The rule of law and liberty

Mario Rizzo has, in my view, over the past year articulated the trade off between liberty and security that informs much of what Boyes and I are concerned with on this blog. Scroll to the end of this post to see an example of how this trade off and the actions of what Rizzo calls the "Mega-state" impact our lives.

He blogs provocatively on Think Markets and a recent post answers a question that has been repeated expressed here - "What to do?"

He writes:

I think that intellectuals can do their part. We should discard the idea that it is more “scientific” or more “objective” to follow an issue-by-issue approach to politics. We ought to recognize the instability of the “on its own merits” policy regime. We need to focus on general rules that inhibit state action. We need to accept the lessons of constitutional political economy, public choice theory and slippery-slope analysis.

Ok, while I am not an intellectual I do see both merit and my role in Rizzo's proposal. As educators, our instruction should be firmly rooted in the presentation and clarification of "general rules" in the context of an emergent, evolutionary order. While the Dec. 2009 debate over at CATO Unbound suggested some concern with Hayek's view law v. legislation, I see this as a fundamental distinction that eludes the vast majority, including my fellow educators.

Rizzo continues:

What we need is to create or restore a secular “religion” or dogma. We need a dogma of laissez-faire. As long as John Maynard Keynes’s argument in “The End of Laissez-Faire” is accepted (that is, we should put away the old classical liberal dogmas and decide each issue on its own merits), the special interests will be there to convince a “pragmatic” public that their policies are the ones that, on the merits, warrant support.

This is an interesting approach that looks to a restoration of classical liberalism - the 19th century self confidence and optimism. As I think about the metasatizing welfare state I can only conclude that supporters of the mega-state are filled with self doubt and pessimism. Perhaps an avenue to open civil dialogue with those who embrace interventionism - that is those who willingly trade their liberty for perceived security is to find a way to explore the self doubt and pessimism that colors their perspective.

An unfortunate consequence of this self doubt and pessimism is the emergence of "the strong man" or the "jefe" or "caudillo". All recent politicians fall into this category - they are wanta be strong men (or women). Like Peron, Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, . . . the list goes on, these "strong men" play on the self doubt and pessimism of the populace.

Listing to the president last night in the state of union, the predictable populist rhetoric of his speech followed in the tradition of strong men, with a particularly American bent. Like Huey Long, the president played to the lowest emotions in blaming individual agents in our society, then presented his vision as the solution. To place this type of messianic, strong man at the head of the mega-state will inevitably lead to further erosion of the rule of law, loss of liberty and increasing coercion.

Rizzo goes on, in the post referenced above:

I am not arguing for a non-rebuttable dogma, but a strong presumption.

In his attempt to engage in a civil manner with interventionists, Rizzo reveals a dilemma for those of use who advocate liberty as both an instrumental and ultimate value. This is the slippery slope, for if the argument begins with the notion of liberty as the default, this opens the door for consideration of state action and, as we have seen in the 19th and 20th century in American economic history, once the state establishes a rationale for coercion, then there is no turning back.

The actions of the state over the past 30 years illustrate Higg's thesis in Crisis and Leviathan. As I read Higgs, in suggests that the expanding scope of government never recedes, but that the scale has the potential to recede - think post WW 1 and 2.

I wonder, is there any justification for hope of a receding scale if, in fact, the US can withdraw from Iraq (I believe our president committed Aug of 2010 for withdrawl) and Afganistan?