Modern Science, Ancient Philosophy, and why Markets fail

David Brooks’ new book, The Social Animal, calls to mind Aristotle’s definition of man as “Political Animal.” And it turns out Brooks confirms many classical claims about human nature; however, he does so by relying upon modern science, not philosophy. The book is a series of “Studies show” arguments.

Studies show the modern view of human nature as rational, autonomous creatures is flawed i.e. Modern science contradicts modern philosophy. Human beings are dual natured, a combination of god and brute or reason and passion. Reason and passion are at war in every soul and modern economic theory fails to account for this. Indeed, an economist would cringe at even using the word 'soul.' Moreover, human beings are social and relational; Neurobiologists agree with the Poet John Donne that “no man is an island.”

Brooks says these studies have made him rethink his endorsement of free market principles. He doesn’t discuss this further, but it is easy to see why. Free Market Economists believe in some variation of ‘Rational Choice’ Theory which states rational actors always act in favor of material incentives. Based on the Classical/Modern Scientific view of human nature, however, man is NOT exclusively rational. He can act irrationally or let his emotions get the better of his judgment in certain circumstances. Think of Dostoevsky’s Underground (Emotional) Man. For example, it is a principle of financial planning to buy in a bear market, not sell; yet sell is what everyone does.

Free Market Economists also assume man is autonomous and will look at his investments independent of how people around him are acting. But the Classical/Modern Scientific view of man is he is social and relational and thus the climate of fear (or confidence) which surrounds him will affect how he will make his financial decisions. Think of the Bank Run scene in It’s a Wonderful Life.

This isn’t to disavow a Free Market Economy entirely; it is only to suggest it needs some minor revision in light of who we are.

Was the American Revolution justified?

Two arguments can be made on behalf of Founders on this issue. The first argument is the sort of thing Claremont advocates would like because they’re into the Locke = Founders view. Locke translated Just War Criteria into Revolutionary Criteria which are mentioned in the Declaration itself.

Just War →Revolutionary Criteria

Proper Authority	The Majority of Colonists is represented by elected representatives in the 2nd Continental Congress
Just Cause	Repeated abuses e.g. body of the Declaration lists over 20 infractions committed by George III
Last Resort	Exhaust all legal appeals e.g. The Declaration of Rights and Grievances & Olive Branch Petition
Right Intention	Can’t replace something w/ nothing e.g. Articles of Confederation and eventually the Constitution
Appeal to Heaven	God judges the revolt e.g. the concluding paragraph of the Declaration says God will judge them for what they are about to do.

The Burkean/Kirkian argument is the founders fought for the “chartered rights of Englishmen” i.e. they fought for the CIVIL, not natural (Lockean), rights of the Glorious Revolution. The Founders, like Parliament in 1688, were conserving their legal rights against a revolutionary king, George III/James II. Thus the American Revolution, like the Glorious Revolution, was “prevented, not made” to quote Edmund Burke.

	Glorious Revolution	American Revolution
Old Ways	Chartered rights of Englishmen/Declaration of Rights Trial by jury Right against self-incrimination No search or seizure w/out warrant No excessive bail Right to bear arms	US Bill of Rights 6th amendment 4th amendment 8th amendment 2nd amendment
Innovation	James II wanted -standing army -toleration*	George III’s taxation without representation

While the English have some decent arguments for their side, these two arguments make the Founders case pretty reasonable.

Is Freedom a Universal Value?

Paleocons do not think so. They would look at the recent events in the Middle East with caution. Their argument would run as follows: Historical practices, customs, and mores play a significant role in shaping society. To think a foreign (Western) model can be imported overnight is foolhardy.

The scene above from Lawrence of Arabia illustrates the Paleocon view. T.E. Lawrence, an Englishman, believes he can bring Western style democracy to the Middle East. After helping the Arabs overthrow the Ottoman Empire, he now has the difficult job of nation building. The scene reveals that hundreds, if not thousands, of years of cultural and political practice will not be erased easily as the Arabs attempt to build a Parliament.

The Neocon response is there is something slightly elitist in the Paleocon view. Indeed, one cannot watch the scene from Lawrence of Arabia without thinking that the film is portraying Arabs in a condescending manner. Moreover, the Neocons would argue that Freedom is a universal value which all people desire. If it seemed like the people of the Middle East have not been interested in Freedom, it is because they were being suppressed by their Tyrant-rulers. In this outlook, intervention is called for in places like Libya. The rebels there are just like our own Founding Fathers.

The Paleocon view counsels isolationism in Libya, but would offer this positive assessment of the situation. The recent Revolutions have all been homegrown and so could succeed. They are products of organic growth, unlike Iraq’s democracy. But they would also offer this piece of advice: since their historical background (politics, culture, and religion) is different from Europe’s and America’s, we should not expect them to have a carbon copy regime. For example, it is likely that religion would play a larger role in the Public Square in Egypt, then it does in France. Instead of ruling that illegitimate from the outset, Westerners should be open to forms of democratic practice which are not our own.