3 Quick Points

1. Owen Barder tends to let slip his collectivist leanings, by using "we should" to mean "the government should", or "lack of action" to mean "lack of government action". Regardless of political inclination, portraying democracy as a perfect preference aggregator is simply incorrect. Not only this, but it implicitly says that the classical liberal position is untenable. Such a claim should be made explicitly and subject to analysis, rather than as a hidden tool that's not to be questioned.

It propogates the myth that people who are against state spending on X, are against X.

2. Jim Gleeson let slip that his belief that water supplied in developing countries should be done publicly is based on a prior assumption that private markets should not be allowed to function:

Clearly, private companies don’t see the poorest parts of the world as particularly profitable, and so aren’t going to invest there.

My point is simple:

You’[ve] said that “given X, Y is the solution”. I’m saying “X isn’t a given”

In other words, if we notice that private markets aren't functioning effectively, it's wrong to simply declare government as the only possible solution. Often government is the reason a market cannot function, since it's the duty of government to provide sound property rights, a stable monetary system, an independent judiciary etc (i.e. institutions). A sensible person (interested in real change and results) should therefore ask Why isn't the market providing? The institutions required by markets are variables, and it's wrong to treat them as given.

It propogates the myth that free markets only work in a world of perfect competition.

3. Chris Dillow makes two excellent points:

1. The left-right division dominates our thinking about politics too much. It's often less a way of organizing ideas, than a way of splitting us into tribes. Shouldn't we think of other axes for dividing political views?
2. Those who support markets (as distinct from business, obviously) are on the side of the people against those in power. As Thomas Sowell says, the idea of a free market was/is deeply revolutionary.

I added:

Whilst socialists and fascists argue about the correct use of government intervention, they're in agreement over the fundamental issue of the appropriate mechanism for social change.

This distinction (between collectivism and anti-collectivism) was very well made by Robert Skidelsky in "The Road from Serfdom"

People on the left have a tactic of portraying free-marketeers as "right wing". This is either ignorance or dishonesty, since the fascists and socialists are fundamentally different to (classical) liberals.

This diminishes the myth that advocates of free markets are "right wing" and are therefore racists, imperialists and intolerent

See Dan Klein's 14 Bullshit Tactics used against Libertarians.pdf

Comments

[Jim]

AJE, you still seem to be missing my point, wilfully or not.

"A sensible person (interested in real change and results) should therefore ask Why isn't the market providing?"

I like to think I'm at least somewhat sensible, which is why I did attempt to answer that question by pointing to the lack of sufficient monetary demand for the service in the poorest areas. By contrast, you just came back with some hand-waving about institutions and offered no evidence whatsoever, even when it was repeatedly requested.

Which in my view propogates the myth that whenever markets aren't providing all people with all they want, it must be the government's fault. A handy excuse.

[AJE]

It's not an empirical issue.

"lack of sufficient monetary demand" is a valid reason, but it shouldn't be assumed before hand that it is *the* reason why a market isn't functioning. We should also ask whether it's due to to a lack of institutions.

That may seem to be "hand waving" but don't confuse a broad and universal answer with a vague one.

Every sensible economist knows that markets cannot operate unless certain institutions are evident (property rights being the most important). Rather than conclude "it's the government fault" I think that this simply helps us to decide the best response a government should make. That might involve production of the good itself, some form of tax/subsidy, auctioning of the right to produce, establishment of secure property rights, administration of judicial judgement....

A whole host of possible activities that can only be analysed if one accepts that institutions matter.

I think this helps us move toward how the government (whether having been the original problem or not) can help to create a solution.

[Quinn]

AJE; I agree with Chris Dillow when he says that the left-right division is unhelpful, but if you object to people referring to free-marketeers as "right wing" is it any better to characterise your opponents as "people of the left"?

I have read both Owen's and Jim's posts and the comments, and Jim's "nowhere fast" point seems appropriate. You mainly seem to be taking issue with what you have inferred their position to be, rather than with anything they have actually said.

Unless I missed it, they certainly never caller you right wing, racist, imperialist or intolerant.

[AJE]

Thanks a lot for taking the time to post a thoughtful (and valid) response.

Left vs right distinction
I think you may have taken what I said (and indeed what Chris said) too far. Despite what i've said (see here as well) I don't think that a left/right distinction is nonsense. It is useful, and does contain content. My point is more that it can be too simplistic and there are better alternatives. Ultimately I do believe it's possible to condense politics into single-issue space, but it only takes us so far.

My opponents are collectivists, and they come in two flavours - left wing and right wing. If it's a debate on minimum wage it is the left who i'm disagreeing with. If it's on immigration, racism or civil liberties then it's the right. I agree that it's not a perfect distinction, but for the purposes of blogging I think it's ok (and I think Chris does also). If i'm doing more scholarly work I prefer to use Cultural Theory (but as a complement). I don't mean it as an insult, and if there's anyone who i label as being "on the left" who is offended i'm happy to alter that label. It's my understanding that Owen and Jim are proud of their intellectual roots, and I can't see how conflicting ideas can be interpreted without using labels of some sort.

"nowhere fast"

I'll make this clearer in a separate post, but I believe that any analysis is tied to pre-existing visions, beliefs, and priors. This post was intended to bring some of those visions into the daylight, to demonstrate that they're relevant and important. I'm picking up on subtleties that underpin an argument, rather than the argument itself.

I agree that there seems to be a lack of reconciliation in those two posts. I think it's because Owens thinks my criticism is irrelevant/pedantic, and Jim thinks that to agree with me implies that private corporations are the only solution. All I want to do is reiterate my position: government spending on X shouldn't be treated akin to spending on X, and a lack of perfect competition does not necessitate state provision.

I'm making semantic criticisms not economic ones, and I think they're being overly defensive to think that if they concede the former then they undermine the latter.

This may indeed be because i'm taking issue with what's inferred rather than what's said. I'm attempting to replace my inference with an articulation of their position, but both are unwilling to accept the basic distinctions i'm making, and therefore refusing to enter the debate. What they've both said (the statements I orginally questioned) just don't make sense to me. They seem illogical. Consequently if their position is illogical, and they refuse to concede as much, inference is all i've got to go on - and hope that it begins a debate. I think my initial points are valid, and hence won't budge. In each thread I stand by the first comment I made, and can't see how anyone wouldn't accept it as a valid criticism.

right-wing accusations

The three comments are meant to be mutually exclusive - in no way did I intend to suggest that Owen or Jim are guilty of anything other than the single myth
I attribute to them. Maybe I should have written three seperate posts to make that clearer, but I honestly didn't mean to suggest that either of them have ever accused me of being right wing, racist, imperialist or intolerant. If you've misunderstood then I accept responsibility and sincerely apologise to all.

The post was meant to bring a few underlying biases into the debate. I'm really glad that you hold me up to the same criteria I judge others and whether my defense is sufficient or not I'm very glad to be criticised. I'm grateful that you're willing to question me, and have thought about your points carefully.

[Quinn]

I agree that you can stand by your original comments in themselves, but I found that reading both Owen's and Jim's posts was quite frustrating, with both yourself and the author taking exception to what hadn't been said rather than just discussing what had been. It just seemed to degenerate into a nit-picking argument where ships passed in the night, and Jim and Owen were as culpable as yourself in that.