View source for Libertarian Denialism

[[Category:Denialism]]
{{DES | des = Three types of denial commonly used by libertarians..}}
Bryan Caplan has an interesting posting, [http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/11/the_stages_of_l.html The Stages of Libertarian Denial], where he distinguishes 2 kinds of denial.  But there is a third sort as well.

# Simple denial: saying that something is not so.
# Pop-psychology denial: refusing to admit that something is true because it is uncomfortable.
# Denialism: use of rhetorical tactics such as conspiracy theories to systematically oppose a position.

Let's take as an example Terry who says she thinks her own thoughts, arguing with Dave who denies it.

# Dave could just say "no you don't."
# Dave could say "some thoughts must come from Satan" because he feels guilty about some of his thoughts.
# Dave could say "a little green man behind our heads controls our thoughts."

You might be tempted to reject that last conspiracy theory out of hand.  But Dave can say "how do you know it's not true?"  If you try to grab the man behind your head, Dave can say the man dodged.  If you use a mirror, Dave can say he's hiding behind the mirror or has turned invisible or that he is controlling your thoughts so that you can't see him.

Conspiracy theories can be created to deny ANY idea, no matter what defenses are mounted, simply by questioning an assumption of the original idea or the defense.  Dave's original conspiracy theory questioned the assumption that there isn't somebody else controlling your thoughts.  Then he questioned the assumption that you could catch the little green man.  Then he questioned the assumption that you'd be able to see the little green man in the mirror.  Etc.

Let's see Bryan's list of denials (and some others from the comments) and see how they comprise denialism.

Stage 1: Deny the problem exists.  Ex: When someone complains about Chinese imports, the libertarian says, "What's the problem?  They're selling us cheap stuff."

Stage 2: Blame the problem on the government.  Ex: "Sure, Third World poverty is terrible.  But without their governments' statist economic policies - and our immigration restrictions - they'd already be rich."

Stage 3: Admit that the government didn't cause the problem, but insist that government action would only make the problem worse.  Ex: Opposing price controls for grain after a severe drought.  "The market is making the best out of a terrible situation.  You're going to destroy the incentives that will get us out of this disaster."

Stage 4: Concede that government action wouldn't make the problem worse, but say that the cure is so expensive that we're better off just living with the problem.  Ex: Opposing handicap accessibility regulations.  "It's going to cost 1% of GDP.  For that price, we could give every handicapped person three full-time helpers."

Stage 5: Admit that government action could solve a problem at a low cost, but claim that the libertarian principle is more important."  Ex: "Freedom means tolerating the very views that you find most abhorrent - even Satanism."

Stage 6: Yield on libertarian principle, but try to minimize the deviation.  Ex: "Yes, government has to supply some roads.  But we can still fund them with user fees, not taxes."

Stage 7: Yes, govt can fix this problem, and in this case that fix outweighs stage 5's libertarian principle argument. In a vacuum, I'd agree. In the real world, though, this one successful example of govt. intervention will be used as an excuse for 99 interventions that make us worse off.
So the real choice is not yes or no, 1 worthy intervention or no intervention. The real choice is: (a) 100 interventions, 1 of which was justified, with 99 making us worse off, or (b) no interventions, leaving us better off 99/100 times.

I'd propose Stage 1.5: admit there's a problem but insist that you can only shift around the costs, not derive a net benefit.

I'm not in denial, you're in denial.