Don Boudreaux has a fascinating post up in which he compares Intelligent Design and what he calls "Social Creationism" -- or in short form, statism. Intelligent Design hinges on the notion that the universe is so complex that natural forces could not have shaped it and hence an intelligent force is behind it. Statism, in a similar fashion, holds that undirected market forces cannot create a viable society and that government management is essential to this end:
A social deist assumes that sovereign power is necessary to design and maintain the foundation, but not the superstructure, of society. That is, a social deist regards conscious design and maintenance of the ‘constitutional’ level as necessary. Upon this foundation, social order grows unplanned.
Social deists are contrasted, on one hand, with "social creationists." Social creationists are members of that species of juvenile thinkers who regard conscious, central direction by a wise and caring higher human authority as necessary for all social order – not only for the foundation, but for all, or much, of what the foundation supports.
Economic central planners are prime examples of social creationists. In their view, government must not only create and enforce law (society’s foundation), it also must plan the course of the economy (society’s superstructure) – for example, which good and services to produce, and how to produce these.
Social creationists are not just socialists or the economic Left, but also authoritarian conservatives such as James Dobson, who hold that social collapse is inevitable without strict government regulation of personal behavior.
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"Social creationists are members of that species of juvenile thinkers who regard conscious, central direction by a wise and caring higher human authority as necessary for all social order – not only for the foundation, but for all, or much, of what the foundation supports."
Unfair; it's an overstatement or misrepresentation, sort of like me saying that libertarians are the sort of people who adamantly deny the laws of cause and effect and believe that human beings can live their lives completely isolated from each other, that the actions of one will never have any impact on the lives of others. When I find myself frustrated with conservative libertarians, those thoughts immediately jump to mind amid much fist shaking and muttering, but I can acknowledge in my calmer moments that most probably at least believe in cause and effect.
I have no interest in recieving direction from "a wise and caring higher human authority." I have a strong interest in people coming together and making laws to protect themselves from an unwise and uncaring higher human power-- ie, market forces out of control, coalitions of the very rich and very powerful, etc. That the people who come together and defend themselves from these things will do so by voting, by electing people to enforce the laws that are in their own best interests, is not at all the same thing as looking for that protective father figure and submitting to him in all things.
The fact that government does not always work this way can, I believe, be blamed more on those supposedly "free" and "unmuddied" market forces, on that "live and let live... sort of" libertarian attitude, than on soft and fuzzy leftists who want to be cuddled and coddled. Why don't we get what we vote for? Why don't politicians do what the people want them to do? Too often, money, money, money? And that's distributed by who?
I'll grant that Boudreaux was rather harsh in his language, especially considering that there are just as many libertarian idotarians are there are liberal and conservative.
Unfair; it's an overstatement or misrepresentation, sort of like me saying that libertarians are the sort of people who adamantly deny the laws of cause and effect and believe that human beings can live their lives completely isolated from each other, that the actions of one will never have any impact on the lives of others. When I find myself frustrated with conservative libertarians, those thoughts immediately jump to mind amid much fist shaking and muttering, but I can acknowledge in my calmer moments that most probably at least believe in cause and effect.
Libertarians do believe in cause and effect, which is why they oppose expansionist government. They also believe in the Law of Unintended Consequences, which is why they oppose such government follies as the Drug War.
I have no interest in recieving direction from "a wise and caring higher human authority." I have a strong interest in people coming together and making laws to protect themselves from an unwise and uncaring higher human power-- ie, market forces out of control, coalitions of the very rich and very powerful, etc. That the people who come together and defend themselves from these things will do so by voting, by electing people to enforce the laws that are in their own best interests, is not at all the same thing as looking for that protective father figure and submitting to him in all things.
So as long as that community action does not involve stealing my property or my freedom, I'm on board with that. But where there is coercion, there is no consent or true 'community' (see also: New London v. Kelo).
The fact that government does not always work this way can, I believe, be blamed more on those supposedly "free" and "unmuddied" market forces, on that "live and let live... sort of" libertarian attitude, than on soft and fuzzy leftists who want to be cuddled and coddled. Why don't we get what we vote for? Why don't politicians do what the people want them to do? Too often, money, money, money? And that's distributed by who?
Yes, this is the problem. That is why voluntary choice, not coercion, should determine the distribution of money.
Why don't we get what we vote for? We elect the same crooks to office year after year. The choice is in our hands and we screw it up most of the time. It's the electorate's fault.
Post a Comment