« Links | Main | Castro odds »
Libertarians and Government Quality
Tyler is very wrong to say that libertarians assume that government quality is fixed. On the contrary, I always assume that government quality can go way down.
Seriously, however, a large part of the libertarian/classical liberal program has been about designing institutions to improve government quality just look at Hayek's the Constitution of Liberty or Buchanan and Tullock's the Calculus of Consent. The classicals, Montesquieu, Locke, Madison et al. were primarily focused on increasing government quality through constitutional design, things like democracy, division of powers, federalism, an independent judiciary and a bill of rights. The libertarian program of improving government quality has been remarkably successful, and far more successful than any other program.
Are there other methods of increasing government quality? Yes. In my post on Fiasco, I wrote, "Should we be surprised that delays, errors and incompetence are more prevalent at the INS than at bureaucracies which must deal with citizens or which face competition from the private sector?" which implicitly gives two methods for raising government quality - giving customers a vote and creating a competitive benchmark.
Contra Tyler, libertarians are on the forefront of offering ideas to improve government quality. Term limits, flat tax (as a way of reducing corruption not just an economic improvement), different voting methods, a balanced budget amendment, openness and transparency, competition, increased federalism, and unrestricted media are just a few ideas.
Tyler, in contrast, doesn't give any hint of how to improve government quality and his examples are not very good. Tyler likes Finnish architecture. Well it's no surprise that if a lot of governments promote architecture one of them will produce something that Tyler likes. I think this is very cool but I don't advocate bringing back the funders. Same thing with the highway system or the Internet. Sure, these were good investments but does government investment pay as a rule?
The grand libertarian program has improved government quality tremendously - so much so that we are well into the realm of diminishing returns but we can do better and libertarians are among the leaders in suggesting how.
Addendum: Glen Whitman replies to Tyler also.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on August 11, 2006 at 01:07 PM | Permalink
Comments
Alex writes:
"The classicals, Montesquieu, Locke, Madison et al. were primarily focused on increasing government quality through constitutional design, things like democracy, division of powers, federalism, an independent judiciary and a bill of rights. The libertarian program of improving government quality has been remarkably successful, and far more successful than any other program."
I surely hope your not suggesting that Madison was a libertarian. He was not. He was a slave owner, which I think, hardly fits into libertarian ideology. Or does it?? I think you seem to be suggesting that anyone who has come up with a good idea regarding the design of government in order to say that libertarians have been the "most successful" at reforming government.
Posted by: Vorn at Aug 11, 2006 1:35:25 PM
Vorn makes a good point, I'll add another. Alex writes: "Sure, these were good investments but does government investment pay as a rule?" That is precisely an example of the vice. A modern liberal could say instead "Let us do a better job of investing. Let us strengthen the independent fiefdoms of the NIH. Let us..." etc. The performance of government investments is not a fixed rule, unless of course we promote The Libertarian Vice. It is fair enough for Alex to respond "What is the chance that government will pick more winners?" But I don't see why this expectation is more utopian than many of Alex's policy proposals.
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Aug 11, 2006 1:42:27 PM
That last sentence did not come out right. It should be:
It seems you are suggesting that anyone who has come up with a good idea regarding the design of government is a libertarian in order to say that libertarians have been the "most successful" at reforming government.
I should further note that John Locke was hardly a modern day libertarian.
Posted by: Vorn at Aug 11, 2006 1:43:43 PM
I call the program of constitutionally limiting government a libertarian/classical liberal program. I agree that no one who lived hundreds of years ago was a modern day libertarian.
If Tyler wants to define things so that any libertarian must necessarily commit the libertarian vice then so be it but I don't see how I can be any clearer than I was in the post that I think some governments are worse than others which without question means that I think government quality is not fixed.
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Aug 11, 2006 2:00:58 PM
The problem with government is not that it is uniformly bad, but that it does not compete.
Posted by: Matthew Cromer at Aug 11, 2006 2:23:37 PM
So perhaps the vice isn't that government quality is completely fixed, just that it only ranges from "very bad" to "completely terrible".
Posted by: Steve at Aug 11, 2006 2:30:41 PM
Alex's claims that libertarians have improved government is a laughably audacious.
He's exploiting a propaganda coup of Hayek's: conflation of Enlightenment liberals with 20th century Austrian Economics. Hayek called it Classical Liberalism. I haven't been able to find any earlier use of the term.
Enlightenment liberals did make major improvements to government. But however much Alex claims, there is no significant government improvement that can be shown due to Hayek, Buchanan or Tullock.
Posted by: Mike Huben at Aug 11, 2006 2:30:44 PM
Yesssss... because limiting government always works so well. Yawn...
Posted by: Francois Tremblay at Aug 11, 2006 2:32:09 PM
I call the program of constitutionally limiting government a libertarian/classical liberal program. Everyone except for authoritarians endorses that program. You can't expect libertarians to get credit for every good idea that every non-authoritarian ever had.
What's distinctive about libertarians is their eliminationist attitude towards government services and regulations. Only insofar as a libertarian has a suggestion as to how government services might be improved by eliminating regulations do her suggestions of how to improve government services count as libertarian. But surely every rational person can grant that there are other ways to improve government services.
Posted by: Mike J. at Aug 11, 2006 2:45:15 PM
"'I call the program of constitutionally limiting government a libertarian/classical liberal program.'
Everyone except for authoritarians endorses that program. You can't expect libertarians to get credit for every good idea that every non-authoritarian ever had."
There are plenty of hard-core advocates of democracy that don't like to see any limits on the will of the people and they aren't necessarily authoritarians.
Posted by: Bobbo at Aug 11, 2006 2:58:13 PM
Alex writes: "The grand libertarian program has improved government quality tremendously - so much so that we are well into the realm of diminishing returns.." How true...and how much seeing the world from this vantage point can effect how one feels about our country, the state of the world, and what one's part in this great struggle may be.
Sadly the activists that one meets at a tax-cut meeting, a libertarian party event, or even at many free-market think tanks.... tend to hold a far different view of the state of things. Pessimism is also the prevailing view at some pretty hi-class weblogs we know.
Would that your vision could infect and energize our often frustrated, sometimes angry, but deeply caring team of a million small-government patriots.
Care to further detail your assessment of current progress? What worthwhile endeavor doesn't need a progress report now and again?
Posted by: Dave Meleney at Aug 11, 2006 3:03:44 PM
Locke was definitely no modern-day libertarian, but Alex didn't refer to him as such.
And the argument that Alex "seem(s) to be suggesting that anyone who has come up with a good idea regarding the design of government in order to say that libertarians have been the "most successful" at reforming government," as Vorn noted, is mirrored here by the assumption that anyone with a libertarian idea must necessarily be a libertarian.
Posted by: Josh at Aug 11, 2006 3:39:02 PM
There are plenty of hard-core advocates of democracy that don't like to see any limits on the will of the people and they aren't necessarily authoritarians.
Fair enough. I worry that Prof. Tabarrok has such an expansive view of Libertarianism that he thinks of democracy itself as a Libertarian idea. After all, what is democracy but giving customers of government a vote? And, indeed, having our leaders be chosen the will of the people is a kind of limit on our leaders, if not on the citizenry. I don't mean to knock democracy, which is one of the best good government initiatives there is. But it's only Libertarian in a Pickwickian sense.
Posted by: Mike J. at Aug 11, 2006 3:41:44 PM
If I saw a lot of people devoting lots of time, even the majority of their professional lives in many cases, to advocating changes in some X, the last thing I'd do is ascribe to them the view that the condition of X is fixed.
Perhaps Dr. Cowen is unfamiliar with actual libertarians?
Posted by: James at Aug 11, 2006 3:44:02 PM
In response to:
"The problem with government is not that it is uniformly bad, but that it does not compete."
(I understand the reference is to private/government competition...but I wanted to point out that...)
Governments do compete -- with each other. Corporations and people move to countries that provide the highest value services for the lowest cost. It takes generations for families to migrate, decades to train new work forces, years to move factories/establish services...
...but it happens. My ancestors choose America because it was the best value/opportunity. Best bang for every tax-dollar.
[beginning subjective viewpoint]
Unfortunately, the time-scale of inter-government competition is too large to manage effectively with term-elected politicians and an immediate-gratification-minded electorate. People generally vote to improve their utility immediately instead of looking towards the future and ensuring later generations don't get screwed over.
I am in no way arguing for a monarchy -- but at least a King would 'look out' for his country's long term future since he expected his child to inherit it.
Posted by: Anon at Aug 11, 2006 3:48:04 PM
Mike J.: Professor Tabarrok is a public choice economist. He's very critical of democracy, actually, as most libertarians are. Constitutional democracy, on the other hand, is completely different, and I'd wager that most libertarians favor a stricter constitution to limit the negative effects of majority rule.
Posted by: Swimmy at Aug 11, 2006 3:59:05 PM
"...does government investment pay as a rule?"
Well, if government investments go toward infrastructure improvements, they might be more likely to pay dividends.
Posted by: Kevin B. at Aug 11, 2006 4:01:11 PM
Governments will compete when people are free to migrate from one country to anther, and back again, without forfeiting property or rights in any place. Making life difficult for illegal immigrants to the US supports corruption in Mexico. (The case is the same with barriers to immigration between developing countries.) The anti-immigrant cartel has been strong since WWI, with the exceptions of "free movement" to some EU citizens and post-Soviet outflows of ethnic Germans and Jews. It's pretty obvious that the receiving countries bore costs, but also that the "competition" benefitted normal people -- a goal at the core of every "libertarian" idea. A non-libertarians is quick to say that she wants the "best" for the people, but her solution reflects her own bias -- not the wants of the "beneficiaries" she claims to represent.
Posted by: David Zetland at Aug 11, 2006 4:05:04 PM
In response to Mike Huben's point, I'm not sure Alex said what he thinks he said. I don't think he credited any modern libertarians with having any positive effects on government. He mentioned them only to demonstrate that there are libertarians who concern themselves with ideas concerning the improvement of government, and that this refutes Tyler's original claim.
Posted by: SP at Aug 11, 2006 4:29:56 PM
He's very critical of democracy, actually, as most libertarians are.
What, even to the extent of opposing elections? Surely not. There was, after all, the remark he twisted out of context about how the Crooked Timber commentators were opponents of democracy.
Constitutional democracy, on the other hand, is completely different
Is not.
I worry that we're losing the thread. My point is that not everything that improves government quality can be plausibly called distinctively libertarian. Having elections (as opposed to having, say, all power in the hands of a hereditary monarchy) is a good example. Isn't this both uncontroversial and relevant to the main post? What, for example, does openness and transparency have to do with libertarianism?
Posted by: Mike J. at Aug 11, 2006 4:32:08 PM
Advocating democracy and advocating democracy relative to specific inalienable rights is very different. Is it really so controversial to say that the American Revolution was decidedly more libertarian than the French Revolution?
Posted by: Swimmy at Aug 11, 2006 4:53:33 PM
Mike J: The point is that libertarians advocate many methods of improving government quality, the point is not that every method of improving government quality is libertarian.
Do note that Madison et al. wanted (limited) democracy, a bill of rights etc. because they wanted to defend liberty and hence I call them libertarian.
Democrats in Rousseau's mold support democracy because they think the will of the people is transcendent. Rousseaians are not libertarian even if they support democracy. Note also that even though both support democracy the type of democracy, as Swimmy correctly notes, will be different.
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Aug 11, 2006 5:13:34 PM
The point is that libertarians advocate many methods of improving government quality, the point is not that every method of improving government quality is libertarian.
Well, good. So everyone agrees that government quality comes in better and worse, and that this isn't just a matter of less and more.
Let us return to the initial question: does the fiasco in Iraq give evidence for libertarianism? Does the failure of the French and Polish armies in WWII give evidence for it too? If it does, does the relative success of the first Gulf War give evidence against? What about the success of American armies in WWII? The question about whether libertarians believe in a fixed quality of government arose out of the evaluation of that form of argument. If one grants that government can be better and worse in quality and that these differences are, to some extent, under our control, then one can be against bad government without being against all government (or, against all government except the watchman state).
Posted by: Mike J at Aug 11, 2006 5:27:59 PM
"Everyone except for authoritarians endorses that program."
This is demonstrably false. Every successful political party in the western world endorses unlimited government power, in action if not in words.
Posted by: Noah Yetter at Aug 11, 2006 6:03:06 PM
Being an ideologue is terribly adolescent. I used to be a libertarian ideologue when I was young, but as I got out in the world and learned more about how it really worked, my loyalty to the faith was undermined. I still think the basic ideas of the libertarian ideology make a lot of sense on average, but I now understand the many exceptions.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Aug 11, 2006 9:26:15 PM
