Monday, August 30, 2010

"Locavores" and Libertarians, Part 1

In the comment section of this post, Evan inquires about my reference to the sometimes rough relationship between libertarian bloggers and the "buy local" movement. I've seen lots of posts on this over time, particularly on Cafe Hayek, but the recent series of posts started with Stephen Landsburg's post (cleverly interchanging "loca-" with "loco-") suggesting that locavores are wrong because more often than not, locally grown produce is more energy-intensive than non-locally grown produce (this shouldn't be too surprising to people who know about comparative advantage and scale economies and can put the two together for both agriculture and transportation). Don Boudreaux follows up on it here, and Arnold Kling follows up on it here. Their argument rests on the basic point about the information content of market signals. Markets know more than locavores about the costs and benefits of different food production, so when locavores eschew non-local foods they are somehow going against the market. I have two main complaints about this criticism - the first is economic, and the second is more philosophical.

First, the whole problem with the market for carbon is that the market doesn't have reliable informational content, as it doesn't with any product where externalities prevent markets from accurately communicating information. That doesn't make locavores who make the energy efficiency point right - I wouldn't be surprised at all if locally grown food was still more energy-intensive despite the externality problems associated with pricing it. I simply wouldn't go out on a limb to defend the market on accurately pricing anything having to do with fossil fuels. It seems a little odd, though, that Kling and Boudreaux are criticizing locavores for ignoring market signals even as they participate in a market. Clearly they use market signals, and they have different assessments of the value of non-locally grown food than Kling and Boudreaux do, and they act in the market accordingly. Most locavores don't eat entirely locally grown food. I don't even come close. Usually the margin I'm concerned about is price. I'm much more likely to purchase locally grown vegetables than meat because it's a cheaper product in which I can express my localist preferences. Crabs I often buy locally, other meat less often. I buy wine and beer from local producers far more often than I do from non-local producers. I'm taking my subjective value judgements to the market and interacting with market signals in all of these purchases. Nobody is bucking market judgements of the cost of non-locally produced foods. It's just not the only information that people use. The other side of the market process is consumer demand. So the juxtaposition of locavores and market signals was a little odd in that respect.

The second critique I had is actually my primary critique: people who buy locally generally speaking don't do it for energy-intensity reasons, in my experience. Maybe there are some environmentalists that give this justification primacy (although even for them I doubt it's the only reason), but I really don't get the sense this figures very prominently. I certainly don't - I don't get the impression Evan does - I've never heard the friends I mentioned in the previous blog post bring the energy-efficiency point up. In fact, it's precisely the energy intensity of local production that is praised in many circumstances. There's an ethic to the work involved in small-scale, unmechanized farming. There's an ethic to the work involved in gardening. The additional work of craft production is seen as a labor of love - a humanizing toil. It's the "shop class as soulcraft" idea. I could understand why people who live and breath neoclassicism might get confused about how to incorporate this subjective value into a framework where leisure is always considered a "good" and labor is always considered a "bad", but I'm surprised so many self-styled Austrians or Austrian sympathizers are tripping over this point.

Aside from the simple points that (1.) the market may very well be wrong in its pricing of carbon, (2.) just because you have subjective values doesn't mean you ignore the market, and (3.) in some cases energy and work-intensity is considered a feature, not a bug, there seems to be a lot Landsburg, Boudreaux, and Kling don't understand about the motivations for localism. My impression is that the major drive behind the movement is to personalize and diversify production and make local communities and social interactions more robust and fulfilling. One of the things our friends liked about the local cheese cake shop they told us about was that they knew both of the proprietors. I think I'm going to take this community-building point up in a subsequent post, because it's been featured on Cafe Hayek recently as well, and it's really a post in itself.

39 comments:

  1. No one is tripping over that point.

    "My impression is that the major drive behind the movement is to personalize and diversify production and make local communities and social interactions more robust and fulfilling."

    If that's as far as it went libertarians wouldn't find the trend problematic in any way. It is the effort to make these sort of choices, well, non-choices, that is problematic.

    At the same time, if someone wants to buy non-pasteurized milk, well that doesn't bother me in the least. So the issue has two sides to it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "If that's as far as it went libertarians wouldn't find the trend problematic in any way. It is the effort to make these sort of choices, well, non-choices, that is problematic."

    It's funny - this point didn't arise in any of the three libertarian posts that I linked. So please, stop this sanitation of "what libertarians think". Moreover, neither I nor Evan, nor to my knowledge anyone that these libertarians were commenting on ever made any effort to make these "non-choices". It's a total non-sequitor Xenophon. You're the one engaging in signaling with your opposition to anything with a whiff of liberalism to it. What you're ignoring is that:

    1. The case you make isn't the case made by the people I'm commenting on at all, and

    2. You're alleged concerns about "non-choices" haven't been expressed by anyone here - and I daresay are a ridiculously minor part of the localist movement.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Could you explain "non-choice", Xenophon? I'm not sure what you mean by it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Buy American" laws, Evan - that sort of thing. It's a red herring. He can't argue against localism so he picks out the things he can argue against, and then he claims that that is what localism is. He does it with just about everything else he argues against too.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That is a load of bullshit. There are - for example - numerous efforts affront to ban to all manner of GMOs because they offend locavore sensibilities. "It isn't natural." "Frankenfoods!" Etc.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Xenophon -
    For one thing, that's not that prominent a movement in the U.S. Second - I would have filed that under some sort of public health movement. It has nothing to do with localism, it's a question of food content.

    I suppose the preferences are coincident in some cases - but as we've established preferences do not a supporter of regulation make.

    Could you provide more details on these "efforts". I know they're out there I just think you're a little confused about how they're related to what we're talking about here. I have not been to a single farmers market, a single local winery - no local shops, or any other sort of localist venue where anything like this was promoted. I have seen it online - I'm not denying it's out there - but I have a very hard time believing that this is an integral part of the movement we're talking about. To quote a wise man, "that is a load of bullshit".

    ReplyDelete
  7. *not a prominent movement in the U.S., relative to Asia or Europe for example - where it is also clearly distinct from localism. Again - it's more of a public health movement.

    ReplyDelete
  8. dkuehn,

    "For one thing, that's not that prominent a movement in the U.S."

    Well, localism isn't as popular in the U.S. as it is in Western Europe (I don't see sticker campaigns in the U.S. by locavores trying to shame people into not buying in their notion of morality after all).

    "I suppose the preferences are coincident in some cases - but as we've established preferences do not a supporter of regulation make."

    Local food proponents have the regulations that they prefer (there are actual manifestos on this subject), and those close clash with the current system of regulations. The appropriate response is to get rid of the latter and not implement the former.

    "I have not been to a single farmers market, a single local winery - no local shops, or any other sort of localist venue where anything like this was promoted."

    Probably because it is an unsaid presumption.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Xenophon -
    I suppose I just find it odd, having partaken in this particular social movement for years now, that there are all these manifestos and calls for regulation I wasn't aware of.

    I have no doubt people call for these sort of things - my point is that you've abandoned any sense of proportion or representativeness. Some self-proclaimed libertarians are anarchists. Some self-proclaimed libertarians believe that voluntary altruism is a bad thing. Some self-proclaimed libertarians think that economic questions are unamenable to empiricism. Some self-proclaimed libertarians believe in central banking. You don't see me conflating any of these things into something that is characteristic of libertarianism.

    I'm telling you that the push for laws like this is not characteristic of localism.

    ReplyDelete
  10. dkuehn,

    Localism is an effort to remake society; just like the intelligent design movement is. Efforts like that don't come without all manner of proposed legislation.

    Some links:

    http://reason.com/archives/2002/09/25/i-dont-care-where-my-food-come

    http://www.american.com/archive/2009/july/the-omnivore2019s-delusion-against-the-agri-intellectuals

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anyway, as I have stated, whatever legislation gets in the way of localism should be ended or modified. I have no problem with that.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm just a little confused about how this discussion got on to any legislation in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Because that is the one reasonable objection to localism from a libertarian perspective. If one wants to go all Charlie Anderson regarding local food, that is fine by me.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Since we're talking about food ... my favorite food blog: http://crispyontheoutside.com/

    ReplyDelete
  15. Because that is the one reasonable objection to localism from a libertarian perspective.

    Exactly. Libertarians have no more objection to buying food locally than we do to buying cars or clothing locally. We're libertarian on policy issue, Daniel. We object to protectionist policies that promote locavore industries the same way we object to tariffs to promote domestic manufacturing. That's the ONLY objection.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mattheus and Xenophon -
    That may be your only objection, and that's fine. That's not the only objection of Boudreaux, Kling, and Landsburg offered here, and Boudreaux has offered even more ridiculous objections in other posts which I'll get to in part 2.

    You simply cannot remake libertarianism in your image, guys. I'm glad that's your only objection (I'm sorry, I mean your "ONLY" objection). I would object to that too, so as far as I'm concerned, it's not even a rejection of localism at all! But that's not the only objection offered by libertarians. You've simply got to accept that and accept this as an "if the shoe fits, wear it" post. If this post doesn't fit you, then don't worry about it! I'm glad we agree!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Actually, none of the articles you point (I finally got around to reading them) to are in anyway offensive to libertarians for the simple reason that none of them argue anything other than this point: locavores make some claims that don't hold up to reason. That's perfectly acceptable from a libertarian POV. Think of this way: I'd argue that belief in God doesn't really make much sense (and it doesn't), and here are X, Y and Z reasons why I think so. I'm not telling you by force of law that you can't believe in God, I'm telling you why it doesn't make much sense. Same thing with belief in ghosts, alien abduction and the litany of things that people believe in that don't make much sense.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Xenophon -
    I never challenged the reasonableness of Landsburg's claim about energy efficiency (aside from a standard externality caveat). In fact, I said he's right on that.

    What this whole post was about was that Landsburg, Boudreaux, Kling, and other libertarians who take their lead make a false inference when they consider this a reason to object to localism.

    I also don't think I said that the arguments presented in the links are offensive to libertarians (or is this a response to Mattheus?). I would have assumed they are unoffensive to "libertarianism", held by many libertarians, and not held by other libertarians. The nature and cohesiveness of the libertarian movement doesn't really concern me here. What concerns me is pointing out false critiques of the localist movement - in this case, critiques coming from libertarians. What the rest of the libertarian movement thinks of that isn't really a major concern of mine.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "What concerns me is pointing out false critiques of the localist movement..."

    But the critiques aren't false. They are spot on.

    ReplyDelete
  20. But the critiques aren't false. They are spot on.

    The reasoning is right on. The use of that reasoning as a critique of the localism movement is what is false.

    You have to pretend that localism is based on energy efficiency arguments to make this a cogent critique.

    ReplyDelete
  21. It would be like if I critiqued libertarians by saying "You should be charitable to poor people and libertarians aren't charitable to poor people".

    My reasoning - that "you should be charitable to poor people" may be completely fine (just like Landsburg point about market prices and energy efficiency - barring some externality caveats I'd make - is fine).

    The problem comes in when I try to use that as a critique of libertarians. Some libertarians (say, some Randians) might be legitimately criticized on this basis. But it is a false criticism if it is intended as a disproof or refutation of libertarianism.

    That's what they're doing here. That's why it's wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "You have to pretend that localism is based on energy efficiency arguments to make this a cogent critique."

    Well, it is in major part, that's why bringing up the point is entirely appropriate.

    Oh, and Randians aren't libertarians. They're, well, Randians.

    ReplyDelete
  23. You simply cannot remake libertarianism in your image, guys.

    We're not. Insofar as anyone else holds other objections to locavores, they aren't speaking as a libertarian qua libertarian, but due to their own preferences.

    Your modern liberal philosophy may have different tangents and sub-philosophies, which can then create a whole array of differences and disagreements. That doesn't exist for libertarianism. Whenever anyone describes themselves as libertarian, I immediately know what to think about their position. That being said, if Kling and the others held other objections to locavores (economic objections? comparative advantage objections?), those aren't libertarian objections.

    You have a very skewed understanding of libertarianism, Daniel - I've noticed it again and again. I wish you would actually take some serious time out of your day and talk to us honestly, without the back and forth banter of an argument.

    ReplyDelete
  24. But Mattheus, you wrote:

    "Libertarians have no more objection to buying food locally than we do to buying cars or clothing locally."

    You weren't talking about "libertarianism" - you were talking about "libertarians" and you are clearly wrong.

    Exhibit A: Landsburg
    Exhibit B: Boudreaux
    Exhibit C: Kling

    You are right though - "libertarianism" is just an idea and I should have said "you can't just assume that all libertarians adhere to the abstract idea of libertarianism". But you had initially defended libertarIANS rather than libertarIANISM and I'm not going to just let you do that. Bad reasoning by libertarIANS can't be allowed to let itself hide behind libertarIANISM - which is why I titled this post "Locavores and Libertarians" not "Locavores and Libertarianism".

    I do, however, think you are wrong about "libertarianism" to a certain extent too. There is no conflict between believing localism is wrong and libertarianism, nor is there a conflict between believing localism is right and libertarianism. Libertarianism is silent on the matter, yes. But you can't claim that "libertarianism is fine with it". It's not - it doesn't speak to it and many libertarIANS are not fine with it and they're still libertarians.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "That doesn't exist for libertarianism. Whenever anyone describes themselves as libertarian, I immediately know what to think about their position."

    This is something of an overstatement. I can't keep your story straight - one day you're all a unified front, the next day there's a great ideological diversity (minarchists, autarchism, left-libertarianism, etc.).

    "You have a very skewed understanding of libertarianism, Daniel - I've noticed it again and again."

    Oh give me a break - it's very frustrating how often this is your counter-argument lately. Not an actual argument, but "you don't understand". I could say the same for you, but you know what - I think it's safest to assume it's a difference in conclusion and not understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Mattheus is right. You really don't appear to know much at all about libertarianism. If there is was a "Short Introduction to Libertarianism" I'd urge you to read it; just as I urge theists to read such works regarding atheism.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Back it up Xenophon.

    What have I demonstrated a misunderstanding with respect to libertarianism on?

    I come to different conclusions about libertarianism and that pisses you off. Don't hide behind an accusation of ignorance - certainly not one that you and Mattheus both fail to back up.

    When you act dismissive and haughty like that you only make yourself appear ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Particularly after episodes like the ridiculous tangent you went on the other day, bringing up liberaltarians when I was talking about classical liberalism as if that had any relevance - and then when I challenged the relevance of the point, again accusing me of ignorance of the discussion around liberaltarians. It gets old, Xenophon.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Actually, your attitudes regarding libertarians befuddles me more than anything.

    "What have I demonstrated a misunderstanding with respect to libertarianism on?"

    In future, as you bring them up I'll point them out to you. I'm not going to go back and put a lot of effort into linking like that. Call me lazy.

    "Particularly after episodes like the ridiculous tangent you went on the other day, bringing up liberaltarians when I was talking about classical liberalism as if that had any relevance..."

    Actually, if I remember correctly, you were making the same argument that somehow liberals and conservatives are classical liberals, when they are clearly so divorced from classical liberalism that can't be the case. This was all mixed up with a quote about how "statism" isn't the right frame by which to look at liberals (I think it is a perfectly appropriate frame myself).

    The relevance of the point was the ongoing discussion about a liberal-libertarian mashup, which I reject as an idea that will only lead libertarians down a dead end.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Actually, your attitudes regarding libertarians befuddles me more than anything.

    What exactly is my "attitude regarding libertarians"? You've sensationalized it in the past - so I'm wondering if your befuddlement can be addressed simply by correcting your understanding of my "attitude".

    As for the discussion the other day - you do accurately remember my claim. My concern still stands regarding how you tied the idea of liberaltarianism to my claim.

    ReplyDelete
  31. As you say things of a concrete nature that befuddle me I'll be sure to point them out.

    Because your claim makes liberaltarianism sound like reasonable position to take. If liberals really are just some strain of classical liberals, then it seems like a possibility. But they aren't, and that makes liberaltarianism stillborn. Same with conservatarianism.

    ReplyDelete
  32. That's an awfully vague claim.

    Do I think that the spectrum of political ideologies is continuous rather than discrete?

    Yes.

    In that sense I suppose someone could be somewhere in between a liberal and a libertarian. They could presumably appropriate the label "liberaltarian".

    As someone who has passed on a political quiz that provides a continuous transition between ideologies rather than a discrete transition, I would have thought this would be easily accepted by you.

    What that has to do with whether liberals or conservatives are part of the broader family of "classical liberalism" is beyond me.

    ReplyDelete
  33. It is a rather specific claim I'd say.

    Anyway, you see my point.

    ReplyDelete
  34. There are of course transitions, but beyond a certain point there is more than that - there is a break. So yeah, modern liberals at one point fell under the rubric of "classical liberal," but they no longer do and indeed haven't for some decades now. To be a libertarian it is necessary, but not sufficient, for one to be a classical liberal, and since modern liberals are not classical liberals ... well you get the point.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "... well you get the point."

    Yes, I do. Understanding the claim itself was never the stumbling block in this discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Well, we're just going to have to amicably agree to disagree, because whether either I can't accurately articulate my point or you don't find it convincing. Either way, it leads to the same point.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Amicably?!?!?!

    What a wuss!

    Nah - jk. Amicable works for me.

    ReplyDelete
  38. You're right - my defense is for libertarianism, not libertarians per se. But that's why I specified my position by saying that these libertarians are not speaking as "libertarians qua libertarians." They're libertarians sure, but libertarianism has nothing to do with the choice to but locally or not. So if they express positions regarding locavores, that's not a libertarians claim. It's an apolitical claim.

    Also, libertarians generally do buy into the same set of values. I would categorize libertarians as minarchists, unless they explicitly say otherwise. Accordingly, I describe myself as libertarian-anarchist to minimize the small amount of confusion that does exist. You can't really claim that the moniker "liberal" is as straight forward.

    ReplyDelete
  39. That's me in a nutshell ... wuss. :)

    ReplyDelete

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