Libertarianism and the New South

by Mark D. Friedman

Enlarge

July 12, 2011

At one time Charlotte was known as one of the leading lights of the post-Jim Crow New South. As this designation itself becomes passé, the Queen City stands on its own merit as a vibrant, fast-growing, diverse and sophisticated urban center. We may assume that at least part of the reason for Charlotte's selection as the home of the 2012 Democratic Party nominating convention is the desire of the party to bask in the reflected glory of this impressive transformation.

However, the Democrats (and Republicans, for that matter) should bear in mind that their dreams of electoral domination are threatened by an increasingly powerful force in our politics, which may shake the established order in the same way that the civil rights movement transformed the Old South into the New. I am, referring to the rising tide of libertarianism.

Determining the percentage of libertarians in the electorate is a difficult task, complicated both by the challenge of defining what counts as being a "libertarian," as well as the usual issues of measurement. Nevertheless, the best estimate is that about 14 percent of voters are more-or-less ideologically faithful adherents of this doctrine, while more than 40 percent might be at least broadly sympathetic to this perspective. Since libertarians are not typically partisans, they are the quintessential "swing" voters coveted by both major parties.

Most people understand libertarianism as consisting of something like the political stance of "fiscally conservative, socially liberal." This understanding is not exactly false, but it fails to capture that fact that at its heart this worldview is not about economic and social policy, but is driven by fundamental moral values. For those interested, I will outline below what I take these principles to be. I rely heavily here on the case for the rights-based libertarianism articulated most eloquently by Robert Nozick in his classic book, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974).

The mainspring of libertarian thinking is respect for persons as moral agents. Humans, in contrast to all other (known) forms of life, have the capacity to recognize right from wrong, and to shape our actions accordingly, even if doing so works against our naked self-interest. The appropriate moral response to autonomous agents is, in the words of Immanuel Kant, to treat them "never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end."

In practice, this means that other people, whether acting individually or through the power of the state, must respect our moral discretion. Appropriate deference to our special moral status dictates that we may never be coerced into doing what other people regard as the morally correct or socially acceptable thing. Of course, this precept does not sanction us to violate the rights of other individuals, because they have a just claim to be treated with equal respect.

When the state discriminates against certain citizens on the basis of sexual orientation or punishes "victimless crimes," it is using coercion to enforce a particular moral perspective. But since the activity that is the subject of the state's intervention does not prevent others from living the life they choose, this is an intolerable infringement on the discretion of moral agents to decide these matters for themselves. It treats them as mere means of achieving the social outcome desired by the majority. Most thoughtful people see this, but they miss the corollary. The state commits exactly the same sin when it forcibly removes resources from the hands of its citizens and uses them for social engineering projects like the ever-expanding roster of entitlement programs or to achieve what it regards as a more just distribution of wealth. Even if you view these goals as noble, they are matters that must be left to our individual moral judgment.

Maybe we don't want the state's help in planning our retirement. Perhaps we are just plain selfish and don't wish to contribute to the welfare of others. But without the right to be callous, we are deprived of the opportunity to be generous. When the state takes wealth from us in order to promote the "greater good," it uses us purely as tool, as a means towards this end, and not as an autonomous agent. For libertarians, this is morally impermissible.

But what about absolutely essential governmental services such as national defense and domestic courts and law enforcement? Is coercion not justified here, and if so, why not more generally? My answer is that if, as asserted above, we owe our human dignity to our status as moral agents, then there may be some state functions that are so central to the preservation of this capacity that they stand on a different moral footing than other governmental activities.

If we are all incinerated in a nuclear attack, our moral agency goes with it. This would also be the case if we are at the mercy of violent criminals. Therefore, we can justify state coercion to supply such essential goods on the ground that they are necessary to promote the very value that generates the constraint against political coercion.

Finally, what about the proverbial widows and orphans. Will they be left to starve in the streets? The case for non-consensual taxation to provide the innocent needy with a social safety net - assuming voluntary efforts have failed - is a little more complex. Perhaps the best argument, consistent with libertarian principles, is that the constraint against coercion is not the only moral value present in the universe. At some point, respect for autonomy must yield to momentous consequentialist considerations, like blameless persons starving in the streets.

This is natural rights libertarianism in a nutshell.