Comments on: Using Hayek against free markets

By: roger

roger — Thu, 04 Mar 2004 19:18:33 +0000

Micha, I went to your site and read what you had to say about humans creating values. I still don’t buy it. Your elevation of humans to a category separate from all the rest of nature is actually a reproduction of a deep Judeo-Christian belief. The shock of Darwinism is that that belief is bogus. We are primates, our values come out of animal behavior, and there is no reason, from an ethological point of view, to think that valuing behavior isn’t entirely common in the animal world—and, indeed, in the plant world. Because you have described values as those concepts created by humans in valuing behaviors, you have closed the definitional circle—it is like defining baldness as hair loss among humans. Then, indeed, one can only speak of human baldness. But if valuing behavior is about those patterns one can see enacted and embedded among any group of living things that sort behaviors—mechanically or not—according to some hierarchy of tasks—which is the naturalistic way of explaining behavior—then we would see expect to see it on the micro level. Human values, indeed, are produced by humans and govern human behavior. Ant values are produced and govern ant behaviors. Humans highly value consciousness, and since their values enter into the web of social interactions that constitute consciousness, they have a tendency to dismiss as non-value those that don’t bear the impress of thought. But thought isn’t necessary to value behavior—at least in the naturalist position.

By: Rich Puchalsky

Rich Puchalsky — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 04:26:03 +0000

jimbo, there was nothing “airy” about my statement about ecological value. I wrote that “Trees have ecological value that is independent of their economic value or to the value that humans place on them; i.e. they are part of a natural system that would not run as well if they were not present.”, to quote my full sentence. The statement that ecologies would not run as well as they do without trees is a simple statement of scientific fact. I didn’t mean that this necessarily implied economic value—though in reality it indirectly does, since we wouldn’t have an economy without an ecosystem—but that there is another meaning of the word “value” that might be confusing the discussion.

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 02:43:49 +0000

Roger, Whether we accept the pragmatic conception of society or methodological individualism, the same questions remain. As you said, this isn't relevant to this issue. We simply need to observe how people do their valuing. Long before there were tribes of utilitarians, there were tribes that worshipped trees. Neither of these examples contradict my claim. When we observe how people do their valuing, we are observing humans placing values on things. We are not observing values independent of humans. When a tribe worships a tree, that is a legitimate value to an economist (so long as the tribe is willing to give up other things in exchange for protecting that tree, such as the opportunity cost of alternative uses). But claiming that the tree is valuable apart from any value humans place on it is not. Societies appeal to transcendent entities all of the time — the Gods, or Liberty, or Efficiency, etc. etc. I don't see how efficiency is a transcendent entity or value; if anything, it is a meta-value, a way of judging how we should go about allocating resources to maximize the desired consequences. Efficiency takes values as a given and goes from there. To say that trees are valuable because they are trees is not to speak for trees, or to imply that trees mystically make up values in communion with a tree god, but to say that respect for trees should constrain human acts with regard to trees. But unless we are willing to appeal to something mystical, I don't see any reason for according trees with respect. I could understand why some might be willing to grant animals respect, because of their capacity to suffer. I happen to disagree with them, but at least they have an argument. What is the argument for respecting trees? What is the point of preserving trees above and beyond the amount of preservation necessary to meet our desired goals?

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 02:29:38 +0000

Rich, I wouldn’t go so far as saying that ecological value is separate from economic value. The question still remains: why are well-run natural systems valuable apart from the value humans recieve from them? And you’re right that this is a non-theist position; whether or not the person doing a cost-benefit analysis believes in God, he cannot point to God as a source of additional value above and beyond humanistic value if he expects his analysis to be generally accepted and used by others. The same is true with scientific experiments. As for the cost of wiping out the human species, this seems somewhat similar to the question of suicide. From a utilitarian perspective, suicide is not infinitely costly; we can easily imagine situations where it is more painful to remain alive than it is to end the pain. So too, if ever there came a point where there was no hope for the future and the entire human species was suffering untold misery, perhaps wiping out the human species would be a net benefit, and not a cost at all.

By: jimbo

jimbo — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 02:24:52 +0000

“Trees have ecological value that is independent of their economic value or to the value that humans place on them” Once again we are talking past each other. Any such “ecological value” must still be located within the human beings who are assigning it. I don’t dispute that such things exist – again, I’m not arguing that trees are only useful if they are cut down and turned into lumber. But other “uses” of trees – as preventers of erosion, as environment for animals that people want to preserve, as a “quiet place” for people to retreat from the city – are still located on the heirarchy of human values, and people – through both the political system and the market – need to decide how to balance competing values. But by making airy statements about “ecological value” that has nothing to do with human beings at all, you are attempting to smuggle YOUR values into the debate as “objective” facts – as things that are not to be questioned, that have an absolute claim to the top of the hierarchy. And it just ain’t so. Preserving ecosystems is important – but not everywhere, and not at any cost.

By: roger

roger — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 02:01:09 +0000

Micha, sorry about the name misspelling. It is true that saying we value trees because they are trees is not an argument. That is because it we don’t need an argument, here. We simply need to observe how people do their valuing. Long before there were tribes of utilitarians, there were tribes that worshipped trees. Societies appeal to transcendent entities all of the time—the Gods, or Liberty, or Efficiency, etc. etc. If, by saying all values are human values, you are saying all the values that we know about are the ones that are discussed in human language by humans, that is a position of respectable nominalism. As I say, I think “humans” don’t make the values, but humans in relation one with another – in cultures, institutions, societies – do. This is another form of nominalism, actually. However, it should be noted that this is a minority view – most humans think values come from insights into how the universe is. However, I don’t see all of this as immediately pertinent. To say that trees are valuable because they are trees is not to speak for trees, or to imply that trees mystically make up values in communion with a tree god, but to say that respect for trees should constrain human acts with regard to trees. As, for instance, creating a monoculture of a few trees by letting the variety of trees disappear via extinction, even if saving species of trees means a sacrifice of wealth by some humans. You can interpret this to mean, Roger, a human, not a Lorax, thinks there is a human value in having a variety of trees. Cool. As long as respect for trees is preserved, I could get down with your way of expressing it. I do think that it is rather funny to start out with a nominalistic attitude towards values, and end up with an idealistic attitude towards social action – which is what you get when you say that humans really represent human values when saying things like, Woodman, spare that tree. I think they just mean, woodman, spare that tree. To use a term from old Adam Smith, I’d call it trans-species sympathy. PS —Aristotle, to mention one person who had no time for the human being as supreme good argument, thought that it was a sign of a vulgar mind to be too concerned with human beings at all. Much better to contemplate the Gods.

By: Rich Puchalsky

Rich Puchalsky — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 01:30:56 +0000

Perhaps there is an ambiguity about the word “value”. Trees have ecological value that is independent of their economic value or to the value that humans place on them; i.e. they are part of a natural system that would not run as well if they were not present. Another note: saying that humans are the source of all value is implicitly an atheist or at least non-theist position. One that I agree with, but I just thought I’d mention it. I once had a long argument with someone in the context of cost-benefit analysis. We were discussing how to handle the risk of events that could wipe out the human species. I argued that such events, by definition, had infinite cost, since humans were the source of all value. He suggested, if I remember rightly, a parameterization scheme such that a humanity-destroying event would always have a larger cost than any other event or combination of events, without being truly infinite.

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Tue, 02 Mar 2004 23:52:01 +0000

Roger, You have misread my argument. I never equated value and use. In fact, I specifically mentioned that economists recognize “existence value” as a legitimate value. And I also said, as an example, “We study history because we find it useful or interesting, or for any other reason that pleases us.” Also, my name is spelled “Micha” and I am male. As to the value of trees in themselves? It is in their being trees. It would be an odd society that thought that the value of trees was simply in their being good for fuel and timber. Luckily, that society has not yet appeared. “In their being trees” is not an argument; it is simply a repetition of your claim. Trees are not only valuable for fuel and timber, but for asthetics, oxygen production, and so on. What trees are not valuable for is anything independant of human value.

By: jimbo

jimbo — Tue, 02 Mar 2004 23:37:14 +0000

“It would be an odd society that thought that the value of trees was simply in their being good for fuel and timber.” But note that that is not what I’m saying. As you say yourself: “society” values trees in many different ways, and different societies at different times value them in different ways. But that’s different than saying that they have “value” inherently, without any reference to anyone doing the valueing. After all, both “use value” and “exchange value” only make sense if there are people doing the useing or exchanging…

By: roger

roger — Tue, 02 Mar 2004 22:59:39 +0000

Micha and Jimbo, On value and use—the two shouldn’t be conflated. Surely, if I plant a tree, because I like to look at it, that tree has that “use.” But if one extends use to cover all human activity, than we have destroyed the usefulness of “use” as a term of art or science. Michna’s argument seems to be: 1. humans create value 2. value is an function of use. 3. that value is a function of use is the way those terms are used among all economists. In fact, Michna is kind enough to prod me to do some research, since obviously I haven’t mastered the corpus, as she has. Well, let’s look at how one economist talks about use and value. Not Marx, but Adam Smith. In his lectures of 1762, which preceeded the Wealth of Nations, he ponders the difference between the cheapness of water and the dearness of diamonds and makes the parenthetical remark that “their real use seems not yet to be discovered.” Smith’s theory is that the difference in price is explained by supply, which explains the differential. If value and use were synonymous, Smith’s parentheses wouldn’t make sense. Smith expanded on this lecture in Wealth of Nations, where he writes: “The word value, it is to be observed, has two different meanings, and sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys. The one may be called “value in use”; the other, “value in exchange.” The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently little or no value in exchange; and, on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no value in use.” As to the value of trees in themselves? It is in their being trees. It would be an odd society that thought that the value of trees was simply in their being good for fuel and timber. Luckily, that society has not yet appeared.

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Tue, 02 Mar 2004 22:25:43 +0000

Jimbo, Exactly. Economists do recognize existence value – i.e. the value people place on the existence of things even if they get no other direct utility from them. But to say that something has value in and of itself is to say that the thing itself has the ability to make value judgements, or that God or some other mystical entity (“Mother Nature”) places value on it.

By: jimbo

jimbo — Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:09:41 +0000

Roger – Re: “value” – an interesting philosophical question, as Micha says: what exactly is “value” without reference to humans? Let’s say we’re talking about saving all the trees in a forest and walling it off so that no one, ever after, can go there – not even to look. Even in that extreme case, the “value” is a human one (for some people, at least) – they would value the mere knowledge that such a place exists. Animals and trees can’t “value” anything, simply becasue they can’t form the concept – or at least, they can’t express it to us, and since they can’t, any values they might theoretically have must be translated into human values. Environmentalists might imagine themselves as Loraxes who “speak for the trees”, but it’s not as if the trees took a voteand elected them…

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Tue, 02 Mar 2004 19:23:45 +0000

Roger, I find your claim that almost any scientist believes that trees have a value in themselves apart from their use to humans most surprising. What is this value? Why should we, as humans, care about the existance of a tree regardless of its value to us? Suppose a tree exists on some faraway planet - a planet so far away that we will never observe it or even realize it is there. Does this tree have value? I have yet to see a good argument that it does. In fact, the idea that there is no intrinsic value in nature is what is wrong with libertarianism tout court, if you ask me. Maybe you should do a bit more research. This idea is not an idea of libertarianism, but of economics. The idea that things have value in and of themselves does not conflict in any way whatsoever with libertariansm; it does with economics. Besides, there is something philosophically vacuous and ultimately solipsistic in your talk of “humans.” Humans exist as articulate, intelligent presences in specific contexts. Is there any mortal use for the humans that existed in 1001 to humans now? So why study history, or keep the monuments of those critters? Do humans born in the year 2075 exist? No. However, Humans don’t exist as such radically foreshortened utilitarians. They weave great webs of sentiment around their environment, and their language, and their ways of doing things, and their pasts and their futures. And this is what makes them interesting. None of this is an argument for value independent of humans. We study history because we find it useful or interesting, or for any other reason that pleases us. We do not study history because hostory is valuable in and of itself, independent of any value we place on it. Be that as it may, the libertarian neutrality with regard to culture is coy, but not convincing. There is a definite cultural impact that results from adopting certain economic policies. I'm not sure where you got the idea that libertarians are neutral to culture or that we deny the role economics can play on cultural changes. This is exactly what Tyler Cowen has been writing about for the last few years, which is why I referred you to his work in my previous post.

By: roger

roger — Tue, 02 Mar 2004 17:34:32 +0000

Micha, hmm – two points. 1. I don’t believe in arguments that project my beliefs onto “most people”, since there are a lot of people in the world. However, I do believe that if you discussed, with almost any scientist, whether trees have a value in themselves apart from their use to humans, the scientist would answer yes. In fact, the idea that there is no intrinsic value in nature is what is wrong with libertarianism tout court, if you ask me. Besides, there is something philosophically vacuous and ultimately solipsistic in your talk of “humans.” Humans exist as articulate, intelligent presences in specific contexts. Is there any mortal use for the humans that existed in 1001 to humans now? So why study history, or keep the monuments of those critters? Do humans born in the year 2075 exist? No. However, Humans don’t exist as such radically foreshortened utilitarians. They weave great webs of sentiment around their environment, and their language, and their ways of doing things, and their pasts and their futures. And this is what makes them interesting. 2. Although my hostility towards economics is amusing, and I do my best to please, when cocktail hour is over I set it aside. However, I do have hostility toward the logic of value as you articulate it. When you make the point that “individual cultures have no value in and of themselves” but have value “value to both the individuals living within it and those living in other cultures”—that’s a good point, and it is my point. However, the actual valuing by these individuals (who do not usually think of themselves as individuals—they think of themselves as family members, as sexually this way or that way, as having this or that religious belief, etc.) doesn’t proceed along this kind of logic: 1. this culture is actually neutral. We could be living in another; 2., but I’ll arbitrarily chose this culture over other cultures. Only Rawlsian cosmonauts think like that. It is an empty point that human beings are the ones who endow culture with value, since, after all, where do human beings GET the thought of value? From their cultures. In fact, I’d argue that that is the main reason human being evolve cultures—as value bearers. No one culture is valuable in itself, but cultures are lived as though they are valuable in themselves—that sums up the paradox. Be that as it may, the libertarian neutrality with regard to culture is coy, but not convincing. There is a definite cultural impact that results from adopting certain economic policies. These impacts are not separate in everyday life from the political economy. Obviously, the economic choices any ideology favors is a small part of the shape of the cultures that they will also have to favor. It is easy not to see this, because there is no standpoint from which one can predict all of the effects of adopting x economic policy. But that doesn’t mean it won’t have any cultural effects. There’s a word for this in the Hayekian vocabulary—self-organization. To give an example: you will make very large changes in a culture if, over time, you augment the consumer power of the children in that culture. I’m not saying the changes are good or bad, but they will definitely occur. And those changes are, contra vous, definitely about the value of a culture, since they are changes that challenge the way a culture is set up. And they will occur just as Hayek expected—not as planned social projects, but as a set of operations to the results of which the operators are, to a certain extent, blind.

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Tue, 02 Mar 2004 05:38:29 +0000

Roger, Of course you don’t think culture itself has value — at least, as a follower of Hayek. I do. And actually I’m not alone — it would be hard to explain social action of all kinds without inferring that at least some social agents do find a value in a culture — in fact, enough value to die for. Or, less dramatically, to sing about. To make museums about. To teach to their kids. Etc. This is not an argument for the claim that culture has value in and of itself. Rather, this is a claim that culture has value to both the individuals living within it and those living in other cultures. A culture is not valuable independant of the humans who receive value from it, just as a tree is not valuable except to those who place a value on it. Of course, you might have some mystical reasons for believing that trees have value independant of humans, but I think that is silly, and I think that most people, if they truly analyzed the reasons for believing so, would think it is silly too. An economist should be able to account for this —it is, after all, a matter of information, value, and transfers. But an economics that wants to make a libertarian ideological point would rule these values out. Your hostility towards economics and libertarianism is quite amusing. Travel over to the Volokh Conspiracy and read some of what Tyler Cowen writes. Cowen is both an economist and a libertarian, and has written two books and numerous articles on the economics of culture and why globalization is a net boon to culture, not a net cost.