"Neoliberalism" is a dirty word in some circles. A lot of my market-oriented friends view it as nothing more than an empty slur. And, to be fair, that is precisely how a lot of people on the left do, in fact, use it. But as some pretty good scholarship over the last decade has shown, neoliberalism is a term with a fairly specific historical and philosophical meaning. The term has its origins in the 1938
“Neoliberal in the streets, libertarian in the sheets.”
I’ve long called myself a libertarian. But I am also pragmatic. And while I may like the idea of a Nozickian nightwatchman state, I’m not going to reject a less ambitious program that increases freedom and human flourishing. So I view most self-described neoliberals as natural allies.
May 16, 2023·edited May 17, 2023Liked by Matt Zwolinski
I'm not sure empiricism vs. rationalism is the best way to understand the neoliberal vs. libertarian divide.
There are two camps that I do not think fit that conceptualization very well: radical Hayekians and also libertarian neoclassical economists. For the former, let me ask how exactly do Don Lavoie-type libertarians fit into that mold? They are pretty strongly anti-rationalist (see Lavoie's own engagement with 20th-century philosophy of science and strongly empiricist neo-pragmatists like Richard Bernstein). Yet, I'd call them far more libertarian in their radical conclusions than neo-liberal. The opposite problem is there for radically libertarian neoclassical economists like David Friedman or Bryan Caplan. They seem quite empiricist in their neoclassical economic orientation yet are very clearly strongly libertarian, consequentialist market anarchists.
Also, how would you fit libertarian thinkers in the Virginia School of Political Economy into this conceptual scheme? Is James Buchanan supposed to be a rationalist libertarian or an empiricist neo-liberal? He seems closer to rationalist than empiricist in epistemology (I could be wrong on that) yet closer to a neo-liberal than a libertarian politically.
Personally, I would probably cringe a bit if you called me a neoliberal (I am closer to a libertarian) and would cringe even harder if you called me a rationalist (my epistemological views are far closer to Rorty or Dewey than Descartes or Spinoza).
I think of the neoliberal/libertarian divide more as a divide of how seriously they take ideal theory, and how usefully they view more idealistic proposals versus ones closer to the status quo than a divide about epistemology. Libertarians are far more comfortable with a higher degree of idealization than neoliberals. There also seems to be a related emotional divide: neoliberals are far more fearful about losing the gains in freedom in the equality status quo liberal democracies have gotten us, and libertarians are far more optimistic about achieving a far more radically free and liberal (in the most radical sense of the term) society without losing those gains. Essentially, I think the difference is more that neoliberals are more small-c conservative than libertarians.
Edit: Was just reminded that Caplan is not actually a consequentialist, but a Rossian pluralist. Regardless, he's definitely not a believer in the type of hyper-rationalist foundationalism you are describing libertarians as doing.
Edit 2: Thinking about this more, if there is an epistemic divide between the two (I'm not convinced there is) it is probably more a divide between more and less foundationalist views of justification rather than empiricism/rationalism--with libertarians being more foundationalist than neoliberals. But even then, the Lavoie-camp is strongly anti-foundationalist yet clearly libertarian.
“ nobody puts baby in a corner”. Great article about first principles. I’m not a philosopher. So libertarians have first principles. But there must be some meaning in the word “first“ implying there are other principles that follow. I might phrase it: “the initiation of force is wrong.“ The body politic, then wishes to impose by force the detailed content of a voluntary employment contract. Such a law, if you can call it a law, certainly violates the first principle. Now what? To me the second principle is what I would call the “burden of proof.“ Take the minimum wage law as an example. It is justified if and only if all contracts to which it applies have some inherent unfairness. I can think of 1000’s of reasons why sub minimum wage contracts are just and absolutely proper. Therefore minimum wage laws, to me, never pass the burden of proof to become real law. On the other hand driving 70 mph on a busy residential street passes my burden. I’m not sure I helped.
An excellent and pithy distinction! Interestingly, it seems to imply a lot of the people who modernly write on libertarianism/write for handbooks on libertarianism/are often called libertarians are in fact neoliberals. Seems correct to me, but any student approaching this area of political philosophy is doomed to be confused by all the inconsistent labeling.
“Neoliberal in the streets, libertarian in the sheets.”
I’ve long called myself a libertarian. But I am also pragmatic. And while I may like the idea of a Nozickian nightwatchman state, I’m not going to reject a less ambitious program that increases freedom and human flourishing. So I view most self-described neoliberals as natural allies.
I'm not sure empiricism vs. rationalism is the best way to understand the neoliberal vs. libertarian divide.
There are two camps that I do not think fit that conceptualization very well: radical Hayekians and also libertarian neoclassical economists. For the former, let me ask how exactly do Don Lavoie-type libertarians fit into that mold? They are pretty strongly anti-rationalist (see Lavoie's own engagement with 20th-century philosophy of science and strongly empiricist neo-pragmatists like Richard Bernstein). Yet, I'd call them far more libertarian in their radical conclusions than neo-liberal. The opposite problem is there for radically libertarian neoclassical economists like David Friedman or Bryan Caplan. They seem quite empiricist in their neoclassical economic orientation yet are very clearly strongly libertarian, consequentialist market anarchists.
Also, how would you fit libertarian thinkers in the Virginia School of Political Economy into this conceptual scheme? Is James Buchanan supposed to be a rationalist libertarian or an empiricist neo-liberal? He seems closer to rationalist than empiricist in epistemology (I could be wrong on that) yet closer to a neo-liberal than a libertarian politically.
Personally, I would probably cringe a bit if you called me a neoliberal (I am closer to a libertarian) and would cringe even harder if you called me a rationalist (my epistemological views are far closer to Rorty or Dewey than Descartes or Spinoza).
I think of the neoliberal/libertarian divide more as a divide of how seriously they take ideal theory, and how usefully they view more idealistic proposals versus ones closer to the status quo than a divide about epistemology. Libertarians are far more comfortable with a higher degree of idealization than neoliberals. There also seems to be a related emotional divide: neoliberals are far more fearful about losing the gains in freedom in the equality status quo liberal democracies have gotten us, and libertarians are far more optimistic about achieving a far more radically free and liberal (in the most radical sense of the term) society without losing those gains. Essentially, I think the difference is more that neoliberals are more small-c conservative than libertarians.
Edit: Was just reminded that Caplan is not actually a consequentialist, but a Rossian pluralist. Regardless, he's definitely not a believer in the type of hyper-rationalist foundationalism you are describing libertarians as doing.
Edit 2: Thinking about this more, if there is an epistemic divide between the two (I'm not convinced there is) it is probably more a divide between more and less foundationalist views of justification rather than empiricism/rationalism--with libertarians being more foundationalist than neoliberals. But even then, the Lavoie-camp is strongly anti-foundationalist yet clearly libertarian.
“ nobody puts baby in a corner”. Great article about first principles. I’m not a philosopher. So libertarians have first principles. But there must be some meaning in the word “first“ implying there are other principles that follow. I might phrase it: “the initiation of force is wrong.“ The body politic, then wishes to impose by force the detailed content of a voluntary employment contract. Such a law, if you can call it a law, certainly violates the first principle. Now what? To me the second principle is what I would call the “burden of proof.“ Take the minimum wage law as an example. It is justified if and only if all contracts to which it applies have some inherent unfairness. I can think of 1000’s of reasons why sub minimum wage contracts are just and absolutely proper. Therefore minimum wage laws, to me, never pass the burden of proof to become real law. On the other hand driving 70 mph on a busy residential street passes my burden. I’m not sure I helped.
Subscribe to my Substack then The Neoliberal Standard. Excellent piece
An excellent and pithy distinction! Interestingly, it seems to imply a lot of the people who modernly write on libertarianism/write for handbooks on libertarianism/are often called libertarians are in fact neoliberals. Seems correct to me, but any student approaching this area of political philosophy is doomed to be confused by all the inconsistent labeling.