So many of our arguments come about simply because two people are implicitly using different definitions. Think about it, if I think "good" means "conforming to G-d's will" and you think good means "giving me the most pleasure", will we ever be able to reach an agreement on what constitutes correct behavior?

The same is even more true in arguments about government. So often we argue about government without ever establishing the basics, and that leads to endless, irreconcilable problems. Rather than establish what we mean, we just jump into arguments about specifics, assuming the other side is using terms int he same sense we are.

If you want proof, just ask a liberal, or even a conservative, what the purpose of government is. It will be quite informative.

Well, since I have brought up the point, and it is one I have not previously addressed directly, let me say that I believe the government exists to protect citizens from force, fraud or theft, through police, courts, and the military, and to provide civil courts to help citizens settle disputes. I also allow that there may be a need for the state to sometimes coordinate collective action to protect against or recover from certain threats that threaten everyone, such as serious public health crises or natural disasters. And that is about it¹.

What is interesting is how few people could do the same, provide an answer when asked what government should do. People who have no end of answers about specific problems, have no idea what the overall purpose of government is. Or, if they do, it is usually something as nebulous as "government should help people" or "government should protect us". Nor should conservatives gloat about this, as I have met almost as many conservatives who had no unifying theory of government as I have liberals.

Of course there is no need that every person have a clear idea of what government should do. One can be a perfectly happy person and live a fulfilling life without being able to describe what the state's purpose is. On the other hand, if one is going to tell everyone who will listen that the state should be imposing price controls on pharmaceuticals, I would think that person should be able to explain why. And any such explanation, it seems to me, would, of necessity, rest upon some comprehensive view of government. Even if it is only the "pragmatic" cop-out of "do what works", at least it constitutes a theory. To pronounce what the state should do in a specific case, one would need to have a view of what a state should do in general. Otherwise, any statement simply makes no sense.

Let me give an example. You are in a foreign country and come upon a sporting event, one you have never seen before. You see a number of men in colored uniforms, some balls, some sticks, some poles, a few baskets, a number of other unfamiliar elements. A man on the sidelines walks up to you and asks, "So, should he pitch or bat?" How would you answer?

Of course, you would have no answer. Not knowing the rules, the players, or the strategies of the game, you could not conceivably answer. And it is the same with government. Unless you have a general idea of what the state should be doing, and what it should not be doing, as well as having an agreed way to measure success or failure, you cannot say whether a given policy is good or bad. So, those who argue that the state should do this or that, while they may not be able to give voice to a specific theory, still must have one, otherwise they could not make such a statement. It is simply that they are using a theory implicitly, not explicitly. Oh, they may not realize it, but since they are saying something should be done, somewhere they have an idea of what the state is supposed to do, and an idea of what constitutes success or failure.

And that brings me back to my "pragmatists"², as most who cannot put their theory in words are using some variant of the simplistic pragmatic theory, "do what works." It is not a terribly complex theory, and, though on the surface it seems unobjectionable, it is, in actuality, about the worst theory one could adopt.

So, what is so harmful about pragmatism?

There are many problems.

First, while it seems clear, the entire theory rests upon the way one chooses to define "works". So, though it appears to be opposed to political theories, in reality it simply hides one's political bias. For example, if a health plan saves lives, a humanitarian would claim it "worked", but to a Nazi, if it killed Jews but saved Nordics it would be a plan that "works". The question of whether something works or not is entirely dependent on the implicit assumptions lying behind he facade of pragmatism.

Second, even when all involved can agree on what constitutes success, it is very rare for two "pragmatists" to agree on a course of action. The reason is simple, the focus on "what works" as opposed to general principles tends to lead to "keyhole" views. For example, I am interested in high cost of pharmaceuticals, so I suggest price caps, saying they will work by bringing down prices. On the other hand, you are interested in medical advances, so you want to allow pharmaceutical companies as much profit as possible to spur growth and innovation. Both of us can argue our views "work", in the very narrow sense of solving the specific issue we want addressed, yet our solutions are incompatible. We are both right by the theory's definition, but we cannot adopt both views at once. One "right" view must be discarded.

Third, the keyhole approach tends to produce solutions which are either effective only in the short term, or which carry with them a number of unforeseen consequences. For example, returning to my pharmaceutical example, my idea of price caps to keep prices low simply ignores the impact on research. I may, due to my focus on patients, anticipate the diminished supply due to price caps and ask for subsidies or other solutions, but it is unlikely that I will anticipate all possible side effects, especially as I am not working from general principles but rather approaching the problem from a very specific perspective³.

Finally, because of the lack of a definition of what works, as well as a lack of general principles, even when two speakers are approaching a problem from the same perspective, they can reach differing solutions. For example, we may both want to ensure cheap drugs, yet you want to put price caps and I want to prevent them. You argue that price caps will reduce prices, while I argue that removing caps will allow expansion of production which will lower prices in the long run. As there are no broad principles we cannot argue that one is better or worse. While one offers a short term gain and one requires more time, by the terms of pragmatism, both are "right", yet they are mutually exclusive.

And that, in a nutshell is the real problem of pragmatism⁴. Because it never defines any broad principles, there is no way to decide between all of the short term, myopic solutions which appear to "work". It simply leads to an endless series of stop gap measures without reference to consequences outside of the narrow focus of the moment.

What is even more depressing is that pragmatism of one form or another is the philosophy, implicit or explicit, of the majority of our law makers. You can hear it in their every speech, whenever they claim to be people "who get things done", when they talk of "real world solutions". All are just alternate names for the "pragmatic" philosophy.

Then again, though it is troubling that so many law makers hold such a shoddy philosophy, in another way it is comforting. At least all of their misdeeds can be explained by a shoddy philosophy rather than intentional evil⁵.

----------------------------------------------------

1. The description above is my ideal government. As I have written before, I do not think imposing libertarianism form above is the best solution. I also allow that my view may be wrong in part or whole. So, my personal belief is that the most practical system of government is very decentralized federalist system, as it allows us to analyze a number of competing views and adopt the best. It also allows for local variations rather than imposing one solution on everyone. But that does not change my view of the governmental ideal, it simply describes the tool I would use to reach that ideal.

2. I am not speaking here of the philosophical school of pragmatism. Though many of the adherents of that philosophy suffered from one or more of the problems I describe, I am well aware that the common usage of pragmatic and the philosophic usage of pragmatic deviate from one another.

3. Of course, I am not saying anyone would anticipate all possible outcomes of a decision. That is why we adopt principles. I support limited government precisely because I know there are unforeseen consequences, so limiting government limits the harm that will be done by these unintended consequences. By pointing us in a direction with known outcomes, general principles remove some of the necessity of examining each specific case for all possible outcomes. So long as we follow certain principles the consequences are generally well known.

4. The problem of smuggled value judgments is almost as bad. While claiming to be hard-headed and practical, pragmatists still need a yardstick by which to measure success. That means, whether they admit it or not, they have to subscribe to some political philosophy, as otherwise they would have no way to decide whether something succeeded or failed.

5. Everything I said about pragmatism applies to those other simplistic theories mentioned at the beginning. The ideas that the government exists "to help people" or "to protect us" are both just variants of pragmatism with more explicit, but narrow, definitions of success.