Libertarians are the worst. I am incredibly biased against libertarians for reasons that should probably be a blog post all its own, though I’m sure some will pop out in my analysis. Overall, when reading Libertarian writing, I’m very aware of my own negative biases, but the more I age, the less I agree with libertarians. So with this all in mind, when I say that I enjoyed Burning Down the House by Andrew Koppelman, you’ll know that it’s because the book makes strong solid arguments. I may not agree with Koppelman’s conclusions, but I understood the arguments and how he came to his conclusions. In my experience, this is rare for libertarians, specifically, and politics, in general. Too many people – right, left, libertarian, socialist, green party, whoever – believe their arguments are self-evident and thus require no explanation. Koppelman takes the opposite route. He explains, in depth, his personal philosophy of libertarianism, and it’s because of this, I am doing something I never thought I’d do. I’m highly recommending Burning Down the House by Andrew Koppelman as an excellent analysis of the modern libertarian party and as a way to understand why Libertarianism is attractive to some.
Disclaimer: The publisher provided a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review. Any and all opinions that follow are mine alone.
© PrimmLife.com 2022
TL;DR
Burning Down the House is an erudite, well-reasoned examination by Andrew Koppelman of how modern libertarian philosophy was corrupted. Koppelman builds his argument by defining his vision of libertarianism and then critiques other, ‘corrupted’ visions of it. His analysis is astute, surprising, and worth the read. This book isn’t just for libertarians. I’d recommend it to all political junkies, especially those interested in political philosophy. Highly recommended.
From the Publisher
A lively history of American libertarianism and its decay into dangerous fantasy.
In 2010 in South Fulton, Tennessee, each household paid the local fire department a yearly fee of $75.00. That year, Gene Cranick’s house accidentally caught fire. But the fire department refused to come because Cranick had forgotten to pay his yearly fee, leaving his home in ashes. Observers across the political spectrum agreed—some with horror and some with enthusiasm—that this revealed the true face of libertarianism. But libertarianism did not always require callous indifference to the misfortunes of others.
Modern libertarianism began with Friedrich Hayek’s admirable corrective to the Depression-era vogue for central economic planning. It resisted oppressive state power. It showed how capitalism could improve life for everyone. Yet today, it’s a toxic blend of anarchism, disdain for the weak, and rationalization for environmental catastrophe. Libertarians today accept new, radical arguments—which crumble under scrutiny—that justify dishonest business practices and Covid deniers who refuse to wear masks in the name of “freedom.”
Andrew Koppelman’s book traces libertarianism’s evolution from Hayek’s moderate pro-market ideas to the romantic fabulism of Murray Rothbard, Robert Nozick, and Ayn Rand, and Charles Koch’s promotion of climate change denial. Burning Down the House is the definitive history of an ideological movement that has reshaped American politics.
Review: Burning Down the House by Andrew Koppelman
Andrew Koppelman opens Burning Down the House, or How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed with the story of Gene Cranick’s house being allowed to burn down as a show and defense of libertarian values. He claims that the libertarianism that let that house burn is a corrupted version of the philosophy. (At least, it shows the heartlessness of modern libertarians.) Koppelman then spends time defining what he means by corruption of libertarian philosophy. He uses modern pundits like Glenn Beck, Kevin Williamson, and Jonah Goldberg to make his point. He references Beck again and again because Beck claims to be influenced by Frederick Hayek and Ayn Rand. Koppelman places the fight over the libertarian party’s soul between these two. He claims that modern American libertarianism began with Hayek but that Rand’s philosophies have steered it off Hayek’s course. This is an intriguing argument that the book works heavily toward again and again. Koppelman is clearly a student of Hayek’s, and he’s an excellent advocate for Hayek’s work. Throughout the book, Koppelman works from Hayek’s principles to integrate modern libertarianism with a social safety net. If I understood him correctly, he wants the government to help the poor without capping the rich’s ability to become even richer. Koppelman sees in Hayek’s philosophy a way to protect those most vulnerable in our society through both market and government solutions. In my personal philosophy, I’ve always seen socialism as the net below the trapeze artist. It protects those who are falling but doesn’t impede those who are soaring. Koppelman thinks Hayek would agree to this; though, neither Hayek nor Koppelman would call that socialism.
When I first saw this book on the various reviewer requesting sites, it perked my interest. I requested, and as I began to read it, I found it wasn’t the book that I thought it would be. I had suspected it would be a history of Libertarianism from outside the party itself. Instead, it’s a libertarian looking how the modern party evolved. The introduction angered me. I have 32 highlights and notes there alone. That’s five times the number of highlights that I put in On Critical Race Theory’s introduction, the last political philosophy book I reviewed. In the first chapter, I have 74 highlights and notes. This is a book that angered me, but it’s also a book that I can engage with. To be clear, not all of those highlights are negative, just most. But each chapter tamped down the anger more and more so that I was able to engage intellectually with the book. Koppelman opened my mind with a few sentences at the end of the introduction. The goal of his book was to mix the best of libertarianism with the best of the political left’s policies. Between the introduction and the first chapter, I began to find more and more common ground with Koppelman.
Chapter two dives into the philosophy of rights with a Hayekian interpretation of John Locke and John Rawls. This was the chapter I found most enlightening; though, I believe I read too fast through it and should probably go read it again to digest more of what Koppelman’s aiming to do. (More on this below.) Chapter three examines the arguments of prominent libertarian philosophers Murray Rothbard, Robert Nozick, and Ayn Rand. Koppelman looks at their arguments and how extreme they are. For example, Koppleman claims that under Rothbard’s philosophy a person has no legal obligation to his children whether feeding, clothing, or educating. While Rothbard considered not doing those thing immoral, he thought state coercion worse. To be clear, Rothbard thought that a parent has the legal right to let a child die through inaction by not feeding or sheltering. Welcome to the individual that brought the Koch brothers to libertarianism. Chapter four has Koppelman addresses the Libertarian rejection of restrictions upon one’s freedoms. For this, he examines whether all drugs should be legalized. Should heroin be purchasable alongside alcohol at the gas station? Libertarianism would say yes. Should cigarettes be sold to children under the age of 18? Libertarians would say yes. That decision should be made by the parents and not the state. Koppelman makes the case for legal restrictions upon a person’s freedoms for their own good. Chapter five looks at the libertarian view of anti-discrimination laws. Modern libertarian adherence to strict property rights says that yes, property owners have the right to discriminate against anyone. Racism, religious bigotry, homophobia, transphobia,etc. are all acceptable to libertarians in a legal sense. They may personally abhor all those -isms and find them morally reprehensible, but they don’t believe the state should force someone into property transactions against their will for any reason. Koppelman makes a case for limited state intervention when it creates more freedom. (This seems like a very utilitarian view of freedom. The business owner who loses the freedom to discriminate is overwhelmed by the additional freedom of all people of color to use said business.) Chapter 6 addresses the Randian concept of moochers. Libertarians fear and loathe paying for benefits that they themselves do not receive. Koppelman looks at this impulse via the Presidency of Barack Obama, where libertarian racism framed him as a socialist despite all objective evidence that he isn’t. Of course, all right-leaning and conservative people call anything they don’t like socialism, they had it extra bad for Obama despite all his pro-business policies. His signature health initiative, the ACA, benefited private insurance industry. How is that socialism? Hint, it’s not. In this chapter, Koppelman also looks at Charles Koch, the man most responsible for shifting the Overton window towards a heartless brand of libertarianism.
Hayek vs. Rand
Much of Koppelman’s book shows a libertarian party under the influence of Hayek and Ayn Rand. However, he claims that Rand’s philosophies are influencing more and more of modern libertarianism. He’s correct there. Rand’s philosophy is a cold one based on the fear of moochers. Her early life was shattered by the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, and she never quite got over that. She worried extensively about others profiting off one’s work. Between The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, Rand grew in popularity. Atlas Shrugged, her most popular and influential work, “involves a dystopian United States in which the most creative industrialists, scientists, and artists respond to a welfare state government by going on strike and retreating to a hidden valley where they build an independent free economy.” Her main character in, Atlas Shrugged, John Galt has the philosophy of a child. He’s going to take his work and his genius away and pout in a hidden valley because people are using it in ways he doesn’t like. The fact that he and his fellow strikers leave the vulnerable to starve and die has no bearing on his philosophy or his conscience. This is because for Rand – and many, many modern libertarians – property is more important than people.
Rand’s philosophy, for all the high brow attempts to make it sound intellectual, is one of anger and victimhood. Hayek’s philosophy is an attempt to better the world. Rand’s philosophy is only for a select few, which is what makes it attractive to childish thinking.
I haven’t read Hayek, but I’ve read both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, twice each. The first time as an 18 year old small town boy leaving home for college. The second was as a 27 year old living in a large city, working for a living. The work attracted the younger me. It felt right that a person should own their work product and intellectual property. But that’s because I was a selfish, self-centered person who had yet to see how the world was interdependent upon one another. As I aged, I began to notice how deeply interconnected we were. At the same time, my mother’s health began failing. Rand, and her libertarian followers, would have called my mother a moocher because she was physically unable to work a job. Rand would have let my mother die in the street because she needed government help in order to live. I also began to notice how it was the rich who were the real moochers. Rand, Republicans, and libertarian philosophy claim that if an employee is highly productive, companies will reward that employee. Yet, in twenty years in the private sector, I’ve seen the opposite. Minimal rewards go the highly productive, and they’re no different than the rewards that go to minimally productive people. This merit based philosophy claims that firms will pay more to retain high value employees. That’s not true. In times of crisis, companies will fire people based on salary with the idea that younger, cheaper employees can be trained to replace older, higher paid employees. (FYI, replacement never works.) Yet, the highest salaries and bonuses continue to go to those at the top despite the fact that most companies could operate just fine without the executive levels. If all the executives were fired at Ford, cars would still roll out of the factories. If all the factories workers lost their jobs, Ford no longer makes money because execs couldn’t replace those workers. Of course, conservatives and libertarians have their excuses for why this isn’t mooching despite the clear fact that it is.
While I haven’t read Hayek, Koppelman makes it clear that there is room in Hayek’s philosophy for both a market based approach and government support of people like my mother. This would put him at odds with Rand, and it seems like Rand has taken over the party. Koppelman’s reading of Hayek interprets his philosophy as not putting property over people.
Locke and Property Rights
Property rights are the number one concern of the Libertarian party. So much, that the current philosophy values property greater than people. Most libertarians will claim their philosophy as one descended from John Locke’s. As I’ve never read Locke as a primary source – I’ve only read analysis of his work – I can’t really argue against this claim. Koppelman, however, can. In chapter two, he provides a deep look into Locke’s philosophy as regards to property. He also places Locke’s philosophy in context. One thing that most of us non-philosophers fail to do is acknowledge that a philosopher’s work is also a product of its time and circumstances. Locke’s work was deeply influenced by the monarchy in which he lived. That changes its meaning when used in a democracy. In addition, property – intellectual, particularly – has changed and expanded since Locke existed. Locke believed that property became an individuals once it changed through said individuals work. Libertarians agree. In fact, everyone seems to agree upon this. (Well, maybe not communists, but that’s a whole different ball of wax.) Koppelman steps back though to examine what property rights really mean. He claims they’re relations between people, i.e. mine and not yours. Property rights are not an intrinsic part of an object. When describing trees to a child, ownership of each individual tree isn’t discussed. So, how does Locke square the idea of a non-physical activity like work mixing with a physical object like land to make a distinction that is part of the object, a right? Locke believes people are entitled to the work they have produced, and that production is represented in the form of a reward that can be traded in some form of transaction.
Koppelman argues that nowhere does Locke indicate that a person is deserving of any particular distribution of reward. Meaning that just because a person’s work is worth 100 units doesn’t mean said person will get 100 units of reward. Libertarians understand this when it comes to trading labor for wages. Person A goes to person B looking for work; person B offers person A the market rate of wages for work. Person A’s finished product may be worth more, equal, or less than that. If it’s worth more than the prevailing wages paid, person b gets to keep the excess between product worth and wages paid, i.e. profit. Most libertarians would say this is an acceptable trade. Person A is not entitled to the full amount of his/her labor’s value. But when government says the same thing and taxes a portion of person A’s labor, libertarians get upset. Koppelman argues that Locke has room in his philosophy for taxation because Locke never claimed that a person deserved particular rewards.
In addition, Koppelman states that Locke believed everyone’s basic needs be provided for. Locke wrote “we know God hath not left one man so to the mercy of another, that he may starve him if he please: God the Lord and Father of all, has given no one of his children such a property in his peculiar portion of the things of this world, but that he has given his needy brother a right to the surplusage of his goods; so that it cannot justly be denied him, when his pressing wants call for it. And therefore no man could ever have a just power over the life of another by right of property in land or possessions…” (First Treatise of Government By John Locke Paragraph 42) According to Locke, the needy have a right to “the surplassage of […] goods…” How do the needy enact this right? Charity would be the Libertarian answer because charity is a choice. But Locke says that no one can justly deny the needy. There’s a contradiction there, and it seems that Locke does indeed have room within his philosophy for redistribution of funds. Koppelman argues that this is coherent with Hayek’s philosophy.
Taxation as Theft (Or the "I'm not a Serious Person" Argument)
Because of their extreme views on property rights, Libertarians believe that Taxation is Theft. They proudly proclaim. Hell, I’ve seen people whose salaries are paid by taxes proclaim this. It’s an inherently infantile view based upon the fantasy of absolute self-sufficiency. Modern libertarianism is stuck in this fantasy that’s similar to manifest destiny America where all one has to do is stake a claim to a land and work it. Once the claim is staked, then those people can make a living all on the product of their own labor. Except this wasn’t even true during those times. Farmers still settled in communities for safety and to trade labor. They were never fully self-sufficient; they always existed within a society, within a community. But the modern libertarian idea is that each of us is capable of being wholly self-sufficient. We’re not. In fact, it’s been turned into an interesting meme on social media. “Libertarians are like housecats, convinced of their fierce independence, but utterly dependent on a system they don’t understand or appreciate.” While overly simplified, this meme distills my thoughts on Libertarians perfectly.
Modern society is built upon interdependence. I have never paved a road in my life; yet, I’ve driven on several. I didn’t lay the water pipes from the water plant to my house; yet, I consume water literally every day. These things are not free; they exist because I pay taxes. The Libertarian argument is that these things would be better provided by the private marketplace, not the government. Then the money wouldn’t be ‘stolen’ from a person’s paycheck; that person would trade money in exchange for water or a road. However, this doesn’t make sense when thoroughly examined. In order for these things to exist, a subscription, similar to the one Gene Cranick failed to pay, or tolls would be required to use roads. The subscription wouldn’t work because how would you stop those who don’t pay from driving on the roads. Therefore, a toll both would sit at the end of everyone’s driveway in order to ensure no one used the road without paying. And for a road to be profitable enough for a private company to make money while keeping prices affordable enough for people to actually pay, a high population of users would be needed for sufficient margins to make a profit. Small towns and farming communities wouldn’t have businesses paving roads out their way at any sort of competitive prices. Therefore, these places would probably have to revert to dirt roads or whatever individuals could do themselves. Medium to big cities would have pavement where rural areas probably wouldn’t. Libertarians would counter that someone would see the need for paving in these communities and step up to fill that hole. Maybe. But this new business would have to compete for paving materials against city companies that are able to pay higher prices. Farmers and rural people would have to pay much more per person to have similar quality roads to city dwellers. This would be reflected in higher prices in products that low density areas produce. Increased prices would cause cities to look closer to home for products so that transportation fees could be reduced. The system would require radical reorientation of our entire nation simply to live close to similar lives. By sharing the cost of roads through taxation, rural communities benefit, and large cities are able to profit from those communities hard work in farming and industry.
Koppelman’s use of the destruction of Gene Cranick’s home shows the fundamental flaw in the taxation as theft argument. Cranick had been paying his subscription for years but missed the one time he needed it. As a result, his life and that of his family was ruined by a very common human error. The philosophy that allows Cranick’s home to burn doesn’t assume forgetfulness; it assumes malice. That Cranick would only pay to protect his house, despite evidence to the contrary. Had they allowed him to pay at the scene of the fire, liberatarians suggest that people would see that as needing only to pay when a fire arose. So, nuance isn’t allowed in this philosophy. No consideration of Cranick’s history or human weakness could change the fire department’s mind. It’s a binary philosophy: dues paid or not paid. All other considerations are thrown out. This is the same binary look at taxes. If someone takes property without the consent of the property owner, that’s theft. No one consented to taxes; therefore, taxes are theft. Again, this is a philosophy without nuance, and it’s a rather childish look at life.
Was Burning Down the House Convincing?
I enjoyed Burning Down the House, but no, it didn’t convert me into a libertarian. Koppelman did show how libertarian philosophy can be compatible with issues that are important to me. He makes the case that societal care for the poor and anti-discrimination laws fit within a libertarian philosophy. Prior to the book, I agreed with him that capitalism has been the best method to better the most lives. His arguments are interesting, well-thought out, and compelling. But ultimately Burning Down the House fails as most political books do. It deals with an ideal – in this case, the ‘free’ market – that doesn’t exist and may not be possible to exist. Libertarians like to think that the market could and would solve everything. Koppelman hedges a little, with redistribution, anti-pollution, and anti-discrimination regulation, but he still believes there’s an ideal market that improves everyone’s lives. Maybe he’s right. But this fails the same test as advocates of pure communism and pure socialism fail, human greed. The markets are easily manipulated by the rich. Elon Musk tried to manipulate the stock market during his Twitter purchase fiasco, in my opinion. During Covid, the top 1% saw their incomes increase as everyone’s else took hits. Businesses will always lobby governments so that the public takes the risk while the shareholders reap the rewards. And focusing on market based solutions places profits over the expense of people’s lives. Libertarians hate the Food & Drug Administration. They think that if a company poisons people, the market will punish that company. Except what about the people that died a preventable death? We already exist in a society where the punishments companies often incur are simply fines, which is simply another cost of business to them and not really a punishment. Koppelman doesn’t answer this question, and truthfully he can’t because economic theory doesn’t model real world transactions exactly. There are always assumptions made, trends examined, and outliers to exclude.
Burning Down the House is a libertarian book. In my experience, every libertarian embodies the No True Scotsman Fallacy. All other libertarians aren’t really libertarian, but the speaker is. This book is no different because Koppelman discusses how others have strayed from Hayek’s version of libertarianism. This makes it truly libertarian. (To be fair, libertarians aren’t the only political party guilty of the No True Scotsman fallacy. See: Republicans and RINOs, leftists and Neoliberals. Libertarians just exhibit it about every single other libertarian that exists.)
So, why read Burning Down the House? Because it’s intelligent, and you will learn something. I have never read Hayek before, but I plan to as my review stack gets smaller. Koppelman has shown that Hayek’s ideas are worth examining regardless of your political party. Koppelman places Hayek in a philosophical continuum from John Locke to John Rawls in a way that keeps free market idealism while making the case for small amounts of redistribution and regulation. This is brave for a libertarian because the modern party has become extreme property rights fanatics. Koppelman, however, seeks to reclaim libertarian sensibilities for left-leaning individuals. Because of this book, I’ll have more patience with libertarians to see if they’re in the Hayekian tradition.
Conclusion
Andrew Koppelman’s Burning Down the House is a smart, well-written, well-argued attempt to realign modern libertarian philosophy in a tradition of Frederick Hayek and John Rawls. Koppelman’s analysis of how libertarians evolved from Hayek to the modern interpretation favored by Glenn Beck is excellent and thought-provoking. Despite all the biases I had prior to reading this book, Burning Down the House by Andrew Koppelman won me over. With each chapter, my curiosity grew, and I became more and more impressed with Koppelman’s dedication to his Hayekian principles. This is one of the best political books that I’ve ever read. Now, I need to find time so that I can read it again. Highly recommended.
Title by Author is available from Publisher on Month dayst, 2022.
© PrimmLife.com 2022