Eric Sanders has begun a new blog, Action in Action, at Big Think.
His first post discusses ‘The Beautiful Optimism of Libertarianism.’
Sanders writes that
I am now starting to believe that libertarianism — at least for those who espouse it honestly — stems from incredible optimism, an unshakable belief in human dignity, honesty, and generosity….
true libertarianism stems from the belief that people, left to their own devices, will eventually act in a manner that is beneficial to both themselves and to their society. It is this optimism that I find beautiful — this belief in the inherent goodness of others, if only they were given the opportunity to demonstrate it — and this is where I think those who generally look at libertarianism as a cynical, purely selfish world view can begin to engage and at least consider some typically ‘libertarian’ ways of thinking.
He’s right, of course: libertarians are the people who believe in these hopeful things, in opposition to the machinations of so many self-serving politicians, bureaucrats, and their particular, coddled friends in industry.
…And his point is why libertarianism and capitalism can never truly co-exist – the requirement that all members of society hold themselves to a high moral (not simply legal) standard. There are (and always have been) too many unscrupulous folks out there who are willing to use others as a step-stool (legally or not) to better themselves – regardless of the overall effect on society. Thus enters regulation….
Yes, hard questions, inevitable tensions, and a need for minimal regulations, too. What’s minimal is the debate one has — one person’s small is another’s too big.
Hayek was right, I think — there’s a distinction between planning for competition and planning against competition (of central direction as a substitute for competition).
Easier said than selected, from among all possible rules and regulations, but a more limited, smaller government is surely possible.
One can be libertarian and believe in some regulation, in a state of limited size, where government acts only in narrow circumstances, when markets work poorly or not at all.
These limited circumstances would still be noticeable, yet far smaller than what we see today.
To discard all regulations, all law from which they are derived — wouldn’t leave us with a liberal state, but an anarchy. That’s not a distinction we need face. We can have — should have, I’d say — a smaller, and more humble government than the ones we have at federal, state, and local levels.
Some of these discussions are discussions on the margin – how much more this way or that, how much less here or there.