Martin Wolfs Critique of Libertarianism
<http://volokh.com/2010/09/08/martin-wolfs-critique-of-libertarianism/>
Ilya Somin <http://volokh.com/author/ilya/> September 8, 2010 12:28 am
Martin Wolf, a prominent British economics journalist, has an
interesting blog post
<http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exchange/2010/08/08/what-is-the-role-of-the-state/>criticizing
libertarianism. Wolf is an excellent writer, but I think this particular
piece is not one of his best. Wolfs criticisms are that libertarianism
rules out certain policy options that should be left up to politics
and that it is hopeless politically. The first argument is weak, and
the second greatly overstated.
Here are Wolfs two key points:
There exists a strand in classical liberal or, in contemporary US
parlance, libertarian thought which believes the answer is to define
the role of the state so narrowly and the rights of individuals so
broadly that many political choices (the income tax or universal
health care, for example) would be ruled out a priori. In other
words, it seeks to abolish much of politics through constitutional
restraints.
I view this as a hopeless strategy, both intellectually and politically.
It is hopeless intellectually, because the values people hold are
many and divergent and some of these values do not merely allow, but
demand, government protection of weak, vulnerable or unfortunate
people. Moreover, such values are not wrong. The reality is that
people hold many, often incompatible, core values. Libertarians
argue that the only relevant wrong is coercion by the state. Others
disagree and are entitled to do so.
It is hopeless politically, because democracy necessitates debate
among widely divergent opinions. Trying to rule out a vast range of
values from the political sphere by constitutional means will fail.
Under enough pressure, the constitution itself will be changed, via
amendment or reinterpretation.
Wolfs first argument ignores the fact that modern liberal democracies
/already/ rule out a wide range of political choices. Indeed, they
rule out the vast majority of the major political ideologies in the
world. For example, nearly all current liberal democratic constitutions
forbid fascism, communism, full-blown socialism, and theocracy
forbidding them in the sense that they cannot be adopted through
normal legislation, but only by constitutional amendment. Some liberal
democratic constitutions (e.g. Germanys) forbid the enactment of
certain policies even /with /an amendment.
<http://www.comparativeconstitutions.org/2009/08/puzzle-of-unamendable-provisions-debate.html>
The various ideologies ruled out by liberal democratic constitutions
surely embody values that many people hold dear, and on which they are
entitled to disagree with liberals. For example, theocracy embodies
the widely held view that religious truth is important and that we
should not allow people to imperil their souls by persisting in
religious error.
The distance between status quo constitutional constraints in most of
the Western world and those that most libertarians would prefer is
actually much smaller than that between the former and many of the
alternatives we have already ruled out of bounds. There may be good
reasons to reject libertarianism and constitutional constraints on
economic legislation. But the supposed general undesirability of
ruling out policies that embody values on which people are entitled to
disagree isnt one of them.
Wolfs political argument is also unpersuasive. It is not a given that
[t]rying to rule out a vast range of values from the political sphere
by constitutional means will fail. To the contrary, that is exactly
what liberal democracies have successfully done already by entrenching
freedom of speech, freedom of religion, gender and racial equality
before the law, and so on. It is probably true that [u]nder enough
pressure, the constitution itself will be changed, via amendment or
reinterpretation. But the point of constitutional constraints on
government power is not to make certain kinds of change impossible, but
to make it hard. On this front too, liberal democratic constitutions
have a long history of at least partial success. No serious libertarian
thinker believes that constitutional constraints are a fool-proof
protection for the rights they value. They are merely a better safeguard
than the ordinary political process.
Perhaps Wolfs broader point here is that libertarianism is unlikely to
sweep the political field any time soon. That is surely true. The vast
majority of public and elite opinion is not libertarian, and is not
going to suddenly convert in the near future. On the other hand, much of
the public does greatly distrust government
<http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/19/nation/la-na-distrust19-2010apr19>and
is willing to support substantial reductions in its size and scope
<http://volokh.com/2010/01/21/the-libertarian-vote-2/>. And libertarian
ideas have also made progress among political and intellectual elites
over the last several decades, moving from near-total marginalization to
a considerable degree of respectability. It may never be possible to
have a fully libertarian society (even if libertarians agreed among
themselves what such a society would look like, which we dont). But we
can reasonably hope to make substantial progress in a libertarian
direction. It is also politically unlikely that we can ever fully
implement the principles of liberalism or conservatism. But that fact
does not discredit these ideologies. The same point applies to
libertarianism.
UPDATE: Wolf also discusses several specific policy issues and argues
that libertarians are wrong about them. His arguments on these points
are very conclusory and mostly ignore the vast literature libertarian
scholars have produced on public goods, externalities, insurance
problems, and other issues that he seems to assume only government can
address. In this post, Im not going to try to address these specific
policies. Instead, I wanted to respond to Wolfs two more general
criticisms of libertarianism. For my summary of what I consider the most
important general libertarian arguments against large and complex
government, see here <http://volokh.com/posts/1233381066.shtml>.
UPDATE #2: I just noticed that Wolfs post, which I found only recently,
was written about a month ago. Since the issues he raises are hardly
time-sensitive, I dont think this is a major problem.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society http://constitution.org
2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322 Austin, TX 78757
512/299-5001 [email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
