In defense of open society

[rogerv]

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.

[PeterFinn]

We're on the same page here.

A good definition of rights is that a right is something you can practice all on your own without the action or interference of any other individual. If the practice of your right requires an action of any kind by another individual then it is not a right.

Speaking is a right. Praying is a right. Controlling one's own resources is a right (so long as it is not to the detriment of someone else). Having children is a unique right shared between two people. Self-preservation is a right and the access to the means of self preservation is also a right as self-preservation cannot be practiced without the means to do so.

What is not a right?

Anything that requires the actions of others is not a right as someone else must ultimately be compelled to perform an action to fulfill your 'right'.

Education is not a right.
Medical care is not a right.
Social Security is not a right.
Protection from crime is not a right.
Protection from foreign invasion is not a right.
Protection from disaster is not a right.
Access to clean water and healthy food is not a right.

What else is not a right?

You don't have a right to pollute someone else's water.
You don't have a right to pollute their air.
You don't have a right to play loud music where other people must suffer it.
You don't have a right to impose your will on other people.

What about conflicting rights?

You have a right to keep and bear arms.
I have a right to shoot you if you threaten me with them.

You have a right to do what you want on your property.
I have a right to be free of your infringement of my property by your actions on your property.

You have a right to speak.
I don't have to listen.

You have a right to travel.
But not across my property.

You have a right to be a Communist.
I have a right not to be.

Ultimately the understanding is that rights are inherent in individuals and are inseparable from their persons regardless of what laws are passed.

"The People" empowered government and therefore are the wellspring of rights and laws themselves. Government is but an instrument of their collective Will.

You can pass a law forbidding self-defense, but my right to self-defense does not cease to exist in my person.

You can pass a law forbidding free-speech, but my right to free-speech does not cease to exist in my person.

You can pass a law forbidding instruments of self-defense (guns, swords, etc.), but my right to those instruments does not cease to exist in my person.

If you come up with a society that respects rights and mandates no imposition on others, you will have my rapt attention.

[airborne]

PING

[airborne]

A chance to ask questions...and perhaps get answers.

[rogerv]

I haven't said, nor do I believe that government is the answer to all our problems, and social engineering is not something restricted to government. This is something done by society when analyzing institutional performance, and seeing if our institutions are accomplishing the tasks we need them to perform, or whether we need new institutions to take over new functions or old ones no longer performed by our existing institutions.

Having said that, let me go on to disagree in part with some of what you said. Government need not be any more inefficient or corrupt than any other institution. Right now, social security administration costs come to 2% of the budget. Show me even one private insurer that has administrative overhead that low. Private industry has its own examples of corruption and inefficiency. Enron is an example of the former. Very CEO compensation irrespective of performance is another. I think we need to compare the comparable. Having said that, let me agree that there is a lot of government waste and corruption, and we ought to work to clean it up. Corrupt government does not represent the interests of those who vote, but of those who pay. This is definitely a problem we need to solve. We may never eliminate corruption entirely (perfection should not be our standard here), but there have been periods where corruption has been better and those where it has been worse. This is something we can do something about.

Now before you scale back government too much, I think you ought to think back to periods where government involvement was less. Before government got involved in workplace regulation, unions were weak, children worked sometimes 16 hour shifts, bodies were mangled in unsafe machinery, and corporations sometimes forced their workers to work in company towns, to buy from company stores, and controlled so many aspects of their lives, they were nearly slaves. Tennessee Ernie Ford's song "16 tons" gets it right: "I sold my soul to the company store." Before government expanded the poor laws into some form of welfare, and instituted social security, people were dying of starvation here in the United States. There were churches, there was private charity, but it wasn't enough.

You make some claims about what would happen if we cut off certain people from government support. But at least one assumptions you are making is that these people are not working already. In many cases they are working, and are not making enough to make ends meet. They are working part time minimum wage jobs, no benefits, and simply are not making enough. If you simply stop the payments, what will happen?

Suppose you worked in a hospital. You see all these patients on ventilators, and create a theory: these people are lazy, and they don't have to breathe on their own because the hospital machines are doing it for them. I'll bet if we turned off these machines, we'd force these people to breathe on their own. Suppose that was your theory. Do you think anybody in the hospital would be willing to let you bet the life of those patients that you are right?

Now let me tell you what they actually do in those hospitals. They reduce the ventilator load or turn it off briefly, and see if the patient can breathe on their own, or can breathe on a lower setting. If not, they restore the ventilator immediately. It is a sensible practice. No one wants people to be on ventilators when they don't need to be. And some people can be gradually weaned off of them. Some cannot. Some need some support but can be left to breathe on their own with assistance.

I'd be in favor of making some distinctions here. I am not in favor of cutting off people's lifeline (income assistance here) until they are in a position to get something better and don't need the assistance any more.

[rogerv]

I believe some gun control measures are knee-jerk overreactions and don't endorse them. Nor do I count myself as a person who is concerned about what liberties other people have. On that score, I am comfortable with as much liberty that is consistent with everyone have like liberty. The only limitation I insist on is the same one John Stuart Mill insisted on: liberty is limited when such liberty would harm others. Whether particular restrictions on gun ownership protect anyone or not is a question of fact, and you, I'm sure know more about that than I do.

[rogerv]

Nowhere in my statement did I assign all this work to the government. Government of course would be involved. At least some of what would be going on would involve changes in the law, and only government can do that. But as I see it, this is a process that our entire society would engage in at multiple levels, and not necessarily from a particular center.

You are missing a crucial distinction here. Perhaps I have not been clear. Piecemeal social engineering is what Popper (and I) favor; Utopian social engineering, the kind we saw practiced in large scale socialist societies is what Popper and I (and apparently you) reject.

Since we don't know each other well yet, we should probably go slowly here, and not seize on phrases and assume we understand them without further explanation. "Piecemeal social engineering" has the word 'social" in it, true. But not everything that has the word 'social' in it has anything to do with socialism. Consider the phrase 'ice cream social' and I think you will see my point.

As for the job of dictator, no thanks. I have trouble enough running my own life; I don't want to run yours.

[rogerv]

Thanks. It appears you believe mostly in negative rights--noninterference rights--and not positive rights, or entitlements. Do I understand you correctly?

It also appears you believe that rights may exist even if not recognized by law. Let me call those 'human rights' as opposed to 'civil rights' which require some sort of constitutional embodiment. If that is your claim,I agree with you that there are such rights, hard to enforce when not recognized in law, but important nevertheless. Do I understand you on this as well?

[rogerv]

One further point. I believe that regulation is consistent with liberty provided we always look for the least restrictive alternative when imposing regulation. That place the burden on those who would restrict liberty to demonstrate no reasonable alternative would achieve the same ends and a lower price to liberty. I hope that clarification helps.

[rogerv]

Interesting letter. Given the admiration both Voegelin and Strauss had for Plato, it is possible they are less charitable to Popper than they would be towards other amateur Plato scholars.

For an alternative opinion, you ought to read von Hayek's biography. Frederick von Hayek and Karl Popper were good friends and admired each other's work. Von Hayek liked "Open Society and its Enemies" a great deal, and Popper admired von Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" (see Popper's footnote 1 to chapter 9, on page 284 in volume I for Popper's public acknowledgment of his admiration for von Hayek's work). Von Hayek, as you may know, is warmly admired by Milton Friedman. I think an endorsement by von Hayek should carry some weight with those who admire Milton Friedman.

[PeterFinn]

An entitlement cannot be a right. You do not have a right to my money or resources. Government currently takes my money from me and gives it to other people as an entitlement that can be taken away by an Act of Congress. Entitlements are not rights.

The USSC will never rule that anyone has a right to an entitlement. And don't mistake an "Equal Access" decision as granting a right, it doesn't. Education is not a right, States are free to not provide this at taxpayer expense - but if they do (which they all do, of course) then all of the public has the right to access a public resource.

I'm not familiar with your term 'negative rights' - but I'm taking that to mean people have the right not to be hassled on their own property. This is filed under the 'pursuit of happiness' and if you build a noisy factory next to my property I have the right to seek an injunction against you for depriving me of my peace and quiet.

Not every court will perfect my rights, granted, but the right exists regardless.

The British Crown banned guns in America and the patriots exercised their rights anyway. The law be damned if it violates the rights of the people from whom the law gains its power. It is the right of the people to ignore an unjust law and it is also their right to overthrow a government that violates their rights.

[PeterFinn]

Actually, under the codicils of Nuremburg (of which the US is a signatory)individuals have a legal obligation to overthrow governments that violate individual rights.

This was key to convicting 'innocent' Nazis of the crime of inaction.

[jonestown]

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

---

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

---

At #21 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?
29 jonestown

---

I am comfortable with as much liberty that is consistent with everyone have like liberty.
The only limitation I insist on is the same one John Stuart Mill insisted on: liberty is limited when such liberty would harm others.

One further point. I believe that regulation is consistent with liberty provided we always look for the least restrictive alternative when imposing regulation.
48 rogerv

---

Your last line illustrates again the gulf between Constitutionalists & Communitarian's.
Our governments were instituted to preserve individual liberty, not to impose 'regulations consistent with liberty'.

[Senior Chief]

Marx, Mao, and Hitler all knew they could not acheive their individual totalitarian goals in one fell swoop. incrimentalism was the key. Specifically, Hitler spelled out his progressive plan in "Mien Kampf (sp)". His social arrangement...starting with the children. Cultivate the minds and the bodys will follow.

[Oztrich Boy]

My analysis on legitimacy of claimed "rights" is to rephrase the sentence, substiting "freedom" or "entitlement" to see which does less violence to the language.

We have a Freedom of Education

We have an Entitlement of Education

We have a Freedom of Expression

We have an Entitlement of Expression.

[x]

Things have changed a lot since the 1940s. At that time it was assumed by many people that planning and government control were inevitable and the only question was whether they would be imposed gradually and regulated democratically or whether they would arrive in a more drastic fashion and be administered dictatorially. Today, people are much colder to the idea of centralized control.

"Piecemeal social change" sounded fine when totalitarianism was the alternative, but today it has an elitist, Orwellian ring. Government may be a necessity and some regulation of business unavoidable. Nations still do regulate industry and administer various agencies. The focus today is on individual liberty and government non-interference, though, and most of us tend to tune out people who want to use government to run people's lives. We may need them at some point or in some situations, but don't like them hanging around when things are more or less running well by themselves.

"Democratic control" was a plausible slogan in an age of totalitarianisms, but now we experience it as just more bureaucratic interference and red-tape. Consequently, to many people today, Popper looks more like the autocratic, top-down rulers that he was critical of in his own day. It's certainly ironic, but those who believed that he distorted the views of Plato or Hegel will probably smile at his being lumped in with them as ambitious would-be guardian-rulers. More or less the same is true of Dewey, at least where conservatives are concerned: democratic pragmatism isn't so much contrasted with totalitarian thought-control, but seen as another species of modern nihilism.

Right or left, we should all be glad that the totalitarianism isn't an option now, but that does mean that politicians and theorists associated with the struggle against fascism or communism don't seem to be the most relevant to our needs today.

[rogerv]

I don't there was anything incremental about the way fascism or communism took control. Lenin and Hitler were fanatics who just knew what was best for everybody, and were not going to wait for the rest of the country to realize it.

But the fact that evil or bad regimes can come incrementally is not an objection to incrementalism, any more than the fact that propaganda can masquerade as education is an objection to education. The important thing is to monitor the process to make sure that we the people are happy with results so far--so we can undo what we did if things are going badly.

[rogerv]

More useful might be to think of rights as 'freedom from' or 'freedom to'. 'Freedom from' would mean that no one may interfere with my right to do something. 'freedom to' would include what are sometimes called 'welfare rights'--that one can expect to be provided with a decent minimum of some things to sustain life. The former would be a consistent reading of what Jefferson might have meant by the right to 'pursue happiness', which was probably a compromise between freedom to worship as we please (the concerns of the colonists at Massachusetts Bay and Plymouth) and the right to pursue wealth (the primary concern I think of the settlers of Virginia). The 'welfare rights' might fit in to the 'right to life' also in the Declaration of Independence, but that will take some arguing.

[rogerv]

Planning is something we all do. People who never plan wind up reacting to circumstances rather than acting on circumstances in a way that promises reasonably good outcomes. This is, I think, the heart of the matter. What does it mean to be rational? It does not mean to lay out some inflexible plan in advance, and try to force everything into shape. It is more like flying a plane or driving a boat: you have a destination you are trying to reach, and adapt your course to flying or sailing conditions to stay on course; or you recognize that a particular destination is unrealistic and give up on it and look for an alternate destination. It's like a good business plan. You decide what direction a company should go, try to be realistic in estimating costs, sources of finance and revenue, likely customers, likely competitors,etc. You cannot know in advance how things will turn out. But you can monitor the execution of the plan to see if you are on target for your goals.

Rationality simply describes the character of the thinking involved in thinking about what we want to do, why we want to do it, what will likely result if we do it, what obstacles we may encounter, etc. It also involves come up with some indicators that will tell us if we are doing what we think we are doing (rather that something else), if we are drifting off course, if the situation has changed in important ways and we may need to rethink our goals, etc.

Just letting things happen is not a formula for success. It is a formula for letting short term considerations crowd out long term ones; it is a formula for letting personal interests weigh more heavily than the interests of the larger community; it is a formula for waste and reduplication of effort because of the lack of coordination between the efforts of different groups working on the same problem; and without a reality check, we may all assume we are doing one thing only to find out, to our grief, we have been doing something else entirely. Rationality may require we step back from what we are doing for a while, and make sure we are accurately describing our actions, make sure that our actions really are connected with our institutional goals, and that our institutional goals really are serving some interests outside our institution (that is, that preserving our institution has not become the primary goal of the institution).

[rogerv]

Individual liberty is not the whole concern of the Constitution. There is also concern for the common good. This is why there is in the preamble and description in article one of the powers of congress, some concern for the general welfare. This is why there is eminent domain: the reasonable expectation that some property would be needed for the common good. Case in point would be the building of infrastructure: roads, canals, electric, telegraph and telephone wires, water and sewage lines. The building of the transcontinental railroad was largely subsidized by taxpayers and the land acquired through eminent domain, but we all benefited from the cheaper prices afforded by cheaper transportation.

I think, by the way, that there is an argument here that socializing some costs can be justified even for a market economy: because cheap transportation and cheap communication reduce production costs and enable sellers to find buyers more efficiently. Sharing the the costs of infrastructure makes markets more efficient.

[jonestown]

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 believe that regulation is consistent with liberty provided we always look for the least restrictive alternative when imposing regulation.
48 rogerv

---

Your last line illustrates again the gulf between Constitutionalists & Communitarian's.

Our governments were instituted to preserve individual liberty, not to impose 'regulations consistent with liberty'.
52 jonestown

---

Individual liberty is not the whole concern of the Constitution. There is also concern for the common good.
59 rogerv

---

You argue that government is best for regulating the common good, that "socializing some costs can be justified". -- We have been following that path, and losing our liberties on the way.

Can you agree that following the basic principles of our Constitution, --[No infringements on individual liberties allowed]; -- is our best bet to reverse course?