Ideas Matter

Decentralize, at Least

Enjoy this classic clip from Yes, Minister. And consider the idea of subsidiarity -- what you might call "going local." Some people call it federalism. It's the idea that people are better at running their affairs than people in distant capitals. Think of it as a rule: All tasks should be carried out at the most local feasible level.

 

Robert Nozick: Answering a Critique (Tamar Gendler)

In this Big Think video, Tama Gendler explains the basics of Nozick's entitlement theory, then makes a critical point near the end -- one that seems reasonable on its face. She suggests that without "theft" (taxation and redistribution), rich people will be able to buy the system that is meant to protect everyone's rights equally. It appears she is willing to accept the paradox of rights violation to prevent corruption and unequal access to justice. But there is a lot that is problematic about Gendler's point. Allow me to enumerate some of those problems below the fold:

Charter Cities: Let a Thousand Hong Kongs Bloom

Note: this is not meant as implied or explicit support for the Libertarian Party. We merely stumbled across an interesting video interview with Bryan Caplan.

Both the Free Cities Institute and the Seasteading Institute are working to give talented people good rules -- that is, elbow room from onerous regulations, heavy taxes and generally bad rules. It's an exciting time for these endeavors, because they will create the spaces to give entrepreneurs around the world more choices and opportunities -- the space they need to create value.

The Right of Exit

A video blogger captured this conversation. The debate is about "public goods." It's interesting because neither arguer wants to cede any territory. The protester has a half-baked definition of a public good -- which is generally defined as non-rivalrous and non-excludable. The anarchist fellow seems to think that every free-rider and collective action problem under the sun can be resolved through voluntary association. And he'd be right up to a point. But perhaps not in the way he thinks.

Individualism: The Most Communitarian Game in Town

Cooperation is not collectivism. Community does not require coercion. If we come to acknowledge these facts, we may come to conclude that individualism is the most communitarian game in town.

To make such a statement, one has to understand that communitarians see ideal community as:

1. Situated in time and geography.
2. Composed of people who share memories, traditions and history.
3. Composed of people who have face-to-face contact and are governed by forces of trust, cooperation and giving.

Paul Romer and the Power of an Idea

If you're a faithful reader, you'll be familiar with our discussion of Paul Romer's charter cities -- as well as Romer's TED talk, which boils the idea down to its essence. Otherwise, check out the video above... Okay, good. So if you've watched the video or read our blog for a while, you've heard about the idea of charter cities by now. But is it going to happen?

Almost Seasteading: A History of Failed Nations at Sea

A History of Libertarian Countries at Sea from Jason Sussberg is a brief profile of failed attempts to settle the sea. So the question that remains is: why do seasteaders think things will work now? Here are a few suggestions:

First, consider what Patri Friedman says at the end of the video. "You have to break things down into small steps." Incrementalism is preferable to utopianism in almost all respects. As any good Hayekian or former Soviet apparatchik will tell you, grand plans almost always fail.

Decentralizing Money

Decentralization. It's the killer app of social operating systems. Yes, I'm optimistic. In a world that seems to be getting slowly less free, such may seem a little pollyannish. But the Arab Spring and the Tea Party movement all point to something important: Technology is connecting people in unprecedented ways. Peer to peer. Mind to mind. We are lowering the costs of collaboration and exchange in ways that would make Coase blush. We are lowering the costs of exit from territorial systems that wish to lock us in (read: governments).

Is Michael Walzer evil or deeply confused?

I'm pleased to see that -- as of this writing -- only 98 people have viewed this video by Michael Walzer. Nevertheless I'm going to push up that number just a little, because I think Walzer's position lies somewhere between deeply confused and evil. I don't care that he has a cushy emeritus position at an Ivy League school. I'm going to shoot straight.

Transpartisan Thinking: Paternalism or Panarchy?

I appreciate the effort to get people to understand each other. I really do. But sometimes I wonder if we aren't better off just doing our own thing -- peacefully. Such doesn't invalidate what people like Michael Ostrolenk are doing. Indeed, writ large, transpartisan thinking creates a space for precisely the form of social order I would propose: panarchy.

It's simple really. Panarchy is a form of libertarianism that maximizes group pluralism. Sounds weird, I know. But what if you could have members of kibbutzim, social democracies, conservative strongholds and libertopias living together in toleration? All you would have to do to get this state of affairs is reject the idea of a territorial monopoly on power -- at least as far as practicable.

Political parties as means to power would mostly go away -- except, perhaps, a few goods and services at the local level. Parties would evolve into communities, or civil associations that people joined. No civil association would have the power to impose it's conception of the good onto any other civil association. So political tug-o-war would disappear. Competition for members would be the status quo.

Panarchy will be a disappointing idea to those who're simply committed to imposing their worldview onto others. But if you're interested in genuine peace and pluralism -- leaving space for toleration, experimentation and competition -- panarchy may be the idea for you.

So how would it work? I have tried to sketch a pragmatic version here. (I hope you'll read it.)

What's interesting about panarchy and statism is that they are asymmetrical with respect to pluralism. Because liberty leaves room for all forms of civil association, panarchy can encompass all sorts of institutional forms -- including communism. But statism, with its territorial monopolies, cannot. I think this asymmetry points to a deep problem for statists of all stripes. It demonstrates that statism is a form of order that allows some group to impose its conception of the good on everyone else -- by varying degrees (yes, even democracy).

Ironically, that makes panarchy a form of radical communitarianism. It also makes it the most transpartisan form of government ever conceived. Who woulda thunk it? 

Note: this is not the same as the panarchy referred to by people interested in ecology, though there may be interesting overlaps worth exploring.