Quote of the Day

"I migrated from the bed to the sofa this morning. For some reason, Herman Cain was there, putting up an electric fence." -Some guy on Twitter (HT Bryan Caplan).

Some quick thoughts on the "Libertarian movement"

With all the Ron Paul hoopla these days, I thought I would add some quick thoughts on libertarianism that have been stirring for a while but are, alas, simply knee-jerk reactions to what I read on the internet, "libertarian" blogs, conversations (email threads!) with friends, etc.  The biggest problem with the “Libertarian movement” as I see it is that it is ignorant of good political philosophy. Thus, you find many vomiting the sound-bites of Mencken, Nock, and other journalists, quoting Mises and Rothbard ad nauseam (both economists who later hoped to dabble in political philosophy). Unfortunately, these ‘libertarians’ are often simultaneously badly informed of the most influential political philosophy of the last 50 years (Rawls, Dworkin, Nagel, Raz, Christiano, Gaus (a libertarian!), Pettitt, Waldron, AJ Simmons (philosophical anarchist!), Habermas, Scanlon, Scheffler, Walzer, Henry Richardson etc. etc.). To make matters worse, most libertarians, especially of the Austrian bent, have zero theory of ideal government in the face of massive disagreement on matters of justice and the good. Here’s a hint: go back and actually read Hobbes and Locke (and definitely Waldron and Jean Hampton on this point) to understand what Waldron calls “the circumstances of politics.” The insight of Hobbes and Locke is this: people come together, they trade, they interact in innumerable ways. Thus, certain fundamental decisions regarding the structure of these relationships must be made. A fundamental question of political philosophy is how are these decisions to be made when those who need an answer fundamentally disagree (to me, the identification of a “People” is the most important question for political philosophy; one answer is “those who have voluntarily agreed to live in political community; another is that in addition to contractualism, associative relationships can give rise to a legitimate claim to political community). As I see it, Austro-”libertarians” would simply force their vision of justice upon everyone else, coercing those who do not agree to get in line. This is because they do not have a theory of democracy. It’s unfortunate that such self-professed libertarians have lost sight of classical liberalism and its commitment to the democratic ideal.

My harsh criticism comes from someone who views himself as a libertarian. I have been profoundly influenced by Nozick, Rothbard, and Hayek. Yet the repugnance towards the democratic ideal found in certain contemporary libertarian cliques is disheartening indeed.

Some thoughts on Ron Paul

Ron Paul is not an ideal libertarian candidate.  He is a politician that is deeply flawed, both in his expressed principles and beliefs, as well as in his actions and political strategy (inertness in the face of racist use of newsletter).  Simply put, he is a politician.  That being said, I do believe that a Ron Paul nomination could be an important step in the right direction and represent a hopeful potential for progress in "our" two-party majoritarian system.  It would indicate a willingness of the "GOP" to get in bed with ideas that are anti-war and anti-prohibitionist (i.e., against the drug war).  If such a nomination were to shift the baseline on these issues within the republican party, it seems this would be a very good thing indeed.

This is important because I believe a Ron Paul presidency would not be helpful for a libertarian movement and/or a libertarian shift in political philosophy.  But this is not the place to discuss my intuitions on this issue, so I will put that off for another time.

The Importance of Conceptual Clarity

A major problem with “popular politics” is the use of vague and ambiguous value concepts in order to score rhetorical points.  This is a problem not just at the level of political sound bites but at the more general level of horizontal political deliberation generally.  So we see political commentators and bloggers charge one group with an ideology that denigrates “democracy” or does not value “equality” or “liberty” or whatever.  The problem, of course, is that these terms are subject to differing interpretations of the values implicated and the ordering of those values in a comprehensive view of the world. 

As a result, it is important to recognize that certain policy positions are often the result of (1) a certain conception of the concept and the values involved, and (2) a certain worldview about how actual institutions do/do not live up to these underlying ideals.  Suppose, for example, that one has a certain theory of political obligation, political authority, and legitimate representative democracy.  On this theory, representative democracy is only legitimate IFF there are certain institutional mechanisms in place (proportional representation, equality of opportunity of political influence, etc.).  This person now looks at the political landscape currently in existence.  She is then asked her beliefs about “American democracy” and proceeds to make disparaging remarks, such as “just because a voted produces a decision doesn’t provide it with moral authority.”  This person will likely be blasted in popular political commentary for denigrating democracy, hating “the People,” etc. 

The problem, however, is that this is simply not the case.  She simply has a different conception of ideal democracy and the underlying values.  If one were to carefully consider her position, they would recognize that she is fully committed to the ideal of democracy, We the People, popular sovereignty, etc.  One may disagree with her theory of legitimate democracy and attack her specific conceptions and interpretations of the underlying values/ideals.  But it is simply false to claim that the person “hates democracy” or “hates The People.”