The new libertarian, overcome by bias

 Originally published on Language and Philosophy, July 12, 2022

If Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations is the core text that defines libertarianism, then today’s libertarian isn’t libertarian. The argument against government intervention today is as much a defense of possession — property and the unlimited acquisition of property — as it is an argument that markets are more efficient than legislation. And the fiercest argument over legislative meddling is about wealth distribution — appropriating property. Possession again. Opposing taxation has become the central principle of the new libertarian, whether because it is an easy electoral issue, or because Americans have lost trust in their government or become remote from it, or simply fail to understand their government, what it does and gives them or fails to give them and for what reasons, yet they understand the tax bill well enough. Taxation has become the issue to argue against, and freedom, easily embraced by American mythology since America’s childhood and the childhood of Americans, is the stronghold of defense against the IRS.

This defining of libertarianism by what it opposes changes the focus of libertarianism, since the opposition today is not what opposed it when Adam Smith wrote. The role of legislation in wealth redistribution from rich to poor was not his concern. It was government intervention in favor of local commerce, not the poor, that troubled him most. The book is mostly a defense of free trade, not a defense of the rich. He has nothing good to say about the property-rich, and only scathing criticism of their role in the economy. He thinks they produce little, they remove potentially productive labor from the labor force for the sake of having servants who, like the rich themselves, produce little but the personal conveniences of the rich and only the rich, not for the wealth of the nation.

Libertarianism, in other words, has fallen victim to our current cultural polarization in which one side wants the government to intervene in a woman’s own body and choice of pronoun and the books her children may have access to as long as no tax funds are involved, and the wealthy deserve to be defended, defending wealth, deploring wealth redistribution, defending the right to bear arms and deploring the right to personal privacy, defending religion and the death penalty, deploring immigrants and people of color — the whole inconsistent constellation of so-called conservatism, opposed by those who defend wealth redistribution, deplore gun ownership and insist we do something to prevent climate change even though we manifestly can’t (upcoming post on Fool’s Errand Attachment), defend free speech but censor select speech, defend scientific pronouncements from liberal establishments but never criticize them scientifically — the whole inconsistent constellation of current so-called liberalism.

Even the often brilliant and innovative libertarian Robin Hanson falls victim to this polarization. In his pervasive Social Darwinism he deplores encouraging the weak but ignores the weakness of the wealthy. Privilege is conveniently exempted from his Social Darwinism. Privilege weakens as much as struggle strengthens, although it’s worth knowing that competitive struggles will take advantage of any means to win, and the results can be devastating to the society as a whole. It’s easy to forget that the unit of selection is not the individual but the gene or species. A selection for an individual can be destructive to the future of the collective. Monopoly is one such means of success for an individual. Also the use of influence to obtain legislative favors, another observation of Smith’s that greatly troubled him. To prevent such influence would require regulation, but again, today’s libertarian is anti-regulation. They’re just pro-make-money, not at all a Smith interest.

Smith prioritized production, not possession. It’s wealth of nations, not wealth of individuals. Smith objects to gov’t intervention in markets that curtail production. It’s all about the benefits of free trade, especially across borders. What would he have thought about taxing as wealth distribution? He doesn’t say.

In his Age of EM, Hanson warns that the middle classes have a low fertility rate compared with criminals. He describes this with the word “maladaptive” — a term of art in genetics. Reading between the lines in the context of his Darwinism, he’s implying that criminal genes are proliferating and successful genes are not. The enthymeme here is the assumption that becoming middle class is an effect of genes, and criminal behavior is also genetic. I would be surprised if either were true. Using his own social Darwinism, I’d expect the criminal to be smart, risky, fast and aware, the average middle class member more security-seeking, more risk-averse, less aggressive and more dependent on the state, on law, on protection from above. Exceptions will abound, but I’d expect the causes of criminality in a class society would be differences of socio-economic status, upbringing, education, cultural values, and opportunities far more than genes, as if there could be a gene for criminality. And let’s not forget the illegal and legal criminality in the corporate world. 

Hanson is a strange hybrid of fox and hedgehog. He has one theory to explain everything, but he has the great talent of finding surprising details. But they are always consistent with his one narrow idee fixe, social Darwinism.

So he points out that whenever we try to improve ourselves, we choose inequality. This is a bit loaded, since taking it as a Kantian categorical, it just means all boats will rise. But there’s no mention of which kinds of inequalities might be be costly with little benefit compared with inequalities that provide great benefits to all, and few downsides. Nor does he take into account the value of the incentive for the improvement. It matters: do you want doctors who seek wealth or doctors who are genuinely interested in medicine or helping the ailing? Surely these incentives should be on the table for discussion, not merely the fact that we all at some point want to improve regardless how unequal that makes us.

Finally, don’t forget that natural selection does not ensure that any species of the moment will not go extinct. Extinction is very much a part of the process. What might make a species successful in one environment may be disastrous in another. Uncurated ecologies lose species, and weeds will thrive. If our essential necessary environment is each other, then it’s up to us to learn how to live with each other, and that includes dealing with our inequalities. If that means eliminating wealth, well, the Smith of Wealth of Nations would applaud. What’s wrong with the goal of rising to the level of competence but not beyond?

Privilege is the dark secret of the libertarian think tanker. Every libertarian should deplore it, but the think tankers protect it. Privilege, socially supported, is not Darwinian success, any more than a monopoly is a free market efficiency.

I’d like to see an educational program that will separate the elite from the economically privileged. Our current private education system replicates inequalities by syphoning the privileged into positions of power through their elite educations. What we need are educated elites without privilege.