{"id":528691,"date":"2010-04-15T08:51:09","date_gmt":"2010-04-15T12:51:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/business\/archive\/2010\/04\/-libertarian-paradise-lost\/38960\/"},"modified":"2010-04-15T08:51:09","modified_gmt":"2010-04-15T12:51:09","slug":"libertarian-paradise-lost","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/528691","title":{"rendered":"(Libertarian) Paradise Lost"},"content":{"rendered":"

As many of you probably know, Bryan Caplan<\/a>, Will Wilkinson<\/a>, and others have been debating whether there was a libertarian golden age, ca. 1880, to which libertarians would return if they could.  The “pro Golden Age” side notes low taxes and regulation; the “anti” side notes Jim Crow, anti-sodomy laws, and the substantially reduced rights of women.  For whatever reason, the debate has settled around the coverture laws of the period.<\/p>\n

Interestingly, this debate seems mostly to be taking place among libertarian men, probably because there aren’t that many libertarian women.  But as one of the elusive creatures whose preferences are being discussed, I thought perhaps I’d weigh in.  Straight from the horse’s mouth, as it were.<\/p>\n

First, let’s point out that 1880 simply wasn’t a libertarian
\nparadise–and neither was any other era in American history.  Yes,
\ncommercial taxes and regulation were lower.  On the other hand–even
\nleaving aside the special rules for various minority groups and
\nwomen–we’re talking about an era of school prayer, blue laws, various
\ngross infringements of economic liberty<\/a> by state<\/i> legislatures
\ncutting special deals for their friends, criminal punishment for union
\norganizers, high tariffs, and so on.  We’re not arguing about whether
\nwe want to be in libertarian paradise, or not.  We’re arguing about
\nwhether the departures from the ideal in 1880 were better, or worse,
\nthan the departures today.<\/p>\n

If you are a white male,
\nprobably–not definitely, but probably.  If you are black, the question
\nis ludicrous–you’re talking about an era of legalized public
\ndiscrimination.  Likewise if you’re gay, which was, as far as I know,
\nan actual criminal offense.  But what about white women?<\/p>\n

I think
\npart of the disconnect between Caplan and his interlocutors is that
\nCaplan is simply discounting all non-government forms of coercion.  So
\nthe fact that in 1880 my life choices would have been marriage,
\nsponging off of relatives, or teaching, does not interest him.  Nor
\ndoes what that implies for the balance of power in marriages.  It is
\nnot for nothing that so many passages written by women of the time
\ndescribe their husbands as “tyrants.”<\/p>\n

Obviously, I find this a
\ntad more interesting than he does.  But it’s a valid point:  to what
\nextent can you count social discrimination against the legal system? 
\nFor liberals, the answer is “quite a lot”–if something is wrong with
\nthe social system, the government should fix it!  But this is not the
\ndefault libertarian position.<\/p>\n

And in fact, we have to acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of women in 1880 would be positively horrified by the prospect of living my life.  Not only is it flagrantly immoral, it violates much of what they themselves<\/i> thought of as the core of womanhood.  Should we get excited about women being denied the right to go to medical school, who did not want to go to medical school?  I mean, I suppose in some sense I’m being “denied the right” to move to Saudi Arabia, but I don’t think we can count this as a meaningful infringement of liberty.<\/p>\n

But in the case of the laws of 1880, I believe that yes, we can count them as serious infringements. As Tyler Cowen has pointed
\nout, the laws of the time reinforced that social structure in many,
\nmany ways.  Take divorce, which could only be obtained for cause.  Now,
\nas I understand it, if both parties wanted one, a “correspondent” could
\nbe hired who would be caught with the man in a compromising position. 
\nBut if he didn’t want a divorce, well, what was she to do?  Divorce was
\nshameful–but a woman caught in adultery was a moral outrage.<\/p>\n

There
\nare also ripple effect.  If no one you know gets divorced, then it
\nbecomes that much more unthinkable for you–especially since the social
\nsystem to deal with divorce won’t exist.  There was no place in
\nAmerican society of 1880 for a divorced woman, and that matters.<\/p>\n

Or
\ntake the laws banning women from entering various professions.  Sure,
\nthis only affected a small minority of the population . . . but ain’t I
\na woman?<\/p>\n

You cannot simply snip the legal system neatly out of
\nits social context.  Moreover, those laws would be harmful in any social context.  Would I agree to bring back the laws of 1880
\nconcerning women, in exchange for lower taxes and looser business
\nregulation?  No.  <\/p>\n

First of all, as imperfect as they are, many
\nof those laws are good libertarian laws, like the laws forbidding
\npeople to dump any random chemical into the water commons.  <\/p>\n

Second
\nof all, even though the laws about emancipation, property and divorce
\nwould have much less impact upon women living in the social structure
\nof 2010 than that of 1880, they would clearly and obviously change the
\nbalance of power in my marriage and social life.  Not even a man as
\nunimpeachably committed to equality, in theory and action, as Peter
\nshould be trusted with that kind of power over his wife.  <\/p>\n

And
\nthird of all, the social system of today does not exist independent of
\nour laws.  If it were not illegal to pay married men more than women,
\nto discriminate against women in hiring, and so on, most of us might
\nstill be stuck as secretaries . . . which would probably mean most
\nwomen still stayed home after they had children, and that the social
\nand economic networks supporting female independence would be
\nconsiderably weaker.  This is why I can’t get all worked up about the
\ninjustice of affirmative action.  Maybe it doesn’t work . . . but even
\nso, it’s still pretty low on my priority list of things to repeal.

\n

\n Email this Article<\/a>
\n Add to digg<\/a>
\n Add to Reddit<\/a>
\n Add to Twitter<\/a>
\n Add to del.icio.us<\/a>
\n Add to StumbleUpon<\/a>
\n Add to Facebook<\/a>
\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\n\"\"<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As many of you probably know, Bryan Caplan, Will Wilkinson, and others have been debating whether there was a libertarian golden age, ca. 1880, to which libertarians would return if they could.  The “pro Golden Age” side notes low taxes and regulation; the “anti” side notes Jim Crow, anti-sodomy laws, and the substantially reduced rights […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":80,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-528691","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/528691","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/80"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=528691"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/528691\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=528691"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=528691"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=528691"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}