Brian Micklethwait's Blog

In which I continue to seek part time employment as the ruler of the world.


Recent Comments

Monthly Archives

Most recent entries


Advanced Search

Other Blogs I write for

Brian Micklethwait's Education Blog

CNE Competition
CNE Intellectual Property
Transport Blog


2 Blowhards
6000 Miles from Civilisation
A Decent Muesli
Adventures in Capitalism
Alan Little
Albion's Seedling
Alex Ross: The Rest Is Noise
Alex Singleton
Another Food Blog
Antoine Clarke
Antoine Clarke's Election Watch
Armed and Dangerous
Art Of The State Blog
Biased BBC
Bishop Hill
Bloggers Blog
Blognor Regis
Blowing Smoke
Boatang & Demetriou
Boing Boing
Boris Johnson
Brazen Careerist
Bryan Appleyard
Burning Our Money
Cafe Hayek
Charlie's Diary
Chase me ladies, I'm in the cavalry
Chicago Boyz
China Law Blog
Cicero's Songs
City Comforts
Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog
Clay Shirky
Climate Resistance
Climate Skeptic
Coffee & Complexity
Coffee House
Communities Dominate Brands
Confused of Calcutta
Conservative Party Reptile
Contra Niche
Contrary Brin
Counting Cats in Zanzibar
Скрипучая беседка
Dave Barry
Davids Medienkritik
David Thompson
Deleted by tomorrow
diamond geezer
Dizzy Thinks
Don't Hold Your Breath
Douglas Carswell Blog
Dr Robert Lefever
Dr. Weevil
Englands Freedome, Souldiers Rights
English Cut
English Russia
EU Referendum
Ezra Levant
Everything I Say is Right
Fat Man on a Keyboard
Ferraris for all
Flickr blog
Freeborn John
Freedom and Whisky
From The Barrel of a Gun
Fugitive Ink
Future Perfect
Gaping Void
Gates of Vienna
Global Warming Politics
Greg Mankiw's Blog
Guido Fawkes' blog
Here Comes Everybody
Hit & Run
House of Dumb
Iain Dale's Diary
Idiot Toys
India Uncut
Jackie Danicki
James Delingpole
James Fallows
Jeffrey Archer's Official Blog
Jessica Duchen's classical music blog
Jihad Watch
Joanne Jacobs
Johan Norberg
John Redwood
Jonathan's Photoblog
Kristine Lowe
Laissez Faire Books
Last of the Few
Lessig Blog
Libertarian Alliance: Blog
Liberty Alone
Liberty Dad - a World Without Dictators
Lib on the United Kingdom
Little Man, What Now?
listen missy
Loic Le Meur Blog
L'Ombre de l'Olivier
London Daily Photo
Mad Housewife
Mangan's Miscellany
Marginal Revolution
Mark Wadsworth
Media Influencer
Melanie Phillips
Metamagician and the Hellfire Club
Michael Jennings
Michael J. Totten's Middle East Journal
Mick Hartley
More Than Mind Games
mr eugenides
Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism
My Boyfriend Is A Twat
My Other Stuff
Natalie Solent
Nation of Shopkeepers
Never Trust a Hippy
NO2ID NewsBlog
Non Diet Weight Loss
Nurses for Reform blog
Obnoxio The Clown
Oddity Central
Oliver Kamm
On an Overgrown Path
One Man & His Blog
Owlthoughts of a peripatetic pedant
Oxford Libertarian Society /blog
Patri's Peripatetic Peregrinations
Picking Losers
Pigeon Blog
Police Inspector Blog
Power Line
Private Sector Development blog
Publius Pundit
Rachel Lucas
Remember I'm the Bloody Architect
Rob's Blog
Setting The World To Rights
Shane Greer
Shanghaiist The Violin Blog
Sinclair's Musings
Slipped Disc
Sky Watching My World
Social Affairs Unit
Squander Two Blog
Stephen Fry
Stuff White People Like
Stumbling and Mumbling
Style Bubble
Sunset Gun
Survival Arts
Susan Hill
Technology Liberation Front
The Adam Smith Institute Blog
The Agitator
The AntRant
The Becker-Posner Blog
The Belgravia Dispatch
The Belmont Club
The Big Blog Company
The Big Picture
the blog of dave cole
The Corridor of Uncertainty (a Cricket blog)
The Croydonian
The Daily Ablution
The Devil's Advocate
The Devil's Kitchen
The Dissident Frogman
The Distributed Republic
The Early Days of a Better Nation
The Examined Life
The Filter^
The Fly Bottle
The Freeway to Serfdom
The Future of Music
The Futurist
The Happiness Project
The Jarndyce Blog
The London Fog
The Long Tail
The Lumber Room
The Online Photographer
The Only Winning Move
The Policeman's Blog
The Road to Surfdom
The Sharpener
The Speculist
The Surfer
The Wedding Photography Blog
The Welfare State We're In
things magazine
Tim Blair
Tim Harford
Tim Worstall
Transterrestrial Musings
UK Commentators - Laban Tall's Blog
UK Libertarian Party
Unqualified Offerings
Violins and Starships
Virginia Postrel
we make money not art
What Do I Know?
What's Up With That?
Where the grass is greener
White Sun of the Desert
Why Evolution Is True
Your Freedom and Ours


Mainstream Media

The Sun
This is London


RSS 1.0
RSS 2.0


Billion Monkeys
Bits from books
Bloggers and blogging
Brian Micklethwait podcasts
Career counselling
Cats and kittens
Civil liberties
Classical music
Computer graphics
Current events
Digital photographers
Emmanuel Todd
Expression Engine
Food and drink
Getting old
How the mind works
Intellectual property
Kevin Dowd
Latin America
Media and journalism
Middle East and Islam
My blog ruins
My photographs
Open Source
Other creatures
Pop music
Quote unquote
Roof clutter
Science fiction
Signs and notices
Social Media
South America
The internet
The Micklethwait Clock
This and that
This blog

Saturday November 05 2005

For some reason, I can’t do italics in the titles of postings.  Don’t like that.

Anyway . . .

Patrick Crozier links from time to time to a Libertarian Alliance Tactical Note I wrote a while ago for the Libertarian Alliance called The Tyranny of the Facts.  He did it again recently.  Very nice too, and thank you.  Good that something I wrote so long ago still has some life in it.  But, Patrick doesn’t seems to get what The Tyranny of The Facts is really about.

He says:

. . . But (up until now) amateur propaganda has been difficult to do. Researching the facts, thinking through the arguments, working at times when you’d rather be down the pub or asleep, is difficult and slow. In comparison, the professionals hold all the aces. See Brian’s The Tyranny of the Facts.

The implication of that is that The Tyranny of the Facts says things like: “Researching the facts, thinking through the arguments, working at times when you’d rather be down the pub or asleep, is difficult and slow. In comparison, the professionals hold all the aces.”

Well, it sort of partly says that, a bit.

But what it also says is that “The Facts”, so often deployed in media arguments – as in “Mr Pillock says blah-de-blah-de-blah, but let’s just look at The Facts” – are, if you are actually trying to persuade people of anything, often beside the point and superfluous to requirements, because what causes people to disagree is not disagreement about The Facts but differences in ideological attitude, in worldview.  In fact it often happens that The Facts is the one thing that people who are arguing do agree about.

Suppose a state-owned hospital is poisoning people.  Supporters of the principle of the NHS and of state owned hospitals will want the problem dealt with by the existing chain of command, pragmatically, and by spending more money.

But we would argue like this not necessarily because of any huge disagreement between us and our opponents about how many people are being poisoned or how grievously each particular state-owned hospital was poisoning people.  Rather do we have different views about the merits of the private sector, in general, versus state ownership, in general.

Our opponents are not arguing that poisoning people does not matter, and we would be very foolish to accuse them of this.  We all agree that there is a problem.  Our disagreement is about the way to solve the problem.

Yet during media debates concerning matters of this sort, all kinds of numbers will be thrown around – “let’s look at The Facts: according to figures from the National Poisoned People Directorate Subcommittee, last year 925 people suffered from blah-de-blah-de-blah . . .” .  But these numbers will not actually affect those arguing, because such numbers do not determine their views about how to improve hospitals.  These numbers are merely ammunition for pummelling third parties into a state of stupefied surrender, and not even that is sensible.  Also, in the talk radio bit of the media that I am familiar with, they hate it when you reduce an argument to mere statistics.

Now that “experts” who favour free markets are now starting to come on stream in a big way, thanks to half a century of free market think tankery, free market “experts” are just as fond of emitting large and pompous and boring gobs of “The Facts” as statist have traditionally tended to be.  They too delight in arguing pragmatically, and unpersuasively.

When I argue for denationalising a hospital, I do it quite differently.  I do not claim any special knowledge of hospitals, and if I am arguing against a medically expert supporter of state medicine, I certainly do not.

Instead I say:

“I am sure that indeed The Facts, as you have just explained them, are approximately right.  However, I believe in free markets in hospitals because I believe in free markets in everything else.  Free markets work for bananas and cars and computers and frying pans and paper clips and houses and giant oil ships and glue-sticks.  Why would they not work for hospitals?”

“Ah but hospitals are special.  Hospitals are not like glue-sticks.”

“Indeed they are not.  But everything is special.  Glue-sticks are also special.  They are not like paper clips or banana, or, as you say, hospitals.  Of course hospitals are different and special.  But what is it that is so different and special about hospitals that makes them something where free markets do not and could not work their magic?”

This works well for two reasons.  First, I have correctly identified the nature of the disagreement between us, which always helps.  I am telling the truth.  Even those who have opposite views to mine about the state-owned-ness of hospitals will agree with me about the fact that state-owned-ness of things generally is what is really being argued about here.

In reply, my opponent then, perhaps, thinks that he has to explain why the argument is not the sort of argument that, actually, it is, which not surprisingly ties him in knots because he is then talking rubbish and he knows it.  If he then carries on spouting the rest of The Facts that he brought with him, he makes an ass of himself.

If, on the other hand, he acknowledges the truth of my claim, that we are really arguing about markets in general versus state action in general, and only applying and illustrating these general principles with talk about hospitals, this takes the argument away from his preferred argumentative battleground (detailed statistical knowledge of The Facts concerning hospitals and hospital poisoning and of the various bits of the existing chain of command whose job is to solve such problems and who should be give more money to do this) and towards ground I am probably more familiar with than he is (arguing about the rights and wrongs of free markets, state ownership, etc., in general).

He may then make further blunders.  He may, for example, say:

“So I suppose you also favour a complete free market in all drugs, do you?”

This is a common error made by political people when arguing with political but also ideological people like me.  The one answer he does not expect is the one he gets:


Followed by a silence of extreme eloquence.

I have already explained why I believe in free markets, people taking their own risks, etc. etc., so yes, I favour legalising all drugs.  If I have spelt all this out, I have at least alluded to such argument.  And being the ideologist I am, eager to push the free market agenda in general rather than just the idea of free market hospitals, I am delighted at being given the chance to do this.  He thought I was there to defend some private sector hospital or to argue against state-owned hospitals, and nothing else.  But he was wrong.  I am there to spread ideas.  If he gives me the chance to spread other ideas to the ones I expected to be talking about, but which I am keen to spread, I will seize the opportunity eagerly.

He is struck dumb by that “Yes” because, being himself part of the respectable political world he has it branded on his brain as an axiom that you never say things like “Yes let’s have a free market in all drugs”, and he assumed that I play by the same rule.  His notion was that if he could put me into a position where I either said I favoured a free market in all drugs or revealed myself to be a cowardly, illogical, unprincipled, lying twat, he would obviously have me stitched me up as a cowardly, illogical, unprincipled, lying twat.  So, when I said “Yes” instead, he was struck dumb, and I got to present myself as a brave, logical, principled, truthful all round good egg.  And I said nothing more than “Yes” because I wanted his dumbness to be audible.

Okay I got a bit carried away there, but the point of The Tyranny of The Facts is that “The Facts” is rarely how people really decide about things.  So, don’t be tyrannised by The Facts.  Don’t worry that you may not have them.  Relax.  Say what you really think.

Far from The Tyranny of The Facts being about the inherent advantages that experts on particular topics have when debating with generally pro-market but in-particular rather fact-light ideological types like me and Patrick Crozier, it is at least as much about the opposite.  It is about how you can tie an expert in knots, without challenging any of his facts, and as likely as not actually using his precious clutch of The Facts against him, Kung-Fu style.

If you believe in a general principle, of any kind, do not let yourself be bossed around by The Facts concerning some particular way of applying that principle.  Do not make the mistake of agreeing with the bloke who is in charge of The Facts that The Facts are what count.  Again and again, they are not.

Those who have an ideologically fixed dislike of all ideology, other than the fixed ideology of disliking all other ideologies, often respond to the above by saying something like:

“Just as I have always said.  These libertarians have no interest in reality.  Their prejudices are impervious to facts.  They are ideological steam-rollers, deaf to rational persuasion and not worth arguing with except in order to reveal to third parties their total and totally prejudiced irrationality.”

This is quite wrong.  My belief in the superiority of free markets – free markets in bananas, cars, computers, frying pans etc. etc. etc. etc. – is not a belief that I simply plucked out of the air.  This belief is entirely rational.  I can remember arriving at this opinion, slowly and carefully and thoughtfully, having previously thought very differently, and I can remember why.  I arrived at it because the facts – the real facts this time, with no sneer capital letters attached to them, and from everywhere I came across them and not just about one particular thing like bananas, or hospitals - said that free markets are better.  If you think you can persuade me that things in general are better supplied by state-owned industries in general, and that you have a world full of real facts (as opposed to some stupid little batch of The Facts) to persuade me, well, good luck to you, you are going to need it.  And if you think that I have no facts to back me up then you are an ignorant fool.

Of course I am prejudiced in favour of free markets.  It is idiotic not to be.

It is not facts I object to.  It is “The Facts”, as in: a tiny few of them, deliberately over-complicated and over-elaborated to make the emitter of them appear well informed and to silence all opposition, and quite beside the point.

Nice post.

What do you think of the comment I made on this post of Patrick’s, many moons ago?

Posted by Andy Wood on 05 November 2005

Just in case anyone should read this in the future, my reading of one of the earlier paragraphs is that it suggests that I am in favour of the NHS.


Anyway, got that out of the way.  Otherwise, I take my fisking as best I can.

I like the glue sticks v hospitals argument.  One thing, though.  Surely, your imaginary opponent can just turn round and say: “The difference is that if glue sticks disappeared tomorrow we’d manage.  But not if hospitals disappeared.”

Now, that’s an exagerration but I think that’s where we’ve got to.  The Mars Bar/Glue sticks debate is over.  They should be produced by the free-ish market.  Where we’ve got stuck is in those areas eg. health, education, trains etc which a) seem essential and b) where we have no recent experience of the alternatives.  That’s why I think amassing facts in these areas is useful.  Because rather than asking people to take a leap in the factless dark we can light the way.  We can say: “It’ll be all right because it is all right elsewhere and it was all right in the past.”

Posted by Patrick Crozier on 07 November 2005

The lack of hospitals may result in suffering and death, which is presumably why some people imagine that only the state may provide them. What I wonder is why they don’t think we need a “National Food Service” to provide food “free at the point of use” to everyone, to make sure that no-one starves to death or suffers from malnutrition.

Posted by Milo Thurston on 15 November 2005
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.