What makes a libertarian: ideas or actions?

[Truth_and_Liberty]

Walter Block says:

@Walter Block

I distinguish between being a libertarian, and agreeing with (virtually all) libertarian principles. The former implies that you act so as to promote liberty. The latter means that you agree with these principles, and, may, perhaps, as in her case at present, act against them. I have no doubt that Wendy [McElroy] is a libertarian in the second sense. Her whole adult life gives amply testimony to that fact. She believes in the libertarian message, fervently. She defends it, brilliantly. She extends it, creatively. But, as far as acting so as to promote liberty, her trashing of Dr. Ron Paul’s candidacy gives the lie to that. Belief is necessary, but not sufficient, for being a libertarian. Wendy passes the first test, but not the second.

In another article, about Stefan Molyneux, Block refers uses scare quotes around the word ‘libertarian’, implying that Molyneux’s actions, in this case his opposition to getting involved in politics, make him not a libertarian, despite fully agreeing with libertarian principles.

Finally, in this email exchange with a high school kid, Block implies that his correspondent is a statist, regardless of his libertarian views, if he does not apply for a state subsidy, on the basis that applying for a state subsidy undermines and weakens the state.

I don’t like the way Block expands the meaning of the word libertarian to include people’s actions to promote liberty in addition to just agreeing with libertarian principles. I believe it is needlessly confusing to impart this additional meaning to it, and unhelpful and divisive to start calling people like Molyneux and McElroy “not libertarians” because they do not act (entirely) in a way that Block believes “promotes liberty”. It assumes that the best way to promote liberty is already known.

Can’t two people with identical political-philosophical ideas/values/beliefs both retain the label ‘libertarian’ even though they disagree about what promotes liberty and what doesn’t?

(Note: I am Block’s side in all three of these debates… I only object to his labelling his opponents as non-libertarians for disagreeing with him on these questions of strategy.)

[ClaytonB]

Block doesn’t give me the warm-fuzzies. For example, his most notable book Defending the Undefendable clearly misses the mark when it upholds people like pimps as not only good businessmen but suggesting they should be viewed as oppressed and heroic. I respect the right of pimps or other peddlers of vices to do business. But, at the same time, I recognize their existence as reflective of a corrosive or unhealthy element within society.

Throughout history, prostitution has always been officially forbidden while unofficially tolerated. I think there is a good reason for this duplicity, namely, that the casual promotion of prostituion as if it were just another brand of bubble gum would have a corrosive and unhealthy effect on the social order. I think people sense this and I think that this explains why advertising prostitution has always been difficult even where its existence is unofficially tolerated.

Nevertheless, I think that the unofficial toleration of prostitution plays a crucial role in the “balance of power” between the sexes in the marital union. The woman holds all the power in the bedroom and, as ugly as the reality of it is, the ever-present threat of defection to a lover or a prostitute is the necessary check on the abuse of that power. In the absence of that check, the woman’s power in the monogamous relationship becomes overwhelming.This is why the “pro-choice” feminists become suddenly and paradoxically anti-choice when it comes to prostitution. They understand that there is a causal relationship in operation here.

But - like all central-planning measures - this one, too, fails. Instead of the desired outcome (women holding absolute sway in monogamous relationships), what you get is an explosion in the divorce rate as men flee the shackles of such emotionally and sexually unbalanced relationships and the marriage rate sharply drops. In combination with our frenetic divorce law, I think this is the root cause of the increase in the divorce rate and decline in the marriage rate. Why would any man in his right mind willingly sign up for a situation in which the woman holds all the cards: legal, economic, sexual, emotional? Women are finding that they have an extremely difficult time attracting decent men into such a relationship with them but this shouldn’t be surprising.

Anyway, I got side-tracked - the issue is that while prostitution certainly plays a role in the social order, this role has always been relegated to the shadows and I think it is the height of hubris to throw out millenia of human attitudes regarding the proper place of prostitution in society (the shadows) and, instead, trumpet its peddlers as some kind of virtuous, heroic defenders of free markets and human rights. I think Block can be a bit of a one-string banjo sometimes.

Clayton -

[bloomj31]

This is just a bunch of political infighting.

Just as liberals and conservatives often eat their own on key issues (think Obama and Romney respectively) now we see libertarians trying to take away other libertarian’s “libertarian card.”

Serious business.

[ClaytonB]

libertarians trying to take away other libertarian’s libertarian card

Actually, Block holds no position of authority within any kind of political structure so he really can’t take away cards or block anyone’s opportunities for advancement.

And I think that - within the LvMI orbit - the libertarian movement is more about ideas than it is about organization. The politics really don’t matter, what matters are the ideas and the ideas are moving forward and spreading like wildfire not only in the US but around the globe. This is Mises’ revenge, his Magnum Opus.

Clayton -

[Neodoxy]

Eh, the whole thing is up to definitions which change with every individual. According to the dictionary someone labeled as a “liberal” or “libertarian” can merely constitute an advocate of either thing, rather than one who actually acts upon these impulses. In practice, however, this is something that’s going to change based upon who you talk to. In my book you’re a libertarian if you would flip a switch and replace our world with a libertarian one, not if you go just short of terrorism for the cause.

With all this said, does it really matter?

[Truth_and_Liberty]

@Clayton

Block doesn’t give me the warm-fuzzies. For example, his most notable book Defending the Undefendable clearly misses the mark when it upholds people like pimps as not only good businessmen but suggesting they should be viewed as oppressed and heroic. I respect the right of pimps or other peddlers of vices to do business. But, at the same time, I recognize their existence as reflective of a corrosive or unhealthy element within society.

…

[T]he issue is that while prostitution certainly plays a role in the social order, this role has always been relegated to the shadows and I think it is the height of hubris to throw out millenia of human attitudes regarding the proper place of prostitution in society (the shadows) and, instead, trumpet its peddlers as some kind of virtuous, heroic defenders of free markets and human rights. I think Block can be a bit of a one-string banjo sometimes.

That seems like a strawman of Block. He explains it pretty clearly in the intro…

@Block

How, then, can we defend the immoral activities of some market actors? This stems from the philosophy of libertarianism, which is limited to analyzing one single problem. It asks, under what conditions is violence justified? And it answers, violence is justified only for purposes of defense, or in response to prior aggression, or in retaliation against it. This means, among other things, that government is not justified in fining, punishing, incarcerating, imposing death penalties on people who act in an immoral manner—as long as they refrain from threatening or initiating physical violence on the persons or property of others. Libertarianism, then, is not a philosophy of life. It does not presume to indicate how mankind may best live. It does not set out the boundaries between the good and the bad, between the moral and the immoral, between propriety and impropriety.

The defense of such as the prostitute, pornographer, etc., is thus a very limited one. It consists solely of the claim that they do not initiate physical violence against nonaggressors. Hence, according to libertarian principles, none should be visited upon them. This means only that these activities should not be punished by jail sentences or other forms of violence. It decidedly does not mean that these activities are moral, proper, or good.

He does not defend them because they are “virtuous, heroic defenders of free markets and human rights”. The book is a celebration of the market. It talks about how, even despite the state’s best efforts, individual actors are finding a way round those interventions to provide goods and services desired by their fellow man. The state just can’t hold down the market. Where there’s a demand, the market will find a way to supply it.

If he does call pimps, prostitutes, etc, “heroic” he means it only in the sense that any market participant is heroic… they are supplying something someone else needs. And the actors in these professions do so despite the larger costs, risks, etc, they face due to their activities being illegal.

Unless you can’t provide a quote to trump mine, I’m with Block on this one. I like his book.

[Minarchist]

@Walter Block

I distinguish between being a libertarian, and agreeing with (virtually all) libertarian principles. The former implies that you act so as to promote liberty. The latter means that you agree with these principles, and, may, perhaps, as in her case at present, act against them. I have no doubt that Wendy [McElroy] is a libertarian in the second sense. Her whole adult life gives amply testimony to that fact. She believes in the libertarian message, fervently. She defends it, brilliantly. She extends it, creatively. But, as far as acting so as to promote liberty, her trashing of Dr. Ron Paul’s candidacy gives the lie to that. Belief is necessary, but not sufficient, for being a libertarian. Wendy passes the first test, but not the second.

I agree with this, and also with Block’s assessment of Molyneux. Action is a necessary condition for being a libertarian in any meaningful sense.

[Matthew]

This whole “being” a libertarian stuff doesn’t appeal to me at all. I’m a libertarian because I best identify my ideal society with that which functions according to libertarian principles. The important part is, it’s a comparison - a mere preference for one system over others. Furthermore, I don’t think libertarinism is an end in itself. Peace, prosperity, justice - these are things I value, and I think libertarianism is the best means to achieve such things. Of course, what I mean by justice, peace, prosperity, and how I value them in comparison to other things are questions that demand elaboration, but I hope my over-arching point is made.

I think I can easily claim to be a libertarian and accept state aid. It’s an acknowledgment that living my life in a way in which I cease to take any state aid is not only a practical impossibility, but does little to harm the state in any significant way.​ And even if I were wrong about the latter part of my statement (which I may very well be), that’s a matter of strategy, and has little to do with how I identify my intellectual positions.

I value my libertarinism strongly, such that I will do my best to live my life according to libertarian principles. But, in the same way that I’d hardly harshly condemn a mother stealing from a billionare to feed her starving children, if I were in a position in which accepting state aid was the only way to feed my family, I would probably do it. Of course, this is a loaded situation, where a lot more factors are to be considered (how did I get in the position I’m in, etc.), but my point is, I do think there are times when stealing is not immoral (mostly because there are positions in which I admittedly would do it). I’d prefer no one have to steal, and I’d prefer there to be voluntary measures to help people instead of state aid (mainly because state aid most likely implies all the other, much more despicable things a state does), and I think statelessness can lead us to a society in which this is possiible. That’s why I’m a libertarian.

I wrote this on the fly, so let me know if you guys have any criticisms.

[Matthew]

Action is a necessary condition for being a libertarian in any meaningful sense.

And what would be your definition of “meaningful” in this statement?

[Minarchist]

And what would be your definition of “meaningful” in this statement?

What’s required for me to label another person a libertarian.

The criteria that you have to meet for me personally to use that word to describe you is that you understand libertarianism and do something to advance it. I’m not saying that anyone who disagrees with my personal strategy for action isn’t a libertarian - I’m merely saying that one must have some strategy for action. Those quietists who refuse on principle to take any action to advance the cause are not libertarians in my opinion. There’s no sense in arguing about what a libertarian really is, the meaning of words is arbitrary. So essentially my claim amounts to the following: I have no respect for and do not group myself in the same category (“libertarian”) with those who understand the philosophy but refuse to do anything to advance it. I hold them in contempt.

But that’s just me…

[Matthew]

I’m merely saying that one must have some strategy for action.

If you don’t specify strategies you think are unnacceptable, then I think your definition of libertarianism probably doesn’t exclude many people. I say this, because I doubt many will admit to having no strategy for advancing liberty if you let them define the word “strategy.”

[Autolykos]

Minarchist, would you say that reaching out to non-libertarians is doing something that advances libertarianism?

[Malachi]

I am curious as to whether you personally consider agorism or counter-economics to qualify as meaningful action?

[Neodoxy]

“I agree with this, and also with Block’s assessment of Molyneux. Action is a necessary condition for being a libertarian in any meaningful sense.”

The definition is fair for whatever it’s worth, but I’d be willing to bet that Stefan Molyneux has done more to spread libertarianism than Walter Block ever has.

[Minarchist]

@NonAntiAnarchist, Malachi, and Autolykos

I do think spreading libertarian ideas is important, of course. However, when I say “action” I mean political action. I don’t believe there is any way to actually create a (more) libertarian society other than through political action. I have no problem with people practicing “counter-economics,” that’s great, but I don’t see it as a realistic strategy.

@Neodoxy

The definition is fair for whatever it’s worth, but I’d be willing to bet that Stefan Molyneux has done more to spread libertarianism than Walter Block ever has.

Evangelically apolitical libertarians (to coin a phrase) like Molyneux do more harm than good in a certain sense. Sure, they spread the ideas, but they also spread their disdain for political action, which I consider very harmful indeed. We have enough trouble fighting the political establishment, we don’t need “resistance from behind,” as the song says.

[ClaytonB]

I also don’t like the distinction between libertarian beliefs and action. It smacks of the Christian distinction between praxis and doxa. Yuck.

Nevertheless, the most effective action anyone can take against the status quo order is originary secession, which is a purely mental act. “I hereby resolve only to obey the government’s statutes out of prudence and never out of conscience.” From this simple mental act, the rest of your life becomes nothing but a weapon of anti-government action, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Everything you do is automatically set against the government because you are doing it on the basis of your interests and the interests of your family and friends, rather than out of a sense of duty to “the State.” The details don’t matter. Live your life however you think best and - once you have mentally seceded from the State order - your every action is automatically dead set against the State.

Clayton -

[vive_la_insurrection]

This whole “being” a libertarian stuff doesn’t appeal to me at all. I’m a libertarian because I best identify my ideal society with that which functions according to libertarian principles. The important part is, it’s a comparison - a mere preference for one system over others. Furthermore, I don’t think libertarinism is an end in itself.

Right, it’s a useful structure in extant society that reflects the consequences of how we view the world. “Libertarianism” is merely a convienet “tool” / rallying point to help reflect how one deals with ideas and actions in the current socio-political climate. It is not a “thing in itself”.

I think the recognition of this fact would point to what are probably some of the greatest strengths of this political outlook that lead people to liberterianism in the 1st place

[Minarchist]

@Clayton,

“I hereby resolve only to obey the government’s statutes out of prudence and never out of conscience.” …your every action is automatically dead set against the State.

How does continuing to obey the State (but secretly doing it out of prudence rather than conscience) change anything? I mean, I do this, we should all do this, obey only under duress, but it’s no strategy for moving things in a libertarian direction.

[ClaytonB]

obey only under duress [is] no strategy for moving things in a libertarian direction.

That’s only because you overestimate how much caution is really necessary to avoid the State’s punishments.

Clayton -

[Matthew]

I do think spreading libertarian ideas is important, of course. However, when I say “action” I mean political action. I don’t believe there is any way to actually create a (more) libertarian society other than through political action.

1.) Can you show me an instance in American History where this has worked? Can you show any significant step(s) towards liberty and away from state power in the past 150 years?

2.) This makes me question how you view the state. Is the state a good institution being run the wrong way? Do you regard politics as being a battle of ideas, or a battle public relations? What is your strategy for changing the state form within? How could this happen?

I always thought the analogy of the state to a mafia was quite accurate. So, the idea of working within the mafia to change the mafia has always sounded silly to me.