Steven Den Beste has a long thoughtful post, about the difference between stable, robust systems and unstable, fragile ones. I thought at first that he was heading toward an explanation of why global warming makes no sense, but he ended up pointing out the folly of centrally planned societies.

He's right about that, because they are all based on trusting in the wisdom and humanity of the people who do the planning and directing of the system. This is also what's wrong with trying to achieve charitable goals by means of government programs. There is no controlling mechanism to counteract the growth of programs and bureaucracy, except the good sense of the voters, and we know how reliable that is. As it says in the Book of Mormon:

Now it is better that a man should be judged of God than of man, for the judgments of God are always just, but the judgments of man are not always just.

Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments, yea, if ye could have men for your kings who would do [good], if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you.. . .

Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them by the hand of the Lord.


Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law�to do your business by the voice of the people.

And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

I'm sure that Steven wouldn't endorse the Book of Mormon, but the point is still valid, rulers, whether they be monarchs or central planners can't be relied upon to do what is best for the people. Some people in Utah call it a theocracy and complain that the Mormon Church has too much influence. From my point of view, things in the world would be a lot better if we had a theocracy, but not a hierocracy, rule by the "holy." That's what is wrong with Islam--it assumes that religious scholars speak for God, when, in fact, few if any prophets came from the intelligentsia, with the possible exception of Moses. Prophets have to be humble, and when was the last time you met a truly humble and openminded theologian? They are the last ones I'd trust to run a country. Look at what they've done for the Catholic Church.

From a religious perspective, the highest form of society is one in which all are equal and share all things. "Mormons" call it Zion, and it superficially resembles socialism, but as Den Beste says, "The devil is always in the details." The big difference between Zion and Communism is that Zion is built on principles of free choice, which is why Zion has only been able to sustain itself a few times for relatively short periods, and why the general history of the world has been about kings, wars, empires and blood. The problem with utopian schemes is that they always seem to require the concentration of power in the hands of an elite. And power corrupts, etc.

Like the NASA experimental plane, the X-29 with forward swept wings, which Den Beste describes, it requires a " fiendishly complicated flight control system." Or very stong,.very lightweight materials which don't bend and break under stress, which we haven't invented yet. Until human beings can be trusted, government needs to be limited, like it was, say in 1812 in this country.


Den Beste's analysis also gives us a very good explanation of why the government should quit trying to manage the economy. It operates much like the voles and predators in Finland, in cycles. We don't seem to understand that when Congress and the President "stimulate" the economy it takes at least 6 months to 2 years to see any change. It's like trying to steer a supertanker with a canoe paddle. It seems to me that the economy right now is suffering a hangover from the binge it went on during the 1990's when it went to bed with a lot of gorgeous dotcoms and woke up with a bunch of dogs. Something like that takes a while to get over. Bush is trying to get more money circulating fast, which is why he's recommending dropping the tax on dividends. I wish him well, but I suspect that it will not make much of a difference in what the economy is going to do by itself. All the president really needs to do is avoid appearing like he doesn't care about the unemployed.

There is a deep truth in the equilibria of dynamic systems, and in the concept of strange attractors. Nature is full of these patterns. That is why I think we'd do better to learn to roll with the punches than to try to correct things before we know what's going on.