And so it happened that I've finished another wiki project. It started out with a focus on voluntary cooperation in general, but it soon turned into a more specific topic: Public goods and their private alternatives (links to an overview page).
What is becoming more and more frustrating is the level of participation in these wiki projects - or rather the lack of it. I start these projects with an open invitation for anyone to join and choose how much they want to participate. I get limited feedback on the project itself, and then... nothing (or a few edits or link recommendations if I'm lucky). When I finally complete it, I advertise it around, get a few accolades, some backlinks, and... that's it.
When I started the Austrian Economics Wiki, which turned later on into the Mises Wiki, I really hoped to create an actual community that would continue creating resources of this kind. Not just randomly blogging about topics that happen to attract interest at the moment, but creating a database of links and arguments about any given topic one might be interested in. And it's getting there, even if very slowly.
But, I wonder, where are all the brave people calling for "a resource like Wikipedia", so eager at the start, but contributing so little? There is some demand for the wiki pages and the occasional editing by other users, but for the most part, nothing much happens. Is there enough demand to keep it alive (with more than one regular contributor)? I'm starting to wonder.
Anyway, go and check out the page on private alternatives to public goods... there is a lot of material to feed arguments with.
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Liberal or libertarian
I came across a little debate brewing between Walter Block and George Jonas and it got me thinking.
Jonas comes across as very thoughtful when explaining the prevalent political thought in Canada in his youth and his reasons for not subscribing to it. He calls himself a "19th-century liberal" (classical liberal as some call it) and his ideals seem to fit. Reading on his principles, he might be quite fairly described as a libertarian minarchist.
But as Block in his colorful way points out - why not libertarian? Jonas doesn't really explain that in the article called "Don’t call me a libertarian" - although to be fair the title might have been a decision by editors, see next article.
Interestingly, in the second article Jonas still hasn't quite explained what is for him the crucial difference between the two terms, although he seems to dislike the radicalism of libertarians (which would be perfectly fair, but he quotes it as a new, possible, reason). It would seem that he simply prefers the term liberal, without any particular explanation.
But thinking about it, I do like "liberal" a bit more than "libertarian". I consider it better for pretty much the same historical reasons as Jonas, with points added for the word being shorter and easier to use. Then again, one may have to explain more, extend the description (I prefer "classical liberal", but that also needs explanation) or simply go with libertarian - which I am comfortable with as well. Here in Europe you can occasionally use the term and people know what it means. Occasionally.
For most people, the two terms used in the right context might as well be interchangeable. For those of us that are sticklers for words and their usage, Jonas' articles feel slightly frustrating. There are two (in the context) very similar descriptors A and B. So if someone says, I'm A, not B, explains his thinking about the issue (which may describe one as A or B) but doesn't explain what's the problem with B, well, people subscribing to B are going to be confused. To put it more bluntly, if someone is, say, a fan of sports, but doesn't like ice-hockey, it doesn't help to explain how great sports are in general while avoiding the topic of ice-hockey.
It's perfectly fair to dislike a term for any number of reasons (Preferring the older, original term? Those using the new term are radical crazies one doesn't want to be associated with? Following some particular aspect of the original philosophy? Aesthetic preferences?). We just need to know, preferably right away.
Fortunately, there is a third article from Jonas. His ultimate reason seems to be that "libertarianism is too much of a good thing".
To quote: "Unbridled liberty can become chaotic. Chaos doesn’t enhance freedom. On the contrary, it ties freedom into knots. Poorly designed and unregulated intersections in Asia kill bicyclists and pedestrians by the hundreds but, as if that weren’t bad enough, they also bring traffic to a standstill. Anyone can witness the consequences of vehicular anarchy on YouTube. It’s scary and enlightening."
(One should note at this point that there are perfectly designed and regulated intersections all over Europe and America that also kill bicyclists and pedestrians in large numbers. As if that weren’t bad enough, they also bring traffic to a standstill. Check the Shared space concept for an alternative that uses exactly the deplored vehicular anarchy to great effect. However, even if someone would subscribe to anarchist thinking, it doesn't mean that there must be anarchist traffic as well! Having traffic lights and all seems to work out at least in some cases, and perhaps there are even better alternatives out there to be discovered.)
It seems that the real problem Jonas has with libertarians lies in their association with anarchism, or simply going too far - "I’ve more tolerance for what I call janitorial government than my libertarian friends, but agree that most of their functions could safely be privatized."
If that is the case, one should point out that a great many libertarians subscribe to exactly the same view (including the briefly mentioned Ron Paul). George Jonas may disagree with Walter Block's brand of libertarian thinking, but there's much more out there than that. Jonas can be still easily characterized as a libertarian minarchist - but it's okay to use a different term.
(Note: Walter Block has posted a response of his own, with much more detail and much more entertaining.)
Jonas comes across as very thoughtful when explaining the prevalent political thought in Canada in his youth and his reasons for not subscribing to it. He calls himself a "19th-century liberal" (classical liberal as some call it) and his ideals seem to fit. Reading on his principles, he might be quite fairly described as a libertarian minarchist.
But as Block in his colorful way points out - why not libertarian? Jonas doesn't really explain that in the article called "Don’t call me a libertarian" - although to be fair the title might have been a decision by editors, see next article.
Interestingly, in the second article Jonas still hasn't quite explained what is for him the crucial difference between the two terms, although he seems to dislike the radicalism of libertarians (which would be perfectly fair, but he quotes it as a new, possible, reason). It would seem that he simply prefers the term liberal, without any particular explanation.
But thinking about it, I do like "liberal" a bit more than "libertarian". I consider it better for pretty much the same historical reasons as Jonas, with points added for the word being shorter and easier to use. Then again, one may have to explain more, extend the description (I prefer "classical liberal", but that also needs explanation) or simply go with libertarian - which I am comfortable with as well. Here in Europe you can occasionally use the term and people know what it means. Occasionally.
For most people, the two terms used in the right context might as well be interchangeable. For those of us that are sticklers for words and their usage, Jonas' articles feel slightly frustrating. There are two (in the context) very similar descriptors A and B. So if someone says, I'm A, not B, explains his thinking about the issue (which may describe one as A or B) but doesn't explain what's the problem with B, well, people subscribing to B are going to be confused. To put it more bluntly, if someone is, say, a fan of sports, but doesn't like ice-hockey, it doesn't help to explain how great sports are in general while avoiding the topic of ice-hockey.
It's perfectly fair to dislike a term for any number of reasons (Preferring the older, original term? Those using the new term are radical crazies one doesn't want to be associated with? Following some particular aspect of the original philosophy? Aesthetic preferences?). We just need to know, preferably right away.
Fortunately, there is a third article from Jonas. His ultimate reason seems to be that "libertarianism is too much of a good thing".
To quote: "Unbridled liberty can become chaotic. Chaos doesn’t enhance freedom. On the contrary, it ties freedom into knots. Poorly designed and unregulated intersections in Asia kill bicyclists and pedestrians by the hundreds but, as if that weren’t bad enough, they also bring traffic to a standstill. Anyone can witness the consequences of vehicular anarchy on YouTube. It’s scary and enlightening."
(One should note at this point that there are perfectly designed and regulated intersections all over Europe and America that also kill bicyclists and pedestrians in large numbers. As if that weren’t bad enough, they also bring traffic to a standstill. Check the Shared space concept for an alternative that uses exactly the deplored vehicular anarchy to great effect. However, even if someone would subscribe to anarchist thinking, it doesn't mean that there must be anarchist traffic as well! Having traffic lights and all seems to work out at least in some cases, and perhaps there are even better alternatives out there to be discovered.)
It seems that the real problem Jonas has with libertarians lies in their association with anarchism, or simply going too far - "I’ve more tolerance for what I call janitorial government than my libertarian friends, but agree that most of their functions could safely be privatized."
If that is the case, one should point out that a great many libertarians subscribe to exactly the same view (including the briefly mentioned Ron Paul). George Jonas may disagree with Walter Block's brand of libertarian thinking, but there's much more out there than that. Jonas can be still easily characterized as a libertarian minarchist - but it's okay to use a different term.
(Note: Walter Block has posted a response of his own, with much more detail and much more entertaining.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)