Fernando Tesón writes, in a thread that has generated some useful discussion,  that the disagreement between bleeding heart libertarians and progressives is “exclusively empirical.”

Three quick thoughts in response:

• I think it’s true that the debate is more empirical than many on both sides suppose.  And that’s a very good thing.  It’s not so much that debates over facts are easier to resolve than debates over values.  But we tend to think that someone who disagrees with you because they have the wrong values is a bad person.  Someone who disagrees with you because they have the wrong facts is just, well, mistaken.  It’s easier to have a fruitful conversation with someone you perceive as mistaken than with someone you perceive as evil.
• However, even if much of the disagreement is empirical, there is still a lot that isn’t.  Look at the things people on either side of this debate wish the others would read.  Many of them are empirically-focused, but many are not.  And it’s easy to think of questions that divide BHLs and progressives that aren’t susceptible to purely empirical resolution: does progressive taxation represent a significant infringement of individual liberty?  Are those who work in sweatshops coerced?  Does commercial  society generally lead people to live better lives?  Etc.
• Moreover, even if people point to empirical facts to explain their disagreements, this does not mean that empirical facts are the most important cause of those disagreements.  Our interpretation of the (vast and complexly related) empirical evidence might be motivated by our underlying value commitments.  More strongly, our appeal to factual evidence might at least sometimes be an entirely post hoc rationalization of our underlying value commitments.

So, sadly, I suspect that simply sitting down and looking at the data together is not going to bridge the gap between BHLs and progressives.  What would?