Some assertions on my flavor of libertarianism
In honor of Aziz’s post on the obesity debate, I would like to offer a similar set of assertions underlying my personal variety of libertarianism. I doubt any of these are particularly controversial claims, even among non-libertarians — they’re designed to emphasize areas of agreement and to provide a framework for constructive debate, and to make it clear that regardless of what some Ron Paul supporters might mean by “libertarian”, when I say “libertarian” I do not mean “anarchist”.
- Almost ever government program has at least some benefits to certain people, and some have huge benefits to the bulk of the population.
- Every government program has a direct economic cost that shows up in appropriation bills.
- Almost every government program has indirect economic costs — regulatory compliance costs, the effort spent qualifying and applying for benefits, the deadweight loss due to the taxes that pay the direct cost of the program, etc.
- Almost every government program has a freedom cost — it may actively deny or discourage choices, and tax funding is a tradeoff against the property rights of the taxpayer.
- Some government programs do not produce sufficient benefits to justify the direct economic cost.
- Some government programs are worth their direct economic costs, but not the combination of their direct and indirect economic costs.
- Some government programs are worth their direct and indirect economic costs, but not their freedom costs.
- Some government programs are worth all the costs
- There are some things the government isn’t currently doing but could do, which would be worth all the costs.
Where I tend to differ from non-libertarians is:
- I place a higher value on the freedom costs of government programs
- I am more conservative in estimating the benefits of government programs
- I am more liberal in estimating the indirect economic costs of government programs
- As a result, I tend to think categories 5, 6, and 7 are larger and 8 and 9 are smaller than most non-libertarians would suppose
Subscribe to Dean's World by Email
7 comments
I think I’d add a #10 and #11 to your list.
10. Some government programs have indirect benefits.
11. Some of those benefits are freedom-enhancing.
Too many anarchists and minarchists masquerading as libertarians discount both #10 and #11 more than I’m inclined to.
I’d certainly buy into both of those assertions.
The significance of my additions is that in the original formulation government has both costs and benefits but is strictly freedom-reducing. With my additions government actions may be freedom-enhancing or freedom-reducing. It depends.
That was an oversight on my part. I’d intended freedom benefits to be included as part of my first assertion (which doesn’t specify whether the benefits were economic, freedom-related, or something else), but it’s important enough that it deserves to be mentioned explicitly.
I’d say that almost all government programs reduce freedom in some respects (albeit very minor in some cases), but many also improve freedom in other respects, and the net effect may be freedom enhancing or freedom reducing.
A classic of example of that would be a the institutions that allow for Rule of Law. Obviously, thry reduce the freedom to do what every you want, but the lack of them would be the anti-thesis of freedom.
Dave Justus’s last blog post..Chinese Earthquake Exceeds 12,000 Deaths
I don’t have any arguments with most of those, but I will point out that all of us, regardless of where we stand, are to some extent influenced by our direct personal experience in these things, and also, where we are in life tends to change how we prioritize. I put a high priority on personal freedom, however, as a middle aged man struggling to provide security for his children in a desperately flailing economy (Michigan’s) I place a much greater premium on economic security than I once did, and have come to realize that economic security is every bit as important as any other type of security. Yes, in an absolute emergency physical security is paramount (invaders or criminals are all around you beating up or killing people, send in the cops and/or troops please), but after that not knowing where you’re going to sleep or what you’re going to eat or how you’re going to provide a decent environment for your kids starts to become paramount.
There is no objective principle which says government’s only job is to provide physical security. Indeed, if that were so, why would we have government at all? We’d either hire or breed thugs to kill the other thugs who threaten our family and friends. That’s how historic warlords, barons, chieftains and kings came about. But even then, if you look at the Bible, or history, it was quite common for the people to look to their rulers for food in times of famine, and shelter in times of hardship. These are things people have always expected from their rulers, and is arguably part of the social contract we’re all a part of.
And yes, Dave Justus is correct by the way. The odd thing about the rule of law is that it makes freedom possible.
You must log in to post a comment.