Tuesday
(5)There is an interesting article in The American Conservative by Robert Locke called Marxism of the Right, by which he is referring to libertarianism. The 'money quote' being:
If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function.
Like most right-statist (conservative) criticisms of libertarianism, this one fails on several levels. In this article's mitigation, libertarianism (like conservatism) means different things to different people and so no doubt some self-described or de facto libertarians believe that 'pure' selfishness and individualism are all a society needs to function (that said, I reject the implied semantics suggesting that selfishness and altruism are mutually exclusive as I do not accept the Randian definition of altruism that Locke rather amusingly seems to use). Yet most well considered libertarians do not really take such a simple view of things as Locke suggests.
He asks libertarians many questions:
What if a free society needed to draft its citizens in order to remain free?
Then is it in fact a 'free society' to start with? Or is it just 'less un-free' that some alternative? More correctly however 'society' does not draft its 'citizens' (and I prefer the more honest term 'subjects'), only states do that... and the two are not the same thing at all.
What if it needed to limit oil imports to protect the economic freedom of its citizens from unfriendly foreigners?
But whose 'economic freedom' is really being talked about here? I find it bizarre that in 2005 this argument is still being made about a fungible globally traded commodity.
What if it needed to force its citizens to become sufficiently educated to sustain a free society?
I would be curious to know if Locke feels that society in the United States was hugely less free before the introduction of educational conscription. I also wonder if he feels that the low quality state education imposed on children in the blearier parts of many large US cities has made those people more free and if so, why?
What if it needed to deprive landowners of the freedom to refuse to sell their property as a precondition for giving everyone freedom of movement on highways?
And yet Japan, a nation of extraordinarily high land prices, manages to create a rail system vastly superior to that in the USA without legal powers of compulsory purchase. There are always alternatives.
What if it needed to deprive citizens of the freedom to import cheap foreign labor in order to keep out poor foreigners who would vote for socialistic wealth redistribution?
But surely here the problem is not the origin of voters but rather unconstrained democracy. This is not an argument for controlling immigration but rather for sensible constitutional constraints which set the acceptable limits of politics.
I am ambivalent about the whole libertarian label to be frank (I prefer 'social individualist') but I suppose it has the virtue of differentiating minarchist classical liberals of my ilk from conservative right-statists like Robert Locke. Locke rightly points out that libertarians come in many flavours but contrary to what he says, it seems to me that most libertarians I know have nothing against collective action (most rather like the idea of voluntary collectives like companies and associations) or altruism (most rather like charities and organizations like the RNLI or volunteer militaries etc.)... moreover they want roads maintained, diseases combated, children educated, garbage collected and fires put out as much as socialists and conservatives do. Where they depart from both the left and right statists is that they think all these things are more likely to get done effectively and more morally when they are not done at gunpoint (i.e. compelled by law). To be a libertarian is to believe that society (which is the sum of its parts but not more than that), not the state, is what actually matters, and moreover the state, far from being society's protector as conservatives fondly imagine, is as often as not highly corrosive to many of the very values conservatives often implausibly claim to champion.
Also morally speaking, the 'altruism' that the Robert Locke article says is needed for societies to function is not really altruism at all because surely it is impossible to compel altruistic actions. If my money is taken by force and given to another, that is not altruistic of me (I have no choice), it is not altruistic of the tax man (it is not his money) nor the person receiving the money (who is just the receiver of the benefits). This is hardly a surprise as the sort of conservatism one sees in places such as The American Conservative is really just utilitarianism and thus rarely has much to meaningfully say about moral theories.
Locke says about libertarians:
They forget that for much of the population, preaching maximum freedom merely results in drunkenness, drugs, failure to hold a job, and pregnancy out of wedlock. Society is dependent upon inculcated self-restraint if it is not to slide into barbarism, and libertarians attack this self-restraint. Ironically, this often results in internal restraints being replaced by the external restraints of police and prison, resulting in less freedom, not more.
Libertarians attack self-restraint? Really? That is a new one on me! Surely self-restraint motivated by either sound moral theories or failing that, social pressures, is sure the very essence of what libertarians preach.
Society is a network of affinity and dis-affinity that traditionally, at least in the Anglosphere, has motivated behaviour far more than the state has. I want the freedom to motive people not to break into my house by virtue of the fact I want the means to put a couple 40 cal holes in their centre of mass. Thus it makes me laugh to hear so called conservatives decry moves to return to more social ways of moderating behaviours and away from the statist regulatory approach. I wonder if Locke supports an end to tax funded social welfare entitlements that in effect subsidize imprudence and a lack of self-restraint? In a libertarian society, the causal links between a lack of self-restrain and ruin will be far easier to see than in the sort of right-flavoured police heavy welfare state that, when you ask the correct questions, it turns out that most conservatives really believe in.
So the big trouble I have with Robert Locke's article is that, whilst not quite a 'straw man' argument, it is not actually taking on the true philosophical core of what he claims to critique, nor is he making particularly useful remarks about what collective action and altruism really are and how they relate to a libertarian world view. In Locke's defence I realize that trying to define libertarianism (a seeming prerequisite to critiquing it) is rather like trying to herd cats, but nevertheless claiming that selfishness and individualism, standing in opposition to altruism and collectivism, defines the libertarian world view is little more than a caricature of the reality.
Fine piece, Perry. One quibble: when Randians use the term "altruism" as a term of abuse, the word is used differently from colloquial usage. Randians don't attack benevolence or generosity at all, quite the opposite. What they attack is the idea that one had a duty to sacrifice one's life and happiness for some greater, "higher" good such as the State, Volk, Proletariat, God, or Whatever.
If giving aid to others like becoming an RNLI rescuer or volunteer paramedic is a positive value to the individual as well as people being helped, then it is a highly "selfish" act to do such things, from the Randian point of view.
I prefer to use the term libertarian rather than social individualist as the latter can be confusing.
Posted by Johnathan Pearce at March 8, 2005 09:14 AM
I'll agree on the label. It took us 30 years to get some level of 'brand recognition' of 'libertarian'. It is really starting to become part of the gestalt and we need to keep pushing that.
I wish I could say more on the main topic, but Perry has said it very well.
Posted by Dale Amon at March 8, 2005 10:03 AM
Predictably, I think Locke is pretty much on the money. I have commented several times that libertarianism and Marxism do have several things in common, not least a Utopian and wholly unrealistic view of human nature.
Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function
I see no evidence whatsoever that this is anything other than plain truth. Humans are individuals, of course, but are also highly social animals and do not function in isolation. Whilst it can be true to say, as does Perry, that "some self-described or de facto libertarians believe that 'pure' selfishness and individualism are all a society needs," this does smack of evasive semantic pedantry. It is also true that it is almost impossible to define what "libertarianism" actually means, so in this sense a thorough criticism of the philosophy is difficult. Equally, this means it is almost impossible to explain to the voter what he might be voting for.
Of course, the real money quote is:
But this refutes libertarianism by its own premise, as libertarianism defines the good as the freely chosen, yet people do not choose it. Paradoxically, people exercise their freedom not to be libertarians.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 8, 2005 10:38 AM
right-statist (conservative)
Criticising what conservatives do in practice as "statist" is legitimate and would earn the agreement of probably most conservatives. But to say conservatism itself is "statist" just shows you don't properly understand conservatism. Your implication that "right-statist (conservative)" is the mirror of "left-statist" says this even more: do you see no philosophical difference between conservative and left-liberal attitudes to the legitimate limits of government power? If not, then again you don't understand conservatism especially well.
"What if it needed to deprive citizens of the freedom to import cheap foreign labor in order to keep out poor foreigners who would vote for socialistic wealth redistribution?"
But surely here the problem is not the origin of voters but rather unconstrained democracy. This is not an argument for controlling immigration but rather for sensible constitutional constraints which set the acceptable limits of politics.
In plainer terms, what you are saying is to preserve libertarianism in a society of open borders you need a constitution that closes down democracy when it comes to distribution of wealth. This is not going to happen. Even if it did, all it would mean is democratic pressure either for a constitutional amendment or a new constitution, because there is simply no way you can impose your favoured constitution on a country irrespective of the attitudes of the people who make it up. As Euan Gray hints, it's this sort of attitude to human nature that shows where libertarianism really falls down. Instead of recognising that countries like the United States and United Kingdom have relatively free constitutions because of the cultural and political traditions of centuries pointing in that direction, you think free constitutions are primarily the cause rather than the effect of the history and culture of the people who make up a nation.
Surely self-restraint motivated by either sound moral theories or failing that, social pressures, is sure the very essence of what libertarians preach.
This is what they preach when caught out by writers like Locke, and have to fall back on more realistic defences. Much more often, libertarians preach that their thinking is a prize combination of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, carrying all the advantages of 1960s mores and none of the (inevitable) costs in higher taxes and greater powers for the state.
Self-restraint motivated by sound moral theories and social pressures is the essence of what conservatives preach.
Posted by Peter at March 8, 2005 10:56 AM
"you think free constitutions are primarily the cause rather than the effect of the history and culture of the people who make up a nation"
Peter: chicken and egg? May not the constitution be both effect and cause of a people's culture over time? Would US citizens be just as demanding of their political institutions without their Bill of Rights? Would British subjects still be deferential even without our custom-based unwritten constitutional arrangements?
Posted by mike at March 8, 2005 11:37 AM
Would US citizens be just as demanding of their political institutions without their Bill of Rights?
If they weren't demanding in the first place, would there ever have been a Bill of Rights?
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 8, 2005 11:47 AM
Mike, I do think both explanations are a factor. That's why I used the term 'primarily' - there were and are secondary factors.
What I am arguing against is the idea that political problems like the demand for redistribution of wealth that arise because people naturally disagree can be resolved by drawing up the right constitution. The demand for socialistic redistribution by recent immigrants is not just a theoretical threat to those who want to reduce government but a real life political factor - look at what's happened to Reagan's California! - that Democrats at least understand all too well. This pressure cannot be eliminated by a more restrictive constitution. All you will get if you try is pressure for a constitutional amendment or an entirely new constitution.
Posted by Peter at March 8, 2005 11:54 AM
Peter: Yes I understand your point - I was just flagging up the more general question of how a culture is related to its' constitution. Your (typical) charge that libertarianism is unrealistic makes me ask myself how far would we get in discussing the likely success of any 'libertarian' constitutional arrangement? That seems to me far more interesting than the brute question-mark of whether libertarianism is right or wrong.
Euan: your feeble response smells of cognitive pedantry.
Posted by mike at March 8, 2005 12:23 PM
Peter: "Do you see no philosophical difference between conservative and left-liberal attitudes to the legitimate limits of government power? If not, then again you don't understand conservatism especially well."
Hmm. I'd question the claim that (for example) the current conservative US administration has any great interest in limiting government power compared to previous centre-left administrations...
In other words, while conservative ideals and philosophy are closer in line with libertarian beliefs, Perry is correct in his characterisation of conservatism as practiced in real life.
Posted by john b at March 8, 2005 12:34 PM
your feeble response smells of cognitive pedantry
Nevertheless, what is the answer to the question?
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 8, 2005 12:38 PM
John, as I say, most conservatives would probably be willing to acknowledge that in power plenty of their fellow travellers have been "statist". One can pick examples on both sides of that argument without much effort. But as you seem to acknowledge, what is definitely wrong is to describe conservatism itself in that way, doubly so in suggesting that conservatism is simply the "right-statist" mirror image of "left-statist". No sensible conception of "statism" could fail to recognise the differences in how conservatives and left-liberals view the power and role of government. Perry's own blogroll is actually a powerful testament to that difference.
Posted by Peter at March 8, 2005 12:52 PM
I don't think you can just assert that Peter. Most conservatives believe the State should have the right to involuntarily end a citizen's life. Most left-liberals do not.
Whether this makes conservatives more "statist" or less than someone who wants to nationalise the railways (for example) is not obvious.
Posted by Matthew at March 8, 2005 01:16 PM
Instead of recognising that countries like the United States and United Kingdom have relatively free constitutions because of the cultural and political traditions of centuries pointing in that direction, you think free constitutions are primarily the cause rather than the effect of the history and culture of the people who make up a nation.
The history and culture of the 'people' has nothing to do with it. All political matters are decided by the tiny intellectual elite. The US constitution was written by a tiny elite inspired by works of philosophy, notably John Locke. The great mass of the people have no interest in these matters and no capacity to even understand them, what they think is utterly irrelevant, there is no such thing as 'democratic pressure' it is as much a myth as the 'divine right of kings', invented by intellectuals.
Posted by Paul Coulam at March 8, 2005 01:47 PM
Peter; in the US the only real difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is what they want to use the state for, not how little of a state they want to have. Most Republicans want to use to levers of goverment to dictate behaviour of Americans citizens just as the left via political correctness also wants to dictate their behaviour.
Too many Republicans the recent Bush tax cuts were a really big deal. Many, the RINOS, thought the tax cuts were far too large. If one actually looks at the size of the tax cuts there were in fact miniscule.
As I used to say about the mid-Western/Southern Republicans: "their instinct is to regulate it or ban it and then pray about it..."
Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge at March 8, 2005 01:56 PM
All political matters are decided by the tiny intellectual elite
Such as the barons at Runnymede, populist religious agitators and self-interested parliamentarians in the 1640s, the army in 1659 and again in 1689, and vote-grubbing politicians in the early 20th century. Intellectual giants, all.
The point is valid when applied to events such as the Russian revolution or the framing of the US constitution, but not necessarily to broader historical and cultural trends which in turn often dictate political changes.
The great mass of the people have no interest in these matters and no capacity to even understand them
Yet when the political settlement becomes sufficiently dictatorial or oppressive, the people have the capacity to rebel and demand an alternative. Presumably they understand to some extent, and presumably they get sufficiently interested from time to time.
there is no such thing as 'democratic pressure'
Then how do you explain the collapse of the east European communist governments in the face of populations who had, plainly, just had enough and saw their chance to put real pressure on the state?
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 8, 2005 02:26 PM
Politicians are in thrall to ideology not the demos. Populations will go along with whatever ruling ideology holds sway even unto their deaths. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot all managed to send millions of their populations to their deaths with out any resistance from 'democratic presure'. The level of taxation, foreign policy, immigration policy, monetary policy are all determined by intellectuals. The people who happen to live in a particular state are not interested in politics and are unable to even understand it.
Re-read 1984. The inner party only needed to control the small outer party, the mass of the 'proles' were quite incapable even of understanding their predicament.
East Europe collapsed due to loss of ideological confidence among the elite, the populations would have sat in dumb docility starving to death as they still do in North Korea which has not lost ideological confidence.
Posted by Paul Coulam at March 8, 2005 03:06 PM
Politicians are in thrall to ideology not the demos
But surely in a democracy their policy proposals are governed by what the plebs will find attractive? Many in the Labour movement, for example, even now subscribe to the ideology of large scale nationalisation and state direction of the economy but they do not advocate it since it is well enough known that outright socialism is an electoral turn-off. Equally, many Conservatives privately favour a rather more liberal or even libertarian approach than is party policy but do not voice it particularly, for the similar reason that libertarianism is electorally unpopular.
The people who happen to live in a particular state are not interested in politics and are unable to even understand it
In my experience, talking to people who take no interest in politics other than voting at election time, the general level of understanding is surprisingly high. Just because they aren't particularly interested - which is true enough for the majority of people - does not mean they don't understand.
What is it about the mass of the people that leads you to conclude they are incapable of understanding?
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 8, 2005 03:21 PM
Of course, the real money quote is:
But this refutes libertarianism by its own premise, as libertarianism defines the good as the freely chosen, yet people do not choose it. Paradoxically, people exercise their freedom not to be libertarians.
People vote for all sorts of things, and desire all sorts of laws, and then break them. People are hypocrites. The Democracy formulated from hypocrisy is highly corrosive. People want maximum freedom for themselves, and maximum constraints for everyone else. Most individuals are content with their own moral superiority so the laws don't apply to them in the same way, not like the rest of the rabble who constitute an unbearable risk.
Most people are afraid most of the times, and the fears exist on the boundaries of their imagination. As a consequence, most people exist in a superstitious fog, and as always, will bow to priests of some sort who promise that they will be protected if only they toe the line. Perhaps at a base level that is the origin of any collective. But it is when imaginations run wild that all sorts of foolishness will result (say a balance sheet such as the US Federal Government that has $1.397 trillion in assets, and $47.289 trillion in liabilities and 'responsibilities' and the masses not giving a damn, they are somehow confident it won't impact them. Insanity.).
You may view libertarianism is some sort of ideal, but what political, economic, or psychological theory isn't? But at least it is a starting point of view, and concessions can be made from there. Minarchists are already those who are willing to concede some layer of State function, but it still desires to use the least amount of force necessary to protect life and property from direct danger. The Citadels of State we have today, the onerous burdens of taxation and regulation, prisons filled (in the US) with people who commited no crime but one constituted from actions the performed upon themselves, we have more bureaucrats than we have ever had in our history (US) and what is the outcome? A massive debt and an abated reservoir of force that will have to be unleashed on someone, or the admission that the security blanket of state has been threadbare or non-existent all along. It is the culmination of irrationality and superstition from a fearful mass who will willingly abandon cause and effect for a warm fuzzy. So theoretical libertarianism might be too ideal, but in practice is to snap people out of their doldrums and get them to examine the cause and effects of decisions, to be cynical about what the State actually does and for whom. The State at any layer could stand a huge cut down from where it stands now.
Posted by toolkien at March 8, 2005 03:25 PM
Paul,
"there is no such thing as 'democratic pressure' it is as much a myth as the 'divine right of kings', invented by intellectuals.
The masses, or proles, are not entirely passive. They were powerless under communist regimes (and in "1984") because of the enormous and brutal physical repression machine applied to them (gulag, etc.).
In fact, Communism was built on identifying the masses of proles, who had grievances (miserable life), and the possibility to agitate and use them in a revolt against the regime, toward enthroning in power those communist "intellectuals". The masses provided the communist with an opportunity and an opening, and were used by them, via demagogy.
So, having a large mass of discontent population is a big problem in societies where brutal repression is not used. (See recent developements in Bolivia).
Incidentally, I don't think immigrants are "proles". Immigrats are ambitious and industrious people, who work hard to succeed, and are not in the "pocket" of lefties demagogues.
Posted by Jacob at March 8, 2005 03:44 PM
"The people who happen to live in a particular state are not interested in politics and are unable to even understand it."
Maybe, but the nature of a constitution surely frames the basic terms in which people think about their lives?
The fact that we think about ourselves as individual persons and not merely the social positions we occupy or the social functions we perform is because the application of our laws must take due consideration to the liberty of the individual even as they apply to all persons irrespective of social position. This is not the case in Iran for example, where their Islamic constitution requires the behaviour of Iranians to conform to, or at least refrain from contradicting, certain Islamic precepts - which is why Khatami was always facing an uphill struggle to reform the Iranian State.
So although ordinary citizens/subjects may not always take a great interest in politics per se, it is politics - and in particular the constitution - that has shaped the basic terms of social life, and when the most important of these are perceived by the public to have been violated by the ruling elite, then there may well be such a thing as 'democratic pressure'. Whether such pressure makes any difference or not is another matter of course (e.g. foxhunting). And public perception is itself the ruling elite will try to manipulate also of course...
How much liberty a constitution can enshrine then is not entirely unrelated to the question of how much people care about their liberty. So the things which affect how different people think about and care about their liberty (the uses to which they can put their property, for instance) are not entirely uninteresting.
Posted by mike at March 8, 2005 04:02 PM
People are hypocrites
They certainly are not the rational entities libertarianism assumes they are.
a balance sheet such as the US Federal Government that has $1.397 trillion in assets, and $47.289 trillion in liabilities and 'responsibilities' and the masses not giving a damn, they are somehow confident it won't impact them
Well, it probably won't. The US has a GDP of some 12 trillion dollars which can to one extent or another be taxed, the probability of the entire 47 trillion in liabilities being called in at once is non-existent and in any case any government can repudiate sovereign debt if necessary. The balance sheet of a state cannot be compared to that of a corporation and the same rules simply don't necessarily apply.
Depending on how you measure it, US national debt is actually approx. 8 trillion, or 2/3 of GDP. This level of debt is sustainable pretty much indefinitely. I assume you are adding contingent liabilities to this figure.
prisons filled (in the US) with people who commited no crime
Ah, the old "victimless crime" idea, eh? About as meaningful as "taxation is theft." Unfortunately, few people agree on what a "victimless" crime actually is. Similarly, the concepts of natural justice and natural law are unreliable since they are not defined - arguments based on these concepts can be and often have been rejected by courts.
an abated reservoir of force that will have to be unleashed on someone
I'm not sure I follow this point. If you mean military force and equipment, it is not necessary to use it, and thus it does not "have to be unleashed" on anyone.
So theoretical libertarianism might be too ideal
I think the problem is more that it is completely and unworkably Utopian, based on a misunderstanding of human nature and economically naive & therefore it is hard to see how it can be used as a "starting point" any more than, say, communism could be.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 8, 2005 04:27 PM
I think the problem is more that it is completely and unworkably Utopian
That's a strawman argument. The idea that you should not interfere with my basic liberties any more than necessary to protect your own basic liberties does not necessarily imply a belief that a Utopia would ensue. Liberty is an end in and of itself.
That self ownership leads to a better *average* outcome (economic, socially whatever) than central control, is a bonus and serves to help bring the utilitarians along if they can be convinced but does not really inform the true libertarian position.
Rich
Posted by Richard Thomas at March 8, 2005 04:47 PM
Euan, libertarianism does not mean isolationism. I wish toolkien would have wieghed in on this issue. I think he's done it in the past.
Anecdotally, I have found libertarians are extremely social and generally have deep convictions regarding social responsibility. Speaking for myself, the reason I chose to subscribe to libertarian thinking is I have come to believe convictions are for the individuals who hold them.
Posted by Winzeler at March 8, 2005 04:59 PM
That's a strawman argument
Not really. It IS based on a naive and optimistic view of both human nature and economics, esp. the supposed behaviour of unregulated free markets.
the true libertarian position
Perhaps if someone would care to nail the jelly to the wall and actually decide what this is supposed to be then a proper debate could be held.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 8, 2005 04:59 PM
But surely in a democracy their policy proposals are governed by what the plebs will find attractive?
Yes, that may determine which party wins an election but that has no bearing on what the goverment does with its power. The ruling parties change but the polices that they follow are determined by intellectuals. In the 70's prices and incomes policies were in ideological vogue now they are not. Which party is in power is irrelevant, policies are formulated, accepted and promulgated by intellectuals. Elections are irrelevant and the masses will go along with whatever policies are accepted by the rulers and the rulers get all of their ideas from the intellectual elite.
"......after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship ... That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Hermann Goering.
Peter's idea that nations have liberty because of a cultural fondness for it among the people is sheer fantasy.
Posted by Paul Coulam at March 8, 2005 05:01 PM
...in any case any government can repudiate sovereign debt if necessary. The balance sheet of a state cannot be compared to that of a corporation and the same rules simply don't necessarily apply.
Why not? What is so miraculous about the State that they are not bound by the economic limitations private individuals and associations are? The only way they wouldn't apply is because they can attack others and take their property. You have just validated the aggressive use of force that States all to commonly apply. As for repudiation, that risks war as well. It's simply mind boggling how you believe economic smoke and mirrors will not eventually result in open use of aggression somewhere along the line.
Depending on how you measure it, US national debt is actually approx. 8 trillion, or 2/3 of GDP. This level of debt is sustainable pretty much indefinitely. I assume you are adding contingent liabilities to this figure.
Yes. But it is the present value of the future streams. "Having it all come due" is not the point, it is the amount of money that would have to be set aside today to cover those costs, present valuing compares apples to apples. That's what present value analyses are for. Of course the present value of future tax streams is not included on the asset side, but if one were take the ~$2 trillion now taken in taxes and present values that stream over the same period of time, at the same discount rate, it still comes up short of just covering the "official" debt and the "responsibilites". There must then be substantial increases in taxation (or war and transfer) to cover all the other expenditures made today, presuming the bureaucracy doesn't tolerate the elimination of any programs.
Ah, the old "victimless crime" idea, eh? About as meaningful as "taxation is theft." Unfortunately, few people agree on what a "victimless" crime actually is. Similarly, the concepts of natural justice and natural law are unreliable since they are not defined - arguments based on these concepts can be and often have been rejected by courts.
Hmmm. You've changed my mind. I now see the point of filling up prisons with people who smoked weed or snorted coke. How could I have been so blind? It all makes sense now because the courts tend to reject peoples' appeals for liberty.
an abated reservoir of force that will have to be unleashed on someone
I'm not sure I follow this point. If you mean military force and equipment, it is not necessary to use it, and thus it does not "have to be unleashed" on anyone.
The point here is that the differential between the assets and liabilities/responsibilities discussed above is the dollar figure that can be given to the coercive force necessary to be placed on someone, either the tax base, or foreign countries, to fund the shortfall. It, by and large, isn't going to allocated voluntarily, so force will have to be used. Pretty simple really.
I think the problem is more that it is completely and unworkably Utopian, based on a misunderstanding of human nature and economically naive & therefore it is hard to see how it can be used as a "starting point" any more than, say, communism could be.
It simply demands less state. I think that is a good thing since I have just shown the catestrophic state the US is in financially. The above numbers, more than anything, shows the irrationalities that are allowed to manifest themselves through collectivism. You're the one who still blinded by the same irrationalities that begat communism, not me.
Posted by toolkien at March 8, 2005 05:06 PM
IMO libertarianism properly practised has more in common with a moral crusade than with coercive politics. As some of the conservatives here have pointed out, it's impossible (ethically, pragmatically, and by definition) to impose freedom upon individuals or societies. Ergo, changing minds has to precede changing policies.
To the extent democracy makes any sense, it's because it reflects this. Perry's redistribution-banning constitution may come to pass, but only when significantly more than half the influential public wants it.
Posted by Julian Morrison at March 8, 2005 05:07 PM
the true libertarian position
Perhaps if someone would care to nail the jelly to the wall and actually decide what this is supposed to be then a proper debate could be held.
It is not necessary.
One should never get involved in verbal questions or questions of meaning, and never get interested in words. If challenged by the question of whether a word one uses really means this or that, then one should say: 'I don't know, and I am not interested in meanings; if you wish, I will gladly accept your terminology.' This never does any harm. One should never quarrel about words, and never get involved in questions of terminology. One should always keep away from discussing concepts. What we are really interested in, our real problems, are factual problems, or in other words, problems of theories and their truth. We are interested in theories and how they stand up to critical discussion; and our critical discussion is controlled by our interest in truth.
Karl Popper
Posted by Paul Coulam at March 8, 2005 05:12 PM
changing minds has to precede changing policies.
Yes, the minds of the intellectual elite.
Perry's redistribution-banning constitution may come to pass, but only when significantly more than half the influential public wants it.
No, only a critical mass of the tiny intellectual elite. The public have no influence and are incapable of understanding. Nothing would ever change if the public (demos) had to be convinced.
Posted by Paul Coulam at March 8, 2005 05:19 PM
Not just not necessary, but would be detrimental. Libertarianism is a multifaceted viewpoint, and it's being continuously refined by new ideas. In my experience, people who want a single textual definition probably want to twist the mere text and ignore the larger idea.
Posted by Julian Morrison at March 8, 2005 05:23 PM
No, only a critical mass of the tiny intellectual elite.
You missed how carefully I phrased the post to which you were replying. More than half of the influential public. Which need not be intellectuals - I think you overstate that aspect. People who hold disproportionate influence do so by originating and propagating ideas. That's tangential to their official academic rank or recognition. They could as easily just be talkative enthusiasts with a large social network.
Posted by Julian Morrison at March 8, 2005 05:31 PM
... most well considered libertarians do not really take such a simple view of things ...
Congratulations, Perry, on the Samizdata Tautology of the Day!
Your essay is perfectly nonsensical. I love the claim that the Japanese government is more respectful of property rights than the US. Such a worldly perspective, you have there! Please, I beg you, continue with the respect shown for gun ownership in Japan. Ha, could you be any more duplicitous?
There is no need to go so far afield, to find the connections between Libertarianism and Leftism. The point is routinely made (and unanswered) in the comments here to devastating effect.
They are both indefensible ideologies that provide the comfort and safety of absolute convictions. Say what you will of the failings of Liberals and Conservatives, but they do the work while Libertarians stroke their ... barrels. Hahaha
Posted by HelenW at March 8, 2005 05:51 PM
"No, only a critical mass of the tiny intellectual elite. The public have no influence and are incapable of understanding. Nothing would ever change if the public (demos) had to be convinced."
It's not about convincing the public of anything - it's about not pissing them off too much. It is in this sense that the public are potentially powerful.
The good thing about democractic constitutions is not that they allow the public something they want, but that they allow the public to get rid of something they don't want. And to get rid of the people who gave it to them.
Posted by mike at March 8, 2005 05:54 PM
Euan,
Your views are indeed a series of strawman arguments... libertarianism is not utopian because it does NOT assume everyone is rational. The need for social pressures and mechanisms is because people obviously live in societies.
Helen:
I make no such sweeping claims about Japan as your halfwitted comment suggests. I just point out that if you pick and choose from around the world, you can usually find that the "only way to get things done" (such as US state use of emminent domain to sieze property) is nothing of the sort.
Posted by Perry de Havilland at March 8, 2005 06:02 PM
I love the claim that the Japanese government is more respectful of property rights than the US.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. That is not what Perry wrote at all.
Rich
Posted by Richard Thomas at March 8, 2005 06:05 PM
HelenW, in the governmental sense, Liberals and Conservatives are debating how to do the work.
Libertarians are trying to redefine the "work" that needs to be done -again in the governmental sense.
For example, Liberals and Conservatives keep trying to figure out how to do schools. Libertarians are suggesting schools don't need to be done. (I am speaking strictly in the governmental realm. Schools need and will be done, the question is by whom.)
The bottom line is Liberals and Conservatives in one way or another don't trust people to run their own lives and manage their own affairs. I am tired of being forced to partake in the "work" of the Liberals and Conservatives. I think I speak for most people who identify with the Libertarian name.
Posted by Winzeler at March 8, 2005 06:08 PM
"...the delusion that one can run society..."
Yes, that is the delusion.
The problem isnt how to RUN society but allowing individuals to run their own lives -- and maintaining the peace in the process. So this guy has it all wrong. The basic premise of liberatianism is not *how to run all of society*, but the proper relationship between the individual and the State (and individual to individual). At least that is my impression.
"Running societies?" Ugh, gimme a break! That just means one thing: how best to intiate force to effect your economic and social planning. Therein lies the horrid delusion. Liberarianism compared to every other political system are then complete opposites. While all others identify the collective society and the running of it by those in power as the basic premise, proper libertarianism identifies the individual as the sole director of his life -- and the system of government is then derived from that fact, hence the American system of government.
Their basic premises are exact opposites. Libertarianism and Marxism have nothing in common.
Posted by BridgetB at March 8, 2005 06:50 PM
What is so miraculous about the State that they are not bound by the economic limitations private individuals and associations are?
The state makes the rules.
As for repudiation, that risks war as well
Not necessarily. Look at Argentina just the other week.
There must then be substantial increases in taxation (or war and transfer)
That nations must inevitably go to war to repay debt is a daft notion. This is pretty much the argument socialists use - capitalism ultimately requires forcible transfer of wealth, and therefore inevitably leads to war. It just isn't true.
A state can repudiate debt easily enough. In Britain, and I suspect in most states, a part of "national debt" is actually only debt in Treasury ledgers - it is money owed by the left hand of government to the right hand, as it were. This can be cancelled at the stroke of a pen and nobody would feel a thing. Current liabilities can in extremis simply be repudiated or revalued. Future liabilities can be cancelled by legislative changes, for example by cancelling state pensions for anyone born after a certain date. Government programs change, can be trimmed down or can be cancelled. Tax rates can be increased. The state has a vast range of measures available to it to relieve its own indebtedness, measures which are not available to companies or individuals. It may be arbitrary or forcible, and in some cases it can be economically unwise, but it is nevertheless fact.
I now see the point of filling up prisons with people who smoked weed or snorted coke
Drug abuse is not necessarily a victimless crime, and the wider effects of it on society need to be considered. I recognise that it is largely pointless trying to persuade libertarians of this, but can only suggest they go into the real world of durg users and see the difference between a casual snort of coke in the drawing room now and then and hard core drug abuse.
It, by and large, isn't going to allocated voluntarily, so force will have to be used
See above re Marxist misinterpretations of what capitalism and debt entail. Britain was bankrupt in 1940, but didn't loot its empire for cash. Britain was bankrupt again in the 1970s, but didn't go to war to pay the debts. This simply is not inevitable.
It simply demands less state. I think that is a good thing
One does not need to be a libertarian to see the merits of a restricted state.
I love the claim that the Japanese government is more respectful of property rights than the US
It's also a much more regulated society, both formally and informally. Didn't stop it becoming wealthy.
libertarianism is not utopian because it does NOT assume everyone is rational
Perry, we went through this some time ago on another thread, after you stated the precise opposite of what you've just said here. I recall that you couldn't answer the point then. The viability of an unregulated free market is contingent on the participants making rational choices in their own selfish interest. People don't do this. On the contrary, they do many things which are actively detrimental to their own interests and those of others. This applies to companies, which are of course made up of people, as well as to individuals. The libertarian idea of an unregulated free market IS Utopian because it is premised on an erroneous, naive and optimistic view of human nature. Much like Marxism.
Furthermore, it tends to assume that the disciplines which tend to (but do not completely) regulate markets (at least where there is perfect competition) will also regulate human social conduct. This isn't valid either. Economic rules apply to economics, and are not necessarily valid anywhere else. This is, of course, another parallel with Marxism.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 8, 2005 07:33 PM
Euan Gray: yes, that is a difference, and it might even be a defining difference between libertarianism and other political philosophies: we do not have a low opinion of human nature. We neither see it as bad-but-perfectable like the left, nor doomed-to-stay-bad like the conservatives. Libertarian minarchist philosophies presume our species is not suicidal and in need of straitjacketing for self preservation. Libertarian anarchist philosophies, which eg: I espouse, presume that a vast majority, say no less than nine-tenths of people, are basically good. With those numbers, societies can be stabilized by mere custom, with no central imposition.
Posted by Julian Morrison at March 8, 2005 08:02 PM
Perry---thank you for the marvelous discussion.
My only comment is that a belief in individual rights is a moral position, not an economic one.
Posted by veryretired at March 8, 2005 08:17 PM
Economic rules apply to economics, and are not necessarily valid anywhere else.
Exactly. Economic liberalism works because capitalism is such that even by pursuing your self-interest you advance the overall good via the invisible hand. But there is no equivalent invisible hand in social questions that makes following your self-interest when it comes to deciding if it's a good idea to abandon moral responsibility to one's wife, children etc. enhance the general good.
Posted by Peter at March 8, 2005 08:20 PM
no less than nine-tenths of people, are basically good
Yes, most people are basically good (although at the same time, and en masse, dumb, lazy and greedy but not actively bad in a moral sense). That's not the point. The point is that they are not RATIONAL.
Anarcho-capitalism would have a chance of working if people really were rational (whatever their goodness or badness) and acted enough of the time in their own best interests and that of wider society. Unfortunately for anarcho-capitalism, they don't do this.
As Peter said above, there is no invisible hand in the social sphere. Any philosophy (such as libertarianism or Marxism) which reduces social questions to economic ones & attempts to apply economic rules thereto will fail.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 8, 2005 08:39 PM
"Any philosophy (such as libertarianism or Marxism) which reduces social questions to economic ones & attempts to apply economic rules thereto will fail."
Do I hear the sound of a textbook being closed and placed on a table there??
I'd have thought the free-market assumes people to have (or be able to acquire) prudent habits, not perfect rationality as such. I have known many highly intelligent people who spent their money impulsively. Except it wasn't their money - it was their parents' money, or their student grant. £500 bottles of whiskey and such like. Tossers.
Posted by mike at March 8, 2005 08:58 PM
I just point out that if you pick and choose from around the world, you can usually find that the "only way to get things done" (such as US state use of emminent domain to sieze property) is nothing of the sort.
Picking and choosing in this way is a pointless exercise. Isolating such examples from the wider societal/governmental context in which they are embedded renders them useless.
Posted by Trew at March 8, 2005 09:22 PM
Perry writes: I make no such sweeping claims about Japan .... if you pick and choose from around the world,...
That is the 2nd time this fallacy has been use on my here. I find that gratifying, so let me explain. You can falsely substantiate *any* theory by cherry picking your data. That is just what you have done, and admitted so in full ignorance. Your self-detonating remarks prove only one thing: If you can't support your position honestly, you should change your position.
Richard writes: You need to work on your reading comprehension.
That is the 3rd ad hominem I have received here concerning my reading ability. As I explained earlier, it happens to be quite true. However, your hateful comment joins the others in irrelevance. Perry doesn't not have the courage of his silly convictions to make any point whatsoever. He merely employs the sleazy tactic of citing a single instance of Japanese government respect to *imply* a superior and more universal instantiation of such. I called BS on that bit of lunacy. Sadly, I have no suggestions for how you might improve yourself.
Finally, we get to a thoughtful response where Winzeler writes: Libertarians are trying to redefine the "work" that needs to be done ...
Winzeler, I don't care for your assertion that Libs and Cons don't trust people to run their own lives. However, you have correctly identified the Libertarian role in politics. I can work with that. Here is my point: There is no effective Libertarian presence in our legislative bodies. I think that shame because it reduces you folks to snipers. But there you have it. I think that will change as the lose of government Leftists creates a vacuum you can readily fill. This will serve my purposes beautifully because I would then be able to criticize what you DO as well as what you SAY.
Now to this business about trusting zee peepeels. Here's a news flash from the 18th century: We don't trust them. The Founders specifically constructed a republic for their new nation with the expressed purpose of suppressing the tyranny of the majority. Oddly, you have hit upon the precise connection between Leftism and Libertarianism: democracy. What the Founders understood, but Libertarians cannot fathom, is that we can never have absolute freedom. Our great experiment can only work if there is a compromise between individual rights and security for the society. They saw this as the way to secure most freedom possible for citizenry, and they happened to be absolutely right. Centuries later, their experiment has produced a country with more freedom than an other.
Citing any number of political theorists and philosophers, or cherry-picking factoids cannot change this truth. We have the empirical proof in hand. Extremism of any flavor extinguishes freedom. As such, damn it.
Posted by HelenW at March 8, 2005 09:24 PM
Euan Gray: Irrationality's curable (mostly self-curable) - I consider it a form of ignorance. Often one encouraged by bad (sub)cultural ideas. It's no more endemic to the species than bad hygeine.
Posted by Julian Morrison at March 8, 2005 09:25 PM
HelenW and Trew: if your opponent asserts "pink elephants are impossible", and you can show him one, he must concede. One counter-example destroys a generalization.
Cherry picking from around the world can show the range of what's possible. It may not all be possible at once or over here - but the burden is now on you to show this, since it is certainly possible somewhere.
Posted by Julian Morrison at March 8, 2005 09:35 PM
Do I hear the sound of a textbook being closed and placed on a table there??
No. If you're assuming I'm quoting, then I'm flattered that you think my words are of a quality sufficient for a textbook. If you're assuming something else, flattery is not assured.
I'd have thought the free-market assumes people to have (or be able to acquire) prudent habits
People are of course able to acquire prudent habits, in just the same way as people can be honest, truthful, faithful, tolerant, open-minded and kind to dogs and small children. This does not, of course, mean that they necessarily WILL acquire such habits. The record of history shows that awfully large numbers of them don't.
citing a single instance of Japanese government respect to *imply* a superior and more universal instantiation of such
One might also observe that Japan is much more heavily regulated than the US. There are large programs of subsidy and special treatment for industry, widespread protectionism and a deeply conformist traditional society highly suspicious of outsiders and their ideas. The obedience, conformity and discipline of Japanese society is far more important in explaining their success than respect for property rights. One could also note that socialism was less unsuccessful in East Germany than in most other Warsaw Pact nations, again due in part to social discipline and obedience. Neither are exemplars for a putative libertarian society, of course. And then there's China...
There is always another way of doing things, and of course it does not have to be the libertarian way.
What the Founders understood, but Libertarians cannot fathom, is that we can never have absolute freedom
Exactly.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 8, 2005 09:52 PM
Julian, that's a good trick. Your logic is sound, but you err by substituting a subtly different proposition. (((I always warn people that I've had one too many philosophy courses.)))
Furthermore, Perry attempts to dissolve Locke's assertion--that Absolutism can't work--with an irrelevant and distant social anomaly. No-one here argues that eminent domain action could not be curtailed if we somehow transformed our society into one that admires conformity and worships divine imperialism. But that is buffoonery.
Only a Libertarian would debauch himself to claim that Locke is somehow incorrect because Americans don't have a heritage of abject submission to government. To their credit, Marxists have far more pride.
Posted by HelenW at March 8, 2005 10:12 PM
Euan: don't take the flattery too far - it's just that your words seem to suggest the sort of fixed opinion incapable of change that you so often berate the rest of us about. ;-)
" This does not, of course, mean that they necessarily WILL acquire such habits."
No you're right; people's habits are learned by association and are formed in response to incentives and disincentives. When prudent habits are not acquired my guess would be that it's 'cos the appropriate system of incentives and disincentives is absent - or that an inappropriate system is in place. Rationality on the part of individual actors doesn't have to be an assumption of the free-market as far as I can see.
Posted by mike at March 8, 2005 10:22 PM
your words seem to suggest the sort of fixed opinion incapable of change that you so often berate the rest of us about
I have an open mind and can be persuaded by evidence. There is no evidence that I can see which would indicate that people are on the whole sufficiently rational (or prudent) for the libertarian idea to work. Show me otherwise & I will be glad to read.
Rationality on the part of individual actors doesn't have to be an assumption of the free-market as far as I can see
No, it doesn't. But it is necessary for an UNREGULATED free market to operate.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 8, 2005 10:40 PM
"The libertarian idea of an unregulated free market IS Utopian because it is premised on an erroneous, naive and optimistic view of human nature."
Declarations about "human nature" aren't more valid or exact than declarations about "natural rights". Thery are problematic...
Now consider: an "unregualted and free market" is utopian because human nature isn't up to the task, but a REGULATED market is the practical answer, as it is well known that the REGULATORS are not subject to those failures of human nature, being superhuman.
A free market might be imperfect, if measured against an unrealistic, utopian, notion of perfection. But regulated markets are still MORE imperfect, measured by any yardstick.
About state indebtness: Yes, states use to repudiate their debts. It hapened innumerable times, it's the norm, rather than the exception. When states are unable to pay their debts they don't repay (or repay a fraction only, or repay in devalued currency...). Will probably happen to the US too, sooner or later.
Posted by Jacob at March 8, 2005 10:42 PM
But regulated markets are still MORE imperfect, measured by any yardstick
But they have a minor advantage over unregulated markets - they work.
When states are unable to pay their debts they don't repay (or repay a fraction only, or repay in devalued currency...). Will probably happen to the US too, sooner or later.
Quite probably. Certainly more likely than the absurd prospect of the US going to war simply because it has gone bust.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 8, 2005 11:38 PM
Perry, we went through this some time ago on another thread, after you stated the precise opposite of what you've just said here.
Really? Please link to where I wrote that everyone is rational or that libertarianism is predicated upon that notion.
Posted by Perry de Havilland at March 9, 2005 12:40 AM
In case anyone cares, I picked Locke's tirade apart at Eternity Road.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto at March 9, 2005 01:18 AM
I take issue with the notion that people aren't primarily rational. If they were not, then no civilisation would be possible at all. People, by and large, don't obey traffic signals because they fear getting a citation, they obey because they fear having an accident. This is rational behavior that I think we can agree most people engage in.
An unregulated free market is not utopian because it doesn't promise anything but efficiency in the allocation of scarce resources. The very idea of "unregulated" is a bit decieving. The market would be unregulated only in the sense that the government isn't the instrument of regulation, but it would very much be regulated by the wishes, needs, and preferences of the soveriegn consumer.
Posted by Sean at March 9, 2005 03:00 AM
Libertarianism is appropriately NOT label anarchy, because it is in fact NOT anarchy. Libertarians chose libertarianism over anarchy precisely because they recognize the fact that there can be no absolute freedom. Anyone with even the smallest amount more of an increase in statist mindset (left or right of center) than a libertarian would likely suppose a libertarian is advocating anarchy. (I think everyone on this sight refers to this as "strawman" -a term I don't normally use)
News flash: Libertarians are not advocating anarchy. Libertarians are simply suggesting society (particularly democratic societies like the US) can handle more freedoms than they currently have without self-destructing, and might even profit (morally and economically) from a little de-regulation. Libertarians also suggest that there are other ways to regulate than by force -which is precisely why you don't see any libertarians "coming to power."
Posted by Winzeler at March 9, 2005 03:17 AM
Euan Grey--
I've been following your posts, and I'm sorry to say that your economics is bullshit. There are many differnet forms of libertarianism, I'm going to argue from an Austrian anarcho-capitalist point of view.
1) I'm going to assume that you havent read anything by von Mises, including his Socialism book which shows definitely why capitalism (or libertarianism, if you will) is the polar opposite of Marxism. Selfishness v. Altruism has nothing to do with libertarianism. Giving individuals the freedom to act, so long as they don't interfere with other individuals property rights (to simplify things), is the key isse. They can act selfishly or altruistically, it matters none to austrian theory--so long as they don't violate others' property rights
Voting also has nothing to do with libertarianism, e.g. Hans Herman Hoppe's Democracy the God that Failed
2) your arguments regarding "sovereign economics" as distinct from normal corporate or individual economics is horseshit. If you know any Austrian economics, you'd realize that von Mises praxeologically tied individual subjective values to price determination and to the quantity theory of money. In other words, he integrated the supply of and demand for money to marginal utility theory. And he saw that government, Keynes to the contrary, has no magical money save what it taxes or borrows from the people (or inflates away, which can be considered a tax).
As Mises noted:
At the bottom of the interventionist argument there is always the idea that the government or the State is an entity outside and above the social process of production, that it owns something which is not derived from taxing its subjects, and that it can spend this mythical something for definite purposes. This is the Santa Claus fable raised by Lord Keynes to the dignity of an economic doctrine and enthusiastically endorsed by all those who expect personal advantage from government spending. -von Mises, Socialism
In short, there is no such thing as a free bloody lunch. If a sovereign repudiates its debt, the lenders get screwed. This may or may not lead to war, but it will have ramifications up and down the world economy. If the defaulting sovereign was lent to be a private business instead of via stealing (e.g., the IMF/Worldbank), then that nation would effectively be cut off from further credit. That's a big problem. To conitinue spending, they would have to raise taxes or print money (causing rampant inflation and other economic distortions).
3) as for your "economic rules only apply to economics". no. praxeology applies to all of human action. economics is one subset (and the best studied) of the greater "human action" area of knowledge
4) the viability of the free market has nothing to do with rational choices. there is no such thing as an objective rational choice. they need to make CONSCIOIUS chocies, not RATIONAL choices.
Posted by sbtk at March 9, 2005 03:43 AM
Euan--
You should also read Bastiat's Broken Window Fallacy essays--what is seen vs. what is not seen. You clearly don't understand the concept of an opportunity cost (e.g., comparing Japan to anywhere else is invalid). Empirical evidence is not valid in the social sciences. It doesnt take into account opportunity costs, for example.
Posted by sbtk at March 9, 2005 03:54 AM
Winzeler, don't be so quick to apply your limits to everybody. I've seen this a few times and it always annoys me. "Libertarians are not advocating anarchy"? Some of them definately are. Like me, for example.
Posted by Julian Morrison at March 9, 2005 03:58 AM
HelenW, I have considered to no small degree the issue of trust (specifically in my faith). To clarify; people do not necessarily need to be trustworthy for libertarianism to work, only predictable. I do not think individuals are mostly predictable, but the masses usually are.
Furthermore, regarding trust, I would rather risk losing my liberties to abusive, untrustworthy individuals than pre-emptively surrender them to a government. At least against individuals I stand a chance to defend myself. By the way, I'm not going to live or die on the ideas in this last paragraph. They are fledgling and rather undeveloped.
Posted by Winzeler at March 9, 2005 04:36 AM
Great post! Interestingly enough I've been engaged in a similar debate with some folks who call themselves "radical centrists" on the very same set of ideas and "critiques" of libertarianism. Almost everyone appears to understand libertarianism in terms of Randite Objectivism, which I don't think actually describes the majority of us who are "classic liberals", minarchists and/or Rational Anarchists.
If you're interested in my debate and responses:
First Principles
Misconceptions
Posted by Eric at March 9, 2005 05:26 AM
I can't understand why Euan believes people aren't rational. I believe nearly all of them to be nearly always. Smoking seems to be an oft-cited example of the irrationality of individuals. I disagree - it's rational. People usually start smoking with friends. Perhaps a schoolgirl smoking a cigarette with her mates lubricates the social wheels, helps her fit in. That's rational, there's a (perceived) payoff for that cigarette; not necessarily a sensible motivation, but that's not really for me to decide. And then once addicted, she smokes to stave off cravings, calm down, be able to operate more effectively. Perfectly rational. Her starting smoking, then continuing to so to stave off cravings could certainly be termed unwise if she gets cancer, however it's wrong-headed to write off past actions as irrational. They were perfectly rational, but they were predicated on bad information, her personality, a cost-benefit analysis that she got wrong, a risk she took that ran against her etc etc.
This argument can be applied to many of the ostensibly irrational things we do; reckless driving, drinking to excess, unsafe sex, the list goes on. Euan would see these things as irrational acts; I view them as calculated risks - they have payoffs and/or pitfalls. Rationality does not mean one naturally makes decisions that create good outcomes. People are rational; they aren't clairvoyant. It seems that they'd have to be to measure up to your definition of rationality, Euan.
As a libertarian, I believe in individual rights, and also individual responsibilities. It is my responsibility to ensure that when I make a decision, I have as much information to convince me that the outcome(s) of that decision are good. Or when deciding to run a calculated risk, I am aware of the odds and the consequences of failure. When the nature of the individual is viewed in such a way, libertarianism is perfectly tenable. I believe a libertarian society is currently not feasible because a majority of people are used to relying on government regulation.* This means they don't have to seek out information that will allow them - the market - to replace government regulation. Individuals in a free market acting independently, yet collectively (because people generally want very similar things), is the most effective regulator around, bar none. However, I believe that we are at the start of a gradual evolution, when people start to realise the power of their choices. Society (and especially the state) will, sooner or later, have to adjust accordingly.
*I guess I'm talking about HelenW and Euan. You guys seem to think the status quo is the natural order of things; kinda like the way your 17th century ideological forebears felt about absolute monarchy, when confronted with emerging classical liberal ideals.
Posted by I'm suffering for my art at March 9, 2005 07:01 AM
I should have said "...when people start to realise the power of their economic choices, not just their political ones."
Posted by I'm suffering for my art at March 9, 2005 07:06 AM
"What if it needed to deprive citizens of the freedom to import cheap foreign labor in order to keep out poor foreigners who would vote for socialistic wealth redistribution?"
What is the evidence that this is a valid concern?
My understanding is that people are likely to vote against redistribution to people who are not like them. Hence a small, racially homonogenous country like Sweden has a large welfare state, whilst a huge, racially diverse country like America has a smaller welfare state.
Posted by Kit Taylor at March 9, 2005 07:50 AM
Tremendous thread. I want to take issue with a comment Euan Gray made, that "few people agree on what a victimless crime is". That may be correct, but there is nothing absurd in libertarians showing that the concept of "victimless crime" is incoherent and a free pass for social authortarianism.
I see no reason why the bedrock principles of libertarianism (individual rights, rule of law, belief in superiority of voluntary exchange vs coecion, preference for spontaneous orders over imposed orders, etc) cannot be the foundation for a coherent and workable political philosophy. Compared to competiting worldviews, it more than holds its own.
There is nothing "utopian" in assuming that most people are rationally self interested and want to be happy.
Posted by Johnathan at March 9, 2005 08:52 AM
Winzeler writes: Libertarians are simply suggesting society can handle more freedoms
That sounds fine to me. My point is that when you dial Libertarianism down to actually do this, you get Conservatism. That is where I want to be.
Our seatbelt law is a good example. This was a serious assault on individual liberty, but had a substantial positive effect on society. Where the harm is theoretical and the gain is real, I tolerate more regulation.
I do not think individuals are mostly predictable, but the masses usually are.
Yes, bigger is better. That's why I developed an interest in chemistry--the populations are always near infinite, and the probability functions simplify to a state of elegance. But people are different and chaotic, despite the praxes-speak. A single individual can make a world of difference.
Art writes: You guys seem to think the status quo is the natural order of things ...
Hello, Sufferer. Nice to see you again.
It's true, I constantly ponder the chicken and the egg. Libertarians seem to model government as purely self-propelling. There are surely countless examples, but the overwhelming bulk of regulation comes from informed consensus trying to iron out the wrinkles of an evolving society.
Libertarian opinion on rationality seems mixed. This I know: Virtually all consequences are unintended. Even the most reasoned decisions take us just a blink into the future. We are human and do what we can, but it's not much.
And when it comes to realizing the super fantastic power of our economic choices, we must heed the most excellent advice of the Manolo, yes?
Posted by HelenW at March 9, 2005 08:59 AM
Please link to where I wrote that everyone is rational or that libertarianism is predicated upon that notion
When I have time I will trawl through the past few months of Samizdata to find it.
People, by and large, don't obey traffic signals because they fear getting a citation, they obey because they fear having an accident
Not necessarily. If you visit a place (I have) which has traffic signals but no real law enforcement, you see people routinely ignoring the signals, numerous accidents, etc.
The market would be unregulated only in the sense that the government isn't the instrument of regulation, but it would very much be regulated by the wishes, needs, and preferences of the soveriegn consumer.
Yes, I know this is what "unregulated" means. My point is that it depends on market participants making rational choices for it to work properly. This doesn't happen often enough.
Libertarians chose libertarianism over anarchy precisely because they recognize the fact that there can be no absolute freedom
Now we're getting to the "not true libertarianism" level. It was said earlier that it was unnecessary and even counter-productive to define what libertarianism is. I think this is unreasonable, since it means libertarianism (whatever it happens to mean this week) is immune from criticism because the libertarian can always say "ah, but that's not REAL libertarianism." That's absurd. I wonder how much of libertarianism's electoral unpopularity stems from the fact that libertarians can't decide what it means, so what bloody hope has the voter got?
Libertarians also suggest that there are other ways to regulate than by force
Ultimately, you need force. You can try all sorts of consensual methods, commercial remedies, and so on, but ultimately you will come up against the man who refuses to cooperate unless you compel him - how is this addressed?
shows definitely why capitalism (or libertarianism, if you will) is the polar opposite of Marxism
You just don't get it, do you? Libertarianism is obviously not Marxism, and nobody is saying it is. What people ARE saying is that there are assumptions and concepts held in common by both - unrealistic view of humanity, reduction of everything to economic question, millenarian view of the future, etc - and therefore that there are certain parallels between the Marxist world view and the libertarian one. This does not mean they are the same thing.
as distinct from normal corporate or individual economics is horseshit
Nevertheless, states actually do behave in the way I have described. How do you explain this?
as for your "economic rules only apply to economics". no. praxeology applies to all of human action
Again, this is the same analysis that Marxists make. It's wrong.
Euan would see these things as irrational acts; I view them as calculated risks - they have payoffs and/or pitfalls
Unfortunately, people tend to take the risk without performing the calculation. It's all very well for you to say that YOU assess the risks, and I'm sure you do. The average Joe, however, tends not to do this.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 9, 2005 09:18 AM
"sensible constitutional constraints which set the acceptable limits of politics."
The US Constitution, which looks to be wearing pretty well, and so a fairly good example of the breed, limits the arbitrary power of the state, and to prevent politicians, parties or people from easily altering the forms and rules of government.
However, it does not place politics within pre-ordained constraints.
It seems to me that imposing libertarian orthodoxy by irrevocable constitutional fiat is a reprehensible, imprudent and impudent as its mirror image:
the EU Constitution imposing social democratic multicultural welfarism.
Except, of course, that you are right and they are wrong. Of course.
"Hello, Mr Pot, have you been introduced to Mr Kettle?"
Posted by John F at March 9, 2005 10:28 AM
Hi Helen, great to see you out in force too. ;)
Virtually all consequences are unintended. Even the most reasoned decisions take us just a blink into the future. We are human and do what we can, but it's not much.
I agree to some extent on what you say, however there are numerous decisions we can make and, more importantly, behavioural patterns we can adopt that heavily influence our future. Therefore, to cut back on regulation we need to be able to make adequate choices that don't endanger us. Rationality is a crucial factor here, and I believe, as I said above, that nearly everyone is nearly always rational. I suppose this argument somewhat irrelevant, going on what you said above about rationality. Fair enough. I dig the Manolo too. :)
Unfortunately, people tend to take the risk without performing the calculation.
Euan - I think they probably do. Once or twice in my life I have driven after drinking too much. I did this because I knew a) the chance of me being caught was negligible and b) the chance of me causing harm to myself or someone else was even slighter. I knew that the payoff of almost certainly getting home quickly, cheaply and easily was worth the miniscule risk of getting caught and/or slightly increased risk of having an accident compared to sober driving. On each occasion I pondered this tradeoff for around zero seconds - or at least briefly enough to forget about pondering it almost instantly. I would argue that this was a rational act. It was at the time and is in hindsight. I was aware of the facts; I didn't need to think about them. I didn't need to make the type of decision where you have a think about your action - I just did it. I make the same kind of (non) decision when I am in my car and confronted with a red light - I don't need to think about whether I should stop; I just do it because I am already aware of the facts surrounding my action. If I went driving at night in, say, Johannesburg, I might have to re-evaluate those facts and start (cautiously) not stopping at red lights. Or if I drove an ambulance. Is all of the above irrational? I think not.
I'm sure your Average Joe makes exactly the same kind of choice when he/she does things that we think