An Open Manifesto

In Marxist narrative of history, capitalism eventually gives way to a dictatorship of the proletariat. This dictatorship puts socialism into place and eventually whithers away once the world has transitioned to pure communism. Of course the problems with this are obvious and the fact that nary a single one of the many communist governments that have come to power have ever voluntarily “whithered” away.

Libertarians face a similar paradox. On the one hand they see democracy has the most legitimate form of power, but they hold that power, in order to be legitimate must be limited to certain functions, i.e. the parameters laid out in the constitution. They are having a debate about this right now over at Cato-Unbound.

The problem is that, like the Marxists, libertarians don’t have an explanation for how power limits itself, or how a people limit the power of the government IF the majority of citizens don’t want said limitations. If majoritarianism is the only pseudo-legitimate way for government to exercise its power, what are the circumstances that allow for the limitations of that majority?

It cannot be that the majority limits itself. While this would be ideal, it is entirely idealistic. A strong judicial review process, favored by Randy Barnett, can only really be a effective to the extent that the majority legitimizes them through either (a) democratic appointment or (b) the election of an executive willing to enforce the court opinions.

Explanation about the proper limitations of power ignore the nature of power, which is self-serving. It would seem that either we are (a) stuck with majoritarianism and have to find a way to deal with it, or (b) we have to advocate non-democratic, and therefore potentially violent alternatives.

Since (b) is completely unacceptable, at least in the absence of total despotism, it seems we are stuck embracing majoritarianism at some level, even though this cuts against the very core of the libertarian disposition. I hope that I am wrong, but libertarians have yet to convince me otherwise.

I wonder if there isn’t something very libertarian about the ecological impulse. Sure, much of what is driving the environmentalist movement is anything but libertarian. One of the founders of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, has attested to the anti-capitalist agenda of much of the environmental movement. But there are also plenty of people supporting green organizations who are simply driven to “care” about the environment. Do they want to give up their driving or the miracle of industrial plastics? Of course not. But all things being equal, they want as little harm done to the environment as possible.

This is a legitimate concern. Indeed, the biggest mistake the right has made, rhetorically speaking, has been to dismiss it.

Read the rest of this entry »

We should stop referring to libertarianism as a philosophy, an ideology, or even a theory of governance. It is quite simply a disposition, a frame of mind that says that errors will always be made, but if we must make them, err always on the side of liberty. Government should intervene only when the very existence of civil society is at stake. And when government does intervene, it should always tread lightly and seek to have a little impact on society as possible.

Since I have long called myself libertarian, it seems odd that I would make such a declaration. Libertarianism is dead. Indeed, it feels wrong. It feels as though I am cursing my own flesh and blood, committing a sin punishable by death.

But when I say libertarianism is dead, I meant it. As a movement. As a philosophy. As a political program, it is just that, dead. Does this mean there is no longer justification to defend economic and political liberty? Of course not. What it does mean, is that if liberty is going to thrive it must be rethought and re-packaged.

The recent success of the Ron Paul organization led many, myself included, to believe that liberty was finally getting its due. It is always darkest just before light, right? and Ron Paul’s popularity was the glimmer of that light cutting through the madness of presidential politics.

But Dr. No’s movement was fundamentally a negative one. It’s organizing principles, though singularly effective, was one of opposition. And as such, it could never hope to guide a nation to its future.

Indeed, in a microcosm, Paul’s failure is emblematic of the entire movement. It has always been a negative movement. It has been a movement that sought to oppose, to limit, to subvert, and to destroy (i.e. destroy bureaucracy). While, it might have on occasion achieved remarkable successes (Ronald Reagan comes to mind), it’s intrinsic negativity with perfect symmetry confines, limits, and subverts its own possibility.

Libertarianism is an out-growth of the predominant political philosophy of the 19th and 20th century: Liberalism. Some libertarians even prefer calling themselves “classical” liberals, distinguishing themselves both from the more radical and often paranoid elements in libertarianism and from the pathetic disaster of what is called “modern” liberalism.

But the distinction between modern and classical liberalism has always been hazy, defined not by substantial philosophical differences but by simple degrees. Both libertarians and liberals sought to achieve political pluralism. That is, the aimed at finding a political structure in which widely divergent cultures and religions could peacefully coexist.

For the classical liberals this framework had to be an austere one, devoted only to those basic human commonalities that would unite the Muslim and the secular humanist in common cause. This has typically been interpreted as national defense, certain basic public services, the rule of law and the defense of private property and economic rights.

For the modern liberal, such an austere framework is destined to fail because it ignores basic human needs like food, shelter, and “welfare” in general. Despite the effort on the part of libertarians to prove the contrary, libertarians and liberals are very much united in their belief that if the material needs of humanity are tended to, cultural differences will cease to divide society.

It is important here to note that there are some libertarians who do not view the philosophy in such materialistic terms (Objectivism, for instance), but that for the most part these libertarians are a marginal part of the movement.

In some cases, this might materialistic premise has some basis in experience. As the nations of western Europe have become more economically advanced, they have lost (to some degree) the desire to slaughter one another.

But in the United States this thesis has proved problematic. At the height of the economic boom in the 1990s, culture was very much at the forefront of political discourse. While the culture as a whole has in some ways become more liberal, it has in other ways remained remarkably prudish. And the heightened rhetoric over immigration is evidence that in the absence of economic struggles, cultural issues have taken an even more prominent position.

These cultural debates have put libertarians in a precarious position. While they can staunchly oppose government intervention into cultural issues, they have virtually nothing to say about the issues themselves. And while libertarians often embrace this vacancy, boast about it even, this failure of the philosophy to be sufficient “comprehensive” in its approach as all but guaranteed its irrelevance moving forward.

Libertarians are prone to making a distinction between political and personal philosophy. To their credit, it is the sheer optimism about the possibilities of human nature that allow them to make this distinction.

But the vast majority of people are not commonly aware of such a distinction. They do not cognitively experience a difference between the questions “What should be done” and “what should government do.” While public opinion does not itself invalidate the libertarian position, the inability of 30 years of libertarian “outreach” to significantly change the way people think about the public and private domains has to say SOMETHING about the libertarian approach.

The question is what exactly does it say? And what should we do about it. I will address these questions in future essays.