[ExI] Statism caused by scarcity/was Re: Effectiveness of democracy as a result of selection bias

[Dan]

--- On Tue, 6/30/09, Henrique Moraes Machado cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I disagree.  I don't
>> think there will ever be such a thing as a post-scarcity
>> society.
>> As long as there are unmet wants, there will be
>> scarcity.
>> And I also disagree that statism -- whether in its
>> democratic form or something else -- is necessary or
>> inevitable either.
>> I think de-legitimizing the state can happen and this
>> can happen in variety
>> of ways -- not necessarily in a purely ideological
>> change where everyone wakes
>> up and sees that statism really is worse than the
>> alternatives.
> 
> Post-scarcity, in my POV at least, is not about "wants",
> but about "needs".

Yes, I know, but the problem is, from an economic standpoint, is "needs" are really purely subjective -- in the sense that there's no objective defintion for "needs."  On the other hand, "wants" can be objective defined -- whatever the person acts to gain or keep, whatever she pursues...  And economics studies these as drivers to action.  I.e., someone wants something, so she acts to obtain it.  (Note how this view does not judge whether the particular something is a need, is rational, is moral, is not frivolous.  Thus it allows the widest possible role for economics without saddling it with controversial and historically limited notions such as this particular want is petty, while this one is truly essential.  After all, the same economic laws apply in all cases -- whether a person is economizing on food on a desert island or a teenager is pestering her parents to get the new iPhone.)

> There will allways be some degree of
> scarcity of something. But let´s assume for a moment that
> we succeed to solve the most basic problems which are to
> provide energy, food, health and education for just
> everyone. Would you agree that this is not anymore a
> scarcity society?

Because all wants are not satisfied.  Thus, economic laws will still apply to action.  The only way to avoid this is to have a literal Nirvana -- where there are no more wants.  As long as there are wants, there will be action -- meaning action in the sense of purposive behavior, acting to achieve some end which implies that the actor is not satisfied, i.e., still has unmet wants.
 
> I know that the above scenario doesn´t seem to be
> attainable anytime soon, but if (and it´s a big if) this
> comes to pass, wouldn´t it eliminate at least one of the
> reasons for the existence of government and even states per
> se?

See above.  Yes, I agree, you and I can pursue a world where what we consider "needs" can be met for all, BUT this would still not be a post-scarcity world.  And if your theory about what we have governments -- because of scarcity -- were true -- and I think it's false -- there would still be wants unmet that would mean there were more desires than resources, hence the necessity to choose between ends and the need for government.

Now, I disagree about your theory -- scarcity necessitates statism (is this a good way of putting it?) -- because people living under the condition of scarcity -- in fact, the only condition people have ever lived under and are likely to ever live under -- do NOT require statism to resolve disputes or to divvy up scarce means for their manifold ends.  Moreover, sound theory and historical research shows that, while statism is dominant and clearly present now, it's not the only way to deal with these problems.  In fact, one could argue, states are parasitic and actually make things worse, since the ruling class must absorb more wealth and is a net consumer of social wealth.  Thus, wherever there is a state, society is, all else being equal, worse off and scarcity -- in terms of relative means -- is much worse.  (In other words, absent a state, all else being the same, there would be more means to achieve more ends.  The state acts, both figuratively and
 literally, as a tax on social wealth.*)

It can also be argued that having more wealth -- more means to pursue ends -- does not have a simple relationship to statism.  Yes, it's true that overbearing states reduce wealth, so there does seem to be a correlation with the level of statism and the level of wealth: higher levels of statism tend to consume more wealth.  But the relationship seems a lot more complex than simply increasing overall wealth will lead to less statism.  Hans-Hermann Hoppe, among others, has examined this relationship and come to the conclusion that wealthier societies might start out with less statism and this difference can help their states to win out in military competition -- as wealth is often turned into military power.**  But after winning the competition, there's a tendency for the state to grow.  Thus, a wealthier society with a smaller state grows a large state eventually.

Returning to "scarcity necessitates statism," even if one is to accept the view that certain needs could be objectively defined (which I don't accept), does it seem the case that only societies with little wealth -- obviously, all else being the same, have more powerful states?  One would expect, under such circumstances, for the hinterlands of empires to have powerful states, while the imperial metropoles -- where all the wealth is -- to be relatively state-free.  Yet the opposite seems to be the case.  Why is this?

Regards,

Dan

*  All examples, too, of states providing benefits appear to fall under the rubric of the broken window fallacy as discussed here before.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window for a brief presentation of this fallacy.

**  Cf., his "Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis" which is in PDF at:

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_5.pdf