Bleeding Heart Libertarians http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com Free Markets and Social Justice Wed, 12 Jul 2017 19:54:50 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.8 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/cropped-site-icon-BHL-32x32.png Bleeding Heart Libertarians http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com 32 32 22756168 A Devastating Review of Nancy MacLean’s Book on the Klan http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/07/devastating-review-nancy-macleans-book-klan/ http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/07/devastating-review-nancy-macleans-book-klan/#comments Wed, 12 Jul 2017 19:54:50 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=11930 Good fortune has brought me a review of Nancy MacLean’s 1994 book on the KKK. If you think Mike Munger’s review of the new book was devastating, this is worse....

The post A Devastating Review of Nancy MacLean’s Book on the Klan appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
Good fortune has brought me a review of Nancy MacLean’s 1994 book on the KKK. If you think Mike Munger’s review of the new book was devastating, this is worse. And the author of the review has no Koch connections whatsoever. Plus, do the quotations below from the reviewer sound familiar?

“Leaving Athens behind, MacLean roams the country picking out statements that fit her case that the Klan was radical and violent. if someone connected with the Klan claimed to be a devotee of the Constitution and only against lawbreakers, particularly those associated with Demon Rum, MacLean doesn’t believe him, does not bother to examine his motives or statements, and does not herself set forth any rule of interpretation that enables one to determine when Klansmen were speaking from the heart and when they were dissimulating. Perhaps all of their Main Street platitudes were self-conscious lies, but on what basis can we conclude that?…

Her argument is circular and ahistorical. It is circular because a lack of evidence is said to be proof of the Klan’s power to suppress it, and that alleged power is then hold to imply that there must have been much more violence than there is evidence to support.”

I have tried hard to treat her as a serious scholar who went off the rails with the Buchanan book, but now we seem to have a pattern here: cherry-picking evidence, circular reasoning, ascribing conspiratorial power to organizations when she lacks supporting evidence, and a refusal to grant any legitimacy to her sources’ own words. It’s the same pattern we see in Democracy in Chains

And this reviewer, again, has no taint of Koch, yet found all the same sorts of problems.

As they say, read the whole thing.

The post A Devastating Review of Nancy MacLean’s Book on the Klan appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/07/devastating-review-nancy-macleans-book-klan/feed/ 67 11930
The Ethics of Funding Disclosure and the Argumentum Ad Kochum http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/07/ethics-funding-disclosure-argumentum-ad-kochum/ http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/07/ethics-funding-disclosure-argumentum-ad-kochum/#comments Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:57:30 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=11925 A question for my colleagues in ethics and related areas: what are the obligations to disclose funding sources and possible conflicts of interest in an academic setting? Some are obvious:...

The post The Ethics of Funding Disclosure and the Argumentum Ad Kochum appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
A question for my colleagues in ethics and related areas: what are the obligations to disclose funding sources and possible conflicts of interest in an academic setting?

Some are obvious: if I write a study on smoking funded by a tobacco company or on climate change funded by ExxonMobil, the obligation is clear. The principle here is that the results of the study could have a direct effect on the sponsor’s financial situation, which at least gives a reason to be suspicious of the study (though not to reject it out of hand). That suspicion would seem to require disclosure.

But what about those of us who have taken money from and worked with Koch-funded organizations? Here are several scenarios and I wonder what the ethical obligation is in each to disclose that we are have connections to Koch funding:

  1. A Koch-funded organization gives me money to conduct a specific study on an area of the economy in which Koch Industries is a participant (e.g., the energy sector).
  2. A Koch-funded organization gives me money to conduct a study on an area of the economy in which Koch Industries is not a participant (e.g., a study on Uber).
  3. I am the PI for a Koch-funded grant for student programs at my institution and I write a scholarly or popular article defending the Kochs’ investments in higher education.
  4. I am the PI for a Koch-funded grant for student programs at my institution and I write a popular article criticizing a book critical of the Kochs for getting aspects of the Kochs’ beliefs or activities wrong.
  5. I have a history of working with and being funded by Koch-funded organizations and I write an article or blog post defending public choice theory, economics in general, or libertarian ideas in general, with no reference to the Kochs, from attacks by a book that criticizes any or all of those as well as the Kochs.

It seems to me that I have an obligation to disclose my Koch relationships in cases 1, 3, and 4 for sure. I am not persuaded I need to do so in cases 2 and 5.

If there’s no clear relationship between the work and the bottom line of the Kochs, why is there a need for disclosure?

Case 5 is of interest at the moment because of the controversy over Nancy MacLean’s Democracy in Chains. Her defenders have invoked the “argumentum ad kochum” in their responses claiming that the Koch connections of the critics undermine the legitimacy of their criticisms. They also claim that we are being deceptive in not revealing those connections.

Again, I can be persuaded I’m wrong here, but it’s simply not clear to me why a defense of public choice theory, or an attempt to show that aspects of MacLean’s book that have nothing to do with the Kochs and have everything to do with her misreading of the textual and historical evidence about the work of various scholars, especially James Buchanan, require that I state my Koch connections. (I have no problem doing so, but the question is whether it’s an ethical obligation.)

It strikes me that one reason MacLean’s defenders think we have an obligation to disclose and that those relationships undermine our arguments is that they believe that any argument for freer markets or critical of government intervention is ipso facto “pro-business” and therefore enhances the bottom line of Koch Industries. So, by definition, defending things like public choice theory or Austrian economics are suspect because everyone knows that the biggest beneficiaries of a free economy are the owners of capital. Therefore, we are simply shills for the Kochs and should disclose that.

If I’m right, this only adds to my view that the MacLean book is one long exercise in question begging. She already knew libertarianism is wrong. She already knew free markets benefit “oligarchs” exclusively. She already knew that people who like markets must be racists. I could go on. Once you take those as your operating assumptions, it’s easy to find, often creatively, evidence their favor. Your priors will adequately be supported by a combination of confirmation bias and the conviction that you are fighting off the forces of evil. But it all begs the questions as she assumes her conclusions.

In any case, I’m genuinely curious how others see this set of issues. I’m totally open to persuasion about the obligation to disclose on cases 2 and 5. I only ask that the comments stay civil. It does no one any good to give fuel to the cause of MacLean and her defenders.

The post The Ethics of Funding Disclosure and the Argumentum Ad Kochum appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/07/ethics-funding-disclosure-argumentum-ad-kochum/feed/ 32 11925
The Problem of Pluralism Isn’t Real http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/07/called-problem-pluralism-isnt-real/ http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/07/called-problem-pluralism-isnt-real/#comments Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:47:50 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=11917   I recently read Linda Zerilli’s  A Democratic Theory of Judgment. The book explores and sort of gestures at a solution to what we might call the Problem of Pluralism....

The post The Problem of Pluralism Isn’t Real appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>

 

I recently read Linda Zerilli’s  A Democratic Theory of Judgment. The book explores and sort of gestures at a solution to what we might call the Problem of Pluralism. Here’s the problem, in the abstract, in my own words.

 

Many political theorists believe that democratic theory faces a puzzle or paradox. Democracy is supposed to answer to the differing worldviews, opinions, perspectives, and considered judgments of its citizens. But, we’re told, the polity has intractable value and perspective pluralism—citizens have myriad incompatible comprehensive worldviews and value systems. So we face the Puzzle of Pluralism: How can we pass any laws or even offer judgments about what is just or unjust, without thereby disrespecting our fellow citizens and running roughshod over their different worldviews?

Many political theorists think the idea of “truth” is a threat to democracy. To illustrate, suppose that utilitarianism is the objectively true theory of justice. By hypothesis the government should just do whatever utilitarianism requires. If the public disagrees, too bad—they’re wrong. But this strikes some theorists as undemocratic, as it seems to make citizens’ opinions irrelevant for deciding what to do.

On the other hand, if we dispense with the idea of an objective truth, we fall into skepticism or pernicious relativism. Rational argument is impossible. Debating justice is equivalent to arguing about whether the present king of France is bald or whether pineapple pizza tastes good. Denying truth leaves democrats defenseless against authoritarian critics of democracy—by hypothesis, it’s not true that democracy is better than other forms of government.

 

Zerilli’s book offers an extremely abstract sketch of a possible solution to this problem. It’s really unclear at the end what her view is and how it’s supposed to solve the problem.

But I don’t think that’s the major problem with the book. Rather, I worry that Zerilli, Rawls, Habermas, Arendt, Okin, and the countless other political philosophers and theorists who write about this problem are dealing with a pseudo-problem.* I worry this book, and those it builds upon, tries to solve a merely theoretical problem created by mistaken theory of democracy, rather than a real problem plaguing actual democracies.[1]  What Achen and Bartels call the “folk theory of democracy” holds that voters’ ideologies, political beliefs, and policy preferences explain their voting behavior and the outcome of elections.[2] The Puzzle of Pluralism presupposes a version of this folk theory, and holds that the diversity of ideology, political belief, and policy preferences is philosophically problematic. But the folk theory is false.

By analogy, consider that in Dungeons & Dragons, there is a monster—the Tarrasque– so powerful that it’s puzzling how any adventuring party could defeat it. A Google search indicates gamers have written hundreds of pages theorizing how to fight it. But while there really are better and worse theories about killing the Tarrasque, it’s merely a theoretical problem, because the Tarrasque doesn’t actually exist.

I worry something like that holds true of this book and others in the genre. Normative political theorists write book after book about how to solve the Problem of Pluralism. But after you read, say, Achen and Bartels’s Democracy for Realists, which provides a comprehensive overview of sixty years of empirical work on voter behavior, you realize they might as well debate how to kill the Tarrasque.[3]

Rawls, Arendt, Habermas, and others believe that citizens have diverse ideologies, incompatible perspectives, distinct values, and differing worldviews. Anyone pushing an agenda has to justify her favored policies to these different points of view.

Now compare this to Democracy for Realists: Empirical research finds the overwhelming majority of citizens in modern democracies lack an ideology or anything like a comprehensive political worldview. Most citizens have hardly any real political opinions—they have few opinions at all, and the few opinions they have are largely ephemeral. They are loyal to this or that party on the basis of identity politics—“people like us vote Democrat”—not because they accept, or even know which, ideas and policies the parties push. They sometimes engage in post-hoc rationalization that “feels like thinking”; that is, they sometimes temporarily convince themselves that they agree with whatever they mistakenly and temporarily believe their party believes. Citizens don’t have much in the way of political values, period, let alone competing or incommensurable values. They have few beliefs about politically salient facts, about recent or distant history, or about what causes what. Democracy is not a bunch of citizens with incompatible judgments about social scientific, historical, and moral matters; it’s more like a system which chooses government by periodically polling overwhelmingly judgment- and perspective-free citizens. Elections are “largely random events”.[4] And this is not some new development—democracy has been like this since political scientists started studying voter behavior.

The Puzzle of Pluralism is at best/worst a puzzle for a tiny subset of the citizenry. The modal, mean, and median voter lacks an “ism”; so there is little value or belief pluralism. We don’t have to worry about forcing our vision of the truth onto their differing worldviews, because they don’t have worldviews.

Democracy is not like a giant amateur political theory conference with interminable debates. It’s a system of agnostic know-nothing, opine-nothing Hobbits and party loyalist Hooligans.

The central problem of democracy is not “How do we justify policy when citizens have an intractable diversity of political beliefs?” It’s more like, “How do we justify policy when there is no ‘will of the people’, and further, the overwhelming majority of individuals lack any significant political beliefs?” If anything, democratic theory faces the problem of perspectival and ideological nihilism, not pluralism.

 

 

 

[1] Cf. Daniel Dennett, “Higher-Order Truths about Chmess,” Topoi 25 (2006) 39-41

[2] Achen, C. and Bartels. L., Democracy for Realist (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016), 1-10.

[3] Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels, Democracy for Realists (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016). My own Against Democracy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016), contains a less comprehensive summary of the same position.

[4] Achen and Bartels 2016, 2.

*Note that I think Jacob Levy’s work on pluralism is different, because it’s about identity rather than about belief.

 

The post The Problem of Pluralism Isn’t Real appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/07/called-problem-pluralism-isnt-real/feed/ 53 11917
Psychological Harm and Free Speech on Campus http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/07/psychological-harm-free-speech-campus/ http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/07/psychological-harm-free-speech-campus/#comments Thu, 06 Jul 2017 05:09:47 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=11915 Psychological Harm and Free Speech on Campus The short piece I wrote about free speech on college campuses is now available to read online (but not downloadable) here.   I...

The post Psychological Harm and Free Speech on Campus appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
Psychological Harm and Free Speech on Campus
The short piece I wrote about free speech on college campuses is now available to read online (but not downloadable) here.   I like this piece alot, but I know many will disagree with various parts.  Even blogmates will find things to disagree with. I know Daniel Shapiro disagrees with what I say about the Skokie case and I predict Jacob Levy will disapprove of a big part of what I say about college campuses.
The basic idea: we should recognize that psychological harm is real and that like physical harm, it may make interference permissible, even with speech, but that this is highly unlikely to occur on college campuses because college essentially requires extensive speech and thus are places where all present should expect to hear views they disagree with and even disapprove of.

The post Psychological Harm and Free Speech on Campus appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/07/psychological-harm-free-speech-campus/feed/ 118 11915
Contra politanism, Against solidarity, and other things http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/07/contra-politanism-solidarity-things/ http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/07/contra-politanism-solidarity-things/#comments Mon, 03 Jul 2017 15:31:45 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=11911 Two of the major pieces of my new “Justice in Babylon” research project are now available. (Both links gated, I’m afraid.) “Contra politanism”, European Journal of Political Theory. “Against solidarity:...

The post Contra politanism, Against solidarity, and other things appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
Two of the major pieces of my new “Justice in Babylon” research project are now available. (Both links gated, I’m afraid.)

“Contra politanism”, European Journal of Political Theory.

“Against solidarity: Democracy without fraternity,” in Keith Banting and Will Kymlicka, eds., The Strains of Commitment: The Political Sources of Solidarity in Diverse Societies, Oxford, 2017

(See also There is no such thing as ideal theory, Social Philosophy and Policy, which is also a part of this project.)

———-
Some other promotional links while I’m at it.

The $30 paperback edition of Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom is coming out on July 13. To refresh your memory, the BHL symposium on the book can be found here, the Online Library of Liberty symposium here, and reviews are gathered here.

I’ve had a few opportunities to discuss the current crisis recently.

“Is Liberalism In Danger?”, a “Free Thoughts” podcast interview in Cato’s Libertarianism.org “Free Thoughts” series with Aaron Powell and Trevor Burrus.

“Brexit, Trump, and the Rise of Radical Right Populism in the West: Is Democracy Threatened?” Plenary roundtable at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, chaired by Dietlind Stolle, with Sheri Berman, Mark Blyth, Christopher Parker, and me.

The Intellectual Climate For Liberty, a roundtable at the 40th anniversary of the Cato Institute, chaired by David Boaz, with Emily Ekins, Charles Murray, and me.

The post Contra politanism, Against solidarity, and other things appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/07/contra-politanism-solidarity-things/feed/ 12 11911
The Butcher with a Smile – More Mangling from Nancy MacLean http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/07/butcher-smile-mangling-nancy-maclean/ http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/07/butcher-smile-mangling-nancy-maclean/#comments Sat, 01 Jul 2017 16:49:28 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=11904 I’m almost finished with Nancy MacLean’s Democracy in Chains, thankfully, as I don’t think I can take much more of her disregard for accuracy in her book-length smear of James...

The post The Butcher with a Smile – More Mangling from Nancy MacLean appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
I’m almost finished with Nancy MacLean’s Democracy in Chains, thankfully, as I don’t think I can take much more of her disregard for accuracy in her book-length smear of James Buchanan and libertarian thought more generally. Folks should see co-blogger Mike Munger’s absolutely devastating review if they have not done so already.

As scholars continue to try to “catch them all,” I offer yet another example of her butchering of quotes and arguments. And it’s a doozy.

MacLean is discussing the way in which the US political system puts constraints, constitutional and otherwise, on the will of the majority, which she thinks should reign unfettered (though how that justifies her presumed support of Roe or Obergefell or even Brown, which plays a major role in what Mike calls her “speculative historical fiction,” remains mysterious). She accuses Buchanan et. al. of wanting to go back to a 19th century view of the constitution that she finds horrific. She writes (227), with the quote being from The Calculus of Consent:

[Buchanan] and his co-author Gordon Tullock said that the nation’s decision-making rules were closer to “the ‘ideal’ in 1900 than in 1960.”

She then goes on to catalog the problems of 1900, some of which are legitimate concerns, such as Jim Crow. The idea, of course, is to claim that this is the world Buchanan and friends want to re-create today. She then writes (228) “Had Buchanan’s ideal system of 1900 endured at the national level…” followed by a list of horrors that the Great Depression “might well” have engendered.

Note first that what was once the constitution he thought was “closer to the ideal” has now become his “ideal.” A minor bit of slippery phrasing, but not a huge sin. But it was enough to make me want to check the source. Unsurprisingly, given the problems I documented in an earlier post, she has mangled people’s words again. This time substantially. Below I reprint the relevant passages in TCoC  (emphasis mine) so you can make up your own mind as to how accurately MacLean has represented Buchanan and Tullock. The context is their discussion of the costs of various sets of rules:

The question remains, however, as to whether or not the existing organizational reduces the overall interdependence costs (external costs plus decision-making costs) to the lowest possible level. Saying that external costs will be present in the “ideal” organization is not equivalent to saying that any organization embodying pressure-group activity is, in any sense, ideal.

No direct measurement of the total interdependence costs under existing or alternative decision-making rules is readily available. Certain conclusions can be drawn, however, on the basis of the facts of history. We may observe a notable expansion in the range and extent of collective activity over the last half century—especially in that category of activity appropriately classified as differential or discriminatory legislation. During the same period we have witnessed also a great increase in investment in organized interest-group efforts designed specifically to secure political advantage. These facts allow us to reach the conclusion that the constitutional rules that were “optimal” in 1900 are probably not “optimal” in 1960. If we may assume that the fundamental rules for organizing collective decisions were more closely in accordance with the “ideal” in 1900 than in 1960, these same rules will tend to produce a higher level of interdependence costs than necessary. This suggests that some shifting in the direction of more inclusive decision-making rules for collective choice and some more restrictive limits on the range of collective activity might now be “rational” to the individual considering constitutional changes. The contrary possibility, of course, also exists. If the operation of existing constitutional rules produces roughly “optimal” results today, clearly these same rules were overly restrictive in earlier stages of development marked by relatively less organized pressure for differential legislation.

Aside from the fact that this passage is their attempt to think through (in a Coasean sort of way) the cost tradeoffs faced by alternative rule structures, rather than making a unilateral call to return to 1900, to the degree they do reach a conclusion, it’s that in the actual world of 1960, the rules of 1900 are “probably” not optimal or ideal. Perhaps they are arguing for a more restrictive set of limits on majorities are required in 1960, but the context suggests that it is not majorities per se that they wish to throttle, but special interest groups who are able to exercise what amounts to minority rule through the process of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs familiar to so many of us. (Though not to MacLean, as her description of that process earlier in the book is also pretty mangled.) That process is part of what creates the external costs that are at the center of this discussion.

The point at issue is that claiming that Buchanan wants to go back to what he saw as the “ideal” constitution of 1900 is simply false. She has waded into a much more complex and nuanced discussion that she has reduced to a simplistic falsehood.

It confirms one of the most trenchant criticisms of the book: she does not understand Buchanan’s system of thought. She cannot parse the context and meaning of his arguments, and given her fervor to counter the Trump presidency and the connection to Buchanan and libertarianism she imagines it has, she reads into Buchanan exactly what she imagined and hoped would be there. The problem is that it’s just not there.

As Munger’s review points out, there was a way to avoid this problem if she wished to. On her campus at Duke there are three political scientists who are, or have been, presidents of the Public Choice Society, one of whom co-authored major works with Buchanan. If MacLean sincerely wanted to understand Buchanan’s contributions, she could have walked across campus and talked with Geoff Brennan, Mike Munger, or Georg Vanberg. She made no attempt to contact them in any form, nor, for the record, did she make any attempt to contact any of the members of the GMU economics department to verify her accounts of their work or the events of the last 35 years there. This suggests that not only is she unable to understand Buchanan’s thought, she didn’t make a serious effort to even try.

It is in that sense that this book is a travesty of historical scholarship and a direct attack on the centrality of truth-seeking in intellectual discourse. I share many of her concerns about the Trump presidency, but it’s precisely because those concerns are so important and its potential damage is so great that I think a commitment to truth-seeking cannot be sacrificed in the process. Trump and his crew have already showed their lack of concern with the truth. When scholars and intellectuals try to play that game, we will surely lose. When you wrestle in the mud with pigs, the pigs will win.

I repeat my call for progressive scholars and intellectuals of integrity to join those of us who are deeply troubled by this book’s lack of concern for accuracy, and its violations of the most fundamental of scholarly norms, in publicly denouncing it and calling for a renewed commitment by all of us to those fundamental norms of intellectual charity and honesty. Chaining the truth will not unchain democracy.

The post The Butcher with a Smile – More Mangling from Nancy MacLean appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/07/butcher-smile-mangling-nancy-maclean/feed/ 45 11904
MacLean on Nutter and Buchanan on Universal Education http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/06/maclean-nutter-buchanan-universal-education/ http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/06/maclean-nutter-buchanan-universal-education/#comments Wed, 28 Jun 2017 20:26:22 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=11892 Finding examples of misleading, incorrect, and outright butchered quotes and citations in Nancy MacLean’s new book about James Buchanan, Democracy in Chains, has become the academic version of Pokemon Go this...

The post MacLean on Nutter and Buchanan on Universal Education appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
Finding examples of misleading, incorrect, and outright butchered quotes and citations in Nancy MacLean’s new book about James Buchanan, Democracy in Chains, has become the academic version of Pokemon Go this week. I now offer one small contribution of my own, plus a few other thoughts about one piece of her argument.

For those unfamiliar, MacLean argues that Buchanan’s work, and public choice, more broadly, emerged in highly segregated Virginia in the shadow of Brown v. Board of Education as a way to attack the expansion of federal government power and defend the elitist Southern Agrarian privileges of a white plutocracy. Their program of limiting absolute democracy and majority rule through constitutional provisions (a truly bizarre and radical idea, I realize) was grown in the soil of segregation. She paints Buchanan and the whole public choice tradition as enemies of democracy who have now joined forces with the Koch brothers in a stealth, fifth column attack on American democracy in particular. Putting aside that there is no documented connection between Buchanan and the Southern Agrarians, a connection that makes no sense anyway given Buchanan’s commitment to analytical egalitarianism, is there any truth to the claim that the Brown v. Board context was even relevant?

MacLean argues there is, and bases that on a 1959 paper by G. Warren Nutter and Buchanan titled “The Economics of Universal Education” in which they lay out a number of ways that universal education could be provided, including via a Friedman-style voucher system. They describe the different characteristics of the alternative systems, and clearly conclude that “the public must choose which characteristics it prefers” (9). They add “As economists we do not presume to make a choice of one system over another…Our purpose is to lay bare the facts as we see them, so that they will receive their due weight in any decisions that will be made through the democratic process” (11).

Hardly enemies of democracy in the paper, Nutter and Buchanan see their task (as Buchanan did for his whole career) as offering analyses that could inform the deliberations of the democratic process, both at the level of the constitutional rules and the games that take place within those rules. Nutter and Buchanan also reject, as Buchanan always did, any privileged role for the economist in that process: “Each citizen speaks for himself on such matters, and each citizen’s opinion weights as heavily as any other’s, no matter what his position in society – whether farmer, lawyer, educator, or minister” (1). Hardly the words of an anti-democratic elitist plutocrat.

MacLean sees this paper as an attempt by the two scholars to undermine public education in Virginia in order to keep the effects of pre-Brown segregation while still complying with the law. That is, she sees it as evidence of the racism at the core of arguments for free markets and public choice analyses of the failures of government. This is despite the fact that Nutter and Buchanan explicitly defend a role for government in education, including “compelling attendance, fixing minimum standards, and financing cost” (3). They also never mention race in the paper, as she acknowledges, but their use of the technical language of economics and their race-neutrality is seen by her as evidence of their attempt to generate racist outcomes by stealth. (As is often the case with conspiracy theory-style thinking, the evidence against the conspiracy is actually evidence for it.)

One might also note that supporting Brown also means that one is thwarting the desires of democratic majorities, at least at the state and local level. For all of MacLean’s ringing defenses of majority rule and the importance of the democratic process, it’s fascinating that she sees the foundation of the arguments of democracy’s supposed opponents as a rejection of a Supreme Court decision that told local and state majorities that they couldn’t have the segregated schools they wanted.

One might also note that the argument Nutter and Buchanan make is nearly identical to that of J. S. Mill in On Liberty. Is Mill, who was arguably among the 19th century’s great opponents of racism and supporters of analytical egalitarianism, now also to be seen as a secret racist with a plan to subvert democracy?

Toward the end of the paper, Nutter and Buchanan respond to numerous objections to a voucher plan. One criticism at the time was that it would harm education and drive employers out of the state. In MacLean’s summary of their response, she writes (67):

Corporations would not care who ran the schools, they said, as long as good education was available. “All that matters” for the economy, the two scholars maintained, was that the state government support some school system “cheaply and efficiently.” How that schooling was provided was immaterial.

Note the way in which the quoted material makes it appear as though what Nutter and Buchanan were saying was that it would be good if governments supported school systems “cheaply and efficiently,” nicely fitting her narrative (and that of many on the left) that libertarians just want to reduce spending on education. They don’t care much about kids actually getting educated. (She says as much in the book in several places.)

Here’s the actual passage from the Nutter and Buchanan paper (17-18), which is more subtle and has a different meaning than MacLean suggests:

Other things equal, communities with good, efficiently run schools will be more attractive to employees, actual and prospective, than other communities. But we fail to see what this has to do with who runs the schools, whether a state agency or private parties. We doubt that there is a strong attachment to state schools, as such. If a mixed system of private and state schools provides universal education at least as cheaply and efficiently as a pure system of state schools, this would seem to be all that matters.

MacLean takes “cheaply and efficiently” to refer to the level of state support provided. Nutter and Buchanan clearly use that phrase to refer not to the level of state support per se, but to the ability of any system to use resources wisely to produce a given quality of education. Her reading makes it seem like Nutter and Buchanan think that “all that matters” is that state support be “cheap and efficient.” But what they are clearly arguing is “all that matters” is which system delivers the desired level of universal education using the fewest resources.

Nutter and Buchanan are using the economist’s notion of efficiency – how to generate a desired outcome at least cost – whereas MacLean can only think in terms of a supposed desire to spend a little as possible in and of itself. The “least cost” and therefore most efficient system might be one that spends more in absolute terms if it generates a higher level of a highly desired output. A system that spent twice as much on education but got three times the quality/quantity of education as the next best system might be “cheaper and more efficient” if we value education highly enough as compared to other uses of those resources. Again, Nutter and Buchanan are not saying to use as few resources as possible in and of itself; they are asking which alternative system of education gives us the most bang for the buck. And they want “the democratic process” to decide which one we should adopt. MacLean’s selective quoting does not allow the reader to see the full context of Nutter and Buchanan’s argument.

Is the idea that we should provide a given quality and quantity of a valuable good or service using the least valuable resources possible really that shocking or hard to understand?

This is an example of a running problem with the book. MacLean has, by her own admission, very little knowledge of economics. In addition, her knowledge of Buchanan’s system of thought comes mostly from his autobiography Better than Plowing, The Calculus of Consent, and two secondary sources that are highly critical and have their own problems of good faith interpretation. In the most generous reading, she is misunderstanding arguments and chopping up quotes because she simply doesn’t understand what Buchanan and his collaborators are up to. In the least generous reading, she has a theory and she’s going to cut up the evidence to fit that theory. If one believes that modern libertarians are the enemies of democracy, progress, equality, and all that’s good in the world, and MacLean clearly does, then the evidence will always be read, and sometimes constructed, in ways that support the argument on the side of the angels.

Unfortunately, anyone who takes the time to read the actual sources she’s working from, or who understands public choice theory, can see this exercise for what it is: a travesty of scholarly standards (no, Charles Dickens’ novels do not count as data about the economic conditions of the 19th century) and a smear job on one of the great minds of the 20th century.

The post MacLean on Nutter and Buchanan on Universal Education appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/06/maclean-nutter-buchanan-universal-education/feed/ 146 11892
Nancy MacLean Is Either Grossly Incompetent or a Liar http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/06/nancy-maclean-either-grossly-incompetent-liar/ http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/06/nancy-maclean-either-grossly-incompetent-liar/#comments Tue, 27 Jun 2017 13:37:31 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=11886 Here, Russ Roberts finds MacLean purposefully removed lines from Cowen in order to stick him with saying the opposite of what he in fact said. Here, Christopher Fleming finds she...

The post Nancy MacLean Is Either Grossly Incompetent or a Liar appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
Here, Russ Roberts finds MacLean purposefully removed lines from Cowen in order to stick him with saying the opposite of what he in fact said.

Here, Christopher Fleming finds she did the same to James Buchanan.

And here Phil Magness finds her inventing a connection between James Buchanan and a bunch of racist segregationist.

Read Greg Wiener’s review of her book here.

 

Expect to see more of this soon. Christ, I understand the government wants to buy itself an apologist for corporatism, but you’d think for $50,000 it could get someone better.

Imagine if an undergraduate read the following text:

Jason Brennan: “Calhoun asserts that racism is not wrong. But I, Jason Brennan, disagree with Calhoun.”

Now suppose the undergraduate wrote this in an essay:

“Jason Brennan writes, and I quote, ‘….racism is not wrong.'”

That’s what MacLean is doing, over and over again. She is either grossly incompetent or a straight up liar.

The post Nancy MacLean Is Either Grossly Incompetent or a Liar appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/06/nancy-maclean-either-grossly-incompetent-liar/feed/ 35 11886
Hart, Dworkin, and Trump http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/06/hart-dworkin-trump/ http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/06/hart-dworkin-trump/#comments Sat, 24 Jun 2017 15:57:17 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=11882 Two federal appeals courts have now held that Trump’s Executive Order temporarily banning immigration from certain countries is unconstitutional. The 4th Circuit thought that the EO was discriminatory, while the...

The post Hart, Dworkin, and Trump appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
Two federal appeals courts have now held that Trump’s Executive Order temporarily banning immigration from certain countries is unconstitutional. The 4th Circuit thought that the EO was discriminatory, while the 9th Circuit opined that the President had exceeded the congressional mandate (recall that immigration has always been the province of Congress, not the Executive, so the President’s authority in this field is delegated authority.) It is unclear what will happen if the case goes to the Supreme Court.

I was and continue to be of the opinion that:
1) The EO is wrong and counterproductive.
2) The legal precedents, however, support the constitutionality of the order (I also think these legal precedents are dangerous and should be overturned.)

In these pages I suggested that those who purported to rely on precedent to invalidate the order were just doing advocacy, and that the public would be better served if courts and commentators candidly admitted that they were making up new law, that is, trying to overturn the applicable precedents.

Today I’d like to suggest a new angle. Whether the EO order is constitutional depends on your theory of law. If you are a positivist, then you cannot honestly argue that the EO is unconstitutional, because precedent strongly indicates the opposite. Herbert Hart, a leading positivist, argued that  legal propositions derive in one way or another from the legal materials as created by lawmakers. Moral reasoning, while important, is separate from legal reasoning. Hart, therefore, would have said that the EO is lawful but immoral, and that perhaps immigrants who break the law and sanctuaries who receive them are upholding a moral obligation that prevails over their legal obligation.

But if you are not a positivist, then moral reasoning is part and parcel of the law. Ronald Dworkin famously defended such a view. As against Hart, he argued that legal materials (the Constitution, statutes, judicial precedent) should be read in their best possible light. This means consistency, of course, but it also means making the legal materials be the best they can be. And by “best” he meant “the best they can be under the most plausible moral-political theory that explains he Constitution.” Such theory would then be part and parcel of law, and not, as Hart thought, something separate from it.

So, if you are like me and object to this EO, you are in better shape if you are a Dworkinian rather than a Hartian. If the best available moral-political theory entails the immorality of the EO, then the EO is not just immoral: it is illegal as well. (Of course, some will say that the EO is perfectly moral. For them the problem I identified doesn’t arise.)

The reason why the Dworkinian approach is not prevalent is that most lawyers are anxious to appear as objective positivists, as applying and not inventing law. That leads them to dishonesty, to pretend they are applying and not inventing law when they are, in fact, doing exactly that. I regard this as evidence that some form of natural law theory (Dworkinian or not) is superior to positivism.

The post Hart, Dworkin, and Trump appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/06/hart-dworkin-trump/feed/ 44 11882
Conspire Me This: Is Nancy MacLean a Hired Gun for the Establishment? http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/06/conspire-nancy-maclean-hired-gun-establishmet/ http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/06/conspire-nancy-maclean-hired-gun-establishmet/#comments Fri, 23 Jun 2017 17:30:49 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=11875 Historian Nancy MacLean recently wrote a hit piece smearing James Buchanan and a number of other public choice theorists. What’s Buchanan’s basic message? Simple: Government isn’t magic. In representative democracy, small,...

The post Conspire Me This: Is Nancy MacLean a Hired Gun for the Establishment? appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
Historian Nancy MacLean recently wrote a hit piece smearing James Buchanan and a number of other public choice theorists.

What’s Buchanan’s basic message? Simple: Government isn’t magic. In representative democracy, small, privileged special interests groups–such as the corporations–make deals with the government. The government then uses its power to distribute favors to the privileged at the expense of the everyone else. And it does so while telling the bald-face lie that “government is just the name we give to the things we choose to do together.” 

Buchanan won a Nobel Prize for fighting for the little person and for speaking truth to power.

Now the government sure wouldn’t want anyone making its dirty secret public, would it?

So, along comes Nancy MacLean. The government paid her over $50,000 to smear Buchanan and people like him. Rather than challenge his ideas, she accuses him of this and that. Yet, all the while, Nancy is quite literally a hired gun for the government seeking to rationalize its oppression and abuses.

Its a bad book, and you, might notice, not peer-reviewed. But keep in mind it is quite literally a piece of government-funded propaganda. There’s no more point in arguing with Nancy than there is arguing with one of Goebbels’s essays. Asking about its intellectual value is a category mistake.

 

UPDATE: Here, Russ Roberts catches Nancy “I lie for money, status, and power” MacLean straight up lying about Tyler Cowen. 

 

 

The post Conspire Me This: Is Nancy MacLean a Hired Gun for the Establishment? appeared first on Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

]]>
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/06/conspire-nancy-maclean-hired-gun-establishmet/feed/ 60 11875