An often-repeated saying among Arabs, widely believed to be the panacea to our political ills, goes like this: “The right person in the right position” by which we mean that if we insert the most qualified person for a specific job, many of the problems affected would be solved. This is a strong phrase since it seems to be irrefutable. After all, should we otherwise put the “wrong” person in any position? Conversely, should we not create the right positions for the right people?
People not trained in economics would answer both questions in the negative – they seem too commonsensical to be questioned. Now, why would anyone want to throw a monkey wrench at this understanding? The aim of this article is to show that there is much more than meets the eye here, and that there are many problems with this seemingly innocent and innocuous phrase.
Let us first ask ourselves what we mean by right. It is one of the words we use liberally in conversations, and we find it useful to further our arguments. The word is powerful precisely because it is vague. We often assume by saying it that the choices are easily differentiable, exhaustible, and preferentially ordered.
In this imperfect world of ours, we should not mean by right a maximally good thing, nor the best choice in any possible world, but an optimific solution given so many shortcomings to our expectations of how the world should be, and a third-rate state of affairs to be sought as opposed to our idealized models of a smoother and fairer world. However, this way of viewing the world is foreign to our simpler comprehensions. As Hillel Steiner reminds us, our moral intuitions “don’t respond well to problems where what is wanted is not some missing piece from a best world jigsaw puzzle, but rather some way of distinguishing the pieces of second-best worlds from those of third-best ones.” (Hillel Steiner, An Essay on Rights, 1994, p. 3) In addition, it should be kept in mind that even these second- and third-best worlds are deeply personal fictions that we entertain in action.
This ultimately mean that anything that works is, to some degree, right. However, our pragmatic result is unsatisfactory: For there are things that work that are judged by some better than others. But herein lies the error: For these better states of affairs may be judged worse by others yet. We arrive at the previously known conclusion that it is fallacious to think that anything is universally better than another, and therefore, it is unfair and often cruel to impose any one solution over another. Human freedom presupposes that no such unanimity can be established among individuals.
Can there, then, be an expert, a technocrat, with specific and comprehensive knowledge in any given field to make the decisions for people regarding the reaching of a second- or third-best worlds? Assuming that any one person has such omniscience, the answer again has to be in the negative, since people judge states of affairs differently, and their judgments are not necessarily wrongminded.
One of the essential functions of private property is to allow individuals the liberty to make their own choices employing what they own, in order to achieve what they believe to be better states of affairs than the ones they esteem the world to be in. In Human Action, Ludwig von Mises asserts that this is the essence of our conscious behavior: We are dissatisfied with the world in one way, and we seek to change it. We compete with others on what world to actualize and which worlds to leave potential.
Not one person has access to (1) what anyone thinks the better world looks like, or (2) what a better world actually looks like, simply due to the inexistence of these conceptions. Our visions are particular, and they are atomistic: We don’t at any moment apprehend the whole world, but small parcels of it. To assume that there is any true conception of the world is outright wrong, let alone the belief that a finite set of technocrats can have. Logicians call this feature of language its existential import: We may talk about a thing without a care of its existence, just like our talk of the qualities of a unicorn or the properties of a partial differential equation, regardless of their existences. The discussion is meaningful only insofar that we don’t assume their existence, for they may not exist, but we can still derive meaning from analyzing the concepts.
Let us water-down our discussion now and talk about a simpler problem: Are technocrats able to make the world a better place to some individuals? Of course, as they are often able to improve their lot. Nevertheless, aside from this naïve answer, they are also able to improve the lives of many citizens. Technocrats, as government appointees, are usually, but not always, highly qualified individuals, and they are often capable and competent in their own fields of profession. They are able to help others in their own specific lines of work, so why not expand their sphere of influence upon the whole society.
First, we prefer voluntary solutions to our problems over coercive ones. Second, we prefer having our own personal agents to solve our problems, since the legal doctrine “Qui facit per alium facit per se” would not apply when one is imposed on us, and we do not have direct influence on which technocrat is appointed and for which position. We might not know which physician is better at a hospital or which hospital is better at curing an ill, so we relegate our judgment to others and choose on convenience; but we do not want any set of people making all our choices for us, especially where we know what to choose. Third, technocrats can optimize some social ‘good’ but an optimization of all possible goods is not possible, so which good should be chosen, and to whose benefit? Fourth, the power any position grants often clouds the judgment of the officer and influences his choices, and therefore the benefit, as opposed to market interactions, will not be mutually beneficial.
To answer the questions posed in the beginning of the article: A technocrat, may have the specific knowledge appropriate to run a business, but he would always be the “wrong” person in coercive government appointments, as we have established that there can be no right persons in such a position. The only available and efficient way to create a position for such a qualified person is for him to compete with others in the market, using resources available to him, and extending his services to those requesting it. A technocrat cannot provide long-term satisfactory solutions to the problems of society because of these tendencies, and the more the powers granted to him, the more lucrative his position will be to the power-hungry ideologues Hayek (Why the Worst Get on Top) describes, the greater the damage they can do as Friedman (Capitalism and Freedom) reminds us, and the greater the threat they will impose on us as Mises (Socialism) has warned us a century ago.
