Questioning Some Libertarian Sacred Cows

For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better Information, or fuller Consideration, to change opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.

– Benjamin Franklin, founding father of the United States

There are a number of positions widely held by libertarians, though not universally so, with which I have come to disagree. These include the following.

Ayn Rand notably wrote “One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment.” (The Virtue of Selfishness, page 89, italics in original). Unfortunately, many libertarians never read beyond that line to understand the context. In particular, libertarians of the anarchist persuasion apply the so-called non-aggression principle like a sledgehammer. Either you are 100% supportive of the NAP in word and deed, or you are evil scum. Such an approach leads to condemnation of free market economists like Milton Friedman for being less than Simon pure. It leads to one prominent anarcho-capitalist creating the following syllogism:

1. Every cop has agreed, as part of his job, to enforce laws; all of them.
2. Many of the laws are manifestly unjust, or even cruel and wicked.
3. Therefore, every cop has agreed to act as an enforcer of laws that are manifestly unjust, or even cruel and wicked.
4. Therefore, there are no good cops.

There is also a propensity with some libertarians to attack politicians of all stripes as fundamentally evil. On social media, crude invectives and name-calling are common. This is a poor substitute for reasoned argument.
Rand went on to elaborate on her statement. To put it in context. She commented on the difficulty of the task. “It is not an easy task; it is not a task that can be performed automatically by one’s feelings, ‘instincts’ or hunches.” (91)

The policy of always pronouncing moral judgment does not mean that one must regard oneself as a missionary charged with the responsibility of ‘saving everyone’s soul’—nor that one must give unsolicited moral appraisals to all those one meets. (92)

This does not mean moral neutrality, but it also does not mean “a blind, arbitrary, self-righteous condemnation of any idea, action, or person that does not fit one’s mood, one’s memorized slogans, or one’s snap judgment of the moment.” (91) What she does propose is

That one must speak up in situations where silence can objectively be taken to mean agreement with or sanction of evil. (92)

“Where argument is futile,” she continues, “a mere ‘I don’t agree with you’ is sufficient to negate any implication of moral sanction. When one deals with better people, a full statement of one’s moral views may be required.”

In a subsequent essay, The Cult of Moral Grayness, she attacks the idea that there are shades of gray on moral issues. Things are black or white. But she also notes

There are, of course, complex issues in which both sides are right in some respects and wrong in others—and it is here that the “package deal” of pronouncing both sides “gray” is least permissible. It is in such issues that the most rigorous precision of moral judgment is required to identify and evaluate the various aspects involved—which can only be done by unscrambling the mixed elements of “black” and “white.” (98)

It is here that the error in the police syllogism above takes place. The police provide a variety of services to the public including controlling real crime (violations of individual rights by criminals) as well as responding to emergencies such as the heroic police who responded to the 9/11 attack. The syllogism is correct in stating that many laws are unjust and even cruel or wicked. But the third premise assumes that the sole raison d’etre of the police is to enforce unjust laws. It is one of those cases where there is both good and bad and one needs to parse the situation to condemn the bad but not the whole. This false syllogism creates a moral equivalence between the police who are sworn to protect and defend individual rights and criminals who are determined to violate them.

A similar lack of context takes place when some point to evils committed by the American government, and to be sure, there are many, and suggest a moral equivalence between America and the former Soviet Union, or America and Nazi Germany, the latter a popular ploy of holocaust deniers.

This perversion of Rand’s exhortation and the failure to consider things in context leads to a widespread view within the libertarian movement that political opponents are not just opponents, they are enemies. They are not just mistaken. They are willfully evil.

The remnants of this attitude show up in today’s strident political commentators on both sides of the spectrum, not to mention political attack ads. They have lowered the quality of political discourse to anti-intellectual sloganism and extravagant hyperbole.

I believe many people, and many politicians, in a democratic society, are men of goodwill who have the best interests of the country at heart.

This is the first major departure I have taken from the standard libertarian position:

I believe many people, and many politicians, in a democratic society, are men of goodwill who have the best interests of the country at heart and are trying to do what they believe to be the right thing. Ad hominem attacks on people, politicians or otherwise, as stupid, evil, wannabe dictators, etc. is simply wrong-headed. In order to present libertarian ideals effectively, one must start from a position of good will towards others.

A good rule of thumb in dealing with political opponents is that advised by child psychologist Haim Ginott. Focus on behavior, not personality. In our household, for example, we treat bad behavior by telling our grandson, “we don’t hit people” or “be gentle with the cat or you may hurt it” or “don’t take your sister’s things without her permission.” But we never tell him “You’re a bad boy.” And if our granddaughter admonishes her brother with the epithet “bad boy,” our daughter always corrects her and tells her to focus on the behavior. He is not a bad boy, he is doing something specific that he shouldn’t be doing.

In political discourse this means focusing on policy and laws, never on personalities. Much as some Canadians may revile the prime minister, calling him “Turdeau” is juvenile and unbecoming a rational discussion and accomplishes nothing.

Ayn Rand says pretty well the same thing. “Errors of knowledge are not breaches of morality; no proper moral code can demand infallibility or omniscience.” (96) Whether a political opponent is in error or is blatantly and deliberately evil can sometimes be a judgment call, but treating political differences as errors rather than as evidence of evil intent leads to a more fruitful discussion and may even change minds.

A second departure is on the nature of aggression. There is a presupposition on the part of some libertarians that property rights are absolute and that economic power is benign. Property rights are taken out of context. Perhaps the most egregious example that shows the fallacy of this position is the flagpole argument which has been seriously promoted by some prominent libertarians.

The example is given of a person accidentally falling off a 25-floor apartment building and saving himself by catching on to a flagpole on the fifteenth floor. The owner of the apartment comes to the window and says, “Get the hell off my flagpole. It’s private property.” It is argued that the flagpole hanger is not only obliged to let go, thus falling to his death, but that the flagpole’s owner has the right to use deadly force to get the hanger-on to let go should he refuse. The argument is that this is a litmus test of your libertarianism. If you were the unfortunate fellow hanging on to the pole and were told to get off, as a good libertarian should you respect the pole owner’s property rights and let go?

The writer in this case is looking at hypothetical arguments against libertarianism. Notably he responds that “libertarianism is a theory concerned with the justified use of aggression, or violence, based on property rights, not morality,” and he goes on to argue that

The owner…is in the right, and the trespasser in the wrong. If force is used to protect property rights, even deadly force, the owner is not guilty of the violation of any licit law.

By this argument, a shopkeeper would be justified in using deadly force against a kid who swipes a chocolate bar. This is a mistaken view, in my opinion. Property rights, while important, must be viewed in context. So that is my second point of departure.

• Property rights are important but not absolute. They must be viewed in context. The actions taken to defend one’s property must be commensurate with the threat made. It is not carte blanche to use deadly force, though in some cases deadly force may be justified (if the trespasser is armed and/or poses a physical threat).

Next, I have reassessed the conflict between rationalism and empiricism. Many libertarians take a rationalist a priori approach to ethics and politics. I used to be a thorough-going rationalist but now find myself firmly in the empiricist camp. Which is my third point of departure.

• Scientific method trumps rationalism. While there is certainly room for both, I believe that in trying to persuade others of libertarian ideals, empirical demonstration of truths is essential. Too often libertarians rely on a priori arguments. Arguments that are only as good as their premises. If a philosophical opponent rejects your premises, your argument is dead in the water. It is better to show your positions are practical and workable.

Libertarians tend to discount the value of democracy.

Fourthly, libertarians tend to discount the value of democracy. From a rationalist perspective, democracy has nothing in its favour. It is the advocacy of might makes right. But empirically, as Steven Pinker argues in The Better Angel of Our Natures: Why Violence Has Declined, constitutionally limited democracy has played a significant role in diminishing violence between states as well as violence within states. While I reject democracy as a philosophical ideal, I think it is indispensable as a methodology for achieving peaceful change. So, my fourth point of departure is:

• Constitutionally limited democracy is beneficial and maybe even essential in achieving non-violent change. Since the basis of libertarianism is non-violence, this is not a trivial point. When it comes to achieving a libertarian society, rational persuasion and achieving change through ballots is preferable to violent revolution and bullets.

Fifthly, I have concerns about the idea of privatizing all land. While there are valid economic concerns about the so-called tragedy of the commons, can such cherished ideals as the right to peacefully assemble and protest be achieved without a commons? If all streets and roads were private, the owners could effectively crush peaceful protest. If libertarians recognize the legitimacy of widely held shareholder owned corporations and voluntary cooperatives, why can’t other forms of collective ownership, such as a commons democratically governed also be recognized? Hence my fifth point of departure:

• There is room within a libertarian society for many forms of ownership including common ownership, democratically controlled.

Libertarianism is a descendent of classical liberalism and the left.

And finally, libertarians have, for the most part, been loosely associated with the right. Historically, libertarianism is a descendent of classical liberalism and the left. One group of academics has tried to integrate some aspects of left liberal philosophy into libertarianism. The writers call their position bleeding heart libertarianism and argue that the natural alliance for libertarians should be liberalism, not conservatism. Even some liberals have made this point as noted in this article from the Huffington Post. Psychologically, I have always been more liberal (in the classical sense) than conservative. The right is peppered with people and ideas I find abhorrent. Their rhetoric is often strident and tinged with violence. So, my fifth point of departure is:

• Libertarianism should find common cause with classical liberalism. We share the same ideological roots and psychologically it is our home.

None of these change my basic position that an ideal society is one in which the initiation of force is banned. These points of departure are all concerned with the methodology of achieving and implementing change, not with basic libertarian ideology as such.

About the Author: Marco den Ouden

Marco den Ouden is the author of “The 50 Best Science and Technology Stocks for Canadians” (2002 and 2003 Editions) and an active blogger. His blog The Jolly Libertarian promotes libertarian ideals and includes many book reviews. The Destinations Guru is a popular travel blog. Marco is also an active contributor to the Song Bar music blog. Marco is retired after a forty year career in broadcast journalism. He graduated with distinction with a Bachelor of Integrated Studies from the University of the Fraser Valley in 2022 at the age of 73. His major areas of study were political science, philosophy and creative writing. Married with two children and two grandchildren, Marco is a citizen of Canada and alternates his time between Canada and Australia.