On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 10:32:48PM -0700, Chris Rasch wrote:
[Quoting an article]
> Since the Reagan era, a mantra for office seekers is that people
> know what is best for themselves. Generally, yes; but what if not
> always, and what if they err in predictable ways?

The implicit argument here is based on the truism that government
can take advantage of information not available or used by the people
so as to enhance people's lives. But so can private companies,
as was precisely the case in present experience. And apparently,
from the very same experience, in ways that allow to dynamically discover
news policies in a non-disruptive, non-violent ways that do not
put the whole country's economy at risk when they fail.

So the question is whether government intervention brings a positive
differential effect. And the answer is clearly no.
If people can vote with their irresponsible voice for someone who will
relieve them from such problems, they can even better vote with their
responsible dollars for such a person. Government is but force.
Use of force is never justified or efficient but for self-defense.
Government is not self. Government is never justified, nor efficient.

More deeply, these arguments of "predictability" of human behavior are
underlying the whole leftist school of sociology (led in France by the
infamous Pierre Bourdieu), who pretend that people cannot free, since
these sociologists' statistics prove how socially (but, oh, of course,
not genetically) determined they are, and hence that government can never
be accused of violating any non-existent freedom, and that on the contrary
it should optimize the common welfare by tweaking all the knobs provided
by these scientists. Now, this alleged determinism is but crass
conceit about what these people's a posteriori statistics provide.
Since they are a posteriori, they don't say anything about the future.
Since they are statistics, they don't say anything about anyone.
So they don't change zilch about individual freedom, really.
Besides, if there is no freedom, where does the freedom of the government
to choose better than individuals come from? And which of these fighting
scientist should the government listen? Or shall government just do what
it will, and listen a posteriori to whichever scientists "spontaneously"
exists (funded by government money) that approves and theorizes its action?

Ok, sorry for the line noise on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I just had to say that somewhere, and this article triggered it.

[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
[  TUNES project for a Free Reflective Computing System  | http://tunes.org  ]
Bastiat.org: debunking economic sophisms since 1845.

Reply via email to