Thoughts on libertarian moral neutrality

Ed Feser took some of Reason's contributors to task quite competently on the so-called "moral neutrality of cultural libertarianism." This excerpt in particular was spot on:

Howley's position is that libertarians should aim, not only to reduce governmental power, but also to change social attitudes. For Howley, "not every threat to liberty is backed by a government gun." There is also the "paternalism of the mob" enshrined in "tradition," "convention," "culture, conformism, and social structure," which, even in the absence of the threat of imprisonment, can shore up "patriarchy" and endanger the "acceptance of gays and lesbians" and "the liberty of the pill, of pornography, of 600 channels where once there were three." In short, for Howley any libertarianism worthy of the name must promote the cultural agenda of the left no less than the economic position of the anti-tax, anti-big government right.

The culture of radical personal autonomy which these people seek will only lead to tyranny. The needs of a robust civil society which has precious little need for an active, large government are simply not compatible with radical personal autonomy. Such a society can only exist when there is a healthy balance between individual autonomy and individual subordination to non-government social institutions and roles. The push for radical sexual autonomy alone has been utterly disastrous for civil society, and has created ample room for the explosion of big government which must necessarily step in so as to maintain order. Nature abhors vacuums, and the state is always quick to volunteer to plug the holes in the dike.

Howley's view that libertarianism is essentially at war with any institution or value that restricts choice between consenting adults is hardly new. One of the funniest episodes in recent times involving a prominent libertarian getting taken out behind the shed for a beat down came when Ramesh Ponnuru took Tim Lee to task for essentially saying that if you redefine libertarianism as permissive social views, it's been a great success. What is telling about this are the priorities that they have. At a time in which the march of the state into private life has never been greater, they maintain an upbeat attitude because of a few "positives" like attitudes toward homosexuals have become more permissive. It's an impressive case of missing the forest because of a few trees, and the only good explanation is decidedly non-neutral bias.

The practical effect of being at war with any institution or value that causes an individual to feel the need to subordinate their liberty to a rule or duty is that it undermines the institutions which libertarians most need to hold back the state. Strong family life cannot coexist with the view that a family and marriage exist primarily as a vehicle for one's personal happiness; well-funded religious institutions which perform the lion's share of support services for the needy cannot easily survive in a society that actively undermines their moral authority which is necessary for continued investment into their work. An economic culture in which workers are regarded as fungible units of productivity cannot temper the natural class tensions that exist between social classes.

A well-ordered free society is very much like a concert where all of the instruments work together for a common effort. Unfortunately, the view that cultural libertarians promote is one in which part of the orchestra is playing classical, part is playing blue grass, and part is trying its damndest to badly imitate Apocalyptica. The maintenance of a free society requires each piece to do its part to build and nurture an environment in which freedom and the good can coexist peacefully in a sustainable fashion.

The fetishizing of liberty by libertarians gets in the way of understanding how liberty would work in a well-ordered free society. Liberty itself is a means to an end, not an end unto itself. Few people are happy or could be happy by virtue of some abstraction called "liberty." In a well-ordered society, personal autonomy is tempered by natural duties like the duty of one spouse to another, or a parent to a child. The voluntary social acceptance of these duties makes the case for a large, activist government much harder to make. The absence of them makes it necessary to have an activist, intrusive government if for no other reason than society cannot remain relatively stable without certain social bonds being maintained (though it is hardly conceivable that if such dereliction became rampant that the state could coerce stability). It is taken for granted by libertarians that the reason why there are so many laws on the books is that the state must manufacture criminals to justify its own existence. To some extent, that is certainly true, but it would be a mistake to ignore the fact that a number of laws exist to address new issues that have come about due to some segment failing to behave as it should. "Cyber-bullying laws" are a good example.