[phil, econ] Fwd: New blog, "Bleeding Heart Libertarians"
I have been alerted to the existence of a new economics and political philosophy group blog called "Bleeding Heart Libertarians", about libertarian philosophy and practice concerned with social justice. I've created a feed for it, bhl_blog. I'm dubious but cautiously optimistic about it. I decided to bring your attention to it because of the most recent post, which I am going to quote almost entire, because it makes me want to stand up and cheer. Concerning the situation in Wisconsin:
To be honest, I’ve not read the actual legislation under consideration. I’ve got in on my hard drive, but it’s not a priority. I am less interested in the actual events then I am in the principles at issue. So, what I am actually looking for are answers to 2 questions.
First and more importantly: What would make it permissible to unilaterally change the contracts of state employees (or any employees)?
Secondarily, why do so many seem to think its OK to do so?
I don’t have an answer to either question; perhaps my co-bloggers or readers will have suggestions.
For my part, it seems to me that employers’ unilaterally changing contracts-that is, changing the terms of the contract without any input from employees-is impermissible. I’d likely admit that employers can tell their employees that when their contracts are complete, the terms will change and that if they do not like the new terms, they are free to leave. Some employees, of course, will stay on while others will leave. But unilaterally changing the terms of a contract while the contract is in force seems to me to undermine the entire point in having contracts. (Importantly, I think that when we are talking about tenured professors the contract has no end date. Whether tenure is a good idea or not is a separate question.) When those that cherish systems of contract are willing to endorse such acts, it seems to me to undermine the very ideal they seek. Perhaps I am missing something, but it seems to me that we have to achieve the ideal without violating contracts or otherwise acting immorally. The ideal must be “morally accessible” as Allen Buchanan says. It “should be achievable without unacceptable moral costs” (see his Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-Determination, 2004, 61).
I recognize that some will say that the situation in Wisconsin is a bit different then what I have (loosely) described. It is, after all, a government that is the employer and government contracts are different (subject to different laws, etc.). That sort of thinking strikes me as both too statist and too easy. Indeed, it seems to me to beg the question in favor of the state’s right to dismiss genuine contracts. If a government can make a contract, it should be a contract in exactly the same way any other contract is-and so should only be changeable by the same rules.
Part of the problem, I think, is that governments have long built absurd clauses into the contracts they use. I’ve heard of a state university whose contract was one page but referenced a "University Handbook" (or some such) that was completely unavailable for a 2 year period (it was in the process of being revised, if I recall correctly). New hires signed the “contract,” of course, ignorant of what they were agreeing to. This is not, I think, an unusual circumstance. Some contracts at state universities have clauses such that the entire “contract” is subject to rules that the legislature puts in place at any time.
A second part of the problem, I think, is that our culture teaches people to "just trust" that such agencies would not do anything wrong (hence signing the above sort of contract is supposed to be OK). Really, the message is “contracts are not worth the paper they are written on” (and, I suppose, “promises are just words”). So, I shouldn't be surprised when my students hand assignments in late and expect no penalty (my syllabus indicates the penalty). Or when editors are shocked that I get them a referee report by the agreed-upon date (I can’t be the only one, can I?). All of this strikes me as rather unfortunate. I’d rather we take contracts more seriously.
I am so enthusiastic about this because, while I have some of my own libertarian leanings, I am used to self-described libertarians, of both the big-L and little-l sorts, piously intoning that The Only Legitimate Purpose of Government Is To Protect Against Force And Fraud, and then turning around and arguing that any specific case of force and fraud you can name are perfectly dandy ways to go about doing business, caveat emptor you fools. For instance, see any libertarian excoriation of governmental regulatory bodies, the entire purpose of which is to prevent fraud. The way in which most American libertarians never seem to think any given offered example constitutes either force or fraud rather strikingly reminds me of the legendary American marxist's refusal to ever consider any real-world government an example of communism in action. Apparently, for a lot of libertarians, libertarianism is an exculpatory belief system to facilitate behaving as badly as you feel like.
Which is a shame, because there's a lot to be said for a political philosophy which stresses individual rights and considers the initiation of force and fraud to be legal problems.
So it seems really neat to me to see libertarian argument from the position of actually considering force and fraud wrong. I may not, ultimately, agree with such libertarians' complete philosophy, but I don't consider it contemptibly venal, either. I could be content to disagree with it, and not feel the need to despise it.
[All comments screened, to save less prudent libertarians from embarrassing themselves in public.]
ETA: The comments are a breathtaking example of the above described more classic sort of libertarian encountering the notion that contracts actually matter.
To be honest, I’ve not read the actual legislation under consideration. I’ve got in on my hard drive, but it’s not a priority. I am less interested in the actual events then I am in the principles at issue. So, what I am actually looking for are answers to 2 questions.
First and more importantly: What would make it permissible to unilaterally change the contracts of state employees (or any employees)?
Secondarily, why do so many seem to think its OK to do so?
I don’t have an answer to either question; perhaps my co-bloggers or readers will have suggestions.
For my part, it seems to me that employers’ unilaterally changing contracts-that is, changing the terms of the contract without any input from employees-is impermissible. I’d likely admit that employers can tell their employees that when their contracts are complete, the terms will change and that if they do not like the new terms, they are free to leave. Some employees, of course, will stay on while others will leave. But unilaterally changing the terms of a contract while the contract is in force seems to me to undermine the entire point in having contracts. (Importantly, I think that when we are talking about tenured professors the contract has no end date. Whether tenure is a good idea or not is a separate question.) When those that cherish systems of contract are willing to endorse such acts, it seems to me to undermine the very ideal they seek. Perhaps I am missing something, but it seems to me that we have to achieve the ideal without violating contracts or otherwise acting immorally. The ideal must be “morally accessible” as Allen Buchanan says. It “should be achievable without unacceptable moral costs” (see his Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-Determination, 2004, 61).
I recognize that some will say that the situation in Wisconsin is a bit different then what I have (loosely) described. It is, after all, a government that is the employer and government contracts are different (subject to different laws, etc.). That sort of thinking strikes me as both too statist and too easy. Indeed, it seems to me to beg the question in favor of the state’s right to dismiss genuine contracts. If a government can make a contract, it should be a contract in exactly the same way any other contract is-and so should only be changeable by the same rules.
Part of the problem, I think, is that governments have long built absurd clauses into the contracts they use. I’ve heard of a state university whose contract was one page but referenced a "University Handbook" (or some such) that was completely unavailable for a 2 year period (it was in the process of being revised, if I recall correctly). New hires signed the “contract,” of course, ignorant of what they were agreeing to. This is not, I think, an unusual circumstance. Some contracts at state universities have clauses such that the entire “contract” is subject to rules that the legislature puts in place at any time.
A second part of the problem, I think, is that our culture teaches people to "just trust" that such agencies would not do anything wrong (hence signing the above sort of contract is supposed to be OK). Really, the message is “contracts are not worth the paper they are written on” (and, I suppose, “promises are just words”). So, I shouldn't be surprised when my students hand assignments in late and expect no penalty (my syllabus indicates the penalty). Or when editors are shocked that I get them a referee report by the agreed-upon date (I can’t be the only one, can I?). All of this strikes me as rather unfortunate. I’d rather we take contracts more seriously.
I am so enthusiastic about this because, while I have some of my own libertarian leanings, I am used to self-described libertarians, of both the big-L and little-l sorts, piously intoning that The Only Legitimate Purpose of Government Is To Protect Against Force And Fraud, and then turning around and arguing that any specific case of force and fraud you can name are perfectly dandy ways to go about doing business, caveat emptor you fools. For instance, see any libertarian excoriation of governmental regulatory bodies, the entire purpose of which is to prevent fraud. The way in which most American libertarians never seem to think any given offered example constitutes either force or fraud rather strikingly reminds me of the legendary American marxist's refusal to ever consider any real-world government an example of communism in action. Apparently, for a lot of libertarians, libertarianism is an exculpatory belief system to facilitate behaving as badly as you feel like.
Which is a shame, because there's a lot to be said for a political philosophy which stresses individual rights and considers the initiation of force and fraud to be legal problems.
So it seems really neat to me to see libertarian argument from the position of actually considering force and fraud wrong. I may not, ultimately, agree with such libertarians' complete philosophy, but I don't consider it contemptibly venal, either. I could be content to disagree with it, and not feel the need to despise it.
[All comments screened, to save less prudent libertarians from embarrassing themselves in public.]
ETA: The comments are a breathtaking example of the above described more classic sort of libertarian encountering the notion that contracts actually matter.