How to Think About Social Issues: Tips 7-8

7. Beware of ‘Social’ Math:

Mathematics is a very useful branch of knowledge for the study of things that exhibit constant behaviour  For studying phenomena such as Newtonian forces and unmotivated particles, math is well-suited to discovering more about them. For the study of humans and human societies though, math is useless. This is because there are no constant relations governing human action. This, in turn, is because humans are not unmotivated particles that always react in a constant manner to the same forces, but can think about and choose their course of action, and act accordingly. One plus one always equals two, but Germany plus monarchy does not always equal invading France, nor does coal plus overseas empire always equal industrial revolution. Put in the exact same circumstances and asked to choose between the same two things, it will be virtually impossible to find a choice that is made all of the time by every single individual. Even with regards to something as primordial as the choice of death versus life, some individuals will choose death. If we can not even state that individuals will always choose to preserve their own lives, how can we say anything about how they will react to various “stimuli”, and then manipulate these results with mathematical symbols?

Contrary to popular belief, these considerations also apply to the social science of economics. The reason why most mainstream economists have complacently accepted the heavy use of mathematics in their discipline is because they are unduly concerned with a mental construction of an imaginary state of affairs, known as general equilibrium, static equilibrium, or the Evenly Rotating Economy. In this construction, consumption and production data (consumer valuations, population, labour competencies, natural resources, general interest rate) are assumed to remain constant, every person is assumed to know everything about this data, and everyone, like an automaton, is assumed to repeat the same tasks day in and day out that will supposedly ‘maximize’ their material wealth. Because human thought and human action are assumed away, mathematics can be used to describe these imaginary states of equilibrium. But the conditions assumed obviously do not exist and could never exist in an actual economy populated by thinking and acting humans. This construction, when used legitimately and which can be employed without the use of mathematics, can help the economist consider certain market tendencies and mentally isolate various economic phenomena. But to imply, as the mathematical economist does, that these elaborate mathematical descriptions of an imaginary and impossible state of affairs can be used to say anything meaningful about the actual, dynamic market process actuated by thinking, acting, and unpredictable human beings is to commit a grave error.

8. Recognize that government is organized coercion:

Much nonsense has been written about what government ‘really’ is. Plato and Aristotle thought that government’s job was to make sure that people don’t just live, but ‘live well’. Enlightenment thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau thought that government existed because of some ‘social contract’ agreed to in ancient times, and that present generations are bound to this contract. Hegel took it to the height of absurdity, saying that the State was the embodiment of morality in the world. Mussolini’s philosophy was that the state was everything: “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”.

But, what exactly is government, or the State? The answer is simple if one just thinks about how the State is different from a private organization. How does a private company collect revenue? Through payment by the consumer for products or services offered. How does the State collect revenue? Through taxation, an amount to be paid by each person to the State, regardless of services provided, and enforced by the threat of jail time or other punishments. How does a private association for the advancement of a certain cause, such as a Chinese movie fan club, advance its cause? By persuading people to watch and enjoy Chinese movies. How does the State, if it adopts the same cause as the private association, advance its cause? It can try persuasion, but it also has the power to coerce. Thus, it could require that people watch Chinese movies or they will be punished, or it could prohibit all movies that are not Chinese. We see that in both these cases, the State finances itself and advances its causes through coercion, while private associations finance themselves and advance their causes through persuasion and voluntary purchases. Thus, the State is organized coercion.

Now, for a trickier distinction. How does a private gang of bandits collect revenue? Through extortion or theft, ie. coercion. Thus, is every gang of bandits a State? Some anarchists would say that the State differs only in size and sophistication from a gang of bandits. People who believe in a limited role for organized coercion though would say that what distinguishes a State from a gang of bandits is the fact that certain people consider a certain State to be the legitimate organization of coercion in a given territory, whereas bandit gangs are illegitimate organizations of coercion. Thus, the State can be defined as an organization that can employ coercion and is considered legitimate by those living under its rule. Some separatists don’t consider the State that is currently ruling over them to be legitimate, and hence equate them to a group of oppressive bandits, but this is why in a liberal world, referendums would be available to change States or establish new ones for the dissatisfied people of a geographic region of some kind of minimum size.

Now, why would an organization that engages in coercion ever be considered legitimate? Ignorant people ascribe all sorts of god-like qualities and excellences to organized coercion, but for sound thinkers, the main purpose of organized coercion is to enforce norms of justice conducive to a free and prosperous society. But hold on, how can organized coercion provide freedom? It can conceivably do so by recognizing the just property rights of individuals and defending these property rights against internal bandits or foreign States, thus allowing these individuals freedom to use their property as they see fit. There is no freedom in a vicious jungle, when the strong can just take from the weak, and though anarchists argue that the State is not necessary in order to get out of the vicious jungle, they would probably concede that a minimal State, employing ‘public’ coercion to lessen private coercion in order to dispel the jungle, is better than the jungle itself.

Besides this main purpose, it is conceivable that organized coercion, when employed in a limited and focused way, could be used to facilitate certain outcomes, considered desirable by many people, which may not be produced by individuals interacting on a purely voluntary basis. For example, organizing a truly minimal social safety net, intervening somewhat to correct some problems that might arise with a fully private road, water, and air quality market, and occasionally aiding in land assembly for ambitious private infrastructure projects would be a few limited uses of organized coercion that I might support. Even with these though, one must always bear in mind that using organized coercion means seizing resources from a legitimate owner to devote to a purpose that would not be supported on a voluntary basis. If people always bear that fact in mind though, there is conceivably a place in a well-organized social order for a State.

But why it is important to remember that the State is nothing more than organized coercion? This is because if we do not, we risk misrepresenting what State policies actually are. For example, take the prohibition of alcohol in the US in the 1920s. This was an attempt to use the State to ‘improve the morals’ of Americans. If we remember that the State is organized coercion though, then we can realize that using the State to ‘improve the morals’ of Americans really means using the State to impose one group’s notion of personal morality onto another group by force. Organized coercion was used to stop people from peacefully drinking alcohol (prohibitionists said that alcohol-drinking led to violence, but violence was a crime already and justly so, there was no need to prohibit drinking). Rather than impartially protecting people’s property rights, the State was used by one group (the prohibitionists) against another group (people who liked alcohol) in order to impose their will on the other. In this example, the State was used as a ‘jungle’ force, for the domination of a politically weaker group by a politically stronger group. It is the jungle, except that ballots, petitions, demagoguery, propaganda, and lobbying are used by the powerful to impose their will on others instead of sticks and clubs. Keeping in mind that the State is nothing more than organized coercion helps to restrain the urge to use the State for all kinds of extravagant projects and worship it as a benevolent deity that can do anything.