I love it when, intentionallly or inadvertently, we get to the root differences between Left and Right attitudes, the deep assumptions that underlay political beliefs.
<<I would say that there will be no spontaneous order unless people have great feelings of solidarity with each other.>> Hayek's favorite example of spontaneous order is language. No need for solidarity. But in any event, you simply disagree with Adam Smith when he says "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." You reject, a priori, the notion that if we drop the butcher, the brewer, and the baker on a deserted island, they will manage to get along with each other even if they don't like each other, because you don't believe that mutual self-interest can be the basis for successful human relations without the coercive arm of the state pointing guns at everybody's head to make sure they follow the rules. I fundamentally disagree, in that I think mutual self-interest, by itself, is sufficient motivation for beneficial exchange between the overwhelming number of individuals and situations. >> The operations of the capitalist social system is based on and >> encourages greed. If we assume that a capitalist system prevails (as >> it does), then this "Hobbesian statement" is accurate. (BTW, whatever >> one thinks of his philosophy, Hobbes was a smart guy, much >> clearer-headed than, say, Locke.) Again, whether we call it greed or self-interest, you reject, a priori, that mutual sef-interest directed at market activity can be the basis for successful human relations, because you equate such a state with a Hobbesian war of one against the other in the absence of a coercive apparatus. But I completely disagree, in that I see a world governed by mutual self-interest directed at market activity as completely different than Hobbes' state of nature for the overwhelming number of people (there are always exceptions), which I would add is Hobbes' position, in that Hobbes viewed society as a game theory problem in that most people preferred to live peaceful lives engaged in market activity, but could not do so because of initial distrust, etc. so a strong coercive state was required to level the playing field and provide security. BTW, if you read your Leo Strauss, you will learn there is no real difference between Hobbes and Locke, except that Locke was a much more careful writer in order to avoid trouble with the authorities. Both Hobbes and Locke advocated market activity as a positive outlet for human energy and passion, as opposed to religious conflict, war, glory seeking, etc. >> Your experience is not wrong. But it is based on the coercive >> elements, which have a "force multiplier," as it were. In a system >> that uses state coercion to enforce property rights, etc., it is >> _normal_ for people to respect others' property and to see that >> property as endorsed by morality. Thus, coercion plays a larger role >> than it appears on the surface, since it is like a backbone for >> popular morality about these issues. Where is the society, ancient, feudal, pre-capitalist, capitalist, communist, post-capitalist, that did not have fundamental rules against theft and recognizing property rights? The notion that mine is mine and yours is yours is pretty basic and obvious to 4-year olds. There are of course differences, and we can point to some Indian tribe that believed nobody can own land, etc., but in the overwhelming number of societies coercion is not necessary to enforce basic morality as commonly understood. It is only when we get to statist and/or socialist states, where economic activity is centrally directed and market activity is criminalized, where the entire market economy is a black economy, that we see the need for a large coercive apparatus to enforce economic rules and decision-making. >> But if a small minority of greed-heads can get away with stealing from >> others (e.g., employers paying their employees below what the contract >> says) and there's no coercion, this normality and morality is >> progressively undermined. Without the backbone, in a conflictual and >> greedy society such as our own the popular morality becomes like a >> jellyfish, except less viable. What used to be thought of as "crime" >> becomes normal. Hey, why not allow me to have slaves, no matter what >> the legal status? >> >> It's like the speed limits. If the cops don't enforce the speed >> limits, more and more people will break that law, until those of us >> who "drive with the traffic" are breaking the speed limit. Then there >> will still be people who want to drive even faster (in their BMWs, >> etc.) If they get away with it, the average rises again, along with >> the speed of those who drive with the traffic. Next, people start >> lobbying to just get rid of the speed limit, to legalize illegality. In your view, the roadways would be a Mad Max anarchy if people did not have fear of the highway patrol. I see roadways as a spontaneous order, in that the overwhelming number of people manage to safely get from point A to point B with no central direction, motivated not by fear of the police, but by a mutual interest with all other drivers to safely and efficiently get where they want to go. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that if we removed substantially all roadway rules and regulations, including the highway patrol, there would be little difference in roadtrip safety. See generally http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/distracting-miss-daisy/6873/. David Shemano _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
