3 ms·

No, much of libtertarianism is about "is". Many libertarians would like to help the poor. They just argue that the minimum wage will not do what people want i

No, much of libtertarianism is about "is". Many libertarians would like to help the poor. They just argue that the minimum wage will not do what people want it do.

philwelch 17y ago
Libertarianism is all about a particular "ought"--"there ought to be very little government if any at all". Helping the poor or not is a totally secondary question. If helping the poor means less government, libertarians are for it. If helping the poor means more government, libertarians are against it.
- bokonist 17y ago
  Depends on the libtertarian. Some libertarians believe limited government is an end and then derive policy recommendations from that. But the libertarian work that you are criticizing does not do that. Hazlitt's arguments do not start from the premise that there "ought" to be limited government. He is simply arguing that the minimum wage or rent control will not have the effects that people want it to have. That's an "is" argument.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    And one that most economists accept, but he leaves out the "is" arguments that suggest anything good the government might do.
    - johnnybgoode 17y ago
      Yeah, because he believes they are fallacious. You don't expect scientists to include the Biblical story of creation in their work, do you?
      - philwelch 17y ago
        That's a confused analogy, because that's still a matter of fact. Hazlitt may have a value system in which government doesn't seem to accomplish anything valuable, but perhaps government accomplishes something that I find valuable instead. Libertarians don't seem to care much for economic equality (hell, neither do I) but it's not the place of economics to choose our value system. And, as a matter of economic fact, maybe some non-libertarian policies will enforce economic equality! (Though even this is arguable.) Or, maybe I care a LOT about enforcing some kind of baseline standard of living for everyone, inefficiencies be damned. Maybe government can help me do this. But most libertarians are uninterested in that goal, too. Economists don't get to decide what kind of society we want to live in any more than the rest of us. Their job is to tell us whether it's possible, how to get there, and what the costs will be.
        nazgulnarsil 17y ago
        the people who espouse economic equality are unaware of the outcomes of their actions. the whole point of being an economist is to draw people's attention to the non-obvious impact of various decisions about resource allocation. the average person: A causes B! we want more of B so let's increase A! economist: A and B are both side effects of C, pumping resources into A will not produce the desired effect. I agree that economists should avoid making value judgments as much as possible so that people will listen to them. Robin Hanson recently debated Brian Caplan on exactly this point and made a very convincing case that economists should focus on the efficiency of outcomes.
- jerf 17y ago
  Speaking for this libertarian, no: I arrive at my little-l libertarianism primarily because [I believe that, based on the evidence,] government is a terrible solution to most problems. There's this logic most people seem to use: "We have a problem. Let us legislate a solution where the government will fix it. (Magic happens here.) The problem is solved." and I can't seem to find evidence for the magic. I further observe that the vast majority of people using this logic don't even notice that step, because it simply goes without saying that governments can do pretty much anything. There are exceptions, where some sort of fair analysis of governments vs. some other solution are done, but even most of those exceptions strike me as being awfully trusting of the monolithic centralized power source. I am drawn to libertarian economics because the market actually provides a solution to the "magic happens here" step in the form of an emergent solution to problems arrived at by free agents each locally choosing their optimal outcomes, and I describe myself as "little-l" because there's still a role for government in that world (especially in internalizing externalities). This economic idea actually explains why we are where we are; we had governments for thousands of years, but it wasn't until free markets (and some supporting technology) that modern civilization really developed. My point here is to provide a counterexample to your claim, not to directly advocate libertarianism here. My libertarianism is result, not cause. I also firmly believe in looking at economics as they are, not as a theorist says they should be... again, "little-l libertarian". I do observe that an awful lot of macroeconomics, if not most of it, is really an agenda looking for evidence; I wonder if the subject is not so large that no human can possibly work the problem the other way in the span of one lifetime.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    I don't think I disagree with you that much. All economics can tell us is that libertarian policies maximize wealth, they can't tell us "libertarian policies are good" or "we should adopt libertarian policies". Maybe I think it's more important to provide a social safety net than to maximize wealth. We would agree on the economic fact that there is a tradeoff here, but we would disagree on which side of the tradeoff to make. Just like engineering.

No, much of libtertarianism is about "is". Many libertarians would like to help the poor. They just argue that the minimum wage will not do what people want it do.

philwelch 17y ago

Libertarianism is all about a particular "ought"--"there ought to be very little government if any at all". Helping the poor or not is a totally secondary question. If helping the poor means less government, libertarians are for it. If helping the poor means more government, libertarians are against it.

bokonist 17y ago
Depends on the libtertarian. Some libertarians believe limited government is an end and then derive policy recommendations from that. But the libertarian work that you are criticizing does not do that. Hazlitt's arguments do not start from the premise that there "ought" to be limited government. He is simply arguing that the minimum wage or rent control will not have the effects that people want it to have. That's an "is" argument.
- philwelch 17y ago
  And one that most economists accept, but he leaves out the "is" arguments that suggest anything good the government might do.
  - johnnybgoode 17y ago
    Yeah, because he believes they are fallacious. You don't expect scientists to include the Biblical story of creation in their work, do you?
    - philwelch 17y ago
      That's a confused analogy, because that's still a matter of fact. Hazlitt may have a value system in which government doesn't seem to accomplish anything valuable, but perhaps government accomplishes something that I find valuable instead. Libertarians don't seem to care much for economic equality (hell, neither do I) but it's not the place of economics to choose our value system. And, as a matter of economic fact, maybe some non-libertarian policies will enforce economic equality! (Though even this is arguable.) Or, maybe I care a LOT about enforcing some kind of baseline standard of living for everyone, inefficiencies be damned. Maybe government can help me do this. But most libertarians are uninterested in that goal, too. Economists don't get to decide what kind of society we want to live in any more than the rest of us. Their job is to tell us whether it's possible, how to get there, and what the costs will be.
      - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
        the people who espouse economic equality are unaware of the outcomes of their actions. the whole point of being an economist is to draw people's attention to the non-obvious impact of various decisions about resource allocation. the average person: A causes B! we want more of B so let's increase A! economist: A and B are both side effects of C, pumping resources into A will not produce the desired effect. I agree that economists should avoid making value judgments as much as possible so that people will listen to them. Robin Hanson recently debated Brian Caplan on exactly this point and made a very convincing case that economists should focus on the efficiency of outcomes.
jerf 17y ago
Speaking for this libertarian, no: I arrive at my little-l libertarianism primarily because [I believe that, based on the evidence,] government is a terrible solution to most problems. There's this logic most people seem to use: "We have a problem. Let us legislate a solution where the government will fix it. (Magic happens here.) The problem is solved." and I can't seem to find evidence for the magic. I further observe that the vast majority of people using this logic don't even notice that step, because it simply goes without saying that governments can do pretty much anything. There are exceptions, where some sort of fair analysis of governments vs. some other solution are done, but even most of those exceptions strike me as being awfully trusting of the monolithic centralized power source. I am drawn to libertarian economics because the market actually provides a solution to the "magic happens here" step in the form of an emergent solution to problems arrived at by free agents each locally choosing their optimal outcomes, and I describe myself as "little-l" because there's still a role for government in that world (especially in internalizing externalities). This economic idea actually explains why we are where we are; we had governments for thousands of years, but it wasn't until free markets (and some supporting technology) that modern civilization really developed. My point here is to provide a counterexample to your claim, not to directly advocate libertarianism here. My libertarianism is result, not cause. I also firmly believe in looking at economics as they are, not as a theorist says they should be... again, "little-l libertarian". I do observe that an awful lot of macroeconomics, if not most of it, is really an agenda looking for evidence; I wonder if the subject is not so large that no human can possibly work the problem the other way in the span of one lifetime.
- philwelch 17y ago
  I don't think I disagree with you that much. All economics can tell us is that libertarian policies maximize wealth, they can't tell us "libertarian policies are good" or "we should adopt libertarian policies". Maybe I think it's more important to provide a social safety net than to maximize wealth. We would agree on the economic fact that there is a tradeoff here, but we would disagree on which side of the tradeoff to make. Just like engineering.