Freedom Works
The tagline for R21 is "freedom works." Here's why:
Readers of this blog wil note that I have some defined views about how we as a society can accomplish many of the ends that modern, enlightened folks tend to value. While many of these ends are very liberal (or "progressive") in nature--feed the hungry, heal the sick, educate the illiterate, peace and prosperity for all, etc.--I think the means that liberals and progressives tend to espouse have been demonstrable, abject failures and often persist only as policy today due to entrenched special interests. I also tend to believe in some more classically liberal (what is often called "conservative" today, because it conserves the liberal revolution of our founders or "libertarian"--both poor substitutes for "classic liberalism") ends--individual liberty, economic freedom, property rights, equality of opportunity and treatment, diversity of thought, limited government, freedom of assembly, etc.--that many modern liberals have demoted in importance, or in some cases abandoned all together as worthy ends.
This is the cause of my political affiliations, not the effect. That is, my ideas govern my political choices, not the other way around. Thus I have to pick a candidate and party that will in all likelihood be imperfect. There is no doubt that the political class is a deeply flawed one. Special interests corrupt nearly all aspects of politics, left and right, and politicians are usually in the business of selling favors (which is one of the reasons I advocate limited government--less to sell.) I think it is a near impossibility to answer the question "which is worse?" The political literature is rife with examples of this every day, and often it depends on ones perspective. Left wing journals and books decry the corruptness of the right and the reverse is true. I won't defend politicians.
On the whole I believe classical liberals (typified best perhaps by Milton Friedman) get it right while modern liberals (Paul Krugman?? Al Gore?) get it wrong. I am not a fan of modern social conservatives, though I have to admit to aligning somewhat well with the neo cons on foreign policy issues. Boiled down my view is this: freedom works. It is not only a moral imperative, it is an effective strategy for improving the human condition. It is no coincidence that the US is among the freest and most prosperous nations. Usually attacks on freedom are done by folks who neglect or refuse to consider things in whole systems. Milton Friedman put it well: there is no such thing as a free lunch. And yet we often make policy decisions as if there were and ignore when diffuse costs exceed the concentrated benefits. Concentrated benefits are easy to see, feel, taste, and touch--and lobby for--whereas diffuse costs have few representatives. Actually, I think this is partly why we have an obesity problem in this country--instant gratification. We like the immediate benefits of eating and discount the diffuse costs getting fatter. This is a generalization, of course. But I think that this perspective can be applied to: social welfare programs, environmental laws, wage laws, subsidies, targeted tax incentives/breaks, tariffs, licensure, tort litigation, and on and on. We don't care if the cure is worse than the disease, SOMETHING must be done. Some like to suggest it takes faith to believe in markets--I believe the opposite is true. After countless, repeated failures of the welfare state, and the dysfuntion of its iconic programs--social security, state run education, medicare, welfare, etc.--compared with the prosperity of free, open, and self-organizing systems, I think it takes faith to believe in socialism, as many do in practise, if not in name. "Do nothing" may not be a palitable course of action for our elected officials, but the truth is often that it is the best one--freedom works, while their remedies often don't.
Chris Alden
Christopher J. Alden is Chairman & CEO of Six Apart, Ltd., the world's largest blogging company. Six Apart acquired Rojo Networks, Inc., creator of an innovative RSS feed reading service, where Mr. Alden was co-founder and CEO. Before Rojo, he was CEO of Red Herring Communications, Inc., publisher of Red Herring magazine -- described by the Wall Street Journal as the "bible of Silicon Valley" - which he helped launch out of his house in 1993. Prior to that he founded Computer Guides, a consultancy, and taught computer studies at Crystal Springs Uplands school. Mr. Alden also has a background in real estate development and hotel management, having worked for Western Land Corporation and Woodside Hotels & Resorts.
Read more...
2 Comments
But in addition to classical liberalism and modern liberalism there is a third political position. It is not very popular today, but it is more rational by far, and it has a far richer pedigree in the Anglo-Saxon tradition of a represenative democracy of checks and balances.
I mean classical conservatism.
Classical liberalism has this fault (Chris alludes to it): it demands a great faith in the power of markets to allocate resources efficiently. But free markets function in the interests of economic entities, and there are many kinds of social organization where we do not want to think in terms of economic interests--universal education, universal healthcare, etc. Indeed, to any one but an ideologue, the idea that greed and self-interest could ever create a just society is faintly risible. Finally, classical liberalism has this philosophical difficulty: it is founded upon the fiction of "natural liberties." But we have no rights in the state of nature: rights are a moveable feast: they change according to our economic resources, historical circumstances, and technological powers.
Modern liberalism has its very grave faults, too: it is permissive, wild, unreasonable, and hopelessly beholden the special interest groups who are its most active promoters and beneficiaries. As Chris notes, modern liberals seem to believe that there is such a thing as a free lunch, whereas every politician or economist knows that real government is the business of hard choices and trade-offs.
Classical, real conservatism believes that human civilization has only be established at great cost in a few corners of the world. It notes that constitutions are a patchwork of compromises without much internal consistency. Real conservatism argues that such rights as we possess, we possess through the agencies of our representative government. It insists that taxes are the price we pay for government. It says that the function of the checks and balances of a mixed state of legislators, executors, and judges is to ensure that no single group--not even the business class--can run the government solely in its interests.
What I dislike about classical liberalism (and its inheritor, modern conservatism), is what I dislike about modern liberalism: its righteous, unbalanced, ideological excesses.
Jason, you clearly don't believe that "freedom works" and consistently, rather than dispute the facts, you insist that only an "ideologue" can believe that freedom societies can accomplish the progressive goals of a modern society--thereby excusing yourself of actually debating the issues. Some day you'll tackle these arguments head on, rather than sparring with theory, and I wait with baited breath.
You also insist on the absurdity that classical liberals don't acknowledge the validity of taxes. Is the difference between limited government and no government or low taxes and no taxes too nuanced for you?
The deep flaw in your approach, of course, is that despite your obsession with state tinkering, you never prove that the intervention is better than not. It is all well and good to point out problems in societies and blame it on freedom, but it is irresponsible to suggest state intervention while ignoring whether that intervention can be effective, or even whether it won't simply exacerbate the problem. The state has been heavily involved in the two examples you cite--education and healthcare--and they are among the most dysfunctional in our society. Yet you refuse, owed to your ideology that you articulate above, to accept the possibility that freedom may actually be the solution.
Your approach doesn't solve these problems, it takes the solutions out of the hands of individuals and puts it in the hands of the few--bureaucrats and politicians--who are often simply incapable of solving complex social issues and certainly corruptible. This is why special interests (from labor unions to big business) love regulation--because they can more easily exert influence when there is central control.
Freedom works--and the examples blogged in this site prove it!