One of the major debates on the Right over the past year or so has been the efficacy of libertarianism. Part of that debate arises from disagreement about the role of government: should it attempt to be neutral, as libertarians argue (which, we have seen, it is not), or should it act in the “common good” (or, as the Constitution puts it, the “common welfare”)? In a world in which the Left wins victory after victory in the long culture wars, the assumptions of the “New Right” that arose following the Second World War are increasingly called into question.
Among those assumptions are libertarian economics. Increasingly, conservatives are adopting a more suspicious view of concepts like supply-side economics and free-market capitalism. That suspicion is not because capitalism is a failure, per se, but because it is almost too successful: the wealth and prosperity it brings have also brought substantial social and cultural upheaval. Because capitalism is an impersonal and amoral system, it doesn’t make value judgments about what is “good” or “bad” in the context of marketplace exchanges. The Market itself is the highest “good,” so any hindrance to its efficiency is bad.
Ergo, we see arguments in favor of legalized prostitution, legalized hard drugs, legalized abortion, etc. Again, if market efficiency is the greatest good, then why not allow these “victimless” activities?
Of course, unbridled libertarianism is doomed to fail, especially as it scales up. Legalized hard drug use might keep junkies out of prison, but we don’t want heroine addicts buying their next hit at the grocery store. Prostitution destroys families and the lives of the women (and men) involved, and spread disease. Abortion is straight-up murder.
Capitalism cannot sustain itself in a vacuum. It needs socially conservative behaviors and attitudes to sustain it. If one wanted to live in a stateless libertarian paradise, one would need a small, tight-knit community in which everyone bought into the non-aggression principle and agreed to be honest in business dealings. But as soon as one person decided not to abide by the unwritten social code, the entire experiment would unravel, like that scene in Demolition Man when the effeminate police force doesn’t know how to use force to subdue a violent criminal.
But for all of those critiques, capitalism remains the best system we’ve ever developed. I agree with Tucker Carlson that the economy is a tool, not an ends to itself, but if government interferes too much with the tool, the tool is no longer effective. If anything, the economy is a chainsaw: too much regulation and the engine stalls and the blades become dull due to misuse and neglect; too little regulation and you lose an arm (or your life), even if you cut down a ton of trees in the process.
One of the most powerful books I ever read was Milton Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom (1962). It transformed the way I viewed the relationship between the government and economics. Friedman would have a huge impact on my life and my thought. While I don’t agree with all of his conclusions, I still largely accept his conclusions.
Friedman was a minimalist when it came to government power, but he still recognized some role for government: maintaining the national defense, combating pollution, and fighting against infectious diseases.
Here is a 1999 interview with Milton Friedman, from the excellent Uncommon Knowledge series, hosted by Peter Robinson. It highlights some common objections to libertarian economic ideas, as we as Friedman’s thoughtful, nuanced responses:
For what it’s worth, I’ll add that Peter Robinson is a fantastic interview. He possesses that perfect quality in an interviewer: he doesn’t steal the limelight. I grew so weary of Eric Metaxas‘s interviews, not because his guests were uninteresting—he has great guests!—but because he can’t help but talk over them constantly (his penchant for campiness also goes a bit overboard, and I love that kind of cheesy stuff). After listening to some of Peter Robinson’s interviews Sunday afternoon, I never found myself wishing he would shut up—always a good sign.
Regardless, these are some weighty issues. I have been hard on libertarians over the past year because I think they tend to reduce complex issues to supply and demand curves, and I can’t help but notice how we keep losing ground in the culture wars by espousing endless process and slow persuasion (which seems to be stalling in its effectiveness).
On the other hand, I’m glad that conservatives don’t wield power the way progressives do; as Gavin McInnes once put it in a video (one I would never be able to locate now) after the 2016 election, Trump and conservatives have sheathed the sword of power. Progressives, masters of psychological projection, expected Trump to come out swinging, because that’s what they would do.
I just don’t know how long we can delay them from swinging the sword again, and after Trump’s unlikely victory (and his likely reelection), I imagine progressives will no longer even engage in the pretense of even-handedness and fair play: they will crush us relentlessly if given the chance, rather than face an uprising again.
Libertarianism doesn’t have the answer to what to do to prevent that scenario. Unfortunately, I’m not sure any faction on the Right does—at least not in any way that is palatable.