Libertarians, Parts 3 and 4

Part 3 – Is private property legitimate? Teemu argues against private property in two ways:

  • First      he argues that if someone simply inherits property that’s not fair.
    • But      it was a voluntary transaction, and
    • Someone      “unfairly” having property he didn’t earn doesn’t harm anyone else
  • Second      he argues many people have property not from non-coercive success at      business but from inheriting it long ago when people did acquire the land      unfairly
    • I      argue this is patently not true for the vast majority of land, at least      in Canada.

I do concede that many libertarians treat private property as the end, not the means to an end.  I don’t elaborate far enough to think of examples of this, however.

Part 4 - An attack on the concept of the “self-made man” and its implications to Libertarianism

Teemu describes examples from Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers to support his argument that the self-made man is a myth, and in fact everyone is the product of favourable circumstances or genetics.  Therefore we can’t sit back and not care that the poor remain poor, comforted by the view that they are simply lazy and didn’t try hard enough.

I argue that of course if you drill down deeply enough, you will be able to identify the physical causes of why one person succeeded while another didn’t.  That doesn’t mean we can’t draw the line at some point and declare that what lies past the line constitutes what we mean by a person’s “free will”.

In my view, our thinking on this subject should progress in stages:

Stage 1: A belief in “hard meritocracy” (Teemu’s phrase), where we don’t care if people are poor or not, because if they are they must not have tried hard enough.

Stage 2: An Outliers-influenced belief that no one is responsible for their circumstances, and therefore we must intervene to help all those with poor initial circumstances

Stage 3: We draw a line where we define “free will”, and help people up to this line (perhaps through charity).  Past it, we accept that people can be lazy if they want to!

To attempt to “assist” people out of their desire to drink beer, watch wrestling on TV, and other things you define as bad thoughts and desires is to destroy our humanity.  What makes us human is all our imperfections, I think.

Libertarians, Part 2

Part 2 – Dogmatism vs. Ideology as it relates to Libertarians

  • Teemu also pointed out that too many people stop thinking after they’ve read one book or two and then base all their thoughts on that.  It would be as if he and I had read Ludwig von Mises' Human Action back in 2002 and then blogged about everything in the world we think that is inconsistent with it for the next 10 years.
    • I agreed with him up to a point but I tried to make a distinction between dogmatism and ideology.  It is possible to have strongly held beliefs that certain things are true, as long as those beliefs are backed up by evidence and you are in principle able to change those views.  To argue that you must always maintain a neutral agnosticism about everything out of fear of becoming ideological is more than unnecessary – you would sacrifice the concept of truth at the altar of agnosticism.
    • Just like the economists I referenced in part 1, as long as you maintain a methodological openness, you can be as ideological as you want without being dogmatic.
    • I also remarked that it is better to be certain of your ideas one by one rather than accept a whole overarching philosophy like Libertarianism at once, accepting even the more untested bits along with the clearly true parts.
      • Then we got on a bit of a tangent about how the only way for society to become libertarian is through a grassroots change in people’s attitudes towards helping themselves and each other – Teemu paraphrased the quote “Have a revolution only once you could win an election”
        • I pointed out how libertarianism can indeed arise from populist, grassroots sentiments – look at the reaction to the bailouts and stimulus packages in the US.  It’s simply the political incentive structure that prevents this populist sentiment from manifesting in real political action.

At this point our discusson changed to Teemu trying to raise some issues with Libertarianism I had never heard him raise before.  It would appear in the past few months, perhaps influenced by his reading of Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers, his previously radical libertarianism has moderated significantly.  This will be discussed in Parts 3 and 4.

Libertarians, Part 1

I had a 2.5-hour conversation on 10 August 2009 with my friend, Teemu Pihlajamäki.  We hadn’t spoken in a couple of weeks and therefore had many thoughts that were ready to harvest. Part 1 – Blogs

  • He asked me why I wanted to start a blog.  I’ve had several abortive attempts to start blogs in the past, but they all failed, because I was too ambitious – I wanted to express my complete, finished, perfect worldview on all subjects.  I now realize that I can contribute to the world of ideas without having decided everything.  I can be comfortable with a high level of agnosticism on many subjects, while still sharing some small perspectives or insights on issues, and not having them simply die in my head or in my notes.  I can put them out there to participate in the world of ideas.  I want to be a branch, not just a leaf in the tree of knowledge.
  • Teemu worried that by publishing anything you get identified with a set of views, which makes it difficult to take your views back in the face of contradicting evidence.  Publishing, therefore, is dangerous because it crystallizes your ideas and arrests your intellectual development.
    • For example, even if he encountered good evidence contradicting climate change Al Gore would have a hard time taking back what he’s said, changing his views, without losing all credibility.
    • I pointed out this occurs more often with public figures, whereas academics can change their minds about things more easily – take the example in Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion of an old British professor who passionately believed one thing and then when presented with contradictory evidence in a lecture by an American, he came up and said “I’ve been wrong these 15 years”, and everyone in the lecture hall applauded.
    • I also pointed out a recent economist article alleging that it’s more acceptable to flip-flop on issues of public policy if you’re an economist:
    • “Today’s economists tend to be open-minded about content, but doctrinaire about form. They are more wedded to their techniques than to their theories.”
    • Outside of academia, however, we both agreed that it helps to be declarative and certain if you want to be heard, as The Onion once lampooned.

The Reader

I read the unabridged English audio version of Bernhard Schlink’s The Reader while travelling to Saskatchewan.  It was very well-produced and I found the book’s insights on relationships and human nature very insightful.  The complex portrayal of how Germans can come to terms with their actions during the Holocaust was riveting – I was touched especially by the following passage describing the protagonist’s feelings toward a former Nazi concentration camp guard:

“I wanted simultaneously to understand Hanna’s crime and to condemn it.  But it was too terrible for that.  When I tried to understand it, I had the feeling I was failing to condemn it as it must be condemned.  When I condemned it as it must be condemned, there was no room for understanding.  … I could not resolve this.  I wanted to pose myself both tasks – understanding and condemnation.”

This concept is further explored here.