Society, Governmental Regulation, and Silly Putty

Like many libertarian leaning people, I have a distinct lack of regard for governmental regulation. I find that I have a difficult time expressing the reasons for some of this to people who don't share the view, but I recently developed a model that describes it. Using silly putty. I use silly putty because 1) It describes the effect in a visualizable way, and 2) I think it's funny.

For those unfamiliar with silly putty, it has some odd characteristics. Given an applied force (like gravity) it will flow to conform to a container. Strike it suddenly, and it will bounce or even break. This is important, as we shall see. (can you imagine me as a professor?) For the purposes of this post, I will use the putty as a model for society, with government represented by actions applied to the putty. I divide the actions into three types.

First up is forces. Forces act by pulling or pushing society in various directions. These are the most basic effects on society and act in a very broad fashion. The desire for stuff, need for security, and political ideology are examples of forces. The need for politicians to do what it takes to get elected would be another. Governmental examples would be criminal law enforcement and broadly designed tax incentives. Forces act in ways that have effects that are usually fairly predictable in a large sense, but less so in the details. When measured by statistics, forces tend to create a 'bell curve' shape if they are balanced by another force, or a 'hockey stick' if they are not. In the silly putty model, forces control where the putty tries to flow towards.

Next up are limits. Limits are properties of the system that keep it within artificial bounds. This would be things like Social Security, Welfare, and minimum wage. I cannot think of any that are not governmental, but that does not mean they do not exist. Limits also act in ways that tend to be pretty predictable, but not always the ones desired. When measured by statistics, limits tend to express as a 'pooling' effect at the limit. (See chart 3 on this report that Luis showed me... this is what got me started on this analogy). In the silly putty model, limits are the container that bounds some areas.

Lastly are focused forces. Focused forces are specific interactions aimed at narrowly target goals. Note that they can push or pull. These would be things like regulations against specific chemicals, incentives towards specific technologies, and demographically targeted laws. The only thing predictable about the results is their unintended consequences. When measured by statistics focused forces tend to express as a temporary 'spike' or 'divot'. In the silly putty model, this is analogous to pushing against the putty with a pencil, or pulling with a hook.

My personal notion is that forces are the best way to manipulate a system, followed by limits. Focused forces have a brief effect, but the inevitably fluid nature of any complex system will always cause it to flow around the obstruction, often with results worse than what the action was trying to fix. Limits are a middle option, to be used when necessary. Broad forces are the least attractive to many policy makers because of the lack of easily predicted point results, but in terms of making real and lasting changes are by far the most effective.

Read more...

Measuring Sucess

So a little bit ago, I posted a question about how we would measure the success or failure of our society and government. The silence was deafening. The only direct response was regarding health care, and I while it is a worthwhile area of study, it is certainly not enough by itself. Later I have received comments rejecting the concept of quantitative measurement as a means of assessment altogether. This does not work for me either.

I think the problem with settling on a set of quantitative measurements is that one will quickly discover that the most tightly held beliefs are often not supported by the evidence. Two obvious examples would be 'tax and spend democrat' and 'rising cost of living'. A review of the deficit will quickly sink the first, the consumer price index the latter.

It is simply the nature of how the brain works that we easily accept information that matches our world view, and we challenge or outright reject information that contradicts it. Humans are incredibly poor at weighing the costs and benefits of actions in a rigorous fashion; it is an ability that must be consciously and rigorously developed. Witness the popularity of video poker. A few seconds thought will make it obvious that as the lottery turns a consistent profit, the players must turn a consistent loss. And yet ask those who play and 99 out of 100 will tell you they are 'even or maybe a little ahead'. The emotional impact of winning and loosing is not a linear affect, so many small losses will be outweighed by the rare large win, even though the net over time is always a loss.

Likewise, the benefits of policies we agree with are easier to see and have more emotional impact than the costs. The opposite is true of policies we disagree with. Attached to this is the tendency to apply a binary 'good'/'bad' label to the policy. The reality is messy and unattractive; all policies have costs and benefits. There are vanishing few pure gain or pure loss actions.

So I conclude that an objective quantitative means of measuring society is necessary to make any kind of informed decision. As a matter of practicality, some of the means will slant one way, some will slant another. As long as they balance out reasonably well, the imperfections of any one indicator are not a huge problem.

Read more...

What is 'Fair'?

There has been much use of the word 'fair' floating around recently. I personally do not generally use the word; 'Fair' seems like a childhood concept to me. Since I do not use it myself, and given my awe inspiringly poor grasp of implicit arguments, I am curious what people mean by 'fair'.

Since it is being used in the context of taxes lately, I will discuss it in those terms. All these stats are pulled from here.

As of 2006, the top 20% of people make 55.7% of all the money, and pay 69.3% of all Federal taxes. The rest of us make 44.3% of all the money, and pay 30.7% of the taxes.

For a more stark comparison, the top 10% make 41.6% of all the money, and pay 55.4% of all Federal taxes. The rest of us make 58.4% of the money, and pay 44.6% of the taxes.

The average tax paid (per household?) is $18,800. The average tax paid by the bottom quintile is $700. The average tax paid by the second quintile is $4,000. The average tax paid by the middle quintile is $8,600. The average tax paid by the fourth quintile is $15,700. The average tax paid by the top quintile is $64,000. (all numbers federal taxes for 2006).

The extent to which the majority of people in America are subsidized by the wealthy is difficult to overstate, at least in tax terms. Is this 'fair'? It is certainly hard to argue that the wealthy are not paying their 'fair' share. On the other hand, they can afford it. And the simple fact that their portion of the overall income is increasing proves rather handily that this is not a crippling burden.

I do wonder about the inevitable effects of this on policy however. The 'payocracy' effect (he who pays makes the rules) is nearly unavoidable. If they are paying for the Federal government, is it not 'fair' that they have more say in how it works? And 'fair' or not, is it in the best ineterests of the country if they do effectively control the government? Come to that, whether or not it is in the best interests of the country, can it be avoided?

Read more...

Why Government Expands

Much is said about the expansion of government from all sides. Some favor large government, some do not.

Largely, it really doesn't matter whether people believe in large government or not, because it will always expand regardless.

Many people are aware that this happens, but are unaware of why. Charges are thrown around of 'power grabs' and 'socialism' etc., but this is not why.

The answer is much simpler and harder to address.

People are elected to 'do something'. For the purposes of this discussion, what they are elected to do is irrellevant. It is the 'do something' itself that matters.

To accomplish any goal, you need to be able to make changes. To make changes, you need power. It is really that simple. Even the ones whose goal is to reduce government need to gain power to make it happen.

No evil motives, no master plan, not even bad judgement.

Just the obvious and unavaoidable end result of the generating circumstances.

Read more...

Natural Consequences

A natural consequence can be defined as the way a given situation will change over time in the absence of interfering action. Natural consequences can rarely be fully predicted in a real world setting, but their general shape is usually easily foreseen.

A simple example : If you roll a ball down a hill, you cannot easily predict the exact course it will take, but you know it is going to the bottom of the hill.

A more complex example : If you build a house on a foundation of sand, the house will collapse. Where it will break is not easily predictable... the walls may separate from the floor, or each other, the floor may collapse, ectetera. It may take a week, it may take a year. But it will collapse.

A real life example : If, as an ongoing policy, you buy things without bothering to ask what they cost, the price of those things will increase constantly.

Now that I think about it, natural consequences are really an expression of a deeper priciple : balance. A situation that is out of balance will do one of two things. It will either 1) Move back towards balance, because of effects on a related system countering, or 2) Spin out of control until it breaks, and the wreckage will fall into balance.

Read more...

Abortion

So, to stick with social issues, why not stick my... hand ... into the moral bear-trap that is abortion?

As usual, I have pretty much no use for any of the standard arguments from either side. In just about every case, they are not real reasons, they are just that, arguments. A real reason applies to more than just one issue. And neither side is inclined to apply "choice" or "life" to any other issue. The abortion 'issue' is barely even about abortion any more. It is about 'women's rights' on the one hand and 'traditional values' on the other. All the talk is just noise, as far as I am concerned.

So I will start from scratch.

The notion that life begins at conception has no justification that I can see. The notion that life begins at birth is just as unsupportable. And nobody that I know of supports the notion that there is any definable point in between where one tick of the clock, it's just a collection of cells with no rights, the next tick it is a baby and killing it would be murder. We could go with viability, but that creates a weird system where the definition of a human being changes with advancements in medical science. So, this isn't really getting me anywhere.

If there was an overwhelming agreement amongst the people as to when life began, we could go with that. Many laws are based on that alone. Public nudity, for example. But there is no agreement. Thus the whole argument. So this does not help much either.

I could, I suppose turn to religion, but since I am non-religious to an extent that is hard to overstate, no help there.

Personal liberty is the only argument left. One of my most core beliefs is that personal liberty is a default state - that is, it needs no reason. Rather, it may only be limited where a compelling reason exists to do so. Since I can find no such reason, I can only view this as the final word.

Those who oppose abortion are best served by addressing the reasons for abortion, rather than the act itself. Not only is this morally superior in my eyes, it is just flat out more likely to work.

Read more...

Morality, Homosexuality, Liberals, and Conservatives

For the purposes of this post, I am going to talk about liberalism and conservatism in a broad sense, separate from the political dogma that has attached itself to each. This may be a bit jarring, but try and bear with me.

A basic, undeniable truth : Change has consequences. Some of those consequences will be desirable, some will not. Some will be intentional, some will not. Some will be predictable, some... well, you get the picture.

Liberalism can be defined as a tendency to see the desirable effects of changes, and a relative lack of concern with the unpredictable effects.

Conservatism can be defined as a tendency to see the undesirable effects of changes, and a focus on the unpredictable effects.

Each has it's place, each is necessary. Taken too far, each gets ugly. Used together with a healthy dose of moderation, they create balance, and balance is damn near the key to all things.

...

To leap sideways a bit, homosexuality, most specifically homosexual marriage, has been in the news and all over the blogs lately. It is drawing a deep and bitter divide between two groups; religious conservatives who see their way of life under attack, and homosexuals who are tired of being treated as non-people and see no reason to tolerate it anymore.

Myself? For the life of me, I really find it hard to believe that this is actually an issue. How it could possibly be my concern if any two (or twelve, for that matter) people decide to get married completely escapes my comprehension.

The most effective argument I have seen mustered against homosexual marriage is something about 'How do I explain to my kids when they see two men out holding hands and they call themselves Mr & Mr So-and-so?". But, to loosen my normal rule against snarky statements : That whole answering kids tough questions? It's called parenting. Look it up. Sorry about the lapse, back to being polite.

...

And now to tie this together.

We are in the midst of a sea change. As a society we are stepping away from a dogmatic system of morals, where some things are just immoral because that is just how it is, to a functional system of morals, where right and wrong are based on the consequences of a behaviour.

You can still see the remnants of the old system. . The courts have in numerous cases used the simple fact that something is traditional as justification that it is therefore valuable, and within society's mandate to regulate, encourage, or even enforce. To some extent, this is really an appropriate thing for the courts to do.

We are in a process of change now that can be likened to rebuilding the foundation of a house. You can do this by propping things up, removing a footing, replacing it, and moving to the next. You'll get a few cracks in the walls, but nothing that can't be fixed. What you cannot do is rip out all the footings at once. The house will simply collapse.

I am in my mid-thirties. The generation before mine saw equality as a struggle, that might or might not happen. My generation saw it more as a process, something to work towards. The generation that follows sees it as a given, that just hasn't been fully implemented yet.

The whole fight over marriage will, in the end, just be a footnote, the last gasp of dogmatic morality. This is really the last identifiable 'issue', and it will end not with homosexual equality, but with people equality. It is just a matter of time.

Read more...

The Odd Effects of Inflation

It is a popular talking point right now to harp on how middle class incomes have declined. Of course, in absolute dollars this is not true, but absolute dollars are of little meaning with our constant inflation system of economics. So we use 'real' dollars, inflation adjusted relative to some more or less arbitrarily selected year.

What I think many people fail to consider is that the results of this adjustment are no longer a measurement of a single factor (income), but rather a measurement of two factors (income and inflation). We spend a lot of time debating what those income numbers mean, and what to do about them, but we abstract away the inflation numbers uncritically.

So, as I so often say, step back from policy positions and politics for a moment. Consider this graph. Now, we can talk about trends and variance between groups, but that is not what strikes me about this graph.

What strikes me is how flat it is. Across 40 years, many different administrations, different parties in control, at least one major policy shift in the Reagan years, look at how straight the lines are. Especially note how close to completely flat the 50% and lower lines are.

Statistics don't work that way. This just screams artifact. Somewhere in the equation we have a feedback loop.

Since 1950, the average new house size has well over doubled. We have more cars now than we have drivers. 40inch TV's used to be for rich people only, now 40" ain't that big, and the electronics store has about an acre of them, so people can have one in the living room and the bedroom. I actually saw an add for a 26" flat screen listed as 'perfect for the bathroom or other small areas'. Cell phones, laptops, the Internet, how many people reading this remember when a computer was an extravagance that only the wealthy could have? Now, how many of you have more than one?

And yet I am supposed to believe we are poorer now than then? This does not add up.

The problem is that the staple items, housing most especially, have their price driven by what the majority of Americans (the middle class) are willing to pay. Lowering the price of housing does not cause us to spend less money, it causes us to get bigger homes. But the consumer price index uses cost of housing as it's largest factor. Feedback loop!

When you get down to it, 'real income' does not measure what you get, it measures what percentage of what you get is left after paying for the basics. It takes no account for how much you can get with that percentage.

Read more...

Out-Group Homogeneity and Straw Arguments

Out-Group Homogeneity is the tendency of people to see the variety within their own group, but see other groups as being 'all the same'. It appears to be something of a human nature thing, an abstraction tool used to reduce the complexities of society to something we can fit in our pointy little heads. Of course, the nice thing about being human is that, at least to some extent, we can step beyond 'human nature' and do better. Doesn't always mean we do, but we can.

The misuse of this is demonstrated with dreary regularity in politics. The script goes like this (feel free to sing along) :
They [democrats/republicans/whatever] say [insert position point from one member of target group] but then they do [insert action by another member of target group].

This works because people listen to arguments that support their position much less critically than arguments that oppose it. So we then follow with the next part of the script:

Attacking group runs with the straw argument. It is of course proof that [democrats/republicans/whatever] are hypocrites and stupid. Ridicule will be thrown, congratulatory backslapping will be enjoyed, a good time is had by all.

Defending group, of course, takes about thirty seconds to point out that this is stupid, that [insert position point from one member of target group] has nothing to do with [insert action by another member of target group] and the attacking group are all hypocrites and stupid. Ridicule will be thrown, congratulatory backslapping will be enjoyed, a good time is had by all.

Rinse. Repeat. And repeat, ad nauseum. What does it accomplish? My first response is to say 'nothing', but that is incorrect. What it accomplishes is to create a sense of belonging to the group, whether you are in the attacking or defending group. It shows that 'they' are dumb and dishonest, while 'we' are smart and truthful. And of course, it makes it a bitch to have a grown up conversation with the other side.

I sometimes think that 80% or more of human interaction could be scripted on a piece of paper with fill-in-the-blanks for details. See here for a more in depth treatment of the concept.

.....

Y'know, I wonder if it would not be possible for a small group of people to put an end to this. Create an actual fill-in-the-blank form for the more obnoxious standard political games, and whenever one starts to catch on, distribute the filled out form 'virally'. Using the same form, over and over, with no regard to the issue or group being attacked. If it could be spread far enough, after a while people would start to see this crap as a bad joke rather than a legit tactic, and it would stop working. Behaviours that fail to achieve their desired goal tend to fade away.

Read more...

Moral Absolutism

Moral absolutism is the Right at it's best. A firm belief in hard work, self reliance, integrity, family, and for many, religion. It is a touchstone that defines who we are, and who we are trying to be. We do not always succeed, but we always know what we are striving for.

Moral absolutism is the Right at it's worst. Abortion, gay marriage, blue laws, and for many, religion. When you know deep down what is right and what is wrong, it is easy to think you can force it on others.

Moral absolutism is the Left at it's best. Tolerance, equality, justice, and charity. It drives them to look for ways to help those in need, protect those who are threatened.

Moral absolutism is the Left at it's worst. Hate speech laws that slide into censorship, laws to protect people from themselves 'for their own good', kangaroo civil rights tribunals. When you know deep down what is right and what is wrong, it is easy to think you can force it on others.

It is all of these things and more. It is often said that the Right is more about moral absolutism, the left more about relative morals. I say otherwise. What I see is that both sides are a mix of both, the difference is what they hold inviolable, and what they are willing to be flexible about.

I think that the Right/Left divide is less important than the directional divide. When you point your morals inward, as an ideal to live up to, it can only improve you and the world. When you point them outward, and try to force them onto others... well, then it gets ugly pretty fast.

I have run across a number of people who believe that the Right is against increasing taxes on the wealthy because we hold some belief that we will ourselves benefit from it. This is not true. We just believe it wrong to take from others simply because they have more than us.

I have run across a number of people who believe that the Left is for welfare and social programs because they are lazy and want free shit. This is not true. Last fall, when my Father was in chemo for his throat cancer, about two dozen of his co-workers showed up to help lay in firewood for the winter. Hardcore liberals, government union workers all, they busted ass like I have rarely seen. Their work, their time, their sweat and blood, to help someone out.

There are of course people on all ends who are just greedy, immoral scumbags. But nothing I have seen in my life leads me to believe that either side has significantly more than the other.

(One difference I see is that (from where I sit, at least) a sizable portion of the Left is completely unaware that they are forcing their morals onto others. "Honor diversity, ban hate speech". Many people do not even see the problem with that statement. You see this most at the universities, so some of it can just be written off to youth, but these people are creepy.)

Read more...

Rights

Continuing my theme of differing definitions I guess I have to keep my (implied) promise and address the concept of rights. This is a challenging area for me to stay balanced, as my personal beliefs are pretty heavy right-wing here. I shall try my best.

First up is negative rights. This is the concept that certain rights exist, natural to all persons. They are not dependent on any external force, but rather internal to each individual. The obvious and best example is the Bill of Rights in the constitution. It does not say what your rights are, in fact it specifically says that it is not an exhaustive list (via the ninth and tenth amendments). Instead, it is a list of places government is not allowed to interfere. It includes no promise that you will get anything, just a promise that these things may not be taken from you.

Next up is positive rights. This is a concept that there are certain things that each person should have, and if they fail or are prevented from attaining these things, some external force (government) should provide them. The example that comes to mind is the UN definition, which literally defines rights as something the government is required to guarantee. This is why the UN does not recognize a right to self defense. By definition, self defense cannot be externally supplied.

(OK, I think that was pretty balanced, now comes the hard part.)

An interesting parallel can be found in the rules of motor sports. Most smaller and entry level sports have what I call open rules. There is a list of required rules, and a list of what you are not allowed to do. Beyond that, anything not addressed in the rules is by definition allowed. Eventually, as a sport gets bigger and the vehicles get faster, they go to what I call closed rules. This is a list of requirements and a list of what you are allowed to do. If the rules do not say you can do something, you cannot.

The Constitution, as written, sets up open rules for people. You can do anything you want unless there is a law against it. It sets up closed rules for government. They can only set up the laws allowed by the list. This is negative rights at its purest. It maximizes freedom, but creates no security.

The New Deal largely introduced the concept of open rules for government. By way of creative interpretation of a few words, Congress justified doing pretty much anything they wanted. This allowed for the creation of Social Security, minimum wages, and in many ways most important, the civil rights movement. ( A strong case can be made that Federal enforcement of civil rights laws against states was unconstitutional. That is also a pretty strong case for positive rights.)

!!!Light Bulb!!! A strong justification for the concept of positive rights is that it is not just the government that can take away someones rights. Negative rights are great for protection against the government, but not so good against concerted efforts by a powerful group of private citizens attempting to control another group of citizens.

I think I have to stop here and let this idea develop a bit. I guess sometimes you can teach your self things.

Read more...

Equality

Most anyone in America believes in equality. No doubt there are some few exceptions, but not enough to note. Problem is, we don't all mean the same thing when we use the word.

There is equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

I will define equality of opportunity as a set of circumstances that allow an individual to become whatever they choose to make of them self. It is, in the end, a type of negative right. Generally, when you hear the Right talk about equality, this is what they mean. It is the notion that everyone should be have the chance to go out on the court, but they ain't all gonna be Michael Jordan. Taken to it's extreme, it is a philosophy entirely unconcerned with those who fail. They had a chance, what they did with it is their concern. And of course, it can never really be attained to perfection, everyone has their own advantages and disadvantages.

I will define equality of outcome as a set of circumstances that prevent an individual from from falling too far behind the societal norm. It is, in the end, a type of positive right. Generally ( in a contemporary sense) this is what the Left is talking about when they say equality. It is the notion that regardless of a persons actions, they should have some significant portion of what everyone else has. (I am not sure I said that right, always a risk when trying to articulate someone else's beliefs. It doesn't feel quite right, but I can't find better words). Taken to it's extreme, it reduces people to little more than numbers, with no control over their lives at all. And of course, it can never really be attained to perfection, some people will always find ways to get more, and some people can screw up anything.

Most everyone believes in both of these concepts, the real question we are debating is where should the balance fall? Contrary to the rhetoric, very few on the Right believe in truly just cutting loose those who fail to support themselves. To paraphrase someone smarter than me "I support the social safety net, just not the safety hammock" (from the coyote blog, I think). Also contrary to the rhetoric, pretty much no-one on the Left is crazy enough to believe in full on communism anymore, which is really the most extreme expression of outcome equality. Or at least it would have been if it had worked better.

I do wonder how much of the struggle between the Right and Left would just... go away, or at least become much more civil, if we were not trying to use the same word for two different things.

(I started to go into a discussion of negative vs. positive rights, but it is too big a subject and my thoughts are simply not well enough organized to articulate it yet.)

Read more...

Blame, Fault, Excuses, Responsibility and Power

There are three things I have no use for. Blame, fault, and excuses.

What do they have in common?

They are actually all just the same thing. They modify the emotional context of a discussion while justifying not changing anything.

Blame pushes responsibility away from the blamer onto someone else. It let's them feel good about themselves by feeling bad about someone else. But more than anything else, it lets them decide that they do not need to change to fix whatever the problem is, someone else does.

Excuses are just the same thing, without a specific target. An excuse is a way for someone to feel good about themselves after things go wrong, but if they do not take responsibility for their contribution to the situation, how can they learn from it?

Fault, of course, is the bastard child of the two. 'It's his fault' is just blame. 'It's not my fault' is just an excuse. The currently popular 'through no fault of their own' is an odd case of pushing an excuse onto someone else.

In the end, they are all about avoiding responsibility. The thing is, most people never think about the relation between responsibility and power.

They are the exact same thing.

Responsibility and power are not related, they are not even two sides of the same coin. They are the exact same thing. When you avoid responsibility, you avoid power. When you take responsibility, you take power. There is no case where you can be responsible for something if you do not have power over it. There is no case where you can have power over something and not be responsible for it.

What you can do is deny responsibility. 'It's not my fault'. As soon as you deny that your actions, your power, affects your situation, that power is gone. You cannot learn to chose actions to better your situation if you deny that your actions affect your situation.

You can also take responsibility. When you do, suddenly every action you take has consequences that affect your situation. When life does not go as you wish it to, the question becomes 'How do I do better?'. And you will find answers, because the answers exist. And you will learn. How can you not, when failure to learn harms your life, and that is your responsibility?

Read more...