Libertarian Battle Royale

Tyler Cowen takes part in a time-honored blogosphere tradition: instigating a libertarian battle royale. Back when I was a wee lad in blog years, I'd have probably jumped into the ring and proceeded to throw in a few bodyslams, dropkicks, and while the referee wasn't looking, choke-holds.

But with the wisdom of years, I know better. Instead, I will try my hand at Miyagi-style zen-inspired words of wisdom. My thoughts are:

1) To the extent that I support any specific view of the ideal institutions of a libertarian society, I'm most sympathetic to the vision of David Friedman.

2) Given that competing personal security agencies aren't in near our future, I support changes in the direction of the spirit of DDF's vision: law as a private good. People who support certain laws should benefit from their goodness and suffer from their badness. This means supporting federalism, decentralization, and local autonomy, i.e., as Patri puts it, competitive government, or as C. J. Trillian puts it, second-level libertarianism.

3) The differences between the various subtypes are grossly overrated. It's important to highlight differences between ideas, but more often than not, the labels themselves take on a life of their own, and the ideas take a back seat. The argument enters the socio-political battlefield rather than remaining in the intellectual realm. Tribalism ensues. This is bad.

4) The most effective ideas appeal to self-interest. The best libertarian ideas have to appeal to the self-interest of people who don't call themselves libertarians.

5) To make honey young bee need young flower, not old prune.