Libertarian "Rules of Thumb"

The Freeman, which is published by the Foundation for Economic Education, has posted an insightful article by Lawrence Reed.  I post here the "ten rules of thumb" that Reed suggests are necessary for advancing liberty throughout the next year and further into the future.

1. Get motivated.2. Learn.3. Be optimistic.4. Use humor.5. Raise questions.6. Show you care.7. Seize the moral high ground.8. Develop an appealing persona.9. Don't demand total and immediate acceptance.10. Make allies, not enemies.

This are very fine rules by which any advocate for a freer society ought to live.  Libertarians can be rather rough characters.  There's a lot going against us.  People generally think we don't care about the poor and down-trodden, which is somewhat understandable, given Hayek's argument, for example, as to the "mirage of social justice."  Women and minorities tend not to trust us, since we are generally white, privileged males. (Something which is finally, and thankfully, beginning to change!)  And a fair number of libertarians turn-off moderate, or rather, pragmatic individuals given their tendency towards radical and unflinching positions.  By inculcating a kindler, gentler, and more approachable libertarian "culture," we can advance our policy goals and desired ends without alienating so many individuals as we have heretofore.

Of course, I think there is an important development within the libertarian movement that Reed has failed to address adequately in drafting these "rules of thumb."  Libertarianism is increasingly seen by its adherents as something more than a political philosophy.  That is to say, many libertarians want their political ideology to provide more than mere principles for political life, but also a positive program for living one's own life.  Thus, libertarianism is becoming something thicker and more comprehensive than the Non-Agression Principle (NAP) or any of its variants.  Instead, some libertarians want the sort of systemization enjoyed by Objectivists, who adopt Rand's positions on politics and ethics.

This development is troubling.  At some point I plan to address it more fully, but for now I'll just share my uneasiness with understanding libertarianism as anything other than a political philosophy.  As I see it, the principles of liberty tell me how society -- specifically political society -- ought to be arranged so as to secure our individual freedoms and the free space to exercise our natural liberties.  In this sense, then, libertarianism is negative and devoid of any positive principles that dictate how I ought to act.  

The Harm Principle provides only a limited substantive content that can guide us in making determinations towards behavioral action.  It will, of course, tell us whether we can legitimate choose to act towards others in certain ways.  You cannot, for example, murder another individual without violating your commitment to libertarianism.  But, the NAP fails to guide us in choosing which human goods to pursue in search of a flourishing life.  It provides no standard for determining our moral obligations to others in need of assistance, for example, thus implicating our shared understanding of the virtue of charity.  And it cannot tell us whether certain private actions, say, our sexual preferences or lifestyles more generally, are good and worthy.

I am a devout Catholic.  I am social conservative.  I find many aspects of the libertine lives lived by my fellows in the libertarian movement to be personally objectionable.  I have no interest in using marijuana, heroin, or other drugs.  I find atheism wrong, and agnosticism silly.  And I strongly approve of traditional moral norms.  I recognize the family as the foundation of Western civilization.  Yet, at the same time, I would never choose to enforce these norms on others vis-a-vis the State.  Political society does not exist to attain the moral perfection of its members.  For a long time, this variety of libertarianism seemed to be the norm.  

As I've already mentioned, I think that this is beginning to change.  Libertarianism and individualism have been used to judge the morality of our private actions, our moral decisions.  When brought to its logical conclusion, this effort results in a complete abandonment of any sort of serious metaphysics, as well as a retreat into cultural and moral relativism and subjectivism.  Thus, the philosophical consequences of a "thick" libertarianism are especially worrisome, since they represent, in my estimation, a number of rather unattractive positions.  (On this point, I think I am in complete agreement with the Objectivist, though he would disagree as to which philosophy beside libertarianism ought to comprise our ethic system.)

Perhaps, then, we should add another point to Reed's list: recommitment to the understanding of libertarian as a political philosophy, and not a comprehensive guide for understanding the Good Life and the best path for our individual attainment of eudaimonia.