« Prison fact of the day | Main | Policy phonics »
Short podcast of me
With Anastasia Uglova of Cato, talking about the intellectual crisis in libertarianism. If you have trouble at that link (the page should look almost blank, just click on the play button), go through this page, or the archives.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on March 20, 2007 at 02:44 PM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
Is positive liberty anything other than the enabling effects of increased wealth? Isn't every other form of liberty really negative liberty?
Posted by: Kent Guida at Mar 20, 2007 3:32:49 PM
You say that the important parts of libertarianism are (a) to think critically about the world in terms of incentives, (b) the importance of the rules of the games, and (c) the immense creative energies of individual human beings operating under a framework of natural liberties. On an initial approach, it seems hard to justify a claim that (a) or (b) are uniquely libertarian, or even special areas of concern for libertarians. I'm not sure what a political argument would look like if it (a) didn't address incentives, or (b) address the issue, normatively, of what the rules should be.
That leaves (c). I guess I can see that, but, as I've already complained, a significant number of self-identified libertarians seem primarily focused on the first half of the sentence (human creativity and individualism), and give short shrift to the second half (a framework of natural liberties). Perhaps that claim should be broken into two parts. And, if we're to dispense with the second part, theCoach (IIRC) might be right: libertarianism may reduce to a sort of market-oriented, New Dem liberalism. Perhaps that's why Kos (and, IIRC, Sager) thinks there is a possibility for alliance or incorporation.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim at Mar 20, 2007 3:37:56 PM
I loved the podcast. On the positive and negative thing, I have always seen Libertarianism as an inherently positive belief. The individual is free to do all of these positive things! The negative issue comes up when defining the extent to which the government needs to limit the vast positive space of liberty.
I also liked your emphasis on the fact that humans really are geared for smaller groups. People like to support big government as it fits in with their concept of how people behave in a small tribe.
The counter to big government one should emphasize that liberty allows people to pursue their own individual altruistic impulses. Most people I no start doing good things for the people in their community when they accumulate enough resources to act.
Posted by: Kevin Delaney at Mar 20, 2007 4:04:44 PM
>I'm not sure what a political argument would look like if it (a) didn't address incentives, or (b) address the issue, normatively, of what the rules should be.
It would look like a fight over whose whim should rule, and exactly what form the whip would take. Indeed, that's what politics did look like, until fairly recently by historical terms. Feel fortunate you live in an era where it's hard to imagine it.
>And, if we're to dispense with the second part, theCoach (IIRC) might be right: libertarianism may reduce to a sort of market-oriented, New Dem liberalism.
This downplays the paternalistic impluses of New Dem liberalism by an easy order of magnitude (although, to be fair, so did the New Dem press releases).
Posted by: Dave at Mar 20, 2007 4:13:36 PM
It would look like a fight over whose whim should rule, and exactly what form the whip would take.
I feel pretty certain that nobody characterizes his own argument that way. If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate the link. If I'm right, I'd note that there are any number of witticisms about libertarianism being merely cover for selfish behavior by those at the top of the food chain fighting to make sure that they continue to wield the whip.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim at Mar 20, 2007 4:28:20 PM
Bravo, Tyler. Just two reservations:
1) Sure, the "positive" stuff is the warrant for things we favor, notably the presumption of liberty. And that positve stuff makes for broad sensibilities, not formulas and grammars. But there is no good reason to call the positive stuff "liberty," and there are very good reasons not to call it "liberty."
2) I suspect you are right that 50 years from now the welfare state will still exist. But arguing against the welfare state remains vital. First, such argumentation might make it smaller. Second, it might help to end it in 100 years time. Like you, I like Hayek's stuff on our collectivism being atavistic. But criticism and awareness teach us to overcome our instincts. It is instinctual to eat sweets, but the penchant no longer suits modern life. We learn to subdue it. Similarly, people can to an extent learn to subdue their collectivist penchants. Criticism of their welfare-state instincts is part of that process.
Posted by: Daniel Klein at Mar 20, 2007 6:54:47 PM
I agree with Professor Daniel Klein about the definition of 'positive' liberty as meaningless. Sure, it's important to have something to do with my liberty. But whatever I could do with my liberty presuposes that I have my 'negative' liberty guaranteed.
But I understand, at least I think, the point that Tyler wanted to make. If we have a level Z of regulations, this diminishes our choices on X. But if we became richer, then we'll have more choices and the regulations will restrict less our liberty.
The problem is that some regulations doesn't have this kind of effect. Actually, they define too little and open a door to government defines how some sector will work.
I'll appreciate a lot to read what Professor Cowen thinks about Hayek's aproach to Public Sector, made in his book "Law, Legislation and Liberty",
Posted by: Renato Drumond at Mar 20, 2007 8:19:22 PM
I feel pretty certain that nobody characterizes his own argument that way.
Why should I care about how bureaucrats and commissars justify themselves? "How do they sleep at night?" is answered simply: "In a very nice bed, paid for by someone else"
Posted by: Dave at Mar 20, 2007 9:18:41 PM
To the anti-positive liberty commenters, I would point out that there is no way to meaningfully create negative liberty without simply presuming what it amounts to. G A Cohen makes this point rather clearly in "Freedom and Money": positive liberty is the ability to not be interfered with in acquiring wealth or action. You can't meaningfully place a right of shopowners to coerce, say, shoplifters without some real thesis on why the shoplifter doesn't have priority with respect to the goods taken. Rather, it is presumed that the shopowner has that right and the shoplifter does not. One reason that Prof. Cowen is correct in saying we need to judge policy based on how many degrees of freedom it allows us is simply that it is difficult to meaningfully dispense freedom otherwise. Everything else comes out as arbitrary.
Posted by: Steven Schreiber at Mar 20, 2007 10:51:53 PM
I am quite disturbed by your advocay of positive liberty. You say "if I were in a setting where noone, no government, were coercing me, but I actually had few opportunities in my view I would not be very free."
But this is exactly what Marxists argued - that even with 0 coercion from government people are not free if they have no economic "freedoms" by which they mean opportunities as they define them. Then they use this to posit that government should offer such opportunities - even if it requires coercion.
No coercion means that people can all trade and make contracts. Opportunities come from people not government.
Posted by: liberty at Mar 20, 2007 10:58:16 PM
To Steven Schreiber RE positive liberty:
The logic of "negative" liberty is rooted in ownership, and those claims are not nearly as arbitrary as you seem to make them out to be. Are you really prepared to argue that the stuff in a store belongs to the shoplifter as much as it belongs to the store owner? How about the hands that I use to write this, are they not mine? In liberal civilization, there are fairly clear norms about who owns what, even when it comes to stuff that had been stolen. Sure, holes and gray areas, but far from "arbitrary."
Posted by: Daniel Klein at Mar 21, 2007 12:21:22 AM
I liked it, too. But I must add that you have a very pleasant voice. :)
Posted by: J. at Mar 21, 2007 9:58:22 AM
大家好，我是臺灣人，從臺灣一個人搬家來到美國，環境很陌生，感覺很孤單。以前在臺灣幾家知名的徵信社工作過，我是一個優秀的徵信工作者，希望早點找到適合自己的工作。希望通過貴站，認識更多的朋友。
Posted by: 謝文豪 at Apr 1, 2008 11:20:46 PM
