BURNING DOWN THE HOUSE

Libertarianism and the common good.

Law professor Koppelman, identifying himself as a “pro-capitalism leftist,” offers a thorough examination of libertarianism and a vigorous critique of thinkers who have corrupted it into “an infantile fantasy of godlike self-sufficiency.” As the author notes, “investigating philosophical debates in the law is what I do. I soon found that libertarianism comes in flavors, some more bitter than others.” Koppelman defines libertarianism as “a mutated form of liberalism,” which “holds the purpose of government to be guaranteeing to individuals the freedom to live as they like.” Founded by Nobel laureate economist Friedrich Hayek, libertarianism proposed that unregulated markets “promise a better life for everyone.” Hayek believed that “if you want more for the poor, you shouldn’t try to equalize. You should make the economy grow, and that means letting the rich keep quite a lot of what they have.” However, as interpreted by economist Murray Rothbard, philosopher Robert Nozick, and novelist Ayn Rand (“a hot ball of rage”), libertarianism has become a justification for “crass predation.” Of the three, Koppelman sees Rothbard—who has influenced “America’s most powerful libertarian, Charles Koch”—as the most noxious. “Nozick and Rand are minimal-state libertarians,” writes the author.” They want the state to prevent force and fraud but do nothing else. Rothbard is an anarcho-capitalist. He wants to do away with the state altogether.” Koppelman makes a persuasive case for the need for state regulation and protection in areas such as workplace safety, consumer protection, drug laws, anti-discrimination laws, and financial protection. “Rejecting paternalistic regulation, because you hate the idea that your competence is limited,” Koppelman asserts, “is like attacking the practice of medicine because you hate the idea of being vulnerable to illness.” Because the individual is embedded within and supported by society, freedom is nothing less than “a collective achievement.”

A cogent analysis of a misunderstood political philosophy.