(Update) Soliciting Suggestions for Chatroom
(posted by Mona)
[Update: STEVEN HORWITZ is delighted with the recommendation of him, and will be appearing in the AoTP chatroom at a time soon to be announced. Note his name in caps; the gentleman -- with great good humor -- noted multiple fractures of its correct spelling in comments. To which I also must plead guilty.]
We held our first AoTP chat this past Wednesday, which as jackson posted about led to a fascinating discussion of peak oil. That chat was not, however, dedicated to a particular topic, nor did we have an invited guest — an author, pundit or activist — for participants to interact with and question. But such uses of the chatroom are what we wish to move toward, and we are taking suggestions.
For example, does anyone know of an author on the subject of peak oil who, for a modest honorarium, might be willing to be our guest? What other subjects should we dedicate chats to, and what guests might be appropriate to the topic?
Note: With regard to Kevin Carson’s fine drug war rant post below, we have Radley Balko lined up (and do read that Balko piece; it will infuriate you) as a chat guest, post-Labor Day.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
In terms of topics, I’d love to see a chat dedicated to rescuing Hayek from the clutches of the Right. I know this was more of a hot topic last month, but I’d love to hear the thoughts of a Hayek expert on the ways in which the political Right (and, unfortunately, many libertarians) does or does not misread or over-read Hayek, as well as Hayek’s position that an alliance with the Left was inevitable and would eventually be necessary.
July 18th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
I’ll second Mark. I’d like to see a true examplar of the liberaltarian fusion being attempted here into the chat room.
There was a book reviewed in Reason maybe close to a year ago, in which the book’s author had smartly employed Hayek to make arguments for a welfare state that took price coordination and a respect for individual desires into account. Anyone else remember that?
July 18th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Mark and Dain: Excellent idea. Now if either or both of you would like to find out who such an expert might be — or the author Dain is referencing who was reviewed at Reason — well, I wouldn’t put a stick in your eyes.
July 18th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
interview brink lindsey?
July 18th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Ed, Lindsey for what topic in particular?
July 18th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Here is the review I was talking about, by Steve Horowitz, on a book by Theodore Burczak called Socialism After Hayek:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/120457.html
July 18th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Thank you, Dain! I’m almost thinking the reviewer, Stephen Horwitz (an author and academic reaching such areas himself) might but be the better chat guest. What thinkest ye?
July 18th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
I’m sure Horowitz would be “down” for that. Though by having Horowitz we’d be diverting from Mark’s suggestion above, as Horowitz is himself a libertarian, whereas Burszack would qualify as a Hayekian “expert” who is neither libertarian nor conservative.
July 18th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Right Dain, but socialists are just beyond this site. Even those who have nice things to say about Hayek. Horowitz understands that Hayek was not against all safety net programs, and does not seem hostile to those libertarians who will sometimes “go there.” Would you say that is correct? IOW, doesn’t Horowitz seem to agree that Hayek is not in the “clutches of the right” as per Mark?
July 18th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Agreed. And I suppose we can trust Horowitz to give an accurate account of Burczak’s thought.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:02 am
Congrats on lining up Balko, Mona. What with Greenwald, and now this, we’re getting a lot of big names here.
Mark and Dain,
The Burszak book is a good one (I had to order it through interlibrary loan because, like most academic books, it was enormously overpriced).
One aspect of Hayek that’s neglected is the significance of Hayekian informations *within* the firm, and the tendency of corporate management to try to act like a “state planning agency” in the face of the dispersed knowledge of those actually doing the work. David Prychitko’s *Marxism and Self-Management* (written by an Austrian economist, and also enormously overpriced) argues for the superiority of cooperatives from a Hayekian information standpoint.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
I thought Carson and Preston considered themselves socialists.
I don’t know about Brink Lindsay. He supported the Iraq war and while he seems to have recognized that it didn’t turn out very well, he doesn’t seem to have had any sort of moment of clarity that would lead him to oppose a similar war in the future. He’s rather complacent about the state of things in Washington, with his recent book being about how things are all good and the people on the left and right are just whiners.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Kevin can speak for himself, but I understand him to be a self-identified anarchist. In any event, I personally do not see AoTP as a site dedicated to forging an alliance with socialists per se. As our About statement says, it is an allliance with liberals and/or the left. I suppose semantics can get in the way here, but I’d prefer not to have it seem that AoTP is getting in bed with socialists, as that word is commonly understood.
But I’m open to reasonable arguments in favor of specific individuals or situations where I should set aside that preference.
July 19th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Please see update at top of post. We got Horwitz! Thanks Dain and Mark for the superb suggestion, and help finding the “right” guest.
July 20th, 2008 at 7:29 am
I’m an “anarcho-socialist” or “libertarian socialist” in the tradition of Proudhon, but I’m resolutely opposed to what most modern people think of as “socialism”, e.g., Social Democracy, Marxism-Leninism, National Socialism, etc.
http://attackthesystem.com/the-myth-of-socialism-as-statism/
July 20th, 2008 at 10:21 am
For what it’s worth, I think it would be far more fruitful to try to forge conceptual links and political alliances between libertarianism and the radical left than with “liberalism.” I’ll try to sketch out exactly why in the following somewhat fragmentary thoughts.
In the last several years, through my reading outside the canon of literature deemed “safe” for libertarians), I’ve come to recognize an unacknowledged complicity of liberalism as a whole (both classical as well as modern) with the established political order (American empire, actually-existing capitalism, neo-liberal development and multinationals running amok, unaccountable supra-national political bodies, etc.).
More specifically, they recognize the (always selective) use by the sovereign center (and its sundry hangers-on, including big business) of emphasis on the “rights” and pre-reflective desires of isolable, abstract individuals, as a way of weaking and ultimately destroying any and all other loci of authority which might pose some kind of challenge to the state.
After Foucault and Agamben, it seems quite clear that the modern state governs via biopolitics, or the disciplining of bodies, and the only way to resist such governance is with a counter-discipline of those bodies (hopefully, a self-discipline, but a discipline nonethless): To the extent an implicit hedonism or normative licensentiousness (sp?) motivates modern liberalism, it should then be clear how it is that modern liberalism (perhaps unwittingly) clears the ground for the state to then securely occupy. The very private pleasures that traditional moralities might caution against and attempt to moderate (reflectlingly, variously: greed, lust, gluttony, sloth), but which the modern liberalism now only legally permits (which no libertarian would have a problem with) but actually subsidizes and otherwise encourages then function as the “bread and circuses” which render the governed all the more docile and malleable.
In the end, even though it is important to be ever-vigilant against the potential domination of all (even non-coercive) authority and/or hierarchy, I think it is incredibly important for libertarianism realize that, sociological reasons, authority and hierarchy will always exist and they actually serve certain important purposes. Further, libertarianism ought to try to appropriate the genuine insights of communitarianism, socialisms, tribalism, and collectivism (which are more or less invisible to “liberals,” so as to inoculate itself against the continued and predictable efforts of the state order to undermine (and prevent the re-emergence of) any thick social bonds that do not serve the state’s interests or otherwise prop up the state’s apparatus.
For more on why what I’m saying might make sense, I would recommend that more left-libertarianism read Robert Nisbet, the English pluralist tradition (Maitland, John Neville Figgis, G.D.H. Cole), and Christoper Lasch.
Thanks,
Araglin
July 20th, 2008 at 10:43 am
I’ll try that again, this time with a bit more explanation and without so many typos.
For what it’s worth, I think it would be far more fruitful to try to forge conceptual links and political alliances between libertarianism and the radical left than with “liberalism.” I’ll try to sketch out exactly why in the following somewhat fragmentary thoughts.
In the last several years, through my adventures in reading well outside the canon of literature deemed “safe” for libertarians), I’ve come to recognize an unacknowledged complicity of liberalism as a whole (both classical as well as modern) with the established political order (American empire, actually-existing capitalism, neo-liberal development and multinationals running amok, unaccountable supra-national political bodies, etc.). This liberal (rights-oriented) rhetoric is often good and true if taken in isolation (which may be why so many vulgar libertarians might fall for it); however, when considered within the particular situation in which it is uttered, with a view towards the sorts of practices that this rhetoric aims to legitimate, the sinister character of this “liberal” can be laid bare.
More specifically, I’ve come to take more and more serously the (always selective) use by the sovereign center (and its sundry hangers-on, including big business) of rights-talk and an emphasis on the fulfillment of the supposed interests and pre-reflective desires of isolable, abstract individuals, as a way of weaking and ultimately destroying any and all other loci of authority which might pose some kind of challenge to the state.
After Foucault and Agamben, it seems quite clear that the modern state governs via biopolitics, or the disciplining of bodies, and the only way to resist such governance is with a counter-discipline of those bodies (hopefully, a self-discipline, but a discipline nonethless): To the extent an implicit hedonism or normative licensentiousness (sp?) motivates modern liberalism, it should then be clear how it is that liberalism perhaps unwittingly clears the ground for the state to then securely occupy. The very private pleasures that traditional moralities might caution against and attempt to moderate (reflectlingly, variously: greed, lust, gluttony, sloth), but which the liberalism not only legally permits (which no libertarian would have a problem with) but actually subsidizes, and otherwise encourages, then function as the “bread and circuses” which render the governed all the more docile and malleable. The classical liberals tend to do this through the erosion of traditional strictures against greed, hoarding, usury, etc., while modern liberals tend to do so, by eroding the traditional strictures against lust, envy, and gluttony.
In the end, even though it is important to be ever-vigilant against the potential domination of all (even non-coercive) authority and/or hierarchy, tradition and custom, I think it is incredibly important for libertarianism to acknowledge that, for sociological reasons, authority and hierarchy will always exist in some form or other, and they actually serve certain important purposes. Further, libertarianism ought to try to appropriate the genuine insights of communitarianism, socialisms, tribalism, and collectivism (which appear to be more or less invisible to “liberals,” who tend to have a laughably whiggish conception of history) so as to inoculate itself against the continued and predictable efforts of the state order to undermine (and prevent the re-emergence of) any thick social bonds that do not serve the state’s interests or otherwise prop up the state’s apparatus.
For more on why what I’m saying might make sense, I would recommend that more libertarians read Robert Nisbet, the English pluralist tradition (Maitland, John Neville Figgis, G.D.H. Cole), and Christoper Lasch.
Thanks,
Araglin
July 20th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Araglin,
I’m fairly familiar with what you’re saying. It meshes well with what I would call “thick(ly conservative)” libertarianism, which, as you say, meshes well with communitarianism and much Left thought. Christopher Lasch, Paul Piccone, those folks. When you talk about sanctioned licentiousness, it reminds me of what I’ve read of Zizek recently.
I read Robert Nisbet years ago, and indeed it revealed to me the idea that conusmerism and individualism were supported by the alliance of the welfare state and Capitalism. (Before this, in crude libertarian fashion I thought “How could the welfare state create individualism?!”) The welfare state subverted traditional authorities that acted as a bulwark against modernist anomie, with Capitalism helping things along.
I’m increasingly too empiricist to fall for foggy notions like “anomie” and “consumerism”. Anomie is supposed to reflect a feeling of malaise, synonymous with a lack of happiness correct? But Happiness Research tells us that market societies with advanced welfare states are happier than places bound by “the great chain of being” and traditional authority. Though it also tell us, I believe, that indeed a sense of “purpose” is lacking in modern societies. No doubt it’s my own prejudice, but whatever. For what it’s worth, I’m all in support of leaving the Amish the hell alone, to let them maintain their sense of purpose. (Their replacement leve is well above zero, btw, and their attrition rate rather low. The Amish are not going extinct.)
And complaints against consumerism seem to be based on either a) aesthetic revulsion or b) fears of resource depletion. The first I don’t share, and the latter is due to misunderstandings of economics or a lack of correct incentives in economic matters. However, I think more visibile examples of consumer culture can reinforce societal prejudices I don’t like. But this is rather different from the feeling of disdain some get from seeing a fat person with a Mickey Mouse ball cap eating an ice cream cone in front of Blockbuster video.
A big problem in granting legitimacy (in a political sense?) to tribalisms and collectives is that in reality these identities are constantly in flux. And to the degree they aren’t, that is often indiciative of a lack of freethought within the culture. I can’t remain intellectually honest with myself and avoid applying methodologically individualist reductionism to matters like this. I’d refer to Kenan Malik’s article at Butterflies and Wheels (http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=338), wherein he cites people like Kwame Appiah, on the plurality of pluralism, so to speak.
…the “bread and circuses” which render the governed all the more docile and malleable.
I fear this might be sociology run amok. I’m fairly certain that Netflix, HBO, the pizza place down the street and the music venues in San Francisco are not in cahoots to provide me with the “bread and circuses” that keep me docile. I’m more certain that these are things most people value (save for the SF music venues, granted), as opposed to politics, because they give them more direct utility. I’ve thought about the way that state subsidization may actually encourage all of this, but I’m fairly convinced that most of it would exist anyway. The increasing disposable income of childless singles has probably had more to do with the proliferation of adolescent type vulgarities than the state has. (Now perhaps the state is responsible for this too via Social Security or something, but the people were already lavishing luxuries on a limited number of children who were urged to delay family life for education before the rise of the welfare state. This was largely a market phenomenon.) But perhaps by “subsidies” you didn’t mean state?
The classical liberals tend to do this through the erosion of traditional strictures against greed, hoarding, usury, etc., while modern liberals tend to do so, by eroding the traditional strictures against lust, envy, and gluttony.
This sounds vaguely agreeable in the abstract, but I’d defend lust, gluttony and “greed” (if that mean interest, speculation, etc.) in too many concrete cases. And I’m actually not convinced that most modern liberals are in support of gluttony. There seems to be alot of support for austerity vis-a-vis “consumerism”
in the modern liberal mind.
July 20th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Speaking of the Amish check out Escaping the Amish. Stephen Marglin’s Dismal Science book focuses a lot on them.
July 20th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Probably my favorite reality tv show of all time: Amish in the City. It was on for only two months in 2004.
July 20th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Dain,
I broadly agree with most of your remarks, and realize in re-reading my comments that they were a bit more extreme than I intended. To clarify a bit, I don’t mean to defend tribal societies, socialist communes, ascetical rigorism, or traditional authorities in toto and worthy of being exactly replicated in an ideal future social order, but only to recommend a critical appropriation of those aspects (and there are more than received liberalism will probably allow) of each of the foregoing that are conducive to human well-being, social harmony, ecological sanity, etc. The point isn’t to say that these types of societies and social formations don’t themselves have there own attendant dangers and problems: They clearly do. It’s just that those dangers and problems are different than those which one tends to encounter in self-professedly liberal or individualist societies, and can dialectically engaged, may serve as a useful corrective to the blind spots of liberalism.
Regards,
Araglin
July 21st, 2008 at 8:27 am
I was out of the loop for the weekend, but Steven Horwitz is a great choice whose writing I greatly admire. (Added bonus: as far as I can tell, he may have inadvertently originated the term “cosmopolitan libertarian,” the basis for the silly perjorative “cosmotarian,” in this post: http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/45044.html)
July 21st, 2008 at 11:29 am
Steven Horwitz is a great choice
Then mark your calendar for Wed, July 30, at 7 p.m. EDT! Oddly, it turns out Steven and I sorta know one another from a blog we both participated at some years ago.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:45 pm
[...] 7. p.m. will be Hayek expert, Prof. Steven Horwitz, an invitation that resulted from demand for him located in this thread. Then, live from the Democratic National Convention, taking place from August 25-28 in Denver, Glenn [...]
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:03 pm
[...] 7. p.m. will be Hayek expert, Prof. Steven Horwitz, an invitation that resulted from demand for him located in this thread. Then, live from the Democratic National Convention, taking place from August 25-28 in Denver, Glenn [...]
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Peak oil — Bob Murphy, who works for IER.
July 25th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Nick, do you have a link to anything that Bob Murphy has written?