Reader Query: Can (Or Should) A Libertarian Ride a City Bus?

For the second time, a reader has taken me to task for making free-market arguments but continuing to ride a city bus.

I think it's an interesting question. And to be fair to myself, it's not one I have ducked. Here's the first discussion. (Check the comments.) And here's the reiteration. (Again, look to the comments.)

Here's a run-down. I am a pretty libertarian guy. (Note the small "l". I am not a member of the Libertarian Party.) I used to work for Reason, the unofficial magazine for free-market types. I got a fellowship from some conservative people, a fellowship that I turned into a book that some people might consider pretty right-wing (although I would dispute that charge.) I despise the kind of top-down bureaucratic "development" schemes that have destroyed Pittsburgh's downtown, and I despise the kind of nanny-state bullying that leads to bans on drugs and smoking. Despite the fact that I neither do any illegal drugs nor smoke. Anymore.

So what do I do now? I work, teach and study at Pitt, an institution that receives about 20 percent of its funding from the State of Pennsylvania. Part of my pay is a bus pass. Which I use a few days a week.

There are a lot of arguments on both sides, I think. Good arguments. I pay my taxes like everyone else, after all. If I will accept my tax return, why not get some of the money back in kind? Pitt is my college as much as it is yours. Why not use it in the same way I use roads, libraries, the courts and other statist institutions?

Moreover, is it all that clear that Pitt is more of a "state" school than other places? How much money does Carnegie Mellon get from the Department of Defense? A lot. So does a libertarian guy have to avoid working at any school no matter what? What if it's a school that has a government road leading up to it? Maybe I could just work in a rough and tumble market like computers. Except the Department of Defense invented the Internet. So is that another tainted institution?

That is, where do you draw the line? It seems to me that you have to draw it somewhere. I think it would be very odd of me, for instance, to accept a government subsidy to build condos downtown. At the same time, does that mean I can never set foot on a city street? If someone breaks into my house and the police come, should I insist that the police leave so as not to suck on the government teat? That seems a bit far in the other direction.

So I don't know. Is it important for people who lean towards the free-market to be "pure"? In a certain way, I think it is. But how do we define purity? If we demand too much, there doesn't seem to be all that much room for anyone to talk at all.

What do you think? Am I a hypocrite? A worse hypocrite than the next guy? Moreover, anyone have any suggestions for a "pure" career for such a fellow to pursue? I bet you can poke holes in all of them. So does that mean anything goes?

And a final question: How come it's only libertarians who face this question? No one calls American liberals hypocrites when they work for private industry. Do they?

Just asking.

Comments

[sean mcdaniel]

Hey, I dont' care if someone is a libertarian, republician, democrat, communist or nazi. i just get tired of the bitching about government money being used to build baseball parks, high rise office towers, inner city shopping centers and so on. by the way, should we stop student loans for everyone? hell, why should the government fund anyone's education beyond high school? (and some would say even that's too long. but i don't agree.) and i know plenty of people whose kids get student loans even though they can afford tuition — that's if their kids went to slippery rock instead of cmu.

i think bush is a hypocrit. same with hillary clinton and rick santorum and pat robertson and jerry falwell. jimmy carter's a jerk too (did you know he accepted money from the saudis for his presidential library?) john mckain and teddy kennedy are asses, too. john kerry, maybe not. he's too impotent and bungling and wishy washy to betray his so called principles. i know that in our daily lives we make compromises with our beliefs because there's no other way to get out life short of living alone in the hills without our computers and car and TV remotes. I've got no problem with the little stuff, like complaining about the price of gas and big bad big oil and then driving to SouthSide Works to buy some cool overpriced hiking boots at REI that will never get used for anything more strenuous than a walk on the local rail trails.

but as i rant on my blog — behindblueyes2.blogspot.com — this endless navel gazing about subsidies and eco terror and "look at my new article in the city paper or business times" self promotion is pretty silly compared to the fact that nearly every days a couple more Americans die in Iraq for our freedom...you know the freedom to worry about whether some sleaze bag corporation should be allowed to build a slot machine palace in the hill or why the war on drugs should be stopped.

by the way, i've been ripping the other local blog-viators for being testy when someone strongly disagrees with them. you don't fall into that category. you do respond without resorting to their snobbery and peevishness. despite their supposedly libertarian views, they really aren't open for discussion if you don't toe their line.

one thing is, top down thinking didn't ruin downtown. It started dying when people quit going to movies and restaurants and stores there. anyone over 40 can remember a time when getting off a bus in downtown pittsburgh was just the start of a daylong adventure that included 3 major department stores, a half dozen movie theaters, plenty of great places to eat, buy a book, button, a pipe wrench and just about anything you could need or imagine. when we all moved to the suburbs and patronized malls, that's when downtown died. and the only way it's going to come back to life is to have people live there. people who will shop and eat and relax there too. and frankly, if it takes a little government money to have that happen, that's fine with me.

i would have respondes sooner, but i was at PNC park last night, thanks to a couple of free tix i got from a client that does lots of construction work for the federal govt. i've made my bed...and i sleep like a baby.

[james]

i enjoy your blog. Libertarianism is sort of a 20th century utopian ideology, no ?

Dick Cheney probably thinks he is quite libertarian too. Point is, how do you stop people like Cheney from turning into Soviets the minute they get a chance except by taxing them and taxing people whose money gives them inequitable access to government?

Keep writing. Usually libertarians are closer to the middle than their racists party mates, and we've certainly got extremists on the left too.

[sean mcdaniel]

Sam,

I don't like labels even if i'm a union supporter/basher registered democrat who thinks his party has nothing to offer except faded jaded aging 1960s hipsters who screwed up things even more than we accused our parents of doing. The 1950s parents thought they were doing the right thing. As for my generation, we "knew" we were doing the (self) righteous thing. As for you younger folks, I'm not sure were your heads are!

[sean mcdaniel]

Sam,

our government was started by rich guys whose wealth gave them access to government! That one man one vote idea meant just that...at least for white men.

[Fred Mullner]

I appreciate the introspection in your post, Sam, but you do realize that the quandry you find yourself in is not yours to worry about. Government has worked its way into our lives by exceeding the bounds of both the Constitution and prudence. There is literally no way to avoid some amount of suckle on the government teat.

That being the case, the relevant question is not whether you are doing any suckling. Rather, it is whether you believe that we as a society ought to be on the teat or whether we ought to be weaning ourselves from it. Individual liberty needs to make a philosophical comeback before we can worry about being "pure" in practice. I think as long as you are doing your part on the philosophical end of things (you are) being a perfect libertarian in practice doesn't have much meaning.