Anti-Force Is the Common Denominator
Allow me to alter something the great humorist Will Rogers said: “I’m not a member of any organized group. I’m a libertarian.” I wince a bit as I say that, though. Let me explain.
Labels such as “libertarian” aren’t always illuminating. Sometimes they serve as expedient substitutes for thought—as in, “Oh, he’s one of those!” When pressed to cough up a label to describe myself, I sometimes employ “libertarian” but not without adding a caveat or two so no one assumes I’m referring to a political party or that my position on certain hot-button issues must be this or that. On other occasions I call myself a “classical liberal,” but unless I have time to explain it, confused listeners wonder how that differs from the “liberals” of today. “Voluntaryist” (of the British philosopher Auberon Herbert variety) describes my political, ethical, and economic leanings most accurately—unfortunately, though, few people have ever heard the term.
I am also other things as well. I’m an “Austrian” economist (while appreciating numerous positive contributions from other schools of thought). I’m a Christian who is also a rationalist because I believe reason in an ordered universe is a divine gift. Though I don’t embrace Ayn Rand’s atheism, like her I am a fervent advocate of capitalism who endorses man’s inalienable rights, the roles of the producer and entrepreneur, and the magnificence of the creative mind. I’m a conservative in the sense that I value many time-tested traditions, even if I oppose mandating them by legislative fiat. I’m a moralist because I think moral principles like honesty, independence, courage, and self-discipline are both good and indispensable ingredients for a free society. Readers might recall that in the January issue I happily labeled myself a latter-day “Locofoco.”
Each person’s order of values, focus of attention, and expertise are unique to him—so one can be a libertarian, broadly speaking, and still call himself an Objectivist or an Austrian or a voluntaryist or a classical liberal or a Christian or an atheist or a moralist or a conservative or even two or more of those things.
Blessed with many friends in all these camps, I endeavor to make enemies in none. I lament those occasions when disagreement leads to hostility between people who are otherwise allies on most issues. If you aim to make progress for the larger cause, then tolerance, bridge-building, and finding common ground (none of which necessitates compromise on fundamental principles) seem more appropriate than picking fights. What’s the point of self-righteous breast-beating?
While I don’t label myself an Objectivist, I love this quote (and many others) from Ayn Rand: “When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion—when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing—when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors—when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you—when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice—you may know that your society is doomed.”
A friend posted this on Facebook recently: “If FEE and other libertarian-leaning orgs would drop all their religious baggage, I could support them wholeheartedly.” I felt compelled to reply, “No one at FEE claims that you must be ‘religious’ to value and support liberty. We respect all people of faith, or no faith, so long as they do not initiate force against their fellow citizens. And because we judge people for the individuals they are, not for the ‘group’ someone says they’re in or by the label somebody attaches to them, we don’t condemn all people of faith for the wrongs of a few any more than we would condemn all atheists for the wrongs of a Stalin or a Mao. A person’s faith or lack thereof is just that—personal—and not a requirement to support property rights.”
I wasn’t trying to convert that person to my faith, nor did I seek to escalate the exchange into a parting of the ways. I attempted to defuse it by emphasizing what I thought was friendly territory: Both of us would like to see much less initiation of force in society. We live in a world where lots of misguided people are not satisfied that there’s enough of it yet. They advocate more initiation of force, as evidenced by their desires to deal with every problem under the sun by creating another tax-supported government program. I saw this Facebook acquaintance as an ally not an enemy. And that’s the way it ought to be, it seems to me, if those of us who believe in liberty really want to win.
Allow me to share with you a few paragraphs from my May 2007 Freeman column. They might form a basis for more amicable relations between factions that now see themselves as opponents:
A mature, responsible adult neither seeks undue power over other adults nor wishes to see others subjected to anyone’s controlling schemes and fantasies: This is the traditional meaning of liberty. It’s the rationale for limiting the force of government in our lives. In a free society the power of love, not the love of power, governs our behavior.
Consider what we do in our political lives these days—and an unfortunate erosion of freedom becomes painfully evident. It’s a commentary on the ascendancy of the love of power over the power of love. We have granted command of over 40 percent of our incomes to federal, state, and local governments, compared to 6 or 7 percent a century ago. And more than a few Americans seem to think that 40 percent still isn’t enough.
We claim to love our fellow citizens while we hand government ever more power over their lives, hopes, and pocketbooks. We’ve erected what Margaret Thatcher derisively termed the “nanny state,” in which we as adults are pushed around, dictated to, hemmed in, and smothered with good intentions as if we’re still children.
It boils down to this: I don’t much care what you call yourself, but if you want to see a hefty reduction in the initiation of force in society, then you’re an ally I want to collaborate with. Let’s focus not on our differences but on changing the ideas of those who are working in the other direction.
Pingback by Unravel the Mystery of Chakra Healing and Reap its Benefits! | Fit for Life on 31 March 2010:
[...] Anti-Force Is the Common Denominator | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty [...]
Comment by James Madison Fan on 6 April 2010:
I use Constitutionalist because it is the law of the land. Since the men that built this nation started with this document as a foundation it seems to me that the best way to honor their legacy is to realize that what they authored not only forged this nation but allowed the concept of freedom to sweep through Europe deposing centuries old monarchies.
Not only did men discover freedom from the tyranny of the government they discovered freedom from economic tyranny as well demanding a reasonable wage, realistic work hours, overtime, and other rights we take for granted.
I may not like what the bloated beast of a government that runs this nation but I can always be proud of the principles on which it was founded.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[71] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” – Thomas Jefferson
Comment by Dave Nazarian on 11 April 2010:
Of the many descriptions offered and organized so well, the one that I include myself as defining is INDIVIDUALIST.
Comment by Lawrence Reed on 12 April 2010:
Dave–”Individualist” is excellent. I sometimes use it too, and wish I had included it in the article.
Thanks also to Kim, Ira, Trish, Sinead and Miguel for your kind comments.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 14 April 2010:
Mr. Reed,
I would appreciate your thoughts on the following:
It seems to me that offering that one’s responsibility to the society you live in should be exclusively voluntary and expecting this model to work is every bit as utopian as the Marxist ideal that we should give everything to the state and keep only what we need. I would offer that both of these expect a level of selflessness that runs counter to the concept of Greed.
Comment by Lawrence Reed on 14 April 2010:
Dear James Madison Fan:
I too believe our interactions in society should be voluntary but I readily acknowledge that there will always be people and occasions when the rights of others are trespassed against, in other words, when an interaction involves an unwilling party because force, intimidation, deception or fraud is being committed. There must be punishment for those who do those things and recompense from the perpetrator to the victim wherever possible. Whether that comes in the form of police and courts provided by a limited and responsible government or, as anarcho-capitalists would suggest, from police and courts provided by private agencies, it must be provided and no lover of liberty would ever argue that aggression against the person and property of another should go unpunished and thereby, hopefully deterred and minimized thereafter. — LWR
Comment by James Madison Fan on 14 April 2010:
Agreed and thank you for your reply.
I apologize; I should have been more specific and indicated it was a question of economics since I know you’re President of the FEE rather than a legal one.
What about a person’s obligation to pay taxes? Where does the public good end and greed begin? Is there room in Libertarian canon for a happy medium between a tax payer funded magic wand that grants the every wish of the underclass and Scrooge’s mandate that the poor should die and relieve the world of its surplus population?
I find anarcho-capitalists and Objectivists lack insight into human nature as well as history even to the point they argue that the Constitution is a “failed” document. As a student of history they loose all credibility when they take such an extreme stance. Look at the world pre-1776 and post and you can see the effect on the personal freedom spread throughout Europe. Here in 2010 we have bankrupted the Soviet Union and have even cracked the iron grip of Mao on China. I can’t think of a single document that has done so much for the concept of personal liberty and accumulation of wealth by the Common Man. There is a reason it is called “The American Dream.” We minted it and nowhere in the world are you more likely to find it.
By extension I would offer that the assumption that any government run service would be better provided by a private one lacks concern for the concept of “conflict of interest.” If the courts are brought to us by “P&G” what are the odds they will rule against their corporate masters? If Big Tobacco (BT) had been funding the courts there wouldn’t be a Surgeons General warning on the side and we’d still think they were beneficial. I support your right to smoke but you also have a right to know what is in the product you’re ingesting rather than having BT pretend it is a panacea instead of a cancer stick. I think corporate control over inelastic portions of the economy is a formula for abuse. Smith himself warns of the dangers of monopolies and oligopolies.
It seems to me these extreme lassaiz-faire capitalists, anachro-capitalists, Objectivists, etc. are so worried about a dictator in the government that they are rushing into the arms of a corporate tyrant that is no more interested in their personal freedom and financial future than the most oppressive fiend I can name. I think we are served best when our would-be government masters are at war with our would-be corporate masters. As long as we can appeal to government to redress wrongs imposed on us by Big Business and we can use the financial power of corporations to keep our elected officials in fear of their political lives then we’re safely navigating the waters between Scylla and Charybdis.
Sorry to go on so long about the anarcho-capitalists. I have difficulty with extremism regardless of flavor. If you will forgive my honesty, I think they are an albatross around our neck that keep Libertarian ideals on the fringe which is why I find them so offensive.
Comment by Joshua on 1 September 2010:
Objectivism is not a form of anarcho-capitalism; as a political philosophy it is limited government to the extreme, but it does not oppose(and would actually agree with the logic of) the idea of an organized government.
Comment by William A Manning on 14 October 2010:
The philosophy of the founders was to keep the threat of over governance at bay, while allowing for the use of strength in times of need.
“Interstate commerce” clause has been twisted into a monster that, I believe, the founders never intended.
Comment by Sandy on 14 October 2010:
So good to know there are others of the same mind and values as myself out there, regardless of the labels attached! I’m not one for labels, so it’s been difficult to express my econmical, political and personal beliefs in one or two words. Your article sums them up very well, however.
Although I consider myself a Christian, some of the most moral and honest people I’ve known over the years consider themselves athiests. You cannot condemn integrity and moral courage, regardless of the label it finds itself displayed under. It’s the integrity and moral character of the individual that is important in life, not the labels given him or her by others.
There are extremists found in every ‘label’ under the sun who love to replace reason with fearmongering born of emotional judgment and bias, not of sound reason. As long as ‘anti-force is the common denominator’ there is hope that sound reasoning will triumph over extremist ideologies.
Comment by Sandy on 14 October 2010:
PS: I still think you should run for President. The nation would be better off with someone like you at the helm.
The only trouble with that is because I’ve been actively involved in political campaigns over the years, I know first-hand that it is really tough to maintain your integrity in politics (which is why I left campaign politics all those years ago.) Even those who start out as moral optimists tend to lose their way eventually, giving way to corruption of some sort. Those who stand their moral ground generally wind up assasinated either physically or otherwise by those who esteem you as ‘the enemy.’
Thus, You may be making more of a societal difference in the role you are in, actually. Keep up the great work!
Comment by James Madison Fan on 14 October 2010:
Joshua,
Just saw the post. Sorry to be tardy.
The failure of Objectivism is that it makes assumptions that are not in evidence and may never be in the same way Marxism does. People may develop the level of self control required for an Objectivist utopia in the same way people may develop the requisite selflessness necessary for a Communist utopia but that hasn’t happened as yet.
The biggest weakness of Objectivist philosophy and many of the extreme Libertarian philosophies outlined in this magazine is they can’t occur unilaterally or they will be abused by those that do not practice these philosophies in much the same way you can’t have unilateral disarmament in a world full of expansionistic states least you awaken one morning and find yourself conquered and your dearest opinions supplanted by a society that does not value them in part or at all.
Mr. Manning,
I agree but they clearly outlined what the government is supposed to do and what it isn’t. I personally think the government has exceeded its authority in many areas such as eminent domain as presented in Kelo but there is a thread of absolutism in Objectivism bordering on anarchy that is in conflict with the Constitution and threatens the culture that it created and fosters. Is it perfect? No. But it certainly is better than any other model present on this planet at the moment. Until something is established to work better then it seems prudent to support what works best rather than abandoning it for an untested promise. It seems wise to let a nation with less to loose determine the fitness or folly of these concepts. If they prove valuable we can adopt them and if useless we can help them pick up the pieces like we did with the Communists.
Comment by matt on 6 December 2010:
Mr. Manning,
I enjoy your premise. I would see it applied not only in civic life, but also among the religions and sects. My personal experience is that the success there is staggering.
Comment by grabatron app android on 2 February 2012:
Anti-Force Is the Common Denominator | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty I was recommended this blog by my cousin. I’m not sure whether this post is written by him as nobody else know such detailed about my difficulty. You’re incredible! Thanks! your article about Anti-Force Is the Common Denominator | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty Best Regards Schaad Nick