« The Education Transformation of China | Main | Horsemeat sushi »
Libertarian heresies
Here is a good report on my libertarian heresies, summarizing a talk I gave at the Institute for Humane Studies a few weeks ago. Excerpt:
Russia, he pointed out, is failing as a free society not because it is poor - Putin’s shrewed management of high commodity prices has put paid to much Russian poverty - but because Russians tend to privilege their friends and contacts above all else, leading to epic levels of corruption. Corruption, of course, is a signal rule of law failure.
He then asked, somewhat rhetorically, if liberty was confined (and defined) by culture: ‘We should not presume that our values are as universal as we often think they are’. What happens, he asked rhetorically, if - in order to enjoy the benefits of liberty and prosperity - societies have to undergo a major cultural transformation, including the loss of many appealing values? Cowen focussed on Russian loyalty and friendship, but there are potentially many others. Think, for example, of the extended family so privileged throughout the Islamic world, or the communitarian values common in many indigenous societies.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on May 29, 2008 at 12:34 PM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
Is there any way we could hear or read the actual talk or one like it?
Posted by: Charlie at May 29, 2008 3:55:07 PM
Dang, wish I'd taken more notes - I just listened to the address and blogged it the next day, focusing on what took my interest. I've still got some stuff floating around, let me look for it and if it's useful I'll update my post.
Posted by: skepticlawyer at May 29, 2008 4:11:08 PM
If cronyism, nepotism and corruption are rampant I want less, not more, government.
Posted by: Biopolitical at May 29, 2008 4:18:25 PM
For example, three studies of the population of Iraq found that about half of all married couples were first or second cousins (with more first cousin than second cousin marriages). This keeps extended families from getting _too_ extended and thus makes them very cohesive economically and emotionally: if I organize an arranged marriage between my son and my sibling's daughter, then our grandchildren will be our mutual heirs. This makes it much simpler in terms of who inherits the family business.
The downside of the high levels of cousin marriage found from Morocco to parts of India is that Western-style individualism is less feasible.
See http://www.isteve.com/cousin_marriage_conundrum.htm
Posted by: Steve Sailer at May 29, 2008 4:24:00 PM
For example, three studies of the population of Iraq found that about half of all married couples were first or second cousins (with more first cousin than second cousin marriages). This keeps extended families from getting _too_ extended and thus makes them very cohesive economically and emotionally: if I organize an arranged marriage between my son and my sibling's daughter, then our grandchildren will be our mutual heirs. This makes it much simpler in terms of who inherits the family business.
The downside of the high levels of cousin marriage found from Morocco to parts of India is that Western-style individualism is less feasible.
See http://www.isteve.com/cousin_marriage_conundrum.htm
Posted by: Steve Sailer at May 29, 2008 4:26:20 PM
But I think Tyler's point is that if you have cronyism, nepotism, and corruption, you tend to actually get more intrusive government as a consequence, whether you want it or not.
Also, it's tough to have funtioning markets under these circumstances as well.
I think the larger point is that the libertarian approach to things needs a strong
underlying foundation of valuing prosperity and the rule of law above other
values, such as the communitarian or clan-oriented ones mentioned.
Posted by: An Onyx Mousse at May 29, 2008 4:27:18 PM
The greater heresy is to consider that question in light of open borders.
Posted by: 8 at May 29, 2008 4:48:17 PM
seems to me that Pacifists like Mennonites can have close extended families and economic freedom so maybe it is morality that is needed. Libertarians have the moral values against initiation of force done inside or outside of government. Maybe economic liberalism can only work if enough people buy into this morality.
Some people point to Somaliland and say that in these societies non-centralized government and anarchy are best state. I have not studied Somaliland enough to have a strong opinion.
I think that Somaliland gets a mention at the end of this podcast:
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2008/04/coyne_on_export.html
Posted by: Floccina at May 29, 2008 5:26:44 PM
If people are poor as a consequence of their highly valued social mores... then why give a crap that they are poor? They are rich in what matters to them.
Posted by: Toxic at May 29, 2008 5:35:20 PM
If people are poor as a consequence of their highly valued social mores... then why give a crap that they are poor? They are rich in what matters to them.
Posted by: Toxic at May 29, 2008 5:35:26 PM
If people are poor as a consequence of their highly valued social mores... then why give a crap that they are poor? They are rich in what matters to them.
Posted by: Toxic at May 29, 2008 5:35:37 PM
If people are poor as a consequence of their highly valued social mores... then why give a crap that they are poor? They are rich in what matters to them.
Posted by: Toxic at May 29, 2008 5:35:48 PM
I'd like to second Charlie's request - Tyler, is there any way you could make available audio or a transcript of that talk, or even just your notes for it, if such exist?
Posted by: thuddmonkey at May 29, 2008 5:35:54 PM
I too would like to read a copy of Tyler's talk.
Posted by: John at May 29, 2008 5:54:37 PM
I think that Tyler is confusing the western values of friendship, loyalty, and family which are based on relatively uncontrained, free choices with "friendship and loyalty," which are based on a gang mentality, in which deviation is punished. Similarly, as some of Sadam`s family found out, making choices that don't coincide with the "family" leadership`s desires can also be punished.
In both cases, you can look back to instances in American history, in which the older versions of these "values" were practiced. In almost every case, they were used to benefit a leadership at the expense of relatively innocent, but less powerful groups.
In short, I think that evolving to versions of friendship, loyalty, and family that are closer to current western versions is going to be a positive for virtually everyone, except, possibly, the beneficiaries of the current system.
Posted by: John Bailey at May 29, 2008 6:09:00 PM
I'm working on the rest of it, everyone - it's exams in Oxford town just now, which involves both dressing up in silly clothes and studying like a maniac. Google 'sub fusc' and all will be revealed.
Give me a day or so :)
Posted by: skepticlawyer at May 29, 2008 6:35:00 PM
Radical self-criticism on a libertarian blog? You guys just earned a couple points of respect from me.
Governement probably grows with complexity. 150 years ago, most people lived on farms on a subsistenze level. There was not much to regulate and an individual farmer couldn't do much deliberate or accidental harm to others.
Today, we've got highways and cars, planes, sky scrapers, nuclear power plants, complicated medical procedures and medication, processed food. The internet can be abused in all kinds of fraudulant and criminal ways etc.
Libertarians frequently propose private institutions to replace governement based regulation or to provide infrastructure. But these institutions would have to be big as well. So size alone is not a good argument against governement.
Posted by: Ethnic Austrian at May 29, 2008 6:39:05 PM
"So size alone is not a good argument against governement."
I don't think anyone has ever said that government is bad because it's big. The argument is usually that government itself is problematic -- the quote that "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one" encapsulates this rather nicely.
Thus, if government by its nature isn't terribly desirable, then more of it is even less desirable.
Posted by: Colin at May 29, 2008 6:50:47 PM
I, too, would like to read a draft of the speech, if one is availble. Thanks.
Posted by: Mike at May 29, 2008 7:08:26 PM
Obviously this is subject to the caveat that the summary is accurate...
Rather, Cowen’s positive liberty is closer to Amartya Sen’s account of ‘capabilities’ - people should be able to do certain things, and the most successful society is one where the most people can do the most things. Then - and this is where there was an audible gasp around the room - he argued that roughly 70% of the liberties worth having fall into this ‘ability’ version of positive liberty.
I would like to know if this heretical definition of liberty means anything besides respect for people's property. If it does, then I don't agree with it. (E.g. if I'm supposed to have the liberty to get an education or use the Internet, even if I don't pay for it and no one else wants to.) And if it means less than that--i.e. if you could have full liberty in Cowen's sense but still have people invade your property rights--then I think it's too narrow.
Maybe it would make more sense if I heard the speech, but I also don't get how libertarianism makes it harder for a society to respect families or whatever. Is the idea, say, that the grandfather can't tell you whom to marry if you're free to go to the city and get a job and an apartment?
Posted by: Bob Murphy at May 29, 2008 7:32:30 PM
I don't usually speak from notes, but skepticlawyer may be able to help out...
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at May 29, 2008 7:34:41 PM
Chicken or egg.
Academic departments right here in the U.S. operate, it seems to me, quite a bit like the stasi or the Gambinos, minus the assassinations. Well, career assassinations maybe. I think it's the structure of the system that necessitates cronyism. People have no choices, therefore they have to suck up.
I don't really think that it's values per se, but it probably is a long-term evolution to get out of the cycle. And once you are out, you barely realize it before they pull you back in (e.g. 2 party system). If the people don't realize we are on the long road to liberty, then what's to stop us from going back in the opposite direction? Culture may help, but I feel pretty tenuous right now. I think our culture showed itself pretty amenable to police state regression over the last 7 years all because of 19 guys with carton cutters.
Posted by: Andrew at May 29, 2008 7:58:29 PM
Tyler, sorry that you don't have notes. The skepticlawyer only summarizes three of the five points. What were the other two? Thanks.
Posted by: mike at May 29, 2008 8:06:39 PM
I think our culture showed itself pretty amenable to police state regression over the last 7 years all because of 19 guys with carton cutters.
True.
And I would hold self-professed libertarians in much higher regard if it weren't for the fact that they seem to ignore that. Those who consider helmet laws a more important issue than habeas corpus ought not, IMO, be considered champions of liberty.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at May 29, 2008 9:26:34 PM
The problem is that most libertarians reflexively flinch at any mention of "positive liberties," just as the account of Tyler's talk suggests, but the vast majority of people only care about positive liberties. Negative liberties aren't an end in themselves because you desire them in order to do X, Y, and Z. Only a few of the truly hardcore libertarians (David Friedman being the most obvious example, plus Robert Nozick in the Utopia section of "Anarchy, State, and Utopia") realize this and argue in terms of how maximizing negative liberty leads to consequences that foster maximum positive liberty.
I have a wager of sorts for my fellow libertarians: Say you could live in either contemporary America or a fully libertarian society that, for now, has a Bronze Age standard of living. Which would you choose? I'll take contemporary America, because whatever its lack of libertarian purity, it still offers me vastly more choices.
Posted by: Franklin Harris at May 29, 2008 9:40:14 PM
