Comments on: The Freedom to Sleep Under Bridges

By: how to stop foreclosure

how to stop foreclosure — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:57:14 +0000

I think MY's line was meant as a poke at himself…

By: The Free Nanny State « Matt Zeitlin: Impetuous Young Whippersnapper

The Free Nanny State « Matt Zeitlin: Impetuous Young Whippersnapper — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 07:57:06 +0000

[...] positive and negative liberty. Will Wilkinson, though opposed to nanny state intrusions, has this great post wherein he fudges the line between positive and negative freedom, and though he ultimately comes out [...]

By: Glen

Glen — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

How do you create a safety net without causing moral hazard? My worry is that the guarantees inherent in a state-provided safety net are exactly what makes them so problematic. Private charity works well precisely because it makes no guarantees, meaning benefits can be denied to shirkers and free-loaders. But that means some people will always fall through the cracks, which creates the political incentive to create a universal safety net.

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Glen, I agree! “Well-designed” is my hedge meant to say “minimally subject to moral hazard problems.” I think there is in fact a great deal that could be done to promote private charity, and that we have the resources these days to see a flowering of private welfare efforts. If that were to come to pass, the state safety net could be very minimal, and should be very limited–something like a tide-you-over until the you can get helped by a charity, with whom the state will help you to get in contact.

By: KipEsquire

KipEsquire — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

This site attributes the quote to Anatole France. 'The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread'. Anatole France

By: Kriston

Kriston — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Matt’s statism apparently goes so deep that he conceives even libertarianism in terms of licensure.

Just wanted to note that that was an extremely funny line.

By: Tom Hanna

Tom Hanna — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Regarding giving up liberties for the conveniences of city life, it’s important to note that you still have the option of returning to Kansas. That’s what federalism is all about. Certainly there may be some rules that a smaller group, if you can call 8 million small, may choose for their community that aren’t appropriate for everyone in a nation of 280 million. The safety valve and check against too great infringement is that even those 8 million can regain those liberties without recourse to voting by simply crossing a bridge.

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Great point, Tom!

By: Gil

Gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Will,

You seem to insist that there be some state funded and administered saftey net (though “minimal”) regardless of how robust private welfare efforts are.

Why?

Do you really think state institutions must be more reliable and effective at delivering the welfare services that people want provided?

Or, do you think it’s a necessary political compromise to appease those who would otherwise insist on more?

Or…what?

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Gil, I think it’s just a part of political reality that there will be some kind of state-funded safety net. I’d rather concede this, as I don’t see any feasible way around it, and then, having conceded it, have some say about what it ought to look like. Furthermore, I think big plans involving private welfare programs will meet less resistance if there is assurance that there will be at least some govt. net. That is to say I think libertarians can push further in a libertarian direction if we stop attacking the very idea of a safety net, and thereby make a safety net less necessary.

By: Kenny Easwaran

Kenny Easwaran — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I think MY’s line was meant as a poke at himself…

Is there any more you can do to characterize what you mean by a “modest, well-designed safety net”? It’s always seemed to me that such a thing would be the best means of making sure no one is in a truly awful state without making taxes too burdensome. If it’s modest enough, then very few people will trade work at some pay for no work and the safety net, but hopefully it can still make a relatively large difference in the lives of those unfortunate enough to be out of work for some reason or another. But I suppose one might argue that the existence of even the minor amount of taxation necessary for something like this would depress productivity at higher levels of the income scale.

By: Paul Zrimsek

Paul Zrimsek — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Is Yglesias’ framing of his argument as a slap at libertarians, and his saying that the slippery slope Gillespie is on leads specifically to left-wing statism rather than statism more generally, meant to imply that the argument applies only to economic liberties? I wonder why. Having some of Maureen Dowd’s column inches redistributed my way would do a lot more to enhance my life than having some of Warren Buffett’s money redistributed my way. Where is the latter-day Anatole France who will heap the proper scorn on the empty formality of all our non-market liberal freedoms?

By: Luka Yovetich

Luka Yovetich — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

First of all, Kansas is awesome. It is home to the best college men’s basketball team in the universe, the Jayhawks.

Second, Will, it sounds to me like you might want to say that you don’t think that a gov’t sponsored safety net is best but that, since not enough people realize this, it’s best to just concede that battle for the greater good.

But it sounds like you wouldn’t be in favor of a safety net if nobody else was.

Right?

By: Signifying Nothing

Signifying Nothing — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Moral hazard and negative liberty

Will Wilkinson has a great post on negative liberty and the welfare state that I largely agree with: However, I think that among the best argument for robust negative or liberty rights, i.e., for institutionalized constraints on coercion, is that…

By: The Cardinal Collective

The Cardinal Collective — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Libertarianism

I wanted to write a tongue-in-cheek post proposing a folk etymology describing political Libertarians as a religious offshoot of metaphysical Libertarians. However, someone else has already anticipated me. The point is supposed to be as follows. Libert…