Lootifer wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
It's a spontaneous order approach. Basically, people would be allowed to find multiple solutions to these kinds of problems--at the same time. So, the most effective forms of punishment, deterrence, containment, etc., which are most suitable for various "cultures," or particular groups, could be discovered across the nation with a variety of means which vary across the central planning v. spontaneous order dichotomy.
My biggest concern is the inefficiency of government monopolies, their continued failure in the US, and the high social costs which they impose on poor people--especially young black males. It's one of the most serious problems in this country which is constantly treated by the "experts" with their esteemed pretense of knowledge.
Knowledge is dispersed, and the means for finding the best solutions to particular circumstances of time and place would be through many trial-and-error processes which would be positioned on various spots on the scale of central planning v. spontaneous order. Call it a market for punishment involving the realms of economics, law, and crime.
Sorry for being a grouch, but your initial position was... terrible, man!
So in regard to your choice being too lenient. That may actually work, and it may not. New mechanisms would form to perhaps cover those errors, or maybe the errors would be beneficial in the long-run--depending the circumstances of time and place. The point is that you may not know, but neither do the central planners know what's best. And since the monopoly extends across the nation, top-down, we're denied the numerous possibilities of finding better solutions, thus denied the ability to tap into an entire nation's dispersed knowledge on finding various means to solve problems.
In a nutshell, I'm looking to break up the State's monopoly with a more competitive environment that could more effectively cater to the demands of the customers, which the current system allegedly does--if you ignore bureaucratic and political private interests, cough cough.
(this response may partly explain your question in your OP about libertarianism).
Ok so I agree with your concept but have a couple of issues:
- How different is a market forced (or milking the dispersed knowledge) outcome going to be from, say, a state funded [culturally/morally/ethically calibrated] research programme into crime and punishment?
I'd argue not at all. Unless there is a silver bullet "solution" sitting waaaay down the end of some probability distribution a balanced collection of researchers will produce the same result as the population. This is because they are essentially a sample of the population with the incentives amplified.
Well, it depends. If that state funded research program produces only information which the market can use, then it would likely be beneficial. But if you talk about the application of punishment, and include the state monopoly, then you lose the benefits of the market and of prices in coordinating human actions, so in this latter sense, you wouldn't get the same results.
Knowledge is dispersed. It is not collected in the group of some experts, who possess probably only 1% of all knowledge that is relevant for decision-making for any means and ends. I don't see how an ivory tower could represent the sum of all human knowledge. It just doesn't because it involves the production of a certain kind of knowledge of limited insight into the lives of others and the "rational" calculation which they perform hundreds of times throughout the day--without even being aware of most of it. Somehow, this body of experts can replicate (model) this and implement all-wise policies? No. They're human and only a few too.
Lootifer wrote:To me our outcomes are going to be similar enough so long as you design the experiment (for the researchers/analysts) properly and correctly gauge your populations cultral/moral/ethical positioning.
To me its a 99% right vs 100% right; but to get 100% you have terrible social consequences.
If that body of experts only offers information, then it'll only help--just as any organization producing relevant research from the private sector. But I'm not talking about the production of information. I'm talking about applied policy, and when you step into those grounds, then your argument for central planning is rendered by the inherent inefficiencies of the monopoly. It sets the prices, it responds poorly, etc. etc. That's completely different from a decentralized order.
And, there's some huge false assumptions which you're working with. (1) All relevant variables are tractable and can be accurately quantified for central planning, (1b) if all relevant variable can't be quantified, then the model will somehow encompass only the relevant ones, and the error term will magically cover that which is not at all measured or even understood. (2) A population is homogenous. (3) The relevant goods/services of crime and punishment are homogenous. Etc.
The individuals within some given population even have competing aims, so you'd have to formalize some means where the policy prescribed fits into all or even most people's plans. Think of Adam Smith and the [url=http://cafehayek.com/2008/12/the-human-chess.htmlHuman Chessboard. [/url]. If you can somehow determine what would be best for everyone, then how does one plan cover all plans of the governed? And if the policy is to only apply to the demands of the majority, then what of the costs from frustrated plans and unintended consequences?
You don't see the courts reacting quickly to changes in demand for their services because they don't operate on profit-and-loss incentives. They don't even operate in a market of courts, so when you take your argument from the Information Producers to the Information Producers AND Prescribers, then you'll have to centrally plan without a market, without prices coordinating human action.
These two ideas of ours are no way similar when you carry your argument into the realm of application. Instead, you get what we have today. Looked great on paper, but hah.
Lootifer wrote:- My second point is the pragmatic interpretation of the above point: Politically/Optically you solution is a train wreck. Grind away on that axe my man, fight the good fight, but reality check: Your policy is extreme; collective opinion in 2012 isnt a big fan of extremes.
You honestly think you have any chance of a change that, while "optimal", bears short term social consequences? Especially when for every one of you theres a moderate left like me (though smarter/more informed, im weaker/lazy in comparison to yourself) arguing for a moderate solution along the lines of above...?
I think it's bordering on egotistical that you would advocate policies that are pretty [politically] extreme when your intelligence could be better spent fixing the existing political nightmare you find your country in (cheapshot - you had one, im just returning the favour).
I know it's extreme, but it helps illuminate the deficiencies of your Ideal Central Planner because making comparisons is important. If people can realize the fallacy of nirvana, then they'd have a healthier skepticism against false claims of "experts" who claim to know what's best for everyone and claim to have the capability to actually produce the outcomes of their plans.
The causes of much of our problems in the real US (and the EU with its central bankers) stem from that kneejerk appeal to the State to "fix" the problems, thus creating later series of problems, which require more "fixes." My goal here is not extreme; in fact, it's moderate to be skeptical. Most people in a crisis and throughout their lives have no skepticism because they've bought into the false notions of central planning without a market, which many of them scorn because they're ignorant. It's what lead to the Socialist Calculation debate, the strong criticisms against them, and the still stronger reaction that everything relevant can be quantified, error terms can cover the unquantifiable, and everything will work as planned--more or less. Too bad that ended in the lives of millions and millions of dead people and a wasted resources from people and from the Earth.
But again this basic faith in central planning continues. If I can encourage people to critically question their basic assumptions about it, then I'll be satisfied. That's what I'm doing right now, and it's what I do on the fora (self-governance). Hey, and if seasteading becomes cheaper, then we'd have voluntary experimental societies and see how these "extreme" ideas work when allowed to occur.
If you want real world case studies of self-governance, then read Governing the Commons. It's legit. The author won the nobel laureate of economics.
What I'm taking about may seem radical to you, but the basic concept of spontaneous order is everywhere. There's a distinction between the formal and informal rules, and many people behave in tune (to various degrees) to the formal--as well as--informal "rules of the game." You see examples of spontaneous order in traffic on the highway. There is no central planner directing everyone's move, yet people respond reasonably well. There's a blend between the incentives established by the formal order (centrally planned speed limits, lines, etc.), but there's a response "mechanism" embodied in spontaneous order--i.e. people coordinating around each other while pursuing their own private interest. They respond to other incentives not established by the formal order, like the incentive to not get in a wreck for fear of hurting one's self, someone else, or at the very least damaging one's car, or others'.
This is why I kept stressing how various regions would experiment with the proper scale between central planning and spontaneous order. With top-down approaches over an entire nation. You get one "solution," and its problems complemented with a body of decision-makers who may not be best suited for managing an entire nation (politicians and bureaucrats). Without any competition, it's no surprise we'll get so many problems.
That's basically what I'm getting it, and I'm just playing around with it.
(I could hit you harder with the quantifying the cultural, moral, and the ethical, but would such criticism fall outside of one's narrowed economic model and its reconstruction of "reality"? Your plan sounds great here, but you're assuming that the unquantifiable can somehow be accurately quantified. That's good enough in a market because firms try to do something similar--but they have a profit motive and must constantly compete or go bankrupt. Government monopolies face different incentives, thus even when given a great plan, why carry it out if their incentives aren't aligned? It that's 'who watches the Watchman' problem, the problem of producing goods based on involuntary exchanges, the problems of monopoly, that human chessboard problem, and all of it will be carried about by politicians and bureaucrats in a fierce fight for control over the top-down levers over all society. That sounds radical to me and dangerous).
