Time to review something I've covered over the years, and that is how come the State ends up with such counterproductive public policy.
I noted how Mo Tze clearly had the best philosophy of his time, anticipating Christianity, but few have ever heard of him. The ideas of his lesser contemporaries flourish to this day.
Keynesian economics wins out because it feeds the state best, not because it is most beneficial. Keynes wrote in the introduction to the German edition of his Magnus Opus how his ideas would work even better under Hitler. Nice! (OK... it was 1936, when Hitler was still widely admired around the world.)
The theory of aggregated production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state [eines totalen Staates] than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire.
He who pays the piper calls the tune. When the powers that be command a policy, even people who know better will sing the tune, heck sake, they will write new compositions, to satisfy he who pays.
Max Weber got famous for pointing out the obvious, and that is the state is an entity with a monopoly on violence in a given territory.
That puts the state at odds with the good, the true and the beautiful, and essentially anti-human. Given that, it is not possible for the state to arrive at good public policy.
Update, July 2013
Every policy has a winner or a loser. It is not possible to form a policy that is neutral. Someone is always unhappy, and for very good reason. If you are losing, you are unhappy. On the other hand, we all love a policy that works for us. If the policy does not work for you, then there is something wrong with you, according to those for whom the policy advantages.
This can get complicated when voter's expectations are not met. What you see happen is people will say either "we need the right leader" or "we need the right policy." If their hoped-for leader cannot help them, they say the policy is wrong. If their hoped-for policy does not help them, they say the leader is wrong. What few people understand is freedom from policy will yield the peace and prosperity they seek.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
I noted how Mo Tze clearly had the best philosophy of his time, anticipating Christianity, but few have ever heard of him. The ideas of his lesser contemporaries flourish to this day.
Keynesian economics wins out because it feeds the state best, not because it is most beneficial. Keynes wrote in the introduction to the German edition of his Magnus Opus how his ideas would work even better under Hitler. Nice! (OK... it was 1936, when Hitler was still widely admired around the world.)
The theory of aggregated production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state [eines totalen Staates] than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire.
He who pays the piper calls the tune. When the powers that be command a policy, even people who know better will sing the tune, heck sake, they will write new compositions, to satisfy he who pays.
Max Weber got famous for pointing out the obvious, and that is the state is an entity with a monopoly on violence in a given territory.
| "Every state is founded on force" said Trotsky at Brest-Litovsk. That indeed is right. If no social institutions existed which knew the use of violence, the concept of "state" would be eliminated, and a condition would emerge that could be designated as "anarchy" in the specific sense of this word. Of course, force is certainly not the normal or the only means of the state - nobody says that - but force is a means specific to the state. Today the relation between the state and violence is an especially intimate one. In the past the most varied institutions - beginning with the sib - have known the use of physical force as quite normal. Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims themonopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. Note that "territory" is one of the characteristics of the state. |
That puts the state at odds with the good, the true and the beautiful, and essentially anti-human. Given that, it is not possible for the state to arrive at good public policy.
Update, July 2013
Every policy has a winner or a loser. It is not possible to form a policy that is neutral. Someone is always unhappy, and for very good reason. If you are losing, you are unhappy. On the other hand, we all love a policy that works for us. If the policy does not work for you, then there is something wrong with you, according to those for whom the policy advantages.
This can get complicated when voter's expectations are not met. What you see happen is people will say either "we need the right leader" or "we need the right policy." If their hoped-for leader cannot help them, they say the policy is wrong. If their hoped-for policy does not help them, they say the leader is wrong. What few people understand is freedom from policy will yield the peace and prosperity they seek.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
0 comments:
Post a Comment