The bigotted liberal
Many say that liberalism is based upon open mindedness. I disagree. It is perfectly possible to be a bigotted liberal.
Say you believed that homosexuals are sinners and are going to hell and that they’re evil. Does that preclude you from being a liberal? I don’t think it does, it may not make you particularly welcome in the Liberal Democrats (although I hope we’d fight for the right to believe that and to say that), but the Liberal Democrats aren’t the only place liberalism is to be found in this country (and not everything suggested by the Liberal Democrats is liberal).
What makes a person liberal is not open mindedness, but a conviction that it is not their place, or the place of anyone else, to force people to live how they think is best.
My hypothetical bigot could be liberal - what he would do is oppose any state enforcement of his beliefs. He might seek to persuade people of the ‘error of their ways’, but he would not use force upon them.
That is what makes someone a liberal, the belief that it is up to others to make their own choices about their lives, even if you disapprove. Thankfully many (if not most) liberals are tolerant and open minded, and willing to help if they can where its asked for, but this need not be the case.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 6th, 2008 at 10:54 am
I used to think too, that a homophobic, or a racist, or a misogynic person could be a liberal as long as he would oppose force against homosexuals or people of different race or women. Now I’m not so sure anymore. A liberal society isn’t only a result of liberal politics, it is also a result of liberal culture. I don’t believe anymore, that liberal politics could survive in a society with intolerant culture. Sooner or later there will be people who want to enforce the prevailing values by writing them into legislation. Just think about some of the policies of George W. Bush. Though United States begun from classical liberal principles, now the Christian Right wants to right its values into constitution.
Take another kind of case from the other side of Atlantic. You probably have heard about Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who considers himself a libertarian, an anarcho-capitalist to be more precise. People like Hoppe, in theory, oppose state interference in the lives of individuals. However, their logic is badly twisted. Hoppe supports small anarcho-capitalist communities, where the landowner wouldn’t tolerate homosexuals, foreigners or people of different race on his land. He takes it for granted, that at least the majority of the landowners would take this position if given the chance to decide. Because anarcho-capitalism isn’t yet achieved, he argues, the state should act like the landowners supposedly would, and therefore not let in foreigners, or at least not allow them to use the roads and thuse to move from place a to place b. Etc. He has ended to a policy which he thinks predicts the actions of individual landowners in free society. Therefore he call his policies libertarianism, though they are anything but libertarian.
Another common mistake which I have seen people to make is, that because liberalism advocates free speech, they have the right to say anything, whether racists, homophobic or misogynic, and still call themselves “liberal”. Liberalism might give them the freedom to express their views, but that doesn’t mean that all views freely expressed are liberal.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
I consider myself free to use argument against anybody I disagree with, yet I am tolerant of socialists and conservatives because I don’t use force or the state against them.
Could your hypothetical “liberal bigot” not be similarly tolerant?
There is a difference of course between criticism of ideas and an eagerness to pass moral judgement on somebody’s lifestyle or identity. (Except when it comes to environmentalism, apparently.) And does religion count as ideas or identity/lifestyle?
But what is this difference? Why does it matter? Perhaps because in condemning a lifestyle, particularly in a political context, there is an implicit threat to use the power of the state against someone.
But still I submit there is nothing illiberal in condemning what you disagree with. But there is something illiberal in disagreeing with somebody else’s chosen harmless-to-others lifestyle.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
small-l:
I think that most liberals are tolerant, and that a liberal culture of tolerance is probably necessary for liberalism to flourish, but its not clear that every liberal has to be tolerant.
Herman-Hoppe’s position is illiberal as you describe it.
I’m fine with a system where people can choose whether to allow homosexuals on their land (I’m pretty confident that those who refuse would lose out and there’s enough of us who wouldn’t care about sexuality), but to ascribe this preference to everyone is not liberal, and then to advocate using state force to enforce this because its what he considers to be the outcome of anarcho-capitalism is a massive hole in his idea of liberty - he’s presuming to know the result so wishes to enforce that, but the result is not known, its pure speculation (and heavily influenced by his priors).
It can sound persuasive to people, but it is fundamentally flawed reasoning and is a corruption of the ideas of liberty.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Joe Otten: “But there is something illiberal in disagreeing with somebody else’s chosen harmless-to-others lifestyle.”
OR with somebody else’s unchosen harmless-to-others lifestyle, as a matter of fact. I don’t believe that homosexuals have actually chosen to be homosexuals, though according to certain religious views they have. But that doesn’t really matter, chosen or unchosen, homosexualism is harmless to others. And then there is of course the matter of race, that’s hardly chosen or even a lifestyle, but I think there is something fundamentally illiberal in judging somebody on his or her race, anyway.
As for the religion, I think everybody has the right to practise their chosen religions in their private lives as long as it doesn’t limit the rights of others to live their lives as they choose.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Joe:
I fail to see how disagreeing with somebody else’s chosen lifestyle is illiberal.
The whole point about the liberal is they take this outside the political sphere. It is no concern of the state.
My hypothetical person is not tolerant of others, he may even refuse to have anything to do with someone who he disapproves of, but that is his decision and the state and politics has nothing to do with it.
I have actually come across some people a bit like this Personally I find them deeply unpleasant, and will argue against their prior beliefs, but they do not wish to impose state power (or any coercion) upon others if they happen to disagree with their views or live life in an ‘unacceptable way’ which makes them liberals.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Tristan:
“I’m fine with a system where people can choose whether to allow homosexuals on their land”
This sounds like bizarro-libertarian talk.
In real life we can all invite who we wish into our homes, and don’t have to answer for our reasons. Although if our home is burning down, the fire fighters are entitled to enter and we are not entitled to stop them for a sexual history on the way.
I don’t take such an absolutist view of land ownership. There’s no particular reason why the rights of land ownership should extend over the actions of visitors to the land when they are not actually visiting the land - in fact this sounds like a bad idea.
Going further. The rights that land ownership brings - to do what you want with it, within the law, are rights that only exist within the framework of laws recognised by the government.
A landowner is not a mini-monarch, it is quite a different thing to be. The state still makes the laws, and has no reason to grant, say, the landowner of a place of business, a right to discriminate against Jews, blacks, gays and traffic wardens, on top of the right to run a business.
ISTM Libertarians seem to take a “natural law” view of land ownership, that is more or less equivalent to monarchy. And because it is taken as natural, no justification is offered.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
I’d say that’s radical liberal talk. Taking things back to the basics.
I don’t see where I’m saying a land owner should control what visitors do outside their property, just that they have the right to deny anyone use of their property - that is the basis of much of liberalism. Nothing in that says that people can’t be gay, just that a property owner could say that they can’t use his property.
As for the fire fighters - we should be at liberty to do that if nobody else’s property is in danger. You’d be foolish to do that, but that’s no reason to stop it if you are the victim.
The big mistake you make is claiming that the state would ‘grant rights’. That is false, we grant the state power, the state doesn’t grant us rights.
Your grasp of libertarianism also seems tenuous. Some may just claim something is ‘natural’ but not many serious thinkers would sink to that.
Most libertarianism starts from the principle of self-ownership, something which surely you’d agree with (unless you advocate slavery). You therefore own the product of your labour, and anything you exchange that for.
If someone is forcing you to use that property in a certain way, then you cannot be said to own it fully (the one exception comes from equality under the law - everyone has the same rights, so you cannot interfere with there’s - you may own a gun, but you may not use it to rob someone since they have exclusive right to that property).
I think this is well within liberalism - especially the British liberal tradition with its concern over the historical monopoly on land granted to the ruling classes using force.
January 8th, 2008 at 9:57 am
OK Tristan, I disagree that people should have the right to obstruct firefighters doing their job. I come to this view by looking at the consequences of this right a) existing and b) not existing.
Is there another way of coming to this view, some sort of property-magic that settles it irrespective of the consequences?
What do you make of the (now abolished) British tradition that trespass is not criminal? That although this land monopoly was granted to the ruling classes, it is not as absolute as it might have been, and this is to be applauded.
You write:
“The big mistake you make is claiming that the state would ‘grant rights’. That is false, we grant the state power, the state doesn’t grant us rights.”
I don’t think this contradicts what I said in the way it appears to.
Ask yourself the question: what rights should be associated with land-ownership? The right to shoot trespassers? The right to shoot trespassing firefighters? Whatever the answer is, we need to agree it so that everybody knows where they stand. The forum where we do that is part of the state. Those rights can still only be realised because they are recognised by other individuals, so this is not in contradiction with your view of rights and the state.
January 8th, 2008 at 11:08 am
I come to this view by looking at the consequences of this right a) existing and b) not existing.
The consequences for whom? As I said, if someone else, or someone else’s property is in danger then they should have a right to enter to protect that. Otherwise, who cares? It is not their duty to protect you from your own actions.
This is not some ‘property-magic’, it is reasoning from the harm principle (which is admittedly based upon self ownership in the way I view it).
As for those ‘rights associatied with land ownership’. I think you are approaching this from the wrong direction.
I don’t think rights are associated with land ownership, they are associated and emanate from self ownership and extend to fairly gained property (which is a problem in itself - what constitutes that? - perhaps some form of state or agreement is needed to decide that…)
Logically it leads to the position that so long as you make it clear (you may find this unacceptable, it doesn’t mean its unjust however). If something is made clear, then the consequences of an action are accepted by someone taking part.
I am left wondering what need for the state is here. Is it possible that voluntary association could police this?
If I make it clear that I will shoot trespassers, then why do I need the state to make that clear? Why should anyone else even agree with it, so long as they know the consequences of their actions…
(the existence of a group who will use force to access my property in the event of me doing harm to another also does not need the state to agree that with me - so long as I am notified).
I am not certain on all this (despite appearances ;) ), you do make some good points, but your reasoning still seems to be the state granting rights.
January 8th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Tristan, suppose at the time you fairly acquire title to a piece of land, that title does not include the lapinage (the right to hunt rabbits) on the land which has been sold elsewhere, is there a problem? Is the state trampling on your rights? No - lapinage is a right that you never acquired. Similarly the right to obstruct firefighters is one you never had.
As the lapinage example - yes it does exist - shows we have a tradition of highly divisible - absurdly divisible perhaps - land ownership. What your argument seems to demand is that land ownership should not be divisible. But why not? Would it really be better if satellites needed permission for every square metre they flew over?
I think libertarianism is striving to be economical with its concepts - that self ownership, ownership of property, and monarchy should be much the same thing as one another. Simpler theory is appealing for its simplicity. My view: make things as simple as possible but no simpler. I suggest ownership of property is different to “self-ownership”, and is justified rather better than by this mere analogy.
Consequences for whom? I am alluding to a kind of consequentialist ethics. Broadly speaking a choice is to be ethically preferred if it has better consequences for people in general, with each person judging for themselves what is a better outcome for them. I realise this sounds much like preference utilitarianism which is not my intention, but it is difficult to say more without going into a lot of detail.
January 8th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
No. The right for firefighters to enter your property should not exist (again, excepting harm to others or their property). The state has granted firefighters that right, it did not exist prior to that granting.
When I talk of owning land, I am taking it as its whole. The state has no right to enforce lapinage. If you wish to grant or sell it to someone then fine. If another person comes into ownership of the land, then they have the right to renegotiate the lapinage.
Your example of satellites makes a false assumption - that property extends infinitely upwards. It does not, especially if you take a homesteading view of land ownership.
In that case the (monopolistic) user of the land (in this case the airspace) can claim ownership. So as I’m not using that space, I can have no claim to it. I’d probably go so far as to say that in that case, ownership is confined to a particular set of points in space-time - ie nobody has the right to disrupt the satellite/plane with another object, but can use the space before or afterwords.
That consequentialism does sound like utilitarianism. I’m also confused as to how you can say what is better for ‘people in general’. Surely it leads to an ever increasing level of ‘what ifs’ and could be used to justify anything given enough imagination.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Tristan, it is not exactly a right that firefighters have, it is a duty. And what does it matter when this duty originated? Does it matter if it predates your acquisition of the land? If it does predate, then nothing has been taken away from you.
The lapinage point seems to have confused you. If I own the lapinage on your land, I am perfectly entitled to go to the courts to enforce it. Lapinage is a kind of property, just like freehold. Presumably it sounded like a good idea to a landowner once who sold it off separately to the rest of the title. What I am trying to illustrate is that land ownership is itself a bundle of rights. What you seem to be saying is that any such bundle of rights ought to include X, Y and Z because that makes the bundle more similar to a state of “self-ownership” which is self-evidently good.
I don’t see how this argument has any force. I don’t object to self-ownership, except to say that it is too weak - one’s rights to one’s own body are stronger that ownership. For example a body can’t be demanded in payment of a debt. But accepting the notion of self-ownership for the sake of argument, what reason is there for demanding that other bundles of rights, not related to one’s own body, nevertheless have a similar profile?
Utilitarianism is a kind of consequentialism. Classical utilitarianism is concerned with happiness rather than each person’s own preferences. There are of course problems with it. But it doesn’t trouble me that it “could be used to justify anything”, rather it would only if it could be used truthfully to justify anything. Anyway I am just clarifying what I mean by “should”. What do you mean by “should”?
A thorough case by case analysis of the harm principle to the question of a firefighter entering a home unwelcome to tackle a fire would so impede fire responses, that I suggest the harm principle demands a blanket right to tackle all fires. Stopping to ask permission, and figuring out all the people who need to be asked, itself does too much harm.
January 10th, 2008 at 4:31 am
Tristan, you seem to base your justification for land ownership on the homesteading concept. I don’t feel like attacking that in a generalised sense right now, so instead I will ask:
What property in the United Kingdom can be considered to have been consensually traded since its occupation from an unexplored wilderness state?
I suspect that the amount will be rather small! In areas with a long history of occupation the homesteading principle does not protect any land ownership, as there has clearly been some invalid forceful interupting the chain of ownership at some point in almost all cases.
As a more general question, how do you feel about below ground natural resources. Does rightfully owning the ground above under the homesteading principle grant ownership of these resources? Limiting the space owned upwards means its sensible to do so downwards, but noone else can access them if you own the point above. I think you could guess my views on the matter, but I’m not sure of yours.
I was going to go into land ownership and shooting tresspassers, but I wasn’t sure if that was just an example or a viewpoint, so I will just ask for clarification on that.
January 10th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Joe:
Firstly, the lapinage issue (ie multiple ownership) offers some interesting areas to think about - however, it kind of gets away from the initial argument.
I say, that in (frankly unlikely circumstances) someone owns some property which is on fire but not harming anyone else or anyone else’s property, then they have the right to refuse entry to fire fighters and to deny them entry to his property.
It is not the place of firemen to do an analysis each time, I think its reasonable to assume that, unless otherwise stated, people want the help, but if they are refused entry and it can be shown that nobody else is harmed, then they should not enter.
As for duty, it does not matter if they have a duty imposed by the state, infact I’d argue that that duty is invalid since it is a use of state coercion to protect someone from themselves.
At the most, their duty is to fulfill their job by offering help, but not by forcing it upon people.
January 10th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Tinter:
You’ve actually hit upon my reason for uneasiness about homesteading, at least practically. I would agree that there is very little land which fulfills those requirements. That is why I am happy to accept some form of land reform before that sort of principle could be installed (if it is desirable, its actually not something I’ve looked into enough to say either way…)
On below ground natural resources (a bit of on the fly reasoning here - not necessarily my view) - I suppose from a combination of the harm principle and homesteading such resources would belong to the person who homesteaded them.
If the person who owns the land which they are under does not exploit them then they have no claim to them, but since they own the land nobody can dig there without permission. However, if they accessed them through an underground tunnel, which did not affect the surface, then they could rightfully claim them.
I’m not sure if I agree with that or not though, I suppose it depends whether I accept homesteading.
The shooting trespassers thing. Its not exactly opinion - its an area of what could be called logical libertarianism which is certainly uncomfortable for me.
Some libertarians would say that you have a right to shoot a trespasser on sight. I disagree and think that you also have a moral duty to respect the life and property of others.
In that case, there should be several things you should do - firstly, if you intend to defend your property with lethal force, you should make it clear to anyone entering the property.
Secondly, you should allow opportunity for trespassers to leave in a non harmful way before taking action.
This reminds me of a scenario I heard from Walter Block - say you were falling from a building, and cartoon style you managed to grab one of those horizontal flagpoles and stop your fall. There you are hanging from the flag pole and the owner looks out of their window, says you are trespassing and orders you to let go, despite the fact that it will mean your certain death. Should you do so? Should they be able to force you to let go? If they did would it be murder?
I think that in Block’s conception of libertarianism the answers are yes, yes, no.
I find that very dissatisfying. It may be logically consistent with his axioms, but personally I think that since there are ways to remove the person from the property without harming them, you should be obliged to use one of those routes (is this based upon any logic? Well, its rooted in feeling rather than logic… although I may be able to come up with a justification)
January 10th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Tristan,
If Block’s axioms lead to bad deductions then they are bad axioms. It’s that simple.
You might look for a logical objection, but bear in mind that Block’s conclusion has no logical force whatever in the first place, because it relies on an uncritical acceptance of his axioms.
I take a somewhat Popperian view of political and moral principles, that the deductions we make from them are most interesting for the way they serve to support or refute the principles - rather than considering any principle so fully proven or obvious that we should follow its conclusions to the bitter end no matter how absurd or rotten they might be.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Joe:
I tend to take your view, although certain things I view as inviolable.
I actually agree with many of Block’s positions on things, this is the one I can think of where I don’t.
I’m not so sure the axioms are bad full stop. In fact I think they make for a mostly very good legal system in many ways.
Perhaps his axioms are incomplete?
I certainly believe that the conclusion in that case is morally wrong, but since when have morality and legality had anything in common?
I think most societies would condemn the property owner in that case. I certainly would not want to live in one where such actions were acceptable.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Good principles may make bad axioms. And good principles may occasionally conflict with one another. What seems to characterise libertarianism is the attempt to elevate property above all other principles so that it may trump what comes into conflict with; and in that spirit to maximise the extent of private property.
Rather than everyone being free to the greatest possible extent, this seems to me to be a picture in which every man is an absolute dictator in his own sphere of property, and an abject slave everywhere else.
January 10th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Given that you don’t think current land ownership is justified by homesteading, why should land ownership be distributed as owned at all? Its unlikely that any equitable solution is to be found, particularly with refrence to future generations, immigration ect, as any solution could only deal with distribution and immediatly.
Furthermore, further reasons need to be given for doing so. Given that without homesteading there is no right to any specific piece of land, then arguments must be made as to why it is desirable to have the land distributed into private ownership.
To be clear, being a pragmatic reformist I am willing to consider a wide range of solutions, but personally favour solutions based on occupation and/or a degree of mutualism.
As to tresspassers on private property- surely placing a right to life/bodily integrity above a right to property solves this issue? If the state started shooting people on sight on certain property I would be outraged; its no diffrent with a private owner.
Really, the conditions for “making clear” that lethal force is to be used could not be known to have been met if set with due regard for the right of the individual to live, i.e deranged mental state, inability to understand via low intelligence or lingual issues, and so forth.
January 10th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Ugh, I think we’re tying ourselves in knots (or at least I am…)
Joe: I am not decided upon lots of this.
I reject your view of libertarianism, because I think you focus on one small clique of libertarianism.
I doubt Jock Coats would agree with your definition of libertarianism, yet he is happy with the term libertarian.
As far as I’m concerned, libertarianism is based upon individual freedom, self-ownership and non-aggression. That is its basically radical liberalism (before the ‘radicals’ took up the old right-wing methods).
Private property should be maximised though. Once you start down collective ownership you end up in the mess which results from tragedies of the commons. Private property is the very basis of liberalism.
January 10th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Tinter:
why should land ownership be distributed as owned at all?
Are you talking about the current distribution of land ownership? If so then I don’t think it should be distributed as it is now. If I based my reasoning on homesteading or Proudhon’s possession I would not be able to justify the current ownership.
This is probably the biggest problem facing a liberal program and has been for a long long time.
On trespassers:
What if the person trespassing is doing so with intent to kill or maim you?
Or you had just been assaulted at home and decided to defend yourself?
The right to life/bodily integrity does not solve this, since it opens up too many grey areas as the above examples hint at…
Under a legal system where your home was actually your castle, then so long as boundaries were clear, people would not venture onto your land without expectation that they could encounter the use of force.
This seems the simplest, clearest solution. Everyone knows where they stand, private property can be defended by force, you enter someone else’s property and you run the risk of getting hurt.
January 10th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Yes, its clear you don’t think it should be distributed as now, but you then state that we must therefore rejig the distribution to a new set of private landowners. My query is why is the current form of private land ownership by deed the best model?
I prefer an element of occupation and usage- that individuals may own their own homes, workplaces and so forth, but not places they do not personally use but hold a lease to and rent would not be valid.
So, I would view mixing labour with land as giving ownership in an immediate sense, and that may be traded to others for their usage, but land is still less of an owned commodity as mixing labour does not give ownership in perpetuity. I’m very open to being convinced otherwise on land ownership issues, however.
If the person is trying to maim/kill you, then go ahead and use lethal force. However, you can do this regardless of the ownership of the land you are on. I don’t think theres a gray area- because you have a right to bodily integrity, you can use force to defend that when threatened.
However, an unarmed individual wandering around at some distance on your property is not a clear threat to your bodily integrity, you can’t shoot them just for that. To do so without them doing anything to actually appear to be a threat is to state that it is acceptable to kill over property rights, that is to say that property rights are hierarchically above the right to bodily intergrity. I certainly can’t accept that as reasonable.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Fair enough Tristan. I am using the term libertarian in a fairly limited way: that’s the libertarian what I have met.
If (in parallel with lapinage) we call the right to refuse entry to firefighters by some suitable Franglais term like flammatage, then you could argue that my position represents a collectivisation of flammatage. Is this the thin end of a wedge leading to tradgedies of the commons?
Difficult to see how. Thin end of the wedge arguments are generally unsound.
To butt into the other sub-thread on homesteading, perhaps we can see that we might construct an argument whereby homesteading justifies some kinds of property rights, but not flammatage. Flammatage on this argument never (morally) existed in the first place. Surely then there is no collectivisation going on.
Of course one could make the same argument about regular property. Personally I agree that the homestead principle is inadequate to the task, but I hold the principle of respecting private property to be morally justified by its consequences being better than the consequences of not heeding that principle. This may seem a weak argument, but I suggest it is much stronger than treating it as obvious or axiomatic which is no argument at all.