Over at the excellent Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog, Matt Zwolinski delves into the BHL case for Gary Johnson. The reasons he lists are excellent and well-taken. There is little dispute that there are a great many things that Johnson would do in office that benefit the least-advantaged. What is not mentioned in the article is Johnson's plan for entitlement reform.
Johnson proposes across-the-board 43% spending cuts in all areas, including social support programs. He maintains that as governor of New Mexico he was able to drastically reduce Medicaid spending by switching to a managed care model--a model taken from the more technocratic side of progressivism. There is also a good case to be made that by block granting Medicaid and allowing states to experiment, they will find unique ways of saving money. However, this mandate of spending is harsh, immediate, and non-negotiable.
Compared with Ron Paul's plan for entitlement reform, it introduces greater volatility into the market. Paul's plan calls for social welfare programs to be phased out over the very long term, and provides drastic cuts in spending in other departments to cover the cost of those currently in the system or who had significantly planned to do so. Finally, it provides an exit option for those who would like to opt out of the system entirely--pay nothing in, get nothing out. Overall, the Paul plan is a more radical proposal in that it provides an end to these programs, but is also the more compassionate, in that it does not significantly disrupt the market for those in the system or those who are about to enter.
In addition to Johnson's proposal for healthcare, his tax reform plan is similarly problematic. Johnson supports the abolition of the income tax and replacing it with the Fair Tax, a 23% consumption tax on all goods. The Fair Tax provides rebates for all purchases made up to the poverty line, in anticipation of arguments related to its effect on the poor. However, the poor are more likely to spend most of their money on consumption--unlike the rich who save and invest more--so will likely be impacted more by the Fair Tax. In addition, senior citizens who have paid into the income tax system will be taxed heavily again on consumption. Paul did not present a detailed tax reform proposal, so comparison is difficult.
Both candidates would eliminate HUD, which supplies the housing vouchers many poor families depend on. These vouchers actually have a perverse effect on the housing market, but it is left unclear in both proposals if these HUD department functions would be subsumed into another agency or eliminated outright--I assume the former. Neither candidate has proposed cuts to food stamp programs.
The positive BHL case for their economic proposals likely rests on the reader's acceptance of free market economics. Neither is likely to win converts for slashing corporate taxes, but many would encourage their excising all corporate welfare. Both would repeal the federal minimum wage which would allow states the opportunity to opt out of the system altogether. This is a key feature of economic justice, as the minimum wage eliminates marginal employment or drives it underground.
So where do we end up? I give the nod to Paul for his entitlement reform plan. Johnson's would likely create too much uncertainty in the market and lead to drastic reform. This would eventually even out, but the transition in Paul's plan is much smoother. Keep in mind, however, that Paul's is the most comprehensive plan put forth by any candidate Republican or Obama to reform Medicare and Social Security. Until the fiscal situation become dire enough, that will inevitably continue.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Friday, August 24, 2012
Reply to Josh
Evidently, there is an HTML limit on characters for replies. Here is my reply:
I'm sure there are natural rights theorists who would disagree with both of us, and have some good reasons why, but while natural rights are a semi-useful philosophical tool, I find them lacking as an overall framework.
Since you don't really list what assumptions you find implausible, it's hard to get at what you mean. And since the conclusion you draw (a closed, non-dynamic system) are so far from what Austrian economics argues for (creative destruction, entrepreneurship, marginal revolution, price theory), I think you need to look at the source material a little more. In fact, the closed system is explicitly found within both Rawls and Keynes, for example, who restrict immigration and hope to solve the "money problem" so we can all get on living the good (non-economic) parts of life. Most theories of regulating the free market argue that the churning of unrestricted competition results in too much variation on the macro scale, justifying government intervention to keep people from being swept up in fray. So, yeah, I'm not really sure how you get there.
Libertarian thought is focused on individual actors within a radical change framework. While acknowledging the failures of the market to address both the problem of imperfect (and lumpy) knowledge and that institutions must be designed to guard against the self-interest of actors, it argues that voluntary market exchanges do so better than other alternatives.
For arguments for anarcho-capitalism and the problems therein, I would go to David Friedman's Machinery of Freedom which deals with many of these argument. I heard him talk at one of my IHS seminars, and while his investigations into private police, private courts, and war within an anarchocapitalist state are interesting and enlightening, he openly admits they do not fit into a coherent, persuasive whole.
For a minimal state, which libertarianism does advocate, international relations don't seem to be a self-evident problem. That's actually one of the few things the federal government is supposed to do. Non-intervention and peaceful trade are backed up by a strong national defense (not insane, conservative strong mind you). All but the most radical libertarians tend to view things like national defense as a collective action problem that actually requires government to solve.
Number 2 is actually a well-taken point. Many anarchists believe that any state, even the minimal state, is inherently unstable and will assume more and more power. Robert Higgs would be a good example of such a theorist (youtube: Robert Higgs: Warfare, Welfare, and the State).
But, if I can take some license here, I'm assuming that you mean a minimal state would lead to domination of the people by large corporations? In that case, we need to disentangle the concepts of capitalism and corporatism. Generic Republicans, the Chamber of Commerce, and business lobbies argue for corporatism cloaked in free market rhetoric. A true free market allows entry and exit from institutions and provides for greater self-correcting (THOUGH FAR FROM PERFECT) mechanisms than what we have today.
For number 3, it's a little hard to prove something like this, but given the increase liberalization of the past few centuries, we have seen violence precipitously decline as coordination and tolerance increase. While it is unlikely that continuing to liberalize society would result in increased crime, increasingly liberal orders are more likely to be able to adequately deal with increases in crime as their institutions are more robust.
With regard to inequality, for all but the most doctrinaire egalitarian some inequality is justified. Within a market, it is important to distinguish between efficient and inefficient inequalities. Efficient inequalities are the results of entrepreneurial action and point others towards where profits and social gains are. Inefficient inequalities are the result of market failure or government failure. Within a classical liberal framework, inefficient inequalities are minimized as opposed to institutions with larger amounts of government intervention (as government corrections to market failures run into many systemic problems).
Classical liberals do value equality. Equality before the law, mainly. And that the institutional framework treats all those before it equally. Indeed, those who are unhappy with that institution are free to leave and create new ones (social entrepreneurship). Fairness is a condition that does not necessarily imply a social democratic or welfare state order, however. As John Tomasi in Free Market Fairness shows, classical liberalism can satisfy the requirements of justice as fairness.
Regarding your last point, it does take some extra work to show why the minimal state is necessary. The best examples are Hayek, Buchanan and Tullock, and Mises. I've found Buchanan and Tullock in the public choice school to be most approachable.
I'm sure there are natural rights theorists who would disagree with both of us, and have some good reasons why, but while natural rights are a semi-useful philosophical tool, I find them lacking as an overall framework.
Since you don't really list what assumptions you find implausible, it's hard to get at what you mean. And since the conclusion you draw (a closed, non-dynamic system) are so far from what Austrian economics argues for (creative destruction, entrepreneurship, marginal revolution, price theory), I think you need to look at the source material a little more. In fact, the closed system is explicitly found within both Rawls and Keynes, for example, who restrict immigration and hope to solve the "money problem" so we can all get on living the good (non-economic) parts of life. Most theories of regulating the free market argue that the churning of unrestricted competition results in too much variation on the macro scale, justifying government intervention to keep people from being swept up in fray. So, yeah, I'm not really sure how you get there.
Libertarian thought is focused on individual actors within a radical change framework. While acknowledging the failures of the market to address both the problem of imperfect (and lumpy) knowledge and that institutions must be designed to guard against the self-interest of actors, it argues that voluntary market exchanges do so better than other alternatives.
For arguments for anarcho-capitalism and the problems therein, I would go to David Friedman's Machinery of Freedom which deals with many of these argument. I heard him talk at one of my IHS seminars, and while his investigations into private police, private courts, and war within an anarchocapitalist state are interesting and enlightening, he openly admits they do not fit into a coherent, persuasive whole.
For a minimal state, which libertarianism does advocate, international relations don't seem to be a self-evident problem. That's actually one of the few things the federal government is supposed to do. Non-intervention and peaceful trade are backed up by a strong national defense (not insane, conservative strong mind you). All but the most radical libertarians tend to view things like national defense as a collective action problem that actually requires government to solve.
Number 2 is actually a well-taken point. Many anarchists believe that any state, even the minimal state, is inherently unstable and will assume more and more power. Robert Higgs would be a good example of such a theorist (youtube: Robert Higgs: Warfare, Welfare, and the State).
But, if I can take some license here, I'm assuming that you mean a minimal state would lead to domination of the people by large corporations? In that case, we need to disentangle the concepts of capitalism and corporatism. Generic Republicans, the Chamber of Commerce, and business lobbies argue for corporatism cloaked in free market rhetoric. A true free market allows entry and exit from institutions and provides for greater self-correcting (THOUGH FAR FROM PERFECT) mechanisms than what we have today.
For number 3, it's a little hard to prove something like this, but given the increase liberalization of the past few centuries, we have seen violence precipitously decline as coordination and tolerance increase. While it is unlikely that continuing to liberalize society would result in increased crime, increasingly liberal orders are more likely to be able to adequately deal with increases in crime as their institutions are more robust.
With regard to inequality, for all but the most doctrinaire egalitarian some inequality is justified. Within a market, it is important to distinguish between efficient and inefficient inequalities. Efficient inequalities are the results of entrepreneurial action and point others towards where profits and social gains are. Inefficient inequalities are the result of market failure or government failure. Within a classical liberal framework, inefficient inequalities are minimized as opposed to institutions with larger amounts of government intervention (as government corrections to market failures run into many systemic problems).
Classical liberals do value equality. Equality before the law, mainly. And that the institutional framework treats all those before it equally. Indeed, those who are unhappy with that institution are free to leave and create new ones (social entrepreneurship). Fairness is a condition that does not necessarily imply a social democratic or welfare state order, however. As John Tomasi in Free Market Fairness shows, classical liberalism can satisfy the requirements of justice as fairness.
Regarding your last point, it does take some extra work to show why the minimal state is necessary. The best examples are Hayek, Buchanan and Tullock, and Mises. I've found Buchanan and Tullock in the public choice school to be most approachable.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
The concept of emergence
Having gone through the Institute for Humane Studies seminars and now my social work PhD program orientation, I feel as though I am straddling between two very distant camps again. In philosophical backing, there is a healthy amount of deontology in libertarianism. Randian or natural rights theorists provide bedrock for many libertarians and their arguments are at times convincing. Overall, I find their arguments lacking because they are absolutist, largely closed-canon, and become less clear-cut under close scrutiny (what the hell are natural rights without a creator?).
In my social work world, post-modernism reigns over much of the intellectual space. I have not engaged enough with postmodernism to thoughtfully criticize it. However, my experience with it is mainly in deconstruction, criticism, and the insight that there is no big-T Truth. I find myself within the interpretivist camp (in regards to social science, not hard science) so it's pretty comfortable to use post-modernist thought and analysis. I also LOVE critical theory, so again pretty safe territory for me.
All of that being said, I still wonder "what comes next?" After tearing down the pretense of absolute knowledge, what do we do now? This is where classical liberal economic theory points me to the concept of emergence--how individuals acting on their own information and values coordinate to create increasingly complex and robust truth. It is an evolutionary process, incredibly sensitive to context. I don't yet know enough about it to really come up with a modestly cogent definition or explication of the concept of emergence, but as I learn more, I will try to think more about what it means.
In relation to the sociological paradigms (and the title of this blog) emergence is a concept that is most salient in the radical humanist paradigm, where radical change and interpretivism hold.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)