Dear Friends,
It seems to me, the functional difference between progressives, socialists, Marxists, and constitutionalists, conservatives, liberals, etc… is between centralization and decentralization. Sadly, since the Liberal label has been seized by the most illiberal people on the planet, we will call traditional liberals “libertarians.” Progressives, Marxists and socialists of all stripes seek centralized power… while Libertarians, Conservatives and all individualists seek decentralization. What then is centralized power versus decentralized power? Centralizing power means to move all decision making up, to the highest level possible, while decentralization means to move the decision making power down, to the people most effected by those decisions.
A progressive might argue that, decisions must be made at a high enough level, so those making the decisions have sufficient perspective to make them correctly. Moreover, sometimes hard decisions must be made, decisions that will result in human suffering and even death, those decisions must be made by unbiased professionals, trained to make such decisions. This requires that all decisions be made at the highest level possible. Having all decisions being made by top level officials, with the least accountability, gives room to make those hard decisions. This, according to our theoretical Marxist, would lead to society being better ordered, because order must come from the top down and be imposed, else it will become chaos, and chaos is itself evil.
Centralization is to hold the good of the many above the good of the one. Modern culture bandies this meme about like a new pair of skates. It is considered by progressives, socialists and Marxists as self evident, and so their mouths are full of it. Thrasymachus took the same stance at the beginning of his diatribe in Plato’s Republic. He said that the gods care nothing about a man, only mankind… and took his sophistry from there. All those who favor centralization however, would never apply that argument to themselves, where their personal interests lie. Yet they are “strong” enough to apply it to others. This in and of itself shows the philosophy of “the good of the many,” is hypocritical and obviously counter to the Golden Rule, therefore is not in any way human hearted.
While a Libertarian might counter the “Perspective argument,” with Mise’s “distributed knowledge” contention, to show that decisions are best made near the ground, to take advantage of distributed knowledge. Those decisions that are “hard,” that involve human suffering, if we are to be civilized human hearted human beings, can only be made by those who will bare the suffering themselves. To impose suffering on one, so others can have less suffering, is oppression, it only leads to negative outcomes. Take the food someone grows for his family, and while a few starve to death, many others can live slightly more comfortably, but who will grow the food next year? Plus, whenever those hard decisions are made at a high level, millions die, but when made near the ground, almost no one dies.
Decentralization is to hold that the good of the one leads to the good of the many. It understands emergence in complexity theory… that order can arise from chaos. People do what is expected of them, if we are expected to be hoodlums, we do as expected and become criminals, if we are expected to go to college, we go to college. Therefore, if we are treated like human beings, and not cogs… we will act like human beings. Which is the path to low crime, high employment, intact families and low poverty. Give the person growing the food his due, and there will be plenty of food next year. Moreover, those who believe in “the Good of the One,” will gladly apply it to themselves, showing it to be human hearted. So, which do you believe in, centralization or decentralization?
Sincerely,
John Pepin
