Sunday
(0)Even if we take only two nations, the United States and the United Kingdom, this question is complex.
If we take the old John Dewey definition of liberty (at least the definition of liberty that John Dewey tended to use in his youth - as he got older he became a more interesting man), the answer is 'right now'. Never before have average incomes been higher, most people can buy more things (and so on) than people could in the past.
However, for those of us who reject the Pragmatist soft-left FDR 'freedom from want' definition of liberty or freedom (no, I am not going to go into possible differences between 'liberty' and 'freedom') more thinking is required.
First the United States.
Slavery may be against natural law (if there is such a thing) as even the Romans accepted (although slavery was not against 'the law of all nations' or Roman law itself), and it may be (as authorities for centuries have claimed - for an American example see Salmon P. Chase) against the principles of the English Common Law, but it certainly was not against the statute law of many States.
So if we define (as libertarians do) liberty as the non-violation of a person or their goods by another person or group of persons ('the nonaggression principle') then the United States was more of a free country after the slaves were freed than before. So the United States after 1865 (not in the first years of the Republic) is at its most free.
Government taxes and regulations actually decline after the Civil War (or War between the States, or War of Northern Aggression - or whatever you want to call it), and statism does not seem to rise again till after the Interstate Commerce Commission of 1887 (it is pity that a good free market man like Grover Cleveland was responsible for that - but he thought of himself as using federal regulation to ward off worse regulation by individual States, a rather Madison style move that did not work out well in the end).
Oddly enough the Jim Crow laws in the South were not fully underway by the mid 1880's either (although they were on the cards - it depends which State one is talking about). So the early 1880's would seem (for all their faults) were about the peak of liberty for the nation as a whole. The trade tax (or 'tariff' if you prefer) was increased in 1890 and 'antitrust' came in the same year, and Jim Crow got worse and worse.
However, even by just before the First World War Federal Government spending was only between 2 and 3 per cent of the economy. Indeed even as late as 1928 Federal Government spending was only about 3&percent; of the economy and total government spending only about 12&percent;. Of course there was the vile Federal Reserve System of 1913 (which took over from the less vile, but still vile, National Banking Act system put on the books during the Civil War) and there was Prohibition and... Well, it is too depressing to think about modern history.
Of course the Federal (or 'federal' as some people like to write it) government was bigger after the Civil War than before it and it never quite fell back (for example the fed taxes on booze remained - America was never again the land that Jefferson had boasted of after he got rid of the excise, the land were the fed tax-collector 'was never seen') and there were State debts and State taxes to think about - so if one is considering an individual State (rather than the whole United States), the peak of liberty (if it was a free State and in existence) is likely to have been before 1861.
If we take the example of New Hampshire (the first State that springs to mind) its peak must be after 1819 (because there was a town church tax before then), and there was a Fed trade tax increase in 1824 and the crazy one of 1828 (I mean crazy, various low tariff people voted for deliberately mad amendments to the bill in Congress hoping to turn votes against the measure, but instead of falling the bill got into law - this is not the first time that a clever free market person plan has gone very wrong, try and avoid cleverness in politics).
So liberty in New Hampshire was at its peak in the early 1820's.
This is true of most non-slave States. The regulations and state education schemes of colonial times had decayed and the new ones (established by such men as H. Mann in the 1830's and later) had not got off the ground (although Rhode Island established a State school system, of sorts, in 1828).
However, in some semi-free States (i.e. States where there were very few slaves) there is little sign of an increase in government power till the Civil War (I am told that New Jersey is a good example of this).
Now for the United Kingdom.
Well if we leave aside the stories of 'Celtic liberty' ('P Celt' or 'Q Celt') and the stories of Arthur, and we leave aside the stories of Pagan Anglo Saxon hero Kings like Penda - well we come (after a couple of centuries) to the stories of Alfred, his daughter Ethelfleda (warrior ruler of Mercia) and his son Edward the Elder.
These are interesting people. Most 'feminst' historians seem to have missed Ethelfleda (of course they spend so much time 'doing theory' that they do not have much time left to learn about what happened in the past), but she was an interesting person - who led her army in battle after battle, crushing the Vikings in war and gaining their submission at the conference table (she was rather better at this than Edward the Elder). The Irish and Welsh annuals remembered her - but we do not.
Then there is Alfred himself, seeing all English Kingdoms (including Wessex) fall to the armies of the Norse (who were certainly not the 'competing protection agencies' of libertarian theory - at least they competed in 'non-market ways' and were not above collecting goods and people without consent [in the same way that the sea is not above the sky]), and yet he fought back and defeated his enemies in the end - and without murdering or enslaving the Vikings who gave in (a rare humanity by the standards of the time). Yes they did have to covert to Christianity - but it is difficult to practice full religious toleration with folk who believe in human sacrifice (the Blood Eagle was probably no myth, neither are the other practices)
But we know so little about the basic society of the time. We know there were no formal Church taxes (they come in with King Edgar - most likely at the suggestion of Archbishop Dunstan).
But we do not know how much was taken by Kings from their subjects (as a percentage of their subjects income in money or kind) in peacetime (although King Athelstan is known to have been interested in pomp and luxury than Edward the Elder or Alfred had been).
Nor do we know (with any certainty) what percentage of the population were free and what percentage were either slaves or bound to the soil (a practice that went back at least to Roman times). In later time Kent was known for its free men as was (to be fair to the Norse) the Danelaw north - but numbers, numbers we do not know the numbers.
The ancient Saxons and Fresians seem to have not practices serfdom (or whatever you wish to call it) amongst their own people, or gone in for mighty lords (the Saxons were known for the 12 man councils that ran their villages - a different root for the jury to the Norman root?). And Saxon law (like the Welsh law) recognised the property rights of women.
But this may tell us little about 'Saxons' in England, and the Angles had a different culture (not just concerning lords, the Angles less also less concerned with the rights of women). Still forget Angle, Saxon or Jute (or whoever) everyone was English, Welsh, or Norse (either Norman or Dane) by Alfred's time.
For the non-aggression principle all we can say is that Alfred's family (his brothers and forefathers as well as his children) was virtually the only Royal House in Europe that were not in the habit of killing each other. That, by the standards of the time at least, made them the good guys - people that folk would follow (even when things seemed hopeless).
Well what about the times when we do have 'the numbers'?
Well the calculation is simple enough. Central government spending reaches its low point (and what regulations that were to be repealed in the 19th century were repealed, and women's property rights to some extent accepted) by 1874 - so for the areas of the country that had not set up School Boards (for example my own town of Kettering) the high point of freedom comes in 1874. For those towns that had set up school boards, under the Act of 1871, the peak is the year before they do. It is mostly down hill for freedom from there (although even as late as the 1960's some nasty laws are repealed, such as the ones that threatened homosexuals with prison - but, of course, many new regulations were added). Total government (national and local) was about 10% of output at most in the early 1870's.
But "the numbers" only take us so far. Where did the orgy of statism of 1875 (Trade Union Act, Slum Act, 40 different local government Acts codified and made compulsory on towns and cities) come from? A clear blue sky?
No, the principles of statism (that government should give money to education [1833], that government should have police [London 1829, other towns and rural areas - compulsory by 1856], that public health should be a local government concern [almost as soon as local government was reformed in 1835] and so on) had already been accepted. Government only continued to shrink (from its high point in the ways with France - when it reached perhaps 25% of output), because economic growth was higher than government growth - after 1874 that was no longer true.
If you want a time when people like John Stuart Mill (saying 'liberty' with every other breath, whilst stating in such works as Principles of Political Economy that "everyone agrees" with such and such bit of statism) did not influence British life you really have to go back to the 1820's.
Taxes were higher overall (including Poor Law taxes) but the principles that the state must be at least involved in just about everything were not accepted (taxes were for the war debt, the military, and the local rates for the old Poor law - in Scotland there was no large scale Poor Law, but there was some government education). Taxes were cut most years (and had been since 1815) and regulations were reduced, statute after statute being tossed on the fire.
1820's for both Britain (in principle, if not in the raw numbers) and for the non slave States, and early 1870's and early 1880's. for overall.
Perhaps the United States and the United Kingdom are not so different.
Now that was depressing!
I see we have much farther to go than I thought. I sorta was hoping that the flood of regulation in the 1930's was the pivot point for the US.
Rats.
Posted by bjbarron at January 16, 2005 10:37 PM
I think there is a fundamental flaw in your analysis. You treat "liberty" as rising or receding tide that lifts or lowers all boats equally. It is quite possible for some members of the society to gain more liberties at the same time were others lose them.
For example, at the beginning of the 20th century those engage in commerce faced very few restrictions on what they could do in their businesses. The had near cart blanche to hire and fire, to set hours and practices and they could produce almost any product subject only to the rewards and punishments of the market. By contrast, a writer faced many restrictions both by formal and common law on what subjects they could write about and how they could describe them.
By the end of the 20th century the situations are nearly exactly reversed. Business people worked under myriad restrictions whereas writers now work under virtually none. Has overall liberty increased or decreased?
Even questions of racial equality aren't clear cut. African-Americans today have more political and social equality at the end of the 20th century but the number of African-American small business owners has plummeted and those that remain face same sever regulatory environment as every other business. Does increasing social and political equality and mobility offset the loses in liberty in the economic sphere?
I think a better explanation is that some groups and sub-cultures have grown more free in the last 200 years while other have grown less free. Depending on with group you belong to you see the recent decade as one of progress or as slide toward tyranny.
Posted by Shannon Love at January 16, 2005 11:14 PM
I think a better explanation is that some groups and sub-cultures have grown more free in the last 200 years while other have grown less free. Depending on with group you belong to you see the recent decade as one of progress or as slide toward tyranny.
I would have to agree with that... it is indeed a mixed bag of 'good new/bad news'.
Posted by Perry de Havilland at January 16, 2005 11:32 PM
This is a fantastic question. Steering well clear of the "freedom from want" nonsense, I want to make the case for modernity, if I can. There is an important way in which technological progress enhances traditional, libertarian freedom. It gives citizens more tools with which to defend freedom, and therefore, it could be argued, makes us more free.
True, the right to bear arms would be the same right whether the arms in question are stones, swords, or guns; but guns by their nature are a much more powerful equalizer, making an single individual more able to defend their liberties against a larger mob.
Similarly, the free speech right is the same whether in speech, print, or online, but the Internet is a much more powerful equalizer. Are you more powerful with a photocopier, reams of paper, gallons of ink, a fortune in stamps, and subscriptions to dozens of newspapers and magazines, or with a computer, an ISP, and a blog? The later, I would think, plus you'll have money left over for beer.
Sadly, the additional leisure time afforded by technology is also part of the problem. On the one hand, it leaves all of us with more spare time and resources to defend freedom from whatever emerges to threaten it. On the other hand, it permits the growth of a professional political class, not to mention a much larger, full time, professional bureaucracy, neither of which tend to favor freedom.
So I don't suppose there's much of a case to be made for modernity, but I at least wanted to try.
Of course, one would prefer to live in a world with small, 19th century government, 20th century enfranchisement, and 21st century technology, but the current question appears to exclude alternate realities...
On a different note, several think tanks have taken a quantitative approach to the question of when liberty peaked. The The Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom goes back to 1995, and the Freedom House Freedom in the World country ratings go back to 1972, in a freely available, Microsoft Excel format.
It would be interesting to attempt to fill in this spreadsheet for the various 19th century dates mentioned in the post, for the two countries.
Posted by John Hadjisky at January 17, 2005 03:17 AM
Ha--"more thinking is required"--that's a good one. Very amusing.
Yet the question of maximums and minimums is always interesting, never more so than in human affairs. I've had a few thoughts on this and we'll see if it's possible for me to bring them down to the Libertarian level. First, a few background items of interest.
Vermonters are proud to state that they were the first to outlaw slavery in the US in 1777. They may have been first in the entire western hemisphere. I can't speak to European history on this matter. We Americans are very practical about compartmentalizing our social studies that way. However, in addition to John Dewey, I am aware of several notables who also saw the present as the best of times. Among them was Adam Smith. You've heard of him, right?
So if we can agree that liberty is a good thing (never can tell for sure with Libertarians), the only issue needed to resolve it's peak, is whether we do indeed live in the best of all possible worlds. I find this proposition to be so appealing, it needs no theological support. There have never been so many people, and more is always better. (Just ask Smith.) A growing population may be the cart or it may be the horse, but it is always associated with a better human environment. And that's what it's all about--liberty as a key factor in the presently best human environment ever. You weren't going on about snail darter liberty, were you?
Just for fun, H
Posted by HelenW at January 17, 2005 04:39 AM
An excellent thought exercise, I agree. The "good old days" really weren't that good.
Here's the nub of the matter, as I see it.
We all agree that slavery in the U.S. was bad -- and it was also fixed. That improved the freedom of a sub-group of the population. But if we could wave the magic wand, and say that we could transplant the Black political and social freedoms of today back to, say 1820 (random date): how free would society have been, vis-a-vis the WHOLE of it?
In other words, would those free Blacks of yesteryear have been more free than the Blacks today?
Sadly, yes, by a mile. (For one thing, successful Blacks of 1820 wouldn't have had to pay 38% income tax as modern Blacks do.)
If we exclude slavery as a historical anomaly, and look at "free men" society as an empirical whole, the whole thing has gone to shit since the 1910s.
Of course, freedom for society as a whole has gone down the shitter much faster since women got the vote, because women always trade off freedom for "security", but that's a topic for another time.
Posted by Kim du Toit at January 17, 2005 05:48 AM
Fun game, but why stop with two countries? Were Athenians freer than Romans? (Surely.) Are Brits freer than the French? (Uncertain, sad to say.) Are bloggers freer than Cro-Magnon men? (...)
The flaw in your post is the assumption that freedom is a political condition, granted to a grateful population. Not so. I'll skip problems with biology, culture, and causality generally. Liberty, as you use the word, is a moral condition, of value only when used to worthwhile purposes. That's the soil out of which political freedom grows - which, I'll happily admit, is not to be scoffed at.
One can be politically free and morally worthless. In fact, the politically freest individuals in history - your Hitlers and Stalins and Pol Pots, who could do any damn thing they wanted - were surely the most worthless. That complicates the survey, no?
Posted by Vulgar Moralist at January 17, 2005 06:10 AM
Wow. Population = freedom. That is a new one on me. The freedom of north america must have increased a hell of a lot since pre-columbus times then. Hooray!
I have heard mention before that women getting the vote precipitated the world going to crap. I would like to point out that todays society has many gadgets for the kind of things that women find fun, vacuum cleaners, washing machines, steam irons etc, the things men find fun are restricted. Automatic washer good, automatic weapon bad. The paperwork you need to fill out to get a badger baiting licence now is ridiculous.
Got to go, time for my electroconvulsive therapy.
Posted by zmollusc at January 17, 2005 07:30 AM
I agree that this is an excellent discussion topic, but im not at all sure on your conclusions in respect of either country.
As regards America surely, in the non slave states at least , the period immediately after the War of Independence was the high point of liberty. From, say, the battle of Yorktown in 1781 when the Brits were defeated (but possibly back to 1776 itself), to New Hampshire's ratification of the Constitution in 1788, the states had no formal lawful government.
What prevailed during the war and in its immediate aftermath was surely as close as we have got in modern times to natural order and the night watchman state.
Turning to the UK, I'm not at all sure that levels of taxation are as determinative of a society's freedom as you suggest. Even the night watchman needs paying, and that could be expensive. I would have thought a better indicator is the extent to which that state has taken to itself the power to go beyond being the night watchman. To my mind this happens in the early Edwardian period. It follows the high point of liberty in the period between the end of the Crimean war and the start of the Great War. During this half century or so the principles of free trade and self help are generally accepted, certainly by the majority of most mainstream politicians, the state does not presume to provide for its citizens, and there are no major wars (those in southern Africa are not really major)
Of course not everyone has the vote, but if the state does not have such extensive coercive powers, that is not quite so important as it is now, when nothing seems to be out of bounds.
The rot doesnt really set in till the Great War with conscription, and the start of the state's desire to look after us all from craddle to grave.
Posted by Christopher Price at January 17, 2005 09:27 AM
I asked Norris McWhirter (the late chairman of the Freedom Association) this very question back in the 1980's. His answer was Western Europe in late 19th century, he wasn't any more specific than that though his reasons for this were more to do with economic liberties than personal liberties.
Posted by Paul Coulam at January 17, 2005 10:52 AM
The rot doesnt really set in till the Great War with conscription, and the start of the state's desire to look after us all from craddle to grave
Surely it was before that - basically with Asquith's government well before the war, which was the real start of British state welfare.
I'd also dispute that the wars in southern Africa were "not really major." The second Boer War was a huge shock to Britain in military, strategic and economic terms, and it was the first time it really became apparent that Britain had serious structural problems and was no longer able to maintain the balance of power in Europe - at least, unaided. Not least, there was the beginning of a wider realisation that the empire was a financial and military liability. We then see the entente cordiale, the triple entente and the naval alliance with Japan. As is common with major shocks like this, the country turned inwards & we see the desire to "improve" conditions at home in preference to civilising Johnny Foreigner, which led to the start of the welfare system & so the rise of the regulating and interfering state.
I think the late 1880s / early 1890s saw the widest spread of liberty in the UK, with decline fairly rapid after that (following the worsening economic and military decline of the nation).
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at January 17, 2005 12:31 PM
Euan - happy to accept rot set in with Asquith rather than the start of WWI per se, my point was that it was just round about that time.
As regards the wars in southern Africa, I meant they were not wars involving the major powers in the sense that the Crimea, or indeed Great War, were.
Posted by Christopher Price at January 17, 2005 01:13 PM
"Of course, one would prefer to live in a world with small, 19th century government, 20th century enfranchisement, and 21st century technology, but the current question appears to exclude alternate realities..."
Yes, but there is an interesting related alternate history question.
Suppose liberty had not receded after its overall peak in the 19th Century. What would life be like today?
I figure we'd have about a hundred stars on our flag, with some representing extraterrestrial colonies that have become states. We'd have living, healthy, apparently 20 year old people who remember first-hand the 19th Century that we in this history are told time and again was a time of oppression at the hands of the "robber-barons" (thanks in large part to the non-existence of the FDA), and the people as a whole would therefore have a much more accurate view of it.
We'd have still gone off the gold standard by now, since advanced fusion technology allows one to create as much gold as he wants. Without an FCC, wireless networks would be far more mature, and instead of embracing paper money, we might go to computer-mediated bartering (way more efficient than the old-fashioned way of bartering...)
Of course the groundcar would be in the museum, the sky would be filled with traffic (there might be an FAA, but we'd never put up with one like the one we have; you'd be able to fly as long as you had liability insurance, and the development of user-friendly flight controls is massively stimulated compared to our world), most people would live and work in the countryside and commute hundreds of miles (meaning a terrorist could set off a nuclear bomb and maybe kill a few hundred people, and the Transportation Security Agency would be the stuff of outlandish dystopian science fiction).
This is not the best of all possible worlds, not by a long shot. It's not the worst either, but damn, just think what might have been....
Posted by Ken at January 17, 2005 02:31 PM
Excellent and thought-provoking piece that deserves wide reading.
Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge at January 17, 2005 02:44 PM
How significant is govt spending as % of GDP, other than as an easy to measure number that goes up (worse) and down (better)?
If liberty is freedom to dispose of what I have, then regulation (which can take the form of selective taxation) seems key.
If all are poor and the % of GDP is low, then it doesn't make difference to the individual, but following economic growth individuals having more spending power increases their own freedom, even if the government also takes more as a percentage.
And do simple transfers of wealth by government from one individual to another, rather than a third party govt agency, have a net effect on growth?
Posted by Kit Taylor at January 17, 2005 03:10 PM
The period after the Civil War has been almost universally misinterpreted as a time of Laissez faire and free markets. While government spending was a small percentage of national income, regulation and government interventionism in the economy were significant.
I tend to agree with Hayek and Von Mises on this point. High protective tariffs, banking regulation (the outlawing of bank notes as currency) and the first truely Hamiltonian mercantilist government of our history distorted the free market considerably. Few of these things show up in a simple goverment spending as a percentage of GDP standpoint.
Most of the "problems" that people attribute to this era were not due to Laissez faire, but a lack of it. The "Robber Barons" would never have been able to amass their giant enterprises in a truely free market. They all benefitted from government interventionism that favored a few very large enterprises over many smaller ones. "Trustbuster" Teddy Roosavelt didn't want to abolish the "monopolies" he wanted to take them under government control so he could utilize them for the "national interest". This was step one towards socialism.
Post-Civil War and the Jacksonian era are probably to the two most misunderstood and mis-represented periods in American history.
Posted by DS at January 17, 2005 04:23 PM
My position is that property tax is defacto slavery and thus slavery has not ended.
Income tax is bad but you aren't forced to work by it. Neither sales tax.
Rich
Posted by Richard Thomas at January 17, 2005 04:41 PM
I'm amazed no-one has brought this point up, but your analysis of the United Kingdom, only actually applies to England, Wales, and Scotland.
During the time at which you contend Britain was it at's most free, Ireland was near to it's least free state, and Australia was still a Penal colony.
Posted by Chris Byrne at January 17, 2005 08:35 PM
Income tax is bad but you aren't forced to work by it. Neither sales tax.
But isn't this the same as arguing that the fact that stuff costs money forces you to work, therefore money is slavery, therefore the capitalist system is slavery?
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at January 17, 2005 09:38 PM
But noone forces you to have stuff and not all stuff costs money.
Say I save up some cash and buy a small parcel of land. I set myself up to live the simple, self-sufficient life, eating only fruits that grow naturally on the property. By my measure, I should be able to live free that way until my dying day. However, every year, the government is going to come along and want some money. To generate that money, I'll need to either work (one way or another) to raise the funds or sell off a portion of the land. This is why I say it is de-facto slavery.
Don't get me wrong though, income and sales taxes are vile in their own ways but property tax is the most egregious of the three.
Rich
Posted by Richard Thomas at January 17, 2005 11:26 PM
Richard, there is nothing simple about a self-sufficient life and that is exactly why Libertarianism is an anti-intellectual and thoroughly rejected philosophy.
If your aim is to free yourself from the slavery of taxes, you can do that right now. Come to Vermont. We have a place for you in the Earth People's Park. Move right in with your tipi until you can put up a tar paper shack. You won't be pestered by building inspectors, tax assessors, or any other government agents. Do whatever you like.
You can live there free until your dying day. Of course that day could come rather quickly. While you're sleeping, someone may crush your skull with a tire iron. Of course you can get a gun and stay awake to guard your stuff.
That's a small price to pay for your freedom. Right?
Posted by HelenW at January 18, 2005 07:44 AM
Libertarianism is an anti-intellectual and thoroughly rejected philosophy
I don't know. I'm a conservative, but even I recognise that libertarianism has something to contribute, if only to the business side of life.
As a philosophy for living in general, it is a disaster waiting to happen, the flip side of the communist coin - anithetical, but just as impractical and idealistic.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at January 18, 2005 10:45 AM
Libertarianism is an anti-intellectual and thoroughly rejected philosophy
That's an extremely broad statement. I think we'd all be a lot better off under what Von Mises called the "Nightwatchman" state. Minarchism.
Anarcho-capitalism is what you are referring to and yes, it is too Utopian to be practical, for a whole host of reasons.
Unfortunately these things get all mixed up under the same umbrella of "libertarianism".
Posted by DS at January 18, 2005 12:02 PM
DS good point. Quite frankly I find that sentence to be rather befuddling. How exactly is libertarianism thoroughly rejected? First of all the internet is awash with it being discussed in great detail. There is at least discussion of certain libertarian ideas in most major parties in many countries round the world. And some things that libertarians have been calling for are being adopted by parties of both the left and right across the world (flat-taxation, liberalised licensing of pubs, gambling and prostitution etc).
To decry all libertarianism just because some libertarians are extreme in their beliefs is the true anti-intellectual behaviour.
Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge at January 18, 2005 01:52 PM
Helen: So to gain freedom I must give up my home that I have worked and paid for? Some freedom.
Posted by Richard Thomas at January 18, 2005 02:22 PM
Euan, I think you will find that Libertarianism starts to make sense right about the time it sobers up and retreats into Conservatism. I like the structure of your political coin, but there is an important asymmetry. Libertarians don't have the courage of their convictions. They will bob and weave as their rhetorical positions come apart. To give the Lefties their due, they will stand on principle and take pie after pie in the face without flinching.
DS, I appreciate your response too. Yes, my comment was broadly stated, but Libertarianism is so decrepit, it's defensible! And anyway, we come to discuss, not make an unimpeachable dissertation.
Anarcho-capitalism is a wonderful contradiction in terms. It's always fun for me to watch Libertarians jump that ship as it sinks. ~ metaphor alert~ To really drive a stake through the heart of Libertarianism, you have to recognize it as an anachronistic religion; stuck like most others at a romanticized point in history. I make that time to be Adam Smith's 1776. With substantial parts of Earth still being discovered, he could not see the limits of his model. That's not our problem. Conservatives accept practical adaptations to changing conditions. Cautiously.
I'm more vulnerable on my claim about Libertarianism being thoroughly rejected. I can't think of a single instantiation. (Maybe Haiti?) But that may simply be a symptom of my Americanish disregard for the World View.
Posted by HelenW at January 18, 2005 02:47 PM
HelenW - I'm reading what you're saying, but I'm not following. You're making a lot of assertions, but backing them up with absolutely nothing. Can you give me a couple of examples where "libertarians don't have the courage of their convictions", "bob and weave as their rhetorical positions come apart", etc?
Regards,
Posted by I'm suffering for my art at January 18, 2005 03:05 PM
To say that I should tolerate Libertarianism despite the extreme components is to say that I should enjoy a tongue sandwich because of the delicious stone-ground mustard. I'd have my meat off the back end, thank you. ((That was painful--Ian and Andrew are my two fave male names.))
Richard, you raise a key discussion point. My answer is yes, and I'll tell you why.
Libertarians cannot fathom that government is a societal asset. It retards morbidity and mortality, and makes us far wealthier along the way. Some people can never accept that, and so the discussion ends for them at that point. The rest of us see ourselves as better off than our prehistoric ancestors, and are (somewhat) content to pay for those advantages. The question comes to how we best burden the population with gov expenses.
Is it fair/efficient/ethical to tax habitat and threaten to confiscate that property if the taxes are not paid? I think so. Everyone lives indoors and even renters pay real estate taxes indirectly. Taxes on consumption, even if it is a necessity such as housing, seem to be far more benign than taxes on income and investment.
But then we hear about the sad case of a widow forced from her home of 50 years by the real estate tax. I say: Get her out of there. After you wipe away the sentimentality, these people can't heat or maintain their homes either. Leftism has given us the perverted notion that when we reach a certain age, fix a certain income, and own certain assets, we have no further obligation to support our society. I can't go along with that. The benefits of gov keep coming and I don't excuse the elderly, the wise, the thrifty, or the idiots from carrying the burden.
Posted by HelenW at January 18, 2005 03:49 PM
Sorry to post over you, Arty. ((Call me Helen or Helly. The W is simply an accommodation for other Helens.)) May I restate your inquiry to: Why do you think Libertarians are notorious backpedalers?
I believe that Libertarians have enough experience to reject Leftism outright, and that's fine. Sadly, their revulsion from the very real excesses of gov cause them to go too far. Previously I commented on the contradiction of owning real estate, but resenting the taxes required to support that ownership. This type of exchange usually leads to blatant Libertarian cherry picking. 'I'm willing to pay for the Fire Dept. and good police protection, but I don't have any kids, so screw the schools.'
Then there is the contradiction of free trade. Libertarians profess a fondness for free markets, but not the gov regulation/diplomacy/foreign aid and militarism required to support those markets. When disaster is averted, such as the invasion of Kuwait, the Libertarians will say that was ok, but the other gov actions (such as farm subsities) are bad.
Then there is the gun regulation thing. I own 3 firearms and was serrupticiously finger printed when I purchased them. That's ok with me. I think any market in explosive devices can stand to be regulated and also understand that this has been way over done in some places. However, the Libertarian position is no gun control. Period. I suppose they have mixed feelings about the UN Building being attacked by an RPG (formally known as a bazooka). There was a time when RPG launchers could be legally purchased in Manhattan. Now you will hear the Libertarians say that kind of gun control is ok, but high-powered rifles (with 10x the range) should not be regulated.
How much more of this would you care to read?
Posted by HelenW at January 18, 2005 04:44 PM
Helly - call me I'm suffering for my art. My parents had a strange sense of humour. Just kidding... :)
Proper response to follow...
Posted by I'm suffering for my art at January 18, 2005 05:28 PM
"It retards morbidity and mortality, and makes us far wealthier along the way. Some people can never accept that, and so the discussion ends for them at that point."
I can never accept this because it's hogwash. Retards morbidity??????
"Then there is the contradiction of free trade. Libertarians profess a fondness for free markets, but not the gov regulation/diplomacy/foreign aid and militarism required to support those markets."
Free markets require government regulation? Then they are not free markets. The whole point of a free market is that it isn't influenced by government interdiction and regulation. You are talking about something else entirely.
One of the most disappointing revelations of my lifetime is that "conservatives" are just as collectivist and statist as "liberals". The big government disease has infected most of the planet, even those who profess to be against it.
Posted by DS at January 18, 2005 05:58 PM
There's a lot to what you say, DS, but you're rash to call the benefits of gov "hogwash." I bet you have never washed a hog, but that's beside the point. Looking at any measure of good living--education level, caloric intake, accesses to electricity/telecommunication/sanitation/clean water, real income, rate of home ownership, gun ownership(!), life expectancy, travel, cash on hand--we see a lot of positive trends coinciding with the rise of big government. (One important exception is the decline in birthrate, but that's why we have wide open borders.) If you feel this puts the cart before the horse, I invite you to make your case. Personally speaking to the issue of morbidity, I admit prejudice. I would be quite dead at this moment w/o the benefit of a huge, gov supported, medical industry.
Your comments on free markets remind me of the extensive discussions about the central question in the Matrix movies: "What truth?" So I ask you: What free markets? I will merrily concede the point if you can name a single market that "isn't influenced by government interdiction and regulation." Just one.
My perception of Libertarianism is being reinforced by the rejection of these nuances. Without gov involvement, our agricultural industry, including forests and wildlife, would be devastated. We have all the history we need to conclusively verify that. We would have no roads, rails, airports, or satellites worthy of commercial traffic. No iPod for you, sweetie. And a university education? Forget about it w/o gov interference.
Yes, it is true that Conservatives and Liberals hover closely together around the workable center of political thought. Liberals are braver, and more mindful of the costs of hesitation. Conservatives shy away from change, worrying about unforeseeable consequences. Presently, we have an astounding political inversion on Social Security in the US. The Republicans are getting all Liberal about fixing the actuarial problems before they become overwhelming. Democrats have taken the Conservative position that changing the system is too risky. This is a lot of fun to watch, but there is a lesson here about moderation: Leftists and Libertarians will have no voice in the discussion.
Posted by HelenW at January 18, 2005 07:05 PM
This type of exchange usually leads to blatant Libertarian cherry picking.
Happens all the time. Witness the "libertarian" folks here who rail against the state when it makes them pay tax but are quite happy to watch it use those tax revenues to illegally detain people without trial or charge, or even without the basic ability to see any of the supposed evidence against them. Personally I call it hypocrisy, not cherry-picking.
I can never accept this because it's hogwash. Retards morbidity?
Yes. Organised public health regulation, which would not and never has come about through purely private initiative, to deal with things like plague, cholera, tuberculosis, rickets, etc., most certainly helps people live longer than they otherwise would.
Free markets require government regulation?
I'm afraid so. The don't require regulation to arise, but they do need it to remain free. In the absence of regulation, corporations will - and do - sell short measure, adulterate food and drugs, form cartels, intimidate competition, and so on.
Textbook theory may say this would not happen, but in real life - which is often far removed from textbook theory - it does. Regularly. A free market will not remain free unless there is a ultimate enforcing body to keep it so.
One of the most disappointing revelations of my lifetime is that "conservatives" are just as collectivist and statist as "liberals".
Perhaps the key to understanding this lies in the fact that conservatives do not support change for its own sake, and will keep a flawed system as long as it seems to work well enough and there is no realistic better option.
This does not mean, of course, that they (we) are statists in the normal sense of the word. We support the idea of the existence of a state, not because it is thought the only way to do things, but because it works and is probably the least bad way. My personal views include the minimum of regulation necessary to keep markets free (hence my interest in economic liberalism) and a degree of social conservatism that, whilst hardly oppressive, is certainly not libertarian.
The big government disease has infected most of the planet, even those who profess to be against it.
True and lamentable enough. However, the recognition that government is in much of the world over-mighty does not entitle one to conclude that, if less government is better, then no government is best of all. Equally, supporting the existence of a state does not require the belief that the state must be all-powerful and control everything.
Libertarians tend to the dogmatic rather than the pragmatic, frequently favour a somewhat extreme and apocalyptic view of the state, and often praise individual rights to the extent of making it a fetish. They seem to overlook the fact that, since humans are highly social animals, there really is such a thing as society. It is fascinating to contrast this with the classical Marxist-Leninist view, which is equally dogmatic (even if Lenin himself was not), has an extreme and apocalyptic view of private property, and makes a fetish of worship of the collective. The seem to overlook the fact that, humans being individuals, there is such a thing as the concept of private property and individual rights. Flip side of the same coin, you see.
Life is a trade-off between the collective and the individual, the public and the private. Neither communists nor libertarians seem to grasp this, which in my view makes both philosophies unworkable in their totality, but leaves each with something to give in certain areas. Such, however, is the price of dogma.
Conservatism is essentially pragmatism, finding the least bad way of keeping things ticking along reasonably close to the best interests of most people. It's not particularly glamorous, but it works. Above all, it recognises that humanity is neither perfect nor perfectible.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at January 18, 2005 07:16 PM
Well first my normal apology for not checking my stuff before sending it.
So I find that I have written stuff like "annuals" for "annals", and even "ways" for "wars".
On forgetting that some regulations were got rid of very late I plead not guilty. For example, I mention that the laws against homosexual acts were not got rid of in Britian till the 1960s - so people were more free (in this respect) even this late.
However, people who like homosexual acts can not be defined simply as "homosexuals" and nothing else - surely higher taxes and general regulations (plus the joke fiat money financial system) hits them just the same as people who do not like homosexual acts?
Blacks - I mentioned Jim Crow (although I did not say, "and this was got rid of in the decades after WWII", - perhaps I should have). So yes blacks are (in this respect) more free than they were.
However, the higher taxes and the other regulations effect blacks as well as whites. Nor do I except that there is a trade off here.
On talking about freedom in a political sense - yes I am guilty.
I should have said "I am a philisophical as well as a political libertarian, in that I believe that agency ["free will"] exists, but I am not going to try and justify my belief here".
In fact I am real old old stick-in-the-mud on the subject. I uphold the notion of "I" - unlike clever folk like Hume and Hayek.
But then it was determined that "I" (or rather this machine sitting in from of the computer machine) would "believe" this (even though belief is an illusion - who is having the illusion?), so it is not my fault (there can be no moral fault, by definition - "determinism does not imply that" says Hayek, but I do not agree).
So I am a hopeless reactionary who upholds the notion that a human being is a moral agent - a subject not just an object (the "I" exists), and thinks that determinism is false (although there are genetic and environmental pressures upon us, we can resist them and CHOOSE). If some claim that such belief makes me "unscientific" indeed "religious" - well I am not going lose sleep over that (even though I could point out that some athiests hold exactly the same philosophical beliefs that I do).
I hope the above makes things clear.
One point I certainly should have made (and I very much regret not making) is the point that I do not accept that higher general statism produced greater prosperity or lower poverty.
On the contrary, I would argue (on general "Austrian school of economics" grounds) that more statism means that people are poorer than they OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN (given the level and type of capital).
In short if you, say, introduced modern levels of statism in 1885 the standard of living would fall (indeed most people would have starved to death), and if you introduced 1885 levels of statism into the modern United States people would be much better off.
I totally reject the idea that different economic policies are needed for different "economic stages".
Posted by Paul Marks at January 18, 2005 08:35 PM
Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot (etc) - not known for repecting the non aggression principle and I was very careful to state that I was using the nonaggression (hands off) definition of liberty (indeed someone attacked me for so doing).
People can be free but not moral - I agree. But if they are not free how are we ever going to know if they are moral (rather than pretending to act as you might wish - out of fear)?
Freedom would seem to be a condition for developing at least some of the moral virtues. For example, how can there be "charity" if nothing (neither goods nor your own TIME) belongs to you in the first place?
Ireland - no I am innocent here.
I did not mention the time before the Penal laws were repealed (most of them went in the 1780's and 1790's by the way). Although it is true that the voting restriction stayed till 1829.
It is true that the Penal laws (and the relatively high taxes of the time [Irish taxes AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL INCOME were higher than British ones in the 18th century] - plus the trade restrictions), messed up Irish economic development so that Ireland was left a sitting duck for the blight of the 1840's. But the fact remains that laws were long gone by then (it was their effect that remained).
Ireland has been messed up by England-Britain in the past, but it has also been very unlucky.
For example, the blight comming along when it did. And also the little problem that Ireland has backed the losing side in every English civil war (inculding the one that ended in 1485) - so each new English regime felt the need to sit on Ireland.
On regulations after the American Civil War, yes there were lots - but (apart from on overseas trade) far less than today. And I did make the point that the regulations get worse after 1887 (especially after 1890).
Posted by Paul Marks at January 18, 2005 08:51 PM
Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot (etc) - not known for repecting the non aggression principle and I was very careful to state that I was using the nonaggression (hands off) definition of liberty (indeed someone attacked me for so doing).
People can be free but not moral - I agree. But if they are not free how are we ever going to know if they are moral (rather than pretending to act as you might wish - out of fear)?
Freedom would seem to be a condition for developing at least some of the moral virtues. For example, how can there be "charity" if nothing (neither goods nor your own TIME) belongs to you in the first place?
Ireland - no I am innocent here.
I did not mention the time before the Penal laws were repealed (most of them went in the 1780's and 1790's by the way). Although it is true that the voting restriction stayed till 1829.
It is true that the Penal laws (and the relatively high taxes of the time [Irish taxes AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL INCOME were higher than British ones in the 18th century] - plus the trade restrictions), messed up Irish economic development so that Ireland was left a sitting duck for the blight of the 1840's. But the fact remains that laws were long gone by then (it was their effect that remained).
Ireland has been messed up by England-Britain in the past, but it has also been very unlucky.
For example, the blight comming along when it did. And also the little problem that Ireland has backed the losing side in every English civil war (inculding the one that ended in 1485) - so each new English regime felt the need to sit on Ireland.
On regulations after the American Civil War, yes there were lots - but (apart from on overseas trade) far less than today. And I did make the point that the regulations get worse after 1887 (especially after 1890).
Posted by Paul Marks at January 18, 2005 08:52 PM
Sorry for the double post. And sorry for not typing "respecting" (and for all my other errors).
I should say how much I liked some of the comments. For example, the one by Kit.
Although most people said intelligent things that made me think.
Posted by Paul Marks at January 18, 2005 09:17 PM
US at its most free right after 1865? Jim Crow not "fully underway?" Perhaps the laws and ordinances were not quite on the books, but the KKK was there making life miserable for about 30% of the population of the South. This was the first terrorist organization to operate on US soil, and it took concerted action from (yes) the Federal government to make it more or less innocuous. Brutal intimidation doesn't always come from the central government (just look at the current situation in the Sunni triangle) and sometimes vigorous law enforcement is the far lesser of two evils.
People wonder why blacks are generally suspicious of libertarians and a smaller federal government? You don't do a good job wooing them to the libertarian cause by telling them that Reconstruction is your political ideal.
Posted by Daniel at January 19, 2005 03:27 AM
Euan and Helen,
There are points you both made that I agree with, but I differ on a few important issues. I am going to engage in some cherry picking of your arguments, if you don't mind!
I actually had more snippets from your posts to discuss, but I deleted some 'cos I couldn't be bothered. Damn, I'm lazy! :D Although I think I have the most important ones here.
Looking at any measure of good living--education level, caloric intake, accesses to electricity/telecommunication/sanitation/clean water, real income, rate of home ownership, gun ownership(!), life expectancy, travel, cash on hand--we see a lot of positive trends coinciding with the rise of big government.
A lot of the infrastructure/education advances were indeed made during and in a couple of decades after the dawn of the welfare state - when govt was getting nice and fat. However, the 70s have taught us that we've pretty much gone as far down that road as we can. Government was really big in the 70s; you had Nixon saying things like "We are all Keynesians here", this coincided with a period of stagnation across the Anglo world. The New Deal isn't viable anymore.
The nice things you talk about...income, travel, cash on hand etc. started rising when Thatcher and Reagan were strangling the beast. Rising incomes, home ownership, share ownership, all that wealth stuff, seems to rise when governments are smaller, would you not say?
Witness the "libertarian" folks here who rail against the state when it makes them pay tax but are quite happy to watch it use those tax revenues to illegally detain people without trial or charge, or even without the basic ability to see any of the supposed evidence against them.
People are pragmatic. If, despite their protests, their money is going to be appropriated by the state, they're at least going to want it spent on the things they approve of. Best of a bad situation, you know? So a libertarian can whinge if their tax dollars are providing one-parent families with BMWs and applaud the removal of Saddam by the US military without being a hypocrite.
The don't require regulation to arise, but they do need it to remain free. In the absence of regulation, corporations will - and do - sell short measure, adulterate food and drugs, form cartels, intimidate competition, and so on...Textbook theory may say this would not happen, but in real life - which is often far removed from textbook theory - it does. Regularly.
You're right, if we suddenly switched over to a fully libertarian framework tomorrow, all those things you mentioned would happen. That's because consumers aren't used to holding private enterprise to account. They rely on the government to do it for them. This is a bit silly, because, as consumers, we are a much more effective force in keeping private enterprise honest - we giveth our custom, and we can taketh away. This involves the consumer becoming a lot more informed that he/she currently is. This will be possible via the speedy channels of information we currently enjoy. I imagine a number of powerful consumer-awareness sources existing. The most successful of these may end up having a similar kind of invasive power (voluntarily ceded by the company being checked) as a government, because consumers trust them and like buying products with their seal of approval. These consumer-awareness sources will be subject to the same rigorous testing as the companies they analyse. I envisage a gradual evolution where regulations are slowly removed, allowing consumers to take more and more responsibility for the quality of their choices. If the consumer's attitude to consuming changes, government regulation of private enterprise could be reduced massively.
My apologies, I've banged on way longer than I should have.
Regards,
Posted by I'm suffering for my art at January 19, 2005 09:51 AM
Pure ultra-libertarianism fails for the same reason that socialism does: it fails to take human nature into account.
Machiavelli said in 'The Prince'(a guide to gangsterism for gangsters) that "the wish to acquire is in truth very natural and common, and man always do so when they can".
The problem is, somebody can always get a bigger gang than you to take your stuff and steal your things. A minimal state is the bully you know and can act against, and an elected state is the one where you can keep it in check, somewhat. In a anarcho-cap society, you know there are bullies and gangsters(ministates) around, but you might not know who and where they are. And if you don't know, you can't defend yourself adequately. And even if you do know, their coercive power as an organization is likely to be greater than a bunch of individuals.
So libertarianism is the order, but not too pure, please.
Posted by The Wobbly Guy at January 19, 2005 12:04 PM
Without nit-picking each and every point I think I can sum up the fault in all of the "the sun won't come up every morning without government" theme:
1) Causation and Correlation: The era of big government, socialism, merantilism, and intervenionism coincided with some of the most rapid technological, economic, medical, etc. changes in the world. The fact that these things happened at the same time does not show causation.
2) Of the myriad of wonders that government is supposedly responsible for, there is a common theme: Government has taken something over, monopolized it, driven out any competition that could have produced the same thing for a profit, then declared that without government nobody would even attempt to solve this problem.
There is nothing about roads that requires government in order to create. During the Jacksonian era when the majority of Americans were very dubious about tax dollars being used to fund "internal improvements", canals, roads, and even the whole railroad industry was built largely without such "help". The more the government got involved with the railroads (politicians got involved in the rialroads for the same reason that John Dillinger robbed banks) the industry went into steep decline. The trans-continental railroad was a financial disaster precisely because it's construction was dictated by politics, not economics.
Do you ever sit in traffic and wonder why the road you are on was designed so poorly that it grinds into gridlock ever evening at 5:00? Because it was laid out and designed by politics instead of economics. A road system designed by economics and science would fix the problem because the pursuit of profits by somebody would demand it. Government has no such requirements, especially when the only option is between two politicians who will propose the same solution working within the same misguided system.
3) "suffering for my art" was spot on in pointing out that what statist interventionism produces is a public unable and un-willing to look out for its own interests. Why would they, the government will always be there to make sure that people aren't lying to them. This is the key point in the is discussion.
The markets can and did take care of the problems at Enron, Worldcom and the like. That doesn't mean that people didn't get hurt, but in the long run the government over-reaction will lead to a lot more people being hurt, they just won't know it or understand who is to blame.
By the way, I consider myself a "conservative" in a lot of ways, a more correct term is minarchist, I am for limited governement. That doesn't mean I am an anarcho-capitalist, far from it. I have simply adoppted the true "conservative" position otherwise known as "classical liberalism". The consequence is that I simply don't automatically and reflexively assign a certain class of problems to government.
I believe in free markets in everything. That means that in each and every case when politicians want to have government take over some area of society and monopolize it, they better prove beyond an shadow of a doubt that they are the best institution to handle it, because once government gets ahold of something it never lets go no matter how bad a job it does. In my experience very few things government wants to take over can pass that test.
I will visit this subject more later.
Posted by DS at January 19, 2005 12:33 PM
A lot of the infrastructure/education advances were indeed made during and in a couple of decades after the dawn of the welfare state
You're way off. Try the early to mid 19th century, about 50-100 years before modern welfarism.
So a libertarian can whinge if their tax dollars are providing one-parent families with BMWs and applaud the removal of Saddam by the US military without being a hypocrite
I actually mentioned the arbitrary treatment of prisoners, not the removal of Saddam, and said nothing about subsidising one-parent families. Even so, it is hypocritical to decry government on general principles but then support a major government effort to invade and occupy a sovereign foreign nation.
That's because consumers aren't used to holding private enterprise to account
I suspect you don't understand the reality of how markets and people work outside of economic theory (never a good guide to the real world), because you are still missing my point. It is NOT in the interests of a corporation to engage in perfect competition, and therefore they tend to do what IS in their interests - collusion, cartel, short measure, adulteration, etc. This maximises their profit and makes life a lot easier for the corporation, but not for the customer. The customer can do nothing about this unless there is a rival corporation which doesn't engage in these sharp practices. However, it is hardly unknown for corporations enjoying a comfortable and easy life to intimidate the rival out of business, or simply buy him, in either case restoring their peace.
The point is that corporations do these things in the absence of anyone compelling them not to. This is not a matter of academic debate, it is just the way the real world works. In the real world, therefore, we need some amount of regulation backed by compulsion to keep a market free. Many anarcho-capitalists disagree, and cite innumerable economic theories and works to back up their point. The response is that reality simply does not work that way, and no amount of wishing it will make it happen.
government regulation of private enterprise could be reduced massively
It can indeed be significantly reduced - nobody needs regulations on what size a peach should be & so on. It is absurd to pretend market regulation can be abolished entirely, however. At least, if you wish to retain a free market, you must set and enforce rules to keep it free.
Posted by Euan Gray at January 19, 2005 01:08 PM
"Looking at any measure of good living--education level, caloric intake, accesses to electricity/telecommunication/sanitation/clean water, real income, rate of home ownership, gun ownership(!), life expectancy, travel, cash on hand--we see a lot of positive trends coinciding with the rise of big government."
And we also saw it in the 19th Century coinciding with the continuance of relatively small government. In fact, that was a period of astounding technological advancement in lots of different industries that is only paralleled today by a few of the more lightly regulated industries.
"(One important exception is the decline in birthrate, but that's why we have wide open borders.) If you feel this puts the cart before the horse, I invite you to make your case. Personally speaking to the issue of morbidity, I admit prejudice. I would be quite dead at this moment w/o the benefit of a huge, gov supported, medical industry."
And I daresay a lot of people currently inhabiting the graveyards would be very much alive if the cures for their maladies hadn't been delayed for years by the FDA.
The only government support the medical industry needs is patent protection. Everything else is a hindrance - and I include prescription requirements, licensing requirements, drug approval requirements, and all the rest in there.
"However, it is hardly unknown for corporations enjoying a comfortable and easy life to intimidate the rival out of business, or simply buy him, in either case restoring their peace."
Intimidating rivals out of business ought to be outlawed by any type of government, including a libertarian one - and we shouldn't have to put up with lifelong parental guidance to get protection from thugs. And in an unregulated market, there's nothing stopping still another player from taking advantage of the easy pickings provided by the fat, lazy, unresponsive incumbents.
Posted by Ken at January 19, 2005 01:42 PM
Euan - Thanks for all that.
You're way off. Try the early to mid 19th century, about 50-100 years before modern welfarism.
Fair enough. However, you're proving Helly wrong, too. 50-100 years before modern welfarism isn't exactly a time known for its big government.
I actually mentioned the arbitrary treatment of prisoners, not the removal of Saddam, and said nothing about subsidising one-parent families.
I realise this, but it's irrelevant. You're nitpicking. I just used two rather lurid examples which libertarians would stereotypically get hot under the collar about. The nature of the example is of no consequence, IMO. If it was I'd be more subtle.
Even so, it is hypocritical to decry government on general principles but then support a major government effort to invade and occupy a sovereign foreign nation.
Now we're getting to the juicy stuff. A number of libertarians I know support very limited government - voluntary taxation (it's in our interests to contribute) supports a judicial system, a military and the diplomatic corps. Invading another country would fall under those auspices, so many of the people who support the action in Iraq (I'm assuming that's what you're talking about) aren't hypocrites because there would be a government-funded military in their ideal state. Which may or may not invade and hold a sovereign power. To use your example. And I point to what I said earlier - if a libertarian must have money extracted from him/her by the state, why should that person not be able to make the best of (what they consider) a bad situation by criticising and campaigning to influence how it's spent?
because you are still missing my point.
Why is it when people say "you seem to be missing my point", they are nearly always themselves missing the point of the post they're referring to? Did you not read what I said in my previous post? Okay, I'll go over it again.
It is NOT in the interests of a corporation to engage in perfect competition, and therefore they tend to do what IS in their interests - collusion, cartel, short measure, adulteration, etc. This maximises their profit and makes life a lot easier for the corporation...
Fully agree, and I think I made that clear in my last post. This next quote gets to the heart of my position...
...but not for the customer.
Precisely! They have opposing interests.
The customer can do nothing about this unless there is a rival corporation which doesn't engage in these sharp practices.
A single individual can do nothing about this. A large group of consumers can, however.
The point is that corporations do these things in the absence of anyone compelling them not to. This is not a matter of academic debate, it is just the way the real world works. In the real world, therefore, we need some amount of regulation backed by compulsion to keep a market free.I agree, as I agreed in my last post, which makes me wonder if you read it. Perhaps I did not articulate my position properly. Apologies if that is the case. Regardless, I agree, though with the following caveat - for the time being. I believe that consumers, who have opposing interests to companies, can effectively regulate (more effectively than government, even) companies by withholding business from offending companies. If a large number of consumers are significantly savvy and vigilant in their patronage, companies will dance to their tune. This will happen because a free market will give the customer what s/he wants. If customers won't put up with adulteration, price fixing, collusion, short measure etc, new "clean" companies will quickly spring up to cater for their needs. Old companies will mend their ways to become competitive. All these companies will be screaming for people, organisations etc. to verify their integrity, because that's how they're going to attract customers.
Before you dismiss this as textbook economics with no relevance in the real world, (I'm getting sick of reiterating this) I already said in my last post that such a system would not work in today's market. That's because most consumers have relied on the government to regulate the market for so long that they don't really know how to create an equilibrium between corporate and consumer interests. I believe this is starting to change already. I've noticed in my line of work that customers are considerably better informed than they were five years ago, and a great deal of consumer information is available today (that isn't mandated to be so by govt) which was simply not around even a couple of years prior. I think, gradually, consumers will become more and more informed and aware of their collective power, which they will wield to ensure companies sell them food that isn't dirty or poisonous, goods that are safe, aren't faulty or unreliable and services that aren't deceptive or fraudulent. When this situation comes about, government regulations will become a great deal less relevant and essential. When consumers wake up to their own power, they won't need the government regulations to protect them. They will ensure their own protection.
I do agree, however, that regulations are required for industries that have a very, very high barrier of entry - so high that a natural monopoly is the most likely outcome.
Posted by I'm suffering for my art at January 19, 2005 02:35 PM
Fair enough. However, you're proving Helly wrong, too
No I'm not. I'm simply saying that the major advances in public health regulation were made long before the rise of welfarism. These advances were compelled by governments. I am not in any case bound to support Helen, but nothing I have said contradicts her points.
50-100 years before modern welfarism isn't exactly a time known for its big government
"Big" government is not the issue. "Government" is. You do not need big government to require the provision of public sanitation and prevention of disease such as cholera, typhoid, etc., but equally you won't get it arising spontaneously from the market. At least, it never has done, it doesn't now in the places where it could and there is no real reason to suppose it ever would.
Regardless, I agree, though with the following caveat - for the time being.
I understood your comment perfectly well. I think you are mistaken in assuming that the consumer will educate himself and spontaneously start organising and cooperating with other consumers in order to enforce a free market, and thus over time eliminate the need for state regulation of the market.
People just aren't like that, unfortunately. People are not on the whole particularly rational, and they are in general fairly lazy and selfish. They will accept a bad deal if it is "too much" effort to do something different. It is foolish, therefore, to expect them to change and to suddenly start acting rationally and cooperatively.
I am not aware of the existence at any period in history of such a completely unregulated market which remained free over a substantial period of time thanks to the cooperative and rational actions solely of consumers. It would be instructive to examine such a case, were one to exist.
If customers won't put up with adulteration, price fixing, collusion, short measure etc, new "clean" companies will quickly spring up to cater for their needs. Old companies will mend their ways to become competitive
And no doubt we will also turn lead into gold, abolish global want and cure cancer, all before breakfast.
This is optimistic in the extreme - in cases where "unclean" companies dominate markets, it takes a lot more than just turning up with an honest face and good intentions to make them mend their ways. Although there are of course the feel-good tales of naughty companies being put to shame like this, there are vastly more tales of the good guys being hounded out of business one way or another or simply being bought out. Again, this is how people work in the Real World. Why do you think you can improve human nature?
most consumers have relied on the government to regulate the market for so long that they don't really know how to create an equilibrium between corporate and consumer interests
And even if they did know (and many do know perfectly well), they can't be bothered. People know that supermarkets run corner shops out of business & complain about it often. They also know very well that if they and other people keep buying stuff at the corner shops, then the supermarkets will suffer and the small businesses survive. However, they don't actually do anything about it because it's easier just to put up with the bloated and impersonal supermarkets.
I do agree, however, that regulations are required for industries that have a very, very high barrier of entry - so high that a natural monopoly is the most likely outcome
There is little to stop cartels, corporations or even individuals artificially raising the entry barrier to pretty much any market. And indeed this happens through a variety of means and on a regular basis, from huge and technically complex industries down to the inability to open a market stall without paying a "licence fee" to the local tough guy. Not having any government regulation would admittedly alleviate one set of problems, but it would only worsen another, and overall the net effect would not be an improvement.
As was commented by another, libertarianism just doesn't understand human nature. It assumes people are rational and sensible, when they aren't. Thus, it will fail.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at January 19, 2005 04:17 PM
EG
Your observations on "human nature" are observations of humans living in a highly regulated economy where effort to gain consumer knowledge beyond a certain basic level yields little return. No matter how much I research the market for apples, I'm not going to get a different price in the current environment. The vast majority of these people believe that the government is there to regulate every price and every shread of information in their favor, so consumer knowledge is a waste of effort.
You are right in a way: Under such circumstances it is perfectly rational for consumers to act in exactly the manner you predict. Your mistake is in thinking that people will behave exactly the same when the return on consumer knowledge is increased considerably.
"They will accept a bad deal if it is "too much" effort to do something different."
Then how does this fit under the definition of a "bad deal"? A bad deal for whom? By your definition the people you are trying to save from evil corporations don't even want or need to be saved.
If people are too lazy to bother getting a "better deal" for themselves, in whose interest is it for the government to take any action at all? You are trying to solve "problems" for people that, by your definition, they don't even believe are problems. That makes no sense whatsoever. It's a solution searching for a problem.
"And even if they did know (and many do know perfectly well), they can't be bothered. People know that supermarkets run corner shops out of business & complain about it often. They also know very well that if they and other people keep buying stuff at the corner shops, then the supermarkets will suffer and the small businesses survive. However, they don't actually do anything about it because it's easier just to put up with the bloated and impersonal supermarkets."
Why is it the business of the government whether a corner shop stays in business or not? Why should any consumer have any loyalty whatsoever to a shop that provides substandard goods, a smaller selection and higher prices (if the corner shop provided a better shopping experience this whole line of reasoning would be irrelevant)? That makes no sense, and certainly isn't something government should concern itself with. This whole line of reasoning just baffles me.
"I am not aware of the existence at any period in history of such a completely unregulated market which remained free over a substantial period of time thanks to the cooperative and rational actions solely of consumers."
Maybe not (post-Revolutionary to Pre-Civil War America was a good approximation), but what we do have lots of historical evidence for is that when markets are considerably deregulated, the behavior of consumers changes quickly and dramatically. This has been repeated over and over again wherever autocratic, socialist, communist, fascist, etc. governments have been replaced with freer governments and freer markets. The key is not that these markets were perfectly free (men will always try to use political processes to affect economic outcomes), but that they became considerably freer. Consumers will make rational decisions only so long as rationality provides a return on investment. In a regulated market that threshold is quickly met, with the resulting apathy that you are mistakenly attributing to "human nature". If that version of "human nature" were true for all circumstances and habitats, it's very doubtful that mankind would have made it out of the trees without becoming extinct.
Posted by DS at January 19, 2005 05:44 PM
"There is little to stop cartels, corporations or even individuals artificially raising the entry barrier to pretty much any market. And indeed this happens through a variety of means and on a regular basis, from huge and technically complex industries down to the inability to open a market stall without paying a "licence fee" to the local tough guy."
A libertarian would not favor a government that tolerates the activities of that local tough guy. Just because we favor repealing most current regulations on business doesn't mean that we favor a government that explicitly takes the side of incumbent businesses against their upstart competitors. We just don't think that we should have to put up with all kinds of extraneous crap just to get the local tough guy thrown in jail or strongly motivated to spend his time doing something more useful to society.
And without that local tough guy, any upstart can come out of nowhere and crush the lazy, unresponsive incumbents. A libertarian government would not allow the lazy incumbents to do a damned thing about it, and the government itself wouldn't either. A good way to protect lazy incumbents and prevent their customers from having alternatives is to license them - today's government does plenty of that, and our preferred government would do none of that.
"As was commented by another, libertarianism just doesn't understand human nature. It assumes people are rational and sensible, when they aren't. "
No, it assumes that people behave more rationally and sensibly when it's in their interests to do so, and less rationally and sensibly when their rationality and sensibility are disconnected from their personal well-being. It emphatically does not assume that humans are inescapably children in need of lifelong parental guidance.
Posted by Ken at January 19, 2005 05:53 PM
"Big" government is not the issue.Well, I think it is.
"Government" is.Not for me; I, in fact, believe in limited government.
You do not need big government to require the provision of public sanitation and prevention of disease such as cholera, typhoid, etc., but equally you won't get it arising spontaneously from the market.You do not need big government to require the provision of public sanitation and prevention of disease such as cholera, typhoid, etc., but equally you won't get it arising spontaneously from the market.I wasn't quibbling with you over this, and if you must know, I agreed with you from the start on this issue. I haven't criticised your previous posts regarding this.
I understood your comment perfectly well.You know, I'm not sure you did.
I think you are mistaken in assuming that the consumer will educate himself and spontaneously start organising and cooperating with other consumersThis is where I don't think you understand. I never said the consumer will start organising and cooperating with other consumers. However, average consumers have pretty similar priorities. They don't want to be poisoned by what they consume. They don't want to be hurt by what they consume. They want what they consume to do what they're led to believe it does, and be what they're led to believe it is. So, as a selfish individual, I make choices that fit in with the above framework. I do it because I am an average consumer (well, maybe slightly above average :) ). I know that pretty much everyone I associate with is making the same decisions - not considering me or what's right for me - but what's right and works for them to keep them in as good a shape as possible, based on all the information they choose to consider at the time . Whilst completely disregarding me and my priorities. However. my priorities and theirs are more or less the same. Happy days! This means we use a very similar rationale in decision-making. On a macrocosmic level, there is a definite pattern which will be noted by any intelligent entrepreneur. And that's why this system can work given the right level of consumer education.
I am not aware of the existence at any period in history of such a completely unregulated market which remained free over a substantial period of timeYour point being? I didn't say such a market ever existed. In fact, I don't think a market like this could exist for quite a while. Perhaps not even in my lifetime, and I'm pretty young. The point is, I think this is where we're heading. Ask anyone in retail; they'll tell you how much more educated the consumer is today than they were five years ago. And ten years ago...knuckle draggers! There is a definite trend towards increasing consumer awareness, and I can't see this process slowing down.
thanks to the cooperative and rational actions solely of consumers.There is no cooperation. Happily, most consumers have similar priorities. It may appear as though there is cooperation. Rational actions...well...what this constitutes, I suppose, differs from person to person. But I still maintain the overarching consumer priorities are there in the long term, and are the seminal influence on most decisions regarding consumption. Me on an earlier post:
If customers won't put up with adulteration, price fixing, collusion, short measure etc, new "clean" companies will quickly spring up to cater for their needs. Old companies will mend their ways to become competitive
Then Euan:
And no doubt we will also turn lead into gold, abolish global want and cure cancer, all before breakfast.I can't understand why you think this is so unbelievable. It seems perfectly logical (and completely do-able) to me. Hell, things like that happen in today's market all the time. Please don't tell me it's because government regulations allow it to - credit the human race with some intelligence.
it takes a lot more than just turning up with an honest face and good intentions to make them mend thir ways. Although there are of course the feel-good tales of naughty companies being put to shame like this, there are vastly more tales of the good guys being hounded out of business one way or another or simply being bought out.Why are you bringing personal feelings into this? As a consumer, I can tell you I'm quite ruthless in regards to what I buy. I don't give a fig about the little man, unless he's providing me with something I can't get elsewhere. In fact, this is the same with most consumers. Maybe the little man is providing them with personalised service that they don't get at Wal Mart. I'm definitely not talking about
turning up with an honest face and good intentionsto make offending companies mend their ways. How about the much less warm and fuzzy option of well, if the motherfuckers try to screw me, there's no way in hell I'm buying their product. And while I'm at it, I may as well let everyone know how pissed off I am with this piece of shit company. Multiply this by several million, because no doubt a bunch of other people feel the same way. Several million lost sales. Suddenly you have companies going out of business. Persuasive, huh? Might be cheaper (more profitable) to just give the consumer what he wants. I mean, if I feel disgusted because some chocolate bar company has started bulking up their product with cockroach larvae, I bet a large enough number of my fellow consumers will feel the same way. This is where consumer-advocate media, word of mouth, the internet, and much other stuff that we didn't have a great deal of ten years ago really becomes critical in our decision making. So what if Company X has bought out all the other chocolate bar manufacturers? If they want to bulk up their bars with cockroach larvae, people will stop buying their product. Some new guy will pop up. If Company X buys him out, and all the other new guys, what's going to happen? People won't develop a taste for cockroach caviar. They'll stop buying chocolate bars.
Why do you think you can improve human nature?It's not about improving human nature. It's about gradually taking on a new role. People won't voluntarily go to night school to become more savvy consumers. The media, more effective advertising, the internet and many, many new factors will cause them to incrementally become more aware over time.
And even if they did know (and many do know perfectly well), they can't be bothered. People know that supermarkets run corner shops out of business & complain about it often.I don't care a jot about corner shops. In fact, I think the owners who constantly complain about "doing it tough" should stop flogging the dead horse and get a job at their local supermarket. They'll probably make more money. I am aware that some hypocritical people lament the demise of the corner shop, whilst buying all their groceries at their local supermarket. Most people I've come across realise the corner shop is an anachronism.
As was commented by another, libertarianism just doesn't understand human nature. It assumes people are rational and sensible, when they aren't. Thus, it will fail.Is this a libertarian principle I'm espousing? I don't know. It doesn't matter. You're wrong if you think the fuel that drives this revolution will be rational, sensible consideration. It will be selfishness. A massive coalition of selfish individuals, independently seeking similar outcomes.
Posted by I'm suffering for my art at January 19, 2005 06:32 PM
I've got to learn to be more succinct.
Posted by I'm suffering for my longwindedness at January 19, 2005 06:46 PM
No, it assumes that people behave more rationally and sensibly when it's in their interests to do so
But they don't, I'm afraid.
Not for me;
However, it was the point of the argument being made.
However, average consumers have pretty similar priorities. They don't want to be poisoned by what they consume. They don't want to be hurt by what they consume
And yet they smoke, they drink excessive quantities of alcohol, they laze around watching tv, they drive everywhere rather than walk anywhere, they eat poor quality refined foods because they're too lazy to cook proper food, and so on ad nauseam. Note I am not saying everyone does this, but very large numbers do - they effectively do harm themselves by their c