David Mamet has written an extraordinary confessional for the Village Voice (I've edited this link, ht: Drudge) where he describes his philosophical change of heart from being an anti-American, anti-market believer in man's perfectibility to something different. An excerpt:
What about the role of government? Well, in the abstract, coming from my time and background, I thought it was a rather good thing, but tallying up the ledger in those things which affect me and in those things I observe, I am hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government led to much beyond sorrow.
But if the government is not to intervene, how will we, mere human beings, work it all out?
I wondered and read, and it occurred to me that I knew the answer, and here it is: We just seem to. How do I know? From experience. I referred to my own—take away the director from the staged play and what do you get? Usually a diminution of strife, a shorter rehearsal period, and a better production.
And then Mamet shows an understanding of public choice theory applied to theater:
The director, generally, does not cause strife, but his or her presence impels the actors to direct (and manufacture) claims designed to appeal to Authority—that is, to set aside the original goal (staging a play for the audience) and indulge in politics, the purpose of which may be to gain status and influence outside the ostensible goal of the endeavor.
He goes on to say he's been reading Sowell and Friedman (and Paul Johnson and Shelby Steele). Sounds like he would like some Hayek if he hasn't tried him already.
Read the whole thing, although the site is slow right now from the raft of comments (190 and rising rapidly) and Drudge's link.
And if anyone out there knows Mr. Mamet or someone who knows him, I sure would like to invite him to be a guest on EconTalk.
