" And the reason why I made that conversion is important. Libertarian insights in a lot of ways are basic, Econ 101 insights about the efficiency of free contracting writ large and converted into norms or political values. In other words, I think one of the most essential libertarian fallacies is building a politico-ethical system around positive social science findings (and, I want to stress, basic and introductory social science findings at that). It's kind of an odd way of going about formulating a politico-ethical system. We don't adopt Nietzschean super-man ethics because of evolutionary biology, and we shouldn't simply adopt libertarianism because of these insights. I want to be clear - my point is not that you have to mix up normative and positive findings to come to libertarianism. My point is only that it's possible to get everything there is to get out of libertarianism simply by improving people's knowledge of social science. This is only to say that it's not entirely clear to me what should be important here: teaching people more social science, or sharing libertarianism. But even that isn't entirely satisfying - after all, the reason why I abandoned libertarianism was because I kept learning social science. Yes, the market is efficient and the price mechanism leverages decentralized knowledge. But if institutions don't or can't internalize costs and benefits social scientific insights start to militate against the efficiency of markets. Uncertainty and imperfections ensure that market forces, as fantastic as they are, are going to remain sub-optimal. I haven't abandoned any of the introductory insights in adopting these views - the complement the introductory insights that I still use. I still have a relatively contractarian view of human relations. I still take a fairly atomized, individualist view of things. I still come down on Hayek and Mises's side of the socialist calculation debate. But I can't call myself a libertarian. So, if what we really want is to get people to take the implications of social science more seriously, then its not clear that that would move people towards libertarianism either." -Daniel Kuehn
I think this is an interesting insight, though I find issue with it for this reason: Did Rothbard not "keep learning social science"? What about Walter Block, or other career Austro/Libertarians? Is there an implication that in order to maintain Libertarianism, we must stop at elementary observations? I'm sure DK can clarify if he wishes, and I hope he does. Anyway, thoughts?
What is Kuehn's political position, btw?
re: "What is Kuehn's political position, btw?"
I've been told I'm a statist, but I'm not so sure about that assessment myself.
"Statist" is a little too ambiguous. "Where do you live?" "Earth". "Cool, bro! Ditto!" Let's put it this way. Do you think that Canada's post '70 health care system is better than pre '70.
i read his blog often and, from what I get, he is a modern liberal
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
"modern liberal"
Statist then right?
I disagree with most of what Gene Callahan says, and recoil at the way he usually says it, but he was on the money when he said this:
One of the most telling rhetorical tics one finds amongst radical libertarians is to refer to every single person who does not buy their entire program as a 'statist'. Now, when Mises used that term, he was referring to people like, say, Mussolini, who were engaged in some form of state worship, who were making the State a God on earth. This made sense. But many rad-libs today apply it to every person who does not want to destroy the State as a social institution. This is an extraordinary usage, as though I went around calling every person who does not think Major League Baseball should be abolished a 'baseballist', or everyone who doesn't mind opera houses an 'operist'. It says a lot more about those who are using the term than it does about those to whom they are applying it.
I'm not sure why people think I'm a "modern liberal". I think it's because we're in the middle of a massive recession and I'm a Keynesian so I come across as a liberal. I think of myself as pretty non-descript centrist, with some strong libertarian sympathies. I used to be a libertarian.
As for the "modern" appendage there, I also find it grating when people treat "classical liberal" and "libertarian" as synonyms. So no need for that "modern" addition to refer to those to the left who are within the broader classical liberal tradition. If you need to clarify, "progressive" or simply "left" probably makes more sense with them. I'm on their side on lots of occasions, but I've never thought of myself as one.
dont be so concerned about the labels, from what I read, you are liberal minded... you might think differently, but its not really a big deal
Whether or not modern liberalism evolved out of classic liberalism, and whether or not there are certain harmonies regarding the intentions of the two, the policies classic liberals advocated are hugely different from the policies advocated by modern liberals, but very consonant with policies advocated by modern libertarians. Galbraith had as little as common with Hume and Smith as did Buckley.
any viable objections that can be raised against inter-subjective comparisons pale in comparison to the benefits that the assumption offers in formal modeling.
Can you explain some of the benefits? I don't see anything to be gained from using obviously flawed reasoning to build a formal model, but I'm up for enlightenment.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Daniel -
re: "the policies classic liberals advocated are hugely different from the policies advocated by modern liberals, but very consonant with policies advocated by modern libertarians. Galbraith had as little as common with Hume and Smith as did Buckley."
I'm not even sure this is the case stated in this way, but I'm also not even sure it should be stated in this way. When we're talking about actual policy recommendations, it might also be relevant to ask "What would Galbraith and Buckley have advocated if presented with the circumstances of the 18th century" and "what would Smith and Hume have advocated if presented with the circumstances of the 20th century?" I sincerely doubt they would be ardent Ron Paul supporters. Smith and Hume's liberalism were less a function of some sort of modern libertarian/Rothbardian ethico-deductive tabboo associated with government and more associated with the liberal values shared across a wide swath of "modern liberals", "modern conservatives", and "modern libertarians". This sort of foundationalist Rothbardianism and the tight connection that it makes between ethics, political philosophy, and policy was not the foundation of the classical liberals (although certainly it's not inconsistent with it - I'm not trying to say Rothbard is outside the liberal tradition by any means).
Daniel Kuehn:I'm not even sure this is the case stated in this way, but I'm also not even sure it should be stated in this way. When we're talking about actual policy recommendations, it might also be relevant to ask "What would Galbraith and Buckley have advocated if presented with the circumstances of the 18th century" and "what would Smith and Hume have advocated if presented with the circumstances of the 20th century?" I sincerely doubt they would be ardent Ron Paul supporters.
If this isn't special pleading, I don't know what is.
Daniel Kuehn:Smith and Hume's liberalism were less a function of some sort of modern libertarian/Rothbardian ethico-deductive tabboo associated with government and more associated with the liberal values shared across a wide swath of "modern liberals", "modern conservatives", and "modern libertarians".
What does this even mean? What do you think those values are?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
The broadly consequentialist approach of Smith and Hume is indeed somewhat dissonant with Rothbard's, and that does make for an interesting (if minor) distinction between the classic liberalism of Hume, Smith, Cobden, Molinari, Mises, and Hayek and the libertarianism of Rothbard and many Rothbardians.
But Hume and Smith were not Historical School Schmollerites. So, unless they actually changed their understanding of market processes and human nature (which would be an entirely different -and unguessable- question altogether), I doubt 20th century conditions would suddenly make Hume consider gold a "barbarous relic" or lead Smith to endorse Galbraith's semi-institutionalism. And yes, I think they would support Ron Paul's policies over those of Obama or Romney, even if they did not adopt his deontological stance.
Apparently the can of tuna I opened was really a hole to China.
re: "But Hume and Smith were not Historical School Schmollerites."
And one need not invoke historicism to acknowledge that there is a distinction between political philosophy and policy recommendation (just like there is a distinction between epistemology and scientific investigations). In both of these circumstances you seem to take the relationship between practical activity (ie - policy, science) and philosophical justification as being much, much tighter than I do.