Last Saturday I posted a diary on libertarian philosophy and claimed that progressives and libertarians are natural allies on many post-Bush issues. That diary got a very positive response and lots of questions.
Lots of questions! Some were a bit odd, like suggesting libers want to hang out on desert islands with the fruits of their production (a very strange thing to say to a free market advocate). Others bought into the old hookers and weed stereotype (props to psilocynic, I'm pretty sure he had his tongue in his cheek on that one.). But on the whole, it was a serious and informative discussion on both sides.
I promised I'd answer the most frequently asked questions in a follow-up diary. So here they are:
What do libers think are the legitimate roles of government?
Why are so many libers opposed to environmental policies like global warming remediation?
Isn't libertarianism just pie-in-the-sky philosophy with no chance of working in the real world?
The Legitimate Role of Government.
Since this is his blog, Markos's essay The Case For The Libertarian Democrat seems like a good place to start:
these [left-leaning libertarians] were people who didn’t instinctively reject the ability of government to protect our personal liberties, who saw government as a good, not an evil, but didn’t necessarily see the government as the source of first resort when seeking solutions to problems facing our country. They also saw the markets as a good, not an evil, but didn’t necessarily see an unregulated market run amok as a positive thing.
Not to suck up to the big guy, but that's a very good summary of why I'm a libertarian. Government can do good in people's lives but it can't solve every problem, nor should it try. Markets (which are really just the sum total of many people's freely made decisions) work well for many very important parts of our lives. But by their nature, markets need rules and an appropriate level of regulation actually makes markets work better.
And through markets and free choice people can pull themselves out of poverty, build just societies and lead good lives in the pursuit of happiness.
Non-Agression Principle: But in order for us to meet these ideals people must be free from the coersion of others. They must be free from fear of persecution for their believes and they must be free to own the fruits of their labor.
That brings us to one of the most important jobs government has. Only the state, with its monopoly on the legitimate use of force, can prevent Hobb's "war of all against all". A government which respects and enforces the Non-Agression Principle(NAP) scores high marks with libertarians.
The NAP can be stated in many ways. Epicurus put it:
The justice of nature is a pledge of reciprocal usefulness, neither to harm one another nor be harmed.
The Wiccan Rede (any libertarian Wiccans out there?) says:
An it harm none, do what thou wilt.
A more work-a-day definition might just say:
Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
But however you phrase it, protecting the safety of people and their property (without violating the NAP itself, Mr. Bush) is the first job of good government.
A Libertarian Platform: The NAP is a great philisophical starting point, but it doesn't answer many very important questions about how to govern in the real world. For that you have to look at many situations and figure out how to apply your core principles. You also have to look at the real world to see if your "solutions" actually work. One thing I like about libertarians is they tend to be very emperical. As my tag line says, "Results count for more than intentions do."
The Democratic Freedom Caucus has a good model platform for a left-leaning libertarian. Alec82 pointed them out in the comments to my first diary. I hadn't been aware of them before that. I agree with at least 90% of their platform, so just to save space, I'll ref them. We can talk about any specifics in the comments.
Libertarian Environmentalism.
Patrickz asked
What is with libertarians and climate change? Every libertarian I know is allergic to the subject.
This is one place where I differ from mainstream libertarians. There are some problems which really do require collective action and which can not be solved at the local level. Climate change, and environmental issues in general, are in this catagory.
Libers are very concerned about private property rights. In my view, this is a good position since my property is the result of my time and my labor. That is to say comes from me. The mass movement from serfs to freemen was one of the most important events in human history. People taking the control of property (including the people themselves) away from kings and strong men and back for themselves, reduced human suffering and misery more than any other innovation since agriculture.
But, in protecting property rights, libers tend to ignore the downstream consequenses of private actions. Technology has increased our ability to affect the world and increased the distance at which those effects are felt. If a new parking lot in Nebraska can increase the chances of flooding in New Orleans, how can zoning be a strictly local issue? Our current ethanol policies increase the number of acres used to grow corn. That increases fertilizer and fertilizer run-off. And that drives the Gulf of Mexico's dead zone.
These are not strictly local issues.
Many libers think that the right answer is to force industries to internalize the costs of their down-stream effects. Either through taxes (called Pigovian Taxes if you want to impress your friends) or through cap and trade systems. There are good points and problems on both sides of this arguement.
BTW, thanks for reading this. The secret Mojo word is "open hand". Use it in your comments.
I don't know enough to say what the right answer is in all cases. In theory, I should prefer cap and trade. But, as the European experience show, setting the inital cap and allocating the tradable credits can easily be manipulated by powerful special interests. If the special interests "capture" the regulators, the cap and trade system will be worthless.
OTOH, Pigovian Taxes are also vulnerable to captured regulators and other political influence. So we are probably stuck with a combination of the two and the duty to keep working harder to achieve our ultimate goals.
Libers In The Real World.
Several commenters thought that libertarianism is an ivory tower philosophy that can't work in the real world. Or that only works in good times, with self-proclaimed libers running for the government's skirts at the first sign of trouble.
History proves this view wrong. The original Classical Liberals, from whom I take my name, were not hot-house flowers. They were people like Jefferson, Paine, Madison and Jay, who wrote the core of libertarianism into the heart of our nation:
Personal Liberty
Limited Government
Seperation Of Powers
Local Control Whenever Possible
I've wrote about these in my first liber diary and here, so I won't repeat myself.
It's enough to say that the US, as the first nation formed from a philosophy instead of a territory, used to be much closer to the principles I've described. And I think we would be better off if we could get back to them.
And Enough Is Enough.
I'll try to respond to all serious questions and comments, but last week I was completely overwhelmed. Good discussion was coming in about once per minute and I accidentally ticked off a couple of people I respect. Just because I was in a hurry and posted 1/2 thought out replies that didn't really say what I wanted to say.
I don't want that to happen again. So please excuse me if I don't reply to your question. I'd rather save the good ones for another diary than to toss out a one-line reply.