Most people are familiar with strong atheism (there's no such thing as god) and weak atheism (I don't believe in any god). The analogous positions are deep anarchism (there is no state) and an anarchistic or radical minarchism (I don't believe that any state is legitimate). As there are already good labels for these positions, it's not my intent to duplicate them with this new word. So when I say "strong libertarian" I don't mean "the state does not exist".
I see two kinds of libertarians on the radical end where I reside. The first kind of libertarian is the more common on the Free Talk Live forums I post at, and Ian Bernard (anarchist cohost of Free Talk Live) is a good example. They follow libertarianism to the letter in politics, then pretty much let it go. They'd defend Microsoft from any claims of "monopoly" or "predatory business practices" without much independent consideration. They'll advocate ostracism as a good way to punish people. They'll ban people who use the term "wage slavery" because they find it offensive. In short, "weak" libertarianism is strictly political libertarianism, not a social libertarianism.
The second is the kind I am. Libertarianism is more than just politics to us "strong libertarians". The principles of libertarianism have applications outside the sphere of "how much government should we have?" It's about more than just leaving other people alone. It's about empowering people with freedom. It's about empowering yourself with freedom. And not just freedom from government either. Freedom from superstition, freedom from ostracism, freedom from tradition, freedom from being guilted into things, freedom from the "tyranny of genes", freedom from bad ideas in general, freedom from whatever holds you back. Freedom from gender, racial, regional, and age-related stereotyping, among other types. Freedom from restricted information. Freedom from deliberate incompatibility. Freedom from DROs that tell you "You can't buy and sell from this person, they're bad!" Freedom from the urge to control others. Freedom from things that interfere with your power to achieve values and virtues.
"Strong libertarianism" pursues empowerment through freedom in every sense possible. Not just the ones that are politically or socially acceptable. Not even just the ones that you think you want to accept. Every sense that you can recognize it, it's about empowerment through freedom in that way.
Strong libertarianism is about making yourself, and making yourself better. It's about empowering thought and action. It's about brutal honesty and openness. It's about eating with your elbows on the table because it is convenient to do so. It's about seeing yourself as the inherently free and powerful being you are.
It's not about whether you're an anarchist or a moderate (not directly, but I imagine it correlates positively with radical libertarianism). Hans-Hermann Hoppe would qualify as an anarchist (barely) but he's nowhere near being a strong libertarian. Many of Hoppe's ideas are exactly the opposite of strong libertarianism, his ideas about immigration being a prime example. Hoppe is a "weak libertarian".
I think the libertarian movement needs more awareness of this distinction.
-Strong Libertarianism
"They'll ban people who use the term 'wage slavery' because they find it offensive." Sounds kind of... like... uh, nevermind. Think they see the irony?
ReplyDeleteHeh, this sounds suspiciously like "modal libertarianism" or "left-libertarianism" wrapped up in different garb.
ReplyDeleteSometimes a Hans Hoppe is needed to bitch-slap these kids back into line. ;)
(Yes, I'm half-joking. Half.)
It seems to me that you are missing some variants of libertarianism different from the two types you have defined. For instance, I think that there IS something to worry about - at lease FOR ME as a consumer - when a firm has the market dominance of a Microsoft. Similarly, I think that there IS something to worry -for ME as a worker or resident - when I end up in a one firm town or a one religion town, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe problem here is the problem pretty widely recognized in libertarian circles - that monopoly in fact may not be as stable as monopoly in law, but, as Keynes observed, we're all dead in the long run.
Having said that, however, I start getting a bit nervous when someone starts telling me that:
"The second is the kind I am. Libertarianism is more than just politics to us "strong libertarians". The principles of libertarianism have applications outside the sphere of "how much government should we have?" It's about more than just leaving other people alone. It's about empowering people with freedom. It's about empowering yourself with freedom. And not just freedom from government either. Freedom from superstition, freedom from ostracism, freedom from tradition, freedom from being guilted into things, freedom from the "tyranny of genes", freedom from bad ideas in general, freedom from whatever holds you back. Freedom from gender, racial, regional, and age-related stereotyping, among other types. Freedom from restricted information. Freedom from deliberate incompatibility. Freedom from DROs that tell you "You can't buy and sell from this person, they're bad!" Freedom from the urge to control others. Freedom from things that interfere with your power to achieve values and virtues."
My experience has been that those who want to "liberate" OTHERS [not themselves, but otheres] from this or that are often very very certain of what a liberated person looks like, and very willing to push that vision of their's down everyone else's throats using state power if they gain access to such power. For instance: Are manager run firms an example of "domination?" Well, outlaw them in favor of worker managed firms [syndicates or cooperatives].
Now it is one thing to say: I would [with the "I" boldface and in caps] like to see a society where people aren't limited in their market or social relations by their race or ethnicity or gender or color of their hair or whether they're fat or thin, etc., where they can come together in whatever economic or social arrangements they want. But it another thing entirely to forbid OTHER PEOPLE from reacting to each other on whatever bases they choose.
A lot of this, of course, has to do with locational limitations. Some forms of social organization, and presumptions regarding what social organizations SHOULD look like, are simply incompatible with other forms and presumptions, but shouldn't be forbidden for that reason. That is why some of us are polyarchists or meta-libertarians, rather than modeling our world outlook after that of Napoleon.