For the past two and a half years, Friday columns have generally been light and low-effort for me; many of them are just expanded versions of tweet threads that I felt deserved a more permanent treatment. Well, last week someone retweeted some of my content from 18 months ago, and I realized it should have that treatment as part of my intermittent series of columns on language. I’ve written about this in a number of places (two of which I’ve linked below), but never quite this clearly or succinctly. And so without further ado:
There are 4 separate meanings of “libertarian”:
1) one who opposes authoritarianism
2) a member of a broad movement advocating reduced governmental power
3) a US political party (capitalized)
4) a pejorative used by some “progressives” to mean “anyone I disagree with”
So if you’re in that first category, which many people are, you may be correctly described under (1) while not fitting into (2) or (3). And (4) is impossible to control, but also no more meaningful than “traitor”, “infidel” or “doodyhead”. I’m certainly a member of (1); as an anarchist I’m tolerated by (2); I have generally friendly relations with (3); and (4) is meaningless because membership in it is controlled by the whims of the very silly.
I’ve been surprised by the number of people who feel they meet the second and third definition of libertarian without meeting the first.
I’m not a libertarian, but when I meet one and start asking questions it quickly becomes apparent they are only libertarian when it comes to their choices. There seems to be some odd domain dependency I can’t quite get my head around where they believe they can have a system that respects rights without respecting the rights of others.
When Penn Jillette was asked why he’s a libertarian he said it’s because he has no clue what decisions are correct for other people and that he’s found most people living in an environment where no one is given special privileges are basically decent. Nassim Taleb would tell you that type of basic decency results from everyone having skin in the game, which is as robust as self interest itself.
Unfortunately, we seem incapable of getting more than 3 people in a room without one of them declaring “yes for me, but not for thee.” Their next step is to reach for a gun, usually in the form of State violence.
After Obama’s election, a lot of racists pretended to be libertarian in order to claim a “principled” opposition to him instead of plain bigotry. But that was no more libertarianism than phishing spam trying to get yor account numbers is really from Netflix or Facebook or whatever.
Gilette has the correct idea; NOBODY knows what is right for anyone but themselves.
@Diogenes: I don’t know what libertarians you’ve been talking to, but I don’t think much of what you say relates to libertarianism. Of course, that is one of the problems with labels, that they try to encompass more than what is possible under a given definition.
I’ll speak for myself in my identification with libertarianism, which falls somewhere between Maggie’s definitions 1 and 2. I consider myself a social radical and a fiscal and Constitutional conservative. I stop short of anarchism. I have always believed (even long before coming across contemporary libertarianism) that your right to reach out your fist ends at the tip of my nose. I have deep distrust of government and the misnomer that passes for “justice,” but also recognize that not everyone’s intents are pure as the fresh-driven snow.
Whomever you attribute it to, I’ve long adhered to the phrase, “The government that governs least governs best.” That, at least, is my definition of libertarianism.
“@Diogenes: I don’t know what libertarians you’ve been talking to, but I don’t think much of what you say relates to libertarianism.”
It certainly doesn’t relate to the idea of what most libertarians believe about themselves, but I would say the same of all isms. People with political ideologies are a lot like civilians watching war movies in a cool movie theater with a big box of popcorn in their lap. They rarely believe what they think, or practice what they preach and are almost never willing to sacrifice anything for the platitudes they hold dear and only believe it provided they are risk free.
Once someone actually starts defending the Constitution I find those with the platitudes quickly head for the exits.
Here’s the only political ism test that means anything to me: Do you defend the Constitution even when it’s unpopular (as it always is) and you are portrayed as a villain and predator by a media that believes the Constitution should only apply to them and their powerful friends? Would spend your life saving, risk your freedom, reputation and put your family through hell to defend the limited government and Constitutional Rights libertarians enjoy discussing at cocktail parties?
Would you at a minimum give more than quiet support for those doing the heaving lifting and fighting for limited constitutional government? Because in my experience the answer is almost always “hell no not at that cost!” Our 97% plea bargain rate in America seems to confirm the vast majority only believe in their ideals provided their is no personal risk involved. I suspect there were more than a few libertarians in that 97%. Whatever they tell you they believe, it’s the one thing you choose over everything else that proves your true belief. When the other side has guns, an unlimited budget and control of the narrative through the media, do you still stand and fight? 97% say no way.
If you ask anyone in America if they support the Constitution they would say of course, despite never having read it, let alone the Western Cannon from the Magna Carta on that influenced it, or the Greek, Roman and 16th century European history that informed the founders when the wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. A hint for those relying on the Cliff Notes version, our current fetish for democracy terrified them as much as it did Aristotle 1,500 years earlier and for most the same reasons.
At the risk of appearing to blow pink smoke up her cute butt, that’s what I respect about Maggie, although we have never met. Yes she’s smart and hot as the 37 Special on a Saturday night, but the world is full of attractive smart women I despise. Maggie’s special because she’s willing to put her own comfort and safety on the line for a total stranger if it involves defending a set of values she supports even when she knows it will be unpopular to do so.
How many libertarians, or any other member of an ism would do the same? I’m hearing mostly crickets………
@Diogenes: I don’t know what “ism” or belief system you adhere to, and honestly I don’t care, though I do detect a touch of “knowitallism” here.
You’re manifesting exactly what I think is the problem with labels, lumping everyone who might identity with a certain label together and saying, see, these guys don’t really practice what they preach. A generalization which, like all generalizations (including this one), is false.
Is it always unpopular to defend the Constitution (for non-U.S. readers, we’re talking about the American Constitution here)? I don’t know. If it is, I guess I’m always unpopular. Are some people inconsistent in their defense or attacks on the Constitution? I suppose. No surprise there.
Again, whomever you attribute it to, I’ve always supported the notion embodied in the quote, “I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.” Do I literally fall on my sword and die every time someone’s right to express themselves is suppressed? Well, no. Perhaps we can allow for a bit of hyperbole here. But, like many others, I do stand up and do what I can when there are injustices and repression. And there have been times where I literally put my life on the line to support what I believed in.
I also regularly speak out through my writings and my blog, and I know my views are often unpopular. I’ve lost long-term friends over them (their loss) and taken a lot of criticism. I do my best to influence views and, through them, the course of events. While the negativity doesn’t dissuade me, it would be vainglorious for me to think that I, by myself, can change the course of history. But little ripples can circle the globe.
Along with the blanket criticism, what is it that you do to stand up for what you believe? I hope those aren’t more crickets that I hear . . .
You seem to assume I’m describing you and I simply because I was responded to your question about my post. I don’t know you from Adam and have enough contradictions and hypocrisy in my own life to spare me the need to walk around applying litmus tests to others. As for my record on defending the Constitution, it’s historically mixed, but forced empathy seems to be pushing me in the right direction.
From here on out it will help if you consider any use of “you” as plural, not singular.
I’m doing the opposite of lumping everyone together and calling them hypocrites for not meeting some stupid Platonist set of ideals. I’m saying that I find self labelling largely useless because people often don’t understand the label they are using. Part of maturity is embracing contradictions and party labels don’t allow for that.
I’ll support anyone who shares my core beliefs, but the people I respect are those willing to bleed for them rather than simply talk, talk, talk. I’ve never been very interested in who people think or tell me they are. Show me who you are.
I’m generally on friendly terms with Libertarians to the extent they show the humility Gillette did in my comment about. I don’t have much of people who think they have the answers for others, especially when they won’t even listen to them. All consent begins with understanding. We seemed to at least tacitly pay lip service to that notion after the Nuremberg Trials and Belmont Report, but we have been backsliding as a society ever since.
@DIogenes: I didn’t particularly take your comments personally. As you say, you don’t know me from Adam, and the same applies in reverse. It is one of the weaknesses of the English language that “you” can be singular or plural, though I was responding more to the idea of what you were saying than you, personally. By the same token, I was speaking solely for myself and not trying to speak for some larger collective.
Just to be clear, I consider myself a libertarian (small “l”) and am not a member of or adherent to the Libertarian (large “L”) Party, nor to any other political party. And just because I apply that label to myself, it is more a short-hand, and doesn’t mean I share all my views or have affinity with others who also self-apply it. I think that was the thrust of Maggie’s original piece, that there are (at least) four separate definitions of “libertarian.” Anyway, I’ll take personal responsibility for my preference for lively discussion and debate and not attempt to pin it on my libertarian persuasions.
One reason I support the Pirate Party (small tho it is) is that they are the kind of left-leaning libertarians who are as critical of corporate/private authoritarianism as they are the government kind.
It really scares me when ppl claim to be “anti-authoritarian” but allow or even make their own little group into a dictatorship. Yeesh!
Oh, and the bugbear for self-described progressives is “neoliberal” even more than libertarian.
Hmm, I’m in (1) and I agree with (2), although I favor an incrementalist approach for getting there, out of practicality and a concern for disrupting too many people’s lives. I’m not a member of (3), although I usually vote that way. And I agree with Rikki: “Neoliberal” is pretty much a slur at this point.
There’s also a kind of cultural libertarianism, best described by Welch and Gillespie in Declaration of Independents as “creating a world that is tolerant, free, prosperous, vibrant, and interesting.” So if type (2) libertarianism is about not criminalizing other people’s unusual choices, cultural libertarianism is about believing that other people’s unusual choices are a good thing for our society.
I brake for libertarians, but for the LP to win we need to pray for divine intervention.