Joshua Katz is chairman of the Connecticut Libertarian Party, alternate for the Libertarian National Committee region including New England, New York and New Jersey, and a local elected official in his town. He has published a number of essays at LewRockwell.com and comments frequently at IPR.
It is well-known, and often cited, that the American founders, a mixed bag to be sure, believed that freedom is only for a good, moral people. Like any statement about ‘the founders’ this is, of course, an oversimplification. However, it is consistent with many enlightenment ideas and values, and so we can take it in the spirit it is meant, and work with it.
The question, then, is what Libertarians, using the capital L advisedly, can and should do with this idea. Perhaps we should reject it outright. There is plenty of reason to do so: the libertarian view is, after all, that no person’s claim to knowledge of virtue can exercise a veto on another’s freedom to act so long as others are not harmed. It would seem hard to reconcile this with the view that, seemingly, allows for freedom only within the sphere of virtuous behavior. Freedom within virtue cannot justify freedom to vice. The libertarian wishes to defend freedom to vice. This is what distinguishes us from other political stripes, after all. The modern liberal loves freedom, too – unless its exercise is deemed offensive. The modern conservative liberals freedom, too – unless its exercise is deemed immoral. We are not unique in loudly proclaiming our allegiance to the value of freedom; we are unique in meaning it.
That answer, though, is no answer at all for a political party. A party’s goal is to elect candidates for an ideological purpose; in our case, we wish to elect Libertarians to public office in order to move public policy in a libertarian direction. Stepping entirely outside of the political discussion and its bows to morality and to the founders is not compatible with this goal. Moreover, it is intuitive that morality must play some role in our decision-making, including our political decision-making. To reject outright the goal of a moral society is not just politically inadvisable: it is also entirely unappealing.
The question that the Libertarian must ask, first, is what exactly is meant by a good, moral people. The reason we are so quick to reject this claim is that we have, implicitly, accepted a conservative answer. The conservatives claim that gambling, prostitution, and pornography are immoral: the libertarian answers by saying that immorality should not be prohibited. Let us, instead, question the premise first. Are these the demands of morality, or are there other, incompatible, moral claims?
It may seem that we’ve wandered afield from politics, but give me one more sentence and we’ll be back. The conservatives who argue for virtue politics will also claim that we are suffering from a moral decline. The libertarian should agree: but we should maintain that the signifier of this moral decline is not the extension of equality to all forms of romantic love, or the acceptance of pornography, or a loosening of sexual mores. Rather, the obvious sign that our society has lost its way is that these are seen as the moral issues, that those who preach morality in the public sphere point to these, not to a prison system that locks away a higher proportion of our population than any society ever has, not to an epidemic of police brutality with racial overtones, not to a warfare state that wipes out villages and reacts with indifference to the theocratic dictatorships that result – in sum, they point to examples of tolerance of difference, rather than to the systematic use of our institutions to crush the weak, the less privileged, and those who stand in the way of power.
A moral, good society is one which uses its institutions of power to speak for those without a voice, to defend the powerless, and to lift up the oppressed. If we accept that premise, we can then argue about the best ways to do so, but the moral challenge of our age is that we have forgotten that this is what morality means. The Old Testament prophets could criticize their society for honoring religious festivals while forgetting the orphan and the widow because it was understood that society ought to protect the orphan and the widow. Today, we lack that basic understanding. This has allowed the rise of public voices of morality – those who appear in the public sphere to speak of values and virtue – who inevitably single out for moral indignation those they should be defending. Thus, those who already face oppression: the sex worker, the homosexual, the gambler, the transsexual, the different, the foreigner, the sweat-shop worker – are also the targets of those who claim the mantle of morality. The preacher no longer stands up to society to protect the weak – the preacher, believing himself without sin, now rushes to cast the first stone.
Too often, though, the Libertarian accepts the conservative definition, and responds that a good society is not needed. It is; freedom without morality is doomed to fail. What we need is what I might call ‘public morality’ – that is, the ethics of how we treat one another. The Libertarian must be the moral voice: it is the Libertarian who responds, not that government should not legislate morality, but that sexual oppression and mistreatment of the weak is immoral, and that government should not permit it, much less engage in it. The Libertarian must demand that government, in order to govern properly and morally, stand up for the weak, protect the downtrodden, and speak for those who have given up their voice after going so long unheard.
This is also an electable position. It appeals to those who understand the need to protect those who are different; it also appeals, in a way that rejection of morality does not, to those who lean libertarian but have strong moral urgings. It hearkens to the great moralists of the ages. It is the message of Jeremiah, of Isaiah, of Martin Luther King, of Ghandi. Not one of these would stand against morality – but every single one would stand with the oppressed, not the oppressor. They taught us that what was needed was not our religious rituals, our fasts, our sacrifices, but proper treatment of those who today are downtrodden in the name of morality.
Can the conservative be found in Baltimore, in Ferguson? If they are found in these places, they can be spotted pointing to the immorality of breaking windows or cutting firehoses. The response is not “who cares what is moral” but “it is immoral to shackle a man and toss him around the back of a van until he dies of a shattered spine.” The Libertarian message in such a case is not “do as you please, who cares what’s right” but rather “when you stand against oppression, we are with you, because the highest moral calling is to stand with the oppressed.”
We can agree with the founders, then, that a free society must be a moral society. Not only is freedom without morality, in this sense, undesirable, it is impossible. So long as there is systematic oppression, whether by government or privately, there is no freedom.
jk: Why should we proceed from the starting point that maximized liberty works, or, what you likely meant, works best? Where did that premise come from?
me: Great question. In my case macro and micro observation. It appears to me that over time and now people seem more prosperous and generally happier in freer places vs. less free ones.
On the micro level, I and those around me do not like to be told what to do for the most part. I would also contend that the Golden Rule is not optional. Coercion generally creates animosity in the coerced.
I don’t need a lot more precision in my premise than that. It’s certainly not the NAP, which attempts to be precise and workable, but is neither.
I’m trying here to say that the common “you can’t have freedom without morality/responsibility/etc.” is a good reason to take care of each other, not to ban prostitution or throw stones.
Actually, while I’m generally not a fan of single-issue litmus tests, I do think that one’s attitude toward the sex industry says a lot about one’s true commitment to libertarianism. Many pseudo-libertarians reveal their true colors on this issue, whether it be those on the right showing their Puritanism, or those on the left showing their paternalism.
So we’re in a world of hurt, then, since we’re all being subject to immoral aggression every day.
Yeah, that’s pretty much true. Is it really any wonder that we live in such a fucked up society?
Langa – I agree. Again, I’m trying here to say that the common “you can’t have freedom without morality/responsibility/etc.” is a good reason to take care of each other, not to ban prostitution or throw stones.
RC – Why should we proceed from the starting point that maximized liberty works, or, what you likely meant, works best? Where did that premise come from?
jk: If there is no goal, how can you know if you are moving towards it or not?
me: Fairly easily, actually. If we proceed with the conclusion that maximized liberty works, we can see that in our lifetimes individual liberty has been degraded, on balance. There have been a few isolated instances where liberty has been enhanced, to be sure, but for the most part government control over our lives has expanded.
IOW, we’ve been moving in the wrong direction. If we ever stop and reverse that trend, there might be a need for a more precise goal.
For ex., whether there should be patents and copyrights, or not. It’s an interesting question, but it has an academic/jurisprudential feel to it.
Langa: In other words, immoral actions (like aggression) can never produce moral outcomes.
me: So we’re in a world of hurt, then, since we’re all being subject to immoral aggression every day.
Then we’re in complete agreement. 🙂
That was my point.
I agree that freedom and morality go hand in hand, but I think the most important thing for us to get people to realize is that, while you can’t have freedom without morality, you also can’t have morality without freedom. In other words, immoral actions (like aggression) can never produce moral outcomes.
In the words of Mikhail Bakunin (who was not a libertarian, but nevertheless seems to have had a better understanding of the true nature of tyranny than many self-proclaimed libertarians do):
Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it.
Virtue only functions within freedom.
As an aside, this isn’t intended as a grand philosophical work. It’s intended to counter the claim that freedom allows, or even requires, bans on ‘immoral practices’ and does not require such things as equal treatment of homosexuals under the law. I thought to write it in response to a prominent CT conservative, who sometimes fancies herself a libertarian, who supports the war on drugs, and bans on prostitution and pornography.
My point is – it’s not a sufficient answer to say “don’t ban immoral things” because, among other things, it makes it hard to explain exactly why we want to ban fraud and force. The better answer, in my opinion, is to say that morality is treating people properly, and it is hypocritical to stand by, or cheer, while the government oppresses people, then justify bans on the claim that ‘freedom functions only within virtue.’
DT – I’m fairly sure I noted the issues with those terms.
RC – I’m not claiming I can define absolute good. I’m just saying that you can only know what ‘better’ is if you know what you’re trying to get. The thing you’re trying to get must be defined by philosophy, not practical politics, precisely because it can’t be realized. If there is no goal, how can you know if you are moving towards it or not?
jk: But knowing what goodness and badness are depends on philosophy defining the absolute good and absolute bad.
me: Why? And what makes you think you — or anyone — can define the “absolute good? I can’t say I have found a serviceable definition, and I have every reason to believe there is no such thing.
Issues like gambling, drugs, prostitution really belong more in the category of psychology than morality. Controlled and moderate gambling and drug/alcohol use, voluntarily engaging in sexual commerce should be seen more as activities that can be innocent but that also do bear the risk of leading to destructive addiction, personal degradation, financial ruin and even criminal force and fraud, prosecution and punishment. Of course, as 12 step programs show, spiritual and even moral programs can help people recover from such disasters. But libertarians need to approach the topics with practical arguments that admit the potential for self-destruction and remind people it was those potentials that originally led to their being proscribed as “immoral” and forbidden. Religious zealots may reject such arguments but most people probably will find them sensible. Of course, the libertarian decentralist argument also is important: self-determining private and contractual communities can forbid such behavior within their territories.
JK: “It is well-known, and often cited, that the American founders, a mixed bag to be sure, believed that freedom is only for a good, moral people. Like any statement about ‘the founders’ this is, of course, an oversimplification.”
Just as, I might add, is ANY discussion of the subject of “morality”.
Two phrases come to mind;
1. “CAVEAT EMPTOR”; A Latin phrase for “let the buyer beware.” The term is primarily used in real property transactions. Essentially it proclaims that the buyer must perform their due diligence when purchasing an item or service. This concept is even MORE essential when one
Is “buying a moral code or ethical philosophy”
2. “DEFINE YOUR TERMS”: It is very likely that MOST of the “American founders” would begin their definition of “good moral people” as those who accept, honor and obey; “THE TEN COMMANDMENTS”; which contradicts the fundamental definition of “morality”!
RC – good catch, and I agree with your second point, I just don’t see a conflict with what I wrote. As I’ve said before, I believe that minimizing badness and maximizing goodness, within the bounds of reality, is the appropriate goal in politics. But knowing what goodness and badness are depends on philosophy defining the absolute good and absolute bad. A totally free society would need to be a totally virtuous one (in the sense of the article.) That’s why we know that minimizing oppression maximizes freedom, or, at least, allows for the maximization of freedom.
jk: The modern conservative liberals freedom, too
me: I think you meant “conservative loves”.
jk: We can agree with the founders, then, that a free society must be a moral society. Not only is freedom without morality, in this sense, undesirable, it is impossible. So long as there is systematic oppression, whether by government or privately, there is no freedom.
me: My observation is that there is not and never has been either a free or a moral society. There have, however, been freer and less free societies, and more and less moral societies. Systematic oppression lends itself to less free and less moral civil arrangements, so minimizing such oppression seems virtuous. Eradicating oppression seems unlikely.
Paulie – I certainly agree with that direction too!
An unfree society strikes me as inherently immoral.