Bleeding-heart libertarianism

Bleeding-heart libertarianism, sometimes referred to as the Arizona School[1] and neoclassical liberalism,[1] is a libertarian political movement and ideology that focuses on the compatibility of support for civil liberties and free markets on the one hand, and a concern for social justice and the well-being of the worst-off on the other. Adherents of bleeding-heart libertarianism broadly hold that an agenda focused upon individual liberty will be of most benefit to the economically weak and socially disadvantaged.[2]


Early usage

The first recorded use of the term "bleeding-heart libertarian" seems to have been in an essay by Roderick Long.[3] It was subsequently used in a blog post by Stefan Sharkansky,[4] and later picked up and elaborated on by Arnold Kling in an article for TCS Daily.[5] Since then, the term has been used sporadically by a number of libertarian writers including Anthony Gregory[6] and Bryan Caplan.[7]

Creation of the Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog

In March 2011, a group of academic philosophers, political theorists, and economists created the Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog.[8] Regular contributors to the blog include Andrew J. Cohen, Daniel Shapiro, Fernando Tesón, Gary Chartier, James Taylor, Jason Brennan, Jessica Flanigan, Kevin Vallier, Matt Zwolinski, Roderick Long, Jacob T. Levy, and Steven Horwitz.

Prominent bleeding-heart libertarians

Canadian musician and author Neil Peart has identified himself as a bleeding-heart libertarian.[9] 2012 and 2016 Libertarian Party presidential candidate and former governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson, has also been identified as a bleeding heart libertarian, and once posed for a photo in a bleeding heart libertarian T-shirt.[10]

Varieties of bleeding-heart libertarianism

The term "bleeding heart libertarian" does not refer to a single comprehensive philosophical position. Some bleeding heart libertarians are consequentialists, others are natural rights theorists. Some are anarchists, some are minarchists, and some are classical liberals who allow for the state provision of public goods and possibly some form of social safety net. What they all have in common is the belief that "addressing the needs of the economically vulnerable by remedying injustice, engaging in benevolence, fostering mutual aid, and encouraging the flourishing of free markets is both practically and morally important."[11]

Matt Zwolinski has identified three main varieties of bleeding heart libertarian: Contingent BHLs, Anarchist Left-BHLs, and Strong BHLs.[12]

Weak/contingent BHLs

Contingent BHLs are essentially standard libertarians who happen to believe that libertarian institutions will be especially good for the poor, and that this is a good thing. For this group, libertarianism is justified on standard natural rights or consequentialist grounds. That libertarian institutions allegedly help the poor is merely a contingent fact that plays no justificatory role. Fernando Teson is the clearest example of this sort of BHL.

Anarchist Left-BHLs

Anarchist Left-BHLs believe that all states are morally impermissible, and should be abolished. Moreover, they believe that the abolition of the state would be good for the poor and marginalized. This group draws on the writings of figures like Benjamin Tucker and Thomas Hodgskin. Current notable examples include Gary Chartier and Roderick Long.

Strong BHLs

Strong BHLs believe that the fact that libertarian institutions would help the poor is not merely a contingent fact. It is an essential part of the justification of those institutions. Strong BHLs believe that libertarianism is justified insofar and to the extent that such institutions are compatible with the requirements of social justice. The idea of social justice plays not only a justificatory role for strong BHLs, but also a revisionary one.[13] Insofar as certain elements of standard libertarianism are found to be incompatible with the requirements of social justice, Strong BHLs hold that those elements should be abandoned. Thus some Strong BHLs argue that minarchist libertarian governments might be justified in distributing a universal basic income.[14] Matt Zwolinski, Jason Brennan, and Kevin Vallier are Strong BHLs.


Some libertarians, Objectivists, and anarcho-capitalists have accused bleeding-heart libertarians of unfaithfulness to free-market principles due to their belief in some form of taxation to finance a basic income or welfare programs (right-libertarians often believe in the full privatization and in a strictly voluntary approach to providing for the poor and disabled, such as through private charities and mutual aid societies), the ill-defined nature of social justice, too much reverence for the ideas of John Rawls, and failing to recognize the importance of merit and desert. Critics of the bleeding-heart libertarian movement include public choice economist Bryan Caplan,[15][16][17] Chicago school economist David D. Friedman,[18] and right-wing anarchist and antitheist blogger Todd Seavey.[19]

Jonah Walters, writing for democratic socialist magazine Jacobin, states that bleeding-heart libertarianism is "a facelift" for traditional free market libertarian ideas, which Walters considers "discredited", noting that the ideology emerged in 2011, a few months before Occupy Wall Street. He specifically criticizes both the non-agreement of what the term "social justice" means in bleeding-heart libertarian circles, as well as the idea of "epistocracy" (a form of government by which the rule of the qualified would prevail over the will of the people by what Walters describes as "an exam — similar to a naturalization test — for prospective voters"), defended by movement ideologue Jason Brennan as specifically anti-democratic (Brennan, according to Walters, describing democracy as a polarising process which transforms people into "hooligans" - people with "intensely partisan views" who "can’t help but ridicule or out-shout those they disagree with" -, thus turning people from "market collaborators" into “civic enemies”), with Walters integrating it in a "pedigree of conservative thinkers that extends from Burke, to Mill, to John Adams, stretching back even to Plato", while concluding that bleeding-heart libertarians will only acknowledge persistent social problems and express vague concern for them but proposing very little in way of solutions, while those proposals they do have will only worsen those problems.[20]

See also


  1. 1 2 Brennan, Jason (2012). Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know. p. 188. ISBN 978-0199933914.
  2. "About Us". Bleeding-Heart Libertarians.
  3. Long, Roderick (1996). "Beyond the Boss". Retrieved 2012-09-20.
  4. Sharkansky, Stefan (2002-06-01). "My Blog and Welcome to It". Retrieved 2012-06-16.
  5. Kling, Arnold (2003-09-29). "Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism". Retrieved 2012-06-16.
  6. Gregory, Anthony. "Don't Privatize Plunder".
  7. Caplan, Bryan. "Who's More Irresponsible?". EconLog.
  8. Zwolinski, Matt. "Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism". Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog.
  9. NEWS, WEATHER, and SPORTS July, 2011 (accessed 29 January 2012)
  10. Gary Johnson - Bleeding Heart Libertarian 8/30/2012 (accessed 9/20/2012)
  11. About Us (accessed 10/17/12)
  12. What is Bleeding Heart Libertarianism, Part 1: Three Types of BHL (accessed 10/17/12)
  13. What is Bleeding Heart Libertarianism, Part 2: Strong BHL (accessed 10/17/12)
  14. BHLs and UBIs (accessed 10/17/12)
  15. Caplan, Bryan (2005-03-25). "Let Them Get Roommates". EconLog.
  16. Caplan, Bryan (2011-03-09). "Callous Libertarians: Missing, or Just Unfairly Maligned?". EconLog.
  17. Caplan, Bryan (2012-04-26). "Is Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism Evil?". EconLog.
  18. Henderson, David. "David Friedman on Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism". EconLog.
  19. Seavey, Todd (2012-04-20). "Tricia Rose, Social Justice, Bleeding Heart Libertarians, Beastie Boys, and Black Crowes".
  20. Walters, Jonah (August 30, 2016). "Bleeding Heart Bullshit". Jacobin. New York: Jacobin Foundation. Retrieved August 30, 2016.

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 11/27/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.