I was listening to the Mises Podcast and came across Rothbard’s wonderful 1972 lecture Scarcity and Choice. Around 34:09 to about 38:00 he discusses why specialization and the division of labor is useful, indeed essential, for civilization and human life and prosperity. He criticizes those intellectuals who still maintain that we should go back to a regime of self-sufficiency; that the specialization and division of labor is evil and alienating. He mocks the intellectuals who, as Marx put it, dream of some communist utopia where everyone would spend an hour at the factory, an hour at the field, an hour writing and thinking, and so on. As Rothbard notes, no one will be a great mathematician by devoting half an hour a day to it before rushing off to the fields (think of Malcolm Gladwell’s “10,000 hour rule” in Outliers, according to which “the key to success in any field is, to a large extent, a matter of practicing a specific task for a total of around 10,000 hours”); so, without specialization, creative, intellectual development would be impossible; as would economic prosperity. We would “give up most of the production of the human race.”
Rothbard seemed to find a bit bewildering that there were, back in 1972, still intellectuals favoring self-sufficiency and attacking the division of labor and capitalism as being alienating. After all, didn’t they understand what pre-industrialist conditions were like? Didn’t they understand how much worse was the quality of life when self-sufficiency was the rule? But similar claims still abound, even among some libertarian intellectuals, mostly left-libertarians and their fellow travelers, who seem to be nostalgic for the simpler, agrarian times of yore (see Left-Libertarian Science Fiction: An Oxymoron?; On the Fate of our Left-Libertarian Comrades’ Ideas). It is no doubt true that state subsidization and intervention in various aspects of the market, such as transportation and protectionist or other laws that raise barriers to entry to smaller firms, have distorted the economy and made self-sufficiency more expensive or less feasible than it otherwise would be, but this does not imply that there is something wrong with the institution of employment, with firms, with industrialism, international trade, or the division labor.
{ 12 comments }
I agree left-libertarianism is pretty contradictory but there might be a caveat. A left libertarian order might be possible in a situation where technology (including artificial intelligence) has got to the point where we are in a position of near universal abundance. Anyone can have anything they want without effort – the machines just do it for you.
In science fiction the Ian M. Banks culture novels and stories reflect this possibility. The producing and running things is all done by artificially intelligent “minds” and peoples only role is to enjoy themselves.
Of course, if such a situation were possible (and let’s not start in on whether it’s desirable) you’d need a market economy to get there.
PeterB,
Is such a scenario (near universal abundance) even theoretically possible?
I mean, aren’t human wants infinite? Is it not the case that as current wants are satisfied through increasingly efficient means, resources are freed up to pursue the next set of wants, some of which may have not only been previously impossible due to technological or resource limitations, but also previously un-thought of?
Unless certain laws of thermodynamics are not actually laws, we will never be able to actually create “new” energy or matter, so at some level, EVERYTHING is scarce. At this point in human development, many things are in such super-abundance that they are for practical purposes not considered “scarce” (take electrons for example). But if we ever reached that level of instant fabrication by robots/AI, then we’d eventually come to realize the ultimate scarcity of everything. After all, there will always be a limit to what the insta-fabrication robots can be employed to create at a given time. Property rights and market forces will then continue to be the only moral and rational way of allocating these scarce resources.
Going backward in the technological continuum, Hoppe/Rothbard/et. al show that in the “garden of eden”, there is still a prototype scarce resource in the human body. Super abundance is still not the end-all solution for conflict over resources that are ultimately scarce.
Stephan, I’m not sure it’s correct to say that the Libertarian Left sees “something wrong” with the division of labor per se. (Though that may depend on whom you’re specifically referencing. Referring to “left-libertarians” without a link, quote, citation or name, it’s difficult to put that assertion in context.)
So far as I understand their economic theory, they see the division of labor without a state continuing but drastically restructured so that production is highly localized.
Which is not to say that there isn’t anything to criticize about that claim. I’m fairly certain that here in Chicago we’d all be starving beggars in no time flat if we had to depend entirely on locally produced goods.
Well, the government is printing up boatloads of money to “stimulate” the economy in addition to taking on massive unsustainable amounts of debt. It’s pretty clear that they are going to crash the economy into the dirt.
In this kind of environment, having the means to be self sufficient, (for at least a few years) would sure be nice.
Brian,
You’re probably right – although if you’ve got (as they do in the books) the whole galaxy to play with and technology to build your own planets (or even larger “habitats”) I think you’re wants would really have to insane stretch their capabilities. I mean, really, do you need that second moon? In paisley? I think in physical terms our wants might be considered “effectively” infinite.
I agree with you’re point about the “scarce resource in the human body”. The main point would be that although our physical wants may be rendered finite by technology our demands on each other for time and effort may not. To pick a somewhat crude example, in a society where almost every material thing you could wish for is free, how much would a lapdance cost?
I think it’s a moot point. If the human race ever gets to that point you and I will both be long dead. In addition, although I enjoyed the Ian M Banks books I found the pseudo-socialist “Culture” in these novels actually quite annoying. I wouldn’t WANT to live there. I’d prefer to have something useful to do.
In the meantime scarcity is here to stay.
Brian Drake wrote ‘Is such a scenario (near universal abundance) even theoretically possible? … Unless certain laws of thermodynamics are not actually laws, we will never be able to actually create “new” energy or matter, so at some level, EVERYTHING is scarce… But if we ever reached that level of instant fabrication by robots/AI, then we’d eventually come to realize the ultimate scarcity of everything. After all, there will always be a limit to what the insta-fabrication robots can be employed to create at a given time. Property rights and market forces will then continue to be the only moral and rational way of allocating these scarce resources.’
I forget who first looked into these issues, but he found that even low levels of technology and development could – sometimes had – hit other barriers first, the problems of waste disposal. That is, you can easily get a situation in which direct wants for consumption were as unconstrained as air for breathing, because you started getting held back by the need to dispose of by-products and waste before you hit the limits on the direct inputs.
P.M. Lawrence wrote:
Blah blah blah.
Socialist.
i’ve always viewed the owner-builder permit sign outside the front of the middle-class house as a fair indicator of the weight the regulatory/tax burden.
David C is right, some level of self-sustainability as a “backup” plan is not a bad idea.
We should also note that some people just value self-sufficiency more than they value material goods. I can see a number of decent reasons for doing so (it feels good to do things for yourself; moral aversion to the corporate/fascist economy providing material goods, etc.).
Not that I feel this way (I love my stuff!).
Actually, self sufficiency would be the ultimate jobs program — I don’t mean in numbers, but certainly in percent employed.
This must be why the idea has some support.
In a free market, self-sufficiency would make very little sense. In the present market, it makes much more sense. Self-sufficiency skills are a hedge against social (and thus market) breakdown. Further, anything which others produce for me is taxed and regulated by the gooferment; not so, that which I produce for myself or trade with friends on the black market.
Comments on this entry are closed.