BYLINE: Nick Hanauer and Eric Liu
Most people would consider radical libertarianism and communism polar opposites: the first glorifies personal freedom, the second would obliterate it. Yet the ideologies are simply mirror images. Both attempt to answer the same questions, and fail to do so in similar ways.
Where communism was adopted, the result was misery, poverty and tyranny. If extremist libertarians ever translated their beliefs into policy, it would lead to the same kinds of catastrophe.
Let's start with some definitions. By radical libertarianism, we mean the ideology that holds that individual liberty trumps all other values.
By communism, we mean the ideology of extreme state domination of private and economic life.
Some of the radical libertarians are Ayn Rand fans who divide their fellow citizens into makers, in the mould of John Galt, and takers, in the mould of anyone other than Galt.
Some, such as the Koch brothers, are economic royalists who repackage trickle-down economics as "libertarian populism". Some are followers of Texas Senator Ted Cruz, whose highest aspiration is to shut down government. Some resemble the anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, who has made a career out of trying to drown, stifle or strangle government.
Yes, liberty is a core American value, and an overweening state can be unhealthy. And there are plenty of self-described libertarians who have adopted the label mainly because they support same-sex marriage or decry government surveillance. These social libertarians are not the problem. It is the nihilist anti-state libertarians of the Koch-Cruz-Norquist-Paul (Ron and Rand alike) school who should worry us.
Like communism, this philosophy is defective in its misreading of human nature, misunderstanding of how societies work and utter failure to adapt to changing circumstances.
Radical libertarianism assumes that humans are wired only to be selfish when, in fact, co-operation is the height of human evolution. It assumes that societies are efficient mechanisms requiring no rules or enforcers when, in fact, they are fragile ecosystems prone to collapse and easily overwhelmed by free-riders.
And it is fanatically rigid in its insistence on a single solution to every problem: roll back the state!
Communism failed in three strikingly similar ways. It believed that humans should be willing cogs serving the proletariat. It assumed that societies could be run top-down like machines.
And it, too, was fanatically rigid in its insistence on an all-encompassing ideology, leading to totalitarianism.
Radical libertarianism, if ever put into practice at the scale of something bigger than a tiny enclave, would also be a disaster.
We say the conditional "would" because radical libertarianism has a fatal flaw: it can't be applied across a functioning society. What might radical libertarians do if they actually had power?
A President Paul would rule by tantrum, shutting down the government in order to repeal laws already passed by Congress. …