-
Website
http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle -
Original page
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/05/30/liberaltarianism-back-the-future/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Kinda like that Will Wilkinson from Cato and Fly Bottle and Blogging Heads with splash of Bryan Caplan and Megan McArdle.
hehehe
;)
Good post.
Moreover, it doesn't help that the genuinely economically literate liberals....like Left of Center economists...tend to misrepresent the libertarian positions inspired by Hayek and Friedman on many, many levels.
In short, I think there's a bigger disconnect there than you give credit. Whether it's through sheer ignorance of the true views of these great thinkers is another matter.
Liberal: This proposal to slightly slow the growth of Medicare is an outrage!
Libertarian: Medicare shouldn't exist!
Where is the middle ground there, I'm curious. I really, really would like to meet the liberal intelligentsia that wants to limit the welfare state's to helping the truly poor (no Medicare for Bill Gates, thank you) while otherwise letting the market work and forgoing soak-the-rich rhetoric. I could talk to those people. Where are they?
I think the middle ground is in ends...not necessarily means.
While I do agree as was posted above that Will is perhaps being a little too optimistic, it must be said that there is a common ground in trying to improve the human condition and that many of the thinkers like Hayek and Friedman did concern themselves greatly with trying to help the poor and defending individual freedom and choice at the same time...even though liberals refuse to see it that way.
But since they conceptualize the problem differently and understand economic laws and forces differently (meaning one does and one less so...or at least doesn't care about them) the prescriptions come out differently.
On your health care example, Liberals think market-based ideas failed (even though we aren't really using them correctly) and think Medicare is the only way to help the elderly with Health Care. Libertarians think market-based ideas are the answer and are afraid of seeing more bad consequences from government meddling in the system.
Both see a problem and want it fixed to help others but both perceive the problem differently.
Of course, it doesn't help us libertarians that we understand the liberal position better than they understand ours.
Very pertinent to this topic.
Paul Krugman.
It's "favor" not "favorED" hehehehe
But seriously, his free trade position seems to weaken with every new liberal fan he gains.
Besides, liberal economists like to obscure their support of free trade by dwelling each and every little possible things that can possibly go wrong along the way...and they so to the point that they don't mind seeing other liberals use their arguments as an excuse for the protectionism and mercantilism that they in fact seek.
Did he? My reading of The Road to Serfdom was that the welfare state and the mixed economy were hunky dory, and that Hayek was making the narrow point that full-on central planning was incompatible with democracy. Hayek is commonly credited with the "slippery slope" argument that food stamps are the first step to the gulag, but I don't think he ever actually said it.
Philosophical liberals are split across the political spectrum. Neither the left or the right are philosophically coherent groups. At the retail end, politics is ruthlessly pragmatic. People form alliances based on policy. They accept some policies they don't like in return for support for those that they do. Log rolling rules.
A lot people involved in retail politics don't really care about why they support the policies they do. Some are tribalists with a strict 'my party right or wrong' approach while others are passionate single-issue advocates.
But for philosophical liberals, party-loyalties and specific policy platforms are less important than a broader set of principles and objectives. Rawlsian liberals, for example, will always ask whether a policy will improve opportunities for the least advantaged.
And I think Will and Brink are right. There are a lot of policies that Democrat-voting liberals traditionally support that don't really do a good job of helping people at the bottom end.
Agricultural subsidies were meant to help struggling family farms. But they probably don't. Tariff protection for manufacturing was meant to help low skilled workers support their families. It probably doesn't. And Social Security was meant to prevent poverty in old age. But it's probably not the most efficient way to help economically vulnerable seniors.
Whatever help these kinds of programs offer to economically vulnerable people, they only do so by wasting vast resources on people who aren't vulnerable at all.
It ought to be possible to have more generous supports for individuals and families who are economically vulnerable AND take an ax to spending and regulation that's distorting the market and holding back the economy.
I've been following both you and him, and I can with all confidence say that your citing Milton Friedman very much undermines his effort to build bridges. And probably vice versa, as his vigilant anti-statism and respect for Rothbard undermines your effort to downplay Rothbard's influence. Indeed, the importance of Rothbard for some one like Carson or the more hardcore libertarian is that he was staunchly anti-imperialist and refused to yield to the big government, commie-bashing right of mid-century. It's precisely this kind of thing that potentially garners respect for libertarians from certain liberal corners (cobwebbed corners, no doubt, from those in the "real world"), and aids in the effort to achieve a different, more radical kind of fusionism.
Of course you're influential, being at Cato and all, and thinking of ways to find agreement with others of a more establishment persuasion. The kinds of liberals that you meet are not of the sort that a market anarchist might meet. It's Ezra Klein and Will Wilkinson vs. Karl Hess and Murray Bookchin.
Ok, so the point of all this is to note that the virtue of "meeting a liberal halfway" very much depends on which kind of liberal. There's another alliance going on. The one discussed here is far from the final word on the matter. (Not that you said it was, of course.)
But I suppose I've gone so far down the rabbit hole that the dominant political discourse looks almost weird to me.
" Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for the common hazards of life....Where, as in the case of sickness and accident,.....- the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong."
F. A. Hayek
Yeah, I've always sensed a much deeper cultural affinity for the left. I'd rather live around lefties than cultural conservatives, and I do.
But...the left has given up on socialism, I think, only tactically and pragmatically, not philosophically. They think capitalism is, at best, a necessary evil (and would like to see the day that it's no longer necessary). They dislike free trade and hate corporations (well, except for Apple Computer, of course). They think free-enterprises has uniformly noxious effects on the media and politics, and culture.
They believe that wealthy people spend their money mostly on status and 'positional goods' and would, therefore, be just as happy if confiscatory tax levels forced them to compete for status at half their current incomes.
In short--Liberals make fine neighbors, but I sure wouldn't want to see them in control of our economic future.
Liberals have been in control of our economic future in the past and they arguably did better then when conservatives/libertarians were in charge.
Most of us believe in markets and capitalism but we understand that Marx, while wrong in solution, was dead on in description of the evils of unbridled capitalism. Free trade is a misnomer and in fact most developing country's grew strong under a degree of protectionism as did our own country. Ricardo had three requirements for comparative advantage to be bilaterally advantageous none of which are observed in current trade arrangements loosely called free trade.
Hate corporations. Not the principle but the current practice that allows them basically to undermine democracy in favor of their cleptocratic tendencies. Corporations hate corporations. Corporations hate free markets and competition. They love government programs and handouts. Corporations need much oversight and need to realize they exist as a privilege of the state not a right.
Corporate media is the worst form of capitalism of all. It is at once full of conflict with regard to reporting story's accurately or at all and with its corporate charter of making profits especially when the companies that own the media have larger holding in Entertainment (Disneyland/ABC) or Defense contract ( NBC and GE).
In almost no other area is a publicly run enterprise (CPB/NPR) far superior then a private one then in the media. Military and law enforcement being the others.
We are successful animals because we think and organize. The idea that a market, an economy or a society is better left to its own then planned and regulated by intelligent beings is sheer hoccum with not an ounce of factual support.
Bottom line is it's either anarchy or some degree of planning. No evidence suggest greater and greater returns with continued decreases in degree of planning. Much, the current economy, suggest the opposite.
(2)NPR is superior to an independent, privately run radio station? I doubt that. The coverage on NPR is rather milquetoast compared to, say, KOOP in Austin Texas. Ah, "public" (state) radio. "With sheckles come shackles". The politicization of public radio, and the inevitable "accountablity" placed upon it has made it rather bland on the one hand and increasingly "professionalized" (read: less grassroots) on the other.
(3)The military and law enforcement are increasingly one and the same. The wanton destruction heaped upon innocents abroad by the military due to its ability to externalize costs upon hapless taxpayers is a massive strike against it as some kind of organizaiton superior to a private defense force. (It's difficult to compare, of course.) But as it stands, the wealthy and powerful can take advantage of a state military force, paid for by the citizenry, to do their bidding. The fact that it is "publicly funded" (coercively funded) makes it worse in this regard - as an auxilliary to private interests - than it would be otherwise, if these private interests had to pay for it themselves.
They love government programs and handouts.
Yep. See above.
William Graham Sumner once said that there will one day be either socialists or anarchists. It's rather amazing to think that most liberals are quite conservative in this respect.
If you mean Bill Clinton, I'll agree his administration did a fine job with the economy (and I voted for him twice). But Bill was a dedicated free-trader who pushed through NAFTA with the support of most Republicans and over the objection of most Democrats. He also pushed through welfare reform with similar overwhelming support from Republicans and strong opposition from Democrats. Despite the economic success of the Clinton administration, the free-traders are gone (or at least gone from the leadership of the Democratic Party).
Free trade is a misnomer and in fact most developing country’s grew strong under a degree of protectionism as did our own country. Ricardo had three requirements for comparative advantage to be bilaterally advantageous none of which are observed in current trade arrangements loosely called free trade.
Hate corporations. Not the principle but the current practice that allows them basically to undermine democracy in favor of their cleptocratic tendencies.
I'm not going to argue with your take on free-trade and corporations -- I doubt it'd do much good. But I will point out that while you claim to support both in some ideal world, you oppose both in the real world. Since I don't expect the ideal conditions you require to be forthcoming, I'll count you as an opponent of free-trade and corporations. And I don't want a party sharing your views in charge of the economy.
Corporate media is the worst form of capitalism of all. It is at once full of conflict with regard to reporting story’s accurately or at all and with its corporate charter of making profits especially when the companies that own the media have larger holding in Entertainment (Disneyland/ABC) or Defense contract ( NBC and GE).
In almost no other area is a publicly run enterprise (CPB/NPR) far superior then a private one then in the media.
My view is that CPB/NPR is as biased and self-interested as any private media company (Fox included). NPR's donors and supporters are left-of-center and so is its viewpoint. In general, I don't want people running the show who think that government agencies are usually objective, fair, and selflessly dedicated to the benefit of the public and are, therefore, superior to private alternatives.
The idea that a market, an economy or a society is better left to its own then planned and regulated by intelligent beings is sheer hoccum with not an ounce of factual support.
Again, not going to argue with you here, but the bottom line is that, as a small-l libertarian, I really, really don't want believers in central planning running the show.
This is actually something I've looked into. There is some recent research by an outfit in England that looked at altruistic behavior by both public and private actors/agencies. Altruism here is defined as going above and beyond merely professional obligations. For a libertarian, the surprising news is that public servants were more likely to be altruistic and less "self interested" (yes, there's alot going on with that term). Here is the paper: http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/CMPO/workingpapers/...
But here's the clincher. This was only compared to the for-profit sector in the private realm. The non-profit private sector showed similar amounts of altruistic behavior to that of public (state) actors.
Now of course this is America, not England, but still.
As for your statement above, I'm not sure this research speaks to whether the government is more "objective", but on the question of self interest, the cynical public choice perspective needs to be modified. In some respects, it would seem, the government is less self interested. (Theory? Altruistic types get co-opted by the state and its ability to crowd out the voluntary. Also, England is more culturally homogenous?)
Of course, even given similar amounts of altruistic behavior, the higher levels of waste and administrative costs on the part of the government favors the non-profit private sector.
Perhaps, but it's going to take a lot more than a single study to be convincing.
But seriously Libertarians have left the Conservatives and are drifting near by Liberals (*gasp!*). In the fair go department I do believe Libertarian tend into two groups - Left Libbers and Right Libbers. Left Libbers are primarily concerned about social issues and not so much the economic and the Right Libbers are primarily concerned with economic issues and not so much about the social. Maybe I don't look hard enough but most of the Libertarians I come across are Right Libertarians types and I believe those who are primarily concerned about social issues can see through Right Liberarians and see them as old fashioned Conservatives - they don't want the Guvmint poking its nose into their private affairs. In particular, Anarcho-Libertarians might try to lure people into saying "well we're against drug laws" as if to say "if the Guvmint's gone we'll all smoke pot until we drop!" in reality though you know what they're really saying is "well in a privately-owned society some private property owner might like drugs but most of society is Conservative and most private property owners would move drug users along lest they lose their family-friendly patronage".
I tend to worry more about economic issues than social issues for a couple of reasons. The first is that the effects of bad economic policies are universal -- new trade barriers, regulations, restrictions on corporations, and higher tax rates would effect everybody in the country. By contrast, there is little social conservatives can do to effect the socially liberal culture of Ann Arbor (where I live).
The second reason is that while there are prominent exceptions to that rule, those on the left in the U.S. will do little to promote the socially liberal positions I favor most strongly. If Democrats gain the presidency and both houses of Congress, they will certainly not end the ruinous war on drugs or the militarization of police forces.
Maybe you should read the Krugman case for free trade. He even cites Bastiat! Here is the articke:
http://www.pkarchive.org/trade/ricardo.html
"Corporations hate corporations. Corporations hate free markets and competition."
It's curious to note that corporations tends to favor protectionism on their economic sector because they "hate free markets and competition". So I don't understand why you hate corporations so much since you are in agreement with one of their central politicla propositions.
The distortion of market toward political forces to favor certain groupos is really dangerous. But it isn't a fact ignored by libertarians. Gordon Tullock summarizes the question here:
http://www.thelockeinstitute.org/journals/lumin...
The answer to this problem is institutional, and has little to do with 'love' ou 'hate': what kind of rules we should addopt to prevent this situation?
" We are successful animals because we think and organize. The idea that a market, an economy or a society is better left to its own then planned and regulated by intelligent beings is sheer hoccum with not an ounce of factual support."
Maybe the reading of this Hayek seminal paper will help you to rethink your statement:
http://www.econlib.org/Library/Essays/hykKnw1.html
I suggest the artticles with good faith, because this space isn't appropriate to develop good answers to your questions. I hope you read them.
Muirgeo talks out of both sides of its mouth. It likes to criticize libertarians for supporting things that they do in fact oppose and opposing things that they do in fact support. It also likes to conflate corporatism and free markets when criticizing free markets and separating them when trying to offer a hollow and hypocritical word of support for free markets.
In short, it is a duplicitous character that is not to be taken seriously.
Thanks for thanks for the Krugman "The Economist" link. I've read stuff like this before. It's truly bizarre when compared to Krugman "The Partisan Pundit". He's come a long way since tasting fame.
I'm from Brazil, so I have little interest on the partisan discussion of American politics. I rarely read Krugman's new articles, unless someone points me a interresting point that he wrote. Maybe because of this my image of him is better than yours.
I grew up generally a lefty, but after studying economics and politics I became more libertarian. Reading Atlas Shrugged and the Cascade Policy Institute reports really turned me off from that label. The idea that the only "real" brand of libertarianism requires a total hatred of the state and all things centralized (except corporations) made me realize that many people who called themselves libertarians barely understood the origins of their own philosophy. In Oregon in particular there are a lot of "Libertarians" who are really just corporatists looking for an excuse for their greed.
In my way of thinking, I follow the Dean Baker school of thought on free trade (should be real free trade in all sectors, possibly a tax on profits from trade to compensate the losers from trade). I also adhere to the idea that the government that governs best, governs least. I oppose mandated licenses if certifications are possible, non-means-tested welfare, any and all corporate welfare (which is much bigger anyway), and state controlled means of production (even things like schools and hospitals).
For the most part I'm a libertarian, especially since I think that the central point of argument that I currently hold with all right-wingers and Republicans is about individual rights; I oppose destroying rights, they seem to think that that state security requires their destruction (in order to safeguard them, of course). Frankly, on that point alone I would think that a lot of Libertarians would find an alliance of convenience with liberals very expeditious right now. When basic rights like privacy from government eavesdropping became politicized, I expected Libertarians to line up in droves to support liberals, but instead I heard a lot of griping about how some Democratic politicians had also backed Bush's actions, so therefore all liberals who oppose the destruction of our rights obviously don't really care about liberties.
Frankly it's the ridiculous drive for ideological purity and the over-reading of every liberal policy for any signs that it might not be entirely perfect that seems to make libertarians so opposed to liberals. Politics is about compromise, and in my humble opinion libertarians would be able to get a lot of accomplished if they were willing to consider that liberals are currently far closer to their positions that conservatives. It's not the 70's anymore with big government Democrats trying to fix every problem with a new government program, Socialism is dead, Democrats are not Communists in disguise, and not all government programs are evil.
[oh yeah, perpetual war abroad breeds the destruction of liberties at home; if you want to end the abuses of executive power, it would be wise to support ending the fictional GWOT]
In general I agree with your post, but with universal healthcare one of the main obsessions of this campaign season, I have to disagree with this statement. Democrats are actually willing to say they don't support Obama's proposal because it doesn't force people to do something they don't want to do. Meanwhile, I don't see Democrats lining up to do anything at all about the obscene and ruinous war on drugs or the militarization of police. If they were actually willing to come out and be pro-legalization, I might reconsider, but as things stand they just are not that "socially liberal"—where do most Democrats stand on prostitution? Gambling? Raw milk? Selling organs? Assisted suicide? Seat belt laws? Trans fats? Gay marriage? &tc. They barely even want to admit they are pro-choice anymore.
That is an old writing of Krugmans. He has adjusted his stance somewhat since. Either way it's untrue that people who are against our trade policies are against the principles of Ricardian comparative advantage.
Ricardo has 3 requirements for comparative advantage to be successful.
1) No flow of capital across borders
2) Full employment and freedom of labor to move from job to job
3)Trade is equal.
None of these requirements is met by our current trade policies. I would argue that I am more "Ricardian" in principle then those claiming our current policies fit the bill.
Thomas Friedman's book The Lexus and the Olive Tree negates to mention the protectionism from which the Lexus evolved.
Bad Samaritan by Joon Chang is a good book which dispels some of the myths of our "free trade" policies.
I will reply to the other issues in your post sepratly as my computor is unstable so I don't to a huge post to the ethernet.
On protectionism I'd argue it makes sense or might make sense in some cases for emerging industries and should not be aimed at any one corporation.
Thanks for the links. Read the first two and will read the Hayek one shortly as that's one I heard much of and have been meaning to hunt down.
"Muirgeo talks out of both sides of its mouth.
....
In short, it is a duplicitous character that is not to be taken seriously."
Just want to point out this initial unprovoked personal attack. Through the ignorance or brilliance or difference of my positions I often attract such wayward slights from those not really wanting their positions challenged.
John please disregard my post if feel them to be beneath you. But please let's not devolve a private blog into a flame war. Likewise, if you want to discuss issues in a spirited and provoking fashion with out resorting to personal attacks I'm all for it.
I read the Hayek article... now my brain hurts. I still hold by my statement but let me simmer Hayek's piece and maybe re-read it 4 or 5 times along with some cliff notes.
I'm pretty sure self-order in the markets is often a good idea but I can think of lots of times when it's failed and when planning worked better. And again, I always resort to my claim that no unplanned society has ever existed... welexcept for ones like this;
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iRk0QGW-Tz0q...
And even here some one had to plan where to build those huts and who would wear red and who black.
I think Wilkinson's proposed "liberaltarianism" is virtually the precise opposite of the "left-libertarianism" of Kevin Carson and the like. Carson wants to bring together libertarians and the radical, anti-statist elements of the left. Liberaltarianism, as far as I can discern, is about bringing libertarians together with the big government, corporate liberal center-leftists that Carson et al. utterly despise.
Have you ever actually met any anarchist libertarians in person? I don't think I've ever met a single anarchist libertarian who was against the use (not to be confused with abuse) of illegal narcotics, even on private property that they control. I've know some who wouldn't personally use drugs for personal religious or health reasons, but none of them had any problem with others using right in front of them.
Even the Lew Rockwell crowd, with all their promoting of paleo-libertarian/conservative fusionism, are still actually a lot more tolerant and open-minded in person. (Well, maybe barring Hoppe.)
Honestly, anyone who reads and truly understands the crucial points Hayek makes in that essay could not possible make the claim that muirgeo just made, to which you were responding. That's why it's so frustrating explaining markets to socio-economic creationist; it's exactly like trying to explain Darwinism to a committed and unread biological creationist. The spontaneous order of emergent systems is a central insight that some people simply refuse to understand, even after it is explained to them repeatedly.
You failed to mentioned that Ricardo is not God. Economics does not progress by appealing to the infallible works of long-dead economist Popes. Ricardo is credited with originating (or at least popularising) the concept of comparative advantage, just a Adam Smith is credited with originating (or at least popularizing) the concept of absolute advantage. But neither are Saints to which we can appeal biblically.
Economics has come a long way since both Smith and Ricardo, and some of the things they wrote were later expanded upon and shown to be not true or at least more complicated than they believed. The concept of comparative advantage is a perfect example of this phenomenon, because it came to replace the older and incomplete view of absolute advantage. Adam Smith was wrong and Ricardo was right.
So too, Ricardo was wrong (or at least incomplete) on some things. It turns out, even when Ricardo's conditions for comparative advantage are weakened, the principle of comparative advantage remains intact.
It's as if you are arguing against the concept of Darwinian evolution by pointing out mistakes and incompletenesses in Darwin's original work. Sure, Darwin was wrong about a few things, but the central insight of his discover remains as true as ever. So too with comparative advantage.
Joon Chang is either a fool or a charlatan, or both. Tyler Cowen completely demolished his critique of free trade in a recent online debate. Joon could not answer Tyler's very basic objection to the infant industry argument: it is next to impossible for the government to get the infant industry policy right, to decide which industries the country has a comparative advantage in and then protect those industries in order for them to grow, and then have the wisdom and political will to end those subsidy protections after the fact once the protections have received long standing political support. There is a reason why it is next to impossible for the U.S. to get rid of its farm subsidies. Give farmers huge subsidies for nearly a century and it comes as no surprise that farmers develop powerful lobbies to protect their protectionist interests. Promoting and encouraging that impulse by actively embracing the infant industry argument, as Joon does, is shear foolishness for someone with a PhD in economics. Again, it's the intellectual equivalent of someone with a PhD in biology failing to understand rudimentary evolutionary theory.
"Ricardo has 3 requirements for comparative advantage to be successful.
1) No flow of capital across borders
2) Full employment and freedom of labor to move from job to job
3)Trade is equal.
None of these requirements is met by our current trade policies. I would argue that I am more “Ricardian” in principle then those claiming our current policies fit the bill. "
You have the same blindspot on trade as the typically archlibertarian Austrians: the division of labor. Arguable it is more important than comparative advantage when it comes trade. See the first 3 (short) chapters of Smith's Wealth of Nations, available here: http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html
"And again, I always resort to my claim that no unplanned society has ever existed… "
In what sense is any western society "planned?"
The Difficulty in Countering Economic Creationism...
and here:
Biology Doesn't End With Darwin; Economics Doesn't End With Ricardo
And I'd argue, as would basic textbook economics, that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."
– Murray Rothbard
You are right that the argument here should be about ideas and not about character. But John V has a point; perhaps you unknowingly adopted this argument from someone else without understanding why it is dishonest, but it is nevertheless a dishonest argument. You cannot simulatenously "criticize libertarians for supporting things that they do in fact oppose and opposing things that they do in fact support." You cannot simultaneously "conflate corporatism and free markets when criticizing free markets and separating them when trying to offer a hollow and hypocritical word of support for free markets." These are dishonest arguments.
You may not be intentionally dishonest if you don't understand why they are dishonest, but they are nevertheless dishonest arguments.
Then you do not yet understand the point Hayek is making in that article. He is not claiming that all intentional human planning is impossible; obviously, that is not true. Centrally-directed human planning exists and is often very successful on the individual, family, small village, and firm level. But it is not and cannot be successful on a large scale, on the scale of national economics that we are concerned here with.
And as Matt Simpson pointed out, there is no sense in which any western (i.e. non-Communist) society is planned, in the Hayek sense. That doesn't mean that planning does not exist within western societies on the individual, family, small village, and firm level. It means that planning does not exist on a society-wide level.
http://distributedrepublic.net/archives/2008/06...
I've been on the side of trying to convince creationist of Darwin's theory but did natures emergent order give us our great crop yields or did planning, logic, research and an understanding of and manipulation of evolution do the trick?
Crop yields and the American economy are not the result and would not be as successful as they are were it not for planning. Left to nature and emergent properties we'd still be living in tribal units like the native American's our good planning displaced.
In what sense is any western society “planned?”
Matt
In the sense that there is no such thing as property rights without a planned society. Likewise for a monetary system, courts ect...
If I come and set up a tent and a bon fire in your front yard what are you gonna do about it? Assume I'm 6' 10" and I have a bigger gun then you....what are you gonna do about it that doesn't involve some plea to the plans of society?
Still giving hell I see muirgeo!
A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000....
Gil that fact requires some one to be giving some one hell. Another revolution needs to be fought but I need to find out who and where the Redcoats are. A good revolution requires lots of planning for it will not just spontaneously emerge from the chaos and disorder as the bad guys plan their ill-will just the same. We must out plan them!!
June 2nd, 2008 00:51 50I expand on the Darwinian analogy to Muirgeo’s economic foolishness here:"
Thanks for the podcast link of the debate between Cowen and Chang. It was very good but I didn't see it as being as one sided as you claim.
I think we're talking apples and oranges here. Chang said he was for globalization he just said (in so many words) we need to plan for it better.
I'm not sure what you are promoting. Free trade as practiced currently is NOT "free" and NOT unplanned. Chang and my point would be that we need better and more fair plans.
You seem to be arguing that natural selection (in trade markets) needs to be left to it's own while loving your purebreed freak of nature artificially selected and humanly planned poodle and wanting to trade away our great artificially produced bumper crops of apples of every variety never before seen in nature using the principles that would never have allowed the developement of either.
I believe in darwinism. I believe in using artificial selection and genetic engineering to improve on natures abundance. I believe in market principles but I also believe markets can be optimized by good planning.
If trade policies or economies were apples here is what your's would look like;
http://museum.agropolis.fr/english/pages/expos/...
That's the natural small sour self emerged variety.
And here is mine;
http://www.sbgmath.com/images/activity_sheets/a...
These were planned!!! Yum Yum! Wanna trade?
On what basis do you make this claim?
Side note; When I use the word centrally planned I'm talking about the elected representatives in our democracy NOT about dictators or monarchs.
Our nation has the option to plan for centrally administered health care. Based on results in other countries if properly planned it could be far cheaper, provide better service and spur the economy.
I'm not saying the planner always get it right but they certainly don't always get it wrong as you claim.
Our federal highways and railroads and our mail service are examples of how they can get it right. The fed plans and tweaks our economy and doesn't always get it right but I'd argue we are better with their planning then without.
Again my argument is that less and less planning like more and more planning is not always better. There has to be planning so our goal should be to make the plans as simple and effective as possible.
Practical applications;
Global warming; Rather then deny and fight and scream about the impending regulations better to help make sure they are as effective and reasonable as possible.
Yet again, you demonstrate your failure to understood the main point Hayek is making in that essay. You are essentially making the watchmaker argument, except in this case for economics instead of biology. Just as the biological creationist observes that watches don't occur in nature and must be designed, so therefore the parts of nature which seem even more complex than a watch must be designed, so too you observe human technologies such as farming techniques and conclude that since these techniques are designed, the price system, which is many orders of magnitude more complex, must be subject to the intentional dictates of centralized command-and-control.
Again, this is essentially the same as when a biological creationist says something like, "If left to nature and emergent properties, watches would not exist." Well, yes, but that clearly misses the point of biological evolution, just as you have clearly missed Hayek's point about the information signals embedded in the price system.
Muirgeo will continue to make this same mistake, over and over again, because he does not want to understand the importance of the price system and the impossibility of central planning on a large scale. Until a creationist is willing to accept that his worldview might be wrong and that God/a central planner need not exist (at least to the extent creationists believe is necessary), no amount of explanation of emergent phenomenon will be sufficient. It amounts to an ideological unwillingness to understand.
The world as a whole is not a planned society. There is no central planner who implements international property rights. Yet individual sovereign nations generally respect each other's property rights, and there is a large body of law that developed to govern these sorts of international property disputes. Yet this law and this legal system was never centrally planned. How can this be?
Don't be disingenuous. Of course you know what I am promoting, as you know you are promoting just the opposite. Nor did I ever claim that the system currently in place is ideal, perfectly free, or completely unplanned. My point, and the point of nearly every trained economist, is that we need far fewer trade plans and far more trade freedom.
Jesus, read the fucking Hayek article again. This is Hayek's entire point. The socialist calculation debate was over generations ago.
It's a losing battle. This guy has been around other libertarian websites and he's like one of those finger traps. The harder you push, the worse it gets.
“Centrally-directed human planning exists and is often very successful on the individual, family, small village, and firm level."
Did the computer chip or this here internet develop as a result of individual, family , small village or firm actions alone? I don't think you can honestly say yes to that.
Do you think we have lots of trade plans because the American people are pushing for them or because lobbyist of large corporations push for them?
On the basis that most trade plans are set up to help corporations and their CEO's and not the country or its people as a whole I'd say I agree with you.
My point is don't try to claim that what we have now is protectionism aimed to protect the American people. We have protectionism aimed to help corporations and we don't have free trade.
As far as I'm concerned the trade agreements we have are not about libertarianism they are about submitting to subjugation of corporate rule.
I guess my problem is I'm not sure if people like you are for things like NAFTA/GATT/WTO or against these rule making entities. The idea is they are there to "free-up" trade but I'm not convinced they don't exist to restrict trade to favor certain groups.
I second Dr. Horwitz. Just keep in mind my post above to Muirgeo that you cited. I meant every word of it and could go on but I think the point is clear. I was not unprovoked but rather a concise and economical way of addressing Muigeo's game. My post above is based on having read hundred's of it's silly, meandering and duplicitous posts.
You're on a fruitless endeavor trying to discuss these issues with it. It is not interested and seeks only obscure debate rather than enlighten it....as you are seeing.
It does not operate in good faith and deserves none in return.
"My point, and the point of nearly every trained economist, is that we need far fewer trade plans and far more trade freedom."
1) By the need for "far more trade freedom", I presume you're referring to the protectionist policies of China and India?
2) "My point, and the point of nearly every trained economist..."
The hallmark of way too many contemporary "trained economists": utilization not only of the "appeal to authority" fallacy, but of the even more absurd practice of citing ONESELF as that authority.
We have trade restrictions because of the lobbyists of large corporations push for them.
I agree. We have protectionism aimed to help corporations and we don’t have free trade. I would like us to have free trade instead.
I'm pretty much ambivalent about these trade organizations. Insofar they can increase trade between willing partners, I applaud them. Insofar as they can convince countries to multilaterally or even unilaterally lower their trade restrictions, then that is a good thing. But insofar as they limit rather than expand trade, they are undesirable.
Yes, I oppose all barriers to trade, including Chinese and Indian protectionism.
Well, if you will note, I wrote "My point, and the point of nearly every trained economist…" in response to Muirgeo's claim that "Chang and my point would be that we need better and more fair plans." Muirgeo pulls out Chang to help support a point he was making, and I point out the Chang's position is roundly rejected by nearly every trained economist, for the basic reason that Chang fails to make a convincing infant industries argument against free trade.
So who is appealing to authority here: Muirgeo for appealing to Chang or me for point out that Chang's arguments are not taken seriously by his colleagues? I even pointed out why Chang's argument is bunk - it's the same old infant industries argument that is demolished in any International Econ textbook.
I'm not sure which of us, if any, you are accusing of "the even more absurd practice of citing ONESELF as that authority." Who did this?
All the greater reason to get government out of the economy as much as possible. If the government is heavily involved in making, influencing, rewarding, and/or punishing economic decision making to a very large degree, than corporations have a lot of incentive to try to control the government, to defend against harm to themselves, to grab benefits and tp cause harm to their competitors.
re: "Bottom line is it’s either anarchy or some degree of planning."
Nonsense.
Your position that the problem is government is the one I always run into when we break down from where the corruption stems. Your position basically is an anti-democratic one seeking to weaken the powers of people to govern themselves.
My position is that I believe in separation of state and church. If some church leader was found directing money to a campaign it would be illegal. We need to do the same for business and state. No business should be allowed to donate or IMO even lobby politicians. Strictly enforce that and you can get the conflict of interest of money and politicians under control. The claim of money as free speech is the most ridiculous thing I've heard espoused. Kinda like saying some people are 5/8th citizens.
The simple idea that we just restrict government so the problem will be solved does nothing as eventually men with money will use it to get the rules they want.
The proof of this is evident in the banking and financial markets. Left to themselves with minimal oversight they have manipulated the markets, the fed and the money system to transfer huge fortunes made from play money sucking the marrow out of the real economy while at the same time their shenanigans destabilized our economy and our country. We're about to see more shenanigans in the commodities market as those of Enron style accounting practices and financial wizardry steal from those who produce and gives to those who push paper and manipulate for a living.
The idea that these market pirates need more freedom and less regulation was similarly supported by well to do Tory King George Loyalist. I for one refuse subjugation by Kings or Bankers.
"I sincerely believe... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson
"I’m not sure which of us, if any, you are accusing of 'the even more absurd practice of citing ONESELF as that authority.' Who did this?"
My mistake.
"So who is appealing to authority here: Muirgeo for appealing to Chang or me for point out that Chang’s arguments are not taken seriously by his colleagues? I even pointed out why Chang’s argument is bunk - it’s the same old infant industries argument that is demolished in any International Econ textbook."
It's not an appeal to authority to say, "this person, in such-and-such, book, makes a good argument about the topic at hand". What would make it an appeal to authority would be to say something like, "this person, who we all should regard as The Expert, in such-and-such book, makes a good argument about the topic at hand."
When you initially challenged Muirgeo's contention about Joon's book, you cited some basic reasons why you disagreed. Your argument didn't convince me, because I had listened to that NPR discussion between
Joon and Cowen and didn't see anywhere where Cowen "demolished" Joon's position. Nevertheless, you didn't resort to appeal to authority when you made first made your argument.
You did, though, the second-time around, by saying that "nearly every trained economist" disagrees with Joon.
I'm not sure roughly how many economists disagree specifically with Joon's book (has there been some kind of a poll?); but supposing if every single economist on the planet were to sign a petition stating that Joon's book is bunk -- would that make Joon's opinion any less credible? Not a bit; it would just mean that the community of "experts" believed otherwise.
"Yes, I oppose all barriers to trade, including Chinese and Indian protectionism."
I'll rephrase my earlier question:
By the need for “far more trade freedom”, I presume you’re referring MOSTLY to the protectionist policies of China and India? Because if there's any lack of trade freedom in the world, it sure isn't coming from the U.S.' end (the millions of tons of dumped Chinese junk on our shores is testament to that).
There is no middle ground, only a muddle ground.
"Because if there’s any lack of trade freedom in the world, it sure isn’t coming from the U.S.’ end (the millions of tons of dumped Chinese junk on our shores is testament to that)."
You're joking, right?
"Are you joking?"
I wish I could joke about all the Chinese-made crap lining the walls of my local Mall-Wart, but that would require some special comedic skills, which I don't have.
Today's free-market economists, on the other hand, are apparently required to take "Stand-Up Comedy 101" before they can receive their degrees. How else can one explain their impressive ability to say things like "Industries will self-regulate themselves" or "Globalization will raise all boats" without dropping their straight face and cracking up?
How exactly do you go from "I oppose all barriers to trade, including Chinese and Indian protectionism" to joking about "all the Chinese-made crap lining the walls of my local Mall-Wart"? If the Chinese want to subsidize purchases made by American consumers, why in the world would you want to stop them? There may not be such thing as a free lunch, but if the Chinese are paying, I'll have top sirloin.
Then you weren't paying close enough attention. When Tyler asked Joon to explain exactly why he thinks governments are competent enough to know which infant industries to protect and for how long, and how exactly governments are supposed to avoid creating powerful pro-infant industries lobbies by doing so, and when Joon admitted he had no response, Joon essentially admitted that the emperor has no clothes. The argument was over at that point.
Well, yes, it would make Muirgeo's citation of Joon as an authority less credible. Just as when in an argument with an advocate of Intelligent Design, and the advocate cites Behe or Dembski or some other Discovery Institute hack as an authority, pointing out that nearly every biologist on the planet outside of the Discovery Institute has signed a petition stating that, in their professional opinion, Intelligent Design is bunk, this makes citation of Behe or Dembski less credible.
Appeals to authority are perfectly valid when used in response to appeals to bogus authorities.
Supporting freedom generally, and specifically reduced government intervention in economic matters, isn't anti-democratic, at least if one does not call for such decisions to be imposed by force. I recommend less intervention, that isn't the same as saying that the policy of less intervention should be imposed by force no matter what the people want or their representatives vote for. I'm arguing to the people and their representatives that they should, through the democratic process, support less intervention and more freedom.
Re: "The claim of money as free speech is the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard espoused."
It takes resources to get your message out. Shut off the resources and you limit or even shut up the message.
This isn't just an issue with free speech. Control what people can do with their money in general, and you control what people can do to a very large extent. If you limit economic freedom, you limit freedom generally, not just because freedom to use your money is part of freedom, but because you need resources to exercise other forms of freedom.
And the restrictions you call for are not just unjust, and destructive of freedom, they also are very likely to be ineffective at getting what you want. Corporations will still influence politics. People, corporations and other organizations will still use government in attempts to rent seek.
As long as the government is controlling so much, and taking from so many to give to so many others, you have a built in incentive for almost everyone involved to try to game the system to their own benefit.
Great post Will.
"Then you weren’t paying close enough attention. When Tyler asked Joon to explain exactly why he thinks governments are competent enough to know which infant industries to protect and for how long, and how exactly governments are supposed to avoid creating powerful pro-infant industries lobbies by doing so, and when Joon admitted he had no response, Joon essentially admitted that the emperor has no clothes. The argument was over at that point."
I can't evaluate your comment without hearing or reading that portion of the discussion you say took place; the podcast that's linked from Cowen's site doesn't contain it. Was there some other podcast or different discussion between the two which took place?
http://chronicle.com/media/audio/v54/i23/chang_...
It is incoherent (for a non-pacifist) to say that it is aggressive coercion to forcefully prevent one person or group of people from coercing another person or group of people. It is not coercion to stop coercion; it is self-defense. And we are not even talking here about using violent means to "impose" freedom; we are talking about not respecting the "will of the people" if the will of a majority of the people happens to be to impose their will on a political minority. There is no reason to respect that sort of democratic decision making, for the democracy is itself not respecting the decisions of dissenters.
As a matter of practical politics and prudence, it is often a good idea to not interfere with the political decisions made by democratic (or non-democratic) polities, even if those decisions violate minority rights. Iraq is a prime example. No one believes that Iraq under Saddam was democratic, but it was still imprudent for the U.S. to invade. But Saddam had no legitimate, sovereign right to impose his will on other people, just as democratic majorities have no legitimate, sovereign right to impose their will on anyone but themselves.
The proper response to Muirgeo's comment, "Your position basically is an anti-democratic one seeking to weaken the powers of people to govern themselves," is that people are not governing "themselves", people are governing other people. Self-government is incompatible with the kind of majoritarian democracy Muirgeo proposes.
Democracy can mean different things to different people, but insofar as it means what Muirgeo thinks it means, it should be vehemently opposed by anyone concerned with individual freedom.
It's been a while since I listened to that podcast, which was shortly after it aired. I just went back and skimmed it, and here is the part I was remembering:
[Chang responding to Tyler's question:]
Notice Chang's dodge and essential non-answer here. Instead of explaining how he expects developing countries to engage in protectionist infant-industry policies while avoiding all of the knowledge problems and special interest problems associated with this kind of protectionism (and as Tyler points out earlier in the discussion, developing countries tend to be more corrupt than developed countries [which is one major reason why they are not rich yet], and thus even less likely to avoid these pitfalls), Chang subtly changes the subject, not defending protectionism as a wise economic policy, but arguing that developing country governments should be free to impose bad, coercive laws on their citizens.
Which, of course, aside from being a dodge of the economic question, is mistaken politically as well. The free market, and freedom in general, does not include the "freedom" of states to tyrannize their own citizens by preventing them from trading with people living in other countries or forcing them to subsidize unprofitable industries. That is a complete misunderstanding of freedom and free markets. Nation states are not the relevant actors in questions of freedom; individuals and the firms and groups they form voluntarily are.
I pretty much agree with that. But while force used to prevent coercion can be justified, I wasn't calling for such force, just arguing against it. And then I'm told that arguing against coercion (or specifically government intervention in markets) is anti-democratic. My point was not "force is never justified", but just that I was no using force or promoting its use, but rather arguing that it would be better if the democratic process resulted in less interference by the government, so calling my idea anti-democratic was nonsense. So you seem to be responding to a point I didn't make.
Re: "people are not governing “themselves”, people are governing other people."
True
Re: "Democracy can mean different things to different people, but insofar as it means what Muirgeo thinks it means, it should be vehemently opposed by anyone concerned with individual freedom."
Its hard to figure out what Murgeo thinks it means. If it is considered anti-democratic to oppose government intervention in markets than it would seem that "democracy" is communism. Which is obviously a pretty silly idea, but unless one accepts that silly idea I don't see how my earlier comments could be thought of as anti-democratic.
More generally I support democracy mainly as a way to achieve freedom. I recognize that its not an extremely good way to achieve a high degree of freedom, but its better at it than the alternatives.
Also to a lesser extent I support democracy as an end in its own right, but in general I find freedom to be a more important end, so if democracy was likely to result in noticeably less freedom than the alternatives I wouldn't be such a big supporter of it.
But of course the problem for you is that the majority of people see democracy as I do. It's simple democracy, (or a constitutionally representative republic ) as ours means basically the people make the rules.
The biggest problem of the day is that democracy is being usurped by a wealthy elite minority bent on bringing back the King.
If your vision of democracy is just "the people make the rules", than your earlier comment about how my opinion that the government should not get so involved in the economy is "undemocratic" is silly. The people can make the rules such that the government is not very involved in the economy.
re: "The biggest problem of the day is that democracy is being usurped by a wealthy elite minority bent on bringing back the King."
That's statement is just bizarre. You don't have 1 percent of 1 percent in the US, either in general or just looking at the very wealthy, who support a monarchy for the US.
That’s statement is just bizarre. You don’t have 1 percent of 1 percent in the US, either in general or just looking at the very wealthy, who support a monarchy for the US.
Plutocracy, cleptocracy or Monarchy..... pretty much all the same and pretty much what are politicians cater to. The statement is not bizzare but the stealing of democracy is bizarre and wrong. For the common person it doesn't matter if it's the King or the Corporate CEO who steals their wealth. The result is the same.
Well I suppose you could consider the special interest benefits the government doles out to amount to something of a kleptocracy, but that is probably too strong of term. Also its the functioning of our democracy that is rewarding special interests not any move towards monarchy. The stealing of the wealth may sometimes be for corporations, but its done by politicians, and it would be reduced by reducing the role of the government in trying to control and direct the economy.
Then there's the special privilege of legal personhood and limited liability granted to corporations, the public has every right to "charge" a price for granting that since it is not (pace the phony SCOTUS decision that is actually based on misrepresentation of the judgment anyway) a natural right. Also, those acquiring gains could not have, could not even talk or use numbers, without the "intellectual property" of all prior civilization." The public thus has the right to demand quid pro quo for the general welfare for such a gift.
I could go on, but one thing you can be sure of: although articles in Wikipedia about libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism etc, will reveal these sorts of little caveats, public expressions by libertarians give the pretense that there's no quid pro quo, no unnaturalness in the "private" economy to justify compensatory government "interference", to produce quite rightly the classic modern liberal state with its safety-nets
tyrannogenius
1. I'm a cultural libertarian who is convinced that anti-X legislation (where 'X' isn't fundamentally about money) is 'bad'. Specifically, the 'War on drugsgunsabortiongayshorsemeatsex' waged at the behest of 'cultural conservatives' is 'bad'.
2. I'm even sympathetic to the idea that anti-X legislation (where 'X' IS about money) should be viewed with profound skepticism. But that's because;
3. What I share with many modern 'liberals' (and anarchists) is the notion that the modern capitalist 'corporation' has become so powerful that at times it eclipses 'the state' as a threat to freedom because it has become so effective at manipulating 'the state'.
4. That said, I'm really open to ideas like negative income tax brackets, free trade, and reducing regulations on the self-employed.
But then, I've read Hayek, and I submit his motivation in opposing things like unemployment assurance and food stamps had more to do with his convictions about the need for clear labor market price signals than an aversion to income re-distribution.
"The world as a whole is not a planned society. There is no central planner who implements international property rights. Yet individual sovereign nations generally respect each other’s property rights, and there is a large body of law that developed to govern these sorts of international property disputes. Yet this law and this legal system was never centrally planned. How can this be?"
I would have thought that about 500 years of war in Europe helped produce our current happy situation where individual sovereign nations so clearly respect each other's property rights (disregarding Iraq).
Now, how did Europe attempt to get out of its history of war - well there was the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), the Congress of Vienna (1815), the League of Nations and then the United Nations, and most successfully - albeit only for a comparatively short time so far - the European Union.
I think these initiatives at creating international order are far closer to a form of central planning or an agreement between cartels than they are to leaving it all up to the market. Perhaps the success of the EU is that it involves both deepening markets and co-ordinating the rules under which markets operate across countries.
In any case if property rights for individuals where weak as a matter of natural rights, the right for the government to control, seize, or dispose of the property would be similarly weak. Even if the individuals right to the property is in question, that doesn't mean the government has a right to it.
Does your dog own your house?
Incidentally, all of the government interventions which you think justify even more interference on compensatory grounds are interventions that libertarians consistently argue against, including the limited liability of corporations. Government interventions no more justify compensatory interventions than the existence of the welfare state justifies restrictions on immigration, a canard that all too many libertarians fall for themselves.
If this is what you mean by central planning, then sign me up as an advocate of central planning! Of course, these sorts of agreements ultimately rest on unanimous consent (on the part of the political leaders if not individual citizens), and without that consent, the agreements have no force. So if this is what is meant by central planning, I am all for it.
"Hayek himself made the slippery slope argument powerfully, though unsoundly."
I agree that these aren't new concepts, but I also think that sometimes new words, new labels are helpful for breaking free from ones whose common usage has shifted.
To this end, a few of us who self-identify as "liberaltarians" are starting an open, group blog over at http://www.liberaltarian.net -- still in the very early stages of figuring out what to do with it, but if you're interested in contributing via posts, comments, or even reposting what you've written here, we'd love to have you as part of the discussion.