« On the Road Again | Main | Libertarian Democrats, Revisited »

June 13, 2006

Libertarian Democrats

I am probably the last person in the blogosphere to get around to Markos Moulitas' essay about Libertarian Democrats, but I'm not too proud to jump in late. Particularly in this case, as his attempt to strengthen his party by appealing to libertarian sensibilities is a song I've often yearned to hear. In many areas I am far closer to Democrats than I am Republicans: abortion and the death penalty spring immediately to mind as examples. And with the Republican party having given up even paying lip service to the concept of limited government, the Democrats are the only other game in town that's going to govern, so it would be nice if they took some steps to bring some libertarians into the fold. Unfortunately, I don't think Kos' Libertarian Democrats are a direction likely to bring me into their camp.

Kos gets off to a bad start by demonstrating that he doesn't really understand libertarianism. Government isn't evil per se, it's simply a tool for accomplishing things. What I fear about government is that it is entirely too easy a tool to use, and therefore tends to tempt those in power to use it to accomplish more and more goals. There are some areas that require government to be effective: environmental protection springs to mind, as there isn't another way to attach the costs of negative externalities beyond government. Businesses are not going to police each other without government interference, because the benefits of cheating are too great. The same is likely true of my profession: without government, groups of people are unlikely to properly fund defense because when it is done right, you don't see the return on your investment. (Peace is, due to our good fortune as a nation,deemed to be the default condition of mankind by most Americans, a belief that is wholly at odds with human history.) Even when defense is the responsibility of the government, America has habitually shortchanged it; a history of the wars of the United States is a history of building a new army for each new conflict until Korea, a luxury we may no longer possess. Contract enforcement is another major function of government. What makes capitalism work is the existence of a neutral third party that has the ability to enforce contracts, so they become binding documents rather than words on paper. In each of these cases, government is of great value. Unfortunately, government is so effective at putting things into place (please note that this is different from being effective at doing things well; when you have a monopoly on the use of force, you can make things happen quite effectively, even if the things you're doing are ultimately ineffective) that people want to use it for their own purposes. Don't like seeing some people do better than others? The power of government can take from the rich and give to the poor on a far greater scale than Robin Hood ever dreamed. Concerned that your neighbors are performing sexual acts of which you disapprove? With government behind you, you can break into their bedroom and put a stop to that. If you have a cause you'd like to see put into action, government is your preferred tool. Not only does it provide a force greater than anything private enterprise can bring to bear, it adds a degree of legitimacy to your policies by calling them laws. Further, unlike traditional uses of force, because government force is so overwhelming it can generally get by with the threat of force, meaning it's far more socially acceptable. No, government itself isn't evil; but it tends to be used for bad ends, and that's why I want it curtailed as much as humanly possible.

Kos then argues that libertarians fail to comprehend the danger of corporate power to coerce. He's certainly correect that modern corporations have a great deal of power, and that they're able to use that power to mold the business environment in their favor. What he fails to realize is that the only way they can do that is by co-opting the power of government. No business can force anyone to buy their products. That's the basis of the capitalist system: I have something you want, you have something I want, so we trade and we both feel like we're better off for the deal. Business can only coerce by getting the government to do so for it, through tariffs or import duties or regulations. Up where my parents live, they now have to get their septic system inspected regularly, whereas they once could do so when they chose. In that case, business did use its power to coerce, but it is still the government that is ultimately forcing people to frequent businesses. So while I'd like to see the power of businesses reduced, the fact is that the best way to do that would be to reduce the ability of the government to coerce people.

Where do libertarians differ from Democrats? According to Kos, libertarian Democrats also believe the following:

A Libertarian Dem believes that true liberty requires freedom of movement -- we need roads and public transportation to give people freedom to travel wherever they might want. A Libertarian Dem believes that we should have the freedom to enjoy the outdoor without getting poisoned; that corporate polluters infringe on our rights and should be checked. A Libertarian Dem believes that people should have the freedom to make a living without being unduly exploited by employers. A Libertarian Dem understands that no one enjoys true liberty if they constantly fear for their lives, so strong crime and poverty prevention programs can create a safe environment for the pursuit of happiness. A Libertarian Dem gets that no one is truly free if they fear for their health, so social net programs are important to allow individuals to continue to live happily into their old age. Same with health care. And so on.