“The Natural Harmony Hypothesis […] assumes that human reasons are commensurate and convergent enough to justify social rules, which is overly optimistic and fails to account for the deep-seated and real, multidiemnsional material resources conflicts and value pluralisms present within large human social spaces.”
Another interpretation might be that as societies grow larger and inevitably more diverse, the scope of truly social rules is reduced. But we can hardly imagine that this process might advance so far that agreement on the prohibition of arbitrary killing would be lost. If allowed to adjust to this tendency, people might end up with large societies that share a few very general rules, while at a smaller scale societies or associations emerged that had more extensive agreement on rules, a sort of natural federalism or subsidiarity.
“By forcing economic integration, liberalism inadvertently undermines the social cohesion and cultural diversity that are essential for a vibrant society.”
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that by *allowing* economic integration, liberalism inadvertently undermined the social cohesion and cultural diversity that are essential for a vibrant society? No one held a gun to the heads of companies that merged.
It is not entirely clear what is meant by the separation of social and economic spheres, or what the envisioned alternative is. Making a wild guess, perhaps it means that the social consequences of economic policies were not foreseen accurately, or were foreseen but disregarded; and the alternative would task policy makers with making more accurate predictions of the consequences of their policies, and deciding things more in line with the preferences of… someone other than those who preferred past decisions.
In my personal opinion, the deepest error of capital "L" Liberalism is its attempt to separate the social from the economic, and this has had disaterous consequences. This separation leads to forced integrations and harmonizations in the economic sphere that also harm the social sphere. This process not only lowers headline growth but also greatly inhibits scientific and engineering advancements and both constrains and perverts cultural production. By homogenizing economic and social avenues, it stifles innovation and cultural diversity, ultimately creating a positive feedback loop that worsens these issues.
The Natural Harmony Hypothesis says that an underlying harmony of reasons allows for publicly justified rules of social morality. However, this hypothesis overlooks the reality of polarization and the existence of multiple social tribes or factions within society. It assumes that human reasons are commensurate and convergent enough to justify social rules, which is overly optimistic and fails to account for the deep-seated and real, multidiemnsional material resources conflicts and value pluralisms present within large human social spaces.
An example is the full financial integration of the United States' economy that mostly happened between the late 1970s and mid 1980s and was then fully finished up by the late 1990s. It was supposed to bring immense benefits but un reality, the economic policies that eliminated interstate capital flow inhibitors, such as unrestricted interstate banking, among other large policies, contributed to harmful capital flights and concentrations. These policies exacerbated regional disparities, leading to economic homogenization , the decline of competitive market structures and their replacement with private sector central planning. By promoting the concentration of capital in a few financial centers, they reduce the diversity of economic activities and stifle local innovation and entrepreneurship. This, in turn, harms the social fabric of communities, as economic opportunities become concentrated in a few areas, leading to social disempowerment and increased inequality.
The critique extends to the social implications of these economic policies. By forcing economic integration, liberalism inadvertently undermines the social cohesion and cultural diversity that are essential for a vibrant society. The homogenization of economic activities leads to a loss of local cultures and traditions, which further alienates different social groups and increases social fragmentation. This positive feedback loop between economic and social degradation creates a cycle of decline that is difficult to reverse.
Also, the forced harmonization in the economic sphere often prioritizes "efficiency" and profit that despite being claimed to be for all, is actually for a small few and over time led to severe inefficiencies (Boeing being one of many examples) and many of the same pathologies that the Soviet system's central planning had but -- and this may change soon at which point we'll all see it for what it truly is -- papered over by cruelly extractive planetary imperialist structures (USD as the world reserve currency, almost all nations in Africa being net capital exporters to the USA and the West ore broadly, among other examples; these structures have enabled the papering over of the central planning pathologies via the ability to run large and perpetual trade deficits and federal budget deficits in perpetuity) This has greatly harmed social well-being and development around the world.
The attempt to separate the social from the economic in liberalism leads to harmful economic policies that concentrate capital and stifle innovation. This not only harms the social fabric of society but also reduces overall economic growth and scientific advancement and cultural production which all in turn further hurts the social in a positive feedback loop. A more nuanced approach that recognizes the interdependence of the social and economic spheres is necessary to create a more equitable and advanced and dynamic world.
Thank you! Very nicely done
“The Natural Harmony Hypothesis […] assumes that human reasons are commensurate and convergent enough to justify social rules, which is overly optimistic and fails to account for the deep-seated and real, multidiemnsional material resources conflicts and value pluralisms present within large human social spaces.”
Another interpretation might be that as societies grow larger and inevitably more diverse, the scope of truly social rules is reduced. But we can hardly imagine that this process might advance so far that agreement on the prohibition of arbitrary killing would be lost. If allowed to adjust to this tendency, people might end up with large societies that share a few very general rules, while at a smaller scale societies or associations emerged that had more extensive agreement on rules, a sort of natural federalism or subsidiarity.
“By forcing economic integration, liberalism inadvertently undermines the social cohesion and cultural diversity that are essential for a vibrant society.”
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that by *allowing* economic integration, liberalism inadvertently undermined the social cohesion and cultural diversity that are essential for a vibrant society? No one held a gun to the heads of companies that merged.
It is not entirely clear what is meant by the separation of social and economic spheres, or what the envisioned alternative is. Making a wild guess, perhaps it means that the social consequences of economic policies were not foreseen accurately, or were foreseen but disregarded; and the alternative would task policy makers with making more accurate predictions of the consequences of their policies, and deciding things more in line with the preferences of… someone other than those who preferred past decisions.
Well done! Thanks for the interesting writing!
In my personal opinion, the deepest error of capital "L" Liberalism is its attempt to separate the social from the economic, and this has had disaterous consequences. This separation leads to forced integrations and harmonizations in the economic sphere that also harm the social sphere. This process not only lowers headline growth but also greatly inhibits scientific and engineering advancements and both constrains and perverts cultural production. By homogenizing economic and social avenues, it stifles innovation and cultural diversity, ultimately creating a positive feedback loop that worsens these issues.
The Natural Harmony Hypothesis says that an underlying harmony of reasons allows for publicly justified rules of social morality. However, this hypothesis overlooks the reality of polarization and the existence of multiple social tribes or factions within society. It assumes that human reasons are commensurate and convergent enough to justify social rules, which is overly optimistic and fails to account for the deep-seated and real, multidiemnsional material resources conflicts and value pluralisms present within large human social spaces.
An example is the full financial integration of the United States' economy that mostly happened between the late 1970s and mid 1980s and was then fully finished up by the late 1990s. It was supposed to bring immense benefits but un reality, the economic policies that eliminated interstate capital flow inhibitors, such as unrestricted interstate banking, among other large policies, contributed to harmful capital flights and concentrations. These policies exacerbated regional disparities, leading to economic homogenization , the decline of competitive market structures and their replacement with private sector central planning. By promoting the concentration of capital in a few financial centers, they reduce the diversity of economic activities and stifle local innovation and entrepreneurship. This, in turn, harms the social fabric of communities, as economic opportunities become concentrated in a few areas, leading to social disempowerment and increased inequality.
The critique extends to the social implications of these economic policies. By forcing economic integration, liberalism inadvertently undermines the social cohesion and cultural diversity that are essential for a vibrant society. The homogenization of economic activities leads to a loss of local cultures and traditions, which further alienates different social groups and increases social fragmentation. This positive feedback loop between economic and social degradation creates a cycle of decline that is difficult to reverse.
Also, the forced harmonization in the economic sphere often prioritizes "efficiency" and profit that despite being claimed to be for all, is actually for a small few and over time led to severe inefficiencies (Boeing being one of many examples) and many of the same pathologies that the Soviet system's central planning had but -- and this may change soon at which point we'll all see it for what it truly is -- papered over by cruelly extractive planetary imperialist structures (USD as the world reserve currency, almost all nations in Africa being net capital exporters to the USA and the West ore broadly, among other examples; these structures have enabled the papering over of the central planning pathologies via the ability to run large and perpetual trade deficits and federal budget deficits in perpetuity) This has greatly harmed social well-being and development around the world.
The attempt to separate the social from the economic in liberalism leads to harmful economic policies that concentrate capital and stifle innovation. This not only harms the social fabric of society but also reduces overall economic growth and scientific advancement and cultural production which all in turn further hurts the social in a positive feedback loop. A more nuanced approach that recognizes the interdependence of the social and economic spheres is necessary to create a more equitable and advanced and dynamic world.
Have a great rest of the summer!
---Mike