Dear Friends,
It seems to me, regardless if central planning actually yielded a benefit to society, the economy or humanity, which it demonstrably has not, does not and will not… it would still be wrong to implement, because at its core, central planning is immoral. It is immoral because it takes agency from individuals and gives it to the elite. The presumption is, the elite are so much smarter, wiser and, gosh darn it, well, just better people than the rest of us. However, even if only saints and angels ruled under a central planning regime, it would still be morally wrong and yield catastrophe. All central planners must have one attribute, presumption. They presume to be better than everyone else. That presumption leads to pride, arrogance and envy… which brings oppression upon the people, always a wrong.
When a person takes agency from another it is a form of slavery. The act itself presupposes some innate superiority of the one over the other. Not only is the one assumed to be better than the other, but that superiority is so vast, the second has no right to his or her own life. Like the difference between a human being and a chicken. The chicken has no agency, freedom or even a right to life. We could therefore reckon that anything that is not afforded the right to life, would amount to a chicken, on the ethic metric. If that is the case, then it would be up to those assuming power over the other, to demonstrate that superiority. Which should be a simple act, if they are indeed so above us, we are like chickens to them. Making us the livestock of the worthless elite. Is that moral?
Morality is not ethereal, it is pretty obvious, those who want to do immoral things however claim it is nebulous. Posers have a thousand ways of saying nothing but sounding erudite. Once painted into a corner they lash out with ad homonym attacks. Lets face it, we all justify things in our own minds, and we do it all the time. Then we deal with the cognitive dissonance as best we can. Nevertheless, we all know what is moral and what is not, in our hearts. Those of us with hearts at least. If someone needs to wax poetic for hours, to justify a thing you know in your heart is wrong, then they are justifying evil. Defending a bad act that they want to do but need to twist logic to make it sound like a good thing. Because, most people want to think themselves good, while they commit despicable acts.
If some people really are better than others, then they could prove it under a regime of meritocracy. That they detest meritocracy shows, in their hearts, the elite know they are not better then us… they are less. Have you noticed the desire of someone to rule scales with their ineptitude? The more inept someone is the more they feel they are made to rule. Ruling others is their forte. Court clingers politic their way up the ladder instead of merit it with their work. When this happens in a corporate setting they become a drag on the company, when it happens in the bureaucracy they create friction for the economy, when it happens in public office, they scuttle a nation. How can we tell the court clingers from those with merit? You can reliably discern Court clingers by the disasters that trail behind them.
Central planning is immoral then, even if it did yield a benefit, which history proves… it doesn’t. The inept court clingers however understand they are not useful in any other capacity, so in their egoistic envy, they seek to rule. They are the kind of people who get political assistance from Communist agents, have a foreign spy as a driver for decades, leave the city they led on proverbial fire, have disturbing “art” in their homes, lie constantly and have a history of corruption and ineptitude. Pragmatism, if it were applied, would point them out quickly. Central planning, while immoral and yielding catastrophe, is coveted by the inept elite. People with advanced university degrees, who are utterly useless and stupid, need central planning to give their inept immoral empty lives, meaning.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
This article should not have been published on this forum.
The contents are pure anarchism and populism,
and infantile at that.
How can any good society exist without some form of central planning?
Attempts have been made, and all have failed spectacularly.
In our day and age we have a cople of handfuls of so called “failed states”.
Lack of central planning is a glaring factor.
(Unless you count the planning of the few oligarchs and bandit bosses in the lead of these failed states as “central planning”. I hesitate to do so.)
How can you fulfil any larger project at all, without central planning?
NASA, The Pentagon, Blacrock, Halliburton, Harvard – you can keep on going for a year with examples of the need for “Central planning”.
Anarchy is the only successful idea without central planning, and it keeps erasing itself each time someone try to work on it.
As for the idea that everyone is equal, and nobody is better than I, all use of IQ or aptitude testing since the beginning of last century show a different truth. Why is it that most larger corporations and institutions today are so fond of thest tests when they look for capable employees? Why is it that most countries use such tests in the recruiting for military men and women? People are obviously different, except for those who choose not to see, or are unable to do so.
What examples of attempts at non centrally planned nations have failed? I know of exactly zero.
What about the multitude of failures of centrally planned nations… like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, North Korea, and China? Every failed state fails because of too much central planning. You seem to be confused with the definition of central planning. Is Space X centrally planned? Did roads exist before central planning? What about trade routes? The Academy?
Nevertheless, past failures of central planning (since there are non of free nations) are a misdirection. The question at hand is the morality of someone taking agency from another. I contend it is wrong, and apparently, you believe it is moral, because the greater good?
If you are so keen to give up your agency to someone else, join a commune, the military or move to China. I live in America and I want it to stay that way. You unamerican zealots are robots… preprogrammed.
No wonder. It is a bit off the mainstream history, like yourself.
The Norwegian violinist Ole Bull tried to create the private state Oleanna, I believe in the US sometime just after 1900. South America has been the arena for at least two attempts that I have heard of, also just after 1900 and just after 1945.
I think you confuse yourself with this term “central planning”. What is the White House and the Pentagon doing, if not central planning?
I think you are a bit confused about the difference of the general term “central planning” and Marxist communism. The planning process of the White House, Congress and Senate does not much differ from what takes place in Bei Jing and Moscow. Only the ruling principles are different.
How can you build a ship without central planning? How can you run a State without central planning? How can you build a trade company like Amazon without central planning?
The principles for running a state or a company are much the same, structure, logistics, administration and footwork. And _nowhere_ does morals come into it, other than the business one – Steady hand on the rudder, buy cheap and sell at maximum profit.
As an American, you should know this.
Anarchism went out of fashion sometimes around 1930.
Again the question is if central planning is moral.
What I mean by central planning is not using blueprints to build a house but using experts to run an economy.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/centrally-planned-economy.asp#:~:text=In%20a%20centrally%20planned%20economy%2C%20major%20economic%20decisions,firms%20operate%20most%20or%20all%20of%20the%20economy.
I don’t think experts deciding how the rest of us should live is moral. Would it be ethical for me to dictate, by force, they live Christian lives, taking the sacraments and eschewing sin… for the greater good?
No… it would be taking their agency.
I think that before you go on saving the world, you ought to learn a bit more about it.
To mix politics (also a facette of central planning), religion and philosopy in your way, places you in the middle of nothing.
Lost the argument so you resort to ad homonym attacks.
Thank you.
_That_ is the real bad loosers answer.
How on earth do you suppose you can write anything at all, without showing your own intellectual cards?
I rewrite my answer: I lose interest in your writing because it is lacking in both facts and reason (Read: structure.).