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
Matt has written a response to me, which I have agreed to post at this site.
asserted
I → write → site
The remaining paragraphs of this post were written by Matt Zwolinski, not me (Ilya Somin).
asserted
paragraphs → remain → Zwolinski
I have posted a rejoinder to Matt's thoughtful response here.
asserted
I → post → response
Who Should Defend Democracy?
asserted
Who → defend → Democracy
A reply to Ilya Somin
My recent Liberalism.org essay, "Democracy Belongs on the List," made the case that classical liberals should count democracy among their core commitments, alongside private property, free markets, and the rule of law.
asserted
liberals → belong → law
And it belongs there for the same reason.
asserted
it → belong → reason
Like property rights and markets, democracy is a crucial way of keeping power in check.
asserted
democracy → keep → check
Ilya Somin has written a generous and thoughtful reply to that piece.
asserted
Somin → write → piece
And I think he actually agrees with me more than the framing of his post might suggest.
uncertain
framing → think → post
Ilya grants that democracies are generally freer and more prosperous than the alternatives, that democracy is "a valuable check on power," that libertarians should arguably stress these points "more often," and that "in much of the world today, right-wing nationalists pose a greater threat to libertarian values and priorities than the political left does."
asserted
left → grant → values
What's left mainly comes down to two questions: what counts as a libertarian critique of democracy, and whose job it is to defend democracy.
asserted
it → leave → democracy
Before turning to those substantive issues, though, there's one terminological matter that's worth clearing up.
asserted
that → turn → issues
Ilya says that nothing of significance hinges on whether we call our view "libertarian" or "classical liberal."
asserted
we → say → view
And on most questions I'd agree.
asserted
I → agree → questions
On this one, though, I think the difference matters.
asserted
difference → think → one
In The Individualists, John Tomasi and I draw a distinction between strict libertarians and classical liberals.
asserted
Tomasi → draw → libertarians
The former group tends to treat liberty as a moral absolute and to derive their politics from a single overarching principle like the non-aggression axiom.
asserted
group → tend → axiom
The latter treat liberty as a strong but defeasible presumption and are more empiricist and pluralistic in their approach to politics.
asserted
latter → treat → politics
My sense is that these two camps within the broader "liberty movement" have taken pretty different stances toward democracy, with strict libertarians being much more critical than their classical liberal brethren.
asserted
libertarians → take → brethren
Even back in the 19th century, you could find Benjamin Tucker insisting that voting is always a form of aggression, and Lysander Spooner arguing that women "have just as good a right to make laws as men have, and no better: AND THAT IS JUST NO RIGHT AT ALL."
uncertain
THAT → find → laws
Herbert Spencer was even willing to walk back his support of women's suffrage once he decided that women would probably use their vote to support bigger government.
asserted
women → walk → government
That's a pretty different take than anything you're likely to find in Ludwig von Mises or Friedrich Hayek (more on whom later), let alone in John Stuart Mill.
asserted
you → find → Mill
That brings us to the first of the two substantive issues under dispute.
asserted
That → bring → dispute
Ilya argues that recent events have made libertarian critiques of democracy more important than ever, and that the libertarian solutions to democracy's flaws are "primarily to limit and decentralize government power."
asserted
solutions → argue → power
I'm with him on that, but I don't think this settles, or even really addresses, the debate about democracy.
asserted
this → think → democracy
Limiting and decentralizing government power is a claim about the scope of the state, about how much government should do.
uncertain
government → limit → much
It's a principle that would apply to any government, whether democratic or not.
asserted
that → apply → government
Following Jacob Levy, I argued that classical liberals have let a perfectly sound critique of too much government slide into a skepticism about democracy itself, treating democracy, in Levy's words, "as if the contrast to 'democratic' were 'economic' rather than 'autocratic.'"
asserted
contrast → follow → democratic
One can be a radical about reducing the scope of the state and still insist that its agents must be answerable to the people they govern.
asserted
they → reduce → people
Most of what Ilya calls the libertarian critique of democracy is really a critique of big government.
asserted
Ilya → call → government
That's an argument I largely agree with, as far as it goes.
asserted
it → agree → ?
The trouble comes when we file it under the wrong heading.
asserted
we → come → heading
When we ourselves blur the line between critiques of state power and critiques of democracy, we shouldn't be surprised when people come away thinking libertarians are against democracy.
asserted
libertarians → blur → democracy
That brings me to comparative advantage, which is where I think Ilya's argument is most interesting but also most mistaken.
asserted
argument → bring → advantage
Libertarians are a small minority, he says, and "we have no comparative advantage when it comes to extolling the virtues of democracy relative to authoritarianism.
asserted
it → say → authoritarianism
Other types of liberals can do this work just as well as we can, perhaps better."
asserted
we → do → work
So we should stick to what we do best, which is analyzing democracy's flaws.
asserted
which → stick → flaws
This argument might make sense in some contexts.
uncertain
argument → make → contexts
But as a general principle, I think it misfires, and it misfires most badly when the audience is classical liberals and libertarians themselves.
asserted
audience → think → principle
…and 24 more, not listed.
The Aporia
