Libertarianism From the Ground Up
Common Law Liberalism: A New Theory of the Libertarian Society, by John Hasnas, Oxford University Press, 328 pages, $90
Arguments for libertarianism typically take two forms. Some libertarians base their creed on natural rights—the idea that each individual has an inborn right to self-ownership, or freedom from aggression, or whatever—and proceed to argue that only a libertarian political regime is compatible with those rights. Others take a consequentialist approach, claiming libertarianism is the best system because it produces the best results, defined according to some philosophical conception of the good.
Libertarians have been making these arguments for the last 170 years or so, and by this point the weak spots are fairly well known. As a result, the arguments on both sides have the character of the opening moves in a chess game: It’s all by the book.
Once in a while, however, an argument opens a genuinely different path. John Hasnas, a legal scholar at Georgetown University, has been clearing such a path for a while now, and the chapters in his new book, Common Law Liberalism, have all been previously published elsewhere. But brought together in one volume, these essays set forth an intriguing, novel, and highly promising approach to thinking about a free society.
The book’s core idea, to put a sophisticated argument rather crudely, is that the philosophers have screwed us all up. Philosophers, Hasnas argues, tend to put far too much stock in the construction of logically consistent systems of thought, proceeding from premise to conclusion in a neat, orderly sequence. Logic sets the standard, and if the world fails to live up to that standard, well, that’s the world’s problem, not ours.
For Hasnas, by contrast, thinking about politics begins not with a moral theory but with the actual conflicts people face when they go about the difficult business of living in a community together. Justice is not something first discerned by philosophical reason and then applied (by lesser minds) to settle particular disputes. Justice develops out of those disputes as an emergent phenomenon, often in ways that are neither foreseen nor intended by the people directly involved.
The test of a theory of justice, in this approach, is not logical consistency or completeness. To ask this of justice is to ask too much—and to ask more than is required. We do not need an airtight theory; we simply need rules t
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
