The Wall Street Journal’s Libertarian Blinders
January 16, 2012
R.R. Reno
I have long suspected that free-market libertarians aren’t all that different from postmodern relativists who insist that human beings have no natural end, no normative patterns for life. Some recent editorials in the Wall Street Journal confirmed my suspicions.
Last Monday, in advance of the New Hampshire primary, a staff editorial assessed Rick Santorum’s economic message, giving him a mixed review. What leapt out, however, was this sharp attack.
Most disappointing is the Pennsylvanian’s proposal to triple the tax credit for children (today $1,000), which is a hobby horse of the Christian right. This is social policy masquerading as economics. Unlike a cut in marginal tax rates, a larger tax credit tax credit does little for growth because it doesn’t change incentives to save, work or invest. It merely rewards taxpayers who have children over those who don’t.
This extraordinary paragraph echoes an earlier column by Wall Street Journal regular, Kimberley Strassel, who also attacked Santorum’s call for a larger child tax credit, “which benefits only Americans fortunate enough to have a child,” and thus, Strassel suggests, is unfair to those who do not.
Where do I begin untangling the confusions? Let me start with the notion that Santorum’s desire to raise the child tax credit is “social policy masquerading as economics.” Come again? The entire tax code reflects a tacit social policy—or more accurately a hodgepodge of social policies—which surely the editors of the Wall Street Journal know.
For example, they believe that we need lower marginal tax rates to encourage productive economic activity. But for some reason the use of tax policy for any other purpose than creating incentives to save, work, or invest is suspect—mere “social policy” rather than serious economic thinking?
Yes, we need incentives to work, incentives to invest and save, and the free market philosophy represented by the Wall Street Journal gets frustrated with liberals who imagine that entrepreneurs automatically take risks and create jobs. The frustration is merited. When it comes to productive economic behavior, we need the encouragement of knowing that we can keep most of our earnings. But the same holds for other important human activities. We need incentives to be generous, which is why we have tax deduction for charitable donations.
Having and raising children? By supposing that families “just happen,” the editors of the Wall Street Journal show themselves to be as naïve about social capital as liberals are about financial capital. No, families don’t just happen, as we are discovering in the demographic decline in some countries in Europe, a decline that would characterize American society were our culture not renewed by immigrants who have yet to turn marriage and children into lifestyle choices. When incentives for women to work and disincentives for men to marry constellate with rising costs for the care and education of children, to which are added all sorts of changed social attitudes toward child-bearing and parenting, you’ll get what any good economic theorist would predict, which is fewer children.
But there’s the rub. When the editors of the Wall Street Journal say that a tax credit designed to encourage and support men and women who have children “merely rewards taxpayers who have children over those who don’t,” they are saying, in effect, that there is no important difference between having and not having children, at least no difference that our society should care about. Get people to save, work and invest? Yes, government should definitely have policies to encourage that behavior. But marry and have children? No, those are just private decisions that government has no business encouraging. Let the invisible hand of the social free marketplace decide!
It is at this point that I see a fundamental agreement between free market libertarians and postmodern relativists. I can’t speak for Rick Santorum, but by my way of thinking human beings are ordered toward natural ends, work and productive economc cooperation being among them. But we’re also made to mate.
Unlike the acorn that grows into a tree without cultivation and encouragement, human beings don’t just do what they are naturally ordered to do. Or more accurately, we don’t automatically do it well and in a way that brings us the satisfaction that comes with living in accord with our natural propensities. We require cultivation, which is to say culture, which is to say “social policies.”
The free market libertarianism that largely guides the Wall Street Journal editorial page does not deny the need for cultivation and social engineering. It wants to engineer tax policy in order to encourage us to do what we’re naturally inclined to do, which is to work and invest and otherwise try to secure for ourselves a better and more secure financial future. But what that same philosophy denies is that human beings have a natural end beyond economic self-interest, which is why the editorials criticizing Santorum see an increased child tax credit either as an unfair preference for one lifestyle over others, or as case of misguided social engineering.
The underlying view of the human person in relation to society that leads to these conclusions fits with postmodern relativism, which says that we are motivated by a will-to-power or sexual desire (the two main options in postmodern theory), but not in accord with an essential human nature, and not toward any normative end. By this way of thinking there is no human nature, no natural as opposed to unnatural way to live. Society constructs norms (social engineering), and individuals do this or that in accord with their own personal wishes and desires (lifestyle choices).
Take will-to-power and domesticate it as economic self-interest, and you pretty much have the political and social vision of free-market libertarianism. I see little future for what is today a very modern social philosophy in American conservatism. Yes we’d like to be richer, but that’s not all we want. We want to live in accord with our nature as human beings, and that includes contributing to and enjoying the primitive community of the family. If free market libertarians can’t get their minds around that fact—and the fact that as we make personal choices about marriage and children we’re influenced by a manifold of social and economic incentives—then I can’t see how they will be able to formulate a governing consensus. Over the long haul people won’t vote for politicians who won’t work to implement policies that help them live the kinds of lives their nature desires.
R.R. Reno is Editor of First Things. He is the general editor of the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible and author of the volume on Genesis. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
RESOURCES
Wall Street Journal, Rick Santorum's Economy
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
1.16.2012 | 8:33am
Gary says:
I have enormous respect for Mr. Reno, and I know there are many libertarians who hold a somewhat morally relativistic perspective (especially in the realm of personal morality), but libertarianism is not a monolithic philosophy that can be painted with such a broad brush. Randian objectivists will vociferously disagree, for example, but for many others, the libertarian worldview is based on a firm conviction in God-given natural rights, which government is designed to protect. This is not moral relativism. For these libertarians, simply and drastically lowering marginal tax rates across the board - not simply for targeted groups like parents but for everyone - is the fairest and most just way to approach tax policy. It's not that there is no moral difference between families and non-families; it's that government does a generally poor and inefficient job of trying to use policy to benefit various groups over others - even those we might personally favor supporting. Libertarians get frustrated with traditional conservatives because the justified skepticism conservatives usually level at government activity in the economic sphere seems to not apply in the social and moral sphere where it is often no less ineffective.
1.16.2012 | 8:35am
Roger Garner says:
Our contraceptive tax/social policies are bringing us to an equivalency with China.
1.16.2012 | 10:40am
Joseph E. Dorner says:
Dr. Reno, I believe, is misreading the fundamentals of Christian libertarianism. To be fair, perhaps he is addressing a non Christian version. As Christian libertarians, we want the government to defend our life, our liberty and our property from any direct attacks. This is why it must outlaw abortion, prosecute fraud, stop the bailouts, enforce contracts, and provide a sound currency and a level economic playing field for all. However, we want the government limited and according to the principle of subsidiarity, leaving to the churches and other private associations, the role of indirectly encouraging virtue and family values. The government should just enforce a level playing field. It is a violation of the principle of subsidiarity to have the government in the game of creating incentives. The only incentive they need give us is to leave us the people with the money and resources by being small and efficient. Then taxes would be much lower and the issue of tax breaks would be a mute point. One might disagree with this approach, but it is not inherently contradictory to Christianity. We are not punting on social issues.
1.16.2012 | 11:53am
Boonton says:
Marginal analysis is perfectly fair. For example, many parents would have kids anyway. So this policy would end up spending $3K each year on them. A few parents may be motivated to have kids because of this policy. That's kind of questionable....exactly how good parents will such people be if their primary motivating factor is a $3K tax payout? Is your policy just to produce kids willy nilly? Hmmmmm....
On the flip side what is the opportunity cost? Suppose instead of giving every parent who has a kid $3,000 gov't instead guranteed that any pregnant woman or children will never loose health coverage if family income was under $100,000 per year. Such a policy would likely greatly ease emotional burdens on many families with children, might even motivate some parents to have or adopt kids (esp. those with health issues) and at the same time cost a lot less than $3K. The balance could then finance a lower tax rate for everyone, with and without children.
On the flip side what is the opportunity cost? Suppose instead of giving every parent who has a kid $3,000 gov't instead guranteed that any pregnant woman or children will never loose health coverage if family income was under $100,000 per year. Such a policy would likely greatly ease emotional burdens on many families with children, might even motivate some parents to have or adopt kids (esp. those with health issues) and at the same time cost a lot less than $3K. The balance could then finance a lower tax rate for everyone, with and without children.
1.16.2012 | 1:08pm
Joe DeVet says:
The Journal editors would do well to read and heed the message in a book by Dr Jennifer Roback Morse with the provocative title "Love and Economics." The book is for us all, but most particularly for libertarian economists--Dr Morse being a PhD economist who has taught at Yale and George Mason Universities. A message of the book is that the treatment of man as "homo economicus" without regard to the mode of upbringing, is a seriously deficient model. For proper rearing of children--in a loving home--is the only known way to form citizens who can maintain a free culture, with a free market.
If too many citizens are not reared in a loving home, to become citizens who contribute, who keep their promises, who act in legal and ethical ways, who avoid crime and other social pathologies, who take responsibility for their own well-being and for their own actions, etc--then an attempt to maintain a free market will collapse of the social costs of social pathologies. I think we are already seeing this happening to our own poor, broken culture. We are well-warned to try to avert a continuation of such trends as out-of-wedlock births at 40%, of children living in broken homes of whatever % it is, of the decline of marriage, etc.
Wall Street Journal, and everyone, please take note.
If too many citizens are not reared in a loving home, to become citizens who contribute, who keep their promises, who act in legal and ethical ways, who avoid crime and other social pathologies, who take responsibility for their own well-being and for their own actions, etc--then an attempt to maintain a free market will collapse of the social costs of social pathologies. I think we are already seeing this happening to our own poor, broken culture. We are well-warned to try to avert a continuation of such trends as out-of-wedlock births at 40%, of children living in broken homes of whatever % it is, of the decline of marriage, etc.
Wall Street Journal, and everyone, please take note.
1.16.2012 | 1:57pm
Peter Hundt says:
Whether or not the tax code reflects a "tacit" social policy, this is not its purpose. It's purpose, I think, is to ensure adequate funding for the operations of government (it routinely fails). What sort of social policy is implied by an instrument that fails to function for the purpose of its design? A dysfunctional one. Does an increase of the per-child tax credit cause the tax code to more adequately fund the operations of government? Almost certainly not, and would make the problem worse, at least in the short term. (It is questionable whether such an increase would be efficacious in its intended effect of encouraging the birth of children, but that is a different question.)
I concur with Mr. Dorner that the government should not be in the business of incentivizing. The fact that the tax code creates incentives is an unfortunate by-product of having a tax code. It should not be the business of those who, like Mr. Santorum, claim the mantle of conservatism to further exacerbate the problem. Does a tax code (imaginary though it may be) that encourages work, saving, and investment imply such a strong endorsement of self-interest that good governance requires an offset of incentives (such as tax-credits) that endorse acts of selflessness (such as child-bearing)? Or is it somehow against the natural order to promote a tax policy that reflects its purpose?
I concur with Mr. Dorner that the government should not be in the business of incentivizing. The fact that the tax code creates incentives is an unfortunate by-product of having a tax code. It should not be the business of those who, like Mr. Santorum, claim the mantle of conservatism to further exacerbate the problem. Does a tax code (imaginary though it may be) that encourages work, saving, and investment imply such a strong endorsement of self-interest that good governance requires an offset of incentives (such as tax-credits) that endorse acts of selflessness (such as child-bearing)? Or is it somehow against the natural order to promote a tax policy that reflects its purpose?
1.16.2012 | 2:07pm
Mike D'Virgilio says:
I can see both sides here. The problem I have with the Journal folks is that if we are going to use the tax code to incentivize behavior, then we should incentivize behavior that is good for society, and all agree the family is good for society. To me whether it is social or economic, using the tax code for certain ends is using the tax code for certain ends. Those, like the Journal, who think we shouldn't incentivize having children because of the child tax credit have no moral ground on which to stand, because they think we should use the tax code to incentivize savings and investment.
Either we use the tax code to encourage behavior or we don't. Since we do, we can ague about what we should encourage, but to say one thing is out of bounds by definition (because allegedly it's not fair, boo-hoo-hoo) just doesn't hold water.
Either we use the tax code to encourage behavior or we don't. Since we do, we can ague about what we should encourage, but to say one thing is out of bounds by definition (because allegedly it's not fair, boo-hoo-hoo) just doesn't hold water.
1.16.2012 | 2:17pm
harry says:
"Over the long haul people won’t vote for politicians who won’t work to implement policies that help them live the kinds of lives their nature desires."
I hope that is true. Yet I am not confident that there is a large enough block of voters who understand what it is that their “nature desires” – or even what that means – for such a voting block to make a significant political difference.
Animals can't choose to live in a way that violates their nature. Humans can – and do. Animals simply seek gratification of their instinctive desires. Those who are fully human exercise control over their animal instincts guided by a rationality and a sense of morality that animals do not possess. Those for whom liberty means uninhibited pursuit of the fulfillment of their animal instincts reduce themselves to being mere animals, albeit rational ones, who use their intelligence only to pursue the fulfillment of their desires, not to guide them in the morality of their actions; the lower nature is uppermost; base instincts are yielded to; animal passions reign. Those who are intelligent enough to do so learn to live this way and avoid prison, their “good” behavior not being based on their built-in sense of morality, but on the fact that being seen by others as “respectable” has become one of their desires – they still do whatever they think can get away with.
This is why social policy needs to cultivate behavior that is true to human nature and needs to acknowledge the truth that what raises our nature up above that of mere animals is that we possess rational souls that enable us to be guided in our behavior by the the natural law written in our hearts. This built-in law, if not willfully suppressed, tells us what is natural and moral and what is not: Sex with mere children is gravely harmful to them. Incest is wrong. Men should marry women and women should marry men. Heterosexuality is natural. Homosexuality in unnatural. A man and a woman ought to make a life long commitment to each other and to the children that will naturally result from their union; this arrangement enables fathers to know who their children are, and children to know their fathers.
Rampant divorce, adultery, abortion, contraception and the new “legitimacy” of same-sex “marriage” have all had a significant impact on contemporary society; all are contrary to the traditional understanding of what is moral and natural in terms of human sexuality; all of these phenomena undermine the very foundation of society: the nuclear family. This undermining of the basic social unit has not been without consequence: The United States has one of the highest per capita incarceration rates in the world. Our prisons are filled with people from broken, fatherless homes and from dysfunctional families. They are often men and women who were the victims of sexual abuse or of abusive neglect as children. While they are still responsible for their actions, and it is true that many people overcome being raised in such environments and go on to become well adjusted members of society, our huge prison population is still to a significant extent the product of contemporary society's rejection of the traditional view of what is moral and natural in terms of human sexuality.
So a politician's views on traditional morality should be a huge factor in our deciding whether he or she deserves our support. Santorum, far from advocating “social policy masquerading as economics,” is advocating social policy based on reality. Contemporary, godless social engineering and its rejection of traditional morality is masquerading as legitimate “social policy.” The social engineers want to turn our attention away from the immoral, unnatural disaster they have created and turn it to the economy alone. This is kind of like a stepfather abusing his stepchildren while turning everyone's attention to how well he is providing for the material needs of the family – except that the economy is going to hell in a handbasket as well.
I hope that is true. Yet I am not confident that there is a large enough block of voters who understand what it is that their “nature desires” – or even what that means – for such a voting block to make a significant political difference.
Animals can't choose to live in a way that violates their nature. Humans can – and do. Animals simply seek gratification of their instinctive desires. Those who are fully human exercise control over their animal instincts guided by a rationality and a sense of morality that animals do not possess. Those for whom liberty means uninhibited pursuit of the fulfillment of their animal instincts reduce themselves to being mere animals, albeit rational ones, who use their intelligence only to pursue the fulfillment of their desires, not to guide them in the morality of their actions; the lower nature is uppermost; base instincts are yielded to; animal passions reign. Those who are intelligent enough to do so learn to live this way and avoid prison, their “good” behavior not being based on their built-in sense of morality, but on the fact that being seen by others as “respectable” has become one of their desires – they still do whatever they think can get away with.
This is why social policy needs to cultivate behavior that is true to human nature and needs to acknowledge the truth that what raises our nature up above that of mere animals is that we possess rational souls that enable us to be guided in our behavior by the the natural law written in our hearts. This built-in law, if not willfully suppressed, tells us what is natural and moral and what is not: Sex with mere children is gravely harmful to them. Incest is wrong. Men should marry women and women should marry men. Heterosexuality is natural. Homosexuality in unnatural. A man and a woman ought to make a life long commitment to each other and to the children that will naturally result from their union; this arrangement enables fathers to know who their children are, and children to know their fathers.
Rampant divorce, adultery, abortion, contraception and the new “legitimacy” of same-sex “marriage” have all had a significant impact on contemporary society; all are contrary to the traditional understanding of what is moral and natural in terms of human sexuality; all of these phenomena undermine the very foundation of society: the nuclear family. This undermining of the basic social unit has not been without consequence: The United States has one of the highest per capita incarceration rates in the world. Our prisons are filled with people from broken, fatherless homes and from dysfunctional families. They are often men and women who were the victims of sexual abuse or of abusive neglect as children. While they are still responsible for their actions, and it is true that many people overcome being raised in such environments and go on to become well adjusted members of society, our huge prison population is still to a significant extent the product of contemporary society's rejection of the traditional view of what is moral and natural in terms of human sexuality.
So a politician's views on traditional morality should be a huge factor in our deciding whether he or she deserves our support. Santorum, far from advocating “social policy masquerading as economics,” is advocating social policy based on reality. Contemporary, godless social engineering and its rejection of traditional morality is masquerading as legitimate “social policy.” The social engineers want to turn our attention away from the immoral, unnatural disaster they have created and turn it to the economy alone. This is kind of like a stepfather abusing his stepchildren while turning everyone's attention to how well he is providing for the material needs of the family – except that the economy is going to hell in a handbasket as well.
1.16.2012 | 2:32pm
Jeffery Dean says:
I think there's a confusion about how such incentives--really, any incentives in social and economic policy--might influence people's behavior. Some commentators, here and elsewhere, build a straw man when they suppose that the policy will consciously enter into people's minds and change short- or medium-term decisions. Because people either 1.) don't actually think that way, or 2.) are being encouraged to make decisions based on greed, the implication is that bad outcomes will result.
Most effective incentives don't just change the behavior of actors already in the system (in this case, procreating men and women). Rather, they influence the decision of people whether or not to enter the system at all. That is, policy sometimes works by influencing who participates, rather than the behavior of current participants.
It is much more reasonable to expect that a more generous child tax credit will contribute to a general perception that having kids isn't prohibitively expensive after all, and that as a result of this general perception some people who would have avoided child-bearing would instead do so--a positive outcome. $3,000 per year per child would make a significant difference for most people, especially those under the median household income of $50,000. (And I'm not just thinking of single mothers here.)
There's a deep-seated consensus, especially among white Americans, that having kids costs too much money. Incentives can put a dent in that perception, affecting the behavior of "marginal" actors.
The effect of social policy is often diffuse but significant. Probably, a $3,000 child tax credit would be no exception.
Most effective incentives don't just change the behavior of actors already in the system (in this case, procreating men and women). Rather, they influence the decision of people whether or not to enter the system at all. That is, policy sometimes works by influencing who participates, rather than the behavior of current participants.
It is much more reasonable to expect that a more generous child tax credit will contribute to a general perception that having kids isn't prohibitively expensive after all, and that as a result of this general perception some people who would have avoided child-bearing would instead do so--a positive outcome. $3,000 per year per child would make a significant difference for most people, especially those under the median household income of $50,000. (And I'm not just thinking of single mothers here.)
There's a deep-seated consensus, especially among white Americans, that having kids costs too much money. Incentives can put a dent in that perception, affecting the behavior of "marginal" actors.
The effect of social policy is often diffuse but significant. Probably, a $3,000 child tax credit would be no exception.
1.16.2012 | 3:40pm
Mike Varda says:
Dear Mr. Reno,
I strongly suggest that your offer this piece as a counter opinion to the WSJ itself. That newspaper once complained several years ago about "no guardrails" in society and the failure of men and women to marry and jointly take care of their children. It is again failing to recognize the social behaviors that must coordinate with--and really moderate--economic behaviors critical to having a well-ordered society
Mike Varda
I strongly suggest that your offer this piece as a counter opinion to the WSJ itself. That newspaper once complained several years ago about "no guardrails" in society and the failure of men and women to marry and jointly take care of their children. It is again failing to recognize the social behaviors that must coordinate with--and really moderate--economic behaviors critical to having a well-ordered society
Mike Varda
1.16.2012 | 4:53pm
Barry Arrington says:
There is a lot of confusion over terms. Mr. Dorner, for instance, calls himself a libertarian, but the political philosophy he describes is closer to Burkean conservatism.
We Burkeans can make common cause with libertarians on many issues, but even then we are only co-belligerents, not allies. Russell Kirk was right when he said, at its core, conservatism has nothing in common with libertarianism, because conservatives believe in transcendent moral norms and libertarians are materialist utilitarians. For this reason, Mr. Dorner, it strikes me that the term “Christian libertarianism” is an oxymoron.
We Burkeans can make common cause with libertarians on many issues, but even then we are only co-belligerents, not allies. Russell Kirk was right when he said, at its core, conservatism has nothing in common with libertarianism, because conservatives believe in transcendent moral norms and libertarians are materialist utilitarians. For this reason, Mr. Dorner, it strikes me that the term “Christian libertarianism” is an oxymoron.
1.16.2012 | 5:27pm
Peter Kenny says:
The meaning of the word "libertarian": I recently read Friedrich Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom", which was first published in the early 1940s, during WW2. Hayek is considered one of the original libertarians-- but I found his outlook quite humane, without that hardnosed extreme individualism which we often associate with that philosophy: his main argument was that economic life is much too complex for gov't planners (whether fascist, socialist or communist) to oversee; so we'd best leave the economy to a free market, as much as possible. I thought that made a lot of sense.
1.16.2012 | 6:19pm
Mike says:
Citing the falling birth rate, out of wedlock births or divorce as support for a conservative social policy ignores the effect that liberal policies have in generating these conditions. Simply removing the liberal policies that motivate these behaviors would begin to correct the problems.
To say that we require intervention from a knowledgable elite is a tacit acknowledgement that we are unable, by ourselves, to listen to the still-small-voice. Conservative social engineering is interference in our struggle to choose the good, the virtuous and the true over evil. We should choose the good not because we are required by law but because we recognize it as the right thing to do.
We are limited fallabile creatures. How do we know with certainty which social policies to enac? Will the policies be the correct motivation for each individual or will some policies help most people but cause scandals for others? There are numerous examples of social policies that have unintended consequences which even outweighed the good intended results. One example is prohibition.
Perhaps it would be better to not even open the Pandora's box.
To say that we require intervention from a knowledgable elite is a tacit acknowledgement that we are unable, by ourselves, to listen to the still-small-voice. Conservative social engineering is interference in our struggle to choose the good, the virtuous and the true over evil. We should choose the good not because we are required by law but because we recognize it as the right thing to do.
We are limited fallabile creatures. How do we know with certainty which social policies to enac? Will the policies be the correct motivation for each individual or will some policies help most people but cause scandals for others? There are numerous examples of social policies that have unintended consequences which even outweighed the good intended results. One example is prohibition.
Perhaps it would be better to not even open the Pandora's box.
1.17.2012 | 1:00am
Jeannine says:
At least 20 years ago, I read an article whose author gave financial advice. About having children, the advice was simple: "Don't." Luckily for our family, we didn't take that advice! But the truth is that those who raise families are disproportionately bearing the costs of keeping society going; the state needs other people's money, and who will provide those "other people"? Meanwhile, because of inflation, the standard deduction for dependents isn't even as helpful as it was in the 1950s. (I think that Mr. Santorum favors increasing the deduction, not the child tax credit.)
1.17.2012 | 1:51am
Rick says:
This morning I posted a comment on the "Latitude" section of the New York Times concerning an article on Israel's fertility policies. It could probably be labeled "social engineering", but little Israel has always promoted maximum fertility among its citizens, and with considerable success.
In my comment, I remarked that I had just finished teaching an on-line class with an Italian woman who, with her husband, has one child. She had told me that when she and her husband were young, they were part of a circle of ten young married couples. Out of that ten, she told me, seven couples remained childless by their own choice! I asked her why she thought this was true, and she responded, "Selfishness. Children are expensive and a lot of sacrifice is required of parents. They just didn't want to give that much." I thought this was incredible, but realized it wasn't an anomaly in Italy when I researched their collapsing fertility rate. They and many other countries have made a life-style choice that amounts to national suicide. Compared with that, I continued in my comments, Israel has chosen life over death.
That was early yesterday morning. The blurb in the comments section said that comments will be posted if they are "on topic and not abusive", but mine have never appeared. They were certainly on topic, so I assume that it was taken to be abusive language directed at suicidal nations.
In my comment, I remarked that I had just finished teaching an on-line class with an Italian woman who, with her husband, has one child. She had told me that when she and her husband were young, they were part of a circle of ten young married couples. Out of that ten, she told me, seven couples remained childless by their own choice! I asked her why she thought this was true, and she responded, "Selfishness. Children are expensive and a lot of sacrifice is required of parents. They just didn't want to give that much." I thought this was incredible, but realized it wasn't an anomaly in Italy when I researched their collapsing fertility rate. They and many other countries have made a life-style choice that amounts to national suicide. Compared with that, I continued in my comments, Israel has chosen life over death.
That was early yesterday morning. The blurb in the comments section said that comments will be posted if they are "on topic and not abusive", but mine have never appeared. They were certainly on topic, so I assume that it was taken to be abusive language directed at suicidal nations.
1.17.2012 | 2:29am
Mark says:
"Citing the falling birth rate, out of wedlock births or divorce as support for a conservative social policy ignores the effect that liberal policies have in generating these conditions."
Which liberal policies? Econ 101 predicts that when population density increases, when people start moving from farm life to urban or suburban living, and when the cost of raising a child through rising college tuition and health care costs increases, people will have fewer children.
This is, in fact, precisely what we see. People may enjoy raising families but they do not enjoy impoverishing and indebting themselves through the rising cost of caring for children or providing a house or apartment big enough to comfortably fit a large family (a growing problem in European countries).
Where is the room for "liberal policies" here? And how would you get people to abandon their preference for raising a family in a decent-sized house and with health care and college tuition taken of without some kind of "social engineering." It seems to me you don't want to confront the fact that fertility rates might be declining because that is what middle class families in market economies happen to prefer given their economic circumstances.
Which liberal policies? Econ 101 predicts that when population density increases, when people start moving from farm life to urban or suburban living, and when the cost of raising a child through rising college tuition and health care costs increases, people will have fewer children.
This is, in fact, precisely what we see. People may enjoy raising families but they do not enjoy impoverishing and indebting themselves through the rising cost of caring for children or providing a house or apartment big enough to comfortably fit a large family (a growing problem in European countries).
Where is the room for "liberal policies" here? And how would you get people to abandon their preference for raising a family in a decent-sized house and with health care and college tuition taken of without some kind of "social engineering." It seems to me you don't want to confront the fact that fertility rates might be declining because that is what middle class families in market economies happen to prefer given their economic circumstances.
1.17.2012 | 8:22am
Douglas Johnson says:
@Barry Arrington,
Excellent summation. Friends used to call me an uber-libertarian, a term I was fine with until libertarians started coming into their own and I discovered their only quibble with me was where I put Truth before Liberty, they merely switched the two around. At that point my attachment to "libertarian" paralleled my thoughts on Richard Rorty.
I shouldn't have to ask, but I do: Could you please tell me where I could find that Russell Kirk quote you mention (book, chapter, page number) so that I can enter it in my commonplace book.
Excellent summation. Friends used to call me an uber-libertarian, a term I was fine with until libertarians started coming into their own and I discovered their only quibble with me was where I put Truth before Liberty, they merely switched the two around. At that point my attachment to "libertarian" paralleled my thoughts on Richard Rorty.
I shouldn't have to ask, but I do: Could you please tell me where I could find that Russell Kirk quote you mention (book, chapter, page number) so that I can enter it in my commonplace book.
1.17.2012 | 12:03pm
eric schansberg says:
I can see why Dr. Reno is bothered by the WSJ comments, but it's too broad of a brush to lay this at the feet of libertarianism.
A few thoughts:
-"Free-market libertarian" is redundant-- unless one means to describe libertarians who strongly emphasize free markets among other issues.
-Libertarianism, from a Christian/Biblical perspective can be supported "positively" (free markets are generally good), but far more easily through a "negative" angle (advocacy of govt intervention by Christians is often unethical/unbiblical, inconsistent, and impractical). I make the latter case in an essay in "Markets & Morality", and in my book, Turn Neither to the Right nor to the Left.
-Economic policy is social policy.
-It's odd that the WSJ seems unimpressed or uninterested in the question of economic/tax incentives in child-raising.
-The level of subsidy-- even if such a thing is desirable-- is arbitrary. Marriage and child-raising should not be penalized, but the existence and size of subsidies is another matter.
A few thoughts:
-"Free-market libertarian" is redundant-- unless one means to describe libertarians who strongly emphasize free markets among other issues.
-Libertarianism, from a Christian/Biblical perspective can be supported "positively" (free markets are generally good), but far more easily through a "negative" angle (advocacy of govt intervention by Christians is often unethical/unbiblical, inconsistent, and impractical). I make the latter case in an essay in "Markets & Morality", and in my book, Turn Neither to the Right nor to the Left.
-Economic policy is social policy.
-It's odd that the WSJ seems unimpressed or uninterested in the question of economic/tax incentives in child-raising.
-The level of subsidy-- even if such a thing is desirable-- is arbitrary. Marriage and child-raising should not be penalized, but the existence and size of subsidies is another matter.
1.17.2012 | 3:04pm
Mike says:
>"Citing the falling birth rate, out of wedlock births or divorce as support for a >conservative social policy ignores the effect that liberal policies have in >generating these conditions."
>
>Which liberal policies?
Subsidized easy access to contraception
Subsidized easy access to abortion
No Fault Divorce
Removal / Undermining Pornography Laws
Sex Education in Schools starting in kindergarten
Redefining Unnatural Marriage as Natural Marriage
Elements of the extreme environmental movement
ECON101 classes that push people to reduce family size
The list goes on . . . .
>
>Which liberal policies?
Subsidized easy access to contraception
Subsidized easy access to abortion
No Fault Divorce
Removal / Undermining Pornography Laws
Sex Education in Schools starting in kindergarten
Redefining Unnatural Marriage as Natural Marriage
Elements of the extreme environmental movement
ECON101 classes that push people to reduce family size
The list goes on . . . .
1.17.2012 | 3:23pm
Steve says:
Mr. DeVet -- Thanks for the book recommendation. It sounds like a good read especially for utilitarian types. When the family values of honesty, hard work, pride in work, and reliability are lost because we don't have families, the economy should turn more Third World. Knowing a few missionaries who have tried to help business in Third World countries, I can attest to their frustration at broken promises, dishonest or unwilling workers, and graft. Our ability to return broken merchandise or have a contract properly fulfilled is a rarity. Many places, once money changes hands there is no longer any deal. In my limited experience, it's becoming more common in the USA as well.
1.17.2012 | 9:28pm
Gil says:
Of all the many assaults on the nuclear family (the cornerstone of every truly humanistic society, religious or not, most importantly because it is there that humans learn from infancy, in a complex matrix that cannot be replicated [man, woman, child] the value of sacrifice as the norm in establishing equality in the deepest sense—especially between man and woman willing to sacrifice their “freedom” in birthing a child, the only way to develop an all-encompassing empathy, a love of humanity, something any psychologist worth his salt knows), the one assault I had failed to add to my checklist is "to turn marriage and children into lifestyle choices", not realizing that this bit of equality hammering in fact has made the most devastating contribution to dehumanization in my lifetime. The flaw in “equal rights” rooted in “individual rights” is not acknowledging that choices and arrangements are not always equal as the radical individual desperately wants to believe, even when the Supreme Court argues they are, as in the right to birth or kill children, and, possibly in the near future, to rule that a man and a man is an arrangement equal to a man and woman. Next in line will be a demand for an equal opportunity to oppress.
1.18.2012 | 12:17am
Mark says:
Mike, the problem is that you have not proven that any of the things you list are major factors in the decline in fertility. How do sex ed, the repeal of pornography laws and gay marriage reduce fertility, for instance? As for contraception, I'm unaware of any subsidies being available for those most likely to use it (e.g. college-educated high-earners). Access to contraception is easy, but that's because we decided "intervention from a knowledgable elite" in making access to contraceptives difficult was undesirable social engineering. Might not the same be true of the relaxation of pornography laws?
Fertility rates have been declining in the U.S. for 200 years and have also declined in conservative Muslim countries with few if any of these liberal policies.
Fertility rates have been declining in the U.S. for 200 years and have also declined in conservative Muslim countries with few if any of these liberal policies.
1.18.2012 | 11:51am
Mike says:
>Mike, the problem is that you have not proven that any of the things you list are major factors in the decline in fertility.
I don't think in a com-box we are going to "prove" what is the cause of the decline in fertility. I don't think you can prove that an increase in a child deduction or credit will reverse the decline. We can give our opinions. :-)
When middle-schools and high schools hand out free condoms, I would say that it goes beyond removal of conservative social mores and toward liberal activist intervention that undermines the nuclear family and socially healthy fertility.
I'm not against spontaneous cultural expressions of conservative moral values. If it is generally unacceptable to use contraception, get a divorce or engage in pre-marital sex, then that is a good thing. When it comes to using the government power (power of man) to change peoples behavior, I am reticent. Did we learn anyting at the Tower a Bable?
I don't think in a com-box we are going to "prove" what is the cause of the decline in fertility. I don't think you can prove that an increase in a child deduction or credit will reverse the decline. We can give our opinions. :-)
When middle-schools and high schools hand out free condoms, I would say that it goes beyond removal of conservative social mores and toward liberal activist intervention that undermines the nuclear family and socially healthy fertility.
I'm not against spontaneous cultural expressions of conservative moral values. If it is generally unacceptable to use contraception, get a divorce or engage in pre-marital sex, then that is a good thing. When it comes to using the government power (power of man) to change peoples behavior, I am reticent. Did we learn anyting at the Tower a Bable?
1.18.2012 | 1:32pm
Martin Gomez says:
Mr. Reno need not argue from such a lofty and subjective perspective. The WSJ, being a business journal, should understand the concept of investment enough to realize that for any society, and in some sense for each individual in that society, children are an investment (viz. Will our society be able to compete in future with other societies? Who will defend me and take care of me when I am old? Who will be the future WSJ editors? etc.). This question was debated and solved long ago when people decided it was generally a good thing for everyone to pay school taxes.
The WSJ should also understand the idea of what an expense is. Because business expenses are tax-deductible, does this favour those who run businesses over those who are employed? - or do we recognize that we as a society want businesses to be viable and therefore should only tax their profit? In the same way, children cost money but they are of net economic (albeit long-term) benefit to society - and those making the expenditures for them deserve a tax deduction! Way to go Mr. Santoro! You got it right. It is really quite simple from so many points of view.
The WSJ should also understand the idea of what an expense is. Because business expenses are tax-deductible, does this favour those who run businesses over those who are employed? - or do we recognize that we as a society want businesses to be viable and therefore should only tax their profit? In the same way, children cost money but they are of net economic (albeit long-term) benefit to society - and those making the expenditures for them deserve a tax deduction! Way to go Mr. Santoro! You got it right. It is really quite simple from so many points of view.
1.18.2012 | 1:35pm
Ben Embry says:
Maybe one area that Reno, as well as the libertarians, would wholeheartedly support is the repeal of no-fault divorce laws. Surely, as Gil alluded to, this easy break-up of a home half-finished is something that a social policy in tune with human nature would consider to be at the top of the list to dis-incentivize.
And the libertarians, such as Mr. Dorner near the beginning of these comments, expect government to uphold contracts. Reno believes that marriage is a contract, so I don't see why he and his blind friends at WSJ can't be happy together. And as so many people have commented, you cannot coax women to become mothers simply by tax credits (or deductions, whichever Santorum actually meant). But you might be able to prevent mothers and fathers from easily disrupting the good toward which their nature aims by making no-fault divorce an inconvenient option.
And, I do want to clarify that the whole onus of this article was that post-modernism and libertarianism are similar because they both reject that there is such a thing as human nature. This is clearly a wrong understanding. All libertarians disagree with this, because they all believe that there are natural rights; and natural rights are derived from the nature of the being. Aardvarks don't have the same rights as humans, because they don't have a human nature, as any libertarian (even those at the WSJ) will argue with any post-modernist.
And the libertarians, such as Mr. Dorner near the beginning of these comments, expect government to uphold contracts. Reno believes that marriage is a contract, so I don't see why he and his blind friends at WSJ can't be happy together. And as so many people have commented, you cannot coax women to become mothers simply by tax credits (or deductions, whichever Santorum actually meant). But you might be able to prevent mothers and fathers from easily disrupting the good toward which their nature aims by making no-fault divorce an inconvenient option.
And, I do want to clarify that the whole onus of this article was that post-modernism and libertarianism are similar because they both reject that there is such a thing as human nature. This is clearly a wrong understanding. All libertarians disagree with this, because they all believe that there are natural rights; and natural rights are derived from the nature of the being. Aardvarks don't have the same rights as humans, because they don't have a human nature, as any libertarian (even those at the WSJ) will argue with any post-modernist.
1.19.2012 | 4:45pm
Hume says:
The first pages of Loren Lomasky's Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community (1987) should assuage your concerns vis-a-vis libertarianism's relationship to postmodern relativism:
"Rights without foundations are treacherous entities. How are we to adjudicate between contending rights -- or "rights"? In the absence of a coherent second-order theory, the task is more than Herculean; it is Sisyphean. Contemporary practice both within and outside the academy bears out this diagnosis. Rights are so easy to claim, but so terribly difficult to justify. Naked appeals to intuition or moral insight too often supplant analysis, and, not surprisingly, one person’s right is another’s fantasy. The result can be pleasing only to the moral skeptic." -p. vii.
Lomasky proceeds to provide a book-length account of the fundamental moral principles underlying the idea of "rights." This is far indeed from postmodern relativism. Moreover, Lomasky spends an entire chapter (chapter 7) on the importance of the family and its fundamental relation to an adequate conception of rights.
The basic difference between most libertarians and your objections appears to be not one based on the denial of morality (libertarians do not) or the denial of a fundamental human nature (many libertarians, such as Rothbard and perhaps Nozick (although he's fuzzy here) argue as much). Rather, the difference is the more basic and simple difference that animates much of political philosophy: what is the role of the *political* community in shaping individuals and private groups (such as families)? Libertarians tend to argue for a neutrality principle vis-a-vis individuals' perception of the good life (this does *not* deny the objectivity of the ends in question) while you are inclined towards perfectionism.
"Rights without foundations are treacherous entities. How are we to adjudicate between contending rights -- or "rights"? In the absence of a coherent second-order theory, the task is more than Herculean; it is Sisyphean. Contemporary practice both within and outside the academy bears out this diagnosis. Rights are so easy to claim, but so terribly difficult to justify. Naked appeals to intuition or moral insight too often supplant analysis, and, not surprisingly, one person’s right is another’s fantasy. The result can be pleasing only to the moral skeptic." -p. vii.
Lomasky proceeds to provide a book-length account of the fundamental moral principles underlying the idea of "rights." This is far indeed from postmodern relativism. Moreover, Lomasky spends an entire chapter (chapter 7) on the importance of the family and its fundamental relation to an adequate conception of rights.
The basic difference between most libertarians and your objections appears to be not one based on the denial of morality (libertarians do not) or the denial of a fundamental human nature (many libertarians, such as Rothbard and perhaps Nozick (although he's fuzzy here) argue as much). Rather, the difference is the more basic and simple difference that animates much of political philosophy: what is the role of the *political* community in shaping individuals and private groups (such as families)? Libertarians tend to argue for a neutrality principle vis-a-vis individuals' perception of the good life (this does *not* deny the objectivity of the ends in question) while you are inclined towards perfectionism.
1.20.2012 | 6:15pm
Gil says:
"Libertarians tend to argue for a neutrality principle vis-a-vis individuals' perception of the good life..."
Lars von Trier’s' exploration of the violent flaw of neutrality is explored in his film "Zentropa", and that flaw is violent indifference masquerading as moral superiority.
"...you are inclined towards perfectionism..." Yes, as our Father is perfect, and in continual failure at achieving that end, we persist in humility, not moral arrogance, for we do get closer to him and his Goodness.
Lars von Trier’s' exploration of the violent flaw of neutrality is explored in his film "Zentropa", and that flaw is violent indifference masquerading as moral superiority.
"...you are inclined towards perfectionism..." Yes, as our Father is perfect, and in continual failure at achieving that end, we persist in humility, not moral arrogance, for we do get closer to him and his Goodness.
1.23.2012 | 12:40am
Stephen Tuszynski says:
With regard to the sacrifices involved in having children, I think Pope John Paul's words from Centesimus Annus are pertinent:
"As a person, one can give oneself to another person or to other persons, and ultimately to God, who is the author of our being and who alone can fully accept our gift. A person is alienated if he refuses to transcend himself and to live the experience of self-giving and of the formation of an authentic human community oriented towards his final destiny, which is God. A society is alienated if its forms of social organization, production and consumption make it more difficult to offer this gift of self and to establish this solidarity between people.”
Alienation is a problem in our society because of our excessively individualistic culture. Dennis and Barbara Rainey put it this way:
“We live in a culture of self-fulfillment. Modern men and women seem more focused on finding individual identity than at any point in history. Yet to most people, a positive and healthy self image remains an elusive butterfly. We have a restless, self-indulgent society whose members use each other to gain the acceptance they think they deserve. As a result, we feel used instead of genuinely valued or appreciated.”
I read recently that on average in America today raising a child from infancy to adulthood costs about $250,000. Whether the child tax credit is $2000 a year or $3000 a year, against that level of sacrifice, it frankly silly. If anyone thinks this "incentive" will cause people to have more babies or adopt a child, that is wishful and wrong-headed thinking. It seems to me geared to pander to the idea that we need to make child-rearing less of a sacrifice to make it more appealing, when the sacrifice is the very essence and indeed the surprising blessing in the process. For those of us with children we find - somewhat to our own surprise - that it really is true that it is in giving that you receive, after all.
"As a person, one can give oneself to another person or to other persons, and ultimately to God, who is the author of our being and who alone can fully accept our gift. A person is alienated if he refuses to transcend himself and to live the experience of self-giving and of the formation of an authentic human community oriented towards his final destiny, which is God. A society is alienated if its forms of social organization, production and consumption make it more difficult to offer this gift of self and to establish this solidarity between people.”
Alienation is a problem in our society because of our excessively individualistic culture. Dennis and Barbara Rainey put it this way:
“We live in a culture of self-fulfillment. Modern men and women seem more focused on finding individual identity than at any point in history. Yet to most people, a positive and healthy self image remains an elusive butterfly. We have a restless, self-indulgent society whose members use each other to gain the acceptance they think they deserve. As a result, we feel used instead of genuinely valued or appreciated.”
I read recently that on average in America today raising a child from infancy to adulthood costs about $250,000. Whether the child tax credit is $2000 a year or $3000 a year, against that level of sacrifice, it frankly silly. If anyone thinks this "incentive" will cause people to have more babies or adopt a child, that is wishful and wrong-headed thinking. It seems to me geared to pander to the idea that we need to make child-rearing less of a sacrifice to make it more appealing, when the sacrifice is the very essence and indeed the surprising blessing in the process. For those of us with children we find - somewhat to our own surprise - that it really is true that it is in giving that you receive, after all.
3.14.2012 | 5:06pm
Cato says:
It is quite some arrogance to tell others how they ought to spend their very limited time on Earth, and what their values ought to be. That is why we established freedoms such as freedom of speech and conscience. These freedoms have been justified on consequentialist terms but you could just as easily take them away for consequentialist reasons if there is a "danger" real or imagined such as terrorism or war or any other state activity.
The fundamental reason you have freedoms, and why us libertarians champion them, is because we don't place ourselves above other people. We consider every human being an end to himself, for his own purposes. This might cause "will to power", or Christian worship, or large social organization even when it is consensual on the part of the participant. But you would necessarily establish an unjust society by forcing people against their will to live according to your beliefs. The very beliefs that people need to be incentivized, controlled, regulated, or placed under the right economic motivations, are but tools for placing your beliefs above those of others, and diminishing the light of their own life, for their own ends.
As Bastiat said, "Too many persons place themselves above mankind; they make a career of organizing it, patronizing it, and ruling it. Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
The fundamental reason you have freedoms, and why us libertarians champion them, is because we don't place ourselves above other people. We consider every human being an end to himself, for his own purposes. This might cause "will to power", or Christian worship, or large social organization even when it is consensual on the part of the participant. But you would necessarily establish an unjust society by forcing people against their will to live according to your beliefs. The very beliefs that people need to be incentivized, controlled, regulated, or placed under the right economic motivations, are but tools for placing your beliefs above those of others, and diminishing the light of their own life, for their own ends.
As Bastiat said, "Too many persons place themselves above mankind; they make a career of organizing it, patronizing it, and ruling it. Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
About trying to define human nature in only the political context. The Declaration of independence, for example, seems to take a receding and humble approach to designating what all the natural ends of human action *ought* to be, while it simultaneously affirms a natural end by the invoking of natural rights. A right is something that keeps the natural ends of humanity from being closed to human life, and the Declaration recognizes such ends without being so bold as to prescribe the fullness of those ends. Does that make sense? In other words, the " social policy" of the Declaration recognizes that a good life is not possible if humans do not have civil liberties, and so the policy is to guarantee a "right to ...liberty". Far from rejecting a teleogy of human life, this affirms and respects the notion of human nature.
This means that self-government can exist without descending into a will-to-power wasteland. And the modesty of the political teleology does not preclude the teleological aspects of family life: it simply refrains from reaching that far. It recognizes that, while tax code, for instance, can be an example of social policy, political social policy does not need to envelope any conceivable social policy. (there are social policies that exist without being a part of the legally-binding exertions of government; "be home by 10:00, kids" is a social policy too.)
As it stands, our home gets these Child tax checks from the federal government. I use them in the teenage Sunday school class that I occasionally teach. I pass the check for thousands of dollars around the class, letting the youngsters see it. Then I take it back and rip it to shreds, and tell them that we don't look to government to turn our stones into bread. We look to God, and to a conviction that the laborer is worthy of his wages. And I hope I can teach this lesson to my five children as well.