Don argues in the book and in the podcast that to point to an American steel worker put out of work by imports of Brazilian steel and say that he is “harmed by trade” is to misunderstand the nature of trade and its winners and losers. He says it’s like saying that a man whose wife leaves him for another man is harmed by love. After all, the man married because of love. The man is the product of his parents who were touched by love. So it is with the steel worker. His steel job exists because of trade. His whole life is supported by trade of various kinds. So in what sense is he “harmed by trade?”
It’s a profound point. It forces you to see just how trade and specialization and the division of labor create the incredible lives we lead, lives of wealth and health unimagined by previous generations.
But having said that, I think there is something else to add, something about the way our self-worth and pride and satisfaction are tied up in our work. An out-of-work steel worker still has a very good life compared to generations past and the success of his life up until the loss of his job is indeed due to trade (and sometimes to the protectionism that worker would like to see made stronger). But there’s no denying that it’s very tough on a person who has invested most of his life in a particular skill to suddenly find that there’s no demand for that skill. Yes, it’s the price of progress and it’s a price worth paying. Yes, it’s not particular to foreign trade, as Don points out, but is the result of all kinds of economic change. But there is something deeply poignant about it, nevertheless.
It is a mistake to use protectionism to keep that worker from having to deal with change. But that doesn’t change the potential sadness of the situation. I’ve argued that the real consolation for that worker who loses his job and struggles to find another that is as satisfying is knowing (if he knows any economics) that his children and grandchildren will lead better lives because we tolerate economic change.
Russell Roberts, Café Hayek
If there is anything that I could say about what people believe about libertarianism, and what I think ought to be done about it, it is that people think that because we do not believe that government is the proper tool to correct various social ills, we do not care about those who are victimized by the issues we would refuse to allow government to address. We need to talk and think a lot more about the out-of-work steel worker that Roberts speaks of. We need to contemplate and work for ways to improve his lot without resorting to government.
I believe strongly that the co-opting of virtue by government is part of why people are less individually virtuous in this country. But the notion that we can disentangle our lives from the embrace of government without preparing to meet these needs privately makes us something of a joke. I volunteer at a drop-in tutoring center in Brooklyn, helping students with reading and English homework. But our work there is not anything resembling an alternative for Head Start, for example. I would have a lot more optimism about my hopes for what the future of government would be if there was an organization trying to provide tutoring for all students who wish it in Brooklyn. We need to have the willingness to show that the different vision we have is something we are prepared to lead.
Most of you are not libertarians, and probably aren’t supporters of free trade. So this quote, and my reaction to it, may seem to be of little interest to you. But it seems to me that all political philosophies tend to ignore the more unfortunate consequences of their beliefs and proposed policies.
We ought to think more about the negative consequences that all of our proposed policies and beliefs will have. We need to show that we can recognize that they are real people, with real concerns and feelings. If we cannot manage empathy for even the most odious person we might vote to victimize, then perhaps we ought not be in the business of political thought in the first place.
17 comments
Skip to comment form
Author
…there have recently been some questions from various persons asking if I have any problems or resentments with this site. I hope that this post demonstrates fully that the answer is a resounding “no”.
Not that I suggest that anyone should care how I feel about this, or anything.
Why doesn’t the company feel obligated to help the worker?
Why shouldn’t that be factored in to whatever deal it is that takes that job away?
If we are going to have a social network uder Libertarians, doesn’t that mean that Business will have to take up some of the slack for government?
Otherwise it certainly makes the canard of Libertarians just being about selfishness seem true.
If their is a commitment by the ‘private sector’ to provide a reasonable safety net for the people it takes money away from, so that they can make more money then that is something that would start to convince me that ‘corporate persons’ and ‘Business interests’ are responsible members of the community, and not just pirates.
…most societies are coercive, and the nature of that is poorly considered. I marry my libertarian and socialist leanings by looking at societies where there is an income floor as a model. The cost is that everyone’s taxes go to support people who don’t have their shit together. The benefit is that when, as a society, you support truly free trade, the penalty is not nearly so draconian for the temporary losers, and people can expect to remain in the game through a series of jobs and experiences. (But, eh, this is where I always choke in these pieces — I’m all for individual liberty, but don’t trust charity to care for the weak, and am perfectly willing to hold a gun to the head of the rich for their care, to a point.)
I’m pretty sure I disagree (not that it matters) with you about individual virtue, which is always between oneself and the world, stark and irreducible. People who are not guided by individual conscience will always find something larger which is supposed to make their moral decisions. People who are don’t consider groups to have consciences in any event…
Empathy alone is no virtue, though cannot but agree we don’t consider the disadvantages of policy well.
btw… there used to be a poster with the screen name Jay Elias who’d leave these great and provocative quotes and invite discussion. that wouldn’t be you would it?
because i’d be v.v.v. happy to think that guy is back.