Reason just published an incredibly revealing discussion on the question of whether libertarians should oppose interference from cultural actors -- such as religion or the patriarchy -- as well as from government. Kerry Howley persuasively argues those who oppose coercion from the state have an obligation to oppose coercion from oppressive non-state actors like, say, fundamentalist religious sects. Todd Seavey disagrees:
Most libertarians would say that once the side constraint of property rights adherence is established, people have a right to engage in whatever social patterns they wish to follow so long as the property side constraints are not themselves undermined. Howley mentions “fundamentalist compounds” dismissively, but isn’t the whole point of liberty that people are free to construct fundamentalist compounds, sexist strip clubs, respectable female-run corporations, gender-indifferent science labs, or all-male hunting lodges as they choose, so long as they do so voluntarily?There are a few obvious problems here -- namely, the fact that Seavey apparently doesn't know what "voluntarily" means or else thinks that, say, the teen brides at fundamentalist Mormon compounds are freely choosing their own subjugation. More broadly, though, I don't see how the examples he gives violate the libertarian value of defending property. Banning obesity discrimination does not deprive businesses of property. Nor does it increase businesses' monetary obligations to the federal government, nor decrease the government's obligations to protect businesses from harm. To be sure, such laws increase the power of government relative to employers, but that increase is dependent on the actions of the employees. The government only responds to lawsuits and complaints from those discriminated against, which if anything increases the freedom of action of those employees.If not, we can be forgiven for wondering why someone who thinks like Howley would embrace the basic political stance of libertarianism in the strict property-defending sense at all. If people telling you “fat chicks should be shunned” is as oppressive as being hauled off to jail, why not pass laws banning anti-fat-chick discrimination? Why not endorse affirmative action laws? Why not tell Catholic-run charities they must hire gays? The traditional libertarian answer is that rights violations are fundamentally different from behavior that merely strikes you as narrow-minded.
Seavey's argument does make sense, however, if one views libertarianism not as an ideology devoted to personal liberty but to defending existing power structure. Banning obesity discrimination would not decrease individual liberty, but it would decrease the power of business management. Countering patriarchal attitudes more generally would be a great gain for individual freedom of action, but it would endanger the power of the patriarchy.
Why anyone would want to embrace a libertarianism having nothing to do with defending liberty in any real sense, however, I have no idea.
--Dylan Matthews
