Issue 21.2 of the Journal of Libertarian Studies offers a variety of perspectives on constitutional interpretation, American democracy, and alternatives to state provision of law, prisons, and welfare.
- Defenders of the welfare state often assume that without tax-funded aid to the needy, private charity would be inadequate to fill the gap. In “The Costs of Public Income Redistribution and Private Charity,” James Rolph Edwards challenges this assumption. Thanks to competition, Edwards argues, private charities are more efficient, rarely losing more than 30% of their revenue to overhead, compared with the 70% absorbed by overhead in government welfare programs. Private charities also have a better track record than welfare programs in helping recipients become independent, while lacking the negative impact on economic growth (and thus on the source from which charitable provision derives) that comes with forcible redistribution. Hence, Edwards concludes, there is every reason to expect private charity to be far more effective than government programs. (Incidentally, a reader recently pointed me to this New York Times story complaining that “[f]or every three dollars they [private donors] give away, the federal government typically gives up a dollar or more in tax revenue, because of the charitable tax deduction and by not collecting estate taxes.” It might be worth keeping Edwards’ data in mind in evaluating such concerns.)
If, as libertarian anarchists contend, competitive, market-based legal institutions are more economically efficient than monopolistic governmental ones, why don’t anarchist proposals encounter a more favorable reception? In “Democracy in America and the Possibilities for Law Without the State,” Brian Smith argues that in assessing the prospects for statelessness we must take into account not only economic incentives but also cultural values. Drawing on Alexis de Tocqueville’s account of how the democratization of culture erodes aristocratic mores and promotes political centralization, and noting that such aristocratic mores bear a strong resemblance to those which govern stateless societies, Smith suggests that democratization accordingly poses an obstacle to the successful implementation of a stateless legal order. But Tocquevillean considerations also afford the anarchist some reason for hope, as increasingly effective means of communication foster the media’s role in building private associations.- That the Jacksonian Democrats were far from libertarian in their policies on slavery and Indian relocation is well-known; but with regard to the liberties of whites, or at least of white males, they are often credited with a proto-libertarian commitment to economic individualism and laissez-faire. In “The Limits of Jacksonian Liberalism: Individualism, Dissent, and the Gospel of Andrew According to Lysander Spooner,” Raymond James Krohn argues that the Jacksonians were far less pro-market than their reputation, and contrasts their record, which Krohn sees as patriarchal and conservative, with that of their contemporary, radical libertarian Lysander Spooner. Krohn regards Jacksonian opposition to the Bank of the United States, for example, as motivated more by a general distrust of mercantile society than by the kind of specifically libertarian opposition to governmental grants of monopoly one finds in Spooner. Even Spooner’s challenge – both in his theoretical writings and in his entrepreneurial practice – to the U.S. postal monopoly contrasts with the Jacksonians’ defense of the postal monopoly as a tool of political patronage.
- The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 case Kelo v. City of New London, upholding the right of local jurisdictions to employ their eminent domain powers on behalf of private developers, has divided libertarians. For some, the Court should have struck down the local statue as a violation of property rights and an illegitimate stretching of the concept of “public use.” For others, the Court should have declined jurisdiction in the interest of federalism and decentralization. Laurence M. Vance falls into the latter camp; in “The Kelo Decision and the Fourteenth Amendment.” Vance argues that the Bill of Rights, including the constitutional restriction on eminent domain, was originally intended to apply only to the Federal government and not to the states, and that, contrary to the doctrine of “incorporation,” nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment is properly interpreted as extending the Bill of Rights to the States. Vance also maintains that our liberties are better protected by decentralization than by centralism; that government has been seizing so much property for so long and for so many purposes at both national and local levels that Kelo can hardly constitute the watershed threat to property rights that its critics have implied; and that the Kelo decision has actually helped the cause of property rights by inspiring a flurry of state-level legislation limiting eminent domain.
- In “Eminent Domain and Economic Development: The Mill Acts and the Origins of Laissez-Faire Constitutionalism,” David M. Gold takes a less favorable view of Kelo than does Vance (and also, it turns out, a more favorable view of the Jacksonian Democrats than does Krohn). For Gold, Kelo represents the Court’s continuing decline away from the laissez-faire constitutionalism of the Supreme Court’s Lochner era, when local violations of property rights were frequently struck down by the Supreme Court. This laissez-faire constitutionalism has often been interpreted as a defense of wealthy business interests against anti-business legislation; Gold argues, by contrast, that laissez-faire constitutionalism originated in a Jacksonian defense of ordinary people against pro-business legislation – of which the Mill Acts (essentially the exercise of eminent domain on behalf of mill owners) represent a paradigm case.
- Alexander Tabarrok’s anthology Changing the Guard: Private Prisons and the Control of Crime brings together a number of essays defending the privatization of prisons. In his review, Daniel J. D’Amico praises the collection for the extent to which it breaks with conventional wisdom, but nevertheless finds fault with most of the contributions for their reliance on a social-contract theory of state legitimacy and a confusion of genuine privatization with the mere contracting-out of government services. The chief exception, D’Amico maintains, is Bruce Benson’s chapter, which identifies the aggressive character of the state, and argues that the contracting-out of prison services achieves only technological efficiency, while falling short of the allocative efficiency that actual privatization would bring.
- The system of customary law which has traditionally prevailed throughout most of Somalia is often viewed as an archaic impediment to legal progress. The late Michael van Notten’s book The Law of the Somalis: A Stable Foundation for Economic Development in the Horn of Africa, completed by Spencer Heath MacCallum, argues that Somali customary law is actually superior to statutory law, and provides a promising basis for a system of prosperous freeports without central government. (See also other recent discussions of Somali statelessness here.) In his review, Norbert Lennartz recommends the book as useful to several different audiences: libertarians and students of law and social science, who can learn about another successful example of stateless legal order; entrepreneurs, who could benefit from the favorable economic climate offered by Somali law; and Somalis, who could usefully implement van Notten’s and MacCallum’s suggestion of clan-owned freeports.
Subscribe now and receive a PDF of the current issue immediately!
{ 10 comments }
These articles look wonderful. Especially the first, I have been wanting to see a systematic Austrian approach to welfare vs charity. The pieces on private prisons and Somalia will also be of use.
I am always astounded that people who are such great advocates of the market don’t actually learn from the markets! It’s not just the Austrian School, but our Australian libertarians as well. If they put out a magazine, it is done with dull covers! As an advertiser once said, you don’t sell the steak, you sell the sizzle! It’s almost as though we feel that we should be ashamed of our ideas, so we’ll deglamourise them!
When I looked at these, I saw nothing particularly glamourous.
If I were to produce a libertarian magazine, it would have a beautiful, scantily-clad woman on the cover, whose clothes were being ripped from her by bureaucrats, with the punchline of ‘Governments keep taking more and more, and leaving us less and less!’ In reality, most libertarians seem to be men, so you might increase your audience share that way.
A pro-market magazine that doesn’t use market nous- it seems like you don’t believe what you are saying! Start glamourising the covers, please!
Nick,
There may not be many libertarian women in Australia, but the numbers here in the states are growing. As a matter of fact, my friend just got on the ballot and is running for a top office in a local election. I’m helping her with her campaign.
As a third-party candidate, will she get elected to office? No. But the campaign will enable us to reach out to even more men AND women by providing education in basic libertarian philosophy.
Additionally, by the time the Ron Paul meetup groups complete their mission, which is to spread the word about Dr. Paul and libertarian principles, there will be even more of us. You have no idea how gratifying it was after spending a weekend distributing literature and talking to people about his campaign, to see at day’s end a young woman pulling her child along in a wagon to which a Ron Paul bumper stick had been attached.
Australia lacks female libertarians, that is true. To adjust to the US market, you could have a handsome man also being stripped. However, what I said about covers still holds true- we need more street savvy!
For instance, we have a small-government magazine called ‘The IPA Review’. The cover is usually bland. One recent issue had a great picture, inside the mag, of a giant praying mantis about to attack a young man and a woman, with only a ray-gun to defend themselves. The caption was something like, “Don’t let things get this bad! Subscribe, and defend freedom now, so eventually, you won’t have to!” It was a great ad, but it should have been on the outside!
These articles are of an academic content. They are not libertarian fluff. I agree with Nick that more glamorous covers would be appropriate, though being intellectual materials I do not think covers of a sexual nature are appropriate.
That ‘preying mantis’ picture could have been on the cover, and done just as well, Anthony! And it’s not the only example of bland covers. I think all our magazines and books should be stuff that we could put into waiting rooms, and be sure that they were noticed. To the other people- being bland and unread is not great marketing! Can’t we put just a smidgeon of sex-appeal into our publications? (A smidgeon, of course, is a very small pidgeon. The sex-appeal of a smidgeon is very small, even to other smidgeons, so it shouldn’t offend even young kids.)
I wasn’t disagreeing with you, I do think some colour and lustre would be nice (a la the Economist though, not Vogue), even for intellectual works. But I think the newest Mises publications are attractive books, and retain their sense of intellectuality, so perhaps all the journals need do is emulate their publication MO.
Anthony, I think you are right, though I’d be prepared to try out a sexy cover or two, and see the results. Women’s faces appear on women’s mags, because men like good-looking female faces, and women want to know how to look that good! We should use these facts- perhaps you could get one of the Olsen twins to pose for you, as an example of the benefits of free enterprise!
…though being intellectual materials I do not think covers of a sexual nature are appropriate…
Thanks, Anthony. It’s better that you said it. I didn’t want it to look like I was some feminist going postal. I really wouldn’t want Mises publications to start looking like the tabloids.
By the standards of academic journals, the cover of the JLS is pretty snazzy-looking. Making it look more like a popular magazine would, I tend to think, make it look less classy and would make it harder for it to be taken seriously as an academic journal.
Comments on this entry are closed.