Capitalism, Probability, and The Second Law of Human Dynamics
Posted by Jeff Condon on March 19, 2012
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” is in sharp contrast to, “all men are created equal.”
Both concepts are inherently similar, yet have stark differences. Both pre-define humanity with a fundamental understanding. Both have the best of humanity in their intent.
One of the two says – Government can equitably chose both individual ability, and need, based on rational, careful, considered observation. The other conveys simply, that government cannot. The second, more simple statement, is more insidious in nature. Far more cold and devious in fact. Instead of saying, “Here is your comfortable and/or livable future which we guarantee”, capitalism says, “Here are a set of equitable rules. Good luck! We the people, hope very much that you find your way”.
Which is more accurately representative of our human nature?
As solidly factual as the second law of Thermodynamics, Capitalism has a fundamental motivation. Embedded in the meaning of the now-ancient American message is, “give us a ‘governmentally’ equitable opportunity to succeed, and on average, more of us will.” Like hot and cold, the net flow of success will be maximized. It is as much a part of our intrinsic nature as the unstoppable second law of thermal energy.
Across the globe, we must realize by now that sentence wasn’t written by morons. At this point in history, the most control centered person cannot ignore the incredible effect of that first sentence of the US Declaration of Independence on global lifestyle. Give freedom to succeed to everyone, and the poorest of ability, also gain success. A maximization of the collective, through freedom of self-improvement for the individual.
Capitalist freedom is by no means a friendly message, as there is NO guarantee. None for me, none for you, none for even Bill Gates or Elon Musk. In the truest sense, capitalists are individual quanta in a sea of tough love. If Elon Musk keels over tomorrow, he will have left a fire hot source of economic development in his wake. The entropy of which has had a positive effect on the wealthy and poorest of our society, and he did it in America because our government didn’t remember to say, “NO, you may not create a bank, or a ‘stupid fast’ and overpriced short range car, or launch giant explosive cylinders into the sky!”
Like thermodynamics, the capitalist contribution of motivated and wrong-direction individuals (money losing quanta) always contribute to the whole economic energy (temperature) and by the guaranteed laws of probability, are offset by the gains of the successful attempts. Do you think Elon might be working at 9 pm or is he watching Oprah network with the leftist couch dwelling minions of welfare?
So in the Scientific American article linked above, the intellectually elite writer (Gary Stix – likely also not working) failed to recognize what makes us human, and decides the ‘answer’ to the coming global warming, isn’t to understand how to work with human nature but rather to fundamentally change human nature. How insane is that! The mechanism he chooses is as unimaginative as you might expect – build a powerful global government that no human can possibly resist.
How do we overcome our hard-wired tendency to “discount” the future: valuing what we have today more than what we might receive tomorrow? Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries? How do we create new institutions with enforcement powers way beyond the current mandate of the U.N.?
He continues his un-inventive solution to save the world with ever greater clarity. This guy should have a blog!
But they have never taken on a challenge of this scale, recruiting all seven billion of us to act in unison. The ability to sustain change globally across the entire human population over periods far beyond anything ever attempted would appear to push the relevant objectives well beyond the realm of the attainable. If we are ever to cope with climate change in any fundamental way, radical solutions on the social side are where we must focus, though.
Anyway, read the article linked above at your own risk. Like many on the intellectual left, Gary has no understanding of how the world actually works. Also, like far too many on the left, he has a well-funded megaphone.
I wonder why blogs like this are still winning the argument?