The Subjective Happiness Rationale for libertarianism
Here’s one way to explain the rationale for libertarianism. I will call it the Subjective Happiness Rationale, and I’m no doubt borrowing some ideas from Murray Rothbard and possibly others. And I should reiterate that when I say libertarianism, I mean pure anarchist libertarianism (as distinct from the limited-government minarchist libertarianism of people like Ron Paul and Milton Friedman).
A consistent theory of human ethics should seek to maximize human happiness (or minimize suffering). But happiness is entirely subjective (just ask a masochist). Since there’s no way to determine the nature of someone else’s happiness, the only way to maximize it is to allow maximum freedom for the individual to act and thus seek his own happiness. To be consistent, the rule must apply universally to every rational being, or moral agent. The result, it seems to me, is the rule that no one may aggress against anyone else, even if it’s purportedly for a noble cause or their own good or the common good. So the state, which by definition is created and maintained by aggression against those within its claimed borders, is illegitimate. Unless I’ve made a mistake somewhere (which is possible).
Thoughts?
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Comments
Comment from Darren
Time: March 5, 2010, 12:39 am
No matter what your utilitarian ethic, you run into the fundamental fact that no one can determine utility for someone else. Considering the fact that the state is intertwined in everything to some degree, “market failure” is a meaningless term–anything you might call a “market failure” could easily be explained as a “state failure.” And to the extent that negative externalities occur, a state has no better way of determining the proper course of action than the aggregate actions of people interacting voluntarily in mutually beneficial arrangements. As long as the development of property rights (in a voluntary market-based polycentric legal system) is not interfered with by force (i.e. the state), negative externalities will be automatically minimized (within the constraints of current technology), with no possible improvement provided by the alternative of a statist scheme with decisions based on politics and bureaucratic whim instead of individual value judgments.
As for positive externalities, I would point out that no one has a right to an interstate highway or any other such thing. Also, nothing requires eminent domain. If it’s something people truly want, it will still be done on a non-coercive basis but at a potentially higher land acquisition cost that reflects the actual values people assign to such projects.
Comment from Jimmy
Time: February 25, 2010, 5:54 pm
The rule that no one may aggress against anyone else is certainly consistent, but it wholly precludes utilitarian considerations.
Admittedly, horrible things can be (and often are) done in the name of “the common good.” That said, I think you have to entertain a utilitarian ethic to the extent that “market failure” can occur via the private actions of independent agents. It’s a question of rectifying negative externalities (e.g., pollution) and potentially creating positive ones (such as interstate highways which require eminent domain actions).