A Critique of Bryan Caplan

Bryan Caplan, a really cool guy actually

Yesterday, on his new blog Bet On It, Bryan Caplan posted this article. I, of course, agree fervently with every specific policy proposal listed here, and although I am less convinced of the tradeoffs between advocating for helping the poor through government, and helping the poor by hurting less, the first two thirds or so are absolutely fantastic. However, the first two thirds are undermined by the last third, where he engages in psychoanalyzing why the people who prefer helping the poor by redistribution favor what they do.

This is very bad. Is the point of this to convince people to change policies - or is it to create an in-group and an out-group, and place those who don’t entirely disagree on the outside? I should hope that the point is to convince people, given the Prof. Caplan has endorsed effective altruism. Why not maximize its chance of actually helping the poor, rather than of making ourselves feel superior? Why should we stick poison pills into what we write?

As it stands now, I cannot really hope to share it with my more traditionally liberal friends. They will likely come away rather insulted and put off by the whole thing, not reconsidering how much benefit would come from deregulation as opposed to redistribution. The article would be better if Prof. Caplan right clicked on paragraphs 8, 9, and 10, cut, and pasted into a new document. Make that a blog post! Do not jam it in something that might otherwise be convincing to people on the fence!

I admire that Prof. Caplan tells the truth. One does not need to say the whole truth, however, every time. If one’s purpose is to convince (and in doing so, actually benefit the poor) then one must let some things go. Things that gratuitously insult those who disagree with you should be the easiest thing to let go.