The most important lesson that one can learn from any of the social sciences is that the human mind cannot comprehend all of the factors, many of them infinitesimally small, and that it is therefore impossible to design society with social engineering.
Indeed, as F.A. Hayek said in “The Fatal Conceit,” “the curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little about what they really know about what they imagine they can design.”
However, despite how simple this may be to comprehend, both academics in their ivory towers and politicians in Washington still construct plans to design society according to their own delusions. Nevertheless, all attempts to plan society will fail just as socialism failed, due to the fact that the human mind cannot centralize all of the knowledge necessary for such plots to succeed. Just as is the case with biological evolution, social order must emerge, it cannot be planned.
There are two primary reasons why the knowledge that permeates society cannot be efficiently centralized: first, the dynamic nature of society, and second, much of that knowledge is tacit, having to do with a specific space and time, and cannot be easily learned outside of experience.
Due to the fact that society is dynamic, the knowledge that is necessary for its operation changes along with the conditions of society; the truth behind this has never been so vivid as it is today, where information can be transmitted across continents in seconds. As the conditions of society change, the human mind is in a race to keep up with its changing environment. By the time the human mind learns to manipulate something as complex as society, the flux of conditions has rendered the plan obsolete.
For instance, as we have all seen in the past decade, innovation has far outpaced regulators’ attempts to “tame” them, thus rendering attempts to plan the financial markets moot. The second reason why the planners of society do not have the knowledge to actualize their visions is that much of the necessary knowledge is tacit and therefore cannot be centralized. A basic example of such knowledge is how to ride a bicycle, it must be learned by experience and cannot be conveyed otherwise, and other examples are the mores, norms, and traditions of society.
Despite this fact, there are still many attempts to plan society according to the designs of those in power even though such attempts are bound to fail. The irony of this is while the majority of those who believe in planning human society rightly criticize those who believe in evolutionary creationism, yet they fail to see that both the biological and the social creationists fail to realize the role of spontaneous order in each discipline.
Order can be the result of evolution whether by natural selection or market calculation. Furthermore, attempts to interfere with the natural, unplanned order have so often proven devastating, whether it be the introduction of species alien to a certain environment or the central planning of production. Despite this, while one is a belief that is mocked by all, another is held by some of the most intelligent members of society.
Reason may be man’s most valuable possession, but it has its boundaries beyond which it cannot tread. One of the most important tasks for the defense of reason is protecting it against those who do not understand the necessary conditions for its use and growth. One of the most important bastions against the enemies of reason is identifying whether a system is either dynamic or static. While the former are unchanging and therefore reason can discover the knowledge necessary to manipulate them, when a system is dynamic then it must be accepted that knowledge is limited and largely negative. Both evolution and society are examples of self-regulating dynamic systems that even though we may have some knowledge of their operation (e.g. natural selection and the law of supply and demand), never will they truly be able to be comprehended by the human mind.
Attempts to bend society to the designs and whims of planners have failed miserably and innocents have always paid the price of having to see their society fall to shambles because a couple of prideful individuals in power thought that they could, by the power of their reason, change society for the better. It is high time that the influence of the social creationists be overthrown after all of the harm their doctrines have sown for they act as if they truly understand what no human mind could ever truly comprehend: human society.
Harrison Searles is a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at [email protected].
Chris Amorosi • Apr 26, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Harrison
“Economic theory and analysis never goes out of date.”
So I can treat some article in Pravda about the robustness of the Soviet economy from 1985 the same as any analysis about the post-Soviet economic collapse from 1995? Why does economic analysis get universal relevancy when work in the fields of history or the social sciences doesn’t?
Or did pointing out your contradiction violate another made up fallacy from the libertarian dictionary?
And if you bothered to read your more recent article past the title, you’d see that it also cited figures no later than 2005. Try again.
That article is further flawed because it mostly ignores the impact that pirate ransoms play in the economy. Sure he has an as far as I know made up number of 15,000 people employed by the pirates. But what about the hundreds of millions of dollars pouring into the country from pirate ransoms? Am I supposed to be impressed by economic growth that can be credited to these brave libertarian heroes practicing a “trade” that can easily be ended once the international will is there?
“You’ve just made the utopian fallacy, you assume that a centralized government would have been able to prevent without giving any evidence for that thesis. All that I’m looking for is the best possible outcome while you rally for enforcing a utopian solution upon the country.”
I have no idea what the “utopian fallacy” is but it sounds like a silly soundbite made up by Randroids that only applies to non-libertarians. I’ve certainly never said government solves all problems as it would in a utopia. Making up what I say and debunking it is called a “strawman” argument, which is an actual fallacy.
How many tribal-run theocracies also ruled by a central government are there in the world? Even Iran isn’t run by marauding barbarians. How many countries ban all music? I’d think that someone as big on liberty like yourself would appreciate government’s role in guaranteeing rights like freedom of worship and expression. Or maybe you only feel free when your rights are guaranteed by rifles or other phalluses.
“Of course, you are assuming that those warlord and foreign interventionists would not be the central government if it were established in Somalia. Once again the utopian fallacy.”
There are lots of factors that hurt African countries, but I doubt the permanent solution is to cede power to tribal leaders and live off piracy and internecine wars like you seem to favor. Not every African dictator is a Mugabe, too.
You obviously didn’t know anything about Somalia beyond what helped your argument or you would have known how out of date the 2006 article was. When I called you out on it, you provided an ostensibly newer article but one that still relied on the same out of date data as the last. I wanted to discuss this with an informed person, not an ideologue. Additionally, I will be too busy this week to check column replies. Therefore, I have no more interest in discussing this topic with such an ignorant and dishonest person like yourself.
However, I leave to you the final word.
Harrison • Apr 25, 2010 at 4:23 pm
“How about actually following the news about Somalia instead of referencing hopelessly out of date garbage? Your paper doesn’t cite anything beyond 2006.”
Economic theory and analysis never goes out of date. But if you want something more contemporary feel free to read Benjamin Powell’s “Somalia: Failed States, Economic Success” (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/somalia-failed-state-economic-success/).
“Since then a theocratic faction had united most of the country south of Puntland, then it was mostly overthrown by an Ethiopian invasion, but soon after the theocracy seized control over much of the south again. Now Somali citizens get things like Sharia law and bans on music:”
You’ve just made the utopian fallacy, you assume that a centralized government would have been able to prevent without giving any evidence for that thesis. All that I’m looking for is the best possible outcome while you rally for enforcing a utopian solution upon the country.
“Anyway, guess what helps prevent the rise of fundamentalist warlords and can defend against foreign interventions?
Centralized government.”
Of course, you are assuming that those warlord and foreign interventionists would not be the central government if it were established in Somalia. Once again the utopian fallacy.
Chris Amorosi • Apr 25, 2010 at 3:20 am
Harrison
How about actually following the news about Somalia instead of referencing hopelessly out of date garbage? Your paper doesn’t cite anything beyond 2006. Since then a theocratic faction had united most of the country south of Puntland, then it was mostly overthrown by an Ethiopian invasion, but soon after the theocracy seized control over much of the south again. Now Somali citizens get things like Sharia law and bans on music:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8617627.stm
Check the date on that news article. Less than two weeks old, not four years like your document. If we follow your standards of research, the Winter Olympics this year must have been held in Torino, Italy. I wish comments could be a place of compelling discussion and debate but you make it harder by being so damn ignorant.
Anyway, guess what helps prevent the rise of fundamentalist warlords and can defend against foreign interventions?
Centralized government.
So I think my quip still stands, John Galt.
Harrison • Apr 24, 2010 at 3:04 pm
How about actually researching the situation in Somalia before you make a quip about it?
Peter Leeson on Somalia: http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
Chris Amorosi • Apr 23, 2010 at 7:54 pm
Please move to Somalia where the innovation of warlords far outpaces the government’s attempts to regulate society. I think you’d like it there.