What's the Best Argument for Libertarianism?

Dennis Pratt and Gene Epstein debate the efficacy of ethical and consequentialist arguments for libertarianism.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

What's the Best Argument for Libertarianism?

HD Video Download

Free State Project activist Dennis Pratt and Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein debate the resolution, "A better way to persuade more people of libertarianism is to convince them of the ethics stemming from self-ownership and the non-aggression principle, without relying primarily on consequentialist/utilitarian arguments."

Dennis Pratt, a libertarian writer and activist in New Hampshire, took the affirmative, arguing that the consequentialist arguments typical of libertarian economists are only narrowly effective, don't represent the core of libertarianism, and are too difficult for most people to quickly grasp. The philosophy of self-ownership, he said, has far more force in its ability to persuade the most people.

Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein disagreed. While he espouses the same philosophy as his opponent, he made the argument that the empirical facts related to the poor results of government interventions can get many people to rethink their anti-libertarian assumptions.

The debate occurred on June 20, 2024, at the Porcupine Freedom Festival in Lancaster, New Hampshire, and was moderated by Free State Project founder Jason Sorens.

Comments

[Roberta]

Ethical arguments are all empty. They're all conclusions, not arguments for why. The best that can be said for them is that if you accept them in some circumstances, adopting them as axiomatic produces consistency, and then you can stop thinking. But you can scratch an ethicist and reveal the consequentialism underneath.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

What reason describes as ethical means arguing from a state of ignorance and assuming an ideal world. It is not ethical to deny the reality of the current economy.

Surgery is good. Performing open surgery on a patient bleeding out (for an unrelated injury) is not. Reason always assumes a baseline clean ideal system without any analysis to current reality.

[Rob Misek]

Libertarianism is just another form of snake oil.

When you’re talking about “winning arguments” instead of “sharing truth” you’re focusing on the wrong thing.

The question we should be asking is why people choose greed over ethics. The answer is that people lie to themselves and others because it is comfortable.

Happiness is the knowledge that your life is in order. It requires recognizing and accepting truth. Bliss is a comfortable feeling in ignorance.

Truth is the only thing we all share in peace.

We will evolve beyond ideological bickering when we value truth and criminalize lying.

Knowing this, why would anyone choose snake oil?

[Alberto Balsalm]

"We will evolve beyond ideological bickering when we value truth and criminalize lying."

And assholes like you will be the ones that determine exactly what "lying" is? Fuck off slaver

[Rob Misek]

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

What, you’d prefer AI?

I don’t own any slaves.

[DesigNate]

Refuted!

[CE]

If you win an ethical argument for freedom, you win a permanent adherent.
If you argue on pragmatic outcomes, at best you win a temporary compromise. And if your plan doesn't work, the other side is all too happy to throw more taxpayer money at the problem and blame "austerity" for the failure.

[Roberta]

…

And if your plan doesn’t work, the other side is all too happy to throw more taxpayer money at the problem and blame “austerity” for the failure.

WTF, if my plan consistently doesn’t work, then I myself would be persuaded it was a bad idea. What’s wrong with that? Is the object to win arguments, or is it to make things better?

[Incunabulum]

If you decide that your plan doesn't work then you lose your phoney bologna job, gentlemen!

It's is very hard to convince a man when his paycheck is dependent upon not being convinced.

Look how many cops become anti-prohibitionists *after they retire*.

[Roberta]

"Win" a permanent adherent? You're assuming this is some ego trip. If it turns out I was wrong, I don't want a permanent adherent to that.

[Social Justice is neither]

The average (and below average) person will never be a permanent convert on philosophical arguments for ethics alone. Now, consequences that lead into a framework that supports freedom and possibly the trade-offs might better stick the ethical orientation towards freedom because it's now real.

[A Thinking Mind]

I think I’d you’re arguing consequentialism, you’re just conceding the principles. It leaves room for people to say “So all we have to do is get socialism right this time,” and it’s essentially the same argument as any you’d make for liberty.

Whereas if you start from a principle of treating people as individuals, you have a counter for any “But what if we were better at doing socialism?” argument.

[Roberta]

But then answer, why should we treat people as individuals?

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Being truthful.

Honestly analyzing a situation instead of approaching it from an ideal state. Reform should be made towards the ideal state, not lie about the current state while advocating policy from an ideal state that makes things worse. For example open borders into a welfare state. Pretending global markets are already free. Both cause negative externalities when treated as ideal, a lying to push a facial policy that makes things worse as more is taken from the masses to fill in the massive holes that exist.

Also equality of government. Don't elevate some over others. Such as chase with LGBT. People need to be treated equally. Especially the threat of government power. Looking at you Sullum.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Being truthful.

you first

[InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)]

You're one to talk, Jeffy?

[Mother's Lament (original flavor)]

The guy who is called "Lying Jeffy" by practically everyone here, is calling out someone else?

Wow.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

You and your little mean girl clique do not constitute “practically everyone”.

And you too could stand to be more honest. To start, why don’t you tell us an example of just one substantive lie that Trump told during the debate. Just one. Explain clearly what it is and why you think it is a lie.

I had no problems admitting several times when Biden lied. All I am asking is for you to admit just once where Trump lied on a substantive matter.

[Vernon Depner]

Doctrinaire libertarianism is a suicide pact with ethics. People can see that. Focus on deliverables from moving government in a libertarian direction.

[Rick James]

And I can't figure out what the basis for the ethics is.

[TJJ2000]

Realizing ‘Guns’ don’t make sh*t.
Eliminating Gov-Gun [WE] mob crimes. (criminal democracy)
Acknowledging that ‘Gun’ forces only asset is to ensuring Individual Liberty and Justice for all.

Would not only be a HUGE step in the right direction for the entire USA civilization; anything complicating that is just more BS used to get to the criminal ‘government’ ideology this nation has today.

[BillyG]

"Libertarianism" is a vague concept. Debate specific policies. Explain how it would improve things. Be sure to address the drawbacks & consequences. Otherwise you're just in debate club.

[CE]

Sounds like your plan is the debate club: "try less government, it might work in this case," vs. "stop doing that, it violates the rights of individuals to live their lives as they please and enjoy the rewards of their own labors."

[BillyG]

Your post is vague. Less government where & how? Be specific. Do you want to stop having a police force? Pretty sure the answer is "No". Do you want to end the highway system? What specifically do you want to change? What programs do you want to eliminate? What laws do you want to change?

[sarcasmic]

Government is force.
Legitimate functions of government are limited to legitimate uses of force.
Those include courts to resolve disputes to prevent resorting to violence, and enforcement of laws prohibiting harm.

That leaves a good 85% of more of government functions up for debate.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Is it force to take from taxpayers to give to illegal immigrants? Asking because you and Jeff seem okay with that.

[BillyG]

Better response than CE's. And that debate is what I'm saying is needed. On each specific thing.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

It’s not one or the other, it’s both. Even Marxists and Nazis throw in “principles”, although theirs start much farther down the food chain than self-ownership.

Reason‘s articles are mostly 99% pragmatism, principles barely mentioned if at all.

It’s like memorizing multiplication tables. They are a short cut to the underlying math, which no one really gives a shit about, but most people expect there’s some kind of theory behind it.

So shout “self-ownership” every chance you get. But stop rambling off into the weeds about deriving self-ownersip from property rights, or deriving the NAP from self-ownership, or why self-ownership makes slavery a logical fallacy. No one cares about how many libertarian angels can dance on those pins.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

I largely agree. You need both. The way I see it, the pragmatic arguments are the gateway to having the bigger conversation. They allow the deeper, principled-based arguments to occur. If you start with the ideology and the ethics, you just put most people to sleep and drive them away. But ultimately it's the principled ethical arguments which lets them stay and see the bigger picture of why those pragmatic arguments have the results that they do.

[Roberta]

That’s because principles are deadly to reason itself, unless you want nothing but deductive reasoning. Most of the time we reason inductively. Sometimes we're able to infer principles from the evidence, and sometimes new evidence requires reassessment of principles.

[Vernon Depner]

Reason‘s articles are mostly 99% pragmatism

What? They follow principle over a cliff regularly. They want wide open borders and unfettered access to all drugs, regardless of the consequences, for examples.

[Stuck in California]

I'd argue that unpronounceable's statement is true in those cases. They are entirely pragmatic positions.

Open borders because poor and desperate not to leave workers are a lot cheaper than having to compete for the workers already in the workforce, for example. And the drug access -- I just think half of these kids are fucking dopers who want their weed legal and for nobody to judge them when they're tripping balls.

Their principles might be there, but the arguments presented and their framing seldom seem to be about the principle. They're often about the thing and the writer tries to present the principle along with other emotional arguments for the thing.

My perspective, of course. YMMV.

[Nobartium]

Pragmatics are only useful for ideologies that have track records.

There is no modern record for libertarianism.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

It doesn't help that modern liberaltarians start trying to rebuild the house before the fire is out. And then yell at those trying to out the fire out as being as bad as those that started the fire. Throwing more wood and fuel to the fire before it is out.

[Roberta]

But there is a modern record for libertarianism, lots of it. We see the results when rents, for instance, are uncontrolled by edict (libertarianism). as compared to when they're controlled. We see the results when liquor is allowed (libertarianism) as compared to when it's not. And so on. Libertarianism is the combination of all such allowances.

[Nobartium]

Evidence of absence isn't a solid standard for pragmatics.

[sarcasmic]

Those on both sides who see coercion and aggression as the default means to accomplish their goals can never be sold on libertarianism. They will mock and deride libertarians who suggest cooperation as being impractical or worse. I’m sure several will identify themselves by attacking this comment.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

You and Jeff argue for forced cooperation.

Jeff in every angle. If people don't donate enough to charity. Government has to force it.

You on all the illegal immigrant welfare. You even now advocate for increasing taxes as you lie it would not lead to even more spending.

Neither of you have principles. Lol.

[sarcasmic]

Immigration has costs.

Immigration has benefits.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

If people don’t donate enough to charity. Government has to force it.

this stupid line again. This is never what I said.

Once again, the argument is:
If the welfare state were to be abolished tomorrow, but private charitable donations did not increase sufficiently to cover the charitable needs that was previously covered by welfare, most non-libertarian people are likely to reach the conclusion of "getting rid of welfare leads to more poverty". And since most people are not the narcissistic assholes that inhabit this forum, they are likely to vote to re-institute some version of the welfare state so as to alleviate the suffering of those in poverty. That is why, for libertarians, simply chanting "abolish the welfare state" is not sufficient. It has to be coupled with a personal commitment to meet those needs that the welfare state leaves behind once it recedes. And I frankly don't see that with the current crop of "libertarians" around here. This is why abolishing the welfare state is little more than a pipe dream.

[TJJ2000]

You nail the very problem this nation has today.
Being 'Needy' doesn't make sh*t.
The endless 'Gov-Gun' theft puts everyone into poverty.
Paying people NOT to be an asset to society is a dead-end game.

[DesigNate]

You DID say that the government wouldn’t have had to force masking and distancing if people head just done it voluntarily. It’s not some great leap in logic to go from that to forced charity.

Especially when you make a post like this, calling everyone here “narcissistic assholes” for espousing the perfectly libertarian idea that welfare is not the purview of the state and therefore should be abolished.

The narcissistic assholes are the people that want to alleviate their guilt by forcing everyone to support what they support. Post like this might be a smidge of why everyone gives you shit.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

All we have to do to sell more people on libertarianism is convince them to tolerate people they hate, and accept responsibility for themselves and the consequences of their own decisions.

[MasterThief]

You lose most men on the former and almost all women on the latter. It's a tougher sell than it should be

[creech]

Heads nod in agreement when I say "one should be allowed to live his life as he pleases as long as he doesn't hit other people or take their stuff."
Then, bring up almost any issue and that becomes an exception because "the needs of the many trump the needs of the few" or "compassion demands the U.S. help the poor Ukrainians" or "my kid can't afford to pay off his student loan."

[Roberta]

But those are still exceptions, which means we have the right answer in general. i don't mind that!

[JeremyR]

It's not compassion to help the Ukrainians, it's helping them kill Russians now so we don't have to spend our citizen's lives and far more money killing the Russians ourselves later.

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

And this is in Logic, the false dichotomy.
You argue right and wrong, good and evil but in saying : " as long as he" you beg the question: Does a pervert or a lazy immoral societal creep in fact not hurt other people.

It's the old lazy view of "pursuit of happiness"
". For the founders, the pursuit of happiness was the individual right to pursue a life lived in harmony with the law of nature and a public duty to govern in accordance with that law"

====> A New Birth of Marriage argues that the American Founders placed marriage as the cornerstone of republican liberty. The Founders’ vision of marriage relied on a liberalized form of marital unity that honored human equality, rights, and the beauty of intimate marital love... Founders at the state and national level shaped marriage law to reflect five vital components of marital unity: the equality and complementarity of the sexes, consent and permanence in marriage, exclusivity in marriage, marital love, and a union oriented toward procreation and childrearing.

You will laugh at me and mock me but I go with the Founders over you

[AT]

What's the Best Argument for Libertarianism?

Conservatism.

[Incunabulum]

The best argument is the African- and Native-American communities. So much destruction wreaked by government 'just trying to help'.

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

Libertarianism contributed GREATLY to the destruction of Black communities.
Call this freedom of choice but it is the opposite:

===>The prevalence of abortion facilities
within minority communities serves as a
major contributor to the rate in which
black women obtain abortions.
Accordingly, black women are 5 times
more likely to have an abortion than white
women.

====> : “Since the number of current living blacks
(in the U.S.) is 31 million, the missing 10 million represents
an enormous loss for, without abortion, America’s black
community would now number 41 million persons. It would
be 35 percent larger than it is currently. Abortion has swept
through the black community cutting down every fourth
member.”

Sen Moynihan : At the heart of the deterioration of the fabric of Negro society is the deterioration of the Negro family.

[n00bdragon]

What's the Best Argument for Libertarianism?

The Republican and Democratic parties continue to exist as they are.

[John C. Randolph]

Freedom requires no justification. If you propose to compel me to obey you, the answer is "fuck off, slaver." If you fuck off, great. If you persist, expect painful consequences.

-jcr

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

Freedom DOES require justification so that people like you don't claim that being a bastard and a foul-mouthed anti-social jerk is a right.

[fuck libertarians]

as an ideology, libertarianism can best be summed up with the phrase “fuck you, got mine.”

[John C. Randolph]

What do you think other people owe you, lefturd?

-jcr

[DesigNate]

lol sure lil buddy.

[Jefferson Paul]

duplicate

[Jefferson Paul]

fuck libertarians' ideology can likely be summed up with the phrase, "fuck you, I want what you have."

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

You would add millions of new Libertarians if you would just get some spiritual/religious sense about you.
natural law, common good, right and wrong. Look at Victoria Villaruel and Xavier Millei.
I opposed lbertarianism for decades UNTIL Millei and until Reason got that great woman Catholic writer. I am not now a Libertraian but I respect it now and never did before. You can’t base a movement on having no positive beliefs and loads of negative beliefs. EG "There is no God but we must fight to have the right for trans men to get pregnant"

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

Libertarianism’s greatest failure, the one that alone dooms it, is that is opposes Freedom of Religion, which is the great problem in the world and the only human right that inherently limits government
After decades studying this, I admit I am set in this conviction.

When Biden caved to China on the Uyghurs , Falun Gong, organ harvesting — that gave the green light. So even where B has pushed hardest , it is all unraveling, esp economically. We are spending billions about climate and what are China and India doing right now :
CHINA
China doubles down on coal with rapid roll-out of new railway track to the world’s largest deposit
257km line from Zhundong open pit to Urumqi will increase the mine’s transport capacity to more than 100 million tonnes a year

INDIA
India’s Plans to Double Coal Production Ignore Climate Threat (Bloomberg)

History books will say we committed suicide.

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

I am a teacher. My students went for that Catholic young woman you have on your staff. Relatedly, one student asked my what I think of Ayn Rand just the other day . Libertarianism only offers something if if it doesn’t bill itself as the religion, the full answer, the key to progress. Can I be a Catholic and LIbertarian? That wonderful shows ‘Yes’ she should have been in this discussion. as soon as you get into ‘ethical’ libertarianism has to allow for non-libertarian (not anti-libertrairian, so don’t get riled) values. And better you left off consequentialist , that’s pure Woodrow Wilson. We need ‘experts” because the vaules of the Founders no longer work; I judge at least in my own case what the consequences are, not Slick PhD in DC.
I will give you this: You avoided the 'common good' with a verneance.

[Not a Conservative but a Biden LOATHER]

Libertarianism will die out unless you heartily embrace Freedom of Religion. I see -- who can miss it!!!--- the way you treat Victoria Villareuel. You hate that she is libertarian and Catholic, is against abortion strongly and sees homosexuality as simply a perversion.

See, the person searching for a political stance and seeing Islam and FGM and honor killing and killing of apostates thinks you are trivial to say "Oh, I am hands off with that. that is a religious matter"

[Not a Conservative but a Biden LOATHER]

Funny to me that Libertarians like the intellectual mantle but almost NEVER talk natural law, Logos, or true subsidiarity.

Even the federalism from of subsidiarity gets a kneejerk rejection on here.

" ways in which the Democratic platform’s ideals conflict with moral principles of the Catholic Church are in subsidiarity and individual charity. The Party insists on undermining structures of civil society and proposes to substitute redistributivism for the virtue of charity.

The DNC’s assertion that “government is the only thing we all belong to” reveals a profound indifference to those institutions that stand between the federal government and the individual and bind us together in more personal ways than national citizenship. This has been evidenced by Obama’s attacks on these institutions, most infamously to those Catholic hospitals unwilling to provide access to sterilizations, abortions, and contraception through the HHS Mandate. Pope Benedict XVI expressed his concern about “the efforts [that] are being made to redefine and restrict the exercise of the right to religious freedom," here referring to the HHS Mandate (no matter what Biden says about it)."

And here Biden was a Guiness Book liar. "we need more doctors in this country" but what does he do

Catholic Doctors Sue Outgoing Biden Admin over Emergency Room Abortion Mandate

S.A. McCarthy
January 15, 2025