I just wanted to make it clear, for the record, that I'm not speaking on behalf of Cato; just on behalf of myself, a Cato supporter.

Perhaps your conception of political power is that it flows from government and is allotted to certain groups that find favor, rather than inherent to the populace?

Would Cato be more successful if — instead of trying to justify to the government why we the people should be entrusted with meager concessions of our usurped liberty — government were challenged to acknowledge and justify the coercive force by which the usurpation is perpetuated?

A political movement will only coalesce if it is based upon questioning the legitimacy of pervasive government involvement in all its guises. To wit, in the voucher instance, taxes are only tangentially questioned insofar as they might be used to fund objectionable types of education for others. Rather than start from the position that educating a child is a parental responsibility and earnings are personal property, Cato accepts that educating a child is a government responsibility, and proposes we be allowed to have some money to carry out this delegated function using our own judgement.

A bit milquetoast for my taste, and I dare say not energetic enough to animate the electorate in a libertarian groundswell, but Cato after all, are policy advisors trying to remain on good terms with the powers that be.

For the record, I intended to call into question your assertion that “Social Security privatization and education vouchers are more libertarian than complete control of these things by the state” not realizing you were speaking on behalf of the Cato body of work in these regards. It could also be said that being in a coma is better than being dead… but it sure ain't livin'.

I agree that allowing people to opt out of Social Security would be better, but I, and Cato, don't think it's politically feasible.

There's nothing in the Cato “privatization” of Social Security or schools that's in the Long second sense. They don't advocate granting monopoly privilege in either, as far as I know.

Again, I agree that a complete end to government involvement in these things would be better. But, it's silly to say that movement in that direction is not remotely libertarian.

All great points, except for this: I would say that some self-proclaimed libertarians are just rabid pot-smoking conservatives who will go for gay civil unions.

In other words, they're only anti-statist when it does not include programs they like.

Of course Social Security privatization and education vouchers are more libertarian than complete control of these things by the state. It's idiotic to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I'm afraid you've just kind of swallowed the Cato line. “More choice” – libertarianism isn't about “choice”. It is about “liberty” which, I'm going to admit has a lot of ambiguity (as Will has pointed out) but it is a hell of a lot more defined than the rhetoric of choice.

Now, there are two points I'm making. One is that Social Security Privatization is not libertarian. I realize that the word “privatization” makes you think that it's privatization. But, obviously, it's not since the whole point is to have government mandated accounts which would require a good deal of oversight.

In other words, it's like saying that Halliburton (or any private military contractor) is an exercise in libertarianism. Obviously untrue. Which is why, you'll see, a lot of putatively libertarian organizations actually masquerade as “market-based” which is kind of a way of obscuring the fact that they have libertarianism as sort of a lode star, and recognizing that they don't in fact promote a libertarian policy agenda.

Now, as to the second question: whether Social Security Privatization is a good idea. Well, I think it's an awful idea, worse than the present system. But you may disagree.

The first argument – about whether it's libertarian or not – is indisputable. The second argument – which is in fact the more important one – is open to debate, and is subject to all the sort of arguments like “better what we have now” etc.

I want to say, though, that in spite of my arguments above, I don't think there's just one obviously libertarian solution to particular problems. But whatever one may say about that, Yglesias is right when it comes to Social Security Privatization.

Regarding Social Security, how would allowing people to cash out and opt out not be a desirable first step toward phasing out an obviously top-heavy and unsustainable entitlement burden?

GilM, you should be more mindful of your use of the term “privatization.” From Roderick Long's original essay:

Consider the conservative virtue-term “privatization,” which has two distinct, indeed opposed, meanings. On the one hand, it can mean returning some service or industry from the monopolistic government sector to the competitive private sector—getting government out of it; this would be the libertarian meaning. On the other hand, it can mean “contracting out,” i.e., granting to some private firm a monopoly privilege in the provision some service previously provided by government directly. There is nothing free-market about privatization in this latter sense, since the monopoly power is merely transferred from one set of hands to another; this is corporatism, or pro-business intervention, not laissez-faire.
Long does make an important omission within the latter “contracting out” definition — namely that even if there is no monopoly privilege conferred — THE FUNDS EMPLOYED ARE TAKEN BY FORCE — and are by force misallocated into 'investments' contrary to natural market distribution.

Opposition to government manipulation of markets by playing favorites through policy and regulation can't be based entirely on opposition to the outcome that some unfairly benefit from the practice, but necessarily must be opposed as a market distortion that causes a misallocation — an inefficiency. Waste is the immorality here.

Too much is ceded when it is presumed a priori that a government hand is needed to 'correct' natural markets.