The Conservative Position

This is Milton Friedman on the concepts that are defended in Hayek's "Road to Serfdom." Hayek's thesis is interesting but also dated. He warns against top-down planning in the place of market control of prices, both by Socialists and Fascists of the time. George Bernard Shaw introduced me to Socialism 101  ("A Practical Woman's Guide to Socialism)." It dates from approximately the same period but is concerned with social justice. There is little consideration of how social justice would be achieved. We must assume a major reorganization of the economy according to some master plan. As Hayek pointed out, both Socialists and Fascists assumed this with little pushback. During World War II, economies became "planned" by necessity.

It turns out that "Road to Serfdom" is a free Audiobook. See these videos for discussions.

General Impression: 

Hayek goes to great lengths to defend his thesis that totalitarian "planning" is "more or less" the same thing as "socialism."  He confuses "socialism" with "communism." Modern readers can readily see that there are dictatorships of the left and right, with little or no difference when it comes to the liberty of citizens. Along the way, Hayek more or less concedes virtually all the elements of the modern "progressive" state, even including guaranteed "security of person" in the form of food, shelter, and health care -- those that are routinely denied by his "right-wing" fans. He is in a muddle explaining the workings of modern democracy, lost in his generalizations.

There is an obvious problem that we cannot agree on the ends or means of policy but, on the other hand, an obvious need for policy. Society in general (not just the government) needs "deciders."

His distinction between government and corporate power is fatal to his argument since all arguments against government power also argue against corporate power. In fact, power = the ability to plan. Individual "power" is seen as "freedom" - a different species of power. In fact, the "power" of all societal actors is in constant competition. "Power" of one actor A over another B is the ability of A to coerce B into behaving in a way desired by A. Society is a network of A's and B's - a power structure.  A's can be government, corporations, cultures, parents, or any coherent social structure. 

The marketplace very strongly determines how much power and freedom an actor has. Interventions of any kind (not just government) distort the workings of the market.  Generally, the A's have deeper pockets than the B's in every case.

In the end, Hayek puts his faith in the "efficiency" of markets. "Efficient" for whom? This is the identical objection he raises to "socialism" - who benefits?

(P.S.) Hayek's core point is actually true but I don't know if he saw it. If you regard society as a huge, dynamic, and unstable power network, you can see why the idea of "control" becomes problematic. Hayek understood this at a gut level, especially coming out of the chaos of post-war Austria. Yet, his shouting match with Keynes never quite came to grips with the central issue: can any "control" policy succeed?

Notes:

•  The existing state of Chinese society is a great example of the "planned" economy Hayek fears.  Established for good purposes, the machinery can be used for any purpose.
• The positive vision of a "free society" is tangled with the concept of a "free market."
• Interesting remarks on "liberalism" vs. "conservatism" changed meanings from the British context. "Liberalism" originally is about hands-off individual freedom (gardening). Conservatism defended the privileges of the rich and powerful.
• "Socialism" is a matter of degree, creating unintended consequences.
• Chapter 1: Glowing account of progress is, at least, a correlation but treated as a straight cause and effect. The growth of energy use is relevant. The crushing effects pointed out by Marx were ignored. 
• Explicitly sets aside "externalities," such as nature in general, which cannot, by definition, be "managed" by the marketplace. This is mentioned in Chapter 3.
• Totalitarian tendencies are presented as a part of a "socialist" movement rather than a thing of its own.
• Anti-competitive forces are seen as government, not corporations. He seems to think that monopolies fall apart on their own ...
• "planning against competition" = "planning"
• modern monopolies seem to contradict his understanding of how monopolies work. Specifically, the advantage of the "first mover" (IBM, Microsoft, Apple). His examples of government-supported monopolies and cartels are at least dated.
• At the very least, he admits that monopolies are "bad" because they are anti-competitive (by definition).
• Good to read this with climate change and pandemics in mind. "Liberty" of our current zillionaires is also relevant: assumed to be good in itself. Generally, there is little reflection on the relative power of individuals - assumed to be basically economic power -- i.e., it is fundamentally right and good that the goals of the rich should dominate those of the poor.
• He assumes that democracy is inherently flawed since it implies planning.
• His criticism of "planning" extends to all regulations, such as FDA
• Generally, his treatment of democracy is a bit of a joke
• Open to providing basic food, shelter, and clothing for everyone along with health care - "social insurance." Also, protecting individuals against the ups and downs of the economy. But not insurance against losses.
• He seems to offer some kind of roundabout objection to labor unions - a means of security. Unions interfere with the market system. Similar consideration could be applied to Americans locked into jobs because of "benefits." The asymmetric power relationships between employer and employee are not dealt with. One might ask if filling boxes for Amazon is a worse kind of "serfdom" than any contemplated in the abstract.

"The Conservative Mind" summarizes the conservative position better than Hayek's theories. One might suspect some "motivated reasoning" going on between theory (Hayek) and the "creed":

1. Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems. Narrow rationality, what Coleridge called the Understanding, cannot of itself satisfy human needs. “Every Tory is a realist,” says Keith Feiling: “he knows that there are great forces in heaven and earth that man’s philosophy cannot plumb or fathom.” 
2.  True politics is the art of apprehending and applying the Justice which ought to prevail in a community of souls. 
3. Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems, conservatives resist what Robert Graves calls “Logicalism” in society. This prejudice has been called “the conservatism of enjoyment”—a sense that life is worth living, according to Walter Bagehot, “the proper source of an animated Conservatism.” 
4.  The conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes as against the notion of a “classless society.” With reason, conservatives often have been called “the party of order.” If natural distinctions are effaced among men, oligarchs fill the vacuum. Ultimate equality in the judgment of God, and equality before courts of law, are recognized by conservatives; but equality of condition, they think, means equality in servitude and boredom. 
5. Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked: separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Economic leveling, they maintain, is not economic progress. 
6. Faith in prescription and distrust of “sophisters, calculators, and economists” who would reconstruct society upon abstract designs. Custom, convention, and old prescription are checks both upon man’s anarchic impulse and upon the innovator’s lust for power. 
7.  Recognition that change may not be salutary reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress. Society must alter, for prudent change is the means of social preservation. Still, a statesman must take Providence into his calculations, and a statesman’s chief virtue, according to Plato and Burke, is prudence.  

This may be summed up as a preference for the "status quo" -- more than that, a belief that the "status quo" has some supernatural quality: decreed by God or the Market. It is no surprise that this set of beliefs appeals to the rich and powerful. There is no hint that status or power needs to be earned or, to put it another way, the lack of power and status for the great majority of humanity is just "as it should" be.

How Our Politics Misses the Point

An excellent CBC Ideas episode is a nuanced treatment of how we tend to become more "conservative" as we grow older. I felt that the entire discussion was missing the point, or at least the "lefties" and "conservatives" were talking past each other. We have lost sight of the real world around us and have grown to depend on utterly unreliable ways of thinking about it.

There is a lot to unpack here.

For one thing, words such as "liberal" and "conservative" suffer from "reification" - slipping into thinking that something is a "thing" just because we use a name. "Socialists" have famously never agreed on what "real" socialism is - they are always accusing each other of not being "real" socialists" The idea of "conservatism" is just as amorphous, as illustrated by its defenders in the CBC episode. Why, for example, is Trump "conservative". Of course, conservatives are quick to say he's not a "real" conservative. There are echoes of religious schism here ...

It seems to me that terms like "liberal" and "socialist" are used mainly by "conservatives" as pejorative terms for an ideology that may or may not exist as a cohesive political ideology. On the other hand, those who lean to the "left" misunderstand the nature of their opposition. To cite just one element of this, I rarely find a "leftie" who understands the religious core of the Republican party. There are many who will not vote Democrat because they honestly believe that God is a Republican.

My problem with the whole debate is that it is not really "about what it's about".

On the "left", the concern is officially about "social justice" - providing each citizen with a tolerable lifestyle and civil rights. "Lefties" regard the political project as engineering all aspects of the system toward this end. "Conservatives" tend to appeal to fundamental principles that they feel preclude the need for analysis. As with religious conservatives, political conservatives miss the rapidly evolving image of what things were like in the good old days.

On the "right", it's officially about money. Balanced budgets, GDP and taxes. They provide lip service to social justice but always want to know "who will pay". When talking to a "conservative", you always feel the implied answer: "Not me". Conservatives hate to pay taxes and they take it personally.

I think that other issues tend to "stick" to one side or the other out of a historical accident or careful "engineering" of the political climate. For example, there is no obvious reason why "conservatives" should oppose abortion rights or, specifically, the "right" of the government to have a say in the reproductive rights of an individual. There is no obvious reason why "conservatives" should be climate change deniers or gun rights advocates. It's a matter of strategic alliances.

The fundamental core division is, I think, over two ways of seeing the world: people who see the problems and opportunities of real people versus people who see the issue as a zero-sum game of who pays. This is unfortunate since you simply cannot see what is going on in the world through a lens of money.

• The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
• The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.
• Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.

John Kenneth Galbraith

In my reading of Galbraith, my "takeaway" was his insight that it's all about the "commons" - the assets we own together as a society. Political "left/right" fights, especially when taxes and balanced budgets come up, are about the "commons". For example, Should the "commons" include affordable medical care for all? Why do I have to pay for schools if I have no children? Why should I pay for libraries when I don't read?

Conservative opponents of "tax and spend" liberals tend to overlook the stunning expansion of the "commons" over the last two centuries, which has nothing to do with what kind of government is in charge. For example, a conservative that advocates that roads should be paid for by precisely the people who use them (toll roads everywhere) would be seen as a crackpot. We see this kind of thinking with privatized fire departments who watch buildings burn because the owner is not paying "insurance" to the right fire department. Perhaps we should have toll booths at the entrance to every park.

But that misses a deeper point. We have created an environment that is 99% artificial. Who are "we"? Increasingly, every object in our environment has been created by thousands upon thousands of faceless individuals in a production train. Sometimes we need to have our noses shoved into this fact by, for example, asking how we would make a toaster from scratch. I ask the reader to pick up any object nearby and ask if he could make it from scratch. A plastic spoon? A ballpoint pen? A sticky label? Do we have any idea how much every person in the production line of any of these things got paid for his contribution? Does such a question even make sense? The fact is that everything around us has been created by the human race. We have no idea who designed this stuff, who built it or how it came to be regarded as "ours". The money we paid for it is, generally speaking, an absurdly low estimate of its "worth". To a large extent, what we pay for things in this world is a pretty arbitrary measure of what their value is to us. We access the vast amount of that value for "free".

But how do we regard our money as "ours"? If we look closely, most of us are also involved in a production chain too Our own contribution is lost in a sea of other contributions, with some kind of value popping out at the other end as if by magic. For example, for 30 years I worked to improve aircraft safety. I have no idea if my contribution saved any one single life. It only makes sense to think of my efforts as a contribution to the work of millions in the transportation industry.

What I am left with is a vision of the "commons" as a vast universe of value. Each of us contributes and (maybe) gets paid for it. We withdraw things from the commons and (rarely) pay for that value.

We should have our political discussions around enhancing the value of the commons, reducing the cost of accessing it and fairly compensating those who contribute to it. Automation threatens to completely disrupt the "compensation" part of this system while driving down the cost of "things" that the commons produces. Some members of society see their access to the commons painfully restricted or eliminated while others seek to "fence off" the commons and call a chunk of it "theirs".

So why are some things so expensive and why do some people get paid almost nothing for their contribution?

It seems to me that it boils down to personal, individual, one-on-one service. You can't mass produce cancer care or Nobel Prize winners. But there is no shortage of people who will work in warehouses or flip hamburgers.

That's the status of my current thinking on this issue. The devil is in the details.