Why Do People Fall Away from Liberty?
In the last chapter of For A New Liberty, Rothbard speaks with super enthusiasm for the young people who have recently come to love liberty as an idea, and predicts great things for the near future. I’ve often wondered what happened to that generation. Many went on to do great things but many too were lost and sort of just moved on with their lives. This could happen again in the aftermath of the great boon for the world of liberty over the last few years. How to prevent this fate?
My strong impression is that there is a high attrition rate in the ranks of liberty lovers. Why is this?
I would speculate the following three factors. 1) People become overly invested in the possibility of political change and then give up when they realize that the system is more entrenched than they ever imagined. 2) People come to be bored or even disgusted by the wickedness of movement politics and infighting and decide that there are just much better ways to use one’s time. 3) People grow intellectually and their love of liberty does not grow with them, and they end up writing off their early attachment to radical ideas as a kind of immaturity born of personal selfishness.
The cure for 1 and 2 seems pretty apparent to me. We need stuff to do that is not politics, which often feels like banging one’s head against a wall. This is the driving ethos of Liberty.me: let’s begin in our own lives. Let’s change the world around us. Let’s find the flaws in the system and exploit them, eschew the plan our masters have mapped out for us, discover how liberty can make a difference in the practical aspects of our daily lives and encourage others to do the same. This type of “Do It Yourself” liberty has the advantage of showing ourselves how real progress is possible even in the face of massive barriers all around us. (I’ve put together all my essays on this topic in Liberty.me: Freedom Is a Do It Yourself Project.)
That doesn’t have to mean completely dropping politics; if there is any opportunity in that realm, fine, go for it. But it does mean being realistic about the difference between what we can and cannot control. In the end, the political system is owned by the state, not the people. We, on the other hand, are self owners. They can rob us and beat us but they can’t control our minds and hearts that give birth to higher aspirations and therefore the dawning of a new and alternative way of living.
It’s a critical step in thinking for several reasons. We need liberty. Liberty works, and taking steps toward acting on this truth in ways that are personally advantageous reinforces the point. We can’t control the nation state and its bureaucracies but we can control our own bodies, associations, property, and life decisions — and the choices we make are massively influenced by the values we hold. Liberty is a value that can change a life from dreary to adventurous, from despairing to beautiful and exciting.
But this step is not only about our lives and ourselves. Making radical choices in our own lives also helps build out the institutions that serve as a counterweight to leviathan. We become part of the intermediating institutions that grow organically from human volition rather than force. This means founding and encouraging the growth of private schools, charities, businesses, families, dynasties, and technologies. The larger and more robust these institutions become, the weaker the power of our overlords to control our lives.
This is essentially the story of the last 15 years of progress. No politician invented the app economy, P2P technologies that are enhancing our lives, the homeschooling revolution, the growth of free cities, the emergence of digital worlds like Liberty.me, the rise of the alternative media, the globalization and individuation of economic exchange, the invention of new lending and borrowing institutions, the gigantic online marketplace, and so much more. These were not part of the plan. Innovators who refused to defer to the plan created them to make a new world.
Why is this essential? Alexis de Tocqueville explains that liberty never arrives as if dropped by a stork from the sky. It does not come from a document. Neither do wars bring liberty. Liberty is built from the ground up, one courageous decision at a time, in a way that creates and grows robust institutions, practices, associations, relationships, and ways of living that are outside the old structures of command and control. This is where American liberty came from, he writes. There would have been no American independence movement without the long history of the Colonial period.
The times in which we live right now are the new American colonial period, roughly like the 17th and 18th centuries in which new institutions are being built to replace old ones and to stand guard against coming encroachments. The frontier in our case is mainly digital but there is a feedback relationship that takes place with the physical world too. The communications technologies we can use every day all contribute to the construction of an alternative sphere of social engagement and economic growth.
This is not so much about politics but about seeing beyond and through the fog of politics, and believing in our capacity to change the world from the inside out.
Now, let’s address the third reason people leave liberty activism. I’ve speculated that it has something to do with a perception that one has grown out of it. They say things like: “I used to live by the slogan ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ but now I realize that this is myopic, perhaps suitable for an impressionable college kid, but I’m more recently convicted of larger and more humane world views.” The next step of this type of thinking is indifference or the social democratic miasma.
We’ve all heard people say this. They’ve grown up. They’ve moved on. They’ve accepted their bigger responsibilities to the world. Why should believing that one has “grown up” have anything at all to do with the acceptance of the libertarian creed? It should not have anything to do with it. “Don’t Tread on Me” is not an endorsement of being selfish; it is a smite against tyranny. In order to understand this, however, we need to have confidence that what we believe about human liberty is indeed what is right not only for ourselves but for everyone.
Since I wrote in favor of “humanitarian libertarianism,” I’ve spent much time in the long literature of liberty. The love of life and the aspiration for the well being of the whole of humanity is integral to our tradition. It appears absolutely everywhere — from Paine to Tocqueville to Bastiat to Mises and Hayek and Rand and Rothbard. I’m ever more convinced that the truncated and deliberately unbeautiful visions of liberty — the ones animated by a studied attempt to never reflect on the larger implications of liberty for the social order — are the very rare exceptions in our tradition.
You only need to read the first and last chapters of For a New Liberty to see how the Grand Vision of a humane social order, the whole of humanity liberated from oppression, is at the core of who we are and what we believe. Ours is not an eccentric and rarified doctrine that pertains exclusively to people who have signed up for a neologistic ethical system; it actually embodies the longest conceivable idea of what it means to live a full, peaceful, and prosperous life, to own, trade, associate, innovate, improve, create, flourish, and, as such, is an idea that could and should have a universal appeal.
Eventually, liberty minded people must discover this and thereby fall more deeply in love with the idea of liberty; if people don’t discover this, the tendency is to fall away in a sense of regret about the “youthful pride” that led to the advocacy of an oddball political system that could never be accepted by a large swath of the human race.
The cure, then, for the “maturity” excuse for leaving liberty activism is to see that liberty itself is the most mature, humane, broad, compassionate, and wonderful thing that can ever happen to any people anywhere. Don’t tread on anyone.
As Rothbard wrote, the “potential appeal of libertarianism is a multi-class appeal; it is an appeal that cuts across race, occupation, economic class, and the generations; any and all people not directly in the ruling elite are potentially receptive to our message. Every person or group that values its liberty or prosperity is a potential adherent to the libertarian creed.” It’s not just about you or just about me: “libertarians now propose to fulfill the American dream and the world dream of liberty and prosperity for all mankind.”
Beautiful Anarchy
The Economics of Life Itself : Beautiful Anarchy is the writing platform of Jeffrey Tucker, in which he covers economics, art, popular culture, and politics from a pro-liberty, anti-state point of view.
Join The Discussion
17 CommentsThoughts? Comments?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Global Liberty Community
Conza May 27, 2014, 2:31 pm Vote0
Excellent. This being a relevant favourite in line with the above:
“…Armed with this knowledge, let him proceed in the spirit of radical long-run optimism that one of the great figures in the history of libertarian thought, Randolph Bourne, correctly identified as the spirit of youth. Let Bourne’s stirring words serve also as the guidepost for the spirit of liberty:
[Y]outh is the incarnation of reason pitted against the rigidity of tradition; youth puts the remorseless questions to everything that is old and established – Why? What is this thing good for? And when it gets the mumbled, evasive answers of the defenders it applies its own fresh, clean spirit of reason to institutions, customs and ideas and finding them stupid, inane or poisonous, turns instinctively to overthrow them and build in their place the things with which its visions teem.
Youth is the leaven that keeps all these questioning, testing attitudes fermenting in the world. If it were not for this troublesome activity of youth, with its hatred of sophisms and glosses, its insistence on things as they are, society would die from sheer decay. It is the policy of the older generation as it gets adjusted to the world to hide away the unpleasant things where it can, or preserve a conspiracy of silence and an elaborate pretense that they do not exist. But meanwhile the sores go on festering just the same. Youth is the drastic antiseptic. It drags skeletons from closets and insists that they be explained. No wonder the older generation fears and distrusts the younger. Youth is the avenging Nemesis on its trail.
Our elders are always optimistic in their views of the present, pessimistic in their views of the future; youth is pessimistic toward the present and gloriously hopeful for the future. And it is this hope which is the lever of progress – one might say, the only lever of progress.
The secret of life is then that this fine youthful spirit shall never be lost. Out of the turbulence of youth should come this fine precipitate – a sane, strong, aggressive spirit of daring and doing. It must be a flexible, growing spirit, with a hospitality to new ideas and a keen insight into experience. To keep one’s reactions warm and true is to have found the secret of perpetual youth, and perpetual youth is salvation.”
— Excerpted from Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard
Lucy Steigerwald May 27, 2014, 11:44 pm Vote0
I honestly believe several friends have left moderate/semi-libertarianism because they couldn’t handle the exhaustion of explaining it to people all the time, or being accused of hating poor people, or being a libertine, or of being a right-winger. It’s easier to not be a libertarian. That sounds self-aggrandizing, but it’s true. Even your friends will give you grief for it. College is also grueling for the young liberty-lover.
Conza May 28, 2014, 8:51 am Vote0
Right Lucy. Would you say they are still libertarians then, but merely took the first route outlined below and are no longer really “seen”?
“Any man who is an individualist and a libertarian in this day and age has a difficult row to hoe. He finds himself in a world marked, if not dominated, by folly, fraud, and tyranny. He has, if he is a reflecting man, three possible courses of action open to him:
[1] He may retire from the social and political world into his private occupation.
[2] He can set about to try to change the world for the better, or at least to formulate and propagate his views with such an ultimate hope in mind.
[3] He can stay in the world, enjoying himself immensely at this spectacle of folly.
To take this third route requires a special type of personality with a special type of judgment about the world. He must, on the one hand, be an individualist with a serene and unquenchable sense of self-confidence; he must be supremely “inner-directed” with no inner shame or quaking at going against the judgment of the herd. He must, secondly, have a supreme zest for enjoying life and the spectacle it affords; he must be an individualist who cares deeply about liberty and individual excellence, but who can – from that same dedication to truth and liberty – enjoy and lampoon a society that has turned its back on the best that it can achieve. And he must, thirdly, be deeply pessimistic about any possibility of changing and reforming the ideas and actions of the vast majority of his fellow-men. He must believe that boobus Americanus is doomed to be boobus Americanus forevermore. Put these qualities together, and we are a long way toward explaining the route taken by Henry Louis Mencken.”
— Murray N. Rothbard, New Individualist Review, vol. 2, Summer 1962, pp. 15-27.
Hannah Longford May 28, 2014, 9:14 am Vote0
Yes and no. Youth can also be very stupid. This is because youth is such an irrational period for many people and they have no idea how to address things and issues rationally. Although yes, youth provides an antidote to the conventions of the day, there’s a selfish, self-serving and transient element to it.
This is because as Stefan Molyneux often talks about, many young people are raised by irrational parents. When I look back at my early youth I think of all the time wasted on frivolity and pointless pontificating instead of doing what this article says to do.
By raising children freely and teaching them to think for themselves, ‘youth’ never need happen. From the get-go they’d be mature-minded independent and able to see through the rubbish.
Problem is, this isn’t the case and we’re all surrounded by irrational people – when it comes to youth, often dangerous irrational people.
Propertea May 27, 2014, 4:08 pm Vote0
There are neurological changes that occur in the brain that make us more conservative (As in cautious of change) as we get older. Our brain has a finite amount of space to store memory, so it compacts similar memories together so that they blend together. In addition, our ability to find completely new sources of stimuli is reduced, having experienced much of what the world offers.
These changes make it harder for us to experience new things with that “first time gusto.” Now, we do not have to become resistant to change, but many people at this point assume they have an understanding of the “cycle of life” and use their experiences as justifications for it.
This is not including the changes brought about by having children…. Regardless, I agree with Rothbard that it is important to maintain that youthful spirit.
Tom Crass May 28, 2014, 6:08 am Vote0
The essence of staying mentally acute is to embrace change and deal with what comes , not to rely on memorys of the good old days. Which for we elder libertarians is to not tolerate to limited view of the world that is the conservative view . It just takes some courage to be flexiable and not get your brain stuck in the past. I have and do know many vintage classic liberals , unfortunatly we are more rare than I would like.
Scott MG May 27, 2014, 4:49 pm Vote0
I can see why people would fall away, but depending on whether it was explanation 1,2 or 3 that Jeffrey gave it ultimately depends on why you came to liberty in the first place. Maybe you were tired of the indoctrination of the school system, maybe you or a family member lost a business because of some arbitrary rule, or maybe you just had an intellectual interest in moral philosophy or economics. Their can be many reasons, but perhaps liberty’s true supporters were not really liberty’s true supporters. Their is so much in life, work, family, school, friends, who has time for arguing beliefs, ideals and economics. What was once of great importance, has dropped on the list considerably. You may start to think a little social security is ok, a little military is OK, a little welfare. It is after all, may be, a “necessary evil”, but when does evil not grow when it exists? Since WW2 the govrnment has continually to grow despite attempts against it.
These people may find themselves working for the government, on wall street, on welfaire or on retirement. Who wants to advocate for liberty when it upsets their way of life. I am going to use an extreme example here but I believe it to be relavent none the less.
I hope you would feel somewhat guilty if you were living in a culture that was almost entirely slave based in its production and services which you, maybe indirectly were the benifctor of. You may not like it or approve of it but assuming you had no other choice for food, drink, clothing, you might partake. You would make it a point not to become comfortable however, you would want to fight the system in some small way.
Today the government sells the productivity of unborn children for the convinences and programs of today. I would ask yourself If you have become comfortable with the system? Are your successes based in anyway on the success of this system. If so how are you fighting back? An interesting topic would be “what is the balance between living and enjoying your daily life, and not conforming and becoming comfortable to the coersive environment we are in?
Ethan Glover May 27, 2014, 5:21 pm Vote0
@Jim McDoniel, I just wanted to quickly mention that the idea of brains having a finite amount of space is absolutely untrue in every sense. Brains are not computers and it is misleading to think of them in such terms. There is nothing inherent about stubbornness in old age etiher, there is no real science to support this (or the memory thing), it’s just a general assumption everyone makes because they see older people as authority figures.
———————
Anyways, as for a general comment, I’ve stopped spending so much time in the liberty world. I’ve begun to read different books of unrelated topics, stopped reading so much news, and stopped writing. It means greater happiness for me, that doesn’t mean I’m no longer a libertarian. But it’s not beneficial for me to fight for the ideals on some grand scale. Time is money, and can’t waste too many minutes on telling people who will build the roads.
Propertea May 27, 2014, 6:02 pm Vote0
@Ethan Glover Our brains do have a finite amount of space. It is just extremely large. I am not equating brains to operate the same as computers, but rather we do have mechanisms to maintain our ability to process and store new information. The compacting of similiar memories is a “simple” function that helps in that regard. It is why an uneventful work week will seem to pass by relatively quickly, but doing taxes seem to take forever. Every single day of a car drive to work doesn’t need to be fully recorded, so those memories seem to blend together. It doesn’t mean people will or have to become stubborn in old age, but these are factors that reinforce an already stubborn person’s decisions.
Don May 27, 2014, 7:38 pm Vote0
Jeffrey, are you asking why people leave ‘liberty’, or ‘liberty activism’? (activism being the key word. what does that mean?) (“The cure, then, for the “maturity” excuse for leaving liberty activism…”) The ‘maturity excuse’ is most likely what happens. Family comes first. If you are asking why people leave the ‘liberty movement’, libertarianism, then speaking for myself, I am not interested any longer in discussing what would/could happen in a free society. I am looking for direct action (non-political) in the here and now: mutual aid, agorism, ect. I am finding very little of this here at l.me, unfortunately. (besides a few things you say) As I have found very little of it (action) from ‘right’/’thin’ libertarians in general. (besides some political action) I think the way forward is through SEK3, not post LParty Rothbard. (of course the FIRST step to creating a free society is peaceful parenting!) This piece by Kevin Carson is pretty good http://bit.ly/1jweGx0
Ethan Glover May 27, 2014, 8:22 pm Vote0
Jim, you’re confusing what memory is with some general quips. Kind of like putting trivia together as a puzzle and calling that knowledge. Unless you’ve got scholarly sources it’s probably best to just stop.
David Montgomery May 28, 2014, 3:28 am Vote0
Don, we are surrounded here by people with a wide spectrum of knowledge and experience who share the same desire to seek more liberty via any peaceful means. You’ll get out of it what you put into it.
Ethan and Jim, I believe the question about the brain’s capacity remains unanswered. I’ve seen no hard and definitive way to quantify a particular person’s cognitive capacity. (That doesn’t mean the capacity is infinite.) I’d be interested in seeing cognitive neuroscience reference to support both your views. If either of you happen to be researchers or professors in this field, I’d love to see an article expanding on your thoughts.
Curt Doolittle May 28, 2014, 2:35 pm Vote0
I think you need to include both (a) which kind of liberty that they abandon: classical liberal, “thick” or “thin”; and also (b) the possibility that at least “thin”(‘brutalist’) libertarianism contains flawed ideas.
As I’ve argued elsewhere, I think persuasively (if highly analytically), and you and the BHL folks argue, frankly, less persuasively (if allegorically), that “thin” or “Brutalist” libertarianism is an insufficiently ethical and moral set of principles upon which to construct a voluntary polity in the absence of the state.
People do abandon Thin/Brutalist as immoral. I think people fail to adopt ‘thick’ because of the near absence of rational or empirical arguments to support ‘thick’ or ‘humanitarian’ positions.
I think people are flocking to Classical Liberalism however. Which is at least articulated as psychology, law and history.
Now, every libertarian faction is trying to take credit for this drift to liberty. But the evidence is that they’re just reaching for something other than the failed state, and as such, classical liberalism is the only choice available to them. But in no case is “thin” libertarianism gaining traction that I can measure. That peaked and passed.
Cheers.
Curt Doolittle May 28, 2014, 2:36 pm Vote0
(Jeff Tucker. Please install a 30 minute comments editor on our post stream, since it’s just too frustrating to stare at typos made in a frenzy of keystrokes.)
Carl Milsted May 28, 2014, 4:30 pm Vote0
Murray Rothbard’s vision is incompatible with electoral politics. It took me many years to figure this out; I thought his ideas were brilliant when first exposed to them. Democracy involves compromise. The U.S. Constitution demands incremental change. Treating the Zero Aggression Principle as a trump over all other moral considerations makes one come off as heartless, because frankly, you are if you honestly take that stance. A refusal to actively advocate incremental change nearly guarantees electoral failure and near irrelevance should one actually get elected to a legislative position. (Diagrams here: http://bit.ly/1k76h82 )
So yes, abandoning electoral politics is definitely the way to go for those committed to Rothbard’s axioms. Good luck with liberty.me! It holds far more promise than the Libertarian Party.
Another alternative is to promote a more mature vision of liberty. There’s quite a bit of name calling and proof-by-handwaving in Rothbard’s works. I didn’t notice the amount when I first encountered his works because he was rationalizing my already existing callow sentiments. I have since grown up. It wasn’t easy.
John Howard May 28, 2014, 7:25 pm Vote0
My understanding is that Milton Friedman, close to the end of his life, pondered on why nearly all modern “free” democratic societies vote away their freedoms.
Kathy Grable June 3, 2014, 9:54 pm Vote0
I have to say I disagree with Rothbard on this. I do not believe that people like Greenspan suddenly no longer believe in liberty. He sold out. He joined the statists and made lots of money, made his life easier, and will go down in history as a minion of tyrants. No one who truly understands the way the world works, statism, and Austrian (reaal) economics, can just deny this and say, “Oh, that’s not true, let’s go vote and make the world better”. Once your eyes have been opened, there is no going back, it’s the red pill. The knowledge is there, it’s just back-burnered for survival. The truth is, most of us learned long after we had families and obligations…and that is the way things are designed, keep people locked up and ignorant, then pressure them to get into debt and start families…so they have something to lose. By the time they learn the truth, they can’t do a lot about it.
That system is crumbling, the economy being tanked, the better to assimilate the bankrupt and broken US (resistance is futile) into a larger collective. No true libertarian CAN go back, it’s impossible, truth is truth. I think some people may have said they were libertarian because they found it trendy or whatever, but they really didn’t get it, or care. Like that Nick Gillespie and those other beltway guys. WTH? RON PAUL (!! RON PAUL!!)was running for president and WHERE WERE they??? CYA and AWOL, failing the Ron Paul litmus test big time.
Sadly, Rothbard did not live to see the spark he kept alive grow into flames. But, being a Christian, I think he’s “up there” enjoying the show. Keep up the Good Fight, Jeffrey!