there are two basic master narratives about capitalism that have been circulating in the West since the time of Adam Smith. One story is that capitalism (and business more generally) is exploitation, so we need a strong government to keep the greed and amorality of capitalists in check. The other story is that capitalism is liberation. People were mostly serfs and peasants until capitalism came along and freed people to keep the fruits of their own labor, so we need to keep government’s role to a minimum, given how prone it is to capture, corruption, and inefficiency.
Pointer from Tyler Cowen. Remember, the word “narrative” has been declared “out” for 2015 by the Washington Post arbiters of taste.
Still, I think that Haidt is onto something. In terms of the three-axis model, the exploitation story fits the oppressor-oppressed axis favored by progressives, and the liberation model fits the freedom-coercion axis favored by libertarians.
This leaves out the conservative axis of civilization-barbarism, and I think that conservativism is somewhat ambivalent on the issue of markets. Conservatives praise markets for rewarding the virtues of effort, patience, self-reliance. But conservatives dislike markets for undermining cultural traditions, putting the vulgar on par with the sublime, and lacking moral direction. Consider Charles Murray in Coming Apart (which I am re-reading):
For Benjamin Franklin, this meant that “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
It is a short leap for some conservatives to believe that markets unguided by conservative leadership take a nation on a path that makes it “more corrupt and more vicious.”
I’d phrase it as conservatives emphasize the sheer amount of civilization required for markets to be functioning properly, with the sterotypical view of liberatarians as naviely applying markets for all people in all situations will always work and the sterotypical view of leftists as socialists. Strong rule of law, emphasis on punishment of fraudsters and cheaters (incidently, where anti-inflation sentiment comes in), dislike of in-group usury, and protectionism as self-sufficency.
I think you are spot on. I’ve heard that critique of libertarians by conservatives, in one form or another, many times.
There may be something to it, as trusting strangers is essential to large, diverse, sophisticated markets. But the conservative answers to how to do the “hard work” of civilizing seem quite naive.
I would counter that libertarians are more naive: blind support for immigration and urbanization, enforced lack of ethics, enforced secularism, anti-police sentiment. People are supposed to use contracts for everything in a world where no one trusts each other and no one can enforce them, but everyone has low time preference.
What, for example, is wrong with out anti-police sentiment vis-a-vis the apparent blond pro-police sentiment?
These other examples are (also) viciougly debated among libertarians. Maybe they are also among conservatives but I felt pretty good about my reading both the other sides’ stuff compared to them reading ours versus believing narrates about libertarians.
Our…blind…viciously…feel….narratives
Is there a spell check virus? Seriously. Why does it change correct words to incorrect ones?
The answer would be the same to progressives who think libertarians are naive for thinking “the economy/jobs/prosperity will take care of itself in a free market”
Government intervention always has negative side effects.
That doesn’t mean, on balance, that conservatives are always wrong. But much of what conservatives cite as important to civilization may be more of an effect than a cause. Rule of law, for example: having laws or having police is ubiquitous around the world. Following these laws fairly is not. Why? I don’t have answers, but I don’t think conservatives do either.
Also, three bastions of freedom in the world didn’t centrally plan themselves that way, and I’m not sure how they can centrally plan themselves to stay that way (immigration, urbanization, etc).
The current conservative argument, as I understand it, is that outbreeding and manorialism in Europe led to strong rule of law in the Western sense.
As for the rest of your comment, that is a focal point of disagreement. Libertarians emphasize the negative effects of government intervention, with an assumed prior “perfect” market system; while conservatives will mention that liberal markets are far from universal in geography or history.
I’d still like to hear about cops. They aren’t in the top 10 of dangerous occupations, maybe not in the top 20 if you account for traffic accidents because they drive a lot and break the rules they enforce. I’d say they routinely break traffic rules but it might be more accurate to say that they never follow them. Then, they escalate citizen contacts to create some more casualties. I’m not sure what is so conservative about this other than reflexive cop support.
I suppose one could argue that in Arnold’s three axis model they are less exclusive than in what areas is one willing to accept more risk. So, reflexive cop support is conservative in that at least it minimizes the risk of barbarism.
Thats hilarious. I didnt know that The Narrative declared “narrative” off limits for 2015. Irony
I don’t see the conceptual difference between conservatives and libertarians. This site regularly uses Charles Murray as the canonical conservative, yet he is widely considered libertarian and refers to himself as libertarian. Conservatives stress military, police, and moral values, while libertarians stress individual freedoms, free markets, and contract enforcement. Those seem 100% complementary. You can’t have individual freedoms, free markets, and enforced contracts without police, militaries, and courts to protect them and the moral values to avoid corruption. Conservatives do not want an overly militarized police state or an excessive warfare state, but they like police and military to keep the peace and protect basic freedoms.
Lemme give it a shot. Murray is considered somewhat conservative because of a conceptual demarcation point between libertarians themselves and how they relate to conservatives, it seems to me. The cosmopolitan libertarians seem to embrace exercise of liberties as pursued for their own sake as unqualified goods. The more paleo variety more freedom as the opportunity to pursue ideas that might work. The cosmos believe everything works by definition because that represents exercise of freedom. The paleos see it as trial-and-error, and we don’t need anyone with their thumb on the scale influencing the answer. Conservatives tend to dovetail with the paleo libertarians whereby I see conservatives as (1) favoring what has worked historically and traditionally (perhaps due to loss aversion among other things) and/but (2) not so interested in trials-and-errors or letting the freak flag fly because those things either risk an outsized downside or are outright affronts to known markers of success. Since Murray is linked to known markers of success (as well as making genetic distinctions) he can be thought of as in the conservative spectrum. I think Murray sees himself as a libertarian in the sense that he doesn’t want progressives putting their thumb on the scale simply because some financially oppressed group is exercising their liberties and it isn’t working out that well for them.
“Paleo” libertarianism? And crunchy cons? These terms are just silly and don’t accurately summarize large groups of people.
Even “conservative” is a terrible label. The views considered conservative don’t match the dictionary meaning of that word: people support the police and value honesty and a strong work ethic and caring stable parents because those ideas work, not just because they are traditional.
My other idea for a catchy book title for Arnold is “Six words that define the world” because it is pretty remarkable that 3 axes (and 6 words) would describe basically everything.
With the advent of video phones we are seeing, and some are only now recognizing, that “support the cops” in fact doesn’t work. In fact, “support the cops” is probably what makes it not work. Blind support creates a bad incentive structure.
Anyway, I gave it a shot.
Labels are imperfect. I agree. But it seems we still have to try to label, even if only instictively.
On “support the cops”:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/health/01safe.html?
“More police officers die each year in patrol car crashes than at the hands of criminals, and most of the time the accidents occur when the officers are not speeding to an emergency, a new study says.
But the researchers say the number of deaths could be reduced if police departments did more to encourage officers to use seat belts.”
So, not only is being a cop less dangerous than we are led to believe, the cops themselves (who use this danger as an excuse to treat all their citizen contacts like potentially violent interactions) may be misleading themselves about the nature of the danger that they are themselves, to a large degree creating (while breaking the law and traffic rules, and good common sense).