Bryan Caplan recently posted a video conversation between himself and Sheldon Richman. Bryan has a new book out called Pro-Market and Pro-Business: Essays on Laissez-Faire. Sheldon Richman was, for a while at least, a vocal proponent of left-libertarianism, a school of thought associated with the idea that supporting truly free markets means opposing “capitalism,” and the “bosses, inequality, and corporate power” that go with it. So I was looking forward to what I thought would be a spirited debate!
In fact, there was much less disagreement between the two of them than I expected. It turns out that Sheldon has come to distance himself from many of his former left-libertarian positions. Not, to be clear, because he thinks they’re mistaken. For him, it’s more of a matter of emphasis. Left-libertarians are correct that real-world capitalism can sometimes promote inequality and hierarchy, but they’re wrong to talk as though those were the most common or important features of a capitalist system.
I have a long and friendly history with left-libertarianism. Or at least with many left-libertarians! Roderick Long is a fantastic philosopher, and the most thoughtful and sophisticated proponents of the view of whom I’m aware. He was also a regular contributor to the old BHL. So was Gary Chartier, about whom I have nothing but nice things to say. We had a lot of great discussions of left-libertarian ideas at the old blog, including this symposium which we co-ran with the left-libertarian Center for a Stateless Society.
That said, I have never identified myself as a left-libertarian. I am a sympathetic fellow traveller, in many respects. But at some point in the road our paths diverge. Still, I’ve never really explained exactly where that point lies. So in this post, I’d like to rectify that by explaining first, what I think left-libertarianism gets right, and then, where I think it misfires.
What Left-Libertarianism Gets Right
Vulgar Libertarianism - Like Sheldon, I find the idea of “vulgar libertarianism” compelling. The idea behind this term is that many people conflate the libertarian idea of free markets with actually existing capitalism - but only when it’s convenient. So, for instance, libertarians will sometimes respond to left wing criticisms of inequality in the United States by arguing that whatever inequalities exist are simply the natural results of the market process. But then, when the US economy produces an outcome they don’t like, they’re quick to dismiss it by pointing out that we don’t live in a truly free market economy.
The thing about this point is that you don’t have to be a left-libertarian to make or endorse it. It’s simply a point about being clear on the difference between ideals and reality. It’s one thing to defend capitalism as an ideal type. It’s another to defend the mixed system we call “capitalist” in the United States. Both of those things might be worth doing. Or maybe one’s worth doing and the other’s not. The point is simply that they’re different, and it’s important to be clear about those differences.Socialist Ends, by Liberal Means - The main rhetorical conceit of left-libertarianism is that many of the goals favored by socialists will be better achieved by libertarian means. So, for instance, if you care about inequality or poverty, or the rights of women and racial minorities, then you really ought to be a capitalist, because that’s the system that’s actually going to make those goals a reality.
Now, I think there is an awful lot to be said for this argument. Indeed, something like this idea was one of the main ideas behind Bleeding Heart Libertarianism too. Capitalism really is the world’s most successful anti-poverty program. And I think there’s a lot to be said for its tendency to promote tolerance, to reduce discrimination, and to improve the well-being of vulnerable people. But it’s also possible, as we’ll see below, to take this idea way too far.
What Left-Libertarianism Gets Wrong
Implausible Predictions - Left-libertarians argue that life would be radically different under a regime of truly “freed markets.” How one assess these predictions will depend in part on how one assesses the current mixed system in which we live. If who think that the United States is a mostly capitalist economy with some areas of cronyism and unfreedom, then you’ll probably think that a fully free system won’t look radically different. On the other hand, if you think (as most left-libertarians seem to) that the current system is mostly unfree with some small areas of freedom, you’ll be more likely to see full freedom as involving a radical upheaval of the status quo.
Of course, your predictions will depend not just on the quantity of freedom and unfreedom, but on the particular mechanisms you think are in play in bringing out various social outcomes. Many left-libertarians, for instance, predict that in a system of freed markets many more people will be self-employed, or will choose to work in worker-managed firms. That’s because they think that our current mixed economy artificially suppresses those options, while propping up traditional hierarchical firms. To me, this seems like a mistake. The reason most people don’t work in employee-managed firms isn’t that the state makes it hard for them to do so. It’s that they don’t want it, period. A lot of people are happy to have someone else be the boss, and to leave the headaches of management and risk-bearing to somebody else. That’s not cronyism; it’s just the division of labor.
Similar questions arise for other left-libertarian predictions. Would economic inequality mostly disappear? Would landlordism? Would Walmart? Left-libertarians seem to believe that these phenomena only exist (or as only as common as they are) because of the pathologies of crony capitalism. Those of us who think they might be more deeply rooted in features of human nature or in economic logic will tend to disagree.Implausible Foundations - The empirical predictions outlined above are the most distinctive features of left-libertarianism. In terms of its underlying philosophical principles, left-libertarianism is basically just plain old Rothbardianism. And as I’ve argued elsewhere, that’s simply not a very plausible view. The arguments for individual self-ownership aren’t that compelling; the implications of a libertarian theory of property in a world of massive historical injustice and constant boundary-crossing are unclear or absurd; and none of these ideas has much to say regarding what we have overwhelming reason to care about in designing our political and economic reasons - whether they help people to live together in ways that are peaceful, productive, and flourishing. Call those consequentialist concerns if you want, but they’re the kind of consequentialist concerns that any plausible version of deontology is going to have to take into account. (And the best do).
Don’t get me wrong, if I have to choose between a left-libertarian and a right-wing Hoppean, I’ll take the former any day! But neither of those approaches strikes me as plausible as the classical liberalism of Hayek, Buchanan, or Schmidtz.