Socialism
Intelligence is often marred by hubris. Bureaucrats often believe that any solution can be obtained with the judicious application of the state in conjunction with ‘experts’. Much of Obama’s rhetoric has this flavor. This intensity of this attitude follows a definite gradation. Communists most intensely believe that with some state coercion coupled with development of planning by intelligent experts a country will be tremendously improved upon. Socialist belief is more moderate in intensity but nevertheless have what I would consider an unhealthy trust in the state. Liberal democrats of this US political landscape also believe this quite a bit, but not nearly as intensely as communist or socialist.
But their really is ridiculous amount of hubris in thinking that the state is the solution to the problem. I’m reminded of this every time I consider just how difficult it is to produce something other people want. Which brings me to the point of this post. I came across an essay explaining how a pencil is manufactured. The process makes obvious how no man, not matter how intelligent, would of been able to draw up plans for for manufacturing pencils.
This really gets at one of my core beliefs. Prediction that is not based in cold hard experience is not useful. Intelligent bureaucrats planning the economy must make many prediction disconnected from experience. Eventually this system falls apart. The problem is that the more intelligent you become the more likely you are to ignore the importance of experience in determining prediction. The most obvious example these days would be global warming. Nobody has any sense of what a slight increase in temperature will do to climate and yet many intelligent experts happily associate themselves with doomsday predictions if state planning is not implemented.
As if state planning will make things better. When has that ever been the case?
May 10th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
I think you’re making an error in assuming that liberals feel that state planning is teh BEST way to solve problems, they just feel it’s the only way open to them in many cases. Obviously the best solution to children dieing of neglect because their parents are drug addicts is for the parents to voluntarily and of their own volition get clean, find good jobs, and start taking proper care of their children. Failing that it would be great if other family members or neighbors or whatever saw the problem and helped the parents get clean and fix the problem. But if those things don’t happen, or if you’re a liberal living in Berkelely and you’re concerned about neglected children in the slums of Chicago, then government seems like the most practical way for you to have some positive effect on the problem, even if the solution isn’t perfect. Yes, it would definitely be better if american consumers to all start simultaneously boycotting companies that use slave labor in their third-world factories, but given that that isn’t happening, it seems like government is a way to get at least a partial improvement in the situation. And so on.
Also you’re going a bit far saying ‘when has the government ever improved any situation.’ The WPA and other government actions definitely helped pull us out of the Depression, the government has successfully managed many outbreaks of diseases in this country which have been devastating in other countries, the subway systems in NY and Boston actually work amazingly well, etc etc. Not to mention that I kind of like my interstate highway system, my police and military protection, and so forth.
May 11th, 2008 at 10:29 am
“Prediction that is not based in cold hard experience is not useful”
Good to know that you’ve embraced empiricism as the path to utility. That will be useful later.
“As if state planning will make things better. When has that ever been the case?”
I gave a very specific example of state planning saving tens of thousands of people from horrible Spanish Flu deaths because of the Japanese state restricting travel.
May 11th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Wait, so you’re saying that people that have spent years gaining experience might be better suited for making predictions in their field? Does that make them experts?