Posted by Ilya Somin:
Patri Friedman on "Seasteading" and the Failure of Libertarian Political
Activism:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_04_05-2009_04_11.shtml#1239074395
In the current Cato Unbound, Libertarian activist Patri Friedman
(grandson of Milton Friedman), [1]argues that libertarians have failed
in their efforts to promote a libertarian society through political
activism, in large part because the system is stacked in favor of
statism. Instead of seeking to reform existing states, he claims that
libertarians should establish new states of their own. Such efforts
have failed miserably in the past, but Friedman argues that the new
technology of "seasteading" (establishing large, habitable platforms
in the ocean) might make this strategy more viable. At the very least
he claims that it's better than what he considers the hopeless task of
trying to promote libertarianism within existing states:
I deeply yearn to live in an actual free society, not just to
imagine a theoretical future utopia or achieve small incremental
gains in freedom. For many years, I enthusiastically advocated for
liberty under the vague assumption that advocacy would help our
cause. However, I recently began trying to create free societies as
my full-time job, and this has given me a dramatic perspective
shift from my days of armchair philosophizing. My new perspective
is that the advocacy approach which many libertarian individuals,
groups, and think tanks follow (including me sometimes, sadly) is
an utter waste of time.
Argument has refined our principles, and academic research has
enlarged our understanding, but they have gotten us no closer to an
actual libertarian state. Our debating springs not from calculated
strategy, but from an intuitive �folk activism�: an instinct to
seek political change through personal interaction, born in our
hunter-gatherer days when all politics was personal. In the modern
world, however, bad policies are the result of human action, not
human design. To change them we must understand how they emerge
from human interaction, and then alter the web of incentives that
drives behavior. Attempts to directly influence people or ideas
without changing incentives, such as the U.S. Libertarian Party,
the Ron Paul campaign, and academic research, are thus useless for
achieving real-world liberty.
I question Friedman's key assumption that promoting libertarianism in
existing societies through research and activism is "an utter waste of
time." It certainly has not been as effective as he and I would like.
But it has nonetheless led to important victories for freedom. For
example, as I discuss in [2]my recent debate with Sandy Levinson,
there were important reductions in the size and scope of government in
the 1980s and 1990s, many of them traceable in part to advocacy by
libertarian scholars and movements. Even more impressive reductions in
government power were achieved in nations such as Ireland and New
Zealand during the same period.
Ironically, Patri Friedman's grandfather Milton Friedman was one of
the best examples of the impact of libertarian advocacy on policy.
Among other things, [3]Milton Friedman's efforts, combined with those
of other libertarians, played a key role in ending the draft, one of
the greatest infringements on individual liberty in modern American
history. Friedman also helped influence many governments around the
world in the direction of adopting relatively more free market
economic policies.
To say this is in no way denies that we are still very far from
achieving a truly libertarian society. And at the moment, we are
obviously moving in the wrong direction. It does, however, suggest
that libertarian political action can be effective, even in spite of
the many ways in which the system is biased against it.
Does that mean that libertarians should reject Patri Friedman's
"seasteading" proposal out of hand? I don't think so. If the
technology is viable, the idea may deserve support. Although we can
and should work to reform existing governments, Friedman is right to
point out that we need more competition in the market for government.
If seasteading begins to attract productive citizens away from
existing states, it might pressure the latter to allow greater
freedom.
A countervailing factor is that a libertarian "seasteading" state
might not be as free of the power of existing governments as Friedman
supposes. He claims that the latter cannot be reformed in a
libertarian direction because of poor incentive structures. But those
same perverse incentives might lead them to use force to suppress
seasteading projects - especially if the latter seem to be potentially
attractive rivals. The [4]Law of the Sea Treaty defines the ocean as a
"common heritage of mankind" that cannot be claimed by any one nation
or group. Existing governments or the United Nations could easily use
this clause of the treaty to justify suppressing attempts to establish
a libertarian state on the high seas. Friedman and his Seasteading
Institute [5]try to answer this objection on their website.They make
some good points, but I am not entirely convinced.
In sum, Patri Friedman understates the utility of political action
within existing states and perhaps underrates the likelihood that
those same existing states might foil his attempt to establish a new
one. But it is too early to conclude that his proposal is unworthy of
support. I, for one, would like to see more analysis and evidence.
References
1.
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/06/patri-friedman/beyond-folk-activism/
2. http://www.pennumbra.com/debates/debate.php?did=21
3. http://www.davidrhenderson.com/articles/0199_thankyou.html
4. http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm470.cfm
5.
http://seasteading.org/book_beta/Concerns.html#whydoyouthinkyoucangetfreedomwithoutinterferencestateswillneverletyoubefree
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
