Stephen Isabirye

Stephen Isabirye

“Libertarian”? This is straight JS Mill isn’t it?

“No, Tim Worstall thinks we have a right to do whatever we wish (or at least attempt it….such a right does not extend to successfully defying gravity, however hard you try) as long as our exercise of this right does not harm another or limit their rights to do similarly.”

- this doesn’t make sense without a specification of the rights we have. Or else how are we to know whether or not an action conflicts with the rights of others etc. Christ, why do libertarians (almost always) insist on being so interminably shit at political philosophy?

(and on the “do similarly” point. The very robust private property rights favoured by libertarians clearly violate this constraint. If you own a piece of land, in the libertarian robust sense, then nobody else can own that bit of land).

No, Tim Worstall thinks we have a right to do whatever we wish (or at least attempt it….such a right does not extend to successfully defying gravity, however hard you try) as long as our exercise of this right does not harm another or limit their rights to do similarly.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by libcon: :: The Left, the Right and Advertising http://bit.ly/7CRWOo...

Tim Worstall thinks that we should be free to do whatever we have a right to do (roughtly). You don’t think he needs to spell out what rights we have in order for that to make sense?

you need an argument to say that people have a right to use misleading adverts and so forth

No – the person who wants to interfere with a particular exercise of freedom (publishing misleading adverts for example) must (or should) show that it causes harm.

But it shows that you can’t just appeal to “interference”, you need a theory of the good (eg. to tell us which rights people have).

We need enumerations of our rights because some people insist on interfering with us. The default position is (or should be) that “That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant”. We are (or should be) free to do whatever we wish so long as we do not harm others (non-consensually). I do not have a right to express myself, I have the freedom to express myself – limited by laws against such things as defamation, incitement of violence. I do not have the right to engage in sexual activity, I have the freedom to engage in sexual activity provided the other party consents – and if they don’t, it’s sexual assault or rape.

So, again, the onus is on the person who wants to interfere with me to show that interference is necessary to prevent harm, not for me to show that I should be able to exercise my freedom without interference.

“The usual clarification is needed: Of course we interfere with people who interfere with the rights of others. The liberal point is that we cannot (or should not) interfere with those who are doing as they wish: as long as they’re not damaging either the rights of others or the ability of others to do as they wish.

It is therefore entirely liberal to have laws against rape and illiberal to have laws against any form of sex that consenting adults might want to get up to. It’s entirely liberal to have laws against doping others with drugs against their will (or knowledge!) but illiberal to have laws against consenting adults ingesting what they wish. It’s entirely liberal to have laws against drunk driving but not against drinking more generally.”

- I basically agree (though the attempt to reduce all political morality to rights is another libertarian sleight of hand, one liberals need not agree with). But now you see, you need an argument to say that people have a right to use misleading adverts and so forth (I’m thinking here of photoshopped models, or dietary supplements advertised by men who are on anabolic steroids, for example). Fine, nothing wrong with that. Maybe there’s a good argument out there. But it shows that you can’t just appeal to “interference”, you need a theory of the good (eg. to tell us which rights people have). And there’s no reason why left-liberals such as Paul need share your theory.

My answer is sure. The dividing line being between those who embrace voluntary communitarianism and those who would enforce it at the will of the majority.

Tinkers Bottom (or whatever that commune Monbiot was involved with): liberal. Everyone is there voluntarily so whatever arrangements they come up with for life are liberal (as long as everyone willingly stays there as well, of course).

Those who would say that we must all live like that (“to save Gaia” for example, although of course 6 billion people living as peasants on the land would destroy her pretty thoroughly) and that the law must be changed to make us…..there are elements of this in the Green New Deal wherre capital controls are slapped on (meaning that your or my money is no longer your or my, rather, the communities to be used as said community desires): illiberal.

“We interfere with what people do all the time”

The usual clarification is needed: Of course we interfere with people who interfere with the rights of others. The liberal point is that we cannot (or should not) interfere with those who are doing as they wish: as long as they’re not damaging either the rights of others or the ability of others to do as they wish.

It is therefore entirely liberal to have laws against rape and illiberal to have laws against any form of sex that consenting adults might want to get up to. It’s entirely liberal to have laws against doping others with drugs against their will (or knowledge!) but illiberal to have laws against consenting adults ingesting what they wish. It’s entirely liberal to have laws against drunk driving but not against drinking more generally.

“Tim Worstall appears to be claiming that we’d be vicious “elitists” denying “the proles” happiness by getting rid of such advertising.”

No, not quite: we’d be vicious elitists because we would be elitists in saying that the proles can cope with “this” sort of advertising but not with “this”. We would be making the decisions for others…..a reasonable description of elite behaviour, don’t you think?

“to argue that the market does, in-fact-if-you-do-some-reading (huh-huh-er-huh), prove that shit taste like truffles,”

Sadly, the real world beats satire, as so often happens. There is a brand of coffee marketed made of beans that have been through the digestive system of some jungle cat….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopi_Luwak

“Kopi Luwak (pronounced [?kopi 'luak]) or Civet coffee is coffee made from coffee berries which have been eaten by and passed through the digestive tract of the Asian Palm Civet (Paradoxurus hermaphroditus) and other related civets. “

Tim seems to have a bee in his bonnet about trading and advertising, but deception and coercion are not the same as product advertising. We have laws against physical violence so that the physically superior cannot dominate their inferiors. It is right that we have laws against mental and social intimidation to protect those with lesser capacity as well.

And it’s certainly right that we shouldn’t be seen to give tacit or express consent to companies paying penurious wages in other countries. Our market might not be the whole of the problem, but we don’t remove child pornography restrictions because the UK isn’t the majority of the market. In a free market world; slave children work for cheaper than paid adult sex film workers, so it would seem to make sense for the consumer to go for the product with lower production costs, provided those savings are passed onto the consumer. The market charges what the consumer will bear and all that.

People get annoyed by how women are portrayed in adverts mainly because they take pictures of women, and then airbrush them and manipulate them so that they don’t have ordinary human flaws. I’m thinking about stuff like ordinary skin tone or not being stick thin.

So one different way of regulating the industry would be banning that practice, or putting some kind of warning label on adverts that have been manipulated (I think the Lib Dems have proposed the latter, but I don’t know the specifics). Does that count as sensible?

Modern corporations exist not to provide people with what they need or want (as their adverts always claim) but to maximise their own profitability. Sometimes this co-incides with providing people with what they need or want, but certainly not always. It’s all about generating demand, as many have observed very often by convincing people they will be looked down upon by others, won’t ever get a boy/girlfriend, or will be missing out on some profound happiness, unless of course they buy the product.

Tim Worstall appears to be claiming that we’d be vicious “elitists” denying “the proles” happiness by getting rid of such advertising. That just illustrates how successful this type of advertising can be: they certainly seem to have fooled Tim Worstall into thinking that happiness cannot be attained without first being made to want and then of course buy advertised products.

In reality, almost nothing is more elitist than subjecting the population to endless propaganda trying to convince them they are socially below par unless they’re one of some mythical set of beautiful wealthy people who can afford to buy all these fantastic things.

I only ask because I’m curious to know if Worstall would rock up, thumbs in lapels ASI standard-issue bow tie a twirlin’, to argue that the market does, in-fact-if-you-do-some-reading (huh-huh-er-huh), prove that shit taste like truffles, before eating several handfuls of the stuff, sticking his fist down his throat and vomiting it back onto keyboard just to prove the point.

It’s got to be worth a try.

We interfere with what people do all the time (for example, we have laws prohibiting rape. These interfere with rapists satisfying their desires). There’s nothing necessarily wrong with interference, it just depends what we’re interfering with. Trying to reduce it to interference vs non-interference is just a sloppy move that plenty of internet libertarians often make. The argument should be about which interference is warranted etc.

(obviously, I don’t think that advertising is like rape. It’s just an example)