I think that casts women who have abortions as bad people, just bad people acting within their rights. I don’t think that’s an improvement in any sense.
If I were to describe a “pure democracy” it would include courts. Democracy is government by the people, voting is just one tool of democracy.
For those interested in creating better institutions, public choice theory offers some useful ideas for analyzing problems and trying to design better institutions, despite the theory’s flaws and shortcomings. This would be relevant whether or not the allegations against Buchanan were accurate, a point that seems to be lost in ad hominem critique and debate.
A key question is if “unchained democracy” would be a wise goal, or is it perhaps a matter of how to have institutions, inevitably imperfect, that can serve broader publics, not just wealthy, patriarchal, white elites?
Here’s a link to an essay that explores some of the substantive issues:
Who wants to put democracy in chains? By Ilya Somin.
“Instead of demonizing each other, we should recognize the considerable common ground that exists on the need to constrain majoritarian abuses in many areas. You don’t have to be a libertarian to recognize that completely unchained democracy is likely to be a menace. That recognition might help us have a more productive discussion on the issues where we differ.”
Well, sure, but from his language the only judges that would be acceptable to him as fulfilling a legitimate role in a democracy (instead of being its “chainers”) would be elected ones. This is why you always hear conservatives and Libertarians griping about “activist” appointee judges (unless, of course, the “activism” is pro-business, pro-firearms industry, anti-choice, etc.)
The difference is that Libertarians and their allies on the right try to constrain it mainly by finding every way possible to disenfranchise voters. The left has its sins when it comes to gerrymandering, but they’re nothing compared to the nation-wide programme of win-at-all-costs gerrymandering currently being promulgated by the GOP (one hopes the courts will put an end to this). Also, since the civil rights era the American left hasn’t been going out of its way to prevent the “wrong” people from voting in elections.
Of course Liberals and progressives and others who have respect for the Constitution understand that some constraints must be placed on majoritarian democracy, but we don’t see it as “chaining” it but as introducing representative mechanisms to ensure that the country’s governance doesn’t come to a grinding halt (an outcome for which some Libertarians have openly stated their preference). If there are any “chains”, they operate in drive-trains instead of (as Libertarians like to imply) shackles.
THIS! As i’ve said on this board before: the human race is not a rational species, we are a rationalizing species. Even what neuroscience teaches us about how we think tells us this. We react to stimuli and then think about it and then those thoughts potentially change how we’ll react to similar stimuli in the future.
The following are publicly available for review if you take the time to look them up.
Buchanan favored a 100% inheritance tax.
Buchanan brought Bill Hutt to UVA. That would be the South African anti apartheid Economist Bill Hutt who linked the commonality of South African apartheid and Southern segregation and derided both.
Brought in Frank Knight for anti segregation talks to UVA in 1958, published in 1960.
Charlottesville School Board attorney John Battle Jr made the claim school vouchers will lead to school integration. He made that claim to committed segregationists.
Prince Edward County was atrocious I agree. I believe Buchanan would find the Prince Edward County response atrocious.
Rents are sought by actors in the political economy, of course that includes corporations (actually read some PCT please; also see Nobel Economist Angus Deaton recently in the Economist on PCT).
Where does Calhoun as the lodestar end in the opinion of MacLean and her defenders?
Buchanan never read or cited Calhoun. Tullock sites Pareto and Wicksell as foundational to PCT. Deaton cites Pareto in his recent defense of PCT.
Is Calhoun the lodestar of Pareto and Deaton? How about Vernon Smith?
Is Calhoun the lodestar of the Chicago School? By the loose standards being applied, much of economics can be indicted as having Calhoun as its lodestar. How is the Calhoun as the lodestar test applied?
Via the thread not the article. If humans are not rational actors in economic terms or as the model is adjusted in behavioral economics, what good is economics as is being taught for the last century or more?
Not fucking much.
Some support (other than MacLean’s flawed book) that Public Choice Theory is the bedrock of contemporary libertarian thought and that white supremacism is connected to the libertarian right would be nice. Doctorow also commits an ad hominem fallacy by dismissing criticism of the book by describing its critics as “the genteel face of oligarch-apologism.”
The claim that “[i]t’s a kind of catch-all theory that can handwave away any negative outcome from unregulated capitalism” shows that Doctorow doesn’t have a clue what Public Choice Theory is. If capitalism were truly unregulated then Public Choice Theory wouldn’t apply, since it deals with choices in the political arena. Hence, “Public Choice”.
He goes on to claim that 100% of tax money allocated for public education in Virginia goes to private schools that won’t let black children on the property. I’m calling BS on that claim as written. It would seem to indicate that there are no public schools in the state (since no money is available for them) and that black children either aren’t being educated or are attending private schools that don’t receive any public funds.
I could be wrong but I believe the author was using the atrocious actions of Price Edward County in response to Brown V Board.
That was an atrocious, but not what Buchanan and Nutter advocated in their works on public vouchers from what I understand, (admittedly my knowledge is incomplete.)
Much of your list is irrelevant to the points I’m making about Buchanan. I can address these in order, however.
Hutt was brought to UVA because of his anti-union activities. In several tributes to Buchanan wrote to Hutt, his anti-apartheid activities rate maybe a sentence. In any case, 1965 is after the Civil Rights Act and after Virginia loses the Prince Edward case at the US Supreme Court. It is much, much different climate than 1959 when N&B issue their report directly to the legislature urging private schools just as the segregationists were urging. Knight mentions segregation in his talk and is against it. He also talked about a lot of other things. I wasn’t really an “anti-segregation talk.” Remember, neither MacLean or I argue that Buchanan was a diehard segregationists. We argue that he wanted privatized schools and leveraged the segregation issue to get it.
Battle’s talk: so what? Yes, some segregationists feared privatization. But the vast majority, VAST majority saw it as the solution to the problem. That you can find the odd segregationist that says otherwise is hardly meaningful and trotting one out says little about the actual situation on the ground in VA at the time. N&B in their 1959 directly say they are offering privatization as an option to address the “school crisis” and said that they were against “forced integration” which was the standard segregationist line. So someone like Battle is really just a read herring.
I’ve addressed the Calhoun issue at my blog (I can link it again on this post). Magness is arguing a straw man. MacLean does not write anything like: "“Buchanan admired Calhoun and based his public choice theory on Calhoun’s theories.” She argues that there were parallels between the two theories, something that PUBLIC CHOICE THEORISTS FIRST SAID THEMSELVES.
A hypothetical might help explain the irrelevancy of “Nutter never read Buchanan.” Suppose I said, “Justin Bieber was influenced by Fats Waller” and I point out similarities between the two. You find a quotation where Justin says he never heard of Fats Waller. Have you disproved what I wrote? No, because Buddy Holly copied elements of Fats Waller’s music. the Beatles copied Buddy, Queen copied the Beatles, and Justin copied Queen. Thus, Fats influenced Justin although Justin didn’t know of Fats. So, someone like Corey Robin has argued a similar line about political theory and Calhoun in his book REACTIONARY MIND. Influence and guidance operates in all kinds of ways, not just the narrow and specific way Magness wants it to operate in order to score a point against MacLean.
How is the “Calhoun test” applied? Well, following the public choice theorists who themselves bring the two together MacLean cites specific ways they work together. Go read the book and see. You’ll note that Magness et. al. do not bother addressing her specific points. I will also note that she applies Calhoun more often to OTHER libertarains (like Rothbard) who DO explicitly cite and praise Calhoun. Her critics tend to ignore those points.
Now, MacLean might be wrong about Calhoun. The point is that her claim is not crazy or “made up” simply mistaken, it is well within the bounds of standard scholarly conventions… And, it means little to the overall book if she is wrong about Calhoun. Fine he wasn’t inspired in any way by Calhoun. He supported segregation for his own reasons. Doesn’t really save Buchanan from the charge.
“I believe Buchanan would find the Prince Edward County response atrocious.” Funny. He never, ever said so. Not once. For six years, less than 100 miles from his home African American children went without schooling because Prince Edward County adopted Buchanan’s own privitization scheme and Buchanan said NOTHING to condemn it. Bringing Hutt in after it was over hardly means much in that context. Bringing Knight in who issued a few speeches means little. Buchanan writing, in 1960, that Virginia had pretty much “solved” its race issue means a whole lot though.
It sure would be easy for Buchanan’s supporters to admit that he was on the side of the segregationists. It sure would be easy to say something like: “Buchanan’s actions on this issue at the time are reprehensible and awful. He was a product of his time so we need to understand it as such. Still, he did many admirable things after this poor start to his career.” That is what William F. Buckley’s supporters have done about Buckley’s support for segregation. Buchanan deserves better advocates who are honest about him. Rather than those who continually try to excuse his terrible behavior with such poor excuses.
Here’s my analysis of the Nutter and Buchanan piece in 1959. You’ll see it is pretty much IDENTICAL to the standard segregationist argument on private schools.
Where is your blog? I’m keen to check it out.
Oh, nevermind, oops. Got it.
Use your words.
Hutt matters, think about it from Hutt’s perspective, why as a South African would he possibly be both anti-apartheid and anti-union? Will you speak now to your readers as to the state of South African Unions at the time Hutt was at UVA? I worked with many of the US trade unions in a few northern cities in the late 80s early 90s and it would have been quite the stretch then to say the US trade unions I worked with were integrated. Also Buchanan quite clearly endorsed Hutt’s 1966 article extending the Calculus of Consent to Apartheid in later interviews.
Are you sure that Buchanan didn’t take notice of Prince Edward County? If I remember Prince Edward was legally barred by the federal courts from using the voucher program. With that being the case, was it at least in part a failure of government? Correct me if I’m wrong but I do remember a portion of the Jefferson Center’s 1964 survey of private schools went into determining how many private schools were willing to admit black students. And that the evidence pointed unambiguously to a growth in the use of tuition grants by black students over the previous 5 years.
Battle wasn’t just some random pro segregationist. He was the school system’s attorney. Also it may take some time to find, but didn’t portions of southern teachers unions take an anti voucher stance as part of a wider pro segregation position?
Did you write the article? If so advocating a 100% inheritance tax as Buchanan did isn’t at all redistributive? How did you get to there, or how did the author?
Also correcting the article PCT has spent much effort discussing rent seeking by corporations. PCT is used to show how corporations use regulations to capture markets which harms consumers. PCT is used to explain why police are collecting fines more in poorer African American communities. PCT insights can then be used to help end those discriminatory practices. None of the above seem to count, only PCT and property rights.
Is PCT also used in support of property rights? Yes to that also.
Angus Deaton recently wrote an article defending Buchanan’s PCT in the Economist. He didn’t mention MacLean by name, but the timing is uncanny. Have you read Deaton on PCT? What did he get wrong?
Touchy, touchy. I’ll do whatever I want as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else. You, of course are free to do the same. However, you run the risk of not getting your point across clearly.
Of all the ways you could have phrased your response, the fact that you chose to attempt to tell me what to do is quite ironic.
But the GIF was a jo—
You know what?
