what libertarian shares with communism

A friend suggested I read this: Seven Principles of Sound Public Policy [Mackinac Center for Public Policy]:

The “Seven Principles of Sound Public Policy” that I want to share with you today are pillars of a free economy. We can differ on exactly how any one of them may apply to a given issue of the day, but the principles themselves, I believe, are settled truths. They are not original with me; I’ve simply collected them in one place. They are not the only pillars of a free economy or the only settled truths, but they do comprise a pretty powerful package. In my belief, if every cornerstone of every state and federal building were emblazoned with these principles-and more importantly, if every legislator understood and attempted to be faithful to them-we’d be a much stronger, much freer, more prosperous, and far better governed people.

Read the whole thing, as the worthies say. The précis is:

1. Free people are not equal, and equal people are not free.
2. What belongs to you, you tend to take care of; what belongs to no one or everyone tends to fall into disrepair.
3. Sound policy requires that we consider long-run effects and all people, not simply short-run effects and a few people
4. If you encourage something, you get more of it; if you discourage something, you get less of it.
5. Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own.
6. Government has nothing to give anybody except what it first takes from somebody, and a government that’s big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you’ve got.
7. Liberty makes all the difference in the world.

The first could be better written, but his argument is that socio-economic equality as a product of the state, rather than the market, equals less freedom. Boiling it down to a bumpersticker weakens it. Hard to argue with that. The old-school Reds longed for the day when everyone would ride in First Class, but I have long known that there no longer be First Class: it would all be Second.

His argument in 2, that if I stay in someone else’s house, I’ll leave it worse than my own says more about him than about me (or anyone else). The anti-socialist in that strain of thought ignores the notion of knowing the other person and perhaps wanting to treat them well as a result. Libertarians (what me, generalize?) don’t like people as much as they like abstract concepts like freedom and liberty. I like apple pie too, but I don’t need to tell everyone about it.

3 is a great idea: take it to the Halliburton Administration and let me know how you get on.

4. Yeah, this can be used for good or evil. We can tax “sins” as a way to discouraging the behavior (not that it works all the time: I doubt alcohol sales are affected all that much by taxes). But at the same time, you can use it to subsidize or encourage behavior or industries that may not be market-ready.

5. True enough. But once the gummit gets hold of it, it’s like a windfall. The corollary is that while congress as a whole is corrupt, one’s own congressman is doing a fine job — so long as they bring home the bacon.

6. Hold me, I’m scared. The victimhood meme, a pervasive part of the libertarian mindset. As noted elsewhere, I see an overlap between engineers, libertarians, and hardcore SF fans: the real world, with it’s messy, unpredictable people and irrational group behaviors, pales in appeal when compared to elegant software, rational theories, and speculative worlds peopled by smart and adaptable humans.

People ask me if I have ever engaged a libertarian and I have to ask how libertarians engage the world. It’s not like there is a constant stream of good news about libertarians building Habitat houses or working in soup kitchens or health clinics. These are not theoretical problems and are not likely to be ameliorated by deregulation industries and revising the tax code.

This is a long and post-surgically windy way of saying that, I think government, in communities larger than a village, has a role in alleviating structural inequities and laying the foundations for a better future. If that means tax and spend, that’s part of living in a larger community. Civilization is filled with more examples of the same behavior, some well-done, some poorly, but all considered necessary evils in their time.

I’ve often run across a strange sense of entitlement from libertarians. There’s no small amount of “born on third base and think they hit a triple” from them, you know “I got mine, pull up the ladder.”

7. Well, yeah, this is a controversial one. I think we have more liberty today under the Halliburton dynasty than under the Hanoverian, so I think we can assume progress is ongoing.

So, wev. This is not exactly a revolutionary manifesto, or even a complete list of desirable characteristics, by the author’s own admission.

So what does libertarian share with communism? The sincere belief by its proponents that it will work, if properly applied: previous disasters (see: Russia in the 20th Century, China from 1949 on) were poor implementations. Theoretically, it has some appeal, but in this fallen world, how can it work?

Interesting: Digby has a similar riff on conservatism — it’s more doctrinaire adherents also claim that real conservatism has never been tried, so accusations of its fallibility are unfounded.