del.icio.us
E-mail this
Facebook
Henry Farrell at Crooked Timber has a long and high-quality review of arguments about libertarianism. Among other things he quotes Cosma Shalizi:
"On the one hand, the sanctity of private property and private contracts is held to be a matter of inalienable natural right, guaranteed by the fundamental facts of morality, if not a basic part of Objective Reality; capitalism is the Right Thing to Do. On the other hand, much effort is devoted to arguing that unfettered laissez-faire capitalism is also the economic system which will produce the greatest benefit for the greatest number, indeed for all, if only people would just see it."
In fact, of course, this is wishful thinking. Both "free markets" and government action have mixed records. Chicago's Democratic machine has been stifling economic growth and stealing from taxpayers for at least two generations of Daleys, and if anything it is more entrenched now than two generations ago. The makers of lead paint and cigarettes spent decades and killed and disabled many people long after they knew their products were dangerously toxic, and only government action has limited or ended this evil.
One washed-up movie actor to the contrary, government is neither always the solution nor always the problem. Duh.
Shalizi again:
"Now, if the empirical track-record of what are conventionally called free markets is decidedly mixed, there are three courses of action open to the libertarian. (1) Embrace the natural-liberty argument wholeheartedly, and say that we should adopt laissez-faire even when it hurts us, because it’s the right thing to do. Unsurprisingly, moral austerity in defense of liberty finds few takers, though it has some. (2) Argue that the empirical track-record of alternative economic arrangements is actually no better than that of free markets (that, e.g., every instance of market failure is at least matched by an instance of 'government failure'), so that’s a wash, and accordingly we should go with the market solution, since that respects natural liberty. (3) Argue that, appearances to the contrary, free markets really are optimal."
The first two options are intellectually honest; the third is not, but it remains popular, as Shalizi says, in part because "it can be well-paid."
and otherwise. Recently updated blogs are in bold text.
There must be some iterative self-correcting approach to providing economic goods that takes advantage of people using common sense to make good decisions without resorting to dogmatic declarations ("There are three courses of action open to the libertarian").
JBP
In the real world self-correction takes a long time and is imperfect. How long have GM and Sears and Daley been screwing their customers? As I recall, there's a considerable body of Catholic thought along the lines that the "common sense" of free markets requires a healthy dose of correction in the form of a preferential option for the poor.
What I like about the Crooked Timber piece is that they're taking the discussion to a deeper level than we usually do here. RTWT.
But the difference is the opt-out feature of private business. If you don't like Sears, you can go to Target. If you don't like your local public school, you still have to pay for it, or you can go to jail.
Part of the Catholic Cathecism is that the individual use his own prudential judgment as to how to provide for the poor. Which also strikes me as (un)common sense.
JBP
State sponsored monopolies: Education, Healthcare, Liquor Distribution, Highway Construction, Casino Gambling are the ones that will have you jailed for daring to be independent of them.
Forcing people to make the wrong choice (or go to jail) is bad, not good.
JBP
Also, you standard of "state sponsored monopolites" seems a little broad, i.e. including anything that the state subsidizes or regulates to any extent. If education taxes were tomorrow diverted entirely into individual voucher payments that traveled with the student, who could choose any school or none, would you quit complaining about your education tax? Or still call it a wrongful state-sponsored monopoly?
I am of the Liberal opinion that the State should mandate forced savings (Social Security, if you will) and K-12 Education. I am also of the Liberal opinion that the individual should be in charge of spending their Savings or Education investment, rather than the State.
JBP