Comments on: Juan non-Volokh (with minor editorial changes)

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:30:00 +0000

JFD, Before the movie-audience tries to lynch Mr. Chatterbox, why doesn’t the movie theater simply kick Mr. Chatterbox off their property? How many people do you know who would act as you have described this movie-audience? How many people do you know who go through the effort of trying to lynch someone for a minor offense, and risk any future repurcussions from Mr. Chatterbox’s friends and relatives? Incidentally, your thought experiment is somewhat related to the lynch-mob example often used against utilitarianism. Yet at the same time, you are aiming your criticisms at libertarian “rights.” I am not arguing against state interference with the market because of any notion of libertarian rights, but because of the welfare reducing effects of the state. If your argument against me is that the rights of an individual will be violated in order to increase the welfare of everyone else, then as a utilitarian I say: So what? I’m not interested in rights; I’m interested in welfare. By holding Mr. Chatterbox and CommuniCorp’s right to conduct transactions sacrosanct, libertarians condone the uncompensated costs they impose on the rest of the moviegoing audience. Again, you are lumping. I never said anything about holding rights sacrosanct. Not all libertarians base their arguments on moralist rights. And even those who do would not defend someone’s right to create negative externalities. By leaving law enforcement to private entities whose behavior is sensitive to profit motives, market forces effectively undermine Mr. Chatterbox’s right to life and property. True enough, but the important question is whether or not market forces do a better job of protecting people’s life and property compared to government forces. I believe market forces are superior to government in this respect, althought it would take more space than is available here to justify this claim. Both examples demonstrate that, by advocating absolute market non-interference, libertarians effectively condone those instances where market forces reduce people’s welfare. Market forces reduce people’s welfare compared to what? The entire question here is whether welfare is higher with government or without. If the entire basis for one’s support of market interactions over state interactions rests upon maximizing welfare, then it makes no sense to claim that “libertarians emphasize the efficiency of the engine at the expense of everything else, including the welfare of the passengers.” The claim doesn’t apply to utilitarian-based libertarians because the welfare of the passangers is the very criterion they use to argue against state intervention. And the claim also doesn’t apply to rights-based libertarians because they do not emphasize efficiency in the first place. It would be fair to say that rights-based libertarians emphasize the morality (morality defined as the non-violation of rights) of the market at the expense of everything else, including welfare. If that is the claim you wish to make, you and I have no disagreement. But do recognize that not all libertarians are rights-based libertarians. So too, not all social democrats are ethical egalitarians. Some simply believe that social democracy will lead to better consequences compared to the alternatives, i.e. increase the general welfare.

By: JFD

JFD — Sat, 27 Mar 2004 00:35:21 +0000

Should have signed that “JFD.” It’s not a Freudian slip, I swear.

By: JFK

JFK — Sat, 27 Mar 2004 00:33:02 +0000

OK Micha,

JFD: Under what circumstances do you support state interference with market forces? Micha: Don’t change the subject.

I ask the question because it cuts to the heart of the libertarian position.

Micha: You said, “libertarians emphasize the efficiency of the engine at the expense of everything else, including the welfare of the passengers.” I don’t support state interference with market forces, but not because I emphasize efficiency at the expense of everything else, including people’s welfare. I don’t support state interference with market forces because I emphasize the welfare reducing effects of state intervention.

Buyers and sellers conduct transactions when it makes both parties better off. Let’s take the example of a mobile phone service, let’s call it CommuniCorp, and one of their customers, let’s call him Mr. Chatterbox. For argument’s sake, let’s say that Mr. Chatterbox pays for his service by the minute. Now let’s say that Mr. Chatterbox goes to the theater and uses his phone while the movie is playing. Mr. Chatterbox is better off for the service that CommuniCorp provides and CommuniCorp is better off for the fees Mr. Chatterbox pays them. Everyone else in the theater, however, is worse off. The full costs of this transaction are not being borne by those party to it. The market forces that encourage Mr. Chatterbox and CommuniCorp to make their transaction make everyone else in the theater worse off.

JFD: How about there is no default, misleadingly posed, false choice between “liberty” and “the state.” Micha: Oh, but there is. Every instance of the state comes at the expense of an individual liberty. Every tax-dollar comes from a taxpayer. The State itself is a legal monopoly, and thus prohibits private entities from competing with its “services.” JFD: How about the extent to which liberty exists because of the state’s enforcement of the rule of law rather than despite it? Micha: You are falsely equating the State with the rule of law. The two are not identical, nor is one a necessary prerequisite for the other.

The rest of the movie-going audience asks Mr. Chatterbox to show some consideration and stop talking on the phone. Mr. Chatterbox refuses, citing his right and that of CommuniCorp to conduct transactions without constraint from any third party. The movie-going audience therefore decides to lynch Mr. Chatterbox. The cinema has in its employ a private security firm. The firm’s service makes the cinema better off and the cinema’s business makes the firm better off. However, if the firm protects Mr. Chatterbox, the cinema will lose the business of the dozens of paying customers busy throwing a noose over the nearest lamppost. By letting Mr. Chatterbox hang, they lose only one customer who was bad for business anyway. The cinema therefore tells the security guards to hold back. Besides, this episode might even create a disincentive for phone-talkin’ moviegoers and send the signal to others that the moviegoing experience at this cinema will not be marred by the use of mobile phones, increasing business.

Regardless, none of this has much to do with your false claim that “libertarians emphasize the efficiency of the engine at the expense of everything else, including the welfare of the passengers.”

By holding Mr. Chatterbox and CommuniCorp’s right to conduct transactions sacrosanct, libertarians condone the uncompensated costs they impose on the rest of the moviegoing audience. By leaving law enforcement to private entities whose behavior is sensitive to profit motives, market forces effectively undermine Mr. Chatterbox’s right to life and property. Both examples demonstrate that, by advocating absolute market non-interference, libertarians effectively condone those instances where market forces reduce people’s welfare.

By: john c. halasz

john c. halasz — Fri, 26 Mar 2004 23:44:56 +0000

“You are falsely equating the State with the rule of Law. The two are not identical, nor is one a necessary prerequisite for the other.” That’s a self-parody, right? Else it’s about as close to reality as ID is to evolutionary theory.

By: bill carone

bill carone — Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:06:54 +0000

Different Chris, thanks for the response. “Anybody wanna bet that as soon as he hears “market intervention” it is not so much that the asserter stops arguing but that Mr. Carone stops listening?” Most people stop listening to me far before I stop listening to them; read my comments on CT :-) Don’t know if this is such a good thing … I admit, I should have said “In my current biased state of experience and ignorance.” Perhaps I only read stupid social democrats (I’ve certainly read a lot of stupid libertarians, though I’ve tried to cut down); but I do read CT, and none of these people strike me as stupid. I also gave an example, so maybe you can correct my misimpressions. Did I misread Henry’s post on “Deadweight losses”? Did it not fit my description? Is it not representative of the anti-market posts on this blog? Perhaps CT is writing to people who already know the standard arguments for government superiority in some areas. That’s fine, but there are standard arguments for market superiority in some areas as well. “But as far as the “more natural” thing: WTF was that?? ” Sorry; I didn’t like the word either, but there was an argument brewing that I couldn’t illustrate with a quote. Argument: Government is just as good of a default position as anarchy. In other words, it is just as valid to say “Any move away from anarchy needs to be justified,” as to say “Any move away from government control needs to be justified.” This doesn’t seem to be the case in ethics; killing someone needs more justification than defending oneself from being killed. I wasn’t arguing that such justifications don’t exist, but I think them necessary. So I don’t think the two positions parallel each other as much as Henry and Alkali (I believe) were claiming. “I don’t see, … how the market alone could somehow be safe for the participants?” Standard libertarian conclusion 1: Have a minimal state that taxes in order to provide police, courts, and national defense, but nothing else. Standard libertarian conclusion 2: Private police and courts won’t lead to constant warfare, won’t leave poor people without basic legal protection, and won’t simply let rich people get away with anything they want. David Friedman and Randy Barnett both provide quite good arguments for these conclusions. Or do you mean something else by “safe”? Abuse of consumers, perhaps? :-)

By: a different chris

a different chris — Fri, 26 Mar 2004 16:18:29 +0000

>they do not then proceed to argue that government would do better. They don’t? News to me. Anybody wanna bet that as soon as he hears “market intervention” it is not so much that the asserter stops arguing but that Mr. Carone stops listening? PS: however, I do join Bill in the “both” camps. But as far as the “more natural” thing: WTF was that?? I have no idea what he means – chimpanzees have a social structure but no discernable market interactions, and the social structure is what keeps them from killing each other. I don’t see, especially when you look at the market value of good organs and white babies – and I’ve eyed the little ones more than once in that context when they were on particulary poor behavior- , how the market alone could somehow be safe for the participants? Ethics are one thing almost completely the province of the social, AKA the (cover you eyes, guys, here that nasty word again) governmental, sphere.

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:56:15 +0000

Jfd, Under what circumstances do you support state interference with market forces? Don’t change the subject. You said, “libertarians emphasize the efficiency of the engine at the expense of everything else, including the welfare of the passengers.” I don’t support state interference with market forces, but not because I emphasize efficiency at the expense of everything else, including people’s welfare. I don’t support state interference with market forces because I emphasize the welfare reducing effects of state intervention. How about there is no default, misleadingly posed, false choice between “liberty” and “the state.” Oh, but there is. Every instance of the state comes at the expense of an individual liberty. Every tax-dollar comes from a taxpayer. The State itself is a legal monopoly, and thus prohibits private entities from competing with its “services.” How about the extent to which liberty exists because of the state’s enforcement of the rule of law rather than despite it? You are falsely equating the State with the rule of law. The two are not identical, nor is one a necessary prerequisite for the other. Regardless, none of this has much to do with your false claim that “libertarians emphasize the efficiency of the engine at the expense of everything else, including the welfare of the passengers.”

By: humeidayer

humeidayer — Fri, 26 Mar 2004 13:56:40 +0000

After reading so many words from economists, Kohlberg’s stages of moral development are starting to look to me like “The Road to Market Failure.” Those poor souls whose disease has progressed to the point that their behaviors follow the dictates of principled consciences are the walking dead, most contemptably and suboptimally misallocated resources in a market where there’s money to be made. If we are going to seek optimal market efficiency, I think we need to figure out how we can keep people from progressing past Stage 2.

By: Chirag Kasbekar

Chirag Kasbekar — Fri, 26 Mar 2004 07:50:48 +0000

Must say, even though I think markets are wonderful and I would rather we use market-based solutions than bureaucratic ones, I cannot disgree with Henry. Libertarians tend to make the same sort of unfair attacks on democratic politics that they accuse non-libertarians of making on markets. It’s when I started realising this that, some years ago, I had renewed appreciation for democratic politics. On the other hand, I still think that many on the left do give democratic politics a lot more leeway than they do market economics.

By: JFD

JFD — Fri, 26 Mar 2004 06:04:53 +0000

And I get accused of setting up straw men? Hey Micha, how about showing some evenhandedness and setting your dogs on parallel ogram over here? How about there is no default, misleadingly posed, false choice between “liberty” and “the state.” How about the extent to which liberty exists because of the state’s enforcement of the rule of law rather than despite it?

By: john c. halasz

john c. halasz — Fri, 26 Mar 2004 04:57:28 +0000

Actually, Steve Carr, the intricacy of biological life is my preferred candidate for thaumezein, though from a distinctly non-ID perspective.

By: Parallel OGram

Parallel OGram — Fri, 26 Mar 2004 04:47:09 +0000

Libertarian: The default is liberty. Freedom is worth defending, so the argument must be made and won before power is temporarily granted to the government to restrict individual freedom. Some individuals may look at a market, where trades are freely made, and claim that the market produces negative effects or doesn’t produce a specific set of positive effects. The burden is on the folks who don’t like the status quo, to win a debate before temporarily granting power to the government to restrict the freedom of individuals to choose whether to trade or not. The individual who chooses to trade or not trade is innocent until the government creates a law that prohibits the individual’s choice. The individual is always considered innocent until the government successfully proves the individual’s chosen activity occurred after the law was created and broke the law. Social Democrat: The default is government power. Government power is worth defending, so the argument must be made and won before freedom is temporarily granted to the individual. Some individuals may look at a government activity, where individuals are not allowed to participate, and claim that the government activity produces negative effects or doesn’t produce a specific set of positive effects. The burden is on the folks who don’t like the status quo, to win a debate before temporarily granting freedom to individuals to choose whether to trade in a market as an alternative to the government activity. The individual who chooses to trade or not trade is guilty until the government creates a law that permits the individual’s choice. The individual may be considered guilty at any time until the individual successfully proves the individual’s chosen activity occurred after the law was created and did not break the law. Some of you are free to choose one of these positions as better than the other. Others of you are required to see them as equal.

By: JFD

JFD — Fri, 26 Mar 2004 02:24:35 +0000

OK Micha, Under what circumstances do you support state interference with market forces?

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Fri, 26 Mar 2004 00:12:53 +0000

Jfd, Who the hell are these strawmen libertarians you speak of? Nice lumping job.

By: JFD

JFD — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 22:54:21 +0000

do you really think that markets are not wonderful? Markets are like an automobile engine: absolutely necessary to operation in a way that, say, a sweet Blaupunkt sound system is not. Accoutrements like air conditioning and power locks weigh a car down, impeding fuel efficiency. But then, so do airbags, anti-lock brakes and seat belts, and I wouldn’t want to get in a car without those. (Of course, passengers weigh a car down too and are also absolutely necessary for operation. To stretch the analogy, libertarians emphasize the efficiency of the engine at the expense of everything else, including the welfare of the passengers.