Matt Yglesias has a had a few posts up recently on how stupid regulating barber shops is. I haven't mentioned it because it's not really that interesting. Of course regulating barber shops is stupid. Doesn't everyone know that? What possible function could there be to barber shop regulation? It seemed like one of those issues where 98% of the public would agree on, but nobody would be bothered enough by it to make the effort to change the laws.
Matt has a more interesting post up today, though, that I do think is worth commenting on here. He responds to people who think his opposition to barber shop regulation makes him conservative:
"A colleague mentioned to me the other day that I’m “pretty conservative” on some state and local government issues, with reference to some recent posts on occupational licensing. Someone on twitter asked if I’m trying to score a date with a Cato staffer. I’m not. And I’m not. And I think that whole framing represents a bad way of understanding the whole situation.
I think it’s pretty clear that, as a historical matter of fact, the main thing “the state” has been used to do is to help the wealthy and powerful further enrich and entrench themselves. Think Pharaoh and his pyramids. Or more generally the fancy houses of European nobility, the plantations of Old South slaveowners, or Imelda Marcos’ shoes. The “left-wing” position is to be against this stuff—to be on the side of the people and against the forces of privilege. It’s true that some useful egalitarian activism over the past 150 years has consisted of trying to get the state to take affirmative steps to help people—social insurance, the welfare state, infrastructure, schools—but dismantling efforts to use the state to help the privileged has always been on the agenda. Don’t think to yourself “we need to regulate carbon emissions therefore regulation is good therefore regulation of barbers is good.” Think to yourself “we can’t let the privileged trample all over everyone, therefore we need to regulate carbon emissions and we need to break the dentists’ cartel.”"
These kind of assumptions are why I started posting my "what was Arnold Kling thinking?" series (so far there are only two posts but I'm sure he'll give us enough material to keep going through the fall). Kling makes a habit of making really weird, dumb statements about what liberals are and think that often boil down to "liberals hate markets and trust the state", and often seem to originate in the assumption that "since I like this liberals must not like this".
Yglesias demonstrates why this absolutely isn't the case, and he actually does it in a way I wouldn't have - which is kind of nice. What I think you have to remember is that modern liberalism is grounded in the same classical liberalism that modern conservatism and modern libertarianism are. There is no presumption that markets are bad, there is a presumption that markets are good. Whether markets are always the best solution to a given problem is up in the air, but there is no natural suspicion of markets. This is what separates liberals from "the left", which did emerge from a suspicion of markets (although even many leftists, since the fall of communism, are moving away from that).
As I've said before, I'm personally not really a liberal, although obviously I have some sympathies. That's why it was kind of nice to see Yglesias's distinctly liberal (i.e., egalitarian) take on why regulation is often bad. I would have put it somewhat differently and framed it in a less egalitarian way. I would have said we know what kinds of problems markets solve well. They solve problems where agents can bargain over all costs and benefits affected by the bargain, where both agents are relatively well informed and can't take advantage of each other, and where "ability to pay" isn't a major concern (i.e. - markets aren't always the best way to feed poor people, although they are the best way to produce food for poor people and they are the best way to distribute food to the vast majority of people). Markets are the ideal social institution for situations like this. Insofar as the situation departs from these requirements, something else might be more appropriate.
Readers please take note. If you think liberals disapprove of markets, like regulation, or if you at all were suprised to read Yglesias rail against barber shop regulations then you really need to reconnect with reality. You've invented a conception of a huge swath of the public.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
It seems Yglesias's colleague and twitter commenter are the people who Arnold Kling has been hanging out with.
ReplyDeleteWhat I think you have to remember is that modern liberalism is grounded in the same classical liberalism that modern conservatism and modern libertarianism are.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, this is just incorrect.
You're trying to make modern liberalism/conservatism/libertarianism brothers from the same mother in the same way you tried to make Keynesianism/Austrianism/Monetarism: "Look, we all come from the marginalist revolution!"
While it is true that modern libertarianism has distinct roots in classical liberalism (given the fact that Austrians quote the HELL out of Bastiat and Say, etc.), it is much more difficult to make that case for modern liberalism/conservatism.
In a very profound sense, classical liberalism (and libertarianism) seek to solve problems without government. Modern liberalism (and conservatism) readily endorse entire swathes of government policy to fix any social ill. There is a difference in approach.
No Mattheus, it's not incorrect and it's very hard to take you seriously when the only defense you can provide is that an eccentric overstatement of the fact that liberals and conservatives are willing to use the state for certain ends.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how familiar you are with the classical liberal tradition if you think that using government for certain ends is antithetical to it.
As for Austrianism - they do have common roots in marginalism, but Menger's marginalism was certainly distinct from the French and British marginalism, and Keynesian/Monetarist theories built on a broader British classical tradition than simply British marginalism.
What exactly do you expect me to say? They all emerged from the marginalist tradition, they do represent somewhat different strands of it and they went different ways with it.
Can you seriously challenge that assessment?
It's also quite a stretch to say that Austrians quote the hell out of Bastiat and Say. They reference them with some frequency but in my experience they rarely quote them.
ReplyDeleteI only recall you quoting Bastiat once in a blog post of yours and you are considerably more... well read... than most Austrians. So if you rarely quote them I think it's pretty safe to say that most Austrians do not quote the hell out of them, and I'd wager that most people who call themselves Austrians haven't even read them.
I wonder how familiar you are with the classical liberal tradition if you think that using government for certain ends is antithetical to it.
ReplyDeleteI don't argue that a state is antithetical to classical liberalism. The classical liberals see the state as a tool for very specific ends. The difference is one of degree. Mises himself states that he is not "an enemy of the state" in the same sense that he is not "an enemy of sulfuric acid." He sees that both sulfuric acid and the state have specific uses proper to their nature (with the clever implication that a state, like acid, is dangerous when overused). I'm well-versed in that ideology.
It just seems to me that it's too easy to say "Look, the classical liberals endorsed government! We must be pretty close." The fact is, their "proper functions" of government were so strictly curtailed as to leave virtually no resemblance to the myriad of uses modern liberals/conservatives have for it today.
If we can consider the Founders as classical liberals, I would say they more closely mirror modern libertarianism by HUGE BOUNDS than modern liberalism/conservatism. The true classical liberal philosophy is one of virtual anarchy.
Can you seriously challenge that assessment?
No I can't. But that's a far cry from your previous post where you implied that we're close cousins or some nonsense.
So if you rarely quote them I think it's pretty safe to say that most Austrians do not quote the hell out of them, and I'd wager that most people who call themselves Austrians haven't even read them.
Maybe it's more accurate to say Austrians, by and large, are much more familiar with Bastiat and Say than other schools. It's true that I don't quote Bastiat's "Seen and Unseen" directly, but (by sheer coincidence) I did refer to him indirectly in my comment on your post on American slavery. The specific contributions of Say and Bastiat (as well as others) are already, by and large, included in the vast library of Austrian economic theories, whereas Keynesians do generally do not see the Unseen and who reject Say's Law, for instance. I'm not trying to pick on Keynesians, it's just.. well, there are only a handful of competing schools. The others ignore the classics just as badly.)
American liberalism/progressivism is replete with examples of American liberals/progressives trying to tell people how to run their lives that falls well outside the realm of so-called "social insurance." When that sort of thing stops happening with the rampant regularity we see it today, I'll take liberals seriously on this subject. Quite frankly, you need to reconnect with reality.
ReplyDelete"No I can't. But that's a far cry from your previous post where you implied that we're close cousins or some nonsense."
ReplyDeleteI'm really at a loss to respond to such a vague pronouncement. I've never said anything like that.
I've always held the view I've just stated about the relationship between the Austrian School and other schools. I've said in the past that they are often concerned with much the same issues as Keynesians, they just frame the issue somewhat differntly (is that what you mean?). I've also said that all three schools draw heavily on monetary disequilibrium logic (although I didn't think the Austrian school did as much until reading Garrison). Is that what you mean?
Be less vague.
"Keynesians do [sic] generally do not see the Unseen"
As I've said countless times before - the rest of the world calls this a "counterfactual", Keynesians definitely think in these terms, and whenever Austrians say they don't they come across as quite ignorant of what they're talking about.
Mattheus,
ReplyDeleteI'd say that if you support something like "hate speech" laws, the prohibition of goods or services which consenting adults can clearly make decisions about regarding their use, etc. then you are not a classical liberal. Anything that resembles "social engineering" casts one outside that realm fairly quickly.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteI've said in the past that they are often concerned with much the same issues as Keynesians, they just frame the issue somewhat differntly (is that what you mean?)
That's possibly true, but there are numerous other differences that this explanation doesn't account for. Methodology, for instance.
the rest of the world calls this a "counterfactual"
I'm not talking about counterfactuals. I'm simply referring to the great Keynesian problem of short-sightedness. Much of your policy prescriptions are bricks in the window; unaware of the suits that were not bought.
Xenophon,
That's not absolutely true. I say absolutely in the strongest sense because any government always prohibits some good or service, even if its competition for protection. Would a minarchist government that doesn't allow people to compete with public security be something other than classical liberal?
I don't think the difference between classic/modern liberal comes down to the size of the state per se. It's a social philosophy that causes the differences in the size of the state. As I've said previously, the classical liberal tradition is one of exhausting all possible peaceful (market) options before resorting to government (this naturally makes for a small government) whereas the modern liberal position is largely "shoot first, ask questions later" regarding government policy (which is why we tend to have ostensibly larger governments in liberal countries than we did a hundred years ago).
"Would a minarchist government that doesn't allow people to compete with public security be something other than classical liberal?"
ReplyDeleteWell, that's not even true in the U.S. currently though. Indeed, I dare say without the thousands of private security personnel, security systems, etc. we'd be in a world of hurt. We also have private courts in the U.S. I think this is generally the problem with the minarchist argument - even the core functions of that argument cannot be fully performed by the state. In other words, it isn't that much of a leap from having a whole lot of private security to having exclusive private security, etc.
"That's possibly true, but there are numerous other differences that this explanation doesn't account for. Methodology, for instance."
ReplyDeleteWell of course. When I have I ever disagreed on this point, Mattheus? You claimed I said they were close cousins. When did I? I listed the sense in which I think I've said there is "closeness" in the past, and none of it amounts to being "close cousins", as you've claimed I've said. I've never suggested that they are the same methodologically (although certainly some Austrians cling less tightly to the a priorism than you do).
"I'm not talking about counterfactuals. I'm simply referring to the great Keynesian problem of short-sightedness. Much of your policy prescriptions are bricks in the window; unaware of the suits that were not bought"
Well this is simply a point of disagreement. I could say the same of your policy prescriptions. It's not grounds for me to assert you don't know Bastiat. You can claim I'm wrong, but don't claim I'm ignorant of these concerns unless you have better proof of it.
Xenophon,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. But the distinction I was making is that even a government based on classical liberal foundations does restrict the sale of certain goods or services to some extent.
Mattheus,
ReplyDeleteI wonder if that is the case, or if a truly minarchist state would only work as a mere auxillary to private social relations. That's the problem I've always had with minarchism as it is generally described.
If it were the case that a minarchist government did not restrict the output of private security, then competitive processes would displace inefficient government law enforcement with private companies. At some point, the government would tax the population for a product no one needed.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to imagine a government running for any period of time in this state. Taxing without providing any product? The people would rebel as they would against any swindler.
Mattheus,
ReplyDeleteI see your point. My half-way house doesn't really work then.
If only Daniel could be so open about conceding points to me. :P
ReplyDeleteMattheus - I concede points when they're worth conceding. Probably about as often as you've conceded points to me (I just apparently don't worry about it as much)
ReplyDeleteMattheus,
ReplyDeleteI'm more than willing to concede to any truly compelling argument.
I was kidding Daniel. The fact is, we've never really sat down and hashed out our differences (I still want to get you on Skype one of these days). We correspond in short paragraphs on specific posts. Nothing worth conceding.
ReplyDelete