One of the best maxims I learned in my academic study of philosophy, is that you should always understand the best arguments against the position you personally hold. I think that this is one of the many defects of modern political discourse is that few people give any thought to strong opposition to their positions. It is, after all, much easier to just accuse your opponent of bad faith and nefarious motives than it is to consider the potential strengths of their argument.
So, in the interests of giving my ideological opponents (broadly speaking, non-libertarians and federalists) a fair accounting, here are what I see as the three greatest arguments against libertarianism.
1.) Social influence matters, too. Occasional commenter B-Daddy made this point aptly over on his blog a week or so ago in making the case for why Libertarians need Conservatives. In essence, libertarians do spend an inordinate amount of time fighting political threats to freedom and prosperity without considering the social dimension. Probably the best form of this critique from a libertarian is Kerry Howley’s eloquent call for a “Thick Libertarianism”1, such as in her excellent essay “We’re All Cultural Libertarians“. (In keeping with the theme of this essay, that link also includes two rebuttals too Howley’s essay, but I have to confess that I don’t find either of them particularly compelling.)
2.) What about the children?! In most contexts, this is usually a bullshit objection, but when it comes to libertarianism, it actually has some traction. The status of children in a libertarian society is far from clear, and it’s obvious that protections for children would have to be considered under any libertarian system. They clearly aren’t fully functioning members of society. They can’t reasonably be treated as chattel belonging to their parents. (At least not without severe caveats.) If there are to be any social protections at all for children to keep them safe from abuse and maltreatment, then those need to be permitted or enshrined by any reasonable libertarian model of governance. That this was one of the first arguments brought up by commenter Citizen Jane in her objection to me memes-and-poverty post of a few days ago is no accident, and it’s definitely an argument that all libertarians have to have some way of addressing.2
3.) The Tragedy of the Commons. Like all good libertarians, I think that the answer to most instances of the Tragedy of the Commons is privatization. But there are some instances (e.g. air quality) where privatization isn’t just unfeasible, but impossible. Any libertarian argument must make some allowances for this and have some compelling argument for why these negative externalities would either be avoided or compensated for.3
So those are what I see as the three most compelling counter arguments against libertarianism. I (obviously) have personally compelling arguments to all three of them, but I’ll resist the urge to include them in this post. The purpose of this exercise (which I humbly suggest all my readers consider engaging in) is to understand the potential weaknesses of my beliefs, so that I have the best chance of detecting and identifying personal error.
1 I honestly don’t know that I’ve ever seen Kerry Howley use this term, but it’s the one I’ve adopted for the view that libertarianism needs to be about more than just cantankerous anti-authoritarianism.
2 Incidentally, this is the core of one of the arguments that prevents me from being an Anarcho-Capitalist. AnCap ideas are great, but they break down in a few important areas. Children, for me, are the most compelling of those areas.
3 This is the other major reason why I’m not an Anarcho-Capitalist. The AnCaps I’ve read haven’t had any compelling arguments at all regarding the detection, investigation, and proper accounting for violations of the commons.