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

At 32%, what is marketed as the world’s strongest beer has just been released. As per its label:

This is an extremely strong beer; it should be enjoyed in small servings and with an air of aristocratic nonchalance. In exactly the same manner that you would enjoy a fine whisky, a Frank Zappa album or a visit from a friendly yet anxious ghost.

Beautiful. I’m interested in how this plays out in the political arena. Though a case can perhaps be made for controlling drugs that are unsafe to use, it is clearly a sign of incoherent policy-makers to allow drinks that are significantly above 32%, but not beer. At 30 pounds ($50) the 330ml bottle and with marketing that tells us how it’s made to be savoured, the customers are certain to drink it at least as responsibly as they would drink whiskey, and probably more so than the Jack Daniel’s that gets chugged at college parties. And yet, the same company was previously challenged for having too strong a beer. It won, but that was with a 18.2% beer; now that they have almost doubled the strength, there are some things left to unfold.

But even if it might be used in irresponsible manners that are not possible without such strong beers on the market, is it really the responsibility of government to protect us from our own choices? This is where the problem of self-ownership arises: can we talk of “self-ownership” and if so, to which degree should this exist? Alcohol laws are an example of the government intervening between people who wish to trade alcohol, for the sake of protecting the consumer from his own choices. It is almost universally accepted that it is righteous to use force against someone who uses undue force towards another, but what about when the person harms no one, except perhaps — just perhaps — himself?

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