Deathmatch

Tyler Cowen offers some typically contrarian fighting words:

And the older story of “big government crushes liberty” is being superseded by “advances in liberty bring bigger government.”

Libertarians aren’t used to reacting to that second story, because it goes against the “liberty vs. power” paradigm burned into our brains. That’s why libertarianism is in an intellectual crisis today. The major libertarian response to modernity is simply to wish that the package deal we face isn’t a package deal. But it is, and that is why libertarians are becoming intellectually less important compared to, say, the 1970s or 1980s. So much of libertarianism has become a series of complaints about voter ignorance, or against the motives of special interest groups. The complaints are largely true, but many of the battles are losing ones. No, we should not be extreme fatalists, but the welfare state is here to stay, whether we like it or not.

Bryan Caplan has a typically bubbly response:

With statist preferences, more wealth brings more government. How is that a reason to quit arguing against statist preferences? You could just as easily tell an atheist that more wealth brings more religion - and he'd naturally respond, "It wouldn't if people knew the truth - and I aim to tell them."

The second argument builds on the strange assumption that libertarians have made government work better in any sense other than making it do less. Maybe Gore's "good government" panel made government work better. But as Tyler has previously complained, libertarians barely acknowledge variation in the quality of governance...

To which Cowen answers in the comments:

Bryan's extreme rhetoric is a sign my points have hit home. I regularly debate these topics with him over lunch, I think Bryan is tired of being beat up upon in person. Note that in my essay I mention pandemics, global warming, and intellectual property as problems areas. There are plenty of facts on each topic. Bryan doesn't mention one of these in response, instead shifting ground to the war on terror and resource pessimism, which he then punctures. He is rationally irrational, I suppose. His invocation of religion as irrational supports my view that neither religious preferences nor statist preferences will go away anytime soon. In fact Bryan's research, more than anything, has convinced me of that conclusion.

Now the argument hinges on the relative possibility of success of libertarian-proposed policies. To wit, the chance of getting the coveted anarcho-capitalism amendment ratified is nil. The chance of having Tyler's more pragmatic proposals---one of his suggestions being addressing global warming---enacted is better.

Two observations.

One, I suppose a lot of what makes libertarians libertarians is the crazy proposals. So Cowen's idea to legitimize the libertarian movement is rid it of its libertarianism.

Two, if you're a Kantian, and a libertarian one at that, much of government programs are wrong as a rule, no matter their efficiency. Asking such people to help streamline the welfare state isn't exactly kosher.

The cost of being extreme is being irrelevant, and hell, you make your peace with that or you don't.

UPDATE: No response from Caplan. TKO?