In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (a book of great virtues and great flaws, but I’m not going to get into either right now), Thomas Kuhn describes an experiment that I think is of tremendous importance to libertarians, particularly left-libertarians:
In a psychological experiment that deserves to be far better known outside the trade, Bruner and Postman [1949] asked experimental subjects to identify on short and controlled exposure a series of playing cards. Many of the cards were normal, but some were made anomalous, e.g., a red six of spades and a black four of hearts. Each experimental run was constituted by the display of a single card to a single subject in a series of gradually increased exposures. After each exposure the subject was asked what he had seen, and the run was terminated by two successive correct identifications.
Even on the shortest exposures many subjects identified most of the cards, and after a small increase all the subjects identified them all. For the normal cards these identifications were usually correct, but the anomalous cards were almost always identified, without apparent hesitation or puzzlement, as normal. The black four of hearts might, for example, be identified as the four of either spades or hearts. Without any awareness of trouble, it was immediately fitted to one of the conceptual categories prepared by prior experience. One would not even like to say that the subjects had seen something different from what they had identified.
With a further increase of exposure to the anomalous cards, subjects did begin to hesitate and to display awareness of anomaly. Exposed, for example to the red six of spades, some would say: That’s the six of spades, but there’s something wrong with it – the black has a red border. Further increase of exposure resulted in still more hesitation and confusion until finally, and sometimes quite suddenly, most subjects would produce the correct identification without hesitation. Moreover, after doing this with two or three of the anomalous cards, they would have little further difficulty with the others.
A few subjects, however, were never able to make the requisite adjustment of their categories. Even at forty times the average exposure required to recognize normal cards for what they were, more than 10% of the anomalous cards were not correctly identified. And the subjects who then failed often experienced acute personal distress. One of them exclaimed: ‘I can’t make the suit out, whatever it is. It didn’t even look like a card that time. I don’t know what color it is now or whether it’s a spade or a heart. I’m not even sure now what a spade looks like. My God!’ … My colleague Postman tells me that, though knowing all about the apparatus and display in advance, he nevertheless found looking at the incongruous cards acutely uncomfortable.
In short, people have enormous difficulty with, and often a strong aversion to, recognising something that doesn’t fit their established categories. And this helps, I think, to explain why as libertarians, and in particular as left-libertarians, we have so much trouble getting our message across; for in the mainstream political realm we are black hearts and red spades. Most people’s first impulse is to assimilate us to some familiar category – and since we talk so much about the virtues of free markets and the evils of government, we tend to get lumped with conservatives, since they make similar noises. When more prolonged exposure persuades people that we’re not quite conservatives after all, they then tend to become convinced that we’re black spades with red borders – conventionally conservative on some issues, conventionally liberal on others (a tendency we ourselves encourage with our in part useful, in part misleading Nolan Charts) – as opposed to representing a radical alternative to existing ideologies.
The moral, I think, is that libertarians, and especially left-libertarians, need to focus more on simply getting our position recognised. Getting it recognised is of course not enough – one then has to argue that the position is correct – but I think such argument and defense are to a large extent pointless if people can’t see what the position being defended even is.
Our vital task, then, is to get the word out that there is a position out there that includes the following theses:
1. Big business and big government are (for the most part) natural allies.
2. Although conservative politicians pretend to hate big government, and liberal politicians pretend to hate big business, most mainstream policies – both liberal and conservative – involve (slightly different versions of) massive intervention on behalf of the big-business/big-government elite at the expense of ordinary people.
3. Liberal politicians cloak their intervention on behalf of the strong in the rhetoric of intervention on behalf of the weak; conservative politicians cloak their intervention on behalf of the strong in the rhetoric of non-intervention and free markets – but in both cases the rhetoric is belied by the reality.
4. A genuine policy of intervention on behalf of the weak, if liberals actually tried it, wouldn’t work either, since the nature of government power would automatically warp it toward the interests of the elite.
5. A genuine policy of non-intervention and free markets, if conservatives actually tried it, would work, since free competition would empower ordinary people at the expense of the elite.
6. Since conservative policies, despite their associated free-market rhetoric, are mostly the diametrical opposite of free-market policies, the failures of conservative policies do not constitute an objection to (but rather, if anything, a vindication of) free-market policies.
Of course we should be prepared to defend these theses through economic reasoning and historical evidence, but the main goal at this point, I think, should be not so much to defend them as simply to advertise their existence. We need to make our red spades and black hearts a sufficiently familiar feature of the intellectual landscape that people will be able to see them for what they are rather than misclassifying them – at which point we’ll be in a better position to defend them. (Though admittedly point 6 is already beginning to slide from description to defense; still, I think 6 is crucial to getting our position so much as a hearing.)
What I advocate, then, is to make the constant repetition of (some equivalent of) points 1 through 6 a constant feature of our propagandising. In conversation, in articles, in letters to the editor, we should hit points 1 through 6 over and over again. The cure for resistance to the unfamiliar is to make it familiar.
Funny. This morning, I responded to a right-libertarian on Facebook. He was taking the usual line that Obama talks but doesn’t walk.
I know that in these circles here, the Obama administration is mostly classic statism. But sometimes it’s not. And during those times, shouldn’t we point really loudly? I don’t think that state-socialists (or the elites who reap the rewards of their politics) will benefit as much as the left-libertarian train of thought.
I didn’t touch on all of Roderick’s points. They weren’t published yet. But I hope I’m barking up the right tree:
You ask if *saying* you want competition is significant. He also *said* that 90% of the insurance industry in Alabama is controlled by one company. Those were only words. And yet at the same time, those words represent a *fact*. You don’t th…ink there’s beauracracy on the corporate side as well as the governmental side? The objective is to eliminate the beauracracy; the side-effect will be more cooperation within companies. And more cooperation within companies means more competitive companies. Isn’t that what we want? What’s the difference between beauracratic control by a company and beauracratic control by a government? Can’t corporate control eliminate competition in the same way as governmental control? Isn’t Alabama proof?
Are these six commitments necessary, sufficient or necessary and sufficient for being a left-libertarian? If necessary and sufficient, or if jointly sufficient, I’m a lefty. But if merely necessary, enumerate the rest!
It’s a cluster concept, man.
You can’t throw up your hands that easily though! Expand the cluster! Tell me some weightings of members of the cluster set! Maybe formulate a sensible weighting of criteria in a preference ordering! Give me more, more, more!
Competent usage of a term does not necessarily include the ability to articulate a formulation of its logical grammar.
Aha! I knew Wittgenstein was still alive and hiding in Auburn!
I’d think you would need all of these, but there could be others. At least I see no reason to foreclose the possibility.
Ah, true. But you, dear Roderick, must have higher standards! Stop beating around the bush! Enumerate! Articulate! Prognosticate!
“Improvise! Rhapsodize!”
Procrastinate!
Red spades and black hearts are evil? Or perhaps, to put a Keith Preston-esque slant on the result, that which is different is necessarily perceived as undesirable and causes personal distress, which would logically lead to people voluntarily associating with only the familiar the the known of their own culture/ethnic group.
Then we must make the familiar strange and the strange familiar.
that which is different is necessarily perceived as undesirable
Actually the experiment would seem to give more support to the claim that that which is different is necessarily perceived, at least initially, as non-different.
Very insightful. Thank you.
Roderick: “1. Big business and big government are (for the most part) natural allies.”
Do you mean big business as it exists in today’s world, or big business per se? If the former, you have a point (and from my quick read I don’t disagree with any of your other points). But to argue for the latter interpretation would imply that there could be no big business in a free society.
When big government exists, it is a natural ally of big business because they need each other to hold on to power.
As to whether big business could exist in a free society, I guess it depends on what your definition of big business is. I think there could be big business in a free society, but due to the dynamics of the market and the ethos that would need to exist to create a free society, there would be more competition and less hierarchy.
@Darian: “As to whether big business could exist in a free society, I guess it depends on what your definition of big business is.”
Exactly. That’s why 1, as stated, is too vaguely defined and potentially problematic. And stuff.
“When big government exists, it is a natural ally of big business because they need each other to hold on to power.”
Well, when big gov’t exists, lots of institutions and individuals are distorted and corrupted.
“I think there could be big business in a free society, but due to the dynamics of the market and the ethos that would need to exist to create a free society, there would be more competition and less hierarchy.”
Meh. I’m not convinced. I think this is a bit of an overreach. We don’t know.
Maybe “Government and business often work together to entrench their power and prevent competition”. After all, the mayor and his good ol’ boys might not be big enough to control much, but they might be big enough to control the local economy.
It is difficult to make accurate and detailed political one-liners, but it’s a task worth doing.
Stephan I think the issue is, there probably WOULDN’T be big business, big charity, or big ANY-Organizational hierarchy in the absense of the state because of the bureacratic problems making too big companies uncompetitive.
There’s an optimum medium size of a company, and the reason companies get bigger then that is because of state protections.
Stephan — not necessarily. For example, insurance companies and big government are in some ways natural allies. The government requires us to purchase insurance, so the companies get more business and can even charge more for it. Then they pay kickbacks (campaign contributions) to politicians. On could agree with that statement and still not think that there would be no insurance companies in a free society.
While I agree with your six points (and even copied and pasted them in my journal, with proper credit given to you), I think that they pose a question. What is the point of positioning yourself as a “left-libertarian?” If the phrase “left” in modern mainstream political debate has become tainted by statists, why gowith the label that you are always so willing to self-apply? You addressed in your excellent essays “Left & Right: 40 Years Later” and “Whip Conflation Now” your concerns with using the term “capitalism” to refer to genuine free (or “freed”) markets. Your use of the prefix in your preferred political label seems inconsistent with this logic.
Moreover, as you have pointed out several times, there are conflicting definitions already available for the term “left-libertarianism.” There’s also the Vallentyne/Steiner position, as well as the use by paleolibertarians in the 1990s to mean the so-called “beltway libertarians” at Cato and Reason. Why confuse non-libertarians further by using an already muddled term?
I don’t have an alternative suggestion (at least not right now). I respect you and your ideas, Roderick. In fact, you’re one of my favorite libertarian thinkers and writers. I just want to understand your usage of the term “left-libertarian” given the above. Thank you.
I think that adding “left” adds precision because we seek genuinely egalitarian and socially progressive ends, and cuz we’re radicals. Charles Johnson put it well: http://radgeek.com/gt/2009/05/19/motorhome-diaries-interview-agorism-counter-economics/
“Red Spades and Black Hearts” is either a) a great anarchist band or album name, b) a great slogan for the ALL or c) both.
I am just puzzled how anyone could reach the point of seeing it as a black spade with a red border, let alone confusion over whether it is a card. It is a red spade.
Do these people think and perceive in fundamentally different ways than I do? Do most people?
Maybe holding on to firmly established categories benefited our evolutionary ancestors. People who were sensitive, open to new ideas, creative, and otherwise not bound to their prejudice could not survive and reproduce, so instead the bias, prejudice cavemen did.
Well, the ability to recognise familiar objects quickly even when they look a little different from usual (say, to recognise a sabretooth cat coming at you even though you’ve never seen one this precise size, or from this precise angle, or through this kind of underbrush, or with precisely that colour fur) is certainly adaptive. So the prejudice might have gotten selected for, not because it’s useful per se, but because it’s a hard-to-avoid byproduct of something useful (e.g. speedy identification).
Yeah.
Distinguishing meaningful from meaningless differences, signal from noise, is incredibly hard. Our brains do it well; math/cs researchers working on image reconstruction are limping behind. It’s adaptive to notice a meaningful difference in your observations (Careful, something rustled in that bush!) but to still be able to identify the familiar.
The thing that humans have that my data analysis algorithms don’t, though, is categories. We’re much more sensitive to differences in human faces and gestures. I think we’d notice the unusual faster in an interpersonal situation than in a deck of cards. It’s handy to have a name and a face and an affect associated to a new entity.
Which is why I’ve always thought it’s a problem that libertarians (and even more so, left-libertarians) lack an easily recognizable cultural mood. For better or for worse, Democrats and Republicans each have a stereotype, a culture. We don’t, so much. We don’t really have instantly recognizable fashions or music. There’s no “face.” Maybe the closest things are tech-geek culture and the Ron Paul phenomenon. But I think it’s important to have a distinctive culture in addition to — and maybe even before — getting the basic concepts out there.
Yes, I think there have been a lot of psychological experiments that basically make the point that people naturally interpret things using existing categorizations.
As for these points:
1. Big business and big government are (for the most part) natural allies.
4. A genuine policy of intervention on behalf of the weak, if liberals actually tried it, wouldn’t work either, since the nature of government power would automatically warp it toward the interests of the elite.
5. A genuine policy of non-intervention and free markets, if conservatives actually tried it, would work, since free competition would empower ordinary people at the expense of the elite.
But I think there’s another point here: a genuine policy of non-intervention can never be (and has never been) tried as a form of government because big business and big government are natural allies (see point #1).
So … anarchy?
Yup. I don’t want to throw anarchy into the initial soundbites and distract them, but yeah.
“since free competition would empower ordinary people at the expense of the elite. ”
I disagree with this. In voluntary market exchange, BOTH parties expect to benefit, otherwise, they would not trade. No one is “empowered” at the “expense” of anyone else.
It is true that in free competition, the unjust acquisition of power is eroded/eliminated, so in that regard, you could say “at the expense of the elite”, but only with an explanation.
Without the initiation of aggression, no one operates at “the expense” of anyone else. If someone becomes wealthy (“elite”) in a truly free market, it is only because they have succeeded in satisfying their customers, not because of “empowerment” at the “expense” of anyone.
“It is true that in free competition, the unjust acquisition of power is eroded/eliminated, so in that regard, you could say ‘at the expense of the elite’, but only with an explanation.”
I think it’s pretty clear that that is in fact what Roderick is saying.
Hi,
I generally find myself in agreement with the post, however I doubt the following:
“4. A genuine policy of intervention on behalf of the weak, if liberals actually tried it, wouldn’t work either, since the nature of government power would automatically warp it toward the interests of the elite.”
I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the efficiency a democracy has in achieving its _stated_ goals. Sure, I agree any party would strive for a neat balance between two resources: wealth (big business) and votes (popular support). But there’s no reason to jump to the conclusion that big business or the elite is the single variable in this equation, apart from being as catchy as a conspiracy theory.
Secondly, I don’t see the purpose of this thesis, as any libertarian would agree that government intervention (with its consequences) on behalf of the weak is not justified.
So if individualist principles is what we support (anarchy per se needn’t even be thrown directly into the discussion), why beat around the bush? Bringing up big business into the discussion and putting them into a category certainly doesn’t help clarify the position (i.e. “we’re against all intervention”).
The 6 theses are great distillations of the politics we all advocate, but… frankly, I want to get the Long critique of Kuhn! One of the most influential works on my thought, I’d love to see you poke holes in it, Roderick.
Seconded!