Say what you want
Say what you will
'Cos I find you think what makes it easier
And lies spread on lies
We don't care
Belief is our relief
We don't care
-Roland Orzabal, Tears For Fears, Ideas As Opiates
For the mainstream, our social problems can be simplified into three “wise monkey” solutions:
First, speak no evil-throw money at every problem.
Everyone desires a free lunch. Almost everybody believes that they deserve a special place in this world. Since society’s interests are divergent, such sense of entitlement should come at the expense of someone else. It’s usually dignified and justified with the word “right”. One man’s effort is another man’s privilege.
For them, scarcity of resources can only solved by forcible redistribution. It doesn’t really matter if there are limitations to the scale of taxation. It also doesn’t matter if redistribution reduces the incentives to produce and trade. It doesn’t matter if “picking winners” takes away resources meant for productive activities which have been meant to enhance livelihood. The only thing significant is to be at the receiving end. And it’s hardly ever been asked “when is enough, enough”?
Heck, it would even be politically incorrect to argue for prudence. ‘Moral’ justifications demand for immediate gratification. It’s almost always about NOW. Forget the future.
That’s why the intellectual classes long came up with varied theories in support of these political demands.
Importantly that’s why the political classes are enamoured with these concepts. Redistribution enhances only their power, esteem and control over the others. And that’s why “inflation” has long been a part of human nature, since the introduction of government.
For as long as the system is tolerant of such nebulous tradeoff, trouble can be kept at bay, ergo speak no evil.
The other way to see it is that while everyone wants to rule the world, in reality this isn’t feasible. It’s a mass delusion. The universal law of scarcity always prevails. By force of nature, artificially induced imbalances are resolved eventually.
Second, see no evil-elect or put in place a virtuous leader.
The popular redress to most social problems has been premised mostly on hope, cosmetically embellished by “specific” ennobling goals.
In times of frustrations, the next alternative has been to look for a saviour.
Yet hope is mostly anchored on symbolism. And these are what elections are mostly all about. Even if one’s vote doesn’t truly count, everybody believes they do. Elections are reduced to the polemic of self-import.
Hardly has the directions of policies been the context of any meaningful discussion. People’s arguments will always be simplified to what seems “moral” in the popular sense. Yet, a vote on a person to office is a carte blanche vote on the ensuing policies. But it’s hardly about stakes involved and the prospective costs, but mostly about emotions and the feeling of being in the winning camp.
And since the world has been condensed into strictly a “moral” sphere, political leaders are most frequently deemed to have been transformed into demigods.
Once in power, people mistakenly believe that these entities have transcended the laws of scarcity. People have assumed that they possess the superlative knowledge that is needed to effect the exigent balance on a complex and continuously evolving society. These leaders are presumed to know of our needs, our values, our priorities and our preferences, which lay as basis of our actions in response to ever changing conditions.
Not of only of knowledge, but people also expect leaders and officials to dispense justice and equity according to our sense of definition. Many see these leaders as reflecting on their values. And that’s why many fall for the dichotomous trappings of the well meaning “motivations”. Yet, motivations barely distinguish the role of “means” and “ends”.
Essentially genuflecting on hope to see one’s moral desires as represented by politics can be construed as refusing to see evil for what it is.
And it’s only when the rubber meets the road, from which people come to realize that their expectations have misaligned with reality-and usually through deepening frustrations or in the aftermath of some horrifying outcome.
Hardly has it been comprehended that politics and bureaucratic activities are merely HUMAN activities.
That leaders and officials are subject to the very same foibles as anyone else. That these people see things and act according to the incentives brought about by their interpretation of events, their existing limited and ‘biased’ knowledge and are swayed by influences brought about by cognitive biases, networks, familiarity, assessment of prevailing conditions, information relayed by the underlings, varying degree of stakes of involved and et. al.
Importantly like everyone else, their actions skewed based on personal values. So when a political or bureaucratic leader forces upon their sense of moral vision to a constituency and which has not well received, the result in some cases has been political upheavals.
Yet in spite of the repeated errors, people never learn from George Santayana’s admonition that those who ignore the past are condemned to repeat it.
The third intuitive recourse to any social problems is to hear no evil by enacting new rules/laws.
Like any “throw the money” and “virtuous leader” syndromes, rules are little seen for its costs but nevertheless oftenly envisaged as preferred nostrums to existing problems as identified from the biased viewpoint of the observer/s.
Causal factors are hardly considered in the appraisal of the existing problems. What seems more important is to automatically blame market forces and unduly impose proscriptions. Never mind if the past ills have been caused by the same underlying dynamic-previous interventionism.
The act of simply “doing something” is meant to be perceptibly seen by the voting public for political purposes (extension of career by vote or by appointment). Thus the “hear no evil” therapy, which is merely adding rules for extant fallibilities, are simply props for more of the same malaise.
Many rules, regulations, edicts or laws are imposed upon the “populist demand of the moment”, without the realization that rules, which tend to realign people’s behaviour, can cause huge unintended consequences and likewise entails costs of enforcement. Hence when new rules create distortions in the political economic order, the instinctive response is to have more of rules or regulations.
Importantly, popular clamor for new rules/laws hardly differentiates “rule of laws” against “rule of men”.
Rule of Law are in effect, the guiding principles or the laws that had been a legacy from our forefathers, as the great Friedrich August von Hayek wrote, ``Political wisdom, dearly bought by the bitter experience of generations, is often lost through the gradual change in the meaning of the words which express its maxims[1]”. (underscore mine)
This means because these laws have been constant, are anticipated by all and easily observed or practiced, they become part of our heritage. Again we quote the Mr. Hayek, ``Stripped of all technicalities, this means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand.[2]”
In stateless Somalia, customary laws serve as default laws after her government had been eviscerated,
Benjamin Powell writes[3], ``Somali law is based on custom interpreted and enforced by decentralized clan networks. The Somali customary law, Xeer, has existed since pre-colonial times and continued to operate under colonial rule. The Somali nation-state tried to replace the Xeer with government legislation and enforcement. However, in rural areas and border regions where the Somali government lacked firm control, people continued to apply the common law. When the Somali state collapsed, much of the population returned to their traditional legal system... But Somalia does demonstrate that a reasonable level of law and order can be provided by nonstate customary legal systems and that such systems are capable of providing some basis for economic development. This is particularly true when the alternative is not a limited government but instead a particularly brutal and repressive government such as Somalia had and is likely to have again if a government is reestablished.” [bold highlights mine]
That’s simply proof that “rule of laws” exists even outside of the realm of governments, which also goes to show that society can exist stateless. None of this is meant to say that we should be stateless, but the point is rule of law is what organizes society.
Importantly, “rules of law” have been passed through the ages as a means to protect the citizens from the abuses of the authority, again Mr. Hayek[4],
``The main point is that, in the use of its coercive powers, the discretion of the authorities should be so strictly bound by laws laid down beforehand that the individual can foresee with fair certainty how these powers will be used in particular instances; and that the laws themselves are truly general and create no privileges for class or person because they are made in view of their long-run effects and therefore in necessary ignorance of who will be the particular individuals who will be benefited or harmed by them. That the law should be an instrument to be used by the individuals for their ends and not an instrument used upon the people by the legislators is the ultimate meaning of the Rule of Law.” (emphasis added)
In short, the fundamental characteristics of respected and effective laws are those that to limited, steady or constant, designed for the benefit of everyone and importantly a law that is clearly enforceable.
Of course this doesn’t overrule the occasional use of arbitrary laws, but nevertheless arbitrary rules should compliment and NOT displace the essence of the “rule of law”.
Mr. Hayek quotes David Hume[5], ``No government, at that time, appeared in the world, nor is perhaps found in the records of any history, which subsisted without a mixture of some arbitrary authority, committed to some magistrate; and it might reasonably, beforehand, appear doubtful whether human society could ever arrive at that state of perfection, as to support itself with no other control, than the general and rigid maxims of law and equity.”
In essence, in contrast to mainstream thinking, the rule of law and not simply arbitrary regulations, serves as the central element to well functioning societies.
Former President Ronald Reagan nicely captures part of our “Three Wise Monkey” solution as seen by the mainstream, “The government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it”, from which I would add, “if subsidies are not enough, elect one who makes sure it would”.
[1] Hayek, Friedrich August von, Decline of the Rule of Law, Part 1, The Freeman April 20, 1953
[2] Hayek, Friedrich August von, Decline of the Rule of Law, Part 1, The Freeman April 20, 1953
[3] Powell, Benjamin; Somalia: Failed State, Economic Success? The Freeman
[4] Hayek, Friedrich August von, The Road To Serfdom
[5] Hume, David; The history of England, from the invasion of Julius Caesar to the revolution, we earlier quoted this see Graphic: Origin of The Rule of Law
No comments:
Post a Comment