I had intended for this to be a short comparison between the two topics, but given that I would have to wade through a lengthy Charles Johnson piece, I'm content to just gloss over surface level analysis here. In fact, I believe the point of this post should probably be to sketch out social work values and ethics and how they might contribute to a "thickening" of libertarian value commitments (then compare those at a later date to the already explicated versions by Johnson, Long, and others).
Thick libertarianism, as was mentioned in the previous post, is the idea that a value commitment to personal liberty does not stop on the steps of government. Opposing oppression in whatever form is a necessary commitment for libertarians because it inhibits the individual from expressing who they truly are or experiencing things that might be important to them. For example, anti-drug warriors are wrong not only because a person should have the right to seek whatever oblivion they desire but because both the state (who enforces their preferences as gunpoint) and conservative society (which enforces their preferences through drug testing entry-level workers, for example Dish Network's recent case in Colorado) are inhibiting a person from being and expressing their true desires. The mulitiplicity, heterogeneity, and sponteneity that is entailed in free human action is the central value commitment I see in a thicker conception of libertarianism.
Thickness also bring along other ideas from anti-racism, anti-sexism, and all the other isms in that its critique of the social structure (aside from the state) requires additional theoretical and philosophical work that is best explored through a critical theory lens towards society. For a long time, I have been trying to marry my philosophical commitments to libertarianism with my values in social work. As I've gone through my PhD education, this marriage has gotten a lot easier to work through. Of the social work values (service, social justice, dignity and worth of the person, importance of human relationships, integrity, and competence), many have helped me understand in practice what a thick libertarian commitment might entail.
For example, the ideal of service makes sense not as a mandate or a necessary part of libertarianism but as a natural extension of battling social oppression. Volunteering at burns in the harm reduction center allows me to use my therapeutic skills while also doing triage in the war on drugs. Additionally, the anti-oppressive interventions suggested by thick libertarian ideas--that is, polycentric, consensual, but participatory action--fit well with the social work values of service, social justice, and the importance of human relationships. Furthermore, these bottom-up interventions are more likely to respect the dignity and worth of the individual and respect their right to self-determination.
This is a bit rushed, but I'm trying to meet a deadline. I have to read Johnson and Long. Maybe I'll do a short reaction post on each the next few days.
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
Thick and Thin Libertarianism
This short post cannot really do justice to the ideas within this debate in the libertarian world, but as that world is likely not known to many, I'll summarize the arguments about it. Thin libertarianism is the general, popular image of libertarianism. It's one where the prior concern for liberty is expressed through hostility towards oppression generated by governments. To the extent that these arguments align with more traditionally leftist arguments, be they about the racist drug war, eminent domain, etc., libertarians are often viewed as somewhat more enlightened about oppression than those on the traditional right. Thin libertarianism advocates for anarchism or minimalist government on the grounds that government is inherently oppressive to all individuals, regardless of social standing.
Thick libertarian arguments, on the other hand, posit that the libertarian commitment to opposing oppression and promoting individual liberty extends beyond a critique of government. The social structures that repress the individual's ability to reach their own potential, usually traditional social rules and organizations, are just as problematic as the government itself--if not moreso. Thick libertarianism advocates for causes related to racism, sexism, transsexism, etc. because they constrain the ability of individuals to self-actualize, to build communities of mutual respect and love. When thick and thin libertarians agree on political issues (like the drug war, overcriminalization, etc.), thick libertarians are often more apt to cite the experiences of marginalized groups, in particular using their voices to explain in their own words how oppression impacts their lives.
Thick libertarianism is quite attractive for a social worker. In analyzing a political issue, you are able to use the incisive structural critique of Austrian and Public Choice political economy to understand the problems with involving centrally planned solutions to social problems. At the same time, it allows you the flexibility to make arguments rooted in the shared experiences of oppressed populations that are persuasive to people to ascribe to some form of social justice.
I bring up this issue because of the fantastic Center for a Stateless Society study on gender identity. In addition to providing an excellent background to the oppression faced daily by people identifying as trans, it makes the compelling (though under-supported claim) that freed gender identity is necessarily a libertarian issue. The author tends to assume away thin libertarian objections with too little argumentation and rhetorical support, but her conclusion, I believe is valid for thick libertarians. If you find fellow-feeling with social justice but base that within an individualistic (not atomistic!) framework, freed gender identity should be a major issue. Moreover, it provides a blueprint based on Charles Johnson's work for how to countermand the malign spontaneous order of trans oppression--consciously planned, emergent, and consensual social change based on the local level. The rape crisis centers, drop-in centers, women's centers, and other feminist-inspired support networks become to people of diversity gender identity the trans shelters, clubs, centers, and networks.
Monday, June 22, 2015
Daily Blog Post 1: Financial Literacy
Hey. It's been a while. I'm trying to get in the habit of writing every day, so I'm starting up the blog to see this can factor into that whole process. If you're not familiar with my obsession with the visual artist beeple, then you should check out his talk here (warning: long and absolutely hilarious video). His advice is to pick something you can do in under 30 minutes, if need be. That suits blogging pretty well, so here goes. Oh yeah, and most of these are going to suck. And I'm not doing them on weekends or days where I'm away.
Financial literacy has always been an issue for me in graduate school. As an advocate of social welfare programs who give money directly to the individual with as few restrictions as possible, a common objection I hear to these programs is that individuals receiving them lack the necessary knowledge of financial matters to effectively and appropriately manager their own funds. This argument takes two general forms. The first is a normative argument that relies on that's persons's impression of how people on social welfare spend their money. The second is a theoretical argument that individuals do not possess the economic information necessary to make the choice that will be in their best interest. I will try to address each below.
The normative argument is largely based on general impressions of people--be they from personal experience and cultural messages--and these are usually easily countered by offering my own personal experience and cultural messages about my social work clients who were endlessly effective at economizing their subsistence living from the government. Clients with severe mental illness, multiple severe traumatic experiences, and who were still experiencing substance abuse issues were able to make rational choices so screw you for stereotyping them (or something). Furthermore, when individuals are shown to be incapable of managing matters that are necessary for their survival, there are less paternalistic approaches in place that still allow that individual to live a safe self-determined life in the community while having their basic needs assured by an individual or non-profit organization directing a part of their funds for them.
The normative question is also an empirical objection. I haven't delved into the financial literacy literature yet, and I don't really have time to now. My general impression here is that this literature, to the extent it provides a clear argument for widespread financial illiteracy, will likely be unpersuasive to me. I have good theoretical reasons to doubt financial illiteracy as a major issue in social welfare. I will probably do at least one follow up post about this issue. I should also figure out a good counterargument based on citations from the self-direction and basic income literature base.
Anyway, the theoretical question. The main objection I have with financial literacy it its foundation in neoliberal economics. The idea, as presented in my health economics class, was that individuals lack perfect information, face entry and exit costs, etc. (among many other idiotic assumptions about markets) and therefore would be unable to effectively make economic decisions for themseleves. This is where the Austrian approach to economics is instructive. Of course social welfare consumers are unable to pass the test of having perfect information, existing in a market of perfect competition, no entry and exit costs, etc. because these are assumptions that can never reasonably be met. More importantly, individuals do not need to possess anywhere near perfect knowledge. The emergent, iterative process of individual economic decision-making brings the market towards its ideal equilibrium point, but it is in constant flux--always imperfect, always becoming.
From a social work perspective, when you look to implement social welfare policies that apply a neoliberal approach to understanding of the social world, you eventually arrive at a form of centralized paternalism. This may be paternalism that is focused on reinforcing positive economic decisions, as determined by a central authority, as in asset-building policies (baby bonds, CDAs, IDAs). Or paternalistic ideas might be focused on punishing bad behaviors, again as determined by a central authority, often through formal sanctions, cost-sharing, and discontinuing services (as in TANF sanctions). The ultimate idea behind both forms of paternalism is that other systems--usually political systems, bureaucratic systems, or non-profit service monopoly systems--know better what a person should value, need, or do than the individual themselves. When asset theory proposes that people in poverty should receive modest college savings funds, they are taking away the agency from that family in poverty to spend that money on whatever they feel they need at that time. Why? Because we the researchers/theorists/funders determined that every family in poverty needs to spend money on college savings rather than housing, food, or healthcare. This is the type of thinking that just pisses me off to no end. I have zero patience for it. In a social work classroom, I can usually argue that on a moral level, this line of reasoning supports the oppression of people on social welfare. But outside that classroom, if I were in a room full of economists, I don't think that argument flies as far as I think it should.
Alright, I need to do some more research on financial literacy. Maybe I will keep that going tomorrow. I suppose I need to present some empirical evidence for financial literacy, as well. I'll try to do that too, maybe. Hope you enjoyed reading this. It was fun to write. :)
Financial literacy has always been an issue for me in graduate school. As an advocate of social welfare programs who give money directly to the individual with as few restrictions as possible, a common objection I hear to these programs is that individuals receiving them lack the necessary knowledge of financial matters to effectively and appropriately manager their own funds. This argument takes two general forms. The first is a normative argument that relies on that's persons's impression of how people on social welfare spend their money. The second is a theoretical argument that individuals do not possess the economic information necessary to make the choice that will be in their best interest. I will try to address each below.
The normative argument is largely based on general impressions of people--be they from personal experience and cultural messages--and these are usually easily countered by offering my own personal experience and cultural messages about my social work clients who were endlessly effective at economizing their subsistence living from the government. Clients with severe mental illness, multiple severe traumatic experiences, and who were still experiencing substance abuse issues were able to make rational choices so screw you for stereotyping them (or something). Furthermore, when individuals are shown to be incapable of managing matters that are necessary for their survival, there are less paternalistic approaches in place that still allow that individual to live a safe self-determined life in the community while having their basic needs assured by an individual or non-profit organization directing a part of their funds for them.
The normative question is also an empirical objection. I haven't delved into the financial literacy literature yet, and I don't really have time to now. My general impression here is that this literature, to the extent it provides a clear argument for widespread financial illiteracy, will likely be unpersuasive to me. I have good theoretical reasons to doubt financial illiteracy as a major issue in social welfare. I will probably do at least one follow up post about this issue. I should also figure out a good counterargument based on citations from the self-direction and basic income literature base.
Anyway, the theoretical question. The main objection I have with financial literacy it its foundation in neoliberal economics. The idea, as presented in my health economics class, was that individuals lack perfect information, face entry and exit costs, etc. (among many other idiotic assumptions about markets) and therefore would be unable to effectively make economic decisions for themseleves. This is where the Austrian approach to economics is instructive. Of course social welfare consumers are unable to pass the test of having perfect information, existing in a market of perfect competition, no entry and exit costs, etc. because these are assumptions that can never reasonably be met. More importantly, individuals do not need to possess anywhere near perfect knowledge. The emergent, iterative process of individual economic decision-making brings the market towards its ideal equilibrium point, but it is in constant flux--always imperfect, always becoming.
From a social work perspective, when you look to implement social welfare policies that apply a neoliberal approach to understanding of the social world, you eventually arrive at a form of centralized paternalism. This may be paternalism that is focused on reinforcing positive economic decisions, as determined by a central authority, as in asset-building policies (baby bonds, CDAs, IDAs). Or paternalistic ideas might be focused on punishing bad behaviors, again as determined by a central authority, often through formal sanctions, cost-sharing, and discontinuing services (as in TANF sanctions). The ultimate idea behind both forms of paternalism is that other systems--usually political systems, bureaucratic systems, or non-profit service monopoly systems--know better what a person should value, need, or do than the individual themselves. When asset theory proposes that people in poverty should receive modest college savings funds, they are taking away the agency from that family in poverty to spend that money on whatever they feel they need at that time. Why? Because we the researchers/theorists/funders determined that every family in poverty needs to spend money on college savings rather than housing, food, or healthcare. This is the type of thinking that just pisses me off to no end. I have zero patience for it. In a social work classroom, I can usually argue that on a moral level, this line of reasoning supports the oppression of people on social welfare. But outside that classroom, if I were in a room full of economists, I don't think that argument flies as far as I think it should.
Alright, I need to do some more research on financial literacy. Maybe I will keep that going tomorrow. I suppose I need to present some empirical evidence for financial literacy, as well. I'll try to do that too, maybe. Hope you enjoyed reading this. It was fun to write. :)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)