MENU

Addressing the Gaps in Libertarian Theory

By Vinay Kolhatkar

December 22, 2024

SUBSCRIBE TO SAVVY STREET (It's Free)

 

Libertarianism by its very nature constrains itself to a political-only theory. At least three libertarian leading lights recognize the drawbacks of this.

Murray Rothbard once wrote (“Big-Government Libertarians,” The Irrepressible Rothbard, Mises Institute, 2000, p.101):

“Libertarian political doctrine can be severed from all other considerations; logically one can be—and indeed most libertarians in fact are: hedonists, libertines, immoralists, militant enemies of religion in general and Christianity in particular—and still be consistent adherents of libertarian politics.”

Then, a decade ago, Jeffrey Tucker (“Against Libertarian Brutalism,” Foundation for Economic Education, March 12, 2014) spoke of two radically different impulses within the movement: a humanitarian one and a brutalist one. Naturally, the brutalists rebelled. Tucker’s instincts were correct, but his backers found no solace in libertarian theory.

In Getting Libertarianism Right (Mises Institute, 2018), Hans-Hermann Hoppe bemoans that the Alt-Right understands the enemy far better than his fellow libertarians. He says (Kindle Loc 938): “Many libertarians and fake libertarians are plain ignorant of human psychology and sociology or even devoid of any common sense.”

An explicit acknowledgement of its lineage in natural law is missing from most libertarian, and all Objectivist literature.

The drawbacks could be corrected. But could that reduce libertarianism’s impact? Most recently, even with the inclusion of Rothbard’s “immoralists, etc.” the Libertarian Party managed to get only 0.4% of the popular vote in the 2024 US presidential election. “Big Tent” libertarianism is not having an impact anyway.

Meanwhile, in the mid-20th century, Ayn Rand had sought to provide a complete philosophical theory (“Objectivism”), containing a metaphysics (the nature of the world around us), an epistemology (a theory of knowledge), an ethics (how should we lead our lives), a politics that builds upon the ethics, and an aesthetics.

Objectivism is thus imprisoned with an indefinite sentence (behind the deification of Rand) with no hope for parole, let alone a release.

But Objectivism has been closed to further inquiry. Even scholarly critiques of pro-liberty thinkers are scorned by its establishment. Objectivism is thus imprisoned with an indefinite sentence (behind the deification of Rand by the Ayn Rand Institute) with no hope for parole, let alone a release.

Further, an explicit acknowledgement of its lineage in natural law is missing from most libertarian, and all Objectivist literature. Hence, many of their adherents are unaware of it. That’s why The Ethics of Liberty by Rothbard, which is a standout exception, deserves a far bigger audience.

But only complete philosophies, inclusive of both interpersonal and personal ethics, a psychology, and a sociology, can overcome today’s anti-scientific, neo-Marxist assault on society, the economy, and on free-market theory.

But only complete philosophies, inclusive of both interpersonal and personal ethics (the latter is often missing from libertarian theory), a psychology, and a sociology, can overcome today’s anti-scientific, neo-Marxist assault on society, the economy, and on free-market theory.

Under a new banner “natural-law humanism,” a new school, equipped with a new journal, could empower creators and scholars to make integrative advances in interconnected fields such as law, ethics, psychology, and aesthetics, while a libertarian politics, sans change, is encompassed by it. A political impact may still be decades away, but in the long run, the movement will be better for it.

 

Is a New School of Humanism an Option?

Let’s start with what the humanists believe themselves to be (emphasis mine):

Humanism is a democratic and ethical life-stance which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethics based on human and other natural values in a spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.

—Humanists International

Humanism has been rightly associated with Aristotelian metaphysics and Aristotelian ethics (eudaimonism). Yet humanism as a movement has been dominated by the political Left—all members of the US Humanist Freethought Caucus are Democratic Party politicians. As a result, humanism has stayed well clear of the most humane system of all—a fully voluntary, cooperative, secular system of free markets, free speech, and truly free minds.

Jean-Paul Sartre opined that “Existentialism is a Humanism.” There is a Marxist Humanism. There is a school of Christian Humanism, which regards humanist principles like universal human dignity, individual freedom, and the importance of happiness as essential (or even exclusive) components of the teachings of Jesus. And there is a secular/scientific school associated with John Dewey.

“Humanism,” as a word, is no more corrupted than “liberal” or “libertarianism” today.

Is it unwise to connect libertarianism with a concept embraced by some corrupt, and some erroneous, views? Yet, “humanism,” as a word, is no more corrupted than “liberal” or “libertarianism” today. What’s missing is a humanism truly celebratory of reason and based on the highest potential of human beings. Pro-liberty thought (including Lockean theory) has antecedents in “natural law.” A “natural-law humanism” label would distinguish this school from all the current (and defective) humanisms that are out there.

Libertarianism recognizes the powerful idea of human autonomy. But the psychological foundations of libertarianism are only implicit in its ideology. Similarly, libertarian metaphysics is implicitly Aristotelian—a belief that the things commonly perceived as real (such as chairs, trees, cats, walls, skyscrapers, and planes) are indeed real, and able to be perceived by humans.

But if we want a complete and explicit philosophy, instead of only a political theory, then libertarianism will not suffice. It lacks a theory of aesthetics totally, and lacks an explicit foundation in metaphysics, epistemology, and a meta-ethics (a theory of the best and worst of our human nature). Crucially, libertarianism provides little guidance on how to lead your own life (ethics). It tells everyone (including depressed teenagers) not to rob or defraud others, but not how they could lead meaningful, humane lives free from depression.

For a natural-law ethics derived from the meta-ethics of longstanding pro-liberty philosophies, and enhanced by current empirical psychology, see Modernizing Aristotle’s Ethics: Toward a New Art and Science of Self-Actualization (“MAE”).

The “Austrian School” of economics is associated with libertarianism. It could well be the foundational economic theory part of a natural-law humanism.

Further, the “Austrian School” of economics is associated with libertarianism. It could well be the foundational economic theory part of a natural-law humanism. But for a more complete economic theory integrating the nature of the inventive human mind and its role in innovation and productivity—a marriage is needed between cognitive science, child development, educational psychology, and the economics of growth. Under what multi-disciplinary banner can we pursue this?

 

Natural Law

In the natural law tradition, the word “natural” stands for something that’s derived from human nature. The “law” part of the phrase means that which is right, or good and just. As Aristotle noted, our distinctive feature is reason. The world around us obeys certain laws. Applying reason to the natural sciences made possible monumental advances. Samuel Gregg, author of The Essential Natural Law (Kindle, Loc 19%), notes that even in Plato’s time, it was recognized that reason was “practical in the sense of helping us know ethical and philosophical truth,” and helping us to “choose and act rightly.”

“…a strong case to suggest that the first substantive conceptions of rights [by this Gregg means natural or negative rights] were developed by medieval natural law thinkers…”

Gregg avers that, although “human rights” are “usually presented as a product of a modern post-Enlightenment world and associated with figures like John Locke,” (Loc 35%), there is “a strong case to suggest that the first substantive conceptions of rights [by this he means natural or negative rights] were developed by medieval natural law thinkers, whose ideas on this subject were clarified and developed further by their modern counterparts, some of whom were reacting to expansionist tendencies on the state’s part,” [emphasis mine]. Since Locke, the father of classical liberalism who inspired the US Declaration of Independence, got his ideas from natural-law thinkers, libertarianism, too, can trace its foundations to natural rights, and thence to natural law.

Ubiquitous individual autonomy gives rise to an economy functioning at its best. We know from our earlier US and UK experiences (1815-1914) that even less-than-perfect economies can foster uninterrupted growth with zero inflation.

In a free economy, creative human forces are unleashed. Opportunities bloom for finding work, starting new ventures, making discoveries and inventions; growth ignites, inflation stays close to zero, and absolute poverty approaches absolute zero—overall, such a state is a true measure of economic success, as against inequality of economic outcomes.

What’s not to like here? Who will hate this outcome? Only those in the government circle of insiders and their business-world cronies who benefit from the government’s extreme intervention in the economy, domination of scientific research, and interference in private affairs including free speech. These “immoralists” will aptly lose their undeserved power and prestige.

 

Are We All Humanists Now?

There are a great many questions to which libertarianism has not provided a substantive blueprint, and neither has classical liberalism or Objectivism.

Just as a sampling, consider:

  1. The pathway to a libertarian utopia, howsoever defined.
  2. Taxation to fund a minimalist state, if there is to be one.
  3. Immigration levels, foreign citizens’ rights to seek work, the right to employ foreign citizens.
  4. Finding independent jurists uncorrupted by neo-Marxism, if there is to be no State.
  5. Education: pedagogy, curriculum versus customization.
  6. A theory of child rearing and the functioning of families.
  7. Limits on the rights of a government to classify any information as secret, to make its disclosure an act of treason punishable, let alone by death.
  8. Redemption (we tackle this briefly in MAE) from moral transgressions.
  9. An extensive jurisprudence that constrains regulatory and legal power solely to enforcement of natural rights.

Classical liberals, Objectivists, and libertarians … let’s start by calling ourselves natural-law humanists. And forge ahead from a centuries-long foundation in natural law.

For a more detailed examination of the case for a natural-law humanism, see: The Case for a “Natural-Law” Humanism.

 

 

(Visited 26 times, 26 visits today)