Mike Munger offers some wise advice about states and markets to us liberals. (HT Arnold Kling) A slice:
Liberalism has two mutually reinforcing aspects. The first is humility: I can’t assume I’m right. The second is toleration: I can’t assume you’re wrong.
The practice of liberalism therefore rests on a strong, but rebuttable, deference to individual agency. That practice requires a deep skepticism of concentrations of power. Historically, the different flavors of liberalism have privileged some kinds of power and handicapped others. Left liberals have been concerned about corporate power, but optimistic about the state; classical or right liberals downplay concentrations of market power but want sharply to limit the state.
I work and write in the field known as public choice. Public choice began as an antidote to the naïve application of the “market failure” paradigm, in which deviations from perfectly competitive markets always led directly to inefficiencies that markets themselves could never solve. This view was unchallenged in the 1950s and 1960s, and it worked to identify (mostly legitimate) problems with private, decentralized commercial processes. Markets are not perfect, so state action is required.
What was missing was any theory of government failure. Under what circumstances—if ever—would state action likely be counterproductive? Government policy results from the digestion of imperfect inputs: the rational ignorance of voters, the concentrated interests of organized groups, and the principal-agent failures of unaccountable bureaucracies. Why would we expect imperfect government control and direction to be better than imperfect markets? This concern extended worries about market power to concentrations of power more generally.
A decade ago, I wrote a cover story for Reason magazine titled “Trump vs. the Constitution.” It explained how then-candidate Donald Trump’s call to abolish the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship for millions of U.S.-born children ran afoul of the text, history, and original meaning of the 14th Amendment. It also noted the dismaying fact that so many Republicans appeared ready to support Trump’s unconstitutional agenda.
“Most Republicans claim to revere the Constitution,” I wrote. “Yet when it comes to the issue of birthright citizenship, far too many Republicans, from Ed Meese on down to Donald Trump, seem willing to ignore the text and history of the 14th Amendment. Not exactly a reassuring indication of the GOP’s fidelity to originalist constitutional principles.”
Tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, the case arising from Trump’s 2025 executive order on birthright citizenship. And just as I warned a decade ago, the Republican Party is effectively marching in lockstep under Trump’s unlawful direction.
Stefan Bartl writes that “Earth Hour misses civilization’s true triumph: Human innovation.”
Kimberly Blanton, of Alva, FL, has a letter in the Washington Post that’s worth reading:
My husband and I own a small remodeling business. Tariffs increased costs on many materials and items used in kitchen and bath remodels. We are too small to absorb the tariffs, so we had to raise our prices. Many people have decided not to remodel with prices increasing, so we have had fewer leads and prospects. We had to lay off most of our employees. I had semiretired; I’m 69. I’ve had to return to work in our business full time to replace employees we couldn’t afford to keep. I’m doing the work that four employees used to do. My husband and I cannot even afford to pay ourselves a consistent salary. We are living off of our Social Security benefits and doing our best not to go out of business.
Ed Carson tweets: (HT Scott Lincicome)
The U.S. has made lobbying a key focus of its industrial policy.
The lobbying industry is booming – thanks to the government!
