Planning on an intuitive level always appears to be the most logical course of action. If we could only harness the same methodical rigor of a physics experiment, we could all live in the blessed light of “reason”. Few of a scientific disposition stop to question if there are certain aspects of life we shouldn’t attempt to control. In their haughty hubris, the proponents of planning bumptiously trudge forward. In full faith that they can implement the next pivotal stage of progress in the history of man. For those who pray at the altar of pure reason, such oversights are a consequence of believing that they possess more knowledge than it is possible to know. A point clearly elaborated on by Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek decades prior to 2019. Most notably in his seminal book The Road to Serfdom published at the tail end of World War II, an era when the debate about economic planning was raging.
Even when we are armed a plethora of empirically verified statistics and data planners are still merely guessing. Often guessing with information collected under idyllic experimental conditions. Conditions that are meticulously controlled and don’t account for the invariability of a natural environment. An environment that is more constrained by natural law than by experimental controls. While science has brought forth the advantages of modern medicine and technological advances, there are specific areas where its breadth of knowledge is insufficient or inappropriate. Social engineering and economic matters being sublime examples.
If such measures could bring about a utopian society it would have already been implemented. Attempting to subvert the effects of the law of Supply and Demand through price-fixing and subsidizes will invariably fall flat. Regardless of their intentions, the central planners will always fail. Venezuela’s financial woes spiraled out of control after a subsequent chain of ill-fated interventions initiated by artificially manipulating oil prices. However, Venezuela is merely a drop in the bucket, such measures have backfired on just about every country that has entertained similar policies. It starts to become quite salient that when immutable laws are violated the ramifications can be disastrous. This premise isn’t merely regulated to economic law, but all forms of natural law. The intellectuals, bureaucrats, technocrats, and other authority figures rank among men foolish enough to attempt to undermine static and enduring.
The sin of such arrogance is far from a new pathology of the human condition and has proven to be quite a pervasive vice. From the dawn of civilization to the Middle ages gout-ridden men reeking of entitlement and excess felt their privileged station was anointed by the will of God. Making them immune to the conventions and morals that bound common men. While monogamy was imperative for the butcher, baker, and the brewer; the king had his court filled with concubines. The king not only felt he was above moral convention, but that of natural law. After all, he is literally a step away from being a deity in his own right. Many medieval rulers in an attempt to keep wealth within their own national boundaries implemented highly protectionist policies. Composited policies that reflect the economic system known as Mercantilism. Which erroneously disregarded just about every basic economic law we hold in high regard.
At the apogee of the Scottish Enlightenment, there was one man who saw the folly in the lofty assumption of central planners. He was also an outspoken critic of Mercantilism, that man was the moral philosopher Adam Smith. He expounds upon this phenomena in his 1759 book The Theory of Moral Sentiments in the personified construct dubbed “The Man of System”:
The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamored with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder. (Page 212, para 2)
The king believes he can circumvent the will of his subjects and impose import tariffs that will encourage them to buy domestic goods. By virtue of natural law, purchasing cheaper imported goods does not constitute theft or assault, but rather a byproduct of free will. Due to the tariffs being legitimate in the eyes of the royal subjects an expansive smuggling ring is formulated. Illegally importing untaxed goods into the kingdom. People are not chess pieces, nor are they objects. They possess free will (or the illusion of such), an individual set of morals, and the capacity for subjective attributions. It is faulty to surmise that people can be treated as pawns when social law and their own volition will most likely hamper any attempts at planning.
It becomes truly horrifying when individuals believe they can legislate morality. The abject failures of alcohol and drug prohibition provide sufficient insight into the shortcomings of such endeavors. Utopia does not exist on planet Earth. The nature of man is imperfect and is incapable of mimicking the pristine deportment of cherubs. We are not saints, no amount of legislation or penalities can correct for this deficit. This not intended to provide immunity for the murder, rapist, or thief. However, they have transgressed against a higher moral code making their actions universally reviled. While the moral indiscretions of the prostitute, the drug addict, and the bookie are not universally seen as wrong. In the sense that they are victimless crimes. More of a passive acquiescence than an endorsement.
It isn’t natural law that decrees the need for punitive measures for such conduct, but government fiat. This is where we cross the line into legal positivism. An action is either moral or immoral purely on the basis of legislative command. A Pentagon directed bombing campaign that kills innocent civilians was justifiable. A convenience store owner shooting a burglar that is attempting to rob his establishment at gunpoint is a civil infraction. Considering the gross insensitivity to property rights and higher moral values can we truly trust ” The Man of System” (bureaucrat, legislator, etc.) to codify morality in a self-serving legal system? The prison unions have a storied history of lobbying against the legalization of Marijuana. Who is to say that many of our petty laws exist purely for justifying the existence of a task force or bureaucratic department?
It isn’t merely just the conservative Christian or the “law-and-order” types that can assume the proverbial role as “The Man of System”. The progressive left-wingers have also utilized the government apparatus to legally impose their own brand of “morality”. Any form of government funded safety-net or subsistence program is a legal attempt at evening the odds for the economically disadvantaged. While it is fair to disagree or agree with such policies, the real line of demarcation is when initiatives to criminalize intolerance are suggested. Most of these policy suggestions amount to compelled speech laws. If certain speech is deemed as hateful it must not be tolerated. To such an extent that there are legal repercussions for using “hate speech”. As outlandish as it may sound you need to look no further than Bill C-16 passed in Canada to see the ultimate outcome of such ill-advised policies. Implement such sanctions against our speech is purely an assault on the principle of free speech. Even criminalizing the right to be a member of a hate group tramples upon the relished right to free association. If either right is nullified by legislative constraints you are an inch away from living in a dictatorship.
These legislative crusaders may be well-intentioned they are willfully ignorant of human nature. Much how you cannot legislate Judeo-Christain values into the psyche of an individual the same holds true for the virtues of social justice. Despite what you do, intolerance will never be completely relinquished as long as humans walk the Earth. The human mind is glutted with biases that push many to favor individuals that are similar to themselves. Similar to themselves in a shared language, values, religion, political identity, ethnic identity, national identity, sexual identity, etc. Considering these proclivities for tribal behavior it becomes quite conspicuous that tolerance is merely another incurably ill of mankind. Sure you may be able to enlighten individuals of the errors in their thinking, but not on any kind of grand level. Intolerance dies on the same day that man longer yearns for a pint of beer, a dose of opium, and no longer lusts for a voluptuous misteress. Anyone convinced otherwise is profoundly mistaken.
I am still perplexed by people who unquestionably trust the judgment and authority of those who insist upon controlling the lives of others. Politicians, bureaucrats, intellectuals, judges among others. All of these individuals are human and none are infallible. All are cable of sin, all are subject to psychological biases, and other influences that would make them biased.Why is the law contrived and fabricated by these purported experts superior to the “golden rule”? Holding the authority of mortal men in such a high degree operates as a perverse form of deification. Their credentials and education are what separate them from ordinary people. That is it. There aren’t any further qualifying factors that make these individuals morally superior to common folks. In most cases, laws don’t even make us any safer or product our property rights. Most laws if anything is hostile to our property rights. Leaving it reasonable to question, why are lawmakers incentivized to legislate such grotesque sanctions against some of our most basic rights?