Swedish Success

Posted in Knowledge problem | Leave a comment

Wilkinson’s Progressive Libertarianism

The Cato Institute’s Will Wilkinson is known for promoting a “liberal-tarian” alliance and hopes that a doctrine of limited government and humanitarian cosmopolitanism could prevail in future generations. I think he might be right, but only if people our age wake up to the fact that future resources that we could be buying awesome stuff with will instead be used to marginally prolong the lives of aging strangers.  With regards to entitlement spending, the demographic situation is tilted heavily against young people, but I doubt that our generation will have an influence on any election for at least 20 years (2008 didn’t count–I predict a return to 2004 level turnout of young voters in the next Presidential election).

I digress. Wilkinson is also really good at portraying libertarianism in a hip liberal-sounding manner. For example, not long ago, he came out of the hot-boxed closet and admitted that he smokes pot… and likes it! He was also the most eloquent voice in the debacle that wasLibertarian Nostalgia Fest 2010. Today he has an especially insightful post exposing the philosophy of John Rawls as decidedly illiberal. Rawls’ veil of ignorance is often used to justify government intervention on behalf of the worst-off of members of society. However, his theory of justice hinges on an unrealistic assumption: a closed society.

Wilkinson writes:

David Schmidtz says theories are like maps; they help us get where we’re trying to go. John Rawls’ theory of justice assumes a closed society as a simplifying assumption. If theories are like maps, as Schmidtz says, a simplifying assumption in a theory is like leaving current patterns of traffic off a road map. But a theory of social justice for a closed society is like a map that says “Here there be monsters” where your pants were made and where the guys who built your house were born. That’s not simplifying. That’s more like a map that shows roads dead-ending where there are actually bridges. It’s not just wrong, it makes the map pretty well useless, especially if there are a lot of bridges. If your theory of justice gives you no way to make sense of the guys who built your house, or of what you and they might owe to each other, you need a better theory.

This is an excellent argument to bring up the next time someone in your Poli-Sci discussion invokes Rawls to argue for a larger social safety net, increased funding to public education or high-speed internet for all Americans.

Posted in Philosophy | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Just Push G

Posted in Government Spending | Leave a comment

Name This Man of the System

“Meanwhile, you’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t rank all that high on the truth meter. With iPods and iPads; Xboxes and PlayStations; information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment. All of this is not only putting new pressures on you; it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy.”

Posted in Central Planning | Leave a comment

The Power of Parenthood

Happy Mother’s Day to all mothers out there, human and non-human.

I haven’t experienced the phenomenon of having a child yet, but apparently the impact of being a parent is so strong it has the capacity to induce Bryan Caplan to think irrationally:

“I don’t regret anything in my life prior to the conception of my sons. This may sound like sentimental nonsense, but I tell you it’s true.”

His argument hinges on the fact that if he had done anything differently, he wouldn’t be blessed with the children he has today. That’s all good and true, but what about opportunity costs? If he had conceived a different child one day earlier, he would love it to the same degree of his actual child.

It’s human instinct to miss or discount largely invisible opportunity costs, but it’s downright shocking when Bryan Caplan does it!

Exhibit A of Caplan’s rational thought process:

“I don’t make New Year’s resolutions. If I think I ought to change my behavior, I do so without delay.”

Posted in Folk Economics | Tagged , | Leave a comment

DeLong to PACS Professors: Grow Up

"That right-wing nut Brad DeLong is at it again, eh??"

I generally disagree with UC Berkeley Professor and PEIS Chair Professor Brad Delong’s worldview and method of internet discourse (deleting comments, ahem), but it pleases me to see him stirring up anger among extreme leftists in the social sciences. DeLong prides himself on his supposed freedom from bias, which naturally precludes him buying into the bulk of Marxist psychobabble that his fellow Berkeley professors often impart upon naive freshman:

It seems, reading through the lines of what they say, that the modal teacher in those programs approaches their educational mission as though they have a dire and urgent need to deprogram young minds that have been enslaved to the harsh market-ueber-alles doctrines of neoliberal capitalism and classical economics.

The problem is that these nineteen year olds are from the upper-middle class of twenty-first century California and are at base do-gooder meritocrats deeply suspicious of large greedy corporations that repeatedly and recurrently try to sell them junk that they don’t really need. They have not only not been programmed by the ideologies of neoliberal market capitalism and classical economics, they barely know that they exist at an ideological level.

The real problem is that almost anyone who seriously studies economics basically embraces the “neoliberal agenda” in one form or another. Price controls do more harm than good, free trade benefits everyone, and markets coordinate behavior more effectively than central planning, period. It’s hard to claim that the entire economics profession, which is made up of mostly moderate (social-)democrats, are peddling market ideology because of false consciousness or commodity fetishism. Of course, DeLong qualifies this criticism of his colleagues by noting that right-wingers have taken some of the positive conclusions of classical economics too far:

If you are going to turn every class into a wrestle with the ghosts of Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Robert Nozick, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher, you will look silly unless you first make sure your students know who you are wrestling with, and why your struggle is such a desperate one–why their arguments have force and power…

The source of the force and power of Friedman & Co.’s arguments is sound reasoning and strong evidence; the desperate struggle facing social science departments is that their ideas don’t make sense. Judging by the comments on this post, a lot of leftists would REALLY like to lump DeLong in with the right-wing economists, just to maintain their sketchy caricature of the hegemonic neoliberal order.

DeLong, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz and other prominent left-leaning economists are in an awkward position: They must defend their methodology from colleagues who don’t understand markets or the process of wealth creation, all while simultaneously arguing that markets are inherently unfair and doomed to failure without significant government intervention. It’s no wonder that DeLong considers himself pretty middle-of-the-road considering that he probably gets more criticism on campus from hard-core socialists than libertarians.Delong’s blog is subtitled “Fair, Balanced, Reality-Based and Even-Handed.” However, in his world, Marxism means left-wing and constitutionally limited government means right-wing, as if the two positions were equally extreme.

I forget who said it (was it StarChild?), but libertarians sometimes have to form unholy alliances to fight against the greater evils. In this case, I’m more than happy to team up with Professor DeLong to ridicule the Peace and Conflict Studies Department.

Posted in Berkeley, Econ 101, Philosophy, education | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

David R. Henderson Interview

Matt Cockerill of Young Americans for Liberty recently did an in-depth interview with libertarian economistpacifistwriter, and blogger David Henderson. The interview spans 6 Youtube videos and they chat about Henderson’s life and some interesting libertarian history.

I have long been a fan of David Henderson. He stands firmly and clearly for liberty, while having the grace to assume good intentions with anyone he disagrees with. I could easily favorably compare him to other titans in the libertarian movement, but will let his character and work stand for itself.

Not only did I get to meet him at an IHS symposium this year, I was fortunate enough to be a recipient of his kindness. He recognized my name from comments I had written on his blog posts and a brief written correspondence, and immediately invited Charlie and me to sit with him at lunch. He went out of his way to spend time with us and help us network and meet people at the event. It meant so much to me to, and was the highlight of a day I will never forget.

Anyways, listen to the interview if you are interested in Henderson and his perception of various aspects of libertarianism. Cockerill is into Murray Rothbard so he asks questions about Rothbard, Austrian economics, and Henderson’s involvement in the Koch and Rothbard split. Cockerill’s interviewing ability and conversation skills impressed me.

As a final reminder, check out Henderson’s blog and writings if you like what you hear in the interview and are intrigued by my ringing endorsement. I almost forgot to mention he wants to come next Fall to speak to UC Berkeley, Students for Liberty!

Posted in Freedom | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Wealth Creation

I had a pretty interesting discussion today about world poverty with someone who holds the common progressive/university view of “boo neoliberals.” He does not support free trade or non-state solutions to resource management (he would call that latter privatization).

His conclusions pretty much rest on the assumption that big businesses keep resources out of the reach of the common man and thereby crush him. A stretch, and only possible with government intervention, but that’s not the biggest flaw in progressive thought.

They have no satisfactory explanation of wealth creation. People are either rich because they control resources, or poor because they don’t have access to them. How the resources turn into things valuable and the method people transition from poor to rich are unexplained.

Part of the correct explanation includes economic freedom. The theory is built on sound logic and empirical evidence supports it. Institutions that protect private property and commercial freedom allow people to save, invest, and make an honest living for themselves and their family. Economic freedom is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for human freedom.

These critical institutions and foundations are lacking in every single poor country. People are not cooperating enough with each other for a variety of reasons. People need security in their persons and property to take entrepreneurial risks. People need the freedom to sell their production to the highest bidder. Without these pieces in place, society is built on coercion.

Free people have the capacity to make wealth and then enjoy it. Over a short timeframe, income per person and general welfare rapidly increases. The poorer a country starts the quicker it can grow.

How to get the rest of the world there, I don’t know. Top down solutions probably won’t work. A planner can’t just snap his fingers and put a few laws on the books. The economic wounds to civil society run fairly deep. But every change towards more economic freedom pushes the momentum in the correct direction.

The United States and other donors should not prop up these poorly governed countries with foreign aid. It’s possible to get more of the charity to the people, but unless the processes of wealth creation are there, poor people won’t be able to get richer.

Throwing money at the problem and into the hands of rent-seeking politicians is definitely not the answer, and potentially makes the situation worse. Sorry Jeffrey Sachs and company, but your noble ideas on how to end world poverty are divorced from reality.

Posted in Econ 101 | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

ASUC President Hearings

There is major drama over Noah Stern’s election as ASUC president. Wasting everyones’ time is another reason to abolish the ASUC.

Posted in Berkeley | Tagged | Leave a comment

Voluntarism Introduction

The only reason slavery is morally wrong is because it is an involuntary deal between two people.

Voluntarism is a variant of libertarian theory that builds from the self-ownership and non-agression principles. The short version of this philosophy is that you own yourself, and you can only enter into voluntary deals with others. Any human action that violates these principles is wrong. There are shades of wrongness, and there may be extraordinary exceptions, but this rule of thumb safely covers 99.9999% of human interactions.

An individual has full domain over his peaceful actions. If an individual choses to sell his labor, no matter in what form, a party outside the transaction has no justification to forcibly interfere. This is liberty, and the only liberty constraints an individual has are self-imposed.

If you disagree with me about the slavery aspect, read Nozick’s Tale of the Slave and leave a comment with your answer to the question at the bottom.

Posted in Axiom of Non-Coercion, Philosophy | Leave a comment