Xenophon shares a great link from the blog Really, Libertarians?, about whether libertarians should form alliances with liberals or not. The blogger starts by affirming the libertarians shouldn't attempt to place themselves on the political spectrum. But he goes on to emphasize that that doesn't mean there shouldn't be substantial interchange between the left and libertarians (presumably there has already been such interchange between the right and libertarians).
The discussion is very interesting. I have a few thoughts:
1. First, I find it interesting that he thinks about the "liberaltarian" phenomenon as liberals turning more libertarian and not libertarians turning more liberal. Empirically, I have no clue what direction of conversion dominates. Anecdotally, I can say that I personally moved from libertarian to what I guess you'd call "liberal".
2. And the reason why I made that conversion is important. Libertarian insights in a lot of ways are basic, Econ 101 insights about the efficiency of free contracting writ large and converted into norms or political values. In other words, I think one of the most essential libertarian fallacies is building a politico-ethical system around positive social science findings (and, I want to stress, basic and introductory social science findings at that). It's kind of an odd way of going about formulating a politico-ethical system. We don't adopt Nietzschean super-man ethics because of evolutionary biology, and we shouldn't simply adopt libertarianism because of these insights. I want to be clear - my point is not that you have to mix up normative and positive findings to come to libertarianism. My point is only that it's possible to get everything there is to get out of libertarianism simply by improving people's knowledge of social science. This is only to say that it's not entirely clear to me what should be important here: teaching people more social science, or sharing libertarianism.
3. But even that isn't entirely satisfying - after all, the reason why I abandoned libertarianism was because I kept learning social science. Yes, the market is efficient and the price mechanism leverages decentralized knowledge. But if institutions don't or can't internalize costs and benefits social scientific insights start to militate against the efficiency of markets. Uncertainty and imperfections ensure that market forces, as fantastic as they are, are going to remain sub-optimal. I haven't abandoned any of the introductory insights in adopting these views - the complement the introductory insights that I still use. I still have a relatively contractarian view of human relations. I still take a fairly atomized, individualist view of things. I still come down on Hayek and Mises's side of the socialist calculation debate. But I can't call myself a libertarian. So, if what we really want is to get people to take the implications of social science more seriously, then its not clear that that would move people towards libertarianism either.
4. This all reminds me of something that's been bugging me lately about the way libertarians talk. I recently got Marginal Revolution on my blogroll. I know, I know - that sure took a while. Anyway, the blog uses this language "market-oriented economists" a lot. At first it confused me - Cowen wrote something about how no "market-oriented economists" think the minimum wage raises employment. My response was "haven't you ever heard of Card and Krueger?!?!? It's a little much to say that no market-oriented economists think this". Later it dawned on me - what he meant was "libertarian economists". I think this gets to the point of my feelings on this particular blog post. A lot of libertarians have a pretty twisted view of what non-libertarians think, and the idea that if you're not a libertarian you're not "market-oriented" or "pro-market" is high on the list. I think this sort of thing is completely unproductive. If I were more cynical, I might just as easily turn the epithet on libertarians. I've said before that the market is a lot like a tool in the sense that it works for certain jobs and not for others. You use the right tool for the right job. If you saw someone banging on a screw with a hammer, your reaction wouldn't be "wow - that guy has a deep respect for hammers". Quite the opposite. That's how I see libertarians and markets. I could go around referring to people that see things my way as "market oriented economists", but that would confuse things, just like Cowen and other libertarians that use this phrase as a synonym for "libertarians" confuses things. The fact is there are fundamental differences of opinion - let's leave it at that and stick to the clear terminology when we talk. [Mises.org does this all the time with "pro-liberty" too. It can be very confusing if you don't know what the code-words mean].
This is starting to get a little farther afield, but I think the point I want to make is simply that (1.) the link that Xenophon shares is a very good one and the impulse is very good, but (2.) the guy clearly has blinders on and that limits the usefulness of his more fundamental insight. This is fine. We all have blinders on. I'm providing a few counter-arguments here to help take those blinders off, and people should take them how they will.
Personally I, like the blogger, don't see a lot of use for these ideological spectrums. Mostly I just feel like a non-descript moderate, often I feel like a liberal, sometimes I feel conservative, on occasion I feel downright leftist, and fairly regularly I do feel like a libertarian. The center of gravity for me is probably what you'd call "center-left" but the point is spectrums are often a dumb way to think about this stuff, and even distinct ideologies like "libertarianism" is a dumb way to think about this stuff. It is convenient, though - and convenience matters.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
For me, when you talk about libertarianism, you talk about economics too much. Most of what animates libertarians really isn't economics - or at least economics as such. At least in my experience.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, the main problem with libertarianism of the last twenty years or so is our too close association with conservationism and the Republican party.
Oh, and as long we're getting into personal narratives, I went from the left to liberal to libertarianism. I got into libertarianism - strangely enough - due to work I've done on the National Parks and the failures of the government to protect wildlife, etc. Think of the slaughter of wolves in Yellowstone in the early 20th century and the continuing problems with large mammals there (e.g., elk, etc.).
Another link dealing with this subject (basically about an hour long video where Brink Lindsey of Cato, Jonah Goldberg of the National Review and Matt Kibbe of FreedomWorks talk about where libertarians belong): http://reason.com/blog/2010/07/27/reasontv-where-do-libertarians
ReplyDeleteRight - and like I said, libertarianism doesn't have to be arrived at from that perspective. I address it cause its what I feel like a lot of the libertarians I read do.
ReplyDeleteI don't follow Will Wilkinson at all, for example. I'm not denying other angles of approach aren't out there.
I would say, though, that you do need some sort of contractarian approach to arrive at libertarianism (unless you come at it from an anarchist angle I guess). And really all that I'm saying with respect to social science and economics applies equally well to contractarianism more generally.
I'm interested in the National Parks perspective. I by no means deify the park service and fully accept that they can be problematic. But are you suggesting private interests would be more beneficial?
Thanks for linking the Lindsey-Goldberg-Kibbe debate. I didn't say much about that when it was going on because it was largely about libertarian-Tea Party relations which I guess I just feel I have less of a stake in.
"I would say, though, that you do need some sort of contractarian approach to arrive at libertarianism (unless you come at it from an anarchist angle I guess)."
ReplyDeleteNot if you hold a "natural rights" view.
"But are you suggesting private interests would be more beneficial?"
I think they generally have been.
Anyway, now we have a political issue - is the wolf population too large in Yellowstone? Is it predating on the elk population too much? I think a lot of these questions are explicitly political in a way they wouldn't be if the land were privately owned/managed.
Plus there are other problems like too many people visiting the parks. I avoid them in the summer for that very reason (I'll be spending two weeks in Yellowstone in Sept. - much of it in the backcountry). It would make sense as a means to preserve them to vary rates by season; but politically that is impossible to do.
Aha - that's true. I forgot about the nonsense-on-stilters.
ReplyDeleteOK, let me clarify - you do need some sort of contractarian approach to arrive at a plausible libertarianism :)
"I think a lot of these questions are explicitly political in a way they wouldn't be if the land were privately owned/managed."
Yes, instead of millions of people with no real way of evaluating a largely ethical/aesthetic question you have one person making that decision for everyone else.
Political? No. But only in the sense that politics is minimized in an autocracy.
This is the kind of logic that Hans Herman Hoppe uses to justify monarchy. I accept all the benefits of property rights, but I still don't buy it.
"Yes, instead of millions of people with no real way of evaluating a largely ethical/aesthetic question you have one person making that decision for everyone else."
ReplyDeleteHow do you think the gray wolf was preserved? Much of it was because of private property owners who liked them. You see similar outcomes with lots of animals which the state tried to eradicate due to ideology or because some interest group didn't like them. Putting it in a cost-benefit sort of box, you're going to get better outcomes with the diversity of positions one finds with private property owners than you will with what is often the more monolithic policy decisions of a state actor. A state actor which will do its level best to hide the consequences of its actions I might add.
Anyway, I really don't expect you to agree with this. I discuss it more as a way of illustrating how diverse libertarians are - and how economics as such isn't a primary concern of most.
I hope we're not still trying to work through this idea that I have a problem with private ownership or that I think it won't provide benefits.
ReplyDeleteIt's never a "can it work" question for me - of course it can. The question is "can it work enough".
Anyway, if I don't return after Sept., it probably means I was eaten by a bear. Which wouldn't trouble me that much philosophically. ;)
ReplyDeletePhilosophically, perhaps not.
ReplyDeleteMaterially, I imagine that would be somewhat more disappointing for you.
Assuredly.
ReplyDeleteOver at Cato Unbound: Libertarians and Darwin - http://www.cato-unbound.org/
ReplyDeleteI agree with Xenophon that many, if not most, libertarians are so on primarily moral or philosophical grounds, although it is quite clear that most, if not all, aspects of libertarianism find coincident justification in economic theory, and personally I subscribe to virtually all tenets of libertarianism on moral AND economic grounds, since I think that the two are very difficult to separate in any meaningful way, if one considers them with any depth. Don't forget, too, that, on Austrian websites, especially Mises.org, they are by and large preaching to the choir, so that it is readily understood by most when alternative phrases are used. I also think that such phrases as "pro-liberty" are used as a rhetorical device to emphasize the particular aspect of libertarianism at issue and perhaps even to instill inspiration. That being said, I do think that sometimes their language appeals too much to the emotion and seems somewhat manipulative, something which they should avoid.
ReplyDelete