Monthly Archives: December 2012

“Wimpy” Governance

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

Words to live by for those in government. For example, the word “surplus” is supposed to denote the result of consuming less than one receives. But that is not the meaning employed by our wise overlords. Or rather, they choose to cherry-pick what constitutes “receive” and “consume” so that the difference between those terms can be any value they desire. It’s time for some myth busting: there was no Clinton surplus. The entire thing is a fabrication, an accounting sleight of hand. “Hogwash!” you’re thinking! Certainly if this had been the case the conservatives pundits would have been all over this, right? Wrong. Their collective silence speaks volumes in testament to the fact that the same “math” used to show a surplus under Clinton also shows smaller deficits under their guys (e.g. Bush Sr. claimed $1 trillion in deficits, but it was actually $1.5 trillion, likewise Clinton claimed a $62 billion surplus but actually had a $1.4 trillion deficit)

Here is the essence of the subterfuge: Let us imagine a single mom, let’s call her, I don’t know, Julia. Julia earns $30,000 a year. She receives $5,000 a year from her ex-husband that is to be put into a savings account for her son’s education. However she has $32,000 a year in expenses and a $1,000 credit card debt. So she “borrows” $5,000 from the education account. $2,000 of it goes to the extra expenses, and $1,000 of it goes to pay off the credit card debt. Quite pleased with the situation she tells her friends she has paid off her credit cards and has a $2,000 surplus to boot! To celebrate she spends the “surplus” $2,000 on clothes and a new TV. She rationalizes owing the $5,000 to her son’s account with the idea that in the future she’ll make more money and pay it back later, but she needs it now for her and her son’s benefit, so that makes it ok. Fast forward 18 years and we find that although her pay has increased, so have her expenses, and she has continued to accumulate $5,000 IOU’s each year such that the account contains nothing but $90,000 in IOU’s. In any other arena except government this process is known as embezzlement.

One difference between what Julia did and what the government does is that the theft is legally mandated: all federal government trust funds (there are others besides social security) are required to turn over excess funds to the federal government by way of purchasing special government bonds (IOUs). The government then counts these “excess” funds as REVENUE, even though that money is obligated to future recipients. Let me repeat: the government is counting loaned money as income! That might balance cash flow but it is merely “Wimpy” can-kicking governance: “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.” Guess what? Today is Tuesday.

“I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.”

The effect of this fake revenue is to decrease the gap between normal tax revenue and spending (the deficit), which is why every administration loves this technique. However even the government can’t hide from the effects of ignoring reality. Any money the government borrows from itself is added to the Intra-Government debt holdings account. The IG debt account is distinct from the “Public Debt” account (money lent to the government by non-government entities). The Public Debt went down under Clinton by using IG debt to pay it down (i.e. using credit card A to pay off credit card B). Adding these two numbers together reveals that total debt went up. If you don’t believe me, check for yourself; see the US Treasury data. Each and every year from 1992 to 2000 the “Historical Debt Outstanding” increases. Pundits can try and confuse the public with jargon, but at the end of the day it simply is a matter of checking just one number (total debt). If it goes up, there was a deficit, if it goes down, there was a surplus. End of story.

Human Action

In the wake of the senseless shooting tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut we attempt to ease our collective pain by latching onto the only hope of extracting anything useful from this event, that is, to learn from what is now history so that it is never repeated. But what have we learned? Superficially this shooting is no different than any of the other mass killings: heavily armed killer walks into an area designated as a “gun free zone” and then proceeds to open fire on the unarmed. For example, it is a deliberately ignored fact (or rather an inconvenient truth) in the mainstream media that the Cinemark theater chain (where the infamous “Dark Knight” shootings took place in Aurora, Colorado) had a “gun-free” policy. Several of the victims were recent veterans who could have expeditiously put down the shooter had they been permitted to carry arms into the theater. It is highly improbable that the following is mere coincidence: with only one exception (Gabrielle Giffords shooting in 2011) every public shooting in the US since 1950 in which there were at least three fatalities have occurred in gun-free areas (schools, malls, post offices, etc.) The killers may be sociopaths but they aren’t stupid. Such shootings do not occur at police stations or gun shows for a reason. If you are still unconvinced that gun-free zones simply inform evil-doers where they may proceed unmolested then I issue to you the following challenge: place a “this is a gun-free zone” sign on your front lawn. Still feel safe?

Eliminating gun-free zones is however not a panacea. It ironically suffers from the same “whack-a-mole” problem as extreme gun control. For example, if you could achieve the holy grail of gun control, i.e. eliminate all guns, then would-be killers would simply convert to other methods of mass killing (knives (see the oddly coincidental knifing of 22 children in China), explosives, gas, biological, etc.) some of which have a much greater potential for inflicting harm than guns. Yes, one could outlaw each of those weapons in turn but given their prevalence in warfare (and food preparation) it’s simply naive to think such weapons will not “leak” into the civilian population. Likewise, if would-be killers know that armed citizens could be anywhere, then they will engage in more stealthy killings. You can’t shoot back at what you can’t see. There are a lot of ways to kill people without exposing yourself to harm (it’s the entire modus operandi of warfare). So while eliminating gun free zones would help in those situations involving crazy and stupid and/or suicidal, it would not help when crazy and smart is a factor.

The sad fact is that nothing can ever solve the cancer of random mass killings. Humans are random, willful beings whose actions and interactions are impossible to predict, monitor and manipulate with 100% effectiveness. Absent the Panopticon of an Orwellian police state there is nothing government can do to “solve” this problem. If laws could actually alter human behavior then our prisons would be empty. The only possibility of a solution comes from the collective actions of all of us. To the extent all human action is influenced by the actions of others we each have it within our power to potentially alter the actions of others by making each of our own actions positive ones. For example, many of these killers were outcasts, loners, just a little bit different than the rest of us. These differences invited mocking and ridicule which only exacerbated the isolation of these individuals. The killers are not “victims” nor are their unreasonable actions in any way justified, but just because a response is not justified does not mean we should expect it wouldn’t occur. Negative actions invite negative responses (whether such responses are justified is irrelevant to the goal of eliminating such response). We should always be mindful that we do not live in a vacuum and that our actions may have far reaching consequences for others. The “Golden Rule” may not solve the problem, but I’m quite certain it can’t possibly make it worse.

This Butt’s for You

I saw you PCI 3798. I saw you blithely flick a cigarette butt out your car window whilst I was trailing you in traffic. But you’re not alone. I often see smokers discarding their used cigarettes with the casual lack of concern befitting the monarchs of old. Why do others and I find such littering so disturbing? Is it merely because of the visual damage to our surroundings? No, I think the animus runs beyond mere cosmetic harm. Our outrage toward the litterer is a result of recognizing the arrogance the litterer holds to believe they are so important that it is the job of others to clean up their mess (no, cigarette butts are not biodegradable). But wait – isn’t that what we do when we go to a nice restaurant (expect others to clean up our mess after we’re done eating)? Aren’t we expecting others to provide a service for us whenever we purchase a good or service? But this expectation is not arrogance because we in fact provide something in return by paying for such services. The litterer expects (dare I say feels entitled to the notion) that someone else should clean up after them without giving anything in return. It is this sense of entitlement, this sense of “others should bear the cost of cleaning up my mess” that we object to.

How did we as a society arrive at a framework wherein it can occur to someone to feel they are entitled to others cleaning up after themselves at no cost? What created this framework? Government naturally. Only government can create “public” resources by decree. Public ownership of resources is that paradoxical state wherein a resource is owned by everyone and no one simultaneously. Any public resource carries with it the burden of the “free-rider” problem, which is a subset of the “tragedy of the commons.” The tragedy of the commons refers to the use of “free” public resources in a disproportionate manner that maximizes individual benefit. Overuse occurs because there is no direct cost linked to such usage. Direct costs act as a feedback mechanism to meter usage. “Free” public resources have no such feedback and thus overuse results.

Whether it is roads or healthcare, anything made “public” will be utilized disproportionately by some because the over utilizers are able to acquire the goods at artificially lowered free-ride prices paid for (subsidized) by others. In the case of public road, litterers over utilize the limitless ability to litter because others bear the clean up costs. And which “others” bear this cost? Not the government. The government is a terrible environmental steward. They do not as a matter of policy clean up litter. Public roads often bear much similarity to public bathrooms for this reason. Rather, private citizens and organizations freely choose to sacrifice their time in road beautification efforts. Would there be no littering on private roads? Of course not. However the ability to shift more of the direct cost of littering (through tolls) onto the litterer would tend to decrease the frequency of littering. It is also possible behavior would not change at all, in which case road owners would simply clean up the mess and incorporate the cost of clean up into the tolls. But at least the roads would be clean. That is not the situation today.

We really can’t blame the litterer. He has rationally determined the cost of littering (to him) is $0 due to the warped incentives made possible by government interference in the market. In fact we should praise the litterer! He serves as the ubiquitous example of the result of government interference in society. If we can see that socially undesirable behavior is the result of government, then perhaps it will give us reason to reflect on what other kinds of less obvious damage government is inflicting on society (runaway housing, healthcare and education costs perhaps?).

The War on Droopy Drawers

It has been recently reported (here and here that the Madison City Council is exploring a new ordinance that would criminalize uncouth couture, that is, droopy drawers. The objective of said ordinance is “…. to get … appearance to be decent” (Councilman Fred Perriman). This statement of course presumes (a) decency can be objectively defined and (b) it is the proper role of government to impose arbitrary cultural notions of “decency.” Traditionally “decency” has been directly correlated with the amount of skin covered as well as the degree of looseness of said coverings. So using this metric it would seem women wearing a hijab (traditional Muslim head and body covering) are perhaps the most “decent” people around. I’m not suggesting the Council plans on imposing mandatory hijabs, however I am curious as to what underlying objective principle affords one the ability to demarcate a point between “hijabs for all” and “down with droopy drawers” wherein “decent” lies on one side and “indecent” on the other? Other than simply the subjective “I don’t like the way that looks” of course.

If we are not free to look like complete idiots, then are we truly free?

Now don’t get me wrong, I personally think saggy pants look incredibly goofy and frankly can’t figure out how they can walk around like that without tripping over themselves. But just because someone finds something to be idiotic is no justification to take advantage of the monopoly of the exclusive use of legal violence (or threat of violence) that government currently possesses in order impose his or her personal preferences on society.

Does this mean we are helpless to object to things we find offensive or undesirable? No. Private property owners are (or should be) free to impose whatever strictures they desire to anyone on their property (for example restaurants commonly have minimum dress code standards, as well as the familiar “no shirts, no shoes, no service” policy). Schools and businesses commonly have dress codes. Subdivisions as a collection of private dwellings have the right to impose any such standards as they see fit for those that enter the private domain of that subdivision (it should be noted it is not uncommon to require unanimity to make changes to homeowners association covenants, thus even in the private realm we recognize it is unfair for a majority to impose their will on a minority). In short, people are free to associate with whomever they wish and to set up rules governing those associations.

So, one might now ask, “What’s wrong with government imposing these nanny-state type rules? Isn’t this no different than a private subdivision setting up similar rules?” Actually, no, it is quite different. Firstly, these ordinances typically override private rules (i.e. if a restaurant permitted saggy pants, the ordinance would still fine the person). Secondly, even if the ordinance only pertains to the public sphere (non-private property) it is still invalid insofar as the “ownership” of such public spaces by the government is illegitimate. All public property was either confiscated directly or purchased with confiscated funds (taxes). So if “public” spaces have no legitimate owner then no one can legitimately make rules to govern such spaces without also admitting that a thief may legitimately control the use of property he has stolen.

This does not imply that all laws are invalid if they occur on “public” spaces. Laws that pertain to the protection of the natural (negative) rights (e.g. life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) cannot logically be constrained by location or time frame. “Nanny-state” laws are time and location dependent (i.e. such and such act is ok before some date and in some location but then after that date or in that location it is then magically illegal), that is, they are completely arbitrary in nature.