An interesting observation from Lord Acton:
At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities, that have prevailed by associating themselves with auxiliaries whose objects often differed from their own; and this association, which is always dangerous, has been sometimes disastrous, by giving opponents just grounds of opposition, and by kindling dispute over the spoils in the hour of success.
This passage by itself doesn’t argue for or against any particular alliance. It makes the point that alliances are advisable (as they must be if it is indeed true that defenders of liberty have never succeeded except by allying with defenders of something else) but also that they are extremely risky and sometimes extremely harmful. All facts worth keeping in mind – though by themselves they don’t offer any concrete guidance.
What a wonderful post! I’ve always been curious about the alliance between left and right libertarians. The left pushes forms of direct democracy while the right is implicitly cool with oligarchy. Both see freedom as a necessary means but for totally different ends.
The alliance between left-libertarians and the Democratic Party seems much more harmonious. But I suppose that is Lord Acton’s point. Friends with similar objects are straightforward–not risky at all.
What is really fascinating to me is the prospect that–from the perspective of psychometrics–understanding the beauty of direct democracy is most easily accomplished by pushing right wingers as far right as possible (until the spectrum wraps back around to the left). As Saul Alinsky would say, “keep pushing a negative until it becomes a positive.”
The left pushes forms of direct democracy while the right is implicitly cool with oligarchy.
Where do you get that idea? (You’re still talking about left and right libertarians, right?)
Both see freedom as a necessary means but for totally different ends.
Libertarians see freedom as a means for direct democracy or oligarchy? Some might see it the other way around, direct democracy or oligarchy as an means for freedom.
The alliance between left-libertarians and the Democratic Party seems much more harmonious.
I am not aware that such an alliance exists…
Friends with similar objects are straightforward–not risky at all.
Where did you get the idea that the objects of the Democratic Party are similar to the objects of left-libertarians?
What is really fascinating to me is the prospect that–from the perspective of psychometrics–understanding the beauty of direct democracy is most easily accomplished by pushing right wingers as far right as possible (until the spectrum wraps back around to the left). As Saul Alinsky would say, “keep pushing a negative until it becomes a positive.”
Could you elaborate on that? How are you going to push right wingers to the right? How is the spectrum going to wrap around to the left? How are right wingers suddenly going to appreciate “the beauty of direct democracy” after being pushed to the right?
Left-libertarians, as far as I can tell, are essentially egalitarians. Right-libertarians, like Milton Friedman, see conflict as primary. From my perspective, they seem to desire freedom for its own sake–if that results in oligarchy, then so be it: whatever happens happens (they seem to think).
There is no formal alliance between the Democratic Party and left wing libertarians. However, left wing libertarians are often the reference when people speak of “progressive” Democrats.
Pushing right wingers further to the right is simple. You require them to take stock of all their beliefs. Free markets are not compatible with the legislation of morality. So either they admit their fascist tendencies, accept their contradictions, or begin to understand what free markets really are all about. In so doing, they begin to understand the inherent value of independent judgment, the intended dignity of human life, and the nature of freedom. At that point, either they stick with a “whatever happens happens” attitude (as in right-libertarians) or they broaden their perspective to understand the value of egalitarianism. Understanding the beauty of all humans on the same level, translates into an appreciation for the beauty of direct democracy.
Friends with similar objects are straightforward–not risky at all
If they have similar objects but different means, it actually can be pretty risky.
Left-libertarians, as far as I can tell, are essentially egalitarians
Well .. equality of what? There’s a sense in which all libertarians, left or right, are in favour of equality of authority. When it comes to equality of other things, left-libertarians tend to favour it more than right-libertarians do, but not if achieving it violates equality of authority.
left wing libertarians are often the reference when people speak of “progressive” Democrats
Can you name any progressive Democrats that you would consider left-libertarians?
Understanding the beauty of all humans on the same level, translates into an appreciation for the beauty of direct democracy.
Well, it depends what one means by “direct democracy,” and indeed by “democracy.” Mises famously argued that the free market is a kind of democracy, and Rothbard tried to draw a connection between the free market and participatory democracy. But if you’re talking about the kind of political democracy where the majority gets to impose its will on a minority, then be it direct or indirect, it’s not libertarian.
I love these questions! I look forward to wrestling with them. I have to go to work now. But to answer one: Jonathan Turley comes to mind.
Goddamn. I just read Equality: The Unknown Ideal. I feel humbled. I listed Jonathan Turley as a left-libertarian. Now, I see that–by the standard of Lockean egalitarianism–he probably falls short: his libertarianism (as far as I can tell) fails to level administrator with administrated.
As an innocent statist–always holding out hope that I cannot refute libertarianism–I do wonder whether some form of consensus could bridge the gap. After all, if compliance with the legal system is a form of submission, could not the legal system itself submit to Lockean egalitarianism? In other words, what if those in positions of authority relinquished their power–from the inside out?
As I ask these questions, the socioeconomic egalitarian part of my psyche starts to interrupt: “No! Then we’re in the Hobbesian jungle! How could equality of authority be ensured in the Hobbesian jungle?!”
what if those in positions of authority relinquished their power–from the inside out?
I would be delighted if they were to do so. But you can understand that I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for them to do so.
How could equality of authority be ensured in the Hobbesian jungle?!
Well, you know the answer to that!
Deja vu.
I think anarcho-capitalism describes the world as it is. The legal system acts as arms to protect those with the most economic power. Government is just a leverage mechanism; control of it = just another form of currency. So, my fear is that market anarchy devolves within a generation or so. One company would operate as a government and monopolize the law.
UNLESS, when you speak of libertarians ensuring equality of outcome–when it comes to authority–you mean rule of universal interests. But to get there, the only object is raised awareness. And the only means with which I’m comfortable are non-violent.
The legal system acts as arms to protect those with the most economic power
Quite true. But the question is: how easily could they acquire and/or maintain that economic power without the help of a monopoly state?
Acquire? Not nearly as easily.
Maintain? I think easily. With their leverage, they just re-create a monopoly state–run by them. Of course, naming it something tolerable and doing it for the sake of “freedom.”
My question is how you get there, practically speaking. Because once to that point–in an anarcho-capitalist system–some group could potentially wield more power than all others. And unless they valued the universal interests above all other interests, then they would take that power. This makes me believe that the only way to bring about such a system is through raised awareness and consensus.
Since — as La Boétie (unless it was Montaigne), Hume, Godwin, and Rothbard have pointed out — governments are generally outnumbered by those they govern, how could this small minority wield power unless it had popular acquiescence?
*how could this small minority wield power unless it had popular acquiescence?*
I don’t think it could. But if these two conditions are in place:
(1) Cognitive Imperialism–something like a belief system which holds {ruler/ruled} or {predator/prey} as primary and eternal.
and
(2) The tools to put/keep enough people under the spell of (1).
then we’re back in statism.
BTW, the paper on Godwin was thoroughly enjoyable. Thank you.
On a different note, I remember hearing an argument that the free market can’t handle already existing monopolies because anybody attempting to compete will lose because the rich monopolist can lower their prices to below profitable levels temporarily (just enough to push out their competitor). I’m not sure whether that’s true or not, but what is funny is that in the EU (that bastion of free enterprise all freedom lovers embrace) there is apparently a “Competition Commissioner” (I kid you not). Check out this passage:
“Given that Intel has harmed millions of European consumers by deliberately acting to keep competitors out of the market for over five years, the size of the fine should come as no surprise,” said EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes.
I wonder if the title of Competition Commissar is available.
On a different note, I remember hearing an argument that the free market can’t handle already existing monopolies because anybody attempting to compete will lose because the rich monopolist can lower their prices to below profitable levels temporarily (just enough to push out their competitor).
David Friedman answers that argument in The Machinery Of Freedom. His objection is that selling below cost will cost the (former) monopolist more than the new competitor, because of the greater market share of the monopolist.
I remember reading his argument but was unconvinced by it. If the monopolist is sufficiently large they can afford to run at a loss for awhile to beat out a small-time competitor. Plus, aren’t you assuming the price the monopolist charges everywhere is the same? If they only charge less at locations where the competitor has opened a store then they can continue charging monopoly prices elsewhere.
Anyway I just wanted to make the point that the EU are not “friends of freedom”.
Anon73, monopolies can only continue to exist through force. People simply prefer to seek alternatives to a given product, for their own myriad reasons (aesthetics, price, quality, customized differences, ethos, etc.).
Take a relatively free society where one company has achieved monopoly thanks to thuggish laws, and then add the free market. The monopoly won’t be facing but one alternative product for a limited time—short enough to squash it, anyway—and then go back to “normal” before encountering yet another competitor. They will face competition from every angle all at once. High-end, pricier competition that threatens to beat them out on quality; low-end, cheap competition that threatens to beat them out on price; custom, niche-market competition that threatens to beat them out on the margins of their customer base; etc.
The possibilities are endless, and completely devastating, to a functioning monopoly which meets free market competition.
[...] Freedom and Friends | Austro-Athenian Empire [...]
At any rate I’m certain an alliance with people who think having a “Competition Commissioner” will guarantee competition will be fruitless at best, harmful at worst. It’s always frustrating when potential allies share the same end but have rotten means.