Freedom in Our Lifetime

David Friedman has a great breakdown of the different types of libertarians:

1. Natural Rights: Probably the most popular position among the hard core of self-identified libertarians, some of whom make opposition to the initiation of force the defining characteristic of libertarianism. For most or all of them, both of Frank’s statements are false. Following arguments along the lines of Robert Nozick’s distinction between desert and entitlement, they hold that what matters is not what you end up with but how you got it. Whether or not the rich would have willingly given money to the poor in a zero transaction cost world is irrelevant to the legitimacy of coerced transfers by the state.

2. Social Contract: The contract is a metaphorical one. What people would have agreed to if … is a common basis for deducing it, which makes this a plausible basis from which to defend the position Frank is arguing for. The only problem is that it is not a position popular with self-identified libertarians, few of whom are Rawlsians.

3. Consequentialism: The argument is that libertarian institutions lead to results that most people would prefer to the results of alternative institutions. This is the position I have usually argued from; while I have some sympathy with the moral intuitions underlying the natural rights position I lack arguments to support those intuitions, so prefer to take other people’s objectives as given and argue that my preferred institutions would better achieve them. Utilitarianism is one version of consequentialism, but not the only possible one.

In terms of convincing people, I think number 3 is by far the most effective. Most non-libertarians don’t care about trampling over peoples’ natural rights (number 1) if they think it is the best way to produce a desirable outcome (see: Machiavelli). The objectively true statement “taxation is theft” will rarely give someone an “aha” moment about liberty. But a well reasoned libertarian can demonstrate desirable results are only compatible with freedom, and change a person’s mind about the proper role of the state.

After accepting libertarian consequences are highly desirable for all people, number 1 makes a lot of sense. It’s no coincidence that the fair process (private property & liberty) achieves the efficient outcome. It’s based on human nature, and why voluntary actions are preferable to involuntary ones. Murray Rothbard really has this stuff down well.

As a libertarian who gets grilled about his uncommon beliefs, I can safely say it’s hard for me to show that libertarian institutions produce desirable outcomes for every situation. That doesn’t mean it’s not true, it’s just hard to be able to show everything until you’ve studied many subjects at length. Libertarianism is constantly on the defense (see: Rand Paul). That’s why I generally refer people to a book (Free to Choose) before I can have a serious conversation about libertarianism as a whole. I don’t have the facts for each specific program. There’s an entire logical narrative, and it’s best digested in book format.

Three of my friends who are not libertarians have said they are going to read Free to Choose this summer. Expect an update in the far future on how that went for them. It’s not even my favorite libertarian book, but I think it is a good introduction.