David Henderson — Richard Ebeling on "Thick Libertarianism"

Clarification: I will use "libertarian" to signify the spectrum of libertarianism from left to right. Thick and thin Libertarianism apply to a controversy over this distinction now in progress on the right, which is the subject of David Henderson's post cited below.

Thin Libertarians hold that the non-aggression principle is sufficient politically for socio-economic organization to function efficiently and effectively. Thick Libertarians hold that it is insufficient and further principles or recognition of rights is required to obviate non-violent oppression.

Thin Libertarians are ultra-right. Thick Libertarians are also on the right wing but ther are considered left-leaning by thin Libertarians. For example, Murray Rothbard represents thin Libertarianism, whereas Friedrich Hayek falls into the thick category since he regard some social welfare as necessary in implementing a good society owing to imperfections. Thin Libertarians reject this a a compromise that would stand in the way of ever achieving their ideal of the withering away of the state by depriving the state of authority.

The libertarians of the left are also "thick" libertarians in this sense. holding that people are superior to property and therefore human rights and civil rights take precedence over property rights. This is a chief distinction between left and right libertarianism.

The libertarians of the left share some common ground with thick Libertarians but not with thin Libertarians. But all libertarians of whatever strip agree in opposing any imposition of authoritarianism that impinges on individual rights. Were libertarians disagree is over what constitutes the rights of individuals.

There is a further disagreement over the basis for rights. Since the demise of theocracy, which viewed everything as proceeding from a divine source, there has been an effort to find a necessary basis for right that is natural rather not supernatural. During the period of the Enlightenment, this initially led to the substitution of so-called natural rights for divinely endowed rights, although the Declaration of Independence asserted a theological basis for man's "inalienable" rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Thomas Paine penned The Rights of Man, published 1701-1792. Paine argued that rights are established by Nature; hence, they are necessary and absolute rather than contingent and relative. Popular sovereignty arises from individual sovereignty, and a legitimate government is the outcome of the choice of free individuals. The purpose of a government chosen through popular soverignty is guaranteeing "inalienable" rights of individuals as free citizens rather than as subjects.

However, the conception of "natural" has become much more narrowly defined in the interim to mean having a scientific (empirical) basis. No solid scientific basis for so-called natural rights on naturalistic grounds has been forthcoming, for example, from evolutionary biology, anthropology or sociology. Therefore, some cohorts of libertarians have modified the natural rights justification and locate the practical basis of rights institutionally in law, while grounding the basis of law and other political institutions in popular sovereignty — government of the people, by the people and for the people.

This is not to say that there is no scientific basis at all for natural rights, just that the basis is as yet insufficient to ground the complex concept of right that has emerged in law. However, law grew out of custom and custom out of convention, and presumably conventions arose and persisted because they conferred advantages, such as the ability to cooperate and organize. Research in the life sciences is showing that a sense of fairness ("equity," free rider problem) and the ability to coordinate behavior toward shared goals (cooperation, organization) arise early in the evolutionary process.

It can be argued that the concept of right is emergent evolutionarily owing to the comparative advantage it conveys. Capitalism based on economic liberalism and representative democracy based on social and political liberalism seem to provide such advantage from the historical perspective, and this may be an emergent trait, although this is far from being clearly understood now.

Socially and politically, libertarianism (right and left) is a rising trend, and it is far more complex than many realize. The future belongs to liberalism since humans value freedom extremely highly on the spectrum of valuation. Now the details are in the process of being hashed out. What is emerging is a range of libertarianism and liberalism with left and right extremes. The current debate is often framed in black and white and instead of many shades of grey. That is beginning to change as the debate matures and previously dominant ideologies begin to lose force.

EconLog
Richard Ebeling on "Thick Libertarianism"
David Henderson