Mixed Economy
Perspectives from Frederick Mann (9-20-02):
Solutions and Nonsolutions
Before discussing particular proposed solutions,
it may be worth examining what constitutes a
solution and what doesn't. For example, suppose
I propose some "solution" to the "problem of
third-world hunger." Suppose my "solution"
requires that certain politicians and bureaucrats
do what I propose to solve the problem. Suppose
further that I have no practical means to get
said politicians and bureaucrats to read and
consider my proposal (never mind implement it).
I contend that under these circumstances, my
proposal (whatever its nature) is a nonsolution.
See
"What Constitutes a Solution?".
Government and Free Market
If we discuss "government" and "free market,"
it may be worth thinking carefully about what
we include under each category.
For the purposes of this article, I define "government"
as an agency of coercion. In other words, the essential
characteristic that identifies "government" is coercion. See
"Why You Must Recognize and Understand Coercion" and
"The Nature of Government."
To me, the "free market" is characterized by three
essential qualities:
- Private ownership of property;
- Voluntary exchange (absence of coercion);
- Honoring contracts, entered into voluntarily.
Where Do Corporations Fit In?
The next issue to address is whether "corporations"
are part of "government," part of the "free market,"
or whether they overlap or span the two categories.
A "corporation" has a government-issued "license" that
often protects it from competition by the "unlicensed."
Corporations also enjoy "limited liability." In other
words, corporations enjoy "coercive advantages" such
as:
- A degree of coercively-imposed exclusivity in
engaging in certain commercial activities;
- Limited liability;
- Coercively-imposed import quotas and tariffs;
- Other "favors" such as "subsidies" in return for
"campaign contributions" and other forms of bribes;
- Government contracts paid for with coercively-
collected taxes;
- Government-legislated "pollution limits" that
allow corporations to pollute "up to a point";
- Coercively-imposed patent protection.
When corporations collect taxes from their employees,
they could be regarded as government agencies in that
respect. Of course, corporations also manifest some
free-market characteristics.
To the degree that government officials are "owned"
by corporations for example, one could argue that
George Bush and Dick Cheney are "owned by Big Oil"
government can be regarded as a coercive agency
or an "arm" of corporations.
So it may be an error to regard corporations as part
of the free market. It's more accurate to think of
them as "hybrid creatures" having some government
characteristics as well as some free-market
characteristics. See also
"Is the Private Sector
Really Part of the Public Sector?"
Monopolies
Given the above, it's extremely unlikely, if at
all possible, for consequential harmful monopolies
to occur in the free market. I doubt that anyone
can provide an example of a consequential harmful
monopoly that has ever occurred in the free market.
Is "Effective Government" Possible?
1. Individual human beings are volitional. We have
power of choice. Through our brains, we essentially
control the energy that animates our bodies. If
someone points a gun at me and tells me to lift my
finger, it's still my decision that causes my finger
to lift or not.
The notion that we can be "externally controlled"
is doubtful. It's only because most people have been
brainwashed into believing and obeying "coercive
masters" that the apparency of "external control"
is created in some people's minds. Check out
William Glasser's
Choice Theory.
2. From cybernetics (the science of control and
feedback systems) we learn that in many cases a
controlling process has to be around 1,000 to 10,000
times faster than a controlled process. Consider,
for example, a steel-making oven controlled by a
computer. The "significant time frame" of the
oven is about five minutes. If the oven starts
overheating, corrective action typically has to
be taken within five minutes to prevent permanent
damage to the oven.
In order for the computer to take corrective action
within five minutes, it typically has to perform
of the order of 100 actions or calculations per
second. The "significant time frame" of the computer
has to be around one-hundredth of a second. In
addition, the computer must be able to "sense" the
temperature of the oven, detect changes that require
intervention, and transmit signals to the oven's
heating mechanism for corrective action. (In this
example, the controlling process is about 30,000
times faster than the controlled process.)
2a. Consider driving a car. Your brain and senses
constitute the controlling process. The car is
the controlled process. If the car starts veering
off the road, or some other eventuality requires
corrective action, you typically need to do
something within a second to prevent an "accident"
or disaster. Therefore, the "significant time
frame" of the car is around one second, maybe less.
In order for your brain to be fast enough to
signal your muscles to take the exact and precise
corrective actions necessary, within a second, it
probably has to perform actions and calculations
at the rate of at least 1,000 per second. It may
have to perform parallel processing to achieve
this. A strong case can be made that the brain
as controlling process requires a "significant
time frame" 1,000 times or more faster than that
of the car being controlled.
2b. There are certain "dumb" control processes
such as the governer of a steam engine. The
governor consists of "flaps" that rotate above
openings from which steam can escape. As the
engine speeds up, centrifugal force raises the
flaps, enlarging the openings, enabling more
steam to escape, slowing down the engine. The
governer establishes and maintains the maximum
speed of the steam engine.
Another example of a dumb control process is
the thermostat that turns the air-conditioning
system on and off.
2c. Considering these cybernetic factors, you
could conclude that, in order for "effective
government control" to be possible:
- Government agents would have to have extremely
fast brains at least 1,000 times faster than
the brains of their subjects;
- The "controlled" subjects would have to
provide the government agents with all the
information necessary for "external control"
in real time (or the government agents would
have to be omniscient);
- The "controlled" subjects would have to
have extremely slow brains at least 1,000
times slower than the brains of their "masters."
- The "controlled" subjects would have to be
brainwashed into belief and obedience, that is,
further "dumbed down" into dronehood;
- The "controlled" subjects would have to be
subject to control by dumb control processes.
2d. Many "controlled" companies use computers.
From a cybernetic perspective, would government
computers, to be effective "controllers," have
to be 1,000 times faster than company computers,
with real-time access to all the information in
all the company computers?
What About "Wenger Incentives?"
Individual human beings have their own "incentive
systems" built into their genes. In terms of
Glasser's Choice Theory, the basic incentives are "survival, love and belonging, power, freedom
and fun."
What would be the requirements for Dr. Wenger
(or any group of government officials) to create
a "rational incentive system" to override and
nullify built-in individual incentives (even if
only in those respects Dr. Wenger et al., in their
wisdom, deem necessary)?
- Would they have to be omniscient with access
to all the information in all the brains of their
"subjects"?
- Would their brains have to be at least 1,000
times faster than those of their "subjects"?
- Would they have to dumb down into dronehood
their subjects so they couldn't think for themselves?
- Would they need computers at least 1,000 times
faster than the computers of their "subjects"?
- Would their computers need real-time access
to all the information in all the computers of
their "subjects"?
In terms of William Glasser's Choice Theory, do
"Wenger Incentives" fit under "Seven Deadly Habits" #7: "Bribing or rewarding to control"? See also
Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and Other Bribes by Alfie
Kohn.
Do "Wenger incentives" represent an extreme in
arrogance, unworkability, and absurdity? See also
Wenger Debate #1 and
Wenger Debate #2
Frederick Mann
See also comments by Kate Jones and Jan Narveson
Join the debate by emailing your comments to Win Wenger.
|