
The Rise of the “Liberaltarian” - zackhsi
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/rise-liberaltarian
======
Lazare
> So their overall approach is unique: Let the markets operate how they should
> and redistribute income after the fact. Some people have called this new
> type of political animal the “liberaltarian.”

That is, of course, the model that Nordic social democracies have followed for
many years now. Denmark is by many measures significantly _more_ free-market
than the US; note their absence of minimum wage, mostly privatised fire and
ambulance services, enviable ranking on most indexes of economic freedom (eg,
[https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking?version=638](https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking?version=638)),
and so forth, and so on.

Letting the markets be relatively free to generate money, capturing it via
efficient flat taxes (first and foremost, a consumption tax), and using it to
fund an effective social safety net targeted at the poor is not a unique idea,
it's what some parts of Northern Europe has been doing for the past 40 years.

Maybe they meant "unique in the US political debate".

~~~
TrueGeek
> Denmark is by many measures significantly more free-market than the US; note
> their absence of minimum wage, mostly privatised fire and ambulance services

I’ve heard many US Libertarians say that they want the US Fire services
completely privatized. We would stop paying taxes for this services and
instead private services would spring up that we could chose to pay monthly
for. The competition would drive down prices as there would be a free market
of many such providers.

This is not what Denmark is doing. Denmark has traditional fire departments
paid by the government. It’s almost entirely a single company and that company
is almost entirely owned by a non-profit organization.

~~~
zozbot234
> We would stop paying taxes for this services and instead private services
> would spring up that we could chose to pay monthly for

I don't think this would work very well, because I do want my _neighbors_ to
pay for fire-fighting services in case their house is set on fire. Moreover,
to a proportionally lesser extent, I want _their_ neighbors to pay for the
same thing, and so on. There are a whole lot of cross-externalities that can't
be dealt with easily via private contracting, so we need the government to
step in and provide a sensible "default" that's not simply "no one gets any
fire-fighting protection unless they pay for a private service".

~~~
simonh
It does sound horribly risky. I suppose in theory you could mandate basic
levels of insurance, a bit like mandatory car insurance, but you'd probably
end up with a costly, patchy mess like the US health system.

~~~
zozbot234
Mandatory car insurance is usually liability insurance, that is comparatively
easy to regulate while leaving other things like pricing to the market.
Liability for a car accident also sounds somewhat more manageable than
liability for a fire on your house spreading to your neighbors' \- I think
you're right that requiring insurance for that would be overly messy.

------
incompatible
The low-regulation approach seem great until you find out how far businesses
will go to cut their costs and increase profits: you end up with situations
like flammable cladding installed on high-rise towers, horse meat sold as
beef, or bleach sold as a cure for Covid-19 (one of these may be fictional).
The line between legitimate business and scam becomes impossible to define.

~~~
AdrianB1
This is not a problem of regulation, but a problem of law enforcement; there
is no need or regulation "don't sell horse meat as beef", but to remove the US
legal system plague of settlements where companies pay money to get rid of
investigations and claim "they have no fault".

I know a real case of horse meat sold as beef in UK and they have lots of
regulations (including the EU on top of local). You can put all the rules and
laws in the book, but don't just relax and hope all will be obeyed. As some
SCOTUS decision stated a while ago, some laws and regulations are made so
dense and confusing it is almost impossible to comply to the letter - they
were talking about something as simple as driving a car on a public road.

~~~
bovermyer
Um, you can't have law enforcement without laws to enforce...

~~~
itsumoiru
The law that applies/ought to apply is the one against fraud in the beef
example.

~~~
incompatible
By the time the fraud has been discovered and the company has been
successfully sued, the owners will have long moved on, leaving behind nothing
but a shell with ownership registered in the Cayman Islands. (Lax regulation
of companies is also part of deregulation).

In any case there are other areas of regulation, such as environmental
protection. What will happen when those are relaxed?

~~~
webmaven
I have the feeling that the survey discussed in the original article is
overgeneralizing from narrow questions of regulation eg. surge pricing, labor
markets, etc., and that the so-called liberaltarians probably would be far
less skeptical of financial, environmental, & safety regulations, & would
generally like to see more vigorous enforcement even when they don't want want
more regulations.

------
omosubi
It's been odd to see my own reaction and that of my friends to the move of the
left towards solely social justice issues in the last few weeks. I've been
talking to friends and we all dislike the inane focus on "white fragility",
wokeness and performative activism in the form of posting your reading on
Instagram. The democratic party's lack of interest in doing anything
meaningful is pushing people away - Hopefully liberaltarians form a new party
of some sort and break the logjam of the two party system. It's what we sorely
need right now.

~~~
DebtDeflation
>the inane focus on "white fragility"

The author of this book is a white lady who uses the book as a marketing tool
to sell her diversity training and consulting services to corporations. I'm
not making a value judgement on that, but I think it's important information
to have. There's a reason why big companies across the country latched onto
that particular book, it was tailor made for them.

~~~
omosubi
Yeah exactly, the whole thing is a charade. Want to see white fragility? Ask
CEOs to release compensation numbers for all their employees or provide
health/dental/vision insurance for retail workers or any number of things that
actually improve people's lives.

------
ourmandave
_As founders and CEOs, couldn’t their antipathy to government regulation
simply be explained by self-interest?

Broockman: I’m sure that at least some of their political views have to do
with self-interest._

I'm pro-Left everything, except when it effects my huge revenue stream.

Go figure.

------
nickpp
Isn’t it kind of ridiculous when you have to make up such words ‘cause you
insist describing people’s complex preference and belief system on a single
damn dimension?!

I am both left and right, depending what issue we are talking about. And
sometime I am center as well. Yet when it’s time to vote... I have exactly 2
real choices.

~~~
lettergram
I wrote about that here:

[https://austingwalters.com/on-committing-
suicide/](https://austingwalters.com/on-committing-suicide/)

I think in part that’s why we have polarization. We have two extremes pulling
each party apart, social media (as this article suggests) is pushing the left.
The right is largely getting disenfranchised so they are getting more
fanatical.

It’s a recipe for an eventual civil war or at the very least the road to
dictatorship. To be honest, both sides are leaning towards some sort of
fascism. I explain in my post above, I don’t see a way out of it unless some
republicans and democrats decide to team up and get this country back
together.

~~~
leereeves
I think that's mostly accurate, but I think it's the social media _companies_
who are pushing the left.

There are, or until recently were, plenty of moderate and right-wing people on
social media, but the companies have so many ways of tilting the scale in
favor of their preferred political views, they've intentionally created echo
chambers where only far-left political opinions are acceptable.

And that leaves people feeling disenfranchised because a few companies now own
the means of communication, and there are no good alternatives for people who
are silenced by these companies.

~~~
zozbot234
I think what we're seeing is that political _activism_ on social media skews
to the left. Left-wing politics has always been more activism-minded and
right-wing activism has always tended to the extreme, so this is not exactly
news. What's news is that social media platforms like Twitter (and even
Facebook, due to "real names" and a focus on close social relationships) are
more favorable to mindless activism than to careful deliberation, which
benefits more from traditional blogs and BBS-like forums.

~~~
leereeves
That doesn't explain events like Apple, Google, Visa, and Mastercard all
banning Gab. Reportedly, Visa and Mastercard even refuse to do business with
Gab's founder's family.

Things like that aren't being driven by grassroots activism. These are
decisions made by billionaires.

~~~
zozbot234
Gab literally went out of their way to market their service and platform
towards the most disreputable. I'm not saying that what happened to them was
acceptable, but there's a reason why it's hard to make people care about this
stuff. And if nobody cares, it doesn't take much of a "movement" for activists
to get their way.

~~~
_0ffh
>Gab literally went out of their way to market their service and platform
towards the most disreputable

That may have been incidental. It makes financial sense to market to those
whom you expect to be most inclined to employ your services. In this case
those who feel that they cannot freely express themselves on the competing
products. That group is necessarily centered on those who's honest expressions
receive the most attention from deplatforming activists.

------
roenxi
This raises an interesting follow up question. Do those surveyed consider
themselves to be the wealthy? Or do they expect someone else to be making do
with less to make the redistributive policies work?

~~~
sandoooo
perhaps they _are_ wealthy but they expect the much-more-taxable middle class
to pick up the tab.

Which is in fact the most likely outcome.

------
helen___keller
In most of the world, the political compass is described in 2 dimensions. So,
"liberaltarian" would just be lib left

~~~
UncleSlacky
Libertarianism itself originated in the left (with French anarchists and early
socialists) - it's the right-wing or ancap version that's effectively stolen
the name, at least in the US.

~~~
_0ffh
Yes, but only after they got the term "liberal" stolen away from _them_.
Herbert Spencer complained about that as early as 1884.

------
tantalor
Aka "bleeding-heart libertarianism"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_liberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_liberalism)

------
xondono
Maybe it’s that I have very weird friends, but pretty much no libertarian I’ve
met has defended zero redistribution.

They all hate _the way_ it’s done now, and favor other arrangements like a
negative income tax or UBI (as a substitute for government-run services).

I haven’t seen all the questionnaire, but the questions shown in the article
could be read both ways.

~~~
AdrianB1
Libertarian and redistribution have an obvious logic conflict, so you may be
right about very weird friends.

Libertarian base idea is freedom, as much as possible; redistribution is the
opposite of freedom because you work, earn money and someone comes and takes
it from you. Makes sense?

~~~
zozbot234
Redistribution is about giving everyone a stake in upholding a free society
for everyone else. That's what actually makes for "freedom, as much as
possible". The point is that we're doing it in almost the worst possible way;
putting a lot of undue and costly burden on those who work, while not doing
all that much for those whom we might want to benefit. UBI or NIT would be a
vast improvement on what most developed countries (including the U.S.) are
doing now.

~~~
luckylion
> putting a lot of undue and costly burden on those who work, while not doing
> all that much for those whom we might want to benefit

I suppose "all that much" is the key term. Is European style redistribution
(aka a nice flat, utilities, TV and smartphone, clothing, health insurance,
food and cash money to spend on whatever you please) not all that much?

It's not like we're wasting 90% of taxes on administrative overhead, so I'm
not sure what could be improved there, without adding more "undue and costly
burden" on those who work, unless you're suggesting taxing e.g. capital gains
rather than income.

~~~
unpolloloco
The thing is...we nearly have that dream already in many lcol areas. Take
Cleveland, Detroit, or Pittsburgh for example. Wages at the low end are rising
to the point where if you're making less than $13-14/hour, you're actively
doing something wrong. $800/month for a 2 bed apartment in an ok location (or
a 1 bed in a good location), cheap groceries, a not great but passable public
transportation system. If you ignore healthcare(!), you can actually live on
that pretty well and put some cash away for emergencies. The problems only
come in when you have health problems or have a family (childcare).

To your point on wasting tax money, have you seen the defense budget lately?
Can fix those two issues and them some with some moderate cuts. Capital gains
taxed the same as earned income would help too, but won't make enough to solve
the big issues.

~~~
luckylion
> If you ignore healthcare(!), you can actually live on that pretty well and
> put some cash away for emergencies.

For sure. I didn't understand the comment I replied to to mean those who work
though. That (including healthcare) is what you have in Europe if you don't
work at all.

I wasn't saying that tax money is wasted, quite the opposite, I was saying
that most of the money is not in overhead, that is, it's reaching its intended
recipients. As for cutting the defense budget in the US, I'm torn. On the one
hand: easy savings. On the other hand: a lot of the US' economic position in
the world depends on being a/the super power. I don't know how much and how
large the military edge has to be, so it may be possible to cut the spending
by half and not lose a lot in economic advantages, but it may also be much
closer coupled.

~~~
zozbot234
> That (including healthcare) is what you have in Europe if you don't work at
> all.

I assume that this refers to unemployment insurance, which is often provided
for a limited time, and/or requires you to be actively looking for work. One
of the issues with the European model of social insurance is precisely that
those who _are_ working at the low-end of the labor market are not included in
this kind of redistribution. Enforced unionization and strict labor
regulations are then used to make up for this, but that means losing
flexibility precisely where it's most needed. You can witness the outcome in
places like France, where the poorest and most vulnerable are locked out of
the labor market altogether leading to huge society-wide issues.

> As for cutting the defense budget in the US, I'm torn.

You could cut a lot of the defense budget in the US if the US's allies started
paying their fair share. Of course, paying for US allies' defense comes with
foreign policy advantages for the US so perhaps this arrangement is also
"fair" in a way.

~~~
luckylion
> I assume that this refers to unemployment insurance, which is often provided
> for a limited time, and/or requires you to be actively looking for work.

I'm in Germany, unemployment insurance has a time limit, and does require you
to look for work, but the benefits are based on your previous salaries, what I
was referring to is general welfare. It does have a provision that requires
you to look for work as well, but it's rather theoretical, and unless you're
basically taking a dump on their desk and tell them to go shove it, you're not
going to have your benefits cut. The largest constraint is that you need
permission to go extended holidays.

I'm not suggesting it's a great long-term idea to incentivize not contributing
to society, or that it's not costly for those paying for the party, I was
originally just pointing out that we do a lot to redistribute "the fruits of
labor", and that it does reach the intended recipients, as I wasn't sure how
to understand your statement.

------
zozbot234
This is by no means a new political stance: liberaltarians used to be known as
"left-wing libertarians" or, somewhat jocularly, "bleeding-heart libertarians"
but the gist was pretty much the same.

~~~
kijin
Yep, there is indeed such a thing as left-libertarianism. Last time I checked,
its proponents were trying pretty hard to argue that it's not an outright
contradiction.

~~~
Kbelicius
> Yep, there is indeed such a thing as left-libertarianism. Last time I
> checked, its proponents were trying pretty hard to argue that it's not an
> outright contradiction.

How is it a contradiction?

~~~
alexmingoia
Libertarianism is essentially built on a single ethic, the non-aggression
principle, which is simply that interfering with someone’s property by force
is wrong. And that property is what one mixes their labor with. In other words
people own the fruits of their labor, and consequently voluntary exchange or
gift is the only ethical way to acquire property. In simpler words,
libertarians believe stealing is wrong and seek to apply that ethic
consistently. Thus the popular libertarian maxim “tax is theft”.

According to libertarians government as it’s currently practiced steals (takes
by force) the fruits of individual’s labor called taxation, along with
compelling the use of property through force, called regulation. The argument
is more complicated than this but that’s the essence. So “left libertarians”
supporting taxation for the purposes of welfare programs contradicts the
ethical foundation of libertarianism.

It’s a contradiction to advocate for the lack of government regulation on the
basis of violating libertarian ethics while simultaneously advocating for
welfare programs which violate that same ethic.

~~~
Kbelicius
It is only natural that the right and left contradict each other. Since NAP is
totally dependent on how you define property and the first people called
libertarians were anarchists and socialist it would be more apt to say that
right libertarians are still trying to argue that it isn't an outright
contradiction. I tough that there was something more to this "contradiction".

------
amINeolib
My relationship with politics and economics is complicated like it should be.

I "stay in the center of the circle" as Tao Te Ching advises, but I also
cannot deny the superiority of the Free Market. (Not to be confused with
whatever the United States does for healthcare).

We have countless examples of competitive markets performing best, and a
handful of government controlled markets that are horrible (healthcare,
education, real estate, banking)

Some people call this inevitable in capitalism, that government will be used
to create inequality. But at least this is not intended, whereas other
economic policies make this a feature.

Anyway, can't vote for Republicans, they like big government which seems like
an obvious bad idea.

~~~
webmaven
Free markets are one of the most powerful tools we have available, but that
very same power makes them very dangerous to wield. I don't want competive
markets in human organs for transplants no matter HOW much better they would
perform.

