Suppose you’re sick and have had a mild fever for a couple of days. A friend tells you about a wonderful new doctor. This physician has a great personality and wonderful bedside manner. His credentials sound good and he promises the most effective treatment. You set up an appointment. The doctor examines you and prescribes the latest medication, one reputed to solve your problem quickly. Very nice – except that your temperature goes up and you feel worse for a week. However the doctor is so nice and has such a good personality that he is able to comfort you.
Now next year you get the same sickness but that doctor is not available so you go to a different one. This guy is not nearly as personable. Worse yet, he refuses to prescribe any medication saying that your illness will clear up on its own in a few days. You argue that you need treatment but he continues to refuse so you go away angry. However within two days you are again well.
Which of those doctors is really competent? Which should you trust next time you get a similar disease? If you answered the second, go to the head of the class – and be prepared to endure criticism for that choice.
“What's that?” you say. Nobody would continue to trust a doctor who makes things worse. Are you sure about that? Some actually prefer a physician who provides emotional support to one with less personality but better medical skills.
Now change the situation a bit. This time the patient is the national economy, disrupted by business failures and unemployment. Shouldn't we prefer an economic “physician” who refuses to provide ineffective treatment? Isn’t that better than comforting words accompanied by counterproductive solutions? Yet it is nearly an article of faith today that the measures that have failed repeatedly are the only solution to our economic woes and that the “do-nothing physician” is either incompetent or uncaring, probably both.
Our history has several examples of economic problems, both with and without federal intervention to fix those problems. That intervention has a terrible track record, yet most people assume it is necessary. That track record began with the intervention leading up to and during the Great Depression. Prior to that time we had suffered many economic downturns, all short-lived. Then Hoover and congress reacted to the stock market crash of 1929 with punitive tariffs, wage controls, and other intervention. Roosevelt increased the government controls. Interestingly, unemployment was trending downward when the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were imposed which means that the treatment was not applied until the patient was already improving.
In fact unemployment was never higher than 10% before those government measures. However by a year after that intervention unemployment rose to nearly 30% - and remained above 20% for nearly three years thereafter. The patient was worse but the doctor claimed his treatment was working. In fact the depression did not end until World War II intervened.
Contrast this with Reagan’s action (or lack thereof) after the 1987 stock market crash. Reagan refused to intervene and as might be expected was excoriated for that. Politicians and the news media publicly called him everything from inept to uncaring. We can only imagine the unprintable words they used in private. A lesser man would have caved to the pressure but Reagan held firm. His stubbornness was followed by sustained growth and low unemployment.*
What is hard to believe is how effectively the proponents of government economic intervention have sold their bill of good. Today it is considered axiomatic that government should manage the economy although there is essentially no evidence that government has ever done so effectively. We keep insisting that the doctor should act, even after his treatment repeatedly worsens the illness.
Only when voters demand that government cease meddling will our economy recover quickly from the normal ups and downs of this natural world.
(For more information on the benefits of avoiding inappropriate action, see
http://hallillywhite.blogspot.com/2009/06/dont-just-do-something-stand-there.html)
*The intervention by Hoover, Roosevelt and congress, and Reagan’s different approach are documented on pp 70-74 of Thomas Sowell’s book, Intellectuals and Society. Contrary to popular belief, Hoover did intervene and was in fact rather proud that he considered himself the first president to deal with a deteriorating economy.
Showing posts with label big government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label big government. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
A Conflict of Visions, Part 2
Continuing the review of A Conflict of Visions, Ideological Origins of Political Struggles by Thomas Sowell, I’ll look at some of the specific ways different visions affect our thinking. It is not feasible in this review to describe all the concepts this book treats, so a couple of examples will have to do.
One is the concept of equality. In the constrained view, equality means equal opportunity consistent with a person's ability and resources. As long as we do not remove the options different people have, they have equality, everybody has a chance to try whatever he wants with the opportunity to compete fairly. The unconstrained view, on the other hand, seeks equality of outcome. It is not enough to allow everyone to apply for a job and be selected on merit. Instead we must be certain that all have an equal chance to get it. In this vision, a 120-pound woman should have the same right to be a firefighter as a 200-pound man who can carry twice as much fire hose as can she.
The unconstrained view focuses on outcome, trying to make the outcome of everything be what those with this view believe it should be. However the constrained view tends to focus on the process, desiring a process that gives everyone a chance. In the constrained view, the 120-pound woman is welcome to try to become a firefighter but she must demonstrate the same ability as the 200-pound man.
Another example is the idea of knowledge and reason. In the extreme unconstrained view, we know nothing except what we can learn by our reason; the customs and knowledge of the ages are considered suspect or worse. However the constrained vision views individual or even group reason as suspect since no person or group of people can have all knowledge, nor is their reasoning ability or morality likely to be perfect. The constrained vision tends to believe that we should pay a great deal of attention to the accumulated wisdom of the ages and change the practices derived therefrom only carefully.
In this book Sowell follows many writers from the past and present with Adam Smith being the archetype of the constrained vision and William Godwin that for the unconstrained. He also regards the American Revolution with its resulting constitutionally limited government as a result of the constrained view and the French revolution as a result of the unconstrained view.
In summary, the unconstrained vision sees mankind (or at least the elite) as capable of managing, essentially micromanaging, our entire economy and society and morally equipped to do so. The constrained vision views that idea as the height of arrogance. Society is so complex as to be beyond our ability to manage all the details, especially the details of the lives of others. In the constrained view, each person manages his own affairs within the limits imposed by a society that has developed those limits over centuries of experience (though the societal constraints are constantly changing).
This leads those with the constrained vision to be strong supporters of individual freedom and responsibility, believing that each person should earn his own way and be accountable for his own errors and crimes. Criminals, the poor etc. are that way because of individual choices they made. On the other hand, those with the unconstrained vision tend to think that “society” is responsible for everything. Crime exists because society caused it. Poverty exists because of defects in society – defects those with the unconstrained vision believe themselves capable of correcting.
The result of these visions is that people tend to be quite consistent in their beliefs on a variety of issues. Those with the constrained vision tend to want limited government, penalties for criminals, military preparation to protect against national enemies etc. However those with the unconstrained vision tend to prefer powerful government, rehabilitation for criminals, negotiation instead of military power etc. In both cases, their unexamined visions govern how they think about all those issues.
This book is so dense with information that a review of reasonable length cannot do justice to it. To really “get it” you need to read it. All and in all, it is an excellent book, one I believe every politically active citizen should read. In fact if I had my way it would be required reading in every high school in the country. It will help each side understand the other in many of our conflicts.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
One is the concept of equality. In the constrained view, equality means equal opportunity consistent with a person's ability and resources. As long as we do not remove the options different people have, they have equality, everybody has a chance to try whatever he wants with the opportunity to compete fairly. The unconstrained view, on the other hand, seeks equality of outcome. It is not enough to allow everyone to apply for a job and be selected on merit. Instead we must be certain that all have an equal chance to get it. In this vision, a 120-pound woman should have the same right to be a firefighter as a 200-pound man who can carry twice as much fire hose as can she.
The unconstrained view focuses on outcome, trying to make the outcome of everything be what those with this view believe it should be. However the constrained view tends to focus on the process, desiring a process that gives everyone a chance. In the constrained view, the 120-pound woman is welcome to try to become a firefighter but she must demonstrate the same ability as the 200-pound man.
Another example is the idea of knowledge and reason. In the extreme unconstrained view, we know nothing except what we can learn by our reason; the customs and knowledge of the ages are considered suspect or worse. However the constrained vision views individual or even group reason as suspect since no person or group of people can have all knowledge, nor is their reasoning ability or morality likely to be perfect. The constrained vision tends to believe that we should pay a great deal of attention to the accumulated wisdom of the ages and change the practices derived therefrom only carefully.
In this book Sowell follows many writers from the past and present with Adam Smith being the archetype of the constrained vision and William Godwin that for the unconstrained. He also regards the American Revolution with its resulting constitutionally limited government as a result of the constrained view and the French revolution as a result of the unconstrained view.
In summary, the unconstrained vision sees mankind (or at least the elite) as capable of managing, essentially micromanaging, our entire economy and society and morally equipped to do so. The constrained vision views that idea as the height of arrogance. Society is so complex as to be beyond our ability to manage all the details, especially the details of the lives of others. In the constrained view, each person manages his own affairs within the limits imposed by a society that has developed those limits over centuries of experience (though the societal constraints are constantly changing).
This leads those with the constrained vision to be strong supporters of individual freedom and responsibility, believing that each person should earn his own way and be accountable for his own errors and crimes. Criminals, the poor etc. are that way because of individual choices they made. On the other hand, those with the unconstrained vision tend to think that “society” is responsible for everything. Crime exists because society caused it. Poverty exists because of defects in society – defects those with the unconstrained vision believe themselves capable of correcting.
The result of these visions is that people tend to be quite consistent in their beliefs on a variety of issues. Those with the constrained vision tend to want limited government, penalties for criminals, military preparation to protect against national enemies etc. However those with the unconstrained vision tend to prefer powerful government, rehabilitation for criminals, negotiation instead of military power etc. In both cases, their unexamined visions govern how they think about all those issues.
This book is so dense with information that a review of reasonable length cannot do justice to it. To really “get it” you need to read it. All and in all, it is an excellent book, one I believe every politically active citizen should read. In fact if I had my way it would be required reading in every high school in the country. It will help each side understand the other in many of our conflicts.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
Monday, August 31, 2009
A Conflict of Visions, Part 1
In my last blog I discussed the different kinds of rights, rights to be free from certain types government interference compared to rights to something someone else must work for. I'm going to follow up with a review of a book that explains many of the reasons some want to restrict our rights to protection while others believe we should have rights to what others produce. The book is, A Conflict of Visions, Ideological Origins of Political Struggles by Thomas Sowell, 232pp plus notes and index, William Morrow and Company, Inc. New York, 1987
Though relatively old, this book is still fresh and provides insights into the roots of many differences in our world today. It explains reasons why people of different political persuasions often talk past each other, each considering the other either immoral or stupid, perhaps both. Because of unexamined visions, they see the world very differently and even give different meanings to the same words.
Sowell's expressed intent here is not to support either vision but to get people to think about and understand them. “We will do almost anything for our visions, except think about them. The purpose of this book is to think about them.” While that may not lead to agreement, it should at least lead to more productive discussion. I believe he does a good job of maintaining neutrality in this book. His later book, The Vision of the Anointed takes a different stance, much in favor of what he calls the constrained vision. I intend to review that book next.
A vision, as used in this book, is a mental map of our world, especially of the nature of people in that world. As with all maps, it cannot include every detail of that world but must be simplified to those parts the vision holder takes as most important and representative of the world. There are an unlimited number of available visions, possibly as many as there are people on earth. However we can simplify these by categorizing them as “constrained” or “unconstrained.” Of course this is not an either-or situation, there is really a continuum of visions between the extremes. There are also hybrid visions (such as Marxism) which consider part of the world (the past) to be constrained and part (the future) unconstrained.
These visions are generally unexamined and most people don't even realize that their thinking is based more or less on one of them. However much of their world-view is the direct result of which vision they accept. That especially applies to political beliefs.
The constrained vision regards man as imperfect, both morally and intellectually. Though this vision does recognize the opportunity and need for improvement, it holds that human imperfection must be considered in all public activities. Each person contributes best in his sphere of competence and the end result is that society evolves in such a way that it works. Nobody is competent in everything but the total knowledge spread throughout the populace is greater than any small group of experts could ever posses. This vision also holds that we cannot trust everybody to be moral, even the so-called elites. Therefore people with the constrained vision usually reject the idea that an elite should rule or make decisions for everybody. They also tend to pay attention to trade-offs since they do not expect perfection. If a trade-off brings improvement, that is what should be done.
The unconstrained vision regards man as potentially perfectible on this earth, again both morally and intellectually. Indeed the unconstrained view tends to equate the intellectual with the moral, believing that reason will lead to morality. Though this vision recognizes current imperfections, it tends to hold that they are correctable and often assumes that they will soon be corrected. In this view, the elite will teach the masses and bring everybody up to their level of articulated wisdom and ability. Thus those who accept the unconstrained vision often ignore human weaknesses in their efforts to build a new society.
Further, the unconstrained view holds that it is the current institutions that stand in the way of that perfection and that it is the duty of the intellectually advanced to break down those obstacles, over the objections of the masses if necessary, and indeed by force if that is what it takes. This leads naturally to a belief that society is responsible for most actions and a rejection of individual responsibility. It also promotes acceptance of an intellectual elite who should be the surrogate decision-makers for the world. That of course is consistent with an elitist big government controlling most or all of the affairs of our lives. The unconstrained vision tends to reject trade-offs, seeking perfection instead. It regards a trade-off as an obstacle to the real solution.
The constrained view, on the other hand, holds that no person or small group of people is wise and knowledgeable enough to make all decisions for everybody. Even if they were, there is no assurance of the morality of such a person or group, so we cannot trust them to act in the best interest of their fellowman. In this view, each person is capable in his/her own area and should make decisions based on that ability, not as directed by some remote authority. This view is more consistent with a limited government philosophy.
These two visions tend to dominate much of our public discussion. Which vision a person accepts correlates with his conception of knowledge, morality, power, rationality, freedom, and law. Most of the book is devoted to exploration of how these concepts are affected by constrained vs. unconstrained visions.
(To be continued, including some specific examples of how the two different visions affect what people believe.)
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
Though relatively old, this book is still fresh and provides insights into the roots of many differences in our world today. It explains reasons why people of different political persuasions often talk past each other, each considering the other either immoral or stupid, perhaps both. Because of unexamined visions, they see the world very differently and even give different meanings to the same words.
Sowell's expressed intent here is not to support either vision but to get people to think about and understand them. “We will do almost anything for our visions, except think about them. The purpose of this book is to think about them.” While that may not lead to agreement, it should at least lead to more productive discussion. I believe he does a good job of maintaining neutrality in this book. His later book, The Vision of the Anointed takes a different stance, much in favor of what he calls the constrained vision. I intend to review that book next.
A vision, as used in this book, is a mental map of our world, especially of the nature of people in that world. As with all maps, it cannot include every detail of that world but must be simplified to those parts the vision holder takes as most important and representative of the world. There are an unlimited number of available visions, possibly as many as there are people on earth. However we can simplify these by categorizing them as “constrained” or “unconstrained.” Of course this is not an either-or situation, there is really a continuum of visions between the extremes. There are also hybrid visions (such as Marxism) which consider part of the world (the past) to be constrained and part (the future) unconstrained.
These visions are generally unexamined and most people don't even realize that their thinking is based more or less on one of them. However much of their world-view is the direct result of which vision they accept. That especially applies to political beliefs.
The constrained vision regards man as imperfect, both morally and intellectually. Though this vision does recognize the opportunity and need for improvement, it holds that human imperfection must be considered in all public activities. Each person contributes best in his sphere of competence and the end result is that society evolves in such a way that it works. Nobody is competent in everything but the total knowledge spread throughout the populace is greater than any small group of experts could ever posses. This vision also holds that we cannot trust everybody to be moral, even the so-called elites. Therefore people with the constrained vision usually reject the idea that an elite should rule or make decisions for everybody. They also tend to pay attention to trade-offs since they do not expect perfection. If a trade-off brings improvement, that is what should be done.
The unconstrained vision regards man as potentially perfectible on this earth, again both morally and intellectually. Indeed the unconstrained view tends to equate the intellectual with the moral, believing that reason will lead to morality. Though this vision recognizes current imperfections, it tends to hold that they are correctable and often assumes that they will soon be corrected. In this view, the elite will teach the masses and bring everybody up to their level of articulated wisdom and ability. Thus those who accept the unconstrained vision often ignore human weaknesses in their efforts to build a new society.
Further, the unconstrained view holds that it is the current institutions that stand in the way of that perfection and that it is the duty of the intellectually advanced to break down those obstacles, over the objections of the masses if necessary, and indeed by force if that is what it takes. This leads naturally to a belief that society is responsible for most actions and a rejection of individual responsibility. It also promotes acceptance of an intellectual elite who should be the surrogate decision-makers for the world. That of course is consistent with an elitist big government controlling most or all of the affairs of our lives. The unconstrained vision tends to reject trade-offs, seeking perfection instead. It regards a trade-off as an obstacle to the real solution.
The constrained view, on the other hand, holds that no person or small group of people is wise and knowledgeable enough to make all decisions for everybody. Even if they were, there is no assurance of the morality of such a person or group, so we cannot trust them to act in the best interest of their fellowman. In this view, each person is capable in his/her own area and should make decisions based on that ability, not as directed by some remote authority. This view is more consistent with a limited government philosophy.
These two visions tend to dominate much of our public discussion. Which vision a person accepts correlates with his conception of knowledge, morality, power, rationality, freedom, and law. Most of the book is devoted to exploration of how these concepts are affected by constrained vs. unconstrained visions.
(To be continued, including some specific examples of how the two different visions affect what people believe.)
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
