Cord Blomquist

A Second Look at Second Life Analogies

My letter to the Washington Post regarding Michael Gerson’s “Where the Avatars Roam,” which appeared in the Post last week:

Michael Gerson’s July 6 piece “Where the Avatars Roam” shows that his understanding of libertarianism isn’t nearly as deep as his understanding of online games.

Mr. Gerson describes Second Life as “large-scale experiment in libertarianism,” citing the game’s lack of community structure and long-term consequences.  He describes this “libertarian” world as one in which there is not human nature, only human choices.

This doesn’t describe a libertarian world, but one of fantasy.  Libertarianism, as envisioned by the founding fathers or Friedrich Hayek, is predicated on an understanding of the world that’s very different from Second Life.  Common sense agrees with this libertarian understanding–the world is one of consequences, community institutions are vital to human life, and human beings have an innate nature that we should harness, not deny.

True, libertarians believe in the idea of spontaneous order, but Mr. Gerson treats this idea unfairly.  Libertarianism holds that society is not the product of uncoordinated human choice, but of human choice coordinated by the institutions of liberty.  Rule of law, private property, and a robust civil society together create rules within which markets operate to ensure the greatest possible outcomes, both for individuals and for society as a whole.

Denying human nature and basic economics is the forte of the modern left, not libertarians.  Perhaps Second Life would be a good testing ground for the left’s pet theories–they may work better there.  As for libertarians, we’ll stick to the real thing.

July 12, 2007 | Comments |

Viewing 6 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Nice letter, Cord. You could have also included the "right" along with the "left" when lambasting the use of pet theories for denying human nature and basic economics.
    • ^
    • v
    This doesn’t describe a libertarian world, but one of fantasy.

    Well, Cord, you are starting to learn. The libertarian world is a fantasy world! Amartya Sen rightly disassembled libertarian theory for its concentration on only procedural freedoms, as opposed to substantive freedoms, and for all of the informational exclusions libertarianism makes. For that reason, libertarianism can now longer claim to be a 'freedom based' philosophy. Suggest reading Development as Freedom


    Libertarianism, as envisioned by the founding fathers or Friedrich Hayek, is predicated on an understanding of the world that’s very different from Second Life.

    hmmm...as much as libertarians want to claim von Hayek, he, during is lifetime, actually did not call himself a 'libertarian.'
    • ^
    • v
    In the essay, "Why I Am Not A Conservative," Hayek said,

    "In the United States, where it has become almost impossible to use "liberal" in the sense in which I have used it, the term "libertarian" has been used instead. It may be the answer; but for my part I find it singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself."

    Based on this statement, it sounds like his disagreement with the term 'libertarian' is just aesthetic. The substance is fine; he just doesn't like the sound of it. If so, then libertarians could fairly claim him, unless there is some other reason why the term doesn't fit.
    • ^
    • v
    I think it's fair to make the point about Hayek not explicitly endorsing the word libertarian, but he was a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Cato, an avowedly libertarian group. I evoke his name because he's most commonly associate with the idea of spontaneous order, although many scholars after and before Hayek endorsed the idea.
    • ^
    • v
    I also want to touch on the idea of substantive vs. procedural freedoms. My conception of libertarianism is one that very much values substantive freedom, but I also acknowledge that having the "freedom to" is only possible when I have enough "freedom from."

    It's not as though by favoring procedural freedoms we lose substantive freedoms. We don't have to give up one kind of freedom in order to gain another. Rather, substantive freedoms flow out of procedural freedoms.

    Substantive freedoms rely on substance, you know, stuff. That stuff doesn't appear because we emphasize the importance of having that stuff. Goods and services (or the services goods provide) are only possible through enabling their creation by guaranteeing that people are free to create and trade.
    • ^
    • v
    Braden, I agree with you, I was unfair in attacking only the left. But after a year immersed in the 109th Congress I learned that most righties at least understand incentives. They acknowledge that people respond to incentives and generally try to help themselves and those close to them, but they see this as a sort of lamentable, yet important truth.

    Neither side of the aisle understands the power of price signals, but at least the right can admit that incentives matter. That step is still one that most on the left seem unwilling to take, which is why they deserve a few more jabs, but not many.

Trackbacks

blog comments powered by Disqus