A Stitch in Haste

There's been a depressing amount of chatter in the libertarian blogosphere about this modest proposal:

Barack Obama is a libertarian.
Or, more correctly, a "left-libertarian" --

Obama and [his economic advisor, Austin] Goolsbee propose something entirely different -- not a triangulation, but a basis for crafting public policy orthogonal to the traditional liberal-conservative axis.

If this approach needs a name, call it left-libertarianism. Advancements in behavioural economics, public and rational choice theory, and game theory provide us with an opportunity to attend to inequality without crippling the economy, enhancing the coercive power of the state, or infringing on personal liberty (at least not to any extent greater than the welfare state already does; and as much as my libertarian friends might wish otherwise, the welfare state isn't going anywhere). The cost -- higher marginal tax rates -- is real, but eminently justified by the benefits.

This is, of course, utter nonsense. Anyone arrogant enough to summarily declare that this-or-that central planner proposal is "eminently justified" is merely an unexciting and unimpressive future entry on the Kip's Law pages. Definitely nothing "entirely different" here.

Meanwhile, I thought we had dispensed with this "liberaltarian" gobbledygook the last time an overly self-important liberal thought libertarians were unsophisticated bumpkin morons who could be easily conned into selling their votes, and their souls, for the political equivalent of a group hug.* I guess not. So be it.

As I've commented elsewhere, the only way one can call oneself (or anyone else) a "left-libertarian" is by using an illegitimate definition of "left" or "libertarian" (or both).

Here's a simple test I came up with: "Do you believe in Lochner-style economic substantive due process (i.e., unfettered freedom of contract among competent consenting adults)?"

If you answer "yes," then you cannot reasonably call yourself a leftist. If you answer "no," then you cannot reasonably call yourself a libertarian. QED.

What these "liberaltarians" are disingenuously trying to do is bootstrap the classical liberal amenability to a modest social safety net (but only for the truly incompetent) into a willingness to forfeit most if not all economic liberty (including any attempt to restrain taxes) for the sake of non-economic privacy. Stated differently: "Give us the New Deal and we'll give you Lawrence v. Texas").

That may be pragmatic coalition politics (I think not), but it is certainly not libertarianism, "left-" or otherwise.

---

Note that "Obama is the least offensive candidate to libertarians" is not the same as "Obama is a libertarian." The former is perfectly reasonable; the latter is perfectly absurd. I myself continue to grapple with the viability of the former statement and whether to embrace it. Stay tuned.

---

(*Ron Paul supporters notwithstanding.)