A few weeks ago, I called attention to emerging dialogue between Rawlsians and Libertarians. There is now a blog devoted to exploring that with some intellectual heavy hitters (but why boys only?). I was especially excited to see Jacob Levy, who is among the most versatile (that is, historically sensitive, philosophically sharp, politically astute) Libertarian thinkers of our times join the group; his greetings to the reader contain, I think, the seeds of the revival of Libertarian and more generally classically Liberal thought (as distinct from party intellectuals for hire by various corporate interests). Levy's main move is to reject the justice-first approach in political philosophy...But here I want to call attention to two aspects of Levy's vision.
First, he writes,
I see libertarianism-- or market liberalism-- as a position within the political world of the modern state, a party-idea about how the policies of the modern state should be shaped. I don't see it as above or outside that political world-- as a theory about what justice would loook like in the state of nature, or as a theory that on its own terms demands to be constitutionalized and made immune to further political contestation. It's my position; I endorse it, I think it's right, I wish modern states pursued far more libertarian policies than they do. But it's a position within politics, and one set of questions to ask about it is always how it works in politics. One reason, as far as I'm concerned, to make a big deal out of being a liberaltarian is provided by the well-known fact that incumbent businesses and the incumbent wealthy use market-friendly rhetoric to disguise rent-seeking, power-entrenching, state-dependent behavior. It's important, but wildly insufficient, to insist over and over again on the No True Scotsman defense: when a problem arises in the world, we say "ah, but that's not a real market, and the businesses using our ideas as cover can't be held against us." The longstanding libertarian alliance with the right has made it far too easy to conflate market freedom with the interests of incumbent firms, far too easy to fail to notice state action when it aids established business (until it goes wrong somehow, at which point the No True Scotsman defense comes out). Even if we don't use the language of social justice, I think that reemphasizing libertarianism as a species of liberalism, and reemphasizing its progressive moral concerns, is a desirable response to the life libertarian ideas have had in politics over the last several decades.
I believe this is crucial. For Levy returns Libertarianism to its roots before the pre-Hayekian fantasy that wishes politics away (as was shown to devestating effect in a review by Frank Knight that ought to be more widely known) took hold. Hayek's willingness to flirt with benevolent dictators and his lack of interest in (and convincing defense of the desirability of) the messy details of politics by discussion (among folks with differential access to power) did lasting damage to the moral standing of classical liberalism.
Second, Levy writes,
The interpretation of American history that says "we were free until 1937"-- an interpretation in which the restriction on Filburn's wheat production is slavery but actual chattel slavery and the tyranny of Jim Crow are asterisks-- doesn't depend on a subtle philosophical claim about the nature of rights, and liberaltarians' rejection of it doesn't depend on subtle philosophical claims about social justice. But I think that divide has been very important to the emergence of a liberaltarian idea as a stance within American politics."
Amen, brother! If you recall, I wrote "the Libertarian-Rawlsian alliance can only get off to ground if there is a honest dialogue about what prevented it in the first place. No doubt the Rawlsian defense of the welfare state should be listed among the most important barriers to a strategic alliance. But in my view the greatest single obstacle was/is the Libertarian fondness for States Rights over Civil rights."
Recent Comments