Since I’ve frequently heard libertarians claim that one must be pro-choice if one is a libertarian, perhaps I should forgive this headline from Slate: “Paul Ryan: Liberatarian [sic] on the Market, the Opposite on Abortion.”
Leaving aside yet another instance of editorial sloppiness (what is a “liberatarian” anyway?), this headline clearly displays a lack of understanding of libertarian thought. Fortunately, this sin is probably not the writer’s fault but is likely on the editor’s head. The writer of the article underneath that problematic and misspelled headline, Emily Bazelon, seems close to getting it that one could be pro-choice in the market and pro-life on abortion.
But it is still sad to see another example of the “libertarians must be pro-choice” trope. My guess at why we see this so frequently includes the fact that so many libertarian elites (especially in DC) are pro-choice and because these same people tend to promote a version of libertarianism as a philosophy opposed to nearly all social constraints (perhaps another thing we can blame on Mill?).
Here is my earlier argument for why libertarianism qua political theory is properly ecumenical on abortion. And a little piece of that argument:
This [libertarians must be pro-chioce argument] represents either a serious misunderstanding of libertarianism or an overly broad conception of it that goes beyond politics. Libertarianism – in the “statist” way I define it - is not opposed to any law restricting what an individual can do. Properly understood, it is a thin political theory that sanctions only those laws that relate to the fundamental protection of an individual’s property rights, broadly understood (either because individuals have natural rights or because of a rule-utilitarian position that generates such rights).
Therefore, in the area of abortion, all hangs on the definition of when life begins, whether an unborn child/fetus has rights or when it gains them, and therefore when a life warrants protection by the state. As a limited theory of politics, libertarianism cannot answer these questions and thus really has little to say on its own about whether abortion should be legal or illegal. We as individual libertarians can only answer these questions by importing exogenous ethical or scientific theories.
Therefore, libertarianism is properly ecumenical on abortion.
Good points.
The DC Beltway crowd within the broader libertarian movement does try to push the social libertine angel pretty hard, resulting in a shallow and superficial view among many that if the libertarian movement is supposed to be socially liberal that means being pro-choice.
I also think some of the Ron Paul rhetoric that wants to make touchy social issues state issues helps further that, although I don’t think there’s necessarily anything about libertarianism that would push one to the conclusion that all touchy social issues should be state issues. This just seems like antebellum nostalgia to me.
Abortion will continue to divide our nation’s politics for years to come, and will further continue to divide the libertarian movement. We should at least learn to respect libertarians on the other side of the debate.
Not to say that this is the only thing standing in the way of labeling Paul Ryan a libertarian.
That Slate article gets it wrong both ways: It is, as you point out, philosophically easy to be both libertarian and pro-life; on the other hand, there are plenty of reasons to doubt that Ryan is all that libertarian otherwise. He may be a fiscal conservative, even out toward the conservative tail-end of today’s mainstream political spectrum, but he is hardly a Randian. Is he calling for the total abolition of the Departments of Education, Commerce, Agriculture, Health and Human Services . . . ?
Agree with a lot of what both James and Free Dem note – though I’m more sympathetic to a revival of federalism and don’t think it has to be “antebellum nostalgia” (and I’m a Yankee libertarian who hates what was at the core of the Confederacy).
This quotation from Brian Doherty’s article on Ryan suggests that he could be both more libertarian in his heart and frustratingly cautious in action: “You don’t get perfect choices in politics, but you have to get in the arena and fight and make choices as best as possible and going in the right direction.”