(Disclaimer: Not all libertarians are foolishly idealistic. In my next entry, I'll pinpoint idealism as the general problem (libertarian idealism is just one example). I picked on libertarian idealism only because I am a libertarian and so these particular mistakes are the ones that I make and am pondering.)

I've been slowly coming to grips, as a libertarian, with the inexorable increase in the size of government last century (dramatic even in relative terms, as a proportion). It seems to me that the world has provided a wealth of evidence that "small government" is not an equilibrium nowadays, or at least not a very stable or frequent one. (Historical evidence does not contradict this, since I'm only claiming that rich societies have big governments). This is a strong argument against the libertarian idea that a minimalist state can exist.

This makes me wonder if I've uncovered an element of hypocrisy in the libertarian vision, or at least wishful thinking. Libertarians sneer at socialists for ignoring aspects of reality that don't fit their ideals, like the fact that people won't work very hard if decreased effort yields the same reward. Or that centrally planned economies are far less efficent than decentralized markets. And libertarians are right about these flaws in socialist visions. But don't libertarian visions ignore aspects of reality that don't fit their ideals too? How about all the theories about why governments spring up, grow, and flourish: rational ignorance, the problem of dispersed vs. concentrated interests, the free rider problem, public choice theory? How are these empirically observed and theoretically sensible effects any different than their socialist counterparts? What is the point in proposing systems that are efficient if they are unstable?

I think efficiency is better understood than stability, and that is part of why our blind spot is the latter. But it also seems to me that part of the difference is psychological. In the minds of socialists, people "ought" to work the same amount no matter what their direct return, and "ought" to be less efficient when blindly pursuing self-interest instead of working to some master plan. In the minds of many libertarians, governments "ought" not to exhibit ratcheted growth, special interests "ought" not to be able to manipulate any system to transfer wealth from dispersed interests, and so forth. So each side designs and dreams of systems for their falsely angelic world. But only by ignoring aspects of reality that make the dreamer uncomfortable can it be imagined that these systems work, or will be stable, or would ever come to pass in the real world. Thus each side laughs at the other's unrealistic visions.

But the people who participate in real societies are not angels. What actually helps the world is finding systems which work better given all the foibles of actual humans *and* all the foibles of actual systems. Murray Rothbard blasted Milton Friedman for "proposing not measures on behalf of liberty, not programs to whittle away the Leviathan State, but measures to make the power of that State more efficient, and hence, at bottom, more terrible." Yet given the Leviathan's tremendous ability to endure and grow, the simple truth is that reducing the damage may be the only positive impact available. Friedman's proposals at least help blunt a few claws (ie our move away from the draft to an all-volunteer army), while Rothbard's targeting the monster's heavily armored heart results in nothing but a gigantic heap of essays at its feet.

I am not criticizing the socialists who apply their principles to making the world as it is better, or the libertarians who do the same. Only those who apply their principles unrealistically, who have the blind spots. Libertarians don't just produce idealistic visions, they produce useful knowledge (ie the effects I mention which cast doubts on the stability of libertarian systems were discovered/explored/explained by economists trying to rationally understand how government works.) But it does seem to me that they waste a lot of time thinking about efficiency that would be better spent thinking about stability. On imagining great worlds that will never be, instead of figuring out how to improve this one.

We will not bring about a more efficient, libertarian world without finding ways to change societal equilibria and design systems that are efficient *and* stable. Making converts is not the solution, since even if we convince people to try a libertarian system, it will devolve like all the rest. We have to admit that big government is an equilibrium, understand why, and figure out if there are feasible equilibria that are better.