Scott Sumner on Liberaltarian Progress
Ilya makes the necessary qualifications to the awkward "liberaltarian" label, and also points out how progress in the economic area is countered by continued regression in the growth of the leftist nanny state:
Ilya makes the necessary qualifications to the awkward "liberaltarian" label, and also points out how progress in the economic area is countered by continued regression in the growth of the leftist nanny state:
On average, today’s liberals are more likely to support a wide range of restrictions on “noneconomic” freedom than those of forty years ago. Consider such issues as government-imposed regulation of smoking and diet, expansion of antidiscrimination laws to cover various new groups, campaign finance restrictions, and anti-“hate speech” laws.But, as he concludes, there remain grounds for some modest hope:
The gap between liberals and libertarians on economic issues has indeed declined over the last forty years (notwithstanding some backsliding during the current recession), and it may be possible to reduce it further in the future.UPDATE: I should have pointed out that Ilya's post, as its title indicates, was a response to this one by Scott Sumner: "The extraordinary success of liberaltarianism". And that post has attracted other thoughtful commentary as well -- two examples are Veronique de Rugy's, "What use is a libertarian?", and Nick Gillespie's concisely titled "Are libertarians really as useless as a bucket of armpits? Or do they just smell that way?"
The gap between liberals and libertarians on economic issues has indeed declined over the last forty years.
ReplyDeleteThat may be accurate but that doesn't mean it's a good thing (oops, the N-word...normativity). Under Clinton both GOP and Dems (at least many of 'em) supported de-reg, for instance. Larry Summers orchestrated much of the dismantling of the few remaining bits of the New Deal--such as the Glass-Steagall act-- during the end of Clinton's 2nd term--and Gramm, Gingrich, et al were in agreement, were they not? De-reg definitely played a part in the economic crisis, the mortgage collapse, the AIG/Morgan/G-sachs swaps and swindles (ie. that can be ...verified). Which is to say, the Dems' shift to slightly "more libertarian" views--if not supply sider--helped bring about much recent economic turmoil (and also allowed the demopublican deeep pockets to...line those pockets further, as with the stocks and futures boomtowns of the BushCo years).
At times libertarians--if not academic economists-- often commit a certain subtle political fallacy--the..."what's good for me and my neighbors is good for all" assumption for lack of a better term (slashing taxes, for instance). It seems related to the composition sort of fallacy--i.e. mistaking the part for the whole--. Sort of obvious, but many economic generalizations are of that sort. Say every successful businessperson, entertainer, or producer-pimp in some vegass gated community would benefit from a capital gains tax, for instance. So that's assumed to be the correct policy. And it generally goes along with a certain elitist viewpoint (even among the nouveau riche...Vince Neil republicans!). Some egghead might remind the vegas nouveau riche--well, that policy will result in cutting programs for the poor, or laid off teachers, less money for road repair, etc. The nouveau riche libertarian, or liberal-tarian simply shrugs his shoulders...or perhaps quotes Aynnie Rand...or a Motley crue medley.
J: That may be accurate but that doesn't mean it's a good thing (oops, the N-word ... normativity).
ReplyDeleteI'm not afraid of a little normativity, and I'll agree that this convergence isn't necessarily a good thing -- it's only good if it's liberals learning to reduce state intrusion, not the reverse. Re: the recent economic disorder, my reading is that it was brought on primarily by political interference in mortgage markets, and has been sustained by massive misallocation of resources and indebtedness of the Stimulus package, and state bailouts of institutions that should have been put out of their misery. I don't doubt that, in hindsight, everyone can see that mistakes were made by financial institutions generally as well, but you know, I didn't hear a lot of people saying much about that in foresight.
I'd agree that we shouldn't mistake the part for the whole. I'd say, though, that cutting taxes is a policy that addresses the whole, and is generally a good thing.
Re: the recent economic disorder, my reading is that it was brought on primarily by political interference in mortgage markets...
ReplyDeleteThe political interference involved the weakening of regulations on securities, in my reading (quite a few academic econo-men have said as much...however unsexy and non-macro that reading is), and that included the de-reg policies spearheaded by Summers near the end of Clinton's reign, with bipartisan support.
Assuming the Feds gave the financiers and mortgage brokers the reins, aren't they ...more to blame then the companies and underwriters, etc? It would seem so, even if the underwriters were the ones approving the C paper loans and so forth (ie they can say...well, it's not illegal)--. I don't lose sleep on it, and I agree Demo incompetence also played a part with regard to Freddie Mac and so forth (yet...FHLMC that was a Nixon era scam anyway).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletethe leftist nanny state
ReplyDeleteSomin generally sounds like one of the Volokh Con.'s typical crypto-rightists and free market at-any-cost types. In the case of civil liberties and Constitutional issues, however, at times I agree libertarians (or some of them) may have a point: and the economic issues should be considered separate from the civil liberties and political issues, at least in principle, or something like that. Nozick's dream of a minimal state deserves some respect (and Nozick's ideas are not as obvious or simple as many think). Some basic notion of rights seems unavoidable, certainly in this post-communist world.
But ...rights-talk only goes so far. The Ted Nugent libertarian should not have a right to like own machine guns and shoot them off in a nearby vacant lot, or ride his loud blaring dirtbike or 4x4s around the neighborhood. Im not sure those supposed rights even extend to ...legalized gambling (which definitely exploits many people, poor especially.as does alcohol) Obvious, but ...the usual libertarians tend to be ...rustics like Nugents rather than the Reason mag. types or Randians (not that I approve of Miss Ayn, even when she did her pseudo-patriot act once a decade and quoted Jefferson, Madison, et al).
Im all for the libertarian's attack on useless bureaucracy, even some of the anti-unionist rants. But the libertarian, or "liberaltarian" generally moves from..."end useless bureaucracy" to...."end big govt. as a whole, and slash all programs and taxes". Yet he rarely includes, say, the US Military as one of his targets.
Well, it takes all kinds, J. I'm not sure what a "crypto-rightist" is, but Somin comes across to me as fairly decent and reasonable. I don't really know anything about Ted Nugent, but libertarians generally understand the need to restrict dangerous or intrusive behavior as infringing other people's rights. And re: Miss Ayn, while I'd agree that she has some defects, I think her virtues outweigh them (I should probably post something on her at some point).
ReplyDeleteOne other quick point: not all libertarians agree, by any means, but in my view the military in general, the US military in particular, is one of the legitimate institutions of even a minimal state (along with a justice system) -- to the extent that such institutions are necessary to secure and protect the rights of all.
And re: Miss Ayn, while I'd agree that she has some defects, I think her virtues outweigh them
ReplyDeleteAu contraire. She was full of defects, and her very few virtues were generally watered-down if not plagiarized bon mots from Aristotle, Nietzsche-lite, or the US Constitution.
Are you an atheist, M? Given an atheist reality, Rand's egotistic capitalism may have made some sense (tho Nietzsche she was not). In a non-atheist, moral world (not necessarily traditional judeo-christianity), she was...well something like a cousin of the Medusa.
J: In a non-atheist, moral world (not necessarily traditional judeo-christianity), she was...well something like a cousin of the Medusa.
ReplyDeleteOh, c'mon. Snakes for hair? I really doubt it.
Like her, I'm an atheist myself, but I don't think that should imply that I dwell in an immoral or non-moral world -- i.e., I think it's possible to be good without God. And that applies to Rand too, who I believe has been consistently misinterpreted and of course caricatured, not to say demonized. She is, certainly, a modern-day heretic, in the context of modern-day moral and political orthodoxy -- but then that's one of the things I like about her.