J. R. Lucas, "Against Equality" in Justice and Equality, ed. Bedau (Prentice-Hall, 1971), pp. 148-149 (emphasis added):
Since men value power and prestige as much as the possession of wealth---indeed, these three `goods' cannot be completely separated---it is foolish to seek to establish an equality of wealth on egalitarian grounds. It is foolish first because it will not result in what egalitarians really want. It is foolish also because if we do not let men compete for money, they will compete all the more for power; and whereas the possession of wealth by another man does not hurt me, unless I am made vulnerable by envy, the possession of power by another is inherently dangerous; and furthermore if we are to maintain a strict equality of wealth we need a much greater apparatus of state to secure it and therefore a much greater inequality of power. Better have bloated plutocrats than omnipotent bureaucrats.
This is a penetrating passage from a penetrating essay. Lucas is in effect pointing out a paradox at the heart of the egalitarian position. If the egalitarian wants to equalize wealth, perhaps via a scheme of income redistribution, then he will need to make use of state power to do it: the wealthy will not voluntarily disembarrass themselves of their wealth. But state power is of necessity concentrated in the hands of a few, those who run the government, whose power is vastly greater than, and hence unequal to, the power of the governed.
The paradox, then, is that the enforcing of equality of wealth requires inequality of power. But, as Lucas points out, the powerful are much more dangerous to us than the wealthy. Your being wealthy takes away nothing from me, whereas your being powerful poses a potential threat to me.
In the current American system of government political influence is bought and sold, and money IS power. The libertarian solution to this problem is to severely limit the functions of government. If influence at the FDA is being bought by big pharma, libertarians would simply eliminate the FDA. Liberals such as myself, however, believe that agencies such as the FDA serve a vital purpose and that government need not be for sale if proper checks and balances exist. Publically financed elections would be a major step toward a government that serves all of the people as opposed to one that is for sale to the highest bidder.
Does concentration of wealth lead to concentration of political power? Does concentration of political power lead to concentration of wealth by those with the knowledge and ability to work the system? I think both are true so long as government is for sale. The problem, as I see it, is how to make government accountable to the common good.
Mr. Gallagher, who feigns familiarity with libertarian thought, apparently believes that libertarians seek to abolish agencies that "serve a vital purpose." Genuine familiarity would yield the insight that they simply do not believe any such agency should enjoy a coercive monopoly in the achievement of vital purpose. I wish him the best of luck with his problem which, as he sees it, implies that government (i.e., the State) is not accountable to the common good. The question then is whether it this want of accountability is accidental or intrinsic to the anatomy of the State. -- Tony
2. The interconvertibility of wealth and state power -- which is a valid point -- presupposes a large state. Without going as far as the libertarian or anarchist, the solution is to limit the gov't to essential functions. FDA may be necessary, but surely not the Dept of Education.
3. Tony, you shouldn't accuse John G of "feigning" anything since you do not know him well enough to be in a position to make that imputation. He tells me that he was a libertarian before he was a liberal. But thanks for the links and I'm glad we agree on the importance of the Lucas passage.
One comment: someone could, of course, be simply assuming that the aggregate wealth is something that "by rights" belongs to all equally--or simply assuming some similar (or even radically different) position--as part of an economic theory.
I suspect, however, that this is a conclusion (or perhaps a premise) of a philosophical position.
By which I don't mean to denigrate it (whether or not it's a conclusion instead of a premise). On the contrary, I believe economics, like any other study, depends at least implicitly on whatever philosophy is being brought to it. There are fundamental truth claims about reality, probably ethical claims, being imported here (or being flatly assumed if not imported--which mere assumptioning _would_ be a mistake in any case.) Those truth claims, whatever they are, should be identified and respected for whatever they are (even if the respect also requires opposition).
Any failure to settle in agreement first the preliminary philosophical issues, would only be likely to result in disagreement down the line, even between people who on the face of it are advocating apparently similar positions.
If Mr. Gallagher, who (you tell me) claims to have been a libertarian, circulates anti-libertarian canards such as the one I unpacked, then my imputation has all the more warrant, and I know all I need to in order to maintain confidence in it. He was feigning then or he’s feigning now.
His sentences, “libertarians would simply eliminate the FDA. Liberals such as myself, however, believe that agencies such as the FDA serve a vital purpose” invite the conclusion that libertarians either (a) do not believe that the ensuring the quality of food and drugs is a vital purpose or (b) there should be no agency whose job it is to ensure it. Both disjuncts are false.
In fact, libertarians would simply abolish the monopoly that the FDA enjoys. Entrepreneurs would be free to compete for popular confidence in their respective “seals of approval.” An agency known to be unduly influenced by, say, pharmaceutical companies –– some of whose executives may have an interest in testers “looking the other way” when faced with adverse outcomes –– would not remain competitive. They might even go out of business. Imagine that.
The FDA, however, like every other governmental agency with a record of gross, even criminal, failure, never goes out of business. It is rather considered part of the firmament, and a man who wishes to be known as sane and responsible no more recommends that agency’s abolition than the moon’s. As I said, “where there is a concentration of power, such as the State represents, the wealthy will seek to control it, and there is little to stop them from succeeding in that endeavor.”
Your comparative judgment, “FDA may be necessary, but surely not the Dept of Education,” is therefore gratuitous. Once you grant, as you do, that some people may treat themselves to an unearned portion of other people’s wealth, for whatever purpose, you forfeit any principled basis for saying what is or is not “vital” or “necessary.” Politicians will decide that, not philosophers.
Not long ago those who wore the label “conservative” did not, like good dispensationalists, rightly divide the Word of FDR, but repudiated him and all his works in toto and with horror. Now, apparently, they differ from social democrats only in degree, not in kind.
As a philosopher you know the difference between logical implication and conversational implicature. Gallagher's assertion that you quote does not logically imply, though it does indeed suggest, (a) or (b). And you will agree that G. is right to say that libertarians want to get rid of a federal agency in charge of food and drugs. G. is assuming, however, that ONLY a fed. agency could do the job properly. That assumption is dubious and you are right to question it and perhaps even deny it.
The rest of what you say presupposes that Rothbard is right in his view of the state -- a difficult matter that I hope to return to later. I find anarchism hard to swallow. Individual liberty is an important principle but there are competing principles with a claim to our attention. Now I haven't shown that, but assume it is true. Then someone who balances two or more principles could not be called unprincipled.
I honestly did consider myself to be a libertarian at one time and I really do consider myself a liberal now. In high school I read just about everything that Ayn Rand ever wrote. In fact, Ayn Rand was my first introduction to philosophy. I've read Hazlitt, Hayek, and Von Mises. I belonged to the Phoenix chapter of Young Americans for Freedom when I was in HS and once was evicted from the premises of a US Post Office in Phoenix for distributing pamphlets titled something like "Sell the Post Office". I consider myself to be pretty well informed with regard to libertarian ideology.
I have three friends who are currently libertarians who I frequently argue politics with. Amazingly, we agree on some things (among others that the current Iraq war has been a disaster). (All of my libertarian buddies are atheists BTW.)
I did not mean to imply that libertarians do not agree that ensuring the quality of food and drugs is a vital function, only that I no longer share their faith in the ability of the market to do so without government oversight.
The main difference between me and my libertarian friends is that I think government mostly serves a useful purpose and is redeemable, while they believe that most government is useless, if not outright harmful.
Now my degree is in Economics and I still believe that the market should be given preference so long as it yields results that are acceptable to most people, but I have no problem with the government stepping in when the market is not doing the job. Conservatives like Bill probably consider me to be a soft socialist, while socialists probably consider me a soft capitalist. I'm a firm believer in a mixed economy.
During a heated polemic, the distinction between logical implication and conversational implicature can be lost. The sentences of Mr. Gallagher’s that I cited tend to create the impression, not that libertarians offer a way of meeting purposes we all agree are vital, and at higher quality and lower cost, but that they would simply abolish an agency that is attempting to achieve one of those purposes. Today the topic is protection from harmful food or drugs; tomorrow it’s protection from criminals and terrorists. The canard is always the same.
My general problem with Mr. Gallagher’s recent contributions is that they are devoid of argumentation. They all basically assert, rather gratuitously, “Libertarians believe in x, but I disagree.” Who asked? None of his putative knowledge or experience of libertarianism is on display. He makes no attempt to show what is wrong with the libertarian case (which was your question). In his contribution to your thread on the State, for example, he names great philosophers, tells us what “advanced governments” agree to, and then suggests that makes right, as long as it is democratically constituted. Again, if Mr. Gallagher is a nuanced thinker, he hiding his light under the bushel of naïve recitation of popular political myth, the stuff of high school civics textbooks, giving zero evidence of a contrary viewpoint (which was once his own). I found his performance exasperating, and thus my tone which, again, I do not excuse.
Principles do not admit of exceptions. It is never all right to violate one principle to honor another. When principles seem to counsel opposed courses of action, we rank them, and there is a principle that informs the ranking. And so while I might steal your food if I am at the point of starvation (and only to prevent that result), I may not deny that I stole; or even though I might trespass onto your lawn to avoid the careening car, I may not deny that I trespassed.
The political class that mans that State, however, does not admit that it steals “in an emergency” because what is at stake is the vital purpose of, say, protecting people from criminals or terrorists (or ensuring that “no child is left behind”). It simply takes and amasses our wealth through the threat of force, and any relationship between what the political class promises to do for us (with what it takes from us) and what it delivers is purely coincidental.
We talk ourselves into believing that our taxes are ultimately voluntary contributions, and whoever doesn’t pay his “fair share” is a deadbeat, a free-rider. We never apply our ethical intuitions to what is glaringly the first issue, the systematic, forcible confiscation of private wealth and the mythical rationalization of that confiscation. We “can’t swallow” the thought that it is theft and that we are at least part-time slaves. It must be something else, we tell ourselves, something that might be susceptible of abuse, but certainly not itself intrinsically abusive. And so we concede the abstract justifiability of taxation and, Lo!, we find ourselves working five months of every year to finance someone else’s agenda. But it can’t be slavery: after all, we can all vote democratically on the agenda. And whatever the People do cannot be wrong.
I reserve the term “government” for the orderly operation of voluntary and competing societies like families, churches, and corporations. So anarchocapitalists are for government, but “hate the State.”
Tony
That gives us a lot to chew on. Starting with terminology, you appear to be using 'government' differently than Rothbard who, in the piece cited, appeared to be using 'government' and 'state' interchangeably. No problem with that, of course. By 'hate the State' you mean that there cannot be any moral justification for the State. There is no difference between being governed by the State apparatus and being coerced by a criminal syndicate.
You demand of the liberal an argument that would justify the State. Fair enough. But might he not demand of you an argument against the existence of the common good that he invokes, and arguments for your specific theses? But maybe I should start a new post to continue with this.
I am long past demanding arguments from defenders of the State, whether they call themselves “liberals” or “conservatives.” Were I to demand anything it would be that they pay attention to the copious literature in which, I claim, all arguments for the State, garden-variety and sophisticated alike, have been dismantled root and branch. The ball’s in their court.
As for the “common good,” I take it to be a piece of political mythology and endorse Murray Rothbard’s exposure of it:
From For a New Liberty:
From The Mantle of Science:
Tony
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.