Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Reading things like this makes me want to drop economics and pick up political or social philosophy as a full time pursuit...

Much of what passes for libertarian thought today boils down to philosophical elginism - the robbing of a rich classical liberal tradition of one of its featured pieces - human liberty - to serve baser ideological or political ends. This does not characterize all libertarian thought. There are certainly classical liberals with sincere emphases that can be described as "libertarian" who are not arguing in the service of some ideological end. Robert Nozick springs to mind. Hayek as well, as far as I can tell. Others barely try to hide it.

Robert Higgs on Ed Glaeser, in its entirety (HT Mark Thoma):

"In yesterday’s New York Times appears an op-ed article by Edward L. Glaeser, a professor of economics at Harvard. Glaeser’s article is remarkable because arguments in favor of freedom, insisting that economic analysis implicitly rests on a moral presumption that individual freedom has fundamental value, do not appear every day — or every month — in “the newspaper of record.” So, I am glad to give two cheers to Glaeser, one for his theme and another for his courage in placing the argument in such a hostile outlet.

I cannot give Glaeser a third cheer, however, because toward the end of the article he inserts a concession that I find wholly inconsistent with the rest of the argument. He writes:
Economists’ fondness for freedom rarely implies any particular policy program. A fondness for freedom is perfectly compatible with favoring redistribution, which can be seen as increasing one person’s choices at the expense of the choices of another, or with Keynesianism and its emphasis on anticyclical public spending.

Many regulations can even be seen as force for freedom, like financial rules that help give all investors the freedom to invest in stocks by trying to level the playing field.
To be sure, many mainstream economists do think about policy just as Glaeser says they do. But in doing so, they are mistaken. I find it difficult to believe that a man of Glaeser’s intelligence has really given much thought to what he is saying in these passages.

In fact, a presumption in favor of freedom rules out virtually everything that modern governments do, certainly nearly everything they do in interfering in economic affairs. Redistribution of income, for example, requires that the government rob Peter in order to benefit Paul (and its own functionaries, who serve as middlemen in this transfer). This action is not freedom; it is a crime against Peter, a raw violation of his right to his own legitimate property. Keynesian countercyclical spending requires the government to spend borrowed money whose acquisition is premised on future taxation (that is, robbery) of taxpayers in order to service the debt and repay the principal. Again, innocent persons have their rights violated. How can anyone fail to see that robbery is incompatible with freedom? Finally, the financial rules that Glaeser finds compatible with freedom entail threats of violence against financial transactors who do not follow arbitrary government rules — often extremely foolish and even destructive rules — in making their transactions, notwithstanding the fact that the parties to the transaction may be perfectly willing to proceed without such regulatory compliance. Such regulation is the very opposite of freedom; it is instead the sheer imposition of outside force, intruding on willing transactors, and thereby discouraging them to some extent, if not entirely, with consequent loss of the wealth that such transactions would have created, in addition to the loss of liberty.

Perhaps it is unseemly for someone such as I to make a recommendation to a Harvard professor, yet I cannot resist the urge to suggest that Glaeser read, say, Murray Rothbard’s Power and Market. Expositions of that sort would help him to gain a clearer vision of the distinction between individual freedom and state domination in economic affairs. Glaeser quotes Milton Friedman to good effect in his article, but Friedman’s writings ought to be the beginning, rather than the end of wisdom in this area. In regard to freedom, Friedman’s arguments were good as far as they went, but they did not go nearly far enough. Like Glaser [sic], Friedman was prepared to make many concessions to state power, and his focus on utilitarian arguments, as opposed to moral principles, diminished the intellectual force of his laudable efforts to enlarge the scope of liberty in economic affairs."

23 comments:

  1. Reading a lot of economists recently makes me want to take up picking my nose as a full time pursuit.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The social contribution of that activity might surpass that of some economists.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ahhh yes...the age old debate about the meaning of the word freedom. Is it to mean "freedom from want" or "freedom from man-made legislation". Hayek devoted a lot of energy to the reasonableness of the various defintions.

    Daniel, I'm curious, what do you think is a reasonable definition of freedom?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Daniel,

    I'd like to understand - are you saying that an economist who believes that taxation is theft is an 'idealogue', but an economist who doesn't is not? In other words, an economist who holds that there is nothing wrong with taxation is not interested in serving some political end?

    ReplyDelete
  5. EdP - I never put that much stock in positive rights. I'm not sure anyone here is debating that.

    Richard - No, I'm not saying that. I am saying that is disconcerting that libertarians have taken institutions of self-government and treated them as anti-thetical to liberty. Many do that without much of a justification, and appear to be motivated more out of an opposition to government than out of any philosophy of liberty. As I specifically said, some do have what appears to be a more thoughtful philosophy.

    Certainly people who don't think taxes are theft aren't somehow immune to being ideologues or serving political ends. I never said anything even resembling that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "I am saying that is disconcerting that libertarians have taken institutions of self-government and treated them as anti-thetical to liberty."

    No, what you're saying is that you disagree with their characterizations of limited government as antithetical to liberty. Which is fine, of course. That's your opinion and no one is going to hold that against you. But the whole debate in question, amongst libertarians, is whether or not government IS antithetical to liberty. You act as though it's simply a self-evident proposition written in the stars that anarchist-leaning libertarians are wrong about government.

    What you're saying is just sort of odd. You write,

    "Much of what passes for libertarian thought today boils down to philosophical elginism - the robbing of a rich classical liberal tradition of one of its featured pieces - human liberty - to serve baser ideological or political ends."

    Isn't classical liberalism an ideology, and doesn't Lord Acton's dictum that "freedom is the highest political end of man" sort of spell out the inherent political end of classical liberalism? Of course, there are disagreements between classical liberals. It's a big tent. But liberty has always seemed to be wrapped up in politics (how could it not be?).

    Besides, the anarchist wing of libertarianism isn't new. It isn't as though this just suddenly burst upon the intellectual scene in the last 15 years, as the 19th century writings of Spooner, Warren, and Tucker prove.

    Basically, much of what passes for libertarian thought today is the same thing that has passed for libertarian thought in the past. I guess you either disagree with it or you don't.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If we had to speak from a purely value free perspective, we may have to spend $100 to dramatically improve the life of one homeless person, $200 to dramatically improve the life of a virtually penniless student, $1000 to dramatically improve the life of a young single mother, and $10,000 to dramatically improve the life of a family of four which has run out of funds.

    There is, of course, nothing wrong with spending $1300 and improving the socio-economic circumstances of three people, but is it worth spending $2500 on the next additional person? That's the question one could have asked from an economics perspective.

    Oh sure, somebody benefits. Was this benefit done in a cost-effective way? Was the last additional dollar used to bring adequate marginal benefit? Was that marginal benefit greater than the opportunity cost?

    If I were to ignore the moral debate on redistribution, if I looked at how an unemployed Jamaican single mother in Britain was given a $1 million house for free by the local council, can any of us say that was a good use of public funds? That $1 million could have been used for better snow shovelling, garbage collecting, and policing. Were she to start earning a large income, she may be asked to vacate the house, so she is also subsidised for failure and taxed for coming out of a bad situation.

    If I were a Marxist, I would oppose such welfare payments on grounds that it hurts industrial efficiency, diverts resources away from more production, and promotes anti-worker agenda. If I were a Mills-utilitarian, I would say it's okay up till $20,000 spent on a person. If I were an anarchist, I'd say any amount is good enough, because it lets you stick it to the undeserving rich. If I were skeptic, I'd say that there's no way of knowing whether even redistributing $1 will lead to better benefit for society as a whole.

    So even if one tried not to be a libertarian, there are so many angles you can use against a welfare state, without even touching the "Rob Peter to pay Paul" angle.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Samuel -
    Not sure exactly what you mean about the "conflict within libertarianism". I'm not weighing in on anarchist vs. non-anarchist libertarianism and I'm not making a critique of small-government. I rarely advocate excessive government on here. I often note areas were government oughta pull back. I've said I have "libertarian sympathies" in that respect. This is the sense in which guys like Greg Mankiw or Tyler Cowen are "libertarian" they're basically small government guys that are fairly socially liberal. I'm probably somewhat more left than them, but I'm not a huge-government leftist. It's not small government or some sense that small government is good that I have a problem with. What I have a problem with is the suspicion that where government is freedom is not you don't have to be an anarchist libertarian to hold this view. I didn't think Higgs was especially of the anarchist-libertarian persuasion, and yet he seems to be working off this formula.

    As for how my statement was "strange" I don't see how. So I didn't define what I mean by "ideology", I understand, but in juxtaposing it with a philosophical tradition what I meant was simply that an ideology has more political ends in mind. The way of seeing the world in an ideology is conformed to the political ends someone has in mind, whereas the task of a philosophical tradition is simply to build and maintain an understanding of the world. If I just wanted the government to spend a lot of money and therefore found Keynesianism a convenient worldview to adopt towards that end, it seems like that would be "ideological". If I determined that Keynesianism is the best tradition for understanding the world and I happened to find it appropriate to act on some of its insights, that seems more philosophical. Many modern libertarians seem to have decided that where government is freedom is not, and they've adopted pieces of classical liberalism to construct an ideology to support that impulse. Not all libertarians are like this - I noted Nozick and Hayek and there are many more.

    I don't know Lord Acton well, but from what I do know of him he strikes me as one of the early libertarians (whether he is an ideologue or a Bob Nozick I don't know enough to say). He is certainly not representative of the classical liberal tradition, although he's most likely in it.

    re: "Besides, the anarchist wing of libertarianism isn't new. It isn't as though this just suddenly burst upon the intellectual scene in the last 15 years, as the 19th century writings of Spooner, Warren, and Tucker prove."

    Right, I'm really not exclusively talking about anarchism here. I didn't even bring that up.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Prateek -
    re: "So even if one tried not to be a libertarian, there are so many angles you can use against a welfare state, without even touching the "Rob Peter to pay Paul" angle."

    Certainly - the alternative to libertarianism is not to be head over heels in love with the welfare state :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Daniel,

    "Certainly people who don't think taxes are theft aren't somehow immune to being ideologues or serving political ends. I never said anything even resembling that."

    Ok, but you seem to be implying that its obvious Higgs is an idealogue based on what he wrote (taxes are theft) but Glaeser is not (redistributing wealth increases freedom, or, taxes are not theft).

    ReplyDelete
  11. "I'm not weighing in on anarchist vs. non-anarchist libertarianism and I'm not making a critique of small-government."

    It's hard to say what point you're trying to make, exactly, but you seemed to have been taken by surprise that some libertarians consider government the negation of liberty. Now, I'm not saying you have to agree with that, but this isn't anything new. It's not "robbing" any intellectual tradition to make some ideological point. As I said, this anarchist tradition goes back a long way. Nothing is being robbed, and there's a rich philosophical heritage to this anarchist wing of libertarianism.

    Your distinction between a philosophy and an ideology doesn't seem particularly helpful in this context because it certainly sounds like you're going to label anyone who thinks government is the negation of liberty an ideologue. You write that,

    "What I have a problem with is the suspicion that where government is freedom is not"

    Okay, you don't agree with anarchism. That much is clear. But can you at least understand why some would take that point of view? Or you do think that line of inquiry ("can government and freedom coexist?") should be off limits entirely? In other words, if one answers the question in the negative, are you automatically an ideologue?

    ReplyDelete
  12. " taken by surprise that some libertarians consider government the negation of liberty"

    I've been complaining about that for a while. So there's no surprise - but familiarity has not made me fonder of the tendency.

    re: "It's not "robbing" any intellectual tradition to make some ideological point. As I said, this anarchist tradition goes back a long way. Nothing is being robbed, and there's a rich philosophical heritage to this anarchist wing of libertarianism."

    Perhaps I'm not saying this the right way, but I'll try again:

    (1.) I'm not commenting on the relationship between libertarianism and anarchism - I'm commenting on the relationship between libertarianism and classical liberalism, and

    (2.) I'm not saying all libertarians do this. To illustrate that I'm not doing that, I've named names. I'm fully cognizant of the fact that there is a rich philosophical heritage to these sorts of claims. I'm just saying that some people who make these sorts of claims are more plugged into this philosophical heritage than others are.

    re: "Your distinction between a philosophy and an ideology doesn't seem particularly helpful in this context because it certainly sounds like you're going to label anyone who thinks government is the negation of liberty an ideologue."

    I'm running out of ways to say I'm not saying that, Samuel. And I'm still failing to see how that's implicit in what I have said.

    re: "But can you at least understand why some would take that point of view? Or you do think that line of inquiry ("can government and freedom coexist?") should be off limits entirely?"

    Of course I can understand why some people would take that view and of course I don't think it should be off limits entirely. Why else would I have said several times at this point that many people come to this conclusion thoughtfully?

    re: "In other words, if one answers the question in the negative, are you automatically an ideologue?"

    I'm getting tired of answering "no" to this question of yours, Samuel. Are you expecting that if you ask it enough times you'll catch me answering differently? I won't.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Maybe you will be more reassured if I say this:

    Many people who make claims that are consistent with the claims I make regarding the relationship between the state, liberty, democracy, choice, and the market do so for purely ideological or political reasons and not out of any thoughtful adherence to the liberal tradition.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I'm getting tired of answering "no" to this question of yours, Samuel. Are you expecting that if you ask it enough times you'll catch me answering differently? I won't."

    Drat. I was so hoping. ;)

    "I'm not saying all libertarians do this. To illustrate that I'm not doing that, I've named names. I'm fully cognizant of the fact that there is a rich philosophical heritage to these sorts of claims. I'm just saying that some people who make these sorts of claims are more plugged into this philosophical heritage than others are."

    Okay, but the people you have named are Hayek and Nozick, both of which believed the state and freedom can coexist.

    But from what I can tell- and I'm trying really hard to understand you here- if someone crosses the line from small-government libertarian to no-government libertarian they become an ideologue.

    And I know you aren't specifically commenting on the relationship between anarchism and libertarianism. But libertarianism and classical liberalism have some similar roots, and anarchism is one aspect of the libertarian philosophy. Higgs never mentioned classical liberalism. It was you who accused him of robbing that intellectual tradition. I believe, though I could be wrong, that Higgs falls more on the no-government side of libertarianism than the limited-government side. So anarchism, libertarianism, and classical liberalism all have some historical and philosophical overlap, right?

    At any rate, feel free to not answer this, since it sounds like you're getting a little annoyed with me (which I apologize for). Perhaps a better question from me would be to ask you what Higgs would have had to have written to convince you he wasn't an ideologue?

    ReplyDelete
  15. "But from what I can tell- and I'm trying really hard to understand you here- if someone crosses the line from small-government libertarian to no-government libertarian they become an ideologue."

    To repeat - I'm not talking about the distinction between minimalist libertarians and anarchist libertarians. That distinction is not especially interesting to me. I was also not under the impression that Higgs was an anarchist, so I'm not even sure how it's relevant.

    "But from what I can tell- and I'm trying really hard to understand you here- if someone crosses the line from small-government libertarian to no-government libertarian they become an ideologue."

    I am not making that claim, no. I'm saying there are libertarians out there who are ideologically and unthinkingly so - who have just decided that the state is bad and anti-thetical to liberty and simply assert that. Some of these people are minimalist libertarians, some of them are anarchist libertarian. I'm (1.) not especially interested in the transition from minimalist to anarchist, and (2.) not saying that small government in and of itself is bad - i.e., this is not a big government/small government distinction I'm thinking about either. It's a "states have the potential to be good"/"states are inherently bad" distinction that I'm concerned with.

    "So anarchism, libertarianism, and classical liberalism all have some historical and philosophical overlap, right?"

    Sure.

    "At any rate, feel free to not answer this, since it sounds like you're getting a little annoyed with me (which I apologize for)."

    Well, not annoyed - it just felt like you kept asking the same questions and I kept providing the same answers. If anything its my failing in being unable to come up with another way of answering the question to break the impasse. You have succeeded (partially) where I failed in finding another way to ask the question, and I think we're getting somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Let me rephrase that middle part. Basically, you've mentioned two libertarians who you think fall more closely to the classical liberal tradition and are therefore not ideologues. You haven't, however, mentioned any libertarian who believes as Higgs does (that government and freedom are incompatible) who you would NOT consider an ideologue.

    Forget everything I've said before this and, if you are so inclined to answer, tell me if there are any libertarians more radical than Nozick and Hayek who you think are working within a valid heritage of thought and are not just making cheap ideological points?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Oops, didn't realize you had already answered. My bad.

    ReplyDelete
  18. re: "Perhaps a better question from me would be to ask you what Higgs would have had to have written to convince you he wasn't an ideologue?"

    Perhaps I overstated my case with Higgs because I really don't know him well enough to say where he's coming from. Let me say this at least - he comes across as being an ideologue. He clearly thinks there is an inherent opposition between liberty and government. That establishes that he and I are in disagreement - but disagreement is OK. However, he states it as if its just a self-evident fact. That's a clue-in for ideology. Then he says this which was the real clincher for me: "To be sure, many mainstream economists do think about policy just as Glaeser says they do. But in doing so, they are mistaken. I find it difficult to believe that a man of Glaeser’s intelligence has really given much thought to what he is saying in these passages."

    I don't think I could ever say such a thing to, for example, Nozick or Hayek - or to thoughtful anarchist thinkers (even though I disagree with their conclusions every bit as much as I disagree with Higgs's). The arrogance of that statement suggests to me he's coming from a more ideological than a genuinely philosophical foundation.

    So do I know for sure? No - you're right, and perhaps I can pull back. But Higgs extends no reassurances.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ultimately, I probably shouldn't have introduced it with such a snippy, dismissive introduction. There was a more developed frustration behind that introduction, but without fleshing it out there was no way for my readers to know that.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Okay, well that's fair enough. I see what you're getting at and it makes sense.

    I'll stop bugging you now :P

    ReplyDelete
  21. As to your other answer - I don't know enough genuine anarchists to say.

    I would imagine anyone that wrote extensively and not polemically on these things probably thought extensively. I'm not of the opinion that anarchism is by its very nature thoughtless. I just think a lot of people simply assume where the state is freedom is not, and that assumption really does a lot of violence to the classical liberal synthesis of liberty, equality, and self-government. If you've thought it through and still want to proceed, of course we can continue the discourse on it. I just fear a lot of people take it for granted - take it as a tautology almost - rather than thinking it through.

    Maybe that's the way to say it: the claim that the state and liberty are anti-thetical may be right or it may be wrong. But if it is right it is not tautologically right. Too many libertarians treat it as if it were tautologically right.

    Is that a better way of putting it?

    ReplyDelete
  22. No - it's always a pleasure, Samuel.

    Let me know what you think of my 3:40 restatement. If you find it defensible I'll post it as a revision.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yeah, on that I totally agree. Spot on. You've made this point about the Austrian school before as well, and it's similarly correct. Too many people take it as tautologically and self-evidently true.

    ReplyDelete

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