Paul Krugman has a slam dunk argument for why libertarianism doesn’t work–provided his readers don’t know a thing about libertarianism and aren’t inclined to think critically about Krugman’s argument. It begins by quoting Milton Friedman, who tells us, as Krugman puts it, “that there’s no need for product safety regulation, because corporations know that if they do harm they’ll be sued.” But, ah ha! say Paul. Friedman’s an idiot because of, well, this:
In the wake of last month’s catastrophic Gulf Coast oil spill, Sen. Lisa Murkowski blocked a bill that would have raised the maximum liability for oil companies after a spill from a paltry $75 million to $10 billion.
Krugman thinks he has a cute syllogism here. 1) Milton Friedman says A. 2) The world is actually like B. 3) Therefore libertarianism is wrong.
“And don’t say that we just need better politicians,” Krugman says, cutting off what he sees as the libertarian’s only out. “If libertarianism requires incorruptible politicians to work, it’s not serious.”
Did you catch the problems? First, a libertarian could respond, “Yeah, Paul, that’s why we shouldn’t grant members of the legislature the power to set arbitrary limits on tort damages.” The solution isn’t incorruptible politicians. Rather, it’s to have perfectly corruptible ones without the authority to exercise their corruption.
Second, and more troubling for Krugman, is his admission that all politicians are corruptible. If that’s true (and it almost certainly is), then what does it say about Krugman’s constant calls for granting those same corruptible folks more power over our lives? Surely if Murkowski is corrupt enough to protect BP from tort damages, she’s corrupt enough to rig safety regulations in BP’s favor.
Krugman can’t have it both ways. If politicians are corrupt, then they’ll screw up both libertarian and progressive policies. The progressives have no solution but to hope for incorruptible politicians. Libertarians, on the other hand, have a very simple solution: take away the corrupt politicians’ power to do harm.
As you already know…only Republican politicians are corrupt in Krugman’s world. If only the world were run by liberal technocrats, the USSR would have succeeded…oh wait.
As you already know…only Republican politicians are corrupt in Krugman’s world. If only the world were run by liberal technocrats, the USSR would have succeeded…oh wait.
As you already know…only Republican politicians are corrupt in Krugman’s world. If only the world were run by liberal technocrats, the USSR would have succeeded…oh wait.
Another solution would be to elect libertarians who would not adopt policies such as capping damages liability.
Electing libertarian minded legislators is a step in the right direction, but even them we can’t trust. One of the key insights of Public Choice theory is how strong the incentives are, once you’re in office, to start handing out goodies to interest groups. Libertarians elected to Congress sadly would likely not stay libertarian for long.
Better to assure they stay libertarian in practice, if not in theory, by stripping Congress of all powers that aren’t granted it in the Constitution.
Another solution would be to elect libertarians who would not adopt policies such as capping damages liability.
Electing libertarian minded legislators is a step in the right direction, but even them we can’t trust. One of the key insights of Public Choice theory is how strong the incentives are, once you’re in office, to start handing out goodies to interest groups. Libertarians elected to Congress sadly would likely not stay libertarian for long.
Better to assure they stay libertarian in practice, if not in theory, by stripping Congress of all powers that aren’t granted it in the Constitution.
Another solution would be to elect libertarians who would not adopt policies such as capping damages liability.
Electing libertarian minded legislators is a step in the right direction, but even them we can’t trust. One of the key insights of Public Choice theory is how strong the incentives are, once you’re in office, to start handing out goodies to interest groups. Libertarians elected to Congress sadly would likely not stay libertarian for long.
Better to assure they stay libertarian in practice, if not in theory, by stripping Congress of all powers that aren’t granted it in the Constitution.
This does strike me as less a reason that “libertarianism is wrong,” and more of an example of how the libertarian strain of the RepublIcan party gets tossed under the bus first.
This does strike me as less a reason that “libertarianism is wrong,” and more of an example of how the libertarian strain of the RepublIcan party gets tossed under the bus first.
This does strike me as less a reason that “libertarianism is wrong,” and more of an example of how the libertarian strain of the RepublIcan party gets tossed under the bus first.
The problem here that I see with his argument as being even more glaring is that, and maybe I’m wrong here, wouldn’t the bill the increase (or rather remove) the limit on compensation be a bill favored by libertarianism?
In other words, his argument goes something like this: Libertarianism doesn’t work because this politician blocked a good libertarian bill…see, it’s bad. (I am assuming here that he thinks the bill she blocked should have gone through based on how it was presented).
So, did I miss something then?
The problem here that I see with his argument as being even more glaring is that, and maybe I’m wrong here, wouldn’t the bill the increase (or rather remove) the limit on compensation be a bill favored by libertarianism?
In other words, his argument goes something like this: Libertarianism doesn’t work because this politician blocked a good libertarian bill…see, it’s bad. (I am assuming here that he thinks the bill she blocked should have gone through based on how it was presented).
So, did I miss something then?
The problem here that I see with his argument as being even more glaring is that, and maybe I’m wrong here, wouldn’t the bill the increase (or rather remove) the limit on compensation be a bill favored by libertarianism?
In other words, his argument goes something like this: Libertarianism doesn’t work because this politician blocked a good libertarian bill…see, it’s bad. (I am assuming here that he thinks the bill she blocked should have gone through based on how it was presented).
So, did I miss something then?