More Mill
It's not just the tyranny of our elected rulers that we have to guard against. We must also guard against the exploitation of minorities by the majority and of the stifling tyranny of political correctness. As John Stuart Mill puts it in the early pages of On Liberty:
Protection…against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose…its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them…. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.
Ayn Rand and the Free Market Revolution
The Adam Smith Institute hosted a book launch on Tuesday at St. John’s Church at Smith Square, London; a paradoxical venue to invite Dr Yaron Brook, the president of Ayn Rand Institute, the advocate for Objectivist philosophy, to talk about his new book co-authored with Don Watkins Free Market Revolution: how Ayn Rand’s ideas can end big government.
Church halls are not probably the best venues to host a movement of committed atheists, for atheism is the epistemological foundation of the Objectivist movement that many people tend to glance over, including the US vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan. This is where, in principle, I have to part company with Objectivism, for I am a believer. It would be wrong of me to promote a movement that argues against my fundamental belief in God.
Having said this, however, there is much in Ayn Rand’s philosophy that appeals to the advocates of free markets and small government, of which I am one.
Dr Edward Younkins writes about Objectivism:
Hierarchically, philosophy, including its metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical dimensions, precedes and determines politics which, in turn, precedes and determines economics. Rand bases her metaphysics on the idea that reality is objective and absolute. Epistemologically, the Randian view is that man’s mind is competent to achieve objectively valid knowledge of that which exists. Rand’s moral theory of self-interest is derived from man’ s nature as a rational being and end in himself, recognizes man’s right to think and act according to his freely-chosen principles, and reflects a man’s potential to be the best person he can be in the context of his existing circumstances. This leads to the notion of the complete separation of political power and economic power – that proper government should have no economic favours to convey. The role of the government is, thus, to protect man’s natural rights through the use of force, but only in retaliation and only against those who initiate the use of force. Capitalism, the resulting economic system, is based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. For Rand, capitalism, the system of laissez-faire, is the only moral system.
There is little that a proponent of a free market system can disagree with here. And, as Dr Yaron Brook emphasised last night, our society has become increasingly collectivist. No longer is the economic benefit of a man’s self-interest celebrated; rather, it’s condemned.
No longer is the economic contribution of an entrepreneur such as Bill Gates celebrated. Dr Brook was absolutely correct in his analysis that Bill Gates’ contribution to the betterment of the lives of countless people through Microsoft have been ignored or even berated for the fortunes he amassed through his entrepreneurial genius; it’s only now when Bill and Melissa Gates’ Foundation is giving the fortune away, that Bill Gates gains the ‘stamp of approval’ as a good guy by the masses. The same analogy applies to the late Steve Jobs of Apple, and dare I say, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and countless other successful entrepreneurs.
Interestingly, Mr Jobs, when challenged about the ‘lack’ of his philanthropic activities, stated that his contribution to the world were his beautifully designed products that people lust after. He was quite right, but not what the masses wanted to hear. On the contrary, Apple, Google, Starbucks, Amazon etc. have been condemned as profit-crazed global thieves by the same people whose lives these firms have enriched. Instead, governments, that impose taxes and make decisions on our behalf what to spend our hard-earned cash on, are applauded as altruistic institutions.
Poppycock. If I don’t like what Starbucks, or any other firm for that matter, sells, I can take my business elsewhere, but it’s very difficult for me to take my business away from the British taxman as a British subject. And this is where the economic philosophy of Dr Brook and Watkins comes in. It is a refreshing perspective that argues for the return to the individual moral high ground against the collectivist coercion by the state. It is time again to start celebrating wealth creation; this only comes if we, as a society, make a fundamental transformation from collectivism to moral individualism.
Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy and its proponents have much to contribute to the movement for small government and the man’s freedom to choose. Free Market Revolution makes an important contribution to the debate; even if one does not accept the ontological and epistemological foundations of Objectivism.
More eyes on the bleeding hearts
The RSA has blogged about the Bleeding Heart Libertarians, who I’ve also written about in the past. The RSA give a fair outline of what the bleeding hearts believe:
BHL doesn’t, like most libertarian thought, believe that social justice is a natural by-product of market and non-state relationships which are themselves justified by other values, most notably the freedom of the individual. Instead, BHL believes that such relationships are only worthwhile to the extent to which they actively promote social justice and the well-being of the poor. One leading BHL thinker, Matt Zwolinski, has suggested, for example, that unlike most other libertarians, BHLers would either reject or modify their prioritisation of market and non-state relationships if it could be shown that they do not benefit the poor and most vulnerable.
I take a more straightforwardly consequentialist view. If I discovered that the libertarian institutions I wanted (a “night watchman” state, perhaps with a modest safety net, although I doubt that would be necessary) were not the best way of allowing people to satisfy their preferences, I’d want whatever institutions did do that. That’s all any political ideology should offer – the best means to allowing people to do whatever they want to do.
The article is a little bit off-base when it contrasts Bleeding Heart Libertarians with common or garden libertarians:
They share the libertarian suspicion of the big state on economic issues and are critical of high tax, interventionist policies, ‘crony capitalism’ and the loose money policies of the Federal Reserve.
However, unlike some of the loudest elements in the Tea Party (or indeed in UKIP) who might share these economic views, they are also supportive of civil liberties in the form of gay rights, anti-racism, internet freedom, legalising marijuana use, feminism and more open immigration.
They are also highly critical of American foreign policy opposing the ‘war on terror’, military action against Iran and other forms of intervention. (Although it must be reiterated here that BHL remains a dialogue of diverse views rather than a manifesto to which all sign up.)
Most of those things seem like pretty integral parts of the standard libertarian agenda to me, not the wacky innovations of the Bleeding Hearts. I’d certainly do a double take if I met a libertarian who was against liberalizing drug and immigration laws, but enthusiastic about more foreign intervention. (I don’t necessarily blame the RSA’s author for this, mind you – the number of old-fashioned conservatives who call themselves libertarians without any support for free people or, indeed, free markets is truly depressing.)
What sets the Bleeding Hearts apart from normal libertarians is their belief that social justice of the kind outlined by John Rawls is an important value which libertarian institutions are good at achieving. Matt Zwolinski briefly outlined this argument in this video. (Jacob Levy disagrees about the importance of social justice — some of the reasons he gives are why I prefer old-fashioned 'utility' to 'social justice'.)
In any case, it’s good to see more mainstream interest in libertarianism, particularly when it’s fair minded. With the right degree of open-mindedness, optimism, and confidence in the power of liberty to improve people’s lives, libertarians might have a uniquely appealing idea on their hands.
Adam Darwin
Matt Ridley, author of "Genome" and more recently "The Rational Optimist," gave Tuesday's annual Adam Smith Lecture before a packed audience at St Stephen's Club. His title, "Adam Darwin," explored similarities between the insights and observations of Charles Darwin with those of Adam Smith who had written a century earlier.
One similarity is that evolution works in nature by a selective death rate. It is not a random process which leads some to survive and others not. The ones that make it are those with some mutation which increases their survival chances, even by a small amount. Nature can build up incredibly complex mechanisms through a series of minute changes which do this.
Those who succeed in the market are often those with an innovation that brings them an advantage. It might be new technology of new methods of achieving better productivity. The firms that fail are again, not the result of a random process, but those which lack the crucial advantage that innovation has brought to others.
In the world of nature sex plays an important role in mixing up combinations of genes so that innovations occur more frequently than would otherwise be the case. In the world of human activity there is an equivalent in which ideas can intermingle and interact, producing new combinations and innovations. The more trade, exchange, and contact there is, the more there are likely to be new ideas to be tried out. As in nature, the ones that bring advantages survive at the expense of those which do not.
Ridley stressed the co-operative nature of trade and exchange. Human beings exchange things to the advantage of both, and do so uniquely among groups which have no kin or tribe relationship. We co-operate with strangers to mutual advantage, and this has led to the extraordinary achievements that humanity has made.
Ridley's speech was an intellectual tour de force, elegantly delivered, and a superb contribution to the Institute's lecture series. The lecture will be uploaded to Youtube and posted on the blog shortly.
America’s Chief Magistrate and the Spirit of ’76
The year 1776 was a revolutionary milestone for individual liberty, with the publication of Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations setting forth the path of economic freedom and a Declaration proclaimed by thirteen American colonies ringing the tocsin for political independence.
But a solemn spectre of ’76 hung over the United States this November as Americans voted for representatives and senators in Congress and a Chief Magistrate to occupy the White House — for the promise of economic and political liberty has turned dark.
The spirit of ’76 was animated by the desire for personal freedom, both in our relations with others and in our transactions with them. Adam Smith wrote against the mercantilist system which thwarted innovation and entrepreneurship, while the Declaration of Independence affirmed that ‘all men are created equal’ and ‘endowed ... with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’; that we establish governments to protect these rights, said governments ‘deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed’.
Ten reasons to be cheerful, part 7: Ideas
Some people, including Tyler Cowen in The Great Stagnation, think we are running out of big ideas that can improve things. I disagree.
7. Ideas
The pessimist's thesis is that we are wringing smaller and smaller gains from our past breakthroughs in science and technology. Tyler Cowan says we picked the low-hanging fruit of things like education, putting into universities those who previously might have been out in fields. There are no similar future gains to be had, he suggests.
I think we are actually just at the beginning of what the communications revolution will bring us. The fact that we can communicate rapidly on a global basis multiplies the number of interactions we can have. If we look at the Enlightenments and Renaissances of previous ages we finds a pattern in which relatively isolated societies were thrown into sudden contact with many others. It was the silver empire of Athens, the merchant princes of Italy, or the Scottish traders given access to the British Empire by the Treaty of Union.
That relatively sudden extensive contact brought comparison and contrast with other cultures, which proved fertile ground for creativity, and an explosion of talent followed. The communications revolution brings that on a wider scale than previously, and it is happening quickly.
For creatures who evolved to run and throw things and occasionally to shout at each other, we have done some pretty cool stuff like sending machines down through the clouds of Titan or landing roving laboratories on Mars. Our brains have moved further to understanding how the universe works than nature might have intended us to.
We do not know what insights and ideas we might have in future. They are among Donald Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns." I doubt if anyone before Newton realized that they didn't know about gravity. Nor do we know what conceptual breakthroughs and insights might come. What we do know is that the conditions in which they flourish are advancing.
We can also be reasonably confident, for example, that biotechnology and nanotechnology will bring great advances in our ability to target and fine-tune our abilities in such areas as medicine and materials. We know, too, that advances in artificial intelligence will enable us to attempt tasks hitherto thought impossible. It took decades to apply the fruits of our previous industrial revolutions, and we are only at the beginning of this one.
I am optimistic that the planet's greatest resource, human creativity, will not fail or fall short.
Ten very good things 10: Inequality
Where some look at people and wish we were more equal, I revel in the diversity of humankind, and in the different talents and skills we can make available to enrich the lives of others. Inequality is my good thing number ten.
10. Inequality
One of the great virtues of the human race is its variety. We all have different tastes and different talents. We value things differently, and through our choices, we give expression to our unique characters. Freedom is valuable because it allows people to give effect to their own values and to live by the precepts they think are important.
It is because we are different that we co-operate in trade, with each party to an exchange preferring what the other offers. Some of us are talented at music or sports, and have abilities that others enjoy seeing us exercise. Some of us are creative and can think of new ideas to offer. Some of us are risk-takers, eager to undertake new ventures in the hope of success.
This diverse and pulsating pool of different talents is what enables human beings to progress, to innovate, to strive for excellence. People who want equality more than freedom are sacrificing the diversity that makes people strive for different goals, and they are compromising the creativity that leads humanity to improve and to progress.
Some people imagine a world in their mind in which people are equal. This is not the real world with its rich diversity, so they often try to make that real world behave like the imagined one. In doing so they sacrifice the freedom that enables people to live by their own values, and the variety that provides examples we might choose to emulate if we can.
It is not equality we should value, but opportunity. An equal, but static society is less likely to provide people with the chances of fulfillment than one that allows them to advance towards the goals they think worthwhile.
