Getting Taken Seriously by Progressives
Civility and charity go far.
Last week’s column explored what I believe to be one of the major barriers preventing Progressives from understanding libertarians and potentially seeing us as allies. This week, I want to mention a few small things that libertarians can do if we want Progressives to take us more seriously.
I should pause here to note how many comments on last week’s column wondered why I would even think that a Progressive-libertarian alliance was a good thing. My response was that classical liberals were the progressives of the nineteenth century and that “progressive” is a word and an alliance we should try to reclaim. Bad economics combined with what Hayek called “constructivist rationalism,” or “scientism,” led many Progressives of that era to abandon their commitment to the market in the belief they could better help the poor and promote progress by managing the economy — many became full-fledged state socialists. As we know, they were wrong, but the instinct to reject markets as serving progressive ends remains among many self-described Progressives. We should challenge that instinct and try to bring their commitment to cosmopolitanism and progress over to the libertarian cause.
And that leads to the first of the things that libertarians need to do if we want to accomplish that goal: Stop treating Progressives as either evil or stupid. Several of the comments on last week’s column contained caricatures and name-calling. I couldn’t blame Progressives if they wanted nothing to do with libertarians, even if we agree on important issues (such as ending the corporate state, protecting civil liberties, and stopping the Bush-Obama warfare state). So let’s work on the assumption that Progressives are, in Hayek’s words, guilty of nothing more than “intellectual error” about the way the world works (and the economy in particular). Seize this opportunity to teach, without condescension, rather than calling names.
Yes, I know this is hard when you head over to the Daily Kos and see libertarians called racist, homophobic, cold-hearted pawns of the corporations. So be it. We need to take the high road.
Don’t Blame the Victim
Second, libertarians have a tendency to do something that drives Progressives nuts, as it should: They blame the victim. Too often I hear self-described libertarians blame poverty on the culture or morality of the poor. Similar generalizations about racial and ethnic groups have been known to escape the lips of libertarians. Progressives bristle at this and respond that the causes of poverty, family breakdown, and other social pathologies are “structural,” that is, caused by bad institutions not personal failures. (Again, it is worth noting as I did last week that Progressives forget all about this when analyzing the failure of political action.)
Progressives are right that these social pathologies are largely structural, but they are wrong about which structures cause them. Why don’t libertarians start by agreeing with the premise, then engaging our Progressive friends in a conversation about how government intervention is responsible for most of what they are rightly concerned about? That’s more interesting and productive than trying to defend ourselves from charges of bigotry.
Finally, libertarians need to be attentive to the difference between being “pro-market” and “pro-business.” It’s easy when talking with Progressives to engage in reflexive defenses of the private sector, but it’s important to keep in mind that what we ultimately care about is competition, not individual competitors, since it is competition that best serves the needs of everyone — the worst off among us most of all. We don’t need to go as far as Kevin Carson or Roderick Long and argue for a more left-oriented understanding of the market, though their work is a powerful corrective to the problem I’m identifying. But we need to be willing to call out private firms that use the State and to acknowledge when private firms behave badly on their own. Reflexive defenses of the private sector are both bad strategy and intellectually mistaken.
If a Progressive-libertarian alliance is going to flourish, both sides will have to get past the prejudices and mistakes that divide them. I hope I’ve made a start in that direction. The corporate-warfare State needs all the enemies it can get, and we are more powerful when we are united.
Comment by Charlie on 27 January 2011:
My apologies for the double-post. I accidentally posted this on last week’s column comments, and wanted to place it where it’s supposed to be.
This is a very interesting train of thought. After re-reading last week’s article and the comments, in addition to this week, plus the link-back to The Thinker, I think that perhaps an “informal” alliance might work well, at least on the agreed-upon issues.
It never ceases to amaze me that so much vitrol can come from different factions, yet, even when certain issues are agreed upon, because there is disagreement on others, the entire opposing side is viewed as evil/wicked/dumb/wrong.
It’s stand-offishness like this that’s paralyzed American society and government, and has allowed a rise in the power bad ideas and concepts, as well as the corruption, regardless of who’s at the root of it, to not only take root, but flourish and act like a weed, choking off everything that might be truly life/society-improving.
People should be encouraged to work together where possible, even if they don’t agree on things. As was pointed out, both progressives and libertarians seek fairness and an improvement of life conditions for people, albeit from different perspectives.
One thing that I agree completely with Dr. Horwitz on is that we, as libertarians need to stop blaming the victim for his misfortunes- having had more than enough major setbacks in my life, I can state truthfully, at least from my perspective, that far too many things beyond your control affect your destiny, and we as libertarians need to begin to have a better understanding of that.
Similarly, progressives need to stop blaming the market, business, the rich and anything else that smacks of success as evil and causing troubles for others.
When we all stop pointing fingers and begin to simply try to work together towards common goals, real, positive change can happen.
Comment by Philip Lewis on 27 January 2011:
An alliance of progressives and libertarians? Mr. Horwitz is dreaming. Present day progressives have little or nothing in common with 19th century liberalism. Progressives now have more in common with national socialism than with libertarian followers.
Progressives are blatant statists and enemies of personal freedom. What does this have in common with the libertarian philosophy? I don’t see much common ground.
Perhaps Mr. Horwitz should have a cup of coffee, go for a walk and then try to amend his perception of social-political-economic philosophy and reality.
Comment by Jon Ogden on 27 January 2011:
Oh good, now we have a new acronym: LINO.
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 27 January 2011:
I’m glad that Professor Horwitz’s suggestion that name-calling is a poor strategy made such an impression.
Comment by Ian on 27 January 2011:
“And that leads to the first of the things that libertarians need to do if we want to accomplish that goal: Stop treating Progressives as either evil or stupid”
Thank you for this much needed piece of advice. Those who get angry over the obtuse decisions of the state tend to funnel that anger towards those who (even mildly) support its existence, lumping our opposition into an intellect playground fit only for children. And, of course, the libertarians then become the parents who “simply just know better”. Very, very dangerous mistake.
If you’re looking to make surefire enemies out of even the most unlikely political alliances (even if it’s only on some issues), try the condescending approach with progressives. One day, you may just find yourself standing alone when the state finally comes to swoop you up for daring to utter that one word that had been outlawed years prior: liberty.
Comment by norman on 27 January 2011:
You say: “My response was that classical liberals were the progressives of the nineteenth century” From reading your comments, I think the best solution would be to redefine our vocabularies. Liberals could be interchanged with progressives, progressives with libertarian. Of course we’d need a score-card to know “Who’s on second..no who’s on first and what’s on second”
Comment by Mark D Hughes on 27 January 2011:
Nicely said Steve,
I’ve been pushing the don’t blame the victim agenda for years. Most especially with my work on charity, philanthropy and volunteerism (and more recently alms folk and alms giving). If I had to point a finger at any one particular rout cause of the sanctimony exhibited by some libertarians toward the poor it would have to be the pernicious influence of narrowly understood and applied Randianism. With the exception of a dedication to some notion of free enterprise, genuine libertarians and Randians have little in common. It has been my experience that we share much more in common with some elements of the left (the Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader collective, for example… Ron Paul worked well wit both of them) than we do with Randians and their fellow conservatives. I think a useful rule of thumb when trying to figure out with whom we should pursue a political courtship is how would the great Lysander Spooner (or for the less radical minded, Henry David Thoreau) have aliened himself.
Peace and Free Enterprise
Mark D Hughes
Executive Director
Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues (ISPI)
Comment by Travis on 27 January 2011:
Philip Lewis: “Progressives now have more in common with national socialism than with libertarian followers.
Progressives are blatant statists and enemies of personal freedom. What does this have in common with the libertarian philosophy? I don’t see much common ground.”
So Progressives are NAZIs? Why are Progressives NAZIs?
As for freedom, I would say that the libertarian left has just as much if not more interest in personal freedom than do the modern American right libertarians. The first use of the word libertarian was by early anarchists. Free association, mutualism, worker self management, all that originated with the libertarian left, not the right.
Comment by Deefburger on 27 January 2011:
I said something like this a couple years back at Mises. Progressives for the most part are correct in their goals, but are incorrect in the means chosen. I agree that the reason they have the wrong means is because they are caught up in the only means available under the circumstances (Central Bank), and that some of them have probably succumbed to the temptations of such a system and believe centralized management to be a good means to an end.
It will take some doing, and a lot of CIVIL discourse to convince them of libertarian means, and It will take a lot of CIVIL discourse for them to convince some libertarians of the need for progressive aims.
The outcome of such discourse should reveal the true strengths of free social order. I believe the results of such an alliance will be a powerful force for correct action that works well for all.
There are already numerous examples of this all around, it’s just that nobody is looking at them this way. People are either seeing their solutions as libertarian or progressive and not recognizing aspects of both forms of thinking. Fortunately, Ron Paul is a true statesman and has found allies from every camp. Follow his lead people and reach out to your neighbors.
I live in what is probably the most progressive area of the United States in the wine country of Northern California. I have no trouble talking to anybody here in Hippy Town USA! End the wars, end the corporatacracy, and so forth are great places to start a really good conversation and win friends to the ideas of liberty.
It becomes clear to everyone that there is a definite consensus between the two points of view, and that we should be talking and not playing party politics. The divisive nature of the party political system is a wedge between people who otherwise would only disagree on marginal issues.
Comment by Sean on 27 January 2011:
I absolutely agree with this article. We need to find common ground with those we disagree with. From a historical perspective, David Ricardo and Thomas Malthus disagreed on everything, and yet they were the best of friends. Ricardo even wrote to Malthus, “I should not like you more than I do if you agreed in opinion with me.”
Comment by Russ Nelson on 27 January 2011:
“Civility and charity” start at home. If you’re on facebook, look at the comments on this cartoon: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=3152&id=102702636451536 . “Teabagger” is a term of utter contempt. How do you work with these people?? I don’t see how ANY amount of charity or civility could help.
Comment by Deefburger on 27 January 2011:
Sean – Beautiful quote! It’s true, that disagreement when civil is a powerful test of ideas between respectful participants. Only truth itself can survive such a wrestling match, and both sides gain from what is learned in challenging the other. Agreeing to disagree civilly is the starting point for real progress. Not compromise, but instead rigid adherence to principals and the honing and shaping of those principals via legitimate logical discourse.
Comment by Michael Adams on 27 January 2011:
Libertarians and Progressives agree on more than they disagree: personal liberty; freedom of expression; freedom of movement; and a just life. We disagree on economics: and that depends on who you talk to, because I consider myself a Socialist, and I have no desire for a command economy (aka no government pencil factories). The present situation is evolving into a Bolshevik vs Meneshevik struggle amongst Republicans: the Authoritarians vs the Libertarians. Excluding the rest of us from the struggle, makes you that much weaker against those advocating a rape of the land, or the submission of your souls to God and State.
We’re not the only ones here advocating an alliance. I know Tom Haartman was looking at a “Progressive Tea Party” a year ago, and Jen Sorensen advocated an alliance in her latest comic. http://slowpokecomics.com/blog/index.php/2011/01/this-weeks-cartoon-dont-tread-on-me/
Comment by Deefburger on 27 January 2011:
@Russ Nelson – Use humor. Take on the moniker of Teabagger and joke with it. Name calling has it’s basis in fear and misunderstanding. Humor is the means to the truth that bypasses fear. The answer to your question is simply make good jokes!
If they are being confrontational, take the blow and try and find where they are right about what they say and exaggerate their fears and use yourself as the illustration of that exaggeration. Be the clown, and you will take the edge off right away. Show them that you and your ideas are not so different or as scary as they might seem.
In days of old, the king could kill anyone except the fool. The fool had the power to point out the truth when politics would rather hide it. Such a role is terribly necessary to keep people from scaring each other to a very figurative and literal death. Look at how effective such talk is coming from skilled “fools” like Colbert and Stuart or in the past the great George Carlin!
A really good joke can stop a war. A really good joke can unseat a monarch. A really good joke can wash fear from people’s minds in an instant.
Comment by Russ Nelson on 27 January 2011:
The problem, as I see it, is that we can agree on goals, but we can’t agree on methods. We know that we both want to be in the same place, but we can’t agree on which path to take. Their side insists on taking the winding narrow path lined with prickers. Our side want to take the broad-shouldered path which is wide enough for all of us to walk side by side in solidarity.
But enough of the abstract. Maybe we should pick an issue and chase it down to ground? Progressives love to claim that libertarians are conservative fascists. Why don’t we push an end to the war on drugs? It’s a worthy goal, and one which is achievable.
Comment by Brittney on 27 January 2011:
Excellent article.
We take progressives seriously, progressives take us seriously. Personal experience tells me most people appreciate when you participate constructively in the discussion – find common goals and present your perspective – rather than condescend and try to pull one over on those who disagree. It may not always convince them you’re right, but it does convince them you have valuable things to say, which is really half the battle toward mainstreaming an idea. And sometimes the other side can teach us a thing or two as well.
Comment by Kent Lalley on 27 January 2011:
“…take the high road.” That’s what keeps me coming back to these ideas. When I feel like calling someone names I know I need to head back to “the books” of free market economics to better my understanding. The answer is there, somewhere. FEE is a great place to start. Keep up the great work in illuminating those classical liberal ideas to those- like me- that need it. Thanks!
Comment by D. Saul Weiner on 27 January 2011:
Good points. Those who are aligned with the major parties have a tendency to see everything from an “us/them” mentality, where the “them” is all monolithic in nature. This is a difficult barrier to overcome, but it is important to let progressives know that we are not aligned with the Republican party, though we may on occasion prefer their proposals and though the Republican party likes to adopt libertarian rhetoric when it suits their purposes.
Comment by Tyler Johnson on 27 January 2011:
Steve,
Great article! And for those who don’t believe that there is not room for a libertarian- progressive alliance, you fail to understand some history. During the 60s, self-conscious libertarians were to be found in organizations on the political right as well as the political left. Murray N. Rothbard himself was heavily involved in a New Left political party called the Peace and Freedom Party, or something like that. Moreover, there were some successes in bringing people along and into the libertarian movement. As Jeff Riggenbach points out in a podcast, in order to join the New Left, Murray Rothbard did not give up any of his free-market views. To the contrary, he found that there were some that opposed the government privilege granted to large businesses and were opposed to the current corporatist state. In short, they were opposed to what is today known as “capitalism.”
By constantly associating with the Right, we libertarians ignore a great, largely untapped reservoir of people that might be sympathetic to the classical liberal/libertarian message. As Frank Chodorov pointed out, libertarians are born, not made. There is an inborn predisposition to the message of liberty in a certain part of the population, as there is with certain people towards a form of collectivism. What we do through education is provide theory and research to validate, to provide the words that fit with their own in-born predisposition for liberty. Indeed, there are some Progressives that ARE in fact socialist, but I bet if you talk with some, and you will soon pick them out, they are at the very least interested in the message of liberty, but have been turned off by the militarist collectivism of the Right. The ad-hominem is probably the quickest way to cause a conversation to degenerate, and here is one reason why there are some in the progressive movement that have been neglected. But if you take them SERIOUSLY… SERIOUSLY and without diminishing their concerns, you will find that some of them are receptive.
Those principled progressives that I have talked to have expressed that their main issue is the fact that government privileges a very few, but the unfortunate thing is that they conflate this privileged class with being something inherent in the non-existent free market that we have. These are the people that you will find some sucess with. Teach them some economic truths, that government privilege arises out of economic regulations, give them a copy of Gabriel Kolko’s “Triumph of Conservatism”, and you will find more success than you think. I have personally had contact with several former progressives that I have turned into avid advocates of the freed market. Is it difficult? Absolutely. Will there be widespread success? I can only hope.
But one thing that I do know is that the Right is completely tapped out. The message of the benefits of freedom and natural rights will fall on deaf ears where the worldview is based on irrationality, post-millennialist pietism, and an unswerving adherence to government enforced nationalism and tradition.
Comment by Denise on 27 January 2011:
I think as a libertarian you may end up sorry if a progressive/libertarian comes into being. With these types of alliances comes compromise (look at the republican/democrats). So tell me Mr. Horwitz, which principle would you be willing to compromise first?
Comment by Josh K on 27 January 2011:
I think people get really confused when they talk of “freedom” and “liberty”. Neither is colloquially well-defined.
I personally try to make the distinction between “freedom to” and “freedom from”.
I believe that what Horwitz is saying as his definition of the prime concern of libertarians is the conservation of “freedom to”. With the least amount of government control, it would seem that we would be free to do what we please and let social order arise from where it may (the market seems to be their idea).
My counterpoint to this idea is that the line, once drawn, allows for quite a bit more than I would bargain for – freedom to manipulate? Freedom to deceive? These are already in play and libertarians are crying out that it’s because of the innate structure of the relationship b/t gov’t and corporate sectors that they are able to do so, but my response to them is: wouldn’t the same structure be formed within the private sector if the government was to suddenly get its hands out of the private sector? Wouldn’t those same powerful corporations exercise the same sort of illegitimate power they have right now through their own private means? Rent-a-cops might actually be the new “cops”, etc… This is just *another* version of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Progressives, on the other hand, according to Horwitz and commentors, seem to be concerned with protecting “freedom from”. This freedom from is usually gathered to be freedom from inequality and freedom from other unjust treatment, enforced by the state.
Unfortunately, the progressives are fighting some of those “freedom from”s right now – the supposed “freedom from” terror by the invasion of privacy from the TSA and the “wars” we are fighting abroad, not to mention how many nuclear and other weapons we possess and the enormous chunk of money that the Dept of Defense (read: War) receives from our taxes, which could be directed towards helping us all achieve the equality the progressives are seeking.
Labels are ways to simplify and understand the other, and they are very effective means of creating enemies. When someone is an “other”, from a different group, you can demonize them because of your special role in the “chosen” group. I like the idea of realizing the common concerns that we share, but couldn’t we drop the labels and realize we have different ideas of how our concerns could be properly dealt with? We all need freedom to and freedom from in certain degrees – no extreme here is healthy. It’s easy to think that our method of obtaining these freedoms is the surest and only way, but if we combine our ideas and make something new, we can achieve something better and transcendent. All of the political “parties” and ideologies borrow from one another. Let’s see our common ground and work together for our real, common concerns.
Comment by Cecil Bohanon on 27 January 2011:
I Agree with Steven on 1 and 3 but not 2.
On #1: Never resort to name-calling and attacks (except for fun) even if other do unto to you.
Second, the free-market and pro-business point is well taken
Where I disagree is on #2. The vast majority of people who are poor in the USA are victims of their own bad judgement, and no govenment program or expansion of free markets are likely to help them, at least not much until they get their act together. Only wilingness to take personal responsibility and make the best with what you have can overcome poverty. That said, I don’t think the poor are disproportionately wicked or evil, it is just that “bad habits” are much more likely to have disaterous implications for an undeucated person with little income earning capacity than an educated person with high income earning ability. (Think of an unwanted out-of-wedlock pregnancy as an example: both cases can be attrbuted to ‘immoral” behavior, but that isn’t my point) Perhaps this is more conservative than libertarian, but the only “hope” lies in resisting the temptation to try to institutionalize “amelioration” of poverty by state sanctioned entitlements– yet this has been politically problematic for 100 years. Only by allowing private mercy and compassion to substitute for entitlement can the problem of poverty be solved in my humble judgement. I don’t think we will ever convince progressives of that
Comment by Gman on 27 January 2011:
This is a incredible possibility for libertarians – to ally ourselves, where and when we can, with progressives to protect and advance liberty. My best friend is a progressive. Because I was willing to listen to him, and he was willing to listen to me (a libertarian), we have found common philosophical ground that, if pursued in the marketplace of ideas, could serve as a renaissance of liberty in America. Let’s not overlook this opportunity.
Comment by Karyn Ellis on 27 January 2011:
I’m a progressive sort, tipped to this post from a FaceBook friend. I really appreciate the dialogue going on here. I don’t know much about Libertarian economic thought…and I must confess that I work for a public school. I have seen a lot of vitriol from some Libertarians about teachers and others who work in public schools. Thank you for the cautions about treating each other civilly in the interest of possibly building a coalition.
I do have one response to a previous poster: Mr. Bohanon, most personal bankruptcies in the U.S. are due to catastrophic medical bills. That’s bad luck, not bad behavior. The cost of a college education is rising *much* faster than the cost of living, yet without a college education, citizens’ lifetime earnings are on average lower. Many lower income folks work jobs that do not offer health insurance…because that’s the only work they can find. If they or their family have to go to the hospital, an awful cycle begins. Again, that’s not bad planning, or bad behavior, that’s just bad luck.
Thank you for your time.
Comment by Tannim on 28 January 2011:
“Stop treating Progressives as either evil or stupid.”
If it walks like a duck…
The simple fact is that “progressives” (a misnomer if there ever was one–they’re more like “regressives” to failed statism!) come in two stripes: the educated ones who know their schtick is bullshit and pawn it anyway for their own personal gain (the AlGores, Wayne Pacelles, and Thom Hartmanns of the world) and the true-believer Kool-Aid drinkers who don’t know any better but the fluffy-bunnyism of it appeals to them (most every other one of them).
The first class is not reachable. Don’t bother trying. You might as well be pissing upwind.
The second class is reachable *if* the emotive wall can be breached. That emotive wall is not breached by pure logic, but by an emotive assault of your own, be it humor, empathy, or similar relating reaction (vs. antagonistic reactions like anger, fear, denigration, etc.) They are teachable, but it isn’t easy.
Comment by DWM on 28 January 2011:
Hayek hit it right with his discussion of settled habits of thought. Many progressives are beyond simply beyond reason. Civility increases credibility with reasonable people, but I have not seen many reasonable thoughtful intellectually honest self described progressives. To describe oneself as a progressive is a signal that you see your own views as facts, rather than as opinions. That is a tough wall to breach
Comment by Grey on 28 January 2011:
THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT
The Progressive Movement began late in the 19th Century. Its Central Tenets are Statism, Income Redistribution, Unionism, Government Management of the Economy, womb to tomb provision for its citizens, and a Libertine Social Policy. To accomplish these aims, The Progressive Movement believes in State Ownership of Businesses—instead of Entrepreneurial Free Enterprise; Central Planning by the Government of the supply of goods and services, including fixing prices of wages, and of goods and services—instead of Free Market Capitalism; That all Citizens should have equal wealth except for the Elite Rulers; And that Sovereignty does not belong to Individual Citizens—but that the People only exist for the benefit of the National State. Various large parts of this Ideology are identical to Socialism and Fascism, including the ideas that the use of courts, bureaucracies—even the police and military—should be used to accomplish goals that would never be approved by a Democracy or a Republic (such as The United States of America under its current Constitution).
http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Progressive-Movement
How does this equate to libertarianism? The author needs to understand the history and the origins of the progressive movement before making such childish comparisons.
Comment by Saiphes on 28 January 2011:
Good article. Can i recommend using the words “in my view” or similar when also using the words “error” or “wrong” or “incorrect” when describing those with an opposite view?
Comment by Bill McGonigle on 28 January 2011:
In summary: Libertarians should stop committing “intellectual errors” too.
Comment by Deefburger on 29 January 2011:
Great comments. Reading through them all I can see the thinking that is a probable cause of divisive misunderstanding between points of view.
Academically minded folks are exact in their language and precise in their definitions. The generally educated are less exact and less precise in their language and definitions but equally convinced of their own understanding and experience.
All of us are in the same boat, and it is natural that those in the helm see things differently from those in the engine room or the lower decks. Keep this in mind.
I have a friend who has told me many times that language is key. Pick your words carefully for your listener, not your principals or your academic precision when communicating with others not in your field or even in your class. Humility will go farther than precision, and tolerance and compassion are only possible if you are willing to accept partial matches in language and usage.
But keep your exactness when you talk about the fundamentals. Personally, I find that most people understand the differences between concepts such as “Faith” and “Belief” when pressed, yet they do not use the words exactly. I have been making a special effort with these words specifically as of late, and to good effect.
All of us are in the same boat, and that boat is built with special privilege. Special privilege is based upon a belief in the power of the belief itself. Everyone who looks upon special privilege this way recognizes their own role in the support of the privilege.
Belief is baseless guessing at means. Faith is knowledgeable guessing at means. A scientist has faith in the outcomes of his experiments. A gambler has belief in the outcomes of his. The only difference between the far left and the far right is the desired outcomes. Where they are the same is in their belief in the means to their ends, power. Power is collective when the power itself is imagined as a belief. Power is personal when it is faith. Collective faith is the most powerful power of all, but only when it is personal for all. Thus, a free society that has faith in itself has no need for a belief in a central power born of special privileges.
Recognizing where belief is at work in any system of human endeavor, be it government, monetary, social, or otherwise, is recognizing the flaw in that system. Look for it in yourself and in your adversary and adjust your language accordingly. You will find that if you stick to the negative rights of individuals and refrain from employing the positive rights of special privilege, you will, by default, find the common ground between yourself and your adversary.
This is not an easy task. On the whole, throughout history, people reach for the belief of special privilege to mold a new nation every time. Never has the human population ever reached for what they know FIRST, and then stood on that. So, is it any wonder that we are divided, conscripted, privileged and at odds? Hardly! We have been gambling with our future for centuries and everyone has a different view of Lady Luck and a different method of special privilege!
Socialists, Marxists, Communists, Democrats, Republicans, Monarchists, etc. etc. etc. all begin their construction of Utopia with a belief in special powers.
Only Anarchists like Rothbard have managed to keep from reaching for the “Special Privilege Salt Shaker” when cooking up a social order. But anarchy itself is a belief in order without form and this too is wrong. Some form of order must exist, the problem is to keep belief out of it.
Libertarians, in general, have managed to do this. The hard part is going to be convincing our neighbors to drop their beliefs in special privilege for a few and replace them with faith in each other, for all.
Where are the demons? Everywhere there is special privilege.
Patent
Copyright
Fractional Reserve
First use of Force
Eminent Domain
Draft/Conscription
Subsidy
Monopoly
…Power.
Comment by Nathan on 29 January 2011:
The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human advancement, being in unceasing antagonism to that disposition to aim at something better than customary, which is called, according to circumstances, the spirit of liberty, or that of progress or improvement. The spirit of improvement is not always a spirit of liberty, for it may aim at forcing improvements on an unwilling people; and the spirit of liberty, in so far as it resists such attempts, may ally itself locally and temporarily with the opponents of improvement; but the only unfailing and permanent source of improvement is liberty.
John Stuart Mill-On Liberty
Comment by Beth on 30 January 2011:
From Mr Horowitz:
“And that leads to the first of the things that libertarians need to do if we want to accomplish that goal: Stop treating Progressives as either evil or stupid. Several of the comments on last week’s column contained caricatures and name-calling.”
In the interests of honesty and precision: I went over the comments from last week’s column, barring any deletions, I found none that called progressives “names.” If I am wrong, please let me know. As far as caricatures, the test is not the fact that there is a caricature, it is whether what is asserted is true or not. Most of the comments made were relatively verifiable if given progressive doctrine to compare to. In fact, it is this website alone that has opened my eyes to what progressives truly believe in word and deed.
Comment by Brittney on 30 January 2011:
We, too, are “beyond reason.” We believe strongly in our convictions about the necessity of absolute and equal freedom for both practical and moral reasons. We think, of course, that it’s the most reasonable conclusion, but it’s silly to expect that the other side has never given it any thought and will bend at the slightest prodding. A change in your core convictions about economic, political, and/or moral reality is a big deal, and we shouldn’t expect progressives to take it lightly.
And really, the idea that half the population outwardly professes one idea while secretly knowing it’s false is just ridiculous, and it’s far too often believed by every camp. Pathological intellectual dishonesty is an overdramatized myth – at least among normal people, though politicians may be a whole other story.
Comment by Randfan on 31 January 2011:
I personally cannot reconcile concepts of self-determination and natural rights with the idea of a political party that presumes to establish what is best for me and to ascertain the best way to achieve it. I am not a “cog in the wheel” or a “link in the chain;” I am not a chunk of metal to be reforged or a divine soul to be perfected. I am.
Comment by Randfan on 31 January 2011:
“…the only unfailing and permanent source of improvement is liberty.” John Stuart Mill-On Liberty
Thank you, Nathan.
There is abundant evidence of this truth in the social sciences–see Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, and others; what is more, even modern science gives evidence of this credo. Among Darwinian concepts, none looms larger than “natural variation,” the idea that adaptation requires a range of possibilities–a “choice set” if you will. I see this as very similar to Hayek’s notion of “spontaneous order” in the sense that any attempt to direct or hasten an outcome by delimiting options (i.e., “planning”) will collapse the system. The beauty of this insight is that it bypasses any need to accept the concept of free will, so off-putting to modern intellectuals, and scores a direct hit at the key premise of Progressives: that centralization of power and rational planning is necessary for beneficial outcomes. A political philosophy even a scientist could love.
Comment by Stephan J on 31 January 2011:
I’m curious whether you’ve tried this in practice or if its just theorizing. My experience after some extended discussions with real progressives (not just those who self-apply the label simply because they are opposed to Republicans) is that its mostly a lost cause. After most such discussions, the Progressives leave puzzled how someone whose arguments show such thought and intelligence could fail to end up in the Progressive camp. “You’re to smart to be a libertarian”, I’m often told. I don’t feel obligated to scare the pants off them by telling them I’m an anarcho-capitalist.
At core is that my experience with Progressives is that they are not acting on any principle at all, and are quite proud of the fact. This lack of any foundational principle allows them to choose their positions on issues on an ad hoc basis, and never have to consider whether their positions are self-contradictory. More than one highly educated Progressive misquoted Emerson’s “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” by conveniently leaving out the “foolish”.
My major quibble with the article itself is the willingness to accept the accusation of “blame the victim” as truth. Utter hogwash.
As Mencken put it, “The common argument that crime is caused by poverty is a kind of slander on the poor.” There are structural impediments to weath creation, sure, but the fact that most people can overcome them to achieve at least a comfortable existence for themselves and their progeny argues strongly that those barriers are an insufficient condition. Something else is required. Charity can readily handle those non-deserving poor, but in America, there is little reason apart from low ambition for any able-bodied person to be living in poverty, even if the official 10% unemployment rate is true.
Comment by Randfan on 31 January 2011:
The idea of wedding Progressivism and Libertarianism is not new. One of the intellectual fathers of this kind of hybrid political thinking was none other than Noam Chomsky who I believe coined the phrase “libertarian socialism.” Personally, I think this notion is oxymoronic but it gained some traction in the 1970s, if I’m not mistaken. Professor Chomsky was, in other respects a visionary–his psycholinguistic theory has largely been validated by cognitive science (see Steven Pinker, How The Mind Works)–but I think his political philosophy was seriously flawed.
Pingback by I Am Right, If You Disagree with Me You Are Evil | Smith, Hayek live on! on 27 February 2011:
[...] Horwitz has an excellent blog post describing concrete ways libertarians and progressives can start working together if they would [...]
Pingback by Uma agenda liberal anti-pobreza | OrdemLivre.org on 1 June 2011:
[...] Estados Unidos. Celebrar os ganhos também não significa culpar as vítimas que ainda restam. Numa coluna recente, argumentei que os liberais certamente podem aceitar que existem razões estruturais para a [...]
Pingback by Steve gets the principle of reciprocity | The Thinker on 2 July 2011:
[...] Steve now has a follow-up article where he turns his attention to the changes that libertarians would need to make. I should pause here to note how many comments on last week’s column wondered why I would even think that a Progressive-libertarian alliance was a good thing. My response was that classical liberals were the progressives of the nineteenth century and that “progressive” is a word and an alliance we should try to reclaim. Bad economics combined with what Hayek called “constructivist rationalism,” or “scientism,” led many Progressives of that era to abandon their commitment to the market in the belief they could better help the poor and promote progress by managing the economy — many became full-fledged state socialists. As we know, they were wrong, but the instinct to reject markets as serving progressive ends remains among many self-described Progressives. We should challenge that instinct and try to bring their commitment to cosmopolitanism and progress over to the libertarian cause. [...]
Comment by John on 2 September 2011:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/k2n7l/i_am_a_progressive_i_am_a_liberal_i_am_a/
Comment by accoppylisy on 7 February 2012:
get cheap cheap designer bags for less