The Calculus of Consent at Fifty: Insights for Liberalism by Niclas Berggren opens the morning session on the future of liberalism. The Calculus of Consent is now a classic text by Buchanan and Tullock. He discusses the book under a number of headings.
Constitutionalism: There are rules (ie constitutions) and then there is politics. The veil of uncertainty – what rules would people want if they did not know their own circumstances until the game of life has begun. But they omitted the need to consider the way that the rules themselves are changed through the ongoing political process. There is also an assumption of a unitary state but that is a form of utopianism since there may be different jurisdictions where varying kinds of constitutions might be set up. B%T have concentrated too much on formal structures. All these require further thought.
Conclusions: (1) Look at constitutions (2) Need to think about the political structures (3) Need to implement checks and balances. Finally, do not accept everything that B&T have written but can be inspired by their work.
Still the danger of majority tyranny of minorities remains. [Whether anyone has an answer is hard to see.]
Paretian Optimality: Need some alternative to unanimous decision making. Suggests we should beware of “do-gooders” [but how?].
[The most tepid praise for a book I may have ever heard.]
Second speaker Jan Oravec, President of the F.A. Hayek Foundation. “Is Liberalism in Europe Dead?” Not an academic. He runs a free market entrepeneurial association.
Europe is threated by “extensions of arbitrary power . . . caused by a weakening of respect for private property.” This from MPS in 1947. Not much has changed. We on the liberal capitalist side have been proven right a thousand times over, yet liberalism is hated as never before. Takes up a number of themes.
Language: Opponents of liberalism have made general public believe in their false narratives. Even amongst ourselves, we are not clear about these in our own language. The words “capitalism” and “economic growth” have, for example, proven difficult. Even the defenders of capitalism no longer willing to defend as it needs to be. Defenders often merely state that it is the worst system except for all the others. We should instead say we are not in a capitalist system – either a mixed system or actual socialism.
“Economic growth” – but now clouded with need to add “sustainable”, “green”, “equitable”, “innovative”, “inclusive”, “cohesive” etc as adjectives to associate with growth. No-growth advocates are winning out.
History: There is this pretence that since 1989 we went from socialism to capitalism; what has actually happened is a transition from socialism to capitalism back to socialism via the EU. Normal description, we live in democratic capitalism. In reality, it is creeping socialism. Wealth distribution dominates wealth creation.
Policy: “Disastrous monetary, fiscal and regulatory policies in Europe (A Triumph of Keynesianism)” [!!!]
“Anti-liberal crusade of global regulators – ILO, UN, OECD – restricting freedoms and inventing claims”
Final thought: Is Liberalism in Europe Dead? Not yet but getting there.
Third Speaker Hardy Boullion
There is a need for a new strategy to deal with the evolution of leftist thought. The aim of the left is now to seek “global justice” thus going beyond national borders. Cannot therefore depend on the normative foundations of classical liberal principles. Need something to deal with a clash of utilitarian demands. How to legitimate properly rights in the present world. Locke’s principles can no longer be applied and will certainly not be accepted by others. There can be no global contract theory which can only exist within a single political entity.
The principle proposed is “finders keepers”. Once someone possesses something, the second comer must defer to the property rights of the first. Agrees that this is a thin defence.
[I can see the problem he raises - if you grant extra-national rights on your national wealth then how do you limit their claims on you? I see the problem but I don't see his solution will work to limit the appetites these extra-national claims imply.]
This is all pissing in the wind.
What you will see in 2020, 2030 and 2040 in western countries such as Australia is an overwhelming number of childless old and aging women, sitting on million dollar properties in eastwood, hornsby and concord, sucking up massive heatlhcare resources that are funded by smaller and smaller numbers of immigrant taxpayers. while at the same time charging those children they forgot to have higher and higher rents..
will these grey infidels be funded indefinitely?
Max
5 Sep 12 at 7:28 pm
I hope so.
Poor Old Rafe
5 Sep 12 at 7:53 pm
I agree entirely, Max, except I haven’t a clue why you think anyone with money would want to live in Eastwood, Hornsby or Concord.
The Prince
5 Sep 12 at 9:02 pm
Our revenge will be letting them fester in their own filth until they hand over all their money.
Infidel Tiger
5 Sep 12 at 9:18 pm
That’s right, Max. That is why libertarians must recognize a state interest in marriage.
dover_beach
5 Sep 12 at 9:26 pm
Not if the Trade Union Party completely kills economic growth.
Falling numbers of immigrants will likely reduce house prices.
Forester
5 Sep 12 at 10:09 pm
…and increasing mortality rates of the grey infidels.
.
5 Sep 12 at 10:11 pm
Dover, even though your perspective is only partially rational I usually propose that libertarians leave tradi
John Mc
5 Sep 12 at 10:25 pm
Dover, even though your perspective is only partially rational I usually propose that libertarians oppose gay marriage and abortion, and support border controls. This is simply to shut the conservatives up and because we can usually agree somewhat on the other stuff.
John Mc
5 Sep 12 at 10:30 pm
Its happening already. There’s a steady trickle of wizened old crones selling their houses, paying the proceeds to the home as a bond. When they finally choke down their miserable, wastrel spawn fight over the residue like wild dogs. The barren and lesbian usually leave their cash to dog and cat homes.
Pickles
5 Sep 12 at 10:30 pm
It isn’t just chidless women. It’s old blokes, and couples (or the widowed) too. The demographic time-bomb will exert great pressure for the well-off to pay up in spite of their voting numbers. I’ll guarantee that tax free superannuation pensions will revert to taxable status (as they were prior to Howard’s removal of tax on them) and all aged care will be means tested or listed (mortgaged) against the eventual sale of property. It’s already happening, as is more user-pays medical treatment.
This is where some real problems will come from. These sorts of constraints on growth, coupled with a re-distributive mentality, can only lead to the ‘slowly boiling frog’ decline of the West.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
5 Sep 12 at 10:45 pm
John Mc, a position is either rational or it isn’t; it’s like life or death. I really don’t understand how libertarians can imagine that the community has no interest in promoting suitable conditions for the next generation simply through the institution of marriage. That is all conservatives are asking the State to do. The problem Max identifies above doesn’t only affect the childless in those societies but those with children. Those societies with birth rates below replacement levels are essentially ones in their death throes if things do not change. They are societies without respect for the past or interest in the future; that is why their purported concern for future generations is deeply ironical.
dover_beach
5 Sep 12 at 10:45 pm
Max, I found your comment to be a bit ridiculous and off-topic. We don’t have a demographic time bomb in Australia. If people choose to be rich and childless that’s their business.
dd
5 Sep 12 at 10:57 pm
You cannot make those sorts of predictions without forecasting longevity and working lifespans.
JC
5 Sep 12 at 10:58 pm
If they can do so with a caring provider, through marriage, women should have babies. It is selfish not to (societally), and also self-defeating not to (personally). Men and women are formed to love each other and to want to see that love expressed in children; that is fundamental. Other things can compensate or take priority, but the bedrock exists still. Any social group has to self-replicate or die.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
5 Sep 12 at 10:59 pm
This is true.
The benefits of capitalism are not well understood. In particular, it generates the wealth that Western nations enjoy. It’s the reason we’re not all still peasants and subsistence farmers.
Paradoxically, if you don’t acknowledge capitalism’s benefits it’s harder to do an effective job of controlling its excesses. Crony capitalism and corporatism are perennial problems. Cartels. Fraud. Pollution. Waste dumping. etc. These things aren’t central to capitalism nor are they a feature of it working as intended. Capitalism is good when combined with good laws that are enforced fairly.
Capitalism seems to be the only system of lifting the populace out of poverty.
dd
5 Sep 12 at 11:06 pm
Agreed. No-one is or should be forced to sit on the bedrock, if people have other priorities (as I said). Fortunately, many do reproduce, and societies continue. But if marriage is downgraded, problems emerge with the care and upbringing of children.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
5 Sep 12 at 11:07 pm
Well said, dd.
Jarrah
5 Sep 12 at 11:17 pm
How on earth can you suggest that elements form part of capitalism? They don’t. This how the left thinks capitalism ought to operate. Governments (see the current Kenyan Administration) dispensing favors to friends is not capitalism. Never was.
JC
5 Sep 12 at 11:21 pm
The reality is that people will do unethical things in the pursuit of wealth. The list of such unethical things is much longer than the one I gave.
Anti-capitalists use these examples to argue that capitalism is intrinsically bad. You need to be able to articulate why Union Carbide, for example, is an abberation. And be able to explain away the Nike sweatshop controversy. etc. It’s not enough to say “that’s not capitalism”, because there are people saying it is.
dd
5 Sep 12 at 11:31 pm
A feature of modern capitalism that gets a bad rap is the ‘corporation,’ and it’s evil cousin, the ‘multinational corporation’ (often shortened to just ‘multinational’ for short).
I’m sure a lot of people don’t understand that these are really useful and important instruments for organising large scale economic activity.
dd
5 Sep 12 at 11:34 pm
Sorry, I misread the comment and took it personally, despite being male, having children and living in Lower Neutral Bay in a place worth less than a million.
On the bright side, BoltA gave a heads up on a Quadrant piece about the way the left is out of ideas, of course we knew that but it is good to see Andrew spreading the news around.
Poor Old Rafe
5 Sep 12 at 11:37 pm
DD
Union Carbide and Nike actions can’t be categorized under the headers… Corporatism and cronyism. You moved the goal posts ever so slightly, no?
JC
5 Sep 12 at 11:45 pm
Nike doesn’t run any sweat shops. There would be queues of workers trying to get jobs at its factories.
Infidel Tiger
5 Sep 12 at 11:48 pm
And why be defensive anyway? There’s plenty of chaff to chew on in showcasing the faults of the perennial lying dishonest left.
You will never change hearts and minds until you dismantle a fair portion of the public sector- cutting into it right to the bone.
Have you noticed a change over the recent years, DD? Those in the the public sector are now by and large the enemy. They don’t give a flying shit about the real story behind Union Carbide or Nike. They want money and are prepared to suck blood like vampires. They have no fucking interest in the story. And the have serious fucking attitude too.
Occasionally go read that asshat, Mike Jericho’s blog, as he pretty much offers the latest view from the public sector. He’s generational public sector. Get a feel of his attitude towards the productive sector. Attitudes will only change when peoples livelihoods are aligned.
JC
5 Sep 12 at 11:57 pm
“Anti-capitalists use these examples to argue that capitalism is intrinsically bad.”
Or they use examples of cronyism, government monopolies, corruption, bailouts, etc, as somehow capitalism’s fault. All of those things are problems derived from government action, but people have this blind spot where they associate any and all actions of the wealthy or the elite as inherent features of capitalism. Drives me up the wall. It’s a category error. To be fair, I know a fair few capitalists who make an equivalent error with other isms.
Jarrah
6 Sep 12 at 12:05 am
junius
No kidding, paying you two dollar per day would be tough. Frankly I don’t think you could even achieve a good result with that rate of pay.
You have to fuck off from here Junius.
JC
6 Sep 12 at 12:19 am
Look you fucking moron Junius. You don’t engage in discussion here, you post sanctimonious platitudes or platitudinous swill.
No one’s interested, as we’ve heard them all before you insufferable turd.
You’re driving the IQ down. Please fuck off.
JC
6 Sep 12 at 12:24 am
And even if it did run sweatshops, the fact of the matter is that the lefty idiots judge the low wages against their own cost of living, which is absurd.
perturbed
6 Sep 12 at 1:15 am
I’m not arguing against capitalism, so I can’t be “moving the goalposts.” I’m just describing how capitalists get attacked by its enemies, using the so called ‘Evils Of Capitalism’.
I think that libertarians have failed to effectively argue the case for capitalism and to counter leftist attacks on capitalism. The field has been vacated.
dd
6 Sep 12 at 7:33 am
Get up to speed before posting your dishonest spin.
dd
6 Sep 12 at 7:35 am
If Gillard got rid of on costs and occupational licensing (in addition to the carbon tax and mining tax), Gina and her workers would all be better off – without the need for wage regulation.
Julius is the kind of idiot that thinks wealth is produced in the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office.
.
6 Sep 12 at 11:43 am
Thinks? Please it just parrots stuff from Krugman.
Gab
6 Sep 12 at 11:45 am
It is not just Krugman, the cartoon in the Oz proves that the dog whistle fanned the hate and envy that motivates the ultra-Lefty Kudelka.
I must admit, Swan really understands how deranged the left in Australia is and knows how to feed that hate.
Token
6 Sep 12 at 12:06 pm
Sorry for being so negative guys – I just read this – 1 in 20 to work in aged care!
http://www.news.com.au/business/worklife/universities-and-aged-care-facilities-to-transform-into-practical-learning-centres/story-e6frfm9r-1226464286080
and was pissed off – I should have kept it in the open forum.
Max
6 Sep 12 at 2:02 pm