A Libertarian Perspective on Economic and Social Policy Lecture 1 Introduction ©2009 Jeffrey A. Miron

Introduction • This is EC1017 – A Libertarian Perspective on Economic and Social Policy.

• Jeffrey A. Miron – Senior Lecturer on Economics

Introduction, continued • Today’s lecture provides an introduction to Libertarianism generally and to the specific issues we will address in this course. • Roughly an hour on this introduction, and then a discussion of the syllabus, prerequisites, and other nuts and bolts issues.

Libertarianism • What is Libertarianism? • Why Should There be a Course About It? • What Does Libertarianism Have to do with Economics?

Answer These Questions in Several Steps • Define Libertarianism • Consider examples of policies that libertarians oppose. • Compare libertarianism to other “isms” with which you are probably familiar; – goal is to make clear that libertarianism is fundamentally different.

What is Libertarianism? A Definition • Libertarianism is, roughly, the view that the best government policy is usually laissez-faire. • The word “best” is important: – Need to be clear about the objective function, since there are many possible views on what is “best.”

• The word “usually” is important; libertarians do endorse a few deviations from laissez-faire; – But only a few relative to current practice.

• The word “policy” is also important. – Libertarianism is a perspective on the appropriate size and scope of government; it is not a perspective on life, religion, happiness, good and evil, philosophy, or anything else. – And laissez-faire is a policy: the policy of non-intervention.

Examples of Programs and Policies that Libertarians Oppose • • • • • • •

•

Public Schools Gun Control Laws Social Security U.S. participation in the United Nations Government-Mandated Affirmative Action Government protection for unions Prohibitions on Insider Trading High-Stakes Testing

• U.S Invasion of Iraq • Death Penalty • Government Restrictions on Abortion • Drug Prohibition • Government Restrictions on Immigration • Antitrust Policy • Campaign Finance Regulation • Medicare • And a whole lot more

Cabinet Departments Under Libertarianism • • • • • • • • • • •

Eliminate: Agriculture Commerce Education Energy Health & Human Services Homeland Security Housing Interior Labor Transportation Veterans Affairs

• • • •

Keep: Defense Justice State Treasury

Government Agencies that Libertarians Would Eliminate • • • • • • •

SEC FTC FEC CPSC FCC EPA CIA

• • • • • • •

NASA NIH NSF NLRB FEMA ICC NRC

Libertarianism is Different • It is not just fiscally conservative liberalism; • It is not just socially liberal conservatism; • It is not just advocating moderate reductions or modest tweaks in the size of government; • It is a radically different perspective.

Why Study Libertarianism? A Comparison to Other “Isms” • • • • • •

Anarchism Liberalism and Conservatism Philosophical Libertarianism Externality Libertarianism Consequentialist Libertarianism Cost-Benefit Analysis

Libertarianism versus Anarchism • Anarchism is the view there should be zero government. • Libertarians argue for small government, not zero government • Relative to current views about the appropriate size and functions of government, liberalism and anarchism look similar. • But the distinction is real and important. Two main areas in which libertarians support government involvement: – National defense – Definition / enforcement of property rights, contracts

Liberalism • What is the definition? What is the principle? – It’s hard to give a clean definition or explain the principle behind modern liberalism.

• Liberals are suspicious of government intervention in some spheres, but highly receptive in others. – Traditionally, liberals support economic interventions but not social interventions. – For example, liberals support legal abortion but endorse minimum wages and rent control.

Conservatism • What is the definition? What is the principle? – It’s hard to give a clean definition or explain the principle behind conservatism.

• Conservatives are suspicious of government intervention in some spheres, but highly receptive in others. – Traditionally, conservatives support social interventions but not economic interventions. – For example, conservatives support school prayer and restrictions on abortion but oppose limits on free trade.

Liberalism and Conservatism • In fact, current versions of liberalism and conservatism are not all that different. • In most areas, both support substantial intervention, differing somewhat on the amount or manner of intervention, not on whether there should be intervention at all: – Social Security – Drug prohibition – Government Funding for Education

• Thus, again, libertarianism is truly different.

Libertarianism versus Liberalism and Conservatism • There are areas in which liberal and libertarian perspectives agree, but also many where they diverge. – Roughly, agree on social policy but differ on economic policy.

• There are areas in which conservative and libertarian perspectives agree, but also many where they diverge. – Roughly, agree on economic policy but differ on social policy.

• Libertarianism is “laissez-faire” across the board. – More broadly, this course will argue that libertarianism is consistently based on application of one, reasonable principle, in contrast to either liberal or conservative views.

• And even when libertarianism “agrees” with liberalism or conservatism, the reasoning is often different.

Libertarianism versus Liberalism and Conservatism, continued • The fact that libertarianism differs from both liberalism and conservatism is not, by itself, sufficient reason to study it: – There’s lots of nutty stuff out there that is “different.”

• But this course will suggest that libertarianism resonates, at least in its milder forms, with many people: – A substantial portion of the population is unhappy with both liberal and conservative views. – The libertarian perspective seems to be what at least some of these people are looking for.

Libertarianism versus Liberalism and Conservatism, continued • The fact that libertarianism is different and seems to resonate with a non-trivial fraction of the population is a key motivation to consider it. • But this does not explain why libertarianism is an economics subject, and indeed much discussion of libertarianism seems to imply that libertarianism is about philosophy, not economics. • To understand why it really is about economics, we need to discuss philosophical versus externality versus consequentialist libertarianism.

Philosophical Libertarianism • One way that many people justify libertarian policy positions is by asserting that – Individual rights and freedoms are the most important values in society; – Therefore, most government policies are bad because they impose limitations on individual rights and freedoms.

• The policy conclusions to which these arguments lead are similar to the conclusions I will argue for in this course.

Philosophical Libertarianism, continued • But nothing in philosophical libertarianism explains why individual rights and freedoms are the only things that should matter. • Some people believe other principles are the “correct” principle on which to base policy choices. – For example, some people think an “equitable” distribution of income should be a key goal of policy.

• Thus, philosophical libertarianism is not a scientific view; it’s an assumption / belief / assertion. • This course is not about philosophical libertarianism.

Externality Libertarianism • A different version of libertarianism says intervention is justified only when the actions of one person have a negative impact on the welfare of others. – In economics language, only to correct externalities.

• This approach sounds appealing (at least to economists), but it is not that useful in practice.

The Problems with Externality Libertarianism • First, the externality approach justifies almost anything: • Some people claim they suffer a negative externality from being around particular races or religions. – Does this justify apartheid or state religion? Of course not.

• Some people claim there is a positive externality from baseball because it’s American. – Does this justify funding stadiums? Of course not.

• Some people claim they experience a negative externality from being around sloppy dressers. – Does this justify a tax on T-shirts? Of course not.

• One can attempt to avoid this problem by considering only “substantial” or “tangible” externalities. But this quickly becomes messy, vague, and subjective.

The Problems with Externality Libertarianism, continued • A different problem with the externality approach is that in many instances a genuine externality exists, but laissez-faire might nevertheless be the best policy given that attempts to correct externalities have their own limitations. – For example, snow blowers make noise, but banning them or regulating them would plausibly be worse.

• So, externality libertarianism is a lot closer to economics than philosophical libertarianism, but it is not quite the right approach.

Consequentialist Libertarianism • CL says society should choose policies in 4 steps: • 1. Determine in each arena whether there is really a problem for government intervention to address. • 2. Identify the set of policies that might ameliorate the problem in question. • 3. For each of these, examine all the possible consequences, both good and bad, tangible and intangible. • 4. Intervene if, but only if, the entire range of consequences from intervention is better than what occurs under laissez-faire.

Consequentialist Libertarianism, continued • Stated this way, it is hard to oppose CL. • Indeed, many people accept this approach but believe it justifies a large range of government intervention. • So, why does the CL view have policy implications? Because of two empirical claims: – Many of the problems that allegedly justify intervention are not so large in the first place. – Most interventions have a lot of negative consequences that the proponents fail to consider, and these often swamp any possible benefits.

Consequentialist Libertarianism, continued • Whether these two empirical claims are right is the subject of this course. • If these claims are right, however, it follows that laissezfaire is the best policy in most arenas. – This view recognizes that markets are not perfect, that some people are myopic, that some capitalists are greedy, etc.

• But, it also recognizes that policies are imperfect, so the right question is always, – Which evil is worse?

• The claim here is that, usually, government intervention is worse than laissez-faire. • It’s of course for you to decide whether you agree.

Libertarianism and Cost-Benefit Analysis • The previous description makes clear that consequentialist libertarianism is just costbenefit analysis: – The only difference relative to standard costbenefit analysis is the attempt to think broadly about the possible costs.

• So, consequential libertarianism is just economics.

Then Why Aren’t All Economists Libertarians? Five Answers • Many are. Certainly more so than for any other group. • Different Values: distribution versus efficient allocations. • Different Assessment of the Facts. • Economic methodology encourages a narrow vision of the costs of policies. • Incentive for academics to publish in journals encourages an “interventionist” view of policy.

Is Consequentialist Libertarianism Useful? • I have argued that philosophical libertarianism is unpersuasive because it rests on assertions not science. • I have argued that the externality approach is not always useful because externalities can justify any intervention. • Are there similar limitations to consequentialism? – Yes. Even if one accepts the approach, one can frequently hypothesize costs or benefits that justify any intervention.

• Then why is CL/CB any good? – Because it forces analysis of public policy to be specific about the objectives and consequences of policy.

Is Consequentialist Libertarianism Useful, continued • One reason for differing conclusions about policy is differing views about what constitutes a cost. – Example: Is income inequality a “bad” thing?

• A different reason is differing assessments of the effects of various policies – Example: Does drug prohibition reduce drug use?

• Either of these possibilities reduces the usefulness of CL. • And both of these factors explain some of the differences in views about policy.

Is Consequentialist Libertarianism Useful, continued • A third possibility, however, is that many people have simply not considered the broad range of consequences of policy, such as those we will discuss. • Thus, consideration of the entire range of consequences might produce more agreement about policy, even if some differences about values or effects remain. • In my experience, this is indeed the case: – Differences about values and effects exist.

• But at least as important a reason for disagreement is failure to consider the entire picture. • If this is right, then CL is useful because it encourages a consistent and complete approach to evaluating policy.

Is Consequentialist Libertarianism Useful, continued • Thus, the challenge for me is to convince you that in at least a reasonable number of instances, careful and thorough analysis of all the effects of various interventions leads to the conclusion that intervention does more harm than good, even granting the scope for differing view about costs and consequences of policies. • You get to judge whether I am successful.

Goals of the Course • Provide an understanding of what libertarians believe. • Convince you that libertarian views on policy are consistent, while liberal, conservative, and other views are not. • Convince you that designing sensible policies is harder than implied by standard economics textbooks; many important issues are left out. • Make you more critical of policy proposals from either side.

Further Thoughts • This is course is about economics, not philosophy, government, or political science. • The course focuses on major issues, not just “traditional” libertarian themes (sex, drugs, rock and roll). – Point is that the CL approach works widely.

• You don’t need to be a libertarian to enjoy this course: – Indeed, it will be more fun if we have many views represented. – And the Libertarians might get even madder at me than the non-libertarians!