Masonomics: lose the we (0)
Posted 18 October, 2007 in Philosophy, Politics
It’s sometimes tiring promoting an individualist philosophy. Paternalism and the common good seem to be etched so deeply into the Western psyche that your typical individualist seems to be arguing against it on every turn. I blame the Judeo-Christian value system but, of course, it’s not near as bad as in most other cultures. A typical argument against a collectivist could be centred around the fact that a society is a collection of individuals, so it stands to reason that what’s good for society should also be good for the individuals who compose that society. Or perhaps the Margaret Thatcher quote:
“They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there’s no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours.”
Sometimes the collectivist might throw Thatcher in first, trying to claim the high moral ground, concluding that you, as a stinking individualist, don’t believe in society, do you? A good reply is to question their definition of society, and to add that as an individualist you believe in society as well; it’s just that the collectivist definition of society means sacrificing one group’s rights to the common good, which really means to some other more influential group. Whereas you see society as people coming together voluntarily to further their individual needs through mutual cooperation, as distinct from their vision, which is where everyone tries to live at everyone elses expense, and everyone tries to force their views on everyone else.
Tech Central Station has an article on a bunch of economists from George Mason University who are also promoting individualist values. They put forward much the same argument but in different terms:
Once upon a time, “We, the people” was the preamble to a charter that reminded those in government of the limitations on the power granted to them. In today’s political discourse, “we” is more often the preamble to something like a call for an involuntary collective health system.
If you want to be a Masonomist, you have to lose the we. When people use we in today’s politics , they are doing two things:
- Appealing to a moral entity that stands apart from and above John, Mary, or any other individual
- Treating government as the embodiment of that higher moral entity.
It also goes on to address another issue close to every lefty’s heart: market failure.
Masonomics says, “Markets fail. Use markets.”……….
Masonomics worries much more about government failure than market failure. Governments do not face competitive pressure. They are immune from the “creative destruction” of entrepreneurial innovation. In the market, ineffective firms go out of business. In government, ineffective programs develop powerful constituent groups with a stake in their perpetuation.
Read the article. It’s good.
The blogs of the guilty are as follows:
My dog died today (4)
Posted 18 October, 2007 in Diary
Truly, she did. Well, probably more my wife’s dog, or our family’s dog.
