On Voting, Lesson 2: Politicians Can't Solve Problems
On Voting, Lesson 2: Politicians Can't Solve Problems
No one controls the myriad of decentralized decisions and actions that, along the way, solve problems.
All week, in the run-up to the election, I will be dipping into my Foundation for Economic Education and Intellectual Takeout archives to create brief daily posts, not on the candidates, but on principles that may inform your decision. My advice is to choose candidates who you think best understands these principles.
As we go along, you will also see applications to our current Mindset Shifts U work on The Road to Serfdom.
During debates and interviews, candidates are drilled on how they will solve all types of economic and social problems. If they answer the questions at all “solutions” come in sound bites. It seems that more and more Americans wish to be relieved of what Friedrich Hayek describes in The Road to Serfdom as “the necessity of solving our own economic problems and … the bitter choices which this often involves.”
Does a prosperous American economic system depend on electing a president who is a problem solver? What does it say that our leaders must pretend they can know everything and tidily solve all problems? Are we to be servants to the ends our leaders have chosen for us, working for them by the means that they select?
A focus on solving problems is inconsistent with a market economy. In a Cato Journal article, “Let a Billion Flowers Bloom,” economist George Gilder reminds us that solving problems can be endless and fruitless:
The first great rule of enterprise is do not solve problems. Pursue opportunities. Problems are infinite and they multiply continuously. When you solve them, you are back to where you began. Governments specialize in creating problems that they then generously solve for the people, creating yet more serious and more systemic problems in the process.
As we pursue opportunities, we allow for a discovery process that automatically solves problems.
Imagine you are walking up a darkened staircase. There is just enough light to make out the next step in front of you. Light falls on a second step as you take your very first step. With each step, a next step, a new possibility, emerges. But you can’t see and be responsive to these possibilities until you have taken the step in front of you. From the first step, you cannot see the top of the staircase. For that matter, from the step you are standing on now, you cannot see even three steps ahead.
Naturally, there are plenty of times when we feel uncomfortable with this process of emergence. Political candidates try to assuage our fears and maintain the illusion that they can see the whole staircase from the first step to the last. They cannot. From the vantage point they have now, their vision, like ours, is limited.
Every “problem-solving” candidate promises to create jobs. But who really creates jobs? Could millions of Americans gainfully employed on farms in 1820 have anticipated that their descendants would be employed in automobile and steel factories? Could those employed in automobile plants have conceived that their children and grandchildren would be writing computer code?
Or consider this: In 1800, according to science writer Matt Ridley in his book The Rational Optimist, an average worker would have to work six hours to earn enough money to pay for an hour of light from a tallow candle. Today, an average worker pays for an hour of indoor lighting with a half-second of work. Did any president solve the problem of expensive indoor lighting? No, light bulbs and reliable electricity both emerged from competing entrepreneurs who saw a widespread need and addressed it in the marketplace.
Progress doesn’t occur by commanding and controlling. It is an emergent phenomenon.
We support the use of force to compel productivity when we believe that “problem-solving” political leaders drive progress. When human energy is exhausted, it is compelled. Those capable of creating value for others are prevented from doing so.
Every day, ordinary citizens and entrepreneurs pursue opportunities. No one controls the myriad of decentralized decisions and actions that, along the way, solve problems. We don’t need “problem solvers” to tell us the “winning plan.” We need planners and “problem solvers” to stay out of our way.
To maintain liberty, study, and reflection are necessary to guide our conduct. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber and gain access to the Mindset Shifts U community. We are committed to deepening our understanding of the principles that support inner and outer freedom.
