Libertarian Reading of John Gray

John Gray is a hard man to disagree with. One of Britain's top political philosophers, his creed is best defined as Scepticism and most of us would do well to share this position, particularly in relation to the utopian creeds most conservatives face today, particularly socialism and liberalism.

Scepticism is a fitting counterpoint to utopianisms of all kinds, largely because it takes into account human frailty and the realities of our nature in a way that utopians generally don't. Gray is scathing of ideas of "progress" as the inevitable tide of history, and argues that having healthy reservations towards change and particularly radical, untried change, is the true basis for conservatism.

Sadly (well, for me anyhow) Gray considers Libertarianism to be a utopian creed and I see where he is coming from. As a strand of enlightenment Liberalism, Libertarianism can be conceived of as either radical or progressive - or both - depending on your viewpoint.

He accuses libertarians of fetishising the market, and insists (rightly) that the market serves the people and not the other way around, and that the free market only has value to the extent that it distributes goods and services efficiently. A libertarian might want to interject that the market is merely the economic expression of human freedom, but for Gray, human freedom is a meaningless concept without the institutions that support and maintain the choices that make freedom possible.

Gray argues that freedom is not possible without these institutions on the grounds that the market does not and has never existed without, say, the rule of law and parliamentary democracy. It is hard to see, however, how Libertarianism disagrees with this. Although he strongly criticises neoliberals for exporting free market ideals to countries and continents where these institutions do not exist, and considers such exports irresponsible and disastrous. With this I have no argument, the IMF in particular has done great damage through this kind of intervention, but it is possible such transnational bodies are learning from their mistakes.

His root problem with Liberalism (and neoliberals) seems to be that he considers it a utopian, legalistic creed based on the idea that man and society can be perfected through legislation, an accusation I am not certain is accurate. Certainly, liberalism in the left-wing sense can be seen as such, with its endless march towards 'equality' and progress, but I am not entirely convinced that right-libertarianism has that fault.

As I see it, Libertarianism is premised on the idea that given maximum room to choose, an individual will ultimately do what is best both for himself and for society, and this includes taking part in voluntary collective activity such as Church, politics and bowling leagues. I am not convinced that Libertarianism is a utopian project, although I can see how it might become one. The desire to spread free market ideas without consideration for local variations in customs and practices, for example, ignores the individuals roots in a particular culture and historical and social setting.

This, I think, is Gray's criticism, and it is a fair one. His criticism of the market, it should be added at this point, does not come from a socialist or collectivist point of view, but from a conservative one, whereby Gray is concerned with the traditional structure of communities and how they are affected by, among other things, neoliberalism, and particularly that brought by Thatcher in the 80s which he considers most un-Conservative. Gray shares many commentators' concerns with "unrestrained markets" and the resulting societal trauma as people find themselves vulnerable to the ebbs and flows of what he calls "unstable" market forces.

Whether or not free market Capitalism is inherently unstable is a discussion for another time, but Gray is convinced that modern finance capitalism, or American-style capitalism, does not serve people well outside of the American context, and that many aspects of human existence should not be subjected to the whims of the market.

What I think is the real bone of contention here, is that Gray believes a (Conservative) government has the duty to intervene on behalf of communities to "nurture" the institutions that make the free market possible, whereas Libertarians, he argues, argue that such things are better left alone. Both are correct, again depending on your point of view.

Because most Libertarians tend to be strong on federalism, they would argue that the federal government should be restricted to certain core activities such as defence and the central courts system while local or regional government would be much more free to be responsive to local needs and belief systems. Thus, under a Libertarian government in the US, for example, State and city legislatures would have responsibility for welfare, health, and local planning so that places like Texas could govern themselves unhindered by places like California.

Because Libertarians are comfortable with most choices if they are made voluntarily and not at public expense, there is scope for more collectivist-minded communities to thrive and prosper under their own rules, and most importantly, at their own expense. In other words, socialists can also thrive within a libertarian framework which would, in fact, enable the creation of collective communities if their members so wanted. Freedom means the freedom to organise yourselves any way you want to, on a local or regional level, or not at all. There is the danger that a complete national disjointedness could emerge, but these regions are still united under a common flag, constitution and, ultimately, government.

Britain, unlike America, has certain "national" institutions that may require "nurturing" from time to time, and it may be that US -style federalism does not transmit well across the Atlantic. Fair enough. But Libertarianism is far from being a utopian religion like liberalism or socialism, encouraging as it does, individuals and communities to make the best choices for themselves where it matters.