Conservative blogger Tory Bear, months after getting stuck in with gossip about Liberal Youth’s leadership election, has decided to close that particular chapter with an interview with the irrepressible Sara Scarlett, where he tries, unsuccessfully, to recruit her. She makes me feel like a party apparatchik, although she actually agrees with more Lib Dem policy than I do. “Go Figure” as the Americans say.
You can read the interview here. As a side note, it’s very revealing. It seems that young Conservatives are also counting on a new wave of more libertarian leaders and thinkers that’s just round the corner. I’m not sure that’s any more likely than it is in the Liberal Democrats, what with modern politics being highly interventionalist and managerial.
The challenge for all libertarians, whether they like it or not, in the Party system or not, is to engage with the political process and make it something that people want to vote for. Perhaps that’s where people like Sara come in. We’ve not seen the last of her, that’s for sure.
Marc Bénier said...
10 Jun 09 at 11:27 am
Interesting. As a young libertarian, who do you identify as the key libertarian thinkers and leaders at this time?
Charlotte Gore said...
10 Jun 09 at 11:29 am
Oh that’s a good question. I’ll have to get back to you on that
DavidNcl said...
10 Jun 09 at 1:08 pm
Actually I’d be very interested in your answers to Marc’s question.
Charlotte Gore said...
10 Jun 09 at 1:12 pm
It’s difficult because I’m so wrapped up in the world of blogging and rarely pay attention to people that aren’t. :S
Marc Bénier said...
10 Jun 09 at 1:37 pm
This actually does open up a much wider question – who are the key writers and thinkers that are taking forward the development of liberal democrat thinking? I am not talking about party policy wonks, but the thinkers (or philosophers) who are defining what it means to be a liberal democrat in the 21st century, and developing the values and vision that activists and candidates can develop with the public.
Charlotte Gore said...
10 Jun 09 at 1:59 pm
I think it’s a brilliant question, and I think the answer is “i don’t know” … Which is worrying if I’m honest. I’m not sure if I could name them on the social democracy side either. What about other parties, too? Perhaps a blog post is in order… Consult the hive mind.
Andrew Chamberlain said...
10 Jun 09 at 3:30 pm
I don’t really like this tendency to view the Lib Dems as being split between libertarians and social democrats. The number of classical liberals/libertarians in the party is vanishingly small (I’d imagine that they’re inspired by Nozick and Hayek?). The real debate is between a growing contingent of modern liberals and a soggy grouping of assorted others.
Hardly anyone in the party rejects wealth redistribution to a sufficient degree to be called a libertarian. My perception is that most of the people who have proposed more market-oriented policies are in favour of redistributing wealth in order to ensure that people have access to markets. As such they (or we, since I occupy this position) are modern liberals like Jo Grimond rather than classical liberals like Gladstone.
Social democracy is close to meaningless, in my opinion. As far as I can see, all that people mean by social democracy is something close to the status quo. The people who oppose attempts to move the Lib Dems to a more radical liberal position are too diverse in their outlooks for them to have an identifiable shared agenda. In combination the people who tend to get condemned as social democrats by Charlotte and others effectively act like small-c conservatives.
If you’re looking for a statement of the modern liberal position Jo Grimond’s The Liberal Future isn’t bad and still quite radical in places. David Laws’ chapters in the Orange Book are pretty good too.
The problem I have with libertarianism is that it prioritises the defence of private property over advancing individual liberty. To the extent that these things conflict I regard libertarians as reactionary conservatives rather than liberals.
This is a great blog, by the way, Charlotte. I agree with your postings more often than not. I just think you’ve made a logical error or adopted a dodgy premise in your thinking somewhere.
Niklas Smith said...
10 Jun 09 at 3:51 pm
I think Sara is right – the Lib Dems are more fertile ground for supporters of freedom than the Conservatives ever will be.
@Marc Beniér: I have two names:
1) Virginia Postrel, who wrote the excellent book The Future and its Enemies. It’s essentially Mill’s On Liberty for our time (though no one beats Mill!).
2) Johan Norberg, who writes an excellent (bilingual) blog and is most famous for his book In Defense of Global Capitalism. That said, I think he describes himself as a liberal rather than a libertarian. There are some excerpts from the book on his website.
Both are well worth reading, Charlotte. Though of course Mill is probably the libertarian equivalent of God
Niklas Smith said...
10 Jun 09 at 3:54 pm
P.S. I would also describe myself as liberal, not libertarian. Andrew Chamberlain makes some very good points.
As far as I can see, all that people mean by social democracy is something close to the status quo…. In combination the people who tend to get condemned as social democrats by Charlotte and others effectively act like small-c conservatives.
Welcome to Sweden! The Social Democrats are essentially defined by their small-c conservatism in rejecting change to Sweden’s heavily statist mixed (or mixed-up) economy model. Like the British Conservatives, they have moved with the times on some issues but the reflexes are of left-wing conservatism. We don’t need a party like them in our country.
Niklas Smith said...
10 Jun 09 at 4:05 pm
P.S. Like the British Conservatives, they have moved with the times on some issues but the reflexes are of left-wing conservatism. I was a bit unclear – they are like the Conservatives in moving with the times on some issues, but of course not in being left wing! For Cameron’s Conservatives, leave the sentence unchanged but replace “left” with “right”.
Tiberius Leodis said...
10 Jun 09 at 4:47 pm
I concur with with Andrew’s post above.
“Libertarian” seems to be a vogue term used, er , liberally, by sites like LV to give them the façade of being radical while, in reality, demonstrating an ignorance of the word’s meaning and etymology.
For example, Ron Paul describes himself as a “Libertarian” while advocating the transfer of power from quasi-democratic states to tyrannical private enterprises (ie. corporations) which is a complete bastardisation of the stance of classical liberalism/libertarianism – which was essentially anti-capitalist (yup, even Adam Smith)
A quick glance at the LV Vision area shows advocacy of “Smaller State, Lower Tax, Personal Freedom” and not a word about breaking down private monopolies, so I take their ‘libertarian’ position to be in this American sense, and not the European.
So Sara Scarlett is described as a “proud libertarian”, I would probably call her position (based on limited knowledge) as “anarcho-capitalist” – and (in my view) completely incompatible with meaningful commitment to both democracy and human-rights ( I also wouldn’t even consider it a serious intellectual position to take).
My suspicions is that, if pressed, Scarlett and others (Charlotte?) would draw their economic positions from the Austrian school (as implied by Andrew); the less said about that the better.
T.
Julian H said...
10 Jun 09 at 7:11 pm
I’d perhaps add Razeen Sally and Deepak Lal to the list of key modern libertarian thinkers.
Tiberius: Ron Paul is a charlatan, in no way a libertarian (and neither, for that matter, was the Libertarian Party 2008 presidential candidate). Liberal Vision’s page on our views is deliberately concise – designed to give a sufficient flavour of what we’re for and what we’re against. It is not an attempt to define classical liberalism, and therefore has “no mention of” many views that most of us hold.
Ian B said...
10 Jun 09 at 8:27 pm
Terms like social democracy and indeed conservatism seem to have very little meaning these days. You could hold a week long conference of social democrats and probably not get a coherent agreed definition. At least in the USA, there’s a pretty good idea of what conservatism is, for instance, (“God and guns”) but over here, the conservatives are, er, social democrats. As are all the parties.
A working definition of what it means in practical terms might be “the implementation of a variety of moral goals, based on a post-marxist theoretical underpinning, by the State”.
Ian B said...
10 Jun 09 at 8:32 pm
Ron Paul describes himself as a “Libertarian” while advocating the transfer of power from quasi-democratic states to tyrannical private enterprises (ie. corporations)
I don’t think Paul would agree with your characterisation of what he says at all. In particular, the whole point of free market libertarianism is that any “tyranny” by business corporations is a direct consequence of their integration with the state, and impossible without that state patronage. All a truly private business can do is try to sell you stuff. It can’t “tyrannise” anybody.
Andrew Chamberlain said...
10 Jun 09 at 10:18 pm
Julian/Charlotte: I’m with you on the personal freedom bit. I favour privatisation and deregulation. I just don’t believe that we should necessarily be seeking to lower the overall burden of taxation. Not while people are starving in Africa etc. etc.
I think that’s enough over-earnest typing from me for one day. I’m off to watch a film that I believe to be on TV but which I can’t remember the name of or what it’s about.
Tiberius Leodis said...
10 Jun 09 at 10:32 pm
@ Julian H
I agree, Ron Paul is indeed a charlatan. But at the same time, at least he spells out in clear detail what he stands for. Better the devil you know in that respect.
@Ian B
I’m quite sure Paul would not agree with my characterisation – far too much reality would scare away most of his prospective voters. If you look closely at the implications of his policies though I’m fairly sure you’ll find my description is accurate.
I have no doubt that exponents of so-called “free market libertarianism” will tell you that “tyranny” by business corporations is a “direct consequence of their integration with the state, and impossible without that state patronage” – but that doesn’t stop it being nonsense.
Popular movements in the West have forced the state to make business less tyrannical – minimum wages, employment rights, health & safety, maximum working weeks, abolition of child labour. And even if our friends at Liberal Vision may call these “Red tape and regulation [.] increasingly undermining efficiency and acting as a brake on enterprise”, I think these safeguards should be protected from any free-market ideologues.
re “All a truly private business can do is try to sell you stuff. It can’t “tyrannise” anybody.”
Ha – tell that to the sweatshop workers of Indonesia, the citizens of Bhopal, or the countless people that killed in preventable workplace accidents ever year.
Tristan said...
10 Jun 09 at 10:46 pm
Foremost libertarian thinkers of today?
I’d plump for Kevin Carson. Truly radical libertarian in a broadly mutualist tradition. He has produced some new contributions to libertarian theory and practice in recent years.
Roderick Long has produced some good work too (his Libertarian Class Theory is a good starting point for expansion).
I’ve found Charles ‘RadGeek’ Johnson to be stimulating too, along with others his conception of Thick Libertarianism is useful and he’s done some great work on feminism too.
As for praxis- Sam Konkin (SEKIII) may have passed away, but his Agorism is being developed. Patri Friedman is doing interesting work with the Seasteading Institute too.
Of course, the classics never go out of style and there’s still much to be gained from them, and much to criticise
As for the UK – I’m afraid I can’t think of anyone in particular at the moment.
I’d say Norberg is a liberal rather than a libertarian, although real liberals are in the libertarian spectrum in that they want to increase individual liberty.
When it comes politics, I have more to say which will appear on my own blog at some point, but I increasingly think that formal politics and libertarianism cannot mix, they’re opposites.
Ian B said...
11 Jun 09 at 12:34 am
I’m quite sure Paul would not agree with my characterisation – far too much reality would scare away most of his prospective voters. If you look closely at the implications of his policies though I’m fairly sure you’ll find my description is accurate.
No, what we may see is a particular opinion driven by a particular set of assumptions. Feel free to carry on.
The question though was whether Paul is a libertarian or a “libertarian” in sneer quotes. And I replied that he is the former, in that his free market views are pretty much orthodox libertarianism, whether you are educated enough to agree with that or not. Libertarianism is a preference for freedom of individuals, property rights, and the consequential support for free markets. The claim that he is “in no way a libertarian” by another commenter is simply wrong.
I have no doubt that exponents of so-called “free market libertarianism” will tell you that “tyranny” by business corporations is a “direct consequence of their integration with the state, and impossible without that state patronage” – but that doesn’t stop it being nonsense.
Apparently the internet hasn’t stopped you being pompous and rude either. We can but hope.
Popular movements in the West have forced the state to make business less tyrannical – minimum wages, employment rights, health & safety, maximum working weeks, abolition of child labour. And even if our friends at Liberal Vision may call these “Red tape and regulation [.] increasingly undermining efficiency and acting as a brake on enterprise”, I think these safeguards should be protected from any free-market ideologues.
Nice sneery ad hom at the end there!
Ha – tell that to the sweatshop workers of Indonesia,
Let’s look at that one. Your problem here- beyond apparently never reading anything more instructive than the Daily Worker is a lack of grasp of economics and context.
Child labour was not an invention of eeeeeeevil capitalism. It has been the norm throughout human history. Children are an economic burden, and when you are poor they are a big economic burden. Eeeeeeeeeeeevil capitalism didn’t invent poverty either, it has been the norm throughout human history. The difference is, prior to industrial capitalism, the poor wretches were spread across the countryside subsistence farming. Thus, in preindustrial societies, poor children are farmworkers in the main, unless their parents sell them to an artisan to be his apprentice.
So when industrialism arrived, the children moved into the factories, because they could earn more there. Instead of just doing backbreaking subsistence farming, they could actually earn money. Their economic output was higher. They could be an economic benefit to the family.
Now you may think that children should not have to work as a moral ideal, but the current state in which children do not have to- and indeed are not allowed to- work is a recent development which was only possible due to capitalist wealth creation. The situation in poverty stricken countries is the same- children can’t sit around the house all day reading books and playing Nintendo. Nobody can afford for them to do that. Only free market capitalism is going to free up enough wealth to free the children from work (even if they then get shoved into government factory schooling that so thoroughly wrecks them psychologically that they’re sniffing glue to escape reality by the age of 10). Socialism cannot solve this, since all it can do is inefficiently shift the small amount of wealth around from the state’s enemies to the state’s friends, increasing poverty and preventing the growth needed to improve the living standards of the poor. People in poor companies work in “sweatshops” because it is better than staying home on the farm.
It is also the case- ignored by moral socialists- that the worst abuses of poor children in Victorian times were done to workhouse children who were, effectively, slaves who the state sold to factory owners to get shot of them.
You have been fed, and absorbed, a narrative. We all get it at school- how the benign state saved us all from evil capitalists. And because we are not given the proper context of what life was like before industrial capitalism, we swallow it. It’s bullshit.
Julian H said...
11 Jun 09 at 8:33 am
I just don’t believe that we should necessarily be seeking to lower the overall burden of taxation. Not while people are starving in Africa etc. etc.
How does taxing people stop other people from starving in Africa?
Marc Bénier said...
11 Jun 09 at 11:42 am
Andrew, Charlotte
You both raise interesting points:
‘Hardly anyone in the party rejects wealth redistribution to a sufficient degree to be called a libertarian. My perception is that most of the people who have proposed more market-oriented policies are in favour of redistributing wealth in order to ensure that people have access to markets. As such they (or we, since I occupy this position) are modern liberals like Jo Grimond rather than classical liberals like Gladstone.’
Generally I think that I would agree with you ; however there is the question of market regulation. The classical libertarian, laissez-faire view would be that all regulation is a bad thing, or alternatively believe that that the market regulates itself. This is a perspective that is still alive and well and regularly expressed in the US by the Republicans, and amazingly still by a number of senior Conservatives in the UK. The social democrat perspective on regulation is that it is required – Labour traditionally argues for state regulation whilst Liberal Democrats favour independent bodies with real teeth (parliamentary expenses being a current issue!). Conservatives traditionally favour little or no government or independent regulation, though this has changed recently!
To say that social democracy is either meaningless or the status quo is interesting, and actually confirms my view that largely the social democratic arguments have won over time – which is good news. However, social democracy is still relevant; in the last twenty years or so both the Conservatives and Labour governments have steadily eroded the ability of local communities to exercise any form of power or authority over local issues. Power has either been centralised into the Civil Service, or handed over to unelected, unaccountable quangos.
For me, one of the key tenents of social democracy is the ability of society at all levels to exercise meaningful power at all levels. For example, the EU and the European Parliament was born out of social democratic thinking with the recognition that in in Europe, the delivery first of peace through trade and later the ability to obtain greater influence in world affairs as a political bloc outweighs the disadvantage of loss of power by national governments. Europe politically achieves more now globally in concert, than the UK does on its own. It’s just not talked about or really recognised. This is why the Conservatives dislike Europe so much – it is structurally and philosophically social democratic in nature.
At a local level, it is appropriate that some financial decision making, supported through progressive taxation (as opposed to recessive forms e.g. council tax) be devolved back down to the regions and local authorities, with responsibilities and financial decision making powers currently enjoyed by quangos being restored. This to me is central to social democracy. Labour removes power from local people and concentrates it – this is not social democratic, and to me indicates that they are no longer a social democratic party.
This is my admittedly long winded way of arguing that social democracy is as vital a political philosophy as ever, and does not really IMHO represent the status quo. Some of the basic arguments and goals of social democracy have been achieved, but not all and I believe that it will continue to evolve….
Ian B said...
11 Jun 09 at 11:59 am
Labour traditionally argues for state regulation whilst Liberal Democrats favour independent bodies with real teeth .
-the latter being the particularly slimy and underhand form of state regulation in which Britain excels. A classic example is censorship- a nominally non-governmental organisation such as the British Board of Film Censors is set up, everyone in parliament and the ruling class slaps themselves on the back that in name Britain does not have state censorship… and we proudly stand as having the most rigidly censored movies in the faux-free world.
The great thing for social authoritarians is that the “independent” body, though operating tightly within bounds set by the ruling class as a whole, is beyond democratic oversight. Because it’s “independent”. Which is why social “democrats” love quangos so much, and cheer the world’s biggest quango, the EU, which has no democratic or popular oversight whatsoever. Legislation made by unreachable, unelected technocrats, nodded through by a toy parliament, and imposed on half a billion people without consent or consultation of them.
Social democracy isn’t a vital philosophy. It’s just a new word for a very old idea, the rule of the many by the few.
Tiberius Leodis said...
11 Jun 09 at 2:45 pm
@ Ian B
Firstly, my post were not intended to prove you in the way they clearly have – I apologise for that.
Secondly, you seem to have got it into your head that I am some kind of Marxist/Leninist – I assure you I am not.
Thirdly, I am not going to reply to your post in detail as it factually incorrect on so many points it hardly seems worth it.
Fourthly, the world is a much more complex place than your either/or analysis seems to allow for: you might want to work on that.
T.
Ian B said...
12 Jun 09 at 2:12 am
Firstly, my post were not intended to prove you in the way they clearly have – I apologise for that.
Then I too apologise for the tone of my response.
Secondly, you seem to have got it into your head that I am some kind of Marxist/Leninist – I assure you I am not.
I think your point of view is pretty much standard modern western socialist, some of which is descended from marxist theory, but that isn’t the same as accusing you of being a marxist leninist. Most ordinary people would be surprised at how many of the viewpoints that are now commonplace in our society originated among marxist and post-marxist philosophers, and have filtered into our mainstream, “laundered” of attribution, though.
Thirdly, I am not going to reply to your post in detail as it factually incorrect on so many points it hardly seems worth it.
You could pick one fact, perhaps the earliest in my reply, which you consider factually inaccurate, and respond to that.
Fourthly, the world is a much more complex place than your either/or analysis seems to allow for: you might want to work on that.
The world is a far more complex place than addressed in my analysis, but then we are writing comments not books. The limited focus of my reply does not exclude the presence of a universe of greater knowledge. Indeed, my reply regarding child labour was an attempt to indicate that the story is more complicated than as portrayed generally. Like most people, I learned all about infants crushed by carpet looms in school, and while this was certainly the case, what is usually left out is any deep analysis of who these children were, and what had led them to be there. The narrative thus supplied is simplistic, and merely used as a slapdown against free markets- capitalism->child labour->evil.
Frank Davis said...
12 Jun 09 at 12:33 pm
IanB: Child labour was not an invention of eeeeeeevil capitalism. It has been the norm throughout human history. Children are an economic burden, and when you are poor they are a big economic burden.
I agree. But isn’t it that children are the original labour-saving devices that pre-date all our washing machines and vacuum cleaners and cars? A child was something that could be set to work doing useful, labour-saving work as soon as possible – aged 3. Children are only an economic burden if they don’t get used. It’s a bit like buying a car and keeping it in a garage, or a washing machine and never taking it out of its box.
And this is why in poor countries they have large families. The children aren’t a burden for them. They are an asset. And so they have as many of them as they possibly can.
Conversely, it’s why the birth rate falls in rich countries, where children aren’t an economic asset, but pretty much just luxury fashion accessories. With the result that fewer people marry, and marriages fall apart, and families are smaller. And the pampered children, playing Nintendo all day, have become idols to be indulged and worshipped, and to become more important than anyone else (rather than, as in poor societies, less important), and any measure whatsoever can be justified by reference to the chiiiiiiildren.
Andrew Chamberlain said...
12 Jun 09 at 1:27 pm
Julian H: Easy, you take the money via taxation from rich people who were only going to spend it on jewelery for their pets and fetta cheese and stuff. Then you give the money to destitute types in the third world so that they can buy medicine and basic foodstuffs.
This sort of thing enhances the freedom of the poor by more than it decreases the freedom of the rich. Wealth redistribution can be justified in liberal terms.
Marc: Do all social democrats believe in devolution of power? To my mind all that is required to be a social democrat is that you are a collectivist and that you believe in a higher level of regulation in the economy than strict laissez faire.
I’m an individualist so I’m not a social democrat. In policy terms the policies I advocate probably could be described as social democratic, but so could a massive range of policy positions. I don’t think there is a strict enough definition of social democracy available to make it useful in forming policy.
Marc Bénier said...
12 Jun 09 at 3:36 pm
@Andrew Chamberlain
Social democracy is all about being collective and inclusive, however in order for collective decision making to be effective authority and power need to be taken at appropriate levels e.g. central government may legislate to permit or mandate the siting of public facilities however decisions on where to site public facilities is not a decision for central government, but it would be down to the locals to decide what facilities would be required and where. The issue with Labour (old or new) is that they believe in the centralisation of power within the state.
To argue that social democracy is just about collectivism is like arguing that physics is just about levers; it misses the richness and complexity that actually sits behind a very shallow definition. As to being an individualist; well we are all individualists to a greater or lesser extent; we all have our own self-interests and we all have responsibility for the way we conduct our lives. There certainly is no effective policy making paradigm for individualism within a society(ies).
Speaking personally, social democracy is about rational, collective policy and decision making. It means not just being aware of but actively taking into account the needs of all sections of society in order to achieve a viable mixed economy and a society that is able to develop and improve itself. This to me is in contrast to both the Labour and Conservative parties who are tightly dependent on their special interest groups (big business and the unions) and whose political agendas are therefore compromised by the need to favour their groups.
To take a lesson from the business world, change is best achieved when key stakeholders are bought into:
the need for change
a clear vision for what the change is meant to achieve
A clear process for achieving the change
Too often in the UK we are told about the need for change. However, the vision for change is largely dreamt up in smoke-filled rooms by a political elite and their paymasters, and in no way includes the views of other key stakeholders – you and me, and therefore limited buy in! As a result of not considering the needs of different groups within society, change may occur, but the impact and consequences of the change may not be understood or inded be desirable. This is where individualism and a lack of inclusion of societal groups in policy and decision making leads to unsuccessful policy making.
When you argue that a massive range of policies could be regarded as being social democratic you do have a point – however this is because society over the last 150 years has changed and a lot of once radical social democratic values have become today’s societal norm; however this does not mean that it is not useful in policy making, because the philosophical thinking behind social democracy changes and develops as society changes and develops.
Of course all political philosophies adapt and change to meet the changes of society – except in places like South Korea.
Here endeth the rant!!!
Regards
Marc
PS. isn’t debating this fun?
Tiberius Leodis said...
12 Jun 09 at 8:37 pm
@Ian B
“You could pick one fact, perhaps the earliest in my reply, which you consider factually inaccurate, and respond to that.”
Here goes nothing…
1. “Libertarianism” is a word, and as such has a specific etymology which can be traced.
In its original sense, “Libertarian” meant something akin to “anarchism” – which is a long way from the position advocated by Ron Paul – hence the “sneer quotes”.
On the American Right, “Libertarian” is used practically as a synonym for “classical liberal” but, while there are some similarities – these are definitely not the same thing. What you have to remember is that classical liberalism pre dates capitalism; Ron Paul gives the impression that, if they were alive today, Adam Smith et al would endorse his position – nothing could be further from the truth.
2. The image you portray of children running off the land to work in the factories is absurd – the ‘Enclosure Acts’ made the decision for them.
3. Your contention that “the current state in which children do not have to work…was only possible due to capitalist wealth creation” overlooks the fact that the abolition of child labour was achieved in spite of the interests of capital – not because of them.
4. You seem convinced that for the history of humanity people have been suffering in squalid misery, until capitalism came along; furthermore you equate technological advancement with poverty eradication – both are oversimplistic arguments.
5. I don’t believe for one second that the state is ‘benign’, nor that it ‘saved us’ from anything -the fact is that people have saved themselves from the worst excesses of private power by forcing the state to adopt certain policies – policies that private interest opposed at every stage and would roll-back in an instant were they given the chance.
6. You seem to believe in something called the ‘free-market’ which has been responsible for creating wealth in the Western world – this is a myth – the ‘free market’ (as you understand that term) has never existed in the West (though it is imposed on the developing world in the form of IMF conditionalities). I have written about this here – please feel free to comment.
T.
Tiberius Leodis said...
12 Jun 09 at 8:40 pm
Sorry, that link again is:
tiberiusleodis.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/cynicus-chomsky-us
T.
Julian H said...
13 Jun 09 at 7:21 am
Easy, you take the money via taxation from rich people who were only going to spend it on jewelery for their pets and fetta cheese and stuff. Then you give the money to destitute types in the third world so that they can buy medicine and basic foodstuffs.
Right ho. Then why is Africa still poor even after its governments received $400 billion in foreign aid between 1970 to 2000? Why aren’t “destitute types” in South Korea receiving our charity there instead? South Korea, after all, had lower levels of income per capita than Ghana in the 1960s.
To answer one’s own questions – S. Korea’s relatively liberal policies and strong civil institutions (rule of law, independent courts etc.) allowed it to enjoy an economic boom. Most African countries, meanwhile, have continued to be oppressed and over-run by corruption. The world doesn’t get wealthier (or fairer) by trying to execute policies along the lines of “certain people have money; let’s take it from them and give it to some other people instead.”
Newmania said...
15 Jun 09 at 4:59 pm
Tiberius I am not convinced that wealth can be created without free markets or at least “Capitalism ” in some form , which is not a thing so much as default phenomena. Markets are rarely free but if you are comparing them with the state they are enormously powerful at finding solutions. Planned economies did not win the beauty contest of the 20th century did they ?
The Libertarian / Liberal conundrum is basically this . A Libertarian asserts his own right to Liberty . It is “Freedom From”. Generally this is freedom from the state and/or its agents because they are the only ones who can physically compel obedience such as , for example imprisoning you if you do not hand power 40% of your money. In some ways it is a simplistic creed in this form but as an emotional critique of collectivism it works well
The problem for the Liberal party is that it has usually been in the vanguard of asserting “Freedom to”. Freedom to live a healthy life , receive an education and all the no doubt desirable social goodies for which taxes are theoretically removed.
These freedoms are in a zero sum game . You cannot organise society so as to guarantee minimum standards still less equality without sacrificing a lot of ‘freedom from’ authority.
The Liberal Party has tried to distance itself from its long 20th century of shadowing Marxist derived collectivism with the Orange book because the wind is blowing in a new direction. You would hardly know to listen to Clegg and Huhne that any criticism of New Labour from Liberals came from a left wing perspective or that they were in the Lib Lab Pact during the Miners strikes when Conservatives defended individual Liberties under Law from mob rule . They were in negotiations with New Labour throughout the Ashdown period as he revealed in his book and are usually called Labour lite . Labour strong would have been more accurate on many occasions
I am happy that collectivist argue that true freedom is the freedom not suffer poverty and the state must ensure this and all sorts of inclusions are shared equally. This has nothing to do with being a Libertarian though , its just a re packaging of socialism.
There are imho lots of interesting errors in the Liberals tradition but predating as it does the industrial state ,it has never had the intellectual resources for forming a coherent relationship between man and government. In this context it is not really very interesting.
Andrew Chamberlain said...
15 Jun 09 at 5:27 pm
Marc Benier: Individualism isn’t about being self-interested it’s about viewing the world in terms of individuals rather than in terms of social groups. I would argue that if you take a strictly individualistic view of the world and follow it to it’s logical conclusion without being distracted by morality then you will arrive at the idea that the best state is an enabling liberal state.
Alternatively, if you start from the idea that the state should create a society that allows every individual member maximum freedom to pursue their interests regardless of what those interests are (which is how I would interpret being inclusive) then you’ll end up at the same conclusion from a collectivist starting point. The only likely reason to want to create such a society is to give maximum benefit to the individuals within it – so why not just treat the final shape of society as incidental and justify everything in terms of individuals?
Julian H: I agree that trade and not aid is the long term solution to the problem. The CAP has been murderous, the lack of strong institutions has kept countries that should be rich in abject poverty. I think that we have to recognise that we are where we are and that while we push to open our borders to goods and people we must continue to give aid or else more people will die than is strictly necessary.
Tiberius Leodis said...
15 Jun 09 at 7:26 pm
@Newmania
“I am not convinced that wealth can be created without free markets or at least “Capitalism ” in some form , which is not a thing so much as default phenomena.”
Depends on how one defines ‘wealth’ – a slavery-based economy can generate great amounts of wealth for some individuals using neither free-markets nor capitalism.
“Markets are rarely free but if you are comparing them with the state they are enormously powerful at finding solutions. Planned economies did not win the beauty contest of the 20th century did they?”
Comparing a ficitional ‘free-market’ to a ‘planned economy’ (ala USSR) just fixes a false dichotomy – the economies of the West are not planned, but nor are they ‘free markets’ – they really heavily on various state subsidies, and have historically always utilized some form of protectionism to aid their markets and industries.
“I am happy that collectivist argue that true freedom is the freedom not suffer poverty and the state must ensure this and all sorts of inclusions are shared equally. This has nothing to do with being a Libertarian though , its just a re packaging of socialism.”
Yes and no.
You speak of ‘socialism’ as if it is a synonym for Marxism – it isn’t; “Libertarian Socialist’ is a defined political position, even if , from your perspective, it may be seen as a contradiction in terms.
T.
Ian B said...
16 Jun 09 at 6:38 am
Depends on how one defines ‘wealth’ – a slavery-based economy can generate great amounts of wealth for some individuals using neither free-markets nor capitalism.
Debatable. “Fore some individuals” isn’t the same as a general wealth creation- in the extreme example a wealthy tyrant king ruling over impoverished serfs is not a wealthy society, nor generating wealth. In a slave economy, the vast majority have no wealth at all. So even the slaver needs free individuals to sell his produce to. Ancient slave economies (e.g. Rome) don’t seem to have produced much economic growth, while later slavery (e.g. America) was selling products to free individuals elsewhere on the market (outside the “slave zone”). It’s reasonable to conclude that slave economies don’t generate wealth.
Comparing a ficitional ‘free-market’ to a ‘planned economy’ (ala USSR) just fixes a false dichotomy – the economies of the West are not planned, but nor are they ‘free markets’ – they really heavily on various state subsidies, and have historically always utilized some form of protectionism to aid their markets and industries.
This common argument seems to me to be fallacious. Sure, there has never been an entirely free market, but there have been more free or less free markets, and one can reasonably compare the two in terms of degree. You could equally argue that every society has some limits on civil liberties, and therefore civil liberties cannot be judged on merit, which would be equally fallacious.
History and economic analysis shows quite clearly that more free markets do better than less free markets. We may look at morally unpopular products such as pornography or prostitution or even illicit drugs, which the state neither subsidises nor protects, and actively seeks to prohibit in many cases, and note that they thrive.
Or, there’s the “Wright Brothers Argument”. While the Wright Brothers were working, with their own money (“free market”), the US gov. subsidised the Smithsonian to the tune of $50,000 to create an aeroplane. The Smithsonian failed, but the private sector Wright Brothers succeeded. However, if we imagine a counterfactual universe in which the Smithsonian had won the “race” to invent the aereoplane, then people today would credit government funding as having been necessary for this important invention, and nobody would believe that two guys with a bicycle shop could invent an aeroplane.
The fact that mammoth government subsidies fund some innovation today, doesn’t mean that in the absence of that funding, the innovations would not have occurred. Often, the state subisidy simply destroys the private sector that would have done it far more cheaply.
You speak of ’socialism’ as if it is a synonym for Marxism – it isn’t; “Libertarian Socialist’ is a defined political position, even if , from your perspective, it may be seen as a contradiction in terms.
It is. There is another new socialist buzzword “libertarian paternalism” which is equally oxymoronic. If we take socialism in a general way- as being any philosophy of state interventionism on economic, social or moral grounds- then it is indeed entirely contrary to libertarianism. One may as well talk of cold heat, or wealthy poverty. Libertarianism is by definition not socialist, and socialism is by definition not libertarian.
Andrew Chamberlain said...
16 Jun 09 at 8:12 am
If we take socialism in a general way- as being any philosophy of state interventionism on economic, social or moral grounds- then it is indeed entirely contrary to libertarianism. One may as well talk of cold heat, or wealthy poverty. Libertarianism is by definition not socialist, and socialism is by definition not libertarian.
Most anarchists would regard themselves as socialists and they certainly don’t believe in state intervention, because they don’t believe in the state. At it’s broadest definition socialism just means collectivism. Being a collectivist doesn’t imply that you believe in any particular policy, as far as I can see. I’d call what you’ve described statism.
Ian B said...
16 Jun 09 at 10:01 am
Since left-anarchists would require a law against private property, and an apparatus of some kind to maintain it, and would thus transfer ownership of property to a state apparatus (even if disguised as “peoples’ councils” or whatever) their own ideology is oxymoronic.
Just to be fair, right anarchism falls into precisely the same bucket- without a state to recognise and maintain private property rights, the right anarchist society cannot function. So it needs a state too and is thus equally impossible.
Anarchism isn’t really worth considering. The Left form devolves to a peoples’ dictatorship, the Right form to combat between armed gangs– the ultimate victor(s) of which would declare themselves Kings. Which is how most nations got started in the first place.
Newmania said...
16 Jun 09 at 11:05 am
the economies of the West are not planned, but nor are they ‘free markets’ – they really heavily on various state subsidies,
Where did the state subsides come from then ? The state produces nothing . I recognize the Will Hutton view in this which concludes that because the state stuck its nose into basic industries they required the state for their inception and development. I have never seen anything convincing to suggest this .Every day I see the profit motive forcing innovation while the state stops it.
You speak of ’socialism’ as if it is a synonym for Marxism – it isn’t; “Libertarian Socialist’ is a defined political position,
.No it is not it is a sinister Orwellian neologism. Socialism can argue that it promotes freedom but free-ing people from want or inequality which is perceived want. Currently this is often called child poverty to make it sound like a parental duty . In fact it is relative material want experienced by people. The Conservative argument has always been that redistribution is a market distorter and growth is sacrificed for the sake of equality as well as traditional Liberties . In other words it does not work and it is too authoritarian anyway. The type of freedoms socialism claim to provide however are not Libertarian which means freedom from direct authority, they are “rights “ which provide freedom from social circumstances (allegedly ).
Newmania said...
16 Jun 09 at 1:25 pm
One may as well talk of cold heat, or wealthy poverty.
Very good Soljenitsin called it hot ice .
Andrew Chamberlain said...
16 Jun 09 at 3:50 pm
I can think of no reason why a socialist can’t also be a minarchist. Chris Dillow over at Stumbling and Mumbling isn’t a minarchist, but he is a Marxist who advocates free markets and a reduction in state control of public services. His position seems logical enough to me.
On left-anarchism, I think the claim tends to be that without the state we would naturally live in communal groups and share what we have as primitive tribes do. No need to pass a law against private property since laws are required to create private property. I don’t think this is implausible.
However, I do think that our material standard of living would be greatly reduced by moving towards anarchy, which is why it’s never going to happen.
Tiberius Leodis said...
16 Jun 09 at 9:04 pm
@Ian B
“It’s reasonable to conclude that slave economies don’t generate wealth.”
Tell that to the Pharaohs.
“This common argument seems to me to be fallacious. Sure, there has never been an entirely free market, but there have been more free or less free markets, and one can reasonably compare the two in terms of degree. You could equally argue that every society has some limits on civil liberties, and therefore civil liberties cannot be judged on merit, which would be equally fallacious.”
You have misunderstood my point. I was arguing that is was illogical to assume that if someone was arguing against one, they were arguing for the other. (there are varying degrees as you point out).
“History and economic analysis shows quite clearly that more free markets do better than less free markets.”
‘Better’ for whom?
“Or, there’s the “Wright Brothers Argument”.”
So what? You choose one example of free-market funded innovation to make your case. As a matter of interest – who do you think funded the development of the internet?
“The fact that mammoth government subsidies fund some innovation today, doesn’t mean that in the absence of that funding, the innovations would not have occurred. Often, the state subisidy simply destroys the private sector that would have done it far more cheaply.”
This is nonsense – if private interests thought they could make more by funding their own innovation they would do so. The government subsidies exist because, quite simply, the ‘free market’ couldn’t function without them.
“Libertarianism is by definition not socialist, and socialism is by definition not libertarian.”
This is the last thing I am going to say on this matter because you clearly don’t get it (and I’m happy to concede this is due to the poverty of my explanations):
Yes, if we take your definition of Libertarian then ‘Libertarian Socialist’ is ‘oxymoronic’. However, if we stick to the original definition of Libertarian, it is not. The same applies to ‘Socialism’ – you say:
“If we take socialism in a general way- as being any philosophy of state interventionism on economic, social or moral grounds.”
But this is Marxism. It is possible to be Socialist and anti-State – i.e., Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, Chomsky, etc. even if (for whatever reason) you don’t want to recognise this.
Other than that, I can only offer Chomsky’s explanation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugq86q9KyPE
“Since left-anarchists would require a law against private property, and an apparatus of some kind to maintain it, and would thus transfer ownership of property to a state apparatus (even if disguised as “peoples’ councils” or whatever) their own ideology is oxymoronic.”
Only if we accept the premise of your straw man argument. Firstly, there is no singular ‘left-anarchist’ ideology – they tend to be quite an individualistic bunch. Secondly, most of the ‘left-anarchist’ treatise that I have read accept the ‘naturalness’ of private property, and reject the arbitrariness of ‘laws’ – the opposite of your point. But if you can link me to some of these ‘left-anarchists’ works that I am apparently overlooking I would appreciate it.
“Anarchism isn’t really worth considering.”
“Anarchism” (in its various forms) is something that people a great deal smarter than both of us have been debating over for the last two hundred or so years; do you not think it’s quite arrogant to casually dismiss it in this way?
“The Left form devolves to a peoples’ dictatorship”
As a guy who seems quick to point out the ‘oxymoronic’, I’m surprised ‘peoples’ dictatorship’ got past you!
@Newmania
“I recognize the Will Hutton view in this which concludes that because the state stuck its nose into basic industries they required the state for their inception and development. I have never seen anything convincing to suggest this.”
What do you require?
@ Andrew Chamberlain
“I do think that our material standard of living would be greatly reduced by moving towards anarchy, which is why it’s never going to happen.”
That’s why the vested interests would never promote it, but it doesn’t follow that it won’t happen. If we were talking 300 years ago you may have been equally convinced that slavery would never be abolished.
T.
PS, Anyone know what’s happened to Charlotte? I feel like we’ve hijacked her blog!
Andrew Chamberlain said...
16 Jun 09 at 11:36 pm
I’m declaring this blog a workers’ commune and refusing to leave until forcibly ejected!
According to Twitter Miss Gore has writer’s block.
On the anarchism front I think I’m one of the vested interests along with probably the majority of humanity. I don’t think an anarchic society could get it together to produce an Alfa Romeo, for example. Alfa Romeos are cool.