What is the relationship between Libertarian beliefs and cultural beliefs? Characteristically, Libertarians are split on the question. Some Libertarians (AKA “thin” Libertarians) want cultural issues to be totally divorced from Libertarianism. Other Libertarians (AKA “thick” Libertarians) claim that such a divorce is injudicious, impossible, or both. Further complicating this issue are the existing cultural camps that Libertarians herd themselves into: left, right, or whatever other labels they adopt. But what is the proper relationship of Libertarianism to culture? Should Libertarianism avoid any cultural attachments? Is it even possible? And what does it mean for the Libertarian movement as a whole?
Before breaking down these questions, we should start off with a couple definitions. Culture is a difficult concept to define, as it manifests itself in so many different forms. For our purposes here, we can understand culture as the inherited beliefs people hold about themselves and the world. This definition catches a wide array of ideas, including religion, morals, philosophy, art, cuisine, music, traditions, etc. As a general heuristic, if it’s something that humans do or believe that isn’t a result of biology, it is cultural in nature.
Libertarianism, on the other hand, is much easier to define. Libertarianism is the philosophy of freedom that begins with the Non-Aggression Principle, which claims that it is ethically impermissible to initiate violence against someone else. From this principle, the Libertarian derives his stance against murder, left, fraud, etc. While this all may sound like common sense, the Libertarian goes one step further to apply this ideology of non-aggression to the state. Because the state is an inherently violent organization, the Libertarian views its existence as incompatible with a moral society.
With these definitions in mind, are there any links we can draw between Libertarianism and culture? Well, it depends on what is meant by “Libertarianism”. Are we talking about Libertarian theory, a Libertarian society, or the Libertarian movement? These are all different things and culture may have a different relationship with each one of them. In the interest of precision, I propose the “Culture Question” question should be dissected into three separate, more precise parts:
- Does Libertarian theory require any cultural assumptions?
- Does the maintenance of a Libertarian society require any cultural beliefs?
- Does a successful Libertarian strategy require any cultural components?
To give a full, comprehensive answer on the relationship between Libertarianism and culture, we should answer each of these questions separately.
First, does Libertarian theory require any cultural assumptions? This question is by far the easiest of the three to answer: Libertarian theory does not require any cultural beliefs to be true, nor does Libertarian theory compel Libertarians towards any cultural beliefs. The NAP and the conclusions derived from it are culturally-neutral. Of course, Libertarians can have cultural beliefs that are aligned with the NAP, but these are not derived from or required by Libertarian theory proper.
Second, does the maintenance of a Libertarian society require any cultural beliefs? I believe the best way to examine this topic is through an analogy.
Murray Rothbard once proposed the following thought experiment: if you could press a button that would destroy the state instantly (through some magical mechanism), would you press it? For the sake of argument, let’s imagine that such a button actually does exist and has been pressed. When we all wake up tomorrow, the state no longer exists and a purely Libertarian society has been established. Rothbard’s purpose in this experiment was separating Libertarians who actually hate the state versus those who do not, but I think it illustrates another interesting point: if the state vanished overnight, what would be necessary to prevent society from falling back into statism?
Unlike the case of pure Libertarian theory, there are some cultural beliefs that are required here. Specifically, people have to believe culturally that NAP violations are unjust. What exactly does this mean? Not only that something is wrong from the perspective of law, but that it is actually, truly, morally wrong as well. Shouldn’t these two beliefs — law and morality — always move together in unison? If someone thinks something is legally wrong, shouldn’t they see it as morally wrong as well? In many cases, they do — but not in every case. For instance, it has become fashionable in our modern day to justify theft so long as the victim of theft is a large corporation or wealthy individual. Even though such individuals might still see this theft as wrong by the letter of the law, it’s more or less permissible morally. Another example of this morality/law disconnect is modern-day internet piracy. Even though illegally downloading and accessing movies, TV shows, etc. is against the law, it is quite popular and many people don’t see it as morally wrong, even if it is against the letter of the law.
There is a crucial difference between recognition of a legal system’s general legitimacy versus actually believing the actions against the law are wrong themselves. Even outside of the Libertarian movement, almost everyone believes that some aspect of the law in their state/country is unjust (abortion, capital punishment, the draft, etc.). Does that mean they don’t recognize the legitimacy of the law? Of course not — it simply means they want the law to be changed.
What are the long-term effects of a disconnect between cultural/moral views and the law? Over time, the law will adjust to those cultural preferences. For example, if the general population starts to believe that stealing isn’t really that bad, then the law will start to allow or excuse certain types of theft. At first, this might only be a de facto allowance, but eventually it is codified into de jure law. This is also true for positive obligations as well. If people start to believe that they are owed a pension fund in their old age, then governments will pass laws to create such programs. As understood by David Hume, there is no such thing as an unpopular government in the long run. Either through shifts in public preferences or through government policies, people will always get — more or less — the form of government that they want.
In the current state of social affairs, the general population does not hold cultural beliefs that are in line with Libertarian principles; most egregiously, they believe in the ethical legitimacy of the state. With these beliefs, what would happen if we pressed Rothbard’s Button? The state would vanish, but it would be rebuilt in very short order. This isn’t just because the masses don’t have the same legal opinions as Libertarians, but because they don’t have the same moral/cultural opinions as well. Even if the button would also replace all existing legal systems with Libertarian private arbitration agencies, it wouldn’t matter. The people might recognize these systems as legitimate in the short run, but they wouldn’t agree with their rulings. In the long run, these systems would collapse in favor of a new statist order.
To be clear, a Libertarian society with aligned legal and cultural views could still collapse from a variety of causes. A state from a neighboring country could invade and assert its own control over the formerly Libertarian territory (Libertarian theorists have provided good reasons for why such an outcome is unlikely, but it is possible). As one generation dies off and another arises, the new generation may not hold the same cultural views of their ancestors and could support the rebirth of the state. Regardless, the alignment of cultural views with Libertarian theory is a necessary, but not sufficient cause of keeping a Libertarian society stable.
Finally, does a successful Libertarian strategy require any cultural components? I believe the answer is an unambiguous yes. As I have written previously, adding a cultural component to a movement is beneficial for both pragmatic and purposeful reasons. Cultural components are pragmatic insofar as they allow for more points of entry and avenues of interaction with the movement. Moreover, culturally productive people are of excellent stock for any movement; people who make things get attention, which means attention to your movement’s ideas. On a deeper, purposive level, cultural components give your movement more intuitive depth. Worldviews with greater explanatory power are intuitively more compelling to other people. If I told you I could explain the entire world in just four principles, you might be skeptical but you would listen. A movement that includes a cultural component is more “full”, and thus, more inherent appeal as a movement.
Apart from assisting the evangelism of the movement, cultural bonds create a greater sense of community within a movement. While the members of a book club might have friendly relations with each other, they don’t have the same connection with each other as members of a local church. What differentiates the two? The all-important element of shared values. Members of a book club don’t necessarily have the same beliefs, worldviews, and outlooks on life, whereas the members of a church do. These bonds over shared values can be formed in movements as well. Libertarianism is primarily a theory about morality, law, and property rights. While these are values, they aren’t readily actionable in the same way that other cultural values are (most people aren’t routinely breaking the NAP, so becoming a Libertarian requires very little change in daily behaviors). In order to make Libertarianism more “sticky” its members, adding in a cultural component helps bind the movement together more closely.
Disclaimer #1: it is true that even in Libertarianism circles, there are many implicitly shared cultural values. However, these values are usually not explicitly stated or acknowledged. It is the bold presentation of these values to the world that I am advocating for.
Disclaimer #2: I am not saying that cultural views should take precedence over Libertarian theory within the Libertarian movement. Libertarian theory should always take primacy over any other values that Libertarians promote. However, there are benefits to implementing a cultural element into a Libertarian message that should be recognized.
The value of culture can be seen in Libertarian history as well. Who is the most famous Libertarian of the twentieth century? Without a doubt, Ayn Rand. But why was she so famous? In large part, because of her fiction books. With this popularity, she was able to forge the “Objectivist” movement. Importantly, Objectivism wasn’t just a political movement, but a cultural movement as well. Apart from Rand’s books, Objectivists took positions on all types of cultural issues, including religion, art, aesthetics, and more. Despite whatever you might think about their conclusions, the popularity of the movement speaks for itself. While the Objectivist movement did fizzle out shortly after Rand’s death, it was clearly the most impactful Libertarian movement of the century. Rand had no scruples about addressing cultural issues in the breath as philosophical issues — an example modern Libertarians should be quick to follow.
Another example of the power of culture in Libertarian politics is the “Ron Paul Revolution”. During the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, Republican Congressman Ron Paul was able to generate unprecedented voter enthusiasm around his Libertarian policy platform. What made his campaign so electric was not his political positions, but because his movement blended political and cultural elements. Many Libertarians today either became Libertarian or were drawn into the Libertarian movement because of Ron Paul. While the movement was unable to achieve electoral success, the campaign had massive cultural impact reverberating into the present day.
What does all of this mean for the Libertarian attitude towards culture? First, I believe Libertarians should avoid “theoretical naivety” — the attitude that Libertarian theory is all we need to achieve a free society. As Murray Rothbard understood (see his unpublished work: “Towards a Strategy for Libertarian Social Change”), Libertarians should seriously study political history and theory to understand strategy — specifically, why certain movements succeed and others fail. As Rothbard pointed out, Libertarians are far too often content with a strategy of “educationism”, which posits that we should educate as many people as possible about Libertarian ideas until we eventually achieve a free society. Education is certainly important, but just printing more copies of Human Action isn’t enough to secure a Libertarian future. Even if the reader disagrees with my assessment of Libertarian theory and culture, I still implore you to take these issues seriously. They are difficult, but necessary topics that Libertarians must have serious, well-considered answers for.
Secondly, Libertarians should seek out ways to connect Libertarian theory with culture. Again, Ayn Rand was so famous because she wrote fiction books. Through these books, Rand got her metaphorical foot in the door to introduce people to her ideology. It is cultural products like these — culture products with Libertarian message/theming — that we desperately need more of today. While there is some out there, it simply isn’t enough. However we do it — either through Libertarians producing cultural works or converting cultural creators to Libertarianism — we need to be creating more avenues for people to discover Libertarianism outside of lectures and treatises.
But if Libertarians should attach themselves to a cultural message, what should this message be? A full examination of this question is far beyond the scope of this article, but I will point in the direction Libertarians should take. Libertarianism is the apotheosis of classical liberalism and Western Civilization. The Libertarians today are the inheritors of a tradition that spans Enlightenment, Scholastic, Roman, and ancient Greek philosophers. As the intellectual offspring of the Western tradition, Libertarians should strive to champion the values of Western Civilization. Many of these values overlap with Libertarian values: liberty, individualism, skepticism towards state power, etc. The greatest accomplishments in human history — the moon landing, eradication of diseases, extending human life-span — are almost universally accomplishments of the West. Libertarians should champion Western values and defend it against those who wish to corrupt it from within.
I find the topic of culture crucially important for Libertarians — not just because of its benefits to the movement, but because of the challenge in front of us. The state has never been more powerful, and the power it wields over its citizens would have been unthinkable a century ago: unrestricted inflation of the money supply, widespread surveillance, and a tax burden that would make 17th century monarchs blush. The leviathan has never been bigger, and in order to defeat it, Libertarians will need every weapon at their disposal. Culture is a powerful tool, and one that Libertarians should not overlook.
