An Enormously Inefficient Allocation of Hatred
Posted by Karen De Coster on October 17, 2009 04:24 PMThe amazing Robert Higgs in a recent blog post: “Partisan Politics A Fool’s Game for the Masses.”
- Yet, rather than hating the predatory state, the masses have been
conditioned to love this blood-soaked beast and even, if called upon, to
lay down their lives and the lives of their children on its behalf. From
my vantage point on the outside, peering in, I am perpetually mystified
that so many people are taken in by the phony claims and obscurantist
party rhetoric. As the song says, “clowns to the left of me, jokers to
the right,” but unlike the fellow in the song, I am not “stuck in the
middle.” Instead, I float above all of this wasted emotion, looking down
on it with disgust and sadness. Moreover, as an economist, I am compelled
to regret such an enormously inefficient allocation of hatred.
Higgs hit near and dear to my heart with his follow-up to that column, “Diagnostics and Therapeutics in Political Economy.” Invariably, whenever I write about the state and all of its coercive tactics and fraudulent dealings and policymaking, I get the emails from readers: “Well, how do we fix it?” “What’s your solution?” I even hear, “Why do you write these commentaries without giving solutions?” Then people tell me to never write about a problem without including a way to solve it. Very often, these comments from from political party types, like LP’ers, who love to dabble in groupthink solution sessions. I actually don’t think that an opinion column, an analytical piece, or a diagnostic commentary necessary needs to be followed by a solutions-based report suggesting how to undo the the whole mess in two paragraphs or less. Nor do I wish to turn each commentary into 12,000 words, plunging readers into an unexpected nap. A commentary is not necessarily a policy report. Moreover, as Higgs writes:
- Although I would be the last to assert that I have a claim on
anyone’s time or attention, I believe that the solution-demanding
response to my commentaries (or anyone else’s) betrays a confusion
between diagnostics and therapeutics in political economy. The former
focuses on finding the causes of a condition or development, the latter
on prescribing measures by which the condition can be lessened or
eliminated. This distinction is common in the medical profession, where
some practitioners specialize in diagnosis and others in various kinds of
therapy. In political economy, however, the two activities are often
combined. In professional economics journals, countless articles have
been published in which the author first lays out his “model,” sometimes
presents empirical “tests” of some of its implications, and finally draws
“policy conclusions” that is, unsolicited advice to government
functionaries as to how they should employ their powers.
- …Analysts of the political economy, such as yours truly, may have some capacity to open people’s eyes with regard to the government’s true nature and its actual operation. Such diagnostic work is a full-time job, however, so consumers of this analysis should not be surprised if a diagnostician cannot prescribe a sure-fire cure whenever he identifies, describes, or analyzes a problem.
- …Analysts of the political economy, such as yours truly, may have some capacity to open people’s eyes with regard to the government’s true nature and its actual operation. Such diagnostic work is a full-time job, however, so consumers of this analysis should not be surprised if a diagnostician cannot prescribe a sure-fire cure whenever he identifies, describes, or analyzes a problem.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
