Bringing the Libertarian Voice to the Table - Overview

In this year of 2014 the politics of the US are very divided. One stream of political thought is based in variants of Libertarian philosophy. Like many political philosophies there are many differing variants. But the core of the philosophy is that:

• individual liberty is of paramount importance
• political freedom flows from individual liberty

The purpose of this post is to talk through how to better engage these principles in the solution of actual problems.  In today's fractured political environment many discussions start with - " I am a Libertarian - and I oppose - "fill in the blank". The "fill in the blank" is typically some sort of Federal programs or restriction on individual rights. Perhaps because Libertarianism is so individualistic it is difficult for it to engage in solutions that have any sort of restraint or governmental influence. It is my strong feeling that by being so pure and so doctrinaire, the Libertarian angle on problems and solutions is either not represented or is dismissed as not helpful.

Most government problems have arisen in solution (or attempt at solution) of a problem. It is the nature of government that even after the problem has been solved the created bureaucracy will often persist. This dynamic means that over time a government will be bigger than it needs to be - and that a force such as that supplied by the Libertarian philosophy is needed.

As a general backdrop to the discussion below it is worth observing two points about the political "spectrum":

• First despite the stark language used by the Libertarian party - with Freedom on one end of the spectrum and Statism on the other end - with not many points in between -  there are in fact many many gradations of Liberty v. State Coercion.  It is no badge of shame to move around on that spectrum
• Government coercion can and should vary over time. So in a time of crisis the government may need to be very coercive - or at the introduction of a program restrictions may be needed that can and should be dismantled at later points in time.

While the points above may have already alienated some Libertarians - I hope they haven't. 

The Libertarian Party web page provides a list of issues https://www.lp.org/issues :

• Crime and Violence
• Environment
• Family Budget
• Foreign Policy
• Freedom of Speech
• Gun Laws
• Healthcare
• Immigration
• Internet
• Poverty and Welfare
• Privacy
• Social Security
• Taxes
• Tea Party
• Current Issues

We will examine the stated Libertarian approach on these issues and then suggest how it might be modified in approach - and steps that Libertarians might take to make their voice more powerful and useful in the national and local political arenas.

I am not arguing for or  against the Libertarian approach(es). Rather it is to say that it is not a faithful or helpful application of Liberatarian philosophy to merely say "NO" to any collective action or to retreat to an absolute definition of Libertarianism that would prohibit the state from engaging to solve collective action problems.

Before engaging on the issues above I want to fix ideas taking an extreme case. Imagine a state with one wealthy, powerful, intelligent Libertarian and 100 normal, not so wealthy, citizens. The powerful Libertarian (lets call that person "L") owns the pharmaceutical company and produces a powerful antibiotic. The 100 citizens are afflicted with a fatal disease curable only by the antibiotic. "L" can take many courses of action:

• He can give the antibiotic free to needy people
• He can sell it to those that can afford it - thereby leaving some to perish
• He can hoard it for himself
• He can export it to another state for higher prices

In the simplistic construction of Libertarianism - it is his property - and it is his right to use it as he sees fit.

The Libertarian philosophy argues against:

• Government or societal coercion to seize the needed drugs
• Government subsidies to help people afford the drugs

But is this a position anyone feels comfortable with? To imagine a state where the population dies off because of the property rights of one person is painful. We can even say that on purely selfish grounds how  would L's world look life as the sole survivor?

The point of that story is not to demonize the individual - but rather to say that "just say no" is not a satisfying stance on issues such as this. There may be many times when someone will just say no - but in that case - it is important to examine and accept the consequences of that stance.

In the hypothetical case above it is easy to imagine a lot of solutions that could come out of discussion:

• people who had money could buy it
• "L" could donate to those that don't have the funds
• There could be a state supplied subsidy to those that can't afford it.

And in the extreme case - where "L" simply wouldn't allow his antibiotic to be sold -some form of confiscation would be in order.

How would I advise Libertarians to proceed on issues such as the ones enumerated above? First - they as well as the authors of state authored actions and legislation ought to state what problem they are trying to solve. Reducing the proposal to a few initials (ACA), or a catch phrase  (gun control), or a euphemism (Environmental Justice)   encourages the argument to descend into name calling and hardened positions. So the first rule of discussion is for both sides - Libertarians - and "Statists" - to start by verbalizing what problem is on the table. It may well be that some Libertarians would say - there is no problem. But if that is the starting position - state it - and explain.

But - to proceed to argument with out stating the problem will condemn the subsequent dialogue to irrelevance.

Second when making a Libertarian policy statement - it should either offer alternatives to the policy under discussion OR explain why the policy will be ineffective or cause collateral damage worse than the ill that is being discussed. The latter point should contain a discussion of what the consequences of inaction are - and why it is best to accept them. It is not enough - in my view at least - to simply state that taxes should be reduced, or that regulations repealed, or to look back in time to the "good old days" and say things were better without government action.

Lets use gun control as an example. The reason that gun control advocates espouse this policy is to prevent gun violence - in cities, schools, and elsewhere in the country.  A Libertarian may say (a la the first point above) - that I have a constitutional right to bear arms - and that such a policy infringes on that right. But I do understand the desire to reduce deaths from guns.

A Libertarian may say (a la the second point about) - that not only are you infringing on my constitutional rights - but your policy is not going to work:

1. there are  so many guns "out there" that anyone who wants a gun can get a gun
2. restricting magazine size will simply teach shooters to load faster.
3. the damage of overriding constitutional protections is so great that is better to have gun violence than undermine the constitution.

They might offer solutions that minimize the loss of liberty -

1. granting safe harbor to have guns to many classes of people (similar to what is happening now with airline security)
2. setting up licensing procedures that a effectively binding on very small groups of people
3. creating "Nudges" (see the book http://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/014311526X )

The book Nudge gives many examples where the end goal of society may be achieved - not with a piece of regulation or a law- but simply by working with incentives. At this moment I can't think of incentives that would foster a more prudent gun control approach - but they do exist I am sure.

Certainly state policy makers  would be bound by the  same set of guidelines: state the objective and recognize the harm and consequences of additional regulation.

Some things they would need to address:

1. to produce legislation that undermines constitutional rights will have many terrible consequences in the future.
2. legislation often has perverse and unintended consequences. 
3. legislation produced in crisis environments ought to have a sunset on it as the situation evolves.
4. at some point - constitutional amendment - executed in the constitutionally prescribed manner may be the best way to move forward.

In order to keep the blog posts short I will consider the issues individually in separate posts. I will hope that readers review this overview section.