Pubdate: Fri, 18 Jul 2014
Source: Washington Times (DC)
Copyright: 2014 The Washington Times, LLC.
Contact:  http://www.washingtontimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/492
Author: Jeffrey Miron
Page: B4

A CASE FOR THE LIBERTARIAN

Neither Liberals nor Conservatives Recognize Their Inconsistencies

A crucial feature of libertarianism is consistency:

It applies a skeptical lens to all aspects of government, whether
economic, social or foreign.

As the American political scene becomes ever more polarized, citizens
of all political views have tired of both the liberal and conservative
perspectives. The two "mainstream" perspectives strike many as
inconsistent and hypocritical, and far more similar than different.
Both advocate large and intrusive government, albeit in different
arenas, despite rhetoric that claims otherwise. What these
disillusioned Americans really want is libertarianism, which advocates
small government across the board. Misleading or one-sided
characterizations notwithstanding, libertarianism is precisely the
"third way" that many Americans desire.

Libertarianism is not the claim that individuals are always rational,
or that markets are always efficient, or that the distribution of
income under laissez-faire capitalism is always "fair." Rather, it is
the claim that, despite the imperfections of private arrangements,
government interventions usually make things worse. Thus,
non-intervention is the better policy.

Libertarians, for example, oppose drug prohibition because it
generates more harm - violent black markets - than drug use itself.
Libertarians oppose many economic regulations because they entrench
the large existing firms that can more easily absorb the added costs,
thereby reducing competition and harming consumers. Libertarians
oppose foreign interventions because they cost far more than initially
acknowledged while failing to help either America or the target
countries. Libertarians also oppose numerous interventions, such as
trade restrictions or agricultural subsidies, because they distort
market efficiency while arbitrarily enriching some Americans at the
expense of others.

A crucial feature of libertarianism is consistency: It applies a
skeptical lens to all aspects of government, whether economic, social
or foreign. In every case, libertarianism asks calmly but rigorously
whether intervention actually yields better outcomes, regardless of
whether that implies a "conservative" or "liberal" policy conclusion.
Libertarianism sticks to its principles.

Conservatism, in contrast, claims allegiance to individual freedom yet
happily endorses drug prohibition and bans on homosexual marriage.
Conservatism asserts affection for free markets, but endorses crony
capitalism, such as the Export-Import Bank. Conservatives are
enthusiastic about foreign policy interventions when a Republican
controls the White House, but far more skeptical otherwise.
Conservatives endorse states' rights regarding gun control, but not
abortion, drug policy or same-sex marriage.

Liberalism is no better. It defends a woman's right to choose an
abortion, yet challenges parents' right to choose parochial schools
for their children. Liberals rant about poverty yet object to greater
low-skill immigration, which would help people far poorer than most
existing residents. Liberals criticize foreign-policy interventions
when Republicans control the White House, but support them more
readily when a Democrat is in power. Liberals are equally inconsistent
as conservatives on states' rights, just in the opposite direction.

Thus, libertarianism differs radically from both liberalism and
conservatism. It opposes crony capitalism for energy companies,
whether green or fossil. Libertarians oppose federal policies in favor
of state control, whether regarding guns, schools, marriage, abortion
or drugs. Libertarians oppose government infringements of personal
liberties in all areas, save cases where one person's freedom harms
another's (e.g., murder).

This consistency does not, by itself, make libertarianism "right," but
it shows libertarianism's unique perspective on government.
Libertarianism holds that government causes many current problems, so
more government is unlikely to reduce these problems. The best
approach is to remove the existing government that causes or
exacerbates the problem in the first place.

Can libertarianism command substantial support from the American
electorate?

Hard-core libertarianism - the version that opposes almost every
government policy adopted since the 1790s - does not (yet) have wide
appeal. Truly minimal government seems to scare many people (even
though the United States became an economic and military power over
its first 100 years or so with far less government than now).

"Soft" libertarianism has considerable appeal, though, since many have
come to recognize the negatives of too much government. A 2010 study
by my Cato colleagues David Boaz and David Kirby characterized 14
percent of American voters as libertarian. A 2009 Gallup poll
estimated 23 percent as having libertarian views, and a Zogby poll
found that 44 percent identified as libertarian, agreeing their views
were "fiscally conservative but socially liberal."

This degree of support does not mean libertarians can yet win national
office, but they can push conservatives and liberals toward more
consistent views. Libertarian-leaning liberals can nudge Democrats to
support cuts in entitlements so these programs do not bankrupt the
country. Libertarian-leaning conservatives can push Republicans to
support marijuana legalization, expanded immigration or homosexual
marriage out of genuine respect for individual liberty. The
combination could create a "libertarian-middle" that all politicians
would have to accommodate.

The time is ripe for this libertarian awakening.

Jeffrey Miron is director of economic-policy studies at the Cato
Institute and the director of undergraduate studies in the department
of economics at Harvard University.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt