John Quiggin praises libertarianism
John Quiggin is a prolific blogger, Queenslander and Economist. He is also a self proclaimed Social Democrat. I know that several of the participants here on the ALS blog also visit Johns blog from time to time. Recently as part of a charity fund raiser John agreed to shave off his beard and write a short essay on what he finds commendable about libertarianism. It is not quite cash for comment because he insisted that he would only say what he actually believed.
The full essay is here:-
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2007/03/17/in-praise-of-libertarianism/
After arguing for several years with John about the role of government I found this statement in his essay encouraging:-
More generally, whereas I once used to be strongly in favour of economic planning, I’m now a lot more sceptical. Although I still see a large role for government in the financing and provision of public goods, I think it’s important to maintain as much scope for individual choice as possible, and to seek to use the power of the state as lightly as possible to achieve policy goals.
Time will tell if he is willing to defend this new position or if he reverts to his old thinking. I don’t expect him to proclaim himself a libertarian any time soon but it still smells like a small measure of progress to me.
30 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Recent Comments
-
LINKS
-
Featured Book
Stats
-
ALS elsewhere
“John Quiggin is a prolific blogger, Queenslander and Economist”
You become a prolific blogger by writing lots of blogposts. You become a prolific economist by writing lots of economics articles. How do you become a prolific Queenslander? By producing lots of queenslanders?
I didn’t say he was a prolific queenslander or a prolific economist. However perhaps the following would have been clearer:-
“John Quiggin is a Queenslander, an Economist and a prolific blogger”.
The main reason I mentioned Queensland is that it makes it clear that he is an aussie based entity.
Although I still see a large role for government in the financing and provision of public goods
I guess it depends on what he means by “public goods”. Individual choice where the government owns nearly everything is not the same as individual choice where most things are privately owned.
What’s the ALS position on public financing for primary and secondary schools and universities? Just a link to a position statement would be a good start if no one is in the mood to write an essay.
As far as I know the ALS doesn’t have a position on anything. It’s just a group of libertarians.
An Entry ‘Another way to finance Uni’, dated 22nd Feb, gives some ideas on universities.
We are libertarians discussing lots of alternatives, so there is no fixed party position, though the Liberal Democratic Party might have a position or a platform.
My own belief is that all schooling will be done over the internet, with lessons via video, and parents being free to choose the best programs for their learn-at-home kids. We already have a school of the air for our outback children, so we’ll probably extend and broaden this for all kids.
one of the writers here, justin jefferson, has previously written a piece called “Education in a Free Society” that probably answers your question:
http://alsblog.wordpress.com/2006/09/22/education-in-a-free-society/
As far as I know the ALS doesn’t have a position on anything. It’s just a group of libertarians.
Pardon me. In the USA we usually distinguish “big-L” Libertarians from “small-L” libertarians with the former being a political party that runs candidates in local and national elections and the latter referring to libertarnian principles in general. Thus if you talk of Libertarnian positions in the States you can expect a reference to a party platform.
I thought the ALS was representative of a Australian political party as opposed to a (potentially less politically active) group of philosophically like-minded individuals. In any case, thanks, Sukrit, for providing a link to an ALS post on education which I found informative even while disagreeing with the major premises.
The reason I was interested in the consensus opinion of the people here on education is that I see generally available, high quality education as essential to a free and productive society. Since John Quiggin wishes “to use the power of the state as lightly as possible to achieve policy goals” this seems to be one area where the state acts heavily (as opposed to “lightly”) yet achieves good results for everyone.
I repeat, if you want an Aus. party that has libertarian roots, go to the Liberal Democratic Party. It was founded by libertarians for libertarianism, it just doesn’t have ‘Libertarian’ in its’ title. This is doubly perplexing to us, since we have a centralist party called the Democrats, so Liberal Democratic sounds like a Democrat splinter group! They aspire to old-fashioned English ideas of ‘liberal’.
Just to be completely clear the ALS is not a political body. It is an informal discussion group centred on a core point of discussion (liberty). It does not seek to formulated concensus or policy. People come here frequently and express views about reducing liberty which is perfectly fine because it is on topic.
Also to be clear I don’t speak for the ALS so take the above comment as an observation not an authorative statement.
However you may also note that some of the people involved in the ALS are politically active. Myself included (I won’t out the others).
Some people find this blog without seeing the main webpage. For reference it can be found at the following link:-
http://www.libertarian.org.au
Bouquets for John Quiggin for thinking that there should be as much role for individual choice as possible. Brickbats for John Quiggin for not realising that he is contradicting himself to say he still sees a large role for government in the financing and provision of public goods. People like Quiggin are so clever as to know what’s better for people, than people. But unfortunately his cleverness doesn’t extend to thinking that he should pay for the values that he declares are important for other people to live by.
* * *
Yep Trinifar, so far as I am aware, there is no society called the Australian Libertarian Society, that has meetings, with office-bearers, and all that. I think it’s just this blog.
The Liberal Democratic Party is Australia’s libertarian political party. It’s at ldp.org.au
About your comments on education.
You said that you disagreed with the major premises of the article ‘Education in a Free Society’. The major premises of that article were that:
1. The idea that the whole population is too poor to afford their own children’s education is belied by the fact that these same people are already spending more on values which should rank lower in priority, like gameboys, televisions, pizzas, chocolate biscuits, and real estate. State education in effect requires everyone in the population to compulsorily subsidise the purchase of these lower order priorities.
2. If there really is a class of people so destitute that, if they were to give proper priority to educating their children above all values which should rank lower in importance than that such as those mentioned above, they were still unable to afford to educate them, which is doubtful, still this class would be very small. There is no reason why the rest of the population should have their choices prohibited, restricted, mandated or dominated by a massive claque of bureaucratic vested interests. And there is no reason why social provision for that small minority is necessarily better by way of government.
To say that compulsory state education seems to be an area where the state … ‘acts heavily (as opposed to lightly) yet seems to achieve good results for everyone’ raises the obvious question: how do you know? Compared to what?
Also, please do not use the false and misleading term ‘free’ to refer to government education.
Again, if people are not smart enough to choose for themselves, through the market, the education that they value for their children, how can the same people be smart enough to choose, through the ballot box, officials over and above them to restrict their choice of schooling? Answer please?
If compulsory contributions, compulsory attendance, compulsory curriculum, and compulsory teacher qualifications are good in education, why not in anything or everything else? Food is good and necessary too. Why not a big government Department of Food, with compulsory contributions, compulsory uniform menu for the whole population, a big bureaucracy that gets paid the same whether the food is good or bad, compulsory attendance….
On the principles you are asserting, why should you be free to choose the food you eat, if I can claim that it’s ‘good for society’ to have food controlled by a vast state bureaucracy in league with a left-wing union?
Can I also have your privilege of deciding that society would be a better place if I can use the state apparatus for forcibly taking other people’s income and forcibly requiring everybody to comply with any kind of behaviour that I fancy, regardless whether, left to themselves, they are hurting no-one? All I have to say is ‘everyone would be better off’ regardless whether they actually agree, and if they don’t comply, they can be penalised? Is that the rule of the game?
Since Democracy is the be-all and end-all of many non-libertarian philosophies, a heavy state apparatus is required to carry out the wishes of the majority. If ‘everyone would be better off’ eating at McDonalds, why shouldn’t it be made compulsory? If ‘everyone would be better off’ attending state schools, regardless of individual preferences and choices, why not close all other schools down?
After all, every 3, or 4, or 5, years, you can vote again, and choose a new standard! (Oops, that’s right, the others restaurants and private schools went out of business waiting for the next election. Tough break! But that’s Democracy!)
Since Democracy is the be-all and end-all of many non-libertarian philosophies, a heavy state apparatus is required to carry out the wishes of the majority.
I wouldn’t say a heavy state apparatus is required. Plenty of tribal societies carry out the wishes of the majority without the ’state’, often with brutal effectiveness. The heavy state apparatus is just the extension of these ideas into what some people perceive as a higer civlisation. However a bad idea can’t be made into a good one by government. You can’t make a silk purse from a sows ear. Similarly, government can’t make a civilised society (that recognises the individual) if the society is not ready to embrace civilised ideas (perhaps Iraq?).
“Similarly, government can’t make a civilised society (that recognises the individual) if the society is not ready to embrace civilised ideas (perhaps Iraq?).”
Society is a squishy concept. 23 out of 26 Iraqi provinces are stable, and the three remaining are where the majority of violent incidents are occuring. Iraq may have been wasteful, but it is a sunk cost. I think they are ready to embrace liberal democracy. The Kurds have essentially been free for 16 years, Basra is stable and a lot of fighters are the Ba’athist old guard, foreign insurgents from Syria and Iran and new foreign members of al Qaida.
Do we include the last three groups as part of Iraqi society?
You forgot to mention the Australian and the American troops. Are they part of Iraqi society?
Interesting. I am inclined to think that Iraq will work out okay in the longer term. It is as you say a sunk cost. Not an investment that I was in favour of but that decision point is now in the past.
How did we get from Quiggin to Iraq so quickly?
Here is a recent opinion poll taken in Iraq:-
http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=67
I thought the way Iraqis answered the following question was interesting.
Terje, there are (current) polls that go in both directions, for example:
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/war_polls_at_war/
But I’m inclined to believe that Iraqi’s do feel hope and believe that Saddam’s removal and the coalition presence is a way forward. And my cynical attitude makes me think most of the negative polls are engineered to push some sort of lefty anti-war agenda.
Way up above I said, “I see generally available, high quality education as essential to a free and productive society.”
Within a bit of a screed, Justin asked,
My only direct experience is the system in the USA. We do not have compulsory state education, but education is compulsory. That is, the federal government does not force anyone to attend state run schools. In fact neither the federal nor the state governments run any schools.
Schools are funded by property taxes and run by local school boards, although the states mandate certain curriculum and other requirements. A significant number of parents opt for home schooling and more go for privately run schools, but most kids go to locally run schools supported by property taxes and not requiring additional tuition.
(Every state supports one or more state universities. Some of these are truly world-class, the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and the U. of California at Berkeley for example. But university education was not part of the discussion.)
So, I think it’s fair to rephrase Justin’s questions as “how do you know tax supported education for some is good for everyone? Compared to what?”
Answer: compared to a completely free education market which would mean a large number of people would get low-quality, low-cost learning while others would get the best — making an existing differential even greater with a concomitant loss of people-resources in the economy. A healthy economy floats all boats.
Apologies for the thread hijacking.
I’ve sometimes mentioned a system we have here in Australia, called ‘The School of the Air’, but I haven’t seen any statistics for it. Does anyone know if it has been studied to compare it to other systems? If it has, then this will validate my belief that we’ll all be learning at home from the Internet in future, paying as we learn.
TERJE- Don’t rich people send their kids to expensive private schools already? Therefore, don’t we already have a differential economy? And if a healthy economy floats all boats, then we have no worries, right? Just keep the economy running smoothly, and we’ll reach paradise, yes?
Sorry! When I wrote TERJE, I meant TRINIFAR! There were so many comments from Terje, that I was overwhelmed, and thought this last must be from him as well.
‘Answer: compared to a completely free education market which would mean a large number of people would get low-quality, low-cost learning while others would get the best…’
Aren’t you implying that most of those who would buy for their children ‘low-quality, low-cost’ learning, would be giving preference to buying such things as I have mentioned: home renovations and decorations, cars, TVs, boats, caravans, DVDs, mobile phones, microwaves, pizzas, playstations, and so on. You are not addressing the issue. Your argument depends on the false premise that the whole population is at the level of subsistence and is thus unable to afford their own living expenses, including educating their own children, and that’s why they need the state to pay.
Also, you have not addressed the issues I have raised as to why this or that should be considered a public good. If education, why not food? Why not everything?
Michael - The survey that Tim Blair references (via the Times article) is the exact same Opinion Poll that I linked directly to. You can read the questions and the percentage responses unfiltered by media spin at the source I cited.
http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=67
49% say it is better and 42% say it is no better. Positive but hardly decisive. Maybe the first figure will improve with time.
Justin,
Aren’t you implying that most of those who would buy for their children ‘low-quality, low-cost’ learning, would be giving preference to buying such things as I have mentioned: home renovations and decorations, cars, TVs, boats, caravans, DVDs, mobile phones, microwaves, pizzas, playstations, and so on.
Nope, I’m not implying that. However, you seem to imply that the only reason people can not afford to purchase a good education for their children is because they spend so much on things they don’t need. Do you really think in a truly free market economy there would be no lower economic class?
Your argument depends on the false premise that the whole population is at the level of subsistence and is thus unable to afford their own living expenses, including educating their own children, and that’s why they need the state to pay.
No, my argument assumes that for a long time to come there will be a nontrivial portion of parents who are relatively poor. To me, it is insane that their children will not be able to participate in the economy as productive citizens due to lack of a good education (and, at least in the USA, due to lack of decent police protection). Why condemn the kids for the sins of their parents (if being poor is in any way a sin)?
Also, you have not addressed the issues I have raised as to why this or that should be considered a public good.
Education is a public good because everyone pays for the ignorant. Ignorance is a vast drain on the economy; people can not be as productive (or as good as consumers) without knowledge and skill. I thought this was obvious.
If education, why not food?
You’ll not be surprised that a minimum of food, shelter, and medical care is in my program too.
Why? When people struggle to put food on the table and a roof over their heads, they can’t participate in the economy in a useful way.
Why not everything?
Because not everything is essential to being productive. Education, food, shelter, and health care are pretty much the foundation. You know the saying, “Teach a man to fish….”
Mark Hill,
23 out of 26 Iraqi provinces are stable, and the three remaining are where the majority of violent incidents are occuring.
The three remaining also account for the majority of the population, do they not?
Do they?
According to this source Iraq only has 18 provinces:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq#Administrative_divisions
That’s what I thought as well. I got it from Fox news, if any snide criticism can be laid at the source. However, they were interviewing a US Lieutenant General. Maybe the US divides it’s forces into 26 sectors. 23 of these would therefore be peaceful.
That wouldn’t be difficult.