Thanks to President Cleveland for the invitation to guest blog here at Pileus. Grover’s invitation came shortly after Marginal Revolution linked to the minor challenge I threw to American libertarians: if libertarians love freedom so much, why do so many libertarians live in such unfree places? I probably ought to follow-up on that a bit here.
I moved to New Zealand in 2003. The academic job market was looking a bit thin the year I went out – state budget crises were bad enough that some places that offered flyouts had to cancel them after their positions were canned. Fortunately, I’d applied very broadly. I sent applications to universities in any country where my wife and I could imagine living. When the offer came from the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand, I was ecstatic. The pay was not good compared to U.S. offers, though the overall package wasn’t bad. But what had me over the moon was New Zealand’s spirit of freedom. The safety nuts who’d taken over Northern Virginia – none of them seemed to have made it down here. Narrow winding mountain roads without safety rails, a hike up a river through a long natural limestone cave in a national park with only a sign suggesting you bring a flashlight and dress warmly in winter, bouldering around cliff faces that would have had a thousand American mothers screaming that barricades were needed for the sake of the children – I was in heaven.
What’s the point of liking freedom if you can’t live the parts of it that matter most to you?
We weighed our options and made the move. And New Zealand hasn’t disappointed on the freedom front. There’s been a bit of backsliding, but our relative position has probably gotten better rather than worse.
The Libertarian Standard posted recently about an American in Maryland who wanted to start a business distilling vodka. The regulatory regime meant he’d have to have all the plant in place before applying for permission, then it would have to sit there for two years. Since home distilling is illegal, he couldn’t even try out his recipes. In New Zealand, a guy in Queenstown started making vodka at home (legal), then started selling it to local bars (also legal), then was bought out a few years later by Baccardi.
There is no chance that the would-be Maryland distiller can get the regulations changed. But he could move to a different US state with better regulations, or he could move internationally. Jason Sorens and William Ruger have put together a very handy guide listing which states tread most heavily on different dimensions of freedom. Pick whichever list of American libertarians you like – Walter Block’s list of autobiographies, the membership list for the Mont Pelerin Society – lots of American libertarians live in places that are fundamentally unfree.
Sure, there can be plenty of reasons for living in a less free state. If marijuana access is the freedom that matters most to you, then the other ways that California infringes on freedom might matter less. And if we have a few dimensions that yield rather different rankings for the different states, we can always come up with a weighting of dimensions such that the state you live in doesn’t fare too badly. But let’s avoid that kind of ex post rationalisation for now. If we can derive measures of the value of a statistical life by comparing house prices close to and far away from toxic waste dumps, we could similarly estimate how much value folks put on liberty. If you’ve moved from a more free to a less free state for a slightly better job, the difference in freedom is worth less than the difference in jobs.
It’s easy to reply that differences in freedom across states aren’t big enough to matter that much. But if that’s true, what’s the point of expending any effort at all in trying to achieve policy changes in your state that, if you’re incredibly lucky, might make your state move up one or two positions in the state league tables? Think about all the time and effort you’ve put into achieving one incremental change. Folk activism feels good and it can be fun. But why not do it after moving first to the state that offers the bundle of freedoms you find most attractive? You’ll be more effective in persuading a set of voters who are more inclined to agree with you than a set of voters who think you’re evil, and you can help your new state be a better beacon unto others.
You don’t have to move as far as New Zealand either. Just crossing a state line can make a difference: Virginia beats Maryland on every measure of freedom and is right next door. The ranking of states by respect for personal freedoms puts Virginia ninth of fifty and Maryland dead last. But Jason Sorens found there are about as many libertarian voters in Maryland as in Virginia. If libertarian voters won’t suffer a longer commute from Pennsylvania or Virginia to a job in Maryland, how much value do we put on freedom? And if we personally put little value on freedom in the personal sphere, our calls against eroding it in the political sphere might ring a bit hollow.
Nobody’s demand curve for freedom is or should be completely inelastic. New York and Boston are awesome cities filled with great amenities; that’s one reason their mayors can afford such awful policies. I can imagine living in unfree places if the compensation bundle were good enough – liberty matters, but so do wealth and other amenities. But I wonder how cheaply we’re trading freedom. Give me Liberty or give me … a one course reduction, an accelerated tenure clock and a corner office?
21 thoughts on “Moving to freedom”
I fully agree. If libertarians really do value freedom as they (we) define it, they (we) should be willing to move for it. It’s a bit tough for academics, because you really can’t decide which state to live in, if you want a job in the field at all, but that’s not the case for most people. I assume you’ve seen Ilya Somin’s posts at Volokh on this? I don’t think there’s that much difference between your positions – Ilya points out that libertarians generally do consider freedom in their decisions about where to live, but your point, I take it, is that this propensity is weaker than we should expect or desire.
For many people, its not easy to give up family and the only land you know in search of freedoms (especially if you’re not the travelling type). And what’s to guarantee the freedom you’ve abandoned your homeland for won’t be taken from you the day after you’ve bit the bullet and moved?
I agree. And then I think about the number of people who move to different states within the US for jobs, and the number of libertarians who still live in New York and California.
Ilya shows that broad migration patterns favour freer states, but those measures are also confounded by there generally being lower house prices in more free states.
It’s not that uncommon for academics to have more than one offer when out on the market. How much weight does liberty get relative to course-load and salary?
Well, Ilya also did a fairly detailed although informal analysis of the average freedom level of the places where libertarians bio’ed in Walter Block’s recent book live, relative to the population-weighted freedom mean in the U.S., and found that this sample of libertarians tended to be found in somewhat freer states. Anecdotally, he pointed to his libertarian GMU colleagues, who were much more likely to live in VA than MD. This all suggests that there’s some tendency for libertarians to value freedom on the margins, but would that it were a more dominating concern!
You sure? I think he’d pointed to my analysis of same and concluded that the difference – equivalent to moving about two states up the freedom ranking – was significant where I’d reckoned it so tiny (changes around the median are necessarily tiny) to hardly be worth mentioning.
You’re right of course. I misremembered who had written what!
It’s a fascinating idea that NZ is a libertarian’s dream. I remember when they made union-membership compulsory (and wasn’t that *good* for unions). Especially because the reasons for the particular freedoms you enumerate is a variety *state* -run things like ACC (name changed since I left) and a public healthcare system. In fact. in general, New Zealand is a pretty socialist country.
p.s. Eric, I hope you’re ok, but I guess posting is going to somewhat interrupted now 😦
Best wishes to you and all in Christchurch, NZ! May the wounded and trapped be swiftly saved.
Isn’t New Zealand the country where the government has criteria for what you may name your baby? I’ve understood it’s very mixed, depends on what sorts of restrictions bother you the most (which, I suppose is the main point…).
The article & comments can’t be complete without a link to the Free State Project, the largest mass-move of libertarians in the USA (to New Hampshire).
Am well, spotty occasional internet access. Much much better luck than many others.
@ex: ACC is a tradeoff. Yeah, it sucks. But it means our tort law is sane. Public healthcare: private insurance is damned cheap. Best obstetrician in town cost $2K. Just pay out of pocket. Totally sane.
@Bill: Our daughter’s name is Eleanor Leia Crampton. Our son: Ira Tullock Samuel Crampton. Nobody stopped us. Never heard of any name approval process. Maybe that’s Sweden.
@Eric: c’mon now, this isn’t my country! 🙂
… In that case, a girl was named O.crnia, but in negotiations with the mother over a parenting order, the name was adjusted to Oceania.
New Zealand officials said they did have the power to block outlandish names. …
I’d missed that one!
If the freedom that’s most important to you is calling your kid “Stinky McButtmunch”, then maybe New Zealand isn’t for you.
I’m a Libertarian. You wonder why I live in an “unfree” place. Simple. The liberty I value most is the choice to decide how much and what kind of risk I have in my life. Wisconsin used to be one of two states where mandartory slavebelt use was “only” a secondary offense (the cops could only ticket you if they had to stop you for some other reason first). Then the Feds blackmailed Wisconsin into changing it into a primary offense. So where can I go? When I was little, I thought I might move to Canada, but there’s no freedom there. Nor Portugal, nor Germany (those two, at least, I’m sure of, though it wouldn’t suprise me if it was every country in Europe). Even if I fould a country that respected tihis freedom and I could live in and somehow cough up the nerve and money to completely uproot myself (and I’m the kind that doesn’t like to move), what’s to guarantee they wouldn’t pass such legislation after I’d been there a year or two? If there’s no where for you to go, then why make the effort of leaving where you are?
IMHO, the best way to guarantee that your freedoms won’t be taken away is to move to a place where there are enough hardcore freedom-lovers that every attempt to take away freedom will be met with vociferous, politician-frightening opposition. 😉
One: I’m the kind of person that doesn’t like to move down the street, much less across (or out of ) the country. Two: I’ve lost my faith that such a place exists. Even if it exists now, the way this world is going, there’s a good chance it won’t exist in five years. The war of independence is over. Liberty lost.
There aren’t many places that now respect seat-belt freedom. We’re compelled to wear them here too – primary enforcement. I weigh the nanny-state constraints pretty heavily too. On the whole we do relatively well in NZ. We’re terrible on tobacco policy but more reasonable on alcohol. More importantly, tort law hasn’t gone nuts here so all of the liability-driven constraints on action haven’t really come here.
“There is no chance that the would-be Maryland distiller can get the regulations changed”
“The most important example of this trend, a very significant trend, can be found in the United States where a bill is currently before Congress — (Bill H.R. 3249) designed to legalize home distilling. It was sponsored by Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan and has been referred to the Ways and Means committee. Its progress can be followed by reference to http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.html”
The bill died in committee, Wendy.