« The dumbing down of Borders | Main | Transparency »
Hail Will Wilkinson!
I think the “nation state-as-primary-moral-community” assumption at bottom of most modern liberal arguments for the welfare state (and in many libertarianism-in-one-country arguments, for that matter) is morally backward. But I also have a fairly conservative theory of incremental social change. Whether or not all our institutions are legitimate — and certainly they are not — they are also very good in relative terms, both historically and contemporaneously. My immediate interest is in taking steps to make those institutions better in a way that opens up to the possibility of expanding liberty and thereby well-being the world over.
He is getting better and better all the time. The link is here.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on June 9, 2008 at 05:40 AM in Philosophy | Permalink
Comments
“nation state-as-primary-moral-community” — doesn't this sound somewhat Hegelian?
Posted by: A Tykhyy at Jun 9, 2008 7:08:39 AM
I like Wilkinson's line of thinking, but I think he's losing the libertarian choir (see the comments on his blog). I also think his focus on the safety net results in a zero net sum argument about the size of entitlements, which quickly becomes intractable. If I were trying to strike out in new directions as part of the libertarian camp (I'm not part of that camp), I would 1) spend more time advocating social liberties, where a strong coalition with liberals is relatively straightforward, 2) work on reducing government handouts rather than taxes per se, and 3) try to get rid of regulation that clearly reduces the public good rather than mitigating arguable market failures.
I'm a moderate, but I feel very strongly about points 2 and 3. Right now, I think farm subsidies, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and various other subsidies are much more pernicious influences than the income tax itself, which many so-called libertarians get incensed about because they basically don't want to pay taxes. Regarding point 3, things like national regulation of health insurance (or at least harmonization of some kind) seem like a complete no-brainer. Part of the reason our health care system has so many problems is the patchwork of regulations. Libertarians are clearly aware of this, but they seem more focused on citing this issue as an objection to Democratic health care plans than on fixing the underlying issues regardless of whether a national health care plan comes down the pike.
Posted by: Greg at Jun 9, 2008 9:07:15 AM
"...they are also very good in relative terms..."
Relative to what?
Contemporaneously? So what. We know why our contemporaries underperform and have a pretty good idea why we underperform in some areas.
Historically? Well, what is history stumbling toward? Figure that out, take off the blindfold and run to it.
I don't know that libertarians believe in the nation-state as a moral position as much as the best chance of a decent fallback and stronghold position. I'd like a libertarian world but can't get it. A libertarian neighborhood doesn't do much good. I think a state would be okay, but a nation is better.
I'm guessing his comment "opens up to the possibility of expanding liberty and thereby well-being the world over." implies some sort of leverage and scalability gains. But, I'm coming to the opposite conclusion. I'm realizing it's tilting at windmills to try to change others and you are better off changing your own world in increasing concentric circles around yourself. If others notice the change and follow suit, so much the better. But, trying to convince people of something they don't conclude for themselves just costs you the gains you could make in your more direct spheres of influence. We can't change institutions with any scalability if people don't know why they are changing and attribute success to the right philosophy.
Now, for people who get paid to tilt at windmills, it's fine for them. But, libertarianism is a small enough niche. Why try to carve out a much smaller one of gadfly to libertarians?
Posted by: Andrew at Jun 9, 2008 10:41:50 AM
I agree with Wilkinson here, too. The greatest fear I have is a poorly designed national healthcare system. If it is done in such a way as to remove market based (yes, they must be market based) incentives to innovate, the policy will be responsible for untold suffering and death - no exaggeration. We need to accept that something is coming and make it the least harmful thing we can find.
Also, if it were up to me, small government types would be spending a lot of effort trying to get current entitlements means tested.
Posted by: JasonL at Jun 9, 2008 10:44:22 AM
Isn't the idea of a "libertarian nation" a contradiction in terms?
The idea of free trade (see recent article/post by Tyler) leads one to believe that free traders/libertarians in idealistic terms reject the concept of nation, of "us versus them."
Posted by: meter at Jun 9, 2008 11:57:49 AM
JasonL,
If we take Robin Hanson's claims about our (zero or even negative) marginal utility gain from increased health care spending, terrible health care policy might not be that big of a deal. I believe many of the informal and voluntary institutions in America wouldn't let the government do something truly murderous to its own populace. Even the AMA isn't that evil... right?
Anyway, policy is already responsible for the untold murder and death of foreigners. What is the combined total of deaths in Iraq from Bush's war and Clinton's sanctions?
Posted by: Grant at Jun 9, 2008 1:27:04 PM
I'm afraid there is a perverse incentive at play in the healthcare debate - that the population is aging, that old people all vote, and that old people don't care about a decades-long innovative process. With this confluence as background, it seems frighteningly plausible to me that "free stuff now" will be bought at the expense of innovation. Imagine that such a bargain had been struck 20 years ago. The body count just from the delay in hypertension medicine alone ... ugh.
Posted by: JasonL at Jun 9, 2008 2:00:07 PM
Does Will ever use numbers in anything he writes? I see a couple of numbers in his post, but they turn out to be page numbers he's citing. He seems more interested in metaphysics than reality.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jun 9, 2008 6:57:47 PM
Has anybody ever learned a fact reading anything Will has written? I'm not talking about learning part of Will's vast edifice of theory, I mean learning an actual fact that you didn't already know. I'll grant you that my eyes glaze over before I reach the end of most of his items, but they seem to be basically 99% Fact Free Filosophizing.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jun 9, 2008 9:27:09 PM
Stalin may have been "morally backward", but his socialism-in-one-country turned out to be workable while Trotsky's international socialism was a complete failure, as should have been evident by the first World War.
Posted by: TGGP at Jun 9, 2008 10:46:49 PM
Mostly echoing comments from above. But when Wilkinson writes this:
Whether or not all our institutions are legitimate — and certainly they are not — they are also very good in relative terms, both historically and contemporaneously.
...my reaction also was, "Very good relative to what?" There are radical libertarians who believe the modern State is an unmitigated evil. It is illegitimate and worsens every area it touches. You think there should be a safety net? Fine, why in the world do you think that justifies or proves the need for government welfare? This isn't abstract theory, go look at an actual housing project in Detroit or Chicago and tell me that is helping people and excuses what appears to be theft from a purely rights-based approach to taxation.
The problem with Wilkinson's recent posts is that he doesn't actually argue for any of his "heretical" views. He simply appeals to the authority of Hayek. Well, Hayek was wrong when he thought you could easily marry his quotes in Wilkinson's blog with the rest of Hayek's work.
Posted by: Bob Murphy at Jun 10, 2008 12:55:00 AM
Steve,
Read some of the happiness research stuff.
Posted by: josh at Jun 10, 2008 7:30:42 AM
Trotsky's international socialism was a complete failure, as should have been evident by the first World War.
Brotherhood of nations is also evident in a small disturbance we had in 1939 - 1945.
Every day news from Iraq proves that all people just the same and all hunger for Freedom and Jeffersonian Democracy.
Jorge Busherino will give you all justification you ever need for believe in sameness of all people.
One-Libertarian-World people should hire Jorge Busherino on as a consultant on one-world matters.
Posted by: mik at Jun 10, 2008 3:12:56 PM
A person on her own luggage, leaving the noise of the city, into the 花蓮民宿 arms. To savor the refreshing nature of the original. In Taiwan, as long as a departure from the flow of downtown, everywhere in the garden-like 宜蘭民宿 you, they like their own home Like a warm and comfortable. Taiwan's Lodge 室內設計, the two luxury five-star hotel suite as if the presidential suite general Wah. It is there away.
Posted by: 清境民宿 at Dec 9, 2008 1:33:31 AM
