Any Principle Here?

by Don Boudreaux on February 2, 2010

in Myths and Fallacies, Weblogs

Tom Palmer understandably takes issue with Jonathan Chait’s and Matt Yglesias’s criticisms of my Mercatus Center colleague Veronique de Rugy.  But as I reflect on a principle that these bloggers inadvertently point to in their attacks on Vero, I find myself to be potentially in agreement with them.

Chait and Yglesias each suggest that a person from France (in this case, Veronique) has no business criticizing a policy proposed by an American (in this case, Barney Frank).  And surely these bloggers are each standing on some principle — rather than on pure expediency or ad hominem-ism — to justify their position.

So what might that principle be?  One possibility is this: mind your own business (“MYOB”).

The very same principle that sparks Chait and Yglesias to object to someone from France butting her nose into the business of someone from America might — if Chait and Yglesias were to reflect seriously on their reactions to Vero — also prompt Chait and Yglesias to object to someone from Massachusetts butting his nose into the business of someone from Virginia.  The healthy implication here, of course, is that Barney Frank should mind the business of his own state and not that of other states.

But principles being principles, the implication of the MYOB principle runs even more deeply.

The MYOB principle goes all the way to telling Barney Frank to, well, mind his own business.  Mr. Frank, for example, isn’t a Boudreaux — so what business does Mr. Frank have in presuming to pass judgment on how I spend my income or live my life?  Even another Boudreaux isn’t Donald Joseph Boudreaux, now residing in Fairfax, Virginia, so it’s quite intolerable that any other Boudreaux might presume to have any authority to butt into my business.

…..

Of course, I’m certain that Chait and Yglesias somehow manage, in their own minds, to justify a Massachusetts Frank butting into the affairs of a Virginia Boudreaux (and also into the affairs of countless others). But, then, I must join in the criticisms offered by Tom Palmer to ask Chait and Yglesias: on what grounds do you justify your criticism of Veronique de Rugy commenting on policies proposed by Barney Frank?

Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • Nina
    Can you, wise ones, please tell me whether 'principles' have any gender, race or borders ?
  • Jim C.
    I am a Republican, and I agree with de Rugy's points.

    I think the problem here is the unqualified term "anti-American". On reflection, I'm not happy with it. It's true that anyone can say anything about another country, and all in that country are free to consider or ignore it. But stating what is the essence of that country belongs to the citizens alone. A non-citizen saying that is very presumptuous. I would not say such a thing about another country.

    If she had said something like "This seems to be a direct contradiction of established American principles", I would have no objection.
  • mark l.
    funny...

    they spent the past year telling us about the marvel of healthcare to be found in europe.

    if a foreigner is unqualified to gauge the success/failure of another country...

    clearly they are experts on eu healthcare, while de rugy has only experience with "french economics", not to be confused with macroeconomics.
  • Are they suggesting the validity of an argument is determined by who it making it?
  • sfcmac
    Re: "The very same principle that sparks Chait and Yglesias to object to someone from France butting her nose into the business of someone from America..."

    Of course, Chait and Yglesias had no problem with Eurotrash castigating George W. Bush for eight years. Guess it depends on which nose and whose business.
  • JorgXMcKie
    Ask me a hard one. They justify their criticism by being Progressives who are automatically right all the time. duh.

    And you should recognize that non-Progressive troglodytes like yourself [I mean, Boudreaux, for gosh sakes, could it be any more obvious?] should just shut up and be thankful that your intellectual betters deign to lead/direct/rule you in the name of the Philosopher-King Obama.

    Sheesh.
  • Joe Hooker
    I don't suppose either of those worthy gents has ever heard of Alexis de Tocqueville, the author of the landmark “Democracy in America," which remains one of the best and most penetrating commentaries on our country ever written.
  • ykaeric
    Chait and Yglesias are the same guys who leverage European anti-Americanism when it suits their interest. If I understand correctly, if you're European and disagree with Chait and Yglesias then Mind Your Own Business. But if you're European and agree with Chait and Yglesias, then Chait and Yglesias will use that agreement in an attempt to further buttress their positions. Neither Chait nor Yglesias have discernible principles.
  • Don,

    Great post. Were you born a few centuries earlier and perhaps catalogued as an historical figure in Rothbard's "Conceived in Liberty" this would probably be the point where Rothbard would excitedly describe your stumbling upon the natural intellectual development of philosophical individualist anarchism!

    It's a joy to behold!
  • docweasel
    Oh, I understand. So no "foreigner" is allowed to criticize the doings in any other country but his own. As in, we should never criticize Iran for any policy there, nor Russia, nor China, etc. Got it.

    What their point is of course, is that Chait and Yglesias mean no one who disagrees with them should be allowed to have an opinion. When Europeans were roundly attacking Bush they were quite happy with criticisms of US policy. And what about the Nobel "Peace" committees constant "kicks" at conservative American politicians. I don't remember them complaining about that.
  • matthewyglesias
    Are you guys really this clueless? You really don't get the joke we were making? I find that very hard to believe.
  • mark l.
    let's face it...

    the libs are absolutely 'punch-drunk'.

    if this is the best material...
    shades of the patriotism meme',
    you are going to get your clock cleaned in nov.

    It will be the absolute lowpoint of liberal theology. It will confirm that 94 was not an aberration. losing healthcare, AGAIN, has driven you guys into psychosis.

    starting to get the idea that there is probably a strong relation between olberman's ratings and the lefties on the web. It's almost at a point of where I feel I should post missing trolls on milk cartons.
  • matthewyglesias
    But to spell it out, there's nothing wrong with a French woman giving her view of an American political debate. There is, however, something absurd about a French woman deeming the actions of an American politician to be "anti-American."
  • JasonAMiller
    Yeah...great joke. Way to make fun of a non-native speaker's misuse of the language. You've written endless blog entries and books, and you come from a literary family. Your joke is like Mike Tyson picking out the scrawniest dude in a bar and giving him one of those flash bulb uppercuts.

    Let me spell something out for you: you have no class.
  • benbursae
    Not really absurd, when you consider there is a pretty vast body of historical knowledge regarding the founding principles of our country. Any person who has been exposed to that knowledge is qualified to make a determination of "anti-Americanism," even if they are the citizen of another country since one can appreciate those principles and take offense to their violation without being an actual American citizen. It doesn't seem all that absurd to me, Mr. Yglesias.
  • Dave P
    I think you could make a reasonable argument that Veronique should be allowed her opinion while Barney Frank should have to MHOB and that is profession. When Veronique expresses her opinion it is as a private citizen and even a French citizen has that right protected by the first amendment. Barney on the other hand is a member of congress and often when he expresses his opinion it is as a legislator with the intent of using the strong arm of the law to but in, often--arguably--in violation of the constitution.
  • Guest
    When will Chait and Yglesias tell Andrew Sullivan to shut up?
  • PhilipWalker
    I was going to comment, but I had better mind my own business.
  • Render
    Telling the French to mind their own business has a long and valuable history. I mean, where would we be if we had let that de Tocqueville schmuck run around making observations, eh?
  • Steve
    So the era of caring what Europeans think about American politics ended in January of 2009?
  • MnM
    Brilliant question!!
  • Assistant Village idiot's wife
    Channeling Homer Simpson: Facts! You can prove anything with facts!
  • Ed
    So Ms Rugy shouldn't comment on American matters because she's from France. OK, but I thought attacking someone because of ethnic background was, you know, bad.
  • Guest
    Can these guys get Andrew Sullivan to quit opining on American matters, then?
  • chrisoleary
    I believe that evil is evil, and where you live shouldn't impact your ability to point that out.

    Should we have just left Hitler alone, since he wasn't doing it to us?
  • GODWIN
    I rule!
  • Billy P
    This is, broadly construed, the obvious counterexample, so obvious that I'm surprised Don is showing sympathy for Chait and Yglesias. *Of course* there are no principles preventing people from opining (even intervening) on non-local events. If there is a genocide taking place in country X, I would argue that country Y has an *obligation* to intervene and stop the genocide, given they have the resources to do so.

    Don has also used this blog to mind the situations in various other countries (e.g. Haiti). Should he keep his thoughts to himself, as he is no Haitian?
  • vidyohs
    A foreigner is a foreigner, and no foreigner should tell locals how to run things; and, no local should act the foreigner to anyone else.

    Good post, sir.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: