A legitimacy crisis is when people stop believing that the governing elite is competent and benevolent.
In theory, a libertarian might welcome a legitimacy crisis. If people lose faith in the government elite, then should that not make them more libertarian?
In practice, we are seeing something closer to the opposite. We are seeing a decline in legitimacy, although it probably does not qualify as a crisis. In any case, the rise of populism helps to promote demagogues, such as Donald Trump and Elizabeth Warren.
Today, libertarians are losing whatever allies we once had. We used to have progressive allies on social issues, such as free speech or regulation of sexual conduct. The younger generation among progressives is opposed to free speech. In the 1960s, college campuses ended their rules concerning visitation of dorm rooms by members of the opposite sex (only a few years before I went to Swarthmore, the rule was that the door had to be open and each student had to have one foot on the floor at all times). Now, the campus sexual rulebook is thicker than ever.
We used to have conservative allies on markets. Now, conservatives are happy to excoriate the tech industry or the pharmaceutical industry or outsourcing. Tyler Cowen’s love letter to Big Business is a rare libertarian voice being drowned out by other voices, such as J.D. Vance or Senator Josh Hawley or Mary Eberstadt.
Perhaps the natural tendency is to oppose liberty. I speak of FOOL, which is the Fear Of Others’ Liberty.
One possibility is that liberty, when it includes liberty for others, is a value held by only some elites. When those elites are weak, FOOL holds sway, and demagogues emerge to satisfy the FOOL.
After this change came a decline in car culture and drive-in movies. De-platforming has many forms and results in unexpected alternate outlets.
FOOL is definitely a keeper as a term for the political lexicon. My compliments to you (if it is you) for coining it.
I think once we start unpacking FOOL we get the issue of “Skin in the game” as Taleb calls it.
If Libertarianism has “Bayesian prior” toward “Pay your own way and mind your own business,” lots of things keep libertarianism from working well in practice.
Offhand I’ll say risk homeostasis, transfer payments, the search for deep pockets, the desire to shield individuals and firms from their folly, “lemon socialism,” and a syndrome of “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours we share.”
The fear of being less fit to survive is a similar model.
Enough with the NBA and China! (Notice Tyler does not mind here) Actually, I see that the US and China will remain frienemies on paper but large companies will continue to increase both business but also surveillance state between as well. So I see large corporations becoming the more of the authoritarians to control worker’s and citizen’s behavior.
And I bet most of the US moves of surveillance are led by the private sector with the public sector following.
Anyway, Trump, a TV reality star authoritarian, and Warren, a public school teacher authoritarian, as not the true risk of anti-liberty in the long run.
I think it is a misdiagnosis to believe the lack of legitimacy is due to a lack of competence and benevolence.
We have a system of checks and balances, and the results are not designed, they are an equilibrium of conflicting actors. The electorate that chose Trump did not act to restore competence and benevolence. They wanted someone to smash through to gain some level of satisfaction. Libertarians do not believe in smashing through.
Well, if you’re an ‘extremist’ (that is, an extreme statist, a socialist or nationalist, etc.) and the government is widely regarded as legitimate, you basically have to pretend to be a moderate and work within the system to try make modest changes. When legitimacy disintegrates, then that’s your chance to start your revolution and try to realize your policy preferences, since no longer does everyone cherish the status quo and regard the rulers as protected by the taboo of legitimacy. And if you’re not an extremist, you’ll be more willing to use illiberal means to keep the extremists from replacing the current rulers.
I think understanding will dawn if you turn the question around. What are young Americans concerned about today, and what solutions does libertarianism offer for their concerns?
I’ll suggest the following significant concerns: good jobs (and the difficulty and expense of preparing for same), climate change, the toxicity of the media environment, child care, and the mating market (by which I mean the difficulty of finding a mate who satisfies your expectations while having expectations that you can satisfy).
Good comment.
Does monetarism count as a libertarian policy, or is it technocratic in nature? Milton Friedman won a Nobel prize for monetarism and was a notable libertarian, but I am not sure if that makes monetarist ideas like NGDPLT libertarian per se. But competent central bank management of the money supply should lead to labor markets that are much, much tighter than most people have experienced in the past 30 or 40 years. Of course, as an idea it is too complicated to sell to the masses.
As far as climate change is concerned, do carbon taxes count as a libertarian idea? Again, taxing externalities seems like a technocratic idea, but is one that doesn’t seem to run afoul of what many libertarian writers and academics seem to believe. Zoning reform is also a libertarianish idea that would help with access to jobs and also climate change.
I’d say those count as libertarian ideas, but I’d say they’re also kind of weak and tangential to the core concerns. If a carbon tax isn’t applied globally it’s pointless, and zoning reform seems like the sort of idea an oldster who just doesn’t understand would come up with. No offense.
Disclosure: I am in my late 40s. I’m much older than the demographic we’re discussing. My guesses about what young people care about are just that, guesses. I’m pretty sure zoning reform is not high on the list, though.
Libertarians, even more than Conservatives, require people to want Freedom.
Freedom with responsibility.
Most people don’t want the responsibility (which comes with adult freedom), but do want the freedom of action. They want others to pay for their mistakes — but don’t want to have to pay for the mistakes others make.
When normal people “lose faith” in gov’t, the historical record clearly shows what is desired — some charismatic leader to gain enough power so that the rich elites are the ones who have to pay for the mistakes.
Most of what Libs have been wanting is the freedom to make sub-optimal decisions, like taking too many drugs, sleeping with too many other people, being too verbally impolite to others, being against religions or authorities who oppose these sub-optimal decisions.
Drug freedom that leads to addiction problems is a mistake. Which Libertarians are stepping up to “pay for” the mistakes of those who used drug freedom to become opioid addicts? Someone has to pay, and the addicts who make the bad decisions don’t have the money, so it’s inevitably going to be Other People’s Money.
Libertarians say they want “free markets”, but such rhetoric has been resulting in the USA huge trade deficits due to accepting imports from other countries (free trade! good! low prices!), while also accepting those countries tariffs (& other) barriers against US exports. For low paid, less educated citizens, there were fewer jobs and fewer job prospects with the recent past “Free Trade”.
The unfair trade that was sold as “Free Trade” resulted in big profits for the company owners (elite) and top managers (elite), and more jobs & growth in foreign countries (actually good but not something US politicians try to take credit for). Yet also far fewer US jobs. NAFTA & TPP were mistakes, to be paid for by the lost US jobs.
Folk aren’t afraid of other’s “freedom”. Folks are afraid of the decision mistakes so many people make, which must be paid by somebody else. The natural tendency is to oppose being forced to pay for the mistakes of others.
“In any case, the rise of populism helps to promote demagogues, such as Donald Trump and Elizabeth Warren. Today, libertarians are losing whatever allies we once had.”
Well, if you continue to denigrate populism, you are rejecting popular support and eliminating any reason why anyone would want to ally with you.
Some definitions first:
Populism: the political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite.
Demagogue: A demagogue is someone who becomes a leader largely because of skills as a speaker or who appeals to emotions and prejudices.
Libertarianism: Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, and individual judgment.
Antipo: Short for anti-populism. A form of bigotry, often related to oikophobia, which denigrates the judgment of the common people when they support someone who is actually antagonistic to the privileges of elite.
I will argue that Trump is more libertarian than Kling and Cowen and that far from being libertarian, Kling and Cowen are better understood as antipo bigots.
Trump’s libertarian accomplishments include:
– repealing the individual mandate that coerced people into buying health insurance;
-rejecting the Paris climate accord which would have transferred hundreds of billions of dollars from US taxpayers to foreign governments as well as opened the gate to totalitarian regulation of everyday life in the name of protecting the environment;
– fostered a supportive environment for the development of US energy resources allowing the free market to provide power to people residing in states that do not actively burden common people’s access to power;
-proposed legislation to increase immigration while reforming the horror-show that is the existing immigration system which significantly disadvantages would-be immigrants who obey the law;
-rejected the Trans-Pacific Partnership which would have transferred US sovereignty to supranationalist entities while signing trade deals with Japan and Vietnam and agreeing to work with the EU to achieve a trade deal; and
-reformed and reduced irrational corporate taxation resulting in increased total revenues and the elimination of competitive disadvantages imposed upon US workers relative to loosely regulated foreign competition,
And not to mention reductions in crime and overall increases in prosperity at every level of society.
Under an administration led by someone with sharp pants creases and faux-noble oratory, the people who call themselves libertarian would likely celebrate these, but all it took was the election of an unlikeable man to reveal how easily they will abandon their principles.
The biggest reveal that Kling is a knee-jerk bigot are his huzzahs for Cowen’s Big Business book. In that book starting at page 13 Cowen argues for the rejection of the doctrine of shareholder primacy, that is the law under which most Delaware corporations are licensed and the law under which investors hazarded their money. Cowen embraces instead Liz Warren’s stakeholder capitalism in which corporations would be required to answer to all manner of imagined stakeholders other than investors. This is wholly irrational, illiberal, and would violate the property and freedom of association of countless millions. Individuals interested in forming corporations to do social benefit work already have countless options including the ability to incorporate as a social benefit corporation. Cowen would merely eliminate the most popular option that allows common people to invest and earn returns unreduced by corporate management’s use of their money to advance personal political preferences.
Similarly, Kling opposes the re-privatization of the federal mortgage insurance industry at the expense of the investors who were robbed in the federal takeover.
Russ Roberts has repeatedly advanced the claim that non-whites are in physical danger if they attend NASCAR events. The claim lacks even a shred of evidence for support. Pure bigotry.
I speak of Fear of Average People.
Too many of the people desecrating the mantle of libertarianism are merely antipo bigots. The people have chosen a leader who acts as a libertarian in spite of the faux-libertarians who want nothing other than to bring him down. If they succeed the real demagogues will have won.
I agree with almost every word of this, but I would have separated Cowen and Kling here- Cowen is far further down that road today, and I have literally watched over the last 15 years of reading his blog. If I hadn’t been there watching the progression, and just jumped from 2005 to 2019, I would have sworn Cowen was replaced by a pod person.
I suspect this could be generalized beyond “elites” to “everyone”. As in, “Everyone fears the liberty of others when they are weak”.
This is almost tautological when one thinks about it. If a group of people is strong… secure in their beliefs, possessions, properties and prospects, there’s no logical reason to be a FOOL.
So libertarians need to ask themselves why does almost everyone feel so insecure and weak that they view others as a threat.
There is so much semantics involved here.
In the term “governing elite;” what are the “elite” qualities of those now functioning, or who seek to function with the powers of governing?
Certainly since 2006 and especially currently, the quest for (and execution of) federal executive office have been exemplary “ego-trips.”
Are we at a “crisis” with respect to conformance to recognized principles of accepted rules and standards (if that is what “legitimacy” requires); if so, by whom – and what brings it to crisis levels?
The Trump Administration governs as a traditional pro-market pro-business conservative with populist rhetoric. Many libertarian pundit figures are personally enraged at Trump and are determined to bash anything associated with him, but that doesn’t make it true.
Kling is giving Tyler Cowen a very friendly charitable interpretation and giving Trump and very negative and uncharitable interpretation.
In an environment where control is an option, one chooses not to exercise it when trust is high, but when trust is low… the price of control is less than the cost of abuse.
“A legitimacy crisis is when people stop believing that the governing elite is competent and benevolent.”
Not in the slightest, a legitimacy crisis is when the people no longer trust the political system that governors them to do whatever it is they expect that system to do; if you like “lost faith in the government”. Note that has nothing to do with government elites or elites in general as you could have zero faith in them but still have faith in the system to correct for it which is the promise of democratic systems. You don’t have to trust your guy or any guys, you can simply trust they are self interested and that other conflicting self interests will prevent collusion and that is what is breaking down. Anyone who has ANY faith that people in positions of bureaucratic authority are benevolent and/or competent (or if they are, working in the interest of the believer or government) or in any way is elite (which implies superiority) is not a FOOL but an actually fool.
One thing I will say while I’m here though is with the election of Donald Trump it’s interested to see all the revealed preferences. For most of my adult life I looked at the beltway libertarians (GMU, Cato, etc) as actual libertarians but what I have come to see is most of them are crypto-Progressives or crypto-Conservatives (at best) or authoritarian oligarchical technocrats (at worst) who simply jumped on the libertarian bandwagon as they were “embarrassed party members hence had to don different clothes in polite company”. I like Mr. Kling here and don’t think he has sunk anywhere as low as Sumners, Cowen, Brooks, Volokh, C. Brown, et al. but wording like above make me wonder as it reeks of paternalism and not individual liberty. It reminds me of conversations with my outright and openly communist brother who hates taxes just as much as GMU hates non-technocrats and Cato hates bodily autonomy.
Have you considered that your ideas were tried and found wanting? That losing allies is a natural consequence of the failures of your ideas.
For example, you mention the rules on sex at Strathmore. Maybe changing those rules was a mistake, and the current frenzy is just trying to undo that mistake.
The question though is wanting by who. All ideas are found wanting by entrenched powers and even the mediocre public hence ballot or cultural success is irrelevant to that. Christianity was found wanting by Nero. Environmentalism (and it’s political offshoot the Green Party) have had about equal direct success though both (like libertarianism) have influenced the conversation with the entrenched. Homosexuality was wanting and look at it today. It’s not so much libertarianism as a concept has a failed or is doomed to fail, the problem is its time simply hasn’t come and they suck at getting the message out.
Also it’s important to realized libertarianism unlike its counterparts is an aspirational ideology. Nobody wants to live in Libertopia, much less its adherents. What they want is simply to maximize liberty, be part of the conversation, and basically apply (for lack of a better word) strict scrutiny to ANY law or rule. To your point about “maybe they ran a natural experiment, it failed, and they are simply trying to undo their mistake” the problem for libertarians is they know that isn’t the case. There was absolutely no good faith evidence back deliberative process which actually examined that question hence it’s just a bunch of bureaucrats depriving people of their natural rights (i..e. liberty) on personal whim. THAT is what libertarians are in practice, the voice of conscious. If you are going to oppress us, then you can damn well at least be open and deliberative about it.
As for they “why they have no allies” it’s simply because they have no loyalty outside ideology and that is a political death sentence. And while sure that’s a concept shared with Bolshevikism or religious fundamentalism the challenge is, unlike those two, is it neither popular with the masses nor seen as a way for aspiring authoritarians to gain power hence they don’t latch on to it. Libertarianism fails because it appeals to intellectual orbiters and outsiders as well as, when it does engage the public, squanders what little political capitol it has being intellectually dishonest in a transparent way which even the public can see through. Being out of power is fine but losing a place at the table is bad for society because nobody else is willing to have theses conversation. Or as the saying goes, “A prophet may never be welcome in his hometown but if the message it good over enough time you can bring down the world”. Libertarianism doesn’t need to win to today or tomorrow, it simply needs to keep engaging, nudging the narrative, and at a glacial generational pace either get to where we need to go or, if nothing else, slow down where we are going. Like I said, it’s an aspirational moral ideology and that’s all it needs to continue to be.
Pretty good rant, but probably a true assumption is being attacked:
“libertarianism as a concept has a failed or is doomed to fail”.
Look at the opioid crisis as “Libertarian drug use – fail”.
Look at the mentally ill homeless as “Libertarian freedom for non-violent people – fail”.
Freedom to act (adult), is not the same as Freedom from responsibility (child). Most want both. Reality demands that somebody pays, somebody is “responsible”. Libertarians “say” they want those who act to be responsible. But, but, but…
Neither Rand nor Heinlein nor any of the most known Libertarians really knows what “society” should be doing with stupid, lazy, irresponsible people, who, when given freedom, make mistakes. Bad decisions for themselves, bad for others nearby. (My own best guess as “optimal” is a voluntary National Service, where everybody is given a job, which they have to show up to, at least, to get paid. Not Libertarian, tho.)
The competent, responsible folk can, and will, be able to take care of themselves. Others need help. Libs say “Charity”.
I know very few charitable Libertarians. I know lots of charitable Christians, and even big-gov’t Liberals.
I guess in the Rortian sense that fir an idea to be correct it must fashionable, but then we’re not all Rortians.
Even our Founding Fathers really did not devise the Constitution as a libertarian type government. The goal was the government would be formed by the leading (mostly richest) citizens lead their local community and state governments. It felt more libertarian since the government was a lot more restrained than the Europe Monarchs of the 18th century.
And weren’t the Founding Fathers the ultimate in your FOOL example or ? They lovers of liberty while also being slave owners.
See the speech on Religious Liberty from Bill Barr:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-p-barr-delivers-remarks-law-school-and-de-nicola-center-ethics
Then look, perhaps, at Rod Dreher’s note about the speech and the reactions by the Dems who hate religions, especially anti-abortion Christians:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/bill-barr-religious-liberty-warrior/
Rod links to Paul Krugman, hating the speech and talking about religious bigotry:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/opinion/trump-william-barr-speech.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
When “Liberty” means the ability of one group of people to delegitimate the religious liberty of believers, that’s tautologically NOT liberty. Lots of “Libertarians” hate religion, and the religious authority which proscribes against individual expressions. The “alliance” against religious domination has been successful. But the Lib allies, the Dems, have replaced Christian values with ever changing PC values. And job-killing enforcement, not jail time, for any person who publicly opposes select PC policies.
A similar sad result on the “free trade” bunk, with Libertarian ideas allied to Big Business expansion & globalization, allowing China and other countries to export huge amounts to the US, without tariffs, while keeping out US imports. Combined with outsourcing of jobs. Good for Big Business (whom Cowen loves), but bad for the average US worker; and also neither fair nor even really “free” trade. Libs allied with rich cheaters.
Libertarians never had real allies — they have good rhetoric & principles, but are mostly happy to be used, like useful idiots, by more authoritarian folk for other, limited purposes. Or, maybe like the US & USSR were “allies” against National Socialism, but once Hitler lost, their differences were far more important than the prior alliance. Once drug legalization & sexual promiscuity are enacted in the culture, the Lib idea of responsible freedom is jettisoned. So there are problems, and calls for Big Gov’t to solve the problems of too much liberty.
Once unfair one sided trade gets called Free Trade, any attempt to make it more fair by raising tariffs is opposed by Libertarians. A big part of the idea of free trade is that it makes products cheaper for the consumer — but the loss of “good jobs” means the cost of Chinese made stuff is much higher measured in hours worked by those who lose jobs. Problems and calls for Big Gov’t to solve the problems of too much globalized “Free Trade”.