Very good post. I'm libertarian-ish and judgemental, so I've thought about this a lot myself. I think there are two aspects to this.
Firstly, the Ur-libertarian conceptualisation is often around something like "meddlesomeness." But most people, including most libertarians, do not have a high-minded moral or politico-theoretic view of state intervention. They want "what works" [i.e. what they think works] and the interventions they support map to specific outcomes they do or don't want. To the extent they have an overarching ideology, it is mostly after-the-fact justification rather than the core driver of their views. So it naturally follows that the people who support (say) drug legalisation are mostly unbothered if people take drugs.
Secondly, politics is coalitional, and we are shaped in various ways by our coalitions, both externally and internally. Libertarians are typically in coalitional alignment with conservatives. That means I am a little reluctant to attack my political allies if they make socially conservative statements I disagree with. But more insidiously, I get exposed to a lot of very strong arguments from very nice people who are a lot more socially conservative than me, more than happens for socially liberal arguments. And you have to be pretty Big-5 Disagreeable for that not to wear you down over time, if that pressure is aligned with your personal tastes anyway. So judgemental libertarians get moulded into conservatives, whereas the non-judgemental are better able to resist.
>There’s a gap—where are the extremely judgmental libertarians? Surely there are other people who value their own and others’ freedom but nevertheless have strong opinions about what constitutes a beautiful vs. ugly life?
>Unfortunately, saying that you consider something very bad is often misunderstood as advocating for intervention in discourse. But it is totally valid to make severe judgments about others while still believing they should be granted the freedom to do as they please.
I think it's a combination of low base rate + selection effect (from the misunderstood dynamic you point out)
Eg I would (somewhat) put myself in this category, but I have no incentive to be public and loud about my negative judgments, because
1) it's rude
2) it's too easy for such statements to be weaponized by people who want to ban the things in question.
So I think libertarian + judgemental is not a memetically fit meme - no strong call to action.
Compare:
"this sucks, but i respect your right to do it" with
This was an interesting post. Not a libertarian, but in the last years, I've moved pretty strongly towards the right on economic policy, and on the Libertarian-Authoritarian axis, I've also moved very strongly towards valuing and respecting individual freedom, autonomy, self-flourishing and the right of not having it interfered with (it outpaces any egalitarian impulses in me, and I think is only really overcome by Truth-seeking, which is my top terminal preference). I just feel it is incompatible to be... high disgust + libertarian? Like, yes, you can have very strong and clear preferences on other's preferences and choices, but still feel you need to respect people's right to make the wrong ones, whether from a deontological appreciation of individual freedom or from a more pragmatic and cynical distrust on state intervention and force to be used to curtail freedoms. You can, perhaps, be strongly libertarian and try to punish/disincentivize what you see as bad choices through non-coercive means, like personal and/or social censure and lecturing. But you can also ultimately shrug your shoulders and think 'if the information is available and clear, to what degree should one try to constrain other people's choices?'. Dunno. I am a strong moral anti-realist, so this to a great extent takes the barb out of my dislike for other's choices, even when they are pretty obviously absurd and bad for themselves and society (although self-protection of my interests would still push me to oppose those that I perceive as causing damage at large and to myself and my preferences in the mid-long term).
Very good post. I'm libertarian-ish and judgemental, so I've thought about this a lot myself. I think there are two aspects to this.
Firstly, the Ur-libertarian conceptualisation is often around something like "meddlesomeness." But most people, including most libertarians, do not have a high-minded moral or politico-theoretic view of state intervention. They want "what works" [i.e. what they think works] and the interventions they support map to specific outcomes they do or don't want. To the extent they have an overarching ideology, it is mostly after-the-fact justification rather than the core driver of their views. So it naturally follows that the people who support (say) drug legalisation are mostly unbothered if people take drugs.
Secondly, politics is coalitional, and we are shaped in various ways by our coalitions, both externally and internally. Libertarians are typically in coalitional alignment with conservatives. That means I am a little reluctant to attack my political allies if they make socially conservative statements I disagree with. But more insidiously, I get exposed to a lot of very strong arguments from very nice people who are a lot more socially conservative than me, more than happens for socially liberal arguments. And you have to be pretty Big-5 Disagreeable for that not to wear you down over time, if that pressure is aligned with your personal tastes anyway. So judgemental libertarians get moulded into conservatives, whereas the non-judgemental are better able to resist.
>There’s a gap—where are the extremely judgmental libertarians? Surely there are other people who value their own and others’ freedom but nevertheless have strong opinions about what constitutes a beautiful vs. ugly life?
>Unfortunately, saying that you consider something very bad is often misunderstood as advocating for intervention in discourse. But it is totally valid to make severe judgments about others while still believing they should be granted the freedom to do as they please.
I think it's a combination of low base rate + selection effect (from the misunderstood dynamic you point out)
Eg I would (somewhat) put myself in this category, but I have no incentive to be public and loud about my negative judgments, because
1) it's rude
2) it's too easy for such statements to be weaponized by people who want to ban the things in question.
So I think libertarian + judgemental is not a memetically fit meme - no strong call to action.
Compare:
"this sucks, but i respect your right to do it" with
lib + non-judgement
"you are all Valid! Freedom!"
auth + judg
"this sucks, Ban It!!"
This was an interesting post. Not a libertarian, but in the last years, I've moved pretty strongly towards the right on economic policy, and on the Libertarian-Authoritarian axis, I've also moved very strongly towards valuing and respecting individual freedom, autonomy, self-flourishing and the right of not having it interfered with (it outpaces any egalitarian impulses in me, and I think is only really overcome by Truth-seeking, which is my top terminal preference). I just feel it is incompatible to be... high disgust + libertarian? Like, yes, you can have very strong and clear preferences on other's preferences and choices, but still feel you need to respect people's right to make the wrong ones, whether from a deontological appreciation of individual freedom or from a more pragmatic and cynical distrust on state intervention and force to be used to curtail freedoms. You can, perhaps, be strongly libertarian and try to punish/disincentivize what you see as bad choices through non-coercive means, like personal and/or social censure and lecturing. But you can also ultimately shrug your shoulders and think 'if the information is available and clear, to what degree should one try to constrain other people's choices?'. Dunno. I am a strong moral anti-realist, so this to a great extent takes the barb out of my dislike for other's choices, even when they are pretty obviously absurd and bad for themselves and society (although self-protection of my interests would still push me to oppose those that I perceive as causing damage at large and to myself and my preferences in the mid-long term).
I can't find a great reference, but I think Arnold Kling (and his blog) totally fit this profile.