Here at GMU Econ we tend to lean libertarian, but in a wide range of ways. For example, here are two recent posts by colleagues: Don Boudreaux: The economy is an emergent and dynamic order that was not, and could not possibly be, designed – and, hence, that cannot possibly be successfully engineered. … the economy is not a device or an organization with a purpose. It is, instead, the result of the multitude of interactions of hundreds of millions of diverse individual entities – persons, households, firms, and governments – each pursuing its own purposes. …
Other things are instrumental to liberty. One can choose to sacrifice one's temporary, personal liberty to promote persistent, shared liberty, by promoting health, wealth, education, etc., and such a choice is a laudable, rational application of the calculus. One may even engage in imposing such instrumental goods upon others against their will, on a patronizing rationale, upon the expectation of greater general and persistent liberty being so served, but such acts are fraught with pitfalls and any calculus which accounts for bias and uncertainty would rule out all but overwhelming cases.
It's not a violation. One often sacrifices parochial or temporary interests in favor of global or persistent interests, simply because the latter dominate any rational calculus. My answer then is a qualified yes.
However, I would warn that "hard cases make bad law." I.e. over fitting your general principle to outliers degrades the function of the principle, in the main.
This is the kind of libertarianism that I espouse - I deprecate relative inefficiency in the construction of society without having a priori commitments to specific social tools. If action A fulfills fewer of participant's goals than action B, then action B should be chosen, regardless of the particulars. This is elementary rationality. It just so happens that the type of social construction that we call "government" tends to use slower feedback loops (e.g. four year elections) than what we call "market" (e.g. millisecond-range automated pricing analysis), so usually the government has a lesser ability to respond to inputs than the market, so it is less efficient, so it should not be used, QED. Except when for some reason the market is absent in a sphere of behavior, so the government must be used, kind of like using a cup to carry water when you don't have a bucket. Similarly, government-like mechanisms are more brittle, have failure points, are less able to collect and disseminate information, etc. etc. But sometimes you have to use a crappy tool for a job that needs to be done, if you don't (yet) have a better one.
It's OK to use the government, as long as you realize that it's an unwieldy and dangerous tool, so a reasonable person will approach it like a bicycle with broken brakes, that is with prejudice, not enthusiasm. A poor servant and a terrible master.
The twin problems of governance are that the government uniquely attracts status-maximizing sociopaths and that most humans are dim-witted envious lying hypocrites. Sociopaths mobilize the worst inclinations of the populace and presto, we have redistribution, diversity, the unending war of everybody against everybody else, takers bleeding the makers dry, and AOC.
We libertarians can however explain, exhort and emphasize the smart ways of doing things. Maybe you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and nothing straight can be whittled out of the crooked timber of humanity but in fits and starts and with good luck progress has been made. A curmudgeonly assessment of humanity's brains and moral fiber helps moderate expectations and makes for occasional pleasant surprises, when things turn out middling, rather than thoroughly miserable.
Aubrey, do you agree that there are scenarios where maximizing agent freedom results in collective avoidable suicide (avoidable via temporarily *not* maximizing agent freedom)? If so, would you opt for suicide, or for violating your summum bonum, in such a scenario?
Suppose hypothetically that by giving up one part per billion of our liberty, we could gain a factor of one billion in wealth, health, and safety.
Would you even consider making that tradeoff?
Or do you hold that liberty is not an end in itself, but necessarily leads to other good things (wealth, health, etc.) and any diminution of liberty inevitably leads to less good things?
Just trying to understand where you're coming from.
But at a meta level, I care more about having good feedback/learning/innovation processes.
Perhaps this is your greatest comparative advantage relative to your colleagues. Earlier this week, Don Boudreaux posted a lament that the emergent order of free markets is unappreciated and he linked to a YouTube video by Bill Hammack on The Ingenious Design of The Aluminum Beverage Can.
Bill Hamack's video is a love letter to engineering, or more specifically, the feedback/learning/innovation processes that generate great engineering. Boudreaux presents it as a love letter to free markets. Emergent order is a magnificent phenomena but engineering is not emergent, it is very conscious design.
Free market economists live and breath Leonard Read's "I, Pencil" but I think they could advance their discipline with closer attention to Henry Petroski's "The Pencil". Both are equally magnificent but very different perspectives.
Liberty is a moral axiom: Maximization of agent freedom is the summum bonum. This is the foundation of my libertarianism. Whether that is accomplished by collective action or by market forces is a matter of relative indifference.
I would rather say that the utility of wealth, health, etc. is derived exclusively from the degree and manner in which it contributes to freedom.
If there is a counter-argument to its use as an axiom, it seems very suitable to discuss.
Collective suicide foregoes all future freedom, and hence incurs an unbounded penalty in such a calculus. Therefore, I cannot agree.
I think of it as a grand unification of utilitarianism and the categorical imperative, which seems likely to be an excellent conversation starter.
Other things are instrumental to liberty. One can choose to sacrifice one's temporary, personal liberty to promote persistent, shared liberty, by promoting health, wealth, education, etc., and such a choice is a laudable, rational application of the calculus. One may even engage in imposing such instrumental goods upon others against their will, on a patronizing rationale, upon the expectation of greater general and persistent liberty being so served, but such acts are fraught with pitfalls and any calculus which accounts for bias and uncertainty would rule out all but overwhelming cases.
It's not a violation. One often sacrifices parochial or temporary interests in favor of global or persistent interests, simply because the latter dominate any rational calculus. My answer then is a qualified yes.
However, I would warn that "hard cases make bad law." I.e. over fitting your general principle to outliers degrades the function of the principle, in the main.
This is the kind of libertarianism that I espouse - I deprecate relative inefficiency in the construction of society without having a priori commitments to specific social tools. If action A fulfills fewer of participant's goals than action B, then action B should be chosen, regardless of the particulars. This is elementary rationality. It just so happens that the type of social construction that we call "government" tends to use slower feedback loops (e.g. four year elections) than what we call "market" (e.g. millisecond-range automated pricing analysis), so usually the government has a lesser ability to respond to inputs than the market, so it is less efficient, so it should not be used, QED. Except when for some reason the market is absent in a sphere of behavior, so the government must be used, kind of like using a cup to carry water when you don't have a bucket. Similarly, government-like mechanisms are more brittle, have failure points, are less able to collect and disseminate information, etc. etc. But sometimes you have to use a crappy tool for a job that needs to be done, if you don't (yet) have a better one.
It's OK to use the government, as long as you realize that it's an unwieldy and dangerous tool, so a reasonable person will approach it like a bicycle with broken brakes, that is with prejudice, not enthusiasm. A poor servant and a terrible master.
The twin problems of governance are that the government uniquely attracts status-maximizing sociopaths and that most humans are dim-witted envious lying hypocrites. Sociopaths mobilize the worst inclinations of the populace and presto, we have redistribution, diversity, the unending war of everybody against everybody else, takers bleeding the makers dry, and AOC.
We libertarians can however explain, exhort and emphasize the smart ways of doing things. Maybe you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and nothing straight can be whittled out of the crooked timber of humanity but in fits and starts and with good luck progress has been made. A curmudgeonly assessment of humanity's brains and moral fiber helps moderate expectations and makes for occasional pleasant surprises, when things turn out middling, rather than thoroughly miserable.
That's why I'm a curmudgeonly optimist.
Aubrey, I realized after sending this question that dead people don't have much freedom. So please ignore this question (and answer Dave's:-))
Good reflections on a topic. Knowledgeable post.
Aubrey, do you agree that there are scenarios where maximizing agent freedom results in collective avoidable suicide (avoidable via temporarily *not* maximizing agent freedom)? If so, would you opt for suicide, or for violating your summum bonum, in such a scenario?
Do you mean that literally, at the limit?
Suppose hypothetically that by giving up one part per billion of our liberty, we could gain a factor of one billion in wealth, health, and safety.
Would you even consider making that tradeoff?
Or do you hold that liberty is not an end in itself, but necessarily leads to other good things (wealth, health, etc.) and any diminution of liberty inevitably leads to less good things?
Just trying to understand where you're coming from.
But at a meta level, I care more about having good feedback/learning/innovation processes.
Perhaps this is your greatest comparative advantage relative to your colleagues. Earlier this week, Don Boudreaux posted a lament that the emergent order of free markets is unappreciated and he linked to a YouTube video by Bill Hammack on The Ingenious Design of The Aluminum Beverage Can.
Bill Hamack's video is a love letter to engineering, or more specifically, the feedback/learning/innovation processes that generate great engineering. Boudreaux presents it as a love letter to free markets. Emergent order is a magnificent phenomena but engineering is not emergent, it is very conscious design.
Free market economists live and breath Leonard Read's "I, Pencil" but I think they could advance their discipline with closer attention to Henry Petroski's "The Pencil". Both are equally magnificent but very different perspectives.
Declaring your opinion and that you see it as a moral axiom is a pretty strong conversation ender. There isn't much to talk about after that, right?
Liberty is a moral axiom: Maximization of agent freedom is the summum bonum. This is the foundation of my libertarianism. Whether that is accomplished by collective action or by market forces is a matter of relative indifference.