liberalism

An Illiberal Liberal

by Ryan Young on August 17, 2011 · 5 comments

in Economy, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony

Brad DeLong writes that “America’s best hope for sane technocratic governance required the elimination of the Republican Party from our political system as rapidly as possible.”

There are two things wrong with that statement. One is that he wants a technocratic government. Top-down. Orderly. Planned. But we live in a bottom-up world. Everything from language to Wikipedia to the economy itself is is a spontaneous order. They grow and evolve despite, not because of, direction from above. The most beautiful designs have no designer.

The other flaw is that DeLong favors a one-party state. Such regimes have been tried many times over the years. The results have rarely been humane.

I am neither conservative nor a Republican. But I sure am glad that America has two parties instead of one. That second party is proof that some people can’t shut other people out of the political discourse simply for disagreeing. Freedom of speech and thought are thought are the cornerstones of a liberal society. DeLong rejects them at our peril.

[click to continue…]

Mises on Political Parties

by Ryan Young on October 5, 2010

in Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual

With a fiercely partisan election less than a month away, the concluding paragraph of Ludwig von Mises’ Liberalism is a refreshing rejection of party politics. Mises, of course, uses liberalism in the original sense of the word:

No sect and no political party has believed that it could afford to forgo advancing its cause by appealing to men’s senses. Rhetorical bombast, music and song resound, banners wave, flowers and colors serve as symbols, and the leaders seek to attach their followers to their own person. Liberalism has nothing to do with all this. It has no party flower and no party color, no party song and no party idols, no symbols and no slogans. It has the substance and the arguments. These must lead it to victory.

-Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism: The Classical Tradtion, p. 151.

Shifting the Burden of Explanation

by Ryan Young on September 14, 2010

in Economy, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual

A lot of people get angry when somebody suggests privatizing some or other government service. For example, someone who opposes government-run schools is accused of opposing all education, period. Not a rigorous line of thought. But it’s common.

Why do some people propose privatization? It’s not because they’re against the service. It’s because they think the private sector will do a better job providing that service.

If anything, because theory and data usually side with privatizers, the burden of explanation actually lies on those who favor government provision of many services. Why support more expensive and less effective schools, or mail service, or health care, or rail travel?

Mises briefly touches on that disconnect in his short 1927 book Liberalism (that is, liberalism as the word originally meant):

If I am of the opinion that it is inexpedient to assign to the government the task of operating railroads, hotels, or mines, I am not an “enemy of the state” any more than I can be called an enemy of sulphuric acid because I am of the opinion that, useful though it may be for many purposes, it is not suitable either for drinking or for washing one’s hands.

-Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism: The Classical Tradition, p. 18.

Happy 204th Birthday, John Stuart Mill

by Ryan Young on May 20, 2010

in Culture, Odds & Ends, Personal Liberty, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

John Stuart Mill was born on this day in 1806. I wrote an appreciation of him last year, and told a bit of his unusual life story. This year, I’ll write a little bit on his philosophy of utilitarianism.

There are two kinds of utilitarianism: act utilitarianism, and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism leads to absurd conclusions; rule utilitarianism, while more lenient, is one of the strongest philosophical underpinnings of liberalism (in the traditional European sense of the word). Many later liberals, including F.A. Hayek, were rule utilitarians.

Act utilitarians think that each individual act should be judged according to how much good it does. This leads to some problems, since most actions involve at least some small harm to others.

If I drive to work, I can save myself a lot of time. But by contributing to traffic congestion, I hurt each of my thousands of fellow drivers just a little bit. Maybe I cost them more total time than I save, so my driving causes a net loss in utility. So that’s not a good option. The subway, then? Same thing. Not only do I lose some time compared to driving, but I make the train more crowded, which causes disutility to every passenger on the train.

Better to just sit at home, then. But then I don’t get anything done. That’s bad for my career, not to mention my bank account. Act utilitarianism is a bit like Pareto optimality in economics: it leads to paralysis. It is an impossible standard.

That’s why I prefer rule utilitarianism. Instead of judging each act by its utility, put rules in place that give people incentives to act well. No law or institution is perfect. Even the best ones hurt somebody; a law against theft is bad for thieves. But good institutions beget good results, especially in the long run.

A property-rights-based system of government is an excellent example of rule utilitarianism. It will not be perfect. Laws against stealing obviously have not put end to stealing. Even within the law, people inevitably have honest disagreements about what belongs to who. Externalities such as pollution will hurt some peoples’ property. But the results are certainly better than a system without property rights. The whole of world history is proof. It’s also better than act utilitarianism, which lacks that overarching institutional-level standard.

Rule utilitarianism is one of the greatest gifts ever given to liberalism’s intellectual toolkit, and we have Mill to thank for it. Happy birthday to you, John Stuart Mill.

LibertyWeek 79: Where Are the Jobs?

by Richard Morrison on February 1, 2010

in CEI Projects, Podcast

Richard Morrison, Marc Scribner and Josh Barro join forces to being you Episode 79 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We take on barriers to job creation, anti-capitalist murmurs in Davos, the iPad’s unapproved technology, laws against motorized texting and why it’s all or nothing in the healthcare debate.

Krugman is No Liberal

by Iain Murray on January 6, 2009 · 12 comments

in Features, Personal Liberty, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

Further to Cord’s post below, a real liberal, not a statist claiming to be one, would be familiar with John Stuart Mill’s argument that minorities need small government to protect them from the “tyranny of the majority“:

The “people” who exercise the power, are not always the same people with those over whom it is exercised, and the “self-government” spoken of, is not the government of each by himself, but of each by all the rest. The will of the people, moreover, practically means, the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people; the majority, or those who succeed in making themselves accepted as the majority; the people, consequently, may desire to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against this, as against any other abuse of power. The limitation, therefore, of the power of government over individuals, loses none of its importance when the holders of power are regularly accountable to the community, that is, to the strongest party therein. This view of things, recommending itself equally to the intelligence of thinkers and to the inclination of those important classes in European society to whose real or supposed interests democracy is adverse, has had no difficulty in establishing itself; and in political speculations “the tyranny of the majority” is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard.

Mill goes on to warn that limits on government are not enough, for the tyranny of the majority can also operate through convention – and this is what distinguishes the liberal Mill from the conservative. However, in a world where the liberal victory over convention is well-nigh complete, it is the limitation of the power of government over individuals that is more important. That is where liberalism has failed, because people who presumptuously call themselves liberals have been seduced by the power of the state and seek to use it to impose their own view of the world on everyone. The fatal conceit that Hayek, another great liberal who despised the idea that he might be thought of as conservative, warned against as leading down the road to serfdom has so completely infected modern liberalism that it has become the establishment that Mill warned against (perhaps Nobel laureates form the new aristocracy of this establishment).

It is perhaps a jape by history that conservatives have become the prime guardians of real liberty, but once liberty becomes a tradition, conservatives are bound to uphold it. Mill would recognize this, and approve heartily. If he does not know this, Krugman is not only no liberal, but he is no intellectual either.