Reading prior comments, it is clear there are good arguments for and against cultural interventions or support by governments. I have not given that much thought yet.
For me, the barrier was this: "Every action taken by a government is, no matter how well-intentioned, rooted in coercion: to do anything, governments use money obtained through the threat of physical violence. We almost never see it, that violence. Few people actually end up in prison for not paying their taxes. But the violence is there, and everything that it buys is a bit tainted by this foundational immorality."
In a libertarian culture, every action by anyone no matter how well-intentioned, is rooted in coercion. Property claims are rooted in coercion, as are all economic claims. Every assertion of individual liberty is "tainted by this foundational immorality".
I mean the ideal is that every action involving multiple people is a mutually-agreed transaction. This ideal won't always be attained, in part due to sociopaths who will act in ways that others don't agree with. So there can be rules to minimize that, and those rules will necessarily require some degree of coercion. But I think the argument is that it would be far less coercion than what we have now. (I'm far from sure it would work though.)
I disagree that the problem on why we can't attain this ideal is sociopaths. I think the problem is a more fundamental one of inequality, because everyone starts the game at a different level. In an unequal playing field with few strong forces like we see in today's mega-tech cooperations, people at the bottom have very little bargaining power. Patents, copyright, complicated norms and laws do the rest to stifle upward mobility, which would otherwise probably barely exist as well. And it becomes very easy for everyone of us, not only the sociopaths, to turn a blind eye on the exploitation resulting from this. And, as Sean said, property and wealth are also kept by coercion. I think the role of the free market is to create wealth (efficiently) and the job of the government to redistribute it to equalize chances at the very least. Culture is another noble goal for sure and I think you're making some great points here for supporting it. Libertarianism is a good primarily for utilitarian reasons for me.
We all "start the game at different levels" for sure, but those levels are not merely economic. We all have different mixes of temperament, abilities (intellectual and physical), etc. etc. etc.
Even in a perfectly level society, inequality will occur. Because we are not all the same.
But, that said, "today's mega tech corporations" maintain their control through practices that are clearly sociopathic. Many who are not sociopaths "turn a blind eye" from fear and exhaustion: they fear their bad situation would get worse; and they are too busy just trying to get by. Sociopathy is the root cause of our problem.
I am not sure what the real solution is, but I am sure that denial is not part of it.
True "free markets" (unregulated or under-) create wealth efficiently only for the powerful few. Efficiently creating wealth for most of us ***requires*** efficient regulation. Think of capitalism as fire: the difference between a warm hearth and a house fire is a matter of regulation.
There is no good utilitarian purpose for which libertarianism is best. None.
I would also like to point out that "wealth creation", although necessary, is a poor goal for a life or a culture. Freedom really is about deciding what your life's purpose should be and having the opportunity to pursue that purpose. Reality does put restraints on this liberty; some things just have to be done. But having to choose "wealth creation" because the dominant ideology values it above all is the death of liberty.
"But, that said, "today's mega tech corporations" maintain their control through practices that are clearly sociopathic." I though of sociopathy more as an individual property as an illness, not a property of cooperations, but I now see what you mean. I do think this is simply the necessary outcome with the given laws and economic system, and regulation is most likely the best way to improve this.
When I said free markets create wealth efficiently, I meant regulated free markets, not totally free ones. Unregulated markets also create wealth but only for a small minority. Depending on the exact implementation, a regulated free market can be considered libertarian, and that's what I mean when I said those have utilitarian purpose.
"I would also like to point out that "wealth creation", although necessary, is a poor goal for a life or a culture." I totally agree on an individual level, though the goal of an economy should be, among others, creating wealth for the nation. This then allows every individual to individually pursue what really makes them happy. If you're always hungry, you'll most likely not care about culture or art. That's the utilitarian purpose of free (but regulated) markets.
Corporations are simply groups of humans; corporate sociopathy comes from individual sociopathy.
I do not see how a well-regulated market could be considered "libertarian"; not without extraordinary changes to the meaning of those words. No competent regulatory scheme is possible without something that looks so much like government that we should just go ahead and call it that. So I stand by my claim: libertarianism--as it is usually understood--provides little of value towards the achievement of those greater ends.
We appear to agree that "wealth creation" is necessary as a means to greater ends.
The Statist ideal can be described as "every action involving multiple people is a mutually-agreed transaction. This ideal won't always be attained, in part due to sociopaths who will act in ways that others don't agree with. So there [must] be rules to minimize that, and those rules will necessarily require some degree of coercion [and a rulemaking process]."
Most of the time we will never see the violence threatened by the rules. But it must always be present. Those pesky sociopaths are ever present.
My experience tells me that under a libertarian regime, coercion and violence would be magnified.
See I think that a lot of people wouldn't describe the ideal as only a bunch of mutually-agreed transactions. Many do actually love coercion (for others, not for themselves). What you describe is a more or less classical liberal regime, which is what I'd currently be in favor of; but most regimes right now are emphatically not that; there's way more coercion than necessary. So it may be a good idea to become *more* libertarian even if not necessarily *fully* libertarian.
Many who self-describe as "libertarian" actually love coercion. (I could name names...) They object to governments only when those governments get in the way of their coercive desires. In America anyway, "libertarian government official" is not the oxymoron it should be.
I don't care about how anyone else labels my description, I just think of it as reasonable and realistic.
You and I have offered ideals; the real world is not ideal. Neither your ideal nor mine describe the world as it is.
Given the human tendency to think "more is better", I can confidentiality say that "becoming *more* libertarian" is not a good idea. Let us aim at less coercive. They may seem the same but they are certainly not.
Yeah I've been reading a book that isn't quite libertarian, but instead very left-wing anarchist and ... the author's proposals seem incredibly coercive and stifling. Weird that he doesn't even seem to be aware of it even as he writes that his proposed society is more democratic. It's a pretty interesting cognitive dissonance.
Libertarians tolerate their cognitive dissonance because libertarianism is, at its core, self-serving.
Some consider it as I did once too, when I was young and stupid. (I'm not young anymore!) They consider it until they run into it core nature. Most abandon it then; others are indifferent to their fellow humans and cling to it.
"If people don’t want to use a certain language, support a particular media company, or pay for a particular film/festival/concert, they shouldn’t be forced to, indirectly, through their taxes."
If you bought stock in a movie theater company, do you expect to like every movie they show? Do you expect to have a say in every movie chosen to show? Or are you happy enough if they show a number of things you like and they do it economically? For instance, people buying tickets to shows you don't like are spreading the costs of that building, the nice sound system, etc. across a lot more people.
My point is that the libertarians you cite will not be able to micromanage that much if they are in a large community. Compromises will be made
I realize you are citing a pretty common libertarian attitude, but those folks are being too academic or pedantic to be successful
I don't think libertarians expect no compromises to be made, but their point, in my understanding, is that the compromises would at least be made freely as opposed to through the coercive force of the state apparatus.
I think there are two adjacent, but separate thoughts here.
First, in my experience (hardly a scientific sampling, but I have made an effort to "mingle" and pick the brains of a number of folks claiming to be libertarians as I try to put together my own theories around governance) most libertarians are really just mad at the government for some reason, and although they may be able to recite a bit of slang they learned online, they do not have a real political theory. They are just reacting. For instance, when a conservative male sees that their tax dollars were being used to fund some artistic endeavor championing a feminist point of view. They are not wanting to compromise, they are wanting to stop that specific use of their taxes.
In a sense, I am trying to contrast buying a share in a movie theater business to buying a home in a given city. In both cases you get some ownership right and the ability to influence management, but you are not going to be able to micromanage or dominate decisions. You'll have to accept that you will not be able to negotiate at the level for every single expenditure, whether there is a "coercive state apparatus" or not. When you became part of a larger group (the corporation or the city), you had to accept some governance.
Which is a segue to my 2nd point, the phrase "coercive state apparatus". Sure, that is technically true, but I don't think it is expressing the right problem. If you look at libertarian-like ideas from a hundred years ago, you see a lot of resistance to very dominating states that retained a lot of feudal and dictatorial behaviors, a lot of control by a privileged class, etc. At a national level, you still see a lot of this today. But I live in a city of about 100,000 people and I could certainly run for city council, take a position on various boards, and so on, to try to get the government behavior that I want. I've known a number of people who got fired up about some topic and did that.
And sure, we have a police force that can use deadly force, lawyers who could harass or bankrupt me, and so on. The city government is a state apparatus and does hold coercive power. But it is not running a 1984-like Big Brother organization that the phrase implies. If there is no existing organization, then all groups will tend to self-organize. Organization brings rules, even if they are just unwritten norms. Many vocal libertarians are just reacting to living within groups that have organizational rules that they don't like
Please note, I am not really arguing with you or your original post. Most States are bloated, overly controlling, intrusive, inefficient, etc. I would label myself as libertarian-ish when comparing to current political parties and governments. But true libertarianism is horribly inefficient, is terrible at collective action, and has a huge free rider problem. I think there are some other alternatives
I think we're basically aligned, your last paragraph describes my own views quite well.
I think many libertarians would be quite happy if governments were mostly at the level of cities of 100k people; that's small enough to be able to yield some influence for most people who want to, and more importantly, to move to a different such city if you disagree a lot with what's happening in your city. Essentially that is the city-state model, which corresponds to some of the most productive places and periods in history, like Classical Greece, Renaissance Italy, some of the early modern German lands, modern Singapore (well it's bigger than 100k but still a city-state), etc. Unlike pure anarcho-capitalist that actually has a track record, and a good one, though of course such periods also tend to involve quite a lot of war, which is a problem that would have to be solved somehow.
Cities within larger countries don't tend to be very autonomous, however, so we mostly don't get the benefits of small governments for a lot of stuff that matters.
But even for those that want the city-state to be the norm, you have to consider that currently successful ones like Singapore are well over 5 million in population, are hardly libertarian, and would probably fall quickly if a major Asia-based war broke out. Size matters in the real world.
I have a half-baked theory that there is a hybrid middle ground. A large nation would centrally manage (as a Union, not a Federation) political and economic issues that benefit from scale - a strong military, consistent trade and banking regulation, contract enforcement across all regions, etc. But moral and cultural issues that do not depend on scale (rules around gambling, alcohol, firearms, abortion, etc.) would be decided at the local county/municipality/district. This would give ethnic/cultural/religious groups some space to be themselves while also being able to reap the benefits of a larger nation when appropriate
"An optimistic libertarian answer is that if, right now, enough people care about a particular local or national culture to elect governments that defend it, then it shouldn’t be a problem to find sufficient people to patronize companies and organizations that did the same thing. "
Ok, but then that large "American" competitor buys that small Quebecoise culturally sensitive firm and then kills it a couple of years later during some cost-cutting. Or maybe they just undermine it or mess with the supply chain or financing.
The customer is not in charge. Having customers does not guarantee the future to the level that the state could (also hardly perfect, but they do have more clout)
Every time I find an argument that makes me more libertarian, I find another one that makes me less. I’m not convinced the market on its own will behave well, but I’m also not convinced the government on its own will make it behave well. They both have a lot of pros and cons in my book depending on the time and place and conditions which makes me feel like it should all be very case by case (not just culture!) Can I ask what ultimately led you to be more widespread libertarian?
I basically am in the same spot as you! As I wrote in another comment on this post, "I suspect that having governments is valuable in part because it's a very different way to achieve collective goals than markets, and having a diversity of approaches is good."
But I began to lean a bit more towards the liberal/libertarian side of things in part because the opposite stance, the statist one, seems to be a failure of oversimplification. Most government intervention implicitly rests on the assumption that it's possible for a small number of people in power (supported by experts) to know what most other people need better than those people themselves. But this is usually wronger than just letting people make their own choices in a free market. Society is too complex for the blunt tool of government action to work well in most contexts.
Yes, that's certainly true. There can be no doubt the government isn't the expert on the things its weighing in on. I just also think the consumer isn't the expert on knowing whether a company is being ethical or not. It really goes both ways for me. Hmmmm, I'll have to look through more case studies, though I really appreciate the thoughts. Thank you!
In my understanding, the free market libertarian answer is that there can be a whole set of private organizations devoted to performing the services governments currently do—including things like reporting on the trustworthiness of other companies, providing insurance, preventing abuse, etc. Because these organizations compete on a free market, the most trustworthy ones should rise to prominence, and the bad ones are removed from the market, which are results we don't get when those services are exclusively from the state. So while it's true that individual consumers aren't always the best placed to take decisions, they're not alone either.
One concern I still have is whether such a system would be more stressful for individuals than what we have now. My instinctive reaction to libertarianism used to be that it's more psychologically demanding, since you're more responsible for every choice; you have to decide which service to get for e.g. security, instead of just accepting that there's a police force. Great for smart and competent people (and also rich ones), not so much for those who already have trouble managing their lives despite the government doing a lot of the management behind the scenes. But maybe a more libertarian system can be set up such that this problem is not any bigger than it is now.
"the free market libertarian answer is that there can be a whole set of private organizations devoted to performing the services governments currently do—including things like reporting on the trustworthiness of other companies, providing insurance, preventing abuse, etc."
Maybe these private organizations COULD exist, but DO they? How are they to be financed? If they are for profit, why would we trust them? How do these organizations acquire their expertise? Why would their self-interested services be preferable? How would these organizations ensure their evaluations are based on accurate information?
"Because these organizations compete on a free market,..."
Hold on there! Now you're saying these organizations already exist! Please name them!
"... the most trustworthy ones should rise to prominence, and the bad ones are removed from the market."
SHOULD, but certainly might not. The free market often "chooses" based on criteria very different from quality, trustworthiness, or efficiency.
"My instinctive reaction to libertarianism used to be that it's more psychologically demanding, since you're more responsible for every choice; you have to decide which service to get for e.g. security, instead of just accepting that there's a police force. ..."
That is a very good reason to reject libertarianism. Libertarianism mandates that we all prioritize a life of constant economic paranoia. What if you just want to be an artist, craftsman/woman, teacher, doctor, etc. etc etc.? In a libertarian world, tough luck.
Human beings are social animals; we always have been. We live in communities of mutually supporting people. We thrive when we all can choose the trajectories of our own lives. Some degree of mutual trust is required to make this work, and sometimes trust will be betrayed. A libertarian culture has the same trust issues, and in the absence of a robust state, the idea that you can just say no becomes extremely uncertain. Powerful individuals can be just as despotic as any bureaucrat.
All of your questions are valid, but can equally be applied to government services! If a company watchdog service is part of a government whose primary motives are electoral, how do we trust them? Why would their self-interested services be preferable, and how do we make sure the government acts based on accurate information? Governments also '"choose" based on criteria very different from quality, trustworthiness, or efficiency.'
I think the answer is something like a combination of: governments have been around for a while and expect to exist for a long time, so they care quite a lot about reputation; and we have various mechanisms like a free press and free elections to keep tabs on the government; and there are other governments who can, to a degree, keep your government in check.
Most of these are true of companies too: they care about their reputation, they can be investigated by the press and many of them (the publicly traded ones) have elections and other governance processes you can participate in, and other companies keep them in check. The exact weight of these variables differs (there's more competition for companies, and less participatory governance). But saying they're motivated by profit is not, in itself, sufficient to make them less trustworthy; governments are motivated just as much by electoral success, which isn't what we, the users of government services, care most about.
I still think, like the post makes pretty clear, that there are certain features of governments that make it worthwhile to have them and not *just* rely on private organizations to do everything, but I subscribe less and less to the view that governments are inherently more trustworthy than private orgs.
I'd be interested in went this argument doesn't also convince that libertarianism is a utopian idea clearly doomed to failure in the real world? In the same way that a totally free market would lead to hegemonic dominant culture, imagine a pure libertarianism. It's a description of warlordism dressed up in fancier language.
As to your intro, framing libertarianism as more moral rests on an enormous framework of implicit assumptions and commitments. One could just as easily frame a communitarian stance as more moral. The modern world has made our community exponentially bigger than can be served in the tribal person to person manner in which we evolved. The libertarian stance is delinquent in taking advantage of what that brings but washing one's hands of needing to also expand one's definition of community and obligation.
Sure, this post isn't meant to be even the beginning of a defence of libertarianism. In fact it's plainly an argument against it.
I did have to explain very briefly why the idea of libertarianism has begun to feel more convincing to me, though, and you're totally correct that that rests on tons of assumptions, which I left out since they're not super relevant to the main point of the post. I'm sure I'll explore those assumptions more in the future. (Indirectly, I have already explored them a lot; some of the recurrent themes of the blog, like evolution and complexity, feed into it, but I never explicitly wrote about the connection to political ideology.) I'll also note that until recently I was pretty staunchly against libertarianism, and I would have easily agreed with everything you just wrote.
I'm curious how you understand the difference between a liberal and a libertarian.
I thought of myself as both at one point in my life, but now I would say that the latter is a bit too government minimalist. Culture, as you point out, is a good that is vulnerable in the free market. In my understanding, liberals are amenable to protecting vulnerable goods whereas libertarians are not. For instance, it is liberal to acknowledge that we have a collective interest in our homes not burning down and thus a fire department is a better idea than say, having a private fire company on contract to put your house out if it catches fire. That is the essence of my change in identification (though I am other things besides a liberal).
But I also know that different countries use these words somewhat differently (and as an American I certainly don't mean to use liberal as interchangeable with Democrat).
I agree with this, and I currently identify more or less as a classical liberal (also unrelated to the meaning of liberal in various political contexts).
My actual main critique of libertarianism, besides the cultural aspect, is that I suspect that having governments is valuable in part because it's a very different way to achieve collective goals than markets, and having a diversity of approaches is good. Of course a libertarian could retort the free market is precisely what allows a diversity of solutions to problems, but I do think there's something fundamentally non-reproducible with the way states operate. So that's a key difference with liberalism: it (grudgingly?) accepts the necessity of coercive state action sometimes, while trying to minimize it.
@Étienne Fortier-Dubois, I find myself also tilting more Libertartian, as someone who definitely never used to be.
But I think it is important to understand that there are two types of libertarians. 1) Anti-government Libertarians and 2) Pro-Market Libertarians.
The former is more recognizable, especially for Americans. They hate government and for them, their beliefs are very rooted in emotion. The latter camp is a more reasoned, their thinking rooted in economics
I've always had disdain for libertarians. Heads in the clouds, they list off all the goods of a political system that the greater majority of people will never accept. It is an excellent idea for frontiers, or if we ever started anew, but not any place currently. Except perhaps South Africa.
Likewise most of the independent agreements individuals would make to produce infrastructure would, by the end, mimic government apparatus in all but name and cost. In a profit driven people who have been inculcated that regulations are the work of socialist satan, what are the chances that their free market bridges are going to be as safe or long lasting as a municipal counter example? Milk your fellow men for decades with refurbishment, or a one time purchase? Libertarians assume all people tend toward moral, yet decry the corruption in congress, not realizing that sleaziness is what makes their model junk.
I long for a monarch. One with a sense of aesthetics. If force need be applied to make society function then let the justification be the most moral. If an aesthetic must dominate our architecture then let it be built with God as an axium of reality. If money must go and part from my grasp then let it be backed by people who must have my people's best interest at heart, whether they like it or not.
Holy moly what a caffeine ramble. I feel like screaming I had so much. Dirty chai is dangerous.
I share or shared most of your concerns; it is only recently that I've grown a bit more convinced that at least moving *in the direction of* libertarianism might be a good thing, if not getting all the way there. But paradoxically I also kind of am a monarchist (very mildly, in that I sort of like the idea but wouldn't necessarily support creating new monarchies). Which would be a weird position to be in, except that this post on culture explains most of it: symbolic monarchies might be the best way to create a cultural focal point without actually surrendering a lot of control over people's individual lives.
Interesting article. Thanks for sharing. I really enjoyed reading it, like a lot of your other articles.
"So it’s healthy to argue about the topic, and try to find the right balance." This seems to be the essence of it.
But contrary to your concern that the government intervention might lead to over protectionism and patriotism, my concern is the opposite, that it might lead to the weaponizing of culture to promote a certain political agenda. Hence leading to cultural falsities. Especially considering the current landscape of extreme political rifts.
Even in the most extreme cases of cultural interventionism, culture remains a mostly private affair (except in totalitarian countries like North Korea), so I'm not too worried about this. It also works better if there are a lot of competing small countries rather than a few big ones or even a single world government. I am very in favor of small countries in general.
Regarding, *"If, right now, enough people care about a particular local or national culture to elect governments that defend it, then it shouldn’t be a problem to find sufficient people to patronize companies and organizations that did the same thing."*
This assumes that the ability to provide financial support is evenly distributed. If most wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few, then even a popular cultural practice might whither for lack of support. If information services are similarly controlled by the few, then many might not ever become aware of some local, niche art form, and again it may die in darkness.
Leaving such choices "to the marketplace" can only work if news and information are NOT left to the marketplace, and wealth inequalities are not significant.
Re. *"I suspect that the markets for local cultures would become much smaller than they already are, accelerating the vicious circle towards the dominance of culture produced in larger markets."*
That is exactly what would happen, if these things are left to the marketplace.
Re. *"(The radical idea that people are the best positioned to know what they want is another reason I’ve grown attracted to the free market and libertarianism.) But how do I square this with being in favor of some level of government-managed culture?"*
We square this by clarifying the notion of "government-managed culture"; government has no business prescribing or prohibiting harmless cultural practices. People are the best positioned to know what they want **assuming their choices are informed**. Government's role vis-à-vis culture is to enable individuals to be informed about, and effectively act on their personal choices.
The role of government is to protect individuals or groups from hostile or exploitative others.
Il faut croire qu'avec les élections en France et au Royaume-Uni ET les spéculations sur l'avenir politique de Joe Biden, je me sentais inspiré d'aborder le sujet!
Reading prior comments, it is clear there are good arguments for and against cultural interventions or support by governments. I have not given that much thought yet.
For me, the barrier was this: "Every action taken by a government is, no matter how well-intentioned, rooted in coercion: to do anything, governments use money obtained through the threat of physical violence. We almost never see it, that violence. Few people actually end up in prison for not paying their taxes. But the violence is there, and everything that it buys is a bit tainted by this foundational immorality."
In a libertarian culture, every action by anyone no matter how well-intentioned, is rooted in coercion. Property claims are rooted in coercion, as are all economic claims. Every assertion of individual liberty is "tainted by this foundational immorality".
In a libertarian culture, the sociopath is King.
I mean the ideal is that every action involving multiple people is a mutually-agreed transaction. This ideal won't always be attained, in part due to sociopaths who will act in ways that others don't agree with. So there can be rules to minimize that, and those rules will necessarily require some degree of coercion. But I think the argument is that it would be far less coercion than what we have now. (I'm far from sure it would work though.)
I disagree that the problem on why we can't attain this ideal is sociopaths. I think the problem is a more fundamental one of inequality, because everyone starts the game at a different level. In an unequal playing field with few strong forces like we see in today's mega-tech cooperations, people at the bottom have very little bargaining power. Patents, copyright, complicated norms and laws do the rest to stifle upward mobility, which would otherwise probably barely exist as well. And it becomes very easy for everyone of us, not only the sociopaths, to turn a blind eye on the exploitation resulting from this. And, as Sean said, property and wealth are also kept by coercion. I think the role of the free market is to create wealth (efficiently) and the job of the government to redistribute it to equalize chances at the very least. Culture is another noble goal for sure and I think you're making some great points here for supporting it. Libertarianism is a good primarily for utilitarian reasons for me.
We all "start the game at different levels" for sure, but those levels are not merely economic. We all have different mixes of temperament, abilities (intellectual and physical), etc. etc. etc.
Even in a perfectly level society, inequality will occur. Because we are not all the same.
But, that said, "today's mega tech corporations" maintain their control through practices that are clearly sociopathic. Many who are not sociopaths "turn a blind eye" from fear and exhaustion: they fear their bad situation would get worse; and they are too busy just trying to get by. Sociopathy is the root cause of our problem.
I am not sure what the real solution is, but I am sure that denial is not part of it.
True "free markets" (unregulated or under-) create wealth efficiently only for the powerful few. Efficiently creating wealth for most of us ***requires*** efficient regulation. Think of capitalism as fire: the difference between a warm hearth and a house fire is a matter of regulation.
There is no good utilitarian purpose for which libertarianism is best. None.
I would also like to point out that "wealth creation", although necessary, is a poor goal for a life or a culture. Freedom really is about deciding what your life's purpose should be and having the opportunity to pursue that purpose. Reality does put restraints on this liberty; some things just have to be done. But having to choose "wealth creation" because the dominant ideology values it above all is the death of liberty.
"But, that said, "today's mega tech corporations" maintain their control through practices that are clearly sociopathic." I though of sociopathy more as an individual property as an illness, not a property of cooperations, but I now see what you mean. I do think this is simply the necessary outcome with the given laws and economic system, and regulation is most likely the best way to improve this.
When I said free markets create wealth efficiently, I meant regulated free markets, not totally free ones. Unregulated markets also create wealth but only for a small minority. Depending on the exact implementation, a regulated free market can be considered libertarian, and that's what I mean when I said those have utilitarian purpose.
"I would also like to point out that "wealth creation", although necessary, is a poor goal for a life or a culture." I totally agree on an individual level, though the goal of an economy should be, among others, creating wealth for the nation. This then allows every individual to individually pursue what really makes them happy. If you're always hungry, you'll most likely not care about culture or art. That's the utilitarian purpose of free (but regulated) markets.
Corporations are simply groups of humans; corporate sociopathy comes from individual sociopathy.
I do not see how a well-regulated market could be considered "libertarian"; not without extraordinary changes to the meaning of those words. No competent regulatory scheme is possible without something that looks so much like government that we should just go ahead and call it that. So I stand by my claim: libertarianism--as it is usually understood--provides little of value towards the achievement of those greater ends.
We appear to agree that "wealth creation" is necessary as a means to greater ends.
The Statist ideal can be described as "every action involving multiple people is a mutually-agreed transaction. This ideal won't always be attained, in part due to sociopaths who will act in ways that others don't agree with. So there [must] be rules to minimize that, and those rules will necessarily require some degree of coercion [and a rulemaking process]."
Most of the time we will never see the violence threatened by the rules. But it must always be present. Those pesky sociopaths are ever present.
My experience tells me that under a libertarian regime, coercion and violence would be magnified.
See I think that a lot of people wouldn't describe the ideal as only a bunch of mutually-agreed transactions. Many do actually love coercion (for others, not for themselves). What you describe is a more or less classical liberal regime, which is what I'd currently be in favor of; but most regimes right now are emphatically not that; there's way more coercion than necessary. So it may be a good idea to become *more* libertarian even if not necessarily *fully* libertarian.
Many who self-describe as "libertarian" actually love coercion. (I could name names...) They object to governments only when those governments get in the way of their coercive desires. In America anyway, "libertarian government official" is not the oxymoron it should be.
I don't care about how anyone else labels my description, I just think of it as reasonable and realistic.
You and I have offered ideals; the real world is not ideal. Neither your ideal nor mine describe the world as it is.
Given the human tendency to think "more is better", I can confidentiality say that "becoming *more* libertarian" is not a good idea. Let us aim at less coercive. They may seem the same but they are certainly not.
Yeah I've been reading a book that isn't quite libertarian, but instead very left-wing anarchist and ... the author's proposals seem incredibly coercive and stifling. Weird that he doesn't even seem to be aware of it even as he writes that his proposed society is more democratic. It's a pretty interesting cognitive dissonance.
Libertarians tolerate their cognitive dissonance because libertarianism is, at its core, self-serving.
Some consider it as I did once too, when I was young and stupid. (I'm not young anymore!) They consider it until they run into it core nature. Most abandon it then; others are indifferent to their fellow humans and cling to it.
"If people don’t want to use a certain language, support a particular media company, or pay for a particular film/festival/concert, they shouldn’t be forced to, indirectly, through their taxes."
If you bought stock in a movie theater company, do you expect to like every movie they show? Do you expect to have a say in every movie chosen to show? Or are you happy enough if they show a number of things you like and they do it economically? For instance, people buying tickets to shows you don't like are spreading the costs of that building, the nice sound system, etc. across a lot more people.
My point is that the libertarians you cite will not be able to micromanage that much if they are in a large community. Compromises will be made
I realize you are citing a pretty common libertarian attitude, but those folks are being too academic or pedantic to be successful
I don't think libertarians expect no compromises to be made, but their point, in my understanding, is that the compromises would at least be made freely as opposed to through the coercive force of the state apparatus.
I think there are two adjacent, but separate thoughts here.
First, in my experience (hardly a scientific sampling, but I have made an effort to "mingle" and pick the brains of a number of folks claiming to be libertarians as I try to put together my own theories around governance) most libertarians are really just mad at the government for some reason, and although they may be able to recite a bit of slang they learned online, they do not have a real political theory. They are just reacting. For instance, when a conservative male sees that their tax dollars were being used to fund some artistic endeavor championing a feminist point of view. They are not wanting to compromise, they are wanting to stop that specific use of their taxes.
In a sense, I am trying to contrast buying a share in a movie theater business to buying a home in a given city. In both cases you get some ownership right and the ability to influence management, but you are not going to be able to micromanage or dominate decisions. You'll have to accept that you will not be able to negotiate at the level for every single expenditure, whether there is a "coercive state apparatus" or not. When you became part of a larger group (the corporation or the city), you had to accept some governance.
Which is a segue to my 2nd point, the phrase "coercive state apparatus". Sure, that is technically true, but I don't think it is expressing the right problem. If you look at libertarian-like ideas from a hundred years ago, you see a lot of resistance to very dominating states that retained a lot of feudal and dictatorial behaviors, a lot of control by a privileged class, etc. At a national level, you still see a lot of this today. But I live in a city of about 100,000 people and I could certainly run for city council, take a position on various boards, and so on, to try to get the government behavior that I want. I've known a number of people who got fired up about some topic and did that.
And sure, we have a police force that can use deadly force, lawyers who could harass or bankrupt me, and so on. The city government is a state apparatus and does hold coercive power. But it is not running a 1984-like Big Brother organization that the phrase implies. If there is no existing organization, then all groups will tend to self-organize. Organization brings rules, even if they are just unwritten norms. Many vocal libertarians are just reacting to living within groups that have organizational rules that they don't like
Please note, I am not really arguing with you or your original post. Most States are bloated, overly controlling, intrusive, inefficient, etc. I would label myself as libertarian-ish when comparing to current political parties and governments. But true libertarianism is horribly inefficient, is terrible at collective action, and has a huge free rider problem. I think there are some other alternatives
I think we're basically aligned, your last paragraph describes my own views quite well.
I think many libertarians would be quite happy if governments were mostly at the level of cities of 100k people; that's small enough to be able to yield some influence for most people who want to, and more importantly, to move to a different such city if you disagree a lot with what's happening in your city. Essentially that is the city-state model, which corresponds to some of the most productive places and periods in history, like Classical Greece, Renaissance Italy, some of the early modern German lands, modern Singapore (well it's bigger than 100k but still a city-state), etc. Unlike pure anarcho-capitalist that actually has a track record, and a good one, though of course such periods also tend to involve quite a lot of war, which is a problem that would have to be solved somehow.
Cities within larger countries don't tend to be very autonomous, however, so we mostly don't get the benefits of small governments for a lot of stuff that matters.
I agree.
But even for those that want the city-state to be the norm, you have to consider that currently successful ones like Singapore are well over 5 million in population, are hardly libertarian, and would probably fall quickly if a major Asia-based war broke out. Size matters in the real world.
I have a half-baked theory that there is a hybrid middle ground. A large nation would centrally manage (as a Union, not a Federation) political and economic issues that benefit from scale - a strong military, consistent trade and banking regulation, contract enforcement across all regions, etc. But moral and cultural issues that do not depend on scale (rules around gambling, alcohol, firearms, abortion, etc.) would be decided at the local county/municipality/district. This would give ethnic/cultural/religious groups some space to be themselves while also being able to reap the benefits of a larger nation when appropriate
"An optimistic libertarian answer is that if, right now, enough people care about a particular local or national culture to elect governments that defend it, then it shouldn’t be a problem to find sufficient people to patronize companies and organizations that did the same thing. "
Ok, but then that large "American" competitor buys that small Quebecoise culturally sensitive firm and then kills it a couple of years later during some cost-cutting. Or maybe they just undermine it or mess with the supply chain or financing.
The customer is not in charge. Having customers does not guarantee the future to the level that the state could (also hardly perfect, but they do have more clout)
Every time I find an argument that makes me more libertarian, I find another one that makes me less. I’m not convinced the market on its own will behave well, but I’m also not convinced the government on its own will make it behave well. They both have a lot of pros and cons in my book depending on the time and place and conditions which makes me feel like it should all be very case by case (not just culture!) Can I ask what ultimately led you to be more widespread libertarian?
I basically am in the same spot as you! As I wrote in another comment on this post, "I suspect that having governments is valuable in part because it's a very different way to achieve collective goals than markets, and having a diversity of approaches is good."
But I began to lean a bit more towards the liberal/libertarian side of things in part because the opposite stance, the statist one, seems to be a failure of oversimplification. Most government intervention implicitly rests on the assumption that it's possible for a small number of people in power (supported by experts) to know what most other people need better than those people themselves. But this is usually wronger than just letting people make their own choices in a free market. Society is too complex for the blunt tool of government action to work well in most contexts.
Yes, that's certainly true. There can be no doubt the government isn't the expert on the things its weighing in on. I just also think the consumer isn't the expert on knowing whether a company is being ethical or not. It really goes both ways for me. Hmmmm, I'll have to look through more case studies, though I really appreciate the thoughts. Thank you!
In my understanding, the free market libertarian answer is that there can be a whole set of private organizations devoted to performing the services governments currently do—including things like reporting on the trustworthiness of other companies, providing insurance, preventing abuse, etc. Because these organizations compete on a free market, the most trustworthy ones should rise to prominence, and the bad ones are removed from the market, which are results we don't get when those services are exclusively from the state. So while it's true that individual consumers aren't always the best placed to take decisions, they're not alone either.
One concern I still have is whether such a system would be more stressful for individuals than what we have now. My instinctive reaction to libertarianism used to be that it's more psychologically demanding, since you're more responsible for every choice; you have to decide which service to get for e.g. security, instead of just accepting that there's a police force. Great for smart and competent people (and also rich ones), not so much for those who already have trouble managing their lives despite the government doing a lot of the management behind the scenes. But maybe a more libertarian system can be set up such that this problem is not any bigger than it is now.
"the free market libertarian answer is that there can be a whole set of private organizations devoted to performing the services governments currently do—including things like reporting on the trustworthiness of other companies, providing insurance, preventing abuse, etc."
Maybe these private organizations COULD exist, but DO they? How are they to be financed? If they are for profit, why would we trust them? How do these organizations acquire their expertise? Why would their self-interested services be preferable? How would these organizations ensure their evaluations are based on accurate information?
"Because these organizations compete on a free market,..."
Hold on there! Now you're saying these organizations already exist! Please name them!
"... the most trustworthy ones should rise to prominence, and the bad ones are removed from the market."
SHOULD, but certainly might not. The free market often "chooses" based on criteria very different from quality, trustworthiness, or efficiency.
"My instinctive reaction to libertarianism used to be that it's more psychologically demanding, since you're more responsible for every choice; you have to decide which service to get for e.g. security, instead of just accepting that there's a police force. ..."
That is a very good reason to reject libertarianism. Libertarianism mandates that we all prioritize a life of constant economic paranoia. What if you just want to be an artist, craftsman/woman, teacher, doctor, etc. etc etc.? In a libertarian world, tough luck.
Human beings are social animals; we always have been. We live in communities of mutually supporting people. We thrive when we all can choose the trajectories of our own lives. Some degree of mutual trust is required to make this work, and sometimes trust will be betrayed. A libertarian culture has the same trust issues, and in the absence of a robust state, the idea that you can just say no becomes extremely uncertain. Powerful individuals can be just as despotic as any bureaucrat.
All of your questions are valid, but can equally be applied to government services! If a company watchdog service is part of a government whose primary motives are electoral, how do we trust them? Why would their self-interested services be preferable, and how do we make sure the government acts based on accurate information? Governments also '"choose" based on criteria very different from quality, trustworthiness, or efficiency.'
I think the answer is something like a combination of: governments have been around for a while and expect to exist for a long time, so they care quite a lot about reputation; and we have various mechanisms like a free press and free elections to keep tabs on the government; and there are other governments who can, to a degree, keep your government in check.
Most of these are true of companies too: they care about their reputation, they can be investigated by the press and many of them (the publicly traded ones) have elections and other governance processes you can participate in, and other companies keep them in check. The exact weight of these variables differs (there's more competition for companies, and less participatory governance). But saying they're motivated by profit is not, in itself, sufficient to make them less trustworthy; governments are motivated just as much by electoral success, which isn't what we, the users of government services, care most about.
I still think, like the post makes pretty clear, that there are certain features of governments that make it worthwhile to have them and not *just* rely on private organizations to do everything, but I subscribe less and less to the view that governments are inherently more trustworthy than private orgs.
I'd be interested in went this argument doesn't also convince that libertarianism is a utopian idea clearly doomed to failure in the real world? In the same way that a totally free market would lead to hegemonic dominant culture, imagine a pure libertarianism. It's a description of warlordism dressed up in fancier language.
As to your intro, framing libertarianism as more moral rests on an enormous framework of implicit assumptions and commitments. One could just as easily frame a communitarian stance as more moral. The modern world has made our community exponentially bigger than can be served in the tribal person to person manner in which we evolved. The libertarian stance is delinquent in taking advantage of what that brings but washing one's hands of needing to also expand one's definition of community and obligation.
Sure, this post isn't meant to be even the beginning of a defence of libertarianism. In fact it's plainly an argument against it.
I did have to explain very briefly why the idea of libertarianism has begun to feel more convincing to me, though, and you're totally correct that that rests on tons of assumptions, which I left out since they're not super relevant to the main point of the post. I'm sure I'll explore those assumptions more in the future. (Indirectly, I have already explored them a lot; some of the recurrent themes of the blog, like evolution and complexity, feed into it, but I never explicitly wrote about the connection to political ideology.) I'll also note that until recently I was pretty staunchly against libertarianism, and I would have easily agreed with everything you just wrote.
I'm curious how you understand the difference between a liberal and a libertarian.
I thought of myself as both at one point in my life, but now I would say that the latter is a bit too government minimalist. Culture, as you point out, is a good that is vulnerable in the free market. In my understanding, liberals are amenable to protecting vulnerable goods whereas libertarians are not. For instance, it is liberal to acknowledge that we have a collective interest in our homes not burning down and thus a fire department is a better idea than say, having a private fire company on contract to put your house out if it catches fire. That is the essence of my change in identification (though I am other things besides a liberal).
But I also know that different countries use these words somewhat differently (and as an American I certainly don't mean to use liberal as interchangeable with Democrat).
I agree with this, and I currently identify more or less as a classical liberal (also unrelated to the meaning of liberal in various political contexts).
My actual main critique of libertarianism, besides the cultural aspect, is that I suspect that having governments is valuable in part because it's a very different way to achieve collective goals than markets, and having a diversity of approaches is good. Of course a libertarian could retort the free market is precisely what allows a diversity of solutions to problems, but I do think there's something fundamentally non-reproducible with the way states operate. So that's a key difference with liberalism: it (grudgingly?) accepts the necessity of coercive state action sometimes, while trying to minimize it.
@Étienne Fortier-Dubois, I find myself also tilting more Libertartian, as someone who definitely never used to be.
But I think it is important to understand that there are two types of libertarians. 1) Anti-government Libertarians and 2) Pro-Market Libertarians.
The former is more recognizable, especially for Americans. They hate government and for them, their beliefs are very rooted in emotion. The latter camp is a more reasoned, their thinking rooted in economics
Yes, better to define oneself as being for something rather than against.
I've always had disdain for libertarians. Heads in the clouds, they list off all the goods of a political system that the greater majority of people will never accept. It is an excellent idea for frontiers, or if we ever started anew, but not any place currently. Except perhaps South Africa.
Likewise most of the independent agreements individuals would make to produce infrastructure would, by the end, mimic government apparatus in all but name and cost. In a profit driven people who have been inculcated that regulations are the work of socialist satan, what are the chances that their free market bridges are going to be as safe or long lasting as a municipal counter example? Milk your fellow men for decades with refurbishment, or a one time purchase? Libertarians assume all people tend toward moral, yet decry the corruption in congress, not realizing that sleaziness is what makes their model junk.
I long for a monarch. One with a sense of aesthetics. If force need be applied to make society function then let the justification be the most moral. If an aesthetic must dominate our architecture then let it be built with God as an axium of reality. If money must go and part from my grasp then let it be backed by people who must have my people's best interest at heart, whether they like it or not.
Holy moly what a caffeine ramble. I feel like screaming I had so much. Dirty chai is dangerous.
I share or shared most of your concerns; it is only recently that I've grown a bit more convinced that at least moving *in the direction of* libertarianism might be a good thing, if not getting all the way there. But paradoxically I also kind of am a monarchist (very mildly, in that I sort of like the idea but wouldn't necessarily support creating new monarchies). Which would be a weird position to be in, except that this post on culture explains most of it: symbolic monarchies might be the best way to create a cultural focal point without actually surrendering a lot of control over people's individual lives.
Interesting article. Thanks for sharing. I really enjoyed reading it, like a lot of your other articles.
"So it’s healthy to argue about the topic, and try to find the right balance." This seems to be the essence of it.
But contrary to your concern that the government intervention might lead to over protectionism and patriotism, my concern is the opposite, that it might lead to the weaponizing of culture to promote a certain political agenda. Hence leading to cultural falsities. Especially considering the current landscape of extreme political rifts.
Even in the most extreme cases of cultural interventionism, culture remains a mostly private affair (except in totalitarian countries like North Korea), so I'm not too worried about this. It also works better if there are a lot of competing small countries rather than a few big ones or even a single world government. I am very in favor of small countries in general.
Regarding, *"If, right now, enough people care about a particular local or national culture to elect governments that defend it, then it shouldn’t be a problem to find sufficient people to patronize companies and organizations that did the same thing."*
This assumes that the ability to provide financial support is evenly distributed. If most wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few, then even a popular cultural practice might whither for lack of support. If information services are similarly controlled by the few, then many might not ever become aware of some local, niche art form, and again it may die in darkness.
Leaving such choices "to the marketplace" can only work if news and information are NOT left to the marketplace, and wealth inequalities are not significant.
Re. *"I suspect that the markets for local cultures would become much smaller than they already are, accelerating the vicious circle towards the dominance of culture produced in larger markets."*
That is exactly what would happen, if these things are left to the marketplace.
Re. *"(The radical idea that people are the best positioned to know what they want is another reason I’ve grown attracted to the free market and libertarianism.) But how do I square this with being in favor of some level of government-managed culture?"*
We square this by clarifying the notion of "government-managed culture"; government has no business prescribing or prohibiting harmless cultural practices. People are the best positioned to know what they want **assuming their choices are informed**. Government's role vis-à-vis culture is to enable individuals to be informed about, and effectively act on their personal choices.
The role of government is to protect individuals or groups from hostile or exploitative others.
Tiens Étienne écrit sur la politique! À ces risques et périls! 😉
Il faut croire qu'avec les élections en France et au Royaume-Uni ET les spéculations sur l'avenir politique de Joe Biden, je me sentais inspiré d'aborder le sujet!