Why Libertarians Don’t Get Along, Part 1
‘Our answer to the great question shall prevail!’
Let’s start by making up a few jokes to illustrate the problem.
Q: How many libertarians does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Just one, but he never gets around to it because he spends eight hours on Reddit arguing over whether…
The bulb can consent to be changed,
Standing on ladders constitutes aggression,
Lightbulbs should be patentable,
The hardware store should be defended by a private security agency or a private aggression-insurance agency,
Thomas Edison was a statist,
The bulb should be “thick” or “thin.”
Q: Why did everyone on the libertarian dating app end up lonely?
A: Because it was just like Tinder, except every profile began with…
NO ANCAPS (MINARCHISTS). NO THINS (THICKS). NO LPMC (PRAGMATISTS). NATURAL RIGHTS ONLY (CONSEQUENTIALISM ONLY). Must be good on intellectual property. Must correctly answer the following: Taxation is A. Theft; B. Extortion; C. Slavery. Must use proper wording of the NAP…
Q: Why did the libertarian cross the road?
A: To get away from all the libertarians who couldn’t get along.
Yes, yes, I know…Don’t quit your day job.
Fine. I’m not a comedian. But whether or not my jokes were funny, libertarian splitterism definitely isn’t.
Splitterism (a.k.a. sectarianism) is a common problem in ideological and political movements. In simplest terms, it is the phenomenon whereby groups experience internal division over tiny differences of opinion on principles, doctrine, rhetoric, or tactics.
They agree on all core ideas and objectives. They agree on 80 percent or more of everything else. And then they nitpick and obsess over that last 20 percent. Or ten percent, or five, or one. Or even just a single idea, or one tiny nuance of wording of one single principle.
In the end, they find more reason for animosity with their own than with their clear ideological opponents.
This phenomenon does not just produce rancor or endless debate, however. Each point of disagreement can serve as the catalyst for some to split off and form a new group. Hence, splitterism—most famously lampooned in the “People’s Front of Judea” skit from Monty Python’s Life of Brian:
At the time, the skit was primarily poking fun at the political left, which has been the poster child for political splitterism for well over a century. Mensheviks versus Bolsheviks. Trotskyites versus Stalinists. From purges to progressive purity tests to intersectionalism, splitterism has long been a feature of leftism.1
But it’s not just them. Religions are prone to the same thing. Within a few decades after Luther posted his 95 Theses to the church door, there were ten Protestant denominations. Then 50. Then 200. Then, in what amounts to a blink of an historical eye, there were 45,000—often separated not by fundamental theological differences, but tiny nuances in interpretation or practice.
Libertarians are notoriously prone to this sort of thing—most especially to endless debate and rancorous division over what any outsider would see as abstruse, doctrinaire minutiae. This has a paralyzing effect, and the larger freedom movement suffers as a result.
I am not so presumptuous as to believe that my poor scribbles alone can solve the problem. But we need to have the conversation and keep having it until we figure out some solutions. Because we really are shooting ourselves in the foot.
Six Reasons for the ‘People’s Front of Judea’ phenomenon
In order to combat this tendency, we must first understand why it happens. We can identify at least six reasons.
‘The narcissism of small differences’
Sigmund Freud, drawing on earlier work, used this term to describe the psychological factors that he believed underlie this phenomenon. His conclusions may not provide a complete explanation, but they are a useful starting point.
The psychology is simple enough: In an effort to maintain a sense of separate identity, and to avoid being subsumed by the group, we exaggerate minor differences with our fellows. Even though the gap between ourselves and outsiders is much larger (be they ideological, ethnic, religious, or any other kind of outsiders), we don’t perceive them as the real threat. The real threat is much closer to home: it is the in-group—the people we see every day. They pose the greater challenge to our sense of self, and thus, “Our hatred, fear, and contempt are directed at people who resemble us, while our pride is attached to the small markers that distinguish us from them.”
Here is a bit more to add to Freud’s ideas: Humans, like many other animal species, are wired to seek status within a dominance hierarchy. As human civilization grows more complex and advanced, the number of available hierarchies has multiplied (and thankfully so), but the basic wiring remains the same. As such, perhaps aggressive differentiation is partially an instinct: an attempt to distinguish oneself in order to gain greater status.
To the freedom movement…
Whatever the underlying reason, the phenomenon itself clearly exists. Without a doubt, it is important that we continue our search for truth, attempt to refine our thinking, and hone our understanding of first principles. But there is clearly a problem in the way we are going about it. Thus, the first question we might consider is whether we feel an exaggerated need to differentiate ourselves, and if so—what are our reasons for it?
A renewed feeling of belonging
In an ironic twist, the desire to preserve one’s sense of self creates the conditions for a wonderful new feeling of belonging—when a disagreement results in a new group being formed.
The original group believes XXXXXXXXXXXYY. The new splinter group believes XXXXXXXXXXXZZ.
Doesn’t it feel good to be on the right side of this important question, fellow XXXXXXXXXXXZZ brothers? Not like those XXXXXXXXXXXYYers. We tried to explain to them how wrong they were on this issue, but they wouldn’t listen. We’re not the splitters—THEY are. (It’s always the other guy who’s the splitter.)
Thus, new bonds are kindled, leading to a new version of the warm and welcoming feeling of sharing an ideological kinship with others. That is until the next nitpicky ideological dispute comes along.
Think of it this way: You could get a divorce every time you have a disagreement with your spouse. Your next relationship might even feel fresh and new for a while. But the secret to abiding happiness is to work at things with the spouse with whom you share so much, not with the shiny new model who seems superficially better in the heat of the moment.
To the freedom movement…
What sort of people do we want to be?
Intellectuals gonna intellectual
The sort of movements most prone to splitterism are those with a philosophical, theological, or theoretical underpinning. Such movements attract intellectuals, and intellectuals love to debate, explore, analyze, and analyze some more. (I am certainly guilty as charged.)
For such people, hair splitting can actually be enjoyable pastime. We love the puzzle. We want the truth. We want to get things right. And so we keep analyzing and digging deeper and deeper, and nothing practical gets done.
To the freedom movement…
The analytical process is absolutely essential. We need to know what we are fighting for, and why. But if we are 100 percent talk and zero percent action, then we’re not a movement. Movements actually need to move once in a while. Talking about freedom is essential. But actual freedom should be the goal.
Purity and Utopia
Many movements and ideologies aren’t just trying to get things right on specific questions—they are trying to get the whole thing right. They are looking for the correct answer to…everything. The creators of the South Park animated series released a two-part episode at the end of season 10 that encapsulates all of this brilliantly…
One of the main characters (Eric Cartman) is frozen in the present and then revived in the year 2546. At first, the world of the future looks advanced and peaceful, but we quickly discover that it is riven with conflict. The combatants are all atheist groups locked in a war over whose answer to “The Great Question” is correct. They are the Unified Atheist League (UAL), United Atheist Alliance (UAA), and Allied Atheist Allegiance (AAA). (This last is, hysterically, a group of evolved, technologically advanced, extremely violent sea otters.)
Parker and Stone’s social commentary is, as usual, brilliant and spot on. In one fell swoop, they manage to lampoon splitterism, the narcissism of small differences, atheists, religion, political movements, utopianism, and, frankly, humanity as a whole. In a technologically advanced future, in which many of the problems that face us today are solved, people are still fighting over stupid things. Atheists have gotten the world they want—a world devoted to “rationality and science”—and they are behaving just like the religionists of old. Just like the revolutionary left. Just like the People’s Front of Judea.2
Religious, ideological, and philosophical movements tend to produce and incentivize perfectionism. We aren’t just looking for answers, we are looking for perfect answers. For THE answer.
Thrown into the milieu of debate, or the establishment and maintenance of doctrine, this can easily result in purity tests. Ramped up a little more, and any form of compromise is seen as betrayal. And the next stop? Charges of heresy for even the smallest deviation. We’ve seen it time and time again.
To the freedom movement…
We are obviously prone to this—libertarians especially. We are looking for ever-better answers to the most important questions. (Guilty as charged.) We want to blaze a trail to a better world. (Guilty as charged.)
No serious libertarian, voluntaryist, or classical liberal of any stripe is claiming that our ideas will produce a perfect utopia. Yet we are often perceived that way by outsiders. What are we doing to contribute to that impression?
I frequently receive replies to my writing along the lines of, “Okay, smart guy, how will X/Y/Z get handled in your utopia?” Your utopia. Yet I have never once claimed, nor implied, that our ideas will produce utopia.
So where is this coming from? Could it be our obvious enthusiasm for our ideas? Or is that some underlying effort to achieve moral purity is coming through? This is something we must consider.
Lack of external pressure
It is a near-universal truism:
When there is an external foe, or pressure from outside, internal conflicts diminish. When external pressure decreases, internal conflicts develop, return, or become magnified.
In other words, the safer we feel, the more likely we are to give in to division, splitterism, and the narcissism of small differences. How tragically pathetic is that? We feel safe, so we find new reasons to feel unsafe.
To the freedom movement…
First of all, is that who we want to be? Even if it all of this is rooted in human nature, we can still do better. Our nature, after all, has better and worse angels.
We have seen this phenomenon play out among classical liberals many times.
In the 1950s, conservatives and libertarians set aside their differences and maintained a reasonably unified front against a common external foe: global communism. Though guided somewhat by National Review and Frank Meyer’s concept of “fusionism,” it is likely this would have happened anyway (at least to some degree). Conservatism and libertarianism share much of the same ideological provenance and core principles, and communism is clearly anathema to both.
Predictably, this alliance began to fracture as soon as the Iron Curtain came down and the Soviet Union collapsed. But the fracturing didn’t stop there.
We are right to describe every involuntary government on Earth—including the comparatively “free” nations of the West—as morally impermissible initiations of coercive force and violations of individual human consent. They are that, and more. And there is every reason to believe that our governments are headed in a more totalitarian direction…indeed, that all such governments eventually and inevitably will.
But let’s face it—compared to what many humans have had to deal with throughout history, we are still reasonably free, comparatively safe, and wildly prosperous.
Remember—the safer we feel, the more the fracturing. This is partly why libertarians feel perfectly fine completely writing off one of their fellows because he is “bad on intellectual property.” Or refusing to work together with some group because they prefer a slightly different wording of the NAP.
Is this really helping our broader cause?
Sensemaking
For some time, I have wondered why we humans get so upset when we discover that others have different opinions. Needless to say, as a human, I am guilty as charged here too.
I have developed a hypothesis that I believe explains, in part, why this happens. It comes down to sensemaking: If others look at the same set of facts and come to a different conclusion, what does that say about the process by which each of us is making sense of the world?
How can we both be right? If he is right, then I must be wrong. And I refuse to accept that. He must be wrong. And I must demonstrate to him that he is wrong.
In the last couple of years, I have come to realize that this is a toxic outcome of our nature as ultra-social creatures, and it is something that we need to overcome. How much wrong is done as a result of this tendency?
What do you mean, you’re not Catholic (Protestant/Muslim/communist/fascist/etc.)? Well, if I cannot convince you by words, by golly, I will do it by law, or by the sword.
This obsession with the views of others, and the impulse to convince them of their wrongness of their views, colors our everyday conversations, and it informs the longstanding human impulse to force single-solution systems and single-viewpoint ideologies on large groups of people.
And it needs to stop.
To the freedom movement…
Do you see how terribly this phenomenon and practice runs counter to our most cherished principles?
Who cares how others make sense of the world? So long as they do not violate the consent of, or initiate coercive force upon, peaceful people, what does it matter what they think?
Do you envision a revolution to overthrow the existing order? And then what? Does a single system get imposed on everyone, whether they want it or not? Does that include the Amish? Are they not allowed to make sense of the world in their own way, even if it seems illiberal to us?
And what about our fellows in the freedom movement? They are already making sense of the world in such a way that they are IN the freedom movement. Why should any one of us care if their sensemaking hasn’t led them to the exact same spot on every issue?
Do we want freedom? Not just talk, but actual freedom? If so…
Isn’t better to look for common ground, rather than applying purity tests in every interaction?
Isn’t it better to work together rather that forking off endlessly into smaller and smaller groups? Or if not to work together, then at least to be supportive of each others’ efforts—to recognize the value in having another person or group trying to seek greater freedom in their own way?
Isn’t better to do something, rather than just talking ad infinitum? Yes, the talk is needed. But do we need the conversation to fork endlessly, like some runaway nuclear reaction?
Yes, we must continually explore first principles and refine our understanding of them, and of how they might work if actually applied in the real world. But at some point, we must actually make an attempt to apply them in the real world.
The state is already an impediment to that. Do we need our own splitterism to get in the way as well?
Help me keep exploring ways to work together for a better future in a new world.
This phenomenon goes all the way back to the French Revolution (the birthplace of the modern left) and the Reign of Terror.
In the episode, Richard Dawkins is portrayed in ways that the real Richard Dawkins found objectionable, (and understandably so—if you do not like seeing gross things, do not watch this episode, or any South Park, really). In response, he said, “I wouldn't have minded so much if only it had been in the service of some serious point, but if there was a serious point in there I couldn't discern it.”
That is patently absurd. Multi-layered social critique is an extremely rare talent, and Stone and Parker clearly have it. They don’t just make one serious point in the episode, they make a whole series of serious points—disguised, as usual, in their puerile and graphic style. An inability to discern the underlying social commentary in a South Park episode requires either diminished cognitive ability or extreme self-importance and pomposity. I wonder which of these describes Dawkins.
Why don't libertarians get along?
Easy answer: they all just want to be left alone
Great easy, Chris. In a different place, time, and religion, you’d have been a Talmudic scholar!