I see five distinct ways that libertarian theory needs to up its game.
First, the need for natural law ethics in addition to natural rights; second, the need to distinguish between libertarian ideal theory and second-best libertarianism in a world of governments and competing nations; third, the need for a libertarian theory of citizenship and civil rights; fourth, the need to separate the public-private binary from the government-nongovernment binary; and fifth, the need for a more refined theory of corporate power and corporate rights.
On point one, I don’t buy that there is a single natural ethics. Relativism rears its ugly head. Instead there are many competing natural ethics, each natural and consistent from its point of view. For example, the classic might makes right. Not only does that one assert that the strong should rule the weak, but that ethics itself is decreed by the strong.
Then there’s the gift economy idea which is that we cement our relationships with each other through gift giving, and an expectation that those who have done better will help those in need.
Libertarian ethics would value individual action and empowerment.
While there might be some overlap in rules, these systems typically aren’t consistent with one another. I suppose my outlook comes from my experience with math, which has long studied the effects of what happens when you change axioms (the fundamental unprovable statements upon which everything else is derived) of system of logic. What happens is that there is no definitive, self-determined set of axioms.
My take is that in that light, given our inability/ignorance to determine what are good systems of ethics, then a society that allows for multiple systems of ethics to coexist is a good high level system of ethics. A libertarian system would allow for other systems to exist as subsystems and prove their worth. That’s as natural as I wish to get.
On the second point, the real distinction is between perfect and good enough libertarianism. You know, the adage, “the perfect is the enemy of the good.” I’m comfortable with good enough. I consider this a good point – what achievable goals can we strive for that would make our society better?
The third is utter bunk. I see no distinction between natural and civil rights. The latter is merely a collective manifestation of individual rights (which typically are what natural rights cover). When you start having alleged civil rights that have no corresponding individual rights, then you have obligations or burdens instead of rights. I point to the recent attempt to cast the Second Amendment as a civil right rather than as an individual right, conveniently sabotaging in the process any right, individual or collective, to possess or use firearms.
The fourth point is also nonsensical. It’s basically mixing different uses of the terms public and private: public/private spaces (such as a restaurant or a bedroom) with public/private sources of power and initiative (such as a non profit or business versus a government). I would term a military base restricted not private.
Fifth, has a need for a more refined theory of corporate power been demonstrated? Instead, my take is that the threat of corporate power comes largely from government interference in a variety of ways. For example, all those tools for monitoring, censoring, and snitching were government-mandated (particularly China and the EU). It costs money to build and maintain these tools. I doubt any of the social media companies would have bothered (beyond some marketing/advertising) if they hadn’t been forced to build and maintain them by government fiat.
Another is the growing burden of government regulation and interference which heavily favors businesses of the largest size. You want to fix business centralization, then lower the barrier to entry and I’m fine with a helping of anti-trust regulation too.
Finally, a missing point here is to keep in mind that a huge number of people will never be libertarian due to some combination of outlook, incapability, and self-interest. If we were to build a perfect libertarian society, they would become unhappy malcontents finding ways to muck things up.
I have mixed feeling about this essay.
On point one, I don’t buy that there is a single natural ethics. Relativism rears its ugly head. Instead there are many competing natural ethics, each natural and consistent from its point of view. For example, the classic might makes right. Not only does that one assert that the strong should rule the weak, but that ethics itself is decreed by the strong.
Then there’s the gift economy idea which is that we cement our relationships with each other through gift giving, and an expectation that those who have done better will help those in need.
Libertarian ethics would value individual action and empowerment.
While there might be some overlap in rules, these systems typically aren’t consistent with one another. I suppose my outlook comes from my experience with math, which has long studied the effects of what happens when you change axioms (the fundamental unprovable statements upon which everything else is derived) of system of logic. What happens is that there is no definitive, self-determined set of axioms.
My take is that in that light, given our inability/ignorance to determine what are good systems of ethics, then a society that allows for multiple systems of ethics to coexist is a good high level system of ethics. A libertarian system would allow for other systems to exist as subsystems and prove their worth. That’s as natural as I wish to get.
On the second point, the real distinction is between perfect and good enough libertarianism. You know, the adage, “the perfect is the enemy of the good.” I’m comfortable with good enough. I consider this a good point – what achievable goals can we strive for that would make our society better?
The third is utter bunk. I see no distinction between natural and civil rights. The latter is merely a collective manifestation of individual rights (which typically are what natural rights cover). When you start having alleged civil rights that have no corresponding individual rights, then you have obligations or burdens instead of rights. I point to the recent attempt to cast the Second Amendment as a civil right rather than as an individual right, conveniently sabotaging in the process any right, individual or collective, to possess or use firearms.
The fourth point is also nonsensical. It’s basically mixing different uses of the terms public and private: public/private spaces (such as a restaurant or a bedroom) with public/private sources of power and initiative (such as a non profit or business versus a government). I would term a military base restricted not private.
Fifth, has a need for a more refined theory of corporate power been demonstrated? Instead, my take is that the threat of corporate power comes largely from government interference in a variety of ways. For example, all those tools for monitoring, censoring, and snitching were government-mandated (particularly China and the EU). It costs money to build and maintain these tools. I doubt any of the social media companies would have bothered (beyond some marketing/advertising) if they hadn’t been forced to build and maintain them by government fiat.
Another is the growing burden of government regulation and interference which heavily favors businesses of the largest size. You want to fix business centralization, then lower the barrier to entry and I’m fine with a helping of anti-trust regulation too.
Finally, a missing point here is to keep in mind that a huge number of people will never be libertarian due to some combination of outlook, incapability, and self-interest. If we were to build a perfect libertarian society, they would become unhappy malcontents finding ways to muck things up.