Does David Frum Read Actual Libertarians?

It’s a bit late in the game, but I have long wanted to do a review on this essay by David Frum entitled, "Why You Wouldn't Find Any Libertarians in 1776." The most obvious answer is that the whole concept of free market economics didn't exist before 1776. It was first enunciated in The Wealth of Nations, which was published that very year. And, like most new ideas, this one took some time to catch on, let alone become as rigid and dogmatic as it is among some libertarians today.

Frum does not mention that, but instead lists four factors of the time that would counteract anything like modern-day libertarianism – “Latinity,” Calvinism, slavery, and material scarcity which he says are contrary to libertarian psychology. But his concept of libertarian psychology "each individual should enjoy the widest possible scope to live as he or she thinks best" places too much emphasis on libertarianism as a form of self-indulgence and not enough on it as a form of ruthless discipline.

Frum describes “Latinity” as an an 18th Century understanding of the Romans. He focuses on the emphasis it placed on the esteem of others – not mere popularity, but the esteem of the enlightened portion of the community. This, he says, is opposed to the Randian view of , “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” Frum fails to emphasize another aspect of that viewpoint – its emphasis of public spirit and public service. A life devoted to personal material gain would have been utterly contrary to Latinity. He touches only briefly on Calvinism, to say that it emphasized the individual will as evil and the need for constraints. As for slavery, it is so obviously contrary to libertarianism as to require little discussion, although Frum also points out that the Founders who sounded most libertarian, like Jefferson, were often also slave holders.

But the factor that interests me the most, and that I believe is where makes his mistake, is material scarcity:

An American who drank too much, who had too many children, who got into a fight and suffered a wound that could be infected – in short anyone who did not tightly control his impulses – risked disaster not only for himself or herself, but also for his or her loved ones. In such a world, the psychology of modern libertarianism – the desire to live unrestrained by any force outside oneself – would be seen by most as an invitation to self-destruction.

Libertarianism is very much a movement of post-1945 affluent society America, a society that has developed birth control and drug rehab, antibiotics and antidepressants. We are a society abounding in second chances. 18th century America was a society in which a personal misstep could easily lead to premature and unpleasant death. Self-actualization through self-expression was a concept not imaginable until GDP per capita rose many, many thousands of dollars higher than the level prevailing in 1776.

To which I can only say, had Frum ever read anything, anything, by libertarians?? If so, how can he have missed the fact that many of them deplore government, not just because it constrains freedom, but because it protects people from the consequences of their actions or, as Frum puts it, because it offers second chances and therefore relieves people of the need to tightly control their own impulses? Moral hazard is a great libertarian watchword,* along with personal responsibility.

Granted, there are limits to this. I doubt that you would actually find libertarians who deplore the invention of modern-day antibiotics and wish that people still faced death by blood poisoning from a small wound. (Although there was an essay not long ago applauding a fire department for letting a house burn down, with pets inside, because the owner had not paid the proper fees. The author lamented the "squishiness" that material abundance brings and longed for a "crunchier" society in which people who made bad decisions pay the consequences). The point is simply that there is a punitive aspect to (a lot of) libertarianism, a wish for more self-restraint, not less, that Frum is missing.

_______________________________________________
*It is possible that this aspect has gotten more emphasis since the bank bailouts.