Tim Sommers writes in 3Quarks
What do you call a Republican who smokes dope? A libertarian. Old joke. I mean, marijuana is not even illegal in a lot of states anymore.
So, ideology has nothing to do with preferences. Anyway, it is perfectly rational to want everybody else to follow a rule which you yourself surreptitiously violate.
How about this one? A libertarian walks into a bear. Okay, that’s not really a joke. It’s the title of a recent book by Matthew Honogoltz-Hetling, subtitled “The Utopian Plot to Liberate an American Town (And Some Bears)”. It’s about a group of libertarians who move to a rural town with the express purpose of dismantling the local government and producing a libertarian utopia. The resulting problems with coordinating refuse disposal attract a lot of bears and the lack of a government makes it difficult to mount a response. Bears 1. Libertarians 0.
Tim is lying. An article in the TNR about this particular town states-
Even when the state has tried to rein in the population with culls, it has been too late. Between 1998 and 2013, the number of bears doubled in the wildlife management region that includes Grafton. “Something’s Bruin in New Hampshire—Learn to Live with Bears,” the state’s literature advises. The bear problem, in other words, is much bigger than individual libertarian cranks refusing to secure their garbage. It is a problem born of years of neglect and mismanagement by legislators, and, arguably, indifference from New Hampshire taxpayers in general, who have proved reluctant to step up and allocate resources to Fish and Game, even as the agency’s traditional source of funding—income from hunting licenses—has dwindled.
I have been thinking about libertarianism again since I read Thomas Wells’ smart 3 Quarks Daily article Libertarianism is Bankrupt arguing that libertarianism, “like Marxism or Flat-Earthism”, has “nothing to offer”. Which is kind of unfair to Marxism if you ask me. But a real-world example of how dead the libertarian horse is, is offered by the departure of many recovering libertarians from the Cato Institute recently, the bulk of them forming a new non-libertarian think tank (Nikensas).
Presumably, Tim mean the Niskanen Center whose donors are for a carbon tax and higher immigration. But it describes itself as libertarian. Its board includes Cowan & De Long.
What lead most of these former Cato staffers to abandon libertarianism was the existence of a political problem that they felt libertarianism had no response to. I bet you can guess what it is. (I’ll tell you at the end, just in case.)
There is money to be made in 'fighting climate change'- as China has shown. Moreover, more migration is generally good for Corporations though it may not be for less skilled worker. Some people on the right do want the Niskanen Center to change its name on the grounds that Bill Niskanen was a climate sceptic and that the Center has abandoned his ideology. However, the Center continues to claim to be libertarian though it favors 'strategic compromise' and an incremental approach.
In the meantime, given the moribund state of libertarianism, rather than beat on it some more, I thought it would be fun to return to its glory days, to Robert Nozick and his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Nozick was arguably the most philosophically sophisticated libertarian ever.
He was an academic- i.e. a cretin.
He was charismatic. He was purportedly widely read in the Reagan White House.
At least Tim isn't pretending Reagan himself read that shite.
And he was lauded as one of the Philosopher Kings of Harvard by Esquire Magazine in 1983 (including a full-page photospread in which he looked very thoughtful). (The other Philosopher-King, John Rawls, refused to be interviewed or photographed for the piece.)
Both were shite coz they were ignorant of modern econ.
In particular, I want to look at two interesting, if fatally flawed arguments that, I think, still tell us a lot about the appeal and folly of libertarianism.
Tim is too stupid to expose the folly of others- no matter how foolish they might be.
Without further ado, here are Nozick’s Eye-Transplant and Wilt Chamberlin (no, let’s update that) – LeBron James arguments.
Suppose you lived in a word where half the people were born with two eyes and half with none. Suppose further than eye-transplants have become relatively cheap and painless. Then suppose that the government passes a law that says that everyone with two eyes has to donate one of their eyes to someone with no eyes. While it might be laudable for you to donate one of your eyes, it’s horrifying to think of the government forcibly removing one of your eyes and giving it away. Surely, this is wrong and it’s wrong, Nozick says, because you own your eyes.
This is irrelevant. Tim hit the nail on the head when he said it is horrifying to picture kids being held down, kicking and screaming, while some minion of the State tears out their eyes. The thing is repugnant. If free exit obtains, many will run away leaving the blind worse off. Enforcement officers are likely to be met with violence. There may be an armed rebellion.
By contrast, there is nothing repugnant or horrifying about a law which confiscates and destroys child porn. If you say, 'I own that porn. It is immoral to deprive me of my property', we reply 'thank you for admitting your guilt under the relevant law. Now go to jail you fucking pervert.'
In fact, you own your whole self.
Coase's theorem explains why ownership doesn't matter very much. What matters is 'control rights'. We may say 'we belong to God' or 'we belong to ourselves' or 'Darling, I belong to you- body and soul'. These are mere words. What we can't deny is that 'control rights' should vest in ourselves- unless there is a good reason to doubt our own mental or commercial competency. But that good reason is essentially economic or medical in nature. It is not philosophical.
Likewise, whenever you work and the government seizes some of your income via taxation, you are being forced to work more hours on the government’s behalf. But you own yourself. So, taxation is, in effect, a form of partial slavery.
A slave who runs away may be caught and punished and forcibly returned to her owner. This is not the case with people whose ability to emigrate is not restricted by the State. If you don't like the tax regime in one place, move to another. This is 'Tiebout sorting'. Enjoying the 'Club Goods' offered in a particular jurisdiction may entail paying a tax. Shop around till you find a better deal.
Or how about this one. Suppose you live in a society which has what Nozick calls a “patterned theory of justice”. Suppose, for example, your society follows Rawls’ difference principle and inequalities in the distribution of income and wealth are only justified where they are to the benefit of the least well-off.
Sadly, Rawls's scheme is 'anything goes'. If non-convexities exist, or other causes of market failure arise, anything at all- including slavery and sentencing paupers to the lash- would be required under Rawls's scheme.
That applies to every part of the economy, of course, including professional sports. But suppose there is one basketball star everyone wants to see. And suppose that LeBron James, as we will call him, comes up with a novel scheme. He puts a little money box next to the entrance of every sporting arena he plays in and in order to enter fans deposit an extra quarter that goes directly to LeBron James. No one has to do it. They could stay home. But the fans love Lebron James and are happy to do it. But whatever “patterned” distribution of wealth your society has it will be upset by schemes like this.
Nonsense! We just bring in an economist to make a plausible argument that this is best for the least well off.
In order to maintain a certain distribution of wealth, Nozick says, in what is surely the greatest line ever penned by a libertarian, the government will have to “forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults”.
That's true as far as it goes. But it doesn't go far enough. In order to maintain a certain distribution of wealth, you would also have to forbid various biological and physical processes and the actions they give rise to both within and outside the market. In particular, we would need to forbid death and ageing which plays havoc with Income and Wealth distribution. Indeed, the safer course would be just to forbid Time from moving forward.
Therefore, libertarianism. But no and no, I say.
For reasons which are equally stupid.
The eye transplant thing packs a punch because, yes, it’s gross to think about a government scheme that begins with cutting out one of your eyes. And, yes, most people probably agree that that’s morally wrong. But why is it wrong? Nozick says it’s wrong because you own yourself. But there are lots of plausible alternative explanations. For example, maybe, in a just society you have a fundamental right to bodily integrity.
So circumcision of little male babies should be banned. But, the thing seems to do no harm and is important for Religious reasons. By contrast, cunts who bang on about fundamental rights tend to be a fucking nuisance.
That fits into the standard liberal approach.
The standard liberal approach is to be liberal rather than shit higher than one's arsehole with respect to what Bentham called 'nonsense on stilts'.
And it avoids you having to have to think of yourself as property.
There is nothing wrong in doing so. The fact is, your body really is your own- at least after a certain age. If you don't wash it and clothe it, you are the first person to suffer- just as, if you don't maintain your house, you are likely to be the person most inconvenienced or to suffer financial loss.
It’s not clear why we should think that property rights (or ownership) are a good model for how we should think about our relationship to ourselves or what is right and wrong.
The answer is simple. We understand that it is in our interest to look after assets which belong to us. To say, 'why the fuck can't my neighbors be bothered to wash my car' is to invite not sympathy but derision. It's your car. You take care of it. Don't expect others to do so because they get no benefit from it.
Also, if you own yourself, you can sell yourself and, therefore, a libertarian society cannot consistently forbid slavery.
Yes it can just as it can forbid any other repugnant action. On the other hand, you can always migrate to a region where people turn a blind eye to it.
Which is bad. Now, consider the knot Nozick has tied himself into here. Because we own ourselves, taxation is a form of partial slavery. But also, because we own ourselves, real, actual slavery is allowed. Not cool.
This is non not cool, it is nonsense. Repugnant acts can be forbidden by libertarians just as much as anyone else. Of course, you are at liberty to disagree. But others are equally welcome to agree that you are a potted plant upon which it is customary to defecate.
Okay, but why can’t LeBron James do that thing with the box? In the real world, the reason he can’t do it (if he can’t) has nothing to do with government regulation. The NBA has contracts with the players union and individual players and their agents and so that’s what’s legally controlling here. Maybe, LeBron James could negotiate a deal like that. On the other hand, he could forget the whole box thing and just negotiate compensation as one normally would. What’s the hullabaloo?
This is silly. There is nothing stopping anybody from soliciting money- save fear of ridicule and obloquy.
Libertarianism often relies on assuming that one way to do a thing is the natural, liberty promoting way to do it and so limiting people’s ability to do it that way is interfering with their liberty. In this case, how can you justify not allowing the box thing? I don’t think there’s any general answer to that question.
Yes there is. It is worthwhile having 'public signals' re repugnant actions. This promotes better correlated equilibria. Laws aren't always enforced. They may be instituted for purely signaling purposes.
It depends how it fits into all kinds of background conditions and the basic social structure – including what distribution of wealth we think is fair.
Distribution of wealth is irrelevant. You need a pretty sophisticated sort of Econ to say anything about how and why it changes. While it is true that there are 'rents', including 'capitalized rents' which are inelastic w.r.t confiscatory actions, this has no philosophical implications. It is merely a canon of taxation that raising revenue in a way which doesn't change the allocation of resources minimizes the 'deadweight' loss to the economy.
Being overly simplistic under the guise of being sophisticated is a hallmark of
teaching a worthless subject?
libertarianism. Here’s a real-life example.
Libertarians will say that a federal minimum wage interferes with the employers right to pay what they want and the employees right to decide what wage they will work for. But arguably these restrictions on the freedom of employment contracts could be better for everyone or, at least, better for the people who have less power. You can’t just assume unlimited freedom of contract is always better – even for freedom.
Why not simply expand your theory by acknowledging repugnant actions exist? But there may be a non-coercive way to deal with them. For example, a guy who makes a point of jizzing on his work colleagues may be fired from his job for racism coz how come he aint jizzing on righteous black dudes?
Unless you just define it as better. Which is the bottom-line libertarian scam. Freedom, they say, is the formal, negative liberty not to be interfered with and nothing else. Which, of course, it is not.
Coz being interfered with by all and sundry is something you might come to like in proportion to the percentage of the population which likes to cum on your face.
Here’s another way to look at it. In my classes, we often discuss what the distribution of wealth should be.
They may as well discuss what the proof of the Reimann hypothesis should be. These cunts are as ignorant and stupid with respect to the first topic as they are with respect to the second.
In addition to libertarians who believe that they have a principled objection to specifying any particular distribution, there are more students who just say, ‘Hey, why do we even need to think about that? Let it be whatever it is.’ Well, here’s one reason. There are always going to be decisions, actions or inactions, alternate ways of doing things, that will affect the distribution of wealth.
For example, locking up the guy who mugged you may adversely affect the distribution of wealth. So may locking up the guy who raped and killed your family. Indeed, preventing a bunch of sociopaths taking over your town may result in increased inequality of wealth and income.
Given that we can make a pretty good guess at how a particular action is going to affect the distribution of wealth,
Even if this were true, we don't know how to affect wealth distribution without large deadweight losses which hurt the poorest most.
and given that we often could go one way or another, why wouldn’t we think that our view of what the distribution of wealth should be a factor in the decision?
Because the result would be that decisions catastrophic to Society would be taken. We may all share the view that Society should consist of sober individuals. But banning alcohol may result in greater drunkenness and organized crime gaining political power.
Distributive issues are unavoidable.
But we can avoid people who talk ignorant bollocks on that basis.
And trying to look at every single possible thing we could do, one at a time, and deciding which are allowed and which forbidden is hopeless. The answer is it depends. The bottom-line libertarian trick here is this. Why is the government repressively imposing some particular distribution of wealth on everyone?
It isn't. It may, in the past, have tried to do 'redistribution'. Now it concentrates on providing a social minimum because the efficiency cost of anything more robust proved to great- at least partly because post-war restrictions of factor mobility proved too costly to enforce.
Answer? It isn’t – even where it holds some particular distribution as ideal. And what it does will usually affect the distribution of wealth. Why think we should act as if we don’t know that?
What Tim isn't saying is that it is common knowledge that he and his ilk have shit for brains. Why should we act as if we don't know that?
Finally, what is the problem that many Cato libertarians ultimately rejected libertarianism over? What problem did some of the smartest libertarians around decide was not solvable from within the libertarian framework? If you said, ‘I will take Global Climate Change for $100, Alex’, then you are a winner.
No. You are ignorant. The Koch brothers wanted complete control of the thing they had started. But some at the Institute did not want to end their careers merely being a puppet for big oil. Furthermore, some of the new people the Kochs brought in were treating them like shit. To get away from the Kochs- who had sued to prevent Bill Niskanen's shares in the Institute going to his wife- these guys had to get anti big oil money. But, ultimately, he who pays the piper calls the tune and so the new Niskanen Center had to move first to, its initial backer, Jai Faison's 'innovate don't regulate' approach to clean energy and then to reflect the agenda of Facebook's Moskovitz. Sadly, nobody seems to pay any attention to it so lots and lots of H1B visas aren't going to suddenly showering down from the Heavens.
There is a wide difference between what happens in think-tanks and actual thinking. A goldfish bowl is not the Ocean. But, the same may be said about shite University Departments and the activity they supposedly study.
No comments:
Post a Comment