Luke Ford

I’m a conservative who finds much of libertarianism theoretically compelling. One of my major objections to libertarian thought is to do with foreign policy — particularly that Israel and Taiwan would not exist as free countries without massive US aid and protection (while libertarian thought would say that it is not America’s role to save other countries). I’m not sure economic theory can throw any light there, but… An economist emails:

I don‚Äôt think economics has too much to say about foreign policy either. I myself have struggled with my position on this. I think WWII was probably an example of good intervention, Iraq is clearly bad. Why didn‚Äôt we enter Rawanda? Darfur? I think there most hardcore libertarians lean to the isolationist perspective, but there is much debate. Particularly if you view wars as preemptive defense. I guess an economist might argue that at the very least our costs of protecting Israel and Taiwan need to be made explicit, and therefore policy towards those countries and the costs they impose on us will be more transparent, leading to more efficient decisions. Here is an interview with Milton and Rose Friedman: Mr. Friedman here shifted focus. "What’s really killed the Republican Party isn’t spending, it’s Iraq. As it happens, I was opposed to going into Iraq from the beginning. I think it was a mistake, for the simple reason that I do not believe the United States of America ought to be involved in aggression." Mrs. Friedman–listening to her husband with an ear cocked–was now muttering darkly. Milton: "Huh? What?" Rose: "This was not aggression!" Milton (exasperatedly): "It was aggression. Of course it was!" Rose: "You count it as aggression if it’s against the people, not against the monster who’s ruling them. We don’t agree. This is the first thing to come along in our lives, of the deep things, that we don’t agree on. We have disagreed on little things, obviously–such as, I don’t want to go out to dinner, he wants to go out–but big issues, this is the first one!" Milton: "But, having said that, once we went in to Iraq, it seems to me very important that we make a success of it." Rose: "And we will!"

My major problem with applying libertarian thought to domestic issues such as prostitution, pornography, drugs is that the externalities are not easy to assess. The economist responds:

This is of course the crux of the issue as I’ve realized over the years. What different people consider to be externalities is often very different. Would my smoking create negative externality for you if we were both in a bar? Many libertarians believe that the existence of externalities is really a result of poorly defined property rights, and lack of contract enforcement, but to be sure some externalities still exist.

I think the cases you listed above are definitely not examples of externalities.

I support the free market in almost everything but these areas. Simply put, unless society massively discourages (perhaps even at times criminalizes) sexual expression outside of heterosexual marriage, men are going to waste much of their energy screwing around and not dedicate themselves to their spouse and to their children. Many perhaps most men won’t commit to a spouse and to raising kids if they can get sex any other way. As stigma against masturbation, the use of pornography and prostitution, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, has decreased, fewer people are getting married and having kids. For an empirical example of my thesis, check out the decrease in birth rate in the United States and Europe (and the West generally) as stigma against sex outside of marriage has been reduced. I’m sure there’s a connection between Europe’s loose sexual mores (moral spinelessness) and the way the continent has been wracked the past century by communism, Nazism and now Islam. I worry that without some moral safeguards, people will destroy themselves. The economist responds:

Why is this a problem? Is it really the ultimate freedom, to express your self as you see fit in a consensual relationship? I think there are many biological, and cultural aspects that work to limit these behaviors, I do not see the need or the imperative for government to intervene. The only caveat to this could be the children. They did not enter the world under a contract entered into of free will, and thus I can see a crack in the argument which might allow the state to protect them. But you would not convince me that restricting someone’s sexual behavior will improve the child’s outcome. While there is much correlational evidence that suggests 2 parent families are better for the child, though most of the research fails to distinguish loving households from non-loving households, and more recent research on twins raised in different households suggests the environment plays no role in the long run outcome. Which makes the case for intervention to protect the child very weak. Obviously violence against the child is a clear situation where the state is morally obligated to intervene, but I don’t see a cheating husband as causing that outcome. Sex is an important part of a marriage, but far from the only reason to marry and commit to a spouse. I think the decline in marriage has only a very little to do with the cultural changes you note. In otherwords I don’t think the decline in marriage can be explained by the changes you highlight. Masturbation may have increased, though not much. Pornography consumption as increased but not by much (thus the falling prices as supply increases). Homosexuality and homosexual behavior has not increased much. Fewer people are getting married for very different reasons. Much has to do with the dramatic improvement of economic opportunities for females (which also explains the reduction in the number of children). Some is explained by the move to no-fault divorce, But who cares? What is so magical and important about people entering into a state sanctioned contract? I don’t believe it makes us better of as a society. People should freely be able to choose what relationship contracts they want or do not want to enter. I believe in state sanctioned civil unions only because I believe they provide people with a pre packaged set of legal agreements that even though they could be recreated, would be too expensive for many to achieve. So the state lowers the transaction costs for everyone by providing a set of pre-arranged legal contracts for us to enter.

I am all for ending all anti-discrimination laws. I think restaurants should be allowed to not serve blacks or Jews or whomever and that people should then be free to boycott them and protest against them, I don’t think many restaurants would employ such discrimination because they’d be then more likely to go out of business) and that employers should have the right to employ whom they wish. I see nothing wrong with employers using IQ tests or any tests to determine employment.So I am for legalizing racism but I support the continued criminalization of prostitution. It has to do with externalities. I think they are massive for prostitution and the like but that they are not massive for discrimination, which is just as often a good thing as a bad thing. The economist responds:

I would argue the exact opposite. One could argue that overt racism causes externalities by damaging self esteem/self worth. Research has shown that merely asking African Americans to self identify before taking a test reduces their performance. As for prostitution, other than your belief that it will lead to the ruination of society, you haven’t really proven that prostitution leads to harm of specific individuals. I do think you can be against prostitution for married men, where seeing a prostitution is a violation of the marriage contract, and it possibly puts the wife at risk (for STDS). However some women don’t mind that their husbands cheat so you should not prevent them from paying for sex. And remember women cheat at rates nearly as much as men! They just don’t have to pay to cheat. My point is you seem to be against adultery not prostitution per se. I think there is an important difference and I can see treating adultery as a means of contract enforcement, though the harmed (the wife and kids) should be the ones who bring suit for contract violation, the state should adjudicate the contract dispute, not preemptively enforce it…because it might not be part of that particular marriage contract.