Environmentalists argue constantly that it’s hard to understand complex biophysical systems. They are “complex”, in the formal sense of that word.
Economic systems are the same, as I argue constantly. Small effects can have large impacts. Minimum wages reduce employment among those most in need of it. Price caps cause rationing.
An idea that just occurred to me, though, is that there is a social concomitant to my argument that Keynesian economics is a formal system for price derangement. Specifically, I would like to posit that moral relativism is a Value Derangement Enterprise.
In Keynesian economics, it is hard to know to estimate value because the future is uncertain, and it is hard to sift the economic noise caused by govermental intrusion in the economy, from actual free market signals; which is to say fake prices from real prices, and the unproductive use of capital, from the productive use of it.
In classical Liberalism–which I will point as I do from time time means roughly what Leftists call Conservatism, and what the proper object of Libertarianism would be, if their thinking was not so woolly–people wander around thinking “I am Right”, but recognize the political and legal need to recognize the rights of others. In contrast, Leftists wander around thinking “I am wrong”, and believe strongly that everyone else is wrong too, and therefore those who think they are right need to be eliminated or tamed.
Now, obviously, they are among the most self righteous sanctimonious human being on the planet. Many of them make Christian Fundamentalists look like anything-goes hippies. So when I use the work “right”, what I intend is “possessed of a stable moral sense, and a loyalty to specific people and places”.
Take the claim that homosexuality is wrong. In a truly Liberal society, there is nothing at all wrong with people believing that. It is just wrong for them to interfere with the material and legal freedoms of people on that basis. In a truly Liberal society, one group can wander around thinking “sinner”, and the other can wander around thinking “asshole”. This is perfectly fine.
But the Leftist enterprise, being based on what it is NOT, rather than what it IS, is intrinsically leveling and self destructive. Granted: you are not homophobic, racist, nationalistic, classist, imperialist, ungreen (should be call those who question environmental alarmist “Browns”? I’ll accept that moniker), etc. You get the idea. Cause de jour, then cause de jure.
And this “negativeering” is always based on a lie. They are anti-church. They are anti-traditional marriage. There is concrete content to their beliefs, but like some atheists, they pretend that the burden of proof rests with anyone who believes anything other than what they do.
The end result of this is a society with no attributes at all, outside of what those in authority impose. The French Revolutionaries tried to rename the months, and create new “festivals”. Such festivals were presumably grim affairs after a time, somewhat reminiscent of what one would imagine as the experience of celebrating the birthday of someone who molested you.
The point I am trying to make is that what we might term the “No operator”–you can’t be that, you can’t believe that, nor that, nor that–works to make it impossible to gauge right from wrong, and this bears a structural similarity to operation of Keynesism in the economic sphere. It is hugely destructive but in a gradual way.
We need to recapture the meaning of the word “tolerance”, which necessarily includes tolerating people who believe different things.
The word “right” has many meanings. One of them is the sense of being correct. Perhaps we could define tolerance as “the acceptance of the right to many ‘rights'”.
That might be clever. I’m not sure. Need to finish my beer and walk the dogs.