PDA

View Full Version : Robert H. Bork Critiques Libertarianism




The Magic Hoof
12-15-2011, 05:29 AM
Check it: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/bork.html

Snippet:


Free market economists are particularly vulnerable to the libertarian virus. They know that free economic exchanges usually benefit both parties to them. But they mistake that general rule for a universal rule. Benefits do not invariably result from free market exchanges. When it comes to pornography or addictive drugs, libertarians all too often confuse the idea that markets should be free with the idea that everything should be available on the market. The first of those ideas rests on the efficacy of the free market in satisfying wants. The second ignores the question of which wants it is moral to satisfy. That is a question of an entirely different nature. I have heard economists say that, as economists, they do no deal with questions of morality. Quite right. But nobody is just an economist. Economists are also fathers and mothers, husbands or wives, voters citizens, members of communities. In these latter roles, they cannot avoid questions of morality.

This is an impressive article that's got me thinking.

Sola_Fide
12-15-2011, 05:57 AM
I haven't read the entire article, but the excerpt is pretty easy to refute.


The first of those ideas rests on the efficacy of the free market in satisfying wants. The second ignores the question of which wants it is moral to satisfy. That is a question of an entirely different nature.

This entirely ignores the immorality of a monopolistic elite determining what is or what is not moral. Why is this question not considered in the sequence of thought?

I am a Christian, and I know what is moral and what is not. In my view, the most egregious evils in history have occurred when government agents have determined by force what behaviors are moral or immoral.


"The laws of worldly government extend no farther than to life and property and what is external upon earth."

-Martin Luther



"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.”

-Thomas Jefferson


Bork is right that economists can never be only economists. This is why nihilism is completely irrational. Value has to be imputed at some point in one's system of thought. But the issue is whether these temporal values are subjectively or objectively applied.

Conza88
12-15-2011, 06:03 AM
Check it: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/bork.html

Snippet:

"Free market economists are particularly vulnerable to the libertarian virus. They know that free economic exchanges usually benefit both parties to them. But they mistake that general rule for a universal rule. Benefits do not invariably result from free market exchanges. When it comes to pornography or addictive drugs, libertarians all too often confuse the idea that markets should be free with the idea that everything should be available on the market. The first of those ideas rests on the efficacy of the free market in satisfying wants. The second ignores the question of which wants it is moral to satisfy. That is a question of an entirely different nature. I have heard economists say that, as economists, they do no deal with questions of morality. Quite right. But nobody is just an economist. Economists are also fathers and mothers, husbands or wives, voters citizens, members of communities. In these latter roles, they cannot avoid questions of morality. "

This is an impressive article that's got me thinking.

The claim is that they benefit ex ante, and they ALWAYS DO. Otherwise they wouldn't have engaged in the trade. Whether after the fact, they realised the didn't need it, or shouldn't have bought it etc. that is irrelevant.

No-one makes the claim that people are only economists, qua economists. Go read some Rothbard, this article was comical.

Furthermore, libertarianism deals with what you have a RIGHT to do, not what you should, or should not do. You have a RIGHT to drink that entire bottle of vodka, whether you should or not... that's completely irrelevant to libertarianism which is a political philosophy.

The Magic Hoof
12-15-2011, 06:03 AM
I can understand his point on some things, and I've got mixed feelings on others. For example, it's kind of like he's saying all Libertarians are gonna be like, 'Hey brah I was just at the convenience store and there's not enough heroin and crack cocaine sitting next to the cigarette racks, this is BULLSHIT!'. I don't believe that (the great majority of) Libertarians are going to actively try and use their time to PUT stuff on the market just because they want it available. In fact, I bet most Libertarians would rather these things not be out in public so much.

So I think the Libertarians' point is more about having the freedom to make a mistake and less about promoting the mistakes.

Pericles
12-15-2011, 03:56 PM
The point about moral decisions, is who should make those decisions. Having the majority vote on public morality is no answer. Bork needs to think about how that public morality gets defined - that is the byproduct of liberty - the individual should choose his own morality, limited by having no right to cause harm to others based on his choices.

Agorism
12-15-2011, 04:00 PM
Maybe this belongs in Political philosophy section..

Austrian Econ Disciple
12-15-2011, 05:02 PM
Just another academic with no idea of what libertarianism is. I think Conza said enough. Libertarianism is a political philosophy, not an individual moral compass. It says not whether you should one action over another, merely that individuals are free to pursue they own wants, desires, and needs insofar as those actions do not impede on the equal liberties of other individuals. Just because I advocate liberty to use your body in your own personal wants, doesn't mean I endorse every single action an individual takes. This article is so stupid, and so is the academic. It gets annoying to have to explain to people the difference between political philosophy and personal philosophy.

low preference guy
12-15-2011, 08:25 PM
Bork sucks. I'm glad he didn't make it to the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas is so much better than Bork would have been.

Acala
12-16-2011, 09:15 AM
The point about moral decisions, is who should make those decisions. Having the majority vote on public morality is no answer. Bork needs to think about how that public morality gets defined - that is the byproduct of liberty - the individual should choose his own morality, limited by having no right to cause harm to others based on his choices.

Yup. This is just the same old argument about people being untrustworthy to manage their own affairs because they might not choose the values of the critic, Bork in this case.

Acala
12-16-2011, 09:16 AM
Bork sucks. I'm glad he didn't make it to the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas is so much better than Bork would have been.

Yup. Bork is just an apologist for statism. Thomas is the closest we have to a strict Constitutionalist on the SCOTUS.