I would like to add a little bit to Per Bylund's excellent clarification
of the libertarian philosophy and its counter to the aspersions that Ric
Holt casts upon liberty. First, Ric's throwing about "the tragedy of the
commons" in regard to the covid-19 pandemic appears to be completely out
of place. The tragedy of the commons arises in circumstances of no
enforcement of private property rights--where resources are held in
common. He should have clarified which resources are being held in
common to be overwhelmed by the unrestrained harvesting of people to
lead to their depletion in the case of the covid-19 virus. Most people
don't even know they've been infected and are therefore infecting others
until rather late when the symptoms of the disease begin to appear.
Second, I find it quite ironic that a virus escapes containment because
a communist, totalitarian regime in Wuhan, China is reported to have
interfered with the liberty of researchers and doctors early to
publicize alarm about its emergence. And now some collectivist-inclined
people want to use that episode to call for more restraints on
individual liberty? Rahm Emanuel's dictum, "never let a crisis go to
waste," seems to be getting good play here, it would appear.
Third, Ric could have consulted Adam Smith on his system of "Natural
Liberty" in the _Wealth of Nations_ (1776). In it, "Every man, as long
as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to
pursue his own interest his own say, and to bring both his industry and
capital into competition with those of any other man, or order of men."
And Smith's duty to the sovereign in such a system includes "the duty of
protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the
injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of
establishing an exact administration of justice." Smith thus does not
prescribe lawlessness, only that the laws of civil government conform
with "natural law." In his _Theory of Moral Sentiments_ (1759) Smith
also warns against "The man of system [who] is apt to be very wise in
his own conceit, and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of
his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest
deviation from any part of it ... he seems to imagine that he can
arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as
the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board." The lack of
care in considering the possibility that members of society may have
inclinations different from what the man of system perceives, may lead
to "the game of human society [going] miserably, and the society must be
at all times in the highest degree of disorder."
Liberty promotes the betterment of society than collectivism, especially
the totalitarian kind.
James Ahiakpor
Bylund, Per wrote:
>
> I was going to let Ric’s question go, but with the responses by Avner
> and Scott I cannot let this type of unscholarly (by which I mean
> emotional and ignorant) attacks stand unopposed.
>
> I am rather well read in libertarian thought, both past and present,
> and I don’t think I have /ever /encountered a libertarian argument
> divorcing freedom and responsibility. On the contrary, the libertarian
> view is usually expressed in some variety of “my freedom stops where
> your starts.” The natural rights that are often (not always and not by
> all libertarians) used to substantiate the “non-aggression principle”
> (NAP for short) are equal for every individual, placing reciprocity
> and mutuality at the very core of the libertarian perspective. For
> many libertarians, this is primarily a matter of property. But it
> doesn’t have to be in the form of property rights.
>
> Re: Ric’s original message, which states a valid question, I think the
> answer is that libertarians are not opposed to collective action but
> they do oppose any rights of a collective. And they stick to their
> NAP, which means collectives cannot justly be mandated or forced upon
> anyone. To think that this also excludes cooperation is ridiculous.
> The only libertarian claim re: the just implications of collectives
> and groups is that they need to be formed and maintained on a
> voluntary basis. In libertarian conceptions of a free society (their
> utopia, if you prefer) there are plenty of voluntary associations,
> organizations, etc. In fact, many of the functions nowadays offered
> through the state were previously offered voluntarily, as we as
> historians should be well aware (unemployment support, etc.).
>
> Ric’s point, that “besides demanding rights, individuals need to act
> responsibly” is as far as I can see well in line with and even an
> explicit part of much of libertarian thought. But libertarians would
> oppose anyone stating for them what ‘responsibly’ means. There are no
> victimless crimes, as they would say, meaning the limit of one’s
> liberty is the harm of another’s, and where there is disagreement the
> solution to the conflict (and who is to blame) is determined using
> existing institutions, organizations/contracts, and negotiations.
> Libertarians would strongly oppose causing harm to anyone’s person or
> property, and there are also ongoing discussions among libertarians
> regarding indistinct and ‘collective’ rights in terms of implied
> opportunities etc.
>
> The “denial” that Avner speaks of is a complete fiction. He may deeply
> dislike libertarianism, which is his right, but it serves no one to
> lash out at straw men. I would be embarrassed to declare this level of
> ignorance, and I would find it even worse to be emotional about it.
> But I suppose we are all different.
>
> What Scott is talking about I have no idea. It makes no sense to me.
> Whatever he teaches as economics is a mystery, but his affiliation
> does make sense in light of recent media reports.
>
> I don’t mind people not being libertarians, or even deeply hating the
> perspective. But that’s a great motivation to formulate actual
> counter-arguments and ask difficult questions. But I find vocal
> opposition to something one does not even begin to understand
> irresponsible at best. And to be a /scholar /and do the same is
> outrageous. Surely we can reason about it instead? Perhaps even
> consider what libertarianism is before dismissing it?
>
> PLB
>
>
>
> *PER BYLUND*|/Assistant Professor/
>
> Records-Johnston Professorship
>
> School of Entrepreneurship
>
> 424 Business Building |Stillwater, OK 74078
>
> 405-744-4301| [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> /business.okstate.edu/
>
> Sent from Surface Pro with Windows 10
>
> *From: *Carter, Scott <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent: *Wednesday, April 15, 2020 8:06 AM
> *To: *[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject: *Re: [SHOE] COVID Virus and LIberty
>
> **External Email - Please verify sender email address before responding.**
>
> I agree with Avner Offer. Economic science has devolved into a
> perverted apology for the privileged.
>
> Scott Carter, Ph.D.
>
> Professor of Economics
>
> Faculty Senator, College of Arts & Sciences (exp. 2021)
>
> The University of Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA
>
> Visiting Scholar, Spring 2020
>
> Universitá degli Studi di Bergamo, Italy
>
> *From:*Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]> on
> behalf of Avner Offer <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 15, 2020 6:50 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: [SHOE] COVID Virus and LIberty
>
> The whole point of libertarian ideology is to deny the existence of
> mutual obligation, or in other words, to protect privilege. Nothing
> attractive about it.
>
> Avner Offer
>
> ============================================================================
> From Avner Offer, Chichele Professor Emeritus of Economic History,
> University of Oxford
> All Souls College, High St., Oxford OX1 4AL, tel. +44
> (0)7551960880
> email: [log in to unmask]
> personal website:
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsites.google.com%2Fsite%2Favoffer%2Favneroffer&data=02%7C01%7Cscott-carter%40UTULSA.EDU%7Ccd5c265956104059db7108d7e136bc9c%7Cd4ff013c62b74167924f5bd93e8202d3%7C0%7C0%7C637225497536226811&sdata=kwZ46qo0pbMVRbZb3eJz9ziTJ7rR7BUDIMxBgGp8EiA%3D&reserved=0
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsites.google.com%2Fsite%2Favoffer%2Favneroffer&data=02%7C01%7Cper.bylund%40okstate.edu%7C14a14c08e02a43a41b3608d7e13ddde8%7C2a69c91de8494e34a230cdf8b27e1964%7C0%7C0%7C637225528142030485&sdata=bd7M2R3D4Qwj7iucd%2Fv8czfT3Kn9LJw%2BDX5Dl0zhw74%3D&reserved=0>
> Most recent books:
> -The Nobel Factor: The Prize in Economics, Social Democracy and the
> Market Turn
> (Princeton University Press, 2016).
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpress.princeton.edu%2Ftitles%2F10841.html&data=02%7C01%7Cscott-carter%40UTULSA.EDU%7Ccd5c265956104059db7108d7e136bc9c%7Cd4ff013c62b74167924f5bd93e8202d3%7C0%7C0%7C637225497536226811&sdata=ULACX%2FAuLqfC4FCn7vGhYtKNms8G3PaidgtVwsKqt%2Bw%3D&reserved=0
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpress.princeton.edu%2Ftitles%2F10841.html&data=02%7C01%7Cper.bylund%40okstate.edu%7C14a14c08e02a43a41b3608d7e13ddde8%7C2a69c91de8494e34a230cdf8b27e1964%7C0%7C0%7C637225528142030485&sdata=TUJ6EEBDWfXu82QK6y8lLsxDklE7NXNBgO0BBb7%2BFXc%3D&reserved=0>
> -Burn Mark: A Photographic Memoir of the Six Day War (Lintel
> Press, 2014). See
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.avneroffer.net%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cscott-carter%40UTULSA.EDU%7Ccd5c265956104059db7108d7e136bc9c%7Cd4ff013c62b74167924f5bd93e8202d3%7C0%7C0%7C637225497536226811&sdata=z59%2BwxZ%2BGtH1J7MMROhcjACxrG2ykCETzGvJFehpITE%3D&reserved=0
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.avneroffer.net%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cper.bylund%40okstate.edu%7C14a14c08e02a43a41b3608d7e13ddde8%7C2a69c91de8494e34a230cdf8b27e1964%7C0%7C0%7C637225528142040480&sdata=V67JpHlvw6VJZF0dP98%2BvuuWhC0PzHbuX%2FoK3NJP0mQ%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]> on behalf
> of Ric Holt <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: 15 April 2020 05:04
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [SHOE] COVID Virus and LIberty
>
> Of course, with the spread of the COVID virus, I have been thinking of the
> libertarian arguments of the constraints of government on liberty. But
> now the constraint on liberty is not from the government but from
> nature where one's individual actions can harm others. I would assume
> that for a responsible libertarian, they would recognize their
> behavior affects the liberty (health) of another, and change their
> behavior. Besides having rights, liberty also means individual
> responsibility to protect the liberty of others from one's actions.
> But what if individuals don't and add to the tragedy of the commons?
>
> If one believes ecological economists, individual constraints are
> going to increase with global warming. It is only by acting
> collectively to control global warming that we will be able to protect
> personal liberty from the constraints that nature will force on us.
> The point I'm getting at is that besides demanding rights, individuals
> need to act responsibly. If not, then collective action needs to step
> in to protect the common good. The libertarian argument for me has
> only made sense if individuals besides demanding rights are also
> willing to respect and act to protect the rights of others. If not,
> you get too many tragedies of the commons.
> Ric Holt
>
--
James C.W. Ahiakpor, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Department of Economics
California State University, East Bay
Hayward, CA 94542
510-885-3137
510-885-7175 (Fax; Not Private)
|
