Return of the "Liberaltarians"
There’s been a depressing amount of chatter in the libertarian blogosphere about this modest proposal:
Or, more correctly, a “left-libertarian” –
Obama and [his economic advisor, Austin] Goolsbee propose something entirely different — not a triangulation, but a basis for crafting public policy orthogonal to the traditional liberal-conservative axis.If this approach needs a name, call it left-libertarianism. Advancements in behavioural economics, public and rational choice theory, and game theory provide us with an opportunity to attend to inequality without crippling the economy, enhancing the coercive power of the state, or infringing on personal liberty (at least not to any extent greater than the welfare state already does; and as much as my libertarian friends might wish otherwise, the welfare state isn’t going anywhere). The cost — higher marginal tax rates — is real, but eminently justified by the benefits.
This is, of course, utter nonsense. Anyone arrogant enough to summarily declare that this-or-that central planner proposal is “eminently justified” is merely an unexciting and unimpressive future entry on the Kip’s Law pages. Definitely nothing “entirely different” here.
Meanwhile, I thought we had dispensed with this “liberaltarian” gobbledygook the last time an overly self-important liberal thought libertarians were unsophisticated bumpkin morons who could be easily conned into selling their votes, and their souls, for the political equivalent of a group hug.* I guess not. So be it.
As I’ve commented elsewhere, the only way one can call oneself (or anyone else) a “left-libertarian” is by using an illegitimate definition of “left” or “libertarian” (or both).
Here’s a simple test I came up with: “Do you believe in Lochner-style economic substantive due process (i.e., unfettered freedom of contract among competent consenting adults)?”
If you answer “yes,” then you cannot reasonably call yourself a leftist. If you answer “no,” then you cannot reasonably call yourself a libertarian. QED.
What these “liberaltarians” are disingenuously trying to do is bootstrap the classical liberal amenability to a modest social safety net (but only for the truly incompetent) into a willingness to forfeit most if not all economic liberty (including any attempt to restrain taxes) for the sake of non-economic privacy. Stated differently: “Give us the New Deal and we’ll give you Lawrence v. Texas“).
That may be pragmatic coalition politics (I think not), but it is certainly not libertarianism, “left-” or otherwise.
—
Note that “Obama is the least offensive candidate to libertarians” is not the same as “Obama is a libertarian.” The former is perfectly reasonable; the latter is perfectly absurd. I myself continue to grapple with the viability of the former statement and whether to embrace it. Stay tuned.
—
(*Ron Paul supporters notwithstanding.)
Similar Posts:
- Obama Unveils His “Left-(Un)Libertarian” Credentials
- Maybe Dodd, Not Obama, is the “Left-Libertarian”?
- New Encyclopedia Entry on Libertarianism
- The Competing Fallacies of Left-Libertarianism and Left-Conservatism
- Solum on Law and Libertarianism
Filed under: Uncategorized
I get that you don't like the idea of liberaltarianism, but I don't see why this is a refutation of the idea as a proposal. If you believe that Hayek and Rawls are reconcilable, there is no reason that we can't have both a dynamic economy and a basic social safety net.
I don't think this implies a crazy definition of liberal–on the contrary, I would argue that a dynamic economy with some taxation fulfills Rawls's maximin principle better than anything else we can imagine.
Is it a crazy definition of libertarianism? Well, I guess I'd have to know what your definition of "libertarian" is. If it's Randian, then I suppose I'm out of luck. If it's Hayekian, I'd say I have a strong argument to offer you.
[Kip replies: Think of it this way: The difference between classical liberalism and left-libertarianism is which side (leftists or libertarians) gets to say to the other, "Just shut up and take what we give you..." and why each side considers itself morally entitled to such a stance. Framed in those (perhaps blunt) terms, the irreconcilability of the two worldviews is self-apparent.]
When I saw the new "left-libertarin" nonsense, I couldn't gather the energy to write about it. Again we have to deal with this absurdity? Thanks for a good rebuttal. As if this has any truth in what Sen. Obama proposes:
I'm curious what you'll conclude on the "Obama is the least offensive candidate to libertarians" argument. Looking forward to it.
[Kip replies: Hint -- It has little to do with policies and lots to do with politics. Stay tuned...]
I think he's economically offensive, but I relax a little when I remember how much interference he'll run into in Congress. His rhetoric worries me, but Bill Clinton offered much of the same in '92. He didn't get everything he wanted.