Another question to ponder: Are libertarian Hooligans good or bad? I define “Hooligan” below. The question is deliberately imprecise–you can make it more precise when you answer it.

In Against Politics, I outline three broad types of democratic citizens, whom I call Hobbits, Hooligans, and Vulcans:

Hobbits are mostly apathetic and ignorant about politics. They lack strong fixed opinions about most political matters. Often they have no opinions at all. They have little if any social scientific knowledge—they are ignorant not just of current events, but of the social scientific theories and data needed to evaluate and understand these events. They have only a cursory knowledge of relevant world or national history. They prefer to go on with their daily lives without giving politics much thought. In America, the typical non-voter is Hobbit.

Hooligans are the rabid sports fans of politics. They have strong and largely fixed world-views. They can present arguments for their views, but they cannot explain alternative points of view in a way that people with those other points of view would find satisfactory. They consume political information, but in a biased way. They tend to seek out information that confirms their pre-existing political opinions, but ignore, evade, and reject out of hand evidence that contradicts or disconfirms their pre-existing opinions. They may have some or even significant exposure to the socials sciences, but they cherry-pick data and tend only to learn about research that supports their own views. They are overconfident in themselves and what they know. Their political opinions form part of their identity, and they are proud to be a member of their political team. For them, being a Democrat or a Republican matters to their self-image in the same way being a Christian or a Muslim matters to religious people’s self-image. They tend to despise people who disagree with them, holding that people with alternative points of view are stupid, evil, selfish, or, at best, deeply misguided. …most activists, registered party members, and politicians are Hooligans.

Vulcans think scientifically and rationally about politics. Their opinions are strongly grounded in social science and philosophy. They are self-aware, and only as confident as the evidence allows. They can explain contrary points of view in a way that people holding those points of view would find satisfactory. They are interested in politics, but at the same time, dispassionate, in part because they actively try to avoid being biased and irrational. They do not think everyone who disagrees with them is stupid, evil, or selfish, though they might correctly identify Hooligans as Hooligans and Hobbits as Hobbits.

In chapter two of the manuscript, after reviewing the empirical lit on voter knowledge and voter psychology, I conclude that almost everyone is a Hobbit or a Hooligan. Most people (including  most libertarians) who have an explicit ideology are more like Hooligans than Vulcans. Most Hobbits would be Hooligans if they cared enough to adopt an explicit ideology.

Since I think some form of bleeding heart libertarianism is the best theory we’ve got, I’d rather have lots of libertarian Hooligans out there than non-libertarian Hooligans. But, at the same time, I’d prefer to see Hooligans become more like Vulcans.

When it comes to recruiting people to the team, Hooligan tactics are more persuasive than Vulcan tactics. Al Franken is more persuasive than Thomas Nagel, Naomi Klein is more persuasive than G. A. Cohen, and Ayn Rand is more persuasive than David Schmidtz. But when it comes to doing philosophy  or doing social science, we need Vulcans, not Hooligans. Hooligans are bad citizens in the Republic of Science. And that’s why I’m so hard on libertarian Hooligans, even though I agree with their conclusions. If they can just break free of Hooliganism, they might end up being Vulcans. In the long run, Vulcans control the universities, and, as a result, have more influence*.

*N.B. I’m not saying most professors are Vulcans. But I think the professors in econ, poli sci, and philosophy at the top ranked departments tend to be more Vulcan-like than Hooligan-like, regardless of their ideologies. There are of course many obvious counterexamples.