Part V: What information constraints confront political entrepreneurs?

 This essay is one of a series exploring the topic: What impact does political entrepreneurship have on freedom and flourishing? The series commenced with a Preface which provides a synopsis of the series and explains why I think it is important to obtain a better understanding of political entrepreneurship.

---------

This essay considers the information constraints confronting central planners and those political entrepreneurs who have less ambitious aims to promote widely accepted economic and social objectives. It is appropriate to begin by considering the motives of political entrepreneurs.

Motives of political entrepreneurs

Many assumptions that economists make about motives of political entrepreneurs are clearly wrong. Political entrepreneurs cannot maximize social welfare functions, even when they seek to promote the well-being of citizens.  They rarely set out to maximize the number of votes they obtain, even though they seek to obtain sufficient votes to win elections. They don’t necessarily set out to maximize the perks of office, or to use their positions to maximize personal wealth, even though such behaviour is common when the institutional context is conducive to it. The claims that many politicians make to be motivated by concerns for the well-being of the population they represent are not always deceitful.

Bryan Caplan suggests that to get ahead in politics, “leaders need a blend of naïve populism and realistic cynicism.” One reason why many politicians have legal training is because “the electoral process selects people who are professionally trained to plead cases persuasively and sincerely regardless of their merits” (Caplan 2007, p.169).

The easiest way to give the appearance of sincerity is to believe in the merits of the case you are pleading. Leon Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory predicts that when people publicly advocate a position - especially if doing so requires effort or commitment - they tend to adjust their private attitudes to align with their advocacy to reduce internal psychological tension (Festinger, 1957).

Institutional context has important implications for the character of people who are attracted to a career in politics. Unscrupulous opportunists are likely to be attracted to political and bureaucratic positions in which they can obtain personal benefit by using discretionary powers corruptly. F. A. Hayek observed that “the worst get on top” in totalitarian systems because “while there is little that is likely to induce men who are good by our standards to aspire to leading positions in the totalitarian machine, and much to deter them, there will be special opportunities for the ruthless and unscrupulous” (Hayek 1994, pp.166-67).

However, an institutional context that is attractive to unscrupulous opportunists may also attract potential political entrepreneurs who see opportunities for institutional reform. More generally, reform-minded individuals may be motivated to enter politics when they perceive that current practices are resulting in adverse economic and social consequences.

Unfortunately, reform-minded political entrepreneurs are not a panacea. As discussed below, those who advocate further restrictions on individual liberty in their efforts to promote economic and social objectives may make matters worse. And, as discussed in subsequent essays, even when reform-minded political entrepreneurs who advocate greater economic and personal freedom succeed in attaining high office, they face substantial obstacles to achieving their institutional change objectives.

The perils of central planning

In a famous article, F. A. Hayek explained that the data a national planning agency would require to engage in rational economic planning exists only in a dispersed form in the separate minds of millions of people. Hayek observed that individuals possess unique knowledge of “the particular circumstances of time and place”, which they can use for their own benefit, and that of others, only if the decisions depending on it are left to them or made with their active cooperation (Hayek 1945, pp.521-2). Hayek suggested that we should look at the price system as a “mechanism for communicating information” because prices act to coordinate the separate actions of different people (Hayek 1945, p.526).

In The Road to Serfdom, Hayek noted:

“The question raised by economic planning is … not merely whether we shall be able to satisfy what we regard as our more or less important needs in the way we prefer. It is whether we shall be able to decide what is more, and what is less, important for us, or whether this is to be decided by the planner” (Hayek 1944, p.100).

In later writings, Hayek noted that as the adverse consequences of central planning became apparent, it came to have fewer defenders in the liberal democracies. However, arguments were still being advanced in favor of the state’s taking sole charge of providing various services that can be provided privately. He suggested that this also entailed the risk that people would be prevented from using their unique knowledge for their own benefit and would be denied the benefits of competitive experimentation:

“If, instead of administering limited resources under its control for a specific service, government uses its coercive powers to insure that men are given what some expert thinks they need; if people thus can no longer exercise any choice in some of the most important matters of their lives, such as health, employment, housing, and provision for old age, but must accept the decisions made for them by appointed authority on the basis of its evaluation of their need; if certain services become the exclusive domain of the state, and whole professions – be it medicine, education, or insurance - come to exist only as unitary bureaucratic hierarchies, it will no longer be competitive experimentation but solely the decisions of authority that will determine what men get” (Hayek 1960, p.261).  

In a book first published in 1985 Don Lavoie further explained the fundamental knowledge problem that political entrepreneurs are confronted with when they seek to plan economic activities. The most obvious implication is that it is impossible for markets to be replaced by comprehensive economic planning. However, more modest attempts to steer the market towards outcomes which planners consider to be desirable also obstruct the source of knowledge which is essential to rational decision-making (Lavoie 2016, p.56-7).

Lavoie points out that the only way we can know whether we are squandering resources by over- or under-investing in microprocessors or steel, for example, is via “the messages contained in the relative profitability of rival firms in these industries”. He adds:

“But this is precisely the information we garble when we channel money toward one or another of the contenders. Deprived of its elimination process, the market would no longer be able to serve its function as a method for discovering better and eliminating worse production techniques. Without the necessity of responding to consumers’ wants or needs, businesses would never withdraw from unprofitable avenues of production” (p.181).

Lavoie notes that advocates of industry policy disagree on the directions in which the market should be steered. For example, Felix Rohatyn wanted to funnel aid to sunset industries while Robert Reich wanted to funnel it to sunrise industries. He sums up:

“It is the main conclusion of the argument that I have called the knowledge problem … that there are no rational grounds on which Reich could ever convince Rohatyn or vice versa on such matters as are involved in economic change. As a result, such battles are sure to be fought with weapons other than carefully reasoned argument” (p. 200-201).

Lavoie notes that Rohatyn and Reich both argued that it is the responsibility of a strong leader to coordinate the actions of the rest of us (p.190). The coordination they had in mind seems to be more akin to the coordination that military leaders impose by giving orders to subordinates than the coordination among individuals that occurs voluntarily and spontaneously in a free market.

Lavoie argues that economic planning is inherently militaristic: “The practice of planning is nothing but the militarization of the economy”. In making that point he notes that the theory of economic planning was from its inception modeled after feudalistic and militaristic organizations (p. 230).

Some would argue that a degree of militarization is a price worth paying, or even desirable, to achieve a range of national objectives. Indeed, the conventional theory of democracy seems to entail top-down direction. Prior to elections, political leaders tell voters about their plans for education, health, social security etc. and are expected to implement those plans after they are elected. That view seems to imply the existence of some kind of necessary tension between democracy and markets. I will discuss that view later in this essay.

Knowledge required for governance

Gerry Gaus’s final book discusses, among other things, the question of whether the Open Society has evolved beyond “our” governance. Gaus seems to adopt F. A. Hayek’s view of the Open Society (or Great Society) as a society in which coercion of some by others has been reduced as far as possible and individuals are free to use their own knowledge for their own purposes.

Gaus alludes to the knowledge problem when he observes that “we seek to devise policies to improve” the functioning of the Open Society. However, “we do not have the knowledge and competency to do so, hence we are constantly disappointed by the last round of interventions and we blame the last government for its failures and broken promises” (Gaus 2021, p.13).

Gaus points out that when people do not endorse a policy imposed by planners, some tend to evade it. In commenting on the “passive population model”, he writes:

“Unfortunately, this view has been resurrected by those elites who continue to believe that the public is too ignorant to make its own decisions, and so should submit to “epistocracy,” or rule by those who know (aka, them). Not only, however, is such expertise essentially nonexistent in complex systems, but most actual agents in the Open Society are anything but passive materials to be guided by the elite: they are active, reflexive agents who make their own choices. When citizens do not endorse a policy, many will employ their resources to evade it” (Gaus 2021, p.244).

Gaus considers three levels of governance – macro, meso, and micro- and three dimensions of governance – goal directed, strategic, and rules-focused. A goal-directed governor identifies preferred states and seeks to move society toward them. A strategic governor seeks to solve strategic dilemmas to assist citizens to secure outcomes they all want. A rules-focused governor seeks to structure some of the rules of self-organization.

Gaus’s analysis leads to the following conclusions:

• There is little prospect for a governor to successfully pursue macro-level goals in a complex society. For example, efforts to promote development in particular societies are often unsuccessful because institutions cannot readily be transferred from on society to another.
• Attempts to structure the “rules of the game” at a macro level are more promising. In cooperation with the self-organized normative framework of society a governor may effectively shape the rules of self-organization e.g. via civil rights legislation.
• Goal pursuit at the meso level is a dubious enterprise. Pursuit of environmental, economic and welfare-targeted variables is a hit-and-miss affair because our social world is a complex system. It is not linear and determinate, as is often assumed. Successful goal pursuit in a complex world is usually a matter of “muddling through” (sometimes described as learning-based governance).
• Polycentric governance studies show that a focus on problem-solving tends to facilitate effective governance when publics share pressing strategic dilemmas.
• There may be grounds for more optimism about the prospect for micro governance than governance at other levels.

In writing about micro governance, Gaus makes a favourable reference to the work of Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo. Gaus justifies his optimism about micro governance as follows:

 “When changes come up from the more micro levels, not only are they apt to garner the moral endorsement of actual citizens, but the Open Society will possess a diversity of normative networks. Because what works today may be dysfunctional tomorrow, a diversity of approaches is always critical. This itself upsets the moralist, who believes she speaks for the truth about justice, and sees most deviations from her plan as shades of immorality. But many of the diverse publics will not take up her solutions—many citizens will see different problems and possibilities, and their normative beliefs will lead them to different solutions” (Gaus 2021, p.240).

Can democracy be consistent with freedom?

Gaus and Lavoie offer similar views on the compatibility between democracy and freedom. Gaus suggests that “so far from being opposed or in tension, democracy and freedom need each other to thrive.” He suggests that a critical task of the democratic order is to ensure the equality and fairness on which large-scale human cooperation depends. However, unless it is “animated by a spirit of public justification, democracy itself becomes a mechanism by which some seek to impose their valued goals on others in the name of the people” (Gaus 2021, p. 245).

In his discussion of the view that there is some kind of necessary tension between democracy and free markets. Lavoie notes that we tend to think that “taking democracy too far undermines markets and that taking markets too far undermines democracy”. He attributes that view to “liberalism’s gradual drift into compromises with conservatism and socialism” (Lavoie 1993). He suggests that liberalism needs to reinterpret its notions of markets and democracy so that they are seen to be essentially complementary. Our economics needs to take account of the cultural underpinnings of markets and our politics “needs to move beyond the model of the exercise of some kind of unified, conscious democratic will and understand democratic processes as distributed throughout the political culture”. The force of public opinion is best perceived as the distributed influence of political discourses throughout society rather than as “a concentrated will”.

Lavoie argues that what we should mean by democracy is a distinctive kind of openness in society rather than a theory about how to elect the personnel of government:

“Democracy is not a quality of the conscious will of a representative organization that has been legitimated by the public, but a quality of the discursive process of the distributed wills of the public itself” (Lavoie 1993, p.111).

It seems to me that those who see merit in the view of democracy presented by Lavoie and Gaus have good reasons to be skeptical about the worth of top-down planning to achieve national objectives. Individuals have different priorities and objectives that deserve to be recognized. Top-down planning cannot give appropriate recognition to those individual differences. Moreover, given the peculiarities of the business of politics, as discussed in the preceding essay, well-meaning attempts to pursue economic and social objectives that are widely supported within communities are prone to diverted to serve narrow interest groups.

In the following essay I consider the consequences of institutional path dependence, first in slowing the emergence of interest group politics, and second in making it more difficult for reform-minded political entrepreneurs to restore freedom and enhance opportunities for human flourishing.

 

References

Caplan, Bryan., The Myth of the Rational Voter (Princeton University Press, 2007).

Festinger, Leon., A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Stanford University Press, 1957).

Gaus, Gerald., The Open Society and its Complexities (Oxford University Press, 2021).

Hayek, F. A., The Road to Serfdom (University of Chicago Press, 1994).

Hayek, F.A., “The Use of Knowledge in Society”, The American Economic Review, XXXV, 4 (1945).

Hayek, F.A., The Constitution of Liberty (The University of Chicago Press, 1960).

Lavoie, Don., National Economic Planning: What Is Left? (Mercatus Center, 2016).

Lavoie, Don., “Democracy, Markets, and the Legal Order: Notes on the Nature of Politics in a Radically Liberal Society” in Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miller, Jr., and Jeffrey Paul (Eds.) Liberalism and the Economic Order (Cambridge University Press, 1993).

What impact does political entrepreneurship have on freedom and flourishing?

 

Preface to a Series of Essays

“Entrepreneurship necessarily takes place within culture, it is utterly shaped by culture, and it fundamentally consists in interpreting and influencing culture.”

-        Don Lavoie (Lavoie 2015, p. 50)

A few months ago, a kind person told me that “Freedom and Flourishing” had become more than just a blog. With that thought in mind, I have decided to try something new. I am proposing to present here a series of linked essays that can be read in much the same way as a journal article. Readers who wish to do so will be able to start at this Preface and read all the way through to the end, or alternatively, just read the essays that are of most interest to them. There will be links at the end of each essay to help readers to find their way to the next one and links at the beginning of each essay to help readers to find their way back to this Preface.

Some readers may notice that some of the material presented here has been published previously on this blog. The views presented in this series of essays have been more carefully considered but are still subject to revision.

As always, I welcome comments from readers.

———

Some readers will come to this series with the prior belief that political entrepreneurship has a negative impact on freedom and flourishing. Those of us who believe that people tend to flourish most fully when governments refrain from interfering with their lives may hold that belief. We certainly have good reasons to be skeptical about the impact of political entrepreneurs on human flourishing.

Nevertheless, if we are serious about promoting libertarian ideals, we cannot avoid considering the possibility that political entrepreneurship might have a role to play in getting us from where we are now - or where we seem to be heading - to a political and legal order that is more conducive to human flourishing.

In my view, it is important to obtain a better understanding of political entrepreneurship at this time because many voters in liberal democracies seem to have become increasingly dissatisfied with conventional centre-left and centre-right political leaders. Unfortunately, there seems to be increasing support in liberal democracies for leaders who propose rule changes which are likely to have detrimental impacts on prospects for freedom and flourishing. That support seems evident on both the progressive and conservative sides of politics.

In that context, it is particularly important to understand the contribution that political entrepreneurship has made to the problems that voters perceive, and the likely consequences of the alternative approaches to political entrepreneurship that are currently on offer.

The analytical approach adopted here has been influenced by entangled political economy as explained by Richard E. Wagner. According to that approach, both “polity and economy are arenas of practical action that operate in similar but not identical fashion” (Wagner 2016, p. 64).

Wagner’s approach recognizes the importance of individual action:

“The framework of entangled political economy accommodates recognition that societies change only through individual action inside those societies, and with those actions spreading within the society according to the receptivity of other members of that society to those changes” (Wagner 2016, p. 138).

As Chris Matthew Sciabarra has suggested, to understand institutional change we need to recognize interactions between personal, cultural and structural (political-economic) considerations. Sciabarra has discussed the nature of those interactions using a Tri-Level Model which builds on Ayn Rand’s conceptual framework (Sciabarra 2000, pp. 379-83). He emphasizes that although the personal, the cultural, and the structural can be analyzed separately, they can never be “reified as wholes unto themselves” (Sciabarra 2000, pp. 379-80).

I believe that the concept of political entrepreneurship is necessary to an understanding of institutional change for much the same reason that the concept of economic entrepreneurship is necessary to an understanding of technological change. The focus of the series is on how political entrepreneurship shapes the formal rules that govern economic and personal freedom across jurisdictions.

These essays draw heavily upon the insights of Don Lavoie in considering the nature of political entrepreneurship. In the passage quoted in the epigraph, Lavoie was writing about economic entrepreneurship. He argued that the “seeing of profit opportunities is a matter of cultural interpretation” (Lavoie 2015, p. 51). However, the idea that entrepreneurship consists in “interpreting and influencing culture” seems particularly relevant to political entrepreneurship.

What Lavoie means by culture is “the language in which past events are interpreted, future circumstances are anticipated, and plans of action are formulated.” (Lavoie 2015, p. 49).

He explains that he views culture as a discourse. In that context: “entrepreneurship is the achievement not so much of the isolated maverick who finds objective profits others overlooked as of the culturally embedded participant who picks up the gist of a conversation” (Lavoie 2015, p. 51).

Essays in this series will discuss the implications of significant differences that exist between political and economic entrepreneurship. In politics, voter choices are weakly linked to individual outcomes, decision-making often involves triadic relationships, and political marketing allows greater scope for deception. Moreover, political deal-making lacks a clear success metric comparable to profit in markets, and institutional incentives may attract opportunists rather than principled leaders.

I acknowledge, however, that many political entrepreneurs are motivated by a desire to achieve economic and social objectives that are widely supported in the communities they live in. They are confronted by information constraints. It is often impossible for a central authority to possess and process all the knowledge needed to achieve social and economic objectives without producing adverse, unintended consequences. As new policy initiatives are implemented to reduce those adverse consequences, economic freedom is often further reduced, and adverse economic and social impacts tend to multiply.

Political leaders seeking to restore economic freedom face challenges including entrenched interests and institutional path dependence. Changing formal rules is insufficient without corresponding changes in norms and incentives. I maintain that institutional reform is not solely about electing better leaders at a national level.

In advocating that the social sciences should pay more attention to the role of political entrepreneurship, I am certainly not attempting to promote a “great man theory” of institutional change. Political entrepreneurs rarely act alone, and their influence is constrained by a range of factors that are present to varying degrees in the societies in which they function.

Crucially, libertarian political entrepreneurs are unlikely to have a lasting impact on freedom and flourishing if their influence is confined to national politics. A national leader may play a pivotal role in sweeping away accumulated regulation but a culture supporting liberty and individual flourishing cannot be established and maintained unless many individuals undertake frequent acts of political entrepreneurship in their day-to-day interactions with others.

The structure of the series is as follows:

Part I provides a brief discussion of the links between freedom and flourishing to explain my reasons for focusing on institutions relating to economic and personal freedom. It also explains the meaning of institutions, institutional change, and political entrepreneurship.

Part II considers the extent to which differences in economic and personal freedom in different countries can be attributed to differences in underlying cultural values. It concludes that prevailing culture at a national level offers only a partial explanation of differences in economic and personal freedom levels. There is much left to be explained by other factors, particularly the influence of political entrepreneurship on the ideologies adopted by governments.

Part III discusses similarities between political and economic entrepreneurship.

Part IV discusses the incentives that political entrepreneurs are faced with in the context of the characteristics of politics that make it a peculiar business.  

Part V discusses the motives of political entrepreneurs and the impact of information constraints on pursuit of economic and social objectives.

Part VI considers the consequences of institutional path dependence, first in slowing the emergence of interest group politics and associated detrimental impacts on economic dynamism, and second in making it more difficult for reform-minded political entrepreneurs to restore economic freedom.

Part VII considers whether heroic political entrepreneurship has potential to promote freedom and flourishing. It urges that political entrepreneurship be perceived more broadly than in terms of government leadership.

Part VIII summarizes the series and concludes.

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Chris Matthew Sciabarra for helpful comments on earlier drafts of some of the material presented in this series. The usual caveat applies. Please do not assume that Chris endorses the views presented here.

References

Lavoie, Don, “The discovery and interpretation of profit opportunities: culture and the Kirznerian entrepreneur”, in Culture and Economic Action, edited by Laura E Grube and Virgil Henry Storr (Edward Elgar, 2015).

Sciabarra, Chris Matthew, Total Freedom: Toward a Dialectical Libertarianism (Pennsylvania State University Press: 2000).

Wagner, Richard E., Politics as a Peculiar Business: Insights from a Theory of Entangled Political Economy (Edward Elgar, 2016).

Is it too soon to be asking in what part of the world will the next golden age be located?

 

The question posed above occurred to me as I was reading the final pages of Johan Norberg’s latest book, Peak Human: What We Can Learn from the Rise and Fall of Golden Ages.

Johan Norberg is a senior fellow at the Cato institute. He is a historian of ideas and a prolific author. If Norberg has a fan club, I might qualify for honorary membership. I have written about some of his previous books on this blog (here and here) and have read others.

Norberg explains what he means by a golden age in these terms:

“A golden age is associated with a culture of optimism, which encourages people to explore new knowledge, experiment with new methods and technologies, and exchange the results with others. Its characteristics are cultural creativity, scientific discoveries, technological achievements and economic growth that stand out compared with what came before and after it, and compared with other contemporary cultures. Its result is a high average standard of living, which is usually the envy of others, often also of their heirs.”

The author suggests that the most important precondition for a golden age is “an absence of orthodoxies imposed form the top about what to believe, think and say, how to live and what to do.” He doesn’t present the golden ages he has identified in utopian terms. He acknowledges that countries concerned all practiced slavery, denied women basic rights and “took great delight in exterminating neighbouring populations”.

As implied in the epigraph, Norberg argues that civilizations decline when they lose cultural self-confidence. He suggests that episodes of creativity and growth are often terminated because of the perceived self-interest of people who fear change and feel threatened by it. Free speech is replaced by orthodoxies and free markets are replaced by increased economic controls. The fears of those seeking stability and predictability often become self-fulfilling.

 In my view, Norberg has done an excellent job in explaining why golden ages have emerged and disappeared at different times in different parts of the world.

However, I think there may be an omission in the author’s identification of golden ages. I will briefly discuss that before focusing on the question of whether the Anglosphere is in decline.

Identifying golden ages

Norberg discusses seven golden ages in his book. Since he doesn’t provide a summary timeline showing their duration, I asked ChatGPT to construct the following:

• Athens: 480–404 BC
• Rome: 27 BC–AD 180
• Abbasids: 750–950
• Song dynasty: 960–1279
• Renaissance Italy: 1490–1527
• Dutch Republic: 1609–1672
• Anglosphere: c. 1688 onward.

If that timeline is broadly correct, it suggests that the largest gap between golden ages occurred between the end of the golden age of Rome and the beginning of the golden age of the Abbasids. What was happening at that time? Although the golden age of Rome may have ended around 180, following the death of Marcus Aurelius, the decline and fall of the Roman empire took a few more centuries. The last emperor of the Western Roman empire was deposed in 476. Plato’s Academy in Athens apparently continued to function until 532, when the seven last philosophers left to seek refuge with the Persian king. Interest in Greek philosophy grew in Persia during the 6^th and 7^th centuries, partly because of the presence of scholars associated with schismatic Christian sects.

As I was pondering what was happening between 180 and 750, I began to wonder whether India’s golden age might have been worth discussing in this book. While visiting India last year I read William Dalrymple’s book, TheGolden Road: How Ancient India Transformed the World. As well as discussing India’s impact on religion and culture throughout much of Asia, Dalrymple. points out that over the period from about 250BC to AD 1200, India was an important centre of commerce and trade, and an innovator in fields such as astronomy and mathematics.

India was the source of the numerical system with 10 digits including zero, that we use today. Norberg mentions that important contribution, but Dalrymple discusses it at greater length.

Another fascinating topic discussed by Dalrymple is the close relationship between the merchant classes of early India and the Buddhist monastic movement. Dalrymple emphasizes the importance of trade between India and the Roman empire. He notes that as the Roman empire crumbled, India’s trade with Europe was replaced by expansion of its trade with south-east Asia.

Is the Anglosphere in decline?

The Anglosphere refers to those nations where the English language and cultural values are dominant. Few would dispute that over the last couple of centuries the Anglosphere, first led by Britain and then the United States, played a leading role among nations in demonstrating the benefits of liberal democracy, free markets, technological innovation, and free international trade. Life in the Anglosphere has been far from ideal even in respect of those criteria, but there can be no doubt that we have been living in an age of widespread prosperity that is without historical precedent. As Norberg points out, the whole world has benefited from the spread of golden-age conditions fostered by the Anglosphere, with global extreme poverty declining from 38 to 9 percent in just the period since 1990.

However, Norberg notes that “many ominous signs of decline are clearly present in our time”. He mentions the “hubristic overreach” of U.S. attempts to reshape the Middle East through military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the financial crash of 2008, and the growth of “crippling public debt”. He suggests that a series of crises, including the Covid pandemic, have fostered “a sense that the world is dangerous and that we need to protect ourselves from it”. He writes:

“Most worryingly, rich counties have experienced a major backlash against globalization and trade, and immigrants have become scapegoats, just as they were in so many other eras of decline, potentially shutting us out from our most potent source of constant revitalization.”

Norberg notes that both China and Russia “have recently taken a totalitarian turn and are working hard to devastate neighbours”. He suggests, nevertheless, that Russia and China will have a hard time trying to challenge the Anglosphere-led world order because it will be difficult for them to find reliable friends among advanced states. 

Unfortunately, in the short time since the book was written, the government of the United States has adopted an international stance that seems to be inconsistent with the continued existence of an Anglosphere-led world order. Countries that have long regarded themselves as allies of the U.S. are now forced to contemplate seriously how they can best protect their own interests if the U.S. pursues isolationist policies.

The book ends on a somewhat optimistic note. The author observes that there are roughly fifty prosperous, open societies around the world. If one of them fails, “that will not stop others from picking up the torch”. He adds:

“That prompts the question of where the next golden age will come from.”

After considering various possibilities, however, he suggests that “perhaps this is the wrong way to look at it because we now have a “truly global civilization” in which every literate person anywhere in the world can draw upon the accumulated knowledge of humanity and learn skills in any field. In that context, “no one country can hold a monopoly on the ideas that can make them prosper”.

I agree with the general thrust of that argument. The technology required for future golden ages is not deposited in a library that can be easily destroyed. However, the geographical location of societies that are open and prosperous is still an issue worth considering. It isn’t much consolation for citizens in the United States, Britain or Australia to know that their children and grandchildren may be able to draw upon the accumulated knowledge of humanity and learn skills in any field, if institutional change impinges adversely on their incentives to do such things. Opportunities for human flourishing depend on whether political entrepreneurs will restore and maintain sufficient economic freedom.

It is in that context that I ask: Is it too soon to be asking where the next golden age will be located?

I suggested an optimistic answer to that question in Chapter 6 of Freedom, Progress, and Human Flourishing. Looking beyond looming economic crises, I am still optimistic that the governments of most liberal democracies will eventually introduce institutional reforms to enable the drivers of progress to restore growth of opportunities.

How can dialectics help us to defend liberty?

 

This guest essay by Dr Edward W. Younkins is a review of Chris Matthew Sciabarra’s book “Total Freedom”, which was published 25 years ago. The epigraph is from page 354 of that book.

Ed Younkins is Professor of Accountancy and Business at Wheeling University, and Executive Director of its Institute for the Study of Capitalism and Morality. He is author of a trilogy of important books on freedom and flourishing: “Capitalism and Commerce”, “Champions of a Free Society”, and “Flourishing and Happiness in a Free Society”. Ed has numerous other publications, including an essay reviewing books by David L. Norton, which was published here in January.    

 Ed Younkins’s review was previously published in 2001 in “Le Québécois Libre”. 

There are two reasons why it is appropriate for it to be re-published now.

First,“Total Freedom” deserves more attention, and the 25^th anniversary of its publication is a particularly appropriate time for that to occur.

Second, in the light of declining economic and personal freedom in many parts of the world, the defense of liberty has become more urgent than it was 25 years ago. Ian Vásquez and his colleagues responsible for measurement of human freedom for Cato and the Fraser Institute have noted that on a world-wide basis, and using a population weighted comparison, a high point for freedom occurred in 2005–2007, followed by a steady decline through 2019, and a precipitous descent in 2020 through 2021 associated with government responses to the Covid virus (“The Human Freedom Index 2024, pp. 21-25). The latest data suggest although some recovery has occurred since, human freedom remains lower than in the year 2000.

Younkins ended his review by noting that he was “looking forward to seeing what Sciabarra will offer us next that will contribute toward the development of a comprehensive defense of freedom.” Chris Sciabarra has continued to make important contributions in this field even though illness has somewhat constrained his efforts.

Here is Ed Younkins’s review of:

Sciabarra, Chris Matthew, Total Freedom: Toward a Dialectical Libertarianism (Pennsylvania State University Press: 2000).

In Total Freedom, Chris Matthew Sciabarra offers a provocative, scholarly, and original work in social theory for the analysis of society and human liberty. The author aims to reclaim the dialectical method, the art of context keeping, in the name of liberty and from the authoritarian left in order to make it the foundation for a radical (i.e., one that goes to the root) defense of libertarianism.

The necessity of context

Sciabarra is convinced that a successful libertarian project must stress the necessity of context – the totality of systemic and dynamic connections among social problems. More specifically, the libertarian ideal cannot be isolated from the context upon which it depends and freedom cannot be defended successfully when separated from its broader requisite conditions. The author proposes in Total Freedom a metatheoretical foundation upon which to construct a comprehensive libertarian social theory. Rather than making a convincing argument for liberty, he offers a means for structuring the methodology of social inquiry. The book is about how a context-sensitive methodology can be used to defend freedom. In order to think about freedom, people need to grasp the totality of its prerequisites and implications. Emphasizing the indivisible unity of theory and practice, Sciabarra says that any effort to understand or change society requires an analysis of its many related aspects.  

Sciabarra explains that dialectics emphasizes the centrality of context in the intertemporal analysis of systems. It is a thinking style that stresses the contextual analysis of systems across time. Dialectics may be viewed as a method of analysis, a mode of inquiry, or a type of meta-methodological orientation or set of assumptions about how we approach the object of our study. Dialectics is an approach to thinking that attempts to grasp the full context of a philosophy or social problem. Dialectical thinking endeavors to understand the whole through differential vantage points and levels of generality and by a systemic and dynamic extension of analytical units. 

The author emphasizes that dialectical thinking necessitates that we do not engage in context dropping, but instead make every possible effort to see interconnections between seemingly disparate branches of knowledge. Such an approach compels scholars to investigate empirically the potential connections between various spheres in an effort to attain integrated knowledge of the full context. Since people are not omniscient, understanding a complex world thoroughly requires an on-going investigation of its many interrelated facets from shifting vantage points. 

Down to earth dialectics

As a methodological orientation, dialectics has been employed in the analysis of systems of argumentation, philosophy, ethics, linguistics, history, culture, psychology, social theory, political economy, etc. One of Sciabarra's goals is to capture the essence of the many dialectical approaches that have appeared throughout intellectual history. He argues that in its origins dialectics is not an especially Hegelian or Marxian tradition, but rather in its inception it is firmly Aristotelian. 

Sciabarra explains that, although the pre-Socratics and Plato were the earliest practitioners of dialectics, it was Aristotle, the true father (or fountainhead) of dialectical inquiry, who first articulated its theoretical principles and techniques. Plato had connected dialectics to an idealist ontology that entailed the search for comprehensive transcendent truth. Plato's unrealistic epistemological standard was for human beings to somehow attain a synoptic perspective on the whole society. 

Aristotle brought the dialectic down to earth by severing its principles from their Platonic-idealist formulation. The Aristotelian idea of dialectics eliminates cosmology from philosophy and relies on a minimalist metaphysics that states that existence is what it is, that consciousness is our means for understanding it, and that everything that exists is part of one reality. The history of dialectics is filled with battles between the synoptic Platonic idealist conception and the contextual Aristotelian realist understanding. As a dialectical reality, Sciabarra tells us that we should rightfully criticize those who form dialectical abstractions with no regard for their relationship to the facts of reality. 

Sciabarra explains that Aristotle advocates shifting our viewpoints on any object of study in order to illuminate different aspects of it. In this way, Aristotle keeps the Platonic predilection for organic unity, but acknowledges the central importance of context. Aristotle's principles of inquiry call for us to constantly shift our perspective on any object of study. Each point of view provides a different context of meaning. It is by piecing together the various perspectives that a person can gain a comprehensive understanding of the full context of the object. 

Like Aristotle, the Medieval Scholastics applied dialectical principles to the argumentative arts. Sciabarra observes that they brought dialectics to the consideration of Biblical texts and thus began the centuries-long journey toward the secularization of the human mind because they were brave enough to subject the scriptures to analysis, something that was disapproved of for centuries before.  

Sciabarra argues that Hegel's conception of the dialectic harks back to the Ancient Greek ideal of organic unity and to the Platonic penchant for the divine. In turn, Marx anchored dialectics to investigations of the real world. However, Marx's vision presumed god-like planning and control of many nuances, tacit practices, and unintended consequences of social action. He also presumed a total grasp of history and often attempted to study the present as if from an imagined future. When Marxists suggest that history can lead to a victory over human ignorance, they are implying privileged access to total knowledge of future social conditions. This is inherently utopian and undialectical since it is unbounded by the context that exists and is based on a « synoptic delusion, » a belief that one can live in a world in which every action produces consistent and predictable outcomes.

The art of context keeping

 If dialectics is the art of context keeping, then historical materialism proposes a theory of history that places the theoretician outside the context of the human condition. The problem occurs when Marx steps into the future to evaluate the present. He assumes the information needed by future planners will be available despite the fact that these planners will have destroyed the context (i.e., the price system), which permits such information to be generated and socially traded. By holding this incorrect assumption, Marx is placing himself outside the historical process that he analyzes. Sciabarra observes that it is as though Marx is permitting himself privileged access to information about a future that is ontologically and epistemologically impossible. Such a Utopian way of viewing the world is essentially an a-contextual, a-historical search for human ideals with no understanding of the limits or nature of reason. It is as if people can step outside the bounds of culture and society to re-create the world. 

Sciabarra goes on to explore the manifestations of dialectics among those from the liberal tradition including Herbert Spencer, Carl Menger, Mises, Hayek, Rand, and especially Murray Rothbard. The author's goal here is to show how classical liberal and modern libertarian approaches embody conflicting orientations. He also describes how these thinkers have been richer, more complex, and more context-sensitive than their critics have been willing to acknowledge. Total Freedom documents how a contextual-dialectical approach informed many of the classical liberal, and libertarian thinkers of the 19th and 20th centuries. 

A large portion of the second half of Sciabarra's work involves a comprehensive case study of the writings of Murray Rothbard, one of the major libertarian thinkers of the 20th century. Sciabarra attempts to identify the dialectical and undialectical aspects of Rothbard's wide-ranging anarcho-capitalist analytical model. Rothbard's work is used to expose and analyze the dialectical strengths and nondialectical weaknesses that are typical in modern libertarian social theory. 

Sciabarra observes that Rothbard, for most of his life, believed that libertarianism did not require a theory of culture. Rothbard appeared to think that his axiom of non-aggression could resolve social and political problems by itself. Like many other libertarians, he simply dropped the larger context which freedom requires in order to flourish and stressed libertarian goals without considering the problem of meeting them. He insisted that libertarianism was a political philosophy that could accommodate any culture. For example, Rothbard believed that men could simply use their reason to develop a permanently fixed Libertarian Law Code in accordance with anarcho-capitalist principles.  

Sciabarra questions the efficacy of such an imposition because it does not take into account the philosophical, cultural, and historical context upon which libertarian principles depend. The acceptance of a Libertarian Law Code in the real world would require a deeper understanding of personal and cultural factors. Rothbard had abstracted a single principle of non-aggression and created a dualistic tension between theory and reality by declaring that state institutions are at odds with human nature. This led Rothbard to universalize the market as a means of destroying the state.  

Sciabarra points out that later Rothbard realized that proponents of a free society needed a fully articulated theory of culture, since some cultures foster, while others threaten, a free society. Rothbard's later greater dialectical sensibility is exhibited in his theory of structural crisis which was simultaneously historical, political, economic, and sociological and in the foundations of his non-Marxist theory of class struggle. 

In need of an effective strategy

Toward the end of his book, Sciabarra briefly surveys the growing dialectical trend among libertarians such as Peter Boettke, Douglas Den Uyl, Don Lavoie, Douglas Rasmussen, Mario Rizzo, and others. Sciabarra is convinced that libertarianism as a social theory is valuable and offers a valid perspective on the nature of the crisis in modern society and that voluntary social relations, with all their preconditions and effects, are morally and consequentially preferable to the status quo and to statism in all its varieties. However, he does not believe that libertarian theorists have presented the best formulations and arguments in the context of social conditions that exist. Freedom cannot be defended successfully when severed from its broader requisite conditions. Libertarians must pay greater attention to the broader context within which their goals and values can be realized.

Sciabarra's message is that libertarians need an effective strategy that recognizes the dynamic interrelationships between the personal, political, historical, psychological, ethical, cultural, economic, etc., if they are to be successful in their quest for a free society. He explains that attempts to define and defend a non-aggression axiom in the absence of a broader philosophical and cultural context are doomed to fail. Libertarians must pay greater attention to the broader context within which their goals and values can be realized. The battle against statism is simultaneously structural (political and economic), cultural (with implications for education, race, sex, language, and art) and personal (with connections to individuals' tacit moral beliefs, and psycho-epistemological processes).

The author wants people to understand both the necessity for objective conceptual foundations for a free society and the need for cultural pre-requisites in the battle for the free society. The fight for freedom is multidimensional and takes place on a variety of levels with each level influencing and having reciprocal effects on the other levels. Dialectics require that people take into account and pay attention to all the levels and structures that a politics of freedom depends upon. Sciabarra contends that it is possible to look at society from different angles and on different levels of analytical generality in order to obtain an enriched portrait of its total form. Change must occur on many different levels and cannot be dictated from the realm of politics – it must filter through all the various levels.

The goals of Total Freedom are to defend the need for a dialectical libertarianism that synthesizes multiple disciplines and to reclaim dialectics as a viable methodology for libertarian social theory. The author accomplishes this in his well-documented, innovative, and academic treatise. He offers libertarianism as a valid and valuable perspective that is preferable to the status quo and to statism in all its varieties. However, Sciabarra stops short of developing his own substantive dialectical libertarian social theory. 

His work is primarily methodological and only articulates the view that a dialectical libertarianism is essential to the future of both dialectics and libertarianism. He has taken the first step by offering a metatheoretical structure for social inquiry, rather than a comprehensive argument for liberty. Sciabarra cautions that much work needs to be done to test the validity of various libertarian theories. I am looking forward to seeing what Sciabarra will offer us next that will contribute toward the development of a comprehensive defense of freedom.

Addendum

Readers may also be interested in an essay that Chris M. Sciabarra recently published to mark the thirtieth anniversary of the first two books in his "Dialectics and Liberty Trilogy": "Marx, Hayek, and Utopia" and "Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical," and the twenty-fifth anniversary of "Total Freedom." This "Trilogy Anniversary" essay can be found on both Notablog and Medium:

https://notablog.net/2025/06/09/a-trilogy-anniversary/

https://medium.com/@cm.../a-trilogy-anniversary-6265b10c1258