My friends at the Institute for Humane Studies have asked me to remind you that the application deadline for a Humane Studies Fellowship (HSF) is coming up on January 31st.
The Humane Studies Fellowship (HSF) program provides funding up to $15,000 per year and career development support for academics interested in liberty. An HSF award represents more than just monetary benefits; fellows join a network of seasoned scholars and receive advice on how to build a successful career in academia.
HSFs are awarded to full-time graduate students and outstanding undergraduates with a demonstrated interest in pursuing a scholarly career. The fellowships support study in a variety of fields, including economics, philosophy, law, political science, history, and sociology. Students in any field are eligible to apply. Awards range from $2,000 to $15,000 and fellowship winners may re-apply for each year of their studies. In 2012, IHS awarded more than $800,000 to over 200 students. The deadline to apply is January 31st. Additional information is available at www.TheIHS.org/HSF.
The folks over at Libertarianism.org were kind enough to ask me to do a bit of blogging for them. As a big fan of the site – George Smith’s Excursions series is excellent, and their collection of libertarian video is amazing -I readily accepted. My first two posts are now up.
The first is mostly introductory, but makes a case for asking hard questions about common libertarian beliefs, and for thinking more deeply about their moral justification. A lot of people like free markets and private property because they “work,” but
we cannot know what works unless we know what it means to “work.” A policy “works,” presumably, if it gets us the right results. But what results are right? Economic growth? Increased happiness? More freedom? … To know what works requires, at the very least, that we decide which outcomes are worth pursuing and what means are legitimate for pursuing them. It requires, in other words, that we think philosophically about morality and politics.
The second post begins a series on libertarianism and freedom, noting that the relationship is more complicated than is often assumed by both libertarians and their critics. Libertarians like freedom, and libertarians like justice. And they are both values that are well worth liking.
But we should resist the temptation to suppose that they are the same value. That they are not the same entails that it is possible, in principle at least, that they may in certain circumstances come into conflict.
One such conflict arises in the relationship between libertarianism and property – a conflict that I will examine in detail in a future post. The next post scheduled to go up looks more closely at the idea that libertarianism is committed to maximizing freedom, and rejects it as flawed. After that, I plan to devote a post or two to Herbert Spencer‘s “Law of Equal Freedom.”
Libertarianism.org isn’t set up to handle comments, so if you’ve any thoughts on the first two posts, feel free to express them in the comments thread here. I’ll post links to my essays as they are published.
Our friends at the Foundation for Economic Education are happy to announce that applications for their summer seminars are now open. FEE has been doing summer seminars for decades and the topics below go beyond economics in their attempts to introduce students to the ideas of classical liberalism. You can also apply to be an intern over the summer as well. If you’re a high school or college student looking for a good way to spend a few days this summer, this is a great option!
***
Applications for FEE’s newly revamped Summer Seminars are now open! In order to better accommodate our students’ busy schedules and light wallets, FEE has shortened the seminars to 3 days, and is hosting them in 6 locations across the country.
College and High School FEE Seminars cover 10 topic areas including the popular Austrian Economics seminar (now named “Rebels with a Cause”) and our advanced seminar: Communicating Liberty.
College:
Who Will Build the Roads? And Other Questions About Free Societies
Going Green: Free Market Environmentalism
Liberty: The Original Trendsetter
Made in China: Economic Development
Rebels With a Cause (Intro to Austrian Economics)
Advanced:
High School:
FEE seminars are free to attend, except for travel. However, SFL’s Give the Gift of Liberty can help students raise money for travel. These seminars are a great way to give students who are new to the ideas of liberty a thorough introduction to the economic, ethical, and legal principles of a free society.
Seminar Applications close on March 31, 2013!
Additionally, FEE is looking for operations, videography, and photography interns to work full time in Atlanta for the summer and travel with the staff to the seminars. This internship is paid and very competitive, so apply now!
Internship Applications close on March 1, 2013!
The Freeman has published my review of Gary Chartier and Charles Johnson’s Market Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty (buy it or download the free PDF). It’s a short review, but my bottom line is extremely positive:
Libertarianism is a revolutionary creed, and Chartier and Johnson remind us of the dangers of allowing it to be transformed into a staid apology for the status quo…Markets Not Capitalism is an important collection of essays that will, I can only hope, fundamentally change the way that libertarianism is perceived by the broader public, and provide new and inspiring direction for future scholarly work by libertarians in economics, philosophy, sociology, and law.
Despite my positive evaluation of the book, I still have some reservations about the broader left-libertarian position it presents. I mention these concerns briefly in the review, but they are mostly in line with those expressed by Steve Horwitz in his contribution to our recent symposium on left-libertarianism:
Eliminating every last grain of statism does not magically transform everything we might not like about really existing markets into a form that will match the goals of the traditional left. One grain of statism doesn’t mean that the really existing world won’t essentially look like it does when markets are freed. My own conviction is that the underlying market processes carry more weight than the distorting effects of the state along more margins than the left-libertarians believe.
At their best, left-libertarians strike me as too confident and optimistic in their predictions of what a stateless society would look like, and not confident and optimistic enough about the transformative and empowering power of individual choice and free exchange even in the context of our current system of state/crony capitalism. (This is a concern I have with left-libertarianism in general, but it explains my discomfort with the left-libertarian position on sweatshop labor, despite the good points they make on the topic).
At their worst, left-libertarians are too quick to embrace dubious economic and ethical ideas. I find, for instance the critique of Kevin Carson’s mutualism, especially its “labor theory of value,” entirely persuasive. See Jason Sorens’ series here here and here, and this special issue of the Journal of Libertarian Studies, especially Bob Murphy’s essay. And I cringe when left-libertarians invoke Benjamin Tucker, whose Stirnerite egoism strikes me as bad philosophy, and whose rejection of rent, interest, and profit strikes me as bad economics – even once we make due allowance for the various qualifications and idiosyncratic definitions he attaches to these claims.
That said, I think the bad elements of left-libertarianism are currently playing a less important role than the good, and that the work of people like Roderick Long, Gary Chartier, and Charles Johnson is doing a lot to sharpen and strengthen left-libertarian thought, and to improve libertarian discourse in general. And as Markets Not Capitalism contains plenty of their work, along with some of the not-so-great stuff, I am happy to recommend it. It is an important collection that displays the key ideas of left-libertarianism, warts and all.
James Buchanan, the Nobel Prize winning economist and my former professor, has died at 93. There is much that one can say about him, not the least of which is that he was still intellectually sharp and active into his 90s. In short: he changed the face of economics and politics and advanced the cause of liberty as much as anyone in the second half of the 20th century.
Buchanan’s work changed political economy in fundamental ways. Thanks to him and his colleagues, three things are true: No one who wishes to talk responsibly about politics can be ignorant of public choice theory. No one should ever invoke the language of market failure (including externalities) without having digested his work on government failure. And people who run around talking about the constitution better be able to understand something of his contributions to constitutional political economy.
For readers of BHL, Buchanan, like Hayek, saw much of value in Rawls. Buchanan too had the veil of ignorance/uncertainty concept and saw Rawls as having made an important contribution to liberal theory. Buchanan’s classical liberalism was without question one where the concerns of the least well off among us played a prominent role. Understanding public choice theory is indispensable for understanding why good intentions are not enough to make the case for government intervention. If we want to understand why decades of government solutions have not been very successful at improving the condition of the least well off, public choice theory and Buchanan’s work is the place to start.
Beyond all of that, he was a role model of the old school scholar: widely read and properly skeptical of turning economics into an engineering discipline. He was, at bottom, a humanist and a liberal in the oldest and best senses of the terms. And best of all: he was utterly unimpressed by degrees from fancy schools. As he put it, he was one of “the great unwashed” and he instilled that spirit of refusing to kow-tow to his supposedly more credentialed superiors into the whole George Mason program.
I am very grateful for his work and his teaching and his modeling what a long and successful career and life looks like.
Rest in peace Professor Buchanan. The world is a better place for your work.
I assume most readers of this blog are already familiar with Cato Unbound. The idea there is to take some topic of interest to libertarians, get an expert in the field to write a substantial lead essay on the topic, then get 3 or so other experts to write response essays, and finally open it up for freewheeling discussion among the whole crew. Each discussion runs the course of a whole month, so topics are given the kind of in-depth treatment that is often lacking in the blogosphere. It’s a great forum. John Tomasi and I wrote an essay there on the history of classical liberal thought last spring, and you can find lots of other good stuff there from BHLers like Steve Horwitz, Sarah Skwire, Jason Brennan, and Roderick Long.
Anyway, Liberty Fund is now launching a similar program, called “Liberty Matters.” Think of it as Cato Unbound with a more historical emphasis. The idea, as they describe it, is to ask scholars to “reflect upon how some of the authors whose works are part of the Online Library of Liberty have defended individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace over the past 300 years.”
The first lead essay is now up. It’s by Eric Mack, and discusses issues pertaining to John Locke and property. Locke, of course, is admired by libertarians for his defense of self-ownership and homesteading. But, as Mack writes:
it is hard to avoid the conclusion that when Locke shifts from high philosophy to public policy – especially public policy concerning the less reputable members of society – liberty and property tend to get lost in the shuffle. When the poor escape from “negligent officers,” the untoward result is that they “are at liberty for a new ramble.” “Restraint of the debauchery” of the poor is a necessary step “towards setting the poor on work.” Despite Locke’s core devotion to property rights and despite the strong anti-paternalism and anti-moralism of his A Letter Concerning Toleration, in the “Essay on the Poor Law” (1697) Locke calls for “the suppressing of superfluous brandy shops and unnecessary alehouses, especially in country parishes not lying upon great roads.”
Read the whole essay. And watch for response essays soon by Jan Narveson, Peter Vallentyne, and Michael Zuckert.
In March, Liberty Matters will host a forum on the thought of Gustave de Molinari, arguably the originator of contemporary market anarchism. The lead essay will be written by Roderick Long, with responses essays by me, Gary Chartier, and David Friedman.
I’m not sure why it took so long for the mystic oracle that is my Facebook news feed to inform me about Sedgwick, Maine (a town where you can pop by the town clerk’s house between 7 and 8:30 any Wednesday to get a license for your dog or take out a hunting/fishing permit), but it did.
Back in March of 2011, Sedgwick passed a food sovereignty law that asserted the rights of the citizens of Sedgwick to produce, sell, and consume locally produced food (including raw milk, cheese made from raw milk, and locally slaughtered meat) without the interference of the state of Maine or the US Government. The law read, in part:
We … have the right to produce, process, sell, purchase and consume local foods thus promoting self-reliance, the preservation of family farms, and local food traditions. We recognize that family farms, sustainable agricultural practices, and food processing by individuals, families and non-corporate entities offers stability to our rural way of life by enhancing the economic, environmental and social wealth of our community. As such, our right to a local food system requires us to assert our inherent right to self-government. We recognize the authority to protect that right as belonging to the Town.
And it went on to argue that the town of Sedgwick has, “faith in our citizens’ ability to educate themselves and make informed decisions. We hold that federal and state regulations impede local food production and constitute a usurpation of our citizens’ right to foods of their choice.” The town’s faith in its citizens is such that the law goes on to explicitly state that people who buy and sell locally produced, unlicensed food have the right to enter into private agreements with one another to waive liability.
In support of their right to pass this law, they cite the Declaration of Independence and the State Constitution of Maine. And to back it up, they add section 6.1, which declares “It shall be unlawful for any law or regulation adopted by the state or federal government to interfere with the rights recognized by this Ordinance. It shall be unlawful for any corporation to interfere with the rights recognized by this Ordinance.”
Other towns in Maine and other states have followed suit, and just as rapidly, the state governments have leapt in to protect us all from the dangers of cheese and other local products.
For some people what happened in Sedgwick will read only as an easily dismissed story about the annoying persistence of the locavore movement that was so handily demolished in Desrochers and Shimizu’s Locavore’s Dilemma. For me, though, it’s a story that’s well worth watching and that’s well worth talking about, because it combines some of the best artillery that Bleeding Heart Libertarians have. First, you have the State being oppressive and intrusive about something small and petty. We’re not talking terrorist threats here. We’re talking raw milk. Second, you have the most local, small group kind of response. Third, you have the citizenry boldly insisting on their right to truck, barter, and exchange in the face of government interference.
Sedgwick isn’t a big town. What happened in Sedgwick isn’t a big story. But some of our best stories, and some of our biggest triumphs for liberty happen in the smallest places, spurred by the smallest things, when small groups of people reach the end of their patience with the State.
For those just tuning in, the latest libertarian internet dust up surrounds Julie Borowski’s video about why there are not more libertarian women. In it, she argues that women are not libertarians in part because libertarianism is kinda dorky and women care more than men about acceptance. When I first saw the video, I had a similar reaction as my co-bloggers, especially about Julie’s critique of the “liberal pro-choice feminist magazines.” I like those magazines.
Then I read Julie’s response to the criticism and I became more sympathetic to her position. She does have a point when she writes that social pressure against identifying as a libertarian may discourage women (or anyone) from doing so. Julie thinks that women are more susceptible to that pressure, but an alternative hypothesis is that libertarian culture tends to be more accepting of men. Furthermore, in some industries there are real professional risks to being openly libertarian. When some people hear “libertarian” it instantly translates to “asshole” or “idiot” in their heads. Given this perception, it’s probably more risky for someone who is a member of a socially marginalized group to depart from the mainstream. Still, I think Julie is right that more people would identify as libertarians if it were more culturally relevant and so libertarians should look beyond the state and speak to social issues and culture.
Where Julie and I will disagree is about what libertarians should say when we talk about social issues. I think that libertarians should not oppose feminist cultural values. Libertarians should embrace feminism. Freedom is a libertarian and feminist ideal–an ideal that should inform our politics and our culture. States are not the only institutions that should aim to be more voluntary. So should the family and the workplace.
This is one of the reasons that women on the left should give libertarianism a second look. Of course, libertarians and liberal egalitarian feminists will disagree about the solutions to problems like sexism. Libertarians are skeptical that state-backed violence is the solution to private patterns of gendered injustice, but that doesn’t mean that we endorse sexism in any sense. As I argued earlier, it is consistent to say, “A should not be sexist” and also to say “B should not threaten violence to prevent A from being sexist.”
Anyone who cares about freedom should oppose both public and private forms of oppression. This is why libertarians should be feminists and why feminists should be libertarians.
What We Are Reading
Our Books
