Sizwe Ngwenya: Is Reality Optional? A Conflict of Cosmic COVID-19 Visions

Sizwe Ngwenya: Is Reality Optional? A Conflict of Cosmic COVID-19 Visions

Reality does not blow its own horn; it only confirms or rejects opposing views on the construct and perceptions surrounding the inner workings of the world. Hence one can, at his/her own peril, ignore reality, but its consequences are inescapable. The question, whether reality is optional, is not a philosophical inquiry about the nature of mind. Indeed, for many, it may appear on face value, that the answer is obvious and given, yet responses to this question, have only pointed out to another reality: that alternative realities exist amongst many of us. One does not figure this inquiry by randomly embarking on an exposition to outright ask it so plainly, instead it is slowly unravelled by carefully observing how different individuals think about matters of social and economic orders.

In our societies, opposing and irreconcilable ideologies or visions exist; visions are a set of implicit assumptions and beliefs about how the world operates and how societies should be. In the current COVID-19 pandemic, different visions form polarising views about which policy responses are best suited to respond to the crisis. Visions are useful in that they provide a compass and mind-map in assisting individuals in distilling and navigating the complexities of our imperfect societies. Yet visions are also imperfect - most are formed systematically – but often are insulated from scrutiny. Consequently, visions can be dangerous, when the salient foundations upon which they are formed are divorced from reality and are stubbornly-intransigent to refinement to reality.

Economist, Thomas Sowell’s book, titled ‘A Conflict of Visions’, published in 1987, contrasts two main opposing visions which I will reinterpret in the context of the COVID-19 crisis: The limited (constrained) vision and the unlimited (unconstrained) vision. Varying degrees and different shades of these two visions may exist – but for purposes of simplicity, this paper will dichotomise and centre the discussion on the extreme versions of both. Depending on which vision is adopted, this will impact one’s reality and understanding of the following: 1.) the nature of humans, 2.) the nature of the world, 3.) the nature of knowledge and 4.) the nature of power and justice. An understanding of these two visions, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, illuminates why strong ideological struggles exist in how many people see certain policy adoptions and stances taken to respond to the crisis.

The constrained vision:

The constrained vision sees human life as inherently composed of tragedies, difficulties, evils and imperfections - it is therefore not surprised by events such as pandemics, wars, crime, inter alia. It recognises that these harsh and grim realities are inextricably part of the DNA of society. It understands the flawed reality embedded in the inherent limitations of the knowledge of humans, the fallibility of morality and importantly, the scarcity of limited resources to support our unbounded desires and passions. With this conception, the constrained vision is not obsessed and engulfed in trying to understand these human flaws - instead it uses incentives and deterrents, through trial and error, experiences, inherited traditions, contrivances and other social processes and institutions to constrain these flawed human conditions. By way of example, when acts of crimes are committed, the constrained vision designs criminal enforcement checkpoints to punish such behaviour – the constrained vision does not act surprised that crime exists in a society – its sees crime as an inborn human blemish that cannot be uprooted in its entirety but can be constrained. By way of another example, the constrained vision acknowledges that wars amongst nations will occur; historical receipts and archives support this natural defect of human nature and the world. With this acceptance, a country that embraces the constrained vision will build fierce armies because this will act as deterrents to curb external threats or wars. It concedes that conflict is typical of human nature and that to pretend as if this fatal flaw can be removed or ignored will only leave that nation defenceless.

In the realm of the nature of knowledge and decision-making, the constrained vision understands that people (in their own individual capacity), make better decisions than any other centralised process could achieve – this is because those individuals have a better grasp of the knowledge, time and place of those decisions (not central authorities). The constrained vision appreciates that information that is signalled from social processes, such as from the family, cultural traditions, markets and prices are the best determinants of how people will react to each other. In the realm of the body of law that underpins the current jurisprudential framework, the constrained vision recognises that law did not arise from a contrived step-by-step intentionally-sketched design nor from state central planning; common law arose from aggrieved men and women, across different spheres of society each seeking counsel from courts, to adjudicate cases which would later establish salient principles for resolving future disputes. When faced with difficult economic and social issues, the constrained vision believes in rational trade-offs weighted with all factors NOT solutions. This is premised on the adage that: ‘to make something better you need to make something worse’; scarcity is therefore an indispensable characteristic of the constrained vision. Empiricism is also a hallmark of the constrained vision – when presented a set of solutions, it will ask questions such as “compared to what”? For example, if a piece of evidence suggests that the fastest route from Pretoria to Johannesburg is the M1, it will probe: “compared to what?”. Essentially, the theoretical framework of the constrained vision is humble because it has been battered repeatedly so that is largely based on reality.

The unconstrained vision:

The unconstrained vision runs contrary to the constrained vision. It does not see human tragedies, problems and flaws as something innately fixed and embedded in human nature – it instead believes that the occurrence of such evils is solely attributable to faulty social processes. Under the unconstrained vision, human nature is initially seen as flawed, but the exception is that this vison believes that human flaws or constrains can be overcome. Accordingly, this vision believes that human potential is boundless; evils such as crime and wars could be eradicated completely if only the right people in government or “intellectuals” were in charge to save society. By way of illustration, under unconstrained vision, the consumption of alcohol and cigarettes is seen as moral dilemma to be solved by state officials or intellectuals. Consequentially, instead of designing laws that only curtail the abuse of such products (but only to the extent that it might cause harm to others/negative externalities) - the unconstrained vision will be shocked about the consumption of sinful products, and will assert that this human defect is immoral and can be cured by outright banning the sale of alcohol and cigarettes.

The unconstrained vision does not support an unplanned and uncoordinated spontaneous economic and social order – it believes that the distribution of knowledge and economic decision-making should be left to bureaucrats, experts and intellectuals who possess a better comprehension on how best to deal with and organise society (rather than leaving those decisions to the innumerable combined individual tastes, preferences of billions of people). The unconstrained vision believes in solutions to problems, not trade-offs (even if there are no solutions). When solutions of the unconstrained vision fail, more policies will be formed on the logic that the first solution either did not diagnose the issue correctly or that not enough resources were dedicated to the issue ((a good example of this is Eskom and SAA). The unconstrained vision does not capitulate or conform to reality - rather reality is adjusted to suit the agenda of this vision. This has dangerous implications because it results in a vision wired in moral superiority that is not humble but might be lost in an abyss of assumptions which are far removed from reality and its consequences.

The majority of people are naturally inclined to pledge allegiance to the unconstrained vision – the belief that all problems can be surrogated, and problem solved through government, experts and “the right people” instead of individual responsibility. In this paper, I examine how the unconstrained vision has shaped some of COVID-19 policy responses and the implications thereof.

1.COVID-19 AND THE KNOWLEDGE PROBLEM OF CENTRAL PLANNING:

The conception, that societies and human civilisation are not and can never be conceived from rational planning and design, is one of the most difficult principles to accept by most people who embrace the unconstrained vision. This difficulty is because this principle itself does not appear rational or translucent, but rather is counterintuitive. The belief, that one or a few minds possess or are endowed with the talents to co-ordinate social and economic orders, solely from the product of their minds is false. This is because no mind could conceive of human civilisation today and how it will be in 5- or 500-years’ time. Instead human civilisation progresses through collaborative spontaneous order of billions of people, traditions, trial and error and experiences to which the mind constantly adopts to. Accordingly, the complex mind itself functions within a system (societies) which operate at a higher degree of complexity much vaster than the what the apparatus of a few minds can design or comprehend independently.

For state officials, to a lockdown countries and thereinafter sit in a centralised office, and attempt to: co-ordinate which industries to open and close; to figure out how different economic sectors are inter-connected and how synergies are unlocked; to choreograph which school grades to permit back to class; when to travel and at which times; what capacity of employees to permit back to work without knowing the operational tenets and constrains of millions of businesses; what foods people should and should not consume (even though there is no strong unequivocal empirical data that exists about how banning certain consumption items achieves 'flattening the curve;) and deciding how impoverished persons should conduct their lives without knowledge of their circumstances - this ultimately displays an overt exercise of the unconstrained vision. This unconstrained vision assumes decision-making (social, economic or otherwise) can be surrogated away from individuals to state officials. The unconstrained vision also fails to fathom, that attempts to orchestrate a social and economic order, through a central office, will have bigger adverse effects on societies (mainly through other insidious consequences and blind spots that can only be seen through decentralisation)

A problem that arises from attempting to plan societies centrally during the COVID-19 crisis or otherwise, is called the “The knowledge problem”. The Anglo-Austrian economist, Friedrich August von Hayek (8 May 1899 – 12 February 1992) and the recipient of the 1974 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, outlines, so eloquently, in his influential books ; ‘The Constitution of Liberty’ (1960) and “Law, Legislation and Liberty volumes 1 (1973), and one of the most influential essays of the 20th century ‘The use of knowledge in society” (1945) that in instances where planning of an order is attempted, this leads to what is now known as the ‘knowledge problem’. The knowledge problem is explained as follow: I quote [……. “Data” from which the economic calculus starts are never for the whole society “given” to a single mind which could work out the implications and can never be so given. The peculiar character of the problem of a rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess. The economic problem of society is thus not merely a problem of how to allocate “given” resources—if “given” is taken to mean given to a single mind which deliberately solves the problem set by these “data.” It is rather a problem of how to secure the best use of resources known to any of the members of society, for ends whose relative importance only these individuals know. Or, to put it briefly, it is a problem of the utilization of knowledge which is not given to anyone in its totality”- close quote

Markets, industries, businesses, entrepreneurs inter alia did not emerge from some systematic, organised, rationalised and orchestrated design, nor from government central planning - economies instead arose from uncoordinated processes, by willing buyers and sellers each to his own accord, through voluntary co-operation exchanging goods and services at mutually beneficial prices (MARKET ECONOMIES ARE AN INGENIOUS DESIGN BUT INGENIOUS WITHOUT DESIGN). Prices signal crucial information to buyers, employees, employers, sellers who then adjust accordingly; there is no legislator or planner that can design this process because they do not possess those abilities (as was explained in the constrained vision). No one can co-ordinate the complex innumerable dispersed knowledge of billions of individuals in an economy or society. Any attempt, to plan markets and economies centrally, leads not only to the erosion of freedom, misallocation of scarce resources, economic slumps and inefficiencies, but history speaks with one voice and is unequivocal: centralisation implode societies and oftentimes creates the perfect conditions for autocratic creeps This topic is also covered in Hayek’s book, ‘The Road to Serfdom’ (1946).

Given the limitations of knowledge, not everything (including during a pandemic) can be planned out in a top-down approach. Indeed, The Scottish philosopher, David Hume, in his book ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’ (1738) argued that the human mind is not full aided with all the knowledge to design a social and economic order. In other words, it is impossible, for any individual or small group to know all the relevant facts of a particular time and place needed to design social and economic orders. Many of the social institutions which are an indispensable hallmark of civilsed societies, are not the product of consciously designed orders of rational construct, but rather emerged rationally from spontaneity. As Norman Barry outlines in the article ‘The Tradition of Spontaneous Order “what is important about the theory of spontaneous order is that the institutions and practices it investigates reveal well-structured social patterns, which appear to be a product of some omniscient designing mind yet which are in reality the spontaneous coordinated outcomes of the actions of, possibly, millions of individuals who had no intention of effecting such overall aggregate orders’.

2. COVID-19 AND TRADE-OFFS VS SOLUTIONS

Operating within the realm of infinite desires - but within constrained resources and unhappy choices - the hallmark of any good public policy is trade-offs not solutions. Hence bounded by the inherent constraints of society, a vision engaging in trade-offs will ask: ‘Within my constraints, what can be done to cause an improvement to an existing negative situation’? (this embraces the constrained vision). On the contrary, the unconstrained vision, which is driven by solutions will ask: ‘What can be done to solve a given negative situation ignoring my constraints’?

The constrained vision subsumes or prices in scarcity and innumerable unhappy choices as part of the fabric of societies. In forming a public policy to COVID-19, the constrained vision would construct a cost-benefit analysis, grounded on quantitative and qualitative components (factoring for the visible and invisible effects of a policy) - this would premised on multiple scenario analyses and permutations, showing unambiguously and clearly how the benefits of option X (Lockdown) exceed the costs of option X or are a better option to say option Z (an alternative to Lockdown). Accordingly, the constrained vison would see lives and other social, health and economic factors as two sides of the same coin not a false dichotomy of a zero-sums game.

To date, policy responses to COVID-19 have not been based strongly on the constrained vision as articulated above – instead solutions such as lockdowns are presented to the public without the accompanying cost benefit analyses that justify those decisions – this is another example of the unconstrained vision at play. The rhetoric is that lockdowns (at all costs) are the best solution. It is very easy, but also tragic, that policy makers can make decisions (without robust trade-off analysis) since many themselves are never held accountable for those decisions and are exempt from the brute consequences of the realities of those policy choices. The justification for any dire consequences is always suppressed out by stating that if certain decisions were not taken things would be worse than what they played out (In other words good interntions outwight bad consequences). The unconstrained vision, accompanied by destruction to economies, other future unseen problems, liquidity clogs and central planning, is difficult to challenge because it is the prevailing vision of societies and has born a binary between, the “us” (those people that support that vision) and “them” (those people that question that vision). This creates a hermetically sealed discourse producing a myriad of policies and solutions that go unchallenged. There are always conditions which are undesirable, the litmus test, is to ask: is there a cure for the condition under question that would not pervasively lead to additional incremental burdens that are worse than initial condition (this is the process of policy-making grounded on trade-offs and cost-benefit analysis not seriatim solutions).

In the 1995 book, ‘Vision of The Anointed’, Thomas Sowell highlighted an example illuminating concretely, what occurs when cost-benefit analyses of policy decision-making are done myopically by not considering consequences of an action in its totality. I quote, “When a baby was killed in a tragic airplane crash in 1989 by being ripped out of its mother's arms by the force of the impact and being sent hurtling through the cabin, a political "solution" was proposed by having a federal law requiring babies to be strapped into their own seats on airplanes. But a study by economists indicated that such a law, requiring parents to purchase an extra seat, would divert a portion of the traffic to cheaper alternative modes of transportation on the ground-most of which have higher mortality rates than airplanes. Over a period of a decade, there would be an estimated saving of one baby's life in airplane crashes, a loss of nine lives in alternative ground transportation, and an additional cost of $3 billion. Few people would regard this as a reasonable trade-off. But it is only by analysing the issue as a trade-off that we avoid the dangerous and deceptive appearances of a "solution. The proposed legislation to increase airline safety by requiring a separate seat for children was a perfect example of what Justice Holmes referred to as raising humanity in one place while pulling it down in another. Nothing is easier than to increase safety in some arbitrarily defined sector in some arbitrarily chosen way, in disregard of what this does to safety elsewhere and in other ways. Unfortunately, this kind of thinking is all too congenial to the vision of the anointed-and to politicians”- close quote.

The constrained vision is also not afraid to ask questions – this is characteristic of its nature. It would always state “compared to what”? What is the alternative to a solution and what projections do those alternative propositions yield? As Thomas Sowell pointed out in a ‘Vision of The Anointed, 1995, the following hereunder are critical to note for COVID-19 policy-making:

• LESSION 1: “Anyone who looks through enough statistics will eventually find numbers that seem to confirm a given vision. Often, the same set of statistics contains other numbers that seem to confirm diametrically opposite conclusions.”;
• LESSON 2: “Option A can always exceed option B if not all of B is counted and/or if A is exaggerated”;
• LESSION 3: “Every policy is a success by sufficiently low standards and a failure by sufficiently high standards”;
• LESSON 4: “For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert, but for every fact there is not necessarily an equal and opposite fact”;
• LESSON 5: “The law of diminishing returns means that even the most beneficial principle or policy will become harmful if carried far enough”;
• LESSON 6: “You can always create a fraction by putting one variable upstairs and another variable downstairs, hut that does not establish any causal relationship between them, nor does the resulting quotient have any necessary relationship to anything in the real world”;

Based on the constrained vision, reality is NOT optional: Any attempt to evade reality, by placing a moratorium on the circulation society and economics, not balancing hypothetical projections with new empirical data on the behaviour of COVID-19, failing to ground policies on rational trade-offs and attempting to centrally co-ordinate and design social and economic orders, will produce results at best disastrous, at worst catastrophic.

Written by Sizwe Ngwenya – Views expressed are only of the author.