I have seen both teachers and books describe neoliberalism as an ideology in opposition to government intervention in the economy. Its adherents tend to be vilified as zealous believers in the invisible hand and this definition of neoliberalism is then used in a straw man argument, with neoliberalism clearly shown as false due to the many examples of how the invisible hand does not always guide private interests in favor of the common good.

Any just definition of “neoliberalism” must be compatible with Milton Friedman’s ideas, since, as far as I can tell, he has been the one most widely described as a neoliberal, even though he did not identify as one (as few if any “neoliberals” do). Thus, we should probably consider what he had to say about government intervention in the economy:

“[T]here are only three major grounds on which government intervention is to be justified. One is “natural monopoly” or similar market imperfection which makes effective competition (and therefore thoroughly voluntary exchange) impossible. A second is the existence of substantial “neighborhood effects,” i.e., the action of one individual imposes significant costs on other individuals for which it is not feasible to make him compensate them or yields significant gains to them for which it is not feasible to make them compensate him–circumstances that again make voluntary exchange impossible. The third derives from an ambiguity in the ultimate objective rather than from the difficulty of achieving it by voluntary exchange, namely, paternalistic concern for children and other irresponsible individuals.”

-Milton Friedman, “The Role of Government in Education.”<http://www.schoolchoices.org/roo/fried1.htm>

Even if we assume that these are the only conditions under which government intervention is to be justified, it is possible to allow a great variety of interventions, including tobacco taxes (the “paternal concern” clause), radical environmental laws (due to neighborhood effects), public companies (in cases of natural monopolies) and so forth — all while respecting the limits of government intervention as stated by the best known “neoliberal”. Thus, it seems ridiculous to claim that neoliberals are opposed to government intervention in the economy.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

When trying to consider the problems of the future, we have to keep in mind that several assumptions are always at play. Still, it is interesting to think of problems we may very well face somewhere in the future. I do not believe that we should be too precocious in trying to attack these issues — we have to deal with problems that are real and current, rather than waste our energy on the fancies of our imagination –, but, with all of this said, it remains an enjoyable intellectual game that may have implications for policies in the near future. So let us begin:

It is possible that, one day, we will achieve something akin to immortality, where age is no longer a threat to the well-being of our bodies and death no longer broods above our lives as a guarantee of our end. This is quite clearly the ideal that we move towards when we invest in medical research. Even before the advent of science, the possibility of immortality excited the imagination of cultures throughout the world. Yet, what would happen if we turned this dream to reality? It might be in fifty years or it might be in fifty-thousand years, but, with a few assumptions, it seems almost inevitable.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text