Planning and Democracy
Matthew Casey
"The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted to no council and senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it."
- Adam Smith
The common features of all collectivist systems may be described, in a phrase ever dear to socialists of all schools, as the deliberate organization of the labors of society for a definite social goal. That our present society lacks such “conscious” direction toward a single aim, that its activities are guided by the whims and fancies of irresponsible individuals, has always been one of the main complaints of its socialist critics.
In many ways this puts the basic issue very clearly. And it directs us at once to the point where the conflict arises between individual freedom and collectivism. The various kinds of collectivism, communism, fascism, et c., differ among themselves in the nature of the goal toward which they want to direct the efforts of society. But they all differ from liberalism and individualism in wanting to organize the whole of society and all its resources for this unitary end and in refusing to recognize autonomous spheres in which the ends of the individuals are supreme. In short, they are totalitarian in the true sense of this new word which we have adopted to describe the unexpected but nevertheless inseparable manifestations of what in theory we call collectivism.
The “social goal,” or “common purpose,” for which society is to be organized is usually vaguely described as the “common good,” the “general welfare,” or the “general interest.” It does not need much reflection to see that these terms have no sufficiently definite meaning to determine a particular course of action. The welfare and the happiness of thousands cannot be measured on a single scale of less and more. The welfare of a people, like the happiness of a man, depends on a great many things that can be provided in an infinite variety of combinations. It cannot be adequately expressed as a single end, but only as a hierarchy of ends, a comprehensive scale of values in which every need of every person is given its place. To direct all our activities according to a single plan presupposes that every one of our needs is given its rank in an order of values which must be complete enough to make it possible to decide among all the different courses which the planner has to choose. It presupposes, in short, the existence of a complete ethical code in which all the different human values are allotted their due place.
As far as ethics are concerned – they hardly exist on eRepublik – but ethics should be dictated by the individual and not the government, as so heartily tried by our current president in labeling the recent PTO’s as horrendous and an abomination to all of man, so much so that they must be combated with similar procedure. The essential point for us is that no such complete ethical code exists. The attempt to direct all economic activity according to a single plan would raise innumerable questions to which the answer could be provided only by a moral rule, but to which existing morals have no answer and where there exists no agreed view on what ought to be done. People will have either no definite views or conflicting views on such questions because in the free society in which we have lived there has been no occasion to think about them and still less to form common opinions about them.
Not only do we possess such an all-inclusive scale of values: it would be impossible for any mind to comprehend the infinite variety of different needs of different people which compete for the available resources and to attach a definite weight to each. For our problem it is of minor importance whether the ends for which any person cares comprehend only his own individual needs, or whether they include the needs of his closer or even those of his more distant fellows—that is, whether he is egoistic or altruistic in the ordinary senses of these words. The point which is so important is the basic fact that it is impossible for any man to survey more than a limited field, to be aware of the urgency of more than a limited number of needs. Whether his interests center round his own physical needs, his time, his goals, or whether he takes a warm interest in the welfare of every human being he knows, the ends about which can be concerned will always be only an infinitesimal fraction of the needs of all men.
This is the fundamental fact on which the whole philosophy of individualism is based. It does not assume, as is often asserted, that man is egoistic or selfish or ought to be. It merely starts from the indisputable fact that the limits of our powers of imagination make it impossible to include in our scale of values more than a sector of the needs of the whole society, and that, since, strictly speaking, scales of value can exist only in individual minds, nothing but partial scales of values exist—scales which are inevitably different and often inconsistent with each other. From this the individualist concludes that the individuals should be allowed, within defined limits, to follow their own values and preferences rather than somebody else’s; that within these spheres the individual’s system of ends should be supreme and not subject to any dictation by others. It is this recognition of the individual as the ultimate judge of his ends, the belief that as far as possible his own views ought to govern his actions, that forms the essence of the individualist position.
When individuals combine in a joint effort to realize ends they have in common, the organizations, like the state, that they form for this purpose are given their own system of ends and their own means. But any organization thus formed remains one “person” among others, in the case of the state much more powerful than any of the others, it is true, yet still with its separate and limited sphere in which alone its ends are supreme. The limits of this sphere are determined by the extent to which the individuals agree on particular ends (political parties for instance); and the probability that they will agree on a particular course of action necessarily decreases as the scope of such action extends (the slew of political parties in eRepublik). There are certain functions of the state on the exercise of which there will be practical unanimity among its citizens; there will be others on which there will be agreement of a substantial majority; and son, until we come to fields where, although each individual might wish the state to act in some way, there will be almost as many views about what the government should do as there are different people.
It is not difficult to see what must be the consequences when democracy embarks upon a course of planning which in its execution requires more agreement than in fact exists. The people have agreed on adopting a system of directed economy because they have been convinced that it will produce great prosperity. IN the discussions leading to the decision, the goal of planning will have been described by some such term as “common welfare,” which only conceals the absence of real agreement on the ends of planning. Agreement will in fact exist only on the mechanism to be used. But it is a mechanism which can be used only for a common end; and the question of the precise goal toward which all activity is to be directed will arise as soon as the executive power has to translate the demand for a single plan into a particular plan. Then it will appear that the agreement on the desirability of planning is not supported by agreement on the ends the plan is to serve. The effect of the people’s agreeing that there must be central planning, without agreeing on the ends, will be rather as if a group of people were to commit themselves to take a journey together without agreeing where they want to go: with the result that they may all have to make a journey which most of them do not want at all. That planning creates a situation in which it is necessary for us to agree on a much larger number of topics than we have been used to, and that in a planned system we cannot confine collectivist action to the tasks on which we can agree but are forced to produce agreement on everything in order that any action can be taken at all, is one of the features which contributes more than most to determining the character of a planned system (USWP?).
It may be the unanimously expressed will of the people that its congress should prepare a comprehensive economic plan, yet neither the people nor its representatives need therefore be able ot agree on any particular plan. The inability of democratic assemblies to carry out what seems ot be a clear mandate of the people will inevitably cause dissatisfaction with democratic institutions. Congresses come to be regarded as ineffective “talking shops,” unable or incompetent to carry out the tasks for which they have been chosen. The conviction grows that if efficient planning is to be done, the direction must be “taken out of politics” and placed in the hands of experts—permanent officials or independent autonomous bodies.
More tomorrow.
With great concern,
Matthew Casey
U.S. Capitalist Party
Comments
You said it comrade!
Read and vote please. 🙂
Thank you Aatticus!
Very interesting views. I will surely have to ponder on this. Thanks for a very good read.
Matthew Casey is one of the foremost minds on erepublik...this is superb
Exclent job my good man, I look foward to reading umcoming articals, Voted & Subscribed, you should also look at some of my writeings.
And yet when the power is given unto the "hands of experts," we wind up in dire circumstances, circumscribed by the limits constructed by our dear experts.
Extremely well written and well argued.
Great article. Voted.
You should post it in the forum.
Where do you propose that I put it?
You could put it there for me, I bet you'd have more influence. 🙂
Thank you.
Aw rats, based on your first article, I was hoping for something beneficial that would help the eUS economy in eRepublik terms. But these following articles appear to me as RL capitalist tautologies. Which is fine, since that's your purpose for your newspaper. Hey, you even managed to work in a sideswipe at the USWP! You'll get rave reviews from a some people just on that alone. (I invite you to hang out at the USWP forums and get to know the people there. They're a friendly, welcoming bunch).
It's good to have friends and party members vote up your articles. That's what friends do. But if you're serious about improving the eUS economy and thereby, the strength of the eUS (which I am all for), then please be cautious about listening to the echo chamber and applause. That is just friendly advice from this citizen. eRep economy is not like RL economy. Regardless of one's views in RL, raw capitalism does not work in eRepublik. The success and strength of e-nations here is proportional to the amount of planning they put into their national activities. Planning that is worked out by people who understand the game mechanics. No party has a monopoly on that, and no RL ideology does either.
Cheers, best of luck, and kudos for putting so much effort into your paper.
(Pardon my foreign residence and avatar. I am out hunting wabbits.)
So you're suggesting that we should put into place permanent people who will take the job? granted this will have to be altered due to 'resignations' ergo people quitting.
While I'm not against this idea entirely, I'm not quite sure what your discussion about individualism vs. the state is trying to tell everyone what to do is trying to point out.
I certainly think that we should be started on a more unified viewpoint of a nationalistic society than smaller groups of individuals who are in-fighting
Passionate and well-written, kudos for style and thanks for provoking thought. I would respectfully argue that democracy and planning are not antithetical, nor for that matter, really, are what people call "capitalism" and "socialism" since both of these -isms tend to overlook the actual problem at han😛 how to manage the distribution of common resources.
Here's another quote from a historical figure you may wan to ponder. In Federalist, no. 51, James Madison said, "If men were angels, no Government would be necessary.” But all citizens are not angels.Resources are limited. Some citizens want to look out for the common good. Some are motivated only by self-interest. Many see the need to do both.
There is a dynamic to this type of relationship. It is structural and it pervades just about everything. When a non-angel solely pursues his own interests at the expense of others, the noble angels tend to lose out and begin renouncing their angelic nature. They try to get their share of the commons before it is all spoiled.
The fact is that any distributon system must meet the challenge of human self-interest in order to work. An unmanaged commons in a world or eWorld of limited materials and unlimited desires leads to ruin. When a distribution systems malfunctions, then management and regulation of the commons is always at the root of the problem. Sometimes private owners will do a better job at managing a common resource; sometimes governments will. The pragmatic solution is usually matter of finding the right balance between the two.
Neither one is inherently evil or unethical; neither one provides an all-encompassing solution for every situation.
Please see the continuation of this article, it may help:
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/continuation-of-planning-and-democracy-847354/1/20" target="_blank">http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/cont[..]/1/20