Well done for yet again tirelessly defending Rothbardian Libertarianism. After a year or two taking on the trolls at Old Holborn and elsewhere I have given up as a result of learning a bit about the irrationality of most people and the futility of the tribal instinct to build consensus. Plus I’m not very successful.
Your recent spat with Longrider was fairly exemplary of this sort of thing. He was clearly spoiling for a fight and his pugilistic point scoring was a long way from reasoned debate. Some people are incapable of following a rational argument and I no longer waste my time on them.
Your most recent adversary (andcabbagesandkings) was comparatively refreshing in that he was actually aware of libertarian theory and wasnt coming from an emotionally charged irrational opposition as most critics of libertarianism do.
Such 'why im not a libertarian' or 'why I left libertarianism' articles all tend to follow similar feelings (I say feelings quite intentionally as it is their lack of guiding first principles that ultimately undermines their position). Those non-libertarians that believe they have considered and then rejected libertarianism or former libertarians that have 'moved on' all tend to hold the same misconceptions. Such apparently subtle yet fundamental misunderstandings as 'wider' conceptions of coercion, or positive versus negative rights, cloud what is a clear and consistent ideology which is probably why such individuals feel it is not for them. If one doesnt completely understand the perversion of incentives, the cast iron law of special interests/regulatory capture or that there is no safe, controllable level of coercion then one will tend to stray back toward the more intellectually simple and superficially attractive statist 'solutions' based on coercion.
Another significant factor in such intellectual rejections is that of subconcious ego massage or even intentional status posturing. I point to Peter Hitchens the former aetheist. Making financial and intellectual capital from books on aetheism and then following a high profile volte face into Christianity. What keeps a writer more 'interesting' to the unprincipled consumer of 'intelligentsia,' consistent adherence to the same 'tired, boring' principle, or chopping and changing between new and exciting opposites? This is why I think a lot of libertarian bloggers (particularly in the US, where the background understanding is greater and thus the general standard higher, so such 'next level' considerations are possible) make a great deal about being 'left libertarians'. “Oh I used to describe myself as an anarcho-capitalist but now I reject all that 'old-fashioned' stuff in favour of new, trendy, compassionate lefty values.”
we can see such self-contradiction even within this single blog post from cabbagesandkings. Near the start he outlines how he still understands that markets are the best mechanism for the distribution of scarce resources. But then in the latter parts where he outlines his 'issues' with libertarianism he talks of his preference for state directed/planned provision of healthcare resources. This is inconsistent. One cannot pick and choose when and where to apply a principle. Otherwise it is no longer a principle merely a subjective guide of personal aesthetics.
The 'healthcare debate' is a thorn in the side of statist free market advocates. Only the Rothbardian free market anarchists can provide solid an consistent arguments and solutions that explain and solve the problems that are endlessly churned by the statist-quo. The 'debate' as it is usually framed consists of two tribes endlessly banging on about the NHS vs the 'American model'. (there are few who consider the other statist solutions of state payer – private provider models such as malaysia etc etc). The irrational, tribal statists cannot see past their traditional frames of reference. Only us free market anarchists can point to regulatory capture and special interests from the medical and financial worlds as the root cause of the problem.
What causes people to challenge free market solutions is that they cannot see the root cause of the problem. This can be seen in healthcare, housing and education. All the biggies. All 3 are artificially expensive due to state restriction of the market mechanism. There is huge demand so entrepreneurs should be incentivised into increasing supply. Thousands of people should be setting up medical practices in order to grab a bit of the action. But the special interests want their position protected, they dont want this extra competition. The state is only too happy to oblige in exchange for a cash/power grab and steps in to fuck with the market mechanisms.
Cabbagesandkings cannot or will not see this and so starts from the a priori assumption that healthcare is some magical exception to economic principles and because it is so expensive, irrational utopian idealised left wing statist solutions are the answer.
Same with education (as UK public education is considered 'free' and, due to compulsory payment through taxation and the resultant double payment problem, non state alternatives are pushed to the luxury market, noone considers the cost of state education vs private) unionised, uncompetitive suppliers have no incentives and so costs spiral. Those who cannot see into this intentionally obfuscated root cause often leap to externalise the horrendous costs through coercive state solutions.
And the real biggy common to most anti-libertarian stuff like this and that underlies both the arguments of cabbagesandkings and Longrider, is land/work. What I mean is that they both, in slightly different ways, found fault with strict non intervention in the relationship between employer and employee. They found last ditch footholds for statism in their perception that there is some unjust imbalance in such a relationship. That the state must exist and step in to stand up for the little guy (again ignoring the empirical argument that the big guy controls the state). Coercive restriction on the use of land is the criminally overlooked key to such objections. Why most libertarians do not seem to mention free use of land as much as they mention free use of drugs I have no idea. I have seen various estimates that a mere 6-13% of uk landmass is legally permissible for building on. This absolutely colossal market restriction has a corollary in the equally gigantic effect it has on costs of living. When supply is restricted and demand remains the same then prices, quite rightly, go up. In order to afford a place to sleep people have to earn more. (this is a double win for the state that taxes these extra earnings and the businesses) This radically shifts the natural balance in the voluntary agreements between employer and employee. If we ran the numbers of a theoretical anarchist island in which 100% of land was free for the owners to use as they wished, we could calculate the natural cost of housing. OldHolborn once quoted some figures relating to average price of an acre of agricultural land vs an acre of urban land with planning permission (something like 6k vs 90k). with such vastly reduced living costs the economic 'coercion' to work (to allow our opponents' fallacious misconception) would be lower. Employers would naturally have to do more to attract workers. There would be little need for legitimised blackmailing unionism or coercive interventions in the jobs market.
Even the majority of 'libertarians' fail to see the empirical history of coercive political rule. Perhaps it is no accidental failure but an unthinking avoidance? They refuse to accept the findings of public choice / institutional economics that political authority always grows toward totalitarianism. Bryan Caplan, and Patri Friedman have some great presentations regarding this failure of libertarians.
There is no constitution, no candidate that ever has or ever can control coercion. Tolkien knew this. In the LOTR scene in which Frodo attempts to offload the responsibility of bearing the ring of power to Gandalf, the old wizard explains that he would be tempted to use its power for good but essentially that temptation would corrupt him (Tolkien outlined his anarchist tendencies in a letter to his son Christopher, even going so far as to explicitly use that term. LOTR can be read in a very anarchist way. There is much about the corruptibility of men and the danger of power etc. the idyllic shire has no king and is staunchly non interventionist.)
One of the reasons I stopped online debating was when I learned how people rationalise. We think it is a fair competition of ideas among open minded individuals but unfortunately this seems not to be the case. Stefan Molyneux has material explaining that irrational individuals (in molyneux' analysis irrationality is not their natural state – irrationality is a corruption of human nature brought about by authoritarian parenting/authoritarian education/authoritarian religiosity) form their 'arguments' from ex-post-facto justifications for their immediate emotional instinctual response. One 'feels' a certain way and then subconsciously rationalises that position after the fact. So in the case of cabbagesandkings, if I indulge in the risky method of 'reading between the lines', it would seem that he may have a cultural predisposition toward socialised healthcare and welfare for the poor. This has always rankled throughout his time as a libertarian and ditching the consistent application of the non aggression axiom is a way of relieving this cognitive dissonance. His emotive subconscious can now breathe a sigh of relief as the weight of rational principle is lifted from his conditioned preference for familial/tribal 'care' to be extended to the political scale of the nation state.
As a coincidence, in a week when youre debating two bloggers on themes of utlitarianism vs deontological libertarianism, I happened to finally get round to reading some articles I have had on my reading list for a while. I cant remember where I saw them mentioned (possibly David Friedman's site) but they are transcripts of symposia of good libertarian/anarchist thinkers on the question of deontology vs consequentialism or what's right vs what works.
http://www.libertyunbound.com/sites/files/printarchive/Liberty_Magazine_December_2004.pdf page 18
http://www.libertyunbound.com/sites/files/printarchive/Liberty_Magazine_January_2005.pdf page 31
despite coming into libertarianism (right at the deep end of anarchy rather than the more common gradual realisation of normal right wing statism into minarchism into grudging reluctant acceptance of anarchism) by reading David Friedman's consequentialist 'Machinery of Freedom' I am very much a deontolgical anarchist. I am an unashamed follower of Stefan Molyneux and I literally dont think there is a single word he has spoken or written that I disagree with (not particularly intellectually rigorous of me I know but he is always right!).
I sought out these two articles because I have huge respect for David Friedman and I knew that a thinker like him would not have accidentally ignored deontological arguments. I wanted to know why he didnt think what I thought and whether I might be barking up the wrong tree. If you read the two articles you will see that he actually has a much more subtle and ambivalent position than MOF may imply. The panel also dispense with the common obstacle of lifeboat/flagpole situations. This may be of particular interest to you given the two, similar debates youve had this week. Molyneux too has dealt with the lifeboat/flagpole objection which actually turns out to be a bit of a strawman irrelevance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPJkr7xQxL0
on a separate Molyneux related note, cabbagesandkings (longrider seemed ignorant of such ideas) challenged Rothbard's philosophical basis – the conception of property rights in the self and homesteading. Rothbard is excellent and I am not saying he got anything wrong at all, however I think Molyneux does a slightly better job of establishing/explaining this principle. Just a stylistic/presentational difference – their philosophical point is the same lockean position http://www.fdrurl.com/UPBPDF
then again Hoppe weighs in with Habermasian argumentation ethics and gets even old Rothbard excited as Kinsella writes here in a fascinating piece on deontology http://mises.org/daily/5322/Argumentation-Ethics-and-Liberty-A-Concise-Guide
another good source for deontological explanation is a novel by an objectivist (one who thankfully finds fault with Rand) http://www.oldnicksguidetohappiness.co.uk/ . it lays out a similar list of arguments you will find in the contents of Molyneux' Universally Preferable Ethics. It establishes objectively establishes self ownership with step by step explanations of the logical conclusions we must derive from our senses etc.
Saturday, 17 September 2011
Wednesday, 14 September 2011
Just like Mohamed Bouazizi in Tunisia. When will people wake up and realise that far from helping the poor, the state keeps them poor.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8235324.stm http://zimbabweonlinepress.com/index.php?news=1195 Yet another individual helpless in the face of coercive oppression takes their life. just another man trying to work to feed his family prevented from doing so by petty bureaucracy. another self-immolation. fucking sick of it. when i bang on about regulatory capture and cartelisation its not just irrelevant economic theorising. it has real world implications. take a good hard look. this is the effect of coercion. you cant control it. you cant limit it. it is cancer. there is no safe or desirable amount.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)