Catallaxy was one of the blogs backing Ken Parish and Nicholas Gruen’s Best Blog Posts of 2006, something we’re very pleased to say we were involved in both promoting and compiling.
As you’d know from reading Ken and Nick’s introduction to BBP2006, Online Opinion will publish two or three of the selected posts each weekday during January 2007. The posts selected cover the widest possible range of topics and styles - everything from photographic essays to satirical send-ups to more traditional political commentary. Apart from Club Troppo’s Ken and Nick, the selection committee was also pretty diverse. I lent a hand, as did blogging poet Meika Loofs Samorzewski.That said, we were all aware that many good posts didn’t get an airing, sometimes - as Ken and Nick suggest in their introduction - because we didn’t hear about them, or simply because we were very pushed for time. With that in mind, then, I’ll take the opportunity to introduce new Catallaxy readers to some of the writing available here, and to let you know a bit about us.
UPDATE: Mark over at LP makes the good point that, finally, Gretel Killeen isn’t involved.
About Catallaxy
Catallaxy is one of Australia’s oldest blogs. Jason Soon (left) founded it in early 2002 after finding that he was spending an inordinate amount of time on the internet after 9/11 and wanting to sort out his ideas. The rest of us joined over time, with Heath Gibson hopping on board as Jason’s first collaborator, also in 2002. You can read about the rest of us here. We’ve evolved into Australia’s leading right-leaning group blog, although if you spend time poking around the site, you’ll find our politics are rather different from those articulated on Australia’s most popular right-leaning blog, that of Tim Blair.
As most people know, there are two strands to anti-left politics - conservatism and libertarianism (sometimes called ‘classical liberalism‘, although the two are slightly different). These two strands cooperated uneasily throughout most of the Twentieth Century, largely because we shared an opposition to communism and socialism and the dreadful carnage produced everywhere they took power. Once the socialist dragon had been slain, however, cracks in the united right-leaning edifice began to appear. Many people on the classical liberal side of politics opposed the war in Iraq, for example, but not for the same reason as those on the left. We were concerned that the whole exercise would turn into a giant, bureaucratic, taxeating boondoggle. Subsequent events have largely proved us correct.
Broadly speaking, Catallaxy’s view of politics is through a libertarian lens, although not all our staffwriters are libertarians or classical liberals. We’re open to lots of different ideas, and sometimes find ourselves agreeing with people more rigid thinkers would consider our ideological enemies. We also have an eclectic mix of interests - both in popular culture and elsewhere. Jason knows more about comics than anyone I’ve ever met, while Rafe Champion’s involvement in literature (particularly childrens’ literature - he has co-written a book with one of Australia’s greatest writers for young people, Ruth Park) gives him a unique perspective on both literature and philosophy.
Just to get you started
In this post, Heath deservedly sinks the boot into the music industry for fudging the figures on their losses from piracy. Over here, Jason riffs on the differences between DC and Marvel’s depiction of their respective super-heroes. For those with an interest in the widening defence debate - particularly as regards air power - I wade into the ongoing JSF v F22-A tussle. For the more philosophically inclined, Rafe’s superb review of Jacques Barzun’s mammoth From Dawn to Decadence may well have the effect of making you go out and buy the book! (I did). US staffwriter Eric Kodjo Ralph provides an interesting backgrounder on net neutrality here, while Andrew Norton has an amusing post on the similarities and differences between latte libertarians and latte lefties - right down to their taste in caffeinated beverages. For those just after some eye-candy, Heath’s photographic essay on the Richmond Air Show is well worth a look.
Of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg - I haven’t even highlighted material by all our staffwriters (sorry Sam, Don, c8to and Brock). When a blog’s been going for this long, there’s an awful lot to choose from. Feel free to wander through the categories on our sidebar and sample lots of different stuff. If you like what you see - or violently disagree - then register to comment and join in the conversation. If for some reason Wordpress fails to send you a password, email us on catallaxy AT yahoo DOT com and we’ll add you to our subscriber list manually.
Above all, enjoy!
37 Comments
SL
which catallaxy posts did actually get selected in the end?
sl
I think you need to get rid of the banner or create a space between it and the text because it has pushed the RHS down
I’ll go in and fix it. And check your email - I’m not allowed to gazump OLO’s thunder.
Nice summary sl… though I disagree that there is any difference between a libertarian and a classical liberal, except in their choice of semantics.
Thanks John - and you can go argue with those Classical Liberals who don’t like the label ‘libertarian’ and see how far you get
You can call yourself chinese if you like sl… but I’ll disagree with you. Every supposed difference cited by classical liberals isn’t true. As both Hayek & Friedman noted… they preferred to call themselves (classical) liberals, but they admited that in modern venacular, they were libertarians. Same meaning. Just a semantic preference.
Agreed that it’s semantic preference but the main reason I don’t like libertarian is because it’s associated with “natural rights” fundies like Rothbard and Rand.
I am usually comfortable using the word but I can see where JohnZ is coming from. More importantly we don’t want to totally surrender the fine word ‘liberal’ to its enemies.
That’s why I sprinkled my copy with references and links to both. I hate the way ‘liberal’ has been appropriated.
I totally agree that we shouldn’t give up the term “liberal”… I named our moderate libertarian political party the “liberal democratic party” for a reason.
And I appreciate that Rand & Rothbard natural rights arguments are not liked by some — but Friedman, Hayek, Friedman Jnr, Becker, Bentham & many others (Jason Soon, myself) are utilitarian libertarians, so it doesn’t make sense to say that all libertarians are natural rights libertarians. Libertarian is a political position, not an entire philosophy.
If you object to Rand’s philosophy then perhaps you are (like me) a libertarian but not an objectivist. If you object to Rothbard’s conclusions then perhaps you are (like me) a libertarian but not an anarchist.
I thought Andrew had a very nice distinction between ‘classical liberal’ and ‘libertarian’.
http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2006/10/10/am-i-carltons-lone-libertarian/
I have no idea how you found that convincing Sinclair. It was simply wrong. Re-read what I’ve said above… it simply isn’t true that libertarians are about natural rights and classical liberals are about utility. It’s. Simply. Not. True.
If there is a difference between classical liberals and libertarians, perhaps you can tell us where Milton Friedman lies? Or Hayek? Or Becker? Or Jason? Or Locke? Or Greg Lindsay? Or me? We are all both.
Libertarian is somebody who believes in individual liberty, small government and free markets. That’s it… and it’s identical to classical liberalism. Why this strange semantic fake-distinction continues is beyond me.
Fair call, John. It’s the old ‘what unites us is far greater than what divides us’. And after all, isn’t silly linguistic semantics something the pomos are into?
A “Libertarian is somebody who believes in individual liberty, small government and free markets. That’s it…”
We can agree on that but still accept that Andrew N is making a useful distinction.
Libertarians, classical liberals, or whatever it is you want to call them might agree on WHAT to do but still disagree about WHY.
Andrew’s point is that some of you think that liberty, limited government and markets are a good idea because they are consistent with rights while others think they’re a good idea because they lead to better results.
Jeremy Sheamur has a paper in the Independent Review where he argues that classical liberalism traditionally flies with two wings — “the moral and the consequentialist, and we court disaster if we try to make do with only one.”
http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=14&articleID=73
Shit Don?
Did you fall out of the reason-tree and hit every branch on the way down?
I’m starting to read posts of yours where I can’t even disagree with a damn thing.
I think you make the consequentialist wing the short-term wing. And you make the rights wing the long-term wing.
And where the practical politics is concerned you are trying to integrate things so there will be no seriously bad consequences in the short-to-medium term as you are always relentlessly moving towards your long-term rights-based arrangements.
The only dangerous sort of libertarians are the ones that say we trash all our current arrangements and see how things pan out after a period of possible disaster. That is if they are flippant about the potential for disaster.
But having said the above, this can be no excuse for gradualism. Gradualism in this sense is a betrayal and almost as much of a moral let-down as risking a utilitarian crisis.
So how do we square this circle?
We need very fast-evolution on all fronts.
But we need to put so much mental effort going into the fleshing out of that interim path.
Our greatest living economist George Reisman has put a lot of thought into this.
But not many other libertarians have.
Its kind of an obsession with me.
And yet the hardest thread to deal with so far has been in the last few days about Negative Income Tax policy and the sorting out of medium-term arrangements for the incapacitated.
And its right that this sort of integration between the short-term-consequentialist wing and the long-term-rights-based wing ought to be causing us a bunch of stress.
Because thats the real deal.
Thats what we are here for.
“I am usually comfortable using the word but I can see where JohnZ is coming from. More importantly we don’t want to totally surrender the fine word ‘liberal’ to its enemies.”
HARK!!!!!!!
Brandish thee not thy dread Hume-nuke
For yea.
All with true hearts bear witness…. Verily John Z has falls from the one true path of righteousness and NATURAL RIGHTS due to the malign and insipid temptations of said HUME-NUKE!!!
Arguments that live by the Hume-nuke shall die by the Hume-nuke …. IT IS WRITTEN!
John and Jason…
Get thee to a library I sez.
Get thee to a library and seize upon the nearest writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas that thee may findeth enlightenment therein.
Praise be.
#14 Thanks Don! What a good paper: Jeremy Shearmur is great value, we met at the High Wycombe (”Havercombe”) railway station when he was research assistant to Popper and I popped out for afternoon tea and cookies.
Has Jason put up the “very young Jason” picture?
Happy New Year Catallaxians.
I’m a boring old social democrat so I won’t enter this discussion.
No Don! Aaarrrrggghhh! I’m going to strangle somebody. Would you please try and read what I’ve written. It simply isn’t true that libertarians and classical liberals have different reasons for their belief in small government. Simply. Not. True.
Maybe if I put in in a poem it will help:
Andy, Sincs & Don
think that libertar-ion
in freedom believe
because of morality
but the classical libs instead
look towards the very end
to max utility
but they are ABSOLUTEY FULL OF SHIT
No — that probably wont work either. How about just repeating myself several times.
There are plenty of utilitarian libertarians. There are plenty of utilitarian libertarians. There are plenty of utilitarian libertarians. There are plenty of utilitarian libertarians. There are plenty of utilitarian libertarians.
Did that work?
This is getting tough. How about one of your crazy mo-fos actually try to answer my questions about what classification Friedman, Hayek, Lindsay, Becker etc fall under? How about Jason and me? WE ARE ALL BOTH.
FFS people this shouldn’t be so hard. Perhaps I should just give ol’ don a fisking…
“Libertarians, classical liberals, or whatever it is you want to call them might agree on WHAT to do but still disagree about WHY.”
NOT FUCKING TRUE! Hmmm… perhaps I don’t have the right temperment for a fisking.
Libertarians generally believe in freedom for moral and consequentialist reasons. Classical liberals generally believe in freedom for moral and consequentialist reasons. For the slow-witted among the group… these are the same reasons. For the even slower I will point out that “same” is a different word to “different”. They don’t even rhyme.
“Andrew’s point is that some of you think that liberty, limited government and markets are a good idea because they are consistent with rights while others think they’re a good idea because they lead to better results.”
Most believe in both. True… there are libertarians who prefer the natural rights argument. But there are also many libertarians who are utilitarians. And there are classical liberals who prefer the natural rights argument.
Where is this getting us? Oh, I remember. Nowhere.
“Jeremy Sheamur has a paper in the Independent Review where he argues that classical liberalism traditionally flies with two wings — “the moral and the consequentialist, and we court disaster if we try to make do with only one.—
And this is I-fucking-dentical to most libertarians.
Just give me a second while I load a round into the chamber. OK. Done. Now — who’s next?
Wow too much arguing with GMB has started rubbing off on JH.
Go on John, tell us what you really think
Have to agree with Steve - John = GMB.
John
I don’t believe Don was making any point antithetical to yours. He was saying people who call themselves classical liberals or libertarians etc may disagree on why they want the objectives they do. He was just throwing around some food for thought.
Why is this getting you all wound up? Is it because other people have the imperiousness to comment on what is obviously your religion?
No John I don’t believe that philosophically you are a utiliarian though you may tell yourself and others this 100 times. You already know what your conclusions are and you use utilitarianism to justify them. I don’t believe we share the same fundamental premises at all. Ultimately I’m an economist first and a libertarian second. My first god is efficiency. Rights are nonsense on stilts.
Now calm down.
here’s my beginner’s guide to why I support most libertarian objectives despite being a reductionist-determinist-pragmatist who doesn’t believe in free will or rights
- property rights are ultimately a social construction but stable property rights provide a useful framework for resolving disputes, trading (which makes everyone better off) and as a foundation for new innovations
- how those property rights were established in the past may well be unjust but is irrelevant to their efficiency as described above.
- we may care about preventing further injustice because injustice insofar as it ultimately involves a destabilisation of current property rights provides a precedent for even more destabilisation - in other words even justice can be established on efficiency consideations
- needless to say this libertarian stuff about owning yourself can also be based on a property rights perspective. Slavery is inefficient because it means deadweight losses have to be expended by people protecting themselves against being enslaved by others
- society as a nested hierarchy of selection processes - decentralised experiments in living are a good idea because they allow us to weed out bad ideas and adopt good ideas/practices
- when the top nested hierarchy attempts to ‘control’ the experiments below that disrupts the selection process. It may lead to bad ideas being propagated unjustifiably. this provides the libertarian presumption against big government, central planning, industry policy and for federalism. However note that it may also provide a justification for antitrust policy.
- nothing in the framework I set out above of course suggests that the best society that takes account of the above considerations would be lacking in welfare or gun control for instance (just two cases where I dissent from the libertarian orthodoxy).
- the main takeaway lesson is government as traffic controller to keep this nested hierarchy of selection processes running smoothly.
Before we have an abortion thread, Jason, we’re having a gun control thread. Just sayin
I can’t wait for Graeme to get in here and try to Hume-nuke me
GMB - Did I “fall out of the reason-tree and hit every branch on the way down?”
You mean if I loose my grip on reason and sustain severe head injuries I’ll end up thinking exactly like you?
John - I think you need a session with Dr Troppo. All this talk about strangling people and threatening them with guns is a little disturbing.
When people don’t submit to your opinions you get carried away with fantasies of violence and domination. What ever happened to the axiom of non-agression?
I think John was just being baroque, Don. He’s been known to do that from time to time.
Don
As Steve and Sinks suggested, all that arguing with GMB has blown John’s gasket. He usually is more civil than that. Of all the people who have argued with GMB, only Daniel Barnes and ABL have survived with their sanity intact.
Jason - You think John has become insane? I thought he was just a little overwrought.
Civility is a mask. I’m always curious about what I see when it slips.
I was aware of the GBHesque nature of the response… especially when I found myself using capital letters. It seemed appropriate at the time.
Jason… Don was indeed saying something antithetical to me. He was saying that libertarians and classical liberals disagree on why they believe in small government. It’s simply not true and I can’t understand why otherwise intellegent people continue repeating it. Surely you already knew this if you had read what we’ve written. Which word didn’t you understand?
And what are you talking about with my religion? Are you saying that belief in small government is my religion… I would call that my “political philosophy”. Which is the same as yours. You can be a pretentious twat at times.
I have always been a utilitarian. How do you think I came to be a libertarian? You imply I was always a libertarian and use utilitarian arguments as cover. The truth (which you know) is that I started studying economics as a nationalistic religious conservative and was convinced by the arguments of Milton Friedman. I agree with David Friedman’s critique of natural rights arguments. You’re just being mindlessly and meaninglessly offensive and petty.
And Don… did you actually think I was going to strangle somebody or was really loading a gun? Wow. You poor thing. I thought it was fairly obvious that I was having a bit of fun, but if that went over your head then I guess I should remove rhetorical flourishes and just talk straight. Problem is you don’t seem to understand that either.
And good thing you didn’t address the point or you’d look silly.
And it wasn’t actually GBH that “blew my gasket”. I don’t expect any better from him. It was you chaps consistently repeating a blatent untruth. It is simply not true that libertarians use deontelogical arguments while classical liberals use utilitarian arguments. I don’t know why that fable is popular here, but it has no basis in reality.
I don’t expect the people here to be so proud of their stupidity so I decided it was time for a dramatic over-reaction in the hope that it might shake people out of their slumber. Guess it didn’t work.
Don: “When people don’t submit to your opinions”
It is not my opinion that Milton Friedman is a utilitarian. It’s a fact.
It is not my opinion that Milton Friedman described himself as a libertarian. It’s a fact.
Wow… a utilitarian libertiarn. So you’re weird theory is wrong.
And when the facts show you are wrong, you call them “opinions”. Cute. I wonder if you can treat gravity as an opinion and ignore that too.
I spent most of the time talking with people who disagree with me. I like that. What I don’t like it people who reject reality when it’s inconvenient.
“It is simply not true that libertarians use deontelogical arguments while classical liberals use utilitarian arguments.”
I use both sets of arguments and consider the two groups of people different only by time and place (European liberals (classical liberals) and American or Australian libertarians (libertarians)).
In fact, I think that the natural rights and utilitarian arguments are to sides of the same coin. Jason’s example of utility aggregation under slavery implictly accepts natural rights as a mechanism to maximise utility, but this utility maximisation only matters if we have them in the first place. Natural rights engender utility maximisation. But utility maximisation requires natural rights.
Interesting, but who cares?
Exactly. You do realise that scads of people redirected here from my OLO article are reading this right now going … ’so this is what they mean by off topic‘.
Just sayin.
Job for you all: I’d be interested in hearing which Catallaxy post is your personal favourite. Just pop a link on this thread.
I hadn’t read your christmas one until it went on Online Opinion… but it was great. If not the best your done then certainly one of them.
And I apologise for taking things off-topic.
Not uselessly off-topic, John - it’s always good to work these things through. Have you got any non OLO picks? They’re looking for good posts people may have missed during the nomination stage. I’ve got my faves, but obviously so will other people.