Inspired by the ongoing debate between my colleagues Adam Kern and Sarah Siskind concerning libertarianism and public goods, this is the introduction and the first installment of a multi-part series on various libertarian theories concerning government and the provision of public goods. Or, alternatively, the role of government in a free society.
Debates can often devolve into arguments concerning semantics or the definitions of simple terms. “Libertarianism” is no exception. Typically the term “libertarian” describes individuals who tend to hold the same general views regarding government and public policy: smaller government, freer people, freer markets. Generally, libertarians support lower taxes, spending, and deficits, reductions in military spending and in foreign intervention, and the deregulation of health care and health insurance markets. Libertarians also tend to oppose (to one extent or another) government welfare provisions, social safety nets, funding for scientific research or artistic ventures, agricultural subsidies, barriers to domestic and international trade, legal privileges for unions, foreign aid, corporate welfare, blue laws, and restrictions on gambling. Libertarians also tend to agree on more radical propositions, such as the legalization of drugs (including hard drugs), prostitution, and sometimes even the repeal of affirmative action and laws prohibiting discrimination.
But though they largely agree on most immediate public policy issues, libertarians have nearly as many divisions and disagreements within their own ranks as do liberals and conservatives. Libertarians tend to differ with regard to two crucial issues:
(1) Their particular reasons for supporting a policy,
which frequently influences
(2) the extent of desired reform or change in a particular policy.
Libertarian thinkers such as Milton Friedman and Robert Nozick would both agree, for example, that the current welfare system in the United States is excessively large; both would want to shrink it. Friedman, however, in accordance with his advocacy of cost-benefit utilitarianism, advocates for a simplification of the welfare system to a negative income tax, but stops short of calling for the complete abolition of the welfare system. Nozick, on the other hand, while likely not disputing the technical and economic arguments outlined by Friedman, would, on moral grounds (support for natural rights to property), advocate for outright dismantling of these programs.
Therefore, though thinkers like Nozick and Friedman, and other libertarians of their respective stripes, usually agree on the optimal policy choices to be implemented by Congress tomorrow, they tend to diverge further down the ideological road as they approach more extreme or theoretical issues.
This series will progress according to this framework, always making sure to (1) point out the underlying and fundamental principles of a particular brand of libertarianism, and (2) explaining and examining what these principles imply for “big picture” questions, such as government provision of public goods.
Along the way, we’ll be sure to (briefly) run into the ideas of thinkers from all across the classical liberal and libertarian tradition, tame and radical, (seemingly) reasonable and (seemingly) wacky, such as Milton Friedman, Jeffrey Miron, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, David D. Friedman, John Stuart Mill, Gustave de Molinari, Ayn Rand, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Walter Block, Lysander Spooner, Albert J. Nock, and a few others. It should be good fun.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.