Machan's Musings - When Elites Use Ad Hominems
by Tibor R. Machan
A book came to my attention with a promising title, so I bought and began to read it. The author is William M. Sullivan, a senior scholar at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the book is Work and Integrity, The Crisis and Promise of Professionalism in America (2005).
With such a title I was hoping for, though admittedly not quite expecting, a non-politicized discussion of the ethics of work and professionalism. Alas, there is some of this in the book, but much of it is also devoted to putting down anyone who thinks these matters can be handled without involving a massive government—especially, licensing and regulatory—bureaucracy.
OK, but this would not be so bad if our distinguished author went about arguing for his support of these measures, ones that have been on the books for ages and yet have spawned a situation that has prompted the author himself to lament endlessly the unprofessional conduct of professionals. Instead, when it comes to the issue of whether the private sector could deal with professional credentialing, we get no argument at all, only name calling. Mr. Sullivan does not hesitate at all to deploy one of the least civil of rhetorical devices in discussing issues, namely, ad hominems.
It may be recalled by some that the Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman wrote a book, Capitalism and Freedom (1962) in which he argues—yes, he actually argues—against professional licensing, making the case that a free society does not deserve to be burdened by such demeaning public measures, ones that treat professionals as requiring the supervision of a bunch of force-wielding bureaucrats. A free society can have its own watchdog agencies, ones, however, that do not have the status of the monarch but simply one among many service agencies like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval folks.
So what does Mr. Sullivan offer in rebuttal to this line of argument Friedman goes to great pains to develop? Nothing, not unless you consider calling Milton Friedman a "market fundamentalist," someone among "those who allow their enthusiasm for the ideals of markets performance to develop into fanaticism," an argument. Sullivan says that Friedman is wrong because he fails to make any room for non-market institutions doing something to enhance professionalism, whereas, of course, Friedman does nothing of the sort. He simply wants to exclude coercive measures, which in Sullivan’s view makes him a fanatic.
Now being a fanatic about liberty hasn’t ever seemed to me such a dangerous thing. As when Barry Goldwater said, "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice," so neither is fanaticism in defense of it so awful. Abolitionists were fanatics, as were anti-Vietnam War demonstrators, and civil rights activists—meaning they were really, seriously opposed to what they deemed to be unjust. Calling them "civil rights fundamentalists" wouldn’t suffice to take issue with their position. Arguments, however, might—as we have seen when prominent law professors have taken issue with those activists.
But cheer up. When prominent scholars from very prestigious organizations lash out at various ideas with venom, you know those ideas are making an impact. And they should. Free market fundamentalism, like criminal justice fundamentalism (a la the ACLU) or human rights fundamentalism (as per Amnesty International) can indeed be a wonderful thing and attacking it in such uncivil ways may give it something of a boost.
Licensing of professionals is, in fact, a form of prior restraint and is not tolerable where human beings are supposed to be left free until they have been proven guilty of a crime. People doing work in the various professions need to be credentialed without violating this ideal, and a little fanaticism in support of that will do us a lot of good.
Maybe we ought to thank the likes of Mr. Sullivan for showing how impoverished have become defenders of all the myriad government measures that treat people as if they were beholden to the state, not to their own conscience and the expectations of their free customers and clients.
Discuss this Article (4 messages)
|
