As Milton Friedman said, "cats don’t bark":
16 November 2006
Editor, The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty
Street
New York, NY 10281Dear Editor:
Re "Pelosi and Pork"
(Nov. 16):Reflecting on the recent election, I conclude that people can
be divided into three groups. Members of the first group (consisting of
left-liberals and some conservatives) imagine that society is a consciously
created machine requiring an operator and a bevy of busy technicians to keep it
working properly. Members of the second group (consisting of libertarians and
some conservatives) understand that society is a complex and undesigned organism
that, when rules of private property are well-enough entrenched, works quite
well according to its own logic – a working that is typically disrupted for the
worse by government meddling.The third group is made up of politicians
and their hangers-on: they see society as a she-goat to be milked for their own
power and glory.Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 7 comments }
What are "rules of private property" without that "consciously created machine requiring an operator and a bevy of busy technicians to keep [them] working properly"? I see no evidence that legal systems leapt fully formed from the brow of Adam Smith.
Alexi,
Not from the brow of Adam Smith or from any other human being — but spontaneously, from the countless actions of countless persons. Bruce Benson's The Enterprise of Law (1990) is a good introduction to much of the historical evidence of emergent law.
Historical election results demonstrate that there are few true libertarians among the voting public. I would argue that true libertarians are virtually nonexistent among our elected officials.
It seems apparent that most voters and elected officials believe that some portions of society require no regulation, while other portions require much regulation. They simply disagree on which elements of society fit into which category.
Some may give lip service to libertarian ideals, but almost nobody actually backs that up with action. History and current events are replete with apparent system failures that cause people to demand regulation. Our elected officials often readily comply.
And, of course there are the omnipresent goat milkers. While I agree there is some notion of three groups, I would argue that most fit in either the nanny government or goat milker groups, with a very small number in the laizzes-faire group.
Alexi,
Even if "rules of private property" did require some conscious design or codifying by politicans, this assemblage of designers would be far smaller than what is implied by the phrase "bevy of busy technicians".
And who said that legal systems have anything to do with Adam Smith? The lessons here are that if people/society is left to its own devices, order will be created de facto. And the order that is created is typically more beneficial and efficient than an imposed order by fiat (de jure).
Python- Go back and say what you've written to Hammurabi, Moses, etc;
Very funny.
Hammurabi did not invent law. He codified existing law.
The first and second groups are explained by Thomas Sowell in his book "A Conflict of Visions." The first have an "unconstrained vision" of how the world works in that they think a perfect world is achieveable if only they, the smart ones, are in charge of it and can direct every aspect of everyone else's lives.
The second group have a "constrained vision" and believe that there are many trade offs, perfection is the enemy of the good, and that the greatest order inheres in the many little decisions of ordinary people and not in the grand decisions of the intellectually elite.
Human language is an example that shows how wrong the first group is and how right is the second group. There is one language that was designed by a small cadre of elites, Esperanto. It is useless and spoken nowhere. All other languages arose spontaneously without design and are sufficiently complex and ordered to be eternally useful.