Its the economy, stupid
Jul 26, 04 | 1:10 am by Patri FriedmanIn the Washington Post, David Rothkopf points out the importance of economic policy over terrorism prevention:
Let’s start with the biggest domestic economic problems. Almost any one of them is a greater threat to the economy than virtually any imaginable form of terrorism. There is the record-breaking budget deficit that is likely to amount to $5 trillion over the next decade. Then there’s the burgeoning trade deficit. And the $72 trillion in unfunded future retirement and health care obligations to our own citizens. And a record low savings rate, which suggests that we will need even more help with retirement funding. And the hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs and the cost of fixing our dysfunctional health care and energy systems. Every one of these is a gigantic problem on its own. Taken together, they represent a series of bombs placed at the foundations of our society, and they are capable of exploding in ways that would touch more Americans than anything even the most sophisticated terrorists could devise.
(thanks to Cafe Hayek for the link)
Fixing Social Security, dropping trade barriers, reducing the deficit by trimming pork, ending stupid subsidies - any of these things would be far simpler than preventing terrorism, and have drastically more positive impact on the country. Which is not to say that these things are politically easy - they all piss of an entrenched power structure (old people, domestic producer of good produced cheaper elsewhere, pork recipients, subisdy recipients). Its not clear that leaving these problems will destroy us, we are resilient. But the sad thing is that they are technically trivial to fix, and would have a big impact on the average citizen. Whereas “stopping terrorism” is difficult if not impossible, and terrorism has little negative impact on us.
But it’ll never happen, because government action is all about political pandering and ass-kissing, not making citizens lives better.
July 26th, 2004 at Jul 26, 04 | 2:02 am
It’s not like economic policy would be better in the absence of the war on terror.
July 26th, 2004 at Jul 26, 04 | 2:14 am
Fixing Social Security, dropping trade barriers, reducing the deficit by trimming pork, ending stupid subsidies - any of these things would be far simpler than preventing terrorism, and have drastically more positive impact on the country. Which is not to say that these things are politically easy - they all piss of an entrenched power structure (old people, domestic producer of good produced cheaper elsewhere, pork recipients, subisdy recipients).
Positive impact on the country? As any consequentialist worth their salt will tell you, social security, pork, and subsidies impact people, not countries. But let’s not nitpick the language. The point is, evidently all these (parenthetical recipients) you mentioned are personally better off as a consequence of the pork, subsidy, etc.. Any committed consequentilist must conclude that the underlying government programs are therefore useful, good, and hence they should be sustained.
July 26th, 2004 at Jul 26, 04 | 2:20 am
The problem with this kind of analysis is that it focuses only on costs and completely ignores utility. If the American people value the war on terror more than they value fixing Social Security, then you cannot summarily dismiss as “irrational” the government catering to that aggregate preference ranking. Otherwise you’re just another two-bit central planner.
As an illustration, consider two different government welfare programs. One gives each household in America a “free” granola bar and the other gives each household a “free” chocolate bar. It doesn’t matter that the granola might be cheaper than the chocolate if the greater aggregate utility is with the chocolate (i.e., more households would on average enjoy the chocolate over the granola).
I’m not a fan of “social welfare functions” in the first place — the road to serfdom is paved with them. But if you’re going to perform societal cost-based policy analysis, you have to somehow incorporate utility into the calculus for the conclusions to have any relevance.
July 26th, 2004 at Jul 26, 04 | 3:57 am
KipEsquire,
What I dismiss is the notion that the values of some individuals can be justly weighed against the values of others.
July 26th, 2004 at Jul 26, 04 | 7:35 am
Positive impact on the country? As any consequentialist worth their salt will tell you, social security, pork, and subsidies impact people, not countries.
When I say “country” I mean “net utility impact on all people who live in the country”. Its shorthand. My prose is long enough already, let me use shorthand!
But let’s not nitpick the language. The point is, evidently all these (parenthetical recipients) you mentioned are personally better off as a consequence of the pork, subsidy, etc.. Any committed consequentilist must conclude that the underlying government programs are therefore useful, good, and hence they should be sustained.
Uh…WTF are you talking about? This has nothing to do with any kind of consequentalism I’ve ever heard of. Pork makes some people better off, and other people worse off. If you add these up with some reasonable metric for interpersonal utility comparison, on net the result is almost certainly negative. Hence, as a Cist, I disapprove of it.
You seem to be saying that Cists must approve of any program which makes someone better off. This is not Cism.
July 26th, 2004 at Jul 26, 04 | 7:38 am
Kip - you make a good point, and I agree that utility is relevant. But the fact that the WoT is politically juicy does not necessarily mean it has utility for americans. ie government agricultural subsidies are politically juicy, yet they have net negative utility for americans. Winning in the political marketplace is very different from being good for the country - that’s why government sucks, right?
So yeah, utility matters. But its not clear to me that fighting terrorists has big net positive utility for americans.
July 26th, 2004 at Jul 26, 04 | 5:09 pm
When I say “country” I mean “net utility impact on all people who live in the country”. Its shorthand. My prose is long enough already, let me use shorthand!
I told you I didn’t want to nitpick your language. Besides, there’s already an ethical/politcal framework for “net utility impact on all the people…” — it’s called Utilitarianism. Seems pointless to me to coin yet another -ism.
You seem to be saying that Cists must approve of any program which makes someone better off. This is not Cism.
No, that’s not what I implied. Are you implying that a rational individual should be persuaded by “Cism” even if a particular modern consequence of it (stopping social security, for instance) would leave them worse off!? Those are real checks arriving in millions of real mailboxes you know. Convince my grandmother with your “Cism” how she’ll be better off when the checks start bouncing.
It’s as if you’re saying that the only people who should be persuaded by “Cism” are those who would in fact be better off with it being implemented.
I have an argument for why coercive government programs like social security are bad. It’s an argument that’s usually ignored, and my grandmother wouldn’t be any better off if social security stopped because of that argument. But at least it doesn’t rely on the hopeless cost calculus of balancing of one “groups’ values” against another’s.
July 26th, 2004 at Jul 26, 04 | 5:24 pm
Well, uh, a major city or two blown up (or “merely” contaminated with radioactive waste) would have a somewhat negative impact on the domestic economy.
I don’t vote, so my hands are clean. I will point out though that every dollar spent on nasty wasteful war means that much less used for “fixing” Social Security, formulating a trade policy and stopping the hemorraging of manufacturing jobs. The government being what it is, and politicians being what they are, and voters being what they are, it’s probably best that this money be spent blowing up foreigners, rather than being used to present us all with another set of disastrous “solutions”.
It’s like that bumper sticker about it being a great day when schools have all the money they need and the Air Force having to hold a bake sale.
Actually, it wouldn’t be a great day - at worst, the US military is merely a money pit - you shovel in dollars at one end and it mostly vanishes or emerges (far away from us) as Predator missiles for the deserving paynim. It’s the teachers and the public schools that are the real menace.
Libertarians really shouldn’t take that famous - all too famous - Randolph Bourne quote quite so uncritically.
July 26th, 2004 at Jul 26, 04 | 5:45 pm
“I will point out though that every dollar spent on nasty wasteful war means that much less used for “fixing” Social Security…
No, that’s not a zero-sum game for politicians. They’re able to extract more funding in the context of a war or a war on terror. It’s perfectly clear that the government under Bush is spending more.
July 26th, 2004 at Jul 26, 04 | 7:35 pm
No, that’s not a zero-sum game for politicians. They’re able to extract more funding in the context of a war or a war on terror
I’d wager that a Gore regime would have spent as much, or more, and on things more directly threatening to individual liberty. I rather doubt he would have needed the help of Bin Laden to do that.
And it is a zero-sum game because political will for more taxation simply doesn’t exist anymore. Oh, certainly people love to impose costs on others for their own pet obsessions - note the enthusiasm around here of bicyclists and other nutbread types for the fawking Monorail - paid for by a whopping huge tax on evil cars. But that kind of thing can take you only so far. Where are the war taxes, the patriotic calls to pay more in income tax? In a Bournean world, war being inevitably the health of the state, they would arrived on schedule like clockwork. Bush is spending, but he would find it rather difficult to start taxing more. There are other ways of paying for things, but obviously they have their limits as well.
So there are (perhaps rather distant) liimits. Choices have to be made, will be made. Leaving aside certain obvious facts in this world (i.e. seething fanatical assassins drawing up plans to kill or enslave us all) - I return to my original point; Military spending is relatively harmless - to us. No Trident submarine ever did as much damage as has any given public school .
Of course, it’s all stolen money. But I’d rather have the local gangbanger take the money he’s stolen from me and go buy crack, or a Saturday night special with which to avenge a severe case of dissing across town, than have him show up at my doorstep every morning with a helpful list of suggestions on how to run my life. (”A Buggles album? Plastic Age? Man, that’s whack. Get rid of that shit right now. Okay, on to item fifteen…”)
July 26th, 2004 at Jul 26, 04 | 7:46 pm
And it is a zero-sum game because political will for more taxation simply doesn’t exist anymore.
But remember there doesn’t have to be any political will for more taxation in order for GovCo to spend more, they simply borrow more and run huge deficits, ala Reagan, and now Bush.
July 26th, 2004 at Jul 26, 04 | 7:50 pm
“I’d wager that a Gore regime would have spent as much, or more, and on things more directly threatening to individual liberty. I rather doubt he would have needed the help of Bin Laden to do that.”
But he could have gotten even more with bin Laden’s help.
“And it is a zero-sum game because political will for more taxation simply doesn’t exist anymore.”
Not true, the dems are being quite open about the fact that they intend to raise taxes and they can win on that platform.
And Bush’s spending will have to be paid for and when the bill comes due the public will not support the slashing of their public benefits. All you’ll have to do is tell them you’re going to tax someone else.
July 26th, 2004 at Jul 26, 04 | 9:49 pm
…I use a different word? A Uian wants “the greatest good for the greatest number”. This is quite different than Cism. I want my happiness - that’s my goal. And when I’m just doing actions on my own, I don’t worry about net societal utility (since I’m …
July 26th, 2004 at Jul 26, 04 | 10:11 pm
RKN - I made a new post about how Cism is different from Uism, so start with that.
No, that’s not what I implied. Are you implying that a rational individual should be persuaded by “Cism” even if a particular modern consequence of it (stopping social security, for instance) would leave them worse off!? Those are real checks arriving in millions of real mailboxes you know. Convince my grandmother with your “Cism” how she’ll be better off when the checks start bouncing.
First, when I say “fixing social security”, that does not mean “stop paying all benefits”. I don’t know why you would jump to the assumption that “fix” means ” immediately and utterly destroy”, but such leaps are not conducive to good discussion.
And more importantly, I have no idea what philosophy you are talking about, but it isn’t mine. You are arguing with a strawman. Of course I am not saying that a rational individual should be in favor of policies which leave them worse off. I am saying that in general, when it is difficult to determine the exact effect of a policy on you, a good rule of thumb is to be in favor of policies with net benefit on society and against policies with net cost on society.
I disapprove of policies with net societal cost because I think they are very likely to have net cost to me. That doesn’t mean that the recipients of pork should be against it - when did I ever say that?
It’s as if you’re saying that the only people who should be persuaded by “Cism” are those who would in fact be better off with it being implemented.
Yes, the people who are persuaded by seeing the consequences of a policy are those made better off by it. This seems trivially obvious. People are selfish. Hence we should appeal to their selfish nature by analyzing the consequences of policies. Policies which generally help people will be appealing. Policies which generally hurt people will be unappealing. This seems like common sense to me,which part of it do you disagree with?
July 26th, 2004 at Jul 26, 04 | 10:20 pm
Sabotta - you have an interesting point. I’m not quite as skeptical as you about the ability of the govt to do anything right, but I like your viewpoint of analyzing which govt focus causes us the least harm.
Also, I think I’ve made a somewhat erroneous comparison. I don’t like the WoT wasting money, but the alternate things I’d rather be done don’t really cost any money. Its not that I think the govt should go from spending money on WoT to spending money on the economy - I share your horror at that. Its that I think they should go from focusing on terrorism to focusing on the economy, because one is hard to fix and one is easy to fix (but not by spending money).
On the other hand, one thing to consider is that the problems I’m discussing are problems caused by bad government policies. So to improve them, the govt doesn’t have to suddenly become smart and do a good job. It just has to do a less bad job. So the standard of performance is quite low, hence I don’t think its unreasonable to think they might be able to have a positive impact (by reducing their negative impact).
Also, as JTK says, I am partly concerned that its not a zero-sum game. And reducing our civil liberties seems to go hand-in-hand with blowing up furriners, so its not like the WoT totally distracts the govt from us.
July 27th, 2004 at Jul 27, 04 | 12:15 am
First, when I say “fixing social security”, that does not mean “stop paying all benefits”. I don’t know why you would jump to the assumption that “fix” means ” immediately and utterly destroy”, but such leaps are not conducive to good discussion.
Noted. My error. You’ll forgive it in the follow up to the other thread as well. But if “fixing” still means you accept being forced to pay some of your income to sustain the “fixed” program, then you have a peculiar definition of selfishness.
Yes, the people who are persuaded by seeing the consequences of a policy are those made better off by it. This seems trivially obvious. People are selfish. Hence we should appeal to their selfish nature by analyzing the consequences of policies. Policies which generally help people will be appealing. Policies which generally hurt people will be unappealing. This seems like common sense to me,which part of it do you disagree with?
None of it, except I strongly condem any policy which relies on coercive means to sustain it. Do you? I don’t want to pay for what I don’t value. I’m selfish, and I want to decide how much of and for what to spend my money on.
The government already alleges to do exactly what you say is common sense to do. That is, make policy which generally helps people. Those people in turn will find these policies appealing, and others won’t. I’m confused now, what problem is it you are trying to solve with your brand of consequentialism?
July 27th, 2004 at Jul 27, 04 | 2:45 pm
The government already alleges to do exactly what you say is common sense to do. That is, make policy which generally helps people. Those people in turn will find these policies appealing, and others won’t. I’m confused now, what problem is it you are trying to solve with your brand of consequentialism?
Consequentialism, as expressed in economic terms, shows that the government’s claim is false. Government policies do not generally help people, as a whole. Government policies may help some people, notably special interest groups with concentrated political power. But this help inevitably comes at the expense of still larger groups - those with dispersed political power. As Patri already said, the fact that certain government policies may be politically appealling and successful does not mean that they actually satisfy the preferences of/increase the net utility of all people who live in the country.
July 27th, 2004 at Jul 27, 04 | 4:52 pm
As Patri already said, the fact that certain government policies may be politically appealling and successful does not mean that they actually satisfy the preferences of/increase the net utility of all people who live in the country.
Well let’s talk about the policies that do satisfy the net utility of all people who live in the country. Can you think of any? Even if the government is a blind squirrel, surely it will stumble onto a nut in the woods now and then. If there is such a policy, does the consequentialist accept that policy as good and useful, as well as any coercive means that might be in place to sustain the successful policy?
…
As I’ve said before, for every economist you turn up that says net utility has not been reached for all people, I can find one with charts and arm waving that will argue exactly the opposite. Economics is like that.
July 27th, 2004 at Jul 27, 04 | 5:56 pm
Well let’s talk about the policies that do satisfy the net utility of all people who live in the country. Can you think of any?
Free trade, rule of law, property rights. etc. Most of these are in fact the absence of government action, or enforcement of laws which could be better performed by private legal systems. Which is why I am an anarchist and not a statist.
If there is such a policy, does the consequentialist accept that policy as good and useful, as well as any coercive means that might be in place to sustain the successful policy?
Yes.
As I’ve said before, for every economist you turn up that says net utility has not been reached for all people, I can find one with charts and arm waving that will argue exactly the opposite. Economics is like that.
For every natural rights advocate that says coercion is immoral, I can find a dozen more who say that coercion is permitted under certain circumstances or even mandatory. Natural rights are like that.
July 27th, 2004 at Jul 27, 04 | 6:35 pm
For the record –
I asked:
If there is such a policy, does the consequentialist accept that policy as good and useful, as well as any coercive means that might be in place to sustain the successful policy?
And you replied:
Yes.
Interesting. You would approve of institutional coercion that forces me to pay for something that you, qua consequentialist, have deemed maximizes the net utility for the whole. Sounds a lot more like the affliction of a statist than an anarchist to me.
For every natural rights advocate that says coercion is immoral, I can find a dozen more who say that coercion is permitted under certain circumstances or even mandatory. Natural rights are like that.
Agreed. But at least my argument doesn’t lead me to the conclusion that under certain circumstances (consequences) I ought to force you to pay for what you may not value. If you tried to implement that argument absent your institutions, you’d very likely end up getting hurt, or worse.
July 27th, 2004 at Jul 27, 04 | 6:42 pm
Micha,
“Government policies do not generally help people, as a whole. Government policies may help some people, notably special interest groups with concentrated political power. But this help inevitably comes at the expense of still larger groups …”
Why shouldn’t the clever individual be perfectly satisfied with this arrangement, since he can help himself to the production of others via political force? Why should he value the welfare of people as a whole above his own welfare?
I’d be interested to know if you or Patri value the the welfare of people as a whole over your own welfare.
July 27th, 2004 at Jul 27, 04 | 6:57 pm
I’d be interested to know if you or Patri value the the welfare of people as a whole over your own welfare.
At least Patri has said he doesn’t (value others’ welfare over his own). He said explicitly in the new thread he started yesterday that his consequentialism is selfishly motivated.
Incidentally, John, has something gone awry with embedding html in comments? I tried to add a simple href tag but it’s not getting parsed as html and rendered properly in preview mode.
July 27th, 2004 at Jul 27, 04 | 7:03 pm
“At least Patri has said he doesn’t (value others’ welfare over his own). He said explicitly in the new thread he started yesterday that his consequentialism is selfishly motivated.”
You’re right, so I want to know what would be wrong with prudent political piracy from the selfish Cist individuals point of view.
“Incidentally, John, has something gone awry with embedding html in comments? I tried to add a simple href tag but it’s not getting parsed as html and rendered properly in preview mode.”
Is that better? I’ve been fiddling with sttings because links in comments were occasionally breaking the layout of the blog.
July 27th, 2004 at Jul 27, 04 | 7:04 pm
RKN - try this format (without spaces)
[ u r l = my]http://…..]my link[/ u r l ]
I have fixed a few links for people lately.
July 27th, 2004 at Jul 27, 04 | 9:41 pm
Interesting. You would approve of institutional coercion that forces me to pay for something that you, qua consequentialist, have deemed maximizes the net utility for the whole. Sounds a lot more like the affliction of a statist than an anarchist to me.
It’s not interesting at all. It follows directly from the definition of the terms “consequentialist”, “coercion”, and “natural rights”. By definition, a consequentialist is concerned primarily with improving the consequences and not with natural rights violations/coercion.
I am anarchist because I believe anarchy, not statism, leads to the best consequences. That only “sounds a lot ..like the affliction of a statist” because you are only looking at things from the perspective of natural rights, and not consequentialism. It’s a circular argument.
But at least my argument doesn’t lead me to the conclusion that under certain circumstances (consequences) I ought to force you to pay for what you may not value.
I can easily construct situations (or simply borrow previously constructed situations from people like David Friedman: see Chapter 41 in MoF) in which most natural rights advocates would favor coercion over non-coercion, including, most likely, yourself.
Again, your argument is circular. By definition, as a consequentialist, I am more concerned with good consequences than with avoiding coercion.
July 27th, 2004 at Jul 27, 04 | 9:45 pm
“I am anarchist because I believe anarchy, not statism, leads to the best consequences. “
Even though you don’t acknowledge any standard by which consequences *could* be better….
Best consequences for whom?
July 27th, 2004 at Jul 27, 04 | 9:49 pm
Why shouldn’t the clever individual be perfectly satisfied with this arrangement, since he can help himself to the production of others via political force? Why should he value the welfare of people as a whole above his own welfare?
If this individual is truly a net beneficiary of redistribution, then there is not much consequentialists can say to convince him that our proposed changes are in his self-interest (Then again, there is not much natural rights objectivists can say to him either). But then, very few people are actually net beneficiaries of the current system when compared to how well off they would be without statism. I think David Friedman touched on this towards the end of MoF (or maybe in one of his papers, I can’t remember) and concluded that only career politicians benefit under the current system, and even that is arguable.
I’d be interested to know if you or Patri value the the welfare of people as a whole over your own welfare.
No, I am selfish. I value my own welfare, then my close friends and family, then everyone else, in that order. But as Patri already said, there are a number of reasons why consequentialists should consider everyone’s interests with equal weight: it makes the calculations easier, over time things balance out, it makes arguments more persuasive, etc.
July 27th, 2004 at Jul 27, 04 | 9:54 pm
Even though you don’t acknowledge any standard by which consequences *could* be better….
Best consequences for whom?
We’ve been over this 1000 times and yet you continue to pretend like I’ve never answered your question. Stop it.
The standards are our subjective preferences: what we want, what makes us happy, prosperous, etc.
For whom depends on the context. I am primarily concerned with my own life, then my family and friends, and then everyone else, in that order. If I am trying to convince someone else, I would try to show how my proposed change would be beneficial for them, their family and friends, etc.
July 27th, 2004 at Jul 27, 04 | 10:03 pm
“If this individual is truly a net beneficiary of redistribution, then there is not much consequentialists can say to convince him that our proposed changes are in his self-interest …
Why isn’t it in your self interest to profit at the expense of others via politics? Do you believe you are not smart enough to succeed at it?
July 27th, 2004 at Jul 27, 04 | 10:17 pm
‘Pork makes some people better off, and other people worse off. If you add these up with some reasonable metric for interpersonal utility comparison, on net the result is almost certainly negative.”
Didn’t Stephen Hawking recently change his mind about this?
July 27th, 2004 at Jul 27, 04 | 10:34 pm
“For whom depends on the context. “
The context is anarchy vs. government. In that context you said anarchy produces the best results. Best for whom?
July 27th, 2004 at Jul 27, 04 | 10:44 pm
For whom depends on the context. I am primarily concerned with my own life, then my family and friends, and then everyone else, in that order. If I am trying to convince someone else, I would try to show how my proposed change would be beneficial for them, their family and friends, etc.
That’s fine, but you’re on record as saying that if said person is not convinced, you’d accept them being coerced to pay for your “net utility consequences” anyway. You need to understand that this is a symptom of statism, not any kind of rational anarchy anyone here envisions.
As to the supposed circularity of my argument:
First of all, I wasn’t even making an argument, you’re reading far too much into what I said. I was deconstructing your (and Patri’s) argument for consequentialism. I don’t think you understand the structure of a circular argument. Look, it’s just this simple, you get to keep your consequences off my person, got it? That has nothing to do with whether or not I support a natural rights argument over a consequentialist argument. My resentment towards anyone who tries to force me against my will comes from biology, not some abstract argument. You don’t own me. I’ll deal with the consequences, good and bad, of my own behavior and the people I willingly choose to cooperate with. Last thing I need is another statist like you in sheep’s clothing incidentally tending to my interests because you think it’s also in your interest. Like I said, that’s a good way to get hurt.
Just so it’s clear, I’ve agreed the argument from natural rights is impotent against the House of Bush. But that doesn’t make consequentialism, which you’ve agreed supports coercion in some cases, any different in principle than the statism it’s supposed to replace. I’m not particularly warmed over by privitazing coercion.
July 27th, 2004 at Jul 27, 04 | 10:59 pm
“Like I said, that’s a good way to get hurt.”
Is it though? Do you often hurt the statists who take your stuff?
July 27th, 2004 at Jul 27, 04 | 11:01 pm
Best consequences for whom?
John, John, John, for everybody in the whole, that’s who[m].
Mr. Ghertner evidently thinks a wise consequentialist can “calculate” the value of interest for each and every one of us residing in the whole.
Would somebody show me the math for calculating the values involved in an “interpersonal utility comparison.” I’m pretty good at math.
July 28th, 2004 at Jul 28, 04 | 1:44 am
Is it though? Do you often hurt the statists who take your stuff?
Not as often as it’s been justified.
But there’s any number of means by which people who use force against others might get hurt. If consequentialists would use force to make people pay what they don’t owe, or for what they don’t value, then they (the consequentialists) should expect to experience a range of resistance. This is a fact of human nature.
If, however, the consequentialists espoused policies which leveraged cooperation and real shared values where they exist, then some people might start listening to them and take them seriously, including me. Short of that, they’re nothing but a another disease masquerading as a cure.
July 28th, 2004 at Jul 28, 04 | 5:01 am
“But there’s any number of means by which people who use force against others might get hurt. If consequentialists would use force to make people pay what they don’t owe, or for what they don’t value, then they (the consequentialists) should expect to experience a range of resistance. This is a fact of human nature.”
Sure, a Senator will get some resistance but he gets a whole lot of benefit and he’s pretty safe, perhaps safer than an honest person like you. A lot of these theives can reasonably expect to die fat and happy in comfy beds.
July 28th, 2004 at Jul 28, 04 | 8:14 am
You’re right, so I want to know what would be wrong with prudent political piracy from the selfish Cist individuals point of view
I wouldn’t do it because I have morals that object to it.
I object to others doing it because it is against my morals, and because it makes my life worse.
But I don’t claim that my morals are absolute right and wrong.
July 28th, 2004 at Jul 28, 04 | 8:16 am
None of it, except I strongly condem any policy which relies on coercive means to sustain it. Do you? I don’t want to pay for what I don’t value. I’m selfish, and I want to decide how much of and for what to spend my money on.
I agree with you, but most people do not. Hence I think it is better to try to change people’s viewpoints by pointing out how their policies don’t achieve their goals than by trying to convince them that coercion is wrong.
July 28th, 2004 at Jul 28, 04 | 8:20 am
My resentment towards anyone who tries to force me against my will comes from biology, not some abstract argument. You don’t own me.
We are in total agreement! And since my resentment comes from biology, I don’t imbue it with any absolute weight as being Universal Truth. I acknowledge that my ornery anger it being told what to do is biological, and that not everyone has the same wiring. And that people don’t necessarily care whether something makes me mad.
So when I argue with other people about what they should do, instead of saying “don’t do this because it makes me mad”, I point out how it makes them less happy. Then maybe they’ll listen, and I won’t have to be mad quite as often.
July 28th, 2004 at Jul 28, 04 | 8:23 am
Would somebody show me the math for calculating the values involved in an “interpersonal utility comparison.” I’m pretty good at math.
The standard economist’s approximation uses a unit called the “dollar”, denoted by this symbol: $. This approximation has definite problems (ie treating the utility of money as constant rather than declining), but its a good start.
July 28th, 2004 at Jul 28, 04 | 8:25 am
If, however, the consequentialists espoused policies which leveraged cooperation and real shared values where they exist, then some people might start listening to them and take them seriously, including me.
I thought consequentialism did just that. Isn’t wanting to be happy one of the most common shared values there is? More common than, say, a belief that coercion is always wrong?
When I try to show that a policy produces net unhappiness, I am appealing to the shared value of wanting to be happy.
July 28th, 2004 at Jul 28, 04 | 9:58 pm
I thought consequentialism did just that. Isn’t wanting to be happy one of the most common shared values there is? More common than, say, a belief that coercion is always wrong?
Happiness isn’t the product of institutions, it’s the product of an individual person. Besides, I wasn’t referring to shared emotional values, I meant values concerning personal welfare and business values, which self-organized communities of people who choose to work together cooperatively are capable of producing, instead of relying on institutions variously coercing them to do this or that. If people generally value X, then they don’t need to be coerced to produce X. It’s really that simple.
The problem with present day government law and policy makers isn’t that they’re not consequentialists, they are, it’s that they use coercion to force people to pay what they don’t owe, or for stuff they don’t value.
July 29th, 2004 at Jul 29, 04 | 9:55 pm
“For whom depends on the context. “
The context is anarchy vs. government. In that context you said anarchy produces the best results. Best for whom?
For nearly everyone other than career politicians.
Do you guys not believe this? Do you deny that life would be significantly better under anarchy compared to statism for almost everyone? Do you advocate anarchy solely because it is the only system consistent with your morality, despite the fact that it may make most of us worse off than we are now?
If I believed that were true, I would not be an anarchist.
July 29th, 2004 at Jul 29, 04 | 10:36 pm
That’s fine, but you’re on record as saying that if said person is not convinced, you’d accept them being coerced to pay for your “net utility consequences” anyway. You need to understand that this is a symptom of statism, not any kind of rational anarchy anyone here envisions.
A few points here. First of all, coercion is not synonymous with statism. Coercion would still exist even without a state. Second, as I mentioned earlier, I can construct situations in which most libertarians–probably even yourself–would advocate coercion. Third, your way is not the only way. Regarding your statement “not any kind of rational anarchy anyone here envisions”, it is true that my ideas may be very different from the No Treason contributers, but that does not make them any less “rational.” Rand does not have a monopoly on rationalism.
Look, it’s just this simple, you get to keep your consequences off my person, got it? That has nothing to do with whether or not I support a natural rights argument over a consequentialist argument. My resentment towards anyone who tries to force me against my will comes from biology, not some abstract argument. You don’t own me. I’ll deal with the consequences, good and bad, of my own behavior and the people I willingly choose to cooperate with. Last thing I need is another statist like you in sheep’s clothing incidentally tending to my interests because you think it’s also in your interest. Like I said, that’s a good way to get hurt.
Whether you want to admit it or not, this has everything to do with the fact that you support natural rights over consequences. Your colorful warning to all those who would dare initiate force against you accomplishes very little when push comes to shove, because the only people it will stop are the people who already agree with you. So what’s the point, exactly? Those who would forcefully violate what you believe to be your rights don’t care about your opinion, else they wouldn’t be doing what they are doing.
Furthermore, life is not as simple as you wish it to be. You don’t get to choose to deal exclusively with the people you willingly choose to cooperate with, either in a state of anarchy or a state of government. There will always be interpersonal conflicts which need to be resolved, and most of these conflicts will result in one or more of the parties not fully satisfied with the outcome.
I had this same argument with Beck a few months ago over email. Suppose I accidentally damage your property or you accidentally damage mine. The property in question has both market value and sentimental value. Assuming the defendent is willing to pay damages at all–which is a pretty big assumption in a purely voluntary society any larger than an extremely close-nit community–he thinks the property is worth $X, while the plaintiff thinks the property is worth $3X. How do you get the defendent to pay at all, and how do you get him to pay an amount that justly compensates the plaintiff? You did not willingly choose to cooperate with me and I did not willingly choose to cooperate with you. Purely voluntary interaction is all well and good, but laws are written for those situations where cooperation doesn’t work. And this is true even under anarchy.
But that doesn’t make consequentialism, which you’ve agreed supports coercion in some cases, any different in principle than the statism it’s supposed to replace.
I never said that those cases in which I would advocate coercion occur frequently if at all. Only that consequentialism in principle does not prohibit coercion. Further, as I’ve said already, rights based libertarians are willing to initiate coercion as well, including, most likely, yourself.
Since you don’t seem to want to address this point, let me make it more explicit. Are you a pacifist? Do you believe that large-scale war, on the order of a WWI or WWII is ever justified? I am concerned here only with a purely defensive war, where it is entirely clear to all the parties involved that nation A has declared war upon nation B, and has acted upon this declaration with some violent act. Does B have the right to defend itself against A, if that defense requires invasion of A’s homeland? But, of course, large scale wars always entail civilian casualities–”collateral damage” in the parlance of our times–and these civilians did not ask to be killed. Their deaths can be minimized as much as possible, but not eliminated entirely. And while their deaths are an unintended consequence of war, the choice to engage in war is made with intent, and made with the knowledge that civilians will die as a result.
Rand–or at least some of the Objectivists I have spoken with on the subject–tried to get out of this problem by putting all of the blame on the aggressors. It is not the nation exercising self-defense who is morally responsible for the civilian casualties, they claim, but the nation that initiated force. I hope I don’t need to go into great detail to explain why this is a hand-wavy, unconvincing response.
So the question remains: are you a pacifist or are you willing to initiate coercion against these innocent civilians as an inevitable consequence of engaging in defensive war?
July 29th, 2004 at Jul 29, 04 | 11:09 pm
“Rand does not have a monopoly on rationalism.
Nor over NT for that matter, though it appears she may have cornered certain markets in your imagination.
July 30th, 2004 at Jul 30, 04 | 6:01 am
Indeed, whenever anyone starts invoking “rationalism”, I grab my guns and think of Rand. Same with words like “man qua man”, “whim worshiper”, “denying reality,” “A=A”, “check your premises”, etc. etc., ad nauseum.
July 30th, 2004 at Jul 30, 04 | 5:02 pm
don’t say mean things about ayn rand. lung is not an “objectionist” but ayn rand is nice! watch it, micha ghertner! lung can deliver a painful nip to mean people!
ayn rand is nice. a long time ago, the u.s. air force asked ayn to explain to lung about right and wrong (maybe the u.s. airforce should explain right and wrong to you! because you kind of suck)lung had misunderstood a line in a ayn rand book and maybe might have run amok or something. ayn rand explained to lung about being nice. lung was happy! then lung explained to ayn rand all the secrets of lung (including the matters of the chariot! ma’aseh merkava!) sometimes when people hear the secrets of lung they go mad or fall over and twitch so lung didn’t want to tell at first but ayn kept asking. so lung told her everything.
ayn rand was tough! she didn’t falll over or start laughing maniacally. she was just a little pale afterwards and she thanked lung. ayn rand never told anyone what she had learned from lung that day. (which is probably good because of the laughing, twitching, etc.) later on, ayn and lung were friends. some small creature took a chunk out of nathanial brandon’s butt once. he yelled a lot! (tee-hee! dont be mean to lungs friends!)
now ayn rand is behind the cypress curtain. it is beautiful and sad there. lung sometimes visits. ayn rand is there and so is the man with the butterfly net. (they argue a lot!) vera and ayn are nice and give lung piroshski. (yum!) vladimir reads lung poetry. sometimes pushkin shows up. (he is funny! lung likes him too).
so dont be mean to lungs friends. lung is a loyal little lung.
lung
August 2nd, 2004 at Aug 02, 04 | 5:57 am
A few points here. First of all, coercion is not synonymous with statism.
<sigh>
I never said coercion was synonymous with statism, I said, specifically, that coercion is a symptom of statism (”and not the kind of anarchy…”), much like a fever is a symptom of AIDS, but not synonymous with it.
Your colorful warning to all those who would dare initiate force against you accomplishes very little when push comes to shove, because the only people it will stop are the people who already agree with you.
All I said was that when telling people you’re going to use coercion against them you should expect resistance, up to and including getting hurt. This is actually a point I thought a consequentialist of all people would concede fairly easily. Do you disagree? (I never claimed an argument alone could stop force).
I mean try it out. Tell your neighbors that you’re going to be going door to door to raise money for a charitable cause which, if successful, will reward the self interest of everyone in the neighborhood. Then tell them that if they’re not convinced of this, you’ll be coercing them to pony up anyway.
So what’s the point, exactly?
That advocating for the institutionalization of coercion in any measure is wrong. I think it’s wrong morally, but it’s bound to fail practically as well sooner or later, to one degree or another. Policies (and specifically their means) which contradict human nature cannot be sustained indefinitely, so why advocate for them?
Furthermore, life is not as simple as you wish it to be. You don’t get to choose to deal exclusively with the people you willingly choose to cooperate with, either in a state of anarchy or a state of government. There will always be interpersonal conflicts which need to be resolved, and most of these conflicts will result in one or more of the parties not fully satisfied with the outcome.
We weren’t talking about interpersonal conflicts. We were talking about your net utility computation, and whether or not people should be coerced to pay for its “implementation” even if they disagreed with you that it would reward their self interest. You had said, “Yes,” there are cases where they should be coerced. That’s what I objected to, not how interpersonal conflict resolution should be solved.
Further, as I’ve said already, rights based libertarians are willing to initiate coercion as well, including, most likely, yourself.
Then it should be considered a possible crime. Surely you’d have to admit that a consequentialist institution isn’t any less criminal if it coerces people thru its policies. You seem to be marshalling an execuse here for institutionalized coercion based on the thought, “gee, well, coercion in some form at some levels will always be with us, so…”
So the question remains: are you a pacifist…
No, not at all. I have and would resort to the use of physical defensive force against somebody who assaulted my person, or that of my family or circle of friends. And the same goes for my property, tho to a lesser extent in some of those cases. (Incidentally, it’s my biology that first informs this stance, not my ethics, tho I don’t find the stance incompatible with my ethics).
…or are you willing to initiate coercion against these innocent civilians as an inevitable consequence of engaging in defensive war?
Explain to me why coercion of any kind against innocent individuals is any less criminal during wartime.
August 2nd, 2004 at Aug 02, 04 | 3:55 pm
I never said coercion was synonymous with statism, I said, specifically, that coercion is a symptom of statism (”and not the kind of anarchy…”), much like a fever is a symptom of AIDS, but not synonymous with it.
The problem is, you are trying to impugn me by associating my willingness to coerce in theory to some unstated connection to statism. That is not so. I agree with you that coercion is a symptom of statism, but that does not mean the statism is not a symptom of other causes as well. My willingness to coerce, in principle, has absolutely nothing to do with statism.
“So the question remains: are you a pacifist…”
No, not at all. I have and would resort to the use of physical defensive force against somebody who assaulted my person, or that of my family or circle of friends.
No, you misunderstood my reference to pacifism. Of course I know that as a libertarian you wouldn’t have any objection to force used in defense. My point was that you are probably willing to initiate coercion against innocent people as well, unless, of course, you are a complete pacifist, which I doubt.
Explain to me why coercion of any kind against innocent individuals is any less criminal during wartime.
If you notice, I don’t speak in terms of “criminal” or “immoral” acts. My point was that, unless you are a complete pacifist, you advocate coercion (albeit indirect coercion) against innocent individuals during wartime.
August 2nd, 2004 at Aug 02, 04 | 4:35 pm
If you notice, I don’t speak in terms of “criminal” or “immoral” acts. My point was that, unless you are a complete pacifist, you advocate coercion (albeit indirect coercion) against innocent individuals during wartime.
But, in fact, I don’t advocate coercion. So you are wrong about me.
August 2nd, 2004 at Aug 02, 04 | 9:14 pm
But, in fact, I don’t advocate coercion. So you are wrong about me.
Again, I must repeat myself, because you have not addressed my argument.
Do you believe that large-scale war, on the order of a WWI or WWII is ever justified? I am concerned here only with a purely defensive war, where it is entirely clear to all the parties involved that nation A has declared war upon nation B, and has acted upon this declaration with some violent act. Does B have the right to defend itself against A, if that defense requires invasion of A’s homeland? But, of course, large scale wars always entail civilian casualities–”collateral damage” in the parlance of our times–and these civilians did not ask to be killed. Their deaths can be minimized as much as possible, but not eliminated entirely. And while their deaths are an unintended consequence of war, the choice to engage in war is made with intent, and made with the knowledge that civilians will die as a result.
So the question remains: are you a pacifist or are you willing to initiate coercion against these innocent civilians as an inevitable consequence of engaging in defensive war?
August 3rd, 2004 at Aug 03, 04 | 6:40 am
Again, I must repeat myself, because you have not addressed my argument.
But I did address your original argument (such as it was) for justifying coercion as a possible necessary means to implement a net utility function. But you didn’t really answer my questions, and then you changed the argument to coercion in war.
Do you believe that large-scale war, on the order of a WWI or WWII is ever justified? I am concerned here only with a purely defensive war, where it is entirely clear to all the parties involved that nation A has declared war upon nation B, and has acted upon this declaration with some violent act. Does B have the right to defend itself against A, if that defense requires invasion of A’s homeland? But, of course, large scale wars always entail civilian casualities–”collateral damage” in the parlance of our times–and these civilians did not ask to be killed. Their deaths can be minimized as much as possible, but not eliminated entirely. And while their deaths are an unintended consequence of war, the choice to engage in war is made with intent, and made with the knowledge that civilians will die as a result.
Ever “justified?” You mean like is coercion (killing in this case) of innocents in or out of justice? Earlier when I told you — asked you actually — to explain how killing innocents was not criminal in wartime, you said, “I don’t speak in terms of ‘criminal’ or ‘immoral’ acts.” So how am I supposed to understand what you mean by the term “justified” if you won’t consider an answer that invokes the concepts of crime and/or morality? Justified necessarily implies the concept of justice, no? And if a particular act is out of justice then we usually call the actor a criminal, right?
Look, if you wish to argue that killing innocents is sometimes justified, go right ahead, but be preparded for a drill down into your conception of justified. And you better expect that that will demand you explain the concept of ‘criminal’ and probably ‘morality’ as well.
But I don’t want to sound like I’m dodging your question, you’ve caught me in a generous mood tonight. So no, I wouldn’t personally open the bomb bay doors knowing that it would cause death to innocents, with the intent to destroy the bad guys and/or their means of war as well. Or, if I did, I would understand that killing innocents is criminal. Because it is. That’s why we have a concept for innocence, so we can separate who’s responsible for attacking us from who’s not, and from there form our justifications for defensive action. I said “me, personally” because that’s the only way I know how to seek justice in an action; if the act is in justice for me to take personally, then it’s likely to be in justice for a collective, too.
And visa-versa; if it’s criminal for me to take an action, then so it is for every one of “them,” too. Do you disagree?
So the question remains: are you a pacifist or are you willing to initiate coercion against these innocent civilians as an inevitable consequence of engaging in defensive war?
I see you’re trying to back me into a contradiction here, but there need be no contradiction; it’s perfectly consonant with libertarian first principles to condem pre-emptive war and argue that a libertarian commonwealth defend itself only against immediate agression. The nice feature of this argument is that you pretty much know that the ones you’re killing aren’t innocent. I can hear the gasps now, “Wait! you’d stand by while the enemy got stronger?! That would probably lead to bad consequences!” Well, it might, and it might not, but at least it leaves my argument compatible with libertarian first principles, and these are only arguments after all.
And you need to brush up on your understanding of what a pacifist is. A pacifist is someone who denounces all uses of force, no matter what, and as I’ve already made clear to you, I have used, and would again, physical force in certain circumstances. So by definition I’m not a pacifist.
Now, how about a little quid pro quo? Just how much institutional coercion would you argue is tolerable to implement a net utility function that ostensibly rewards the self interest of everyone in “the whole?” I mean regardless of your tolerance for killing innocents in war to bring about (presumably) good consequences, surely you see a meaningful difference between coercion in war versus domestic policy?
August 3rd, 2004 at Aug 03, 04 | 3:22 pm
it’s perfectly consonant with libertarian first principles to condem pre-emptive war and argue that a libertarian commonwealth defend itself only against immediate agression. The nice feature of this argument is that you pretty much know that the ones you’re killing aren’t innocent
But every war includes some innocent deaths. They call it “friendly fire”. How would you you justify that?
August 3rd, 2004 at Aug 03, 04 | 3:57 pm
Earlier when I told you — asked you actually — to explain how killing innocents was not criminal in wartime, you said, “I don’t speak in terms of ‘criminal’ or ‘immoral’ acts.” So how am I supposed to understand what you mean by the term “justified” if you won’t consider an answer that invokes the concepts of crime and/or morality? Justified necessarily implies the concept of justice, no? And if a particular act is out of justice then we usually call the actor a criminal, right?
No. I understand criminal to mean acts which violate the law, regardless of whether the law or the act itself is justified. The purchase, sale and consumption of illegal narcotics is criminal in the United States, but is not unjust or immoral. The use of political force as a means of coercion is unjust and immoral (according to both what you believe to be objective morality and what I consider subjective morality), but not criminal. That is why I did not answer your question directly; criminal is not a useful term in these kinds of arguments, especially arguments relating to war between sovereign nations.
So no, I wouldn’t personally open the bomb bay doors knowing that it would cause death to innocents, with the intent to destroy the bad guys and/or their means of war as well. Or, if I did, I would understand that killing innocents is criminal.
That’s a hand-wavy answer. I wanted a yes-or-no, not a “well, maybe, but, …” I want to know if you would advocate the use of defensive force in wartime if you knew with absolute certainty that this act will result in the death of innocents, while not acting will result in invasion of your nation.
I see you’re trying to back me into a contradiction here, but there need be no contradiction; it’s perfectly consonant with libertarian first principles to condem pre-emptive war and argue that a libertarian commonwealth defend itself only against immediate agression.
Um, no, it really isn’t perfectly consonant at all. It’s perhaps the fundamental contradiction within deontological versions of libertarians. Nearly all similiar contradictions are other versions of this same argument. National defense necessarily results in the death of innocents, even in a purely-defensive war, at least given current technology.
And you need to brush up on your understanding of what a pacifist is. A pacifist is someone who denounces all uses of force, no matter what, and as I’ve already made clear to you, I have used, and would again, physical force in certain circumstances. So by definition I’m not a pacifist.
I know perfectly well what pacifism is. I presented it to you as an alternative option to my argument. Obviously, my argument would not be problematic for a pacifist, as a pacifist would not advocate war even for purely defensive purposes. Which is why I asked you if you are one, because if you are not, and most libertarians are not, you cannot use this as an answer to my question.
Just how much institutional coercion would you argue is tolerable to implement a net utility function that ostensibly rewards the self interest of everyone in “the whole?”
I think, in general, deontological arguments and consequentialist arguments lead to identical public policy recommendations. So in reality, I don’t see very many situations where coercion would be necessary or recommended. But as a consequentialist, I don’t rule it out in principle. Obviously, it should be minimized as much as possible, since it is a cost for the persons being coerced. I see it as probably most necessary in the situation I described above, as well as solving the public goods problem when a nation is attacked by a foreign aggresor and coercion is the only means available to secure an army for defensive purposes. Of course, like David Friedman and others, I believe that eventually, the market will solve this problem, and that there will be no need for coercion. But I would much rather be coerced to pay for a defensive army that be coerced as a consequence of enslavement by the foreign aggressor.
August 4th, 2004 at Aug 04, 04 | 12:24 am
But every war includes some innocent deaths. They call it “friendly fire”. How would you you justify that?
Oh, I don’t know, probably something roughly similar to, say, a hunting accident.
August 4th, 2004 at Aug 04, 04 | 12:40 am
No. I understand criminal to mean acts which violate the law, regardless of whether the law or the act itself is justified. The purchase, sale and consumption of illegal narcotics is criminal in the United States, but is not unjust or immoral. The use of political force as a means of coercion is unjust and immoral (according to both what you believe to be objective morality and what I consider subjective morality), but not criminal. That is why I did not answer your question directly; criminal is not a useful term in these kinds of arguments, especially arguments relating to war between sovereign nations.
I’ll concede this for the sake of argument, but in fact the argument cuts both ways. Just as we agree that smoking dope isn’t really a crime simply because some stupid law says it is, the incidental killing of innocents in war isn’t not a crime simply because the state hasn’t outlawed pre-emptive war. But there I go again implying that the concept of crime transcends the malleable definitions we get from the state.
More later…
August 4th, 2004 at Aug 04, 04 | 6:25 am
That’s a hand-wavy answer. I wanted a yes-or-no, not a “well, maybe, but, …” I want to know if you would advocate the use of defensive force in wartime if you knew with absolute certainty that this act will result in the death of innocents, while not acting will result in invasion of your nation.
I did say no. How could I be any more clear — it’s wrong to kill innocent people, period. It’s wrong because it’s criminal. No hand waving.
I followed that up with an explanation and then a straight forward question to you, which I note you didn’t answer. So here it is again: On your view, does a government or private mercinary force have rights an individual doesn’t? I’m not asking if they can bring more power to bear in wartime, obviously they can, I’m asking if “they” have rights an individual doesn’t. If your answer is no, and assuming you believe it’s never justifed for an individual to kill innocents, then how is it ever justified for a government or private mercinary to do so?
August 4th, 2004 at Aug 04, 04 | 6:33 am
Um, no, it really isn’t perfectly consonant at all. It’s perhaps the fundamental contradiction within deontological versions of libertarians. Nearly all similiar contradictions are other versions of this same argument. National defense necessarily results in the death of innocents, even in a purely-defensive war, at least given current technology.
How so in a purely-defensive war? If a geographically sound libertarian commonwealth is being attacked by land, air, and/or sea, then aren’t all the aggressors non-innocent? Note: you might very well think it imprudent for a common wealth to wait to deploy it’s defensive force until the time of actual attack, but it doesn’t matter if it’s prudent or not, defending yourself only when physically attacked is perfectly consonant with the libertarian NIOF principle. Where’s the contradiction?
August 4th, 2004 at Aug 04, 04 | 6:38 am
I know perfectly well what pacifism is.
Then why did you ask me a second time if I was a pacifist after I explained to you the first time you asked that I have, and would again, use force to defend myself? What difference does it make what position I hold about force in war, pacifists denounce the use of any force by anybody.