Home > commons, cordato, environment, mises, ostrom, property, state > Sophomoric optimism?

Sophomoric optimism?

Jon Bostwick agrees on another post that “Man is clever but not wise (“homo sapiens” is a misnomer)”, but further comments (emphasis added):

“True. But humanity is wise. Men create cultures, economies and law.

“Man’s flaw is that he is over confident of his own intelligence. He tries to control things he doesn’t understand, like culture, economies, and law.

You have just made an excellent case for why government involvement will not improve the environment. Because governments, like man, are not wise.”

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/10/12/libertarian-reticience-other-than-to-bash-enviros.aspx 

This is too simple, as well as self-contradictory. Humanity is wise because he collectively (but non-deliberately?) creates “cultures, economies and law” (let’s not forget governments), but individuals are foolish when they seek to use institutions to achieve particular purposes?

Our states are merely one subset of the wide universe of formal and informal institutions through which we cooperate with one another.  States are not a market, to be sure, but then neither are corporations, and there is a spectrum of ownership types between the two.  We can study all of these institutions and use that knowledge to direct how we make use of them.  Such study has informed, for example, the deliberate shifts in policy that have led to the ongoing (yet incomplete) privatization of the former USSR and of China. 

A study of institutions governing common pool resources by guru Elinor Ostrom makes the following point:

 “Whether people are able to self-organize and manage CPRs also depends on the broader social setting within which they work. National governments can help or hinder local self-organization. “Higher” levels of government can facilitate the assembly of users of a CPR in organizational meetings, provide information that helps identify the problem and possible solutions, and legitimize and help enforce agreements reached by local users. National governments can at times, however, hinder local self-organization by defending rights that lead to overuse or maintaining that the state has ultimate control over resources without actually monitoring and enforcing existing regulations.

“Participants are more likely to adopt effective rules in macro-regimes that facilitate their efforts than in regimes that ignore resource problems entirely or that presume that central authorities must make all decisions.If local authority is not formally recognized by larger regimes, it is difficult for users to establish enforceable rules.

Elinor Ostrom et al., Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges, Science, 04/09/99 http://conservationcommons.org/media/document/docu-wyycyz.pdf

Was von Mises foolish to suggest we can use the state to reform our institutions?

“It is true that where a considerable part of the costs incurred are external costs from the point of view of the acting individuals or firms, the economic calculation established by them is manifestly defective and their results deceptive. But this is not the outcome of alleged deficiencies inherent in the system of private ownership of the means of production. It is on the contrary a consequence of loopholes left in this system. It could be removed by a reform of the laws concerning liability for damages inflicted and by rescinding the institutional barriers preventing the full operation of private ownership.

http://mises.org/humanaction/chap23sec6.asp

And Cordato, for suggesting that Austrians take particular policy approaches to environmental issues?

“For Austrians then, public policy in the area of the environment must focus on resolving these conflicts over the use of resources that define pollution, not on obtaining an ultimately unobtainable “efficient” allocation of resources. … For Austrians, whose goal is to resolve conflicts, the focus is on clarifying titles to property and rights enforcement.

http://mises.org/daily/1760

Sorry, but I cannot believe that we are condemned always to repeat all mistakes, despite our rather constant human nature.  Rather, as Yandle notes, our very history as a species is about our success in evolving, devising and adopting ways to manage shared problems.   http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4064

This is a message of profound optimism, not cynicism — said the fool.

  1. JonBostwick
    October 17th, 2007 at 22:35 | #1

    Governments do not achieve their ends. They are not able to control economies as they desire.

    When they seek to control people, they end up destroying human productivity.

    Governments operate with negative sanctions. But violence is not a productive force.

    There is no animating spirit controlling societies that governments can manipulate. That is a pagan myth.

    Governments can impede, but they can not control.

  2. TokyoTom
    October 17th, 2007 at 14:17 | #2

    Jon, I afraid I don’t follow your last comments.

  3. JonBostwick
    October 16th, 2007 at 20:54 | #3

    “Sorry, but not only have governments also evolved, continue to evolve and can be consciously shaped, but it behooves us to understand them and try to consciously shape them, if only to minimize the damage that they do.”

    Governments do evolve. They evolve as a matter of self defense, they change their organization and role in order to maintain a justification for existence.

    Of course governments can be consciously shaped, they are institutions, not societies. Governments can be controlled, but they do not control.

  4. seven8119
    October 16th, 2007 at 09:30 | #4

    all the coins have two sides, man is not perfict.
    So I am agree men is clever but not wise.
    Men always do something wrong.

  5. TokyoTom
    October 16th, 2007 at 09:30 | #5

    Sorry, but not only have governments also evolved, continue to evolve and can be consciously shaped, but it behooves us to understand them and try to consciously shape them, if only to minimize the damage that they do.

  6. JonBostwick
    October 16th, 2007 at 06:40 | #6

    “This is too simple, as well as self-contradictory. Humanity is wise because he collectively (but non-deliberately?) creates “cultures, economies and law” (let’s not forget governments), but individuals are foolish when they seek to use institutions to achieve particular purposes?”

    Yes, humans do create these collectively and non-deliberately. Economies are many individuals pursuing their own interests. By acting upon only local knowledge, many simple beings can create complex systems.

    Most importantly economies are not beings of themselves, they are only a network of many simple actions.

    Government does not belong among culture, economies, and law. Government is the opposite of the spontaneous order found in the other three. It is not the result of simple actions forming a complex whole, it is centrally planned.

    Individuals are foolish to believe they can create institutions able to centrally plan decentralized spontaneous systems.

    As Mises proved, human institutions do not have the knowledge to centrally plan markets. Societies only function because of antonymous units acting on local knowledge.

    Sound Law is developed through the course of human (inter)action, not introspection. Because, as you said, humans are clever, not wise.

  1. December 11th, 2017 at 04:52 | #1