Thursday, April 30, 2009

Spontaneous Order Vs. Collectivist Solutions

Yesterday, Mustang posted this piece.

It yielded a response from his liberal progressive regular:

The language of government/citizen partnership persisted for several decades until Ronald Reagan recast the partnership as paternalism. Reagan simply denied that complex, impersonal systems often outstripped individual will and understanding.
The essential conditions of social and economic life had not changed, he insisted; Americans could master them, as always, by "common sense and free choice" if government only got out of the way. This reversal set the tone for his successors. Clinton, somewhat reluctantly and Bush II enthusiastically agreed that government intervention eroded individual autonomy--or, turning Roosevelt on his head, did not protect individualism but hampered it.

See, the old American individualism of Emerson and Whitman died with the industrial revolution. Poof!
Surely you have read enough history to realize that essential fact. Economic self-sufficiency vanished into our heroic past. Dependence on large, impersonal economic arrangements became the rule and the national government became a force that could allow individuals to achieve some meaningful freedom.

You are trying to revive an archaic past that cannot possibly function. Marx warned that our alternatives were socialism or barbarism. Since you don't like to use the s-word (--the real kind, not the totalitarian travesty--), let's just say that our alternatives are a democratically energized liberalism or a banana republic.


My response:

Long before there were these "impersonal" social and economic systems (that he now touts as the only hope of the future), spontaneous order was an effective problem solving model. And it still is.Things get done faster with a select number of individuals who volunteer their time, money, and/or services.

When an outside force seeks to manage and direct interpersonal relationships, things get bogged down with bureaucratic red tape. When a bureaucratic beast that is out of control and morally reprehensible, it's purpose is tainted with self interest and richly teems with fallacies, red herrings, and other forms of BS. Nothing gets done without a favor being attached to it.

There is no way that this system can effect a better outcome. No @#$%&!! way. Time after time, we can pick a task; time after time, normal people can do a better job (at almost anything), than the government.

But Ducky may be right about it not functioning very well right now. It's because people in this day and age, want the government to take care of them, rather than having to rely on themselves. They would rather surrender their freedoms to make certain choices, in exchange for security. In other words, they trade freedom for easy gain. While it may be termed gain, it is quite expensive.

Sad but true. No responsibility, no freedom. Just dependence and obedience.


I will add:

Back in 400 BCE, a man named Chuang Tsu was a proponent of spontaneous order, before it was known as such. One of his more prominent quote used by libertarians:

"Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone."

This is the basis of the free market concept. And while there needs to be some regulation due to those who will certainly take advantage of liberties and freedom, the controls established should minimal, not be overly burdensome, and should directly address the problem that the regulation is designed to prevent.

In the case of Henrietta Hughes, we see the theory fully realized. Government failed her and used her only as a prop for propaganda. A private citizen was responsible for helping her far faster than any government assistance.


7 comments:

Chuck said...

I knew this was the Duck. I think he believes that if he writes long enough, some of the stuff has to make some sense.

I do give him credit though for trying. He is in hostile company and he takes his shots.

Anonymous said...

I tend to agree that “government failed” Henrietta Hughes; not because a presidential candidate gave her no more than lip service and took advantage of her situation to further his own agenda … but because government has made generations of people in to believers of social collectivism. I mostly believe that Ms. Hughes failed herself (and her son) because she had no dreams, and lacked the courage to reach out to them. Government is not the solution to social problems; it is mostly the cause of them. But I do believe that as a nation founded on important Judeo-Christian principles, we must reach out to people … either to administer to their needs, or to get them redirected to a more fulfilling existence. The question is, at what level do we do this? I think it can only happen at the local level. Maybe our churches should be doing more than preaching racial hatred, for example.

Thank you for the link, sir.

~Leslie said...

Very well said Sunsett.

Okay, I have written and deleted three times, due to the fact that adding to your post just puts me up on my soap box and I would take up too much space on your comment section.

It is the same story. I see it every day in my job. I agree with all three of you.

LA Sunset said...

//He is in hostile company and he takes his shots.//

You are right, he knows the cost ahead of time and chooses pay it. Beside the fact I disagree with him most of the time on just about everything from politics to sports, he's alright.

LA Sunset said...

//The question is, at what level do we do this? I think it can only happen at the local level. Maybe our churches should be doing more than preaching racial hatred, for example.//

Herein lies the crux of the issue, as to where this has failed miserably. Instead of Jeremiah Wright getting a million dollar estate built for him, why can't he settle for a more modest $200,000-300,000 home and give the rest to community outreach? Seems like he is now becoming the man, the entity that oppresses his own people due to his own greed and avarice.

LA Sunset said...

//due to the fact that adding to your post just puts me up on my soap box and I would take up too much space on your comment section.//

Let it rip, Leslie. Doesn't bother me any.

Greg hijacked a thread with multiple angry tirades, when the Giants beat the Pats in the Super Bowl a couple of years ago. (Hi Greg) He brought this blog a lot of traffic those couple of days.

Seriously, I am pretty easy. I only get irritable when people come here and portray my words as something they are not or get personal with other commenters. I doubt you would do anything like that, so let it loose. Maybe it will make you feel better, like it did Greg. ;)

LA Sunset said...

FJ, very interesting. May 1 always conjures up images of Soviet tanks, artillery guns, and troops marching past the Kremlin while old dinosaurs watched and saluted. I will have to do some more reading on St Tammany.