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.

I think civil rights have protected us from the brutal treatment one sees in some regimes around the world, and I'm glad they are there. I think our grip on civil liberties has always been shaky--anytime we find a problem seriously enough to declare a war on it (including one that involve actual wars) we see illegal wiretaps, no-knock policies, taking of property, suspension of free speech, free press, even freedom of religion. I know some of you are very concerned about right to bear arms because you believe otherwise the government might not honor its commitment to protect your other rights. (BTW I am not interested in taking your guns away from you, but I do distinguish regulation from suppression; I think all our rights are qualified by an obligation to protect others from harm)

Here's my take on what has gone wrong with our civil liberties, in no particular order: we like freedom for ourselves, but don't trust other people with it; we are in too big a hurry to get things done, and push through some policy initiatives and laws without having a public discussion (indeed, debate) about how those policies will affect everyone involved; and we disagree on what liberties people should be allowed to have (making the application of constitutional principles far from straightforward). I think by disciplining ourselves to demand rationality in the policy making process, we give ourselves time to find alternatives that are liberty-protective.

Let me give a specific example. I wish I knew more details about this. There are some takings going on somewhere points east of where I live invoking eminent domain, but in a novel way: some municipalities are forcing people to sell their homes (sometimes at below market value because of the way they clear whole blocks of houses) not for public goods like highways, but so that a developer or corporation can build on that same land properties that will bring in higher taxes. The argument is that this produces jobs. But, on the other hand are these people who are loosing their homes, some of which have been in the family for generations. That strikes me as wrong. I think that is an abuse of eminent domain. I'm wondering if the debate had been more public and everyone in the debate had their interests taken seriously, if the decision might have been made differently. At any rate, it is my hope that greater rationality here will lead to greater freedom. After all, I think if people were more rational, they would realize there are good reasons to voluntarily help others.

Let me get this straight: to rationally guide our society we must erase or deny self-interest?

KJacob asks the perfect question. How can you ensure all will buy into the 'common interest'? What sort of social engineering do you propose that would eliminate cheaters?

Also: who or what determines the common interest? A leader? A vote? Isn't that more or less what our system does now? I believe that you'll never get consensus from 250 million people. Differing ideas for the direction of our society will always exist, no matter what rate you phase in change.

If you want a society open to changes in beliefs than you must allow these differing ideas not only to exist, but you also must give each a chance to flourish. Only then will they become strong enough to challenge the dominant paradigm. You must encourage contrarian ideas knowing that they might replace currently held beliefs.

You say that a grand Utopian scheme is out of the question, and yet, if you're going to institute unidirectional piecemeal change there must be a guiding plan. If there's no Utopia at the end of this process, then it must be an eternal open ended quest. Therefore you must be willing to allow contrarian ideas take the reins and guide society when they attain popular support.

In such a situation, you might have a society that, in a time of scarce resources, draws closer together and realizes the benefits of group strength. That society might pass laws that redistribute income. Later, as resources become more available (due maybe to weather, overseas political climate, freak accident... who knows?), the society may realize the great advances possible when it's individuals are not hampered by the old system and are more free to act in self-interest. It might retract the laws that redistribute income.

And each state of that society, one more socialist, one more libertarian, must later be judged in your system to determine which was 'better', right? But you've already established that beliefs are to be relative and open to change, so the definitions of 'good', 'better', and 'crappy' also become relative. There goes any sort of scientific, or rational, study of the experiments. The quality of the social engineering experiments would be judged by whatever group holds political or social power. And when their beliefs are toppled by another group, the second could then draw new conclusions. 'Good' is now 'bad'.

Again, I ask: isn't this more or less what we have now?

The problem with socialist societies is at some point they all have to resort to force to compel participation.

I prefer a society where if you and your cohorts wish to share you are free to form a commune...or even a corporation...and indulge yourselves to your heart's content.

But if someone...anyone...wants to move to a mountain top and salute a Nazi flag (extreme example disclaimer) and school their kids in National Socialist thought I want them to be free to do it. I absolutely don't agree with their actions, but I absolutely support their freedom to do it.

And that's the thing.

Our existing society does nothing to stop you from forming a Communist commune...or even a city (Santa Monica comes to mind). But a socialist society will have to prevent me from forming a capitalist commune or city because that is the very essence of socialism: central control.

Socialism without the force of government behind it is called capitalism. The People's Republic of China is a good example of where the government backed off and capitalism rose up all on its own. Now the Communist government there is trying to dial back the nascent freedom because free people don't like socialism.

China is headed to a bloody revolution due to the fact that people like being able to own things.

I prefer freedom.

some municipalities are forcing people to sell their homes (sometimes at below market value

Again, very good example. This is lawlessness masquerading as lawful. The key to prosperity is legal clarity, legal predictability, and honest courts. The precise mechanisms are less important than that they be transparent and honest.

What you are witnessing in the abuse of imminent domain is what makes a third world country "third world". If such a thing becomes widespread here, the US becomes "Guatemala with color television" to quote an old movie from way back.

Dishonest men can pervert any system if they are allowed into power, and if the people lay down for it. Its not the system, its the character of the people.

Roger, no amount of government social engineering can make people care about one another. That is not the function of government. What I've seen from government is actually the opposite result. For example, the welfare type programs where we've put so many on the dole in this country actually hurt the spirit of giving in this country and have undermined organizations that had traditionally cared for the needy such as churches. If it were up to me, we'd start severely cutting down on things like SSI, H.U.D., food stamps, welfare, and that sort of thing and eventually abolish these programs if possible.

Does this mean I want children to go hungry? Absolutely not. I think if we started pulling the government out of these endeavors churches and other charitable organizations would step in and fill the void. I know I would contribute, as would most people I know. What would change is that churches and other charitable organizations would regain that position of importance in our communities. There would also be far less fraud because people would feel a lot worse about cheating local churches and community members than they would about defrauding the far away government that has money to burn. Likewise, local charities would be much better able to spot fraud on a local level.

Do you want to cut down on teen pregnancy? Stop making it such that they'll be able to receive relatively guilt free government support. Want able bodied people who now sit around and get high all the time and get in trouble while they are mooching off the government to get jobs and live like the rest of us? Cut them off. This would reduce crime and help these people and their children to learn to be contributing members of society.

Governments are inherently inefficient and prone to corruption. Government programs more often than not have unintended consequences that cause worse problems than those they set out to solve. Our government cannot fix all of our problems. This was never intended by our founding fathers who set this country up, especially with respect to our federal government, and they were right.

I don't hate liberals. But there is one thing about liberals and even many who claim to be conservatives that really bothers me, and that is this notion that government is there to fix all of our problems and this irrational belief that government is capable of accomplishing this monumental task. They aren't. They never were and they never will be. In fact they tend to make things worse and their role in society should be minimal. They should try to protect us from each other and make an effort to keep the playing field fair. But government should not be in the business of social engineering. They need to let nature run its course. Man is an amazingly innovative creature capable of adapting to changes. We don't need a government changing us or our society. Allow us the freedom to survive on our own devices and things always seem to work out. Meddle and muck things up with government programs and more and more laws and all you end up with is a dysfunctional society that can't take care of itself.

Thanks but no thanks. Keep your social engineering. Move to Canada or somewhere else and inflict it on them. Let nature run its course here and things will work out fine.

rogev:
In a nutshell, the central question is this: how can we rationally institute changes in our society?

By following the basic principles of our Constitution.

No infringements on individual liberties allowed.
18 jones

I think civil rights have protected us from the brutal treatment one sees in some regimes around the world, and I'm glad they are there. -- [snip] -- I know some of you are very concerned about right to bear arms because you believe otherwise the government might not honor its commitment to protect your other rights.

(BTW I am not interested in taking your guns away from you, but I do distinguish regulation from suppression; I think all our rights are qualified by an obligation to protect others from harm)
-- snip --

-- we disagree on what liberties people should be allowed to have (making the application of constitutional principles far from straightforward).

21 rogerv

You distinguish regulation from suppression; - thus, you think our rights to keep & bear arms are qualified by an obligation to protect others from 'harm'.
Unsaid is your assumption that guns are harmful objects and must be regulated. Your belief is being used by government to infringe by over-regulation.

It is not a 'belief' but a fact that the government has not honored its commitment to protect our 2nd Amendment rights, among many others.

Indeed, -- we disagree on the basics themselves of what liberties people have, not only on what they "should be allowed to have".
In fact, your use of 'allowed' is a good illustration of how deep our disagreement lies.

How can we rationally institute changes in our society if we can't even agree on such basic principles?

After your first thread with the 450+ responses I would have thought that you would have been smart enough to recognize that people here understand what socialism is, they understand what "social engineering" is. They understand the kind of thinking, the kind of mind-set that would say how does one arrange society so that...

Statements like that are a dead givaway to conservatives that you are a socialist! Have you ever questioned why you think it is "your place" to "arrange society"? The arrogance of what you are suggesting just boggles my mind?

And why? Why do you automatically assume that government is the proper means to bring about the "social engineering" and socialism that you are after?

What is your evidence that individual initiative is not sufficient? The Third World? As has already been explained to you, if countries in Africa and South America had good governments, the "individuals" that you seem so eager to control, would be doing just fine.

You have made no argument as to why what we have now is not acceptable. Freedom and self-determination are messy -- you cannot *control* people who are free. And I suspect that that bothers you (I also suspect that you think you "know" what is best for other people and if we would just allow you -- you {and others like you} would be a wonderful, benevolent dictator and create lovely realites for "the people" [who you probably see as too stupid to create their own realites])

"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,..."

Perhaps that can be summed up by recognizing collective identity can act as the catalyst, as long as the rights of the individual are not usurped.

I think our constitution does this; it provides for the common good while recognizing individual rights. It also allows for amendments; it appears the authors accepted the need for change. We have changed it, some for the good and some for the not so good, but the basic document remains untouched.

The constitution defines our collective identity, and with that, we (each of us, collectively) accept a certain responsibility for the group, to greater or lessor degrees.

I recognize I am not the philosopher Popper was, but it works for me.

You might be interested in this letter from Eric Voegelin to Leo Strauss, on Karl Popper:

Leo Strauss: May I ask you to let me know sometime what you think of Mr. Popper. He gave a lecture here, on the task of social philosophy, that was beneath contempt: it was the most washed-out, lifeless positivism trying to whistle in the dark, linked to a complete inability to think "rationally," although it passed itself off as "rationalism"--it was very bad. I cannot imagine reading, and yet it appears to be a professional duty to become familiar with his produtions. Could you say something to me about that--if you wish, I will keep it to myself.

Eric Voegelin: Dear Mr. Strauss, The opportunity to speak a few deeply felt words about Karl Popper to a kindred soul is too golden to endure a long delay. This Popper has been for years, not exactly a stone against which one stumbles, but a troublesome pebble that I must continually nudge from the path, in that he is constantly pushed upon me by people who insist that his work on the "open society and its enemies" is one of the social science masterpieces of our times. This insistence persuaded me to read the work even though I would otherwise not have touched it. You are quite right to say that it is a vocational duty to make ourselves familiar with the ideas of such a work when they lie in our field; I would hold out against this duty the other vocational duty, not to write and to publish such a work. In that Popper violated this elementary vocational duty and stole several hours of my lifetime, which I devoted in fulfilling my vocational duty, I feel completely justified in saying without reservation that this book is impudent, dilettantish crap. Every single sentence is a scandal, but it is still possible to lift out a few main annoyances.

1. The expressions "closed [society]" and "open society" are taken from Bergson's Deux Sources. Without explaining the difficulties that induced Bergson to create these concepts, Popper takes the terms because they sound good to him[he] comments in passing that in Bergson they had a "religious" meaning, but that he will use the concept of the open society closer to Graham Walas's "great society" or that of Walter Lippmann. Perhaps I am oversensitive about such things, but I do not believe that respectable philosophers such as Bergson develop their concepts for the sole purpose that the coffeehouse scum might have something to botch. There also arises the relevant problem: if Bergson's theory of open society is philosphically and historically tenable (which I in fact believe), then Popper's idea of the open society is ideological rubbish . . .

2. The impertinent disregard for the achievements in his particular problem area, which makes itself evident with respect to Bergson, runs through the whole work. When one reads the deliberations on Plato or Hegel, one has the impression that Popper is quite unfamiliar with the literature on the subject--even though he occasionally cites an author. In some cases, as for example Hegel, I would believe that he has never seen a work like Rosenzweig's Hegel and the State. In other cases, where he cites works without appearing to have perceived their contents, another factor is added:

3. Popper is philosophically so uncultured, so fully a primitive ideological brawler, that he is not able even approximately to reproduce correctly the contents of one page of Plato. Reading is of no use to him; he is too lacking in knowledge to understand what the author says. Through this emerge terrible things, as when he translates Hegel's "Germanic world" as "German world" and draws conclusions form this mistranslation regarding Hegel's German nationalist propaganda.

. . . Briefly and in sum: Popper's book is a scandal without extenuating circumstances; in its intellectual attitude it is the typical product of a failed intellectual; spiritually one would have to use expressions like rascally, impertinent, loutish; in terms of technical competence, as a piece in the history of thought, it is dilettantish, and as a result is worthless.

I agree we need to encourage contrarian ideas and I don't believe piecemeal social engineering is unidirectional.

Is this essentially what we have now? I don't think so. We have plenty of folks who know how to obstruct justice, how to derail inquiries they are uncomfortable with, to block research they disagree with. And I guess I disagree that if one gives up the notion of a definite destination towards which are heading, one gives up any notion of rational evaluation and criticism. I think we can improve scientific theories without having any idea where the next improvement will take us. This is because creative breakthroughs in science, and institutional reforms, require imagination. Quantum theory ands relativity theory, for example, did not represent a small or obvious step in advance of the physics we were working with since Newton. It represented a large imaginative break with some crucial assumptions Newton made. But the new theories are more powerful, and do a better job of explaining and predicting the facts. So they are better.

I prefer freedom too. I have no love for socialist societies like Stalin's or Mao's. I do think some small scale experiments in socialism have had some success--the Israeli kibbutz, the Oneida community, perhaps St-Simon's group, the early Christians described in the book of Acts. But these were small scale, voluntary, and did not involve forcing anyone to participate. Large scale socialist societies, especially those inspired by Lenin and his notion of a revolutionary vanguard, have been disasters. I am not eager to see that tried here.

Still, I do believe the point that John Stuart Mill made in his essay "On Liberty" is worth making here. We must all accept as the price of living in society that our liberties are limited when not limiting them would lead others to be harmed. That is consistent with leaving people free to engage in what Mill calls 'experiments in living' like the communes you mention.

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.