Kerry Howley leads off a Reason magazine debate on the role of culture in Libertarian philosophy. She’s followed by replies from Todd Seavey and Daniel McCarthy onsite as well as posts by Ilya Somin and Will Wilkinson.
Howley is
disturbed by an inverse form of state worship I encounter among my fellow skeptics of government power. This is the belief that the only liberty worth caring about is liberty reclaimed from the state; that social pathologies such as patriarchy and nationalism are not the proper concerns of the individualist; that the fight for freedom stops where the reach of government ends.
Her opponents point in one fashion or another that Howley is using Libertarianism as a platform to push a particular social agenda. To some extent this seems true. Howley exalts what feminism has done to free women from a life only as wives and mothers yet she doesn’t mention that aggressive feminism might also be culturally constraining for those women who want primarily to be wives and mothers.
The spirit of Howley critique, however, is right on point. While we should be careful not favor one set of values over another, it is clear enough when culture is oppressing the individual. Whenever there are threats of ostracism and stigmatization for living a certain lifestyle or making a given set of personal choices, culture is being used as a weapon.
Libertarians cannot ignore this because it is the primary engine of oppression. In practice laws that are not supported by cultural norms are less powerful than cultural norms that are not supported by laws. Libertarians make a big deal about the threat of the state but in the lives of ordinary people the threat of society is much greater.
What marks the difference between libertarians and more modern liberalism is that libertarians are not willing to use the state to combat cultural oppression. For libertarians persuasion is the proper tool.
Critics might argue that this is using the cultural oppression in our efforts to stop cultural oppression. To some extent this is how I read Todd Seavey’s response.
However, libertarians aren’t pacifists culturally or politically. If the state is oppressing individual freedom then there is nothing anti-libertarian about taking up arms against the state. If culture is oppressing individual freedom then there is nothing anti-libertarian about using cultural tools to combat it.
The ideal is that as much as possible, each person is able to define his or her own definition of the good life and seek it out. To the extent this is limited by the government libertarians should oppose the government. To the extent this is limited by cultural norms, libertarians should oppose those norms.
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
Monday ~ October 26th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
TGGP
it is clear enough when culture is oppressing the individual.
Clarity is rarely so clear.
Whenever there are threats of ostracism and stigmatization for living a certain lifestyle or making a given set of personal choices, culture is being used as a weapon.
Many libertarians of the anarcho-capitalist variety laud the old “Law Merchant”, which could not physically enforce its edicts but relied on blacklisting by other professionals. I used the example of a dishonest person in Wilkinson’s comment section. Would publicizing such a person’s dishonesty, condemning and shunning them be a sort of weaponized culture that libertarians should be worried about? Or should we applaud it, as Wilkinson did for political correctness?
Monday ~ October 26th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Karl Smith
Would publicizing such a person’s dishonesty, condemning and shunning them be a sort of weaponized culture that libertarians should be worried about?
Interesting question. I am not opposed to the government enforcing contracts, so there should be no reason to oppose culture enforcing contracts. Though, I will admit that it seems off putting which tells me that my intuition on this issue is not well honed.
On Will’s blog you asked, if firing someone for engaging in S&M is an infringement then is refusing to be in a relationship with for the same reason infringement.
The difference is of course that presumably S&M play would become a part of the relationship and thus effect its character. So, lets alter it and say former S&M practitioner.
In both cases my sense is that libertarians should engage this on a social level and promote acceptance of S&M practitioner. We shouldn’t use the state to force hiring or relationship, but we should use persuasion to encourage people to be open.
If we really want a pluralist society then this seems to be important.
Thought?
Tuesday ~ October 27th, 2009 at 1:50 am
teageegeepea
The dishonesty doesn’t have to be violation of a contract. Some people are just generally untrustworthy liars. I oppose laws that criminalize mere lying, whether that be in the form of Holocaust denial or the Yes Men setting up a site pretending to be that of the Chamber of Commerce. As a libertarian I want people to have the freedom to disseminate information pointing out that someone is dishonest so that others will not be fooled. But if people don’t mind lying all that much, I don’t mind little of that happening and many people being fooled.
I treat all preferences as given and as legitimate as any other. So the preference to not engage in SM is like the preference not to be in a relationship with an SM enthusiast (if we can mold one preference, why not the other?) is like the preference not to hire an SM enthusiast. It’s not my place to judge any of them. I think the SM example is particularly funny in that someone is agreeing to be subjected to pain, and often domination. Some varieties of “thick” libertarians or cultural liberals would have to oppose the practice and encourage submissives to be more assertive and dominants to get their kicks in a more acceptable manner!
I mentioned that I am completely on the pluralist end of Jacob Levy’s spectrum, but my goal isn’t simply “a pluralist [or diverse] society”. I used the example of small, subsidized languages at Wilkinson’s. I want freedom for Welsh enthusiasts to be able to speak Welsh together and do whatever it is Welsh enthusiasts do, but I am not inclined to encourage English speakers to learn Welsh so that Welsh enthusiasts have a less constraining culture. In an economic sense I think it is inefficient for good workers not to be hired because their bosses don’t approve of non-work-related matters and so I’m glad if other businesses outcompete them in grabbing such talent, but that’s just letting the market take its course. I don’t try to second-guess it and say what the outcome ought to be. I personally like more economic efficiency, but I have no problem with people pursuing other ends voluntarily, as in a kibbutz. Efficiency lowers costs and increases many persons “positive liberty”, but libertarianism isn’t about promoting efficiency, we just happen to think that would be a result. Starting a new innovative business may increase efficiency, but it’s a distinct matter from libertarianism.
Tuesday ~ October 27th, 2009 at 2:01 am
When I hear the word “culture”, I reach for my non-aggression axiom « Entitled to an Opinion
[...] DMV, shaking your fist to the last. The sites I have rambled at are Wilkinson’s, IOZ and Modeled Behavior. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Mind comments on boost to war veterans mental [...]