« 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
That sounds like a classic talk.
One point concerning Russia, another concerning culture in general:
1) Russia isn't where it is because of culture. If we want to isolate a single factor, my take would be this: Russia collapsed because Perestroika started when the system was already in a very bad shape, and because these reform attempts were too moderate (too "Kadarist") to establish a functioning market economy, but radical enough to disorganize the state. The solidarities that hampered Russia reforms were:
a) company solidarity: managers and workers, in the absence of plan and market, had to coordinate to get state subsidies and scarce resouces in informal networks. This is not ancient communal solidarity, it was a consequence of the collapse of institutional references.
b) corruption networks that were not family-based, but also formed in the black market, in the communist party, etc. But, let's face it, if the oligarchs (not my favourite people) had wanted to get rich within the confines of the law, that would be exceedingly hard, since those confines were shifting.
2) As for the need to abandon communal values as we move toward modernity, that is the basic idea of the sociological classics. It is basically true, but experience also shows that culture is a highly flexible and unstable entity, not a solid structure. Culture does not survive the centuries because it is very strongly entrenched, it survives because it is highlt adaptable. Christianity, for one, has survived quite a few social systems, and democracy flourished, in different ways, in slave-owning societies in Athens and America, in contemporary liberal democracies, and in India, whose poverty and ethnic complexity should probably make it impossible according to the "democracy depends on culture" hypothesis.
Posted by: NPTO at May 29, 2008 9:57:11 PM
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?
Assuming you design the choice so that the Bronze Age libertarian society doesn't trade with the current Western countries etc. in order to advance quickly in a generation, I would choose contemporary America.
But what is the point that question? I would also rather, say, we get national health care rather than my brother dies in a plane crash. What is that supposed to prove?
And it's not even that the two are unrelated. In a society closer to the libertarian ideal, people would be wealthier, have faster computers, and all the other things you presumably like about contemporary America and its options for your lifestyle.
If your point is merely that some libertarians lose perspective and need to chill out, fair enough; I agree totally. But I don't think they're making any type of mistake in their call for the government to leave them alone.
Posted by: Bob Murphy at May 29, 2008 10:09:39 PM
Bob, my point is that people are interested positive liberties (i.e., the choices actually available to them) rather than negative liberties, per se. So, we should tailor our arguments accordingly. Maybe that means, as you say, "chill out."
This is part of a more general idea I have, which I won't defend here, that there are diminishing marginal returns to respecting rights and also, ironically, diminishing marginal returns to utilitarianism, which is why most Western liberal thought ends up being an argument over reconciling the two. And it's why I also think the utilitarian/natural rights schism between libertarians is a feature, not a bug; it hints that libertarianism is correct because it, more than any other school of political thought, seems to best satisfy the broadly defined moral requirements of both.
Posted by: Franklin Harris at May 29, 2008 10:56:10 PM
I don't get the question - if society is going down the gurgler because people aren't engaging in open trading but prefer to operate in closed close-knit groups - then so what? By Libertarian standards the Russians aren't doing anything wrong. Forcing Russians to operate outside of their preferred close-knit ties would be Illibertarian.
On the other hand, I like F. Harris' question as T. Cowen rightly pointed out that governments were rather small because societies were rather small. It's hard to say whether Libertarians could really build a modern society. I believe T. Cowen hits upon another point that a functioning society does have positive duties places on people. As one commentator pointed out ( http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/TOXICVAL.HTM )'an eye for eye' was a civilising step for people and yet it's a positive duty not a negative right. 'An eye an eye' is a duty upon the victim and their assistants to procure a punishment or restitution to the level of the crime committed and no more. Compare this to many tribal and feudal societies - a small crime can be spark a long and bloody conflict that can last generations. Yet this can be considered Libertarian - a criminal has no right to place duties with regard to punishment and if a tribe stands by the criminal and against the victim and his tribe then the victim's tribe could reasonably go to war because the tribe is abetting a crime. I do believe T. Cowen has shown Libertarians again why there's no society that could be considered 'Libertarian'.
Posted by: Gil at May 29, 2008 10:59:24 PM
On the other hand, I like F. Harris' question as T. Cowen rightly pointed out that governments were rather small because societies were rather small.
I should probably clarify that my wager doesn't assume the libertarian Bronze Age society needs government growth to eventually reach a modern standard of living. In fact, I assume that it will grow more rapidly without government growth. I just don't think it's going to surpass modern living standards in one person's lifetime, which is what's at stake for the person taking the wager.
Posted by: Franklin Harris at May 30, 2008 1:02:34 AM
Two points on Tyler's talk (as summarized by skepticlawyer blog):
1. It might be good for Tyler to speak of positive capabilities as "positive liberty," but I think that, nonetheless, his doing so is bad for humankind (as compared to his just speaking of positive capabilities).
2. The expansion of positive capabilities enhances liberty ONLY by the channel that it reduces the coerciveness of restrictions. The coerciveness of a restriction ranges in magnitude, and a restriction is less coercive the less important to you it is. Expanding positive capabilities reduce the importance of any particular restriction. But it is only through this channel that the expansion of positive capabilities enhances liberty. Thus, "negative" liberty remains primary. Positive capabilities figure in only through the channel of negative liberty. Robinson Crusoe, alone on a desert island, is perfectly free, even though his positive capabilities are piss poor.
Posted by: Daniel Klein at May 30, 2008 6:28:07 AM
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.
No -- unfortunately the real police-state regression in the U.S. has been going on for much longer than 7 years, has nothing to do with 9/11, and is likely to continue through the next administration and the one after that and who knows how many more. Namely -- police state excesses of the war on drugs.
Water-boarding and warrantless-wiretapping won't survive the Bush administration. The drug war -- with the enormous prison populations and the paramilitary SWAT raids -- isn't going anywhere.
Posted by: Slocum at May 30, 2008 8:18:13 AM
I'm old fashioned enough to think words have meaning. If you mean capabilities then darn it say capabilities. If you mean freedom then say freedom. We don't really advance the discussion by saying freedom when we mean capabilities.
Semantics (and semantics are important) aside, I agree with Tyler that most people care about what they can do in the capabilities sense. Give most people the choice between being rich and powerful in a police state versus poor in a free state, and most people will choose the former. [Sigh.]
The important research question in my mind is the relationship between freedom and capabilities. Most of us libertarians argue that freedom breeds enhanced capabilities. E.g., Free market societies are richer.
I like Dan Klein's point that more capabilities, ceteris paribus, can enhance freedom by lessening the severity of restrictions.
But in the end, it is important to note that just because two things are related, it doesn't follow that the two things are the same thing.
Posted by: Bob Lawson at May 30, 2008 8:53:28 AM
Maybe I'm just the weirdo here, but people who lecture libertarians about the relative importance of "capabilities" or "positive liberty" seem to be completely missing the point and responding to nothing that any libertarian I know of believes.
As a libertarian, I absolutely agree that "capabilities" are important. But my position is more like, "Yes, capabilities are important, but governments' attempts to directly increase capabilities using its powers will ultimately reduce people's capabilities." So yes, government can make sure everyone has a shot at college, but if it pursues this goal, it will almost certainly make everyone's choices much worse than they would otherwise be. I don't think in terms of "gosh, I'd rather be able to live in complete isolation than be able to go to college". I think in terms of "I'd much rather have the opportunities afforded by a society grounded in respect for property rights, than those afforded by quioxtic (sp) attempts to improve on those opportunities through the use of government."
Sen's "insight" is most emphatically NOT an insight; it is speaking from complete ignorance of what libertarians actually believe. Not surprisingly, his "Liberal (Libertarian) Paradox" is not a paradox and only applies as a criticism of non-libertarian systems. Specifically, respect for rights is NOT Pareto-inefficient; if a potential Pareto improvement would violate someone's rights, and it really is a pareto improvement, that person will -- wait for it -- WAIVE that right, which libertarians think he should be able to do. You only get an inconsistency when you adhere to the non-libertarian belief that, "Why, you don't think he should be able to waive THAT right, do you???"
Seriously, I'm interested in learning what exactly I as a libertarian am supposed to learn from Sen or the "capabilities" non-insight.
Posted by: Person at May 30, 2008 10:30:06 AM
Russia's nepotism story has changed and in many respects (not all) the Russian society today is more market driven than the society in the west. For more on this topic read about Russian "Blat". Ledeneva first wrote about it.
Posted by: jk at May 30, 2008 10:36:00 AM
If the establishment of non violent order forms the first chapters of national development, corruption is the middle and end of the story. I'm curious if anyone anywhere has any realistic approaches to dealing with corruption, especially when such is a natural outgrowth of other cultural values.
Posted by: JasonL at May 30, 2008 11:34:34 AM
More than one person has implied that larger, more complex government is an inevitable result of a larger, more complex society. Huh? The more complex things get, the more the need to break them down into component parts, or in other words, the more the need to DE-centralize. The more complex things are, the less able a small group of people will be able to understand those things, much less do anything beneficial about them. Complexity should be recognized as an argument in favor of libertarianism, free markets, and spontaneous order, not against them.
Posted by: Michael A. Clem at May 30, 2008 3:23:39 PM
People bond just because... Nothinig culture can do, exactly as with any other surviving instinct. The first step in fighting corruption is to appreciate this fact.
This is your christian tradition talking, isn't it?
Posted by: Vasily at May 31, 2008 4:36:18 AM
Bernard yomtov says, "I would hold self-professed libertarians in much higher regard if it weren't for the fact that they seem to ignore [that 'our culture showed itself pretty amenable to police state regression over the last 7 years all because of 19 guys with carton cutters']. Those who consider helmet laws a more important issue than habeas corpus ought not, IMO, be considered champions of liberty."
I would hold non-libertarians in much higher regard if it weren't for the fact that they seem to forget about issues like these when "their guy" sits in the White House. But your "those who consider helmet laws..." is a strawman; people like Radley Balko, the Cato Institute, and Alex Tabarrok have placed much more emphasis on big civil liberties issues both before and during the Bush Administration, whereas the left can't even think of any infractions during the Clinton Administration and the right can rationalize all of the Bush Administration infractions.
Secret evidence, holding foreigners without trial, Carnivore, Echelon, bombing foreign countries, nation-building were all Clinton-era policies, some of which the right opposed. Most of the Patriot Act provisions were developed during the Clinton Administration, which is how the FBI was ready so quickly when the opportunity arose. Now that the White House has changed hands, the right finds that nation-building, wire-tapping, and torture are "necessary" for national security, and the left has suddenly discovered that what was once unfortunately necessary to protect human rights has now become egregiously offensive.
Posted by: Eric H at May 31, 2008 10:42:30 AM
Lawson's comments above are right on.
Will Wilkinson picked up on my comments, and I've entered a 1400 word comment at Will's blog The Fly Bottle:
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/05/30/positively-heretical/#comment-580741
Posted by: Daniel Klein at May 31, 2008 11:34:06 AM
NPTO has it right when he refers to culture as remarkably flexible. 'Culture' is ofen invoked as that certain something which we cannot otherwise explain and/or changes slowly. But there are many examples which show that people from other cultures behave remarkably differently in different circumstances. The traditional Arab privileging of extended families and first-cousin marriages somehow seems to fly right out the window when Arabs relocate to North America or Europe. And why is it that for centuries the Chinese and Indians were known as cultures of merchants all over the world? All over the world, that is, except China and India. And could you give me an explanation of the tendencies of Jewish culture- if there even is such a thing- which made them renowned as merchants and capitalists in Europe and the Middle East but, when they had a chance to establish their own state in Mandatory Palestine, they established a one-party socialist state?
In reference to Russia, I would suggest that, simnilarly, it is the institutions which are shaping the culture, and not the other way around.
I would also add that there is remarkably little consensus as to what culture even IS. Clifford Geertz once- I don't have there reference in front of me- counted all the definitions of 'culture' that anthropologists had been using through the first halof of the twentieth century. He got something like niniety definitions. From those, Geertz was able to boil those down to only NINETEEN different, and usually mnutually exclusive, definitions.
Posted by: Lars at Jun 2, 2008 4:45:53 PM
Many people now use the Internet to do business, after receiving the business should be the best as far as possible, to allow customer satisfaction. But some Internet companies, not to start on your money to begin with, so on and then close the first half, resulting in Juankuan flee. Not only did not complete the project, customers would also like to once again spend money and time to decoration. Dear Customer: This is no guarantee as the company not to find the.
Posted by: 抓漏 at Dec 3, 2008 10:27:23 PM
We are professional cheap kids shoes online store .We provide Nike shoes cheap ,Nike air jordan,cheap kids clothing
cheap womens clothing,Nike shoes online store,Nike shoes cheap,Nike shoes for kids,air jordan sneakers,nike air jordan,air jordans,brand shoe,shoes brand, dropship Nike shoes , brand clothes,brand clothes ,shoes brand,cheap kids clothing for cheap wholesale Air Jordans shoes for kids & women.
Posted by: air jordan sneakers at Jul 10, 2009 12:08:55 AM
