D Choi:
Indeed, should the state even be in the business of mandating that all children be taught certain subjects and disciplines? … So my question was about the ability not just to home-school, but to withhold education from children.

I see your point. My response would be to reject the notion that there has to be a contest between “the state” and “the people”. When people associate voluntarily, there is no us vs. them — there’s just us.

See how differently your question about mandating education would be in a voluntary society: “we have all agreed to make education mandatory for the children who live in our town — do you consent to that?”.

I think this illustrates nicely that the problem isn’t with formal governments per se, nor with having rules for right and wrong, the problem is that our allegiance to both has become deeply involuntary (at least in the US; can’t speak for other countries.)

And the involuntary nature of our society has lead to a vast restriction of options in all areas. Like Henry Ford, today’s society tells us that “You can have any color you want, as long as it is black.”

So we have a system that is both involuntary and inflexible. That makes it impossible to deal fairly and humanely with a situation like the ones you are describing where the family doesn’t believe in educating young girls. In a libertarian society, there would be a lot more flexibility, and that alone might let us work out a compromise. If there is no compromise possible, then those families could even go so far as to form their own society, like the Amish do here in the US.

In any event, what I am saying is that libertarianism, as a style of governance, is much less dogmatic about such things, and is therefore a better system for working out whatever compromises are required. We don’t have to give up on having a shared sense of values to be libertarian, nor do we have to give up on having a formal way to enforce those values. We just need more freedom.

Dave Marney: However, a society based on libertarian precepts would want to provide parents with as much freedom of choice in this area as possible. The type of one-size-fits-all schooling that we have today would not be seen as very desirable. Letting a parent home-school a child would probably be one of the agreeable options.

Home-schooling is not that controversial as long as it satisfies a state-mandated educational curriculum. But what if, like the Amish, the parents wanted to opt out of having their children taught stuff that is mandated for everyone else, like science, algebra, world history, etc. etc. What if the parents wanted fuller control over the educational curriculum of their children?

Indeed, should the state even be in the business of mandating that all children be taught certain subjects and disciplines? Why not leave that entirely up to parents?

So my question was about the ability not just to home-school, but to withhold education from children. That is what the Yoder case was about, and that is what my hypothetical is about too. It is also a live issue in countries like Afghanistan, where girls have been denied equal education by their parents.

D Choi:To change the facts a little, let’s say that there was a religious sect in America that wanted to pull only its girls out from the school system (and from any formal education whatsoever) at some early age. Should this be permissible?What would the libertarian position on such a question be, and why?

This is a great scenario!

Small-l libertarianism isn’t synonymous with “libertine”. Libertarianism is simply a style of governance that favors voluntary association. The fact that a social contract is entered into voluntarily doesn’t mean it cannot be enforced.

To take a more extreme example, we could voluntarily agree to never steal from each other, and if anyone does, we also voluntarily agree to lock that person up in prison or otherwise forcibly disassociate them from society!

The point is, a thief has already disassociated himself from society; he has already broken the social contract, one that he entered into voluntarily. For society to forcibly disassociate him is to simply make manifest that which has happened in secret.

Now applying this to the scenario of taking children out of school. If society makes a voluntary contract with itself that children will be educated, then of course such a rule could be enforced by requiring parents to have their children attend school. The enforcement is part of the contract.

However, a society based on libertarian precepts would want to provide parents with as much freedom of choice in this area as possible. The type of one-size-fits-all schooling that we have today would not be seen as very desirable. Letting a parent home-school a child would probably be one of the agreeable options.

yankee:
How does one have “decorations and public displays” for religious holidays without expressing an opinion about any particular one?

Me letting you speak doesn’t mean I’ve expressed an opinion about what you’ve said. It just means I think you should be allowed to speak.

Even if I were to regulate how you speak (“could you lower your voice a bit, dear?”) it doesn’t mean I’ve chosen sides. It just means I would like to be comfortable listening to you.

A libertarian society could operate on the same principles. If Johnny wants to wear a cross or a turban to school, he should be allowed to do so on the grounds of freedom of expression. The school may need to regulate the manner in which crosses and turbans are worn to protect the safety of others, and that’s fine, too.

But if the school were to choose crosses over turbans based not on regulative principles but on mere preference, then that would be the state expressing favoritism, and would be wrong.

To change the facts a little, let’s say that there was a religious sect in America that wanted to pull only its girls out from the school system (and from any formal education whatsoever) at some early age. Should this be permissible?

What would the libertarian position on such a question be, and why?

The way to minimize (it can’t eliminate) conflict is the simple doctrine “Don’t want abortion? Don’t have one.”

We can minimize a lot of conflict that way.
“Don’t want child abuse? Don’t abuse one.”
“Don’t want rape? Don’t rape anyone.”
“Don’t want welfare? Don’t apply for it.”
“Don’t want slavery? Don’t enslave anyone.”

People who object to abortion do so on the grounds that you are chopping someone limb from limb, or shooting them full of an excruciating toxic potion, or sucking their brains out.

My general attitude? Any government strong enough to outlaw abortion is strong enough to make it mandatory. See China.

And that one, generally applied, could also be useful to simplify conflict.
“Any government strong enough to outlaw child abuse is strong enough to make it mandatory”
“Any government strong enough to outlaw rape is strong enough to make it mandatory”
“Any government strong enough to outlaw slavery is strong enough to make it mandatory”

I’ve met many lib­er­als who argue that if lib­er­tar­i­ans were in charge, there’d still be seg­re­gated buses and lunch-counters

Ask them why they think legal enforced segregation would survive without legal enforcement.

Take the law Rosa Parks broke. The buses weren’t segregated until the law was passed. Indeed, they weren’t segregated after the law was passed until the police took to randomly stopping buses and checking, and if anyone on board broke the law, they arrested the bus driver.

Libertarians should reject genetic modification and support a blanket ban on it, so that all people remain free and equal.

That brings up the case of abortion for genetic defects.

It is done.

Jews as a matter of Jewish law have a different view of abortion than Catholic Church law. And seculars may have another attitude all together. The way to minimize (it can’t eliminate) conflict is the simple doctrine “Don’t want abortion? Don’t have one.”

Putting aside the Federal Competence to legislate or rule (court decisions) in the area, the Supreme Court trimester and viability approach is a good compromise.

My general attitude? Any government strong enough to outlaw abortion is strong enough to make it mandatory. See China.

I’ve met many lib­er­als who argue that if lib­er­tar­i­ans were in charge, there’d still be seg­re­gated buses and lunch-counters — and indeed that lib­er­tar­i­an­ism is noth­ing more than cryp­toracism.

I have had discussions with a prominent Libertarian who espoused that very view. I’m not entirely happy with the way government enforces anti-Jim Crow. But I was even more unhappy with Jim Crow – since age five. I saw a “Coloreds Only” sign on a water fountain and intentionally drank from that fountain. Knowing somewhat instinctively that being a five years old I could get away with it.

Life is messy. And Libertarians don’t have all the answers. Principles may be fine in the abstract. They don’t answer all real life questions.

Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of petty minds. Ralph Waldo Emerson

The resort to a set of rules to answer all questions absolves one of thinking.

The busting of Jim Crow was to an extent anti-Libertarian. And yet IMO we are better off without it. Now that we are on the other side I know of few who would wish to go back and very little enforcement is required. Affirmative action is quite another question. I’m against it because in its current incarnation (quotas) it subverts merit.

If a 3rd party really did know what was best for me (better than I did), then I think everyone would agree that they ought to be making my choices for me.

Then you would be wrong.

Witness the famous argument for why God’s goodness is compatible with the existence of evil: that our freely choosing good is so much better than our doing so mechanically, that it is worth the side-effect that sometimes, we chose evil and so produce evil.

Dave Marney: Not all laws passed by the state are coercive and reduce individual freedom.States can pass laws against passing laws, as was famously done in the “free exercise” clause of the Constitution (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”)….In the interest of making the resource as free as possible to all, we pass a net neutrality law that requires non-discrimination.Society isn’t picking Verizon over Comcast, it’s expressing — and enforcing — our collective values but defining what cannot be done.

That is exactly what I’ve been saying about how Libertarians ought to favor a law against genetic modification, because otherwise the state would end up intrusively involved in regulating a process that ought to be free to all. One simple law that express and enforces our collective values (everyone being created equal), by defining what cannot be done (creating someone unequally).

Bill Dalasio: My under­stand­ing of lib­er­tar­i­an­ism is that it is the polit­i­cal phi­los­o­phy that advo­cates the max­i­mum of human free­dom.But, free­dom is not all good things.It is the absence of phys­i­cal coer­cion.In fact, free­dom means that we have to per­mit (and per­mis­sion is not accep­tance) behav­iors and atti­tudes from oth­ers that we might find wholly ungood.If free­dom, and hence lib­er­tar­i­an­ism, is con­strued to man­date the atti­tudes and non­co­er­cive pri­vate actions of indi­vid­u­als, it becomes noth­ing more than a farce, another vari­ant of the man­dated good life

Excellent, Bill.

Twirlip:
Since Sanford refused the stimulus funds, you are of course wrong.

June 2009:

“COLUMBIA, S.C. — South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford requested stimulus cash for the state’s schools Monday, telling the U.S. education secretary he’s doing so under duress and the $700 million in bailout money will create more problems.”

As I said, all talk, until he accepts the money “under duress”. Just like Jindal, Perry, Palin, et al. “They twisted my arm….”……”They forced me to take it….” Give me a break.

They might still want to procreate with their own unmodified genes, but they can’t do that if they also want to give their child the healthiest most advantageous genes, or share parentage with someone of the same sex, so they do what society and culture says is more important. That’s coercion.

No, it’s not. Coercion is force. We may simply have to disagree on that. Wanting to do the best for your child is not coercion. Another example: wanting to do something for my wife, because I can’t bear to see her disappointed, may be a stronger consideration for me than laws or fines, but it does not constitute coercion.

Libertarians traditionally have viewed coercion, especially when institutionalized in the form of government, as the main threat to freedom. But cultural pressures outside the state also can restrict people’s ability to live as they please. Is that another limit on liberty worth criticizing, or is it a function of voluntary choices?

The principle of Procreative Beneficence compels behavior more than a threat of a fine or even prison, and though the parent is saying yes to the offer of genetic modification, they really feel like they have no choice about it, they can’t say no. They might still want to procreate with their own unmodified genes, but they can’t do that if they also want to give their child the healthiest most advantageous genes, or share parentage with someone of the same sex, so they do what society and culture says is more important. That’s coercion.

Even if you don’t buy that merely being offered the option constitutes coercion, the chance that it would become de jure ought to give pause to Libertarians, and the likelihood that it would become a government regulated entitlement requiring more taxes and bigger Government ought to give pause as well. I think Libertarians should reject genetic modification and support a blanket ban on it, so that all people remain free and equal.

It seems to me like your utilitarian argument fundamentally treats those lines of reasoning as illegitimate.

I don’t think they are illegitimate, I just find them unconvincing.

Sorry if I came off as too dismissive of them.

Mark Sanford. He certainly loves his “freedom”, and at the taxpayer’s expense of course. Love those stimulus funds. This is libertarianism in action in the real world. All talk no action; am I wrong?

Since Sanford refused the stimulus funds, you are of course wrong.

But the fact that I won’t FORCE them somehow means I have to abandon my beliefs about the individual merits of the choices themselves? That’s, well, just a weird thing to assert.

No, but I would appreciate if you adopted an attitude of humility. That is, you don’t have to abandon your belief, you just have to admit that it’s not a universal truth. Everyone (I know) seems OK with the fact that their preference for Coke is not universally accepted as gospel.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. And you make a very solid case for why you believe as you do. But, as Allan Walstad notes, there are other grounds, other avenues to reach the same conclusions (well, generally, as we see here). Now, I understand that you’re uncomfortable with some of those lines of reasoning. But, its easy enough for me to see where they could be completely consistent, as a result, in making value judgements of others’ behavior and claiming libertarianism. It seems to me like your utilitarian argument fundamentally treats those lines of reasoning as illegitimate. It uses utilitarianism as the basis for judging those other lines of reasoning.

Dave Marney: As an example, a libertarian society could certainly favor observance of religious holidays in general, with all the decorations and public displays that entails, without expressing an opinion about any particular one.

How does one have “decorations and public displays” for religious holidays without expressing an opinion about any particular one? Every day is a holiday for some religion or other. Unless you’re going to put up decorations and displays for every single holiday of every religion, you’re going to have to pick and choose. How can you choose to recognize some religious holidays rather than others without expressing an opinion about the different holidays?

The state is neutral towards the particulars of religious faith and practice, but it is not neutral towards religion in general. Religion is something that people should be able to practice as freely as they desire.

This is the right pattern to follow for a libertarian social culture. Society should be able to show general favor towards those practices which foster liberty, without making any value judgment about a particular practice.

As an example, a libertarian society could certainly favor observance of religious holidays in general, with all the decorations and public displays that entails, without expressing an opinion about any particular one.

Likewise, the society at large should feel free to suppress those practices which it believes run counter to liberty. Prohibitions need to follow the same pattern of prohibiting classes of behaviors in general, rather than targeting specific individuals.

An example of that might be a prohibition against monopolizing a public resource such as the wireless spectrum. In the interest of making the resource as free as possible to all, we pass a net neutrality law that requires non-discrimination. Society isn’t picking Verizon over Comcast, it’s expressing — and enforcing — our collective values but defining what cannot be done.

Even now, I can try to persuade my children that Coke is better than Pepsi. I do this because I love them, and because every right thinking individual knows that Coke is better. However, I would never FORCE them to make the choice that I believe is better.

But the fact that I won’t FORCE them somehow means I have to abandon my beliefs about the individual merits of the choices themselves? That’s, well, just a weird thing to assert.

If a 3rd party really did know what was best for me (bet­ter than I did), then I think every­one would agree that they ought to be mak­ing my choices for me.

No, Oren. Libertarians would not agree with that at all. I think even many conservatives and other non-liberals would take issue with that proposition.

The difference between you and big government liberals seems to be one of degree and not of kind. I’d descibe you a “small government liberal” rather than a libertarian.

Smith learns that Jones is gay, says “Yuck. I won’t have peo­ple like that work­ing for me.” Is Smith him­self a lib­er­tar­ian, or merely some­one who is essen­tially par­a­sitic on a gen­er­ally lib­er­tar­ian soci­ety?

The question cannot be answered with the avalable data. Smith may or may not be a terrific libertarian.

Brown learns about the fourth ver­sion of Smith and says “No con­sis­tent lib­er­tar­ian would give a rat’s ass about Jones’s being gay and act on it, peo­ple should be lib­er­tar­ian” pro­poses laws against what Smith is up to.

Well, we can say for certain that Brown is not a libertarian. Firstly for the law, of course, but also for trying to tell Smith what he must think or not think about gays.

Libertarianism does not require anybody to be indifferent to any trait or characteristic of other people. If you desire to hire gays, libertarianism is cool with that. if you desire not to hire gays, libertarianism is cool with that too. If you don’t care whether other people are gay or not, libertarianism is cool with that.

It seems to me that Oren has his own the­o­ret­i­cal rea­sons for being a lib­er­tar­ian.

Hmm. I’m not ready to say that Oren is a libertarian just yet.

The moral rea­sons being the most inter­est­ing to me I have a ques­tion for you Oren. If lib­erty isnt the lynch-pin of moral­ity, what is?

I conceive of morality as the set of guidelines that defines (or approximates) the globally-optimal solution to a long-term non-zero-sum game.

Yes, I’m a consequentialist through-and-through. :-)

I read a lot of the back-and-forth between Oren and others. The basic problem is that a REAL Libertarian doesn’t give a damn about what other people think — or why other people think as they do.

A real Libertarian simply agrees to live and let live, in community with others who similarly agree to live and let live.

Not that Jefferson was a Libertarian, but I think he expressed the idea well:

I care not whether a man believes in one God, or many Gods, or no God. It neither breaks my bones nor picks my pocket.

Personally I am an atheist but I prefer the moral arguments for liberty (and enjoy the economic ones as a bonus). I believe the only moral actions are voluntary ones(but not all voluntary actions are moral). When individuals are coerced into doing things they cease to have moral authority, even if the deeds are agreed by all to be good.

I also don’t think any one person, group of persons, or state has any idea what is best for everyone in any sense at all. Tyranny? For what? While there are certainly some freedoms I will voluntarily give up the choice of absolute tyranny vs. liberty seems like a choice that could only be made if one starts with an ideal that deserves tyranny. Also it’s interesting when someone who has the freedom to question the choice wonders why the very thing that allows them that choice has value over the opposite.

In the end there are many reasons why liberty or freedom are valued highly (which isn’t to say it is the highest value at all times). There are moral reasons, there are economic ones, there are political ones. etc. The moral reasons being the most interesting to me I have a question for you Oren. If liberty isnt the lynch-pin of morality, what is? (assuming you are not religious).

If you can kick butt in both are­nas, you win.

:-) Yes, until your opponents note that you do not care how your view is grounded.

Ok, gentlemen, I am sigining off. Good night, All.

I appreciate your comment.

It seems to me that Oren has his own theoretical reasons for being a libertarian. Of course, others can claim that the best reasons for being libertarian. Perhaps we want to distinguish between ‘consequentialist libertarianisms’ and ‘nonconsequentialist libertarianisms.’ Ok; let’s do that.

I understand that people want the categorial terms we use to have some reliable meaning (i.e., we want language to work), but I dislike this kind of ‘you are not a real X’ argument, especially with respect to political views.

I constantly remind my students that there is no single, narrowly conceived version of ‘liberalism,’ ‘conservatism,’ ‘anarchism,’
‘socialism,’ or any other perspective. These are broad theoretical categories.

Of course, if the terms are to have meaning, we need to identify some fundamental premises or content. And, as we become familiar with variants of a general perspective, we might wish to come up with new categorial terms or to provide modifiers for the categorial terms.
But to argue that someone is not an X because his/her view is not in perfect accord with mine, as an X, is pointlessly doctrinaire.

Aside from achieving greater precision in distinguishing among types of theories/theoretical stances and arriving at some shared use of the language, there is no real value in claiming that this or that is/is not an X view.

I say this as one who is frequently appalled by the claims of commenters on VC that this or that is what ‘socialism’ or ‘fascism’ means. Language does matter. But if we think that a categorial term means ‘just what I believe in all details,’ we are making words do more work – in the political theory sphere – than they can/should do.

These terms are neither approbative nor disapprobative in themselves. To pretend that ‘libertarian’ and ‘socialist’ are evaluative terms is to misconstrue the order of thought. First, identify and analyze; then, evaluate.

Let’s replace “gay” with something else. Suppose:

4 – Smith learns Jones is, in private, a racist who is raising his children to believe Blacks are subhuman. Smith says “I’m not going to let my business provide an income for someone like that” and fires Jones.

What’s your opinion of Smith?