What is Reddit's opinion of Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

Hey, Seeing Like a State has been on my TBR list for a while now, but the amount of jargon in the jacket description makes it seem like the read could end up being pretty inaccessible to me.

Would you say this book is appropriate for the layperson? Also, what did you get out of it?

It sounds like you want to make this subreddit more legible in the sense that a random outsider can grok it in minimal time.

Becoming more legible is rarely beneficial except to people trying to control something. The book Seeing Like a State is about how governments force people and capital to become more legible so they can control them better even though it's usually less productive.

Being hit by a car confers no innate bodily response to avoid being hit by a a car in the future.

Not even close to an analogy.

Previous SARS-COV-2 infection DOES confer an innate response to infection in the future. There is uncertainty of the degree in the protection on a case by case basis that must be measured.

From a Public health administration perspective it is simply easier to administer a once size fits all vaccine than quantifying blood antibody levels. That is the only reason they are mandating it. A great book that covers the "blindness" of public administration is Seeing Like a State by james Scott.

You may want to start with https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-like-State-Certain-Condition/dp/0300078153

Governments tend to really prefer to rearrange affairs whenever possible to make them easier to understand and manage. Unorganized sectors of the economy may be efficient but the government can't properly understand or measure that efficiency and tend to underestimate what they cannot measure.

I got this from this anarchist book. I'm not an anarchist, but the guy did make a lot of interesting and true points. For example: police are heavily fetishized in our society - from the typical TV shows and movie heroes we watch to what we think police do vs. what they actually do. Police are basically armed bureaucrats but are only able to intervene in things they actually have information on, which isn't much. If you drive through town with your license plate not on you'll certainly get that rectified by police. If you beat your wife, though, probably not so much. Same as if you engage in any real consensual activity.

Seems like some transhumanists would do well to read:

Seeing Like A State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed by James C. Scott

Best book I ever read at university, hands down.

Amazon Link Wikipedia Link

Compulsory ujamaa villages in Tanzania, collectivization in Russia, Le Corbusier’s urban planning theory realized in Brasilia, the Great Leap Forward in China, agricultural "modernization" in the Tropics—the twentieth century has been racked by grand utopian schemes that have inadvertently brought death and disruption to millions. Why do well-intentioned plans for improving the human condition go tragically awry?

In this wide-ranging and original book, James C. Scott analyzes failed cases of large-scale authoritarian plans in a variety of fields. Centrally managed social plans misfire, Scott argues, when they impose schematic visions that do violence to complex interdependencies that are not—and cannot—be fully understood. Further, the success of designs for social organization depends upon the recognition that local, practical knowledge is as important as formal, epistemic knowledge. The author builds a persuasive case against "development theory" and imperialistic state planning that disregards the values, desires, and objections of its subjects. He identifies and discusses four conditions common to all planning disasters: administrative ordering of nature and society by the state; a "high-modernist ideology" that places confidence in the ability of science to improve every aspect of human life; a willingness to use authoritarian state power to effect large- scale interventions; and a prostrate civil society that cannot effectively resist such plans.

Here's a worthwhile section to excerpt, in anticipation of those who may feel inclined to write off the writer as some right-wing conservative:

>Let me conclude by returning to the theme I led with: in this highly-polarized political moment, it is generally assumed that if someone is pushing back against a popular left-leaning narrative, or espousing an inconvenient view for the left, then they are de facto aligned with the right, intentionally or not. Beauchamp’s rebuttal attempt provides a great example of this fundamentalist thinking: highlighting systemic political bias or threats to free speech on campus will help the right – regardless of one’s intentions –and so, apparently, we should not talk about these issues (except, perhaps, to deny they are a big deal).
>
>I am deeply familiar with this “logic”: as a Muslim scholar who, until recently, worked exclusively on national security and foreign policy issues, it was regularly *suggested* to me that criticism of the “War on Terror” – especially by “people like me” — provided cover or ammunition for al-Qaeda, ISIS and their sympathizers. In the view of these critics (mostly on the right), I was aiding and abetting “the enemy,” intentionally or not.
>
>There was even an article published in the National Security Law Journal which argued that I, and academics like me (by which the author seemed to mean: Muslim, left-leaning, and politically “radical”) should be viewed as enemies of the state — and could legitimately be targeted by national security and law enforcement agencies. This article was eventually retracted, and its author forced to resign from his position at West Point (as described in the Washington Post here). But suffice it to say, I *get* the kind of narrative Beauchamp is trying to spin here, and I reject it whole-cloth.
>
>I challenge U.S. national security and foreign policy precisely to render it more effective, efficient and beneficent – because I actually have “skin in the game” with regards to how the military is deployed. I relentlessly criticize bad research on Trump and his supporters because it is important for the opposition to be clear-eyed and level-headed about why he won – to help ensure it does not happen again. A similar type of motivation undergirds my critique of Beauchamp and Yglesias:
>
>It does not help the left or academics to respond to distortions and exaggerations on the right by denying that there is <em>any</em> significant problem. It is especially damaging for “wonks” or academics to dress up these kinds of political narratives (essentially, propaganda) as social research – even more so if this “research” suffers from glaring errors or shortcomings like the essays criticized here.
>
>Such a strategy is self-defeating because it is the left, those in humanities and social sciences, those from historically marginalized and disenfranchised groups, and those who seek to give voice to these perspectives or to help these populations, who stand to lose the most if the credibility of social research is further eroded due to perceived partisanship.
>
>....
>
>I get why many on the left, especially at elite universities and media outlets, would rather just say “nothing to see here,” than to confront these realities. But it will not do, for all of us to simply close ranks and insist “there is no problem, we will make no changes.” Because there is a problem — and change is coming to institutions of higher learning, one way or another.

Sure! The automotive industry is so heavily regulated from both safety and fuel economy standpoints that you need to be a billionaire to break into it with a new product - like an electric car - and Tesla has faced huge regulatory problems expanding because the traditional automakers don’t want the competition.

Automotive safety and environmental regulations are wonderful things but then do drive the price of cars up and limit the structure of cars. In a place like the US, without public transit, huge amounts of poor people’s budgets are spent on expensive cars. The choice they don’t have is to buy a VW Beetle (the original, which I believe is still being manufactured in Mexico) or those little three cylinder Geo Metro’s from the 80’s that would be much cheaper to manufacture than a modern car with all the bells and whistles, but they cannot because those cars are illegal to manufacture and sell.

Please understand - I’m not arguing for perfect solutions. This is hard for some people to get. Yes. Every decision is a balance of risks and rewards, and some people want the opportunity to make riskier decisions than other people - because they want to escape their current condition. This is why some people join the army, or move across country to seek new opportunities, or work 80 hours a week to send their kids to college in hopes of a better life.

I ride motorcycles. They’re inherently less safe than cars. And inherently more fun. I think I should have the ability to make that risk/reward decision, and I don’t like the fact that I can’t make the risk reward decision of buying an brand new VW Beetle for $3000, or a $5000 15 year old used car that meets government regulations, but will break down a lot and cost me more money over time and keep me stuck in poverty.

Of course I don’t think some business owner cares about me. He cares about staying in business and providing a competitive good or service. I don’t think Bono or Brad Pitt care about me either. Some of my doctors and dentists have cared about me, and some have definitely only cared about their business and tried to cheat me.

And I definitely don’t think Donald Trump or Joe Biden care about me either. Bernie cares about me in an abstract way, and I’m sure he’d help me mow my lawn if he was my neighbor but - he’s a rare exception. Most everyone else in Congress is there for the exact same reasons CEO’s are where they are at - they love being in charge and making money.

The difference is, a businessperson in a free market has to care about keeping 90-95% of his or her customers happy. And a politician only has to keep 30-35% of his customers happy, and can cheerfully screw over the other ones.

More flexibility stifling regulations caused, not by capitalism, but by state control - the high cost of insulin and other medication. I’ve lived in countries where you can walk up to an over the counter pharmacist and buy some pretty intense medications for less than $10, including insulin, anti nausea drugs used by cancer patients, and antidepressants, without a prescription.

Why are those things expensive in the US? Because of regulation. You are not allowed to produce or sell drugs in the US without following a strict (and expensive) regulatory process. That expense is passed on to the consumer (you!) and you can’t do anything about it because of the law.

That’s the opposite of capitalism - it’s state control of a portion of the economy, and friends and employees of the state get to rake in the profits and write the laws.

Now. I’m a huge fan of most regulations. I worked in the mortgage industry and they needed regulations because there was tremendous abuse. And I love clean air and water. If regulations are what make that a reality, I want those.

But I also understand basic economics - every law or regulation comes with a price tag and has unforeseen and unintended consequences.

Institutional design is a really interesting field of study. My hobby since college. I actually got to redesign the accountability and reporting structure of an NGO once in order to optimize flexibility and local ownership and decrease waste and the opportunity for corruption.

Anywho, if you’d like to learn more about regulatory structures and unintended consequences, I recommend reading “Seeing Like A State,” it was part of my Community Organization and Sustainable Development course back in my old college days. Also Elinor Ostrom’s Nobel prize winning work on “Crafting Institutions for Self Governing Irrigation Systems.” One is a look at how institutional design can kill a good idea, and one is a look at how institutional design can work well.

https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-like-State-Certain-Condition/dp/0300078153

https://www.amazon.com/Crafting-Institutions-Self-Governing-Irrigation-Systems/dp/1558151680

Hope that helps!

Scott's other work is of mixed quality, but Seeing Like a State is probably the best work of policy analysis I've ever read.

First of all, I appreciate the overall tone of this exchange.

>First of all, countries typically move from agricultural to manufacturing to service as they rise from Third World to First World status.

Service based economies require other economies to be agricultural and industrial, it's impossible for all economies to be service based. Since "developed" countries have both market and militaristic power the "developing" countries don't have much of a chance of catching up. It's an illusion of competition, they'll always be behind. Like the lottery there will be one or two winners, but not everyone will win.

>Again, look at China. A poor communist manufacturing mecca that is now quickly becoming a world power.

I think looking at China is a great idea, but I would use it as an example of what's wrong with a small group of people doing what they think is best for a large group of people. The human rights atrocities of the country are no secret, and if that is the price of progress then I say the price is too high.

>Do you have any proof that outsourcing destroys culture.

Yes. They way we're doing it destroys cultures. I'd recommend Seeing Like A State (Google books link) most notably Chapter 7: Compulsory Villagization In Tanzania.

Not to go too far "leftist" here but culture is an extension of how a people produce goods to survive. A major shift in production will cause a major shift in culture. If a major change in production is forced on a people, which is how it happens, generally by their own government from internal or external pressures(read: World Bank) I would argue that it does include a destruction of their culture. There's a reason the term 'economic colonialism' gets tossed around in discussions of globalization.

>Since culture is inherently a function of the peope who live there, what is wrong with a culture shift as a result of increased consumerism?

Culture shifts are a natural part of life. I would argue that a culture shift towards consumerism is a bad thing, reasons being the shortcomings of consumerism. But the real problem is a forced or coerced shift towards consumerism. That interferes with what I would consider to be basic human rights.

>Either way, I think if you ask someone that recieves the benefits of outsourcing, you would find that they enjoy a paycheck

I agree with this. But if I hit somebody over the head with a baseball bat I'm sure they'll appreciate me calling an ambulance for them and say it's a great thing. But I don't get to pretend that I'm one of the good guys for calling an ambulance. Many of the countries that we are "helping" with sweatshops and large scale agriculture schemes only got to the point of needing that help because of the past 4 centuries of colonization. If you come to terms with the flaws in the ideology of colonization I think you'll find that they're still present in what I'll loosely call free-trade globalization.

/MAN I ramble....