by Daniel on July 24, 2003
Since it’s “contrarian” silly ideas week on CT this week, here’s another one for fans of Tyler Cowen’s telemarketing argument (see below). It’s something that’s bugged me for a while. Various versions of the libertarian creed seemed to be based on allowing people to do anything they like as long as it doesn’t involve “force or fraud”. My question is; why have they got such a downer on fraud?
The prohibition on force is easy to understand. Force is nasty; it harms people directly and interferes with their liberty. But defrauding someone is just offering them an opportunity to harm themselves. Rather like selling them heroin, or persuading them to opt out of a defined benefit pension scheme, two activities that most of us would support people’s right to do, even though we might disapprove of the consequences. If we’re going to establish a strong principle of caveat emptor, as most libertarians seem to think that we should, why should we have a prohibition on that form of free speech known as “lying”? If someone wants to be fooled by a smooth-talking charmer, or decides rationally that they can’t be bothered verifying the accuracy of claims made to them, why should the govenrment step in and paternalistically demand that they be insulated from the consequences of their actions?
I can’t think of any Nozickian or other libertarian grounds on which one should be able to object to someone earning their living as a confidence trickster; it’s a non-productive activity, certainly, and it degrades the general institution of trust, but these are social objections, not available to a consistent libertarian. None of us ever signed a contract saying we wouldn’t lie to each other, so we needn’t feel bound by any social objections. So I suggest that “or fraud” be dropped from the slogans of the Libertarian Party, and we leave it to the free market to weed out the dishonest timeshare promoters, merchants of patent medicines, Nigerian advance fee scam artists etc.
by Chris Bertram on July 24, 2003
The new issue of Prospect includes a rather meandering piece by Samuel Brittan on baby bonds, basic income and asset redistribution. A central issue in this area is how to finance such proposals, and that’s something Brittan gets down to at the end of his article. He canvasses Henry George-style proposals for land taxation and also mentions inheritance taxes, but finally comes up with a somewhat odd suggestion:
… a very simple practical proposal, why not auction planning permission? Many local authorities have approached this piecemeal by making such permission conditional on the provision of local services such as leisure centres, approach roads and so on. But why not return this windfall to the taxpayer in the form of asset distribution and let citizens decide how to spend it?
[click to continue…]
by Chris Bertram on July 24, 2003
by Chris Bertram on July 23, 2003
I took the day off today for a trip to London (free lift from a mate who is a sales rep). The main thing I wanted to do was to go to the National Gallery. I’d been bowled over by a Bellini triptych I’d seen in the church of S. Maria Gloriosa dei Frari in Venice recently and planned to look through the Bellinis in the Sainsbury Wing with the aid of the little MP3-player guide they loan you these days. Very useful, except when the number displayed next to the painting fails to correspond with the commentary (the gallery’s only Giotto linked to a commentary on Duccio). Anyway, my attention was drawn to something I’d never noticed before: a number of paintings, originally painted on wood panels, had been transferred at some time in their history to canvas, and in one case to a “synthetic panel”. Probably this is just everyday stuff for art conservators, but it struck me that it was amazing that a whole painting could be lifted off the surface on which it was originally painted and transferred to a new one. How?
by Henry Farrell on July 23, 2003
Tyler Cowen has a “couple”:http://volokh.com/2003_07_20_volokh_archive.html#105888482984762773 of “posts”:http://volokh.com/2003_07_20_volokh_archive.html#105896942112479124 suggesting that there is a serious libertarian argument against initiatives like the US government ‘do-not-call’ list for telemarketers. His argument is that government shouldn’t be in the business of restraining peoples’ spontaneity.
(warning: lengthy argument follows)
[click to continue…]
by Henry Farrell on July 23, 2003
One of the nicer things about trying to keep up a list of blogging academics, is that I’ve come across a whole bunch of blogging scientists. I’m a science junky, and love to read practitioners talk about how it’s done. Perhaps this is just discipline envy – we “political scientists” are often rather touchy about whether we’re actually scientists or not – but it probably has a lot more to do with my having read way too much science fiction over the last twenty years. Whatever. Anyway, to point you to a few particularly good science posts that I’ve seen in the last couple of weeks.
Chad Orzel, “here”:http://steelypips.org/principles/2003_07_06_principlearchive.php#105785171837597564 and “here”:http://www.steelypips.org/principles/2003_07_06_principlearchive.php#105766528719351705 on the discovery of a new type of subatomic particle. While you’re at it, check out his “index”:http://steelypips.org/principles/physposts.html of physics posts.
“Amity Wilczek”:http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/natureisprofligate/2003/07/13#a78 on how dung beetles navigate. This is a great blog on all manner of strange behavior in the animal kingdom.
“Cosma Shalizi”:http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/archives/000077.html on dumb research on mating behavior.
“John G. Cramer”:http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/av_index.html who has an incredible list of essays on cosmology, the physics of warpdrives &c &c (OK: he’s not a blogger, but his “daughter”:http://www.kathryncramer.com/wblog/ is).
And (not a scientist, but debunking bad science nonetheless), “Belle Waring”:http://examinedlife.typepad.com/johnbelle/2003/07/just_not_so_sto.html on _ad hominid_ arguments.
by Brian on July 22, 2003
From the NY Times review of 28 Days Later
bq. ”28 Days Later” is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). It has many scenes of maiming, dismemberment, clubbing, shooting, bayoneting and shoplifting.
Actually it’s not _entirely_ obvious that any shoplifting takes place, but we’d need another law and cinema post to work that out.
by Chris Bertram on July 22, 2003
by Chris Bertram on July 22, 2003
The UK’s GM Science Review Panel has published its first report. Like many people, I’ve found it difficult to make my mind up on this issue in the face of conflicting reports, biased commentary, lobbying by vested interests and so on. There’s good reason to believe that this panel has done (and is doing) a good job. They’ve rejected most of the crazier scare stories about GM technology and food, but they’ve identified one real area of worry: the effect on wildlife diversity of extensive use of herbicide tolerant GM crops. If all the weeds are gone, the animals which depend on them for food will have a hard time. Generally, this is a biotech-friendly report, but one which is sufficiently sceptical and critical to displease the real pro-GM enthusiasts. (For full disclosure, I should say that one of the panel members is known to me, and that fact has enhanced my confidence in the process.)
by Henry Farrell on July 22, 2003
“Larry Solum”:http://www.lsolum.blogspot.com/2003_07_01_lsolum_archive.html#105872492716074656 and “Dan Drezner”:http://drezner.blogspot.com/2003_07_13_drezner_archive.html#105845808164583615 are having a minor _contretemps_ that touches on one of my pet peeves; the lack of a one-stop-shop for working papers in political science. Drezner takes issue with a recent “Slate essay”:http://slate.msn.com/id/2085668/ by “Steven Johnson”:http://www.stevenberlinjohnson.com/movabletype/archives/000085.html which argues that Google is pushing academics towards writing (PDF-able) articles rather than books.
[click to continue…]
by Daniel on July 21, 2003
America has become a second rate power. The trade deficit and the fiscal deficit are at mightmare proportions …. sorry, I was just memorising the opening paragraph of Gordon Gekko’s “Greed is good”1 speech. Though it did amuse me how his opening remarks had become topical again. “Wall Street” was on Sky TV at the weekend, and it reminded me that I’ve always wanted to do a particular kind of review of this film. I’m not really qualified to carry out a proper critique of it as a piece of work2, and the film probably deserves better treatment than to look through it for hilarious ’80s kitsch3.
But what I would like to do is make the following case; very few of the actions which bring down the whole house of cards on Bud Fox and Gordon Gekko were actually illegal under securities law at the time. In fact, I’d make a case that any sequel to this film would have to start with the premise that Gordon Gekko was acquitted on all charges of securities fraud.
[click to continue…]
by Chris Bertram on July 21, 2003
Daniel’s post about the morality of snitching got me thinking about an issue that is, I think, related. Namely, the question of solidarity: what is it and how does it impact on our practical reasoning. Take the following dialogue from a recent episode of ER where the nurses have got up a petition against Luka Kovac:
Haleh: It’s nothing personal, Abby. I like Dr. Kovac.
Abby: Really? It’s hard to tell.
Haleh: He’ll be back to work tomorrow. We have to do this every couple years to send a message.
Abby: Do you even know what happened?
Haleh: I don’t care what happened.
Abby: You cared enough to sign the petition.
Haleh: Another nurse asks for my support, I’ll give it, every time.
Abby: Whether she’s right or not.
Haleh: I’ve been doing this job for 17 years, honey, doctors come and go, but nurses make this place run. We don’t get much credit, or much pay, we see a lot of misery, a lot of dying, but we come back every day. I’ve given up on being appreciated, but I sure as hell won’t let any of us be taken for granted.
The way in which the solidaristic consideration impacts on Haleh’s reasoning is just the same as the way in which an authoritative command would. That’s to say that she sets aside her own estimation of the rights and wrongs (and even of the facts) of the particular case and treats someone else as entitled to decide what she ought to do. That person’s decision pre-empts her own estimation of what reason requires. The interesting difference with more standard authority claims (officer commanding soldier, state commanding subject via law) is that authority here is diffuse and any member of the relevant group can exercise it over any and all of the others. Of course, there’s a risk that individuals will exercise their right of command irresponsibly, and so there will often be an interest in routing things through some appropriate body (like a union committee). But that doesn’t seem essential to the nature of the case.
[click to continue…]
by Henry Farrell on July 20, 2003
Something which I should have mentioned previously. Below our main blogroll is a list of academic bloggers, which has been transplanted over from my old blog (I owe the original idea for the list to “Jacob Levy”:http://jacobtlevy.blogspot.com/ ). This is a fairly non-exclusive list; i.e., if you think that you should be on it, you’re probably right. And not only that, if you email me, and you qualify, I’ll put you on it (you can email one of my fellow bloggers if you prefer, but it may take a bit longer to get you up). The qualifications are fairly straightforward. First, if you either have an academic position at a university type institution, or are a Ph.D. student or equivalent at same, you qualify. Second, if you have a Ph.D., but are pursuing another career due to the miserable state of the job market, or more interesting opportunities elsewhere, and keep a blog that sort-of relates to your field of specialization, you qualify unless you’re Jerry Pournelle. Third, if you don’t qualify under the formal criteria, but think that you provide a venue for specialized academic discussion, email us to say why you should be included, and we may put you in (note, however, that we will tend to be highly selective in this last category; so don’t feel insulted or upset if we decide against including you).
Finally, we do want to keep some minimal criteria for non-offensive content; we’re unlikely to link to you if you use your blog to propagate views that I and/or my fellow bloggers find downright revolting. Which isn’t to say at all that you need to agree with us; conservatives, right-libertarians etc, are all very welcome. But if you’re a racist, or anti-Semitic, or homophobic, and/or you think that all Jews or Arabs ought to be forcibly expelled, or similar, we would prefer that you continue to practice your right to free speech without a link from us.
Update: The Crooked Timber Academic blogroll is no longer being updated. Instead, you should go to “http://www.academicblogs.net”:http://www.academicblogs.net, which has subsumed the old CT blogroll.
by Chris Bertram on July 20, 2003
The whole business of whether the “dodgy dossier” was “sexed up” by the British government and whether Andrew Gilligan’s report about it also went beyond what he was entitled to claim looks likely to damage all concerned in the wake of Dr David Kelly’s suicide. I’m trying to keep an open mind about the various possibilities, though things look much less good for the BBC today, in the light of their admission that Kelly was the source for Gilligan’s story. The BBC have also shown poor judgement in getting former Guardian editor Peter Preston to pontificate in their defence. Writing about journalists’ duty to protect their sources Preston observes:
if your source talked to you under conditions of anonymity, would you do everything in your power to protect him – including maintaining silence even after he’d identified himself to his bosses and talked, not entirely frankly, to the foreign affairs select committee?
Of course. No question of that either. Sources come in many shapes, forms and conditions of confidentiality. Once they place their faith in you, your faith and your room for manoeuvre belongs to them; and after their death, their family.
Can this be the same Peter Preston who, in the early 1980s, complied with a court order to reveal that civil servant Sarah Tisdall was the source of confidential documents leaked to the Guardian? Tisdall was subsequently sentenced to six months in prison.
by Kieran Healy on July 20, 2003
Real innovation in social theory is hard but brute-force approaches can yield results. Henry’s comments on Public Choice Theory reminded me of a simple way to innovate theory that you’re welcome to apply in various contexts as you please.
Take a few basic kinds of institutions, structures or practices that can be identified across many different social contexts. There are markets, say, and there is politics. There is ritual. There is culture. There are hierarchies. There are networks. And so on. (Not all of these are the same sort of thing; that doesn’t matter at the moment.) Identify the basic features of each. Now, pick one, take its defining features and see if you can find them at work in one the others.
For example, you can say Politics is really Markets. This is Public Choice Theory, waiting to be elaborated. Because the market form is such a dominant feature of contemporary societies and of talk about them, applying the “x is really a market” trick to any given x is by now quite a common trick. It can tell you a lot about what you’re studying, and it can even provoke that “Of course!” experience that Fredrich Blowhard had. It’s important to see, though, that you can do exactly the same thing in reverse, or with other combinations of concept and institution, and to similar effect.
[click to continue…]