New Video on Democratic and Market Freedom

By On August 4, 2012 · 26 Comments · In Democracy, Liberty, Links

“Why do you need the right to decide how you spend your own money,” asks Jason Brennan. “You can vote!”

Tagged with: •
 
  • ThaomasH

    Mr. Brennan’s point, whatever it is
    exactly, would be better made if he were criticizing a specific statement of
    the thesis that he thinks reflects the idea that “economic liberties are not
    all that important” and that “political rights … are more important than
    economic rights.” If in fact “many people”
    think that, he ought to be able to come up with an instance of someone thinking
    it out loud.

    • Sean II

      Right on, brother! This 4 minute video was inadequately sourced, and should have included an abstract to clarify its murky thesis, a disclaimer to the effect that “this video is not a complete description of any political theory or viewpoint”, and as you rightly point out, at least 1 minute of screen time given to an advocate of collective decision-making in economics (if he can even find one, as rare as they are).

      It’s the only way to be sure we haven’t been deceived by a clever strawman. What are we supposed to do, bring our own context and knowledge of political thought to this video, and then go do some reading afterwards? That’s ridiculous.
      Also, all movie trailers should henceforth include complete plot summaries and a full listing of the cast and credits, along with a disclosure of negative reviews, production and marketing costs, etc…

      • ThaomasH

        I share your belief that a four minute video on any subject is close to useless. Still, engaging with an actual specific point of view would have clarified Brennan’s thesis.
        And in my opinion, your point would be better made without sarcasm.

        • Sean II

          Then let me apologize for the sarcasm and rephrase:

          Things deserve to be critiqued on a scale equal to their ambitions. When someone publishes a 230 page book promising a definitive proof for objective morality, he exposes himself to fullest possible range of criticism. Anything he wrote, anything he neglected to write, any objection he failed to anticipate, its all fair game.

          The range narrows a bit for a journal article, still further for a short paper, a blog post, a blog comment, etc. You get the idea.

          Now, BHL is the kind of site where you can follow along through a five party debate on the application of spontaneous order theory to gender relations. Should that fail to interest you, you can move up one thread to hear and discuss a 90 minute lecture on the “Ironies of Social Democracy”. It’s all free ice cream to the likes of you and me.

          But that’s not exactly entry-level material, is it? At some point, the people who devote their lives to these ideas, and their time to this site, might want to reach a wider audience. One good way to do that is by creating a short YouTube video that will easily get ten times as many views as even the most provocatively titled article.

          Of course, that video won’t carry the same intellectual freight as a longer blog post, but hey…accepting the necessity of trade-offs is a big part of what puts the “L” in “BHL”. It’s only utopians who think they can get everything they want, cost free.

          So I think it would be a damn shame if incumbent readers like us got into the habit of criticizing the lesser content by the standards of the greater, not just because that would be unfair, but even more because we should share the goal of gaining a wider audience for the ideas discussed here.

          • SimpleMachine88

            That four minute video contains more “intellectual freight” than most congressmen.

          • ThaomasH

            Thanks for a thoughtful reply. It makes me realize how important implicit
            standards and background assumptions are in a discussion. One of mine is that this level of argument a
            four minute video is useless on the kind of forum I consider BHL to be. Another, and I’m not sure how closely the two
            are related, is that I think no one (or maybe only a few philosophers) really
            thinks that political rights are more important than economic rights and that
            to pose an issue of which is “more important” in such a limited context can
            hardly be helpful in clarifying anyone’s thoughts.

          • Murali

            More than a few philosophers think that the right to vote is more important than the right to private property. Rawls was just the tip of the iceberg

    • SimpleMachine88

      “he ought to be able to come up with an instance of someone thinking
      it out loud.”

      I don’t think you should be allowed to think that, because most of us disagree. ;)

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=193112608 Chris Bertram

    The toothbrush example is clearly misleading about what Brennan’s presumptive opponents believe. For example, Rawls clearly holds the right to hold personal property among the set of basic liberties. Yes, Rawls believes you have a basic right to choose your toothbrush and make a bunch of other consumer decisions too! What he gives a lower status to are more extensive economic rights, such as rights to own the means of production. By conflating the two, Brennan makes a rhetorical appeal to personal choice in order to sell the idea that people should have the right to own businesses. Maybe they should have that right, but this isn’t an intellectually honest way to argue for it.

    • SimpleMachine88

      So… you’re saying that you can’t make anything with your property? I think that my right to buy a toothbrush, and someone else’s right to sell toothbrushes, are the same thing.

      • http://whakahekeheke.tumblr.com Cal

        Dispersed individual autonomy for consumption, but the opposite for production! They’re not two sides of the same coin at all… Private property has no personality; owning things that can make other things doesn’t involve ‘personal choice’ whereas owning things that can’t make other things is all about ‘personal choice’!!! libertarians just don’t get this sophisticated leftist analysis.

        • SimpleMachine88

          Precisely, I am far too sensible to know something that is not true. In a world of common sense answers, sophisticated often is synonymous with sophistry.

          I think that being able to decide how to support yourself is a rather important component of liberty, and autonomy. That’s about deciding what you want to do with your life. Many of us invest a large amount of money in educating ourselves, we should be able to choose in what. Some of us even want to go into business for ourselves, rather than having to work for someone else. Without the right to private property, including productive property, that means working for the state. The State is my boss in too many ways already.

          The right to own and operate your own private property is an important part of liberty not just for the owner, but for society as a whole. Freedom of the press requires that you can own a printing press. The police may not raid the means of production, which includes the means of producing beer for gay patrons. The raid on the Stonewall Inn was clearly a violation of the customer’s liberty as well. Freedom of commerce (which is what we are talking about) is two people’s right to exchange things, prohibiting the selling or the buying is much of a muchness.

          If I want to open a business that is my right, and if I want to lend someone money to open a business, that is also my right. If I want to sell something to someone, that is OUR rights.

          “Property is more than the
          mere thing which a person owns… It is
          elementary that it includes the right to acquire, use, and dispose
          of it.” – William Day, writing for the majority, Buchanan v. Warley (or why the government can’t prohibit people from selling houses to black people)

          • good_in_theory

            Usually when someone ends every sentence with an exclamation point, they’re being sarcastic. For future reference.

          • SimpleMachine88

            I think a liberal education has killed my ability to recognize sarcasm. :/ Add longer words, and that thesis will get you tenure.

          • Sean II

            Can I be the first to write a derivative thesis, on the back of that thesis? Here’s my abstract:

            “In the works of Cal (a dude who posts ironically on BHL), one finds a robust engagement with traditional notions of personal autonomy and choice as they are understood to exist in a market context. From this starting point he draws a clear line between the common (mis?)application of that tradition and what he considers to be the imperative for social ownership of exclusively capital goods. In this paper, we carefully use jargon, weasel words, and equivocation to draw out obscure passages from Milton Friedman’s sophomore diary proving that he was really a Proudhonian socialist who would totally agree with Cal if he hadn’t died awhile back. Take that you Tea Party assholes! Finally, we will discuss how to turn the insights of this paper into an Elizabeth Warren talking point, and consider implications for further research.”

            Who wouldn’t publish that?

          • liberty

            I didn’t notice the sarcasm either – but to be fair, I think what SimpleMachine needs to be said: there are many in academic and political circles who do not really get this (obviously you do, but many do not).

            For example, in academic circles there are many intelligent market socialists (and Keynesians, postKeynesians, and other schools!) who believe that partial or complete control over the means of production by political units (whether democratic councils or one-man management by a state planner or investment board) is superior to private ownership, and often do not admit or see the full ramifications that the video and SimpleMachine point to.

            Personally, I am interested in convincing market socialists of its importance, since I think they understand other Austrian arguments, and could make an interesting partner for Austrian theory. But it is also important to show other schools its importance, although some of them understand it better and their theories threaten private ownership over production less.

          • good_in_theory

            I don’t think the academic left is really much interested in restricting people’s choice of occupation, prohibiting people from managing/running businesses, or banning the exchange of money and goods.

            People, of all stripes, may favor certain varieties of regulation that limit or modulate these things (licensing requirements, regulatory requirements, excise taxes, prohibitions on certain activities), but apart from the prohibitions (which are typically a product of the public morality and public safety crowd, which doesn’t really know ideological boundaries), none of them eliminate people’s freedom (slippery slopes along the crest of the sorites paradox aside).

            Taxation is not expropriation and regulation is not prohibition.

          • Sean II

            “Taxation is not expropriation and regulation is not prohibition.”

            Tell that to the people at the margins. They’ll be thrilled to hear the good news.

          • good_in_theory

            Have fun sliding down that heap of grain.

          • liberty

            Actually, as I say, there are market socialists who argue for common ownership over the major capital goods and industries, with stock given to all and managers who work for the state (because there is no private ownership of capital). I think market socialists actually have better understanding of markets and many Austrian insights then a lot of other economists, therefore their willingness to entertain such suggestions is interesting. I think the exploration of the ramifications is worthwhile. Others in the academic left may not go as far as this, but many Keynesians and postKeynesians do argue that the state should control much of investment, which ultimately may look similar.

          • good_in_theory

            I’m not sure what this is responding to.

          • good_in_theory

            More to what you wrote, however, I think it’s correct to focus on institutions here. But this dissolves Cal’s supposed witticism, as the institutions surrounding the activity of production and those surrounding the activity of consumption are very different, as is the nature of propriety proper to each.

            One can usually consume alone, but production can often only be undertaken in a firm. Products are already alienated, consumed goods are corporeal. (Products are owned, consumed goods are possessed, or, even better, incorporated).

            So many producer situations present us with (1) many individuals who are (2) each individually detached from what they produced collectively , while consumer situations present us with (1) one individual (2) who has physically incorporated what they have consumed.

            Nothing in particular follows from that, but they’re very different situations.

          • liberty

            Very well said!

            Though it could have been defined better, with this distinction made clear, and discussed in more detail in a still quite short video, this was the point it was trying to make, I think.

            I think the idea of vote/public use vs market exchange is extremely important and ,along with spontaneous order, one of the important things that Austrian & libertarian thinking can bring to non-market socialists as well as many market socialists and left-wing thinkers, because they often forget or do not realize the full importance.

            In turn, I think Austrians and libertarians should take more seriously the important points about culture and the inequalities that luck, circumstance due to the “class” one is born, and to race, sex, etc. given culture-based discrimination, and the way that these inequalities are compounded in market *whether free or politically influenced*. Both sides need to learn from the other.

    • http://www.facebook.com/les.nearhood Les Kyle Nearhood

      If your rights to own property, or other means of production, or any other fundamental economic rights are abridged by government, Then, your vote is worthless. Because you are a slave to the government. So it seems to me to matter very little that you get to vote for your slave masters.

  • Joseph R. Stromberg

    Well, at least we get to work for wages in either scenario. Wonderful.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dan-Kervick/100000673155327 Dan Kervick

    You’ve convinced me: the government shouldn’t buy everyone’s shirt.