the paradox of libertarianism
[cross-posted from libertarianism]
Marginal Revolution's Tyler Cowen answers a question posed by Brian Doherty: ". . . did this libertarian movement-this tightly-knit group of economists, novelists, publishers, philosophers, think tankers, and politicians whose story I tell-actually accomplish anything of unquestionable significance?"
Cowen's answer: "Yes: bigger government."
Cowen's simple but provocative rationale is that libertarian ideas have resulted in improvements in our way of life. But as our wealth grows, so does our ability to pay for more government. And provided that government operates efficiently enough (I know there is plenty of room for debate on that point), people continue to want more of it.
Furthermore:
The old formulas were “big government is bad” and “liberty is good,” but these are not exactly equal in their implications. The second motto - “liberty is good” - is the more important. And the older story of “big government crushes liberty” is being superseded by “advances in liberty bring bigger government.”
Libertarians aren’t used to reacting to that second story, because it goes against the “liberty vs. power” paradigm burned into our brains. That’s why libertarianism is in an intellectual crisis today.
Cowen goes on to encourage libertarians to stop fighting "the last battle or the last war," but to focus on new challenges that defy easy categorization: climate change, terrorism and intellectual property.
The problem with shifting the fight is that libertarianism runs "the risk of losing its intellectual and moral center." The LP has long prided itself on being "the party of principle," but even it has recently attempted to take moderate stances (such as on immigration) which represent the most contemptible of political concepts: compromise. But by doing so, doesn't the LP begin to blur with the mainstream, so that it is indistinguishable from the mealy-mouthed statism embraced by the Republicans and Democrats?
What to do, what to do . . . as Cowen notes, "In intellectual terms, we are cursed to live in interesting times."
Marginal Revolution's Tyler Cowen answers a question posed by Brian Doherty: ". . . did this libertarian movement-this tightly-knit group of economists, novelists, publishers, philosophers, think tankers, and politicians whose story I tell-actually accomplish anything of unquestionable significance?"
Cowen's answer: "Yes: bigger government."
Cowen's simple but provocative rationale is that libertarian ideas have resulted in improvements in our way of life. But as our wealth grows, so does our ability to pay for more government. And provided that government operates efficiently enough (I know there is plenty of room for debate on that point), people continue to want more of it.
Furthermore:
The old formulas were “big government is bad” and “liberty is good,” but these are not exactly equal in their implications. The second motto - “liberty is good” - is the more important. And the older story of “big government crushes liberty” is being superseded by “advances in liberty bring bigger government.”
Libertarians aren’t used to reacting to that second story, because it goes against the “liberty vs. power” paradigm burned into our brains. That’s why libertarianism is in an intellectual crisis today.
Cowen goes on to encourage libertarians to stop fighting "the last battle or the last war," but to focus on new challenges that defy easy categorization: climate change, terrorism and intellectual property.
The problem with shifting the fight is that libertarianism runs "the risk of losing its intellectual and moral center." The LP has long prided itself on being "the party of principle," but even it has recently attempted to take moderate stances (such as on immigration) which represent the most contemptible of political concepts: compromise. But by doing so, doesn't the LP begin to blur with the mainstream, so that it is indistinguishable from the mealy-mouthed statism embraced by the Republicans and Democrats?
What to do, what to do . . . as Cowen notes, "In intellectual terms, we are cursed to live in interesting times."