|
 |
Here is Senator John Thune (R-SD), speaking on the floor of the United States Senate:
Ethanol producers have been ripping us off for a long time, and they’ve come to rely on that for a source of income. So it’s only fair to let them rip us off a little longer.
I’m quoting from memory, so I might have the wording slightly off, but that was the gist of it. Oh, wait, here’s the exact quote:
We have a lot of folks who made investments, you have people across the country whose livelihoods depend upon this. I think it makes sense, when we put policy in place and we say it is going to be in place for a certain period of time, that it be honored.
As you can see, my parapharase was accurate.
Senator Thune speaks in the great tradition of his institution. Back in 1848, senators by the score made exactly the same argument for preserving slavery. A lot of folks had invested in slaves, you know. And their livelihoods depended on it.
I wonder where Senator Thune will stand the next time there’s a bill to tighten up border security, or to speed up deportations of so-called “undocumented” workers. He could say something like:
We have a lot of folks who invested in finding jobs here, you have people across the country whose livelihoods depend upon being in this country…..
Of course the analogy is imperfect. Ethanol producers are socially destructive, converting valuable resources into fuel when they’d be more valuable as food. (If that weren’t the case, they wouldn’t need a subsidy.) Undocumented workers, by contrast, are socially constructive, performing tasks that people want to pay them for, without having to be subsidized to do it.
That’s why I’d be sympathetic to this argument in the case of immigration policy but find it laughable in the case of ethanol subsidies. If socially destructive behavior should be allowed to continue whenever someone’s invested in it, then we should just grit our teeth and tolerate everything from urban gangs to toxic waste dumps to corrupt politicians. I’m sure the latter will please Senator Thune.
@Steve Where’s the ‘like’ button? :-)
Even if they rely on a subsidy, ethanol producers may not be socially destructive, if their fuel replaces some other fuel whose consumption produces negative externalities (i.e. fossil fuels whose burning produces greenhouse gases). (Of course that doesn’t mean Thune’s argument was right.)
On-topic, the issue here is keeping to your promises, or honoring a contract isn’t it? If it was promised that silly payments would be made for a certain time, then should not these promises be honored, even if they were stupid promises? The problem arose when the promises were made. To break the promise would lose trust.
Slightly off-topic, corn ethanol is not about greenhouse gas reduction, but fuel security. It produces about the same CO2 as fossil fuels. However, it produces transport fuel domestically, which reduces the need for oil imports. Effectively, it converts fossil fuels used to generate electricity into transport fuel.
Ethanol from sugar in Brazil does reduce CO2.
Harold,
as for the “promise” made: politicians break promises all the time, and breaking this “corn-promise” would actually be beneficial to the rest of society. There is no reason why the general taxpayer should subsidize the ethanol policy.
As for corn ethanol, it is not off topic, it the heart of the “promise”; corn ethanol should compete in the market like any other fuel. If it succeeds, good for them; if it does not, it should not be produced in the first place, and corn should be used for other purposes.
+1. Well written.
Steve,
What is your preferred term to refer to “so-called ‘undocumented’ workers”? Is there a term you’d use that does not require the “so-called” modifier and scare quotes?
Manfred: Politicians do break promises, but at a cost. I don’t know what they promised the corn ethanol producers, but the calculation of whether to break it must include the loss of trust that could result in future Government initiatives failing because no-one believes them.
The Govt. subsidised corn ethanol production as a strategic measure to increase fuel security. By reducing reliance on middle east oil, it attempts to protect America against future problems of supply. It also pushes lots of money to the corn farming lobby. As such, competing with other fuels is probably irrelevant. Personally, I think the corn ethanol policy was a bad one, and should never have been pursued. It was smuugled in as a “green” measure when it was no such thing. I would be happy to see it go. However, I think the argument made for keeping it was partly about keeping of promises as well as maintaining subsidies on which people have come to rely. So if you want to compare it to deporting immigrants, then you would have had to promise them they could stay for a period for the comparison to be valid.
One can make a similar argument about tenure, no?
Whatever Thune’s actual motives he is making a fairly common mistake. He is treating a public policy like a contract.
Nice to see Steve admit that when it comes to an issue near his heart he will be ‘sympathetic’ to invalid arguments. Some of us have noted that often enough …
KenB,
At least with tenure, there’s a socially constructive purpose and that purpose is to ensure that one’s ideas (sometimes unpopular) are presented without fear of termination. I don’t want to speak for Steve, but I have wondered before whether many of the blogs I read would even exist if the author didn’t have tenure.
@Josh: There’s a socially constructive purpose to paying pensions to men named Ken. I’m all for it. It’s not clear that the net effect is positive though, unless you decide benefits to Kens should simply outweigh costs to non-Kens.
Jonathan Campbell:
What is your preferred term to refer to “so-called ‘undocumented’ workers”?
I prefer the traditional, and accurate, “illegal aliens”. The fact that they’re illegal is what’s relevant here, not that they’re undocumented.
Harold,
I think some politicians have effectively promised to work towards allowing undocumented immigrants that they’ll be allowed to stay (this is what “amnesty” laws would do).
Everybody knows, though, that politicians can be voted out, and no law is immutable. It should be the individual’s responsibility, both in agriculture and immigration, to estimate for himself the probability that laws will change. There should be no notion, in either case, of catering to people who have inaccurately estimated those probabilities.
Jonathan Campbell,
I agree with all you say – the promises made by politicians are not immutable. I do not know what promises were made, and what damage would be caused by their retraction. My point is really that the argument is based (in part) on broken promises as well as damage to corn growers, I think unlike the immigrant and slave examples.
I do believe that if a Governmment makes a specific pledge such as “We will subsidise corn ethanol by $x / barrel for the next y years” then there will be a reasonable assumption that such will come to pass. Such a specific pledge should only be broken after careful consideration. Equally, such a pledge should only be made after very careful consideration. As I say, I don’t know what pledges were specifically made in the corn ethanol case.
For better or worse farmers have already planted crops based on current economics. An immediate withdrawal of subsidies will have an impact that should at least be considered.
I found it equally interesting that Grover Norquist is equating the removal of subsidies as a tax increase. This seems to set an extremely high bar if we’re looking for any sort of progressive deficit reduction.
@ Harold
Has the government made such a promise? Is it part of the law that they will provide subsidies until a specific date? If so what is the date?
It’s possible that this subsidy is more like the home mortgage interest tax deduction. However, the government doesn’t guarantee this deduction and the prudent/low risk course of action would be to buy a house you can afford even if there were no tax write off.
Of course not everyone is prudent and people are free to gamble in an effort to increase their financial gain.
It seems to me the appropriate government subsidies for those people who gamble and loose are food stamps, housing assistance/shelters, healthcare and free access to education for children (under 18) of reckless parents.
The time to complain about an injustice is when it starts, not when it stops.
Regards,
Bill Drissel
@ Johnathon Campbell
Sorry, I must have skipped over your post. You already made the point I was trying to make and did it much better.
@ Prof. Landsburg:
Feel free to remove my post. I didn’t add anything that wasn’t already said.
Harold,
You say: “I do believe that if a Governmment makes a specific pledge such as ‘We will subsidise corn ethanol by $x / barrel for the next y years'”
My point is that nobody should take such pledges seriously in the first place. The point of a democracy is that if people decide they don’t like the folks in power, they throw them out, along with whatever pledges they’ve made. (That is why we should not put much faith in current politicians’ plans for cutting social security spending, for example, starting 10 years from now). It may be unwise for a particular politician to change his mind too many times, but the ability for the government as a whole to change its mind (even to break “pledges”) is a feature, not a bug.
(Also, the first sentence in my last comment can be better understood if the words “that they’ll be allowed” are omitted.)
Sometimes a gov’t signs a contract. Build this bridge and we will pay you X. Those in general should be honoured. Sometimes a gov’t just gives stuff away and politicians promise more. That’s not a contract. Thune tries to suggest it is.
@Todd, obviously Grover Norquist is a demagogue. Sure, removing a subsidy reduces the income on the group(s) receiving the subsidy, but is he really saying that he thinks that the profits of Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill trumps the fact that the subsidy is taken from your pockets and mine?
Let’s say that John Thune is right, and we shouldn’t repeal the tax credit precipitously. Why not say, the repeal is effective on 1/1/2014? That gives ethanol producers 30 months to wind down their production.
Finally, all evidency to me is that corn-based ethanol is just filler. My car gets 5% to 10% better gas mileage on non-ethanol fuel than it does on ethanol fuel. I’ve found that it’s more cost effective for me to put non-ethanol fuel in my car, even though it’s more expensive, because the gain in mileage more than offsets the greater expense.
I have a question about “wasting resources that could be used for food.” Is the subsidy for corn or for ethanol? If it’s for corn, couldn’t they do whatever they want? I thought that’s what made corn syrup so cheap.
It’s still bad obviously, I’m just not sure how the policy is written
My favorite U.S. subsidy is the cotton subsidy. The WTO said our cotton subsidies were unfair. In a settlement, the U.S. agreed to give Brazil $ 140 million/yr unless/until we remove our subsidies.
So if anyone ever argues that are subsidies are just a way that the U.S. looks out for itself, just bring up the fact that we are so magnanimous that we give Brazilian farmers 140 mil/yr. support.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/international-taxes/90841-us-brazil-reach-accord-on-cotton-subsidies
Regarding government contracts vs politician’s promises, wasn’t it you, Steve, who argued that pollies should be able to make financial guarantees (funded from their own pocket/paycheck) that their promises would be fulfilled?
As an aside : Australian parliament is, right now, debating the government’s Carbon Tax legislation. Not sure why they debate, since none of them are going to change their views before the vote :-/
“illegal aliens” is neither more or less accurate; it carries different implications and represents a different point of view. One big problem with that term is that it implies that the people themselves are “illegal”, not that their employment or their crossing of a border is illegal (“undocumented workers” includes people who legally entered the US but either are not authorized to have a job, or have stayed longer than they were authorized to stay). To see what I mean, consider the analogy I often use: referring to anyone who got a speeding ticket as an “illegal driver”. Using a term like that carries colorful implications, it’s not a neutral objective term as you seem to imagine (even if your personal interpretation of it is neutral and objective, you ought to realize you’re in a tiny minority on that). Calling them “illegal aliens” invites other people to have emotionally hostile attitudes towards them, aside from any views about whether they should have a job or not.
@Cos: I think a more apt example would be to refer to anyone who drives without a license as an “illegal driver”. Illegal aliens are not sometimes legal residents who occasionally perform an illegal act; their residency at all is in violation of the law.
I do not think that “illegal alien” implies that the people themselves are in some way illegal… I think that it implies that they are people who reside illegally in a foreign country (which is exactly what the words mean). If people have a negative reaction to people residing illegally in a foreign country, that is their opinion on the broader subject (which probably informs their opinion on the narrower subject of whether those people should have jobs.)
@Cos: No a driver with no license is the analogy.
Cos: These are people whose very presence in this country is illegal. I prefer to emphasize that fact, in order not to minimize the extent to which we should be outraged.
Cos and Steve agree on the key point: the term used should be chosen not for clarity and precision but for its tendentiousness. Pretty soon this will be like abortion and we’ll have “dirty rotten lawbreaking job stealers” and “victimized low cost workers”.
Steve’s paraphrasing of Thunes argument has one point: that people are dependant on ripping us off so we should continue. Thunes actual quote has two points: that people are dependant on ripping us off AND that we should honor a committment. ” when we put policy in place and we say it is going to be in place for a certain period of time, that it be honored.”
His second argument may be weak, it is not a contract, but he has made it, and Steve has not included it in his paraphrase.
@Harold: Sure he has. “So it’s only fair …” . He has MOCKED it not ignored it. And in his extended discussion he likened it to ante-bellum southern senators and their similar arguments: slavery is unfortunate but we must honor …
Nice post. I’ve also often wondered how we should refer to so-called undocumented workers when they’re not working.
I was however surprised that you would be sympathetic to this argument for illegal aliens. I personally don’t think it’s helpful or necessary. I thought the argument for liberty stood on its own. Artificial government limits on immigration and a visa/naturalization process with DMV-incentives vs. market-based incentives are the root causes and seems to go against liberty.
I confess I get irritated at all sides in this debate.
The “jobs” argument against immigrant labour is a bad one.
Free market types should know this, but seem willing to overlook it.
Immigrant workers are good for the economy; it’s a form of trade.
But those posturing on some supposed principle of unrestricted immigration irk me too because they don’t *really* believe in the principle.
No-one does. A well known example of unrestricted immigration took place in Denmark in 1940. Any supporters out there?
What you say? That’s unfair? “That is not what I meant at all. That is not it, at all.”
Well it is what UNRESTRICTED means and it’s what the appeal to principle implies.
That’s why the appeal to principle irks me; it’s a bogus claim of moral superiority.
Immigration can have social costs and freedom costs.
Imagine 1 billion Westboro baptist members moving in and rewriting the constitution and the laws.
If you balk at that you have to be willing to accept and debate reasonable restrictions on immigration.
Ken B, I agree with your comment.
Steve, do you think all instances of immigration restriction are an outrage? Or is there something specific to ours that you don’t like?
I thought “fuel security” is why we have the SPR. A strong economy is a pretty important component of our national security strategy too (e.g. pays for our defense budget), so getting our energy from the cheapest sources available is helpful in that regard. I need a proponent of the idea that the key to our economic revival is creating the “green jobs of the future” to explain how forcing ourselves to pay more for (i.e. subsidize) alternative energy can lead to a net increase in jobs. Someday we will naturally be forced to shift away from fossil fuels (and market prices will lead the way); in the meantime doing so “proactively” is simply taxing ourselves. We can legitimately debate whether that is necessary for environmental reasons, but don’t package it as an economic windfall.
@Dave so shouldn’t they be called “illegal resident”? Calling someone an “illegal alien” seems to imply that they are required by law to take up US citizenship but have not yet done so.
Jonathan: That question has been asked more than once on this board, and answered less than once.
I think Steve (rightly) objects to the heightened animus towards illegal alien WORKERS. The system does sometimes seem to care more about preventing those who want to work from doing so, and thus incenting them to collect social welfare benefits. But he is notably silent on all other costs of immigration.
Ken B.
I agree with your comments on immigration. The scale of the change would cause too much chaos, at least in the short term. For a free marketeer, the goal is free markets. Anything that reduces this should be avoided. Unrestricted immigration may reduce this (at least locally) if the immigrants will vote for non free market policies, such as 1 billion Westboro Baptists. Therefore there is not necessarily a contradiction between believing in free markets and desiring some restrictions on immigration.
This raises an interesting point about the free marked philosophy. Correct me if I am wrong, this is very broad brush approach and I may be making a logical error.
1) People make rational choices in order to maximise their utility.
2) Under these conditions economic theory tells us that the free market maximises utility.
3) People must therefore choose free market policies. To do otherwise refutes either 1 or 2.
So by voting for restricted immigration or protectionism, people are refuting free market philosophy. Probably it is because the issues are so complicated that no-one can make a fully informed, rational descision. People are often mistaken. However, if people are so often mistaken, then premise 1 is not correct, and therefore the free market may not maximise utility.
By the way, on your earlier post, I disagree that the “so its only fair…” refers to the honoring of the commitment. It says that they have come to rely on the income, so its only fair to continue… not that we promised it would continue for so long, so its only fair….
I am not saying that the Govt. should be bound any such policy comittment. Only that it should be considered and it is a separate argument from the reliance on the income.
In the news:
“Senate Republicans joined Democrats on Thursday in an overwhelming vote to end an important tax break for the ethanol industry, the first of many niche tax breaks GOP lawmakers are looking to close.
The Senate voted 73-27 to end the 45-cent break refiners receive for each gallon of ethanol they blend with gasoline and to scrap a 54-cent tariff on imported ethanol. The subsidy is worth roughly $6 billion a year to the ethanol industry. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates ending it by July would save $2.4 billion over the rest of the year. ”
Better than nothing. Baby steps, baby steps.
In response to Harold’s musings I will remark that an advocate of free markets should want to PRESERVE free markets. It is sometimes assumed that free markets will just exist. A look around shows this is not so. Politics and social upheaval can lead to the end of free markets. Looked at Venezuala recently? This is relevant to many issues I suggest.
@ Ken B:
(somewhat joking) I thought that free markets were all about survival of the fittest. I mean we should apply Darwin to everything economic, politics, thought process, memes.
We shouldn’t try to preserve free market. We should let free market compete with other economic system (European Socialism, Hugo Chavezism, Chinese Oligarchyism etc.) and then let the consumers (in this case countries) decide what best meets their needs.
If free markets really are the best approach, then there is no need to preserve them.
@ Harold:
So by voting for restricted immigration or protectionism, people are refuting free market philosophy. Probably it is because the issues are so complicated that no-one can make a fully informed, rational descision.
The European Union allows for free movement of labor within its member states. The decision the folks in the EU seem to have made is that they are OK with free movement of people as long as it is with a country that maintains certain democratic/economic standards.
I’m not saying that what the EU does is correct, but it does seem like a rational decision.
I for one wish that the U.S. and Canada would have such an agreement so that I could work in Vancouver and not have to worry about healthcare. Sit in a nice bar with a great beer and watch riots out of the window.
“A well known example of unrestricted immigration took place in Denmark in 1940.” -KenB
Equivocation. Free immigration of individuals is not the same as a state-sponsored military invasion, if that’s what you’re referring to.
Ken B. I agree that it is necessary for intervention in order to acheive a free market. Laissez faire just will not do. Some say that the Govts job is to stand back, but you and I know that more is required.
@Seth: What if the same individuals came with the same purpose? I’d say the real problem with the invasion of Denmark was, well the INVASION, not who chose it.
The point is if you want to argue a principle you have to accept it’s consequences.
It seems to me that we are combining two factors, 1) Should Ethanol/Illegals be supported, and 2) Should current policies be continued/gradually phased out if they have lead to investments based on their continuation.
1) I think that the Consensus is that the policies should be changed.
2) Though the Government has not been honest, I think that the government should phase out policies that people have assumed would continue, and thus invested in so that in the future they can make investments on the assumption of a phase out, and thus a “reasonable” return on their investments. Of course, in the future the bills can, and possibly should, be written with clear phase outs and attempt to make it clear that any bill with no such phase out time WILL be sunset terminated unless it is re-authorized.
@Will A: I think you’ve lost it. If markets are suppressed by force, as they often are, they cannot “compete”. When you say we should “allow them to compete” you are assuming that free markets will be preserved. My point is that some people want to BAN them. Were priests “allowed to compete” in Calvin’s Geneva?
We should no more seek to preserve free markets than we should seek to preserve democracy. Certain systems will win out over time.
The way I see it, there are 3 main systems competing for best system:
– China (Oligarchy Capitalism) 5 trillion GDP but coming on strong
– EU (Free Markets between social democratic countries who likes a lot of state owed institutions) 14 Trillion GDP
– U.S.A. (Military Democratic Capitalism) 14 Trillion GDP
If Free Markets markets work best for humans, there is no need to preserve them. They will win out. If they don’t work best for humans, then why preserve them.
As it relates to priests being allowed to compete, China doesn’t allow this. France doesn’t allow Islamic women to wear whatever head covering they want. It seems like a good chunk of the world works under the assumption that religious activity needs to be restricted.
It makes me sad that a black widow female tries to kill her mate, but it seems to work for the species. Oligarchies/Plutocracies and restrictions on freedom make me sad, but maybe they work best for our species.
I think it remains to be seen whether those who like free markets are like male black widows. Wanting a different system to work for their species than one that actually works.
@Will A:”If Free Markets markets work best for humans, there is no need to preserve them. They will win out. If they don’t work best for humans, then why preserve them.”
Is this a response to me? it seems to be. If so Will A you are misreading what I said. You are so far off base I am at a loss to respond. Maybe it will be clearer if we talk about free speech. I remark that the citizens of a country should worry about changes that would imperil their rights to free speech, and you respond “If free speech works best for humans there is no need to preserve it …”
@ Ken B:
I think free speech falls into the same category. I have no doubt that you are an advocate of free speech and think that people should be given as much freedom as possible.
However, I think this places you in the minority (at least in the U.S. and probably most of the world).
Anwar al-Awlaki is a U.S. citizen who is a recruiter for Al-Qaeda. He is also on the U.S. Assassination list. Most Americans don’t have an issue with him being an Assassination target based on his speech.
Members of fundamentalist religious groups (e.g. Right Wing Radical Christians) are worried about the type of speech (books, movies, etc.) that is allowed in a society. Maybe their thought processes (memes) are a better fit for humans.
If successful societies restrict speech, then it would seem that restricted speech is a better match for humans than free speech.
And if the evolutionary economic, political and social processes lead humans to societies that restrict speech, why stand in the way of the invisible forces that are shaping our world?
@ Ken B:
Lastly the signers of the declaration of independence agreed that: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
When I look at the sun move across the sky, I find it self evident that the sun goes around the earth. However, it is possible that I am wrong. It is also possible that the Founding Fathers were also wrong with what they found self evident.
“What if the same individuals came with the same purpose?” -KenB
What if citizens took up that same purpose?
“Free immigration” does not entail letting immigrants break our other laws. I have no problem with letting immigrants come in. I also have no problem with prosecuting them as we would our own citizens when they infringe on the rights of others.
“Anwar al-Awlaki is a U.S. citizen who is a recruiter for Al-Qaeda. He is also on the U.S. Assassination list. Most Americans don’t have an issue with him being an Assassination target based on his speech.”
This reveals most Americans disregard for the rule of law.
@Ken
I think Will has a point about the relationship with markets and individuals:
“If Free Markets work best for humans, there is no need to preserve them. They will win out. If they don’t work best for humans, then why preserve them.”
It is always healthy to understand the scope of something from the perspective of consequences. Whenever I run into a Sociology / Philosophy major, they tend to ask me ridiculous questions based on a perspective on what could be considered good or evil – right or wrong – in their (or others) eyes. For a significant portion of decision making, there is a much larger shade of grey. The fundamental crux on all other social disciplines besides Economics is that they primarily rely on qualitative data instead of quantitative data.
For example, I would be inclined to accept some form of torture if the conditions where acceptable and the benefits outweigh the cost.
However where I think Will gets it wrong is when he simply stops at his analysis and says essentially, “Whatever happens, happens.” Let me highlight why I think this way.
I do not agree with this statement just as I do not agree with the statement, “We should legalize torture.” However the reasons why I do not agree with the legalization of torture are not based on any idea of good or evil – right or wrong. I do not agree with the legalization of torture because I know, based on other countries who have legalized it, that there would be too much of it. In other words, it is based on a quantitative idea instead of a qualitative one.
It’s also the reason why I think slavery was abolished. With the advent of coal power, there became an opportunity cost too great to pass up coal power. Even if you look at slaves in the most inhumane light: Slaves are whiney, they don’t work efficiently if they’re not fed well, and they die often – coal does none of this. This means we had too many slaves and therefore, slavery was not needed. So I guess ironically (or maybe not) I think capitalism freed the slaves.
In current affairs, we are also looking at a situation in the healthcare industry that could be better off if the government mandated us all to have healthcare. While this certainly isn’t a free-market idea, it may be a better idea if healthcare was run by the government. While it may make Steve squirm (via More Sex is Safer Sex), mandated insurance policies may be a better alternative due to problems of adverse selection. In other words, not enough people have health insurance.
It’s also the reason why I think free markets are superior to ideas from protectionism. I’m sure that there are plenty of obscure reasons why protectionism could possibly be considered a wise course of action – though I can’t think of any off the top of my head (most arguments are based more from pure fear than anything substantial). However I’m also sure, from examining other countries that have went along this route, that there would undoubtedly be too much protectionism.
In any case, I may be wrong but that’s how I look at it so far.
@Harold
Ten dollars says most Americans don’t know what the rule of law even is about.
Chicago Methods. Is the “infant industries” argument for protectionism valid? At least for a limited period.
The wikipedia article has an argument against free trade: with free movement of capital, the comparative advantage argument is not valid, as capital merely follows absolute advantage. When we looked at comparative advantage in this blog, the relative productivities of two states was discussed, and we saw that the production was highest if each state concentrated on the crop in which they had the comparative advantage. I raised the point that productivity would be much higher if all production took place in the state with the highest absolute advantage. In order for the comparative advantage to work, it is easy to assume that all the land in both states is already taken, so it is not possible to simply increase production in one state. That is, the capital is fixed. However, the free movement of capital seems to indicate that a similar thing could happen internationally, and comparative advantage is not relevant. If not, why not?
@ Chicago Methods:
However where I think Will gets it wrong is when he simply stops at his analysis and says essentially, “Whatever happens, happens.”
I guess it is possible that I’m wrong. Saying things like “whatever happens happens” and applying concepts of evolution/survival of the fittest to economics and social issues could lead us to start believing things like:
No one should get in the way of free markets and we should let the invisible hand of the market lead humans where ever it takes us regardless of what that future looks like.
@Chicago: Will gets it wrong from the start because he misunderstands what I said. I said that people already enjoying free speech and access to a free market and who like it that way have themselves and for their own interests a stake in preserving these things. Somehow he turned that into a social darwinism argument.
He’s wrong in that argument too because he assumes the differing systems will be allowed to compete. That isn’t necessarily the case if force is used. An obscure and little known attempt along those lines was made in 1939 I believe. But in any that is not the point I was interested in, which was about those already in a free system having an interest in preserving it for their own benefit.
@ Ken B:
I did say “somewhat joking”. I just found the term “an advocate of free markets should want to PRESERVE free markets” amusing.
I think the ideology of many advocates of free markets (but maybe not you) is that institutions should not try to preserve anything. The market should decide what should be preserved.
I’m not even arguing that you are being inconsistent. I just like the idea that we should try to preserve a system that relies on not preserving systems.
@ Will
“I think the ideology of many advocates of free markets […]”
Moderation of moderation is key. :)