I'm still pondering a reply to Jerry Taylor's thoughtful comment -- seems like it requires something substantive, and I never have time for substance. Sigh.
But let me just throw out one quick observation.
One reason why folks who push for cost-benefit analyses and libertarians alike drive me crazy is this: In the real world, their ideas are co-opted and used in service of corruption and cronyism, and they don't seem to notice.
For instance: You think there was ever a cost-benefit analysis run on this fiasco? Of course not. When the powers-that-be get an idea like this in their head, they battle for it on political terrain, not in bean-counting terms. So we have a billion a day going down the drain. But a few millions to tear down a dam? All the sudden the exact numerical ratio of expense to payoff is important.
They pull out CBA when they want to slow something down, trip it up -- they wage political battle by proxy, via bean counting. To advocate for the widespread use of CBA -- as opposed to advocating for what you believe in on political grounds -- is to offer de facto support for holding worthwhile endeavors that threaten the PTB to much higher standards than the PTB hold themselves.
So too with libertarianism. While in pure theory libertarianism despises all government interference and manipulation in markets alike, in practice libertarians are trotted out to argue against interventions meant to benefit the poor and disenfranchised. As for subsidies and favors channeled to wealthy political contributors, well, libertarians seem to get less worked up about that. How strong, organized, and persistent is libertarian opposition to agribusiness subsidies? How effective?
The point -- which admittedly I'm not expressing very well -- is not that any particular CBA advocate or libertarian is a hypocrite. The point is that they seem blithely, almost willfully, ignorant of the real-world effects of their theories. It's comforting to take refuge in theory. It's clean and cozy. But no matter how intellectually consistent you may be, you are not blameless when other less scrupulous folk use your work toward malevolent ends. You -- we all -- have an obligation to be aware of the lay of the political land, and to fashion our advocacy accordingly.
Comments
View as Flat
amazingdrx Posted 11:48 pm
26 Jul 2005
It seems this contradicts "Jerry Taylor's thoughtful comment...". Nevermind...don't want to upset the very important libertarians.
Decorum and basic politness are more important than global climate disaster, afterall we will all be dead soon enough.
Permalink
jhadler Posted 3:15 am
27 Jul 2005
First, you should familiarize yourself with libertarian organizations and their work on wasteful government spending before you cast aspersions. Groups like Cato, NTU, CAGW, CEI, and the like have campaigned against agricultural subsidies for years -- and done so far more consistently than environmental groups. Those who drafted the early Green Scissors reports had to be shamed by libertarians into more direct criticism of ag subsidies, and environmental groups were reluctant to work with conservative and libertarian groups to challenge wasteful and environmentally harmful government spending after the Republicans took over Congress.
Second, should I hold environmentalists responsible for ADM pushing wasteful agricultural subsidies under the guise of environmental protection? After all, they helpd ADM get guaranteed markets in the reformulated gasoline provisions of the Clean Air Act -- even though adding ethanol to fuel sometimes increases emissions. Should I blame greens for exclusionary zoning that hides under environmental pretense? Or what about European protectionism that pretends to advance environmental values and closes off markets to farmers in the developing world? Or when DDT use is discouraged in sub-Saharan Africa because of western fears and the result is an increase in malaria? If an advocate is responsible for how his/her ideas are misused, then these are "real world" effects of environmentalism. It seems to me more appropriate to hold folks responsible for what they themselves say and do, not how others mis-represent their policy prescriptions.
If a libertarian opposes subsidies to industry A and to industry B, s/he would prefer to eliminate both, but would prefer eliminating one to none. Thus, libertarians -- like all politically active groups that actually seek to affect policy -- seek to build coalitions and take advantage when targets of opportunity present themselves. If that means more of industry A's goodies get eliminated than industry B's goodies, so be it. It's better than nothing.
Jonathan H. Adler
Permalink
Jerry Taylor Posted 4:54 am
27 Jul 2005
For instance, I wrote an op-ed a few years ago in the Washington Post attacking nuclear energy subsidies in the president's energy plan (http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-18-01.html). I later wrote another op-ed on that same subject with Navin Nayak from Friends of the Earth (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3134).
Another example: I then went further than any environmentalist has gone (to my knowledge) and called for the elimination of the clause in the Clean Air Act that lets "old" facilities out from under the tough new emission standards imposed on "new" facilities (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50922,00.htm).
Other examples of "green" libertarianism include an oped criticizing Bush for proposing to leave decisions regarding national forests to state governors (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2748) and an op-ed cricizing Bush for renewing contracts for low-cost water to western agriculture users (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2605).
In short, I have spared neither left nor right from my arguments concerning the merits of free resource markets. The charge that my arguments are being employed to "malevolent ends" would be news to Dan Becker of the Sierra Club, who has labored mightily to employ them towards positive green ends. See for instance this joint op-ed on the subject a few years ago in the LA Times (http://www.cato.org/research/articles/becker-031029.html). Or see this joint piece written by Sierra Club President Carl Pope and Cato President Ed Crane (http://www.cato.org/research/articles/crane-pope-020730.html).
I have been trying mightily for years to build upon such areas of agreements with the environmental left. Alas, it appears that unless I pass some Grist policy checklist, you have no interest in embracing alliances with libertarians regardless of how much agreement we might have. And that's a pity.
I'd write more, but I have to stop now. Need to return a phone call from Karen Whelan at NRDC regarding how we might cooperate in the attack on this energy bill. Used once again for malevolent ends I guess ....
Permalink