That headline may be offensive, but is it unlibertarian? Is it literally coercive? And if so, do you have a right to tax me or sue me in response?
“Yes” answers on at least the first two questions seem to be the implication of a confused pro-feminism — yet ostensibly libertarian — blog entry by libertarian Kerry Howley, who (not so unlike my ex-girlfriend Koli Mitra) thinks it is somehow baffling that so many libertarian males see feminism as unlibertarian.
The whole point of libertarianism, though — unless the prevalence of people using it in some new-fangled way shifts the meaning of the term — is to create a very, very clear distinction between real coercion — which is to say, state action and other threats of real physical violence or property damage — and mere social pressure.
The whole key to human freedom is recognizing that distinction — and respecting people’s right to exert social pressure all they like, with the only morally-permissible response being contrary social pressure. No one has a right to declare the forms of social pressure she dislikes fundamentally “coercive” in some way that the social pressure she likes isn’t.
Would Kerry contend the highly-traditionalistic Amish are by definition not libertarian (which seems odd, given their aversion to taxes, Social Security, and police)? Or, if the raising of children by overly bossy parents complicates your answer on the Amish, then what about voluntary adult converts to Mennonite life, of which New York State has plenty, their lives as patriarchal as all get out?
Are we to think that a hypothetical future world in which there is absolutely no government and no coercion (as traditionally defined by libertarians) but in which most women choose to spend their days jobless, giggling, and stripping (without pay) in front of males to get their attention and approval is in some way unlibertarian? It may be offensive. It may be stupid. It certainly doesn’t sound feminist to me, and maybe it’s even a bad idea — but it’s free.
If you don’t like the way people behave, by all means express your preferences. But if they keep behaving in ways you don’t like, don’t claim they must therefore be “unfree.” That’s Marxist “false consciousness” nonsense. People will behave how they choose, and the odds are nearly 100% that you won’t like it.
I’m an atheist, but as much as I might argue vocally in favor of atheism, you won’t see me smuggling atheism into libertarianism by claiming believers are “unfree.” Neither are sexist males and the adoring, shy, deferential, meek chicks who love them. Again, you can make feminist arguments that’s an unappealing vision, but they are in no way libertarian arguments any more than would be the argument that people should prefer video arcades to cathedrals or Mozart to bluegrass. You’re just expressing your preferences (and hastily dismissing the influence of biology in the process, to augment the dangerous argument that our behavior, as the mere product of arbitrary social construction, is somehow unjust).
Free people do all sorts of things you won’t like, and they are no less free (in any libertarian sense) for it. Claiming free people aren’t really free until you see certain patterned outcomes you like is the root of all tyranny and rhetoric unbecoming a libertarian.
We will be far freer once feminism, like all egalitarian, anti-freedom philosophies, is relegated to the ash heap of history. But if it triumphs, let all true libertarians at least go down fighting against it, like men.
16 comments:
“let all true libertarians at least go down”
Pervert.
I think the fundamental quarrel between the two posts is not necessarily ideology, but vocabulary.
Feminism is a completely meaningless word, impossible to define, and its value irreconcilable amongst the various groups of women it aims to represent.
However, I think the main point of Howley’s post was quite strong, and summed up nicely here, “If Todd wants to argue that women aren’t oppressed because they accept their assigned roles, he’d better be willing to accept the idea that governmental authority is not oppressive because most people don’t complain.”
I believe the word ‘humanism’ works just fine, as it would allow an equal rights doctrine to function across all creeds, sexes, etcetera.
[...] Todd Seavey accuses me of “rhetoric unbecoming a libertarian” and argues that “mere social forces” cannot be freedom-constraining. Thus, a black man who cannot hold employment by law is unfree. But a black man who cannot hold employment because social custom is such that no one will hire him is as free as any white man. A gay couple who must stay closeted to avoid social ostracism is as free as any hetero couple. A woman who has to choose between purdah and exile from her village is basically living in a libertarian paradise, so long as no one writes the rules down. [...]
In the linked passage above, Howley ascribes to me the view that depriving someone of options by law is fundamentally different from depriving them by mere private action in the marketplace (however abhorrent we may find both).
Naturally, I do of course hold this view — and there is even a name for it: libertarianism.
I would imagine a _Reason_ editor encounters this philosophy with some regularity, since _Reason_ is a libertarian magazine, which may explain Howley’s comments about what a surprising number of her political associates keep pushing this strange take on things.
If we are to discard the distinction between law and private action, positive liberty and negative liberty, coercion and merely behaving in ways others don’t like, libertarianism dissolves into some irrelevant and vague flavor of liberalism.
The rest of us in the movement at least deserve a memo about the change in nomenclature before Howley does this by fiat.
[...] Posted by Matt Zeitlin on November 10, 2008 I’m not going to write a detailed summary of the interlibertarian squabble between Todd Seavey and Kerry Howley re: whether libertarians can be feminists and vice versa, but if you want catch up, click here, here, here and here. [...]
I wish Kerry Howley would give some real life examples about how this alleged lib-fem partnership would play out in real life 2008, specifically in policy and law. Feminists seem rather fond of affirmative action and libertarians do not. How is this to be remedied? Libertarians, as I understand them, would never force me to hire someone at my company whom I didn’t want, even if they’re fully qualified. Say a Muslim woman who wanted to wear a burqa to work. Or maybe just a Muslim woman. Whatever. The fem solution is to MAKE me hire her and the libertarian solution is ensure she had the right to start her own firm, hire her qualifed fellow Muslims, badmouth me in the press, march in front of my house, make a ton of money and subsequently put my evil company out of business. So if I understand Ms. Howley correctly, I dont see how you can reconcile the two views of how this situation should be “fixed”.
[...] This exchange reminds me that many (maybe most) self-styled libertarians think that libertarianism is, by definition, a philosophy that conceives of liberty as a lack of coercion, and, additionally, that coercion is something easy to understand. For these libertarians, just as one might decide to take up an interest in the plight of foreign war orphans, one might decide to be troubled by the fact that some people’s lives are stunted or ruined by arbitrary yet systemic exclusion, or by having the development of their interests and talents constantly discouraged and their aspirations and confidence constantly undermined. But these elective worries cannot flow from an interest in liberty, because liberty is about not being threatened with involuntary confinement in a small room, while these things are about being threatened with involuntary confinement in a small life. [...]
[...] ..which leads to this interesting snippet from a link in Will’s above post: Free people do all sorts of things you won’t like, and they are no less free (in any libertarian sense) for it. Claiming free people aren’t really free until you see certain patterned outcomes you like is the root of all tyranny and rhetoric unbecoming a libertarian. [...]
Emily,
There are many different strands of feminism, just as there are many different strands of libertarianism. If you would like some examples of how a partnership between the compatible strands might play out, see Roderick Long’s and Charles Johnson’s Libertarian Feminism: Can This Marriage Be Saved?
[...] •…as noted by Will’s girlfriend Kerry Howley, who, as it happens, I’d been criticizing on this blog for completely unrelated reasons — namely for not seeing why feminism (in most forms) is fundamentally at odds with the diverse and inevitably inegalitarian (though not necessarily predictable) outcomes tolerated by libertarianism, which normally describes people as free so long as their property rights and bodily integrity are not violated. Kerry objected. I responded. Kerry objected again. [...]
“If Todd wants to argue that women aren’t oppressed because they accept their assigned roles, he’d better be willing to accept the idea that governmental authority is not oppressive because most people don’t complain.â€
I find this quote irksome because of Ms. Howley’s subtle intellectual con… the use of the word MOST.
Truthfully, a government is only required because some people don’t agree… and have to be forced. If those people agreed, then a coercive state would be unnecessary. If everyone accepted governmental authority then they wouldn’t need it and would in fact be free… the issue is what happens to the dissenter? Can a woman, or anyone dissent from popular opinion and if so, are they coerced as a result?
Social ostracization isn’t the same as Coercion and until Ms. Howley understands that this is an absurd debate.
[...] Anyway, for the past week or so, Howley and self-proclaimed punk-conservative Todd Seavey have been engaged in a back-and-forth on the issue of feminism and libertarianism, which Seavey would like to assure us young whippersnappers is an oxymoronal concept: The Kerry view is news to me, and I’ve been a libertarian for about twenty years now. [...]
[...] Commenters here and here argue that the word feminism is “meaningless,” the evidence being that various people who self-identify as “feminist” nonetheless disagree about the way to best achieve gender equality. Held to the same standard every word denoting every ideology is just a chain of syllables. Adherents to the things we call “Christianity,” “Keynesianism,” and “Maoism,” as it turns out, have had their disagreements too. Somehow we manage to make meaning of it all. Ron Paul wants to shut the borders; I want to fling them open; no one ever says that the word “libertarian” lacks content. [...]
[...] In the line of Kerry Howley’s spot-on debunking of the Libertarian philosophy, Will Wilkinson gives a succinct, reasonable dismissal of the Libertarian reduction of all political concerns to questions of ‘property rights’. Todd Seavey continues to argue that libertarianism just is the view that the only legitimate function of the state (if it has any legitimate function) is to protect property rights, and that sticking to this view saves us from confusing culture war politics. But the definition of legitimate property rights is confusing culture war politics. There is nothing especially clear-headed, “thin,†or even libertarian about emphasizing the inviolability of property rights. [...] [...]
[...] This is the continuation of an earlier debate between Todd Seavey & Keri Howley, which you may read here, here, here and here. Essentially Ms. Howley argued that libertarianism ought be concerned with maximizing freedom and autonomy, and as it is not only the state which impinges on these, but also various social forces, then libertarians ought to be concerned about them. Mr. Seavey, on the other hand, takes the more traditional line, that libertarians ought be concerned with the power of the state alone. Cato’s Will Wilkinson also entered into the debate, stating “If libertarianism is the view that coercion is never social or emotional, and that coercive limits to liberty are justified only in defense of private property, or in the enforcement of contracts, then libertarianism is false, and I am not a libertarian. If libertarianism is the view that human well-being is best promoted by ensuring “that every man may claim the fullest liberty to exercise his faculties compatible with the possession of like liberty to every other man,†then I am a libertarian. If this is a libertarian view, then the goal to minimize or abolish wrongfully liberty-limiting social norms is a libertarian goal.†(There are many other instances in the blogosphere of comments on this debate, particularly regarding the feminist points made, but you can find those for yourself!) I would strongly encourage people to peruse these posts however. [...]
[...] Libertarian writer Todd Seavey disagrees. He writes that, "We will be far freer once feminism, like all egalitarian, anti-freedom philosophies, is relegated to the ash heap of history" Apart from writing that "feminism is bunk", Seavey insists that social norms have nothing to do with freedom. The key to understanding freedom, he argues, is understanding the difference between genuine coercion and social pressure. [...]
Post a Comment