Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Opposition
Economics and political science are dangerous subjects. In no other field is there such great opportunity for personal biases, half-truths, and outright falsehoods to impact the lives of millions.
The usual struggle is between idealism and realism. It is easy and satisfying to build a theoretical construct in one’s mind of how the world should operate. Assumptions can be made about how mankind behaves, the consequences can be analyzed, and philosophies can be constructed. It is so easy to wrap a mental construct in a protective veneer of self-righteousness and goodwill that only rarely do people that operate in this way stop to analyze how their construct might operate when populated with real and flawed human beings.
One thing that must always be taken for granted is that on average, individuals will do what is in their own best interest. Altruism is real and important, but it is a luxury usually restricted to those who have achieved a minimum standard of living. When attempting to understand history or to analyze what political or economic system is best in the long run, to bet on altruism as a major motivating force of mankind is to be horribly misguided.
Albert Jay Nock summed up this concept well, dubbing it Epstein’s Law. “Man will usually attempt to satisfy his needs and desires via the least possible exertion.” If that means invading France, so be it. If that means using the political process to confiscate the wealth of others, so be it.
It is clear that peace and stability with the rule of law in place brings the most good to the most people, in that it gives people an opportunity and an incentive to work for themselves to increase their wealth. Free markets and republican democracy have been proven to create these conditions and maintain them reasonably well for a good long time. Why do these systems work? Why do they result in stability?
Free markets seem to work because the equilibrium state of the economy is a moving target, a constantly adjusting target moving according to the whim of millions of individuals. It is only when those individuals have the freedom to spend their money as they see fit and to adjust the prices they demand for their goods and labor that this equilibrium target can be hit. Bad things happen when the economy is forced from it’s equilibrium. In some cases we have chosen to accept some negative consequences for a greater good (environmental laws) and in other cases the equilibrium has been completely ignored for ideological reasons (communism). No matter what, that equilibrium exists independent of the political and economic systems in place, and mankind will attempt to reach it despite any obstacles put in place. Think black markets, smuggling, etc.
The stability of a free market seems to exist largely because there are opposing forces on either side of that equilibrium, pulling in opposite directions. I have a can of beans to sell. I want to get the most money I can for it. You want to buy my can of beans. You want to pay as little as possible for it. That opposition creates an equilibrium at which we can agree on a price, and a transaction is made. Specialization results in me being capable of producing those beans cheaper than you can, and assuming a stable political structure, we both have incentive to maintain something resembling the status quo.
It is the opposition that maintains the equilibrium. Only when the equilibrium is upset, when one side or the other becomes too powerful, does the system become dysfunctional.
In politics, a similar situation exists. The reason for the stability of republican democracy is that power is diffused. Every party wants to accumulate more power to itself, but there are checks and balances in place to allow a counter-move by the opposition party. The political path of the country is largely defined by the political equilibrium as defined by the centrist view. Each party tries to pull their way, with the net effect of a stable equilibrium existing in the long-run. In the vast majority of cases, each party has more to gain by working within the system rather than trying to overthrow it.
The same assumption must be made here, that people will largely work in their own self-interest. The genius of the system is that it is built to create two opposed parties, and each prevents the other from getting out of hand. It is only in a situation where this balance exists that the rights enumerated in the Constitution will be respected. If either party were to get too much power, if the equilibrium were disrupted, it is likely that the system would devolve into chaos in short order.
This system of checks and balances, the stability that ensures long-term survival of our nation, is built with opposing forces in mind. I have few good things to say about the current opposition in America, but I think I have convinced myself that without them, it would likely be worse.
