« Assorted links | Main | Argentina fact of the day »
Higgs on Leviathan
There are excellent writers and there are excellent economists and in that intersection there are none better than Bob Higgs:
Until more people come to a more realistic, fact-based understanding of the government and the economy, little hope exists of tearing them away from their quasi-religious attachment to a government they view with misplaced reverence and unrealistic hopes. Lacking a true religious faith yet craving one, many Americans have turned to the state as a substitute god, endowed with the divine omnipotence required to shower the public with something for nothing in every department – free health care, free retirement security, free protection from hazardous consumer products and workplace accidents, free protection from the Islamic maniacs the U.S. government stirs up with its misadventures in the Muslim world, and so forth. If you take the government to be Santa Claus, you naturally want every day to be Christmas; and the bigger the Santa, the bigger his sack of goodies.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on October 16, 2009 at 01:55 PM in Economics, Education | Permalink
Comments
Sometimes I click over from RSS just to make sure that Alex has posted something and not Tyler.
Posted by: beamish at Oct 16, 2009 2:04:05 PM
Something for nothing? Reminds me of the idea that tax cuts will pay for themselves.
Posted by: fusion at Oct 16, 2009 2:07:49 PM
bearmish: Google reader will identify the poster. I highly recommend it.
Posted by: libert at Oct 16, 2009 2:21:02 PM
Can we impose some kind of moratorium an abstract libertarian analogies about government in general?
If I had to sum up the progressive philosophy, it is the idea that intelligent well thought out government policies can improve quality of life. Every time progressives try to think through any issue the libertarians immediately pull out all of the tiredold cliches about government in general.
Consider health care, there is little doubt that major problems exist in our health care system. Progressive thinkers have come up with plenty of good solutions to address both the coverage and the cost side of the equation. Yet the Democrats were forced to abandon most of the ideas to bring about real cost reductions when faced with complete and total scorched earth tactics of the Republicans.
If those who advocated for smaller more responsible government were forced to address issues in the real world rather 18th century philosophy books we might actually be able to address the real problems facing the country.
So my challenge to libertarians is to actually engage with the ideas of progressive thinkers rather than some mythical big government boogieman.
Posted by: dvb at Oct 16, 2009 2:21:07 PM
@dvb: Hear hear!
Posted by: Renee at Oct 16, 2009 2:28:17 PM
dvb-
Progressive thinkers have come up with solutions that have been tried in individual states, and failed. Libertarians have presented detailed solutions and suggestions (see John Mackey in the WSJ op-ed pages), only to have progressives completely ignore them or attack Mackey with complete and total scorched earth tactics.
My challenge is for liberals to actually engage with the ideas of libertarian thinkers rather than pretending that they don't exist.
Posted by: John Thacker at Oct 16, 2009 2:28:24 PM
"Reminds me of the idea that tax cuts will pay for themselves"
Or the idea that "fiscal stimulus" will work as an "investment," no? They're the same basic idea.
Here's one list of libertarian health care ideas. Here's a link to another paper. Here's John Mackey discussing his suggestions.
Here's an article noting that everything that the Democrats are proposing has been tried in other states and failed.
Why do Democrats ignore any alternative ideas and refuse to engage them? Why do they persist in trying policies that have been shown to fail?
Posted by: John Thacker at Oct 16, 2009 2:32:56 PM
dvb,
If I had to sum up the progressive philosophy, it is the idea that intelligent well thought out government policies can improve quality of life.
When Progressives end the Drug War I think libertarians will take them seriously. This ought to be the number #1 concern that Progressives should have. The level of human rights abuse associated with it alone merits such.
Progressive thinkers have come up with plenty of good solutions to address both the coverage and the cost side of the equation.
The issue is three legged actually; cost, quality and coverage. What Progressives want will apparently always sacrifice one of these for the other two. Anyway, libertarians have come up with plenty of great market based, individual-centered solutions to the issue, and the Obama administration has ignored these solutions despite its claims about every idea being on the table.
Yet the Democrats were forced to abandon most of the ideas to bring about real cost reductions when faced with complete and total scorched earth tactics of the Republicans.
Oh, I thought we were talking about Progressives.
Posted by: Seward at Oct 16, 2009 2:34:14 PM
...And others lacking a true religious faith yet craving one, have turned to the market as a substitute god, endowed with the divine omnipotence that will shower the public happiness in every department – health care, retirement security, protection from hazardous consumer products and workplace accidents, protection from the Islamic maniacs the U.S. government stirs up at the behest of Big Oil, and so forth.
Posted by: Bill at Oct 16, 2009 2:38:26 PM
@John Thacker
'Progressive thinkers have come up with solutions that have been tried in individual states, and failed.'
Government intervention in health care markets has produced essentially equivalent health outcomes for 1/3 to 2/3 less in every other OECD nation. And it has been accomplished in a variety of ways - govt directly providing health care, single payer, subsidized private insurance with heavy market regulation, etc.
Now I know that's impossible according to libertarian ideology, but I wouldn't describe it as a failure.
I concede to libertarians (I was once one) that there are real problems with zombie programs outliving their usefulness or simply not accomplishing what they were set out to achieve, etc. The answer to that, in my opinion, is to address the organizational problem there rather than rejecting the whole endeavor. An example of what I'm talking about is the procedure that was developed for closing military bases - it took an organizational problem of not being able to close any specific base and turned it into something where we could close the bases we needed to close.
Also, if you can reference Mackey in some context other than the WSJ editorial page, I would consider reading him. As it is, I'll give him as much credibility as I give the WSJ editorial pages accusations that the Clinton's killed Vince Foster or Ron Brown or were running drugs through Arkansas, etc. The WSJ news dept is great, but the editorial page really isn't a credible source, though I'm sure from time to time something not awful is published there. Not that I would know how to find it.
Posted by: Chuck at Oct 16, 2009 2:44:50 PM
Wait, progressives are responsible for the drug war? The bag of weed on my dresser says otherwise. Progressives want to sacrifice quality or coverage or cost? The excellent, affordable healthcare I've had all my life as a Canadian begs to differ. Except for weed. That's not covered under our prescription drug plan, even though it can be prescribed medically. (Wait, is that what you mean by sacrifices of quality?)
Sorry, but I do find libertarians hard to take seriously, maybe because I've visited countries with bad or little government and the people there are not nearly as well off as the publicly-educated, public-infrastructure-using libertarians in the US - you know, the ones who don't live in toxic waste dumps and who enjoy public parks and whose parents went to college on the GI bill. You know, the ones that write all those books decrying public spending and taxation.
Posted by: Zoe at Oct 16, 2009 2:47:46 PM
I have to say the quote is a bit ironic and un-selfaware...
Posted by: Chuck at Oct 16, 2009 2:48:40 PM
"When Progressives end the Drug War I think libertarians will take them seriously. This ought to be the number #1 concern that Progressives should have. The level of human rights abuse associated with it alone merits such. "
I agree with you 100% about the drug war, but its not progressives who are pushing the drug war. Think of a list of the most progressive cities in America; San Francisco, Portland, Madison etc. All of these communities have substantially more liberal drug laws than the country as a whole.
This is what is so maddening about the libertarian movement, if libertarians hadn't married themselves to conservatives, they would recognize substantial areas of agreement with progressives. Drugs, sexual freedom, ag subsidies, military adventurism to name a few.
Posted by: dvb at Oct 16, 2009 2:51:59 PM
Chuck,
Government intervention in health care markets has produced essentially equivalent health outcomes for 1/3 to 2/3 less in every other OECD nation. And it has been accomplished in a variety of ways - govt directly providing health care, single payer, subsidized private insurance with heavy market regulation, etc.
Contra that one could argue that many OECD nations "free ride" off the innovation which occurs in the U.S. health care market.
An example of what I'm talking about is the procedure that was developed for closing military bases - it took an organizational problem of not being able to close any specific base and turned it into something where we could close the bases we needed to close.
The base closing system has been very problematic driven largely by the public choice issues one would expect to be at play in them. It has been punctuated by significant cost over runs, far too much regional concentration, etc. BRAC really isn't a model anyone should look to for how to shrink government.
Anyway, the problem of course is that there are really no non-controversial forms of government waste, etc., which is why Obama's claims about being able to cut waste are so much bullshit.
Posted by: Seward at Oct 16, 2009 2:55:48 PM
I hope everyone stops to think about how rhetoric can make you stop thinking.
For that reason I subsituted for the word "government" the word "market" in Dr. Higgs polemic.
I hope reason works over rhetoric. Here is the rewrite (except for Big Oil (couldn't help it, sorry)):
...And others lacking a true religious faith yet craving one, have turned to the market as a substitute god, endowed with the divine omnipotence that will shower the public happiness in every department – health care, retirement security, protection from hazardous consumer products and workplace accidents, protection from the Islamic maniacs the U.S. government stirs up at the behest of Big Oil, and so forth.
I think it reads better and raises the question: if government doesn't do some of this, who does and how well.
Posted by: Bill at Oct 16, 2009 2:56:46 PM
"Consider health care, there is little doubt that major problems exist in our health care system. Progressive thinkers have come up with plenty of good solutions to address both the coverage and the cost side of the equation."
A. I don't think you have come up with any good solutions to address costs, and B. What about solutions for regulatory capture?
Posted by: Doug at Oct 16, 2009 2:56:51 PM
dvb & Chuck,
Your reasoning is exactly the point that Bob Higgs is making. You are simply stating the confirmation bias that is the underpinning of a religious ideology. If government works, it's because of you & all the smart & sincere people you support. If it doesn't work, it's because of all those people outside your identity group who keep messing it up. Never mind all the problems with the lack of accountability, influence peddling, etc. that are right there in plain sight for anyone to see.
And, I'd suggest that it's mixed in with some American exceptionalism. Because, it just might be the case that when it comes to the federal government, it is institutionally much worse at governing than all of those other OECD governments are. It might have been good once at basic law, but it's ineffectual at the kind of active government modern progressives keep demanding. The current health bill is a perfect example of what our federal government is very ineffective at doing. No amount of wishing or dialog is going to change that.
Posted by: kebko at Oct 16, 2009 2:59:34 PM
Liberals (typically) have a strong moral conviction that access to affordable health care is a human right, and libertarians (typically) don't. That is a major sticking point in these discussions.
For example, none of the links John Thacker provides contains a significant discussion of how to ensure all poor people have health coverage. There's just a fundamental mismatch of basic goals here.
Personally, I'm in the middle. I'm sympathetic to the moral argument that poor people (especially poor kids, who after all couldn't help being born) deserve highly subsidized health care, as I am to the libertarian argument that the government often screws things up.
Beyond the simplistic views of ideology, there ought to be an empirical science of organizational structure, capable of telling us under what circumstances a decentralized approach is preferable for attaining certain social goals (such as health care for the poor), and when a centralized approach is better. Economics should be that science, though I'm not sure it is today.
Posted by: mk at Oct 16, 2009 3:05:20 PM
Zoe,
Wait, progressives are responsible for the drug war?
I stated nothing like that.
The excellent, affordable healthcare I've had all my life as a Canadian begs to differ
If it is so excellent why did the Canadian Supreme Court declare in 2005 that it violates your own constitution? I mean Canada is a nice country, I've vacationed there, but there is no way I would want to get health care there and be put on one of your very long waiting lists. A waiting list is not the same thing as health care.
dvb,
This is what is so maddening about the libertarian movement, if libertarians hadn't married themselves to conservatives...
Most libertarians want nothing to do with conservatives. I mean I certainly don't and never have. And of course the drug war, etc. are all of a piece with government control of health care and other areas of our lives. It is really no coincidence that the rise of the federal state as nanny over food safety, etc. came with all manner of controls over sexual, etc. freedom. These things are married at the hip. I mean, it isn't like any European nation with their plethora of government interventionism has ended the drug war (not even the Netherlands), except of course Portugal, and that is largely due to the fact that the drug war was bankrupting them not out of some enlightened interest in individual freedom.
Posted by: Seward at Oct 16, 2009 3:05:48 PM
It is human nature to want to benefit at others expense. Government is the eternal struggle to define who are the slaves, and who are the owners.
Posted by: Yancey Ward at Oct 16, 2009 3:05:55 PM
mk,
How honestly can healthcare be a "right?" How do I have a "right" to the services of someone else? On its face it makes no sense whatsoever. I cannot morally demand that someone treat me or pay for my treatment.
Posted by: Seward at Oct 16, 2009 3:08:23 PM
mk,
For example, none of the links John Thacker provides contains a significant discussion of how to ensure all poor people have health coverage.
And of course no country has solved this problem. What I find amusing is the assumption that countries with some version of "universal health care" actually have universal health care. They don't. Every state with universal health coverage finds ways to exclude or underserve or delay treatment for some class of the population as a means to reduce costs.
Posted by: Seward at Oct 16, 2009 3:11:23 PM
Kebko,
I am well aware of the flaws in our political system and have no illusions about its ability to produce perfect policy. However, I am unwilling to give up hope and except inevitable decline in US. We have big problems in this country that need to be addressed. Simply, throwing up your hands and declaring that we have bad institutions accomplishes nothing.
Would you disagree that it is possible to produce better legislation and worse legislation even given the constraints of the system. On the healthcare debate any option is going to require tradeoffs between cost coverage and quality,but healthy debate could produce a better outcome.
The natural divide should be between conservatives pushing to reduce cost and liberals pushing to expand coverage. Both sides would have had to make sacrifices,but a solution better than the status quo could have been reached. But thats not the debate that was had.
The comments about drug policy emphasized the unwillingness of libertarians to see the debate as it actually stands. Everywhere they can at the local level progressives have pushed for looser drug laws. Yet libertarians seem to be so married to their status on the right that they don't recognize who their allies are.
Posted by: dvb at Oct 16, 2009 3:16:06 PM
dvb,
Neither Progressives nor conservatives are any sort of allies for libertarians. For example, progressives are just as bad on free speech as conservatives are (and indeed, on obscenity laws they are often team up).
Basically the only thing a libertarian can do is hunker down and live as free as life as possible until some other options open up and become more of a reality than they are today (here I am thinking of seasteading); the political system as it currently stands is an absolute waste of time.
Posted by: Seward at Oct 16, 2009 3:22:26 PM
Eh? The OP is just typical content-free anti-government pablum. I could find more insightful libertarian commentary by randomly picking a Julian Sanchez blog post. It isn't even about libertarianism or government. It's about liberals (or in the conceit of the author, 'Americans', by which he clearly means those suffering from liberalism). Which is to say, it's mostly just a flame, and I'm curious why Alex considers starting flamewars productive.
Posted by: sidereal at Oct 16, 2009 3:28:18 PM
