« Are African wages too high? | Main | The Dialectic at Work? »
How are libertarians different from social democrats?
Returning to last week, Ezra Klein (the real one) wrote:
Tyler Cowen is a libertarian economist with a wildly different set of assumptions about human behavior, the policy process, and political change [than I, Ezra, have].
I was surprised to read this. Let's imagine that we asked a very smart person, but one who disagreed politically with both Ezra and me, to pinpoint how Ezra and I differ. I believe that person would see the two of us as having very different blind spots, in both moral and positive terms, but not holding fundamentally different assumptions about human behavior. If Ezra and I chatted about which are the most insightful movies, whether the Washington Wizards should trade Gilbert Arenas, or the best way to get magazine contributors to deliver their essays on time, I don't know how much we would agree. (I almost always agree with Matt Yglesias about TV shows and movies, it turns out, although I don't love The Wire as he does.) But I'd be surprised if we disagreed any more than I would with the average libertarian, or than he would with the average social democrat.
Of course there is a lesson here, namely that our political views don't stem from our positive views about human nature as much as we might like to think.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on January 21, 2008 at 06:36 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
Tyler,
Your (presumably contrarian) take on The Wire should be expanded on in a longer post. It would be much appreciated.
I'm making my first time through Babylon 5 right now. This seems like a good opportunity to throw it out to the MR commenters. For fans of The Wire, what other shows can be considered as the "best ever"? Apologies for the potential thread hijack.
Posted by: Sid at Jan 21, 2008 7:12:42 AM
To paraphrase: "Ezra Klein believes X about the difference between his views and mine, while I believe Y. From my opinion, we learn that Y is true." Can one really say that taste in movies and opinions on sports trades reveals whether we have different assumptions on human nature? Ezra is writing specifically in the context of politics here, not about whether people love their mothers or like sunny days. I don't think your point sheds much light on whether the two of you have the same assumptions about "the policy process and political change." At a first glance, I'd say you assume that market failures are much rarer than Ezra does, and that government intervention is much more likely to fail. Doesn't that amount to a big difference?
Posted by: Greg at Jan 21, 2008 7:42:04 AM
Tyler-
You're a libertarian?
Posted by: Rich Berger at Jan 21, 2008 8:04:57 AM
Off the top of my head, here's my conjecture about how social democrats and libertarians differ in their theories of human nature and human behavior. Libertarians believe that individuals are best positioned to know their own needs, wants and desires and to decide how to prioritize and pursue them. That they are best positioned, however, doesn't mean that they do not make mistakes that they later regret. But the alternative is to put other similarly flawed individuals in positions of power over them which power will be abused as those powerful persons use their positions to advance their own interests. So treating people like adults and letting them decide for themselves is by far the best course even though they'll make mistakes.
Social democrats, on the other hand, think that in a free market, the mass of ordinary men and women are easily seduced, tricked, and exploited. They believe, furthermore, that those few who are intelligent, educated, and altruistic can devise laws to restrain the tricksters and protect the masses from their own folly.
Libertarians think social democrats are paternalistic snobs and also deeply naive about how people in positions of power actually behave (even when they think they are acting altruistically). Social democrats think libertarians are selfish because, as fellow elites, the libertarians want full freedom of action which will benefit them (the libertarians) but which will deny the masses the protection they (the masses) need. For 'elites' and 'masses', you might also substitute 'adults' and 'children'.
How's that?
Posted by: Slocum at Jan 21, 2008 8:17:21 AM
Seems a little disingenuous to focus on the last sentence of Klein's post, and moreover to focus on the 1st of the 3 attributes he lists, since "human nature" doesn't really get discussed within the post, while "policy process" and "political change" do.
Seems more like sloppy writing on his part than a meaningful Freudian slip worth seizing upon.
All the more so given this stance of his on Obama and the "man crush" post about him Angus ripped
(http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=01&year=2008&base_name=obamas_gift#103509)
which it seems he feels the need to reconcile in this post as well.
Posted by: burger flipper at Jan 21, 2008 9:00:27 AM
Slocum does a pretty good job. I think that Henry Hazlitt has a good quote along these lines.
"It is the forgotten man who is always called upon to stanch the politician's bleeding heart to pay for his vicarious generosity."
Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson
Further, I'd say a key difference is that libertarians believe that if people make a few mistakes they will learn not to in the future, whereas if the government protects them from mistakes they will learn to be dependent on the government and never learn to not be easy marks. Then they learn to be easy marks for the government who are no more likely, and I believe much less likely, to have the individual's real best interests in mind.
I can't really comment on what Social Democrats believe. I try to understand but I'm still mystified. Do they really think John Edwards and his $400 dollar haircuts really believes the stuff he says in his commercials? He's for the little guy?
Posted by: Andrew at Jan 21, 2008 9:29:16 AM
I bet paleolibertarians would differ more with Beltway Social Democrats.
Posted by: TGGP at Jan 21, 2008 9:36:20 AM
I see that Slocum is, as usual, making a real effort to see how the world really looks from another person's point of view. As a social democrat I revel in my snobbish paternalism.
Posted by: tom s. at Jan 21, 2008 9:39:50 AM
Slocum writes:
the alternative is to put other similarly flawed individuals in positions of power over them which power will be abused as those powerful persons use their positions to advance their own interests
That this is the only alternative is one of the most common misconceptions I hear from self-described libertarians. It's wise to be suspicious of power, but one should recognize there are systems that help prevent individuals from abusing their power (separation of financial powers used by auditors to ensure integrity one example). The fact is that out of the crooked timber of man, straight things can sometimes be built. A paranoid insistence that it can't strikes me as maladaptive.
Posted by: MostlyAPragmatist at Jan 21, 2008 10:07:40 AM
I see that Slocum is, as usual, making a real effort to see how the world really looks from another person's point of view. As a social democrat I revel in my snobbish paternalism.
Don't social democrats think libertarians are selfish? A Google of "libertarian AND selfish" certainly turns up a lot of references. Is it worse to be called "paternalistic" or "snobbish" than "selfish"?
I think I do have a pretty good grasp of how Barry Schwartz and Robert Frank think, for example. I think it's accurate to say that both have a fundamentally paternalistic belief that ordinary people are easily duped and really can't manage on their own.
Which brings me to another difference in belief between social democrats and libertarians. Libertarians tend to believe that human society is multi-dimensional, with all kinds of odd little niches that the occupants care about deeply but that the rest of us aren't even aware of. Social democrats, on the other hand, tend to believe in what Will Wilkinson has aptly termed, The Great Chain of Status.
Posted by: Slocum at Jan 21, 2008 10:15:18 AM
2 additions two slocum:
1. Not only do libertarians think social democrats are "deeply naive about how people in positions of power actually behave", I guess social democrats also consider libertarians pretty naive about the way people with power in general behave. Atlas shrugged, hm?
2. I doubt social democrats see libertarians as fellow elites. Social democrats run quite a few countries, libertarians do not.
Posted by: GreatZamfir at Jan 21, 2008 10:22:08 AM
"As a social democrat I revel in my snobbish paternalism."
He didn't say that social democrats think of themselives as snobbish paternalists :)
"That this is the only alternative is one of the most common misconceptions I hear from self-described libertarians."
You are mischaracterizing what you see as his misconception. Yes, of course there are restraints on individuals. But the alternatives (I believe) he was referring to is the (sometimes razor thin) distinction of whether these restraints result from civil institutions or government institutions.
It's also quite a strawman to insinuate libertarians have some sort of mental illness (boy if that's not snobbish paternalism) because you say they think good things can never come from flawed people. Bascially, what slocum was referencing was regulator capture. Libertarians believe that individuals can, through self-interest and the market incentive environment, serve the good. We tend to believe that government officials, through self-interest, will tend not to in the long run because the incentives to serve special interests will catch up to them.
Individuals can as easily, and I'll even grant maybe more likely be bad deciison makers as politicians, however, their bad decisions are much more confined to their own lives than the decisions of politicians may be.
Joe six pack's bad mortgage might hurt me indirectly if enough of his bud's make the same decisions and undo the economy. However, Ben Bernanke's bad decisions will definitely and directly affect me. And then, if Joe six pack think's Ben Bernanke is protecting him from bad decisions, they will both affect me!
Posted by: Andrew at Jan 21, 2008 10:33:43 AM
"I doubt social democrats see libertarians as fellow elites. Social democrats run quite a few countries, libertarians do not."
Hahaha.
The lack of snobbishness is so underwhelming!
Libertarians run quite a few industries, social democrats rarely do.
And, the more capitalist the country (and the company) the more successful they are at accomplishing the social democrats' more worthy goals.
Posted by: Andrew at Jan 21, 2008 10:38:12 AM
"I doubt social democrats see libertarians as fellow elites. Social democrats run quite a few countries, libertarians do not."
"Hahaha.
The lack of snobbishness is so underwhelming!"
This wasn't meant as the start of a pissing contest, although I see how it could be read that way. I meant more that most social democrats do not have specific views on self-declared libertarians, who really are a relatively small group. Slocum's description of social democrats' views is not that bad, but more as a description of their views of the Right in general than of libertarians specifically.
Posted by: GreatZamfir at Jan 21, 2008 11:00:48 AM
My guess is he didn't really mean or think about that sentence; it just fit poetically with the tone of the piece and listing three things sounds more fluid than listing two.
Posted by: josh at Jan 21, 2008 11:03:47 AM
Self-described libertarians are relatively small, but as the 14% or so of people who hold libertarian(leaning) views learn the name for their views, they will increasingly self-describe in that way.
From what I hear and read, social democrats often say libertarians are far right conservatives.
Libertarians don't usually see themselves this way. This supports a thesis that if social democrats do have a take on libertarians in particular, it's either wrong, or akin to being so far away from the right, that, like sailboats on the horizon, they look closer together than they really are.
Posted by: Andrew at Jan 21, 2008 11:07:39 AM
Andrew, i guess this is closely related to Tyler's post,and perhaps more in general libertarians real-life libertarians and real-life social democrats are closer to each other's view than both sides realize.
Also, your sailing boat analogy cuts both ways. Especially here on Marginal Revolution, 'social democrat' is often used as a shorthand for 'the opposite of libertarian', or something close to it. As a result the views that are ascribed to them have sometimes little to do with the views of the typical social democrat.
Posted by: greatzamfir at Jan 21, 2008 11:20:26 AM
So, these labels are self-selecting, and people obviously tend to not want to accept the negative connotations of them.
So, as a starting point, if I had to provide a manifesto of what libertarians believe, it would be "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. Others would of course disagree. That would be the economics side, I'm not sure of a singular manifesto on the social side.
What would a similar manifesto of the social democrat be? Chomsky? What?
Posted by: Andrew at Jan 21, 2008 11:56:27 AM
Chomsky is an extremist. He calls himself an anarcho-syndicalist, but I don't really believe it. Europe is where parties call themselves "social democrat", so that would be what we'd look to. In America Galbraith might be a good example.
Posted by: TGGP at Jan 21, 2008 12:26:54 PM
So, as a starting point, if I had to provide a manifesto of what libertarians believe...
I think we're maybe getting a bit off-topic here. As I understand it, Tyler's question isn't, "What are the differences between social democrats and libertarians believe?" (which is a much broader topic), but rather "What are the differences between social democrats and libertarians believe about human behavior?"
I'm arguing that a fundamental difference is that libertarians think ordinary people are much more competent and resourceful than social democrats do. The latter tend to think that ordinary people are generally helpless to resist peer pressure, are inextricably caught in a zero-sum, unidimensional status competition, and are easily fooled and exploited.
So, for example, social democrats worry a lot about 'cultural imperialism' -- believing that people in developing countries are helpless to resist the sophisticated onslaught of Hollywood and Madison Avenue. Libertarians on the other hand, think that gaining access to western ideas and products is a great boon and that local cultures will accept some things and reject others, will modify them and reinterpret them and make them them their own and live richer lives as a result. One of my favorite examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImoC-ib1Jhc
Posted by: Slocum at Jan 21, 2008 12:50:33 PM
Starting here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
"Social democracy is a political ideology that emerged in the late 19th century out of the socialist movement.[1] Modern social democracy is unlike socialism in the traditional sense which aims to end the predominance of the capitalist system, or in the Marxist sense which aims to replace it entirely; instead, social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of state sponsored programs and organizations which work to ameliorate or remove injustices inflicted by the capitalist market system. The term itself is also used to refer to the particular kind of society that social democrats advocate. While some consider social democracy a moderate type of socialism, others, defining socialism in the traditional or Marxist sense, reject that designation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kenneth_Galbraith#Some_of_Galbraith.27s_Ideas
In The Affluent Society Galbraith asserts that classical economic theory was true for the eras before the present, which were times of "poverty"; now, however, we have moved from an age of poverty to an age of "affluence," and for such an age, a completely new economic theory is needed.
and
Libertarian Milton Friedman in "Friedman on Galbraith, and on curing the British disease" views Galbraith as a 20th century version of the early 19th century Tory radical of Great Britain. He asserts that Galbraith believes in the superiority of aristocracy and in its PATERNALISTIC (emphasis mine) authority, that consumers should not be allowed choice and that all should be determined by those with "higher minds":
Posted by: Andrew at Jan 21, 2008 1:14:16 PM
Slocum emphasizes the issue of freedom of individual choice. I think that is one difference. I think social democrats would favor the FDA and social security, while libertarians would favor allowing individuals greater choice over what drugs to use or whether to save for retirement.
The focus on freedom is natural from the libertarian side. From the social democratic side, I would say the focus is more on certain outcomes - e.g. reduction in poverty, provision of health care.
To give a specific example, I don't believe that "ordinary people" are not "competent and resourceful" but I do want them to receive medical care if they get sick between jobs. I suppose that violates some freedom as it requires taxation, but I am willing to tolerate that loss in pursuit of another good.
Tom
Posted by: Tom G. at Jan 21, 2008 1:51:06 PM
Andrew,
what industries do libertarians run?
Posted by: Douglas Knight at Jan 21, 2008 2:10:41 PM
In most contexts, a social democrat is meant to describe someone who largely agrees or identifies with a social democratic party, much the same relationship as between republicans and the republican party. Calling social democracy an 'ideology' is, I would argue, to some extend comparable to calling republicanism an ideology.
There is a substantial difference between an ideology and a political movement, especially a large movement with power in the real world. That comes always with coalitions and compromises. Some of the people in the social-democratic coalition might be real socialist ideologists, but most are pragmatists who think this party is closest to their personal views, but without subscribing to a specific manifesto.
As to what social democracy means in the American context, I am not even sure there is any meaning at all. Social democracy is pretty much defined by its history as offshoot of more revolutionary socialist movements, and without that history I am not sure there is a point in using the term, just as pro-gun, pro-Jesus, pro-states-rights American conservatism doesn't really have a European equivalent.
I guess Galbraith or Roosevelt can be seen as representatives of an American movement that had a lot in common with European social democrats, but I don't think they ever called themselves this, nor were they clearly influenced by the same Marxist ideas as early social democrats. Putting people in boxes they wouldn't put themselves in is a tricky business. As is letting their opponents describe their ideas.
Posted by: GreatZamfir at Jan 21, 2008 2:27:25 PM
To give a specific example, I don't believe that "ordinary people" are not "competent and resourceful" but I do want them to receive medical care if they get sick between jobs. I suppose that violates some freedom as it requires taxation, but I am willing to tolerate that loss in pursuit of another good.
Libertarians are not anarchists -- they understand that there are 'public goods' that the government should provide. These minimally include things like police, criminal justice system, national defense. But that's not the end of it -- for example, Milton Friendman's 'negative income tax' (EITC) and 'school vouchers' are both libertarian ideas for dealing with welfare and public education respectively. Inherent in both is an understanding that the government has a role in providing a safety net and making sure children are educated.
Most libertarians agree with you that the connection between employment and health insurance is a bad thing, and also that the government has a role to play in making sure nobody goes without medical care because they are too poor to afford it.
Posted by: Slocum at Jan 21, 2008 2:32:14 PM
