Regulated competition is the wellspring of our revolution

The hot new Evonomics site offers some of the best writing about fresh  economics perspectives around. I was one of their first writers and now they have published another piece on "The Fairness Divide" making a clear distinction between equality-of-opportunity vs. equality-of- outcomes.  I think it will set some familiar perplexities in a much clearer light.  

Along related lines, Lawrence Lessig has joined others in questioning one of our laziest assumptions: that capitalism is the same thing as corporate oligarchy, and that the secret to a healthy capitalism is zero regulation.  

Anyone who actually reads Adam Smith - or who knows a thing about the last 6000 years - knows that oligarchy is the worst enemy of flat-open-fair-competitive and creative market enterprise. 

Here's a passage from Lessig's recent review: 
“Theorists and principled souls on the Right are free-market advocates. They are convinced by Hayek and his followers that markets aggregate the will of the public better than governments do. This doesn’t mean that governments are unnecessary. 

"As Rajan and Zingales put it in their very strong pro-free-market book, Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists, 'Markets cannot flourish without the very visible hand of the government, which is needed to set up and maintain the infrastructure that enables participants to trade freely and with confidence.' 

"But it does mean that a society should try to protect free markets, within that essential infrastructure, and ensure that those who would achieve their wealth by corrupting free markets don’t.”

"Rajan and Zingales further describe:

“Capitalism’s biggest political enemies are not the firebrand trade unionists spewing vitriol against the system but the executives in pin-striped suits extolling the virtues of competitive markets with every breath while attempting to extinguish them with every action.”

== Must markets be 'blind'? ==

Way back in the last century, I was pointing out that those proclaiming “Faith in Blind Markets” — or FIBM — mostly ignore those 60 centuries, when lack of market regulation simply meant “those who have, rule.” Across that era, laissez faire inevitably led to feudalism and stunningly stupid governance. The last 200 years have been an exception to that brutally nescient and incompetent span. This was Adam Smith’s foremost complaint.

Does this validate the opponents of FIBM? Those who proclaim Guided Allocation of Resources, or GAR? Surely the examples of Leninism, Maoism and Japan and China show that central control has severe limitations. Without any doubt, the FIBM guys have a point — that there’s such a thing as too much regulation. (Ironically, which U.S. political party actually de-regulates obsolete agencies and loosens regulation, as often as it tightens it? Democrats, by far.)

I go into the tradeoffs of GAR and FIBM elsewhere.  But the outlines are clear.  Both cults want control and allocation by elites. The FIBM crowd (who call themselves “libertarians” but in fact are not) differ only in which elite they would make all-powerful allocators — not bureaucrats, answerable to an electorate, but a secretively-incestuous CEO caste of 5,000 golf buddies.  

That’s not flat-open-fair-creative market competition, and it certainly isn't Hayek. That is hypocrisy. It’s the tired old way: feudalism.

But read the Lessig article.  He's an economist and has lately earned some real cred from us.

== More on Hayek ==

Others are weighing in on Hayek, and the rampant misinterpretation that he favored zero regulation. As economist David Sloan Wilson put it:  "Hayek had two way-ahead-of-his-time insights. First, that economic systems have a distributed intelligence that cannot be located in any individual. Second, that this intelligence evolved by cultural group selection. Contemporary science — complex systems and multilevel evolution — validate those claims. But Hayek fans are mistaken to believe that his insights mean markets should be unregulated."

Or as Evonomics pundit Jag Bhalla says: "Hayek’s right that no “central planner” can know what’s distributed among people in markets. But computer scientists have studied distributed processing’s limits. Many tasks can’t be efficiently distributed. Most still need central coordination. Aren’t market computations similarly limited?" ... and "Effective market regulation should heed biology’s regulatory lessons. Economies, like complex organisms, need distributed reflexes and a central nervous system. They need more than one price-like signal to prioritize and regulate for the whole, and to manage systemic risks. That doesn’t happen automatically."

== Libertarianism and conservatism, redux ==

Let's look at this same issue from another angle.

The real problem with today's versions of libertarianism and conservatism isn't "selfishness" per se. As Adam Smith showed. competitiveness is one wellspring of human creativity and leftists are fools to deny it. 

No, the problem is that conservatives and libertarians almost never mention the word "competition," anymore.  Because they know people sense a contradiction with the modern religion that has taken over libertarianism. Idolatry of unlimited personal property. 

At best, these two concepts - competition and propertarianism - are tense partners, with some genuine property rights necessary, in order to foster competitive drive. But they can become often diametric opposites, even enemies.

Yes, property rights are essential, but they become toxic when overly concentrated. (Just like any other good thing, e.g. water, oxygen and food.) Adam Smith knew this. To him, the true enemy of market enterprise  - across 99% of societies - was feudal owner aristocracy.  And it is true today. 

Let's stick this point: Idolatry of unlimited personal property is the same thing as declaring hatred of flat-open-fair competition.

See my classic essay on this, appealing to all -- especially libertarians -- to get over their voluptuously silly Ayn Rand solipsism kick and actually read Smith, a philosopher who understood so much more than slimplistic left or right credit him with, and who changed the world.

See this recent essay about Ayn Rand's cult of selfishness and the real world cases where it has been put into practice... Sears/KMart and Honduras, both of which were suddenly converted to Randian principles of cut-throat internal competition.

Both are now teetering on bankruptcy.

== A useful innovation that can sour ==

Let's try this from yet another perspective: George Friedman, founder of Stratfor the strategic analysis firm and now working with economist John Mauldin, discusses the modern, limited liability corporation:

“The very idea of a corporation is a political idea. That someone should be able to own part of a company but not be liable for all its debts is a very modern idea. It's also a very radical idea. Many people, including Adam Smith, did not trust the corporation. Smith argued that unless you were an owner of a corporation, you were not committed to its interests. ... It is the state setting liability. 

The notion that there can be limited liability doesn’t flow from the free market. It flows from the state, which says you can have this kind of corporation”

To be clear, Smith was not all-knowing.  The limited liability corporation has definitely had its uses and allowed more bold risk-taking in pursuit of economic dynamism.  But the moral hazards mount up over time.  Not only should LLCs be fundamentally limited to prevent monopoly and conniving duopoly etc, but there are good arguments for assigning them lifespans, so they will not become immortal and toxic.

== A plethora of angles on a problem ==

To be clear, something like a modern political economic system is a lot like the proverbial elephant, being groped by blind pundits, each proclaiming a single, linear metaphor to be THE thing itself. In fact, these perspectives -- like the hoary "left-right axis" - are only useful to the degree that users bear in mind: the map is not the territory.  And our metaphors can lobotomize.

So let's restate "left" and "right" not in obsolete terms from the French Revolution.  Instead, I think conservatism vs progressivism is all about the process of "horizon expansion" that I talk about here and here. Wherein the circle of inclusion in society keeps being pushed outward, a process that gained momentum in our Great Experiment gradually, for the last 250 years.

A process that the left has made their core religion! So much so that they despise and denounce anyone who disagrees even slightly about the pace of tolerance/inclusion expansion and openly question whether old loyalties are still pertinent.

The right, in turn, despises those who push hard on inclusion-expansion and hates to be nagged to do it.  They like their old loyalties.

LIBERALS are a third type, totally different than leftists. They tend to like the general process of inclusion expansion ... but they also like their old loyalties.  They are the only ones conceiving this as a positive sum, win-win process. Again, liberals are neither lefties nor righties. They want new kinds of citizens!  But they also don't mind keeping some older ways around.

You see the same thing when it comes to the concept underlying our great competitive ARENAS... markets, democracy, science, courts and sports ...All five innovative systems achieve positive sum cornucopias of output because they nurse vigorous competition... but regulated in order to minimize cheating and maximize opportunities for creative rivalry.

Leftists despise the word "competition" ignoring (1) that is is the source of fecund wealth we use then to help people and expand inclusion! Moreover - oh the irony - (2) they they are themselves being very very competitive!

Rightists are worse!  They claim to love the word "competition" but hate REGULATION... without which competitive processes are always always always and always ruined by cheaters.  (In fact, enabling cheaters is now the main purpose of the Republican Party.)

Again, liberals are the only ones who see no dichotomy.  Who see the combined word "regulated-competition" as the wellspring of our revolution and bold new way of doing things.

Which brings us full circle.  Sure, regulations - even well-meaning ones - can stifle enterprise. (And dems are better at eliminating those.) But without a regulated marketplace we fall back upon 6000 years of cheating - and FIBM soon becomes just another excuse for GAR.

It's complicated, and not very satisfying to those who want simple prescriptions.  Rather, our role as adults is to accept that it is complicated.  To embrace all this complexity! To keep fine-tuning a role for regulation in enhancing infrastructure and science, education, health etc -- things that increase the overall number of skilled and confident competitors!  But also to back away from those well-meaning regulations that try to impose nit-pickery outcomes.

Militantly moderate, ferociously reasonable, courageously contingent... it is the liberals who seem less passionate, but who have the closest thing to an adult perspective. One that might bring us to even greater heights.

Is Libertarianism Fundamentally about Competition? Or about Property?

Some folks have heard me beat this drum. But it’s a fresh-enough thought - going to fundamentals that run deep beneath normal politics - so that I am moved to raise it yet again. In part because someone recently asked me, as author of The Transparent Society:

              “Can transparency and libertarianism complement each other?”

Now let’s have the simple answer first. Yes. A sane, better-focused libertarianism would be utterly compatible with transparency. In fact, it should be the very top priority.

Both Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek proclaimed that markets are healthy in direct proportion to the number of skilled and knowing player-participants. Indeed, one chief indictment against every  pre-modern economic system is that nearly all of them were based on “allocation” of resources by elites. Allocators are inherently knowledge limited and likely to be delusional, precisely because they are few.

Just to be doubly clear on that: almost all previous cultures used GAR - or Guided Allocation of Resources - as their guiding economic principle. Whether the allocation was done by kings, feudal lords, priests or communist nomenklatura, it was nearly always the same: decisions over how to invest society's surplus, which endeavors to capitalize and which products to produce were made by a small clade of delusional elites, as wrong in their models as they were sure of them.

Starting with Adam Smith - and later fervently preached by others, including Hayek - the notion of FIBM, or Faith In Blind Markets, began to compete against GAR.  The core notion? That the mass wisdom of millions of buyers, sellers, voters and investors will tend to emphasize or reinforce better ideas and cancel or punish bad ones. Delusions - the greatest human tendency - will be quickly discovered because no longer will some narrow group be able to nurse them without question.  Hence, getting back to the original question: the more transparency - and the greater the number of participants - the more people can come up with relatively accurate models and act upon them... or acutely criticize flaws in the models of others.

But let’s extend that thought and ask an even more general question.

Isn’t libertarianism fundamentally an appreciation of competition?

Think about all the core enlightenment processes -- entrepreneurial markets, science, democracy and justice. Each of these modern systems produce the modern miracle of positive-sum games... creating win-win scenarios for everybody. The famous rising tide that lifts all boats.

Now sure, there’s a lot more involved than just competition! There are many cooperative or consensus or even moral aspects... read Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments, to see that "competition" does not mean "cut-throat" or the brutal image of social darwinism. Many of today's libertarians oversimplify, especially the followers of Ayn Rand.

Nevertheless, it is wholly right and proper for a libertarian to emphasize and focus on one main feature of these positive sum processes. The fact that they all arise by harnessing and encouraging fair rivalry among human beings. So let me reiterate.

Competition is the great creative force of the universe.

That's proved. Competition produced all of nature's evolutionary marvels... and us.  By far the most successful human enterprise - science - is an inherently competitive process and scientists tend, by personality, to be extremely assertive in going after rivals.  Moreover the arts, supposedly our "highest" endeavors, are inherently - often ferociously - competitive, even when they are lecturing us about cooperation!  And yes, in professing this vast generalization you can see the libertarian in me - (despite my deep disdain for Ayn Rand.)

But the sane libertarian also knows that competition - in nature and primitive human societies - contains an inherent contradiction. A runaway process of self-destruction that historically always led (and I do mean always) to calamity...

...to the winner turning around and cheating! Victors in ancient combat were never content with incremental or partial success in war. Can you picture the victorious helping their adversaries to their feet and welcoming them to come back to another equal fight the following year? It was human nature, rather, to destroy opponents. The battlefield may have made you great, but you do not want to return there again and again for an endless series of even matches!

Think. In order to have maximum creative output, competition has to go on and on, maximizing innovative aspects and minimizing blood. The clearest example of transforming destruction into endlessly vigorous competition may be the ritualized combat systems called rule-based sports.

Nor is this just about war. Adam Smith saw what had happened in markets and societies for 4000 years. Winners in capitalism tend not to be satisfied with success in the latest market battle, with a cool product or in achieving recent financial or political success. Human nature propels us to use our recent victory to ensure that competitors will fail in future struggles. To bias the next competition. Or to stomp our defeated competitors flat! To absorb their companies. Squat on patents. Create monopolies or cartels to divvy-up markets. Eliminate transparency. Spy on competitors but keep them - and consumers in the dark. Capture regulators and make them work for us. Capture politicians and make the laws favor us.

Suppose that I become rich and powerful. What will I do, if I am one of the 99% who let human nature play out? Then I’ll use wealth and power to game the system so new competitors won't challenge me! If you deny this, you're just being silly. It was the way of oligarchy, in 99% of human cultures. The top priority of the owner-lords in all those nations was one distilled goal - to prevent bright sons of the the peasant class from competing fairly with the children of the rich. Admit it. Go ahead, choose a random decade across the last 60 millennia, in some random locale that had metals. Tell me this wasn't the pattern.

It worked. It’s in our blood. We're all descended from the harems of guys who pulled off that trick.

And here is where Adam Smith came in.  He looked around, saw all the cheating by owner-oligarchs destroying the creative effectiveness of markets.  And - in the seminal year 1776 - he called for something new.  A way to get the best, most creative-competitive juices flowing, in the largest possible variety of human beings, while preventing the old failure mode.  And it turned out there was a way.

As in rule-based sports, competition can only becoming self-sustaining... continuing to deliver its positive-sum outcomes... amid a network of transparent, fine-tuned, relentlessly scrutinized -- and universally enforced -- rules.

The vital importance - and difficult complexity - of “fairness”

Fair competition isn’t just a matter of morality. It is also the way to maximize competitive output, by ensuring that bright people and teams get second, third chances and so on. And creating ever-flowing opportunities for new competitors to keep arising from the population of savvy, educated and empowered folk. That kind of fairness requires rules and careful tending to ensure new competitors can and will always arise to challenge last year's winners. And that earlier winners can't cheat. Because... we've seen... they will.

Let’s be plain here. The founder of both liberalism and libertarianism - Adam Smith - weighed in about both of these reasons for fairness, To him, they were equally important. All right, liberals and libertarians each emphasize different ones. Liberals talk about the moral reasons for fairness and libertarians the practical, competition-nurturing ones.  They tend to forget that - as followers of Smith - they actually want the same end result!

What they share is something deeper that both movements ought to recognize.  They want every child to hit age 21 ready and eager to join the rivalry of work, skill and ideas.

Liberals should recall that fair competition is the driver, the engine of our cornucopia. The source of the wealth that made social progress possible. And libertarians need to pause, amid their dogmatic, “FDR-was-Satan” incantations, and recall that the word “fair” is the only thing that can make competition last.

Ironically, government can play a role there, if carefully watched. e.g. by ensuring that all poor kids get the care and education needed to become adult competitors! By ensuring that social status - whether poor or hyper-privileged - is never the prime determinant of success or failure. In other words, a sane libertarian who loves competition does not scream "Socialism!" at every state intervention. Instead, that grownup libertarian calmly judges every intervention by one standard.

              "Will this help to increase the number of skilled, vigorous competitors?"

And by that standard, suddenly, liberals and libertarians have something to discuss.  Without a scintilla of doubt, measures for civil rights, sanitation and public health, infrastructure, childhood health care  and... yes... the vast increases in literacy wrought by public education... vastly increased the number of citizens capable of independent engagement in markets and innovative goods and services.

Sure, we are finding flaws in our schools! But that judgment (let's remember) is from the higher plateau of expectations and desires that public education created!  It is only because we achieved 99% literacy that - suddenly - 99% literacy is no longer anywhere near enough. Is it time to bring market tools and competition into education?  Sure. Probably. And I am willing to discuss the assertion that teachers' unions have "become a cartel."  Still, when criticism turns into willful dogmatism, a failure to acknowledge the accomplishments and effectiveness of mass society - brought into effect by government, exactly as demanded by Adam Smith(!) - well that's churlish ingratitude and hardly a basis for saying "let's move on to something better."

And there are things government should not do!  Some well-intentioned things that stymie competitive creativity, instead of enhancing it.  "Equalizing all outcomes.  is socialism and I am not on that boat!  But maximizing the number of skilled and ready competitors is a different goal and I am here to hold that conversation. You may be surprised how many liberals and moderates will be willing to discuss it (and occasionally vote libertarian) if you make that the issue, instead of "FDR-was-Satan!"

A Movement based on LOVE of something, not HATE...

Sorry, but this needs to be hammered home, so let me repeat it. Screeching an incantation that government inherently suppresses competition is pure religious cant, disproved by countless counter-examples, from education and public health to the vast stimulative effect of public investments in science and technology and infrastructure. Again, look at 4000 years of history. Instead of simple-minded hatred of government, be more interested in pragmatic ways to enhance creative competition. Then the movement might have the subtlety of a surgeon or mechanic, instead of the sensibility of a berserk lumberjack.  Make it about love of something, not bilious blame and hate.

So... is libertarianism consistent with transparency?

By that standard, transparency is clearly one of the most vital things that libertarians could defend. Hayek himself said that markets (and democracy and science and justice) only work when all participants know as much as possible. Absence of light is death to all four positive-sum games.

Alas, today's libertarians are (I grieve to say it) in-effect quite mad. They worship unlimited private property, even though it was precisely the failure mode that crushed freedom in 99% of human cultures. And they rage against a system that in general resulted in vastly more wealth, freedom and more libertarians than any other.

This is a quasi-religious idolatry. It makes them complicit allies of the enemies of competition. It makes them murderers of the thing that they should love.

"Allocation vs Markets" - an ancient struggle with strange modern implications

The ancient mythology of "economic allocation" takes on strange modern camouflage... as a defense of "free market wisdom"

Warning! This is a long ‘un! (Perhaps making up for the long hiatus to follow, while I go hermit for a while... Though I am sure you'll all keep things lively in comments!) So fetch a snack. Settle down. Gird yourself for a very long and very intricate exercise in re-appraising everything that you ever believed about economics and politics! (Is Brin arrogant, or what? ;-)

As most of you know, I have long inveighed against the hoary and almost-meaningless so-called "left-right political axis," a metaphor to which (absurdly) countless millions of people still cling, 250 years after the French (of all people) thought it up -- a "spectrum" that mindlessly narrows and channels all political debate. A tidy model that halves every political IQ, forcing sophisticated, 21st Century minds into enmity with folk who may share many values, and compels you into alliance with others who want a world very different than you do.

(See a Questionaire that pokes away and explores underlying assumptions of ideology, at: http://www.davidbrin.com/questionnaire.html)

I have made tidy sums, over the years, wagering that no two (unwarned) individuals in a group (of almost any size) will write down definitions of "left" or "right" that much resemble each other, let alone offer cogent description of the complex quandaries that we face in modern times. In frustration, I have occasionally tried to serve up alternative metaphorsthat might better reflect real, contemporary problems, issues and divisions -- or at least divide up the political landscape more sensibly. (The word "arrogant" isn't strong enough!)

To view a few examples of these audacious re-appraisals, see:

* The earliest, from a talk given in 1987; this model, based on a meme-psychology metaphor, predicted the fall of the USSR and an era of conflict with “macho” cultures. Spot on forecasts. In fact, just about the ONLY spot-on forecast.

* This one attempted to trace underlying motives of some of today’s players in a viciously artificial "culture war."

* An alternative political “map” breaks away from standard cliches and especially the flaw of tendentiousness. Some insights about the dangers of aristocratism. Aimed at a specialized audience, I'm afraid. But it does expose the pitfalls of all political "mapmaking."

* "Horizon Theory" sorts people out according to how readily they allow themselves to notice when improved safety and prosperity call for an expansion of horizons. This natural trend seems to occur everywhere that humans have established societies -- allowing lower fear levels to translate into farther perspectives in worry, time, and inclusion. But some people and cultures are better at this than others. (Far better at explaining "red-blue differences" than cliches of left or right.)

In every case, the effort was not so much to be right -- proposing some Grand New All-Encompassing Theory -- as much as to try on new ways of viewing familiar things. Groping at the elephant from different angles (to put it allegorically.)

The essential truth is that metaphors can only illustrate and offer insights! The map is NOT the territory. If we should have learned anything from the calamities of Marx and Freud -- from communism to every other kind of 'ism -- the lesson is that human beings are far too complex to describe in pat words, even as individuals, let alone in vast societies.

That doesn't mean we should stop creating models. We are the model making animal.

It does mean that we should learn the maturity to view each model as... well... a model.

==ANOTHER FOOLISH ATTEMPT TO MAKE SENSE OF STUFF==

Now I am provoked to do it yet again. Because this damnfool left-right thing has yet another aspect that I haven't addressed before. Yet another part of a dismal dichotomy that badly needs debunking, at long last.

I am talking about the struggle between those preaching “prudent sustainability” and those who claim that market forces will solve all looming crises of poverty, pollution, energy depletion and so on.

We’ve all grown familiar with these apparently rigid “sides”, and so let me avow something from the start. If I am forced to choose between them, you can bet that I will side with the New Puritans of the sustainability crowd! They, at least, want somemodernist attention paid to assertive problem-solving, instead of preaching an indolent, pollyanna faith that some grand and superior external force will come to our rescue, averting calamity in the nick of time.

(Did it, ever, in the past? I repeat that challenge. Did such a thing happen? Ever?)

But that’s the point. I will not choose sides between the extreme poles of yet another absurd "devil's dichotomy." As I say in my review of Jared Diamond's Collapse and my comments on the War on Science...we don’t have to pick between two perfectly opposite positions! In fact, that kind of inflexibility is the surest way to guarantee our failure as a civilization.

So let’s pull back from our immediate troubles, once again, and ponder how these two viewpoints may reflect assumptions that are far older and more similar than any of the adversaries think, reflecting habits of thought going back thousands of years.

In fact, there are certain ways in which doctrinaire leftists are taking up old-time feudalist positions while today’s neo-feudalists of the right seem, at first, to be standing up for the Enlightenment... only to show their truer, reactionary colors when we dig a little deeper.

It all begins by re-examining the sunny optimism of those who think that everything is gonna be just hunky dory. That we’re all certain to come out of these times in and great shape, simply by trusting to the blind hand of commerce.

Warning: do not read on unless you feel prepared to curb normal political reflexes. Every single time that you react to a statement by diagnosing it (or me) in terms of left or right, YOU WILL BE WRONG. Sometimes diametrically! It will be a wild ride. Now enjoy.

==BLIND BELIEVERS VS THE NEW PURITANS==

Let's start by looking at a book that was touted recently by the legendary economics/investment guru, John Mauldin -- "The Bottomless Well" by Peter Huber and Mark P. Mills, provocatively sub-titled "The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy."

Sayeth Mauldin: “Huber and Mills take a hard look at the way we normally think about energy and turn conventional thinking on its head, offering what they call seven great energy heresies.

1. The cost of energy has less to do with the cost of fuel.... (than) the hardware we use to refine, process and use the fuel.

2. "Waste" is virtuous. We use up most of our energy refining energy itself. Waste lets us do more life-affirming things better, more cleanly, and safely.

3. The more efficient our technology, the more energy we consume. More efficient technology lets more people do more, and faster - and more/more/faster invariably swamps all the efficiency gains.

4. The competitive advantage in manufacturing is swinging back to the U.S.. Steam engines launched the first industrial revolution; internal combustion engines and electric generators kicked off the 2nd. The 3rd, desktop computing, is now propelling American labor productivity far ahead.

5. Human demand for energy is insatiable in the tireless battle against dispersion and decay.

6. Energy supplies are infinite, even if petroleum is not.

7. If energy policies similar to ours can be implemented worldwide, our grandchildren will inhabit a planet with less pollution, a more stable biosphere, and better-balanced carbon books than at any time since the rise of agriculture some five thousand years ago."

Wow! Heretical? Yes. Deliberately provocative? You bet...

...and at the top layer, Huber and Mills are also jibbering what amounts to stark, raving lunacy! None of these statements follow, even from their stated or implicit premises! Nor do they represent the way that prudent people have ever behaved in the past. Ever.

Don't you find it stunning how few bright fools compare their prescriptions to 4,000 years of actual human experience? I could cite dozens of historical examples of eras when imprudent waste, inefiiciency, resource depletion and heedless lack of planning resulted in civilization-wide calamity (see Jared Diamond’s book: Collapse), whereas there is not a single example, in all of the human past, when proposals such as Huber & Mills offer actually resulted in a society’s success.

Not one. Yet, people with high IQs are actually able to speak such absurd nostrums and convince themselves that they are not only true, but self-evident. Moreover, with a straight face they call themselves "conservative."

(A side question: How did “spendthrift liberals” ever become the ones pushing puritan values of thrift on the grand scale -- from budget-balancing to smaller government to international restraint to "waste-not" efficiency -- while “conservatives” preach against saving anything for a rainy day? More to the point, are we really too obstinate in our cliches to comment or even notice?)

==AND YET...==

And yet, if you read these deliberately provocative proposals (by Huber & Mills and others like them) only with reflexive disdain or automatic, dismissive loathing, then you are missing the point at many levels.

First - guys like this thrive on provoking apoplexy. I know. I recognize fellow contrarians... though rigid ones.

Second - bright fools are not only fools. They are also... bright!
. . Hence, even when they are clearly acting as shills for Exxon/Murdoch, is that any reason not to read and listen carefully, seeking value?
. . Dig this. Recent scientific studies have shown that we are at our most distrustworthy and addictively delusional while in the act of dismissing evidence presented by our foes! Our brains secrete reward chemicals every time we skim and shrug and sneer at opponents.
. . In contrast, isn't it a sign of true wisdom to instead sift through your adversary's meanings, in order to separate wheat from chaff?

Consider. Such people are often very clever at lining up both facts and trends that exploit the weakest parts of the argument for prudent efficiency and sustainability. . . . Nu? Don't we want those weakest portions exposed? So that the argument for sustainability can be improved? Again, the principle is CITOKATE. (Criticism is the only known antidote to error.)

Third - and most important - these authors absolutely miss the point of what we are all arguing about. Indeed, I think their opponents miss the key point, as well.

In fact, everybody does.

==MORE LAYERS THAT LIE (AND LIE) UNDERNEATH THE LEFT-RIGHT AXIS==

Unfortunately, the surface issues that Huber and Wills and their fellow cornucopians raise -- (e.g. whether certain technological advances may or may not rescue sustainable growth) -- distract from a layer that is much more meaningful... and far less explored. This is one more case where the underlying psychology and personal agenda are vastly more interesting than specific details of argument.

See my article on "Singularities and Nightmares,"
There I try to put in perspective the psychological phenomenon called “techno transcendentalism.” Here's an excerpt:

Depending on whatever decade you happen to live in, techno-transcendentalism has shifted from one fad to another, pinning fervent hopes upon the scientific flavor of the week. For example, a hundred years ago, Marxists and Freudians wove compelling models of human society — or mind — predicting that rational application of these models and rules would result in far higher levels of general happiness. Subsequently, with popular news about advances in agriculture and evolutionary biology, some groups grew captivated by eugenics — the allure of improving the human animal. On occasion, misguided and even horrendous undertakings prompted widespread revulsion. Yet, this recurring dream has lately revived in new forms, with the promise of genetic engineering and neurotechnology.

Enthusiasts for nuclear power in the 1950's promised energy too cheap to meter. Some of the same passion was seen in a widespread enthusiasm for space colonies, in the 1970' s and 80's, and in today's ongoing cyber-transcendentalism, which promises ultimate freedom and privacy for everyone, if only we just start encrypting every Internet message, using anonymity online to perfectly mask the frail beings who are typing at a real keyboard. Over the long run, some hold out hope that human minds will be able to download into computers or the vast new frontier of mid-21st Century cyberspace, freeing individuals of any remaining slavery to our crude and fallible organic bodies.

This long tradition — of bright people pouring faith and enthusiasm into transcendental dreams — eerily resembling the way previous generations clasped salvation tales that were more religious or magical. This recurring theme tells us a lot about one aspect of our nature, a trait that crosses all cultures and all centuries. Are techno-transcendentalists really all that different, deep-down, than Saint Francis or Buddha - or kabbalist rabbis - vesting what amounts to sacred devotion upon unproved assumptions, almost as articles of trascendant faith?

Let’s be clear. I am not saying that any... or even all... of these fields of social or physical science did not contribute to our growing edifice of understanding, or, ultimately, to future great expansions of human power and maturation. No, what I want to point to is the psychological qualities of quasi-religious EXCLUSIVITY and PURITY true believers would routinely invest in one area, calling their chosen path central. That “this is it.”

Reiterating; might all of this be less a matter of technology than of personality?

==GUIDED ALLOCATION VS FAITH IN BLIND MARKETS==

Returning closer to the topic at hand, how does any of this apply to the cornucopian mythology of Huber and Mills? Of Julian Symon and Bjorn Lomberg? The supreme rationalization of those in the elite who do not want governments, legislatures, universities or other publicly accountable institutions to deliberate or plan strategies for dealing with onrushing change.

Let’s step back. Consider what these authors (and their benefactor/patrons) are preaching. The deliberately provocative title “Bottomless Well” forecasts a coming feast of both energy and human empowerment -- a predicted perfect storm of human problem-solving creativity -- arising from a combination of mass education, freedom and fecund market forces. It is, deep down, yet another expression of what’s recently been called the Copenhagen Doctrine or, more generally, the precept of Faith in Blind Markets (FIBM)

Now first let me put aside any notion that I’m an adherent of the opposite principle -- the general notion called Guided Allocation of Resources (GAR). As you will see below, I most definitely am not!

What I will show is that this dispute goes back a long way. It is an ancient dichotomy... and one that’s deeply misunderstood.

==WHAT IS 'GUIDED ALLOCATION’?==

Before we appraise the modern fetishism called Faith in Blind Markets (FIBM), it is essential that we cover the older fallacy of GAR, or guided allocation. This notion contends that society’s best, brightest and wisest should decide how capital will be invested, which goods will be produced, and who will work at what tasks.

To those who were raised in the 20th Century, this description surely sounds like socialism. But that is a narrow and parochial view of GAR. A glaring logical and historical fallacy. An absurdity, in fact. (As a test of your own flexibility and sagacity, stop here and ponder for a moment why I call this reflex association preposterous. Why do I say that socialism is NOT the foremost or exclusive exemplar of guided allocation? Think "history" and stretch your assumptions a bit, before reading on.)


In fact, GAR has been the fundamental principle of governance and economics in nearly all human societies -- not just socialistic ones -- ever since the discovery of agriculture! Take the cabals of kings, nobles, and clerics that ruled over most of them. Those oligarchs felt just as sure of their superior ability to manage and allocate resources -- including human labor -- as the Soviet nomenklatura commissars were. Perhaps more so!

(In fact, the parallels between these two groups -- between commissars and feudalists -- are far greater than their differences! This should come as no surprise, since both groups were power-grabbers and both groups were human. Duh.)

Think. Isn’t this the obvious way that most human societies will tend to become organized? Whichever sub-group is already powerful, that group will USE their power to get MORE power! It’s simple Darwinism, borne out by the fact that this process of collusive authority-grabbing normally led to greater reproductive success. Success for the rulers, that is. (Recent evidence shows that fully 8% of modern Chinese are descended from the harem of Ghengiz Khan! Ponder that a bit. And he was just one among thousands of kings. Face it. We are ALL descended from guys like that.)

Seriously, can anybody plausibly argue that this was not the recurring pattern from continent to continent, in nearly all complex human societies? Of course, organized religion often played a vital role. Clerics all-too often strove to justify this power-gathering, to chant and rationalize and convince peasants that allocation by the mighty was best for all. (Do not take this as an anti-religious rant. Justification of hierarchy was a priestly role quite independent of the more honorable, pastoral and religious tasks performed by sincere holy men and women. Alas, lamentably, these separate roles tended to get bunched together in many cultures.)

Hence, GAR (guided allocation of resources) was not unique to socialism -- not a matter of "left versus right." Rather, it appears to be the principal pattern of historical economies around the world. A pattern that spanned at least 40 centuries, during which real markets seldom lasted very long without profound and relentless interference, favoritism and meddling “from above.”

(This, indeed, was the greatest complaint of Adam Smith and the biggest reason why the patron saint of capitalism was a "liberal.")

Tragically, one effect seemed nearly always to result from this pattern. That which benefits the leadership class seldom correlates with good statecraft. When given a choice between progress for everybody and enrichment of the oligarchy, which policy do you think was implemented in ancient Egypt, Babylon, Mycennae, Chin, Kamakura, Rome, Zimbabwe, Tahiti, Russia, Great Britain...?

Again, I do not have to prove any of this. All I have to do is put forward a challenge. Find exceptions! Across twenty years of making this one point, in public and in print far and wide, I have only heard mentioned THREE potential exceptions -- brief and minor ones -- to this relentless pattern, across the entire human historical record. And a sad story it is.

==GUIDED ALLOCATION - TOO TEMPTING TO RESIST?==

I should point out that collusive cheating is only the first of several flaws, inherent in the notion of guided allocation.

The second flaw was almost as great -- imperfect human knowledge of complex systems. Even when ruling elites tried to govern judiciously, for the the good of all, generation after generation of wise guys fell for the same alluring trap... the same delusion... believing that they understood society, morality, physical law, and economics well enough to allocate effectively.

But history shows they were all mistaken. Every last one of them. Complexity and imperfect knowledge are the gremlins that haunted kings, even when societies were far simpler than they are now.

Of course, I am not the first to point this out. Nobel-winning economist F.A. Hayek dealt decisively with the problem of imperfect knowledge, offering a convincing line of explanation for why reliable command over any economy always wriggles and slips out of our grasp.

This lesson applies not only to ancient Greece and China... or to the calamities of Soviet-style state planning... but even to sophisticated modern managers. Take the recent history of “Japan Inc.” Back in their heyday, the Lords of MITI pursued that ancient dream of top-down allocation with a vengeance. Moreover, it sure seemed successful for a while! Using techniques far more sophisticated than the Politburo and incorporating many capitalist tools, they assumed that their economic models, and especially thoughtful allocation of bottomless lines of credit to favored industries, would succeed far better than “random” open markets. Indeed, those sophisticated models and plans worked... for a while.

Till complexity and imperfect knowledge wreaked inevitable vengeance. (I was among the few, in the 1980s, to predict this.)

Here is a sad sermon taught by the ages:
GAR may be a natural way for societies to organize. But GAR does not deal well with surprise.

Still, the ancient dream of guided allocation will not die. The neo-confucian leaders of China are following it today, attempting to rise above the mistakes made earlier by feudal, communist and MITI allocating castes. Indeed, let us all admit that they are achieving respectable wonders, so far. Impressive stuff.

Still, are they human?

Then it seems all-but certain that complexity and surprise will play their old tricks at some point,
yanking the rug out from under even the cleverest allocators, once again.

==THE MARKET ALTERNATIVE==

In contrast to guided allocation, genuinely liberated markets have a very short history.

Yes, great Pericles spoke in their favor, and not only of economic markets, but also markets of knowledge, ideas, policy and law (e.g. democracy.) Alas, the notion was new and difficult to implement in lasting ways. It was also deeply unpopular among tyrants and oligarchs, who unleashed every weapon against that fragile, early experiment. Moreover, once the pericleans were quashed, aristocrats in every subsequent culture relentlessly subsidized and promulgated Plato and his followers, who made it their business to defend top-down hierarchy with utter tenacity, for close to 2500 years.

Guided allocation remained king - literally - during all that time. A long and daunting epoch of failure and pain.

That is, until Adam Smith and John Locke began drawing our eyes once again toward the Periclean dream. Toward what we moderns might call the “wisdom of empowered crowds.”

Their core notion? That human beings -- all of us -- are inherently delusional self-deceivers, rationalizers and cheaters. (Duh!) Hence, no elite group can be trusted to allocate resources fairly, or to rule wisely with unbalanced or unaccountable monopolies of power. No, not even the elites YOU happen to admire. Not even them. Not even you. Not even me.

Rather, Smith, Locke, Franklin and their enlightenment peers offered a radical notion. If you empower the masses to act individually, as fully knowledgeable citizens, each person transacting on his or her own behalf, then their differences may add up to strength. The strength and creative power of reciprocal accountability (RA) -- applied en masse -- to detect and counter a great many foolish errors. Unwise and immature individuals can be be much wiser in aggregate, especially when a dollop of mutual suspicion lets them cancel out each others' worst tendencies -- the malignant, predatory devils of human nature -- leaving the angels of fair competition and cooperation to thrive. The guiding concept? To escape the era of kingly delusion, replacing it with an open give-and-take. Above all, letting no one escape criticism.

(Pause: Which is more "naive"... the idealization I just described? Or an obstinate refusal to recognize that this plan worked? Not perfectly. But far, far better than every other kingly, priestly or ritual-laden prescription since humanity lived in trees?)

Not only is this innovation the wellspring of “suspicion of authority” -- a central foundation of the US Constitution. (And a lot of mass media!) It is also the the basic wisdom underlying modern markets. Instead of a single, coherent economic plan, declared top-down by fallible leaders, a market deals with the problems of complexity by unleashing a tool that is... well... complex! A whole society of sovereign individuals.

(For a rather intense look at how "truth" is determined in science, democracy, courts and markets, see the lead article in the American Bar Association's Journal Aug. 2000, "Disputation Arenas: Harnessing Conflict and Competition for Society's Benefit."

This is the core premise underpinning our pragmatic or "liberal" wing of the Enlightenment. A suspicion toward hierarchy and belief in dispersed authority that has proved its effectiveness during a narrow, 200 year window when -- coincidentally? -- humanity has managed to multiply its knowledge, wealth, health, prosperity and happiness by orders of magnitude beyond what had been achieved by all the kings and priests and command allocators of old.

Putting aside deluded romantic-nostalgia about the "wisdom of ancient tribes," there can be no rational doubt that the notions of Pericles and Smith and Locke and Hayek are proved.


Well? Are you confused yet? One moment I seem to be veering left, then right! I may seem fickle and inconsistent...

...but that is an illusion. There is a very consistent story here. Hang in there... and shrug off the cliches.

So Brin rejects the "guided allocation" practiced by kings and commissars. Does that mean we should all pray instead to the inherent wisdom of blind markets? Have I picked sides in the furious modern debate between FIBM and GAR, choosing Huber and Mills and Simon and Lomberg?

Gah! Fie upon dichotomies!

I refuse to be pigeonholed. Especially when the dichotomy is a trick. When it is a trap

==IS IT REALLY A MATTER OF WISE MARKETS VS FOOLISH ALLOCATORS?==

All right, then. Let's take a closer look at this great dichotomy. One that (we're told) maps neatly upon the hoary old “left-right political axis”. A dichotomy between the standard human modus operandi - guided allocation - and the newcomer - faith in blind markets.

My claim? That we have been distracted, far too long, by a failure to parse this great debate properly. So let me try to offer a set of encsapsulated key points. And then I’ll kick over the chessboard, pointing out that it was never a dichotomy at all!

==Point #1. Reiterating: the approach called Guided Allocation of Resources (GAR) is not specifically socialistic. Rather, it is essentially oligarchic. In principle, communist commissars were no better - or worse - than any other narrow conspiratorial elite of power grabbing cheaters.

==Point #2. The fallacy is just as severe in the opposite direction! Any true historian of both economics and politics will tell you that open markets and liberated citizen accountability are the greatest liberal inventions. They were radical, revolutionary, anti-monarchy, anti-oligarchic and reformist. In other words, we are all better off dropping the "left-right" nonsense, when comparing guided allocation to faith in markets. It is simply a poison to clear thinking.

==Point #3. Thus, when "market promoters" rightly point out the great flaws of GAR, aren't they hypocrites to wag their fingers in just one direction? They should shine that critical light on all economy-controlling cabals. Are collusive, price-fixing monopolists more inherently wise and trustworthy than commissars, or feudal lords, or other narrow groups of would-be “allocators”? Aren’t all types more similar to each other than radicals of left or right would ever choose to admit?

==Point #4. Even more generally, are not large corporations, in themselves, examples of top-down allocation hierarchies, replicating in-miniature, the rigidity, poor modeling and frequent self-interested cheating that were displayed by kings and commisars? Picture an imperious CEO as royalty! Isn't the parallel creepy and also... well... rather banal? Even unsurprising?

Yes, competition between major corporations should keep these allocation-centers lean, mean and efficient, while markets supply the essential element of wisdom via supply and demand. (Historians believe that competition between fractious and divided European nations had the same effect during and after the Renaissance, leading to their rapid technological innovation and subsequent conquest of the world. Still, that did not make them internally open. Or intrinsically wise.)

Anyway, note the word “should.” No matter how well-motivated a company is, driven by external competition, a dilemma remains: if corporations utilize command hierarchies similar to kingdoms, won’t they -- don't they -- emulate some of the same faults? From leader-egomania and leader conflict-of-interest to relying on a single mind (or small group of minds) to deal with ineffable complexity?

==Point #5. Those who (correctly) see the flaws and faults of guided allocation can easily fall into a logical trap -- positing that the wise opposite of GAR is Faith in Blind Markets (FIBM).

Indeed, some take the notion of market "blindness" quite seriously, propounding that societies should never meddle in the free interaction of market players (corporations and individuals). Any attempt at "guidance" -- by (for example) government regulation -- must automatically be rejected, as a matter of basic principle.

In other words, because we have learned that GAR (all capital letters) stinks as a general system, that means we must flee as far as we can, to extremes in the diametric direction! We should reject any use of "gar" (lower case) tools to help markets work better. In extremum, this teaching calls upon us to reject the entire suite of problem-solving methodologies that involve political deliberation, prioritizing and allocating a certain fraction of social resources toward the accomplishment of thoroughly considered and democratically-chosen consensus goals.

Not only is blindness good -- (goes this hyper-libertarian concept) -- but any attempt by society to "see" -- and to act upon that foresight -- is automatically dismissed as bad.

Um, has anyone else pondered the unbelievable reductio meaning of this cult incantation? That an ideal human society should make little or no use of our great facility for planing and foresight?

Individuals may peer ahead. Corporations are allowed to do so. Aristocrats may do so in small collusive groups and in secret. But en-masse we must spurn our hard-won propensity for gedankenexperiment and precautionary action!

Astonishingly, those who seek a fetishistic opposite to GAR seem to be declaring faith and fealty to a new godhead. A non-promethean deity who demands quiet from humanity's collective prefrontal lobes. In blithe and devout expectation of externally-delivered salvation, they pray to an idol of mass-social unsapience.

==Point #6. True, what I just described is an extreme version of FIBM. Even Huber and Mills would call for some government-led allocation, I presume. Space telescopes and medical research. Certainly public assumption of countless liabilities so that profits can be privatized.

Still, the devil is not in the details. He lurks in the passion and extreme attitudes of these partisans... and in their cryptic loyalties. As I alluded earlier, when I spoke of techno-transcendentalists who pledge faith in simplistic models, there is clearly something going on here at the level of personality. A desperate need for some all-encompassing magical and simplistic formula.

Take the popular libertarian slogan: “market laws are natural laws.” Alas, like most slogans, it is poorly supported in the light of history or human nature. When challenged, supporters can cite few examples of thriving markets that existed in the past, free of oligarchic GAR. Market laws are natural laws? One might imagine that something so natural would have actually happened at least once, during those long dark ages before the Enlightenment.

==Point #7. Yes, fecund markets have happened since the Enlightenment. Not only markets of commerce, but other “accountability arenas” of science, democracy and law have all successfully diverted the incessant human penchant for competition, channeling it away from cheating and predation, instead harnessing it toward the pursuit of factual truth, justice and unprecedented creativity in the delivery of goods and services.

Rather than manifestations of natural law, these four creative arenas far more closely resemble finely tuned machines that have been hand-built by countless sincere men and women, across several centuries. These machines are not "unguided." Rather, they are guided with a new goal in mind -- the empowerment of individual competitive and cooperative opportunity.

A myriad rules and procedures have been enacted, in much the same way that automotive engineers invented valves and cams and pulleys and gears... that are now being replaced in our cars by computer-controlled injectors and actuators. A similar process of fine-tuning and replacement takes place in a modern society as outdated laws and regulations get replaced. Some of these arena rules were (and are) overly-ornate. Some are even deeply stupid. Others are pragmatic, having arisen out of hard experience, with the aim of helping to harness human competitive-cooperative energy better than before.

Oh, it isn't pretty. An excessive plethora of parts. Feedback loops that struggle and shove against each other. Filthy, corruption-ridden contradictions. Parasites abound and oh, the steering mechanism! Don't get me started on the steering mechanism. Anyone who has a sense of style must be regularly shocked and offended by our messy civilization.

Ah, but anybody with awareness of human history or human nature, has to be amazed that the machinery works at all.

No wonder extreme ideologues of both GAR and FIBM have no patience for all this gritty complexity. The former want the engine put under total conscious control. The latter cling to a magical notion that we got our motors of commerce, science and law without any vision or planning at all.

The core point that must emerge -- that the rest of us must deal with, in coming years -- is just how deeply unhelpful both of these extreme world views really are. How fixated, inflexible... and borderline insane.

==Point #8. And profoundly, prodigiously dishonest!

Not only do radical preachers of FIBM try desperately to divert attention from history's great fact -- that guided allocation of resources (GAR) is just as relentlessly a fault of aristocratism and capitalism, as it is of socialism. Far worse, Huber and Mills -- along with others like Julian Simon and Bjorn Lomborg -- appear to be either willingly complicit or pathetically unaware that FIBM has become a mantra in service of those who want state authority removed... so that decisions about resource and production allocation can be taken over by other oligarchies.

By other groups that are inherently even less accountable than elected governments. Groups bent on re-creating patterns of hierarchy that are as old as human civilization.

Indeed, it is precisely in the area that most interests Huber and Mills -- energy policy -- that we have lately seen narrow groups of powerful and well-connected men seizing secretive and collusive allocation-authority, free of almost any kind of accountability. Men who decry governmental allocators... then apply every trick of bribery and influence to use government as a tool for power and wealth accumulation. Men who call themselves geniuses, yet have proved themselves to be little better than Louis XVI at guiding civilization on the path of foresight, innovation, error-correction and success.

Men who would read the previous paragraph and instantly hurl cries of "socialist!" in my direction, in order to distract from the paragraph's blatant, obvious - and essentially apolitical - truth. (But you know I'm no socialist.)

This is the central hypocrisy of today's pulpit-thumpers and preachers of Faith in Blind Markets. If they were sincere, they would not only want to lessen government's hand on the economy. They would also be fervent devotees of anti-trust action to disperse every bloated, conspiratorial accumulation of power, knowing that GAR is an enemy of market wisdom, even (especially!) when the hands wielding it are corporate and aristocratic, instead of do-gooder liberal regulators.

Alas, the myopia of FIBM has gone so far that the Cato Institute, supposedly a bastion of pro-market libertarian thought, has turned into the central locus of jesuitical rationalization for a return to feudal aristocratism. There is no market distortion too obscene to support, so long as the beneficiaries are oligarchs, rather than liberal paternalists.

==Point #9. And yet, lest I seem unbalanced, let me turn the other way and make clear that the FIBM rightwing has no monopoly on desperately self-serving myopia and oversimplification!

If FIBM is a betrayal of Smith and Locke, what can we say about the would-be world-savers who would ignore every lesson that we have learned about the fallacy of GAR? Many on the left truly are far-socialistic in their inclinations. They see the abuses and feral power-grubbing of aristocratic cheaters and conclude that capitalism itself is at fault... when those cheaters are the very worst enemies of true free enterprise!

Why are many reformers unable to make this distinction?

Again, I believe it is a matter of personality, far more than fact or evidence. They see a world that is filled with folly and pain. They sincerely believe that this folly and pain can be solved simply by allocating resources, tasks, capital, labor and endeavor in the right ways. I mean, what could be more obvious? Wasn't this obvious to the rulers of every other civilization?

It would take wit, insight and incredible perspective for many of them to pull back and admit: "Wait... I am prescribing the very thing I should hate. What I really ought to want are genuinely liberal markets, in which the state ensures that all players get to know and negotiate and play the great creative game from a level playing field. Yes, that will mean some "allocating" to raise up poor children to be ABLE to compete well. And yes we must allocate to take into account the needs of generations yet to come. But the thing I am devoted to is not allocation, per se! The thing I am dedicated to is giving all people (including those yet to come) a fair chance to play."

==point 10. What can we conclude?

It is a pretty rough and devastating denunciation.

=====     ======     ========
   
THE "WAR" BETWEEN FIBM AND GAR IS A SPAT BETWEEN COUSINS
WHO SHARE THE SAME PERSONALITY FLAW.
THE SAME WRONGHEADED ASSUMPTION.

If you are confused, don't be daunted. We have been trying hard to look at familiar cliches afresh, from unusual points of view. And what we have seen is perplexing, complicated, maybe even a bit scary.

Please. I am not saying that all enterprise capitalists are hypocrites. Nor are all liberal reformers deep-down socialist meddlers. Indeed, a vast majority on both sides are not!

Most of us are trying hard to keep faith with the Enlightenment goal of pragmatic problem solving, using an eclectic mix of "right and left-handed tools" from competitive market innovation to reasonable social cooperation. From the quasi-random, supply-demand stimulation of goods and services to the kind of government regulations that tune markets, so that all reasonable costs are paid by the same generation that reaps the immediate benefits. (Instead of passing those costs on to our descendants.)

Indeed, it is that quiet and earnest majority who I am addressing in this article. Because the radicals of FIBM and GAR will not have lasted up to this point. Because they will have already dismissed this as a rant that evades accepted terminology. This essay proves me to be a "socialist"... or else a libertarian "tool of plutocrats." Or a wishy-washy oscillator, rudderless and without principles.

But, again, you know better.

==HERE'S THE CRUX:==

Huber and Mills are probably right that the creativity of millions of unleashed human minds will be applied to problem-solving in the years ahead, to an extent that we’ll find unprecedented and dazzling. Perhaps even enough to bring the positive singularity.

On the other hand, history shows that we have absolutely no basis for blindly trusting that creative cornucopia explosion to happen all by itself! The engendering of those creative millions is too serious and important a task to leave to such a simple dogma! Especially to a blithe nostrum, that has no support in the long history of nations.

True, hierarchical guided allocation proved dangerous and stupid countless times in the past. But not when it has been applied toward well-focused tasks that enhance the capability of millions of human beings to become sagacious individual citizens and market participants! Our universities and internets and democracies and civil rights and commercial codes and free education and subsidized roads and nutrition programs and countless other measures that mitigated the tendency of society to slump into a pyramidal hierarchy of inherited privilege. By helping each generation of kids to believe - in some confidence - that they are able to innovate and cooperate and joyfully compete, we created the world's first diamond-shaped society.

And we did it using judicious dollops of carefully considered gar... (lower case)... not GAR.

If the left is never satisfied in pushing for such things, sometimes forgetting what they are for, the right has no claim to be smug. They take all of these things (like civil rights) for granted, glad to accept the benefits, forgetting that conservatives fought against every last one of them, and now resist every new fine-tuning that might help the great cornucopian machine to work better.

Indeed, while I am a passionate believer in the reciprocal accountability principle of Pericles and Smith and Locke - (as evidenced by my book The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom?) - I cannot turn this pragmatic appreciation into cult belief in a quasi religious version, a caricature of what they taught.

Faith in Blind Markets (FIBM) is neither scientific nor steadfast to the essentially pragmatic mindset of the Lockean Enlightenment.

Nor is the recurring notion of socialist allocation a suitable replacement for a dismally predictable oligarchic conspiracy.

All of these are just slightly re-clothed versions of GAR.

They are crutches for weak thinkers... or else manipulative tools exploited by those who want to be our masters.

They are dismal tales that grab and clutch at us out of the past, unsuitable for sophisticated citizens of an agile and complex and fast-moving Third Millennium.

===

See more: The Economy Past, Present and Future

David Brin

http://www.davidbrin.com

Twitter                Facebook