TGIF: "We Are All Social Engineers Now"

I don't know if anyone has actually said, "We are all social engineers now," but someone might as well have. (The variation "We are all Keynesians now" was declared a long time ago, even by Milton Friedman, although see this.)

When I say "all," of course, I don't mean all. If you look hard enough, you'll find a few opponents of social engineering. But if you throw a dart into a crowd—don't try that at home—you'll most likely hit a social engineer. Most people think the government should do more than apprehend, try, and punish real criminals; maintain courts for peaceful dispute resolution; and keep a small defense force in the unlikely event of a military invasion. (The free market would most likely do those things better without coercion.) Today the government, to much public applause, goes far beyond Adam Smith's vision of "peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice."

Large constituencies favor government management of Americans' education, trade with each other and the rest of the world, immigration, housing construction, land use, business, occupations and professions, industrial organization, finance, energy, medical services, income and wealth "distribution," product quality and safety, and culture itself, to name just a few. Did you hear a public outcry when the Republican presidential candidate promised to force the taxpayers and insurance companies to pay for in vitro fertilization? Money comes with strings.

What are the taxpayers not on the hook for these days?

Social engineering in recent years has notoriously been extended to matters involving speech and the written word. Disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation are the newest hobgoblins. Expression about climate change, COVID-19, and even elections has been targeted. We can be grateful this has been countered with a rousing defense of free speech, but caution is in order. Most advocates of free speech support social engineering in myriad other matters, ignoring that government managers will always look askance at expression that might undermine the consensus believed necessary to successful social engineering.

If you support social engineering in one area, what grounds do you have to oppose it in others? A politician who ran for high office promising to strip the national or state government of the power to manage society would surely be buried by his opponent on election day. People are addicted to government management.

That's the world we inhabit. What is the cost of living in such a world? I don't mean the dollar cost. It's easy to find the numbers corresponding to the budget, the deficit, the debt, the shrinking of purchasing power because of central-bank money creation, and so on.

I'm thinking of cost in a different way. What must we forgo because politicians and bureaucrats—no matter which major party is in office—manage so much of our lives? Social engineering is government planning. It may not be total central planning, though some may wish for that, but it does entail a significant degree of it. Many people think the president of the United States runs the country, not merely the executive branch of the government. He or she is regarded as the public's commander-in-chief and not merely the commander of the military, theoretically subordinate to Congress's constitutional war-declaration power. (That's not been a real thing since the 1950s.) No, the president is widely thought to be in charge of almost everything. Executive orders are more common than legislation, which is bad enough. The two major parties have a few differences over what the government should manage, but taken together, their programs encompass pretty much the whole kit and kaboodle.

Social engineering is a fancy term for politicians and bureaucrats telling us what we must and must not do. As Ludwig von Mises wrote: "Planning other peoples’ actions means to prevent them from planning for themselves, means to deprive them of their essentially human quality, means enslaving them."

So don't let it be said that our choice is between government planning and chaos. Wrong. It is between would-be dictators pushing us around and individual self-direction coordinated in the free market. It is between coercive bureaucracy and social cooperation—largely but not exclusively among strangers—guided by private property, contract, market prices, and entrepreneurship.

The 19th-century French liberal economists strove to explain how "Paris gets fed." Every day the shops offered meat, bread, eggs, milk, etc., yet no one ran things overall. Many people coordinated freely without commands. Those economists did not ask, "Does undesigned order exist?" They could see it. Rather, they asked, "How does it happen?" And they proceeded to explain the division of labor, enterprise, trade, market prices, and supply and demand.

That's what we lose to the extent the government interferes with social cooperation. Because of that interference, we've lost a lot since 1789. When the draft constitution was announced back then, many thoughtful people warned that it allowed too much power to the central government, which could be expected to grow from that baseline. Who would disagree with them today?