Friday, May 15, 2015

Chris Dillow — Hating libertarians


Chris Dillow makes some good points.
Opponents of libertarianism sometimes fail to see that freedom leads not to anarchy and chaos but to spontaneous order. Demands for immigration control, for example, are often demands for government control in itself, because people don't see how uncontrolled processes can be welfare-enhancing. They fail to see how, in John Kay's words, our goals can sometimes be better achieved obliquely.

This habit is rooted in some common cognitive biases: the illusion of knowledge and overconfidence causes us to exaggerate the benefits of state control whilst the salience heuristic leads us to see the benefits of restricting freedom more than the costs. As Hayek said:
When we decide each issue solely on what appear to be its individual merits, we always over-estimate the advantages of central direction. (Law Legislation and Liberty Vol I, p57.) 
But here's the problem. Sometimes, a benign spontaneous order doesn't occur. Emergent processes can sometimes produce inequality and exploitation: much depends upon initial conditions and institutional frameworks. If libertarians' critics overstate this, they themselves understate it.
All this might sound rather abstract, but it's not. It bears directly upon the question of how public services should be organized..
Here is how I see it. Most people that disagree with libertarian thought don't "hate" libertarians. They just think that they are wrong and their assumptions are even stupid. As a result, some see libertarianisms rising as political forces on either left or right as damaging if not dangerous.

It seems to me that the fundamental offending assumption is that of spontaneous order resulting from freedom. Libertarianisms of the left and right assume that freedom implies spontaneous order, that is, order is natural. However, there is no good evidence for this assumption and a lot of historical evidence that speaks against it. History is the record of the triumph of organization. Military, political, and economic success have all come as a result of superior organization.

As a libertarian of the left, I realize that for libertarianism to be taken seriously, the assumption of spontaneous order being natural must be confronted and the obvious objections to it considered. Rousseau's noble savage versus Hobbes's law of the jungle, for example.

The problem, I believe, lies in the concept of natural. There are two meanings of natural. The first is  that which is found operating in nature (reality). It is evidence-based. The second is theoretical. It is based on the view that individual entities fall into different categories based on their "nature" or "essence," which can be intuited. This latter notion is not based on evidence, but rather on introspection, abstraction, and generalization. It is assumed.

Evidence seems to contradict the assumption of spontaneous order arising from freedom. Whence then does the assumption arise? The answer is quite evident in the case of economics — the invisible hand of market forces. In a free market with no asymmetries, the outcomes are "natural." It is assumed that these outcomes cannot be improved upon.

Hayek gave an account for this in "The Use of Knowledge in Society," arguing that information is too complex to allow for organization being imposed. I do not wish to contest Hayek's argument about the price system being fundamental. Rather, it is the shift from economic liberalism to neoliberalism, that  is, that economic liberalism is the foundation for political and social liberalism. Or as Margaret Thatcher put it, "there is no alternative."

The "mistake" that Hayek makes is the excluded middle. He assume that there is no range between the poles of free market economy with near perfect competition and a command economy on the model of the USSR, for example. His response to the objection that there are many examples along the range is that the tendency is toward the poles and if economic freedom is compromised, then the tendency is toward extreme collectivism under state control.

The result of this "mistake" is the view that economic liberalism based on property rights is the foundation for political liberalism and therefore political rights, and also social liberalism and therefore civil rights. I put "mistake" in quotation marks above to indicate that Hayek himself did not always go this far and allowed for some government involvement in social welfare, for example, but he has often been read this way, especially The Road to Serfdom.

There is no empirical evidence to show that the middle is actually excluded, and European social democracy since WWII would argue against it. Historical evidence also shows that the extreme economic liberalism of 18th  early 19th century classical liberalism was subsequently modified to take political and social liberalism into account by balancing property rights with political rights and civil liberties, and to add social welfare. European economies did reasonably well and there was no tendency toward extreme collectivism or limitation of individual rights other than with regard to property rights, e.g., in the form of taxation and business regulation, which extreme libertarianisms summarily reject.

Homo economicus is a fiction and homo socialis operates on the basis of both independence and interdependence, competition and cooperation, and that coherence and cohesion of a social fabric are based on institutional arrangements, that is, organization. Even so-called free markets are based on legal institutions that provide organization, including the system of property rights. Far from being natural, property is based on legal rights embedded in social organization and social cohesion.

The question then becomes whether libertarianism is a viable social, political and economic theory at all. My conclusion to this is neither yes not no, but maybe. It depends on the level of collective consciousness. Spontaneous order arises from freedom to the degree that individuals are conscious of interdependence individually and in large enough numbers to be collectively conscious of interdependence.

The question then becomes one of raising the level of collective consciousness culturally to the degree that interdependence is strongly evidenced in a society's institutional arrangements. Quite evidently this begins with early childrearing and education.

Every parent soon realizes that children left "free to choose" will pursue their own perceived self-interest even when it is detrimental to themselves and others. Childrearing and education are about the process of socialization that humans go through to fit them for social life as individuals. This requires realizing that one's boundaries don't stop at one's body. Life is a web, or as we would now say, a "network" or "system."

Societies are functional to the degree this learning process is successful and dysfunctional to the degree that the socialization process fails. This is also true of parts of society since societies are organized systems in which the parts — elements and nested subsystem — affected the whole and vice versa. Societies are wholes and the dysfuctionality even one subsystem affects the holism of the entire system.

The whole is greater than the sum of the parts owing to the relationships that provide its organization, and each part affects the whole. Societies are collectively autocatalytic either functional or dysfunctional and based on the reactions. It is difficult to be a good person in a bad society, and also difficult to be a bad person in a good society, where quality is a function of social norms embedded in cultural and institutions.

Western civilization is based on the Greek idea that individuals freely choose the laws under which they live. This assumes the ability of citizens to choose wisely. In this view, therefore, a free society is a based on wisdom. This idea was later melded with the Christian view, which was derived from the Jewish Law, that love is a law unto itself (Deuteronomy 6:5, Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:37, Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27). As Augustine summarized the teaching:  "Love and do what you will." Love is the great unifier. Spiritually, unconditional love takes on beyond the point value of ego to realization of what lie beyond the horizon of limited ego.

The other foundation of Western civilization, along with the rise of science and technology, is Roman law, order and organization. The West was able to dominate the world based on these latter two influences. However, Western soft power arises from the former two influences, which can be summarized as freedom, truth, and love.

In this view, freedom as the pursuit of self-interest or rational utility maximization is "natural" in the sense of what the animal nature in human being is guided by whereas life in a civilized society requires transcending one's animal nature to become truly human. This is the work of a lifetime. The Greeks called it philosophia meaning "love of wisdom" as the progressive unfolding of full potential, both as an individual and as a human being. It Aristotle's view of virtue ethics it involved building character. Order is spontaneous, therefore, to the extent that it is cultured. This implies that it must be enculturated.

There is no single optimal culture that is natural. Different people will approach the challenge of becoming truly human individually and as a society differently. However, freedom is not the outcome of a 'free society," but individual freedom and a free society are the outcome of a good society as one in which citizens are striving to live a good life in harmony. There is no one best way to life a good life. Every individual and every society has to deal with its own characteristics and the opportunities and challenges that arise in the course of individual and social life.

Stumbling and Mumbling
Hating libertarians
Chris Dillow | Investors Chronicle

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Opponents of libertarianism sometimes fail to see that freedom leads not to anarchy and chaos but to spontaneous order.

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... this has been the big intellectual fad for 30-40 years now. There are whole institutes devoted to studying the many mathematical miracles of spontaneous organization, "emergence", etc. There is much valuable truth in that work, but it also a fertile source of superficial hand-waving and convenient just-so stories. Sometimes the best way to get order out of a mess is for intelligent people to make rules and enforce them; or make strategic plans and execute them. Civilization didn't just "emerge" from barbarism because it all just spontaneously fell together. It took a lot of hard work and assertive, big picture planning and organization, and a whole bunch of laws and law enforcement.

Also, that "spontaneous order" that does emerge? Sometimes it's a vile, evil and oppressive order. You can have spontaneously generated equilibrium in the slave market for human beings; a security system of brutal warlords; a caste system of labor role and economic privilege stratification; or in the Soylent Green industry. The spontaneously generated equilibrium order can also be stupid and pointless - though stable.

Once we have cooked and sterilized our planet, I'm sure a new way of living within the confines of our crappier planet will spontaneously emerge from the wreckage.

Six said...

I'm libertarian in the sense that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't negatively impact others. Of course, most everything we do impacts others, often negatively. And than things get complicated.

Tom Hickey said...

@ Six

This is the why and wherefore of the development of law and rights. It's a balancing act with tradeoffs.

mike norman said...

Spontaneous order is an oxymoron. Second law of Thermodynamics. Entropy increases.

Marian Ruccius said...

As Locke noted, government by trust is even more important than government by rights. The collective will is almost as important as the individual right, and sometimes more important.

Peace, order and good government are better guarantors of freedom and democracy.

Tom Hickey said...

An argument can be mounted that everything that emerges is the result of spontaneous (natural) order in that the opposite of order is chaos (randomness). On the other hand, the overall tendency is entropic.

In this sense, the Greeks would have been correct in seeing slavery as "natural" since it emerged from the developmental process just like everything else. but that process is emergent and through the process of natural development slavery came to be regarded as a violation of fundamental rights and dignity.

But that's not what emergence of "spontaneous order from adoption of freedom" means to libertarians thatare Rousseauvians who believe this applies universally and if it doesn't work in any particular case, it's because people are not yet free enough.

I am a qualified Rousseauvian. Our natural state is not our normal state. This is what the myth of the Fall is meant to represent symbolically. The perennial teaching is that nothing needs to be added, only the obstacles removed. For example, the analogy of polishing a mirror (mind) or a sword (discrimination). "Happy the clean in heart -- because they shall see God" (Mt. 5:8, Young's Literal Translation).

Matt Franko said...

"Happy the clean in heart -- because they shall see God"

Here's another from that chapter: "happy are the meek".... ???? today, the meek get run over....

"happy are the poor...": ?????? ... today, the poor are manifestly screwed....

I get the idea that when things eventually go the way the Lord is describing here, its going to be an era that is extremely hard on the libertarians among us.... as hard as this libertarian era has been/is on the meek, the poor and the clean of heart, the oncoming era will be just as hard on the libertarians...

Perhaps our recent throwing off of the near 2,000 year yoke of the metals is at least indicative of the first step in this direction.... and not a "false start"...

Tom Hickey said...

"Happy are the poor in spirit for they shall inherit the kingdom of God" can be interpreted as those who are without desire will realize their true nature.

This is widely reflected throughout perennial wisdom. Desire focuses ego on its point value resulting in the inability to realize infinite consciousness.

"The meek" is a quote of Psalm 37:11: "Psalm 37:11 — "But the meek will inherit the land
and delight themselves in abundant peace." (Complete Jewish Bible)

"Meek" can be interpreted as being yielding, accepting of what is, instead of being unyielding and resistant.

According to perennial wisdom acceptance of what happens (as "God's will" in religious term) is freeing. To enter the way, cease grasping and clinging, and resisting and avoiding. Entering the way, you will realize who you really are.

Anonymous said...

Consider a 'Universal Energy' to which nothing can be added or taken away; without beginning or end, without entropy or extropy, without involution or evolution, without movement or stillness, perfect, without individuality or a collective, without morality or immortality, without gods or mortals …..

From it all of the stars and galaxies, universes, come out to play.

To the human consciousness, perception of this Energy is that of a 'Father', qualified by an unconditional and simple Love, and appreciation (active intelligence) of all that has been (temporarily) created. The Flame that is the Father is the spark that is the son. The two are connected by 'Breath'. Gratitude is the strong bridge. The human consciousness is the entity, the door that links the two worlds or poles, made manifest by the Father: matter at one pole, pure Spirit at the other. Consciousness is the fire that burns between the two.

Whoever pokes their head through the looking glass, even if for a billionth of a second, sees the world dreaming, and the reality endlessly, joyously, flowing. No-one made it like that – it just is.

We strive to perfect, perfect, perfect – make our dreaming fit the reality (and so we should) which to us is some distant, faint, feeling – hard to define. We call it the desire to be fulfilled; one life, one opportunity. We have our formulas.

Its hard for some to comprehend, but the human heart is the tool for this job: mind just understands. Isn't consciousness an amazing thing …... I think the plan should be to discover, uncover what is within – as well as build the society. The one without the other is like a one-legged duck, swimming in circles.

I do not know if a cyclone is spontaneous order, disorder or both - but at the center there is still movement, and it is Still. That's where I would like to be in a storm.

Bob Roddis said...

“Spontaneous order” presumes a prohibition on the initiation of force and the protection of the property and person of even the most powerless. An example is the music of the sixties. There was no central plan thought up in advance and imposed by force. People invented new ways of expressing themselves and those that were a hit with the public were successful. The public was fickle and styles changed almost three times a year.

Also, that "spontaneous order" that does emerge? Sometimes it's a vile, evil and oppressive order. You can have spontaneously generated equilibrium in the slave market for human beings; a security system of brutal warlords; a caste system of labor role and economic privilege stratification; or in the Soylent Green industry. The spontaneously generated equilibrium order can also be stupid and pointless - though stable.

But none of those horrible things are possible when the non-aggression principle is in force.

The "mistake" that Hayek makes is the excluded middle. He assume that there is no range between the poles of free market economy with near perfect competition and a command economy on the model of the USSR, for example.

There is no “middle ground” between the non-aggression principle and the initiation of force. The NAP does not fail and there is no basis to ever initiate force against non-criminals (who are criminals precisely because they have violated the NAP). That’s why you guys constantly obfuscate these simple concepts because the NAP is so easy to understand and apply.

Tom Hickey said...

Again, non-aggression is a necessary for a functional society in that security of person is inherent in the right to life and liberty. It is also a necessary condition among societies. But it is not a sufficient condition

Septeus7 said...

“Spontaneous order” presumes a prohibition on the initiation of force and the protection of the property and person of even the most powerless.

Protection is an initiation of force. Property is a coercion against the non-propertied.

The powerless are always prey.

The NAP isn't a principle it is a tempting incoherence. It an answer for a complex problem that is clear, simple, and wrong.

All economics begins with the rejection of the NAP and reality of complex tradeoffs.

Libertarianism isn't to be debated. It is to be smashed.

Tom Hickey said...

According to perennial wisdom, if there is a single fundamental principle governing human action it is the negative version of the Gold Rule: Don't do to others what you don't like for yourself.

The positive version is also needed for a good society: Do to others what you would like for yourself.

That may have sufficed for smaller, simpler societies, but modern society is large and complex, A systems approach is therefore required, and this is what articulating the fundamentals of a good society is about. It's an ongoing challenge owing to emergence.

The aim is holistic high functionality in which the potential of individuals, subsystems, and the society asa whole are simultaneously and continually optimized with respect to ever-changing conditions.

Bob Roddis said...

Tom Hickey is right: Again, non-aggression is a necessary for a functional society in that security of person is inherent in the right to life and liberty. It is also a necessary condition among societies. But it is not a sufficient condition

Of course there is more to life than the prohibition upon the initiation of force and violence. That does not detract from the importance of enforcing a prohibition upon the initiation of force and violence:

The fact is that libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life.

Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit, except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism.

It should not be surprising, therefore, that there are libertarians who are indeed hedonists and devotees of alternative lifestyles, and that there are also libertarians who are firm adherents of “bourgeois” conventional or religious morality. There are libertarian libertines and there are libertarians who cleave firmly to the disciplines of natural or religious law. There are other libertarians who have no moral theory at all apart from the imperative of non-violation of rights. That is because libertarianism per se has no general or personal moral theory.

Libertarianism does not offer a way of life; it offers liberty, so that each person is free to adopt and act upon his own values and moral principles. Libertarians agree with Lord Acton that “liberty is the highest political end” – not necessarily the highest end on everyone’s personal scale of values.


https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/myth-and-truth-about-libertarianism/

Under the NAP, there is nothing to stop 60% or 10% of the population from agreeing to abide by a voluntary MMT/"progressive" social system among themselves.