Nozick and Friedman
To steal, partially, from the lead-in to Law&Order: there are two separate, yet equally important branches of conservative economics – those who oppose redistributive measures philosophically and those who maintain that such measures are counterproductive and damaging.
But unlike in the criminal justice system, these branches are far from mutually exclusive. I hold myself in both, as I’m sure many Ricochet members do. However, as the rhetorical battle lines are drawn for 2012, the need for clarity and concision should compel conservatives to choose one argument as the crux of their case.
As Gregory Mankiw noted in the New York Times some months back, Barack Obama has his argument set – John Rawls’ Theory of Justice: “the main goal of public policy should be to transfer resources to those at the bottom of the economic ladder.” Americans in general are wary of Robin Hood economics, and attacking Obama here on principle may prove beneficial.
In fact, one of the most influential political philosophers on Yale’s liberal campus is Rawls’ intellectual rival – Robert Nozick. It came to my (pleasant) shock that after reading Anarchy, State and Utopia, the vast majority of my decidedly liberal discussion section voted as morally opposing the estate tax.
Nozick’s thesis, powerfully introduced in the opening line of his book, is clear: “Our main conclusions about the state are that a minimal state, limited, to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so on, is justified, but any more extensive state will violate persons' rights not to be forced to do certain things, and is unjustified.”
Unfortunately, Nozick’s brand of argument would most likely be marginalized in a general election as “protecting the rich” and “attacking the middle class”. The principles Nozick lays out, which Milton Friedman certainly shared philosophically, can have weight in a primary but would be dangerous to carry beyond.
The Friedman brand of argumentation is more accessible: “I think the government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem and very often makes the problem worse.” Republicans can make a simple pitch – we seek the same goals, but we embrace the necessary realism to get us there. This is the true compassionate conservatism independents love to hear about. Friedman showed us this from protecting student well being against teacher’s unions to helping American families by addressing the welfare state.
Playing Reagan clips (despite how much we love them) and repeating, “government doesn’t work” will not carry on a national platform. The argument must be polished and substantiated. The crucial variable in play is the draw to empathy. Conservatives must display the disastrous impacts that Rawls’ good intentions would have on the world. It is a rare tactfulness – the one of Friedman – that can inspire man once displaying all of his natural limitations and constraints. But, in the face of lofty promises and empty calls for “hope”, that has never been more necessary.
All in all, it would be foolish to expect another Milton Friedman. But perhaps some candidates can start pretending.
- Comment (12)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Apr '11
Re: Nozick and Friedman
Thank you Harry Graver, Intern for reminding us all the wisdom infused in a lost treasure for the republic, Milton Freidman. I was in awe the way he could instruct and even disagree in such a mild manner with his famous "excuse me but" to preface his rebuttals.
We need more of his ilk in the political world because it easy as you pointed out so well that setting up class warfare certainly clouds the real issues and of course then allows a solution that appears wonderful but ultimately does more harm then good.
Thank you for your insights.
Re: Nozick and Friedman
Harry, I find it fascinating that Nozick's argument resonates with your peers. I actually had a similar pleasantly shocking experience in a land use economics class at Dartmouth when a professor polled the class on whether it was acceptable/ethical for a polluting mill to situate itself in a low-income community if it paid the members of said community the amount they required as remittance for putting up with pollution and health risks (which of course, would be a much lower figure than demanded by members of a high income community). My classmates almost unanimously maintained that it was indeed acceptable and ethical, while the professor held the stance that it was not, and that government needs to intervene because people don't know what's best for themselves. That didn't go over so well with my peers.
That all to say that I think the Nozick/Friedman arguments would be welcomed by American voters -- especially younger voters who seem to be increasingly libertarian -- but the arguments need to be presented clearly, concisely, and consistently. For whatever reason, the GOP isn't especially good at that.
Mar '11
Re: Nozick and Friedman
Governor Daniels call for a "Truce" seems to be rearing its' head again. No we should not choose. Who is this we? Foolish ideas such as this have a whiff of central planning about them, their only result is to set up a circular firing squad among conservatives. Conservatives are tacitly allied in our struggle against statists but the mortar that binds us can only take so much stress, the Tea party shows that. Weakening our bonds even further in order to appeal to the mushy middle no doubt strikes those such as Mike Murphy as brilliant but strike me as exactly how McCain lost to Obama.
Nov '10
Re: Nozick and Friedman
Two observations:
1) My understanding is that Nozick in later years softened his stance on many of the issues discussed in Anarchy State and Utopia. I'm not sure, since I haven't read anything of his from the later years, but I would imagine he embraced a slightly more utilitarian view than he did earlier.
2) True libertarianism is a philosophy that doesn't hold for all cases. Now, it happens to be true that if Americans today were to adopt a more libertarian outlook, most people's lot would be improved, but one can easily imagine obscure situations in which a better outcome would be reached through forcible redistribution. (A man, for example, who owns a long, thin plot of land and refuses to allow a road to be built across it.) The ultimate objective, let's not forget, is not property rights or self-rule, but rather human happiness. To put it more forcefully, the problem with socialism is not its goal, but that its result is usually to make society more miserable overall. If communism actually worked, we'd all happily be communists.
Edited on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:20pmNov '10
Re: Nozick and Friedman
For anyone interested, I think this is one of the only debates presented in Free to Choose in which Friedman seemed uncomfortable with his own positions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRLAKD-Vuvk#t=39m12s
Mar '11
Re: Nozick and Friedman
Jan-Michael Rives: The ultimate objective, let's not forget, is not property rights or self-rule, but rather human happiness. To put it more forcefully, the problem with socialism is not its goal, but that its result is usually to make society more miserable overall. If communism actually worked, we'd all happily be communists. · Jul 18 at 12:49pm
Edited on Jul 18 at 12:58 pm
Hmm is that so? I would certainly agree that true libertarianism cannot hold in all cases but that does not make striving to create a society promoting "human happiness" any less foolhardy. Strive for human freedom, that is mountain enough for any man's lifetime. Leave people to find their own happiness.
Nov '10
Re: Nozick and Friedman
Jan-Michael Rives: Two observations:
1) My understanding is that Nozick in later years softened his stance on many of the issues discussed in Anarchy State and Utopia. I'm not sure, since I haven't read anything of his from the later years, but I would imagine he embraced a slightly more utilitarian view than he did earlier.
Edward Feser had a good recent post on this. To wit: "Contrary to what [Stephen] Metcalf [writing in Slate] supposes, Nozick did not renounce libertarianism. In fact he explicitly denied doing so in an interview with Julian Sanchez given not long before Nozick’s death in 2002 (as Sanchez reminds us in responding to Metcalf)."
More here.
Oct '10
Re: Nozick and Friedman
Of course, the problem with redistributive policies is that "the wealthy" are too few in number to fully fund them--thus, the middle class pays. In my opinion the best form of redistribution is a higher savings rate--which lowers the cost of living for poor people, by lowering housing costs, energy costs, etc. I've noticed (anecdotally) that regions in the U.S. with higher savings rate seem to have a lower cost of living (and more jobs, as labor costs become affordable).
Oct '10
Re: Nozick and Friedman
Another problem with redistribution is it causes unfair competitiveness differences between segments of society. Think about why the Chinese are so competitive: they borrow the savings of their working class and lend it to Americans, which keeps their currency undervalued and also encourages Americans to buy their products.
Redistribution is a form of capital flow, with all the harmful effects if it isn't used to increase productivity. There's little difference economically between what the Chinese do and what the old welfare system was like.
Dec '10
Re: Nozick and Friedman
Jan-Michael Rives: one can easily imagine obscure situations in which a better outcome would be reached through forcible redistribution. (A man, for example, who owns a long, thin plot of land and refuses to allow a road to be built across it.) The ultimate objective, let's not forget, is not property rights or self-rule, but rather human happiness. To put it more forcefully, the problem with socialism is not its goal, but that its result is usually to make society more miserable overall. If communism actually worked, we'd all happily be communists. · Jul 18 at 12:49pm
Edited on Jul 18 at 02:20 pm
That would depend on whether you're reading John Locke or James Madison.
I think the only decent argument for human happiness as an end in itself was made by Aristotle, though I think he had a much fuller meaning in mind for the term than we typically ascribe it.
What you fail to take into consideration is that all political systems see their goal as general human flourishing, and it is only in their methods, and the principles that underlie them that we can parse the good from the bad.
Edited on Jul 18, 2011 at 9:23pmDec '10
Re: Nozick and Friedman
Jan-Michael Rives:
2) True libertarianism is a philosophy that doesn't hold for all cases. Now, it happens to be true that if Americans today were to adopt a more libertarian outlook, most people's lot would be improved, but one can easily imagine obscure situations in which a better outcome would be reached through forcible redistribution. (A man, for example, who owns a long, thin plot of land and refuses to allow a road to be built across it.) Jul 18 at 12:49pm
Edited on Jul 18 at 02:20 pm
I think this goes a long way to make John Rawls' point in brief. It's one thing to say that Libertarian philosophy, when adhered to dogmatically, is simply too cold and removed for general public support. It is entirely another point to use that caveat to undermine the foundational principles of liberty in the name of public convenience.
This is where Rawls failed to convince me. Though he claimed to support liberty, by making the principles that support liberty subordinate to pragmatic or utilitarian ends, you set the stage for their downfall. A Better outcome is in the eye of the beholder.
Nov '10
Re: Nozick and Friedman
Beasley
This is where Rawls failed to convince me. Though he claimed to support liberty, by making the principles that support liberty subordinate to pragmatic or utilitarian ends, you set the stage for their downfall. A Better outcome is in the eye of the beholder. · Jul 18 at 9:39pm
Unless you're willing to go off the deep end and declare "there can be no interpersonal comparisons of utility," you have to admit that some distributions are unanimously considered undesirable, e.g. monopoly. It is for purely utilitarian reasons that we charge the government with breaking up monopolies--there's no respect for liberty and property involved.
Edited on Jul 19, 2011 at 8:24am