What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Consequentialism vs. Deontology

Consequentialism, Cato Institute/GMU/Liberaltarian style:

...let economic "efficiency" & the cosmopolitan pleasures thrive, come what may for the ties that have traditionally bound men to their families, their communities, their nations...in short, their tribes.

Consequentialism, Communitarian/Agrarian/Maximos style:

...let the ties that have traditionally bound men to their families, their communities, their nations...in short, their tribes thrive, come what may for economic "efficiency" & the cosmopolitan pleasures.

Deontology, Steve Burton/Conservative-Libertarian style:

All else being equal, economic "efficiency" & the cosmopolitan pleasures are wonderful things.

And so are the ties that have traditionally bound men to their families, their communities, their nations...in short, their tribes.

But there are certain moral constraints on what it is permissible to do in pursuit of these wonderful things. And the first & most fundamental of these moral constraints is that one must never, ever, try to get one's way by initiating physical force against those with whom one disagrees.

So, where, in practical terms, does that leave me? Do I have any real friends in either camp?

I tend to think not.

Comments (41)

You have friends in the camp I laid out below, Steve.

Hmmm.

On first blush, I have two comments. First, I do conceive of the ethical obligations towards, in your words, tribe, as having priority over any goods, real or alleged, that may arise from cosmopolitan pursuits, where the two may conflict. On my reading of these obligations, one may not legitimately privilege the Other or the aggregate over "these people here, to whom I belong." In other words, it certainly seems deontological to me: we ought not do certain things, even if the consequences bring us pleasure. But perhaps I misunderstand.

Second, we must not utilize physical force against those with whom we disagree - well and good if we are referring to the private use of violence, or to commandeering the state as an agency of physical repression, after the fashion of Latin American juntas, or African kleptocracies (always ethnically-tinged). But politics just is coercion at some level: we've decided that the law is X, and if you want to do Y, tough luck. Assuming all of the 'good goverance' procedural mechanisms, and laws falling within the range of just outcomes, the threat of coercion, even force, back of this is not illicit. It's just how communities enforce boundaries.

Steve, I think the libertarians as you describe them are your friends, because they think (truly or not) that you don't have to initiate force to end up where they think we should end up.

On Maximos's comment, we shd. maybe remember that the members of the tribe themselves will suffer from severe shortfalls in efficiency. It may well come down to a stark choice between having the members of your tribe stunted in growth through malnutrition and shortened in lifespan through poor health care and heavy physical labor but (in the ideal case) rich in immaterial feelings of connection to place, family, kin, and the guy at the corner store who sells them what little they are able to afford to buy. It's not a trade I would make, but Maximos already said in another thread that he doesn't think growth stunting through insufficient protein is all _that_ big of a deal, so perhaps it's one he would be willing to make. In any event, it isn't so simple a matter as "the good of the tribe" vs. "the good of the Other."

Maximos already said in another thread that he doesn't think growth stunting through insufficient protein is all _that_ big of a deal...

That ridiculous argument again? Look, in no society is it possible to maximize every conceivable metric of human well-being, or every form of non-quantifiable flourishing, and this one - getting "enough" protein, so as to maximize potentiated genetic height, or something - is one we've chosen to maximize, regardless of the costs, the externalities, the sheer unsustainability of it? Really? America, the Unserious, is about all I can say to that.

In any event, it isn't so simple a matter as "the good of the tribe" vs. "the good of the Other."

Of course not. It depends upon a rank-ordering of goods, by means of which any hypothetical conflicts may be resolved. That America the Unserious almost always chooses lower-order, quantifiable goods over non-quantifiable ones is what makes it America the (Ethically) Unserious.

Like I said...

Like I said....

That should be "As I said."

Point taken.

St. Thomas points out that while Christ demands that we attend to our obligations to our neighbor,it remains true that we have more obligation to consider our nearer neighbor. I believe that this can be understood and justified on several different grounds, which I leave to the reader as exercise.

With that starting point, it is necessarily the case that one must be attentive to the needs of self and family more than to the people on your block, to town and tribe more than to your country, and to your own country more than to the guy in Ghana who wants money for a new business idea. So, at least in principle, I agree with part of Maximos's point about tribe .

Yet the whole point of forming communities is to attend to something that is a common good for all members, and the essential ingredient for a community to exist not only de jure but de facto is that the members are willing to forego some aspects of personal, first level goods in order to attend to and achieve the common good. (Just to pick a simplistic example, when you form a chess club, you have to agree to meet sometime, there is no PERFECT time, so one of the members accepts meeting at an inconvenient time for his family because it causes the least disruption to ALL THE REST of the members taken as a whole.)

Ideally, the common goods expected to be achieved in foregoing nearer personal goods that could otherwise be achieved will clearly and thoroughly outweigh the personal goods given up. But in this life this will not always be true.

While the good of my tribe is more paramount all other things being equal to good of the Other tribe, the problem is that often not all other things are equal, or people cannot see that they are equal.

~~That America the Unserious almost always chooses lower-order, quantifiable goods over non-quantifiable ones is what makes it America the (Ethically) Unserious.~~

My dad may be an alcoholic and my mom a chain-smoking floozy, our house may be filthy, with a leaky roof and crumbling paint, my brother may be in rehab and my sister flunking out of school...in other words, my family may be completely dysfunctional, but hey, look at all the stuff I got for Christmas!!!

I'm with Steve -- efficiency, tribes, and minimum coercion.

Hey, Steve,

I'll be your friend in the tribe...if you pay me :)

The Chicken

No, Rob G. More like, "We have lots of strip malls around, which Crunchy Cons think ugly, we have big box stores, our farms are mostly quite large, and we don't live in a very tight-knit community, but we have plenty of nutritious food for ourselves and our children, clean water, good hospitals, and an ability to support ourselves without damaging our bodies by the heaviness of our labor. Heck, we have a lot to be thankful for."

If that be moral unseriousness, make the most of it.


You mistake me, Lydia, if you think that I believe all is shite. But neither do I believe that all is well. What the name of this blog again? Perhaps it should be renamed What's Wrong With The World (Except In America, Where Everything's Just Peachy, Except For the Fact That the Democrats Are Currently In Charge)

A lot is wrong with the world. I don't, myself, happen to think strip malls are worth mentioning in that list. Not all of my blog colleagues agree with me there. I also think thankfulness for our blessings is a great thing, and it's something that I worry about when people start "dissing" material blessings.

The proliferation of strip malls, big box stores and fast food joints is not as problematic as what it represents -- America's obsession with bigger-more-and-faster. We are becoming ever more besotted with the modern version of bread and circuses.

The proliferation of strip malls, big box stores and fast food joints is not as problematic as what it represents -- America's obsession with bigger-more-and-faster.

Bingo, Rob! If people lived as they ought, i.e., within their means, giving adequate attention to the their own future expected needs and those of their children (e.g., by saving instead of gambling), there wouldn't be a proliferation of these things. The market just couldn't support them.

I'm unconvinced. When I shop at big-box stores, I _am_ saving. Money. I'm being thrifty. The crunchies can't have it both ways: Modern stores are bad because they sell low-priced clothing, which they do by not employing American workers, _and_ Americans are bad for shopping there, because (somehow, God knows how) it's a sign that they don't believe in saving money for the future of their children. You'd do better to stick with the vagueness of "greed." Then, I'm "greedy" for not wanting to pay more for snow-pants for the kids, and the manufacturers are also "greedy" for employing South American workers so they can sell me the snow-pants at a lower price. It's dumb, IMO, but at least it's consistent. The "gambling, not saving" thing just doesn't fit into a consistent ideological story.

Maximos:

(1) I would pay good money to see you & Tyler Cowen try to communicate with one another. I suspect that it would be rather like Basil Fawlty trying to communicate with Mrs. Richards.

(2) you write: "I do conceive of the ethical obligations towards, in your words, tribe, as having priority over any goods, real or alleged, that may arise from cosmopolitan pursuits, where the two may conflict."

Surely you don't really mean this. There are, of course, plausible (albeit unfashionable) ethical theories that strongly privilege local over universal obligations. But I don't think that any of them would go quite so far as to dismiss "any goods...that may arise from cosmopolitan pursuits" in favor of "the ethical obligations towards...tribe," *tout court*.

Shall I provide a few counter-examples? Or can we take that as read?

(3) you continue: "On my reading of these obligations, one may not legitimately privilege the Other or the aggregate over 'these people here, to whom I belong.'

Sorry, Maximos, but you're simply making things too easy on yourself, here. There are, of course, silly people who "privilege the Other" - and those silly people exercise all too much influence, these days. But the serious, mainstream, position in ethical philosophy, from Kant to Peter Singer, calls for precisely the opposite: i.e., the dumping of all local "privilege," and the adoption of universalism, or impartialism, or whatever else you want to call it.

(4) "...politics just is coercion at some level..."

Well, indeed. Politics is a dirty business, and decent people steer well clear of it.

Lydia writes: "I think the libertarians as you describe them are your friends, because they think (truly or not) that you don't have to initiate force to end up where they think we should end up."

Unfortunately, Lydia, the "liberaltarians" I have in mind - think Will Wilkinson at Cato & Tyler Cowen at GMU - have pretty much made their peace with the welfare state - i.e., the forcible state subsidization of foolish & wicked under-classish behavior. And they go on from there to celebrate the growing tolerance of such behavior as a triumph of libertarianism!

So, no. They are no friends of mine.

"That America the Unserious almost always chooses lower-order, quantifiable goods over non-quantifiable ones is what makes it America the (Ethically) Unserious."

Well, sure. America so tacky.

As opposed to...ummm...

...ummm...

I would find it easier to take seriously those self-styled "conservatives" who spend their time fretting about "strip malls, big box stores and fast food joints" if ever a one of them showed the slightest understanding of &/or concern for the ongoing debasement of *high* culture in our time.

"Well, sure. America so tacky."

Yep. Ethically unserious and tacky too. The two tend to go hand in hand.

"if ever a one of them showed the slightest understanding of &/or concern for the ongoing debasement of *high* culture in our time."

I'm flummixed here, Steve. Ejucate me. Wat do you meen?


Rob G:

(1) Much as I hate to repeat myself, let me repeat myself:

"As opposed to...ummm..."

Is my point not obvious to you?

(2) "I'm flummixed here, Steve. Ejucate me. Wat do you meen?"

Your point is not obvious to me.

(To be read with a snooty voice, a snifter of brandy in hand, while a snarky servant is walking the cat...)

America the tacky. It's evah so obvious, of coahse. America is where they just don't get the fact that the rest of the world has turned its back on capital punishment. Tacky, tacky. Where some of the people still think that there's truth out there to be learned - awfully naive of them. Where people would rahther live in a new home that has hot running water and electric lines that aren't a fire hazard, than live in a drafty old barn of a stone house that was there when Cromwell was in diapers - where the mold colony is older than America. No sense of history there! Where half the public school educators put their own children in private schools, and one half of the cream of the crop are educated AT HOME - ugh! Just think of the anti-socialization being perpetrated on those children - why, they won't grow up to shoot their professors in community college! that's how unsocialized they are. Thank Gawd for places like Germany, where they put homeschoolers in _prison_, where they belong.

Steve, I guess I hadn't realized how far down in the world self-styled libertarianism had come. Thanks for helping me catch up.

Steve,

["As opposed to...ummm..."

Is my point not obvious to you?]

Playing Devil's Advocate: Sure. As opposed to an elitist ideal of civilization.

Back to me: The elitist part is especially noxious. We see it often in the attacks on Sarah Palin, who represents the Great Unwashed--people who go hunting, own guns, live in low-income/low-tax states, drink beer, go to football games, go shopping at Penneys in malls (guilty), go shopping at Walmart (guilty), pay their traditional mortgages and other bills on time, value their word, etc.

I would pay good money to see you & Tyler Cowen try to communicate with one another....

I'm laughing out loud. At least you didn't suggest that you'd pay money for a Martin-Wilkinson exchange. The combination of his political philosophy and his preening smugness inclines me towards fisticuffs.

But I don't think that any of them would go quite so far as to dismiss "any goods...that may arise from cosmopolitan pursuits" in favor of "the ethical obligations towards...tribe," *tout court*.

I happen not to believe that all "cosmopolitan goods" conflict with 'tribal' obligations. I should think this obvious, given what I've seen fit to disclose, over the years, about my personal life. Would a rigidly tribal American marry a multi-ethnic foreigner, convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, given the fundamentally Protestant nature of American culture, attend a multi-ethnic parish church, generally feel himself at home in the company of decidedly non-parochial middle and upper-middle class folks who share his tastes in music and art, feel repulsed by the "real America" rhetoric of recent GOP campaigns, and so on and so forth? Doubtful. My concern is with patent conflicts between tribal and cosmopolitan goods. Will Wilkinson always natters on about globalization being a positive-sum process, one which maximizes global aggregate utility, often because it makes consumer crapola cheaper and offers developing-world labourers lifestyles two clicks above subsistence. In reality, globalization may be said to benefit the Masters of the Universe and some small segment of the developing world's impoverished masses; on the national scale, it benefits many people marginally, by offering them lower prices, while dramatically worsening the lives of predominantly low-skill, low-or-average-IQ folks - folks who are of our tribe in a way that the impoverished masses of the third world will never be. In the aggregate, globalization may "increase overall welfare"; on the national level, it's much closer to zero sum, with some people suffering a great deal so that disposable consumer crap can be made marginally cheaper. Those ordinary folks of our tribe need the halfway-decent jobs that have been globalized more than we need the marginally lower prices; and, contra Wilkinson, we are obligated to them in ways that we cannot be to people halfway round the world.

Sorry, Maximos, but you're simply making things too easy on yourself, here.

I don't think that I'm making things to easy on myself; I believe that these universalists have it too easy themselves. All of that utopian theory may call for an unyielding and impartial perspective on such matters, but that's merely theory; in practice, all such systems amount, functionally, to a privileging of the Other. Wilkinson's utilitarian universalism, if it is a reasonable description of the ethical presuppositions of globalization (and I believe that it is), simply does benefit the average Chinese, relative to his starting position, more than it does the average American, again relative to his starting position. Theory is theory; in practice, some interest is always privileged over some other interest or interests.

Well, indeed. Politics is a dirty business, and decent people steer well clear of it.

Nothing wrong with coercion per se; some people rather deserve to be coerced. I take the Platonic position - that the wise man, who wishes to be just, does not seek power, inasmuch as power is a temptation to injustice - not that power and coercion and unjust in themselves, but that they are grave temptations.

Well, sure. America so tacky.

I'm fairly certain that only the UK and Japan could rival us for sheer tackiness.

As opposed to...ummm...

What the West once was, I suppose. The universality of tackiness is scarcely a reason to affirm the okayness of the tackiness, or to tolerate the tackiness because some people call it "freedom" (freedumb, and because tackiness is really profitable).

I would find it easier to take seriously...

Many of us do, in our own ways, from Crunchy Cons to Front Porchers to certain traditionalists. Mostly, we are told that it's all a lifestyle affectation, a new form of consumerism, a pose, an elitism, a form of leftism. Which is mostly a way of saying that high culture is great until it costs something.

Lydia protests:

I'm unconvinced. When I shop at big-box stores, I _am_ saving. Money. I'm being thrifty. The crunchies can't have it both ways: Modern stores are bad because they sell low-priced clothing, which they do by not employing American workers, _and_ Americans are bad for shopping there, because (somehow, God knows how) it's a sign that they don't believe in saving money for the future of their children.

Are the crunchies actually saying this? Or you only hearing it? You are right to save money on things you legitimately desire (and your credentials Lydia are impeccable), and the developer was right to build the strip mall, and the Stuff-Mart was right to open up a store therein, and everybody was right to reap the rewards of economies of scale and yada yad... And it is all still something that is "Wrong with the World" because of a conspiracy of unintended consequences of modern statist and corporatist meddling.

"Much as I hate to repeat myself, let me repeat myself"

The implication seemed to be that 'crunchy' complaints about the commercialization aspects of biggerbetterfaster boil down to revulsion of tackiness. As if we dislike WalMart primarily because it's large, rectangular and gray.

As to the other, I'm interested in hearing why you think we don't care about the debasement of 'high' culture.

Yes, Steve Nicoloso, I'm hearing it from you. You said this:

If people lived as they ought, i.e., within their means, giving adequate attention to the their own future expected needs and those of their children (e.g., by saving instead of gambling), there wouldn't be a proliferation of these things. The market just couldn't support them.

What are you talking about? You're certainly blaming individual people here, not just some weird emergent property of "the system." You're saying there are people who don't "live as they ought," specifically, in that they don't live "within their means" by "saving instead of gambling," and that it is the existence of these people that builds Wal-Mart, for otherwise the market couldn't support it. Is the idea that too many people buy the cheap snow-pants with credit cards they can't pay off, or what? (I just now thought of this possible interpretation of your words.)

Most people don't live as they ought, and especially not within their means, and most especially if given access to easy credit, which is easy no least because of fractional reserve (and a tiny fraction no less) banking, which is possible because, inter alia, government printing presses (and guns) backstop the banks. And it isn't Stuff-Mart's fault that US taxpayers have for over half a century, hell ever since the days of Hamilton really, allowed large corporations (legal persons) to externalize costs that the little guys (real persons) cannot, i.e., that the US Government has decided, at an alarmingly increasing rate and increasingly obvious ways, to pick winners and losers in what is the farthest thing from a free market.

In short pursuing virtue (i.e., saving more, spending less, avoiding risky investments, getting by with less, carrying your own load, etc.) has by a vast conspiracy of effects been punished by "the system". And vices by the same conspiracy have been to a large extent rewarded. When money market rates are as pathetic as they are now, even the most virtuous of us are tempted to put money elsewhere, and it isn't necessarily wrong to seek a more reasonable return. But those money market rates are being held artificially low by entrenched systems and powerful people who run them. The "system" doesn't "want" you to save money and will punish you (by pitiful returns) if you do.

Maximos,

I enjoyed your dialogue with Steve and realized through it that you really think that economic growth is a zero sum game:

"Wilkinson's utilitarian universalism, if it is a reasonable description of the ethical presuppositions of globalization (and I believe that it is), simply does benefit the average Chinese, relative to his starting position, more than it does the average American, again relative to his starting position. Theory is theory; in practice, some interest is always privileged over some other interest or interests."

Putting aside the question of whether Wilkinson's ethics make any sense, I like the fact that you want to turn our attention to "practice" or what I would call evidence. Because I think that the evidential case for capitalism, economic growth and international trade all point to the practice of more and more people getting wealthier including those that may experience a temporary loss of some kind. As I never tire of pointing out to you, and which you at best only recultantly concede, it is in the very process of fulfilling others needs that the capitalist seeks better and innovative ways of doing so. Often this process is driven by technology -- once you can use the power of a river to power a loom you will theoretically put a bunch of "ma and pa" weavers out of business while at the same time providing better jobs for folks who were previously agricultural laborers. Once you create a motor car, you put the horse and buggy operators out of business. Once you create electricity...you get the idea. And at each step there are temporary dislocations but do you really weep over the horse and buggy trade? Reading by candlelight as opposed to lamp? Etc. And do you really think that all those weavers, horse drivers, candle-makers, etc. couldn't find new gainful employment at some point during the transition to the new? Or that their lives weren't improved by the very innovations and inventions that put them out of business? Capitalism, even global capitalism, just is MORE than providing everyone with cheap consumer goods. That fact that time and time again you repeat this tired cliche speaks to the fact that it is you who seem intent on ignoring actual practice and instead retreat to your own cooked up "front porch" ideology that focuses on the temporary losses of a few while ignoring what I believe to be their eventual gains.

And finally, what does high culture have to do with better dishwashers or cheaper snow pants? One can presumably drive to the symphony just as easily in a cheap $10,000 Hyundai car while wearing cheap Wal-Mart slacks -- in fact it seems like all the cheap modern consumer goods should make high-culture more affordable for the average family. That they choose not to enjoy this culture is a different problem.

P.S. Steve Burton -- you need to read more Arnold Kling and less Cowen. Also the folks at the Acton Institute and AEI are excellent on the practice of how capitalism drives well-being not just for the elite, but for all. They do all agree however, that the danger capitalism faces is from politics -- the temporary losers will never be happy and in the name of "reform" often enact policies that make life more miserable for everyone. Maximos' complaints with capitalism always remind me of a Vonnegut short story in which he imagined a dystopuia in which anyone born fast would be forced by society to wear bricks on their legs to slow them down to some "average" level, everyone smart would have their mental capacity diminished so as not to outwit their dumber neighbors, etc. In short, egalitarianism run wild.

allowed large corporations (legal persons) to externalize costs that the little guys (real persons) cannot,

If I hear these two complaints about corporations any more, I think I am going to barf.

Please, pay attention to reality here: It isn't because a corporation is a corporation that it is a "legal person". There are lots of ways of recognizing associative bodies across the world, and calling them "persons" for certain purposes under the law (not all, just some) is just an accident of our particular approach built up over time. Other places do it differently. You could call them legal Sparnparkers and STILL give them the same rights and privileges under law that they have here, if that's how you wanted to write the laws. It is not in virtue of calling them persons that they have privileges, it is in virtue of choosing to write laws that give them some of the advantages that human persons hold under certain areas of the law that we allowed corporations to be categorized with persons (for those purposes, not universally).

What is unavoidable is that associations-of -various-human-beings -with-respect-to -certain-activities are treated as legal entities - meaning that you can sue the entity, instead of having to sue each individual human being that is a member to take any action at court. Everything from a homeowners' association (not a corporation) to non-profits to country clubs to whatever. The fact that in our approach corporations (one specific sort of group treated under law as a single entity) are (depending on the state) not liable for certain sorts of effects and results is a SECOND, distinct, peculiar accident of our particular system as it built up, it is BY NO MEANS necessary to corporate law as such - at least, not every aspect of the typical freedom from liability that obtains in most states. It is perfectly possible to write corporate law without some of these aspects.

Secondly, most of the legal liability issues that Large Corporations escape they do in virtue of their being corporations under the law of state X, which means that the same escapes from responsibility are available to SMALL corporations of the same state. So quit whining about the freedom of " large corporations (legal persons) to externalize costs ". The same measures to avoid costs (i.e. the legal liability issues) are open to Small Corporations, because the same corporate law applies to them as well. Instead focus on the fact that ANYONE is managing to externalize their private costs on others, sometimes on the whole public. This is the serious issue.

Funny thing is that some who object to Large Corporations externalizing their costs don't object to individual human persons doing so: some here want insurance subsidies in order to smooth out costs for individuals (to be borne by the whole insured population) regardless of real costs for the individual, so that those who are high-cost, high-risk (and, if they had to buy insurance without subsidy could not afford it) can pay the same price as everyone else, thus raising the cost for those who are low-risk. Now maybe as a society we SHOULD enable high-risk individuals to externalize their costs by pushing government controls so that all pay a smoothed-out cost for insurance (presumably by arguing that this is for the better of society as a whole). But the same suggestion could be made for allowing corporations to externalize some of their costs - it may be for the better of society as a whole. Certainly a lot of people who support broadening the health insurance pool with subsidies are the same people who pushed for no-fault car insurance in certain states, thus externalizing some of the costs, for the immediate benefit of insurance companies, as well as to the benefit of those who drive poorly.

The mere fact that a corporation is called a legal "person" is a bit of semantics and holds no weight whatsoever in judging whether corporate law is beneficial. The fact that corporations are treated as single entities before the law is absolutely unavoidable and not in the least threatening to the common good. The fact that corporations get to "externalize" some of their costs is neither good nor bad in itself, you have to show it to be so by looking to the overall effects both positive and negative. The fact that corporations are freed from certain kinds of liability may be bad overall, but you would have to prove it with solid evidence and rational argument about the whole totality of effects, rather than simply state that they have this freedom from liability and then assume that you have proven a socially damaging problem.

The real issue is this, as I see it: risk is everywhere, and we all need to manage it. Some sorts of risks are better managed (that is to say, more efficiently - lower cost per person - and more effectively at the same time) by means of concerted action, such as for police protection and defense of country. These we tend usually to agree should be borne by the public at large on a smoothed-out basis. Other risks and costs are clearly not better managed at the public level. And there are some that are not obviously in the first nor obviously in the second category. Where you decide to put them is a matter of judgment, but this principle applies broadly: whenever you pool the risk or cost on a smoothed-out basis so all benefit equally, then you run the likelihood of negating the built-in negative consequences of activities that are high-risk or high-cost in themselves, and thus effectively encouraging behavior that is higher risk or higher cost. IF, and ONLY IF, you can pool costs or risk without _at the same time_ encouraging poor behavior, you can as a society choose to bear the pooling of costs without severe negative consequences. What Maximos has been saying about corporations (especially in re agricultural enterprise), and I have been saying about individuals (especially in re health care), is that pooling costs (externalizing costs) virtually guarantees bad behavior.

And at each step there are temporary dislocations but do you really weep over the horse and buggy trade?

Look, Jeff, I'm not about to stutter through the past four years of disputation on this point, because it would be, well, absolutely pointless. The inescapable reality is that globalization is not analogous to the invention of the automobile, where those dislocated can, without much difficulty, transfer already-existing skills into new endeavours, or modify them slightly to accommodate a new work regimen, but is, on the contrary, an entire process, according to which any technology, once mastered and nurtured, is offshored to reduce costs and boost profits, come what may for the formerly employed. And the overwhelming majority of the people do not, will not, and cannot, have the human capital necessary to remain abreast of this process, because the ability to to do is ultimately g-loaded (and fraught with "frictions", that euphemism of economists for "having a normal human life, instead of being the postmodern equivalent of a gypsy or hobo"), and because they are always competing with people just like them in other countries, who are willing to perform the same tasks for less.

Hence, the zero-sumness exists within whatever positive-sum process there may be: aggregate economic prosperity rises, benefiting the economic elites of America and a fraction of the third-world masses; ordinary Americans all benefit marginally from lower prices on disposable consumer crap, while identifiable American sub-groups are harmed substantially. This latter process is the zero-sum element, not the former.

Funny thing is...

Larger corporations typically have larger externalities, or did I miss the financial crisis? In fact, their externalities tend to be orders of magnitude greater than those of small corporations, and include the corruption of the political process.

But my point is one simpler than any of the contestable empirics of the limited-liability corporation: if we, as a society, have elected to socialize the risks attendant upon the corporate form, then what follows is that we have an entitlement, equal to the magnitude of the privilege, to determine the constraints within which the corporations operate. The legal right of corporations to organize in this manner, which permits the aggregation of much larger pools of capital, entails a correspondingly greater degree of oversight, regulation, even outright restriction. The LLC is not a natural fact, but an artifact of history; no one is entitled to that form of organization, or to its concomitants and privileges, and whoever desires it should submit to the regulations and limitations deemed necessary and prudent by those who bestow the privilege and endure the externalities.

The mere fact that a corporation is called a legal "person" is a bit of semantics and holds no weight whatsoever in judging whether corporate law is beneficial.

Which is why, Tony, that little jab (legal person) was, in fact, in parentheses. It happened to form a nice symmetry vis-a-vis real persons, the little guys who have, in fact, been chosen as the losers in this non-free market. In a truly free market, limited liability corporations wouldn't exist at all. Legal partnerships, however, would grow until their economies of scale matched their diseconomies of scale... and no more. It's the (barely) invisible hand of government on the scales to which I'm objecting. A hand which, if removed, would return us to a more humane equilibrium.

In a truly free market, limited liability corporations wouldn't exist at all. Legal partnerships, however, would grow

Just curious: in a truly free market, would the police protect a legal partnership's assets, or would they simply say "hey buddy, you're on your own, we only deal with real human persons - why don't you hire the security guards you need and stop externalizing your true costs by shifting them to the 'losers' - the little guy"?

If I understand Maximos's point, all laws and the very structure we accumulate for society contain various ways of externalizing costs, and to that extent we don't live in a free market anyway. I don't think that is how I would explain the cost-benefit aspects of social organization, but if that (per hypothesis) is how we are going to talk about it, where does this "free market" stuff come in - it can only mean "free" outside of (after allowing for) the subsidized costs inherent in our legal and social structure. Which means that using LLC's is just setting the bar in a different location between the _below the line_ presumptive cost-sharing and the _above the line_ free market arena than it would be set in a different society that doesn't use LLC's. But neither would be "unnatural" in any formal sense.

Please don't get me wrong - I am not some great blindered defender of the status quo as such (including all its problems), and certainly not of the LLC as a legal entity.

Steve Nicoloso, you mentioned the government printing presses. I'm one of the only people I know who opposed the bailout. And I'm including here all my conservative friends. I'm also one of the only people I know amongst those who has any sympathy whatsoever for a gold standard.

When I suggested that the bailout was rewarding bad behavior, punishing saving, and using the government printing presses to tell the lie that stuff is infinite and there is a free lunch, everybody told me I was willing for the whole world to come to an end and that my idea of _not_ doing the bailout was impossible to carry out _because_ the world would come to an end.

What can I say? Here I am, not too bothered by Stuff-Mart per se but also with a yen for sound money. And if that means that there won't be as many Stuff-Marts, that's okay with me.

Larger corporations typically have larger externalities, or did I miss the financial crisis? In fact, their externalities tend to be orders of magnitude greater than those of small corporations, and include the corruption of the political process.

Well, that's probably true. But are larger corporations "externalities" (I really don't like that word, I don't think it bears the connotations intended properly) demonstrably larger per dollar of asset invested than smaller corps? (Leaving out the outright corruption, for the moment, that is.)

I have often wondered whether it would be cleaner and more honest to get rid of the somewhat under-the-table sort of lobbying we do now (that is, part of it is above the table, but the bulk is unspoken in major media), outlaw the whole shebang, and tell taxpayers (including companies): you get access to lawmakers on a pro-rata basis, according to the amount of tax you pay. I admit that money would still be skewing the playing field and playing games with influence, but wouldn't it be nice to say that at least the country as a whole benefited from the influence-buying, instead of just Congressman Smith?

"Here I am, not too bothered by Stuff-Mart per se but also with a yen for sound money. And if that means that there won't be as many Stuff-Marts, that's okay with me."

I think that those conservatives who have a problem with the proliferation of big box stores, strip malls and fast food joints would say that the two things you mention are different facets of the same overarching problem -- the commercialization and commodification of our society and most of what makes it up.

But neither would be "unnatural" in any formal sense.

In what sense is it natural to invest in an enterprise and be liable, should that enterprise fail spectacularly or commit some crime, only the amount you invested? You are enabling, by your investment, the activities (good or ill) of the enterprise, i.e., you are partnering with them. And yet, by imaginative lawyering and the firm hand of the State, you may not be charged as an accessory to their crimes or be required to reimburse the LLC's debtors. Incrementally, you are rewarded for your ignorance of the inner-workings of this opaque box, the LLC. Incrementally, the LLC has an interest in hiding its true inner-workings, which might otherwise discourage more moral investors; and the strong Hand of the State must now step in to attempt to force LLCs to be less opaque with would-be investors.

What end up with is Good Intentions failing and requiring More Good Intentions and failing more, and so ad infinitum. It's a large part, I think, of What's Wrong With the World.

Lydia, I think fractional reserve central banking can best be likened to the Cambrian Era, wherein a very warm earth favored a proliferation of species, and especially gigantism among various species. It was great if you were a brachiosaur, even better if you were a T-Rex; but it didn't work out nearly as well for mammals. Cooler days must, of necessity, come and then we'll see how well gigantism works out. Smaller warm blooded creatures should have a field day all things being equal: But it remains to be seen how gracefully we will be able to transition into a new equilibrium.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.