David Boaz on the Libertarian Ethos
2018-04-19 · Guest: David Boaz (Executive Vice President of the Cato Institute) · 51:59
Core principles of libertarianism and individual rights
Bob Zadek interviews David Boaz, Executive Vice President of the Cato Institute, about the core principles of libertarianism. They discuss the philosophy of individual rights and responsibilities, the dangers of government coercion and tribalism, and the benefits of free markets and immigration.
Topics: Libertarianism, Cato Institute, Individualism, Coercion, Tariffs, Immigration, Adam Smith, Free Markets, Limited Government
Speakers: Bob Zadek, David Boaz, Caller (Michael), Caller (Bill)
Introduction to David Boaz and the Cato Institute [00:19]
Bob Zadek: Hello everyone, welcome to the Bob Zadek Show, the longest-running live libertarian talk radio show on all of radio. Welcome to our show this morning. We have the most special of guests. I’m happy to welcome to the show this morning David Boaz. David is the Executive Vice President of the Cato Institute. He is the author of Libertarianism: A Primer. The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom was his subsequent book.
The Cato Institute is one of the most important organizations in my life and, whether you know it or not, one of the most important organizations in your lives as well. The Cato Institute was an organization that I found about 25 years ago when I was finding my roots and beginning to understand how I felt about my relationship to others and my relationship to the world. The Cato Institute, which was founded back in the 70s, if I am not mistaken—David will correct me if I’m off by the date—has been the pillar of strong libertarian scholarship, public policy doctrine. It has been an absolute bright light, a lodestar leading myself and millions of other people towards a healthy understanding of my relationship to my fellow man, my relationship to my government, and my relationship to the world. So, I wanted to start the show with a heartfelt thank you to the Cato Institute and its representative this morning, David Boaz. David has been on my show before. He’s not on frequently enough. We’ll see if we can fix that. David, the last time you were on my show was way back in April of 2015. Welcome to the show this morning.
David Boaz: Thank you very much, and thanks for your kind words.
Bob Zadek: Oh, David, I couldn’t even imagine my life, I couldn’t imagine a world without the Cato Institute there to help all of us understand what’s going on around us.
Defining Libertarianism: Rights and Responsibilities [02:52]
Bob Zadek: Now, David, libertarianism is a strange concept in that so many of our fellow citizens in the country, indeed in the world, are libertarian in their beliefs, although they are not aware of it. So libertarianism, which has some very basic, very core, easy-to-understand tenets, is a philosophy. It’s both a moral philosophy, it is a political philosophy, it is in many ways an economic philosophy. It is a guide to being a human. Tell us, if you could, for those who may have heard the word, the concept, but couldn’t really summarize it in a few sentences, tell us what it is to be a libertarian.
David Boaz: Well, the first line in my book The Libertarian Mind is “Libertarianism is the philosophy of freedom,” and that’s the basic idea. It’s a philosophy that says people, adult individuals, ought to be free to make the important decisions about their own lives. And that spans a whole lot of issues. You should be free to decide what job you will work in, what career you will work in, who you will marry, where you will live, where you send your kids to school, what you will eat, drink, smoke, and read. All of those things are the right and the responsibility of individual adults, and in general, government should not use its coercive power to interfere in our making those decisions.
Bob Zadek: And you said two very important words that I want to just emphasize. You said as to an individual, it is our right and it is our responsibility. Those are two very different concepts. And it’s easy for us to accept rights; it’s a little bit tougher for some to accept the responsibility. And that is a dichotomy that sometimes is hard to explain to others. Also, you said something which is crucial to the understanding, and that is you used the word coercion. When I explain libertarianism and have a conversation with others who may not be so sympathetic, I like to point out the core difference: we do not need force for our point of view to prevail. We just need the absence of force. Any other political point of view, or indeed the position, the non-libertarian position on any issue presently before us, the non-libertarian position requires and cannot exist without the use of force. So, David, coercion and its corollary, force, are crucial to understanding libertarianism. Expand on that if you would.
David Boaz: Well, I think everybody understands what force and coercion are in their own lives. Most of the day, most of our lives, we’re being made offers. “Would you like to have this job? Would you like to buy this cup of coffee? Would you like to buy this car? Would you like to rent this apartment? Would you sell me your car? Would you sell me this apple? Would you like to go out with me? Would you like to marry me?” All of those things are questions where we make people offers, and during the course of the day, we accept or reject hundreds of offers. If you think about the fact that when you walk through a store, you’re rejecting hundreds of the offers that are in there because you don’t buy most of the things that are there. Coercion or force comes in only when we’re told, “You don’t get to make this choice. Someone else is making it for you.”
And that could be—we have been telling people for a long time—“You don’t have the right and the responsibility to decide whether to smoke marijuana. Politicians will make that choice for you, and policemen will use force if you try to make a different choice.” For a while, we said the same thing about alcohol back in the 1920s. “You may not use alcohol, and we will use force if you try to.” And then there are a whole lot of other areas. “You must send your kids to this school, the one that we have designated for you.” Now, in that case, you’re allowed to spend extra money. You must give us money for this school. You must send your kids to this school, but as long as you give us the money, we will let you pay for another school in addition. Lots of choices that we ought to be able to make our own decisions about, we are in fact governed by force. “How should I give money to charity?” Well, I can make those choices, but government can also tax me and say, “We’re going to spend your charitable dollars this way.” “How should I save for retirement? Do I make that choice, or does government, through its taxing power, decide for me how to do that?” But like I say, libertarians talk a lot about the things we’re against, the kinds of force that we’re against, but we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that in a relatively free society, most of our decisions, most of our life is governed by freedom, which does mean we exercise our rights and we accept the responsibility. If I do decide to use marijuana or to buy a car, I’m going to assume the responsibility for using both of those things responsibly, and if it turns out I’ve bought the wrong car, well, next time I’m going to pay more attention to what my friends tell me about the relative quality of different cars.
Individualism vs. Collectivism [04:43]
Bob Zadek: And so, it’s freedom, liberty, libertarianism. It is freedom which is the cornerstone of a libertarian point of view. Now, who among us would oppose freedom for an individual? And what’s interesting is most of the non-libertarian points of view is always freedom for me, but not so much freedom for somebody else. That is to say, it is a group of people, a majority often, acting through government, who says, “We are the majority, therefore as the majority, we will impose our worldview on the minority,” which means the majority is free—they are living the lifestyle they want—the minority is unfree. So in libertarianism, everybody gets to be free, not only if you are in the majority. So it’s so interesting to me that libertarianism has this profound emphasis on the smallest political unit, which is one person. It is an emphasis on the individual. People are different, and each individual is important, indeed almost sacred. Excuse me. And they get to exercise and live their lives the way they choose to, as opposed to the collectivism, the putting, assigning people to one or another or hundreds of groups, and they are treated not as an individual but as members of a group. And it is this group versus individual which is a real dividing line between a libertarian point of view and a less or non-libertarian point of view. So, David, there is this emphasis in the non-libertarian world of assigning people into groups and treating them not as individuals but as groups, which is an important fault line between libertarianism and a non-libertarian point of view.
David Boaz: Yes, that’s right. Although we should be careful. Libertarians are individualists, but we also understand that people are social animals. We do associate voluntarily in churches and businesses and neighborhoods and families and all those things. It’s just the element of coerced collectivism that we don’t like, or treating people unequally through the government by force, as you say. And of course, throughout human history, there have been examples of people divided by groups, a very primitive form of tribalism originally. “Our tribe is in, and we want to keep the other tribe out.” And so we’ve seen over the centuries anti-Semitism and racism against people of color. We have seen divisions between Catholics and Protestants and discrimination against people on that basis. We’ve seen the rich scapegoated, we’ve seen the poor scapegoated, and people trying to use the power of government against them. And you talked about using government against minorities, and that’s often true. But we should remember that there are times when a minority has the power. For instance, South Africa, it was the majority that was discriminated against under apartheid. And there have been other instances in history where that was the case. In today’s more democratic government, lots of public policies are not actually endorsed by the majority. Right now, marijuana prohibition is not supported by a majority, although maybe it was in the past and that’s how it got in. But also look at something as simple as just recently we raised tariffs on newsprint from Canada. Now, did we take any kind of vote? Did we survey Americans and say, “Hey, do you think it’s a good idea to make newsprint more expensive so newspapers will get more expensive?” We didn’t take any vote. That was the paper industry that managed to get politicians in Washington to impose that restriction on our ability to buy paper from Canada. So sometimes it’s a majority oppressing a minority, but the way government works, sometimes it’s a minority oppressing a majority.
The Problem with Tribalism and Group Identity [09:22]
Bob Zadek: And what’s also interesting is the aspect of individual freedom. When we talk about the subject of tariffs, a subject that is much in the news every single day, when we talk about the subject of tariffs, it is all about freedom. A tariff is a tax. As we know, when you raise the price of something, people do buy less of it or do the behavior that’s more expensive. So a tariff, as David pointed out, raises the price of Canadian newsprint. What that means is individuals or businesses who choose by personal decision to buy Canadian newsprint because it is cheaper and better are denied the freedom to do so because of some other governmental purpose, cronyism to support a domestic newsprint industry. Bearing in mind, while it’s like “American jobs,” of course there are some beneficiaries of a tariff on Canadian newsprint, but the number of people and the volume of benefit to the few who benefit is far outweighed by the collective detriment to the rest of us. So we all suffer because government has by force taken away our freedom to buy the best product by using tariffs. And tariffs is just a massive denial of freedom to, to use Milton Friedman’s phrase, the freedom to choose for the benefit of a few. So David raises a very important example of how a non-libertarian point of view results in the denial of freedom.
This is Bob Zadek, and it’s a great pleasure to be speaking with David Boaz. David is the Executive Vice President of the Cato Institute. We are discussing libertarianism, what it means, why it is so important to all of us. Comments are welcome. Twitter @RZadek, Facebook Bob at BobZadek.com, or if you’re so inclined, postcards also work, they’re just a tad slower. Also 424-BOB-SHOW if you wish to join our conversation on the telephone.
Now, David, with regard to libertarianism, it seems to me that a large, a majority of the public seems to be on discrete issues, there is a very strong libertarian feeling. If you go issue by issue, whether it is gay marriage, whether it is use of scheduled drugs, narcotics, alcohol, a whole range of social issues, eminent domain—I just mentioned that because I just saw The Little Pink House last night, so it’s fresh in my mind—all of these issues, the public is strongly libertarian on specific issues. And libertarianism, without bearing the label of libertarianism, but on discrete issues, the country seems to be moving in that direction, although those who support these discrete issues don’t do so because they are libertarian. It’s just that on an issue-by-issue basis, it resonates. What explains—am I, do I misunderstand what’s going on in America today?
David Boaz: Well, I think that describes a lot of what’s going on. There are a lot of issues on which most Americans hold the libertarian view. Now, there are some where they don’t. And obviously, there’s been—most Americans say they would prefer a smaller government with lower taxes and fewer services to a bigger government with higher taxes and more services. On the other hand, when you ask about individual services and you don’t say “and the cost will be taxes,” then people are likely to say, “Oh yes, I want the government to do more for that thing,” which is a good thing if I don’t have to be confronted with the fact that it’s going to cost me money. But on the question of do you think you pay too much in taxes? Do you think the government should balance the budget? Do you think the government should be able to take a woman’s house and give it to a big corporation even though she doesn’t want to sell? On the question these days of gay marriage or of marijuana prohibition, people are generally on the libertarian side. And one reason they don’t know that is the journalists, newspapers, cable television don’t talk about libertarian very much. They just want to talk about liberal and conservative. That’s all they can handle. So people just don’t know the word, they don’t know it’s a concept. If you ask people, “Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?” which is a kind of vague definition of libertarianism, the last time we asked that question through a major polster, we got 59% of the country said, “Yeah, that would describe me.” So there are a lot of people who do have broadly libertarian views, but they don’t know the word. And that’s a problem for people who are trying to build a political movement. On the other hand, as long as they push in the direction of let’s cut taxes, let’s restrain spending, let’s balance budgets, let’s let people live their lives the way they want to, then we can still make progress on these issues. You know, 40 years ago, it was libertarians saying we should end the military draft, and we did. So we made a lot of progress, and they haven’t brought it back now for 40 years. So yes, we’ve made a lot of libertarian progress that libertarians don’t necessarily get the credit for.
The Arrogance of Power and the Use of Fear [21:01]
Bob Zadek: And what’s so interesting is that one of the most obnoxious—is “too benign” a word?—one of the most profound differences between a libertarian governmental point of view and a non-libertarian is that in a non-libertarian governmental view, there is this hubris, this arrogance that there is somebody with power who knows how you ought to organize your life better than you know how to organize your life. And that power, these people ascend to power with that hubris, and they exercise the power once they are there, protecting us from ourselves. Whereas most individuals, if asked in the privacy of their living room whether they know best how to run their life, they would say, rightly or wrongly, they know how to best run their life and they want the freedom to do so. So there is this arrogance, this unbelievable arrogance that somebody is smarter and more informed and knows better, and you ought to turn over decision-making ability about your own life, just turn it over to government and you just go about your life and do what you are told. The arrogance is unbelievable, and it is so wrong. And what happens is that arrogance, David, thrives on, or it has as its raw material, instilling fear. Once you can convince the population that they need protection, they need guidance, they need control, then populism takes over, the strong dictator-type individual ascends to power because he is the savior. So it is this tool of fear and removing the confidence of an individual to look after themselves that is the engine, is the fuel that drives this authoritarian or populist view. And that is the precise—if you can talk about the opposite of libertarian—that is the precise opposite of a libertarian worldview. So am I overstating the case and the use of fear and how governments will convince the population that they need governmental help?
David Boaz: Well, it’s not the only way they do it, but yes, the organization of fear is one of the ways that government is built up. Because if you feel that you can’t handle some problem, that might include street crime, might include the dangers of the 1%, might include the Mexicans who are coming across our border and they’re rapists and they’re murderers and they’re bringing drugs, then you may very well flee to someone who promises that he will protect you from that threat. And I think we certainly saw that throughout President Trump’s campaign in 2015 and 2016. It was almost entirely about fear of others, fear of crime, fear of immigrants, fear of foreign trade. I mean, my God, we’re supposed to be afraid of people sending us cars and computers for us to consider buying.
Bob Zadek: This is Bob Zadek, I’m speaking with David Boaz. David is the Executive Vice President of the Cato Institute, one of the most important organizations in my life. 424-BOB-SHOW, questions for David or myself when we come back from our one-minute break. Also Facebook at Bob at BobZadek.com and Twitter, of course, @RZadek. I’ll be back in 60 really short seconds. Lots more to follow. Please stay tuned.
[Commercial Break]
Bob Zadek: Welcome back to the Bob Zadek Show, the longest-running live libertarian talk radio show on all of radio. Thanks so much for listening this morning. We’re speaking this morning with David Boaz. David is the Executive Vice President of the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., the premier by far libertarian think tank. The Cato Institute does not take a position on election issues. They provide content, thoughtful analysis. They are the go-to organization in Washington and indeed perhaps in much of the Western world. David, thank you so much for joining us this morning.
Private Property and Civilization [29:39]
Bob Zadek: Now, David, there has been a threat growing perhaps in recent memory of tribalism. Can you explain tribalism and how that is the anathema—what is that all about and what causes it in your opinion, and how does that represent a threat to so much of what we believe in?
David Boaz: Well, historically, in all of human history, tribalism was the idea that you can only trust the people who are close to you, who are like you. And that might be your family or your extended family or the village in which you live. And then, of course, those things expanded to our community, our nation, maybe our religious group, maybe our racial group, and so on. What I think we’re talking about in modern America is more of a kind of political tribalism where people have sort of lined up, “I’m on the red team or the blue team. I watch Fox News or I listen to NPR,” and I don’t trust and I don’t like the people on the other side. And I think that makes it difficult for us to have informed political conversation because it’s harder to sit down and say, “Have you thought about it this way? Do you think we might come to some agreement here?” because both sides are demonizing the other side. And particularly for libertarians, who reject some of the ideas of the right and some of the ideas of the left, I think it makes it difficult for us to get a hearing in that discussion because people have just lined up on one side or the other. I think that started to get worse around 1998 with the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the attempted impeachment of President Clinton, and then followed by the 2000 election with the Florida vote, which just kind of required everybody in the country to line up, “I want Bush to win” or “I want Gore to win,” and I don’t care about all the details. And then throughout the Bush years and then the Obama years with a lot of hysteria against Obama and the rise of the Tea Party criticizing his policies, and then the rise of Trump, I think has intensified tribalism. So the concern that I have is that people are sort of shutting their ears to policy discussion and just saying, “I’m on this team” or “I’m on that team.”
Bob Zadek: And of course, exacerbated by the way the media has become equally polarized and people tend to listen to echo chambers, only those who espouse their points of view. Not surprisingly, our phones this morning are ringing off the hook, as you will. We’ll take some callers now. First, Michael. Michael, welcome to the show this morning, and what’s on your mind?
Caller (Michael): Oh, hi Bob, thanks for an interesting show. And David, thanks for getting the libertarian word out. I wondered, David, if you are familiar with a book by Robert Wenzel, who was a guest on Bob’s show. It’s called Foundations of Private Property Society. It’s a groundbreaking take on libertarianism. Are you familiar with that book or have thoughts about it?
David Boaz: No, I’m sorry, I’m not familiar with it.
Bob Zadek: Michael, what’s the premise of the book?
Caller (Michael): The main premise is the only structure in private property society is respect for private property, and that’s it.
David Boaz: Well, private property is certainly an important part of civilization. We cannot have—you can’t even have farming if you don’t have a piece of property that you can say, “This is mine, and the effort that I put into this property will repay me and my family. The food we grow here, we can eat. We can also trade with other people.” You’re not going to want to plant a crop if you don’t know that this property is yours. You’re not going to want to build a shack on that property if you don’t know that this property is yours. And societies that have tried to abolish private property, notably the Soviet Union and the other communist countries, found themselves economic basket holes. I mean, you see it right now with Venezuela. But we saw it in Russia, we saw it in China, we saw it in the countries that the Soviet Union conquered. The abolition of private property has been sort of a socialist dream for a couple hundred years, and it seems like, gee, private property, that means you get to keep me out. That’s not very nice. Why don’t we have this nicer idea that the earth belongs to all of us? Well, some countries tried to do that, and it became a disaster.
The Libertarian Perspective on Immigration [31:52]
Bob Zadek: Michael, thanks very much for your call this morning. We have another caller, we have Bill on the line. Bill, you still on the line?
Caller (Bill): Yes, I’m still here. My question has to do with the libertarian perspective on immigration. Bob, in the past, you’ve given me the impression you were kind of an open borders kind of person, and I’m wondering if this actually is the perspective from libertarianism.
David Boaz: Well, I think open borders can be an exaggerated term, but I think we know that America has always been a country of immigrants. America has benefited from immigration. And so, yeah, I think libertarians are generally in favor of being an open, welcoming country. We want people to be able to come in. And you know, if we care about human freedom, we want people to be able to move from less free places to more free places. We also want all the countries in the world to become more free, and fortunately, that’s kind of happening. It obviously happened in the countries that the Soviet Union had occupied. It’s even happening in China and India and places like that. So I suspect we’re going to be seeing more migration around the world in many directions as more countries become attractive places to live.
Bob Zadek: And Bill, just because your question was personal to me, whether I favor quote “open borders,” and the answer is in general yes, and for two reasons. One relating to what in my opinion is good for our country, if not essential for our country. The benefits are obvious, the economic benefits, the scholarship is pretty clear that we benefit economically from open borders, from allowing workers in. They become consumers. There’s no downside statistically, indeed as Cato has pointed out, Alex Nowrasteh at Cato has pointed out numerous times in numerous studies, there is a net gain in all of society. That’s comment number one. Comment number two, which is more individualistic: I am uncomfortable taking a position that I am entitled to all of the benefits that our country and our freedom has to offer. I am entitled to it more than somebody else because of the accident of where I was born. I look at the individual, wherever they’re from, and if they are living in an oppressed society under either physical threat or no possibility of having their children be better off than they are, I don’t see—I don’t claim any superior right to the benefits of our country over that individual born in Central America or in sub-Saharan Africa just because of the fortunate accident of my birth. So I look at it as an individual.
And David, the only area that I struggle with is I had a guest on the show a couple of months ago, and that guest, in talking about immigration, pointed out that there was a survey done in India. And the question was asked amongst the Indian population, “If you could, how many would move to the United States tomorrow?” And this is just India. And the statistics, the result of the survey, a scientifically sound survey, was about 80 million Indians say they would move to the US if they could. And then I ask myself, wow, could this country survive the somewhat immediate or over a short period of time influx of immigration of 80 million citizens of India? And I give myself pause. So David, any thoughts on that issue? And I’m asking on a personal basis because I struggle with trying to be intellectually consistent, but I’m stumped by that statistic.
David Boaz: You know, Julian Simon was a great advocate of more immigration. One of his arguments, and this started back in the 70s or 80s, was there was all this talk about the population bomb and we were just going to have too many people. And Julian said, “People are a benefit to other people. People make our sandwiches and maybe they come up with drugs that cure cancer.” All the things that we want other people to do, more people means more shots at doing those things. And when he was asked, “Well, how much more?” he would say, “Well, let’s double it. And I think that we’ll be happy with the results, and then maybe we’ll talk about doubling it again.” So he didn’t say “open borders,” he said “more immigration.” And we can monitor it and we can decide if we’ve got too much. That’s not philosophically satisfying because if there’s a principle, then why can’t everybody come? I don’t think as a practical matter it’s easy to say, “Oh yeah, I’d like to move to the United States.” I don’t think there’s going to be anything like that number of people. I think the Indians who have come to this country have been great contributors to our prosperity and society. There aren’t going to be 80 million people coming in.
And remember, one thing to note is when we had a recession 10 years ago, a serious recession, the amount of immigration slowed down rapidly. We actually had net migration to Mexico for a while because it turned out coming to the United States in the middle of a recession wasn’t a very attractive thing. So if any measure of immigration causes our economy to falter, then the word will go out, “The United States is not a place to go to right now,” so it would be self-correcting in that sense. But in the 19th century, huge numbers of immigrants flooded into this country, first from Northern Europe, then from Southern and Eastern Europe, mostly European during the 19th century. The percentage—it wasn’t 80 million people in any short period of time, but percentage-wise in terms of the number of Americans who were here then and the number who were coming in, it was quite high. It was much higher than it is now. So this is a big country, we have a strong economy. As some people say, every immigrant brings two hands as well as one mouth, so they’re producing as well as consuming. And the more that they both produce and consume, the more specialization and division of labor we get in economic terms, and we would be more prosperous. So I go along with Julian Simon: let’s double legal immigration, and if we’re happy with the results, let’s debate doubling it again.
Self-Interest and the Invisible Hand [39:32]
Bob Zadek: Bill, thank you so much for your call. David, another observation is, partly because of a misunderstanding of Ayn Rand’s writings and her focus on self-interest, which gets misconstrued and grossly misunderstood, the rap is that a libertarian point of view is—and it’s not a very helpful word—selfish. That is, focus on the individual is mean-spirited. And I think where the disagreement is, is that most human beings have in their heart a desire for others to do well. And the disagreement is not on whether other individuals matter, but it’s on the method by which you help some individual who has less or who is in need of help, how you help that individual to get more on track. So I think libertarianism is the—or the difference, the misunderstanding is not in the goal but in the method. And it is so clear that libertarianism has as its core the respect for the individual and that the best way to help the individual is simply to get out of the way. So David, if you could help our friends out there understand that libertarianism in its focus on the individual is not at all—that should not be misconstrued as being in any way mean-spirited.
David Boaz: Right. Libertarians want all people to flourish, to be able to pursue their own dreams, to pursue happiness as the Declaration of Independence says it, to reach their potential. And that’s the problem with so many of the systems that came before the arrival in the world of libertarianism, which was first called liberalism back in the 18th and 19th centuries. The idea of free markets, human rights, individualism, democratic governance. There were all these rules and systems that prevented people from flourishing and especially prevented some people from flourishing. For instance, women who did not have equal rights. For instance, black people. For instance, in some societies, Jews. And we could go over to Asia and we could point out to different societies where different groups of Asian people were discriminated against in the same way. We want all people to flourish, and we should take our cue from Adam Smith, who said every person seeking his own advantage in a free market is led as if by an invisible hand to benefit others as well. How do you benefit your family in a free market? You figure out what you have that other people would want that you could make money from. So whether it is making sandwiches, repairing shoes, writing computer code, providing legal services, providing insurance, in all of those things, as we pursue our self-interest, we are led as if by an invisible hand to come up with things that will benefit other people. That is not true in the process of government where we say we’re acting in the public interest, but the truth is we’re deciding who will benefit and who will be hurt by governmental procedures. So as long as people are not allowed to use force to get money from other people, to take their houses to give to the Pfizer company, people have to benefit others in the course of trying to benefit themselves. And that’s what we want. We want widespread harmony and abundance and economic growth. And it’s the markets that classical liberals and libertarians pushed for that have taken us from my Scottish ancestors living in thatched huts with dirt floors and animals sleeping with them for warmth to the world that we have today.
The Role of Limited Government [46:28]
Bob Zadek: And you mentioned Adam Smith. I wish I was prepared with that wonderful quote, David, that you will know about, which I can only paraphrase it very roughly: “It is not from the generosity of the baker that we get our daily bread.” The baker, in providing delicious bread for us at a price we can afford, is doing so in furtherance of the baker’s self-interest. He wants to have you as a customer and he wants your money, he wants you to buy his bread. In doing so, in fulfilling that self-interest of the baker wanting to make a sale, we get delicious bread at the right price. And the phrase that I wince every time I hear it is “cutthroat competition.” Any qualifier, any modifier on the word competition is painful to me because what is competition in the free market, which David referred to? Competition is one thing: businesses and individuals competing with each other for what? To give you what you want at the price you can afford. Doesn’t it give you goosebumps to know that most of the world is spending every minute of their day just trying to give you what you want at the price you can afford? That is the free market. And notice the first word of those two words: free market. So individuals competing, the more competition the better, because the result is society, the world benefits because people have succeeded in giving you what you want at the price you’re willing to pay for it. And David, that’s what Adam Smith has taught us, and that is the core of the free market, is it not?
David Boaz: Yes, and it is also, as I was saying, the core of the modern world. We live in a world defined by the fundamental libertarian values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the idea that markets are the most productive way to produce for everyone.
Bob Zadek: And one more misconception, David, that I’ll ask you to help our audience sort out. And that is there is—many people out of ignorance will say, “Oh, libertarians, they’re all anarchists, they want no government whatever.” How can you live without government? While for sure there are some on the fringes who are anarchists, who lust for a world of no government whatever, but libertarians, at least me, desperately want government. Who else is going to protect me and give me the freedom to live the way I want to live my life and to make sure nobody harms me or takes my stuff, to paraphrase Matt Kibbe? So we do not aspire—it is not our core to eliminate government. So David, in the few minutes we have left, help our friends out there understand our relationship to government and what we look to in government.
David Boaz: Well, I think that government has an important purpose in our lives. It is supposed to protect our rights to life, liberty, and property—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And I think for that, we need a national defense to protect us from threats from abroad, which does not mean that we need a national offense that conducts 15-year wars all around the world. But we do need a national defense. We need a court system because sometimes, even with the best of intentions, you and I may have disputes that we can’t settle ourselves and we have to go to court. We also need police because some people do seek to do us harm, and we want police who hopefully by strolling the streets will prevent some people from committing crimes and will apprehend and arrest and eventually try people who do commit crimes. Libertarians want a government that does those tasks well. We don’t want a government that intrudes into everybody’s life, whether it’s our bedrooms or our kitchens or our businesses. We want a government that protects our rights and leaves us otherwise free to lead our lives and make our decisions as we choose in our own interest, which will generally lead to benefiting other people because what’s in my interest is to get people to buy my product.
Bob Zadek: So it is not at all that we aspire to eliminate government. And David made a very important point, which is the government should perform those limited, crucial functions, crucial for there to be a society at all, which is protecting us from those who would do us or our property harm, and otherwise get out of the way so we can live our lives. And we have seen, whether in personal relationships or in governmental relationships, once an entity or an individual undertakes to do more than they are able to do competently, they start to do everything badly. So government, our government, has assumed improperly and, in my opinion, unconstitutionally—but the Supreme Court has blessed it, so perhaps that word doesn’t apply—but they have undertaken so much, as a result of which they are doing everything badly instead of a few things very, very well. And by the way, one last point: David mentioned more than once Adam Smith. I commend the audience on PBS, there is a series available, The Real Adam Smith. I commend it to all of you. It is wonderful, it’s two hours of watching, it is very, very informative. David, we have a few seconds left. Tell us about the Cato Institute, what you are, what projects you are working on these days, and also you mentioned humanprogress.org. Tell us about your humanprogress.org website. We have about a minute left.
David Boaz: Okay. Well, you can find the Cato Institute at cato.org on the web, and we are a think tank, a research organization. We have about 100 people who study public policy, everything from education to the environment to foreign policy, and then write about it. And we publish books, we publish articles in newspapers. You and I were discussing off the air, my colleague Chris Preble has an article in today’s New York Times. That’s one of the things that we do. We also go on radio and television shows, we write studies, we write newspaper articles, and we try to get across the benefits of freedom in a wide variety of areas, whether it is marijuana prohibition or excessive business regulation, the housing regulations that are making housing expensive.
Bob Zadek: David, we’re going to be shut down in about 10 seconds. I want to end by thanking you from the bottom of my heart for being on my show and more importantly for all that you do at Cato. Thank you so much. Thank you to my friends out there. I’ll be back next Sunday. Have a nice weekend.
David Boaz: Thank you.