What is wrong with Libertarianism?

There is no doubting, the strength of the philosophical, theological and
historical arguments for liberty.

Everything that is true in modern Libertarianism echoes the writings of the great classical liberal thinkers, such as von Humboldt, John Stuart-Mill and Herbert Spencer in the 19th century, and W.H. Mallock, Wilhelm Roepke and F.A. Hayek in the 20th. Unfortunately, Libertarianism is also a deeply flawed and lopsided ideology.

Its first great failing is that it suffers from an idolatrous tendency to make freedom and personal choice an end in itself, forgetting that freedom is only a means to other ends. Some Libertarians may deny this, but their tendency is to regard an argument as won once it is pointed out that an existing restriction or proposal represents an interference with 'freedom of choice' or the operation of the 'free market'. This suggests the criticism is valid, especially in the areas of sexual ethics and popular culture. The question that must be faced, however, is why should we value liberty? Why should we automatically tolerate the 'drug culture', hardcore pornography, violent films or loud pop concerts in the countryside? Why should we tolerate teenage sex or refrain from criticising adultery and promiscuity?

If, as the great traditional arguments for liberty insist, freedom is essential to the cultivation of goodness, the pursuit of truth and the release of creativity, it follows that freedom derives its value and significance from its anchorage in an objective moral order. But if this is the case, it also follows that it is legitimate to criticise or restrain liberty if its pursuit in any particular instance damages or endangers other important values. Is there not, after all, a conflict between unlimited freedom of expression and the desirability of preserving a civilised culture?

Exaggeration

The second great failing of Libertarianism is its illogical and unjustified assumption that the right to personal liberty cannot be restricted in one area without inevitably destroying it in others. Why should legal restrictions on the sale and consumption of hardcore pornography or 'video-nasties' inevitably destroy freedom of thought and speech? Why should acceptance of the State's limited right to tax for certain clearly-defined purposes inevitably pave the way for a totalitarian state-controlled economy? Is it not possible to achieve a balance between conflicting but good objectives? Why will the 'Tree of Liberty' be cut down just because some of its twigs and branches have been pruned?

This tendency within Libertarianism to rhetorical exaggeration and ideological rigidity reflects a failure to appreciate that even the best and most clearly thought-out philosophy can never encapsulate and do justice to the full complexity of human life and society. It can only offer rough guidelines on which to base choices and decisions, not a foolproof blueprint which covers every eventuality. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the area of 'personal morality'.

Limited by others

The Libertarian rule that personal liberty should only be limited by the obligation on all individuals to respect the equal rights of others, not only ignores the fact that there are other moral values with which a compromise may need to be struck; it also makes the mistake of thinking that there is an absolute clear and rigid distinction between actions which only affect ourselves, and actions which affect other people. Hence the Libertarian belief that 'victimless crimes' like 'sexual deviancy' and drug-addiction should not be restricted or punished by law. The truth, however, is that most of our actions have some impact on other people.

If, for instance, no proper limits are placed on the sale and consumption of video-nasties, pornography, and hard drugs; and no real attempt is made to control the amount of sex, violence and bad language allowed in films and on television, what is going to be the likely result? Obviously the creation of a cultural environment inimical to the cultivation of courtesy, self-control, marital faithfulness and consideration for others. Will that not, in turn, undermine the family and encourage every kind of anti-social and criminal behaviour? Is it just a coincidence that the removal of censorship and the rebellion against traditional values which began in the 1960s has been followed by the harmful social trends mentioned at the beginning of this paper?

It is worth remembering that John Stuart-Mill's famous essay, On Liberty, specifically stated that freedom was not an unmixed blessing to be enjoyed by all without limit, but a condition which could only be of real benefit to mature adults. To quote his exact words: 'It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say that this doctrine (Liberty) is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties . . . Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind has become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion.'

Would they have approved?

Does this suggest that the great liberal thinkers of the past would have approved of today's coarse and licentious culture? They would surely be angered by the way in which their high-minded arguments in defence of personal liberty are constantly misused in order to justify giving free rein to the basest human appetites. What, they would ask, is the connection between free enquiry and voyeurism? How is the pursuit of knowledge and truth assisted by the graphic depiction of sexual intercourse or scenes of torture on our film and television screens? What, they might finally ask, is this increasing exposure to a culture of licentiousness and brutality doing to our souls and the souls of our children?

The answer to the last question is that it is not only the quality of our social life which is threatened by the prevailing climate of permissiveness and amorality; freedom itself is endangered.

In the first place, a society whose members are too absorbed in the pursuit of pleasure to develop high standards of personal behaviour, tends to have little respect for moral and intellectual excellence, especially if its cultural leaders preach the subjectivity of all values and treat all choices of 'lifestyle' as a matter of personal taste like food and clothing. This, in turn, produces a truculent and egalitarian mindset which dislikes hierarchy and authority within social institutions like the family, schools and colleges, and other 'private' and non-governmental bodies. The end result is a social vacuum of growing confusion, division and lawlessness, which is filled by an increasingly intrusive and authoritarian state. The parental smack, so to speak, gives way to the policeman's truncheon.

The second reason why contemporary moral decay threatens liberty has to do with the logic of ideas as well as the psychology of human behaviour. If it is generally believed that individuals have the right to do anything they like in their private lives, because moral values are not absolute but a matter of 'personal choice', then rulers and officials can similarly argue that they should be able to do whatever they like with power, if this advances their own interests. Moral relativism, in other words, encourages the pursuit of personal gratification and expediency within the organs of the State, and so paves the way to tyranny. Or to put it another way, if totalitarianism is thought of as 'permissiveness with power', the link between moral laxity and despotism becomes even more obvious.

Damage done

The potential threat to freedom posed by our currently 'permissive' culture, is becoming all the greater, because the damage caused by moral relativism increases if it reinforces existing tendencies towards self-indulgence and violence. As the evidence of history demonstrates, there is a close psychological connection between unchecked lust and physical cruelty and brutality. In both cases, there is a common lack of self-control and a tendency to treat other human beings as objects. Hence the fact that cruel societies are often sexually self-indulgent ones, as ancient Rome was in the first century. To quote the great psychologist, Jung: 'At a time when a large part of mankind is beginning to discard Christianity, it is worth while to understand clearly why it was originally accepted. It was accepted in order to escape at last from the brutality of antiquity. As soon as we discard it licentiousness returns, as is impressively exemplified by life in our large modern cities . . . we can hardly realise in this day the whirlwinds of the unchained libido which roared through the ancient Rome of the Caesars.'

Anyone who doubts the truth of Jung's comments should read that great historical classic, A History of European Morals (1911) by W.H. Lecky. It not only documents the immorality and cruelty of pagan antiquity, but is also significant because it is the work of a great classical liberal historian and thinker, who, while believing in God, was not a Christian, but a trenchant rationalist critic of the Church.

Reprinted with permission from 'Libertarianism: a Christian critique' published by The Christian Institute at £2.50. Tel. 0191 281 5664.

What is wrong with Libertarianism?

Exaggeration

Limited by others

Would they have approved?

Damage done

Philip Vander Elst

Main Articles

Other articles