As part of my day job, I serve on a Harvard committee that makes recommendations about the rules and regulations that apply to undergraduate degree programs. In most cases, I argue against new rules and for repealing existing ones.
When this happens, someone on the committee invariably comments, “Well, of course you don’t like this rule; you’re a libertarian.”
That view is wrong, and partially right, at the same time.
Libertarianism is about what rules governments should impose on private actions. Such rules carry the threat that government will attempt to enforce them, using force if necessary. Thus government rules impinge on individual liberty directly and significantly, in addition to generating unintended costs and consequences.
Libertarianism is agnostic, in contrast, about rules that private groups wish to impose on their members. Some private rules make sense, but not all. Crucially, when rules are ill-chosen, those affected can seek a new organization with different rules. The negative impact of private rules can therefore be only so large.
Thus my colleagues’ quips are good-natured but misfocussed; I do not oppose rules that Harvard imposes on undergraduate programs because I am a libertarian. Indeed, as a libertarian, I defend strenuously Harvard’s freedom to impose such rules.
My best guess, however, is that many of our rules are costly or even counter productive. Consider the requirement that every undergraduate take a course in “quantitative reasoning” (statistics). This forces some students to take a class they do not appreciate (and crowds out a class they might have enjoyed), even if the rule pushes a few students to appreciate the benefits of quantitative analysis. The net effect is ambiguous.
Thus my opposition to many Harvard rules mimics my opposition to most government rules: both kinds impose one approach on everyone and so can easily generate more cost than benefit.
Yet distinguishing private versus government rules is crucial: Libertarians, as Libertarians, presumptively oppose only government imposed restrictions on freedom. Private groups should be free to make their own mistakes.