Modern political views fall mainly into the liberal or conservative camps. These perspectives disagree about most policies, and people in each camp often find the other side’s views misguided, threatening, or offensive.

The two perspectives, however, are similar in one respect; both support enormous government control over peoples’ lives.

Liberals want government to fund education, health care, housing, and more; redistribute large amounts of income; regulate most private business activity; manage public health; restrict access to guns; stabilize the macro economy; subsidize scientific endeavors and innovation; provide for retirement; and raise sufficient taxes to pay for all this. 

Conservatives want government to outlaw substances like marijuana or heroin; limit marriage to opposite sex couples; ban many forms of consensual sexual activity; limit or bar immigration; regulate big tech; and impose “law and order” criminal justice policies.

Both camps, moreover, endorse major roles for government in other areas, even with different emphasis: foreign policy interventions, antitrust laws, trade restrictions, and limits on speech.  Both camps, when convenient, claim to favor freedom and small government, but neither does so in practice.

In this column, I will present a different perspective on the appropriate size and scope of government: libertarianism. This view is skeptical of government intervention across the board, opposing most policies favored by the left and the right. In Libertarian Land, government would be similar in size and scope to America in the ’90s; that is, the 1790s.

Compared to modern societies, Libertarian Land would have vastly expanded immigration, far less business regulation, minimal gun control, legalized drugs, no government provision of marriage, no federal redistribution of income, far less government support of education or health, few if any foreign policy interventions, and no antitrust laws, campaign finance regulation, or an FDA.

Libertarianism does accept government in a few areas; criminal justice and national defense are the main examples. Even in these areas, however, libertarians oppose many interventions (e.g., vice prohibitions or the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan).

In defending Libertarian Land, I will emphasize consequential rather than rights-based arguments. This in no way disparages the latter; since the two approaches arrive at similar conclusions, they are at some level the same.  I am an economist, though, so I focus on consequences.

Libertarianism does not claim that private arrangements are perfect. Market failures of various kinds exist and matter in many arenas. Imperfect private arrangements, however, are not sufficient reason for government; interventions are also imperfect due to corruption, limited information, honest mistakes, enforcement difficulties, and interest group influence. 

Numerous policies, including those with good intentions, generate unintended consequences that “make the treatment worse than the disease.” Many people support drug prohibition, for example, out of concern for those who misuse. Yet prohibition especially harms those who use anyway, since quality control is worse in underground markets.

A key aspect of the libertarian perspective is its consistency across policies, whether favored by the left or the right. Prohibitions of particular goods or services generate bad effects, whether that good is heroin or handguns. Attempts to suppress speech are undesirable, be it from a pro-Nazi rally or a Black Lives Matter protest.

Similarly, the libertarian perspective is skeptical of all interventions, whether they target economic, social, or foreign policy objectives.

A key feature of Libertarian Land is reduced scope for unsolvable policy debates. If governments do not fund universities, no policy issue arises over affirmative action in admissions. If government does not fund health care, no controversy occurs over Medicaid funding of abortions. If governments do not operate public parks, no one argues over which statues to place in such parks. If government does not supply marriage, no debate emerges over provision to same-sex couples.

An implication is that Libertarian Land would suffer far less polarization and acrimony between persons of different views. One camp might not like the other’s lifestyle choices, but if no taxes pay for such choices, and no policy imposes one choice on everyone, the scope for backlash and antipathy is smaller.

Libertarian Land will not appeal to everyone. Indeed, both liberals and conservatives will find much to oppose. Yet because government interferes far less in private decisions, many people from both camps might prefer Libertarian Land to modern societies.