The Libertarian Ethic of Responsibility

The two dominant political parties in disarray. One is led by a president who seems to see little value in the free market and individual liberty; the other is swiftly succumbing to the whims of its illiberal collectivist wing. At the same time, faith in our nation’s institutions, and in the two-party duopoly, is at low ebb. This is an historic opportunity for a third force, a libertarian force, to seize the initiative.

If we are genuinely committed to the libertarian cause, and to seeing libertarianism take root in American politics (either independently through the Libertarian Party or through another vehicle of political action), we have to recognize that such a goal can only be achieved through a concerted and coordinated effort to reach out to new demographics, and to better organize the campaigns and resources of libertarian candidates, whether they have the “L” beside their name, run as independents, or as members of one of the old-guard parties.

Ultimately, we have to square the circle between purist and pragmatic factions of libertarians. We are a motley crew of minarchists, anarchists, and people who just want less government. But we can and should work together toward moving the United States (and the world) in the direction of freedom. As I have written before, the republic itself is in danger if we do not take advantage of the openings now emerging.

While libertarians in the United States often take a dim view of other countries’ political philosophies and governments, there is a lot we can learn from them in pursuit of the goal of a libertarian future. I have written several pieces for Being Libertarian in the past about how we can learn from small European parties’ tactical positioning to run libertarian candidates more effectively. But more than just tactically, there are European ethical precepts we should consider.

One such is a German concept that deals with the duality of political ethics, introduced by the philosopher Max Weber (admittedly far from a libertarian, but in this instance he was very much on point). According to Weber, there are two kinds of political ethics: the ethic of conviction and the ethic of responsibility. These concepts may seem a bit strange to our political ears, but they are a core part of the German political lexicon, bandied about conversationally on talk shows and newscasts. To understand these two ethical constructions, allow me to borrow from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“According to the ethic of responsibility, on the one hand, an action is given meaning only as a cause of an effect, that is, only in terms of its causal relationship to the empirical world. The virtue lies in an objective understanding of the possible causal effect of an action and the calculated reorientation of the elements of an action in such a way as to achieve a desired consequence. An ethical question is thereby reduced to a question of technically correct procedure, and free action consists of choosing the correct means… According to the ethic of conviction, on the other hand, a free agent should be able to choose autonomously not only the means, but also the end.”

In other words, ethics can be defined as being a battle between those who view the morality of actions by their intentions and those who view them by their consequences. In the former case, one does not feel the need to take responsibility for failure; rather, failure is the outcome of others not grasping why the action was right. In the latter case, the morality of action is judged by its outcome.

This could be dismissed as a classic consequentialist versus Kantian deontologist argument. Yet it is deeper than that. What Weber’s case for favoring the ethic of responsibility means is that for political actors to be moral, they must take responsibility for the outcomes of their actions and behavior. It is not simply counter-productive to stand rigidly behind an ideology with no hope or plan for seeing it enacted – it is immoral to do so. That’s a big statement, but I argue it is correct. If you believe things have to change, refusing to be part of creating that change until the world conforms to a shape more suited to your vision is not a principled stand. It is a self-defeating one, and an outright immoral one.

How this applies to the libertarian movement should be obvious. All too often we spend our time arguing amongst ourselves, or claiming that the system is so broken that we have to wait for it to fall apart before we can make headway. I would contend that simply standing on the sideline and playing to our own little echo chamber is an abrogation of everything we believe. When bad things are happening, it is not enough for us to say “we told you so” from offstage. We need to be in the trenches, fighting for the change we believe in.

I believe there is room for both an ethic of conviction and an ethic of responsibility in the conduct of principled people. And I believe that especially in the case of the Libertarian Party proper, whose raison d’être is to compete in and win elections, and advocate policy. It has an obligation to actually use its resources and build its organization to achieve that purpose.

We have an opportunity to make a difference. We can still roll back the tide of statism, but it will require coming down from our high horses into the muck of politics. That is where change happens.

The following two tabs change content below.

• Bio
• Latest Posts

John Engle

John Engle is a merchant banker and author living in the Chicago area. His company, Almington Capital, invests in both early-stage venture capital and in public equities. His writing has been featured in a number of academic journals, as well as the blogs of the Heartland Institute, Grassroot Institute, and Tenth Amendment Center. A graduate of Trinity College Dublin, Ireland and the University of Oxford, John’s first book, Trinity Student Pranks: A History of Mischief and Mayhem, was published in September 2013.

Latest posts by John Engle (see all)

• Libertarians Should Be Wary of Tax Reform – The Right Engle - January 15, 2018
• The Hate for GMO – The Right Engle - December 11, 2017
• Should We Bring Back the State Militias? – The Right Engle - November 27, 2017