Hazlitt, Where art thou?
Today, NPR (All Things Considered) reported on the recent passage of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act by Congress. Oh, if life were so easy. Another few hundred dollars in per-student Pell Grants, lower interest rates, and capped loan payments will transfer more wealth, but the bill is not -- as advertised -- the "largest single investment in college aid since the GI Bill."
Two aspects of the bill -- in need of a Hazlitt-style analysis -- clearly display either a lack of economic knowledge or purposive obfuscation.
First: The bill places a cap on all subsidized loan payments so that students will never have monthly payments that exceed 15% of their post-college income. According to Sandy Baum of Skidmore College, "So, if you borrow so much money that you can't reasonably make the payment out of your post-college earning, there is much better relief than before."
If the post-college salary does not provide enough to make student loan payments, the student wasted scarce resources obtaining their degree; the economy does not require the level or type of education acquired. What goes unseen is that capping payments does not change this fact. The cap simply places the burden of waste on the backs of taxpayers instead of the student.
Second: The bill forgives loans for those who enter "public service" fields, such as firefighting and early childhood education. The unseen result will be more "public service" graduates chasing tax-funded jobs.
Just like the original GI Bill, none of this can be considered an investment. Another wealth transfer, but not an investment.
Comments (136)
The colleges have just priced themselves out of business. It's cheaper to hire a grad student and get tutoring than actually attend college. Furthermore the courses really don't show anyone how to make things they are just preparation for tests.
I remember my physics courses center on solving supercilious problems. Such as calulating forces of leaning ladders, scissor tongs and the elctric potential of pith balls. What a waste of time.
Published: September 12, 2007 10:48 PM
This is probably a great bill for me... but I'd certainly trade it for a cap of 15% of my income being lost to governments' taxes.
Published: September 13, 2007 1:15 AM
Wow...negative amortization comes to student loans! And to think of what it's done for the housing sector!
[Tongue in cheek...]
Published: September 13, 2007 9:01 AM
Great, now we're going to see an increase in sociology, women's studies, and other worthless degrees with a leftwing bent.
Published: September 13, 2007 7:29 PM
And an increase in those studying Keynesian economics.
Published: September 13, 2007 8:43 PM
Yep, one can never have enough Keynesians...
Published: September 13, 2007 8:49 PM
Without Keynesian eonomics and the welfare state very few you currently decrying the College Cost Reduction and Access Act would actually have college degrees (assuming you do now).
I find it especially hypocritical for those who attended public universities at very little cost throughout the first few decades of the post-WWII era to now begrudge a little debt relief to those who have seen their tuition costs balloon throughout their college careers.
This talk about burdening the taxpayers misses the point (big surprise) that more college degrees increases the health of our society in many, many ways.
The nonsense regarding "women's studies, and other worthless degrees" suggests to me that my points will probably be ignored here, and that perhaps I may have wasted my "scarce resources" in bothering to leave a comment.
Published: September 15, 2007 1:00 AM
...my points will probably be ignored here...
I assure you that, had you actually made any points, they would be thoroughly debated. Your first and third paragraphs are nothing but completely unsubstantiated claims and your second paragraph is just ad hominem. Make an actual point or two and we'll discuss it.
Published: September 15, 2007 1:27 AM
I agree with RWW - it's just the typical rant "it's good for 'society', so we're justified in coercing others to fund it!"
Further, if government didn't crowd out and intervene so heavily in university education, maybe most of us wouldn't have to attend public universities.
Published: September 15, 2007 7:52 AM
I'm not sure you actually do agree with RWW, Anthoyn. According to RWW I'm offering "unsubstantiated claims." Meanwhile, you seem to go along with my assertion that more college degrees helps society. You just don't think that's a good enough reason to "coerce" people into supporting public higher education, a proposition very few would agree with.
In any case, since RWW asks for more substance, and promises that I will be "thoroughly debated" if I do so, here it goes (source for the following... Adolph Reed Jr., Fall 2001 article in Dissent, "A GI Bill for Everybody"):
1. With regard to creating more opportunities to go to school (which no doubt many of you here have taken advantage of), and thereby increasing the overall health of our society...
* In 1950 1.7 percent of the total U.S. population were enrolled in colleges and universities; by 1975, the figure had risen steadily to 5.2 percent.
* A 1988 report by a congressional subcommittee on education and health estimated that 40 percent of those who attended college under the GI Bill would not otherwise have done so.
* The report also found that each dollar spent educating that 40 percent produced a $6.90 return (more than $267 billion in 1994 dollars) in national output due to extra education and increased federal tax revenues from the extra income the beneficiaries earned.
You can certainly debate those numbers, but the burden is clearly on the side of anyone disputing that the GI Bill or other examples of public aid to higher education are a bad idea, or a net drag on the economy or society in general.
2. With regard to higher tuition rates generated by decreases in public subsidy...
* As a result of various tax revolts at the state level, and reduction of federal help during and beyond the Reagan administration, aggregate tuition and fees at all kinds of institutions of higher education (private and public) rose from slightly more than $5 billion in 1970 to more than $55 billion in 1996.
* When adjusted for inflation, this amounts to a 170 percent increase, which was nearly two and a half times greater than the rate of growth in aggregate enrollments over that period (while real wages remained flat, or even declined, during that time).
* Increasingly, college attendance for all except the wealthy has become contingent on qualification for interest-carrying student loans.
How many libertarians received their training during this earlier period only to turn on the public that had helped them in the first place? I don't have stats on that, but it is an interesting question, and certainly not "ad hominem."
3. With regard to other claims in the original post...
"If the post-college salary does not provide enough to make student loan payments, the student wasted scarce resources obtaining their degree; the economy does not require the level or type of education acquired."
Is this really how we should judge the value of a college education? Aside from the above return on investment generated by public aid to education, what about reduced crime rates, and a host of other benefits that come with a better educated citizenry? I'm sorry, but the point is extremely weak, and the rest of the original post really does fall apart upon any kind of responsible reflection.
Published: September 15, 2007 7:06 PM
You just don't think that's a good enough reason to "coerce" people into supporting public higher education, a proposition very few would agree with.
Firstly, I do not care what most would agree with. The argumentum ad populum has never carried much weight with me. Secondly, I did mean coercing, no quotation marks necessary.
Published: September 15, 2007 7:29 PM
Anthony,
You do not seem to care much about engaging in meaningful debate, either (you did not address anything substantive in my post).
You have also not provided any sort of defensible definition of the kind of coercion you are against.
I presume by your presence here that you are in favor of the sort of public "coercion" that resulted in the creation of the Internet.
If you are against public coercion to pay for college, I presume you insisted on paying the much higher market rate (as opposed to the subsidized rate) for tuition and fees to whatever college/university you attended.
Published: September 15, 2007 8:04 PM
Steve,
A collective we cannot judge the value of anything. To attempt to claim otherwise refutes well over a century of economic science.
The roll call of stats looks impressive but it suffers from the Bastiat/Hazlitt unseen problem. What did not get developed or produced due to tax-funded education programs? You and I will never know.
We do know that, a priori, the subjective value received from the GI Bill must be less than the subjective value returned. It must be so. Or, once again, modern economic science comes crashing down.
Redistributing wealth based on a schedule that meets one's desires -- your's being a system of tax dollar used to fund college education -- does not mean that it is ethical and just.
Having government programs that directly benefit you, or indirectly make you feel good, never justifies the theft of private property from those who disagree. To believe otherwise refutes ethics; whether Rothbardian/Hoppian or biblical ethics, not to mention the ethics that founded this nation.
Published: September 15, 2007 8:08 PM
"Anthony,
You do not seem to care much about engaging in meaningful debate, either (you did not address anything substantive in my post). "
I, personally, never promised to address any of its substantive points, now did I?
"You have also not provided any sort of defensible definition of the kind of coercion you are against. "
How are funds for any public project acquired? Via taxation, i.e. forceful acquisition of wealth from the citizenry.
"I presume by your presence here that you are in favor of the sort of public "coercion" that resulted in the creation of the Internet. "
I presume that you're going to demonstrate that it is impossible for the internet to have arised in the absence of government.
"If you are against public coercion to pay for college, I presume you insisted on paying the much higher market rate (as opposed to the subsidized rate) for tuition and fees to whatever college/university you attended."
I am in Europe - private universities are nearly non-existent due to the extent of State intervention in the market. In fact one alone exists in England. The "much higher market rate" is so due to two reasons a) there is no real free market as it is in education b) State universities have largely crowded out private ones. Even if the costs were to remain high, though, if this in fact reflected what the market can bear, I would be fine with it, yes.
Published: September 15, 2007 8:45 PM
Jim,
I'm not sure I need to refute a century of economic science to assert that communities have rights that sometimes trump those possessed by individuals, and that this has been understood from the very beginnings of this nation (see the history of state and local police powers which allowed for an extensive regulation of property when community "health, safety, welfare, and morals" were at stake).
Your reference to ethics presuposes a static, foundational conception of the relationship between individuals and their communities, which you simply assert without justification. I'm sorry, but there are other ethical questions besides those relating to private property, and changing circumstances must affect the calculations for all ethical categories, that is unless we are truly wedded to tradition and dogma.
You may believe that you have an absolute right to your property but that is merely one theory among many, and not very appropriate in modern circumstances. If you wish to draw from history for support of your position as you seem to want to do, you will actually find very little comfort for such a view in practice, including here in the United States (see William J. Novak's The People's Welfare). That doesn't make it wrong, but it puts the burden on you to convince us that property rights should be absolute.
And let us not play games with the notion that we do not know what "did not get developed or produced due to tax-funded education programs." We do know that what was produced helped generate a lot more wealth for a lot more people than has ever been seen on this planet.
Lastly, I put it to you that since we have all - from Bill Gates to myself - benefited greatly from public investment, it is unethical to refuse to support such a system in the form of taxes.
You are certainly welcome, as I am, to debate and criticize choices made in the public realm. But to take a position as seemingly absolute as has been staked out here, is, in my humble opinion, a bit fanciful.
Published: September 15, 2007 9:09 PM
Anthony,
"I presume that you're going to demonstrate that it is impossible for the internet to have arised in the absence of government."
In fact, I only need state the fact that it did not.
Published: September 15, 2007 9:12 PM
"In fact, I only need state the fact that it did not."
Even that assertion is problematic in itself. The funds used by the government to develop the internet were expropriated from private citizens. The development of the internet into its present form was largely aided by market processes. And besides, I pay for access to the internet.
Published: September 15, 2007 9:36 PM
"The funds used by the government to develop the internet were expropriated from private citizens."
You are correct.
"The development of the internet into its present form was largely aided by market processes."
You are largely correct again. But the implications of this are not what you suppose. That huge private fortunes have been generated after the public did most of the unprofitable R&D (as is frequently the case in every cutting edge industry) makes it even more ridiculous for those benefiting from those public/private developments to complain about paying their taxes.
"And besides, I pay for access to the internet."
Your internet service has been subsidized extensively by the public and you do not pay the market price that would have been required had the public not shouldered a great deal of the burden - just like your college education. The same goes for me.
Published: September 15, 2007 9:58 PM
How many libertarians received their training during this earlier period only to turn on the public that had helped them in the first place? I don't have stats on that, but it is an interesting question, and certainly not "ad hominem."
Apparently you are ignorant of the meaning of the term.
And let us not play games with the notion that we do not know what "did not get developed or produced due to tax-funded education programs." We do know that what was produced helped generate a lot more wealth for a lot more people than has ever been seen on this planet.
Correlation is not causation.
I'm not sure I need to refute a century of economic science to assert that communities have rights that sometimes trump those possessed by individuals, and that this has been understood from the very beginnings of this nation...
Nice sidestepping of the economic argument, which you can't win, with an appeal to tradition. Truly impressive.
The objection to "public" (read coerced) funding of education rests on a couple of simple economic facts that were proven decades ago, and cannot be undone by all your mountains of vitriol, selective statistics, and canned arguments.
ONE: The only economic interaction that is sure to produce net value is a free exchange, wherein each party voluntarily participates and therefore benefits.
TWO: Interpersonal utility comparisons are impossible. Put more plainly, there is no way to know, between two people, who truly values a given good (including money or education) more.
The truth of two facts alone is enough to reject the funding of education by coercion, regardless of the moral implications of obtaining the money, which is really a whole other topic.
Published: September 16, 2007 1:51 AM
"You are largely correct again. But the implications of this are not what you suppose. That huge private fortunes have been generated after the public did most of the unprofitable R&D (as is frequently the case in every cutting edge industry) makes it even more ridiculous for those benefiting from those public/private developments to complain about paying their taxes."
No, I will complain when my money is forcefully taken from me. Also, prove your claim on research and prove again that it would not occur in a free market.
"Your internet service has been subsidized extensively by the public and you do not pay the market price that would have been required had the public not shouldered a great deal of the burden - just like your college education. The same goes for me."
Yes, and as I have said I would gladly pay the full market price, whether it were higher or lower.
Published: September 16, 2007 6:58 AM
RWW,
Let's try to stick to the arguments. I apologize if you have taken anything I've said as ad hominem attack on you. I was simply pointing out that it is somewhat hypocritical to accept and prosper by public produced goods and then attempt to deny them to others.
In any case... you write (in a somewhat ad hominem style):
"The objection to "public" (read coerced) funding of education rests on a couple of simple economic facts that were proven decades ago, and cannot be undone by all your mountains of vitriol, selective statistics, and canned arguments.
This is simply not the case. The tenets you outline below merely gesture to abstract principles that might tell us something about some Platonic hypothetical. They tell us very little about the real world and how to operate in it.
ONE: The only economic interaction that is sure to produce net value is a free exchange, wherein each party voluntarily participates and therefore benefits.
Ok. The slight of hand here is the assumption that there is such a thing as pure "free exchange" in a modern economy which there absolutely isn't. Every one of your choices is shaped/limited by mountains of choices made without your concent.
Beyond that fairly abstract point... are you prepared to suggest that child labor, for example, is a product of free exchange, for example? By your lights we are unable to criticize this bi-product of unequal private power (unequal access to freedom) brought about by the market.
I'm sorry, but a century of social science has taught us that a century of economic science cannot be applied without some nod to context.
Within the context of a modern society, education is a basic public good that all must share if your first principle is to have any practical meaning whatsoever.
TWO: Interpersonal utility comparisons are impossible. Put more plainly, there is no way to know, between two people, who truly values a given good (including money or education) more."
I accept that. Except I'm not sure what you think that gets you. You've got to give me context. Once you do that I think your second principle is dwarfed by other priorities.
My appeal to tradition/history (which was not actually an appeal, but should have been read in context as a response to Jim's invocation of it himself) is an important one that you will not take seriously.
It is simply not true that I "sidestep" the economic argument. I acknowledge it and apply it to circumstance, at which time it becomes necessary to acknowledge the contributions by others outside the field of classical economics.
Anthony,
I invite you to study the contribution by the public sector of any dynamic aspect of the U.S. economy. You will find that the public sector almost always does the difficult, unprofitable R&D before turing it over to private actors at the moment it becomes profitable. For example... take a look at aerospace, pharmaceuticals, computers, the Internet. I'm not going to go through each here and it is silly to suggest that I should... after all, you accept this point about the Internet and then turn to a completely counterfactual, unworkable, "argument" - "prove it wouldn't have happened anyway" - to defend yourself. Sorry, but I won't get involved in "if Spartacus had a Piper Cub" type hypotheticals. The fact of the matter is that the Internet we are using right now only exists right now because the public sector invested in the technology over a long period of time.
Published: September 16, 2007 2:40 PM
Let's try to stick to the arguments. I apologize if you have taken anything I've said as ad hominem attack on you.
It's not about me; it's about your fallacious arguments.
I was simply pointing out that it is somewhat hypocritical to accept and prosper by public produced goods and then attempt to deny them to others.
That's ad hominem. Based on how you've reacted to and used the term (eg. accusing me of engaging in it where I positively did not), you don't seem to know what it means, so I invite you to look it up.
The tenets you outline below merely gesture to abstract principles that might tell us something about some Platonic hypothetical. They tell us very little about the real world and how to operate in it.
The truths I listed were derived from self-evident first principles with no "real world" of context -- meaning they apply universally.
The slight of hand here is the assumption that there is such a thing as pure "free exchange" in a modern economy which there absolutely isn't.
I readily agree that free exchange has been severely limited, particularly by the kind of policies you advocate, but there certainly are many cases of it in the sense I mean in today's economy. If I buy an item I want from someone, it is because I value that item more than the money I pay for it, and, generally speaking, the person selling it values the money more than the item. So we each profit from the exchange. On the other hand, when a young person goes to college on financial aid, we do not know whether the people from whom that money was taken value the youth's education more than the funds it requires, or whether they could have put those funds to an even better use.
...Skipping some vague ideas that don't merit response at the moment...
It is simply not true that I "sidestep" the economic argument. I acknowledge it and apply it to circumstance, at which time it becomes necessary to acknowledge the contributions by others outside the field of classical economics.
The rigorous results of classical economics are as universal and absolute as the results of mathematics, engineering, or any other a priori science. Other contributions cannot alter them, just as they cannot alter those contributions, insofar as they are correct.
Published: September 16, 2007 5:11 PM
My third paragraph should read "no 'real world' context."
Published: September 16, 2007 5:14 PM
Also, I think I've done enough talking for a while, and I should go get some family time in, so I'll let my Misesian colleagues take over for a while and maybe I'll check back later for interesting developments.
Published: September 16, 2007 5:20 PM
Without Keynesian eonomics and the welfare state very few you currently decrying the College Cost Reduction and Access Act would actually have college degrees (assuming you do now).
On the contrary. College would be very affordable without the government subsidies (driving the price up) and all of the wealth sucked out of the economy by the government (maybe the equivalent of 2900 people's lifetime earnings are spent every day). This is shown by historical example: before Castro seized power in Cuba, for instance, a year of Law School cost the equivalent of 45 US dollars (in 50s money).
To conclude, I find it very odd that whenever people try to defend the welfare state, keynesianism, gov't interventions, etcetera, to libertarians they are almost invariably quite snarky and hostile--often taking the form, as Steve's post did, of hostility towards "ingratitude". As in "how dare you selfish, ungrateful libertarians criticise [government], don't you know they're responsible for everything that's good in the world?!". I don't know what this means, that's just an observation.
Published: September 16, 2007 5:26 PM
Ok. The slight of hand here is the assumption that there is such a thing as pure "free exchange" in a modern economy which there absolutely isn't. Every one of your choices is shaped/limited by mountains of choices made without your concent.
That's a big, fat straw man. No one thinks that people don't take the choices of others and the state of the world into consideration when they make choices. By your construal of "free exchange", there is no such thing as the passage of time or the existence of more than one agent. What we mean by "free exchange" is uncoerced exchange of goods.
Beyond that fairly abstract point... are you prepared to suggest that child labor, for example, is a product of free exchange? By your lights we are unable to criticize this bi-product of unequal private power (unequal access to freedom) brought about by the market.
In a free economy, when children are working it's because they NEED to work to survive--that is, there isn't enough to go around the economy to feed a lot of dependents. The income of an individual child can make up 25% of a family's income in most third world countries. Otherwise, their parents would be keeping them at home or sending them to school. Forcibly preventing children from working either leads to starvation or drives child labor underground, to begging, prostitution, and the drug trade. It's not "unequal access to freedom brought about by the market", it's the simple fact that throughout the world and throughout history people aren't/weren't productive enough to afford to keep their kids at home or send them to school without them starving.
Published: September 16, 2007 5:50 PM
RWW (or anyone else who wants to take it),
"The truths I listed were derived from self-evident first principles with no "real world" of context -- meaning they apply universally."
You subscribe to the notion that there are such things as "first principles" that "apply universally," apparently without any need for modification depending on circumstance.
I do not, and it is certainly a debatable proposition whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.
Let's take a hypothetical just to see if you or anyone else really believes what you say:
Two men - Steve and RWW - are shipwrecked on a desert island without any food or hope of producing the means for survival. One day, before either of them starve, a treasure chest of food capable of sustaining both men for the rest of their lives - but not so much that one of them could not eat it all - washes ashore, and Steve finds it and hauls it back to the camp the two men have built.
Does Steve, who found the chest and labored to bring it back to camp, have a claim to all the food? Does he have an ethical duty to share it? Why or why not?
Nasikabatrachus,
If you're going to quote me, please use my actual quotes.
Regarding the substance of your message, the history of higher education in this country utterly falsifies your point. Since all levels of government have subsidized tuition the cost of college has dropped significantly and higher education suddenly became a possibility for students who would have never dreamed it was possible before the GI Bill etc. To my knowledge, there is no student of the GI Bill who disputes this point.
At some point you actually have to pay attention to the history.
I must say... the debate here seems to suggest that the only reason anybody might want to study history is to win on Jeopardy.
Published: September 16, 2007 6:10 PM
One additional question regarding my hypothetical: Do both Steve and RWW have any duty to respect the fact that the treasure chest was somebody else's property before (and after?) it washed ashore?
Published: September 16, 2007 6:22 PM
If you're going to quote me, please use my actual quotes.
If you're referring to my exaggeration of the standard snarky nonsense, that wasn't intended to be a quotation of you.
Regarding the substance of your message, the history of higher education in this country utterly falsifies your point. Since all levels of government have subsidized tuition the cost of college has dropped significantly and higher education suddenly became a possibility for students who would have never dreamed it was possible before the GI Bill etc. To my knowledge, there is no student of the GI Bill who disputes this point.
I don't dispute that the GI Bill increased the number of people who went to college: my point was that government subsidies to formal schooling (which is not to be confused with an education) drive the price up over time, whereas without the subsidies the price would have decreased over time.
Furthermore, there were more than enough private groups and institutions willing to pay tuition for GIs returning from the war, so the government subsidies were superfluous. Their real effect has not been to increase education overall but to mold it to the federal government's wishes.
Published: September 16, 2007 6:25 PM
Since RWW has decided to check out for the moment, I'll try my hand at Steve's hypothetical.
The hypothetical doesn't really have to do with RWW's point. RWW's point relates to thea priori nature of the logic of choice (i.e. economics). It did not relate to situational ethics, but to conceptual truths--no matter how many times you count to four, you'll always get four, desert island or no. Similarly, in economics it is a conceptual truth that a volitional agent acts in order to bring reality in line with the agent's preferences; it is also a conceptual truth that value, what an agent is willing to give up in order to get something else, is subjective. To use an example not from economics, a conceptual truth about bachelors is that they are unmarried men. Talk to all the bachelors you want: you will find that they are all unmarried. If they are married, they are not bachelors.
For more on this as this relates to the Austrian school, which RWW undoubtedly subscribes to to some degree, see these links:
http://mises.org/rothbard/extreme.pdf
http://mises.org/books/EconReasoning.pdf
Published: September 16, 2007 6:38 PM
Thanks Nasikabatrachus,
Now would you actually like to try your hand at my hypothetical?
Since we are discussing all this with regard to the Education Bill that inspired the original post - i.e. a real world situation - I think you need to climb out of the clouds and get dirty dealing with some actual situational/historical circumstances/ethics. Show me how these wonderful principles work in real world circumstance!
Counting to four may always equal four, but the value of that fact is directly proportional to the light it provides us as we try to live our lives (as it turns out, I'm sure we'll all agree that knowing how to count certainly helps us).
I would really like to see someone demonstrate how RWW's first principles might help us think about my hypothetical.
Perhaps I might prod one of you to respond by suggesting that, according to RWW's first principles, the only option open with regard to the desert island chest is for RWW to defend it against Steve's attempts to eat from it until they both starve to death, thereby preserving the private property of the absentee owner.
Of course, I see that as a totally ridiculous solution to the circumstances, which is why I suppose nobody is willing to offer up an explanation that totally discredits the notion that the "first principles" at issue here are "universal."
Published: September 16, 2007 8:00 PM
Steve,
My point was to explicitly not address your hypothetical because it is unnecessary to show that there
are such things as "first principles" that "apply universally," apparently without any need for modification depending on circumstance.
Nor do I see how answering your hypothetical about ethics would prove it one way or another. It is irrelevant to the question.
Perhaps I might prod one of you to respond by suggesting that, according to RWW's first principles, the only option open with regard to the desert island chest is for RWW to defend it against Steve's attempts to eat from it until they both starve to death, thereby preserving the private property of the absentee owner.
If you can't find the owner, cannot possibly inform the owner of their lost property's location, it is safe to say that it's in a state of nature and one can claim it as one will.
Of course, I see that as a totally ridiculous solution to the circumstances, which is why I suppose nobody is willing to offer up an explanation that totally discredits the notion that the "first principles" at issue here are "universal."
Whether you see it as ridiculous or not has no bearing on whether it's a universally applicable first principle.
Published: September 16, 2007 8:13 PM
Nasikabatrachus,
I find your response totally inadequate. You absolutely do need to convince us that we should priviledge your "first principles" as we try to live our lives. Otherwise, you're just asserting things out of thin air, which makes your principles no better than religious dogma.
At this point it looks to me as if the universal first principles don't even survive my example. Your response to my hypothetical is problematic in several ways:
First, how does either Steve or RWW know that the owner of the chest - let's call him Nasikabatrachus - will not arrive at the island at some later date demanding to know where his chest full of food is? Both Steve and RWW have to assume that the chest belongs to someone, and there is no way for them to know that the true owner will not come for his property at some point.
Second, even if you do away with the above problem and assign the chest to Steve (as per first principles), you haven't addressed what duty he has to his island-mate, RWW. Should Steve be free to hoard the food, or does he have a duty to share it so that both men are still alive and able to combine their powerful intellects when the time comes to explain to the late-arriving Nasikabatrachus why his property has been taken?
Other than this, I wonder what other "univeral first principles" exist, and how we might deal with them when they conflict with one another?
Published: September 16, 2007 8:45 PM
First, how does either Steve or RWW know that the owner of the chest - let's call him Nasikabatrachus - will not arrive at the island at some later date demanding to know where his chest full of food is?
As you said, there is no way for them to know. Hence it's acceptable to take the food. Just as you may or may not be killing immeasurable sentient beings every time you breathe, there is no way for you to know so changing your behavior for that consideration is silly.
Should Steve be free to hoard the food, or does he have a duty to share it so that both men are still alive and able to combine their powerful intellects when the time comes to explain to the late-arriving Nasikabatrachus why his property has been taken?
Steve has no duty to RWW unless he has agreed that the two of them will share whatever food they happen to find on the island. Unchosen positive obligations are invalid, because one cannot be held responsible for things one has not committed to. It's in Steve's interest to share the food with RWW because it will at least double the number of things either of them can take advantage of (rafts, coconut radios, etcetera) because it will give either access to more things than either could do alone.
Published: September 16, 2007 9:30 PM
Anthony,
I invite you to study the contribution by the public sector of any dynamic aspect of the U.S. economy. You will find that the public sector almost always does the difficult, unprofitable R&D before turing it over to private actors at the moment it becomes profitable. "
Again, why should this be impossible in a free market? If research is considered valuable, individuals will fund it out of their own pocket or, if it is profitable, firms will engage in it.
"Sorry, but I won't get involved in "if Spartacus had a Piper Cub" type hypotheticals. The fact of the matter is that the Internet we are using right now only exists right now because the public sector invested in the technology over a long period of time. "
The point of counterfactuals (which are useful in economics when studying the effect of institutions) is to ask whether the good could be provided with in the absence of intervention in the market. I have no problem using the internet; it was created with money taken by force from me (and others) anyway.
Published: September 16, 2007 9:40 PM
As you said, there is no way for them to know. Hence it's acceptable to take the food. Just as you may or may not be killing immeasurable sentient beings every time you breathe, there is no way for you to know so changing your behavior for that consideration is silly.
Wow. These "universal first principles" sure do disintegrate quickly. So, if I decide that "there is no way to know" whether a property owner will find out I have his stuff, I can just take it as my own?
"Steve has no duty to RWW unless he has agreed that the two of them will share whatever food they happen to find on the island. Unchosen positive obligations are invalid, because one cannot be held responsible for things one has not committed to. It's in Steve's interest to share the food with RWW because it will at least double the number of things either of them can take advantage of (rafts, coconut radios, etcetera) because it will give either access to more things than either could do alone."
So, "finders keepers losers weapers" is a good enough reason to disappear property rights, but starving someone to death isn't?
I find that remarkable. I think you've managed to prove my point, and decisively.
According to you Steve can just let RWW die simply because he chooses not to share the property that dumb luck allowed him to possess.
The "universal principle" is reduced to absurdity.
Understand, it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever whether you think it is in Steve's interest to share. That just muddies the waters so that you do not have to face up to the implications of your argument.
It is interesting to note that your argument also seems to imply that if Steve isn't smart enough to see the advantage of sharing, perhaps that decision should not be left to him.
I suppose that if there had been three men on the island - Steve, RWW, and Ludwig von Mises - the two who did not find the chest of food might "coerce" Steve to share (assuming the two put together are stronger than Steve).
Given your argument, Steve would be better off in the long run despite being coerced. In fact, if he is able to construct a better raft because he was forced to share the food, he might become truly free by leaving the island!
There goes another "universal principle."
Published: September 16, 2007 10:11 PM
No doubt Anthony would try to convince me that Steve might construct a better raft from the bones of RWW and von Mises, and this time, without being coerced!
Published: September 16, 2007 10:27 PM
Wow. These "universal first principles" sure do disintegrate quickly. So, if I decide that "there is no way to know" whether a property owner will find out I have his stuff, I can just take it as my own?
No, if there's no way to know who the property owner is and/or if there's no way to get it back to them. It's not a clear line in the sand. Unless you would like to tell me how morality is supposed to operate in the absence of knowledge.
I find that remarkable. I think you've managed to prove my point, and decisively.
According to you Steve can just let RWW die simply because he chooses not to share the property that dumb luck allowed him to possess.
The "universal principle" is reduced to absurdity.
I don't know what they teach you professors about logical argument (you are von Nostrand, aren't you?), but stating the conclusion of someone's argument and then calling it absurd proves absolutely nothing. At best, that's substituting instinct for ratiocination, and at worst it's substituting prejudice for reason.
But let's take the opposite notion as a given for a moment. Let's say that simply being near a starving person generates a positive obligation to them. How close does one have to be to them? A meter? A hundred meters? The same land-mass? Where does the obligation stop? (Could it depend on knowledge and ability, say?) One can only say "to the best of one's ability", but even that is thoroughly subjective. Maybe massaging them, or doing cheerleading exercises would help them to get food. Or how about feeding them a bit of food once every thirty days or so? After all, they can live on that.
Absurdities abound in the land of contextual proximity-slavery.
It is interesting to note that your argument also seems to imply that if Steve isn't smart enough to see the advantage of sharing, perhaps that decision should not be left to him.
Sorry, I wasn't including that bit as some sort of universal principle.
Of course, we can all construct desert island scenarios to prove our points. But such things have little if any relevance to real life.
Published: September 16, 2007 10:43 PM
"Of course, we can all construct desert island scenarios to prove our points. But such things have little if any relevance to real life."
Given that you are defending a "universal first principle" I need only provide one example demonstrating its absurdity.
I have done that.
You are left to provide all the "proximity-slavery" hypotheticals you can think of, but it does not change the fact that you have helped me demonstrate that the so-called "universal first-principles" are unworkable given the right circumstances, and are therefore, not universal.
I shall continue approaching these questions pragmatically, valuing property rights and voluntary exchange as important, but certainly no trump against reasonable legislation like the College Cost Reduction and Access Act.
Published: September 16, 2007 11:30 PM
Given that you are defending a "universal first principle" I need only provide one example demonstrating its absurdity.
I have done that.
I guess I must have missed your whole, ya know, logical argument.
You are left to provide all the "proximity-slavery" hypotheticals you can think of, but it does not change the fact that you have helped me demonstrate that the so-called "universal first-principles" are unworkable given the right circumstances, and are therefore, not universal.
"Unworkable" relative to what? Your subjective judgement about a virtually impossible scenario. It was never my case that everybody likes what happens when no one is allowed to coerce each other. Nor does an extreme example, really about as meaningful as concerns about horse races where you can't tell which horse's atoms crossed the finish line first, tell one much about whether a coercive monopoly with the power to tax entire fractions of your work per year is a good idea. Your argument further relies on the universal superiority of pragmatism over ethics and the universal applicability of subjective judgements.
I shall continue approaching these questions pragmatically, valuing property rights and voluntary exchange as important, but certainly no trump against reasonable legislation like the College Cost Reduction and Access Act.
You never even addressed my argument in regards to subsidies, prices, and the reshaping of education in the lefty-progressive mold of the federal government beyond your initial response. Where did that go?
Published: September 16, 2007 11:54 PM
I agree completely with the fanciful desert island scenario being a totally irrelevant and misleading basis for establishing principles in the real world.
Lifeboat scenarios may be acceptable at some dinner party conversations, but is hardly acceptable in determining appropriate first principles.
Also, it has been a while since I have seen an argument like Steve's to the effect that because we have benefited from public goods, it would be immoral to deny these goods to future generations.
To Steve:
There are no public goods without private resources that were expropriated and redistributed. Your reasoning leads to a slippery slope where because some members at some time benefited from public goods, all members for all time must benefit from those public goods. It totally ignores and will ultimately destroy the source of those goods, being private resources (tax dollars, or even more appropriately, the productive hours in the days of the lives of private citizens).
Throughout the blog dialogue, you are alluding to first principles (even though it appears that you deny their existence), one being that an organized society is preferable to a free one. OK, lets get away from concepts and stay in concrete examples, which you seem more comfortable with.
If publicly financed R&D is more effective that privately financed R&D, why wasnt the Soviet Union the great technological innovator of its age? Or Red China? How many inventions have come out of Pyongyang recently?
Published: September 16, 2007 11:55 PM
Lifeboat scenarios may be acceptable at some dinner party conversations, but is hardly acceptable in determining appropriate first principles.
Nevermind using them to establish the relative desirability of an organization with the (routinely exercised) power to kill millions and sap the productive energies of entire generations.
Published: September 17, 2007 12:00 AM
I will give you few more principles - in a free society, it is immoral to have to work and pay for the teaching of ideas abhorrent to oneself. I do not believe that I should sponsor the education of bomb-making, Islam, moral relativism, or Keynesian economics. Enter homeschooling.
A final moral jab - should an individual who does not embark upon tertiary education have to subsidize one who does? Should a factory worker have to subsidize or forcibly loan money to a college student?
Sorry, the above are based on "absurd" first principles. Are you of the mind that pragmatism is the only principle free from "absurdity"?
By the way, the "proximity-slavery" example is a perfectly valid and illustrative example of the impossibility of the ethics of altruism. Under such ethics, how many other people can you feed before you can ethically eat yourself? Or, to avoid allegations of "absurdity" or "irrelevance" - how many college fees for other people must you pay for before you are ethically allowed to pay for your own car/house etc?
Published: September 17, 2007 12:06 AM
Arguing at crossroads methinks? To a Libertarian freedom is supposed to mean 'freedom from coercion' (perhaps you Steven like me don't really know what this actually means other than your own personal power to repel others). To, say, Liberals, freedom can include notions such as freedom to choose. So the argument where Libbers get flustered is the contradiction when people can be more productive through coercion. Or in other words, if one must choose between being more productive or being coerced, Libbers would say it's better to be free from coerced even if it is less productive at times to do so. After all, I gave a scenario awhiles back about how a high tech people could theoretically enslave a simple hunter/gatherer society and force them into factories in a way that the h/g people are now much more productive yet have no freedom for themselves. Hence I believe even if it indeed it is shown that public funding for things like education, health and welfare would make society better off because otherwise poor, sickly, uneducated people can now contribute to society, a Libertarian would protest that since the funding is public, therefore it's theft and it is all unacceptable.
Published: September 17, 2007 1:47 AM
You are correct that a libertarian would protest in such circumstances. It is a good thing that such a set of circumstances have never passed and will never pass. Its another fabricated desert island scenario. Planning and coercion doesnt make for a productive society - economic theory and empirical evidence have proven this time and again. Not now, not for the next 5 year plan (believe me comrade! We only need your subservience for the next 5 years! Then you will be free to do what you like!) and not ever.
Also, it is unwise to make analogies between a hunter/gatherer society intermingled with an "enlightened" coercive group in the middle with a modern populace.
To entertain your fantasy for a moment, it would lead to a caste system. Have you given thought to the h/g's children? Are they to be enslaved - sorry, coerced, because of their parents position in your society?
Apologies if I have inferred too much from your comment.
Published: September 17, 2007 2:13 AM
It seems that much of what I have said has been garbled hopelessly. Let me clear up a few notions...
No, I don't believe in "universal first principles" but that doesn't mean I don't think principles are important.
My entire effort here has been to tear down the notion that any first principles exist, at least in any meaningful form that we can apply rigidly to the real world. So, ok, voluntary exchange is desireable... but that doesn't mean coercion - I prefer the term democracy - doesn't have its place. If you don't think so, perhaps parental authority should be outlawed as well (and no, that doesn't mean I see government as "parental" in any way).
I see references to "slippery slopes" which usually tells me that somebody is making a bad argument. I'm sorry, but supporting Social Security is simply not akin to supporting Soviet communism or whatever other regimes mentioned above, nor does believing that active government can further important and worthy goals necessarily lead to such a thing. It was, in fact, welfare capitalism that overpowered several of the regimes mentioned in the above comments.
I'm sorry, but there are very few absolutes in this world (are there any?), and really all we have is our ability to make arguments and convince people that one course of action is better than another. We can use principles and priorities to light our path, but to apply them dogmatically is, in my view, not especially erudite.
I guess it might be nice to have universal principles to hang our hats on whenever any difficult questions arise. Be that as it may, we are left to muddle through without them.
Published: September 17, 2007 2:28 AM
"Given that you are defending a "universal first principle" I need only provide one example demonstrating its absurdity."
By asserting it. How lovely.
"No doubt Anthony would try to convince me that Steve might construct a better raft from the bones of RWW and von Mises, and this time, without being coerced!"
No, that privilege would be reserved for the great Mises, not Steve. :)
Published: September 17, 2007 6:51 AM
"Hence I believe even if it indeed it is shown that public funding for things like education, health and welfare would make society better off because otherwise poor, sickly, uneducated people can now contribute to society, a Libertarian would protest that since the funding is public, therefore it's theft and it is all unacceptable."
Correct - for the same reason that we'd say that even if owning slaves on a plantation increased productivity, we'd consider the slavery utterly immoral.
What advocates of public provision of goods do not seem to understand is that a) this crowds out private investment (hence the argument that some publicly-provided goods are "cheaper" because they're subsidized is nonsense) b) it is achieved via coercive redistribution of income from the productive (not just the rich) to the nonproductive c) it distorts the structure of production in the society and d) in the case of cheap credit, it causes distortions in financial markets (which are contributive to business cycles.)
Published: September 17, 2007 7:01 AM
Steve said: "Given that you are defending a "universal first principle" I need only provide one example demonstrating its absurdity."
Anthony replies: "By asserting it. How lovely."
I'm sorry Anthony, but if you want to go ahead and support the proposition that it is justifiable for me to allow another human being to die just because I found a chest of food five minutes before he/she did, it is you that has the ethics problem.
Yes, I assert that it is patently absurd to defend property rights in the context provided by my hypothetical.
Published: September 17, 2007 11:19 AM
RWW provides the "universal first principles" to be dismantled:
ONE: The only economic interaction that is sure to produce net value is a free exchange, wherein each party voluntarily participates and therefore benefits.
In my hypothetical situation, net value is not produced by depending on free and voluntary exchange:
Steve finds chest of food and refuses to share with RWW.
RWW starves to death and, to add insult to injury, is permanently denied access to his property.
As per Nasikabatrachus's comments, Steve is denied access to benefits and property that he would have gained had he shared.
As per Nasikabatrachus's suggested benefits of sharing, Steve is denied possible escape from the island. Therefore, Steve is potentially denied true freedom... but he has a very, very full stomach. ;)
TWO: Interpersonal utility comparisons are impossible. Put more plainly, there is no way to know, between two people, who truly values a given good (including money or education) more.
My hypothetical demonstrates that utility comparisons are possible.
Steve's hoarding of the chest of food produces, in theory, greater personal satisfaction, but RWW clearly values the extra food consumed by Steve more since it would keep him alive.
Comments anyone?
Published: September 17, 2007 1:23 PM
Steve: "I'm sorry Anthony, but if you want to go ahead and support the proposition that it is justifiable for me to allow another human being to die just because I found a chest of food five minutes before he/she did, it is you that has the ethics problem."
Your problem is that you're attempting to take two separate issues and combine them into one. From the point of view of the person who found the food these issues can be formulated as the two questions "Do I have the right to keep the food to myself?" and "Should I keep the food to myself?". Libertaries principles only address the first question, and conclude that the finder does have the right to keep the food (and thus to defend it against theft by others).
The answer to the "should" question is a more personal issue: a matter of character and conscience, not law. As the homesteader and sole owner the finder is the one tasked with deciding how the food will be used. Someone must exercise that role, and the one that actually found the food is the logical choice of the two individuals present. In most cases economic analysis would indicate that keeping the other person alive is in one's own self-interest, not only for their future assistance but also to minimize the possibility of violence brought about by the threat of starvation, but that, as with any purely subjective preference toward or against sharing, is for the owner to decide.
In any event, this is a lifeboat scenario specifically designed to put both of the individuals under immediate threat of starvation. Principles notwithstanding, if the two cannot agree to share it will eventually come down to might-makes-right. Adding even one additional person to the scenario, as a way of breaking the stalemate, would drastically influence the conclusion in favor of unanimous consent (libertarianism/voluntaryism) since simple physical prowess could not be depended upon to ensure either party's dominance over the other.
Finally, even if one were to agree with your collectivist conclusion to the scenario that result would be predicated on the fact that one of the parties was in iminent danger of starvation. That does not scale up to support for general wealth-transfer (incl. any social programs) where the alternative does not lead directly to anyone's death.
Published: September 17, 2007 1:40 PM
Thanks Jesse,
Interesting comments, but I think they actually serve to make my point and do not justify privileging any "universal first principles" as a trump.
You're right that "Libertaries principles only address the first question, and conclude that the finder does have the right to keep the food," but that point only underscores the limited scope of libertarian principles in helping us negotiate real life. We need more to surmise whether Steve has a "right" to keep the food.
I put it to you that under any reasonable contextual assessment of right, he does not.
Therefore, the only way you get to keep these "universal first principles" is if you agree that they cannot be applied universally, which I don't need to tell you, is illogical.
If my hypothetical only raises "should" questions that are "a matter of character and conscience, not law," how can laws against murder be justified?
Can a mother deprive her infant baby of food? How does a libertarian respond to such a thing? The logic of what you say seems to reduce individual "right" to a very unattractive level; one that I do not think has ever carried the day politically in any regime one might want to live in.
Lastly, if my hypothetical does not "scale up to support for general wealth-transfer (incl. any social programs) where the alternative does not lead directly to anyone's death," it does, nevertheless, serve to destroy the concept of "universal first principles."
Instead, as I have written above, we are left to muddle through, making decisions by utilizing principles and arguments, but with no ultimate trump with which we can decide which laws are right and which are wrong.
I see this conversation as a dodge by libertarians in accepting that this is the kind of world we live in. Mathematics simply cannot be applied in the same way to social, economic, and political situations like they can in natural science.
Published: September 17, 2007 2:25 PM
Steve, let me turn the question around. Why do you think the non-finder has the right to take "his share" of the food by force? Remember that there are only two individuals, the one who found the food and the one who wants some but did not contribute to finding it. If they cannot agree to share they obviously disagree on just how much the non-finder deserves, or on whether there will be enough for both of them to live on; what makes the non-finder's judgement any better than that of the finder?
As a side issue, let's say I (as the non-finder) believe you and have no objections to simply taking my share of the food. Why should I bother to look for food at all? It's a small island, the other strandee will eventually find all the food without my help, and I can just sit back and take my share as it comes in. After all, I deserve to be fed, whatever the cost to anyone else. Why should I have to scavange for food like some lowly animal?
Private ownership would at least have guaranteed that the other party did enough of the work to justify its share of the food.
Published: September 17, 2007 3:02 PM
Steve: 'No, I don't believe in "universal first principles"...'
Then we are at an impasse:
Host: "I own myself."
Cancer: "No, you don't."
Published: September 17, 2007 3:22 PM
Steve:
No, you're not seeing it yet, Steve. Let me spell it out because there is some subtlety here. Libertarians argue that RWW is not justified in using force against Steve to take the food from him. RWW is free to argue, cajole, beg, whatever he likes, but should he steal Steve's food, assault Steve, or make an agreement with Steve he has no ability to or intention of keeping ("I found a cave and I'll share it with you if you give me half the food"), then RWW is in the wrong.
Is Steve a selfish blight on humanity if he chooses not to share? Sure. No one is arguing that Steve is noble or is acting morally towards his fellow man if he refuses aid to RWW. However, I do assert that RWW is wrong to use force against Steve. Likewise, Steve is justified in using proportional force to defend his property, should RWW attack him.
How could you possibly prove the counter-assertion, that it is okay for RWW to, say, pick up a stick and beat Steve until he is no longer able to resist the taking of his property? How would you show that Steve is wrong to fight back against RWW's encroachment? Can you not see the insanity that you invite when you start justifying aggression in this way?
This is the line that libertarians draw. I find that the first principles that you disdain are so compellingly obvious that we ignore them at our peril.
Published: September 17, 2007 5:09 PM
Kevin,
I do not need to rely on "universal first principles" to make a persuasive argument that I have a right to protect myself against cancer.
Jesse,
Again, the difference between me and just about everyone else here, is that I do not claim access to some set of "universal first principles" to help me find my way in tough jams.
The hypothetical I've offered outlines a situation where RWW's right to stay alive has to trump any supposed property rights gained by my finding the chest.
That anybody is free to add conditions to my hypothetical does nothing to undermine the established point that the supposed "universal first principles" do not apply in certain circumstances.
I'd like to think that RWW would pull his weight while we waited for someone to find us on the island (especially if he is unwilling to help me pass the time by entering into interesting debate), but if he isn't willing to help me find food that doesn't do anything to my original argument stemming from the original conditions of my hypothetical.
Remember, I need only find one context where the principles do not act as a trump and my argument carries the day.
First, the chest of food must be shared. RWW's proposed laziness is a question to be handled after he's eaten.
I'd be happy to debate about what set of rules should apply if RWW refuses to do his part on the island, but I will only do so once the concession is made that I have done away with "universal first principles."
Published: September 17, 2007 5:13 PM
Scott,
Violence only ensues when Steve steps into the path of RWW when he reaches for bread. If Steve insists on getting in RWW's way of what should rightfully be seen as the common property of the two men, Steve deserves what he gets.
An important difference here is that RWW doesn't need to kill/hurt/maim Steve to get what he needs. Steve does need to kill RWW to get what he wants.
By your argument, should Steve somehow find his way back to soiety, he cannot be prosecuted for his actions in keeping food from RWW. Now that is insanity.
Published: September 17, 2007 5:22 PM
Steve,
You are applying RWW's right to stay alive as if it were a first principle. If you don't rely on first principles, then you cannot rely on any right - to stay alive or otherwise. Your argument is hopelessly lost without any basis.
"First, the chest of food must be shared."
Why?
Barney-style:
The impasse here is due to the fact that you do not agree that humans own themselves. That is the first principle. You are the cancer.
Published: September 17, 2007 5:25 PM
Steve: "The hypothetical I've offered outlines a situation where RWW's right to stay alive has to trump any supposed property rights gained by my finding the chest."
Oh, what that a precondition of your scenario? I'd understood it to be your conclusion. (Or was it both; i.e. a circular argument?)
Steve: "That anybody is free to add conditions to my hypothetical does nothing to undermine the established point that the supposed "universal first principles" do not apply in certain circumstances."
That point is only "established" so far as you are concerned; no one else here has accepted it. As you were the one to raise it, and use it as the premise of your argument, I hardly think that means much.
Anyway, what do you mean by "universal first principles"? The way you keep quoting it suggests you have some private definition, which would certainly explain the obvious lack of communication going on. For example, it seems to me that you're not actually rejecting first principles as you claim, but rather are proposing a new set of principles more to your liking, one which includes a (supposedly) universal and objective responsibility to share with those in need. Furthermore, it appears Kevin B. agrees with me on that point.
Published: September 17, 2007 5:54 PM
Kevin says: "You are applying RWW's right to stay alive as if it were a first principle. If you don't rely on first principles, then you cannot rely on any right - to stay alive or otherwise. Your argument is hopelessly lost without any basis."
Wrong. Throughout this discussion I have argued that there are such things as principles and rights, and that we should pay attention to them. What I've denied is that there is some ultimate set of trump rights and/or principles.
In the hypothetical, I argue that RWW's right to live has a higher priority than Steve's right to the his property.
This does not preclude me from arguing in another context that RWW's right to live has been trumped by some higher priority (think about a situation where RWW must die in order to save the human race).
Jesse,
Not sure what the point is of your first message. I've stated above - I think in my second message today - that the context of my hypothetical demands a "communal" outcome if we are to find the highest "net value."
I could have included other conditions that might cause some of you to see this my way.
Suppose I've found the chest, Ludwig von Mises is my island mate, and there is reason to believe that we will be saved within five years time, leaving von Mises to write more books for you if I let him eat.
Do I still have a trump against sharing my food with him?
That point is only "established" so far as you are concerned; no one else here has accepted it. As you were the one to raise it, and use it as the premise of your argument, I hardly think that means much.
The difference between you and I and everyone else here is that I'm making an argument for my side while everyone else is relying on the "authority" of highly debatable "universal first principles."
Tell me which is more and less convincing.
BTW... My apologies regarding my references to "universal first principles"... I am merely employing those offered to me yesterday in this space by RWW. I'll reprint those:
RWW said:
ONE: The only economic interaction that is sure to produce net value is a free exchange, wherein each party voluntarily participates and therefore benefits.
TWO: Interpersonal utility comparisons are impossible. Put more plainly, there is no way to know, between two people, who truly values a given good (including money or education) more.
He later added:
The truths I listed were derived from self-evident first principles with no "real world" of context -- meaning they apply universally.
"The rigorous results of classical economics are as universal and absolute as the results of mathematics, engineering, or any other a priori science. Other contributions cannot alter them, just as they cannot alter those contributions, insofar as they are correct."
I believe I have shown these propositions to be untrue, demonstrating that we are left to make our own best arguments - without the aid and comfort of "universal first principles" - either in favor or against the College Cost Reduction and Access Act which spawned the original post.
Published: September 17, 2007 6:18 PM
One other point:
Jesse says "That point is only "established" so far as you are concerned; no one else here has accepted it. As you were the one to raise it, and use it as the premise of your argument, I hardly think that means much."
Since when do you guys believe in democracy? I was chastized at the very beginning of this debate for suggesting that most Americans would take my side in supporting the GI Bill and other welfare state policies. Why does it matter that I am unable to demonstrate to this majority that I'm right?
Published: September 17, 2007 6:28 PM
"I'm sorry Anthony, but if you want to go ahead and support the proposition that it is justifiable for me to allow another human being to die just because I found a chest of food five minutes before he/she did, it is you that has the ethics problem."
Whether it is _morally_ (as opposed to ethically) justifiable is a matter for each individual to sort out for themselves. Simply because you do not like the conclusions does not serve to invalidate the first principles. Likewise, one could say that, if I am a doctor, by not curing a sick person I am somehow violating an obligation to him and his needs, and thus it is justifiable that I am coerced to heal him. Why?
"Yes, I assert that it is patently absurd to defend property rights in the context provided by my hypothetical."
Circular, then. You have assumed that a) both individuals have an equal right to the good. Whence does this follow? b) that the other party is somehow being harmed if he cannot access that which he does not own.
As for your prior statements on GDP etc., GDP is increasingly facing heat by economists for being an imperfect measure of economic growth - GDP only measures final consumption (so it will measure nearly any increase in government spending as increasing the total product.) It does not measure the total product by composition of the economy (i.e. higher-middle-lower stages of production.) Business investment occupies around 50% of total economic activity, consumption 40%. So in order to analyze the effects of publicly-provided goods, more than GDP will be necessary.
Published: September 17, 2007 6:28 PM
Anthony,
Maybe you or someone else could tell me where you think "first principles" come from, what they are, and why the rest of us should care about them.
Published: September 17, 2007 6:32 PM
Steve: "I've stated above - I think in my second message today - that the context of my hypothetical demands a 'communal' outcome if we are to find the highest 'net value.'"
Since there's no such thing as "net value", one cannot maximize it. An individual can sort its own preferences into a list, choosing one good over another by its actions. No one can sort goods in value order between individuals, or calculate some sort of combined measure in which gains by one individual could be made equal to another's losses. One cannot even observe someone's past value scale except as it is revealed, gradually and under a constant process of change, by their actions -- much less the degree by which one good is preferred over another at any given time! This was RWW's second point, which was correct as stated.
RWW's first point was the sole exception -- well, not really an exception, but a way around the lack of information -- wherein both individuals express an improvement according to their own value scales by agreeing to the trade. Presented with a potential trade, of the four agree/disagree pairs only one -- the one in which they both agree -- results in a objective ex ante improvement in both individual's utility. Nothing else could guarantee an ex ante net increase in total utility.
Steve: "Do I still have a trump against sharing my food with him?"
Obviously, yes. Haven't I already said so several times? I could just as well ask "If the food you found was oranges, are you still supposed to share?" Both our universal principles depend on context -- mine on ownership, yours on subjective need -- but you didn't change any relevant part of the context in your updated scenario, so my conclusions remain the same as before.
Steve: "I believe I have shown these propositions to be untrue"
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Steve: "Since when do you guys believe in democracy?"
You called it an "established" point, as if it were self-evidently true and uncontested. The fact that only you supported that view was relevant. I was not arguing that the point was true or false based on popularity, but rather that the point was still in contention (which it was, and is).
Published: September 17, 2007 6:59 PM
Jesse says "Since there's no such thing as "net value", one cannot maximize it."
I took the concept of net value from RWW's recitation of "universal first principles" so if you're saying it doesn't exist your beef is with him, not me.
If it does exist, I'd say it is fairly obvious that more net value is the result when two human beings are kept alive rather than one, whether the stomach of that one is very full or not.
I'm still waiting for one of you to explain to me where you get your "universal first principles" and why any of the rest of us should see them as trumps against what we perceive as reasonable legislation. Where do they come from? How do you know they're "universal"? Why should we believe you?
Published: September 17, 2007 7:20 PM
I politely suggest that you should do some reading on philosophy. I personally recommend Aristotle and *gasp* Ayn Rand. After that, reason for yourself.
It is not for the members of this blog to do your reading and explanation for you.
On a final note, and no disrespect intended, it is pointless to debate with someone who contends that universal first principles do not exist. As other bloggers here has pointed out, this denial is in itself constitutes a universal first principle. This is a fatal contradiction unless you think that contradictions do not invalidate an argument, in which the debate should really cease.
Published: September 17, 2007 10:28 PM
My goodness Daniel.
I guess I expected my challenge to be met by something more interesting and respectful than the retort that I "go read philosophy."
Furthermore, I think that perhaps you should pay closer attention to the things you read, because I have absolutely not contradicted myself here.
As explained at ad nauseum in my many posts yesterday and today... as a pragmatist, I hold that there are no absolute and universal principles, only context-based arguments.
That is not the same thing as saying that there are no such things as principles and rights that people can assert in given situations. Of course there are. They just don't act as trumps.
How many times must I make the point? And without being insulted?
Published: September 17, 2007 11:49 PM
My goodness, you all have been busy. I've glanced through the arguments since my last post and noticed that my mention of "first principles" has been completely misinterpreted, particularly by Steve. In retrospect, that's not surprising and I can see how the confusion might have arisen, since the word "principle" is more often associated with ideas of morality than with the kind of synthetic a priori truths to which I was referring -- eg. that man has desires and acts to fulfill them, etc. However, as I implied earlier, my objections to public funding of education have nothing to do with the morality of obtaining the necessary money.
But since you can't reason a man out of his prejudices, and I have better things to do anyway, I'll leave it at that.
Published: September 18, 2007 1:05 AM
I understand your point. Its a contradiction. You say that there are no absolute and universal principles, which is an absolute and universal principle in of itself, thus contradicting your initial statement.
You asked where these universal first principles come from. Instead of writing a few thousand words, I pointed you to two authors on the subject, which is the only appropriate response in light of your request in a blog.
I dont think I have insulted you. I have kept as civil a tone as possible while being in disagreement. I apologize for the last time if it appears that I have insulted you.
Cheers.
Published: September 18, 2007 1:11 AM
My goodness, you all have been busy. I've glanced through the arguments since my last post and noticed that my mention of "first principles" has been completely misinterpreted, particularly by Steve.
Yeah, I really don't know how he got onto morality when I was telling him that your point related to economics.
But since you can't reason a man out of his prejudices, and I have better things to do anyway, I'll leave it at that.
Wisdom in action.
Published: September 18, 2007 1:23 AM
Perhaps this can be salvaged. I'll ask a few final questions of Professor Nostrand or Steve or whoever he is:
First, the chest of food must be shared. RWW's proposed laziness is a question to be handled after he's eaten.
My question is: why must the chest of food be shared? You have repeatedly stated that there are no universal first principles as far as morality is concerned. Then whence does your assertion that the food must be shared derive?
There are a couple of possibilities that I can see.
The first one is that it is your opinion that Steve should get the food. But this poses the further question of why anyone should care, except your opinion certainly isn't any kind of universal first principle so we are left with less than nothing.
Another is pragmatism. But what does pragmatism rest on? Why should we be pragmatic? By what standard do we determine what is most pragmatic? From whose perspective do we look? Why should we look from that perspective?
It's like the "turtles all the way down" idea. You say it's all context, but (aside from the fact that the argument that all is context lacks context) observing the context does not imply that we ought to do anything other than whatever the hell we want. To get from "all is context" to "Steve should share the food" you have to assume that "you should change your behavior depending on the context." But that is a universal, something which you have already said is not valid.
And remember, gasping in horror at the idea that someone else can morally refrain from letting someone else starve to death is not an argument nor a proof of absurdity (which itself is irrelevant to whether a universal moral principle is valid or not).
Published: September 18, 2007 2:42 AM
There is something very interesting going on here. It appears that the very idea that we may not be able to access any reliable universal principles, whether they have to do with morality or synthetic a priori truths, is quite unintelligible to anyone here.
But that, I believe, is exactly the world we are living in.
We human beings can discover and use laws of nature with great precision and power (though even those break down at the quantum level, and none of those laws have been true for all time). But there isn't anything equivalent to these with regard to human societies.
When it comes to organizing our communities, we can gesture towards relationships that might prove "true" much of the time, and may help us find our way. But there is nothing that is "True" (with a capital T) all of the time. At least nothing that holds any power (yes, all bachelors are single men... snooze).
When I make the claim that all we are left with is our ability to make arguments, it seems lost on everyone here. I wonder why? None of you are able to demonstrate anything to the contrary, and I believe that my hypothetical makes the point very well on a couple levels.
On the level of morality and ethics, I find it very difficult to believe that anyone could marshall a convincing argument that Steve should be able to keep RWW from eating. That doesn't mean I'm claiming that some universal truth exists in that situation. It just means that all the arguments in the world in favor of property rights and the virtues of voluntary exchange are extremely weak in that context, and do not convince me that RWW should be deprived of his life to defend them.
We can make arguments about that, and I will listen to them. But nobody is able to draw on any ultimate truth to win the argument. In fact, it is the very fact that you are all so wedded to the idea of universal truths that causes you to reach such a vile resolution to the situtation(it's ok to let RWW starve). Do you not see this as dangerous?
I suggest that you free yourself from this ball and chain.
On another level, my hypothetical demonstrates a situation in which more "net value" will almost certainly be created if Steve understands that he absolutely must share his food, and that his "property rights" are nonexistent in this context. This may be more along the lines of criticizing the points the real life RWW made at the beginning of this debate.
In any case, it is "all turtles" all the way down. We don't possess any ultimate truths when it comes to governing human societies. We just have arguments. Good ones. And bad ones. It is up to us to decide which are good, which are bad by employing historical and experiential evidence and judgment.
Published: September 18, 2007 1:51 PM
Steve:
Ah, so according to your version, it is Steve who has aggressed against RWW by not recognizing his 50% stake in the property. As an argument, this is a tad weak. As one earlier commenter pointed out, proximity and similar, dire circumstances appear to be the conditions upon which your rejection of Lockean homesteading rests. Because RWW is nearby and in need, Steve is suddenly responsible for his well-being. I see no causal connection that would make that so, other than the fact that the possible outcome is undesirable. Argumentum ad consequentiam.
Keep in mind, I am NOT saying that Steve should hoard the food, that this is the way things are and should be. This is a common fallacy that non-libertarians make about libertarian thought. I am saying that it is ultimately up to Steve to decide how the food should be distributed, not the Steve/RWW society (which does not actually exist), and that RWW is not justified in taking the food against Steve's will.
I'm not sure why you bring this up other than as an appeal to emotion. There are plenty of ways that Steve could deny the food to RWW, such as hiding it--but honestly, that is irrelevant. You seem bent on proving that property rights will lead to violence here, but I see no reason to draw that conclusion.
I disagree. Where does this duty to care for RWW come from? Proximity, pity? If he does not share, then Steve does nothing to add to or subtract from RWW's chances of survival. RWW is no worse off than he was before Steve found the chest. Steve's actions do not affect RWW's fate. How can you not see that it is the scenario itself, the environment, that causes RWW's death, and not Steve?
I think it's time we brought out the most important libertarian principle of all, the non-agression principle. It is my belief that most people implicitly assume the non-aggression principle in practice, even if they claim to oppose it in theory. Your example of the two men on an island almost follows the NAP, but you get hung up on the assignment of property rights, distorting the outcome.
The NAP is in direct opposition to utilitarianism. Utilitarianism accepts the use of aggression if the benefits to human beings are greater than the cost. Your thoughts?
Published: September 18, 2007 5:45 PM
No offense Scott, but I really am tempted to rest my case after that response. I won't because, like most pragmatists (I think), I'm willing to discuss interesting topics until the cows come home...
But honestly, why does "property rights" even have a place in my hypothetical? Only someone wedded to - in this context - completely absurd universal principles could see things this way.
Let me get this straight. If Steve is rescued and prosecuted for denying RWW food, it is society that is acting in a tyrannical manner?
What more do we need to prove in the way of demonstrating that turning over our actions to the fantasy, the complete fantasy, of the existence absolute principles, is dangerous, and in this case, quite insane?
Argumentum ad consequentiam? Are you kidding me?
I'm sorry... but if anybody wants to debate the legislation discussed in the original post, you gain no traction - and cannot possibly hope to - by leaning on "universal first principles."
My god. Make an argument and try to convince someone you're right. Don't act the part of the religious fanatic and tell us what your "good book" (in this case under cover of mathmatics) requires that we do.
How on earth did any of you come to think that despite the multitude, the absolute multitude of variables affecting human life, that you could actually establish "universal first principles" that the rest of us are bound to respect?
Let me finish with this, because I'd really like to see how far you'll all go with this: Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that tomorrow it becomes 100 percent certain that in the next 30 years the most radical projections regarding Global Warming are absolutely going to happen unless, during the first 10 years of that time, reliance on fossil fuels is completely eliminated.
Should governments around the world be able to enforce regulations towards this end?
I guess maybe I already have my answer. But I think I'd like you all to think - at very least - about all the private property that would be destroyed in such a Global Warming scenario (though, of course, I would not base my justification of regulations on any sort of "property rights" rationale).
Published: September 18, 2007 7:42 PM
I'm sorry Scott. I did not comment on your NAP point. I happen to agree with that principle and think that we should all live our lives honoring it as much as possible, just as I agree that markets are an important part of any economy. Like the latter, however, I do not hold it as a universal first principle, and, for example, reserve the right to employ violence if it is required to - for example - defend my family.
Published: September 18, 2007 7:53 PM
But there is nothing that is "True" (with a capital T) all of the time.
Is that true all the time? Or only some of the time?
Why did you avoid my questions? Why should I replace the logical standard of truth with the rhetorical standard of acceptability?
Published: September 18, 2007 9:04 PM
I heartily agree that you should defend your family. However, this would not be regarded as aggression. For those who adhere to it, the NAP means that violence can only be justifiably used in answer to aggression.
I will have to address your other points when I have more time.
Published: September 18, 2007 9:09 PM
We can make arguments about that, and I will listen to them. But nobody is able to draw on any ultimate truth to win the argument. In fact, it is the very fact that you are all so wedded to the idea of universal truths that causes you to reach such a vile resolution to the situtation (it's ok to let RWW starve). Do you not see this as dangerous?
"...nobody is able to draw on any ultimate truth to win the argument." Then by what standard do you settle an argument? You have offered none, despite my requests. The fact that you haven't offered any ethical arguments against letting RWW starve makes me think you have none. In that case, why are you even making an argument in the first place?
2) "Do you not see this as dangerous?" Call me crazy, but saying that something that won't happen in any given ten thousand years is okay isn't exactly dangerous.
Published: September 18, 2007 9:15 PM
Steve said: "But there is nothing that is "True" (with a capital T) all of the time."
Nasikabatrachus said: "Is that true all the time? Or only some of the time?"
I suspect that this question is suggested to "prove" that I subscribe to universals myself (if it is, it is mere word play) but I'll proceed as if it isn't...
For all practical purposes, it is true all the time. Note the important difference between saying this and making the claim that there are such things as ultimate truths that can be applied all the time without fail as we make our way through life.
My claim is that all we have are arguments - hopefully with the best ones winning each time - as we muddle through. It's messy, but that's really all we have. We simply do not possess enough information given the complexity of human life, to construct ultimate truths with any power whatsoever (that is, beyond stating the obvious and uninteresting, such as, "all bachelors are single").
Nasikabatrachus says: "Why did you avoid my questions? Why should I replace the logical standard of truth with the rhetorical standard of acceptability?"
I'm saying you need to replace the logical standard of capital T truth with small t truth because capital T doesn't exist. It's really not up to you. That is, contingent truth, that may be true one day in one context, but might not have any power whatsoever in another time/context, is all we have.
How do you decide who wins arguments? Not by the "standards of rhetoric." Arguments can be solid and systematic without recourse to universals. You keep asking me what "standards" to apply to win an argument. You don't get it. There is no universal standard.
If this makes you feel naked before the world of philosophical questions, take heart in knowing that we're all there with you whether we like it or not.
As I've said before, I really see this entire conversation as a very interesting and good example of the libertarian dodge of the fact that history, context, experience... these types of things... are about all we have as tools for constructing arguments and determining provisional truth.
Think about it this way: libertarians want to claim that they've discovered universals for situations where there are many orders of magnitude more variables than were in play when men were looking at the heavens and deciding that the earth moved around the sun.
Scott,
I'm definitely against agression. But I'll bet we can think of contexts when it might be necessary. Again, "necessary" isn't a universal, but merely an expression that most thinking and informed people might think it a good idea.
For example... invading the beaches of Normandy during WWII. Pretty compelling case for that one I'd say.
Anyone up for my Global Warming hypothetical?
Published: September 19, 2007 12:43 AM
BTW: I meant to say "when men were looking at the heavens and deciding that the sun moved around the earth" which of course... was wrong.
Published: September 19, 2007 12:47 AM
Looking back over the various arguments, it appears to me that the real issue here isn't the existance (or nonexistance) of absolute universal principles, but rather a basic disagreement over objective-value vs. value-free systems of ethics.
Libertarian ethics are value-free. This means that values are seen as subjective and varying between individuals, and even for the same individual over time. No individual's or group's values are considered "better" or "worse" than anyone else's. The natural conclusion of this premise is the supremecy of property rights and the non-aggression principle.
What Steve is arguing for is a system of ethics based on objective value. E.g. his conclusions are based on the idea that the life of a human being is always of more objective value than whatever might influence the other party not to share the food. To Steve this is an obvious valuation to make (although I can think of some reasons for not sharing the food that might make sense even to him), but such objective value-judgements are fundamentally contradictory to value-free ethics. As such it's no wonder that Steve cannot see eye-to-eye with the rest of us. Moreover, the preference for or against value-free ethics is essentially a matter of personal choice. I know of no argument, except perhaps Occam's Razor, by which either system could be objectively stated to be better than the other.
Published: September 19, 2007 10:13 AM
Time has been a constraint for me of late, so I will only address the argument that you seem most interested in. Jesse, you make some good points and I agree that it is probably not productive to continue arguing about first principles as it is just not that crucially relevant to the real issues.
Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AWG) is a hotly debated topic in libertarian circles. You assume perfect knowledge (which we don't have), but I will accept your hypothetical for the sake of argument. Some of them revolve around property rights and liability. I see some promise there if free markets truly existed, but not in the current morass of government regulation and rent seeking.
I will offer a different argument. As rational beings, I believe that humanity's course could be altered on a completely voluntary basis. I will also assume that there is some way through, that it is actually possible to make the necessary changes in the time frame you specify. I see this as a vital caveat, since no legislation yet proposed would do anything to actually reduce global CO2 emissions. It would merely criminalize it, which will eliminate it as surely as the "drug war" eliminates drug use. (Want proof? Look at how well the Kyoto protocols are working to reduce emissions.) As usual, the poor will be hit the hardest.
How many times have you felt like "murdering" someone? Or when have you been in a position where you could steal money or valuables? Did you act on your impulses? Did someone place a gun to your head and threaten you with violence if you chose to act unethically?
How many times have you bought someone lunch? Given money to charity? Taken a few extra minutes to help someone who had an earnest need when it wasn't required of you? Were you threatened or otherwise coerced into acting magnanimously?
People act to increase their own utility. Sometimes this leads to actions which benefit only the person who does them. Taking a swim in a lake would be one example. More often, their actions result in an exchange with another person, and both parties benefit from it. There may be many reasons that you choose not to murder the person you are angry with. One of them might be fear of reprisal from "society", but I contend that there are many other, more important factors that constrain you. You already stated that you have a philosophical objection to violence. You probably also fear what others would think of you, even if you were not convicted of the crime. You may also fear what may happen to you if the victim should fight back.
People who commit crimes either do not comprehend any of this, or their time preference is so high that the instant gratification of killing outweighs any future repurcussions. In our estimation, they do not act rationally at all, but that is because we operate from different values, knowledge, and assumptions.
Likewise, when you help someone else, it is not because you wish to decrease your own utility and increase theirs. The act of giving aid is itself a reward that has been pre-wired into our psyches. Giving is really just another form of exchange, where seeing to another's well-being gives you satisfaction or removes your fears of losing that person. You give because it increases your own utility. This quality--call it love, I suppose--proves for me that humanity is worthwhile as a species.
How does this relate to global warming? Again, assuming your hypothetical, the problem is not a systemic flaw in capitalism. Rather, it is a knowledge problem. I do not know how much I have contributed to global warming when I drive to work, or when I turn on my computer, or when I eat a steak instead of vegetables. The future consequences of added warming is not factored into each action I take, therefore, I see no reason to alter course.
People do not need to be coerced to act in their own best interest or to help others. They merely need to see the consequences and benefits clearly and act accordingly. Once the meme that CO2 emissions really is killing us is established in the minds of enough people, voluntary market interactions will do the rest. People will refuse to trade with firms or individuals who show disregard for the environment in the same way that you might choose not to associate with someone who never takes showers or bathes. There will continue to be a few holdouts, but the need to trade to acquire the goods to live will push them further toward the fringe. Collective pressure of this type is the key difference between game theory scenarios and the real world.
So, I say that in your scenario of perfect knowledge, people will act rationally and voluntarily to reduce CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, the actual situation leaves us with far less certainty about how bad the damage might be, how much each of us contributes, and whether or not there is even anything we can do individually or collectively to affect it. The best that we can hope for is an improvement in that knowledge.
Published: September 19, 2007 11:33 AM
I suppose I should give my final answer to your question, Steve. If we had perfect knowledge that our actions are killing all of us and still did not act voluntarily to change course, this would prove pretty conclusively that humans are not rational beings, in which case the point is moot, our fate is inevitable, and we are all victims of nature.
Also an addendum:
"Some of them revolve around property rights and liability."
Would be more clearly stated as:
"Some of the arguments revolve around property rights and li