This is a good post at Reason.com shared by Gary. The title actually mentions "libertarianism" and evolution, but the post itself is all about classical liberalism which - I gather - is what the Cato Unbound posts are all about (I haven't read them yet).
This is not particularly revolutionary stuff, but it's a good review of some of the defenses of liberalism using evolutionary psychology arguments (despite the controversies associated with that particular field). Human fitness is derived primarily from our ability to associate through language, etc., and our ability to think abstractly, which enables wider circles of association as well as innovation. Human social behavior and abstract thought enables us to maintain trade networks, which allow our species to both allocate and exploit resources much more efficiently than other species. Social orders that foster these traits are largely classical liberal in nature, emphasizing limited hierarchical ordering, decentralization, flexibility, etc.
The post specifically contrasts the illiberalism of Marxism to this classical liberal order. Speaking of evolution, the author quotes Peter Singer saying: "It tells the left that some of them have failed because their goals were really unrealistic. For example, if their goals were to achieve equality and to combine that with a high degree of liberty--to have the state withering away, as Marx said--it's very difficult to see how you're going to be able to achieve that. If you let the state wither away, then humans' natural tendencies to form hierarchies and rank and so on are going to assert themselves. What happened specifically with the form of communism that was attempted in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe was that people went into it with some vague idea that they could have this sort of society. But they kept needing to strengthen the power of the state rather than allow it to wither away. In that sense, the original idea would just collapse. You simply couldn't achieve it. Human beings are not such that you could expect them to work for the common good in the way that the theory assumed. The failure to understand that human nature is not as plastic as socialists often assume is a substantial part of why some of these schemes have failed."
I've bolded a sentence there that I think gets to one of many reasons why I think a more robust political economy actually needs to be a non-libertarian classical liberalism (unless of course we're thinking in terms of a blander "small government"/Greg Mankiw libertarianism).
Monday, July 18, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteThis is sort of the problem - the way you define libertarianism is not the way that most libertarians define libertarianism (even given the rampant diversity one sees in libertarianism). It is so often the case that you make a claim about libertarians and I do not recognize the description and I believe that's largely because libertarians are sort of a foil - we are clearly an "other" for lots and lots of modern liberals (which is why we're such a common topic of conversation).
So let's go back to basics - the cardinal rule or goal or value of libertarianism is individual liberty - everything flows from that most important of rules, goals, values, etc. All other values, policies, etc. flow from that single organizing value in other words. So if the state gets in the way of that, you prune the state, if the state fosters that, then you don't prune the state. Unfortunately, for the most part, the state gets in the way and it gets in the way a lot.
What's interesting here is that Singer does not mention what is most obvious - that in states humans' (to use his language) natural tendencies to form hierarchies and rank assert themselves (look at the hierarchies and rank so common in American government - once someone in your family becomes elected Senator it becomes much easier for a member of the family to do so - that's something they teach you in political science 101). The state is a very, very limited tool for combating this tendency, and once one forgets this you're simply going to have the opposite of what limited benefits the state can provide.
Singer's claims about the history of the communist states is also a bit odd; they just don't seem to square with what we know of Lenin's agenda and actions in other words. At least the way I am reading what he is saying. One could really push on that statement a lot.
Gary -
ReplyDeleteThere's no one "libertarianism" which is precisely why we just need to define exactly what we're talking about and then talk!
I deal with a lot of anarchists or extreme minarchists, and they generally use the word how I do. You have this weird tendency to (1.) berate me for it in which case my response is that you just need to understand how the word is used indifferent fora, and alternatively (2.) speak broadly like you are in this post about libertarianism simply being a philosophy of individual liberty, but then denouncing philosophies of individual liberty.
Bottom line is this - on this blog "libertarian" is used to describe the anarcho-capitalist/minarchist spectrum. If you don't like that, tough.
On this blog, the liberal tradition and classical liberalism are used to describe philosophies of individual liberty, property rights, limited government, and decentralized power more generally. If you don't like that, tough.
On this blog, I will call attention to cases where I think people are using terminology promiscuously. This has consequences. You can't use an argument in favor of the classical liberal tradition and then think you've justified libertarianism. There are lots of non-libertarian perspective in the classical liberal tradition, after all! So I will raise those issues from time to time when I think clarity helps the discussion.
But ultimately the only point of these words is to clearly identify what you're talking about. And in this particular non-libertarian, classical liberal venue making these distinctions is very important. So if you can't understand or use the lingo, you're going to have trouble communicating effectively here.
This is not a strange use of the term, I should add. Some places use "libertarian" more broadly. The libertarian circles that intersect with economics in general and Austrian economics in particular use "libertarian" to mean someone somewhere along the anarchist/minarchist spectrum.
re: "On this blog, the liberal tradition and classical liberalism are used to describe philosophies of individual liberty, property rights, limited government, and decentralized power more generally. If you don't like that, tough."
ReplyDeleteAnd while my use of "libertarian" is - contra Gary - quite typical (if not universal), I do understand there is considerably more controversy over how to use "classical liberal", and so I try to be more careful about defining that. Classical liberalism is a philosophy of individual liberalism and limited government. All sorts of people claim the classic "classical liberals", and I think it's not widely understood outside the libertarian community that libertarians take it from this general meaning and use it as a synonym for a very specific kind of philosophy of individual liberalism.
Just yesterday you made the rather strange claim that libertarians don't get called on their bona fides regarding their commitment to liberty. After that I discount anything and everything you say about libertarians.
ReplyDeleteGary - yes, I regret using the word "nobody" because several people took that literally which of course is wrong. The disparity is enormous, though. Most people presume that libertarians are pro-liberty and pro-market. Which is a good thing, don't get me wrong. I raise a lot of the same critiques that Robert did about "propertarianism" vs. "libertarianism", but I don't question their dedication to liberty or the market, however poorly executed and expressed it can be.
ReplyDeletePeople - and especially libertarians - define the difference between libertarians and non-libertarians as a difference in perspective on liberty and property rights. I don't care how many times you've had your feelings hurt by someone whipping out the term "fascist". That's atypical relative to what non-libertarians get.
"Nobody" is a word you use in discourse all the time that seems to get you into trouble a lot. You should probably stop using it.
ReplyDelete"That's atypical relative to what non-libertarians get."
How do you know this exactly? You've just been told by anyone who commented on your post (last time I checked at least) that you're flat wrong in your assertion.
Here's my suggestion - pretend to be a libertarian on a well known liberal blog and see what happens to you. Do it for a day.
re: ""Nobody" is a word you use in discourse all the time that seems to get you into trouble a lot. You should probably stop using it."
ReplyDeleteYou are the only one that seems to have a tough time reading it in context. Look I've highlighted certain illiberal tendencies in libertarianism, so clearly I'm not saying nobody in the history of the world has said such a thing. Rather than policing other peoples' blogs perhaps you could read more critically and let the dialog on blogs stay informal (so long as everyone is understanding each other... which they generally seem to be on here).
"You are the only one that seems to have a tough time reading it in context."
ReplyDeleteExcept for other people who have a similarly "tough time" reading such.
Daniel uses the word "libertarian" to mean "anarcho-capitalist"? Anarco-capitalists do not support the existence of a state AT ALL, which is something the vast majority of libertarians disagree with. I wonder why you just don't say "Anarchists" if that's what you mean, and say "Libertarian" if that's what you mean. One of the most widespread strawman is using Anarchist and Libertarian interchangeably, and you've decided that a Strawman will be official policy here. Libertarian does not equal NO government, so why are you using a term that means no government as a term for libertarian, other than to misrepresent arguments?
ReplyDelete'The libertarian circles that intersect with economics in general and Austrian economics in particular use "libertarian" to mean someone somewhere along the anarchist/minarchist spectrum.'
ReplyDeleteNo, Daniel. Do you think the Cafe Hayek crowd thinks of itself along the anarchist spectrum? Daniel's "nuance" escapes him at the most curious moments. The refutation of the Somalia Libertarian strawman is what, Daniel? It's that
No - I thought I was clear that I use it to describe this spectrum from anarcho-capitalism to minarchism. If I want to just talk about anarcho-capitalists, clearly there's a word for that (it's "anarcho-capitalist", in fact).
ReplyDeleteAnarcho-capitalists usually (yes there are ALWAYS exceptions) use the word "libertarian" to describe the broader perspective that they associate with.
re: "One of the most widespread strawman is using Anarchist and Libertarian interchangeably"
That's obviously a dumb thing to say.
re: "and you've decided that a Strawman will be official policy here"
As is this.
re: "Libertarian does not equal NO government, so why are you using a term that means no government as a term for libertarian, other than to misrepresent arguments?"
If you think I think that "libertarian" means no government, you need to read more of what I've written.
Different people with different positions use the term "libertarian" for themselves and acknowledge others as "libertarians". It's a spectrum. The spectrum that I think is the most internally coherent to acknoweldge is the portion of the spectrum that ranges from anarcho-capitalists to minarchists. These people (1.) generally see each other as being on the same libertarian spectrum, (2.) are a lot of the sorts of people I come across in economics discussions, and (3.) are all different from small-government conservatives (like Friedman, Reagan, Mankiw, etc.) who have at various times described themselves as "libertarian".
If you don't like this that's fine but it's also too bad. Don't make false accusations about what I'm doing here.
Anonymous,
ReplyDelete+1
Well, remember, he throws in "radical minarchists" too. Whatever the heck that is. That's the first time I've even run across that phrase.
Not to mention the fact that anarchists would have something of a fit being lumped in with minarchists.
How this entire conversation has settled out reminds me of this: http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2009/06/17/top-10-causes-of-minarchism-10/
Friedman was a conservative? Where's that nuance Daniel?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - can you please identify yourself? We don't generally like anonymity here. We often overlook it, but pestering, trolling anonymity is bothersome. Identify yourself or please stop commenting.
ReplyDeleteFriedman advocates a lot of things that libertarians wouldn't identify as libertarian. He's an extremely small-government conservative. There's warrant to call him a "libertarian", but I'm clarifying that he's not on the spectrum that a lot of people identify as libertarian or that is being used here - particularly today.
"Conservative" is a very broad term. Nobody should have a problem calling Friedman a conservative of sorts. Noting this is not unnuanced because of course I'm not saying that Friedman is undifferentiable from other conservatives. Of course he is.
Friedman has an entire video series (which he did in the 1990s) where he calls himself a libertarian repeatedly. So yeah, Uncle Milty was a libertarian. He wasn't a conservative. He was a Republican, but only as a means to foster libertarianism in a practical manner (which he stated several times in his life).
ReplyDeleteHere is Friedman discussing the two types of libertarianism from his POV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PaN9M4WwHw
In it he describes two types of libertarianism: (1) deontological and (2) consequentialist. In neither case does he compare them to anarchism though to the best of recollection.
Congratulations Gary -
ReplyDeleteYou are now the second commenter to point out that Friemdan called himself a libertarian. But thanks for the links that prove my claim.
Reagan called himself a libertarian too. Mankiw called himself a libertarian.
Would you claim Reagan? Mankiw?
These points of self-identification are useful but they have major pitfalls. If you rely only on how people identify themselves for your definitions it's going to be very unclear what you're talking about. Friedman, it is true, is right on the border - much closer than Reagan or Mankiw. But it's not inaccurate to call him a conservative (you can be both a libertarian and a conservative, after all!).
Look at how the host defines "libertarian" at the start, or how Friedman defines it. I'm a libertarian by that definition. Friemdan goes on to describe the two types you note. Roughly speaking all I'm saying is that I use the term to describe deontological libertarianism. Consequentialist libertarians are much harder to define or put limits on and in today's world of resurgence of Austrianism in the libertarian movement (perhaps via Ron Paul?), etc. a lot of deontological libertarians are themselves skeptical of many consequentialist libertarians.
re: "In neither case does he compare them to anarchism though to the best of recollection."
Right, I think you read him right, and I would agree with Friedman on this.
How about this Daniel? A simple, and I think reasonable, request: When referring to anarcho-capitalists, say "anarcho-capitalists". For a nuanced guy, you don't seem to be bothered by the fact that the distinction between supporting the existence of a government (whatever the size) is objectively, categorically different than rejecting ALL government. Someone that supports using the lowest effective dose of medication for the shortest period of time is not someone that rejects the use of medication--not even close. If Russ or Don wrote something like this, you'd have the first reply and multiple hysterical replies to your OWN replies on Cafe Hayek.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - when I am refering to anarcho-capitalists I call them anarcho-capitalists already.
ReplyDeleteYou really need to take some time to go back and read my posts. I have said that "libertarian" is used on here to refer to the wider group of people from anarcho-capitalists to minarchists. Of course if I'm only refering to anarchists there's nothing stopping me from calling them "anarchists".
You need to reel this in a little. One prominent anarcho-capitalist, Bob Murphy, recently called himself and his blog "libertarian".
And please identify yourself or stop commenting.
You can't really be a libertarian and conservative in any practical sense and Friedman himself would reject the term conservative because that is the case - whether we're talking about American or European conservatives. Libertarianism allows for too much libertinism for conservatives to stomach for one thing.
ReplyDeleteThe problem for Friedman of course is that there no such thing as a deontological or a consequentialist libertarian; all libertarians are a mix of both. I clearly am; almost all of my arguments are a mixture of both and if you read "Capitalism and Freedom" by Friedman you will see him engaging in deontological arguments all the time.
As for Friedman being right on the border that's just silly - Friedman was a radical, he was just a well spoken radical who did well in American academia and won a Nobel prize; there is really no way other way to describe him. Indeed, we tend to forget just how "out there" in comparison to the mainstream of thought Friedman was right from the start - the case of conscription is just one example of that.
There has been no resurgence of Austrianism amongst libertarianism; it has always been a heavy, heavy element in the movement (not surprising since Mises' seminar in NYC was one of the few nodal points of libertarianism in the U.S. for quite a long time).
Again, I urge you to read Doherty's _Radicals for Capitalism_.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteOne of the great things about being a libertarian these days is that is an ideology on the rise. Compared to just a decade ago it amazes me how many people no self-identify as libertarian (over 10% of the population of the U.S. now). If the 20th century was the century of socialists and collectivists generally, the 21st century might be century of the individual over the state.
Gary -
ReplyDeleteAgain, these are words that mean different things to different people. A lot of libertarians read "conservative" to be practically populist or some sort of moral traditionalist.
The fact that you may read it that way doesn't mean that is the only use or definition of the word. It's a big, broad word. You need to learn to live with that. If you are just going to use it to mean "traditionalist" make that clear, but clearly I'm not using it to mean that.
Even in the video Friedman says he makes both arguments (deontological and consequentialist) Gary - I don't think he ever claimed you can only be one or the other.
Anyone,
ReplyDeleteIf you want a Google + invite, just ask.
Daniel,
Because in practical terms that what they in fact are. Yes, if you read Oakeshott he does not fall into that sort of categorization, but for all intents and purposes he's such a rare bird that I do not consider him worth pondering when I think of the gulf that exists between conservatives and libertarians.
Earlier you mentioned Reagan calling himself a libertarian; well, this was in what is now the flagship libertarian monthly (Reason) - roughly in 1975 or 1976 (basically during his campaign against Ford). What he actually says is that the core of conservatism is libertarianism - then he proceeds to make so many qualifications that you realize there isn't much libertarianism left in his conservatism so you might as well abandon the effort to combine the two.
There are four rough ideological camps in the U.S.: prog/left,libertarians, modern liberals, and modern conservatives.
Daniel, Gary, everyone I am interested in how you'd answer this question.
ReplyDeleteMany people charge that modern American libertarianism does not bring new ideas to the table. American libertarian ideas are allegedly a mixed collection of what have always been parts of ordinary conventional wisdom on many issues. Libertarians are supposedly mostly saying that the sky is blue.
Do you feel that
a) it's a good thing, since it shows libertarianism to be not doctrinal or sectarian, but just practical everyday thought?
b) it's a bad thing, since libertarianism is redundant compared to the larger body of political philosophy, which already includes their ideas, while being unique only for the bad ideas?
Prateek -
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how I would answer because I would put it somewhat differently. I would say that American libertarians often (it's diverse group, I know) only recycle what everyone agrees on about the value of limited government and then imagine they've proven the case for a minarchist or libertarian government. So they aren't just saying the sky is blue - they're agreeing that the sky is blue and then drawing additional conclusions that I think have much less support than they suspect.
I'm not sure what "it's a good thing" or "it's a bad thing" means. Clearly they're in the liberal tradition - I personally think that's a good thing. They're thinking about society - I personally think that's a good thing. I could see some negative consequences if they put their views into practice... is that a bad thing? I guess, perhaps. But clearly if they ever could put their ideas into practice a lot of people would agree with them. My concern is that with institutions in the United States like the filibuster and the constant election-mentality a relatively small group of libertarians and libertarianish Tea Partiers can hold everyone else hostage to political proceedure.
Good thing? Bad thing? I don't know. Rather than say "it's bad" I'd rather just say "I'd like to persuade them on a number of issues because I think they have a deep misunderstanding of a number of issues".
Good thing? Bad thing? I don't know.
ReplyDeleteThis is hilarious, coming right after this:
small group of libertarians and libertarianish Tea Partiers can hold everyone else hostage to political proceedure
What do you find hilarious about it?
ReplyDeleteCan't I find fault in some things in the libertarian movement without putting a blanket "bad" label on the whole thing?
Prateek,
ReplyDeleteMost of what is advocated by libertarians is not advocated by any other element in American political culture - sometimes this is an issue of intensity (we're more free speechy than modern liberals or modern conservatives are - and we've basically won that debate, routed them in the field as it were - thus we don't have the various speech codes that nearly all modern liberals, the prog/left and conservatives favor), sometimes it is an issue of simply being the only people holding that position (end the FDA, end - not modify or medicalize - the war on drugs, etc.).
Daniel,
It is has become obvious over time that you've never critically dealt with libertarian literature or history but at the same time you want to talk about libertarians. Just on that basis alone I'm not really sure what the point of discussing libertarianism with you is.
Anyway, as far as the non-sensical and otherwise silly claim that the American people are being "held hostage" by a bunch of ideologues you yourself all the time talk about the awesomeness of democracy. This is clearly an example of an outcome of democracy - a bunch of Republicans of a limited government bent routed the forces of Obama at the polls and they get the fruits of their victory by pushing the agenda (and this is more than an issue of the number of votes in the Congress obviously). Plus the limited government position in this instance is the popular one much to the chagrin of central planners, Keynesians, Democrats, Obama, etc. (so no one is actually being held hostage except of course the minority of the population who don't like these ideas - this is why libertarians are leery of democratic politics generally and why they argue that they should be kept within in a very narrow range policy areas) - (a) people (by wide margins) don't want the debt ceiling raised, (b) they want reductions in government spending (by wide margins) and they (c) they don't want tax increases (by wide margins) - and their representatives are responding to this and thus they are #winning.
Finally, you're never going to persuade a libertarian of anything (and you never have to my knowledge), and that's not the fault of any libertarian. You don't persuade libertarians because you don't produce a particularly convincing argument on most subjects. Further you act like somehow libertarians have never heard the arguments that you present - in other words, you don't say anything that libertarians haven't heard from a thousand other modern liberal/Democrats.
Subhi,
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to figure out exactly what Daniel is thinking when it comes to libertarians; he does clearly spend a lot of time arguing with them though without getting any headway.
Gary -
ReplyDeleteWhen you write things like this: "thus we don't have the various speech codes that nearly all modern liberals, the prog/left and conservatives favor" I (yet again) wonder how familiar you are with what you're talking about.
re: "This is clearly an example of an outcome of democracy - a bunch of Republicans of a limited government bent routed the forces of Obama at the polls and they get the fruits of their victory by pushing the agenda"
Right (to a certain extent). I said I'd rather convince them of where they're wrong than call them "bad". You act as if I answered Prateek's question "yes, I think they're bad". This isn't the whole story, though. Use of the filibuster has been completely inappropriate, I think. I would call that an obstacle to democratic outcomes in a lot of cases. The other thing is a weak libertarian perspective has caught on widely, particularly with respect to the budget. So a lot of representatives are talking austerity when it's actually not what the people demand. Over time, democracy will pull back on those tendencies as well. But I think we certainly have reason to be concerned about whether people's views are actually being represented, and a lot of the reason for that is this libertarianish rhetoric.
re: "he does clearly spend a lot of time arguing with them though without getting any headway"
I couldn't disagree with you more - I've found this whole blogging experience to be incredibly productive. I feel like I've built a lot of bridges, gained much more respect for libertarians and Austrians, sharpened my understanding of where I disagree with them, and provided a lot of clarity to people on what I think is an ideal liberal/democratic/federalist/Keynesian/centrist disposition. I think especially clarifying some Keynesian ideas when a lot of disinformation has been floating around has been very productive.
Sorry you don't think so, but then you've always been an odd presence on here.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteEvery other political ideology proposes some sort of speech code - be it liberals and the prof/left their desire to ban "hate speech" or conservatives and their desire to ban "pornography." And of course liberals and the prog/left are at the forefront of speech codes on college campuses; something they would like to see more broadly apply across the U.S. Happily libertarians have organizations like FIRE to combat such non-sense. I wonder about your familiarity with the subject actually.
"Use of the filibuster has been completely inappropriate, I think."
I imagine because it is used to delay things you agree with.
"But I think we certainly have reason to be concerned about whether people's views are actually being represented, and a lot of the reason for that is this libertarianish rhetoric."
Yet even you admit that a "weak libertarian" view has caught on 'widely" (I'd say that it has always been there), so you really can't make that claim unless you are willing to deny your first claim. Unless you are arguing that the "weak libertarian" position is an example of false consciousness or something. But let's say we ignore your first admission and go with this claim - what you're really saying is that there is no way that the people's view can really be represented here because a lot of people are using libertarianism rhetoric. In other words, some ideological viewpoints in your opinion are so beyond the pale that the people could never really be represented by them. Dumb
It is headway with libertarians that I am talking about actually and obviously (riffing off your comment that you're here to correct us libertarians of our ways).
"Hate speech"? There's nothing liberal about banning hate speech, Gary. Again, you demonstrate a deep lack of understanding of that which you criticize.
ReplyDeleteFunny you bring up FIRE, because the Horowitz Academic Bill of Rights that they support is precisely what I would call a speech code. They exclude the natural and physical sciences - thankfully. The kind of language in the bill would prevent universities and professional societies from excluding creationists and require teaching creationism. Of course, they include the humanities, the arts, and the social sciences - my biggest personal concern being, of course, the social sciences. FIRE is not as bad as some organizations, but I wouldn't call their existence "happy".
re: "I imagine because it is used to delay things you agree with."
Not at all - I was criticizing its increased use under the Bush administration too. You're so mired in your own ideology you project it onto others. The filibuster has gone from an extraordinary proceedure that actually required some organization and effort to a de facto supermajority vote. I criticized it before it was used against things that I agree with, and I'm going to continue to criticize this use of the filibuster in the future if (or more likely - when) it is used against things I disagree with.
I can't understand what you're saying in your second to last paragraph.
It's no matter - I'm really not interested in continuing this.
Daniel,
ReplyDelete"Hate speech" is the sin quo non of prog/left & modern liberal thinking in the last twenty to thirty years. It is constantly brought up by same because this form of speech is supposedly bad for the body politic, etc.
As for what FIRE proposes besides free speech on campuses, that sucks. Nevertheless, they have successfully foiled all manner of attempts to squelch free speech on American campuses. I don't ascribe to everything the ACLU does either.
"The filibuster has gone from an extraordinary proceedure that actually required some organization and effort to a de facto supermajority vote."
Well, that's the evolution of democracy you keep on praising. And this development ought not be surprising in a country where most decision making is made at the administrative level anymore, not in the legislative body. The filibuster has become the means by which administrative agencies, etc. are checked because once they are given X power it has become very hard for the Congress to revisit such (especially since nothing like a legislative veto is constitutional). Is it any surprise whatsoever that the use of the filibuster grew in proportion to the post-New Deal state? Congress is constantly trying to latch onto someway to check the administrative while also ceding it tremendous authority in the first place; it is a sort of schizoid thing with schizoid results.
As far as the second to last paragraph is concerned I'm saying that you contradict yourself.