The Kinsley Doctrine - Tapdancing on the shoulders of giants

On January 12, 2008, Op-Ed columnist Michael Kinsley wrote what by all accounts must be called a very shallow article in the Washington Post regarding his understanding of libertarianism. Though the concept of the piece is tenatively to praise Caesar, the result of his soliloquy is to bury him.

The Church Doctrines of Pope Ron Paul

To the layman, this piece may well pass as a treatment of libertarianism by an author that is "in the know." To a student of libertarianism it amounts to a peripheral spatter approach. Touching on a few issues like a blind man finding his way in unfamiliar territory, the result is predictable.

Libertarianism differs greatly from other political ideologies in that it is derived from, and intellectually consistent with a praxeology. What this means in practice is that when studying libertarianism, you can address a new political issue, armed with only the axioms on which libertarianism is based and reasonably deduce the libertarian political position.

The core libertarian axiom is called the non-agression axiom. Here is a treatment on the common utilitarian criticism of it by Walter Block. From this axiom a social contract that involves private property, a justice system, individual liberty, freedom of speech and expression, and foreign policy is derived.

Every position held by a reasonable libertarian can be modeled both forwards and backwards from this axiom. Compare this with the intellectual grab bag of positions held by the two major parties of our political system and several things become clear. When political pundits stutter over the positions held by logical libertarians they often point out that the libertarian ideology cuts across positions held by both major parties. This is true. It is only when they continue from their uneducated view, to imply that this as an inconsistency that they run into trouble.

The reality is that the ideologies held by both the Republican and Democratic Parties are inconsistent. Having been at the forefront of political power for decades, what was once a relatively sound political philosophy has been bastardized over the years to encompass coalitions and interest groups in the pursuit of gaining and maintaining power.

Where the libertarian ideology, and the non-aggression axiom always yields to individual liberty, both major parties reflect the views of an amalgamation of groups over the course of political history. To solidify this view you need only ask a Democrat or Republican which party represents that of individual liberty. Neither will yield. A Democrat may point out that his party protects the rights and expression of the gay constituency, thus they are the protectors of civil liberties. A Republican may point out that his party protects the right to bear arms, from which at least tenatively all other rights are protected.

Ask for criticisms of the other parties encroachment on liberty and you'll find a storm of encroachments. Republican values call for the censoring of pornography and the regulation of the internet. The Democratic party regularly introduces legislation that applies to one race but not the other, creating legislative super-races. Progressive tax policies target productive members of society for the benefit of nonproductive members. What is couched as "pro-business" legislation often results in raising the barrier to entry of common markets and monopolistic cartels.

The stated platforms reflect an idealized version of the parties relationship with the governed. The reality of each party is a hodgepodge of positions and alliances that resulted from decades of vying for the halls of power. When you consider the reality, it is no surprise that the animus received by the libertarian viewpoint is so pronounced. The binary analysis promoted by our two party system means that to the Democratic Party we are right wing extremists and to the Republican Party we are extremely liberal.

It is from this uneducated viewpoint that Mr. Kinsley couches his critique. Let's examine his criticism and see if we can spot the inconsistency in his argument. He serves up this as his first example, and this example demonstrates the grab bag nature of the two major parties.

1) laws that forbid private behavior, such as recreational drugs;
2) government programs that redistribute one person's money to someone else?

Whereas the Republican Party would support the first and the Democratic Party would support the second. Although, to be fair, the Democratic Party has dove in head first to the trough known as the war on drugs.

Economics 101 teaches some of the basic justifications for government interference in the economy. Some things, such as the cost of national defense, are "public goods." We can't each decide for ourselves how much defense we want. We have to decide that together. Then there are "externalities," which are costs (or, sometimes, benefits) that your decisions impose on me. Pollution is the classic example. Without government involvement of some sort to override our individual judgments, we will produce more pollution than most of us want.

Anytime an argument is begun with the words "Economics 101" you should be wary. Economics is a social science. It is the study of human action and interaction, and there is a great deal of variance among the popular schools of thought. Basic tenets of Keynesian Economics is antithetical to that of Austrian Economics or Neo-classical Economics. The remainder, "101" is added to imply that this issue is so simple that anyone should be able to understand it. The reality is that a "101" level of aptitude regarding economic science is not the best of metrics to determine the future of our country, or the policies that will create the best outcome. Indeed, the remainder of his criticism is based on a "101" explanation of neoclassical economic theory.

Austrian economics posits that "public goods" quandries can best be handled by private solutions. To attempt the application of neoclassical economic theory to discredit a philosophy that subscribes to an alternate theory is disingenous, or at best, demonstrates a shortcoming in knowledge of the subject.

Libertarians also have a tendency to see too many issues in terms of property rights (just as liberals, they would counter, tend to see everything in terms of discrimination and equal protection). Pollution, libertarians say, is simply theft: you are stealing my clean air. Settle it in court. This is a really terrible idea: inexpert judges, lawyers and juries using the most elaborate and expensive decision-making process known to humankind -- litigation -- to make inconsistent decisions in different cases. And usually there is no one "right" answer: There is a spectrum of acceptable answers, involving tradeoffs (dirty air versus fewer jobs, etc.) that ought to be made democratically -- that is, through government

The existing system used regarding pollution is a federal umbrella that has in essence legalized pollution. Individual states are not free to set their own standards, and personal liberty is being encroached upon. California, along with fifteen other states, is currently suing the EPA over their right to set their own emissions standards for automobiles. We currently use tort to litigate deaths caused by pollution, as per the infamous Erin Brokovich case as well as Lead toys from China. Each are similar in that the result effects an unknown quantity of population and began from an unknown source.

The truth is that the only difference between the Cap and Trade system suggested by John McCain and others in congress, and the tort solution proposed by libertarians is who gets the money. The libertarian tort approach monetizes the cost of pollution and the plaintiff is the American Public. The cap and trade system monetizes the cost of pollution and the plaintiff is the Federal government. Mr. Kinsley's argument is a thinly veiled appeal to authority, stating in essence, "The legislative branch is better equipped to determine and profit from the pollution issue than the American people and the justice system."

The trouble here is that libertarians tend to analogize everything to a right to die. If you have the right to end your own life, you must have the right to do anything else you wish, short of that. If you're allowed to shoot yourself through the head, why aren't you allowed to drive without a seat belt?

The answer is that it's a bad analogy. When you drive without a seat belt, you are not motivated by a desire to die, or even a desire to take a small risk of dying. Why should your motive matter? Because your death -- especially your death in a car crash -- does impose externalities on others. I would pay good money not to have to see your bloody carcass lying beside the highway, or endure the traffic jam, or pay the emergency room costs. A serious right like the right to die may be worth the cost, while a right to be careless or irresponsible is not.

I would pay good money not to have illogical and non-connected statements regarding libertarianism published in well read periodicals. I propose a tax to that end. The goal of the legislation should be to check each entry in a well read periodical for fallacy and to appoint a censor to enforce the stated goal.

These two paragraphs fall horribly astray to what was previously just a very shallow read of the libertarian philosophy. If you are required to invent rights, parse them, order them in a hierarchy, and then dismiss them, perhaps you should re-examine your argument. The right to be careless or irresponsible is not needed. The reason these rights need not be enumerated is the government does not possess the right to require you to be cautious and responsible. Breathing "does impose externalities on others". By breathing one reduces the total pool of oxygen, thus creating an externality issue. Caution and responsibility requires that one does not exert himself, because exertion is a known cause of hyper-respiration.

The only salvation elucidated in these paragraphs is the unintended conflation of one invented right with another. Mr. Kinsley's right to not have to pay your emergency cost, which on average would be greater for not having worn your seatbelt, is couched in a very real right, and that is the right to the fruit of your efforts. Once again Mr. Kinsley has demonstrated the frustrating quality of taking what he is given. By accepting the states right to take money from you to pay for another's emergency room visit, you must accept the states right to force you to wear a seatbelt. Loss of liberty is an exponential proposition.

Llibertarians[sic] are quick to see hidden costs of ignoring libertarian principles and slow to see such costs in adhering to them. For example, Tucker Carlson reports in the Dec. 31 New Republic that Ron Paul wants to end the federal ban on unpasteurized milk. No one should want to drink unpasteurized milk, and almost no one does. Paul himself doesn't. But it bothers him that the government tells people they cannot do something they shouldn't do.Libertarians would say that if most people want pasteurized milk, the market will supply it. Firms will emerge to certify that milk has been pasteurized. These firms will compete, keeping them honest.

So yes, a Rube Goldberg contraption of capitalism could replace a straightforward government regulation. But what if you aren't interested in turning your grocery shopping into an ideological adventure? All that is lost by letting the government take care of it is the right of a few idiots to be idiots. That right deserves respect. But not much.

This argument is couched in the belief that the state implementation of the FDA is superior to a free market implementation. As for turning your grocery shopping into an ideological adventure, I too find that problematic, which is why we should no longer be forced to fund a socialized business that is run by both the executive and legislative branch of government. The rights of a few idiots to be idiots is the reason this country is a constutional republic instead of a direct democracy. Mr Kinsley's endorsement of a tyranny of the majority is a sad departure from the stated goals of the founders.

A similar flaw affects libertarian thinking about government-mandated redistribution. Extreme libertarians believe this is immoral or even unconstitutional, and even more moderate libertarians disapprove of government social welfare programs as an infringement on the freedom of taxpayers. But freedom is only one of the two core values our nation was built on. The other is equality. Defining equality, libertarians tend to take a narrow view, believing that it means only political equality with no financial aspects. Defining freedom, by contrast, they take a broad view, and see a violation in every nickel a citizen must spend.

Libertarians ask: By what justification does the government concern itself with inequality -- financial or otherwise -- in the first place? They are nearly alone in asking this question. Even conservatives claim a great concern for equality of opportunity, while opposing opportunity of result. And the reasons seem obvious: some degree of material equality as a necessary basis for political equality; the huge role of luck in getting each of us to our relative stations in life; etc.

There can be very little reasoning to refute that by treating people inequally you can enforce equality. The very premise defies a logical rebuttal. Where to grab hold? By what right can I lay claim to my fair share of Mr. Kinsley's readers? Political equality is best served by the fact that you have one person with one vote, thus we are all equal in that regard. What is proposed is a self defeating virtue. "By legally discriminating among the populace, we will effect equality." Thus Mr. Kinsley finds himself in the unenviable position of arguing the merits of "separate but equal."

But nothing like this is obvious to libertarians. They force us to think it all through from scratch. Good for them.

I applaud your effort, though it is the equivalent of dipping your toe in the ocean. Next time consider bringing a swimming suit.