Most discussions regarding democracy and liberal economy, etc. revolve around the freedoms and benefits to the individual over those of dictatorships and strictly controlled economies. Discussions on Darwinian evolution dwell a lot on the selfishness of the individual progressing the genetic quality of the species. Marconomics is more interested in the self-adjusting nature of these systems.
Very successful non-democracies have existed with little problem for the individual citizen - There is even advantages as dictators can make unpopular decisions that benefit the country. However, succession is almost always a problem, and bad dictatorships don't have an automatic way of being reviewed and fixed.
Command and control economies, similarly, are capable of achieving specific goals immediately and without fuss, but every goal (eg. lower fuel prices) has unpredictable knock-on effects down the line, and in general these economies are unstable. Liberal economies are self adjusting in this regard, but one has to put aside capabilities of dictating that certain goals be met.
Similarly, genetic engineering may well produce genetics and species that achieve specific goals better than anything in nature. However, these genetics and species will fail spectacularly in nature because the self-adjusting systems of evolution are put aside as the survival of the genetically engineered is guaranteed for the purposes of the design, while survival under stress of competition etc. is the only thing that matters in nature.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think succession is less of a problem in monarchies than democracies, if you look at history as a whole. The number of people who have to choke back their bile and accept an unpalatable result for a successful transition in a democratic system is always high, and that is why the more stable democracies have been (IMHO) ones that share many monarchical features.
PS: No anonymous comments? Why not?
A couple of points about monarchies:
* Successfully successioning monarchies may have a higher democratic "score" than democracies that fail to adjust leaders to suit the circumstances.
* Monarchies do suffer whenever there is a problematic heir, and overall policy is unlikely to be responsive to popular opinion enough to adjust in the modern rise of nations. Chaos during a change of dynasties may trump previous stability.
I'll take your point that family-based succession has stood the test of time, and can work even with dictatorships.
"Liberal economies are self adjusting in this regard, but one has to put aside capabilities of dictating that certain goals be met."
Yes, in general I agree. However, in a more and more dangerous world human intelligence should be applied to foresee disasters and avoid them by taking the appropriate measures. After all, human intelligence has evolved over millions of years and (like any other adaptation) is an adaptation to an unstable and ever changing world. Measures to be taken could well involve some degree of planning.
Klaus
In my principles, human intelligence isn't even the primary determinant of technological progress. I accept that self adjusting systems are primarily useful after disasters (eg. fill vacant niches after extinction events or for an economy to recover after a huge, sudden economic loss.)
Preventing disasters seems only possible in a marconomic sense if the disaster is repetitive, and therefore more intimately predictable.
Post a Comment