I, Pencil

[Borodog]

This post relates to one of my favorite essays of all time, another oldie but goody, I, Pencil, by Leonard Read. The introduction (which stangely comes after the essay; don't ask me why) and the afterword are also brilliant. Anyone who has read my posts in SMP and Politics knows that I am an amateur student of both economics and evolution. I believe one can greatly inform the other. Just as Nature needs no "intelligent designer" to create vastly complex highly adapted organisms, human society needs no central planner to create incredibly complex achievements.

[ QUOTE ]
There are two kinds of thinking: simplistic and subtle. Simplistic thinkers cannot understand how complex and useful social orders arise from any source other than conscious planning by a purposeful mind. Subtle thinkers, in contrast, understand that individual actions often occur within settings that encourage individuals to coordinate their actions with one another independent of any overarching plan. F. A. Hayek called such unplanned but harmonious coordination "spontaneous order."
<font color="white"> . </font>
The mark of the subtle mind is not only its ability to grasp the idea of spontaneous orders but also to understand that conscious attempts to improve or to mimic these orders are doomed to fail. "Why so?" asks the simplistic thinker. "How can happenstance generate complex order superior to what a conscious mind can conceive and implement?" In responding to this question, a subtle thinker points out that spontaneous orders do not arise from happenstance: the continual adjustments by each individual within spontaneous orders follow a very strict logic—the logic of mutual accommodation. Because no central planner can possibly know all of the details of each individual's unique situation, no central planner can know how best to arrange each and every action of each and every individual with that of the multitudes of other individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have argued before that I see the same fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantium ("I cannot think of how X could be possible, therefore it is not.") in the arguments of both creationists and statists. In the evolution/creation debate it usually goes like this: I cannot personally imagine an evolutionary mechanism to produce this structure or that behavior; therefore it cannot have evolved, therefore it must have been designed by a designer. In the statists' arguments, it goes like this: I personally cannot imagine a free market mechanism to produce this good or that service; therefore it cannot be produced privately, therefore it must be produced by government. The first is the God of the Gaps, the second I call the Government of the Gaps.

Hopefully reading I, Pencil will give you some insight as to why I believe the free market is capable of providing any good or service far better than a centrally planned monopoly ever could, even if I personally cannot provide every detail of exactly how. Of course I cannot provide such a description. If I could provide such a description, it would imply that such a production structure could be effectively centrally planned, which it cannot. I don't have all the information. The best that can be hoped for is to provide plausible mechanisms that are logically consistent, and look for empirical evidence of similar private productions structures in the historical record or around the world in current human societies to support the idea. I see this as exactly analogous to the evolutionary biologist, who can never prove the precise timing or order of evolutionary changes from tens of million of years ago. he simply doesn't have access to the all the information. He attempts to provide plausible evolutionary mechanisms that are logically consistent, and attempts to find evidence in the fossil record or the genomes of modern animals.

I, Pencil, Leonard Read.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I, Pencil, Leonard Read.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fantastic essay.

[madnak]

I like the essay, and i think it makes some very important points. I think a lot of people on both sides of these issues can learn a lot here. I particularly like the theme of wonder. I think a lot of people hate evolution and libertarianism because they believe that somehow these ideas have the power to sap wonder and imagination from the world. The same can be said of science and technology, many people seem to have the view that the fields are colorless and sterile and inhuman. I think a lot of scientists fall into the same trap - feeling that they aren't human, or that wonder and imagination are quaint and primitive.

Personally I think the most important thing right now is to infuse change and learning with a real sense of excitement and awe. It seems extremely inappropriate that learning and exploring are seen as "dull" and "dangerous" by so many people, because they really should be recognized as being anything but.

[KipBond]

Nice post. I do plan on reading that article, as well as doing some more research on these issues. I do have a few preliminary points/questions, however:

[ QUOTE ]
In the evolution/creation debate it usually goes like this: I cannot personally imagine an evolutionary mechanism to produce this structure or that behavior; therefore it cannot have evolved, therefore it must have been designed by a designer. In the statists' arguments, it goes like this: I personally cannot imagine a free market mechanism to produce this good or that service; therefore it cannot be produced privately, therefore it must be produced by government. The first is the God of the Gaps, the second I call the Government of the Gaps.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a better/different analogy would be an "evolutionist" who claims that man cannot improve on natural/biological evolution. We should try to mimic biological evolution where possible, or just not interfere at all. I think this view would be extremely short-sighted, however, as being evolved creatures, we *can* improve on evolution, and we've done it quite a bit, and I look forward to seeing how far we can go by engineering our own evolution.

[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully reading I, Pencil will give you some insight as to why I believe the free market is capable of providing any good or service far better than a centrally planned monopoly ever could, even if I personally cannot provide every detail of exactly how.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I understand what you mean by "free market", then I think I disagree. Most of the time, yes, but not always. I think for certain things, it is necessary for society to have a centralized control of certain resources, as well as guide development of others. For instance, air &amp; water. They are natural resources that I think need government controls to make sure that an individual doesn't ruin it for the rest of us. Then there's big stuff like: military/defense, central intelligence, highway infrastructure.

I would be interested in hearing how a truly "free market" would function -- and what if any involvement government would have. For instance, would it ensure transactions (monetary system?)? Would it protect private property? If the government is allowed to pool resources for certain community benefits, is it also allowed to take control of someone else's property (ie: eminent domain)?

[KipBond]

I finished reading the article. Very nice.

The conclusion spoke of the mail system, and how a free market could do that rather than the government doing it. I say: true, and they do. UPS, Fed-Ex, Airborne Express, and others. How has the government hindered the free market in this area? Couldn't the free market create a more efficient, and cost-effective mail system? Why hasn't it?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I would be interested in hearing how a truly "free market" would function -- and what if any involvement government would have. For instance, would it ensure transactions (monetary system?)? Would it protect private property? If the government is allowed to pool resources for certain community benefits, is it also allowed to take control of someone else's property (ie: eminent domain)?

[/ QUOTE ]
The Anarchocapitalist Bible

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I would be interested in hearing how a truly "free market" would function -- and what if any involvement government would have. For instance, would it ensure transactions (monetary system?)? Would it protect private property?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, yes. Those aren't the hard questions. The hard questions involve the stuff you mentioned earlier, like national protection and the environment.

An extremely provocative, well-reasoned, and interesting (whether you agree with it or not) book on that stuff is The Machinery of Freedom, by David Friedman -- Patri Friedman's father, incidentally. (This is the only forum where he'd be described as Patri Friedman's father rather than Milton Friedman's son. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] )

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would be interested in hearing how a truly "free market" would function -- and what if any involvement government would have. For instance, would it ensure transactions (monetary system?)? Would it protect private property? If the government is allowed to pool resources for certain community benefits, is it also allowed to take control of someone else's property (ie: eminent domain)?

[/ QUOTE ]
The Anarchocapitalist Bible

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a Cliff Notes version? If a non-Christian wanted to know how to be saved, a Christian pointing them to the Bible would not be much help.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
How has the government hindered the free market in this area? Couldn't the free market create a more efficient, and cost-effective mail system? Why hasn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because it's illegal. The government has outlawed competing with the post office. It has carved out exceptions for "extremely urgent" mail or some such, which is why UPS and FedEx are allowed to exist. But it's illegal to engage in the business of delivering ordinary mail.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would be interested in hearing how a truly "free market" would function -- and what if any involvement government would have. For instance, would it ensure transactions (monetary system?)? Would it protect private property?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, yes. Those aren't the hard questions. The hard questions involve the stuff you mentioned earlier, like national protection and the environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

I printed out the wikipedia article on anarchocapitalism &amp; libertarinism. So, anarchocapitalism would have a government (so, the "anarcho" prefix is a bit of a misnomer). I'm curious to find out where anarchocapitalism would say government should stop (and why).