I am currently listening to The Libertarian Tradition, a lecture series provided by the Mises Institute. In the lecture entitled “More Free or Less Free?” Jeff Riggenbach states:
“There is no political shortcut to a free society. Our primary job is education, not politics, and our victory, when it comes, will come not in the next election but in the long run.”
As a libertarian who believes that change lies primarily in culture, rather than direct politics, I strongly agree with this statement. Of course, culture and politics are inseparable in many ways. They are both present in the funhouse of mirrors that constructs a society, in which everything reflects everything else, making it almost impossible to discern precisely where things originate. In a political system like we have in the USA, or the UK, however, I would argue that – although it certainly fails to entirely reflect the preferences and values of its citizens – our political system does quite accurately reflect the general cultural climate. If we take this to be true and accept that politics tends to respond to culture, rather than the other way around, is it not backwards to be trying to generate a libertarian movement within the political realm?
Libertarianism attracts a number of thoughtful people who are interested in economics and politics, and who understand the benefits of a free-market. This is hugely important, don’t get me wrong, but in my opinion it will simply never be enough. Our current culture does not respect individualism, personal responsibility, liberty, and a human’s capacity for creativity and reason nearly enough to adopt libertarian principles within the political realm. Libertarians should, therefore, be focusing instead on penetrating every aspect of our culture with these values and ideas. The simple fact is that the closest thing we currently have to a free-market is the market of ideas. We can engage in this market as entrepreneurs through literature, art, philosophy, film, or, more locally, through the choices we make in our daily lives and down at the pub with our friends. If libertarians want to see the libertarian movement take hold, they need to start walking the walk and doing so shamelessly. In the market of goods and services the belief is that people copy the more successful entrepreneurs and over time production becomes more efficient and valuable to society. Why shouldn’t the same principle apply in the market of ideas? People need to understand the benefit of a free-market but even more fundamentally people need to value the foundations of libertarianism. The cultural shift that needs to occur in the common appraisal of man and existence is not going to occur solely through politics: Libertarians need to realize the power of the manifestations of values and ideas, like literature, that form our cultural climate and are the foundations of change.
One of patterns recently in American politics seems to be quite the opposite of what you are postulating, mainly that politicians are trying to use legislation to manipulate culture. This is seen time and time again with the so called "family values" platform many conservatives like to tout or the "nanny state" these same conservatives accuse their colleagues on the left of trying to implement. I generally agree with your point that politic shifts often times happen because of cultural changes, but recently this line is becoming more and more blurry. To me, it seems like the way society enacts political change through cultural shifts is by ignoring to some extent or defying the rules set in place that society disagrees with. Eventually the politicians will realize this and repeal the relevant laws, but now a days, that method doesn't seem as effective because a more powerful entity lobbying for the other side appears to win out.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you talk about a market of ideas and how the exchange of such ideas facilitates progress. What are your views on intellectual property with respect to innovation?
This is a great example of the complexity of trying to differentiate culture and politics. Take, for example, the bans on certain "unhealthy" foods we've seen a lot in the past few years. As you note, this could be seen as politics trying to reshape our culture. What I fear, however, is that this "nanny state" mentality is actually a reflection of our current culture. Yes, these laws were the cause of a lot of debate, but in the end people let them go through without too much of a ruckus and a lot of people see them as a good thing for society. The same thing applies for bans on indoor smoking, etc. I would argue that our culture's lack of respect for personal responsibility and an individual's capacity to make their own decisions about what is "best" for them is being reaffirmed by the development of the nanny state but not originating within it. Keep in mind that I think politics is very important, and I think that people need to make sure that there is always a voice in society against policies that they don't agree with. The fundamental change that needs to take place, however, I believe is a much more subtle cultural one. I think that the power of the arts, etc are often undermined.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the market of ideas, I think the beauty of it is precisely that it can never be controlled as ideas can be manifested and spread in an infinite variety of ways. You bring up a good point with intellectual property and innovation, however. A lot of my thinking concerning intellectual property took place during the work I do in the fashion industry, and I think that particular industry is a good example for thinking about this. I try to imagine what the fashion industry would be like today if people had the ability to copyright certain cuts, designs, patterns, etc. I'm not too sure there would even be a fashion industry! In fashion ideas are being "stolen" constantly, if we tried to implement intellectual property rights within this dynamic industry innovation would come to a screeching halt. As I see it, there is no reason why this wouldn't apply to a certain degree in every industry. I think that the free exchange of ideas is essential to innovation. Of course, this becomes much more complicated when you're talking about the development of incredibly expensive drugs and technology, rather than a new handbag, and it is definitely worth engaging with both sides of the argument as it is a fascinating and complex issue.
On Intellectual Property:
ReplyDelete"In fashion ideas are being "stolen" constantly, if we tried to implement intellectual property rights within this dynamic industry innovation would come to a screeching halt. As I see it, there is no reason why this wouldn't apply to a certain degree in every industry."
When the relative costs of innovation in a specific industry get increasingly high, the case against intellectual property in that industry begins to crumble.
"Of course, this becomes much more complicated when you're talking about the development of incredibly expensive drugs"
True, because the cost of creating a new drug often ranges in the billions of dollars, there is little individual incentive to innovate without intellectual property laws which allow you to benefit from your research and development.
Having said that, there is definitely a debate to be had over intellectual property and its scope. It's an extremely difficult issue because it requires fine tuning, which is politically impossible, in order to operate properly.
On the relative importance of culture and politics:
Empirically, in America at least, it is almost impossible to find a law, program or regulation that a majority of the public does not support (NAFTA, and Obamacare are two rare examples).
This seems to imply that culture drives politics, not the other way around.
"politicians are trying to use legislation to manipulate culture. This is seen time and time again with the so called "family values" platform many conservatives like to tout or the "nanny state" these same conservatives accuse their colleagues on the left of trying to implement."
The idea that "family values" and the "nanny state" are being forced upon American culture seems unlikely at best. Do you really think most Americans didn't support these things when politicians began to implement them through legislation? Why would politicians risk their positions of power by trying to "manipulate culture"? It seems more likely that politicians would play into the culture of the majority of Americans as closely as possible in order to maximize votes.
However, people also tend to have a status quo bias, increasing their support for laws which are already in place. This tends to support the idea that politics does play a role in culture.
On net, in "democracies", though politics definitely plays a role in culture, culture drives politics much more.
-Danny
On this issue of intellectual property, things are different in the fashion world because it is an artistic endeavorer and thus there is not really a right and wrong way of doing things. On the technological side, usually there ends up being either a best way of doing things or even an only way of doing things. If this particular method or idea becomes restricted for use either by exorbitantly high licensing fees or even the simple unwillingness to license the technology, innovation comes to a screeching a halt. A disturbing amount of time and money in engineering is spent not on solving important problems, but finding convoluted and inefficient methods around the restrictions artificially imposed by society.
ReplyDelete"The idea that "family values" and the "nanny state" are being forced upon American culture seems unlikely at best. Do you really think most Americans didn't support these things when politicians began to implement them through legislation? Why would politicians risk their positions of power by trying to "manipulate culture"? It seems more likely that politicians would play into the culture of the majority of Americans as closely as possible in order to maximize votes."
I see your point about actually having popular opinion behind legislation but I think that politicians influencing public perception is more prevalent than you think (ever wonder why the "estate tax" is now known as the "death tax"? For some more background information google "Frank Luntz").
Furthermore, I'd like to introducing a third party to this cycle of culture and politics: the interest group. With the propagation of mass media in recent year, you are starting to see more and more wealthy third parties launch campaign to influence public perception on a particular topic. Recently, the Koch brothers have been making minor headlines for allegedly orchestrating the entire Tea party movement. While it may sound like one giant conspiracy, one much wonder why so many impoverished Americans are for large tax cuts that won't affect them and against Obamacare, which in the majority of the cases, will help them.
"A disturbing amount of time and money in engineering is spent not on solving important problems, but finding convoluted and inefficient methods around the restrictions artificially imposed by society."
ReplyDeleteBut without an individual incentive to invest in research and development in the first place, much less innovation occurs at all. Why would anyone invest billions of dollars to create a new live saving drug if they couldn't internalize the benefits of their investment? Capital intensive innovation would screech to a halt.
...politicians influencing public perception is more prevalent than you think (ever wonder why the "estate tax" is now known as the "death tax"?...
Of course every politician tries to put a positive spin on the issues a majority of their constituents support, and a negative spin on the rest. Using negative terminology when addressing a particular subject signals a politicians view on the subject.
Self interested politicians wouldn't bother trying to change the minds of the median voter on a particular view, when they could simply adopt the view of the median voter. Why would they risk holding views which a majority of voters disagrees with? They would lose a share of the votes to their political opponents and be ousted eventually.
...one much wonder why so many impoverished Americans are for large tax cuts that won't affect them and against Obamacare, which in the majority of the cases, will help them...
Almost all the empirical data on the views of voters has shown that voters support for specific issues is not motivated by self interest (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2005/04/voters_as_mad_s.html). The elderly aren't more supportive of social security and medicare than the rest of the population. People with children aren't more supportive of public schools either. And contrary to popular mythology, someone's income is not a good predictor of what political party they support.
People tend to vote for things they feel good about supporting, which is usually what they feel is moral and just.
-Danny