The Quest for Cosmic Justice, by Thomas Sowell

    I have recently developed a taste for reading non-fiction. Much like my sudden shift from liking (ok, probably more like being addicted to) Diet Coke to liking LaCroix (I know, I know, I'm a monster), this shift in my reading taste was as unexpected as it was sudden. Murder mysteries will probably always have a place in my heart and on my bookshelf, but for now my long and ever growing reading list is dominated by economics, politics, cryptocurrency, and history. These new genres brought a new challenge- information retention. If I forgot the plot of a novel, it didn't matter, the enjoyment had already been had, but if I forget things I learn about the real world, well, that's an actual loss. 

    I tried keeping notes about what I had read, but I can't write (legibly) as fast as I can think and it was frustrating. I tried learning shorthand but I'm pretty slow at it and not patient enough I guess to get fast at it. So I thought I'd give this a try. I can type pretty fast, and putting my thoughts into acceptable sentences and paragraphs that someone, somewhere might actually read, will slow down my thoughts enough so my fingers can keep up. And shuffling the information around into a cognizant and readable summary might help me to remember it. That's the plan anyway. I don't know if anyone will ever care to read this blog, but that's OK, it's for my benefit. If it inspires you to read something great. If you have further reading recommendations, great. If not, great. 

    Today I finished The Quest for Cosmic Justice by Thomas Sowell

    Cosmic justice, as Sowell calls it, or social justice as it is frequently called today, is surely a lofty goal, but is it a worthy one? The first problem that Sowell addresses with seeking cosmic justice, is that it is impossible to define. Imagine that you got to choose, among strangers, who won the lottery. How would you choose? Perhaps one candidate was the poorest, which seems an obvious choice, but perhaps that person is rife with money wasting vices, while a different candidate would put the money to better use. Perhaps one of the candidates would use the money to start a business and employ, and therefore lift, many people. You have no way of knowing which candidate has overcome the most adversity, was blessed with the most natural talents, no way of knowing what each person would really do if chosen. So are you really capable of cosmically just decision? You might make a pretty good choice, but even if you and I were given the same information regarding all the candidates, I might make a different selection. This is because you and I have differing values. Who is to say whose choice was more cosmically just? Assuming that we can make these types of choices involves a great deal of hubris, and if that hubris is allowed to affect peoples lives, it can be damaging when we are wrong. Understanding that, who would really want that kind of responsibility?

    I am reminded of this quote from the last book I read, by F.A. Hayek, 

"The welfare and the happiness of millions cannot be measured on a single scale of less and more. The welfare of a people, like the happiness of a man, depends on a great many things that can be provided in an infinite variety of combinations. It cannot be adequately expressed as a single end, but only as a hierarchy of ends, a comprehensive scale of values in which every need of every person is given its place. To direct all our activities according to a single plan presupposes that every one of our needs is given its rank in an order of values which must be complete enough to make it possible to decide among all the different courses which the planner has to choose. It presupposes, in short, the existence of a complete ethical code in which all the different human values are allotted their due place."

Someone seeking cosmic justice might, with all their earnest heart, desire your welfare, but if you desire different things from life than they do, their version of cosmic justice on your behalf might not be to your liking. Sowell shares the example of poor immigrants to the United States before WWII. Many lived in terrible housing conditions. Some, understandably, pitied them. These seekers of cosmic justice set about making laws that forced landlords to provide better living conditions. Now, of course that's a nice thing to wish for these people, better living conditions. I doubt many were reveling in their indignity and discomfort. However, many of these poor immigrants *could* have afforded better housing even before the laws changed. So why did they go on in their hovels? Well, they were sending as much money as they could to their families overseas, often saving for their journey to join them in the states. These laws, meant kindheartedly for their benefit, had the accidental effect of forcing them to pay a higher percentage of their wages for housing, leaving less for their families. Especially for Jewish immigrants trying to get their families out of Europe at this time, it wasn't a change they would have chosen. Of course, all kinds of arguments could be made that in the long run this was a good change, that it helped more people than in hurt, that it lead to other good advancements for American citizens. The point is not to say that it didn't. The point is to say that limited human vision of what is for the "greater good" is more complex than we are really capable of dealing with, at least without the benefit of hindsight.

    Another problem with seeking cosmic justice is that its proponents can often turn into tyrants. Their vision, one of a world that is perfectly fair, where every wrong is made right, where no one is oppressed or poor, is hard to argue with. No one wants people to suffer. And so, these visions, when combined with the power to pursue them, can be dangerous. Sowell says, 

"On issue after issue, the morally self-anointed visionaries have for centuries argued as if no honest disagreement were possible, as if those who opposed them were not merely in error but in sin. This has long been a hallmark of those with a cosmic vision of the world and of themselves as saviors of the world, whether they are saving it from war, overpopulation, capitalism, genetic degradation, environmental destruction, or whatever the crisis du jour might be."

When you view your opposition as not merely in error but in sin, it frees you from a certain amount of respect due to them, it frees you from honest debate, it frees you from analyzing factual outcomes of your policies. Your opposition has no need of being convinced with data, facts, or logic. Rather, they need to be called to repentance. If any opposition to your goals is sin, then any force necessary against that sin is righteousness. The ends then justify the means. 

    These visions of cosmic justice can make attaining loyal followers easy: 

"Just as ancient tyrants gave the people bread and circuses, in exchange for their loyalty, so visions can acquire a tyrannical sway over people's minds by offering them an exalted sense of themselves in exchange for their loyalty to the vision through all the vicissitudes of facts to the contrary. This self-exaltation can take many forms on many issues. Whether the particular issue is crime, automobile safety, income statistics, military defense, or overpopulation theories, the one consistency among them is that the conclusions reached exalt those who share the vision over the great unwashed who do not." 

No one can argue against the cosmic vision from an honest standpoint, they must be in sin. Not supporting the righteous cause makes you a bad person. It doesn't matter if your concerns are founded in reality, if you have evidence on your side, it doesn't matter if the cosmic vision comes with colossal collateral damage- if you want to be a good person, you have to be on the side of the cosmic vision and voice no dissent. Now, where might we have seen something like that happen recently.......

    So, what's the alternative?  We just do away with all conception of fair and just? We just accept that the world is awful and people are awful, and give ourselves up to wallowing? No. The solution is the Rule of Law, a founding principle of the American Revolution. The Rule of Law means that everyone knows the laws they are expected to follow, and the laws apply to all people equally. No exceptions are made for the wealthy and privileged, which means no exceptions are made for the poor and unfortunate. That sounds harsh, because I think social justice has been gaining ground and popularity for a while. However, call to mind the phrase 'justice is blind' or the image of Lady Justice with her scales and her blindfold. This brand of justice might not sound appealing, but remember, it is the only brand we are capable of dishing out. (As an aside, as a libertarian, I would argue that we should get rid of a great deal of our laws, which would lessen the problem of applying all laws equally, without applying them according to individual circumstances.) Sowell gives an example of an alternative view of justice that didn't turn out quite as well as the American Revolution. The French revolution, modeled in many ways after the American one, differed in that they sought a more cosmic form of justice. They had what they called "representatives on a mission" who traveled the country, looking for wrongs that they could right. Sounds noble, yes? Well, does it still sound noble when you consider that they also had a guillotine that traveled with them to right those wrongs? Does it still sound noble when it's connected to the name of Robespierre? Not so much. Blind justice and the rule of law might pale in comparison with your visions of cosmic justice, but it's the best that we, as mere mortals lacking in omniscience, can hope for. At least until Jesus reigns. 

    Now, none of this is to say that you can't try to execute cosmic justice in your own life. You are free and encouraged to give generously to those in need, help those who are struggling, et. cetera. The point is that a stable and just government cannot be built in the same way by mere mortals. 

    If anyone actually reads this, apologies. I flatter myself that, back in my college days in the ancient times, I was a much better writer than this. Perhaps I can improve again, with practice. I would definitely recommend this book. It isn't very long, it's well written and organized, and I learned a lot. It's nice to hear a different perspective than the one that is currently popular. Next up- The Bitcoin Standard. Probably.