Matt Filippo

“Progressive Libertarianism Explained: A Nuanced Approach is More Reasonable Alternative to Radical Libertarianism”

January, 2010 Print Edition

The timeless debate that separates conservatives from liberals stems from their own axioms on human nature. Is man inherently good? Do free markets efficiently distribute goods? Can man truly be his brother’s keeper? These questions are at the heart of what has divided our country for decades.

In today’s world it is rare to find those willing to take a stance diametrically opposed to these two parties. While the omnipresent Nolan Chart and the accompanying political compass measure both one’s economic and political orientation, the history of third parties in the United States is lamentable. Many of the few times third party candidates have met with success occurred when either the two party system was in shambles or when splits within a party led to widespread disagreement. These factors account for John Breckenridge’s 72 electoral votes in 1860 and Theodore Roosevelt’s 88 electoral vote total in the election of 1912. Many of the successes of third party candidates can be accounted for due to previous affiliation with a major political party. This explains former democrat George Wallace’s 46 electoral votes in the 1968 election, and, more recently, Joe Lieberman’s reelection in 2006. While it is true that some candidates have been successful enough to turn the tide of an election (e.g Ralph Nader) or to gain significant portions of the popular vote (Ross Perot), these candidates failed to find comparable success in gaining electoral votes.

With this troubled past, it is easy to see why the vast majority of Americans align themselves with either the left or the right. Many individuals who are politically conservative but economically liberal may still sign onto the Republican Party. Likewise, many who feel economically conservative but politically liberal may align with the Democrats.

Progressive Libertarianism offers a viable and attractive alternative to the extreme of strict libertarianism and the problems with modern liberalism and conservatism.  While hiding under the guise of other terms such as Urban Libertarianism, anarcho-syndicalism, and the ever popular libertarian-democrat, progressive libertarianism is a simple concept encompassing only a few main tenets.

1. 1.We believe that the market is generally an efficient way to distribute resources.
   

2. 2.We believe that liberal economic policies are sometimes necessary, to preserve the state of the union and/or to correct for systemic market failures that sometimes do exist.
   

3. 3.We believe that individuals are generally the most qualified to make decisions about their own lives.
   

These three tenets define what truly makes a progressive libertarian. They, of course, rely on some assumptions, the first of which is the belief that humans are generally rational actors. If humans are sufficiently rational, then markets can distribute resources more efficiently than a planned system. The second assumption rests on some real and present weaknesses of the first assumption: humans are not always rational actors and so there exist certain systemic market failures. Another assumption we subscribe to is that in the debate between paternalism and individual autonomy, the individual must win out. A final assumption is that human nature is “good” for if it is not at least better than the alternative (paternalism) then the whole idea of a government run by the people for the people is pointless. I will attempt to shed light on these assumptions through the natural science lens that I have acquired at Claremont McKenna.

Is human nature inherently “good?” Does it at least have elements of empathy? Classical arguments against capitalistic societies advocate that individualism destroys tradition, discourages empathy towards others, inherently encourages coercion either through social domination, class wars, or encourages environmental abuse by framing the environment simply as another resource to be exploited. These claims rely on the assumption that capitalistic humans are destructive actors. Yet the progressive libertarian understands why none of the aforementioned scenarios have played out.

Empathy and cooperation are inherent in mankind. This belief is not new and it has been advanced since well before the rise of modern democracies. Philosophers David Hume and John Stewart Mills have both made separate arguments advocating empathy. They observed that we feel empathetic towards people we are closer to. Yet now the molecular and psychological underpinnings of empathy are being uncovered. Hormones such as oxytocin have been implicated in encouraging approach behaviors and social attachment in humans while developmental psychology has shown that basic empathy is learned at around age 2. Psychologists have shown that people who see complete strangers in pain undergo an empathetic response while psychobiologists have proposed a biological mechanism of empathy after seeing someone in pain based on priming responses that would have occurred if you yourself were in pain. In a sense, humans feel the pain of others.

Yet this observation simultaneously proves that humans are not fully rational actors. We do make irrational choices. We are quick to spend funds or resources on tracking down kidnapped children or in sending out rescue missions for trapped individuals, when it would save more lives to spend these resources on other things. Worse than this, there are many predictable and repeatable irrational choices man makes. Kahneman and Tversky attempted to explain why the same type of people who gamble also buy insurance. Their psychological research led to a Nobel Prize in Economics and demolished the legitimacy of the von Neumann Morgenstern linear utility curve that is ingrained in the minds of all students of Econ 50.  Kahneman and Tversky worked on other theories that predicted irrational decisions such as framing effects and heuristics. Recent research further attests to the irrationality of humans. Man tends to discount future gains and losses.  While it is rational to trade in some risk and claim a good now rather than claiming a bit more of that good later, the discount applied is relative and depends on the type of good offered and whether the gain or loss is absolute or probabilistic. For example, gains tend to be discounted more than losses, yet gains relating to consumable goods and to health tend to be discounted more than cash gains. Perhaps this explains why preventative care has been such a failure in the U.S while retirement plans have met with moderate success. Both scenarios rely on delayed gratification and less current consumption, yet many Americans voluntarily save for retirement while less than half of all Americans exercise regularly.

In light of these two observations, that man is inherently “good” but that systemic biases in human behavior cloud rational judgment, we can generally trust the market and the ability of individuals to contribute privately to their society but we must also recognize that some coercive policies may be beneficial. Cognitive biases that prevent man from acting rationally can be attenuated by society’s laws in a reasonable and unobtrusive manner through thoughtful policy.   It is here that progressive libertarians break from their more radical friends.  While an institution such as the Federal Reserve, for example, violates the tenets of a staunch libertarian, the progressive libertarian can weigh both the consequences of the inherent restriction of liberty this institution brings with the benefits of correcting a cognitive bias.  Was a bank bailout necessary? The staunch libertarian scoffs at the idea, warning of moral hazard. While other government action was clearly wasteful, the progressive libertarian sees how such a bailout may have been necessary to save the free market and avoid devolution into a greater evil.  The staunch libertarian often calls for road privatization, but the progressive libertarian recognizes the inelasticity of the private highway market and observes the practical problems with such activity and warns against such radical action.  The progressive libertarian does, of course, believe in the importance of free markets, but as Hayek states in his Road to Serfdom, one of the most poignant critiques of socialism ever written, the government does have some role to play in the economy. 

What separates us from other political parties is that we take our libertarian background seriously and place individual autonomy on the top of our pedestal.  We allow individuals to live their personal lives how they want, as long as their lives don’t interfere with our own. Importantly, progressive libertarians who are morally opposed to an act, whether it be racist hiring policies or gay marriage, still support the rights of individuals who perform such acts. Barring a conflict with the already mentioned tenets, the act should be tolerated regardless of one’s own moral code.

Yet we remain profoundly respectful of free markets.  In an age in which global competition is reshaping the economic landscape of the developed world, and in which entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security threaten to render this country insolvent, how can we afford to abandon the market and adopt the taxation and spending policies forwarded by the liberal government?

Progressive libertarianism takes the better aspects of both parties and meshes them almost poetically into an interchange of ideals that build upon each other to make a stable foundation, all the while avoiding the radicalism of devout libertarianism that polarizes and frightens.