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.)

On scurvy and scientific regress

Courtesy of the Mises.org Blog, read the article named "Scott and Scurvy".

With the specific example of scurvy, it is shown how a perfectly working and proven cure can be forgotten and how a series of wrong, but plausibly seeming theories needs to be overcome before the right one is discovered. For a much more recent example, note the causes of ulcers. Or see the example on freezing water.

Not to blame the medicine (or other sciences), it can be pointed out, that less than a century ago it was full of what we can consider today quacks and charlatans, some of them great authorities and scientists. And wrong concepts can easily survive even today. Luckily, medicine has tools and methods, which it can use to improve it chances to find better answers and recognize the wrong answers - note that they are chances, no guarantees.

Medicine may not be a very exact science, with much reserved for the individual reactions and special features of different organisms, but it can conduct experiments and trials and so analyse its theories - and these experiments have some validity. But in the science of economics, there are no such experiments available. There are no laboratories, and the results of repeated 'experiments' will necessarily differ, since the starting conditions will be different and the people will behave differently. (This is not even to speak of other motivations to pursue specific theories...)

To put it short, economics can be easily full of quacks and charlatans even today.

On Father's Dilemma

This is a repost from here. A friend mentioned a dilemma from his father with the ideas of freedom. Put shortly, imagine a valley cut off from the rest of the world, and there is only one location possible to build a bridge. What if nobody doesn't get around to building one, due to disagreements or other reasons? And what if someone does, but abuses the exclusive position (a 'natural monopoly')?

The hypothetical dilemma has several weaknesses that we have already talked about, but let's take it by itself.


Ultimately, there is no way for you to get everything you want.

And sometimes, you don't get things which you REALLY want or need, even things every single person in the world would say you deserve. That's not free market, that's life.

What can be said about the free market, or voluntary cooperation, if you want, is, that it motivates people to meet the needs of other people. If there are hard to reach parts of the world, with people wanting to reach them or be reached, there is profit to be made by connecting them to civilization. If one way seems unreachable, there is profit in devising alternatives (for the mountain valley, there are planes, helicopters, even cable cars - or build a tunnel). If the expense to build that bridge is too high, one can turn to charity of other people to help funding it. If there is disagreement, or people acting as assholes, there are voluntary ways to exercise social pressure to guide them to reason. But we've been through this.

Value is subjective, so there is no real way to compare the needs of different people (except by saying "I like this more!"). What if someone wants to use that crucial piece of property for another purpose? Is your goal more important than his? What if by building bridges and roads into every inaccessible corner of the world requires the resources, that would be needed to create a Cure for Cancer? (See, you can beat one crass hypothetical example by another. :) )

Without being cruel, one could say, that maybe those people in that remote valley don't deserve that bridge. If they can't make it on their own, nor can those most inclined, then perhaps the time has not come yet. "Society" is not wealthy enough to afford it yet.


You can't get everything you want by voluntary means. You can't get everything by involuntary means either. But let's say, you can get this one thing, this time, without too much violence. Somebody would have to pay for it, of course. But you would be better off, so why not?

If this is acceptable to you, the question is, what becomes of the precedent? If you force other people in person, even if you don't become an outlaw, somebody else may get the same idea and start forcing other people. If there is an institution you persuaded or created to force others, somebody else will try to convince them, too - and there is absolutely no lack of good intentions out there.

You have chosen to force other people to improve your own life. What if somebody else starts forcing you to improve their life? Maybe it will be a small inconvenience. Maybe they'll ruin your existence.

So let me turn the dilemma on its head. You wanted to be better off. What if somebody makes you worse off, in the name of the same grand ideas? How can you defend yourself from an infinite number of people eager to change your life, because they need something, too! You have already agreed to it in principle.

---

What do other folks think? The essence if the dilemma is this: people want many things, and sooner or later will want something, that the free market, or voluntary cooperation can't provide (or not in the way they want, or not quickly enough, you get it). Why shouldn't they turn to force, and what happens if they do?