Suicide as a Natural Right -Part IV (a): Social Capital

Photo by u0410u043bu0435u043au0441u0435u0439 u0412u0435u0447u0435u0440u0438u043d on Pexels.com

Following Dr. Block’s supposition that a person can commodify themselves and effectively sell or alienate themselves (p.6), we must address the issue of capital destruction. The economic costs go beyond losses in productivity but also have more subtle ramifications throughout the economy. The act of suicide destroys a person’s body; however, the intangible assets lost are arguably the most detrimental. Most notably, in the form of squandered human capital and social capital. While these forms of social capital are refutably mere constructs, they still seem to possess a priceless qualitative value. In the absence of the knowledge, credentials, and necessary social networks financial success is not possible. 

Commodifying these abstract concepts applies them to John Locke’s postulations regarding wasting resources (p.12). But if the value of commodities is subjective, we have to evaluate Locke’s assumptions regarding frivolous resource consumption. Furthermore, if we accept this notion of wasteful consumption, we must apply it to other areas of resource allocation. For example, investing too in production can be considered a wasteful form of resource allocation. Under Locke’s theory, if extrapolated, we should bar entrepreneurs from making overinvestments in their firms. Not only would such a law be unenforceable, but it also suffers from the Hayekian Pretense of Knowledge. Neither the businessman nor the lawmaker has access to perfect information. How would the lawmaker even know if a business owner engaged in malinvestment until the downstream effects have come to full fruition, paralleling the flaws of proactive legal sanctions? Entrepreneurial decision-making is enveloped in uncertainty. To quote the great Frank H.Knight:

It will appear that a measurable uncertainty, or “risk” proper, as we shall use the term, is so far different from an unmeasurable one that it is not in effect an uncertainty at all. We shall accordingly restrict the term “uncertainty” to cases of the non-quantitative type. It is this “true” uncertainty, and not risk, as has been argued, which forms the basis of a valid theory of profit and accounts for the divergence between actual and theoretical competition. (p.84)

To preemptively declare a form of capital use or manipulation as “…wasteful..” is fallacious. At best, we can attempt to use market signals as a guide for appropriately deploying capital. Whether an investment was prudent or foolish will only be known once the downstream consequences are evident. In this respect suicide is just a form of managing the “… social..” capital structure through the informal destruction (p.21) of such social assets. Allowing people to dispose of capital at their own free will allows for the unfettered restructuring [1] of productive activities utilizing human and social capital. Allowing the substitution or destruction of “..social..” inputs. 

Foot Notes:

  1. A reference to the Austrian Theory of Capital

Success By Default is Not Truly Success

Photo by Anna Tarazevich on Pexels.com

In terms of formulating effective rules, one needs to have a panoramic understanding of the potential consequences. Even the downstream outcomes are not easily foreseen. Providing some validation of F.A. Hayek’s notion of the Pretense of Knowledge. No one person, organization, or collection of governing institutions has all of the information required to plan for every scenario. Making it foolhardy to enact inflexible rules that operate as if the definite outcomes can be methodically calculated. Treading down the path of the socialist calculation debate is fruitless as the refutations on both sides of the aisle have already been exhausted. The fall of the Soviet Union alone should serve as a historical anecdote of the fallacy of planned economies.

It should be noted that information asymmetries and unforeseeable outcomes are a natural consequence of having limited information. Explaining phenomena such as cobra effects, because certain repercussions cannot be known until it is too late. These distorted outcomes as the result of flawed rules can happen on a much smaller scale than that of the national economy or a country’s legal system. Something as mundane as a birthdate cutoff to participate in youth hockey can spur some surprise inequities in the trajectory of young hockey players. This example springing from the pages of Malcolm Gladwell’s 2008 book Outliers gives us some keen insights into the potential for implicit flaws in rule formulation. Gladwell details the observations of psychologist Roger Barnsley (p.22-23) upon perusing the program of the Canadian national youth hockey championship. Barnsley noticed that the majority of the players had birthdays ranging between January and March. Is it possible that there is a certain qualitative factor distinguishing children with birthdays earlier on in the year? If we examine the zodiac symbols of those born in January and February there are characteristics that are conducive to success. However, there is little scientific merit to astrology anyhow. Barnsley had another explanation for this discrepancy between Canadian Hockey players born in January versus July. 

Barnsley astutely directs us towards the factor of birthday cutoffs for eligibility to play youth hockey in Canada. This fact was substantiated when Barnsley discovered that roughly 40 percent of all elite hockey players were born between January-March, 30 percent between April-June (p.23) Demonstrating the role of the individual player’s birthday in determining success. Having a January first cutoff, privileged prospective players born in the earlier months of the year (p.24). The main difference being that the boys born in earlier months were more physically mature. In turn, received more attention from the coaches lending this dynamic to an early delineation between talented and untalented players (p.25). Due to the difference in age eligibility cutoffs in American youth football and basketball leagues, they did not exhibit the same distortions in the distribution of talent (p.26). Engendering a Matthew Effect or what is otherwise known as an accumulative advantage. Adam Smith even points to the concept of accumulative advantage in The Wealth of NationsExplaining how in a sense the poor pay the price for the poor decisions of their forefathers. 

Many proponents of meritocratic social arrangements may scoff at the idea of making rules that are fair. However, if the rules are providing a lopsided advantage to one group, are the results truly the result of superior performance or the distortion created by the rules? Few would ever view the occurrence of instances of regulatory capture or rent-seeking as a triumph of free-market competition. Rather just the opposite, it is an example of interest groups bending the rules to suit their own needs. Careful consideration needs to be made in how we set and enforce rules to avoid distorted effects that handsomely benefit a few and harm a great many. Gladwell succinctly sums up this point very eloquently: 

“Because we cling to the idea that success is a simple function of individual merit and that the world in which we all group up and then we choose to write society don’t matter at all.” (p.33)

While variables such as luck, talent, ingenuity, and hard work can all have a role in success, we cannot forget that how the rules are written can also have an inseparable impact on outcomes. Even rules that are inadvertently written in a manner to favor one group over another without consideration of merit is a flawed rule. Marred by an unforeseeable blind spot that nevertheless has generated distorted outcomes. These outcomes are not truly the byproduct of talent or work ethic but by technicalities that create illusory perceptions of actual skill. 

We are all Ignorant and That is Okay- Wise Words from Socrates

 

close up photo of woman covering her ears
Photo by Oleg Magni on Pexels.com

 

One of the oldest epistemological problems is how do we obtain true wisdom. To reach a state of wisdom we must amass a substantial amount of knowledge. How do we distinguish true knowledge from misconceptions and opinions in our pursuit of the virtuous ideal? I have often asked myself what is the difference between common sense and ignorant old “wives’ tales”?  Same principle different wording. Both inquiries reflect the larger premise. How do that the knowledge I have obtained is true knowledge?

 

The renowned classical philosopher Socrates believed he had the answer. That was to acknowledge the limits of your knowledge. However, he did this to the extreme. This principle has been enshrined in the Socratic Admission of Ignorance. Professing to know nothing being of the highest virtue. This is counter intuitive considering we would expect a man anointed as the father of Western Philosophy to have answers. Certainly, a man proclaimed by the oracle at Delphi as the wisest man on the planet would know something? (Silvermintz, 2020, P.11) [1]. Conversely, maybe it takes a supremely wise man to see his knowledge deficits. Rather than blithely putting on the pretense that he knows more than what he does. Reflecting upon the Hayekian Pretense of Knowledge. The hubris that has consistently foiled the plans and aspirations of central planners. Would Hayek have ever formulated such a concept without any Socratic precursors?

 

Perhaps, a truly wise individual sees the process of learning as a continual process. Not a linear destination, that once reached it cannot be expanded upon. It is an ongoing search. Especially when we are confronted with the fact that there is too much knowledge for one person to possess. Making education a lifelong process. We need to be open to this fact of reality. To some capacity, we need to humble ourselves and be honest about what knowledge we lack. In the example of the central planner, admitting that they do not know what the long-term impact of rent control will be on the housing market. Here is where the Socratic omission comes into play, acquiesce the fact that you truly do not know. Socrates claimed that we do not possess any precise knowledge other than that of our ignorance. This may seem somewhat gratuitous. Isn’t it enough to admit our ignorance on topics that we do not have any expertise?  Socrates was arguably an “expert” when it came to virtue yet he still claimed to be ignorant true virtue.

 

“ “I am wiser than this man,” as Socrates says of one of Athens’ respected politicians, “for neither of us knows anything fine and good, but this man thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas I, as I do not know anything, do not think I do, either” (Apology 21d). (Silvermintz, 2020, P.11) [2].”

 

This does seem like an outlandishly absurd thing for a man who has decided his life to morality to claim. It is important to note that while the truth isn’t fluid, what our perception of truth is. Old scientific theories are often debunked by new evidence. Social norms change in-lock step with the evolution of our social morality. For example, it is the abolition of slavery. A practice that was at one time viewed as being appropriate. Then years later was viewed as being immoral. However, was it ever truly moral? Through admitting to being ignorant of everything Socrates sidesteps this fatal error. Through claiming ignorance we have the freedom to reevaluate social practices without being labeled as a hypocrite. Beyond our reputation it also enables us the foresight to examine and abolish moral practices. If we believe we are on the moral high ground we are less apt to be critical of our current customs. By place an air of doubt around all knowledge we are enabling the flexibility for necessary revisions. Doubt is what gives malleability to the scientific claims. It also is what makes the U.S. Constitution a governing charter that grows with the country. Rather than keeping the U.S. held captive by the sins of the past. In my estimate, both the scientific method and the founding principles of the United States owes gratitude to Socratic thinking.

 

Socrates questioning the validity of everything helps delineate true knowledge from opinions (Silvermintz, 2020, P.11) [3] In our mind, we often conflate opinion with fact. How often is advocacy for political policies based on facts?  Infrequently. In the mind of the advocate, their position on the issue is the only correct stance.  This separation is an important one to make. It is a common fallacy to combine facts with opinions and to present opinions as facts. An increasingly prevalent problem in the area of news reporting. Whether a news outlet is right-leaning or left-leaning they do more editorializing than presenting the information. Making it impossible to be informed after watching the evening news. Rather we are inculcating ourselves with partisan talking points. Providing another modern example of why the Socratic Admission of Ignorance is still pertinent.

 

Over the years, people have taken liberties with ethics.  Some could argue since the advent of modern philosophy pragmatism has slowly come to supplant true ethics. People are starting to see morality from more of a subjective point. Per a 2015 survey, 74% of all millennials surveyed agreed with the only true truth is doing what works best for you (Silvermintz, 2020, P.11) [4]. Rejection of there being a true morality or ethics is profoundly problematic. Naked pragmatism can lead to a litany of reprehensible policies. Past regimes have utilized pragmatism to justify genocide. Morality is far from being black and white. However, that does not mean morality is relative. Treating morality as relative can be calamitous for humanity as a whole.