|
Written by Brian Miller
|
|
Saturday, 18 April 2009 00:00 |
One of the most annoying things for everyday Libertarians to have to endure is the two-fold "dynamic of idiocy" found in the political debate around individual liberties.
The dynamic is this: religious rightists will assert a right to absolute libertarianism for themselves (with absolute statism imposed on those who are not like them), and "know-nothing libertarians" will insist with a straight face that we live in a "free market."
Kip Esquire explores this dynamic in a recent blog post, where he notes the outrage of religious right statists who are forced by regulations to pay fines for refusing to medically treat a lesbian, or refusing to photograph a gay wedding, or whatever.
Predictably, know-nothing libertarians chime in with rhetoric about how their free market rights are being violated, missing the entire point that they're not operating in a free market to begin with.
The United States is not a "free market." It's a heavily regulated market that restricts individual choice and constrains the ability of the market to meet the demands of everyone in the market.
Medical licensing laws prevent fully-capable medical professionals from practicing medicine -- ensuring long lines, higher prices, and waiting periods.
Regulations governing pharmaceuticals guarantees long waits, higher prices, and less choice.
Regulations governing renting, employment, and other voluntary economic transactions prevent landlords, employers, and others from exercising their own perspectives -- however repugnant they might be -- in those transactions.
The religious right has cultivated and encouraged the growth of this regulatory state. They helped create a system where there may only be one or two general practitioner physicians within 100 miles of a rural area. They helped build and facilitate a regulatory circumstance where the only source of birth control, HIV medication or other "religiously disapproved" medication is from a small group of pharmacies in the region all owned by a particular religious believer. They've been especially strident at creating non-discrimination laws that make it illegal to refuse to employ or rent to religious believers.
But now that they've prospered in that regulatory framework, they're discovering the dark side of that effort. The regulations that grant them a monopoly over medical care or pharmacy distribution also prevents them from making decisions about who they can treat or sell to or rent to.
And rightly so, in my view. If government MUST constrain the rights of sellers to compete and buyers to buy from the best possible supplier, then they must also constrain the rights of government-licensed providers from using that government-created channel to force their values on the individual. If the government prevents a gay man from getting psychological care from a gay-positive psychologist through a restrictive licensing scheme that protects the religious psychologist from competition, that religious psychologist must also necessarily surrender HER right to refuse treatment based on religious beliefs.
Such a lack of choice is a natural outcome of government regulation, and was embraced by the religious right when it was economically beneficial. They cannot just back out of the deal (while preserving the scheme) now that the longtime negative consequences are hitting them, rather than gay or black or immigrant or Jewish patients.
Of course, the elimination of those regulatory frameworks is the best path forward. Regulations that constrain availability of health care, pharmaceuticals, photography services, apartments, and other things hurt everybody.
But know-nothing libertarians asserting "free market rights" in a market that is unfree -- without addressing the unfree aspect of that market -- aren't living in reality. Defending those who benefit from and defend the government-created monopoly as "victims" is foolishness, especially when the impact of that government monopoly on the rights of minority groups like gay consumers isn't considered.
And the religious rightists who want government regulation to elevate them to an unearned monopoly -- yet want to pretend to have free market rights while enjoying that government-created monopoly -- should be called out for the hypocrites that they are.
Neither is advancing the cause of individual liberty. That can only be done through consistent criticism of the regulatory environment and an understanding that free market concepts can only be applied in free markets, not government-created distorted markets.
|
