I won't quite agree with you - it's not anti-statism, it's pro-individualism. They all want to be John Galt.

One thing that's fun to do, in a mean sort of way, is to point out to a libertarian that, since regulation clearly has economic impacts on people and firms, it's economically rational for people and firms to attempt to buy and sell regulation - i.e., for there to be a market in regulation. (This isn't novel; it's what Stigler won a Nobel for, more or less.) When they start to sputter "regulation bad!" you say "so you think it's better for the economy if you outlaw the market in regulation?" And when, in short order, you get them to agree (the time it takes them to agree is directly proportional to their intelligence), you follow up with "how can the market be free if you've outlawed the trade in regulation?" and "now that we've agreed on the principle that some economic goods should not be traded, why stop at regulation?" and so forth, until pity overwhelms you.

I too disagree with your assessment of Libertarianism (the kind associated with the Libertarian Party) as mainly a stupid and reflexive anti-statism. The key to understanding the "libertarian" position is contracts. They reify and deify the concept of the contract, and nothing that regulates or modifies or supersedes the private contract is legitimate in their view. To me this is simply an insane way of looking at social arrangements, but it's the libertarian way. A government that enables the enforcement of private contracts and protects the contracting parties from outside interference (like with military force keeping out invaders) is well within the range of approbation of libertarians. They're not anti-state, insofar as the state protects and allows the free exercise of the private contract. A sorry world view indeed.

Setting aside whether it's a "sorry world view", free exercise of private contracts are a huge part of what drives the free market.

Libertarians are pro-market, and we're pro-market because it's in line with our first principles, but also (for those who don't share our principles) because it works well. High-minded as they may be, tate-planned economies tend to not work well because they offer bad incentives. And as you might have heard, people respond to incentives.

It's true that many libertarians are more anti-state than they should be (e.g. not recognizing that carbon regulation can be as useful as beneficial an activity for the state as providing for the common defense). There are exceptions to everything. The point of the libertarian movement is to point out that, overarchingly, the principle of reducing state interference is better for the market, and thus -- in aggregate -- better for everyone involved.

You're certainly right that that's the theory, but in my experience with libertarians, I don't really buy it. Like any other ideology, I think it's pretty tribal, and the tribe, in this case, is mainly defined by its enemy, which is the government, and to some degree, liberals. That's not to say liberalism is any better -- I think it's righter, of course, but no less a collection of human resentments and loyalites -- but libertarianism has somehow done a better job wrapping itself in empirical rhetoric. But there's not enough internal consistency there to support it.

libertarians are anti-state only until the mob gets to their gated community

I love it! A long post about a longer article all concerning none other than Megan McArdle, in which her name is not mentioned even once.

not sure what I think, but I found this cranky but goodhearted essay illuminating on the issue of what to think of the libertarians:

Are you a Real Libertarian, or a ROYAL Libertarian?

http://geolib.pair.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

I guess I like the libertarian fringe more than the comfortable CATO libertarians, sleek-headed and such as sleep o' nights. Also worth noting is John Emerson's maxim: A Libertarian is a Republican on drugs.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but your social affinity for libertarians is rooted in your blogospheric social circle, right? I mean, why would you be writing this post if it weren't for the Megan McArdles and the Reihans of the world? It's all nice in theory, but the point is that it is nowhere near to an objective description of the real world. That's what's so frustrating about the libertarian blogospheric/think tank ascendancy. That you feel the need to write a post to 'explain yourself' for your social interactions with these people, which is perfectly natural for a DC blogger, is kind of an insult.

Gherald-

Liberals are pro-market because they recognize that it works well and that people respond to incentives.

Libertarians are something else entirely.

If you're contending that the point of the libertarian movement is to try to get the word out about the benefits of free markets, then congratulations. You've done it. Market economies are probably more popular than chocolate chip cookies. This would make the libertarian position completely uninteresting. The debate has moved on, out into the nitty gritty politics of exactly which markets may need a little more or less regulation and exactly how to do it.

If on the other hand you're saying libertarians hold the more radical, fundamentally anti-state view that "reducing state interference is [always] better for the market", then libertarians are uninteresting because they're just demonstrably wrong.

Also woth reading, the "Critiques of Libertarians" Quotations page:

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/quotes.html

Came across it while looking for this Daniel Davies quote:

"People seem to be faintly drawn to the idea that there might be more political dimensions than just "left" and "right". Bullshit. Being in favour of allowing other people to take drugs, shag each other or read what they want isn't a political position; it's what we call "manners", "civilisation" or "humanity", depending on the calibre of yokel you're trying to educate. The political question of interest splits fair and square down a Left/Right axis: either you think that it is more important to provide a decent life for everyone in the world, or you think it is more important to preserve the rights of people who own property. You can hum and haw as much as you like about whether the two are necessarily incompatible, or whether the one is instrumental to the other, or what constitutes a "decent life" anyway, but when you've finished humming and hawing, I'm still gonna be asking you the question, and your answer to it will determine whether or not we're gonna have an argument."

Daniel Davies, d-squared digest, December 31, 2002

Libertarians are the handmaidens of corporations.

Liberals are pro-market because they recognize that it works well and that people respond to incentives.

Libertarians are something else entirely.

If you're contending that the point of the libertarian movement is to try to get the word out about the benefits of free markets, then congratulations. You've done it. Market economies are probably more popular than chocolate chip cookies. This would make the libertarian position completely uninteresting. The debate has moved on, out into the nitty gritty politics of exactly which markets may need a little more or less regulation and exactly how to do it.

Agreed 100%. Markets work. I don't think most people dispute that in the slightest. The question is what to do in the case of market failure - and to agree on when the market may reasonably be said to have failed.

And that's where the tribalism comes in, it seems, as well as the reflexively oppositional stances that sometimes manifest. There is also the problem that libertarians like to think of themselves as reasoning from an axiomatic system based upon consistent definitions, rational postulates and logical 'common notions', a parallel to Euclidean geometry as it were. I don't know if this is just another signifier for the tribe, but it definitely hampers any sort of discussion that goes anywhere, this insistence from the very beginning that you acknowledge that they hold the high ground. For a lot of other people however, it seems to be a sign of immaturity at best, bad faith at worst.

And I think it would be fair to say that, pound for pound, libertarians garner more accusations of bad faith than just about any other tribe. This would seem to be highly significant.

There are two aspects to libertarianism. There are the useful idiots who believe in some sort of Ayn Rand like utopia where individuals are free to do what they like (as long as the state enforces their property rights for them).

Then there is the institutional libertarianism which is found at Cato, Hoover, Heritage, U Chicago and George Mason U, among others.

These institutions all get their funding from an extremely small set of super wealthy rightwingers: Koch, Scaife, Coors, Mars, etc. Without their constant funding, the flacks that they employ to spout pseudo-economic arguments would not be heard.

They are happy to have the scholarly-appearing veneer put over their real efforts which are to improve their personal economic status. They allow the institutions to preach "free market" while they, themselves, work behind the scenes to get favorable tax breaks and other handouts from the government.

The estate tax issue is a perfect example. Eighteen families spent several hundred million dollars to fund the "death tax" campaign, but they stand to save billions in taxes as a result. Just the Walton family alone will save $40 billion if the old rules are not re-instated.

Here's a report on how they did it:
http://www.citizen.org/documents/EstateTaxFinal.pdf

I bring this up because if you lookup the names in the report in a place like Media transparency you will see that they are mostly the same group that keeps the libertarian "think tanks" alive.

If libertarianism was such an appealing philosophy it would exist elsewhere in the world. It doesn't because the US is the only place where such a set of fringe ideas is kept on life support by the plutocrats.

There is obviously a problem with the label "libertarian" in that no one agrees what it means. Just like "liberal" doesn't mean "anything goes" and "conservative" doesn't mean "nothing changes," there is a wide spectrum of beliefs in libertarianism. Like every other ism, there are crazies and zealots.

I see libertarianism as being protective of personal liberties from various possible tyrants including government, corporatists, beaurocrats and "majority rule."

The US constitution is very libertarian, in my opinion.

Gentlemen should not argue about values. Libertarianism, for the true libertarians, is all about values.

Libertarians support "free markets", a redundant phrase, because they are moral. Not because they make anyone better off. That is why liberals support "free markets". Markets are moral because freedom is moral.

The idea that "freedom is moral" is a value, in the same way that lying is wrong is a value. Don't criticize libertarians for holding this value, and they will be unlikely to criticize you for your values. Even if your values include stealing :-).

The idea that "freedom is moral" is a value, in the same way that lying is wrong is a value. Don't criticize libertarians for holding this value, and they will be unlikely to criticize you for your values

No one would give a shit what values libertarians hold were it not for the fact that they demanded some influence on what the government should do based on their "values."

Hey Tyro,

You could say the same for liberals. The difference is many libertarians believe, rightly or wrongly, that their values come from logic and reason.

I've heard it argued that liberals "feel" that they are right, so they are right. It's not the same kind of structured and logical morals that many libertarians base their policy preferences on.

I could go into much greater detail, but the point is the two views are utilitarian in different ways. For libertarians, utility = freedom. For liberals, utility = ?... I'm not really sure. I'm tempted to propose that it = absence of suffering, or absence of struggle, or some silly definition that society is only as well of as its least well off person.

stan, this is why people argue about values. If you don't want to argue about your values, stay the hell away from demanding a say in what the government does. Then libertarianism can remain where it belongs-- the talk of second-string economics conferences and late-night college bull sessions.

Libertarians support "free markets", a redundant phrase, because they are moral.

Markets were invented by man to serve man. Man is not on this earth to serve markets.

It should also be noted that "free markets" is not at all a redundant phrase. There are many different kinds of markets, some more free than others.

A few days ago, there was a particularly embarrassing series of posts on the Corner in which Jonah Goldberg took great umbrage at the characterization of markets as "pricing mechanisms"--and not, I guess, the greatest moral achievement of all mankind. Other Corner writers tried gently to bring him down, but Jonah was having none of it. I suspect a couple days in an Introduction to Microeconomics would work wonders for a lot of self-described libertarians.

Libertarianism is so wrong it can't be proven wrong. Like Communism, it can't be enacted.

Freedom, yes. But give people democracy, and they vote for a robust state (I'm not arguing they're right to do so). They never vote for libertarianism.

So you're in the position, then, if you want a polity consistent with libertarian principles, of enforcing freedom. Which is of course not consistent with libertarian principles.

I don't understand libertarianism.

For libertarians, utility = freedom. For liberals, utility = ?... I'm not really sure.

Really? You're not? Does the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number" really ring no bells in your head? Who on earth put the term "utility" in your brain if he didn't put that other bit there? Fred Flintstone? Mothra? Mister Moonlight?

Being in favour of allowing other people to take drugs, shag each other or read what they want isn't a political position; it's what we call "manners", "civilisation" or "humanity", depending on the calibre of yokel you're trying to educate.

This is also the root of the problem karsten points at: libertarianism is unstable because not enough people want it, so it would have to be enforced on them against their will, which is un-libertarian. IMO, parts of the U.S. constitution are precisely this kind of "you'll take your freedom (and give it to your neighbor) whether you like it or not" regulation.

When individual freedom conflicts with democracy, you can generally find me on the side of individual freedom; but IMO, corporations aren't individuals and aren't entitled to freedom, whatever other legal fictions we may apply to them. Corporations are tools created to serve the interests of their owners; when they serve those interests by endangering the interests of others, they become dangerous instruments that must be restrained or destroyed to defend their victims. Freedom for corporations is as ridiculous as freedom for chainsaws, and probably more dangerous.

I also think that nearly all present-day corporate CEOs are guilty of massive breaches of fiduciary duty, primarily their grossly inflated salary and benefits packages and other ways of using the corporation's assets to benefit themselves at shareholder expense. Would you buy a share in that?

Needless to say, these are not views likely to endear me to corporate-funded think tanks or their partisans. I could try to claim to be more libertarian than thou, but to what end? My views are my views; make up whatever labels you like, Humpty Dumpty style.

And then there are spaces where corporations want to profit from a service the government currently controls -- like Social Security -- and libertarians are quite happy to create an ideological argument for corporate self-interest

Both you and Yglesias use this as an example. Just because there is a convergence of interests does not mean there is a deliberate alliance.

For instance, Obama has proposed increasing the army and marine corps by about 90K people. No doubt, this be be a great boon for the company that makes uniforms. Do you think Obama has proposed this increase in end strength to benefit the military industrial complex?

"Libertarianism is so wrong it can't be proven wrong. Like Communism, it can't be enacted....I don't understand libertarianism."

You are close, but asking the wrong question. Don't try to understand libertarianism. Better is to try to understand "libertarians".

Back about twenty years ago I lived in a town with a libertarian bookstore. There was a poster in the front window of the Bill of Rights with a red stamp over it saying "void where prohited by law". I occasionally went in and chatted with the owner. I didn't often agree with him, or buy anything, but he was an interesting guy.

Then I went for some years without really paying attention. Perhaps ten years or so ago I started noticing self-described "libertarians" whose point of view seemed pretty much entirely unlike that bookstore owner. Where he had been about individual rights versus government intrusion, the new breed seemed warmed-over Chicago-school econ types with a bit of ideological embellishment.

The comparison to Communism is the key. These are the guys that thirty or forty years ago would bore you in college bull sessions with earnest proclamations of the wonders of Marxism to create a better world. Then there was a shift, and that type went libertarian.

In both cases there is a beautiful argument from first principles that makes absolutely perfect sense, if you don't factor in the real world of real people. There is a sort of intellectual idealist attracted to such schemes. Most grow out of it, eventually.

I'm enjoying these comments.

However, Tyro wrote "Markets were invented by man to serve man."

Sorry, markets weren't invented. They exist because we exist. They exist because of human's propensity to trade. They were not invented to serve man, although they do a hell of a job.

And to Herschel, who said liberals want the "greatest good for the greatest number." Define good, define number, and then we'll talk.

I'm interested in hearing more about how the New Deal and other moves in that direction paved the way for our current corporatist culture. I'm also interested in hearing of ways that this can be beaten back. Would it have something to do with limiting the influence, in some ways, of money in politics?

Define good, define number, and then we'll talk.

Look, you claimed that you didn't know what liberals meant by utility. If what you were really saying is that you don't know what "good" and "number" mean, then that's what you should have said. I must say that not to know what those things mean is a rather embarrassing admission that I would be loath to make myself, but then I'm not you. Do you really suppose that, in general terms, what is "good" for people is in dispute? I mean the obvious things, like food and shelter and medical care? I know libertarians don't think these things should be the aim of social arrangements (i.e., politics), but you're saying they're not obviously or necessarily even good? That really makes me sick, as does the libertarian project generally, I wish you all luck sleeping nights.

P.S. "Number" means something like "how many". Oh, and P.P.S.: Practically no one agrees with you.

Right-wing "libertarian" ideology is not "anti-statist".

Most are in favour of a minimum state, one which exists to defend private property and the social hierarchies it creates.

The few who call themselves "anarchists" simply want the functions of the minimum state privatised, in other words private cops enforcing private power.

In America until the 1970s, "libertarian" was used to describe thinkers and movements of the left, not right. People like Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin. All socialists, all anti-state and anti-capitalist.

Unsurprisingly, we libertarians of the traditional meaning tend to call the right-wing "libertarians" propertarians.

This is for the obvious reason that the fundamental position of their ideology is private property, not liberty. Thus they are happy to defend the hierarchies associated with the capitalist property -- no matter how self-contradictory this is!

What Anarcho said. Kevin Carson has described the vulgar libertarian mindset along the lines of "no state intervention in individual private property rights...starting now!"

Any libertarian who presumes to back their positions with the force of "morality" must begin by calling for the redress of the massive property crimes on which our nation was founded.

To me Libertarianism is mainly a way of compromise between people. As much as possible you leave me alone and I leave you alone.

Okay, this thread is probably dead, and I know one shouldn't feed the trolls, and oh noes someone is wrong on the internet--okay, whatever, but I just can't resist. Stan says:

For libertarians, utility = freedom. For liberals, utility = ?... I'm not really sure.

Well that's interesting, because I'm not really sure what you mean by "freedom." Being able to do stuff? Not having stuff done to you? A little of both maybe? What kind of stuff? Does it involve other people? Or things, objects, stuff you own? Oh, and what does it mean to "own" something--what constitutes property? What if there's a dispute over who owns what?

It is beyond disingenuous to feign puzzlement over what anyone else "means" by "utility" when your own proffered definition is nothing but a substitution of one nebulous term for another. The meaning of "freedom" is anything but obvious or self-evident. Even what would comprise a truly "free market" is, in a nontrivial sense, not immediately apparent, at least to me. Whom is this market supposedly free for? If you want to claim that it's "free" for the average consumer, then boy are you in for an argument.

I don't buy the "libertarians are anti-state" myth. That doesn't explain why (US) libertarians oppose Social Security but not the Army and the Police. If they were serious about being anti-state, it should be the other way round (btw that is how European libertarians typically describe themselves - no police, no army, no prisons, no corporations).

What Anarcho and Chris said.

"corporations aren't individuals and aren't entitled to freedom, whatever other legal fictions we may apply to them... Freedom for corporations is as ridiculous as freedom for chainsaws, and probably more dangerous."

That is really the issue. Libertarianism used to be about individual freedom. All important libertarian thinkers understood that individual freedom is inconsistent with corporate power, hence they tended to be anti-capitalists. The innovation that led to the emergence of modern libertarian ideology in the US was the brilliant idea to turn it around and propose that it was the freedom of the corporation that needed protection. Now you could be pro-capitalist and pro corporation while still pretend to belong to a radical individualistic "freedom" movement.

Some here have claimed that libertarians argue consistently from axiomatic first principles; that's another myth. Private property wouldn't exist without state intervention (or the intervention of some other sufficiently powerful entity). US Libertarianism is based on two principles that are mutually exclusive: private property good, state intervention bad. This reasoning is not axiomatic; it is dogmatic.

Like most liberals of limited thinking ability, you confuse libertarianism for anarchism. Because of that, you can't be taken seriously. Come back when you know what you're talking about and actually have examples to back up the positions (clearly straw-men) you ascribe to libertarians.

"Some here have claimed that libertarians argue consistently from axiomatic first principles; that's another myth. Private property wouldn't exist without state intervention (or the intervention of some other sufficiently powerful entity). US Libertarianism is based on two principles that are mutually exclusive: private property good, state intervention bad. This reasoning is not axiomatic; it is dogmatic."

This is a silly and false caricature of what libertarian believe. Very few libertarians argue against no state at all. Educate yourself about what people believe before attempting to explain it, otherwise you just look ignorant.

"One thing that's fun to do, in a mean sort of way, is to point out to a libertarian that, since regulation clearly has economic impacts on people and firms, it's economically rational for people and firms to attempt to buy and sell regulation - i.e., for there to be a market in regulation"

This is a profoundly stupid statement that could only be made by someone who clearly has not bothered to think through what he is saying. You cannot have a market in regulation because regulation is coercive and no one has the right to sell it because no one owns it. Only through the democratic process of a legitimate social contract can it be exercised. There's a reason the Constitution prevents Congress from delegating its legislative authority to other bodies.