Replies

(Warning: Standup Philosophy ...)

There is and upside and a downside to everything.

Betting on some few people to be competent in traditional economic liberalism is certainly the basis for the idea of the invisible hand.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of nitwits who effectively foul their own and their neighbors’ nest as a consequence for the lives they lead.

It is a matter of optimism that the cumulative effects of the nitwits won’t ever overwhelm the efforts and unintended consequences of the builders: a matter of realism to expect that there are times that they will.

I sometimes think people who mock the idea of the invisible hand think Smith and others were dewey eyed optimists.

Perchance all such philosophies should plainly spell out that sometimes that **** happens ... and that’s okay. Also that sometimes life will just suck for folks ... and that’s okay too.

But the need to do so is only in proportion to believing that people won’t understand that such things should be assumed to be the case as a matter of course.

Ironically, it seems like it was only as the fruits of economic liberalism and having a central government too weak to ****-up much came to create a more prosperous society that what may not have been necessary to say in Smith’s day really became needful to clearly state later on. But by then OTHER philosophies had made inroads.

Of these, betting on human competence in matters of governance as a matter of course (often to deny the reality of human nitwittery or just bad luck) has produced everything from early progressivism to outright communism.

When Peter confronted Ananias he told him several times that his wealth had been under his control. The sin was in lying, not holding back part of the price. That being true (Peter not lying about it being under his control) had the old boy just said something to the effect of “Here’s some of the proceeds from the sale.” he would not just have lived, but probably been received warmly, even commended.

To a modern hyperventilating over chasing after social justice this makes no sense just as it makes no sense to be unconcerned about economic inequality.

There is of course this huge difference between merely opposing social injustice and chasing after social justice that is likewise lost on many: you can effectively fight social injustice by removing or preventing police powers in the hands of government (whereby the government harms citizens) but to chase after social justice in public affairs demands empowering government, even to the point of transforming society from one where most things are lawful (without being point for point enumerated as such) save those things actually forbidden to one where what is lawful will be endlessly enumerated, for everything is regulated “for our own good”.

So those who are pessimistic about men in commerce are ironically among the most dewey eyed optimist when it comes to government ... mocking an invisible hand they embrace an iron one.