Although I have libertarian sympathies I'd label myself more as a conservative than as a libertarian, mainly because I just don't think pure libertarianism can work. Why? Because humans aren't rational and we very often do things that aren't in our best interests, and when a critical mass of society lives miserable lives because of their own poor choices it's certain to bring the rest of us down as well. The externalities are unavoidable. Case in point: a significant percentage of people simply can't handle their own finances -- this article is about the UK, but I'm confident the situation is even worse in the US.
A debt-fuelled spending splurge at Christmas is set to push thousands of individuals into crisis and cause record bankruptcies in coming months as consumers struggle to pay off credit cards. According to the accountancy firm Grant Thornton, at least 20,000 people in England and Wales will become insolvent by the end of the quarter in March, and 66,000 individuals by the end of 2006. Both figures would be the highest since records of personal debt began 45 years ago.Shoppers are thought to have been tempted into splashing out more than they could afford on food and presents at Christmas and on bargains in the new year sales. After a slow start retailers reported brisk business in December, and the bill for Christmas is almost certain to top the £10bn of 2004. The spree comes as personal insolvency surges at an annual rate of more than 30 per cent. Citizens' Advice Bureaux are reporting "huge numbers" of debt calls, and the Consumer Credit Counselling Service predicts bankruptcies will double in the next few years.
If people can't even handle credit cards, why do libertarians think they can handle, say, addictive drugs? Well, many libertarians don't, but respond to the philisophical difficulty by dismissing it and abandoning anyone who can't handle themselves to their own folly. But few people would argue that returning to an age of debtors prisons would be more desirable than a few governmental restrictions on borrowing and lending.
The key is "a few". Any regulations can go overboard, and bureaucracies have a tendency to expand to attempt to control anything they can get the budget for, so there's a fine line to walk to find the optimal level of liberty. I think we could do with a lot less regulation than we have now in most areas, but there are some that could do with a little more public oversight.
There's a difference between Libertarianism (pure or otherwise) and Anarchy. Pure Libertarianism isn't the lack of all government oversight.. that's Anarchy, and I don't know of many Libertarians who are Anarchists.
MW said: "a few governmental restrictions on borrowing and lending."
It's interesting to see you include "lending" in there. That's the first time I've seen a dyed-in-the-wool conservative mention the lending side of the personal debt problem.
Shortly after the bankruptcy changes were passed into law, for example, the credit limit on my two credit cards more than doubled. There were no changes in my life or my finances to warrant such an increase and yet, I'm all of a sudden worthy of such credit amounts? Seems a little irresponsible on the part of creditors.. but, then again, I suppose they have less to worry about with those bankruptcy changes and can afford to be more irresponsible.
MW said: "Because humans aren't rational and we very often do things that aren't in our best interests"
Perhaps.. but it's not necessarily the case that government or "collective public oversight" knows what's in our best interests or how to effectively work for those interests.
As much as you and other conservatives don't want the government holding a gun to your head forcing you to pay for various programs through taxes, I don't want the government telling me I can't have sex with another man (something I happen to enjoy) in my own residence, or telling me I can't own or carry a gun, or telling me what drugs I can and cannot put into *my* body, or telling me what I can and cannot watch on television via services that *I* choose to pay for, etc. Some people say "Well okay, I won't tell you that you can't do those things, but then don't ask me to pay for the cleaning up of the trouble those things may get you in". I agree, the limits on what we each pay for the mistakes and stupidity of others need to be changed. There are too many safeguards and protections from the stupidity of a few that are paid for by everyone via the government.
It gets very conflicted the deeper you go, however. Should everyone pay for safeguards and protections that they may one day need, through no fault or negligence of their own? How do you determine what is caused by stupidity or negligence and what cannot be blamed on a personal failure of some kind?
You paint us with too broad a brush, Michael.
The libertarian argument isn't that government is the sole obstacle to Utopia; it's that government intervention in private decisions nearly always makes things worse rather than better. We don't argue that after the repeal of the drug criminalization statutes everything would be just fine; we claim that the result would be a preferable situation on net balance. Opinions on such things will certainly vary, but to imply that a political libertarian simply dismisses the consequences of the policy options he espouses is unfair.
Please see also this.
In this case, I completely agree with the points made by Mark and Francis.
Mike: With respect to addictive drugs, what sorts of government regulations do you believe should exist for mentally competent adults? And should there be a significant difference in the legal between alcohol and other drugs such as marijuana and heroin? Having seen plenty of people in the ER intoxicated on both (legal) alcohol and (illegal) narcotics, the life-destroying potential of both is fairly similar, and I don't know if a scientific basis for treating one differently from the other with respect to the law.
Lots of good questions, where to start?
I know libertarianism isn't anarchism, but that also implies that not every government intervention makes things worse. Nearly always? Also probably not. In many/most cases, I think the problem is the degree of regulation, not even the type of regulation.
See this past post on drug legalization. I agree that alcohol is at least as harmful to society as many drugs, but my understanding is that it is far less addictive to most people. Some people ave a predisposition towards alcoholism (or addiction in general?), but most people won't become alcoholics no matter how much they drink. Is this right? The potential for addiction is one of my key criteria for regulating drugs.
Telling individuals what they can and can't do to some degree is important. Just about every action has an externality. Should adults without children be allowed to use certain drugs that adults with children can't? What about adults that live near children? Should doctors or taxi drivers be allowed to use the same drugs as everyone else? Just not before work? Who should test that? Or should we just punish them after they kill someone? A taxi driver who is addicted to meth won't refrain before work because of that potential post hoc punishment.
I've blogged here about this, but the guts of my statement is:
It seems clear to me that a majority of Americans (and I presume of Britons, and other nationalities as well) are responsible and rational about the finances, about what intoxicants they use (if any), how they drive, use a gun, etc. If I was feeling extremely generous, I might even say that a large majority are responsible and rational.
Still, there's at least 10-30% of the population who show insufficient responsibility or rationality. One problem with turning this into an either/or choice--should the government play nanny to everyone, or let everyone do what they want--is that rules that might make sense for the hopelessly irresponsible have a bad habit of turning into nuisances for the responsible majority.
There are some people who really shouldn't have guns (or cars, or their choice of intoxicants): convicted felons; psychotics; and perhaps a few other categories. There are some people that probably should have a gun only under adult supervision (such as minors). But there is a tendency in some circles (generally liberal or leftist) to assume that if some people can't be trusted with a gun, or choice of intoxicants, then no one can be trusted.
CEC: There's also a tendency in some circles (usually conservative or right-wing) to assume that if some people shouldn't be allowed to enjoy certain kinds of entertainment, then no one should be allowed to enjoy it.
Liberals and conservatives both have different aspects of our lives that they want to control and restrict. I support neither group's lists of items and aspects they'd like to control.. because both groups have things they'd like to control that they have no reasonable business in controlling. I don't support liberal notions that no one should own a gun. I also don't support conservative notions that no one should be able to watch various types of TV programming.
"This article is about the UK, but I'm confident the situation is even worse in the US".
I'm not going to jump into the debate about how much authority the government should have in regulating this, but I will say that your suspicion quoted above is correct:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1423789
"This year, more people are expected to file for bankruptcy than suffer a heart attack, graduate from college or file for divorce. A new book suggests those at greatest financial risk are families with children. NPR's Michele Norris speaks with Elizabeth Warren, co-author of The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke."
Surprisingly, it's not because of over-spending during the holidays. The cause of the problem described in this interview is complex, having to do with rising costs of just about everything, with the added risk (not added security) that comes from having both people work, and with mortgages and other financing plans that lead people to believe that they can afford things that they would not be able to afford if their financial lives are disrupted in any way. Fairly interesting, and the extent of this problem is surprising and painful.