The Not-So-Dismal Science
As someone who spent many years of my adult life overseas -- first in Europe, then in Asia -- I grew ever more impressed by what really poor people could do with their countries if given the freedom. It always seemed to me the Dismal Science was a canard: the really dismal folk are the people who think other men and women can't help themselves. Later I read a great book by David Levy called How the Dismal Science Got Its Name, the first work I found that dealt in depth with the actual origins of the Dismal Science in detail. As a result, I kept reading more, and went back to the original articles that Carlyle and others wrote at the time. A great deal is now available online if you look.
Ricocheters will recall that I recently spent two weeks at Hillsdale, where I plotted with Brother Rahe, Brother Steyn, and Brother Sajak (the latter two were also visiting). I also gave a speech on the dismal science, the substance of which Imprimis has now reprinted. One of my points is that the split between libertarians and conservatives is not so great as people on either side often imagine when we look at the history of issues such as slavery and population control. Anyway, it's there for anyone interested.
Finally, I'd also like to point readers to a fascinating summary of some of the arguments in Prof. Levy's book that he makes with another professor, Sandra Pert, in a series of six essays for the online Library of Economics. Check them out. You won't feel the same about the Dismal Science ever again.
- Comment (12)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: The Not-So-Dismal Science
You've either all become Mormons--in which case welcome (we use a brother/sister convention when speaking to each other). Or the four of you are the conservative equivalent to a communist/anarchist cell (in which case you just blew your cover).
On a more serious note, I agree with you that conservatives and libertarians often waste far too much effort navel-gazing at the differences between the two persuasions and forget that, compared to the hard left, our differences tend to be matters of emphasis as opposed to vast chasms. The late, great Frank Meyer (himself a committed libertarian) was the primary proponent of a fusionist approach to the right: his purpose, as I understand it, was to make sure we shot our bullets (speaking metaphorically here--don't want to provoke any violence) at the greater threat: the statists.
I'm a fairly traditional conservative, but have no problem paying homage to Hayek. At this point especially, internecine battles will only hurt our causes.
Aug '10
Re: The Not-So-Dismal Science
Rather difficult to talk about Carlyle's etymology without violating the code of conduct. Suffice it to say that his coinage had a similar logic as the legislative history of the Davis-Bacon Act.
Mar '11
Re: The Not-So-Dismal Science
I concur that the distance between conservatives and libertarians is, in most instances and on most issues, not great. We make far more appropriate allies than, as I occasionally read with bemusement, libertarians and modern liberals. How can an advocate of a de minimis state consider himself an ally of an advocate of statism? Hayek didn't want to be called a conservative, but in my opinion he was distancing himself from British Conservatism, which at that time may have been too much about protecting class privilege, rather than protecting individual liberty.
If the difference between the conservative and the libertarian is mainly on "social" issues, I'd suggest Hayek can be edifying on the subject. Hayek deeply respected institutions and traditions. He did not believe a tradition which had been adopted by the culture from time immemorial ought to be discarded because it didn't have an evident rationale. Conservatives and libertarians could find common ground if we can agree that traditional institutions have value, and that the state ought not interfere, either in supporting or in dismantling said institutions.
Jul '10
Re: The Not-So-Dismal Science
I think Bill is trying to tell us he's founded the Fraternal Order of Ricochet. My degree is in Economics, and I can tell you those study sessions were pretty dismal at times.
Re: The Not-So-Dismal Science
The Rahes were very pleased to be able to host Brother McGurn for dinner, not to mention Brother Hanson earlier and Brother Steyn later. It is their suggestion that Brother Robinson organize a meeting of the Fraternal Brotherhood at Hillsdale College. As I can testify after spending four days last week within sight of the Pacific Ocean in Hermosa Beach, California, you have not lived until you have sampled the restaurants, enjoyed the winter weather, and visited the fleshpots in South central Michigan.
Edited on Mar 16, 2011 at 3:20pmRe: The Not-So-Dismal Science
I had an excellent time in Hillsdale. Not sure about the fleshpots.
On the substance, I wasn't writing about social issues. There are libertarians on all sides. As far as I know, for example, Ron Paul calls himself "an unshakable foe of abortion."
I was trying to get to something a little deeper, about a shared vision of the dignity and capabilities of the free man or woman. And I didn't just mean economists. I meant people who have a grasp of markets and economic possibility. During my time in Asia, I was struck at the businessmen who hopped off a plane in some strange and forbidding country, and built a thriving factory where no one else had seen anything possible. My point is that when it comes to the human person, conservatives and libertarians are a lot closer than either might think.
Re: The Not-So-Dismal Science
Ah, the fleshpots of Hillsdale County -- I am still looking for them myself.
I attended Bill's talk. Those of you who did not should read the abridged version in Imprimis (see Bill's post for a link). It was fascinating -- especially his discussion of the alliance against slavery of the evangelicals and those dismal scientists: the economists. They may not agree about everything, but they do agree about the vital importance of liberty.
Feb '11
Re: The Not-So-Dismal Science
Clearly both groups share common ground but they tend to focus on different governmental atrocities: libertarians go berserk over eminent domain and private property/civil liberty abuses while conservatives seem to reserve their rages for taxes and the growing regulation of everyday life.
Oct '10
Re: The Not-So-Dismal Science
One of the things the Law of Comparative Advantage teaches us, is exploitation is ultimately a lose-lose game--it lowers the potential wealth in a society. The same applies to segregation, too, or anything that limits innovation and the inter-group cross breeding of ideas.
As for the libertarian/social conservative divide; that's certainly an issue, but by and large there's an implied "our disagreements must be civil" agreement, at least as far as I can tell. After all, the left's a far greater threat here in America.
Besides, you win more hearts and minds with a civil tone and by setting an example then with nasty fights.
Oct '10
Re: The Not-So-Dismal Science
Well, maybe it's not that much of a divide. I think of myself as a classical liberal--which, in my view, is a combination of moderate libertarianism and pragmatic social conservatism. I disagree with social conservatives on specific issues, not social conservatism as a whole.
Mar '11
Re: The Not-So-Dismal Science
I must say, unless you are splitting hairs with regard to the degree of emphasis, I disagree with these distinctions. All of the above are anathema to both libertarian and conservative--which is precisely the point. There is much common ground.
When I mentioned social issues as the main sticking points between the two philosophies, I left out the issue of foreign policy, which is also a significant area of divergence between most libertarians and most conservatives, as I understand each of them.
Re: abortion and Ron Paul -- I am of the same mind as he, an implacable opponent of abortion. Opposition to abortion is also the protection of the right to life--one of the rights listed in the Declaration. The libertarian case is rooted in individual rights, and the right to life is rightly the first among them.
Feb '11
Re: The Not-So-Dismal Science
"All of the above are anathema to both libertarian and conservative--which is precisely the point. There is much common ground. "
Yes in theory, but certain topics tend to predominate on libertarian and conservative websites (and in their magazines) which leads me to believe they're seen as more important. I rarely see mentions of the Kelo decision and its fallout on National Review, whereas on Reason, the topic took up an entire MONTH. And the number of comments practically crashed the site...