Reason Magazine

Site Search

Cato's Tom Palmer on Libertarianism or Liberty

The roundtable on libertarianism's past, present, and prospects continues over at Cato Unbound, triggered by my new book Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement and by my essay "Libertarianism: Past and Prospects." Brink Lindsey and Tyler Cowen had already weighed in; now Cato's Tom Palmer does.

In Palmer's estimation, my book focuses too much on uninfluential kooks, and my essay doesn't provide cogent enough answers to what the best strategy for libertarian progress is, relying too much on gushy ecumenicism. I'll be replying to Palmer and the others at length later on Cato Unbound itself; in the meantime, an excerpt from his essay for your delectation:

At the root of what I see as Brian’s error is a confusion of two related projects: the promotion of liberty and the promotion of libertarianism, i.e., the theory that liberty should be the primary (or overriding) goal of a political order. The latter, to the extent one should want to promote it, would be valuable not for its own sake (unless promoting political theories were one’s hobby), but solely as a means to the end of promoting liberty, the value that is at the center of libertarianism. One way to promote liberty is surely to promote libertarianism, but it’s surely also not the only way.

The question of whether one is promoting liberty or libertarianism has been with libertarians for some time. Is it “selling out” one’s principles to promote incremental moves toward liberty without announcing at the same time one’s commitment to a world completely free of coercion, or of the institutions of coercion? (I was a participant in that debate [pdf] — somewhat to my embarrassment three decades later — when I wrote several essays on the topic in various 1970s journals, including the Libertarian Forum.)

A quick preview of my eventual response: I was quite consciously writing a history, as my book's title says, of the self-conscious libertarian movement, which is, as Palmer rightly notes, different from a history of libertarian ideas and their progress. My new essay today on Reason Online on the death of various "isms" touches on this idea--the distinctions between ideological movements and ideas--from a different perspective.

Send this article to:

« The U.S. Justice Department: Ask… | Main | To the Smokemobile! »

Comments to "Cato's Tom Palmer on Libertarianism or Liberty":

Eric Sundwall | March 16, 2007, 3:34pm | #

Will there be a response to Raimondo ?

Brian Doherty | March 16, 2007, 3:41pm | #

Eric--Probably on the dedicated Radicals for Capitalism blog when I have time to write it...but my big point would be: my book does not have the thesis that Justin thinks it has. (In fact, I maintain my book's purpose is not to prove a thesis, but tell a story and explain some interesting thinkers and activists.)

Guy Montag | March 16, 2007, 3:46pm | #

In fact, I maintain my book's purpose is not to prove a thesis, but tell a story and explain some interesting thinkers and activists.)

Just like porn! All beauty and no plot :)

I really need to get this book.

haiku-number | March 16, 2007, 3:48pm | #

this thread is lacking
these comments seem so boring
what is it missing?

haiku-number | March 16, 2007, 3:50pm | #

now it seems better
Brian's book sounds really great
goes on my wish list

VM | March 16, 2007, 3:52pm | #

Some HFCS
maybe our good friend Jean Bart
and Noam Chomsky doll.

crimethink | March 16, 2007, 3:53pm | #

Through haiku's power,
Libertarianism shall
conquer all its evil foes.

crimethink not good at haiku | March 16, 2007, 3:55pm | #

Through haiku's power
Libertarianism shall
conquer all its foes

JimmyDaGeek | March 16, 2007, 4:01pm | #

I have to inquire
What's deal with Noam Chomsky?
You keep bringing up.

stephen the goldberger | March 16, 2007, 4:06pm | #

these haikus show the
disturbingly seductive
allure of groupthink

crimethink | March 16, 2007, 4:06pm | #

Noam is leftist swine
So we make blow-up doll we
Violate day, night.

haiku-number | March 16, 2007, 4:06pm | #

Why do you ask, Geek?
do you need a companion?
Noam Chomsky's lonely

haiku-number | March 16, 2007, 4:08pm | #

he mentions groupthink
while he also writes haiku
built your house of glass?

sage | March 16, 2007, 4:10pm | #

Straight? Try Hillary
All who saw her camel toe
Were awed by its size

VM | March 16, 2007, 4:11pm | #

Noam the blow up doll
for humping and fond'ling libs
heather has two moms.

JimmyDaGeek | March 16, 2007, 4:12pm | #

You all perturb me
With your corn syrup and Noam.
I pass on offer.

crimethink | March 16, 2007, 4:12pm | #

Haikus about old
women's private parts not right
They sicken reader

stephen the goldberger | March 16, 2007, 4:14pm | #

hey i said it was
disturbingly seductive
you motherfucker

Innocent Bystander | March 16, 2007, 4:16pm | #

Rhythmic beat in brain
from reading so much haiku
triggering seizure.

crimethink | March 16, 2007, 4:18pm | #

jimmy, the longer
You frequent Hit and Run blog,
More you'll understand.

ed | March 16, 2007, 4:19pm | #

Ai carramba! Yikes!
Still with the haiku highjinx?
Must...stop...but...can't...stop!

crimethink | March 16, 2007, 4:20pm | #

I never fuck mothers,
Except at goldberger house,
I make exception.

Timothy | March 16, 2007, 4:20pm | #

Steven's mother is
Disturbingly seductive
I am bound for hell

crimethink | March 16, 2007, 4:23pm | #

Apologize to
stephen above, I thought you
Were addressing me!

Warren | March 16, 2007, 4:25pm | #

The implication
Old women, not seductive
Betrays narrow mind

haiku-number | March 16, 2007, 4:29pm | #

Stephen, I'm sorry.
I did not mean to provoke you.
Go easy on me.

haiku-number | March 16, 2007, 4:31pm | #

shit, I fucked it up.
hara-kiri is my fate.
self-immolation

crimethink | March 16, 2007, 4:38pm | #

Old women sexy
To man with well-rounded mind?
May mine stay narrow!

haiku-number | March 16, 2007, 4:43pm | #

Emmylou Harris
gets more and more beautiful
as she gets older

Fluffy | March 16, 2007, 4:51pm | #

I think the way to respond to Palmer's response is to point out that those who wish to make incremental moves in the direction of liberty will probably find their work easier going if others are making a strident case for liberty as an end.

Even a cursory reading of western intellectual history makes it apparent that the center moves "incrementally" in the direction of the best-organized and most coherent extreme. The United States moved politically "incrementally" in the direction of the left during the decades when progressivism had the most active extreme, and it moved back when the right had the most active extreme. Was Goldwater not more useful going down to flaming defeat as an extremist than he would have been losing a closer election as some sort of Dewey clone?

stephen the goldberger | March 16, 2007, 4:52pm | #

i forgive your quip
because although it was harsh
twas funny as well

stephen the goldberger | March 16, 2007, 4:56pm | #

poor fluffy does not
see now is not the time for
intelligent thought

Warren | March 16, 2007, 4:57pm | #

Mature and curvy,
Hotter than young skin and bones.
Eye of beholder.

Fluffy | March 16, 2007, 4:58pm | #

I am too terminally occidental for haiku.

Also I can't count syllables.

Pity me and my sterile soul.

crimethink | March 16, 2007, 5:01pm | #

Who is E. Harris?
Hope I've not ogled old flesh,
Not knowing its age.

crimethink | March 16, 2007, 5:06pm | #

Is it me or does
Sex come up in every thread?
Or maybe it's both?

haiku-number | March 16, 2007, 5:17pm | #

alt-country singer
made famous by Gram Parsons
she has silver hair

crimethink | March 16, 2007, 5:20pm | #

Googled her photos,
Will save for use in decades.
Just kidding, that's sick.

The Real Bill | March 16, 2007, 5:20pm | #

Is it “selling out” one’s principles to promote incremental moves toward liberty without announcing at the same time one’s commitment to a world completely free of coercion, or of the institutions of coercion?

Am I a sell-out because I prefer incremental moves toward liberty and announce that I'm commited to a world without coercive institutions, but don't believe that humanity will be ready for such for centuries? Or does that make me a conservative libertarian? (I fear the consequences of radical change. Radical change should be reserved for extreme situations.)

crimethink | March 16, 2007, 5:22pm | #

Forgot about Cubs,
Who today play South Siders.
Must switch to TV.

Stevo Darkly | March 16, 2007, 5:39pm | #

Old? Raquel, Anne-Margret,
Sophia Loren. These old
Ladies I would bang.

Nick M. | March 16, 2007, 5:42pm | #

cubbies defeat sox
tale as old as time is long
07 our year

crimethink | March 16, 2007, 5:44pm | #

What is more wrong than
Babe with "juicy" on diaper?
Old woman with same.

haiku-number | March 16, 2007, 5:45pm | #

I can name two more.
These two are even older.
One is Eartha Kitt.

If Lauren Bacall
was feeling lonely one night
I would share my bed.

haiku-number | March 16, 2007, 5:47pm | #

This is the Cubs' year?
I have heard that one before.
I'll still take the Sox.

crimethink | March 16, 2007, 5:48pm | #

Guzman getting shelled.
Mark pitching in Little League.
Only Spring Training?

Stevo Darkly | March 16, 2007, 5:54pm | #

Just noticed something:
No female comments today.
I wonder why?

Stevo Darkly | March 16, 2007, 5:55pm | #

Oops:

Just noticed something:
No female comments today.
Hmm. I wonder why?

Nick M. | March 16, 2007, 5:57pm | #

damn, sox are home team
means this game is in Tucson
Nick M. should be there

crimethink | March 16, 2007, 6:04pm | #

Didn't notice it,
Observant fellow poster.
Don't chicks dig haikus?

William R | March 16, 2007, 6:50pm | #

Raimondo's take on "Radicals for Capitalism

Nick M. | March 16, 2007, 7:41pm | #

gawd i hate the cubs
can't even win a spring game
football season yet?

NoStar | March 16, 2007, 7:57pm | #

I heard Eartha Kitt sing "Mad About The Boy"
when I was 12.

For 40 years I have wanted to be The Boy.

GoldwaterGirl | March 16, 2007, 9:01pm | #

I was just having a dicussion with an illiberal democrat (a real asshole) who had this to say in reponse to my desire to see (L) be "allowed" to participate in the '08 campaign debates.

Libertarians are anarchists? Nah...

Thoughts? Haikus?

Message 63 of 66
Subject: Re: news item 1
Date: 3/16/2007 5:35 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time
From: Rdbchar@aol.com
MsgId: 491603:356833

Only an idiot can believe in Libertarians. They are simplistic thinkers and are only capable of tearing down that which they cannot fully understand or deal with. It is ironic in the context of this post, but the Libertarians are probably the true anarchists.

Goldwater Conservative | March 16, 2007, 11:54pm | #

Libertarian groupthink is always so ironic

Goldwater Conservative | March 16, 2007, 11:56pm | #

Only an idiot can believe in Libertarians. They are simplistic thinkers and are only capable of tearing down that which they cannot fully understand or deal with

I haven't crossed the line fully (at this point a GW Conservative is a pariah everywhere) but it is disturbing to see this sentiment from liberals and conservatives alike. It is almost invariably followed by strawmen about grandmothers starving in the street while some fat guy in a tuxedo and tophet masturbates on a pile of cash stolen from an orphanage and uses it to fund his methamphetamine production company.

The Wine Commonsewer | March 17, 2007, 1:11am | #

I might have known Tom Palmer in a past life. If he had a complete set of enclyclopedias in German and English and a free ride to USC, it just might be the same guy. Been wondering for a long time.

Onion Belt | March 17, 2007, 1:25am | #

I don't see the incrementalists and the absolutist extremists as necessarily mutually groups, antagonistic towards each other. When they are most effective, they cooperate in a sort of good cop/bad cop sort of way.

Equality 7-2521 | March 17, 2007, 2:03am | #

Props Brian.

Slowly making my way through the book and loving it.

I find most ironic, and sad, that libertarians - who ideally just want everyone to get along rationally - have never managed to do that amongst themselves.

gap tooth | March 17, 2007, 2:23am | #

Palmer's take on the book exemplifies the problem schema theory points out: everyone brings in their own perspective, biases, training, ideas, personal history, etc. to the text they read; therefore they quite often miss the point the author was trying to make.

Goldwater Conservative | March 17, 2007, 2:33am | #

The in fighting is ridiculous. At least get influence first. I enjoy reading Rothbard, but trying to implement policies based on his philosophy is like advocating gay marriage in Colonial America.

I don't think principles should be compromised, but integrated. The Neo-Libertarians (or D.C. Libertarians as I say) are really evincing something that seems to plague ideologies that are not organic: endorsement of force. I thought of all ideologies that obtain power, libertarianism had a self-check on the use of force.

And the Free State project seems to be a failure.

Pretty soon libertarian factionalism will rival the leftists.

Onion Belt | March 17, 2007, 2:43am | #

edit: "mutually" should be "mutually exclusive"

Onion Belt | March 17, 2007, 2:59am | #

Btw, Brian, great article about the so-called death of neo-liberalism. Wonderful phrasing. And Brooks once again misses the boat; good to see him handed his hat, er rope, or something.

Tom G. Palmer | March 17, 2007, 10:46am | #

Just my two cents: I don't see any "infighting" in the discussion. Brian has written a terrific book. He wrote a provocative essay for Cato Unbound that contained some statements I think are to sweeping. I commented on that for purposes of getting a discussion going. Where's the infighting?

Tom G. Palmer | March 17, 2007, 12:52pm | #

Sorry, that's "too sweeping."

Goldwater Conservative | March 17, 2007, 5:09pm | #

Just my two cents: I don't see any "infighting" in the discussion. Brian has written a terrific book. He wrote a provocative essay for Cato Unbound that contained some statements I think are to sweeping. I commented on that for purposes of getting a discussion going. Where's the infighting?

You got a point. I jumped the gun in my previous post.

Robert | March 17, 2007, 9:19pm | #

"those who wish to make incremental moves in the direction of liberty will probably find their work easier going if others are making a strident case for liberty as an end."

Only if the former can sufficiently dissociate themselves from the latter in observers' minds.

As to Tom Palmer, former life, hell, I ran into him a few times in this life in the late 1970s & early '80s.