Will Wilkinson - Latest Comments in Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

alexjr — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:56:19 -0000

Are you interesting?

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

Neal Locke — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 11:24:10 -0000

Frankly, “liberaltarianism” and “progressive fusionism” don’t really amount to much beyond what Hayek, Friedman, and Buchanan thought anyway. So the fusionism here isn’t really a fusion of anything. It’s just seeing our way back to a pre-existing economically literate political liberalism.

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.

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

PrestoPundit — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:26:29 -0000

One problem. Hayek didn't make a slippery slope argument.

"Hayek himself made the slippery slope argument powerfully, though unsoundly."

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

Micha Ghertner — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:58:39 -0000

disinterested observer,

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.

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.

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

Micha Ghertner — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:54:26 -0000

tyrannogenius,

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.

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

Tim Fowler — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:05:29 -0000

Paul G. Brown - The modern corporation is only a severe potential threat to freedom when it acts in concert with the government, or when it exerts enough force to effectively operate as the government. The later is very rare and generally unlikely. The former properly calls for more government restraint not more government activism.

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

Tim Fowler — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:02:38 -0000

Neil B - People have had property rights, even at times relatively stable property rights, without such rights being an issue pushed by the government. Formal government recognition, and programs to protect property rights, generally helps preserve such rights and is certainly welcome, but it isn't the case that property rights would not exist without government.

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.

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

Tim Kane — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 11:36:35 -0000

Interesting thoughts, Will. Question is: what level of minimum income counts as minimum? And if everyone has an acceptable minimum - enough to avoid starvation? - how high before it becomes a disincentive for work and creativity?

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

disinterested observer — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 01:45:55 -0000

Micha

"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.

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

Paul G. Brown — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 00:35:50 -0000

For what it's worth:

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.

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

Neil B. — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 12:21:26 -0000

Will, consider the following. Like most libertarians, you mistakenly think that the existing economy, money economy, and property rights claims are a priori "natural" and that only over government interference is real interference. But that is demonstrably false. Just consider how would we get property claims "off the ground", how few contemporary claims represent a true succession of pass-down from an original land-use enabler etc. How did so and so get the claim to all the minerals under a plot of land? Property claims were hashed out, usually (an irony that libertarians love to avoid) with the force of government deciding who got what, long ago by now dead people just like the claimed powers of governments and the public at large, what's the difference? Also look at the money supply, sustained by public agreement, and increased as fiat by monetization of debt. The latter is a political decision about who should get "new money", it is not a true market like people exchanging goods for a hard currency. Additionally, the Federal Reserve manipulates money supply by actions that often put many out of work (often deliberately), which is not an outcome of "private choices" and is like flooding homes etc. for a dam. Employees thus deserve an unemployment safety net for this reason alone.

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

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

Tim Fowler — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:29:43 -0000

They aren't pretty much the same thing, and they aren't really what we are moving towards.

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.

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

muirgeo — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:25:33 -0000

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.

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.

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

Tim Fowler — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:27:40 -0000

muirgeo - re: "It’s simple democracy, (or a constitutionally representative republic ) as ours means basically the people make the rules"

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.

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

muirgeo — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:23:32 -0000

"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."

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.

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

Tim Fowler — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:23:34 -0000

Micha - "It is not coercion to stop coercion; it is self-defense."

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.

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

Micha Ghertner — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:51:48 -0000

ranger_granger,

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:]

I fully agree with you that there are dangers of corruption and special interests. What I find problematic these days is that rich countries are not giving poor countries the choice [to engage in protectionism]. If they are so much in favor of the free market the countries should be given choices.

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.

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

Micha Ghertner — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:32:09 -0000

Tim,

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.

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.

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

ranger_granger — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 16:48:43 -0000

Micha Ghertner:

"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_...

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

Kyle Hampton — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:51:34 -0000

87 comments?!?!?! Jeezus.

Great post Will.

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

Tim Fowler — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:34:14 -0000

muirgeo - Re: "Your position basically is an anti-democratic one seeking to weaken the powers of people to govern themselves."

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.

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

Micha Ghertner — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 08:09:34 -0000

Ranger_granger,

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.

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.

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’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.

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.

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

ranger_granger — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:40:23 -0000

John Markley:

"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?

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

John Markley — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:48:04 -0000

ranger_granger,

"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?

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

Russell Nelson — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:01:59 -0000

Will, I fear that your thesis is a non-starter. I know of no liberals who understand economics. Until they do, no libertarian should come within an inch of them because their policies will guarantee increased poverty. And then when they do understand economics, they become libertarians.

There is no middle ground, only a muddle ground.