John Tomasi is guest-blogging for Bleeding-Heart Libertarians on a research agenda for bleeding-heart libertarians. His latest entry continues his “frozen waters” metaphor and describes “Ships of the BHL Line.” He points out that a lot of bleeding-heart libertarians and 20th century liberals share many of the same values–a commitment to the betterment of the lives of the poor, for example. Tomasi points out (properly) that libertarians and liberals part ways on a number of important conceptual and theoretical dimensions even if we share some of the same goals.
One of the most fundamental sources of disagreement between bleeding-heart libertarians and left-liberals is the question “who gets to decide what benefits the poor?” I’m unwilling to cede this prerogative to elites for a whole host of reasons I want to explore later both in my Mises blog posts and my Forbes columns. For now, though, let me turn you to BHL blogger and philosopher Matt Zwolinski’s take on sweatshops in which he argues that the choice to accept a sweatshop job is an exercise of morally-significant agency on the part of the sweatshop worker.
As an economist, I think the fundamental rhetorical issue is as basic as it gets: most critics of free-market capitalism simply don’t understand how competitive markets work. And, as far as I can tell, many have never bothered to try. It is not that the average commentator or critic arguing passionately in favor of minimum wages or price controls thinks that disemployment effects and shortages are sacrifices worth making in the pursuit of a larger social goal. Again as far as I can tell, the average commentator or critic denies that such a trade-off exists.
In this article, I made the case for why economic analysis is crucial for ethical reflection. To engage in passionate activism while ignoring what economics has to say about international trade, wage determination, etc. is, I think, not merely unwise. It’s morally irresponsible. The Foundation for Economic Education’s Sheldon Richman calls it “the intellectual equivalent of drunk driving.” Murray Rothbard makes this point with characteristic verve in a passage that many Mises.org readers can likely recite from memory:
It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a “dismal science.” But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
One of my favorite essays on this point is Paul Krugman’s “Ricardo’s Difficult Idea.” In it, Krugman makes the point that the critics of international trade are not dismissing the law of comparative advantage because they think the world is better described by some of the technical theoretical exceptions to the law of comparative advantage. The problem is that the critics don’t understand comparative advantage to begin with.
I suspect this is true for most of the other issues on which people regularly opine. I was going to write something about minimum wages again, but that’s a topic I’ve beaten to death. Consider instead agricultural subsidies, which are probably the least-defensible policy currently in place (though I will admit that the competition is fierce). In his book The Myth of the Rational Voter, Bryan Caplan points out that farm subsidies are just as popular in non-farm states as they are in farm states, and he provides evidence that this is because people don’t understand how prices are determined in competitive markets. It isn’t because they have a sophisticated model of a market failure in mind when they support farm subsidies. It’s because they don’t understand how the market works in the first place.
To the non-economist this probably seems harsh and perhaps arrogant. To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, though, economists’ convictions on issues like these are not the product of an unreasoned faith in free market magick. They are the product of carefully-reasoned theory and carefully-collected, carefully-analyzed evidence. I look forward to observing (and contributing to) a research agenda and a public rhetoric about a libertarianism that takes the left’s concerns seriously because the lives, fortunes, and sacred honor of billions of people are at stake. Basic economics shows us that one of the most effective things we can do for the poor is to quit “helping” them with economically illiterate policy-making.
{ 25 comments }
Tomasi’s basic premise is flawed, rendering his entire thesis moot. 20th century liberals have zero interest in the betterment of the lives of the poor.
Then what is the interest of liberals ?
Spread poverty so they can enlarge their base, gain more votes and control more aspects of our lives ?
Yes.
It’s hard to say what most liberals honestly think. It seems clear to me that the vast majority are interested in doing “good” for selfish reasons: it makes them feel superior to others, which is always beneficial. There don’t seem to be many liberals who want to sacrifice their own well-being for others.
Unfortunately, I also think that most liberals are too superficial in their thinking to recognize this. Hence, while their misguided policies in fact hurt the poor, it’s unlikely that many of them would permit themselves to recognize this. If you have a sufficient period of liberal therapy, you’re able to believe any series of contradictory things, all at the same time.
I consider myself to be “poor”, I am unemployed since June 2010 and I eat oatmeal, powdered milk, Tang orange punch and sometimes I allow myself the luxury of buying a box of craft dinner macaroni and cheese. I absolutely LOVE my life.
I hate the work environment, not because I am lazy, no. But because I hate being micromanaged, being exploited, being harassed and belittled, being taxed, being looked down.
For me, a job, employment, is not a good idea. I would need to find ways to generate revenues without a job. If employment is the only way I can survive then for me death is a lesser evil.
I should have learned programming since the beginning and work as a consultant and contractor for different firms and actors. I could then have delivered the merchandise in a timely fashion and invest myself in the project and reap the benefits.
But employment, frankly, sucks and is not worth it. So I decide to profit from life now by doing nothing and enjoying my poor but free life.
My father helps me a little bit and I don’t have to pay my rent, so I’m a rich poor or a poor rich and I will continue like this for as long as I can. There is no way I will accept employment anymore.
If I’m ever to earn money again, it will have to be in a dignified and free way. Not the traditional employment anymore.
Take ants for example:
Who’s their boss ?
What school did they graduate from and what is the degree they obtained ?
Where is their punching card ?
Who gives them orders ?
Is there office gossip and clan wars among the ant colony ?
Do ants pay taxes ?
Is there an ant prison ?
Are ants convicted for victimless crimes ?
Not bad for a 250,000 neuron insect. They follow their instincts, work hard, cooperate and reap the benefits in full freedom.
Humans, with their 100 Billion neurons manage to live miserable subservient lives. I understand that and I no longer want to participate in any manner to the work force. I will either be my own boss and generate revenue working for myself or I will die. I will no longer accept employment or jobs. It sucks and it’s not a life.
Inspector Ketchup, I hope you are just trolling.
But your comments are a load of bullocks. You state that you would rather live free. What you are living as is a moocher off of others work.
Being employed isn’t about making all the money you can, it is also about being productive. Being self sufficient. Being ultimately your own master. Yes, I have to deal with crap at work just like everyone else; at the end of the day I can just walk away if I wanted to and move onto a different job.
You state that you should have learned programming early on. Why not learn it now? You obviously have a computer. You can go to a library and borrow books to learn about programming. There are many sites out there that will help you learn programming on your own as well.
It seems to me that you are living lazily not free. Freedom will allow me to move wherever and whenever I want. Freedom will allow me to choose whom I want to buy from and what. It doesn’t seem like you have very many choices at this point.
Any books on programming you could recommend?
He has some valid points, particularly in terms of the PC, bureaucratised crap you often have to put up with in some workplaces these days. Personally, it’s led me to reconsider my specialisation and look to sharpen it to avoid having to deal with that sort of nonsense.
Oh I understand completely what he means by the bureaucratized crap we have to deal with. But then in part we have lost other freedoms for sake of what? Not only that, what is the difference between mooching off of the state or your dad? Not much.
As per a book to recommend, that isn’t my field of expertise. I am actually a network engineer. My field is a bit different. I would recommend doing some research as to what language is in high demand and what type of applications interest you. For instance, Visual Basic is easy to learn but is in less demand than say a C++ programmer. Also, maybe look into programming for phones or tablets.
>Any books on programming you could recommend?
Yes. None of that “Teach yourself shooting your foot in 20 days” or “Extreme Accidents for Dummies”. Start here:
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html
Sounds good – is it suitable as an intro text then?
Personally, I think the best place to start is to pick up an IDE and then try to hack at creating a basic program on your own.
I learned a lot doing it that way. I don’t write any extreme programs since I mainly use Access, VBA, VBScript, etc. but knowing how to use command line utilities (why write a program that already exists and works, make a front-end for it/etc.)
I think most of the useful stuff that people are going to look for is customized applications. I have created various tools for different processes in an office environment and my goal in providing functionality is time savings and increasing productivity.
I also provide reporting/metrics based off queries and so I build my table structure with that in mind.
Before this I had learned a bit from working on code for a game called Neverwinter Nights. That was fun, and since you can see the code in action in a game environment you can get a feel of accomplishment easily.
NWN was a nice game. Thanks for that one.
IMO, the best IDE out there is Qt Creator, so I’d recommend learning Qt Quick (C++ plus QML for GUI stuff).
Cool. “Cee plus plus plus.” I amuse myself.
Does wealth necessary mean that you obtain the goods and services that you want or could wealth also mean finding ways to do without ?
In terms of needs met, is the wealthy person with a jacuzzi and happy to be in his jacuzzi wealthier than the person who doesn’t own a jacuzzi and doesn’t care and found out how to not need and not want it ?
Is being an efficient person mean to acquire and accumulate as much wealth as possible or to find out how to not need all those things after all ?
I vote for the later. If earning wealth means I will have to step on my pride and dignity, then I don’t want that “wealth”. For me, freedom, dignity and respect is worth more than all the money in the world and if work will not get me out of poverty and I will have to endure disrespect on top of that, then work is not for me.
Given that all those with jobs and businesses always complain they don’t have the time and given all the time I have wasted in my life and I continue to burn, I must be the wealthiest man in the world, LOL
I’m glad you have found what you want.
I do however make the suggestion of partaking in gainful self-employment since that could earn you the freedom and dignity to work how you want while choosing your own customers and reaping the benefits of satisfying said customers.
Another suggestion is do to this on the down-low, otherwise you’ll get screwed by the state.
Inspector Ketchup, I have had the same thoughts mannyyy times. Sometimes idk how I’m going to go on with my life. It’s really depressing. I often feel I would rather die than work a 9 to 5 until the end of time. Blah.
I am of the the belief that if your a able body adult if you don’t work you don’t eat. It’s amazing the transformation that occurs in people’s attitudes once they go hungry for a few days. Food tastes better, they work harder, and then if they are smart then they can start to understand the value of hard work and what pride and self respect really is. It can help build people up and help them understand what it is to be a productive person that actually has value for other people around them.
If you find self-respect in living as a arrogant little parasite and make a living through consuming the wealth created by other people… then your self respect and pride is worthless and hollow. It’s delusional.
That’s just my opinion. You can go ahead and ignore me. I am largely indifferent to your behavior and don’t think your a evil or awful person. It’s just your just one of hundreds of thousands of people who amount to nothing more then a human bed-warmer, but there is a large number of ways to be successful and actual have value as a human being besides being a wage slave.
9-5 is only one way to do things and if you stay out of debt then your already far ahead of most people in terms of freedom. I recommend getting off of welfare immediately, stop being a vampire on your dad, cease being a adult child, and start seeking employment at ‘daily work’ places doing menial work. And work your way up from that. Peter pan was only cute in stories a child… being a adult version of that is just kinda sad.
As far as programming goes… you’ll make far more money as a apprentice and then journeyman in a trade. People who work on plumbing or something like that have a greater potential for high wages sooner on then a code janitor.
But it’s important to do something that you capable and can provide value in. If you find your passion in programming then go for it.
“… the critics of international trade are not dismissing the law of comparative advantage because they think the world is better described by some of the technical theoretical exceptions to the law of comparative advantage. The problem is that the critics don’t understand comparative advantage to begin with.”
Maybe some critics, but not ALL critics. A rising tide does not lift boats that government has decided most have hulls outfitted with screen doors. The US economy is currently such a boat.
My experience with modern liberals is that they universilly (not a typo) believe in positive rights, as opposed to a libertarian view of negative rights. To fulfill their obligation to “act morally” these liberals are happy to commit the immoral act of confiscating property, thus violating the negative rights of some to secure positive rights for others. To carry out such immoral morality (without having the conflict smash one between the eyes) requires living, acting, and reasoning in a nearly constant state of denial.
Once you take such a position, why would you even bother trying to understand how free markets work? Markets in that world-view are inherently “unfair” and hence unworthy of study. It’s hard to understand things (or people) when you are looking down your nose at them. And trying to do so is sure to interfere with your firm grasp of unreality.
To be more blunt, if liberals had to apply logic and analysis to economic matters, they would be (on occasion) forced to conclude their egalitarian theories weren’t always right. Fat chance.
I’m not sure libertarians should be so smug. There’s a lot of looking down their noses at others. If different positions are both articles of faith rather than propositions open for civil, thoughtful debate, then both sides will just sneer and look down their nose, and neither will be much help in actually accomplishing something. You may not be able to see it from the inside, but an objective outsider might direct some of your criticism — about attitude and approach, not substance — at libertarians.
Personally this does not surprise me because one way to view the modern “liberals” — left wing variety — and the modern libertarians is just two sides to the same coin, which is a hyper-individuality that makes freedom solely about doing whatever an individual wants. You, of course, see a big difference between someone who says “I can do anything I want” — the positive freedom of the leftists — and “no one can tell me no” — the negative freedom of the libertarian. But to me, those look pretty much to be the same thing, which is a fundamental rejection of the fact that individual humans live in societies, and any animal that lives in groups can neither say “I can do anything I want” nor “no one can tell me no.” So I’m not sure unreality is an exclusively leftist trait. (For the record, an alternative view of freedom that I would favor, would be to accept that individuals who live in groups must live under some limits, and so the primary concern of securing freedom would be much more about issues of self-government, limits on arbitrary action, and the like.)
The leftist’s view that he can tell everyone else what to do doesn’t seem to me to be really an aspect of positive freedom but is an expression of the other major strain of leftist ideology, that the aristoi/elite/Platonic guardians should be able to demand others to do as they say, because they “know better” or whatever. The mix of the two seemingly opposed thoughts makes modern leftist ideology a heap of contradictions. But the left certainly does not have a monopoly on the arrogant refusal to approach issues with an open mind. That might even be the working definition of “the human condition.”
“There’s a lot of looking down their noses at others. If different positions are both articles of faith rather than propositions open for civil, thoughtful debate, then both sides will just sneer and look down their nose, and neither will be much help in actually accomplishing something. You may not be able to see it from the inside, but an objective outsider might direct some of your criticism — about attitude and approach, not substance — at libertarians.”
They’re free to do so, but they’ll need to substantiate it.
“Personally this does not surprise me because one way to view the modern “liberals” — left wing variety — and the modern libertarians is just two sides to the same coin, which is a hyper-individuality”
What is “hyper-individuality”?
” that makes freedom solely about doing whatever an individual wants. You, of course, see a big difference between someone who says “I can do anything I want” — the positive freedom of the leftists — and “no one can tell me no” — the negative freedom of the libertarian. But to me, those look pretty much to be the same thing,”
Because “I can do anything I want” means… I will violate your freedoms for you to provide it for me. How are they “the same thing”?
“which is a fundamental rejection of the fact that individual humans live in societies,”
Bullshit. Few libertarians, and especially not Austrian economists who emphasise the virtues of cooperation and the division of labour, make this error. No libertarian rejects that fact. What they do emphasise is using the individual (and particularly human action) as a unit of analysis for economic transactions, and also as the starting point to determine the legitimacy of various rules of social conduct, starting on the assumption that the social order exists to promote peaceful cooperation between individuals, and that that is its raison d’etre.
“So I’m not sure unreality is an exclusively leftist trait.”
Providing you rely on a strawman of the libertarian conception of freedom only.
” (For the record, an alternative view of freedom that I would favor, would be to accept that individuals who live in groups must live under some limits, and so the primary concern of securing freedom would be much more about issues of self-government, limits on arbitrary action, and the like.)”
… limits such as not violating the freedoms of others in going about getting what you want? Your conception isn’t so much an alternative view as it is pretty much a round-about way of getting to it.
To understand sweatshops, it’s important to understand the key weapon against the sweatshop worker. This weapon being State interference and deportation to far worse conditions. Hostile and state-run immigration policies allow sweatshops to persist. It’s difficult to maintain a low-wage, poor working condition factory without a mechanism to keep competitors from obtaining your workers with better pay and conditions. By being classified as undocumented, the mere threat of being returned to a third world country much worse than the sweatshop environment is enough to keep them from seeking employment elsewhere.
The same is true for overseas sweatshops. Foreign governments in such nations tend to micromanage industry in their borders and require express permission to start up operations. There is little risk of a company having its workers scalped by a competitor in third world nations because a competitor risks forced shut-down by the local regime.
Without the threat of legally sanctioned force, sweatshops would unlikely exist.
I agree entirely with the post. I would add that people who make ridiculous economic claims (as is the case with trade):
1) don’t understand Ricardian theory; but, more important
2) have NO INCENTIVES to understand it.
Informational costs are high, not only because economics is complex (as Krugman says), but also because finding the truth might make the person renounce other commitments and attachments that, to him, are more important than the truth.
Guido Pincione and I discuss at length this phenomenon in RATIONAL CHOICE AND DEMOCRATIC DELIBERATION: A THEORY OF DISCOURSE FAILURE (Cambridge U.P., 2006).
Krugman is setting up a straw man – because that is just precisely the position of some serious critics, such as Paul Craig Roberts and those like Michael Spence, a Nobel prize-winning economist, and others Roberts describes in How Offshoring Has Destroyed the Economy:-
.
.
.
Notice that the important point here isn’t whether the critics are right, it’s that Krugman has set up a straw man by misrepresenting them. And, what is more, a year ago he himself admitted he knew about Samuelson’s reservations and endorsed them himself – making him one of the critics.
Comments on this entry are closed.