"Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." ~ John Stuart Mill
A Critique of 'Against Libertarian Brutalism'
Column by Paul Bonneau.
Exclusive to STR
Jeffrey Tucker writes a thoughtful (if not concise) article in his Against Libertarian Brutalism, but at the end, one is left unsatisfied. It has the flavor of one big straw man argument, as well as looking like a bit of “divide and conquer,” splitting libertarians unnecessarily into two distinct camps (as if we did not have enough camps already).
Toward the end, Tucker asks, “It all comes down to the fundamental motivation behind the support of liberty itself. What is its overarching purpose?”
That is indeed the question.
He has answered it to his own preference, earlier in the article: “These kinds of arguments make the libertarian humanitarians deeply uncomfortable since they are narrowly true as regards pure theory but miss the bigger point of human liberty, which is not to make the world more divided and miserable but to enable human flourishing in peace and prosperity.”
Notice the pejorative, “pure theory”?
Seems to me, every political philosophy ever advanced by every state thug, down to the worst dictator, has promised “human flourishing in peace and prosperity.” Why am I not impressed?
What would Tucker do, if some state system was discovered or invented, that reliably produced even more human flourishing than liberty does? Such a thing, though it seems unlikely to us, remains within the realm of possibility. Would he abandon liberty then?
I suppose this makes me a “brutalist”: I love liberty no matter what its drawbacks, no matter all the warts--even if “the greatest good for the greatest number” can better be produced without it.
To me, the overarching purpose of liberty is to leave people to live their lives as best they can, without “improvers” bending them to their preferred ways. That beauty and goodness can come of liberty is a wonderful side effect, and an extremely reliable side effect if one has a bit of patience, but it is a side effect. It may well be the best selling point for liberty that can be found, but it is a side effect.
Tucker, in one of his more “straw mannish” passages, writes:
So . . . what would he do? Enlist the aid of the state, to impose better behavior on those people? He’s no libertarian. Argue against what goes on there? Every libertarian would do the same thing, although some might tone down the criticism enough to avoid outright war between communities, which seems prudent. I see no libertarians cheering burkas, and I wonder where he finds any.
The question is not whether bad impulses are to be unleashed or not, but how they should be leashed, and who decides to leash them. One cannot be a (consistent) libertarian and believe the state should leash them, so that leaves social pressure and the free market to do the leashing. Is he suggesting there are libertarians out there who do not support these forces? I have never seen one who does not support the free market; and while some (e.g. John Stuart Mill) lash out against social pressure, all must admit it is possible and likely in a voluntary world.
Now, it is true that panarchy admits the likelihood of communities existing that are repressive in some way or another, so it surely also admits communities and tribes in which all repression is gone, including that of bad influences. But what is to be done? Social pressure and the free market are the legitimate tools available--along with patience. Does Tucker see anything else?
There is another tool, “voting with your feet.” You don’t have to stay in communities that don’t suit you. Again, one wonders if Tucker simply discounts the power of these tools in favor of something else.
The state should unleash people. Does Tucker agree, or not? Even if some of those people subsequently make unlovely choices about how to live?
I suppose Tucker, and many others, are distressed that our enemies can call libertarians “racist” or “sexist” or whatever, by taking our remarks out of context. Why should that be distressing? At least they are now taking us seriously by creating phony arguments against liberty. That’s a heck of a lot better than the old days, when they simply ignored us. The remedy is to set such arguments straight, when you see them. There is nothing to get depressed about. The truth will out in the end.
Tucker finishes with, “Will libertarianism be brutalist or humanitarian? Everyone needs to decide.”
Um, no, we don’t. There are not two camps of libertarians, brutalists and humanitarians. We can all use arguments that seem appropriate to the particular venue we are arguing in, whether “get down to the nitty gritty” (so-called brutalist) or “peace and goodness” (so-called humanitarian). No good salesman would throw out half his tools for making a sale.