The Role of the State: Who Decides?

“Libertarians are people who see the game for what it is and want to change the rules.”

Replace “libertarians” with “marxists” and you start to see how similar all ideologies can be.

Trying to rule out a vast range of values from the political sphere by constitutional means will fail. Under enough pressure, the constitution itself will be changed, via amendment or reinterpretation.

That is actually the beauty of Libertarianism in my opinion. The Freedom to make adjustments in an ever changing world. It’s when we allow our emotions to drive our decisions and not the underlying values of freedom and liberty that we falter. The Patriot Act is a perfect example. Even the name is emotional.

@Chris. You can substitute any ideology and the effect is the same. Tea Party, Democrat, Parliamentarian, Facism, you name it.

It is a little odd that it is “hopeless politically” since “democracy necessitates…”

As if democracy were the only political system it were even possible to conceive of with the mind’s eye.

“Wolf writes as if these decisions are made communally, like we all get to sit around a campfire and decide what government should do.”

Well we do have elections. Some states even have ballot initiatives that directly decide issues.

” The reality is that people in office have much more influence than the rest of us. And they are inclined to think that the optimal scope of government is always larger than whatever it is now. They are never-enoughers.”

Five years ago the people in office wanted to reduce the scope of government by privatizing the biggest federal program. Despite months of speeches by the President the effort failed because it was unpopular so there are limits to how much influence the people in office have.

Isn’t Wolf’s point that it’s not politically feasible to have libertarian “rules of the game” , given that so many people don’t see those rules as legitimate? That strikes me as a fairly good point, one that I have not heard libertarians address in a satisfying way. The only way I see is to convince lots of other people to be libertarians, either through argument, or by having a good example to point to.
This not to say libertarian policy prescriptions are wrong- I think many of them are right on, but I still haven’t heard a solution to this problem of political economy.

[Libertarianism] is hopeless intellectually, because the values people hold are many and divergent and some of these values do not merely allow, but demand, government protection of weak, vulnerable or unfortunate people. Moreover, such values are not “wrong”. The reality is that people hold many, often incompatible, core values. Libertarians argue that the only relevant wrong is coercion by the state. Others disagree and are entitled to do so.

Wolf tries to make it seem like libertarianism is a rejection of certain values, e.g. protection of the weak. But this is a mistake: libertarians do not reject those values, but the means chosen to achieve them. Libertarians claim that the free market is the best means to achieving protection of the weak, and that government is actually counterproductive. The debate is fundamentally about means, not ends.

From Greg:

The OTHER reality is that those who, according to libertarians, are the high achievers and winners of our “little games we play with money” get to BUY way more control than they should have.

Buy from whom?

Wolf writes: “[S]ome of these values do not merely allow, but demand, government protection of weak, vulnerable or unfortunate people.” But the strength of these values declines as the group expands, from *fellow citizens* through *fellow legal residents of one’s country* (including resident aliens) and *fellow residents of one’s country (including even illegal aliens)* all the way to *fellow human beings*. So would Wolf also hold that anti-nationalism (cosmopolitanism) is “hopeless intellectually.” Is his underlying principle that anything you can’t sell to the masses is “hopeless intellectually”?

Not quite. His key additional premise is: “. . . such values [concerning the weak, vulnerable, and unfortunate] are not ‘wrong’.” (But he really needs to say: “. . . such values are not wrong,” without the shudder-quotes; I shall so interpret him.) If he tried to defend this undefended premise, I think he would fail.

He adds: “Trying to rule out a vast range of values from the political sphere by constitutional means will fail.” But that’s what a constitution is *for*!

“The reality is that people hold many, often incompatible, core values.”

To my mind this is the strongest argument for libertarianism: it demarcates a personal sphere in which we may justly impose our values by force (ie. on ourselves, and our property). This means statists don’t get exactly what they want, but only in so far as getting what they want would deny others the same opportunity. The statist view, on the other hand, seems to be “might makes right”, and to hell with the losing viewpoints.

Yancey

What, you think a man was walking down the road one day thousands of years ago, looked off to the side and said “Hey, there’s some money, I’m gonna buy me some wheat and a tunic with that”?

We invented money. It is not OF nature. States started requiring certain things to be used as money and today they are a complete result of state control. The state gets to say what is and isnt money.

You may not like it but thats how it is. There are some good things about this reality and some bad things. Not much different than anything else in this regard. Money is as natural as government, all societies have developed both eventually.

No, I’m not in favor of abolishing legal tender laws at this time. Could I be persuaded that this might be a good thing under certain circumstances, maybe, but in general I dont think legal tender laws are THE PROBLEM.

Its you who is mistaken.

Yancey

Modern money is a state creation. States decide what is legal tender what is necessary for tax settlements etc.

All early societies discovered a type of money, but only states have been able to take it to the level we have today.

I lament the power of money when it is not controlled by the people (thru their elected state). It has been turned over to private interests who insist all kinds of stupid debt ceilings and requirements that spending is offset $4$ with bond issuance. The bond markets and private banks are now able to tell Greece that they are paying their workers too much while they push for higher interest rates (so they can make more money without doing any “work”) This is the travesty. This is the control that has been bought.

So, I want the state to use its monetary powers for the people and not just for a select few bond traders. The state has a responsibility to all people, not just those who have accumulated much (by hook or by crook). We will not get rid of the state, lets make it work for us and not work us over.

Rob – I took Kling as making exactly the same point as Cowen. Parts of Wolf’s critique may hold for libertarianism as a moral philosophy, but none of it contradicts the libertarian conclusions of public choice theory. Once again, consequentalism wins.