7 ms·

This piece gets posted here occasionally, and I really disagree with the conclusion that people think that we have to have government because they don't underst

This piece gets posted here occasionally, and I really disagree with the conclusion that people think that we have to have government because they don't understand the capabilities of non-directed, bottom-up systems. > Now, in the absence of faith in free people—in the unawareness that millions of tiny know-hows would naturally and miraculously form and cooperate to satisfy this necessity—the individual cannot help but reach the erroneous conclusion that mail can be delivered only by governmental "master-minding." It's possible to understand that non-directed systems can produce impressive results and still believe that a directed system might be the right choice for certain situations. Plenty of biologists were Marxists for example (JD Bernal, Steven Jay Gould was very left wing). Surely, they would have understood that complex organisms don't arise from central planning, but from an undirected, emergent process. Yet they also believed that government should play a major role in human society.

ChefDenominator 10y ago
You might consider brushing up on your understanding of formal and informal fallacies. Oy gevalt.
jxramos 10y ago
I can't find the source but I remember hearing of some tale of Margaret Thatcher strolling around London or someplace with some Soviet official. Supposedly he was astounded at the bustling economic activity whizzing about them. He asked her something along the lines of "who is your central planner that has yielded all this?", to which she replied something to the effect of "no, one, this is the Free market operated by individuals, etc etc." Doing a cursory search for the above, I did find this quote that seemed to capture her sentiments against central planning, to which I think a lot of people use the I, Pencil fable to show the folly that some centralized individuals would have knowledge at all times and all places about what goods and services should be in demand and what they should be priced at and that there's an arrogance to even attempt so much. "The lesson of the economic history of Europe in the 70's and 80's is that central planning and detailed control do not work and that personal endeavour and initiative do. That a State-controlled economy is a recipe for low growth and that free enterprise within a framework of law brings better results…. And that means action to free markets, action to widen choice, action to reduce government intervention. Our aim should not be more and more detailed regulation from the centre: it should be to deregulate and to remove the constraints on trade.”
- nickik 10y ago
  I don't think we needed the economic history of the 70's and 80's to no this. There are couple of funny true story about the Soviet Union. In one a Soviet Economics Professor went to the US in the early 90s. He lived with a US professor, he had the plan to bake some sort of local bread and they went to the shop to buy flower (and other things), but it was a particular kind of flower. Somehow the show this note have this on the shelves so the US prof went to a clerk and ask him if they had some of that flower in the back. The clerk went off, and came back with the flower. Seeing this the Soviet prof remarked that he was very impressed how highly economics professors were valued in the US.
- GabrielF00 10y ago
  To be clear, my point isn't that central planning is good. My point is that people may prefer centralized control for certain things even though they understand what non-directed processes can accomplish. To use the author's example of the post office, there may be reasons why one might want the post office to be a public entity beyond "only government could build such a complex system". For instance, it might be reasonable to wonder whether a postal system that evolved organically would cover everyone in a society, or would rural people or others who are expensive to reach be left out. Mail delivery probably qualifies as something we want everyone to have access to in order for a lot of our systems to function.
  - noarchy 10y ago
    Governments don't seem to want competition for their postal monopolies. There is the interesting case of the American Letter Mail Company, which tried to do this in the mid-1800s, but was shut down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company
- duncanawoods 10y ago
  > some tale of Margaret Thatcher strolling around London or someplace with some Soviet official That sounds so absurdly fictional that it can only have been a joke or bad propaganda. It fails the smell test not only for Thatcher to be strolling around London with a soviet official but for the soviet official to be oblivious to Thatcherism famous for its deregulation, union-busting and privatisation.
nickik 10y ago
That is true, but I would say that its the first step to understand this fact. If you do not 'get' this, then its very hard to convince people to of any of this.

ChefDenominator 10y ago

You might consider brushing up on your understanding of formal and informal fallacies. Oy gevalt.

jxramos 10y ago

I can't find the source but I remember hearing of some tale of Margaret Thatcher strolling around London or someplace with some Soviet official. Supposedly he was astounded at the bustling economic activity whizzing about them. He asked her something along the lines of "who is your central planner that has yielded all this?", to which she replied something to the effect of "no, one, this is the Free market operated by individuals, etc etc." Doing a cursory search for the above, I did find this quote that seemed to capture her sentiments against central planning, to which I think a lot of people use the I, Pencil fable to show the folly that some centralized individuals would have knowledge at all times and all places about what goods and services should be in demand and what they should be priced at and that there's an arrogance to even attempt so much. "The lesson of the economic history of Europe in the 70's and 80's is that central planning and detailed control do not work and that personal endeavour and initiative do. That a State-controlled economy is a recipe for low growth and that free enterprise within a framework of law brings better results…. And that means action to free markets, action to widen choice, action to reduce government intervention. Our aim should not be more and more detailed regulation from the centre: it should be to deregulate and to remove the constraints on trade.”

nickik 10y ago
I don't think we needed the economic history of the 70's and 80's to no this. There are couple of funny true story about the Soviet Union. In one a Soviet Economics Professor went to the US in the early 90s. He lived with a US professor, he had the plan to bake some sort of local bread and they went to the shop to buy flower (and other things), but it was a particular kind of flower. Somehow the show this note have this on the shelves so the US prof went to a clerk and ask him if they had some of that flower in the back. The clerk went off, and came back with the flower. Seeing this the Soviet prof remarked that he was very impressed how highly economics professors were valued in the US.
GabrielF00 10y ago
To be clear, my point isn't that central planning is good. My point is that people may prefer centralized control for certain things even though they understand what non-directed processes can accomplish. To use the author's example of the post office, there may be reasons why one might want the post office to be a public entity beyond "only government could build such a complex system". For instance, it might be reasonable to wonder whether a postal system that evolved organically would cover everyone in a society, or would rural people or others who are expensive to reach be left out. Mail delivery probably qualifies as something we want everyone to have access to in order for a lot of our systems to function.
- noarchy 10y ago
  Governments don't seem to want competition for their postal monopolies. There is the interesting case of the American Letter Mail Company, which tried to do this in the mid-1800s, but was shut down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company
duncanawoods 10y ago
> some tale of Margaret Thatcher strolling around London or someplace with some Soviet official That sounds so absurdly fictional that it can only have been a joke or bad propaganda. It fails the smell test not only for Thatcher to be strolling around London with a soviet official but for the soviet official to be oblivious to Thatcherism famous for its deregulation, union-busting and privatisation.

nickik 10y ago

That is true, but I would say that its the first step to understand this fact. If you do not 'get' this, then its very hard to convince people to of any of this.