Libertarian View Research Articles

The Conservative of the Spontaneous Order

Libertarianism itself does not hold a stance on moral issues and hence does not prevent libertarians from adopting culturally conservative or liberal positions. Though libertarianism has no position on cultural issues per se, this article argues that libertarians should intellectually oppose the ideas behind some of the current cultural developments in the West due to their constructivist nature. Based on Hayek’s critique of constructivism, I contend that many of the recent cultural shifts in society are influenced by rational constructivist ideas—namely, critical theory and deconstruction. These ideas pose an intellectual threat to libertarianism for two reasons: (1) They intellectually challenge the traditional libertarian view of the spontaneous origins of civil society, which they aim to reshape in favor of a structure that reflects a specific postmodern world view. (2) It remains uncertain how a libertarian society would function under a newly constructed social order that does not value free speech, property rights, and other fundamental principles of the current liberal order. The spontaneous order is the defining feature of libertarian social analysis, and it must be intellectually defended.

The Self-Perception and Political Biases of ChatGPT

This contribution analyzes the self-perception and political biases of OpenAI’s Large Language Model ChatGPT. Considering the first small-scale reports and studies that have emerged, claiming that ChatGPT is politically biased towards progressive and libertarian points of view, this contribution is aimed at providing further clarity on this subject. Although the concept of political bias and affiliation is hard to define, lacking an agreed-upon measure for its quantification, this contribution attempts to examine this issue by having ChatGPT respond to questions on commonly used measures of political bias. In addition, further measures for personality traits that have previously been linked to political affiliations were examined. More specifically, ChatGPT was asked to answer the questions posed by the political compass test as well as similar questionnaires that are specific to the respective politics of the G7 member states. These eight tests were repeated ten times each and indicate that ChatGPT seems to hold a bias towards progressive views. The political compass test revealed a bias towards progressive and libertarian views, supporting the claims of prior research. The political questionnaires for the G7 member states indicated a bias towards progressive views but no significant bias between authoritarian and libertarian views, contradicting the findings of prior reports. In addition, ChatGPT’s Big Five personality traits were tested using the OCEAN test, and its personality type was queried using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) test. Finally, the maliciousness of ChatGPT was evaluated using the Dark Factor test. These three tests were also repeated ten times each, revealing that ChatGPT perceives itself as highly open and agreeable, has the Myers-Briggs personality type ENFJ, and is among the test-takers with the least pronounced dark traits.

Fragments of libertarianism and neoliberal ascendancy: ideological features and limitations of the liberal breakthrough in Finland

ABSTRACT This article explores the fragmentary history of libertarianism in Finland. We identify actors who have advanced libertarian ideas and agendas between 1970 and 2000 and discuss the purposes for which they have been mobilized in a Finnish context. Theoretically, we emphasize the primacy of local political cultures and context in the transnational circulation of political ideologies. In Finland, the introduction of libertarianism was contingent particularly upon foreign policy developments. Empirically, we proceed from the observation that Finland was a Nordic latecomer. Programmatic libertarian views, or serious discussions of Ayn Rand or Murray Rothbard, were conspicuously absent in Cold War Finland, and even in the 1990s they figured primarily as a subculture on the nascent World Wide Web. However, when more broadly understood as a positive emancipatory promise of individual freedom, libertarian ideas were important in pushing for a liberal turn in Finnish politics and society in the 1980s and 1990s. In the end, however, anti-statist and cultural libertarianism were subsumed by statist and economic neoliberalism.

Leisure in the Garden of Forking Paths

Freedom – both to choose our actions, and from obligation – features prominently in western conceptualizations of leisure. As such, freedom is the subject of considerable scholarly dialogue in the leisure studies context. While these discussions provide considerable value, they presuppose an important basic requirement: that free will is possible. This assumption is far from established fact however, and in this essay I examine the implications of leisure’s reliance on the possibility of free will. Specifically I argue that this type of leisure can only exist if we adopt a libertarian view of free will, discuss what this entails, address the consequences of other interpretations of free will, and provide some implications for future work in leisure studies.

Justice vis à vis welfare: how Austrian welfare economics should fit in the Austro-libertarian framework

The present work calls for a modification of Austrian welfare economics so that it should be given a distinct role within the Austro-libertarian paradigm. To this end, we clearly distinguish between justice and welfare. We proceed by trying to stick to the spirit of Austro-libertarianism as firmly as possible. In particular, we operate within the universe of voluntary (viz. rights-respecting) exchanges, having assumed the libertarian absolutist side-constraints view of rights. Furthermore, we take for granted the Austrian actual preference satisfaction view. The specific purpose of the present paper is two-fold. First, we subject Austrian rights-based welfare economics to critical scrutiny. Concluding that the above theory begs the question in favor of free market, we assert that to gauge market efficiency we need to resort to some descriptive criterion, which could reasonably be deemed constitutive of welfare. And it is only then that the question of market efficiency is an open question.

Simplicity and Complexity in Law and in Markets

Richard Epstein’s Simple Rules for a Complex World is true to its title and to the author’s demonstrated genius over a long career. It is a libertarian-oriented enterprise in that it requires the reader to share in the belief that government programs are often wasteful and subject to unattractive interest group pressures and corrupt bureaucracies. More generally, Simple Rules is framed against a background in which the reader must share the libertarian view that individuals can and should be trusted to look after themselves and to make their own choices. Epstein likes “simple” rules; these include strict liability, a flat tax, fee simple, and so forth. He argues that more complexity invites errors and corruption, and arguments for complexity undervalue individuals’ ability to bargain and otherwise fend for themselves. People know what is good for them far more than lawmakers. Anyone who does not share these fundamental views might be frustrated when reading this important book, unless perhaps the belief in redistribution and market failures is so great that one is willing to set aside the enormous costs of government failure. In any event, an insightful and friendly (and terrific) critique of the book has already been written by John Harrison, who thinks of Epstein’s book as a myth: What role should law play if the world were as Epstein (and perhaps Harrison and others among us) wishes it to be? As such, this Essay is neither a review nor a reaction, but instead offers the following two ideas that are stimulated by the book.

Libertarianism, Defense of Property, and Absolute Rights

The present paper argues that libertarians (e.g. Murray Rothbard, Stephan Kinsella) who subscribe the proportionality principle while embracing the view that to have a right to property is to have a right to defend it run into what we call the Property Defense Dilemma. For if the only way to defend property is to defend it disproportionately, then a private property right – contrary to what these thinkers claim – is not accompanied by a right to defend it. The most plausible way out of the dilemma – the present paper argues – is to conceive of private property rights as only weakly absolute, to use Matthew H. Kramer’s illuminating distinction. On the other hand, libertarians who as Walter Block would like to escape the dilemma by replacing the proportionality standard with the gentleness principle run into other sorts of problems (moral implausibility, incoherence) which also shows that it is the libertarian view on rights as infinitely stringent side constraints that calls for revision and attenuation.

Free Will, Complexity, Dynamical Systems, and All That Jazz

Over the past half century, I have been developing and defending a libertarian view of free will that is incompatible with determinism. In the past decade, I have made changes to this view in response to the large critical literature that has developed around it since the publication of my book The Significance of Free Will (Oxford University Press, 1996). This paper describes and defends some of the more significant of these new aspects of my view. Section 1 describes the problem of free will as conceived traditionally and in modern times, as well as the various competing positions on it (compatibilist, libertarian, skeptical, and so forth). In section 2 I concede to compatibilists that there are many meanings of freedom, and that many of them could exist in a thoroughly determined world. But there is one kind of traditional freedom, I argue, that could not exist in a thoroughly determined world—freedom of will. Sections 3 and 4 explain what this freedom of will requires and why it is important. Sections 5–11 then discuss and answer many arguments that have been made against the possibility of such a free will requiring indeterminism.

Liberalizm w edukacji

The contemporary message of some media associates broadly understood liberalism with the pejoratively interpreted slogan “do whatever you want”. Common understanding of liberalism as, very generally speaking, libertarian views, also tends to be juxtaposed with an almost anarchist view of the world. The purpose of this text is to reflect on how liberalism can be understood (and whether there is one way to define it) and how a liberal thought influences education. Can it shape education? If so, how? The liberal tradition is not only rich and diverse (it is impossible to talk about one liberalism with a capital “L”, or rather liberalisms of specific countries), but also has a significant impact on the way of thinking about the world in its various dimensions. The text provides an overview of the main tenets of liberalism along with their historical outline. The discussion about the main ideas of liberalism serves to organize a series of, sometimes contradictory, information about it. The background outlined in this way allows us to focus on the issue of liberalism in education, while posing a number of problematic, remaining open, questions about the essence of education or the role of school in the neoliberal perspective. The entanglement of science in ideologies is also shown, an example of which is mathematics, the subject defined in accordance with the adopted philosophical or even political perspective. The overview character of the text is intertwined with questions on the border of the philosophy of education and the history of political thought, which is a good introduction to further deepening the knowledge in both these areas.

Libertarianism in disguise

Abstract This paper argues that the position on free will which is defended in ‘Freedom: An Impossible Reality’ is not, as Tallis claims, a compatibilist view, but actually a version of libertarianism. While endorsing many aspects of that libertarian view itself, the paper raises questions about how one of the central arguments for Tallis’s view is supposed to work, and queries whether it really follows from the fact that we need to stand apart from nature in a certain sense, in order to develop the kind of abstract knowledge that is constituted by the body of scientific law, that our own actions are not mere manifestations of what Tallis calls the ‘habits of nature’. It is also suggested that while a strong case can be made for many varieties of human exceptionalism, Tallis’s view of animal behaviour may be too simple and that there are examples of animal agency which cannot be explained merely by the associative learning which appears to be the highest grade of animal cognition that Tallis countenances.

Political views and science literacy as indicators of vaccine confidence and COVID-19 concern.

SummaryIntroductionThe distrust, delay and refusal of vaccinations represent serious threats to global public health. As demonstrated by the dramatic worldwide impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, adequate vaccine coverage against infectious diseases is essential towards the preservation and function of virtually every aspect of our society. While the determinants of vaccine hesitancy and pandemic concern have been widely investigated, conflicting evidence exists with regards to their association with education levels and political views.MethodsThis study aimed to investigate whether science literacy levels and standpoint on social and economic matters are associated with different levels of vaccine confidence and COVID-19 concern. An online survey was circulated amongst participants recruited via convenience sampling, and data were analysed using non-parametric statistical tests.ResultsThe survey (n = 389) highlighted that participants who studied Science at General Certificate of Secondary Education level have a lower vaccine confidence than those with both lower and higher levels of science education. Participants with neutral/centrist political views expressed lower confidence than those with a libertarian social stance or a left-wing economic stance. A higher concern with the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with lower levels of science education, libertarian social views, and left-wing economic views.ConclusionsThe present study provides novel insight on the educational and political factors associated with vaccine hesitancy and pandemic concern within a British population sample.

Reciprocal libertarianism

Reciprocal libertarianism is a version of left-wing libertarianism that combines self-ownership with an egalitarian distribution of resources according to reciprocity. In this paper, I show that reciprocal libertarianism is a coherent and appealing view. I discuss how reciprocal libertarians can handle conflicts between self-ownership and reciprocity, and I show that reciprocal libertarianism can be realised in a framework of individual ownership of external resources or in a socialist scheme of common ownership (libertarian socialism). I also compare reciprocal libertarianism with left-libertarian approaches: I argue that a reciprocity-sensitive version of left-libertarianism (reciprocal left-libertarianism) is coherent and morally superior to traditional left-libertarianism, on grounds of incorporating a distinctively solidaristic and recognition-oriented aspect of equality. The policy implications of reciprocal libertarianism will differ depending on which rights people can have over external resources, but all reciprocal libertarian views acknowledge the existence of social rights that people have as co-operators.

How a non-conscious robot could be an agent with capacity for morally responsible behaviour

People have different opinions about which conditions robots would need to fulfil—and for what reasons—to be moral agents. Standardists hold that specific internal states (like rationality, free will or phenomenal consciousness) are necessary in artificial agents, and robots are thus not moral agents since they lack these internal states. Functionalists hold that what matters are certain behaviours and reactions—independent of what the internal states may be—implying that robots can be moral agents as long as the behaviour is adequate. This article defends a standardist view in the sense that the internal states are what matters for determining the moral agency of the robot, but it will be unique in being an internalist theory defending a large degree of robot responsibility, even though humans, but not robots, are taken to have phenomenal consciousness. This view is based on an event-causal libertarian theory of free will and a revisionist theory of responsibility, which combined explain how free will and responsibility can come in degrees. This is meant to be a middle position between typical compatibilist and libertarian views, securing the strengths of both sides. The theories are then applied to robots, making it possible to be quite precise about what it means that robots can have a certain degree of moral responsibility, and why. Defending this libertarian form of free will and responsibility then implies that non-conscious robots can have a stronger form of free will and responsibility than what is commonly defended in the literature on robot responsibility.

如何看待政府在疫病中的干預？自由至上主義的道德困境

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.
 在「自由至上主義」(Libertarianism)的政治哲學詞典中，「政府干預」(state interference)或「政府父權主義」(state paternalism)基本上是一個貶義詞，因為政府意味著官僚、腐敗、無效率，意味著對公民個體自由的干預和限制。然而，自2020年以來在全球範圍內爆發和流行的新冠疫情，讓一貫反政府干預、堅持「小政府」原則的自由至上派的學者倍受挑戰。 面對疫情的肆虐，許多人認為政府的干預（如封城、鎖國、宵禁、隔離、邊控等措施的實行）是必要的。本文探討自由至上主義的自由觀在疫病中所面臨的道德兩難以及政府應在公共衛生管理中扮演的角色。作者指出，雖然自由至上主義的一些有關自由的理念在現實生活中顯得過於教條和不切實際，但從另一個角度看，當我們一再倒向政府的力量以抗擊疫情之時， 我們更需要自由至上主義對我們的提醒，以防政府利用疫情不斷擴大自身的權力範圍，最終傷害每個人的自由權利。
 For Libertarians, state interference or state paternalism has a pejorative meaning given that government often implies bureaucracy, corruption, and inefficiency. However, such a view has faced significant resistance since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. For the sake of public health, many people now believe that we must accept much greater governmental intervention in our lives and that it is morally permissible and necessary to have public policies such as lockdowns, mandatory social distancing, border restrictions, and mandatory vaccination. Is it true that “there are no libertarians in a pandemic”? This paper explores the role of the government and the meaning of individual liberty in the face of the current public health crisis. The author contends that the Libertarian views of civil liberty and self-ownership should be taken more seriously as the government obtains more power and a host of extraordinary interventions are being implemented during the pandemic.

Automating Trust with the Blockchain? A Critical Investigation of “Blockchain 2.0” Cultures

This article discusses the cultural conceptions of trust underpinning the experimentation of blockchain startup applications beyond the financial sector. Based on qualitative research undertaken in the context of the so-called “Blockchain 2.0” scene, we show how a peculiar conception of trust, which blends the libertarian views of blockchain inventors with the neoliberal culture of competition and meritocracy that is typical of the startup world, underpins these implementations. As a result, we argue that “Blockchain 2.0” entrepreneurs ultimately fail to recognize the eminently social nature of the trust-building process. They emerge from our observation as unable to comprehend the extent to which the implementation of blockchain in a societal (i.e., not purely financial) context cannot do away with considerations about what kind of “social” the technology intervenes within, and find difficult to effectively conceive of how this technology embeds in existing social relations and power structures.

The Role of Regulatory Agencies in Agenda-Setting Processes: Insights from the Italian Response to the COVID-19 Infodemic.

International organizations such as the WHO have worked to raise awareness of the massive infodemic that accompanied the COVID‐19 outbreak and made it hard for people to find trustworthy sources of information and reliable guidance for their decisions. Our contribution focuses on the Italian case, where the Communications Regulatory Authority (AGCOM) was able to act as first mover in its field so as to strategically frame the problem of disinformation in the absence of a pre‐existing policy intervention. An emerging body of research shows that the activity of formally independent regulators is not necessarily limited to the implementation of delegated regulatory competencies. We discuss the implications of the activity of independent regulators for the fight against disinformation during the COVID‐19 pandemic. We find that as a political actor in its own right, the Italian media regulator claimed control over sectoral expertise in order to shape the crucial first steps of the response to the infodemic.

What Does Indeterminism Offer to Agency?

ABSTRACT Libertarian views of freedom claim that, although determinism would rule out our freedom, we are nevertheless free on some occasions. An odd implication of such views (to put it mildly) seems to be that indeterminism somehow enhances or contributes to our agency. But how could that be so? What does indeterminism have to offer to agency? This paper develops a novel answer, centred around the notion of explanation. In short, it is argued that, if indeterminism holds in the right places, then the best explanation of the history of the world necessarily cites facts about our agency. Along the way, alternative proposals regarding the significance of indeterminism are considered and, ultimately, rejected in favour of the one developed in this paper.

A Critical Review of Open Source Software Development: Freedom or Benefit Libertarian View Versus Corporate View

This is a critical literature review of the open-source software landscape and what purpose it aims to serve by accelerating a debate in the field of IS about what open source means and how it has transformed the social and economic landscape of the software industry. As the general population has developed an increased dependence on information technology, the necessity for quality software offerings has also increased. This article attempts to present, interpret, and compare the two contrasting theories of the open-source landscape—the libertarian view versus the corporate view. Subsequently, it aims to delve into the battle of these two conflicting theories and what their interpretations present from the perspective of socially embedded lens—freedom or benefit (profit). This article will examine the differing opinions and dichotomy of the scholars from multiple angles and if the juxtaposition of these two theories creates the holistic view of the landscape.

The Morality of Suicide

The motivation behind attempting suicide ranges from egoistic to altruistic, with societal preconceptions varying significantly between the two. In this ethical review, moralist, relativist, and libertarian theories are utilized to explore the morality of suicide. The hedonistic act utilitarian theory, which assesses the righteousness of an action solely based on the amount of pleasure or displeasure it creates, is used to evaluate the morality of suicide. According to the beneficence principle, there is sometimes a moral justification for suicide to alleviate suffering. On the other hand, Mill’s rule utilitarianism views actions by their effect on overall human happiness and directs us to perform actions that maximize utility. For some individuals, like those undergoing immense suffering, the right to painless suicide would maximize utility. Kantian theory focuses on an individual’s duty to uphold honour, dignity, and rationality. Collectively, these three virtues set the foundation of Kantian deontology. Furthermore, the libertarian view emphasizes the inherent right of human beings to individual security, liberty, and property with minimum government intervention. Libertarians recognize that suicide can be a rational and reasonable response to intolerable suffering. The ethical theories have proven to be interdependent; together, they propel us toward a better understanding of the morality of suicide.

El misterioso compatibilismo cartesiano

En este trabajo, argumento que Descartes está comprometido, a la vez, con una posición compatibilista respecto de la relación entre libre albedrío y preordenación divina, esto es, una posición según la cual ambas tesis resultan verdaderas, y con una concepción libertaria del libre albedrío humano. La posición suya que, según defiendo aquí, permite al autor sostener esas dos actitudes es lo que llamo Misterismo, según el cual el carácter inmenso e incomprensible de Dios es lo que no nos permite comprender cabalmente esa compatibilidad mediante nuestra razón finita.