In defense of open society

I've been reading Karl Popper's two volume work "Open Society and it Enemies". Here's the amazon.com link:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691019681/103-5859654-8821426?v=glanceThe thread I posted at commongroundcommonsense.org, "In Defense of Open Society" was inspired by that work. I'd like to start a thread with the same name here because I see this as an important problem that crosses partisan lines. In a nutshell, the central question is this: how can we rationally institute changes in our society? Changes take place whether we consciously bring them about or not, and some changes are threatening to some people. Popper charts some of the philosophers who have tried to tame change--Plato, Hegel and Marx--by suggesting laws of history (what he calls 'historicism')--but such ideologies led to totalitarian societies where society was forced, like Procrustes bed, to fit a revolutionary or essentialist mold, attended by great bloodshed and misery. Popper's question, and mine, is how do we bring change under rational control, so that we can improve things and minimize the advserse effects? Popper's claim is that society is best when it considers its beliefs open to revision in the light of evidence, like scientific theories, conjectures subject to refutation. Next, we do best if we introduce change in small increments, and monitor the effects--what he calls 'piecemeal social engineering'. This rules out grand Utopian schemes--but that is just as well, because most of those have been disasters. As a reformist liberal who follows John Dewey, Popper's suggestions make sense to me. But, as for everything else, the important questions lie in the details.

For example, even in science, it sometimes makes sense to stick with a theory that seems in trouble. Most scientists do not consider a theory overthrown by the first bad result. It may be the expriement was performed improperly, or the scientist was careless in observations, or there is something new and interesting happening that the theory could explain if elaborated.

It seems to me good policy should pay attention to good science. But how? Policy involves value judgments as well as factual claims--and sometimes a little crystal ball gazing. We don't always know how a particular policy will play itself out once enacted. But maybe it is best to start at this general level, and work in the details as we go along.

The reason beliefs should be treated as revisable is that we are often guessing the way the world is, and need to update our guesses in the light of new information. Markets can be good for this, but not always. In efficient markets, price reflects available information. But competition can lead to information being witheld (for the sake of competitive advantage) and there are market failures as well. The assumption of rationality in the markets is an idealization. But in the ideal case, for econmies as well as scientifc systems, the end result should reflect all the available information.

So I guess the deep question for me is how does one arrange society so that we can adapt our institutions to changing conditions and improve their performance of important functions (like education, judicial justice, economic welfare, scientific knowledge, etc.)

I think the answer cannot be just: individual initiative and hard work. Both of those are necessary, but they are not sufficient. Case in point: people in the third world work as hard or harder than many of us do in the indistrial world, but have much less to show for it. The difference is the social system in which they do their work. The answer isn't private property either. To be sure, the system needs incentives to energize the work and creativity any economy needs. That you will own things appeals to self-interest, and self interest is an important factor in human motivation. But we need something more, I think, a sense of wanting to help others live better lives. Hume put it this way: in addition to self-interests we have sympathetic interests in the well-being of others. Those sympathies are limited, but they are a significant force in making people care about others in their community. Well, that's enough for a start. I donm't want this to be a monlogue, but a conversation, and am interested in hearing what you think.

The difference is the social system in which they do their work. The answer isn't private property either. To be sure, the system needs incentives to energize the work and creativity any economy needs. That you will own things appeals to self-interest, and self interest is an important factor in human motivation. But we need something more

I think a liberal who has seen communist regime after regime fail should think that private ownership and self interest should be foremost in the third world attempting to get out of the hole.

Case in point: people in the third world work as hard or harder than many of us do in the indistrial world, but have much less to show for it.

And arguing that they work as hard is silly on the face of it too, inasmuchas the first world works with tools and equipment that far enhance the work acheivment of an individual. So thats it, move over to a capitalist society and forget about people doing good work for others unless it is of their own free will that they do so. The rest of the article is a subtle appeal for more communist treatment of people but in small bites so that they don't suffer the great losses of communist societies of the past. Wasted thought energy.

I'm not interested in abolishing private property. I think there is some connection between property and responsibility. But I do see the point of having a mixed economy like ours, where there is both private and public investment.

I also see the point of having some mildly redistributive taxation. Perhaps the most obvious case is in disaster relief. When lives are at stake, we don't ask government to wait and see if private charity is going to be enough. We expect government to step in and help when disaster strikes. The question that remains is: can some situations be so catastrophically bad that they would qualify as disasters--the slow starvation of a group of people, the eviction and continued homelessness of some people? We are not talking about cradle to grave security here, or taking care of the lazy. We are talking about looking at a carefully defined set of circumstances that might be qualified as cases of saving lives. Giving help to those who are doing the best they can but falling behind. I think in a decent society, it should be a scandal if people are starving to death while others have plenty and to spare. But the USDA is suggesting their are people right now under chronic food stress in the US. I don't think we should turn a blind eye to this. I know there are good people who do care and have done quite a lot. The question is: is it enough?

I think there are arguments from self-interest for why we as a people would want government doing this in our name. Quite aside from the humanitarian impulse that cares for the suffering of others, there are other arguments from self-interest. The first would be the "I want to do the right thing, but sometimes fail to follow through' argument. Weakness of will, the bane of New Years resolutions, can defeat our desire to help. We tend to look at the short term, at the immediate pressing problems we have, and forget about our good intentions. So some people would appreciate the government giving them reminders (at tax time) about their unkept promises to help out.

The other arguments are the "you can pay me now or pay me later' type arguments. My reference is to the old Fram oil filter commercials. People sometimes fool themselves into thinking they are saving money by skipping oil changes and replacing their oil filters. But that doesn't solve the problem. It postpones it. Putting off the day of reckoning may mean we take a small manageable problem, that is easily and cheaply solved, and turn it into a large expensive problem that may not even be completely solvable. So here. If we say 'why should I pay for other people's kids to go to public school' we may find we have under-qualified workers showing up, people who can't hold a job. people who don't take good care of themselves (because they don't understand preventive health) and clog up our hospitals; people who decide to go into crime and require bigger expenditures on law enforcement, the courts, prisons. People who will look at your success and envy you, or rob from you, or even try to kill you.

Now, I can hear some of you ready to say: I can't be accountable for other people's actions. And that is true. But the social problems will still be yours. And you will still have to pay for them with your taxes. So the question here is: would you rather pay a little in prevention, or a lot in cure? My guess is that you could convince rational people that it makes good sense to pay some redistributive taxes for a limited range of concerns.

Now I am not talking about confiscating property here. Private property will still exist. And the taxes we pay will have to be the taxes we vote for. There is little danger that the voters are going to agree to tax themselves into poverty. But since we all benefit from being in society, it makes sense to ask people to pay into the system to keep it running. The government should do whatever we the people tell it to, but I think we could get reasonable people to agree to do some of these things I have mentioned. But that is the point of this thread for me: we would need to persuade people of this. Imposing it can be every bit as bad as some of you fear.

As a liberal, I am concerned about equal opportunity. I believe we ought to do what we can to give everyone a shot at a decent life. Now, some opportunities are not distributed equally. People born in poor families are more likely to have poor nutrition, poor health, poorer schools, to live in dirtier neighborhoods, and even more dangerous neighborhoods. They arrive in the job market with what they are able to accomplish within those limitations. Some people manage to work their way out of the cycle of poverty, some do not. Now, I submit to you that these people face hurdles that people born in more fortunate situations do not, and do not get the same opportunities as a result. Fewer people with the same talents and effort succeed in these circumstances, and it is not their fault. No one has control over where they are born.

So what I propose is that we take some measures to equalize opportunity at least to some degree. We can't make the blind see, but we can provide books in braille. And the smart ones and studious ones can take it from there.

My arguments for doing this are two. First, we should not penalize people for things that are not their fault. Second, we deprive society of the gifts and talents of people working with such disadvantages. Just in economic terms, such investments make sense.

On the matter of liberty, I'd like to take the big picture. People who are stuck in situations where they are deprived of opportunities to better their lives are less free than those not so stuck. So, yes, you do give up the freedom to spend some of the money you have earned. That does reduce your liberty somewhat. But it increases the liberty of others, and makes society as a whole freer. In terms of marginal utility, a dollar represents less welfare for someone who has lots of dollars, than for someone who has few dollars. In am not talking about equalizing incomes. I don't believe in that. I do believe some jobs are harder, some make more social contributions, and that wage differentials do attract talented people to the places where they are needed. And we are all better off having more competent people as doctors than less competent people as doctors.

Planning is something we all do.

Maybe, but nowadays we are more inclined to give general guidelines and let people achieve them on their own, rather than try to force or command results. Individual aims weigh more heavily with us that institutional goals. If you want to see another view of public life, take a look at Michael Oakeshott's Rationalism in Politics. Or at Friedrich Hayek.

Given his popularity with the democratic socialists of the 1940s and George Soros today, Popper is bound to have a bad reputation with conservatives. Jeremy Shearmur was a student of Popper's who wrote on Hayek as well. His view views on Hayek and Popper might interest you:

http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/shearmur.htm

http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues/earlyclassicalliberalism/popper.html

I doubt that people can or should take things as far as the libertarian fringe advocates, but our current desire to put individual freedom ahead of collective goals is laudable and has much to recommend it. It's likely that we delude ourselves by ignoring the degree of planning, regulation, and control that goes into keeping our society running, but when we look at those whose main interest is in planning, controlling, and regulating public life, to the exclusion of other human activities, it's natural that people shun them.

I also see the point of having some mildly redistributive taxation

I agree, only because we can't seem to stop it. Spending other people's money is the single uniting aspect of politicians. I see private charity as being more than capable of carrying the load if and when the government assistance is terminated. When the government steps in, private support goes somewhere else. I agree, the truely hungry, the truely damaged should have a place to go.

People who will look at your success and envy you, or rob from you, or even try to kill you.

This is an arguement that falls on deaf ears for me. I have of course heard it from some liberal thinkers before you. "We support afirmative action and welfare because if we don't, the people in the ghetto will rise up against us". Well, we should help them but welfare leads to dependency and afirmative action denies true merit and is in itself a form of discrimination which in reverse we would not tolerate. The help needs to be offered in the form of a lifetime of learning and not a day of relief.

There is little danger that the voters are going to agree to tax themselves into poverty. But since we all benefit from being in society, it makes sense to ask people to pay into the system to keep it running.

It is an interesting arguement. In the college dorm, the mere fact that some students did not intend to go to social functions allowed the majority to drop a redistributive tax called "social dues" and make each event a pay as you go. It destroyed the otherwise wonderful social life in the dorm. I believe as a liberal you would agree that you should not have to pay for services you might not use of a social nature, but would be quite willing that we should all pay for services of a charitable nature. I believe the tax limit is reached when people lose their incentive to earn more. Not all the way to poverty, just when they lose their personal incentive is too far. Let's continue to move in the direction of building incentives for people to move up in the quality of living that we all desire. Let them share more of the wealth earned by their hands, and let the education system properly serve both the learners but also the people who need adult training. I would much rather support education than prisons. But mind this, I would not tolerate extortion from the ghetto or the left wing, I would expect it to be met with the force of rational thought and the police force if necessary.

I find your insights and questions quite enchanting. Your title, straight from Karl Popper, was magnetic to me, as what little I have read by Karl Popper, I found myself mostly agreeing with him. Your interest in trying to understand different opinions in not unlike my own. I did however, find one paragraph that seemed to me to be the underlying premise on which all else depends. That paragraph starts out :

On this we agree one hundred percent.. I also agree with you that :

In efficient markets, price reflects available information. But competition can lead to information being witheld (for the sake of competitive advantage) and there are market failures as well.

But in stating the above, depending on how broadly you choose to define your words, lies the failure of your insight. If you broadly define "competitive advantage" to include advantage to the advancement of personal beliefs and causes, and to the advancement of personal prestige and reputation (regardless of or without personal monetary or material benefit), then we agree. On the other hand, if what primarily comes to mind is the narrow "competitive advantage" as it is usually meant, that of monetary and business position, then your proposal to correct such informational deficiencies fails. As failure to include personal beliefs, causes, prestige and reputation, will lead to false assumptions and subsequent premises. When propagated, such failures feeds into the politics of envy and resentment. Thus:

The assumption of rationality in the markets is an idealization.

Where in fact, all we can ever have rationally speaking, is "markets." Obviously some markets will be closed and private, while other markets will be open and public. A distinction must be made here for clarity. Government markets can be both both public as well as private. An example of a private government market in operation, can be found any time a personnel executive or an employment board decides to hire a new government employee. Obviously the policies on which they operate have been public. But basis for the final decisions are private.

But in the ideal case, for econmies as well as scientifc systems, the end result should reflect all the available information.

In closing I would suggest to you that an open public free market will most always reach closer to rationality than any private government market. You may call this "assumption of rationality... an idealization," but can you provide a better method of arriving at the most complete and accurate information?

Just letting things happen is not a formula for success.

I suggest to you that "just letting things happen"was for the most part precisely the formula for success until the depression/WWII generation tossed it all away for free handouts.

Without a doubt America prior to that generation had lots of room for improvement. Likewise, many improvements have occurred despite their gi'me, gi'me, gi'me demands that were forced upon the vitality of the nation. But the resulting costs, hopelessness, and mass dependencies that came out of their political actions have now been institutionalized into a new nationwide underclass.

The regressive proposals of the so-called "progressives" and the anti-social policies of the misnamed "liberals" have only compounded the problems. Our current caretaker "conservative" government, only able to hold on through the last election due to a war and a threat of terrorism, has offered nothing new, except more of the same, as it tries to balance the concerns of opposing interests.

In a prior reply on this thread you mentioned "trasnportation" and "eminent domain." The full costs of which you did not go into. Besides the small taxing and actual property thefts that have occurred in their name, their is the much larger costs of urban sprawl, with its subsequent demands for wider roads, land use planning, and further theft of property use rights (not to include the massive additional costs to meet environmental concerns). Try reversing this situation, with its subsequent handouts, and one will quickly see just how powerful the construction industry and its unions have become.

In another reply, you speak of "equal opportunity." You say "we should not penalize people for things that are not their fault.." But that is exactly what you do when you imply that freedom penalizes them. Freedom penalizes nobody. But implying that it does, allows for an easy way to ignore the fact that a lack of freedom is exactly what is actually penalizing them. Envisioning people as mere wage slaves, pigeon holes them as being either lazy incapable of taking care of themselves. Instead of offering them freedom (spontinaety in business), the call goes out for more spending of other people's money to care for them while training them to be 8 hour a day, 40 hour a week wage slaves. It may make the promoters of such expenditures feel superior as they look down upon these poor folks, but it does not take care of their real needs.

I’ve read over this thread again and it seems to me that you and we are speaking at cross purposes. I don’t think you have gone deep enough in order for us to reach some common places. I’m not sure how many times in your posts here, rogerv, you have suggested that *we* need to figure out how to change society – how to better society – how to “arrange” society – how to “piece-meal” social-engineer society etc.

What I don’t think you understand is that conservatives generally think that we have an excellent society already. Do you see how your introduced topic speaks at cross purposes with those you are trying to to start a conversation? Most conservatives believe that the governmental “system” set up by the Founders is already good enough – in fact – it’s the best around.

Conservatives, as a rule, in working toward a better society and a better world, want to more closely adhere to the Constitution while leftists and socislists want to increase the size and scope of government. They are two diametrically opposed world views. You, rogerv, based on your writings here – line up with the leftists and socialists. Perhaps you are not telling yourself the truth about that.

Conservatives, as a rule, believe in human nature, in mankind, in *individuals*. We don’t think that we need to persuade people to care about others or rise to a higher level of caring or anything like that. We believe that people will naturally “care” about others when they have met their own needs. And the proof that that is true is in the generosity of the American people. We give more than any other people on the planet. Leftists and socialists, as a rule, believe in government, in “engineering”, in creating a society that “takes care” of individuals. Conservatives believe that when you have the kind of governmental system that encourages and expects “individuals” to be all that they can be – you will have a great society. Conservatives are more willing to “allow” society to evolve and grow organically. Leftists and socialists want to “engineer” it – to “control” it.

There were so many good posts written to you on this thread. I do hope you will go back and re-read them – several times. Billybudd, marron, mr.maine-iac, TKDietz, Peter Finn, KC for freedom, Jonestown etc – all of them are worth studying – if you want to learn from conservatives.

I think it is hard to understand, when one takes an honest look at the world we live in – how you can not realize that America is a fabulous society. And I think it is hard to understand why you don’t seem to realize that the reason that third world “individuals” are not doing well is because they are not free to do well. They do not have good governmental systems. Democracy in the Middle East is going to revolutionalize the lives of individuals there. And once individuals begin to have hope and to dream their own dreams and go after them, living in a country with a good governmental system and then begin to grow and change as individuals, with personal character and responsibility – their societies will radically improve.

There is evidence to support what conservatives believe. When you look at the history of the world – people in free countries with good governmental systems – do much, much better than those in dictatorships or other oppressive systems. Socialists and leftists have failed over and over – and they are failing again in Europe and Canada. There is no “rational” reason to waste time on leftist and socialist attempts to “engineer” society – whether in toto or piece-meal. Voters let politicians know if they like or don’t like the way that society is going. We already have a way to make policy and evaluate policy.

As I said before – freedom is messy. But the results are far superior to “engineered” societies. This kind of gets at the heart of where leftists like you are coming from:

He makes a strong case that liberals are seeking illegitmately to discredit and disqualify policy arguments that rest in whole or in part on religious beliefs. For example, Peter Beinart, editor of the New Republic, has argued that it is wrong for religious conservatives to base their views and arguments about public policy on theological premises because, in doing so, they appeal to reasons that are not "accessible to people of different religions, or no religion at all."

Ponnuru has more time for this argument than I do, but he does state the essential point -- when liberals make this plea for "open debate," they are really trying to rule things out of the debate, to shut down the discussion. Once again, it's about attempting to marginalize Christianity for political gain. And the attempt is made under the false pretense that religiously based arguments are insufficently accessible.

secularism and its discontents

[[[I did come across a good explanation in David Horowitz's new book Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left. Horowitz's theory is "the utopian future that embodies the idea of 'social justice'" connects radical Islam and its sympathizers with yesterday's Marxists: "It is this utopian vision that provides radicals with the standard of judgment that condemns the actually existing world, no matter how decent it may be." So therefore America and its friends, like Iraq the Model, are automatically suspect. – National Review]]]

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance

We call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels

We call in government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

We call it the Federal Reserve which is a credit/debt system nationally organized by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). This private bank has an exclusive monopoly in money creation which in reality has ended the need for revenue from taxes. So why do they tax? To FOOL YOU into thinking they need them.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State

We call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) madated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations. There is also the postal monopoly, AMTRACK and CONRAIL

7. Extention of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

We call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liablity of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

We call it the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000. And I almost forgot...The Equal Rights Amendment means that women should do all work that men do including the military and since passage it would make women subject to the draft.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

We call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

People are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education" .

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.