Privilege: a Libertarian Viewpoint

"the state primarily exists in order to preserve certain privileges"

privilege  In its original sense, and by its etymology, “privilege” means a private, or individual, law. That is, a law that benefits some person, or category of people, or institution excluding all others. Traditionally it has been classical liberals, including libertarians, who have been the main enemies of privilege. Instead, they have advocated equality under the law with liberty of person and property for all. As F. A. Hayek (1899-1992) puts it, “The essence of the liberal position, is the denial of all privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights to some which are not available on equal terms to others” (preface to the 1956 paperback edition of The Road to Serfdom). However, there is no harm in the popular metaphorical use of “privilege” that really means receiving a highly valued benefit to which one has no right: such as access to an exclusive private club, or the friendship of some esteemed person.

The main problem with “privilege” in recent decades is that the classical-liberal conception of its literal meaning has degenerated into the modern-liberal sense. “Privilege” is thereby often used to refer to all advantages or benefits (although a privilege is in itself a type of advantage). This is done even when those advantages are at nobody else’s initiated-imposed expense or not aspects of liberty that are being denied to other people. In a free society people will have many advantages and disadvantages of all kinds. But these do not in any literal sense constitute being “privileged” or, worse still, “underprivileged”. As a mere euphemism for being poor, “underprivileged” might be allowable. But if taken literally, what is it even supposed to mean? Not having the privileges to which you are entitled? (This appears to be as incoherent as “irrationality”.) To label all such advantages “privileges” suggests that they require redistribution, elimination, or other “rectification”. But that is aggressive egalitarianism, which destroys both liberty and welfare.

With ever-more-extreme wokeness, we even have the bizarre and ironic situation today that the allegedly “underprivileged” are often literally privileged, or at least in effect (or de facto) so by a woke interpretation of the law. For instance, it is allowed when jobs are advertised for someone from a woke-favoured group: black, “transgender”, disabled, etc. But it is not allowed if this group is woke-disfavoured: white, male, heterosexual, etc. This is an example of the hypocrisy that is an essential part of wokeness. The result might accurately be called “woke privilege” (Check my so-called “privilege”? No, you check your literal privilege).

Some examples of the full woke conception of “privilege” include the following categories: white, male, heterosexual, wealthy, able-bodied, educated, healthy, intelligent, and physically attractive. The idea of such “privilege” is, roughly, that these groups possess unjust power and advantages that are systemic and due to prejudice and discrimination. Some brief criticisms might be helpful. 1) As we have seen, this is a tendentious misinterpretation of “privilege”. 2) These groups do not have any literal power over anyone else: the ability to force them to their will. 3) There is nothing inherently wrong with advantages, even if they are extreme. 4) Society is not a system but a voluntary association of people. So even if advantages to such groups are widespread, that does not make them literally systemic. 5) We never pre-judge: people cannot help but judge in light of how things currently seem to them, and how much to research is a personal economic decision. 6) Being able to discriminate with one’s body and property is not in any way illegitimate. It is a way of describing the interpersonal liberty to which everyone is entitled (whether they actually have it or not). 7) These alleged “privileges” are very unlikely to be arbitrary or inefficient, especially when they are the result of businesses in free-market competition with each other.

Genuine privileges should all be abolished in one of two ways. Where they conflict with liberty, and thus oppress other people, they should be withdrawn altogether. Where they are part of liberty, and thus oppress no one, they should be extended to everyone. But as the state primarily exists in order to preserve certain privileges and because it sometimes has to bribe some people with privileges in order to do this, this does not seem very likely until the state itself is abolished.

Of particular relevance here is the real privilege that exists with academia. This is that academia as a whole is a system that the state has aggressively-monopolised, despite superficial competition between universities, but also still significantly tax-funds. Consequently, a socially-parasitic academia has become the main intellectually corrupt and corrupting system that is largely responsible for propagandising the degenerate use of “privilege” and all other erroneous woke ideas. If only one privilege could immediately be removed, then perhaps it ought to be this one.

(This is an entry from A Libertarian Dictionary: Explaining a Philosophical Theory [draft currently being revised].)