What’s wrong with the concept “libertarian”?
The rejection of the label “libertarian” by Rand and subsequent Objectivists is often met with incredulity. “Of course you’re libertarians, whether you admit it or not,” we’re told; “a libertarian is someone who believes that the government should do nothing but protect people against aggression, if there should even be a government at all, and Objectivism holds that the government’s only proper function is protecting rights, which amounts to the same thing as protecting against aggression, so by definition all Objectivists are libertarians (even though, of course, not all libertarians are Objectivists).”
To see what’s wrong with this line of reasoning, suppose that someone tells you that he is a “sexual liberationist” and asks if you are too. When you ask what that term means, he responds that a sexual liberationist is someone opposed to the criminalization of sex. “The term applies,” he goes on to say, “to anyone who thinks that all sex, or at least consensual sex, should be legal.” “At least consensual sex?” you ask, and a dialogue ensues.
“Yes, there are some sexual liberationists who believe that all sex should be legal, including molesting children, sex with people who are unconscious, and sex with unwilling people at gun point. Those are the radical sexual liberationists. Moderate sexual liberationists don’t go so far. They’re opposed to laws against premarital sex or sodomy, but they don’t oppose laws against rape. Despite this difference, both types are by definition sexual liberationists, because they both think that sex should be legal at least when it’s consensual.
“I think it’s high time that sexual liberationists look past these factional differences and work together to fight the prudish laws that are still on the books in many places. I’ve heard you object to sodomy laws and the like, so whatever you think about rape and pedophilia, you’re clearly a sexual liberationist. Would you like to join my sexual liberationist organization and fight with us for a future where we can all bed whomever we like without fear of prosecution?
“But there’s a huge difference,” you reply, “between a future in which I’m free to sleep with any consenting adult and one in which I’m ‘free’ to rape people and they’re ‘free’ to rape me!”
“I grant that there is a difference, and, though I lean towards the more radical form of sexual liberationism myself, I dither on the issue; sometimes I find myself thinking more along moderate lines. In any case, I’m firmly convinced that we need to move in the direction of sexual liberation and repeal as much mandatory prudery as possible.”
“But legalizing consensual sex between adults and legalizing rape aren’t movements ‘in the same direction’ at all. The former is a movement towards sexual freedom in that it gives the individual greater control over his own sex life; the latter is a movement away from sexual freedom in that it would empower others to have sex with him against his will.”
“That’s one of the arguments that moderate sexual liberationists often marshal against radicals, and I concede that it has some force. But there are also powerful arguments on the extremist side; for example, some argue that rape would be less common in a society in which it wasn’t against the law. There are few things I find more invigorating than a spirited argument with a fellow sexual liberationist such as yourself.”
“Please stop calling me that.”
“Why?”
“Because I think this idea that rape should (or even maybe should) be legalized is monstrous. It makes it clear that what you advocate isn’t anything that I can recognize as genuine sexual freedom, so I don’t want any part of your coalition.”
“I understand that you’re a proponent of the rape laws, and I respect that this is a significant difference between us, and that you feel strongly about it, but why would this make you deny the obvious truth that you’re a sexual liberationist. After all, by definition, anyone who opposes laws against sex at least when it’s consensual is a sexual liberationist, and you oppose laws against consensual sex, so you’re a sexual liberationist like me, whatever other points we may disagree on.”
There is no need and no excuse for the term “sexual liberationist,” as it is used by this interlocutor. The term is what Rand called a “package-deal” — a pseudo-concept that groups together items that are essentially opposite. It evades or trivializes the distinction between consensual and non-consensual relationships, without which the concept of “freedom” (sexual or otherwise) loses all meaning. The fact that one can produce a definition for “sexual liberationist” from which it can be deduced that the term applies to certain individuals does nothing to redeem the term. It does not show that the term represents a reasonable way of classifying positions (much less that any particular person or position is reasonably described by it).
The same points apply to the concept “libertarianism” which groups together anarchism with the view (held by Objectivists among others) that the sole proper function of the government is to protect individual rights. In so doing, the term distorts the latter view, re-conceiving it as a sort of neutered anarchism (often called “minarchism”).
Before anyone accuses me of attacking a straw man, let me acknowledge that most anarchist philosophers deplore rape and think that it should be fought by all the moral means available, and those anarchists who think (mistakenly, in my view) that a sort of rule of law is possible in the absence of government certainly view rape as something that should be illegal. So my point isn’t that legalizing rape is an anarchist position. My point is, rather, that the standard argument that Objectivists, anarchists, and sundry others are all libertarians has the same structure as the argument that you, rape-law abolitionists, and others are all “sexual liberationists.” Both arguments beg the question by insisting on a certain definition when what is at issue is whether the definiendum is a valid concept.
If the “sexual liberationist” wants to persuade you to accept his terminology, he cannot take it for granted that legalizing rape is anything like repealing laws against consensual sex acts; rather, he must attempt to show that there is some basis for grouping together the advocacy of these very different things.
Likewise, if someone wants to persuade us to classify anarchists and Objectivists (along with Von Mises, Nozick, and others) as “libertarians,” he needs to have something substantive to say about how the view that government has a specific proper function is of a piece with the view that government as such is immoral and should be dispensed with.
I’m not denying that there are significant philosophical affinities and historical relationships among many of the thinkers and views called “libertarian.” But I don’t see that there is any essential similarity between Rand’s position (to which I subscribe) and anarchism, and I deny that there is any legitimate concept that classifies these views together as a kind of political theory. However, my point here isn’t to show that there is no such concept, but to show why the burden of proof belongs to those who say there is.
For my part, the only cognitive value I see in the term “libertarian” is as a name for a loose movement. Central to the movement it names is an intertwining of incompatible views that has been caused by a series of confusions and sociological factors. In this respect, it is like the concepts “conservative” and “liberal,” as they’re used in contemporary American political discourse.
Addendum added 3/13/3016:
This piece is specifically about the propriety of having a concept “libertarian” that includes both anarchists and proponents of a rights-respecting government. How and whether proponents of rights-respecting government ought to interact with anarchists or with “libertarian” organizations that include anarchists and non-anarchists is a separate, but related question. I did not intend to address that question here, but since a few people asked me about it, I’ll just indicate my view. I think it’s akin to the question of how proponents of rights-respecting government should interact with “liberals” and with “conservatives.” Both of those concepts (as they’re understood today) are package-deals. “Liberalism” merges such positions as opposition to racism and defense of equality before the law with collectivism, and “conservativism” merges a respect for economic freedom with authoritarianism, religiosity, and tradition-worship. In both of these movements, I can think of people who are primarily motivated by the elements in the package that I think are correct. And, in all cases, I think the package has negative effects on their thinking, even about these positive elements. In some cases the effects are subtle, and I still think that the people are essentially on the right side of the issue. In other cases, I think the effects are more profound.
Thus whether a self-professed “liberal” or “conservative” or “libertarian” person or organization is an ally has to be determined separately with respect to each issue and each person (or organization). If a person or organization is not an ideological ally (either in general or on some issue), it means that one should not collaborate with them in advocacy. But this does not preclude there from being value to other forms of interaction. There can be great value in discussions, especially in public forums, between people whose ideas are fundamentally opposed. By bringing out the differences between the views, such exchanges can help both parties to clarify their own thinking, and they can help audience members to make up their minds between the alternative views. This point applies to anarchists no less (though also no more) than to Marxists or religionists. However, I think that one of the preconditions for such exchanges being productive is that one make clear that one regards the difference between the views as fundamental, rather than as minute disagreement among people whose views are essentially aligned. The term “libertarian,” as it is too often used, creates the latter impression with respect to the disagreement between anarchists and proponents of a right-protecting government. And for this reason, people who regard the difference as essential should not use the term in their own voice and without qualification.
It’s unfortunate that there isn’t a term that unambiguously identifies our political position, but this is a symptom of the state of contemporary political thought — including the tragic fact that the anti-statist movements of the 1960’s and `70’s were largely co-opted by religionists and anarchists. Given this fact, proponents of rights-protecting government need either to reclaim one of the old words (by insisting that statists are not truly liberals, or that theocrats are not truly conservatives or that anarchists are not truly libertarians), to coin a new term, or to make due for the time being with descriptive phrases like Rand’s “Radicals for capitalism.” (That phrase too is sometimes used by anarchists, but it’s so associated with Rand, who was so vocal in her opposition to anarchism, that I don’t think it’s a problem.)
The following comments on this post are preserved:
Jeff G. commented: I happened upon this article, and I'm really glad I did. I am a libertarian who recognizes that there are distinctions between Objectivism and Libertarianism, and cannot be unceremoniously lumped together.
Would you consider the modern libertarian movement in any way an offshoot of the Objectivist movement, or are they distinct movements? Would appreciate some Randian thoughts on the issue.
Greg S. replied: I think of the modern libertarian movement as having coalesced sometime between 1968 and 1971. I wouldn’t say that it was an offshoot of the Objectivist movement, but Rand was certainly a major influence on some of its leaders and most of its followers. Also, the social relationships formed through the Nathaniel Branden Institute (which gave lecture courses on Rand’s Objectivism) probably played a role in the formation of the libertarian movement, and it may be that (as Jennifer Burns suggests) the closing of NBI in 1968 created a sort of vacuum that helped the movement to form.
Anarchism (specifically the form endorsed by Rothbard) was the dominant force in that movement initially, and the confusion between freedom and anarchy (which I regard as its opposite) played (and continues to play) a really distorting role in libertarian thought—including in the thought of non-anarchist libertarian philosophers, such as Nozick. My sense is that, though anarchism remains a significant factor, its influence among self-professed libertarians and libertarian organizations has waned significantly, and I don’t know that anything has really taken its place. What I see now is more of a loose knit community of people and groups who vaguely favor free markets, and who share some of the same influences (including both Rand and the anarchists).
The following comments on this post are preserved:
Karl M. writes: http://www.cato.org/mission
Today, those who subscribe to the principles of the American Revolution — individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law — call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal. We see problems with all of those terms. "Conservative" smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism — the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known — as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.
"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" fails to capture the contemporary vibrancy of the ideas of freedom.
"Liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world — the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina tend to be supporters of human rights and free markets — but its meaning has clearly been altered in the contemporary United States.
The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.
This vision brings the wisdom of the American Founders to bear on the problems of today. As did the Founders, it looks to the future with optimism and excitement, eager to discover what great things women and men will do in the coming century. Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society, recognizing that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world. It is — or used to be — the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite. The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does. Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age. Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress.
Libertarians have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. We applaud the progressive extension of the promises of the Declaration of Independence to more people, especially to women, African-Americans, religious minorities, and gay and lesbian people. Our greatest challenge today is to continue to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world.
Greg S. replies: Karl, I more or less agree with the statement you quote from Cato, especially the point that all of the terms to name "those who subscribe to the principles of the American Revolution" have problems with them. Part of the reason that there are problems is that there isn't much consensus on what those principles are. There are a number of reasons for this, but one is that "anarchism" is seen as a close relative of these principles instead of as one form of the opposite principle--viz. rule by brute force. The fetish for anarchism seems to be fading in libertarian circles, so this isn't as big an issue as it once was. But until there is a consensus among self-professed libertarians that the disagreement between anarchists and proponents of a rights-respecting government is not a debate within a single ideological movement but a debate between fundamentally different ideologies, I don't think that "libertarian" is a term anyone should adopt as a name for his own ideology--at least not without being explicit about where he stands on this issue.
This doesn't mean that I'm opposed to working with organizations that call themselves libertarian, when I judge that they're predominantly good (as I think is the case with CATO), and I'm happy to appear on panels or in books with anarchists as well, just as I am with socialists and others, so long as it's done in a way that makes clear that there's a fundamental disagreement that people need to consider, rather than presenting us as fundamentally aligned. (In fact, I'm editing a book now that has several self-professed libertarian contributors, including two anarchists.)
Boaz's book, which you link to above, has much to recommend it, but it plays coy on this issue. Anyone who knows anything about the history of the libertarian movement knows that anarchism has played a significant part in it, and book on "The Libertarian Mind" needs to acknowledge that and take a position on it.