Down with Policy Libertarianism
R.A. Hettinga
rah at shipwright.com
Fri Dec 26 17:30:52 PST 2008
<http://distributedrepublic.net/archives/2008/12/24/down-with-policy-libertarianism
>
The Distributed Republic
Down with Policy Libertarianism
Submitted by Jacob Lyles on Wed, 2008-12-24 22:51. Public
Libertarian thinkers can be plotted on many axes. Presently, the axis
I am most concerned with is Policy Libertarianism vs. Structural
Libertarianism.
Policy Libertarians (PLs) include the vast majority of the most
visible organizations and writers in the modern libertarian movement:
the Reason Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Ron Paul campaign, the
LP, the Constitution Party, most libertarian economists (e.g. Milton
Friedman), and single-issue organizations like Students for a Sensible
Drug Policy. PLs, as their name suggests, focus their energies on
inventing and advocating a list of policies that governments should
follow. For example, you can find policy libertarians opposing liberal
eminent domain laws, fighting for lower taxes and deregulation,
supporting cultural tolerance, opposing invasive police searches, and
advocating the rest of the familiar libertarian manifesto.
Structural Libertarians (SLs) are much rarer in modern times than PLs,
although the opposite used to be the case. Structural libertarians
include Patri Friedman, Mencius Moldbug, David Friedman, Murray
Rothbard, all libertarian Public Choice economists, Lysander Spooner,
and the classical liberals that libertarians have adopted as
intellectual ancestors. SLs often have the same moral and policy
beliefs as PLs, but they focus their energies on the alternative ways
to structure a government and the effect that government structure has
on its incentive to adopt good policy. At their most extreme, SLs
barely sound like libertarians. Under a market-based government system
(a common SL proposal), the architects of Singapore would likely find
plenty of customers for a burbclave that is incredibly prosperous and
clean, but where communists are sent to jail and litterbugs are
viciously beaten with sticks.
The decline of the structuralists and the rise of the policyists is a
phenomenon that should interest us. It is a by-product of general
political trends in the modern western world. Simply: democracy has
won. Democracy is considered to be righteousness and goodness and
freedom, all else is tyranny. Didn't the American colonists risk their
lives and fortunes to institute democracy and overthrow monarchy? And
wasn't America the shining example on a hill, leading the rest of the
world into a democratic century?
Today all competing political ideas acknowledge this. Conservatism,
libertarianism, liberalism, environmentalism, socialism, and
nationalism are all strictly policy movements. Since our government
structure is assumed to be sound, they focus on advancing their
agendas through electoral politics.
But what if democracy is not the impartial "marketplace of ideas" that
moderns assume? What if liberal democracy contains its own unwholesome
incentives and biases? In other words, what if the game is rigged?
This is why policy libertarianism seems like a weak and incomplete
philosophy to me. Presumably if libertarians believe that libertarian
policies are just and beneficial, then they would want to live in a
world where those policies are implemented. However, if the incentives
of the political system are stacked against libertarianism, then their
efforts advocating libertarian policies are futile. No amount of
pamphleteering and blogging will make vast amounts of people act
against their self-interest. Quoting Jefferson at housewives isn't
going to sway them when Obama Claus is on the television offering free
college educations and health insurance. Putting 51% of the country on
welfare programs and then campaigning to enlarge the payments will
remain a winning strategy no matter how many DVDs of "Freedom to
Fascism" are printed.
Policy libertarianism is only valid in a particular time and place,
and then only if you have certain beliefs about the political system
at that juncture.PL is useless otherwise. If we kidnap Ron Paul and
ship him back in time to live under the Bourbon Dynasty in France,
what should he do? Presumably he still thinks that libertarianism is
as just and wise in Bourbon France as it is in 21st century America.
Should he write florid epistles to the king, trying to convince him of
the value of universal human rights? Should he try to marry a princess?
Or suppose we send Ron Paul to live under a government run by evil
robots that grow humans in vats and then suck out their life force to
power their machines in some physics-defying green energy scheme.
Likely Ron still thinks the evil machines should respect his property
rights and freedom of speech. I don't see how Ron's beliefs matter
very much. He is going to have to hire a damn good lobbyist to
overcome the sway of the human-vat-maker union.
Under an incompatible government structure, policy libertarianism is
an impotent philosophy. As soon as your faith in liberal democracy
wavers, PL looks naive. It's as useless as a lawn ornament. It's
gazelle trying diplomacy with lions.
My faith in democracy is at a low ebb, so I think structural
libertarianism should be given more thought and policy libertarianism
less. As one of the 200 million most influential people in America and
one of the 20 most influential writers on this blog, I hope I can lead
the libertarian discussion in that direction.
More information about the Testlist
mailing list