Yep, I agree. Humanity has some basic flaws to overcome before we can get back to true capitalism, if it ever existed, I mean, things start well, and we need to figure out a way to make them stop going bad all the time. Socialism sounds wonderful, too. It was the model for the first church started by the Apostle Paul in the Bible, but th…
Yep, I agree. Humanity has some basic flaws to overcome before we can get back to true capitalism, if it ever existed, I mean, things start well, and we need to figure out a way to make them stop going bad all the time. Socialism sounds wonderful, too. It was the model for the first church started by the Apostle Paul in the Bible, but they sure had problems. Glad you enjoy the writing. I will keep at it, thank you!
Hi Karen, Thanks very much for your response. Not easy to respond to all of these comments, so don't feel obliged to respond to this. I will have to say that socialism is fine by me, as long as it is voluntary and there is a right of exit. However, all of the many socialist experiments in early America fell apart quickly, which might say something about how well they attract and retain people. Hayek (who won the Nobel Prize in economics) argued that we should distinguish between the small social order (the family, the club, the Church congregation, the tiny community) and the extended order (the country, the global financial market). In the former our small band instincts are at work, and the socialist-collectivist impulses operate effectively due to high social trust and reciprocity. But those don't hold together once we move beyond groups that are larger than a couple hundred people, which require codified moral-legal frameworks and institutions to protect us (ie. your phone company doesn't care about you, despite what they say). I personally think that a free society of mutual voluntary cooperation (that includes however much socialism or capitalism people want) is the best approach. The key is that it is voluntary and there is the right of exit. The socialist medical system in Canada, for example, does not allow the right of exit (unless you undertake the high cost of leaving the country). You must pay into the system and you cannot work to find private solutions that are based on volunteerism. The result is a really crappy health care system. Trust me on this, I have been a victim of it. It is an attempt to apply the small social order ethos to the extended order of a vast country with 38 million people. Not gonna work. The reason that the welfare state has functioned as well as it has in the Scandinavians is that those countries (small, culturally and ethnically homogeneous, descended from clan culture) have very high social capital. But now, as immigration increases dramatically, the welfare state has begun to crumble. We also need to remember that the Scandinavian countries are essentially capitalist -- with low tariffs on trade, strong legal frameworks, low corruption, law-abiding populations, stable and predictable currency, etc. So the wealth generated by the free markets can finance the welfare state. I think they would be better off with smaller welfare states, but that is another comment for another day. In your response to me you imply that we need to change people. I admire this faith in the human spirit, and I do think that we need to focus on modest improvements in individual responsibility. However, I would ask, what institutions best draw out the sorts of characteristics we want to cultivate? Deirdre McCloskey does a good job of suggesting that it is the classical liberal order that celebrates the humble bourgeois virtues of personal responsibility, hard work, thrift, punctuality, civic-mindedness, and of course, many of the Christian virtues that, I imagine, you would also seek to cultivate, like Charity, Compassion and so on. Thanks for your great essays, they are an inspiration.
Yep, I agree. Humanity has some basic flaws to overcome before we can get back to true capitalism, if it ever existed, I mean, things start well, and we need to figure out a way to make them stop going bad all the time. Socialism sounds wonderful, too. It was the model for the first church started by the Apostle Paul in the Bible, but they sure had problems. Glad you enjoy the writing. I will keep at it, thank you!
Hi Karen, Thanks very much for your response. Not easy to respond to all of these comments, so don't feel obliged to respond to this. I will have to say that socialism is fine by me, as long as it is voluntary and there is a right of exit. However, all of the many socialist experiments in early America fell apart quickly, which might say something about how well they attract and retain people. Hayek (who won the Nobel Prize in economics) argued that we should distinguish between the small social order (the family, the club, the Church congregation, the tiny community) and the extended order (the country, the global financial market). In the former our small band instincts are at work, and the socialist-collectivist impulses operate effectively due to high social trust and reciprocity. But those don't hold together once we move beyond groups that are larger than a couple hundred people, which require codified moral-legal frameworks and institutions to protect us (ie. your phone company doesn't care about you, despite what they say). I personally think that a free society of mutual voluntary cooperation (that includes however much socialism or capitalism people want) is the best approach. The key is that it is voluntary and there is the right of exit. The socialist medical system in Canada, for example, does not allow the right of exit (unless you undertake the high cost of leaving the country). You must pay into the system and you cannot work to find private solutions that are based on volunteerism. The result is a really crappy health care system. Trust me on this, I have been a victim of it. It is an attempt to apply the small social order ethos to the extended order of a vast country with 38 million people. Not gonna work. The reason that the welfare state has functioned as well as it has in the Scandinavians is that those countries (small, culturally and ethnically homogeneous, descended from clan culture) have very high social capital. But now, as immigration increases dramatically, the welfare state has begun to crumble. We also need to remember that the Scandinavian countries are essentially capitalist -- with low tariffs on trade, strong legal frameworks, low corruption, law-abiding populations, stable and predictable currency, etc. So the wealth generated by the free markets can finance the welfare state. I think they would be better off with smaller welfare states, but that is another comment for another day. In your response to me you imply that we need to change people. I admire this faith in the human spirit, and I do think that we need to focus on modest improvements in individual responsibility. However, I would ask, what institutions best draw out the sorts of characteristics we want to cultivate? Deirdre McCloskey does a good job of suggesting that it is the classical liberal order that celebrates the humble bourgeois virtues of personal responsibility, hard work, thrift, punctuality, civic-mindedness, and of course, many of the Christian virtues that, I imagine, you would also seek to cultivate, like Charity, Compassion and so on. Thanks for your great essays, they are an inspiration.
Best, Jonathan