tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post3376332522867187170..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: A question for libertariansEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-15098493363330312972013-12-23T20:11:19.619-05:002013-12-23T20:11:19.619-05:00So I suggest in future people avoid the misleading...So I suggest in future people avoid the misleading term "libertarian", and instead refer to extreme right-wing so-called "libertarians" as oligarchists. This should help to reduce confusion and make things clearer and more honest.<br /><br />The incorrectly and deceptively named "liberty movement", should also be renamed the Oligarchy moverment, given that it is mainly made up of extreme right-wing oligarchists, Philippenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-71682203848862851662013-12-23T20:06:15.411-05:002013-12-23T20:06:15.411-05:00The correct term for extreme right-wing so-called ...The correct term for extreme right-wing so-called "libertarians" like Murphy is actually 'Oligarchist'. The society they want is not necessarily any more "free", it's just controlled by powerful oligarchs rather than by elected governments.<br />Philippenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-75839634208600913052013-12-18T00:07:10.390-05:002013-12-18T00:07:10.390-05:00Plus one on Daniel's response to Bob. Bob may ...Plus one on Daniel's response to Bob. Bob may seriously believe that being Pro liberty implies being antistate, but claiming to be Pro liberty is an assertion about values, and being antistate is a method. It's either naïve or disingenuous to conflate the two.Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12976919713907046171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-26886650624460520832013-12-18T00:03:20.547-05:002013-12-18T00:03:20.547-05:00It's an attempt to expropriate the word, and t...It's an attempt to expropriate the word, and thus imply falsehoods about your opponents. I can care about democracy without being a Democrat, I can care about the Republic without being Republican, I can care about liberty without being either a libertarian or part of the liberty movement. The purpose of the label is to imply otherwise.Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12976919713907046171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-55628356402896857072013-12-17T23:43:00.300-05:002013-12-17T23:43:00.300-05:00Editing meltdown. I listed their opposition to len...Editing meltdown. I listed their opposition to lend lease, the Civil War, the voting rights act, and World War II in general.Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12976919713907046171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-2791758310788444542013-12-17T23:41:51.897-05:002013-12-17T23:41:51.897-05:00I, as a decidedly small L libertarian, agree with ...I, as a decidedly small L libertarian, agree with you Daniel. It does seem to me to be on the uptick. It's distortive and tendentious. <br /><br />I am struck by how little self-professed Libertarians often care about liberty. Extreme examples include their opposition to Lindley's in the second world war, their opposition to , or the Cold War. Now maybe there are good arguments against some of these things, and maybe some of those good arguments are based on the concern for some I repeat some liberties. But there also based on ignoring or downgrading other liberties. So it is not fair accurate or true to describe this group as the "liberty movement". They are the "some kinds of liberty for some people movement". <br /><br />If somebody named their movement the "truth movement" because they were concerned with certain this is considered fact, we would all see through it.Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12976919713907046171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-28204609281263535232013-12-15T18:30:17.754-05:002013-12-15T18:30:17.754-05:00I did not read the comments (there were 40-ish), s...I did not read the comments (there were 40-ish), so maybe I'm a bit out of context with my own comments. That said, I think there is something rather common sensical about how people who self-identify as part of "the liberty movement" may equate it with a libertarian-ish point of view (or maybe they dont, I'm not part of such a movement). I guess the best I can offer is the analogy with those who, as part of "the green movement", may equate the movement with an environmentalist point of view.<br /><br />"People made the point that "liberty movement" reflects a political phenomenon, but as I've already stated my point of contention is really the "liberty" part, not the "movement" part. I know it's political, it's not really what I'm preoccupied with or interested in here."<br /><br />I guess I'm missing something then. I guess I'm not really sure what your point of contention is.<br /><br />[Note: I started to set forth the following thoughts, but I'm not sure if I'm on the right track, or even if I am understanding what you take to be the issues at stake. I'm working on a paper on Hobbes right now, so my mind is pretty mush. Not a good time to start up again with blog commenting. What can you do. I was about to delete this, but figured I might as well throw it out there.] If your contention is that they have an incorrect conception of "liberty," that seems like a substantive objection to a moral/political value. But because this is a *political* movement, you should not expect these people to believe that their opponents are adequately concerned with "liberty." So I'm not sure how people are naive or opportunistic in their use of liberty, *given their believed conception* and *given that this is a political movement*. It is certainly not naive: there are many philosophers who defend such conceptions. It is not opportunistic: this is a political movement, and as such, you must set forth your preferred conception *as the right conception* and hope others agree. From their point of view, you might *believe* that you care about liberty, but you really dont. Again, as a political movement, they dont really have time to engage in philosophical debate about the reasonableness of one's conception of liberty.Humehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00471731654454581518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-9945608383729209652013-12-15T16:54:41.355-05:002013-12-15T16:54:41.355-05:00I'm not entirely clear on what you think is so...I'm not entirely clear on what you think is so difficult about distinguishing between philosophical and political libertarianism. What is the challenge there.<br /><br />People made the point that "liberty movement" reflects a political phenomenon, but as I've already stated my point of contention is really the "liberty" part, not the "movement" part. I know it's political, it's not really what I'm preoccupied with or interested in here.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-71046738363476123202013-12-15T16:52:17.941-05:002013-12-15T16:52:17.941-05:00I'm a little confused by your confusion. Clear...I'm a little confused by your confusion. Clearly the concern isn't a denotative one, not is the concern that the chosen name is baffling. The concern is that people take it to be connotative in a way that I find either naive or opportunistic.<br /><br />This is not like a Republican complaining to a Democrat about what they're called because he too supports democratic principles. This is a case (at least in my reckoning) of a Democrat suggesting that those who care about democracy are Democrats and that that is the whole point of the group.<br /><br />Just take a look at some of Bob's comments - he is not just using a name that reflects something he cares a lot about. He defines the liberty movement as people that care more about liberty than people outside the liberty movement. It is consciously and apparently non-ironically connotative for them. That's the issue.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-70182591931898704872013-12-15T15:49:19.593-05:002013-12-15T15:49:19.593-05:00Daniel, I'm a bit confused. You write: "...Daniel, I'm a bit confused. You write: "Whenever I hear "liberty movement" used as a synonym for "libertarian" it strikes me as either naïve/ignorant or deliberately distortive and opportunistic."<br /><br />It seems to me to be a simple way to categorize people involved in actual politics, as part of a "movement" in some sense. In other words, "the liberty movement" could be read as The Liberty Movement, which denotes a group of people who actively engage in politics with a certain priority given to their conception of "liberty." So as actual players in the game, "liberty" is for them almost always the salient issue. I would tend to categorize people like this as "libertarian" in some broad sense of the word. This does not mean that if you are not a "libertarian" then you do not care about liberty, just as it does not mean that if you are not an "environmentalist" then you do not care about the environment. In fact, a good parallel would be "the green movement". But I think a more general point and something to keep in mind is that if there is such as a thing as "the liberty movement" and such movement is properly characterized as "libertarian" in some way, that has nothing to do with moral-political philosophy or the correct/most justified conception of "liberty" or "freedom" or "equality" etc. Perhaps as an economist and someone so close to the politics of it all, this is a hard distinction to keep in mind: philosophical libertarianism and political "libertarianism". I believe, however, that it is an important distinction to keep in mind. What is interesting is that philosophical libertarianism does not necessarily entail the advocacy of policies that one would normally consider "libertarian" in the policy space of actual politics. This is because there are very difficult, complex questions related to connecting the ideal aspect of one's political philosophy with its nonideal institutional recommendations for a particular political unit at a particular instance in time.Humehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00471731654454581518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-75220370974504405362013-12-14T17:55:36.087-05:002013-12-14T17:55:36.087-05:00"I care about my kid tremendously more than I..."I care about my kid tremendously more than I care about economic theory,"<br /><br />You should post more pictures of your kid. :-)Absalonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09131268683451462949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-39397728480430730172013-12-14T05:25:47.191-05:002013-12-14T05:25:47.191-05:00Here's the thing - I don't see you as devo...Here's the thing - I don't see you as devoting your life to defending liberty. That's how YOU see you. I see you as devoting your life to fighting the state. And the asteroid point is perfect, and the Civil Rights Act point I mentioned earlier which many libertarians will say they oppose, and the Lincoln suspicions. And the pacifism in the face of facism.<br /><br />All of this is evidence that libertarians do not care about liberty more than I do.<br /><br />As for blogging - I care about my kid tremendously more than I care about economic theory, but economic theory is what I blog about. It doesn't mean it's more important (you get at this in your follow up I see).Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-38580136714857356662013-12-13T19:28:08.965-05:002013-12-13T19:28:08.965-05:00^^ And of course the above is supposed to somewhat...^^ And of course the above is supposed to somewhat whimsical. Duh, I care about my kid more than karaoke, but you get what I'm saying. Even your asteroid comment here is germane: When you discuss issues of liberty, it's typically to explain why people like me are all out of whack.Bob Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04001108408649311528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-34461799052440940292013-12-13T19:26:09.607-05:002013-12-13T19:26:09.607-05:00Daniel,
Obviously there are no IUCs possible, but...Daniel,<br /><br />Obviously there are no IUCs possible, but to the extent that we operationalize "who cares more about liberty?" I don't even see how this can be close. I just scrolled through your blog and in the first 3 pages, the only mention I see you making of liberty is to mock/criticize the people who have devoted their lives to defending it. And it's not "Hey guys I strategically disagree with your wonderful aims" but rather "I think these guys are either naive or lying."<br /><br />Look, I clearly don't care as much about racial bigotry as people working at the NAACP. That doesn't mean I'm a racist or that I hate black people, it just means it's clearly not as high a priority to me as to them.<br /><br />By the same token, you clearly care more about economic theory and your kid than liberty. In contrast, I care about liberty, Krugman, and karaoke.<br /><br />None of this is a judgment, and I'm not saying you're a closet totalitarian, but I can't believe you're acting as if you and your social network care as much about "liberty" as the people I know who do things like move their families to a different state etc. for it.Bob Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04001108408649311528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-8017641618359198062013-12-13T17:05:50.673-05:002013-12-13T17:05:50.673-05:00I'll just speak for myself, but I think what I...I'll just speak for myself, but I think what I'm saying has wider applicability. I think I rank liberty higher than you do given my definition of liberty. I don't think you could argue that my definition of liberty is dishonest or fundamentally flawed, even if you disagreed with it. I also define my ideology primarily by the supremacy of liberty (as I define it) as a value. Wouldn't it make sense from that point of view for me to call myself a member of the "liberty movement"?PrometheeFeuhttp://prometheefeu.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-41950840934478740312013-12-13T12:14:17.934-05:002013-12-13T12:14:17.934-05:00""Fragile" means that something is ...""Fragile" means that something is easily broken, if it can't be changed, by definition it is not fragile."<br /><br />Fragile means something that doesn't like volatility, disorder, or randomness. A coffee mug is very fragile, but it's also not changed. Anything that's short volatility is fragile and centralized systems are certainly short volatility. Fragile systems are actually remarkably stable due to their lack of volatility, but they are also prone to violent blow-ups. Don't confuse a lack of volatility for stability; they are two completely different things.<br /><br />As for civilizations becoming great without centralized leadership, that's because of war. Nation-states are war machines and that was actually the initial purpose of government debt: to fund wars. If you have decentralized states with no centralized government, it makes nations very powerless against invaders.Suvynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-403240470777684592013-12-13T11:44:47.418-05:002013-12-13T11:44:47.418-05:00Right. Assume we are on the same page on the compo...Right. Assume we are on the same page on the composition of this movement - the actual people that identify. I didn't focus on that in the post, but assume we are on the same page (or that I could be easily corrected).<br /><br />My point is "liberty movement" is a problematic thing to call it.<br /><br />I would contest either Rockwell or Zwolinski being in a movement called "liberty movement" that excludes someone that thinks like I do and is more activisty. I would call such a name for such a movement either naive/ignorant or opportunistic.<br /><br />If you're involved in politics you're almost by definition going to be opportunistic in some way. Of course they're going to be. And as someone not involved in any significant sense, I'll complain about it. I have always thought of this term as being political lingo. But I've seen people recently who aren't especially political using it which piqued my interest.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-22989847173573581982013-12-13T11:39:53.692-05:002013-12-13T11:39:53.692-05:00"Fragile" means that something is easily..."Fragile" means that something is easily broken, if it can't be changed, by definition it is not fragile. Your second argument makes more sense.<br /><br />You talk about the dangers of central planning and historically you are probably right. Most great civilizations that fell, did so because they suffered from central planners who were too removed from situations to make appropriate decisions or to ensure those decisions were properly executed.<br /><br />But the flip side of that is, no civilization has ever become great without some kind of centralized leadership. Whether you want to look at great "Barbarian" warlords or massive empires. However, the civilizations that tended to survive the longest were the ones who had some kind of bureaucracy in place to maintain day to day operations during periods of incompetent leadership.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02681526348633581059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-87041298979196770202013-12-13T11:38:37.727-05:002013-12-13T11:38:37.727-05:00Now I'm not sure whether or not I agree with y...Now I'm not sure whether or not I agree with you. <br /><br />What I was getting at was that movement libertarians really are the same thing as people in the liberty movement. And, by corollary, not all libertarians are part of the liberty movement. I consider people like Eugene Fama and Scott Sumner to be libertarians who are not "movement libertarians." I consider people like Lew Rockwell and Matt Zwolinski to be "movement libertarians."<br /><br />I think your point is that there is a big difference between Lew Rockwell, who I think you would say is a member of the "liberty movement," and people like Matt Zwolinski, who I think you would say is a "movement libertarian," but not a member of the "liberty movement."<br /><br />If that's your point, then I can agree with your gist but would stop short of calling it naive, ignorant, manipulative, or opportunistic. I'd just call it ambiguity. If, on the other hand, I don't have your point correct, then I apologize.<br /><br />Perhaps David Henderson's "activist" libertarian thing would be useful here.<br />http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/07/the_chicago_sch_1.htmlRP Longhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15028013805248797978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-31269365959682801962013-12-13T11:13:41.279-05:002013-12-13T11:13:41.279-05:00Well it's obvious why it's naive to think ...Well it's obvious why it's naive to think that everybody is going to agree and understand that libertarian = "people who like liberty most" I hope, right?<br /><br />And given that that is naive, if one does use it in that way you're being opportunistic by trying to present your movement as being a bigger tent than it really is.<br /><br />Am I missing what's confusing?<br /><br />See I thought we were all on the same page on those points and that was why I usually just heard political types use the phrase. That's what I'm trying to get a handle of here - are those points really not commonly held by reasonable people (and I classify you as a reasonable person, so long as an asteroid isn't heading toward the Earth).Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-74127620103909187682013-12-13T11:09:16.834-05:002013-12-13T11:09:16.834-05:00OK well I gave my reasons above. I may regret this...OK well I gave my reasons above. I may regret this, but would you mind spelling out why it's "naive/ignorant at best and manipulative/opportunistic at worst," except apparently when I use the term? :)Bob Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04001108408649311528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-72934490534241492652013-12-13T10:49:45.015-05:002013-12-13T10:49:45.015-05:00Exactly! but this is what I'm balking at. Libe...Exactly! but this is what I'm balking at. Liberty movement should not equate to movement libertarians unless you're naive/ignorant or manipulative/opportunistic. This equation you have above is largely what I'm getting at.<br /><br />I should have made the "movement" point more distinct and bracketed off in the post - didn't realize how significant that is for peoples' perceptions of the composition of the group. But it's definitely the "liberty" thing I'm intrigued by.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-41392871962428477462013-12-13T10:47:49.468-05:002013-12-13T10:47:49.468-05:00re: "Rothbard/Friedman/savior-of-the-world-ba...re: "Rothbard/Friedman/savior-of-the-world-bathed-in-the-tears-of-lady-liberty,"<br /><br />I was debating responding with "ewww.... salty" vs. "a true Rothbardian would bathe in the blood of lady liberty!"Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-58879628738497587402013-12-13T10:46:35.521-05:002013-12-13T10:46:35.521-05:00Sure - I totally get the "movement" poin...Sure - I totally get the "movement" point. I'd just pivot and then ask "why not 'the libertarian movement'" for the same reasons - "liberty" movement sounds naive/ignorant at best and manipulative/opportunistic at worst. That distinction is my principle interest.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-17618204220665969022013-12-13T10:44:07.063-05:002013-12-13T10:44:07.063-05:00Oh right, I was focused on "liberty" but...Oh right, I was focused on "liberty" but ignored the "movement" part: Daniel, there are a bunch of us who are truly devoting our lives to the preservation/expansion of individual liberty. We don't always agree on what that means. But there's a difference between someone who happens to believe that the government is too big, or that Gitmo should be closed, etc., versus someone who sponsors rallies, writes letters to the editor, and does other things that might even jeopardize his career etc.Bob Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04001108408649311528noreply@blogger.com