Tag Archives | Conflation Debate

How To Do Things With Words

I propose some new terminology: left-conflationism and right-conflationism.

Left-conflationism is the error of treating the evils of existing corporatist capitalism as though they constituted an objection to a freed market. Right-conflationism is the error of treating the virtues of a freed market as though they constituted a justification of the evils of existing corporatist capitalism.

Bosses of the Senate

Yes, these are basically just Kevin’s “vulgar liberalism” and “vulgar libertarianism” in new garb. And yes, the new terms sound more awkward and jargony than their predecessors.

But the advantage I claim for them is that they also sound less insulting than their predecessors. Of course neither set of terms entails anything about the etiology of the views it names. Nevertheless, left-conflationism and right-conflationism sound like intellectual mistakes, ones that well-meaning people might fall into; by contrast, vulgar liberalism and vulgar libertarianism sound like character flaws – the outlooks of, well, vulgar people. And to be sure, in many cases they may be. But not all; and we only make it harder for ourselves when our terminology alienates the very people we’re trying to persuade.

I’m not suggesting that we should simply junk the terms “vulgar liberalism” and “vulgar libertarianism.” There’s a time for polemics, and when we want polemical terms it’s handy to have them. But when we’re not engaged in polemics, it’s also handy to have a term for our interlocutors’ position that isn’t a conversation-stopper.


Boston Anarchist Thinking Brigade, Part 2

My paper for the upcoming Molinari Symposium is now online.

In related news, Gary Chartier has decided to boycott air travel in order to protest the irradiate-or-grope screening process; I’ll be reading out his responses (along with Kevin Carson’s commentary) in absentia sua. Doug Den Uyl will also not be attending (though he’s not boycotting anything as far as I know); Doug Rasmussen will read out their joint commentary.


Boston Anarchist Thinking Brigade

The Molinari Society will be holding its seventh annual Symposium – this time with two sessions – in conjunction with the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association in Boston, December 27-30, 2010. Here’s the latest schedule info:

Gary Chartier - ECONOMIC JUSTICE AND NATURAL LAW

GIV-3. Tuesday, 28 December 2010, 2:00-5:00 p.m.
Molinari Society Symposium, SESSION 1:
Author Meets Critics: Gary Chartier’s Economic Justice and Natural Law
Marriott/Westin-Copley, precise location TBA

chair: Roderick T. Long (Auburn University)

critics:
Jennifer Baker (College of Charleston)
Kevin A. Carson (Center for a Stateless Society) [Commentary online: to be read in absentia]
David Gordon (Ludwig von Mises Institute)
Douglas Den Uyl (Liberty Fund)
Douglas B. Rasmussen (St. John’s University)

author:
Gary Chartier (La Sierra University)

GVII-4. Wednesday, 29 December 2010, 9:00-11:00 a.m.
Molinari Society Symposium, SESSION 2:
Topic: Spontaneous Order
Marriott/Westin-Copley, location TBA

chair: Gary Chartier (La Sierra University)

presenters:
Charles Johnson (Molinari Institute)
      “Women and the Invisible Fist: How Violence Against Women Enforces the Unwritten Law of Patriarchy”
Roderick T. Long (Auburn University)
      “Invisible Hands and Incantations: The Mystification of State Power”

commentators:
Nina Brewer-Davis (Auburn University)
Reshef Agam-Segal (Auburn University)

As part of the APA’s continuing policy to prevent free riders, they’re not telling us the name of the room until we get to the registration desk. As part of our policy of combating evil we will of course broadcast the name of the room far and wide as soon as we learn it.

This year we have managed to avoid any schedule conflict with the Ayn Rand Society (Dec. 28th, 9:00-11:00) or Jan Narveson’s author-meets-critics session (Dec. 30th, 9:00-12:00) but not, alas, with the American Association for the Philosophic Study of Society (Dec. 29th, 9:00-11:00).


We Didn’t Stop the Fire

A recent spectacular example of government failure – namely, a government fire company’s refusing to put out a nonpayer’s fire– has been transformed, through the magic of non sequitur, into a criticism of libertarianism. That last charge is too silly to comment on, but the case does raise some interesting libertarian issues. I venture some tentative answers:

1. Should a fire company be legally required to put out the fires of nonpayers?

Firehouse Subs

In a free market, the answer is obviously no. In an oligopolistic market where the company is the beneficiary of artificial restrictions on competition – or, as in the recent case, is an actual government monopoly – the case for yes grows a lot stronger.

2. Would a fire company have an (unenforceable) moral obligation to put out a nonpayer’s fire in a case like this recent one?

I lean toward saying yes – especially once they’d arrived, and especially given that there were pets in the house. Obviously still more so if there’d been children in the house. We have positive obligations to our neighbours as well as negative ones, even if the positive ones aren’t legitimately enforceable (other than through shaming).

3. Wouldn’t it be economically unfeasible to fight fires of nonpayers, inasmuch as letting the house burn down would serve as a warning to other nonpayers?

Seeing a nonpayer forced to pay full price for having their house saved seems like sufficient incentive.

4. Would this recent event be likely to happen in a competitive market?

I think not. Company A says “sorry, we won’t put out your fire, even though you’re now offering to pay the full amount.” What’s your natural response if you’re Company B? (Note that the existence of private fire companies does not by itself guarantee a competitive market; I suspect most private fire companies historically operated in an oligopolistic context.)

5. What if a nonpayer can’t afford to pay full price? Is there any economic incentive to save her house then?

Sure. Letting nonpayers’ houses burn is the kind of bad publicity a rival would benefit from exploiting.

6. What if a nonpayer can afford to pay full price but is out of town and can’t consent to it, so the fire company saves her house anyway. Can they force her to pay?

I’d say no. But reputation effects apply to customers too.


Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes