Why on earth is the presence of authority among neighbors a necessary condition for them to not be strangers to each other?
Maybe you meant to say libertarians deny the moral importance of community, rather than authority? If so, that’s just flat out false. Much ink has been spilled by libertarianism defending the moral importance of community. Indeed, a common theme among libertarians in criticism of the state is that much of what the state does has the effect of undercutting the strength of communities by crowding out voluntary community driven association with top down dictates, thus weakening social bonds and community spirit.
Mactoul
Nov 15 2021 at 9:58pm
Libertarians don’t think that the community has authority to make moral decisions. Like outlawing homosexuality, polygamy, abortion.
The famous quote of Justice Kennedy about the heart of liberty is pertinent.
Jon Murphy
Nov 16 2021 at 6:53am
I think you’re confusing who makes a decision versus moral authority.
A community is made up of individuals. A community doesn’t make a decision; it is not a choosing agent. Individuals make decisions. There are collective decision making procedures, but that’s not the same as the community making a decision.
Now, to your examples, it is true that libertarians deny the ability for groups to deny certain choices to other groups. But that’s true at the individual level too. For example, libertarians would say it’s wrong to kill someone. But that doesn’t mean the individual lacks moral authority or standing.
We are all bound by the rules of justice and morality
Mactoul
Nov 16 2021 at 9:01pm
A political community has moral authority to mete out capital punishment.
No individual has. Indeed, it is a hallmark of libertarian theory to not understand these distinctions almost by definition since it doesn’t recognize political nature of man.
Jon Murphy
Nov 17 2021 at 7:17am
I think the confusion is the phrasing “moral authority.” It doesn’t mean what you think it means
KevinDC
Nov 16 2021 at 9:47am
Jon is, of course, correct that speaking of “community” as though community itself was a volitional and decision-making agent is incoherent. And this isn’t just some shibboleth unique to libertarians, which is why you can also find conservatives saying the same thing, like Margaret Thatcher’s famous proclamation that there’s no such thing as “society” which exists over and above the individual men and women who make it up.
Further, you seem to take issue with the fact that libertarians would deny the “authority” of the “community” when it comes to “outlawing homosexuality, polygamy, abortion” and so on. But, surely, conservatives also deny this “authority” of the “community” when it comes to outlawing all sorts of other things as well, no? Surely conservatism isn’t just a belief in the unlimited authority of “communities” to outlaw and ban anything, totally eliminating any sphere of individual autonomy? On that description, “conservatism” would be little more than the most extremist form of collectivism. However, if you would concede that there are limits to what a “community” has the “moral authority” to outlaw or ban, and that there is a sphere of individual autonomy that “community” lacks authority to encroach upon, then your complaint against libertarianism seems to be only that they want more individual autonomy than you do, and less collectivist authority over that autonomy. I’ll cheerfully plead “guilty as charged” to that.
Nonetheless, I still do not feel myself a stranger to my neighbors or to the community in which I live, and vice versa. I still have no idea why you think that, in the absence of a belief that “community” is a separate moral agent with authority over and above that of individuals, neighbors must be strangers to each other. Libertarians make great neighbors, I promise!
Mactoul
Nov 16 2021 at 9:05pm
By stranger I mean one who doesn’t share your moral values, in the sense given perfectly in Kipling’s famous poem The Stranger.
Mactoul
Nov 16 2021 at 9:10pm
Community, family and the individual are three irreducible levels of human organization. None may be derived from another. All individuals are born in a family which is itself embedded in a community.
Family is not sufficient for continuity of culture over generations nor economically self-sufficient, as was recognized by Aristotle.
KevinDC
Nov 16 2021 at 10:27pm
So if “stranger” in your lexicon merely means “someone who doesn’t share your moral values,” then the idea that neighbors who don’t share moral values with each other are “strangers” to each other would be true, but it’s only true trivially – it’s nothing more than an uninformative tautology. Most of my actual neighbors don’t share my moral values, so by your lights my neighbors and I are “strangers” to each other in that trivial sense. Therefore…what? What do you think follows from this, in the real world, with my actual relationship with my actual neighbors? Are you under the impression that we must therefore fail to coexist well as neighbors? We don’t get along? Can’t help each other out in a pinch? Have no sense of fellow feeling and community? None of that follows as a matter of logical necessity, and none of that is true as a matter of empirical fact. The idea that neighbors need common moral standards forcibly imposed on them by collective authority is usually used as the premise of a dystopian fiction – and not without reason. If that’s what passes for “conservatism” these days, then so much the worse for “conservatism.”
But I don’t think that’s “conservatism” in any worthy sense. In the last few weeks I’ve read George Will’s The Conservative Sensibility and Edmund Burke: The First Conservative by Jesse Norman (both good reads, by the way) and the conservatism described in those works, which I find a respectable and worthy intellectual tradition, has little to no overlap with what you call “conservatism” here and now. My personal libertarianism has always had a very strong Burkean influence in particular, so I don’t have any beef with conservatism as such – and it pains me to see it so poorly represented here.
Jon Murphy
Nov 17 2021 at 7:26am
I’m with KevinDC here. Your definition of “stranger” seems all but useless. Your definition would imply not that libertarians “would have each man a stranger to another man,” but that all philosophies would have each man a stranger to another man. There will always be disagreement among individuals. Those disagreements will include moral values.
My family have many conflicting moral values. And yet, none of us are “strangers” to one another. If, as you say, family is “irreducible,” then such differing values would be impossible. Yet, here we are.
Frank Clarke
Nov 15 2021 at 9:07am
https://dispatchesfromheck.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-great-right-v-left-lie.html
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Nov 15 2021 at 10:07am
What I find if not “inconsistent” about at least the Econlib version of Libertarianism at least puzzling, is that it focuses only on what government should NOT do but has nothing specific to say about what government should do. Is a Libertarian not just a utilitarian who passed Econ 101 (not having gotten to the parts about externalities) and who puts a zero value on redistribution? 🙂
Amy Willis
Nov 15 2021 at 12:32pm
Now, Thomas… I hope you’re listening to EconTalk, too. And AdamSmithWorks. ~Amy
robc
Nov 15 2021 at 1:10pm
I think there are more deontological libertarians and utilitarian libertarians.
robc
Nov 15 2021 at 1:10pm
“than” not “and”
Comments are closed.