In mid-July, Hillbilly Elegy author J. D. Vance delivered a talk at the National Conservatism Conference in Washington entitled “Beyond Libertarianism.” The talk is interesting and important for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it was one of several talks at that coming out party for “nationalist conservatism” that saw in classical liberalism the source of the social problems they hoped their new vision of conservatism could address. Vance’s talk took this point head-on, arguing that conservatives have to break away from libertarianism’s commitment to individual choice and be willing to exercise political power to fix the ills that he sees libertarian attitudes and policies as having caused. At one point, he says of libertarians:
Libertarians are not heartless, and I don’t mean to suggest that they are. I think they often recognize many of the same problems that we recognize, but they are so uncomfortable with political power, or so skeptical of whether political power can accomplish anything, that they don’t want to actually use it to solve or even address some of these problems.
But to me, ignoring the fact that we have political choices, or pretending that there aren’t political choices to be made, is itself a political choice. The failure to use political power that the public has given is a choice, and it’s a choice that has increasingly had, and I think increasingly will have, incredibly dire consequences for ourselves and our families.
This argument treats libertarian criticisms of political power as either psychological “discomfort” or unexplained “skepticism.” If not that, then the refusal to use political power is the result of ignoring that we have political choices or pretending none are to be made. All of these claims deeply misunderstand the libertarian aversion to the use of political power and ignore the role that such power can often play in causing the very problems further use of such power is hoping to solve.
In fact, the libertarian criticism of political power is deeply rooted in both theory and history. Its most simple formulation is a version of the claim that “ought does not imply can.” Vance argues for a whole variety of ways in which we ought to be using political power to solve social problems, from drug addiction to suicide, to pornography, to the opioid epidemic. In each of those cases he appears to assume that his belief that we ought to make use of political power to address those problems will ensure that such power actually can solve them. What he does not offer is any argument for bridging that gap between ought and can. And it is that gap that is the source of libertarianism’s reluctance with respect to political power. If our understanding of how political power works is such that we have reason to doubt it will serve the public interest as opposed to the private interests of public actors, then our reluctance to deploy it is not a matter of discomfort or skepticism, but of a grounding in political economy.
I need not run through the entire apparatus of public choice theory to make this point, but it should be enough to note that once one adopts the assumption of behavioral symmetry between market and political actors, much of the critique of political power follows fairly easily. For libertarians, political actors are assumed to be no more altruistically motivated or smarter than market actors. The political process is seen as an alternative to the market process as a way for people to accomplish their goals through various forms of exchange. Given that none of us has access to what constitutes the “public interest,” and that most policy decisions involve conflicts of interest that have to be negotiated away, political processes will always involve the same sort of broadly self-interested bargaining as in the market. The institutions of politics do not provide the quality of feedback necessary for actors to know they have strayed from the public interest and the signals and incentives required to correct their behavior. This is the source of the “ought-can” gap: we can demand that the political process do many things, but demanding it does not ensure that it will happen.
The long history of government failures can be understood by deploying this framework. To take the classic economic example, consider that the federal government has run budget deficits almost every year since World War II despite the fact that macroeconomic theory said deficits should only be run when the economy needed a boost. Clearly, political actors have not served the public interest here, despite the urging of so many experts to deploy political power wisely to solve various economic problems. The self-interest of political actors to preserve and expand spending and avoid tax increases leads to an emergent outcome that is no one’s intention and that is socially harmful. The feedback processes of politics are unable to provide sufficient error correction. The libertarian reluctance to use political power is a recognition of this history, and other examples like it, that illustrate how individual choices do not generally lead to socially beneficial outcomes when the institutional framework does not provide that feedback sufficiently well.
Finally, Vance misses an important part of the libertarian argument against political power by creating a false impression about how libertarians would respond to social problems. In several places, he lists various social outcomes he thinks are problematic and then puts in the mouths of libertarians the argument that they are just the “consequence of free choices” or the mistaken choices of parents, so we should not worry about them. What this overlooks is the way in which poor institutions and policies can change the incentives and knowledge facing individuals, leading them to make choices that, in the aggregate, lead to socially problematic outcomes. We see this in the US health care system, where bad policies have created incentives for over-spending, and in the financial system, where bad policies incentivized poor choices by both lenders and borrowers, contributing to the 2008 financial crisis and Great Recession.
In some sense, those outcomes along with the ones Vance lists in his article, are the unintended outcome of human choices. And perhaps even “free” choices at that. However, that doesn’t mean that libertarians would have no objections to those choices and their outcomes. What Vance’s libertarian strawman is missing is that poor choices and undesirable social outcomes can result from the same set of considerations that underlie the libertarian objections to political power – the role played by institutions in providing incentives and knowledge to make people aware of errors and provide incentives for correction. Many of the social problems that Vance points to, especially those around drug use and its relationship to health care provision, are not taking place in some sort of pure environment of choice. Rather those choices are affected by the institutional incentives created by decades of policy interventions driven by the belief that political power can solve social problems. Libertarians can recognize the problematic nature of those choices not as a matter of people not knowing what’s best for them, but instead as the predictable result of distorted incentives and signals coming from poor institutions and policy interventions.
The reluctance of libertarians to use political power to try to solve social problems is not mere discomfort or some unexplainable skepticism about such power. That reluctance is rooted in an understanding of the way institutions frame our choices by providing, or failing to provide, the knowledge and incentives necessary to transform self-interest into public benefit. Having seen how prior political action distorted those signals and incentives in ways that created social problems, and understanding how political institutions do not provide powerful enough signals and incentives to correct those mistakes, libertarians fear the use of political power precisely because they have deep reasons to think it will make matters worse.
Vance and other nationalist conservatives can develop long lists of problems they’d like the state to solve, but until they can make the case that they have bridged the “ought-can” gap, they will not only fail to persuade libertarians of the benefits of political power, they will likely exacerbate the very social ills they hope to remedy.
READER COMMENTS
Walter Boggs
Jul 30 2019 at 11:48pm
Excellent piece. It reminded me that before I criticize a political theory, I have a responsibility to study and try to grasp at least its most basic aspects.
nobody.really
Jul 31 2019 at 1:57am
What an eloquent rebuttal of Vance’s critique.
To be blunt—and, therefore, less eloquent—Vance’s “argument” consists of pointing out how the world differs from the world he and his audience would like, and then jumps to “DO SOMETHING!” He offers few or no proposals for moving the world toward an outcome he favors. Instead, the mere fact that he (and his audience) are dissatisfied is taken as evidence that satisfaction would be possible … somehow, if only people are willing to act sufficiently boldly and do … something.
Vance has the earnestness of a petulant teenager arguing that of course she knows the right thing to do because her intentions are pure. His remarks have all the sophistication of arguments such as “Saddam = bad—ergo ANY other outcome = good!” And indeed, his remarks are sophisticated—as a form of propaganda. The Saddam argument moved the nation to act, to our regret. I can’t help but fear that Vance’s style of argument will prompt a similar outcome.
Dylan
Jul 31 2019 at 8:15am
I think this is the area where I have the biggest philosophical difference with libertarians, I’m a utopian at heart. Indeed, I think the reason to live is an attempt to keep making the world a better place. The existence of a problem doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a solution, but it does mean we should look for one (given some kind of utilitarian ranking of problems where you attack the biggest problems first, before moving on to the scourge of autoplaying internet videos).
Now, when you’re trying to find solutions to a big problem, you should of course look for solutions that are the most likely to actually make things better, as opposed to just appearing like they would make things better. And if all of the proposed solutions are likely to make the problem worse, then maybe inaction is the better alternative. But, just the chance that doing something might make things worse, to me isn’t an argument for doing nothing. That’s hopefully how we learn not to do those things after all.
Swami
Jul 31 2019 at 3:25pm
Dylan,
I’m not a libertarian either, but I don’t believe the libertarian dilemma is between doing something to solve problems or not. It is between doing something politically, from the top down by imposition, versus addressing problems in a decentralized and mutually voluntary matter.
The argument is that in complex adaptive systems with agents with differing goals, values and circumstances, that the proven better bet is to leave the problem solving to voluntary and market forces. Again, I don’t always agree with this approach, but I think it is a fair representation of the position.
Dylan
Aug 1 2019 at 7:34am
Swami,
My response to you from last night seemed to get lost in moderation, so let me try again.
I agree with you 100% that this isn’t the libertarian dilemma, and more often than not I agree that a bottoms up solution focused on voluntary exchange will get superior results compared to a more top down approach.
However, I’ve read too many libertarians making some variation of the “ought does not imply can” argument. On the one hand, that’s obviously true, and sometimes just pointing that out can be a valuable contribution to the discussion. But too often that’s where it is left, when I think the libertarian perspective would be useful in pointing to ways in which we might make a problem better, if not necessarily solve it entirely, but in ways that are less likely to have unintended outcomes. Some of these solutions probably involve government intervention in some way, but libertarians and others can guide to the type of intervention that is likely to be the least distortionary. Take carbon taxes over CAFE standards and lightbulb bans.
When they don’t do this, they ignore the fact that we’re always striving for a perfect world, and that plenty of people are perfectly happy to do something that will make a problem worse if the intentions are right, rather than sit around and do nothing.
Swami
Aug 2 2019 at 12:09pm
Thanks for the excellent and insightful reply, Dylan.
dmm
Aug 3 2019 at 4:52am
There seems to be one thing you haven’t noticed, Dylan. People in power distort things not only by accident, but also on purpose to further their own and their cronies’ interests.
TommyT
Jul 31 2019 at 8:26pm
Nobody is stopping you from addressing these problems. Just don’t use the government. Most of our hospitals were created long before government got involved.
dmm
Aug 3 2019 at 4:43am
“I’m a utopian at heart.”
There’s the biggest problem of all. Do you honestly think that your idea of utopia coincides with everyone else’s, and that forcing everyone else to obey the dictates of your heavenly inspired vision will not have negative consequences that turn your utopia into dystopia? Do you think “we” can even agree on what is a problem in the first place, much less on solutions?
Utopians are necessarily authoritarian slavers.
Mark Z
Aug 4 2019 at 3:02pm
If we’re being utilitarians, then why should we always give the benefit of doubt to action over inaction? The argument could just as easily go the other way:” if there’s a chance doing nothing is the best course, we should do nothing, to avoid ruining what we already have.” In fact I suspect this risk averse status quo bias is more rational than a more risk-seeking anti-status quo bias.
On a more philosophical note: there is perhaps nothing I more emphatically disagree with than the idea that‘the reason to live is to keep making the world a better place.’ Is everything merely means an end? If so, what exactly is the point in living if no one will ever get to actually enjoy life for its own sake? If we must commit ourselves to making it easier for people in the future to… commit themselves to making it still easier for people in a more distant future to… and so on forever.
This is why I dislike the encroachment of politics into everything else in life. Some things ought to be an end in themselves. People should’ve have to be ashamed of just enjoying things, without reference to making the world a better place.
Dylan
Aug 4 2019 at 5:22pm
Mark,
I respect your view and don’t expect that many will share mine. But to be clear, there is room for some hedonism in my world, I don’t mean to suggest a Singer type of utilitarianism where any action that isn’t aimed at improving the world is morally suspect.
What I do think is that the action of devoting at least a portion of their lives to making the world a better place will make a person generally happier and give their life more satisfaction than the alternative. I may be wrong, I’m only extrapolating from my own experience plus a few popsci readings on happiness.
This gets me to your first point, on the bias towards action instead of inaction. And here, my argument begs the question, because if you accept my premise that the purpose of living is to make the world better (and NOT to first do no harm), then the bias for action implicitly follows anytime we see something in the world that most of us agree is wrong and could be better. The second part is a little more nuanced though, because I think it is the journey that matters more than the destination. Utopia is pretty much by definition unobtainable, but that (to me) is all the more reason to strive for it. Luckily for those of us in this time, there is a lot about the world that is far from perfect, so we still have forests of low hanging fruit, future generations may have more trouble.
Craig Strange
Jul 31 2019 at 8:16pm
I agree with a lot of the comments here. Especially with the comment that it isn’t that Libertarians disagree that a problem needs to be dealt with, but more how it is best dealt with is up for question.
Marvin Olasky’s ‘The Tragedy of American Compassion’ shows from history how the problem of helping the poor was dealt with effectively before government welfare. Yet to most today, such a concept would be unfathomable.
TommyT
Jul 31 2019 at 8:23pm
Most Libertarians are phony. They do NOTHING to oppose the civil right laws in this country. These laws has allowed the government to get involved with every aspect of our lives and torn the country apart. These same laws are being used to suppress free speech.
I don’t understand the arguments made by Vance. A conservative should recognize that it is the government that has created most of these problems. Race, health care, education, environment, etc. have all been made worse by the imposing government. The only valid purpose of political power is to rid ourselves of these intrusions and return to a limited government. We would ALL be better off.
N Shackel
Aug 1 2019 at 8:01am
You may think this somewhat pedantic, but I think you have mis-directed part of your argument. If libertarians really think that ought does not imply can they are out of step with philosophers who work on normativity. The contrast you want to draw seems to me to be better expressed in terms of the conflict there can be between the good and the right. It is true that this conflict can be expressed in terms only of oughts. One might say that the good is what ought to be whilst the right is what we ought to do. This, however, is not especially helpful since it allows various confusions to follow from the words alone. Also it eventuates to giving the appearance of self-contradiction: from the former one will wish to say that ought does not imply can whilst from the latter that ought does imply can. (The analysis just given shows why this is only an appearance.) Finally, when one remembers that the origin of ‘ought’ is what is owed and that it has ‘obligation’ as its nominal, the relation to action is primary.
So care is needed and regimenting the use of ‘ought’ to the right is primary and usually improves clarity. The ought implies can principle is about what we ought to do and is held to be true precisely because it truly expresses the implications of our various limitations (fallibilities, constraints, finitude, costs of knowledge, etc.) for what is right.
Just because something is good doesn’t mean we ought to seek it. Due to our limitations there are good things that we cannot attain. The correct way to analyse this is not to conclude that ought does not imply can but rather that even if attaining some particular end would be much better, because ought implies can, if we cannot attain that end we ought not to pursue it. If I have understood you aright, this encapsulates the general principle behind your argument that just because Vance says truly that there are these better ways for the world to be doesn’t mean we ought to try to attain them, since in fact we are unable to do so.
Various
Aug 2 2019 at 5:39am
No offense, but I think you’re missing Mr. Vance’s larger point. I don’t think he is saying that there is any lack of merit in typical libertarian thinking and theories. Rather, he is saying that in the real world, the participants in our current democratic process are going to exercise political power, whether we like it or not. So we should be prepared to do the same. I think this is an excellent argument, and one that I agree with. Although I have substantial libertarian leanings (i.e., Classical Liberal as Russ Roberts likes to call it), it is unrealistic to expect my fellow citizens to be persuaded likewise, at least not immediately or even during my lifetime. The history of civilization, and even western civilization, has evidenced relatively few instances in which classically liberal ideals reined supreme. I think a good current strategy is to propagate libertarian ideals and attempt to persuade others to do the same, albeit in a nudging (Tyler Cowen “Marginal Revolution” anyone?) manner, but also be prepared to exercise political power when necessary to prevent substantial and potentially lasting damage to valuable institutions. Call me hypocritical, but this is, and always has been, the reality.
I think part of the difference between your outlook and that of Mr. Vance is that you are an academic and Mr. Vance is not. I’m not in any way intending this as a criticism of your background. For what It’s worth, I am not an academic. But I have spent some time in academic circles, and often notice a large disconnect between how some academics view the world, and how the world actually works. I am a finance professional, and I can tell you that there are gigantic differences in how academics view finance, and how finance is actually practiced on Wall Street, in money management and in finance departments of companies. For example, the technique that you learn in graduate school finance to value a company (where you estimate the cash flows of a company, estimate its cost of capital, and then discount the cash flows to arrive at a value) is too fragile a framework to implement in the real world. In the real world, the step of estimating the cost of capital is omitted, which makes the math much simpler. Similarly, given Mr. Vance’s background, I’m not surprised that he has criticisms of some tenants of libertarian thought. Although I identify as a libertarian, it seems to me that the outlook of many libertarians is too theoretical.
Rob Wilson
Aug 2 2019 at 1:52pm
While arguing or discussing political theory might be fun (especially with all the mental gymnastics employed) I am hard pressed think of any government program or institution that has proven more beneficial than harmful. Once established, they are never cancelled, left to do their mischief into ad infinitum. As in endless destruction and mayhem.
Government is best described as an unaccountable organization that creates crisis for which it then creates “solutions” which worsens the aforementioned crisis, which calls for expanded spending and activity by the “solution.”
The true purpose of government in the U.S. is to protect our rights and liberties, and to defend our nation from invasion. Other than that, is it simply meddling in our lives without justification or legality.
Peter
Aug 3 2019 at 5:10am
Richard Gaylord
Aug 5 2019 at 5:27am
Peter:
Libertarians should not give up their claim on the word ‘libertarian’ in response to those pseudo-libertarians who have revealed themselves to be Trumpians. It’s bad enough that we allowed (could not prevent) the expropriation of ‘liberal’ by the ‘progressives’.
Comments are closed.