Coercion and Voluntarism in Libertarian Social Theory
Time for a Discursive Shift in the Movement
Eet is ok if eet is between conzenting adults!!!
One of the most distinctive features of libertarian theory is the “non-aggression principle.” Roughly, it means that people should not initiate force against each other, which exceptions like self-defense or parents wrangling their kids. In this post, I won’t argue for or against the “NAP” but instead suggest libertarians may want to adopt a different language for explaining who they are to the broader public.
While people do defend the NAP, I think it suffers a number of serious flaws as way of presenting a libertarian perspective. First, hard core “axioms” or “principles” can lead to distracting philosophical disputes about edge cases that probably don’t matter. E.g., you can get into a weird argument about whether you can sell yourself into slavery. Or, the even the more bizarre argument about whether people who dispute the NAP implicitly endorse it because using your voice to dissent is an assertion of non-coercive rights.
Second, a focus on the NAP doesn’t help people understand what really motivates the libertarian movement because all forms of coercion get lumped together and that is seriously confusing. For example, as a matter of practice, the NAP seems to encourage people to produce mottos like “taxation is slavery” (it’s not). I would hope that all decent people reject slavery, but the arguments against taxation are certainly open to dispute. Even if you came around to an anti-tax position, paying $.03 extra for a gallon of gas is not in the same ballpark as a lifetime of servitude, humiliation, and abuse. It’s not even the same flippin’ sport.
What I suggest is simply to shift to a language of voluntarism. If someone were to ask, “What is the core libertarian credo?” I would say, “voluntary relationships between people.” In other words, the default position is that libertarians start with the idea that human relationships should be voluntary, not forced. Forcible solutions to social problems should be the last resort, not the first course of action.
I think this language helps in many ways. First, it is a simple and direct language that would include many stripes of libertarian people, from Objectivists, to small government conservatives, to folks pushing for gay liberation. If you wanted to add a stricter ethical rule, it’s pretty easy (e.g., Objectivists).
Second, it doesn’t push people into weird side arguments, like the ones listed above. Instead, libertarians would be the ones asking whether some social problem should really be addressed with involuntary policies (e.g., police calls, incarceration, financial penalties) and not with voluntary relationships and agreed upon social practices.
Third, it’s a very easy language for explaining how libertarians assess and compare various social practices. You can wince at onerous taxes, price ceilings, or rent controls, but not equate them with more serious violence. They are all clearly non-voluntary on some level, but clearly not qualitatively the same and libertarians can offer different reasons for why they should be opposed.
Fourth, non-libertarian movements use similar words like freedom (the left) or liberty (the right) and libertarians need their own verbal marker. For example, civil rights activists properly advocate for Black freedom, but then they will often praise socialist nations and promote high levels of economic regulation. I respect but their point of view, but at the same time people who value social and economic liberalism will need a different banner. The issue seems to be that many people advocate freedom for a specific group of people (“we are freedom fighters”), but the distinctively libertarian position is to default to voluntary relations for everybody, even people they don’t like.
I also think the language of voluntary relationships would help with boundary marking. One problem with libertarian social practice is that a philosophy of toleration means that you will attract despicable people. If you say, “yes, even racists have free speech rights,” then racists will flock to you. Rather, if we say, “yes, racists have the right to speak, but the rest of us should voluntarily shun you for promoting bad ideas and Blacks and Whites should voluntarily mix,” then these “deplorables” are less likely to appear.
Finally, if you adopt the language of “voluntary action,” then you are allowed to adopt a new mascot, famed sex therapist Dr. Ruth Westheimer, who coined the phrase “it’s ok if it’s between consenting adults.” Libertarians want that expand from the bedroom to the board room and to every room.
Bottom line: Words matter and “voluntary” is a simple word most folks get most of the time.
+++++
Buy these books!
Grad Skool Rulz - cheap advice manual for grad students
Obama and the antiwar movement