several economists suggested structures that would put decision making at arm’s length from politicians, delegating it to technocrats with the expertise and incentives to do what is right for Britain.
He reports on interviews he had with several mainstream economists. Pointer from Mark Thoma.
What this tells you is that mainstream economists distrust voice (the political process), as I do. However, for mainstream economists, the preferred alternative is fantasy despotism, with technocrats in the role of despots. For me, the preferred alternative is exit, with people given more opportunities to choose among different governing bodies. See the widely-unread Unchecked and Unbalanced.
Anti-Voice-Libertarians stand in an analogous position vis-à-vis the state and politics as do socialists vis-à-vis the free market. Both are incapable of figuring out how the invisible hand works.
If you lack the concept of spontaneous order, you cannot understand free markets.
If you refuse to analyse politics and the state as capable of being analysed as a spontaneous order, you end up with a truncated view of them.
Public choice becomes a cul-de-sac, a book that promises to be about the “elephant” but really deals only with “elephant diseases.”
For more: http://redstateeclectic.typepad.com/redstate_commentary/2015/04/the-libertraian-triangle-of-oblivion.html
When by “voice” you mean “the political process,” and you distrust “voice,” how can you be in favour of “people given more opportunities to choose among different governing bodies.”
Governing bodies are created by a political process, and they drive a political process. Governing bodies are not being produced by markets, but by people competing politically for their preferred governance structures.
We have to resort to the political process to hopefully bring about levels of conflict resolution or reduction that make it possible – derivatively – to enjoy reasonably free markets, where these have a raison d’etre and find a viable environment.
It is a fundamental error in libertarian thinking to assume that markets create peaceful conditions and a social order capable of sustaining these, they rather presuppose them.
A market transaction presupposes not only that two parties have recognised a mutually advantageous trading opportunity, but also that there is no internal or externally imposed conflict between them that inhibits exchange. A market transaction does not create concordance between the trading parties; rather it presupposes the compatibility of their respective interests, and the possibility of peaceful exchange. By contrast, elections, for instance, are a procedure resorted to in the face of conflict and disagreement, and are intended to (and often manage to) serve as a means of mitigating rivalry.
For more: http://redstateeclectic.typepad.com/redstate_commentary/2015/03/demos-and-freedom-.html
and
http://redstateeclectic.typepad.com/redstate_commentary/2014/12/thirteen-conjectures-on-politics.html
When by “voice” you mean “the political process,” and you distrust “voice,” how can you be in favour of “people given more opportunities to choose among different governing bodies.”
Because the more opportunity people have to choose their own governing bodies, the more they as individuals reap the costs and benefits of that choice and the less that choice is imposed on them by other voices. And the more that people desert a poorly governed body, the more pressure there is on that body to improve itself.
To take a simple example, the more powers the US federal government took upon itself — for the most part unconstitutionally — the less opportunity to choose one’s preferred governing body from the several states there was.
A market transaction does not create concordance between the trading parties; rather it presupposes the compatibility of their respective interests, and the possibility of peaceful exchange.
Indeed. Yet somehow half a trillion dollars of market transactions occur annually between people in the United States and China without a common government keeping the peace over those transactions. It may be true that markets require peace. It may be true that peace requires governing bodies. But it is not true that markets require governing bodies have dominion over the markets.
For an introductory discussion of “Unchecked and Unbalanced” consult:
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2010/1/cj30n1-14.pdf
It appears to be another of Arnold Kling’s most readable books, with great insights and concrete proposals.
For my present purposes (see above) I remain particularly interested in understanding the productive side of politics and the state (P&S), which includes a certain awareness of the imperfection of P&S.
A realm of human making and action such as P&S that has evolved first and foremost to reduce violence and conflict and achieve reconciliation between strongly opposed positions is hardly to be expected to be free of serious drawbacks and imperfections.
I dislike the exclusive focus on these drawbacks and imperfections, and the attendant Nirvana fallacy implied in the simple dichotomy of “exist” and “voice.”. I want to see libertarian contributions to a better P&S, and this is fortunately what Arnold Kling seems to be endeavouring in “Unchecked and Unbalanced.”
Not only have I read the widely unread Umchecked and Unbalenced, I own a copy.
I am the #1 Klingista.
And how is Britain going to incentivize the doing of its best by these experts?
Everybody is primarily an expert in their own interests.