Tag: organic politics

Categories
Liberty Science & technology Society

[2377] Technology, central planning and the fate of organic organization of society

There are several reasons why organic decision-making is better than central planning. The complexity of the world is one. By complexity, it means nobody has the ability to absorb all relevant information in a timely manner to react effectively. In some ways, this is the economic calculation problem. It is an argument against the communist economic system in favor of the free market, the free price system specifically.

While this particular reasoning has stood well against the test of time to defend the libertarian case, I do not think it will stand forever. It has stood well against the case for central planning because there is a limit to calculation processing.

An individual can solve his or her own problems but a central planner must solve all problems that exist in the world. The central planner has no capacity to solve for the general equilibrium. There are billions, trillions or even more variables and data points to consider. The problem of central planning has always been an optimization problem however complex it is. How many can we calculate? How fast can we calculate? Can we calculate it at all?

None in the past and at the present time has done that in a grand scale or for a long time successfully.

The date when technology overcomes the restriction will arrive. When that happens, the libertarian case may approach an expiry date.

The seeds are already here. Thomas Friedman writes in The World is Flat of a global supply chain. Detailed record of inventory is kept. The workflow is traceable. Orders, stock and production all around the world of a particular company can be tweaked easily. All relevant information crucial to production is available on the spot all the time.

It is not hard to imagine how that capability can be expanded beyond the boundary of a firm. As technology progresses to make that possible, the prospect of effective central planning is enhanced.

With technological progress, eventually, whatever superiority the organic method has can be replicated by a central planner. Perhaps, the central planner can produce superior outcome in some cases where asymmetric information is present. After all, with the relevant sufficiently advanced technology, there can be no asymmetric information problem.

This is a scary notion for libertarians. It should be a scary notion for all who believes in individual liberty. It will give birth a full and perfect information aggregator that is an omniscience state or anything that may function as a state. It will create a god none can disobey. Everything the god says is for the best. This will be the real god.

My question is, when the time comes, will the case for organic organization of society be obsolete?

After considering that, I think any case in support of libertarianism cannot be dependent on technology. Else, it puts an expiry date on the philosophy.

Whenever the expiry will be, I am inclined to believe that it is will be far off into the future, possibly making the technology-dependent argument useful still.

Categories
Liberty

[1416] Of appeal to the mind, not authority

I used to be impressed of individuals that are able to cite names — some obscure, others well-known — when discussing philosophy. Green with envy, I once tried to widen the scope of my reading in hope to achieve the same ability to refer to great philosophers like Kant, Smith and Ibn Khaldun whenever necessary, hoping to gain the same ability while impressing others. No more do I think as such.

While names are important for the purpose of discussing historical development of various thoughts, names themselves are irrelevant to ideas. One does not, should not, feel compelled to embrace liberty because Adam Smith espoused so. One should not have the impulse to do good because higher beings insist so. One should embrace liberty, or any idea, based on the merit of the idea itself. I am attracted to libertarianism not because of Hayek, or Smith, or Friedman or any other name associated with libertarianism. I accept that the Earth is spherical not because the Greek sages or the Muslim astronomers said so. I accept it because of the proofs that have been presented to me. I accept comparative advantage not because Ricardo said so but for its truth in governing trade.

Frequent reference to great thinkers during philosophical discussions outside of the realm of history of thoughts, of how thoughts developed over time, is nothing but an appeal to authority. It is a fallacy unworthy of those that seek to push the boundaries of ignorance farther away in the retreating darkness. It does not appeal to the mind, the original purpose of philosophy. Thus, I shall awe not at any utterance of another philosophers of old. It may show the person is well-read but it says nothing of his faculty. Of greater value is how one evaluates ideas and proofs on its own merit.

Those that incessantly cite names of great thinkers, respectfully, are missing the point of philosophy, unless rhetorics is the art they wish to pursue instead.

Categories
History & heritage Society

[1287] Of searching for the origin of Malaysian nation

A nation is not a state and vice versa, unless a nation-state is in the equation. Many however do not comprehend the difference between the two concepts. The comprehension of the difference is crucial in understanding why Malaysia as a state and a nation is not 50 years old come this August 31.

There can be no confusion that on a federated state — Malaysia — was formed on September 16 1963. The accumulation of thousands of years of history converged at that one point to allow us to live in Malaysia. It is true that the new state that is Malaysia inherits the institutions of the previous states but just as Russia is not Soviet Union, the state of Malaysia is not the state of Malaya. This historical fact alone insists that Malaysia is almost 44 years old when history remembers the 50th anniversary of a free Malaya.

The idea of state is very straight forward, unlike the concept of nation. The term nation is so vague that its beginning is open to interpretation. So, when an UMNO member from Tambun says that Malaysia as a nation is older than 50 years, he is not at all wrong. His opinion is of course dependent on an assumption that the Malaysian nation is really a Malay nation. This is not new. During a recent debate on Bangsa Malaysia, the chief minister of Johor believes that a Malaysian nation is a nation spearheaded by the Malays.

Throw away the political explosive and the emotional debate, rationally under this assumption a Malay nation would originate as far back as between the second and the sixth century of the common era, when possibly, the first recorded Malay nation was established as Srivijaya.

Even if one disagrees with idea, a Malaysian nation that is neutral of ethnicity exists before the formation of Malaysia and the day Malaya achieved its independence from the United Kingdom. Within the context of this entry, the question that needs to be asked is this: when actually is the birth of this nation? Was the beginning point 1963? Or 1957? Or 1948? 1946? 1824? When?

If the favored idea is the potpourri of nations, then this nation was born some time after the mass migration of Chinese and Indian into pre-existing nations living in Malaya, Sarawak and North Borneo. That would be in the 19th century. It is this nation — no state — that we now call Malaysia. The name may be different then but in essence, those names, refer to the same nation.

August 31 1957 signifies only one thing: a free Malaya. That however does not mean there was no Malaya on August 30 1957. Malaya as a state was established on January 31 1948, after the Malayan Union was disbanded. If Malaya is the reference point for the supporters of “50 years”, then really, logically — throw away the meanings of nation and states for a moment — 59 should be the magic number.

In conclusion, on one hand, as a nation, it is an insult to say we have lived for such a short lifespan, as if all those events, all those interactions before that day in 1957 matter not. On the other hand, as a state, it is boosterism to say that we are older than we are. No nation or state was born on August 31 1957.

I personally do not subscribe to nationalism but if an organic Malaysian nation is a goal one seeks, then embracing unvarnished history is an important step one needs to take. Without understanding one’s past as well as the difference between nation and state, Bangsa Malaysia will be an unsolved riddle, interpreted differently by different community within Malaysia, the state.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government Society

[1216] Of a case for organically grown leaders

According to several sources, the Prime Minister’s feet gave way at a function at Lumut. He however has denied such allegation:

LUMUT, May 13 (Bernama ) — Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi denied rumours spread in the internet that he collapsed while attending a people feast and officating Dataran Hadhari at Teluk Batik, Lumut at noon. [PM Denied Rumours Spread In Internet That He Collapsed. Bernama. May 13 2007]

The Sensintrovert claims that RTM confirmed that the PM fainted. TV3 aired something on it but it is not clear on whether the PM actually fainted. Regardless, I wish the allegation remains as mere allegation because the PM and his counterpart from Singapore are meeting at Langkawi later this week. The last thing we need is a weak leader to talk on matters of national interests to the Singaporean. If it is true that he lost his consciousness even for a moment, I sincerely wish him speedy recovery. But what if the PM resigned today for health reason? Or for any reason for that matter?

Just as when former PM Mahathir Mohamed resigned several years ago, I am uncertain who should be the next PM. Mahathir was the only PM that I knew for all of my life back then and the uncertainty revolving around Malaysian political succession was piercing. Even when Abdullah administration first came to power, the uncertainty was still unshakable. The only time there was certainty was before the sacking of Anwar Ibrahim second highest executive position in the country.

This kind of uncertainty arises because the flawed political system our country practices. The practice of gerrymandering prevents organic representation from taking place. Misused of public money, masqueraded as development spending clouds uninformed poorly educated voters’ decision. As if that are not enough, disrespect on individual rights further discourages free flow of information that would allow voters to make informed decision when needs be, especially during election times. All that makes selection of leaders harder than it should be.

Organic political system operates from the bottom. Leaders derive their legitimacy from the people. Such model however is handicapped by imperfections mentioned earlier and that gives a chance for power to be played inorganically. Decisions from the top, while appropriate from time to time given the right context, is unhealthy if practiced frequently. For many libertarians, the fact that such origin of power goes against the idea of spontaneous order is not lost.

At the very extreme, power play from the top could be characterized as dictatorship. While it is common in Malaysia, Malaysia does not fall into a class of autocratic nations such as Myanmar, Thailand, Pakistan, etc. But as far as selection of leadership is concerned, hint of authoritarianism is observable. The current PM himself was appointed by his predecessor rather than being elected by Malaysians from Kedah to Sarawak, from Sabah to Johor.

The inorganic power origin makes creation leaders limited to circles favored by those at the top. Give it time and slowly, a culture of subservient, the fear to criticize leaders is born. In the end, the incumbent number one has a say on everything. Any sign of challenge is dealt with illiberal ways and a perception of no option later proliferates the society. This is especially so when the leaders’ power is not derived from the people. When that is true, there is no need for the leaders to seek consent from the people, similar to Friedman’s First Law of Petropolitics:

What I find particularly useful about Ross’s analysis is his list of the precise mechanisms by which excessive oil wealth impedes democracy. First, he argues, there is the “taxation effect.” Oil-rich governments tend to use their revenues to “relieve social pressures that might otherwise lead to demands for greater accountability” from, or representation in, the governing authority. I like to put it this way: The motto of the American Revolution was “no taxation without representation.” The motto of the petrolist authoritarian is “no representation without taxation.” Oil-backed regimes that do not have to tax their people in order to survive, because they can simply drill an oil well, also do not have to listen to their people or represent their wishes. [Thomas L. Friedman. First Law of Petropolitics. Foreign Policy. May 2006]

Even if such system practices meritocracy, it is only practiced in a limited manner, limited to favored circles. Leaders are inorganically grown and do not have the necessarily qualifications as typically seen in the industrialized world. There is a dearth of high quality leaders exactly because the system does not create too many high quality leaders. We cannot choose when there is no option.

With a better system that pays respect to individual rights — libertarian values — leaders could be organically grown, which only those among the best would be elected to hold power. Choices would be aplenty as each section of the society elects their own leaders, able to practice their individual rights, unsuppressed by illberal powers.

With a better system, one would not have a problem to answer, if our PM resigns today, who would succeed him. In a better system, choices, if not immediately apparent, it would be soon enough. That system is liberal democracy.