Source: http://www.neolibertarian.net/articles/neolibertarianism.aspx
Background[]
What is Neolibertarianism?
Frankly, it's a question we've been asking at the QandO weblog since we began popularizing it last year. Often, the idea of Libertarianism has reminded me of Justice Potter Stewart's thoughts about obscenity. "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it," he declared.
That was good enough for Justice Stewart perhaps, but he was only interpreting the Constitution. We, on the other hand, are beginning publication of a journal that we hope will begin defining the fundamental intellectual and philosophical underpinnings of Neolibertarianism. If you're going to do that, then you should probably have a clear understanding of what Neolibertarianism is.
Much of what follows will be a comparison between Neolibertarianism and the more traditional sort of libertarianism, which we call Paleolibertarianism. In the interest of brevity, I'll refer to adherents to the former as Neos and the latter as Paleos.
In fact, the first principle of the Neos-or us Neos, I guess I should say-is explicitly defined by comparison between the two types of libertarianism, and can be boiled down to a single word: pragmatism.
To many people, one of the most irksome characteristics of Paleos is their steadfast unwillingness to compromise on issues as a matter of principle. This is true not only of many Paleos in general, but is specific to the formal collection of libertarians known as the Libertarian Party. Devotion to principle is, of course, a fine thing, but an absolute unwillingness to compromise-a firm declaration that one would rather be right than president-is counterproductive.
Politics is the art of compromise, which is to say, the art of the possible. Politics is the means whereby we try to reconcile the competing interests of society in order to come to a generalized solution that is agreeable to the whole. To be successful at this reconciliation, one must be willing to compromise. Certainly, one can try to get as much of one's program enacted as possible, but, at the end of the day, you have to have a firm grasp on the sense of where the limits of possibility lie. In doing so, you have to determine that accomplishing a little bit of something is better than accomplishing all of nothing.
Paleos all too often reject any compromise as a deal with the devil. They act as if to compromise on any position is to abandon all of their principles. While this might be a great source of moral vanity, it is not an effective means of accomplishing any part of one's program. It requires an ideological purity that is almost impossible to obtain in any political process where competing voices are present. It makes the perfect the enemy of the good, and in the end, assures results that are not only not perfect, but all too often, not even good.
That might be acceptable behavior in a solid majority party that has broad public support-though I doubt it-but for a small minority party, it is the perfect recipe for political irrelevance, as any causal perusal of the Libertarian Party's election record attests.
The Neolibertarian believes that libertarian principles are important, and should be incorporated into law or legislation, but only to the extent possible . Neos do not consider a failure to pass their entire body of principles into law to be a defeat, as long as they can pass some of them. There's no other alternative available for a minority political ideology. It has to grow by implementing libertarian principles where possible, and trusting in the electorate to realize the benefits of those principles, even if that realization occurs slowly, over time.
America was not transformed from robust, freewheeling, frontier capitalism into a modern, industrial welfare state overnight. So, Neos understand that a transformation towards what I like to call a Society of Liberty, will probably take a fair amount of time to accomplish as well. To that end, the Neos are willing to make the pragmatic compromises necessary to make incremental changes to the way we think about public policy and the role of government.
But if Neos are going to be pragmatic, then what are these principles about which they are being so practical? Neolibertarianism can be summed up in short series of statements that serve as a foundation for any discussion of public policy problems and their solutions. In short, they provide a framework for how to think about public policy, how to approach problems, and the type of solutions to suggest.
1. When given a public policy problem, the solution that maximizes personal liberty is the best choice.
There are two current philosophies of public policy in American political thought. One is to provide a solution that maximizes equality. The other is to maximize personal liberty. The Neolibertarian ideal is to pursue the latter course.
Equality, whatever its virtues may be, is always an ideal state, meaning that it's one that is hard to find in the real world. Every person is imbued with a unique set of gifts and weaknesses. These differences often provide some individuals with greater ability to reach financial or social success. Differences in these character traits imply differences in personal outcomes.
Two people, both of whom are "good people", both of whom work hard, may not become equally successful. This seems to offend some, who unhappy with the inherent unfairness of differing outcomes. They believe that the job of government is, at least in part, to ameliorate these differences in outcomes. They strive for a society that is more egalitarian.
The Neolibertarian, on the other hand believes that the only equality about which government should be concerned is equality of opportunity. As long as individuals compete on a "level playing field", i.e. in an environment that provides no particular advantage to one person over another, the issue of personal outcomes is largely irrelevant.
This Neolibertarian concept of equality is one where all citizens have equal access to the political process, and where a transparent rule of law provides everyone equal access to the courts. The Neolibertarian is concerned with the fairness of the process , not with attempts to provide fairness of result.
Indeed, fairness of results is, in many ways, arbitrary concept. It may not be "fair" in one sense for a neurosurgeon to have a vastly higher income than a factory worker. But, in another sense, it's not fair for a neurosurgeon to invest four years of college, four years of medical school, and four years of internship and residency, then receive a lower rate of pay than his investment requires as a return for his effort. Who determines which type of fairness?
The Neolibertarian eschews such measurements. Instead, he believes that the greatest scientific, cultural, and economic progress comes when individuals are allowed to live their lives as they please, to choose their own rewards, and to enjoy them without the government placing artificial barriers in the way. If high salaries lure talented people into neurosurgery, the public as a whole is helped by the greater availability of neurosurgeons. In other words, personal liberty is not just good for individuals; it is good for society as a whole.
2. The policy choice that offers the least amount of necessary government intervention or regulation is the best choice.
It may surprise some to learn that it was liberal economist Paul Krugman's whose academic work on market failures showed that, while market failures are more common than we like to believe, government solutions to such failures are either ineffective or counterproductive. Government action is a blunt instrument, not a scalpel. It's a fine solution for big problems that need to be bludgeoned to death, but not for tricky problems that require nuanced solutions. Moreover, government action almost always involves the creation of interest groups, both inside and outside of government, whose interests require that the extra government created by the solution persists indefinitely.
For instance, the Rural Electrification Administration was created in 1935 to bring electricity to rural farms and ranches. By the end of the 1960s, virtually every rural location in the United States had electricity. Nevertheless, despite the fact that its purpose had been largely achieved the REA remained an active agency of the government, until it was "abolished" in 1994. Note the scare quotes however. The agency was abolished only in the sense that it no longer has its own letterhead. The USDA's Rural Utilities Service is now performing the REA's former tasks.
Once the government involves itself is a problem, the extra government is unlikely to go away, even if the problem is solved.
3. The policy choice that provides rational, market-based incentives is the best choice.
All to often, the governmental response to a perceived problem is heavy handed regulation. For instance, in the name of wetlands conservation, the government forces property owners to stop all development on anything classified as a wetland. In the name of endangered species protection, land owners are prohibited from development of their land.
To the Neolibertarian, this amounts to an unconstitutional taking of private land for public purposes. If we wish to conserve wetlands or protect endangered species, market-based incentives are a far more proper way to accomplish these ends. If we decide that protecting wetlands is a national priority, then rather than draconian regulation, we can simply pay money to landowners to preserve wetlands. Theodore Roosevelt implemented a similar program a century ago, and it was hugely successful.
In many areas, America 's public schools are failing. An uncomfortably high proportion of high school graduates are functionally illiterate. One solution might be offering parents school choice through vouchers that can be used for tuition at any school. This would expose schools to market-based competition, and allow parents to pressure non-performing schools to improve.
We already know that free markets provide an efficient, sefl-regulating framework for punishing poor performance and rewarding superior performance. A government that tries to incorporate free market principles in its public policy will be far more successful in solving problems.
In contrast to the Paleos, the Neolibertarian does not believe in a foreign policy of general isolationism for the United States . Such a policy may have been effective in the past, but it's shortcomings in the modern age were made clear on the morning of December 7, 1941.
America no longer rests in secure comfort behind ocean barriers. Technology has seen to that. Additionally, America has interests all around the world that are vital to the safety and security of its citizens. As Bruce McQuain ably explains on page X of this issue, Isolationism is simply not a policy.
Since that is so, Neos have an outlook on foreign policy that is defined by two principles.
1. A policy of diplomacy that promotes consensual government and human rights and opposes dictatorship.
The first tool in America 's foreign policy toolbox is, and always should be, a muscular diplomacy that is unafraid to call tyranny by its true name. In 1826, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred ready to ride them legitimately." A policy of diplomacy that reinforces this view of human existence is a powerful tool both for human rights, and American security.
As we are starting to see in the Mideast , a forthright policy of Democracy promotion can go far in bringing hope to oppressed peoples, and can encourage them to begin standing up to their tyrants.
2. A policy of using US military force solely at the discretion of the US, but only in circumstances where American interests are directly affected.
No matter how much we might wish for support from the UN or the "international community" the decision to use force to defend America or to secure American interests is exclusively the province of the American people and their elected representatives. It is the business of the United States government to provide for American security, just as it is the business of the governments of France and Germany to provide for theirs. While we might take their views under advisement, it is self-evident that officials in foreign countries can never be as concerned about America 's security as our own people and government.
But we also have the obligation to ensure that the use of force to defend our interests is done as a last resort, and only in circumstances where we are reasonably justified in believing that our vital interests are at stake. A cavalier attitude towards the use of force, and cost in blood and treasure it would unnecessarily entail, quite rightly offends the Neolibertarian. War is a serious business, and the outcome and ultimate effects are always unknowable. This alone makes the Neolibertarian resist the use of force. At the same time, the uncertainties of war make it incumbent upon the United States to prosecute it vigorously should it become necessary.
Obviously, this brief list of principles leaves a lot of wiggle room for debate on specific policy issues. But unlike the Paleos, who often treat dissenters on even minor points as pariahs, the Neos believe in a big-tent libertarianism. Debate should not be taken as a sign of ideological apostasy. It is, instead a sign of confidence, and a willingness to subject one's ideas to intellectual conflict in an ongoing attempt to create principled solutions to public policy issues.
In fact, we encourage this debate. Some of it will take place in the blogosphere. Some of it will take place here, in the pages of this magazine. We welcome it as a necessary part of creating a more pragmatic and popular concept of libertarianism.
We hope you'll participate.