In an earlier post about Bush's stem cell veto, I mentioned that I am a libertarian. One of the comments got me thinking, and I want to answer it in detail. Posted by Quitter:
Libertarian? And you're a scientist? Where do you think your funding comes from?
Usually big "L" Libertarian is defined as believing government's only job is defense and law enforcement. When you find one of these guys under a rock they usually bitch about the department of education, say the FDA has killed more people than Hitler and then proceed to tell you how a oregano suspension cured their strep throat.
Maybe you're a small "l" libertarian? Aka a civil libertarian? Unless you were planning to lobby against funding for the NIH, FDA, CDC, DOE, NASA, NOAA, NIST etc.Sorry, I always get freaked out when scientists describe themselves as libertarian when the overwhelming majority of research is publicly funded.
Actually, my first impulse was to respond: "I am a libertarian, not an idiot."
This is a reasonable question, though, and one that -- considering NIH is spending an obscene amount of money for me to go to medical school -- I get fairly regularly. How do I justify being both a libertarian, ostensibly a believer in limited government, and a scientist, suckling on the government teet for the rest of my existence?
To answer, I need to clarify something about libertarians. From my point of view, libertarians fall into two general categories:
- People who believe the government is evil. -- This type of libertarian tends to view any abridgement of gun rights as evidence of impending dictatorship and taxation as a form of institutional violence. They believe that government should be limited on principle, and they look forward to a society where we can live by voluntary association and contract alone. For some reason, I tend to associate this with libertarians on the Eastern seaboard. You could also call them ideological libertarians.
- People who believe the government is incompetent. -- This type of libertarian tends to acknowledge that government is capable of good things, but that in general it fails to do so and often makes the situation worse. They believe that government should be limited because a limited government is more effective. I tend to associate these libertarians with the West. You could call them pragmatic libertarians.
While I must admit that I have sympathy for the views of the former group, I tend to fall into the latter.
Pragmatic libertarians judge government programs by a single standard: Does the program work? Is the People's money being spent well? Is the problem being solved? By this standard, programs such as school lunches -- having essentially eradicated childhood malnutrition -- have been spectacular successes and programs such as missile defense -- are they burning this money for heating? -- have been abyssmal failures.
Pragmatic libertarians in looking at the programs that work tend to focus on several commonalities among them:
- These programs tend to be local. The individuals who run them are close to the people they are servicing.
- They tend to have a competitive process. They do not employ a single plan, but rather select from a set of proposed plans.
- They tend to have limited intrusion by politicians and bureaucrats. Once begun they basically run themselves.
By those set of standards and characteristics, how does the American system for funding science fair?
Well, I think both by practical and by libertarian standards the American system for funding science is perhaps the most spectacular success in the history of the United States.
From a practical standpoint, the funding system has resulted in one of the most rapid expansions of human knowledge in the history of our species. And this knowledge is not just book learnin'. It has had the practical consequence of huge improvements in quality of life. Just look at it this way. In 1900, the average life expectancy in the US was 47. By 2003, it was 77. Think of all the technical achievements that have made your life more enjoyable -- many of which got their backing at least indirectly for scientific research. (The fact that we are talking to one another on the Internet would be a good example.) By any reasonable standard, government funding of research has not been a waste of money; in fact, it has been an overwhelming success.
From a libertarian standpoint, I would point out the institutions for funding in the US are organized on suprisingly libertarian lines. For example, no government person tells me what I should research. I decide from what I know, and then apply for a grant. That grant is judged by my peers in a study section and given a ranking based on its quality. Through a competitive process, it either is funded or it isn't. If it isn't, I try harder next year. There is no elected official telling me I can't study schizophrenia, and even if huge programs for the study of particular diseases exist, they certainly don't tell me how to study it.
This system fulfills all of the criterion I listed above for a program to be successful. Government intervention is relatively rare -- though lately it has been on an unfortunate uptick. While I agree that health-related science is at present underfunded -- I know too many good researchers who are getting nothing, I would never argue that we should have 100% funding of projects by NIH. The process of obtaining a grant requires scientists to refine and clarify their ideas, and in the end this process results in a better product than if we were just giving the money away.
Private not-for-profit funding of research has a place, particularly in politically charged areas like stem cell research. So to does corporate funding, for most of the advances we have enjoyed from science would not have happened without someone figuring out how to make money from them. But I think it is unrealistic to suggest that these two sources could ever be as successful as the system of government funding.
To answer the question in a sentence: No, I do not see a contradiction between my beliefs and my occupation. I believe that programs should be organized so that they work, and I believe that usually means on libertarian lines. By that standard science is what we should be modelling other programs off of, not a program to criticize.
This is not to suggest that I don't feel a bit guilty for taking the governments money. I do. However, that guilt has just motivated me to go out and make a contribution all the more. I intend to pay back the American people for every cent they spend on my education.
- Log in to post comments
Ha! Interesting. I think you're giving Libertarianism too much credit by ascribing your sensible beliefs to the whole, as I think many self-described Libertarians do. Then they meet a real WSJ-loving, FDA-hating, DOE-enemy and they realize that the people who actually vote for libertarians are just as you described, idiots. True libertarians would be absolutely against receiving money for research from government, it should only come from industry, private enterprise etc., so you've lost them from the first sentence. Whether or not the government uses competition (that's capitalism, not libertarianism by the way) in distributing that money is irrelevant. The big "L" libertarians believe government has no business taking money from taxpayers for those reasons.
I've had the misfortune to meet many such libertarians in the electronic law/privacy community and have come away shell shocked that people believe such things (or that anyone would knowingly call themselves libertarian after meeting such people). The only thing I can think that binds the people who end up subscribing to the big "L" Libertarian philosophy is a feeling that somehow they've been wronged. They should have been richer, better-looking, loved by all, but something kept them back, it must have been the government! Not their inherent mediocrity as people or as thinkers.
So I think the way you describe yourself, and what you like about science is nothing more than empiricism. Things should be rewarded based on their merit, whether or not they work. People should not be told what to do from the top down, rather they should be encouraged to be inventive, and rewarded when they succeed. This can exist without libertarian philosphy.
Given that true laissez-faire or whatever libertarianism has been tried and failed (the reason we have the FDA is due to a series of poisonings of people by food and drugs for instance) you don't believe in the extreme beliefs of the big "L" Libertarians. However, considering that the big L types believe government endeavors like the NIH and CDC and FDA should be disbanded to be replaced by entirely private enterprise, doesn't this mean you deserve a different descriptor?
I really don't think your political philosophy is really libertarian. How about, just "scientific" or "empirical." You are an empiricist, you don't have a political philosophy, you believe people are informed or not, or policies work, or don't.
Interestingly, Markos Moulitsas Zúniga of Daily Kos has recently been writing posts describing his political philosophy, and it seems to consist of a similar strain of thought. Libertarianism doesn't adequately describe it based on what Libertarianism really means in terms of the politics of the Libertarian party. It's more of a civil libertarianism, mixed with pragmatic capitalism, the belief in merit, testing and competition, to come up with solutions to problems. The big L's don't believe government should spend money on anything but defense and law enforcement, I'm not shitting you, they believe this. Therefore you shouldn't lend them legitimacy by describing yourself as a libertarian.
Although I'm not a libertarian, being more of the anarchic stripe, I don't know why quitter should be able to stipulate that all libertarians embrace laissez-faire capitalism. I know more than a few self-identifying libertarains who believe strongly in cooperation, sharing vital resources, and even taking care of those visited by misfortune. It's true these people don't identify as members of a libertarian party, but partisanship should hardly be taken as definitive of politics.
That's exactly my point! People are self-identifying as libertarian when they are not libertarians. It's like shaving your head and calling yourself a skinhead and saying you're not a neo-nazi. Yes, people do this, there is a skinhead/anti-racist component, but it still doesn't make any freaking sense. Just be something else!
I also think that when people are self-identifying as libertarian they are mistakenly thinking libertarian is synonymous with capitalist, or in this case, empircist. It is possible to believe in competition and capitalism and grant-based funding without being a libertarian, I believe in all the same things as identified in JTY's screed, I just don't believe that is accurately described as libertarianism. Behind all these things that he identifies as good and sensible is government. Critically, libertarians believe that government has no role in social policy or nondefense/non law enforcement governance. Basically, you should not be forced to pay for anything other than the most basic forms of government, period.
JTY is describing a more modern liberal philosophy more than libertarianism. Protection of individual liberties combined with social welfare and governmental progressive distribution of tax dollars for things like R&D and science. He appears to believe in the more general principles which cross many philosophical boundaries and do not exclude libertarianism such as that of governmental noninterference in personal decisions, personal integrity, property etc.
Here's a test to see if you are a true libertarian. Answer questions yes or no.
1. Do you believe the government should pass laws requiring seatbelt use?
2. Do you believe in social security?
3. Do you believe in medicare?
4. Do you believe in the progressive income tax?
5. Do you believe independent federal regulatory bodies should set public policy rather than the market(eg FDA)
6. Do you believe in federal research should be paid for by the government rather than industry and private enterprise?
7. Do you believe the government should pass laws restricting cigarettes, alcohol etc.
8. Do you believe the government should pay for welfare and unemployment?
9. Do you believe the government should regulate business through the SEC, FTC, FCC?
If you answer no to these questions, you are a libertarian. They do not believe government should regulate anything, even if for the public good, if it conflicts with individual personal liberty. If you think anyone who would oppose any of these things is insane, you are not a libertarian, you are more of a modern liberal who believes in a mixture of personal liberty balanced with governmental expenditure for the public good.
I think you are judging libertarians by their most extreme members when that is perhaps not fair. I don't think it is fair to judge all Democrats by Al Sharpton or all Republicans by James Dobson; therefore, I also don't think it is fair to judge all libertarians by people who believe that all drugs including heroin should be legal.
I also think you may be confusing the Libertarian Party with libertarians in general. I don't feel that the Libertarian Party represents me; I think that the Libertarian Party is on the whole a bunch of nutjobs. But I also do not let them define for me what it means to be a libertarian.
Any political party encounters a crisis of definition when the proponents of ideological purity combat the proponents of moderacy and compromise. The libertarians are no different and are in many ways a striking example of what happens when the ideological purists win completely: you have a party that is all purity but is completely unelectable. (I might mention that I think a similar argument is happening in the Democratic Party. The Democrats voting in the CT election might do well to remember what happens to parties who ignore the mainstream in favor of ideological purity.)
Also, no person is entirely consistent in their political ideology. Parties represent tendencies derived from culture and experience just as much as they represent raw ideas.
I am sorry to say that I refuse to accept your definition of libertarian, although the problem is largely moot. People choose to associate with whom they feel the most comfortable -- a libertarian principle if I ever heard one.
This is not by the way a snub to modern liberalism. I find that I have a lot in common with liberals. It is just that I also disagree with them on some fundamental issues.
It would probably help to keep in mind the difference between the political ideals embraced by people and the strategic and tactical choices they make, which almost always involve some sort of compromise, when engaged in "on the ground" political action. And we should be very careful about pointing fingers and leveling charges of hypocrisy -- after all, how many self-styled liberals honor (on the ground, that is) the traditional liberal principle of respect for freedom of conscience?
As for the list of questions posed by quitter as a "test" of political orientation, I can answer "No" to those questions and I am not a libertarian. Test invalidated... And many libertarians of my acquaintance who would answer "No" would go on to insist that the social goods in question should, ideally, be provided for through voluntary organizations.
Yes, I'm judging libertarians by the people who run the libertarian party, isn't that how we judge most political groups? Are the people who run the party extreme? Yes, everyone acknowledges that people who run the party are nuts. Then why align yourself with this political philosophy?
For the love of god just read the Wiki at least, and not just the cozy vague stuff in the beginning about how they love freedom and blah blah, read the whole thing. Read the kinds of things that libertarian thinkers believe in, then decide, rather than saying you're a libertarian based on a hazy concept of believing in small government and social liberalism. Lot's of political philosophies have these beliefs without believing in the backward unregulated capitalism that failed us in the 1920s. Lot's of political philosophies believe in individual liberty and limited government without disbanding the FDA, NEA, DOE and every other damn acronym you can think of.
Here's a question for y'all. Where is the party of limited government AND limited corporations? I recognize that government can be inefficient in many areas, totally corrupt in others, and for yet other areas seems to be ideally suited to achieving public goals. Corporations are also well suited for what they do, up until the point where they establish exploitative monopolies, and throw around their power/money to subvert the democratic process. Why do (some) libertarians who object to inefficiency and curtailing of rights in one set of power structures (govt) not also object to ineffieciency (e.g. monopoly, and curtailing of rights by another set of power structures?
More perpetuation of the libertarianism = capitalism myth.
The Libertarian Party in the US has done an absolutely fantastic job of morphing the word libertarianism into unrestrained laissez-faire capitalism, despite the fact that historically speaking libertarianism was originally posited as being the opposite of capitalism. In fact, most anarchists outside the US use the word interchangeably with the word anarchism. For example, the Zapatista Movement in Chiapas is a classic libertarian movement.
Like any other political classification, the word libertarian is not an absolute position. Socialists and capitalists can both be libertarians provided that they both advocate for the reduction of government intrusion in personal lives. Of course, that means that you must also understand that socialism = statism. But that's another myth.
Oops, that's socialism != statism.
Correct, Todd. I was going to point that out but you beat me to it. Historically, libertarianism is a socialist movement diametrically opposed to capitalist intrusion on personal liberties.
quitter,
The Libertarian Party's relationship with the libertarism is the same as the Constitution Party's relationship with conservativism or the Green Party's relationship with liberalism - the candidates and convention delegates tend to be ideological purists.
I've been involved in libertarian activism for a while and generally find the LP to be so full of kooks that they're not worth working with towards anything partical. Look at the writings of Milton Friedman or the Cato Institute for some examples of libertarianism aimed at realistically affecting public policy.
Your quiz isn't very good at identifying libertarians - I can answer yes to a few of the questions (5 and 6 don't make any sense, btw, since by definition, only the government sets public policy or does federal research), but generally believe that the scope in which the government acts on the issues in question is too broad.
I like tbell's comments a lot. I think he's got a big point. A lot of what I dislike about libertarianism as practiced by some today (such as the self-identified libertarian Cato institute) is simply apologetics for industry in whatever horrible thing they do.
I think a lot of people are calling themselves libertarian for their civil libertarian point of view (keeping out of personal lives) rather than the economic libertarian point of view (not regulating business). That is what is bothering me. I really don't like the economic libertarian point of view because I see it as one we have tried and failed. The regulatory bodies they hate so much were formed after specific failures of market capitalism. FDA started just regulating food because the market clearly didn't provide for safety, especially in meat. It added the "drug" after a patent medication company poisoned about 100 people with a chemical similar to ethylene glycol. The SEC, FTC etc., formed after the great depression to prevent excesses of the market etc.
Finally, not to nitpick but 5 and 6 do make sense MattXIV. The FDA is a target of the libertarians who believe there should be no regulation of drugs period. Any company can sell what they want, even worthless drugs, and the market should decide rather than the government or scientific advisory panels. I once had a libertarian tell me the FDA had killed more people than the Nazis by blocking drugs from reaching the market *sigh*. And 6 makes sense because there are lots of major research venues besides the NIH. There are grants from drug companies like Pfizer and Merck. There is the Howard Hughes Institute, and now the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation has pledged many millions towards developing an HIV vaccine.
Quitter:
While I agree that absolutely unregulated capitalism is probably not the answer, that is probably the moderate in me talking, not the libertarian. What I do not agree with is the concept that capitalism as a system is a failure or is doomed to failure -- a fact that strikingly distinguishes me from most conventional liberals.
Also, it matters very little whether you agree with political points of view in trying to define them. That is a rhetorical trick. You just define everyone you disagree with an extremist nut job, everyone you agree with as a member of your own party, and oulah, you live in a world where you are the only reasonable person.
Unfortunately, libertarians are going to define themselves with or without my, your, or anyone else's approval. The act of self-definition is fundamental to every political movement. While the liberals may be frustrated that libertarians choose to differentiate themselves when -- in the liberals opinion -- they differ only in details, that is not their call to make.
I choose to associate myself with that philosophy because I do not allow the LP to define it for me. Democrats do not allow the Republicans to define what it means to be liberal.
This conflict appears to not be about what it means to be a libertarian, but rather who gets to define what that means.
If anyone defines themselves as anything, what's the point of labels period? The lack of definition then renders the label meaningless. I consider people Republican if the agree with Republicans and Democrats if they agree with Democrats. It doesn't make sense for someone to call themselves a Democrat, then vote Republican, fight for corporations and lower taxes, support republican legislation against their party, mock democrats on Fox, support the war, support Bush, kiss him on the cheek etc.
I guess what I'm saying is, Lieberman isn't a Democrat.
Shit, not what we're talking about. But do you see the problem? It's not enough just to call yourself something, and define that philosophy however you want. There is a root belief here that is specific to libertarianism, and I think it's incompatible with NIH-funded science, with public health policy, with federal regulatory agencies etc. You share commonalities with the libertarian party, but not the ones that define them as "other" from separate political philosophies.
I might as well call myself a fundamentalist christian if I'm an atheistic, pro-choice, homosexual just because we share the belief that the world is round. I too don't think capitalism is doomed to failure. I too believe in capitalism tempered with socialistic spending for the common good. I don't think we'll ever move entirely away from markets because humans just aren't made to be totally altruistic. These beliefs don't define libertarianism, they define capitalism. Since when did you have to be libertarian to be capitalist?
"Since when did you have to be libertarian to be capitalist?"
And... since when did you have to be a capitalist to be a libertarian?
quitter,
No, they don't make sense. "Federal" and "public" imply that the program in question is part of the government. When asking about research and regulation, it's important to specify what type of research. For example, I think the government should fund research for public health, defense, education, the environment, economic policy, etc.
To the extent that people are calling themselves libetarians who don't hold free market economic views, I'd guess it's because of annoyance with people who call themselves liberals being only fair-weather defenders of civil liberties. There is also an active effort out there to build a libertarian-liberal coalition to oppose the big-government conservativism that's currently dominant in the Republican party - I think Kos coining the "libertarian Democrat" term is partially to emphasize that Democrats don't have the axiomatic opposition to free markets alleged by Republicans who want to keep libertarians from voting for Democrats.
Todd/Evil Monkey - What would a "moderate" left-libertarianism (I'm guessing this is what you're talking about, since you tied it in with left-anarchism) advocate for economic policy? I see how anarcho-capitalism and the leftwing anarchist ideologies essentially recommend the same thing, but expect vastly different societies to exist in the absence of coercion because of different views of human nature, but don't see how this extrapolates to more immediate public policy questions (should the government regulators control what drugs can be prescribed?, should taxes be increased or decreased?, etc), or even if it can be extrapolated towards the center without losing its distinction between other leftist outlooks. Are there any good writings you could point me to on this?
Also, outside the USA, some terms simply have different definitions - "liberal" is equivalent to right-libertarian in some places and times. Jake seems to be a moderate follower of the right-libertarianism for utilitarian reasons.
MattXIV,
"Moderate" leftist anarcho literature? Most anarchist thought tends to be revolutionary, but I think the closest example I can think of that counters what passes for libertarianism on the right would be Participatory Economics.
As a small l libertarian who feels quite comfortable within the confines of mainstream political thought, ParEcon strikes me as a bureaucratic mess, but there are some interesting ideas coming out of the movement.
For me, small government means no big war machines and no big prison complexes. Universal health care and free college education is chump change compared to those two government programs.
I think Quitter has it essentially right. While there may be some disagreement regarding specifics of libertarianism, the following don't seem negotiable.
1. No Social Security
2. No laws restricting adult access to drugs
3. Government money can never be used to subsidized the for-profit actions of private corporations.
4. No trade barriers.
5. Taxes should be cut significantly - the specific amount is debatable, but a 50% cut is not out of the question.
If you identify yourself as a Libertarian I would think that all five are natural consequences of your philosophy. Denying any of these would be like a Catholic rejecting papal authority or the essential role of the trinity. It's been my experience that most self-identified libertarians are better described as socially liberal and fiscally conservative because a handful of opinions keep them out of the true libertarian camp.
Thanks ChemJerk, I think that was more eloquent than I seemed to be able to put it.
By defining libertarian however you want to describe such a broad spectrum of ideas, the term becomes meaningless. There should be more accurate, and maybe longer, descriptors of such a political philosophy.
For some reason I have a modified line from Princess Bride in my head. Libertarian? You keep using this word, I do not think it means what you think it means.