Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Daniel Klein, Progressivism, and Rights

Arnold Kling links to an essay at Cato Unbound by Daniel Klein on the political philosophy of progressivism that I find a little troubling. Klein's case is that progressives found their perspective on the "overlordship" of the state, that all rights and freedoms are derived from the state, and that the state has ultimate ownership of all things.

I struggle with how to react to something like this. On the one hand, I feel like it's such nonsense that it really ought not to be responded to. I'm even more frustrated because I'm starting to notice a pattern with Klein: evidently, he really believes that non-libertarians are not friends to liberty, that they ignore or are ignorant of economics, and essentially that the position is bankrupt. Instead of actually discussing some non-libertarian position with him, one ends up trying to walk him back off the brink of his own claims. It's not a productive dialogue, and it's not a very pleasant dialogue to partake in when you know he thinks you're ignorant of economics and indifferent to liberty.

I struggle with how to react - but clearly I'm "reacting" with this blog post so I better get to it. I don't find Klein's point especially convincing. He cites several late nineteenth century and early twentieth century collectivists claiming that the state owns everything. Fine - that certainly isn't hard to find. What's not clear is how that is the basis of modern progressivism. As far as modern progressives go he only really cites Cass Sunstein (and some co-authors of Sunstein). Even that is hard for me to evaluate because he doesn't cite him extensively at all. The only citation is that "Private property [is] a creation of state action". I wouldn't imagine this is that controversial even if you wouldn't agree with it. I think private property can be an emergent social institution as well, but I wouldn't quibble too much with Sunstein on this - the state, after all, is the source of the legal framework for property rights. To say that property rights are somehow contingent on the state is not the same as saying the state owns everything, of course. But this is one of the many points that Klein simply finesses. So it's very hard to get a handle of the argument. There is no real connection offered between early collectivists and modern progressives, and the sparsely quoted quoted Sunstein is hardly representative of modern progressives - Sunstein is an interesting guy, but a very odd, unique guy.

I've sketched out my basic political philosophy (which I see as essentially classical liberal and able to accommodate multiple classical liberal ideologies - so not uniquely "progressive", but it certainly includes progressivism) here before, but this seems like a good opportunity to again because Klein - in the end - is trying to erect a progressive political philosophy in terms of its understanding of property rights.

My view is similar to Sunstein's (as quoted by Klein - I'm not deeply familiar with Sunstein) insofar as I think property rights (by which I mean our claim to anything for use or disposal) are largely artificial or constructed. I do not find "natural rights" to be a coherent position. Klein's error is in assuming that this artificiality implies (1.) meaninglessness, or (2.) contingency on the state. It doesn't imply either. But it does imply that property rights may be incomplete, unfair, etc. The fundamental problem and justification of the state is not that our property rights are contingent on the state (that would be circular), but that justice is contingent on property rights. I cannot establish the injustice of theft unless I can identify what is stolen as my property. Otherwise it's simply free appropriation. So justice becomes contingent on an artificial framework of property rights, that are incomplete and hereditary. We inherit our property rights regime and the property that has been amassed under that regime from prior generations. What we have is wide scope for injustice. If I take a pump and run poisonous smog into your house, I could be prosecuted for poisoning you. If a firm pumps the same poisonous smog into the air they could not be prosecuted (at least they couldn't at one point... and they're limited in prosecution now). Why? It's the same act. The difference is the arrangement of property rights.

This is what bothers me so much when libertarians act as if they genuinely believe their's is uniquely a philosophy of liberty, or that those who raise questions about the property rights regime are somehow unfriendly to liberty. When you ignore one act of poisoning because property rights are incomplete but pay attention to another because property rights are complete, you're not espousing a philosophy of liberty or non-coercion at all. You're espousing a philosophy that legitimizes coercion by virtue of the incompleteness of property rights. There is nothing classically liberal about that.

But what is the alternative? That's not easy either. What we're stuck with - which John Dewey noted back in 1935 - is a situation with coercion in either direction. But people weren't waiting around for Dewey to say this. It was implicit in the property rights regime. People understood its fundamental artificiality when fields were being enclosed in England, and when titles were being passed down. Do you think it's coincidence that the nation-state emerged with the rise of property rights and market activity as the fundamental principle of social organization? Of course it's not coincidence. We are faced with coercion on all sides. I am coerced when someone pollutes the air I breath, and that happens because property rights to the air are incomplete. I face a fundamental disadvantage in remedying the situation because the law acts on the behalf of property-owners and the very fact of property-ownership gives property-owners a resource advantage in challenging my claim. The solution has been the emergence of the institutions of a democratic state to weigh these claims and represent people independent of property although that, as libertarians are quick to note, is coervice too - we are coerced on all sides. The classical liberal idea of the state (I am not using the word as Klein does - as a synonym for libertarianism) is therefore not one of overlordship of the state, but a repudiation of the assumption that a fundamentally artificial property rights regime is natural - and an attempt at a weighing of various coercions in a way that is consistent with human liberty, human equality, and human dignity. This is not in opposition to property rights - quite the contrary! Democratic, liberal states emerged precisely to purge coercion from an artificial property rights regime, when necessary. What I think is appropriate for classical liberals of all stripes to acknowledge is that this does mean that the authority of the state is artificial and coercive in the context of the existing property rights regime. But what libertarians like Daniel Klein need to recognize is that it is an artificial institution that has emerged naturally in response to the artificiality and coercion of an emergent property rights regime. In that sense it is not inherently more coercive than a minimalist libertarian state (which itself has the potential to be extremely coercive for the reasons I outlined in the previous paragraph).

I need to bring Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine into this before I close. Jefferson and Paine wrote a lot about the role of time in political philosophy, particularly as it related to this question of property rights and coercion. They noted that property rights are inherited and over the course of English history they were legitimated by their inheritance. Centuries ago theft, conquering, and corruption established privilege and over the centuries privilege evolved into property. That which was artificial and coercive became legitimate. That isn't all - inherited privilege granted resource advantages to descendants. We see the same thing in America today with the legacy of slavery. Inequality is durable. Slavery may have ended one hundred fifty years ago and segregation may have ended fifty years ago, but if your father didn't get a good education because your grandfather was forcibly prevented from getting a good education or from earning the money to send your father to get an education that is a tangible disadvantage for you. Jefferson and Paine recognized the power of time in translating these disadvantages. The black community today is still being coerced by the institution of slavery and by the institution of segregation because of the heritability of property rights.

Libertarians puzzle and fret over the nation-state as if its some accident that the state and the market emerged together. Similarly, some libertarians puzzle over why good freedom-loving guys like Jefferson and Paine were so keen on inheritance taxes. It's not an accident that inheritance taxes, popular democracy, and liberty were all embraced by the same people in the founding era! It's not an accident that enemies of inheritance taxes and popular democracy were also the enemies of liberty. It's because what is known as "libertarianism" today is fundamentally imbalanced and coercive (when it's left on its own), so people who were opposed to coercion in the founding era added popular democracy, inheritance taxes, and the like to their calls for liberty. Those who embraced coercion opposed all three. Real classical liberalism always embraced self-governance, equality, and liberty. Libertarians quote the support for liberty and try to recreate a classical liberalism that excludes the other priorities.

Finally - I want to share a link that Xenophon shared with me the other day on a libertarian critique of Rothbard's views on the rights of children. It hinges on the idea that children didn't choose the families they're born into, and therefore it's legitimate to expect certain care for children from parents. Otherwise, parents are coercing children into acquiescing to a situation they didn't freely choose. I think the ties between this argument and the Jefferson-Paine point about the role of time and inheritance should be clear, and I largely agree with it. Not surprisingly, Jefferson was also a big fan of universal, public education for children. This makes sense when you see classical liberalism as a claim about artificial, potentially coercive inherited social constructs. It makes less sense to support public education in the way that Jefferson did if you see classical liberalism as synonymous with libertarianism.

20 comments:

  1. Daniel,-

    Klein brings up a lot of quotes that show at least that the original left liberals and progressives based their case on exactly that- the overlordship principle.

    After lots of discussions with social democrats (excluding you) I am inclined to agree with Klein that that is the implicit assumption of the majority of the social democrats.

    On your concrete points:

    =The fundamental problem and justification of the state is not that our property rights are contingent on the state (that would be circular), but that justice is contingent on property rights.=

    But how does it follow from here that the state may change property rights at will?

    =The classical liberal idea of the state (I am not using the word as Klein does - as a synonym for libertarianism) is therefore not one of overlordship of the state, but a repudiation of the assumption that a fundamentally artificial property rights regime is natural - and an attempt at a weighing of various coercions in a way that is consistent with human liberty, human equality, and human dignity.=

    Then the question becomes what do you mean by liberty?


    =Libertarians puzzle and fret over the nation-state as if its some accident that the state and the market emerged together=

    This is simply wrong, Daniel. The fundamental institutions of the modern market emerged in the 12th century.

    = It's not an accident that inheritance taxes, popular democracy, and liberty were all embraced by the same people in the founding era!=

    That Jefferson was not a libertarian does not mean that he was right.

    Again everything hinges on what you mean by liberty which you claim that you also defend.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Daniil -
    "Klein brings up a lot of quotes that show at least that the original left liberals and progressives based their case on exactly that- the overlordship principle."

    But you're glossing over what he really does. None of the people he cites seem to be major figures at all except for perhaps Hobhouse (and even he was just a sociology professor more tangentially involved with politics). Hobhouse was, of course, the one that actually used the word "overlord", but it was relatively unclear what he meant by it. Klein elaborated it for us - we have no clear picture of what Hobhouse really meant. His bio seems to suggest he was certainly a fan of collectivism, but I see no obvious reason to believe from his bio that he meant "overlord" as Klein is using it.

    But the question is - what relevance do these convenient citations have? Are these the people you would have looked to if you were curious about the early roots of progressivism? No - of course not. One of these guys isn't even a progressive - he's a Marxist. It would be like me finding four obscure libertarians, three of whom were British, and one who actually wasn't a libertarian at all but a fascist and then saying it presents a picture of "early libertarianism". It doesn't make sense. Klein favorably cites Hume and Smith later on, but Hume and Smith both had far, far, far more influence on progressivism than any of the people Klein chooses to cite.

    "After lots of discussions with social democrats (excluding you) I am inclined to agree with Klein that that is the implicit assumption of the majority of the social democrats."

    Well I wouldn't be a good indicator of social democrat thought. It's debatable whether I'd be a good indicator of progressive thought, but certainly not social democratic thought. I'm still not sure I've ever heard any social democrats cite an idea like this overlord idea.

    "But how does it follow from here that the state may change property rights at will?"

    I don't think it does, does it? I've never advocated that the states can change property rights at will.

    "Then the question becomes what do you mean by liberty?"

    I imagine much the same as you would... freedom from coercion that prevents the exercise of rights... however you would define it I'm sure I'd be fine with. I haven't come across too many problems with libertarian definitions of "liberty" - usually I have more of a problem with selective application of the concept.

    "This is simply wrong, Daniel. The fundamental institutions of the modern market emerged in the 12th century."

    You're wrong here, Daniil. The state has emerged and evolved over several centuries - certainly some states had some modern elements in play (although the 12th century seems quite early), but it hadn't really fully evolved across the Western world until WWI probably. Most of its development occured in the 18th and 19th centuries, although certainly Britain and a few others had a modern nation-state earlier. I'm wondering what you're thinking of when you say "nation-state". It's a fluid concept and its an emergent institution, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone even try to date it before the Thirty Years War, much less the 12th century (glimmers of it in Italy in the 14th century at the earliest).

    "That Jefferson was not a libertarian does not mean that he was right."

    Certainly not.

    "Again everything hinges on what you mean by liberty which you claim that you also defend."

    This, I would note, is true of your position as well.

    ReplyDelete
  3. *I'm sorry - I completely read that 12th century point wrong. You said the modern market emerged in the 12th century, not the modern nation-state.

    This is true, but market activity and especially captialist (ie - industrial) market activity didn't emerge till later. I probably could have clarified that widespread capitalist market activity and the nation-state evolved around the same time, and that is no coincidence.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with Daniil that implicit overlordship exists, but I think most people, not just progressives or social democrats believe it because in practice overlordship is true. The state does have ultimate authority over you. If the government wants you or your property you are at their mercy. That said, one thing libertarians tend to overlook is that private individuals and corporations can do this as well. That's one of the reasons we have a government, after all. The problem is when the private influences the public and instead of this private coercion being eliminated it is instead transformed into public coercion.

    I agree that inheritance taxes are a good idea, but the sad reality is that they will never be effectively instituted. A true inheritance tax -- no trusts, no evasion of any kind -- is both a logistical and political impossibility. I realize that is a strong statement to make, but even if a tax had zero loopholes or exemptions, the people who would be hit strongest by the tax would simply either flee the country or overthrow the government.

    ReplyDelete
  5. nickn -
    And while I think a good solid estate tax is a good thing, I don't mention that to go on an inheritance tax crusade. I mention it primarily to highlight it as a crucial facet of Jeffersonianism - "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living" is quite fundamental to Jefferson's thought, I believe.

    We now live at a point where I think the basic egalitarianism Jefferson had in mind can be provided without worrying too much about reclaiming inherited wealth. But at Jefferson's time that was essential not just as the symbolic embodiment of the problem - it was also necessary for the revenue to support the egalitarianism.

    I'm very surprised you all think progressives think the government owns everything. I'm even more surprised that you just make that claim non-chalantly. It's a fundamentally fascist position that you're attributing awfully freely without much justification. Why do you think this position is so common? I get that that is both your impression, but how did that impression form?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Actually, two black economists, Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell, have shown quite convincingly that black Americans used to enjoy a high social advancement from the 1920s to the 1960s, in good times or in bad times, and had no troubles getting to the best places from even poverty. Their own personal experience accounts for it - they were from extremely poor working class families, with one a taxi driver and the other a recruit, and they made it to Ivy League Schools and saw their entire neighbourhoods rise to prosperity.

    It's just that a "kink" appeared in the 1970s that sent the entire community crashing down and down into the 1980s, the 1990s, and beyond. They don't claim to fully know the reason, but various disparate things happened with independent effects. It is especially so that even after the CRA1964, the violence following MLK's assassination meant a greater division between black and white Americans and further flight of businesses from once booming industrial towns.

    A statement most commonly made by both is "If slavery is responsible for our community's woes, why did our parents and grandparents live better and more peaceful lives in times closer to the end slavery?"

    ReplyDelete
  7. Daniel,-

    On your first two papagraphs, I think we can long argue about the origins of "moderate" left ideologies.

    I would say, however, that the social democratic or progressive ideology (is there any substantial difference between them?) indeed implies overlordship as per Klein.

    Otherwise, it is unclear for me what is legal ethics justification for regulation and taxation would be.

    =Well I wouldn't be a good indicator of social democrat thought. It's debatable whether I'd be a good indicator of progressive thought, but certainly not social democratic thought. I'm still not sure I've ever heard any social democrats cite an idea like this overlord idea.=

    Buit you are not a classical liberal, either. And it seems rto me that you haven't yet carefully reflected on your political views. You just seem to have abandoned libertarian views because they supposedly conflict with the existance of externalities without replacing them with a coherent framework.

    =I don't think it does, does it? I've never advocated that the states can change property rights at will.=

    Well, by "at will" I mean by democratic procedures. There is no difference for me.

    =I imagine much the same as you would... freedom from coercion that prevents the exercise of rights... however you would define it I'm sure I'd be fine with. I haven't come across too many problems with libertarian definitions of "liberty" - usually I have more of a problem with selective application of the concept.=

    I wouldn't define one abstract notion liberty by use of another (rights). It does not clarify matters. For me rights are just elements of the whole and unseparable individual liberty.

    Liberty for me is an ability of individual to conduct external behavior without physical obstacles from others.

    Only in this liberty, can people be roughly equal.

    Property is a social institution that allows individuals to make external objects their own. Without property individual liberty is not preservable.

    =This is true, but market activity and especially captialist (ie - industrial) market activity didn't emerge till later. I probably could have clarified that widespread capitalist market activity and the nation-state evolved around the same time, and that is no coincidence.=

    It is not a coincidence, but it does not mean that widespread capitalist activity would have been impossible without powerful nation states that have been actually hampering it from their inception through merkantilist policies.

    I think I have an explanation for parallel development of modern market activities and powerful nation states.

    The former had to do with the fact that Western Europeans have largely abandoned the small group mentality that if from the evolutionary standpoint still dominant in humans.

    But for the evolutionary reasons humans could not abandon small group mentality easily. They needed a surrogate. And the nation state filled the void.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Prateek -
    Other changes occured late-mid century as well, including skills-biased technological change and a surge in demand for human capital. In the early 20th century, when there was not as great a premium on human capital, one can imagine it wouldn't have mattered as much. In latter half of the twentieth century, the hollowing out of low skill jobs and the increasing skills premia began to matter a great deal for a community ostracized from higher education. Other "black scholars", such as William Julius Wilson, have pointed to these sorts of trends.

    There were idiosyncratic things too - the crack epidemic, criminal justice policy, etc.

    I'm no expert here, but I think Sowell and Williams are probably confusing cause and effect. A lot of problems that that narrative highlights emerges from one source: single-parent families. I think it's much more likely that skill-biased change in the composition of the economy and reduced prospects for work caused the dissolution of families than vice versa. The fact is there is one ticket to the black middle class, and that's a good education. That's largely what slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation did not leave a legacy of because of institutional restraints.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Buit you are not a classical liberal, either. And it seems rto me that you haven't yet carefully reflected on your political views. You just seem to have abandoned libertarian views because they supposedly conflict with the existance of externalities without replacing them with a coherent framework."

    Quite the contrary - I abandoned libertarianism because it was an incoherent framework and adopted a coherent, broader, more traditional classical liberalism that incorporates self-governance, equality, and liberty as political goods. Why is it that you say I'm not a classical liberal, out of curiosity?

    "Well, by "at will" I mean by democratic procedures. There is no difference for me."

    Democratic proceedures in a constitutional context? Of course in some imaginary popular democracy things might change "at will" but not in a constitutional polity.

    "Liberty for me is an ability of individual to conduct external behavior without physical obstacles from others."

    OK, I agree with this. The only reason why I added rights is because you want to qualify "conduct external behavior" - you don't want to say that they can steal from others without physical obstacles. I'm in agreement on this definition, though - sounds fine.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "You just seem to have abandoned libertarian views because they supposedly conflict with the existance of externalities without replacing them with a coherent framework."

    I want to clarify that externalities are just a useful framework to talk about it. All an externality means is that "the social good would be better served if the people had collective agency than if they didn't". It's just the basic, minimal expectation for state action - that the state acts for the interests of the people. All of my political philosophy that puts that into action is American classical liberalism (ie - classical liberalism with a large helping of federalism).

    I'm extremely curious why you think my position is incoherent. I think libertarians vastly overestimate the logical coherence of their own position and just assume that anyone else's is incoherent.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sorry to not get back until today, but I wanted to clarify my comment since my base assertion is different than Daniil's. I don't think it is just progressives that implicitly believe in overlordship, I think most people, at least in this country, believe this. My evidence for this is the huge decline in direct action undertaken by individuals. There are occasional large gatherings and protests, yes, but they are mostly impotent. And hell, when someone shows up who really ruffle's the government's feathers, private industry is all too willing to blackball him. Just look at the wikileaks founder.

    ReplyDelete
  12. nickn -
    Could you clarify how a decline in direct action indicates that people think the government owns everything? I'm not clear on the connection, but maybe I'm missing something.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Daniel,-


    =Quite the contrary - I abandoned libertarianism because it was an incoherent framework and adopted a coherent, broader, more traditional classical liberalism that incorporates self-governance, equality, and liberty as political goods. Why is it that you say I'm not a classical liberal, out of curiosity?=

    Liberty and equality are inseparable. The only thing that people may be equal in is liberty and right to own physical things.

    I think you are not a classical liberal and your position is incoherent because you do not believe in a maxim of sanctity of property rights. Not an axiom but a maxim. Without a strong presumption of defense of property rights liberty may not be preserved. In economic regulation for example (e.g. consumer protection) it is very often impossible to separate the violation of liberty from the violation of property rights.

    And your potential argument about slavery is irrelevant because the classical liberal conception of property never applied to human beings.

    As for enclosures and their artificiality, I suggest that you read McCloskey on this. Most of the enclosures dealt with separation of individual property from communal property and was usually fully in line with the rule of law.

    There were probably some abuses, but I am sure there were lots of abuses on the part of those who prevented people from separating from communes.

    Since I am not a believer in communal property I believe that if it is possible to separate an individual land plot no one’s rights are violated.

    =Democratic proceedures in a constitutional context? Of course in some imaginary popular democracy things might change "at will" but not in a constitutional polity.=

    This constitutional polity is largely a myth. FDR essentially killed the US Constitution by forcing the Supreme Court into submission. That is what I mean by the “at will” concept.

    =I want to clarify that externalities are just a useful framework to talk about it. All an externality means is that "the social good would be better served if the people had collective agency than if they didn't". It's just the basic, minimal expectation for state action - that the state acts for the interests of the people. All of my political philosophy that puts that into action is American classical liberalism (ie - classical liberalism with a large helping of federalism).=

    The original classical liberal position was against any such thing as social good. The only common good that classical liberalism recognized was preservation of the liberal order.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Daniel,-

    I think your position is in conflict with classical liberalism because you:

    1) don't believe in the maxim of sanctity of property;

    2) believe that there is such a thing as social good.

    On the first point, without a very strong presumption in favor of property rights preservation of liberty, especially economic liberty is impossible.

    In this light, no taxes are justified except maybe taxes on negative externalities.

    The incoherence of your position is that being in favour of liberty you disregard the necessary condition for liberty to survive.

    On the second point the original libertarian position was that there is no such thing as social good. The only thing classical liberals might have called a social good would be preservation of liberal order.

    ReplyDelete
  15. =On the second point the original libertarian position=

    I actually meant "original classical liberal position". That some of classical liberals were inconsistent in their views, does not make e.g. their advocacy for public education part of classical liberalism.

    ReplyDelete
  16. =Democratic proceedures in a constitutional context? Of course in some imaginary popular democracy things might change "at will" but not in a constitutional polity.=

    This constitutional polity idea is largely a myth. Roosevelt has easily destroyed the US consitution by forcing the Supreme Court into submission.

    Now the US has no constitution. It just has balance of powers not allowing the progressives to turn the US into a stagnating European social democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Daniil -
    As with most libertarians, you seem to be operating off of an entirely different definition of "classical liberalism" than I am. I don't know if I'd use the word "sanctity" myself, but I also am surprised at your doubts about my dedication to property rights. I'm not sure what the source of your concern is on that - my position is fundamentally a contractarian position.

    And now you're calling the constitutional structure of this society a myth...

    ... I really don't know where to go with this, Daniil. I can't make heads or tails of any of it. You're operating off of entirely different definitions and understandings, and you're suggesting that my position is the exact opposite of what it actually is on points where we do share a common definition. How am I supposed to respond to that?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Daniel,-

    If you really shared common definition of property rights with me how would you for example support public education or government stimulation of the economy?

    These two positions are inconsistent with a strong presumption of sanctity of property rights. And by sanctity I mean just that no one may take the property rights away.

    For me the examplar classical liberals were Constant, Spencer and Acton, not the American founders. Only partly Smith and of course not Jefferson, who hated banks and had a lot of other populist views.

    You make of course say that I am picking and choosing those who were closer to libertarianism.

    But for me libertarianism is just continuation of classical liberalism.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Daniil -

    First, you make the same mistake as Klein of confusing legal property rights with "rights" in a more fundamental sense. My position is that "property rights" as you speak of them are a legal fiction - a very functional legal fiction for the most part, but a fiction nonetheless. It's precisely because of the incompleteness of this legal fiction that more fundamental - more meaningful rights are violated. From a technical perspective we can think of this as working like an externality - but it's really much broader than that. The point is, the imperfections of the legal fiction version of property rights can in certain circumstances violate more fundamental understandings of rights, and that's where I would depart from the legal fiction. You shouldn't mistake that from departing from the sanctity of property rights. It's quite the opposite.

    You are looking at one very important half of classical liberalism - there are individualist and communitarian strains of it, to be sure - and both are important. My whole point is that self-governance, liberty, and equality are in tension in classical liberalism so its not surprising that people are going to shake out in different places on that distribution. I think it would be far more accurate to call the people you refer to "libertarians" or "proto-libertarians", rather than exclusively grant them the mantle of classical liberalism. You really cut out a lot of the liberal tradition when you do that. All libertarians are certainly classical liberals (except perhaps for extreme anti-democratic cases like Hoppe or extreme anarchist cases), but not all classical liberals are libertarians.

    Redefining "classical liberal" to mean "libertarian" has been possible because nobody uses the term "classical liberal" any more - the term was there for the taking, in other words. That appropriation of that term has been one of the greatest coups of the modern libertarian movement. Sometimes I get the impression its a strategic appropriation, but other times I get the sense people actually believe libertarians are the only descendants of classical liberalism.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ok, let's leave the issue with what classical liberalism was about. It is really a matter of defining terms.

    More important is this point of yours.

    =First, you make the same mistake as Klein of confusing legal property rights with "rights" in a more fundamental sense. My position is that "property rights" as you speak of them are a legal fiction - a very functional legal fiction for the most part, but a fiction nonetheless. It's precisely because of the incompleteness of this legal fiction that more fundamental - more meaningful rights are violated.=

    Well, I agree that property rights are not natural rights. But neither is individual freedom that you claim you cherish.

    All human institutions are artificial in a certain cense. The question is which of them work.

    And I say that an institution of private property based on the ability to homestead unowned external objects or acquire previously owned objects through voluntary exchange and use them without external ineterference to the extent that the owner does not infringe on freedom and property rights of others is the best possible rule.

    It is as artificial as any other rule. But it is only rule that makes a free society possible.

    And I again would like to know how you would go from your quasi externality argument to justification of public educqation, state pension systems, heavy regulation of busiess and the like.

    ReplyDelete

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