About Rationally Speaking


Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

The problems with Libertarianism

Some of my best friends are libertarian, but I don’t hold it (too much) against them. Libertarianism appears to be very popular these days, especially among Republicans who wish to pretend to be anti-big government and yet are ashamed of eight years of huge government deficit and interference in personal life under W. Unfortunately, there are several problems with being a libertarian, perhaps the major one being that it is hard to say what exactly a libertarian is.

I actually spent quite some time wading through the bewildering taxonomy of libertarian-like positions, and finally came up with a complicated tree-like “concept map” that summarizes the basics. First off, you know how they say that in politics the extremes are often close enough to touch each other? Well, you can’t get any further on the two sides of the political spectrum as leftist anarchists and libertarians, and yet both are major branches of Libertarianism in the broad sense. How’s that for strange bedfellows?





There is, of course, a major difference between the two branches of Libertarianism: one is non-propertarian (i.e., they don’t believe in private property), the other is propertarian (for them private property is a fundamental human right). Interestingly, Noam Chomsky has pointed out that everywhere in the world except in the United States, being a libertarian means falling into the non-propertarian group, so that most libertarians in the US are actually not libertarian by the historical standards of the rest of the world.

Confused? Hold on, we are just getting started. It would seem natural to think of non-propertarian as leftist and of propertarians as conservatives, but it ain’t that simple. True, all non-propertarians are in fact left-leaning, including Chomsky’s favorite ideology, anarcho-syndicalism. These are people that fight for the individualization of the means of production, similar to socialists and communists, but unlike the latter, are strongly against state control (they are anarchists, after all!). Moreover, they think that natural resources are a common good to be shared, hence their stance against private ownership of things like land, water, and energy. Needless to say, I have extreme sympathy for this position, though I think it overestimates humans’ ability to live peacefully and to respect each other’s rights.

It is also true that many propertarians (which are often referred to broadly as “anarcho-capitalists” — not an oxymoron!) are conservative: they want a strong national defense (though they do often question aggressive military action against other countries), they endorse a conservative life style (though they do not seek to impose it by law), and they think that big business is the victim of state intervention. They are not as bad as actual religious fundamentalists, but I wouldn’t want to spend an evening in such company.

Then again, there are some propertarians who are in fact rather progressive in terms of their social attitudes (the above mentioned friends of mine who are libertarian tend to fall into this category). Not only they are against war, but oppose policies that foster impoverishment of large sections of the population, as well as any form of oppression, including in the workplace (some of them are even known to support trade unions!).

And what, you might say, about Objectivism? That’s the so-called “philosophy” espoused by non-philosopher (but highly successful fiction writer) Ayn Rand, who is often invoked by libertarians as their idol (especially by leftist libertarians). Interestingly, the two top selling books of all time in the United States are the Bible and Atlas Shrugged, from which simple observation an entire book could be written on American culture.

Well, it turns out that Rand herself despised libertarianism, referring to it as a threat to freedom and capitalism! (She despised many things, including everyone who disagreed with her.) Objectivists accuse libertarians of adopting a toothless form of Objectivism. That’s because objectivists loath any type of anarchism, including anarcho-capitalism, and think that state government is absolutely necessary, if in limited fashion. On the other side of the divide, Nick Gillespie, the editor of Reason magazine (a libertarian publication), has gone so far as to say that he is positively embarrassed by the common association with Ayn Rand and her followers. Ouch.

And then there is the dark side of things, like the infamous episode of the “Chicago Boys,” a group of libertarian economists trained at the University of Chicago who provided active, and in fact crucial, assistance to the illegitimate government of Augusto Pinochet in Chile, thereby supporting a tyranny that ended up being responsible for the death of 3,000, the incarceration or torture of another 28,000, and the suspension of civil liberties in that country for a decade and a half. Not exactly a record of which to be proud, my libertarian friends. (Of course, some excuse this sort of thing by pointing out that Chile went through a reasonably good economic time under Pinochet, which to me only further proves how uncompassionate libertarians tend to be.)

All libertarian positions, it seems to me, have the same fundamental problem in common: they do not take human nature seriously. (Yes, I know that it is politically incorrect these days to talk about such a thing as “human nature,” but I’m thinking of the general outlines of what makes us human, not of rigid biological determinism. And at any rate, that’s another conversation.) The problem is that any anarchist position — be it propertarian or not — simply puts too much trust in humans’ ability to live a good and reasonable life without societal checks and balances. For all our cooperative instincts, we are still too darn selfish and greedy for that to work. Moreover, modern societies are made of millions, often hundreds of millions, of individuals, and on that scale a society simply cannot exist without a functional government. That, of course, is not to say that we should give the government any more power than is strictly necessary, but the libertarian’s view of “strictly necessary” seems unreasonably, well, restrictive.

Which brings me to the crucial issue of rights. Propertarians see life, liberty and property as the fundamental rights of human beings. Non-propertarians agree on life, but think that real liberty comes only when one has free access to natural resources, which in turns means that property needs to be limited. We can have a long debate about what rights we ought to respect, or have to give priority to, but for me it is inevitable to feel that the propertarian position ends up looking mean and uncaring: according to a libertarian, if I own water on my land, and you are dying of thirst, it is my right to hold on to my resource unless you can pay for it (this example was actually brought up to me by a libertarian friend of mine). Of course, many libertarians would say that they are compassionate beings, so they would give the water away under those circumstances. Besides the reasonable skepticism one can have about “compassionate -isms”, they are still missing the point: I don’t think you have the right to withdraw a vital resource from another human being, even if in practice you are willing to gift it to them.

At any rate, given the complex structure and deep contradictions of the libertarian universe, at the very least, libertarians should all do us the following favors: first, don’t label yourself a libertarian, unless you are willing to tell us, at a minimum, whether you are a propertarian or non-propertarian; second, if you are a propertarian, ask yourself why so many people think your ideology is uncharitable, and see whether you shouldn’t reconsider it, at least a little. Lastly, please do not invoke Ayn Rand, she wouldn’t like it one bit.

153 comments:

  1. Thank you so much for this.

    The other day my wife asked me, "What's a libertarian?" After a little digging around online, I had to tell her that I couldn't make heads or tails out of it. This article is more helpful than anything else I've seen.

    The whole thing seems uncomfortably similar to a religion, only with a list of unsupported political assertions instead of spiritual ones.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "They are not as bad as actual religious fundamentalists, but I wouldn’t want to spend an evening in such company."

    Well originally about 200 years ago it was thought that all rights were given by God. In addition to that, a free society simply does not go on very long or very well without being a moral one. The fact that we have arrived at a place where virtually no one agrees over where rights come from or who gets to say what is moral just proves that we don't run our lives and resources very well governed strictly and solely by our own ideas. And because of that lack of agreement over what is "good" we just become wasteful and unresourceful. If one wants to further make people increasingly unresourceful, just take their initiative to do better for from them. (Better is "good", remember?)

    And that's what most concepts in socialism and communism actually do - keep people from going beyond average and keeps em at the status quo. Anarchism and communism can fight on ONLY BECAUSE other people have worked hard and been resourceful and productive outside of those two(or singular) world views. I.E. its funded by other peoples work and therefore VERY MUCH a leeching philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Syndicalist, not Syndacalist. From the French Syndaclisme.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Libertarians (the most common of which appears to be the propertarian Reason-magazine type) might respond to your question re: "uncharitability" by suggesting that most people haven't spent much time considering alternative methods of social organization and therefore can't imagine how charity et al. will work out in a libertarian world.

    The most sophisticated and consistent defense of propertarian libertarianism by far is Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. It has the additional benefit of being written by a philosopher in a style to which we are more accustomed than many popular articles.

    Finally, your primary question about "vital resources" and the distribution thereof in a libertarian society is certainly an important philosophical and psychological issue with libertarianism. My guess is that their response would be to examine the alternative suggested by a mandate to provide such vital resources: if I have a claim on any- and everybody to take whatever I "need" to survive, what reason do I have to provide anything to anybody else? Perhaps more importantly, who is going to do this taking--it sounds to libertarian ears like the military is getting involved in a lot of coercive "taking" in the modern state.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's OK, let it out,...
    Feeling better now?
    Oh, and it's "Atlas Shrugged", not "The Fountainhead."

    ReplyDelete
  6. One suggested edit: Change "withdraw" to "keep" in the 2nd to last paragraph. Withdraw suggests you partially give something and take it back.

    Pretty good deconstruction. I appreciate how you got down to the essence of what makes libertarians mistaken as 'uncaring'.

    I agree with Milroy above regarding 'vital resources'. A libertarian rejects the claim that an individual has the right to take, without consent, and by force if necessary ANYTHING that the individual reasonably concludes is a vital resource.

    Who gets to decide what is vital? Who does the taking?

    Finally, I wonder if you consider my lifestyle liberal or conservative. I don't smoke pot, haven't paid for an abortion, don't visit prostitutes, am not marrying a man, don't smoke cigarettes bars/restaurants, and don't subscribe to playboy. Yet, I think all those things should be legal for people to do.

    So, in that concept tree, am I a leftist or a conservative? I guess I'm saying you may want to scrap that distinction. It doesn't add much and may muck things up right there.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I hope I am included among your libertarian friends, even if I don't particularly care for the term....particularly after reading this piece.

    I am by no means an expert on political matters; some years ago I found my positions were more in line with friends who self-identify as libertarians. I had never heard of half of the sub-categories you mention, and I don't know anyone in the other half. I'm apparently not in your chart, but I'm certainly closer to 'libertarian' than 'liberal', although I certainly am that on social issues.

    Libertarianism was first described to me as "socially liberal, fiscally conservative". That's it. And that's generally what I mean when I self-describe that way, but you've shown (with typical wit) the limitation of the term, as it has to encompass so many ideas (and so much nonsense).

    Despite what you claim, I take human nature quite seriously. And I think it is quite good, on the whole. I further think that it is generally not improved much with government intervention.

    Yes, libertarianism seems to lack compassion. But think of the libertarians you know....when you're not discussing the theoretical aspects of politics, do them seem to lack compassion? I certainly hope I don't. And the libertarians I know have no shortage of compassion, either, and certainly no less than the liberals I know.

    This 'perception of uncompassion' therefore is, I think, a combination of two things: reasonable libertarians (like me!) getting lumped together with bring-my-gun-to-the-tea-party nut cases, and casual observers not bothering to make a distinction. (I think those nutters are generally Republicans who realize 'Republican'='joke' so they re-branded.)

    My kind of libertarianism certainly needs a new name. But all groups have to deal with this at one time or another. Libertarianism is just fringe enough that it's easy to miss the sanity in the midst of the craziness. Maybe we should call it BJism.

    Finally, BJism is the political nexus of two major themes: the moral/philosphical positions about the relative importance of freedom and the goodness of one's fellow man, and the practical speculations about the efficiency of government relative to private enterprise. There is nothing frothing and crazy about any of this; reasonable people can disagree, and through such disagreements, if done right, we can work out better ways to govern ourselves. Maybe the best way is YOUR way. Maybe it's mine. Probably neither. But I think the public should have a more honest (and less cynical!) dialog about these ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh, and I forgot to submit that your title is misleading and really should be changed. It should be, "Libertarianism Explained" or "Unpacking Libertarianism" or something like that.

    The article doesn't suggest problems really. At least no more problems than if you unpacked the varieties of socialism or communism.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jon Chait's review of two new Ayn Rand books might be of interest.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don’t think you have the right to withdraw a vital resource from another human being, even if in practice you are willing to gift it to them.

    Massimo, I do wish you would stop putting things in terms of what "right we have." Unless you believe in some external, god-given rights, then rights are what the law says. You can discuss what rights you think we ought to have by law, but phrasing it the way you do implies that rights aren't something invented by humans.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I have to agree with Bjorn on this one. When you speak of rights in that fashion, you're begging the question.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The 19th Century Democrats were all Libertarians, and unashamed of it. They became Rousseau-Marx people in the 20th Century, which is "rational." Check out THE CHANGING FACE OF DEMOCRATS on Amazon.com or in WWW.claysamerica.com.

    ReplyDelete
  13. May I make it even more terminologically complicated?

    Today's Republicans (freedom = small government) are more like yesterday's Monarchists. By contrast classical republicans thought that you were free only if you lived in a country ruled by its citizens; thus the (democratic) State was the enabler not the enemy of freedom. As Hanna Arendt says in On Revolution, why would you set up a democratic republic if all you wanted was limited government? For them you were not free if your access to a vital resource depended on the good will of someone else (George III in this case). You were a slave.

    Anarco-capitalists are Hobbes' heirs.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I disagree with Bjørn.

    Rights, money and language are all invented without being God-given. This doesn't make it wrong to use them.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Libertarian always meant to me "Economically very capitalist, socially very liberal".
    I have heard that some conservatives are trying to call themselves libertarians nowadays, but they don't embrace the socially liberal part, so what's the point?
    I've met a couple of people who told me they were "left libertarians" but I never got a coherent explanation of how they felt economic decisions should be made.
    Calling Rand a "non-philosopher" is pretty questionable. If you say someone is a "non electrical engineer" that has meaning, but "philosopher" is a catch-all for anyone who can think, even an illiterate caveman sitting on a rock. Ayn Rand definitely did think, however much you may dislike what she thought. It would be interesting to understand how you can define "philosopher" in such a way that it excludes her.
    If natural resources are to be owned by the government, can the government sell them to private entities? It seems that would be necessary for production -- how can a carpenter make a chair if he can't buy the wood for it?
    The problem about libertarianism is that combining social liberties with economic liberties can lead to extreme consistency, and many people get seduced by that consistency and follow it to an extreme where they advocate the elimination of the welfare state, which is obviously seen as uncharitable. Such a high percentage of libertarians are of the extreme variety that there is no word for a moderate one -- we have the word "liberal" which means "moderate Bolshevik", but no similar word for a "moderate libertarian".

    -- Bill

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm with Bjorn here. But Massimo won't concede that morality is relative.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Of course, some excuse this sort of thing by pointing out that Chile went through a reasonably good economic time under Pinochet, which to me only further proves how uncompassionate libertarians tend to be

    Which is also a debatable point.

    They controlled inflation for example, and certainly the rich got richer. But they had some severe macroeconomic crashes (in 1982 for example, after 10 years of complete control of the country) and the poor in general didn't do well. Their share of the distribution of income in comparison to the rich fell, and their total income and consumption per capita was worse than previously, in absolute terms too, at least until the last years of the very long dictatorship.

    GDP didn't grow at a decent rate until after the 1982 crisis, after which Friedman's monetarism was abandoned.

    Alcoholism and suicide rose sharply too, so it's clear that many people weren't enjoying this economy a lot.

    It's true that Chile is today more or less economically solid in comparison to some other latin american countries (their GDP has been rising) but the social democrats/christians have been in power for 20 years now, so it's debatable whose merit is that.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Bjorn,

    of course rights are a human invention, I've argued that in other posts. But they aren't arbitrary either, if we are talking about constructs that further human flourishing. Besides, it is the libertarians who make a big deal talking about fundamental rights...

    Joseph,

    the fact that rights are not natural fact does not make them arbitrary or relative.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Benny,

    not much of a response, my friend. Running out of actual arguments? We should have dinner just to discuss this post...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dave,

    you are obviously a leftist libertarian, of the propertarian variety. That doesn't mean that your position is defensible or progressive though... :-)

    ReplyDelete
  21. I didn't know where to begin!

    Actually, doesn't your argument for the lack of a definition also apply to liberals like yourself too?

    ReplyDelete
  22. BJ,

    yes, I do count you among my libertarian friends, just like Dave and Benny.

    I don't doubt in the least that you guys are different from the gun-toting-etc. types. But my point is that human flourishing should not have to rely on the (occasional) compassion of others. Contrary to your rosy view of human nature, I don't think most people are compassionate *enough*, and I think there is something despicable in the whole idea that a large chunk of society has to rely on the *charity* of a small number of particularly well off people. But as you, I may be wrong...

    ReplyDelete
  23. Bill,

    being a philosopher requires a bit more than having a caveman brain. It is a serious profession that requires training and skill, just like electrical engineer. I know, I had to go through the training before being able to put "philosopher" on my business card.

    Rand was an essayist, and that really doesn't take much, only being able to think and write. Oh, ok, that *is* much! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Massimo,

    I know you don't consider her a philosopher but, are you calling Rand an asshole too?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Benny,

    purely as a matter of personal opinion, yup, I'd call her an asshole. But that isn't the point, of course. The point is that a) she was no philosopher, in the technical sense of the term (and there is *no* non-technical sense, just like there isn't such thing as a non-technical scientist or engineer); b) I find her positions despicable, uncharitable and contrary to human flourishing. But that's my opinion... :-)

    ReplyDelete
  26. As with Massimo, I sympathize with the "non-propertarian" column, but I resigned myself years ago to the observation that large-scale societies (even those much smaller than our own) are characterized by differentiation and (more to the point) hierarchy. So, I concluded that whatever liberties we enjoy probably exist only because society - particularly members of the ruling class - agrees to protect them (however begrudgingly, in some cases).

    Having said that, not all hierarchies are created equally, and, whatever the formula is for the "good society", it probably has less to do with the actual size of government (although it seems likely that bigger societies will have bigger governments) than with the everyday outcomes of its laws and policies on real people.

    And (having put off the snark long enough) for those wealthy and privileged few (or those less fortunate whom they've duped) who lie awake at night, worrying about "Big Guvament" coming to take away their advantages...well, let's just say that I've got the world's smallest violin here playing just for you. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Massimo,

    While libertarians (I define them only as the "propertarian" branch just so you know) are often radical don't assume they speak for all libertarianism. Like all other political positions it comes in degrees.

    Libertarians DO NOT say we should get rid of the government. They say that the government should maintain a national defense to protect against foreign invasion and should maintain social order though a police force/traffic laws/etc. Beyond that the amount and kind of government intervention they advocate can vary.

    Now:

    social freedom
    0-100

    economic freedom
    0-100

    0 means no freedom and 100 means lots

    We are all agreed society should be at 50 or above for each. The way I look at it to say you are a libertarian you must advocate at least 75 for each. You see? This doesn't need to be radical.

    (Also, this means libertarians are necessarily social progressives just like you)

    Now, you decry libertarianism because you say that it will leave much of the population at the mercy of the few who are rich. In this scenario, of course the rich would not give to the poor as history clearly shows. However, libertarianism is about using the free market to make things better for everyone. The biggest positive claim I will make about libertarianism is that it sounds great in theory. I kept waiting for you to explain why it would not work in practice but you never did.

    What all of this means is that really your post is just one large straw-man argument. In all sincerity, if you want to maintain you stand against libertarianism, I suggest you start over from scratch.

    ReplyDelete
  28. [i]the fact that rights are not natural fact does not make them arbitrary or relative.[/i] - Massimo

    The fact that rights are invented by humans [i]does[/i] make them arbitrary and relative, because an infinite number of rights can be conceived of and believed it.

    Now, you could claim that some rights are millions of times more likely to draw adherents than others, and you'd be 100% right. If you believe that rape is wrong and I believe that eating tofu is wrong, you hold a belief that is several orders of magnitude more common than mine. Does that mean that rights aren't relative? Nope. It's still your own personal vibe. The rights we believe in don't actually exist.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I think my views are similar to those Massimo has expressed. But I'd like to raise what I see as a fundamental issue to libertarianism (in the broadest sense), which is authority.

    It seems to me that libertarians are willing to accept authority only to the extent that it can be demonstrated to be legitimate. Curiously, some libertarians seem to question only the authority of governments and not that of corporations. Even more curiously, some libertarians seem to regard the military as somehow not being part of government, so that questions of authority need not be considered.

    Naturally different people will have different judgments of the legitimacy of a given authority. I believe that a police officer who stops me for speeding is exercising legitimate authority. But a police officer who prevents me from publicly protesting a meeting of the WTO is not. Tax collection to pay for fire-fighting services is legitimate. Tax collection to pay for invasions of foreign countries is not. Unfortunately we can't pick and choose which taxes to pay!

    ReplyDelete
  30. >> Well, you can’t get any further
    >> on the two sides of the political
    >> spectrum as leftist anarchists
    >> and libertarians, and yet both
    >> are major branches of
    >> Libertarianism in the broad
    >> sense. How’s that for strange
    >> bedfellows?

    Strange bedfellows? In the libertarian worldview, all statist regimes are bedfellows.

    You can't get stranger than Dalai Lama and Hitler :)

    >> don’t label yourself a
    >> libertarian, unless you are
    >> willing to tell us, at a
    >> minimum, whether you are a
    >> propertarian or non-propertarian

    I don't know any libertarians who don't have strong positions on property rights.

    In fact I hardly know left-libertarians, so most libertarians I _do_ know are strongly for property rights. So I don't know why you have to ask this of a libertarian, he will voluntarily offer this.

    >> ask yourself why so many people
    >> think your ideology is
    >> uncharitable, and see whether
    >> you shouldn’t reconsider it, at
    >> least a little.

    Libertarianism isn't against charity, it's FOR voluntary charity, i.e. real charity, as opposed to forceful "charity" ie. the state steals your money under threat of imprisonment and invests them in unproductive projects.

    Clash for clunkers and the Iraq war. Yeah, fine job, Government :)

    ReplyDelete
  31. Massimo,

    You on Rand:
    yup, I'd call her an asshole.

    You on Penn & Teller calling Gore an asshole:
    just seems the kind of ad hominem attack that reflects badly on the attacker.

    Yup.

    Re Rand as just an essayist. You cannot discredit the content of a philosophy by whining about its format. Also you are ignoring her history. Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957. By the early 60s demand for non-fiction works about her ideas exploded. The NBI was running taped lecture classes in over 60 cities here and overseas and a pamphlet of essays was published every month. Her subsequent books were indeed compilations of essays and her annual Ford Hall lectures.

    But ultimately, the essay format served her purposes well. They were compact, concise, and comprehensible, and in toto comprised a new and unique philosophy immanently accessible to the broad public. With that format she outflanked the academe that had tried to shut her out since day one. The growth of her influence among students, businessmen and philanthropist is complicating universities' attempts to ignore her, and Objectivist chairs and professors are already within the walls.

    Re rights, the comments wander in a wilderness, but you are closer than most. Rights are constructs but not arbitrary. Politics is an extension of ethics in the context of an individual's life into the context of an individual's life in a society of other men. It is the fact that autonomy in the application of one's reason and actions to production and voluntary trade in the service of one's life is morally right for every human being that gives rise to the need for political rights to protect that autonomy when forming a government. Political rights define the preconditions necessary for men to pursue their life — to survive and flourish — each as free as possible from the coercion of others.

    One of Rand's contributions to the history of philosophy, with which you obviously are not yet familiar, is the moral foundation she constructed for politics.

    Here is her essay on rights and on the
    ethics
    that is their foundation.

    ReplyDelete
  32. someone,

    I don't think you read my post clearly. First, what you define is actually closer to objectivism than to libertarianism (I don't make this stuff up, read the literature). Second, I have actually said several times that if one accepts a role of government, then it is, indeed, a matter of gradation among positions, including the progressive liberal one. Third, I have also written several times very clearly why I think the assumptions that free markets lead to civil liberties is nonsense: the markets, even if they worked the way libertarians claim (and they don't) are akin to natural selection (ask the economists that work on this stuff), which means that they have no connection whatsoever with the establishment of human rights and a flourishing society. It is just a non sequitur.

    Joseph,

    there is a sophisticated theory of rights in philosophy, and again you are adhering to an extreme and rather indefensible view. For instance, game theorists can show mathematically what is the relationship between certain societal rules and their social outcomes, which means that we can tell theoretically and empirically which set of rules (rights) "works" for human aims. The latter also are not arbitrary, if we are talking about trying to give people a decent life with opportunities.

    TLP,

    >> Clash for clunkers and the Iraq war. Yeah, fine job, Government <<

    Social security, medicare, medicaid, public education, the postal service, civil rights, the national highway system, the internet, new york city subways, ... -- yes fine Government.

    Michael,

    I'm surprised you didn't get my joke. My response to Benny about assholes was an inside joke based precisely on my P&T post... :-) As for Rand's work, I'm not dismissing it on the ground that she was not a professional philosopher, I am simply asking people to stop calling her a philosopher. I dismiss her work on the grounds that it is an incoherent pastiche of others' ideas, and on the ground that that her utopian society would be a human nightmare.

    ReplyDelete
  33. But isn't a society that relies on a few people (whatever that number is) voluntarily helping others better than one where people are forced to (i.e. taxed)? Doesn't that speak better of human nature? It's not as if in liberal societies people voluntarily pay taxes, they are forced to!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Benny,

    no, a society were we have to rely on (some) people's charity would be awful. There are plenty of things adult humans *have* to do that they don't like, taxes is just one of them, get over it.

    That said, we can have ample discussions about how much taxes, distributed how, and used for what purposes. But that's no longer a discussion about libertarianism.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Massimo said: no, a society were we have to rely on (some) people's charity would be awful.

    ...which I interpret to mean: unreliable and insufficient.

    That said, we can have ample discussions about how much taxes, distributed how, and used for what purposes. But that's no longer a discussion about libertarianism.

    I think you've demonstrated that the term is flexible enough as to include even some forms of socialism. (In fact, the label "libertarian socialist" is one that Chomsky has donned on occasion.)

    For example, imagine a highly democratic government whose role is, for the most part, limited to economic policy. I'm not talking about the kind of laissez-faire capitalist economic policy that your "propertarian" types tend to favor, of course, but something more along the lines of a publicly funded social-services organization and/or a public investment-banking system, responsible for renting socially owned capital and land to worker-managed firms.

    I'm not saying that I believe this limited role is either feasible or desirable (e.g. I do believe that government has other important roles to play in society, not the least of which are law enforcement and national defense). I'm just making a comment on the elasticity of language (which "liberal" and "conservative" might serve equally well), while dropping one of my favorite utopian schemes.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Massimo,

    ""I'm surprised you didn't get my joke. My response to Benny about assholes was an inside joke based precisely on my P&T post... :-)"

    And the smiley for that "joke" was where? At the end of the comment. So does that mean that your other two "opinions", a) that she was no philosopher, and b) that you find her positions despicable etc. were also inside jokes?

    ""I dismiss her work on the grounds that it is an incoherent pastiche of others' ideas, ..."

    And the two essays I linked you to are a pastiche of whose ideas? And you found what part of them to be incoherent? If you need help just say so.

    "... her utopian society would be a human nightmare."

    Now I see. You were not able to discern from your professional philosophical research that Rand, the objective Aristotelian, would never dabble in dreaming impossible dreams, because that is a subjective Platonist fallacy. It was actually from her that I learned for myself that all utopias are the birthplace of human nightmares. You could have avoided this error if you had tried to outfit your empty assertion with some ideas.

    Anecdotally, during one of her appearances on a late night talk show in the 60's, another guest sang The Impossible Dream, and afterwards, she was asked if she liked it. She indicated that the positive, uplifting music and psychological intent of the message could be taken to represent her philosophy well, but with exactly the opposite literal meaning of the lyrics.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Michael,

    no I wasn't joking about finding Rand'd ideas philosophically wanting, and yes I have read several of her essays. Of course, that deserves a whole separate post one of these days, so stay tuned...

    You may think you've learned from her that utopias are the birthplace of nightmares, but I consider her vision of society just as utopian as Plato's.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Benny,

    You are right. Massimo and jcm are wrong.

    Actually most libertarians agree with Rand that economics should be as separated from the state as religion.

    It amazes me how long adult human beings can nurture the fantasy that taxation and theft are unrelated. Analyze it folks. Our individual lives are a product of our application of reason to our actions per our identifications and evaluations of our own nature and the nature of reality. As volitional creatures, that process is not infallible. Therefore our most fundamental social need is autonomy of reason and action — generically, freedom.

    The only thing capable of destroying freedom is force — not meaning undue influence, but simply physical force or the threat thereof. So the most fundamental political alternative is freedom vs. force. Therefore, the most human and humane government that could exist would be the one that could eradicate the use of physical force to interfere with the actions of humans in producing and voluntarily trading their means to survive and flourish as human beings.

    That is the essence of Rand's capitalism: a right to life that is the right to live free from force; a right that is forfeited implicitly by any violator of it. The issue is not about charity or voluntarism or economics. The issue is whether or not any one man has a valid claim on the life of any other man. If you say yes, Rand demands to know by what standard you make that claim.

    Taxation is inherently gang theft. Floating majorities authorize government coercion to take the product of the reason and action of some men and give it to others, because, like all thieves, they cannot figure out how to get what they want any other way but with force. Contrary to Massimo's non sequiter, there are also plenty of things people do not have to do and many that they may not do if they intend to lead moral lives in the pursuit of happiness. Theft is high on that list.

    The primary difference on this issue between Objectivists and other libertarians is the ethical base. Run of the mill libertarians today are for the most part pragmatists or theists or Misesian economists who can't get past "self-ownership" as a first principle on which to base their politics. As a result, when push comes to shove, libertarians are prone to collapse their principles into compromise and condone some token instances of taxation because they cannot figure out how else to fund an army and the courts.

    Objectivists are adamantly secure that all coercion for gain is immoral. And while they enjoy playing the game of the future in devising how it would actually function, ultimately the warning on the label says, "if you can't figure out how to get what you want without using force to get it, you can't have it (and still claim to be moral). Objectivism is not for the wishy-washy. A is A with without expedient exceptions!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Michael M. said to Benny: You are right. Massimo and jcm are wrong.

    Despite some expressed overlap in our sympathies, I don't think Massimo and I have being saying quite the same things, but I take your conflation as a compliment, nonetheless.

    As for the rest of your tired assertions, the "taxation=theft" equation has for some time struck me as a right-wing analog to the left-wing "wage slavery" term. Both are ideological twists of language that, not coincidentally, disproportionately benefit one social class's interests over another.

    You can probably guess from my previous comments whose interests I sympathize with more, so I'll simply endorse Massimo's comment above:

    There are plenty of things adult humans *have* to do that they don't like, taxes is just one of them, get over it.

    and add that I deem my having to spend much of my life at work (in large part, so as to maintain the modest, middle-class lifestyle that I've grown accustomed to, since it doesn't come for free) to be a far more tangible form of coercion than the taxes that I pay out each year. Yet, like most mature adults, I accept both forms of coercion as compromises with the real world. I just don't usually call it "coercion" because it sounds to me a lot like adolescent whining.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Bjorn,

    of course rights are a human invention, I've argued that in other posts. But they aren't arbitrary either, if we are talking about constructs that further human flourishing. Besides, it is the libertarians who make a big deal talking about fundamental rights...


    Quite, quite. But my quip is with how you phrase it. There is no opinion about what rights we have. There are facts (okay, and legal interpretations), but not opinions. You can have opinions about what rights we ought to have. Saying it the way you do here sounds just like those who believe in God-given rights.

    ReplyDelete
  41. You say that rights are not arbitrary "if we are talking about trying to give people a decent life with opportunities".

    My entire point is that no values anybody could have really allow any normative statements to be true. Suppose that everyone in the world believes that it was good for people to be happy. Would that make it good for people to be happy? No. If everyone believes that rape is detrimental to human flourishing, does that make rape wrong? To answer that question, evaluate this: is there something *bad* about not flourishing? How would you demonstrate this badness?

    There is a whole slew of words human beings use to express normative notions: good, bad, should, ought, "is permitted", etc. There are established philosophers who have attacked this domain of thinking in tracts published by major university presses, for example, The Myth of Morality by Richard Joyce.

    I would not for a moment suggest that all moral skeptics agree that the exact kinks of my own anti-realist position, but my ideas are not philosophically obscure.

    ReplyDelete
  42. As I said above, whining about taxes and equating with theft seems to me childish. And I *really* dislike objectivists' sanctimonious self-assuredness that they are the only ones who *know* what right is fundamental and what is not for a flourishing human life. Gosh, really.

    Joseph, yes, there is something bad about not flourishing, as Aristotle as argued in detail in his Nicomachean Ethics. You don't have to be a "realist" about moral oughts to see that there are certain conditions that most sane human beings seek in their lives, including access to basic resources, protection of their life, and so on. That's all I mean by my realist-sounding statements.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Massimo,
    “I don't think you read my post clearly”
    I read every bit of it a couple of times over.
    “First, what you define is actually closer to objectivism than to libertarianism (I don't make this stuff up, read the literature).”
    If libertarianism is the belief that we have the right to without water from someone dying of dehydration then I don’t agree with it. The point I’m interested in making is that you underestimate the free market system.
    “Second, I have actually said several times that if one accepts a role of government, then it is, indeed, a matter of gradation among positions, including the progressive liberal one.”
    Yes you have, I distinctly remember you saying this at least once (I’ve read basically you’re whole blog now). However, you say that libertarianism is radical about it and that they say the government should be gotten rid of which is what I was saying you’re wrong about. I did not mean to tell you about the whole “graduation among positions” thing as if you did already know that.
    “Third, I have also written several times very clearly why I think the assumptions that free markets lead to civil liberties is nonsense”
    Free markets don’t establish liberties. First, we use philosophy to determine what our liberties should be. The free market system is informed by that.
    “even if they worked the way libertarians claim (and they don't) are akin to natural selection (ask the economists that work on this stuff)”
    Yes! Markets do work like natural selection. This is what I love about the free market system!
    “which means that they have no connection whatsoever with the establishment of human rights and a flourishing society. It is just a non sequitur.”
    In regards to human rights I haven’t heard anyone claim that markets should be our means to establish them (what a bizarre claim). In regards to human flourishing it is because they work like natural selection that they do what’s best for humanity (as any economist would tell you).
    ----
    You’re point about markets working like natural selection was that natural selection is wasteful so free markets must be as well. My thoughts on this are that most species are now extinct and, likewise, most kinds of jobs are now extinct too! No longer do you see people spend their whole lives weaving cotton and the like. Competition is a source of continuous innovation and self-improvement and largely as a result of it we can now grow up be doctors and engineers and other fulfilling and non-repetitious careers. Competition in the free market is not like competition in the wild.
    If the goal is to create complex organism/machine/life-like things then evolution produces one of an organic nature and it also produces the appearance of design. If the goal is to make everyone well-off economically then free markets do that and they make it look as if it all must have been designed. This compares God to the government. Now, just as organisms could use a little tinkering to remove problems like light having to travel though so much flesh to reach our retinas the free market could use some tinkering of the government. However, you cannot just say that the free market system is like evolution so it must be disconnected to human flourishing because that right there is the point!

    “And I *really* dislike objectivists' sanctimonious self-assuredness that they are the only ones who *know* what right is fundamental and what is not for a flourishing human life.”
    Um, well as you know I’m not that familiar with objectivism so I’m not sure I’ll speak for it but I know a little about the free market system so I’ll speak for it instead. It seems to me that the most important thing for a flourishing life is the choice/control to lead it how you want. Government regulations that take away choice without damn good reason are the ones that need to be avoided. The free market system provides choice and in this way it is all about empowering people.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Oh right, I meant to ask this in my last post but apparently I deleted it.

    Massimo, I've read your blog but if you've written on this matter elsewhere I don't know about it. If so, would you point me in the right direction?

    ReplyDelete
  45. someone,

    >> In regards to human flourishing it is because they work like natural selection that they do what’s best for humanity (as any economist would tell you). <<

    First, many economists will actually tell you that they *don't* work. Second, if you do not establish a connection between market forces and human flourishing, then you have to admit that markets have to be regulated (by whom? the government!).

    And you *love* that they work like natural selection? May I remind you that natural selection is one of the most wasteful and least close to optimizing processes ever? I mean, it's not intelligently designed, you know... :-) It's not just about jobs going "extinct," it's about people suffering ruin and a low quality of life as a result of economic forces.

    ReplyDelete
  46. being a philosopher requires a bit more than having a caveman brain. It is a serious profession that requires training and skill, just like electrical engineer. I know, I had to go through the training before being able to put "philosopher" on my business card.

    Rand was an essayist, and that really doesn't take much, only being able to think and write. Oh, ok, that *is* much! :-)


    You still haven't provided a definition of what a philosopher is that Rand isn't. Anyone can put "Philosopher" on their business card anytime if they want, and so could Rand. Nothing's stopping them. What was preventing you?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Massimo said to someone: May I remind you that natural selection is one of the most wasteful and least close to optimizing processes ever?

    Massimo, which outcome would you say natural selection is more likely to arrive at: one that favors our species (e.g. a new source of food or medicine) or one that threatens it (e.g. a new virus or virulent strain of bacteria)?

    Obviously, it's like us to wait around for nature to produce a desirable outcome - that's what technology (or artificial selection) is for. It's more of an academic question.

    Btw, if you haven't already heard it, I recommend this interview with political philosopher, Michael Sandel, from yesterday's radio episode of Marketplace.

    ReplyDelete
  48. lalawawa,

    how about a PhD in philosophy, to show you have actually done some homework?

    jcm,

    the idea that natural selection favors the good of the species is an old misconception, but a misconception nonetheless. Natural selection only favors the survival and reproduction of individuals, and yes, it can in fact lead to extinction (as in 99%+ of species that have ever existed).

    ReplyDelete
  49. Socrates didn't have a PhD in philosophy. I am sure many people widely considered to be "philosophers" didn't.

    ReplyDelete
  50. the idea that natural selection favors the good of the species is an old misconception, but a misconception nonetheless.

    Yes, of course. Please allow me to restate the question: Which outcome would you say natural selection is more likely to arrive at: one that favors members of our species (e.g. a new source of food or medicine) or one that threatens them (e.g. a new virus or virulent strain of bacteria)?

    ReplyDelete
  51. lalawawa,

    yes, have you also noticed that Socrates lived 2500 years ago?

    Of course one can be a philosopher in the broad sense without a PhD (I did say that that is *one* criterion), but nowadays that's unlikely. More importantly, one has to produce technical work that is recognized by peers. Rand didn't come even close.

    jcm,

    yes, natural selection does favor survival and reproduction. Do you wish to reduce human existence to that? Because if so, we are straight back to Hobbes' view of life without an organized society: "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

    ReplyDelete
  52. Rand produced a body of work about SOMETHING that is liked by many, despised by many more. What was that SOMETHING if not philosophy?

    Regarding natural selection, I agree that subjecting humans to natural selection is brutal. But subjecting organizations to it is healthy. When an organization dies, the humans in it don't have to cease to exist, they can move to other, surviving (therefore presumably more efficient) organizations.

    -- Bill

    ReplyDelete
  53. lalawawa,

    yes, Rand produced *something* that people find interesting or despise. But that's much too broad a category to qualify as philosophy. Al Gore also produced *something* that is interesting or despicable, depending on your point of view. Would you consider that philosophy?

    Talking about natural selection on organizations shifts the topic away from the flourishing (or not) of individual human beings, and the parallel with natural selection becomes much more vague.

    ReplyDelete
  54. yes, natural selection does favor survival and reproduction. Do you wish to reduce human existence to that?

    Of course not. I'll clarify the question further: Taking for granted that we exist and are capable of reproducing, and that natural selection is acting upon other organisms in the biosphere, what's more likely: that natural selection will evolve new threats to human prosperity or new opportunities for it? (Again, my examples were viruses and virulent strains of bacteria, on the one hand, and new discoveries of natural sources of food or medicine on the other.)

    My hunch, based on what little I know of how adaptive certain harmful germs (e.g. influenza) can be, is that we can reasonably expect new threats to human health to emerge more often than new opportunities for "human flourishing." But perhaps I'm just being a pessimist.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Some of what Rand talked about clearly fell into "economics", but she also talked a lot about ethics and values. I think ethics and values generally falls into "philosophy".

    Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" was a matter of science and public policy. I don't think that really fits under "philosophy".

    I think there is a link between capitalism and civil liberties, socialist countries generally have problems respecting civil liberties. However, some capitalist countries are fascist, and have no respect for civil liberties at all, though the free market is allowed to operate. It seems that free markets are A: more productive than the alternative, and B: a precondition for a good civil liberties outcome.

    History has been generous with us, and provided 3 countries torn in two, one part run capitalist, one part run communist. In all 3 cases, the capitalist country was more prosperous, and in the long run achieved a better level of civil liberties.

    -- Bill

    ReplyDelete
  56. Massimo

    "First, many economists will actually tell you that they *don't* work. Second, if you do not establish a connection between market forces and human flourishing, then you have to admit that markets have to be regulated (by whom? the government!)."

    First, Rand was the kind of philosopher who would never have stooped to reporting hearsay to support a point.

    Second, the connection between market forces and human flourishing is that a free market enables you and me and everyone else to define for ourselves what flourishing is, then it automatically rewards right choices and disciplines errors accordingly. To the degree that a free market government would regulate anything other than the physical force that would contradict those market forces (our free choices), it would devolve into the kind of government you endorse in which random groups of others would impose a definition of "flourish" on every dissenter at the point of a gun.

    It is always a pleasure to take liberals by the hand who are fond of throwing Rand into the right-wing pot and demonstrate that they, who claim to hate guns and violence actually cannot pursue their own politics without authorizing government coercion. Until Rand came along, few could see that through the curtain of "democracy" behind which they hide. Objectivist capitalism is the least violent politics ever devised. It refuses to resort to force except to stop it. Meanwhile the liberals of the left and the conservatives of the right cannot exist without it.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Some of what Rand talked about clearly fell into "economics", but she also talked a lot about ethics and values. I think ethics and values generally falls into "philosophy".

    Talking about something doesn't constitute expertise or authority in that area.

    Would you rather see a surgeon about your tumour or some author who happened to write an interesting book about cancer?

    ReplyDelete
  58. My favorite, most concise, depiction of Randian assholeism is the scene in Dirty Dancing where Robbie the waiter hands Baby a copy of The Fountanhead to explain why he won't support the girl he got pregnant. He tells her to be careful with it because he's got a bunch of passages outlined and noted and what not.

    ReplyDelete
  59. The scriptwriter who wrote that scene clearly hated Ayn Rand, and probably knew little of her philosophy.

    I have similarly heard a non-Objectivist say that Bernie Madoff was obviously an Objectivist, while any Objectivist will tell you he fell far short of that ideal.

    I'm reminded of the most famous spammer ever known, the proprietor of the English language school in Moscow. Lots of people, including Russian mafiosos, were screaming at him to quit spamming everybody in Russia so much with his ads for his school. He would just laugh and tell them they needed to read "Dianetics". He was eventually found bludgeoned to death in his apartment.

    Unlike the scene from "Dirty Dancing", this story is true.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Hume's Ghost wrote: My favorite, most concise, depiction of Randian assholeism is the scene in Dirty Dancing

    Now there's a funny coincidence! I just saw that flick for the first time two nights ago. (I suppose it was my wife's tribute to the recently deceased Patrick Swayze.) That scene definitely came to mind during the course of this thread.

    I may be one of the few who has read Ayn Rand's non-fiction, but none of her fiction. In comparison with some of the academic philosophy texts that I can recall sweating over, I can say with some confidence that her attempts at philosophy were lightweight in comparison; i.e. heavy in assertion, but very light in rational persuasion (except perhaps to those already primed to accept her narrow take on the world as authoritative).

    ReplyDelete
  61. Massimo, excellent chart and accompanying text, but given your touching upon rights, libertarianism, and the title of your [upcoming?] book, I think you owed Bentham and utilitarianism a nod. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  62. jcm

    I can say with some confidence that her attempts at philosophy were lightweight in comparison; i.e. heavy in assertion, but very light in rational persuasion (except perhaps to those already primed to accept her narrow take on the world as authoritative).

    And I can say with equal confidence that the total value of the characterizations in this paragraph is zero until it is shown that they actually apply.

    Are you sure you weren't sweating over contrived abstruseness being passed off as profundity?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Everytime Ayn Rand comes up I find it appropriate to share this link. Particularly appropriate in this instance since it's by a writer who did know Ayn Rand very well, and the introduction from Raimondo touches on the claims of philosophy as well:

    Mozart was a Red
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html

    ReplyDelete
  64. I just would like to say that for the rest of the non-english-speaking world "libertarian" is the same of "anarchism". Left wing bakunin-follower anarchists call themselves libertarians, but are far away from the american concept of libertarian. A part from the abolition of the state, they are closer to communists or socialists than to american libertarians.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Boy,

    it's obvious that if I want to increase traffic on this site all I need to do is to mention libertarianism or Ayn Rand. Oh well, I'll need to get back to actual work today, but I can't resist a few additional comments:

    jcm, I agree that natural selection inevitably results in the evolution of new threats to human health. I have no idea what that has to do with the ongoing discussion.

    lalawawa, you are contradicting yourself when you say that capitalism seems to be a prerequisite for civil liberties, immediately after acknowledging that some capitalistic countries are dictatorships. My example of Gore was simply of someone who wrote something that some people find interesting and others annoying, which was your reason to call Rand a philosopher.

    Michael, your a priori defense of free markets as leading to civil liberties is just that, a priori. It is thanks to a different kind of government that we have a constitution, civil liberties, etc. And Rand's system also needs gun, if nothing else to enforce respect for private ownership and personal physical safety.

    Randists, please get over the "you hate her" and acknowledge that people can have perfectly reasonable motives to reject her ideas.

    Michael, sorry, but I think jmc hit it precisely on the head, which is why Rand has no status among real philosophers. (Why is this so important to you, anyway? Didn't some Randist here say that it is the ideas that count, not the title?)

    ReplyDelete
  66. Massimo said: jcm, I agree that natural selection inevitably results in the evolution of new threats to human health. I have no idea what that has to do with the ongoing discussion.

    It was certainly a tangential question, but related to earlier statements in this discussion, which drew analogies between markets and evolution.

    Based partly on your answer to my question, here's what I say to that analogy:

    We have natural selection to thank for our specific origin and reproduction, but that's about it. Otherwise, we (at least as individuals) stand more to lose than gain from it. (Or, to paraphrase Richard Dawkins: In nature, there are many more ways to be dead than to be alive.)

    And what does that say about markets? Not much, really. Evolution is basically a description and explanation of biological change in nature, whereas markets are a tool (in other words, a human invention) for allocating scarce resources according to the demands of people who have the power to claim them (e.g. money). But if one insists upon an analogy, then (as you suggested in your essay) neither are particularly ethical by design, and therefore it should come as no surprise to us when they produce unethical outcomes.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Massimo, I said that capitalism is a prerequisite for a good civil liberties outcome. I did not say it was a guarantee, I cited the fascists to illustrate that it is indeed not a guarantee. Can you name a country with a good civil liberties situation where the economy is not captitalist?

    Ravi, I think your link with Rothbard's play about Rand is interesting in that it is A: by someone who personally knew her, and more importantly, B: someone who was not of radically different political persuasion than her.

    ReplyDelete
  68. @lalawawa, it all depends on what you mean by [economy is] "capitalist" doesn't it? Examples abound, otherwise: Sweden is the classic one. Many other European The US is not too far off. If you really need a terminologically-correct example (even if the underlying realities are way more complex rendering the terminology literally meaningless), then Cuba perhaps, unless you wish to take the words of thugs and terrorists in Miami.

    In fact, I would argue that purely free market libertarian economic and social systems -- anything goes environments -- have not only a poor civil rights track record but are part of the recipe for the state of affairs. Some mix of democracy (Amartya Sen's argument), religious moralism (Gandhi, King) and socialistic advance seems to pretty much account for the significant advances of the 20th century. What was the underlying economic system? Depends on where we want to draw the line between capitalism and market socialism. I would argue that most of Western Europe and even the USA are primarily market socialist economies.

    Speaking of Gandhi, today, Oct 2, is an anniversary of his birth.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Wow, 67 comments before I even read this post. My blog has mostly zero comments. :-(

    In any case I looked over the chart and sort of determined that my own libertarianism was somewhere inbetween some of the circles. Possibly, as BJ said way above, we need a different name for the political philosophy that is sort of moderate between the leftist and conservative branches of MP's propertarian set. Here's my dilemma: I cannot fully agree with the Republican Party platform and I cannot fully agree with the Democratic Party platform. As it turns out, I don't fully agree with the Libertarian Party platform either but I have a greater percentage of agreement than with the other two. Other 3rd party choices have so far left me cold.

    One of the issues MP raised in his article was this: "...according to a libertarian, if I own water on my land, and you are dying of thirst, it is my right to hold on to my resource unless you can pay for it..."

    But... MP doesn't offer his preferred solution here so we are hampered in our ability to respond. Still, if I am correct in my surmise, he is using this as an example to say that natural resources should be available to everyone. I will then remind him of "the tragedy of the commons". So that the next time he finds himself dying of thirst, there may be no potable water even if he is willing to pay for it.

    And while MP cavalierly dismisses taxes=theft, I find it a compelling point. He lists some government programs that he feels have gone well and whether they have or not is not the real point. I liken it to the following analogy: suppose I need transportation but have no car. I know that my neighbors have money and other valuables in their houses so I go and take it (through burglary or threat, it doesn't really matter but for the sake of the analogy let's say it's through threat. eg. IRS) and buy myself a Ferrari. I then point out to everyone what a fine car I have. You can't argue with that, it's a damn fine car, but you might argue that I shouldn't have it at all.

    In the end it all boils down to "don't do unto others what you would not have done to you". I don't want others taking money from me to be spent on things I'm opposed to, therefore I shouldn't take money from others to be spent on my preferences. It seems so simple, so polite, so cooperative. I'm not sure why it engenders such animosity from the anti-libertarian crowd.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Ravi, yes, this is absolutely right:

    Depends on where we want to draw the line between capitalism and market socialism. I would argue that most of Western Europe and even the USA are primarily market socialist economies.

    The question is: what is the most essential distinguishing characteristic between the opposing poles of capitalism and socialism?

    The answer is: Under capitalism, the product of each individual's application of his reason to his actions is his to retain from, trade with, or distribute to others. Under socialism, others of greater numbers or power take the product of some or all individuals' reason and actions from them to use and/or distribute as they wish. The distinguishing characteristic is force. Capitalism uses force to protect. Socialism use force to take.

    Clearly, by this distinction, there never has been a capitalist nation — not even the US of the 18th and 19th centuries, making your second sentence also correct. The economies are mixtures of capitalism and socialism.

    But if forced takings and redistribution are the opposite of capitalism, then fascism and monarchy and oligarchy and anarchy and on and on all sit on the side of the socialists. The most fundamental distinction therefore is not capitalism vs. socialism, but rather capitalism vs. statism. So at the most fundamental level of politics, left vs. right is a false alternative — both are statist.

    Rand repeatedly reminded us that words have precise meanings in any given context. When asked why she used the word "selfish" when it alienated so many, she replied, "for that very reason." Religious and secular altruists had corrupted its meaning and it needed to be corrected. I came to admire and relish that stubbornness.The higher the wall around truth, the more lasting is the achievement of scaling it.

    The same goes for the word "capitalism" that is so hard to extricate from the negative connotations it has gathered from being intermixed with socialism. But it is not nearly so difficult a task as the one its opponents face in refuting the distinction as I described it above.

    And just as Massimo is backing into the realization that the title of "philosopher" isn't worth the price of the business card it is printed on if the ideas are not forthcoming to justify it, what bundle of letters we use to describe our politics is not so important as the actual meanings of the concepts they stand for. There is no escape from the fact that politics is the branch of philosophy that applies individual ethics to the social context and that the bottom-line alternative is freedom vs. force.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Massimo,

    You present that there is "no non-technical sense" to the definition of philosopher. Maybe I am missing something here, but I tend to disagree. You further qualify your idea of philosopher with the statement, "how about a PhD in philosophy, to show you have actually done some homework?" Seems like there is the purely vocation definition that you present, which does have a program of certification. But does that inherently exclude the avocational definitions, such as "a person who establishes the central ideas of some movement, cult, etc" or "a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields"? Seems like you are presenting a false dichotomy here. I would guess that the lay public, which in regards to philosophy most of us are, would actually associate and refer to the avocational definition more often than not.

    For comparison, I was once a canyoneering guide. I sought certification and specialized training. I was one of very few in the country at the time to do so. Does that mean that my contemporaries and those who preceded me weren't canyoneering guides?

    I read your blog often but post very rarely. I was attracted to your site after reading "Denying Evolution" as required by a undergraduate biology course. I was struck by the practical recommendations at the end of the book about how we "must come down from our ivory towers!" Does your limited definition of "Philosopher" fortify said tower to the exclusion of non-academics? Does the tone and dismissive content of your posts and comments really bridge the gap between academia and the community?

    I dare say it often undermines the goal of sharing of such critical analysis and perpetuates an antagonistic environment.

    ReplyDelete
  72. lalawawa,

    but I never denied that what Ravi calls socialistic capitalism is a good thing. I'm not communist, my friend. But that's most certainly *not* what libertarians and objectivists have in mind.

    Die Anyway,

    the tragedy of the common is a problem for libertarians, not for progressives, because the use of the commons is regulated by the government. It is a tragedy precisely when it's left to individuals, who tend to act selfishly in contradiction to the utopian libertarian assumption. What you suggest is so cooperative, as you put it, and that's the problem: human beings don't naturally cooperate enough.

    Michael,

    your characterization of the difference between socialism and capitalism is a false dchotomy. Ravi was clearly referring to mixes systems, like that of most European countries (and, arguably, even the US). You say there's never been a true capitalist society; maybe, but that's valid also for a "true" socialist society. That's the problem with utopian ideologies: they are never "true" enough. I think you are just not paying attention when you say that capitalism cannot be fascist, c'mon, history clearly contradicts that sort of statement. As for Rand using the word selfish to alienate people, that gives you a good glimpse into the kind of despicable person she was (but don't take my word for it, read the various accounts of former randists who knew her, they are easy to find).

    Phillip,

    as I explained above, my quip about getting a PhD was just an example. Of course one can be a philosopher without a PhD *if* he has contributed what you refer to as "theories on profound questions in ethics, etc." The problem is that Rand didn't produce any profound anything, just a lot of incoherent ranting about selfishness as a virtue, then admitting that she was using the word in an entirely idiosyncratic fashion. That's why she is not taken seriously by academic philosophers.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Phillip,

    one more thing. I appreciate your reference to my own advice in Denying Evolution about getting out of the ivory tower. That's precisely what this blog is all about (it doesn't count on my annual faculty evaluation...).

    But there are people, like Rand, who aspire or pretend to "serious" status while not doing the work that it takes to get there. Getting a PhD is just one way of doing that work, there are others, but that doesn't mean that one can ignore professional philosophers and go with the rabid cuckoo in the name of getting of of the ivory tower...

    ReplyDelete
  74. I must submit that I find many of your posts, personal content and choice of topic, intriguing and some of the most in-depth analysis in the blog-o-sphere. Its why I continue to come back despite often disagreeing with either the findings or the style of presentation. I agree that more academic folks should expand the reach of their duties to include dialog such as this, even if viewers like myself dissent and find certain approaches overly provocative. (sometime a reaction is what an audience "needs").

    But the Ayn Rand comments hints of a dismissive nature that seems unnecessary and counter-productive to the much of the intent of skepticism or critical thinking. In this case, it seems like denying her franchise to the realm of "philosophers" is unnecessary. I say this because what I hear in the argument against her is that she lacked significant content and logical justification (I must take your word on this as I have only dabbled in her fiction, and I too found it offensive and boring) for her ideas. Which seems a fair discussion. But wouldn't this just make her a philosopher who developed poor findings? (Maybe even a "bad" philosopher, though thats a nasty rabbit hole for a gross amateur like myself). I think this would be a more productive approach to the subject for folks like myself who learned of the more avocational definitions of philosopher (definitions stolen from Random House). Questioning the technique as I think it detracts from the weight of the presented analysis. In this case, I would rather walk away with a fresher understanding of what libertarian influences I may have rather than wondering why Massimo dislike Rand.

    ReplyDelete
  75. First, many economists will actually tell you that they *don't* work.”
    Ok, what I think I meant to say here was not that all economists would tell you that free markets work in practice or really even that they would say that they work in theory. Instead, it is the idea that markets work like natural selection is the whole reason anyone supposes that they may do what’s best for humanity in the first place. Economists regardless of their views on the free market would repeat my “That’s the point!” attitude.

    “It's not just about jobs going ‘extinct,’ it's about people suffering ruin and a low quality of life as a result of economic forces”
    My point about jobs going “extinct” was perhaps just and interesting note and not really a point at all. Just forget about it.

    “May I remind you that natural selection is one of the most wasteful and least close to optimizing processes ever?”
    The free market and natural selection work on the same principle but they are not the same. What is true for one is not necessarily going to be true for the other.
    The “goal” of natural selection is the maximization of fitness (which results in complex systems) but the “goal” of the free market is the maximization of wealth for all parties involved.
    You know the supply and demand curve? Well the result that is best for everyone is the point at which they meet and that is what happens naturally!
    ---
    Unlike what happens for animals in the wild the competition that occurs between people in regards to economics seems to be a major force for good. It may actually be a major force for bad. There is no logical necessity so far as I can see that would require the latter to be the case.
    The fact that natural selection is not a very optimizing process is a problem with this one incarnation of spontaneous order and not a problem with spontaneous order itself.

    ReplyDelete
  76. “And you *love* that they work like natural selection?”
    Alright, the word “love” requires some qualification. Let’s talk about systems. Take a simple internal combustion engine; the way every part fits and works together is really cool and intellectually satisfying.
    The most intellectually satisfying systems are the ones that accomplish a lot through simple processes. A physicist especially would use the word “elegant”.
    (“Accomplishes a lot” can refer to explanatory power or the ability for a single system to accomplish a variety of tasks and probably more I’m not thinking of at the moment.)
    Take F=MA for example. Two experiments can be performed on different sides of the universe one a billion years before the other and F will still equal MA. This formula stays true regardless to be universally reliable. It’s a shame that just how cool this is is lost on most people. However, this is a very simple cause and effect system so it’s a minor example.
    Now, spontaneous order is one of the most intellectually satisfying processes out there (if not the). In it, order rises out of disparate and many opposing forces. The process is also incredibly flexible. Put a species in a new environment and it will adapt to it, if people start producing different things wealth will still maximize, language will adapt naturally to new needs whatever they are. It is a continuous self improvement system all of which are founded on simple, easily comprehendible principles.
    To further the point, spontaneous order takes out the need for and intelligent designer and produces results more incredible than any designer to date has been capable of.
    In the case of evolution: Life is incredibly dynamic, it is even capable of repurposing old structures to better uses, something no machine we have ever invented can do (a point you’ve already made). The results of natural selection (especially the brain) have far surpassed us and we are only beginning to understand them.
    So, how can you call a process capable of producing such sophisticated systems as we with all our knowledge cannot even come close to matching it and doing so on simple principles to accomplish any number of different tasks anything but intensely awesome?
    If you come out of this conversion with anything at all let it be an appreciation for spontaneous order.
    ----
    All of this was written quickly and might be a bit confused but I hope I got my basic points across.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Because they are both examples of spontaneous order and because the competing forces in the free market, in theory, are beneficial to the individual and not damaging to it, it is a fair conclusion that the free markets can also accomplish such incredible feets.

    At the least, I think I have shown why I am so attached to this idea.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Massimo,

    I must apologize about being so focused on semantics. I have been grading my wife's practice GRE essay questions for the past 3-4 weeks in her preparation for the exam today. I sometimes forget that the blog format is intentionally a little more loose and free form. Glad she is done with the practice exams.

    ReplyDelete
  79. someone said: Because they are both examples of spontaneous order and because the competing forces in the free market, in theory, are beneficial to the individual and not damaging to it...

    Like I said earlier, "markets are a tool (in other words, a human invention) for allocating scarce resources according to the demands of people who have the power to claim them (e.g. money)." As a tool, we may choose to use markets either for good or for ill.

    For example, let's first assume a just distribution of money (or purchasing power), so as not leave anyone out. (That's a very big assumption, btw, and one that does not usually obtain by accident.) In this scenario, markets are a fine way for consumers to signal their preferences to producers in, say, food, clothing, toys, etc. (which is why even many socialists, for at least the past 40 years, favor markets over central planning as a way to allocate resources). It's not perfect (e.g. as an economist would tell you, there are "externalities" to correct for), but it works well enough at its job. That's the bright side of market use.

    The dark side, however, includes markets in human slavery, child pornography, and (if you're a conservationist) endangered species. Nowadays, these uses are usually outlawed, and therefore have to go underground (or go "black") in order to survive, but they are no less market-based when we agree to prohibit them (using government "coercion", of course). And (as I suggested above) even the legal use of markets today -- e.g. when relied upon as the sole means of addressing poverty or gross social inequality (which, among other things, is always bad for democracy) and protecting vital ecosystems for the future -- can (and does) do harm to individuals.

    So it's not that anyone in this discussion (as far as I can tell) means to disparage markets. Rather, I think that some of us here (including Massimo?) have more modest expectations of what they can achieve than others (i.e. without relying on other tools).

    Now let me be clear about this tool analogy -- I'm talking about economic policies. That is to say that the decision to enact markets (e.g. to protect contracts between buyers and sellers) is no less political in nature than the decision to, say, tax income, regulate industries, or to issue currency. So all we're really talking about here is which political decisions that we approve of or not and why.

    ReplyDelete
  80. "... your characterization of the difference between socialism and capitalism is a false dchotomy. Ravi was clearly referring to mixes systems, like that of most European countries (and, arguably, even the US)."

    He was referring to that while simultaneously wondering where the line should fall. I explained that while the distinction between capitalism and socialism (mixed or not) was about the use of force, that the more fundamental alternative is actually between capitalism and statism. That is the real alternative. There is no third alternative. Agnostically or pragmatically mixing the two is not an alternative, it is the evasion of the fundamental alternative.

    Capitalism and statism are the two basic forms of politics that are implementations of the opposing principles of freedom vs force. In politics there is no more fundamental and no more real alternative than freedom vs. force. If you think there is, cite and substantiate it.

    "You say there's never been a true capitalist society; maybe, but that's valid also for a "true" socialist society. That's the problem with utopian ideologies: they are never "true" enough."

    Utopian ideologies pursue mystical ideals as a goal while conceding they can never be attained. Rand's capitalism does not qualify as utopian, because it promotes no goal other than the mundane task of managing the use of physical force. It doesn't even require a completely rational population. Forceless irrationality would in fact be a protected right. If you think any of Rand's political concepts are utopian, you need to name them and this time substantiate them. If anything will diminish your qualification to be a philosopher, your fondness for sprinkling opinions without backup will do the trick for sure.

    The very next sentence is a perfect example:

    "I think you are just not paying attention when you say that capitalism cannot be fascist, c'mon, history clearly contradicts that sort of statement."

    With just 24 words you have managed to utter three unsubstantiated opinions. Actually each is a fallacious argument from intimidation, specifically, "just not paying attention", "c'mon", and "that sort of statement."

    These seemingly innocent stylistic touches are squarely aimed at undermining my prior explanation of how capitalism and all forms of socialism, including fascist socialism, are mutually exclusive on the issue of freedom vs. force. They anticipate that the negative connotations alone will suffice and spare you from having to explain exactly how capitalism and fascism could be fundamentally related.

    By not grasping the freedom/force alternative, you make the false assumption that a fascist league of industrialists with a dictator (Hitler) demonstrates your point. But if you had applied the measure of freedom v. force, you would have been able to recognize that those industrialists abandoned capitalism the second they sought special privileges from the state. A socialist can be a fascist, or a communist, but a capitalist cannot be either one.

    A capitalist may only profit by enticing others to voluntarily pay him for the value he offers and they want. A fascist/communist socialist needs only a majority or influence to get the force wielding government to take what he wants from others.

    ReplyDelete
  81. My dear Michael,

    sorry my prose style annoys you, but this is an informal discussion, not an academic setting, so I think everybody, including me, can get away with rhetorical flourishes just for the fun of it. (Incidentally, your accusation that I don't "grasp" such a simple difference between freedom and force is gratuitously insulting and does not advance the discussion one bit.)

    More fundamentally, you seem to make a crucial mistake, which is very common among both liberals and conservatives: capitalism is *not* a political system, it's an economic one. So it's opposite cannot be either democracy or statism -- which are political systems. It needs to be contrasted with socialism, communism and other types of economic systems (like hybrid socialism-capitalism, as in most European countries) instead.

    The same applies of course to communism, which is not a political system, strictly speaking, but an economic one. You can have democratic, aristocratic, plutocratic or dictatorial communism, and all those categories apply to capitalism too. It is a simple accident of history that communist countries during the 20th century happened to be plutocratic, it could have gone many other ways, but it has unfortunately reinforced the belief that communism is a political system (you know, failing to make a distinction between correlation and causation).

    ReplyDelete
  82. jcm

    "The dark side, however, includes markets in human slavery, ..."

    Strictly speaking, this is a self-contradiction. A capitalist (free market) government uses its monopoly on force to guarantee that all exchanges in the market shall be voluntarily entered into by all parties. The absence of coercion is a precondition for the existence of a market.

    Therefore, there cannot be such a thing as a "market in human slavery", because the slave is not a willing party. So that cannot be counted as a dark side of free markets. (And Massimo can add this to the pile of evidence that even 18th and 19th century America was not a capitalist nation, only partly so.) Slave auctions are rather the dark side of government enabled coerced exchanges. Child pornography is a coerced exchange as well, rightly prohibited by the government.

    As for endangered species, I have already noted in a previous comment how capitalism would protect all species by making them property. In the National Parks series running on TV now, they documented that the first efforts to save the endangered species in America were by recreational hunters who feared that their favorite preys would become extinct.

    The protection of our environment and natural resources will only succeed if consumers demand sustainable development with their purchasing power. Governments are the least reliable and trustworthy guardians of the environment. It is they who made our lands and waters public then promptly issued permits (or turned their backs) to the destroyers. The immanently efficient power of the public in capitalism is the fact that in a market, every penny every day is an instantaneous vote. And as a whole, the poor have more pennies than the rich.

    It has also been repeatedly demonstrated that markets are the only solution to poverty. The correlation of freedom to the wealth of the poorest is direct and undeniable. And social inequality in a free society is a benefit, not something bad. When the avenue for the poorest to rise to the richest is held open by the prohibition against the artificial barriers of forced intervention, then the greater the distance from poorest to richest, the greater the incentive to strive. The time tested formula is that free markets make the richest and poorest both richer. Statism makes them both poorer.

    Sam Walton died the richest man in America having done more to raise the standard of living of America's poorest than all of the government and private charitable programs to help the poor combined that were implemented during his entire lifetime.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Michael,

    >> Governments are the least reliable and trustworthy guardians of the environment. <<

    Really? Ever heard of the Clean Air and Clear Water Acts? Passed against strong private interests?

    >> It has also been repeatedly demonstrated that markets are the only solution to poverty <<

    Sometimes I wonder if we are talking about the same planet...

    ReplyDelete
  84. Massimo,

    This is your blog. You can freely engage in all the rhetorical flourishes you want. I was merely trying to show your other readers that you were using those flourishes to intimidate them into agreeing with your asserted conclusion. In sum they were in the general category of "surely you don't think that!" If you would accompany your assertions with serious reasons and facts to demonstrate your points, you could then afford to josh around with witty put downs and no one would mind.

    Your indignation is also unwarranted. You had to extract the phrase, "By not grasping the freedom/force alternative,..." right out of its context to fabricate an insult. I did not drop even the slightest hint that you could not tell the difference between freedom and force. What you do not have a grip on yet is the freedom/force alternative qua basic alternative of politics. To help you to avoid this tactic in the future (and to catch others at it), here's a favorite helpful rule:

    facts ain't no insults, so indignation cain't rebut 'em.

    ReplyDelete
  85. jcm,

    My response to your entire comment is this:

    "As a tool, we may choose to use markets either for good or for ill."

    So let's use them for good!

    ReplyDelete
  86. michael said: A capitalist (free market) government uses its monopoly on force to guarantee that all exchanges in the market shall be voluntarily entered into by all parties.

    As I mentioned above, I do not work voluntarily -- I do it because I would surely be poor (or officially so) and homeless if I did not (or only did so when I felt like it).

    For similar reasons, people everyday honor their contracts (an essential ingredient in market exchange) out of fear that the other party will turn to state power (or else the mafia) to penalize them for their breach.

    Markets work, in large part, on the basis of force and the fear of negative consequences (be they monetary or otherwise).

    That aside, you and I must use different definitions of "market." Yours apparently reflects your utopian ideals, such that you would expect me to avoid a centuries-old term like "slave market" because it conflicts with your definition. Sorry, but I decline to do so. (Now that was voluntary!)

    ReplyDelete
  87. someone said (quoting me): "As a tool, we may choose to use markets either for good or for ill."

    So let's use them for good!


    I'm happy to agree with you.

    But I would add: Let's use other tools (meaning: economic policies) for good, as well (yes, including taxes, regulation, and public enterprises).

    That endorsement may disqualify me as a libertarian (according to the prevailing use in the US), but I can live with that.

    ReplyDelete
  88. jcm

    "But I would add: Let's use other tools (meaning: economic policies) for good, as well (yes, including taxes, regulation, and public enterprises)."

    I would never go so radical about it as to suggest we should do otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  89. jcm

    The meanings of words are contextual. You may not drop or mix those contexts when drawing your conclusions. The word "market" in the ordinary descriptive sense of people buying and selling things is the word you do not want to relinquish, as in, "slave market". But in the context of an economic system consistent with a capitalist government, a market is a condition in which all value exchanges are not coerced, but voluntary.

    I will speak whatever language you want, because it is only the concepts that count. If you want to use "market" for slave market, and you want me to say "free market" for the capitalist version, that's fine with me. But you may not draw any conclusions about a free market from the dark side of your slave market because "market" in each case stands for a different concept altogether.

    Similarly with force. If anyone is using physical force to compel you to work against your will, I suggest you call the cops. If you are, however, trying to smear your wants and needs to be self-sufficient with the word "force", you are again trying to drag implications from use in one context to a use in another. You may not conflate force in the sense of natural necessity or undue influence with force in the sense of physical coercion without subverting your capacity to think.

    In pursuit of political freedom, it is only the use of actual physical force or a threat thereof either directly or indirectly (fraud) that endangers it. If the government uses force to make you fulfill a contract, that does not infringe on any freedom of yours and is not coercion. In that case you are the one responsible for causing force to be used. You are withholding a value belonging to another until force is necessitated to retrieve it. That is an example of an indirect use of physical force.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Michael said: If anyone is using physical force to compel you to work against your will, I suggest you call the cops.

    The powers responsible for shaping the economy (which, of course, includes the labor market) don't have to use physical force. Observing the consequences of non-compliance (read: a life in poverty, including its relationship to crime) is sufficient to compel me to play by the rules.

    Again, it is a far more tangible form of coercion than the taxes that I am compelled to pay each year (most of which are either deducted from my earnings automatically or already built into the prices I pay). But I resigned myself to both a long time ago.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Michael,

    in response to your first response to me: as Massimo has pointed out, trying to draw a difference between capitalism and socialism/communism should keep in mind that these are economic systems, not political ones. It seems to me that they call for certain kinds of political and moral systems (and systems of belief) and we could talk about the differences between those... if you wish, by referring to them as libertarianism and collectivism.

    Further, with the above in mind, I am not sure I agree with the notion that capitalism and socialism are opposing poles. Rather, they (and the associated political/social prescriptions) are different stages in the development of a liberal social/political system (this is a point not original to me, of course, but can be attributed to Marx among others), working from Smith/Locke through Bentham/Mill to the turn of the 20th century view that saw government as a positive force in obtaining the effective freedoms/liberties of individuals -- thus taking liberalism in a very different direction from the earlier libertarianism.

    From the perspective of an economic system, capitalism, AFAIK, consists of calling for "free markets", private ownership of the means of production, and from a political/social/moral perspective the preservation of property rights. The arguments for the first two are mostly (again AFAIK) on pragmatic grounds, as some commenters here have outlined. These mechanisms are claimed to produce greater growth and sometimes greater common good, and we can settle these matters quite easily (at least in comparison to the political/social ones). From Adam Smith onward, the argument has been made that absent a moral philosophy that guides the working of capitalism, these effects cannot be obtained. The analogies to natural selection are quite appropriate here, I think. And when we look at the most successful and equitable societies (examples provided earlier) they tend to be democratic, market socialistic ones (ignoring the rather sad truth that their current wealth is partly a result of imperialism).

    The thornier issues are the normative and moral claims of libertarianism against other positions -- I hesitate to say communism since Marxists today consider Marx and communism an amoral theory (the Stanford Encyclopedia entry on Marx begs to differ, as do I) -- such as collectivism. These, I believe are necessarily grounded in notions of natural rights, in particular property rights. Well, Bentham called the idea of "natural rights" nonsense on stilts, and though I do not share his vehemence, I believe, parsimoniously speaking, he is quite right. If I am right, then what matters is the description/definition of a political system and a system of justice that will be found to be fair by all. Absent a divine entity granting and preserving "rights" (a necessary crutch, it seems to me, for Locke and Co), what seems to rescue us from Hobbes' war of all against all is the growth/presence of moral sentiments that hew to this notion of common good or good of all.

    What this reveals (following the thread of thought) is not a distinction between "use of force to protect" vs "the use of force to take", but the question of the ends towards which force is used, or whose interests are being protected in the use of force. History can be instructive: free market liberalism arose to serve a particular class at a particular juncture, to protect their profits, and to redirect the hitherto use of force to protect feudalism and monarchy (unsurprisingly via appeal to divine rights/law). It is natural (pun unintended), it seems to me, that this process would continue along that path, examining both the justification of rentier capitalism and the real-world application of force -- such as the use of the army in the early 20th century to break strikes.

    ReplyDelete
  92. As for Rand as a philosopher: it does not matter if she holds a Ph.D or spent time in academia. It does matter however how her arguments have shaped and/or informed significant fields of philosophy. And they do not seem to have much -- unless one believes that all the work done in the 20th century, including the birth and tremendous growth of a certain kind of analytical philosophy, is a vast left-wing conspiracy.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Yeah, when I saw the title of this one, I was sure it would be another popular post...

    My favorite little snippet for the "what has the guvmint ever done for us" crowd is now this one. Enjoy. This now in turn reminded me of that classic scene from Life of Brian, but I digress as usual...

    So many things to rant about, lemme see... I'll have to divide this in two or more to comment on all I've thought about here...

    Libertarianism was first described to me as "socially liberal, fiscally conservative".

    Yeah, as Massimo said, that's an American thing. When I first came here and heard there were so many "libertarians", I thought it was cool, so many anarchists in the center of capitalism... Then I was disappointed, it's basically just a bastardization of the idea, mixed with social Darwinism. Annoying, this thing of changing word meanings from the rest of the world, but let's use it as people use it, that's how it works...

    Oh, and I forgot to submit that your title is misleading and really should be changed. [...]
    The article doesn't suggest problems really. At least no more problems than if you unpacked the varieties of socialism or communism.


    No, nothing misleading there. And yes, it does show the reason why libertarianism (be it the American or otherwise version) is at best a fantasy, at worst a faith. Just because other systems might share the same problems it does not mean the problems don't exist.

    Libertarians DO NOT say we should get rid of the government. They say that the government should maintain a national defense to protect against foreign invasion and should maintain social order though a police force/traffic laws/etc.

    Hypocritical, innit? Why is it that the government is good at military/police and not at the rest? Or, why isn't the private sector good at military/police, if it is so miraculous at everything else? (at least from hearing the prophets... or would that be profits?) Is "maintain social order" an euphemism to "keep the poor (or whatever other category you might prefer) in their place"?

    It seems that free markets are A: more productive than the alternative, and B: a precondition for a good civil liberties outcome.

    Not necessarily. If you've been paying attention to the last 30 years, the most productive (and soon the largest) economy in the world has nothing to do with civil liberties, although is getting a little better. And it's not a free market either by any means -- although it seems to be much less regulated in many respects. Is that what you want?

    And more critically, I don't know whether "production" is the thing to be maximized in life, but that's another point. You might say that European societies are less productive than the US (although nobody in their right mind would say they are economical dwarfs by any criterion), but life quality there is sure better than here for more people. (if you discount mass immigration problems there, which is a different and more recent phenomenon that needs a solution)

    ReplyDelete
  94. Continuing my ranting...

    The biggest positive claim I will make about libertarianism is that it sounds great in theory. I kept waiting for you to explain why it would not work in practice but you never did.

    Yes, it does sound good (the international version, not necessarily the American). And you apparently haven't paid attention to Massimo's post (or don't want to tackle the point). He's already mentioned why libertarianism and other types of (pseudo)anarchism are not possible (human nature sucks), so no need to wait any longer. Read again?

    Hey, lalawawa, why don't you put "Dr. lalawawa, MD, PhD" on your business card too while you're at it? After all, Hippocrates surely did not have a medicine diploma issued by an accredited university. Nor, shock and horror, did the Romans who build the beautiful 2000 year old aqueduct I saw in Segovia last August have engineering diplomas. Just because you (and I) don't know what it really takes to be considered a philosopher does not mean that any random bod with ideas can be called one. Leave it to the philosophers to decide who they consider philosophers, scientists decide who are scientists, MDs to decide who are MDs, etc. In the end, that's how it actually works, pretty or not. Contrary to the unfortunately common anti-intellectualism in America, there are people who know better than you or me in most areas of human knowledge. And no, that's not an argument from authority either.

    Capitalism uses force to protect.

    Oh, boy. Naiveté is running high. Which fantastic fiction presents such a creature? I understand your (in my opinion) correct assertion that there has never been a country that fits your definition. The problem is this crazy definition. Protect? Whom? From whom? And who protects one from the protectors? Do you believe the corporations are so nice that they will do their best for their workers and customers? If so, I have a very nice statue in Rio (depicting the people's favorite imaginary friend, no less) to sell you for a good price -- don't miss this opportunity, the Olympics being there in 2016, not to mention the World Cup in 2014. When no one has anywhere but Wal-Mart to shop from (that's their goal, as is any capitalist's: monopoly, maximum profit, no? in practice it is, how is it in that fantasy capitalism you mention?), how well do you think everyone but Wal-Mart will be? Watched Wall-E? Fun movie for the whole family.

    Phillip,

    Coming down from the ivory tower is good, but it means, as I see it, interacting with the non-scientist public (and more precisely also with scientists from other areas, who are as conversant of other's areas as the non-scientist, of course). It does not mean that any crazy idea goes and that demanding the required rigor of the profession's methods is against "coming down from the ivory tower".

    Questioning the technique as I think it detracts from the weight of the presented analysis.

    I'm not entirely positive I understood your sentence there (nuances of a foreign language do sometime get lost on oneself), but if I did that is one crazy idea. Are you saying that the technique used to arrive at the ideas does not matter, only the final resulting ideas, was that it? That would be akin to saying that it does not matter how medical researchers arrived at the conclusion that a drug is safe and effective, or what the precise steps mathematicians used to prove a theorem were. Huh?

    ReplyDelete
  95. And hopefully to finish, for now...

    Instead, it is the idea that markets work like natural selection is the whole reason anyone supposes that they may do what’s best for humanity in the first place.

    Only people with bad knowledge of biology would suppose something like that.

    The “goal” of natural selection is the maximization of fitness (which results in complex systems) but the “goal” of the free market is the maximization of wealth for all parties involved.

    Ah, I see. The problem is that the first half there is right, but... define "all parties involved". From where I stand, the only parts that stand a reasonable chance of maximizing wealth in a "social Darwinian free market" are the capitalists themselves, a tiny minority of the population. Ever played Monopoly?

    There is no logical necessity so far as I can see that would require the latter to be the case.

    What about history? It seems to me that every time the social Darwinian position prevails (or is even partially in effect), without any type of regulation, it all ends up in one company abusing it all. To then be broken in smaller pieces by the government (i.e. YOU, the society, don't act as the government is an alien force from space), so the system can get restarted yet again.

    Governments are made of you. Markets are made of you. People in the gov usually come from the market and vice versa.

    the competing forces in the free market, in theory, are beneficial to the individual and not damaging to it

    ??? Which individual? The one who lost the competition and went bankrupt? It sure is beneficial to whoever won.

    capitalism would protect all species by making them property

    Should I laugh or cry? Tell me, for example, how the Japanese will stop eating the marvelous blue fin tuna, a fish with warm blood, to extinction (it's getting close, just check the price of the thing) if we just give their fisheries "property rights" over the resource. Or how giving my fellow Brazilians ownership of the Amazon forest will stop them from destroying it all, as we've done to the even more interesting Atlantic forest. The opposite seems to be what's slowing them from burning the whole damn thing down, if anything (e.g. a law that demands that 80% of the land in a property be kept as original forest). One or two isolated examples of self-interest resulting in "something nice" a viable theory does not make.

    Michael M, you write pretty prose to expose the fantastical mythology many Americans cherish so much, but you failed to comment on Massimo's demonstration that you, actually, might not have much of a clue about the whole issue when he briefly described what I believe is called a category mistake (is it, philosophers in attendance?) of yours, and a pretty damning one at that:
    More fundamentally, you seem to make a crucial mistake, which is very common among both liberals and conservatives: capitalism is *not* a political system, it's an economic one. So it's opposite cannot be either democracy or statism -- which are political systems. It needs to be contrasted with socialism, communism and other types of economic systems (like hybrid socialism-capitalism, as in most European countries) instead.

    -----
    See, I disappear for months and then, bam!, come back with a mammoth post. And I only answered other people's ideas, I didn't even talk about my take on the original post. Don't worry, I'll disappear again soon. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  96. J,

    “Hypocritical, innit? Why is it that the government is good at military/police and not at the rest? Or, why isn't the private sector good at military/police, if it is so miraculous at everything else?”
    It’s not miraculous at *everything* else. I’m not being absolutist here.

    Is "maintain social order" an euphemism to ‘keep the poor (or whatever other category you might prefer) in their place’?”
    Now we get into insults for the sake of insults. Or, if not that, could you admit that perhaps the other side has genuinely good intentions?


    “Yes, it does sound good (the international version, not necessarily the American”
    It sounds good but it is absolutely hopelessly as it blatantly ignores human nature.

    “And you apparently haven't paid attention to Massimo's post (or don't want to tackle the point). He's already mentioned why libertarianism and other types of (pseudo)anarchism are not possible, so no need to wait any longer. Read again?”
    I do admit to making a mistake. I’ve never heard of libertarianism described as anything but that “economically conservative socially liberal” thing. I had no idea what this “propritarian” crap was and I assumed Massimo was addressing some idiot libertarians and not libertarianism itself.
    Also, no, Massimo has never substantiated his claims against the free market.
    (Actually, this whole discussion about the free market is a bit off topic.)

    “human nature sucks”
    Harnessing human nature is our best chance of lifting up the human condition.
    duh…

    “Only people with bad knowledge of biology would suppose something like that.”
    I wrote another post about this matter that you should read.

    “define ‘all parties involved’.”
    I mean everyone who participates in the economic system (so just everyone).

    “From where I stand, the only parts that stand a reasonable chance of maximizing wealth in a "social Darwinian free market" are the capitalists themselves”
    Where are you standing?
    Consider this, I walk into a convenience store and buy a candy bar. I am willing to give up a dollar to have it because I value that candy bar more than a dollar. The business is willing to give up its candy bar for my dollar because it considers the candy bar more valuable than the dollar. We both benefit.
    Also, consider what happens on a supply and demand curve (if you don’t know about that you shouldn’t be discussing this).

    “What about history?”
    That is not a logical necessity which is what I was asking for.

    “every time the social Darwinian position”
    I don’t support social Darwinism, I support the free market. Social Darwinism is the idea that those who fail deserve to fail. The two are not the same so stop conflating them you ill-informed sniveling bastard.

    “without any type of regulation, it all ends up in one company abusing it all. To then be broken in smaller pieces by the government, so the system can get restarted yet again.”
    It is possible but by no means inevitable that a single company will monopolize. It is beneficial to the free market system for the government to step and prevent that (or allow it in exchange for heavy regulation of that company).

    Monopolies are not good according to the free market system.

    “??? Which individual? The one who lost the competition and went bankrupt? It sure is beneficial to whoever won.”
    The idea is that people will go bankrupt less than they would if the government interfered in the free market. However, if people do go bankrupt the government should intervene to help them.
    You pre-supposed that you are right and hence you have no point here.
    ----
    Finally J, I think you have to sit down and take a hard look at the other side’s positions. If you did, you would end up with at least some positive things to say about the free market.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Aha, I get Massimo's point about propretarianism and non-propertarianism almost touching. Both of them rely on human compassion as a means of lifting up the living conditions of the poor. I would be very weary before putting any reliance in that. This is exactly why the free market system is the way to go.

    ReplyDelete
  98. someone: Aha, I get Massimo's point about propretarianism and non-propertarianism almost touching. Both of them rely on human compassion as a means of lifting up the living conditions of the poor. I would be very weary before putting any reliance in that. This is exactly why the free market system is the way to go.

    On a related subject, I recommend to you a book by economist Ha Joon Chang, called Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism.

    Chang is an expert in development economics, including its history, and he argues in the book (convincingly, IMO) that today's wealthiest countries have protectionism and a host of other "heavy-handed" economic policies, which are now deemed heretical to "first-world free-market" economists, to thank for their status.

    While the book's main concern seems to be poor countries, I think it also has a general lesson to teach us about the risks of an over-exuberant view of markets, even in wealthy countries - especially in light of the current economic crisis (say, given the havoc wreaked on the real economy by our collective failure to regulate Wall St. and our own spending habits).

    ReplyDelete
  99. Someone.or.another,

    I've come to the conclusion that:
    - I didn't express myself clearly enough;
    - you might not know very well what you talk about.

    For the first point: I was talking about libertarianism, of which the free market is a necessary component. And to begin with, you sound to believe in something very distant from what any self-respecting libertarian would.

    For the second point: from my limited understanding, what you describe is not a free market, but a mixed economy. You keep talking about supply and demand. While S&D is a necessity of a free market, it's not its only defining criterion. So you don't believe in free markets, no matter how you wish you did. Nor do any of the existing economies, today or ever, since there's never been a free market economy.

    See, free cannot be regulated. There are many levels of non-free, ranging from US economy to Maoism China or whatever extremes you might want to pick. But only one level of free. It's either free or not. And I suspect that even the most rabid libertarian do not believe in a completely free market either -- I think they draw the line at preventing fraud/contract breaking or coercion by violence used in manipulating the markets. That's not an unreasonable thing to ask of course.

    But since I'm no economist and am always willing to stand corrected, I wondered whether my understanding of free market was way off. So, to Google University I went, and here is what Wikiality has to say about that, for what it's worth:

    A free market describes a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to regulate against force or fraud.

    ... further down ...

    A free market requires protection of property rights, but no regulation, no subsidization, no single monetary system, and no governmental monopolies.

    At the end of the introduction there it mentions a concept in social philosophy that sounds more similar to what you say, at least in the snippet there. But I guess we are talking economical system, so...

    Now on to the points you answered to...

    me: “Hypocritical, innit? Why is it that the government is good at military/police and not at the rest? Or, why isn't the private sector good at military/police, if it is so miraculous at everything else?”
    It’s not miraculous at *everything* else. I’m not being absolutist here.

    Well, it's not everything about you. Again, I was talking about the libertarian position. Since I can only judge what you write here, I can't know what you think or don't in the privacy of your head. But the libertarians pretty ARE absolutist about that. Just watch TV in the US to see what the guys are saying. I myself talked to a quite nice guy who was not even a libertarian, and he sure did have this faith in the markets. He thought that basically nothing should be regulated. That ultimately the market would keep things straight. Really.

    me: Is "maintain social order" an euphemism to ‘keep the poor (or whatever other category you might prefer) in their place’?”
    Now we get into insults for the sake of insults. Or, if not that, could you admit that perhaps the other side has genuinely good intentions?

    Insults, why? As they say, if the hat fits... While you did not answer my question, I guess I can take that as a no, but who knows.

    You use sinister terminology favored by 11 out of 10 military juntas during a coup and then act surprised that someone thought it in bad taste!? Please. I come from the third world, and believe me, they used to love to "maintain the social order" every once in a while there -- and still do, just see Venezuela the past few years or Honduras the past few months. If you had written something more neutral like "uphold the law", I am sure I wouldn't have even blinked at the sentence you wrote.

    ReplyDelete
  100. ...continuing...

    Also, no, Massimo has never substantiated his claims against the free market.
    (Actually, this whole discussion about the free market is a bit off topic.)


    If you see the definition (which might be wrong, but then I am far from alone there), then yes, Massimo did do that. And you yourself agreed:

    It sounds good but it is absolutely hopelessly as it blatantly ignores human nature.

    And yes, it IS on topic, since a free market is the economical facet of the libertarian position.

    Since you don't really believe in a free market, I'll leave that one alone now, since I'm arguing against something you are not thinking of to begin with.

    Harnessing human nature is our best chance of lifting up the human condition.

    Sure. Lots of good in human nature too, I'd say, by the way. But ignoring that some things will make the proposed system non-viable is not an option. People gladly (and in my opinion rightly) invoke parts of human nature as justification against communism or socialism. So why not here? Why the double standards?

    Where are you standing?

    Earth, in real life. :-)
    Then you go on to describe S&D, which again is irrelevant.

    By the way, for the record, I have nothing against supply and demand, that I can think of now. I do have lots against the free market fantasy of the libertarians.

    me: “What about history?”
    That is not a logical necessity which is what I was asking for.

    Fair enough. But you got to admit it does not bode well, eh? Now apply the same level of "rigor" to your own ideas: what's the "logical necessity" behind your preferred conclusion that "market competition" is a force for good? It sure is, at least up to a point. History suggests that too, and there's no denying. I think the error is in then extrapolating: some competition = better than none; therefore, completely free competition = better than everything else. Again, I think that's not what you believe in, given your previous post. But I'm talking about the libertarian ideal, and not the social democratic thing you described. Too much of a thing (even freedom and competition) can be bad. Not every curve has a positive inclination all the time, you see?

    me: “every time the social Darwinian position”
    I don’t support social Darwinism, I support the free market. Social Darwinism is the idea that those who fail deserve to fail. The two are not the same so stop conflating them you ill-informed sniveling bastard.

    "Methinks the lady doth protest too much" comes to mind...
    Anyway. If, as I believe, you don't actually support a free market (in which case the ill-informed person here would be someone else), then no, you don't support social Darwinism.

    But the libertarian position, again, is very reminiscent of social Darwinism, and so is free market. Yup, the ideal that those who fail deserve so, and that those who succeed deserve so too. I hear that all the time here in the US, mainly by the ones calling themselves Republicans or more recently libertarians. Then the nice rich people, if they feel like, will feed us the breadcrumbs from their tables. Oh, that's alright then. I guess I should start thanking them now, so there's a better chance they will be nice to me later.

    Then you go on to describe a mixed economy, regulated market again, so there's no need for me to discuss any of that since it's irrelevant to the libertarianism about which the post is about.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Sometimes conflicts arise over substantial disagreements, like what to do and when. Other times, they arise over mere language choice. I'm not sure which is the case with the disagreement between "someone" and J, but I agree with J that "free market", as it is commonly used by "libertarians" in the US, is at odds with the "mixed economy" description of Western Europe and (to a somewhat lesser degree) the US, and that its ideological roots hearken back to the 19th Century "Social Darwinism" of Herbert Spencer (who actually coined the expression "survival of the fittest", rather than Charles Darwin).

    ReplyDelete
  102. Hi Prof. Pigliucci,
    Thank you for writing this fascinating article which I have thoroughly enjoyed reading. There is a point however I would like to raise, if you would permit me to, and it is this; toward the end of your article you say,

    "I don’t think you have the right to withdraw a vital resource from another human being, even if in practice you are willing to gift it to them".

    Don't I already have this right? Isn't your formulation as good a definition of "private property" in current society as most others? Whilst I admit to being sympathetic toward some libertarian positions I'm not a Libertarian, for many of the same reasons mentioned in your article; however, I fail to see how you can justify this objection to libertarianism. I would argue that this is The One Tenet of libertarianism that is, in various formulations, already a part of the law every country in the World, including the few remaining communist ones. Surely, your statement constitutes an eminently arguable objection toward the existence of private property per se rather than a specific argument against libertarianism.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Problem with non-proprietarians is that free access to natural resources will lead to their over-exploitation. Tragedy of the commons, 'nuff said. You need either private property or a strong state that regulates against overuse.

    Problem with the proprietarians is, and I have never seen that answered satisfactorily, that while MAYBE it could be argued that you should have the exclusive right to the personal property that you have personally earned in your life (and I do not believe that either, as you are always dependent on services from the rest of society), people tend to inherit property from their parents. Now it is all nice to see a self-made-person brag about how they have earned their privileged place in society with their hard work and/or cleverness, but if some useless dimwit's fortune and correlated economic and political leverage stem from the fact that one of their ancestors was competent and successful, then you will soon realize that libertarianism could only ever be fair, logical and moral if every age cohort started its professional life with exactly the same resources and education, and that is simply something that nobody will ever accept. We WANT to give our children a good head start, that is part not only of human nature, but in the nature of every life form on earth.

    On a related note: While I have never read Rand myself, I have seen many people point out that none of her novels mention family life and children - likely because this dimension of human existence, if taken into account, would pretty much show her moral and philosophical ideas to be completely unrealistic.

    ReplyDelete
  104. MySickBones,

    the problem you raise does not distinguish between private property in general and ownership of vital resources. Nobody is arguing that someone has a right to anything you own. But I am arguing that if someone is dying of thirst and you withdraw water from them then you ought to be punished by law.

    As for the tragedy of the commons, that to me is one of the strongest arguments for having a government.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Massimo raised this issue and got a ditto from J:

    "More fundamentally, you seem to make a crucial mistake, which is very common among both liberals and conservatives: capitalism is *not* a political system, it's an economic one. So it's opposite cannot be either democracy or statism -- which are political systems. It needs to be contrasted with socialism, communism and other types of economic systems (like hybrid socialism-capitalism, as in most European countries) instead."

    Part 1 of 2:

    Like a pre-Gallilean understanding of the earth, that is a pre-Randian understanding of the political/economic spectrum.

    In the hierarchy of philosophical branches, politics deals with the abstract principles that apply individual ethics to the life of an individual in a social context. Economics is the specialized science that deals with the consequences of applying those principles. An economic system is an aspect of a political system.

    Just as the earth was round before Gallileo got around to explaining it, the economic system of capitalism existed before Rand came along to define the abstract principles of its politics as well as the metaphysics, epistemology and ethics they rest on. Most economic systems pre-existed the philosophies that give rise to them were defined. So your claim that "capitalism is *not* a political system", but rather one of many economic systems under libertarianism, might have been plausible through the first 3/4 of the 20th century, but it is now an historical state of knowledge.

    The economic system of capitalism is a derivative of the politics of capitalism in the way that the economic systems of communism and fascism are both derivatives of the politics of statism. The reason that capitalism has only its own derivative economic system is because it is at one extreme end of the spectrum of possible alternatives. Since Rand's radical capitalism in its pure form requires all freedom and no coercion, left and right variants of the system are not possible. At the opposite pole of the spectrum's axis is radical statism (totalitarianism) that also has no left or right variants.

    In order to have left and right variants, a politics must move away from the pure freedom of capitalism and advocate some use of force that can be categorized as a left/liberal or right/conservative use of force. On the other end of the spectrum, a politics must move away from absolute totalitarianism by allowing some freedoms that can then be classified as left/liberal or right/conservative freedoms in order to have variants.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Part 2 of 2:

    At the root of left/liberal or right/conservative political positions are philosophical positions divided in line with the mind-body dichotomy. Empiricists, subjectivists, naturalists will fall into the left/liberal camps, while intrinsicists, rationalists, idealists, will move to the right/conservative side. In the middle, picking freely from all sides, are the crowd in the middle of the road who are pragmatists and skeptics. At the pure extreme of absolute freedom is Objectivism and rational realism; at the pure extreme of absolute tyranny of force is nihilism and solipsism.

    Both left/liberals and right/conservatives are mystics who discount the full capacity of reason. The former base their ever changing truths on direct perceptions validated by feelings, the latter base their forever fixed dogma on revelations from God, traditions and anointed or historical authorities like the founding fathers.

    The left/liberal frees the spiritual intellect while enslaving the material world, while the right enslaves the spiritual intellect and frees the material world. As Rand explains,

    "... each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises."

    So, you see, capitalism is the economic system of voluntary trade that derives from the politics of radical capitalism that protects individual rights in order to fulfill the ethical requirement for autonomy in the application of reason to production and trade in the service of one's life.

    Rape-and-plunder is the economic system that derives from the politics of radical statism (totalitarianism) that recognizes no rights and no ethics whatsoever. All other categories of politics are degrees of left/liberal and right/conservative variants of statism.

    ReplyDelete
  107. MP said: "...not for progressives, because the use of the commons is regulated by the government." and "As for the tragedy of the commons, that to me is one of the strongest arguments for having a government."

    Maybe Massimo is an optimist and I'm a pessimist. We see the same situation but we see opposite characteristics. Massimo trusts the government to protect the common resources while Michael M. has pointed out that the government doesn't have a very good track record (over grazing, clear-cut lumbering, cheap mineral rights). A government that has the ability to reward influence will be influenced and will grant those rewards. That we the people have managed to push through some clean air and clean water acts is a testament to our doggedness not a testament to the goodness of a powerful government. It ignores the fact that most of that pollution was created by industries who were working under government granted license in the first place.

    And despite all of the flowery words from both the official philosophers and the armchair philosophers on the side of liberalism, I cannot get past the idea of government coercion. Redistribution of legally gained wealth just goes against my view of how things ought to be. Maybe it's just sour grapes on my part but here I am at age 61 and the U.S. government and most of my local governments have almost never used my tax money towards the ends that I would have preferred and have frequently used it for things for which I am adamatly opposed. And even when they have used it "my way", it is most likely that the end could have been achieved through other means (i.e. private enterprise). After all those years of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, I would have thought liberals would have had their fill of being beaten down by government and would be ready to jump on the small government, no coercion band wagon. But no. They just want to grab the governmental stick and beat back for a while. It seems so childish when there can be a better way.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Michael M wrote:

    Like a pre-Gallilean understanding of the earth, that is a pre-Randian understanding of the political/economic spectrum.

    I think we're on the leaning tower of hyperbole ...

    ReplyDelete
  109. Nick, you summarised my reaction succinctly ;-).

    ReplyDelete
  110. Nick,

    "I think we're on the leaning tower of hyperbole ..."

    All hats off to a brilliantly clever retort!

    Now we eagerly wait to see if you (or anyone) can match that with an equally brilliant proof that it actually is hyperbole by supplying us with a blow by blow rebuttal of the content of the post and providing us with an equally comprehensive illumination of the political spectrum as it really is and the causes thereof.

    That is important, because if no one can come up with such, you will have just wasted all that brilliance on a cheap shot.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Die said: Redistribution of legally gained wealth just goes against my view of how things ought to be.

    As a critic of political power (at least in its non-civilian form), you of all people should know that the law is not necessarily just in either its intentions or its outcomes, such that it can (and, at least here in the US, does) allow for ill-gotten gains - so much so as to make a mockery of our democracy.

    Recall that democracy is based on the principle of "one person, one vote", whereas the free market is based on the principle of "one dollar, one vote." The two are very much in conflict.

    There are libertarian socialists who would radically democratize the economy, so as to largely reduce, if not obviate completely the need for wealth redistribution. (IOW, they seek to design a system that gets the distribution right from the get-go.) But, like it's right-wing economic counterpart (viz. laissez-faire capitalism), it suffers from utopian over-reliance on human good will.

    And so we're left with the liberal response to the political-economic reality, which is to use the law to correct or compensate for injustice (which, again, markets were never designed to prevent).

    The result is, to secularize an old phrase, that: the law giveth; the law taketh away.

    ReplyDelete
  112. jcm

    "Recall that democracy is based on the principle of "one person, one vote", whereas the free market is based on the principle of "one dollar, one vote." The two are very much in conflict."

    They are in conflict because a democratic vote applied to the distribution of wealth created by others is unearned, whereas in laissez-faire capitalism, one cannot get a vote without earning it. It is the concept of earning that establishes the moral claim to self-created wealth and the right to distribute it, something democracies can never have — and in a moral society, something that the law may not giveth, and the law may not taketh away.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Michael,

    >> in laissez-faire capitalism, one cannot get a vote without earning it. It is the concept of earning that establishes the moral claim to self-created wealth and the right to distribute it, something democracies can never have <<

    So, are you really arguing for an income-based right to vote? Wow, talk about regressive policies. So would billionaires have billions of votes to deploy at their whim?

    ReplyDelete
  114. It is the concept of earning that establishes the moral claim to self-created wealth and the right to distribute it.

    What I have tried to imply above, spoken out more clearly: This claim rests on the unexamined and patently ridiculous assumption that property is always earned in the sense of "deserved".

    In reality, personal wealth results more often than not from direct inheritance, inheritance of some indirect advantage such as better education or membership to a certain class of people, and luck. The only ways to keep this unfair (in the sense of not deserved through self-creation of the wealth) accumulation of wealth and power from becoming ever more pronounced (up to the point where people are starving to death because they had bad luck with the harvest or an accident at work) is to either equalize the starting wealth of every generation and then let everybody make their own luck, or to constantly redistribute wealth at a lower scale. Because the first solution is patently unacceptable to everybody, the second is what every civilization does: taxes. (You could even argue that it is the very definition of civilization to take some resources away from individuals, yes, by force, to finance projects for the common good.)

    Not enough with this obvious problem. There is also the less obvious but not any more undeniable fact that even personally earned, uninherited wealth is not entirely self-deserved. It was accumulated thanks to the protective and infrastructural services of the community, so that community has the right to require taxes to be paid for that at least. Among these services is, by the way, also that of paying enough welfare to the unlucky so that they do not tear the rich to pieces out of sheer desperation for survival.

    And finally, the Marxist viewpoint is that the whole idea of, say, the owner of a company paying his, say, 200 employees a salary and keeping all the rest of the profit for himself (even though he has done at a maximum 1/201 of the work) is a form of unexamined madness. In contrast to the two other issues, many do not today agree, but I think there is a point to it.

    ReplyDelete
  115. "So, are you really arguing for an income-based right to vote?

    Wake up, Massimo! The phrase "one dollar, one vote" is a metaphor for the purchasing power of wealth! It has nothing to do with the voting booth.

    The populace of a capitalist government would define the Constitution of principles and the structure of the institution and elect those who would operate it all by a democratic process. The difference from a democracy, is that under a capitalist government the democratic process would not be extended to dictating anyone's life. It would confine its votes to selecting the best way to keep the government from interfering in the voluntary interrelationships of the populace.

    In such a system, there is (as I said way back and you ignored) no way to gain wealth except by creating value for others and offering it to them at the lowest price. Under radical capitalism, the government has no favors to give, no privileges to lobby for, no influence to peddle. Those are the exclusive sins of Republicans and Democrats and Socialists and so on.

    In other words, in a free market system from which all force and government intervention has been systematically removed, one can only get rich by improving the lives of others. Consequently, (please note, jcm) laissez-faire capitalism does not rely on good will to benefit the poor. It relies on identifying that which the poor most need and want that will be of value to their lives in the long run and producing it for them at the lowest price possible.

    Remember, capitalists have a continuing need to make the poor wealthier so they can buy more.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Michael M writes that the rich can only get rich by improving the lives of others. This sounds wonderful, but let us bear in mind that this is not necessary at all. This (among other things) was, AFAICT, Marx's analysis. The huge spoils of Wall Street speculators at great cost to the general economy, made stark by recent events, is an example of what the most likely outcome is.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Mintman,

    "This claim rests on the unexamined and patently ridiculous assumption that property is always earned in the sense of "deserved".

    I disagree. We have been examining it throughout this thread. I and some others have confirmed that property is often acquired without being deserved, specifically when statist governments redistribute wealth.

    In a capitalist society, wealth is earned when it is created by its possessor or acquired in a voluntary exchange. By what other standard could anyone claim the right to categorize wealth as deserved or not?

    Your screed against inheritance is ill founded. It implies that there is a quantitative criteria for deservedness. Not so. Whether wealth is earned or deserved is determined without reference to the quantity involved. Creation and acquisition by voluntary transfer are the only standards required to justify the possession of wealth. The inheritor earns his wealth regardless of the amount by being a value for whatever reason to the person bequeathing it during his lifetime.

    One billionaire could leave all to a son because he believes that blood is thicker than water. Another might leave it to his secretary for a lifetime of loyalty and hard work. You cannot apply any contrived standards of merit in such transfers without posthumously destroying the right of the billionaire who created that wealth to dispose of it in accordance with his values and not yours.

    Furthermore, once one has inherited wealth, the earning has just begun. One must continue to earn it by investing and spending it wisely. Countless heirs who failed at this task have lost it all.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Michael M,

    You've wasted far too much time on this. Fortunately for the rest of us reading your (rightly put) hyperbole, we have reality to fall back on to realize that much of what you argue has rarely if ever happened before (for obvious reasons, frankly) - so you have no way of confirming any of the systems you propose do in fact work as you claim they would. In fact, the opposite has occurred more often than not, especially when you talk about free markets. A big reason for this is that markets do not encourage moral beings, they encourage economic beings.

    People before profits isn't the rule - its the extreme exception. That you seemingly claim ignorance on this point when going on about capitalism tells me you either haven't thought out your arguments as well as you (clearly) think you have, or you choose to blindly fall victim to the same flaws pointed out in previous comments where you simply ignore much about the real world, such as things like human nature.

    You assume far too much than you can prove, as did Rand (who you are admittedly influenced by), so your poor arguments are actually understood with that in mind.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Darek, my own feeling is that the flaw in Michael M's position is not so much lack of proof, but an adherence to a skeletal and meagre framework in the interest of consistency, on a belief that its basis is self-evident. I could be wrong and I hesitate to speculate about the thinking behind one contributor's post, so speaking generally, I find the above to be true of libertarian positions. They start from an idea of natural rights (how else can one call for the use of government/force, which they do, to protect property?), which they find to be atomic and self-evident (but which I find, with Bentham, to be a sort of nonsense on stilts) and proceed from there to limit themselves to talking about only a few rules and processes that can be derived from this assumption. As you note, this is impervious to reality, but IMHO, more importantly, it is theoretically unsound, and perhaps most importantly, it is a position that the rest cannot seriously engage with -- because (again IMHO) when push comes to shove, it will of necessity prioritise certain individual rights over common good.

    ReplyDelete
  120. I also have to say that those of us who disagree profoundly with Michael M (and Rand and the rest) should acknowledge that unlike Rand's bilious style of expression, Michael M takes a bit more trouble to lay out his reasoning and defend his positions. His personal shots seem minimal and separable from his argument. FWIW.

    ReplyDelete
  121. jcm,

    “but I agree with J that "free market", as it is commonly used by "libertarians" in the US, is at odds with the "mixed economy" description of Western Europe and (to a somewhat lesser degree) the US”

    Then I’m glad they’re wrong. Just because a group of people become raving lunes all in the same way doesn’t give them the right to redefine a word.

    “and that its ideological roots hearken back to the 19th Century "Social Darwinism" of Herbert Spencer (who actually coined the expression "survival of the fittest", rather than Charles Darwin).”
    Regardless, that is not what it is today. Ideas have progressed from that time you know.

    ReplyDelete
  122. J,

    “I was talking about libertarianism, of which the free market is a necessary component.”
    If libertarianism is the belief that private property is so important it trumps another person’s right to exist then libertarianism is in a large way social Darwinism. However, if you have read my comments you know I decry that position so why were you talking to convince me my views were wrong because of it?
    Look, right here-> “If libertarianism is the belief that we have the right to [withhold] water from someone dying of dehydration then I don’t agree with it.”
    Oh, and what about-> “I had no idea what this “propritarian” crap was and I assumed Massimo was addressing some idiot libertarians and not libertarianism itself.

    “And to begin with, you sound to believe in something very distant from what any self-respecting libertarian would.”
    Right now I know of two conflicting definitions of “libertarian”:
    1) some who believes the government should mostly not restrict you social and economic freedoms
    2) someone who believes that the right to own property trumps another person’s right to exist
    I completely reject the 2nd definition and instead gravitate towards to first.

    “While S&D is a necessity of a free market, it's not its only defining criterion.”
    Dude, I was using that as an example. It was just meant to get you thinking about how it could be possible that the free markets naturally maximize wealth.

    “But only one level of free.”
    No, there are many levels of free. I can have 1% economic freedom or 28.38534% economic freedom or 100%. I put an emphasis on the free market system though not overly so meaning that I advocate somewhere be 75% and 90% economic freedom. Call that “non-free” if you want but that doesn’t change that it is a lot of freedom.
    If you want to argue we shouldn’t call anything but 100% economic freedom “free” do so but then acknowledge that the argument will become semantic.
    If you seriously want to convince me that the term “free market” should be defined the way you say you’re argument is going to have to get a lot, lot stronger.

    “A free market describes a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to regulate against force or fraud.”
    “A free market requires protection of property rights, but no regulation, no subsidization, no single monetary system, and no governmental monopolies.”
    First, you’re getting this information from Wikipedia which is never a good idea.
    Second, you’re taking this too literally. Very simply, this means that the more control of the free market a government exerts the less free it is.
    If the government had no more say in the free market than, say, a minimum wage law than it is not as if the businesses would all of the sudden stop running.
    “I can't know what you think or don't in the privacy of your head.”
    You said:
    “From where I stand, the only parts that stand a reasonable chance of maximizing wealth in a "social Darwinian free market" are the capitalists themselves”
    I said is response: “Where are you standing?”
    Now, of course, I was not actually defending social Darwinism as you are responding to my comment and was not talking about social Darwinism there either (or the 2nd definition of libertarianism for that matter). From my perspective you were still just rudely conflating the two as to say you reject the free market itself and not just a literally social Darwinist free market.
    “But the libertarians pretty ARE absolutist about that.”
    My answer to this is either to say that libertarians are idiots or the libertarians who are absolute about this are idiots. It depends of what definition we use.
    “If you had written something more neutral like "uphold the law", I am sure I wouldn't have even blinked at the sentence you wrote.”
    fair enough

    ReplyDelete
  123. “And yes, it IS on topic, since a free market is the economical facet of the libertarian position.”
    While the free market system is probably a necessary component of the libertarian position the converse is not true. By defending the free market which is all I intend to do I am not necessarily also defending libertarianism. If I was using the free market to defend libertarianism then it would not be off topic.
    “If you see the definition, then yes, Massimo did do that. And you yourself agreed:”
    You cannot decry the free market system by just arguing property is not more valuable than life is. As I said above, the converse is not true.
    Now, this argument probably can be used against 100% economic freedom but that is not what I’m talking about.

    “But ignoring that some things will make the proposed system non-viable is not an option.”
    Again, if you actually read my comments you would know that I reject the idea that it is right to with hold water from someone dying of dehydration.
    Charity is very unreliable I support the 75%-90% economic freedom position that is designed to harness human nature. Socialistic capitalism below the 75% mark puts stress on charity to the point that the negative affects out way the positive (in theory). Going above 90% also puts a similar stress on charity. Hence, I avoid both.
    (As Massimo says, propertarianism and non-propertarianism are both libertarianism.)

    “But you got to admit it does not bode well, eh?”
    For a far too long time we believed the government should stay clear out of economic matters and that resulted in wide spread workforce oppression. So, no, history does not bode well for that idea. Socialistic capitalism on the other hand can boast a history that tells of how we got today’s very high living standards in developed countries.
    Here’s a bit of a look at history (this may be a tangent):
    After the American and French revolutions (not to forget other revolutions) people were extremely opposed to government control. No one really knew what they were dealing with or how to construct a new government. Considering what they had gone though it is understandable for them to have been so opposed to government but they were wrong.
    It did not help that with the relative fall of religion people started viewing the poor not as made poor by God but poor because it was their own fault for not working hard enough. The poor were viewed with respect before because it was not their fault for being poor. It hard to imagine how they didn’t realize there are circumstances beyond a person’s control.
    Anyway, couple this with evolution (plus an is/ought fallacy) and Bam! social Darwinism.

    “you see”
    Some constructive criticism: Stop using the word “see” like this. It makes you sound very arrogant.

    “‘Methinks the lady doth protest too much’”
    You maybe don’t realize this but you offended me.

    “you don't actually support a free market”
    I support the use of a market that is largely though not entirely free.

    “Oh, that's alright then. I guess I should start thanking them now, so there's a better chance they will be nice to me later.”
    You’re vehemence against the rich is perhaps well deserved but it is also clouding your judgment.

    “so there's no need for me to discuss any of that since it's irrelevant to the libertarianism about which the post is about.”
    If you don’t want to discuss this because it is off topic, that is fine with me.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Blast, at the start of my last comment change the word "talking" to "trying".

    Why the %*#@ doesn't this blog have an edit button?

    ReplyDelete
  125. Mintman said: And finally, the Marxist viewpoint is that the whole idea of, say, the owner of a company paying his, say, 200 employees a salary and keeping all the rest of the profit for himself (even though he has done at a maximum 1/201 of the work) is a form of unexamined madness. In contrast to the two other issues, many do not today agree, but I think there is a point to it.

    So do I (even though I believe that Marx was wrong in other respects). Your points about inheritance and the social basis of individual wealth are valid, as well.

    Even if one takes the laissez-faire position that markets alone should decide ex ante how wealth is distributed, that does not necessarily rule out redistribution ex post (e.g. using progressive taxes and subsidies), so as to contain social inequality and bolster democracy. I think that approach is flawed, inasmuch as it tends to foster the misconception that the initial distribution was the just and deserved one, whereas the latter one somehow qualifies as "theft", thereby sowing the seeds of resentment. [After all, people (myself included) do tend to get attached to their possessions.] A better approach, I think, is one that balances the strengths of markets (e.g. an efficient allocation) with the strengths of planning (e.g. a just distribution of wealth).

    Fortunately, this hybrid approach bears a stronger resemblance to the political-economic reality than what our "libertarian" or "objectivist" friends seem to have in mind.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Ravi,

    Thank you for your recognition of the carefully reasoned form of my comments. Now if I could only get you to make better use of the content!

    You cannot counter the fact that in a truly free market the rich get rich by improving the lives of others by citing the terrible consequences of mixing free markets with socialist manipulations. The logic of my statement is impregnable. I invite you, however, to refute it, if you can, by showing me how else they could get rich with a neutral third party government standing guard.

    The only way would be if the populace would backslide into a generally irrational malaise and start to enable the government to interfere on behalf of one party or group or another. In other words if the populace would permit the reinstatement of the socialism or the mixed economy we suffer so mightily from today.

    There is no form of government that can guarantee infallibility in its populace. Errors will continue to be made by all. But the great beauty of capitalism is that it can guarantee that all interrelationships will be voluntary. So no one can coerce their errors upon you.

    Now in regard to your sense that my basis is assumed to be self evident, you have confused me and capitalism with the libertarians who often start with assumptions like natural law and self-ownership. In Objectivism, capitalism is not a primary, it is a consequence of its egoist ethics that is itself a consequence of the recognition of our dependence on our faculty of reason to achieve the goals of our life.

    Capitalism the politics is therefore solidly grounded through a chain of reasoning in an identification of the fundamental nature of the human being and is defined as a system to provide the preconditions necessary for men to fulfill that nature when living in a society. Identifying the nature of man presupposes conclusions about the nature of all existence (metaphysics) and how we know that or anything else (epistemology). The philosophy of Objectivism is comprehensive, logically interconnected from one end to the other and accompanied by validating arguments.

    Re the prioritizing of rights over the common good, be advised that it is nonsense (literally).

    First of all, for the umpteenth time, there is no such thing as the "common good". It is a thoroughly dishonest concept that discounts the good of the minority of any group to which it is applied.

    Secondly, rights are inherently right by definition. What could it possibly mean to over-prioritize that which is right?

    ReplyDelete
  127. Michael M:

    First of all, you do not get to redefine the word capitalism into something that the majority of people will not recognize as such. It is understood as a system of private ownership of the means of production, a legally free work force that needs to sell its manpower in order to earn its living, and (usually, today) elements of free market economics, although that part of the definition is not essential from a Marxist point of view. Your utopian idea of what capitalism should be is no part of the definition of the word.

    Now, to the more important points:

    I and some others have confirmed that property is often acquired without being deserved, specifically when statist governments redistribute wealth. In a capitalist society, wealth is earned when it is created by its possessor or acquired in a voluntary exchange. By what other standard could anyone claim the right to categorize wealth as deserved or not? ... Creation and acquisition by voluntary transfer are the only standards required to justify the possession of wealth.

    In contrast to you, I do not argue for the deservedness of wealth so much. I am principally interested in having a working economy and everybody getting the basics they need for a life in dignity. At the same time, I reject simply defining all wealth that has been acquired by any means other than government redistribution as deserved. It simply isn't.

    For starters, the whole idea that economic exchange is voluntary is moronic in the first place. Take a simple economy: some people have arable land, others do not. The have-nots do not voluntarily decide to give money to the farmers in exchange for food, they do it under force, under threat of starvation. If they do it every year, their wealth will at best stagnate, while the farmers, if they are not too incompetent to stay in business and thus forced to sell their land, will continually be richer than they are. Not because they work harder, not because they are cleverer, but simply because they started out with a limited resource inherited from their parents which the other group did not have. Where is the deservedness here? You simply say this situation is deserved, just because, in reality because you fetishize property over all other facets of human life.

    (continued)

    ReplyDelete
  128. (continued from above)

    The inheritor earns his wealth regardless of the amount by being a value for whatever reason to the person bequeathing it during his lifetime. ... You cannot apply any contrived standards of merit in such transfers without posthumously destroying the right of the billionaire who created that wealth to dispose of it in accordance with his values and not yours.

    That's nice, but what right did the giver of that inheritance have to decide that? Again, there seems to be the underlying assumption that he at least created the wealth himself. As indicated above, that is generally not the case - at a minimum it was created in the framework of a society supplying certain services and by exploiting employees (in the Marxist sense, i.e. making a profit at all that is not shared with the employees). Usually, it was only possible to "create" it based on a starting advantage again inherited from further up the line of generations. If you go up long enough along this line, you will always (yes, always) come to a point where the original advantage was acquired by force or fraud, as your cloud-cuckoo land that you call perfect capitalism has never existed in history.

    All this means that you would, if you wanted to have a fair and deserved state of affairs, at a minimum have to start a future libertarian paradise by giving everybody the same initial resources and then assume that the inequalities that arise from that point on are deserved. As I do not see that inheritance is deserved (it is only luck, after all, being born into that family, and not a merit), I would not even accept that.

    And yes, merit. It is not a contrived standard I am using but the only one that you also have at your disposal for justifying inequalities and thus mention repeatedly yourself: self-creation of wealth (however that is possible in a society; nobody is an island). An inheritor did not self-create it, and that's that.

    Even if you could convince everybody that your otherworldly definition of deservedness is acceptable, that everybody who owns something must simply own it deservedly, discussion closed, there is the very real problem of practicability. An economic system where the state restricts itself to protecting property is self-destructive. You do not need to be a socialist to realize that having a lot of wealth makes it easier to accumulate even more. Every time a company or farm has an incompetent owner or just bad luck and goes bankrupt, its market share is taken over by a competitor. Maybe another big company can enter a new market, but it is comparatively rare that a have-nothing builds up something new. So in the long run, you end up with a bunch of oligopolies and monopolies everywhere, and thus your much-vaunted market self-destructs thanks to its own mechanisms. Ancient greek city states and medieval empires have collapsed because of that mechanism of accumulation. The only workable solution? Government regulation, government interference to maintain a market system ... force.

    Simply put, the pure ideology of libertarianism suffers a shipwreck on the rocks of reality just as much as the pure ideology of communism does. We have a pragmatic mixture of free market, private property and statist elements not because of some corrupt conspiracy to harm the achievers, but because that is the system that has worked best so far. I believe we can still tweak it and improve it, and it certainly will have to evolve to deal with future ecological and resource problems and technological developments, but your idea of an ideologically pure capitalism is very obviously unworkable and self-defeating, too obviously based on the "one big idea" syndrome.

    ReplyDelete
  129. First of all, for the umpteenth time, there is no such thing as the "common good". It is a thoroughly dishonest concept that discounts the good of the minority of any group to which it is applied.

    Okay, so even if you can demonstrate that there is no common good in the sense that it is good for and in the short-sighted interest of every single individual: so what? What is so bad about trying to build the society that maximizes welfare for the largest number of people? Most people would probably agree that this would be a much nicer prospect than clinging to a philosophically pure but ultimately inhumane ideology.

    Secondly, rights are inherently right by definition. What could it possibly mean to over-prioritize that which is right?

    Um... well, you may not have noticed, but there are several of them, and thus they have to be weighed against each other. Just because you seem to think that the right to keep all of your property trumps all others that does not mean that the rest of the world has to agree, and as a matter of fact, it doesn't. And as rights are invented by humans - you will not find them anywhere in chemistry, physics, biology or mathematics, for example -, their majority opinion is what counts.

    ReplyDelete
  130. "First of all, you do not get to redefine the word capitalism into something that the majority of people will not recognize as such."

    History is littered with confusion over definitions widely held by unthinking majorities. Some words take on their meanings and some get revised. Rand decided to stake out a position around the definition as I used it to explain the political spectrum — a definition that provides a much better explanation than any of the myriad understandings of it in the present majority. The jury is still out over which definition will end up on top. It is, however, premature to be confident that the millions who read and study her works each year will never outnumber the present majority. The majority of Americans also once thought that prioritizing rights to the point of recognizing them for black people would be detrimental to the common good. Quite a few of that majority's definitions have been subsequently corrected.

    But you can use any words you want if you will just make clear, as I have, which concepts they represent. You will note in my previous replies that I frequently refer to Rand's politics as "radical capitalism" just to remind the readers that I am not talking about the "capitalism" of the vulgate, but rather a much more precise, consistent, and viable definition.

    Now, I would love to discuss the points you raised, but it does not appear that you have read all of the preceding comments in this thread, and therefore you are not aware of the moral foundation I laid out to support the contention that autonomy in the application of reason to action in the service of one's life is consistent with the fundamental nature of human beings, which, by the way, is the only thing that can be said to be a "common good" — that which complies with the nature of man, meaning all men that are, were, or ever will be.

    Consequently, you are starting in the middle of the argument on every issue you raise. In order to undermine my points, you have to undermine the ethical basis for them first. You also have to come to the table with some viable definitions. You can start with differentiating between the use of actual physical force and the metaphorical "force" that refers to the influence one's recognition of basic needs has on one's actions. You are dishonestly conflating the two by the "moronic" assertion that voluntary exchange is a moronic idea and that imminent starvation is a form of physical force wielded by some other anonymous person or group from which you desire to confiscate values. Once you get a grip on the word "force" you need to note its significance to the word "theft" thence the relationship of that concept to the allegedly moronic idea of voluntary economic exchange.

    ReplyDelete
  131. I have read all the discussion before entering into it. If I had tried to answer all points that have been raised so far, my posts would be about ten times as long. Fortunately, others have already tackled many of them. It is partly therefore that I chose to concentrate on the objective impracticability of objectivist ideas of the perfect society.

    And that is also all that needs to be said, in my opinion, on your waving around of a so-called ethical basis. Assuming for a moment that having your wealth at your sole disposition were the only rational ethics (and I do not believe that for a second, see above for the reasons), a society build on that rule would still not work based on what we plainly know about human nature. If the libertarian state, assuming it is still financed to a sufficient degree to do that at all, kept the wealth of the super-rich secure from the poor, most of the poor would simply starve to death or be shot trying to steal bread; after some generations at the most, more likely after one or two decades, the free market would self-destruct because all important economic activities would be concentrated in one surviving mega-corporation which would then be powerful enough to take over the state and dictate its own rules. Conversely, if the state is not strong enough to shoot all the starving, it's revolution time and libertarian paradise is swept away a few years after its installation.

    So, nice to have one pure and reasoned idea, but reality is too complex to tackle it with only one.

    Adding to this another point on ethics, Rand's simplistic approach of deriving ethics from armchair philosophy is pure, and this is probably its appeal, but this is not how ethics, in practice, work. Ethics and morals are not derived from pure reasoning or some natural laws, they are the result of trial and error and negotiation between humans trying to form a society. We do not regard, for example, lying as vice because some philosopher can prove that it is, but simply because a society regarding it as a virtue does not work. You may not like utilitarism, but that's how the world rolls.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Oh, and re:

    You can start with differentiating between the use of actual physical force and the metaphorical "force" that refers to the influence one's recognition of basic needs has on one's actions. You are dishonestly conflating the two

    I grant you that this could have come across as an attempt at conflation. I see the difference and think that an employee in capitalism is in a much better position than a slave.

    Nevertheless, you were talking about "voluntary" and "force", and I used the words as they are generally used in common English: I am forced to sell my manpower to an employer if I want to eat. I do not do that voluntarily, just like I do not rent an apartment voluntarily, I do it because the present economic paradigm forces me to. A certain class of people has monopolized certain resources that I need for living, and snarking at me with "well, you do not need to, it is all your voluntary decision if you want to pay rent or freeze to death in winter" is not a very accurate description of our asymmetric relationship.

    So, this is more than enough virtual ink spent on right wing libertarianism from my side, especially as the blog's author does a good job of dismantling it on his own already. I have added it to my bookmarks and am looking forward to the next interesting posts!

    ReplyDelete
  133. Hey Massimo,

    Thanks for the post. Informative as usual. Also as usual, Chile's economic "miracle" is, so far as I can tell, a myth. Here's an article from Greg Palast from around the time of Pinochet's death:

    http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/2538

    ReplyDelete
  134. Mintman,

    "I used the words as they are generally used in common English: I am forced to sell my manpower to an employer if I want to eat. I do not do that voluntarily, just like I do not rent an apartment voluntarily, I do it because the present economic paradigm forces me to."

    Unfortunately, when they are used in that context, they have different meanings and have nothing at all to do with the topic at hand. The force in this example is caused by your nature and the nature of existence and the law of identity. It is not a weapon wielded by another person. You are a human being and as such the knowledge and actions you must implement to live are not automatically programmed into you. You must choose to think and choose to act or you will cease to exist.

    But the ability to choose is the ability to err. And if you and all other men are fallible, and the length and quality of your life depends on making the right choices, if follows that a primary virtue of every human being's ethics should be independence — of intellect to decide which ideas to accept and follow or reject and avoid, as well as independence of action so one can follow the dictates of one's own mind for better or worse — to decide which values to create or exchange to attain the sustenance that your nature coerces you to provide for yourself.

    Capitalism is the socio-economic system that establishes the right of every man to that independence of intellect and action and protects it from interference from others using force. "Force" in this context refers strictly to physical force or the threat thereof to interfere with that independence. This force is unrelated to word force as you were using it. I will repeat my formulation of the central principle that a capitalist government would be required to guarantee:

    No person shall initiate the use of physical force to gain, withhold, or destroy any tangible or intangible value owned by another person who created it or acquired it in a voluntary exchange.

    Do you see the difference now?

    ReplyDelete
  135. Michael M: You don't read, do you? I already said that I see a difference - although not the big difference that you see. I do not see, more importantly, that any person whatsoever in civilized society ever created wealth so much in isolation from surrounding society that it is their right to have sole disposition of it. That may have worked for a lone hunter-gatherer making a spear by himself in the forest, but not for a shop owner "creating" a profit in the context of his employees' work, state-built roads, state-run security systems, his customers' state-backed money, etc. The whole system needs to be there for him to "create" his wealth, and therefore he can damn well abide by the system's rules and pay his taxes. Yeah, you could argue that all these things could be organized privately, but not even Rand seems to have been so disconnected from reality to believe that could work.

    Now please stop repeating "that's how society should be because that is what my armchair reasoning finds to be ethical" like a broken record. A society like the one you want (1) cannot possibly work in practice, (2) it would be a nightmare of poverty and destitution anyway, and (3) the great majority of people do not agree with your ethical "philosophy", and for good reasons. These are the points you would have to address, only you are shrewd enough to avoid doing so by diverting attention to the question of proper use of some words in a side issue.

    But it is no use either way. Your posts show that you are too enamored of the One Good Idea (tm) that you gleaned from Rand et al. to consider the complexities of reality, just like a commie militant who had the (much more plausible, but still in isolation too simplistic) One Good Idea that uncontrolled free markets lead to poverty and then repeats "we need a planned economy" and "it did not work because it was never really tried" ad infinitum.

    ReplyDelete
  136. In Missouri we have a carry concealed law. I just applied for my license. Rights can be relevant when they are discussed at the end of a 45.

    ReplyDelete
  137. James,

    remind me never to travel in your neck of the woods.

    ReplyDelete
  138. LOL...Massimo! Glad you have a sense of humor.

    ReplyDelete
  139. This article is completely biased. There is so much misleading information I would have to dozen of pages to debunk all those fallacies. First, Ayn Rand was NOT a Libertarian, despite what she said. Ayn Rand favors the use of force by the State which is totally against the Libertarian principle.

    http://www.isil.org/ayn-rand/childs-open-letter.html (Objectivism and The State: An Open Letter to Ayn Rand)
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html (The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult)

    If you really want to know about Libertarians, I invite you to visit www.mises.org which is the leading school of classical liberalism, libertarian political theory, and the Austrian School of economics.

    One champion of liberty is Murray N. Rothbard. Most people are ignorant what liberty is. For instance, Democracy is NOT liberty, but the tyranny of the majority. If you want an introduction about liberty, I recommend to read the book (or listen the MP3) "The Ethics of Liberty" at http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFkrp8Dpho8 or http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=95

    Another great book is "The Market for Liberty" by Morris and Linda Tannehill at http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/. This book explains that freedom is a practical solution.


    There is no need for the state for dispute resolutions. The enterprise of law was private until the state hijacked it.

    In a nutshell, if you have suffered injustice, you have the right to seek restitution. Seeking restitution by yourself is risky because others may view you as the aggressor. To avoid a potential conflict, there arises a need for a "public trial" to ascertain the other party is guilty (or innocent).

    A great article to read is "Justice Entrepreneurship In a Free Market" at http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_4/3_4_4.pdf. This article is rather short (22 pages) however it contains very powerful concepts. Reading it was my biggest eye opener for freedom.

    A great book is "Anarchy and the Law" (700 pages) which is a compilation of the best article regarding private law and justice.

    If you have a passion for justice, then you have to read (or listen) to Frederic Bastiat's masterpiece, "The Law" (http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html or in MP3 at http://freeaudio.org/fbastiat/thelaw.html). The Law should be a must-read for everyone in school - however, since the government (politicians) run the school system, most people are even unaware of such writings. If you are looking for a general-purpose book that once read will provide you with many hours of thought, and may perhaps change the way you look at life and your interactions with others, this is it.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Daniel,

    the article may be biased, misleading etc. But you obviously have not read it carefully: one of the things I explicitly say is that Rand was not a libertarian, nor was she sympathetic to libertarianism. The reason she is mentioned here is because a lot of people - including some libertarians and objectivists - do confuse the two.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Well thought out in presentation but lacks any substance. Your basic position seems to be that there are 1) contradicting views between folks that are (or claim to be) in what he is defining as 'under the too complex to understand libertarian umbrella' and 2) that these 'libertarians' lack an understanding of human nature.

    In the same way you drew up the libertarian family tree, one could create a similar tangled web for any political party. If you want to see deep contradictions in ideology, look at the Democrat or Republican universe. You spin this as one of the problems unique to libertarians, but I argue this is more of an issue with human nature; people in general do not make the effort to develop a consistent life philosophy. A consistent philosophy is sacrificed for the convenience of the immediate...trying to mold the world to how they feel things should be...

    Secondly, you argue that 'libertarians' lack an understanding of human nature. Unfortunately, you do not build on this argument at all. Instead, you muddle your thoughts with personalized slights to specific individuals such as Rand and the Chicago Boys.

    At the end we finally get to the point of your feelings after all of the jumbled 'facts' of the first 75% of the article when you state, "I feel that the propertarian libertarian position ends up looking mean and uncaring." It is evident you dismiss non-propertarians, as you don't give them much mention after the beginning. This article is aimed as a cloaked attack against the propertarian. (Besides, they are probably the libertarian sect more likely to own a computer and read blog posts anyway).

    Sounds to me like this was written by a democrat who is dealing with his own internal struggle of balancing a skewed definition of human rights while trying to figure out a way that people can get something for nothing. In so doing, you confuse the concepts of charity and compassion with those of coercion and compulsion to meet your desired ends.

    Also, I doubt Atlas Shrugged is even near the top 10 of # of books sold in the U.S. What i believe you are referring to is that several surveys, including "Book of the Month" club, have shown readers voted Shrugged as the #2 most influential book in their lives next to the Bible. A$A

    ReplyDelete
  142. The surge in sales of Rand's books occurred earlier this year as reported here:

    "Washington, D.C., March 18, 2009--Earlier this year Ayn Rand’s prophetic novel Atlas Shrugged was selling at triple the rate it sold at in the beginning of 2008. Now the novel is soaring to even greater heights, and its trade paperback edition is currently in first place in the Classics category on Amazon.com’s best-seller list for sales in the United States. The 50th anniversary mass-market paperback edition of Atlas Shrugged ranks as #2 and the trade paperback Centennial edition ranks as #3. For several weeks Atlas Shrugged has been holding steady in the top 10 best-sellers in the broader United States Literature and Fiction category, and as of the writing of this release, different editions of the novel stand at #3, #5 and #6 in Amazon’s ranking." (source: Ayn Rand Center For Individual Rights)

    Today, Atlas Shrugged ranks 21 in the Literature and Fiction category at Amazon.

    Since 2002 The Ayn Rand Institute has offered free copies of Anthem and The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged to English and Language Arts teachers who request them. In the first year of the program they shipped about 25,000 copies, and this year, 350,000 copies were requested and shipped. The readership is compounded as they are held as classroom sets with a life expectancy of several years.

    ReplyDelete
  143. First of all let it be mentioned that none of what you have said is anything but a biased opinion that follows a number of fallacies to get your flawed point across. First of all, you attempt to discredit Ayn Rand by using the fallacy of personal attack: you emphasize that her career of choice was fiction writer rather than philosopher, but you neglect that most of the famous philosophers EVER have been something else as well. Virgil was primarily a farmer, yet he wrote fiction and philosophical poetry about the beauty of farm-life. Thomas Aquinas was a philosopher, but he also devoted other parts of his life to the Church. John Locke's life was definitely NOT only devoted to thought, and neither was Hobbes', Pascal's, or Confucius'. Yet they were all philosophers.

    Albert Einstein was a Nuclear Physicist, but people still quote some of his opinions on life. Franklin D. Roosevelt was a politician, but he is still quoted for his logical thought on welfare and many other ideas. Hell, John F. Kennedy was far from philosopher in trade, but one of the most famous quotes of the last century has been "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." There have scarcely been philosophers by trade since the time of the Greeks, and if there were I would be reluctant to agree with them. Anybody who has not experienced work outside of being a philosopher should not be trusted to know much about life. In order to make logical thought on life, you must experience it.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Where did you hear that Atlas Shrugged is the second best-selling book in the US? I was unable to find any mention of this, for example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books or here: http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/arts/literature/21-best-selling-books-of-all-time.htm

    Admittedly these are both world-wide best-selling lists, but I would've thought that the second best-selling book in the US of all time would at least register on any such international list, no?

    ReplyDelete
  145. Libertarianism, like any other political group, is hard to peg because self-proclaimed members of the group can differ greatly in the ideology they are pushing.

    For what it's worth, I've found the site A-equals-A.com is a pretty sound resource for understanding a consistent, reason-based philosophy of liberty.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Of course they would seem to be strange bedfellows...you're grouping ideologies based on labels and not tenets. While your diagram looks more professional, my diagrams have more color! Well...that and they are more accurate... http://pragmatarianism.blogspot.com/2010/11/libertarian-spectrum-diagrams.html

    Progressives stole the word "liberal" from classical liberals so classical liberals (libertarians) stole the word "libertarianism" from anarchists.

    So a left-libertarian...otherwise known as a libertarian socialist...then becomes an anarcho-socialist.

    Any libertarian that wants to abolish government is the same thing as a pro-capitalist anarchist. Not a libertarian nor an anarchist...but an anarcho-capitalist.

    So what are we left with? "Liberals" that support a limited government.

    While we're at it. A pragmatarian believes that the invisible hand should decide whether the public or private sector produces a "public" good. In other words, tax payers should be able to directly choose which public goods their taxes help fund.

    Whether an organization is public or private doesn't matter as much as how efficiently it produces a "public" good....just like, to paraphrase Deng Xiaoping, whether a cat is black or white doesn't matter as much as how well it catches mice.

    ReplyDelete
  147. You need to get your historical time line fixed.

    1) Pinochet didn't come to power to set up free markets
    2) Pinochet allowed the state to run the economy for some time
    3) Many murders and arrests as well as the suspension of civil rights had already been underway by the time the Chicago Boys (free market oriented but not necessarily libertarian) were put into positions of power.

    So how can free markets be accused of creating and sustaining something that was underway before it even got started?

    Libertarianism did not cause the problem, in fact it probably reduced the length of Pinochet's reign. The free market policies rebuilt the nations economy (and yes some free market Harvard guys had to come in during the 1980s to fix some things that weren't completed by the Chicago boys) but the result was they whipped hyperinflation and got the economy moving again. If anything they created the necessary conditions to end a dictatorship.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Excellent read. The funny thing is that I had the same idea to write a blog about the libertarian paradox and now I am relieved of that task. Even more funny (or alarming) is how much of this article was already in my mind and waiting to be espoused.

    Again, well done.

    ReplyDelete
  149. I started to write a comment, but it got long, so I wrote a blog post instead. If anyone is interested, please check it out:

    http://makeprofitnotwar.blogspot.com/2011/10/in-response-to-massimo-pigliucci.html

    ReplyDelete
  150. I enjoyed this post, most especially this: "All libertarian positions, it seems to me, have the same fundamental problem in common: they do not take human nature seriously."

    So then the conundrum is, "How shall the more-capable deal with the less-capable half of society?" For the left, it's through placating them with financial services (hence the pending collapse of Europe, unless Germany bails them out). For the right, it's through... well, not much. Get to work. :)

    I have no issues with core scientific theories like evolution, and I think Ayn Rand was an ass... but, financially, the right seems to be on the right track vis-a-vis "taking human nature seriously."

    I believe that many Americans who call themselves "libertarian" are really just socially-tolerant Republicans.

    ReplyDelete
  151. I may not be a Libertarian, but I must say this article is way off. It's sad to know that people in the comments believe you (the writer), or agree with you.

    Before we begin, I'd like to direct my argument to the anti-capitalists:
    Why are you bashing Capitalism? You have never seen it before. America has not been a truly capitalistic society in over a century; America is Corporatist, not Capitalist. Go Google "Laissez-Faire Capitalism".

    Now to help shed some light on this SHITTY article:
    For one, there is no such thing as a Non-propertarian Libertarian. Private property is at the very core of the Libertarian philosophy. You're confusing Libertarians with Leftist-anarchists - they are two very different philosophies. Leftist-Anarchism (or as many would refer to it as Anarcho-Communism) is a very messy and strewn, chaotic system. Most Anarcho-Communists are the teenagers you see screaming on the side of the road with anarchy tattoos, nose rings, and mo-hawks (as a basic stereotypical image.)

    A quick answer to the question, "What is a Libertarian?" is this:
    Libertarians are Socially Liberal, Economically Conservative. They see the two parties to essentially be the same because both attempt to infringe on your freedoms. Before they were called Libertarians, they were called Liberals (or Classical Liberals), these would be people like John Locke and our Founding Fathers. Libertarians believe you have very basic rights that are truly inalienable and must not be infringed by anyone or any government. These, for example, would be Property Rights, Contract Rights, your Right to Life (which would be classified under Property Rights, because Libertarians believe you own yourself), etc.

    The only true differences within Libertarianism are outlooks on the role of government. Some believe government should provide basic functions such as Military, Police, and the Judicial System, these are your Minarchist-Libertarians. Others believe government has no purpose at all what-so-ever other than to protect your rights, these are called Libertarian-Anarchists.

    For a test on Libertarianism, go to http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz
    You could be a Libertarian and not even know it, if you knew what it actually was!

    ReplyDelete
  152. Definitely agree with what you said about Libertarians not taking human nature seriously. That is the common flaw of it. There is this dreamy vision of living in complete freedom and goodness whilst not taking into account that people conflict with each other; and quite often. I also see a lot of intellectual arrogance among libertarians. "Oh, you'll be a libertarian one day. I remember when I was like you." It's the same arrogance I see in their ignorance of human nature. That's my biggest arguement against it. Governments originally formed because people could not be trusted just amongst each other. They needed someone to take account of things outside of them that had the power to put rules into effect.

    ReplyDelete
  153. It is funny that one of your paragraphs makes mention of how impossible it is for 100s of millions of individuals to self govern, hence the necessity for the State. A common argument I have heard is that because individuals are so different, and because a State can never gain full omnipotence, it makes greater sense to reserve autonomy amongst individuals. This is one argument I typically site in favor of libertarianism. Mind you, you give libertarianism a fair shake, and at least attempt to define some of the beliefs correctly, and are rather accurate minus an oversight here and there.

    One item I take issue with is your belief that libertarians do not grasp human nature. Presumably your justification reveals your bias, and what I am about to say reveals mine, but I think libertarians, or more broadly, any ardent and strict supporter of property rights understands human nature best. Individuals flourish when unrestricted by others. The less restriction, the greater production. That is one of, if not the most recurring theme I hear from fellow libertarians.

    ReplyDelete