Most contemporary political philosophers, unfortunately, are not libertarians. Nicholas Wolterstorff—best known as a founder of “reformed epistemology” but a philosopher of extraordinary range—is no libertarian either—far from it. In Understanding Liberal Democracy (Oxford, 2012) though, he assails a vastly influential school of thought in a way that libertarians will find useful.
Ever since John Rawls published Political Liberalism in 1993, political philosophers have focused on “public reason.” This notion responds to a feature of contemporary politics difficult to deny. In contemporary democracies, people disagree radically about what should be done politically. They operate from different philosophies, from what Rawls calls “comprehensive doctrines”; they have different “conceptions of the good.” Some people are religious and look to what they take to be God’s guidance on (e.g., abortion and same-sex marriage); others are atheists and want no part of alleged divine revelations. Some people think the state should mold people’s characters to promote virtue; others say this is none of the state’s business.
Faced with conflicts like this, what should be done? One alternative is that the supporters of a particular comprehensive doctrine should attempt to secure a majority for its views. Once they do that, they can ram through their program, regardless of the objections that come from those with other comprehensive doctrines.
Rawls and other supporters of public reason disagree. They say that to act in the way just described is coercive and fails to show respect for those who hold different conceptions of the good. Wolterstorff explains their position in this way:
Most if not all exclusivists [advocates of public reason]…say something to the effect that respect for one’s fellow citizens as free and equal requires that, before supporting a piece of proposed legislation, one offer or make available, to those one believes do not already have them, reasons for the legislation that they will or would regard as good ones…[an] alternative focuses on coercion. It is the coerciveness of legislation that makes reasons of the sort indicated required. A condition of a citizen’s properly supporting a piece of coercive legislation is…[that] one must offer or make available, to those one believes do not already have them, reasons that they do or would regard as justifying the coercive legislation.
In brief, you should put aside your own opinions about the good when you are dealing—as you inevitably must in a contemporary democracy like that of the United States—with those with conflicting opinions. Instead, you should confine yourself to arguments that others can accept as reasons.
It is easy to see why Wolterstorff would not like public reason. As already suggested, religious views have no place in public reason, though they are not the only sort of excluded views. This cannot sit well with Wolterstorff, who is a devout Christian and thinks that his religion is very much relevant to politics. He accordingly launches a counterattack: public reason shows much less respect for people than its advocates claim for it; and the view has consequences that are themselves coercive. His powerful arguments should interest libertarians because they weaken the appeal of one of libertarianism’s main rivals in political philosophy.
Wolterstorff notes that defenders of public reason do not, in fact, show respect for everyone’s comprehensive doctrine. It is only those deemed “reasonable” who have to be taken into account. If you hold a comprehensive doctrine that is not “reasonable,” then you are excluded: it is not necessary, in public argument, to offer you a reason that you would find acceptable.
Of course, the question arises, just what is a reasonable comprehensive doctrine, on this conception? It transpires that, in essence, it is one that accepts public reason. If you want to impose your comprehensive doctrine regardless of the opinions of those who reject it, you aren’t reasonable. Public reason is thus respectful and non-coercive—to those who accept its tenets. Those outside the “legitimation pool” of these acceptors do not count.
If Wolterstorff rejects public reason, what has he to put in its place? He proposes “the equal right of citizens to full political voice.” In this conception of liberal democracy, people may advocate laws for whatever reasons seem to them suitable; they are not bound by the restraints of public reason. If you have had a fair chance to state your case to the public, but the vote goes against you, then you have not been treated unfairly.
But what if the majority passes laws that seem to you to lack reason altogether? Must you accept these laws, simply because the majority backs them? Has Wolterstorff rejected public reason as not genuinely respectful of others, only to subject everyone to dominance by the majority of voters?
Wolterstorff is fully aware of this problem. He responds that majority rule, in his conception of equal political voice, is not untrammeled. Laws cannot violate people’s rights.
I [Wolterstorff] hold that it is not public reason and the Rawlsian duty of civility that lie at the heart of liberal democracy but the equal right to full political voice, this voice to be exercised within constitutional limits on the powers of government and within legal limits on the infringement by citizens on the rights of their fellow citizens to freely exercise their full political voice.
What are these rights that limit the majority? Wolterstorff does not offer a list of them, though it is safe to say that they include the “standard” list of civil liberties, such as freedom of the press and of religion. But what if, as libertarians think, these rights extend further—to include natural rights to property? What if they leave no scope at all for further public deliberation, except perhaps on details? Wolterstorff assumes without considering alternative arrangements that the key task of political philosophy today is to arrive at an acceptable account of liberal democracy. Libertarians will not be satisfied; but we can be grateful to Wolterstorff for his careful analysis of public reason.
But those of us who are Rothbardians will reject another argument that Wolterstorff offers. He contends that people ought to accept the authority of the state. People have rights, this argument goes, and the state has an obligation to protect these rights. If the state has this obligation, then people have an obligation not to hinder the state in carrying out its proper task. This argument fails because of the gap between “not hindering” and “obeying” or “accepting the authority of.” If Wolterstorff has an obligation to deliver a lecture that he has promised to give, I may have an obligation not to disrupt his talk. But it does not follow that I am obligated to do what he asks to assist him.
