Will Wilkinson: Nonlibertarian or Liberal Libertarian

Recently, Will Wilkinson announced on the Bleeding Heart Libertarians Blog that he was no longer willing to call himself a libertarian:

 I’m not interested in identifying myself [as] a libertarian. Ideological labels are mutable, but at any given time they publicly connote a certain syndrome of convictions. What “libertarian” tends to mean to most people, including most people who self-identify as libertarian, is flatly at odds with some of what I believe.

Here are some not-standardly-libertarian things I believe: Non-coercion fails to capture all, maybe even most, of what it means to be free. Taxation is often necessary and legitimate. The modern nation-state has been, on the whole, good for humanity. (See Steven Pinker’s new book.) Democracy is about as good as it gets. The institutions of modern capitalism are contingent arrangements that cannot be justified by an appeal to the value of liberty construed as non-interference. The specification of the legal rights that structure real-world markets have profound distributive consequences, and those are far from irrelevant to the justification of those rights. I could go on.

Given the prevailing public understanding of “libertarianism,” this ain’t it and I’m no libertarian. And it’s not at all clear to me what is to be gained by trying to get people to retrofit the label to fit my idiosyncratic politics. At any rate, that’s not a project I’m interested in. I am interested in what it means to be free, and the role of freedom in flourishing or meaningful or valuable lives.

I can certainly sympathize with Wilkinson’s frustration with the tendency among many to view libertarians as a single monolithic group.  Moreover, I agree entirely with some of the “non-standardly-libertarian things” he lists and agree at least in part with much of the remainder.  Back in the day, I used to be a Nozickian libertarian who fit pretty well with the standard definition of the libertarian position.  But over the years, through the influence of Friedrich Hayek, Richard Epstein, and others, I became a consequentialist, more moderate, and more conservative.  So today I am something of a moderate, conservative libertarian.  But so what?  I still regard myself as a libertarian, although of a different type than the old me.

I think Wilkinson’s response to the monolithic understanding of libertarianism is unproductive.  The better response is two fold.  First, one should feel free to describe oneself as hyphenated libertarian – in Wilkinson’s case, calling himself a liberal libertarian would do just fine (even the less euphonious “liberaltarianism” that Wilkinson previously employed might be ok).   Second, one should insist that “libertarian” is not a monolithic political position.  That there are different kinds of libertarians, just as there are different kinds of conservatives (economic, social, defense hawks) and different kinds of liberals.  There are vigorous libertarians and moderate libertarians; liberal libertarians,  conservative libertarians, and left libertarians; deontological libertarians and consequentialist libertarians.

Not only do I think it would be accurate for Wilkinson to call himself a liberal libertarian,  I also believe there is an important strategic reason for him to do so.  Libertarianism is a minority – perhaps a small minority – position and it can use all the support it can get.  When libertarians are a large minority or a majority, then they may have the luxury of focusing more on their differences.  But for now it is important to place the interests of liberty above having what one regards as the perfect name for one’s position.  No one wants to be in the position of sounding like the People’s Front for Judea.

Mike Rappaport

Professor Rappaport is Darling Foundation Professor of Law at the University of San Diego, where he also serves as the Director of the Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism. Professor Rappaport is the author of numerous law review articles in journals such as the Yale Law Journal, the Virginia Law Review, the Georgetown Law Review, and the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. His book, Originalism and the Good Constitution, which is co-authored with John McGinnis, was published by the Harvard University Press in 2013.  Professor Rappaport is a graduate of the Yale Law School, where he received a JD and a DCL (Law and Political Theory).

About the Author

Recent Popular Posts

Related Posts


  1. says

    Will is over thinking things. Having three categories instead of two is an improvement (rep vs. dem, right vs. left).
    I will agree that some of the pure libertiarian views that any taxes are bad are hard to square with reality. Even Ron Paul thinks there is some federal government with some budget. Keeping those taxes small and limited is where we have failed.

    • says

      I think the rise of libertarianism can, iedend, be described as mass delusion, but it’s pretty nuts-and-bolts as to how we got to this point. Civics, history, and economics are, by and large, taught horribly in the public schools, in ways that tend to make students’ eyes glaze over–to some extent, I think this is, in the end, by design, but whatever the causes, there is no doubt that the schools just don’t educate the population on these topics. So combine a largely ignorant mass of Americans with a mass media that always, always, always favors the propertied class, in both entertainment and news programming, and the bogus tenets of libertarianism don’t appear to look half bad. You know, “no such thing as a free lunch” and all that stuff seem reasonable if you don’t think about it too much, so it doesn’t surprise me that so many people are into it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>