Transcript Mere Libertarianism: Blending Hayek and Rothbard by Daniel Klein George Mason University Ratio Institute, Stockholm [email protected] Based on the article in Reason Papers 2004

Mere Libertarianism:
Blending Hayek and Rothbard
by Daniel Klein
George Mason University
Ratio Institute, Stockholm
[email protected]
Based on the article in Reason Papers 2004
1
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.
2
Lineage
Classical Liberalism
Mises
Hayek
tension
Rothbard
3
Blending Hayek and Rothbard
Classical Liberalism
Mises
Hayek
Rothbard
Mere libertarianism
Classical liberalism clarified, updated
4
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.
5
The most essential characteristic of
libertarianism

By and large, favoring liberalization,
favoring greater liberty.
6
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
7
The Liberal Lexicon










Freedom
Liberty
Liberalism
Justice
Rights
Law
Rule of law
Equity
Equality
Contract
8
Semantics = definitions


The most important term is liberty.
Following the liberal idea of liberty
is the most essential characteristic
of being a liberal.
9
Definition of the term Liberty
versus
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.
10
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”
11
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”.
12
Hayek-Rothbard Scorecard
Issue
1. Definition of liberty
Hayek Rothbard

13
Hayek’s definition of liberty
Obscure, unsatisfactory




vague
contradictory
multiple
sometimes constituted in terms of the
desirable
14
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.
15
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.
16
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.
17
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
18
The scope and timeframe of our liberty
ordering
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
Scope and timeframe considered
19


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.
20
Which should we use?

Direct liberty ordering:



Overall liberty ordering:




denoted as >Ld
appealing because we can most readily agree on it
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.
21
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.
22
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.
23
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.
24
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.
25
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
26
Ambiguity of the Liberty Principle


Rothbard tended to make liberty
sound cut-and-dried.
But there are many gray areas.
27
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
28
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.
29
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 %.
30
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.
31
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
32
Some bring us back to Direct versus
Overall Liberty




Savings & Loan deregulation
Curfew, etc.
Rothbard tended to dodge the
possible undesirability of halfliberalizations by focusing on the
endzone: libertarian anarchy.
Rothbard tended to evade tensions
between direct and overall.
33
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
34
Avoiding brittleness




A 100% claim is brittle.
The claim is refuted by one counterexample.
Strawmen are 100%.
Don’t make it easy to make a
libertarian strawman.
35
Scorecard
Issue
Hayek Rothbard
1. Definition of liberty
2. Acknowledging
ambiguity of the
liberty principle
3. Undesirability: The
liberty principle is not
100%



36
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 ninetysomething %
37
The 100% error
Perhaps both Hayek and Rothbard
maintained their respective version
of 100%.
38
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.
39
2 x 2 classification
Sensibilities about the
Desirable
ninetysomething% 100%
Mere
Definition Good
Rothbard
libertarianism
Of
Liberty
Bad
Hayek
40
Adam Smith gets it right
Sensibilities about the
Desirable
ninetysomething% 100%
Definition Good
Of
Liberty
Bad
Adam
Smith
Rothbard
Hayek
41
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.”
42
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.”
43
Incompleteness

The liberty principle is an
incomplete guide to public policy,
for in many cases it does not apply
44
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?
45
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.
46
Scorecard
Issue
1. Definition of liberty
Hayek Rothbard

Practical limitations of the liberty principle
2. Acknowledging
ambiguity of the

liberty principle
3. Undesirability:
The liberty principle is 
not 100%
4. Incompleteness:
The liberty principle is 
not a complete guide
to public policy
47
The 3 practical limitations of the liberty
principle
Ambiguity
Incompleteness
Undesirability
48
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.”
49

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
50
“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.
51


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.
52
Scorecard
Issue
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. Incompleteness:
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

53
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.
54
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.
55
Challenging and Bargaining
Position Q
Belief V
Belief W
Position R
Belief X
Position S
Belief Y
•
Position L
Position P
Belief Z
Position T
Positions
More Libertarian
More Statist
Bargainer begins by challenging Belief Z.
Challenger begins by challenging Belief W.
56
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.
57
A necessary and essential function of
government


dismantling other functions of
government
(Rothbard’s vision of
libertarianization was ridiculous.)
58
Libertarian Bargainers





Friedrich Hayek
Aaron Wildavsky
Richard Epstein
Virginia Postrel
Tyler Cowen
59
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.
60
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.
61
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
62
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.
63
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.
64
Libertarian Royalty
Adam Smith
 Milton Friedman



Two features:
1. Eminence among one’s close
circle of peers
65

2. That circle is recognized
throughout society as eminent:
66
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.
67
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.
68



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.
69




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.
70


View government officials as
amenable to intellectual and moral
instruction.
View government as the agent that
validates and institutes libertarian
reform.
71
The End

Thank you for your attention.
72