Moral Efficacy: A Response to Richard

Richard responded to my previous post. Here is my response to his response.

First of all, I wholeheartedly agree that any given society will not abandon the State. In fact, I, too, would not advocate anarchy; as a libertarian, I support limited government. In addition, I do not blame those who pursue politics for creating political power; I blame them for perpetuating it.

Secondly, it is true that even if we lived in a libertarian society, life would not be free from evil (Genesis 3 reminds us of that). It is also true that the evils we do to one another need to be judged (or arbitrated) by a third party, which in most societies is the State. The main difference between libertarians and both the contemparary Left and Right stems from the former's belief that such disputes be handled through a posteriori litigation, rather than a priori regulation. In a world in which most disputes were handled through a (limited) judicial system, we would have considerably less need for campaigns, elections, and other formal political activity.

In terms of your examples regarding pollution and accounting fraud, I'm afraid those are two conceptually different episodes. If a power company emits excessive pollution, then that violates one's property rights (the right not to have one's body harmed by another party); I wholeheartedly agree that one should have the right to sue a power company for damage to his/her body.

In terms of accounting fraud on the order of Enron, WorldCom, etc., those immediately affected (e.g., stockholders) have the right sue. However, it is true that a person working for a different company (i.e., one not directly affected) might be laid off due to the economic ripple effects of such massive fraud. However, this merely shows that libertarianism is not a perfect ideology; this does not show that state action is the best answer to those suffering indirect effects. I would argue that a robust market—one that could provide new jobs—would serve the aggrieved employee best.

It appears that our disagreement stems from our different views regarding the legitimacy and efficacy of the State. Since you view the State as serving more of a useful purpose than I do, it would make sense that you do not view politics with the same level of disgust. This nevertheless ignores the almost inevitably corrupting effect of formal politics. For example, you write, "...I view this [the inability of politicians to deliver all of the goods they promise] as an incentive for people with policy expertise and political savvy to enter the public sphere. If they do not, then people who lack either the understanding of what needs to be done or the capacity to bring it about will hold the reins of power." This implies two things: (1) there are "right" people for political jobs (those with policy expertise and political savvy) and "wrong" people, and (2) we need to get those "right" people in power so they do, well, the right thing.

This puts too much of a benign, administrative gloss over political life: If only we had "good" people in office, then we would have good policies. However, we will not necessarily get good policies, no matter how politically savvy the operative, due to obstruction from opponents (e.g., see Clinton's failed attempt to create a national health care system), and those "good" people that enter the fray often turn out to be incompetent or corrupt after all. For example, many in the Left were happy when Clinton won the '92 election, but some (notably unions) were angered by his support for NAFTA. On the flip side, many fiscal conservatives were happy with Bush's election win in 2000 only to feel betrayed by his administration's massive levels of spending on both foreign and domestic policy.

In regards to your final comment: "While politics may (may) involve moral compromises, I would argue [that] true immorality is witnessing injustice, knowing how to remedy it, and doing nothing," I would partially agree. Yes, it is immoral to witness injustice and do nothing. However, I would argue that "knowing how to remedy it" does not mean state action. The state would be one of the last places I would look in order to effect efficient, effective, and morally beneficial change. For anyone looking to help others, I recommend a career in the private, non-profit sector.