Enquiry

Catallarchy » Another reason why libertarianism won’t happen

Interesting post by Patri Friedman on Catallarchy, citing experimental research suggesting people may be wired to resent inequality, and will choose to reduce incomes of the more affluent and raise incomes of the less affluent. Friedman and the commenters lament this means it will be more difficult, though hopefully not impossible, to move to a libertarian society. I see misplaced priorities at play.

Libertarians are mistaken to associate their philosophy with pure capitalism. Given the choice between state planning and laissez faire capitalism, libertarians choose laissez faire capitalism, and there are sound theoretical and empirical reasons for this choice. Yet it could be a mistake to assume that a libertarian society must be simply a copy of modern western societies, minus the welfare state, military-industrial complex and other trappings of a mixed economy. Perhaps there are non-governmental, but also non-capitalist (i.e. not for profit) institutions that would develop (or need to develop) once we delete the state.

Libertarians acknowledge there could be charities in a libertarian society, but this often seems an afterthought, with the market seen as the driving force of social organization. Perhaps, instead, we should focus more on theorizing various social, religious, or extended-family types of organizations that would spring up on a large scale to provide some level of mutual aid and assistance for the indigent or disabled, or more broadly to pool resources among like-minded people.

Perhaps we should incorporate a variant of the Potlatch feasts seen in tribal communities of the Pacific Northwest, where high status is achieved not by accumulating wealth but by giving it away. Or perhaps we can learn from the hreppur, a mutual aid organization practiced in anarchistic medieval Iceland. According to this piece by Birgir T. Runolfsson Solvason:

[...] the Hreppur was composed of a minimum of twenty farms, and had a five member commission. Among other duties, each Hreppur was responsible for seeing that orphans and the poor within its area were fed and housed. It did this by assigning these persons to member farms, which took turns in providing for them. How long each farm had to provide for the person was determined by the wealth of the farm.
The Hreppur also served as a property insurance agency. It assisted in case of destruction wrought by fire and diseases of livestock. If a farm’s kitchen burned down, the other farmers in the Hreppur would pitch in to build a new one. If both kitchen and living quarters burned, then half of each was paid for. In case of disease, if more than a quarter of the livestock died, the other farmers would assist either by contributing money or livestock.

This describes geographically-based organization (a cluster of farms), though geography is only one possible organizing principle. People who who today would be social democrats could form their own clubs, regardless of geography, to pool resources in aid of the poor.

I attribute the general irrelevance of libertarianism today in large part to our unwillingness to address egalitarianism. We may rightly oppose state-enforced egalitarianism but that doesn’t mean we have to dispense with the concept altogether. While I don’t think people, in general, are egalitarian enough to support socialism or communism, they do seem to mistrust inequality enough that they continue supporting state redistribution of wealth. Libertarians need to provide a non-coercive alternative to shed our reputation as being too “atomistic.”

Technorati Tags: libertarianism, philosophy, welfare