Buchanan on Liberalism

In conversation recently, Bob Higgs praised Jim Buchanan by emphasizing that "Buchanan is deeeeeeep." Indeed he is. I never read Buchanan without feeling as though my vision is widened.

Buchanan’s latest book, Why I, too, Am Not a Conservative (2005), brims with deep and splendid insights. He is especially good on the meaning of liberalism. Its indispensable core, in Buchanan’s view (and in mine), is the rejection of the idea that "some ‘good’ … exists independently from individual value creation."

Here’s the longer quotation found on page 22:

If the idealistic vision of politics is accepted, if the activity does, indeed, consist in the continuing search for some ‘good’ that exists independently from individual value creation, there could be little justificatory argument for democratic structures. In this setting there is a necessary bias toward allowing ‘experts’ to lead the search. There is little room for democracy in this basically Platonic vision. If, however, transcendent values do not exist, and persons must create their own values, how can those of some persons be deemed more important than those of others? In this vision, there is a necessary initial bias toward natural equality, the setting within which Adam Smith accepted as the framework of his ideas.

The empirical reality that each of us differs from others — that, for example, Tyler Cowen is much, much smarter than me; that Bill Gates is much richer than me; that Paul Krugman’s audience is bigger than mine; that Brad Pitt is better-looking than me; and on and on — does not render the presumption of equality invalid or unimportant. My values are still mine; I am as entitled to them as you are to yours. Moreover, I am as capable of choosing my values as, say, Krugman is capable of choosing his — and I am much more capable of choosing my values than Krugman is of choosing my values. There’s no individualism, no liberalism, if each of our values is smothered and squelched by some set of pretend transcendent values forced on us by our ‘betters.’

Comments Share Print Email

John P.

Don -- Buchanan doesn't charge that. His publisher (Edward Elgar) charges that. That's probably the lowest price they can have and still cover the expense of publishing a book in hard copy that will sell a couple hundred copies tops. Buchanan probably got paid a relative pittance.

Don Mynack

$75? Does that include a CD-ROM with code examples? Where does this guy get off charging that kind of jack?

Mathieu Bedard

Mr. Boudreaux,

I guess I'm a little confused, are you questionning the existence of a natural law?

Mathieu Bedard

Alexander

Most of the previous comments seem to miss the boat on just what liberalism and "transcendent" values mean. Liberalism, at least philosophically conceived (not as it is typically categorized in the political media) means a government that is neutral in respect to what constitutes "the good" in life. That is, each individual must decide for himself or herself what the good is and be allowed to pursuit it within reason (e.g. not infringing upon the capacity of others to pursue their own conception of the good).

Clearly some conceptions of the good, such as extremist Islamic views, are simply unreasonable and unsanctionable from a liberal perspective--perhaps a weakness of the tradition. But broadly speaking, the idea that the government ought not take a stand on what is the best type of life and therefore does not enforce that conception on its people seems to work better than either conservatism or other forms of perfectionism.

Grant R

To elucidate on my cryptic coughing, Nietzsche believed ardently in value creation and he was fervently anti-egalitarian.

Grant R

Dr. Boudreaux, in your previous post you write:

"The narrow cost-benefit solution might well be further restrictions on immigration -- I say "might," not "is" -- even if, in my opinion, such restrictions are unethical because they violate the basic human rights of Americans and foreigners alike."

Basic human rights? That sounds pretty "transcendent," to me, especially as it extends to Americans and foreigners alike, presumably apart from any political structure. You qualify it with "in my opinion," but if all rights are based on "opinion" then, ha!, these are some rights we have.

From the Buchanan quote:

"If, however, transcendent values do not exist, and persons must create their own values, how can those of some persons be deemed more important than those of others? In this vision, there is a necessary initial bias toward natural equality..."

An initial bias toward natural equality when we each exercise the will to power in value creation? Cough, Nietzsche, cough?

It seems that equality needs to be predicated on something firmer than "an initial bias."

Noah Yetter

"What about logic? Is it transcendent or is logic different for everyone? And if logic is transcendent, then what about truth? Isn't truth objective?"

Logic is not a value, it is a fact. Put another way, logic is not "good" or "bad", it simply *is*.

Matt

Geez. $75 for 128 pages? Must be nice to be a Nobel Laureate. :)

Ashish Hanwadikar

What about the value in respectiving others freedom in choosing their own values? Is this just a ordinary subjective value or transcendental one?

Eli

What about logic? Is it transcendent or is logic different for everyone? And if logic is transcendent, then what about truth? Isn't truth objective?

I have no desire to impose my set of values on you, nor do I think I am any better than you, but let's not pretend that everyone who believes in transcendent values is an ogre. Values may be transcendent, and people may be equally entitled to discover those values (or not) in due time and in a manner of their choosing.

John P.

dm -- I'm not certain what Buchanan meant, but regarding your questions, you may be interested in Richard Posner's "Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory" (2002).

Morgan

"There's no individualism, no liberalism, if each of our values is smothered and squelched by some set of pretend transcendent values forced on us by our 'betters.'"

I agree in most respects with this statement, but we shouldn't forget that set of trancendant values that doesn't "smother and squelch" our individual values - it enables them. I'm thinking of things like recognizing property rights, which is fine with me even if it is forced on us by our betters.

dm

Transcendental values don't exist? The post is too abstract for me to get a handle on what the author means by it. Is the author directing this statement to moral values? I take it that the author understands "transcendental values" to be synonymous with objective values, meaning norms that are true for everyone at everytime in history. Is he denying that this understanding is correct? If that is his understanding, then some rather disturbing implications follow from it.

Aren't the taboo against incest and the prohibition against killing an innocent human being two examples of transcendant values? Or are they rightfully prohibited only to the extent that the general sentiment of society at a particular time in history is against them? If the latter statement is true, then what's to stop slavery from receiving legal sanction once again?

Don

Alas we have another fine mess of political labeling on our hands. Buchanan, in his title, rejects conservativism, yet you highlight a passage that shows that JB's political philosophy is simpatico with the ostensible political vision of what the media dubs "conservatives." Compare JB's "liberalism" with that of, say, Nick Kristoff's "liberalism" which would initiate a tax on sugary beverages because he thinks there are too many obese children. Or the "liberalism" of Social Security, or healthcare insurance mandates, or CAFE standards, or, or, or.