LIBERTARIAN NATION

Boaz, a vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute, tells us that ” libertarianism is an old philosophy,” with roots in the Greek and Judeo- Christian traditions; that America was founded upon libertarian ideas; that the goal of the American revolution was the libertarian one of protecting individual rights; that modern-day libertarian theorists such as James M. Buchanan seek only to confirm the libertarian insights of the Founding Fathers. Boaz does not think, as some conservatives do, that tradition is worthy of our consideration and respect per se. But in boasting of libertarianism’s deep roots, he makes a critical concession: He acknowledges that he must do more than merely snow that libertarianism will work; he must first show that it is not some eccentric newfangled philosophy.

Boaz defines the modern concept of liberty as “the right of individuals to live as they choose, to speak and worship freely, to own property, to engage in commerce, to be free from arbitrary arrest or detention.” Few Americans would quibble with that, or with the definition of rights embedded in the Declaration of Independence — that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But for Boaz this doesn’t go quite far enough. “Most libertarian philosophers,” he writes, “would begin the argument earlier than Jefferson did.”

How is this possible, given that the Declaration begins with the “Creator” and “the laws of nature and of nature’s God”? In fact, Boaz wants to start the argument not earlier than Jefferson did but later. He wants nothing to do with a Creator, with the obligations and duties this implies, or with the laws of nature and their implied limits on freedom. So Boaz replaces Jefferson’s bit about the “Creator” with the doctrine that “each individual owns himself or herself.” This doctrine — which Boaz calls “self-ownership” – – appears to mean that the self is its own creator, sovereign over itself, without obligations or duties beyond self-satisfaction. Most Americans, who still sense that absolute liberty corrupts absolutely, are thus likely to view modern-day libertarianism not as the heir of the American political tradition but as a twisting of that tradition to conform to modern lifestyles.

The upshot of Boaz’s new starting point is to deny the legitimacy of the public realm. This becomes especially clear as he moves from libertarianism’s philosophic pedigree to the practical question of how it would confront such issues as Social Security, race, the underclass, and the family. As Boaz puts it, the goal of libertarianism is “a narrowing of political society,” and particularly of its claims on the individual. Thus he opposes military conscription and the V-chip, and he favors the legalization of drugs. Boaz argues that the government has no role to play in “moral suasion,” and denounces the “moralistic conservatives” who would use government policy to bolster traditional families. He thinks the state should not even be in the business of granting marriage licenses, but that, as long as it does, gay couples should also be allowed “the basic human dignity of being able to make a public affirmation of one’s love and commitment.”

Boaz predicts that the 21st century will pit libertarians against an alliance of big-government liberals and statist conservatives. That’s doubtful. On the defining feature of today’s culture wars — the struggle between the modern ethic of personal fulfillment and the older ethic of personal responsibility-libertarians and liberals are on the same side. Both defend “lifestyle choices,” differing only over economics. And even that difference is narrowing: Libertarians say the market shouldn’t be regulated at all. Liberals won’t go that far, but admit that the era of big government is over. They say it with regret for the time being. Yet they, too, are coming to appreciate that latter-day capitalism is a friend to the new values of liberation. That is something Boaz and the libertarians already know.

By Adam Wolfson; Adam Wolfson is executive editor of the Public Interest