Cato Unbound Case Study #1: How not to persuade libertarians.
I am beginning to believe that libertarians will indeed vote Democrat in November because, as is occasionally pointed out, complete government gridlock is as close to libertarian principles are we are likely to get on a national level. This is something libertarians can figure out all on their own without any help. Really, we can.
I am, however, completely certain that the Democrats beating the libertarian drum at Cato Unbound this month have no idea what it takes to persuade a libertarian and are doing nothing to attract libertarian voters to the Democratic ticket this November.
The latest example is Harold Meyerson’s reaction essay, and the first thing I want to say is that the theme of my critique is not specific to Harold’s essay but carries through to the other essays from this month by Democrat drum-beaters (for purposes of this post we’ll call them Kos, Bruce and Harold).
And here’s what I don’t understand–each seems to have one or two decent thoughts about why it’s useful for libertarians to vote Democrat this November, at which point Kos and Bruce and Harold are immediately struck with amnesia about why they are writing in this month’s Cato Unbound at all as they proceed to attack libertarianism and prop up Democrat proposals, principles (such as they are) and ideals. I’m just at a complete loss as to why any of these writers think this is a good idea. Isn’t it enough to make a simple, effective point and go home? Do any of them really believe that they are going to convert libertarians to Democrats at Cato Unbound? That we are going to see the miracle that is the Democratic Party? If so, pass a generous amount around of whatever we’re smoking, boys!
The further they dig, the more they reveal the basic incompatibilities between modern liberalism and libertarianism, the more they themselves show why anything more than a temporary, gridlock-inducing alliance for this election cycle is a bad idea. If the purpose was to encourage anything more, it is failing miserably. Someone on their side needs to grab them, shake them vigorously, and say “SHUT UP ALREADY!”
The reality is that libertarians are going to get partway through Harold’s essay nodding their head, then go “WTF?? Ah yes, this is exactly why I’m not a Democrat.” At this point I’m torn between pointing out the various slams of libertarians and libertarianism in Harold’s essay vs. breaking down some of his lefty “logic,” so I think I’m just going to satiate my desire for the former by pulling some bit quotes to point out how condescending Harold is towards libertarians:
As for pure libertarianism, by denying a role for the state and dismissing the threat to liberties increasingly posed by the dominant corporate sector, it is about as germane to the American future as Trotskyism.
It is to point out that regulation is often the only way to protect encroachments on individual freedoms.
They may be civil libertarians and to some degree social libertarians, but they’re not economic libertarians. And for good reason: Economic libertarianism has never been more preposterous.
Ultimately, the Democrats aren’t going to proceed very far down the libertarian road, for one simple reason that’s far more pragmatic than philosophic: It doesn’t lead anywhere.
I think those pretty much speak for themselves, eh? But just in case they don’t, here’s my general, all-purpose libertarian response to Harold’s dismissiveness: Get bent. Now, to address specifically some of Harold’s points:
To argue, as a classic libertarian might, that a consumer is as free to switch banks as a bank is to sell its data neglects to note that a bank that doesn’t sell its data is at a competitive disadvantage with one that does, and a consumer who can’t find a privacy-protecting bank is simply out of luck. In short, the free play of markets can be a threat to individual freedom, unless individual freedom is a term that applies only to businesses and not to their consumers or employees or the people who must breathe their pollutants.
Of course a bank that doesn’t sell data is going to be at a disadvantage, nobody said the market is required to offer you a banquet of options all at the same price! Here’s a market flash for you Harry: sometimes, just sometimes, in life you have to make decisions that involve paying more for features you want. Being a libertarian is about placing value on things that are important to you and being willing to make financial choices based on your priorities. And if not enough people value banks not selling their data off such that banks universally do, maybe you stuff your money in your mattress, or put it in a safety deposit box, or whatever, but don’t come to us trying to sell us on the idea that the government is better at determining what I should think is important than I am, and you certainly should not be entitled to reduce my options by forcing banks not to sell information. Maybe I value the reduction in the cost of banking more than I believe there is a risk regarding the sale of my data. My choice.
For the dominant social fact in America today is this: The corporate safety net is fast disappearing. Risk has been transferred to the individual—a decision in which individuals, as such, haven’t had a say (though their apprehensions about privatizing Social Security did nip that idea in the bud). Corporate pensions are vanishing and 401(k)s don’t provide equivalent retirement security. Fewer and fewer companies are offering medical benefits, even though corporate profits are at a 50-year high as a percentage of GDP. Companies that persist in offering such benefits are placed at a disadvantage when their competitors don’t.
If employees place a high value on such benefits, then the best employees will work for the companies in a market that provides them the greatest benefit (according to their priorities and values and balanced by the demand for people of similar qualifications). Having an advantage in employees confers a competitive edge that maybe evens the playing field, or maybe it doesn’t and you have to find other ways to be competitive. Again, an easier job if your benefits package attracts the best employees. What even employees are realizing is that the skyrocketing cost of pensions and medical insurance does impact a company, sometimes significantly. Would I rather work for a company that has a sustainable long-term plan of good matching 401k contributions, or would I rather live my “safe” working life with a company that has a pension plan, only to find out 30 years later that they can’t pay for it? Then I become dependent on the government. Yippee. Maybe, just maybe, the answer is that Americans have to save more. Maybe, just maybe, privatizing Social Security isn’t the demon Harold makes it out to be. Maybe Americans could save more if our tax burden were decreased.
Having a libertarian system is not without personal and individual risk. It is not about everyone getting the best services, the best medical care, the best retirement plans. It is, however, about sustainability. Social Security and Medicare (or Universal Health Care)–not sustainable. Then what? Tax more. Take away more of everyone’s income at the point of a gun.
Yes, I’m persuaded. Persuaded that the only reason I would ever vote for a major party would be because I believed gridlock is the best available option. Persuaded more than ever that the Democratic Party is inherently incompatible with libertarianism and libertarian principles. Thanks much Kos, Bruce and Harold, I can only assume based on what you wrote that this is what you set out to accomplish. Mission Complete.
on October 10, 2006 on 10:05 pm
I left my flirtation with libertarian politics for two reasons – the unwillingness of most libertarians to recognize the loss of liberty that concentration of power represents when it was non-governments having that power, and secondly the not crediting of government of any type or form with any benefits.
Supposed “pure” libertarians should just give up and call themselves anarchists so the establishment moms are happier when they are shot down in the streets.
on October 11, 2006 on 1:19 am
“Libertarian Democrats” — Part Three
Next up at Cato Unbound’s series on what libertarians may or may not have in common with Democrats is Harold Meyerson, editor-at-large of The A…
on October 11, 2006 on 12:44 pm
Poor Walt. Only a hack like Meyerson would take a sublime concept like containing contradictions and grind it into a pedestrian notion like contradicting himself.
Meyerson’s piece is thin gruel and addled also. There is no insight, and just what the hell does he mean when he throws around terms like “classic libertarian” or “pure libertarian” or “balance of forces in capitalism”?
His piece was poured out of the top of his head in one 30-minute sitting and is nothing but his anti-corporatism insincerely dressed up. One thing, Harold, if a corporation ever treated my intelligence with as much contempt as you just did, they wouldn’t continue to have me as a customer.
on October 11, 2006 on 8:30 pm
Surfed over here from the left side of the blogosphere. I think your criticism of Meyerson’s tone is dead on, though I must say that your rebuttal to his critique of libertarianism is thoroughly uncompelling.
It seems to me that ideologically committed libertarians are best served by divided government. But, although Meyerson and Kos are clearly the wrong messengers, there’s a case to be made for people with libertarian leanings to gravitate toward the Democratic Party. But it’s going to boil down to how one comes to terms with situations where the market, as it currently exists, fails to provide an acceptable range of choices for those who care about privacy and financial security.
If you genuinely would rather hide your money under your mattress than accept state interventions in the financial sector, and if you would rather die under a mountain of debt than see government intervention in health care, then the Democratic Party has nothing to offer you. And perhaps for the average reader of Cato Unbound, the philosophical commitment really is that strong. If so, then so much the worse for the Democrats.
But I just don’t see any evidence that any banks are actually offering customers the opportunity to pay a little more to keep their personal data secure. Nor do I believe that the fault lies in insufficient desire among consumers for this service… it is simply more profitable for each bank to continue carrying on business as usual. Nor do I believe that citizens in a free society should be forced to choose between hiding their money under their mattress and shouldering major risks to their personal security. By the same token, our health care system is broken. Healthy young people pay massive health insurance premiums to cover the cost of the uninsured, deducted directly from our paychecks, and the functional difference between such premiums and a TAX are essentially non-existent. Except that tax-funded health programs don’t have to pay for executive perks and shareholder benefits. The only real alternative is to go without insurance, accept massive personal risk, and increase the costs for everyone else.
I think many libertarian-leaning folks, concerned about their freedom, privacy, and economic security, ought to be willing to take a long, hard look at the various ways in which regulation or subsidization of certain sectors of the economy can advance individual privacy, improve choices in the marketplace, and remove massive inefficiencies stemming from market failures. These decisions should not be made be an ideological commitment for or against state intervention, but on a case by case basis.
If you ultimately conclude that doctrinaire libertarianism is more personally appealing, more power to you. But I daresay that anyone who can look at the way our economy currently operates and believe that major corporations need MORE leverage to dictate the terms of the marketplace… well, I guess the nice way to put it is that I will never, ever understand.
on October 11, 2006 on 8:44 pm
“But I just don’t see any evidence that any banks are actually offering customers the opportunity to pay a little more to keep their personal data secure.”
I don’t personally know of any “mainstream” banks that offer this service . . . because I haven’t investigated it. It doesn’t sound to me, though, as if you have either. I think that puts us on roughly equal footing. I do not think it is illogical to say that if enough people thought there was sufficient value in extra protection for their data, there would be a bank that offered such a product/service. I believe certain foreign institutions do agree to keep information confidential (and that the services of such banks are more expensive than the standard American isntitution), so I do not know what would prohibit a domestic banking institution from doing the same.
“Nor do I believe that the fault lies in insufficient desire among consumers for this service”
I would be geniunely curious to see citations to studies that support your assertion here. It is not enough that consumers vaguely desire such a service, it has to be an interest of sufficient priority that they are willing to put a price on it and pay that extra price.
on October 12, 2006 on 12:08 am
Hey Random,
In the Social Democrat wonderland of Europe, corporations actually do enjoy the kind of market controls you find so threatening. In full-bore capitalism, corporations are much less able to control the more robust markets. Libertarians 1, Liberal philosophy 0.
Two of the many problems with subsidizing health care:
1. Hospitals’ customer surveys find a range of patient behaviors, from the “fix me’s” who show up for every bump or itch to the opposite extreme where patients avoid regular check ups and seek medical attention only once a condition is well advanced.Only a small segment, some 10-15 percent, are intelligent, low-cost users of medical care.
2. Most medical care does not provide real benefit. Only about 10 percent of medical (trauma care, vaccinations, etc.) is of unquestioned cost benefit. A majority of medical care could simply be dispensed with wth no great impact on the nation’s overall health.
These unproductive behaviors and unproductive technologies have become entrenched on account of third-party payers removing individual responsibility/accountability. Now, you asked they be be forcibly subsidized. They then become all but immune to improvement. Libertarianism 2, Liberal philosophy 0.
Finally, banks aren’t going to stop tracking your private transactions because they are required to by the Nanny State, the better to help the State stop the spread of drugs, crime organizations and now terror. Libertarians 3, Liberal philosophy still 0.
The hallmark of classic liberalism/libertarianism is that the locus of control for personal decision making lies with the individual. Progressives/liberals on the other hand believe the locus of control should reside with wise elite councils, like Hillary Clinton and Ira Magaziner locking themselves in a room for a month and deciding how health care will work for all of us. The only way the two philosophies can be said to be mixing is if people are unclear on the basic definitions in the first place. Some liberals claim they are libertarians for no better reason than they think pot should be legal, for example.
So, please keep your oh so prudent regulations away from my personal decision making.
on October 12, 2006 on 4:31 am
Fusion Democrats
At Cato Unbound, Harold Meyerson is continuing the Libertarian Democrat tact that Kos started. It wasn’t very promising when Meyerson admitted he…
on October 12, 2006 on 3:41 pm
Ahh, I knew someone would step up to the plate.
I’ve already wasted too much of my life arguing these issues, Charlie, and I’m quite sure that neither of us will ever convince the other of anything. But I’d still like to point out a few cracks in the plaster…
First of all, knee-jerk Euro-bashing is an automatic points deduction. Crying out “Look, Sweden!” is not a compelling argument in favor of laissez-faire capitalism.
Meyerson called himself a “social democrat”. I did not. However, in Europe, market controls go hand in hand with increased regulation of the market in the public interest. There are often fewer choices, in the sense of different businesses to choose from, but there are often better choices, in the sense that minimum benefits are guaranteed by law. Personally, I think the European system is in many ways worse than ours, due to the undemocratic insulation of EU bureaucracies from public accountability. Yet a legal framework forbidding exploitative and harmful business practices is no more coercive or harmful to my freedom of choice than breaking up the local mob’s protection racket. And speaking of the mafia, they sure did turn up in force when the Chicago School got their hands on Russia’s economy, didn’t they?
As for health care, it’s certainly true that most medical spending is wasteful and 3rd-party payment is largely to blame. But where is the libertarian solution that ends 3rd-party control of health care payments? Are you planning to ban private insurance and risk pooling altogether? Have you found an insurance company that promises to reject everyone else’s frivolous claims yet allows you to make your own medical decisions? Cause I’d love to get in on that deal.
And have you noticed that France spends a lot less on health care than we do, and does a much better job of reducing frivolous expenditures? A liberal economist would note that the state, which has to get its funding pushed past tight-fisted taxpayers, has no profit-seeking middleman, and has an unmatched economy of scale, is better equipped to manage health care than the marketplace. And this is backed up by ample evidence.
People aren’t rational actors, and certainly not in matters that touch upon life and death. They’re selling longer life, and we’re buying. This is not an arrangement that works on simple supply/demand curves.
When you write that “the hallmark of classic liberalism/libertarianism is that the locus of control for personal decision making lies with the individual,” you are absolutely correct. But I believe this has moved entirely into the realm of myth. Look around you. How much control, in this economy, do you actually have over your personal decision making? How much time and energy do you have to research all of your options and read all the fine print? How much leverage do individuals have over the choices offered by corporate conglomerates, who ruthlessly cut costs and extract profits from their customers or perish? How much privacy will you sell to marketers? Democracy and free markets check and balance each other nicely. An excess of either one at the expense of the other is a mistake.
I see individual freedom on the wane. And the liberal “nanny state” is an increasingly trivial concern, when compared to the conservative Daddy State and the neoliberal Negligent State.
Again, I don’t fault those who choose an idealized philosophy of liberty and stick to it come what may. Your choice. But in terms of actual OUTCOMES, the arguments to defend libertarian economics are threadbare.
on December 5, 2006 on 10:22 pm
[...] I really like his thought process. I’ve read some pretty ardent objections (Here’s 1 and here’s a second and here’s a third) from “true” libertarians and they do have a point. However, it rings true for me personally. Moulitsas’ description of the Libertarian Democrat has about the same political lens that I use. The nuts and bolts of my political beliefs (outlined in this essay) is the of idea maximizing personal liberty and while utilizing government policies (where appropriate) to protect those freedoms. The progressivism for the new century as he says. Good stuff… [...]
on February 22, 2007 on 6:59 am
beautiful