A Pretense of Knowledge
July 24, 2006
Economist Walter Williams argues that Congress, when it comes to economic matters, not infrequently acts under a pretense of knowledge and beyond its intellectual capabilities. (See Pretense of Knowledge, Washington Times, July 23, 2006.) His lead example of such folly is Social Security law, which indiscriminately forces workers to set aside for retirement with no inquiry into whether any given worker might otherwise devote those funds to more productive uses.
I am sympathetic to Williams’ perspective. In fact, not long ago, I would have enthusiastically embraced it. I suppose it is this past enthusiasm that makes me uncomfortable today.
Williams begins his argument with a tip of the cap to one of my old intellectual heroes, Nobel Laureate economist Friedrich Hayek:
One of the great contributions of . . . Hayek was to admonish us to recognize the insurmountable limits to human knowledge. . . . Not even the brightest minds . . . can ever have the knowledge to shape an economic system entirely to our liking. To think we can represents the height of arrogance and a pretense of knowledge. The billions upon billions of interrelationships between an economic system’s human and nonhuman elements defy human capacity to know.
I agree that the human mind is limited and finite in its capacity to know. I agree that the complexity of an economic system makes particularly elusive the knowledge necessary to shape it. I agree that thinking we can attain this knowledge is arrogant and a “pretense of knowledge.” And, finally, I agree that, together, these factors lend substantial support to the notion that private ordering of economic affairs is superior to publicly dictated planning.
But here’s where I become uncomfortable. A preference for private over public ordering itself can become a dangerous pretense of knowledge, if it is extrapolated beyond the organization of our economic and political institutions. See, e.g., JENNIFER ROBACK MORSE, LOVE & ECONOMICS: WHY THE LAISSEZ-FAIRE FAMILY DOESN'T WORK (exploring the insidious social effects of applying a libertarian notion of freedom to familial relationships). I personally know the danger, because I have fallen into it and suffered the consequences.
About a decade ago, I became enchanted with the search for a systematic approach to addressing questions of how we ought to order our economic and political institutions. (Sounds thrilling, I know.) Before long, I was a passionate if not able advocate of laissez-faire economics and libertarian political theory. I admired, in particular, their intellectually consistent approach to questions of who – the individual or the state – ought to bear decision-making authority.
As these ideologies were taking deeper root in my mind, something bigger and better was happening as well. I fell in love and got married. The problem: I mechanically and subconsciously began to apply ideas of laissez-faire economics and libertarianism to my relationship with my bride. In retrospect, I see that I treated our marriage more like a contract than a covenant. It was a complex integrated joint venture, to be sure, but still just a bargained-for-exchange between two consenting adults. This unfortunate perspective often left me preoccupied with my rights as a husband and whether my interests were being served by our relationship.
Now, I clearly see our marriage as a covenant relationship, involving not only each other but our God. The difference is night and day. Rather than focus on my rights, I tend to think first of my duties to my bride and my God. Rather than regard my marriage as a useful vehicle for the pursuit of my self-interest, I treat it as a series of God-given opportunities to give of myself to my wife.
My purpose here is not to denigrate free markets or libertarianism but to caution against unthinkingly applying their ideas beyond the economic and political spheres. From experience, I can tell you that the danger is real.
