Are libertarians today the answer for how to uphold BOTH limited government AND social justice?

Ryan Streeter

I've enjoyed reading the new Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog. It's a refreshing contribution to what has become a stale (and mostly absent) discussion about how advocates of limited government should think about poverty.

One of its founders, Matt Zwolinski, has an op-ed today in which he lays out a compelling argument for reconciling libertarianism with social justice.

He seeks to answer the question: "Is there a home for those who take both the ideals of limited government and of social justice seriously? Are the two ideals compatible, or are their philosophical underpinnings irreconcilably at odds?"

He says that he thinks that, today, it is within libertarianism that these twin ideals can addressed.

Why? Because libertarians care about reigning in the most dangerously expanding elements of the government and don't worry as much about the smaller spending fights that we've witnessed lately (NPR, programs for the poor). Libertarians are most interested in reigning in the big spending, and not as concerned about cutting smaller amounts aimed at the poor (though it wants those programs to be effective).

He says libertarians should therefore reconsider their relationship with the right. The main reason for this is the support of conservatives for military spending. Libertarians are more aligned with the left on this point.

For instance, libertarians share with the more consistent elements of the left an opposition to militarism and an interventionist foreign policy. To the extent that libertarians share Republicans’ alleged commitment to fiscal conservatism, it is far better expressed in limiting military conflict than in railing against welfare mothers or subsidized art.

Two important points follow from reading this:

1. The focus on military spending, but not entitlements, is curious. Why would opposition to the military drive libertarians to an alliance with the left, when the left is adamantly opposed to any serious attempt at entitlement reform? He mentions entitlements at the outset, but doesn't raise it in the body of the argument in the same way that he raises military spending. The military is a big part of the budget, but at 4% of GDP, it's lower than Cold War levels. Entitlement spending, especially Medicare, will grow out of control in coming decades far beyond the military and everything else in its share of overall spending. Joining the left is the same thing as supporting continued expansion of these burgeoning programs. If you care about limiting the military, one strategy is letting Medicare grow so much that military spending gets forced to shrink. Not a good strategy, in my view.
2. Still, his argument (on defense spending, not social justice) has support among a growing body of libertarian-minded GOPers, and so it's worth taking seriously. It is much more likely now than a couple years ago that a bi-partisan, bi-ideological alliance could emerge to bring signficiant reductions in military spending - and thus activity. I think it contains dangerous seeds that could grow to ultimately weaken our ability to provide needed security and to finish off what we started in Iraq and Afghanistan. It could also have a purifying effect in the ongoing debate about whether and how much to reduce military expenditures. A no-questions-asked defense spending policy cannot be sustained, but neither can a sloppy cut-it-by-x-percent policy. But it could also fuel a split on the right, at the grassroots, that could change how America sees its role in the world - which is worrying.

When it comes to social justice, though, libertarians still - in my view - have a happier relationship on the right than they will if they start linking arms with the left.