Following up on recent blogposts: The Fesenator wrote me back:

Thanks for your note, and for your latest comments on the Rockwell blog. My impression from what you say is that we probably don’t disagree here about anything of substance. My article was intended to criticize, not libertarianism, but rather certain claims _about_ libertarianism, such as the claim that it is, as Rawls’s position aims to be, “neutral” between “reasonable comprehensive doctrines.” (I know the jargon is ugly, but discussions of this issue since the time Rawls wrote have tended to adopt it, so I’m afraid I’m stuck with it.)

I gather that you don’t necessarily disagree with this point as long as it does not entail that your own version of libertarianism is false — and as far as I can tell, it does not entail this, any more than it entails the falsity of the Aristotelian and Hayekian versions of libertarianism I favor.

If you wonder whether there are libertarians who do care whether libertarianism is “neutral,” though, you might check out Will Wilkinson’s reply (2) to my article on TCS. Wilkinson seems to think it is desperately important to defend the claim that libertarianism is neutral in this Rawlsian sense, so my article was by no means directed against a view that no libertarians are committed to. I plan to respond to Wilkinson in another TCS piece.

As I wrote Ed back–if all Ed is discussing is whether libertarianism is “neutral” in some sense, that is fine but it simply does not interest me–at least, not qua libertarian. All I care about–qua libertarian–is whether the claim that aggression is unjustified (and I do believe the content of “aggression” is well understood), is true or not. And, of course, applications of this, details, investigations into what aggression is, in the gray or difficult issues, etc.

Wilkinson does go on about “Liberal Order and Liberal Neutrality” but my eyes tend to glaze over at this stuff. I don’t see how showing there is some kind of “neutrality” in libertarianism is either necessary or sufficient to justify it. In the end, libertarianism is about being civilized: about co-existing peacefully with one’s neighbors; cooperating with them rather than violently struggling with them; respecting their stuff rather than trying to take it and treating it like it’s yours.

Now we have this to a certain degree; we have a certain amount of voluntary respect for others’ rights already, otherwise we would not have obtained the degree of prosperity and civilization we do have. Now the question of why or how or whether this view is justified is an interesting one; so is the question of to what degree it is followed, or could be followed, or will be followed; and the question of what things can be done or will be done to achieve a higher compliance with the libertarian idea; and so is the issue of what is one’s personal ethical obligation in terms of devoting part of one’s own life to strategizing, activism, rhetoric, etc.

But none of these are libertarianism per se. To be a libertarian is to endorse the simple proposition that peaceful interaction is preferable to violence. It does not mean one believes we have liberty; or that perfect liberty will ever be achieved. It does not commit one to being some irritating activist who thinks it’s his duty to vote a certain way or “fight” for liberty. It does not mean that one even thinks that true liberty is possible.

The Best of Stephan Kinsella