Don’t Leave Me Alone
Where there's freedom there's mutual aid.
One sentiment commonly expressed by libertarians is the desire to just be “left alone.” This is often meant politically: “If people would just leave each other alone, the world would be a much better place,” or “I just want to be left alone to do what I want.” And in country of almost $4 trillion in federal spending, TSA agents who feel free to molest six-year-olds at the airport, and food busybodies who next might come after my precious Buffalo wings, it’s hard not to sympathize at some level. After all, I have been known to hang a Gadsden flag in my office in protest against the ever-encroaching State.
Still, when our case for freedom appears to morph into a case for being left alone generally, I think libertarians are making both a substantive and rhetorical mistake that we might come to regret. This is part of a more general problem that James Peron called “Me Libertarianism” in a terrific recent blog entry: Libertarianism can too easily turn inward and become a case for freedom for me void of any sign of concern about the freedom of people who are not like me. Peron makes a compelling argument that libertarianism should be far more concerned with the freedom of historically oppressed peoples, while deemphasizing the freedom relating to our own personal preferences.
I think he’s right, and I want to offer a complementary argument against the “leave me alone” rhetoric. Put simply, I do not want to be left alone, nor do I think that the ideal libertarian world is one in which we all leave each other alone. I would much rather live in a world where my extended family, friends, and community do not leave me alone in my time of need, but instead feel some sort of commitment to help me. In turn, I hope they would not wish to be left alone, but rather would gladly accept my assistance if the tables were turned. A world in which we all leave each other alone seems more dystopian than utopian, even if it is also a world in which we are all free in the way libertarians wish.
Good End, Bad Means
For me, one of the compelling arguments for freedom is that it enables us to discover new, creative, and more effective ways to care for each other. The problem with government welfare programs is not that the presumed intention to help people in need is a bad thing; it’s that the means is inappropriate to the end. Such programs are inherently impersonal and bureaucratic, and they inevitably end up as vehicles for those who run and work for them rather than for those in genuine need.
The desire to be left alone by these bureaucracies is understandable, but the reason is not that trying to help others is wrong or that a world in which we are all left alone is right. The reasons is that only free and responsible individuals can effectively help those who need it. As with so many other aspects of a free society, the best outcomes emerge when the people with local knowledge and the strongest incentives to succeed take on the task at hand. Rather than the distant bureaucracies of the State, it is houses of worship, ethnic or kin groups, extended families, and circles of friends that are in the best position to realize when someone is in need and to know best how to help.
Mutual Aid
Before the federal welfare state, this is precisely how most Americans got help in times of need, as historian David Beito documents in his wonderful book From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State. These decentralized and often subtle systems worked quite well, and also provided a way for Jim Crow-era African Americans to develop their own networks of assistance outside the dominant racist structures. The relative freedom of that era with respect to mutual aid led to just the sorts of creatively effective solutions one would expect of a social discovery process.
When libertarians adopt “leave us alone” rhetoric, they reinforce the negative stereotype of a selfish person unconcerned with the less fortunate. That’s no way to win people to the freedom philosophy. Libertarians who want to be left alone will soon find themselves very much alone in the intellectual and political wilderness, having forgone an opportunity to be seen on the side of concern for our fellow human beings.
Comment by George on 21 April 2011:
At this point, just 3 years into my libertarian turn, im already sick of pandering to the more ignorant. Im not saying we shouldnt do so to further our agenda, but im personally DONE doing it. It alway feels that in discussion, libertarians have to stoop to the standard deception and manipulation of the regular political establishment to get people to swing over to libertarianism. I could only do this for a short while before it took a moral toll on me. Im done twisting my thoughts to fit every individual so maybe possibly (without any definitive success yet) they will maybe vote for my preferred candidates. I dont stand for states deciding gay marriage issues, i stand for no marriage restrictions at all at any level. I dont stand for lowering income taxes, i stand for abolishing them. I dont want to reduce spending on welfare and reform public education…i want to eliminate both in their entirety. And i do just want to be left alone. This has nothing to do with helping the poor, the needy, or anything. Im not looking to more effectively run schools or markets or retirement or healthcare or any of that. Those are mere afterthoughts. I just want to be left alone.
Comment by Matt on 21 April 2011:
George, I think the point is that the not all libertarians are opposed to doing the things the state now does. We just oppose the state forcing people to do them.
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.”
~ Frederic Bastiat
Most of us are for voluntary cooperative exchange and that includes altruism. It ain’t for everybody but it’s part of what makes a community or a society in general.
The article doesn’t suggest you “lie” beliefs in regard to government it merely suggests we dispel the notion that adopting libertarian principles necessarily means everyone is on his own.
Comment by GregB on 21 April 2011:
So… exactly how does one herald the “leave us alone” message without being interpreted as meaning “leave us alone?”
My experience has been that any message of liberty is immediately perverted by others into the “negative stereotype of a selfish person,” which is consistent with what Prof. Horwitz has written.
Perhaps I am too negative and selfish to see the obvious solution to this dilemma.
Comment by norman on 21 April 2011:
You say: “Libertarianism can too easily turn inward and become a case for freedom for me void of any sign of concern about the freedom of people who are not like me.” I think Adam Smith said something about an “invisible hand” taking care of one another in the free market. From reading many of your posts, I think we have different definitions of libertarianism. So leave us alone with your altruistic sentiments and guilt trips. I hope I have helped you. I feel much better.
Comment by Jon Ogden on 21 April 2011:
“Leave me alone” is directed to the state, and means exactly that. Don’t organize my charity, don’t start deciding who is more worthy of my compassion and who is not, and most of all, don’t start patting yourselves on the back for distributing my money.
Horowitz is smoking some good stuff if he thinks that a change in rhetoric will lower the vitriol level of the statists who desperately need to attack the libertarian movement, since it strikes at the very heart of their philosophy. One does not succeed in getting one’s message out by pandering to the criticisms of those who want you to stop existing.
Comment by Les on 21 April 2011:
It is true that liberals tend to claim that they are compassionate and caring, while conservatives/libertarians are rugged individualists, who do not care for the weak, the poor or the downtrodden. All too often, the liberals express their compassion and caring by spending other peoples’ money, rather than their own. So it seems to me that the best rejoinder to a liberal accusation of being uncompassionate and uncaring is to ask that liberal whether:
a) They give their own time and own money to care for the weak, the poor or the downtrodden?
b) And, if so, do they give anonymously, as the scriptures suggest, so as not to be boastful or vain?
Comment by Redmond on 21 April 2011:
“Peron makes a compelling argument that libertarianism should be far more concerned with the freedom of historically oppressed peoples”
Everyone has been “oppressed” by someone at some point.
That sounds far too much like a play to the existing “victim culture” that has done so much to destroy liberty – and has given the state the ability to reach into our lives.
Comment by Ed on 21 April 2011:
The comments here are much better articulated than the article itself!
Comment by Matthew Harwood on 21 April 2011:
Horwitz isn’t smoking anything. He’s right. Words matter. People like to label libertarians as all sniffing up Ayn Rand’s skirt mouthing the “virtue of selfishness.” He isn’t talking about libertarians conversing with “statists,” he’s talking about the way libertarians interact and debate with their neighbors, loved ones, and co-workers–the kind of people libertarians have a chance at influencing and bringing them closer to a live and let live moral understanding. I guess this is where right and left libertarians part ways.
Comment by MamaLiberty on 21 April 2011:
Yes indeed I want to be “left alone.” I own my life and property and in a voluntary society will decide for myself whom to help or associate with, when and how.
The difference is personal ownership and choice vs. coercion and theft – absolutely regardless of the supposed motives or intentions of the aggressors or thieves.
Comment by Roger Koppl on 21 April 2011:
This is a great post. Liberty serves the poor and downtrodden and threatens the privileges of the rich and powerful. And *that* is why liberty is good. Right on, Steve.
Comment by Michael on 21 April 2011:
Good post Steve!
If I am interpreting your thoughts correctly, I agree wholeheartedly. In that I believe you are pointing out how the phrase “leave me alone” can often be misunderstood, or twisted into an understanding that is a desire for absolute self reliance and self support. Such a rigid and absolute standard is unrealistic, given how most individuals rely on one another through living within a society and utilizing the market for their needs, both of which are a contradiction to an absolutely self reliant/self supportive existence. I also see this as a problem, and a case of our enemies utilizing one of our ideas against us, even if they have to manipulate the understanding of the idea in order to do so. This phrase along with many others (“Get Out Of My Way”) are often used in these ways by our enemies – this is nothing new. Orwell wrote about speaking in bullets and thinking in slogans, and I think these phrases are an example of that, and I agree that if we want to spread an understanding of liberty, it would be best to try to avoid tactics such as slogans and bullet points – as it is always best to rely on logic and truth.
I agree that I want to be left alone by the state, but not by those whom I consider friends and loved ones. I want to choose who to help and how, I do not want to be told or coerced into it. That is my understanding of the phrase.
To those who are thinking Steve has gone of the deep end, please consider that when one who utters this phrase most likely they are not intending it to be understood as an absolute – and if one does intend that I would invite them to try that existence for a week. No one wants the stores to “leave them alone” when they are purchasing food and clothing, just as no one wants a doctor to “leave them alone” when they are in need of medical attention. The desire to be self reliant and self supportive is a necessity for freedom to exist, but it can not be viewed or accomplished in an absolute manner – to think otherwise is to accept and live a contradiction.
Comment by Martin Buerger on 21 April 2011:
Most people seek to fly “under the radar” and would certainly agree that they want the “State to leave me alone.” They would rather face the back-scatter xray system with hands in the air than face the certainty of being groped by a TSA agent. They don’t want to be pulled over by the highway patrol. It is unthinkable and a bit scary to them that the DEA, FBI, Immigration Service, or other federal agency might even have even the slightest reason to raid their home in the middle of the night.
Language can play tricks on us, and a skilled debater can turn the broadly agreed upon argument that I want the “State to leave me alone” to “Leave me alone.” Unfortunately, this piece falls prey to this ploy.
Anyone who believes in free markets, the invisible hand, and comparative advantage has already accepted the principle that they do not subscribe to “Leave me alone.” And they should not let others convince them otherwise.
It is also true that a social do-gooder is not going to be persuaded by arguments of individualism and “going alone”, and talk of markets and crass commercial success probably will not be persuasive either. As Horwitz, Beito and others have noted, there are ways for people to help one another without bringing along the intrusion and coercion of the state. And there are once again many people who demonstrate this desire and interest through their own charitable acts.
For the most part, people share a desire for a voluntary and cooperative society, not one based on coercion. While markets can address and solve many needs, human compassion (not greed or market incentives) still serves a vital role in a successful, voluntary, and cooperative society.
Comment by Dan on 21 April 2011:
I think I see the disconnect between the intended message of the article (as I interpret it, that is) and defensive stance of many of the commentators.
Libertarians usually tell their neighbor about the horrible intrusiveness of the State and express the “leave me alone” mantra really well. However, that is received as selfishness and disinterest in the poor. What perhaps Libertarians SHOULD be telling our neighbors is more in lines with “The Gov’t shouldn’t make you and I do that or do it this way, WE can do it! We can do it/fix it/help them ourselves together!”
This positive form of the message conveys the “leave me alone, State” while demonstrating that Libertarians also want to help – by free association.
Comment by Steve Horwitz on 21 April 2011:
Thank you Dan. That is a nice way to put it.
Comment by Heath Nestor on 21 April 2011:
Libertarians aren’t defined by “Leave me alone.” They are defined by their willingness to leave others alone. As one comment pointed out leave alone means do not use aggressive force against others. Libertarians support spontaneous order, like in “I pencil.” This is anything but leaving others alone.
Many, perhaps most, people say leave me alone while demanding government forcibly intervene in the lives of others. The libertarian emphasis should be on DO NOT COMMIT AGGRESSION. That is the kind of leave me alone that true libertarians want.
Comment by musheart on 21 April 2011:
awww, I bet even the toughest leavemealonesters here would use the increased resources and freedoms after government withdrew to help people (gasp), family, neighbors, friends, stray cats and dogs…
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 21 April 2011:
Dear readers: I have removed three comments because they got into matters that I deem inappropriate for this site.
Comment by denise on 21 April 2011:
Why is it that I am required to convince my neighbors friends and family to believe exactly what I believe? Personally I do not wish fo foist my political thoughts or more acurately my ndislike of the state on them any more than I want them to try and convince me that the state is needed and all their laws are for my benefit. It isn’t up to me to decide whether my neighbors or anyone else is right or wrong in what they believe. If running door to door handing outpamphlets like JW’s is your thing well have at it! Myself I just would really like to be left alone, and if you don’t like my decision well that is your business too, and it is just too bad.
Cheers
Comment by David Seymour on 21 April 2011:
Unfortunately the majority of the comments on this post serve to illustrate why Steve’s message is so important. You just have to ask yourself, which of the following two attitudes are more likely to get us a freer society in our lifetimes given the political realities we face, this:
“For me, one of the compelling arguments for freedom is that it enables us to discover new, creative, and more effective ways to care for each other…. [government] programs are inherently impersonal and bureaucratic, and they inevitably end up as vehicles for those who run and work for them rather than for those in genuine need.”
Or this?
“At this point, just 3 years into my libertarian turn, im already sick of pandering to the more ignorant.”
Comment by William Dwyer on 21 April 2011:
The desire by libertarians to be “left alone” means the desire not to have their choices interfered with by others. This is the very essence of libertarianism — the right of each individual to be left free to make his or her own choices. To take this noble sentiment and equate it with a lack of benevolence is absurd. Even worse is the demand that, according to libertarianism, people place the interests of others above their own. The central issue of libertarianism is not whether you should help the poor or less fortunate but whether you have a right to exist without helping them — a right to be left alone to spend your time and money on yourself and on those whom you personally value. It’s but a short step from the rejection of that ideal to the rejection of the right to freedom itself. Observe that in the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson did not speak of a right to help the less fortunate (even though he would not have denied it). He spoke of a right to the pursuit of happiness. Whose happiness do you think he was referring to, if not your own?
Comment by Jon Ogden on 21 April 2011:
Well put, Mr Dwyer.
Apparently there are “left libertarians” (i.e. LINOs) ready to determine what choices we may make and what ones are beyond the pale. I will back my commitment to helping those less fortunate against anyone this side of Schweitzer, but I will also defend to my death my right not to help anyone except myself.
Comment by Kevin Carson on 21 April 2011:
Redmond: It’s pretty hard for people in a movement that (correctly) says taxation is theft and complains about being exploited by state taxation coercion, to have much credibility when they turn around and complain about “the culture of victimhood.”
I firmly believe that there are net privileged and net non-privileged classes, and net winners and losers in the zero-sum game of statism. There are privileged classes that get most of their income by the political means — people who live off rents from artificial scarcity and artificial property rights enforced by state coercion. To me it is morally abhorrent to dismiss this as a cult of victimhood.
Do you believe the person whose small store was condemned to build a mall is wrong to claim he was exploited? If so, you can’t consistently dismiss as whiners people who are net losers from the kinds of privilege I described in the previous paragraph.
Messrs. Ogden and Dwyer: Strawman. Neither Steven nor the left-libertarians claim a right to determine what choices we make or that we have no right to refuse to be benevolent. Steven simply wants to persuade the general public that the belief in the right to be an asshole doesn’t mean most libertarians necessarily choose to be assholes. I think it’s telling that so many people get defensive about this.
A lot of people out there have that because libertarianism teaches the right to be a selfish asshole, it must mean that most libertarians really are assholes. Steven wants to reassure them that there are people who believe in human freedom who still care about other people — not because someone compels them to, but because hthey choose to. Maybe he should have added a disclaimer: Nothing in here is meant to disparage the rights of selfish assholes.
Comment by Steve Horwitz on 21 April 2011:
Thank you Kevin, you too have put it well.
And especially this line: “I think it’s telling that so many people get defensive about this.”
I worried in writing this piece that people would simply deny the premise that there’s a lot of libertarians who are really arguing for the “leave me alone” position that I’m objecting to. It’s a sad pleasure to read these comments and realize that I was not creating a straw man.
Let me also note the 184 likes at the time of this comment, which might be the largest number a column of mine has ever had. If I had to guess, those are disproportionately by younger libertarians who get what I’m trying to say. Certainly the way in which Students for Liberty has approached their work suggests they get it too. If so, the hope that gives me outweighs the sadness of reading most of these comments.
Comment by Dr. T on 21 April 2011:
The first principle of libertarianism is that no one has the right to use force against another person except defensively. The second principle is that a person’s property is his own. The third prinicple is that when persons make contractual arrangements, the terms must be honored. The fourth principle is that the only purpose of government is to uphold the first three principles.
“Leave me alone” should be rephrased as: “Don’t use force against people and don’t take what is theirs.” That covers about 99% of government abuses.
Comment by Steve Horwitz on 21 April 2011:
I would appreciate it if someone could show me where in this essay I *in any way shape or form* suggested that any form of coercion should be used to force people to help others. The fact that libertarians continually interpret the criticisms of left-libertarians that their rhetoric suggests a lack of concern with others as calling for the use of coercion to “make” them care for others is also very telling. Why are you so defensive? Why do you interpret criticism of your rhetoric and your priorities as a call for coercion? Why must you see every political-cultural issue ONLY through the lens of the use of force? There’s a lot more to society that the question of coercion, as important as it is.
If you folks want to get really upset, read this: http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/46477.html
Comment by Chad on 21 April 2011:
Thanks Dr. Horwitz, amazing column. I’m simultaneously encouraged by the post, itself, and discouraged by the comments section. I think I’m really beginning to understand why libertarians have the reputation we do. Kind of looks like we deserve it.
Comment by damon scott hynes on 21 April 2011:
“Peron makes a compelling argument that libertarianism should be far more concerned with the freedom of historically oppressed peoples”…Redmond, you and I perked up at the same line–this engaged libertarian eschews anything other than a vigorous enforcement of blind justice. Anything else smacks of various liberal ‘re-s’–reparation, redistribution…revenge.
Comment by Dr.Steve on 21 April 2011:
Steven, you hit a hot button with this one, did you not? One problem I think is some libertarians are as prone to utopian idealism as the left/socialists. Unless man can rediscover Eden we will have some that are weak and in need through no fault of their own. Individually or through voluntary groups man will need to address those needing assistance if he is to separate himself from the other species of the planet.
Comment by Steve LaBianca on 22 April 2011:
I don’t think I know of anyone, other than with the possible exception of Jim Davidson (not James Dale Davidson, FYI) who’s desire to be “left alone” includes those who one WANTS to voluntarily interact with (and maybe Jim Davidson would contest that characterization – my apology if I’m wrong) It is a mistake, which I think only a few libertarians make, that individualism means living like Robinson Crusoe and being left alone on one’s own island. Humans are a social sort, and caring for others, as one wants to be cared for oneself is a natural, common sentiment.
As has been commented previously, “leave me alone” is far more a sentiment of “don’t force me”, and not “I want to be isolated from everyone else”.
Comment by GregB on 22 April 2011:
I think Dan has the most productive and practical comment so far.
Many libertarians are perceived as “selfish assholes,” not because they are such, but because their messages of liberty irk unthinking hearers who blindly trust his or her beloved State and its beneficent intrusions.
So, would it not benefit us all to learn how to better and more effectively communicate the “leave me alone” sentiment as ones of “don’t force me” and “State intrusion is not necessary?” This clarity has certainly helped my thinking.
Comment by Justin on 22 April 2011:
Instead of bleeding heart libertarians can we have more stitch the wound libertarians?
Comment by Russ Nelson on 22 April 2011:
The problem is that we know what we’re saying, but we don’t know what they’re hearing. So when we say “we want to be left alone”, they’re hearing “you want to never help or be helped.” Because that’s what they see the government doing: helping people. They don’t see the government systematically oppressing people; they only see it accidentally oppressing people. The government does good things by design, and bad things by accident. Thus, to ask for less government is to ask for less good things, and they’re just not willing to do that.
Don’t believe me; go talk to a leftist.
Comment by Jon Ogden on 22 April 2011:
Dear Mr. Horowitz
You endorsed Peron’s article which called for state to establish and enforce Civil Rights. A non-LINO would have recognized immediately that the State that assumes the power to grant right and enforce those new-found rights at the point of a gun, implicitly has claimed the power to alter those rights, to levy taxes to support the enforcement of those rights, to create commissions to investigate complaints about violations, and to deny those rights to those who do not, in its eyes, deserve them. Ultimately, I suppose Peron (and you?) is in favor of granting civil rights to the planet and all creatures on it, as is being debated in the U.N.
The State cannot have the power to determine rights.
Comment by Reena Kapoor on 22 April 2011:
What a load of non essentials! Of course when libertarians say “leave me alone” they are talking about the coercive/ nanny state. We all want to be surrounded by loved ones and want to have meaningful lives — but that does not come from confusing these concepts. This author seems to either forget that the essential reason even “well intentioned” bureaucracies are bad is because they COERCE the rest of us to pay up OR he wants us to play politics (pretend we are all about helping others) to popularize libertarianism. Surprising that after all these years we’ve not grokked what’s essential to individualism — it’s the concept of RIGHTS being talked about, and this does not prescribe a lifestyle. The choice to be socially well adjusted or be a loner is all yours ie. until the nanny state come along to tell you that’s not good with a gun, and that’s when you need to say “leave me alone”!!!! (never fails to amaze how people who spend ALL their time studying and thinking about the world of political ideas still don’t get it).
Comment by Chucklehead on 22 April 2011:
Classical liberals believe all human and economic relations should be voluntary. Don’t tread on me means do me no harm, not leave me alone.
“more concerned with the freedom of historically oppressed peoples” sounds like social justice and liberation theology to me. You need to spend less time in New York and more time in am Arlberg my friend. Your Austrian is slipping.
Comment by Chad on 22 April 2011:
But fighting for freedom and liberty have opportunity costs, no? We can only lobby, argue, debate, protest (insert other form of libertarian activism here) on so many issues at once. I, for one, would rather spend my limited time and resources starting with the low-hanging fruit of the most oppressed people first. In other words, I’d rather free slaves before I try to reduce the top marginal tax rate by 3%. Both may be admirable goals, but prioritization is key to success in any venture.
Comment by Brianna on 22 April 2011:
Being left alone means being left alone *by the state.* It has nothing to do with private assistance from one individual to another, or from one privately organized group to another group.
Comment by Dan on 22 April 2011:
Thanks GregB. I shared this reframing of Libertarianism with my wife (conservative Republican) and it was like a lightbulb clicked on for her. Suddenly all the little positions I had been sharing that she didn’t disagree with but felt unfulfilled by fell into place.
Libertarians, if you want to start winning over those around you, frame the argument around “Why is that the government’s job when you and I could solve it cheaper, more personally, and quicker? Let’s go to work!”
I’m starting to think that shift in focus and a true embracing of Libertarianism in action could start the “revolution” toward smaller state. WE eliminate the needs that government feels compelled to meet.
Comment by Dan on 22 April 2011:
@Russ Nelson,
You got that right. I think many of the ways the government is “helping” are due to problems they have created or exacerbated. But the left (not exclusively) doesn’t see it that way ever.
Comment by Heather on 22 April 2011:
I don’t think this article is non-essential at all. As someone who spent a year in a graduate social work program where they essentially brain-wash the students into Socialism, I can shed some let on this subject. In the social policy class required for all students, we “studied”" the different political ideologies, including libertarianism. What they “taught” was that libertarians believe that you should help yourself and only yourself and therefore they are adverse to helping others. For them, it’s either “help” others through massive spending and overreaching social programs, or, you are a heartless a**hole.
Needless to say, I’m glad I quit.
Comment by John Griffin on 22 April 2011:
Horwitz missed the mark. He should have distinguished between attitudes directed toward government and those influencing voluntary interaction with others. A self serving position regarding the rule of law is synonymous with demanding personal freedom. True freedom necessarily protects undesirable elements of human nature and confiscating private property in the name of the greater good is never justifiable. That’s the end of the discussion, and the real beginning of the left/right divide. The irony is confiscatory policies allow those on the right AND left to be selfish while further entrenching their positions. Those on the right can hoard wealth claiming rape by the tax man while those on the left hoard theirs while talking about the social contract and claiming to be doing their part because they pay their taxes and vote democrat. This is exactly how Obama can talk about “spreading the wealth around”, earn 5 million dollars last year, and leave his illegal immigrant aunt to continue living in the US on welfare. Only once government intervention is stopped and it is left to each individual to do their part will the truly selfish “leave me alone” people be revealed.
Comment by Everyday Anarchist on 22 April 2011:
Great post. Libertarians need to reclaim the moral high ground. Considering that our philosophy is based on non-aggression and the state is based on theft and violence, this should not be difficult.
Comment by Jon Ogden on 22 April 2011:
@ Everyday Anarchists
I wasn’t aware that we’d ever lost the high ground.
Comment by GregB on 22 April 2011:
Keen insight, Russ Nelson! That observation helps explain much.
Comment by Mark on 22 April 2011:
Hi Kevin Carson, are you interested in Geoism/ Georgism/ Geolibertarianism? Part of your comment seemed to hint at it:
“I firmly believe that there are net privileged and net non-privileged classes, and net winners and losers in the zero-sum game of statism. There are privileged classes that get most of their income by the political means — people who live off rents from artificial scarcity and artificial property rights enforced by state coercion. To me it is morally abhorrent to dismiss this as a cult of victimhood.”
Comment by Frank on 22 April 2011:
@Jon Ogden… Can you point out the quote from Peron’s article where he “called for [the] state to establish and enforce Civil Rights”? Since I could not find it (I’m guessing you have better comprehension skills than I), I need your help.
@Dr. T… Actually, those are your “principles of libertarianism”. My libertarianism has one principle… that of non-aggression. Since a government can not exist without violating that principle, your 4th principle is naive at best.
@Mark… While it might not surprise me to hear that quote from a self-described geolibertarian, I don’t see anything in the quote that strikes me as extra-libertarian. Can you be more specific about why this quote is a “hint” at geolibertarianism?
@Kevin Carson… You win the thread!
Comment by Bystander on 23 April 2011:
How can you say that people are not able to distinguish between “leave me alone” as directed towards the government versus directed towards ….family and friends. How can you make this claim and then in the same breath make the claim that people will not misinterpret “please don’t leave me alone” as being directed towards the government versus ….family and friends.
I really don’t find this enlightening – its rather irrelevant. What should be stressed is the proper role of the government and its consequences.
Comment by Paul x on 23 April 2011:
“The problem with government welfare programs is not that the presumed intention to help people in need is a bad thing; it’s that the means is inappropriate to the end.”
So… if the means chosen actually accomplished that end, you would be OK with it? No problem with coercion, violence and theft?
I have news for you. What defines libertarianism is opposition to state violence, not utilitarian quibbles over efficiency.
This article (and even more so, Peron’s) gets it exactly wrong. What we should do is back off on the hard sell. Instead we should tell people we think they should get the government they want, and in return they should let us get the government we want. For libertarians and anarchists, this means “leave us alone”. It is not our job to save the world, because the world does not want to be saved. But we may be able to convince people to leave us alone at least, provided we make it clear we have no interest in imposing our view of freedom on them. It is a more modest, less threatening goal. This means we should be advancing the idea of subsidiarity. There is no need for “one size fits all” government, that fits no one.
The very worst thing we can do is say “We’re from the Libertarian Party, and we’re here to help you!” That’s so, even if we dress it up in terms of concern for them. They’ve heard that line before. You cannot impose liberty on others, and the hard sell doesn’t work either. Frontal attacks don’t work. We need to let example, and our own happiness, be our salesman. People will learn it is good to be left alone, in their own good time.
Comment by Frank on 24 April 2011:
@Paul x… Horwitz wrote and you quoted…
“The problem with government welfare programs is not that the presumed intention to help people in need is a bad thing; it’s that the means is inappropriate to the end.”
In other words…
“The problem with government welfare programs is not that wanting to help people in need is a bad thing; it’s that coercive force is an inappropriate way to help people.”
You then go on to say…
“So… if the means chosen actually accomplished that end, you would be OK with it? No problem with coercion, violence and theft?”
Derp? Since one doesn’t usually quote an argument they’re about to misrepresent (strawman), I have to assume you just misunderstood it. That assumption seems safe since you also imply that someone suggested it’s “our job to save the world”. Maybe you should read it again.
Plus, if someone is confusing libertarianism with the Libertarian Party, the problem may be that they just don’t understand what libertarianism is.
Comment by Juel Briggs - AUSTRALIA on 24 April 2011:
Great article. It’s not that people on the “Right” care any less for their fellow man than those on the “Left”, it’s just that they don’t believe that a big interventionist State is the best way to achieve this.
Additionally, States acting in this way often cause more harm than good as usually they don’t spend resources efficiently, often do not properly identify the actual area of need, create dependency cultures (amongst those they seek to help) and develop to become self-propagating industries whose interests lie in NOT solving social problems (because if they did fix the social problem, the “welfare/social aid” bureaucrats and NGO staff/leaders would be out of job or have poorer career prospects).
If people PRIVATLEY solve social problems (of others), the money will usually be better spent, because it isn’t coming from a large unaccountable State. People like to see their donations well-spent, but we haven’t got much say in how our taxes (=welfare) will be spent or whether they are spent effectively or efficiently.
However, the best people to fix social problems are the disadvantaged communities themselves, with good leadership within, and some help from the outside. Noel Pearson, an indigenous leader from the Cape York area in Northern Australia operates such a program http://www.cyi.org.au/. Admittedly he accepts Government money, but the Cape York Institute uses this money to improve individuals’ prospects of gaining fulfilling work via education and leadership/responsibility training. In the longer term, this will decrease family disfunctionality, and the “viscous cycle” of dependency and disfunction is turned around to become a “cycle of virtue”.
See some of Mr Pearson’s writing at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/columnists/noel-pearson. In just a few years, this guy has achieved more than 30 years of Government welfare (=”dependency creation”) and Government driven (de)education. This 30 years was a time period where the prospects and education of most aborigines actually declined , due to disastrously mis-guided Government policies in welfare, education and indigenous culture.
Comment by Steve Horwitz on 24 April 2011:
Paul:
Yes, if coercion actually did improve the lives of poor folks, or if socialism really did bring us a world in which we were all better off and lived wonderful lives, I would support them.
If you think libertarianism can ONLY be understood in terms of coercion rather than as a utilitarian/consequentialist argument, you’re going to have to tell lots of famous libertarians they aren’t libertarians, starting with Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek. Classical liberalism/libertarianism WAS a utilitarian position until the 20th century when in the hands mostly of Rand and Rothbard it became seen as a moral/ethical doctrine.
There’s nothing wrong with the latter reading, but it’s not the only one and hardly the dominant one in the history of classical liberalism. Fortunately, societies that minimize or eliminate coercion also happen to be ones that produce the best results for the most people.
But if that wasn’t true, I’d take long, prosperous lives over misery any day.
Comment by Paul x on 26 April 2011:
I’m not going to argue that anyone who makes a utilitarian argument is not libertarian; hell, I’ve made ‘em myself. The problem with utilitarian arguments is that everyone, including the worst dictators, make them. They can be used to justify any government behavior at all. Tax dollars buy government studies, and government studies “prove” the need for more government, and more taxes. Surprise, surprise.
“Fortunately, societies that minimize or eliminate coercion also happen to be ones that produce the best results for the most people.” I think so too, but how to prove it? Proof just boils down to duelling studies, and in that sort of duel, the state has most of the ammunition. It is sitting in the catbird seat.
Steve, most libertarians I know attempt to use utilitarian arguments to buttress the moral ones. I haven’t run into any who are willing to toss the moral arguments entirely, as you appear to be.
A libertarian just fine with coercion, violence and theft if it gets the job done? Ain’t no such thing.
Comment by Tomas on 26 April 2011:
Mr. Horwitz,
“Give me liberty, or give me death”. What Patrick Henry here stands for is the opposite of your utilitarianism; indeed, by choosing death over slavery he would prefer a lower-utility option (death=losing everything)… Yet, who can claim that this speech, as the entire American Revolution, represents anything but libertarian ideals at their best?
The fact that liberty “works” (as you pointed out was shown by von Mises, Hayek, Friedman and many others) is merely a logical consequence of reality – reality of human true nature and human mind. It is not enough to justify liberty. Utilitarianism is a lower-level argument, which will not suffice against the principled altruistic morality of statists. Altruism is the foundation that needs to be challenged within its own domain – ethics.
And make no mistake, altruism and liberty are far from compatible. When the moral obligation to meet the needs of others is the highest principle, when self-sacrifice is the measure of merit, then non-coercion and liberty no longer matter. They don’t stand in opposition at all times, but should you ever face such dividing moral question, (for which there is no clear utilitarian answer) which principle would you choose to guide you; altruism or liberty?
Pingback by Leave Me Alone! | Common Sense Liberty on 27 April 2011:
[...] and say, but it bears clearing up. Let’s start with Steven Horwitz’s excellent piece on not leaving me alone. Go ahead and read it–I’ll [...]
Comment by S Jerde on 27 April 2011:
@Steven Horwitz
1. If you don’t think you can get people to listen long enough to understand what we mean by “leave me alone” (particularly when I suspect they already know), why do you think they will sit still to hear an explanation of mutual aid?
2. “For me, one of the compelling arguments for freedom is that it enables us to discover new, creative, and more effective ways to care for each other.” Which turns out to be — mutual aid, the way humans did stuff all the way up until the welfare state? What exactly is new and creative about that?
3. Rural families up until the beginning of the welfare state lived lives essentially unchanged from that of their great-grandparents, unchanged for centuries. Urban lower-middle class families lived in cold-water walkups. While we know the improvement is due to technology, engineering and capital accumulation, savvy statists will ascribe it to the success of the welfare state. Again, if we can’t get them to sit still long enough to understand “leave me alone”, how do you expect to communicate this much more difficult proposition?
@ Chad
“I’d rather free slaves before I try to reduce the top marginal tax rate by 3%.” Cut taxes to 10% (or preferably 0%) and for all practical purposes, you take away the state’s ability to bomb innocents halfway around the world. Take away the money and almost all the excesses of the state go away.
Comment by Jeff on 2 May 2011:
Great thread. This was a sophisticated version of the same argument that transpires daily at the comment sections of state and local newspapers.
When I say leave me alone, it is in response to a particular instance in which I perceive the State to have been picking on me or a group. I cannot sugar coat this.
When I say live and let live, I mean you should live your life to the fullest and I should live my life to the fullest and we should do it in such a way that it does not interfere each other’s desire to live fully. I cannot sugar coat this.
Obviously enormous amounts of cooperation must have transpired to accomplish these 2 goals, even if this cooperation is not readily apparent to liberals. I cannot sugar coat this.
What are we really arguing about?
The grey area of non-cooperation. (not grey to libertarians)
What happens to your greatest laid plans of cooperation and charity when there are many non-voluntary participants standing between you and your desires? Do you alter your desires or do you organize enough like-minded people so that you may overrun the non-cooperative? Do you form a government that has the monopoly of force and then use this force to enforce your desire to NOT be left alone?
Comment by Jeff on 2 May 2011:
Great thread. This was a sophisticated version of the same argument that transpires daily at the comment sections of state and local newspapers.
When I say leave me alone, it is in response to a particular instance in which I perceive the State to have been picking on me or a group. I cannot sugar coat this.
When I say live and let live, I mean you should live your life to the fullest and I should live my life to the fullest and we should do it in such a way that it does not interfere each other’s desire to live fully. I cannot sugar coat this.
Obviously enormous amounts of cooperation must have transpired to accomplish these 2 goals, even if this cooperation is not readily apparent to liberals. I cannot sugar coat this.
What are we really arguing about?
The grey area of non-cooperation. (not grey to libertarians)
What happens to your greatest laid plans of charity and cooperation when there are many non-voluntary participants standing between you and your benevolent desires? Do you alter your desires or do you organize enough like-minded people so that you may overrun the non-cooperative? Do you form a government that has the monopoly of force and then use this force to enforce your desire to NOT be left alone?
Pingback by Libertarianism is a big tent | The Thinker on 4 May 2011:
[...] his “The Calling” column on The Freeman, Steve Horwitz points out another division among libertarians: the “leave me alone” [...]
Comment by Paul x on 9 May 2011:
I have responded to this article with my own, here:
http://strike-the-root.com/don’t-leave-me-alone-not
Comment by Roderick T. Long on 13 May 2011:
George,
Re “pandering to the more ignorant,” the problem with the aspects of libertarian rhetoric that Steve is worrying about is not just that we mislead others but that we tend to reinforce confused attitudes in ourselves and so deform our own libertarianism.
Pingback by The Only and His Own? on 13 May 2011:
[...] Horwitz argues that libertarians’ “leave us alone” rhetoric can be harmful. (CHT Charles.) [...]
Pingback by Leave Us Alone! | The Libertarian Economist on 1 June 2011:
[...] all this. Many have rightly argued that her writings can kill charitable motives in individuals. Steven Horwitz hits the nail on the head: “I think libertarians are making both a substantive and rhetorical [...]
Comment by Lacey on 2 July 2011:
To think, I was cnfoeusd a minute ago.
Comment by Tom Langley on 29 October 2011:
I really appreciate what Matthew Harwood had to say and Mr. Horwitz articulating a problem I have personally experienced. I’m going to be much wiser in my next articulation of the principles of freedom with friends and neighbors, etc.
Comment by Mike Hatcher on 15 May 2012:
Interesting, in the first paragraph you seem to adequately grasp the notion of libertarianism and the meaning behind “being left alone” as being a political position and not necessarily a societal position. However, then you go right on and develop an argument based on an assumption that applies “being left alone” to community and society as well as government. You sir, are conflicted. Most libertarians I know are also Christian. Those values are not anti-community or anti-social as your argument assumes. Ironically you actually on the same page with what I believe most libertarians, such as I, believe is appropriate and inappropriate when it comes to government initiated “help” or “action” and when it comes to societal initiated “help” or “action” with perhaps one exception which you did not elaborate upon and that would be the meaning of the word “help.” This is something often times confused along with the current concept behind equality. It never was about equality, only equal opportunity and there is nothing crass, rude, ignorant, or offensive about recognizing the inequality in people. It is our diversity from which humanity gathers its strength. As we abandon it, we become a weak people. Weak in mind, in spirit, and in body. I’m upset each time someone starts talking about equality as though it is synonymous with equal opportunity when in fact they are quite distinct.