The bloggertarian question
Paulie asked a question so here is my attempt at an answer.
At the bottom of it all, I’d ask the same question to you as I’d ask generic bloggertarians: Do you think that the demands for ID cards in particular, and ‘statism’ in general are the product of the totalitarian instincts of ‘socialist’ politicians, or the dynamic between representative democracy (regardless of the political colouring at any given moment) and budget-maximising bureaucrats?
So two competing theories to explain the way that we got into the state we are in.
a. The theory of historical development.
The changes to the state are driven by a dialectic between empire building bureaucrats and the poor tax payers that have to pay for them.
b. The bloggertarian approach.
Its all the politicians fault, hang them all.
My answer is, a bit of both but maybe more the latter than the former but niether exclusively. Its just that I don't see choosing one or the other is particularly useful. If I had to choose one or the other I would go for the latter. I guess this makes me ahistorical.
Here is why I don't think a theory of historical development is needed to choose a waypoint to aim at.
a. If Statism comes primarily from empire building bureaucrats then the best way to curb it would be to get rid of as many bureaucrats as possible. The only way to do this is reducing the need for bureaucrats by reducing the number of functions that they carry out by handing these back to competing non-state bodies and individuals.
b. If Statism comes primarily from the Statist instincts of certain groups of politicians once they gain power, then the best way to curb it is by removing the levers of power that they can use to put their instincts into practice from their grasp. By handing these functions back to competing non-state bodies and individuals, so they cannot be turned to authoritarian purposes.
Not having a big robust theory I prefer to try and argue with evidence rather than theory where possible, so here is a bit of data.
This is a simple graph to give some indicative trends so as to find whether the historical theory or the bloggertarian approach fits better. It was created by using the data from British Historical Statistics by B. R, Mitchell (ISBN 0 521 33008 4): table Public Finance 3. Gross Public Income - United Kingdom 1801-1980 for the total government income and table National Accounts 5. Gross National Product and National Income by Category of Expenditure at Current Prices - United Kingdom 1830 -1980 to get the Gross Domestic Product at Market Prices. Have a look at some of the features on the graph.
a. If the theory of historical development that Paulie outlined was correct then you would expect to see a slow but steady increase in the state's appetite for tax payers money as the bureaucratic empires grew, punctuated by the two world wars as spikes and a few tax payer revolts as troughs. There is a small problem here, that trend does not exist. In the early period of the graph there is a steady reduction in the size of the government compared to the rest of the economy. The graph is flat or falling more often than when it goes upwards however when it goes up it goes up fast.
b. As for his anti-thesis, the supposed Bloggertarian explanation that Socialist politicians have a lot to do with it, that would indicate that when a set of Socialist politicians gained a measure of power then there would be a spike. This phenomena can be seen several times. The post World War 1 strike period, the way the Atlee years form a high plateau which falls away once they loose power, and most obviously with the first election of Harold Wilson.
I don't have to statistical tools to prove anything, but Paulie's theory of historical development actually seems to fit the available data less well than its Bloggertarian anti-thesis. Not that that is a perfect fit either.
So there you go. The outlined theories of historical development is not needed to decide political waypoint for steering towards a more liberal society. Trying to get a much smaller state forms a good waypoint whether you have one or not. Nor does the proposed system of historical development seem to actually fit the past data very well, which throws doubt on it having much power for predicting a correct course in future. Not that I have data which is good enough to prove anything either way making fence sitting still the best course of (in-)action.
Public Choice Theory and other aspects of economics are certainly useful, but so is understanding the importance of individuals and their ideologies. I do not think that any of these chaotic systems are understood well enough to form a theory of general historical development with much predictive power beyond some, potentially useful, rules of thumb. We certainly don't have enough data to actually run the model even if we had one. So I think that I shall remain ahistorical for the time being. Pointing to all the bad stuff the state does and the large amount of evidence that monopolies don't do things very well, but competition makes things evolve to be better, will have to do for the time being.
posted by chris at 12/06/2007 11:48:00 pm
16 Comments:
To avoid duplication – this comment here is largely an answer to Longrider’s lengthy post here which I suspect you’d largely concur?
http://www.longrider.co.uk/blog/2007/12/07/more-on-the-bloggertarians/
Your post here is based almost entirely on a misunderstanding of the arguments that I’ve put to you. Why is it that you lot always to come up with a bogeyman and victims as an explanation for everything?
My explanation didn’t involve ‘empire building bureaucrats’ and ‘poor taxpayers’. There are plenty of explanations of why bureaucrats tend to be ‘budget maximising’ that don’t include ‘empire building’.
And ‘poor tax payers?’ We live at a point in history where ALL of our ancestors would be insanely jealous of the levels of security peace and prosperity that we enjoy. And not only is this an enviable point in history, we live in a geographical space that is envied by the majority of the world’s population for the same reasons. I’m not a poor tax payer. I’m a bloody lucky tax-payer.
I have argued that – as the franchise expanded, and the demands that the state placed upon individuals increased the expectations individuals had of the state (wars, mass production, growing political de-alignment) that ‘the state’ increased in size to meet those demands. That’s Weber. That’s the Public Choice Theory cannon.
It’s the voters (including those who voted Tory) that wanted the welfare state. Your graph proves almost nothing. In the 1950s as the demands for improved initial investment in welfare and large-scale post-war reconstruction fell away, so did public spending. This was a period characterised by Butskellism – a consensus on the size and role of the state across the two main political parties.
The rise upon Wilson’s election was largely based upon the need to deal with a criminally high (and undisclosed) balance of payments deficit that was left by the previous Tory government. The reason that the tax take fell in the pre-Wilson early 1960s was because (and historians are not really divided much on this one) of massive economic irresponsibility by the outgoing Tory government. Wilson spent his first 48 hours in government quietly pleading with the US for fiscal leniency to avoid a run on Sterling . During those 48 hours, any socialist expansions that he DID have planned were quietly torn up. At the time, Labour's outlook was broadly Crosslandite - social expansion funded by growth, not a massive increase in taxation.
And surely you could have found a graph that goes beyond 1980? Wasn’t that when we had a government that was very enthusiastic about your formula of ‘handing functions to competing non-state bodies and individuals’? Surely, being the first government since 1906 that was ideologically committed to reducing the role of the state, we would seen a plummeting line between 1979 and 1997? In reality, taxation as a % of GDP hasn’t changed massively, and the old adage that ‘it doesn’t matter who you vote for, the government always gets in’ seems as pertinent now as it ever was.
The Tories are going to great lengths at the moment to reassure voters that they won’t be cutting tax and spending by any great bites. That is because politicians have a rational understanding of what people want – not your idealised one. I suspect that they may even have a 1992 moment if they lose the next election in which they will actually promise not to cut taxes or public spending at all for a fixed period (in the same way as Labour learned that they wouldn’t win an election unless they promised not to raise taxes and to stick to Tory spending limits).
And if you can find one substantial political grouping that has any chance of winning an election that would be prepared to bet the farm on the idea that ‘non-state bodies and individuals’ can take over much of the role of the state in a large-scale way – delivering the demands of the voters while cutting the tax-cost to the same voters – then I’ll stop calling your arguments ‘ahistorical’. It’s a nice idea in theory, but no-one has come up with an effective way of delivering the level of security that VOTERS – not totalitarian-minded politicians or greedy bureaucrats – demand.
Personally, I’ve spend years arguing that large parts of the public sector’s role can be taken on by co-operatives. Greenwich Leisure Ltd is a good positive example of how that could work. It’s an idea that is very welcome in the New Labour breast, but one that they’ve not been able to develop on any scale.
Here are the cornerstones of Longrider’s arguments:
“Frankly, the less politicians do, the better. The stupidity of the masses is not a reasonable excuse for illiberal law-making.”
… and…
“What motivates politicians is power. It’s the same motivation that drives the senior civil servants who drip the authoritarian control-freak poison in their ears.”
… and…
“Like a junkie trapped in a downward spiral of addiction, the electorate is tied hopelessly into a cycle of highly illiberal law-making to justify the politicians’ existence and those politicians will continue to look for the main chance to keep themselves elected. The solution? Cold turkey. It would take a brave politician to do it though, but slashing the government to the bare minimum and for the electorate to manage their own lives would be a start.”
Not only is this ahistorical nonsense, it’s profoundly misanthropic and anti-democratic.
You bloggeratians think that you’re the only ones who worry about ‘liberties’ don’t you? You think that you’re the only ones that don’t want the state monitoring your activities and spending tax revenues unwisely? And you think that anyone that doesn’t share your nihilistic creed doesn’t give a toss about the great mass of civil liberties?
It’s just cowardly vanity.
Have you thought about applying for an agricultural subsidy for that strawman of yours?
I made an error of judgement. I took you seriously for a moment there. I won't be doing that again.
Oh, and this bit:
"Public Choice Theory and other aspects of economics are certainly useful, but so is understanding the importance of individuals and their ideologies. I do not think that any of these chaotic systems are understood well enough to form a theory of general historical development with much predictive power beyond some, potentially useful, rules of thumb. We certainly don't have enough data to actually run the model even if we had one. So I think that I shall remain ahistorical for the time being."
I must admit, this is an emerging theme that I'd never really associated with Bloggertarians before, but it's come up a few times in the last couple of days.
When you're challenged, you all seem to retreat into relativism don't you? We can't understand anything perfectly so all explanations are equally valid...
I'll answer this directly:
"Do you think that the demands for ID cards in particular, and ‘statism’ in general are the product of the totalitarian instincts of ‘socialist’ politicians, or the dynamic between representative democracy (regardless of the political colouring at any given moment) and budget-maximising bureaucrats?
It's actually two questions.
1) ID Cards
2) General statism
General statism does not require socialist politicians to have totalitarian instincts. Totalitarian is a boo word: it is an obvious nastiness akin to "racist" or "nazi". The problem is not totalitarian instincts: it is the ostensibly good motives of socialist politicians - they will always profess that they are good in the way that they always assume poor motive on the part of right wingers/small statists - blind them to the fact that their nice, fluffy, benevolently motivated policies end up being totalitarian in nature. It is not the intent, but it IS the inevitable outcome. That's not the same thing, but it's MUCH more dangerous - there's almost no limit to the evil man can do if he genuinely thinks himself to be good.
That said, this cannot be said for ID cards. ID cards are explicitly totalitarian in nature and any politician who thinks his motives are good is lying. Full Stop. No remission for good conduct.
Finally, we must pull up Paulie for this extraordinary outburst:
"Not only is this ahistorical nonsense, it’s profoundly misanthropic and anti-democratic. "
????????
Thinking that the state is hugely and crassly inefficient is ahistorical? huh?
That people might be able to spend their own money on themselves rather better is misanthropic? Thinking that humans aspire to liberty and that in fact they CAN manage their own lives is misanthropic?
That Paulie's opposing view - that people in fact CAN'T manage their own lives - is NOT misanthropic?
huh????
And finally, the appeal to democracy. Ah yes. What Paulie forgets is that democracy is indeed the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried from time to time. Democracy is very far from perfect, because democracy IS NOT THE GOAL. LIBERTY is the goal. Democracy delivers liberty better than all the other forms of government that have been tried from time to time, but it stops being better than anything else at precisely the point that democracy becomes seen as the end point.
Paulie's "Anti-democratic" jibe shows precisely this form of neurosis.
"...the fact that their nice, fluffy, benevolently motivated policies end up being totalitarian in nature."
As a pedant, you will note that the UK - as it currently stands - can't technically be described as 'totalitarian'.
The 'ahistorical' refers to arguments that are not based upon a credible understanding of the modern state and how it came into being. I think that the post under which we are commenting illustrates this fairly well, don't you?
Do you not find the line that "..the stupidity of the masses is not a reasonable excuse for illiberal law-making” to be a tad misanthropic.
By the way, I've wouldn't argue (and haven't) that the state *should* decide how to spend people's money for them. There are 'standard public goods' and 'merit goods' where there is a very strong argument that a collective decision has a more satisfactory outcome for the vast majority than a system that allows everyone to opt in or out. Most libertarians that I've read are prepared to accept that there should be *some* provision for merit goods and standard public goods, which is why - when I hear the absolute that tax=theft, I can be fairly certain that the person saying it can have their own inconsistency exposed in seconds.
No. My argument isn't that the state *should* decide how to spend people's money for them. It is that the voters should pick their representatives and the representatives should make those decisions - and face the electorate with the consequences.
I'm not arguing that representative democracy is perfect either - you will find that the main theme of my blog is how representative democracy could be improved.
But we are at a fundamental disagreement. I find your argument that "democracy IS NOT THE GOAL. LIBERTY is the goal" very hard to understand.
Would you care to explain how - in the dialectic between liberty an democracy that has characterised every post-war European state - it could be argued that it would be a good outcome if liberty had totally triumphed over democracy?
Norberto Bobbio has written a very good book on this - here:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=koyUXKVzte0C&dq=bobbio+liberalism+democracy&pg=PP1&ots=XyOZK9tMUK&sig=q2061M0_3dyeF2x4dPz5JBbsMdc&prev=http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=bobbio+liberalism+democracy&btnG=Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPT1,M1
I'm with Bobbio, by the way.
Two things, very quickly.
1) "Would you care to explain how - in the dialectic between liberty an democracy that has characterised every post-war European state - it could be argued that it would be a good outcome if liberty had totally triumphed over democracy?"
No, I wouldn't. But I would like you to explain in what circumstances it WOULDN'T be a good outcome if liberty - like actually liberty and not liberty will all sorts of caveats and/or get outs that mean it isn't actually liberty - did triumph over democracy.
2) "Do you not find the line that "..the stupidity of the masses is not a reasonable excuse for illiberal law-making” to be a tad misanthropic."
No I don't find it misanthropic. You only think it's misanthropic because you have got entirely the wrong end of the stick. Longrider doesn't think that the masses are stupid. That's why he doesn't think it's a reasonable excuse for illiberal law-making.
That's also why Longrider's a bit cross with you.
OK. Your second point first.
When he says that "..the stupidity of the masses is not a reasonable excuse for illiberal law-making” he doesn't actually mean that the masses are stupid?
You may see why I've got the wrong end of the stick. And he's a bit fragile for someone who goes around calling other people twats at the slightest provocation, isn't he?
On your first question: An example of where denying a liberty results in a good outcome?
OK. I think that you should be denied the liberty of keeping all of the money that you earn, and instead have to pay tax so that everyone can have a publicly funded health service. If you were allowed to keep your 'liberty' it would be a bad outcome.
(Was that a trick question?)
Paulie,
Ummm.. yes: he doesn't mean that the masses are stupid.
That's why that line is immediately preceded by:
"Well, yes, I knew that, too. It doesn’t negate the “don’t do that”, though; if “don’t do that” is, indeed, the appropriate response to the “solution” being proffered. Frankly, the less politicians do, the better. "
It is the apparent assumption on the part of politicians that the masses are stupid that he is objecting to.
Now, if your objection is that Longrider's somewhat dim view of politicians is misanthropic, then you'd have a point, but it wouldn't be a tremendously interesting one.
"If you were allowed to keep your 'liberty' it would be a bad outcome."
Two things:
1) you seem frightfully keen to express this in terms of my liberty. It is always notable how leftists are so keen to sacrifice *other people's* liberties.
2) "It would be a bad outcome" implies that a state/tax-funded healthcare system is the best possible outcome. Anything other than a publicly funded healthcare system would be a worse outcome? Really? The NHS is all for the best in the best of all possible worlds?
PGiO:
I answered your question. Others can judge both sides of this argument.
I think that publicly funded healthcare is better than privately funded healthcare for most people and it's a good use of taxes.
That you object to tax for this illustrates the gulf between us and the differing understanding of the value of democracy and the issue of liberty in general.
Whether the NHS is the perfect expression of this is another matter.
"Whether the NHS is the perfect expression of this is another matter. "
Not in the context of "the dialectic between liberty and democracy that has characterised every post-war European state", it isn't.
We're deep into the waters of sophistry now PGoI, but if I concede that the NHS isn't the best health service in Europe, are you conceding that public healthcare funded out of general taxation is not an infringement of your liberties?
And if so, where will it all end? Have you turned bolshy on us?
;-)
"I think that publicly funded healthcare is better than privately funded healthcare for most people and it's a good use of taxes."
And I don't. You have set the bar MASSIVELY too low in this: my contention is that in order to restrict liberties, you need to have a rock solid case. Health comes nowhere close to that. This is indeed a microcosm of the history of post-war Europe; the triumph of democracy over liberty - how often do you hear a politician of any stripe declaring plainly that that liberty is the goal, democracy merely the means? How often - if ever - have you heard any politician declaring that we must constantly be on the lookout for areas where democracy encroaches on liberty?
You need to show that no health system other than a tax-funded one can work really at all - which is patently obvious nonsense.
In a way, this was a trick question: had you used an impartial court system as your example, you would have had a case. It speaks volumes that you didn't.
It speaks volumes that you made your case in terms of the restriction of MY liberties, not your own. THAT's the gulf in understanding Paulie.
Not many budget-maximising bureaucrats in that explanation of yours are there? Plenty of newly empowered politicians implementing socialist policy though.
surely you could have found a graph that goes beyond 1980?
Yes, but it would have not gone back to 1830. Very very few would have gone back back into the 19th century at all, most would not have gone beyond 1945. I thought that contrasting the 20th century with the very different 19th century is important, so I picked a data source where I lost 25 years on one end to gain 70 on the other.
GPiO,
"This is indeed a microcosm of the history of post-war Europe; the triumph of democracy over liberty - how often do you hear a politician of any stripe declaring plainly that that liberty is the goal, democracy merely the means? How often - if ever - have you heard any politician declaring that we must constantly be on the lookout for areas where democracy encroaches on liberty?"
I hope to never hear it - and we won't as long as we remain a democracy. Were any politician to adopt the position that you are asking them to, they wouldn't survive for five minutes.
Why should liberty be the goal and democracy the means?
Chris, my point is that the increase in what you call 'statism' is a result of an increase in the quality of liberal democracy. It is not primarily attributable to individual politicians, greedy bureaucrats or even the different political stripes of government that we have had since 1945.
If you would prefer us to return to a pre-democratic age in order to safeguard your 'liberties', why not say so?
"Why should liberty be the goal and democracy the means?"
Ummm... Is that a trick question?
Blah ... blah ... speaks volumes ... blah blah.
Post a Comment
<< Home