Free Market = Mass Society = Bad?
I've started a discussion with a political science professor at my college, and I thought it might be helpful to get more views. (Now not only is this guy a colleague, but he's also used Rothbard in one of his classes, so no spitballs please.) Below I've excerpted some things from his latest email, and then I give a quick response. This is the type of discussion that will probably be better if it's short bursts back and forth, rather than long discourses.
Nathan said:
I have in mind something like what Ropke fretted about in Chapter II of The Humane Economy, borrowing from Ortega y Gasset. I mean by the term "mass society" simply the social effects of mass production and consumption. The concept is difficult to describe more concisely, as it involves a rather complex chain of related events. Such effects would include the relative homogenization of tastes and attitudes (chain food, clothing, popular entertainment, etc. from cheaper goods and aggressive advertising); the disruption of family bonds as individuals are encouraged by businesses and marketers to pursue at all costs individual satisfaction (and these appeals often include manipulative appeals to lowest denominator tastes, sex and violence) ; the loss of true individuality and individual liberty - and thus responsibility - as individuals interior lives are increasingly shaped by market forces (cell phones, television, video games, advertising, etc.); I could go on...
A few quick points:
(1) The "free market" means nothing else than respect for property rights. It does not mean "unbridled commercialism" or "worship of mammon." So at a basic level, I don't see how refraining from violating people's property rights leads to irresponsibility, breakdown of family, etc.
(2) I think the government plays a huge role in the undeniably obectionable features of modern society. E.g. I can't think of a better way to foster homogeneity of thought and tastes than the so-called public school system or public ownership of the radio and television waves. And let us not forgot the institution of democracy itself--now there's something that promotes mass society and undermines individual responsibility.
(3) To the extent that Wal-Mart caters to lower and middle-income people, I think that in a truly free market, Wal-Mart would not be as popular as it is now. In the present environment, Wal-Mart provides a wonderful service (in my opinion) because of its quality/price combination. But if I took home (literally) twice as much income because of the abolition of government "services," then I probably would go to fancier shops etc. for a lot of my purchases.
Comments (68)
J. H. Huebert
Your second point is important and may merit elaboration. The state has done so much to destroy the family, religion, and other elements of civil society, not just through its schools but also through welfare, social security, anti-discrimination laws, etc. A truly free market would likely produce smaller, more heterogeneous communities, as Hoppe describes in his book on democracy.
Published: February 15, 2006 7:31 PM
Mark Larson
I think [hope] the rise and spread of the Internet could have some power to combat 'mass society.' We see many producers of pop culture [music, literature, art, journalism, film] that are now able to find and serve like-minded niche communities. The costs of producing and obtaining goods to meet these unique interests are so much lower than before. When technology makes things like copyright seem tenuous and a bit absurd [see: mp3 revolution, bittorrent, etc.], or things like mass media newscasting seem pretty weak [see: Mises.org Katrina coverage]... I think [hope] the mass-society middlemen will feel the squeeze.
Published: February 15, 2006 8:30 PM
Plowman
You could also say that the homogenization of "tastes and attitudes" has more to do with the regulation of the market that the freedom of the market. It is through the creation of labor and production restrictions, legal and beauracratic compliance expenses, and taxation that we have a market economy that only permits the most highly capitalized companies to compete - hence the chain stores, Hollywood movies, etc. In a free market there would be vastly increased competition in every industry that would have the effect of continuously diversifying goods as opposed to the homogenizing effect of regulation.
Also, the cart has been placed squarely before the horse with this statement "as individuals interior lives are increasingly shaped by market forces." This is exactly backwards: the individuals interior lives are precisely what drive market forces, not the other way around. Perhaps there is something of a feedback loop that the market forces have on the interior life of individuals, but the individual is logically prior to the market forces. Even practically, marketers are more concerned with driving immediate sales than they are with slowly, methodically changing the interior lives of your customer base. By the time you achieve this, your lost sales opportunities will most likely have you out of business. Marketers appeal to the already established and current interior lives of individuals, and do not have the luxury to wait for their subliminal campaigns to take root.
Published: February 15, 2006 8:31 PM
Aussie Mike
Robert
Your professor sounds like J.K.Galbraith!!
There was a time when individual lives were shaped by coal & timber for home heating, candles, whale oil & kerosene for light,washboards,& hand wringers for washing days etc. etc. etc.
Also I would have thought the social effects of mass production & consumption were increased satisfaction for millions of individuals.
Please keep this debate going-- I will follow it with great interest.
Published: February 15, 2006 8:47 PM
Dennis Sperduto
The most fundamental social effect of mass production (and consumption) is that literally most of us owe our lives to capitalist methods of production. The exponential increase in population over the last three hundred years corresponds with, more accurately is the result of, the significant adoption of capitalist production methods. As Mises pointed out many times, those who are critical of capitalism and mass production need to realize that all other methods of social cooperation will necessarily lead to a radical diminution of the human population.
Published: February 15, 2006 9:31 PM
David Gibbons
Please peruse the soft drink aisle at your local grocery store and then make the case that our tastes are becoming homogenized. If anything there is an overabundance of choice but we have this choice due to the workings of the free market. Ironically, I have also heard anti-capitalist arguments that state that there is too much choice. This seems to be a hard argument for a proponent of free markets to win when your opponent takes all sides of the issue.
Published: February 15, 2006 9:56 PM
Paul Edwards
Yes David,
A friend of mine related a story of when his father visited the west for the first time, having lived in India and Africa his whole life up till that time. When he first visited a grocery store with the shelves full of such abundance and variety he exclaimed "this is the socialist ideal!"
In the third world, they are taught by western intellectuals that socialism leads to abundance and prosperity. What a tragedy that truth doesn't hold more weight with people. So much suffering could be avoided.
Published: February 15, 2006 10:58 PM
Steven Kane
"Please keep this debate going-- I will follow it with great interest."
It doesn't seem too interesting to me. This professor Nathan clearly hasn't a clue.
I dislike many of the mass consumer products (especially the programs on television) and so I abstain from purchasing them. But that doesn't mean that I have a right to go out and shut down other people's consumption just because I personally do not like what they are consuming. To think otherwise would be absolutely absurd.
This is a real gem right here:
" as individuals interior lives are increasingly shaped by market forces (cell phones, television, video games, advertising, etc.);"
These items constitute market forces? If so how are they forcing anyone to do anything? Does a video game force people to play it? Does a cell phone force people to talk on it? Is anyone forced to watch television when they don't want to? These things are hardly 'market forces.' It is precisely the other way around. The market is shaped by our lives. The only reason why cell phones, television, video games and advertising exist is because people want these things. It brings them satisfaction. No market researcher on the planet is going to come up with some product that no one wants and then try to push it on them.
Published: February 15, 2006 11:23 PM
Brett_McS
Aussie Mike: Indeed he does sound like J.K.G.!
I wonder has he noticed the increasingly fine "granulation" of products and services as the years progress? Perhaps he doesn't do the shopping? - that would explain a lot.
(Aussie Brett).
Published: February 16, 2006 2:40 AM
Wild Pegasus
You should also point how much mass production is subsidised by the state: government-built highways, favourable tax structures, favourable regulatory regimes, export subsidies, last-mile monopolies.
Point out that early English capitalism was characterised by running people off their ancestral land (enclosures, attacks on church property, highland and lowland clearances, settlement acts, etc.). In a related note, point out that zoning laws and nature reserves and government property have much of the same effect today, especially for new immigrants.
Mass production and mass culture is not a product of the free market but of extensive state subsidy and centralised power.
- Josh
Published: February 16, 2006 8:02 AM
GMB
I want to avoid anarcho-capitalism at this point and just make comparisons on the basis of a libertarian or near-libertarian setup. Comparing a situation with how post-war (WWII) things took shape and a more free setup with revenues at about 2% GDP each for Local State And Federal plus National Defense on top of that.
Now for starters after the war you had high tax rates and the double taxation of dividends plus heaps of regulations. This leads to the average size of corporations being much bigger then they would have been otherwise. So you had in the 50's a sort of benevolent Sovietism of big business.
With the high tax rates you get to write-off spending on all sorts of crap like advertising and such. Advertising is good but I'm talking about more of it being about then would otherwise be the case since tax-deductibility acts like a subsidy in terms of resource allocation decisions.
Then you have the idea of when a corporation gets to a certain size the political imperative comes in. And while we may think of firms being all about profit if you have 70% tax rates, and all these retained earnings (due to the bias against dividends) then you are going to have the political imperative rearing its ugly head and attenuating the profit motive in terms of corporate behaviour.
Now multiply this by the debauched currency effect. Market produced money with 100% backing would likely lead to the price level falling almost as fast as GDP grows. So the firms would tend to act like the managers Warren Buffet likes. Real penny pinchers. If dividends were treated as a tax-deductible expense then the firm would be either paying off debt, distributing earnings or investing with great discretion.
Trying to take market share in these big marketing campaigns would seen Quixotic.
Post-war marketing was about grabbing market share. But under (near) economic liberty it would be return on total assets for most firms. To be sure if the firm saw a big opportunity they leverage up large. But for the most part great care would be taken not to waste dollars if dollars down the back of the couch grow more valuable quarterly.
The there is the broadcast media which is a cultural crime that did not need to happen. (near) Economic liberty would have meant selling or leasing the airwaves off to the maximum extent.
America is associated with crass culture since they became top dog when broadcast media came out. But broadcasting would have been a low-startup affair if done right so there would be much more room for diversity.
So in summary it is not fair to make the link, culturally speaking that the Proffessor is making. In practice it was his crowd that tweaked things in this anti-individualistic way.
Published: February 16, 2006 8:08 AM
Nathan Schlueter
Folks:
I am the hapless political science professor who engaged Prof. Murphy on the question of the relationship between mass culture and the free market. It appears I have kicked the proverbial hornet's nest. Allow me to state my position for myself, since you only have a fragment of my original remarks to Prof. Murphy, and that fragment appears to have caused considerable confusion.
1. A request, more to be hoped for than expected, is a fair treatment of my position rather than condescending and incendiary ad hominens. I didn't mention JKG in my fragment. I mentioned Wilhelm Ropke, who was at least as much an advocate of the free market as Hayek and is often included in the company of the Austrian school of economics. If you are not familiar with Ropke's concept of "enmassment" and his critique of mass society and culture (a critique derived largely from Tocqueville) then you will miss the import of my question entirely, as many of you seem to have done. If you have no understanding of this concept and its attendant problems - as appears from some of the remarks above - then it is not likely we will have much to say to or learn from one another until you go and read him.
2. For the record I fully concede the economic benefits of the free market in terms of the efficient production and distribution of goods and services. It is the unquantifiable and immeasurable costs of the free market that concern me however. To argue that in the free market we have more soft drinks to choose from at the supermarket misses my point entirely.
3. Contrary to the foundationless insinuations above I have deep sympathies with libertarianism. I perfectly understand, nor did I even imply otherwise, that statist programs perhaps more than any other factor contribute to mass society. I think public schools are a curse and should be eliminated. I'll even up the gentleman above and declare that I am suspicious of all institutional schooling. My wife and I home school our four children. But the argument that current government policy contributes more to mass society than the market is a red herring, as it doesn't address my concern.
4. I perfectly understand what to economists is a perennially frustrating error of noneconomists - the failture to make the analytic distinction between the free market and "commercialism." I understand that in principle these do not necessarily mean the same thing. But my main question is this: At a deeper level are the two not connected? The question is not an analytical one but an empirical and sociological one. That is, given human nature as it is, will the free market left over time result in commercialism and mass society?
5. A few remarks which might lend some weight to my remarks: Smith himself certainly thought that the effects of the market and the severe division of labor would be unfavorable to genuine human intellectual and spiritual development. This is why he recommends compulsory education in the Wealth of Nations. What is an accountant but glorified pin maker? Allan Carlson has summarized persuasively that the breakdown of the family in America with all of its attendant social problems, was not a result of bad government policy alone, but was also a result of industrialization and commercialization.
I look forward to receiving some thoughtful and hopefully helpful replies. Just so you know I will not have the opportunity to respond to remarks on a regular basis. I'll check in when I can.
Regards,
N. Schlueter
Published: February 16, 2006 8:17 AM
Ryan Fuller
"That is, given human nature as it is, will the free market left over time result in commercialism and mass society?"
Only if people choose it. If they don't, you have nothing to worry about. If they do, who are you (or anyone else, for that matter) to tell them they can't?
Published: February 16, 2006 8:54 AM
Elf
A few thoughts on why I don't see how any "relative homogenization of tastes and attitudes" could possibly result from cheaper goods and advertizing:
Published: February 16, 2006 8:56 AM
Elf
Hi Nathan,
I missed your important qualifications while I was composing my above response, and it seems some of my points are moot, as far as your original context is concerned. I hope that they are, nonetheless, thoughtful points on the matter, and of some utility to you & other readers.
I look forward to the further exchange of ideas. Thanks for diving in & clarifying your points!
Published: February 16, 2006 9:05 AM
quasibill
Not sure if this has been directly addressed by a previous response, but I think one part of an answer comes from market pressures themselves.
Taking Professor Schleuter's point #5 (or at least what I understand it to mean), "severe" division of labor will inevitably result in more variety. Why? Because, specialization only happens when it increases efficiency (i.e., more units of good or service per unit time). As specialization increases, then, efficiency will increase, ending at a point where demand is fully met for a given product regardless of any further reduction in price (think soda - at some point it could be sold for 2 cents, and a reduction in price to 1 cent won't really increase the amount sold, as people can only drink so much of it).
Now the question becomes how can this producer further maximize his productivity, given that his production run for a year's supply now only takes one month of his time (for example)? Well, he can lease his capital equipment to another producer, or he himself can produce something else, in which case he doesn't need to have as large of a market to serve to pay for the depreciation of his capital (he should have factored this cost into his initial product) - he can now use his capital to cater to niche markets, which are now viable due to his already accumulated capital and profit from his initial venture.
As such, severe specialization directly leads to increased ability to address niche markets, and fosters diversity in the market. The real world proof of this concept can be seen (again) in the soda industry, where the companies are constantly trying to find niche markets now because they have excess production line time that they aren't utilizing.
It's only a partial answer, but I think it's the beginning of the road the Professor is looking to travel.
Published: February 16, 2006 9:20 AM
S. R. Masteller
I think one point that has been left out of this discussion is technology. A free market will reduce the cost and therefore widely distribute the best, or rather most efficient, available technologies. The technologies themselves whether under a free market or socialism will often have the effect of promoting a "mass society" or an individualistic one. Radio, and television, would appear to promote a "mass society" whereas the internet would seem to be more individualistic.
However, these are just the most obvious examples. Much of the industrial revolution was the application of economies of scale to one industry after another. These "economies of scale" benefit from the standardization of employees as much as from the standardization of widgets.
Again, this is an attribute of "economies of scale" and is true under socialism as much as under a free market. I think many of the critiques of "mass society" are comparing an agrarian society to a society after the industrial revolution. It does not seem clear to me that the presence or absence of a free market, socialism, or even a monarchy would change this.
With the advent of the information age, it would appear that "economies of scale" are no longer of such overiding importance in many industries. While it is not clear to me what the ultimate effects will be, I think a case can be made that the "mass societies" of the 20th century will go the way of the agrarian ones of earlier times.
-Steve M.
Published: February 16, 2006 9:36 AM
georgist
With all due respect, Prof. Schleuer, your next statement didn't clairfy much at all. Here is what you said, and stop me if I missed anything.
1) Don't use ad hominems. Read Ropke's "enmassment" idea. (No summary or explanation included.)
2) Markets efficiently provide certain goods.
3) Public schools are bad.
4) There a (unexplained) difference between the free market and commercialism.
5) Smith agrees with you; you then claim someone proved familial breakdown had non-government components.
This doesn't seem to elucidate your position at all. What definition of "free market" are you using? What definition of "commercialism" are you using? If you agree government makes these things worse, what else do you propose to fix the free market? How is the claim that goods have variety non-responsive to your allegation of homogeneity in goods? Finally, I'd advise just asking us to read someone else's argument. From experience, I have found that someone who can't (or won't) state an argument in his own words generally doesn't understand it himself.
Published: February 16, 2006 9:38 AM
David C
My take is that if the government would back out of peoples lives more and if society would have honset money, then people would have more disposable income without debt pressure and that would have a lot of social consequences. The key is honest money, which tends to go up in value over time because of increased productivity.
More Mothers could have the option (and would take it) to stay at home if they wanted, get involved in social activities, and do things that are not necissairly commercial. More paretns would send their kids to private schools, and the arts would be far more encouraged - because there would be less obsession about making it.
The truth is that when you look at the total of production capacity of the average person leveraged with machines and information technology - compaired to the room, board, and medical needs of people. Peoples needs are relatively small and can be met with ease. The trouble comes when others (usually backed by government) interfere and make it harder creating a false pressure to compete.
Published: February 16, 2006 9:54 AM
Nathan Schlueter
You VonMises folks are living up to your rap as a feisty group!
1) Here are a few brief responses to what I have read thus far:
It is true that instead of explaining my concerns about mass society I have largely referred the readers to other authors. This is not because I can’t make an argument for myself. I don't see that this is wholly unjustified. I did so for two reasons:
a) First, because I wanted to make clear that my concern is one that has been voiced by more formidable minds than my own.
b) Second, because the concept of "enmassment," its precise nature, causes and effects, is a rather difficult one to state concisely. Just as most of you folks are part of a community surrounding Von Mises which shares an understanding of concepts, terms, ideas, thinkers, etc. which allows your conversations to proceed efficiently without always explaining primary terms, so I too am part of community of shared understanding which has its own shared language and concepts. For many in my community terms like “comparative advantage� and “economy of scale� are a foreign language. You’d have to cover a lot of territory with them just to talk about the free market. Just so the idea of “mass society� has a long and distinguished history its own. I was hoping for “hooks� here so that we could move on more expeditiously.
c) Incidentally what is the status of Wilhelm Ropke among you folks? I thought he would be familiar to most of you?
2) Assuming I have identified a genuine problem (and I will forthrightly tell you that the reason I first asked the question of Prof. Murphy was not to pick a fight but to pursue a hunch), I have not yet suggested any answers. It’s not fair to assume that I’ve suddenly become an advocate of Socialism just because I’ve speculated that the free market model of itself may have flaws.
3) I understand that it’s not quite fair to point out problems without offering solutions, but that would be putting the cart before the horse, would it not?
4) In any case it’s clear to me that I have not stated my concern clearly. It is also clear to me that there may be an unbridgeable pass between many of us, so I should state at the outset that I am not a value relativist, that I do believe there is an objective order of values that is proper to human flourishing, that for example the heroin addict and the porn monkey are not just “maximizing their own utility-functions� but ruining their souls. This does NOT necessarily mean that I believe the state has the right to impose the scheme coercively on others. I don’t want to go there yet. I’m going to have to think more of a way to state my concern more precisely. This will take a little while. Be patient and in the meantime chew on this passage from Ropke’s A Humane Economy:
a) “Once more we return to Burke and his oft-quoted unbought graces of life. The expression occurs in a famous passage of his Reflections on the Revolution in France, where we also find this sentence: “But the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, oeconomists, and calculators has succeeded.� Shall we not prove to Burke that he has done the “oeconomists� an injustice? Shall we not dissociate ourselves from the sophisters and calculators? Of what avail is any amount of well-being if, at the same time, we steadily render the world more vulgar, uglier, nosier, and drearier and if men lose the moral and spiritual foundations of their existence? Man simply does not live by radio, automobiles, and refrigerators alone, but by the whole unpurchasable world beyond the market and turnover figures, the world of dignity, beauty, poetry, grace, chivalry, love, and friendship, the world of community, variety of life, freedom and fullness of personality. Circumstances which debar man from such a life or make it difficult for him stand irrevocably convicted, for they destroy the essence of his nature. (p. 89).
Published: February 16, 2006 11:25 AM
quasibill
"Man simply does not live by radio, automobiles, and refrigerators alone, but by the whole unpurchasable world beyond the market and turnover figures, the world of dignity, beauty, poetry, grace, chivalry, love, and friendship, the world of community, variety of life, freedom and fullness of personality."
Well, once again assuming I understand your point, the answer is once again found in "severe" specialization and the efficiency it brings.
A large population of people who are worried where their next meal comes from have little time or energy to devote to the things you mention. In fact, taken far enough, such deprivation will destroy all of them - survival is a powerful instinct.
The reverse is not necessarily true (abundance does not necessarily equal virtuous society), but it does make it possible, and in fact, more likely. If I can spend only a month a year producing income sufficient to sustain me, I can pursue more of these values you cite, and am, in fact more likely to think about such issues, as my mind is not concerned with making sure myself, my family, and my friends have enough to eat, etc.
So I think you and Ropke (who I have not read) seem to have it backwards - prosperity does not destroy virtue, it enables it. And severe specialization also requires dependence on others - you're less likely to be rude to someone who you depend on to provide you with an important service or good. So I don't think I can follow Ropke's, or your, logic at this stage - nothing about specialization, even "severe", seems to be likely to lead to such results. In fact, since you're quoting Burke on the French Revolution, it seems you're talking more about problems caused by the state than the market, despite your attempt to re-cast them as market issues?
Published: February 16, 2006 12:02 PM
Keith
"Of what avail is any amount of well-being if, at the same time, we steadily render the world more vulgar, uglier, nosier, and drearier and if men lose the moral and spiritual foundations of their existence? Man simply does not live by radio, automobiles, and refrigerators alone, but by the whole unpurchasable world beyond the market and turnover figures, the world of dignity, beauty, poetry, grace, chivalry, love, and friendship, the world of community, variety of life, freedom and fullness of personality."
Hey, buy a dog. Tell me where in history, other than today, did any substantial portion of the human population enjoyed any of these esoteric things? Did the plebians, the serfs, the share croppers, the wage laborers, let alone the slaves that were the majority of the population through history enjoy any of these fine uncalculable things? Not until we had commercialism and something closer to a free market could those outside soceitys' elites afford to contemplate such things.
If it turns out that when the majority of the population can finally afford such things as some are worried we're loosing and they choose to place little value on those things, then I wonder if those things were much more than illusion to begin with.
Published: February 16, 2006 12:06 PM
SteamshipTime
Professor Schlueter:
I have a hypothesis that monetary inflation is a pernicious social and cultural influence. The market economy and the culture that arise from fiat currency are different than the market economy and culture that arise from specie currency. Inflation tends to shorten time horizons and the culture reflects people operating with a high time preference.
Since I'm not an economist or academic, it's not a hypothesis I'm qualified to explore or defend. I would love to see it addressed by you or somebody at the Mises Institute.
Regards.
Published: February 16, 2006 12:18 PM
RPM
Nathan,
If I may offer a clarification: I think the reason many are asking "well what's your solution?" isn't just that, "You don't have a right to complain unless you first offer a solution."
Rather, for many on this blog, "the free market" and "government action" are mutually exhaustive and exclusive. Thus if you concede that government causes "mass society" more than the "free market," then that's not really an indictment of the free market.
It's true, one would say that "human life is not perfect." But it in no way would be an indictment of the free market, any more than if I pointed out that under a free market, some infants would die and hearts would be broken by lovers.
Published: February 16, 2006 12:49 PM
Steve
"I do believe there is an objective order of values that is proper to human flourishing, that for example the heroin addict and the porn monkey are not just “maximizing their own utility-functions� but ruining their souls. This does NOT necessarily mean that I believe the state has the right to impose the scheme coercively on others."
Sure it does.
If heroin addict and porno monkey own themselves (and if they do not, then who does?), then they will decide whether or not to ruin their souls. If not they, then who? If not the state, then who?
You Nathan?
Published: February 16, 2006 12:51 PM
Loudon is a Fool
Keith says:
"If it turns out that when the majority of the population can finally afford such things as some are worried we're loosing [sic] and they choose to place little value on those things, then I wonder if those things were much more than illusion to begin with."
Does this mean that, ultimately, there can be no fusion among libertarians and conservatives? Do libertarians simply dispute the possibility of the good life. Or think that the good life is really about a broader selection of commercial goods? Which, perhaps, evidences in part Prof. Schlueter's underlying point: that the unfettering of markets somehow makes men vulgar.
The response to Keith is that the patricians did have leisure. Putting to one side ethical concerns about subjugating the many and putting them in service to those who will use the opportunity of leisure to promote human flourishing (at least for themselves), if the goal is human flourishing and (1) there is a relationship between unfettered markets and a consumer culture, and (2) a consumer culture results in a vulgar nation in which human flourishing is made more difficult, then something should be done to reduce or eliminate the creation of the consumer culture. Must this necessarily involve fettering markets (which doesn't necessarily involve a national regulatory scheme)?
Most of the responses here are "who cares, did you see all the different sodas they have at Wal-Mart." Which response speaks for itself.
Helpful responses from this crowd would be along the lines of whether the cheap availability of goods necessarily results in a vulgar consumer culture. If you think a vulgar consumer culture is cool because the selection of porn is greater than it has ever been in the history of mankind, this is probably not the discussion for you. I suppose it's possible that libertarians generally are not interested in virtue. Which would be too bad, but would at least inform traditionalists that there is no hope for common ground on these issues.
Published: February 16, 2006 12:54 PM
quasibill
"I suppose it's possible that libertarians generally are not interested in virtue."
I think that would be a very hard case to make - since they make a single virtue - non-agression - sacrosanct.
So maybe the difference is that 'traditionalists' have a problem with agreeing with each other on what virtues are worth killing for?
Published: February 16, 2006 1:25 PM
Dennis Sperduto
The time period that saw the greatest and most consistent application of the principles of classical liberalism and the market economy, the 19th century, was not a period of cultural and societal degradation. On the contrary, it was the 20th century, the period in which the vast majority of ordinary men and “intellectuals� rejected the tenets of classical liberalism and the market economy and adopted the policies of interventionism and socialism, in which societal ills have greatly increased. Several others bloggers above have noted the detrimental effects of government intervention on the social fabric.
Published: February 16, 2006 1:28 PM
SteamshipTime
Question for libertarians:
Under the NAP, is there any recourse against people who practice bestialty or exhibitionism?
Published: February 16, 2006 1:29 PM
Loudon is a Fool
Just so we're on the same page, quasibill, the classical cardinal western virtues are prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance. As to whether or not non-aggression is a virtue I will fall back on my observation that it may be the case that libertarians cannot communicate with those who would otherwise be fellow travelers due to their idiosyncratic view of the good life.
Published: February 16, 2006 1:39 PM
mikey
Nathan- it seems your problem is not with the unhampered market economy but with human nature itself.
Steve- the institution of private property can and does replace the state as a regulator of peoples' behavior.My employer would fire anyone caught surfing for porn while smoking crack.
Published: February 16, 2006 1:42 PM
Brian Drum
SteamshipTime,
Ostracism, disassociation, etc. I don't think you can make a case that kidnapping and assault (i.e jail) would be justified.
Published: February 16, 2006 1:46 PM
quasibill
"As to whether or not non-aggression is a virtue I will fall back on my observation that it may be the case that libertarians cannot communicate with those who would otherwise be fellow travelers due to their idiosyncratic view of the good life"
Well, it's hard to define justice without at least referencing aggression, isn't it? I can't think of any conception of justice that doesn't deal with the problem of agression other than "might makes right" - and surely that's not what you're advocating? Or is it?
Mayhaps your problem in communicating with libertarians does not lie with the libertarians? Perhaps you need to work on the definitions that you are using so that you can communicate clearly what you are talking about?
Published: February 16, 2006 1:52 PM
SteamshipTime
Brian,
Under the NAP, it would appear that the right to molest animals on your front yard is of equal dignity with the right to determine who is allowed on your property.
Published: February 16, 2006 2:24 PM
Brian Drum
Steamship,
Maybe, but not if there is some kind of covenant prohibiting such behavior in your front yard and in your neighbors' yards as well.
Published: February 16, 2006 2:30 PM
SteamshipTime
"Maybe, but not if there is some kind of covenant prohibiting such behavior in your front yard and in your neighbors' yards as well."
Which means a central archive where the covenant is recorded, a process for complaining of covenant violations, and an authority to enforce the covenant.
Kind of like a county.
Published: February 16, 2006 2:57 PM
Brian Drum
Kind of like a county.
Kind of like a voluntarily entered into binding contract. Which means the rules don't change at the whim of others outside the contract. So, kind of like a county minus: arbitrary legislation, coerced monopoly supplier of justice and protection, taxation, etc.
So there can exist both Hump-A-Goat-Ville and Hands-Off-Our-Dogs-Town in a free society, though i bet the population of Hump-A-Goat-Ville would be much smaller and would probably be unwelcome any where outside their little animal love paradise.
Published: February 16, 2006 3:10 PM
Steve M
"Steve- the institution of private property can and does replace the state as a regulator of peoples' behavior.My employer would fire anyone caught surfing for porn while smoking crack."
Agreed, no complaints there. I was simply trying to address the idea of "Mass culture" which I took to mean the majority of people pursued very similiar past times, had very similiar tastes, and viewed the good life in a very similiar way.
At one time, the likliest form of life one could obtain involved getting up at 7:00, working on an assembly line until 5:00, and watching one of a limited number of television shows in the evening. Nothing particularly wrong with that life in my opinion. But it seems to be at least partially an artifact of the technology available. Factory line production, television, etc, and would also tend to promote conformity even absent coersion.
This level of conformity would appear to me unlikely today due to changing technologies. I guess my position is that "mass culture" is an artifact of the technologies available in a certain period of history. The market was required to develop and commoditize these technologies just as it is necessary to replace them. However, the resulting culture, mass or otherwise, would appear to me to be somewhat independent of the market and at least partially dependent on the current technologies employed.
- Steve
Published: February 16, 2006 3:18 PM
RachaelAnne
Keith said:
[em]"Of what avail is any amount of well-being if, at the same time, we steadily render the world more vulgar, uglier, nosier, and drearier and if men lose the moral and spiritual foundations of their existence? Man simply does not live by radio, automobiles, and refrigerators alone, but by the whole unpurchasable world beyond the market and turnover figures, the world of dignity, beauty, poetry, grace, chivalry, love, and friendship, the world of community, variety of life, freedom and fullness of personality."
Hey, buy a dog. Tell me where in history, other than today, did any substantial portion of the human population enjoyed any of these esoteric things? Did the plebians, the serfs, the share croppers, the wage laborers, let alone the slaves that were the majority of the population through history enjoy any of these fine uncalculable things? Not until we had commercialism and something closer to a free market could those outside soceitys' elites afford to contemplate such things.[/em]
I think you're being unfair to the plebians, etc. Perhaps their lives were not full of variety or freedom, but this does not necessarily preclude them from noticing and enjoying a gorgeous spring day, loving another person, or having a best friend to work next to. Simply because they didn't take the time to sit down and write about it and hope it was preserved for generations doesn't mean they lacked it!
I think the point is, that as humans, we all have this ability to love, to enter meaningful friendships, to enjoy your your life, your family, and the community this all takes place in, etc., but that the yearning for trappings like titanium LG refridgerators can begin to take precedence. I think you're confused if you say that placing importance on other people means transcending material issues. Concern for others can always come first, and ought to be viewed more as returning to the basics than taking moving forward to something new. An abundance of goods improves our lives, but love, friendship, grace--these are fundamentals of our lives.
Published: February 16, 2006 3:19 PM
Paul Edwards
SteamshipTime,
It could be very much like a county or municipality, minus the coercion. A covenant is a voluntary agreement that means we all agree to the enforcement of the agreement. I would easily subscribe to a covenant that precluded lewd behavior on our privately owned front lawns, and would be nervous among neighbors who felt that to be an oppressive rule.
I don’t think there is a libertarian objection to central archives keeping useful information including recorded covenant agreements. The objection is to coercively enforced monopolies of any sort (and any form of aggression in general).
If i recall your position on immigration, i don't think you find this line of reasoning objectionable.
Published: February 16, 2006 3:25 PM
SteamshipTime
Paul:
I don't. In fact, if we woke up tomorrow to find every state employee had succumbed to a mysterious plague I am sure that is what would evolve very quickly. I do lampoon the idea that everyone will walk around with a book of covenants to which they agree and to which they take exception. Rather, as presently, people would segregate into fairly homogenous communities and the covenants would run with the land.
Published: February 16, 2006 3:53 PM
tz
The market is like a force of nature - which is why there are "black markets" when they are outlawed.
The market is about distribution, supply and demand, and efficiency. It isn't supposed to provide justice or any other virtue, at least not differently from anything else.
The state is force. Force is generally evil, but sometimes necessary as individuals will misuse force.
There is a third dimension to society - churches and volunteer organizations that are the best things to balance the market and the state. And to address the problems of addicts and the poor.
The problem is often people would prefer the state do the work of the third dimension. It can't. It can't make people virtuous. It can only punish vice, and then only inefficently. The market can't make people virtuous, but if people prefer virtue it can help and work with them.
CS Lewis noted "we laugh at honor but are then suprised to find traitors in our midst". Most of the problems originally cited are the problem of the damaged souls. And neither the market or state will deal with the soul. And if the souls are right, both the state and market will function better.
Relativism is the excess of the nationalism and racism we needed to discard. So instead of prejudging on the basis of black and white, man and woman, we stopped properly judging on the basis of good and evil, truth and lies, beauty and ugliness. We need to restore the latter. Recognize intrinsic human dignity and when people don't live up to it.
If they are encouraged by marketing to do evil, the problem is that they haven't been formed to either know or prefer good.
The market is powerful, just like a magic lamp - good people wish for and get good things, bad people wish for and get bad things.
Published: February 16, 2006 4:31 PM
Glen
To force another to be virtuous is not virtuous. That is while surfing the net for porn is not virtuous, the use of cercion to force another to accept this is not. It is a selfish action that, at best, is an attempt to protect the society I wish to live in; at worst, an action to steal what another values.
Published: February 16, 2006 5:17 PM
Sag
A couple of pointers on the professor's posts:
1) I don't see how market forces create homogeneity. It seems to me that is province of goverment due to its nature as a ubiquitous monopolist of force. I know you weren't trying to frame this as a free markets vs. government debate. I just wanted to say that I think much of the negative homogeneity (of say political discourse) many complain about are due to government intervention. This seems clear just looking at it at the level of definitions. "Market forces" presumably means the (ceteris paribus) freedom to exchange leading to mass production. We may all need food for example but there will be a more heterogeneous (better variety) of food than say government produced food.
2) In the Ropke quote you give above, a key sentence was "beyond the market". I think Ropke is right in that instance. In other words, it's certainly not the case that some how market forces lead to utopia - cultural or otherwise. For a libertarian it's the best political (or apolitical) state of affairs. But a man released from prison still has the rest of his life to get on with. To put it a different way, Rambo III would still be more popular than Kenneth Brannagh's version of Henry V.
3) Market forces don't create the coarse tastes of the masses (although as someone said above there's undoubtably a feedback mechanism). The masses seem to be that way for a variety of reasons. Mises makes this point in "The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality". He says "capitalism is essentially a system of mass production for the needs of the masses". He goes on to say that the masses seem to prefer various horrid cultural products. For him, the key is to understand that they didn't prefer (except occasionally given indiscriminate tastes which sometimes preferred the good too) the great artists in the past. It was that the artists had other sources of income and created works in their spare time. As he says, Marx, Nietzsche and Stendhal were nonconformists (whatever one thinks of their works) and would have starved if they relied on royalties.
4) Smith is wrong about the barbarising effects of the division of labour. The prior and real problem is poverty, the more of which one has the worse the issue Smith claims is introduced by the division of labour. As Rothbard pointed out in his History of Economic Thought, Smith contradicts himself by claiming in Book I of the Wealth of Nations that the division of labour is the principle of civilization and then in Book V that it's a principle of barbarization.
Hope you find the above comments interesting.
Published: February 16, 2006 5:23 PM
Wild Pegasus
If the main objection is that libertarian philosophy isn't a complete philosophy of life, I roundly agree.
If the main objection is that libertarian philosophy has no place for virtue, I would direct you to Rowdy Roddy Long. He is both an Aristotelian and a libertarian and has written about the unity of "the good life" with libertarian philosophy.
If the main objection is that the free market is a homogenising and centralising force, I have to say, "Cherchez l'état."
- Josh
Published: February 16, 2006 5:45 PM
R.P. McCosker
I don't much about Ropke, but I've gotten the past impression that there's a reason contemporary libertarians cite him very little: He was a half-baked free marketeer, a traditionalist who argued for certain libertarian-ish economic practices as helpful for the maintenance of a conservative policy regimen. In this light we may understand why he was Russell Kirk's favorite economist.
Libertarianism doesn't strive to make men privately virtuous. It upholds as the highest political virtue the freedom to pursue one's life without coercion by others. Now -- perhaps because I'm nonreligious -- I happen to think that most traditional criteria of personal virtue derive from enduring cultural experience with what in the long run benefits an individual, his family, and his community (this latter in the more narrow sense of village, neighborhood, or clan, and not in the more universal sense preferred by coercive collectivists). It's not surprising, then, that most people will feel pressure to exercise traditional personal virtues to lead better lives for themselves and their loved ones. Modern government programs like AFDC, subsidized housing, and public education make women more likely to run with their passions toward men who are ill-mannered, substance-abusing, porno-consuming flakes. A man who'd once be admired as a gentleman is now derided as a nerd. The irresponsible rake of the past is now the cool guy. Similarly welfare for "seniors" -- Social Security, Medicare etc. -- has torn apart the generations in ways I probably don't need to explain here.
Most so-called conservatives aren't much interested in repealing those bad policies. They fancy themselves as "pragmatic," which effectively means they just want control over the State themselves, at which juncture they hope to establish a whole lot of new laws, regulations, and spending programs that will make the government under their own jurisdiction even more powerful, including programs for actively engineering social behavior more to their ideological liking.
I'd make an analogy to someone who puts out huge troughs of birdseed in his backyard. After a few years of this, there are vast flocks of birds coming in to feed on it, with bird droppings burying the property, and contagious disease afflicting the birds. The homeowner, instead of ending the feedings, keeps it up as much as ever, except now he tries to cut down the population by clumsily adding avian birth control drugs to the feed. Ineffective and more wasteful than ever, but the homeowner feels conscience-assuaged while continuing to feel self-important.
BTW, I'd say that one of the central driving factors behind mass pop culture is copyright law. While IP attacks the pre-existing property rights of individuals, it subsidizes out of that predation art forms that tend to cater to the lowest common denominator. It has effectively almost driven both genuine folk culture underground.
Meanwhile, the rise of government "support" for the arts and humanities in democratic societies has anomalously brought on a sort of dark age for high culture and the fine arts. These fields are no longer driven by the choices of the economic and intelligence elites, but by self-selecting arts and humanities professionals driven by geeky and nihilistic focus on technique itself (rather than old-fashioned stuff like, oh, beauty or substance). Consequently the educated middle-class has lost interest in high culture, which has largely evolved into a justly little ghetto of alienated, self-absorbed parasites.
Published: February 16, 2006 6:42 PM
R.P. McCosker
Correction:
My phrase "driven both genuine folk culture" should read: "driven most genuine folk culture".
Published: February 16, 2006 6:46 PM
al
You know the worst thing about libertarians?
Its the incredible hubris with which they regard their intellects. Its like those pathetic hyannisport displays of the Kennedys playing touch football, which we're supposed to regard as evidence of a relentlessly competitive spirit, but which actually look like a bunch of guys who would bitch a blue streak if any one from Pius X Prep ever took a shot at 'em.
Published: February 16, 2006 7:54 PM
GMB
I take the problem you bring up to be a real one but everywhere we see it is interventionism that causes excessive concentration of media which is the big one. Enlargement of the average size of firms. And also the failure to make roads and other 'public goods' net a return. A return that takes into account their assumed real estate value as well as their cost of production and maintenance.
This last has led to cities being far more extensive then they would otherwise be.
I don't suppose there is a great cultural effect from being able to buy cheap things for about the house like in WalMart. We are really talking about interventionism in terms of its effect on the culture. On your work-life (as part of excessively big bureaucratic firms for many of us) and the media that is (or was) broadcasted into us so to speak.
See above for how the problem would likely be far less under economic liberty.
Published: February 16, 2006 8:31 PM
R.P. McCosker
"al" explains:
"You know the worst thing about libertarians?
"Its the incredible hubris with which they regard their intellects. Its like those pathetic hyannisport displays of the Kennedys playing touch football, which we're supposed to regard as evidence of a relentlessly competitive spirit, but which actually look like a bunch of guys who would bitch a blue streak if any one from Pius X Prep ever took a shot at 'em."
My, that's a thoughtful, carefully reasoned point. You've influenced a lot of minds here this day. Please continue sharing your deeply illuminating insights as this conversation progresses along.
Published: February 16, 2006 11:11 PM
al
Well, R. P., here's the problem. Its been pointed out above, that the greatest minds of western civilization have identified some human goods beyond autonomy, namely, some that are common, and can only be pursued with others.
Most, when they hear about these goods, identify with and aspire to them, but it doesn't take long to see that if such goods are common, then the state must be natural and indeed necessary to human flourishing.
The libertarian answer to this is to then circumscribe the human good, so as not to have to deal with the impetus behind a "natural state", and when many remark that it seems a heavy price to pay for an absolute defense of autonomy to forgo these human goods (through things like the inability to proscribe depravity) the libertarian answer seems to be to put on tighter blinders.
This is not so much an argumentative position, as it seems like a developmental defect, like one of Piaget's stages run amuk, where elements of reality intruding on a tightly circumscribed outlook, are treated with denial, and perhaps even reverse fetishism
Published: February 17, 2006 5:33 AM
quasibill
"it seems a heavy price to pay for an absolute defense of autonomy to forgo these human goods "
Nothing in libertarian thought forces you to forgo these human goods. You are free to pursue them. They only thing libertarian thought says about it is that you must pay for them if you want them. You may not force another to pay for your values.
Published: February 17, 2006 8:12 AM
Keith
I'm reading all of these great terms: "good life", "vulgar nation", "vulgar consumer culture", etc., but I'm not reading any definitions. Maybe its because there aren't any. "Vulgar" compared to what? "Good life" compared to what? We're just talking about opinions. Typically the opinions of people who are interested in controlling what other people think and do.
RachaelAnne said: "I think the point is, that as humans, we all have this ability to love, to enter meaningful friendships, to enjoy your your life, your family, and the community this all takes place in, etc., but that the yearning for trappings like titanium LG refridgerators can begin to take precedence. I think you're confused if you say that placing importance on other people means transcending material issues. Concern for others can always come first, and ought to be viewed more as returning to the basics than taking moving forward to something new. An abundance of goods improves our lives, but love, friendship, grace--these are fundamentals of our lives."
I'm not confused or saying that non-material things aren't important. Many of these things are important to me. But if they weren't, then how is it of any concern to you if it does not impact you. If I choose a titanium refrigerator over a work of art, what do you care. But that typically is the problem. There are too many people out there butting into what isn't their business.
al said: "Its been pointed out above, that the greatest minds of western civilization have identified some human goods beyond autonomy, namely, some that are common, and can only be pursued with others."
Wow. Talk about hubris.
Published: February 17, 2006 8:33 AM
Graeme Bird
When the monetary hammer came down under Volcker the fortune 500 companies went backwards. But what emerged in the recovery was this explosion of entrepreneurship not seen anywhere else in the world.
This is one reason why I'm finding the Cato Institute version of Capitalism rather uninspiring. Its not the real deal unless its Growth Deflation. And under economic freedom, growth deflation and tax rates so very low there is nothing to write off against them this commercialism and the benevolent sovietism of the large average size of corporations is likely to wind down to a great degree.
There is work to be done here for a young Misean PHD aspirant. How the growth in the money supply effects the balance between large business progress and entrepreneurial startups. I think it swings things in favour of the established big businesses. But it would be good to nail this one down in a study that crosses time and space.
I think that's one half of the issue we are talking about here. The other half being the purposeful creation of broadcast culture via not maxing out on the airwave potential when radio and TV were first put out there. A totally anti-capitalist policy.
Published: February 17, 2006 9:22 AM
Loudon is a Fool
Keith,
"Vulgar" as used above means "common." So it's not used merely a value judgment but as something that can be observed (i.e., the tastes of the mob). So "vulgar consumer" is redundant, but two epithets are always better than one. In a nutshell, the "good life" consists in man fulfilling his nature, which causes happiness, and which can only be accomplished through the cultivation of virtue. So if cheap consumer goods result in less virtuous people, living the good life would be made more difficult. For them, and for the rest of us.
Published: February 17, 2006 11:17 AM
R.P. McCosker
al writes:
"Its been pointed out above, that the greatest minds of western civilization have identified some human goods beyond autonomy, namely, some that are common, and can only be pursued with others."
That's clear as mud. Did you study literary style with Theodor Adorno? (Cf. http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9912/writing.html .)
Let me take a wild stab at translating this: Do you mean that some cultural "goods" can only be achieved by people cooperatively working together?
If so, then, well, *duh*. Libertarians believe in people working together. *Voluntarily.* Yes, human cooperation is necessary for a great deal, including human survival itself. So is food. But neither cooperation or food require the coercive agency of government to come about. Indeed, government gets in the way of cooperative activity, just as it did food production and distribution in the old Soviet Union.
"Most, when they hear about these goods, identify with and aspire to them, but it doesn't take long to see that if such goods are common, then the state must be natural and indeed necessary to human flourishing."
More of the same incoherence. Sorry, I don't see how this ties into the critique suggested by Nathan Schlueter.
"The libertarian answer to this is to then circumscribe the human good, so as not to have to deal with the impetus behind a 'natural state', and when many remark that it seems a heavy price to pay for an absolute defense of autonomy to forgo these human goods (through things like the inability to proscribe depravity) the libertarian answer seems to be to put on tighter blinders."
Oh: *depravity*. Hmm, well, while depravity sounds like it would be a bad thing, I don't have the kind of confidence you seem to that government is well situated to define the term satisfactorily, much less take just action to "proscribe" it. Does owning a copy of *Lady Chatterly's Lover* constitute depravity? Should Frederick's of Hollywood be shut down?
One needn't be an anarchist to see that voluntary communities and personal responsibility for one's situation would much more satisfactorily rein in the human propensity toward depravity than arbitrarily defined, clumsily enforced rules that the political class would seek to impose upon us.
"This is not so much an argumentative position, as it seems like a developmental defect, like one of Piaget's stages run amuk, where elements of reality intruding on a tightly circumscribed outlook, are treated with denial, and perhaps even reverse fetishism"
Piaget's stages. Denial. Oh, here's a *really* good one: Reverse fetishism. Heck, why deal with the substance of argument when you can toss together some psychobabble to make a nice ad hominem salad?
Published: February 17, 2006 1:48 PM
Nathan Schlueter
There are many interesting (and a few humorous) remarks here, though I’m afraid things have gotten a little off track from the original question. I’ll try and bring some focus to the original posting (at risk of confusing things even more).
1. First my own definition of terms for future comments:
a. Anarchism: No Government.
b. Communitarianism: Government organized for the purpose of promoting one particular vision of the good life, which may or may not include the free market.
c. Liberalism: Government organized exclusively for the purpose of promoting either the free market or capitalist economies.
d. Capitalist Economy: An economy based upon perfect freedom of exchange.
e. Free Market Economy: An economy based upon freedom of exchange, more or less, within the context of government and rule of law. *Note: This is a mere description and does not by itself set the proper boundaries to freedom of exchange, which is part of the question before us.
f. Vice/Vicious: Actions and habits which are base, inhumane and contrary to the human good. A vicious person lacks freedom because their choices are uncontrollably dominated by passions rather than reason, as in the case of a heroin addict for example. Examples of vices would include lack of self-restraint, selfishness, greed, gluttony, lust, etc. (Notice I’ve said nothing about the role of coercive government here or following. I’m just giving a definition).
g. Virtue/Virtuous: Habits or actions that assist human flourishing by liberating the human will to choose well for one’s own happiness. The four cardinal ones are prudence, justice, moderation and courage.
h. Consumerism: The belief that the highest goal of life, to which all else is subject, is comfortable self-preservation.
i. Individualism: The result of an individual who lacks an inner capacity for real choice because such person is dominated by vice. Such person is controlled by the forces around him, rather than controlling those forces.
j. Individuality: The expression of an individual who has a perfect capacity for real choice because said person has virtue.
2. I believe two issues are being confused here: Anarchism and Capitalism. The first involves a conception of justice. The second involves a technique of economy. Anarchists claim that individuals (or groups of individuals) could choose, according to their individual value preferences, to live in any way they choose. This means that they could choose any technique of economy they choose, including socialism and communism, so long as the association is voluntary. One would be an Anarchist and hate capitalism. Conversely, one could love Capitalism and oppose Anarchism. We can debate the merits of capitalist economy and we can debate the merits of Anarchism but it’s important to keep the discussions distinct.
3. Let’s say that within a condition of Anarchy a group of consenting individuals set up a community ordered to their own conception of virtue. They want to live in a community insulated from what they regard as scum. This would also mean to the right to exclude members who refuse to abide by their rules, and to punish those who violate them while choosing to live there. Can such a community use its collective power coercively to ensure its way of life against wayward individuals within that community? (This includes rights of parents over their children).
4. Let’s assume another community within a condition of Anarchy which adopts a Capitalist Economy. I would argue that the Capitalist Economy, while admittedly providing many products with incomparable efficiency, at least initially, necessarily encourages Consumerism. Consumerism necessarily encourages Individualism. Individualism necessarily undermines the cultural supports and intermediary institutions (families, churches, etc.) necessary for individuals to even make rational choices. A society comprised of rootless individuals is a society fit for despotism of the worst kind.
As Robert Nisbet has observed, “it is the pulverizing of society into a sandheap of individual particles, each claiming natural rights, that makes the arrival of collectivist nationalism inevitable.�
Or Ropke: “Communism thrives wherever the humus of a well-founded social order and true community has been removed by proletarianization of social classes; it thrives where men, and intellectuals above all, have lost their roots and solidity and have been pried loose from the social fabric of the family, the succession of generations, neighborliness, and other true communities.�
It was Tocqueville’s genius to see that this process of fragmentation and disintegration could be the result of both deliberate national policy as well as of Capitalism, though the roots of the observation as I’ve already pointed out can be found in Smith himself.
5. Now let’s go back to the real world and assume we live under Liberalism. I see no principled reason why capitalism is necessarily the just default position, or why Communitarians may not use the existing instrumentalities of government power to promote their own vision of the good life. There is not a “neutral� position here. Either one pushes out the other, and in this case my choice is for the Free Market conditioned by Communitarianism.
Published: February 17, 2006 2:49 PM
Paul Edwards
"Oh: *depravity*. Hmm, well, while depravity sounds like it would be a bad thing, I don't have the kind of confidence you seem to that government is well situated to define the term satisfactorily, much less take just action to "proscribe" it."
LMAO: Good one. Well said. I think the state is far better situated to actually embrace and embody depravity in its own dastardly way, than to ever proscribe it.
Published: February 17, 2006 2:51 PM
quasibill
Well, I see two points that I would argue are fallacies:
"I would argue that the Capitalist Economy, while admittedly providing many products with incomparable efficiency, at least initially, necessarily encourages Consumerism."
As someone posted earlier, inflationary monetary policy is truly the cause of what you call consumerism - it shortens people's time preference. Of course, inflationary monetary policy can occur short term absent the state, but it is generally limited to short term until customers recognize the fraud. And as I noted earlier, the increased efficiency (absent the pressures caused by monetary inflation) will lead to increased leisure time in general, and therefore lead to more consideration of the virtues you mention. Absent the efficiency, there is less leisure time (for most people) and therefore less time to worry about non-survival issues.
"Consumerism necessarily encourages Individualism."
I'd say no, in the absence of forced subsidization of your vicious behaviors. There is a feedback loop involved in all vicious behaviors, absent the state, as you will increasingly pay the price of them. And others will see what the result is, which will create tremendous social pressures to abstain, as well as rational decisionmaking to abstain.
Published: February 17, 2006 3:01 PM
Lucas
Prof. Schlueter (going back to your posts, and ignoring much of what has transpired here since),
I just have a few comments. But, before I begin, I'll just post a disclaimer: I'm not particularly familiar with Ropke, though he is often identified as an Austrian... I still have too much Rothbard and Mises to catch up on! But, I think I have a decent (though still somewhat vague) idea about "enmassment"... So, I'll try to pick up from there.
The basic question you pose is: given human nature and a free market, will enmassment (or at least commercialism) result?
There's immediately a snag here, though. You haven't laid out what your assumptions regarding human nature are. If you believe in a Hobbesian human nature, the answer will be quite different from if you believe in a Rousseauesque human nature. Or, even if we confine ourselves to Christian views of human nature (moving to territory I know better), there is a vast difference between the Arminian and Calvinist views. So, given the information you've given us, the answer is "No one knows". And, trying to divine human nature purely from empirical observation is something along the lines of impossible. The data set is just too big, and there are too many social variables to control for (to use a statistical analogy) that sorting out pure "human nature" is daunting if we do it on empirical grounds.
CS Lewis did provide something of an answer, though, in his book Mere Christianity. He suggests that people have in common: an awareness of morality (and a vague agreement on some of the general principles, though there are some outliers here... Nietzsche, for example) and an awareness of one's own moral imperfection. But, from an economist's standpoing, his evidence was far too anecdotal to be satisfying. Personally, though, I think he's basically right, so I'll go with it.
Now, given this human nature, and private property rights, will commercialism/enmassment result? Not necessarily. If we assume that commercialism/enmassment is a "bad thing" (that is, it violates the shared moral sense that is common to human nature), then there will be a general sense that a commercialistic/enmassed society is "bad", so there will be people trying to fight that tendency. So, a unanimous acceptance of the commercialistic/enmassed society would not occur. Or, it would only occur with a significant amount of guilt experienced by people... Which is, of course, possible. People knowingly decide to do the wrong thing a decent amount. So, it can't be ruled out. But, it certainly doesn't follow by logical necessity.
So, I'll posit an alternative. A heterogeneous society. The only thing this society shares is a respect of other's right to property. I'll add another assumption about human nature: Humans are variously imperfect. That is to say, our moral imperfections are different. Some are murderers, some rapists, some thieves, some slanderers, some greedy, some promiscuous, etc. In a free market society, certain of these immoral will be deemed criminal (if they violate the property rights of others, including the right to one's self). Others will not. These will persist. Odds are good that the varied moral senses will result in a certain degree of social separation (this may also result in geographical separation, but there's no logical reason it would need to). So, those who are anti-promiscuous keep a certain social distance from the promiscuous. Gossipers love each others company, so they group together. Those that feel that charity is fundamental would likely group into private communes, or at least form joint organizations to do charitable work (The Salvation Army, perhaps?).
If you want a good book about what a pure free market society may look like read Hoppe's "Democracy: The God that Failed". His chapter on Conservatism and Libertarianism is quite good, and many of his other chapters also provide great examples of what society could look like.
My second point: Pointing out a problem without offering a solution is problematic (as you recognize). Now, I know that you believe a problem must be identified before a solution can be. But, I think that your logic is reversed. Think of it this way: How does one know a problem is, in fact, a problem? Ultimately, we only know this because we have some better situation in mind. The Way It Should Be. We then recognize that The Way It Is is different from The Way It Should Be. So, we identify the differences as "problems". Now, technically, a solution is a plan for moving from The Way It Is to The Way It Should Be that doesn't violate any fundamental rules about the nature of reality. So, yes, a solution could come after the problem is identified. (One problem with Economist Ethics is that it seems to get cut short at "Private Property Should Be Respected." and, after that, it declares all states to be morally acceptable. This is tunnel-vision ethics at best.)
But, you haven't even established for us that enmassment is actually a problem. So, naturally, you get some trite "Maybe that's the way people want it. So what?" answers (especially given the narrow scope of "Economist Ethics"). The passage from Ropke you provide is a shadow of an argument for a more complete Way It Should Be, but it's far from logically satisfying. It seems simply to list a set of things that are "good", some of which are at odds with enmassment. Surely there's some good foundation for this list other than the fact that a lot of smart people have suggested it as a good list.
But, then again, I've never found a good, purely logical argument for any full ethical system. Which is probably why I accept religious ethics as the only complete, valid form out there.
Finally, just to explain some of the "Ack! He's a Socialist!" comments. In Austrian circles, we believe that there is no "3rd way". There is the free market, and there is socialism. Everything else is just an unstable mixture of the two. So, when you question the unhindered free market, from our view, you are suggesting moving toward socialism. Does this make you a socialist? Eh, it depends which of us you talk to.
Just some thoughts. I hope they provide some food for further thought, or at least some insight into the response you're getting here.
Published: February 17, 2006 3:34 PM
Paul Edwards
Hi Nathan,
I have some questions, and comments below,
Questions,
c. Liberalism: Government organized exclusively for the purpose of promoting either the free market or capitalist economies.
Q: do you have a definition for government? Are you talking about a coercive state, or a voluntary system of law, protection and enforcement? If you mean the former, then it can only result in a hampered market and some form of state capitalism. If the latter, now you’re talking!
d. Capitalist Economy: An economy based upon perfect freedom of exchange.
Q: Including perfect freedom from all forms of coercion, including state coercion?
e. Free Market Economy: An economy based upon freedom of exchange, more or less, within the context of government and rule of law. *Note: This is a mere description and does not by itself set the proper boundaries to freedom of exchange, which is part of the question before us.
Q: do you consider “government� and “rule of law� as implying the existence of a coercive state? If so, then your definition of free market economy is my definition of a hampered market.
Comments,
f. Vice/Vicious: Actions and habits which are base, inhumane and contrary to the human good. A vicious person lacks freedom because their choices are uncontrollably dominated by passions rather than reason, as in the case of a heroin addict for example. Examples of vices would include lack of self-restraint, selfishness, greed, gluttony, lust, etc. (Notice I’ve said nothing about the role of coercive government here or following. I’m just giving a definition).
C: sounds like human behavior we find typically more bothersome when we notice it in others than when we exhibit it ourselves. I do appreciate that you aren’t here advocating a coercive state be put in place to curb vice though.
i. Individualism: The result of an individual who lacks an inner capacity for real choice because such person is dominated by vice. Such person is controlled by the forces around him, rather than controlling those forces.
j. Individuality: The expression of an individual who has a perfect capacity for real choice because said person has virtue.
C: Doesn’t this strike you as potentially confusing? Individualism is very bad, individuality is very good. And the individual? A bit of both I guess?
3. Let’s say that within a condition of Anarchy a group of consenting individuals set up a community ordered to their own conception of virtue. They want to live in a community insulated from what they regard as scum. This would also mean to the right to exclude members who refuse to abide by their rules, and to punish those who violate them while choosing to live there. Can such a community use its collective power coercively to ensure its way of life against wayward individuals within that community? (This includes rights of parents over their children).
C: (In Libertarian Anarchy) A contract or covenant agreement violation or a property encroachment means this power could be used violently (not coercively). There is no problem with collective and community property protection (force/violence) provided it is non-coercive (not initiating violence/aggression), in fact that is practical. That means, it enforces contract and property rights, it does not infringe on them.
4. Let’s assume another community within a condition of Anarchy which adopts a Capitalist Economy. I would argue that the Capitalist Economy, while admittedly providing many products with incomparable efficiency, at least initially, necessarily encourages Consumerism. Consumerism necessarily encourages Individualism. Individualism necessarily undermines the cultural supports and intermediary institutions (families, churches, etc.) necessary for individuals to even make rational choices. A society comprised of rootless individuals is a society fit for despotism of the worst kind.
C: I would argue completely opposite. It would encourage individuality: respect for property and contract, far-sightedness, thrift, savings, self-sufficiency, family values, compassion, charity and spirituality. It would necessitate and enhance rationality and make difficult for ruthless demagogues to play on people’s natural flaws of envy and greed, which states and particularly social democracies and welfare states encourage.
“It was Tocqueville’s genius to see that this process of fragmentation and disintegration could be the result of both deliberate national policy as well as of Capitalism…�
C: Sounds like he was talking about state capitalism. I agree mixing the state with anything, including capitalism is recipe for disaster.
5. Now let’s go back to the real world and assume we live under Liberalism. I see no principled reason why capitalism is necessarily the just default position, or why Communitarians may not use the existing instrumentalities of government power to promote their own vision of the good life. There is not a “neutral� position here. Either one pushes out the other, and in this case my choice is for the Free Market conditioned by Communitarianism.
C: Your definition of liberalism necessitates capitalism and also by virtue of human nature: “Liberalism: Government organized exclusively for the purpose of promoting either the free market or capitalist economies.�
But further, the entire idea of liberty means freedom from coercion. That means freedom to work, produce, own, contract, trade, buy, sell, save and invest as one wishes without hindrance from some coercive entity. In liberty there is private property, and contract. Legitimate force is required to protect these two things. But coercion is a violation of them; it is the initiation of aggression against property or contract.
Published: February 17, 2006 4:13 PM
R.P. McCosker
The bottom line here is that Nathan Schlueter favors some amalgam of free markets and communitarianism.
Communitarianism was a left-of-center intellectual fad of the 1990s, sort of like "industrial policy" was in the '80s. (The central theorists of both are mostly still around, but the intellectual Zeitgeist has moved to other projects.) In large measure, it deployed quasi-conservative rhetoric to justify social democracy and multiculturalism. (Cf. this critique by old-fashioned British Tory Roger Scruton: http://www.city-journal.org/html/6_4_communitarian.html .)
Frankly, I wasted too much time reading about communitarianism in the '90s and have little urge to analyze Schlueter's new wrinkle on it. The right kind of community is wonderful for most people, but the only just *and* practical way to get there is through the exercise of property rights and inter-human non-coercion. Pushing authoritarian laws and coercively funded spending programs are no ways to achieve the satisfactions of individually chosen community.
Private communities -- cf. Hoppe's writings for more details -- would be able to have rules for admission and conduct, with their own set-ups for judging internal complaints. Such a community would be able to exercise rules against nonmarital sex, or establish just under what conditions marriage is recognized (separate marriage and State, please!), or not, or whatever. The social arrangements to work best to people's satisfaction will prosper, the ones that don't will wither.
Communitarians typically insinuate that they represent some third way between freedom and authoritarianism. They don't. The choice is property rights and noncoercion, or the theft of those by others. Communitarianism is a rhetorical diversion from the central issues of political economy.
Published: February 18, 2006 4:30 PM
James
Prof. NS,
You believe that "free markets necessarily encourage consumerism." Do you mean that this is a necessary truth? That seems like it would have to be the conclusion of a deductive argument. If so, what assumptions does this conclusion depend upon? Or are you you saying consumerism is very likely? If that's the case, what would be sufficient to convince you that you are mistaken?
Do you believe that the problem of "mass society" is so severe that some people should be able to attenuate the property rights of others in order to correct it? If not, then we (loosely) disagree with you only in regards to the order in which we rank various ends, which is no big problem as far as I can see. If you do think the problem of "mass society" is severe enough to warrant the attenuation of property rights, please tell us why.
Re: communitarianism, I have a proposal for you. Gather a gaggle of your communitarian friends into your living room and suggest to them that you collectivise all of your present holdings and future income. Vote, or whatever else it is that you are into, amongst yourselves as to how these resources should be allocated. I've met many people who talk about how they like communitarianism but none who would actually do this. They seem to favor only versions of communitarianism where they and their friends can collectively expropriate involuntary participants. If you are an exception to this, you will be the first.
Published: February 18, 2006 6:15 PM
R.P. McCosker
This last post reminds me how "consumerism" is one of those foggy terms that authoritarians use to rally against freedom.
Everybody consumes, of course -- indeed, must consume somewhat to survive. Of course, people may use part of their resources to save or invest, but so far as I've observed the types who rail against "consumerism" are the types who also rail against lack of savings and investment among the citizenry.
Rather, anti-"consumerism" is understood to be cousin of what in the '60s and '70s was sometimes known as anti-materialism. Whereas anti-materialism was the belief that one should eschew money and physical possessions in favor of spiritual and interpersonal satisfactions, anti-consumerism presents itself as opposing the desire for and purchase of consumer goods, particularly those that are trendy, superfluous, or involve conspicuous spending.
I can personally relate to not wishing to engage in trendy, superfluous, or deliberately conspicuous spending, but the anti-consumerists differ from me by seeking to deter such spending habits via State coercion and denial of property rights. Significantly, the anti-consumerists tend to have their own consumer values -- remember, they're not particularly advocates of personal saving and investing -- but want the State to deter the consumer habits of those they may regard as inferiors.
Anti-consumerists hate Hasbro and Mattel, but they favor "enlightened" toymakers like Brio and Hearthsong. Beauty spas and fat farms are frowned on, but New Age retreats like Esalen are the ultimate in vacations. Fashion-conscious high-heeled or athletic shoes are bad, but clogs and overpriced Birkenstocks are good. Cars are okay if they're Volvos. And so on.
The objection isn't really to nonessential consumption. Rather it's the fact that most people don't consume the way that anti-"consumerism" elites think they should. The masses are unsophisticated (they eat at fast-food franchises, watch sitcoms instead of reading good books) and take their cues more from Madison Avenue and Hollywood than from hip college towns (or, when this kind of critique comes from the Right, timeless styles such as one might find in L.L. Bean or Lehman's catalogues).
The point isn't what sorts of tastes are superior. The point is that the anti-consumerists are as consumerist as the consumerists. The anti-consumerists are only pretending to be that, when in fact they're seeking to coercively institutionalize their own consumer tastes.
A more honest description is that they're an educated elite who seek to impose their tastes on everyone. They don't say that, of course, because in a democratic society the appearance of elitism is greatly to be avoided. They just decry "consumerism," which reminds people of any aspect of the marketplace they find in bad taste, and use that to find new ways to expand government over everyone's lives.
In sum, the term "consumerism" is used to evoke an insubstantial bogeyman designed to scare the public to turn over yet more of its freedom and wealth to the State.
Published: February 19, 2006 2:14 AM
R.P. McCosker
Correction:
The third sentence should read, "Of course, people may use part of their resources to save or invest, but so far as I've observed the types who rail against 'consumerism' are *not* the types who also rail against lack of savings and investment among the citizenry."
In other words, the second clause should have exactly the opposite meaning from the way I wrote it before. Sorry.
Published: February 19, 2006 2:20 AM
Graeme Bird
"This last post reminds me how "consumerism" is one of those foggy terms that authoritarians use to rally against freedom."
Proffessor Schlueter. I'm not suggesting that you are authoritarian. But do you think the above could be right. In that there are things about the current setup that are annoying and not how you'd (or I) would want them but that what might be bugging you might need to be better defined.
Until we can identify laserlike those several things that are perhaps not quite right about how things work currently we cannot say clearly whether they come from capitalism from interventionism or are inherent in the nature of things.
So it might not be 'consumerism' exactly that is the problem.
Published: February 19, 2006 5:16 AM
R.P. McCosker
By the way, here are two Mises Daily Articles from the past that address the incompatibility of communitarianism with freedom:
http://mises.org/daily/241
http://mises.org/daily/1174
The latter of the two analyzes communitarians' self-styled opposition to "commodification" -- another buzz-word, like "consumerism", that communitarians draw on to market their semantically disguised agenda of tyranny.
Published: February 20, 2006 2:39 AM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
Nathan,
You and Ropke seem to assume that it is the free market that naturally results in consumerism, in the creation of a mass culture, and the vulgarization of the tastes of the masses. But might it not be more correct to say that the tastes of the masses were already vulgar to begin with and the free market is just catering to them? You're expecting the masses to somehow have the same refined tastes as the elites and well-educated in the old status-based societies. Maybe they can, someday, if this is even desirable, but it is too much to expect the masses to just suddenly evince refined tastes with the abolition of the ancien regime. Government intervention certainly isn't helping in the raising up of the tastes of the masses, but I don't think the market is responsible for the vulgarity. As for vice, I think that is largely attributed to the government as well...and one must also be careful not to impose one's own personal tastes onto others as a moral imperative. I too think that human flourishing and virtue are objective, but they are also agent-relative and highly individualist and pluralistic. Conservatives have many pretentions about what is the Good, and it may indeed be good for them, but they then invalidly think that what is good for them must be good for everyone.
Published: February 23, 2006 11:32 AM