This is a very old and thoroughly discredited idea, one that dates back to Karl Marx and to the anti-capitalists who preceded him. It is a facet of the belief that free markets are irrational, and that if reason could be imposed on markets — which is to say, if reason could be imposed on free human beings — then enlightened planners could ensure that resources are directed toward their best use. This line of thinking historically has led to concentration camps, gulags, firing squads, purges, and the like, for a few reasons...
Read it all here.
Gut reaction: good for Williamson. The candidacy of Sanders and his fringe-leaning Republican counterparts like Rand Paul demonstrate the health of American politics. (Are there signs of dis-ease and/or problems in the same? Absolutely! but that's a topic for another blog post....) Especially in President Obama's second term it seems a sign of life--albeit one with which I disagree strenuously--that a candidate like Sanders can advocate an even more progressive agenda than Obama himself. That being said, part of our American public life is criticism. Ideas--all of them--get discussed, lauded, dismissed, and resurrected in the public square. Therefore, just as it's a good sign that Sanders is campaigning, it's an equally good sign that somebody like Williamson comes along to deflate him. In the free market of ideas individuals and communities freely accept and reject what they will--and this process itself is good. As Williamson himself notes, facts remain facts--so it is not guaranteed that one's "right" views will win out over the wrong ones. All we can do keep pressing our side of the argument, even as we recognize salient points of the opposition. (And this recognition often stands as an indicator of the exchange's humanity. Seeking to win an argument through ridicule and peer pressure exhibits a stubborn adolescent preference best called comedy porn--and that's not good.) So a spirited criticism--especially one that sees a campaign like Sanders replicating previous patterns of oppression and impoverishment--is exactly what we need...but might not always like.
Gut reaction: good for Williamson. The candidacy of Sanders and his fringe-leaning Republican counterparts like Rand Paul demonstrate the health of American politics. (Are there signs of dis-ease and/or problems in the same? Absolutely! but that's a topic for another blog post....) Especially in President Obama's second term it seems a sign of life--albeit one with which I disagree strenuously--that a candidate like Sanders can advocate an even more progressive agenda than Obama himself. That being said, part of our American public life is criticism. Ideas--all of them--get discussed, lauded, dismissed, and resurrected in the public square. Therefore, just as it's a good sign that Sanders is campaigning, it's an equally good sign that somebody like Williamson comes along to deflate him. In the free market of ideas individuals and communities freely accept and reject what they will--and this process itself is good. As Williamson himself notes, facts remain facts--so it is not guaranteed that one's "right" views will win out over the wrong ones. All we can do keep pressing our side of the argument, even as we recognize salient points of the opposition. (And this recognition often stands as an indicator of the exchange's humanity. Seeking to win an argument through ridicule and peer pressure exhibits a stubborn adolescent preference best called comedy porn--and that's not good.) So a spirited criticism--especially one that sees a campaign like Sanders replicating previous patterns of oppression and impoverishment--is exactly what we need...but might not always like.



