Scott Alexander proposes that we think of culture as a branch of government.

Each branch of government enforces rules in its own way. The legislature passes laws. The executive makes executive orders. The judiciary rules on cases. And the culture sets norms. In our hypothetical world, true libertarians are people who want less of all of these. There are people who want less of the first three branches but want to keep strong cultural norms about what is or isn’t acceptable . . .The real libertarians also believe that cultural norms enforced by shame and ostracism are impositions on freedom, and fight to make these as circumscribed as possible.

Sounding like one of Alexander’s “real libertarians,” one of my commenters complains about,

. . . A tiny subset of the population, media-ready and always on, always practicing PR, permanently in performance mode, not expressing themselves except in precisely those expressions that can be guaranteed to win the approval of the bigots and authoritarians who appointed themselves the police of society. Enforcers of conformity. Stamping out creativity. Stomping on self-expression.

I think it is best to take Scott Alexander’s view and turn it around: government is a branch of culture. I suggest defining culture as socially communicated practices and beliefs. We may think of government as the subset of practices and beliefs that are defined formally and enforced coercively.

Take property rights. We can think of them as culturally defined, even in the absence of government. But property rights take on more significance when the government establishes and enforces them. De Soto in The Mystery of Capital argues that without formal property rights an economy cannot develop properly.

Just as an economy has both a formal sector and an informal sector, culture has both a formal and an informal sector. The formal sector is where norms are enforced by government.

As a metaphor, think of footpaths. The paths where people walk are culture. Those paths that are not paved are the informal sector. Those paths that are paved are the formal sector.

Alexander argues that the proper libertarian position is to oppose enforcement of social norms, either formally or informally. But you cannot have a society without social norms, and you cannot have meaningful social norms without enforcement.

I think that a more viable libertarian position is that where social norms are contested, contests should be resolved peacefully. You don’t want the Protestants and Catholics burning heretics and fighting civil wars. But if Protestants want to engage in nonviolent attempts to set standards of behavior for Protestants and to convert Catholics to those standards, then that is ok.

A hard case for libertarians is when Google fires James Damore on religious grounds. Whose religious freedom should concern us most, Google’s or Damore’s? And once we choose sides, do we want the formal cultural institution, namely government, to enforce our point of view?

Libertarians often seek black-and-white answers, but I don’t think they are always easy to find.