1 Mere Libertarianism: Blending Hayek and Rothbard by Daniel Klein George Mason University Ratio...

1

Mere Libertarianism:Blending Hayek and Rothbard

by Daniel KleinGeorge Mason UniversityRatio Institute, Stockholmdklein@gmu.edu

Based on the article in Reason Papers 2004

2

Mere

Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis (1940s) – a statement and affirmation of the basics of Christianity. An apology for Christianity per se, a big tent.

Mere Libertarianism—an attempt to state and affirm the basics of libertarianism, a big tent. Seeks to conciliate frictions between

libertarians.

3

Lineage

Mises

Classical Liberalism

Hayek Rothbard tension

4

Blending Hayek and Rothbard

Mises

Classical Liberalism

Hayek Rothbard

Mere libertarianism

Classical liberalism clarified, updated

5

Mere Libertarianism is the trend

I think that mere libertarianism is increasingly the way people think of libertarianism.

I am articulating (and endorsing) the trend.

I am relating it to the thought of Hayek and Rothbard.

6

The most essential characteristic of libertarianism

By and large, favoring liberalization, favoring greater liberty.

7

Another essential characteristic

Liberal semantics Especially, the distinction between

voluntary and coercive action. It is built on the liberal conceptions of

property, ownership, consent and contract.

Upon these, the conception of liberty or freedom

8

The Liberal Lexicon

Freedom Liberty Liberalism Justice Rights Law Rule of law Equity Equality Contract

9

Semantics = definitions

The most important term is liberty.

Following the liberal idea of liberty is the most essential characteristic of being a liberal.

10

Definition of the term Libertyversus Claims for Liberty

It is one thing to define liberty. It is another to make claims for

liberty.

On the definition of liberty, I suggest we follow Rothbard.

11

Defining Liberty Over the Centuries

Rooted in ownership (including one’s person)

I think Rothbard’s vision and works like The Ethics of Liberty provide the best crystallization of the definition of liberty.

“Locke-cum-Rothbard liberty”

12

Rothbard versus Hayek

I draw the contours of mere libertarianism with reference to the tensions between Rothbard and Hayek.

On this first major issue, I say “Rothbard”.

13

Hayek-Rothbard Scorecard

I ssue

Hayek

Rothbard

1. Definition of liberty

14

Hayek’s definition of liberty

Obscure, unsatisfactory vague contradictory multiple sometimes constituted in terms of the

desirable

15

Hayek’s definition

Hayek tended to define liberty in terms of some of its appealing correlates

Between the lines, one can read Locke-cum-Rothbard into Hayek’s liberty, but in word Hayek does not provide that definition.

16

Hayek’s obscurantism on liberty

May have been for the best. May have been strategic. If Hayek had articulated the Locke-cum-Rothbard

definition, most readers would have been repelled. They would have accused Hayek of reverting to the language of Spencer and Sumner, even if he did not support their positions. Hayek would have been challenging the whole subversion of the liberal lexicon. He would have been even more marginalized.

Hayek’s defining of liberty was lame intellectually, but culturally it was forgivable, even admirable.

17

Using Rothbard’s definition

Consider two reforms, R1 and R2.

They are reforms to the status quo.

Liberty is operationalized to the extent that it can sometimes rank R1 and R2.

For example, R1 >L R2 , if

R1is abolishing the minimum wage law and R2 is the status quo.

18

Direct versus Overall Liberty

It is possible that a reform that increases the direct initiation of coercion will in the long run reduce coercion.

Possible examples: A curfew imposed during an urban riot US entry into WWII Radical liberalization that leads to political

backlash Savings & Loan deregulation Subsiding stem-cell research

19

The scope and timeframe of our liberty ordering

Scope and timeframe considered

Direct effects only: Based on the initiation of coercion by the policy (and concomitant enforcement)

Overall effects: Based on prediction of coercion resulting from all ramifications of the policy

20

A curfew (relative to no curfew) might be less direct liberty, but more overall liberty

In formulating a liberty ordering, we need to clarify whether we mean direct liberty or overall liberty.

21

Which should we use?

Direct liberty ordering: denoted as >Ld

appealing because we can most readily agree on it

Overall liberty ordering: denoted >Lo

appealing because we care about the big picture

Overall is too ambiguous and uncertain. Using it would muddy discussion, not clarify it.

We opt for direct.

22

About the Liberty Ordering >Ld

It is grounded in the status quo, the “50 yard-line.”

It ranks dyadic reforms. Presumably transitive:

If R1 >Ld R2, and R2 >Ld R3,

then R1 >Ld R3.

23

Claims for the liberty principle

Claims for liberty involves judgments about liberty as a principle for action and policy.

We need a principle relating liberty and our judgments of the desirable.

24

The Liberty Principle

When R1 >Ld R2, then favor R1 over R2.

In other symbols:When R1 >Ld R2, then R1 >D R2.

>D is the desirability ordering.

25

About the desirability ordering >D

Again, it ranks dyadic policy reforms.

It reflects your judgment. Which “buttons you would push.”

It emerges from your sensibilities. Sensibilities: Deep, complex

dispositions, attitudes, values. Sensibilities express your character.

26

Claims for the Liberty Principle

Rothbard’s claims were too strong, too categorical, too simplistic, too absolute.

I will set out 5 limitations of Rothbardian claims: 3 practical limitations of the liberty

principle 2 philosophical weakness of Rothbard

27

Ambiguity of the Liberty Principle

Rothbard tended to make liberty sound cut-and-dried.

But there are many gray areas.

28

Gray areas, for example:

The limits of ownership rights of joint property criteria for nuisance or invasion definition of “threat” or “risk” relevance of intent definition of “use” in homesteading status of brand-names, trademarks, patents, copyrights status of stolen property criteria for consent implicit terms of contracts status of promises issues of children and the senile liability of principals for the torts of agents the theory of punishment compensation of duress standards of proof in court

29

Ambiguity

Sometimes we are uncertain about whether R1 >Ld R2 or R2 >Ld R1

Hayek: “the formulas ‘private property’ and ‘freedom of contract’ ” often do not provide much guidance:

[T]heir meaning is ambiguous. Our problems begin when we ask what ought to be the contents of property rights, what contracts should be enforceable, and how contracts should be interpreted or, rather, what standard forms of contract should be read into the informal agreements of everyday transactions.

30

Undesirability

Rothbard treated the liberty principle as an axiom, 100%, no matter what the status quo or what the reforms.

Hayek condoned some coercive government actions, rejecting 100%. For Hayek, the principle would be a maxim.

Ninety-something %.

31

Natural axiom versus natural maxim

Rothbard touted “natural rights,” an imperative against the initiation of coercion.

Rothbard treated liberty as natural axiom.

I think it should be regarded as a natural maxim.

32

Examples of undesirability?

crossing easements, “range country rules” auto emissions eminent domain legalizing bazookas completely open borders curfew during urban riot local govt zoning of prostitution or signage process of eradicating subsidies or taxation

33

Some bring us back to Direct versus Overall Liberty

Savings & Loan deregulation Curfew, etc.

Rothbard tended to dodge the possible undesirability of half-liberalizations by focusing on the endzone: libertarian anarchy.

Rothbard tended to evade tensions between direct and overall.

34

But there is pure undesirability

I think it is important to acknowledge that the overall-liberty principle: If R1 >Lo R2, then R1 >D R2

is not 100%.

We should allow that maybe R1 >Lo R2 and R1 <D R2

35

Avoiding brittleness

A 100% claim is brittle. The claim is refuted by one counter-

example. Strawmen are 100%. Don’t make it easy to make a

libertarian strawman.

36

Scorecard

I ssue

Hayek

Rothbard

1. Definition of liberty

2. Acknowledging ambiguity of the liberty principle

3. Undesirability: The liberty principle is not 100%

37

We need to divorce desirability from liberty

Sometimes coercion is our friend.

The big-tent: Libertarians are anyone who thinks:10% > “sometimes” > 0

Maxim: a principle that is ninety-something %

38

The 100% error

Perhaps both Hayek and Rothbard maintained their respective version of 100%.

39

Rothbard and Hayek both failed to say “sometimes coercion is our friend”

Rothbard molded his sensibilities about the desirable to fit his definition of liberty.

Hayek molded his definition of liberty to fit his sensibilities about the desirable.

40

2 x 2 classification

Sensibilities about the Desirable

ninety-something%

100%

Good

Mere libertarianism

Rothbard

Definition

Of Liberty

Bad

Hayek

41

Adam Smith gets it right

Sensibilities about the Desirable

ninety-something%

100%

Good

Adam Smith

Rothbard

Definition

Of Liberty

Bad

Hayek

42

Smith pauses to say he is endorsing a violation of liberty

“those exertions of the natural liberty of the few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; of the most free, as well as the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty, exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed.”

43

J.B. Say does, too

“Lastly, public safety sometimes imperiously requires the sacrifice of private property; but that sacrifice is a violation, notwithstanding an indemnity given in such cases. For the right of property implies the free disposition of one’s own; and its sacrifice, however fully indemnified, is a forced disposition.”

44

Incompleteness

The liberty principle is an incomplete guide to public policy, for in many cases it does not apply

45

10,000 questions about the rules governing government-owned resources

What type of policy should the Fed pursue?

What should be the speed limit? Penalty for running a red light? What vehicles at bus stops? Should people be allowed to panhandle or

peddle goods? Should Nazis be allowed to demonstrate? Curricula, dress codes in govt schools?

46

Rothbard, again weak

He focused on the need to privatize the resources. Acted like liberty was therefore a complete guide.

Otherwise, he suggested that such questions are beyond the pale of reasoned discourse.

Yet we have reasoned judgments beyond the liberty dimension.

Hayek better.

47

Scorecard

I ssue

Hayek

Rothbard

1. Definition of liberty

Practical limitations of the liberty principle 2. Acknowledging ambiguity of the liberty principle

3. Undesirability: The liberty principle is not 100%

4. I ncompleteness: The liberty principle is not a complete guide to public policy

48

The 3 practical limitations of the liberty principle

Ambi- guity

Incom- plete- ness

Unde- sirabil- ity

49

Two philosophical weaknesses of Rothbardian libertarianism

Libertarian policy does not serve all valid human values

Notably: Collective romance of the polity, mediated by the government (“the people’s romance”).

BTW, this too is “natural.”

Rothbard would just dismiss such a value as “irrational.”

50

Hayek: “I believe I have made honest use of what I know about the world in which we live. The reader will have to decide whether he wants to accept the values in the service of which I have used that knowledge.”

“[Liberty] is the source and condition of most moral values.”

“most”—not all

51

“Foundation”

Rothbard acted like we can fully articulate our sensibilities, the algorithm of desirability. Liberty was not only a principle for policy, but the supreme moral and ethical imperative.

52

Hayek: “Probably all generalizations that we can formulate depend on still higher generalizations which we do not explicitly know but which nevertheless govern the working of our minds. Though we will always try to discover those more general principles on which our decisions rest, this is probably by its nature an unending process.”

Libertarianism lacks a definitive, “rational” foundation.

53

Scorecard

I ssue

Hayek

Rothbard

1. Definition of liberty

Practical limitations of the liberty principle 2. Acknowledging ambiguity of the liberty principle

3. Undesirability: The liberty principle is not 100%

4. I ncompleteness: The liberty principle is not a complete guide to public policy

Philosophical issues

5. L doesn’t serve all values

6. L lacks a definitive foundation

54

Does libertarianism survive all the limitations?

Sure.

One of the reasons to explore them is to see that they are not fatal.

All rival ideologies are plagued by similar limitations.

55

Liberty remains a cogent challenge

The distinction between voluntary and coercive action is a challenge.

It gives rise to a way of think. It challenges taboos. It draws back the curtain and

exposes matters to sunlight. Rothbard was a challenger.

56

Challenging and Bargaining

Belief W

Belief V

Position R

Position Q

Belief X

Position S

Belief Y Belief Z

Position T Position P Position L

Positions More Libertarian More Statist

•

Bargainer begins by challenging Belief Z. Challenger begins by challenging Belief W.

57

Libertarian challengers

Etienne de la Boetie Thomas Paine Frederic Bastiat (sometimes) William Lloyd Garrison Lysander Spooner Ludwig von Mises Ayn Rand Thomas Szasz Murray Rothbard Robert Higgs.

58

A necessary and essential function of government

dismantling other functions of government

(Rothbard’s vision of libertarianization was ridiculous.)

59

Libertarian Bargainers

Friedrich Hayek Aaron Wildavsky Richard Epstein Virginia Postrel Tyler Cowen

60

Relationship between Challengers and Bargainers

The main point:

They don’t really disagree on substantive policy views. They just are playing different roles in the cultural struggle.

61

How Bargainers can help Challengers

Bargainers often show more intellectual flexibility often have more intimate knowledge of

current policies and issues. Hence, bargainers can exert intellectual discipline on the challengers.

often enjoy more mainstream stature, and can help challengers get an audience and respectability.

62

How Challengers can help Bargainers

Challengers can: serve as the conscience of bargainers,

reawakening them to more fundamental beliefs

show how broadly the more basic ideas still hold up

re-activate the bargainer’s authenticity and reconnect them to nobler pursuits, such as inspiring and edifying the young

63

A delicate relationship

A bargainer might help a challenger to get a mainstream hearing, but only if she can trust him not to become unduly glossy or blow her cover.

The challenger must likewise trust the bargainer not to turn on him.

Distrusting, they may shun team efforts altogether.

64

Needful Cooperation

There are gains in team productivity achieved by the division of labor.

Being mindful of the larger common cause may encourage mutual contact and moral support.

65

Libertarian Royalty

Adam Smith Milton Friedman

Two features: 1. Eminence among one’s close

circle of peers

66

2. That circle is recognized throughout society as eminent:

67

The Name of the Party of Liberty in the US

“Liberalism” “Conservativism” “Libertarianism” – big tent. Mere libertarianism.

Such usage prior to Rothbard:J.R. Seeley, F.W. Maitland, R.K. Wilson, C.P. Scott, Benjamin Tucker, Charles Sprading, J.P. Warbasse, Albert Jay Nock, Harold Laski, H.L. Mencken, Cecil Palmer, Ludwig von Mises, Isabel Paterson, Frank Chodorov, Leonard Read, Dean Russell, Frank Meyer, Henry C. Simons, Frank Graham, Clarence Philbrook, Michael Oakeshott, and Isaiah Berlin.

Later, Hayek used “libertarian” occasionally.

68

Attitudes of mere libertarianism

View libertarianism as being concerned only with legal and policy issues, not as a system of moral or ethical principles for human conduct in general.

See “being a libertarian” to mean merely the following: tending to favor policy reforms toward more liberty, more individual responsibility, and less government. This implies embracing liberal semantics.

69

Formulate political questions in terms of policy brass-tacks.

Formulate policy issues chiefly as a choice between alternative reforms to current arrangements, rather than as policy for some ideal society.

Focus on directions, not destinations.

70

Define liberty pretty much as Rothbard does.

Mind the liberty principle’s three practical limitations – ambiguity, undesirability, and incompleteness.

Admit that some valid human values are ill served by libertarian reform.

Argue for your judgments, but do not attempt to provide an algorithm for judgment or a full account of your sensibilities.

71

View government officials as amenable to intellectual and moral instruction.

View government as the agent that validates and institutes libertarian reform.

The End

Thank you for your attention.

72