Rudd bloody smart
Kevin Rudd (boasting, right), the new leader of the Aussie Labor Party, is a bloody smart cookie. That doesn't mean he'll ever win an election, in fact it probably means he won't.The Australian Financial Review of a Friday has this terrific Review section, right in the middle of the paper, where very long, intelligent articles are allowed to live - something quite unusual in today's MSM. Just before I left Sydney last year I heard there were plans afoot to ditch the Review section, but there was an uproar about it from AFR staff, so it survives for now.
Anyway, just before he won the leadership, Rudd published a piece (17 November) about how and why social democrats have to engage in the battle of ideas to reclaim the centre in Australian politics. The AFR locks its content up but the full, much longer, address given to the Centre for Independent Studies is here.
Anyway, a taster. Rudd discusses the difference between neoliberal God Hayek and Adam Smith, whom both social democrats and conservatives claim as inspiration:
Smith concluded that human beings were by their nature both self-regarding and other-regarding and that political economy should reflect both these concerns. Hayek also recognises the existence of both natures but concludes that one is primitive, and the other modern; that the primitive must yield to the modern; and that part of the the purpose of the market is to re-engineer primitive altruism out of the human condition altogether. Christian enthusiasts for the neoliberal agenda should reflect carefully on where Hayek may be taking them on this count.Good stuff.
posted by Rob O'Neill at 9:44 PM
3 Comments:
I think this is a slight mis-represntation of Hayek's views on altruism and any comparison with Smith has to take into account the one great advantage Hayek over Smith - Darwin.
Hayek was considerably influenced by Darwin which makes him interesting as he was one of the first, as far as I know, to look at our economic behaviour through the lens of evolution.
But Hayek was at a bit of a disadvantage when talking about altruism as the problem that Darwin faced - how could altruism evolve - was not solved till after Hayek had doen most of his theoretical work. He seems to have missed out on the work of Robert Trivers and William Hamilton.
The idea that we evolved methods of altruism, while living in small family groups, that are now no longer able to act as a means of organising large and complex societies isn't really heretical any more.
Hayek's view was that altuism was appropriate for families and voluntary organisations but could not be relied upon as the basis of a modern economy. It has to be replaced by a system of contract. Recpirocal altruism, as it is now called by evolutionists, does not scale to large groups. Most people trust some people but generally like to get things in writing with everyone else.
Interesting idea that in large groups we only " trust some people.." and altruism doesn't scale to large groups.
What is almost every daily , ordinary social transaction based on, if not "trust'?
walk across the road with the little green sign, & expect that most cars will stop;
hand over cash to a stranger and believe you will have that valuable item delivered to you - across a counter or a room, or a continent ...it's not the *contract* [who are you gonna sue over a plate of ravioli?]
and - leave your little children in a room of strangers and expect they will be protected, fed, educated and still there when you return?
the altruism that underpins that trust is essential to living in a group that is bigger than the family, just as much as is water & food. [social contract, social capital blah blah.. sorry to be so dull]
In the all situations you mention there are laws governing human behavior. It's against the law to run a red light, there are laws governing commercial transactions that protect the purchaser. The laws are there to stop people doing such things - we don't actually trust people not do run red lights our serve bad food, if we did then we would not have those laws.
In small groups such as families and friends then there is greater trust and normally we don't rely on the law or contracts to get along (with families that usually breaks down over inheritances).
However, I have an employment contract with my employer - I don't trust them to act in my interests. It's not true that altruism underpins modern life; if it did we would not need lawyers. We place trust in the ability of the government to enforce the law, but that is conditional and tenuous - whenever that trust is lost people will go back to taking the law into their own hands.
The evolutionary perspective is that yes, altruism has evolved but only in particular circumstances and it is generally of the form "reciprocal altruism" i.e. it benefits those who are genetically closely related - family. Humans quite often do things for the benefit of their family, often making great sacrifices, but that's not necessarily always a good thing. The Mafia and nepotism are two not very progressive outcomes. So there's a danger in romanticising altruism.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home