Why do libertarians support conservative parties?

In a piece for the Sunday Age, Chris Berg says progressives think conservatives are heartless because they “don’t realise the right has a different and legitimate moral framework.” Perhaps so, but what about libertarians?

Berg draws on Jonathan Haidt‘s moral foundations research. Haidt argues that moral judgments are largely intuitive and rest on six foundations – care/harm, fairness/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion and sanctity/degradation.

Haidt and his colleagues have found that progressives (liberals) rely almost entirely on the first three foundations when making moral judgments. In contrast, conservatives rely on all six.

In many ways libertarians are like progressives. “We found that libertarians look more like liberals than conservatives on most measures of personality” Haidt wrote in his recent book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. However:

Where they diverge from liberals most sharply is on two measures: the Care foundation, where they score very low (even lower than conservatives), and on some new questions we added about economic liberty, where they score extremely high (a little higher than conservatives, a lot higher than liberals).

So if progressives are wrong about conservatives, could they be right about libertarians? In a recent paper, a group of researchers including Haidt reported that libertarians reject the morality of altruism “as well as all other moralities based on ideas of obligation to other people, groups, traditions, and authorities.”

Interestingly, the research suggested libertarians may be less satisfied with their lives than either progressives or conservatives. The researchers reported that “libertarians may be less happy in part because they care less about others and (most likely) bond less with others, particularly close others.” Libertarians seem to rely less on emotion and more on abstract reasoning.

Given their lack of interest in conservative values, why do American libertarians consistently favour the Republican party? According to Haidt:

People with libertarian ideals have generally supported the Republican Party since the 1930s because libertarians and Republicans have a common enemy: the liberal welfare society that they believe is destroying America’s liberty (for libertarians) and moral fiber (for social conservatives).

There is always potential for tension between conservatives and libertarians. As I argued in a 2008 article for Policy magazine – ‘Defusing the American Right‘ – the alliance comes under stress when conservatives enlarge the size and scope of government in order to pursue their values. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on drugs were areas of tension under the Bush administration.

But perhaps not all libertarians lack concern for people who are poor and marginalised. Recently a number of libertarian thinkers have gathered together at the Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog. Some of them are even talking about social justice.

Immigration and the neoliberal imagination

Why "shouldn’t we look forward to a freer, more egalitarian world of tomorrow in which people are allowed to live where they want?" asks Matt Yglesias. If neoliberalism is about removing all barriers to market transactions then removing restrictions to migration should be top of the list.

According to Michael Clemens, restrictions on emigration from poor countries to rich countries is one of the greatest distortions to the global economy. Clemson suggests that the gains from the emigration of less that five per cent of the population of poor countries would exceed those from removing all policy barriers to the movement of goods and capital.

In a recent piece for the Drum, Jeff Sparrow wrote about the tensions between neoliberalism and conservatism. In rich countries, immigration is one of the major sources of tension. Conservatives worry that immigration will undermine social norms. Migrants will bring their own moral codes and will demand that the host country’s laws and institutions respect them. Conservatives fear that the difference between right and wrong will increasingly be seen as a matter of opinion. And without a strong moral framework to keep unruly passions in check, social order will break down.

There’s also resistance from the left. As a commenter on Yglesias’ blog put it: "This call for free immigration only serves to lower the standard of living developed countries, increased immigration only serves to depress wages, dilute union membership and strain the social safety net."

But even if that is true, the comment expresses a shocking disregard for the welfare of some of the world’s most disadvantaged people. According to Clemens, migration is one of the most effective ways of improving the welfare of people in the world’s poorest nations. On the issue of Hati he writes:

… migration and remittances have been responsible for almost all of the poverty reduction that has happened in the island country over the past few decades. They have done enormously more good than any policy intended to reduce poverty inside Haiti during that time. Any poverty-reduction strategy for Haiti going forward that does not include what has been Haitians’ most successful poverty-reduction strategy to date is not a serious one.

It’s not just the left who see a tension between freer migration and the welfare state. In 2004 Britain’s Telegraph declared: "the fundamentals of the immigration issue are straightforward. Milton Friedman, as is his habit, summed the whole problem up years ago, in just 10 words: ‘You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state’."

The Telegraph’s solution is to allow migrants to come, but deny them access to welfare benefits. But carried to its logical conclusion, that might lead to a kind of welfare feudalism where migrants end up paying for the generous welfare entitlements of existing inhabitants of the host country. And that’s a debate we had here at Troppo a few years ago.

The curious revival of Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand’s 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged is so popular even Angus & Robertson stock it. And now after years of rumours, it’s finally become a movie. That’s odd because it’s longer than Tolstoy’s War and Peace and climaxes with a philosophical speech that runs for 70 pages. Most critics despise it — as Jason Steger told the ABC First Tuesday Book Club: "The writing is unbelievably repetitive, tedious, banal. The ideas in it are crass".

Somehow, the global financial crisis triggered a resurgence in sales of the novel. Nobody knows how many people are actually reading the book, but fans clearly think it’s relevant to the problems of today.

What’s weird about this is that Rand’s philosophy is a kind of inverted Marxism. Without an understanding of Marx, it’s impossible to understand what Rand is on about. In a world where even China’s communist party has converted to free market economics, it’s odd to read a book by a free market evangelist who takes Marx so seriously.

Marx argued that labour was the source of all value. "Capital is dead labour," he insisted. Dead labour "that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks." It is labour that creates the capitalist’s machines and once created, the machines drain work of its creativity, skill and purpose.

But for Rand, it is workers who feed off capital. Productivity increases when scientists, inventors and engineers develop new technologies. As her fictional her John Galt puts it: "The machine, the frozen form of a living intelligence, is the power that expands the potential of your life by raising the productivity of your time." Without the benefit of this technology, ordinary labourers would either starve or be forced to live like medieval peasants. As Galt says: "The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains."

Atlas Shrugged is about what happens when the creative minority go on strike.

Continue reading

Congratulations Toby Evans, whoever and wherever you are

Strange things happen when you check the links on your site. Proceeding from a nice statement of classical liberal principles to the Mont Pelerin Society we find The Winners of the 2010 Hayek Essay Contest.

And the winner is…Toby Evans of Australia.

Whoever he is, you can probably meet him at the Mont Pelerin Conference in Sydney next month because part of the prize is a ticket to the event. This year the international guests will include Peter Boettke of  The Austrian Economists, now Coordination Problem and Terence Kealey ($4 well spent). 

Getting back to the statement of liberal principles, this came from a Mont Pelerin paper on “Public Opinion and Liberal Principles” which is relevant to the recent Troppo post on attempts to manipulate public opinion by media games.

Random odd thoughts I: why is the informal economy so small?

Some things seem to need no explanation, but are not obvious at all on reflection and, if you wonder about them, suggest something of interest about the economic system. Consider the question of why the informal economy is so small, leading to the question of how much more productive the formal economy must be than the informal economy to make sense of how little informal economic activityy there is. See over the fold for the full argument.
Continue reading

Soros on market fundamentalism

George Soros picked up the idea of  the open society from Karl Popper at the London School of  Economics and he spent a great deal of money promoting the idea through Open Society Institutes in Eastern Europe.

Lately he has moved on to target market fundamantalism as the great threat to human welfare and he is backing this with real money to set up another Institute to address the  issue. This is  the text of one of his talks in a recent series delivered in Budapest.

I define market fundamentalism as the undue extension of market values to other spheres of social life, notably politics. Economic theory claims that in conditions of general equilibrium, the invisible hand assures the optimum allocation of resources. This means that people pursuing their self-interest are indirectly also serving the public interest. It gives self-interest and the profit motive a moral imprimatur which allows them to replace virtues like honesty, integrity, and concern for others.

I have got a problem with the way that so-called market fundamentalism is depicted by critics like Soros and Kevin Rudd. I think they have not laid a glove on classical liberalism which includes a moral framework and a legal framework as well to limit the damage that people may do if they have no regard to the consequences of their actions.

As for the decline of  public morality which Soros attributes to the rise of market fundamantalism, this can just we well be attributed to the rise of Big Government, plus  the kind of conservatism that Hayek deplored in his famous  piece “Why I am not a conservative”, add the welfare state mentality (and the unhelpful concept of social justice) and the activities of the radical adversary culture.

Which club would you like to join?

Club 1:Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka.
Club 2:Bolivia, Brazil, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Japan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Peru, Republic of Korea, Uruguay, Zambia
Club 3:Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Continue reading