...a goal that is sometimes much harder than occupying Wall Street.
Peter Boettke offers a very thoughtful post about OWS and leaves it open to his readers. I have two comments at the very beginning.
One of the things that I would have hoped something like OWS would bring to light is that critics of libertarianism do not take libertarian arguments for granted about the (1.) robustness of libertarian polities, (2.) the idea that it is non-libertarianism that devolves into crony capitalism, (3.) the idea that libertarianism is the most advantageous social order for human liberty, or that (4.) non-libertarian social orders are in opposition to principles of emergent order.
Generally, non-libertarians don't think any of these things make much sense. It's why we're not libertarians after all! If we thought these things were true, we would be libertarians!
Nevertheless, as many non-libertarians know when you talk to a libertarian you often get treated like you:
1. Have never put much thought to institutional robustness
2. Do not place great importance on liberty
3. Do not think emergent orders have commendable qualities
Part of the reason why they treat us this way is that we don't always use the same language and buzzwords - so there's a certain amount of information that is lost in translation (you'll notice on this blog I explicitly try to use the language of libertarians when talking about these issues so that less is lost in translation - Bleeding Heart Libertarians could perhaps be said to use the opposite strategy to talk more effectively to the left).
Anyway, to a certain extent the post from Boettke is a little dispiriting for me - really the Chris Coyne video. I know that's Chris's view of things. And I have another view of things. But there's the sense from the video that feels like "these OWS people mean well but this goes over their head", which worries me. I don't think issues of institutional robustness have gone over Chris Coyne or Peter Boettke's head. I just think we disagree about those questions!!! But I get the impression from a lot of libertarians that they don't think it's just a matter of disagreement - they truly think critics of libertarianism don't comprehend the issue at hand.
That's discouraging - to a large extent I think we've failed to "occupy libertarianism".
I don't think all libertarians are like this - nobody in the comment section should go off on that tangent. Gene Callahan is one guy that actually agrees with me on a lot of things, but I think probably is still a "libertarian" - and where we disagree he knows it hasn't "gone over my head" - we just disagree. Same with Bob Murphy who I have developed a tremendous appreciation for. We disagree all the time, but I never get the sense from him that he thinks the fundamental issue is lost on me or has gone over my head (sometimes the whole disagreement is which issues we consider truly fundamental!). Not all libertarian are like this. Many just think their critics have failed to appreciate the real issue at hand. That needs to change.
I've found that an excellent litmus test for this is to talk about "libertarian social engineering". If you think this concern is completely nonsensical and are shocked to hear people talk about it, you really don't understand your critics and probably mistakenly think they are a lot more clueless than they actually are. Now, you can disagree with the charge of "libertarian social engineering" but still know why people like me worry a lot about it. That's fine. But if the very phrase makes you see a big flashing "does not compute" sign then you have some work to do.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I agree completely with the bullet points and your post. However, could we also add mischaracterizing the opposition's argument or misunderstanding it, on the part of SOME libertarians?
ReplyDeleteCos' in similar news, Lord Keynes has recently written a post paralleling yours that involves Murray Rothbard.
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/11/michael-emmett-brady-on-keyness.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI find Dr. Boettke and Dr. Coyne's framing of the issue as crony capitalism versus real capitalism intriguing.
ReplyDeleteThere have been near-approaches to Laissez-Faire and certainly states that have been much less grandiose than their modern versions, but what they are arguing for is very theoretical. The reason the people in Occupy movements use the word "Capitalism" to describe the current situation is because in everyday conversation we do live in a largely capitalist system.
Nobody, I think, would argue that the current economy is in the perfectly competitive ideal Boettke and Coyne advocate. I enjoy Boettke's blog from time to time, especially since my primary interest in economics is in the history of economic thought, but this seems like an attempt to win an argument by definition. I.E. "these people decry capitalism, but the market isn't perfectly competitive so they don't really decry capitalism."
Perhaps the standard definition is lacking something, but that's what the word means to most people and dictionaries.
(This is not to argue against their advocacy of laisezz-faire; perhaps a perfectly competitive system with free-banking would be much better than our current one, but using a word to mean different things than what it means to most people doesn't advance any discussion along those lines)
The one thing I would caution, Warren, is that these guys are not arguing that "perfect competition" is necessary. What they argue is that "free competition" is necessary. That's an important difference.
ReplyDeleteNow, they'll tell you neoclassical or mainstream economists think that you have to have "perfect competition". That's a load of bunk. But it would be equally wrong to put those words in Boettke and Coyne's mouth.
My concern with their view is the idea that non-libertarian market societies degenerate into "crony capitalism" because they aren't robust. My own view is that a non-libertarian (i.e. - neoliberal/Keynesian interventionist), federal, constitutionally limited market democracy is the most robust option we have available to us and the option that will descend into "crony capitalism" to the least extent (although some crony capitalism is inevitable).
My critique of people like Boettke and Coyne is that I don't think libertarianism is very robust, I think it cannot work effectively and will inevitably degenerate into a worse state of crony capitalism - even if that's not what they intend.
I know they disagree with that critique. What amazes me is that often they don't even seem to be aware that that critique exists. If non-libertarians are upset about crony capitalism, they often just assume they've never thought about institutional robustness, for example. OWS types don't always talk the same lingo and unfortunately are often ignorant of economics - but I do think they've thought about these sorts of issues, they just come to a different conclusion.
"Have never put much thought to institutional robustness"
ReplyDeleteYeah, the trustafarians that consolidate into one massive nexus of bad BO really put great thought into the origins of social institutions. That's why they're screaming populist slogans, trespassing, physically preventing people from entering their place of work, and acting like a bunch of spoiled little shits. This blog post is totally not just Kuehn's daily exercise in telling his opponents that they're interpretation is wrong and his is right.
It certainly wouldn't make much sense for me to tell you that my opponents are right and I am wrong, would it?
ReplyDeleteOK, I shouldn't joke. I should say this flatly. Future comments on this post should not indulge the ridiculous idea that I think everyone associated with OWS has thought clearly on these issues. I've clearly stated in several places (including the comment section of the Boettke post I link to) that I don't think this.
ReplyDeleteSo let's just stop this ridiculous thread of discussion in its tracks.
"What amazes me is that often they don't even seem to be aware that that critique exists."
ReplyDeleteIf you tell most libertarians that you think what their policies would really achieve is crony capitalism, they will be shocked, because... *that's not in their plans*! You can look all through their plans, and their plans don't include any crony capitalism, and rule any gang violence, any oligarchy... for people so attuned to the unintended consequences of government action, they are tone deaf to the possibility of unintended consequences of dismantling-the-government action.
"and rule any gang violence"
ReplyDeleteWhoa, typing disaster!
"any rule by gang violence"
Gene, I'm surprised you're still talking to Daniel after he called you a libertarian.
ReplyDeleteLet's just call it "Callahanism" and be done with it. And whenever anyone asks what "Callahanism" consists of we all just avert our eyes and mumble an inaudible collection of words that must include "Oakeshott" and "anything that pisses off the Mises Institute"
ReplyDeleteAnd in response to the question "are you a Callahanian" the required response is always "hell if I know" - even for Gene.
ReplyDeletere Daniel Kuehn: "The one thing I would caution, Warren, is that these guys are not arguing that "perfect competition" is necessary. What they argue is that "free competition" is necessary. That's an important difference."
ReplyDeleteYes, thanks for the correction! These are Austrians after all and I think I was just mistakenly using "perfect competition" as a synonym for "free competition" because it was fresh in my head (obviously they are different).
re: "I know they disagree with that critique. What amazes me is that often they don't even seem to be aware that that critique exists. If non-libertarians are upset about crony capitalism, they often just assume they've never thought about institutional robustness, for example. OWS types don't always talk the same lingo and unfortunately are often ignorant of economics - but I do think they've thought about these sorts of issues, they just come to a different conclusion."
Yes I've noticed this as well. I'm not sure myself whether your critique is correct, but I am amazed at the befuddlement. I can understand rejecting it of course, but for practical purposes it should at the least be acknowledged as internally valid.
Interesting conversation here.
ReplyDeleteI've recently come into the same conclusion of the obvious disconnect in communication, whereas the parallels of the two groups are lost. Even the more mild-mannered blogs and such that speak of libertarian ideals with regards to liberal thought still come across as being to conservative. Even a single use of "anti capitalism" is enough to make any OWS'er roll their eyes and click off the page.
Shortly after I originally became tuned into OWS and supported their cause a friend of mine also tuned me into libertarianism (after having been a strong democrat all of my life). While we're both stubbornly thick-skinned debate crazy knuckleheads which lead to much conversation on the subject, I know the average person's experience out there isn't going to be that.
I feel this concept of communicating how libertarian ideals can be a better (and for that matter, specific) mode to accomplish OWS goals while using mutual language and messaging has in the making a proper OWS working group.
Should anyone else feel the same, please contact me on my profile here. My website link in there has my details.