It was previously documented that in 6 decades of writing Buchanan never mentioned John C. Calhoun. Now it goes further, we have Tullock in a 1975 paper saying that neither he nor Buchanan even read Calhoun. Calculus of Consent is based on Pareto.
DIC is a nice book of historical fiction that confirms progressive biases. Outside of that it holds no value.
It isn’t that Buchanan & Tullock designed their theory to be “racist.” It is that it harmonized perfectly with segregationist attempts to maintain segregationist institutions. Which it did. I have a review of MacLean here that explains this at further length:
Magness misreads Maclean’s claims about Calhoun. And, the parallels between the Calhoun and Buchanan did not originate with her in any case, they originated with Buchanan’s followers who claimed that public choice theory mirrored Calhoun’s thoughts. So it is disingenuous to “blame” her for merely repeating the claims of public choice theorists themselves.
No big surprise how quickly this thread turned into a shitshow!
It would be nice if a larger percentage of females had an interest in classical liberalism, I sadly have to agree it is male dominated, as is economics.
For some reason “Don’t tread on me uterus” can express a basic female right of self ownership, but saying it in a classically liberal way just doesn’t go over as big.
Gee, maybe if libertarian men wouldn’t call us “females”… also wouldn’t support anti-woman policies…
I’m sorry, I didn’t know female was an offensive term. I apologize. Though you can feel free to use male if you prefer for me and other males of our species.
What anti woman policies do I prefer? Or if you prefer are typical of a liberal? (Liberal as classically used).
The illiberal reformers of the progressive era can hold outward racist or eugenic views which are excused because they were progressive, they cared.
Buchanan can bring in Bill Hutt noted anti apartheid economist and Tullock notes in 1975 he and Buchanan never read Calhoun, but it doesn’t matter, Calhoun wasn’t read, but was still Buchanan’s lodestar and it’s Magness who should apologize for bringing these to light for your review.
I see how this works.
I don’t mean to offend, I’m honestly looking for common ground.
IMO, you should own you as every woman should own themselves, as every human should own themselves.
Right of self ownership, behavioral symmetry among the species, politics is an exchange mechanism.
(I’m also on my phone so please excuse typos).
I don’t prefer male and female. I prefer men and women. I also prefer to be considered outside my gender for political issues. Being pro-choice isn’t a “female” issue, it’s a bodily autonomy issue.
I didn’t say anything about your policy choices, because you’ve only expressed a general sentiment about liberatarianism here. Other libertarian posters have expressed anti-choice views in this thread, though. And the current configuration of libertarianism is entirely tone deaf to how anti-progressive policies have made their way into the libertarian world view. Most self-proclaimed libertarians working in the political system today are in favor of LESS freedom for women, not more. Where you stand on those issues isn’t something I know, but if you oppose current right wing libertarian anti-choice views, then I’d be glad to hear that.
My core issue with modern libertarianism (as it’s actually practiced by the right wing today, YMMV, of course) is that it aligns with the social conservative right wing and focuses only on markets as the ultimate arbiter of freedom- meaning that only the well off can be free. Ignoring economic inequality and giving tax breaks to the rich doesn’t actually free people, it helps to subject them to corporate interests. Large corporations and the ultra-rich current have a strangle hold on our political structures, and you can’t dismantle the state without dismantling the safety net that are keeping actual people from being entirely destitute.
We’re not talking about the progressive era, we’re talking about now. There are entire books dedicated to exposing the racist views of those progressives, but those weren’t all progressives, either.
You seem keen to defend public choice, and Buchanan,and quick to point out how racist progressives are… what did he say about the civil rights movement and why were he and other libertarians (Goldwater) so opposed to legislation that sought to end racist structures? What is the justification for voting against equal rights for all americans?
“The state is the executive committee for the whole bourgeoisie” or something like that-- Karl Marx.
Marxism is all about regulatory capture. As the saying goes, “we’re on an elephant hunt and you’re shootin’ at squirrels.”
I’m not going to address your “Marx is evil, wrong, irrational, unconcerned with human rights, civil liberty because Soviet Union” argument because it’s just asinine.
Welcome to BoingBoing!
It shouldn’t matter a damn at what point a fetus “becomes a human being”. Humans are not permitted to take food, water, oxygen from, use the blood/organs of, and potentially injure or kill other humans, even accidentally, without their consent. Nobody can be forced to give Bob a kidney or a blood transfusion even if he will die without one. The fact that libertarians are very pro-bodily autonomy except in the case of pregnant women is pretty telling.
Growing a child in your body and bringing it into the world is also incredibly dangerous:
Especially in a country with shitty health care.
You clearly did not read my post which addresses all these points. If you have an argument to make about Calhoun, I’d be happy to hear it. You have not yet made one, however.
In the meantime, I remind you that the parallels between Calhoun and Buchanan are NOT original with MacLean. Rather public choice theorists themselves made these parallels and she simply follows their lead. Here are two quotations from sources MacLean cites in her footnote:
Tabarrok, Alexander, and Tyler Cowen. 1992. “The Public Choice Theory of John C. Calhoun.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE) / Zeitschrift Für Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft 148 (4):655–74.
“John C. Calhoun’s writings on political philosophy anticipate the public choice revolution in modern economics and political science. Calhoun’s Disquisition on Government and other works offer a comprehensive theory of the proper role and limits for government; this theory covers rent-seeking behavior, the incentives created by voting rules, the character of political leaders, how social change occurs, and other issues. Calhoun both anticipates the general principles of public choice theory and develops an original strand of this theory”
Aranson, Peter H. 1991. “Calhoun’s Constitutional Economics.” Constitutional Political Economy 2 (1):31–52.
“My principal thesis is that Calhoun’s political thought, when read in the light of modern public choice theory, forms a coherent whole, complete in its entirety, including within it even those parts that appear to be contradictory. Earlier interpretations of Calhoun’s thought remain devoid of an overarching theory that would allow for unification. But public choice theory makes possible such unifications of observations and truth claims, which once seemed impossible.”
I don’t know of classical liberals who would not want you to enjoy full self ownership and be free to choose.
I’m saddened that there are those who would label themselves libertarian than not express self ownership as a human right. That said people are people so I’m not surprised some would express this beliefs, though that is not typical of classical liberalism.
Markets are not the only arbiter of freedom, but they are an exceptionally useful mechanism of increasing human living standards.
Here is a serious problem I have with the progressive movement. They favor redistribution to reduce inequality, then the movement ends the practice where real poverty begins, (outside the border).
Globally Americans are very income and consumption wealthy. We are globally the top few percent (still). Progressive label a good many things a human right and say inequality is terrible and must be rectified, then don’t count 97% of humans in the data set (marginally the poorer, needier 97%).
Politics is an exchange method. Politicians know they won’t get Americans to vote for them by extending redistribution to the real poor, (the average to poorer American is still in the upper income and consumption centiles globally.) So the practice (claimed a moral imperative) ends exactly where political exchange ends, with the voting.
The result are policies of redistribute to me from the wealthy above me (within nation), and simultaneously protect me (my job, my income) from the global poor below me. (The mechanics sounds a lot like what the so called banksters favor doesn’t it). In exchange for that I’ll give you votes which will keep you (Mr./Mrs. politician) in the exceptionally elite powerful positions you desire.
The global poor aren’t stupid, they are choosing their best income option (job) among the alternatives, just like you all, and I do. Not only do progressive not include them for redistribution, they inflict harm on the poorest humans by advocating tariffs and restrictions on their goods and labor (their best income option).
Yes I prefer most definitely prefer markets. Markets make mistakes, they get stuff wrong, they fail, they do not produce equal outcomes, however they are the best performing option among alternatives we have available. Note* I do favor some redistribution, though less than progressives. At minimum we need to not harm the opportunities of the global humans who are still poorer than we are.
IMO progressives are just good at overlooking their equal to any classical liberal actions. Human behavior is consistent with the rational actor model, to the extent it deviates, (thinking behavioral economics), it does so across the species.
Yeah - and I’ve read the whole post and all the comments and still do not know what public choice theory actually is. Gonna have to click some of those other links, I guess and do my own research/reading.
(Not sure if I’m disappointed or not.) 
Thanks. Will read. But hardly “basic”.
Something more pithy in a sentence or three, sufficient to at least make some sense of the post and the comments might also assist, if anyone has the means (or a source) to provide that.
(Am I foolish to expect a theory to be expressable (or at least summarisable) in common language intelligible to the non-specialist?)
I was once a right libertarian. I went around bandying about phrases like that. I’m ashamed now, but I’m willing to share to help others.
The idea of applying the concept of ownership to a human being is ludicrous, even in a case so seemingly benign as “self-ownership.” Ownership is not an applicable category to human beings. You cannot own yourself in any meaningful sense of the word. You cannot own yourself in the way that you own an automobile or a knife or a book or a dildo.
Slavery is not egregious because it is an overreach of property rights. It’s egregious because human beings exist in a state different than that used to describe the process by which we divvy up the useful objects around us. If you own yourself, you are just another object that you own. Some kind of tautological object, but an object nonetheless.
Self-ownership allows debt slavery. Self-ownership allows voluntary slavery. If you are only using self-ownership as a metaphor to describe a non-enslaved state, then it is sorely lacking. You should find a better metaphor.
Self-ownership also implies that you may do with thyself what thou wilt, which in any functioning moral universe, no you may not.
