Anthropology and Scientific Psychology

From Critiques Of Libertarianism
Jump to: navigation, search

Libertarian philosophy and ideology (and indeed almost all economics) omit basic facts of anthropology, such as the fact that humans naturally engage in gift networks and sometimes barter, but that markets are unnatural to our psychology. They also usually ignore scientific psychology findings in favor of pop psychology. Capitalist exploitation relies on this fact.

Links

Social Capital (4 links)
"Social capital is a form of economic and cultural capital in which social networks are central, transactions are marked by reciprocity, trust, and cooperation, and market agents produce goods and services not mainly for themselves, but for a common good." (Wikipedia) The answer to Margaret Thatcher's rhetorical "There's no such thing as society… only individuals and families."
Why Do Philosophers Talk so Much and Read so Little About the Stone Age? False factual claims in appropriation-based property theory [More...]
The libertarian argument for private property relies on dubious factual claims about how property develops, how well off people are in pre-property-rights societies, and how much freer people are under capitalism than in pre-property-rights societies.
Economic Anthropology: David Graeber Meets the Noise Machine... [More...]
…and is annoyed at having his summary of anthropological findings dismissed as "nonsensical"
Human materialism as support for universal basic income [More...]
"if people are provided a universal basic income, they're still going to want to do sometimes unpleasant work in order to accumulate more than their neighbor. It also puts a dent in the myth that government largesse creates dependency. Fundamentally, people want to have more things even if it means pointless work."
Regional Policy and Distributional Policy in a World Where People Want to Ignore the Value and Contribution of Knowledge and Network-Based Increasing Returns [More...]
In a world of mammoth increasing returns to unowned knowledge and to networks, no individual and no community is especially valuable. Those who receive good livings are lucky, and the illusion of desert is punctured by any recognition that there is a large societal dividend to be distributed. This is the dismal science at its best and most dismal.
That's what freedom is all about: taking your own risks. [More...]
Kent Snyder, Ron Paul's former campaign chairman, was young and uninsured. He died leaving $400,000 in hospital costs to his mother, who was incapable of paying. He fought for the "right" to inadequate care, placing burdens on charities, his social network and hospitals.
The "No True Libertarianism" fallacy [More...]
Libertarians cannot explain why there has never been a libertarian society, and find excuses to explain that existing small governments are not "true libertarianism". The real reason is that libertarianism, like communism, is contrary to human nature.
The Handmaiden of Entrepreneurship: Philosophy in the time of Charles Koch [More...]
David Johnson reviews a Koch-funded textbook for high school students, Ethics, Economy & Entrepreneurship for a course called "Philosophy 101: Ethics, Economy, and Entrepreneurship". "What I found was a peculiar mixture of the utterly banal and the frighteningly ideological."

Quotations

It really looks from the anthropologists that Adam Smith was wrong--that we are not animals that like to "truck, barter, and exchange" with strangers but rather gift-exchange pack animals--that we manufacture social solidarity by gift networks, and those who give the most valuable gifts acquire status hereby.
Brad DeLong, "Economic Anthropology: David Graeber Meets the Noise Machine..."
[H]umans are, at a very deep and basic level, gift-exchange animals. We create and reinforce our social bonds by establishing patterns of “owing” other people and by “being owed”. We want to enter into reciprocal gift-exchange relationships. We create and reinforce social bonds by giving each other presents. We like to give. We like to receive. We like neither to feel like cheaters nor to feel cheated. We like, instead, to feel embedded in networks of mutual reciprocal obligation. We don’t like being too much on the downside of the gift exchange: to have received much more than we have given in return makes us feel very small. We don’t like being too much on the upside of the gift exchange either: to give and give and give and never receive makes us feel like suckers. We want to be neither cheaters nor saps.
Brad DeLong, "Regional Policy and Distributional Policy in a World Where People Want to Ignore the Value and Contribution of Knowledge and Network-Based Increasing Returns"
This wish to believe that you are not a moocher is what keeps people from seeing issues of distribution and allocation clearly -- and generates hostility to social insurance and to wage supplement policies, for they rip the veil off of the idea that you deserve to be highly paid because you are worth it. You aren’t.
Brad DeLong, "Regional Policy and Distributional Policy in a World Where People Want to Ignore the Value and Contribution of Knowledge and Network-Based Increasing Returns"