Questions for Abundance Liberals
and libertarians
Commenters on my previous posts argued that I was overestimating how much abundance liberals had in common with libertarians, that my view might be correct for a few of the most libertarian members of the faction but not for most of them and, in particular, not for Yglesias. My view was based partly on his Substack post, which endorsed Ilya Somin’s proposal that libertarians attempt “to build bridges with the abundance camp on the center-left,” partly on a few relatively libertarian Democrats of my acquaintance.
What does “build bridges with” mean in this context? Libertarians have limited political power on the right, Abundance Democrats even less on the left. What I am imagining is not a political alliance but an intellectual one. That means considering ourselves to have enough in common to make it worth listening to each other, taking each other’s arguments seriously, considering that where we disagree the other one might be right, that on some questions we might be able to jointly develop better answers than either of us now have. That is not how people who think of themselves as politically or ideologically on opposite sides usually interact.
One of things I found encouraging in Yglesias’ post:
That should mean progressives learning more from libertarians about economics, but it should also mean libertarians learning about the theory and practice of democratic politics.
So far commentary on my view has been from the libertarian side; it would be useful to know how abundance Democrats see the question. Here, for both sides, are some questions on which we are likely to disagree.
For each, or at least as many as you feel like commenting on, what do you think the other side’s position would be, do you agree with it, disagree but might be convinced by argument or evidence, or disagree and are confident you could not be convinced.
Questions
Should what children are taught be determined primarily by their parents or primarily by the (federal, state, local) government?
Should private citizens have the right to own firearms? To carry them?
Is an economic change which increases everyone’s income but also increases income inequality good or bad? What about the reverse, a change that reduces everyone’s income but that of the rich more than the poor? (Income here is real income; any effect of the change on prices or wages is being allowed for.)
Should government at some level have the power to:
set or limit prices, in particular rents?
Set or restrict the terms of contracts, for example by making it illegal to rent an apartment without hot water?
Set minimum wages?
Control the characteristics of products, for example the fuel efficiency of cars or the power and water efficiency of dishwashers?
If you have your house rewired (prudent if most of the existing wiring is at least eighty years old, as ours is), it must be done “to code.” Where I live that requires an electric outlet in every wall of every room and a ceiling light in every room. Should there be such requirements?
Should Uber, Lyft and similar structures be legal? Regulated? How about Airbnb?
Should it be legal to practice a profession without a license?
Should a company require permission to provide medical services? Open a school? Provide trucking services? Offer investment advice?
Should it be illegal for a drug company to sell a medical drug that has not been approved by the FDA, assuming it tells doctors and patients that it is unapproved?
Should it be legal to pay an infant’s mother for her consent to its adoption?
Should it be illegal to buy, sell, possess, consume recreational drugs.
Should prostitution be illegal? Regulated? Gambling?
A Digression on “libertarian”
Yglesias in his post was referring to what I would call hard-core or ideological libertarians, people who have a well defined position sharply limiting government power. Most of them are minarchists, support a government that provides police, courts and national defense, collects taxes to pay for them. A significant minority are anarchists, want a society where those functions as well are provided by voluntary transactions on the market.1
A much larger number of people are libertarians in a weaker sense, support a move in the libertarian direction but not all of the way, want a smaller and less invasive government, were likely to agree with pre-Trump Republicans on economic questions, with pre-woke Democrats on social issues.
The intellectual interaction I am proposing would involve mostly the former group, its eventual political effect, if any, the latter. I expect a similar pattern would hold on the other side as well.
My web page, with the full text of multiple books and articles and much else
Past posts, sorted by topic
A search bar for past posts and much of my other writing
A draft of my next book, Consequences of Climate Change, webbed for comments.
For a description and defense of the anarchist position, see my The Machinery of Freedom.
Almost all concern whether government should be able to XXX. The answer to all those is NO, they are none of the government's business.
The second question, about firearms, is not stated expressly as "should government be able to restrict firearms", but it is, and the answer is NO, it is none of the government's business.
The 3rd/4th questions are phrased oddly; I am going to assume "economic change" means "caused by government", and the answer is that government should have no control over economic change, with the cynical observation that government economic change would never achieve what was intended and is all the more reason to just butt out.
I'm with Chuck37. As bad as current Republicans are, they are Trump Republicans and he will be out of office in 2+ years, while current Democrats have been worse for a long time and show no signs of giving up their woke ideology. Whatever abundance Democrats are, remaining in the Democratic party shows they'd choose woke over Trump, and that disqualifies them from my consideration. Woke has done far more lasting damage to society than Trump.
I'm a strong libertarian. Most of my answers to the questions take the obvious libertarian side. The interesting part of your question is to what extent I'd be open to talking to liberals, and open to changing my mind. The general answer is that I routinely discuss these kinds of questions with liberals, and while I'm open to reason, I don't often change my position on these kinds of broad question. But part of discussing this kind of issue is presenting evidence and being open to contrary evidence.
You've chosen a set of questions that are mostly ones on which libertarians agree, and I'm not likely to change my mind, though I am willing to provide evidence for my views, and not merely shout or use ad hominen to make my point. If we look at issues on which there isn't a single libertarian position (universal basic income, e.g.) I'm able to explain pros and cons of multiple positions, and accept evidence that counters my (weakly held) views.
On the question of whether "society" should strive to ensure that there is gender parity in the number of people working in various industries, I think progressives are confused about causes and consequences. If I found someone who was willing to discuss the issue calmly and entertain evidence, I could imagine learning something that would change my mind. So far, all discussions that I have observed on the topic have quickly turned to vitriol so it's hard to believe that it would be easy to find someone who wanted to take the other side of that discussion.