The Scientific Genius of the Invisible Hand vs. the Incompetence of the Philosopher

This is a pair of texts I originally wrote in French in reaction to others views - to display them here I just corrected the tense : "you" to "him".
The first was in response to the "lessons" on economics in a website by a philosophy teacher, titled "Philosophy and Spirituality".
I'm sorry to disappoint him but his philosopher's presentation on economic issues contains a lot of stupidities as he ventures here far from his area of expertise. Admittedly, the notion of stupidity is relative, on the scale of intelligence degrees.Then, which level do I refer to, to call it this way: to the necessary level of intelligence to roughly understand the working of the economy, and the causes of the major trends of evolution of the world economy in the last century. This is a very complex problem that requires an elaborate thinking. But this understanding roughly exists, there are many people who mastered it. The competence (the intelligence level together with the relevant knowledge for this problem) exists in a number of people, but not in him. In short, he does not understand the world in which we live. Of course this is a quite common situation: most other people do not understand it either, but the problem is that despite this he pretends to judge everything, which fatally misleads him. The relevant assessment of the level of error lies not in its comparison to the average ignorance of the crowd of ignorant people like him, but in comparison to the competence of those who had the chance to analyze things properly, and thus also to the intrinsic intelligence of what guides the world, that can be identified to the famous Invisible Hand idea usually attributed to Adam Smith (but it does not matter to me what he really meant). The world is governed by a certain intrinsic intelligence hidden in the complex system of economic relations, and its prosperity stands on this intelligence, whether he likes it or not. Admittedly the intrinsic intelligence of this invisible hand has defects, which can be measured by their effective painful consequences that violently shake the world. In this measure of their concrete observable consequences, these defects are indeed huge. But what we need to admit, as bad as it is, is that this lack of intelligence of the invisible hand, is only a lack defined relatively to the real challenges that the economic system must deal with. But the intellectual level of these challenges, and the actual requirements of intelligence for which the current intelligence level of the invisible hand is violently found to not suffice, is very far beyond the level of thinking of the average people, who in their incompetence would venture to judge this.

The consequence is that if a person lacking the necessary skills, would venture, based on the observation of the presence of serious defects in the economic system, defects which must exist somewhere since terrible effects are observed (due to processes he does not really understand), to constrain and modify the functioning of the system according to the miserable understanding he was of it, he would most probably make the intelligence level of the invisible hand that governs the world, heavily fall down to his low personal level, that is much more miserable than the level it is now, which would make it much more seriously unable to cope with the stresses and challenges of the current reality in all its complexity, and therefore would most probably lead to major disasters, much more serious than the initial object of his initial accusation. Such is the tragedy of the Soviet experience borne on the wings of good intentions of love and brotherhood among men, who thought they could ignore the necessities of the intrinsic science underlying economy, which transcends the individual intelligences of the vast majority of people. The invisible hand once broken, nothing could work anymore.

On the universally pervasive genius of invisible hands in nature, beyond the economic sphere

If such considerations might surprise, I can point out that they are finally no way magical, nor even specific to the field of economics. This is a universal character of nature, as science reveals to us.

The laws of physics and technology

In fact, the universe is everywhere governed by intelligence, an intrinsic rational intelligence of things preceding its discovery and use by man. I mean first of all the laws of physics. These are mathematical laws, both complex and quite elegant, that is, relatively simple (somehow) and wonderful in their depth, compared to the richness and complexity of all their consequences, although perceived as inaccessible to the intelligence of lay people. They are deeply great, and did not need (wait for) us to exist.There are many situations in which people intuitively understand the behavior of familiar things, in other words they implicitly know by intuition the mathematical laws that govern the relations between the different appearances involved, so that, whatever the complexity of the underlying fundamental laws (that can be called invisible hands) at the origin of these effects, these do not appear as invisible hands in one's eyes. For example, one is used to see the fall of objects dropped in the air or placed upright on a point, or to see the ability of birds to fly, and this familiarity gives good ways to figure out how exactly this will happen, so that, while not understanding the origin of the laws of mechanics and gravitation are the root of it, these phenomena are not called by him invisible hands. But there are other, more unusual circumstances, where intuition is wrong or unresponsive, not giving correct expectations on the sequence of events. These events following other kinds of visible causalities than the familiar ones, may seem magical. This may then be called an invisible hand. You might thus, if you like, consider the "invisible hand" which rises balloons filled with helium or hydrogen up to the air, seemingly defying the laws of gravity. It would also be, if you like, an invisible hand that keeps standing on its tip a fast rotating spinning top around its vertical axis. One might still say "I do not believe in the invisible hand that keeps standing on his tip the rotating top. Actually, it finally turned out to fall". Yes, but it fell because it no more rotated fast enough, and it remains true that while the rotation is fast enough, it remains well up, which a naive intuition cannot explain.Who can rise his mind up to the world of mathematical abstractions, to express the formulas of mechanical laws and properly carry out calculations, can in this way understand the origin of this strange power of rapidly rotating tops, to keep standing on their tip. To who is not able to rise to the world of abstractions, this phenomenon remains an enigma.

The work of physicists is to attempt to discover the laws of physics as they are, not as we want them to be. Anyway there is no choice: as the goal is to use this knowledge to produce new technologies, an invention of the laws of physics as they seem according to some impressions that do not conform to reality, will never be as desired the basis of a working technology. To be able to improve a given technological device, requires to first understand the real underlying physical laws, with an intelligence level relevant to the level of sophistication of the techniques and the inner workings of the physical system considered. Namely, an intelligence able to account for the functioning of this instrument. Who would try to modify an instrument according to what appears in the hope of improving it, without the necessary skills, has no chance to improve it in reality, regardless the evidence of the dysfunction observed in the use of this instrument.

The laws of biology

But this is not all. We already know that after the physical laws that govern the universe and all matter of which our life is made, there also is, even before man ever started to be interested in it, still another underlying complex, extremely sophisticated science, that we are still far from having understood all the features, but that also pre-exists us, and, in all its necessary details that we still do not know much, governs and constitutes all our life. Another great invisible hand thus, that is hidden but without which no life on earth would be "rationally explicable."I mean, biology in all its dimensions and in particular its genetic component.In fact, our genetic heritage is the expression of a whole intelligence, a whole intrinsic science, which has gradually developed and accumulated over hundreds of millions of years without the need for any explicit will or awareness of an actor, but by the works of that still other invisible hand again, the one of natural selection (a mechanism whose plausibility of its final result can be more easily understood roughly, even without knowing the intermediate details). This genetic heritage daily manifests its genius by all the operation and development of the body from embryo to the adult, its capabilities of protection and repair ...

The laws of algorithmic and software engineering

We can also say that the result of the ingenuity work of the programmer, namely the software, acts as an invisible hand in your computer, which ensures that the functions take place as expected. If you find that a program crashes, you may be tempted to insult the invisible hand, to say that it does not do its work. But if the name of that you venture to put your nose in the program code, find this or that not pretty and modify according to your mood without understanding significant portions of what the programmer did an why, the science deployed there, this will most likely make it run even worse.

Plato's cave

The notion of invisible hand is certainly not a scientific concept in a strict sense (science never spoke of invisible hand), but should not be confused with blind faith. It is the expression of a work of popularization. The Invisible Hand is the hand which, in Plato's cave, acts in the back of the prisoner outside his field of vision and is therefore invisible to his eyes, but has the ability to manipulate the shadows projected on the wall. This hand however invisible for people chained with their eyes turned towards the shadows, is not invisible to the scientist, who has freed himself from the chains. He sees, he knows, he understands, he works with, he might even control it in the limits of the possible which he is aware of. It is totally practical for him. It takes the form of a mysterious belief for the ordinary people, to which it looks all the same as any other possibly wrong belief, with the notable difference that it works because it is the shadow of a knowledge that exists elsewhere, outside his own mind, a knowledge which is "abstract" for him.In fact, the very concept of "abstraction" might sometimes just play the role of an insult by the ignorant to denigrate some knowledge that is not his. Things that seem abstract to lay people, may seem concrete for scientists who know their real concreteness that may even be harder than that of things that lay people usually call "concrete". Because material things and sense perceptions are perishable, while theorems remain forever.

However I do recognize, unfortunately that there are a number of libertarians who simply believe in the invisible hand without bothering to understand it, and that is so pitiful.

So what is the problem of the economy?

However, these observations do not bother anyone. Why? Just because nobody cares, as the ordinary public has no motive to be personally interested in it. We know that lay people cannot claim to make a computer by themselves. If this is all right, well, it is simply because nobody needs to try. Everyone relies on a small team of engineers working on the design of the next generation of processors, and is rather happy about it. However, many people need computers, thus need this science of making computers exists. But it just needs to exist in a very small minority for the benefits to extend to all. And similarly for so many other hardware and software technologies.

But when we switch to the economic functioning of society, a big problem appears. What is the problem? It is that many people are naturally (and in a sense, quite legitimately indeed) subject to the temptation to care about its way of working, since they knows quite well how faulty it is. While it is clearly quite faulty indeed, but the problem is that these people who can legitimately notice and complain of its dysfunction, usually lack the necessary ability to properly understand the causes and find solutions. Since it is also clear that those who currently control the beast and have the power to modify its operation are likely to not do it in favorable ways to the public interest, the people would have some sort of legitimacy to control them back. But the fact that those who control it misuse it, does not imply that other people probably filled with much better intentions but usually less competence, would necessarily be good advisers on the most favorable methods to the actual accomplishment of their best intentioned goals (for the common interest).

However, the play of representative democracy unfortunately comes here to lock this system, where leaders willing to exploit the people just need to select the decisions to take from what both serves their personal interests and pleases to people, from the point of view of their miserable competence (eventually distorted into the desired direction) to present as good in the eyes of the people the decisions favored by decision makers in their real consequences, even if their actual consequences are contrary to the motivations of their official justification.

And I'm sorry to see that in his approach as a philosopher and the presentation of his arguments led by the poor mere traditional tools of the philosopher, he makes like many others the demonstration of his blatant incompetence in economics which he pretends to judge, an incompetence that inevitably misleads him to proclaim nonsense, insofar as he refuses to recognize it and to refer to more competent opinions.

Finally, here are a few explanations why the scientist (mathematician, physicist) is certainly better qualified than the philosopher to talk about economics. It is that science (including mathematics and physics) is to study complex systems formed from elements regardless of their nature. But the specifically economic problems in economics, is precisely the one interested in the overall behavior of the economic system. It is an example of a complex system, where the very question considered is that of its overall performance and consistency beyond the specific tastes and colors of each of its individual members. And this is especially a system that handles and performs many accurate calculations about abstract numerical quantities (money).

To not confuse this with any approval of the current content of the academic discipline

My purpose here is not to praise the specific content of economics as currently taught at universities, which might as well lack relevance, use inadequate modellings, imitations of scientific practices whose authors may lack the necessary scientific skills. Neither to request a blind faith to some official experts. I myself did not follow any economics training in a university setting, but I developed many ideas on my own, inspired by my interest in mathematics and physics. So I managed to develop some independent understandings of economics similarly to how I managed in maths and physics.

On the relevance of a "hard science" style of approach rather than a "human science" one

In one of the texts, this philosophy teacher states "The economy does not exist in a realm cut off from everything else, because its object is not separable from the complexity in which it actually exists."Well, precisely, usually, the methods and tools developed by science with (more or less) mathematical modeling works, are the best able to grasp complexity, while the traditional approach of the philosopher is deeply unable of it. As for the collective consciousness and attitudes, the best that can be expected of them is:
The remaining (unfortunate) possibility is that of anti-rational attitudes, that is parasitic effects. These can either be
"But the current state of extreme fragmentation of knowledge does not favor linking knowledge. Economics therefore can only present a fragmentary view of exchanges; and since only the living whole is real, homo economicus is a pure concept whose relationship with the real man is very elusive .... "
The eventual reality of such a problem, that is, the possible extreme difficulty of subject, is no sufficient justification of any claim to present any alternative approach other than scientific, as more relevant than those that scientists, if they are genuine scientists, would implement. In other words, as a true science is a science that could best encompass all necessary considerations, if a problem cannot be handled this way (if there cannot be a proper science for it), this does not mean that any other approach would be better.
"The definition of goals does not belong to economic science, neither does it belong to any science."
It depends what he means by "the definition of goals". In a sense, the goals don't need to be defined because they are obvious : each person already, naturally, knows what he needs. Questions whose answers are obviously given by nature as soon as needed, do not require any science to answer them, so that the impossibility for any science to compute the answers independently of the natural perception of these answers, does not constitute any effectively problematic gap in the scientific study. The scientific approach can successfully handle these aspects as free variables in its theoretical models.

In another sense, the definition of goals is clear : it consists in the systematic search for the best compromises between the satisfaction of the various individual needs whose data is the one we just mentioned.

In some aspects, there are sciences which do give effective information about the conditions for such global improvements, with the help of some very obvious guesses on some general needs of people. For example, climate science essentially determines the fact that we need to fight against the releases of greenhouse gases that causes global warming, since the predictable consequences of these releases are clearly harmful to the world. So the goal of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, is a goal determined by environmental science, based on the fact that the predictions this science makes about the consequences of these emissions, will clearly have an overall bad taste in human concerns : we do not need either a scientific nor any other kind of approach to discover that hurricanes, droughts, floods, and any other kinds of environmental disasters and degradations are bad things and that we must set it as a goal to reduce them, because this is basically obvious.

Otherwise, the question of goals can rightly be resolved in most situations : since the goals are defined by each person for one's own concern, and that, most often, no State should have the right to judge so as to rightfully force a purpose other than those. By adequately inserting individual goals as free variables into the optimization process of free markets, the invisible hand of the market can usually manage to find an optimal compromise between them.


There are some harder cases of purposes to handle, such as improving education. Then, a scientific approach by comparative and statistical survey including levels of intelligence, culture, and personal achievements among people who have followed different educational systems, could help identify which educational methods should be favored. But still it is a difficult subject. Because there are different paradigms in conflict with each other, between the bureaucratic paradigm of passing exams without wondering if it means something ; the paradigm of philosophers who have their own conception of "education" that is to "think in a philosophical way", insisting that education should be protected from any productive concerns ; paradigm(s) of scientists that may disagree and reject the "philosophical way of thinking" as a sort of bullshit or religion away from genuine reason, that should not have any more right to be authoritatively forced on people than any other religion, and considering that if "productive" purposes may indeed not be the best, philosophers have nothing better to offer instead but self-complacency for the wastefulness and sterility of their own thoughts.
"Since the knowledge of science as well as of economics in particular, are unable to explain the very principle of their objects, which resides in life, while they are in the unreality of their formal and partial representation"
This remark is neither original, nor even relevant, for scientists often have to deal with such kinds of problems, and manage them quite well and correctly with visible success. It may be, depending on cases,
As for the fundamentally creative and unpredictable aspect of humans, well, this is precisely one of the essential reason for the principles of liberalism (individual freedom) that "systematically" gives a space to innovation : to let each individual the space for inventing new things, new products, new working methods...

The laws of classical mechanics, solid mechanics and Newton's gravitation are unable to explain the principle of their objects, which resides in quantum phenomena, fundamental interactions and the curvature of space-time. This still does not invalidate them in the field of approximation where they are relevant. The same can go for economics.

Here comes the traditional essentialist error of philosophy, obsessed with the question of substances of everything, and believing that the knowledge of these substances would be always needed, while the real problems are far away, ie lie in complexity and the modelling of this complexity, which is the work of the scientist and where the nature of all substances are no more relevant (while even if they were it would not ensure the existence of any better way).


Of course it may be that some traditional economic models become outdated, as the modeling which was chosen loses part of its relevance in front of a new phenomenon taking momentum. But again, this is something ordinary in science : it is revise the past theoretical models, replacing them by new, finer ones that can take account of newly discovered processes. For the purpose of the economics is always to understand the processes that happen often and in large scale, and whatever their complexity, with enough work there must be some way to analyze it in terms of models which systematically encompass most of the diversity of possible details and leaves the remaining ones small enough to be safely neglected.

Of course, in all this discussion, a fundamental problem is the distinction between science and pseudo-science. If some official science happens to be in fact (more or less) pseudo-science, supports to it should end, while its errors should not be blamed on science. Science is a hard work that is not always easy to be done properly but there is no alternative anyway.

The site refers to Maurice Allais. Without knowing exactly what he is worth in the field of economics (well I know he is an Economics Nobel laureate but I am not sure how meaningful is this distinction, since I do not trust the current economical science to be a well cleaned-up science), I think it may be interesting to remember that in physics he is a notorious crank claiming to refute relativity theory. We must remember that pseudo-physicists of this kind are usually mere amateur thinkers unaware of the weakness of their thought, eager to denigrate mathematics and "abstract" reasoning, to the height from which they are unable to rise, which they insult as "abstractions emptied of substance", while they believe much more firmly in the naive but illusory impressions of their direct senses, emptied of mathematical structuring effort.

Conclusion

The spiritualist philosopher claims to focus on an ideal of humanist society (as if others did not also wish everything to go best), but his only real difference from what he claims to differ is his intellectually sclerotic mind trapped in poetic clouds :  his ignorance of the economical mathematizations flying into abstractions, which explain (and provide the way to fairly assess the value of) the work the invisible hand of the market. Thus, his irresponsible ignorance of what has allowed the economy to prosper, taking us out of the former misery. He considers the prosperity and relative consistency of today's world as a necessity (something granted) from which he thinks himself entitled to demand more and more, as something natural.
He has trouble understanding (he neither can nor want to understand) that in reality, it is not natural, in terms of the logical consequences of his miserable understanding of the world. That, what his "ideal" is trying to build by his naive methods, once implemented in practice, will actually kill some essential mechanisms, and thus will necessarily lead to collective misery and general chaos, or towards the horrors of the Soviet Union.

To resolve many of the defects that appear in the economy, requires a truly scientific mind can properly handle abstractions, that the spirit of the ordinary philosopher does not have. So I have processed this scientific analysis and have explained elsewhere my solution, that you can understand if you also have a logical mind, otherwise you can passively wait for its technological arrival ...

It might be not easier to explain economics to a spiritual philosopher, than to explain the theory of relativity to an ape. Of course this is not any absolute claim. But what I mean here is that the question of who is really right, is not reducible to its observable effects in the ridiculously vain field of abilities to convince a philosopher imbued with the traditional claim of philosophers to judge in their way so many things they do not really understand. Thus, that any attempt at "reasoned" dialogue with him, to the satisfaction of his perception of what seems "reasoned" to him, may just be a loss of time. Indeed, remember how academic philosophy has welcome Marxism as a highly respectable thought not so long ago !!!

On the debate between liberalism and antiliberalism

Excerpt of a reply I wrote to someone else:


It is a pity that his last message has partly abandoned the merits of the technical discussion, to satisfy itself to invoke some big words, old slogans and principles. Because even the best principles remain largely futile and meaningless as long as they do not come with the proper precise application methodology to the multitude of specific real problems. However I will try to answer them in an attempt to deal with some obstacles that could actually occur at this introductory level, although knowing that the resulting lack of precision severely limits the room for debate.

So in my view there is NO "Point number 1", but a logical system integrating various ramifications, which finds its profound coherence (a kind of unity) in the precise manner in which its various more or less crucial components are arranged, and in their ability to logically treat a wide variety of situations.

This minimum complexity of theories, irreducible to any great slogans like "point number 1", is normal in science, including mathematics and theoretical physics (which also I try just to simplify and expose the foundations), where the most fundamental concepts cannot directly be formulated by naive means (in the language of common experience whose usual character gives naive people an illusion of simplicity) but may actually require some work to be apprehended: eg the fundamental equation of general relativity is very short and elegant but requires much study to understand the language in which it is expressed. But, while the axiomatic approach may still be relevant to some scientific subjects, where a specified list of first principles determines everything (it plays a crucial role of determining consequences), this usually fails in the hands of the rest of society (including religions and academic philosophy) that turns it into a play of illusions whose main role is to fit with and excuse the author's simplicity of mind that cannot handle any complex problem, and distract the attention of the reader from his inability to correctly draw any non-trivial logical consequence from any given list of principles or data. The too exclusive focus on the search for first principles comes then at the expense of the care to apply them rigorously and extensively enough to give them a sense.

Of course I sympathize with the desire of the public to easily understand everything in an easy and direct slogans starting with a few trivial ideas that suffice to check things without risk of error, but unfortunately this is not always possible. It is up to men to make an effort to adapt to the partially irreducible difficulty of truths they wish to understand, it is not up to the truth to fit the requirements of their intellectual laziness.

But in fact, if there is an approach doomed to remain utopia (Marxism, anarchism), it is primarily this: to pretend to change the world by a movement of intellectual laziness (not perceived as such but simply adapted to the intellectual level of the "broad masses" which it aims to excite the enthusiasm of), that merely invoke simple "principles" (whatever they are) that break down by ignorance some partial solutions currently available, and do not take the necessary care to understand the structure of the needs and solutions in a sufficiently complete and accurate way to be functional, and to actually constitute a real progress compared to the previous structures to be discarded.

This is why I reject the confusion with anarchism, although at first glance my proposal has strong anarchist characters. But great principle, even the best ones, alone remain vain, while the key lies in the precision and complexity of the structures of proposed solution, yet for what I happened to read about men, I have found no worthwhile logically consistent concepts (technical components of solutions, to the satisfaction of my mathematical mind). In other words, in my opinion, the reason why anarchism or Marxism could not be put into practice, is because it is NOT a theory. Because it is literary, poetic things, made of feelings and "principles"; instead of a theory worthy of the name in the scientific sense of the term, which must be something logical, precise, rational, adequately structured for the complexity of the problem at hand.

Namely, once again, I reject any idea of starting by destroying the structures of existing solutions. My plan is to build new, more coherent, flexible and decentralized structures (somehow simpler, somehow more complex), which by their better performance and reliability will naturally leave the old structures obsolete. So the old structures will not be destroyed by some destructive brute force, but abandoned because of the advantage of referring to a better information system.Without the prior construction of a more efficient system, the destruction of the old one would not hold and would not be any progress.
The term "anarchism as a political system" is a contradiction in terms: to speak about a system (political or otherwise) you must specify its structures. Rejection of existing power structures (if this is the definition of anarchism) is not a system but a lack of system, a vacuum (which nature abhors), a nonsense.

On the other hand, I to find agreements with classical liberalism, which actually contains some logical structures of functional solutions appropriate to some aspects of the complexity of reality, and I do integrate them together with some further structural components to address other aspects of the complexity of real problems that were not adequately addressed so far. (In this case, logical structures having the ability to emerge and spontaneously manifest their benefits, being available as software, without need to be driven by any central authority)

Let us quote his "definition" of liberalism: "The policy favoring the richest", the traditional favorite anti-liberal insult, that he implicitly admitted as an evidence without even feeling any need to justify or to open a debate on this subject. (In such terms, absolute monarchies or the Soviet empire would be liberal regimes since they have dominating classes monopolizing wealth and power of a country ...).

Clearly, nobody could miss such anti-liberal slogans that dominated the media, and yet, since the wholesale collapse of the Soviet Union, public opinion not only in France but also elsewhere ended up to be roughly a half or a slight majority right-wing (in favor of a certain liberalism). But how to explain this trend, in this anti-liberal view ? Seriously, would a majority of voters aim to "favor the richest"? This is an interesting question to ask to those who define liberalism in this way, and to which they do not seem to have often responded.

Although I did once find an argument to promote a liberalism defined in similar terms, although perceived a little differently, and especially not missing any highly moral justifications. But it's still a minority. Most people favor a liberal (basically, the right people) have another conception of it. It is therefore obviously insufficient to repeat again these anti-liberal slogans admitted as an evidence, for them to be accepted by everyone.

Therefore more correctly, liberalism is defined by the presence of some specific types of economic structures, and the absence of certain other types of structures. It should not be mistaken (as Marxists do confuse it by games of multiple definitions), with any kind of unquestionably indivisible whole equivalent to the blanket approval of all the injustices currently produced worldwide. After that, the question of what types of structures "favor the richest," and to what extent (opinions on the details of this may vary), requires a thorough analysis to make sense of the debate. Reducing the debate to the question of "favoritism" between different classes only distinguished by how rich is everyone, would be a very simplistic approach, far from describing the diversity and complexity of aspects of the economy, the advantages and disadvantages of each structure or political decision.

The debate is classical. Let us recall a famous reply:

  Valéry Giscard d'Estaing said:
Mr.Mitterrand, when listening to you (as I listened with interest), one is convinced that what needs to be done is not what you propose. First (...) I always find shocking and offensive to give oneself the monopoly of the heart. You do not have, Mr Mitterrand, the monopoly of the heart, you don't have it (...) the French community has been working in the right direction, since a few years, we have made our country (...) a modern industrial power (...) what I propose to do is to serve the same goals of social justice as you. I am convinced that if I am elected as President, the elderly, workers at the minimum wage, the young (...) will experience the same achievements that you aspire to. But I would do these achievements from a growing economy, while you have the idea, strange indeed, to make these achievements from a broken economy. There is no social progress in France if we do not continue to develop the modern economy, and the fundamental error, in my opinion, of your policy proposal (...) is to break the instrument, that is to say, to offer a program of French economic policy which no comparable country does, because they have seen the implementation of such techniques and solutions and they know very well that it stops economic progress. (...) We discuss the means because the goals of justice, I think they are the same.
But if I really had to define the liberalism that I advocate in terms of values ​​and principles, then it would be basically the list of the following values:

In contrast, from a liberal point of view, anti-liberalism is defined by a system of anti-values described as follows ​​(that will be exaggerated here for the sake of clarity):

(A Russian joke : during the Bolshevik Revolution, an elderly asks a young, "What do you fight for ? - We fight so that there will be no more rich ! - Really ? In my time we fought for that there would be no more poors ! ")

Finally also a number of injustices and aberrations observed are the result of some force of things taking place due to the absence of any currently available tools to avoid them, and are not in the ideal of anybody, despite claims of the Marxist propaganda that always wants to put any problem as the guilt of some mega-nebulous entity of "liberalism", "globalism", "capitalism" or "neo-liberalism", pseudo-concepts whose globality only express the intellectual laziness of those propagandists who dismiss any effort to distinguish anything among the multiple mechanisms involved, what works and what does not.

Back to Antispirituality home page