Potpourri
==> How do you choose among your children? This is in the top 5 of my all-time favorite Contra Krugman episodes.
==> The latest Lara-Murphy Show discusses “Lessons from History” (chapter 6 of our new book with Nelson Nash).
==> REMEMBER CHICAGO PEOPLE: Carlos, David Stearns, and I will be presenting on Austrian economics and IBC this Saturday. Details here.
==> This was recorded a while ago, but in this podcast Carlos and I are guests, talking about Austrian economics and the economy.
==> At IER I talk about gas prices in Vancouver, and how Trudeau says things are unfolding exactly as the Emperor has foreseen.
==> I realize that sometimes Rothbardians react too harshly against the “DC libertarians,” but this recent Michael Cannon piece contained the following line that shocked me (HT2 Michael Accad):
As hostile as libertarians are to government, even we believe government can legitimately order the withdrawal of life support, and prohibit parents from moving a child to obtain further treatment, when that treatment would fruitlessly prolong a child’s suffering – i.e., when further treatment would be akin to torture. In such cases, the government intervenes to protect the child’s rights. (British law frames the decision in terms of the “best interests” of the child, but it seems to me that language clouds the issue and thereby unnecessarily inflames passions.)
There is no objectively right place to draw the line between cases in which the government should and should not intervene. But I don’t know anyone who thinks it never should. If anyone does make that argument, they’re just wrong.
(The italics is in the original; I added the bold.) So as an aside, in the next sentences Cannon admits: “There is plenty of room to argue about whether British law and courts drew the line in the right place here. It did not appear Alfie was suffering, but doctors could not completely rule it out.” So that’s a bit ominous in itself, that apparently the burden of proof is on parents to prove beyond all possible doubt that their child isn’t suffering, before the government might forfeit its ability to make them stop offering medical care.
Yet I want to go back to the part that I put in bold. Cannon is working for an institution that teaches the world about libertarianism, and he is saying he literally doesn’t know a single libertarian who thinks the government should never forcibly prevent parents from giving more medical care to their baby? I would be shocked if there weren’t a dozen interns at Cato who believe that. Has Accad never heard of David Friedman? I don’t even need to talk about all the Rothbardians running around.
I realize it might seem like I’m going nuts over a little thing, but this was the whole POINT of his post. It’s not like he was talking about his plan to use tax credits to unwind ObamaCare by Fiscal Year 2034, and he made an offhand remark about libertarian rights theory.
Good point.
On libertarians. There is a problem that most people see there is a line where intervention is not just acceptable but required. Parents are not allowed to torture or starve their children and if they do so then I think nearly everyone thinks intervention is OK. Once you have the line, the only discussion is where to put it. Haggling over the price, one could say. If one is going to stick to a purist approach that intervention is never justified as your piece suggests then you lose support from nearly everyone. I can see that the principled position is that intervention is never justified, but if that principle allows starving children to death perhaps the principle is at fault and no amount of shunning the perpetrator can put that right.
On fuel prices
” The supposedly principled justification for carbon taxes on gasoline is to make it so artificially expensive to drive that people turn to other options such as walking.”
That is not really correct. The objective is to restore the correct price which is artificially low due to external costs. This will prevent the overconsumption of fuel and underconsumption of other options.
” Parents are not allowed to torture or starve their children and if they do so then I think nearly everyone thinks intervention is OK. Once you have the line, the only discussion is where to put it.”
No, because you have already started from the conclusion that the government specifically is responsible for stopping child abuse, and perhaps even that they are solely responsible.
My phrasing is unclear. If I say most people believe that parents should not be allowed to starve their children to death, and most people believe intervention is OK in this case, I think that removes the problem.
Rothbard did talk about how issues like these could be handled in a Rothbardian society. Part of it involved children not having a magic age at which they become adults, but instead granting their rights rationally based on their ability to handle said rights. The other part gave independent parties the right to intervene if they could prove in a court that their intervention was more justified by the NAP than not pursuing intervention. In other words, if you took a child away from an abusive parent and that parent took you to arbitration, you would need to prove that taking that child was justified to the arbiter.
I no longer consider myself a Rothbardian, but (back when I was) this was always the hardest point to get past when trying to explain it. You can’t really ask “Where’s the line?” because, in a Rothbardian society, there wouldn’t be any formalized rules captured in one central location. It would be up to independent arbiters to decide what is just and what is unjust. And it would be up to the parties to arbitration to decide what they would do in response to an arbitration decision. There is never an ultimate and final decision because there is no supreme court in the general sense of that term. You have to remember that Rothbardianism really is anarchy in the full sense of the word.
Harold wrote: “Parents are not allowed to torture or starve their children and if they do so then I think nearly everyone thinks intervention is OK. Once you have the line, the only discussion is where to put it.”
Right, but for self-described anarchists (like David Friedman and, I’m guessing, plenty of Cato interns), they don’t think the government (as the term is casually used) should even exist. That’s my very modest point here.
I agree that the phrase “But I don’t know anyone who thinks it never should” is very surprising in this context as there clearly are people who believe exactly that.
The same British medical establishment claiming charges of “torture” against the parents for seeking any alternative treatment, was also claiming the child was completely “brain dead” therefore they might as well turn off the life support. It’s almost like they change the rules as they play the game.
After they removed the life support, the baby continued living and breathing but doctors refused food, water and oxygen for 6 hours. Eventually the doctors relented and at least offered water and oxygen. Then it went back to court and they once more refused to allow the baby to leave. Go figure that one.
” I can see that the principled position is that intervention is never justified, but if that principle allows starving children to death perhaps the principle is at fault and no amount of shunning the perpetrator can put that right.”
As America’s founders noted, governments cannot be trusted, and the tens of millions of deaths in the name of “the people’s best interests” (socialism, of various kinds), bears this out.
*That* is why governments may not intervene. To prevent a much worse evil than occasional and possible incessant infant pain – which would be the logically necessary slaughter, starvation, and intentional torture of a people – the correct political policy is to err on the side of liberty.
America’s founders weren’t too stupid to understand that liberty allows occasional evils to happen. The acknowledged it, and weighed that against the historical evils of goverments.
(By the way, this answers the “National Security” response to the free-market objections to tariffs.)
It is probably folly to believe that one principle will result in optimum outcomes in every situation. As you say, we trade off the imperfections to try to arrive at the greatest good.
However, this is a Utilitarian or consequentialist argument, which I understood to be very much the opposite of what is claimed for Rothbardianism.
If we agree that consequentialism is the way to go, then fair enough. We can argue about the outcomes and which system has the best. I have had many discussions here with MF where he categorically claims that the basis of his libertarianism is not consequentialist, but built from the bottom up. My readings of Rothbard seem t support his take in this, although I am not an expert.
The dilemma for libertarians seems to be accept the consequentialist argument and to an extent undermine the basis for the philosophy, or to accept that the bottom up first principles approach has fundamental and unavoidable outcomes that nearly everyone disagrees with, and hence lose support.
The other issue with the bottom up first principles approach is that there is no reasonable path to achieve it in the real world. Any time an issue of governance is raised, the Rothbardian’s knee-jerk reaction is that the government should have no involvement in said issue. I believe that Rothbardians have good arguments to make here, but almost all of these issues will require some sort of incremental approach to improve the situation. The Rothbardian vision is so divorced from present reality that, in general, it is safe to ignore the prescriptions of Rothbardians.
Meanwhile, the Progressives have made incredible gains by taking the opposite approach. “No, no, no, we don’t want to completely reorder society. We merely want to make this one reasonable change that will help us get through difficult times like these.” It is undeniable that Progressive elites have a long-term vision for where they want society to go, but they do a very good job of keeping that behind the curtain while debating the merits of a specific policy. This incremental approach is more effective than the cards-on-the-table-this-is-how-I-want-to-reorder-society-who’s-with-me approach.
I see your point, and I would agree that a Rothbardian philosophy that required a consequentialist argument would undermine the basis for the philosophy.
Let me then add that it helps to note that it’s easy for those who support government interventions to “support” them when they don’t have to bear the full costs of their implementation, and that the correct, bottom up libertarian position is correct whether or not it has support.
Two or more groups are claiming authority over a child, and just because one of them calls themselves “government” doesn’t tip the scales in their favor – we could all call ourselves “government”, but then what?
(If the government were making a religious claim, then that would at least be an appeal to a higher authority. A difficult appeal, but it’s the correct *direction* for the appeal.)
” and that the correct, bottom up libertarian position is correct whether or not it has support.”
I agree that whether it not it has support does not dictate whether it is right or not.
“If the government were making a religious claim, then that would at least be an appeal to a higher authority. A difficult appeal, but it’s the correct *direction* for the appeal.”
I couldn’t agree less.
Another point that is very important. “Conservatives are railing against dual decisions by the British government to prevent Alfie Evans’ parents from transporting him to Italy for further treatment,”
It was NOT the Government that made this decision it was the courts. Government does have a specific meaning.
Harold wrote: “It was NOT the Government that made this decision it was the courts. Government does have a specific meaning.”
Harold this video is for you.
This raises an interesting point as UK is not run the same as the USA.
From Wikipedia
“The Government of the United Kingdom, formally referred to as Her Majesty’s Government, is the central government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is also commonly referred to as simply the UK Government or the British Government[3][4]
The government is led by the Prime Minister, who selects all the remaining ministers. The prime minister and the other most senior ministers belong to the supreme decision-making committee, known as the Cabinet.[4] The government ministers all sit in Parliament, and are accountable to it. The government is dependent on Parliament to make primary legislation,[5]”
In a UK context “the Government” is the PM and ministers. The Queen is head of state but not head of the Government The courts and Parliament are not considered parts of the Government.
Over here, mention of The Government specifically and only refers to this aspect.
I suspect that the terms are different in the USA, and to refer to court decisions as made by “the Government” might sound reasonable- is this right? Because over here, to refer to court decisions as Government decisions sounds very wrong.
We often assume USA and UK English are the same, but there are many opportunities for misunderstandings.
In the USA, the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches are all considered part of the federal government. Each of the states, as far as I am aware, follow a similar pattern. The government operated agencies that are often run by unelected government employees are also generally considered part of the government.
I guess if a court in the UK made a bad decision, you would say, “The court’s decision goes against the intention of the government,” whereas we in the US would say, “The court’s decision goes against the intention of congress.”
I think there is certainly room for debate about what Government is, but in this case I think it is linguistic rather than philosophical. The terms are used differently either side of the Atlantic, which gives rise to these misunderstandings. This one is interesting, because although it should have been obvious I have not noticed it before. In your example I think we would say “The court’s decision goes against the intention of Parliament” rather than the Government, as it is Parliament that passes the laws. The Government is the ministers usually selected from MP’s of the largest party in Parliament. The Government’s will can be thwarted by Parliament.
Wikipedia says “In the case of its broad associative definition, government normally consists of legislature, executive, and judiciary. ”
Using this definition the courts certainly are part of Government and this is a reasonable interpretation.
In the UK we refer to the executive branch as “the Government” and in a UK context it is not reasonable to say the Government made the decision. We have many discussions about keeping the Government out of such decisions. I imagine that sentence would make little sense over the pond.
Harold wrote: The terms are used differently either side of the Atlantic, which gives rise to these misunderstandings.
Right, and since it was an American libertarian writing the sentence in question, we obviously should interpret it the way he uses those words. Suppose Cannon had said, “The French government pays for health care.” Would you have objected, “Words have meaning! It’s not GOVERNMENT it’s L’etat!”
“we obviously should interpret it the way he uses those words.”
Yes, I am fine with that. The phrase just sounded very off to my ears, but is reasonable when the context is examined.
There’s about half a million people working for the UK Civil Service and every day they are making a bunch of rules and regulations that directly effect the lives of the British people. There’s also a number of different layers of police service on to of that, and the postal service, and because of their NHS we have nearly every doctor, nurse, specialist all working directly for government.
There’s probably more than that once you consider the various social workers, most of the teachers work for government, and a good fraction of the scientific establishment like the UK Met Office (the people who believe that snow is invisible to children for some unknown reason). We haven’t even gone into the EU and all the layers of bureaucrats over there, but hopefully after Brexit those won’t matter as much.
How did the courts establish the necessary medical information to make this decision?
I don’t know the details in this case, but usually they get the doctors treating the child and then the parents can bring in their own medical experts. Often the Judge will visit the hospital. In this case the Judge ordered new brain scans before deciding. The judgement was upheld at the court of appeal and was not heard by the supreme court or the European Court of Justice as they could nit find any violation if human rights.
In looking up the details I came across the Red State article that the Cato one links to has the following.
“What is not logical and nearly incomprehensible is the decision of the court not simply to deny Alfie further treatment, but then deny his right and the right of his parents to leave the country to seek treatment elsewhere. ”
It is incomprehensible to the author because they have misunderstood everything. The court made its decision based on what it understood to be the best interests of Alfie, not as a money saving exercise. Viewed in this light it is obvious that if it is not in Alfies interest to be treated in the UK it is almost inevitable that it will not be in his interests to be treated in Italy.
However, the author is so convinced of their interpretation – even though they admit it makes no sense at all and there is a perfectly reasonable alternative interpretation – that they are prepared to conclude:
“Because what this is… this is nothing short of real, actual, genuine evil.”
So the critical medical information came from government employees… which I think would make this decision into something government is responsible for. At least, there’s no one outside of government who could be considered a decision maker in this case.
We can never know what caused them to make this decision. Based on simple economic scarcity, some rationing is always necessary (under all possible systems) but for political reasons explicitly talking about rationing is going to raise protests so the easiest response is simply don’t talk about it.
Their claim of “best interests of Alfie” amounts to a statement that Alfie is better off dead, and you would wonder if that is an official medical diagnosis? Which medical discipline gives the necessary insight to identify those people better off dead? This does not sound like an empirical measurement to me. I can understand if government medical employees find it better for themselves to be rid of this difficult case, they are certainly entitled to their opinion on that score, but we are talking about an empirical scientific discipline that measures a person and discovers what is better for that person. Can you explain how this works?
Davis describes a series of decisions that make no sense given her interpretation of the reasons for them, which she acknowledges. The same decisions make perfect sense given the reasons stated by the decision makers.
“This does not sound like an empirical measurement to me.” Nobody claimed it was an empirical measurement. Everyone acknowledges that is a heartbreakingly difficult assessment.
“I can understand if government medical employees find it better for themselves to be rid of this difficult case, ”
If that were the case then sending Alfie to Italy would have been a simple solution to get rid of the difficult case for themselves.
“but we are talking about an empirical scientific discipline that measures a person and discovers what is better for that person. Can you explain how this works?”
Nobody has said this a measurement. You are just making that up.
” amounts to a statement that Alfie is better off dead,” That is not the case at all. Alfie would be better off fit and well, and I am pretty sure all medical practitioners would agree. However that is not an option. The question at hand is would ALfie be better off with or without certain treatments and interventions.