Indian libertarians must talk to the Elephant, not the Rider

Indian libertarians have been losing the war of ideas. Is this because libertarianism is a weak philosophy? I think not. In fact, libertarianism is very coherent as a philosophy, unlike its three cousins: the closest one liberalism, the farthest communism and conservatism. Unlike its distant relatives it enjoys the support of few around the globe— perhaps one of the reasons why it’s not as diluted. Its consistency is reflected in its three core philosophical commitments: moral primacy of the individual, a focus on non-coercion and the right to maintain private property.

No, this is not an essay about why libertarian philosophy works. It is not my burden to prove, for serious academics have tussled with such problems long. My intention is to point fingers at a glaring aperture in how libertarian ideas are advocated in India.

The way contemporary libertarianism is articulated in India is consequentialist. Consequentialism is a moral philosophy that justifies its actions by its end outcomes. Adopt X policy, and this will lead to Y outcomes. Such arguments, often economic in nature, are maintained by economists, policy wonks, and businesspeople. A libertarian consequentialist argument would be this: markets reduce poverty faster than state planning, and therefore adoption of libertarian rules by a society will lead to increased welfare. There’s nothing bad about such consequentialist arguments. They make the case for libertarian ideas stronger. But are they enough?

I contend not. Over-reliance on consequentialist frameworks has led Indian libertarianism to its own demise. It overlooks the importance of maintaining a coherent doctrine. What’s worse is it lacks rhetorical quality.

Consider the case for Marxism. Its appeal lies not in its economic models. Few Indian Marxists could claim mastery over its heterodox economics and yet this hardly matters. Marxism’s communicative power lies elsewhere. It matters more that Marxism offers a theory of history, a theory of power, and a theory of exploitation. You are unemployed? Your life feels constrained? Is there too much inequality? You’re concerned with your caste position? Marxism offers appealing answers to you. It makes the world legible for you, almost in a cookie cutter format. BJP’s civilizational conservatism has a strong appeal factor as well. It offers a story of civilizational decay, and belonging. Religious humiliation bears more action than data.

Contrast this with libertarian arguments that often appear as a set of technical preferences. Cutting taxes, freer trade and fewer regulations are good rational ideas in themselves. But they do not offer easy answers to existential questions such as the ones posed above. Their explanatory power falters.

Now why do people not see through the rational arguments that libertarian consequentialists promote? Are people stupid?

Looking at social psychologist Jonathan Haidt’s work ‘The Righteous Mind’ (2012) will help. Haidt contends that people make moral judgements intuitively. They adopt ideologies to which they already feel aligned to without much reasoning.  

He uses a metaphor of a ‘rider’ and an ‘elephant’ to describe this. The rider represents our reasoning, and the elephant represents our intuitions. We like to think the rider is in control, but in reality, it is the elephant that decides where to go. The rider just follows and then justifies the direction afterward. This means that reasoning is often not about discovering the truth, but about defending what we already feel.  So, if you try to change someone’s moral commitments by appealing only to reason i.e. by speaking only to the rider, you will fail because their intuitions or the elephant will resist you.

What this means for Indian libertarianism is this: our arguments thus far are rider styled. They are rational, and good reasoning proves them. They are sound economic principles after all. But these don’t always translate to good political communication. We have yet to address the elephant— the intuition. We have been bad at this. The appeal of Marxism and Conservatism is because they target the elephant. Libertarian consequentialist thought relies more on overriding intuitions. Hence the unpopularity.

Indian libertarianism however need not remain anemic in its intuitive richness. Libertarian philosophy has more to offer than its Indian articulation suggests. Consequentialism is but one road to an open society. The answer I believe lies elsewhere. Indian libertarians must pay attention to other foundations of libertarian political thought that are more accessible. 

One promising alternative deserves attention: natural rights. Natural rights can best be understood as a baseline moral right that comes with being a person. All persons possess the same natural rights. For e.g. all people have a natural right to not be enslaved. Such natural rights could be grounded in both theological and secular foundations.

A libertarian natural rights framework argues that liberty is owed to all individuals. Coercion here is not framed as ‘inefficient,’ but as a wrong in itself. Domination is framed as a moral injury. Such arguments could be made to speak to matters of dignity and violation, and extended to the logic of caste and inequality. For instance, when a Dalit entrepreneur must seek permission at every step to start a small enterprise, the injustice could be framed not just as economic inefficiency but the moral injury of being treated as someone whose freedom requires authorization. What matters is that such arguments have a far more intuitive language than the consequentialist vocabulary that dominates libertarian discourse in India. They are more resonant.

To develop this sensibility, we need Indian libertarian scholarship in areas of philosophy, and political thought. It is only through such work that libertarianism will resonate with the Indian intuition. We must learn to speak to the elephant and not just the rider. Libertarian thought must be made intelligible not only to economists but to the everyday moral experience of the Indian. Until then, libertarianism will remain confined to the fringes. Respectable but irrelevant to India’s political culture.