A Libertarian Psychology Self-Ownership-A Condition for Happiness

Peter R. Breggin

henever I get to know a person well, I find that he G reater self-determination in our lives appeals to all W or she values personal freedom. This des ire for of us, but we hesitate, out o f guilt. shame, anxiety, and freedom may be expressed consc iously or it may be hid­ genu ine unce rtainty. We wonder what necessa ry limita­ den and requires only a little encouragement to come tions must be placed upon each individual's freedom. out. I have seen this love of freedom both among rel a­ W e lack the courage to stand up to those who have op­ tively happy and successful people and in the mos t un­ pressed us in the past, and we are afraid to confront our happy and unsuccessful people. own potential for success or failure. We are also unsure of how to apply the idea l of liberty to our everyday lives . Ultimately each person must find the courage to st and up for his or her own freedom. But it also helps to have a rational plan - a set of principles or applied ethi cs for living a freer and more independent life. Peter R. Breggin is a psychiatrist in the privare practice of psycho­ Libertarian Ethics and Psychology therapy, a novelist, and the execu­ tive director of the Center for th e or some time now Thomas Szasz has been examining Study of Psychia tr y, ;n Bethesda, Maryland. Fthe role played by ethics and politics in the theory and practice of psychiatry and psychotherapy. Building in part upon his insights, I have bee n explo ring these same iss ues. More re cently I have taken on the specific task of developing a libertarian psychology-an analysis cause of guilt, shame, and anxiety. In earlier writings I of human conduct consistent with the principles of maxi­ have discussed the question of why people suppress mum personal freedom. themselves. Here I want only to make it clear that inter­ Libertarianism as a philosophy has its roots in the work personal relationships will be considered "involuntary" of John Stuart Mill and Herbert Spencer. In modern when the individual imposes them upon himself or her­ times Szasz has spearheaded libertarianism within psy­ self out of guilt, shame, or anxiety. chiatry, while Murray Rothbard and John Hospers have Most people fail to live by the principle of voluntary led the way within the disciplines of economics and phi­ exchange in their private lives. These individuals accept losophy. coerc ion and intimidation from parents, spouses, and Most dictionary definitions of libertarianism cite two children; and similarly, they bully and deceive their clos­ basic principles: a belief in free wil l and a dedication to est associates. Guilt, shame, and anxiety, rather than personal freedom. The natural rights theory, developed choice, cement most human relationships. The cement is by Spencer and carried on by Hospers and Rothbard, created by those who attempt to instill these feelings in states that human beings have the capacity to make de­ others, as well as by those who submit to these feelings. cisions and to reason in their own best interest, and that therefore they ought to have the right to exercise this capacity as fully and freely as possible. At times com­ "When we try to live by plex and subtle debate has taken place concerning the an ideal of freedom, limits of this freedom, but one axiom has gained consid­ painful confrontations erable agreement among libertarians: each individual has the right to pursue self-interest without restraint, pro­ are inevitable. " vided he or she does not use force or fraud except in self­ defense. While interpretations of this axiom may vary, it It is much easier for all of us to see principles in the is safe to assume that libertarians in general are more abstract than to apply them in our own lives from mo­ committed to individual freedom and to individualism ment to moment. When we try to live by an ideal of free­ as a philosophy than the vast majority of their col­ dom, painful confrontations are inevitable. Consider the leagues working within the fields of psychology, philoso­ example of an individual who finally determines that he phy, economics, or politics. or she will never again accept aggressive behavior or dis­ In libertarian economics the term "yoluntary ex­ honesty from parents or a spouse. The individual who change" sums up the positive aspects of the libertarian takes this position may be abandoned by parents or the view of life. Libertarians believe in a world in which in­ spouse, or he or she may feel compelled to solve the con­ dividuals can relate to each other as they choose. Once flict by abandoning them. This can activate the individu­ force and deceit are forsworn, the individual is then free al's overwhelming feelings of guilt, shame, and anxiety to act as he or she wishes with the purpose of gaining as about hurting other people and about advancing self-in­ much as possible from his or her relationships. This con­ terest as a free person. Similarly, those who decide not to cept of voluntary exchange has become the funda­ mistreat a husband or wife, friends, or ch ildren, soon dis­ mental principle in my own psychology, which I call the cover their personal history of unethical conduct and psychology of self-determination. harm done to others. A person who seeks to I ive by vol­ untary exchange faces a legacy of a past full of errors Voluntary Exchange in Personal Relationships and a future full of uncertainty.

ny successful, happy personal relationship must be The Twin Principles of Voluntary Exchange A voluntary. It must be freely chosen. The relationship must not be coerced - it must be free of force or the efferson's promotion of the right to life, liberty, and threat of force. It must also be honest-free of fraud, Jthe pursuit of happiness is my favorite statement of deceit, covert manipulation, and all the other indirect libertarian ideals. Philosophers who have tried to break methods of getting something from someone who would this ideal down into basic components often come up not willingly or knowingly consent to giving it. To be with two separate principles: the right to be free of coer­ honest, it must be above-board: it must contain no hid­ cion and the corresponding obligation not to coerce den agendas or unstated principles calculated to mis­ anyone else, except in self-defense. Their application lead, seduce, or entrap. leads to voluntary exchange in everyday life. The application of the concept of voluntary exchange These principles apply to both personal sovereignty to psychological or interpersonal experiences requires and personal freedom. Personal sovereignty, or individu­ that we define "psychological coercion." In libertarian al conscience, is the right to think and feel as one pleases politics, it is acknowledged that threats or intimidation and to make decisions and judgments within the sanctity constitute a form of force. But no consideration is given of one's mind. It is subjective or internal freedom. It is to self-intimidation, or to the individual's tendency to privacy. The individual has the right to withdraw from or make himself submit to unsatisfying relationships be- to fend off attempts to disrupt his or her sovereignty.

MAY/JUNE 1979 29 Conversely, the individual has the obligation to respect Indeed, anyone who loves you should not want to keep the sovereignty of others. Personal freedom is the more you in a rel ationship you do not desire. obvious right to be free of restraint within the external world. Love and Freedom You must be willing and able to fight for your own per­ sonal sovereignty and personal freedom. You also have here is so much confusion and misery in the lives of an obligation not to compromise the freedom and sov­ Tmany people that they equate love with an unfree re­ ereignty of others. lationship, love is both an excuse to give up one's own rights and a justification for controlling the allegedly The Unconditional Right to Self-Defense loved spouse or friend. I have concluded, on the basis of experience, intuition, oluntary exchange is only possible when individuals reason, and the collected wisdom of others whom I re­ Vhave the right to protect themselves from assau lt spect, that a loving attitude toward people is essential to upon their freedom and dignity. The amount of force personal happiness. But I am equally convinced that used in defense should be no more than what is neces­ love can flourish only to the degree that relationships sary to protect oneself, otherwise self-defense becomes are voluntary. This holds for children as well as adults. aggression. You do not kill someone when a single punch Your child's love for you and your love for your child might do the trick; you do not humiliate someone in pub­ prosper only to the extent that you, as the parent, ob­ lic when a private warning might do. Similarly, you may serve the principles of voluntary exchange. Any time you not use extreme force even if it is required to stop minor use force or the threat of force upon a person you risk aggression. Let' s suppose someone insults you at a party losing that love. At best, you vastly retard any hope for and refuses to stop. It makes little sense to escalate the the expression and fulfillment of that love. conflict into physical assault when little is to be gained Many people wonder if they can love. They even won­ from it. But in casual relations, and especially in close der what love is. The prevalence of psychological invol­ personal relations, an individual has the right to protect untariness is so strong in our society that love has little himself from all harmful actions, even those committed reality for many people. But no one shou ld worry about by friends and family. Indeed, since those nearest and dearest to us are most able to harm us, it is most impor­ tant to defend ourselves in those relationships. "Once an individual This right to self-defense is unconditional in several aspects. First, it does not depend upon whether or not grants freedom to the the aggressor has good intentions or protests his or her other, love will grow. " love for you. You need to determine whether or not the effect on you is good or bad. You have the right to de­ fend yourself against bad effects regardless of the perpe­ this in his or her life. I believe that if you have your ethics trator's intent. Second, the right to se lf-defense does not and politics straightened out in your more intimate ex­ depend upon your prior conduct toward that person. If changes with people-by making these exchanges volun­ you insult someone, it does not justify his insulting you; tary-you will discover within yourself a natural and it justifies only his defending himself against your in­ spontaneous love for others and for life. By resisting at­ sults. The quickest way to destroy a relationship is to let tempts of others to push you around and your own temp­ your guilt over past misdeeds justify your acceptance of tations to push others around, you will discover whom aggressive behavior. Insist that others treat you well, you love and who loves you. Love flourishes in an envi­ regardless of their excuses or justifications for abusing ronment of freedom; it dies in an environment of coer­ you. But remember, this means you must treat them cion. well, too, regardless of your real or imagined hurts at It is usually futile to discuss with a client whether or their hands. Devotion to the unconditional right of se lf­ not the cI ient feels fondness, respect, or love for the peo­ defense is the best way to prevent a spiraling of hostility ple with whom he or she is in conflict, whether these peo­ in close relationships. ple are parents, children, friends, or a spouse. If a rela­ This does not mean that you cannot hurt other people. tionship is not voluntary, it is impossible to know You can, espec ially by voluntarily withdrawing from a re­ whether or not love exists beneath the surface. If love lationship. Except for your children who are minors, does exist, it will become apparent only to the degree whom you have brought into the world as helpless de­ that the relationship becomes voluntary. The way to pendents, you are free to leave any personal relationship unravel a marriage or any personal relationship that has for any subjective reason of your own, regardless of the grown wretched with mutual deprivations of liberty is to wishes or needs of the other person. Otherwise you are encourage one or both members to insist upon their the other person's prisoner. While this may seem like a rights. ca llous idea, the failure to live by it is the most common Many people coerce each other to avoid facing a lack source of involuntary relationships and personal misery, of love; other people lose their love for each other be-

30 &iuIII l1l1isl cause they fail to live together voluntarily. This is the he or she perceives as praiseworthy attempts to control greatest challenge in any love or friendship: to grant the the I ife of a spouse, parent, or child. A mother may com· other total freedom . Once an individual grants freedom plain about how she cannot get her son to do his home­ to the other, love will grow. But it takes courage, includ· work, to go out with the right friends, to wear the proper ing the recognition that freely given love may also be clothes, or to go to bed on time. A husband may recite a freely withdrawn. Thus people make slaves of each other wife's failure to meet his real or imagined needs, despite in ord er to preserve the appearance of love, while love his most strenuous efforts to convince her. These same dwindles in the attempts to preserve it by force. people will also se lf·righteously describe their own sub· miss iveness to their spouses; children, or parents. They Self·Ownership and Self·lnterest use se lf·sacrifice to justify renewed demands which they make in return: " I have sacrificed for you; you must sac­ he concept of se lf·ownership epitomizes the carre, rifice for me." T spondence between psychological and pol itical can· cepts. Self·ownership in one's life plays the same role as "Individuals should private ownership in a free-market economy. Indeed, se lf·ownership is the cornerstone of both economic and learn how they inflict personal freedom. It is also inseparable from voluntary damaging ideals onto exchange and the unconditional right to self·defense, those dear to them. " without which ownership of self becomes meaningless. I try to conduct myself in my relationships with friends , as if they are the sale owners of themselves. Neither I nor Sim ilarly, most unhappy, dissatisfied people begin per· anyone else has a right to any part of their mind or body, so nal relationships by attempting to control them. They except by voluntary exchange. Similarly, I try to think of attempt to impose res traints upon other persons through myself in the same way. I have the right to use, enjoy, or threats or manipulations. In return they offer to submit dispose of myself as I see fit. to equally oppress ive practices at the hands of their I fail at times to live by these ideals; and every fa ilure loved ones. is marked by personal anguish. This anguish is com· In psychotherapy or in a relationship whic h you want pounded by the pain or discomfort I cause to those in· to maintain and improve, you need to confront yourself valved with me wittingly or unwittingly through my fail· and the other person with any and all such threats ure. But when I am feeling good about myself and against voluntary exc hange. You can point out to a others, self·ownership is the possession of a treasure­ parent that much more time and energy will be available myse lf! When I share this treasure with others, or when for a loving, happy experience with the c hild when the they share themselves with me, I experience some of my parent ceases to control any of the child's conduct, ex· fines t moments. cept in self·defense. Se lf·ownership and se lf·interest go together. In his A client will often light up with enthusiasm when hear· writings Nathaniel Branden has dealt with the concept of ing these principles of voluntary exchange. Then the self·interest as the rightful and natural human motiva· doubts will come. The parent will insist: " My child will tion. I only wish to remind you that love for others means never study if he isn' t pushed. He will grow up without dedication to their se lf·interest as well as to your own. ambition and lacking in concern for others if I don't dis· Friends and lovers are people who treas ure each other cipline him." The lover may declare: " I ca n' t bear to see and whose self-interests are mutual, even at times iden­ her hurt herself; I have to control her," when, actually. tical. he is afraid of losing her if she becomes independent. When individuals recognize these apprehensions and The Evolution of a Voluntary Relationship oppressive intentions, they can begin rooting out their origins in past experi ences with oppressive parents, hether you are participating in a professional ther· friends, and teachers; individuals should lea rn how they W apy relationship o r getting acquainted with a new inflict damaging ideals onto those dear to them. friend, you have a right to know the other person' s inten· People who give up involuntary exchanges will dis· tions and philosophy. In therapy I make my philosophy cover how the tendency to abuse and to accept abuse is explicit so that my client or customer knows what he or a cover-up for extreme fears about becoming an inde­ she is dealing with early in the encounter. This helps pendent, loving human being. If you cannot control your guarantee that the c lient is a voluntary participant. It lover or your children, and if they cannot control you in also communicates my conviction that life involves ap­ return, you are left with " nothing except yourself." You plied ethics and politics. Nonprofess ional relationships are then faced with the challenge of converting this ap· need to evolve from an awareness of relevant ethical parent " nothingness" into a rich and prospering sense of princ iples. The most successful passionate love relation· se lf. You are also faced with the challenge of loving ships are based upon consciously shared ideals. someone whose res ponse you cannot control, except A client may start out expressing frustration over what through the quality of what you have to offer. •

MAY I JUNE 1979 31