WanSaiful.com

(Madsen Pirie, President Adam Smith Institute)

Spontaneity is better than central planning because:

• It is more efficient and almost always does better. There are several reasons for this:

  • It is “cleverer” in the sense that it lets more people to think. Central planning is limited to the intelligence of the few planners.

  • It has more information available to it. Central planners only have access to what they know.

  • It is quicker to react to change. Central planning requires many stages to filter and process information. A spontaneous system doesn’t.

  • It is smoother. Central planning brings with it many hick-ups.

  • It is not subject to political interference or control. Central planning is almost always subject to the priorities of the planners

• It is more moral.
• It allows individuals to choose.
• It serves the interest of the people. A spontaneous system allows people to participate and therefore it is more likely to serve the interests of the many. Central planning doesn’t allow participation.
• Planning means coercion and treat people as merely means to the planners’ ends.

A spontaneous society is not laissez-faire. Rule of law is imperative and rules are still needed. But the rules are there to allow people to choose rather than to impose a system.

If you give those in authority the powers to curb your freedom, the likelihood is they will use the powers for things other than what those powers were initially meant for.

Central planners typically think “I have a vision of how society should be and I am going to impose it”.

Questions to self:

1. What about the claims that we have to follow the decision of the group (keputusan jamaah?)? Is that moral?
2. Without some elements of control, surely some parts of society would lose out. Is that justifiable?
3. If rule of law is so important, who makes that law?

Filed under: Freedom & Liberty