As advertised Daniel B. Klein has attempted to define and systematise libertarianism in a way that is tactically useful. His talks revolves around finding a way to rank reforms R1 and R2.

There are clues to a ranking function in objectivist thinking. If you hold onto self interest and understand that value is derived from thought and aim to learn principles that guide useful choices, then you quickly realise that political policy should be about maximising the range of possible choices for individuals. i.e protecting individual rights. Liberals (of the economic authoritarian variety) make the mistake of attempting to maximze choice even when the forces of nature limit choices. This results in a desire for others to help them overcome natural impediments, principly bad luck. This mistake forces them to try to enable more choices for the unlucky at the expense of the lucky. They pursue policies that restrict the choices of those with more money. It turns out that this doesn’t work economically and is self defeating morally.

So, you can adopt an algorithm that measures the amount of choosing that is possible for individuals and you are set. That is your guide to ranking R1 over R2.

Direct and overall liberty are less useful measures because the desireability of an outcome has so much to do with the individual’s hiearchy of values that a policy maker cannot judge whether coercion is likely to be desirable in the short vs longer terms. As such, they should be limited to favouring direct, short term liberty. Perhaps we should favour exceptions where the outcome is very clear e.g. imposing a curfew during a brief period of riots.

This may seem overly simplistic and maybe a bit cold, but consider the range of emotions you feel day to day and you’ll realise it is very much with the grain of human psychology. Consider your emotions in different scenarios and ask “are my emotions something to do with how much choosing I can do?” or as an assessment of “what is posible to me”. For example, if you feel frustrated it is because you have a preferred choice but some unexpected factor has rendered that choice ineffective, love is a reaction to knowing clearly that happiness is possible or anticipating that you will always choose the thing or person you love each time, anger to do with having the range of choice narrowed by another person’s choices etc. So, I would argue that my simple algorithm is emotionally warm and fuzzy afterall and able to capture most of what you might otherwise dismiss as irrational. As long as you are happy to rank political reforms without being able to easily count what options are available then you are set.

… and that’s enough theory for today.

(edited for grammar)