It does seem to be a challenge to put together a course on libertarianism and economics without drawing students’ attention to the work of Rothbard, Hazlitt, Mises, Hayek, Jefferson, Spooner, Sumner, Boetie, and on and on, to say nothing of modern work by Hoppe, Raico, Armentano, Block, Long, or anything else that has ever appeared in the Journal of Libertarian Studies–but it seems that this is what “Economics 1017: A Libertarian Perspective on Economic and Social Policy” accomplished last Fall at Harvard. See the course site and reading list. (thanks Econlog)
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/3515/libertarianism-of-a-sort/
Libertarianism of a sort
Previous post: A Critique of Neoclassical and Austrian Monopoly Theory
{ 23 comments }
The syllabus has four readings under “Monetary Policy,” all by Milton Friedman. Nice.
Clearly only the government can give you freedom when it comes to the money supply. War is peace and all that.
It’s almost as if no serious libertarian scholar ever advocated a gold standard.
More like, the prof teaching the course is not a serious libertarian scholar. This is the same Jeffery A. Miron who authored the study saying we should legalize drugs to increase tax revenue.
http://prohibitioncosts.org/
As I see it, there are two kinds of people who can legitimately be called “libertarians.” The first type is indisputable — those whose hearts are in the right place, and whose theories/policies back it up (e.g., Mises). I would also argue, however, that if one’s heart or theories/policies are anti-libertarian, he should be classified as, well, a “libertarian of a sort.” For example, Milton Friedman is certainly not as laissez-faire as Mises, but his concern for economic liberty is so far above that of the average person, he should be acknowledged as being in the libertarian camp.
Having said that, the course is badly misnamed and misguided. I think the professor could be called a “libertarian of a sort,” though much less one than even Friedman. In Lecture 17 (Medical Care), he starts off sounding liberal (“the presumption that markets do things better than governments is less compelling in [healthcare] than in many other arenas”), but he sounds vaguely libertarian in the next slide (“it is unlikely that any plausible
intervention improves matters overall”). Even worse, the professor assigns Thaler and Sunstein’s “Libertarian Paternalism,” which is a sleazy attempt to hijack libertarianism and run it into the ground, much like Michael Otsuka’s so-called “libertarianism without inequality.” This course is still far more libertarian than the average college class, though — is it not?
– Lowell R.
Not that I endorse this view, of course, but it looks like this guy wants to present “scholarly” articles, i.e. ones in top rank journals. In contrast, arguments in the JLS or whatever would probably be deemed merely “verbal” and “ideological.”
Perhaps a better name for this Prof’s course would be “A Liberventionist Perspective on Economic and Social Policy”. If he doesn’t want to refer to what the most ardent and consistent libertarians have to say, then he has no business using the word “libertarian” in his course. But putting Milton Friedman at a pole as the most radical libertarian does a disservice to libertarianism.
For the record, my course includes Boaz’s Libertarian Reader, which contains excerpts from a broad range of libertarian scholars.
That having been said, it is correct that the course spends almost no time on the “classics.” The course is about economics: it presents the consequentialist arguments for libertarian policies rather than discussing libertarianism from a philosophical or rights based perspective.
My own view is that consequentialist arguments convince more people than philosophical or rights based arguments. But that is an empirical question, and reasonable people can disagree.
That aside, my job as an economist, teaching in an economics department, is to teach economics. In particular, I attempt to convince students that applying standard economic tools can and, in my assessment, usually does, lead one to the libertarian policy perspective even if markets are not perfect, even if there is market power, even if information is asymetric, even if there are public goods, etc.
This is no way disparages alternative approaches to, or perspectives on, libertarianism. I think it compliments them, and most of my students seem to agree.
Finally, I have never said we should legalize drugs to increase tax revenue. I have said that legalizing drugs and taxing them at a moderate rate (as w/ alcohol) would be far preferable to current policy.
With all respect Prof. Miron, is it your contention that Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, Block… are not economists?
As to the earlier point, the very least you could do is offer your students some information on free banking (Selgin and White). You give the very false impression that “libertarians” support monetary rules, and no other possibilities.
Further, the value free approach of the Austrian economists seems to square perfectly with your desire to avoid rights based arguments.
Jeez, fellas, give the guy a little benefit…
Prof. Miron, there can be no doubt that what you’re doing is “libertarianism of a sort” and a very promiscuous step in the right direction.
–Adam
A very promiscuous step indeed.
While I can’t understand not using Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, et al, I especially can’t understand not using David (not Milton) Friedman, Bruce Benson, and the like if you’re looking for morally neutral libertarian economic stuff.
Maybe he is using articles from the major journals becasue:
A. Those articles were deemed worthy by a major market for ideas to be included in widely read journals.
B. Those journals are included in major indexes like JSTOR, where people can find them.
Until the JLS and related journals are indexed, it’s going to be the same 20 people writing them for the same 500 people reading them.
As far as I can tell, JLS articles are much easier to get to than any other journal.
http://mises.org/jlsdisplay.asp
The same with QJAE
http://mises.org/qjaedisplay.asp
JSTOR is a tremendous pain in the ass, and I thank god that most all of the journals I have used for recent research have been free online.
From the sound of it, this should be an interesting course for the students, and quite enlightening. This is a compliment to Prof. Miron and his talents. As a teacher, you must provide material and subject matter that is suitable to the direction of the course with reference material that is readily available to the students. JSTOR is a hassle to use and I understand the problems with it, but it would be expected of the students on that campus to be familiar with it.
I’ve taught courses and classes on libertarian history in the past and, were I giving a current one, would make copies available (or make a recommended reading list of online sources) of a number of essays from JLS, Independent Review, The Freeman, as well as various other periodicals, many not well-known by the general public or by most libertarians. The material would necessarily be focused on specific topics covered in the class.
I don’t see that the reading list and information on the course site does any less.
Just a thought.
Just Ken
kgregglv@cox.net
Two comments:
1. Condemning this course is the worst sort of narrow-minded, wagon-circling, Church of the True Believer behavior. Jeff has made a cogent argument for the choices he made, and the reality is that a group of students who might otherwise never have been exposed to libertarian ideas, have now been exposed. I say that as an Austrian economist who deeply wishes that he would have included more Austrian material on his reading list.
2. And perhaps the reason he did not is because almost every paper on there is both *contemporary* and *empirical.* I have my problems with econometrics, but until more Austrians start doing work that actually goes out and explains phenomena in the real world by making sophisticated (which doesn’t mean econometric) use of data and primary source material, we will continue to be ignored. Jeff’s point about making consequentialist arguments is right on, and until Austrians do a lot more that kind of work, we will continue be absent from reading lists like this.
Navel-gazing about praxeology is no substitute for going out and analyzing real world phenomena. (And I’m not exempting myself.)
That said, Pete C’s point about Selgin and White is well-taken, because at least their work is strongly informed by history (and perhaps Bob Higgs qualifies here as well). My disappointment with the reading list is that Jeff seems to equate “empirical” with “econometric,” which excludes well-done more qualitative history.
Dear Steven,
1. Maybe it exposes students to a mild form of libertarianism; but it also misrepresents libertarianism in many ways, with numerous caveots. It misrepresents libertarianism, in that it is focused on relatively moderate forms of libertarianism, ignoring more rigorous ones.
2. Empirical research cannot tell us correct economic theory. Rather, we can only apply economic theory to empirical data (generated by empirical research) in explaining it.
There are many Austrians doing solid empirical work, including DiLorenzo and Block, among others. To say that Austrians are ignored because they don’t do empirical work is wrong. Why they’re ignored has been discussed elsewhere, but it isn’t for any lacking either in the theoretical rigor or explanation of empirical phenomena.
Also, regarding Prof. Miron’s desire to make consequentialist arguments, Mises made numerous consequentialist arguments, as did Rothbard.
Sorry David, but I don’t feel it “misrepresents” libertarianism. Libertarianism is not equivalent to the “rigorous” form that you seem to think it is. Maybe my definition of libertarianism is a broad one, but if we’re going to start excluding moderate forms from being “entitled” to the name, count me out. That’s the Church of the True Believer approach I noted earlier and one I firmly reject.
Would I teach that course differently? You betcha. Does that make what Jeff did a problem? Nope.
Why is it that some libertarians feel the need to kick their friends the hardest? Here’s a guy teaching a damn course on libertarianism at Harvard (yes, Harvard), and most everyone is complaining about it! I see this as a great thing. Am I nuts?
Steven,
My concern is that, because even moderate libertarianism is radical relative to the political monoculture, only referring to moderate libertarian arguments creates the impression that anything more extreme is simply insane, and not worth the bother of consideration.
Even while trying to argue against State-Interventionism, Prof. Miron makes numerous concessions (e.g,. regarding the oceans and the air). Even when stepping in the right direction, he’s also stepping in the wrong direction in a way. See how he talks about property rights, as something to be “defined” or “assigned” by the State. The State randomly assining property rights, ignoring homesteading, is not libertarianism, whether the State steps back afterwards or not.
Time and again, Miron seems to reinforce the assumptions — both economic and moral — of interventionism. Property rights are to be assigned by the state; he says it over and over again. In his lecture on the environment, not once did he mention the word “homestead”. Aside from the inherent moral dimension, having the State arbitrarily “assign property rights” has negative long-run consequences; namely, increasing time-preferences, as property rights become less stable.
Many of his arguments are good, albeit I think the entire framework is dangerous overall if absorbed by someone naive of libertarianism. Libertarianism is not about “assigning” property rights. Various forms of State-interventionism are about assigning property rights.
Also, at the end of his lecture on the environment, he approvingly refers to the 2nd Amendemnt, “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. Yet, he claims to argue that he isn’t considering philosophical arguments? He’s inherently assuming them. He’s assuming that the State can arbitrarily determine what is “just compensation” for stolen land (I’d argue that, contrarily, the only “just compensation” for land taken is whatever needs to be given to get the owner to voluntarily part with his land).
Quite the fundamentalist attitude we’re exposed to. That’s coming from someone who truly wishes the fundamentalist libertarian worldview but that it were…
There’s a difference, though, in not being pragmatic in the milieu, or, perhaps in this case, even functionally coexistent in a world where the battle is uphill all the way home. Not all the forces of the enemy are evil is what I’m saying and David Horwitz’s comments are spot on. It’s homiletics vs. an actual conversation. So what’s it going to be? Because fundamentalist attitudes don’t change minds, persuasive arguments do. For me, there’s a difference between the fundamentalist sneering attitude and a belief in the fundamental libertarianism of men like Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, Reisman, and all the others you know so well.
–Adam
I meant Steven Horwitz, not David. Apologies to both Steven Horwitz and David Horowitz.
Wrong amendment David. You meant the 5th.
Also, I would like to add that despite my reference to Selgin and White, my view are far closer to that of Hülsmann. I was just trying to offer a “moderate” rather than correct suggestion.
And I am really saddened that no one caught on to my joke about a “promiscuous” step.
Comments on this entry are closed.