Doers vs. thinkers

I can quibble with a single word.

"Jim takes an authentic risk by starting a business. He ends up employing 20 people and creating the capital that helps pay for their health insurance — as well as fund many of the social safety net programs that Mr. Hoover dreams up."

Jim doesn't "create" capital here. He organizes it. At best, he creates an organization of capital. At some point, on some scale, even his own organization becomes one of the corporations that collect taxes rather than pay them. Even if Jim tries to resist this evolution of the organization with all he's worth, he can't resist it, because at some point, on some scale, he doesn't really create the organization either. He only organizes other organizers. Hopefully, he gets that too.

More telling about Bentham is his utilitarianism. Staying within Readers' Digest proportions, he refused natural rights while making a broad case for liberty itself.

Thus freed from "natural" rights he - and many collectivists after him - were able to say liberty and the rights that liberty entails were whatever the society at large accepted them to be.

So murder or theft of private property are recognized as "crimes" simply because our society has evolved in that manner. It just so happened that it was for the good of the majority that such things be crimes.

BUT . . . there's always a but. . but this leaves the state open to impose new "rights" while claiming it's for the good of the majority. (Pete Singer, your office is calling.)

Thus Bentham preached a most perverse kind of "liberty:" he'd fit right into an Obama Whitehouse. Speak of liberty while imposing the will of the state on the populace as a whole for their own good.

Maybe Bentham's Utilitarianism was less circumspect than later varieties, but this caricature is laughable. You're right about one thing. It stays well within Readers' Digest proportions.

Your "natural" rights are not free of any collectivizing central authority. They're just one more set of centrally authorized entitlements that you want to impose. Labeling these entitlements "natural" doesn't make you less a collectivist, even if you repeat your mantra endlessly.

We can call forcible impositions what they are and judge the consequences by some utilitarian standard, or we can simply impose rights we label "natural" and shoot down every objection as "anti-Nature".

The most central authority is most suspect, and I can tell you why I think so in utilitarian terms. A utilitarian can conclude that a minimal state organized around classical property is most useful, but I'll stick with Bentham on the general proposition. You aren't actually Nature, and you don't speak for Nature either, even if you think you do.

"we can simply impose rights we label "natural" and shoot down every objection as "anti-Nature""

There you go again, MB. One day you will identify the concepts, and come closer to reality. Man really does have a nature, and the more you contemplate your observations of man, the sooner you will recognize what that nature is, what rights are, and how rights necessarily derive from that nature.

Man has a nature, but you aren't lord of man's nature, and your preferences for threatening to shoot people are not "naturally right".

MB - in the end it comes down to brute force. Always has and always will be. Physics trumps good ideas in the end.

What is the nature of homo sapiens? Beyond the need for food and shelter, I can't really see how property rights and the institutions that protect capitalism derive from basic human nature. These are evolved concepts.

Good post. Utilitarianism is an antiphilosophy.

Well Daniel,

How much government do you think we should have, what exactly should it do, and how do you arrive at your conclusion?

BTW, I disagreed with going into Iraq. But not for the left wingnuttery reasons. But if you don't disagree with it because of THEIR reasons, then you're still a right wing nut and are to be instantly dismissed out of hand.

I was didisappointed when I read Mankiw's blog praising the original Brook's piece. But I was very disappointed when I saw Munger, on his blog, give Brooks a little love. The Brooks piece struck me as way too paternalistic for my tastes; if Brooks's idea of policy making is just two choices and they both involve "Just do something!", and two social scientists that a hold in high regard like that kind of drivel, I'm affraid we're all smoked. Thank God for The Cafe -- my escape from the realities of this (many times stupid) world.

When Mr. Hoover is a corporate owned and run government ...yes he wins. But when Mr Hoover is as Teddy Roosevelt said, " The government is us we are the government, you and I." then we win. That's the only way.

It's always a "they" on here. It is never a "we". That's the fundamental illiberal bedrock of modern libertarianism - and yet somehow modern libertarianism still has this idea that it is the protector and really the modern expression of classical liberalism.

This where the collectivist idiots shine, blinding stupidity and ignorance.

Hoover is a fool, Teddy Roosevelt lied. There is no we, he knew, and I know it; but, you socialist fools and most of the rest of America are so brainwashed and indoctrinated that no one recognizes the truth.

We? Crap. Jesse Helms, one man, Senator chair of the Senate Foreign Relations committee personally and individually denied William Weld, Clinton's appointee to be the Ambassador to Mexico, any chance of approval or confirmation. He did it by standing individually firm and resolute against all the democrats and most of his own party.

There is no we. There is me and they.

Over 70% are now convinced that any government involvement in healthcare would be a disaster, yet "they" (Reid and Pelosi) are going to use Art 1, Sec 5, para 2, to ram that sucker down our throats through house and senate rules, they wrote, to allow them to attach it to another bill as an amendment, thus allowing all the nay sayers to vote for it and deny responsibility.

There is no we.

Sooner you two stupid socialists learn that the better off your world will be.

Another illustration of my point rears it's head, although you're about an hour later than Arrowsmith.

How do we really talk about this when it's all "collectivist idiot" and "stupid socialist" with you?

"Collectivist idiots" and "stupid socialist" have ideas that are proven not to work, those ideas bring moral and financial degeneration to any society that tries to make them work.

Why in the name of God, would I want to "really talk to you" about anything when you are wrong now, wrong yesterday, and, unless you have your "road to Damascus" moment tonight, you will be wrong tomorrow.

Your input to this entire thread consist of silly ass leftist loving drivel and shows just how far to the left you are.

So, I thank you for your service to the truth.

Here's where libertarians are mostly consistent. When they question whether AGW or health care or the financial sectors were "emergencies" that demanded immediate government action, they have in their back pocket the track record of questioning whether Iraq and even Afghanistan were "emergencies" that demanded immediate government action (i.e. war). Libertarians have made the case for why the TSA is an expensive, time consuming joke when it comes to security.

So, Daniel Hoover... Are you gonna be the guy who tells us which emergencies we are allowed to disagree about? Do you really think you're that wise?

It's funny that you associate that with libertarianism, because I feel like I walk around with Iraq and my thoughts on the TSA in my back pocket too. So clearly that sort of recognition of state incompetence doesn't necessarily lead to libertarianism (although it can).

We're allowed to disagree about any emergency. That's the whole idea, BoscoH. I'm not saying don't disagree. By all means disagree and bring a libertarian argument to bear. Like I said - I personally think libertarianism has a lot to offer. But when your fellow classical liberals raise counter-arguments, just counter the counter-arguments. Don't fool yourself into thinking your fellow classical liberals are socialists or anti-freedom out of a misguided impulse to circle the wagons.

RE: "So, Daniel Hoover..."

Hume - it's Daniel Hume. But your mistake is understandable - and really inevitable when people plug their ears when the Humes and the Lockes speak, and sensationalize the Hoovers and the Benthams into a quasi-Marxism.

I personally think libertarianism has a lot to offer. But when your fellow classical liberals raise counter-arguments, just counter the counter-arguments. Don't fool yourself into thinking your fellow classical liberals are socialists or anti-freedom out of a misguided impulse to circle the wagons.

Thank you Mother.

Dude - he asked a question. I clarified in response to that question. This is how discussions go, sandre. No sarcasm necessary.

Ah Danny's true socialist colors coming out. Why you ever pretended to be anything but...

The problem with the modern liberals is their dogmatic insistence on an absolutely free market.

-Hayek, The Road the Serfdom (paraphrase)

This is the quote: "Probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rules of thumb, above all of the principle of laissez-faire capitalism"

That's one reason why many of us appreciate Hayek but are more attracted to Rothbard.

Hear, hear.

An illustration presents itself within eight minutes! A wonderful example of how modern libertarianism has trashed liberalism. I respect a lot that the libertarian perspective has to offer without being quite on the same page. Libertarianism itself is not the problem, in that sense - even if I don't think it's the solution either. The problem is this impulse to dismiss the rest of liberalism as socialism or worse. To get back to the original subject of Russ's post - it's the impulse to (1.) entirely dismiss (or, on occassion, co-opt) the Humes and the Lockes from the equation, (2.) sensationalize the often wrong but still insightful Bentham into a Marxist, and (3.) appropriate what's left of classical liberalism after these purges for themselves and claim they were the only real liberals all along.

Libertarians don't own a monopoly on dismissal. Brooks' latest column is a great example of how he dismisses the Jims.

A reasoned response to Brooks: Perhaps both are wrong. Following Hume opens the door to Bentham and that's reason enough to be suspicious of Hume's solutions, even though it sounds slightly better.

I've been waiting to see one reasoned response to John Mackey's (a good example of a Jim) column about health care. What I've seen so far is outright dismissal of his point-of-view. Why?

That's interesting - I'd call Mackey a Hume, not a Jim. It just goes to show that the common liberalism provides a stronger common base than some libertarians (and I want to emphasize "some") like to think. Do you think there's been a dismissal? I think there's been a lot of support for him. I wish there was more support in Congress, of course, rather than rushing through bigger changes.

And yes - Brooks is incomplete as well. I also thought he (1.) oversimplified both Hume and Bentham, and (2.) caricatured modern policy makers too. There were definite shortcomings that could be criticized there too. The difference I see is that modern Lockeans or Jeffersonians, for example, don't try to flush out libertarians or Austrians or communitarians from the liberal tradition. That's what I see as really dangerous - and these two articles were more a spring-board for that than anything else.

Daniel,

You really do have a point, so I say screw 'em all.

I am an individualist. There is no "we" that has value in and of itself. If the nation, or state, or corporation, or any other "we", has value to me, great. And if it doesn't, then it doesn't - period. And I decide.

"If he can't convince us, he has the power to bribe, print money, "compel" citizens, bully and monopolize the process. It's no more complicated than that."

These words at the very end of the column were most meaningful as it illustrates again just how much power has been centralized in our government...and how much it continues to be centralized. And I don't think the typical person on the street understands it.

We'll see if these words hold vis a vis the health care debate, which polls show something like 70% of the public is against (I know, I know....depends on what/how it's being asked), but that B.O. and his comrades are insistent on enacting.

Historically lots of "Jim"s have been Mr. Hoovers -- including President Hoover.

They think the country can be run and controlled like they control their employees and organize their machines.

Not all socialists or "progressives" were trust fund children or union thugs.

"Jim hates that it will be implemented by the state through force."

The moral argument is the necessary and sufficient dividing factor. It is the perfect litmus test. And it is simple and accessible to nearly all levels of human intellect.

What is interesting about this post, and the one preceding it, is they encapsulate the full economic debate of today. For those who think that both posts are transparently true, it is a mystery why people confuse "complexity" with truth. Mr Hoover is in fact the simpleton, and Jim truly understands nuance. Yet, they appear to most as if the opposite were true. The successful politician will be the person who can make this case to the public.

I agree. But, I do have one wonderment, linking through to the article by Brooks, I'd like to know his anti-aging process that allowed that youthful picture.

Here is a direct quote from Brooks' summation that again reveal that subtle way of presenting the agenda of the leftwing.

"The people on Mr. Bentham’s side believe that government can get actively involved in organizing innovation. (I’ve taken his proposals from the Waxman-Markey energy bill and the Baucus health care bill.)

The people on Mr. Hume’s side believe government should actively tilt the playing field to promote social goods and set off decentralized networks of reform, but they don’t think government knows enough to intimately organize dynamic innovation."

Brooks tells us that that is the two points of view in America, and Brooks is, of course, a smart man. So, many will let that slip into their brains as the way to frame the debate.

It is false, of course. We know that there is the more realistic picture presented by Harsanyi, not only more realistic but much more accurate.

The debate is not between the total control of Mr Bentham and the partial control of Mr. Hume, that is the left wing lie, that America is more or less on the left wing page. Which of course implies that we all want some sort of control but only disagree on the degree of control.

Harsanyi tells it like it is. The debate is the same as it always has been, between control and freedom.

I don't know - I don't think Harsanyi is developing from Brooks so much as turning it around and going right back to the framing of the debate that Brooks is trying to get away from. Brooks is saying that the real debate isn't between statists and free marketers - it's between a more and less communitarian version of classical liberalism. The point is we CAN be Humes. It's possible to recognize and address problems without micromanaging the solution and that's the direction we need to go, not crying "statism" every time somebody says "you know... it looks like we may have a problem here and we oughta do something about it.

Harsanyi ignores the Hume option (which is exactly the option we need to be promoting), turns Mr. Bentham into Mr. Hoover, and introduces a Jim character that is sympathetic and would probably be convinced by a Hume (because most Americans, while rightfully suspicious of government, don't hate it) if only Harsanyi gave Hume a chance.

For decades, Milton Friedman advised a moderate inflation of the money supply to keep pace with increasing productivity and real wealth.

Eventually he gave up on the idea of politicians following his "moderation" advice.

you know... it looks like we may have a problem here and we oughta do something about it.

That's not exactly what they are saying, everyone recognizes there are problems, the pertinent question is what exactly is the problem and why do we have the problem.

Aside from intended effects, government action is not transparent, as so-called "progressives" pretend.

"Friedman advised a moderate inflation of the money supply to keep pace with increasing productivity and real wealth."

He did recommend a transparent predictable mechanical formula for increasing the money supply with economic growth. It is, however, a system requiring a central bank and currency monopoly under its control. It is also unclear that there is even any advantage to targeting a fixed valuation of the dollar during economic growth.

It was a proposal, much like his negative income tax, that revealed Friedman to be a central planner. A better central planner maybe, but a central planner nonetheless.

I just finished reading his and his wife's "Free to Choose". I can't agree that he was a central planner. He made several great cases for advantages of bottoms-up innovation that comes along with freedom.

I did find their support for the negative income tax strange. I understood their logic - it would be an improvement to welfare that reward inactivity and supports vast bureaucracies and they didn't believe it would work very well unless it replaced the other welfare systems. But, to me, that falls into the camp of well intentioned, bad policy. It almost seemed as if they viewed it as a compromise. "If you're going to do it, do it this way..."

"I can't agree that he was a central planner."

There's a special place in my heart for Friedman, but what is a monetarist if not a central planner? How can one advocate for centralized exclusive ownership and manipulation of the money supply and not be, by definition, a central planner?

Isn't it more likely that he thought it would be less economically detrimental and more politically feasible? It probably wasn't his ideal, but it was a step in the right direction.

I would like to believe you, given the wealth of sound arguments he gave against central planning. If you can give me a reference, it would make my day.

Do you have any reason to believe that Friedman's assessment of the great depression placed blame on the Fed for creating the bubble, rather than just its response to it? If just the latter, it would seem to be tantamount to an endorsement for central planning.

I don't have any reference, sorry. I do remember reading somewhere that many of his policy recommendations were not his ultimate ideals, but what he thought might be politically feasible, but I'm not sure if it was legitimate. It seems to make sense, though.

I never understood why Friedman abandoned that just as it seemed that central bankers were (more or less) taking his advice. If you had to guess a time that Friedman would throw his hands up in futility and abandon it as practical, you'd think he would have done that much earlier and then come back around to the idea later. I'm guessing it had more to do with his ideological progression than any sort of empirical reevaluation.

Perhaps he realized that any alignment of FED actions with his recommendation was mere coincidence and not a product of any intention of following his advice.

He did always endeavor to maintain credibility within the mainstream in hopes of having influence on policy. I supposelater on in life hie bacame less concerned.

I once asked him to sign a petition (at a Libertarian party convention) regarding drug prohibition, but he would not sign it out of concern of appearing allied with the Libertarian party.

RE: "Perhaps he realized that any alignment of FED actions with his recommendation was mere coincidence and not a product of any intention of following his advice."

Eh, I don't know. I think a lot of people who wish Milton Friedman was something that he wasn't underestimate the massive amount of respect for him and his ideas in the discipline and in government. You assume he secretly was a libertarian but was afraid to admit it. I'm guessing he was like most economists out there - he had very strong libertarian sympathies, he was a principled supporter of freedom, but he didn't always draw the same philosophical conclusions from that that some self-identified libertarians or Austrians do. I really don't think it's coincidence - Friedman is highly respected among policy makers, and rightfully so.

You assume he secretly was a libertarian but was afraid to admit it.

You may assume that I assume that, but what I think is that he became MORE libertarian as time went on. I have no reason so suppose that he embraced the libertarian agenda. I also suppose that what encouraged his libertarian progression was a lifetime of watching politicians.

That does it for a lot of people.

I think most are rightfully becoming more and more suspicious of the Progressive agenda. They gave us Social Security, which is about to be a big problem. They gave us Medicare, which already is a big problem. They promised to save the world by interfering in the world, and now we have soldiers dying in Afghanistan (can you say WTF?! boys and girls?) and pouring money into blackholes on several continents. Meanwhile we watch them getting richer and richer by siphoning off a few million here and a few million there from their multitude of so-called "services", and now they say they want us to give free healthcare to everybody while spending trillions to cool the planet by a degree over the next century. What can I say... we are rightfully suspicious.

It's all quite Orwellian, no? All the inconvenient facts go straight down the "memory hole", exactly as Orwell predicted. Our media has never been more dangerous then now.

"Mr. Hoover is an awesome lunch partner, though. If you ask him to recommend an Ethiopian restaurant, he'll rattle off the six best in Washington"

haha.. a bit of mr tyler cowen maybe?