Locke and Load

Critique of the Critique, Part Two (Immanuel Can Version)

(My cohort tore into Michael Huben's essay ahead of me, so I have edited my post a bit to spare you any redundant redundancy.)


Huben: [A libertarian's] isolation from normal political discourse makes it difficult to evaluate libertarian claims without much more research or analysis than most of us have time for.

This is itself an unusual, isolated claim. It is unclear why a discussion of the function of government would require any research at all. Certainly most thinking men should be able to enunciate their own beliefs on this subject without prior research.


Huben: [Libertarianism is] a mixture of social philosophy, economic philosophy, a political party, and more.

I disagree, although some libertarians might not. I would define libertarianism as the system of the ethics of governing that most emphasizes the sovereignty of the individual man.


Huben: Libertarians are ... utopian.

This is a compelling -- but ultimately inaccurate -- claim. Utopians strive for a perfect society. Libertarians strive for a perfectly free society, which the libertarian Cato Institute famously reminded us is inevitably a messy place.


Huben: Property is theft.

How so? From where I sit, this wealth-guilt, strength-guilt and possessions-guilt appears far more dangerous than any housing bubble. To say "property is theft" is not to stop at land ownership. That toaster oven you love so much? Property? The dog asleep at your feet? Property. Governments that preserve our right to private property preserve our sovereignty as individual men. And in that, protect our homes, our toaster ovens, our dogs, and, yes, our land.


Huben: Taxation is part of a social contract.

The "social contract" is nothing more than our current network of federal, state, and local laws, and laws -- as we all know -- can change.

It bears mention that -- for government to preserve rights -- a government of some description must exist and fund itself. In shorthand: taxes are necessary. Liberals often unfairly paint libertarians and free market conservatives with too broad a brush stroke. It is not taxation itself that is misguided. It is -- first and primarily -- the funding of unnecessary services with taxes in lieu of user fees that is unconscionable.

It is, second, the forceful nature of tax collection, which violates the sovereign nature of individual men. A voluntary system, or a lottery, would encourage nearly as much participation with a fraction of the bureaucracy.

And it is, third, the net negative effect of wealth redistribution. We have seen after decades of wasteful spending on wars against poverty, wars against drugs, wars against famine in Africa, and wars for the shoreline that poverty, drugs, famine and the ocean are still winning. It is not that one extra dollar that will lead us to victory against poverty. It is something more fundamental. And libertarians believe that this "something more fundamental" is the improved preservation of rights.

Lastly, it is the progressive nature of federal taxation. Earned income tax credits notwithstanding, no man should pay a higher percentage of his taxes than another man.

Huben spends the next six questions of his FAQ lingering on this "social contract" point, to which I can only answer: social contracts change. I know of no libertarian whomsoever who takes legitimate, substantive issue with the social contract. Without one, how else will government preserve rights?


Huben: [Libertarians complain that they] can't emigrate because there is no libertarian nation.

Again, did a libertarian actually write this? I must confess I agree with bits and parts of his answer until he arrives at his conclusion: "The free market of government services essentially guarantees that there is no such thing as the free lunch libertarians want. It's not competitive." This is a silly and misplaced metaphor that earns a comment all its own.

Comparing nations for possible emigration is nothing like comparing products for sale in a free market. Graphs like this one and this one clearly demonstrate this point. Most of the nations of the world have, in general terms, a No Vacancy policy. Living in the United States distorts that world view somewhat, since (at least on the bureaucratic level) we are generally welcoming toward tourists and visa applicants, and generally tolerant of illegal immigrants. Imagine a "free market" in computers wherein the bestselling laptop only allowed 73.5 percent of able buyers to actually buy.

And on the "free lunch" remark, it is impossible to reconcile this outlook with the reality of libertarian thought. A self-governing advocate wants to opt-out of social security, opt-out of the government school program, opt-out of the public health system, and -- in the hypothetical event that we find ourselves there one day -- opt out of nationalized food programs, housing programs, and medicine programs. I am unclear on how this represents "free lunch."


Questions #15 and #16 again pertain to the social contract nature of governing, which we have already addressed. Huben's answer for #17 and reads: Absolute ownership of property is fundamental to most flavors of libertarianism.

Guilty as charged. The only alternatives to "absolute ownership rights" seem to be "relative ownership rights" and "no ownership rights." The expression "relative ownership" reads like an inherent contradiction in terms, and summons memory of the recent Kelo decision. The term "no ownership rights" summons thoughts of Haiti. The subject author -- or any self-identifying liberal who stumbles upon this question -- is invited to correct me.


Huben: It is wrong to deny the validity of the current system of limited ownership of property. For example, a clear statement of such an "easement" is in the Fourth Amendment, which essentially says that the government can enter your property with a valid search warrant and not be trespassing. There are many existing limitations such as government rights to tax and to zone property, limitations to ownership of navigable waters, how far property extends to the water, etc. And sometimes new limitations are specified, such as non-ownership of airspace above property.

This paragraph simply confuses "what is current" with "what is right." Again, the bigger, more pertinent question is this: how is "relative ownership" not a contradiction in terms? And how can any erosion of "absolute ownership" not gradually, inevitably lead to Kelo-styled decisions on behalf of the Supreme Court and the lower courts?



To question #20, which is Think how much wealthier we'd be if we didn't pay taxes, Huben responds: This is a classic example of libertarians not looking at the complete equation for at least two reasons. (1) If taxes are eliminated, you'll need to purchase services that were formerly provided by government. (2) If taxes are eliminated, the economics of wages have changed, and wages will change as well.

Frankly I agree with both the question and the answer. If taxes and protectionism were eliminated, men at the individual level we would be only a little wealthier. This incremental amount represents efficiencies in competition not present in government monopoly, which are, in turn, slightly mitigated themselves by their own diseconomies of smaller scale. If -- where there was formerly one public school that served my area -- there are now two private schools, competition between the private schools would keep costs a bit lower. Liberals will immediately race toward the most extreme example and write, "Public schools charged based on the value of your property, not by the number of kids you have in school. Imagine a family with ten kids: through the public system, they would pay only once. Through the private system they would pay ten times." I have to concede that point. Yes, having ten kids is expensive. That is what home schooling is for. And home schooling, my friends, is free.

At the national level, though, we would be much wealthier without taxes and protectionism. Products, individual corporations and entire industries would sell or not-sell based on utility, not political favor or disfavor. Innovation would would be fierce because competition would be fierce.

Part Three to come.

posted by Immanuel Can't @ 7:30 PM