The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Balkinization Symposium on Andrew Koppelman's "Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed"
Participants include Jonathan Adler, Richard Epstein, Christina Mulligan, and myself, among others.
The Balkinization website is currently hosting a symposium on Northwestern University law Professor Andrew Koppelman's recent book Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed. There are already contributions up by Richard Epstein, Christina Mulligan, James Hackney, and myself, among others. More will be posted in the coming days, including pieces by VC co-blogger Jonathan Adler, Stanley Fish, and Jennifer Burns.
I have many reservations about this book. But it's hard to deny that it has helped kick off a debate about the strengths and weaknesses of modern libertarianism. And Yale Law School Prof. Jack Balkin has - with Koppelman's help - assembled an impressively diverse crew of commentators for the symposium.
Here are some excerpts from my contribution:
Andrew Koppelman's Burning Down the House makes some worthwhile points, and I agree with more of it than I would have expected. But it is also something of a missed opportunity. Koppelman attempts a critical analysis of libertarian political thought and its impact on public policy. But he overlooks major aspects of both.
Let's start with a few points of agreement. Early in the book, Koppelman recognizes that free markets have made enormous contributions to human freedom and welfare… He also notes the validity of F.A. Hayek's classic critique of economic central planning, on the ground that governments lack the knowledge needed to plan economic production competently. Perhaps most strikingly, he points out that many on the left fail to recognize the contradiction between their support for diversity and their sympathy for socialism; the latter is likely to stifle the former. As Koppelman puts it, "[m]any on the left repudiate capitalism because they don't grasp the anti-socialist logic of their present views…"
Koppelman is also right to point out that some prominent advocates of libertarianism – most notably Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard – have made a variety of weak and sometimes even downright silly arguments. Many of these weaknesses have been covered before, including by other libertarians. But Koppelman's listing of them is particularly helpful and accessible….
Sadly, Koppelman's relatively thorough dissection of Rand and Rothbard is coupled with neglect of more recent and more sophisticated thinkers. As a result, he overlooks crucial ways in which libertarians have addressed many of the points he raises. When it comes to effects on public policy, he overlooks many of the areas where libertarian ideas have had their biggest impact, while greatly overstating their effect in a few fields where he finds it particularly objectionable…..
This focus weakens many parts of the book. Here, I cover just a few examples related to my own areas of expertise.
To my mind, the Koppelman's single most significant omission is the neglect of modern libertarian critiques of democratic government, particularly those focused on voter ignorance and bias. After all, regulation and redistribution by democratic processes is the principal left-liberal alternative to libertarianism.
Prominent libertarian scholars such as Bryan Caplan and Jason Brennan have shown that the vast majority of voters are both ignorant of basic facts about politics and government, and highly biased in their evaluation of what they do know….
If the policies of democratic governments are heavily influenced by voter ignorance and bias, the quality of those policies is likely to be greatly reduced. This poses a particularly serious challenge for Koppelman and others who call for carefully calibrated policies that deftly balance competing considerations….
Another vital branch of libertarian scholarship that Koppelman overlooks is the study of private-sector solutions to public goods problems and externalities. This has been a major focus of libertarian thought at least since Nobel Prize-winning economist R.H. Coase's pathbreaking work in the 1960s…..
Libertarianism's supposed neglect of public goods and externalities problems is a major theme of Koppelman's book. Yet he does not seriously consider the extensive modern libertarian literature on these very issues.
Finally, despite his discussion of property rights focused on the classic writings of John Locke and Robert Nozick, Koppelman also overlooks the vast bulk of modern libertarian property scholarship….
Koppelman's excessively narrow focus also shows up in his discussion of libertarian impacts on policy, where he stresses the supposed effects of categorical rejection of redistribution, and climate denialism. He claims that "the Republican Party became increasingly Rothbardian: reflexively opposed to all taxation and regulation."
In reality, even in its most libertarian-friendly period under Reagan, the GOP never came close to rejecting "all taxation and regulation." At most, it advocated tighter restrictions on these policies.
In its more recent Trumpian "national conservative" incarnation, the Party has embraced large-scale protectionism, industrial planning, and massive migration restrictions….
The exaggerated focus on redistribution and climate change leads Koppelman to overlook multiple policy areas where libertarian ideas have had much greater impact. Examples include Milton Friedman's key role in the abolition of the draft, his remarkably successful advocacy of anti-inflationary monetary policy (adopted by numerous central banks), the rise of school choice in the US and Europe (another idea effectively popularized by Friedman), and the extensive role of libertarians in promoting stronger constitutional protection for property rights….
None of the modern libertarian ideas discussed above is unassailable, and most have generated significant counter-arguments…..
But sustained critical engagement with modern libertarianism cannot neglect these issues. It has to address the best of modern libertarian thought, and systematically consider those issues where libertarian ideas have had their greatest impact.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Rothbard was the man, and you’ll never rate.
Greed. Wanting cheap foreign labor (via wide open immigration) to replace Americans so that the top get richer. Yup, you’re right.
Your economic ignorance is appalling. So is your fear of liberty.
“Liberty” would include using violence to terrify the immigrants into leaving so that they don’t undercut our wages. And terrify employers into not hiring them.
Funny how no one neither takes this the one step further, nor looks at periods of history when exactly this was done.
". . . nor looks at periods of history when exactly this was done."
You should take this even one more step further to see this is a losing strategy.
But you go ahead and try!
No, liberty does not allow those things. Liberty extends only so far as where their rights begins. (Liberty is a right, and rights, by definition, can never conflict, because all people must necessarily be able to exercise their rights simultaneously).
While I agree with you, we live in a time when "liberty" means public accommodations can refuse service to "immoral" people--including hospitals and other essential services.
Which hospitals are allowed to deny essential services to "immoral" people?
I'm pretty sure that was settled in the 1980s.
This isn't libertarianism; this is corporatism. This led to the Irish "potato famine," US slavery, US indentured servitude, child labor, and, when all of that became more difficult in the US, to offshoring to nations without regulation and legal protections for workers.
I'm not sure about this "wide open immigration" claim given how incredibly difficult it is to get an H1B visa or to convert that to a "green card." Immigrants don't seem to be suppressing wages given the lack of an existing, available workforce and how difficult it can be to hire qualified people right now. Any American that wants a job can pretty much get one.
Don’t forget being lickspittles for strong men rolling militarily through Europe. We can expect 2028 after Trump to see Russian dominance in Eastern Europe and Tiawan militarily conquered. This is what his talking head supporters declare nightly on Fox News, some of whom claim to be Libertarians.
That is what libertarian means now, apparently. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for lickspittles to look the other way, claiming a halo as they do.”
Also: re-re edit and re-re-edit due to html disappearing. Fix this damned thing, sloppy programmers.
Trump certainly is no angel. But you mistake support of Trump against Hillary and Joe as support for Trump himself. Not all who support the lesser of two evils are fans of that lesser evil.
If you're supporting Trump, you're supporting Trump, whatever your motives.
Just like Stalin during WWII; The US was Stalinist!
Yes, we all know the right keeps pointing left and insisting all the bad things they do are because of the densely packed Hitlers over there.
The consistent use of this dodge to ignore examination of your own side does nor reflect well on your moral compass.
Well it was, wasn’t it? There’s no denying the US was supporting a monster as bad as Hitler when it supported Stalin. There’s nothing that can be done about it now, but it’s a thing that happened. I don't think people 'holding their nose' and supporting Trump are boxed into quite the same corner the rest of the Allied Powers were during WWII.
Well, that's the thing, isn't it? This isn't a question of whether YOU think they were so boxed in, but instead of whether THEY thought they were so boxed in.
Overdramatizing how boxed in they were to vote for Trump was certainly a feature, and no doubt will be again.
Lickspittles! Because Putin invaded Ukraine and China started militarizing sandbars under Donald Trump!
Yes, based on the statements of his talking head followers, he would have done nothing and they give reasons to be proud of it.
They would have, if Biden hadn't won.
"some of whom"
Who specifically?
Very nice, but I have to laugh at someone mentioning Nozick in the same breath as Locke, and describing them as two "classics" as if they were equals, or even in the same league. ("...the classic writings of John Locke and Robert Nozick,....")
The pioneer always gets credit over the guy who followed in his tracks, even if the latter eventually got further.
Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" was a critical book in the development of modern libertarian thought, even if it was a bit facile in places. Ilya could stand to pay it more attention, especially the part about how, while freedom of exit is important in maintaining liberty, freedom of entry, his hobby horse, can actually be destructive of liberty, by depriving people of the right to create a distinct society to their own liking.
Which ability is essential, because not everyone wants the same things, and if you put society through a blender by enforcing freedom of entry as well as exit, distinct cultures and ways of life will inevitably be erased.
I think you read the Very Special Edition of Anarchy, State, and Utopia, because I've read it several times and I don't recall Nozick ever saying anything like that about immigration.
This analysis of yours has "you will not replace us" woven all through it.
I correspond with Koppelman occasionally. We disagree about a great many things, and his view of libertarianism is pretty warped.
But I can't fault his willingness to engage with people he disagrees with. He's exemplary in that regard.
John Adams said that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
I think libertarianism is the same thing -- it's only suitable for a people who have an underlying sense of human decency. Without that, it goes off the rails.
That's why our present "controversial" style form of govt is the best.
It prevents us from swinging too far to the right . . . or the left.
Trump sucks but he was a needed pressure outlet for a certain fraction of our society.
And the trend of our nation is still moving in the progressive direction - so all is good.
" Trump sucks but he was a needed pressure outlet for a certain fraction of our society. "
The educated, marketably skilled, modern, reasoning, diverse, forward-thinking fraction residing in strong, successful, educated communities?
"Trump sucks but he was a needed pressure outlet for a certain fraction of our society."
I wouldn't argue with that. I'd just say that I think the GOP establishment worked with the Democrats in trying to plug that outlet again. To the Democrats, Trump was a threat as any Republican would be, but the GOP establishment saw him as a greater threat than the Democrats even did, because all the Democrats could do was reduce them to minority status, Trump was taking the party away from them.
Shorter version: The next two years leading up to Nov. 2024 are going to be fun!
Oh, I'm sure they will be.
My personal opinion is that Trump is starting to show his age, and will probably lose a head to head contest with DeSantis. Hopefully not bringing DeSantis down too, and allowing the party establishment to nominate some squish again. Which they'd love to do.
And here, your analysis is focused on petty, political win/lose perspectives and avoids the larger risk that Trump has to democracy in general, which the Democrats, Republicans, and minor parties like the Libertarians are all part of. It's like fighting over who gets to sit at the captains table while mutineers rig explosives along the hull.
The great flaw in all libertarian thinking is that it is universal and not specific. But that's a truly characteristic American flaw.
Perhaps there are clear definitions provided that make sense of that ‘socialism is incompatible with diversity’ statement, but if so, they must be incredibly narrow. If diversity is people of different skin clours, ethnic backgrounds, religions, sexualities etc being treated with equality in a society, or even just co-existing in a society, then I’m not sure how that is incompatible with universal health care, a social safety net, along with environmental, consumer and employment protections.
I would also say that people are rejecting capitalism as it currently operates because of its ongoing failure to deal with a number of issues, of which climate is perhaps the most urgent and inescapabe. It isn’t as if capitalist societies haven’t managed to act collectively and co-operate for the public good as recently as the pandemic (with notable exceptions, ahem), but also back when dealing the the hole on the ozone layer and Y2K, and yet despite endless greenwashing, all capitliams does about climate change is drag its feet, obstruct, and even go backwards.
Socialism is incompatible with diversity in the sense that the socialist, having taken over some area of society, is inevitably driven to a "one size fits all" model.
So, sure, all sorts of diverse looking people go to the government schools to be taught the exact same things, buy the exact same products at the government stores, live in the identical row houses built to the government's specifications.
Think this is an exaggeration? Look at what Bernie Sanders, our nation's most prominent Socialist, had to say: "You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country."
The diversity of socialism is a bunch of diverse looking people who all think alike, living identical lives. It's cosmetic diversity, and only cosmetic diversity.
This is a confusing, weird argument. Public services having minimum standards that everyone can expect no matter who they are or what their background is not the same as one size fits all. It's not 'socialism' that generated endless identikit suburban sprawl, either. There aren't any 'government stores.'
Sanders' argument was obviously contrasting empty consumerist excess sitting side-by-side with poverty, and had nothing to do with your weird argument.
" Public services having minimum standards that everyone can expect no matter who they are or what their background is not the same as one size fits all."
It is EXACTLY one size fits all, and socialists try to make EVERYTHING a "public service".
That's ok, don't make everything a public service. Don't even limit people to using public services. But public services are an essential foundation for any society.
But you do limit people to using public services, if they're not wealthy, and you tax them enough to pay for the services. Because they're not wealthy enough to pay twice, once of for the public service they didn't want, and once for the free market service they did want.
That's why almost everybody attends public schools, after all: After paying the taxes that support them, most people can't afford private schools.
If you provde people with services they could not otherwise afford or access, then you're doing the oppositie of limiting.
Most people attend public schools because historically, the public school system has been the only way for most people to access education, while private schools were, and still are, reserved for the wealthy elites and upper bourgeois or were dependant on philanthropy. To dismantle a system that has elevated and benefitted so many people is to, ultimately, deprive most people of that access.
Brett, Medicare supplemental plans allow for both systems to work together. You can spend more money to get private-level service while still availing yourself of the tax-funded portion. There are numerous private/public versions of healthcare of this sort in the many social democracies--UK, OZ, NZ, etc. It isn't either/or as you assert. Even for schools, the school choice programs in this country generally allow households the ability to pool public school funds with their own cash to send their (wealthier) kids to private school (and thus defund public education for people who cannot afford private, but that's another topic.)
And your extension of "socialism" to include social democratic programs like Social Security, Medicare, public schools, etc, seems like a strawman.
socialist, having taken over some area of society, is inevitably driven to a “one size fits all” model.
Having just listened to that Yale lecture series on political philosophy, I think you're mixing up the USSR's take with the political concept.
Socialism: Workers own the means of production - everyone gets their own value of labor.
Communism - Workers get what they need, and gives what they are able.
Both of these are actually quite individually tailored in their outcomes.
Yes, the labor theory of value these are based on is wrong in any number of ways, and neither of these systems Marx envisioned are implementable by humans.
But it's not because they're incompatible with diversity.
And yet, the socialist is still driven to take over one area of society after another, and then impose "minimum standards" which also become maximum standards, because the government is paying for all of this, and is trying to avoid spending too much.
So the ACA imposed "minimum standards" for the insurance that could be sold, (And required you to buy it!) but also punished selling insurance that was too good; It imposed maximum standards, too.
I don’t think you know (or care) what a socialist actually is, if you’re going to define it as anyone who is into setting minimum standards.
Standards-setting is not socialist. Or Communist. At least not as defined by Marx.
One might argue that they're capitalist, when capitalism wants to ward off the appeal of socialism. Ralph Miliband called social safety net regulations the best friend capitol has.
As I recall Marx and his disciples were as against socialism (from Proudhon et al) as they were against capitalism.
Marx was all for socialism as a stopping point on the way to this communist utopia where there the state has 'withered away.' It's some trippy stuff.
Hard to believe people bought it, until 1) you see it's a unique way to quantify value and goodness, which was a big draw at the time, and 2) you see the age he was writing in and all the revolutions that were ripe.
Also, he also said some spicy stuff about his own theories later in his life when all these revolutions ended in no real change, and he became a lot more cynical and embittered than in his initial writing.
tldr: Marx had one big insight, addressed none of it's flaws, took it way too far, had a second insight in a great critique of capitalism, and then later became a crank.
Marx also amusingly said something about how he didn't like how all the communist revolutions had taken place in peasant economies without the tech or infrastructure to have the resource abundance nor capacity to administer the state as he envisioned.
Which...wasn't really the main issue with the USSR.
Wonder what he'd say about China.
It isn't hard to understand the appeal of Marx at all - it is religious dogma dressed up in scientific rags. A perfect thing for people to believe in when they stop believing in other things.
He was good observer of the misery of his age (compares well with Dickens) and not a bad pamphleteer, but he was right miserable as a theoretician. The Manifesto defies his Hegelian limitation that the synthesis is inherently unpredictable.
That undersells Marx. Would you say the same thing about Locke? Benthmm? Mill?
The enlightenment was about the initial quantitative and secular foundations for morality, coming out of a religious dogma. Of course it still has some dogmatic bits. Check out Burke, who calls the whole enterprise a fatally flawed mess.
While I think Marx's labor theory of value is fundamentally flawed as laid out, the idea of labor adding value was a pretty legit insight. (But see is take on integrating scientific advances into his theory...yeesh.)
And his take on the flaws of capitalism (productivity ever upward, wealth ever towards the executives) remains quite relevant, even after the innovations of Keynes/FDR.
There's a reason everyone except the Marxists abandoned LTV, and it isn't because the Marxists were right. The Marxists can't give it up because they then lose the theory of exploitation (which depends on surplus value as defined in LTV). Note that socialists (of whatever stripe) never had this problem.
Oh yes, Marx was surpassed by later thinkers. But no one uses Bentham's utilitarian either. Nor Mill's rights-utility synthesis. Locke was pretty exceptional, and still largely stands up. Yeah, folks that call themselves Marxists now are idiots. So are people who call themselves utilitarians. Or Smithian economists.
First, because we get better at thinking about these things over time.
Second, because you don't get to be a philosopher, especially in the enlightenment tradition, by thinking about exceptions to your sweeping paradigm.
‘Socialists’ don’t take over areas of society – public services already existed to provide essential services to the public, then private interests come along and get political cronies to sell them the public services for peanuts, break them up, degrading them as services or altering them beyond recognition while running them at a massive profit or into the ground, or, as in case of health services, inserting themselves as a parsitical middleman whose financial interests determine whether people get access to health care or not. Capitalism also feeds off itself, as in leveraged buy-outs, asset-stripping and offshoring, and, lately, the tech disruptors that gave us the gig economy. ‘Socialists’ are people who say maybe these aren’t such good ideas after all.
Historically that's just wrong, Nige. Except for the military, virtually every modern 'public service' started out as a private service, and then got taken over by government.
Those that started out as 'private' were reserved for the wealthy or were charitable in nature and it wasn't until governments 'took them over' that they became availble to all, or at least most, of the citizenry, regardless of class or status.
Everything above bare subsistence started out as a luxury of the wealthy, Nige. You're drawing that border so it covers everything.
I'm not sure you understand what happened in the 1930s, Brett.
You leave workers with nothing to lose if they revolt, it doesn't end well.
Have you ever examined the environmental record of countries that have been ruled by socialist/communist governments? Where do you think lithium production is going to be less environmentally damaging - in the U.S. or in China?
China is both communist and capitalist. The operative difference between the US and China is not capitalism but democracy (even if ours has become a bit shaky.)
Further, it's hard to argue that China would be worse at mineral extraction than the US given our terrible track record on letting the fossil fuel industry avoid cleaning up their messes. (see: numerous abandoned and leaking oil facilities, coal mines, fracking's impact on drinking water, etc.)
But the biggest threat to lithium extraction in the US is that a lot of it would be on tribal lands and represent a threat to culturally sensitive areas which, admittedly, would never be a thing in China.
Can you please define "capitalist" for the context you use it here?
juris imprudent — I doubt either question would be answered the way you expect. Of particular interest might be a comparison of environmental impacts from extractive industries in the U.S., with an eye to comparing results under former laissez faire national administrations, to those delivered under more recent, “socialist,” polices.