« Markets in everything, Kosher gasoline edition | Main | Can the uninsured afford health insurance? »
Virginia Postrel on libertarianism
Bravo. Excerpt:
Oddly enough, promoting liberty may in some cases require libertarians to work at state-building, or at least state-reforming.
Addendum: Virginia offers further comments, including a correct psychoanalysis of me.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on March 19, 2007 at 02:01 PM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
Might be more compelling if it wasn't coming out of the mouth of someone who (IIRC) supported the Administration post-Padilla. But, hey, maybe Postrel's got a different definition of "liberty."
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim at Mar 19, 2007 2:04:03 PM
You really think that was insightful? It seems to me to be misreading liberals but adopting their philosophy with a simplifying slant.
Posted by: theCoach at Mar 19, 2007 2:31:35 PM
>Might be more compelling if it wasn't coming out of the mouth of someone who (IIRC) supported the Administration post-Padilla. But, hey, maybe Postrel's got a different definition of "liberty."
Got any links for this. Ten minutes of googling turns up nothing whatsoever written by Postrel about Padilla or Hamdi.
Posted by: Dave at Mar 19, 2007 3:12:07 PM
Dave: I don't have strong feelings on the Padilla case, but do you really think that one case definitively shows anything? Would you judge Clinton by Waco? Carter by not supporting Polish Solidarity? Roosevelt by Japanese internment? What administration has nothing Padilla-like? Or perhaps you are an anarchist?
Posted by: eric at Mar 19, 2007 3:27:10 PM
Got any links for this. Ten minutes of googling turns up nothing whatsoever written by Postrel about Padilla or Hamdi.
I was unclear: I meant that she'd supported Bush after the Administration acted on the Padilla policy.
Which brings me to this election. I'm not picking a boyfriend here either, or, for that matter, an intellectual mentor. Given the current balance of power in Congress, there are only two things the president can significantly affect: foreign policy and regulatory policy. I prefer Bush to Kerry on both. It's a cold calculation.
I can't see how any libertarian does that absent some sort of attempt to address the Administration's policy claim. Funnily enough, a link through Sullivan shows her complaining about libertarian purity wars. I don't know why people don't use something like "propertarian." Lots of benefits flow from the existence of property right, and most of the libertarian/glibertarian discussions of policy focus on just those issues. If you support the Bush Administration and you claim to be a libertarian, it seems obvious that your primary, if not sole, concern is the protection of property rights.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim at Mar 19, 2007 3:37:05 PM
Dave,
http://www.dynamist.com/weblog/archives/001423.html
Though I'm voting for Bush, part of me really wants to see the huge intraparty fight that will break out if Kerry wins--not just between the cut-and-run party and the get-more-allies party but between the Rubinesque New Dems and the folks who think "corporation" is a damning pejorative. The anti-market left has reemerged, and this year it's voting for Kerry. Do the Dems really want allies who hate commerce?
Posted by: theCoach at Mar 19, 2007 3:42:44 PM
SCMT,
Even for propertarians I thought torturing a suspect without charge was a no-no. Reading through Postrel she is simply delusional about what Democrats advocate.
Another interesting point is the annoyance at being labeled a Libertarian, a small tent if ever there was one, and then turning around and using non-representative examples from the huge coalition of people that fall under the Democratic tent - it is frankly just weird.
Posted by: theCoach at Mar 19, 2007 3:50:18 PM
SCMT,
Got it. You're saying she shouldn't be making tradeoffs among feasible alternatives when deciding who to back. Considering that the article referenced is all about the pointlessness of not making any such tradeoffs, she's probably not going to be interested. Nor, really, am I. I fully acknowlege there are libertarians whose Randian kung fu is more pure and powerful than mine. Mostly I don't have a problem with them, although I'll admit I rarely invite them to dinner.
>If you support the Bush administration and claim to be a libertarian, it seems obvious that your primary, if not sole, concern is protection of property rights.
There are a lot of issues that the Bush administration has been horrible on, from a libertarian perspective. Unfortunately, many of these are issues where the Democratic party has either historically been even worse. Education. Entitlements. Trade. Fiscal responsibility. Foreign policy (for those values of libertarian that aren't sorry we fought the Cold War). The 2004 election was a choice between an administration which was really quite bad (from a libertarian view), and an opposition whose main planks were mostly mealy-mouthed half-promises to be even worse. Some libertarians held their nose and made what they thought to be the least-bad choice. Confusing that with "support" is a recipe for confusion
Posted by: Dave at Mar 19, 2007 4:32:28 PM
I happen to think Postrel's contribution was right on as an analysis of where libertarianism is and should go. Let it be noted that agreeing with her analysis of that point hardly commits one to agreeing with her take on foreign policy, nor the reverse. To dismiss her analysis because you don't like her views on foreign policy is just sheer close-mindedness.
Posted by: Steven Horwitz at Mar 19, 2007 4:41:47 PM
Steven,
I think Postrel makes a pretty strong argument in favor of standard US liberalism - that she thinks it is not what she believes shows either that she is confused (obviously true with her support of Bush) and/or that she is only willing to associate with such a small coalition of supporters as to be worth dismissing. The pox on both their houses pose is tired.
She does seem to have taken econ 101 a little too seriously, comically overestimating the importance of free trade agreements, and vastly overstating how much they have to do with 'free trade', so I am not sure how seriously to take her empiricism.
Posted by: theCoach at Mar 19, 2007 5:05:19 PM
You're saying she shouldn't be making tradeoffs among feasible alternatives when deciding who to back.
No, I'm saying you need an excellent justification to make the trade-off she made, if she wants to call herself a libertarian, and if we want the word "libertarian" to mean anything remotely sensible. I'm not a libertarian. Maybe it's considered a fine and reasonable libertarian position to say, "I'd like [libertarian package of rights X] or free cable. Whichever." In which case, it seems fair to treat "libertarian" as a nonsense word, and people who ascribe any specific political positions to the the word as nonsense people.
Education. Entitlements. Trade. Fiscal responsibility. Foreign policy (for those values of libertarian that aren't sorry we fought the Cold War).
There has to be some attempt to order the liberties, or else "libertarian" seems to mean "I like markets, and I'm for the good stuff." If libertarians now think it's OK for the government to imprison indefinitely, and without reference to any fair hearing, an American citizen captured on American soil, then I don't know what they think they could mean by "liberty." When people contrast Hussein's tyranny to US liberty, they aren't generally talking about property confiscation.
You would think a group of people committed to the primacy of markets would be in favor of a little truth in advertising in the marketplace of political ideas. If you don't like propertarian (though, seriously, many of the compelling arguments libertarians make appear to be based around this subject area), choose "Randian." My knowledge of her thinking comes only from a couple of novels, but she seemed more concerned with property rights than--well, I'd call it "liberty," but that's what's at issue.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim at Mar 19, 2007 5:44:51 PM
>There has to be some attempt to order the liberties, or else "libertarian" seems to mean "I like markets, and I'm for the good stuff."
I'm honestly not sure why an ordering is necessary. Indeed, requesting an ordering seems to be little more than setting a crude trap, in order to play hypocrisy 'gotcha' game. Sorry, I'm not biting. I need no more give a precise ordering the liberties I wish to advance than I need to order the things I wish to purchase at the grocery store or the books I wish to read. As long as a reasonable amount of groceries get purchased and books get read, I'm better off than I am now. Given that, I'm willing to make tradeoffs and accept partial successes, like any reasonable human being.
Am I annoyed that habeas was suspended for two citizens? Yes, and I'm sure that Postrel was as well. Am I surprised? Only to the extent that in 2001 I would have guessed that that number would several orders of magnitude higher, no matter which side won the 2004 election. Why you think this should keep us from taking actions to promote global trade or educational choice is beyond me.
Posted by: Dave at Mar 19, 2007 6:19:55 PM
"Calling for a small increase in the minimum wage or the earned income tax credit is very different from nationalizing industry, imposing wage and price controls, or enacting confiscatory tax rates." Extract from her essay.
BS at its best - why is the so-called "libertarian" blogosphere going downhill like that?
Posted by: Sécessionniste at Mar 19, 2007 6:24:38 PM
I'm honestly not sure why an ordering is necessary. Indeed, requesting an ordering seems to be little more than setting a crude trap, in order to play hypocrisy 'gotcha' game.
Is there any set of beliefs one must have and demonstrate fidelity to, or is everyone a libertarian (and, at the same time a not-libertarian)? Surely freedom to buy cable and freedom simple--meaning "not in jail"--aren't valued the same. Who in gawd's name can't call themselves a libertarian, if they are able to gin up a trade of any right and all but every right for something putatively worthwhile?
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim at Mar 19, 2007 7:21:41 PM
I suppose my voting for Badnarik during the last Presidential election was just as coldly calculating as VP's voting for Bush.
I live in Massachusetts. There was no way Kerry was going to lose or Bush going to win there, so I voted for a third party candidate. Even though Bush won big in Texas, I suppose there was the slim chance Kerry could have won that state.
Posted by: Xmas at Mar 19, 2007 8:00:11 PM
And according to the new Adam Curtis documentary on the history and influence of 20th century economics, "The Trap: Whatever Happened to Our Dream of Freedom?", you're a psychopath too. :(
Posted by: Naadir Jeewa at Mar 19, 2007 10:11:28 PM
Fittingly enough the comments start out with the exact kind of pettiness that seems to be the problem i.e. anyone that would support President Bush is a big fat. . . . blah blah blah.
Or more to the point, most of the problem with libertarianism is so few libertarians.
Mostly we have a bunch of disaffected types who hang everything on one nail i.e. whether or not someone supports Bush or whomever; legalization of drugs, abortion, etc.
When I think "libertarian," I think of individualism, the sacredness of private property, the economics behind such things, and so on.
Visiting libertarian blogs and publications, there seems to be very little on how to realistically change the world around us. It seems to always be the big three listed above; legal drugs, Bush is bad, bad man, and abortion (or some variant thereof; as in how dangerous the Religious Right is to either of the other favorite two topics).
I suppose it feels good for them to rant, but the point really ought to be winning people over with ideas, and actually making a difference, not just making noise.
Posted by: Ray G at Mar 19, 2007 11:39:32 PM
"Calling for a small increase in the minimum wage or the earned income tax credit is very different from nationalizing industry, imposing wage and price controls, or enacting confiscatory tax rates."
I seem to remember a discussion about much larger governmental control of health care in the recent election, but maybe I imagined that.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at Mar 20, 2007 2:48:02 AM
brava
Posted by: mihailoff at Mar 20, 2007 3:53:27 AM
When I think "libertarian," I think of individualism, the sacredness of private property, the economics behind such things, and so on.
Wow, fantastic. When I think of "Catholicism," I think of sex with underage altar boys, but I don't think that's actually considered part of the Catholic doctrine. If I said I was Catholic because I thought it would be neat to have sex with underage altar boys, I think some Catholics might be irritated. More to the point, in this case, I think some non-Catholics would be irritated, too.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim at Mar 20, 2007 9:10:50 AM
Hmmm. Well, if one wants a really small group, I suggest "libertarian socialist."
Two people that I know of who both have claimed that label at one time or another
are James Buchanan, the George Mason Nobelist, and Noam Chomsky, although I am
reasonably certain they do not see eye to eye on very many things.
About a month ago I met Virginia Postrel for the first time at a conference.
She is definitely a very intelligent and well-informed individual, whether one
agrees with her or not. She asked me my worldview, and I, perhaps somewhat
whimsically, since I usually eschew labels, said it was "libertarian social
democrat." She seemed quizzical, but also perhaps just a shade disapproving,
as if I had just suggested using a salad fork to eat an oyster rather than
an oyster fork. Ah well, an even smaller group than "libertarian socialist."
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Mar 20, 2007 9:35:28 AM
She asked me my worldview, and I, perhaps somewhat whimsically, since I usually eschew labels, said it was "libertarian social democrat."
Why not? Under the implied definition of the word, I believe Hussein qualified as a "libertarian totalitarianist." After all, the government policies he followed were put in place for the all-but-explicit purpose of making his life better than it otherwise would have been.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim at Mar 20, 2007 10:07:57 AM
The point being, I think, is that if you morph libertarianism into a philosophy about empiricism rather than individual rights, then its philosphy is really US liberalism with a slight weighting towards individual liberties -- one of the types of differences that are common within any large tent.
Posted by: theCoach at Mar 20, 2007 10:15:29 AM
For the record, I did not ask about Barkley's worldview. He thrust it upon me, along with the well-rehearsed Chomsky and Buchanan reference.
Posted by: Virginia Postrel at Mar 20, 2007 11:04:58 AM
Barkley,
Apparently you did not make much of an impression.
Posted by: theCoach at Mar 20, 2007 1:41:34 PM
