The libertarian Mercatus Center at George Mason University has just released a report arguing that North Dakota is the freest state in the union while New York is the least free, followed by California in 49th place. Even in terms of libertarian ideology this report rebuts itself, proving why libertarianism is incapable of contributing to rational discussion of our problems.
Libertarian orthodoxy speaks as one in claiming market economies are effective in reflecting our actual values when freedom of entry and exit exists and property rights and contracts are protected by law. Most go farther and say voluntary contracts made in the market simply reflect our desires and wishes. If someone is rich it is because people voluntarily prefer what they offer enough to pay them for it. If someone is poor it is because they have yet to offer anything of much value to others either because they have nothing or because they have failed at marketing their assets.
There are important confusions in this argument, but none that influence the point I will make. All these conditions exist with respect to Americans living in North Dakota, New York, or California.
Property values reflect demand for living in an area, the higher the values the more effective demand exists for the property.
Here in highly regulated ultra liberal Sonoma County, in the “unfree” state of California, it is difficult to find anything much more than a dump in all of Sonoma County for under about $300,000 or close to it. We are largely rural and small town outside of Santa Rosa. Real estate in San Francisco and some other areas is far higher.
A quick perusal of real estate prices in North Dakota shows no comparable demand to live there. Decent places seem to be available for well under $100,000. Defenders of the Mercatus study might argue that North Dakota is losing population, so of course property values are not as high. But California right now has net out migration and property values remain high despite the real estate bubble’s burst. Plus, if North Dakota has the highest economic freedom in the country, as Mercatus claims, why is it losing population? Perhaps because they define economic freedom as if corporations were people and biological people were costs to be minimized? But that’s another discussion.
If conditions were reversed, with North Dakota having higher real estate prices than California, we may be sure Mercatus and its apparatchiks would be pointing out how the “miracle of the market” demonstrates that “freedom pays.” But since the opposite is true, we hear crickets. If North Dakota were a magnet for new start-uos, we would hear all about that as well. But California is a magnet for new start-ops, so again we hear crickets. But even more embarrassingly for libertarian orthodoxy one state, New York, is rapidly gaining on California as a center for start ups in hi tech fields.
The market has made it crystal clear to any honest person that by its standards people find California and New York vastly more attractive than they do North Dakota, and millions will pay a premium to live in these places. This is also true for libertarians. I venture to suggest will we not see any out-migration of libertarians to freedom in North Dakota escaping their enslavement in California and New York, where many live, for some reason not deducible from their ideology. By definition consistency has never been possible when your ideology is incoherent and divorced from real human beings.
Apparently, unlike many human beings, Mercatus is not much bothered by North Dakota’s attempt to regulate women’s health and reproductive freedom to the point where they have ceded most of it to the government. They admit this violated ‘freedom’ but apparently this kind of freedom does not rank very high on libertarian judgments about liberty despite its strong impact on the lives of millions. From my own perspective the market itself proves that North Dakota is not particularly attractive to those not already living there and since Mercatus demonstrates only economic ‘freedom’ matters much to them, their entire venture is incoherent. Salon has just published an excellent critique of the libertarian capacity to understand the term “freedom.”
If freedom is attractive, and I believe it is, perhaps most people find California and New York freer than North Dakota. Perhaps libertarians define freedom as uselessly and misleadingly as they define so many of their other key concepts. I believe both statements are true.
I was talking last night to two people who had done well in hi tech industries. They told me that one reason California was doing so well in this field is that the state government had passed a law limiting employer claims on the ‘intellectual capital’ possessed by an employee seeking a new job. So he or she was very much a free agent when starting work elsewhere. But libertarians have rarely put employee rights very high on their list of freedoms as my chapter in Libertarianism Deconstructed demonstrates.
In other words it took government regulations to limit employer regulations on employees, thereby expanding freedom and the entrepreneurial creativity to which libertarians give constant lip service.
The high real estate pricing in California (property values), especially in liberal based Sonoma County, is due to many regulation factors including zoning laws that RESTRICT people from building on their own lands (too many structures per acre), RESTRICT people from buying or building on “green belts”, and so many more similar zoning laws. Econ 101 should tell you that once you RESTRICT any commodity, the value goes up because there is not enough of the commodity available for everyone. Without looking at zoning in North Dakota I am willing to bet they do not have nearly as many (if any) zone restrictions on the lands. Also, in picking the freest states they probably consider many factors, not just property values; things like taxes; state income taxes; inheritance taxes; sales tax; gasoline taxes; city taxes; county taxes; property taxes; freedoms to purchase weapons and carry them; and MANY MORE considerations. I live in Sonoma County and like the weather (which is a drawback in N. Dak I would imagine) so I strive to work from within the liberal political system to help inject some common sense, and yes, libertarian ideas (small l not big L libertarian). You might want to read a new book called “In Defense of Chaos: the Chaology of Politics, Economics and Human Action” by L.K. Samuels basically about how new studies of many kinds shows that chaos produces order… fascinating read. Lastly, your comments about your friends experience in the hi tech industry is only touching the surface. Intellectual Property exists only because of copyright and trademark regulations; in other words the problem would not be there if there were no copyright/trademark laws prohibiting anyone to enter the business of hi tech (programming software; hardware; etc.). And this goes for any business… why should some business fields be “protected” from competition by copyrights? That is certainly protectionism of the favored few businesses who could afford the best lobbyists and copyright attorneys.
Jeannette-
A few quick points that hardly do justice to the many issues you bring up, but point to where I think your views fail to carry the weight you give them. Many commodities are scarce and not expensive. Scarceness needs to be linked with demand for prices to rise. Economics 101. The total experience of living in Sonoma County or some urban enclave of ‘slavery’ like NY or SF, is in far greater demand than the total experience of living in ANY of the so-called free states, and people put their money where their mouth is. Even you.
Therefore at a minimum, the right wing libertarian version of freedom is not the ultimate value, even for you. Sonoma County’s total packager is preferable. By contrast people risked and often lost their lives fleeing communist tyranny.
At what I think is a more insightful level, without many of its regulations the people of Sonoma County will feel it would become less desirable to live in. The evidence is they are correct. BUT – once the power to make regulations exists people will abuse them, try to manipulate them, and all the other things people do to misuse things. So regulations are always a mixed bag. They give us a largely unimpeded sea coast to enjoy AND zoning regulations that stupidly make intentional communities very hard to create. The task is to keep the former and change the latter. It is called exercising political freedom by self-governing citizens.
You attack copy right law. I agree 100% that it is abused. BUT it is hardly a closed question even among libertarians that writers and artists might own their works. What constitutes ownership? What constitutes property? What rights does it include and when does use become trespass on another? Very complicated questions all of them, and Charles Koch and Mercatus haven’t the foggiest idea what they are objectively. Neither do you. Or me. These questions need to be settled somehow and democratic procedures are the only fair way that this can be done.
I explore many of these issues in my chapter criticizing libertarians as not understanding their own concepts in Georgia Kelly, ed. “Uncivil Liberties: Deconstructing Libertarianism,” BTW today – Thursday – at 7 pm Georgia, another author, and myself will be giving a free discussion of the book at the French Garden in Sebastopol. Come on by and participate.