In a post on “Libertarian Schisms,” economist Arnold Kling tries to figure out whether he’s a Rothbardian or a Hayekian.
To do so, he asks himself several questions, the first of which is:
1. How are willing are you to talk about compromises with the state as it is?
My answer is, “very willing.” For example, when I talk about raising the retirement age for Social Security, that is a compromise relative to “abolish Social Security.”
I justify this not on the basis of political pragmatism but on the basis of self-doubt. I believe that the state could reduce or phase out Social Security without harmful consequences, but I am not certain of this. One can imagine potentially harmful consequences, including repercussions that ultimately harm the cause of liberty. In general, I think in terms of incremental steps and experiments rather than in terms of the ultimate libertarian ideal. The much-ignored Unchecked and Unbalanced champions those sorts of ideas, even as it aims for an ideal that is very different from our current form of government.
This is the sort of thing that is often said to make Rothbardians sound ridiculous. They won’t accept anything less than the abolition of social security — and that, of course, means they’re nuts!
But I’ve never met a Rothbardian who would disapprove of raising the social-security retirement age or consider it a “compromise.” To the contrary, it is a partial repeal — fewer people are entitled to taxpayer money than before — and therefore laudable.
A “compromise” would be something that substitutes a new government program for an old one, as in the case of so-called “privatization.”
It also isn’t un-Rothbardian, as far as I can tell, to think strategically about what advances toward liberty should be made before others. For example, some Rothbardians have thought about what the consequences might be of allowing open borders before repealing the welfare state — much to the dismay and disgust of certain “Hayekians.” (Unreasonable radical that I am, I say open them now anyway.)
I should add that Kling’s post does rightly suggest that most people who call themselves libertarians really aren’t too far apart on the vast majority of what matters, and the differences between them are primarily, though not entirely, ones of tone and emphasis. More talk about what we have in common, in addition to what divides us, would probably be beneficial.
{ 13 comments }
The main problem as I see it is that Rothbardians only ever discuss things in terms of “anarcho-capitalism” and never in terms of small steps toward a freer world. I’m sure all Rothbardians believe small steps in the direction of freedom are good… But how many of them actually approach debates that way? Very few. Most are firmly rooted in the extreme version of their point of view.
It doesn’t mean they’re wrong, but by the same token they shouldn’t be surprised when people label them as unreasonable extremists. If you want to appear rational, then you shouldn’t immediately jump to your most extreme viewpoint. If, for example, you disagree with the local PTA, you shouldn’t bring up the abolition of public schools. It’s going too far, too fast.
Again, it doesn’t mean you’re WRONG, it just means that if you approach the discussion that way, you’ll get labelled an extremist.
I’m just saying.
It is a common distortion of Rothbardianism to argue that Rothbardians are “left-sectarians” (to use Rothbard’s definition). This is because Rothbardians oppose the endless sell-outs of the “right-opportunists,” especially when they advocate an expansion of government (for example, a proposal to “privatize” Social Security or a defense of increased government spying).
Rothbard opposed both deviations and advocated a middle ground. While never losing sight of the final goal, Rothbardians may push for partial repeals of government (for example, many prominent Rothbardians often argue for enforcement of the Constitution). On the issue of government schools, I usually tend to argue for a reduction in school funding rather than full abolition, as I understand that reducing funding for government schools will help parents to remove their kids from these schools (you’ll be hard-pressed to find many parents who wouldn’t do so if they had the opportunity). When enrollment is reduced in the government schools, arguing for abolition will be easier (although I think the average American is much further along on this issue than we give them credit). The key is that you never argue against total abolition or imply that you would oppose a larger reduction.
Yes, there are sectarians in the libertarian movement, but they are not Rothbardian (even though they are usually anarcho-capitalist). One example of sectarians would be the anti-voting fanatics who argue that voting is per se immoral (rather than just ineffective/irrational). Another example would be those “libertarians” in New Hampshire who run around getting themselves arrested for stupid things and pretending that they are achieving something (also in this group are the people who pretend that they don’t have to pay income taxes if they recite some magical incantation to a government bureaucrat who is paid his salary via income taxes). Another group of sectarians are the retreatists who decide that the real world is beyond redemption and either abandon the cause or retreat into the middle of nowhere to hide from the world. Another group would be those “libertarians” who claim that it is immoral to use “public” property (in its extreme form, this takes the form of “using government roads is evil,” but a more moderate form is “working for a government university is evil per se”).
On the opportunist side are the “libertarians” of Washington, DC who are infamous for their endless sellouts and for smearing more principled libertarians.
The Rothbardian position stands in the middle-ground between the “sectarian” crazies and the “opportunist” sellouts.
SS is a pyramid scheme. Is a Rothbardian or anyone else a party pooper or an extremist for wanting to shut down the scam as quickly as possible? Is it more reasonable to advocate that the people who are near the top of the pyramid, who are shortly expecting a payout from the pyramid scheme, should be paid off? What kind of “compromise” is it if instead of shutting it down right away you pay off the people at layer 0 and layer 1 of the pyramid scheme but then claim that you will cut off the people below them? No wonder these “reforms” are non-starters.
Someone who goes to the PTA and simply announces that public schools should be abolished and then sits down again is not arguing well and could not be called reasonable. But someone who patiently and clearly explains that virtually all of the many problems experienced in the schools happen because they are conceived and operated as a coercive monopoly, and that the only real solution to a coercive monopoly is to dismantle it as soon as possible, is not unreasonable and is not an extremist.
“Small steps” to correct a coercive monopoly are no step at all, if they do not acknowledge or in some way correct the fundamental problem, namely, that a coercive monopoly is by definition the organized use of violence to force the public into a scheme which they obviously would not choose if given the freedom to do so (or else there would be no need to compel them with violence). Most of the time when people propose “small steps” to correct a problem like this, the steps turn out to be deceptive or superficial window dressing (like charter schools and school vouchers) which in no way diminish the money, power and privileges which have been seized by the people who control the system.
If the bank around the corner from you was robbed every day, would you be an extremist for saying that the money should be moved into a secure vault and the bank should be permitted to guard the vault with armed guards, and that this should be done right away? Or is it more civilized to tell the thieves, OK, we’re going to ask you to cut back to robbing the bank only every other day, and would you please limit your robbery to no more than 10% of the money on hand, if we promise to buy you a new house and car and give all your children scholarships to the college of their choice? That is the kind of piecemeal “reform” which non-Rothbardians usually propose. They fail to understand either private property or freedom and their proposed reforms are worthless non-starters.
Rothbardians are the only people who have the solution, because they are the only people who speak the truth and who consistently apply the logic of freedom, peace and private property to problems in society.
Ryan makes an excellent point, but Ohhh Henry’s retort is also on the mark.
The Rothbardian’s biggest challenge is to get a foot in the door. The average person will reject anarcho-capitalism out of hand. He won’t listen past the first few sentences. End of dialogue.
This unfortunate fact presents the Rothbardian a dilemma. Do I, at first, propose some mild amendments to the status quo, something the listener may buy into, and then later work toward a fundamental change?
Another challenge for the Rothabardian, when trying to convince others, is the transformation from the State to anarchy. That’s unknown territory. People are afraid of the unknown. Rothbardians can suggest what might happen or ought to happen, but of necessity they’re guessing as to what actually would happen.
A third challenge is something Guard brought up earlier on a different thread: a potential conflict between the ownership of one’s person and the ownership of land. If libertarians cannot figure out a satisfactory resolution, then libertarianism itself is suspect.
As Guard pointed out, the ownership of one’s person is irrelevant if one is not allowed to occupy the ground on which one stands. If one owns no land, and there is no land to be homesteaded in the vicinity, and no one wishes to rent or sell on reasonable terms, then one’s person is in jeopardy.
On an island, for example, if the owners decide to expel Joe Blow, for whatever reason, he could end up drowning. He doesn’t own a boat or a plane. No one will rent him one. He can’t swim. He’s doomed.
Should the owners be compelled to rent him a boat or plane? Should the owners be compelled to rent or sell him land?
There seems to be a contradiction, here.
One more comment, and then I’ll leave the topic to others for now.
For those of you who consider yourselves Rothbardians: Think back to when you became a Rothbardian. Were you convinced because someone proved to you, unequivocally, that the state is corrupt and needs to be abolished? Or, did you gradually take on a Rothbardian point of view after a long period of analyzing various points and principles and ultimately concluding that the state is an unworkable solution to any problem?
My guess is that most of you came to your conclusion gradually. It would be a minority of you who immediately went from being advocates of statism to being advocates of “anarcho-capitalism.”
So keep that in mind when you debate the issues. People don’t want your ultimate conclusion rammed down their throats. For other people, questions like “how do we improve public finance?” have nothing to do with the abolition of the income tax. Again, this is **NOT** because you are wrong as a Rothbardian, it is simply because they are not mentally prepared to approach the issue from the standpoint of total abolition.
If you truly support anarcho-capitalism, then your task is not to give someone an ideological ultimatum. That’s not convincing. Your task might simply be to analyze the available, feasible, and publicly paletable solutions to current problems and provide a convincing logic in support of the least restrictive available option.
Is it perfect? No. Is it what Rothbard would want or would do? No. But could you actually make a positive change to your immediate world? I think so.
Sometimes you have to meet people where they are, that’s all. You might be right – but who cares how right you are if you can’t convince anyone?
“…raising the social-security retirement age or consider it a “compromise.” To the contrary, it is a partial repeal — fewer people are entitled to taxpayer money than before — and therefore laudable.”
To say that raising the retirement age is a partial repeal of social security is laughable. Taxing away incomes and then withholding them from the rightful recipients of that wealth for a longer period of time (aka raising age of retirement) does not make us in any way more free. It seems to me as though withholding my money not only gives bureaucrats an even greater opportunity to spend money that is not theirs, but it also makes the aggression against me that much worse, especially if for one reason or another I am financially dependent on SS incomes.
The lifeboat dilemma is I think well addressed here. The resources of the world are rare, and in the case of a lifeboat or a tiny island, resources are so rare that some people will die. The question is, what is the most fair and just basis to determine who should live or die? If the ownership of private property is used as the primary determinant then this is more fair and better for society, because to work hard and honestly acquire property is just. Arbitrarily awarding life and death by other criteria, such as by lottery or by politics is inherently unjust, as it requires the theft of private property in order to implement.
In practice I think you will find that hardly any people have ever been killed or abandoned to starve and die due to libertarian practices involving lifeboat situtations – but tens of millions have been killed by coercive practices.
As for shocking people with libertarian rhetoric, I remember that I was quite shocked the first time someone told me that he considered all taxes to be stealing. I wasn’t ready for it and I didn’t understand it. But I’m very grateful that he told me that. Why beat around the bush? You have to tell the truth first of all, before anything positive can happen. The truth is that coercive monopolies are violent, self-serving to the elites, destructive to the majority, and are impractical and immoral no matter how you slice it or dice it.
Brad writes:
“To say that raising the retirement age is a partial repeal of social security is laughable. Taxing away incomes and then withholding them from the rightful recipients of that wealth for a longer period of time (aka raising age of retirement) does not make us in any way more free.”
If the government does not raise the minimum age for SS benefits, it will have to do something (ultimately, tax or inflate) to raise the money it needs to pay everyone. Taxation and inflation certainly makes us less free.
And of course the government isn’t just “withholding” the money you’ve paid it in SS taxes over the years — it has already transferred that money to someone else. If you want to be “paid back,” the government is going to have to tax someone else to do that.
Ryan: well said.
Ohhh Henry: I wasn’t referring to the lifeboat dilemma. In my scenario, all persons can survive.
The owners, for whatever reason, dislike Joe Blow. Maybe he looks different. Maybe he’s left-handed. Maybe he said something nasty to the owners.
OH writes: “As for shocking people with libertarian rhetoric, I remember that I was quite shocked the first time someone told me that he considered all taxes to be stealing. I wasn’t ready for it and I didn’t understand it. But I’m very grateful that he told me that. Why beat around the bush? You have to tell the truth first of all, before anything positive can happen.”
The interim goal of Rothbardians is to convince others that anarcho-capitalism is the best way to go. Whatever method works.
But I doubt whether a single method is best for all.
Ohhh Henry, Brad, you are half right. Just raising entitlement ages (while still taking just as much from people paying in) is not a partial repeal. But raising entitlement ages and cutting back the take to match is a partial repeal – take it far enough and it is all gone. For some years I have been advocating an incremental elimination based on this, involving slowly pushing back entitlement ages (more slowly than calendar time, so individuals don’t have it receding indefinitely) and also gradually bringing forward a cut off age at which people would stop paying in (rather than simply reducing the take from all payers evenly). That would open up an age range window/wedge in which the system was effectively repealed that would eventually grow to be the whole (and in which people could afford to save for the first part of their retirement), without ever leaving anyone in the lurch. I have further discussion of it here and here (via this).
Anyhow, the larger point is that you often can find useful transitions that don’t compromise the essence of what you are after, if you look hard enough. Age benefits is just the particular case you brought up, in which at first sight we don’t see a useful transition – but it still has one.
Incrementalism is a part of human nature. It is closely related to evolution. Humans can adapt to almost anything if it is incremental.
States grew incrementally and states should and will go away incrementally.
But there shouldn’t be any compromise regarding the ultimate goal.
“A “compromise” would be something that substitutes a new government program for an old one, as in the case of so-called “privatization.”
Horsehocky.
Compromise substitutes illusion for truth.
What is the difference between incrementalism and compromise?
The truth is that if you want a state and I don’t then leave me out of it.
The same could be said of evolution. Are all humans ‘evolving’ toward an ‘ultimate goal’? What truth dictates “the ultimate goal”? How do we know?
….and further, if someone else thinks they know what goal I ought to ‘evolve’ to, does it grant that person the priviledge to alter my evolution?
I sought to engage a Rabbi once by offering to trade hats. I respect his response: “Each must wear his own hat.”
I think Rothbard would agree.
There is a big difference between championing the half-measure as an end, and speaking well of the half-measure as a step toward morality. Rothbardians are the ones who call for an end to the violence, but are happy to see others make the small steps.
Comments on this entry are closed.