For the Purposes of the Current Debate, I Don’t Think Hayek Supported a “Basic Income Guarantee”
This is an old Matt Zwolinski post from 2013, but they have resurrected it on social media (presumably because of its relevance to the ongoing policy debate). (Zwolinski in turn linked to his case for a BIG a few weeks before.) But I think it’s fundamentally wrong.
The post is titled, “Why Did Hayek Support a Basic Income?” And yes, there’s this quote: “a certain minimum income for everyone…a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself.”
But if you look at the book, here’s the context of Hayek’s quote:
So you see, Hayek says in several places that he has in mind people who are unable to support themselves getting enough help from the government in order not to starve to death.
We already have this in the United States. The people pushing a BIG want to overturn the system that Hayek is supporting above. They want EVERYBODY, including Bill Gates, to get a (gross) check from the government. It is not need-based. That is one of the points in its favor, according to proponents of BIG.
Anyway, Zwolinski linked to a fantastic Jim Manzi piece critiquing both a negative income tax but also a BIG (implicitly).
Bob, you say “We already have this in the United States.” But we certainly don’t have what Hayek was talking about, an “assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone”. There is no nonzero income such that every single American has an income greater than or equal to that number.
I think if Hayek were alive today, there would be some nonzero number X such that Hayek would be in favor of a law saying “Anyone whose income is below $X should be given sufficient money so that their income is at least $X.”
“I think if Hayek were alive today, there would be some nonzero number X such that Hayek would be in favor of a law saying “Anyone whose income is below $X should be given sufficient money so that their income is at least $X.”
Why do you think he qualified his statement for people unable to support themselves, and never said anything anywhere about giving money to everyone who makes below a certain threshold? Do you have any evidence to support your theory?
Well, I think “assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone” is pretty clear.
Yeah, if you leave out all the context of people who are physically incapable of working, I guess I could see where you would think he’d be cool with the government giving some 30 year old man in perfect physical condition a check from the government if he doesn’t feel like working or only wants to work hobby jobs that pay next to nothing. Yep, sounds like Hayek.
Keshav wrote: “Well, I think “assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone” is pretty clear.”
Right, and the rest of that exact sentence is pretty clear too: “when he is unable to provide for himself.”
Hayek motivates the discussion by talking about “…support they can count on in the case of misfortune.”
You’re saying that one example of this misfortune is “work sucks,” to quote Scott Alexander?
Bob, I think the “even if” clause is just describing a circumstance under which a person wouldn’t have a sufficient income in absence of government help. I don’t think Hayek is saying that’s the only possible circumstance in which the government should help. I think he is saying that society should make sure that everyone has a certain minimum income, a floor below which their income will never fall.
He’s not saying “It’s okay to have a society where some members have zero income as long as it’s due to poor personal choices.”
So you think Hayek would support the government giving money to someone who just doesn’t want to work?
@Keshav
Is there are reason why you switched from “government” to “society”?
It’s very easy to make “society should” statements, but they have zero to do with “government should” statements.
Care to clarify?
Trent, no particular reason. Hayek was talking about what the government should do.
Bob, I read subsequent pages in the book you linked to, and Hayek says that he has discussed this minimum income scheme, which he calls “Social Security”, in more detail elsewhere, and he footnotes that with a reference to chapter 19 of his “Constitution of Liberty”. I checked chapter 19, and it is indeed titled “Social Security”. Here is what is says:
“It is probably inevitable that this relief should not long be confined to those who themselves have not been able to provide against such needs (the “deserving poor,” as they used to be called) and that the amount of relief now given in a comparatively wealthy society should be more than is absolutely necessary to keep alive and in health. We must also expect that the availability of this assistance will induce some to neglect such provision against emergencies as they would have been able to make on their own. It seems only logical, then, that those who will have a claim to assistance in circumstances for which they could have made provision should be required to make such provision themselves. Once it becomes the recognized duty of the public to provide for the extreme needs of old age, unemployment, sickness, etc., irrespective of whether the individuals could and ought to have made provision themselves, and particularly once help is assured to such an extent that it is apt to reduce individuals’ efforts, it seems an obvious corollary to compel them to insure (or otherwise provide) against those common hazards of life. The justification in this case is not that people should be coerced to do what is in their individual interest but that, by neglecting to make provision, they would become a charge to the public. Similarly, we require motorists to insure against third-party risks, not in their interest but in the interest of others who might be harmed by their action.”
So it sounds Hayek is in favor of helping the “deserving poor” and “undeserving poor” alike. Also, before this quote he says that such assistance is justified in part by the fact that it’s “in the interest of those who require protection against acts of desperation on the part of the needy.” So he’s saying that if you don’t help the poor, then in their desperation they’ll steal from or hurt the rich.
Keshav,
I probably muddied the waters by pouncing on your original comment, rather than looking at the big picture.
You have just described how unemployment insurance and Social Security currently work in the United States. As I said, we already have this system.
The proponents of a UBI or BIG are saying that every single person gets the check from the government.
Even your original statement, saying Hayek would say if someone makes less than $x then he should be made whole by the government, is not a UBI or a BIG, at least the way libertarian/conservative economists are pushing it. If it *were*, then it would mean a 100% marginal income tax rate up to $x.
Yeah, I wasn’t claiming that Hayek was in support of Universal Basic Income. I was just objecting to your statement “We already have this in the United States.” I was saying that Hayek would support a law of the form “Anyone whose income is below $X should be given sufficient money so that their income is at least $X.” (for some nonzero number X), and we do not have such a law in the United States right now. Unemployment insurance and social security do not constitute such a law, although they’re partial steps on the way to such a law.
But there’s no indication that he’d support giving somebody money simply because they don’t want to work.
Hayek: “It seems only logical, then, that those who will have a claim to assistance in circumstances for which they could have made provision should be required to make such provision themselves.”
He explicitly says that if you are to have a claim to assistance when you are unable to provide for yourself then you should be required to contribute to when you are able to work. That’s the opposite of saying we should just hand out money to everyone who doesn’t work or who doesn’t make a certain amount.
Yes, he does that he’s in favor of using coercion to compel people to contribute to make contributions. But he doesn’t believe in conditioning government assistance on that. Regardless of what a person has or has not done in the past, i.e. whether they are part of the “deserving poor” or the “undeserving poor”, Hayek is in favor of ensuring that their income does not fall below the minimum.
I just disagree. I think it’s clear as day he wouldn’t support giving everyone money whether they work or not. I think the quotes Murphy provided, and the ones you provided make that clear.
I think the opposite is clear, based on his quote about not limiting assistance to the “deserving poor”. And his other quotes like “There is no reason why in a society that has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom.”
Yeah, he’s talking about guaranteeing a safety net to people that fall on hard times or are unable to provide for themselves. He’s not talking about handing some loser money that would rather play video games than work. The idea that Hayek would advocate just handing cash to people who don’t feel like working is asinine. Have you ever read him? I mean, he clearly favored a safety net, which I think is immoral and a terrible idea, but he wasn’t out there advocating handing cash to men who just think working is beneath them.
He seems to me to be saying that any such minimum income would of necessity be paid to to both the deserving and undeserving poor. His solution is to ensure the undeserving poor do not exist by compelling them to make their own provision if able.
Go find me a single example of Hayek explaining why he thinks the government should just hand money to people who don’t feel like working. Or do you guys just want to stick with the idea he advocated something that absurd, but never bothered to defend it.
I think he did not advocate giving money to people who did not feel like working, but he failed to explain how this could be avoided whilst giving to the “deserving poor.”
Harold I’m not saying my interpretation is necessarily the right one, but I thought Hayek meant something like, “If we provide income for old-age people who had misfortunes, then we can’t stop somebody else who had a good income during his career from inadequate saving. So by the time he’s 70 a guy with no assets needs public relief, even though his poor life choices are to blame, rather than his genetic disease or his car accident.”
Yes, I also think that is what he meant.
He also seemed to think that this could be avoided by compelling the reasonably high earning worker to save so he has resources by the time he is 70, barring genetic disease or car accidents.
This does not deal with people who never work because of lifestyle choice rather than misfortune.
Bob, I found a relevant quote in Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom”:
“It will be well to contrast at the outset the two kinds of security…. These two kinds of security are … the security of a minimum income and the security of the particular income a person is thought to deserve. We shall presently see that this distinction largely coincides with the distinction between the security which can be provided for all outside of and supplementary to the market system, and the security which can be provided only for some and only by controlling or abolishing the market. There is no reason why in a society that has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom.”
Again I don’t think unemployment insurance and social security as they currently exist in the United States suffice for what Hayek was talking about.
@Keshav
Here it is Hayek saying “in a *society*…the first…should…be guaranteed.”
If you have an AnCap/Libertarian society and someone said these things, would they be referring to private charities (e.g. churches or fraternal organizations)?
IOW, in saying that “government” should guarantee these things there is not confusion: a coercive body must tax to achieve the end.
But in saying that “society” should guarantee these things, does it necessarily follow that he is advocating, e.g. in the case of a libertarian society, instituting a “government” taxing authority and a redistribution bureaucracy?
Hayek wasn’t an anarcho-capitalist, he believed the government should exist and should set up a social safety net through taxation.
That wasn’t my point. My point is that the mixing of “society” and “government” makes your point invalid as those are two different things.
People like to do this because the Baptist argument: A good society should do this is opinion about voluntary action, and is thus usually unobjectionable.
But then they change the language to “government” to trick you into thinking you’ve just agreed to being forced to do it at gunpoint.
So my thought experiment was to point out the trick you (and maybe Hayek) are pulling.
No one could possible argue that a *society* that provided for the deserving poor was “better” than one that did not. But that does nothing to prove that a lethal bureaucracy should be installed to do so. Those arguments rest on completely different foundations. It is dishonest, or at least sloppy on the part of the thinker/writer, to do so; and, in any event, amounts to a non-argument.
Besides, voluntary arrangements (which in more cases would be local, allowing better monitoring of the recipients by the donors) would do better to solve the problem of distinguishing between the deserving and non-deserving.
This comment can be read as a reply to your “no particular reason” reply above. I am saying that you do have a particular reason, and you need to deal with it. Until then you haven’t even made a coherent argument.
Sorry for not replying, Trent. Hayek wanted all poor people, both “deserving” and “undeserving” to be taken care of. And in the absence of government intervention, private citizens might not do enough to take care of the poor. So he thought it was important for the government to guarantee that the poor would have a certain minimum income.
We all want a lot of things.
But I’m still left wondering if you or Hayek have a train of logic that bridges the gap between “society would be better if” to “armed men must.”
If there’s no logic, why use your words? And how are people using the muddle that Hayek wrote on the topic (switching from State to Society and back) as some sort of logical proof of the necessity of government interference? He flat out states that, once you start providing some relief, that people will adapt and not save–necessitating MORE relief.
This Hayek quote is a nothingburger that if anything is like Smith making small concessions to the State: some meat for the bleeding hearts, not to be taken seriously.
Trent, it’s simple. The poor should be taken care of, and in the absence of government intervention they may not be. So the government should ensure that the poor are taken care of.
Hayek didn’t provide a logical proof for his position in this regard. He just believed that that’s what morality requires. And then he spoke at great length about the details of how this government system would work.
@Keshav
Oh, “it’s simple”!
The poor “should” be taken care of.
So get out the guns!
smh
Yes, get out the guns if the poor won’t be taken care of otherwise.
Keshav, I’m not being sarcastic: Is there a bright line in your moral code for when using violence is unacceptable, even in the pursuit of noble ends? Like, we probably both agree people shouldn’t walk up to 8 year old kids and tell them they’re ugly. But would you want that norm enforced at gunpoint?
Maybe it’s just me, but I worry about a Hillary voter who wants anyone “taken care of”.
Bob, good question. The answer is no, I don’t draw any line between morality and law. I would be open to the government punishing people for calling 8-year olds ugly, although that’s such a minor offense that at most only a small punishment would be warranted. (It’s also such a minor offense that it may not be worth spending time punishing people for it if you have more important things to do.) But I think the government should completely enforce morality; all immoral acts should be illegal.
In short, I’m basically on the diametrically opposite side of the ideological spectrum as you; you believe no government (or no “State” if you prefer that language), and I believe in maximal government. Our only ideological commonality is that we’re both religious, although you’re Christian and I’m Hindu.
Craw, do you believe in the Vince Foster or Seth Rich conspiracy theories?
Keshav,
Do you believe in irony?
Amusing that in consecutive comments Keshav
1 vindicates my small jest’s sting
2 seems oblivious to its jest and its sting.
Craw, I assume your joke was about Hillary “taking care of” people in the sense of killing them. Did you mean something else?
By the way, I am a Hillary voter, but I’m so different ideologically from liberals/left-wingers that my views shouldn’t be taken as remotely representative of Hillary voters.
Keshav wrote:
But I think the government should completely enforce morality; all immoral acts should be illegal.
Oh my goodness. (Or should I say, “Oh my lawfulness”?)
In practice does this reduce to what most other people mean by “some things are immoral but shouldn’t be illegal”? Like, for things like cheating on your spouse, lying to your grandma, and neglecting religious duties, would you say the proper legal punishment is nothing, even though it technically is illegal?
Or does your view of the proper legal punishment for various things, differ in numerous instances from what most people would say is “immoral activity that should nonetheless be legal”?
Bob, no, it doesn’t reduce to that. I don’t think there is a single immoral act on God’s green Earth for which the proper legal punishment is zero. There are many acts that I think merit a relatively small punishment though. (Although I wouldn’t put adultery in that category; that’s a heinous offense.)
Do you think it is immoral to threaten or use violence against someone who has not threatened or used violence against someone else?
Dan, no, I don’t think it’s necessarily immoral. I think the government should punish people for many things other than violent offenses.
How do you think the state should determine immorality? Do you worry that if your view were to take hold, that homosexuality could become illegal, for example?
“How do you think the state should determine immorality?” Well, I think Hindu scripture is the foundation of morality, so that’s what I think the government should enforce.
“Do you worry that if your view were to take hold, that homosexuality could become illegal, for example?” Not only do I not worry about that, I welcome that. Because it really is immoral and so it ought to be illegal.
OK, you don’t worry that someone will come along and decide that Hinduism is immoral?
Dan, I worry about a lot of things. I want the government to enforce what is actually moral and immoral. Both the government failing to enforce morality (as it is now) and the government enforcing an incorrect understanding of morality are deviations from what I want. But I’m just telling you what I think the government ought to do: it ought to have a correct understanding of morality, and then it ought to punish immoral acts.
Point is, a state strong enough to enforce your favored brand of morality is strong enough to enforce anyone’s brand of morality. Whereas a free society would allow you to live in a community that enforces whatever morality you want without having a state there to stop you just because they don’t agree with your community’s preferences. Seems like the power you want the state to have is much more likely to have minorities being massacred legally than it is to have what you think ought to happen.
Dan, that’s only because unlimited totalitarian rule has never been tried.
Dan, first of all, I’m not a consequentialist. I believe that a government which enforces morality should be set up because that’s the right thing to do, not because of what consequences I think it will lead to. So I’m perfectly happy to discuss consequences, but it doesn’t alter my moral calculus.
In any case, you’re right that there’s a risk that a government strong enough to enforce correct morality may enforce incorrect morality. But in the absence of such a government, people will be able to do immoral acts with impunity. So the absence of such a government is definitely an intolerable situation, while the presence of such a such a government merely presents a risk of a bad situation. And that risk can be mitigated by instituting safeguards in the government. And this isn’t just a theoretical issue: we have had many governments in the past, in ancient and medieval times, which have enforced Hindu morality. What generally happened to those governments is not that they started enforcing incorrect morality, but rather they were defeated by invaders.
Or you could start a community with whatever rules you like voluntarily, show everyone how amazing it is, leading by example, without risking giving the state the kind of totalitarian powers that have led to the worst atrocities known to man.
Dan, if it’s voluntary then a lot of people will choose to behave immorally. It’s just human nature. So you’re weighing a risk against a certainty. (But again weighing the risk against the certainty is not what leads me to favor government enforcing morality, because I’m not a consequentialist.)
And as I said, this isn’t a theoretical issue, because we have historical evidence in the form of past governments which enforced Hindu morality. And generally those governments did not switch to enforcing incorrect morality, or switch to committing atrocities.
“Dan, if it’s voluntary then a lot of people will choose to behave immorally.”
Is your position that Hindus should wage war with the world to bend everyone to their will?
Dan, the details aren’t quite how you describe, but yes, I do believe in the establishments of Hindu governments all around the world. And then those governments, like all governments, would “bend people to their will” to use your language.
Can you explain how you would establish these Hindu governments all over the world without waging war? I mean, you said you wouldn’t accept living in a voluntary community and trying to convince people to voluntarily accept your way of thinking, or trying to buy more and more land and growing the reach for your community rules that way, so why would you accept a nation like the US, for example, if they refused to accept your way of thinking?
Dan, it would be less like war between countries, and more like revolution within a country.
So do you think there needs to be a violent revolution in the US to implement Hindu rule, or are you willing to live peacefully among people who will not willingly accept Hindu rule? And if you are willing to live peacefully among people in the US who will not accept Hindu rule, then why wouldn’t you be willing to live peacefully among people who would willingly let you set up your rules in your own communities but not theirs?
Dan, violent revolution isn’t the only possible route, there are other possible avenues. But regardless of how it’s established, once it is established, violence would certainly be used to enforce morality on people whether they like it or not.
OK, but my question is if people in the US refuse to accept Hindu rule, do you think there should be a violent revolution to force it upon them. I understand you’re saying violence will be used to maintain your society, but I’m asking if in a country that is certainly not going to vote in Hindu rule in any of our lifetimes, if you think a violent revolution is necessary to force it on them. Or are you willing to just live peacefully with people in the US for the rest of your life knowing you’ll never achieve your desired outcome? And if you’re willing to live peacefully here, then why would you oppose a system like anarchocapitalism more than what we have now considering it would allow you to at least set up a community which adhered to Hindu rule, whereas it would be illegal to do so under the current system.
Dan, yes, I would be in favor of a violent revolution if nothing else worked.
You’ll never do it though. You’ll grow old and die after living peacefully among us your entire life without ever having attempted a violent revolution. You know any attempt to force Hindu rule on the people in the US is DOA. You’re not insane. It’s just too bad that you can’t see that real freedom would give you the ability to at least live in a community of your choosing following whatever rules you deem best, whereas the current system you favor will throw you in a cage if you ever attempted that.
Dan, I have no intention of doing it myself. It’s just not my purpose in life. I think establishing Hindu government should definitely be done, I’m just not the one to do it. If that were my purpose in life, I would start in India rather than America. And you’re right, a revolution in America wouldn’t be successful at this point. You’d have to change a lot more hearts and minds to have even a remote chance of being successful. Now I do have thoughts of contributing in a small way to the endeavor of changing hearts and minds; see here: https://medium.com/@lugita15/potential-hinduism-related-writing-projects-34a227b4f99c But that’s not my purpose either.
In any case, I wouldn’t be in favor of the anarcho-capitalist solution you describe. My actual reason for not favoring it is deontological, i.e. I see it as inherently immoral. But as far as practical consequences go, I don’t see “good people being prevented from doing the right thing” as a very big problem in the world today. I find very little standing in my way when I try to do what is right. The main problem with the world today is bad people getting away with what is wrong, not good people unable to do what is right. So I don’t see any advantage in supporting anarcho-capitalism, even if I was a consequentialist.
@Keshav
Well I think that’s immoral (i.e. pulling out guns to enforce morality). So if we were in your world you’d be shot.
“‘Maximal government’ where (someone’s) morality is enforced at gunpoint.”
What a joke. Though I’m very glad you made your position clear, because now I can safely ignore every unprincipled thing you say.
“Government = Society” -Keshav Srinivasan
Trent, what unprincipled thing have I ever said? And I never said society and government are the same thing. I am stating very clearly that government should enforce morality on society.
@Keshav
Can the Hindu scripture ever be altered, or is it 100% known and set in stone, with no alternate interpretations?
If it is known 100% and there is no dispute about the meaning of any passage, but it can be changed, what is the process by which it can be changed?
And finally, since you cannot prove the existence of your Hindu gods it is immoral for you to use force to make them obey their morality. Anyone willing to kill another for violation of a rule whose only basis is in faith in a divine being is just a murderer.
This is what I mean by unprincipled. What you call principles are not logically derived from earth, but instead stories from a book. It’s fine to believe them and live by them, and even to promote them; but it’s not okay to justify murder by them.
Speaking of logic, this was about Hayek. My point about your switching between society and government works for you since you think that the government should enforce all morality (i.e., what society “should do”); but your personal justification does not apply to Hayek.
Therefore, I believe that you have not proven your case re: Hayek and UBI or the like.
@Trent “Can the Hindu scripture ever be altered, or is it 100% known and set in stone, with no alternate interpretations? If it is known 100% and there is no dispute about the meaning of any passage, but it can be changed, what is the process by which it can be changed?” There are two kinds of Hindu scriptures, there’s the Vedas, which are eternal and authorless (i.e. not even divinely authored). And then there are secondary scriptures composed by human beings based on the Vedas, which are only valid insofar as they don’t contradict the Vedas. There are multiple interpretations of Hindu scripture, but it is possible to determine which interpretation is right with 100% certainty.
“And finally, since you cannot prove the existence of your Hindu gods it is immoral for you to use force to make them obey their morality.” But I can prove the existence of Hindu gods, and more broadly the truth of Hinduism in general. It starts out with proving that the Vedas are both authorless and true, which is done here: tinyurl.com/hinduismproof
“Anyone willing to kill another for violation of a rule whose only basis is in faith in a divine being is just a murderer.” But what if it’s not faith, but knowledge of a divine being?
“This is what I mean by unprincipled. What you call principles are not logically derived from earth, but instead stories from a book. It’s fine to believe them and live by them, and even to promote them; but it’s not okay to justify murder by them.” But I logically derive that the book is correct.
“Speaking of logic, this was about Hayek. My point about your switching between society and government works for you since you think that the government should enforce all morality (i.e., what society “should do”); but your personal justification does not apply to Hayek.” Hayek simply believed that if society didn’t voluntarily take care of the poor, then the government should step in. He didn’t provide a logical proof for this position.
I am somewhat surprised by Keshav’s theocratic aspirations. I have a couple of points / questions.
“But in the absence of such a government, people will be able to do immoral acts with impunity.”
I don’t see it that way. We are not immersed in chaos and crime not because the police arrest and the courts punish offenders, but because the vast majority of people are generally law abiding. Trying to police an unpopular law is pretty near impossible long term. For example, places that try to ban religion don’t seem to succeed. Good behaviour does not stem from the relentless application of the law.
Also, you talk of historical Hindu theocracies – can you provide a link?
@Keshav
So you base your morality on “authorless” books, which you don’t claim are written by a deity (by definition); and you add to that books written by people, but just toss out the parts that contradict the original.
It’s so much worse than I thought.
There is a theory now that Christ the anointed was so-called because he was using cannabis oil. (based on a re-translation)
My point is that, if your Vedas are found to have been mis-translated, and they in fact tell you to eat newborn babies, and then your government has to enforce that rule…
So, yeah, you’re not principled.
@Harold “I don’t see it that way. We are not immersed in chaos and crime not because the police arrest and the courts punish offenders, but because the vast majority of people are generally law abiding.” It’s certainly true that most people don’t commit violent crimes, but they’re still doing lots of immoral acts from my point of view.
“Trying to police an unpopular law is pretty near impossible long term.” Well, first of all I don’t think it’s impossible to enforce unpopular laws over the long term, although it is harder than enforcing popular laws. Second of all, people’s opinions aren’t immutable. You can get them to change their minds by showing them why their beliefs about morality are incorrect. Now you probably won’t convince everybody, but you can at least get to a situation where most people have a correct understanding of morality, and then you enforce the law against the few who don’t (along with those who have a correct understanding but choose to engage in immoral acts anyway).
“Also, you talk of historical Hindu theocracies – can you provide a link?” There were lots of Hindu states in ancient and medieval India that enforced Hindu rules of morality (as enunciated in scriptures known as Dharmashastras), including the Chola empire, the Chera Empire, and the Pandya empire.
@Trent “So you base your morality on “authorless” books, which you don’t claim are written by a deity (by definition); and you add to that books written by people, but just toss out the parts that contradict the original.” You left out the part about the books written by people being based on the authorless books.
“My point is that, if your Vedas are found to have been mis-translated, and they in fact tell you to eat newborn babies, and then your government has to enforce that rule…” The thing is, the actual meaning of the Vedas can be determined with 100% certainty, so the issue doesn’t arise.
“So, yeah, you’re not principled.” How in the world am I not principled? You may not like my principles, but I definitely have principles: the Vedas can be proven true, they are the proper source of knowledge concerning morality, and what they say about morality can be determined with 100% certainty.
Whether your views are principled or not is pretty irrelevant to me. I’m more fascinated that a liberal who proposes a totalitarian rule that would make Trump blush is so open about it. Usually it’s near impossible to get them to openly admit they have an iron fist under that velvet glove.
Dan, I’m not a liberal at all. My beliefs are not remotely representative of the beliefs of liberals. I do vote Democrat in elections, and as a tribal matter I do look at people like Paul Krugman, Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Josh Marshall, etc. as “my team”. But I’m completely different from liberals ideologically.
Keshav, thanks for the considered reply. I agree with some of your points
“Second of all, people’s opinions aren’t immutable. You can get them to change their minds by showing them why their beliefs about morality are incorrect.”
An example here would be civil rights equality laws. One reason for the law working is that the initial prejudice is irrational. If you force people to interact as equals, irrational people have an opportunity to observe they were wrong about their prejudice. Children grow up seeing, say, black people operating in the same sphere as white people and do not develop an idea that they are fundamentally different. The law is reinforcing a rational approach and forms part of a virtuous cycle.
However, declaring homosexuality wrong and enforcing this through law does not force anybody to face their irrationality. Homosexuals do not get to learn why they are wrong, they just get very unhappy.
As a very rough general rule, laws protect other people from your actions. Morals are often left out if the law as they only affect the individual concerned. If you start legislating for morality rather than action, then individual beliefs come under the law. Once you have this system, freedom of religion becomes illegal and thought crimes a reality.
Thanks for the pointers to Hiindu kingdoms.
Harold, to be clear I wasn’t talking about using the laws to change people’s beliefs about morality (though that does happen in some cases). I was saying that in addition to having laws, you can use persuasion to change people’s minds about morality.
Oh Keshav, after your coy responses, I figured you would reply to this one! /s
[…] Bob Murphy offers a clarification on whether or not Hayek supported a basic minimum income. […]
[…] Bob Murphy propose une clarification sur la question de savoir si Hayek soutient ou non un revenu m…. […]
Three years ago on Medium the liberal economist James Kwak also made the case that Friedrich Hayek supported basic income. I responded to his story with more or less your same point… that he was neglecting the context.
Now, three years later, for me the real issue is that Kwak doesn’t understand what markets are good for. Markets are incredibly useful because correctly guessing demand is incredibly difficult. The crazy thing is that this critique of Kwak’s understanding is also applicable to even the staunchest market defenders such as yourself. This is easy enough to prove.
Here you supplied a story about basic income. But what would you guess is truly the demand for this topic? Again, if correctly guessing demand was so easy, then markets wouldn’t be so useful. Your blog is not a market… therefore it’s clear that you don’t truly understand what markets are good for.
Turning your blog into a market would be really easy. Readers could simply “donation vote” (DV) for their favorite stories. DV is most commonly associated with people using donations to decide who will kiss a pig, or get a pie in the face, or get dunked into a water tank. Sometimes zoos use it to name a baby animal. But DV is also used to rank/sort/order/prioritize all the non-profits in the world. The Red Cross, for example, receives very many donation votes which is why it can use a very large portion of the world’s limited resources.
Right now FEE is searching for a new president. How are the candidates going to be ranked? They definitely aren’t going to be ranked by DV. Therefore, FEE doesn’t truly understand what markets are good for.
Last year, much to my very pleasant surprise, the libertarian party (LP) used DV to choose its convention theme. Unfortunately, the LP didn’t also use DV to choose the convention location, date and speakers. So just because an organization uses DV doesn’t guarantee that it knows why the market is so useful.
The market is an incredibly useful tool. On a daily basis we use this tool to help each other prioritize. Yet, the LP has only once used this tool to improve its own priorities. FEE has never used this tool to improve its priorities. As a pro-market blogger you’re in the same boat. Strange is it might seem, right now I’m the only person preaching the benefits of DV. Does this mean that I’m the only person in the world who truly understands what markets are good for? I guess. I’m the only person in this boat. Either I’m in the wrong boat, or everybody else is. I’d really hate to be in the wrong boat so please, if you think that I am, then I’m all ears. Make the case that some producers, such as pro-market bloggers, should be exempt from receiving specific and substantial feedback from consumers. Or make the case that cheap signals are just as credible as costly signals.
@Epiphyte
Those are islands of “socialism” and “collective action” within the market. FEE, for example, doesn’t choose its president that way because the current members want a bigger or exclusive share of the vote. That might even be part of the founding documents.
Your example is flawed in any event. How does the Red Cross choose its president? And how does it rank all the possible things it could do? Are donations marked with their preferred use? Are these preferences universally respected?
There is value in both types of organization.
Here’s the most fundamental economic problem…
society’s desires: unlimited
society’s resources: limited
The most fundamental economic question is… how should society’s limited resources be divided among its unlimited desires? Socialism (ranking by committee), democracy (ranking by ballots) and markets (ranking by spending) all answer this question very differently. One answer must be more beneficial than the others.
But the important thing to fully understand and appreciate is that all the different ranking mechanisms can be safely tested and compared. For example, ballot voting (BV) and donation voting (DV) can both be used to rank all of Robert Murphy’s blog entries. Then you’d compare the two rankings and decide for yourself which one was closer to your preferred ranking.
“One answer must be more beneficial than the others”
There is no clear cut definition of “more beneficial”
There is no logical reason why some combination would be much better than any single solution.
There is also no logical reason why we should base all of society on the most fundamental economic question.
There’s no clear cut definition of “more beneficial”? Is there a clear cut definition of “useful”? What about “important”?
All Youtube videos are ranked by BV while all non-profits are ranked by DV. Do you seriously think that both rankings are equally good? The Youtube rankings wouldn’t improve, or even change, if BV was replaced with DV? If this is the case, then why not replace all markets with democracy? Why bother deciding how we divide our limited dollars if democracy would would be just as effective?
You don’t have to agree with me that markets are better than the alternatives at ranking/prioritizing things. But hopefully you should agree with me that it would be useful to see how BV and DV rank the same exact things.
I was comparing it to a word like “efficient” which has a more direct meaning. Keshav may think that whichever solution resulted in a Hindu theocracy was the most beneficial, although I am sure he would not argue that this would be the most economically efficient. Terms such as “important” suffer from the same ambiguity and interpretation problem. It is a bit like the Is/Ought problem. If we define our arguments in terms of what is, we can avoid the discussion of what we ought to do until we have agreed what the outcomes are.
I am not sure what you mean by the ranking of non-profits.
It seems to me that where there are options, we do not need to choose only between pure versions of the answers. Pure capitalism may be more efficient than pure socialism, but some regulation can in principle improve the efficiency of a pure market.
Here’s the most fundamental economic problem…
society’s desires: unlimited
society’s resources: limited
Here’s the most fundamental economic question… how should society’s limited resources be divided among its unlimited desires?
How people divide their donations among all the non-profits reflects how they want society’s resources to be divided among them. The more donations given to the Red Cross, for example, the more resources that it can compete away from other organizations.
This is what I mean by all the non-profits being “ranked” by donations. Donors determine the relative importance of all the non-profits in the world.
But this is not how webpages are ranked. The relative importance of webpages is determined by how many votes they receive. Each link to a page counts as a vote for it. The more links to a page, the higher its ranking, the more attention it can compete away from other pages.
Google got this idea from how scholarly papers are ranked. The relative importance of papers is determined by how many times they’ve been cited. Each citation counts as one vote.
Voting and spending are completely different ways to determine how to divide society’s limited resources. Therefore, they can’t be equally effective. What we need to do is to directly compare how voting and spending rank the same things…. like Bob Murphy’s blog entries. Then we can all decide for ourselves whether the voting ranking or the donating ranking is better (closer to our own preferences).