To this extent, Massimo has correctly surmised that I don’t seem to be a hard-core libertarian. The reason is twofold: one, we live in an environment radically different from the one in which we evolved, which was in Paleolithic hunter-gatherer bands and tribes of a few dozen to a few hundred individuals that were largely egalitarian. Once these bands and tribes began to coalesce into chiefdoms and states, economics shifted from egalitarian to hierarchical, allowing a few at the top to succeed through gains usually ill-gotten, while the vast majority of everyone else remained impoverished. Without a strict set of rules, well-defined and vigorously enforced, people will try to game the system. My analogy here is sports. As I demonstrated in the March issue of Scientific American, in an extensive research article on why athletes dope (focusing on cycling, track-and-field, and baseball), once athletes begin to cheat the system, or think that others are cheating the system, it will quickly break down. Thus, athletic organizations and sporting sanctioning bodies, need a clearly defined set of rules that are rigorously enforced. When that is in place, athletes are best left free to compete, and from that excellence will emerge.
Analogously, individuals, businesses, and corporations must be free to compete in a free market that is situated within a clearly defined set of rules that are enforced. Most generally, I demonstrate in The Mind of the Market that we need political states based on the rule of law, with property rights, a secure and trustworthy banking and monetary system, economic stability, a reliable infrastructure and the freedom to move about the country, freedom of the press, freedom of association, education, protection of civil liberties, and a clean and safe environment. We need a robust military for protection of our liberties from attacks by other states. We need a potent police force for protection of our freedoms from attacks by other people within the state. We need a viable legislative system for establishing fair and just laws. We need an effective judicial system for the equitable enforcement of those fair and just laws.
The best politico-economic system to date is a liberal democracy and free market capitalism, or democratic-capitalism. In a system of democratic-capitalism, social liberalism and fiscal conservatism is a synergistic marriage that leads to the greatest prosperity, the greatest liberty, and the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
—Michael Shermer, Altadena, California, June 16, 2008
Analogously, individuals, businesses, and corporations must be free to compete in a free market that is situated within a clearly defined set of rules that are enforced. Most generally, I demonstrate in The Mind of the Market that we need political states based on the rule of law, with property rights, a secure and trustworthy banking and monetary system, economic stability, a reliable infrastructure and the freedom to move about the country, freedom of the press, freedom of association, education, protection of civil liberties, and a clean and safe environment. We need a robust military for protection of our liberties from attacks by other states. We need a potent police force for protection of our freedoms from attacks by other people within the state. We need a viable legislative system for establishing fair and just laws. We need an effective judicial system for the equitable enforcement of those fair and just laws.
The best politico-economic system to date is a liberal democracy and free market capitalism, or democratic-capitalism. In a system of democratic-capitalism, social liberalism and fiscal conservatism is a synergistic marriage that leads to the greatest prosperity, the greatest liberty, and the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
—Michael Shermer, Altadena, California, June 16, 2008
"Thus, athletic organizations and sporting sanctioning bodies, need a clearly defined set of rules that are rigorously enforced. When that is in place, athletes are best left free to compete, and from that excellence will emerge."
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that corporations are not content to sit back and accept a set of rules. Without actually cheating, they frequently lobby politicians to alter the rules in their favor. For example, American drug companies forced a ban on cheaper imported medications. The recent farm bill was really corporate welfare disguised as aid. And after 911 the airlines got federal aid while other more hurt businesses received nothing. He who makes the rules receives the gold; and corporations demand a say in the rules, especially if the rules have the added effect of harming the competition.
In a system of democratic-capitalism, social liberalism and fiscal conservatism is a synergistic marriage that leads to the greatest prosperity, the greatest liberty, and the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
ReplyDeleteHere I must pose a first question: "greatest" compared to what? To a theoretical maximum? (I doubt there is such a "calculation" anyway) Or to all other systems ever experimented by humanity?
And second: I'd be curious to know what constitutes "democratic-capitalism". Is that only what the USA does? Or does it encompass Western Europe too? Because they do not work exactly the same way, and I'd say their results are not the same either, are they? Yet, both USA and Europe fit the "democratic" and the "capitalist" parts of the terms.
Maybe I just have to read the book, but I'm skeptical it will actually provide the answers to the above.
In responding to J., I would argue that it is Europe that actually has a more democratic capitalism. And it is more democratic because it has political traditions and parties that have more traction in defending workers and the public interests.
ReplyDeleteI have much more to say, but I also have a headache.
quoting thedarwinreport: "... they frequently lobby politicians to alter the rules in their favor."
ReplyDeleteAnd that is precisely why libertarians want to restrict the power of government. Government is "the big stick". Massimo wants his party to win control of it so they can beat down the Republicans who have been using that same big stick to beat on the Democrats for the last 8 years. Big corporations and rich individuals want a hand on the stick so that they can beat down any opposition. It's kind of like nuclear proliferation. Libertarians propose a government that is more like arms reduction. Take some of the size out of the stick so that the current owners can't use it to beat up on their opponents. There are ways to provide the services that we have come to expect from government. Most will be more efficient than government but some may be less efficient. That's a price I'm willing to pay to take the power of the big stick away from those who would use it to my disadvantage.
Unlike the old grandfather clock, these pendulum swings of power grabbing are destructive. We waste time and resources grabbing for power rather than putting our money toward progress. I think Mr. Shermer is right. Pure libertarianism may have some problems but a modified version that puts us closer to stability is something we should work toward.
As much as I appreciate Shermer's critique of the Homo economicus myth (and generally admire his work), I'm not sure what to make of his assertion that "The best politico-economic system to date is a liberal democracy and free market capitalism, or democratic-capitalism." For one thing, as an earlier comment suggested, there are so many ways to interpret those labels, and self-proclaimed "libertarians" hardly hold a monopoly on them.
ReplyDeleteBesides, it's an empirical question as to whether one society is better than another, assuming common criteria that are perhaps best measured by statistical data relevant to living standards, political freedoms, and subjective/emotional well-being. (I should qualify that approach with a caveat about the "tyranny of the majority", as statistics might obscure the oppression of some minority class.)
Has Shermer done any of this hard research work? or is he simply stating an assertion based on idealogical bias or old political alliances?