Free Subscription! 
iTunes 
Our podcast will keep you up to date...
Defending Consequentialism -- Despite Friedman
Gard,
I enjoyed the Friedman discussion. More of that sort of thing would make me happy. I do have a couple of quibbles though. I thought you belaboured the central point a bit. Speaking as a consequentialist, obviously consequentialism isn’t value-free. The foundational value – a privileging of social wealth, always subject to individual justice – is a moral choice. If Friedman doesn’t understand that, it’s unfortunate, but you way overstated your case with these sweeping generalizations about consequentialism as a species of utilitarianism. Perhaps you’d find a more inviting (or annoying) explanation in the work of Richard Epstein. I’d suggest particularly Skepticism and Freedom, though he also discusses it in Principles for a Free Society, as I recall.
In this version of consequentialism, the full consequences are considered. So, while we’re concerned with the arrangement that generates the opportunity for the greatest social wealth, the loss of individuals or minorities is counted against that benefit. As Epstein observes, when utilitarian outcomes lead to majority bullying, the losses are greater than the gains. So, you can use a utilitarian model only provided that any individual or minority hurt by a majority decision is compensated for their loss. As Epstein never tires of pointing out: if the majority-decision really does improve overall social wealth then, by definition, there must be a windfall from which the prejudiced individual or minority can be made whole. If not, then there’s no justification for the majority’s action. Such a consequentialism, obviously, then, is not subject to your – and many others’ – correct critique of utilitarianism.
I’m not going to argue with you about Friedman, nor am I going to dispute the prevalence of the assumptions that you attribute to him. I don’t claim to be an authority on either. However, the two above points, I do think, belie your sweeping generalizations about consequentialism.
To get more to the heart of the matter, what you, or absolutist libertarians in general, need to answer to persuade me is what is the answer to the problem of externalities arising from prisoner dilemmas in non-repetitive or independent actions in the absence of property rights. The obvious example is something like the pollution of air or large bodies of water. On the one hand, I don’t want any one owning the air I breathe and collecting rents on it, but in the absence of such property rights, no one has a legal claim against those who opportunistically defile it to reduce costs of production. I agree with you that most of what is called market failure does indeed overlook the dynamic nature of markets. Monopoly particularly is a red herring. However, the one market failure for which the market has no organic solution is the negative externality described above. (Though, I fully expect and look forward to being “corrected” on this by the Cabal.)
Showing me how that works might go some way to winning me over to the absolutist camp. Though, as you know, we continue to disagree on matters of common defence against belligerent aggressors.
Still, it was an enjoyable podcast.
Thanks.
B.C.’ing you.
Copernicus,
Since utility is a subjective term, how do you measure it? I would argue that since society is made up of individuals, there is no such thing as social utility. Society cannot have happiness. The individuals within society can, but not the group itself. Since happiness means different things to different people, happiness cannot be measured. If the government subsidizes a certain technological advancement, Luddites will suffer. How do you compensate them? How do you determine what "just compensation" is? Who determines what "social wealth" is? Most of us think it is material wealth, but what about those who believe that wealth is spiritual in nature? This line of reasoning--that there is such a thing as social wealth or utility--my friend, opens the door to socialism since it treats society as an individual that exists in addition to the individuals who actually make up society.
Yes, the answer to water pollution is to privatize the waterways. However, if property rights are viewed in the negative as well as the positive then air pollution is taken care of as well. By this, I that not only does one have the right to control the property that he owns, but he is prohibited from invading or polluting property that we one does not own, unless he is staking the first claim (homesteading). Since air in the case in which we are discussing cannot be homesteading, we cannot apply positive propety rights, but only negative property rights. Because air cannot be confined to a certain geographic area, no one person can claim ownership. This is much the same case of water. You can claim ownership of a certain are of the sea, but unless you can physically confine the water to that area, you cannot say that you "own" the water. Thus, if you pollute the water and it travels to an area that someone else owns, you are guilty of pollution. The same is true of air. In both cases (water and air that travel over property boundaries), since we all use it to some extent, it would be up to the market (determining, for example the what concentration of certain substances is excessive, etc.), and not government edict, to determine what pollution is.
I hope I explained that clearly.
The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State.--Murray N. Rothbard
CX,
As always, thank you for taking the time to reply to my queries. And, yes, you certainly did explain it clearly, but I continue to have doubts about this approach.
As to the first paragraph, I never said anything about social utility so I’ll disregard those remarks. As to social wealth, I actually spoke of any “arrangement that generates the opportunity for the greatest social wealth.” And, not to quibble too much about semantics, but spirituality isn’t wealth (in anything but a metaphorical sense, for the last 300+ years), though it might be well-being. It certainly is a question of utility. One's pursuit of spirituality or (the original meaning of wealth) happiness and it's relationship to material goods is an entirely personal matter. But, as you rightly observe: this utility issue is not a fruitful path for this discussion.
Nonetheless, I wasn’t presuming that anyone would choose a path to wealth as I defined it. And I wasn’t using the term “social” as a metaphysical collective but in the only way in which it is appropriate – as the agglomeration of individuals. What I was saying, then, is that just as the greatest opportunity to generate wealth (to whatever degree he or she desires or for whatever purpose he or she would use it) arises from the individual being as free as possible from others’ coercion, so too does the greatest opportunity to generate the greatest wealth arise from the individual being as free as possbile from the others’ toxic waste. Both are equally destructive of my ability to fully realize my life, liberty and property. Both are imposed on me by others. Both can cause me grievious costs from property and health damage. And, the more generalized these impacts, the greater the drain on overall social wealth (call it the aggregate of total individual wealth if you’re more comfortable with that). So, the resolution to the problem is central.
I certainly grant your resolution as effective and elegant enough if the violated party knows the source of the pollution. That though is an awfully huge “if.” In fact, that circumstance is pretty rare. Given the complexity of weather and water currents and patterns, identifying a precise culprit is usually impossible in the face of ambient toxin increases. The case of acid rain in the 80s comes to mind. This was taking a terrible toll on lakes in Canada and the evidence was clear that it was coming from south of the border, but no one could identify which exact plant was responsible for which precise proportion of harm to any particular lake. In fact, it was difficult to identify which state had what proportional impact!
And even the extent to which cause can be identified in a complex system the great expense of forensics would be an immense drain on social wealth and could only be of value subsequent to significant damage to people’s property and health. And these are harms, damaging organic systems, which are not easily repaired – and often irreparable – through restitution. Sorry, for me this isn’t an acceptable solution. Considering damage to property and health costs, my consequentialist solution, seeking to maximize the opportunity for social wealth, is to have some sort of common enforcement – call it the state or whatever you want. These are harms that a) cannot be traced back to cause, adequately; b) do irreparable harms; c) drain the social wealth; and d) infringe on individual freedom.
Any libertarianism that allows these kinds of harms is one that ironically is antithetical to individual freedom and property rights.
Or. so it seems to me.
B.C.’ing you.
Copernicus