More on the Importance of Language

By

Last week, Eric wrote about George Will's thoughts on capitalism and the spontaneous order. I haven't yet read the book, The Conservative Sensibility (2019) but being from the rural Midwest, I'm pretty familiar with the conservative heart of his work. Check out Eric's post for a brief run-down.

What's most interesting to me in these kinds of arguments about capitalism and social order is that there are often two distinct kinds of discourse occurring:  we have the defense of some idea or view of how the world ought to be, and we have discussion of how the world currently is, and how we might address issues in it (Will engages in both at times, the former more so in his book, the latter in his columns). What we rarely get in either type of discourse is a clear, detailed definition of the role of government.  

There is plenty of opposition to the "centrally planned economy" on the basis of the work of Hayek (the knowledge problem) and Ludwig Von Mises (the calculation problem). But as Eric pointed out, the U.S. is not a centrally planned economy.  The large and modern mixed capitalist system of the U.S. is far from it. So, given the reality of our current economic system: what is the role of government?  

The answer is murky, and will vary with each person you ask. We hear often that the role of government is to intrude as little as possible; to support our best, most-informed planner--the individual in aggregate--in making their own choices about where to allocate their scarce resources. How we practically go about organizing institutions like this--again-- varies across individuals. 

We hear from others that society (the term often used to mean government) should take care of it's people, provide healthcare, education, and access to other basic resources necessary for any large democratic system to function well. But each person draws the line of care in a different spot.

We hear everything beyond and in-between. You probably have your own idea of what the role of government should be, and how it might best be achieved (or, like me, you're not really totally sure, but you have a few seemingly promising ideas). 

My point is, it's virtually impossible to answer that question in one clear way.  We can answer it in a historical context (in a narrow timeframe), in the context of what we believe X person intended, according to our religious doctrine, or whatever our political faction decrees. But no one is "fact".  

This is yet another example of why Al Schmid and Warren Samuels were constantly writing about the importance of language, of being clear, and of knowing the difference between a normative and positive argument. It is very difficult to say anything truly non-normative about government or policy. Defining the role of government is inextricably linked with normative, moral choice. 

What you can do to further discourse is be clear about this.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Veblens Instinct of Workmanship pg. 234-240

By
 This section starts with Veblen stating that in the handicraft era, the individual craftsman is again the dominant force in the economy.  This in turn implies three key facts that are important to Veblen.  The first key fact is that the instinct of workmanship is an important element in how humans think and act again. we can perhaps think here that the instinct of workmanship is less contaminated by other instincts in the handicraft era. Another key piece is that the "common stock of technological knowledge" is open to all and easily mastered by the individual crafts person. If we recall, Veblen wrote that this technological knowledge is always held in commons by all people but in certain eras it is dominated by a small group of individuals whereas in the handicraft era it is shared by many crafts people. The final key fact is that craft persons can easily understand technical and natural forces as they need to and machines are devised to be in accordance with the needs ...
Read more

Veblen's Instinct of Workmanship pg. 240-253

By
  This section continues Veblen's thinking regarding the evolution of the handicraft era.  The first point he wants to make is that the machine era requires a matter of fact and mechanical approach to work and workmanship as opposed to the era of human dexterity and high touch of the handicraft era. He also notes again how the crafts persons embody the nature of the economy in that era and convince many others that human craftsmanship is the best gauge upon which to assess society. He writs that,  “to serve the needs of this machine technology, therefore, the information which accumulates must in some measure be divested of its naive personal colouring by use and wont; and the degree in which this effect is had is a measure of the degree of availability of the resulting facts for the uses of the machine technology.” (Veblen, pg. 240, 1914). From this point, we observe the shift towards the machine age and perhaps of equal importance the price age.  As Veblen notes on...
Read more

Veblens Instinct of Workmanship pg. 231-234

By
 Chapter 11, the Era of Handicraft pg. 231-234 Veblen starts this chapter by noting that in his mind Eruope had not been characterized by large scale emperors but generally smaller fiefdoms and kingdoms unlike Asia for example. He felt that the Roman Empire was more of a southern European tradition.  Western and northern Europe developed with small scale industry and the handicraft system in the middle ages in particular.  This eventually changed over time as we have already explored as the technology changed and it became impractical for every small handicraft merchant to own capital. In the handicraft era, the habit was that price should be based on a labor theory of value but this changed to become based on freedom between buyer and seller as the capital intensive nature of industry changed. Over time, the owners became a smaller class of people and the workers, who were originally handicraft based, came under the dominion of the owners of capital.   This marked t...
Read more