"Skeptical, not cynical: Why libertarians least embody their stigma" by Andrew's Objections

Skeptical, not cynical: Why libertarians least embody their stigma

August 13, 2012

I’ve been impugned lately for my apparent cynicism. Several of my friends and readers seem to think that because I don’t trust the government, my views are not “constructive.” I should stop “whining” and work for change within the system.

I realized that I’m hardly the first to receive such criticism. Libertarians are frequently charged with cynicism by the media and by the public. Apparently, to distrust the government is to believe that human beings cannot cooperate on anything.

This could not be further from the truth. Certainly some libertarians are cynics, but the core of libertarianism is skepticism, not cynicism. The true libertarian watches every institution, scrutinizes it, and decides whether it is morally and socially acceptable. It’s not that the government cannot do good, but rather that its crimes almost always outweigh the good it does.

Nor does a distrust of government equal a distrust of cooperation. The overwhelming majority of human society is cooperative. Businesses, labor unions, credit unions, charities, co-ops, benefit societies, clubs, and families are all collective institutions, but are (potentially) separate from the state. If we libertarians get our way, and government is reduced to a manageable size, these other collectives will fill the gap.

Why be so skeptical of government in particular? Because it is built on violence. Every law the state passes, every tax it levies, is enforced by armed policemen and soldiers. Violence is, of course, sometimes necessary, but it should be subject to a high burden of proof. Society should only let the state expand when there is no nonviolent alternative.

Indeed, if anything, libertarians are the least cynical precisely because we distrust the state. Believing that society can only solve its problems through physical force is cynical. Liberals seem to think that the path to social justice is to force the public to pay for welfare programs, while conservatives offer imperialism and preemptive war as the remedy for terrorism. Libertarians believe that we can find other, more moral solutions to these problems. How are we the cynics?

Nor do libertarians sit on the sidelines, barking criticisms without trying to change things. We’ve been as active as any group in working for change. We’ve consistently opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, publicly protesting at every opportunity. Many of us have joined the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street, trying to channel both the right and the left toward liberty. We’ve marched for gay rights, donated to charities, offered haven to illegal immigrants, boycotted bailout recipients, and opposed tyranny at every turn. We’ve hardly sat on the sidelines.

This conflation of skepticism with cynicism is irresponsible. To be a skeptic is to ask questions, to admit that no principle is so absolute that it is beyond scrutiny. To be a cynic is to embrace apathy and malcontent, to resign oneself to a failed civilization. Libertarians fall squarely in the former category.

Don’t waste your breath with arbitrary charges of cynicism. Attack our arguments, not strawmen. Everyone, regardless of ideology, could benefit from serious dialogue, but this is only possible if we treat each other with respect.

Sherwood 9 months, 1 week ago

Concerns over the U.S. tax code are warranted. Unfortunately, I feel like libertarian economic policies are rooted in flawed assumptions. Of course these flawed assumptions give rise to flawed economic models and flawed policy prescriptions. I urge you to consider sources of economic research other than CATO or Heritage or Yet Another Austrian School of Economics blog. :)

For starters: http://www.levyinstitute.org/ ; Their white papers and one-pagers are helpful.

Michael Hudson may be more accessible and provides a lot of commentary on the history of trade and economic thought: http://michael-hudson.com/ ; His recent essay, Veblens Institutionalist Elaboration of Rent Theory, is an awesome work of political economy: http://michael-hudson.com/2012/07/veblens-institutionalist-elaboration-of-rent-theory/

And Steve Keen's expositions on, and criticisms of, economics as presented in academia are very helpful but a little more rigorous and dry than the sources above. The UNC library very likely has his book, Debunking Economics, available digitally (I was able to download it using my credentials at another UNC system school).

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

Thing is, I'm not a libertarian for economic reasons. After reading The Great Transformation by Karl Polanyi, I understand that the government has always played an important role not only in shaping the market, but in creating capitalism itself. Though I'm skeptical of any particular government program, I accept that the government is capable of influencing the economy in a positive way, and that many government initiatives produce more wealth than they consume.

That being said, I still oppose government spending and regulation, but for moral reasons. As I state in the article and have discussed with you in other posts, everything the government does requires the use or threat of violence. The initiation of the use of violence is morally wrong, and I cannot justify it any more than is necessary to survive, even if there may be some material benefit for it.

To put it another way: I have no idea whether a laissez-faire system would be richer than what we have now (it may well be much poorer), but I still fight for laissez-faire because morally, I cannot justify anything else.

Sherwood 9 months, 1 week ago

"I accept that the government is capable of influencing the economy in a positive way, and that many government initiatives produce more wealth than they consume.

That being said, I still oppose government spending and regulation, but for moral reasons."

I understand your philosophy but you're using broad strokes and making statements that are seemingly incompatible at this point. Be more specific.

"The initiation of the use of violence is morally wrong, and I cannot justify it any more than is necessary to survive, even if there may be some material benefit for it."

I agree that taxing, spending, and regulation should only be used up to the point of ensuring the welfare of society as a whole. I still disagree with your characterization of taxation and regulation as being inherently violent simply because the government has a monopoly, which we've granted it, on enforcing legislation, which our elected officials signed into law.

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

"I understand your philosophy but you're using broad strokes and making statements that are seemingly incompatible at this point. Be more specific."

I don't understand what's contradictory about my statements. It's very straightforward: I agree that government spending and regulation can create wealth, but I still oppose it on moral grounds. How is this "seemingly incompatible?"

Sherwood 9 months, 1 week ago

"I agree that government spending and regulation can create wealth, but I still oppose it on moral grounds."

It's seemingly incompatible because, as far as I can tell, you agree that spending and regulations can contribute to our welfare but you still disagree with such spending and regulation on moral grounds because of some silly notion you have about the government holding a gun to your head.

Be more specific. What type of spending, regulation, and wealth are we talking about?

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

Yes, the "silly notion" of not wanting to be forced into things against my will. How naive of me to not abandon this.

There is a myriad of things that governments do or have done that may help the economy. In preindustrial Britain, this meant the enclosures. Today, it means things like building roads and other infrastructure to help the market work properly.

I would make a distinction between something that increases the size of the economy and something that increases the public welfare. Welfare is a much more ambiguous concept than material wealth, based on notions like happiness and fulfillment. I would argue that government policies almost always reduce welfare, because by denying people the ability to make their own decisions, you deny them the ability to find happiness and fulfillment in the way that suits them personally, even if you make them richer in the process.

Take, for example, the enclosures. Most economists and historians accept that they made Britain richer and helped seed the industrial revolution, but that does not mean that they made people happier. Indeed, many of the dispossessed peasants were completely lost without their land; they identified as farmers, and sunk into anomy without that status. They may have grown richer, but they still lost something as a result.

To be clear, I like the market system and the wealth it produces, and if it's compatible with a laissez faire system, I'll happily hold onto it. But if the wealth of modern society is based on the use of violence against others, and denying people the ability to fulfill themselves in their own way, morally I must forsake it. There are worse things than poverty.

Sherwood 9 months, 1 week ago

'Yes, the "silly notion" of not wanting to be forced into things against my will. How naive of me to not abandon this.'

It really is a silly, hyperbolic notion and you really should drop it. I apologize for my rudeness.

I agree with you when you say things like "that for society to function, the government must provide police, courts, an army, and some minimal welfare programs," though I would change "minimal welfare programs" to "sufficient welfare programs."

And I also agree it's important to ask what the government's role is and what it should be, something you can do without resorting to the claim that "Taxes = Theft."

For the sake of clarity, when I refer to the welfare of society, I refer to the ability of its constituents to obtain a standard of living that includes: access to education, healthcare, housing, food, etc. And while "wealth" outside of economic circles sometimes refers to the accumulation of material and financial goods above a certain level, I use wealth to refer to the accumulated resources, generally, which enable one to gain access to education, healthcare, housing, food, etc. Wealth being a contributor to the welfare of society. I won't go into Happiness Indices or similar metrics of well being as that's outside the scope of this conversation (although I'm sure access to education, healthcare, housing, food, etc. contributes positively to one's well-being).

"I would argue that government policies almost always reduce welfare, because by denying people the ability to make their own decisions, you deny them the ability to find happiness and fulfillment in the way that suits them personally, even if you make them richer in the process."

What government policies are you referring to? What decisions? Besides the Britain's enclosure policies implemented centuries ago:

"Take, for example, the enclosures. Most economists and historians accept that they made Britain richer and helped seed the industrial revolution, but that does not mean that they made people happier. Indeed, many of the dispossessed peasants were completely lost without their land; they identified as farmers, and sunk into anomy without that status."

This is one example. An alright example. Again, I agree. A certain class of individuals benefited greatly from the enclosure movement and, ON AVERAGE, wealth was increased. Some would look at this average increase in wealth and determine that it is 100% a good thing. Others such as myself would have to look at the distribution of wealth before coming to any definitive conclusions.

Not all government policies are the same, however. Not all government policies reduce the number of choices one has. There are good policies and there are bad policies. You need more evidence in order to come to the conclusion that "government policies almost always reduce welfare" or be more specific about the types of policies you're referring to and the type of welfare metrics you're using.

...

Sherwood 9 months, 1 week ago

...

Really, I'm interested in macroeconomic policy and how it affects the welfare (as I have defined it) of a nation. You seem to be more interested in discussing moral philosophy as it relates to the government's ability to tax. That's fine, it's an interesting topic. While you make some decent points, you seem to be coming to some very broad conclusions that lack nuance or empirical support. Which I guess is understandable given that we're posting in the comments section of a local newspaper.

Your basic approach to what is moral may lead to foreign policy conclusions I tend to agree with, but your conception of government taxing and spending, and your conception of modern capitalism (given your apparent indifference to laissez faire's effect on society's welfare?), is lacking. Again, I defer to the sources I provided above.

AndrewSoboeiro 8 months, 3 weeks ago

“It really is a silly, hyperbolic notion and you really should drop it” It’s not a hyperbolic notion at all; forcing people to do things, often against their will, is exactly what the state does. I don’t get to choose whether to pay taxes or obey regulations; they are imposed upon me, and will be enforced with violence if I ever fail to comply. There’s nothing “hyperbolic” in this characterization. I’m not going to entertain this idea that valuing human liberty foremost is “silly.” If you disagree with the extent to which I value it, we can debate that, but I can’t have a meaningful debate with you if you dismiss it offhand. Liberty is important; surely we can agree on that.

“And I also agree it's important to ask what the government's role is and what it should be, something you can do without resorting to the claim that ‘Taxes = Theft.’” It’s not a “claim” I “resort” to; it’s a conclusion. I’ve examined the way governments collect taxes (namely, through the threat of violence) and found that it is at its base the same as theft. Again, if you disagree with my claims, explain why. Your tendency to dismiss any unorthodox claim I make as naïve or ill-conceived is not helpful in this debate.

You can’t simply reject “happiness indices” or other noneconomic measures of welfare, as that is precisely the point of the debate. Wealth, by itself, increases welfare; no one will dispute you on this. But it is not the embodiment of welfare. We have to acknowledge that there are other ways in which people find fulfillment in life that are not tied to wealth, and that the pursuit of wealth can in some ways suppress these other methods.

“What government policies are you referring to? What decisions?” Off the top of my head: decisions by the FDA to keep potentially life-saving drugs from the public; eminent domain, which forces people off their land in favor of some arbitrary notion of the “public interest;” state schools and education requirements that suppress creativity and limit education to arbitrary, formalized methods; intellectual property laws and other measures that restrict the actions of artists; and marriage laws that exclude same-sex couples.

100% of government policies deny people the ability to make decisions. Every time the government taxes me, it is forbidding me from spending a portion of my money on what I want; every time it passes a new regulation or restriction, it is forbidding me from taking some course of action. Now, you may argue that the benefits outweigh the costs, but this presupposes that you can compare the costs and benefits. There may be economic benefits to using eminent domain to build a road through a person’s land, but there are psychological benefits to being able to own land without interference from the government. How can you compare these benefits?

AndrewSoboeiro 8 months, 3 weeks ago

“given your apparent indifference to laissez faire's effect on society's welfare?” (sigh) I shouldn’t have to explain this a second time. I know you’re aware that I distinguish welfare from wealth because you addressed it earlier in your response! We can’t have this debate if you insist on portraying my opinions as other than what they are. Nor am I indifferent to how wealthy society is. I acknowledge it’s important, but it is not essential. As important as wealth is, there are other considerations (such as morality and self-determination) that are more important. Laissez-faire is a moral imperative; wealth is secondary. Once we have laissez-faire, we can work to make society wealthier.