BEING CONSTRUCTIVE. On this whole Liberaltarianism thing, Julian Sanchez has a fair riposte: "Fine, pretend for a moment you aren't convinced this is a doomed idea and make a counteroffer. We want a system in which people are encouraged to rely more on individual saving and investment. Is there any distance you're willing to go down that road?" It's a good question. I'm all for opt-out 401(k)s and asset building plans, if that's what Julian's wondering about, but I've a feeling the road extends quite a bit farther. Problem is, part of what makes me a liberal is a belief in the power of collective action. I think a universal, government-run health care system would be far superior to any devolved, individualized alternative. I think we need countervailing powers in the economy. I think the common good is distinct from the macro growth numbers and needs to be enforced. As the saying goes, we live in a society, not an economy. But let's try some compromises: Within the context of a universal, government-run or regulated proposal, I'm interested in utilizing the genuine insights of libertarians on moral hazard, and would have little trouble with a system of publicly-funded HSA's where the deductibles (or out-of-pocket limits) are progressively structured as a percentage of income, certain conditions (diabetes, cancer) and preventive procedures are exempted, and the emphasis is on financial incentives rather than penalties. Sadly, I doubt we'd actually come to agreement on where those spending limits should be. Off of entitlements, I'm not willing to give up on Labor or government as a countervailing power, but I am willing shunt welfare responsibilities over to the government so unions no longer bargain over and fight for benefits, and that may, for libertarians, make workers less reliant on them. I'm not willing to move general taxation over to any sort of consumption tax I've yet seen proposed, but would be interested in paying for health care through a dedicated VAT. I think asset plans should create personal savings accounts for the poor which start out in index funds, and I think they should be funded through heavier marginal taxation on the rich. I'm obviously happy to dismantle corporate welfare and most subsidy programs, but remain convinced that investment in renewables is a good idea. I think there should be more charter schools, but only as part of a package that ends funding disparities between schools and pays, at the least, urban teachers quite a bit more. I'd be willing to dismantle most campaign finance restrictions in exchange for a public matching program that quadruples (or more) individual, small-sum contributions. So those are some ideas, and I genuinely have no idea whether a libertarian would find them attractive. But here's the counter-question: Economically speaking, Liberals want a world with less risk to individuals, more relative power for workers, less inequality, and more attention to non-economic goods (environmental quality, global warming, leisure time, etc). What sort of compromises are the libertarians in the audience willing to offer. Julian? --Ezra Klein
