On October 4, I published a post on "Libertarianism and Democracy," critiquing political philosopher Matt Zwolinski's earlier Liberalism.Org article on the same topic.
asserted
I → publish → topic
Earlier today, I posted Matt's response to me.
asserted
I → post → me
I would like to thank Matt for his interesting and insightful response.
asserted
I → like → response
We agree on several key points, including that democracy is generally superior to authoritarianism, that libertarian critiques of democracy have great merit, and that - in much of the world - the most serious threats to liberty now come from the nationalist right, rather than the the political left.
asserted
threats → agree → right
But we still differ on a few key points related to libertarianism and democracy.
asserted
we → differ → libertarianism
Matt suggests that "[m]ost of what Ilya calls the libertarian critique of democracy is really a critique of big government."
uncertain
calls → suggest → government
If so, libertarians can just focus on criticizing big government generally, while simultaneously extolling democracy.
asserted
libertarians → focus → democracy
There are indeed flaws of big government that arise regardless of whether it is democratic or authoritarian.
asserted
it → be → government
But those outlined in my earlier Liberalism.Org article are in fact specific to democracy.
asserted
those → outline → democracy
They include tyranny of the majority, voter ignorance, and the tendency of democracy to create opportunities for illiberal forces to seize power and - in the worst case scenario - even destroy democracy itself.
asserted
forces → include → democracy
The same goes for rational voter ignorance, which arises from the perverse incentive structure of individual voters, who have only an infinitesimally small chance of influencing electoral outcomes.
asserted
who → go → outcomes
And, while illiberal forces can and do seize power under authoritarian systems, the pathways democracies (usually involving the electoral process) create for them are distinctive.
asserted
democracies → seize → them
Authoritarian systems have their own distinctive flaws, which are generally even worse.
asserted
which → have → flaws
But the distinctive nature of democracy's flaws means they cannot simply be folded into a generic critique of big government.
asserted
they → mean → government
In addition, as noted in my response to Matt, these distinctive flaws of democracy are at the heart of many of today's most serious threats to liberty and justice in many democratic systems, including the threats posed by the nationalist right.
asserted
flaws → note → right
Thus, it is important for libertarians to emphasize the nature and gravity of these weaknesses, and the value of our proposals for dealing them (which in many cases are different from and better than those advanced by other types of liberals).
asserted
which → emphasize → liberals
As emphasized in my earlier response, this is an area where libertarians often have a comparative advantage over other liberals.
asserted
libertarians → emphasize → liberals
On the other hand, we generally do not have a comparative advantage when it comes to explaining why democracy is better than authoritarianism.
asserted
democracy → have → authoritarianism
Along related lines, Matt suggests that libertarian critiques of the state aren't "an argument against democratic control of whatever the state does do."
uncertain
state → suggest → whatever
But once we recognize that democracy has significant distinctive flaws, there is actually a case for insulating some functions of government from democratic control.
asserted
democracy → recognize → control
Obvious examples include the judiciary and monetary policy (unless we want to cut government out of the latter entirely, and adopt free banking).
asserted
we → include → banking
Indeed, even most non-libertarian liberals recognize that such insulation is desirable in some cases, most notably the courts.
asserted
insulation → recognize → cases
The Problem of Libertarians Tempted by Authoritarianism
Matt argues that we should, nonetheless devote extensive energy to extolling democracy, because doing so is likely to have an impact on fellow libertarians who may otherwise be tempted to embrace authoritarianism.
uncertain
who → tempt → authoritarianism
It is likely true that libertarians tempted in this way are more easily dissuaded by other libertarians than by non-libertarians.
asserted
libertarians → tempt → libertarians
Libertarians are a small group (probably around 5-10% of the US population or even less, depending on how you draw the line).
asserted
you → depend → line
Thus, it makes little sense to devote more than a modest amount of time and effort to dealing with them, as opposed to addressing the much larger group of non-libertarian liberals who need to be more cognizant of the dangerous shortcomings of democracy.
asserted
who → make → democracy
Moreover, when we look at libertarians who have shifted to the "alt right" or otherwise become advocates of illiberal ideas, the problem in most cases is not excessive skepticism of democracy, but insufficient commitment to liberty - particularly, the liberty of people from different ethnic, racial, or religious backgrounds, that of migrants, and those with unconventional lifestyles.
asserted
problem → look → lifestyles
That is pretty obviously the case with Curtis Yarvin and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, both mentioned by Matt.
asserted
That → mention → Matt
The former's advocacy of a "post-liberal" ideology of repression (which is really based on pre-liberal models) is pretty obviously not the product of a man who thinks authoritarianism is a better way to protect liberty than democracy.
asserted
authoritarianism → base → democracy
Indeed, his concern is exactly the opposite (that democracy allows for way too much liberty).
asserted
democracy → allow → liberty
The same goes for Hoppe's advocacy of repression of immigrants, gays and lesbians, and people with various non-traditional lifestyles.
asserted
same → go → lifestyles
Peter Thiel, the third case mentioned by Matt, is that of a person who has abandoned libertarianism for "national conservatism," an ideology focused on exalting the interests of ethnic and culture majorities and using the state to punish perceived "enemies."
asserted
who → mention → enemies
To the extent we want to focus on dissuading such people, it should be to reemphasize the value of liberty for all, not extolling the virtues of democracy.
asserted
it → want → democracy
People who value democracy more than liberty are generally unlikely to become libertarians in the first place.
asserted
who → value → place
Matt and I also have a modest disagreement over whether there can be situations where some form of authoritarianism can be a lesser evil compared to democracy.
asserted
form → have → democracy
I think such cases are extremely rare, but not nonexistent.
asserted
cases → think → ?
Matt's position is less clear, and perhaps I misunderstand him.
asserted
I → misunderstand → him
But he does seem to want to deny this possibility.
asserted
he → seem → possibility
In response to my examples of the allied occupations of Germany and Japan after World War II, he seems to think these don't really count because "those occupations were run by democracies answerable to their own voters, and they ended."
asserted
they → ally → voters
But they were still cases where non-democratic government was imposed on a population, and that population itself did not have control over when and if it would end.
asserted
it → impose → control
…and 13 more, not listed.
The Aporia
