A Stitch in Haste

Next up at Cato Unbound's series on what libertarians may or may not have in common with Democrats is Harold Meyerson, editor-at-large of The American Prospect.

After quickly dismissing libertarianism as "about as germane as Trotskyism," Meyerson, in classic would-be central planner style, lectures us on how capitalism is "oppressive":

To argue, as a classic libertarian might, that a consumer is as free to switch banks as a bank is to sell its data neglects to note that a bank that doesn't sell its data is at a competitive disadvantage with one that does, and a consumer who can't find a privacy-protecting bank is simply out of luck.

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

Demand creates its own supply. If banks see no need to compete on "privacy," it's because people don't (yet) want it, not because they're powerless or stupid.

People demanded ATMs — they got ATMs. They wanted longer hours and shorter lines — they got it. They wanted investment services in branches — they got it. They wanted fee-based banking rather than spread-based banking — they got it. Then some decided that, no, they'd rather go back to low-fee / high-spread banking — they got it.

If and when they (not just Meyerson, but "they") want more data privacy than they now receive — they'll get it. As data privacy concerns — a recent phenomenon — continue to make the headlines, don't be surprised when banks start explicitly competing on privacy issues. A competitive industry — which retail banking is* — evolves.

Libertarians understand this.

In short, the free play of markets can be a threat to individual freedom, unless individual freedom is a term that applies only to businesses and not to their consumers or employees or the people who must breathe their pollutants.

So banks cause acid rain?

A typical central-planner bait-and-switch. Libertarians of course acknowledge the potential for true externalities (e.g., "pollutants") and have little reservation over government-imposed corrections for them (when properly crafted and neutrally applied). But "banks aren't competitive enough for my tastes" is not an externality.

Libertarians understand this.

Indeed, the central insight of 20th century liberalism was that freedoms conflict, that a company's freedom to dominate the marketplace was often in conflict with a consumer’s freedom to find a product at a fair price, or a worker's freedom to find a decent job or form a union, or a citizen's freedom to have an equal voice in the legislative process.

More mix-and-match. What does "an equal voice in the legislative process" have to do with wage and price controls or (compulsory**) union membership?

Actually this is nothing more than basic Kip's Law: "fair" — to be defined by Meyerson; "decent" — to be defined by Meyerson. And so on.

What could possibly be more "fair" than voluntary exchange? What could possibly be more "decent" than people minding their own business — in every sense of that phrase?***

And let's not ignore the economic realities of liberal economic intervention. Entrepreneurial companies such as Microsoft and Wal-Mart "dominate the marketplace" — how? Government-chartered monopolies such as cable television and defense contractors "dominate the marketplace" — how? The distinction matters; indeed it is all-important.

Libertarians understand this.

Meanwhile, what is the cheapest commodity on the planet? As (liberal) nanny-staters will tell you, it's calories. In the broad context of the totality of human history, food is astoundingly cheap.‡ So too are clothing, housing, basic energy needs, and all the trappings of a "decent" (Meyerson's term) human existence. Wherever there are (truly) "indecent" living conditions, wherever there is (true) poverty, wherever there is (true) disempowerment and disenfranchisement, you will invariably find a government opposed to capitalism.

Libertarians understand this.

But at some point, the Democrats will embrace a decisively larger role for the state in these matters because the public will demand it[.]

In the same way that they're (not) now demanding data privacy by banks?

Notice how the liberal borrows from the current conservative playbook. "The will of the majority" is absolute — if we vote for it, then it is by definition proper. So who is Meyerson to stand aghast when "the will of the majority" is to constitutionalize anti-gay bigotry, or to exempt flag desecration from First Amendment protection, or to eavesdrop on American citizens on American soil without a warrant?

Libertarians understand this.

Unenumerated rights — whether couched in the Ninth Amendment, "penumbras and emanations" or extra-constitutional natural rights theory — either exist or they do not. If you cherry pick from among them — "I like sexual substantive due process but not economic substantive due process" — then you have no rational basis to harrumph when your opponent says the opposite, just as your preference for vanilla does not give you the right to ban chocolate.

Libertarians understand this.

We feel no need to squabble over "this form of autonomy" versus "that form of autonomy." We recognize the irreconcilable contradiction of embracing Lawrence while rejecting Lochner.‡‡ We acknowledge the self-evident truth that without property rights, no other rights are possible. We accept the metaphysical fact that the laws of economics cannot be repealed by any legislature or struck down by any court.

We are, in short, the true "reality-based community."

More thoughts at Distributed Intelligence, ZenPolitics, LLP.

---

(*Or does Meyerson yearn for the days when retail banking was price-regulated, complete with "bankers' hours," a federal ban on interest-bearing checking accounts, and free toasters instead of high yields on saving accounts?)

(**So much for 20th century liberalism's concern for "individual freedom.")

(***Note Meyerson's semantic schizophrenia: First he's obsessed with "privacy" in the context of bank data but then shows contempt for the "privacy" of people's employment contracts.)

(‡And would be even cheaper if we abolished all farm subsidies and tariffs. How, I wonder, does Meyerson feel about that?)

(‡‡Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003); Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).)