Post-Autistic
Economics
Forum
Home
|
Both faith and skepticism
are helpful in using scholarly doctrines
John R. Ewbank
Copyright
I am an 84-year-old patent attorney who had a minor in economics during
graduate work. Knowledge is a convenient classification of useful data. Relatively
few matters can be proven so conclusively that there are no skeptics or
dissenters. To minimize the time wasted on disputes, various procedures
establish tentative conclusions. For example, in a criminal trial, there are
potentialities for a jury to issue a verdict that a defendant is guilty.
Hundreds of juries have blundered into incorrect verdicts, but the system is
manageable. Similarly, in every realm of knowledge, group decisions have
sometimes been erroneous. Few sciences are taught using textbooks from remote
decades because some earlier doctrines are obsolete.
As regards the concept that mass attracts mass, or a law of gravity, there
has been consensus for so long that it requires no faith to assert the
validity of the law of gravity. Many scientific theories are widely used
notwithstanding sufficient skepticism on the part of some. Use of such
theories involves an element of faith. The term "doctrine" embraces
concepts for which the proof is deemed by many to be incomplete. Only those
recognizing that some adherents have faith in such doctrine and also
recognizing that others have skepticism about such doctrine desirably should
use a doctrine. That is, doctrines are inherently controversial as
distinguished from being universally accepted as valid. Substantially all
economic doctrines are controversial. Each of several groups of economists
tends to imitate religious fundamentalists in their fanaticism for their
particular economic doctrine.
Humanity must cope with an evolving matrix of institutions, some of which are
based upon doctrines which must be taken on faith. No individual or entity
can long survive without reliance upon some doctrines. Unfortunately, some
individuals are unaware of the assumptions which they are taking on faith.
Toddlers need to accept significant authoritarianism from their parents and
cultural environment. Humans need to grow up with recognition of the need for
a re-evaluation of the universe because of the ongoing discoveries that some
of the myths they had previously relied upon are false. Myths such as Santa
Claus sometimes guide a child to accept the need to periodic reevaluation
based upon the discovery of the falsity of other myths previously relied
upon.
Few adolescents can comprehend the complexity of the universe.
Doctrines permitting a simplified perspective on the universe are appealing
to adolescents. Many adolescents become addicted to various doctrines,
whether concerning energy-matter or sociology.
Many humans, by the time they are about age 30, have had a sufficient variety
of experiences to be capable of substantially defying all external authority
and basing many of their decisions pragmatically upon what has been their own
unique experience, including their experiences of "inner seed" or
"inner light" or "conscience". . Individuals must take
individual responsibility for self-government. Many individuals prefer to
retain the submissiveness which is so comforting to toddlers, even when they
are adults. Among those past 30, the desire for self-government is not
universal, but is sufficiently abundant that society can rely significantly
upon such passion for self-government and individual responsibility.
Liberating oneself is a lifelong struggle. As long as an individual retains
even an iota of desire to manipulate others, as distinguished from sometimes
suggesting opportunities to others while unambiguously granting the other
person complete freedom to choose from among all available alternatives, the
tyranny of toddlers and the dominant-submissiveness complications persist
through life.
Each institution must maintain certain doctrines as governing relationships within such institution.
Although a church can grant a significant range of theological doctrine
and/or behavior standards, its survival of a church can be threatened by any
appearance of complete lack of doctrine. Similarly, any governmental
institution must tentatively adopt some doctrines as its standards. Any
government seeking to minimize thievery needs to respect individuals
stressing the phenomena that institutional injustice sometimes stimulates
thievery. However, if a government is entitled to coerce all occupants
for the purpose of minimizing thievery, then such government needs to adopt a
doctrine that thievery results from inadequate sense of responsibility by
individuals.
Some doctrines are promoted because of profitability to their advocates. In
evaluating doctrines, appraising the factors stimulating doctrines should be
basic. For example, theological doctrines provide the intellectual framework
designed primarily to enhance the power of the clergy. Similarly, economic
doctrine serves significantly as the intellectual framework for enhancing the
power and authority of government officials. Conflicting economic doctrines
inevitably result from conflicts among politicians about what any level of
government should be doing to regulate economic activity.
An institutional lag is inevitable as regards all government regulation.
Cultural and technological and other varieties of changes occur far more
rapidly than is the typical adaptation by a typical government. Market
forces, to the extent that the competition is sufficiently fair, can
sometimes adapt with less institutional lag than governments. The neoclassical
economic doctrines [and there are an abundance of them, depending in part
upon the culture and technology background of authors] focus primarily upon
the usefulness of fair competition for coping with change, as distinguished
from the modifications of government regulation. Such neoclassical economic
doctrines are completely contradictory to the doctrines of national
socialism. Many politicians are enthusiastic for national socialism, with its
centralization of totalitarian authority in national governments.
I became a teenager in 1929, and have criticized academia for its
over-glorification of national socialism economic theory. About 1980 a few
neoclassical economists managed to have a slight impact. I am amazed that
current writers connote that academia now teaches neoclassical economics as
the politically correct dogma. To the extent that observers can recognize all
economic doctrine as analogous to theological doctrine, and concerned merely
with seeking greater power for politicians, such changes can be useful. To
the extent that there are power struggles to impose one variety of economic
doctrine upon all governments, it is even more dangerous than any attempt to
impose upon all governments the identical theological doctrine.
During the 20th century, there was a very important global mind change. In
1899, the hierarchies of many organized religions persisted in their hopes of
eventual domination of the world by winning the birthrate contest. By 1999,
the hierarchies of many organized religions were comfortable about the
perennial coexistence of diverse religious denominations. The time has come
or economists to similarly accept the perennial coexistence of diverse,
conflicting economic doctrine, and to recognize that whatever world
government evolves must cope with, not merely diversity of theological
doctrine, but also extreme diversity of economic doctrine.
Hundreds of towns have successfully operated water supplies, sanitary waste
systems, schools, and other aspects of socialism without significantly
endangering individual freedom or the autonomy of local neighborhoods.
However, when the remote bureaucracy of a nation attempts to operate a
business which elsewhere is handled by competitive enterprise, a chain
reaction of evils can readily evolve. . Any economic doctrine even slightly
tainted with national socialism should be recognized as an attempt to revive
Nazism. Substantially all varieties of national socialism have curtailed
individual freedom in a manner quite different from local socialist projects.
It is not only economics, but substantially all realms of knowledge, which
should be taught in such a manner as to inform students about the existence
of conflict among a variety of doctrines, some of which may have only a small
following. All of the arguments used by "flatlanders" should
be a part of the teaching of geography so that the student will choose or
reject the flatlander doctrines pragmatically, and not because of the
authoritarian domination of the educational system. Substantially all
significant knowledge has a "faith" component arising from the
choice of a significant array of doctrines which cannot be proven. Just as
juries have sometimes come to wrong conclusions, so groups of experts have
sometimes adhered for months or years to wrong conclusions. Learning to
accept such an abundance of uncertainties should be accepted as a part of
maturity.
|
|