Michael Shermer, Founder of Skeptic magazine, science writer, and author of The Mind of the Market, is both libertarian and skeptic. As one blog commented recently, “Many libertarians know much about economics, law and ethics but are very weak on natural sciences. Michael Shermer is a brilliant intellectual who knows about both natural and social sciences, a great combination of intelligence and freedom.”
The converse is also true: many secular, scientific, and “skeptic” types are woefully ignorant of or have otherwise flawed views on economics and politics. The “skeptics” types are usually left-wing, and have the expected views on global warming, welfare, social security, nuclear power, etc., combined with the typical statists’ smug intolerance of debate. See, for example, the comments by skeptics to Shermer’s pro-libertarian blogposts The Other ‘L’ Word: Why I am a Libertarian and How I Became a Libertarian.
This is one reason I dropped out of the skeptics group I helped co-found in Baton Rouge in the 1980s, when I was in college: the members purported to be in favor of reason, in their opposition to pseudoscientific notions like astrology and clairvoyance, but they seemed to have no principled opposition to the state or understanding of free market economics. To my mind, anyone of reason and independent mind would be skeptical of the state and command economics.
Skeptics, insofar as they are genuinely in favor of reason and freedom of expression and scientific inquiry, should also:
- oppose global warming hysteria (or, at least, politically-charged and usually scientifically illiterate attempts to muzzle open debate about it);
- favor nuclear power (especially if you are an environmentalist concerned about greenhouse gases!);
- be skeptical of the chilling of free speech and other state-influences on thought and expression and open inquiry posed by (a) chilling effect of various state laws on discrimination etc.; (b) even worse, the idea of government schooling, where it is inevitable–indeed a purpose of it–that the state will propagandize students); and
- stop equating “favoring science” with “favoring federal subsidies for science”, etc.
- stop equating “science” with the causal, natural sciences–study a bit of Austrian dualism (see also, on the scientism-monism that affects engineers and scientists: C.P. Snow’s “The Two Cultures” and Misesian Dualism, Yet More on Galambos, and Libertarian Activism-comments).
In a sense, despite personally being secular, in my view having a sound understanding of political philosophy and economics is more important and more fundamental than having an advanced view on particular issues of the causal sciences. Those who believe in ESP, UFOs, Yuri Geller’s spoon bending, water-divining, horoscopes, clairvoyance, telekinesis, and even Creationism and other religious views and the like are merely mistaken, and pose no harm to others–in a free society. Their views neither pick my pocket nor break my leg, as Jefferson would say.
By contrast, secularists who have less outlandish views on evolution, ESP, and the like but who also favor state funding of science, global warming, “democracy,” government education, and taxation are a much bigger threat and problem. These views aid and abet political oppression and intolerance and hamper the ability to engage in honest, open, free debate in the first place. Give me a horoscope-touting libertarian over a statist secularist any day. The secularists must realize that political and economic freedom are preconditions for open intellectual discourse.
Update: In Selective Skepticism, one anti-libertarian “skeptic” gives a good illustration of the typical confusion and “reasoning” of his crowd. They are just out of their depth.
{ 74 comments }
← Previous Comments
seems from some of th eposts here that the oddity of skeptics who also have a blind spot in their leftism, also has an inverse: Libertarians who also hold absurd creationist beliefs. O the irony – in my experience, if you scratch the skin of such a being, you will find underneath a full-blown neocon, first in line to support the outlawing of activities that they regard as immoral – from prostitution, and recreational drugs, to retailing wine on Sundays, same-sex marriage and stem-cell research.
Stephan,
“OK. Here’s the leap:
1) Industrial science focuses almost exclusively on what is immediately profitable.
2) Many key developments in science have come from state-funded research with a longer term outlook, and would probably not have been developed in an industrial setting.
3)Therefore state-funded science has an important contribution to make.”
What is a “key development” without a profit or loss system you can only answer that in an arbitrary manner that abstracts from the wants of consumers.
So, sure, as a scientist you may be able to answer that question, but that’s about it. Likewise, as a religious individual I might be able to point out that the state has been useful in advancing religion (I don’t actually believe this), without being subject to the market test, neither of us can be correct because we can’t tell what society values more.
Stephen,
Like state-funded research, human testing can have many important benefits, too! Libertarians just happen to have the oddball belief that test subjects should be volunteers, not conscripts.
It’s the notion that you can’t just do whatever you want to people just because you like it.
Also, unless you [Stephen] are rooting for a dictatorship, I don’t see how a “democracy” of people who are allegedly too stupid to fund brilliant research on their own is going to vote for the “right” people to administer the research funding… which, if you assume that the general populace is a bunch of dunces, brings into question the quality of government-funded research by your own reasoning, I would think.
At least in a libertarian society, the “smart” people get to choose what the important projects are to spend their own money on, even if shortsighted fools won’t help out. But given that the former group is so intelligent, they should be able to round up enough capital to make up for the latter, and they probably have a pretty good idea as to what the important projects are to fund.
@ Stephan Kinsella
Leave the poor boy alone! Nice article, btw.
Mushindo:
You have a point, with respect to mainline American Christians, but this is utterly untrue with respect to libertarian Christians. They are opposed to war, outlawing prostitution or drugs, and the like. They cannot be blamed for positions they do not and will not hold. This is why I said above that the religious views of libertarians are no threat to secularists, while the statist views of secularists are a problem for all.
FTG: “The problem both skeptics and believers have is when these beliefs spill to the political arena, in the form of public policy, the best example being public schooling.”
Good point. I oppose introducing creationism in the public schools, although most creationists don’t agree with me. And I don’t oppose the teaching of evolution. I insisted that my three children learn as much as possible about the theory of evolution so that they could discuss it intelligently. Well-educated people should know both sides of any argument equally well. They only thing I would wish for public schools is that they teach the whole science, and not just the selective and distorted science that supports only the theory of evolution.
Peter: “On the contrary, “macro-evolution” is a chimera invented by creationists.â€
Creationists did invent the term “macro-evolutionâ€, but they were forced to do so by the inherent dishonesty in the marketing of the theory of evolution. Open any textbook on evolution and you’ll find that all of the evidence for it is nothing more than change across species but within genera. The evidence for evolution from one genus to another such as from a monkey to a human is almost non-existent. This is dishonest, no different from the old bait and switch scam. Creationists invented the terms micro-evolution and macro-evolution to simplify the technical terminology and to make clear the dishonesty in the marketing of evolution. Creationists have no problem with speciation via evolution. The evidence for it is overwhelming, as the evolution textbooks make clear. We have a problem with evolution from genus to genus, and so should real science because the evidence for it simply doesn’t exit.
Gregor Mendel tried to explain to the cult of Darwin that the variation possible in species was limited and could not extend to a change between types of animals, but they wouldn’t listen. Later, when the science of genetics advanced Mendel’s findings sufficiently, geneticists had to admit that the variation in the genome was limited. If evolution were to happen between genera, or animal types, then mutations would have to provide the necessary new information.
So the terms micro-evolution and macro-evolution were invented, but the science behind them is real. Micro-evolution happens naturally with the existing genetic information. Macro-evolution requires mutations to make the leap from one type of animal to another.
Stephan Kinsella:
“Grow up and learn to “take it” as you and your statist, criminal fiends rob me blind, eh?”
I can be pretty sure that I’ve never spent a single cent that you earned.
“If you think it’s hard to find evidence that states are uniformly evil, either you are evil, or amoral, or blind.”
It seems to me a logical impossibility to prove that all states are uniformly evil. It’s very easy to assert the fact though.
“In my society there is no organized aggression, and what private aggression there is, is kept to a minimum and suppressed by the private defense forces of the civilized, free people.”
What happens when two private defence forces disagree about who owns what?
“Of course, because you are a criminal. Be glad you do not live in a society composed mostly of your betters, where people like you would be sideshow freaks.”
Believe me, I am thankful that it is I who lives in the society where you are the sideshow freak.
“Here’s an idea: Consider also the Austrian school of economics, which unlike science, has been proven wrong and is unwilling to change.”
Really. That’s strange considering that it was the Austrian Economists like Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, etc. who predicted the current economic downturn years in advance.
I’m actually glad you don’t consider yourself a skeptic anymore. Your post reveals that you are essentially dogmatic, and this is the antithesis of skepticism. It doesn’t matter if your conclusions are right or not… what makes you a skeptic is the acceptance of a provisional nature to your arguments. I detect none here.
I have spent a week or so recently jousting with the Matt Yglesias blog commenters. I pointed out to them that in 36 years, I had never once seen a fair exposition of the basic principles of Austrian economics set forth by an opponent of Austrian economics (that didn’t spur any Austrian opponents to action, however). This reinforces my long held view that progressive politics is a religion as much as the religion of any Islamic jihadi. Think about how they no longer seem to care about the government’s wars and violations of civil liberties.
For liberals, progressive politics is their religion, their faith, their entire reason for being. Therefore, they will always be impervious to economic arguments proving that their economic vision invariably leads to economic misery, the gulag, Rwanda. Having the STATE bossing around the unwashed and unenlightened is the whole point. Obama has spent his entire life learning to be the perfect liberal messiah. And he is. Now that he is in charge of the U.S. government, it too is now cloaked in the religious aura of Obama and the progressive faith. Because the government is now progressive and therefore HOLY in all its missions, its military can authentically teach the evil Taliban and Muslims how to live their lives, something the military of the evil Republican Christian Dubya could never do. This situation is exactly the same as the progressives’ indifference to poor black kids stuck in inner city public schools. The whole point of all of the religious progressive’s programs is the never-ending war on the unenlightened from whence the progressive obtains personal salvation.
As such, they are impervious to logic, evidence and facts. They will never even admit the existence of contrary facts. Has any progressive answered Tom Woods’ demonstration that cutting spending and not inflating cured the 1921 depression? Has any progressive answered Bob Murphy’s demonstration that Hoover and Roosevelt prolonged the depression? Has any progressive answered Bob Higg’s demonstration that WWII didn’t cure the depression?
So, just who are the really dangerous non-skeptical religious fanatics?
What?! Aaahaahahah
Marginal Productivity – Debunked (Check the Cambridge Capital controversy)
Labour “market” can achieve equilibrium – Debunked
Credit market can achieve equilibrium – Debunked
And lots more where that came from.
Here you go
I guess db0 has nailed us. The Austrians have NEVER even considered Marxist analysis, have we?
http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=47
http://mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx
http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE4_1_5.pdf
Unfortunately, what you did is not only a Tu Quoque fallacy, but a Strawman as well, since the arguments I presented were not explicitly Marxist.
Many of them have actually come from Economists. And many others come from simply logical deduction.
So back to the drawing board Bob.
In further response to db0:
Our hero, Bob Murphy, explained away the so called “Cambridge Capital Controversy†six years ago:
“But Samuelson was quite wrong when he thought his discovery in any way contradicted Austrian theory. Contra Samuelson, no Austrian ever claimed that reswitching was mathematically impossible. Indeed, Austrians do not normally think in those terms at all, except when forced to in response to mainstream challenges.â€
http://mises.org/daily/1148
Further, everyone in their everyday life understands marginal utility. Value is personal and subjective. In 1990, people paid a lot for and bought a lot of Vanilla Ice albums. Not so today:
http://tinyurl.com/py5ktk
Murray Rothbard, in his great book “The Essential Von Misesâ€, explains:
“The Austrian, or Menger-Böhm-Bawerkian, solutions to the dilemmas of economics were far more comprehensive than by the Ricardians, because the Austrian solutions were rooted in a completely contrasting epistemology. The Austrians unerringly centered their analysis on the individual, on the acting individual as he makes his choices on the basis of his preferences and values in the real world. Starting from the individual, the Austrians were able to ground their analysis of economic activity and production in the values and desires of the individual consumers. Each consumer operated from his own chosen scale of preferences and values; and it was these values that interacted and combined to form the consumer demands that form the basis and the direction for all productive activity. Grounding their analysis in the individual as he faces the real world, the Austrians saw that productive activity was based on the expectations of serving the demands of consumers. Hence, it became clear to the Austrians that no productive activity, whether of labor or of any productive factors, could confer value upon goods or services. Value consisted in the subjective valuations of the individual consumers. In short, I could spend thirty years of labor time and other resources working on the perfection of a giant steam-powered tricycle. If, however, on offering this product no consumers can be found to purchase this tricycle, it is economically valueless, regardless of the misdirected effort that I had expended upon it. Value is consumer valuations, and the relative prices of goods and services are determined by the extent and intensity of consumer valuations and desires for these products.â€
http://mises.org/books/evm.pdf
Rothbard notes that Mises specifically attacked the neo-classical ideas of “perfect competition†and “general equilibriumâ€. Your link:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secC1.html#secc14
also attempts a critique of these same ideas. These are not Austrian concepts so you have failed to critique Austrian economics. Rothbard explains it all in “The Essential Von Misesâ€. You should read it. It’s free. He destroys Ricardian, Neo-Classical, Keynesian, Socialist and Marxist economics in nice, pleasant easy to read prose.
I note that the link to db0′s blog leads one to the post entitled “Why talking about Communism mattersâ€:
http://dbzer0.com/
We should talk about Communism because it leads directly to mass murder in the tens of millions. From “The Forsaken†by Tim Tzouliadis, page 354:
“Near Minsk, in Byelorussia, workers laying a gas pipeline through a pine forest discovered a mass grave dating from 1937 to 1941. The bodies were still clutching reading glasses, purses, children’s toys, medicines, and the host of random, everyday possessions that people take with them when they are seized. The mass graves at Kuropaty Forest were estimated by Memorial to contain 150,000 victims. At Bykovna, outside Kiev, another mass grave was found in which an estimated 200,000 victims of the Terror lay buried.”
In the Donetsk province, mass graves were discovered in Rutchenko fields containing 40,000 victims. On Golden Mountain, near Chelyabinsk, Memorial discovered a mass grave containing an estimated 300,000 victims. And so it continues, until we are rendered senseless by the numbers.â€
Oh, Bob, Bob, Bob…
I don’t see how he did. The Capital controversy proved that marginal productivity as a concept does not apply to mutli-commodity markets where the end commodities are different than the capital. What you quotes does not seem to counter it to the least.
Yes, so? I accept marginal utility as well, as much as I accept the labour theory of value
However, starting from the simple premise “People want diverse stuff instead more of the same” does not lead to any economic theories.
Yes, and the problem here are the assumptions Mises made about how and why humans act. Assumptions which have been proven wrong by actual sciences mind you, such as psychology.
Come on Bob, did you jump on the first Strawman you could find there. Just a little bit further below, there’s another nice section:
C.1.6 Is it possible to have non-equilibrium based capitalist economics?
Gogogo
As for again bringing up what you call “Communism”, well since I do not promote this kind of of system, I don’t see what it has to do with me.
So again, strawman Bob. Come on, you can do better than that
1. Your writer is quite uninformed and/or dishonest. In no particular order, he/she claims that money creation by a central bank out of thin air is not caused by the state:
“In effect, they [Austrians] think that the money supply and interest rates are determined exogenously (i.e. outside the economy) by the state. However, this is unlikely as the evidence points the other way, i.e. to the endogenous nature of the money supply itself. This account of money (proposed strongly by, among others, the post-Keynesian school) argues that the money supply is a function of the demand for credit, which itself is a function of the level of economic activity. In other words, the banking system creates as much money as people need and any attempt to control that creation will cause economic problems and, perhaps, crisis. Money, in other words, emerges from within the system and so the Austrian attempt to “blame the state” is simply wrong.â€
Austrians propose a complete separation of money and state. Fraud and counterfeiting would be prohibited. The only new money would be from mining operations. Absent the find of a huge amount of new gold and silver, an inflationary boom would be virtually impossible. The unit of money stated in long term contracts would not change in value significantly over time (except perhaps to gain value). A central bank creates money out of thin air BY STATE AUTHORITY and that money must be accepted by everyone as legal tender due to state legal tender laws even as the state dilutes its value. The central bank in effect is constantly diluting the money supply. Those getting the new money are in effect stealing the purchasing power of those holding the old money. As the value of the money is constantly diluted, long term contracts become difficult to evaluate. Asset prices are bid up artificially and people think they are richer than they are. They then act foolishly. Such a boom must collapse. These are two complete different monetary regimes which your writer must ignore. Your writer is clearly addressing his polemic to those already converted to the anti-Austrian position. It is just another (boring) example of someone not addressing the actual Austrian position, just like I have complained for 36 years.
2. Your author claims that Austrians expect the working class (whatever the hell that is; we disdain such categorizations) to “bear the price for any recessionâ€:
“Unsurprisingly, the Austrians (like most economists) expect the working class to bear the price for any recession in terms of real wage cuts in spite of their theory indicating that its roots lie in capitalists and bankers seeking more profits and, consequently, the former demanding and the latter supplying more credit than the “natural” interest rate would supply.â€
WRONG. Austrians were at the forefront in demanding NO BAILOUTS for big business or any business. If you are a big AIG shareholder or big shot, and you go bankrupt, you might be expected to a take greeters job at the House of Blues. It’s very simple. We expect that if you can’t make money in your chosen line of work, FIND ANOTHER LINE OF WORK. Doh.
3. Your writer claims that Austrians IGNORE all history of the 19th century booms and busts:
“Luckily, though, the Austrian school’s methodology allows it to ignore such irritating constrictions as facts, statistics, data, history or experimental confirmation.â€
Every Austrian economist I’ve read in 36 years explains how Pre-FED fractional reserve banking causes and caused booms and busts. Why not read Tom Woods’ great new book, “Meltdownâ€. He goes into significant detail explaining how fractional reserve banking was problematic in the 1800s. Further, watch his magnificent video explaning how DOING NOTHING other than cutting spending cured the 1921 depression:
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2009/04/tom-woods-only-threat-to-my.html
Also read Bob Murphy’s definitive new book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Dealâ€:
http://tinyurl.com/olu3d9
Conclusion: It’s boring refuting the same old same old disinformation I’ve seen for almost four decades. I’m not sure that the comments section of this particular post is the best place to debate long dishonest Marxoid rants. Rothbard’s “The Essential Von Mises†and the Woods and Murphy books (both released in 2009) explain virtually every phony complaint you and your authorities have made.
Now, I’m going to do something more exciting and “socially beneficial”, climb a ladder and clean out my gutters by hand.
(By the way, who decides in your anarchist utopia what is “socially beneficial” and what do they do about it? Who decides who decides what is “socially beneficial”?)
Ah, Bob, you always seem one step less that what is required to get the point. The author says that the Austrians claim that currently the money supply is created out of thin air and you somehow think you’re arguing by confirming the author?
The author says that the Austrians expect that working class will get the brunt of any depression and you say that’s not true, because they suggest no bailouts, which will of course lead to the closing of factories, severe downturn and generally a nice “creative destruction”. Which is going to go unemployed in all this mayhem? Who is going to get his wages lowered because of the rising unemployment? The working class.
As such, really, I have no reason to keep demolishing your strawmen, but it at least becomes obvious why you didn’t see any argument against Misean arguments, since you probably misunderstood them.
db0: I think you misinterpreted the context in which he was writing.
db0:
I haven’t misunderstood anything here.
You have yet to make a single argument or point and you really don’t seem to get the gist of the Austrian position whatsoever.
1. There won’t be depressions caused by money dilution without money dilution.
2. Life is messy. There may be plagues and earthquakes and floods. Maybe a fearsome meteor shower. These could cause widespread economic hard times. People should prepare for the worst and join voluntary relief and charity associations. And save their money for a rainy day. Austrians and libertarians only object to being forced to be charitable at the point of a gun. You have a hell of a lot more to fear from a do-gooder SWAT team than any short term economic crisis.
Now, refute the points I’ve made and questions I’ve asked in my various posts in your own words. Don’t give me a link to some Marxoid nonsense and don’t just blurt out that I don’t understand something.
No Bob, I’m sorry but you’re not worth the effort and neither is the location. If anyone not already convinced of Misoid nonsense ever stumbles on this conversation, at least they will see some antilogue and may follow the links to get some “inoculation”.
Hey db0, I’m at the same place.
Why don’t you guys go BUY several thousand acres of farm land and set up an anarchist community on your very own PRIVATE PROPERTY? You’d find your strongest defenders will be libertarians and Austrians when the S.W.A.T. teams arrive to unconstitutionally and illegally hassle you.
“To my mind, anyone of reason and independent mind would be skeptical of the state and command economics.”
This is because most atheists, sceptics, humanists etc. are (on average) just as stupid as the vast majority of ‘intellectuals’ – and I would certainly not exclude libertarians from this latter category, as there are a good number of blockheads running around that camp, too.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.