Below is my response to an old high school classmate’s post, who was discussing the nature of a society’s economy undergoing a negative transition over time, and how best to address the issue. He is intelligent (was our class valedictorian) however he, like most, fall into the same trap, the faulty premise of viewing the economy, society, and human interaction in general, as a mathematical “problem” or equation. A “problem” that can be solved only through the implementation of the proper solution. A solution which ends up invariably being interference from outside controlling forces needing to “direct” the “problem”. Individuals have been indoctrinated to view the world in this fashion, and to view human interactions as “problems” needing molding and direction towards a certain outcome. As I explain below, a free economy spurred through natural human interaction is not a centrally planned entity. Central planning, and outside interference, ARE the forces themselves which results in the problems!
***My Response***
The fact that you view economics in general as a “problem” to be solved highlights a fundamental flaw inherent in your, as well as most people’s, thinking as it relates to human interaction, the projection of power, and governance in general.
Societies, and the flow of human lives, are naturally self structuring, and not centrally planned. Groups use central planning as a power play tool to manipulate societies and human lives to their whim, usually for reasons of short term personal gain.
A free market economy is a living entity, comprised mostly of mutually consensual, and beneficial, interactions between entities. It self regulates based upon the current and projected needs of the entities, and the societal groups they live in. As nature itself is likewise self regulating, and doesn’t follow a central plan, nor does a free market economy. The natural ecosystem and the economy are both negatively impacted by outside controlling interference directly proportional to the degree of interference that is impacted.
Jobs and wealth creation are unlimited because the potential of the human mind, consciousness itself, is unlimited. Jobs will constantly be created and will constantly evolve as circumstances dictate. That is the reason that the saying ‘necessity is the mother of invention’, is cliché. General human action, in any form, is the by product of free will, which is the action of unobstructed consciousness on the physical plain.
The “problems” come not from what type of central planning the controllers have decided to instill upon society, but from the central planning and the controllers themselves. The “problems” come from individuals who view society, the economy, and human interaction in general, as a mathematical “problem” or equation that can be solved through the application of a specific formula (no pun intended). However, because consciousness is dynamic, so is human interaction, and it can not be centrally planned, nor should it be.
There are three main approaches that people generally use when arguing issues of governance and politics.
The first, and most common, is the “effectiveness” principle. That is, individuals will discuss which policies and methods they think will lead to the most “beneficial” end result. Usually, with them also playing the role of arbiter as to what constitutes “beneficial”.
Second is the morality principle. When individuals will argue a point based on the perceived ethics or morality of a given issue. Usually, again with them playing arbiter as to what they believe constitutes morality, instead of first creating an ethical common ground with the person they are trying to persuade.
Lastly, and least popular of the three, is the legality argument. That is when one argues a position based upon its perceived legality in relation to current law. In the US’s case, that would be if whatever is being proposed conflicts with the Constitution (most things federal do).
In my opinion, morality is the most important of the three principle arguments, and trumps everything else. On a side note, however, the philosophy of liberty does also happen to empirically comply the most with the other two principles over other systems of governance. In terms of morality, there is a universal ethics, which is easily provable and recognizable by all sentient beings. The first step of this recognition ,was popularized by Descartes, in being self aware, and thus being able to recognize one’s own consciousness first before anything else. I think, therefor, I am.
Once one consciously recognizes their free will, the second thing they’ll notice is that obstructions of that free will, are naturally abhorrent to them. All sentient beings endowed with free will recognize that they do not appreciate violations of said free will, and will instinctively avoid such. Even those who violate the free will of others, will instinctively not tolerate the same (a thief does not want to be stolen from, a murder does not want to be murdered, etc.).
Thus, the most important reason to advocate for a liberty based philosophy, is that it is morally in compliance with universal ethics. A being endowed with consciousness, has the right to do as it wishes, as long as it does not violate the free will of another sentient. This is the golden rule, and the backbone of all libertarianism and freedom based philosophy. One can fact check the morality, and justification of any law, policy, or government by putting it up against that golden rule. Does the thing in question violate a person’s free will? If yes, it is not permissible. Sentient beings such as humans are supposed to be their own free actors. Throwing them into a manufactured economic reality is a violation of their autonomy.
In terms of the effectiveness principle, man and nature are intertwined, and symbiotic to a certain extent. In many ways, modern man is unable to abstain from manipulating his natural environment, however, he can make efforts to minimize the extent of his manipulation. Man is naturally the master of his domain, which is why we even bother to consider how his actions will effect nature in the first place. You are correct, that man does not need to limit the extent of his manipulation on the environment. However, if man exerts excessive manipulation on his natural environment, the backlash ends up having a detrimental effect on himself and others, so there is incentive not to do so. By contrast, manipulation of the economy is purely voluntary and has no net benefit to the system or to man himself when viewed abstractly.
The differences between manipulation of nature and the economy are several. Our manipulations of nature are based upon an understanding, through science, and we adjust how we change things as new data comes about. In economic systems, factions assume they know what they’re doing, but they have not tested their theories empirically, and so are faced with a multitude of unintended consequences and inefficiencies. They also do not adjust the mechanisms they carelessly implemented based upon results observed through empirical data. A proper analogy would be trying to change the way animals and plants interact, such as how bees pollinate flowers or how flowers incentivize bees. Unless you have an incredibly thorough knowledge of how these systems work, you’re going to end up majorly disrupting the balance of something in a way you probably never anticipated. In economic systems, outside controlling factions assume they know what they’re doing, but they have not tested their theories empirically, and so are faced with a multitude of unintended consequences and inefficiencies.
I find your examples of the biosphere interesting, in that you highlight what you believe to be negative aspects of the system. As you well know, the biosphere is much more than that. Yes, those aspects exist but so do growth, abundance, fruitful multiplication, cooperation, symbiosis, evolution, efficient waste management, an eternal life cycle, beauty, and a natural order. When viewed from a perspective of neutrality, there is seen a place for all of the aspects, the good and the “bad”. All play a necessary part in the system.
In terms of the economy, reputation and credibility become vastly important. Why does every website from google, to amazon, to local third parties all have a review section where you can rate and evaluate the goods or services? In a free market, one lives or dies from their reputation has individuals have to choose to voluntarily associate with them, and there is plenty of competition. Remember, it is inherently immoral, and hence illegal even under a free market system, to purposely violate the freedom of another so intentionally harming or defrauding someone would still not be legal or acceptable much less encouraged.
A free market system also historically leads to more wealth, more technological innovation, (as individuals are more free to create) and a higher standard of living. Freedom is what leads to progress and progression, not socialism (why I hate that the left has adopted that moniker). The lower class in the United States is richer than the greatest king or pharaoh of ancient times. The individual in the US has greater access to more wonders, creature comforts, conveniences and well being than the ancient all powerful rulers ever did. Ice on demand? TV? Internet? Automobiles? Air conditioning? These are things that are unimaginable to the pharaoh. By contrast, we have seen what increased government regulation and control leads to, as in the extreme cases of the USSR or North Korea. Poverty, inefficiency, misery, stagnation, starvation, and death.
The free market may not be perfect, there will always be people who commit crimes and try to victimize others. What you DON’T want, is to empower a government to be the one that commits the crimes and does the victimizing. I found it ironic that those who are most distraught over Trump getting into office, are those who believe in empowering the system to be able to have more control over themselves and others. You empower a system to a certain degree, what recourse do you have when that system then takes that power that you have given it, turns it around and oppresses you? It is much easier to deal with the one or two odd criminal individuals, or small town boss hog type corruption, than a massive all powerful federal leviathan. Can you depend on such a leviathan to govern and keep itself in check? What power do you have to ensure it does so?
Certain individuals especially should be wary of the dangers of large socialist states based upon a common shared history. (Classmate is jewish, if anyone should be distrustful of big government it should be them!)
His initial message:
“I appreciate you taking the time to flesh out your philosophy a bit. It gives one more to think about and chew on. I’ll respond here to some of the issues I have with your thesis above.
If we take your analogy to heart, what is our choice except to interfere in the natural ecosystem? Short of launching our species into outer space (which would have its own adverse affects on the planet), we can only talk about to what degree and in what areas we should interfere. And it is the same, I believe, with the market.
You are no doubt prepared to accept that the market should be like the biosphere: ruthless, complete with predators and prey, plagues, extinctions, and parasitism. And I would agree with you that both the market and natural selection have wrought fascinating results: in the case of the latter, humans.
Yet you would agree that humans haven’t always been so keen to keep their hands off the planet that produced them. So if you believe the ecosystem works best when left alone, you are asking a product of that system to obey fundamental rules that limit their aspirations, no?
It would be fair to say that most people who feel government has a role to play in the economy feel no different. Perhaps, then, it is just a matter of the extent of these rules rather than their presence.
If there is a more fundamental difference, people on the left tend to not be comfortable with the idea that the economy should function entirely like the natural world. Yes there are authoritarians who prefer central planning, yet many more are of the opinion that people simply shouldn’t be swindled by false advertising or scams or poisoned by their food or toys in the first place, rather than being forced to sue after the fact.”
Leave a Reply