Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Yes or No: "Libertarianism's Worst Enemy is Not Big Government"
Reason.com contributor Dan Mage ("I was a high-tech sweatshop worker for the Obama campaign")writes at Associated Content:
I tell people that libertarianism simply puts the responsibility for caring about other people back on you. It's much easier to say that that "the government should do something about it," than to take any personal responsibility for your life, your community, your country and the planet. To be certain, libertarianism leaves open the option of not caring and doing nothing. Compassion can't be manufactured by a politician's decree, and charity is by nature voluntary and not something a government is really capable of....
I'm a leftist with right-wing sympathies. I realize there is no separating my right to live as I choose from the right of capitalists to make money without government interference.
However, the amount of pure bile and venom that pours forth at the suggestion that workers do have some rights (above and beyond the individual right to enter into a contract), when mentioned on a certain libertarian forum is frightening. The fact that the market fundamentalists often overlook is that massive strikes and boycotts are fair game under their own rules. It's not about "big government" anymore; it's about business, pure and simple. Without big government to turn to, the vulnerability of big business to such actions would drastically increase.
"Turning America over to the corporations" is not the only possible end result of a libertarian system, or a desirable one.
The late William S. Burroughs once said something to the effect of "the belief that people get what they want, and get what they deserve is most popular among people who have what they want and believe that they deserve it."
At the risk of sending more bile and venom Mage's way, read the whole thing here.
I can appreciate Mage's point of view and do think that the nexus of Big Government and Big Business needs a more thorough analysis from a libertarian perspective (especially in the age of Goldman Sachs and Treasury!), but I think the power of corporations is generally exaggerated.
George Mason University economist John Nye's fantastic War, Wine, and Taxes does an excellent job of plumbing the origins of big government and big business in early modern England. Read about it here.
Tim Cavanaugh|7.7.09 @ 9:58PM|#
The fact that the market fundamentalists often overlook is
that massive strikes and boycotts are fair game under their own
rules.
Not this market fundamentalist. I've stood up for unions' right to
fund and run themselves, against the wishes of California's
governor. You can look it up.
I probably differ with Master Mage anyway, because I think what's
at issue now is whether unions should have ultracorporate rights
enshrined in federal law.
|7.7.09 @ 9:59PM|#
the nexus of Big Government and Big Business needs a more thorough analysis from a libertarian perspective
Ya think?
but I think the power of corporations is generally exaggerated.
Name one thing government can do without at least consulting
corporations. Maybe your bathtub-sized government works in a world
where corporations' power is exaggerated. I wonder about the real
world.
|7.7.09 @ 10:03PM|#
The fact that the market fundamentalists often overlook is
that massive strikes and boycotts are fair game under their own
rules.
(without RTFA'ing) Yes, yes they are. It is also the right of the
employer to fire said strikers.
What is also fair game is for the strikers to convince the public
to be sympathetic to their demands and not use the force of law to
subsidize their protest and making it illegal to fire
strikers.
If I had a staffer who told me that if his pay and/or working
conditions didn't change to his benefit, he'd stop working, I would
wish him well on his job search. If I valued this employee and he
wasn't a complete tool, I might talk to him about his compensation
package and see what I could do to retain him.
People who have valuable skills to trade have leverage with which
to work for better compensation/conditions. Those who don't, don't
and are typically the ones you see striking.
You don't like what you've accomplished in life (or not
accomplished in the case of strikers), but you have an expectation
that the world owes you something.
|7.7.09 @ 10:04PM|#
An interesting social innovation would be a union of customers,
rather than a union of employees.
When the Evil Heartless Bank tries to jack up your interest rates,
the union calls bank up and says drop it or everyone withdraws
their money tomorrow. No Barney Frank needed!
|7.7.09 @ 10:05PM|#
Name one thing government can do without at least consulting
corporations.
Dick Cheney can hunt you down and kill you no matter what the CEO
of Halliburton says.
Shannon Love|7.7.09 @ 10:38PM|#
The fact that the market fundamentalists often overlook is
that massive strikes and boycotts are fair game under their own
rules
I think that one sentence rather destroys Mage's
libertarian/free-market credentials. What free-market advocate has
ever said that workers cannot freely choose to withhold their labor
or that consumers can choose to boycott products as they wish. The
only thing libertarians have said is that no one should be able to
force those actions on anyone else.
The fact that Mage can't distinguish between voluntary economic
actions and coercion by violence tells us he doesn't understand the
basic principles involved.
tassawwuf|7.7.09 @ 10:39PM|#
" A real free market does not allow one person to damage another person with impunity." -- Michael Rozeff
|7.7.09 @ 10:43PM|#
Considering that right now unions are trying to win the right to
sign people up to a union without a secret ballot, I think that any
threat of the right to boycott being destroyed is infinitesimal
compared to the prospect of people being forced to join unions
against their will.
If there's a right to strike, what about a right to not strike?
Shannon Love|7.7.09 @ 10:44PM|#
Name one thing government can do without at least consulting
corporations.
Nice rhetorical trick. Lets try this on for size. "Name one thing
the government can do without at least consulting with radical
leftwing academics."
We're a democracy. Everyone gets a say i.e. they are consulted,
even if they don't get their way. If you want to make a case that
group X controls everything, you merely point to their
participation in the political process and then declare that that
participation controls the political process.
Corporations only have disproportionate impact on society because
they do most of the work of civilization. When you talk about
controlling corporations your talking about control most of the
productive power of our society.
Which, of course, is the whole point of raising the issue in the
first place.
|7.7.09 @ 10:50PM|#
"Turning America over to the corporations" is not the only
possible end result of a libertarian system, or a desirable
one.
Hands up: who's been recommending that we "turn America over to the
corporations"?
In general, I'm not sure who he's tilting at. If it's not a straw
man, it's someone with a rather un-nuanced understanding of
libertarianism. Perhaps one of those "market fundamentalists" I
hear so much about.
|7.7.09 @ 11:02PM|#
Libertarianism's worst enemy is a population that fears real freedom. Granted, big government feeds on this fear.
|7.7.09 @ 11:04PM|#
"I tell people that libertarianism simply puts the
responsibility for caring about other people back on you."
This is false. Liberty is not about duty. Liberty is the
recognition of individual rights and a rejection of the ethics of
altruism and the politics of collectivism.
If you claim that individuals have a duty to other individuals who
is going to enforce that duty? What happens to free riders? Of
course the state will step and it's a slippery slope.
My experience is that most people -- virtually all people -- who
live in freedom and who are "in need" find themselves that way
because of a long series of bad decisions.
No one can say that it's my job to make it right for them and call
it virtue.
tarran|7.7.09 @ 11:13PM|#
Without big government there aren't big corporations.
The Socialist Calculation Problem limits the size of firms. The
rise of big firms is really the product of punishing taxes on
dividends and the roadblocks government regulators throw in the way
of would be competitors.
Unfortunately, many people who worry about corporate power are
absolutely unaware of the Socialist Calculation problem, and blind
to the manifold interventions by the government to keep big firms
"competitive".
Prickley Heat|7.7.09 @ 11:15PM|#
"but I think the power of corporations is generally
exaggerated"
You are 100% correct. Having had the privilege of being a direct
report to several titans of industry, I can only conclude that
Government is King. With the exception of the President, here is
nothing more powerful as a US Senator.
Bob Dylan was spot on. Money doesn't talk, it swears.
Mike|7.7.09 @ 11:18PM|#
"The fact that the market fundamentalists often overlook is that
massive strikes and boycotts are fair game under their own
rules."
Well, duh. I don't think any libertarian has argued otherwise.
Actually, union and boycotts can serve useful purposes in a free
society. We just don't think that the state should take
sides.
"It's not about "big government" anymore; it's about business, pure
and simple. Without big government to turn to, the vulnerability of
big business to such actions would drastically increase."
Huh? Are strikes and boycotts illegal?
Mage, you are a moron.
Slap the Enlightened!|7.7.09 @ 11:20PM|#
Libertarianism's worst enemy is a population that fears real
freedom.
If some libertarians quit defining "real freedom" as pretty much
requiring said population put up with virtually everything they
don't want, that might not be such a problem.
Granted, big government feeds on this fear.
Trust me on this one - you'd need a helluva lot bigger government
than we have now to shove what a lot of libertarians construe as
"real freedom" down the throats of a rightly appalled citizenry.
Probably because they quite rightly understand the libertarian
version of freedom means, "I'm free to turn your
neighborhood/community/country into as much of a circus as I like.
You're free to do jack shit about it."
Prickley Heat|7.7.09 @ 11:23PM|#
"Trust me on this one - you'd need a helluva lot bigger
government than we have now to shove what a lot of libertarians
construe as "real freedom" down the throats of a rightly appalled
citizenry. Probably because they quite rightly understand the
libertarian version of freedom means, "I'm free to turn your
neighborhood/community/country into as much of a circus as I like.
You're free to do jack shit about it.""
Got a link?
alan|7.7.09 @ 11:33PM|#
The fact that the market fundamentalists often overlook is
that massive strikes and boycotts are fair game under their own
rules.
You lost me at 'market fundamentalist', Mage. The phrase has no
intrinsic meaning beyond being a signifier that harmonizes the
sentiments of the kind of cutsie pie runts who would work on the
campaign of that asshole Barack Obama.
Slap the Enlightened!|7.7.09 @ 11:34PM|#
Got a link?
You're posting on my link, pal. If most people think "real freedom"
means open borders, gay marriage and legalized prostitution, that
does nothing to improve the image of open borders, gay marriage and
legalized prostitution. But it's sure is gonna make "real freedom"
sound pretty damn unappealing to them.
alan|7.7.09 @ 11:48PM|#
You're posting on my link, pal.
So far we have:
open borders
gay marriage
legalized prostitution
Want to anything else to this arbitrary assembly of things you find
objectionable, Nancy?
decriminalizing drug use?
cloning>
How 'bout back yard B-B-Q ing,
and private gun ownership, wouldn't want any of that to sully the
great concept of freedom.
|7.7.09 @ 11:48PM|#
but I think the power of corporations is generally
exaggerated
I double-dog-dare you to post that at DU or KoS. You will be stoned
as a heretic by a whining horde that doesn't for a second reflect
on the irony that corporations ONLY exist courtesy of their beloved
state.
But it's sure is gonna make "real freedom" sound pretty damn
unappealing to them.
I've heard that Russian emigres were often bewildered by having too
many choices in this country. Apparently even natives can have that
experience. Much better that you be herded like the sheep, eh?
Slap the Enlightened!|7.7.09 @ 11:56PM|#
wouldn't want any of that to sully the great concept of
freedom.
Given that what you consider to be freedom is pretty routinely
rejected at the ballot box, maybe you ought to rethink the "great
concept" part.
Consult the recent EU parliamentary elections. Even a number of
fascist parties managed to gain seats. How many cosmotarians
did?
When people would prefer to be governed by fascists than by you, it
might be time to read the writing on the wall.
alan|7.8.09 @ 12:08AM|#
Consult the recent EU parliamentary elections. Even a number
of fascist parties managed to gain seats. How many cosmotarians
did?
When people would prefer to be governed by fascists than by you, it
might be time to read the writing on the wall.
Funny, are you coming at this from the side of the debate that
claims to be more principled than those Orange Line
Cato-heads. I ask because you seem to be more concerned about
electorial popularity than being right. I have news for you, civil
liberties have never been popular.
What else should we add to those things you feel smear the name of
freedom:
Flying the Gadsden flag?
Don't like that do we? Not very popular, especially with the
DHS.
Oh, what about the Confederate Battle Flag, nope, not popular
either.
|7.8.09 @ 12:23AM|#
When people would prefer to be governed by fascists than by
you, it might be time to read the writing on the wall.
Thus Spake Zarathustra.
Kevin Carson|7.8.09 @ 12:38AM|#
Mike: Ever hear of Taft-Hartley? It expressly outlaws sympathy and boycott strikes.
Karl|7.8.09 @ 12:46AM|#
"I think the power of corporations is generally
exaggerated."
Of course you do, you fucking fanatic. You think anything that
doesn't confirm your cherished libertarian dogmas is exaggerated.
Get a real job.
LibertarianBlue|7.8.09 @ 1:14AM|#
Oh, what about the Confederate Battle Flag, nope, not popular
either.
_________________________________--
Sorry but thats full of shit, down south you cant say anything bad
about that flag and just about every other house flies it. You say
something bad about the Confederate flag you get your ass
whooped.
|7.8.09 @ 1:43AM|#
Yeah it is libertarians who need to look at how our faults have
led Obama and the Democrats to given away billions to banks and
auto companies.....
huh?
|7.8.09 @ 1:47AM|#
I've got no problems at all with "workers' rights". Go ahead and
strike. Nurses, garbage men, airline pilots, whoever. That's not my
beef at all.
Monopoly unions, on the other hand, are an insult. I can't
understand the hypocrisy of leftists who get their panties in a
twist when two corner liquor stores want to merge, but see nothing
wrong with one single union for an entire industry. Where's the
competition? Why can't workers be allowed to start a *different*
union if they don't like the status quo?
alan|7.8.09 @ 2:15AM|#
Sorry but thats full of shit, down south you cant say
anything bad about that flag and just about every other house flies
it. You say something bad about the Confederate flag you get your
ass whooped.
Nice stereotyping you are doing there. The South is just full of
yahoos who get angry over the slightest discomforting opinion
expressed by someone who is not in lock step with their world view,
and they are also ready to fight you at a drop of the hat over any
perceived trespass upon their Sacred Honor. Any of the Old Thirteen
States would be thrilled to have you work in their tourism
bureau.
Yet, when I drove to Charlotte and back this morning, somehow I
didn't see all of those Confederate flags you say are flying from
almost all of the houses. Amazing enough, I didn't see any. Truth
be told, there were not that many CNF flying around back in the day
when I was a kid either.
However, for a fleeting moment, let us accept your premise. You
say, I am full of shit because I deemed the Confederate Battle Flag
to be not popular. Does this mythical South you speak of constitute
the entire nation, or there exist an implication in my words that I
was only speaking in a regional context? Please point it out
because I missed that too.
Do you live in an alternative universe where John McCain did not
recant his support of the right of South Carolinians to decide
whether or not to fly the CBF in order to be more politically
viable nationally this time around? Something he only supported in
the first go around because he thought it would help him with South
Carolinian Republican voters in a contest he ultimately lost.
In the words of the immortal Bruce Lee, 'No, I'm not full of shit,
you are full of shit.'
Art-P.O.G.|7.8.09 @ 2:32AM|#
[StE]'s an irrational, bitter little bitch, isn't he?
That's about the size of it.
Paul|7.8.09 @ 3:11AM|#
"Turning America over to the corporations" is not the only possible end result of a libertarian system, or a desirable one.
You can't 'turn america over to the corporations' without
the explicit and complicit directive from Big Government. Period.
There is no such thing as Eminent Domain abuse (to name
one exampe) by powerful private interests when Big Government isn't
there to provide the enforcement and the guns, both literal and
figurative.
Democrats, the unabashed, inarguable party of Corporate Welfare
have hammered this point home, out of the park and have come in for
the Big Win on this subject.
Name one thing government can do without at least consulting
corporations. Maybe your bathtub-sized government works in a world
where corporations' power is exaggerated. I wonder about the real
world.
Interesting perspective. Name one thing a corporation can do to me
without first getting a backing from Big Government?
Let's talk about how GM, Chrysler, AIG and the whole fucking lot of
them have taken money from me, without appealing to my self
interest, using government as the agent of theft.
Fluffy|7.8.09 @ 7:34AM|#
If most people think "real freedom" means open borders, gay
marriage and legalized prostitution, that does nothing to improve
the image of open borders, gay marriage and legalized
prostitution.
I'd be more interested in hearing how allowing these three things
requires bigger government than we have now.
I define "expanding government" as increasing the range of its
functions, increasing the number of its departments, and the
appointing of more and more bureaucrats.
I would not consider it an "expansion of government" if we fired
all the bureaucrats who administer the state's economic
microregulations - but also had to hire more police to enforce the
laws against assault, and those police had to crack the skulls of
people busting up gay wedding ceremonies.
All enforcement of laws against assault counts as "one" check on
the checklist of government, pal. So no matter how many police we
have to hire to protect gay weddings from psychos in need of a
beating, it still counts as "one".
If we still had slavery in this country, and we temporarily had to
hire more police to enforce a new law banning slavery, this would
not be "an expansion of government".
JohnD|7.8.09 @ 8:14AM|#
Sorry but thats full of shit, down south you cant say anything
bad about that flag and just about every other house flies it. You
say something bad about the Confederate flag you get your ass
whooped.
Well Libertarianblue, I dont know where you live but I have lived
in the southeast all my life and I can tell you that homes flying
the Confederate flag are a rarity. You are buying into an old
stereotype that no longer exists.
X|7.8.09 @ 8:33AM|#
Without big government there aren't big
corporations.
Spot on. On Rainbow Puppy Island, corporations might be large in
terms of size, but they wouldn't have the legal influence they
currently enjoy via regulation -- see Phillip Morris' sponsorship
of the increase in cig taxes, or Walmart's support for a health
plan that will strangle their potential future competitors in the
cradle.
I see too many libertarians get trapped in the rhetorical corner of
defending corporations at all costs, which is really detrimental to
the pro-freedom movement as a whole. Support for big business is
not the same as support for liberty.
If some corporation actually became as all-powerful as douchebags
like Karl/Lefiti keep yammering about, well, that would just be
another form of totalitarianism, you know?
|7.8.09 @ 9:18AM|#
"I tell people that libertarianism simply puts the
responsibility for caring about other people back on you."
This assumes a personal responsibility for strangers. I think it
more effective to say that libertarianism allows an individual to
decide who gets the help. You spend your hard earned dollar as you
see fit. The government makes no distinction between inability and
unwillingness to be productive.
As far as corporations go, the government has their hand so deep in
the company pockets that it requires an unnatural amount of
cooperation between the two. It weakens the company's ability to do
business as it sees fit and gives those in government an increasing
amount of power.
robc|7.8.09 @ 9:39AM|#
Fluffy,
I'd be more interested in hearing how allowing these three
things requires bigger government than we have now.
I define "expanding government" as increasing the range of its
functions, increasing the number of its departments, and the
appointing of more and more bureaucrats.
Well, technically, gay marriage leads to more bureaucrats filing
paperwork for the extra marriages.
Then again, Im a libertarian of the "eliminate state marriage" side
of the issue. To me marriage = 1 man + 1 woman + 1 God and I dont
see the state anywhere in that equation.
Marriage is a kinky 3way.
robc|7.8.09 @ 9:40AM|#
You are buying into an old stereotype that no longer
exists never existed.
FTFY
|7.8.09 @ 9:50AM|#
"Yes or No: 'Libertarianism's Worst Enemy is Not Big
Government'"
Libertarianism's worst enemies are power structures the limit
individual choice and freedom. Government is always such an entity.
Sometimes corporations are such an entity, especially when acting
under color of law. Also, don't forget that the government limits
corporate liability, so it's hard to disentangle the two. Religion
is another power structure to be wary of.
What it comes down to is that corporations and churches usually
have competition and choice. Government is a monopoly. So naturally
government is the "worst" enemy of the libertarian, but not the
only one.
|7.8.09 @ 10:00AM|#
I have been in southeast Alabama for 12 years. I don't recall
seeing a rebel flag flying outside any houses. I personally know
about a dozen guys that have rebel flag bumper stickers, and window
screens in the back window of their pickups as well as t-shirts etc
with the confederate flag. They all have said in some form, "I'm
gonna fly this flag and if the niggers don't like it, they can go
back to Africa." They do it simply as a racist affront to the local
blacks. I don't know anybody that displays it out of a sense of
honor and heritage.
That's anecdotal at best and a very small sample of the locals.
Zeb|7.8.09 @ 10:14AM|#
It seems as if a lot of people believe that corporations and private business in general are the same thing. Which is not true. Corporations have the power that they do exactly because of their relationship to big government. The less government does, the less undue influence powerful and connected corporations can wield.
|7.8.09 @ 10:32AM|#
However, the amount of pure bile and venom that pours forth
at the suggestion that workers do have some rights (above and
beyond the individual right to enter into a contract), when
mentioned on a certain libertarian forum is frightening.
I think a closer reading would indicate that most of that bile and
venom is not directed at "worker's rights" (whatever those are),
but at special privileges for (politically powerful) unions.
The fact that the market fundamentalists often overlook is that
massive strikes and boycotts are fair game under their own
rules.
I've never overlooked that. Boycotts don't belong in this list;
boycotts are an activity of consumers, not workers.
It's not about "big government" anymore; it's about business,
pure and simple. Without big government to turn to, the
vulnerability of big business to such actions would drastically
increase.
"Massive strikes" are perfectly legal now; I'm not sure what
special government protection he thinks corporations have against
strikes. If anything, strikes organized by politically powerful
unions have an artificially protected status.
I can appreciate Mage's point of view and do think that the
nexus of Big Government and Big Business needs a more thorough
analysis from a libertarian perspective (especially in the age of
Goldman Sachs and Treasury!),
I think the basic libertarian narrative is pretty adequate. Without
a big, powerful government, big business has little reason to
create a nexus with the State. If you have a big, powerful
government, no power on Earth or the Heavens above can prevent such
a nexus. Iron Law Number No. 6 applies:
6. Money and power will always find each
other.
|7.8.09 @ 10:37AM|#
Liberty is the recognition of individual rights and a
rejection of the ethics of altruism and the politics of
collectivism.
I strongly disagree that liberty rejects the ethics of altruism. A
free society is one in which you are free to adopt and act on, or
not, ethics of altruism if you wish.
As a "deep libertarian", I don't believe that a free society can be
sustained for any length of time without widespread adherence by
its populace to ethical behavior and widespread acts of
altruism.
robc|7.8.09 @ 11:27AM|#
RC,
I strongly disagree that liberty rejects the ethics of
altruism. A free society is one in which you are free to adopt and
act on, or not, ethics of altruism if you wish.
Yep. And this is where libertarianism and objectivism veer away
from each other.
Ravac|7.8.09 @ 12:34PM|#
The article is actually pretty good. Since Mage describes
himself as a "left libertarian" I can sorta understand his use of
the 'exploitation' angle regarding workers and employers as simple
hyperbole.
But the quip about overlooking the fact that strikes and boycotts
are perfectly acceptable in Libertopia is completely wrong, I
agree.
NeonCat|7.8.09 @ 3:21PM|#
As a lifelong Southerner, I agree, Confederate battle flags are a rarity. Therefore I was most surprised to see one flying in '05 on the southern shore of the St. Lawrence river, where Canadians and such could see it. No wonder they think Americans are a bunch of yahoos.
|7.8.09 @ 4:12PM|#
As a lifelong Southerner, I agree, Confederate battle flags
are a rarity. Therefore I was most surprised to see one flying in
'05 on the southern shore of the St. Lawrence river, where
Canadians and such could see it. No wonder they think Americans are
a bunch of yahoos.
I've grown up split time in FL and upstate NY and while I have seen
many hundreds of confederate flag bumper stickers and similar truck
and t-shirt paraphinalia in FL, the only actual CBF I've ever seen
(outside of a college football or NASCAR tailgate where they
do exist regularly) flying outside someone's house
was in upstate NY where the bumper stickers, etc are hardly ever
seen.
|7.8.09 @ 5:09PM|#
Nothing like posting on a thread that died down 6 hours before I
read it.
Without big government to turn to, the vulnerability of big business to such actions would drastically increase.
Huh? Are strikes and boycotts illegal?
"Massive strikes" are perfectly legal now; I'm not sure what special government protection he thinks corporations have against strikes.
Yes?
I phrase that as a question only because I am not sure that it is
still in effect with the recent UAW-US takeover of GM.
I do concede that Unions' benefit from Government intervention is
vastly greater than Corporations' Anti-Union benefit, but it does
exist.
|7.8.09 @ 8:38PM|#
Yeah after my car window got bashed in and my stereo was taken my first thought was how terrible the people who would end up buying it are.....cuz the guy who actually fucked up my car and stole my stuff...he was just a poor guy who was filling a niche.
nj|7.9.09 @ 12:56AM|#
I disagree with Nick on the power of corporations. If anything, it is underrated. With that said, it is the state that makes corporatism possible.
Robert|7.9.09 @ 1:02AM|#
Big gov't is in general the biggest enemy of freedom, but
depending on your starting point and the particulars, some
expansions of gov't increase freedom rather than decreasing it.
This unfortunately is something many libertarians don't grasp as
they become reflexively anti-gov't without thinking thru the
details of particular reforms.
For example, take a state opening a gambling casino, in the case
where gambling had previously been, and remains otherwise, illegal.
It's the state's casino, so gov't by owning & operating it
becomes bigger. However, there is an increase in freedom because
the regime has changed from zeropoly to monopoly. People have a
legal gambling option where previously they had none. And since
many more people want to gamble than want to operate casinos, the
magnitude of the increase in liberty is almost as great as if the
prohibiton on gambling had been repealed.
Simmilarly, a regime of licensing a certain activity might require
a bigger gov't enforcement apparatus than one where the activity is
simply prohibited. And it's obvious that if even a single license
is granted, that's greater freedom than complete prohib'n -- and
the more licenses, the more freedom, yet the bigger the enforcement
personnel roster is likely to be.
It may also be that increasing gov't spending on, say, education,
may accompany a scheme of vouchers or some such that may yet
increase freedom both immediately and trendwise.
This is why I'm a pro-freedom rather than an anti-gov't
libertarian, although in the majority of cases we're likely to come
to the same conclusions.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245