Why Am I a Libertarian?

My good friend, Scott Preston, and I were chatting yesterday evening and he asked me if it was true that I am a libertarian. This got me thinking and I dug up an essay I wrote back in 2003 on the subject. Here it is for what it's worth.


Why am I a Libertarian?

Perhaps because of my background.

I was born in Utah. My parents and grandparents were from rural Idaho. Both sides of family were Mormon, with memories of tacit government approval of persecutions. In the US there is at least the perception of a western ethos of self-sufficiency – a willingness to help others and accept help without coercion.

I am educated as a economist. An elementary part of that education included an introduction to Adam Smith’s notion of the invisible hand. Smith noted that in a well-functioning market no conscious force was required to achieve good outcomes. Selfish, self-serving individuals can nonetheless behave cooperative ways to the good of all.

I have lived in countries where liberty is not as prevalent as it is here in the United States. I have seen students having backpacks searched as they came through the downtown subway stations in Seoul in 1983. I have seen the look of terror in the eyes of an illegal vendor confronted by a thuggish policeman in Shanghai in 2000. When one encounters this deprivation of the freedom we expect, one must ask, why are things so different.

A related question is, what the legitimate role of government really is. Clearly, a government should protect its citizens from violent crime, theft, coercion, fraud. It should establish and protect property rights, including ownership of self, and enforce voluntary contracts. It should provide defense from military invasion by foreign powers.

It is NOT, however, a legitimate role of government to privilege one citizen or group of citizens over another. In fact, this is exactly what delegitimizes governments all over the globe.

How is government power actually used in the US?

Here is a list of US cabinet departments:
Agriculture
Commerce
Defense
Education
Energy
Health & Human Services
Homeland Security
Housing and Urban Development
Interior
Justice
Labor
State
Transportation
Treasury
Veterans Affairs
Environmental Protection
Management & Budget
Drug Control Policy
US Trade Representative

Here is a list of City of Orem Commissions (where I live):
Beautification Commission
Library Advisory Commission
Board of Adjustment
Metropolitan Water Board
Board of Building and Fire Code Appeal
Planning Commission
Community Development Block Grant / HOME Advisory Commission
Senior Citizen Advisory Commission
Historic Preservation Advisory Commission
Recreation Advisory Commission
Human Relations Advisory Commission
SummerFest Committee
Orem Youth Council
Heritage Commission
Sister City Commission

Many of the activities these departments and commissions perform may be well-intentioned and even worthwhile, but are they within the legitimate scope of government? Contrast the difference between a government and a private philanthropic organization. As an example, take city beautification. I may volunteer my time or make a donation if I agree with the aims of a private philanthropy. If I don’t agree, I may refuse to participate. I can even try to convince others not to participate. If government performs the same tasks and a citizen does not agree with it what are the consequences? Think seriously about what would happen. For example, it is illegal not to plant a lawn in Orem. If I disagree with this government rule, what are the consequences? They potentially include: fines, imprisonment, and if I were to try to escape prison, execution. Most people give in rather than face these consequences, but should they have to?

Is it really that bad? In what ways is my freedom unnecessarily constrained?

1. Taxation – some taxes are necessary to provide legitimate government service. I note that much of this could be raised without coercion. Pennsylvania was predominantly Quaker during the Revolutionary War and the colonial government balked at levying taxes to pay for an army. Local residents raised voluntary contributions to outfit the militia with arms, cannons, etc.

How pervasive are taxes? The total value of all goods and services produced and sold in the US in 2002 was approximately 10.4 trillion dollars. Total tax receipts at all levels of government was 2.9 trillon, or just under 30%. Of that 10.4 trillion in goods and services 19% was consumed by governments. Perhaps unfettered untaxed citizens would have chosen to spend their money on the same set of goods the government chose? Or perhaps that 19% was chosen to help us buy things we should have, but wouldn’t have if we weren’t forced. Recall the list of cabinet positions and commissions to see if you think this is true.

These are only direct effects. It is impossible to tell how big indirect effects are. That is, what goods might have been produced and consumed if tax policy did not discourage their production and consumption. Or what goods did households & businesses buy that they would not have purchased if it weren’t for government policy?


2. Regulation – suppose I want to build an extension on my garage? Do I just go out, buy the materials and start building? Why not? What is the government’s legitimate stake in how or where I build my garage?

Suppose I want to start a business, say cleaning garages? Can I simply advertise and start selling my services? Why not? Why do I need a business license? Perhaps it protects the public by making sure I’m honest and trustworthy. It is telling that most people call the Better Business Bureau, a private organization, when they want to find out about a business’s reputation. Not too many people are content knowing a business license has been issued.

Suppose I want to start up a charity? No problem there since I’m not trying to make money, right? Why do charities need to be licensed? What is the public good that is being protected? How well is it being protected? What are the costs?


3. Monopoly and Subsidy – where to begin? When the government grants a monopoly or subsidizes a particular producer, or worse yet, decides to provide a service on its own, I lose the options I would have with competitive firms vying for my business.

Take a few examples. Public TV, certainly the programming is quality and it’s free! If PBS doesn’t do it who will? Well, maybe the Discovery Channel, or the History Channel, or National Geographic Channel, or… And they would do more of it, if they didn’t have to bid against a government subsidized entity for the good programs. Despite what the pledge people tell us, the good programming wouldn’t disappear if PBS stopped supplying it, it would simply migrate.

How about recreation? What legitimate reason do municipalities have in building golf courses? Where is the pressing public interest that makes it necessary to tax everyone’s home and groceries so that middle-class citizens can knock a ball around the lawn? Ditto for swimming pools, recreation centers, operas & ballets, and even libraries. These are all things that private firms could easily provide and probably much more efficiently if they didn’t have to compete with government-run or subsidized providers that don’t need to minimize costs.

Public education. Kids can get a decent education in public schools if they try. They can also coast through and come out not having learned much of anything useful. What is the driving public interest in such a system? We have lived with public education for so long that few of us really question the reasons why it monopolizes primary and secondary education. The differences between primary and secondary education and higher education are striking. Few people I know come to the US to take advantage of the former. The only cases I can think of are foreign parents who put their kids in public schools to teach them English, and they constantly complain about the lack of rigor in the classes compared to what their kids would be learning back home. But in higher education, where state universities are forced to compete with private ones, there are huge lines of foreigners waiting to come in. Take a look at any mid-level graduate program and you will invariably find a large number of foreign students and in many cases the best students will be foreign. This is a tribute to the US higher education system, and a indictment of the state-run secondary ed system that feeds it. Let me emphasize it is NOT an indication of the relative quality of teachers, it’s the systems that are to blame.


So why am I a Libertarian?

Democrats are the party of tax and spend, and they spend primarily on social programs to redistribute wealth. Republicans are the party of borrow and spend, and they spend primarily on programs that redistribute wealth as well. The constituencies may differ and the choice of finance may differ, but the methods and goals are identical. The US has a two-party system on paper, but not in any meaningful sense.

Are things really that bad? Well, they could be a lot worse. As US citizens we are among the freest in the world. All the same, there is much room for improvement. Being the healthiest patient in the cancer ward is no cause for great celebration.

Would the world be perfect if Libertarians ran things? No, of course not. Liberty means that people are free to choose, even to choose bad outcomes. No governmental system can be perfect as long as the people governed and governing are imperfect. But a world or a country or even a small community run under Libertarian principles would be a lot better than what we have now.