Can Liberals Be Friends with Anti-Liberals?

I think the interpersonal dilemma faced by libertarians is similar to that faced by Christians. From a Christian perspective, there is no salvation outside the Church. One must follow and believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ in order to receive salvation for the soul. Otherwise, one will not be saved and will suffer eternally in hell, cut off from God. The problem is that Christians make up only a little over one-third of the population. Looking at the world as a whole, only about one out of every four or five people believes in Christianity. If so, one may conclude that two-thirds of Korea’s population and three-quarters of the world’s population have a very high probability of going to hell. (Of course, whether one is saved is ultimately judged by God, so that may not be the case.)

In order to save other people’s souls, Christians must desperately engage in evangelism and missionary work. In particular, if their family members or friends do not believe in Christianity, then from the Christian’s point of view they must all the more strongly persuade them to go to church in order to prevent them from going to hell. However, not every Christian around us forcefully urges others to attend church. Although the slogan “Jesus heaven, unbelief hell” has considerably worsened Christianity’s image, many Christians around us still maintain amicable personal relationships with nonbelievers. This is so even though they are always aware that those people will go to hell if they do not believe in Christianity.

The reason, of course, lies in the practical difficulties of human relationships. If one were to preach Christian doctrine at all times and on all occasions, people around him would instead distance themselves from him and leave. Also, if one did such a thing at work, one could face serious trouble, such as being fired or disciplined. In order to prevent such practical problems, Christians have no choice but to maintain relationships even with nonbelievers.

Libertarianism differs fundamentally from Christianity in that it is not a religion. Crucially, someone who is not a libertarian does not go to hell or become a criminal for that reason. (However, if one accepts Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s argumentation ethics, one could say that everyone has a logical duty to become a libertarian.)

Still, a person who believes libertarian norms are correct is someone who believes slavery or the initiation of aggression against others is wrong and can never agree to them. Such a person also wants libertarian norms to become widespread in society so that proper property rights and an appropriate economic system may take root. If so, he is very likely to want others to become libertarians as well. But the hard realities of life make it virtually impossible for libertarians to devote themselves fully to persuading or criticizing others.

A libertarian is someone who consistently defends a property-rights system allocated without logical contradiction. Strictly speaking, “everyone” who does not fit this proposition falls into one of two categories. First, if he admits that he is not a libertarian, he is someone who defends slavery at least “partially.” Second, if he does not admit that he is not a libertarian, he is someone who has committed a “logical contradiction.” Both groups are the same in that neither is libertarian.

Properly understood, libertarianism largely accords with our common sense, yet it also conflicts with an enormous number of commonsense views. Even ordinary people who support the free market and private property find it difficult to agree with it. For example, libertarianism is commonsensical in prohibiting murder, rape, and theft. However, it is non-commonsensical in that it abolishes all government intervention and, moreover, even debates whether government itself should continue to exist. The key point is that becoming a consistent libertarian who adheres to principle is extremely difficult. First of all, it requires tremendous learning and knowledge because one must directly confront the common sense of ordinary people and the views of the academic mainstream. That is because one must correct mistaken ideas lodged in the most fundamental realms of our thinking. Next come the difficulties of human relationships.

Most people around us are not libertarians. Put differently, most people around us partially defend slavery and implicitly tolerate theft and the initiation of aggression against others. From a libertarian perspective, this means ordinary people are objects of enlightenment and education. But can that always be so? Even setting aside the basic premise that one must possess the knowledge and eloquence needed to persuade others, treating everyone while steadfastly upholding one’s convictions as a libertarian will inevitably bring about conflict and the breakdown of personal relationships.

It is unrealistic to insist that every libertarian cut off personal ties with non-libertarians, and it is also hard to say that doing so is necessarily a virtue every libertarian must observe. Therefore, one can say there is no problem with libertarians maintaining personal relationships with non-libertarians.

Then what about a libertarian maintaining a relationship with an anti-libertarian, that is, someone who explicitly opposes libertarianism? If the relationship is merely formal, it clearly poses no problem, just as with a non-libertarian. But when it comes to a close friendship, the issue becomes more complicated. Can a libertarian be friends with someone while recognizing that the other person explicitly opposes libertarianism and advocates slavery and the initiation of aggression against others? Cautiously, I think it is possible in a limited sense. If that anti-libertarian is involved in activities that substantially harm libertarianism, then a libertarian should not engage in close interaction with him—at least if he has a libertarian conscience and devotes a large part of his life to his identity as a libertarian. (If libertarianism is secondary for him, then I think he should be called some other kind of “-ist” in the first place.) A genuine libertarian would likely find it difficult from the outset to feel any human bond with such an anti-libertarian.

However, if the anti-libertarian does not cause any particular harm to libertarianism, or if the libertarian comes to interact with him over matters unrelated to ideology, then the relationship cannot be regarded as ideologically connected. In that case, I do not think forming a relationship would create any especially decisive problem.

Of course, the most important thing is that in any situation, it is desirable for libertarians to maintain understanding, respect, and consideration toward others, to build productive relationships with them, and at the same time to encourage them to become libertarians.

However, I believe there is one type of person that libertarians must never tolerate under any circumstances: pseudo-libertarians who are not libertarians but claim to be. For example, people who advocate government intervention while claiming it is libertarian, or who believe slavery or the initiation of aggression against others can be justified according to libertarian norms. There are quite a few such people around us.

In fact, fundamentally speaking, these pseudo-libertarians may not be very different from anti-libertarians. Even so, the reason I believe one must take a stricter attitude toward them is precisely the libertarian conscience.

At the very least, someone who thinks of himself as a libertarian is someone who has devoted a considerable part of his life to libertarianism. Because libertarianism is an ideology, the standards of his conscience and value judgments are grounded in libertarian norms. Libertarianism thus comes to occupy the center of his identity. To distort the fundamental principles of libertarianism and preach falsehoods is to distort and deny a libertarian’s conscience and, furthermore, his very self.

Thus, a libertarian cannot instinctively stand together with a person who thinks slavery, the initiation of aggression against others, and government intervention are libertarianly justified. If that is not the case, then one must seriously reconsider whether he truly possesses the conscience and identity of a genuine libertarian. For a libertarian, it is only natural to feel greater anger toward and opposition to the pseudo-libertarians mentioned above than toward someone who simply says “libertarianism is wrong.”

Let me explain this again through the analogy with Christianity. Most Christians maintain amicable relationships, without major conflict, with nonbelievers or people of other religions (such as Buddhism). However, no Christian can maintain an amicable relationship with a member of Shincheonji. Even if they met for reasons entirely unrelated to religion, the moment he learns the other person is a Shincheonji member, he would want to sever the relationship as quickly as possible. His identity and conscience as a Christian would demand it immediately. If he hesitates, then his faith in Christianity must be questioned.

Some libertarians justify relationships with pseudo-libertarians by arguing that “pseudo-libertarians understand the market economy and property rights better than the non-libertarian masses.” Certainly, even setting aside the fact that pseudo-libertarians are fundamentally mistaken, insofar as they call themselves libertarians, it is true that they include libertarian norms to some extent. However, that is a highly biased, partial, and mistaken perspective that fails to see the more fundamental aspects. It is no different from a Protestant pastor or Catholic priest saying, “Most Shincheonji members know the Bible better than ordinary nonbelievers or even average church members.”

Finally, let me emphasize that despite the many religious analogies used in this article, libertarianism is not a religion at all, and our acceptance of libertarianism as an ideology is based not on emotion or faith but on logic and reason. Even so, once one accepts libertarianism, all standards of value judgment and conscience are reorganized around it, and so psychologically one may come to a state of mind similar to that of a religious believer. (Though this is a remark by someone who explicitly conflicts with Austrian School economics.) In a sense, as the philosopher Paul Feyerabend said, religion and science may differ by no more than a sheet of paper.

A genuine libertarian need not even read this article. His conscience and identity as a libertarian will show him the path his human relationships ought to take.

---

Original title: 자유주의자는 반자유주의자와 친구가 될 수 있을까?

Author: Kyeong-hun Kim

Date: 2020-10-29

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=free_opinion&pn=13&idx=23201