Is Bryan Caplan Hypocritical?
David Henderson
In a discussion last week about the fact that Bryan Caplan, who opposes government funding of higher education, nevertheless works in a government-funded university, one commenter, Chipotle, wrote:
If you were walking home one night and you saw a cat burglar emerge from the home of a stranger with a bag of loot and, upon his seeing you, he offered you some of the cash he had pilfered, would you take it?
I know Bryan well enough to be positive that he wouldn't. Chipotle used this analogy to argue that Bryan shouldn't take government funds.
But the analogy doesn't work. Here's why. If Bryan or I or you see a cat burglar stealing, not only would we not share in the loot, but also we would likely call the cops or whoever is enforcing the law. We could have some confidence that the cops would stop the guy and return the loot to its rightful owners. That's where the analogy breaks down. If we "call the cops" on a government that forcibly takes people's wealth, they would think we were nuts. If we don't call the cops but also refuse to take jobs in organizations funded by coercion, the entity apparently analogous to the cat burglar still goes scot-free.
So what's the best we can if we can't call the cops on the government? It's what Bryan and Arnold and I are doing: argue vociferously against government taking people's stuff.
I dealt with this issue before starting my second year of college at the University of Winnipeg, a government-funded institution. Earlier that summer, I had quit a cushy, well-paying job in a government-run national park because I couldn't justify the government engaging in the particular activity it had engaged in. I wrote about this in Chapter One of my book, The Joy of Freedom: An Economist's Odyssey. The rest of the summer, I was re-reading and pondering Ayn Rand and started to conclude that I shouldn't go back to college and receive government funds. Then I realized that by that same principle, I shouldn't walk on government-funded streets. Then I realized that government had its hand in so many things that I couldn't live a normal life (and, indeed, probably couldn't even live--think of getting food or going to work without going on government roads or sidewalks) without using many things funded by government. That caused me to, as Ayn Rand liked to say, "check my premises."
Here was the conclusion I reached. I would take advantage of these things that government funds but never let those funds stop me from criticizing government when I thought it was wrong and would NEVER advocate funding of those things government did that I thought were wrong. So, for example, I have never advocated that the Naval Postgraduate School exist and have never fought, wrote, or argued for funding it. I would bet that Bryan has reached a similar conclusion about George Mason University.
I thought that in that same thread, rpl had it right when he said:
Count me among those who see nothing hypocritical in Bryan's stance. Is Bryan excused from laws on taxation, or drug use, or jaywalking if he happens to disagree with them? In fact, he is not. Why, then, should he be expected to refuse benefits when the state chooses to grant them? I don't see anything inconsistent in simultaneously advocating against a policy and accepting the benefits of that policy should you happen to be outvoted. To declare otherwise is to create a social order in which being principled means being a sucker.
COMMENTS (35 to date)
jc writes:
Good point about checking premises. One might also inject a bit of agency theory into a 'turning lemons into lemonade' background.
As noted, Bryan has no power to eliminate government spending in this regard. He might think: "(1) If I had my way, I'd eliminate it, but the real world doesn't afford me that option. (2) The best real world option, then, is to make sure that those who ultimately foot the bill get their money's worth. (3) They want scholars to educate students. I'm good at both being a scholar and an educator. (4) Therefore, under our current system, I'm making the optimal choice for both myself and society."
Thus, he will try to convince society to adopt a better choice set, and if it ever does, he will pick the best available choice in that set; but in the meantime, he'll do the best thing he's currently allowed to do.
Or if we're in a more cynical mood. :) He may say: "I am exhibit A, living proof that people will maximize their self interest at the expense of others when government affords them that opportunity, even when they believe that's wrong. If you keep letting me do this, I will. I'm human. I can't help myself. And I believe that very few others can help themselves. So we must change the rules. The best thing I can do is to continue to be walking, talking proof."
...
econlog.econlib.org
And assuming your not libertarian on moral grounds but just on consequentialist grounds (I'm libertarian for both reasons), than you don't have to believe that government activity in as many areas as it is active in, is morally wrong, just that its suboptimal. You can believe that while believing that if its going to do that activity that your presence within it reduces how suboptimal it is.
...
Badger writes:
The Al Gore analogy is not correct. Al Gore represents the classical case of "do what I say but don't do what I do." He's a hypocrite, period. Caplan is not a hypocrite because he doesn't "ask" us to do what he doesn't do, or to not do what he does. If I would ever catch him "asking" that, I would stop reading his texts immediately, since I detest hypocrisy.
That's also why we won't probably ever see Caplan being ridiculed in a South Park episode: it's not easy to make fun of people that aren't hypocrites.
Posted April 17, 2010 12:22 PM
Allan Walstad writes:
Unlike the cat burglar in the analogy, the government is not just stealing from strangers, it's stealing from us. Why shouldn't we get back some of our money if we can?
The state is so deeply involved in higher education that alternative college-level teaching opportunities outside its web of subsidy are limited--severely limited, if you include financial aid to the students themselves. If I hadn't taken a faculty position at UPJ, someone else would have. No purpose is served by cutting off my own nose.
But it's not clear to me that Al Gore escapes the hypocrisy rap. How is he disadvantaged by simply living the lifestyle that he thinks others should live? No one would blame him for plugging in his toaster just because the power company is generating electricity from coal rather than wind. But if he advocates smaller homes, lower thermostats in winter and higher in summer, smaller more fuel efficient cars, etc, what would be stopping him from leading by example?
Adam Ozimek writes:
Wouldn't you take the money from the cat burglar and give it back to the stranger?
Pedro writes:
I think the logical corollary of the argument by which Caplan is a hypocrite is that unless you happen to agree with the exact package of State policies at each moment in time, you are a hypocrite.
Furthermore, people wielding this argument often make the distinction between refusing a personal benefit acquired through means considered immoral and actively bringing harm to yourself by refusing to comply with rules you disagree with. I see little difference between the two but, even if there were, there are a myriad examples that can be used to argue that nearly everyone, by this same token, is a hypocrite.
On the one hand, consider someone who thinks banks should be nationalised or that the actions of financiers are borderline criminal. Should it not follow, then, that such individuals should refuse to have a bank account or credit card or access to any of the benefits of modern finance?
Or someone who vehemently opposes the Iraq war. Should they not refuse to fund this war by refusing to pay taxes until it is ended? In either case, there is always a choice and every choice has consequences. The degree of discomfort brought by each of those consequences obviously differs, but I see little traction in arguing that it is enough to set them apart entirely.
Finally, if it were the case that it would be hypocritical for anyone getting government funding to criticise it, then how could it be immoral for someone to argue against a totalitarian state who would collect 100% taxes and control all economic activity? Would people be expected to die for their principles?
Badger writes:
To SydB: wrong again. Has Caplan ever lectured people on a supposed moral obligation of not to work for a company that receives government money?
Al Gore on the other hand is clearly a hypocrite. Only a hypocrite can make money out of telling people that they should "reduce what they can, offset the rest," and simultaneously live like a maharajah, a nabob.
...
Joshua Herring writes:
It's always interesting to me how hypocrisy charges get spun. To a leftist, Bryan Caplan is a hypocrite, even though he's basically arguing for the abolition of his comfortable, tenured job. (Of course there would still be professors in a fully private system, but I doubt tenure would be a common feature.) Contrast this with your average leftist's impression of a doctor who argues for a single-payer healthcare system. They tend to think of the doctor as a hero rather than a hypocrite, even though he, like Bryan, is arguing for a reduction in his comfort level in the name of the public good. My what a difference ideology makes.
As for Al Gore, I agree that charges of hypocrisy are irrelevant ad hominem. His cherry picking of the facts about Global Warming is not, however, and so I would prefer that people arguing against him focused on the fallacies in his arguments rather than his personal character, however lacking it may be.
Posted April 19, 2010 5:27 PM
Troy Camplin writes:
I disagree that attacking Gore for playing private planes is either ad hominem or irrelevant. It is a clear case of hypocrisy: what's good for the rest of us isn't good for him. That's a hypocrite. It's not ad hominem because it is relevant to the discussion of what he advocates, which is relevant to the choices he makes. To say that we should ignore Gore because, after all, he's boring and stupid would be an ad hominem attack. Pointing out that the physician should first heal himself is not. |
