The Definition of Libertarian

[1] Libertarianism, like socialism, is a vague ideology. The most common definition of libertarian is someone who believes that individuals should have the freedom to do whatever they wish so long as they do not hurt anyone in the process. Libertarians often trace this simple principle back to the great liberal, John Stuart Mill:

The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.¹

[2] The problem with this definition of libertarian is that it is exceedingly vague; Mill's famous harm principle can be defined in countless different ways. A Marxist, for example, might broadly agree with this statement by interpreting harm to include basic economic freedoms, such as the ownership of property. Although I understand Mill to be a modern liberal, Mill considered himself a socialist by the end of his life.

[3] There is a tension within libertarianism over whether or not economic freedom constitutes harm, and more to the point, between those who accept basic economic principles and those who reject them out of loathing for what Albert Jay Nock termed "economism."

[4] Presently, libertarianism is defined chiefly by the former group of libertarians, although the latter often refer to themselves as "libertarian socialists," insisting that basic economic freedoms like starting a business constitute acts of aggression against humankind. Here we will examine the libertarianism of Nock, who represents a unique case in that he both championed economic freedom and railed against economism.

[5] Libertarians like Nock take Mill's principle to entail "a philosophy of intelligent selfishness, intelligent egoism, intelligent hedonism."² A typical libertarian sentiment is as follows: "Was life given us for any purpose but that we should get a good time out of it? Surely I think not."³

[6] This vision of the good life precludes any notion of good governance; the only good government is one severely limited in size and scope. Recalling to mind J.S. Mill, Ayn Rand offers what might be considered a more precise definition of libertarian:

The only purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man's self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.⁴

[7] At present, libertarianism markets itself as "classical liberalism." Libertarians see themselves as occupying roughly the same place on the political spectrum as conservatives, except without the excessive moralizing and evangelizing. Nock complains of the America he knew,

One of the most offensive things about the society in which I later found myself was its monstrous itch for changing people. It seemed to me a society made up of congenital missionaries, natural-born evangelists and propagandists, bent on re-shaping, re-forming and standardizing people according to a pattern of their own devising—and what a pattern it was, good heavens! when one came to examine it. It seemed to me, in short, a society fundamentally and profoundly ill-bred.⁵

[8] On the surface of the matter, a plausible definition of libertarian might be conservatism without religiosity, and no doubt, such a philosophy has broad appeal. But is libertarianism really a philosophy of freedom?

Libertarianism vs Conservatism

[10] With regard to the definition of libertarian considered above, conservatives must ask, as they do with all ideas, "If this, then what?" Recall Goldwater's famous test: "The Conservative's first concern will always be: Are we maximizing freedom?"⁷ If we accept this definition of libertarian, are its practical consequences genuinely the enhancement of freedom?

[11] In a nut shell, the conservative critique of libertarianism is that libertarians, like socialists, do not understand the consequences of their ideas. For example, if Rand's credo were to be put into practice, public education would cease to exist. For libertarians like Nock, this is of no particular concern because the vast majority of people are simply ineducable, "with the average of intelligence standing immovable at the thirteen-year-old level."⁸ Nock concedes that people, like monkeys, are trainable, but that the cultivation of wisdom is possible only for a select few.

[12] For Nock, the value of public education is essentially determined by the very worst students. He complains that universal education

enables mediocrity and sub-mediocrity to run rampant, to the detriment of both intelligence and taste. In a word, it puts into a people's hands an instrument which very few can use, but which everyone supposes himself fully able to use; and the mischief wrought is very great.⁹

[13] Nock's hatred of public education stems from his antipathy toward economism and his conviction that the former produces the latter. Economism "interprets the whole sum of human life in terms of the production, acquisition, and distribution of wealth."¹⁰ Nock's own economic philosophy, however, does not seem to offer any obvious anecdote. Nock declares,

If a regime of complete economic freedom be established, social and political freedom will follow automatically; and until it is established neither social nor political freedom can exist.¹¹

[14] There is obviously a profound contradiction here. The most charitable reading toward resolving it would seem to be that Nock believed that by abolishing public education, the state would no longer be able to indoctrinate society with a materialistic economism that serves to consolidate its power. Nevertheless, Nock's libertarian "philosophy" of life, if one may call it that, is a jumbled mess of asinine observations, ill-considered maxims, and contradictory half-thoughts.

[15] Within this mess, however, there is an alternative definition of libertarian to be found, which is someone who prefers the tyranny of the few over the many to democracy. In the next section, we shall see why this is so. But first, a caveat is necessary to understand the differences between libertarians and conservatives.

[16] When I am asked why I am a conservative, my characteristic reply is simply, "Because I am liberal." Russell Kirk rightly notes that "[Edmund] Burke was liberal because he was conservative."¹² What does this mean? Namely, that the freedom conservatives seek to conserve is a liberal one, whereas the "freedom" promoted by libertarians, like the "equality" of socialists, is essentially an abstract and meaningless absurdity.

[17] In the twenty-first century, just as one cannot oppose a free market economy and remain a liberal, one cannot oppose public education and be a conservative. No one is more concerned with the present state of public education than I am, but the fact remains that the taxes we pay to support public schools are the single best investment most of us will ever make in our lives.

[18] The value of public schools is not their least successful students, as libertarians imagine, but their most successful students. The doctors, scientists, artists, and entrepreneurs produced by public schools not only save and enrichen lives, but enhance the freedom and prosperity of everyone. 80% of the English-speaking peoples' wealth is intangible, such as the skills and knowledge possessed by average people¹³; destroy the public school system and you destroy our civilization.

[19] Whereas libertarianism entails placing differing values on individual lives, conservatism does not. It is true that conservatives do not believe in a literal equality; I will never be able to compose music like Mozart's even if I were given all of eternity to do so. Nevertheless, conservatives believe that every life is equally precious, and that if God put a person on Earth, it is because that person has something meaningful to contribute to humankind. They decidedly do not believe, as libertarians like Nock do, that "the masses" are "merely the sub-human raw material out of which the occasional human being is produced."¹⁴ Nock even goes so far as to make the Hitlerian suggestion that evolution may render the "sub-humans" among us extinct.¹⁵

[20] In such statements, we see both the essential illiberality of libertarian "freedom" and the necessary consequence of demarcating freedom from virtue. This is what conservative Governor Mitt Romney meant when he declared that "freedom requires religion,"¹⁶ a statement widely mocked in the media: When you divorce freedom from virtue, you endanger the existence of both. Perhaps religion is not exactly the correct word choice, but the sentiment remains a valid one.

[21] Whereas libertarians think that average people exist only as "sub-human raw material" out of which greatness is produced, conservatives believe that the test of greatness lies not in talent alone, but in how that talent is employed. "To whom much is given, much will be asked"¹⁷: The test of greatness consists in whether we use our talents to lift others up; our neighbors are not mere stepping rungs on the ladder to achievement. Libertarians, by contrast, deny that it is even possible to help people. Nock declares that "no one can do anything for anybody," much less society, which Nock absurdly believes does not even exist.¹⁸

The Tyranny of the Few Over the Many

The libertarian dream of "complete economic freedom"—which mistakes the hypothetical economic model of "perfect competition" for political reality—tacitly assumes that markets adequately compensate all producers for their efforts and produce socially desirable outcomes. That is obviously not the case, as Nock, "the superfluous man," should have known better than anyone.

[23] Generally speaking, markets are the best solution to provide for the needs of humankind; they are not a perfect solution of how to allocate scarce resources with alternative uses, but they are by far the best choice in a set of ugly options. Liberal economies are mixed economies, with the government regulating market deficiencies such as monopolies and modestly redistributing wealth to ensure freedom of opportunity.

[24] If the definition of libertarian is one who believes in such "complete economic freedom" as to deny any role for government in the economy, then the definition is effectively one who believes that the few should rule over the many. Without government involvement in the economy, how will disadvantaged interests have access to vital, freedom-enhancing resources like education? What will prevent the abuse of power by monopolists? What will stop markets from self-destructing when self-interest conflicts with market maintenance? In each of these situations, power must necessarily accrue in the hands of a select few.

[25] Just as the definition of socialism necessarily leads to the tyranny of central planning, so must the definition of libertarian lead to aristocracy. These are the necessary consequences of the ideas in question. If you are against the allocation of scarce resources via price signals in a free market, you are, by default, for some form of coercion in the direction of production. Similarly, if you are against all forms of wealth redistribution in a market economy, you are, by default, for aristocracy and the entrenchment of particular interests. In practical politics, what you oppose very often defines what you support.

2008

Return from The Definition of Libertarian to Table of Contents