I had gone on a trip with Confirmation Sponsor Guy, and a few others, including Fred Noltie, whom I had met on that trip. I was spouting my usual right-wing economic talking points, and Fred was having none of it. Dr. Cross was having none of it, either, but in his usual diplomatic way, he said something like, "If you had no idea what you're talking about, how would you know?"
I had used the phrase "human capital," and that had triggered something. I got out of that conversation by saying, "I'll think about it more, and get back to you." I know I didn't mean to offend my friends. I also know that I had learned that the purpose of economics was to manage scarcity. The critique of the capitalist system in basic form is this: the system creates artificial scarcities, and claims to be value-neutral when it is not.
It always drives me crazy, when I see that so-and-so "needs to read an economics textbook." Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for example, literally has a degree in economics. What are the starting assumptions in the traditional teaching of economics? Why must we begin with those assumptions, and not others?
I keep thinking about this, as I read through MacIntyre in After Virtue. Before we begin arguing about whether to accept this or that unintended consequence, we need to talk about our intended consequences. In my reckoning right now, that hasn't happened to the degree that I would like.
It seems to me that the big problem with classical liberalism is that it encourages people not to distinguish between an imprudent action, and an immoral one, as such, with respect to government. The individualism at the heart of the whole thing encourages a person to view all trade-offs as equally valid, and one's own displeasure at a certain inconvenience to be the same thing as opposition to tyranny or genocide. Naturally, the electoral process does the exact same thing; the guy who thinks his property taxes are too high counts the same as someone else, who may rightly believe that their opposite vote was against state-sanctioned violence and tyranny itself.
All those considerations in fact lead a great many people right into the fallacious idea that a popular person or program is just, simply because it is popular. I'm rambling at this point, so I'm going to stop.
Comments
Agreed--and this seems to be the thesis of your post?
Although I'd argue for "libertarianism" rather than "classical liberalism" there. I feel like the self-identified classical liberals of the world (e.g., Jonah Goldberg) make that distinction; the self-identified libertarians (e.g., the folks at Institute for Humane Studies) do not. So when Jonah talks about markets, I listen even if I don't always agree, but I don't bother with the IHS folks (generally).
(And sorry if those are obscure examples; they're just the two of each kind that I'm most familiar with, and therefore can be most sure about.)
Following Deneen et al. I don't recognize a principled difference between classical liberalism, and libertarianism. In both, the counterbalance to the government's purported authority is the individual.
Best regards,
JK