Brad DeLong Misrepresents My Position on Libertarianism and Asteroid Defense

(Ilya Somin)

In a recent post, I expressed my disagreement with co-blogger Sasha Volokh’s view that libertarianism condemns government funding of asteroid defense, pointing out that most prominent libertarian thinkers also disagree with him.

Through selective quotation, Brad DeLong tries to make it seem like I endorsed Sasha’s position. He does so by quoting the part of the post where I explained why I don’t think Sasha’s position is ridiculous or “insane,” as DeLong had earlier claimed. I pointed out that Sasha’s view is no more “insane” than any other moral theory that requires absolute protection for certain rights, regardless of consequences. Any such theory risks catastrophe in cases where violating those rights is the only way to avert it. I also noted that “[s]cenarios like the above [including asteroid defense] are one of the main reasons why I’m not a rights-absolutist myself.” An academic of DeLong’s eminence should surely be able to tell the difference between believing that View X isn’t insane and actually agreeing with X. For example, I don’t think that DeLong’s own views are insane. But that doesn’t prevent me from disagreeing with him on a wide range of issues.

DeLong further distorts my position by claiming that I was criticizing Jonathan Adler’s post on this subject. In fact, I completely agree with what Adler said and nothing in my post contradicts him.

Finally, DeLong claims that “any theory of moral action that privileges one particular set of rights or goods lexicographically–i.e., “based on absolute respect for certain rights” and not for other rights or duties–above all others is, ipso facto, insane.” That’s a remarkable statement. All of the great moral thinkers who advocate absolute rights — Kant, Ronald Dworkin and Alan Gewirth, Robert Nozick, and others — these people were not only wrong (as I believe they were) but actually “insane.” That kind of sweeping dismissal of opposing views says more about DeLong’s intolerance than about those views’ merits.