Alberto Mingardi  

Are really libertarians so narrow-minded?

PRINT
Revolution: Two Minimal Condit... The Wittgenstein test...

Tim Montgomerie, a British blogger and the founder of the successful website ConservativeHome, has an article on CapX which anticipates a new project he'll be running for the Legatum Institute.

Montgomerie argues that capitalism, to work properly, needs "vigorous virtues", public order, "a minimum, guaranteed safety-net", competition, non-market redistribution, "long-term research and investment in infrastructure," regulation of externalities, equality in the democratic sphere, "demerit goods" and "local, regional and national identity"--none of which the market can provide by itself. For Montgomerie, libertarians undermine their case for the free market by overlooking/playing down these aspects. This is not a new argument, of course, but Montgomerie seems determined to give it a new "conservative" interpretation.

Philip Booth and Ryan Bourne of the Institute of Economic Affairs have written an excellent rebuttal. For Booth and Bourne, Montgomerie "in arguing that capitalism does not provide 'non-market redistribution' and other socially useful functions he is defining free-market capitalism too narrowly." They argue persuasively that this is not the case and they show succinctly that "supporters of free-market capitalism have a sophisticated view of the world and of the importance of institutions outside the market." But, they add, what free-marketers do not want is "the state taking over or controlling those non-market institutions."

While the whole piece is worth reading, I would particularly commend the points they make on infrastructure:

Tim's story about infrastructure oscillates between arguing that the private sector would not produce infrastructure if left to its own devices, to suggesting that the state should provide it whilst noting that the state often doesn't do so very well, to then finally arguing that the government should create the conditions where the private sector will invest in infrastructure. It is difficult to cut through this line of argument, but we would simply say that, if the state performs its proper functions effectively and provides a secure regime for the protection of property rights and good business conditions, the private sector can be a prolific provider of infrastructure and far more effective than the state. This is true, for example, of Victorian railways and of modern mobile phone and satellite infrastructure (including in Africa). It is interesting that Tim points to corporate short-termism encouraged by quarterly reporting. We agree and always disagreed with it being a statutory regulatory requirement. Blame should fall where blame is due. But given how long politicians have dithered over new UK airport capacity, how poor politicians are at picking winners, and the impact of the short political cycle, it's not entirely clear why Tim trusts the state to think longer-term.


Comments and Sharing


CATEGORIES:




COMMENTS (3 to date)
Thomas L. Knapp writes:

Are two words in the title reversed, or is there some clever trick in the wording that I'm missing?

Julien Couvreur writes:

The passage you quote from the rebuttal seems to concede too much.
Is there any evidence that firms have a shorter time horizon than the average citizen or the typical politician?

I doubt this assumption because firms are free to remain private (avoiding some SEC requirements for "publicly traded companies") and set up reports every year or four years (more or less like politicians). I also doubt it because owners of capital can afford a longer time horizon than the average person (they are not living day-to-day or month-to-month) whereas voters and politicians can easily be tempted to wasted capital (seen vs. unseen, spending other people's money, ...).


Also, as a general point, there seems to be two conflicting terminologies that result in confusion: free-market where market means commercial exchange, vs. free-market as the whole of voluntary action (commercial or not).

Roger McKinney writes:

Yeah the state has done a great job regulating transportation. Rail is the most efficient method of transportation but the state built too many roads to nowhere and subsidized airlines and destroyed travel by rail.

Comments for this entry have been closed
Return to top