After Socialism

Tim Lee, near the end of an interesting post inspired by Brink Lindsey's The Age of Abundance, writes:

Too many libertarians seem to define libertarianism as a very specific and restrictive political program: as a laundry list of government programs to be abolished, or equivalently as a very short list of government programs that won’t be abolished. By that measure, libertarianism is nowhere close to successful. But if we define libertarianism more broadly as a set of general ideas and attitudes—pro-market, pro-tolerance, skeptical of authority—the last few decades look a lot better from a libertarian perspective.

But of course one reason "libertarianism" tends to get defined as a very specific -- and extreme -- political program is that when you open it up the way Tim has it sounds a lot like "liberalism." Which isn't to say that Tim, who'd describe himself as a libertarian, and I, a liberal, agree about everything. But it's to observe that the sorts of things that separate modern liberals from the economic right-wing are of a whole different kind than the sort of things that differentiated socialists from classical liberals. It was once the case that a substantial body of opinion in democratic societies thought that vast swathes of the economy should be either run directly by the government or else run as tightly regulated monopolies. In Europe, huge industries were nationalized and run by the state.

Nowadays, few if any people think that. Instead, you have left-right debates about things like how generously funded should public services be (and consequently how high should tax rates be) or should we make regulations to curb air pollution (of which carbon dioxide emissions now loom as an important variety) or in the name of public health paternalism (restrictions on where you can smoke, bans on trans fats). Say what you will about the "left" position on those topics, but none of these are calling into question the idea that the basic organization of the economy should be as a capitalist free market. At the same time, a lot of these issues weren't really on the table in the first couple of post-war decades.

The result is just a political debate that looks very different and in which, in particular, different kinds of values seem salient. Most liberals probably wouldn't describe themselves as "pro-market" unprompted, but nor are liberals are proposing to get rid of the market economy so being "pro-market" doesn't distinguish anyone in contemporary politics from anyone else.

Comments

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for right-wing hacks to stop throwing the word "socialist" around, though.

Posted by hello | June 29, 2008 1:31 PM

What really bothers me is when these glibetarians call us Liberals "anti-market" because we occasionally support some of the "paternalistic" public health policies you mention. The jab couldn't be farther from the truth -- we support these policies because we embrace the power of the market but also understand the concept of externalities and market failure.

Those who smoke or who refuse to wear seatbelts wind up causing a TON of damage and costs later on, costs that society will then bear when those cancer-ridden or asphalt-munching idiots fill up our hospitals. Since that result is not optimal and these actors don't see these costs as likely or large, we need some regulation to force their behavior to the efficient outcome.

Posted by Reader | June 29, 2008 1:36 PM

By that measure, libertarianism is nowhere close to successful. But if we define libertarianism more broadly as a set of general ideas and attitudes—pro-market, pro-tolerance, skeptical of authority—the last few decades look a lot better from a libertarian perspective.

I disagree that this effect has been so benign.

Just keeping on top of the news, it seems like a lot has been done to undercut those most basic protections that are the foundations of our affluent middle-class society, but that the libertarians try to convince people actually stand in the way of prosperity.

It's like a person's looking healthy on the outside, but slowly cancer is destroying the person's internal organs on the inside. The person isn't healthy just because they look good, and quicker than you can notice the things that were keeping the person looking healthy are left w/o a leg to stand on. So long as they are doing "divide and conquer" on the people, and successfully convincing enough of whatever demographic stands to lose the most at any one time from the next legislative/judicial item on the libertarian agenda that if they lose anything, they deserve it, the libertarians will continue to make this piece-meal progress.

It's better to win by bits and pieces than not to win at all.

Posted by Swan | June 29, 2008 1:47 PM

Most liberals probably wouldn't describe themselves as "pro-market" unprompted

This points, in part, to a need to define terms and distinguish between "progressive," "liberal," and "Democrat." For example, insofar as you're pretty center-left--which I think is a fair characterization, even as it suffers from definitional problems--it's not clear to me that you would be widely regarded as a "liberal" by older people who hew to the "liberal" label. It might be that the lack of difference between you and Tim Lee tells us a lot about the difference between broad swaths of the Democratic party (or subsets of it) and Tim Lee, but tells us nothing about the differences between Tim Lee and "liberals," as Lee defines that group.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 29, 2008 1:51 PM

Reader,

While the libertarian perspective does tend to agree with the regulation of externalities, the way that you've proposed doing them is not pro-market. I wouldn't say it's anti-market, either. Prohibition is an acceptable response to an externality when that externality imposes a direct harm on one or more specific individuals. The examples you have given show it causing general harm to society overall.

The pro-market (and I think more efficient) solution is a tax. The cigarette taxes of many states are pretty massive, and if they don't already, can be tooled to account for the healthcare costs associated with deadbeat smokers. This is better than a ban because it internalizes the cost of smoking, and then leaves individuals to make a value judgment.

Seatbelts are trickier, but I think imposing the costs on seatbeltless people in crashes isn't impossible by any stretch. If they die on the spot, then the costs will be fairly low, and society should, frankly, eat them. If they require long term care (the expensive part) bill them for it. Actually, I'm not sure if not wearing a seatbelt would even relate to higher healthcare costs, since you'd be more likely to (cheaply) die on the spot. This is a tough correlation/causation question. People who don't wear seatbelts may incur a higher amount of cost because they tend to be more reckless drivers, not because of the lack of belt.

Posted by Peter | June 29, 2008 1:54 PM

If you ever watch a boxing match, you hardly ever see a guy get decked out in the first round. That's because the guys are too strong and skillful to be defeated this way, even by another boxer. How a boxer actually gets a knockout is he slowly weakens the other guy-- when they get in a clinch, he pushes down on the other guy's arms or head to tire them out; he beats up the other guy's body. When the other guy can't defend his body as successfully as you, and eventually ends up being the one who is far more tired in the 7th or 10th round or whatever, then it's lot easier to knock the guy out because he can't successfully defend his head any longer.

That's the same as politics. You undermine the other side no matter how long and what kind of patience it takes-- you don't take huge gambles against a fresh & trained opponent. It's kind of like how you see nastier attacks come out in election campaigns closer to election day. Early on, you build up your credibility and try to undermine the other candidate's, but in the end, it's time to put everything you've cultivated to use.

Posted by Swan | June 29, 2008 1:56 PM

"...so being 'pro-market' doesn't distinguish anyone in contemporary politics from anyone else".

That was among the fine insights of the late, lamented philosopher, Richard Rorty. From 1945 onward & into the future, the ongoing differings and agreeings among libertarians, liberals, and social democrats (I have to add the third, I'm from Canada!)have led to a sense (whenever and if-ever expressed)that the centrality of the Market is a -- well, a given.
Which also led Rorty to remind us that a great deal of the point and the content and the practice of all politics always was and always will be concerned with matters of appropriate jurisdiction -- and with differing concerns for and with distribution. Seems it's still hard for folks (right or left)to see that when it appears that it's their ox being gored. We on the (whatever!?!) left usually feel that one edge we have is that we remain prepared to call it what it is. Ususlly...

Posted by gsk+ | June 29, 2008 2:01 PM

Health care is a huge industry, and many modern liberals want to nationalize it. I'm not saying that there aren't valid arguments for that, but it's a clear rebuke to this "we're all libertarians" sort of post.

Also, in this discussion, you need to be clearer about "modern liberals" vs "classic liberals". We're all classic liberals in the sense that we recognize the power of the market, but there's still a lot of difference between liberals and libertarians. Liberals want to use the market to achieve specific results. Libertarians want to let the market run free and accept whatever results come along.

Posted by Tim M | June 29, 2008 2:21 PM

I think imposing the costs on seatbeltless people in crashes isn't impossible by any stretch. If they die on the spot, then the costs will be fairly low, and society should, frankly, eat them.

This could be a tough sell. Do you have any tasty recipes to suggest? I'm not big on roadkill cuisine myself, but am willing to keep an open mind/gullet.

Posted by hmm | June 29, 2008 2:25 PM

When was this post written, 1990? Have I been hallucinating for the past eight years? Exactly what kind of disaster needs to happen before pro-market orthodoxy is discredited? The only way to deal with the looming catastrophes of peak oil, climate change, and economic depression is to rein in market forces.

Huge governmental expenditures and well-enforced regulations will be absolutely necessary to transform the United States into a viable, stable, post-petroleum society. Big government is here to stay, and it will only get bigger as the crises we face metastasize. The task is to use government as effectively as possible. This means jettisoning the knee-jerk and utterly childish belief in the supremacy of the market.

The pro-market consensus of the late-20th century was nothing more than a transient historical moment dependent on a number of factors coming together, the most important of which was cheap oil. That moment is over, and we haven't even remotely begun to deal with the consequences of that, both material and intellectual.

Posted by davep | June 29, 2008 2:28 PM

Health care is a huge industry, and many modern liberals want to nationalize it

Define "it."

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 29, 2008 2:30 PM

And Davep kindly brings us back to what liberal means in practice rather than what it means in Matt's head.

Posted by Wilson | June 29, 2008 2:33 PM

I like what SCMT said. I've been trying to figure out what the difference is between the people who call themselves "progressive" these days and other people on the left (or near-left), and ultimately, as always, I think it comes down to the need to look more closely at actual positions than at labels (some things never change). I suppose it was all over the moment they decided to call that thing "The Progressive Policy Institute."

I think among folks who used to call themselves progressive, to distinguish themselves from the DLC types who've appropriated the label, there does tend to be a lot less trust in markets and a lot more 1) interest in mitigating the ways in which markets fail (and they DO fail), 2) understanding that market solutions are not appropriate for every problem.

Kind of funny, really, that Matt self-identifies as progressive at the same time that he's announcing/pronouncing that everybody agrees that markets rock. I'm fading! I'm faaaaaadiiinn ...

Posted by Melinda | June 29, 2008 2:41 PM

davep, how on earth do you see what happened in the last eight years as "pro market" or having anything to do with "market forces"? People need to remember the difference between pro-market and pro-business. Established businesses are generally anti-market. They want to protect their advantages with high barriers to entry and socialized risk. New businesses are pro-market in that they want to lower barriers of entry, increase information flow, and privatize risk -- until they become established businesses, that is.

Point is, Bush and Co. are pro-particular-businesses, which is very, very different from being pro-market. Most of what they've done is notable precisely for thwarting or blunting market forces.

I wish liberals would quit making this dumb mistake. It plays into some extremely pernicious stereotypes.

Posted by David Roberts | June 29, 2008 3:17 PM

davep, how on earth do you see what happened in the last eight years as "pro market" or having anything to do with "market forces"? People need to remember the difference between pro-market and pro-business. Established businesses are generally anti-market. They want to protect their advantages with high barriers to entry and socialized risk. New businesses are pro-market in that they want to lower barriers of entry, increase information flow, and privatize risk -- until they become established businesses, that is.

Point is, Bush and Co. are pro-particular-businesses, which is very, very different from being pro-market. Most of what they've done is notable precisely for thwarting or blunting market forces.

I wish liberals would quit making this dumb mistake. It plays into some extremely pernicious stereotypes.

Posted by David Roberts | June 29, 2008 3:20 PM

Say what you will about the "left" position on those topics, but none of these are calling into question the idea that the basic organization of the economy should be as a capitalist free market.

Except for health care and education, which together account for 20-25% of our economy. And many other industries they want to regulate so tightly that they might as well be government-run.

It's socialism by a thousand cuts: "Yeah, markets are great in theory, but in the real world they need a little help to get things right, so we need to intervene here, and here, and here, and a little bit over there, and--oh! Right there!" Leftists may say they're not socialists, but they're certainly not pro-market in any meaningful sense of the word.

Posted by Brandon Berg | June 29, 2008 4:38 PM

Health care is a huge industry, and many modern liberals want to nationalize it.

I can't think of any prominent liberals calling for the government to nationalize "healthcare."

A good number of liberals want to nationalize the health insurance industry, but this is a very different thing. In the first place, the health insurance industry is already nearly 50% "nationalized" -- so moving to full-throated single payer would simply bump up that percentage to, say, 80 or 90 percent. But basically nobody is calling for the government to take over hospitals, medical clinics, and physicians practices.

Posted by Jasper | June 29, 2008 5:00 PM

Jasper:
In the first place, the health insurance industry is already nearly 50% "nationalized" -- so moving to full-throated single payer would simply bump up that percentage to, say, 80 or 90 percent.

But that's the difference between the left and the status quo, not the difference between the left and libertarians. It just means that leftists already have most of what they want. The fact that the primary and secondary educational systems are already 90-95% socialized doesn't mean that you don't want a socialized primary and secondary educational system--it just means you already have what you want.

But basically nobody is calling for the government to take over hospitals, medical clinics, and physicians practices.

A single-payer system gives the government monopsony power, which is really not that much different from outright socialization. Under monopsony, you do what the government tells you to do, or you don't make any money. Which is exactly what happens when you work for the government directly.

Posted by Brandon Berg | June 29, 2008 5:24 PM

he pushes down on the other guy's arms or head to tire them out;

That is, he pushes on the head to weaken the neck, causing the neck to snap more when the head receives a punch, and making the recipient more susceptible to a knockout by a blow to the head.

McCain didn't start his campaign by calling Obama's wife a ho... That would be a huge gamble. Instead, we got reports from the press of the Republicans angelically vowing that racism-inspired-attack would not be used against Obama in the campaign.

Lunging for the knockout blow in the first round would have left them off-balance, and vulnerable to a knockout counterpunch.

But when the going looks to get a little tough for them, then they start calling Michelle Obama a baby mama, and so on.

Posted by Swan | June 29, 2008 5:42 PM

This thread illustrates nicely the limitations of Matt's analysis. The real distinction between so-called Libertarianism and Liberalism is the former's touching faith in 19th century notions of Laissez faire. Anything that exceeds this classic conception is viewed as essentially socialist. The problem with this gleaming ideal is that the "free market" it envisions does not exist, has never existed within recorded history and, as a comment above indicates, should it ever come into being would immediately began to liquidate itself.

The paradox at the heart of so-called Libertarianism is that while it idealizes the "free market" and disparages government as a threat to its ideal, markets cannot exist without property and property cannot exist without government. What they advocate in practice is government of, by and for property.

I think Matt is mistaken in his belief that this conceptual and political chasm can be bridged by Liberals allowing that markets are useful things.

Posted by WB Reeves | June 29, 2008 6:10 PM

But that's the difference between the left and the status quo, not the difference between the left and libertarians.

I'm not saying otherwise. You said "the left" wants to nationalize "healthcare." This, as I pointed out, is untrue.

Under monopsony, you do what the government tells you to do, or you don't make any money.

Or you opt out. There are a number of variations of single payer in existence elsewhere, some of which allow for a parallel, purely private healthcare delivery system.

Posted by Jasper | June 29, 2008 6:13 PM

Another one of Matt's useless "libertarian" posts.

Matt wouldn't know what "libertarianism" is about if one bit him on the ankles.

For one thing, he has no fucking clue that "libertarians" are also divided into "left" and "right" libertarians. And some "libertarians" aren't even in that spectrum.

Matt really should try to STFU about shit he has no clue about.

"markets cannot exist without property and property cannot exist without government."

Now this is one the stupidest remarks seen on this blog. But of course, the notion is held by just about every other moron on the planet. Meanwhile, the economy just gets worse and worse everywhere as the morons don't realize that the state - after the stupid human primate behavior, of course - which results in the state - is the primary cause of all economic problems.

But the state IS chimpanzee religion. And vice versa. If it isn't chimpanzee hierarchical behavioral control, it's not human.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 29, 2008 7:14 PM

Hmmm . . . I would would have it that 'liberals' are not advocating a capitalistic free market economy, per se. What they all seem to be saying is that the default setting is 'capitalistic free market economy', and only when something goes disastrously awry with this plan do we try something else. For example, no liberal as a matter of ideology said there should be externally imposed standards of food safety, or that there should be a government organization responsible for enforcing those standards. They said that it was pretty obvious that the palsied hand of the free market was not ensuring a basic public good, and somebody better step in to fix that.

Libertarians, of course, say that the free market was just about to take care of this little problem until the government stepped in and messed everything up :-)

My larger point here is that I don't see much that distinguishes moderates from liberals these days - especially since conservatives have as a matter of reflex taken to accusing those who don't agree with them of being 'liberals'. In fact, I would say that most 'liberals' are really moderates, and shouldn't hide from the label or be ashamed of it. Embrace the notion that you're moderates, that you're part of the majority, that majority opinions are your opinions . . . and that conservative opinions, attitudes and issue-specific positions are in the distinct minority. That's the way to win elections. Conservatives know this, and one way they hide from the accusation of being fringies is to accuse everyone else of being on the fringe (sound famaliar?) We need to have more people in the MSM talking about 'right-wing rubbish', using those labels explicitly and often as a way to denigrate these yahoos.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | June 29, 2008 7:19 PM

Not much point in responding to people who declare ideas they disagree with to be being stupid but are seemingly incapable of explaining why that is so.

Posted by WB Reeves | June 29, 2008 7:49 PM

Some people may believe that in the past 150 years or so, we've stumbled across the very highest form of human social and economic organization that humanity will ever achieve, but someday, with luck, that might seem like a pretty parochial view.

Posted by El Cid | June 29, 2008 8:04 PM

Those who smoke or who refuse to wear seatbelts wind up causing a TON of damage and costs later on, costs that society will then bear when those cancer-ridden or asphalt-munching idiots fill up our hospitals. Since that result is not optimal and these actors don't see these costs as likely or large, we need some regulation to force their behavior to the efficient outcome.

I will take this argument seriously when the people making this argument also say that we need to repeal Lawrence vs. Texas and heavily regulate or ban male homosexual sodomy.

Posted by Glaivester | June 29, 2008 9:12 PM

I was going to point out how being pro-business and being pro-market are two completely different things -- and that big business actually wants socialized risk & private reward, not actual market order -- but Dave Roberts beat me to it.

Posted by b-psycho | June 29, 2008 9:18 PM

"But of course one reason "libertarianism" tends to get defined as a very specific -- and extreme -- political program is that when you open it up the way Tim has it sounds a lot like "liberalism.""

Frankly, I think there are a pretty good number of libertarians who wouldn't mind being called liberals, myself being one of them. Indeed, libertarians who actually understand what Hayek actually wrote (rather than a caricature of Hayek) understand pretty well that he largely viewed many socialists as "liberals" (now known as libertarians) who had lost their way. Moreover, Hayek was convinced as early as 1956 that the "socialism" he most feared had ceased to be a threat in most of the Western world. So when some libertarians (and conservatives) scream "socialist!" at every person on the Left who proposes a government program (while oddly ignoring the similar socialism inherent in Righty government programs), and claim Hayek's mantle to say that the Lefty is going to take us to totalitarianism, what they are really saying is that they have no cluse what Hayek actually argued.

As socialism fades ever further into the background, I suspect modern "liberals" and "libertarians" will inevitably become less distinguishable from each other. As other commenters have already pointed out, the last 8 years are far from free-market capitalism.

Posted by Mark | June 30, 2008 1:36 AM

"I'm not pro-business, I'm pro-market" is one of those things that sounds nice but doesn't work in practice. As a test case, I point to the contamination in human and pet food from China. It happened because the FDA's been gutted. It got caught by the kind of independent effort libertarians envision as handling everything, but only after a significant number of deaths and more illnesses. What's illuminating about it is that there wasn't any government pressure to use toxic additives - there was simply an absence of pressure not to. It appears that manufacturers took the initiative about as soon as they thought they could get away with it.

The libertarian response that torts handle this sort of thing fails on two counts. First, darned few people wish to volunteer to suffer gratuitous pain and death. Second, even as we speak, the courts are busily making it harder both to bring such suits in the first place and to collect significant damages once brought and successfully prosecuted. This is, as it happens, why there was push for regulation in the late 19th and early 20th century. It's not that all businesses, big or small, are scum. Many aren't. But yes, most of us do in fact prefer that businesses have to pay some extra costs than that some of us have to suffer and die.

Posted by Bruce Baugh | June 30, 2008 5:59 AM

Bruce, you might want to read the studies that indicate that the regulations of the FDA result in an unnecessary one hundred thousand deaths in the US every year and vastly increase the cost and availability of life-saving drugs and treatments - in an attempt to prevent a few scum from promoting quack treatments.

The problem with your last sentence is - it's not a cost/benefit analysis that stands up. It's the old "well, if one person doesn't die, it's justified" crap - which is never true because it always cuts both ways. For every person you "save" from faulty medicine, somebody else dies from lack of access to legitimate medicine that was delayed.

I quote:

For the past 21 years, The Life Extension Foundation has compiled evidence indicating that the FDA is the number one cause of death in the United States. The FDA causes Americans to die by:

• Delaying the introduction of life-saving therapies
• Suppressing safe methods of preventing disease
• Causing the price of drugs to be so high that some Americans do without
• Denying Americans access to effective drugs approved in other countries
• Intimidating those who develop innovative methods to treat disease
• Approving lethal prescription drugs that kill
• Censoring medical information that would let consumers protect their health
• Censoring medical information that would better educate doctors
• Failing to protect the safety of our food
• Misleading the public about scientific methods to increase longevity

Quotes from Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw, the life extension experts:

Durk: One thing we’d like to suggest that you do is you interview a gentleman named Don Ernsberger, whom we’ve known from the 1960s.

Sandy: He’s an aide to Congressman Rohrabacher.

Durk: Dana Rohrabacher. Don Ernsberger has written a bill, which Rohrabacher has introduced, which would eliminate most of the problems with the high cost of drugs.

Sandy: That bill was introduced last year.

Durk: Yeah, and what this does, effectively, is it eliminates the Kefauver amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Before the Kefauver amendments of 1962 the FDA simply ruled on safety. They left efficacy determinations to the marketplace, to doctors and patients. And in fact a good economist by the name of Sam Pelzman examined the record since, before and after 1962, to see whether the Kefauver Act resulted in fewer ineffective drugs, and there’s no difference in the percentage of drugs that are ineffective. But the proof of efficacy costs an order of magnitude more than proof of safety. So that’s a big part of the cost and it’s also a big factor in slowing down the availability of drugs. Another factor that really jacks up the cost of even generic drugs is the FDA’s Good Manufacturing Practices, which are 747 pages of bad manufacturing practices.

Sandy: Yeah, they have them for drugs, and they’re about to introduce them for dietary supplements.

Durk: Effectively, they prevent the use of modern techniques, such as statistical quality control, which is what turned Japanese products from a laughing stock that was synonymous with crappy quality to the best products in the world. You can not use that under Good Manufacturing Practices.

Sandy: With the Good Manufacturing Practices they actually design your plant for you. It’s a lot more than telling you how to manufacture. They tell you how your plant needs to be laid out, and where your various machines have to be located. Also, you’ll notice—and this has been the case since the 1930s—you have no 4th Amendment rights anymore. The FDA doesn’t require a search warrant in order to go in and examine your plant. They send inspectors around. Those people don’t need warrants. These are warrantless searches, and nobody’s thinking anything about them, I guess, because they’ve been around so long.

Durk: Now, the Health Freedom Act would eliminate the requirement for GMPs on off-patent, generic drugs imported from overseas. The FDA would be allowed to test them for purity, and if they meet the same purity specifications as the American drugs that the FDA has approved, then that’s it. It doesn’t allow importing drugs that are in violation of a valid U.S. patent. But what this would mean is that you would be able to get a suite of antihypertensive and antihypercholesterolemic drugs for fifty cents a day instead of five dollars a day. So this thing about the Medicare drug benefit would be irrelevant. Nobody would be screaming for help to pay for their drugs if everyone could get everything they needed for four bits a day.

Sandy: All of the reputable economists agree that if we’re going to have regulations concerning manufacturing, then what you should have is a standard that the final product has to meet. The final product would have to meet the standard, and that would be how they would regulate it. But that’s not the way the FDA does it. Rather than that, what they have for the Good Manufacturing Practices is they design the entire process of how you do the manufacturing. It’s an incredibly complex list of regulations, and it’s probably impossible for anybody to really comply with all of them.

Durk: The thing is, the biggest barrier between life extension and people is the FDA, by far. It’s not ignorance. It’s the FDA.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 30, 2008 6:42 AM

It may no longer command much popularity in America, but some form of socialism continues to be very popular in much of the world. Look at Latin America, or Russia, for example. And in a world in which an at-most semi-capitalist state like China is the rising power, it seems silly to assume that market capitalism's triumph is assured. Most importantly, of course, capitalism was a particular and quite short lived era in human history that may not (one hopes) survive the end of cheap energy and cheap natural resources.

That being said it is true that "liberals" in America generally are supporters and/or apologists for capitalism. Reading what the New York Times has to say about the economic policies of, say, Venezuela is often indistinguishable from "The Economist." I'm not, but then I'm not a liberal either.

Posted by Hector | June 30, 2008 7:34 AM

This is also why it's really annoying when conservatives and libertarians think they're so much smarter than liberals whenever liberals propose some sort of government action (especially something the private sector would never do on its own) and the right just responds "socialist!" Conservatives and libertarians have spent the past few decades arguing with the lovechild of a ghost and a strawman on economics to the point they often don't know how to argue with what liberals are actually saying. This seems to be less of a problem among academics, but a big problem among think tank types (especially at Heritage, Ayn Rand, etc.) and worst of all among politicians.

I had one seminar in college in which every single student (excluding one international student), including the professor, were on the American left. Every single person in that room saw the collapse of communism as a good thing. Only one person thought it would be a good idea to have the state running businesses like airlines.

Posted by Reality Man | June 30, 2008 11:21 AM

ScentofViolents writes, "For example, no liberal as a matter of ideology said there should be externally imposed standards of food safety, or that there should be a government organization responsible for enforcing those standards."

I don't think that's true. My experience is that a rather significant number of liberals think of certain kinds of paternalist regulation as prima facia necessary, and that if they are willing to admit that it might be possible to leave matters out of the hands of the government, it is only if someone proves to them it's a good idea. This is rather contrary to your claim that all liberals believe you should try a market solution, and then step in if there's failure.

Now, it may well be that back in the 1920's, no liberal believed as a matter of ideology that there should be external food safety regulations. But times change, and people learn to expect what they grew up with. Nowadays, I think that broad swathes of liberals think that it is ideologically right for the government to preemptively regulate pretty much any not-obviously-dangerous product as it sees fit in an effort to make sure there are no hidden dangers.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | June 30, 2008 1:11 PM

Michael B Sullivan, the problem with such a statement is that it really isn't falsifiable. Since food regulations came into being in the first place due to there being a genuine need for such, we really can't run experiments seeing if liberals would still claim that such a regulatory body should exist in a world where such a need didn't exist. The way that your proposition is framed, an example of liberals not jumping at the chance to regulate something is just the exception that proves the rule.

You are also creating a false dichotomy between "free market" and "regulated." Just as the fact we have representation instead of direct democracy in this country doesn't mean we are anti-democratic, a market doesn't stop being free once a regulation is passed. Many classical laissez-faire theorists since the birth of capitalism, after all, argued that the fact that the free market can be more effectively regulated is one of the ways that it was superior to the likes of mercantilism. Adam Smith wasn't anywhere near as anti-regulation as today's conservatives. Many libertarians argue in favor of legalizing drugs in part because they can be more effectively regulated and thus become safer if they are a legal part of the capitalist economy.

Posted by Reality Man | June 30, 2008 5:07 PM