Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Wednesday, January 13. 2010

Restraint of appetites

A quote from Yuval Levin's Capitalism at NRO:



Part of the problem I have with some versions of the libertarian case is that they take capitalism (if not classical liberalism more generally) to be an argument against the need for restraints on our appetites and passions, rather than an argument for the possibility of such restraints — to be an argument for libertinism rather than liberty. I’m with Edmund Burke, who said that “men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites.”

Posted by The Barrister in Politics at 13:04 | Comments (3) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

In my view, a libertarian advocates your freedom to make your own choices and bear the results thereof, free of my judgment of what is wise or prudent. A libertarian would oppose laws that criminalize adultery or fornication among adults. That same libertarian might, if asked, counsel anyone against adultery and might even choose celibacy. A libertarian would oppose prohibition of alcohol and might use little or no alcohol personally. Libertinism as I understand it would encourage any "feels good" activity regardless of its true cost or who will bear the cost. It's easy to confuse the two ideas.
A free society with decent justice and law enforcement will, in fact, compel some level of restraint because almost all of us have appetites we can't pay for. I've got five or six of them myself. A moral society also tries to curb non-economic harmful appetites and uses the force of law when someone crosses Jefferson's boundary -- when the action picks my pocket or breaks my leg.
#1 Geoff Brown on 2010-01-13 13:43 (Reply)
From an economic standpoint, I think the issue is that Burke is concerned that full liberty leads to excess indulgence. Which may be true.

But why should we limit excess indulgence? What we need to do is find ways to protect people who are risk-averse.

In other words, if I am an investor who takes inordinate and outsized risk, while you are a saver - I am putting the system at risk while you are not. Yet if I fail, massive support is available for me, while you will be penalized with taxes and fees to support me.

To make matters worse, the government then looks at this situation, realizes it's unfair, and says "in order to prevent this from happening again, we're going to limit outsized risks and prevent people from being to aggressive"
The problem with this is that it limits OVERALL risk. Your economy becomes risk-averse and stops growing altogether.

The government SHOULD have penalized the companies that hurt the economy by selling them off for pennies on the dollar and preventing their management from collecting bonuses and fees that were ridiculous. It would have hurt the system short term, but in the long run, debt would have been destroyed and the system would fix itself.

Instead, the government propped up the instigators, then worried about the bonuses and salaries that were (frankly) outsized. They weren't illegal - they were unjust. Only because they were paid out of money designed to benefit good performers. Justifiably, these companies APPEARED to be good performers based on government support. How ludicrous is that?
But it would have been equally unfair to prop them up and pass a law limiting salaries and bonuses. That would mean contracts are meaningless.

Instead - let the market do what the market does. These people would've been penalized, and future risks would've have been reduced out of FEAR OF RISK rather than having a government promoting MORAL HAZARD.

Moral hazard is only reduced by the market. If the government tries to do anything, it can only increase hazard OR outlaw it altogether. Problem is - both will kill your economy.
#2 Rick on 2010-01-13 17:22 (Reply)
"an argument against the need for restraints on our appetites and passions"

Incorrect. Libertarians argue that such restraints should be self-imposed, and not fashioned by others and imposed on them.

The problem with Burke's concept is that liberty is a natural right, and not something one has to "qualify" for. Who has the right to be the judge on what "qualifies"? Why should your conception of what is a proper restraint take precedence over mine? Why should I allow the mobocracy to dictate their prejudices and conceits?

I think Geoff has it right in his last paragraph. There are some legal restraints that society imposes to prevent violation of others natural rights,... but they don't directly apply to capitalistic economic appetites.

I'm presuming that "greed" would be considered something to be restrained, but it isn't greed that needs restraint, but the methods legally accepted to satify that greed. Stealing, fraud, embezzlement...all no-no's. But hard work, enterprise, risk-taking in business and investments...why should those be restrained?

What should be restrained is our political system. Restrained from interfering with the risk-taking of others. There should not be such a thing as too-big-to-fail...those institutions should be allowed to fail. Meddling with other's risk-taking insures we ruin the feedback necessary for a self-regulating system. Preventing failure short-circuits risk management.
#3 ruralcounsel on 2010-01-14 09:58 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.