Here you go. According to this completely unscientific poll, riddled with selection bias, and featuring a difficult-to-interpret and probably tendentious statement of the question, self-described libertarians prefer a bigger welfare state and no drug prohibition to a smaller one where the drug war rages on. I think the Magic Button question on drug prohibition and Canadian-style health care is probably a fairer interpretation of the spirit of Hood’s assertion, so you’ll have to wait to see how that came out. We’ve got 101% since I used a format that allowed participants to tick both boxes, and some did. But here’s our results:
What Libertarians Prefer
466 responses
A society with a welfare state of size x and drug prohibition.
189 - 41%
A society with a welfare state of size x+1 and no drug prohibition.
277 - 60%
People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than 100%.
|
|
Question-
Does the size of the welfare state refer to the generosity of benefits, the literal tax dollars spent, or the actual size of the welfare bureaucracy?
So, what about x+2, x+3, 2x, x^2, etc…
I just don't think the question was asked in a way that implies a significant trade-off for eliminating drug prohibition.
What do liberals and conservatives prefer (were there enough respondents in each category)?
This question was reserved for libertarians. We're crunching the Magic Button numbers. But, basically, almost all liberals would push the button that ended the drug war and gave the U.S. Canadian health care, almost no conservatives would, and a little more than half of libertarians would.
i think the problem is the way the question is posed. it's very difficult to distill how someone ranks their disutility from the welfate state vs. that from drug prohibition. i self-identify as a libertarian mostly because i believe that poorly-functioning big-government intervention is the surest way to create and maintain a sizeable and hereditary underclass. i also think prohibiting adults from putting all manner of questionable substances in their own bodies is both illiberal and a colossal waste of time and resources, but that comes second to my economic concerns. nonetheless, i considered choosing 'x+1 with no drug prohibition', because i don't know whether dismantling the welfare state or ending the drug war would have the most immediate and profound positive effects.
a better phrasing might be:
you can push button A and be transported to a country with a modest social safety net and where drugs are prohibited; or you can push button B and be sent to a country with a bloated welfare state, but where individuals are free to use, transport, and sell a moderate amount of illicit drugs. which button would you push?
I agree with those who say that “N+1″ is not specific enough. I also agree with Ryan's comment that it didn't imply a significant tradeoff. “N+1″ seems small, seems to imply a small difference.
The question might better be asked as “Which do you prefer, a society with a moderate welfare state and drug prohibition, or a society with a very extensive welfare state and no drug prohibition.
Personally I'm against both extensive welfare states and drug prohibition, but if I had to choose I supposed I'd accept the moderate welfare state and drug prohibition.
First they'll bloat the welfare state so that they can get their hands on some weed, then they'll shut down free trade for a free bag of Fritos.
Will,
My interpretation of the original NRO post that led to your poll was more generally: do libertarians think “social” or “economic” liberty is more important (if they can have one and not the other). I'm not sure phrasing the question this way would change the outcome of the poll, but it might.
Whoa! I like those odds. Gotta get to work, building that button…
In what universe can a libertarian possibly justify the drug war? Who are these 40%?
you can push button A and be transported to a country
The crucial difference with that scenario is that both countries already exist; you're not imposing rules on anyone, just choosing where to live. I'd push the button to end the drug war in a single world, but between two worlds I'd pick the smaller welfare state and prohibition. In the first case I can eliminate a large source of injustice; in the second I can't.
In what universe can a libertarian possibly justify a bigger welfare state? Who are these 60%?
F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman would be two such libertarians.
Have to disagree there. Milton Friedman at least would always say that free markets and free trade were a necessary (although not sufficient) condition to have a free society. Taking that to heart I went with economic freedom first, as it would be much easier to get the social freedoms later than it is vice-versa.
So obivously both are bad, the poll is merely asking priorities.
I think a more interesting question at this point would be: Would you rather have Libertarians in charge of the economy right now and the drug war in place or Pelosi and Co. in charge and no drug war.
Welfare states and free markets/free trade are not in any way mutually exclusive.
The question wasn't “Is the drug war justifiable?” Even those who voted small welfare with drug prohibition (like me) wouldn't make that claim. And my vote caused me to have philosophical distress; it wasn't an easy choice.
I think I chose the way I did because it's easier for me to break drug laws than it is to break tax laws. Of course the philosophical distress is caused by the focus on ME in that instance; it ignores the consequences for the entire society, which I certainly wrongly assume to be similar to my own consequences. I also ignored the cost of the Drug War compared to the cost of the welfare state. It's not a decision I'm proud of. I console myself by telling myself that the question was vague.
Anyway, no, I do not attempt to justify the War On Some Drugs.
No they aren't mutually exclusive, but the idea that Hayek and Friedman called for a bigger welfare state is a rather questionable one. Both made positive or at least accepting statements about some welfare state ideas, but that doesn't amount to supporting or wanting a welfare state bigger than what we currently have.
Hayek unquestionably left room in his thought for a “bigger welfare state” as society grows wealthier, because he was skeptical of the idea that we'd ever find the “best” institutions for making markets work most efficiently. And I don't recall anything in Friedman that would indicate an in-principle objection to a “bigger welfare state,” particularly if that was paid as the cost of a net increase in freedom. Falcon asked “in what universe could a libertarian possibly justify a bigger welfare state. The answer is, “in this one,” and both Hayek and (probably to a lesser degree) Friedman could do so rather easily. Note I don't say that either “called for” a bigger welfare state, but that each could “justify” it.
That said, after thinking about it a bit more, it's not clear to me that Hayek would have necessarily opposed drug prohibition. It's been a while since I've dusted off my Hayek books, and I haven't read them all, but I don't recall any lengthy discussion of drug prohibition in them. I think one could make a reasonable argument that prohibition fits Hayek's general requirements for legislation. However, my reading of Hayek generally is that he'd prefer the bigger welfare state to the drug war, particularly in a very wealthy society like ours.
It turns out that 60% of libertarians aren't libertarians.
Neither “Leaving room in your thoughts” for a bigger welfare state, nor not stating an objection in principle to a bigger welfare state, doesn't equal supporting a bigger welfare state.
So even if your statement about their opinions and statements is correct, it still doesn't support the idea that the idea that Hayek and Friedman called for a bigger welfare state.
Of course my statement about their opinions and statements is correct, and I haven't claimed that either “supported a bigger welfare state.”
Here's Falcon's original question: “In what universe can a libertarian possibly justify a bigger welfare state?”
I answered that question. Note that my answer isn't saying that either Hayek or Friedman “called for” or “supported” a bigger welfare state, only that each could “justify” it.
I'm not sure this should be at all difficult to grasp, but I guess it is.
So your hung up on justify vs called for, or supported?
OK, then I change my statement to -
So even if your statement about their opinions and statements is correct, it still doesn't support the idea that the idea that Hayek and Friedman justified a bigger welfare state.
Come on, Tim. Are you being intentionally obtuse? The question wasn't, “was Hayek's justification of a bigger welfare state right?” The question was, “could any libertarian (qua libertarian) offer an intellectual justification for a bigger welfare state?” Unless you're willing to write off F.A. Hayek as a libertarian (and you're free to do that, of course), the answer is overwhelmingly and obviously yes.
Are we through here, Tim?
In the broadest sense of the word libertarian I suppose some libertarian could be found that would justify a noticeably bigger welfare state than what we have now (I suppose you could still call them libertarian in a very broad sense if they are going to slash just about every other aspect of government).
But to use Hayek as an example of that you have to establish that he did in fact make such a justification, and you haven't done that.
In the broadest sense of the word libertarian I suppose some libertarian could be found that would justify a noticeably bigger welfare state than what we have now (I suppose you could still call them libertarian in a very broad sense if they are going to slash just about every other aspect of government).
But to use Hayek as an example of that you have to establish that he did in fact make such a justification, and you haven't done that.