Warning: the following is something of an over-simplification, in the same way that it is an over-simplification to say that French cuisine is tastier than English cuisine, or to say that men are taller than women.
Modern American conservatives (at least those in the free-market camp) insist that physical and biological reality must be the product of conscious design and creation, but these conservatives also readily accept that productive social orders — such as markets — can, and do, emerge undesigned and unplanned — spontaneously.
Modern American "liberals" (at least those who aren’t religious in the conventional sense) insist that productive social orders must be the product of conscious design and creation, but these "liberals" also readily accept that non-social orders — such as the human mind and the flamingo’s smile — can, and do, emerge undesigned and unplanned — spontaneously.
UPDATE: Steve Horwitz reminds me of his wonderful post of a few years back, Social Snowflakes.
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 26 comments }
I wrote almost exactly the same thing about 6 months ago on an internet forum… it really is a curious inconsistency, isn't it?
Conservative does not equal Creationist. Where did you ever get that one?
Liberals likewise do not deny accidental/spontaneous social constructs. They just think deliberate intervention can do better.
There are far fewer inconsistencies when you remove fallacious associations.
My take on this issue:
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/19793.html
Not sure if it needs to be an inconsistnecy.
Steve Lansburg comments (somewhat indirectly) that the order that comes from market systems only exists because of market prices. Without market prices, there would be no order.
In biology, there is no such order inducing mechanism in natural selection, so we should not expect sponteanous order like we do in economics.
Therefore (and I speak for myself, not Landsburg) I am completely confortable in believing in both the order steming from free markets and believing that there is a designer in the natural universe.
Prices push order in human society and God pushes order in ecosystems. Without prices, there would be chaos in human society, and without God, the natural world would be in competely disorder.
No, Don, I agree with Rob. You aren't talking about conservatives in the "free market camp". You're talking about religious conservatives at Bible camp. There's a difference.
This is a fascinating subject, thanks for raising it. I'm intrigued by it. It seems conservatives would embrace Darwinian theory because it confirms many of their most cherished beliefs. I guess they don't because they perceive it as a threat to religion.
Larry Arnhart of a university in Illinois gets it. He had a great piece in answer to the creationists in, of all places, First Things, several years ago. I think it is still available online.
Price is the order mechanism the free market imposes to avoid large-scale chaos. Of course, smaller regions of chaos exist because of inefficiencies, such as lack of informantion, but they don't endure forever; Look at what eBay has done to the antiques market by revealing true supply and demand.
Natural selection is the order mechanism that is imposed on random (chaotic) reproduction in nature. The fittest survive, and their offspring are more likely to prosper. Specimens poorly adapted to their environment, or to changing enviroment, either migrate or gradually become extinct.
And while Don's Curious Inconsistency has some validity, it's also (per his disclaimer) an oversimplification.
That's all fine and good, but French cuisine is in fact tastier than English cuisine.
(Implying that there is such a thing as English cuisine is pretty radical to begin with.)
Steve Horwitz's "Social Snowflake" reminded me of Darwin's final words in On The Origin of Species:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
Mr. Boudreaux is engaging in a fair degree of simplification here, but it's no worse than what any number of fire-breathing pedants on either side of the debate engage in. Imagine my left-wing friend "Libby" and my right-wing bud "Connor."
I've heard Libby describe conservatives as being scientifically backward and superstitious because they [conservatives] believe in Creation. She'll also slam conservatives for believing in "unfettered free market capitalism."
Connor meanwhile will describe liberals as being "godless" and appalled by their refusal to believe that the universe we observe is an Act of God. He'll also complain that liberals want to monkey around with "tradition" or that liberals just want to "tell everyone what to think and do."
Me, I'm a libertarian and just happy to remain out of the fray.
And, they both end up facing the same problem.
The liberals end up with the problem of deciding who will make all the decisions.
The conservatives end up arguing about which ancient book has God's decisions.
I agree with the oversimplication sentiment. It'd be interesting to hear from a conservative or a liberal that actually hold these inconsistencies in their minds to see what they have to say.
I know conservative (and liberal) creationists who don't even think about free markets. I know deeply religious people who allow for the possibility that God created evolution.
I could imagine a Boudreaux-con reconciling the inconsistency by saying that a perfect supreme being could design such things, but humans can't.
And, very similarly, I could imagine the liberal explaining that the randomness of nature caused many bad things to bring about the brain and flamingo smile, so why not try to minimize the bad things?
To say markets emerge undesigned and unplanned reminds me of the Carl Sagan quote, "To make apple pie from scratch, you first have to create the universe."
"(Implying that there is such a thing as English cuisine is pretty radical to begin with.)"
I can assure you that fish and chips is tastier than horse meat and snails
Sounds similar to the paradox of constrained vs. unconstrained philosophies illuminated by Sowell in his wonderful book. The constrained world view is held by people who find satisfaction with order and social frameworks that come from long term evolution (like slow developing common law). The unconstrained believe in individual decision-making and social engineering by the enlightened expert. These roughly line up with 'conservative' and 'liberal' labels in the US today, but their more accurate when looking back over the development of modern thought. (Sowell's book is Conflict of Visions.)
But religious people also have degrees of faith. Some are dutiful members of a church while others are islands of singular disbelief. Some never question anything while some think it takes considerable intellectual sophistication to know that what one believes. That maps to liberal/conservative- evolution/creation only in a soups vs. stews sort of way.
"… and without God, the natural world would be in competely disorder."
Thia was a joke, right?
Didn't Ayn Rand teach that religion and socialism are essentially the same thing, they just worship in different ways?
My personal prediction is that in less than twenty years we will see a realignment of of politics where the religious right and the socialist left merge into a statist supermajority and all other political strains will be completely maginalized. Squabbling will be between which statist is "best" (we are very close to that now). Democracy will rule supreme, and oh what a tyranny it will be.
The only major obstacle to this now is the abortion issue, which will probably become less and less of a political issue with advances in biochemistry.
There is in fact a consistency to this.
One viewpoint is that man and the world he lives in are so massive and complex that altering their fundamental properties is the province of divinity. It is beyond man's capability to alter human nature, to control the weather, or even markets. To the extent that the laws of nature can be ascertained, it is man's duty to live within them. If he has any obligation to care for the earth, it is a matter of stewardship; not of mastery.
The contrasting viewpoint sees man himself as divine. With the right social engineering, man can rid his very self of greed (and other "negative" attributes). Under this viewpoint, humanity takes on a certain "significance" that controls the weather. Transforming society into a fraternal colony of selfless Kumbaya-singing ants is well within man's reach, and controlling markets themselves is mere childsplay.
It comes down to the significance and limitlessness of man. And nothing limits man's potential like the prospect of a deity. Kill God, and man becomes capable of anything.
It's a slight oversimplification, but it gets right at the heart of the matter, doesn't it? I see the emergence of spontaneous order everywhere. It's the foundation of my overall philosophy, and can be seen at work in my blog postings.
Keith,
My past posts regarding the reality of the "Socialist Church", its proseltyzing, and its evangelicals make it pretty clear that I agree with you and Ayn Rand.
However, I believe your closing paragraph is also an over simplification of the obstacles to your prediction.
"The only major obstacle to this now is the abortion issue, which will probably become less and less of a political issue with advances in biochemistry.
Posted by: Keith | Nov 13, 2007 7:43:54 AM"
There are at least two more HUGE obstacles to the merging of socialism and Christianity and that is the fact that Socialism has its foundations on immorality, force, and compulsion; while Chiristianty has its foundation on morality, persuasion, and voluntary submission.
The second HUGE obstacle is the difference in how capitalism is viewed by socialism and Christianity.
Capitalism can survive and thrive under Christianity because everything in the 10 Commandments promote the things a society needs to practice successful long term business (wealth creation).
Capitalism will (historically documented) always strangle and die under socialism, everything in the socialist plank is designed to kill what is needed by people to practice successful long term business.
Myself, I am one of those conservatives that can believe in God and practice the good character traits taught by Jesus while not being a churc attendee.
I am also a conservatice that is open to the probability that the Universe is created, but on a scale of time that we can not know. Because the Bible uses the word "day" tells me that it was written by a man with a man's perspective, it tells me nothing about the perspective of (a) God.
Is human life created upon conception? I believe so. Does that life then evolve from creation through birth and on to death? I believe so. We see creation and evolution all around us every day.
I can't get stuck in holding fast to one and denying I see the other.
For all you Christians and capitalists:
http://www.garynorth.com/public/department57.cfm
Thanks for the link Sam.
"It is beyond man's capability to alter human nature,
Posted by: cpurick | Nov 13, 2007 7:51:08 AM"
I agree that to totally alter human nature might be beyond human skills; but look at the success that Karl Marx and his believers have had at confusing so many humans as to what their nature really is.
Just look at the sad state that muirduck finds himself in.
I submit that the success of the socialist/communists has been so good that many people will walk to their deaths firmly denying their own nature.
Qoute from Vidyohs: "There are at least two more HUGE obstacles to the merging of socialism and Christianity and that is the fact that Socialism has its foundations on immorality, force, and compulsion; while Chiristianty has its foundation on morality, persuasion, and voluntary submission."
There are plenty of examples of Christianity being forced on large populations. In any case, since most Americans already consider themselves Christian, either in word or deed, no forcing would be required. By this I don't mean they would force people to be say they are Christians, or even "be" Christians, but force people to act like Christians. We already have mandatory "volunteering" in the schools. The government took to forcing us to give to charity long ago (i.e., welfare and social security). Its all done in the name of the common good. What could be more Christian?
I don't hold religion in such high regard and I think your high regard for it is clouding your judgment. When socialism and religion become the same, the only thing dying will be liberty.
cpurick,
Brilliant!
I'm one of those people who can reconcile spontaneous order in the market and a divinely created universe. Spontaneous order requires rational agents. People act in their own interest and order emerges from the seeming chaos.
Atoms and molecules can't act rationally or creatively like humans. Even if you believe in evolution, the mechanisms of evolution are external to whatever is evolving, so it's hardly coordination in a free market sense. If we're going to have external forces, why not divinely established laws?
I agree that there are apparent parallels between the spontaneous order of the market and the evolutionary idea of seemingly unguided progress, but when you dig a little deeper these parallels prove to be an illusion.
Qoute from Michael: "Spontaneous order requires rational agents."
Have you ever watched a tub full of water drain? Ever seen a hurricane or tornado? How about crystals of ice on a frosty morning or a snow flake?
I think you're missing some facts.
I understand what you're saying, Keith. My point is that the order caused by the forces of nature represents a different sort of order than the spontaneous order that emerges in a market.
One of the hallmarks of the Austrian tradition is that it appreciates the boundaries between the social sciences and the natural sciences. Austrian thinkers have excelled because, unlike some of their peers, they use methods appropriate to their subject–rather than straining to be scientific and mathematical.
To me stretching spontaneous order to apply to the natural sciences seems like a step back towards the positivism the early Austrians shunned.