Andrew Koppelman’s new critique of modern libertarianism is far more relevant than anyone might realize. His book, Burning Down The House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted By Delusion And Greed, manages to adeptly parse the very difficult topic of individual liberty. What Koppelman gets right is that it shows why market liberalism is on the rise.
In particular, it makes two main points. Firstly, it emphasizes the success of free markets. Secondly, it questions whether the protection of individual rights can inadvertently harm others. The book predominantly focuses on the latter.
This discussion is far from irrelevant. The reconciling of these two positions, if possible, could permanently deprive the right of its arguably most crucial ally: the business community. The Democrats have already taken notice of this shift.
For example, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez recently made a splash by drawing attention to the harms of over-regulating sunscreen. During an extended interview, Jared Polis also told John Stossel that he supports free markets, advocates for drug legalization, and favors eliminating Colorado’s income tax. Big business is also slowly cutting ties with a political right now dominated by culture war issues.
Koppelman asserts that a distorted form of libertarianism has gained traction among the political right. He begins the book with the well-known tale of Gene Cranick, whose house was engulfed in flames while firefighters stood by. Cranick had consistently paid his monthly fee for privatized fire protection services but missed a payment one year. Consequently, his entire neighborhood, including the firefighters, watched his home burn to the ground.
This story is not merely a metaphor; it actually happened. Glenn Beck and others justified the inaction of the firefighters. Policymakers, Koppelman argues, later used the same rationale during the debates over Obamacare, climate change, and other issues.
It would be one thing for Koppelman to merely attack libertarianism by using this example. He clarifies early on, however, that better versions of libertarianism do exist.
Libertarianism takes multiple forms. The kind that let the house burn down is a corrupted variety. Libertarians once defended free markets, and the inequalities that markets inevitably generate, without claiming that those inequalities are deserved or that people’s needs count for nothing. Free markets were valuable precisely because they offered the most promising path toward satisfying the needs of the worst off. Its commitments did not include letting houses burn.
Koppelman contends that contemporary libertarianism is essentially a corrupted version of liberalism, advocating for people’s individual freedom to live as they choose. This stands in contrast to the populist-leaning right-libertarianism that is prevalent in today’s self-proclaimed libertarian movement. Moreover, he describes a genuine transformation in his own thinking about capitalism and he credits Friedrich Hayek with this change.
The best thing Koppelman writes in the entire book is a single paragraph about the power of libertarianism to bridge the divide in American politics. Far from being fringe, libertarianism is both the source of, and solution to, America’s ongoing division.
The story of the corruption of libertarianism is a sad tale with a hopeful ending. It has pitted decent Americans against one another, the left suspecting the right of blind rapaciousness, the right suspecting the left of malicious envy. The encouraging news is that they are less far apart than they think. Libertarianism is most persuasive when it shares the commitments of the political left. The disagreement is not about ends. It concerns strategy. Too many on the left fail to grasp that the original libertarian strategy has been massively vindicated. The capacity of markets to alleviate poverty has been so overwhelmingly demonstrated in recent decades that it is silly to keep denying it. Too many on the right fail to grasp that unregulated markets cannot deliver a livable world. Moderate libertarianism can bridge some of the bitterest divisions of contemporary American politics.
Most of the book consists of an almost surgical decoupling of classical liberalism with modern radical Rothbardian libertarianism. Most chapters seem written for a non-libertarian audience. Nevertheless, this exercise in deconstruction is both refreshing and challenging.
For example, while libertarians often talk about the maternalistic nature of the Nanny State, Koppelman considers the pros and cons of paternalism. He considers the extent to which it is necessary for the state to intervene and “protect” its citizens. Minarchist libertarians have no issue with this when it comes to law enforcement and defense, but what about consumer protection and the environment?
Conversely, Koppelman’s narrative becomes muddled in the central section. His chapter titled “Tyranny” is a somewhat scattered and arguably superfluous exploration of the philosophies of Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and Robert Nozick. His other arguments, like the “tough luck doctrine” exemplified by the house burning incident, are more than adequate to illustrate his point.
In the book’s concluding chapter, “Moochers,” the author’s intent becomes more evident. The initial section delves into how skewed libertarianism shaped the Obamacare debate, while the latter part examines the impact of Charles Koch’s financial contributions on environmental policies.
This chapter very much feels like the reason this book was written.
Koppelman’s discussions on paternalism are more persuasive than his remarks on Obamacare. It appears as if he’s trying to fit a mismatched piece into the puzzle. In particular, he dismisses arguments against the individual mandate without giving them their due.
John Stossel stood out as one of the rare libertarians who applauded specific elements of Obamacare. While I concur that many missed the law’s pro-market features, such as the introduction of exchange markets, the mandate was a consistent point of contention, and not just for libertarians.
The alternative proposal of high-risk pools for those with pre-existing conditions was presented by the GOP even though it is basically a safety net. Alternatives like this are given scant attention in Koppelman’s book.
He also skips over the major objection the Freedom Caucus initially had to Paul Ryan’s replacement proposal. Paul Ryan prevented any debate from occurring on the floor of the House; instead, he sought to pass a replacement proposal by making deals behind closed doors. Nancy Pelosi has continued the practice.
It might be the case that Koppelman’s notion of acceptable paternalism could be found in the alternative healthcare proposals floating around at the time. We may never know. At least some of his indignation during this first half of the chapter seems misguided, though.
The chapter segues into its latter part with a narrative reminiscent of the book’s opening, once again centered around a fire. This time, a young couple faces tragedy due to an exploding gas pipeline owned by Charles Koch. While Koppelman briefly concedes that accidents can occur, he predominantly highlights the incident to underscore his argument about Koch’s financial influence shaping politics for his own advantage.
Koppelman acknowledges that Koch, as an idealist, has every right to use his wealth to shape the world according to his vision. However, he also criticizes Koch for promoting policies that conveniently support his business and financial interests.
Koppelman may think that Koch is the apotheosis, so to speak, of corrupted libertarianism. He may also just be an example of it. If it is the former, then Koppelman’s thesis has less impact and can be easily countered. If it is the latter, however, then the diagnosis of the libertarian movement is much less grim.
It seems like Koppelman is largely on the right track, but he is still using the language of the left to make his calculations. That is not a criticism; he is one of the only people on the political left who has been willing in recent days to give libertarianism more than a cursory glance. It is telling that when he did so, he found that it was not all bad.
Even if Koppelman’s priorities are too limiting and short-sighted, Burning Down The House is worth a look for market liberals and libertarians alike.