The Economist on 'soft paternalism'

April 08, 2006
Saturday

The Economist on 'soft paternalism'

Johnathan Pearce (London) Media & Journalism • Opinions on liberty

The Economist magazine, about which James Waterton wrote a few days ago (it is getting a new editor), has an interesting cover article 'Soft Paternalism', chronicling the growing trend of governments to devise ways to make people behave in certain ways, usually in order to meet some supposedly desirable objective, such as losing weight, saving for a pension and so forth. I do not think the Economist hits the issue nearly hard enough but I absolutely love the picture associated with the article.

I rather like this quotation in the final paragraph:

Private virtues such as these are as likely to wither as to flourish when public bodies take charge of them. And life would be duller if every reckless spirit could outsource self-discipline to the state.

Some people, including libertarians, are a bit hard on the Economist, which often veers away from its historical attachment to free markets, liberty and limited government. I occasionally find its tone condescending but on the whole that magazine is a force for good. Let us hope that under its new editor, the Economist continues to beat the drum for classical liberalism in an era when liberty is all too often on the back foot.

Comments

Soft paternalism? How about soft fascism?

Posted by fiona at April 8, 2006 01:29 PM

Soft paternalism sounds like the lips in front of the teeth.

Posted by Midwesterner at April 8, 2006 01:34 PM

I think you're a bit harsh Fiona. Most of what the article discusses is done to drive positive outcomes. There is a big difference between trying to engineer people towards healthier lifestyles or saving for their future and the genuinely malevolent and restrictive agenda of Princess Toni and his cronies

I can forgive a politician bleating on about low fat (I'll ignore them mind you). I can never forgive the blatant self serving lies told about ID cards, jury trials, the House of Lords, our relationship with the EU, asymetrical devolution, crime and punishment, pensions, public spending, etc, etc ad nauseam.

Posted by Patrick W at April 8, 2006 02:38 PM

Its champions will say that soft paternalism should only be used for ends that are unarguably good: on the side of sobriety, prudence and restraint.

So how does that figure with the most fun I've had in ages. I blew up my knackered old fridge in the back-street. I had a couple of drams, stuffed it with The Times and aerosols, ignited it, taped the door shut and ran like hell. It harmed nobody (though it almost set a tree on fire).

It wasn't sober, prudent or restrained but had me cackling for a week. And the council shifted the smouldering ruin the next day, something they hadn't done with the extant fridge for weeks.

It actually produced a small mushroom cloud!

Posted by Nick M at April 8, 2006 02:44 PM

The article "The avuncular state" linked to within the leader article makes interesting reading. The "new" paternalism appeals to my view of humanity - people tend not to make particularly smart choices, nor do they tend to act in their own best interests. I see this as self-evidently true and have long wondered why those of a libertarian or anarchic bent fail to realise it. I also see it as a fundamental weakness in the libertarian argument - libertarianism doesn't have a particularly good or accurate view of the generality of human nature.

Whilst one can say that even such avuncular paternalism, if that makes sense, is an unwarranted interference in private life, I think one must also recognise that whilst that may be theoretically valid, in practice it is likely to be the lesser of two evils.

Throughout human history, there has been some force or other encouraging or compelling restraint in personal behaviour. This has variously been tribal myth, organised religion or state demand, but the point is that there has always been some such mechanism. I think it is, like government in general, a regrettable necessity but, given the reality of human nature, a necessity nonetheless. I think also that as western society moves further and further away from non-governmental mechanisms such as the churches and a generally accepted code of moral restraint, it will become ever more necessary for the state to make requirements like this, simply because no-one else is doing it.

I note that a surprisingly large number of libertarians are atheist or at best agnostic (as well as being perhaps disproportionately white, male and middle class), and it is somewhat odd that people such as this denigrate the state but also denigrate one of the most significant alternatives to the state in this respect. Whatever the theory says, some form of paternalistic guidance is in practice necessary in a functioning society, and it is IMO a further weakness in the libertarian case that this does not seem to be widely understood in such circles.

Posted by Euan Gray at April 8, 2006 03:27 PM

people tend not to make particularly smart choices, nor do they tend to act in their own best interests.

I disagree with you, and that is why I describe myself as classically liberal. Since the dawn of sedentary existence (and perhaps earlier; I do not have the historical knowledge of those ancient times to confidently include this period), I believe it's self evident that people have - as a general rule - become increasingly capable of making "smart choices" and acting in their own best interests more ably as time progresses. I believe that as man advances, he is more capable of dealing with increased responsibility in a self beneficial manner, and I would argue that this is borne out by the course of history. I cannot see why this trend towards increased responsibility should not continue its (I believe) natural course. I think humanity will at some point in the future be able to exist productively without the aegis of a state that interferes in the honourable interactions of individuals. I also believe that this process of acquiring the ability to manage increased responsibility can be hastened - partially by the exchange of ideas. Hence my participation in this forum.
Posted by James Waterton at April 8, 2006 03:51 PM

I believe it's self evident that people have - as a general rule - become increasingly capable of making "smart choices" and acting in their own best interests more ably as time progresses

The record of history would suggest otherwise. It's perfectly true that people increasingly have the means - in the form of greater information, better education and so forth - to make smart choices and act in their own best interests, but the depressing reality is that they don't actually *use* these greater means any more than they previously used lesser means - they may be more capable, but they're no more willing. Mankind is still mankind, and hasn't changed one jot since the Stone Age. We are still subject to the same selfish and selfless urges we always were, and failing large scale genetic manipulation we always will be.

I believe that as man advances, he is more capable of dealing with increased responsibility in a self beneficial manner

Ah, yes, the old perfectability of humanity notion, a common thread in both libertarianism and Marxism. It's not valid. As *culture* advances, yes, but that's not the same thing. Even if they are more capable, this does not imply they will actually use the capability - so far, they don't.

I think humanity will at some point in the future be able to exist productively without the aegis of a state that interferes in the honourable interactions of individuals

But it will always need something that interferes with the *dishonourable* interactions of individuals, which is really the point. It's unreasonable to argue that the state, or anyone else, should interfere to stop people bringing up children properly or looking after grandma in a decent fashion, and that's not the issue. If without prompting or guidance people will not on the whole act in their own best interests - and all the evidence plainly shows that they do not - then in certain areas it is reasonable to suggest that such guidance, prompting or sometimes compulsion is a prudent and sensible measure.

Posted by Euan Gray at April 8, 2006 04:06 PM

Of course people do not always do what is in their own interest and they suffer for it. That is how people either learn or become a statistic. Thats life. And thats the way I want it.

The idea that anyone should have the right to influence or manipulate another consenting adult is repugnant.

The only way an adult can have dignity and pride is to be responsible for themselves and their own actions. If they get it wrong and harm themselves too bad. If they harm others then the others should seek reparation through the courts, and, if a jury of peers find that they have been harmed the offender should make reparations.

There will never be a time when the state can stop people from harming themselves and IMO they should not be trying.

EG I find your ideas, as ever, charmingly stated and utterly wrong headed. I would hate to live in a world where you make the rules.

Posted by Nick Timms at April 8, 2006 04:32 PM

There are many problems with the benign paternal (big brother?) approach.

One, the government has to be trustworthy to pick the right conduct to incentivise. Who believes they are capable of that? This is one more battle field for special interest groups. One more piece of government power to be for auctioned to the highest bidders.

Two, the idea is inherently collective. If it is to be doable, then people must be placed in categories and incentives given to each according to what category they are in. And, if incentives are to be individualized, then who better than the individual to do it?

How soon before incentivising one form of lawful conduct over another is replaced with just outlawing the unapproved conduct?

I think we need not more incentives, but less. Less subsidies to counteract market forces. Less incentives for people to not work. Less protecting people from the consequences of their choices. Less taxpayer funded rewards for taking dangerous risks.

Subsidize anything and you'll soon have a surplus. Almost all of our problems now can be traced to government incentives for people to conduct themselves badly. All of the conduct mentioned in the article is already being encouraged by the government and insurance being mandated to assume the cost of the consequences.

This idea is just one more way of growing government.

Posted by Midwesterner at April 8, 2006 04:38 PM

'Classical liberalism' is even deader than 'fascism', which helped kill it. You lads need a new vocabulary.

Posted by The Realist at April 8, 2006 04:54 PM

That is how people either learn or become a statistic. Thats life. And thats the way I want it.

And up to a point that's how you've got it. But it seems that what you want is a selfish desire not to be bothered by the demands of others, which is fine insofar as it goes and you can indeed have that - many churches run closed monasteries where there is no technology and no outside interference, doubtless they would welcome a new entrant. However, I assume you also want such fripperies as a functioning society, medical systems, electricity, sewers, running water and some means of controlling crime. You can't get that without some form of interference.

If you want sewers, you need rules to limit what people throw down them, otherwise they stop working. If you want medical care, then you accept restrictions and limitations on your life whether this is by state demand or the numerous petty exclusions of private insurance. If you want electricity, you must accept intrusion on property as plants are built and distribution cables run. And so on. And all these things mean restriction, regulation and manipulation. *That* is life - you can't have these things without paying the price, and it is not necessary or advantageous to make it a simply cash price for those who want them.

Now, if you say let people pay for all these things, you're putting a cash price on liberty and you're effectively creating a society where the more money and/or property you have, the more liberty you get. A feudal society, in essence, which is IMO the logical outcome of an attempt to institute a libertarian order.

That's all very well, but nobody really wants that and, amazingly enough, western society developed beyond that level several centuries ago. There is simply no necessity for, nor any advantage in, nor any general desire to reinstate such a society.

The idea that anyone should have the right to influence or manipulate another consenting adult is repugnant

But necessary for a society to function, and as society becomes more complex, so this becomes more necessary. Indeed, as Hayek said in his "New Studies"

"I am the last person to deny that increased wealth and the increased density of population have enlarged the number of collective needs which government can and should satisfy"

Society has developed beyond the point - far beyond it, in fact - where libertarian ideas of a minimalist government are of any practical utility.

If they harm others then the others should seek reparation through the courts

Yes, what the western world is really crying out for today is even more lawyers and even more petty litigation.

There will never be a time when the state can stop people from harming themselves and IMO they should not be trying

But equally, there will never be a time when people will stop harming themselves and in many cases causing collateral harm to others, and it is unlikely that there wil be a society in which such a state of affairs is permitted unchecked. Generally speaking and within reasonable limits, it is more efficient and effective to have a general rule apply to all rather than allowing individuals to buy the bits of right they want, because the concomitant of that is that the bits of right are denied to those who cannot pay. This is an unreasonable and unnecessary state of affairs.

Within limits, there is nothing wrong in a gentle paternalism encouraging people to act in a certain beneficial way, and indeed in some cases requiring that they do so. But in most cases, usually but not always where there is no impact on others, there is no good reason to regulate.

I would hate to live in a world where you make the rules

I have a feeling you wouldn't actually like to live in a society based on the rules you seem to want. It sounds great in theory, but it isn't so hot in practice, and it is because of this dismal mismatch between ideal and reality that government is necessary, that some form or other - not necessarily state inspired - of paternalism or avuncular guidance is necessary.

Posted by Euan Gray at April 8, 2006 05:06 PM

the idea is inherently collective

In many aspects of their life, people are also inherently collective. This is an inevitable consequence of being a social rather than a solitary species. Denying the collective aspects of many parts of human nature is basically denying our genetic makeup.

As stated several times before, an approach based on a wholly collective view of humanity - such as Marxism - fails just as inevitably as one based on a wholly individualistic view of humanity - such as several strands of libertarianism.

Man is, like it or not, part individual and part collective. Any political philosophy which ignores this reality will fail, because it denies human nature.

Posted by Euan Gray at April 8, 2006 05:12 PM

Euan,

I don't think you understand the difference between collective and cooperative.

Posted by Midwesterner at April 8, 2006 05:25 PM

I don't think you understand the difference between collective and cooperative

Yes, I do. Sometimes cooperative is best, sometimes collective, sometimes individual.

Do you want electricity in your house? Individual choice.

Do you want overhead power cables run through your neighbourhood, or buried cables, or do you all want to microgenerate your own power? Cooperative choice.

Do you want an electricity distribution system to be built at all, complete with its necessary intrusion on private property and limits and regulations on what you can connect to it? Collective decision.

The point here, though, is that we are talking about areas where collective rather than cooperative or individual choices are pertinent. It's not feasible to have a society run solely on individual and cooperative choice, or at least not if you want the little luxuries of modern civilisation such as clean water, public order and effective healthcare.

Posted by Euan Gray at April 8, 2006 05:45 PM

Euan,

Collective is compulsory and uneccessary. When electrification came down our road, the power company paid my grandfather for powerline right-of-way.

It wasn't always done. Where my cousin lives, they didn't sell right-of-way to the power company. The just let them install it without rights. And if you don't want it, they don't install it at all.

I haven't lived on a collective (government) water system since I was 8 years old. In a subdivision I lived in had about 80 houses in a cooperative water system that was set up by a developer. It surrounded many properties that retained their own water supplies and did not join the co-op.

Public order is too vague a category. The courts are government. But enforcement can be any authorised agency. THere are many private police departments. And health care! We've seen what a wonderful success that is when the government does it.

You not only don't understand the difference between collective and cooperative, you don't understand the effects either.

Posted by Midwesterner at April 8, 2006 06:21 PM

Euan, there's one very obvious weakness in your argument. Why should one ascribe great wisdom and hence the ability to guide the great unwashed to certain selected members of society?
What criteria should determine who is to be one of the elect.
When push comes to shove I, who have spent my working life in the groves of academe, would put my trust in the man in the street rather than my overly doctored colleagues.

Posted by Millie Woods at April 8, 2006 06:58 PM

Collective is compulsory and uneccessary

Possibly for you, not necessarily for everyone else.

I haven't lived on a collective (government) water system since I was 8 years old

Most people, however, and especially outside the US, do live on such a system, and that's because most people live in relatively high density urban environments. This affects not just water or electricity but all manner of other things, and in some cases collective action and/or compulsion is necessary. Of course, it's easy to assume such things are never necessary if you don't happen to need them yourself, but that just shows a pretty narrow and unimaginative "I've got mine, I'm all right Jack" view.

Do you support the idea, then, that there should be no rules about the cleanliness of drinking water? Which is better - to allow people to die from dirty water and have their surviving family sue, or to prevent the situation arising in the first place by collective compulsion on drinking water standards? Would you rather fly in a cheap plane and face a higher risk of death but in the knowledge your wife and children can sue when you die, or reduce the risk at the cost of a higher ticket price as compulsory collective regulation is enforced?

There nothing wrong in my view with having private water provision, or electricity, or many other things. Provided certain rules are set, and are made compulsory. The question is not whether the state or private interest, or both, should supply these things, but whether there should be some regulation of them, some paternalistic guidance in a collectively derived direction. In some cases the answer is no, in others it is yes. It is wrong to assume the same answer applies in all circumstances, because it simply is not true.

And health care! We've seen what a wonderful success that is when the government does it

And we have also seen that it isn't a hell of a lot better when private interest does it. America has one of the highest degrees of private healthcare of any western country, and yet healthcare costs a greater share of national income in America than in almost all other western countries. It's more expensive, it's not a lot better - in fact, judging by what British expats in the US have told me, it's often no better and sometimes even worse than the ghastly old NHS. A glib assumption that the market cures all isn't borne out in reality, since things are a little more complex.

You not only don't understand the difference between collective and cooperative, you don't understand the effects either

I do understand them, I just don't fall for the simplistic assumption that if I don't need a certain thing then nobody else needs it either, and furthermore I can see that the price of not having some degree of collective compulsion now and again is rather higher than the price of having it, even if it does personally inconvenience me sometimes.

Posted by Euan Gray at April 8, 2006 07:02 PM

Why should one ascribe great wisdom and hence the ability to guide the great unwashed to certain selected members of society?

One shouldn't, and I don't. However:

The first great advantage of a democratic system is that more or less anyone can put his case to the people and argue for the chance to implement it. The people then make a collective decision to give him this chance or not give it, and this decision is binding and compulsory both on the individuals and on the collective. Of course, one can see at once the problems if the people's collective decision is wrong, but this is where the second great advantage of a democratic system comes in - the people get to chuck the bad guy out and pick someone else to fix the problems. The collective decision they make is binding and compulsory for the now unemployed political individual.

It is not perfect, but it does work and it has served the western world well for the past couple of centuries. No, you don't get everything you want as an individual, but that's just tough because under no conceivable *practical* system of government could everyone possibly get all they want. It's a compromise, like many things in life.

A democratic system, for all its numerous warts, gives the least bad trade-off between getting what you want and paying for what other people want.

Posted by Euan Gray at April 8, 2006 07:11 PM

"...people tend not to make particularly smart choices, nor do they tend to act in their own best interests."

True. So what ?

You can't do social engineering. You can't make people behave in ways you deem "smart". You can't even by "soft" methods (paternalistic incentives). Leave people alone. Build your society in such a way that it keeps functioning despite the weakenesses you percieve in people.
The notion that you can change people, or guide them, or make them do what you want is a delusion.

"Whatever the theory says, some form of paternalistic guidance is in practice necessary in a functioning society"

Correct. That is what we have fathers for (or mothers). Or peers, or social groups.

It's starnge that so many people think everything must be done by government. That's equivalent to saying that everything must be done by compulsion - that being the characteristic of government action.

Posted by Jacob at April 8, 2006 08:32 PM

Leave people alone. Build your society in such a way that it keeps functioning despite the weakenesses you percieve in people

Which in reality means not leaving people entirely alone. Sad but true. I don't think anyone here or in the cited article is arguing for total state control or micro-managing paternalism, but equally the idea that one can simply dispense with government or formal regulation altogether is illusory, even if it is a rather pleasant illusion.

That is what we have fathers for (or mothers). Or peers, or social groups

Indeed, but as alluded to above the problem arises when the long-standing social structure breaks down and society atomises as a result of an increasing self-obssession and a crass gimme-now materialism.

It's starnge that so many people think everything must be done by government

Not everything, but more things than hitherto, or rather more things than in a pre-industrial society. Refer to the quote from Hayek above. And, as also alluded to above, more things when the non-state structures which formerly provided the paternalistic guidance fail.

Posted by Euan Gray at April 8, 2006 08:41 PM

EG I do not agree with you at all.

Saying that libertarianism means reverting to feudalism discounts all of the advances in society since the middle ages. Individual freedom does not mean that the strongest in society should have control over the weakest. A libertarian society would be a very wealthy society and, although some would have more than others, everybody would be better off than they are now. Being a libertarian does not stop a person cooperating with others, they just do it by choice rather than dictat.

There do not need to be rules regarding things like water supply because in a free market if the supplier provides tainted water or charges too much a competitor will do better in order to take business from him. And individuals can sue the supplier and seek reparations.

The society you advocate, that is the one we have now, has far more drawbacks because no matter how much you make rules, government run monopolies have no incentives to be efficient and therefore waste enormous amounts of money, and when they make mistakes no one takes the blame by losing their livelihood. In addition most government bodies will not allow themselves to be sued when they harm people.

Many people make the error of believing that a libertarian society would be a selfish society because no one would be forced to pay taxes to support those less fortunate than themselves. All the evidence shows, however, that, left to themselves, people are far more generous to their fellow man on a voluntary basis than they care to be when they are coerced. Most of the really effective charities and support groups were founded, not by governments, but by free individuals giving up their time and money on a voluntary basis.

Further, I firmly believe, that what people call the breakdown in traditional values, has been caused by taking individual responsibility away from people. A society of free individuals is likely to be a far politer and respectful society than the forced collective you seem to want.

Posted by Nick Timms at April 8, 2006 08:57 PM

Euan,

We can know a thing to be true in one of two ways: deductively, or inductively. In reading your arguments, I find them wanting of deductive logic --- you seem to be employing your intuition. To roughly quote Friedman, "Poor analysis is always better than any form of intuition." In other words, you are saying a lot of things, but you don't make clear what your axiomatic assumptions are, and your deduction from them lacks any form of rigor. So, at the very least, I think we can fairly agree that a QED isn't quite merited. And in fairness, this applies equally well to your opposition.

On the other hand, we could test your perspective inductively. I make the following hypothesis: if there is a negative correlation between liberty and quality of life, then among a set of societies which are similar in all other regards (i.e., not just finished with a civil war), we could expect the libertarian societies to rank poorest in the quality of life department.

Now we need a data set --- I suggest the USA. It's 50 states have existed for quite some time now, with each enjoying the same high amount of stability as the other. And being members of one nation, I think we can get as close to a true apples-to-apples comparision as possible with this data set.

The hard part is performing an analysis of which states are the most livable, and which states are the most libertarian. I do not have the resources to perform such an analysis personally, and I don't think you do either. But, thankfully, we can perform a meta-analysis of existing anaylsis :-)

Morgan Quitno Press has been handing out a "Most Livable State" award for 17 years now. And the Free State Project, which aims to gather libertarians in a libertarian state to ensure greater liberty, has chosen and ranked the 10 most libertarian states in the nation. We can cross reference the findings of these two groups and look for any correlations.

Here are the links to the relevant data:
http://www.morganquitno.com/sr06ml.htm
http://www.freestateproject.org/archives/state_data/

(If you'd like, I can paypal you the $4.99 needed to buy the full report from Morgan Quitno.)

Looking at the data, you'll find that New Hampshire has been named the most livable state of 2006, and is also the target of the Free State Project. A closer analysis reveals that the average livability rank of the 10 most libertarian states is 13.3, putting them roughly in the 74th percentile.

If there was no correlation between liberty and quality of life, we would expect the most libertarian states to be in the 50th percentile of livability. And if there was a strong negative correlation between liberty and quality of life, we would expect the most libertarian states to be in the 25th percentile. The data clearly conflicts with the hypothesis.

I am hesitant to say that there is a postive correlation between liberty and quality of life, or that there is a negative correlation between illiberty and quality of life, for I feel that such requires a more detailed analysis that what I've offered up. But I feel confident to conclude that there is no negative correlation between liberty and quality of life.

I do not think this is a slam dunk in favor of liberty --- obviously, there is much more analysis to be done. But the notion that libertarian societies are less livable than their illibertarian brethren is wrong.

For what it's worth, I was once a Marxist, and I voted for Bush last election. Point being that I have no dogmatic bone to pick with anyone or anything. My goal is always and only to Do the Right Thing.

Posted by Peter Bessman at April 8, 2006 08:57 PM

Fiona,

I do think the Fascism bit is rather interesting and it has come up a number of times in discussions like these. I got interested to the point where I took the time to compare Tony Blair’s “respect” speech with Mussolini’s "Doctrine of Fascism". Fair enough, there are some non-trivial similarities. Let’s not forget though that the differences aren’t trivial either: Blair may have gone to war in Iraq, but I don’t think he values war in itself as a sign of a strong, empire building nation and I don’t think he’ll be attacking Albania any time soon.

(I have a longer rant on this here: )

Posted by rantingkraut at April 8, 2006 09:43 PM

"... long-standing social structure breaks down and society atomises as a result of an increasing self-obssession and a crass gimme-now materialism."

So the all benevolent, idealistic and moral Government is to be our saviour, as it's the only thing not yet tainted by "a crass gimme-now materialism.".....

You see, since man is a sinner, he needs a Saviour, and Government is our saviour ! The religion of the left.

Posted by Jacob at April 8, 2006 09:53 PM

Saying that libertarianism means reverting to feudalism discounts all of the advances in society since the middle ages

But many of these advances are in fact the elimination of feudalism by the restriction of the liberties of the wealthier and consequently more powerful elements of society. After that, and from the 19th century onwards, advances in society have generally been a levelling trend by increasing the rights - and more importantly the ability to actually exercise these rights - of the poorest at the expense of the wealthiest.

Individual freedom does not mean that the strongest in society should have control over the weakest

I accept that it doesn't mean this *should* happen, but I think the reality is that it *would* happen. Unintended consequences, and what not. A libertarian society would by its very nature put a cash value on liberty since it would inevitably be grounded on a much more strict interpretation of property rights - although it wouldn't necessarily be a completely propertarian society - than today, and it would, by requiring that people pay for everything, place a preponderance of right in the hands of those who own more property.

So you have private courts, say, private law enforcement and private lawyers. What happens if you cannot afford to hire a lawyer? You cannot afford to pay for the policing you need? What happens if you're arrested for something you didn't do because somebody paid an enforcement agency to bring you in, and you can't afford a lawyer to defend you, and you aren't capable of defending yourself too well in court? You may well get jailed, or face a fine you cannot pay, for something you didn't do. It's already often enough the case that people who can afford the best lawyers get off with things, and a libertarian society would make that more, rather than less, likely.

Rights and liberties are meaningless if you are unable to assert them.

A libertarian society would be a very wealthy society

I'm not sure about that. Certainly the ability of the rich to get richer would be there, but I'm not at all sure the least well off would benefit.

If you have to pay for everything, including justice and law enforcement, then you really do depend utterly on having property or money. This inevitably leads to a greater degree of fear of the consequences of losing employment, and it is inevitable that employers will use such increased fear to worsen - i.e. cheapen for the employer - the conditions of employment. Yes, you can go and get another job somewhere else, but for the unskilled and unintelligent, sadly a large fraction of humanity, this is not always as easy as it sounds. Further, it is pretty much in the interests of all employers to reduce the cost of employment, and doing the opposite doesn't necessarily confer an advantage. And yet further, the necessity of paying the full cost of education will inevitably mean that a larger fraction of the least well off will go without sufficient education to avoid that trap.

You'd create an underclass of minimally educated unskilled labour with few practical rights supporting a small class of very wealthy employers and landowners with simply oodles of rights, and that basically is a feudal system.

There do not need to be rules regarding things like water supply because in a free market if the supplier provides tainted water or charges too much a competitor will do better in order to take business from him. And individuals can sue the supplier and seek reparations

It's hard to sue if you're dead, though.

The problem with this system is that it is reactive rather than active. Yes, you can sue, or rather your surviving dependants can sue - if they can afford a lawyer and if they can pay the court costs if they happen to lose their case. What happens in practice is that abuses go uncorrected because people *cannot* assert their rights of redress because they cannot afford to or cannot afford the risk of failing.

Is it really such a big deal to avoid all of that by having a legally enforced system of quality requirements for drinking water? Is it really better to give Mrs Smith the solace of suing the company that killed her husband than it is to try and avoid Mr Smith getting killed in the first place? Aren't you just putting a cash value on life as well as on liberty?

Many people make the error of believing that a libertarian society would be a selfish society because no one would be forced to pay taxes to support those less fortunate than themselves

And just what do you think people are going to do with their new-found riches when they don't have to pay tax any more? Are they going to dole the same money out to the less fortunate, or are they, in our materialistic world, going to toddle off to the nearest car showroom and get a better car? And given that in Libertaria money and property = liberty, aren't they going to hang on to their money (or convert it to tangible property) rather than give it away?

Why is it that people used to fell they *should* give to charity? What moral imperative did they subscribe to, and do you think it's still widely subscribed to?

Consider also that advances in technology and the complexity of society have also rendered things like healthcare and education *much* more expensive than in the days of charitable and private funding. ISTR that in the late 19th century Britons gave about 10% of their income to charity, and now it's about 1%. Education now costs on the average (state or private, it's about the same) about 20% of mean income. Healthcare costs about 10% of GDP, more even in the US. In the charitable age, healthcare was by today's standards rudimentary in the extreme, and education for the average Joe was extremely basic - enough to create unskilled factory labour.

Society's needs are simply not like that any more, and it is no longer possible to fund it entirely privately or charitably.

I firmly believe, that what people call the breakdown in traditional values, has been caused by taking individual responsibility away from people

To an extent that's true - over-generous welfare encourages irresponsible behaviour. That doesn't mean, however, that all welfare is necessarily bad.

Another reason, in my view possibly more important, is the decline of widespread religious belief and its replacement by a secular materialism. Much of the impetus to charity is gone, replaced with selfishness. I think it quite likely that a more libertarian order would perhaps see a revival of at least outward religious observance as the churches became more important as a source of welfare, but although I have certain religious views I would not advocate libertarianism as the price of seeing them more widely held.

Sadly, "take all that you have and give it to the poor" is nowadays less appealing than "buy the new Blingmeister 5000 personal pleasure system." What to do?

A society of free individuals is likely to be a far politer and respectful society than the forced collective you seem to want

I don't want that at all. However, it may well be that a (radically) more free society might be a more polite one, but it is also highly likely to be a more polarised one, less at ease with itself. I don't think it's a price worth paying, and going by the extreme lack of popularity of neo-Victorian libertarianism, neither do many other people.

Posted by Euan Gray at April 8, 2006 10:10 PM

You see, since man is a sinner, he needs a Saviour, and Government is our saviour ! The religion of the left

Man is lamentably prone to "sin" if you wish to use the term in this context, and as such is pretty much in need of some form of salvation.

It doesn't need to be the state, nor for that matter does it need to be the market or the church or anything else. But it *does* need to be something, and that something does need to work. Libertarianism won't cut it, and nobody wants it anyway.

Posted by Euan Gray at April 8, 2006 10:14 PM

EG is on the thread. He's being very EG and cleverl in his usual leftie kinda way - I haven't read his posts, I just know. From his rarefied heights he clearly doesn't give a monkey's about a fridge being blown to kibbles and bits in South Manchester... For shame. He should get out and retire appliances. The thrill, the giggling, the "I love you, but..." from the woman in your life...

I betya EG was very earnest in the 80s and listened to U2 B-sides.

Posted by Nick M at April 8, 2006 10:17 PM

I betya EG was very earnest in the 80s and listened to U2 B-sides

I prefer Bach.

Posted by Euan Gray at April 8, 2006 10:24 PM

Oh you would, you so would. You well tempered klavier, you.

Bet you never blew a fridge up though?

Posted by Nick M at April 8, 2006 10:50 PM

Apart from its support for the credit bubble financial system (which one as to expect as so many major companies are connected to it), the greatest fault of the Economist is its support for "public services".
Whatever place it is writing about (whether it is Brazil of Alberta - or whereever) there will nearly always be a plug for more money for state education and/or health care in the article somewhere.

Posted by Paul Marks at April 8, 2006 11:09 PM

Oh E.G. is back - as usual insisting on telling us all about libertarianism (a subject he knows nothing about).

It is a waste of effort but.....

Libertarianism is a political principle (the non aggression principle) holding that violence may only be used in the defence of the bodies or goods of agents (some pacifist libertarians would go further than that as say that violence should never be used - but I will not go into that here).

Libertarians are divided between anarchists (or anarchocapitalists) and mininal state (or minarchist) people.

Some libertarians base their political belief on an interpretation of natural law, and others on utilitarianism (and other libertarians have different political beliefs).

Some libertarians are religious and other are athiests.

Nearly all would hold that some bad actions exit that are not crimes (i.e. violations of the nonaggression principle - it is rather difficult for a libertarian to be a legal positivist, holding that a "crime" is whatever the state says it is, although a few libertarians do hold this position, they just hold "crimes" to be unimportant and use a different word for violations).

Whether one call some of noncriminal bad actions "sins" is a moot point. Some people hold that using the word "sin" implies a religious position.

However, as for libertarianism "not cutting it" - no political doctrine can either punish crimes OR improve the morals of people.

Human beings do such things - not political doctrines.

If a murderer needs to be hunted down it is a human being who will do the job - he may be a liberatarian, but it is not "libertarianism" or any other "ism" which is doing it.

As for improving the morals of people.

Well I do not have Gladstone's exact words, but the gist went something like this.

"Of one thing I am certain, it is not from the state that we should look for moral enlightenment".

Efforts by the state to make people better (to produce a moral society or whatever) are at best useless, and (far more often) undermine and corrupt people's morals.

By the way, although I am (sadly) not a cultured man, I rather like Bach as well (I assume you mean J.S. - although the rest of the family also produced good music).

I assume that, as you a cultural conservative, you despise Mr Cameron (with his endless efforts to appear "cool").

At least you have that much in common with other people on this site.

Posted by Paul Marks at April 8, 2006 11:29 PM

Bet you never blew a fridge up though?

I must confess that my life is somewhat lacking in the refrigerator detonation department.

On the other hand, like so many masculine pursuits, this form of appliance destruction seems full of sound and fury, signifies nothing and is over in a matter of seconds. I suspect I'm not missing much.

Posted by Euan Gray at April 8, 2006 11:30 PM

EG logorrhoea is with us once more. Geography precludes my access to the current Economist, so I am a little disadvantaged............
However, I know intuitively what is right & what is wrong. I don't need Big Brother's direction.

Posted by permanent expat at April 8, 2006 11:31 PM

My semisenile brain is telling me the word was "improvment" not "enlightenment".

As usual I apologize for all my typing errors.

"But it you were really sorry you would check before you send."

Good point.

Posted by Paul Marks at April 8, 2006 11:33 PM

Nothing wrong with Bach.......J.S. or K.P.E.....I just can't get on with E.G.

Posted by permanent expat at April 8, 2006 11:36 PM

Selbstdarsteller.

Posted by permanent expat at April 8, 2006 11:37 PM

"...people tend not to make particularly smart choices, nor do they tend to act in their own best interests."

If the individual cocks up tough but if our lords and marters cock up,just look at the almighty balls up NuLabor have made of the country. Examine their private lives,do you want these tossers doing the same with yours?

Posted by Ron Brick at April 8, 2006 11:40 PM

Libertarianism is a political principle (the non aggression principle) holding that violence may only be used in the defence of the bodies or goods of agents

Libertarianism seems to be whatever the libertarian decides it is, something that can change repeatedly throughout a discourse as the libertarian realises his position on topic X has been demolished. It seems to strive to be all things to all men, and thus inevitably winds up being nothing to everyone.

Some libertarians are religious and other are athiests

Atheism seems somewhat more common in libertarianism than in, say, conservatism or liberalism. This may have something to do with an unconventional personal morality, which might well be an attracting factor for some libertarians, or it may be because some strands at least of libertarianism are somewhat Utopian and millenarian, or possibly because the concept of liberty taken to the extreme negates the concept of discipline and self-sacrifice found in most religions. I'm sure it's quite possible to be a religious libertarian just as it is possible to be an atheist conservative - I don't see any incompatibility, per se.

Whether one call some of noncriminal bad actions "sins" is a moot point. Some people hold that using the word "sin" implies a religious position.

Sin is a religious concept. The word was used above in metaphor and thus should not be taken literally.

"Of one thing I am certain, it is not from the state that we should look for moral enlightenment".

Indeed, but do bear in mind that Gladstone spoke in a very different time and culture. Something valid at one time is not necessarily valid 100 years later.

I assume that, as you a cultural conservative, you despise Mr Cameron (with his endless efforts to appear "cool").

I don't despise Cameron - I voted for him in the leadership election - although I do find his endless quest for coolness somewhat tacky.

Posted by Euan Gray at April 8, 2006 11:55 PM

Saying that the average person makes very bad choices and needs to be controlled is not a very strong argument for giving him the right to vote to make choices for me.

- Josh

Posted by Wild Pegasus at April 8, 2006 11:59 PM

If the individual cocks up tough but if our lords and marters cock up

As pointed out above, one of the advantages of a democratic system of politics is that someone can subsequently be elected to reverse the cock-up. A cock-down party, perhaps?

Posted by Euan Gray at April 8, 2006 11:59 PM

Saying that the average person makes very bad choices and needs to be controlled is not a very strong argument for giving him the right to vote to make choices for me

But giving him the right to vote choices for you also entails giving you the right to vote choices for him.

Given that some form of government, even if limited, is necessary, there must be some mechanism for ensuring insofar as practically possible and within reasonable bounds that the tenor of that government bears some passing resemblance to the desires of those choosing it. Allowing people to vote and on the basis of their votes selecting a government seems to be the least bad way yet discovered of doing that.

You cannot get perfection in this world, and it's pointless to think you can. Equally, the false dilemma of bad government or no government needs to be neutered, not least because it implies that if you can't get perfection you shouldn't try at all, and that's just silly.

Posted by Euan Gray at April 9, 2006 12:05 AM

"As pointed out above, one of the advantages of a democratic system of politics is that someone can subsequently be elected to reverse the cock-up. A cock-down party, perhaps?

Wrong again Euan,the State cocks up on such a monumental scale that it becomes impossible to reform,NHS,education,transport,I could go on but it is Saturday night and I've just been paid,fool about my monet don't try to save,my heart says go go have a time,cos it's Saturday night and I feel fine.

Posted by Ron Brick at April 9, 2006 12:54 AM

EGregious

Posted by permanent expat at April 9, 2006 01:59 AM

Euan, although your comments always concern the unpopularity or unfeasability of libertarianism you do nevertheless seem to share some political preference for greater liberty from the State. Yet how much of that preference you share is not clear. So, would you care to declare your preferences (briefly) regarding the following issues?

Income tax - low, high, flat or progressive?

A national ID database along with the ID card, or continuing with the status quo?

Legalisation and taxation of narcotics (including tobacco & alcohol) vs the criminalisation of narcotics?

Those three would probably be enough to get a better idea of where exactly you sit, politically.

Posted by mike at April 9, 2006 02:20 AM

Income tax - low, high, flat or progressive?

A progressive system. Flat tax is unreasonable, and flat rate tax not much less so, since they put a disproportionate burden on those least able to bear it. Flat tax in particular is unpopular and always has been - remember Wat Tyler.

However, the issue today is not direct proportional income taxes but indirect taxes such as duties, VAT, etc., which again hurt most those least able to pay.

A national ID database along with the ID card, or continuing with the status quo?

I don't have a problem with a system of identity verification in principle, but I don't think it is necessary or particularly advantageous to have a single centralised system for it and therefore I oppose the British government's plan for this. I'm not paranoid about government, as many (especially American) libertarians seem to be, but again I do not see the need or advantage for a heavily centralised database in this regard.

Legalisation and taxation of narcotics (including tobacco & alcohol) vs the criminalisation of narcotics?

Consider alcohol separately - I have no problem with legal and taxed alcohol. I think tobacco should be discouraged - I should say I am a smoker - and I do not agree with the legalisation of narcotics. The libertarian view of drug legalisation is understandable from a personal freedom point of view, but fails to take into account the externalities of drug use and more especially abuse. Although libertarians don't seem to appreciate it frightfully well, there is a huge difference between the odd snort of coke in middle class drawing rooms and the pernicious effects of drug use on the addict class, and these adverse effects are not simply related to the price of the stuff or the fact that it is illegal.

I should say in general that a desire to have greater liberty from the unnecessary intrusion of the state in private life does not imply that one should favour the abolition of tax or the legalisation of drugs.

Posted by Euan Gray at April 9, 2006 07:10 AM

Wrong again Euan,the State cocks up on such a monumental scale that it becomes impossible to reform

Incorrect, but a common enough fallacious assumption.

It is not the case that reform is impossible, that the increase in state power or intrusion is irreversible. History shows repeatedly the ebb and flow of state intrusion in private and public life, the correction of errors, reform of unpopular measures and improvements in the general situation. This doesn't mean that things inevitably improve, but equally it doesn't show that they cannot improve.

Posted by Euan Gray at April 9, 2006 07:17 AM

Flat-rate taxes, as opposed to poll taxes, are progressive - just not progressive enough for most people. Also, if a flat tax is combined with an Earned Income Tax Credit or rebate, your concerns presumably disappear.

But you are right that the biggest issue is indirect taxation.

Posted by Patrick at April 9, 2006 08:27 AM

Flat-rate taxes, as opposed to poll taxes, are progressive

Only by imposing a strain on the English language it was never intended to bear. They aren't progressive - a progressive taxation system is one where the rate of taxations get progressively higher as income gets progressively higher.

just not progressive enough for most people

The idea of some form of geometric rather than arithmetic progression of taxation in relation to increasing income is very old, and goes further back than Adam Smith and the Founding Fathers. The idea of flat rate taxation is something that appeals to people who attract higher rates, but not really to anyone else - and most people don't attract higher rates of taxation. In order to get the same revenue, by virtue of the fact that most people don't pay the higher rates, you'd have to *increase* the basic rate which in an unprogressive measure and frankly an unnecessary burden on the less well off.

You want less well off people to get richer. You won't achieve that by increasing their burden of taxation. People who are already well off, or better off than average at least, don't face the same day to day financial pressures and can more easily afford to pay higher rates. They also tend to be better educated and more capable of increasing their income by their own efforts.

Also, if a flat tax is combined with an Earned Income Tax Credit or rebate, your concerns presumably disappear

No, because this is an unnecessary complication of the tax system - look at the current British system for a clear example of how it doesn't work too well.

It's much easier to have a simple system of progressive tax bands, starting at zero and working up to the most effective peak of about 35 to 40%. Do this over say three or four bands and don't have allowances or tax breaks for anything (although personally I'd except marriage), and you have a simple, easy-to-calculate income tax system which requires minimum staff to administer and which anyone capable of operating a pocket calculator can work out for himself.

Because it's simpler, you'd get greater compliance together with reduced cost and thus would likely increase state revenue, which means in turn you can decrease tax rates or, better yet, increase thresholds.

But you are right that the biggest issue is indirect taxation

The issue is the overall burden of taxation in general in relation to income. Flat rate taxation would make this situation worse rather than better, and thus it isn't a terribly good idea.

It's worth noting that in Britain the emphasis is on indirect taxation and income tax rates are fairly low. In most the rest of Europe, income tax rates are rather higher but indirect taxation is lower, and thus arguably the least well off get a better deal.

Posted by Euan Gray at April 9, 2006 08:47 AM

Peter,

I missed your post and so didn't respond to it. However, there are a couple of issues that merit a reply:

We can know a thing to be true in one of two ways: deductively, or inductively. In reading your arguments, I find them wanting of deductive logic

It is unwise, to say the least, to assume that a sound basis for society, politics or economics can be arrived at through a process of deductive reasoning. This is a seductive error, but it is one that both Marxists and certain types of libertarian fall for over and again.

Logic is indispensable in mathematics and science, but it is not particularly useful for economics or politics. Indeed, much of the time of economic and political theorists seems to be taken up with trying to explain why reality doesn't match their logically derived expectations.

Marxism, as you will be aware, also relies on logical analysis. NEVER trust a hippie, a church which is a limited liability corporation, or any ideology which says it can prove it is right.

the target of the Free State Project

The FSP is a hoot for the pragmatist. Why is it that radical individualists need a collective programme to make them happy? Why bother with a project - if you like it, move there and be done with it. Why do you need to wait for 19,999 others to reach the same decision?

It's also seriously unimpressive. It's taken 5 years to reach a third of the target and the takeup rate appears to be falling - nine months to go from 1000 to 5000, a year to get from 5000 to 6000, a year and a half to get to 7000. I suspect that, like all previous libertarian projects, it will end in fraud and embezzlement.

But the notion that libertarian societies are less livable than their illibertarian brethren is wrong.

There are no libertarian societies, so it's hard to say that. However, it can be said that we have had societies which have at least approached a libertarian order, most notably Victorian England and America. They were not pleasant places.

For what it's worth, I was once a Marxist

Unsurprising, and like quite a few libertarians. What is the appeal of libertarianism to the Marxist, or ex-Marxist? The same type of millenarian ideology, the same dogmatic insistence on the one logically proven true way of doing things? The same attraction of simple solutions to very complex problems? The thought that if one's ideology is shown to be a crock, one must adopt the polar opposite since that must logically be not a crock?

Posted by Euan Gray at April 9, 2006 09:39 AM

Euan writes that libertarianism changes its meaning depending on the tactical demands of debate - this is mistaken.

I have given Euan the defintion of libertarianism many times. Both political libertarianism (the nonaggression principle) and philosophical libertarianism (the belief in agency - "free will"). And pointed out that not all philosophical libertarians are political libertarians and that a few political libertarians are philosophical determinists (although I find the combination of political libertarianism and philosophical determinism deeply problematic).

I have also (again many times) explained the different ways that the nonaggreesion principle can be interpreted (whether in an anarchist or minarchist direction) and stated the different philosophical justifcations that various people have for being political libertarians (for example, some being a certain type of natural law supporters, others being utilitarians).

However, as this is a complex area I will have to accept that Euan is mistaken rather than simply telling lies in order to anger people.

The same does not hold true for Mr Cameron. A man who tells lies about very simple matters (for example, last week stating that most members of the U.K.I.P. were "mostly" "closet racists").

Mr Cameron has still not apologised for his lie. And nor has Mr Francis Maude apologised for the lie of saying that U.K.I.P. wanted an "all white Britain".

These are NOT complicated matters of political philosophy - they are simple matters of Mr Cameron and Mr Maude choosing to tell lies.

The latest smear was today in the Sunday Telegraph Matthew d'Ancona stated that the U.K.I.P. quoted Adolf Hitler on their website - but failed to point out that the website attacked Hitler (rather than supported him).

This deception is not confined to smearing the U.K.I.P. Last week the Spectator (which Mr d'Ancona edits) printed that Mr Cameron's line about Mr Brown being a "analogue" person in a "digital age" was thought up by Mr M. Grove M.P.) it was, of course, used by G.W. Bush against Albert Gore in 2000.

Mr Cameron also has a record of deception. For example, when working for Mr Green of Carlton Television during the time when the shareholders were being looted to prop up "On Digital", Mr Cameron said "we are not doing that, and if you print that we are I will have you sacked" to several financial journalists.

Mr Maude has a record of plotting and dishonesty that is well known in the political world - so perhaps it should come as no surprise that Mr Cameron supports him as Chairman of the party.

I am not a member of the U.K.I.P. I am a member of the Conservative party and have worked in support of it since 1979.

I do not blame Euan for voting for Mr Cameron - he did not know what Mr Cameron was like (indeed I am impressed by Euan's honesty in stating that he voted for Mr Cameron).

Nor do I doubt that Euan will utterly condemn the policy of lies and smears followed by Mr Cameron and his supportes.

The sort of person I do blame is me.

People like me voted for Mr Davis (because we knew a few things about Mr Cameron - although not as much as I know now).

But what did we actually DO to prevent Mr Cameron getting elected?

In my case, virtually nothing. I sat there like a rabbit transfixed by the headlights of an oncomming car.

Posted by Paul Marks at April 9, 2006 12:45 PM