Decentralization enforces pragmatism. In a competitive economy markets test firms. Decentralization creates competition and so the possibility of failure. Without failure there is no pragmatism, for experiments fail more often than they succeed.
Centralization presupposes the ability of the rational mind to solve problems. It denigrates or neglects experimentation, even as it uses the rhetoric of science as its rationale. Without trial and error there is no science and no reason. There is no such thing as a priori expertise. Progressivism claims to be a movement of experts, but its claims are self contradictory. Progressivism forestalls experimentation by centralizing decisions. Progressivism is (a) ideological and (b) aims to facilitate the operation of special interests. It uses the rhetoric of "conscience" rooted in Christianity to justify special interest brokerage.
The use of centralization to facilitate special interests goes back to the Romans. The institution of free bread to the proletarians began with the Republic, and Septimius Severus increased the welfare benefits as well as special benefits to the military two centuries later. Septimius's escalation of welfare in Rome preceded Rome's fall by over a century. The Romans justified centralization of power in part in terms of welfare benefits to Roman citizens, but the biggest beneficiaries were businesses that catered to the Roman state, the military industrial complex.
Like the ancient Romans, Progressivism re-distributes wealth using claims of social welfare. However, its project is complicated by technological and scientific discovery that evolved out of Hellenic and barbaric decentralization. In order to coopt the source of progress, Progressivism needs to claim that it offers a superior method of scientific advance. It develops this claim through the ritualization and control of knowledge in universities. It also develops methodologies of allocating the "right" to think through IQ and other standardized tests that have validity. Such validity is partially related to the ability to invent or to create economic value, but to a greater degree to the ability to accomplish tasks within parameters, e.g., to perform a job well. IQ tests have been validated with respect to job performance but NOT with respect to entrepreneurship. Studies of millionaires do NOT find that they have extraordinarily high IQs, merely above average. Rather, they have moral, time preference and interpersonal skill characteristics that facilitate acquisition of wealth.
Development of methods of wealth creation is at part dependent upon the characteristics that IQ measures, but far from exclusively so. Progressivism limits access to universities based on IQ, then claims that universities are the chief source of wealth creation. National wealth is allocated to university-approved projects, specifically finance, legal and banking interests whose ranks are dominated by university graduates. Central planners come up with failed ideas, but ones with good rationales. IQ facilitates the spinning of manipulative explanations but without decentralization, experimentation and failure characteristic of markets IQ is not capable of innovation.
The result is a society that fixates on allocation of human resources through standardized tests and then subsidizes those with the highest IQs through government. Elements of risk are included. The economy becomes a casino, entry to which is made possible through admission to an elite university. Power rather than market and rituals associated with rationality rather than reason determine allocation of wealth. The system is self perpetuating and susceptible to manipulation. It is a system characteristic of decline.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Gengler to MacAskill: Resign!
Professor Chuck Gengler of Baruch College has written the following letter to Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Minister responsible for freeing terrorist and murderer Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, who was responsible for the Lockerbie bomb that killed 270 people.
Al Qaeda murdered Gengler's brother on 9/11.
MacCaskill is quoted by the BBC as saying "the country's justice system was based on both judgement and compassion". Instead, I would say that Mr. MacAskill is a psychopath and Scotland's justice system is a bloodthirsty joke.
To:
>Cc: "Mitchell Langbert"
>Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 7:41 PM
>Subject: Please resign in disgrace
>>Dear Sir.
>>My brother was killed in a terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2001. I understand how >>families feel regarding the issue. While you may hold up a few idiots who support >>your decision, it is not the majority of us. This horrible excuse for a human >>being that you released was already shown ample compassion by not being put to >>death. Being allowed to live was insult enough to the families of his victims, >>but your actions are incomprehensible. We now have a man hailed as a hero for >>killing hundreds of people in a cowardly bombing. through your idiotic act, you >>have created a role model for others to follow in his footsteps. I could go on, >>but what is the point? You are too stupid to >>understand. Resign and hide your >>head in shame.
>>Sincerely,
>>Charles Gengler, PhD
Al Qaeda murdered Gengler's brother on 9/11.
MacCaskill is quoted by the BBC as saying "the country's justice system was based on both judgement and compassion". Instead, I would say that Mr. MacAskill is a psychopath and Scotland's justice system is a bloodthirsty joke.
To:
>Cc: "Mitchell Langbert"
>Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 7:41 PM
>Subject: Please resign in disgrace
>>Dear Sir.
>>My brother was killed in a terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2001. I understand how >>families feel regarding the issue. While you may hold up a few idiots who support >>your decision, it is not the majority of us. This horrible excuse for a human >>being that you released was already shown ample compassion by not being put to >>death. Being allowed to live was insult enough to the families of his victims, >>but your actions are incomprehensible. We now have a man hailed as a hero for >>killing hundreds of people in a cowardly bombing. through your idiotic act, you >>have created a role model for others to follow in his footsteps. I could go on, >>but what is the point? You are too stupid to >>understand. Resign and hide your >>head in shame.
>>Sincerely,
>>Charles Gengler, PhD
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Romans and Barbarians in American History
The qualities of the Roman Empire fulfilled the expectations of the ancient western mindset. First of all, slavery was the basis for economic profit, and military expansion, imperialism, was the method by which economic growth was achieved. Roman society was based on hierarchy, with the elite senatorial class followed by the equestrian class, citizens, freemen and then slaves. Centralization was viewed as necessary because the economy depended on military conquest and exploitation. The Romans were catholic because their Empire encompassed multitudinous ethnic groups, nationalities and religions.
The qualities of the barbarians, the Franks, Picts, Jutes, Goths, Vandals, etc. was also warlike. However, they were tribally focused and more decentralized than the Romans. They did not choose decentralization over centralization for strategic or economic reasons. Rather, tribal or ethnic prejudice was at the root. When they occupied the various parts of the Empire they wanted to emulate the Romans and to enjoy the economic benefits of Romanism, but they were not interested in a catholic worldview. Charlemagne's conquest of Germany and Italy was in the name of Frankish or Carolingian power, not in the name of re-establishing a catholic empire.
Thus, there were two important effects of the barbarian conquest of western Europe. First, the Empire became decentralized. This led to 15 centuries of economic progress. Secondly, tribalism became instituted in European culture. The European ruling classes continued to see themselves as Frankish or Norman until the 19th century, when aristocratic tribalism was transformed into nationalism.
In American history the two impulses of Romanism and tribalism followed a similar pattern. The Romans were the Federalists, Whigs, Progressives and social democrats, who were anti-racist and less nationalistic than the decentralizers, at least until the twentieth century when the Progressives adopted some of the racism, nationalism and imperialism that was characteristic of the Democrats in the 19th century.
The decentralizers in American history were the Anti-Federalists and Democrats in the 19th century. The southern Democrats were most famously for states' rights. As well, Andrew Jackson was responsible for the Trail of Tears; hated Indians; and was a racist. In contrast, the abolitionists were Whigs. The racists in 19th century America were characteristically working class Democrats. For instance, the draft riots in New York City were an anti-African American protest by working class Democrats who lynched a number of African Americans, including a number of children.
However, like the Barbarians of Europe, the working class Democrats in America were responsible for innovation and economic growth. Their pattern was similar to the Barbarians. They favored decentralization, aggressive expansion (the Mexican American War and the Indian Wars were very much Jacksonian).
The Barbarians were the innovators. The Romans the advocates of scale economies. Both principles are useful, and there is always a danger that one will proceed too far. Flexibility in the creation and destruction of economic institutions is therefore important to re-balance excessive centralization or excessive competition.
But this is best accomplished through capitalist, private institutions that are flexible and can be allowed to go bankrupt. Government, the Romanizing power in America, refuses to terminate any of its programs. Therefore, America, once the product of Barbarian thinking, especially of Montesquieu, the Physiocrats and Adam Smith, has become increasingly elitist and Romanized as the New Deal Democrats have instituted Roman philosophies.
The qualities of the barbarians, the Franks, Picts, Jutes, Goths, Vandals, etc. was also warlike. However, they were tribally focused and more decentralized than the Romans. They did not choose decentralization over centralization for strategic or economic reasons. Rather, tribal or ethnic prejudice was at the root. When they occupied the various parts of the Empire they wanted to emulate the Romans and to enjoy the economic benefits of Romanism, but they were not interested in a catholic worldview. Charlemagne's conquest of Germany and Italy was in the name of Frankish or Carolingian power, not in the name of re-establishing a catholic empire.
Thus, there were two important effects of the barbarian conquest of western Europe. First, the Empire became decentralized. This led to 15 centuries of economic progress. Secondly, tribalism became instituted in European culture. The European ruling classes continued to see themselves as Frankish or Norman until the 19th century, when aristocratic tribalism was transformed into nationalism.
In American history the two impulses of Romanism and tribalism followed a similar pattern. The Romans were the Federalists, Whigs, Progressives and social democrats, who were anti-racist and less nationalistic than the decentralizers, at least until the twentieth century when the Progressives adopted some of the racism, nationalism and imperialism that was characteristic of the Democrats in the 19th century.
The decentralizers in American history were the Anti-Federalists and Democrats in the 19th century. The southern Democrats were most famously for states' rights. As well, Andrew Jackson was responsible for the Trail of Tears; hated Indians; and was a racist. In contrast, the abolitionists were Whigs. The racists in 19th century America were characteristically working class Democrats. For instance, the draft riots in New York City were an anti-African American protest by working class Democrats who lynched a number of African Americans, including a number of children.
However, like the Barbarians of Europe, the working class Democrats in America were responsible for innovation and economic growth. Their pattern was similar to the Barbarians. They favored decentralization, aggressive expansion (the Mexican American War and the Indian Wars were very much Jacksonian).
The Barbarians were the innovators. The Romans the advocates of scale economies. Both principles are useful, and there is always a danger that one will proceed too far. Flexibility in the creation and destruction of economic institutions is therefore important to re-balance excessive centralization or excessive competition.
But this is best accomplished through capitalist, private institutions that are flexible and can be allowed to go bankrupt. Government, the Romanizing power in America, refuses to terminate any of its programs. Therefore, America, once the product of Barbarian thinking, especially of Montesquieu, the Physiocrats and Adam Smith, has become increasingly elitist and Romanized as the New Deal Democrats have instituted Roman philosophies.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Mitchell Langbert's Blog Breaks 100,000 Visits
I was pleased to see a large response to the piece I wrote on the American Senior's Association, which pushed me over 100,000 visits since March 2008 when I began keeping track. During the past 17 months I have been covered in the New York Sun and got some publicity concerning the Obama birth certificate issue. I appreciate your reading this blog and I hope to improve with time!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
