Does libertarianism have airtight definitions and foundations? Are there limitations to the liberty maxim? In an essay titled The Ways of John Gray, Daniel B. Klein writes:
"Libertarianism is a reform agenda cursed also by its own strength. The extent to which sensible libertarians regard the liberty maxim as well defined, widely applicable, and widely desirable is much greater than the extent to which those in other ideological camps regard their leading maxims as well defined, widely applicable, and widely desirable. In a sense, it is a curse to be the most in anything, because it arouses accusations of being entire. The cogency of the liberty maxim in the libertarian's mind often leads others to think that he regards it as an axiom that is always clearly defined, everywhere applicable, and always desirable. Critics such as Gray condemn libertarianism for pretending to possess airtight definitions, absolutes, and foundations, and therefore they attempt to dispose of libertarianism on formalistic grounds rather than engaging the substantive arguments offered for the reform agenda.
Libertarians might deter slights and hectoring by emphasizing the limitations of the liberty maxim and expressing its virtues in comparative terms."
I would argue that advocates for liberty need not eschew its limitations. Liberty is not Utopia. Likewise, critics should be careful not to reject libertarianism outright because it falls short of some Utopian ideal. There is no such thing as a perfect solution. What we want is incremental progress in the direction of human flourishing. That is something only the free market of voluntary exchange can offer.
Explore the Liberty Library to learn how the market process might be able to address some of our most difficult challenges.
Explore the Liberty Library to learn how the market process might be able to address some of our most difficult challenges.
