DISQUS

Glen · 3 years ago

Well, once you've been called "defensive," anything you say will come off as defensiveness. But I'm genuinely confused. Here's the second paragraph of my post that you linked:

"Now, that may well be a libertarian vice (although see the response from Tyler’s co-blogger Alex). And I’ve probably been guilty of it from time to time. But I just don’t see how the accusation sticks here."

How is that a failure to admit Tyler has identified an actual libertarian vice? What else did you think I should have said?

Will Wilkinson · 3 years ago

You should have doused yourself in gasoline and lit a match!

Jadagul · 3 years ago

Will, your mention of asymmetric idealism reminds me of a discussion of the minimum wage I was following at Mankiw's blog a couple weeks ago. There was a lot of technical discussion centered around the claim that there are plausible economies in which a minimum wage would increase efficiency and employment. After a while, one of the anti-minimum-wage arguers said, "Well, even if we are in an economy where a very small minimum wage boost would be beneficial, public choice theory tells us that the government is just going to raise it too much and cause all the problems we're talking about anyway."

And the other guy responded, "Definitely; I oppose minimum wage as a matter of policy, because the government will pick the wrong one. But that doesn't change the empirical claim."

Really impressed me as an example of someone keeping in mind the failures both of the market and of the government.

James · 3 years ago

"I read Tyler as saying that he considers it inappropriate to assume a priori that market alternatives to government will always be better than government, or to assume a priori that a policy to improve the effectiveness of some government function will not be the best feasible alternative."

I read Tyler as saying that libertarians assume the quality of government is fixed. As in constant, not changing. The more subtle position that you defend here is sensible enough, but it's not the one Cowen expressed. (I'm asuming out of charity that he wasn't being deliberately unclear.)

"I don’t see how what he is saying is even contrarian, as opposed to a perfectly good observation."

Because drawing the least plausible conclusion from available evidence is not perfectly good. When a bunch of people suggest that government should be different from the way it is now, the least likely explanation is that they believe that the government cannot differ from the way it is now.

malaclypse the tertiary · 3 years ago

Engendering the term, "asymmetric idealism" strikes me as an example of excessive loquacity. I mean, idealism is tendentious by definition, no?

Anyhow, the bigger question to my mind than whether government action can/does conform to some economic definition of "good" is its effect upon individual action. The market is an abstraction that is no more tangible than government. So, you know, the debate about which of these entities is superior tends to the pedantic.

My zealous individualism is far less than zealous in those circumstances where the problem I'm facing has already been solved in a profound way. In other words, those problems for which there are modular solutions with very clean interfaces across which institutions can interconnect at arm's length don't require that I internalize the creative problem-solving process. Government seems to be able to deal with these very clearly defined solutions with some alacrity. So does the market. Where both demonstrate greater amounts of failure, IMHO, is around problems for which there is yet no mature solution (or those for which the mature solution is paradigmatically undermined by new developments.) These kinds of problems require that the problem-solving (read: creative) mechanism be internalized by some individual (or at least a very integrated small group thereof.) The ability of individuals (or small highly integrated groups of individuals) to adduce novelty is unparalleled by any kind of bureaucracy. What's more, bureaucracy, with its attendant regulations, undermine the creative process.

In the market, the firm can create a small, culturally (corporate) isolated highly integrated business unit of individuals to pursue novel solutions. Obviously, entrepreneurial enterprises are very often novel-solution-adducing, highly integrated groups of individuals, or an individual. Government, however, seems immune to innovation in this manner. Government, by construction, is system-preserving, not system-engendering. Once a solution has made its way to becoming legislation, there is not one iota of novelty about it. For these reasons, I argue that government intercession in problems for which there is no good-enough solution is the point at which government becomes inimical to the individuals it is charged to serve.

John T. Kennedy · 3 years ago

"If nothing else, Tyler’s post is cagey piece of strategic rhetoric that signals to egalitarian liberals a good faith willingness to actually having a debate without pointlessly pulling out ideological trump cards and declaring victory, and a related commitment to non-utopian policy—to endorsing the best option in the politically feasible set."

Sure, like Bush or Kerry. That's cagey all right.

"I’ve met more than a few libertarians who will not only endorse B for the purpose of very slightly increasing the the low probablity of C, but on the basis of a truly fantastic conception of a possible path from B all the way through the alphabet to N, libertarian nirvana. But by the time you get only a few steps into the future, the probability is basically zero, in which case supporting B on the prospect of its leading to N is surely a form of addlepated utopianism."

Can't A just be wrong no matter how much you like the result?

Will Wilkinson · 3 years ago

John,

I was thinking about supporting policies more than politicians.

Yeah, I mentioned at the beginning that the deontic theory of rights has a good claim as being THE libertarian theory, and doesn't care about cosequences at all. And that I don't believe in it.

Tim · 3 years ago

Will,

I agree with Glen. The libertarian vice is certainly a real phenomenon, and we'd all do well to be aware of it. But Tyler did a piss-poor job of explaining how Alex or Glen were guilty of it. The alternative that Alex and Glen had on offer was for United States government to do nothing. When we're choosing between starting a war or doing nothing, surely it's not an example of the libertarian vice to point out that government programs rarely work as well as their initiators expect?

Will Wilkinson · 3 years ago

Tim, I agree with Glen, too. That has nothing to do with seeming as though you are protesting too much, now does it? It is also true that I AM NOT GAY! Really. I'm not. I have had lots of girlfriends. I mean, this is really true, and I can give you more proof if you want it.

Anyway, I thought it was pretty clear that I was attempting to be cleverly semi-ironic with the bit about the strategic utility of "visibly aggravating your libertarian comrades," which I anticipated would forestall visible aggravation, but apparently not. Thank you all, and I look forward to your further aggravation.

Tim · 3 years ago

Will, your writing is just too subtle for some of us!

Will Wilkinson · 3 years ago

So subtle that even I cannot always fathom its subtle subtleness. But then, I can't actually read.