Ok, so "academic libertarians" are a species I have not had much contact with. The libertarians I have talked to are probably more libertarians in a political sense. But my point is everyone I've talked to or corresponded with dismissed or denied global warming.
I understand. See my post about academic libertarianism (https://prosociallibertarians.substack.com/p/academic-libertarianism). I suppose there are at least 3 types of libertarians: academics, politicians/famous talking heads, everyone else. That middle group may be the worst—something that might be true of all political groups.
You may have done so before, but your left/right issue could, and IMO should, be addressed by referencing the libertarian/authoritarian axis. Too many people are still binary; they should be quarternary. LOL
In the case of academic Marxists, they could get away with "purity" because the disputed cases of "communism" were about far away secretive countries. In the case of academic libertarians, they get away with arguing for libertarian purity, because, almost by definition, any government implementation of a libertarian program is bound to be "too much government", except when it is cutting taxes, or cutting spending. Having a background in economics, where they specialize in this thinking, I don't buy the ideal versus non-ideal theory distinction as feasible. Economic models are notorious for assuming ideals like no transaction costs and perfect information, and they are not going to let reality get in the way of their perfect models. For instance in reality: small government can more easily be captured by large corporations; advertising is largely lies and misinformation; the global economic system is a subsystem of the Earth's ecosystems, and cannot grow bigger than the latter without threatening our survival. Over the last fifty years we have witnessed Fossil Fuel companies gain a deeper control over the American political process, basically buying off the Republican party and allying themselves with Christian Nationalists in order to protect their industry and forestall attempts to transition to renewable energy. Ask yourself why would American Evangelicals and Conservative Catholics support the cause of Fossil Fuel companies? Obviously it has nothing to do with Christianity. What it has to do with is the financial backing that these companies give to support the Republican party's culture war crusades. It's interesting that the one economic solution that honours the free market - a carbon tax - has been rendered moot by the Right, wherever they have power. Which makes me believe that it is not about preserving the free market, it's about preserving the power and dominance of the Fossil Fuel industry.
"In the case of academic libertarians, they get away with arguing for libertarian purity, because, almost by definition, any government implementation of a libertarian program is bound to be "too much government", except when it is cutting taxes, or cutting spending.”
This is weird. Libertarian purity? What’s your definition? Prof. Cohen is obviously not arguing for such a unicorn. Also, any libertarian program would invariably reduce government limits on liberty by several orders of magnitude. No real libertarian would be opposed to that, no matter the details.
Regarding your diatribe against the fossil fuels industry: it’s a lot of unsupported claims to which I could offer many alternatives.
Excuse me, Professor. I believe Mr. Justice was addressing me.
Mr. Justice: I don’t like your tactic of sidestepping my question to ask your own, apparently trying to begin a Socratic dialog in which you believe you should play the role of Socrates. I don’t want to play a game, or behave childishly; however, I think it’s only fair to ask you to address my points first, since I made them first.
I don’t know about “requires.” Presumably such agreements can help and so long as we’re assuming there are states with the authority (or perhaps just “power”) to enter such, I’m not sure we should oppose them. Certainly not weak Paris Accord style agreements. BUT, what say you to dmm’s query? What do you think “pure libertarianism” is?
The belief in a minimalist "caretaker" state, where taxes fund the army, the police, and the legal system, and everything else is left to the market. Problems with this are that societies are far bigger and more complex than they were in the eighteenth Century when this idea was first formulated. Libertarians seem to ignore the phenomenon of public goods, goods like education, infrastructure, and health, where the market underinvests because the benefits accrue to everyone and can't be captured by individual firms. Society as a whole benefits from education, because educated people are, in general more productive. Same goes for health, where healthier people are more productive and happier, plus public health measures like vaccines and quarantines help to protect society at large from epidemics. Lastly there are externalities, downstream effects of productive processes that harm third parties. The mother of all externalities is the present case of global warming, which is caused by the combustion of fossil fuels. The huge size of fossil fuel corporations, as well as other large corporations that create negative externalities, requires the state to intervene to protect the public, because neither the market nor the legal system by themselves can protect individuals when the monetary and political power of these corporations dwarfs the powers of individuals.
I think Aaron’s response is on target though I’d put it differently. China is not a Marxist society. What I mean by that is it does not at all in accord with ideal socialism, however conceived. Ideal socialist theorists can debate about what socialism actually is; they’ll agree China doesn’t cut it. Ideal libertarian theorists can debate about what libertarianism is; they’ll agree America doesn’t match it. Still, all would likely agree America is closer to ideal libertarianism than ideal socialism. Etc.
You don’t like the ideal/non-ideal distinction but it’s a conceptual distinction, usually put in terms of the former assuming full compliance and the latter not (there are other ways of making the distinction). There is a clear parallel between that and the way neo-classical economic models “idealize” away information asymmetries and such. Those models are useful but only models. Ideal theory is useful in the same way. It gives us something to aim for.
The rest if what you say here is indicating real problems in our society. I’d say they are problems that basically amount to steps away from an ideal libertarianism. As already noted, we don’t have that. What we should be doing is looking to correct that. We need non-ideal theory to help with that, but we also just need good policy work.
"Academic libertarianism" reminds me a lot of "Academic Marxism" , that is, people I've known who say that the Soviet Union was not really communist, it was "State Capitalism" or some other portmanteau. In other words, they are purists who reject the real-world compromises that every polity of every sort have to make in order to work.
This strikes me as a largely incorrect assessment on two grounds.
First, many of them would argue that we shouldn't reject compromise per se, but rather that contemporary polities compromise on the wrong things, or make harmful compromises, and what looks like "working" isn't in fact working, or working as well as it could.
Second, there's a distinction in political philosophy between ideal and non-ideal theory. The former (roughly) looks at what justice entails without real world constraints or the messiness of contemporary politics. The latter focuses on justice and institutional design in the here and now. Some academic libertarians focus on the former, some the latter, but both have value. Non-ideal theory can give us immediate advice, but ideal theory can give us a broader perspective on what we should ultimately be aiming at. It's similar to how in moral theory, we can discuss moral saints, and find value in articulating what they would look like, because it gives us a North Star of sorts, but at the same time recognize that few, if any, of us will be able to ever achieve true moral saintliness.
Ok, so "academic libertarians" are a species I have not had much contact with. The libertarians I have talked to are probably more libertarians in a political sense. But my point is everyone I've talked to or corresponded with dismissed or denied global warming.
I understand. See my post about academic libertarianism (https://prosociallibertarians.substack.com/p/academic-libertarianism). I suppose there are at least 3 types of libertarians: academics, politicians/famous talking heads, everyone else. That middle group may be the worst—something that might be true of all political groups.
You may have done so before, but your left/right issue could, and IMO should, be addressed by referencing the libertarian/authoritarian axis. Too many people are still binary; they should be quarternary. LOL
I agree. I was trying to keep things simple.
In the case of academic Marxists, they could get away with "purity" because the disputed cases of "communism" were about far away secretive countries. In the case of academic libertarians, they get away with arguing for libertarian purity, because, almost by definition, any government implementation of a libertarian program is bound to be "too much government", except when it is cutting taxes, or cutting spending. Having a background in economics, where they specialize in this thinking, I don't buy the ideal versus non-ideal theory distinction as feasible. Economic models are notorious for assuming ideals like no transaction costs and perfect information, and they are not going to let reality get in the way of their perfect models. For instance in reality: small government can more easily be captured by large corporations; advertising is largely lies and misinformation; the global economic system is a subsystem of the Earth's ecosystems, and cannot grow bigger than the latter without threatening our survival. Over the last fifty years we have witnessed Fossil Fuel companies gain a deeper control over the American political process, basically buying off the Republican party and allying themselves with Christian Nationalists in order to protect their industry and forestall attempts to transition to renewable energy. Ask yourself why would American Evangelicals and Conservative Catholics support the cause of Fossil Fuel companies? Obviously it has nothing to do with Christianity. What it has to do with is the financial backing that these companies give to support the Republican party's culture war crusades. It's interesting that the one economic solution that honours the free market - a carbon tax - has been rendered moot by the Right, wherever they have power. Which makes me believe that it is not about preserving the free market, it's about preserving the power and dominance of the Fossil Fuel industry.
"In the case of academic libertarians, they get away with arguing for libertarian purity, because, almost by definition, any government implementation of a libertarian program is bound to be "too much government", except when it is cutting taxes, or cutting spending.”
This is weird. Libertarian purity? What’s your definition? Prof. Cohen is obviously not arguing for such a unicorn. Also, any libertarian program would invariably reduce government limits on liberty by several orders of magnitude. No real libertarian would be opposed to that, no matter the details.
Regarding your diatribe against the fossil fuels industry: it’s a lot of unsupported claims to which I could offer many alternatives.
Tell me, as a libertarian, what is your position on global warming?
Excuse me, Professor. I believe Mr. Justice was addressing me.
Mr. Justice: I don’t like your tactic of sidestepping my question to ask your own, apparently trying to begin a Socratic dialog in which you believe you should play the role of Socrates. I don’t want to play a game, or behave childishly; however, I think it’s only fair to ask you to address my points first, since I made them first.
That it’s a problem (I can’t say how big). If you’re looking for something more, I’d ask you to be more specific.
Is it a problem that requires international agreement between nations?
I don’t know about “requires.” Presumably such agreements can help and so long as we’re assuming there are states with the authority (or perhaps just “power”) to enter such, I’m not sure we should oppose them. Certainly not weak Paris Accord style agreements. BUT, what say you to dmm’s query? What do you think “pure libertarianism” is?
The belief in a minimalist "caretaker" state, where taxes fund the army, the police, and the legal system, and everything else is left to the market. Problems with this are that societies are far bigger and more complex than they were in the eighteenth Century when this idea was first formulated. Libertarians seem to ignore the phenomenon of public goods, goods like education, infrastructure, and health, where the market underinvests because the benefits accrue to everyone and can't be captured by individual firms. Society as a whole benefits from education, because educated people are, in general more productive. Same goes for health, where healthier people are more productive and happier, plus public health measures like vaccines and quarantines help to protect society at large from epidemics. Lastly there are externalities, downstream effects of productive processes that harm third parties. The mother of all externalities is the present case of global warming, which is caused by the combustion of fossil fuels. The huge size of fossil fuel corporations, as well as other large corporations that create negative externalities, requires the state to intervene to protect the public, because neither the market nor the legal system by themselves can protect individuals when the monetary and political power of these corporations dwarfs the powers of individuals.
I think Aaron’s response is on target though I’d put it differently. China is not a Marxist society. What I mean by that is it does not at all in accord with ideal socialism, however conceived. Ideal socialist theorists can debate about what socialism actually is; they’ll agree China doesn’t cut it. Ideal libertarian theorists can debate about what libertarianism is; they’ll agree America doesn’t match it. Still, all would likely agree America is closer to ideal libertarianism than ideal socialism. Etc.
You don’t like the ideal/non-ideal distinction but it’s a conceptual distinction, usually put in terms of the former assuming full compliance and the latter not (there are other ways of making the distinction). There is a clear parallel between that and the way neo-classical economic models “idealize” away information asymmetries and such. Those models are useful but only models. Ideal theory is useful in the same way. It gives us something to aim for.
The rest if what you say here is indicating real problems in our society. I’d say they are problems that basically amount to steps away from an ideal libertarianism. As already noted, we don’t have that. What we should be doing is looking to correct that. We need non-ideal theory to help with that, but we also just need good policy work.
"Academic libertarianism" reminds me a lot of "Academic Marxism" , that is, people I've known who say that the Soviet Union was not really communist, it was "State Capitalism" or some other portmanteau. In other words, they are purists who reject the real-world compromises that every polity of every sort have to make in order to work.
This strikes me as a largely incorrect assessment on two grounds.
First, many of them would argue that we shouldn't reject compromise per se, but rather that contemporary polities compromise on the wrong things, or make harmful compromises, and what looks like "working" isn't in fact working, or working as well as it could.
Second, there's a distinction in political philosophy between ideal and non-ideal theory. The former (roughly) looks at what justice entails without real world constraints or the messiness of contemporary politics. The latter focuses on justice and institutional design in the here and now. Some academic libertarians focus on the former, some the latter, but both have value. Non-ideal theory can give us immediate advice, but ideal theory can give us a broader perspective on what we should ultimately be aiming at. It's similar to how in moral theory, we can discuss moral saints, and find value in articulating what they would look like, because it gives us a North Star of sorts, but at the same time recognize that few, if any, of us will be able to ever achieve true moral saintliness.
Agreed.