My recent post, "Bob Murphy on climate change at Antiwar Radio; a puppet for the "King Coal" hand that feeds him?", attracted a bit of attention, including some hostile comments from some LvMI community members who thought my comments regarding the motivations of Bob Murphy`s funders were over the line.
Since I consider the issue an important one and welcome the comments, I thought I would raise the comment thread to a post here, in the hopes that I might elicit further thoughtful commentary.
Are cui bono inquiries off-base to Austrians when reviewing policy arguments over government policy? Or, as distasteful as such inquries may be, are they unavoidable?
I note that I have tried to have this discussion with Bob on several occasions over the past four months; for the curious reader, here, in chronological order, are my posts:
Bob Murphy, the Heritage Foundation and "green jobs" - ignore coal! We only pay attention to rent-seeking from greens/the left;
In
which I try to help Bob Murphy figure out just what the heck I`m
talking about (when I say he`s entangled in a partisan, rent-seeking
game); and
Fun with Self-Deception and Rent-Seeking: Bob Murphy`s "Man in the Mirror".
Here is the comment thread (anonymized to avoid distractions; I am happy to add handles back in if the relevant persons prefer):
# Sunday, October 04, 2009 4:37 PM
by
TokyoTom
"A", you`re having a tough time reading me.
1. I think I`ve fairly clearly stated that I think that Bob`s
expressed opinions on climate change are influenced by the fact that
they are supported by a rent-seeking interest. When I said "This
doesn't need to imply..." I was referring to whether or not he believes
what he SAYS - as opposed to what he omits to say - and expressed the
view that he probably does mean what he says (as well as that I agree
with much of what he says).
2. I don`t think I`m being evasive at all, but rather
straightforward. And I don't consider my fairly open challenges to Bob
on this matter to be "somewhat irresponsible" within the "context of
sincere and productive debate". Instead, I reluctantly find them to be
necessary, given the ubiquity of rent-seeking and the ways that it
perverts both legislation and the debate over it.
3. I like Bob and don`t really enjoy making this criticism, but I
think he would probably be the last to say that questioning his
entanglement with rent-seeking interests is off-limits, particularly
when rent-seeking is PRECISELY one of his chief substantive criticisms
of cap-and-trade. Bob`s personal familiarity with Austrian criticisms
of the influence of business and other interest groups on government
policy does not create immunity from criticism on the same grounds.
4. "I don't think TT will be so forthcoming". Care to take back your
words? In the future, perhaps you`d be good enough to leave me time to
reply before you speculate on whether I will?
5. "a sin [sic] of omission, is proof of a sin of commission. It is
a non-sequitur." You`re using a lot of big words, but I`m not sure I
follow you. I`ve said Bob failed to disclose something that was
relevant to the discussion. Period. (Bob may have some thoughts on if
it was a sin and what kind, but if it was deliberate I`m not sure I see
a distinction between omission and commission.)
6. "anyone can make any claim that Bob has not provided enough background".
Sure, but there are only certain times when "full disclosure" is
relevant; on most things Bob comments on whether someone funds him is
irrelevant. But when he is talking about legislation that will have a
significant impact on someone who is paying him to speak, that fact
that he is acting as a spokesman is VERY relevant. That`s why Scott
Horton asked the question, and why Bob dodged it.
7. "by making an ad hominem"
Sorry, but if you want to split hairs, a "cui bono" argument is not
ad hominem argument. In any event, Austrian economics tells us that we
need to worry about the perversion of government via rent-seeking. If
the wheels of our worrying about rent-seeking are ever to hit the road,
it means that we have to keep asking "who benefits".
This of course complicates debate and cuts many ways; sorry that I can`t make life simpler for you.
8. "while avoiding discussing any issues Bob may be incorrect on."
Are you serious? I`ve had several years of substantive discussions
on climate on the LvMI blog, and argue routinely with Bob on
substantive matters, both on my blog and over at his. All you`re
showing here is an unadmirable ignorance or shortness of attention.
In any case, your attention is welcome, but we can have a more
intelligent and productive discussion if you`d check your inclination
to reflexive negativity.