Is Cass Sunstein a creationist?

This is another case of evolution being misused. Social Darwinism has very little to do with biological - except to distort the agenda. There is a reason that biology is a hard science, while sociology, economics, etc... are social sciences.

According to Boudreaux, I'm an atheist hypocrite because I believe that I created my coffee this morning from beans and hot water.

What a stupid man Don Boudreaux must be. I wish he'd drop by the Thumb and treat himself to a good old fashioned horse whipping.

What does Boudreaux's post have to do with atheism? What the hell are you talking about? What a stupid person YOU must be.

But the bluest blue-state left-"liberal" atheist oughtn't be too quick with the self-congratulatory praise of his or her own rational faculties. Most left-liberals are pure creationists when it comes to society and social order.

Uh huh. Where does he say atheism is true or false in that post, or that atheists are hypocrites? Right. Thanks for playing. (He does say left-liberals are being inconsistent, but atheists? No.)

Boudreaux's point is simply that, just as it is wrong to infer design from the apparent order in living things, it is wrong to infer that social order always comes from design as well. In both cases, the cause of the order is "spontaneous, undesigned, and undesignable evolution."

Uh huh. Where does he say atheism is true or false in that post

He does say left-liberals are being inconsistent, but atheists?[/uote] Yes, atheists. See comment 11296, in box. So, Boudreaux's paying you to be his stooge, right? You must be pretty hard up. Boudreaux's point is simply that, just as it is wrong to infer design from the apparent order in living things, it is wrong to infer that social order always comes from design as well.

Thanks for playing.

Wow, an Argument from Fortuitous Word Association. Sunstein is a "creationist" because he thinks governments "create" order.

I suppose people who propose a "flat" tax across the land are "flat-earthers" now, supporters of globalization are "young earthers" because they want to create a "new world" order, and Greenpeace are "omphalists" because they object to some of France's use of "navel power".

Still, I guess this is easier than actually addressing any of these actual positions with something like an actual argument.

This discussion misses the point so widely that I'm not sure it's worthwhile, but I'll try to clarify: Boudreaux's point is that Darwin's great accomplishment was in showing us that apparent design does not necessarily imply the existence of some central Designer. What Darwin saw in biology, Adam Smith and others have seen in economics: that apparent design arises from the interaction of parties, none of whom have any particular design as their goal. One need hardly be a libertarian to agree with Smith in this regard. Stephen Jay Gould, a self-proclaimed Marxist, makes this exact same point in chapter 9 of Eight Little Piggies (1993) for example. See further Robert Nozick, Anarcy, State And Utopia 20-21 (1974) (listing various "invisible hand" style theories from different disciplines). Sunstein's error, Boudreaux argues, is in assuming that social order must be the product of some central Designer---that is, in his adoption of "skyhooks" to explain the existence of such social institutions as individual rights.

The proper rejoinder, for instance, to Wonder's childish post is this: some "economic creationist" might indeed think that for me to get a cup of coffee in the morning requires some central Authority to organize the coffee-making apparatus, from planting the beans, to harvesting them, to drying them, to grinding them, to shipping them, to filtering them, and so forth. But of course, no such organizing Designer exists, or is possible. See Leonard Read, I Pencil. Instead, the coffee in my cup is the end product of thousands of unorganized, private actors, not coordinated by any central Authority.

Boudreaux's impression of Sunstein is correct---Sunstein does indeed believe that individual rights are created out of nothing by a sovereign authority, and that they have no deeper foundation. His analogy, therefore, between Sunstein and the creationist who believes that life must be created out of nothing by a sovereign authority, with no deeper foundation, is accurate.

But the bluest blue-state left-"liberal" atheist oughtn't be too quick with the self-congratulatory praise of his or her own rational faculties. Most left-liberals are pure creationists when it comes to society and social order.

Mr. Sandefur:

it could be argued that each and every of the thousands of private actors whose work was necessary to putting coffee in your cup did their work under the umbrella of govt institutions.

the columbian shipper who relied on the letter of credit from the US bank did so, because us courts have held LOCs to be enforceable and US banks are reliable institutions, due to federal govt oversight.

the american buyer was willing to buy the coffee from Columbia knowing that it would be coffee and not rodent excrement. trade agreements and federal ag agencies create that assurance.

the customers of the local coffee seller rely on health dept inspections for the comfort that the coffee is still coffee, not rat excrement.

rights may exist independent of govts (or not -- frankly i find the debate largely pointless), but govts are the tool we use for enforcing them.

I suppose one could argue that we start (at least conceptually) with complete anarchy, with everyone acting out of the most immediate possible self-interest with no thought to even the most obvious short-term consequences. In this mental experiment, people quickly learn that the disadvantages outweight the advantages disproportionately, and adopt some degree of cooperation. Cooperation requires agreements, a quid pro quo, mutual backscratching.

After a while, by trial and error, people learn which values justify a cooperative approach and which ones do not. So they might decide cooperation is important for defense, for commerce, for possession of property and "stuff". They agree to support one another in these ways. This support defines what the "individual rights" are, and the agreement to make it happen constitutes the source from which those rights flow.

From here, it's not much of a streth to imagine the cooperative effort expanding and formalizing, taking advantage of the division of labor so that some govern, some enforce, and the rest produce. But this organizational maturation process doesn't necessarily add any new rights, it only clarifies and codifies what was agreed to from the start.

But what could possibly be any "deeper authoritity" than the agreement of everyone with everyone else as to the social requirements of everyone? Individual rights emerge from the agreement among people to cooperate for their mutual advantage.

But the bluest blue-state left-"liberal" atheist oughtn't be too quick with the self-congratulatory praise of his or her own rational faculties. Most left-liberals are pure creationists when it comes to society and social order. For them, government is the creator of order -- of high wages, of safe working conditions, of safe food and drink, of fair prices, of good education, of trustworthy physicians, accountants, and butchers, of peace, commerce, culture, and civility itself.

The patrons gather to discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education, and share good conversation.

A nice bit of bait-and-switch here. And, I think, a poor choice for a Panda's Thumb post.

I don't say that because I believe, as Tom Curtis does, that Timothy Sandefur's political views are 'unsavoury'. (I'm not a libertarian, but I imagine my own views are good deal closer to those of Mr Sandefur than of Mr Curtis.)

Rather, Sunstein's 'creationism' has SFA with that creationism the exposure of which is a major part of the Panda's Thumb mission. Mr Sandefur isn't particularly coy about his politics, but I had not previously noticed him using the Thumb explicitly as a forum for political discussion that does not touch upon, e.g., the teaching of science. Such discussion is at best irrelevant, at worst potentially damaging to the fight against creationist educationalists.

Mind you, I'm not saying Mr Sandefur is wrong. I'm not even saying his point isn't interesting. As it happens, I find this sort of thing terribly interesting myself. I could read about natural law theory vs. positivism, in their many respective variants, all day long. But I'd hope to read about them on a different sort of website. PT is an appropriate place, I'd think, to criticise the Right when it espouses creationism or the Left when it espouses science-denying epistemic relativism. One might well wish to criticise the Right for (say) militaristic imperialism or the Left for (say) economic collectivism; but I don't see that it furthers the aims of PT to do so here.

Sorry; 'SFA to do with', of course.

'SFA', in case you were wondering, is an abbreviation for a somewhat more pungent way of saying 'nothing'.

I also thought it was a bad post for PT

I enjoyed the many comments on blue-state creationism. Here's further explanation:

http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2004/12/more_on_bluesta.html

Probably, this post is dead now, but I wanted to point out that Mr. Wonder is performing a spectaclar job of "quote mining" when he takes that one quote of Dr. Boudreaux's post.

Funny what happens when tables are turned.

(BTW, never commented here before and I just want to say great blog!)

What an amazingly low signal to noise level. I guess that when people say that Usenet is dead, they're right ... and talk.origins has been reborn as the comment section of pandasthumb.org.

The gist of Don's argument is that Creationists are poopy-heads when they insist, against all evidence, that God created the heavens, the earth, and man. Everybody here agrees with that, right? Well, he's also pointing out that left-liberals are being creationists (with a small c) when they insist against a similar quality of evidence that freedom and rights are created by governments. Yes, I can see how y'all might want to deny his point, being an unattractive truth.

Don't be a Creationist, and don't be a creationist!
-russ

What an amazingly low signal to noise level. I guess that when people say that Usenet is dead, they're right ... and talk.origins has been reborn as the comment section of pandasthumb.org.

The gist of Don's argument is that Creationists are poopy-heads when they insist, against all evidence, that God created the heavens, the earth, and man. Everybody here agrees with that, right? Well, he's also pointing out that left-liberals are being creationists (with a small c) when they insist against a similar quality of evidence that freedom and rights are created by governments. Yes, I can see how y'all might want to deny his point, being an unattractive truth.

Don't be a Creationist, and don't be a creationist!
-russ

I think the "Great White Wonder" must refer to snow blindness. This commenter is getting lost in the conversation. If you believe that the state is an essential actor in co-coordinating most activities, then you believe that order does not occur spontaneously. To use an example from my experience we can talk about money or the alphabet. Do you believe that some Sumerian or Egyptian king woke one morning with the insight to create a language or a commonly accepted medium of exchange? No, most anthropologists find that these develop out of necessity, over time. The convergence is driven by spontaneous forces or "the invisible hand."
Similarly there is too much current thought which credits the modern state with such omniscience, declaring that collective action is necessarily a government mandate. Those of us that spend time thinking about spontaneous order, like the poster above which referred this audience to "I, Pencil," believe that lasting orders evolve without state coordination. Someone that believes there is no creator who miracled the world into existence, is inconsistent if they believe that their daily life is dependant on a benevolent government. These stateists must imagine bureaucrats pulling appropriate strings so that each morning the mocha latte price is similar to the price that you expected to pay for it.
As always, the impulse to harangue a person is more compelling than exercising the gray matter.

Michael and Russ

How much is Boudreaux paying you to apologize for his beating of a dumbass strawman?

Really, you guys are pathetic. "Waahah, waawh, mommy, those guys at Pandas Thumb are making fun of Don's important criticism of leftists!!!!"

How utterly and incredibly lame. Guys, isn't it time to prepare your costume for the upcoming Robert Heinlein Fan Convention? Get a life.

Mr. Sandefur - I believe this bit of blogpimping for Don Boudreaux is off-topic and inappropriate for The Panda's Thumb. Please don't do it any more.

Regarding Michael Thomas' comment on alphabet, does seem to be the case that development of new writing systems is strongly associated with centralised bureaucracies. If you're looking for a fairly recent (and well documented) example you've only got to consider
hangul, for example. [Always exceptions, thank goodness - eg. Sequoia's script seems to be a singular instance of personal genius.] Same could be said of irrigation, highways ....

Leftists may appeal to a creationist-style argument IF they argue that rights come from the state.

But most of us don't argue that.

If Sunstein does, then he may fit Boudreaux's bill.

But I suspect it is a straw man argument.

And most of us who defend science do not hypocritically claim that rights come from the state. We're Jeffersonians in that regard. We agree with Madison that such rights belong to the people -- which is why religion can't be taught in school: We did not delegate our rights to the state, and the state is limited to doing those things with regard to rights that we delegate to it.

Boudreaux's claim against most leftists, and especially against those of us who oppose creationism in science classes, is just ass-backwards.

Mr. Boudreaux: since you apparently do not accept comments on your blog, I'll post mine here.

The US Govt, largely through the DOD but through other agencies as well, finances a tremendous amount of original research. The internet is one notable success story; multiple billions (maybe even trillions by now) have been spent on failures.

Is the world better off? Tough call. Certainly some of the money not collected by the USG in taxes would have gone to research, but basic original research, one would expect, would be less likely to receive funding in the market than ideas that are closer to providing a return on investment. Certainly the private competition to the Human Genome Project presents a compelling counterexample.

My point, such as it is, is that blue-state stateists rely on the state as a convenient vehicle for achieving communal goals. Perhaps the state is necessary (i tend to think that it is); perhaps an organized anarchy could exist. You are welcome to join the Free State Project; i'd rather lobby my congressman.

I'm a lawyer, not a historian. but the book "Guns Germs and Steel", among other sources, seems to provide pretty strong evidence that beyond a certain population density people LIKE a strong state; it provides a useful clearing house for passing information and resolving disputes.

Living in downtown Long Beach, California, I may have "property rights" independent of the state. but in a dense urban environment i think the argument is kind of pointless. The property rights I have COULD NOT EXIST without the state.

cheers

Someone that believes there is no creator who miracled the world into existence, is inconsistent if they believe that their daily life is dependant on a benevolent government. These stateists must imagine bureaucrats pulling appropriate strings so that each morning the mocha latte price is similar to the price that you expected to pay for it.

In other words, without taxpayer-financed scientific research, we'll enjoy neither national security nor economic well-being.

To Tom Curtis, have you ever seen the Wizard of Oz? You might like that movie, it plays on your beliefs a little.

I must protest. Mixing actual quotes from my writting with statements Tom Curtis makes up and just adds quotes around is dishonest.

I don't see my thoughts on the matter as any type of misstatement (one is forced to ask a misstatement of what,?? since I have read explanations of social order that clearly state this and have am just reproducing them here).

Mr. Curtis I also disagree that all supporters of a state default to democracy, in fact don't we resort rather to a republican form of government (how long did monarcy exist)? Still further the natural conclusion of your arguments is that we turn over all of our decision making to the state because they just know better. The Soviet Union tried this but failed because they did not allow prices to function in the market to transmit the essential information needed in a market economy. My advocacy above all else comes from devoted study to the mechanism of price and price theory. This intricacy cannot be achieved by a government bureaucrat, even if you are keen to dismiss it as a weak argument.

Order is achieved in numerous ways, for example, at some point when travel by car became more popular people were confronted with the problem of stopping at stop signs, if two people were there someone had to have the right of way, rather than wait for a bureaucrat they solved the problem spontaneously. Only later would they take the informal lesson that had emerged from experience and codify this into law. This is why when you look at the freedom index you see that systems of common law (codification from experience) results in higher measures of freedom than countries that depend on abstract models to design the contingencies of the world.

To bring this all back to the relevant topic at hand, some of us noticed an inconsistency with folks that defend Darwin's theory because it supports their world view. These same people then, when confronted with similar logic in an economic format, act like someone is telling them they have a curfew. Because of these reasons, I cannot make sense out of your advocacy.

Also, I have noticed that people on this page like the word strawman, it helps them avoid responding to issues that were raised by their peers. It also sounds vaguely scientific, both bonuses if one is trying to impress himself.

Still further the natural conclusion of your arguments is that we turn over all of our decision making to the state because they just know better.

The central authority does not have to be a "state", but the people who think a central authority would be helpfull preffer it to be a state so that it can be controlled by democratic means.

[T]hey [and I] are firmly committed to the desirability and actuallity of the "invisible hand" delivering most of the order they find in society.

To bring this all back to the relevant topic at hand, some of us noticed an inconsistency with folks that defend Darwin's theory because it supports their world view. These same people then, when confronted with similar logic in an economic format, act like someone is telling them they have a curfew.

Finally, champions of the free market like to position themselves as advocates of no government intervention in the market place. That is a lie. In general they advocate a large number of such interventions - most notably a government backed currency; a slight inflationary posture in the economy (to avoid any risk of deflation); the existence of corporations; and the existence of limited liability.

The central authority does not have to be a "state", but the people who think a central authority would be helpful prefer it to be a state so that it can be controlled by democratic means.

Taking seriously the proof that any intervention in the market eliminates pareto optimality, we must ask who is made worse of by these interventions.

Champions for the free market most certainly do not want a government backed currency. This is an extension of government beyond its necessary role. The alternative is a market driven system of private fractional-reserve banks. Since this would be lead by pricing signals which I have talked about before, the discipline this system forces into the market should be highly superior to the whims and the theories of government officials.

The natural result was that many people refused to use this local currency, and those who did were geographically limited to about a day's ride from the issuing bank (because banks elsewhere wouldn't honor it).

Michael Thomas:

I'm not trying to make an argument here, exactly. Only to reflect on the inevitable tradeoffs inherent in any social decision policies. In general, I regard the State as one of the aspects of large-scale social organization (large-scale meaning, more people than can be expected to all know one another by reputation). It's nearly impossible to either assign to the state, or remove from the state, ANY responsibility, without some people experiencing benefits and others experiencing difficulties. This doesn't mean there are no bargains in either course of action, only that there is no such thing as a "pure" bargain, a good wind that blows nobody ill.

You guys just don't seem to get it. All ideas apart from Libertarian ones are just plain wrong!
(Alarm bells ring - over the tannoy we hear "Feder alert - all censors to stations 1 through 50")

We call ourselves the "party of principle," and we base property rights on the principle that everyone is entitled to the fruits of his labor. Land, however, is not the fruit of anyone's labor, and our system of land tenure is based not on labor, but on decrees of privilege issued from the state, called titles. In fact, the term "real estate" is Middle English (originally French) for "royal state." The "title" to land is the essence of the title of nobility, and the root of noble privilege.