My essay on CatoUnbound (“Libertarianism or Liberty?“) is now up. Be sure to read Brian Doherty’s initial essay, and then those by Brink Lindsey and Tyler Cowen. Virginia Postrel will weigh in soon. Then the back-and-forth will start.
My essay on CatoUnbound (“Libertarianism or Liberty?“) is now up. Be sure to read Brian Doherty’s initial essay, and then those by Brink Lindsey and Tyler Cowen. Virginia Postrel will weigh in soon. Then the back-and-forth will start.
Speaking of libertarianism, are you (is Cato) still working on the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism (http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/009836.php)?
I turned over editorship and full responsibility to Dr. Ronald Hamowy.
Tom,
I understand your points, but it seems to me that you’re missing a big one.
In a democracy, people will elect legislators and executives whose messages they find appealing. Unless there is widespread agreement about the value of economic and personal liberty, none of our independent victories will be secure. People will continue to be impressed with populist anti-liberty messages and leaders. They’ll continue to look to government for solutions, and will give charismatic leaders who promise to deliver those solutions the power to try. They’ll continue to try to use government to force their visions of proper behavior or wealth distributions on others.
Gil,
Point well taken, but…not all regimes are democracies and rarely are democratic elections swung by giant shifts. Relatively small shifts in opinion and motivation can have enormous impacts on outcomes, which are then taken (because of widespread acceptance of simplistic versions of democracy) as changes in “majority opinion.” My point was a fairly simple one. Education is important, but it’s not sufficient to bring about legal/political/social change. Moreover, achieving liberty is not dependent on having a majority of the population as consciously self-aware libertarians, or even as very politically involved at all. Much smaller proportions are probably sufficient.
Education isn’t sufficient, but it is necessary.
Necessary to get significant positive changes to happen (to make those changes politically feasible), and necessary to keep them from getting undone.
The minimum required proportion of self-aware libertarians to effect significant positive changes might be an interesting theoretical question. But, it seems clear to me that the higher the percentage we get, the better. And, the more the pro-liberty sentiments are transmitted to new (and old) voters, the better as well.
I know that you already know this better than almost anyone. And, you’re doing more, personally, to achieve it than anyone I can think of.
It just seemed to me that your article downplayed the value of educating people about libertarian principles a bit too much.
I certainly didn’t mean to downplay the importance of education. I merely responded to the suggestion that it was the most effective means of advancing liberty; if the people thus educated don’t do something to implement what they’ve learned, the education has no effect. Freedom of trade doesn’t come about just because more people have been educated in the economics of trade; people have to advance a free-trade legislative agenda and get it passed. They won’t do it if they’re not educated, but if they don’t do it, we won’t have free trade.
Just out of curiosity, whos the man in the middle?
The order is (left to right) Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, F. A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, and “?”
Probably not intended, but the “?” could be Julian Simon.