Being Libertarian, Part II

I’ve shared two videos (start of this column and bottom of this column) describing libertarian people. Today, we have a video explaining libertarian philosophy.

For all intents and purposes, Davies makes the utilitarian case for libertarianism.

Simply stated, libertarianism is good because limited government and individual freedom produce widely shared prosperity and societal flourishing.

That’s largely the way I look at things, so I’m sympathetic.

But there also a moral case for libertarianism, based on the I’ll-leave-you-alone-and-you-leave-me-alone message of this cartoon.

Arnold Kling says libertarians have their own vocabulary, or way of expressing themselves.

And the same is true of other philosophies. He even wrote a book – The Three Languages of Politics – to describe this phenomenon. Here are some excerpts.

…progressives, conservatives, and libertarians are like tribes speaking different languages. The language that resonates with one tribe does not connect with the others. …(P) is the language of progressives, (C) is the language of conservatives, and (L) is the language of libertarians. …the three-axes model of political communication. A progressive will communicate along the oppressor-oppressed axis, framing issues in terms of the (P) dichotomy. A conservative will communicate along the civilization-barbarism axis, framing issues in terms of the (C) dichotomy. A libertarian will communicate along the liberty-coercion axis, framing issues in terms of the (L) dichotomy. …The three axes allow each tribe to assert moral superiority. The progressive asserts moral superiority by denouncing oppression and accusing others of failing to do so. The conservative asserts moral superiority by denouncing barbarism and accusing others of failing to do so. The libertarian asserts moral superiority by denouncing coercion and accusing others of failing to do so.

I’ve actually read Kling’s book and basically agree with his hypothesis.

Though I wonder whether he should have distinguished between leftists who use the oppressor vs. oppressed language and leftists who use the rich vs. poor language.

Kling basically argues the two can be lumped together the rich are assumed to be oppressors and the poor are assume to be the oppressed.

But I think there’s a difference between the AOC-type woke leftists and the Crazy Bernie-type class-warfare leftists.

They may share similar economic views (just like libertarians and conservatives share some policy preferences), but they don’t look at the world through the same lens.

But I’m digressing. There’s another book about libertarianism, The Individualists, though I confess I have not read it yet.

But a book review by Bradley Birzer at Law & Liberty has some passages that capture the libertarian worldview.

Libertarianism in its strict form was born at the midpoint of the nineteenth century as a radicalized version of classical liberalism. Where classical liberals treated liberty as a strong but defensible presumption, libertarians extolled it as a moral absolute. The principle of liberty, for libertarians, is universal in the scope of its application, covering persons of all ages, races, nationalities, and genders. Its moral force is definitive, overriding any and all other competing moral values, including the “public good” to which classical liberals so often appealed to justify state action. …We see libertarianism as a distinctive combination of six key commitments: property rights, negative liberty, individualism, free markets, a skepticism of authority, and a belief in the explanatory and normative significance of spontaneous order.

I’ve always used libertarian and classical liberal interchangeably, but  the authors, Matt Zwolinski and John Tomasi, disagree.

I wonder, though, if the difference depends on where someone is on the libertarian spectrum (anarcho-capitalists, for instance, presumably would not be classical liberals).

By contrast, Steve Daview in the above video seemingly would be a classical liberal.

So this meme may or may not be accurate.

Since I’m sharing memes about libertarianism, here’s one that is not controversial.

The bottom line is that libertarianism is a philosophy that is both intellectually consistent and morally defensible.

P.S. In his book, Kling introduces a fourth language because of Trump.

Trump opened up a new axis. He accomplished that by appealing to people who differ from those with whom I am most acquainted. Some have termed this new axis populist versus elite, or outsider versus insider. …Perhaps the main dividing line is best described in terms of cosmopolitanism. …To describe the cosmopolitan outlook, recall the expression “bourgeois bohemians,” coined by journalist David Brooks almost two decades ago. Brooks was describing a cosmopolitan elite… The Bobos, as Brooks dubbed them, probably feel more comfortable in Prague than in Peoria. As I see it, Donald Trump’s supporters were the anti-Bobos. …above all, they distrusted and resented the Bobos, and the feeling was mutual. Thus, the axis that I believe best fits the Trump phenomenon is Bobo versus anti-Bobo.

In some sense, this is a cultural difference, sort of like the protected vs unprotected or somewheres vs. anywheres that others have discussed.

And it probably overlaps, on the right, with the Reagan conservatives vs. national conservatives squabbling.

P.P.S. In the above video, Davies says a libertarian has to support “free movement of people.” If he is saying that all people should have the right to leave a country, libertarians surely would agree. If he is saying that all people should have a right to enter any country of their choice, that would not be accurate…at least based on the many libertarians I know who don’t support open borders.