Disturbing the free market is a bad idea, but there are some exceptions that prove the rule.
One reason it's a terrible idea to disturb markets is because there are unintended consequences. For example, when the government subsidized sugar and corn, we all got fat. When the government subsidized coal, it stagnated the electric car, doubled down on a crony electric grid, and disadvantaged renewables in competition.
Many of our issues today are already crony, layered in bureaucracy, or regulated to high heaven. This isn't ideal. But here's my point: there are strategies to untangle this madness.
Paid Paternity/Maternity Leave
Libertarians believe that you are responsible for saving up your own vacation, sick, and personal time (time=money). And you should have every right to take whatever time you want, whenever you want. The debate about leave circles around businesses being required to provide a minimum amount of "paid leave."
There is no such thing as "paid leave." That's a cost to the business that gets carried on, whether through stagnating wages, cracking down on productivity, or increased prices. There is no way around this. The fact that almost everyone fails at saving up their own time is the best argument for forced accounting. People don't account this cost, so maybe businesses should, for the general good.
Interestingly, if it's a cost that ALL businesses are required to incur, then those costs are accounted for by the business, rather than the individual, and there is little to no competitive advantage, so the economics won't favor any one business. Literally, the cost shifts from 'parents not saving/taking ample leave as they should' to 'higher prices/lower wages/higher standards of productivity'. Strategically, this may be a good move. It means we actually pay for parents to spend time with newborns.
Pre-Existing Conditions
Libertarians believe that people are responsible to account for future sickness and injury by having insurance while healthy. Many people don't do this.
Part of the reason why insurance used to be cheap was because a significant amount of people did not buy it until they got sick. If a whole bunch of healthy people buy insurance, the company has little to pay for - they're mostly healthy. When people without insurance get sick, the hospital charges them full rates that they can't afford. A great number of people are too stupid to know they might get hurt or sick, and that having insurance is a good idea.
Requiring insurance companies to allow sick people to buy insurance guarantees that companies will have no competitive advantages if they raise prices to market rates that reflect costs of including sick people. Thanks to law, we have insurance premiums that more accurately reflect the accounting of what's going on in the world of sick Americans. This explains the costing of insurance, but my argument is that this is the right thing to do.
(Medical costs in America is a complex topic and there are many more things driving the cost upwards that economics can also solve; but this is addressing specifically the social benefit of forced accounting for pre-existing conditions.)
Renewable Energy
I first heard this argument from our libertarian hero Elon Musk. It's simple. There is a long-standing coal subsidy that was implemented in our country as a way to fuel societal growth and expand industries dependent on energy, like steel. Many countries do this. It's meant to make things more affordable for most people and maybe it did, but it also changed the relationship that consumers have with the true cost of those goods. People became accustomed to cheap energy and our culture was built around that fact. Now, everyone takes electricity for granted. They leave lights on or buy the biggest TV possible because the cost of energy is an afterthought - it may as well be free.
But that's consumer culture, not costing. Energy is very much NOT free in the real world. Anyone with an independent energy system can tell you: it changes your behavior. You stop leaving lights on. You put more thought into which appliances to buy. You worry about running out. Overall, you account for energy harvesting and expenditure as a fundamental part of your life, which it is, and is also what most people around the world do, even if they are gathering wood to burn, which is what most people around the world do for energy.
It makes perfect sense to level the playing field for renewables by repealing or matching the subsidy.
But that's consumer culture, not costing. Energy is very much NOT free in the real world. Anyone with an independent energy system can tell you: it changes your behavior. You stop leaving lights on. You put more thought into which appliances to buy. You worry about running out. Overall, you account for energy harvesting and expenditure as a fundamental part of your life, which it is, and is also what most people around the world do, even if they are gathering wood to burn, which is what most people around the world do for energy.
It makes perfect sense to level the playing field for renewables by repealing or matching the subsidy.
This is simply market fairness and will allow people to choose more freely where their energy comes from. Renewable systems are totally viable alternatives to crony grid systems, especially when you consider that the culture of energy use changes when it's properly accounted for. A great example are vanlifers and tiny homes. People choose to live out of their pimped-out vans or tiny homes as an alternative to the trappings of high rent thanks to loopholes or the stealth of doing so, even if illegal. They love the freedom of it, and part of the appeal are the many affordable options for independent energy harvesting.
The tradeoff is building a culture that consumes less energy. So they watch movies on their energy-efficient LCD monitor instead of a 55" 4K OLED with surround sound. They have a cooler instead of a fridge. They wear sweaters when cold instead of heating. Not a big deal when you realize that they are harvesting energy for a hundred bucks, a one-time payment, not a monthly one. They own the energy, literally. They harvest it from the sun. I don't mean to paint these folks with a Walden glow, but they are exhibiting the values of personal responsibility in a way that is totally effective and viable for people willing to make the sacrifice.
The truth is that the crony grid we are on makes things comfortable and convenient thanks to taxation, but we are still paying for that cheap energy. The U.S. spent $1.06 trillion on energy in 2016, including the cost of subsidizing fossil fuel. That's a whopping $4,277 per adult per year. What that means is that multi-adult households would prefer harvesting their own energy for the dramatic cost savings, the independence, the environmental impact, and the shift away from outdated industries.
Freedom always proves to be an elegant solution.
The tradeoff is building a culture that consumes less energy. So they watch movies on their energy-efficient LCD monitor instead of a 55" 4K OLED with surround sound. They have a cooler instead of a fridge. They wear sweaters when cold instead of heating. Not a big deal when you realize that they are harvesting energy for a hundred bucks, a one-time payment, not a monthly one. They own the energy, literally. They harvest it from the sun. I don't mean to paint these folks with a Walden glow, but they are exhibiting the values of personal responsibility in a way that is totally effective and viable for people willing to make the sacrifice.
The truth is that the crony grid we are on makes things comfortable and convenient thanks to taxation, but we are still paying for that cheap energy. The U.S. spent $1.06 trillion on energy in 2016, including the cost of subsidizing fossil fuel. That's a whopping $4,277 per adult per year. What that means is that multi-adult households would prefer harvesting their own energy for the dramatic cost savings, the independence, the environmental impact, and the shift away from outdated industries.
Freedom always proves to be an elegant solution.
