Well known US economist and pundit Dr Dan Mitchell has featured my Economics Explained interview with him in the latest instalment of his Fight on the Right series of posts on his International Liberty blog:
Fight on the Right part III: State Capacity Libertarianism
Dan’s Fight on the Right series considers major policy disagreements within the US Right. These disagreements have been over tax cuts, with fiscal conservatives fighting with supply-siders, and over the concept of “compassionate conservatism”, associated with President G.W. Bush. In his latest post, Dan critiques the emerging philosophy of State Capacity Libertarianism, as described by Tyler Cowen. State Capacity Libertarianism is essentially a mixed economy model with highly efficient public service delivery. As Dan notes, high taxing and high spending Denmark may well fit in this definition.
Check out Dan’s post as it’s highly thought provoking, but here’s Dan’s summary of his critique:
For what it’s worth, my view of state capacity libertarianism is the same as my view of national conservatism. And compassionate conservatism, kinder-and-gentler conservatism, common-good capitalism, and reform conservatism as well.
I will be highly skeptical until someone shows me the tiniest shred of evidence that further reducing economic liberty can lead to more prosperity.
Thanks again to Dan for appearing on my Economics Explained podcast and for sharing the interview on his blog.
Dr Dan Mitchell, Founder of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity and former Senior Fellow of the Cato Institute.
Attribution: Gage Skidmore [CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)%5D
Queensland Economy Watch 
“I will be highly skeptical until someone shows me the tiniest shred of evidence that further reducing economic liberty can lead to more prosperity”.
What is the evidence that “economic liberty” has been reduced? Reduced for whom?
Good question Mark. I expect Dan would say that the expansion of government since the 1930s has reduced economic liberty because of the higher tax take and also the increase in the amount of regulation individuals and businesses have been subjected to since then.
“I expect Dan would say that the expansion of government since the 1930s has reduced economic liberty because of the higher tax take and also the increase in the amount of regulation individuals and businesses have been subjected to since then.”
Just a guess but wouldn’t he then have to say that this has caused a reduction in prosperity since the 1930’s?
I believe he’s saying that growth would be higher if we had a smaller government than we do today, starting from where we are today. The quote from him I included doesn’t necessarily mean we should go back to the relative size of government in the 1930s. In my view, that would neither be desirable nor possible.
“I believe he’s saying that growth would be higher if we had a smaller government than we do today, starting from where we are today.”
I hope you mean starting from the 1930’s which was referenced and is of course a fabulous era to start from. Starting from where you already are reminds me of the apocryphal Irish joke of being asking for directions with the response “well if I were you I wouldn’t start from here”.
P.S. I come from a background where at one time I regarded the Cato Institute in high esteem. I well remember the published paper in the late 1990’s which argued that there could be no liberal bias in media because otherwise efficient markets would intervene. Apparently the efficient market was Fox News.