Recently, I talked about the method which Patrick Deneen misreads John Stuart Mill in his book Routine Change. I wish to continue the assault on Routine Modification today by looking at an argument he makes against libertarianism. Libertarians, Deneen declares, are elitists. They believe that ordinary individuals need to be ruled by an elite class of experts. They favor limitations on democracy in order to entrench laws about residential or commercial property rights that benefit the rich at the expense of the masses.
Deneen informs us that
throughout its history [liberalism] has actually looked for to preserve the idea of a knowledgeable class beforehand progress versus the risk posed by the backwardness of common individuals. Liberalism was a viewpoint that posited the theoretical equality of mankind in order to validate a brand-new upper class, a plan in which one’s status was attained not by birth, however by achievement. (emphasis original)
Rothbardian anarchocapitalism turns down the premise that underlies Deneen’s claim about liberalism. Deneen states that classical liberals favor rule by an informed elite over the masses, but the Rothbardian position isn’t about who must rule. Rothbard holds that individuals have the rights of self-ownership and property acquisition and that force or the threat of force may be used permissibly just in defense of these rights.
In Principles of Liberty and other works, he declares to develop this view of rights by argument. If you disagree with Rothbard about rights, then you need to show what is incorrect with his arguments. It isn’t sufficient to raise a various question, “Who determines the scope of personal and home rights– the elite or the masses?” For Rothbard, rights are a matter for discovery, not for choice.
Deneen might respond in this method. “Does not Rothbard concur with Ludwig von Mises that economics is a hard topic that the majority of people do not understand? If financial policy should be guided by appropriate financial principles, isn’t he implicitly requiring control in this important area by an educated elite trained in Austrian economics?” This response makes the exact same mistake that was just talked about. The main concern for Rothbard and Mises is, “What are the appropriate concepts of economics?,” not “Who decides which financial policies should be put into effect?”
Deneen may address that even if there are true concepts of political morality and true financial principles, concerns about the legal system and about financial policy are matters for decision within particular societies. However doesn’t the concern that Deneen has raised then challenge us? Who makes these decisions? The unbiased truth of morality and economic concepts doesn’t prevent the requirement for choices but rather enables us to examine specific choices as correct or incorrect.
That holds true, but Rothbard’s response to the “Who decides?” concern rejects elite control. He favors persuading individuals that the libertarian views he protects are appropriate. Rothbard’s stance is antipodal to “We are going to pack a libertarian society down your throat, whether you like it or not, due to the fact that we understand what’s best!”
Deneen is proper that some classical liberals do favor restricting democracy since they believe that an intellectual elite is much better able to rule than the masses. However Deneen stumbles when he explains the position of a leading advocate of this concept, Jason Brennan. Deneen states,
Choosing a government that mainly advanced policies protecting economic and personal liberty, and therefore mistrustful of populist disturbances in both domains, libertarian thinkers such as Jason Brennan of Georgetown University have actually provided frank broadsides versus the disadvantages of extensive political participation by common people.
In his 2016 book Against Democracy, Brennan commemorated decreasing levels of political involvement and low levels of ballot … Brennan echoes the arguments of a generation of classical liberals who interpret absence of political involvement as powerful proof of “indirect approval,” arguing that people act reasonably and basically consent to the status quo when they eschew political participation. Brennan’s argument intends to boost this implicit kind of implied permission of normal individuals by decreasing their useful engagement to result modifications in politics.
Deneen’s remark is a fantastic misconstruction of Brennan’s argument, and I do not have in mind the slip in the first sentence of the passage just priced estimate (if Brennan and others wished to restrict mass ballot, they would provide broadsides against the advantages of extensive political involvement, not versus the drawbacks of it). The misconstruction is that Brennan’s argument isn’t based upon a theory of tacit authorization which Brennan, like a lot of libertarians, declines authorization theories of political allegiance.
Further, the “indirect approval” argument, as Deneen provides it, is dumb. Tacit approval arguments maintain that if you live in a country, this shows that you accept the federal government’s authority over you: if you didn’t, you would leave. This isn’t an excellent argument, however it’s understandable why somebody might recommend it. However it makes no sense at all to declare that by stopping working to participate in ballot, you have actually granted the federal government. This would be analogous to arguing that by leaving a nation, you have tacitly consented to the government’s authenticity.
Deneen recommends that nonvoters are verifying the status quo. By stopping working to vote, they are implicitly saying that the existing scenario is all right. However citizens need not want modification, and those who desire the status quo protected have as much, or as little, a factor to vote as those who wish to modify it. A better tacit permission argument than the one Deneen recommends (though, once again, not an excellent one) would be that by voting, you have tacitly consented to the institution of ballot in your society.
In one area, though, Deneen and Rothbard concur. Like Deneen, Rothbard believes that Progressive Period intellectuals did view themselves as an elite who should assist the masses toward social redemption. Not even Deneen can get everything incorrect, although he should have credit for attempting.