Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Cato's Tom Palmer on Libertarianism or Liberty
The roundtable on libertarianism's past, present, and prospects continues over at Cato Unbound, triggered by my new book Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement and by my essay "Libertarianism: Past and Prospects." Brink Lindsey and Tyler Cowen had already weighed in; now Cato's Tom Palmer does.
In Palmer's estimation, my book focuses too much on uninfluential kooks, and my essay doesn't provide cogent enough answers to what the best strategy for libertarian progress is, relying too much on gushy ecumenicism. I'll be replying to Palmer and the others at length later on Cato Unbound itself; in the meantime, an excerpt from his essay for your delectation:
At the root of what I see as Brian’s error is a confusion of two related projects: the promotion of liberty and the promotion of libertarianism, i.e., the theory that liberty should be the primary (or overriding) goal of a political order. The latter, to the extent one should want to promote it, would be valuable not for its own sake (unless promoting political theories were one’s hobby), but solely as a means to the end of promoting liberty, the value that is at the center of libertarianism. One way to promote liberty is surely to promote libertarianism, but it’s surely also not the only way.
The question of whether one is promoting liberty or libertarianism has been with libertarians for some time. Is it “selling out” one’s principles to promote incremental moves toward liberty without announcing at the same time one’s commitment to a world completely free of coercion, or of the institutions of coercion? (I was a participant in that debate [pdf] — somewhat to my embarrassment three decades later — when I wrote several essays on the topic in various 1970s journals, including the Libertarian Forum.)
A quick preview of my eventual response: I was quite consciously writing a history, as my book's title says, of the self-conscious libertarian movement, which is, as Palmer rightly notes, different from a history of libertarian ideas and their progress. My new essay today on Reason Online on the death of various "isms" touches on this idea--the distinctions between ideological movements and ideas--from a different perspective.
|3.16.07 @ 3:41PM|#
Eric--Probably on the dedicated Radicals for Capitalism blog when I have time to write it...but my big point would be: my book does not have the thesis that Justin thinks it has. (In fact, I maintain my book's purpose is not to prove a thesis, but tell a story and explain some interesting thinkers and activists.)
Guy Montag|3.16.07 @ 3:46PM|#
In fact, I maintain my book's purpose is not to prove a
thesis, but tell a story and explain some interesting thinkers and
activists.)
Just like porn! All beauty and no plot :)
I really need to get this book.
stephen the goldberger|3.16.07 @ 4:06PM|#
these haikus show the
disturbingly seductive
allure of groupthink
ed|3.16.07 @ 4:19PM|#
Ai carramba! Yikes!
Still with the haiku highjinx?
Must...stop...but...can't...stop!
Fluffy|3.16.07 @ 4:51PM|#
I think the way to respond to Palmer's response is to point out
that those who wish to make incremental moves in the direction of
liberty will probably find their work easier going if others are
making a strident case for liberty as an end.
Even a cursory reading of western intellectual history makes it
apparent that the center moves "incrementally" in the direction of
the best-organized and most coherent extreme. The United States
moved politically "incrementally" in the direction of the left
during the decades when progressivism had the most active extreme,
and it moved back when the right had the most active extreme. Was
Goldwater not more useful going down to flaming defeat as an
extremist than he would have been losing a closer election as some
sort of Dewey clone?
stephen the goldberger|3.16.07 @ 4:52PM|#
i forgive your quip
because although it was harsh
twas funny as well
stephen the goldberger|3.16.07 @ 4:56PM|#
poor fluffy does not
see now is not the time for
intelligent thought
Fluffy|3.16.07 @ 4:58PM|#
I am too terminally occidental for haiku.
Also I can't count syllables.
Pity me and my sterile soul.
|3.16.07 @ 5:20PM|#
Is it "selling out" one's principles to promote incremental
moves toward liberty without announcing at the same time one's
commitment to a world completely free of coercion, or of the
institutions of coercion?
Am I a sell-out because I prefer incremental moves toward
liberty and announce that I'm commited to a world without coercive
institutions, but don't believe that humanity will be ready for
such for centuries? Or does that make me a conservative
libertarian? (I fear the consequences of radical change. Radical
change should be reserved for extreme situations.)
|3.16.07 @ 5:45PM|#
I can name two more.
These two are even older.
One is Eartha Kitt.
If Lauren Bacall
was feeling lonely one night
I would share my bed.
|3.16.07 @ 7:57PM|#
I heard Eartha Kitt sing "Mad About The Boy"
when I was 12.
For 40 years I have wanted to be The Boy.
|3.16.07 @ 9:01PM|#
I was just having a dicussion with an illiberal democrat (a real
asshole) who had this to say in reponse to my desire to see (L) be
"allowed" to participate in the '08 campaign debates.
Libertarians are anarchists? Nah...
Thoughts? Haikus?
Message 63 of 66
Subject: Re: news item 1
Date: 3/16/2007 5:35 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time
From: Rdbchar@aol.com
MsgId: 491603:356833
Only an idiot can believe in Libertarians. They are simplistic
thinkers and are only capable of tearing down that which they
cannot fully understand or deal with. It is ironic in the context
of this post, but the Libertarians are probably the true
anarchists.
Goldwater Conservative|3.16.07 @ 11:56PM|#
Only an idiot can believe in Libertarians. They are
simplistic thinkers and are only capable of tearing down that which
they cannot fully understand or deal with
I haven't crossed the line fully (at this point a GW Conservative
is a pariah everywhere) but it is disturbing to see this sentiment
from liberals and conservatives alike. It is almost invariably
followed by strawmen about grandmothers starving in the street
while some fat guy in a tuxedo and tophet masturbates on a pile of
cash stolen from an orphanage and uses it to fund his
methamphetamine production company.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.17.07 @ 1:11AM|#
I might have known Tom Palmer in a past life. If he had a complete set of enclyclopedias in German and English and a free ride to USC, it just might be the same guy. Been wondering for a long time.
|3.17.07 @ 1:25AM|#
I don't see the incrementalists and the absolutist extremists as necessarily mutually groups, antagonistic towards each other. When they are most effective, they cooperate in a sort of good cop/bad cop sort of way.
|3.17.07 @ 2:03AM|#
Props Brian.
Slowly making my way through the book and loving it.
I find most ironic, and sad, that libertarians - who ideally just
want everyone to get along rationally - have never managed to do
that amongst themselves.
|3.17.07 @ 2:23AM|#
Palmer's take on the book exemplifies the problem schema theory points out: everyone brings in their own perspective, biases, training, ideas, personal history, etc. to the text they read; therefore they quite often miss the point the author was trying to make.
Goldwater Conservative|3.17.07 @ 2:33AM|#
The in fighting is ridiculous. At least get influence first. I
enjoy reading Rothbard, but trying to implement policies based on
his philosophy is like advocating gay marriage in Colonial
America.
I don't think principles should be compromised, but integrated. The
Neo-Libertarians (or D.C. Libertarians as I say) are really
evincing something that seems to plague ideologies that are not
organic: endorsement of force. I thought of all ideologies that
obtain power, libertarianism had a self-check on the use of
force.
And the Free State project seems to be a failure.
Pretty soon libertarian factionalism will rival the leftists.
|3.17.07 @ 2:59AM|#
Btw, Brian, great article about the so-called death of neo-liberalism. Wonderful phrasing. And Brooks once again misses the boat; good to see him handed his hat, er rope, or something.
Tom G. Palmer|3.17.07 @ 10:46AM|#
Just my two cents: I don't see any "infighting" in the discussion. Brian has written a terrific book. He wrote a provocative essay for Cato Unbound that contained some statements I think are to sweeping. I commented on that for purposes of getting a discussion going. Where's the infighting?
Goldwater Conservative|3.17.07 @ 5:09PM|#
Just my two cents: I don't see any "infighting" in the
discussion. Brian has written a terrific book. He wrote a
provocative essay for Cato Unbound that contained some statements I
think are to sweeping. I commented on that for purposes of getting
a discussion going. Where's the infighting?
You got a point. I jumped the gun in my previous post.
Robert|3.17.07 @ 9:19PM|#
"those who wish to make incremental moves in the direction of
liberty will probably find their work easier going if others are
making a strident case for liberty as an end."
Only if the former can sufficiently dissociate themselves from the
latter in observers' minds.
As to Tom Palmer, former life, hell, I ran into him a few times in
this life in the late 1970s & early '80s.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245