Adam
Smith, Andrew Jackson and Henry Ford are
associated with powerful themes that shape
contemporary society. The application of their
ideas does not, however, make a harmonious trio.
The
Smith-Jackson-Ford themes are:
This
Trio of compelling ideals controls everyday life
in the United States but inter-theme conflict
confounds the prospect of a sustainable future.
The
themes of Smith, Jackson and Ford, as applied in
a democratic context, do not play well for the
Urbanside, where 95 percent of contemporary
citizens derive their livelihood and which would
function most effectively if it occupied no more
that five percent of the land area in the United
States. The human settlement pattern in the
Urbanside is unsustainable from the perspective
of mobility and shelter as well as provision of
clean air, pure water, healthful food and
physical health. (For a summary of the current
level of dysfunction, see “Regional
Rigor Mortis,” June 6, 2005.)
The
Smith-Jackson-Ford Trio is also not in harmony
with the Countryside upon which 100 percent of
the population depends for food, air and water
and which should cover the remaining 95 percent
of the land area. The Countryside is being
eroded by scatteration of urban land uses that
are far
more efficiently supported in
the Urbanside. These
more efficient configurations are ones that the
market documents the vast majority of citizens
favor, if they could afford them.
Ironically, these configurations of human
settlement would be less expensive were it not
for for massive government subsidies on the
scattered, inefficient patterns.
The
Countryside would be further degraded by
auto-dependent tourism, as will be documented in
The Shape of Warrenton-Fauquier’s Future.
The
ideas of Smith, Jackson and Ford are not bad per
se. It is, however, a fact that the
cumulative impact of the Trio in combination is
very bad as currently applied. This
is due in large part to misguided subsidies and
the failure to equitably and rationally allocate
location variable costs of goods and services.
Adam
Smith’s market economy is the economic system
that most effectively harnesses human initiative
and has resulted in unprecedented economic
prosperity and physical well-being in the
nation-states that have embraced a market driven
economy.
However,
in its most intensive applications in the early
21st century, the market economy has morphed to
become a consumer driven, winner-take-all engine
of mass resource consumption that is leaving
more and more citizens behind. No one, however,
has yet articulated a better way to allocate
resources in a democracy.
Without
a fair allocation of location based costs, the
settlement pattern which is the product of
Jacksonian right of land exploitation is
unsustainable. This is because the governance
structure has failed to evolve a balance between
individual rights and collective
responsibilities. The imbalance is
exacerbated by the failure to evolve a
democratic governance structure that allocates
the level of control to the level of impact
among the organic components of human
settlement.
The
catalyst that makes Smith’s market economy and
Jackson’s populist land consumption into a
unsustainable settlement pattern is the
excessive reliance on the private vehicle for
mobility. A chicken in every pot and car in
every garage is not a bad thing. It becomes a
very bad thing when the only way to get a
chicken, or anything else, is to drive to get
it.
Basic
physics drives private-vehicle unsustainability.
The size of the vehicle and the space required
to drive and park it disaggregates human
settlement pattern to the point of dysfunction.
The automobile has become the alcohol (or
perhaps the Small Pox) of an uninformed and over
expecting society. It is the catalyst for mass
over-consumption. (See "The Horseless
Carriage," Box 9 Chapter 13 from "The
Shape of the Future," reprinted as End
Note One in “Out
of Chaos,” July 26, 2005.
The
ideas of Smith, Jackson and Ford are all
confounded by the Fallacy of Composition: What
is good for one is frequently not good for all.
In a democracy it is not enough to be good for
one or good for a few, it has to be good for
many if not all. Even slim majorities result in
revolts and conflicts.
The
theorem that "what is good for a few is not
good for the majority" is the basic
equation driving problems of traffic congestion
and of a lack of affordable and accessible
housing. Just as a simple-minded goal of “home
ownership” will not solve the Shelter Crisis,
so cheap fuel will not solve the mobility
crisis. It will require Fundamental Change in
human settlement patterns and Fundamental Change
in governance structure.
--
July 25, 2005
|