I am not sure that our positions differ as much as you claim. I, too, consider empirical and theoretical arguments to be requisite for any position – pro or anti-capitalism. I simply believe that arguments that rely heavily on data invite counterarguments that rely on data. And round and round we go!

Seriously, a finding, for example, that reveals rising wages under capitalism will only spur someone else to adduce a finding that reveals the long-lived lower wages of blacks as compared to whites under capitalism. No datum will be definitive. This is both the beauty and the bane of the social sciences.

I also differ from Jeffrey Friedman in that I would not label public choice economics trivial. It is not trivial in the sense that lots of people don’t get it, in fact I’m sure I have more to learn. Its also not trivial in that, the difficulty of getting a public choice paper published in a prestigious journal is not all that much different than getting a human capital article published.

Finally, though I often find myself defending capitalism to non-economists, Peter and Brian seem to downplay to the point of ignoring the importance and subtlety of good government, and good culture.

Yes, and it is for this reason that I, which I have learned from the Virginia Political Economists, James Coleman, the classical sociologists, etc., think focusing on the institutional context is so important. Data are always influenced by any number of variables such as time, place, situation, history, etc., etc.

The long-lived critique of capitalism is due to, inherently flawed, empirical investigation. There is nothing wrong with that. I only wrote this post to make known that, I believe, empirical investigation, itself, sustains the critique.

But you have not given a single public-choice “finding” that is both important and true without being trivial. You’ve just given a priori public-choice assumptions.

Recall that your point was that what sustains the critique of capitalism is its defenders’ alleged reliance on empirically based arguments that are, as such, open to empirical rebuttal. My response was, “If only it were so!” Instead, I suggested, the defenders of capitalism rely on apriorisms like you have just given, and pseudo-”findings” like those of public choice–all of which opponents of capitalism RIGHTLY see as little more than ideology dressed in social-scientific garb.

Its focus on the purposive action of situated actors.

Seriously, I will attempt to answer your question in interrogative form.
Choice in an any context (e.g., market choice or government choice) confronts the perennial conflict between potentially unlimited demand and limited supply. Government, as opposed to the market, however, dispenses with the rationing tool of the market, i.e., prices, and thus, other rationing methods emerge to combat this limited supply. So, without the rationing device of prices, how do government actors combat limited supply? (Learning how rules influence choice in government is what is fascinating about public choice – something sociologists, I will add, will benefit from becoming familiar with.) To me, this is the value-added component of public choice.
And to me, this is neither trivially true nor false. Given that Elinor Ostrom was recently awarded the Nobel in Economic Science suggests that public choice findings are neither trivially true nor false.

1. This is, by and large, my point. I do not, however, think that because they base their arguments on facts is either “bad” or “good.” (I happen not to like either/or reasoning.) I just believe that one piece of evidence (whether pro or anti-capitalism) will invite another piece of counter-evidence (either pro or anti-capitalism).
2. I agree that “what people believe are the facts of the social sciences.” However, many people believe, especially economists who study “multiplier effects,” e.g., that minimum wages improve the quality of life of minimum wage earners. And this is true – for minimum wage earners. But what about those who cannot obtain minimum wages – e.g., grandmothers who would like to be paid for baby sitting their grandchildren, but reside in subsidized housing, which calls for employment or a “work activity” outside the home or minority teens. Many minority teenagers, for example, who are not employed, will be happy to obtain the opportunity to obtain (minimum wage) employment. But, the minimum wage decreases the likelihood that these folks will obtain the ability to be employed because they cannot be remunerated at their “marginal productivity.” That many folks who support the minimum wage have never heard this does not make it trivially true or false. It is simply a “fact of the social sciences” that leads to government to support minimum wages – and members of the Congressional Black Caucas, in particular.
3. Bryan Caplan, I would argue, makes Virginia public choice arguments that do not lead to libertarian/classical liberal conclusions: e.g., the anti-market bias. My understanding of Virginia Public Choice, rather than Chicago or Rochester Public Choice, leads me to focus on the intentions and plans of situated actors (or actors operating within institutional contexts.) Public Choice findings too, in my opinion, are neither trivially true nor psuedo-factual.

Thanks for the feedback.

However, I think we’re in a far worse position than that because in reality, our arguments are all too often *not* grounded in facts. Public choice theory is just one example of pseudo-factual “findings” that are either trivial or false, but that just happen to point toward libertarian conclusions. And then of course there is the libertarian conflation of “liberty” with “modern private property rights.” What I’m getting at is that we have the reputation for being ideologues who embrace any “findings” or theories that buttress predetermined conclusions. We are seen as “market fundamentalists,” a la religious fundamentalists.

IF ONLY the problem were that we’d presented such fabulous airtight empirically based arguments that, just in the nature of things, are always open to rebuttal! But that isn’t the actual situation, IMHO; it is a situation we should strive to make happen. But the only way to do that is to find out what people’s actual objections to capitalism are–which don’t have to do with its lack of “spontaneity” etc., but that it causes poverty and insecurity and racism and sexism and imperialism–and then go investigate these claims with an open mind.