by Sheldon Richman
http://c4ss.org/content/22741
One Moral Standard For All
Libertarians make a self-defeating mistake in assuming that their fundamental principles differ radically from most other people’s principles. Think how much easier it would be to bring others to the libertarian position if we realized that they already agree with us in substantial ways.
What am I talking about? It’s quite simple. Libertarians believe that the initiation of force is wrong. So do the overwhelming majority of nonlibertarians. They, too, think it is wrong to commit offenses against person and property. I don’t believe they abstain merely because they fear the consequences (retaliation, prosecution, fines, jail, lack of economic growth). They abstain because they sense deep down that it is wrong, unjust, improper. In other words, even if they never articulate it, they believe that other individuals are ends in themselves and not merely means to other people’s the ends. They believe in the dignity of individuals. As a result, they perceive and respect the moral space around others. (This doesn’t mean they are consistent, but when they are not, at least they feel compelled to rationalize.)
That’s the starting point of the libertarian philosophy, at least as I see it. (I am not a calculating consequentialist, or utilitarian, but neither am I a rule-worshiping deontologist. Rather, I am comfortable with the Greek approach to morality, eudaimonism, which, as Roderick Longwrites, “means that virtues like prudence and benevolence play a role in determining the content of justice, but also — via a process of mutual adjustment — that justice plays a role in determining the content of virtues like prudence and benevolence.” In this view, justice, or respect for rights, like the other virtues, is a constitutive, or internal,means (rather than an instrumental means) to the ultimate end of all action, flourishing, or the good life.)
Libertarians differ from others in that they apply the same moral standard to all people’s conduct. Others have a double standard, the live-and-let-live standard for “private” individuals and another, conflicting one for government personnel. All we have to do is get people to see this and all will be well.
Okay, I’m oversimplifying a bit. But if I’m close to right, you’ll have to admit that the libertarian’s job now looks much more manageable. Socrates would walk through the agora in Athens pointing out to people that they unwittingly held contradictory moral positions. By asking them probing questions, he nudged them into adjusting their views until they were brought into harmony, with the nobler of their views holding sway. (Does this mean that agoraphobia began as a fear of being accosted by a Greek philosopher in a public place?) This harmonization is known as reflective equilibrium, though Long emphasizes the activity, reflective equilibration, rather than the end state.
So it remains only for libertarians to engage in a series of thought experiments to win others over to their position. For example, if I would properly be recognized as an armed robber were I to threaten my neighbors into giving me a percentage of their incomes so that I might feed the hungry, house the homeless, and provide pensions for the retired, why aren’t government officials similarly recognized? If I can’t legally impose mandates on people, as the Affordable Care Act does, why can Barack Obama and members of Congress do so? If I can’t forcibly forbid you to use marijuana or heroin or cocaine, why can DEA agents do it?
Those officials are human beings. You are a human being. I am a human being. So we must have the same basic rights. Therefore, what you and I may not do, they may not do. The burden of rebuttal is now on those who reject the libertarian position.
Undoubtedly the nonlibertarian will respond that government officials were duly elected by the people according to the Constitution, or hired by those so elected. Thus they may do what is prohibited to you and me. This reply is inadequate. If you and I admittedly have no right to tax and regulate others, how could we delegate a nonexistent right to someone else through an election? Obviously, we can’t. (Frédéric Bastiat pointed this out in The Law.)
That’s the nub of the libertarian philosophy right there. No one has the right to treat people merely as means — no matter how noble the end. No one. The implication is that if you want someone’s cooperation, you must use persuasion (such as offering to engage in a mutually beneficial exchange), not force. That principle must be applicable to all human beings on pain of contradiction.
This argument should have particular appeal for advocates of equality — for what better embodies their ideal than the libertarian principle, which establishes the most fundamental equality of all persons? I don’t mean equality of outcome, equality of income, equality of opportunity, equality under the law, or equality of freedom. I mean something more basic: what Long calls equality of authority. You can find it in John Locke (Second Treatise of Government, chapter 2, §6):
Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.… And, being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorise us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses.
“Unless it be to do justice on an offender,” Locke continued, no one may “take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.”
Long traces out a key implication of this idea: “Lockean equality involves not merely equalitybefore legislators, judges, and police, but, far more crucially, equality with legislators, judges, and police.”
One moral standard for all, no exceptions, no privileges. That’s a fitting summation of the libertarian philosophy. The good news is that most people are more than halfway there.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“The good news is that most people are more than halfway there.”
I doubt that very much as more than half of the population has come to depend on the productivity of a minority. The masses know that it is far easier to be a freeloader than self-sufficient.
The majority of people are only too happy for violence to be used against others in order to control their behaviour. In ‘modern liberal democracy’ this is seen as acceptable because it is argued that it is a democracy as opposed to a dictatorship and a false moral line is drawn. The reality is however that democracy equals dictatorship.
A question of interest though is whether this is simply because people fail to realise what they are doing or whether something arguably more sinsiter is taking place, that they realise what they are doing but carry on anyway. Perhaps a certain cognitive dissonance is formed, a sort of Western Buddishim whereby at an immediate subjective level they can see violence as wrong but at a wider objective level they make themselves blind to the greater systemic violence.
Do people earnestly not connect that taxation equals theft and that the entire state apparatus is a mafia like operation? Or instead do they see this but then make themselves blind to it using ideology as a divider in their mind to justify this divergence in their thought?
When this faulty thought is pointed out, even through Socratic dialogue, the majority reaction is usually one of incredulity, along the lines of ‘yes but you don’t really think the state is a gang of evil thieves?’, and ‘yes but what would we do without the state, there would be criminal violence everywhere?’. This despite the existant objective criminal violence already being omnipresent.
I would argue that for libertarians to succeed we must realise this divergence in thought is the result of the second reason, that of people wilfully deciding not to see the violence amongst them. In order to advance our argument, attempts at Socratic conversion will fail in converting the majority. What we need to do is to individualise every case, everyone thinks the law is unjust when it is applied to them, a not against my person instinct that is rooted in human nature. Everyone will harbour some cause or law that they would see overturned so that they can be free in specific areas, therefore we need to campaign using not simply words but actions to reclaim our liberty on many thousands of small fronts of disobedience against the state.
Generally speaking “if this action is justified then why can I not do it?” is a good guide.
If “it is the lesser evil” applies to the actions of a state employee – it is also applies to the actions of a private person or organisation.
Although the above is much less difficult to write than to put into practice.
The problem is that most people don’t understand that the principle of “I, or the Authorities, may do it — it’s for your own good!” is wrong.
And the principle of “You must/mustn’t do this because nobody else (regardless of the who constitutes “nobody else”), or The Authorities, want-need/don’t-want you to do/not-do it” is wrong.
And the problem is that not very many people are willing to apply cold logic to the issue of people considered as means vs. ends. And the ones who do so most consistently tend to decide in favor of people’s being means, not ends-in-themselves, so they become Pol Pot or Mao or Ted Bundy (who was probably more honest about it than most).
And anyone who accepts the idea that someone’s property may be taken against his will–even with “just compensation”–is already willing to subordinate the individual human person, “in this one thing, this smallest of things,” to others; whether the “others” be simply some other person with a “better” idea of how to use the property (Pareto apparently; Coase if I understand ‘his’ theorem properly) or some group whose basic idea is, “but–but–but–we want to do X! what right have you to stop us?”
Sorry, but I get very exercised about Eminent Domain and the all-but-nonexistent “Lone Holdout” problem. People in the U.S. at least have the idea that you can do whatever you want with your property, as long as it doesn’t conflict with their doing whatever they want with your property. (I have this goofy idea that it’s not a problem unique to the U.S. I suspect it exists wherever there’s not some all-powerful totalitarian dictator who also has the wisdom not of Solomon but of God Himself to keep persons in line.)
Might I point to our shiny new PPACA, a.k.a. the Health Fraud Act, as another example.
Also, “unprovoked aggression,” or “force,” or “force and fraud,” or “coercion”–none of these terms encompasses the entire compendium of means that have to be forgone in gaining the acceptably voluntary cooperation of other people in achieving some end.
But that subject requires much closer scrutiny than I have the energy to give it just now, especially since I myself lack the wisdom of Solomon, let alone any smarter entity.
Oh yeah, one other thing. “… on pain of contradition.”
Contradiction doesn’t bother a lot of people all that much.
For one thing, a lot of people just don’t see the claimed contradiction.
And for those who do, in any given case, a lot of them don’t care all that much. They have their mindset, their map of the world, and though it may change over time, it’s not gonna change in THIS particular manner just because YOU, Mr. Philosopher, have shown them where their map says both “go forward” and “go sideways.”
All of us are at least somewhat inured to said pain, and a lot of us MORE than “somewhat,” and this is the simple result of the fact that reality presents us with a great many situations in which either the usual physical “laws” or principles just seem not to apply (which is one of the drivers of scientific breakthroughs and also of much resistance against technological breakthroughs)–which is contradictory, since those laws are supposedly settled and cast in concrete; and reality also presents us with many situations in which two or more of our (individual) most devoutly held moral principles and/or practical principles-of-action are contradictory.
The double-bind: “I must, and I must not.” Or, “I must, and I cannot.”
When people are not good at coping with these situations without going batty, they are said to have “a low tolerance for frustration.”
So, for a variety of reasons–the above being only one of several–apparent contradiction may be evidence of a horrible mistake, but most of us have learned not to make decisions based solely on what seem to be contradictions.
In sum, I believe that Mr. Marks above has uttered the truth.
Pity.
Um, “contradiction.” But you already knew that. :>(
Julie I agree that there is never a good enough economic reason to violate private property rights. If someone will not sell land for a road or a railway – then do another route. It is only money – and no amount of money is worth violating someone’s rights for.
However, I think of many military reasons do violate property – for both a government army and a private militia (and people have served in the transition from a private militia to a government army – and the property violation in fighting did not start when they became a government army).
Murray Rothbard said that it was never legitimate to violate the property of innocents in battle.
That reminds me of the note in “The Candidate” (at least I think that was the name of the film) the young man wants to run an election without attack ads and soon on.
And his campaign manager says O.K. – here is my guarantee that we will not do XYZ in the campaign. The note has two words upon it ……..
“You Lose”.
In battle the words are…….
“You are dead”.
In battle one takes cover where one needs to – and one fires from where one needs to fire from.
And that incudes family homes.
And nor does one allow people to live on a hill – where they could shoot down from, or their friends could shoot down from, or…..
And when one clears a house does one knock on the front door (and get shot – or trigger the booby trap? Or do you throw in a grenade – and find out later you have just blown up some children?
It all gets very messy.
And the only way to avoid doing bad stuff – is to be dead. Because the other side will kill you whether you do bad stuff or not.
That may be acceptable (to be dead rather than doing bad stuff).
Trouble is that a lot of innocent people die also – if one does not the bad stuff. Because then one loses the battle – and then the enemy moves into one’s area.
The Swedes are fortunate they have not been involved in war for centuries – they just sell war materials to people who are at war.
Which is a lot less messy than using the stuff one’s self.
As you know – it is all bad, really bad.
Paul, I agree with you on the commandeering of private property in land if it is (as best one can tell) absolutely necessary for defense during wartime. (Assuming that one’s country is on DEfense not OFfense, in football terms).
And it should be done as it was here during WW II: Land was “bought” from farmers, but with the terms of sale stating that after hostilities ended, the farmers could buy their land back, at the price they were paid.
This is one of the places where contradictory principles rub up against each other. Such a condition does unfortunately occur in this particular reality, from time to time, which sometimes presents us only with the choice between “bad” and “insupportable.”
I daresay that one way to look at it is that once at war, you’re in a situation beyond libertarianism- or any other political philosophy. It is like asking, if somebody attacks you in an alleyway, whether you fight as a socialist, a liberal, a conservative, etc. When the answer is you just have to try to disable the bastard attacking you by whatever practical means possible; it’s not a political matter any more.
The best Libertarianism can do is recommend not starting wars. It can’t really tell you what to do if somebody just violated your borders.
Good point. :>)
I do think the topic merits serious study. What are the rights and duties of one calling himself “libertarian” if he finds he is a member of some polity, or even just some bunch of people, that is in a state of war with another polity, or even just another bunch of people?
Yes Ian – you fight to win or do not fight at all. And winning means destroying human beings – using one’s body and mind to mutilate and smash other human beings (people who think that war is like some productive business are just wrong).
Julie – the question that needs to be asked is “am I on the less bad side?”
There is no good side – war is about hurting people. But moral judgements can still be made.
For example I watched a television show “The Real Inglorious Bastards” a few days ago. And what really impressed me was NOT the two Jewish Americans who were sent into Nazi Austria (impressive though these two men were).
What impressed me was the Christian German army officer who volunteered to be sent in with them – and the network of Austrians who helped (all at the risk of their own lives).
None of these people were under the illusion that America was prefect – after all the Americans (like the British) were busy bombing German cities flat at the time.
But they made a moral judgement (and it was a moral judgement) that the victory of the United States was better than the victory of the National Socialists – and they were prepared to risk torture and death (for their families as well as themselves) by acting on that judgement.
Yes, Paul, excellent example. There are times I wish I did have TV. And I the KGB guys who kept sending stuff to the West, knowing that eventually they’d be caught but refusing to leave off their work by defecting — also so impressive, although possibly not quite to your point as I don’t know how much they may have idealized the West.
An officer of the GRU (Soviet military intelligence) provided vital information in the early1960s. He was executed – the story goes that the manner of his execution was shown to young officers of the GRU (to deter them from his conduct).
As for the NKVD-MGB-KGB – yes indeed, and from an early stage.
The book “I Choose Freedom” is from 1930s – from an NKVD officer who was sent to the United States and made a choice not to do the harm he was sent to do (unlike so many). The American government can not claim credit for this – it was his choice.
Sometimes Western governments did some things right (the leading British spy hunter recently died. it was astonishing that almost every exposure of Communist agents in Britain involved the same hunter – an ex Royal Air Force man who became a policeman). but mostly Communist failures in the world were based upon people deciding they just did not believe in this philosophy and were willing to risk their lives to oppose it.
Sometimes I look at 20th century history and for a moment am overwhelmed with sheer sadness at the collossal waste of life that characterised its major historical cadences. The Communists. The Nazis. We can only hope there is never another century like that one.
I am expecting the early 21st century to develop very badly Ian – including some use of nuclear weapons.
However, I also think the latter part of the 21 century will be good.
Although I will not be about.
“That is why it be good”.
Chalk thrown by me at the boy at the back of the class who calls that out.
Heh … “opening you can drive a Mack truck through.”
But I will restrain myself — even though I’m not a boy. :>)
LOL!