"My Rand Paul Problem – Why classical liberalism is superior to hard-core libertarianism," by Richard A. Epstein
Just found this article today. Epstein raises many good points, and I think he makes a legitimate argument.
The difference between Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism is an issue I'm currently trying to learn more about, as the distinction really hasn't been very clear to me up until now. But here it looks like I may have found an author who can finally provide that much needed insight. I'll definitely have to check out some of this guy's books.
The difference between Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism is an issue I'm currently trying to learn more about, as the distinction really hasn't been very clear to me up until now. But here it looks like I may have found an author who can finally provide that much needed insight. I'll definitely have to check out some of this guy's books.
"The umbrella term comfortably embraces both strands of libertarian theory vis-à-vis a common intellectual foe."
The term may embrace both, but I don't see libertarians doing a good job of working together to push modest reforms to scale back the size and intrusiveness of gov't.
Epstein also conflates two different situations: the holdout who does not want to sell their land to the state; and the "holdout" who robs their neighbor. Epstein says that the second person is violating the social contract and upsetting the social order - and so is the first.
More to the point, "social order" is not the _goal_ of objective law. Peace comes as a consequence of protecting the individual and individual rights against aggression. That derives directly from your right to your own life - and your right to protect yourself. There is a difference between defending yourself against an attack and retaliating against your (accused) attacker. Government is the solution to that problem.
But "government" can be instantiated many ways. How that gets done is a worthy discussion to have - but we all must keep to first principles, and Epstein does not. In fact, he sacrifices those principles for the expedient promise that "someone" (someone else; the government) will keep down the cost of highways (recreational parks; outer space exploration; education; electricity...) by forcing "holdouts" to go along with the "social contract."
Considering one of your favorite areas of discussion, how are homosexuals not holdouts against the social contract that we have children in order to carry on human society? You can see where vacuous "classical liberalism" without a ligature to first principles can be put to any purpose. In fact, it was...
Classical liberalism failed precisely because it lacked an objective basis in metaphysics and epistemology and therefore in morality and ethics. The free market liberals of the early 19th century became the anti-market liberals of the late 19th century because they conflated economic power with political power. Seeking to protect everyone from anyone more powerful, nothing stopped them from enforcing whatever they added to the "social contract." It is why Ayn Rand coined the phrase "radicals for capitalism" as the best expression of the right political program.
And many homosexuals do have children, so saying they're somehow holdouts against that isn't supported by the evidence. But regardless, it isn't necessary for every single member of society to reproduce, anyway. It's only necessary for the birth rate of the total population to exceed the death rate, and even then only if the available resources can maintain and support the increased population levels.
Economic power can absolutely translate into political power. Always remember the golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. I suppose a system where political success had nothing to do with financial backing would be ideal, and I think the Founding Fathers tried to achieve that. But given the way our nation's government has operated the past two-hundred years, it doesn't appear as though they succeeded.
I don't think Classical Liberalism ever actually failed. It was simply abandoned. Obviously a philosophy isn't going to have any impact on a society that ignores and disregards it. You say that Classical Liberalism can be put to any purpose, and was, but I don't quite see how. Could you clarify that point for me?
As you say, a system where political power was separated from the economic sphere is best. Short of that, I agree with your running subtext that if economic decisions were all-inclusive, then racism and sexism and etc. would not exist. But contrary to the claims of free market apologists, you can get along well enough without Negroes at your lunch counter or queers drinking your beers. Myself, I do not see that two wrongs make a right. Beating someone up for being stupid will not make them smart. But that is a discussion you and we all have have in many places here in the Gulch.
The solution is not political, but cultural. Consider the shining moments of Hellenism or the Renaissance. It was not that everyone agreed on specifics but that many people accepted a common culture. Those cultures honored reason and individualism. In religion and politics we have Sunnis bombing Shiites and Catholics burning Protestants and Buddhists versus Hindus and all that and communism and fascism and the rest. But Epicureans did not persecute Stoics. The Copenhagen physicists did not bomb the bierhalls of the Uncertainty Principlists. When many people in many places implicitly accept Objective truth, you will see the kind of society you seem to want.
On the final point, if Classical Liberalism was abandoned, is that not the same thing as it having failed? By that you mean, perhaps, that the original impetus of the 1830s was lost by the 1870s. You label it one thing; I call it something else. It seems to be the same in either case. The failure was that no such thing existed as explicit Classical Liberalism. They could and did drift far away from their original principles because those fundamentals were never explicit.
What? You want me to vote for Jeb Common Core?
There is no such thing, as government must consume a portion of the taxes procured. Ever more taxes dictates ever more bureaucracy, thus reducing the efficiency of the taxes to provide services. Any service can be procured by the individual (or group of individuals) more cost efficiently than via a government institution. Even a military would be more efficient, although a private military would raise questions of vigilantism and legitimacy.
I read his article as a veiled attack against classic liberal as well as libertarian principles in favor of conservative bigger government, much as our current field of conservative Republicans wanting to better manage big government in order to maintain their ideals of social order and properness. He seems to lose the concept of true freedom.