The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Noah Smith Regrets Bashing Libertarians
I feel like I owe libertarians an apology, for severely underrating their ideology. I was so focused on its theoretical flaws that I ignored its political importance. I concentrated only on the marginal benefits that might be achieved by building on our economic system's libertarian foundation, ignoring the inframarginal losses that would happen were that foundation to crumble. I had only a hazy, poor understanding of the historical context in which libertarianism emerged, and of the limitations of libertarianism's most prominent critics.
The most obvious thing that has prompted me to make this apology is Donald Trump's disastrous tariff policy….
I should also have realized that as right-leaning ideologies go, American libertarianism was always highly unusual. I had lived in Japan, where the political right is protectionist, industrialist, and sometimes crony-capitalist. I should have realized that this was the norm for right-leaning parties around the world, and that the American right's Reaganite embrace of free markets and free trade was the anomaly. That, in turn, should have given me a warning of what would happen if libertarianism fell in America.
I did not understand the relevant pieces of history, nor did I think carefully enough about what I had observed overseas. And so when I was a graduate student writing about the ills of libertarianism, I imagined that the realistic alternatives to the American system of 2007 were either the gentle progressivism of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, or the vigorous nation-building of FDR and Eisenhower, rather than the madness of a charismatic populist with zero understanding of economics….
I'd be lying if I said that Trump's madness is the only thing that made me feel more sympathy for libertarianism. Over the past decade, I've seen the excesses of progressive economic ideology more clearly than I ever did as a graduate student.
Contrariwise, I've grown more critical of libertarianism over the last few years, because I've come to recognize that too many libertarians confuse proper skepticism of government and preference for voluntary markets with crude anti-governmentism, which is not the proper lesson from the classical liberal tradition. The crude anti-governmentists tend to eventually find themselves drifting to the Glenn Greenwald-esque left or the racist and populist alt-right. Both those ideologies provide a much more satisfyingly universal hostility to the US government than the much more nuanced philosophy championed by the likes of Epstein, Friedman, and Hayek. Both seem to appeal specifically to followers of the late Murray Rothbard, whose hostility to anything and everything related to the US government I increasingly believe has really harmed libertarianism and opened it to all sorts of crackpots.
In any event, I don't agree with everything Smith says, but I found his essay thought-provoking. As they say, read the whole thing.
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
Methinks there's a lot of misunderstanding of a philosophy described most simply as "don't hurt people and don't take their stuff", because far too many people want the fruits of libertarianism when it swings their way, but despise it when people they don't like are left alone too.
Government is, at its core, nothing but a bureaucracy. All that crap added on, like NIH, FDA, and the other 3LA agencies, are only there because bureaucrats like expanding their fiefdoms and do not want to solve the problems which created their jobs. Fake libertarians are only libertarian when it comes to their side being left alone, not those other guys over there.
There are many authoritarians who believe themselves libertarian because they don't want a jackboot on their own neck, but they want jackboots stomping on the necks of those they don't like.
The Mises Caucus and the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire are currently controlled by such.
There are plenty of right-wingers here and on the main Reason pages who think like this - some even claiming Trump as a libertarian president, presumably because they're stupid.
Many category errors by Smith and Bernstein, confusing libertarianism with self-described libertarians.
Smith insists on placing it in the left-right axis instead of orthogonally on the axis of collective-individual.
Libertarianism does not preclude social responsibilities.
Anti-social cranks latching on to the libertarian label doesn't speak to what libertarianism is.
I can't help but laugh at Smith playing out the role of a college progressive being mugged by reality.
Whereas I am critical of libertarian types because most of them are autistic academic ivory-tower types who couldn't persuade a honeybee to land on a rose bush.
The trouble with libertarians is that they always assume away problems like the fact that communist countries deal in bad faith.
Reagan and the right did not adopt free markets and lower tariff barriers because they saw the intellectual light; They did it to bust Democratic unions (and it worked, we exported a lot of union jobs to non-union China). Of course the theory was also that as China modernized they would also Democratize and liberalize. How did that work out?
In libertarianism, everyone is assumed to be rational, there are no pure power plays, men and women are angels, and information flows freely. In the real world, not so much.
Not sure if I feel seen or called out.
Oh higwash. You're the one making silly assumptions.
"In libertarianism, everyone is assumed to be rational, there are no pure power plays, men and women are angels, and information flows freely." No libertarian who actual understands the classical liberal tradition believes anything like that, and you can see all of those tropes rebutted as long ago as Adam Smith.
The whole point of libertarianism is to protect individuals from the power plays of others.
>communist countries deal in bad faith.
What does that have to do with my personal liberty?
If it's a national security issue, ban the transactions. If not, then why do I care?
"realistic alternatives to the American system of 2007 were either the gentle progressivism of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, or the vigorous nation-building of FDR and Eisenhower"
Amazing.
Yes, Smith deserves to be crapped on for that. Even as I sort of agree with his broader point.
The problem with MAGA Trumpism is that it is even less coherent in what it wants to achieve, and the means it is going about to achieve it. Oh, and blaming RINO establishment cucks for any failure to achieve, past or present. At some point, you need stable governing majorities in Congress to change the law. You won't get that enthusiastically nominating unelectable candidates like Kari Lake who thrill the base but have no shot at winning a general election. RINOs are not to blame for that. Too many people thinking there won't ever be another election.
"stable governing majorities"
Without ending the filibuster, no majority can do anything but confirm appointments, repeal a few regs in a short window at the start, and pass a reconciliation bill. All things excepted from filibuster.
Since we went to 100 senators, the most the GOP has ever gotten is 55 seats.
Or, you know, work with the other party.
MAGA Trumpism isn't an ideology. It's a system of ethics. An ethics which is rooted on the foundation America exists for white Christians.
"all sorts of crackpots."
Most libertarians have always been crackpots.
Whereas statists are the only sane people in the political universe.
Better late than never.
Many "libertarians" are fine with government power in a range of areas. The ultimate test is determining suitable line drawing.
That is often the problem with Trump. For instance, tariffs might be bad. But a significant problem with Trump is his lack of power to use them as he is using them.
Libertarianism is problematic when it is misguided about what is suitably assigned to the government and/or when it selectively concerned with governmental power.
For instance, sometimes non-governmental institutions can threaten liberty to such a degree that governmental power is legitimate.
That, or a variation thereof, is a standard liberal critique of libertarianism. My response is that the two aren't even comparable in scale of threat. Thinking the government is an important counterweight to big business is like thinking that a pack of ravenous wolves is an important counterweight to a rabid squirrel in your backyard. It's not that the squirrel can't do any harm to you; it's that the threat it poses is trivial compared to the wolves.
All you have to do is look at this Trump administration to see how even the biggest non-governmental institutions are insignificant compared to the government. Biglaw, large universities, big corporations, also bending the knee, even when they have the law on their side.
You could see similar in Trump's master's country. There was lots of talk in the post-Cold War era about Russian oligarchs. But no matter how rich they were on paper, any one who crossed Putin ended up poor, in exile, or roadkill.
How does government being much more powerful than non-governmental entities disprove those enemies are also capable of abridging rights?
The Declaration says the reason governments are instituted among men is to secure our liberties. That's a nonsensical statement if the only threat to our liberties is government. History shows, however, that it's not just governments who can harm us.
Meaning monopolies? The only real monopolies are those created by governments, from patents, copyrights, and regulations such as utilities.
You have have heard of Dr Snow who discovered cholera in London in 1854. You probably don't know that London at that time had at least three private fresh water utilities.
It takes a special kind of idiot to look at Trump and to pick his tariffs as the thing that converts you to libertarianism. How about the part where he rounds people up for thoughtcrime and/or being brown, and locks them up in a foreign prison without due process?
Actually, the truly idiotic thing is all the people who actually believe in delegated tariff authority making arguments against delegated tariff authority because Trump is using it.
Me, I'm against such delegated authority, think Trump's tariffs are bad policy and being moronically employed in pursuit of incoherent/conflicting stated goals (protectionism, rehoming manufacturing, opening foreign markets, raising revenue), yet have to concede they are not illegal as some libertarians pretend. The prior Congress should have repealed it when they had a chance.
At least Somin has the distinction of being sincere in his opposition, as far as it goes. Unlike most Democrat sympathizers, who don't oppose a president having and using such authority. Just this president. They would do tariffs smarter.
I don't think most are insincere; they're just too dumb/shortsighted to understand that any power given to the government will be used by their enemies as well as by them.
Both parties suffer from the failure to realize that they will not be a permanent governing majority.
Because Noah Smith is a liberal and doesn't believe liberals would do those things.
"to pick his tariffs as the thing that converts you to libertarianism" The tariffs he initially announced had the potential to cause a worldwide economic calamity. That's not small beans.
I think the problem is a lot of people who call themselves libertarian turn out not to actually be libertarian. They like they idea of freedom for themselves and think it ends there, but freedom for others is whatever.
Exactly! Freedom for me but not thee.
This issue is that R, D, and L have all become marketing terms instead of being the standard bearers for any particular sort of ideology or principles.
I mean, who would have guessed 2-3 decades ago that the Rs would be pushing tariffs? How much do you think a blue dog D has in common with those of of AOC or The Bern?
With the Rs and Ds, the beliefs tend to follow (or at least fall in line with) what those in power and control says they are.
Perhaps because the Libertarian Party has never been in any sort of control, but the Ls can never seem agree where it stands or what the ideals should be. I watched a Libertarian convention/meeting one time and it reminded me of an old joke where Jesus said we should all love each other, then we spent the next 2k years fighting and killing each other over what he meant by that. So, "yay freedom!", but everything after pretty much was bickering.
R, D, and L... not much more than propaganda .
idk disastrous seems purposefully shortsighted considering results are not in.
"the gentle progressivism of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, or the vigorous nation-building of FDR and Eisenhower"
This sounds like a dimestore romance plot, or maybe just Twilight:
"How can I choose between the measured and refined Edward and the passionate and masculine Jacob? Guess I'll take both."
A tariff is a tax. Libertarians oppose taxes. So libertarians oppose tariffs. But we have lots of taxes, and it seems odd to make a libertarian issue out of tariffs.
Tariffs are a particularly distorting form of tax.