Belle Waring has a brilliant lampoon of utopian libertarian discourse .
The irony in calling it a lampoon, of course, is that none of the people she paraphrases are utopians, and all of them are talking about which imperfections are acceptable.
The rest of it is the typically snide approach along the lines of “David Friedman said this. But only an idiot would say that. Isn’t he hilarious?” If that’s a brilliant lampoon I’d hate to see a stupid one.
There’s actually been a lot of theoretical argumentation against Friedman et al, if you think he’s worth it. Try http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html.
Chris (and Belle),
Do you really believe, e.g., that stateless societies would have no way to protect people from and deal with rapists?
I can’t see how you could think that, unless you are uninformed, completely misunderstand Friedman’s argument, or don’t understand the terms of the argument itself (e.g. not understanding what Friedman means by “government”).
Friedman might be wrong, and there are smart arguments against his (and all libertarian) positions. The linked post is simply harsh and witty; it doesn’t seem to address the views it is trying to skewer.
I can’t see it as a good satire, much less a “brilliant lampoon.”
Perhaps they ought just to have summarized the writers and said, “There has to be a pony in here somewhere!”
bill carone asks: Do you really believe, e.g., that stateless societies would have no way to protect people from and deal with rapists?
Which is a strange question, because Belle Waring originally wrote:
Now, everyone close your eyes and try to imagine a private, profit-making rights-enforcement organization which does not resemble the mafia, a street gang, those pesky fire-fighters/arsonists/looters who used to provide such “services” in old New York and Tokyo, medieval tax-farmers, or a Lendu militia.
Which pretty clearly suggests that she thinks systematic rights-enforcing might well take place without a state. In fact, she’s indentified the alternative model. Problem is, it’s a model most sane people would want to exclude from their utopia.
I’ll settle for harsh and witty. I wasn’t trying demolish libertarianism in some philosophically rigorous way. Still, I think my summaries were fair ones.
One of the reasons I liked Belle’s post and it made me laugh was that I recognized myself. I’m happy as Larry when discussing questions like whether self-ownership is tenable on small islands inhabited by two people one of whom is quadraplegic the other of whom has expensive tastes. De te fabula narratur, as KM would have said. Can’t you libertarians see that what you say in all seriousness can come across as faintly (or more than faintly) ridiculous? And can’t you laugh at yourselves?
Bill C.,
Good question.
And I think that the answer is that people would invent The State.
DJW,
I looked at the part you quoted; it doesn’t address any of the arguments Friedman et. al. make about why such a system wouldn’t be like the mafia.
I also looked at the following:
“Now wish that people should, despite that lack of any restraint on their actions such as might be formed by policemen, functioning law courts, the SEC, and so on, not spend all their time screwing each other in predictable ways ranging from ordinary rape, through the selling of fraudulent stocks in non-existent ventures, up to the wholesale dumping of mercury in the public water supplies.”
Again, no evidence of knowing the arguments. It seems as if, without the state, Belle thinks that “ordinary rape” can’t be dealt with.
That prompted my question and comments.
Belle,
“I’ll settle for harsh and witty.”
Lots of people do; it’s how I would describe Michael Moore and Ann Coulter (uh, oh; I just Godwin-ed :-). Your post seems quite similar to their work; that’s probably why I became angry when I read it.
“I wasn’t trying demolish libertarianism in some philosophically rigorous way.”
There is a difference between “not being philosophically rigorous” and “not addressing any arguments at all.”
“Still, I think my summaries were fair ones.”
Your summaries seem fair (I only skimmed the Reason debate), until you put your own voice in (i.e. “No shit sherlock” “Look - Halley’s comet”, and the rest of the post outside the three summaries).
None of your post supports the idea that e.g. Friedman’s positions are analogous to simply “wishing for a pony”. Isn’t that what you were trying to do with your post?
Chris,
I can’t argue with you that you found it funny.
I can argue that you have bad taste in satire if you think Belle’s post is a “brilliant lampoon.”
Belle’s post could have been an attempt at satire or simply a jest (i.e. just trying to be funny at someone’s expense, without trying to say anything important or interesting. Like fictional accounts of court jesters). It could be many other things, but let me limit it to these two for now.
If it was a satire, it failed to engage the arguments it was trying to engage, correct? If so, it is a bad satire, whether or not you found it funny.
If it was just a jest, it failed to sufficiently indicate that it was. In other words, people might read it and think Belle was actually trying to say something, instead of just “playing the fool.” In fictional accounts of court jesters, you would never take what they say seriously (funny hats, silly faces and all that). Belle, on the other hand, seems to say intelligent things all the time; I don’t see why I shouldn’t think she was trying to say something important in this case as well.
“Can’t you libertarians see that what you say in all seriousness can come across as faintly (or more than faintly) ridiculous?”
Again, if it is just a jest, then you can point out the ridiculousness of any position and hope to get a laugh. Everyone knows that you aren’t really saying anything, you are just trying to be funny.
In a satire, you actually need to think things through. Lots of things sound ridiculous, but are true. If you claim that something is ridiculous without dealing with the arguments that show it is true, you are acting deceitfully and therefore unethically.
Imagine I wrote something like the following, “Statisticians are full of shit; here’s what they say. Here is a pregnancy test that is 99% accurate. However, statisticians argue that if you score positive on this test, you shouldn’t be 99% certain of being pregnant. How stupid is that? They clearly have no idea about how the real world works.”
How ridiculous of statisticians to say this, right? No? It’s completely true and makes perfect sense to people who actually know what they are talking about? Come on, can’t you laugh at yourself for being so ridiculous?
“And can’t you laugh at yourselves?”
This is only a defense available to jesters, not satirists. I see no evidence that Belle was jesting; it seems like she wanted her views to be taken seriously.
If Belle isn’t meant to be taken seriously, I can laugh (and, as with all good jesters, I would laugh at her as well as her targets) but she needs to telegraph it better, since she doesn’t have a reputation of being a fool.
If she is meant to be taken seriously, then I shouldn’t laugh at bad satire any more than at a joke told badly, right?
As an example, Michael Moore is quite a good fool, but a horrible satirist. Same with Ann Coulter, although I don’t find her harshness as funny as Moore’s.
A lot of criticism of Belle’s post here; but nobody seems to want to take on her main point, which is a telling one. If anarcho-libertarians want to argue seriously that non-state forms of enforcement can protect property rights, defend against rape etc, they need to come to grips with the problems that these non-state forms of enforcement are themselves going to impose. The responses to this problem in the debate that Belle refers to are hand-waving, more or less - Barnett saying that public goods problems don’t really exist if you’re sufficiently imaginative, Friedman claiming on the basis of unspecified evidence that private enterprise can provide an adequate supply of public infrastructure. Frankly, I’ve a lot more respect for libertarians who are prepared to bite the bullet on this (a la Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash ) and acknowledge that their ideal society would have plenty of warts too.
‘None of your post supports the idea that e.g. Friedman’s positions are analogous to simply “wishing for a pony”. Isn’t that what you were trying to do with your post?
‘
I thought her post supported pretty clearly that Friedman wasn’t going to get the nice shit he wanted, in which case he might as well wish for something else that was nice and which he would never ever get, like a pony. If you want to make a legitmate argument here you might like to argue why Friedman could get what he wanted, not just stupidly refuse to hear the argument someone else made.
‘If it was just a jest, it failed to sufficiently indicate that it was. In other words, people might read it and think Belle was actually trying to say something, instead of just “playing the fool.” ‘
or, reading this: ’ You see, wishes are totally free. It’s like when you can’t decide whether to daydream about being a famous Hollywood star or having amazing magical powers. Why not — be a famous Hollywood star with amazing magical powers!’ they might assume that Belle was pointing out the foolish nature of much that calls itself Libertarianism.
‘In a satire, you actually need to think things through. Lots of things sound ridiculous, but are true. If you claim that something is ridiculous without dealing with the arguments that show it is true, you are acting deceitfully and therefore unethically.
Imagine I wrote something like the following, “Statisticians are full of shit; here’s what they say. Here is a pregnancy test that is 99% accurate. However, statisticians argue that if you score positive on this test, you shouldn’t be 99% certain of being pregnant. How stupid is that? They clearly have no idea about how the real world works.”
‘
I’m wondering if you have any idea as to how satire works? I don’t think that Belle’s post qualifies as Satire, then again she didn’t say it was a Satire anywhere (there was a reference to a lampoon somewhere which is mildly related to one of the secondary usages of satire, in the same way that most forms of humor are related.) So I don’t see where the Satire comes in, other than that you chose two types of discourse, jesting and Satire, of which this post could have been an item. I think your choice was rather dishonest, given that you define jesting as making a fool of oneself and Satire you don’t define at all.
you do however say this:
‘In a satire, you actually need to think things through. Lots of things sound ridiculous, but are true. If you claim that something is ridiculous without dealing with the arguments that show it is true, you are acting deceitfully and therefore unethically.’
Satire, as a literary genre (which is the only way I know of approaching it, you evidently think it is some sort of powerpoint presentation,) has never struck me as being especially above deceit or obliged to deal ethically, please show me a referent great work of satire and I will show you the deceits and the misuse of ethics in it - if you cannot refer to any such great work, and I doubt that you can, I will refer to ‘A Modest Proposal’.
In Satire a thing that sounds ridiculous but is true is generally still ridiculous, that a dullard makes the true ridiculous is proof of his dullness, a brighter person would find a way to make the true plain. Thus Satire is generally filled with characters making commensensical observations in the most ridiculous manner. This prepares us for the point in the Satire where the ridiculous is, as a rule, made commonsensical.
As a general rule I suppose that Satire has somewhat failed if the subject can actually laugh at themselves instead of dying from the mortification (given the Irish ancestry of the term), but the impression you give of Satire as being something that one should dourly appraise for its logical neatness is even worse.
Finally, your arguments above may have some worthy aspect to them, which I am wholly unable to discern, but given your long focus on a subject which I have some expertise in, and you evidently have none, I can’t give them any credence, richly deserved, poorly deserved, or undeserved.
Henry,
You can’t expect Barnett and Friedman to give a fully satisfying account of a radical political position in the very limited amount of space provided to them in the Reason debate. Both have written extensively on the very problems you cite: Barnett in The Structure of Liberty among other places, and Friedman in both The Machinery of Freedom and Law’s Order, not to mention numerous journal articles.
And if that’s not enough, see Bruce Benson’s The Enterprise of Law and various journal articles.
For quick introductions to this area of thought available online, see Friedman’s chapter, “Police, Courts, and Laws—on the Market” and Bryan Caplan’s Anarchist Theory FAQ.
Bryan, thanks for your response.
“I’m wondering if you have any idea as to how satire works?”
I used a technical term in a non-technical way; forgive me. I’m using the English word “satire” to mean a harsh and witty takedown of an opponent’s arguments. What literary term would you use for this? I’m happy to use whatever word you wish :-)
“I thought her post supported pretty clearly that Friedman wasn’t going to get the nice shit he wanted”
I just re-read the post. Can you quote such an argument for me? I can’t find one.
“you might like to argue why Friedman could get what he wanted,”
My point is that Friedman et. al. make many arguments about the issues in Belle’s post (see Micha Ghertner’s post above), none of which she addresses in any way. So she cannot say that their arguments are like “wishing for a pony.” Unless, that is, she is merely jesting.
“define jesting as making a fool of oneself”
Literally, though, not in the way this phrase is usually used.
In other words, if Jerry Seinfeld misrepresents facts and arguments on his TV show, it doesn’t matter; his only goal is to get a laugh. In this sense he is “making a fool of himself” all the way to the bank. :-) I preferred the “trying to be funny, not trying to say something important” way of thinking about it.
Note that this gives the ultimate defense for a jester: “Don’t you have a sense of humor? Don’t take yourself so seriously.”
A satire doesn’t have this defense; it is trying to make you “die of mortification,” not make you laugh. You can’t claim that someone shouldn’t take something seriously if you meant it seriously, right?
Belle’s post didn’t strike me as a jest; I thought it was trying to say something important, and say it harshly and wittily. In that it failed to address the arguments at all, it failed to be a good satire.
“Satire as being something that one should dourly appraise for its logical neatness.”
I don’t know about “dourly appraise” or “logical neatness”, but if it fails even to address it’s target’s position, it must be a bad satire, mustn’t it?
Bill,
Excuse me for being a bit rude, but one of the things you must learn about online discourse is that you cannot respond to humor (even failed attempts at humor; after all, humor is in the eye of the beholder, i.e. depending on whose ox is being gored) with serious criticism. Humor is the ultimate trump card: humor trumps serious argument, good humor trumps mediocre humor, and so on. Responding to humor with seriousness comments is like bringing a spatula to a pillow fight, or something. Actually, now that I think about it, that would be pretty damn funny…
It’s interesting how debates on one far end of the political spectrum can pull people on the other end toward the middle. If Belle’s post is any guide, the anarcho-capitalists are causing the left to start praising the virtues of the police and defending the social benefits of private stock ownership.
Shhh, tom t., that’s all part of the vast libertarian conspiracy.
Frankly it wasn’t scholarly enough, it lacked an appropriate bibliography (hello … footnotes???) and it did do a poor job of defining its terms. And am I alone in wondering what the heck the scientific methodology was?
I demand that the peer review committee that let that “lampoon” be published be fired immediately!
:: Ahem ::
But seriously, did I miss a meeting or have lampoons ever been required to consider specific arguments? A lampoon is a written attack ridiculing a person, group or idea, it’s not a reasoned argument (that’s the other room, this is abuse).
In any case, I’m not sure there is a single satire in all of literature that could meet Bill’s criteria, so it’s probably a bit demanding to expect Belle’s “bonne bouche” to fit the form of a formal satire.
It was funny and witty, Belle (and yes a bit harsh and biting, that was good too). It wasn’t comprehensive, but cripes, the humour is in the brevity. I enjoyed it alot … especially the pony bit.
‘I used a technical term in a non-technical way; forgive me. I’m using the English word “satire” to mean a harsh and witty takedown of an opponent’s arguments. What literary term would you use for this? I’m happy to use whatever word you wish :-)’
Well I was actually thinking of this before I got online this morning; it doesn’t strike me that Belle’s post qualifies as anything I would consider a lampoon, a parody, or satire, in that she doesn’t anywhere build a fictitious model of her subject, she quotes Friedman and the rest, but does not construct a scene in which their faults will be shown at their worst (I would consider some focus on the actual personalities involved for even a lampoon). Therefore I can only conclude that she ridicules libertarians but does not satirize, lampoon, or parody them.
Ridicule does not, of course, have its own genre (though as a form of rhetoric it has its own well-understood modes,) it is pretty vague and just means to make seem ridiculous.
It is rather difficult for me to know if Belle adequately made anarcho-libertarians seem ridiculous, given that anarchy of all sorts has always struck me as somewhat ridiculous (despite my being attracted to them, as I am also attracted to Brazil in Carnival season.)
Can’t you libertarians see that what you say in all seriousness can come across as faintly (or more than faintly) ridiculous? And can’t you laugh at yourselves?
Looks like the empirical evidence is accumulating on this one.
Hi all, thanks for your responses.
I thought the following was uncontroversial:
A good satire (or lampoon, or work of ridicule) must show at least a minimal understanding of the people, groups, or ideas that it is ridiculing.
Am I wrong here?
Micha, note that I am arguing against Chris, not directly against Belle. If Chris had posted “Belle has an amusing incoherent rant” I wouldn’t have had anything to say.
Patrick, do you really mean to say that you have never read a satire that showed a minimal understanding of its target? I can’t believe that.
Chris, Kieran, I am not directly interested in libertarian aspects of this; I’m not a libertarian. I was interested first in why Chris thought it was a brilliant lampoon, then I became interested in the whole “laugh at yourself” comment.
It is usually used incorrectly, it seems to me; it only applies to jests, when the only goal is to get a laugh. Think court jesters, Seinfeld, etc. You’d never argue with them, or get mad at what they say, unless you don’t have a sense of humor.
Once you try to say something important behind the humor, the defense no longer works, right?
I can’t imagine a good satirist hiding behind “It was only a joke.” Can you? A satirist is trying not only to get laughs, but destroy the target. If it misses the target, it is a bad satire, right? And no one should laugh at a bad satire, right?
Again, if Belle’s post is an irrelevant piece of fluff, just read for yuks, then fine; but it doesn’t look like that to me.
If there were a market for your kind of cant, Chris, some entrepreneur would recognize that and develop it. Since that hasn’t happened, your [sic] just another example of typical government subsidized liberalism.
[/wurlitzer]
“Can’t you libertarians see that what you say in all seriousness can come across as faintly (or more than faintly) ridiculous?”
It’s one of Bernard’s irregular parts of speech:
My views are nuanced and well-thought-out.
Your views are counterintuitive.
His views are ridiculous.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review