HPCT and Ayn Rand

Blank
From [Marc Abrams (2004.01.01.0437)]

From [Shannon Williams (2003.12.31.1758 CST)]

From [Marc Abrams (2003.12.30.2254)]
Sure, Why not? If a perceptual belief system is turned into a set of
reference conditions (e.g. Islamist extremists) PCT will ‘prove’ it
correct.
You cannot have an ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ reference level.

You don’t “prove” it correct. You recognize what a person is controlling
for.

Notice the quotes around the word prove? Your opinion seems to be a mantra
on CSGnet, but I have a problem with it. We control many things at the
same time, and can switch at a moments notice. When you say ‘recognize’ what
a person is controlling for, are you asking what he was controlling for 3
minutes ago, right this very second, or what he might be controlling for 2
minutes from now.

Once you recognize what a person is controlling for, you can:

a.  strive for a win-win environment

And what might that be in PCT terms?

b.  identify inconsistencies in a person's references.  He may

possibly

change them.

You do mean perceptions here, don’t you? And inconsistent to whom? What does
it mean to be ‘inconsistent’ in terms of PCT?

c.  recognize how much a person's references conflict with yours,

How can I do this? The TesT? Have you read Martin Taylor’s Layered Protocol
Theory?

and so recognize when action such as war or the death penalty is needed.

Shannon, very noble thoughts. Unfortunately PCT does not speak to the
‘rationality’ of the individuals involved.
I wish things worked the way you outline them here, but in most cases, they
don’t.

Marc

(Attachment Blank Bkgrd40.gif is missing)

from [Shannon Williams (2004.01.01.1058 CST)]

BlankFrom [Marc Abrams (2004.01.01.0437)]

Notice the quotes around the word prove?

Are you using PCT to 'prove' why people worship (or whatever), or are you
using PCT to 'prove' why people people take the actions that they do? Or
can you explain again what you are 'proving'?

Once you recognize what a person is controlling for, you can:

    a. strive for a win-win environment

And what might that be in PCT terms?

An environment where everyone's references are met.

    b. identify inconsistencies in a person's references. He may

possibly change them.

You do mean perceptions here, don't you? And inconsistent to whom? What
does it mean to be 'inconsistent' in terms of PCT?

I mean references. For example, you can have a reference that influences
you to avoid strangers, and yet also have a reference that influences you
to approach candy. In PCT terms these could be conflicting references in
certain environments. I called them "inconsistant'.

    c. recognize how much a person's references conflict with yours,

How can I do this? The TesT? Have you read Martin Taylor's Layered
Protocol Theory?

For a more practical handbook, try reading _Getting to Yes Without Giving
In_.

and so recognize when action such as war or the death penalty is needed.

Unfortunately PCT does not speak to the 'rationality' of the
individuals involved. I wish things worked the way you outline
them here, but in most cases, they don't.

PCT is used to explain actions, and predict the results of actions. Under
what circumstances can you use rationality to explain actions and predict
the results of actions?

--Shannon

from [Marc Abrams (2004.01.01.1142)]

>From [Shannon Williams (2004.01.01.1058 CST)]

Are you using PCT to 'prove' why people worship (or whatever), or are you
using PCT to 'prove' why people people take the actions that they do? Or
can you explain again what you are 'proving'?

I used the word tongue-in-cheek. You can 'prove' anything you want with PCT,
mainly becuase it _is_ the way we control our perceptions. So _if_ someone
is controlling a perception, PCT will 'prove' that they are in fact doing
so.

An environment where everyone's references are met.

Again Shannon, not to rain on anyone's parade here but this is not likely to
happen between too many people over any extended period of time. Check out
Martin Taylor's Layered Protocol Theory for some interesting insights into
'communications' between and among individuals through PCT glasses. Tom
Bourbon's body of work also addresses this. When people interact, things
happen. You might be able, at times to minimize the effects but you'll never
do away with them completely.

PCT is used to explain actions, and predict the results of actions.

No I'm afraid your not right on this one. PCT is used to explain
'perceptions'. You can't predict someones actions, those are highly
variable.

Under what circumstances can you use rationality to explain actions and

predict

the results of actions?

Actually never :wink: But PCT is not about predicting actions or the results of
actions. It's all about perceptions, and perceptions can be looked at
introspectively and checked for rationality.

Sorry it took so long to respond I got caught up in answering my emotion
posts

Marc

from [Shannon Williams (2004.02.01.1058 CST)]

From [Marc Abrams (2004.01.01.1142)]

You can 'prove' anything you want with PCT,
mainly becuase it _is_ the way we control our perceptions. So _if_ someone
is controlling a perception, PCT will 'prove' that they are in fact doing
so.

Can you give an example?

You can 'prove' anything you want with PCT,
mainly becuase it _is_ the way we control our perceptions. So _if_ someone
is controlling a perception, PCT will 'prove' that they are in fact doing
so.

The assumption underlying PCT is that people control their perceptions.
You cannot 'prove' this. It is an assumption. You can only 'disprove'
this. You can disprove this by identifing one action by one person that
does not serve to control his perception.

An environment where everyone's references are met.

You might be able, at times to minimize the effects but you'll
never do away with them completely.

Minimize then.

An environment where everyone's references are met.

You might be able, at times to minimize the effects but you'll
never do away with them completely.

Not all environments are equal. Some can lead to actions such as
killing,fighting,stealing,etc. These are environments that my references
influence me to minimize.

PCT is used to explain actions, and predict the results of actions.

No I'm afraid your not right on this one. PCT is used to explain
'perceptions'. You can't predict someones actions, those are highly
variable.

What do you mean by "explain a perception"?

Shannon

[From Mike Acree (2004.01.05.1135 PST)]

Rick Marken (2003.12.30.1020)--

To the Rand types, autonomous control
is an _ideal_. To the PCT types, autonomous control is a _fact_.

I think there may be an interesting and worthwhile point here, but, as is often the case, the whole discussion badly needs some finer distinctions. _Autonomy_, in particular, is being used in multiple senses which are not so marked. In one sense (which we might call the PCT, or biological, or metaphysical, sense), autonomy, as Rick says, "is not optional." Being a slave or a child, for example, reduces our ability to control, but not our autonomy. But in this sense it is meaningless to speak, as Rick does elsewhere in this post, of protecting or encouraging anyone's autonomy. In understanding his point, we are implicitly appealing to a different sense. In this latter (social, or political) sense, we want to draw an important distinction between the autonomy of free adults, on the one hand, and that of children or slaves, on the other. Given this equivocation in the term, I'm afraid Rick's contrast between Rand and PCT doesn't hold up. Calling for protecting the auton!
omy of "less capable" control systems seems to me to be holding autonomy as an ideal as much as the Randians do, and not just as a fact.

Our status as autonomous control systems does not preclude our subordinating ourselves to others or to ideology, so that we don't _experience_ ourselves as autonomous, and that is in fact just what most people want. Some delicate equivocation is involved, since it is still we who are subordinating ourselves to directives we perceive (or imagine) as external; we don't always take people at their word when they say, "The Devil made me do it," or "It was God's command," or "Circumstances forced me," or "I was just following the rules." In this (psychological) sense, of accepting responsibility for one's choices rather than externalizing it, autonomy is a rather rare achievement.

While the experience of autonomy is aversive to some people, others can't seem to get enough of it, and find it constantly threatened by arrangements that observers might label cooperative. Among those attracted to libertarianism, I have observed a few who resisted schedules, deadlines, dress codes, and every other social norm, as though compliance infringed their autonomy. Setting an approriate reference level for the domain under our control seems itself a remarkably difficult task.

Bill Powers (2003.12.30.1226 MST)--

I've worried about that -- could followers of Rand latch onto PCT and claim that it proves >them right? There are long stretches in Rand's books that make complete sense in terms of >PCT, all the parts about being responsible for your own life and learning to control your >own destiny.

For better or worse, I don't see much risk that doctrinaire Randians will be drawn to PCT. Exhibit A is Ed Locke. I've unfortunately not seen his criticisms of PCT, but I would expect at least the subjectivism and value-neutrality of PCT to be an obstacle (to say nothing of the intellectual rigidity that would make a radically different theory difficult to grasp).

For anarchists, who see a homogeneous distribution of political power as maximizing autonomy (in the maximizable sense), PCT offers an attractive new rationale. But the anarchist friends in whom I've been able to arouse an interest in PCT I could count on the fingers of one ear. So I think PCT is safe from such subversive elements for some time.

Mike

[From Mike Acree (2004.01.05.1136 PST)]

Bill Powers (2003.12.31.0818 MST)--

Unless you believe that there is a Great Referee in the Sky (who seems to
be out to lunch), it is, unfortunately, those with the greatest wealth and
power who decide who gets to keep and increase their wealth and power. The
only remedy I can see is for public institutions to develop which are
specifically designed to prevent concentrations of wealth and power. The
United States Constitution went a good distance in this direction, but the
principles need to be clarified and developed even further. I say
principles, not laws. One principle that might limit wealth and power in
the long run: anyone who sells or otherwise abuses a position of trust is
automatically disqualified from seeking or holding any position of trust.
This amendment would apply to governments, businesses, not-for-profits,
churches, prisons, and all other organizations in which a few people are
responsible for the well-being of many.

Only one small problem: how do you get such an amendment passed, when those
who control the machinery are the ones who would lose the most by it?

Bill Powers(2003.12.31. 1307 MST)--

I agree that the people are supposed to be in charge. But the rich and
powerful, in whom you don't seem to believe, can buy the suppression of
laws that are against their interests and the passage of laws that increase
their power, and buy up communication media which determine what the
sovereign people know, and in uncountable other ways manipulate the social
system to keep themselves exactly where they intend to be: on top. Maybe
you think that doesn't happen.

Of course I would be all in favor of getting more people to exercise their
sovereignty. It's hard to see how to do that.

These two posts seem to me to get at the crux of the political problem. Some on this list have blamed the wealthy for buying the politicians; some have blamed the politicians for selling themselves; some have blamed the voters for electing corrupt politicians. They're all about equally right, and wrong, as far as I can tell. All three groups are behaving just as would be expected (at least allowing for enough time for the educational system to have been taken over by government), in any system where we have set up one institution to have decisive power over all the rest; and expecting any better of any of them seems to me utopian. But it's far from clear, I agree, how to change such a system fundamentally once it is set up. Jefferson thought an armed revolution every 20 years or so would be a good idea in principle, to keep the politicians on their toes; but I don't know why he would want to go on setting up coconuts after he had succeeded in knocking them down.

Mike

[From Bill Williams 5 January 2003 2:30 PM CST]

Mike,

So far the thread "HPCT and Ayn Rand" has compared and contrasted some psychological issues, Ann Rander's regard autonomous control as an _ideal_, PCT types think it is a _fact_. There is also a economic and political element involved.

Rander's seem to think that left to itself the marketplace will always generate the proper result. In economic "proper" can be defined in terms of results as market based trades that are stable, efficient and equatible. The Giffen paradox, or Giffen effect, however describes a situation in which a consumer behaves in a way that is potentially destablizing to trading taking place in a market. The Giffen effect, however, can be explained using a control theory analysis. But, the outcome of the analysis contains an implication that the market will not always generate stable results. If the demand for a commmodity increases when the price of the commodity increases the results in supply and demand terms can be unstable. For this reason orthodox economists have vigorously resisted the reality of a Giffen effect. This is a bit more difficult following the demonstration of Giffen effects in experimental studies, but the resistence continues none the less. So, there appears to be a fundamental difference here between a position that regards control theory as a fundamental proposition ( a context in which the Giffen effect can be readily explained ) and the Rander and orthdoxy economic types who regard the market as an ultimate point of reference.

There may be other differences, but I find the question of the Giffen effect to an interesting point from which to consider questions raised by the "HPCT and Ayn Rand" thread. As I understand it, a comittment to autonomy in a control theory sense doesn't neccesarily imply an unqualified comittment to the marketplace as the ultimate in human institutions.

bill Williams

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) on behalf of Acree, Michael
Sent: Mon 1/5/2004 1:34 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: HPCT and Ayn Rand

[From Mike Acree (2004.01.05.1135 PST)]

Rick Marken (2003.12.30.1020)--

To the Rand types, autonomous control
is an _ideal_. To the PCT types, autonomous control is a _fact_.

I think there may be an interesting and worthwhile point here, but, as is often the case, the whole discussion badly needs some finer distinctions. _Autonomy_, in particular, is being used in multiple senses which are not so marked. In one sense (which we might call the PCT, or biological, or metaphysical, sense), autonomy, as Rick says, "is not optional." Being a slave or a child, for example, reduces our ability to control, but not our autonomy. But in this sense it is meaningless to speak, as Rick does elsewhere in this post, of protecting or encouraging anyone's autonomy. In understanding his point, we are implicitly appealing to a different sense. In this latter (social, or political) sense, we want to draw an important distinction between the autonomy of free adults, on the one hand, and that of children or slaves, on the other. Given this equivocation in the term, I'm afraid Rick's contrast between Rand and PCT doesn't hold up. Calling for protecting the auton!
omy of "less capable" control systems seems to me to be holding autonomy as an ideal as much as the Randians do, and not just as a fact.

Our status as autonomous control systems does not preclude our subordinating ourselves to others or to ideology, so that we don't _experience_ ourselves as autonomous, and that is in fact just what most people want. Some delicate equivocation is involved, since it is still we who are subordinating ourselves to directives we perceive (or imagine) as external; we don't always take people at their word when they say, "The Devil made me do it," or "It was God's command," or "Circumstances forced me," or "I was just following the rules." In this (psychological) sense, of accepting responsibility for one's choices rather than externalizing it, autonomy is a rather rare achievement.

While the experience of autonomy is aversive to some people, others can't seem to get enough of it, and find it constantly threatened by arrangements that observers might label cooperative. Among those attracted to libertarianism, I have observed a few who resisted schedules, deadlines, dress codes, and every other social norm, as though compliance infringed their autonomy. Setting an approriate reference level for the domain under our control seems itself a remarkably difficult task.

Bill Powers (2003.12.30.1226 MST)--

I've worried about that -- could followers of Rand latch onto PCT and claim that it proves >them right? There are long stretches in Rand's books that make complete sense in terms of >PCT, all the parts about being responsible for your own life and learning to control your >own destiny.

For better or worse, I don't see much risk that doctrinaire Randians will be drawn to PCT. Exhibit A is Ed Locke. I've unfortunately not seen his criticisms of PCT, but I would expect at least the subjectivism and value-neutrality of PCT to be an obstacle (to say nothing of the intellectual rigidity that would make a radically different theory difficult to grasp).

For anarchists, who see a homogeneous distribution of political power as maximizing autonomy (in the maximizable sense), PCT offers an attractive new rationale. But the anarchist friends in whom I've been able to arouse an interest in PCT I could count on the fingers of one ear. So I think PCT is safe from such subversive elements for some time.

Mike

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.01.05.15310]

It seems to me that status is primary and wealth and power are simply
tools for achieving status. (Thorstein Veblen realized this over a
century ago.) Consider Jesus, a man with very little wealth and power,
but enormous status. In hunter-gatherer societies, status seems to be
divorced from either wealth or power. This is also true in societies
that revere the wisdom of tribal elders. We simply haven't designed a
society where wealth and power are divorced from status. It does not
seem to me that this is impossible.

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."
                                                                                Andre Gide

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire
Law; all the rest is commentary."

                                                                                The Talmud

[From Mike Acree (2004.01.05.1314 PST)]

Bruce Gregory (2004.01.05.15310--

It seems to me that status is primary and wealth and power are simply
tools for achieving status. (Thorstein Veblen realized this over a
century ago.) Consider Jesus, a man with very little wealth and power,
but enormous status. In hunter-gatherer societies, status seems to be
divorced from either wealth or power. This is also true in societies
that revere the wisdom of tribal elders. We simply haven't designed a
society where wealth and power are divorced from status. It does not
seem to me that this is impossible.

Interesting point, but it doesn't work that way for me. Iconoclasts like myself can (and do) thumb their noses cheerfully at status holders, in a way we wouldn't consider doing at power holders like the IRS or the local police. Wealth differences per se are pretty much immaterial, as it were, to me and to many others I know from poor families. If status holders see their wealth and power primarily as a means to secure their status, it's still their political power alone that gives me trouble.

Mike

[From Mike Acree (2004.01.05.1339 PST)]

Bill Williams 5 January 2003 2:30 PM CST--

Rander's seem to think that left to itself the marketplace will always generate the proper >result. In economic "proper" can be defined in terms of results as market based trades >that are stable, efficient and equatible.

I think it can be shown that markets are efficient in the sense of maximizing people's control in the aggregate, or on average; but I don't seen Randians, or most free-market advocates more generally, trying to justify the market in terms of any supposed outcome. It looks like trouble to me to talk about "proper" results. The more characteristically Randian defense of the market is in terms of process rather than outcome: The market is the only arrangement where all transactions are voluntary. (That's relevant to autonomy in the political sense.) Certainly the free market leads to lots of outcomes that I personally consider outrageous, like the fact that Danielle Steele makes many times as much from the sale of her books as Bill Powers does from his. But since it's not clear that her money was taken from him, market advocates wouldn't interfere, beyond perhaps trying to persuade Steele to subsidize Powers' work (something which happens a fair amount, if not in this spe!
cific case).

Perhaps the Giffen effect is a needed correction to classical (Marshallian) economics, but I don't see it as driving much of a wedge between PCT and the market.

As I understand it, a comittment to autonomy in a control theory sense doesn't neccesarily >imply an unqualified comittment to the marketplace as the ultimate in human institutions.

Logical entailment may be a little strong, but I think PCT supports the marketplace over other, nonvoluntary social arrangements. That's an old thread, however, to which I don't think I have much new to contribute.

Mike

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.01.05.1650)]

Mike Acree (2004.01.05.1339 PST)

Certainly the free market leads to lots of outcomes that I personally
consider outrageous, like the fact that Danielle Steele makes many
times as much from the sale of her books as Bill Powers does from his.
But since it's not clear that her money was taken from him, market
advocates wouldn't interfere, beyond perhaps trying to persuade Steele
to subsidize Powers' work (something which happens a fair amount, if
not in this specific case).

Darn. It would have made such a great story.

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."
                                                                                Andre Gide

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire
Law; all the rest is commentary."

                                                                                The Talmud

[From Mike Acree (2004.01.05.1354 PST)]

Bruce Gregory (2004.01.05.1650)

Mike Acree (2004.01.05.1339 PST)

Certainly the free market leads to lots of outcomes that I personally
consider outrageous, like the fact that Danielle Steele makes many
times as much from the sale of her books as Bill Powers does from his.
But since it's not clear that her money was taken from him, market
advocates wouldn't interfere, beyond perhaps trying to persuade Steele
to subsidize Powers' work (something which happens a fair amount, if
not in this specific case).

Darn. It would have made such a great story.

Cute. And perhaps consistent with reports from Steele's readers that her own life is much more interesting than her novels.

Mike

[From Bill Williams 4 January 2003 4:00 PM CST]

Mike,

You say,

[From Mike Acree (2004.01.05.1339 PST)]

"The market is the only arrangement where all transactions are voluntary."

And, you go on to say,

"Perhaps the Giffen effect is a needed correction to classical (Marshallian) economics, but I don't see it as driving much of a wedge between PCT and the market."

As I understand it, a comittment to autonomy in a control theory sense doesn't neccesarily >imply an unqualified comittment to the marketplace as the ultimate in human institutions.

"Logical entailment may be a little strong, but I think PCT supports the marketplace over other, nonvoluntary social arrangements."

I don't know about PCT or HPCT but as far as I am concerned, control theory provides no "support" at all for a privileged status for markets. The assumption that trade in a market is "voluntary" has been and remains subject to vigorous dispute. As I understand it there is no basis for a presumption that markets outcomes, or process for that matter, neccesarily ought to trump other means of establshing social policy. So, I think you are mistaken in thinking that there is any _neccesary_ connection between markets and control theory. In my perception, rather than supporting a presumption in favor of a marketplace ideology, control theory provides the best, and perhaps only genuinely viable means, of escaping from the economic orthodoxy represented by the neo-classical version of Orthodox economics. I don't see any connection between the meaning of "Voluntary" as it is used in neo-classical economics and the way I understanding the meaning of the term in a context of control theory.

Bill Williams

[Martin Taylor 2004.01.05.2355]

[From Mike Acree (2004.01.05.1339 PST)]
The more characteristically Randian defense of the market is in
terms of process rather than outcome: The market is the only
arrangement where all transactions are voluntary.

They aren't, except from the viewpoint of those who enter into the
transaction. For everyone else whose ability to control is affected
by the execution of the transaction, the whole thing is totally
involuntary. It is something they are subjected to.

That's why voluntary transactions have to be regulated to ensure that
they don't unreasonably restrict the ability of other parties to
control. In other words, free markets are incompatible with the ideal
that as many people as possible have as much opportunkty as possible
to control their own perceptions.

Martin

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.01.06.0814)]

Martin Taylor 2004.01.05.2355

That's why voluntary transactions have to be regulated to ensure that
they don't unreasonably restrict the ability of other parties to
control. In other words, free markets are incompatible with the ideal
that as many people as possible have as much opportunkty as possible
to control their own perceptions.

Thanks, Martin. Nicely said.

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."
                                                                                Andre Gide

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire
Law; all the rest is commentary."

                                                                                The Talmud

[From Bill Powers (2004.01.06.0646 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (2004.01.05.15310]

It seems to me that status is primary and wealth and power are simply
tools for achieving status.

But what do people want status for? There's no point in being acknowledged
as a high-status person if it doesn't get you anything but status. I would
say that the primary goal (for those who follow this path) is something
much more obvious, espectially to people on CSGnet.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bill Powers (2004.01.06.0658 MST)]

Bill Williams 4 January 2003 4:00 PM CST--

I don't know about PCT or HPCT but as far as I am concerned, control
theory provides no "support" at all for a privileged status for
markets. The assumption that trade in a market is "voluntary" has been
and remains subject to vigorous dispute.

Be careful or you'll plunge us all back into the "coercion" debate, if it
could have been called that.

If I give you the choice of complying with my wishes or starving (having
the physical power to limit you to those choices), could your decision to
comply be called "voluntary'? This is basically what the idea of
"voluntary" trades in a market amounts to when some participants are both
physically powerful and unscrupulous. Don't economic and political power
both boil down to physical power in the final analysis?

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bill Powers (2004.01.06.0736 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (2004.01.06.0814)]

Martin Taylor 2004.01.05.2355

That's why voluntary transactions have to be regulated to ensure that
they don't unreasonably restrict the ability of other parties to
control. In other words, free markets are incompatible with the ideal
that as many people as possible have as much opportunity as possible
to control their own perceptions.

Thanks, Martin. Nicely said.

I second Bruce's thanks to Martin. For transactions to be voluntary, one
must have the realistic option of not participating in them.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.01.06.0953)]

Bill Powers (2004.01.06.0646 MST)

Bruce Gregory (2004.01.05.15310]

It seems to me that status is primary and wealth and power are simply
tools for achieving status.

But what do people want status for? There's no point in being
acknowledged
as a high-status person if it doesn't get you anything but status. I
would
say that the primary goal (for those who follow this path) is something
much more obvious, espectially to people on CSGnet.

I assume they want status for the same reason we want anything -- to
satisfy intrinsic needs.

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."
                                                                                Andre Gide

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire
Law; all the rest is commentary."

                                                                                The Talmud

[From Bill Williams 4 January 2003 7:45 AM CST]

I'll join Bruce Gregory in expressing my approval of Martin's statement,

Martin Taylor 2004.01.05.2355

voluntary transactions have to be regulated to ensure that
they don't unreasonably restrict the ability of other parties to
control. In other words, free markets are incompatible with the ideal
that as many people as possible have as much opportunkty as possible
to control their own perceptions.

Even Adam Smith (1776) was of a sufficiently skeptical frame of mind so as to recognize that businessmen seldom meet together without in someway conniving to defraud the public. How was this tendency to be kept it check? Left alone the tendency to collusion could eventually result in the stagnation of trade. But, Smith observed that the market was not the only institution that served to distributed resources. There was also the institution of warfare. Those nations and cultures that became mired in collusion and fraudulent practices and made poor use of their resources were subject to correction by cultures and nations more proficient in the arts of conquest. (See Book Six, I think it is of _The Wealth of Nations_.)

Recently I think I have discovered a minor loophole in Smith's argument. It came to me when I was considering the question of how a government bargins with an army over the wage-bill to pay the troops. I realized that there was somthing very special, perhaps unique, involved in bargaining with an army. The army if the army is as they say, "worth its salt," doesn't have to bargain according the rules of supply and demand-- instead the army is in a position to _take_ whatever it wishes. And, if an army is a rational profit maximizer there is nothing to stand it its way to prevent its taking whatever there is beyond the margin of subsistence. Actually, there is nothing to prevent the victor from as is said, adopting a policy of leaving "no eye to weep for the dead." in a short-sighted excess of enthusiasm. Smith's insights into such matters were lost to the classical authors who followed him. It was not until Veblen (1915, 1919) in _Imperial Germany_, and _The Nature of Peace_ that an economist considered the relationship between nationhood, the state of the industrial arts, and diplomatic and military misadventures with anything approaching an equally comparable realism. The realities involved in the growth of the modern nation state and its economic and cultural organization are quite different than the conceptions that have been constructed under the caption of "economic theory."

Economics, however, is a peculiar and contentious subject. It is far too important to be constrained by either logical or matter-of-fact considerations. Economics rises, indeed it flys above such mundane considerations and freely expresses itself without such restraints as a matter rather of unreflective conviction and belief.

Bill Williams