New at Reason
Ronald Bailey is shocked to discover that deep down, man is meant to be a Marxist.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Doug | April 20, 2007, 8:48am | #
I would just like to comment that the throw-away at the end about the inherent attraction to "destructive" income equalization policies is a bit unwarranted.In modern economics (and I thought for libertarians, as well), value comes from people's preferences, not some moral code we have written down. If people value equality, then these "Destructive" policies at least have an upside (inasmuch as they are successful in actually reducing inequality).
Now, obviously this value can run against other people's rights, or cause such inefficiency that everyone is actually worse off, but it is important to realize that this destructiveness may actually buy us something that we actually VALUE. This implies an equity/efficiency trade-off. The equity is a public good that people are actually willing to pay for, but that is not generated naturally by the free market.
I am not familiar enough with libertarian thinking (if it is not on this blog I pretty much don't knbow it), so I don't know how libertarians handle these public good issues, but these results (if they generalize to the population at large, which I would GUESS they do) suggest that this is actually a problem for libertarian world view, right?
In practice, libertarians might still be more correct than anyone else, but this seems to pose a real theoretical challenge to the philosophy. I would be curious to see how you guys would handle it.
Eryk Boston | April 20, 2007, 8:50am | #
My apologies to any Randroids reading this but I must remind people that Robin Hood did not "rob from the rich and give to the poor". As I recall, his acts could be better described as "robbed from state tax collectors and returned the money to those who earned it". Then again, the fact that everyone wants to remember the tale as the former does suggest that Mr. Bailey's report has merit.perilisk | April 20, 2007, 9:06am | #
Evolutionarily, punishing those who do well may have some roots in the fact a system that only identifies and punishes known cheaters will fail to punish cheaters who manage to fool that system, and they may eventually destabilize it. Successful human societies may have punished improbabilistically fortunate people in order to catch hidden cheating. Insofar as the difference in incomes in these games are often due purely to luck or the choices of researches (I don't know about this case), it can't really have much influence on the motivations of the well-off.Now, if these games had some method of "earning" wealth (say, answering trivia questions or playing games of skill) and then found that people still punished the earners as much as the lucky, that would be different.
The scary thing is 2/3 of the subjects chose to reduce the income of the wealthy even though _no one_ would gain by it. This means some people calling to help the poor are really speaking out of spite towards the rich.
JK | April 20, 2007, 9:13am | #
Have to say I'm not all that impressed.First off, surely there's a difference between earned and un-earned income. The study's authors seemed to think the random allocation would less rather than more likely to provoke a re-distributive reaction. That seems back to front. How about repeating the experiment where, say, the initial allocation was the result of performance on some kind of computer game?
Second, where's the evidence that this behaviour is an "innate drive" as Ron suggests? The experiment was on 120 student volunteers from University of California at Davis. There's no guarantee the results would come out the same when performed on early twentieth century Russian peasants or thirteenth century outlawed aristocrats.
Third, the attempt to interpret this in term of the pleistocene suffers from the usual weaknesses of evolutionary psychology just-so stories: the biology of the human mind is not a product of a single environment, but is the result of many layers of adaptation to successive environments layered on top of each other. Furthermore, we have only sketchy ideas about any one of those environments. (And for what it's worth the idea that people such the bushmen or Amazon tribes are "relics of the stone age" have proven far too simplistic.)
Fourth, I don't find it at all difficult to tell a just-so story about how survival in a small band of hunter-gathers would be enhanced, at least in some circumstances, if luckier members of the band shared their luck with the less lucky, and the less lucky could count on some support. (Consider, in a hunter gatherer band there is much less point in accumulating wealth beyond what is needed for immediate consumpution: no stock market or pensions, etc. No where to spend your wealth either. Also consider that one of the edges of the evolving homo sapiens was to draw on accumluated experience and knowledge, which meant keeping around old people.)
Fifth, Marx believed that the attraction of equality in modern society was just a one-sided abstraction from the capitalist ideal (e.g. equality before the law, abolishing of old feudal ranks and caste distinctions). What Marx actually wrote is that "Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only". He thought that once communism got going we wouldn't need equality anymore. As for the attraction of communism I think in most cases it had little to do with the ideal of equality, e.g. the Vietnamese weren't interested in equality with the colonisers, they wanted to rule themselves. Nor have established communist states ever actually had much equality - if anything less they have been equal than than capitalist states. So I don't get why Ron should think this explains anything about the "attraction of communism" but not comment on, say "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."
andrew | April 20, 2007, 9:18am | #
the experiment should have been with real money. that may have produced different results.Eryk Boston | April 20, 2007, 9:32am | #
JK, impressive posting and I'd like to flesh out your second point. The trouble with most of these studies is that they are conducted using broke college kids willing to play these games for beer money. Let the same students try these same games in ten years when they've actually had to work for a living.Ron Bailey | April 20, 2007, 9:38am | #
Guys: Thanks very much for the wonderful insightful comments. I particularly like the idea of contrasting these results with a game in which people are seen to earn their winnings by exercising some kind of skill. In fact, it sounds like some researcher must already have done that--can anyone at H&R point to any references to such research? In any case, let me link to one of my previous columns looking at some other versions of this kind of research at "Burn the Rich."BTW, the research was done with real money, although the amounts were pretty low.
Memnon | April 20, 2007, 9:58am | #
I think care has to be taken before extrapolating the socialised actions of twentyfirst century twentysomethings into sociobiological truths about group evolutionary strategy.But then again, people never make that distinction in analysing other behavioural experiments, so whatever.
Chucklehead | April 20, 2007, 9:59am | #
JK hit the nail on the head.I wonder too, how one can ascribe motives to such data as this anyway. I can easily imagine a number of competitive frat-boy types that would be more interested in punishing others for the sheer hell of it rather than for some intrinsic egalitarian drive. Conversely, the study was done on college kids in California. WTF did you expect?
R C Dean | April 20, 2007, 9:59am | #
Doug, I think a thoughtful libertarian would respond that you need to focus on just who you mean by "we" or "people", and what means are employed to achieve this "equality" of which you speak:If people value equality, then these "Destructive" policies at least have an upside (inasmuch as they are successful in actually reducing inequality).
Now, obviously this value can run against other people's rights, or cause such inefficiency that everyone is actually worse off, but it is important to realize that this destructiveness may actually buy us something that we actually VALUE.
What if I don't value equality? Am I not "people"? What if the people who consistently come out in favor of equality just happen to be those who will be on the receiving end of the value transfer? Are they really in favor of "equality", or just in favor of getting some?
And just how will equality be pursued? At gunpoint? Because that's where your hardcore "income" equalizers usually wind up.
And just what is this equality of which you speak? Equality of opportunity? Equality of outcome? Equal rights? Because two of these three have nothing to do with involuntary transfers of wealth (which is what "income equalization" amounts to), and indeed such transfers are anathema to equal rights before the law.
As always in philosophy, the heavy lifting is done in the definitions of terms. Tell us what you really mean by "People value equality, so what's wrong with "income equalization'?
Hooked on Innuendo | April 20, 2007, 10:01am | #
Finally, finding that humans have an innate tendency toward enforcing a norm of income equality would explain the persistent attraction of communism, progressive tax rates, the demand for universal government-supplied health care, minimum wage laws and other such destructive modern leveling ideologies and policies.Ron, this was an excellent column for the most part, but you just couldn't help yourself, could you?
I mean, are you really suggesting that all people have a natural inclination for destructive ideas? How did we ever make it this far, then?
This does illustrate, however, why libertarianism is not attractive to most people: it requires a heapin' helpin' of bitter cynicism.
swillfredo pareto | April 20, 2007, 10:09am | #
I mean, are you really suggesting that all people have a natural inclination for destructive ideas?People seem to have a natural inclination to believe there is such a thing as a free lunch.
libertarianism...requires a heapin' helpin' of bitter cynicism.
If you are not a cynic you are not paying attention.
kohlrabi | April 20, 2007, 10:11am | #
HoI,What cynicism? He's not saying that people understand that these ideas are destructive. It's not cynical to point out that people like to eat junk food. Are nutritionists cynical?
Hooked on Innuendo | April 20, 2007, 10:14am | #
I found it cynical because his message seems to be that our natural inclination to want people to be treated as fairly as possible is one that leads to "destruction".Mr. F. Le Mur | April 20, 2007, 10:19am | #
First off, surely there's a difference between earned and un-earned income.Perhaps that's why socialists like to use words like "privileged" when referring to people who've earned more money than they have.
Second, where's the evidence that this behaviour is an "innate drive" as Ron suggests?
It *is* pretty interesting which human traits and behaviors, and differences of same, people automatically assume are genetic vs learned/enviromental, despite lots of evidence or a complete lack of it.
Consider, in a hunter gatherer band there is much less point in accumulating wealth beyond what is needed for immediate consumpution: no stock market or pensions, etc.
Good point. In some Ameridian tribes relative social status was dependant on how much "stuff" (carvings, trinkets, tools, etc) you gave away. For itinerant/nomadic people having too much stuff would just be a burden (so some got slaves to carry it for them).
the experiment should have been with real money. that may have produced different results.
Indeed it would, if the amounts were significant, but the paper refers to at least one study where students earned an average of $10 - is that "real money?" This seems analogous to people buying feelings of fairness and generosity by spending other people's money, e.g. through taxation. (And relates to EB's comment about students vs real people).
mediageek | April 20, 2007, 10:19am | #
Feh.Robin Hood wasn't a commie.
He was the world's first tax protester.
*evil grin*
Hooked on Innuendo | April 20, 2007, 10:31am | #
I guess what it comes down to is that libertarians, who are against the use of government force to oppress and control people, don't care to acknowledge that economic inequality is a means to oppress and control people as well.My guess is that most libertarians are fairly well-off, and of course it's easy to rationalize inequality when you're benefiting from it.
val | April 20, 2007, 10:35am | #
My guess is that most libertarians are fairly well-off, and of course it's easy to rationalize inequality when you're benefiting from it.Even if most libertarian were on average better of then the median, how does that show that libertarians were benefiting from inequality?
kohlrabi | April 20, 2007, 10:36am | #
HoI,That's just it, though. People have natural inclinations to do a lot of destructive things, especially if they're not aware of those things being destructive.
The natural inclination for sugary or fatty foods is the same. It's not cynical to want to educate people on the real long term consequences of a particular behavior.
Anyway,he's not saying people are inherently destructive, he's saying that the ill-concieved mechanisms used to accomodate a natural inclination are destructive.
kohlrabi | April 20, 2007, 10:38am | #
HoI,"economic inequality is a means to oppress and control people as well."
There's a huge difference between political power and economic power. On is contingent upon volitional interaction, the other on physical force.
Ron Bailey | April 20, 2007, 10:38am | #
With strong caveats about comparing contemporary "primitive" societies with ancestral "primitive" societies, I reported some research that looked a punishment/cooperation dynamics in 15 small scale societies around the globe in my "A Natural Sense of Justice" column. See excerpt below.Game theory researchers have long noted that in order sustain networks of cooperation there also has to be some way for at least some cooperators to punish defectors. The new study in Science (not available online) by Emory University anthropologist Joseph Heinrich and his colleagues looked at 15 different small scale societies located in Africa, South America, Asia and Oceania to see if this game's theoretic insight has some empirical basis. Researchers enrolled members from these societies in various behavioral experiments designed to test for their willingness to punish.
Ayn Rand | April 20, 2007, 10:45am | #
"My guess is that most libertarians are fairly well-off"My guess is that most libertarians are broke ass 19 year olds with a tattered copy of Atlas Shrugged in their backpack.
The others own companies in heavily regulated industries.
Russ 2000 | April 20, 2007, 10:45am | #
At the outset each received a randomly generated sum of money.So they are already welfare recipients/ congressmen. Of COURSE they're going to be Marxist.
Hooked on Innuendo | April 20, 2007, 10:47am | #
There's a huge difference between political power and economic power. On is contingent upon volitional interaction, the other on physical force.True in theory, but there is no denying that in real life they work in conjunction. Few people have one type of power but not the other.
R C Dean | April 20, 2007, 10:49am | #
Few people have one type of power but not the other.Sure, so why attack the problem by impoverishing everyone, rather than reducing the tools of coercion that are stockpiled in the State for rent to the wealthy?
steveintheknow | April 20, 2007, 10:49am | #
Groups of 4 are small. I would like to see a study where the participants play in a larger pool. I don't think it is a stretch to see communism in small, homogeneous groups. After all, the nuclear family model, or the old extended family under one roof model are basically small communist sub societies. Kind of like Newtonian physics breaking down at the atomic level.Am I totally missing something?
Ron Bailey | April 20, 2007, 10:56am | #
steveintheknow: You may recall that Hayek argued that communism and other collectivist ideologies were essentially primitive throwbacks to the human desire to organize society as though it were a family.kohlrabi | April 20, 2007, 10:56am | #
HoI,Right, that's a function of political power playing an active role in economic affairs. A role that libertarians find to be destructive and seek to eliminate.
I was saying that the two powers are essentially different in their ability to oppress people, that they currently coexist and people are oppressed doesn't really address my claim.
Hooked on Innuendo | April 20, 2007, 11:02am | #
Sure, so why attack the problem by impoverishing everyone, rather than reducing the tools of coercion that are stockpiled in the State for rent to the wealthy?Well, I don't think that anybody wants to "impoverish everyone".
If for no other reason than it's impossible since poverty is relative.
kohlrabi | April 20, 2007, 11:11am | #
HoI,RC didn't say anything about anybody's motivations. Again, it is possible for people to be unaware of the consequences of their actions.
Also, by everyone, he clearly means everyone who would affected by said policies. Those people could still be impoverished relative to historical standards or compared to people existing outside of the policy's influence.
steveintheknow | April 20, 2007, 11:15am | #
RonActually I didn't recall, but I will in the future. Thanks.
Hooked on Innuendo | April 20, 2007, 11:16am | #
Right, that's a function of political power playing an active role in economic affairs. A role that libertarians find to be destructive and seek to eliminate.I was saying that the two powers are essentially different in their ability to oppress people, that they currently coexist and people are oppressed doesn't really address my claim.
Of course, many would argue that an important role of government is to limit the amount of power that the rich have over the poor. Even libertarians think this, so the question is really a matter of degree.
kohlrabi | April 20, 2007, 11:26am | #
HoI,I think you are conflating both types of power. One is oppressive, the other not. So libertarians would argue to limit one type and not the other. So it's not a matter of degree, it's a matter of form.
Economic power:political power::rubber band:rock band.
mediageek | April 20, 2007, 11:42am | #
Ron, an interesting article, and the study certainly does bring up more questions than it answers."BTW, the research was done with real money, although the amounts were pretty low."
I think this is a standard practice in college economics departments. I took part in a few game theory studies in college. It was kind of a fun way to earn a *little* extra money.
Hooked on Innuendo | April 20, 2007, 11:53am | #
HoI,I think you are conflating both types of power. One is oppressive, the other not. So libertarians would argue to limit one type and not the other. So it's not a matter of degree, it's a matter of form.
Economic power:political power::rubber band:rock band.
Power of any kind can be used for either good or bad effect. But in America, you're much more likely to lose your house because you can't pay the mortgage than you are to lose it because the government kicked you out.
Reinmoose | April 20, 2007, 11:59am | #
These are some great points.Sorry if someone already said something to this effect (I don't have a lot of time at the moment to read all the above comments), but I don't think this result shows a tendency toward communism at all. I think, if anything, this is evidence that if you simply allow people to keep their own money, it will eventually find its way back to the poorer people and they will not be left to starve. As one of the major criticisms of libertarianism is that there will be this giant group of poor people and, if not forced to do so, nobody will care for them, I think this result is evidence against that criticism.
I promise I'll read all of the posts later.
Mad Scientist | April 20, 2007, 12:15pm | #
Unless I'm reading this completely wrong, the incentive system in the game unrealistic. You're given a random ammount of valueless tokens and you can, 1) increase someone else's tokens, 2) decrease someone else's tokens, 3) do absolutely nothing. Since the tokens have no value, the only way to play the game at all through options 1 or 2, so the player has every incentive to fuck with the other players and no incentive to leave them alone. Given a choice of doing something useful with the tokens, I suspect many players would opt for that instead of meddling in each other's affairs.Reinmoose | April 20, 2007, 1:13pm | #
HOII think you are utterly confused.
Libertarians don't want political power, because they see political power as the means by with people are economically oppressed... not the political power is what keeps people from being economically oppressed. You think that libertarians argue in favor of economic inequality, when in reality they (the non-bigoted educated ones) think that their policies are the means by which greater economic fairness and efficiency will be brought to society. I think you’re confusing libertarians with angry white-supremacist republicans of the 90s who don’t want welfare because the people receiving it don’t deserve to live.
Reinmoose | April 20, 2007, 1:15pm | #
*because they see political power as the means by which people are economically oppressed... not what keeps people from being economically oppressedSorry, I don't know what happened there.
megs | April 20, 2007, 1:39pm | #
I think libertarians need to take back Robin Hood. There's a fun adaptation just put out by the BBC that's remarkably libertarian I recommend.Anyway, some excellent comments here, but I wanted to add the idea of separation between political and, well, emotional values. I identify as libertarian, but I'm an "emotional communist". I don't want government to do it, but I personally want to use any financial gains I might make to help my friends and strangers along. My friends in particular, because I can trust them to not squander the benefits (like free housing, interest free loans), unlike strangers who might feel like they're getting a free lunch. I have no doubt I'd do the same in a game for a few bucks. I already play in a manner somewhat like that in games like Munchkin, where you can help people out for a small reward, but often have to save your chances to hurt them only when they're about to win. I've seen that in a lot of group games, where people are helpful and generous until someone starts winning too much.
And it's funny that the two big ways in which my husband and I try to help our friends out of difficulties and back onto their own feet are ones the government wants to meddle with, which would restrict our ability to give them. Political interference HURTS generosity. Political oppression sucks, y'all. Economic oppression is something I feel like I could do something about.
kohlrabi | April 20, 2007, 1:43pm | #
HoI,Are you being serious? If you 'lose your house' because you can't pay for it, then it never was your house, it's the bank's house.
If you want to assert that economic power is the same as political power, you need to demonstrate how economic power can infringe on someone's rights.
Reinmoose | April 20, 2007, 1:54pm | #
I agree with you megs on all of those points.Regarding what you said at the end about how government interference hurts generosity, I'd go one step further. I'd suggest that ending government charity actually increases the sense of community and compassion people feel for one another. I don't have any data to back this up, but speaking from a personal standpoint, I would feel more generous to the downtrodden if I didn't already know that there are hundreds of government programs I don't approve of that they could use to get themselves out of poverty if they wished... which in itself is a gross assumption which may or may not be true. It's just an attitude I think is propagated by government charity.
Isaac Bartram | April 20, 2007, 2:18pm | #
My apologies to any Randroids reading this...I don't know exactly while your apologizing.
Rand had Ragnar Danneskjold say pretty much the same thing in Atlas Shrugged.
Hooked on Innuendo | April 20, 2007, 2:41pm | #
HoI,Are you being serious? If you 'lose your house' because you can't pay for it, then it never was your house, it's the bank's house.
No, my house is legally mine. But it is collateral on a loan I took out in order to buy it.
So I'm just saying that I'm much more likely to lose my house because of economic reasons than political reasons.
Not to mention that if the bank forecloses on a house they can use the poltical power of the state to remove the former owners.
If you want to assert that economic power is the same as political power, you need to demonstrate how economic power can infringe on someone's rights.
But since rights are a political idea then it's the people with political power who decide what our rights are. And, generally those are the people with a lot of money.
Asharak | April 20, 2007, 2:52pm | #
Well, of course of humans are social animals by nature. I don't see how that's the same as Marxism, however.Asharak | April 20, 2007, 2:53pm | #
"of course humans", sorry.damaged justice | April 20, 2007, 2:53pm | #
HoI: Not that it's any of your fucking business, but I live far below the American federally declared "poverty level". I want to see a more liberatarian society for the obvious selfish reasons that it would be easier for me to make and keep money, and also because I do not automatically hate my fellow man so much that I want to stop him from making money and doing whatever the fuck he wants with it that doesn't infringe on my rights.By the way, whether you believe your own trolling or not, fuck you. Twice.
kohlrabi | April 20, 2007, 2:55pm | #
HoI,"No, my house is legally mine. But it is collateral on a loan I took out in order to buy it."
OK, but the repossession is the result of your defaulting on the contract, not an example of oppression.
"Not to mention that if the bank forecloses on a house they can use the poltical power of the state to remove the former owners."
Why should a former owner be allowed to stay? The political power is appropriate to use against trespassing. Again, not oppression.
Anyway, we have very different views on the origins of rights, then.
My point is that economic inequity alone cannot be used to oppress people without political force. Economic relationships are voluntary. That that is not the case in our country at this moment does not change that.
Mike Laursen | April 20, 2007, 3:01pm | #
The researchers may be reading to much into the results of a game where each player is only in for around $10. There are plenty of times I've been in games from poker to Risk, where we've all ganged up on whomever is ahead just to keep the game going.Mad Max | April 20, 2007, 3:03pm | #
"altruistic punishers"I loved Marvel Comics' pathbreaking series, *Altruistic Punisher v. Randian Punisher.* Frank Castle killed people whom he deemed to be enemies of the interests of humanty. His evil twin, J. G. Castle, tried to kill Frank for trying to enforce altruism.
Mike Laursen | April 20, 2007, 5:44pm | #
libertarians [...] don't care to acknowledge that economic inequality is a means to oppress and control people as well.I'm a libertarian and I acknowledge that the ability to outspend someone else is an advantage. In all kinds of situations from competing in a court room to competing for a mate. I also acknowledge that having less money can limit one's choices.
I wouldn't characterize these two hard facts of life as being exactly the same thing as control or oppression. It is very common for government and economics to be so intermixed that its hard to sort out which one is the cause of oppression.
I'm not an arnarchist or purist libertarian, so I believe that government can play a role in leveling the playing field between people of different economic status, as far as treating everyone fairly and providing equal opportunity. I still don't like the idea of wealth that someone earned being forcibly redistributed to others that didn't earn it; just seems like theft to me.
My guess is that most libertarians are fairly well-off, and of course it's easy to rationalize inequality when you're benefiting from it.
I know lots and lots of libertarians. They are all over the map as far as personal wealth and income.
grumpy realist | April 20, 2007, 11:57pm | #
But what if the wealth that one has is due to being born to a wealthy family and has absolutely nothing to do to one's own efforts?I figure the only way to have a truely Libertarian society is to force parents to raise children with exactly the same environments and background benefits, spend the same amount of money of college education, and pay exactly the same amount of money on them. Only then will we be able to really say that those who do better are doing it entirely through their own efforts and hard work.
Genghis Kahn | April 21, 2007, 2:11am | #
I figure the only way to have a truely Libertarian society is to force parents to raise children with exactly the same environments and background benefits....I figure you're wrong.
What nobody here is even mentioning, is the essential differentiating factor as to who has what -- and that's individual will.
Some of us were born in a burned out trailer in the middle of nowhere. We'd never even heard of the poverty line, and it surely had never heard of us.
Some in my family (me) worked our way up and out, and are doing pretty well now. Others, have flatly refused, even when offered more assistance than anyone ever offered me.
You have to want to succeed. And, of course, you have to be at least slightly smarter than a turnip.
There are people who inheret big wads (think of Al Gore). That's life. But in the long haul, those who have both the drive and the talent will end up with the most goodies.
Genghis Kahn | April 21, 2007, 2:14am | #
Hooked,I define an unjust system as one where you are born to your position and cannot change it. Feudalism, for example.
In our system, to a reasonable extent to this very day, you may be born at the bottom, but you can work yourself way up the ladder as you go along.
If you've got the ambition, and a little talent.