It’s every man for himself said the elephant as he danced among the grasshoppers.

It’s every man for himself said the elephant as he danced among the grasshoppers.

Some years ago I saw David Suzuki explaining that a particular forest would continue to grow at 2-3%/year forever but, that permitting such growth to continue was inconsistent with an economic model that focused on short-term profits.   From such a viewpoint, he pointed out, it would make more sense to cut the entire forest down and invest the profits at 8%/year.   The economic model he referred to is similar to those used in arguments by many Libertarians in that it tends to simplify the model by ignoring “externalities.”

A Libertarian description of fueling your car for a Sunday afternoon road trip might focus on the act of paying a fair market price for the fuel and ignore the community’s cost of cleaning up the pollution created by burning the fuel.   A more enlightened Libertarian argument might concede that the cost to the community is not such an “externality” after all and would have to be considered as part of the cost of the transaction but there are other considerations that are too abstract to be included in any mass-marketed political philosophy.   Consider the act of burning that hydrocarbon fuel, for example…  For every carbon atom you burn you must extract two oxygen atoms from the atmosphere.  For every two hydrogen atoms you burn you must extract one oxygen atom from the air.   The cost of the oxygen is an externality in a simple economic model.  You don’t pay for it so why should you consider it at all?  Similarly, the owner of a forest cannot consider the value of the oxygen that the forest produces since he can’t charge for it.  The purely economic model is forced to ignore a key aspect of reality.

Libertarianism offers a watered-down vision of anarchy; one that appeals to those of us who feel that we can take care of ourselves and other people should have to do the same but, at the same time, recognizes that this individual independence is not absolute.   It is a form of anarchy that recognizes the need for government to enforce the law and protect us from invasion.   There’s an inherent ambiguity, though, in recognizing the need for government while rejecting government interference with individual rights.   It’s not always clear where the line should be drawn between the rights of the individual and the needs of society.  The use of a flawed economic model to make that decision does not reassure me.

Actually, I think my position on gun control is pretty nuanced.

Actually, I think my position on gun control is pretty nuanced.  On the one hand, I live in a densely populated part of a big city.  There is no direction you can aim a gun without threatening life and property and prudent people try not to put themselves in a position where they have to make the choice whether to fire a gun or not.  When I hear gunfire in the night I do not assume that it is the sound of a property owner protecting his home.  The odds are greatly in favor of it being criminal activity because criminals often have a reckless disregard for life and property.  On the other hand, my work frequently takes me out through ranchland into the mountains.  Out there, at the end of twenty miles of bad road, I expect the neighbors to have firearms and to be proficient in their use.  If I hear the sound of gunfire out there on the ranches I do not assume criminal activity because, out there, the legitimate uses of firearms greatly outnumber the possible criminal uses. 

Some of the arguments, pro and con, in the gun control debate are ludicrous.   Even the strictest gun control laws will not take guns away from criminals.  They will, typically, only disarm potential victims. Nor do I believe that gun control would equate to a reduction in violence.   Even if it were possible to disarm a majority of the criminals, the U.S. would remain a remarkably violent country by the standards of the developed world. Trying to reduce the murder rate in this country is a complex problem and will have to involve more than taking away a few of the common murder weapons.  On the other side of the argument I have to take issue with those who have fantasies of being able to fight off government troops armed with deer rifles.   A few dozen of these survivalist types would be no match for a couple Blackhawk helicopters.  If you want to arm yourself against a government takeover, arm yourself with knowledge.  Try to build community instead of disparaging people who disagree with you.   Those are things they can’t take away. 

unions?

Maybe I’m just too immature to accept the fact that other people, better than myself, have the right to push me around but I prefer to work with (or for) small businesses where, if I have a complaint, I can go directly to the owner.  The worker/contractor who has to deal with a big business rarely has access to those who make company policy.   Workers can form a union that is powerful enough to gain access to those decision makers but the union, itself, becomes another lumbering giant in pursuit of its own interests, often distinct from those of the workers who comprise it.   The labor union is an imperfect solution to a real problem and that problem is that as companies get larger, they become less responsive to the needs of the market and the society in which they are embedded.   Small businesses are dynamic, responsive to the market and a generally positive influence in their communities.   As businesses get larger, they become a force unto themselves, distorting the dynamics of a free market and creating a situation in which unions are actually better than the alternative.

Voting Fraud

Voting fraud is nothing new but there has been a lot of talk lately about the possibility that some kinds of electronic voting machines may make it easier to tweak the results without leaving evidence.  Whether it’s true or not, it’s been great material for humorists…

http://xkcd.com/463/

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/822256/

The question of whether corporations should be allowed to influence elections has to be considered in context.    Corporations, unions and non-profits are all in competition for government money and access to that money involves a lot of political maneuvering, lobbying and political advertising.   If one of those groups is allowed to use a tactic that is forbidden to the others it’s understandable that the others will cry “foul!”  For that matter, if one of them has access to so much money that the others are, effectively, silenced you might expect to hear a fair amount of grumbling.  After all, why should the most resources be directed toward those that already have the most?

Which would be more fair, to allow any group to participate to any degree or to limit political participation to voters only?  That’s a trick question, of course.   Our current system does not require going from one extreme to the other but, rather, to hunt around for some sort of balance that is acceptable to most (and I assume we’ll continue that search).  If a union is required to have the consent of all members before making a contribution should a corporation be required to get the consent of all stockholders?  (And does that allow you some choice in how the fund that controls your 401K votes?)  These are tricky questions and there aren’t any easy answers.

Three Strikes

A surprising number of acts can be considered crimes at the discretion of the arresting officer and judging the seriousness of those crimes is often left to the discretion of the District Attorney.   Some decades back, a man addressing a crowd of protestors in San Francisco handed out candies and, when the candies were gone, started to hand out day-old bagels.  That’s when the police moved in.  The bagels were not individually wrapped and the man was not wearing gloves.  That’s a violation of the food service laws, normally a misdemeanor, but one that can be considered a felony at the discretion of the D.A.   He had, apparently, committed similar felonies in the past because he was initially charged under the Three Strikes law and faced 25 years to life.  So, OK, break your sandwich in half, give some to that homeless guy, he’s not an undercover cop waiting for you to do something illegal… is he?

Equality?

I found myself reading a WSJ article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703581204576033861522959234.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#articleTabs%3Darticle) about the evils of progressive taxation and it got me to thinking about income inequality. Specifically the article stated that the US tax system was far more progressive than those of the Nordic countries since the rich pay a much higher proportion of their income in the US... OK, but look at the distribution of income in those countries. The Nordic countries lead the world in equality of wealth distribution. No matter how progressive their tax structures might be, most people end up paying at a substantially similar rate. In contrast, the income inequality in the US is more similar to a third world country than it is to a Western Democracy. Even with a flat tax where the rich pay the same proportion of their incomes, the rich would still pay most of the taxes.


Countries, as much as individuals, have self images that are sometimes out of touch with reality. America, for example, is the land of opportunity. Everyone knows that their own ancestors carved homesteads out of the wilderness and that a poor boy raised in a rustic cabin built of hand hewn logs could grow up to be president. Anyone, by dint of hard work and self sacrifice, can rise to the highest levels of society. There is some truth behind this national mythos, of course, but there is also a good deal of careful selection of facts. Much of this description of the American Dream can be found, already full-blown, in Crèvecoeur's description of colonial America and is supported by Ben Franklin's assertion that there were no poor people in America. It goes without saying that this vision of America ignored the condition of slaves and displaced native peoples. In fact, this instant rags-to-riches scenario was heavily dependent on having free, or nearly free, land and that is long gone. It has been a long time since America could grow without limits by wresting more land from displaced natives in order to give it to newly arrived European settlers. Over the past couple centuries the opportunity to rise above the socioeconomic class of one's birth has become increasingly rarer but still, there are exceptions. As long as we continue to believe that our country offers opportunity we can point to those exceptions and use them as proof that things are still as they always were.

The truth is that, today, economic inequality in the US is greater than it is in most developed countries and opportunities for upward mobility are less common than they are in much of Europe. For many generations the belief in the American dream provided incentive to work hard, to do the difficult now and the impossible in a short while. Today it is a political tool used to manipulate the poor into voting against their own self-interest. After all, if you or your children will someday be rich, shouldn't you try to provide a favorable environment?

Quite a few years ago, in the midst of an airline pilot’s strike, there was a letter written to the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle by someone who complained that airline pilots were already making too much money. As evidence for his assertion he pointed out that there was one living in his own neighborhood in Danville. I had forgotten about that letter until Captain Sullenberger (of Danville) landed that plane in the Hudson… I wonder now, what sort of high prestige career the writer of that missive enjoyed… was he a banker I wonder?

What makes a banker a professional while a pilot is only a skilled worker? I’m reasonably certain that the banker does not undergo more rigorous training. He is not responsible for more human lives. He is not expected to live up to a higher ethical standard. I suppose you might say that his higher social status is derived from having access to more money but is that really all there is to it? Consider the lowest rung in the banking hierarchy, the bank teller. The teller makes considerably less money than an auto mechanic or a garbage collector and yet the teller is expected to dress appropriately for a business environment. Unlike the blue-collar workers who typically receive an allowance for their special uniforms, the teller has to pay for his own suits. The symbolism associated with the style of dress is unconnected with actually having or controlling money… except, perhaps, as a matter of sympathetic magic (Frazer’s Law of Contagion with money itself being seen as the sacred object?). It is the business itself that is associated with the higher social status.

I will certainly concede that the bankers’ perception of themselves as professionals, with their own style of speech and dress, is a necessary element in the distinction but it is clearly not sufficient. They would not have the higher social status if the rest of society did not buy into their self-identification.

Christianity is part of our history, language and culture. It's silly to imagine that we can eliminate Christian symbolism from public discourse. At the same time we have to understand that the US has never been dominated by a single variety of religion. We have freedom of religion simply because we do not allow our government to take a side in the conflicts among various sects. We do not believe that government agencies should dictate the forms of prayer nor should they funnel tax money to particular churches in preference to others. This separation of church and state is the basis of our religious freedom and is fundamental to what it means to be American. We, as individuals, have our own beliefs and cannot be neutral with regard to religion but, for us to live and work together, we must insist that our common government strive to be neutral. At the same time, for us to be a single people with shared values, we must respect others' right to their beliefs but that does not mean that we must share those beliefs. "We must respect the other fellow's religion," as H.L. Mencken once wrote, "but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." Civility may be required but not servility. We are not bound by our neighbor's beliefs. If our neighbor dresses oddly, speaks strangely or has some peculiarity of behavior on account of those beliefs we are not obligated to do the same. Just as our neighbors have a right to their beliefs, we have a right to our own. Tolerance must be mutual if it is to be meaningful at all.
Many sects, given the opportunity, would gladly impose their beliefs on the world. It seems to me that Fundamentalists, Christian and Muslim alike, would like nothing more than to receive special consideration, to dictate what others may believe and say. This special consideration must be repugnant to those whose values are rooted in American tradition and law. In principle, every individual is equal before the law. Every person, in the privacy of his own mind or of a community of like-minded people, has a right to express his own religious beliefs but, once those beliefs become public the rights of others come into play as well. Fair play requires that anyone who publicly states his religious belief should be prepared to listen as others state contrary beliefs. The free expression of opinion is another cornerstone of American ideals and it becomes meaningless if we have to avoid bruising the feelings of the intolerant.
I understand that Muslims are not permitted to portray the prophet and I think I even understand why but, to insist that others, not sharing their belief, also refrain from portraying the prophet is to insist that Islam be privileged above all other religions. This insistence is inconsistent with the mutual respect and fair play required of all those who live in a multi-cultural society. The idea that non-Muslims should abide by Islamic law is especially absurd in a country like the US where a majority of the population identifies, to some degree, with some variety of Christianity. After all, isn't the belief in the divinity of Christ tantamount to the belief that Mohammad was a false prophet?

I'm, frankly, tired of hearing people say that the only alternative to abusive TSA screening is having airplanes blown up by terrorists. The terrorists who hijacked those planes on 9/11 successfully captured those planes even though they were equipped with only minimal weapons because they assured the passengers that no one would be hurt as long as they cooperated. Some of the passengers were skeptical and, using their cell phones in flight (in violation of safety regulations), got the word out that something was up. By the time the fourth plane was hijacked the word had gotten out and that trick didn't work anymore. We have not seen an attempted hijacking of that nature again for the simple reason that it wouldn't work. It depended on people being ignorant but airline passengers are now very much aware of the danger. In fact, the two attempts that have been made since then, the shoe and the underwear bomber, were both foiled by alert passengers. TSA screening procedures do not protect us from the terrorists. They are intended to reassure us by giving us the impression that air travel is safe. The process is designed to be inconvenient because that deepens the impression, making it more difficult to ignore.

Am I the only one who believes that the "war on drugs" is really a federal subsidy for organised crime?

There was once a big difference in the marketing of marijuana and cocaine. Before the war on drugs cocaine was available only through organised crime connections and sold for prices on the order of $2000/ounce. Marijuana at that time was being imported rather casually by a wide variety of small users and sold for approximately $20/ounce.

After all this time the war on drugs has become more of an institution than an experiment. It has proven to be an effective way to combat the small user who used to come back from Mexico with a couple kilos stashed in a spare tire. Marijuana prices have increased by more than 4000% and it has become too dangerous an activity for the recreational smuggler. During the same period of time, however, cocaine prices have dropped to something like 40% of their previous value. Organised crime is clearly not being inconvenienced by the war on drugs. In fact, they appear to be moving more material more easily than ever.

It is my contention that the government's efforts have served to "weed out" the competition reducing the Mafia's cost of maintaining its monopoly. Organised crime is left free to concentrate on the real business of importing and distributing drugs.

I don't know how they get the stuff across the border so easily but I feel compelled to observe that cocaine is a retail commodity. Like all retail commodities it increases in value at each level of distribution and like all illegal commodities that increase tends to be something significant...on the order of 100%. Those junkies on the street are not buying directly from the importer. In fact, I'm guessing that most of them are at least two levels of distribution away from the importer. That means that MOST of the drug money is staying in the country. Those staggering quantities of money that have bought Colombian drug lords an army that rivals that of their legitimate government come out of a tiny fraction of the total profits. With that much money to work with I'm sure they have found broad avenues of entry into the country.