Often I'll take an explanation of libertarianism and post it here, reflecting on that fact that by that definition 90% of the Western world is libertarian (so why can't they get Paul nominated or Johnson elected?).
It may seem like griping, but of course the real point of going through things like that is to get at the heart of differences in belief. If we take William James's view that there is no difference that doesn't make a difference, and if we observe no difference in a view on something, then that probably doesn't really get to the heart of the distinction of libertarianism. We've got to dig into more fundamental differences in the use of language.
Another option, though, is that common premises are assumed to be different because different groups of people take those premises in different directions. This came to mind when I read Jason Brennan's recent post at BHL on whether libertarians think all politicians are "selfish" or "evil". He writes:
"There’s a stereotype that libertarians think politicians and other government agents are selfish sociopaths, out for themselves.
Libertarians oppose romantic ideas about government. People are people. Handing someone a gun, calling him boss, and charging him with a noble goal will not transform him into a saint. Libertarians are skeptical that those in power will want to use their power to do good[...] Libertarians do not assume that soldiers or police officers are more saintly than the rest of us. In fact, libertarians tend to stress that political power attracts people who want to exploit that power for their own private ends."
My first thought when reading this was (once again), "but we all believe that, so this doesn't tell me much about libertarianism". I don't think this is a difference in language, though (in the way that libertarians use words like "liberty" very differently from a lot of people). I think the whole point is that almost all of us believe this, but we draw different conclusions from it. Most of us don't think this sort of thing warrants draconian restrictions on what we can try to achieve collectively (although it certainly calls for some restriction). Libertarians often take this point and extrapolate it out considerably in a way that doesn't seem well justified to the rest of us.
That is a real difference, of course. A difference that makes a difference.
What libertarians shouldn't do is go around thinking that the rest of us have romantic ideas about government just because we don't draw the same ultimate conclusions about the implications of that fact that you do.
James Buchanan, take note. It is not too late to retract some of your earlier scholarship inappropriately imputing this view to others.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
"My first thought when reading this was (once again), "but we all believe that, so this doesn't tell me much about libertarianism"."
ReplyDeleteo_0
So NO ONE ever attributes an undesired policy outcomes to the immoral motives of their political opposition instead of inherent incentives faced by all politicians ("We didn't get the health care reform we wanted because Republicans are selfish racists that hate poor people")?
And NO ONE ever ascribes soldiers/policemen/firefighters with special status in our society ("They're ALL heros!!!!").
And NO ONE ever invites comparisons between their favorite politicians and divine entities by enshrining their images in monuments based on greek temples (Lincoln Memorial!?).
YEP! WE ARE ALL PUBLIC CHOICE THEORISTS NOW!!
:P Maybe the reason a lot of things about libertarianism sounds so reasonable to you is because you spend so much time talking to libertarians that you are now basically just left-leaning libertarian yourself.
Ah yes, the old harping on a little harmless hyperbole.
DeleteI can cite libertarian praise of fellow libertarians too, Dallas. Something tells me that's not sufficient for invalidating the point that Brennan makes.
I'm not sure I get your point about heroes and monuments.
Is heroism suddenly synonymous with unalloyed goodness? My recollection is that a lot of our heroes are imperfect people. And what's wrong with honoring people that do great things? I think you're going overboard when you get into that. The Lincoln Memorial is hardly proof that we think Lincoln was a saint personally.
The fact that I like people that a lot of libertarians call corporatists, statistis, or even fascists makes me suspect I probably wouldn't pass as a left-libertarian, but maybe. I'm usually on the libertarian/liberal corner of centrist on those Nolan tests, but not for any views that aren't common to anyone in the classical liberal tradition.
"I can cite libertarian praise of fellow libertarians too, Dallas. Something tells me that's not sufficient for invalidating the point that Brennan makes."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you mean. My point was that people DO give special ("more saintly") status to soldiers, policeman, and their favorite politicians. You said they do not.
More importantly, I think it is pretty easy to find examples of non-libertarians writing narratives of the political process that revolve around the inherent morality of the participants instead of the incentives they face. So how can "we all" believe political outcomes are the consequence of institutions and not the inherent qualities of politicians?
If anything, I don't think even all libertarians fully appreciate the importance of institutions. I mean, how many libertarians have you read that assume the government is an exogenous force imposed on society instead of an endogenous outcome of collective decision making?
If you wanted to throw in some "harmless hyperbole", you should have went in the other direction. Instead of claiming everyone is a public choice theorist, you should have said that not even libertarians really believe public choice theory.
I am saying that the fact that people occasionally talk this way does not invalidate the point that generally speaking people recognize the public choice point. My point was that I can cite libertarians talking like that too. That is not sufficient proof that they reject the public choice argument. My point was that you are taking some rhetorical hyperbole far too seriously and not addressing the real question.
DeleteAnd I'd reiterate: honoring soldiers, policemen, and politicians no more indicates that we think they're saintly or uniquely moral any more than honoring non-public figures indicates we think they have any special morality to them. We honor moms on mother's day. We're not saying they're inherently moral. We just recognize certain contributions that these obviously imperfect people make.
re: "If you wanted to throw in some "harmless hyperbole", you should have went in the other direction. Instead of claiming everyone is a public choice theorist, you should have said that not even libertarians really believe public choice theory."
But that claim isn't one I could defend.
I think we all recognize these points.
What public choice theory is nice for is including these insights into analytic models. That can be important, depending on what you're doing. But I don't think the average person romanticizes politicians. Quite the opposite.
"I am saying that the fact that people occasionally talk this way does not invalidate the point that generally speaking people recognize the public choice point. My point was that I can cite libertarians talking like that too. That is not sufficient proof that they reject the public choice argument. My point was that you are taking some rhetorical hyperbole far too seriously and not addressing the real question."
ReplyDeleteSo, if we can't judge people's views by what they say.....
Let's try it this way.
Can you cite ANY evidence that makes you think most people recognize the public choice point? Or is this another instance of "well, I obviously don't have any actual evidence, but it is my impression that...."?
Of course we can judge people's views by what they say.
DeleteWhat we can't do is over-interpret single comments or the comments of a small minority.
Don't confuse that sort of poor reasoning with judgement.
As for evidence: the endless complaints about the vacuousness of politicians. You want me to take screenshots of the commentary rolling across my facebook and twitter accounts last night during the debate? How about approval or trust ratings for politicians? Perhaps a textual analysis of political jokes or cartoons?
Do you really not see this? I can't understand how you could deny this point.
It's put more formally in all of our founding literature that gets taught to kids in schools: distrust of politicians.
I find this whole conversation really remarkable, Dallas.
And what's your "evidence"? That we appreciate policemen and build monuments when presidents emancipate slaves? How in God's name is that evidence that people reject public choice theory? Does public choice theory say that imperfect people can't do decent things? Not the last time I checked.
"As for evidence: the endless complaints about the vacuousness of politicians. You want me to take screenshots of the commentary rolling across my facebook and twitter accounts last night during the debate? How about approval or trust ratings for politicians? Perhaps a textual analysis of political jokes or cartoons?"
ReplyDeleteYou're the one that said you could defend your "harmless hyperbole". I just wanted to see what you had mind. :-/ If you find the whole conversation remarkable, you could just say "my critique of Brennan's post was based on a gross generalization that is supported by no real evidence what-so-ever beyond my own general impressions that no one on the planet should really care about but me". That would end the conversation right there. :)
---
"And what's your "evidence"? That we appreciate policemen and build monuments when presidents emancipate slaves? How in God's name is that evidence that people reject public choice theory? Does public choice theory say that imperfect people can't do decent things? Not the last time I checked."
You are really into oversimplifying other people's statements. Somehow Brennan's point that people think non-libertarians ascribe "more saintly" status to policeman and soldiers has become "everyone but libertarians thinks policemen are perfect people"???? How did that happen?
Come on, man.
Brennan's point wasn't that soldiers and policeman and politicians are "perfect people", bu that they get a special ("more saintly") status in this society. How is saying that all soldiers are heros and enshrining our favorite politicians in marble NOT evidence of this point???????
Do you REALLY not see that? Or do you just like to be contrary?
But it's not "my own general impression". The only hyperbole was "we all". That should have been "most of us", but I think you're the only one that is getting tripped up on that.
Deletere: "Do you REALLY not see that? Or do you just like to be contrary?"
Me being contrary???
I'm really not sure where else to go with this Dallas. Somehow you are taking recognition of people's acts and turning that into them being "more saintly" or somehow abandoning public choice theory. I'm not being the pointless contrarian here.
"But it's not "my own general impression". The only hyperbole was "we all". That should have been "most of us", but I think you're the only one that is getting tripped up on that."
DeleteUm. I would actually still disagree with you even if you said "most of us". How is that not apparent by now?
You honestly think I was complaining because I can find 1 person on the planet that doesn't appreciate the public choice critique and that would thus invalidate your claim that every one appreciates it? No, I am pretty sure I said in my SECOND FREAKING POST that **most** people don't appreciate public choice theory. :P
Come on! At least give me some freaking credit!
I know you'd disagree. That is very apparent. I'm clarifying where I am conceding hyperbole.
DeleteThen how in the world am I "tripping up on that"?
DeleteAside from the fact I quoted your "we all" statement in my initial post, I have been pretty clearly arguing against your **assertion** that most people appreciate Brennan's point (a claim that is the ENTIRE meat of your post).
So trying to reduce my comments to me just tripping up on your hyperbolic rhetorical flurish seems more than a a bit unfair.
PS* "As for evidence: the endless complaints about the vacuousness of politicians."
ReplyDeleteYour best evidence is that people occasionally complain about politicians on twitter?
That isn't exactly what I have in mind when I say that people have internalized the public choice critique.
The primary insight of public choice theory is that politicians respond to the incentives they face. Saying that politicians are dumb doesn't really cover it, bro. :-/
What I said people believe is the quoted portion in my post.
DeleteThe extent to which they can apply an economic theory like public choice theory is of course going to be more limited.
Analogy: People know that when prices are higher they can buy less of something. That does not mean the people in general know neoclassical price theory.
But what Brennan said libertarians believe is something that pretty much everyone believes.
The point is that the difference is not in what Brennan identifies. The difference lies in the conclusions libertarians draw from it.
"What I said people believe is the quoted portion in my post."
DeleteThen it is basically irrelevant. Just because you can find people in your twitter feed that think politicians are dumb DOESN'T mean that politicians do not receive special status in society.
Unless, I guess, you take "more saintly" to mean "protected from criticism".
And I don't know why you would do that unless you were *really* reaching.
Perhaps you and I just don't have similar acquaintances Daniel, but that is not my experience at all. Many of my liberal friends think that most of the problems with politics would go away if the Republicans just went away/became better people. I have a conservative friend who admits that while he intellectually understands the structural problems, openly admits that he just wants Plato's philosopher king to become President. Many of my liberal friends think that everything would be better if Scalia and Thomas would just go away so there could be campaign finance reform. For a lot of people it does seem to boil down to people.
ReplyDeletere: "Many of my liberal friends think that most of the problems with politics would go away if the Republicans just went away/became better people."
DeleteWell it wouldn't be a bad start. But I wouldn't say that "most of the problems with politics would go away". Seems like a moot point anyway - that won't happen.
I would guess you are looking at your liberal friends with a very skewed perspective. In confidence they would probably attribute things to you that you would deny thinking.
Why do you think you are representing them any more accurately.
I always think it's pretty safe to assume that insight into general social processes is usually ideologically invariant unless there's a very good reason to think otherwise.
To reiterate - I don't think everybody has everything nailed down. "All" was indeed hyperbole on my part. I just think Brennan's point does not correlate with political ideology.
When we had more deferential ideologies like monarchists or fascists you probably could find people who thought this because it is pretty much inherent in their ideologies. But we're all liberals and we all pretty much know what Brennan is pointing out.
The strength of the grasp people have on the point will vary, obviously. But it's not really correlated with political philosophy, at least within the community of liberals.
"The strength of the grasp people have on the point will vary, obviously. But it's not really correlated with political philosophy, at least within the community of liberals."
DeleteHe asserted with confidence, but no evidence.
re: "He asserted with confidence, but no evidence."
DeleteHe trolled with confidence, but no insight.
I have no good theory to explain why it should be. I've never seen compelling evidence that it should be. The interactions I've seen have shown that libertarians are as prone to hero worship as any other ideological group. And any analysis of this sort of thing is going to be highly subject to interpretation (see Dan Klein's publications in EJW for an example).
This isn't "no evidence". This is a very well thought through set of evidence and arguments that is quite convincing to me. I don't hold this perspective randomly.
Can we construct an empirical analysis of this? I really have my doubts such an analysis could be put together.
That's quite different from suggesting I have no evidence.
Dallas, your trolling on this point is really distracting from the main point of the post, which is that we can often mistake differences in conclusions that we draw for differences in premises.
DeleteThat's a contention I think is interesting and relevant.
Could you perhaps consider dropping it in case anyone wants to focus on the primary subject of the post? It's clear that no matter how much evidence and argument I give you you're going to keep telling me there's no evidence.
It's clear to me that you actually no clue what the word "evidence" means. And you apparently think disagreement means trolling. So it probably is best I drop it.
DeleteWe are clearly making no headway here. You are sure you know what other people believe regardless of what they say to contrary, so what is the point? Good luck getting that conversation going.
PS* If I were trolling, I would probably write hyperbolic statements to over exaggerate my points as to excite readers and generate more page views. So if anyone is trolling....
@Daniel, I did not mean that liberals are particularly prone to such biases. I simply pointed out that in my experience, people in general do not have much of a grasp of public choice theory. Liberals features more prominently in my comment because since I live in San Francisco, non-liberals are a rare species in my environment.
DeleteI do however think that in the same way that monarchism implies a strong trust in political leaders, libertarianism implies an equally strong distrust. So I would say libertarians are probably on average more likely to espouse public choice theory more strongly.
Yes, your arguments have been great. "If you people say something like 'all the problems in politics will go away if Republicans would go away', they probably don't really mean it."
ReplyDeleteHere is Brad Delong not believing the same thing...
"YOU KNOW, I ARRIVED IN WASHINGTON IN 1993 TO WORK FOR LLOYD BENTSEN'S TREASURY AS PART OF THE SANE TECHNOCRATIC BIPARTISAN CENTER...
And it took me only two months--two months!--to conclude that America's best hope for sane technocratic governance required the elimination of the Republican Party from our political system as rapidly as possible."
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/08/you-know-i-arrived-in-washington-in-1993-to-work-for-lloyd-bentsens-treasury-as-part-of-the-sane-technocratic-bipartisan-ce.html
Of course, I'm sure what he really meant to sya was something about the importance of incentives and institutions. AFTER ALL, WE'RE ALL PUBLIC CHOICE THEORISTS NOW! :D
~My first thought when reading this was (once again), "but we all believe that, so this doesn't tell me much about libertarianism".~
ReplyDeleteIn American politics false perceptions about the power of government to do X or Y (a claim which is backed up by loads of survey data) tells me otherwise. There is in fact a great deal of starry eyed romanticism about the state and it is often the case that you'll hear (as I did yesterday) that at least unlike markets you get to vote in and out whoever you please in democratic politics (indeed, this sort commentary about the nature of government was used by John Stewart a year or two ago to describe why government is so, so superior to markets when he was interviewing Rand Paul). Yet modern American politics is a duopoly which continually kicks the can down the road when it comes to issues of paramount importance.
I don't see libertarians statement about government to be particularly unique or insightful. There is such a heaping load of starry eyed romanticism about business and the individual expressed by libertarianism. I doubt very much that John said government was "so, so superior" to the market. That doesnt really mean much and there isnt a specific enough claim there to evaluate. Our democracy functions in a very messy way. I agree with your last part though.
DeleteUpon reflection, I acknowledge that libertarians see all people as flawed I suppose.
Delete"by that definition 90% of the Western world is libertarian (so why can't they get Paul nominated or Johnson elected?)."
ReplyDeleteThey cannot get elected because all true Christians, and right thinking people generally, find them utterly loathsome. "Libertarianism" is nothing more than sophomoric rationalizations for selfishness. A twenty year old could be forgiven for flirting with Libertarianism, a thirty year old cannot.
libertarianism are also anti-American, for they do not believe in the Constitution. Read the Preamble, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
DeleteTo be an true American requires that you believe that the Union can be made more perfect, that Government can be made to work.
the two bedrock principles of being a libertarian are greed and narcissism
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteYour statement that "by that definition 90% of the Western world is libertarian" has to be wrong if Brad Delong is correct "that America's best hope for sane technocratic governance required the elimination of the Republican Party from our political system as rapidly as possible."
Who is right, you or Delong?