But what if the leak is so vast that theĭriller doesn’t have the resources to pay? The libertarian would respond that the driller should have been forced to post a bond or pay for sufficient insurance to cover any conceivable spill. The traditional libertarian would argue that regulation is unnecessary because the tort system will hold the driller liable for any damage. Consider the purely hypothetical case of a massive Set on a state-by-state basis) are modest.”īut once the need for public action is accepted, things start getting very muddy and we can’t rely on either a love of liberty or fear of the state for guidance. Of redistribution,” because “the goal of this redistribution – helping the poor – is reasonable and the costs of a well-designed limited antipoverty program (e.g., a negative income tax Professor Miron writes that “antipoverty spending is the most defensible kind ![]() ManyĪre quite comfortable with larger exercises of state power, including the redistribution of resources to those who have less. Almost all of them believe in some form of state power, at the very least the protection of private property and the enforcement of contracts. I always find it refreshing to take a quick, clean intellectual shower in the cold, pure waters of libertarian thought, but I find myself most interested in the murky areas on the edge of libertarianism, which Professor Professor Miron’s warning thatĭrug prohibition erodes civil liberties concerns anyone who worries about the millions of Americans who have become part of the prison system because of our drug laws. He also asserts that some people would benefit by using drugs and that the risk of imprisonment and higher prices that drug laws bring do excessive damage to drug users. “enriches drug traffickers” leads drug dealers to resort to violence and causes some “thrift-minder users” to use more dangerous drugs that have “the biggest bang-for-the-buck.” Drug prohibition, he asserts, “harms the public purse,” because of both the cost of enforcement and the lost tax revenues breeds “disrespect for the law” On drugs is interesting not because his overall view is a surprise, but because he has spent decades marshaling arguments and facts in favor of drug legalization. In some cases, like drug legalization, his views are clever if not nuanced -– “the right policy toward drugs is legalization.” Professor Miron’s writing Leads to his view that “radical reductions in government make sense for any plausible assessment of the effect of most policies.” Professor Miron’s libertarian mix of love of liberty and skepticism toward the state Showing a remarkable sense of timing, my colleague Jeffrey Miron has just published an excellent primer on libertarian thought: “ Libertarianism, From A-Z,”Īn engaging arrangement of brief essays illustrating one libertarian’s view on everything from abortion to zoos. Libertarians tend to think that the Bush years taught that all governments were flawed, not that everything would be better with a new leader who would expand the public sector. ( Ron Paul was, after all, the only Republican to vote against theĢ002 Iraq war resolution). It is a backlash against President Bush as wellĪs President Obama. The increased appeal of libertarianism today reflects a nonpartisan view that the public sector has been deeply problematic under either party. The first belief is based more on faith than empirical result the second derives from millennia Libertarianism rests on two bedrock beliefs: human freedom is a great good and the public sector tends to screw things up. On the negative side, true libertarians have lost theirĪncient luxury of being able to avoid any responsibility for the gaffes and errors of political leaders. On the plus side, real, live politicians who might conceivably get elected call themselves libertarians. It is both the best and worst of times for libertarians. Glaeser is an economics professor at Harvard.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |