The curious case of the 'academically able, politically confused'

By Martin Cox

I am proof of The Daily Princetonian's global readership. Living in Oxford, I am a curious and sometimes confused onlooker where American politics are concerned, but I feel I can correct four serious and fundamental mistakes in Sarah Sakha's recent article (“The curious case of socially liberal, fiscally conservative,” Opinion, Nov. 17).

First, Ms. Sakha misunderstands the term “socially liberal”; second, she misunderstands what libertarianism is; third, an inevitable consequence of her first two errors, she mistakenly believes that to be liberal on social issues and conservative on economic matters is to be guilty of a grave, irreconcilable contradiction.

To dispatch her fourth and strangest mistake first, though: Sarah Sakha is quite wrong to say that we couldn't legalize marijuana without “fiscal liberalism.” In other words, she implies, not arresting, not judging and not imprisoning buyers and sellers of drugs would be terribly expensive. But whatever your views on drugs policy, it must surely be clear that it would be far, far cheaper to declare a truce in the trillion-dollar War on Drugs.

The same is true in respect of another example in the same article, so-called gay rights. Or it would be if the writer thought of this as some liberals and many libertarians do, which is that marriage — gay, straight or otherwise — is no concern of the government's at all but rather a matter for consenting adults to make such choices as they see fit, in the context of church, synagogue, temple or mosque, or indeed of none of these. How expensive would it be for the authorities not to interfere, not to regulate, not to favour one life choice or morality over another?

In her article, Ms Sakha also says such “socially liberal” aspirations as a welfare state and universal healthcare are impossible without “big government.” This may, for all I know, be true. But for the libertarian objects of her scorn, Soviet-style socialist health and welfare provision is not what they mean by social liberalism. Libertarians want freedom, in all areas of life. Freedom to marry (or not to marry) as they please, freedom to smoke, eat, drink or inject what they want, freedom to own private property immune from forfeiture, freedom to buy and sell and give and exchange without the need to ask permission from anyone not properly concerned. Not because libertarians necessarily take a particular view on sexual ethics or marijuana. Libertarians take a particular view on liberty. And if a libertarian disagrees with you, on any of these questions, she will try to use persuasion to appeal to you rather than legislation to force you.

The error stems from a false division between the social and the economic realm. Is healthcare a social matter or an economic one, or both? A more useful taxonomy is between consent and coercion, and using this language, it is clear that, far from representing a “glaring paradox,” libertarian principles are elegant and consistent.

Here it is interesting to compare British and American English. (Two countries divided by a common language, George Bernard Shaw is supposed to have said.) In the UK, the word “liberal” means, or used to mean, “concerned with limiting the scope and power of government so as to enlarge the freedoms individuals can enjoy.” So we still scratch our heads in this country when we hear of “liberals” in the U.S. who want the government to tax things more, to take more of people's money, to constrain more choices, to ban more things, to regulate more of people's behavior.

In an earlier time, your philosophers and statesmen taught the world that we could throw off the oppressor's heavy boot; that governments ought to rule for the people's benefit; that we must be vigilant to withstand the natural tendencies of governments to overreach the just and proper limits of their power and expand their claims and dominate their citizens. You sent your young men to die in our European struggle against tyranny.

“Socially liberal, fiscally conservative” seems an awkward, clumsy designation, but it is entirely consistent. More than this, it is a noble aspiration. Let freedom ring.

Martin Cox

Director,