Beyond Liberty
The philosophy espoused on this site, which, when coherent, advocates for not only activist government policy but also a recognition of our personal responsibility to promote the common good, is most often in opposition to the libertarian point of view. Libertarians are typically skeptical of government action, especially when it has the potential to infringe on their definition of personal liberty. Libertarians continue to be the most outspoken opponents of action to confront climate change, reasoning that uncertainty over the science and doubts about the government’s ability to orchestrate an effectual response suggest that the best course is to do nothing. In addition, a rash of libertarians seems obsessed with building more roads to address worsening congestion, extending the personal liberty normally reserved for individuals to the shiny metal boxes that so many of us like to inhabit. As my writing indicates, I share little in common with libertarians on the issues raised on this site. Oddly enough, conservatives, who haven’t shown much distaste for big government lately, pose less of a threat to my point of view than libertarians. This adversarial relationship makes the current reexamination within the libertarian ranks all the more interesting for me. The impetus for the debate is a new book written by Brian Doherty entitled Radicals for Capitalism, about the history of the libertarian movement, but the underlying driver is a struggle for relevance for an ideology with a historical preference for staying out of the political fray in a world increasingly reliant on activist public policy.
Every time I come across a position diametrically opposed to mine, it is usually has some libertarian connection. Strong libertarian views about addressing congestion through either massive new road construction or enhanced use of existing road capacity have me particularly perplexed. To a libertarian, everyone, except car drivers of course, is to blame for congestion. So it’s been easy for me to assume that all libertarians are a bunch of car-loving, anti-government fanatics with little interest in actual policy discussions. It turns out that a one-size fits all moniker isn’t fair, for some libertarians are far more inclined to progressive activism than others. As the Cato Unbound debate over Doherty’s book highlights, there is room in the libertarian ideology for government action and appeals to the common good. Tyler Cowen makes a case for such pragmatism in his Cato essay:
I see a few major policy achievements in a libertarian direction…Those developments have brought us much greater wealth and much greater liberty, at least in the positive sense of greater life opportunities. They’ve also brought much bigger government. The more wealth we have, the more government we can afford. Furthermore, the better government operates, the more government people will demand. That is the fundamental paradox of libertarianism. Many initial victories bring later defeats.
I am not so worried about this paradox of libertarianism. Overall libertarians should embrace these developments. We should embrace a world with growing wealth, growing positive liberty, and yes, growing government. We don’t have to favor the growth in government per se, but we do need to recognize that sometimes it is a package deal.
Adds Virginia Postrel, former editor of Reason, "Focusing on the nation-state as the source of all threats to liberty is anachronistic. Oddly enough, promoting liberty may in some cases require libertarians to work at state-building, or at least state-reforming."
I am heartened to read these comments from respected libertarians since I have long questioned the cloak of personal liberty that is wrapped around many libertarian responses to policy debates. Sure we all can appreciate the values espoused and protected by our Constitution, but in the world of mundane policymaking over issues such as land use and transportation planning, we are actually talking about differing visions of the future. No single vision successfully protects the liberties of all without impinging on the the interests of others; each simply adjudicates these competing interests different ways. That some advocates advertise certain policies as protecting personal liberty shows either extreme idealistic blindness or shrewd political marketing. I’m inclined to believe the latter is at work with the so-called property rights initiatives that have appeared on ballots across the country in recent elections. Building roads over mass transit, allowing Big Box retailing in already congested suburbs and removing land use policies which promote density are not patriotic measures to restore unalienable rights, but solutions reflecting one of many perspectives on how to manage competing interests in a capitalist society.
The struggle for relevance for libertarians is real. In our debate over the wisdom of “doing nothing,” Jason Kuznicki of Positive Liberty cited writer Jim Henley as a counterpoint to the knee-jerk contrarian stance taken by most libertarians when discussing climate change. Henley writes:
I’m struck that even now many libertarians adhere to positions for which it is very difficult to find scientific support. They insist that the science is junk when they would be better off contributing to the debate over solutions…there are plenty of good reasons to adopt a more sensible energy policy anyway…If all of the libertarian expertise that’s been poured into arguing against scientific experts had instead been poured into arguing for saner energy policy, we wouldn’t be in a situation where all the credibility on this issue resides on the left.
Greg Mankiw, who has his own frequent battles with libertarians, offers basically the same advice for staying relevant. The “all or nothing” position will relegate libertarian thinkers to the sidelines in a global warming debate that threatens to be dominated by "extremists."
Lest my frequent criticism suggests otherwise, I do believe we need the libertarian voice in the debate over sensible transportation policy and responses to climate change. The dangers of poor policy are real, and we need advocates for market-based approaches that reward innovation without picking winners and losers. We need skeptics who ferret out inconsistent market incentives created by overtly political government action. And we need new ideas to allocate the limited supply of transportation resources, whether in the form of existing pavement or new dollars to be invested. But participation in the debate requires faith in the outcome of the process, and a willingness to relinquish the “personal liberty” high ground. That's not too much to ask, is it?
Photo Credit: John McConnico/AP