One of the big problems with talking about what Chris Mooney has called The Republican War on Science is that, on the Republican side, the case against science is rarely laid out explicitly. On a whole range of issues (evolution, passive smoking, climate change, the breast-cancer abortion link, CFCs and the ozone layer and so on) Republicans attack scientists, reject the conclusions of mainstream science and promote political talking points over peer-reviewed research. But they rarely present a coherent critique that would explain why, on so many different issues, they feel its appropriate to rely on their own politically-based judgements and reject those of mainstream science. And of course many of them are unwilling to admit that they are at war with science, preferring to set up their own alternative set of scientific institutions and experts, journals and so on.
So it’s good to see a clear statement of the Republican critique of science from John Tierney in this NY Times blog piece promoting global warming “skepticism”. The core quote is
climate is so complicated, and cuts across so many scientific disciplines, that it’s impossible to know which discrepancies or which variables are really important.
Considering how many false alarms have been raised previously by scientists (the “population crisis,� the “energy crisis,� the “cancer epidemic� from synthetic chemicals), I wouldn’t be surprised if the predictions of global warming turn out to be wrong or greatly exaggerated. Scientists are prone to herd thinking — informational cascades– and this danger is particularly acute when they have to rely on so many people outside their field to assess a topic as large as climate change.
Both this quote and the rest of Tierney’s article are notable for the way in which he treats science as inseparable from politics, and makes no distinction between scientific research and the kind of newspaper polemic he produces. Like most Republicans, Tierney takes a triumphalist view of the experience of the last thirty years or so, as showing that he and other Republicans have been proved right, and their opponents, including scientists, have been proved wrong. Hence, he argues, he is entitled to prefer his own political judgements to the judgements (inevitably equally political) of scientists.
Of course, there’s nothing new about the general viewpoint, that science is just another type of ideological system. It was until recently, widely held on the left. But it’s now far more common among Republicans, where it is now the dominant fiewpoint. Some of its surviving leftwing adherents, such as Steve Fuller, have taken the logical step and joined the Republicans, notably in the Dover case on the teaching of Intelligent Design.
I’ll point out some of the more obvious problems with Tierney’s analysis. Of the three issues he mentions, only one (the “cancer epidemic”) involves a debate in which scientific issues were central. And most proponents of a “cancer epidemic” are non-scientists who see themselves in much the same light as the global warming skeptics Tierney is promoting. The most prominent single advocate of the “cancer epidemic” story is Samuel Epstein, who describes himself as the leading critic of the “cancer establishment” consisting of the American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute and mainstream scientific journals such as Science (also a favorite target of GW conspiracy theorists).
It’s clear that the notion of a “cancer epidemic” has never been supported by mainstream science. But, if you accept Tierney’s politicised view of science, it makes sense to lump ACS and NCI together with critics like Epstein. The scientific evidence produced by the cancer establishment has supported lots of restrictions on smoking, air pollution, the use of synthetic chemicals and so on, all of which are opposed by Republicans. In political terms, the more extreme position represented by Epstein helps the establishment defend themselves against rightwing critics.
Also noteworthy is the idea that when faced with a complex problem, the best thing to do is to fall back on your own prejudices, rather than, say, attempt a comprehensive investigation of all aspects of the problem.
Apart from Tierney, about the most comprehensive exposition of the Republican critique of science is Tom Bethell’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, part of the Regnery series of the same name. Here’s a summary of his position, arguing that scientists operating through journals like Science manufacture spurious problems to get research funding and that scientific research is fatally flawed because of its commitment to materialism.
Bethell has impeccable qualifications as a leading Republican commentator on science (gigs at the Hoover Institute and American Spectator, ) But I think some Republicans find he is a bit too thorough in his rejection of science, going beyond the standard topics (evolution, global warming, stem cell research) to reject relativity and embrace AIDS reappraisal.
The problem here is that Republicans are torn between a war on science and a war over science. What they would like is a scientific process that produced all the technological goodies of which they are enamoured, but could be constrained to the reliable message discipline expected of all parts of the Republican machine. Some of the time this leads them to engage in debate over particular scientific issues with a rather cargo-cultish attempt to mimic the trappings of scientific methods. At other times, they attack science more directly. But Bethell’s overt rejection of science, and embrace of obviously cranky ideas, gives the game away a bit too much.
John Quiggin 
Good piece. I have always found “global warming is a vast conspiracy to get more research funding” to be one of the more amusing parts of delusionism about climate change.
I’ve always thought the Republican war on science is one of the things that will hasten the end of the American empire, just as mysticism over blood and soil radically hastened the end of the thousand-year Reich. Irrationality on this scale is not cost-free.
Having your population brought up to believe in creationism means you are eventually going to be terribly uncompetitive in biotech (that’s actually already happening, BTW). Taking the Canute approach to global warming (“The sea will not rise, I tell you …”) means you are going to be paying larger adjustment costs than anyone else when the sea eventually does indeed rise (though of course these people will undoubtedly blame the sea rise on “secularist left-wing academic scientists who have offended God”).
Lame piece.
Republicans come in all stripes. Yes, there are extreme evangelical Christian Republicans who believe in all manner of nutty things (as do most religious people, including environmentalists). Where science contradicts their faith they like to attack the science.
But is that all Republicans? Not even close. Thus negating the entire premise of this foolish scree.
Why is Australia blessed with such poor academics?
Anything on the “population crisis” John?
Is that a substantive position? 🙂
For all your ideas on evolution, climate change, the media, and for the 20 million people not invited to the Australia 2020 Summit, the online community created a wiki so people across Australia could post, discuss, and vote on the best ideas for the country. It’s totally a grassroots effort. It’s free, can be anonymous, and isn’t being sponsored by any political party, business, union, or special interests. It’s just people who want to encourage an online national brainstorming session.
The site is at http://ozideas.wetpaint.com. There are pages for over 20 different issues (including science) and even an online petition to get the best ideas heard at the actual Summit.
The more people know about it, the more ideas are submitted, and the better the discussion. It’s a great way for everyone to participate in the summit.
Jim
Wiki Creator
There may not be a ‘cancer epidemic’, whatever that means, but there seems to be an obesity epidemic. If the link between obesity and cancer is correct (see e.g. http://www.cancervic.org.au/preventing-cancer/weight/obesity_prevention_camp/obesity_faqs/ ), then we’ll get a cancer epidemic in the future.
For those who haven’t been following, mugwump is this blog’s leading climate change delusionist. He’s exactly the type of person he describes (rejecting science whenever it doesn’t suit his political beliefs), but, as a recent arrival to the US, he hasn’t yet signed on to the full Republican package, and, in particular, creationism. But contrary to mugwump’s suggestion, creationism is not a minority view among Republicans. 68 per cent reject evolution. That’s rather more than the proportion who embrace climate science delusionism – only 11 per cent of Americans, and around 18 per cent of Republicans, reject AGW outright, though the proportion is much higher among Republican activists and politicians.
Nice slight of hand… lumping environmentalists with “religious people”.
the thing i liked about mugwump’s comment was this:
But is that all Republicans? Not even close. Thus negating the entire premise of this foolish scree.
mugwump apparently believes that one cannot validly generalise about something if there are minor but not completely insignificant counter-examples to the generalisation. by this logic, you could for example demonstrate that the left does not oppose the iraq war, because not withstanding the general left-wing opposition, nick cohen and his “decent left” cohort are enthusiastic supporters.
Both this quote and the rest of Tierney’s article are notable for the way in which he treats science as inseparable from politics, and makes no distinction between scientific research and the kind of newspaper polemic he produces.
Yes, it’s interesting to compare such supposedly “scientific” attitudes with the blinkered political views espoused by rightwing US media “experts” such as the Washington Post’s Fred Hiatt. As Glenn Greenwald puts it:
“It’s nothing more than a framework of simplistic, adolescent self-absorption: “Anyone who likes me and does what I say is good and just and has the right to use force. Anyone who doesn’t like me and resists what I say is a Terrorist that is always in the wrong.” It’s really never any more complicated than that.”
Substitute “Terrorist” for “Fool” or even “Communist” and it’s very much the same mindset across the board. Derrida Derider’s comment about “mysticism over blood and soil” is spot on.
What’s ironic (in a sad kind of way) is how this anti-Science is regularly clothed in religious fervour. To deny Creationism is to deny God!
But if “God” created this universe for a purpose, then surely the laws of space, time and motion (etc) act as constraints which can teach us something about humility and the importance of objective reality over subjective passions. IF we are willing to recognise such objective reality, of course.
Actually, think about it a bit more, this blinkered US mindset probably has roots in the old anti-Communist Cold War mindset, where such “right-thinking” was considered one’s patriotic duty.
And then there is always the less charitable view, which is that such anti-scientific, pro-military whack-jobs do not really believe a single word of what they say, but are simply in the game for the money.
There’s just one problem with that characterization: it’s false. Take Tierney’s rantings on relativity: utter rot. Or the tobacco companies on lung cancer (equally rubbish). I could name dozens more. “Rejecting science when it doesn’t suit my political views” is something no-one who knows me would ever accuse me of.
One day you may realize that the whole world doesn’t fit into your sterile little boxes. But until then, carry on with your hollow stereotyping if it makes you feel better.
That is rather a lot. I imagine Democrats, seeing themselves as vastly more intelligent, wouldn’t be anywhere near that number. What’s your guess? 5% of Democrats reject evolution? Surely no more than 10%?
From the same source: 40% of Democrats reject evolution.
So it seems the more reasonable conclusion is that the USA is a land of very religious folk (74% of weekly US churchgoers reject evolution). That’s pretty consistent with my experience: I’ve learned not to offer “atheist” as my religion to casual acquaintances (most Americans don’t seem to distinguish between atheist and satanist).
myself, i disbelieve science whenever belief involves handing over more money. the problem is, science is practiced by humans, generally in pursuit of money. can’t be helped i suppose, but i wish more research was directed toward helping poor kids in africa, and less on keeping american geriatrics on the golf course.
when it comes to delusionists though, my favorite is the people who think global warming is a technical problem. if only!
““Rejecting science when it doesn’t suit my political viewsâ€? is something no-one who knows me would ever accuse me of.’
Unfortunately, one of the costs of pseudonymity is that you can’t make this kind of argument. Quite possibly, among those who know you in person, you have a reputation for open-mindedness.
On this blog, as mugwump and in previous incarnations, you fit the description perfectly. If you had felt like demonstrating a capacity for something beyond reflexive ideological responses, you’ve had ample opportunities, and taken none of them.
I really don’t know how people can be so c0cky and certain about the AGW theory. Applied medical science frequently gets things wrong and is having to adapt to new data and the harsh feedback of reality. I have a friend who is a doctor working with premature babies and he routinely relates that there is disagreement within the medical community as to the correct amount of oxygen or temperature or some other variable to apply to a premature baby in a given situation. Often there is concensus that later proves to be wrong. Babies die, theories shift, data is probed, thinking changes. However whilst medicine gropes toward the light it has the advantage of a long history and millions of patients to analyse and cross reference. Climatology by contrast is a relatively young discipline (it is old but not as mature as medicine) working within a sample space of one on processes that reveal themselves over eons. Too much pride, certainty or absolutism seems unwise. Of course this cuts both ways. Those that are certain of the fallacy of AGW are suffering an excess of pride (IMHO).
The science may warrant action but it does not warrant an end to scepticism. Theories should stand the test of time before we become very confident and any theory about global climate should be tested for a longer period than most before we become too sure of ourselves. Especially given that the theory even now has obvious gaps.
As for Republicans they are reasonably good at winning elections so the extent to which they are messed up reflects on the US population to some extent. And if society wants to vote against science and truth who are the social democrats to complain. A more serious problem in US politics is a democratic menu with a limited offering not the subtle differences between the republicans and democrats.
Out of interest which of the litany of anti-science beliefs does John McCain subscribe to?
It’s true. Anyone who disagrees with any majority scientific opinion is politically motivated and should ‘just accept the scientific consensus’.
This is shown by many green groups opposition to GE crops. Despite many, many attempts to show that GE crops are damaging to health no solid science has shown this.
Also, anyone who disagreed with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) that homosexuality wasn’t a mental illness before 1970 or so when they changed their minds was also clearly unscientific.
Indeed, anyone who believed in the motion of continents when the majority of geologists thought that tectonic plates were nonsense as also clearly unscientific.
Is economics a science? If so which system has to be believed to avoid us being unscientific?
It is tragic that the ‘triumphalism’ of conservative and republican politics has continued to seek out and denigrate any alternative perspective, hypothesis or evidence based research to the extent that any opposing view is fair game. The intellectual poverty of this form of pseudo analysis is that it continually mistakes its own subjectivity for fact. This form of collective ‘group think’ allows no risk and relies on the mendacity of modern managerialism for survival and uses the crude tools of McCarthyist selectivism to refute those who dare propose an alternative. It entertains no uncertainty, no contradictions and no failure. When uncertainty, contradiction and failure are presented then the existence of such contrary evidence is denied. I think it should be named for what is; a form of bullying supported by a disfunctional heuristic state bordering on the pyschopathic. Few if any of their statements pass the Popper test.
Indeed, anyone who believed in the motion of continents when the majority of geologists thought that tectonic plates were nonsense as also clearly unscientific.
a scientific consensus can change, obviously. sort of the reduced-to-a-fairly-tale version is that: there was a consensus, a new theory is proposed, it is debated in scientific journals according to evidence-based principles accepted by all, and if the evidence better accords with the new theory it will be accepted and the old consensus discarded.
the point is that this sort of thing is not what happens in the republican war on science(tm), or for that matter with debate over GM foods.
put another way, was the response from opponents of plate tectonics (when that theory was first proposed) an allegation that the theory was not science at all, but merely a political argument dressed up as science? i have no idea but i doubt it. that is what makes the republican war on science different from normal debates concerning departures from the scientific consensus.
I continue to be amazed that so many modern American Christians find the theory of evolution such a problem for their beliefs. I guess the main reason is their excessive literalism. Those who have wanted to (and been able to) remain believing and rational Christians in the face of scientific progress have always found quite reasonable ways to reconcile the two systems.
I am not a Christian. However, if I were I would be quite able to reconcile all aspects of modern science with Christianity. I would say essentially this;
“God created the universe ex nihilo. That accords with modern science which sees the universe exploding into existence from the singularity at the time of the Big Bang. God created all the physics) laws of this universe and everything flows from that including the mechanics of evolution. Hence God still designed us. He or She or It simply designed the laws from which it could be foreseen – by that All Knowing One -that we would thence be “designed” in due course.”
Then I would continue as follows;
“The Bible has levels of truth. The lowest levels of truth are literal whereas higher levels of truth are metaphorical. Where unfalsifiable science is in contrast with apparent literal truth in the Bible then we must accept the science, accept the evidence of the invariable and dependable laws which God has given the universe, and go back to the Bible and seek the higher metaphorical truth which it contains.”
Now, I won’t bore you with any more of that. All it points out is that metaphysics is infinitely malleable. So if people can’t mould their metaphysics to accept the science then they are plain lacking in imagination.
As an agonostic I simply say; “If God is as lacking in compassion and imagination as so many of his followers seem to be then we really are in trouble.”
I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now,
From up and down,
But still somehow
It’s cloud illusions I recall
I really don’t know clouds at all.
A metaquestion:
Can anyone produce any example of anyone anywhere who has ever changed their mind about anything as a result of reading comments on a blog?
Happens all the time, alan, but only on the “science” side. All it takes is good citation that refutes a particular claim.
Ikonoclast Says:
But the literalism isn’t something that’s inherent in Americans. The better question is to ask why they’ve become literalists. The obvious answer is that they’ve been told they had to be.
There’s substantial power to be gained by forming a church. That’s been amply demonstrated though all of our recorded history. So if yu’ve got yourself a church, what do you do when some inconvenient facts arise which threaten your power base? Think Gallileo (although his case is quite complicated).
One way is to deny the new facts, and another way is to accommodate the new facts.
It’s not that different with corporations and governments for that matter, there’s an existing power base, and if something threatens the power, the first thing you do is deny. If you can’t get away with that, you accommodate.
The common problem with the US could be that the citizens are overwilling to accept authority.
I’ve been wading through John Howard’s rather long-winded speech to the neocons. Almost at the end you get this little nugget of wisdom:
“Global warming has become a new battleground. The same intellectual bullying and moralising, used in other debates, now dominates what passes for serious dialogue on this issue.”
That’s it. He moves on without any further explanation. So scientific proof = intellectual bullying? I suppose it must look like that to someone who disdains both science and intellect.
And wanting to save the planet for our children and grandchildren is “moralising”. But don’t forget, kids, conservatives are the party of “values” (which as you might expect he goes on about at some length).
In other news, the neocon’s favourite fund managers are having a spot of bother: Carlyle Capital Corporation has not been able to meet several payment demands. Reality is such a bitch, innit?
What were mugwump’s previous incarnations?
“… the world is changing: I feel it in the water, I feel it in the earth, and I smell it in the air.” – Treebeard.
I take that back, because I’ve seen it on the other side too. I’ve read some of the serious religion blogs, and if someone erroneously says something like “According to Matthew…”, someone is bound to say “No, that was John at x:yy, not Matthew at all”. And the orignal commenter will accept the correction without further question.
I’ve been online in blogs and forums for about ten years. I’ve changed my mind in loads of ways. Mostly these have probably been invisible to those that made the comments at the time because rarely have I shifted my views in any form of rapid reversal but rather in subtle shifts in outlook that over time culminate in a new way of looking at things.
For example:-
i) in 1996 I was pretty supportive of the gun reforms. I now thing they were knee jerk opportunism based on empty rhetoric.
ii) a decade ago I regarded the gold standard as an anachronism of history, today I am very favourably disposed toward it.
iii) I used to think government owned hospitals was a logical approach to public health. I no longer think that.
iv) Ten years ago I accepted AGW as a given and thought cap and trade was a good idea. I’m now more skeptical about AGW and if it is an issue I think a carbon tax is a better option.
v) I used to think income tax should be lower. Now I think it should be abolished.
vi) I used to regard minimum wage laws as helpful. Now I think they are second rate policy.
As an adult I have always believed in the virtues of free enterprise and private property and have regarded most drug prohibition as perverse, but a decade and a half of the Internet and a decade of blogging has made me far more libertarian in other areas. I could go on but you get the picture.
Yeah, yeah, Terje, you’re the living breathing example of why <a href=http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.phpLibertatianism makes you stupid.
I realise that you won’t read anything at that link, but hopefully others will and so avoid your fate.
Try that again:
Libertatianism makes you stupid.
Which is precisely why I listed a couple of examples of so-called “the Republican war on science” to which you alluded that I do not support.
Thus demonstrating your own closed-mindedness Quiggin.
I think you’ll find that the only scientific “consensus” I reject is the global warming one. And even then, I have never doubted that CO2 causes warming, just questioned (with ample supporting evidence) the quality of specific areas of climate science and the impact of that poor quality on the veracity of conclusions drawn.
For reflexive ideology (dressed up as logical discourse, to be sure), one need look no further than the majority of your posts Quiggin, including this one. You dug out a Republican hostile towards science. Claimed his views are representative of Republicans because 68% of Republicans reject evolution. Yet, by that argument he’s also representative of 40% of Democrats, something you conveniently omit to mention. Should we conclude that Republicans and Democrats alike are hostile towards science. Of course not.
A more reasonable conclusion is that highly religious people are hostile to science where it contradicts their religion. It has nothing to do with their politics. Big suprise. I’ve known that since my first memories of highly religious people from about the age of 5.
But of course, getting to the heart of the matter is not your goal. Your goal is to attempt to paint your political opponents in the worst possible light using whatever scurrilous smear and innuendo you have at hand. Remarkably similar tactics to the far right.
No-one is fooled. But it is a pretty sad indictment on Australian academia for a supposedly leading Australian academic to conduct themselves in this way.
Where’s the “scientific proof” gandhi? The warmenistas are not even close to a proof that human CO2 emissions will lead to the catastrophic consequences they claim.
I don’t think that is it. For example, Americans reject the authority of their government almost universally (to clarify, they accept the authority of law, it’s the administrative side of government they disdain).
America was in part founded by several waves of immigrants fleeing religious persecution of one form or another. Thus historically Americans have been willing enough to flee their homelands for their religious beliefs. That guarantees a certain level of fundamentalism in the culture.
American society also differs from Australian culture (and the UK with which I also have some experience) in that it was created pretty much tabula rasa.
Where the Australian constitution is an act of the British Parliament, Americans entirely rejected the European ruling class and built into their constitution very strong constraints on the power of executive government, and correspondingly very strong protections for individual liberty. That created (reflected?) a culture which really does believe in “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, but very much at the individual level.
Success or failure is up to the individual; there is little expectation that American society as a whole (or by extension, the US government) has any intrinsic responsibility to assist or interfere in the lives of individuals. Contrast that to Australia and the UK where there is a very strong expectation that the government will take care of you.
So to some extent I think church and religion fill the void left by that lack of a country-wide sense of social safety.
“American society also differs from Australian culture (and the UK with which I also have some experience) in that it was created pretty much tabula rasa.
Where the Australian constitution is an act of the British Parliament, Americans entirely rejected the European ruling class and built into their constitution very strong constraints on the power of executive government, and correspondingly very strong protections for individual liberty. That created (reflected?) a culture which really does believe in “life, liberty and the pursuit of happinessâ€?, but very much at the individual level. ”
Firstly, you appear to be conflating “culture” and “political institutions” here. Oh and “culture” and “society”.
In terms of “culture” in the normal broad sense of the word it’s pretty self-evident that America was not created tabula rasa although it is probably accurate to say that American culture is more an eclectic mix of British, Dutch, French and Spanish influences as opposed to the predominantly Anglo-Celtic Australian culture.
In terms of political culture or political institutions it seems to me you are also incorrect.
The intellectual influences on the US Constitution are virtually all European – Locke, Paine and Montesquieu oome to mind.
And do I really have to point out that that belief in “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” was pretty much restricted to white, property-owning males for the first century or so of American independence?
Feeling a little red around the neck, are you, mugwump?
“Success or failure is up to the individual; there is little expectation that American society as a whole (or by extension, the US government) has any intrinsic responsibility to assist or interfere in the lives of individuals.”
It is all in those famous words on their money “in God we Trust”. If you need any help go talk to him.
Mugwump/Dogz
your comment #35 is a civil comment. Although I think there are a number of generalisations in there which are too broad, it would be possible to have a reasonable discussion about the various propositions. (For example, was it not the case that the drafters of the Australian constitution were influenced, to quite a degree, by the US constitution?)
But many, possibly most, of your contributions to the comment boxes start off with snark, make broad generalisations about “the left” “the warmeistas” “anti-Americans”, etc, and then finish with a pot-shot at the host.
We are indeed blessed, and we don’t pay them enough.
Your substantive point may be in the comment somewhere, but it is crowded out by the snark.
In contrast, Terje probably disagrees with JQ around as often as you do, but he is almost unfailingly civil.
Now, I recognise that in return other commenters are on occasion uncivil to you (and goodness knows this particular comment is going to sound patronising!), but they should in turn also take a good hard look at themselves. If you do want to come to this blog for civil debate, and do so in good faith, it’d be worth reassessing the structure and tone of your comments.
can i just call you mug, for short? the second american constitution was a very close mapping of british political structure onto the new nation.
the substitution of election for inheritance is not insignificant, but it was just a way to transfer the rule of the british aristocracy into the hands of the american aristocracy.
americans are vastly more self reliant than ozzies, or brits, not because of the structure of government, but because they lived in a world where in principle, and often in fact, they could walk westward 100 miles and carve out a better life than that enjoyed by the small gentry of britain.
these conditions have been gone for 100 years, and social conditions are changing the national character rapidly. they are still capable of saying “something’s not right” about the government, but they seem to have regressed to oz and brit acceptance that nothing can be done. the new world has become old.
Can anyone produce any example of anyone anywhere who has ever changed their mind about anything as a result of reading comments on a blog?
The Chinese say water is the strongest element. Mountains collapse under the weight of many small drops.
SJ – the “libertarianism makes you stupid” essay is well written and captures some reasonable criticism of libertarianism. However it does not amount to much other than a disagreement with libertarianism. The math mistake examples are trivial but hardly uniquely characteristic of libertarians. Most ideologies have people playing logical silly buggers. Libertarianism probably has more because logic and reason is key to the creed and despite the best of intentions people can trip themselves up with flawed logic. I don’t see whim as a better alternative. To the extent that libertarians try to apply logic and reason I think that is a good thing even if they sometimes manage to get it wrong. Libertarianism may be thought of as a cult that sees its core principles as infallable but I think that would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. The natural rights fundamentalism that is popular amoungst many libertarians should not obscure the large number of libertarians and libertarian arguments concerned with consequences. I do use natural rights arguments myself on occasion but mainly as a thinking exercise or as a challenge to unearth other peoples personal drivers. And I generally regard libertarian as an umbrella term under which I’d include small government social democrats. I don’t personally know any pure libertarians who want no tax and no government although I did meet one fellow from New Zealand who said I wasn’t a libertarian because I wasn’t signed up for that cause. Perhaps in New Zealand I’d have to wear a different hat.
Most people I know (including JQ) use the logic of liberty and freedom in at least some areas. Better in my view to be a little bit too liberal than a little bit too authoritarian in your policy mistakes. Better to have libertarians in the debate than not.
eg. Take drug prohibition. There are two key libertarian arguments against drug prohibition.
1. Its your body so nobody has a right to control what you put in it. This is a natural rights argument.
2. The consequences of this prohibition, all things considered, are worse than the consequences of permissiveness. A consequentialist argument.
I’ll generally use the former type of arguement as a starting point. I prefer freedom over control.If somebody prefers control over freedom then the next arguement is harder to execute so best to get the first one sorted out. However the later arguement and whether it is strong or weak, right or wrong is what ultimately confirms my own position or leads me to reject the default set by the first argument.
Reason is better than whim. Even if we don’t always get our reasoning right it is better in my view to continue with the endeavour.
p.s. In my view most people do the second type of arguement but instead of the first one they ask “is the status quo okay”. I can see the utility of that approach.
Odd, I didn’t think the “libertarianism makes you stupid” essay was particularly good at all – I’ve certainly read far better criticisms of libertarianism. For instance, it makes a good deal of the fact that some libertarians are against anti-discrimination laws, but fails to point out the reason this is stupid: anti-discrimination laws exist explicitly to protect the freedoms of minorities. In other words, anyone who genuinely cared about protecting individual liberties should logically support the government having a role to play in ensuring businesses do not force minorities out of job and trade opportunities.
MH (#19), seems to suggest that there is a phenomenon which is not limited to the ‘Republican war on science’ by referring to ‘modern managerialism’ and he writes: “I think it should be named for what is; a form of bullying supported by a disfunctional heuristic state bordering on the pyschopathic.�
Assuming I didn’t misinterpret MH (I do have difficulties with texts involving words ending in ‘ism’), I believe the approach is helpful. The current Republican party in government is but an instance of ‘management’. There is no evidence, I know of, which would suggest that all but a negligible number of instances of ‘management’ is not ‘managerialist’.
A “dysfunctional heuristic� is a heuristic that relies on a rule (without requiring proof) for arriving at a solution. How about the following decision making rule for managerialists:
‘For, he reasons pointedly / That which must not, can not be. (German: “Weil, so schließt er messerscharf / Nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf.”)’
Christian Morgenstern, The Impossible Fact, 1910
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Morgenstern
PS: At least one of the authors involved in writing the wiki entry on Christian Morgenstern has a particularly pleasing sense of humor because he or she weaves in an example of ‘a fact’ (about C. Morgenstein), which is impossible using rules that require proof. The meticulously consistent wiki references for the ‘impossible fact’ is superb.
Wizofaus,
Most libertarians would oppose laws that define who a business should hire. I do. Thomas Sowell is a good author in terms of getting a detailed libertarian perspective on this. He points out that in the USA moves towards more inclusive employment of minorities (women, blacks etc) from WWI onwards was driven firstly by the private sector with the government sector taking a long time to catch up to comparable levels of minority representation. In the 1950s young black males had unemployment rates equal to young white males but equal pay legislation has resulted in a situation today where young black males have a vastly higher rate of unemployment.
In Australia we saw a similar thing when the courts determined that blacks must be paid the same as whites. Pay equalised, however unemployment amoungst blacks ballooned. Surely a negative consequence. Not a good outcome for society or minorities.
There are good natural rights arguments for opposing such laws. However there are also good consequentialist arguements for opposing them.
In Australia we have laws that mean a club or pub can’t exclude you because of your sexuality. However now in victoria there are all gay clubs that are being given a licensed exemption from such rules. So a policy that starts out with ideals of equal treatment for all is being converted into a system of licensing.
I support US desegregation. However the government did not lead the movement but merely joined it. In so far as it got it’s own house in order this was a good thing. People should be equal before the law. Police should treat people with respect regardless of race. Public space and public institutions should be open to all. Private organisations should be also but they should have the discretion to work out the details in their own time and it their own way.
If we could pass a law tomorrow that made everybody blind to race then I’d support it. However legislation is not a magic spell. It doesn’t work like that.
Social engineering which entails the application of government pressure for a limited time makes more sense to me than laws that must perpetuate such pressure effectively forever. I can see the arguement for an occasional nudge. We all switched to metric because the government made us, but who would willingly change back today? For me that is the real test. If the big stick needs to be waved forever then you are not nudging society but bludgoning it.
Regards,
Terje.
Britain’s parliamentary system is vastly different. The founding fathers considered it and rejected it. You should read the American consititution al, if you haven’t already: it’s remarkably short and to the point.
Virtually all intellectual influences at the time were European in origin. I was talking about political rather than intellectual influences. Most of Europe was (and many parts still are) an aristocracy. The US was founded as a meritocracy.
Apparently you do. But they had the decency to fight a civil war over it.
Those despicable Americans. Just when you think you’ve pigeonholed all 300M of them from all walks of life and nearly all nations, they go and do something completely incomprehensible like fight a civil war over black freedom.
“I was talking about political rather than intellectual influences. ”
Read up on the United Provinces of Holland some time.
“Apparently you do.”
Yes but equally apparently, my meaning was unclear since you felt the need to use it for yet another bout of bleating about how hard done by Americans are.
American 18th century “meritocracy” applied essentially only to white males.
18th Century Britain was pretty much equally meritocratic provided you weren’t a dirty papist.(Even there it was really a matter of degrees, American Catholics could actually vote, hold public office and own land but they were still widely discriminated against.)
And let’s not forget that American social mobility such as it was in the 18th and 19th centuries depended to a very large extent on the continued available of western land for homesteading – meaning it depended upon the ongoing dispossession of Native Americans.)