Introduction
For whatever reason, I've somehow become embroiled in a few discussions recently regarding the possibility of God's (or a God's) existence, and I wanted to put my two cents out there to lower the transactions costs of having those debates (that is to say, I don't ever want to have to explain my position on this again). In this post, I'll first offer an intuitive reason why it's not reasonable to be an outright theist. I'll then turn to a discussion of atheism, offering a pair of thought experiments which I believe demonstrate the indefensibility of a strong atheist position. I'll conclude with some thoughts about the agnostic middle ground that's left, suggesting that the position doesn't end up providing much of a safe haven for theists, even though it defeats their principle opponent. In fact, I will suggest that by softening atheism in the ways suggested here, agnostics can actually provide a much more nuanced and fatal critique of religion and theism than ardent atheists can.
Theism
The first reason that I find it unreasonable to be a theist is that there is no theistic position which is clearly the most plausible one. I think that most theists are aware that this is true, but I don't believe that they truly recognize the significance of this fact. If one is to maintain belief in a particular account of God, then one is committed to the position that all other theistic positions must have been fabricated by people. That is, if I am a Christian, I am committed to the position that Islam is at least partly based on a fabrication (either by a mistaken individual or by a deliberate act of deceit). (The position of a Christian with respect to Judaism is an exception to this, but I don't think it's unreasonable to view Christianity as a variant of Judaism. Jews, however, are committed to the view that Christianity is a cultural -- not divinely inspired -- phenomenon.)
If it's true that from the standpoint of any given theistic account, it can be accepted that every other theistic account is a cultural phenomenon, then it seems reasonable to conclude that any given theistic account could plausibly be construed as a cultural phenomenon. But if any given theistic account could plausibly be construed as a cultural phenomenon, then it would seem rather unreasonable to select one to elevate to the status of "faithworthy," condemning all others to be mere fabrications. It would seem much more reasonable to conclude, "We have no compelling reason for accepting any one of these accounts; each could be a merely cultural phenomenon."
Atheism
Turning then to atheism, we have to ask whether the unreasonableness of theism gives us reason to believe that there is not a God. And it seems like a fair answer is "Well, if we can say that every theistic account can be understood perfectly coherently as a cultural phenomenon, then doesn't it seem likely that there isn't actually this mysterious and powerful being out there, and that the real explanation for the widespread belief in a God really is just that religion is a cultural phenomenon?" And to be honest, I don't dispute that point. But a question remains: could a God exist?
And on this point, the atheist (if she is going to call herself an atheist, and not an agnostic) would seem to have to reply with some sort of explanation for why a God does not exist. But what kind of evidence could someone have for such a claim? As we have all had drilled into our heads, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It's pretty darn hard to prove that something doesn't exist. The only way I know of to do it is to prove that it could not exist; that there's something about the concept of the thing, or about a completely uncontroversial fact about reality, that is simply incompatible with such a thing existing.
Now, there are a bunch of reasons someone might offer as to why a God-like being couldn't exist, and I think it would probably be foolish to try to figure out what they might be and evaluate them one by one. So instead, I'm going to offer a pair of explanations for how something that I would be comfortable calling a God could possibly exist. Of course, these are simply thought experiments; I'm obviously not claiming that this will demonstrate God's existence, or even that if God did exist, one of these explanations would be the correct account of God's nature.
With those disclaimers aside, the first possible explanation goes like this. We currently know a lot about the kinds of things that exist in our universe, but there is a fundamental limitation on our ability to learn everything. That limitation is that the only kind of thing that we can detect is the kind of thing which directly interacts with physical matter, or which interacts with something that interacts with physical matter. That's why it can be so difficult to understand how things are composed; we need to somehow be able to detect stuff, and often that's not so easy. Neutrinos, for example, gave scientists fits for decades, and as far as I know, we still don't entirely understand what their deal is. So it's entirely possible that there's a kind of thing out there in our physical universe which we don't know about yet (and maybe never will).
I take it to be possible, that there is a type of thing in our universe which is composed of something which we do not yet know to exist, but which has the core properties of a God. For example, it's possible that such an entity could actively convert something we don't yet know about into energy or matter (I recognize that this would violate "laws" of physics, but those laws are based on an assumption that we know all the kinds of things that exist, and that assumption is technically not true), and could affect change in the material universe in a way that would violate the laws that govern the interactions of material objects. If such an entity existed, the basic concept of a God, I think, would be fulfilled: it could have created everything in the material universe, it could have powers that violate the laws of material physics, it could have the capacity to infallibly predict the consequences of interferences with the material world, it could have been responsible for the emergence of life and/or mankind, and it could even have been behind the development in humans of a moral faculty.
I see no reason to believe that such an entity could not exist. It may be argued that theists would not accept this sort of being as their deity, or that theist accounts of God involve the attribution of properties to God which simply make no sense. To that, I respond, "Fine, but the entity I discussed here is Godly enough to me, and I think could fairly be cited by nuanced and intelligent theists as the entity in whose existence they believe." One might persist, though, in arguing that God must have some qualities not captured in the above thought experiment, and on one count, I would hesitantly concede: Most theists believe that God created the universe, and not just all the matter in it. I say "hesitantly" because, well, oh come on! It's frikkin' close enough! But no matter; on to the second thought experiment.
I take it that for all the things we know about our physical universe, we don't know what sort of thing it is, or if it is a thing at all. To call the physical universe a "thing," I think, suggests that it exists in the context of a greater or more expansive sort of existence, which may include other kinds of things. That is, if we can coherently call the physical universe a "thing," then there would need to be some other kind of thing which is not subsumed under the heading of "the physical universe." We might say, "The physical universe exists within the context of a sort of meta-universe, in which other kinds of things exist." Now, trying to imagine the nature of a meta-universe makes my head hurt, but I take it to be possible that it could exist as I have described it -- that is, that other things exist which are not part of the physical universe.
If a meta-universe did exist, it would be conceivable to me that there might be something which is not a part of the physical universe, but which could have the power to create something like a physical universe, and to interact with it once it had been created. Such an entity, it seems to me, could have all the properties discussed in the previous thought experiment, with the added bonus of not having any sort of physical existence, and being the creator of the physical universe. It may be noted that this explanation still passes the buck in an important sense: God created the physical universe, but not the meta-universe, and we would not have provided ourselves with any explanation of how God came into existence, etc. But I take it that this is an inherent problem with theistic accounts: they simply can't provide an explanation of existence that doesn't start with God somehow existing. I say, "Deal with it."
Agnosticism
So what are we left with? I've offered a pair of fanciful thought experiments which describe how an entity basically like a God could possibly exist. If there are no inherent flaws in either of them (or even one of them), atheism would not be strictly reasonable: we technically wouldn't be able to say with certainty that God does not exist. But as I said at the beginning of this post, I don't think this is going to be much consolation to theists. We've seen atheism to be mistaken, but in a way that doesn't cut to the core of the position. It's still true that it's unreasonable to place one's faith in any account of God's existence, and even if we can conceive of a being like God existing, it seems much more plausible to me that the reason people believe in such a being can be explained by cultural phenomena, and not the actual existence of a God. This position is technically an agnostic one, but I think that it shares much more in common than the atheistic one it replaces than any theistic account I've ever heard of.
For those who are hesitant to adopt a position like mine on account of faith, let me offer this: There's a lot of great stuff in the Hebrew Bible, in the New Testament, in the Qur'an, or whatever other sacred texts you may study. But recognize that while that's true of the texts you hold dear, it's true of the ones that other religious groups study as well. Seeing religion as likely being a cultural phenomenon does not force us to abandon the teachings of our ancestors, or to condemn as mere mysticism the profound insights about life that have been passed down to us in the form of sacred texts. But what it does do is allow us to criticize our ancestors' views as perhaps having been mistaken, rather than misinterpreted or garbled. We can say that there really isn't anything wrong with homosexuality, and that the biblical condemnations were representative of an indefensible prejudice. We can say that it's really not necessary to avoid contact with women when they're having their periods, or that eating milk and meat in the same meal is really no different from an ethical perspective than eating them separately. We can say that Moses' purge of unbelievers during the exodus was barbaric. We can say that God's actions in the book of Job are deplorable.
And that's a good thing, because it allows us to be honest with ourselves and to trust in our ability to tell right from wrong. It encourages us to be open to ideas from other religions and points of view, and permits us to question what we believe. It forces us to listen to our religious teachers as representing opinions, and not the undeniable truth. It makes us think for ourselves.
In closing, I want to suggest that it's difficult to believe that a God worth worshipping would want us to ignore the evidence we have before us and to blindly accept what we're told. I think that if there is a God, He would want us to take the path described here.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Friday, December 5, 2008
Wellbeing vs. Interests; Materialism vs. Idealism
Just a quick thought that popped into my head... In his essay, "The Shape of Lockean Rights: Fairness, Pareto, Moderation, and Consent," Richard Arneson sets up a distinction between "wellbeing" and "interests" with the following example:
He continues:
It seems to me that this distinction between interests and "welfare" (I prefer the term "wellbeing," since "welfare" is often used by economists in reference to preferences, which would complicate this account) is in some sense rooted in a tension between idealistic and materialistic accounts of the self. From an idealistic point of view, it seems like when trying to take us into account, what should be important is whatever we think is important. We are morally relevant because we are experiencing subjects (to steal Reagan's terminology), and what matters for moral thinking is what affects our life experiences. Taking this view, the important factors are our interests -- the things that matter to us.
But from a materialist point of view, it seems like when we think about what matters when taking others into account, we should seek to understand the things that are good for them, and then base our decisions on those considerations. From this perspective, I would expect someone to focus more on wellbeing.
So what matters, how we think about what's good, or how objective states of affairs actually impact us? I'm not entirely sure. But I think I'm happy just to characterize the problem
Suppose that I would not be harmed at all if you stole from me the hard drugs I own and prize, because without your intervention I would use the drugs to my
detriment.
He continues:
The individual has an interest in personal sovereignty, in not being subject to such paternalism, even if frustration of the interest does not harm him or
reduce his welfare.
It seems to me that this distinction between interests and "welfare" (I prefer the term "wellbeing," since "welfare" is often used by economists in reference to preferences, which would complicate this account) is in some sense rooted in a tension between idealistic and materialistic accounts of the self. From an idealistic point of view, it seems like when trying to take us into account, what should be important is whatever we think is important. We are morally relevant because we are experiencing subjects (to steal Reagan's terminology), and what matters for moral thinking is what affects our life experiences. Taking this view, the important factors are our interests -- the things that matter to us.
But from a materialist point of view, it seems like when we think about what matters when taking others into account, we should seek to understand the things that are good for them, and then base our decisions on those considerations. From this perspective, I would expect someone to focus more on wellbeing.
So what matters, how we think about what's good, or how objective states of affairs actually impact us? I'm not entirely sure. But I think I'm happy just to characterize the problem
On Austrian Economics
I originally posted these ideas as comments on a post from Peter Boettke over at The Austrian Economists blog, but I figured I should repost them here so I can reference back to them (and in case anyone's interested in what I think...). Basically, Dr. Boettke asks what sets the Austrian school of economics apart from other schools of thought, and I responded (I've abridged things a little for continuity)...
--------------------------------------
Take the following with a "He's not an economist at all, and almost certainly has no idea what he's talking about! Get your head back in the clouds, cretin!"-sized grain of salt:
It appears to me that the Austrian research program works to establish a social scientific paradigm by which we can understand how individuals come to make choices, and to use that paradigm to understand why certain influences might be expected to have certain effects through their impacts on individuals' decisions. By defining terms in order to refer to very specific types of circumstances (to preserve the capacity for Misesian "a priori" reasoning), Austrians are vulnerable to an inherent inability to rigorously model social phenomena (insofar as they are acting as Austrian economists). But where Austrian methodology gives ground in its ability to model mathematically, it gains ground in its capacity to provide tools for understanding why social phenomena "make sense," or "might have been expected." That's why Austrian economics is often seen as being the only school that makes intuitive sense, and can be understood by lay people.
Where the Austrian program is a social scientific one, it appears to me that other prevalent schools of economic thought are more geared towards providing tools for policy making and forecasting. Through an Austrian lens, one might look at these schools as running a fool's errand; as statistical regularities are upset by fundamental changes in the nature of the phenomena with which they are concerned, economists' models will inevitably collapse with them. But as fragile as these models are, there remains a demand for them. And I think that Austrians are somewhat ill suited for creating them (though perhaps to their credit).
Today LvMI posted one of Hayek's lectures, "The Pretence of Knowledge," and in it there was a point I thought was extremely relevant here. In talking about mathematical approaches to economic modelling, Hayek said:
I think Hayek's point captures the sort of thing I'm trying to convey quite well.
To the extent that mathematical modeling and economic forecasting are helpful and useful, I think it makes sense to embrace the separate approaches to economics embodied in the current state of the profession. Austrian insights can help to inform the efforts of the more mathematically-minded economists, and remain valuable on their own. Of course, if the social scientific approach to economics is the only one that's worthwhile, then we would have reason to "advocate" Austrianism. But if there's a constructive role for both approaches, it makes sense to accept and preserve the distinction.
--------------------------------------
Take the following with a "He's not an economist at all, and almost certainly has no idea what he's talking about! Get your head back in the clouds, cretin!"-sized grain of salt:
It appears to me that the Austrian research program works to establish a social scientific paradigm by which we can understand how individuals come to make choices, and to use that paradigm to understand why certain influences might be expected to have certain effects through their impacts on individuals' decisions. By defining terms in order to refer to very specific types of circumstances (to preserve the capacity for Misesian "a priori" reasoning), Austrians are vulnerable to an inherent inability to rigorously model social phenomena (insofar as they are acting as Austrian economists). But where Austrian methodology gives ground in its ability to model mathematically, it gains ground in its capacity to provide tools for understanding why social phenomena "make sense," or "might have been expected." That's why Austrian economics is often seen as being the only school that makes intuitive sense, and can be understood by lay people.
Where the Austrian program is a social scientific one, it appears to me that other prevalent schools of economic thought are more geared towards providing tools for policy making and forecasting. Through an Austrian lens, one might look at these schools as running a fool's errand; as statistical regularities are upset by fundamental changes in the nature of the phenomena with which they are concerned, economists' models will inevitably collapse with them. But as fragile as these models are, there remains a demand for them. And I think that Austrians are somewhat ill suited for creating them (though perhaps to their credit).
Today LvMI posted one of Hayek's lectures, "The Pretence of Knowledge," and in it there was a point I thought was extremely relevant here. In talking about mathematical approaches to economic modelling, Hayek said:
It has, of course, to be readily admitted that the kind of theory which I regard as the true explanation of unemployment is a theory of somewhat limited content because it allows us to make only very general predictions of the kind of events which we must expect in a given situation. But the effects on policy of the more ambitious constructions have not been very fortunate and I confess that I prefer true but imperfect knowledge, even if it leaves much indetermined and unpredictable, to a pretence of exact knowledge that is likely to be false. The credit which the apparent conformity with recognized scientific standards can gain for seemingly simple but false theories may, as the present instance shows, have grave consequences.
I think Hayek's point captures the sort of thing I'm trying to convey quite well.
To the extent that mathematical modeling and economic forecasting are helpful and useful, I think it makes sense to embrace the separate approaches to economics embodied in the current state of the profession. Austrian insights can help to inform the efforts of the more mathematically-minded economists, and remain valuable on their own. Of course, if the social scientific approach to economics is the only one that's worthwhile, then we would have reason to "advocate" Austrianism. But if there's a constructive role for both approaches, it makes sense to accept and preserve the distinction.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
On the Unified Smart Grid
My boss had me take a brief look at Al Gore's WeCampaign's proposal for a Unified National Smart Grid, and I figured I'd post my summary here in case anyone cares about these sorts of things. I apologize to the hardcore libertarians in the audience for my decidedly less-hostile-to-statism-and-intervention tone, but such is life.
The Smart Grid: An Introduction
http://www.oe.energy.gov/DocumentsandMedia/DOE_SG_Book_Single_Pages.pdf
Smart Grid is the name of a Department of Energy initiative charged with the modernization of the national energy grid.
The Premise: Existing electricity infrastructure is approaching the limits of its capacity. It is in the public’s interest to have a secure and efficient supply of electricity. But because existing technologies do not allow generators to effectively communicate with their consumers, and because rates have historically been unresponsive to dynamic market conditions, the importance of increased efficiency and security has not been properly captured in the market price of electricity. Accordingly, the current incentive structure does not encourage electricity producers to invest in more efficient and reliable technologies. This can lead to socially costly system failures, power outages, and energy quality issues (the DoE estimates that these issues cost Americans $100 billion per year). Government action is being used to bring about a more efficient outcome by allocating social resources towards the modernization of our nation’s grid.
The Strategy: It appears to be twofold. First, the DoE will incentivize investment in new energy infrastructure and promote research into new efficiency-improving technologies. A cornerstone of this approach seems to be the widespread introduction of Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) to allow customers to coordinate their energy use with grid conditions through the use of customizable personal profiles. The increased cohesion, responsiveness, and customizability of the Smart Grid would bring about lower costs, smaller loads put on existing infrastructure, and greater flexibility in responding to problems.
The second part of the strategy will be to promote decentralization of electricity generation through distributed facilities. By localizing production capacity and utilizing a broader portfolio of smaller scale production methods, grids would be better protected against problems. The technologies introduced through the first part of the strategy will also increase the potential for the success of distributed production methods, and allow for energy solutions that are more tailored to the specific needs of customers.
Unified National Smart Grid
http://www.repoweramerica.org/elements/unified-national-smart-grid/
http://www.repoweramerica.org/elements/analysis/
Unified National Smart Grid is a concept put forward by the WeCampaign, a project of Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection.
The Premise: Our current national grid is plagued by “Balkanization” and an excessive reliance on CO2-intensive generation methods. The technology for a CO2-neutral economy exists, but realizing this goal would require a nationally integrated system of electricity transmission so that electricity could be used far away from its point of generation.
The Strategy: Most of the efficiency-promoting infrastructural improvements of the DoE’s Smart Grid program are embraced by the WeCampaign proposal. The major difference, though, can be found in the fundamentally different paradigms in thinking about the nature of an ideal future generation regime. The Smart Grid program is focused on encouraging decentralization and distributed generation, allowing communities to be more self-sufficient and independent of failure-prone regional systems. The WeCampaign proposal seeks to go in precisely the opposite direction, centralizing the production and distribution of electricity using a vast new network of transmission lines to transport electricity all over the country.
The most obvious question raised by this strategy has to do with the cost of erecting high-efficiency electricity transmission lines across the United States to create a nationally integrated grid: even if it were true that such a system could be constructed, and that if it were constructed it would be possible to have a CO2-free economy, it would be unclear that we would really want to pursue such an option. Surely there are other values besides mitigating climate change! A one-dimensional analysis like the one offered by the WeCampaign ignores the fact that there are other important things besides responding to climate change. Neither the monetary nor the opportunity cost of a nationally integrated system is ever addressed in the WeCampain analysis, and one can only suspect that both would be formidable.
Conclusion
The Smart Grid plan described by the DoE is among the better kinds of government policies. It is clearly set out as a response to transactions costs which prohibit the attainment of certain public goods, and acknowledges that the decentralized planning of market actors must be relied upon in order to achieve an efficient solution to our electricity needs. The central features which distinguish the WeCampain Unified National Smart Grid proposal from the DoE’s plan are a single-minded focus on the use of CO2-free electricity production methods and an integrated national electricity transmission system. Both of these features, I think, would require substantial arguments which are not offered by the WeCampain, and on their face seem economically unfeasible. Accordingly, it’s very difficult to imagine that the DoE would amend their policy to accommodate the WeCampaign’s suggestions (unless the WeCampaign can generate enough public support to force the adoption of a clearly bad policy).
The Smart Grid: An Introduction
http://www.oe.energy.gov/DocumentsandMedia/DOE_SG_Book_Single_Pages.pdf
Smart Grid is the name of a Department of Energy initiative charged with the modernization of the national energy grid.
The Premise: Existing electricity infrastructure is approaching the limits of its capacity. It is in the public’s interest to have a secure and efficient supply of electricity. But because existing technologies do not allow generators to effectively communicate with their consumers, and because rates have historically been unresponsive to dynamic market conditions, the importance of increased efficiency and security has not been properly captured in the market price of electricity. Accordingly, the current incentive structure does not encourage electricity producers to invest in more efficient and reliable technologies. This can lead to socially costly system failures, power outages, and energy quality issues (the DoE estimates that these issues cost Americans $100 billion per year). Government action is being used to bring about a more efficient outcome by allocating social resources towards the modernization of our nation’s grid.
The Strategy: It appears to be twofold. First, the DoE will incentivize investment in new energy infrastructure and promote research into new efficiency-improving technologies. A cornerstone of this approach seems to be the widespread introduction of Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) to allow customers to coordinate their energy use with grid conditions through the use of customizable personal profiles. The increased cohesion, responsiveness, and customizability of the Smart Grid would bring about lower costs, smaller loads put on existing infrastructure, and greater flexibility in responding to problems.
The second part of the strategy will be to promote decentralization of electricity generation through distributed facilities. By localizing production capacity and utilizing a broader portfolio of smaller scale production methods, grids would be better protected against problems. The technologies introduced through the first part of the strategy will also increase the potential for the success of distributed production methods, and allow for energy solutions that are more tailored to the specific needs of customers.
Unified National Smart Grid
http://www.repoweramerica.org/elements/unified-national-smart-grid/
http://www.repoweramerica.org/elements/analysis/
Unified National Smart Grid is a concept put forward by the WeCampaign, a project of Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection.
The Premise: Our current national grid is plagued by “Balkanization” and an excessive reliance on CO2-intensive generation methods. The technology for a CO2-neutral economy exists, but realizing this goal would require a nationally integrated system of electricity transmission so that electricity could be used far away from its point of generation.
The Strategy: Most of the efficiency-promoting infrastructural improvements of the DoE’s Smart Grid program are embraced by the WeCampaign proposal. The major difference, though, can be found in the fundamentally different paradigms in thinking about the nature of an ideal future generation regime. The Smart Grid program is focused on encouraging decentralization and distributed generation, allowing communities to be more self-sufficient and independent of failure-prone regional systems. The WeCampaign proposal seeks to go in precisely the opposite direction, centralizing the production and distribution of electricity using a vast new network of transmission lines to transport electricity all over the country.
The most obvious question raised by this strategy has to do with the cost of erecting high-efficiency electricity transmission lines across the United States to create a nationally integrated grid: even if it were true that such a system could be constructed, and that if it were constructed it would be possible to have a CO2-free economy, it would be unclear that we would really want to pursue such an option. Surely there are other values besides mitigating climate change! A one-dimensional analysis like the one offered by the WeCampaign ignores the fact that there are other important things besides responding to climate change. Neither the monetary nor the opportunity cost of a nationally integrated system is ever addressed in the WeCampain analysis, and one can only suspect that both would be formidable.
Conclusion
The Smart Grid plan described by the DoE is among the better kinds of government policies. It is clearly set out as a response to transactions costs which prohibit the attainment of certain public goods, and acknowledges that the decentralized planning of market actors must be relied upon in order to achieve an efficient solution to our electricity needs. The central features which distinguish the WeCampain Unified National Smart Grid proposal from the DoE’s plan are a single-minded focus on the use of CO2-free electricity production methods and an integrated national electricity transmission system. Both of these features, I think, would require substantial arguments which are not offered by the WeCampain, and on their face seem economically unfeasible. Accordingly, it’s very difficult to imagine that the DoE would amend their policy to accommodate the WeCampaign’s suggestions (unless the WeCampaign can generate enough public support to force the adoption of a clearly bad policy).
Friday, November 21, 2008
On Relationships Between Parents and Young Libertarians
So there's been this fiasco over the last week or so in the aftermath of an article in The Guardian, which basically pointed out that Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, may be influencing young libertarians to break off contact from their parents in situations where that's actually a bad idea. A lot of people have had a whole lot to say about this, including myself in various places, but I'm not really interested in getting into the he said, she said elements of the issue. What I do want to talk about is the fact that young libertarians often have significant difficulties in relating to their parents, and that there is a lot of potential for families to be strained as one of their younger members is exposed to libertarian ideas for the first time. This incident with the Guardian article, and the greater concern surrounding Stefan's work, I think, is partly an outgrowth of this deeper problem (though the particular case in question doesn't seem to have been about political philosophy), and I think that the libertarian movement as a whole has done a rather poor job of addressing it. So I'll take a stab at it, admitting up front that this isn't likely going to solve anything, but hopefully it can be useful to someone, particularly parents whose kids are becoming exposed to libertarianism for the first time, and who find themselves in a difficult position with their kids.
The first thing that parents need to understand about the libertarian movement is that most young people do not become libertarians because they learn about libertarianism in their economics, political science, or philosophy classes and find the position the be more appealing than the other coherent paradigms in political philosophy. Rather, they are generally exposed to a set of insights which are very intuitively compelling to young people through some resource that's outside of the mainstream educational system or their family upbringing. They hear Ron Paul speak, or they read Atlas Shrugged, Economics in One Lesson, The Law, What Has Government Done to Our Money, etc., or they listen to Stefan Molyneux, or they read an inspirational article on the internet, or whatever. Or alternatively, they speak with a libertarian who exposes them to these insights. But when you trace the source of libertarian ideas back to their sources, you rarely hear that someone's parents made them libertarians, or that they learned about libertarianism in school (of course, if someone were turned on to libertarianism by their parents, I wouldn't expect that the parents would need to read this article...)
Now, it's very important that this is how young people come across libertarianism. Because libertarianism is not suggested to most people at a young age, and because "the establishment" basically doesn't recognize libertarianism as a legitimate worldview, young libertarians almost inevitably feel alienated from the world around them. Everywhere they look, they see the institutionalization of the things they so ardently oppose: collectivism (the idea that "the good of society" is what matters, and that individuals are just parts of society), statism (the idea that centralized authority should solve all of our problems and make our lives complete), authoritarianism (the idea that it's acceptable for some people in positions of power or influence to use or authorize force to impose their will on others), and paternalism (the idea that people in positions of power should be free to force us to live "properly," instead of the way that we think is best, even if we're not hurting anyone). And even worse, most of the people around them seem to have no problem with this state of affairs; many of them even support it!
And in this state of alienation, here are their parents -- typically nice enough folks who don't know much about political theory, but who are thankful to live in the greatest country in the world -- and they're completely oblivious to these great new ideas to which the young libertarians have been exposed. Being extremely enthusiastic and believing that they have discovered a long lost truth which will save the world, the young libertarians inevitably find some opportunity to confront their parents about their non-libertarianism. At this point, things almost always go badly. Some parents try to duck out of the conversation with something like, "I don't know anything about these sorts of things; I think we're lucky to live in such a wonderful country." Other parents disagree more openly, with something like, "I think you're wrong; the government needs to take care of these kinds of things because otherwise society would fall apart!" But since they almost never actually understand what they're talking about (it's not unusual; most people don't), they don't make a compelling case. Other parents defend their views with even more vigor, even attacking the child or her positions, with something like, "Where did you hear about this nonsense? You've become an extremist!" or "Lots of young people feel strongly like you do, but when you grow up, you'll realize that the real world is a lot more complicated." In pretty much any of these situations, the child leaves the conversation feeling scornful towards their clearly close-minded and unintelligent parents, and offended that after all the time and effort they put into forming their views, they were dismissed so summarily and without real consideration.
If any parents of libertarians are reading this, it's likely that one or more of the above conversations has already happened. I had pretty much all of them with my parents at one point or another! So perhaps now you have an alienated, possibly hostile kid on your hands who quite likely feels like you don't respect him and that you're part of what's wrong with the world. What should you do? Quick disclaimer: take note of the fact that everything I say here is just my opinion. I feel like I have a pretty decent perspective on this, as I'm relatively young, so I can remember what it was like to first become interested in libertarianism and to have to relate to a family which was not particularly receptive to it, but I'm also far enough removed from that state of affairs that I feel like I can sympathize with both sides. That said, this post is meant to help, not to command.
But the first thing that you might want to do is step back and take a look at your own perspective on political issues. Most adults don't understand the nature of the political system in which we live, and have no idea how or why the government does the things that it does. Many of these adults think that they do understand these things, because they've been around a while, or because their jobs expose them to markets and government policy, or because they pay attention to the issues during election years, or because they read the newspaper or watch the news, and therefore know what's going on. But the fact is, most adults don't know the first thing about political, economic, and social thought, and those who do tend to know only what is immediately relevant to their particular job or living situation. Perhaps they read The Economist, or took economics in college, or are exposed to government policies on a regular basis. But most cannot name, for example, any of the dominant schools of economic thought in today's academic and policymaking world (i.e., admit it: you don't know what "Neoclassical" means). They don't know who John Rawls, Robert Nozick, Joel Feinberg, James Buchanan, Kenneth Arrow, F.A. Hayek, Ronald Coase, Lionel Robbins, or Ludwig von Mises are. They don't know the difference between the Justice as Fairness and Sufficientarianism. As a parent, you should probably start by acknowledging that you simply don't possess many of the intellectual tools, and much of the theoretical perspective, that would be necessary for you to properly critique your child's newfound views.
So the first step is to look long and hard in the mirror and say, "My son/daughter's views are not my own, and they don't sound right to me. But I really don't have any idea how to go about analyzing his/her position. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to treat him/her like he/she doesn't know what he/she's talking about. I don't know what I'm talking about." I'm serious; say it. Out loud. And realize that by saying this, you're not saying that libertarianism is the gospel truth, or that your views are wrong. All you're saying is that you haven't really examined the issue closely enough to be really sure. And that's almost certainly true. So say it again.
The next step is to ask yourself a really important question: Do you want to learn about this stuff so that you can intelligently talk to your son/daughter? Or would you rather just try to maintain a relationship with your child which does not have anything to do with political theory? For most parents, the answer will be of the latter variety, and so that's the possibility I'll address here. But if you're one of those parents who genuinely does want to gain a better understanding of these issues, I would be more than happy to help. Feel totally free to contact me!
If you think that things would be much better for your relationship with your child if you just avoided the issue of political, economic, and social philosophy altogether, I can give you an "out" which is both honest and respectful, and which will hopefully make your child feel better about his/her disagreements with you. But first you'll need to determine what kind of libertarian your child is, because believe it or not, we aren't a homogeneous bunch. Below are some sample responses tailored to a few different kinds of libertarians. If your child is none of these sorts, feel free to ask him/her to describe what kind of view he/she holds, and let me know. I'll update this post with a model response tailored to his/her point of view. But here are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
Your child is a libertarian because he/she believes that...
...Ron Paul (or another libertarian political figure) understands what needs to be done in this country, and the mainstream candidates do not.
"Ron Paul (or whoever) has a lot of interesting ideas, but to the casual listener, a lot of them sound very extreme and unintuitive. I don't understand a lot of the theoretical ideas that underpin his arguments, and without that understanding, it's very difficult for me to decide whether I think he's right or wrong. If I were to change my voting patterns just because you think I should, without understanding the reasons why, I would be a part of the very problem that you're trying to fight. I wish you the best of luck in working towards a better understanding of the political process, and hope that you can spread awareness of the kinds of changes that need to be made in order to make this country better. But I don't have the time or energy to give those questions the attention that they deserve. I hope that you can understand and respect that."
...the way that our government is set up makes a peaceful and productive society more difficult to maintain (or, the institution of government in general is detrimental to the prospects of having a free and prosperous society).
"I don't know enough about the reasons you might think that to form a real opinion. But I will say this: I've become accustomed to living in the kind of society we have now, and so have a lot of other people. So hopefully a part of your view is the idea that a good society will be one where people do not have to completely derail their lives in order to implement some ideal set of institutions. If you think that a society more in line with libertarian principles would be better than our own, then I wish you the best in trying to spread awareness of those ideas and in setting in motion change that would make our society a better place to live. But I don't know enough about the things you've been thinking about to really talk about them with you on an intelligent level. So I hope that you can appreciate that and not feel like I'm trying to be dismissive; I'm just not a social engineer, and it would do me no good to try to talk like one."
...our government does not properly respect human rights, and we must fight oppression everywhere (or, government is institutionalized coercion, and we must stand up for the victims of its tyranny).
[Warning: Libertarians of this stripe can be the most difficult to deal with for someone who plans to continue doing things like voting or advocating certain kinds of government policies. If your child believes that his/her views reflect matters of human rights, you have to understand that your positions may strike him/her in much the same way as someone might strike you if they advocated the Jim Crow laws.]
"I respect your position, but I'm not sure if I think that people are due the kind of treatment that you do. I'm not saying that you're wrong; I'm only saying that I don't feel oppressed by our society, and that I haven't given enough attention to the issue to really understand why you feel the way that you do. I understand that you feel very strongly about this, and to hear me saying what I'm saying might sound really terrible to you. But even among professional economists, ethicists, and political philosophers, libertarianism is not universally recognized as the one true way to think about justice, and there are arguments on all sides of the debate. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or energy to try to figure out for myself who's right and who's wrong. So perhaps I'm not quite ready to take the leap that you've taken, because I don't have the understanding that you have which makes you think that such a leap is justified. But I respect your opinion, and I'm proud to see you so passionate about the things that matter to you. I just know that I won't be able to speak intelligently with you about these things, because I don't really have the knowledge that would be necessary to do so."
Hopefully these examples can be helpful to struggling parents! And hopefully they can make your family feel whole again, and convey to your children that you respect them, even though you don't necessarily buy into everything they're pushing. And that's really the goal: to have respectful disagreement which allows you to move on to the parts of your relationship that really matter to both of you. Good luck, and please let me know if I can be of any help!
The first thing that parents need to understand about the libertarian movement is that most young people do not become libertarians because they learn about libertarianism in their economics, political science, or philosophy classes and find the position the be more appealing than the other coherent paradigms in political philosophy. Rather, they are generally exposed to a set of insights which are very intuitively compelling to young people through some resource that's outside of the mainstream educational system or their family upbringing. They hear Ron Paul speak, or they read Atlas Shrugged, Economics in One Lesson, The Law, What Has Government Done to Our Money, etc., or they listen to Stefan Molyneux, or they read an inspirational article on the internet, or whatever. Or alternatively, they speak with a libertarian who exposes them to these insights. But when you trace the source of libertarian ideas back to their sources, you rarely hear that someone's parents made them libertarians, or that they learned about libertarianism in school (of course, if someone were turned on to libertarianism by their parents, I wouldn't expect that the parents would need to read this article...)
Now, it's very important that this is how young people come across libertarianism. Because libertarianism is not suggested to most people at a young age, and because "the establishment" basically doesn't recognize libertarianism as a legitimate worldview, young libertarians almost inevitably feel alienated from the world around them. Everywhere they look, they see the institutionalization of the things they so ardently oppose: collectivism (the idea that "the good of society" is what matters, and that individuals are just parts of society), statism (the idea that centralized authority should solve all of our problems and make our lives complete), authoritarianism (the idea that it's acceptable for some people in positions of power or influence to use or authorize force to impose their will on others), and paternalism (the idea that people in positions of power should be free to force us to live "properly," instead of the way that we think is best, even if we're not hurting anyone). And even worse, most of the people around them seem to have no problem with this state of affairs; many of them even support it!
And in this state of alienation, here are their parents -- typically nice enough folks who don't know much about political theory, but who are thankful to live in the greatest country in the world -- and they're completely oblivious to these great new ideas to which the young libertarians have been exposed. Being extremely enthusiastic and believing that they have discovered a long lost truth which will save the world, the young libertarians inevitably find some opportunity to confront their parents about their non-libertarianism. At this point, things almost always go badly. Some parents try to duck out of the conversation with something like, "I don't know anything about these sorts of things; I think we're lucky to live in such a wonderful country." Other parents disagree more openly, with something like, "I think you're wrong; the government needs to take care of these kinds of things because otherwise society would fall apart!" But since they almost never actually understand what they're talking about (it's not unusual; most people don't), they don't make a compelling case. Other parents defend their views with even more vigor, even attacking the child or her positions, with something like, "Where did you hear about this nonsense? You've become an extremist!" or "Lots of young people feel strongly like you do, but when you grow up, you'll realize that the real world is a lot more complicated." In pretty much any of these situations, the child leaves the conversation feeling scornful towards their clearly close-minded and unintelligent parents, and offended that after all the time and effort they put into forming their views, they were dismissed so summarily and without real consideration.
If any parents of libertarians are reading this, it's likely that one or more of the above conversations has already happened. I had pretty much all of them with my parents at one point or another! So perhaps now you have an alienated, possibly hostile kid on your hands who quite likely feels like you don't respect him and that you're part of what's wrong with the world. What should you do? Quick disclaimer: take note of the fact that everything I say here is just my opinion. I feel like I have a pretty decent perspective on this, as I'm relatively young, so I can remember what it was like to first become interested in libertarianism and to have to relate to a family which was not particularly receptive to it, but I'm also far enough removed from that state of affairs that I feel like I can sympathize with both sides. That said, this post is meant to help, not to command.
But the first thing that you might want to do is step back and take a look at your own perspective on political issues. Most adults don't understand the nature of the political system in which we live, and have no idea how or why the government does the things that it does. Many of these adults think that they do understand these things, because they've been around a while, or because their jobs expose them to markets and government policy, or because they pay attention to the issues during election years, or because they read the newspaper or watch the news, and therefore know what's going on. But the fact is, most adults don't know the first thing about political, economic, and social thought, and those who do tend to know only what is immediately relevant to their particular job or living situation. Perhaps they read The Economist, or took economics in college, or are exposed to government policies on a regular basis. But most cannot name, for example, any of the dominant schools of economic thought in today's academic and policymaking world (i.e., admit it: you don't know what "Neoclassical" means). They don't know who John Rawls, Robert Nozick, Joel Feinberg, James Buchanan, Kenneth Arrow, F.A. Hayek, Ronald Coase, Lionel Robbins, or Ludwig von Mises are. They don't know the difference between the Justice as Fairness and Sufficientarianism. As a parent, you should probably start by acknowledging that you simply don't possess many of the intellectual tools, and much of the theoretical perspective, that would be necessary for you to properly critique your child's newfound views.
So the first step is to look long and hard in the mirror and say, "My son/daughter's views are not my own, and they don't sound right to me. But I really don't have any idea how to go about analyzing his/her position. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to treat him/her like he/she doesn't know what he/she's talking about. I don't know what I'm talking about." I'm serious; say it. Out loud. And realize that by saying this, you're not saying that libertarianism is the gospel truth, or that your views are wrong. All you're saying is that you haven't really examined the issue closely enough to be really sure. And that's almost certainly true. So say it again.
The next step is to ask yourself a really important question: Do you want to learn about this stuff so that you can intelligently talk to your son/daughter? Or would you rather just try to maintain a relationship with your child which does not have anything to do with political theory? For most parents, the answer will be of the latter variety, and so that's the possibility I'll address here. But if you're one of those parents who genuinely does want to gain a better understanding of these issues, I would be more than happy to help. Feel totally free to contact me!
If you think that things would be much better for your relationship with your child if you just avoided the issue of political, economic, and social philosophy altogether, I can give you an "out" which is both honest and respectful, and which will hopefully make your child feel better about his/her disagreements with you. But first you'll need to determine what kind of libertarian your child is, because believe it or not, we aren't a homogeneous bunch. Below are some sample responses tailored to a few different kinds of libertarians. If your child is none of these sorts, feel free to ask him/her to describe what kind of view he/she holds, and let me know. I'll update this post with a model response tailored to his/her point of view. But here are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
Your child is a libertarian because he/she believes that...
...Ron Paul (or another libertarian political figure) understands what needs to be done in this country, and the mainstream candidates do not.
"Ron Paul (or whoever) has a lot of interesting ideas, but to the casual listener, a lot of them sound very extreme and unintuitive. I don't understand a lot of the theoretical ideas that underpin his arguments, and without that understanding, it's very difficult for me to decide whether I think he's right or wrong. If I were to change my voting patterns just because you think I should, without understanding the reasons why, I would be a part of the very problem that you're trying to fight. I wish you the best of luck in working towards a better understanding of the political process, and hope that you can spread awareness of the kinds of changes that need to be made in order to make this country better. But I don't have the time or energy to give those questions the attention that they deserve. I hope that you can understand and respect that."
...the way that our government is set up makes a peaceful and productive society more difficult to maintain (or, the institution of government in general is detrimental to the prospects of having a free and prosperous society).
"I don't know enough about the reasons you might think that to form a real opinion. But I will say this: I've become accustomed to living in the kind of society we have now, and so have a lot of other people. So hopefully a part of your view is the idea that a good society will be one where people do not have to completely derail their lives in order to implement some ideal set of institutions. If you think that a society more in line with libertarian principles would be better than our own, then I wish you the best in trying to spread awareness of those ideas and in setting in motion change that would make our society a better place to live. But I don't know enough about the things you've been thinking about to really talk about them with you on an intelligent level. So I hope that you can appreciate that and not feel like I'm trying to be dismissive; I'm just not a social engineer, and it would do me no good to try to talk like one."
...our government does not properly respect human rights, and we must fight oppression everywhere (or, government is institutionalized coercion, and we must stand up for the victims of its tyranny).
[Warning: Libertarians of this stripe can be the most difficult to deal with for someone who plans to continue doing things like voting or advocating certain kinds of government policies. If your child believes that his/her views reflect matters of human rights, you have to understand that your positions may strike him/her in much the same way as someone might strike you if they advocated the Jim Crow laws.]
"I respect your position, but I'm not sure if I think that people are due the kind of treatment that you do. I'm not saying that you're wrong; I'm only saying that I don't feel oppressed by our society, and that I haven't given enough attention to the issue to really understand why you feel the way that you do. I understand that you feel very strongly about this, and to hear me saying what I'm saying might sound really terrible to you. But even among professional economists, ethicists, and political philosophers, libertarianism is not universally recognized as the one true way to think about justice, and there are arguments on all sides of the debate. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or energy to try to figure out for myself who's right and who's wrong. So perhaps I'm not quite ready to take the leap that you've taken, because I don't have the understanding that you have which makes you think that such a leap is justified. But I respect your opinion, and I'm proud to see you so passionate about the things that matter to you. I just know that I won't be able to speak intelligently with you about these things, because I don't really have the knowledge that would be necessary to do so."
Hopefully these examples can be helpful to struggling parents! And hopefully they can make your family feel whole again, and convey to your children that you respect them, even though you don't necessarily buy into everything they're pushing. And that's really the goal: to have respectful disagreement which allows you to move on to the parts of your relationship that really matter to both of you. Good luck, and please let me know if I can be of any help!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
