Sunday, May 23, 2010

Classical Liberalism

Recently, I critiqued some thoughts that Bryan Caplan shared on liberalism and libertarianism. The post really got me thinking, and it highlighted what I think are a lot of the problems with the way that libertarianism thinks and works. Sometimes I feel like my affinity for and sympathy with libertarianism gets obscured by these frustrations, but the frustrations still stand. Anyway, I've decided to start a new blog called Classy-cal Liberalism. Since "classical liberalism" is staked out and regularly purged, I figured I'd highlight how classy I think my approach to the issue is and give the blog a catchy new name. I don't intend the blog to be too intensive - I basically see it as being a link farm where I aggregate other liberal blogging, particularly introspective liberal blogging that really engages what liberalism is ("liberal" constructed as it was in my critique of Caplan). I might also highlight instances where liberals try to purge their co-liberals (a la Caplan), as well as instances where liberals stray a little and either reject basic liberal tenets or add a few non-liberal (or even illiberal tenets). We'll see how it goes - it might be a dud. I'll probably be renovating it a lot over the next couple weeks - adding literature, links, etc. But the day to day blogging I want to keep simple and straightforward.

That's Classy-cal Liberalism. I also wanted to touch on a few of Sebastian's responses to my Caplan post. Sebastian starts with:

"One of the dangers of ascribing such a "broad definition" to liberalism/liberal is that it is in danger of ending up like terms such as "fascist" or "democratic" - in that it means whatever you want it to mean."
First, I suppose I disagree that "fascist" or "democratic" mean whatever we want them to mean. Democracy especially is quite broad - but just because it's broad doesn't mean it's indeterminate. When I hear "democracy" used formally (of course it does take on other meanings in casual speech), I think it means rule by the people - a plebiscite in its ideal type, but not necessarily. I don't usually think of democracy as assuming anything explicit about any other rights other than electoral rights. It can come with other rights, but it doesn't have to. In this sense, it makes perfect sense to think about "democratic socialism", although no socialism the world has seen has ever really lived up to this. Where is the ambiguity here? I don't see it. As for "fascism", I always think of "fascism" as non-dynastic autocracy.

"By the same token, this is on a much smaller scale than what modern American welfare statists, or modern progressive "liberals", propose. Not to engage in Jonah Goldberg-style polemicism, but it is excruciating that people whose political agenda contains many of the aspects of classical fascism can use such a word with such positive connotations (liberal) to describe themselves."

I do think its clear that welfare statists take as tenets of their views things that are not explicitly liberal tenets. I guess I would say, though, that they are not necessarily illiberal just because they're not the bedrock of liberalism. Liberals support representative government to improve society in a transparent way that is consistent with liberal principles. Some individuals may decide that welfare programs are one such improvement. Welfare programs as such are not a requisite part of the liberal program, but they are consistent with it. I tentatively view "negative rights" the same way. I don't personally buy into negative rights, and I would never argue that they are a "liberal" idea. But they can coexist with liberalism, depending on their implementation.

I'd also caution Sebastian against what in an earlier post I've refered to as the "presumption of ideological orthogonality". It would be illogical for Sebastian to say that because fascists believe X and welfare statists believe X too, then welfare statists are somehow fascists. Sebastian doesn't come out and say this, but he skims the edge of that sort of thinking. Even if that were a logically consistent deduction (which it is not), ideologies are not perfectly orthogonal. They do share common elements. I support the existence of a central bank and so do Communists. So? You all probably support provision for the national defense, and so do fascists. So? We share some common elements. Simply pointing that out proves nothing. The question is, are those common elements the essential elements of our ideologies, or do we differ on the essential elements of our ideologies? Lazy thinking and the presumption of ideological orthogonality leads to statements like "Lincoln was a fascist" or "Roosevelt was a fascist", or for that matter "there's no difference between Communism and national socialism". Sebastian goes on:

"This [4. secular, representative government] is the weak link. You seem to belittle libertarians on this one, yet it would seem bleedingly obvious that it is the one that produces results that clash so much with the other tenets."
Bleedingly obvious to a libertarian perhaps. But that's precisely why someone would be a libertarian - if that is the one that stands out, you're naturally going to gravitate towards libertarianism. Actually, I think private property rights also clash quite frequently. Private property can exercise coercive power, which is what progressives and left-leaning liberals highlight. Private property can perpetuate discrimination and caste systems in society, thus clashing with tolerance and pluralism. Imperfectly implemented private property can impose on freedom from coercion, and negative rights, and externalities make a mockery of the idea of individual responsibility. We could think about "clashes" that occur in any of these. Freedom and tolerance/pluralism clash all the time. Take a time machine back to the American South fifty years ago for an acute example, but it's not that hard to find modern examples either. I have to reject this assertion by Sebastian. Representative government certainly clashes with these other tenets. I'm not denying that. But the idea that it is at all distinguished in this regard is silly. Indeed, its one of the best mechanisms for righting and arbitrating other clashes. That's why a representative government was so important to the classical liberals.

"You obviously recognise such a clash. Yet you seem to view those with libertarian attitudes as childish or naive."

Sometimes naive, but never childish. And they're no more naive than any other liberal. They're just naive about different things. What may distinguish libertarians is their attempt to purge or disown other liberals - something you don't see many other liberals doing. Part of the reason for this, of course, is that most other liberals aren't thinking about this broader intellectual tradition on a regular basis - so it's not even on their radar as a tradition to actively maintain. At one point, a commenter asked why I criticize libertarians but not "democratic fundamentalists" (the commenter might even have been Sebastian - I forget). The reason is that libertarians are worth arguing with. They've thought through their ideas (usually). There are very few democratic fundamentalists left, for good reason. The ones that are left rely more on sentiment then clear thought. That's not worth engaging.

"At some point you basically have to get your priorities straight, stand for something and put your foot down, or else you end up with dissatisfying consensus politics and the gradual erosion of individual rights in the pursuit of some vague, illiberal "greater good"."

I was with you at the beginning of this sentence and lost you by the end. You seem to be assuming that an embrace of representative government and consensus is inconsistent with the maintenance of individual rights. You know what strikes me as "vague illiberalism"? This suspicion of "consensus"! A tradition that emphasizes free individuals can't simply dismiss the concerns and insights and perspectives of those free individuals. Consensus politics is central to liberalism.

"You might also want to explain how the current arrangement (by which I mean the progressive centralisation of political power, which you don't appear to oppose) is actually in any way representative. You criticised the Tea Partiers in an earlier post for ignoring the last part of "no taxation without representation". Yet how can they ever truly be represented by a distant central government? Is it representative if taxes collected in a conservative state are used to fund, say, an abortion clinic in a "liberal" state?"
I've opposed the centralization of political power many times on this blog. Part of the reason for the persistence and strength of liberalism in America is our decentralization of power - our federalism. During the health reform debate, I used this blog to oppose the creation of a national policy. There were a few things related to the tax treatment of employer benefits and Medicare that I thought could be done at the national level, but I advocated a 1996 Welfare Reform style health reform: broad experimentation at the state level. I've criticized restraints on state budgets that hamper state and local responses to problems, leading the federal government to step in. Granted, as time goes on more problems become legitimately national problems. I'm not instinctively opposed to things being done at the national level. But I don't think I've been a cheerleader for it either. As for its representativeness, we're seeing the Tea Party beign represented in primaries across the country. Congress is still elected, as is the president. If anything, Americans pay more attention to what the federal government is doing than what their state and local governments are doing, forcing the federal government to be more cognizant of the public's will.

I don't think my responses to Sebastian are in anyway the "liberal" response. Sebastian's views are just as consistent with liberalism as mine are. Some liberals are more suspicious of representative government, others are more suspicious of property rights, others are more suspicious of negative rights. These tensions make liberalism dynamic.

25 comments:

  1. Thanks for this extended comment, Daniel - although if I had known that my comments would form the basis of what would become a blog entry in its own right, I confess I would've put forward a more eloquent and cohesive argument.

    Regarding consensus, I think I picked the wrong word - the one I was after was "compromise". I think it was Jefferson who aptly noted that it is the natural tendency for government to grow, and despite all the Reaganesque rhetoric about deregulation, small government and free markets, you would have to be delusional to claim that government spending, taxes and regulation have shrunk - the conservatives have done a remarkably poor job of "starving the beast". Anyway, and allowing for that fact that some projects possess more merit than others, what good is consensus if we're simply negotiating the speed, direction and nature of government growth? I don't necessarily oppose consensus politics, but if the consensus is that we get larger government no matter what, then as far as I'm concerned the consensus is wrong and has no place in the philosophy of liberalism. And if democracy keeps delivering the goods to people who want higher spending, lower taxes for themselves and a higher tax burden on somebody else, then apart from becoming dysfunctional, it also becomes a morally repugnant system.

    Needless to say, I emphatically reject the notion that the "complexities" of modern life, with it's unprecedented prosperity, medical/technological advances and improved access to information/education, for some unarticulated yet widely accepted reason, require a higher levels of government intervention and wealth redistribution.

    I don't think there is anything exclusively libertarian about saying that point 4. [representative government] should be the one to cut out when the danger it poses to one's individual rights becomes too great, although they would set the point at which this happens quite low.

    ReplyDelete
  2. RE: Democracy and Fascism

    The formal definition of democracy that you gave is not really what I had in mind - I was referring more to the uses and abuses of the term that take place in everyday parlance. More often than not, saying something is "democratic/undemocratic" is simply a way of "rallying the troops" (so to speak) against something with which one disagrees. When I was at university, compulsory student unionism was abolished, and not surprisingly, the union denounced the new policy as "undemocratic" and ran ads featuring the slogan "voluntary student unionism: not my choice!"

    That is a fairly minor example, I know. But it illustrates the extent to which the word has become somewhat meaningless.

    As for fascism, it was Orwell who stated that it has lost any meaning, since, like "undemocratic", it is used frequently nowadays to describe anything with which one disagrees. I agree with this assessment to a certain extent.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My real complaint with the term fascism, and something that angers me greatly, is the way which were originally classed as liberal have now become "fascist", i.e. free-trade, restrictions on welfare entitlements, deregulation etc. are now "fascist" policies. I don't know if it is ignorance with respect to widely documented historical facts or a form of epistemic closure, but very few nowadays seem to grasp that classical liberalism (and even conservatism) is almost diametrically opposed to fascism.

    I am always careful with throwing aroudn the "f-word" in comparing modern progressive [social] liberalism to fascism. It's hard to talk about fascism since it's now so hard to separate from the horrors of WWII. But fascism isn't necessarily rascist, and I dare say that if you remove the militaristic nationalism from fascism, you end up with something very close to progressive liberalism. As for the dictatorship and censorship aspects, while modern progressives (and conservatives) pay lip service to freedom, they're usually referring to the freedom to have the things they like doing.

    I don't want to give you the impression that I'm saying fascism and progressive liberalism are one and the same. But they share more than a few characteristics, especially with respect to economic freedom. And logically, if fascism is opposed to liberalism (which I believe is an uncontentious claim), and pogressive liberalism is at least similar to fascism, then grouping progressive liberalism together with the classical variety is a dubious proposition.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes - and there's obviously going to be a difference when we talk about common usage of these words. That is, and probably always will be, a mess.

    Remember, though, even Orwell said of people who considered the word fascism absolutely useless that "one need not swallow such absurdities as this", although of course he goes on to admit "the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language".

    Indeed, I think Orwell's whole point isn't that these words don't have meaning - it's that that meaning is casually ignored in a lot of every day speech. I would agree with that as well.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "My real complaint with the term fascism, and something that angers me greatly, is the way which were originally classed as liberal have now become "fascist", i.e. free-trade, restrictions on welfare entitlements, deregulation etc. are now "fascist" policies. I don't know if it is ignorance with respect to widely documented historical facts or a form of epistemic closure, but very few nowadays seem to grasp that classical liberalism (and even conservatism) is almost diametrically opposed to fascism."

    Can you provide an example of when these things are called "fascist". I don't doubt that they are, I just don't hear it that often at all, so I'm guessing any instances we can come up with aren't really worth seriously engaging. It's very important to separate thoughtless leftists from left-leaning liberals and not conflate the two, just as it would be very unfair to conflate thoughtless Tea Party conspiracy theorists with libertarians.

    RE: "I am always careful with throwing aroudn the "f-word" in comparing modern progressive [social] liberalism to fascism. It's hard to talk about fascism since it's now so hard to separate from the horrors of WWII. But fascism isn't necessarily rascist, and I dare say that if you remove the militaristic nationalism from fascism, you end up with something very close to progressive liberalism."

    How do you like my definition of fascism - "non-dynastic autocarcy". It doesn't rely on race or militaristic nationalism (although I suppose militaristic nationalism could be added, it probably doesn't have to be). Non-dynastic autocracy doesn't seem to encompass progressives at all. This is why I made the point about the problem of assuming ideological orthogonality. If you wave your hands about "race", make a good point that shouldn't be determining factor of fascism, and then jump to public works or tax and redistribution, you skip over the essential element (autocracy) and make just about anyone sound like a fascist.

    By your definition, its hard to think of a government in power that ISN'T fascist.

    ReplyDelete
  6. RE: "And logically, if fascism is opposed to liberalism (which I believe is an uncontentious claim), and pogressive liberalism is at least similar to fascism, then grouping progressive liberalism together with the classical variety is a dubious proposition."

    But again, I think its similar in all the most mundane ways and dissimilar in all the most important ways. The same could be said for libertarianism. It has similarities to anarchism, and anarchism is certainly illiberal, isn't it? But what do we really gain by even comparing libertarianism to anarchism? That's not even taken seriously as an argument, but its not logically different from the point you're making.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anyway, I guess the crux of my argument is that you may be right in saying libertarians shouldn't try and "purge" their co-liberals, but the liberal criteria are too easily satisfied and unnecessarily broad, and as a result utterly meaningless, when you include people with such divergent views. It may be a broad philosophy, but it isn't that broad.

    I'll try and give some examples. On the political left, I would say comedian Jon Stewart scrapes in as a liberal. Michael Moore is definitely out. Economists such as John Quiggin and Paul Krugman are definitely out, as neither seems to exhibit any scepticism as regards bigger, more authoritarian government, or to the extent that they do, it is of a highly partisan nature (I guess the possession of said scepticism is, in my opinion, a necessary qualifying condition of liberalism). Development economist William Easterly would be in, Jeffrey Sachs would be out. As much as I don't mind Stiglitz work, I couldn't let him in to the liberal club. I'd probably include self-proclaimed "socialist" Orwell as a liberal, which probably means I'd be obliged to include Christopher Hitchins as well.

    I wouldn't necessarily cast out anyone who proposed certain welfare state measures, but if what they have in mind is a European Welfare State then they have to go.

    As for the right, I'd have to disqualify conservative types like Thomas Sowell, Mark Steyn and many of the FOX news crowd. That they supported the Iraq War may not be enough in itself to count them out as liberals but, despite their economic views, when you start throwing in support for the PATRIOT Act, water-boarding/torture and negative attitude towards immigration.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "How do you like my definition of fascism - "non-dynastic autocracy". It doesn't rely on race or militaristic nationalism (although I suppose militaristic nationalism could be added, it probably doesn't have to be)."

    I mentioned race because whenever you hear people talk about, say, the anti-immigrant British Nationalist Party, you'll invariably hear a description that goes something like "fascist... racist... extremist... right-wing".

    I think as soon as you put a dictator in charge, you can achieve fascism. But even without a dictator you can get pretty close. The number of large corporations directly influencing policy (bypassing democracy, for all it's worth) in addition to the large number of NGOs and technocratic "independent" bodies set up by governments seem to do a pretty good job of approximating a dictatorship at times (and no, I didn't mean for that to sound as conspiracy-theorist as it did).

    ReplyDelete
  9. "[Libertarianism] has similarities to anarchism, and anarchism is certainly illiberal, isn't it?"

    If my negative rights were protected under anarchy, I imagine it would still be liberal. It certainly wouldn't rule out voluntary collectivism. Whether or not the institutions in existence in a state of anarchy would adequately protect my rights is another matter.

    I'm not particularly familiar with anarchy, so I can't really comment. To be honest, I actually get really sick of anarchists - we're so far away from achieving even moderate libertarian goals, and here are these people talking about how Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and the Cato Institute are "statists"and "pinkos". Talk about getting ahead of oneself...

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's so surreal to read some of this. "Probably" attached to Orwell and "I'd be obliged to" with Hitchens? Unreal! At least for me. These two are damn near definitive. Their "socialism" is troubling, but they both clearly come from the older, non-Marxist and indeed anti-Marxist stock. Hitchens takes Marx more seriously, but its more his social theory that he ever really utilizes, and honestly I have no problem with that from Marx.

    Moore is a tough case. He bothers me a lot, but does he really mount a challenge to representative government? To civil rights and liberties? He's an idiot and a demagogue. He's not an example of liberalism, I would agree - but it's a stretch to attribute illiberalism to him. He's a mean-spirited, ideological film maker. Then we get to Krugman and Stiglitz and its becoming quite clear that you're talking about libertarianism again, not liberalism (which perhaps explains Hitchens and Orwell, who get a tentative pass for their free-thinking and first amendment streak).

    Indeed, why highlight John Quiggin UNLESS it's because you've got a distinctly libertarian bone to pick? He's relatively undistinguished EXCEPT for his name recognition in the blogosphere and for his known critiques of the Austrian school.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "here are these people talking about how Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and the Cato Institute are "statists"and "pinkos". Talk about getting ahead of oneself..."

    You do realize that this is precisely what you sound like when you say that Paul Krugman and Joe Stiglitz aren't philosophically liberal, don't you?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I should probably qualify those choices:

    - Orwell's particular socialism reminds me more of J S Mill's type of socialism - non-Marxist, and egalitarian without seeming to constantly obsess over income. Having lived in England for a while, I can understand the disdain he held for the class system and inherited priviledge. I'm probably being biased because I like his writing, but I think his socialist tendencies were better explained by his misunderstanding of the free market, as opposed to some great faith in the state. Indeed, through his writing I think he has done much to spread awareness of the problems inherent in abdicating too much personal responsibility to the state.

    - As for Krugman, perhaps I should make a distinction between pre- and post-Bush Krugman. The Krugman of the 90s seemed fairly lucid, and The Accidental Theorist has some great insights. And I think this is where Krugman loses marks: as opposed to Orwell, he should know how the free market works, but he goes to great lengths to contort economic theory in favour of the state (check his latest blog entry on GDP growth and top marginal tax rates). Many of his attacks on conservatives are warranted, and I can agree with him on a lot of issues, but it's unclear to me whether he holds human liberty as having any intrinsic value. And this is before you get to his tax/regulation fetish.

    - Stiglitz is the kind of guy who goes working for the government and the World Bank for several years, gets really annoyed at how the system functions, and then comes to the conclusion that we need "greater accountability". Geez. This goes alongside other such sayings as "it's not about big or small government, but good government" often muttered by people who see the state as some kind of deus ex machina. I think if he were really honest with himself, he'd recommend removing the state from some areas of the economy entirely, but instead goes around doing the whole "third way/making markets work more efficiently through gov't" thing.

    - John Quiggin got his PhD at the same university I got my Econonomics (aka glorified mathematics) degree. He's kind of an Australian Krugman and writes about matters close to home. And he really annoys me - he's more than twice my age, and chucks temper tantrums as if he were half my age. Otherwise I had no real reason to pick him.

    ReplyDelete
  13. RE: "This goes alongside other such sayings as "it's not about big or small government, but good government" often muttered by people who see the state as some kind of deus ex machina. I think if he were really honest with himself, he'd recommend removing the state from some areas of the economy entirely, but instead goes around doing the whole "third way/making markets work more efficiently through gov't" thing."

    I'm not sure why this implies a deus ex machina perspective.

    Libertarians often view the state as a uni-dimensional concept. You either have more state or you have less state. I still can't understand what could possibly motivate this understanding of the state. But if you have that understanding, of course the distinction between good government and bad government is nonsensical.

    Is there any other human institution where this is the case - where if it doesn't work, we simply say "oh - it must never work". Is there any other institution where we don't have some understanding of what a well functioning version of the institution consists of vs. a poorly functioning version? Of course not. Human institutions aren't uni-dimensional. They're ridiculously complicated.

    I know it makes sense to you, but that's why it sounds so strange when you hear things like "well if the government didn't work, why are you advocating more government to solve the problem"? It's a meaningless critique. "Government" isn't some monolithic concept. It's complex and differentiated. It makes perfect sense to differentiate between different kinds of governance.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Think of it this way - when a firm fails, does it make sense to conclude "well, the corporate ownership of private property in a market economy doesn't work because THIS firm failed".

    Of course it doesn't make sense to say that.

    But that is precisely how you're approaching government in your critique of Stiglitz.

    Something is wrong with that failed firm. There was a miscalculation of some sort, or perhaps it was just some bad luck. We learn from that when we build the firms of the future. Government is no different.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "You either have more state or you have less state. I still can't understand what could possibly motivate this understanding of the state. But if you have that understanding, of course the distinction between good government and bad government is nonsensical."

    "Good government" is a bit like "campaign finance reform" - a feel good term that falls apart when confronted with reality.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Of course being a non-goo-goo doesn't for me mean one favors machine politics; it does mean that one finds the whole movement to be a farce.

    ReplyDelete
  17. RE: ""Good government" is a bit like "campaign finance reform" - a feel good term that falls apart when confronted with reality."

    Falls apart or is hard to identify? It's a complex institution - "good government" is certainly a hard thing to nail down. I wouldn't disagree with you on that. Our inability to fully understand complex, emergent phenomena isn't proof of their non-existence.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Falls apart. "Good government" been the ideological plaything of the left and right since the Progressive Era - really its just a feel good phrase meant to package a whole bunch of ideological baggage.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Masterfully argued!!!!! Errr... I mean asserted.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Are you trying to suggest that the phrase doesn't switch from left to right and back again depending on who is and who is not in power? In fact, I'm fairly certain that Republicans have adopted the term again since Obama's election.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anyway, I'm out.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Are you trying to suggest that the phrase doesn't switch from left to right and back again depending on who is and who is not in power?"

    Why would you think I would try to suggest that? Part of the reason why they're "right" and "left" (and "libertarian", for that matter) is that they have different understandings of what constitutes that phrase.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Part of the reason why they're "right" and "left" (and "libertarian", for that matter) is that they have different understandings of what constitutes that phrase."

    No, the reason the term goes back and forth like that is because it is an empty phrase used for political effect.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Oh I see - thank you for setting me straight.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Think of it this way - when a firm fails, does it make sense to conclude "well, the corporate ownership of private property in a market economy doesn't work because THIS firm failed"."

    [I'll make this my last post, since I think I've expressed what I wanted to originally, i.e. liberal isn't necessarily libertarian, but it's narrower than you think.]

    Anyway, as regards this argument, I don't think you're drawing the analogy properly. For a start, you know as well as I do that government isn't subject to the same rules as private enterprise. And a libertarian won't conclude that the market economy doesn't work simply because a firm fails - in fact, it might point to the fact that it does work. The conclusion "ok, government isnt' working - we need more accountable government" would be more like Chrysler trying to sell cars with square wheels, failing miserably and then concluding that they need to give the cars a better paint job or a better stereo. "These square-wheeled cars aren't catching on - we need square-wheeled cars with cupholders!"

    Why not just stick to round-wheeled cars? (Ok, I concede that wasn't the greatest analogy either, but I think I got my point across)

    While it's not an argument for no government per se, for someone like Stiglitz who spends a lot of time talking about imperfect information I am surprised that he doesn't accept that some alleged market/coordination failures should just be left alone. Instead, he proposes intervention after intervention to try and corner the market in to some kind of "optimum". Whatever the merits of this, I feel it does not fit within the liberal philosophy. He's not a socialist, but that doesn't make him a liberal by default.

    Anyway, I have made some effort not to slip into reciting the same old libertarian talking points. I'm not saying that big government is necessarily bad government, or that small government is always good. But is it not the case that the chances of having "good", accountable government shrink as Leviathan expands? Krugman (I think it was somewhere in The Great Unravelling, although I forget where - you may have to take my word for it) unintentionally echoes Murray Rothbard in noting that, while criticising the Bush administration, when the US government was a much smaller beast, the repercussions of its bad behaviour were much less severe and much easier to manage. So Krugman saw the problem, and it wouldn't have bothered me so much if he had even considered smaller government, but he just jumped straight for the Nirvana fallacy: "we need the right people in charge, with the right policies".

    I'm sure you are already very familiar with these arguments. That human institutions are complicated goes without saying, and hence a more thorough analysis of government is needed. But a more complex government? I say nay.

    ReplyDelete

All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.