The Malicious Enemies Case for Liberty
Why would you want to let the people who hate you rule over your life?
If you spend any time consuming political media—especially on Twitter—you are going to recognize that many people think that their political opponents are not only ignorant and misguided but actively malicious. Some live by Hanlon's razor, "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity," but most live by the exact opposite; they are constantly attributing malice where there is just stupidity. Oftentimes, bad incentives explain institutional failures, rather than nefarious actors. However, it’s undeniable that there are many highly political people who are often motivated by hatred, envy, and malice.
Partisans from both major parties hold the all-my-opponents-are-malicious outlook to various degrees. Often this is expressed as “you don’t care about [group]” or “you hate [group].” An unfortunate side-effect is that it makes people ideologically lazy. It’s not necessary to show respect and carefully examine the premises of your ideological opponent if you can just say that they are hypocrites who don’t mean what they say. Once again, people actually are often hypocritical and tribal. However, it’s usually best to enter into most discussions and conversations assuming good faith, unless you have strong evidence to the contrary.
The internet and social media have given voice to political extremists who would’ve once been rather obscure. Now, the craziest of the crazy can gain influence or serve as examples of ridiculousness on the other side of the political spectrum. Many believe that the parties are growing apart from one another and we are becoming a divided nation; 78% believe that the divisions between Democrats and Republicans are increasing, and 81% express concern about the division between the parties (Pew Research, 2019). There is also evidence of an increase in the percentage of people strongly identifying with their respective party (ANES, 2022).
A fair portion of the population believes that their political opponents are closed-minded, unintelligent, and immoral. The proposed solution to the personality flaws of one’s ideological opponents is often to win the election and persuade their opponents to change their behavior through reason, stigma, or mob tactics. The two parties battle over control of the House, Senate, and Presidency. Control shifts from one party to another and back. A battle between good and evil.
While not the intention of the Founding Fathers, a great deal of power has been centralized in the Federal government, making national politics extremely important. It’s unsurprising that Libertarians have both failed to attain major electoral success and are often more critical of Democracy than your average Republican or Democrat. While it could seem like sour grapes, I think that there is a better way than just persuading enough people. We ought to reduce the centralization of power and leave governance choices up to either smaller political entities or individuals themselves. We should either have liberty or decentralization. Small political units allow greater variation in governance, and more people can sort themselves into a society that aligns with their values. There is no need to feel like you are ruled over by people who are ignorant, stupid, and malicious.
The ideal size of the political unit is up for debate. If we allow free movement between political units, we can create competition. Instead of having one extremely large nation which is pretty good, we could have many smaller nations. Some of these smaller nations will be bad, but many will be exceptionally well-run and grow in population as a result. There will be more space to accommodate different cultures and lifestyles. At the minimum, citizens won’t want to be ruled by people that hate them. I’m reminded of an excerpt from philosopher Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia:
Wittgenstein, Elizabeth Taylor, Bertrand Russell, Thomas Merton, Yogi Berra, Allen Ginsburg, Harry Wolfson, Thoreau, Casey Stengel, The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Picasso, Moses, Einstein, Hugh Heffner, Socrates, Henry Ford, Lenny Bruce, Baba Ram Dass, Gandhi, Sir Edmund Hillary, Raymond Lubitz, Buddha, Frank Sinatra, Columbus, Freud, Norman Mailer, Ayn Rand, Baron Rothschild, Ted Williams, Thomas Edison, H. L. Mencken, Thomas Jefferson, Ralph Ellison, Bobby Fischer, Emma Goldman, Peter Kropotkin, you, and your parents. Is there really one kind of life which is best for each of these people? Imagine all of them living in any utopia you’ve ever seen described in detail.
Try to describe the society which would be best for all of these persons to live in. Would it be agricultural or urban? Of great material luxury or of austerity with basic needs satisfied? What would relations between the sexes be like? Would there be any institution similar to marriage? Would it be monogamous? Would children be raised by their parents? Would there be private property? Would there be a serene secure life or one with adventures, challenges, dangers, and opportunities for heroism? Would there be one, many, any religion? How important would it be in people’s lives? Would people view their life as importantly centered about private concerns or about public action and issues of public policy? Would they be single-mindedly devoted to particular kinds of accomplishments and work or jacks-of-all-trades and pleasures or would they concentrate on full and satisfying leisure activities? Would children be raised permissively, strictly? What would their education concentrate upon? Will sports be important in people’s lives (as spectators, participants)? Will art? Will sensual pleasures or intellectual activities predominate? Or what? Will there be fashions in clothing? Will great pains be taken to beautify appearance? What will the attitude toward death be? Would technology and gadgets play an important role in the society? And so on.
The idea that there is one best composite answer to all of these questions, one best society for everyone to live in, seems to me to be an incredible one. (And the idea that, if there is one, we now know enough to describe it is even more incredible.) No one should attempt to describe a utopia unless he’s recently reread, for example, the works of Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Jane Austen, Rabelais and Dostoevski to remind himself of how different people are.
While ideological and cultural differences may be extreme, it’s not so bad if there is no coercion. It does not hurt me if the family across the street eats strange food and has unusual beliefs. It is an issue if they force me to eat their food, or make my children learn their beliefs in school. The primary issue is coercion. Although I dislike certain practices, it is significantly more tolerable when I am left alone.
Rather than taking turns oppressing one another, I would prefer we either embrace the idea of not forcing our beliefs on others or have smaller political units. The federalism of the USA has failed to produce true diversity because power has become so centralized in the federal government. Hopefully, increased migration between states and projects like the Free State Project will create more diversity and opportunities for people to have their wants and needs met. Maybe someday there will be an exceptionally free country that accepts immigrants like me.
>Some live by Hanlon's razor, "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity," but most live by the exact opposite
I've noticed that often the people quickest to deploy Hanlon's razor against conspiracy theories are the first to abandon it when they have a chance to demonize the outgroup.
The sheer difference between people is often vastly underestimated. Even among friends and neighbors we are hard pressed to find roommates, for example. I was trying to get at that on the national scale with my essay on accidental empire, but you probably did it better here :) nicely done.