-
Website
http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle -
Original page
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/11/12/yglesias-on-libertarians-and-corporate-power/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I don’t think Matt takes seriously enough the degree to which progressives and New Dealers opened the way for today’s government-saturated corporatist markets.
Modern Liberals instead tread lightly by concentrating on rhetoric and stereo-typical intentions of politicians during campaigns and speeches. The ripple effects of government power they support and the changes and damage it causes over time go totally unnoticed and ignored.
I've made a similar point here:
"The strand of Democrats that I find particularly depressing, dim and unwittingly masochistic is what is called the "Social Democrat"...or more precisely...what I call the National-(istic) Communitarian Social-(istic) Democrat. It is a group full of contradiction and..strangely enough...rife with illiberalism that rivals the likes of Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter. It is, at the same time, a caricature and a very real wing of the party. It is an ideological basket case that wants what the frightening fruition of its vision could never deliver and hates what its vision inadvertently and indirectly does deliver...while never realizing its role in the worst of the reality it despises. It is a desire for control that wreaks uncontrollable havoc which then begets more desire for control and continued havoc like a dog chasing its own tail. It desires an inclusion that causes and demands a want for exclusion. It wants the benefits that come from the antithesis of what it wants while claiming them as their own creations...all while seeking to destroy that very antithesis in the name of yet other values that are not borne from what it seeks. In short, its murky and compromised sense of true liberalism, of any kind, has a very, very low threshold...after which point it's extremely illiberal in an effort to keep what it has unsustainably gained and fend off the side-effects of what it has unwittingly wrought."
"… the larger problem is that libertarianism, even at its very best, tends to suffer from an impoverished set of ideas about how corporate domination of the public policy space might be prevented. </em"
I don't think so. I think it's simply that Yglesias doesn't like the solution because he wants the power to be there...abuses be damned.
Kling hits it on the head.
So what does Matt make of the mountains upon mountains upon mountains of material provided by libertarians over the past few years on the monetary debacle leading to the financial crisis and opposition to the bailouts?
OK, so here's the master list of options, by the way I think all of these have merit:
1) Constitutional amendment prohibiting special treatment of corporations;
2) Campaign finance reform, to reduce or eliminate the ability of large corporations to significantly help politicians directly;
3) Countervailing institutions of competing regulatory capture: unions, grassroots organizing, nonprofit institutions.
4) Argue argue argue, convince convince convince, develop a political constituency keenly interested in eliminating preferential treatment of corporate interests.
I think this may be the way the country is headed, honestly. But I think the Republican coalition is too rotten-to-the-core to take advantage of it for some time yet, and the Democrats have all the power, so they probably don't care right now!
This may militate in favor of (5) Instant runoff voting.
From everything I've ever read, Cato supports choice in social security and choice in education. How is giving individuals more control over their retirement dollars and educational spending corporatist?
"the larger problem is that libertarianism, even at its very best, tends to suffer from an impoverished set of ideas about how corporate domination of the public policy space might be prevented."
As Will basically says, regulation begets corporate involvement in politics. Just pick your favorite industry and it's a good bet that the more highly regulated that industry is, the more lobbyists they have in Washington. Laws that impact everyone- think roads and public infrastructure- have the advantage of being everyone's concern. But regulations of specific industries are generally left to be fought out between various corporate interests and various public interest groups.
But, when Cato advocates a compromise (for Social Security) that's definitely an improvement over the status quo, but retains some state mandates to remain politically feasible, he calls them corporatist:
It’s not immediately obvious to me what this proposal has to do with libertarianism, but it would seem to offer some prospect of profits for fund managers.
He doesn't play fair.
The argument is akin to saying that the world can't have china shops where the merchandise sits undisturbed on the shelves because the world has bulls that will enter the shops and wreak havoc. While acknowledging the two are incompatible, the notion of prohibiting the entry of bulls by keeping them properly fenced seems to be completely overlooked.
Lets have a policy debate. Shall I hit you in the face or in the stomach? What say you?
But you're right that if there was a huge groundswell, there might be the opportunity to write some strong laws or add a constitutional amendment that fenced the bull. I think Matt is essentially saying that (1) the groundswell appears to be the libertarians' only hope and (2) it is not going to happen. I don't know if either (1) or (2) is true, but it may be a provocative challenge, at the very least, to pay more attention to the political way forward.
The only honest political way forward is to identify areas of life that are functioning smoothly based on libertarian precepts and present these as proof of concept expanding outward from these holdouts. Sadly these are few and far between as leviathan's tentacles have hold over so much.
The free marketplace of religious choice is one such instance of an unregulated sphere of public life which may be mined for examples of self regulating structures and feedback mechanisms based upon free will, free association and conscious purposeful cooperation.
I often fantasize about a libertarian religion that is able to create a full set of parallel institutions fully cloistered by religious freedom protections from government intrusion and persecution. (Is it utopian to think such a thing could come to pass without COINTELPRO infiltration and provocateuring leading to a Waco-like ending? Am I being as fatalistic as Yglesias regarding government power?)
Attacking the state itself would amount, for Matt, to biting his nose to spite his face.
Basically, Matt is saying libertarians are naive to think that a day will come without corrupt government.
Libertarians might reply that Matt is naive to think that government can be selectively empowered only for "desirable" ends.
They both have a point.
Which dilemma has a solution?
Moreover, the libertarian argument isn't simply that we can never have a corrupt government, it's that a government used as proactive force to change or improve will always lead to corruption and thus the best way to ensure a clean and functional government is to remove the state's power to meddle as much as possible....while fully understanding that it is the ONLY WAY to achieve this noble end that liberals and libertarians share.
Liberals have an excuse -- they don't claim that minimizing the state's interference in markets is necessarily healthier than just moderating it. Libertarians OTOH, do claim that. Yet if you remind a libertarian that granting a perpetual limitation of liability to some agents while withholding it from others is stone cold guaranteed to create moral hazard and eventual market failures, you can generally lay out the evidence till you're blue in the face without making any headway.
Explain the exact same things to a liberal, and very likely they'll get thoughtful for a few minutes and then allow as how well, maybe permanent corporations aren't such a good idea after all.
Maybe the Cato Unbound editors can give DB a special reply spot this month to tackle that special sub-topic.
Conversely, if corporate rent-seeking can be held in check by being deprived of political cover, wouldn't a group of people who are opposed to rent-seeking tout court be better placed to do that than a collection of rival rent-seekers?
Because there's nothing particularly libertarian about social security privatization or education vouchers. They just seem like good ideas to some libertarians who have taken them up as part of their policy agenda. There's something libertarian about eliminating mandatory government retirement and public schools, but Cato doesn't advocate that.
As for the corporatism, that's obvious.
Of course Social Security privatization and education vouchers are more libertarian than complete control of these things by the state. It's idiotic to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I'm sure that many at Cato would prefer a complete end to the mandates and public funding. But, if that's not feasible, it makes sense to advocate for the most improvements that are politically possible.
It may be emotionally satisfying for some to insist on purity and get nothing. But, I'd rather get something.
Regarding Social Security, how would allowing people to cash out and opt out not be a desirable first step toward phasing out an obviously top-heavy and unsustainable entitlement burden?
GilM, you should be more mindful of your use of the term "privatization." From Roderick Long's original essay:
Long does make an important omission within the latter "contracting out" definition -- namely that even if there is no monopoly privilege conferred -- THE FUNDS EMPLOYED ARE TAKEN BY FORCE -- and are by force misallocated into 'investments' contrary to natural market distribution.
Opposition to government manipulation of markets by playing favorites through policy and regulation can't be based entirely on opposition to the outcome that some unfairly benefit from the practice, but necessarily must be opposed as a market distortion that causes a misallocation -- an inefficiency. Waste is the immorality here.
Too much is ceded when it is presumed a priori that a government hand is needed to 'correct' natural markets.
I agree that allowing people to opt out of Social Security would be better, but I, and Cato, don't think it's politically feasible.
There's nothing in the Cato "privatization" of Social Security or schools that's in the Long second sense. They don't advocate granting monopoly privilege in either, as far as I know.
Again, I agree that a complete end to government involvement in these things would be better. But, it's silly to say that movement in that direction is not remotely libertarian.
Perhaps your conception of political power is that it flows from government and is allotted to certain groups that find favor, rather than inherent to the populace?
Would Cato be more successful if -- instead of trying to justify to the government why we the people should be entrusted with meager concessions of our usurped liberty -- government were challenged to acknowledge and justify the coercive force by which the usurpation is perpetuated?
A political movement will only coalesce if it is based upon questioning the legitimacy of pervasive government involvement in all its guises. To wit, in the voucher instance, taxes are only tangentially questioned insofar as they might be used to fund objectionable types of education for others. Rather than start from the position that educating a child is a parental responsibility and earnings are personal property, Cato accepts that educating a child is a government responsibility, and proposes we be allowed to have some money to carry out this delegated function using our own judgement.
A bit milquetoast for my taste, and I dare say not energetic enough to animate the electorate in a libertarian groundswell, but Cato after all, are policy advisors trying to remain on good terms with the powers that be.
For the record, I intended to call into question your assertion that "Social Security privatization and education vouchers are more libertarian than complete control of these things by the state" not realizing you were speaking on behalf of the Cato body of work in these regards. It could also be said that being in a coma is better than being dead... but it sure ain't livin'.
I just wanted to make it clear, for the record, that I'm not speaking on behalf of Cato; just on behalf of myself, a Cato supporter.
There is nothing anti-market whatsoever about criticizing the quality of products or services, externalities of these products or services, or how much they cost. I may for example advise others that vegetables are healthier than chocolate pancakes, or that fur coats are made of cute, furry animals and that I think ill of those who buy such attire. Or I may opine that Joe the 250k Plumber and plumbers - not to mention interior designers - in general charge way too much.
Yet when such critizism is intermingled with anti-market rhetoric, like "McDonald's Hamburgers are unhealthy because all they care about is profits", or directed at a target that is freqeuently attacked by rabid market opponents, like "CEOs earn too much.", libertarians become apolegetic not only of markets, but of the product or service or the extrenalities at hand.
So what we get is lots of zealous libertarian commentary, papers, articles, blog postings and long analysis trying to show that King Sized Hamburgers are healthy, Hummers are better for the environment than Hybrids or that polar bears are, unlike their cute looks suggest, rather murderous creatures.
And that is how libertarians by and large come across and are remembered. It would be better to point out that the local organic grocery store is part of the market too and that Toyota is selling their Priuses for a healthy profit.
Some self-proclaimed libertarians are really just rabid anti-statist conservatives. The liberaliziation process of the postal services in the EU enters its final stage of completion. There is much debate about this right now in Austria. I saw one of these pseudo-libertarian commenters write something utterly paradoxical and ludicrous like: "It's about time this inefficient state-run postal service is no longer subsidized by the governement. And if the governement wants service to continue in unprofitable rural areas, it better pony the money to pay for that."
Many conservatives share this sentiment, albeit with less obviously contradictory phraseology.
Never mind the federal postal service ran at a profit and still does. But even if it were subsidized, I am puzzled how somebody can perceive the exact same transfer of money as deplorable, wasteful and useless or justified, mandated and good just based on formal ownership alone.
So will the real libertarians please stand up?
Of course Social Security privatization and education vouchers are more libertarian than complete control of these things by the state. It's idiotic to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I'm afraid you've just kind of swallowed the Cato line. "More choice" - libertarianism isn't about "choice". It is about "liberty" which, I'm going to admit has a lot of ambiguity (as Will has pointed out) but it is a hell of a lot more defined than the rhetoric of choice.
Now, there are two points I'm making. One is that Social Security Privatization is not libertarian. I realize that the word "privatization" makes you think that it's privatization. But, obviously, it's not since the whole point is to have government mandated accounts which would require a good deal of oversight.
In other words, it's like saying that Halliburton (or any private military contractor) is an exercise in libertarianism. Obviously untrue. Which is why, you'll see, a lot of putatively libertarian organizations actually masquerade as "market-based" which is kind of a way of obscuring the fact that they have libertarianism as sort of a lode star, and recognizing that they don't in fact promote a libertarian policy agenda.
Now, as to the second question: whether Social Security Privatization is a good idea. Well, I think it's an awful idea, worse than the present system. But you may disagree.
The first argument - about whether it's libertarian or not - is indisputable. The second argument - which is in fact the more important one - is open to debate, and is subject to all the sort of arguments like "better what we have now" etc.
I want to say, though, that in spite of my arguments above, I don't think there's just one obviously libertarian solution to particular problems. But whatever one may say about that, Yglesias is right when it comes to Social Security Privatization.
All great points, except for this: I would say that some self-proclaimed libertarians are just rabid pot-smoking conservatives who will go for gay civil unions.
In other words, they're only anti-statist when it does not include programs they like.