Privatizing the Autobahn

by Marcus Epstein

When criticizing libertarians, conservatives like to use the line, “If there were libertarians in the Third Reich, they would have probably been drawing up plans to privatize the autobahn when the Gestapo arrived to take them away.”  William F. Buckley similarly smeared Ron Hamowy way back in 1961 for not appreciating the necessity to sacrifice our freedom to fight the communist menace when he said:

There is room in any society for those who only concern is for tablet-keeping; but let them realize that it is only because of conservatives’ disposition to sacrifice in order to withstand the enemy that they are able to enjoy their monasticism, and pursue their busy little seminars on whether or not to demunicipalize the garbage collectors.

The implication of these zingers is that while conservatives are busy sacrificing and fighting the great evils of the world, libertarians are busy fretting over petty concerns: legalizing drugs, privatizing traffic lights and other "unimportant" issues.

The post-September 11 reactions by conservatives and libertarians show who truly needs to get their priorities straight.  Yes, it is true that libertarians still want to privatize the roads.  The fact that we have to deal with these “Islamo-Fascists” does not change our core beliefs.   However, this is not necessarily our most pressing concern.  Most libertarians are more worried about the push for draconian “Homeland Security” measures and ending our perpetual war for “Enduring Freedom.”  Even if we focus on these aspects, that doesn’t mean that we have forgotten about our more "trivial concerns."

Conservatives, on the other hand, have taken a different view.  In 1952 a young William F. Buckley wrote,

We have got to accept Big Government for the duration--for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged, given our present government skills, except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores . . . . And if they deem Soviet power a menace to our freedom (as I happen to), they will have to support large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards, and the attendant centralization of power in Washington--even with Truman at the reins of it all.

After 40 years of increased socialism and statism at home, the Soviet state crumbled under its own weight, and one would think that it would not be time to dismantle the totalitarian bureaucracy.  Buckley had other ideas, though.  A year ago he wrote:

What conservatives are going to have to get used to is that certain fights we have waged are, quite simply, lost.  It is fine, in our little seminars, to make the case against a federal Social Security program, but it pays to remind ourselves that nobody outside the walls of that classroom is going to pay much attention to our Platonic exercises.

In short, while Buckley and all the Cold Warriors were busy fighting the communist boogeyman, they gave up their opposition to domestic socialism, and when the boogeyman went away, the American public had become so used to the “totalitarian bureaucracy” that they decided it wasn’t worth trying to change.  Buckley and his ilk were wrong not only about the magnitude of the Soviet threat, but also about the ability to reclaim our "temporarily" suspended freedoms.  (That Buckley and most conservatives have never abandoned supporting the warfare state is a completely different issue.) 

Part of the problem is that it’s impossible to have a free market with a military empire. However, it is true that many conservatives such as Barry Goldwater and Frank Meyer genuinely strived for this ideal.  While I think it is impossible for a government to exist in this state, at least they had a clear and identifiable idea of what role they wanted government to play in society.  However, most conservatives were happier to welcome anti-communist liberals and kick out non-interventionist conservatives, and from there we got the neoconservative-controlled movement that simply pressed for war and occasionally gave lip service to rolling back government at home. 

Today conservatives are suffering the same problem, except they are replacing anti-communism with patriotism.  Conservatives love the newfound patriotism and sense of duty that many in this country have suddenly found.  They attack anyone who questions the value of the current war or even expanding it against half the Arab world.  In the meantime, they are embracing leftists who wave the flag and support the war.  The conservatives’ jingoism and acceptance of police state tactics (which in fairness many of them oppose) will obviously increase the size and power of government.  At the same time, the conservative movement will slowly absorb these pro-war leftists, and eventually their big government positions may very well become the official line of the respectable right.

Now with all this in mind, let’s think about how conservatives and libertarians would have acted in the Third Reich.  Libertarians such as Ludwig von Mises were actually there, and decided to flee the country.  At best, today’s conservatives would have suggested a 7% cut in the growth rate of mass murder, and at worst they would have been thrilled with the people’s patriotism, ability to rally around a leader, and sacrifice themselves for a greater cause.  While some would have opposed the Holocaust in theory, they would be praising Eichman for the way he administered it.  (I can just see Irving Kristol say, “As long as there is going to be genocide, it may as well be done efficiently.”) 

Neoconservatives will often say taxes and spending are too high, but they never say what level they would want them to be.  Libertarians say exactly what role they want government to play, and stay true to that vision.  This does not make us idealists or unrealistic, it means we are principled and have a clearly defined goal.  The true idealists are those who think that any problems are being solved because 40% of the population has an American flag on their cars. 

February 11, 2002