American socialist magazine Jacobin has warned its readers that Pierre Poilievre is not just another right-wing populist, but has a "radical libertarian agenda".
February 1, 2025 - "Much has been written about [Pierre] Poilievre in recent years, often framing him as the champion of the Freedom Convoy, anti-lockdown politics during the height of COVID-19, or a right-wing populist fighting against woke tyranny. While these characterizations highlight key elements of his political strategy, they risk oversimplifying his ideology. Poilievre is not merely a populist reactionary; he is a deeply ideological figure with a long-standing engagement with ... particularly the ideas of Milton Friedman. His contemporary anti-state politics are grounded in this intellectual lineage.... Understanding Poilievre’s ideological foundations is critical to grasping the broader implications of his rise — and the threat it poses.
"Poilievre has often expressed admiration for Friedrich Hayek and the Virginia School of public choice founders James M. Buchanan and Gordon Tullock. However, his most consistent and fervent ideological inspiration comes from Friedman’s radical libertarian critiques of the state. This is evident in Poilievre’s decades-long proselytizing in the name of two of Friedman’s most significant books: 1962’s Capitalism and Freedom and 1963’s A Monetary History of the United States, 1867–1960. During his formative years in Calgary, he became an avid reader of Capitalism and Freedom, shaping his worldview around Friedman’s ideas about voluntary exchange versus coercion, economic freedom versus the bureaucracy of the welfare state, and the role of inflation and monetary theory. These ideas informed many of his university essays, including his 1999 scholarship-winning 'Building Canada Through Freedom' essay....
"Poilievre himself traced this ideological lineage in [a] recent interview with Jordan Peterson, stating, 'I’ve been saying precisely the same thing the entire time . . . building Canada on freedom. The entire piece was on making government small and maximizing personal freedom'.... For Friedman and Poilievre, voluntary exchange occurs in a social and power vacuum. This notion presents a romanticized view of private economy in which real-world consequences and inequality do not exist. Poilievre has expressed this extreme interpretation of voluntary exchange in stark terms, stating, 'Everything the government does, even the good things, is done by the coercive force of taxation, a gun to the head.' He has fleshed this out even further in the House of Commons:
Every exchange in a free market economy, literally every single one, without exception, is based on voluntary exchange. . . . By contrast, every single transaction done by government is done by force, even legitimate, desirable transactions. . . . However, surely, we should also agree that the use of that force should be limited to cases where it is absolutely unavoidable and necessary. We should not expand government into areas people can decide upon and act out on their own volition. The government continually gets involved in areas that are easily done through voluntary exchange. In fact, it replaces free choice with force very often....
"Poilievre routinely draws on not just Friedman but also Buchanan, whose public choice theory influenced Friedman’s later work, including Free to Choose. Poilievre’s rhetoric reflects their shared disdain for the welfare state, which he once referred to in a National Post op-ed as 'truly horrific,' claiming: '[it] ... engenders a self-serving bureaucracy whose survival depends on a growing clientele of poor welfare recipients. To end poverty, this bureaucracy would have to put itself out of business, something it will never do'....
"Poilievre has routinely championed several key neoliberal policy ideas. Dating to his time in the right-wing populist Reform Party, he has supported the idea of balanced budget legislation — or at least the principle of cutting $1 from government spending for every $1 of new expenditure. This approach aims to depoliticize spending by limiting the ability of 'special interests' to extract benefits from self-serving politicians and a growth-focused bureaucracy. Poilievre has also endorsed Friedman’s specific neoliberal proposals, such as a negative income tax system — where people earning below a certain threshold would receive payments to bring them up to that minimum income level — as well as universal basic income (UBI).... UBI, as Poilievre understands it ... would come with a catch: 'Governments would pay for Friedman’s basic income by eliminating all other programs, including housing, drug plans, childcare and the bureaucrats who administer it all.' Poilievre has criticized attempts to use UBI as a distributive tool....
"Poilievre has become most notable for his focus on the inflationary crisis of the 2020s. But there has been little examination of the intellectual roots of his inflation rhetoric — it is a mistake to understand it as simply part of his constructed populist persona. When asked by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation what book on economics he would recommend, he held up one book to the camera: his well-worn and bookmarked copy of Friedman and Anna Schwartz’s A Monetary History of the United States, saying that it 'taught [him] was that money supply was the driver of inflation.' This tome has become a cornerstone of his political philosophy, referenced frequently in interviews, his Friedman-inspired Free to Choose–esque YouTube video series Debtonation [see video] and even on the House floor....
"Poilievre’s views on inflation reproduce Friedman’s monetarism and his argument that the overproduction of money supply drives up purchasing costs and government deficits, characterizing inflation as an invisible, coercive tax created by centralized government. As he describes it, 'You could not design a more damaging and unjust tax than the inflation tax.' In his Debtonation series, Poilievre takes Friedman’s ideas to their extremes, making questionable connections between overproduction of the money supply, inflation, government debt, and even the suicide rate. He doesn’t simply reproduce Friedman’s ideas; he amplifies them to appeal to contemporary political audiences. Poilievre clearly views himself not just as a proponent of Friedman but as his Canadian ideological heir apparent....
"Poilievre’s view of the state and capitalism represents a more radical libertarian agenda than that of any previous potential Canadian prime minister. He is an idealogue, a true believer, but also a pragmatist and convincing speaker. If he has his way in 2025, Canada will continue deepening its commitment to neoliberalism, but with a Friedmanite flavor not yet seen in the country."
What Mark Carney ultimately wants, Peter Foster concluded in 2021 after reading Carney's manifesto Value(s), is "a technocratic dictatorship justified by climate alarmism"
June 5, 2021 (updated January 16, 2025) - "In his book Value(s): Building a Better World for All, Mark Carney, former governor both of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, claims that western society is morally rotten, and that it has been corrupted by capitalism, which has brought about a 'climate emergency' that threatens life on earth. This, he claims, requires rigid controls on personal freedom, industry and corporate funding....
"Since the advent of the COVID pandemic, Carney has been front and centre in the promotion of a political agenda known as the 'Great Reset,' or the 'Green New Deal,' or 'Building Back Better.' All are predicated on the claim that COVID, and its disruption of the global economy, provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity not just to regulate climate, but to frame a more fair, more diverse, more inclusive, more safe and more woke world.
"Carney draws inspiration from, among others, Marx, Engels and Lenin, but the agenda he promotes differs from Marxism in two key respects.
First, the private sector is not to be expropriated but made a 'partner' in reshaping the economy and society.
Second, it does not make a promise to make the lives of ordinary people better, but worse. Carney’s Brave New World will be one of severely constrained choice, less flying, less meat, more inconvenience and more poverty: 'Assets will be stranded, used gasoline powered cars will be unsaleable, inefficient properties will be unrentable,' he promises.
"The agenda’s objectives are in fact already being enforced, not primarily by legislation but by the application of non-governmental — that is, non-democratic — pressure on the corporate sector via the ever-expanding dictates of ESG (environmental, social and corporate governance) and by 'sustainable finance,' which is designed to starve non-compliant companies of funds, thus rendering them, as Carney puts it, 'climate roadkill'.... Carney’s Agenda is promoted by the United Nations and other international bureaucracies and a vast and ever-growing array of non-governmental organizations and fora, especially the World Economic Forum (WEF), where Carney is a trustee. Also, perhaps most surprisingly, by its corporate victims. No one wants to become climate roadkill....
"Despite his thorough castigation of market society, Carney somehow also believes this 'corroded' society is clamouring to make great personal sacrifices for draconian climate actions and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. Carney has been a prime pusher of 'net-zero,' the notion that climate-related human emissions must be entirely eradicated, buried or offset by 2050 if the world is to avoid climate Armageddon. He claims that net-zero is 'highly valued by society.' In reality, the vast mass of people have no clue what it entails; when Carney talks about this version of 'society,' he is talking about a small, radical element of it.....
"Carney is a classic example of what Friedrich Hayek called the “fatal conceit” of constructivist rationalism: the belief that the largely spontaneous institutions of the market order should be rejected in favour of more deliberately planned arrangements. Carney is undoubtedly an intelligent man, but Hayek stressed that the thing that intelligent people tend most to overestimate is the power of intelligence — particularly if they happen to be socialists.
"Carney is also of the class that philosopher Karl Popper described as 'enemies' of an 'open society.' Popper noted that social upheavals tend to bring forth prophets who claim to understand the forces shaping the future, and promise salvation if they are given absolute power. Such was Plato’s model.... Similarly, Marx’s communism was a response to the turmoil of the Industrial Revolution....
"What Carney ultimately wants ... is a technocratic dictatorship justified by climate alarmism..... [A]ccording to Carney 'political technology' is needed to 'build a broad consensus around the right goals.' No question of debating the goals, or the science, just building a consensus to support them.... The threat is too great to permit any argument."
"We have governed these first six months of the year uphill, managing the worst inheritance in history and without the legislative power or instruments that all governments before ours have had," says Javier Milei.... "And they put sticks in our wheel every single day that we try to govern.... But you know what? All this is proving that the ideas of freedom are stronger."
September 27, 2024 - "During a conference in Buenos Aries sponsored by the Cato Institute and Libertad y Progreso, Argentine President Javier Milei explained why socialism always fails, why big government (the 'State') is criminal ... and why he is a libertarian.... 'My friends, I'm a liberal libertarian' ... said Milei.... The two-day conference (June 11–12), attended by up to 1,000 people, was entitled 'The Rebirth of Liberty in Argentina and Beyond.'
"Milei, the most outspoken and orthodox libertarian elected to the presidency of a major country, took office in December 2023. Although his critics and much of the mainstream media have tried to characterize him as an impractical zealot — El Loco, the madman — so far Milei has implemented a good portion of his agenda.... For instance, since taking office, Milei has slashed government spending up to 30%, fired more than 25,000 federal workers, reduced federal agencies, frozen public works projects, lowered a major import tariff, maintained budget surpluses every month, reduced monthly inflation to 4.2% (August 2024) from 25% (December 2023), and is pushing for currency competition....
"It is not all roses, however, as he explained in his speech because his administration is fighting against 100 years of government intervention. This soft socialism has corrupted the government, the courts, the economy, the culture, the schools, and the people.
“'We have governed these first six months of the year uphill, managing the worst inheritance in history and without the legislative power or instruments that all governments before ours have had,' said Milei. 'Politics, since before we took power, has put sticks in our wheels. They put sticks in our wheel by tearing up the balance sheet of the central bank. And they put sticks in our wheel every single day that we try to govern.... But you know what?' he said. 'All this is proving that the ideas of freedom are stronger because, despite the foul political caste, we’re doing right. We’re beating inflation.'
“There is no doubt that Argentina is facing a turning point,' he added. '[W]e can return to the path of freedom that we should never have wandered from and return to the values and ideas that once made Argentina a global power, resume the defense of life, freedom, and private property, and aspire to be a country at the level of our identity and our history once again.'
"Between 1860 and 1930, Argentina 'grew more rapidly than the United States, Canada, Australia, or Brazil' ... according to Agriculture and Economic Growth in Argentina, 1913–84. By 1913, Argentina was among 'the 10 wealthiest countries in the world,' with a per capita income similar to Switzerland, the Latin American Economic Review reported. That changed with a military takeover in 1930, which introduced statist, big government policies tainted by socialist thinking. Government intervention and economic malaise have characterized Argentina for the last 100 years. Milei is trying to reintroduce the libertarian policies that once made Argentina great.
"'[I]n Argentina we are rediscovering ideas that made the modern Western world the greatest civilizing and economic development achievement in human history,' said Milei. 'We want to be a haven for those who defend and live these ideas throughout the entire planet.' Today, 'Argentina is on the private sector side, not the state,” he said. “On the side of those who work, those who trade, those who strive; on the side of those who take risks, those who invest, who innovate.'
"'As developed countries become bogged down in unnecessary regulations and obligations, we remove the regulations that have bound our people for decades,' said Milei, 'and we invite capital from around the world to cooperate with Argentina because we understand free economic activity as the most natural act of cooperation of the human race.'
"Milei also explained how big-government bureaucrats in Argentina and other countries corrupt the economy with socialist policies. 'As Hayek said, every time the state intervenes, it generates a worse result than if it hadn’t intruded,' said Milei. 'Why? Because state intervention causes distortions in the pricing system. It prevents correct economic calculation and consequently nullifies what Hayek called the correct functioning of the market as a discovery process.' With capitalism and free pricing you have better 'information about quantities of goods or services that are wanted and at what price,' said Milei. Collectivism, however, inhibits the discovery process and 'binds the entrepreneur’s hands and impedes them from producing better goods and offering better services at a better price'....
"Where economic freedom is allowed, there is more political freedom, said Milei. '[F]reer countries have a GDP per capita 12 times larger than oppressed countries. Even the inhabitants of the lowest decile of the free system live better than 90% of the population in the repressed countries. That is, free enterprise capitalism is superior to socialism even on the main task that socialism supposedly does better, which is to help the less fortunate.'
"Social justice, charity for 'those who have the least,” said Milei, 'it is good, but if you do it with your own pocket [money]' and not with money that belongs to someone else. When the state intervenes in the name of social welfare, it confiscates 'assets from a private person, which are theirs by natural right, which means that the state is a criminal and violent organization, as it is funded with a coercive source of income called taxes.' Echoing Hayek, Milei said the more the state intervenes 'the less free the markets are and the worse they work, producing misery instead of wealth.'
"In closing, he said, 'If we manage to remove the state enough for society to flourish, we will have succeeded because free economic activity will lead to benefits for all of society. If we achieve this, it won’t be a triumph of ours but of society as a whole, which will have left behind 100 years of statism and decadence. Therefore, as we travel the road to that new Argentina, I thank you all for being here. God bless the Argentines and may the force of Heaven be with us. Long live freedom, damn it! Long live freedom, damn it! Long live freedom, damn it! Thank you.'"
Was Hitler's National Socialism really socialism? In the Marxist paradigm, obviously not: it was a "far right" manifestation of "late-stage capitalism". But the Marxist paradigm is not the only way to look at it.
December 8, 2020 - "Words are powerful things in that they enable us to share a common world of understanding with our contemporaries and, in the written form, with generations long past. But too often words can just as easily cause confusion, misunderstanding, and conflict among people in any society. One such word that keeps causing this type of confusion and conflict is 'socialism.' What does it mean, what forms has it taken, and why does it generate so much intellectual 'heat' rather than 'light?'
"This has come up, again, in a recent article by Ronald J. Granieri, who is research director of the Lauder Institute at the University of Pennsylvania, on why 'The Right Needs to Stop Falsely Claiming that the Nazis were Socialists' (Washington Post, December 5, 2020).... He seethes with frustration that those he calls on the political 'right' attempt to classify the German Nazi regime of the 1930s and 1940s as 'socialist.' Yes, the formal name of the Nazi Party was the National Socialist German Workers Party ... [and] prominent Nazis may have played to the 'working-class resentments' with the hope of attracting people away from the communists and the democratic socialists ... but there was no directed and consistent challenge against private property....
"Granieri says: 'National Socialism preserved private property, while also putting the entire resources of society at the service of an expansionist and racist national vision, which included the conquest and murderous subjugation of other peoples.' The Nazi regime, therefore, cannot be considered to be 'socialist,' because National Socialism was not interested in controlling the means of production or redistributing wealth to build an egalitarian utopia....
"Granieri also takes a swipe at the Austrian economist and Nobel Prize winner, Friedrich A. Hayek, for attempting to put the socialist label on Nazism in his book The Road to Serfdom (1944).... Hayek was 'enormously influential,' he says, on both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and 'Hayek’s assertion that all government interventions in the economy led to totalitarianism continues to animate popular works' that warn of the 'genocidal dangers' from implementing a welfare state.... Granieri would rather drop all of this distracting labelling controversy and search for ways for 'protecting citizens against the negative exigencies of the market'.... He also wants 'rightists' to drop harping on early 20th century American Progressives who heralded and advocated eugenics as a means of designing superior human types. (But, wait! Were they not simply 'following the science' as widely understood and accepted at the time?)...
"[I]n the house of collectivism there have been many socialist mansions. Among the early 19th century French socialists there was a diversity of views as to whether the socialist society to come, for instance, would be an industrial or agrarian paradise. There were disagreements about whether people could reason their way into radical social change, those whom Marx labelled the 'utopian socialists,' or whether it would come only in its own good time due to inescapable historical evolution and revolution, as Marx insisted.
"The first socialist party to seriously move towards political influence in the second half of the 19th century was the German Democratic Socialists, who shunned the call for violent revolution, and amassed a growing number of votes in electing their candidates to the Imperial German Parliament by pursuing power through the ballot box. This frightened the German powers-that-be, so besides attempting for a while to suppress the German socialist party, Otto von Bismarck, as Chancellor of the German Empire in the 1870s and 1880s, introduced all the major component elements of the modern welfare state as well as interventionist regulations over parts of German industry and trade. Bismarck’s brand soon was labelled 'state socialism' or sometimes 'monarchical socialism'....
"Further to the East in Europe, more doctrinaire Marxian socialists in Imperial Russia rejected the niceties of elections and legislative welfare-state reforms. Only violent revolution could break the capitalist hold on the exploited masses, with, as Lenin came to insist, a dictatorship of the proletariat once in power. This resulted in a schism between democratic and dictatorial socialists for a good part of the 20th century. But ... while these two groups of socialists denounced each other over the means of coming to power, well into the second half of the 20th century they almost all agreed on the desired end: the abolition of private ownership of the means of production and the introduction of central planning....
"From these forms of 'socialism,' Granieri’s desire for a democratic 'balancing of interests' based on the expediency of what 'works,' Bismarck’s state socialism seems the closest to what he is looking for. As William Dawson expressed it in Bismarck and State Socialism (1891), 'No department of economic activity should on principle be closed to the state.... The state socialists say that this must be determined by expediency, and by circumstances of time and place.' (pp. 4-6) It was a state socialism in which, as an American admirer of the German system, Frederic Howe, expressed it in his book on Socialized Germany (1915): 'The state has its finger on the pulse of the worker from the cradle to the grave. His education, his health and his working efficiency are matters of constant concern'.... Howe later served in FDR’s New Deal Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) that attempted to plan the output of American farming....
"Granieri insists that National Socialism could not be 'socialist' because it did not pursue a 'utopian' ideal for greater equality for all as a whole. But this presumes that the only legitimate utopian dream, and therefore benchmark for labeling something 'socialist,' is the one that Granieri considers good and right. In fact, the Nazis had a utopian vision for the future; it began with their notion of German race purity on the basis of which they rejected the older Prussian idea of aristocratic and class hierarchy. All 'real' Germans were equal and were to be given opportunities for education, occupational and professional advancement as the means by which they could make their contribution to the high good of the German people as a whole.
"That Nazi egalitarianism was limited to only those 'real' Germans possessing the racial characteristics that guided their ideological thinking, with Jews classified as the lowest and most treacherous of race enemies, does not change the fact that they, too, were 'utopians' with social equality goals, but only for those within the 'in-group.' This was nothing but a variation of the Marxist theme that the world is divided into irreconcilable social classes, with the 'capitalists' being the inescapable 'class enemies' of 'the workers.' And as in the Soviet practice, they and their children were stripped of all rights and opportunities, and made into permanent pariahs to be reeducated to serve 'the building of socialism' or liquidated.
"It may be a notion of a utopia that both Granieri and I would reject, but for many in the Nazi leadership and among the wider German population at the time, it was believed in and worked for, no matter [how] reprehensible it may seem to others.... This is what made it a 'national' socialism rather than an international socialism. Its call and appeal were to a segment of humanity defined by asserted racial characteristics, rather than a call for all workers of the world to unite regardless of who or where. In retrospect, this meant that National Socialism could never have a following great enough to conquer and control the world, since its pool of members was definitionally too limited.... Most of the world’s population had to find itself in conflict with Nazism precisely due to its race-based exclusivity....
"It would be possible to draw upon any number of Nazi sources to determine and decide whether National Socialism was a form of 'real' socialism. In 1936, Nazi educator Friedrich Alfred Beck said in Education in the Third Reich, a text meant as a guide for German teachers around the country:
National Socialism has restored the concept of a people from its modern shallowness . . . By people we understand an entire living body which is racially uniform and which is held together by common history, common fate, a common mission, and common tasks . . . Education, from the standpoint of race and people, is the creation of a form of life in which the racial unity will be preserved through the totality of the people . . .
Socialism is the direction of personal life through dependence on the community, consciousness of the community, nationalism is the elevation of individual life to a unique (microcosmic) expression of the community in the unity of the personality.” (Translated in: National Socialism [U.S. Department of State, 1943], p. 28)
"The individual lives through the community, and race and nation define to which community an individual owes his allegiance. Rather than social classes, National Socialism classifies people by race category. This makes you who you are and provides meaning to your life, in the Nazi worldview.
"But what about National Socialist economics? Let us look at Gustav Stolper’s German Economy, 1870-1940 (1940). Stolper was the long-time editor of a German economic magazine oriented toward a classical liberal viewpoint. He was forced to leave Germany with Hitler’s rise to power due to his politics and his Jewish family background, and found refuge in the United States. Stolper explained some of the socialist aspects to Nazi ideology and policy:
The National Socialist party was from the outset an anti-capitalist party. As such it was fighting and in competition with Marxism.... National Socialism wooed the masses [from three angles]. The first angle was the moral principle, the second the financial system, the third the issue of ownership. The moral principle was ‘the commonwealth before self-interest.’ The financial promise was ‘breaking the bondage of interest slavery’. The industrial program was ‘nationalization of all big incorporated business [trusts]’.
By accepting the principle ‘the commonwealth before self-interest,’ National Socialism simply emphasizes its antagonism to the spirit of a competitive society as represented supposedly by democratic capitalism . . . But to the Nazis this principle means also the complete subordination of the individual to the exigencies of the state. And in this sense National Socialism is unquestionably a Socialist system . . .
The nationalization of big industry was never attempted after the Nazis came to power. But this was by no means a ‘betrayal’ of their program, as has been alleged by some of their opponents. The socialization of the entire German productive machinery, both agricultural and industrial, was achieved by methods other than expropriation, to a much larger extent and on an immeasurably more comprehensive scale than the authors of the party program in 1920 probably ever imagined. In fact, not only the big trusts were gradually but rapidly subjected to government control in Germany, but so was every sort of economic activity, leaving not much more than the title of private ownership.” (pp. 232-233; 239-240)....
"Guenter Reimann, in The Vampire Economy: Doing Business Under Fascism (1939), highlighted that while most of the means of production had not been nationalized, they had nonetheless been politicized and collectivized under an intricate web of Nazi planning targets, price and wage regulations, production rules and quotas, and strict limits and restraints on the action and decisions of those who remained; nominally, the owners of private enterprises throughout the country. Every German businessman knew that his conduct was prescribed and positioned within the wider planning goals of the National Socialist regime.' Not much differently [from] the state factory managers in the Soviet Union, even at that time under Stalin, the German owners of private enterprises were given wide discretion in the day-to-day management of the enterprises that nominally remained in their possession. But Nazi planning agencies set output targets, determined input supplies and allocations, determined wage and work condition rules, and dictated the availability of investment funds and the rates of interest at which they could be obtained through the banking system, along with strict central control and direction of all import and export trade....
"[W]e can turn to a more recent historian of the Nazi regime, that being Goetz Aly in, Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State (2007). Aly 'focus[es] on the socialist aspect of National Socialism' so as to better understand 'the Nazi regime as a kind of racist-totalitarian welfare state.' Aly emphasizes that the ideology and practice of the Nazi regime were in fact deeply socialist. Within Germany, among the German people of 'pure Aryan blood,' the ideal was an egalitarian social order in which every German would be freed from traditional class barriers so that he might have the opportunity to rise to any level of success in serving the fatherland. The welfare-state policies begun by Bismarck ... were viewed by the Nazis as a prelude to a complete guarantee of a quality standard of living for all 'real' Germans that would be paternalistically provided by the National Socialist state....
"Aly points out that before and during World War II, the German 'capitalist class' was made to pay its 'fair share' for the benefit of the rest of the German people. Taxes were proportionally far higher on the 'rich' in Germany than the rest of the population. During the war the government established mandatory overtime pay in all industries and imposed wage increases to keep 'the masses' loyal to the regime – all at the expense of German business. At the same time, German industry worked under government-commanded four-year plans from 1936 until the end of the war in 1945....
"But it was only after the war started that the machine of redistributive plunder was really set into motion. Every country overrun by the German army not only had to pay the costs of the occupation, but also was systematically looted for the benefit of the German population as a whole.... In every occupied country the Nazis initiated similar confiscatory policies with local accomplices with whom they shared looted Jewish property. (Only in Belgium and Denmark did large segments of the population and the bureaucracy resist participating in this plunder of the Jews.) The Nazis first nationalized Jewish property and then distributed it to those deemed worthy among the German or occupied populations.... Aly estimates that because of this looted property and the goods sent back to Germany by soldiers, many, if not most, Germans enjoyed a more comfortable standard of living throughout most of the war than the civilian population in Great Britain.... The vast majority of German families continued to feast, even under the allied bombings, thanks to the locust-like seizure of anything and everything across occupied Europe....
"No doubt this summary of the content of Goetz Aly’s analysis of the National Socialist welfare system and its version of central planning would convince Ronald Granieri even more that the Nazi regime should not be classified as 'socialist.' But in my view, it demonstrates that all of its characteristics find their family resemblance in socialist regimes. Institutionally, the starting premise is that the individual is little or nothing, and must view himself as dependent upon and working for a wider 'common good,' other than his own personal self-interest.
"In the name of 'the people' those in political authority, whether in that position through votes or violence, establish in the name of 'the people' the hierarchy of social goals, purposes, and collective ends for which a set of government planning policies, interventions and welfare redistributions will be set in motion. Individual choice and decision-making as consumers and producers are significantly reduced or even totally eliminated with government central planning and decision-making replacing voluntary association and exchange.... Prices and production no longer fully reflect the valuations and appraisements of the multitudes of interacting buyers and sellers in the society – which means all of us.... Instead, government plans and interventions determine or heavily influence wages and prices, along with what gets produced and how much; which means everything concerning our personal lives, livelihoods and standards of living.
"In other words, extensive and intrusive government regulations, restrictions, redistributions, and imposed centralized plans demonstrate what Friedrich A. Hayek was arguing over 75 years ago in The Road to Serfdom: that the more government command and control replaces market-based choices, decisions, and opportunities, the less freedom we have over increasing corners and aspects of our lives....
"Ronald Granieri may very well pooh-pooh this because he may not consider some loss of personal liberty something much to despair when it’s replaced with compulsory political paternalism that 'guarantees' various material wants for some that he considers more important than the degree of freedom forgone by some others. But I would ask him to at least admit that this is freedom lost for a coerced 'security,' ... still a compulsory 'taking,' whether done by a voting majority or dictatorial elite.
"And I would further ask him to concede that whether he agrees with the ends and goals of other socialists, their use of command and control and their introduction of some form of institutional central planning to pursue their declared 'social good' makes their system just as much a 'socialist' one as any other that Ronald Granieri might endorse or look more favorably upon. So, whether he likes it or not, the Nazis, too, were socialists, just a different stripe than the ones he feels more comfortable with."
November 3, 2023 - "Canada would not be embroiled in a political carbon tax crisis today were it not for the background endorsement of economists who argue that a carbon tax is a principled market mechanism that can be used to correct a 'market failure' such as climate change. In the words of a now-famous 2019 statement signed by 45 market-oriented economists, including former U.S. Federal Reserve chairs Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker, a carbon tax is a sound market-based solution to a global problem. 'By correcting a well-known market failure, a carbon tax will send a powerful price signal that harnesses the invisible hand of the marketplace to steer economic actors towards a low-carbon future.' Since 2019, the statement has been signed by more than 3,600 economic thinkers and is described by the Climate Leadership Council as 'The largest public statement of economists in history'....
"The 'invisible hand' mentioned in the economic statement gives the impression that a carbon tax is aligned with the ideas that enlightenment economist Adam Smith and others — from liberals to neo-liberals to libertarians — have championed over government control and planning. The economists’ endorsement of invisible hand principles in the context of a carbon tax is, at minimum, misleading. The imposition of a carbon price by government — such as Canada’s $170 a tonne target — is nothing but a government price-fixing scheme.
"In a market economy, prices are not the starting line for economic activity nor are they the means to control supply and demand as implied by proponents of carbon taxation. Prices are the end point of economic activity. In a market economy prices are the product of supply and demand based on the multitude of individual and corporate choices that lead to final transaction prices. The dynamic of supply and demand determines price, a process that takes place outside the knowledge and thought processes of the economic actors.
“'Every money price of a good on the market, is determined by the supply and demand schedules of the individual buyers and sellers, and their action tends to establish a uniform equilibrium price on the market at the point of intersection.' So wrote the late Murray N. Rothbard in Man, Economy and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles. Another giant of free-market economics, Friedrich Hayek, described the invisible hand process in his 1946 essay “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” In a market economy, no one person or power determines pricing.
It is more than a metaphor to describe the price system as a kind of machinery for registering change, or a system of telecommunications which enables individual producers to watch merely the movement of a few pointers, as an engineer might watch the hands of a few dials, in order to adjust their activities to changes of which they may never know more than is reflected in the price movement.
"Using tax power to set a price to force a market movement stands the economic system on its head and gets the process backwards. With carbon taxation, the state is imposing a visible hand in an extreme and unprecedented way. For one thing, no participant in a market economy driven by the invisible hand would or could raise prices so as to ultimately reduce demand to zero....
"The idea that high and rising carbon prices can be used to remove carbon from the economy runs up against the fact that carbon-based fossil fuels are currently part of the foundation for most economic activity. They are essential today, to the point where industry and consumers cannot do without them. They are, as economists say, price inelastic. A doubling or even a quadrupling via taxation will not end demand for fossil fuels without killing economic activity. According to the 3,600 economist backers of carbon taxation, this little problem can be overcome by returning all the revenue from the carbon taxes to taxpayers 'to maximize the fairness and political viability of a rising carbon tax.' The Trudeau Liberal plan for Canada follows that advice.
"There is nothing invisible about carbon taxes. They are a perversion of free-market economic theory. We should bite the visible hand and axe the tax."
"What sets Andrew Koppelman’s book apart from most critiques of libertarianism," says reviewer Marco den Ouden, "is that he actually knows what he’s talking about."
A review of Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed by Andrew Koppelman, 320 pages, Macmillan (Oct 2022)
September 12, 2023 - "Andrew Koppelman ... is a Professor of Law and of Political Science at Northwestern University, a civil libertarian, and the author of books on antidiscrimination law, gay rights, same-sex marriage, healthcare reform, and religious liberty. He declares himself to be 'a pro-capitalist leftist' and acknowledges that his 'embrace of that position here will make many of my friends on the left feel betrayed.' The thing that turns Koppelman’s crank is what he regards as a heartless, narrow, and blinkered understanding of liberty on the part of many libertarians....
"What sets Koppelman’s book apart from most critiques of libertarianism is that he actually knows what he’s talking about. He’s clearly read and researched libertarianism in considerable detail. And while he is sometimes harsh in his criticism, he clearly sees the value in many libertarian positions. His background in law and political science, as well as his writing on civil liberties, allows him to bring some fascinating insights to bear in his analysis. And he sometimes turns libertarian ideas on their head, using libertarian ideas to argue against what he sees as a perversion of libertarian ideas in the works of Rothbard, Nozick, and Rand. 'You ought to be a libertarian—of a certain kind, and only up to a point,' he writes. 'This book is not only a critical description of libertarianism. It aims to marry what is best about libertarianism with the agenda of the left'....
"Koppelman notes that the modern political Left is often more concerned with identity politics than with alleviating poverty. 'A right to be different,' he continues, 'pushes toward localization of power and away from central planning.' The people on the Left, who continue to malign capitalism, 'don’t grasp the anti-socialist logic of their present views.' And because Hayek was not a doctrinaire absolutist in his opposition to a role for the state in the economy, he 'thought redistribution to provide basic needs was an appropriate supplement to a free market. Such a supplement was not central planning, because it left the recipients free to make their own decisions'.... Ronald Reagan, Koppelman suggests, 'succeeded in shifting American politics—and American understandings of liberty—in a Hayekian direction.' Bill Clinton’s Democrats adopted these views and implemented some of the things Reagan could not....
"But while Democrats since Clinton have adopted a Hayekian approach to markets and regulation, Republicans have moved steadily in a more radical and fundamentalist libertarian direction, distilled from the later views of Murray Rothbard, Robert Nozick, and Ayn Rand. Before considering those views, Koppelman digresses with a chapter on the Lockean theory of natural rights. Hayek was lukewarm at best on rights theory, but it is the centerpiece of the Rothbard/Nozick/Rand approach. And of course, it holds a key place in the American Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The fundamentalist view of property rights holds that people work and the fruits of their labor is their property. They have a right to it. Such rights are absolute. And, as per the Declaration of Independence, 'to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.' This does not give government carte blanche to do what it wants.... 'You must not spend money that’s not yours.' But, Koppelman notes, if this view is correct, 'it straightaway entails that most of what government does is illegitimate.' This, he continues, 'is the moral core of much modern libertarianism'....
"Koppelman identifies Rothbard’s 'core moral principle' as nonaggression, as expressed in For a New Liberty: 'No man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else.' Koppelman says that Rothbard adopts this principle because 'each man may only live and prosper as he exercises his natural freedom of choice,' thus 'if someone aggresses against him to change his freely-selected course, this violates his nature; it violates the way he must function.' Koppelman agrees that this 'axiom entails anarchism'. So how will justice be administered in an anarchist world? By private contractors—“multiple private police forces, with no central authority over them.” Koppelman compares this to a society of warlords, each trying to gain dominance. 'What actually emerges from networks of protective associations, all over the world, is some variety of hereditary aristocracy.' In other words, feudalism.... .
"Koppelman brushes Nozick off in a few paragraphs and moves on to consider the influence of Ayn Rand.... Koppelman seems to have mixed feelings about Rand. He clearly admires some of her writing and philosophy, and he appreciates her support for charity as expressed in her essay 'The Ethics of Emergencies'.... Elsewhere, he writes that, 'the most attractive aspiration in Rand is the independence of judgment, and faith in oneself, displayed by Roark, the hero of The Fountainhead. The book has surely helped many young people with its message that they should pursue their own deepest aspirations, and not care about impressing others'.... But in Atlas Shrugged, Rand 'offers a far cruder picture.' She argued that under capitalism, 'it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability—and the degree of a man’s productiveness is the degree of his reward.'This leads to the view that 'markets give people exactly what they deserve and any redistribution is unjust'....
"In Rand’s opposition to any relief by the state, she shared Rothbard’s position. But while she did argue in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal that 'without property rights, no other rights are possible,” Koppelman suggests that “at Rand’s core is, not a theory of property rights, but an ideal of reciprocity. That ideal is attractive. It is, I suspect, the source of her rhetorical power.” According to the Oxford dictionary, reciprocity is 'the practice of exchanging things with others for mutual benefit'.... 'She has in fact captured an important ethical ideal,' Koppelman continues, 'the value of interpersonal respect between "men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value"'....
"Koppelman concludes with chapters on paternalism, discrimination, and how the lack of appropriate regulation has led to the aggrandizement of modern day moochers and looters....
|I was a doctrinaire libertarian/Objectivist from 1969 to 2000, and I came to my libertarianism through Ayn Rand. The first libertarian book I ever read was Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. I was hooked and read everything Rand ever published during her lifetime and much of what was published posthumously. My drift away from orthodox libertarianism accelerated after I retired in 2014, started blogging, and returned to university. I became an admirer of Isaiah Berlin's value-pluralism—the view that genuine values can conflict, which is anathema to libertarians. Although I have read very little of Hayek, Koppelman's book makes me want to explore his thought in more detail. Koppelman presents a good case for taking the Hayekian approach with a work that is rich in detail and full of thought-provoking ideas. It is well worth the read, whether you ultimately agree with him or not."
February 25, 2023 - "New academic 'histories' now appear on a near-monthly basis, each blaming a variety of social ills on the conspiratorial machinations around a single idea: the free market. Almost everything in this genre follows the same formula. When the American electorate fails to embrace the political priorities of an Ivy League humanities department, these disheartened authors cast about for a blameworthy culprit. They settle on 'market fundamentalism' or 'neoliberalism.' The explanation then takes a paranoid turn, declaring the targeted theories a 'manufactured myth' arising from the 'inventions' of 20th century business interests.... All eventually settle on a mundane conspiracy of business interests and libertarian economists, who allegedly derailed America from its progressive path by convincing people that markets work better than government at solving problems.
"At some 550 pages, The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us To Loathe Government and Love the Free Market is among the most loquacious entrants into this crowded literature. Harvard University's Naomi Oreskes and California Institute of Technology historian Erik Conway lay out their conspiracy theory with formulaic precision, but their book is atypical in one significant way. While most of the other works in the anti-neoliberalism genre manage at least to excavate some interesting archival findings about libertarian economists (before badly misinterpreting them), this book is remarkably light on original content.... A reader ... will be left wondering why this same story needed yet another repackaged recitation....
"The Big Myth is structured in sequential vignettes about various themes and figures such as Ludwig von Mises, Leonard Read, Friedrich Hayek, Rose Wilder Lane, and Milton Friedman, all of whom are portrayed as either willing propagandists for big business or hapless dupes of the same. The authors expend almost no effort on understanding the arguments of the thinkers they set out to debunk.
"A revealing example appears in the book's treatment of Leonard Read's 1958 essay "I, Pencil." Read's story is a fairly straightforward allegory for Adam Smith's famous concept of the "invisible hand," showing how complex social coordination arises from routine economic exchanges and signals in the absence of a centralized design. To Oreskes and Conway, however, the metaphor is literally the hand of God working from above to ensure the market system provides. As they put it, 'God made the marketplace and the marketplace made the pencil; ergo God made the pencil'....
"Interpretive peculiarities continue in their treatment of Ludwig von Mises' Socialism. After initially acknowledging that the book was written in German in 1922, Oreskes and Conway soon drift into anachronism by insinuating that it was intended as a critique of President Franklin Roosevelt. ("Mises's use of the term socialism was misleading," they contend, "because no credible American political leader in 1944 was advocating central planning.") They augment this ascription of prophecy with a sleight of hand, replacing the revolutionary Marxists of Mises' original commentaries with the comparatively benign Norman Thomas as their own preferred avatar of socialism. Like other texts in the anti-neoliberalism genre, The Big Myth removes 20th century free market authors from their historical context by hand-waving the Soviet Union out of existence and proceeding as if socialism means nothing more than a narrow swath of modern Scandinavian social democracies.
"Such errors are frequently paired with another recurring theme: the authors' fundamental inability to approach their opponents with anything remotely resembling intellectual charity. The book is filled with gratuitous swipes, many of them comically ahistorical. This usually means either a false accusation of racism or a disparaging attack on a target's qualifications. Mises receives both types of abuse. After dubbing him an 'absolutist who sympathized with fascism,' Oreskes and Conway launch into an extended attack on the Austrian economist's migration to the United States in 1940. In their telling, Mises ... struggled to find a respectable academic job until 'dark money' funders created a succession of positions for him at New York University..... Meanwhile, Mises' academic work in the United States gained higher honors than either Oreskes or Conway has ever achieved....
"They casually brand Milton Friedman a 'racist extremist' and defender of segregation, but not for any actual defense of segregation. The authors simply disagree with his argument that markets were more effective tools for bringing about integration than government edicts.....
"They accuse Friedrich Hayek of eschewing 'the essence of scholarship,' which 'is to look past the immediacies of time and place,' while themselves constantly processing history through their modern partisan commitments. They accuse free market economists of venturing outside their scientific expertise while offering their own decidedly nonexpert opinions on everything from economic inequality to COVID-19.
"The authors' discussion of the latter subject, which closes the book, is unintentionally comedic. Oreskes and Conway use the pandemic to contrast U.S. 'market failure' with the alleged success of 'countries that mounted a strong, coordinated response,' China foremost among them. As their book went to press, China's centralized 'zero-COVID' regime was collapsing into the same unfettered disease spread that Oreskes and Conway ascribe to free markets. But readers should not expect any self-interrogation from this pair."
December 6, 2021 - "F.A. Hayek wrote several books and articles that are justly famous.... But because Hayek’s professional life spanned more than 60 years – from the mid-1920s until the late 1980s – the corpus of his work is enormous, with most of it being relatively obscure.... But my very favorite of Hayek’s many superb but lesser-known works is his paper that first appeared in the Winter 1964 issue of New Individualist Review: “Kinds of Order in Society.” This paper is a work of genius. A great deal of confusion about society, and about government’s role in it would be swept away were this paper’s core message more widely understood....
"Among the assumptions at the foundation of this article is that we human beings extend our ability to achieve our goals by cooperating with each other. And the greater is the number of individuals with whom we cooperate, the greater is the number of goals that we can successfully pursue. This fact explains the omnipresence of human cooperation. Such cooperation began eons ago in small hunting and gathering bands in which each individual personally knew those with whom he or she cooperated. Today, this cooperation literally spans the globe and occurs among billions of people, nearly all of whom are strangers to each other.
"When the cooperation is only among individuals who know each other personally – that is, only among a very small number of persons – it’s easy for each person to comprehend the nature of the cooperative arrangement.... But cooperation on such a small scale doesn’t allow individuals to achieve as much as each can achieve by including in the cooperative effort more individuals. The inclusion of more individuals brings to the cooperative effort not only additional muscle power but, far more importantly, additional and more diverse brain power – that is, more human creativity. The inclusion of more individuals also encourages greater specialization, which in turn results in each task being done more expertly, more uniformly, and faster.
"The human mind, however, isn’t evolved to be able to know more than a few hundred individuals. If we cooperated only with individuals we know, the span of our cooperation would remain extremely narrow.... Fortunately, our inability to personally know more than a handful of fellow human beings is offset by our instinct to adopt and follow rules. By following rules we can, and do, increase the number of individuals with whom we cooperate beyond the number that we personally know.
"An example is trade, which has at its base this rule: Each person is entitled only to what other people voluntarily give to him or her. No one gets to take other people’s stuff without their permission. Under this rule, if Jones wants some item, say an axe, owned by Smith, Jones understands that he can get this axe only by persuading Smith to give it to him. And especially if Smith is a stranger to Jones, the most obvious way for Jones to persuade Smith to give him the axe is for Jones to agree to give some other item ... to Smith in exchange.... Trade allows each of us to tap into the unique talents, interests, and endowments of our trading partners, be they neighbors across the street or strangers across the ocean. And trade is possible because its most basic rule is easily understood by every human being regardless of cultural background.
"Trade is not the only activity made possible by our rule-following instincts. Without sophisticated rule-following behavior, life in groups larger than the small band would be impossible. Think of yourself in a big city. You know not to practice playing your trumpet or your drums at midnight, and you know that other people follow a similar rule, which enables you – and others – to rely on being able to sleep each night. You know that when you come with your filled grocery cart upon a queue at the supermarket checkout lane, you take your place at the back of that line – and you’re content to do so because you know that other people will follow the same rule. You know that you aren’t allowed, without invitation, to enter premises belonging to other people. You know what green lights and red lights mean to motorists. You know that even though the restaurant serves you food before you pay for it, that you must pay for it when you’re done dining.
"Because humans are rule-following creatures, you thrive amongst strangers. By following the rules that prevail in a society, not only are harmful and disruptive encounters kept to a minimum, each individual – by knowing that countless strangers will follow the same rules that he or she follows – is able to plan courses of action in ways that would be impossible if rules didn’t exist.
"Our rule-following behavior gives rise to ever-more complex – and ever-more productive – patterns of cooperative interaction. These patterns are not only not designed by anyone, they could not possibly be so designed. Furthermore, these patterns cannot be directly observed and understood in the same way that our hunting and gathering ancestors could directly observe and ‘fully’ understand their simple cooperative endeavors. And yet, because we today still have the same brains as did our hunting and gathering ancestors, we are unable, without real intellectual effort, to perceive – and much less to make sense of – the complex patterns of social cooperation in which each of us participates daily.
"In “Kinds of Order in Society,” Hayek identified two categorically different kinds of orders – 'spontaneous orders' and 'organizations' – that are both common and useful to humans. Each of us is part of both kinds of orders. Yet we instinctively suppose that only one kind of these orders – namely, organizations – is possible. As I’ll explain in my next column, our instinct of interpreting all order as being the consequence of conscious organization is the root of much mischief."
December 15, 2021 - "I concluded my previous column by blaming much policy mischief on the human instinct (perhaps a better word is 'habit') of interpreting all social order – including economic order – as being the consequence of conscious organization. This conclusion reflects the fact that my worldview is influenced so heavily by the work of F.A. Hayek, not least his relatively obscure 1964 New Individualist Review article, 'Kinds of Order in Society.' In this remarkable essay, Hayek identified two kinds of social orders, 'organizations' and 'spontaneous orders.' [stress added]. These orders differ from each other categorically.
"Organizations are consciously designed arrangements of human beings, each with an assigned task or set of tasks. Each organization is meant by its designer, or designers, to achieve a particular goal. An example is a hunting party arranged and carried out by our hunting-and-gathering ancestors. Another example of an organization, one familiar to us today, is a restaurant.... The crucial fact is that the restaurant, like the prehistoric hunting party, is consciously organized to pursue a particular goal in a particular manner.... And so the actions of every person in an organization can and will be judged by how well those actions contribute to the achievement of the organization’s goals....
"Spontaneous orders, like organizations, are highly useful to individuals. But unlike organizations, spontaneous orders are not designed and created. They emerge as unintended consequences of the actions of persons, each of whom is pursuing his or her own individual goals with no awareness that those actions will give rise to a larger order. While a spontaneous order assists each individual in the pursuit of his or her goals, such an order, unlike an organization, itself has no goal towards which it aims. And because a spontaneous order as such has no goals, the actions of the individuals whose choices give rise to the spontaneous order cannot be judged by how well or poorly they promote the goal of the spontaneous order – for, again, the spontaneous order has no goals.
"The most obvious example of a useful spontaneous order is language. Language is clearly (to use a phrase much-favored by Hayek) the result of human action but not of human design. Languages emerged from human beings attempting to communicate with each other. Yet no one consciously decided what specific words and sounds refer to, or mean, in any language.... Being undesigned, it follows that language was not designed to serve any purpose or to achieve some particular goal.... And yet language does indeed enable each of us as individuals to better pursue our own goals. The shopper uses language to explain to the store clerk just what items he wishes to buy, and the store clerk, at the end of her work day, uses language to inform the cab driver of her destination. But the shopper and the store clerk, by using the same language, are not together acting to achieve some higher goal. Further, it would be mistaken to describe language as having among its goals the service of the shopper and of the store clerk.
"Another example of a spontaneous order is the global market. No one designed today’s division of labor – with some of us working as plumbers, others of us as web designers, yet others of us as butchers, brewers, bakers, or baseball players. And no one designed the indescribably complex pattern of exchange relationships that enable each of us to enjoy the fabulous prosperity that each of us enjoys. And yet these phenomena are real. They are the result of human action but not of human design. The market, like language, provides enormous assistance to each of us as we each pursue our own individual goals. But the market, also like language, has no overarching goal toward which it aims.
"The human mind, alas, is much less comfortable with spontaneous order than with organization. Individuals interacting with each other in ways that no one planned seems, to many people, to be obviously inferior to individuals interacting with each other according to a plan. Just look at successful corporations; they’re planned to fulfill a particular goal. Likewise, when a government is in a desperate shooting war against other governments, it takes control of the economy and directs it according to a plan designed to defeat the dreaded enemy. Surely – the reasoning goes – the economy would produce much better results if it, too, were always run according to a plan rather than left to drift aimlessly with no intended direction.
"Since the publication in 1776 of Adam Smith’s Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, economists have made a compelling case that the material results of competitive market processes will be far superior to those produced by government interventions designed to bring about particular, concrete outcomes. But although Hayek agreed with this conclusion, in his criticisms of government planning he often emphasized a different point – namely, that insofar as economic arrangements are planned by government, each individual is conscripted to serve ends that are not of his or her choosing.
"A beautiful feature of spontaneous orders is that they maximize the scope of each individual to choose – and to pursue with much hope of success – his or her own unique goals without having to agree with the goals chosen by others or to have to sacrifice his or her goals to the goals of other people. Also, in a spontaneous order no individual is thwarted in the pursuit of his or her goals simply because these goals are inconsistent with some overarching plan.
"We humans often use homeowners’ associations, firms, and other organizations to improve our prospects of achieving particular goals. But the undeniable usefulness of organizations in certain circumstances should not be mistaken as evidence that organizations are superior to spontaneous orders. Each of these two kinds of order in society has its proper place. And just as it would be foolish to expect, say, a business firm that produces automobiles to emerge spontaneously without someone intending to create such a firm and plan its operation, it is foolish to expect that the economy as a whole can be successfully planned and operated as if it were a business firm or a military unit.
"There are, to repeat, two kinds of order in society. It’s time we stopped glorifying and overestimating one, and ignoring the reality, or discounting the marvels, of the other."
Donald J. Boudreaux is a senior fellow with American Institute for Economic Research and with the F.A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University; a Mercatus Center Board Member; and a professor of economics and former economics-department chair at George Mason University. He writes a blog called Cafe Hayek and a regular column on economics for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Boudreaux earned a PhD in economics from Auburn University and a law degree from the University of Virginia.
March 25, 2020 - In recent days, there has been snark from some quarters about the current crisis somehow catching libertarians flat‐footed. The argument goes that the need for a big government response disproves a political ideology that is often, though in somewhat oversimplified fashion, summarized as favoring 'small government." A better description would be a government limited in scope but sufficient to meet that scope.
Libertarianism, properly understood, encompasses certain core functions as the proper role of government. It is not the libertarian view that government should be ineffective at protecting individual rights or dysfunctionally paralyzed in the face of a massive threat to people’s lives. Government has a role to play in responding to the pandemic in much the same way it is the government’s job to prosecute murderers or defend the country from invasion.
At the same time, libertarian principles and insights can provide some guideposts for how to respond in this unprecedented global emergency.
One thing to keep in mind is that some limits on government power are even more crucial now. Emergency powers should be limited in duration and limited to directly addressing the present situation based on the facts as best we know them. Such policy responses shouldn’t be larded up with a pre‐existing wish list of unrelated concerns. It is essential to preserve constitutional liberal democracy and resist excessive long‐term concentration of power in the executive.
Social distancing measures should rely on voluntary compliance to the greatest degree possible, and most people have been voluntarily complying. Even when enforcement is necessary, simply breaking up gatherings without citation or prosecution is possible and preferable in many cases. A heavy‐handed reliance on coercive enforcement might not only be unnecessary in some regards, it can also backfire by sparking protest non‐compliance, and it might also be redundant to all the other measures already in place.... For that reason, some states have so far rejected compulsory "stay at home" or "shelter in place" orders. There is no need to fuel further panic or distract police from their more important duties to worry about safe and benign activities like taking the family dog for a walk.
At the same time, many jurisdictions have moved to suspend petty arrests altogether, mostly for victimless crimes, in an effort to reduce jail populations. Also under consideration are proposals to release many of those individuals currently in jail awaiting trial for minor offenses. This is a welcome shift that should prompt us to reconsider the necessity of some of these laws, many of which have long been the target of libertarian ire.
Another insight comes from Nobel laureate, libertarian icon, and Cato Distinguished Senior Fellow, the late F.A. Hayek. In works such as The Constitution of Liberty, he wrote that good laws should be general, equal, and certain. That is a principle that is relevant even in something as far removed from the libertarian ideal as the emergency economic responses currently under consideration. Rather than targeted industry bailouts and micro‐managed interventions, policy responses should be clear, simple, system‐wide, and with a defined end date as soon as possible. Simple universal payments to individuals are also preferable to corporate bailouts. It is not feasible for the government to abruptly order massive shutdowns of so much economic activity without some kind of compensation, in much the same way we require just compensation for eminent domain. It is proper for the government to own the consequences of its orders and to soften the shock of this sudden disruption....
Libertarian criticisms of bad regulations have proven especially prescient. A crucial government failure has been the FDA’s [Food and Drug Administration's] inflexible and heavy‐handed bureaucracy, which has held up tests and prevented thousands of private and academic labs from quickly increasing testing capacity. For most of February, the FDA required everybody to rely solely on tests produced by the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and refused to grant permission to other labs. This proved to be catastrophically flawed when the first round of tests produced by the CDC didn’t work and had to be replaced. This failure is a large part of why America’s coronavirus testing response to date compares so unfavorably with South Korea’s.
Another example of a libertarian response to the pandemic has been the quick need to suspend many occupational licensing restrictions, such as by letting doctors practice interstate and upgrading the permissions of nurse practitioners and doctors’ assistants. Even mundane and trivial regulations of the sort that only libertarians would have worried about before have suddenly been cast aside. Two months ago, who would have thought it an urgent concern to suspend alcohol regulations so that restaurants can serve beverages to go for home delivery by rideshare drivers?
While we can welcome these wins, there is no doubt that we have also seen extreme impositions on personal freedom. Libertarians can find that loss especially painful. Even when these new rules are sadly necessary and justified by the facts, it is a cost we should carefully weigh as we eventually move to unwind restrictions and return to some kind of normalcy. In the name of saving lives from the immediate threat, governments around the world have suspended most international travel and heavily curtailed consumer freedoms and freedom of association. The acute loss of freedoms we’ve long taken for granted underscores how valuable they truly are. And some freedoms, like freedom of speech and the right to privacy, should remain sacrosanct and defended tenaciously even in the face of an emergency.
While much of the policy response so far has been in good faith (if often inept), the propensity for power grabs by authoritarian populists should not be discounted. Preserving the rule of law, checks and balances, and constitutional liberal democracy is essential. Elections should proceed on time and with whatever accommodations prove necessary. Legislatures and courts should be kept open for essential business, including by remote participation if necessary, and foundational constitutional structures should remain in place. We have no need of a dictator in the United States nor in other countries around the world.
And perhaps most importantly: emergency rules and powers should extend only for the duration of the emergency, and be repealed at the earliest feasible opportunity. We should be wary of the ratchet effect, where governments tend to retain powers and keep open programs long after their original justification has disappeared.
Freedom is precious, and in the grand sweep of human history it has often been fleeting and tenuous. Right now we are facing the greatest threat to a free and open society that most of us have ever witnessed, at least in the United States, if not in many other nations that have been through worse scourges of totalitarianism and major wars. So libertarians will continue as they always have, ready to defend the principles of human freedom at every turn."
March 13, 2020 - "The novel coronavirus is a novel situation for modern libertarianism:... COVID-19 is forecast to be a unique situation in the last century. Realistically, there won't be a single libertarian view on the state's role in a pandemic. What we call 'libertarianism' is a big tent with significant division on issues including immigration, abortion, and whether the state should exist at all. (There are anarchists in the tent.) Nevertheless, pandemic-era libertarianism is emerging, and it remains distinctly libertarian. Here are the trends I'm seeing.
1. "Praise for the free market's role.... 'That gallon jug of hand sanitizer delivered to your front door less than 48 hours after you ordered it online? It didn't show up because Trump tweeted it into existence'... Reason's Eric Boehm wrote.... Libertarian author Jeffrey Tucker likewise explained how in 'a disease panic, the market is your friend,' and some libertarians have proposed tariff relief as a response to the pandemic's economic damage.
2. "Advice of personal responsibility. Rep. Justin Amash (I-Mich.) has encouraged voluntary social distancing. Reason's coverage has done the same, emphasizing the seriousness of the illness and offering tips for continuing education at home while school is canceled. A piece at the Libertarian Institute promoted conservative personal finance decisions to limit COVID-19's disruption.
3. "Condemnation of counterproductive regulations and lack of transparency.... For weeks, the FDA and CDC wouldn't let medical workers and academics move forward with COVID-19 tests they'd developed without lengthy processes of federal approval. In fact, these agencies actively discouraged independent testing until the end of February while offering a faulty test kit and too-strict guidelines for who could be tested.... While the testing situation is beginning to improve, the Trump administration has classified its coronavirus meetings.... Amash complained lawmakers weren't given enough time to read last week's coronavirus relief bill before it passed, and the Foundation for Economic Education slammed Beijing for repressing the message of heroic coronavirus whistleblower Dr. Li Wenliang.
4. "Rejection of corporate bailouts and price controls. Trump is exploring plans for corporate bailout loans and other economic stimuli which libertarians generally oppose. The Cato Institute has argued against 'big bailouts and ... throwing money at businesses that will not be viable in the new post‐epidemic world'.... The libertarian take on targeted tax breaks like Trump wants for energy and travel-related industries will be more mixed: We disagree on whether tax cuts like this should be opposed as favoritism amounting to corporate welfare or supported because any tax break is a good thing. Not mixed is the opposition to price controls, as higher prices are a useful signal of growing demand that discourages hoarding and encourages increased production.
5. "Mixed feelings on emergency social welfare. Libertarians have a reputation for universal opposition to all social safety net spending, and many do take that position. But perhaps the most famous libertarian economist — Nobel Prize winner F.A. Hayek — supported a limited welfare state, including a universal basic income. This fault line will extend into libertarian stances on pandemic responses like state-provided testing, treatment, and income subsidies. (In my experience, most thoughtful libertarians get less worked up about real needs being filled in a way we consider non-ideal than about more egregious state overreaches like unjust wars or police violence.)...
6. "Skepticism of mandatory lockdowns, travel bans, and the like.... Some libertarians have categorically rejected forced quarantines, arguing the risk of infection is not a direct enough threat to justify impeding people's rights. Most have not taken that view, instead expressing skepticism of the effectiveness of broad quarantines and travel bans — a skepticism public health experts share, by the way — while conceding there could be circumstances where these measures are appropriate for a time. The legal uncertainty around state and federal powers to require quarantines and limit public gatherings has libertarians predictably worried about due process rights.
7. "Insistence on temporary changes. Fierce opposition to expansions of the surveillance state to fight the novel coronavirus is likely widespread among libertarians in no small part because privacy rights, once lost, are very rarely recovered. But the risk of this pandemic permanently expanding the power of the state will shape the libertarian view on every proposed solution.... For many libertarians, our worries about robust government responses to COVID-19 are less about the responses proper than the possibility that the changes they bring will never end, even after the disease is under control. There are libertarians in a pandemic, and we're as preoccupied by coronavirus as everyone else. We're just preoccupied by liberty, too."
Longtime Libertarian Party of Canada activist, and (full disclosure) occasional GDPA columnist, Keith Komar has declared his candidacy for the position of Ontario Libertarian Party leader, up for election this November. Komar, currently running for the LPC in Bradford in the 2020 federal election, supplied GDPA with a biography, which reads in part:
"Keith is a single father of 2 originally from Cranbrook B.C.... He is an activist for many causes and has supported marriage equality since the early 1990s.... Keith’s activism for the Cannabis industry began in 2015.... Keith is a staunch supporter of property rights and freedom of speech.
"Keith was first introduced to Libertarianism in 2008 while following the U.S. election. He was immediately captivated by Dr. Paul and his unapologetic stances on property rights and personal freedoms. Keith is well-read on many topics, has read all of Ayn Rand's books, and is a follower of Milton Friedman and Frederick Hayek.
"In September 2015 Keith found Tim Moen and the Libertarian Party of Canada and supported the local candidate in Grand Prairie for the 2015 election. In 2016, Keith became involved with the BC Libertarian Party and helped grow its membership and candidate numbers for the 2017 provincial election. Keith himself garnered the 2nd highest percentage of votes for the party in that election (2.5%) and the 3rd highest vote total (410).
"In 2018 Keith moved back to Ontario and became involved with the Ontario Libertarian Party.... Keith represented the Libertarian Party of Canada in the York-Simcoe riding in Bradford during the 2019 federal by-election, and will run there again in October for the general election."
.jpg)
