Consistency.
This is undoubtedly the one word that any libertarian, when given the chance to describe their philosophy, would pick. Interestingly enough, when there is a remarkable amount of diversity amongst the rationalization of the libertarian position. The intellectual grounding can vary from Rothbardian natural rights, or Hoppeian argumentation ethics; to the Kantian “Universally Preferable Behaviour”, or Friedmanesque consequentialism; the list can go on and on.
No matter which philosophical justification one might choose, all roads will lead to the non-aggression principle (NAP). And here is where libertarians will get to flaunt their consistency. By taking any basic ethical dilemma and throwing it into the NAP machine, libertarians are able to consistently find universally true answers. Is it ethical to steal this car? No, see the NAP for details. What about kicking my neighbour’s dog? No, see the NAP for details.
Is it ethical for my wife to have an abortion? Congratulations, you managed to both break the NAP machine and kick-start an endless debate somewhere on the internet! But seriously, the answer is remarkably nuanced, and is wholly dependent on your definition of life (though it is worth mentioning that Murray Rothbard had a unique position with property rights as the basis). Is Ron Paul correct when he says life begins at conception? Or is it at some point later in the pregnancy?
I don’t know the answer to these questions, and will not attempt to answer them. But an interesting piece of philosophy can be drawn from the example: definitions are subjective. How Ron Paul defines life is different from how I define life is different than how Webster’s dictionary defines life. And it is this subjectivity that gives the NAP problems on topics like abortion, punishment theory, etc. Any universally true answer to these issues demands objectivity while relying on subjective definitions, which is how the philosophy of consistency gives rise to great conflict within these topics. Thus, quite painfully, libertarians can never have objective answers to these subjective questions.
And the endless internet-debates rage on.
But is there a way to extend this insight to subjects outside the sphere of libertarianism?
Enter the political philosophy of socialism: the doctrine that essentially wishes to abolish most private property rights, while stealing the means of production and handing them over to the proletariat. To any libertarian, this sounds abhorrent. Abolishing private property rights and stealing the means of production from capitalists doesn’t just violate, but obliterates the non-aggression principle. One cannot begin to identify non-aggression without clearly defined property rights, no matter what the situation may be. Thus, to libertarians, the socialist philosophy is unethical, calling on violence to redistribute justly owned private property of individuals.
Indeed, with this conclusion it would appear that socialism and libertarianism are at odds: how can one rationally espouse the NAP while calling for violent theft of the means of production?
The answer to this question returns to the earlier discussion of subjectivism and definitions. The socialist definition of property is entirely different than the libertarian definition. Just ownership of capital property to socialists is property that is currently being used, in other words owned by workers, whereas libertarians treat capital identically to other forms of property, in that if it is homesteaded by the owner, it is justly theirs to do what they wish with it. Thus, socialists do not believe that they are, in any sense of the word, stealing the means of production from capitalists, but rather that they are returning the capital to the real owners. In understanding this, one can see how the NAP and socialism might actually be compatible; it simply depends on your subjective definition of property. And perhaps this might explain why countless debates between libertarians and socialists are seemingly fruitless. Each party is talking past one another in a literal sense, applying different subjective definitions to the same words.
So at whose side do you stand? With Locke, or with Proudhon? I have my opinions, possibly of which I can expand on at a later time. However, if one thing is to be taken away from this article, let it be this: in the realm of “ought”, which all political philosophy lies, things are not as black and white as libertarians or socialists would like them to be.
Tags: Kant, libertarianism, Locke, Proudhon, socialism, subjectivism
