CLs [classical liberals] and libertarians favor smaller government. Government operations, such as schools, rely on taxes or privileges (and sometimes partially user fees). Even apart from the coercive nature of taxation, they don’t like the government’s playing such a large role in social affairs, for its unhealthy moral and cultural effects.
There are some libertarians, however, who have never seen an intervention that meets the burden of proof. They can be categorical in a way that CLs are not, believing in liberty as a sort of moral axiom. Sometimes libertarians ponder a pure-liberty destination. They can seem millenarian, radical, and rationalistic.
Part of a longer post.
A good question to ask a libertarian is “if you could copy Singapore today, would you do it.”
Singapore is “practical and evidence based technocracy.” A technocracy that actually knew what it was doing would allow lots of economic and personal freedoms (as Singapore does, because the evidence shows freedom is often good), but there is PLENTY in Singapore for “niche” libertarians to hate (most especially because it works well when libertarians says it shouldn’t which must really make them mad).
So the question becomes, do you care more about what works to bring real quality of life to people, or do you care more about your ideology. That’s the Singapore test.
>—“So the question becomes, do you care more about what works to bring real quality of life to people, or do you care more about your ideology. That’s the Singapore test.”
Test results might vary with whether or not you are one of the people in jail for attempting to exercise the apparently lesser freedoms of speech or of the press.
Singapore does have strict laws against libel, and that can result in fines but generally not imprisonment. In truth you can criticize the government without punishment, if you do it in a responsible and evidence based manner.
Singapore does have laws against incitement and demagoguery, but they seem to get applied to actual incitement and demagoguery. We have laws against incitement here too, as you can find in the free speech thread. Until recently I would say theirs are stricter but its a toss up anymore.
We also have a voluntary auxiliary thought police in the west, whereas Singapore does not and would crack down on anyone trying to be a twitter mob.
I’d argue the fact that Singapore restricts “high noise” speech actually improves the signal to noise ratio, and that allows for a wider range of substantive opinions to be expressed. You can criticize the government, but you need to have evidence and logic on your side. I’d say the range of things regular people can discuss without punishment is actually wider in Singapore than in America.
But you’re right, there are a bunch of “unlibertarian speech laws”, the question is if those laws are really that bad for society.
Singapore is very weird in that it has a lot libertarian values but the government at times looks like the harshest home owner association on earth. It is libertarian paradise as long as everybody agrees with this paradise.
1) We should still think about Singapore (and Hong Kong) as a rich trading hub city not necessary as a separate nation. So anybody compares Singapore to the US is not reasonable. (I tend to think Sanders comparison of Denmark is off the mark as well.)
2) Most unsettling thing to me is how few babies are born in Singapore. Is this future of capitalism that makes everybody so technocratic that they force a shrinking population? (Yes, I know Immigration here.) Their rates are well below any of the Iron Curtain nations of yesteryear and even Japan.
So to make captialism thrive we need to enforce a shrinking population? (And I do tend to believe that low birth rates impacts Aggregate Supply in 25 years and makes the economy less competitive.)
I agree that a city state trading hub isn’t necessarily a model for the USA and everything else you note.
My point is a theoretical. “If you could…” The essay points out that there is a difference between “people who are libertarians because they think libertarianism leads to good outcomes” and “people who are libertarians and do hope that libertarianism leads to good outcomes but would just as easily support it if it led to bad outcomes because liberty is an absolute deontological right that you can’t trade off for utility.”
We have feet, why “copy Singapore”? There a handful of world-class cities that I have given serious thought about living/working and/or retiring in. My top five realistic cities are 1. Singapore, 2. Sydney Australia, 3. Christchurch New Zealand, 4. Boulder Colorado, and 5. Toronto Canada.
All truly fantastic places to live and work. All offer vastly different tradeoffs. The pros and cons of each place are mostly related to personal preferences and personal comparative advantage. Humidity, cultural events, and access to local/international natural spaces end up being way more important in my list than the differences in free speech or the structure of the health care system and, for most people, those things are unimportant compared to career and family.
Does it help to do a libertarian analysis when thinking about calling one of those five cities home? Would you feel any less/more libertarian in any one of those five? Treating Singapore as some kind of Idealogical Turing Test doesn’t feel right to me.
No, I think the main reason libertarians take issue with aspects of Singaporean government is that they value personal freedom for its own sake, and so find things like harsh punishments for drug crimes wrong in their own right. Call it ideology if you want, but some people are known to value some things as ends in themselves.
Here’s my Singapore test: can Singapore survive the death of its current leader? Centralized control works like gangbusters when the guy in charge is extremely competent. But this is an exception, not the rule.
Do not extrapolate from exceptional cases.
Libertarian government has no libertarian party, The libertarian party gets optimized away by libertarianism. So, it is less a political thing and more of a cultural thing.
I don’t see a meaningful distinction between “classical liberal” and “moderate libertarian”. What we need a new word for is something that distinguishes ‘alt-right libertarian’ from ‘cosmopolitain libertarian’ or something to that effect. I rather like the word “libertarian” and would prefer to keep it from being sullied though. So I’d rather just invent a different word for that cadre of self-identified “libertarians” that think libertarianism means passing more laws to protect our libertarian (read white) cultural heritage from black/brown people. Also, that it’s cool to kick black people out of restaurants but not to buy products from China. Libertarianism is about your duty to your country, traitor!
What you are describing as “alt-right-libertarian” sounds like what I think of as protectionist, both cultural and mercantilist. I hope it is not libertarian in any way. I think the proper term for libertarians should just be liberal but that term has been co-opted by progressives who fundamentally don’t believe in economic freedom (exploitation in Kling’s framework).
I’ve always thought the divisions in libertarian thought come down to Classic Liberals like Milton Friedman vs. Isolationists like Murray Rothbard and Conservative Free Marketers like Thomas Sowell. Maybe things truly are changing.
I don’t think it is libertarian in any way, but that doesn’t stop people from showing up on libertarian websites proclaiming themselves to be libertarians, and then declaring that “collective property rights” gives the majority the right to keep out immigrants.
I’m not sure how “classical liberal” is being used, but i fear maybe it is being co-opted by those alt-right types, because the point of contention upon which they feel libertarians are too absolutist happens to be immigration and trade. I.e. “I’m a libertarian, but I’m willing to make some exceptions to dogma when someone else’s liberty interferes with what is optimal for the interests of working class white men.”
Perhaps he’s thinking of Hans Hermann-Hope et al.?
I think of it as being a trifecta. There’s the Adam Smith Institute/Niskanen Center wing on the “left” (though neither institution identifies as libertarian) which are more supportive of redistribution and more sympathetic toward ‘social justice’ type thinking; there’s the Mises Institute on the “right”, which is more uncompromising in its libertarianism, to the point of mostly being AnCaps, and is most hostile to ‘social justice.’ And then there’s the Cato Institute in the middle, setting the standard, imo, of what prototypical libertarianism is. I’d put myself pretty squarely in the Cato camp. I have no good sense what the trajectory of movements betwixt the camps is though.
*she
Conservatism, classical liberalism, and libertarianism are all splintered ideologies whose labels conceal as much difference between adherents as they do similarities.
Smaller government and presumption of liberty not only do not distinguish these three ideologies but don’t distinguish them from progressivism. Progressives would argue that they support smaller government in many policy areas and that they share a presumption of liberty but are just more willing to use the law to disrupt existing injustices and inequalities.
A more relevant way to distinguish ideologies is by comparing their relationship to principles of political process. For example, in the US political environment we can meaningfully distinguish the primary relevant political ideologies by examining their tenets with respect to the basic questions of constitutional reform, role of the courts, subsidiarity, and the role of the voter.
*Constitutional Reform
–Conservatism: Article V to be used rarely and with great trepidation. Mark Levine type-amendments needed to restore lost constitutional integrity.
–Classical Liberalism: Article V to be used consistent with thought of people like James Buchanan or Randy Barnett to restore integrity, limit government, and set ground rules necessary to protect a limited number of basic rights like property, contract, etc.
–Libertarianism: Chuck the constitution and cede all national powers to global supranationalist entities run by priest-king intellectuals and experts who will regulate pollution, eliminate all war and trade barriers, and assure free migration everywhere.
–Progressivism: No need to reform a living constitution that means whatever we need it to mean in the moment.
–Radical Pragmatism: By Article V chuck the current US constitution which was good in its day but does not compete with new improved models such as that of Switzerland and Denmark which are particularly superior in rule of law, meaningful separation of powers, and government accountability. Voters are a key check on government trusted to fix abuses of government power through referenda and proportional representation.
*Role of the Courts
–Conservativism: Supreme Court to interpret constitution consistent with one or more legal doctrines related to intent of framers and to review laws enacted by legislature for compliance with constitution.
–Classical Liberalism: Similar to conservatism but with increased emphasis upon limits upon government power. The court seen as primary guarantee of restricted government powers.
–Libertarianism: Courts should rule in favor of libertarian doctrines but law is generally irrelevant and should be ignored when it contradicts principles of libertarian moralism.
–Progressivism: Courts should rule in favor of progressive priorities.
–Radical Pragmatism: Courts should have no right to review legislation and all court decisions should be based upon law as enacted only. Quarterly constitutional referenda held (somewhat like as in Switzerland) to allow voters to overturn unpopular laws and court decisions.
**Subsidiarity
–Conservatism: Federalism.
–Classical Liberalism: Federalism.
–Libertarianism: Undesirable. Local powers distrusted due to possible infringements of liberty as well as possible inconsistency with doctrines handed down by the priest kings from on high.
–Progressivism: One party state. Local government is the foot soldier of the one true party. As in China.
–Radical Pragmatism: Local and state powers defined in constitution, limited local and state rights to opt out of national level laws and programs.
**Role of the Voter
–Conservatism: Voters legitimate consent to be governed through representative processes. Retain right to violent revolution when fundamental rights are abused but no national referenda.
–Classical Liberalism: Representative government legitimated by voting but strict limits on what voters can ask government to do.
–Libertarianism: Voters are irrationally rational or irrationally rational or whatever but should be ignored and minimized as they are generally stupid and need to be ruled by priest kings who know what is best for them and will grant them maximum liberty. If voting must be tolerated, the electoral process should be designed to promote the interest of the so-called median voter.
–Progressivism: Identity group corporatism. Voters belong to identify groups. These identity groups make up society and it is governments roles to advance the interests of various identify groups relative to other identify groups. Voting is good when it supports progressive priorities, bad when it doesn’t.
–Radical Pragmatics: Voters should have a direct role in governance through regular and established referenda policies and through proportional representation. Voters act as a fundamental check on power of courts, legislature, and executive.
The winner take all US political system, however, locks in place mediocrity and will only end with one-party totalitarianism.
“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” — Goethe
When thinking about the limitations of libertarisms is it is weird idelogy of the image of Jon Galt and Laura Wilder.
In reality, Jon Galts become the Taggarts in 10 years and start repossessing the land of Laura Wilder.
I’ve always regarded ‘classical liberal’ as a broad term encompassing everything from ancaps to what pseudolibertarians on the center- right or left, and libertarian just being a core subset within classical liberalism. So I’d disagree that classical liberals are a distinct group or a moderate variation of libertarians; rather it’s a broader circle, more inclusive in its connotation. The term ‘liberal democracy’ basically refers to classical liberalism in a broad sense (as opposed to the specific worldview of moder American self-identified liberals) and could be said to be broad enough to include a great many ‘normal people’ beyond just people who want to fully abolish the minimum wage (like me).
I personally like ‘classical liberal’ better because ‘libertarian’ is etymologically redundant. The word liberal would do fine, if it could be reappropriated from the left and actually put to proper use.