liberaltarianism
I've been reading a bit lately about the 'liberaltarian' concept/project. The idea was laid out by Brink Lindsey, a Cato Institute guy, here. And Will Wilkinson recently blogged about it again. The idea is that the old, brittle alliance between libertarians and conservatives has outlived its usefulness and that a new, brittle alliance should be explored between libertarians and liberals.
I've always thought that liberals and libertarians have the more common heritage. After all, classical liberalism is more or less synonymous with a certain kind of libertarianism. Part of liberalism is pushing the boundaries of individual liberty. Freedom of speech, religion, all that good First Amendment stuff. Getting women out of the kitchen, gays out of the closet, blacks off the plantation. These are all things libertarians have pushed for. Another part of liberalism is a push-back against established power. Free the serfs from the landed gentry. Cast kings from thrones and allow individuals greater voice in governance. Libertarians stop there. The modern liberal goes further to include corporations and the mega rich in their list of powerful entities to contain.
Anyway, from Brink Lindsey:
"Furthermore, it has become increasingly clear that capitalism's relentless dynamism and wealth-creation--the institutional safeguarding of which lies at the heart of libertarian concerns--have been pushing U.S. society in a decidedly progressive direction. The civil rights movement was made possible by the mechanization of agriculture, which pushed blacks off the farm and out of the South with immense consequences. Likewise, feminism was encouraged by the mechanization of housework. Greater sexual openness, as well as heightened interest in the natural environment, are among the luxury goods that mass affluence has purchased. So, too, are secularization and the general decline in reverence for authority, as rising education levels (prompted by the economy's growing demand for knowledge workers) have promoted increasing independence of mind.
"Yet progressives remain stubbornly resistant to embracing capitalism, their great natural ally. In particular, they are unable to make their peace with the more competitive, more entrepreneurial, more globalized U.S. economy that emerged out of the stagflationary mess of the 1970s. Knee-jerk antipathy to markets and the creative destruction they bring continues to be widespread, and bitter denunciations of the unfairness of the system, mixed with nostalgia for the good old days of the Big Government/Big Labor/Big Business triumvirate, too often substitute for clear thinking about realistic policy options."
[...]
"Entitlement reform is probably the most difficult problem facing would-be fusionists. Here, libertarians' core commitments to personal responsibility and economy in government run headlong into progressives' core commitments to social insurance and an adequate safety net. Yet a fusionist synthesis is possible nevertheless, for the simple reason that some kind of compromise is ultimately unavoidable."
Crider again. I agree that social entitlements form the biggest sticking point in a liberal/libertarian fusion. I've become more open-minded about social insurance schemes if only because that battle was lost long ago. But if libertarians can bend enough to accept the inevitability of social safety nets and liberals can bend enough to consider market-style reforms, then some clever policies can be concocted. I recommend, for instance, Will Wilkinson's paper (found here) on social security privatization (mandatory private savings accounts combined with a means-tested safety net). I think health care reform, which I believe is very necessary, also needs to maintain a market element to really succeed.
These are the wonky things I've been thinking about lately. What do the liberals and libertarians in the audience think? Do liberals and libertarians have enough in common to work together?
I've always thought that liberals and libertarians have the more common heritage. After all, classical liberalism is more or less synonymous with a certain kind of libertarianism. Part of liberalism is pushing the boundaries of individual liberty. Freedom of speech, religion, all that good First Amendment stuff. Getting women out of the kitchen, gays out of the closet, blacks off the plantation. These are all things libertarians have pushed for. Another part of liberalism is a push-back against established power. Free the serfs from the landed gentry. Cast kings from thrones and allow individuals greater voice in governance. Libertarians stop there. The modern liberal goes further to include corporations and the mega rich in their list of powerful entities to contain.
Anyway, from Brink Lindsey:
"Furthermore, it has become increasingly clear that capitalism's relentless dynamism and wealth-creation--the institutional safeguarding of which lies at the heart of libertarian concerns--have been pushing U.S. society in a decidedly progressive direction. The civil rights movement was made possible by the mechanization of agriculture, which pushed blacks off the farm and out of the South with immense consequences. Likewise, feminism was encouraged by the mechanization of housework. Greater sexual openness, as well as heightened interest in the natural environment, are among the luxury goods that mass affluence has purchased. So, too, are secularization and the general decline in reverence for authority, as rising education levels (prompted by the economy's growing demand for knowledge workers) have promoted increasing independence of mind.
"Yet progressives remain stubbornly resistant to embracing capitalism, their great natural ally. In particular, they are unable to make their peace with the more competitive, more entrepreneurial, more globalized U.S. economy that emerged out of the stagflationary mess of the 1970s. Knee-jerk antipathy to markets and the creative destruction they bring continues to be widespread, and bitter denunciations of the unfairness of the system, mixed with nostalgia for the good old days of the Big Government/Big Labor/Big Business triumvirate, too often substitute for clear thinking about realistic policy options."
[...]
"Entitlement reform is probably the most difficult problem facing would-be fusionists. Here, libertarians' core commitments to personal responsibility and economy in government run headlong into progressives' core commitments to social insurance and an adequate safety net. Yet a fusionist synthesis is possible nevertheless, for the simple reason that some kind of compromise is ultimately unavoidable."
Crider again. I agree that social entitlements form the biggest sticking point in a liberal/libertarian fusion. I've become more open-minded about social insurance schemes if only because that battle was lost long ago. But if libertarians can bend enough to accept the inevitability of social safety nets and liberals can bend enough to consider market-style reforms, then some clever policies can be concocted. I recommend, for instance, Will Wilkinson's paper (found here) on social security privatization (mandatory private savings accounts combined with a means-tested safety net). I think health care reform, which I believe is very necessary, also needs to maintain a market element to really succeed.
These are the wonky things I've been thinking about lately. What do the liberals and libertarians in the audience think? Do liberals and libertarians have enough in common to work together?