A Reasonable Man   

The Cato Institute has posted a good video about recording the police.

If there's a good reason why every public encounter between law enforcement and private citizens shouldn't be recorded, I haven't heard it yet.

I'm surprised by how strongly I'm still saddened by thinking about the attacks and the many lives they ended and harmed.

I can vividly remember the horror of that day; the realization of the extent of the pain and suffering that was caused, the anger at those who participated in the attacks, and the frustration that so few crazy people can cause so much damage.

I think this was a reasonable reaction, but the question remains: What was the appropriate reaction after that?

It's only natural, and appropriate, for people to want to strike back at those responsible, and to prevent similar future attacks. So, I think the strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and trying to destroy the capabilities of al-Qaeda made sense, and were appropriate.

Iraq is more difficult. I supported the invasion of Iraq and the ouster of Saddam Hussein from power. I believed that he had, and sought further, weapons of mass destruction, supported and had some connections with al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, hated the United States and posed a real (if indirect) threat to us. It also seemed plausible that, once Saddam was removed, Iraq could be helped to adopt a better government that would foster better institutions than existed in most of the Middle East, and provide a model that would present a real alternative to those who might otherwise choose terror. So, I thought there was a decent argument to be made that the invasion was a legitimate exercise of defensive power. It seemed to present a way to make future, similar, attacks less likely.

While I don't think these positions were stupid or crazy, I now regret the errors of fact (about WMDs and about the number of Iraqis ready to adopt more liberal institutions) and my overestimations about the capabilities of the US. government. I, like most people, was too optimistic about the ability of our state to do what I wanted to happen. Many who may have opposed this war, make similar mistakes about domestic policy.

I'm glad that the Taliban was driven from power, Saddam was killed, and al-Qaeda has been driven into hiding with their capabilities vastly reduced. But, I oppose major extended operations with many thousands of troops. I think we've already achieved current results using methods that have cost a great deal more than they needed to, and further large operations will continue to cost more than they benefit us. We should probably spend a bit more time and effort training (just training!) the current Iraqi and Afghan forces to try to resist destabilizing attacks, but otherwise we should declare victory and go home.

It's natural to try to understand catastrophes, and to accept a narrative that makes sense of it, and points to actions that help us to feel like we have some power over events like this. So, many people are invested in the idea that Islam is the enemy; that a Mosque near ground zero is offensive, or that burning Korans might be a sensible symbolic gesture. These things may be emotionally satisfying, but I don't think they will do more longterm good than harm.

So, what should we do?

We should be careful not to overreact, and not cause more self-inflicted harm than is likely to come from enemies. We should understand that tragedies are not completely preventable. And, while such events are emotionally powerful, cost-benefit analysis should to apply to them as well. Some improved measures do enhance security, but most of what we've done does not.

We will be safer if more people recognize that liberty is better than tyranny. Those people will make it harder for pockets of tyrannical ideologies and terrorist plotters to operate.

This will not happen by attacking people, or by reducing our own liberty for the illusion of security. It will happen by setting an example of how much better life can be under a system that's tolerant of differences. A system that recognizes that there should be no guarantee against being offended, but there should be security against being coerced because of your peaceful differences.

Most minds won't change overnight. But, they do change eventually if they have good reasons to change.

So, we should give them good reasons to change.

I just got back from a fun live theater adaptation of Joss Whedon's "Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog." If you haven't seen the video, shame on you. Buy the DVD, or if you have a Netflix subscription, you can stream it "instantly".

The show I saw did a good job having fun with it, and even included some of the extra songs from the DVD commentary.

I watched and enjoyed a few episodes of the television show Eureka during its first season.

But, now that my not-quite-so-reasonable little brother is involved with it (Season 4), I'm watching it again and enjoying it even more.

Check it out! And, if you like it, spread the word.

I just spent some time watching Penn Jillette's Big Think interview, and you could do a lot worse than watching it too.

I love watching and listening to Penn whether he's doing magic, exposing Bullshit! or just talking about random aspects of life.

It's almost the Fourth of July where I am.

I plan to continue our family tradition and watch 1776 with my son some time during the day. It seems that it will be on Turner Classic Movies, as well, so you can watch it too (1:30 PM Central time).

Enjoy the day!

I really liked the Gene Healy (author of The Cult of the Presidency, check out a shorter Reason/Cato article here) op-ed BP oil spill: Who's your daddy?. In it, Healy returns to that theme: criticizing the public for their "Juvenile expectation that there's a presidential solution to everything from natural disasters to spiritual malaise."

He characterizes the ridiculous cries for presidential trips to the area and shows of concern as:

If only Obama would manifest himself at the afflicted area, shed his aura of cool reserve, and exercise the magical powers of presidential concern, perhaps the slick would recede.

He's right. This reaction is silly, and the tendency to grant the president more and more power in the belief that with it he can fix any problem is dangerous.

But, I think the problem is deeper than just president-worship. I think that is just an instance of a wider tendency to have faith in the power of coercive leadership to solve any problem.

Primitive people, when faced with a phenomenon that they couldn't control or understand, concluded that it must be under the control of a more powerful entity that could control the phenomenon at its whim. It must be somebody's intention, and somebody must be to blame. They had trouble accepting that it was just a natural effect of mindless forces that they didn't presently understand.

Similarly, many people today assume that if there's a problem in people's lives, it must be under the control of the rich and powerful and it can and should be solved by political leaders. Economic problems: More government action and better regulation. Energy problems: More government action and better regulation. Environmental threats? Poverty? Health care? Education? Retirement security? Addiction? Dirty words?... The same prescription.

Many people who scoff at organized religion, have merely shifted their faith to the state (or, at least they failthfully blame the rich and powerful for most problems). They're true believers, and every incident will only serve to strengthen that belief.

If there's an economic panic in an area where there was lots of government involvement and heavy regulation, it's seen as evidence that rich private people are to blame and what we need is more government involvement and more regulation. If there's an oil spill, and there's evidence of incompetent regulation, it means that rich people caused it because they don't really care about safety or the environment and we need more regulation.

I understand that it isn't satisfying to accept that the government can't fix the economy, or oil spills, or nature, if only we'd give them more money and power...

But, it's true anyway.

And, if you really want to improve the world, you'll be more likely to make progress if you work from the truth than from satisfying myths.

Don't know much about poverty.

I've never had to live in poverty, nor spent much time around desperately poor people. So, I'm certainly no expert about what it means or is like.

I know it makes me sad to contemplate people who are unable (or barely able) to obtain minimal standards of nutrition, shelter, sanitation, health, etc. I would very much like all people to meet these needs easily, and have time and resources to pursue other projects and goals. So, as for poverty, I'm willing to go out on a limb and take a strong stand against it.

My impression is that there are still many people living in this kind of poverty around the world (although that has been improving steadily), and very few in the United States. As wealth grows, I expect this trend to continue, and (with the exception of cleptocracies that make it impossible for aid to reach the people and for the people to create and keep wealth) poverty will approach zero.

But, some people don't agree with my impression, that poverty is an absolute situation that has been decreasing. They see it as a condition that can be defined in terms of relative economic success, and think we'll always have a great deal of poverty as long as we have inequality of economic results.

Lately, I've been seeing references to a new measure of poverty from the Obama administration (for example, here, here, and here). I didn't see a direct link to a description of the measure, but I think it's the one described here. The current measurement is along the lines of triple the amount required to buy adequate food (adjusted for family size), while the new measure is tied to the spending on food, clothing, shelter, and utilities by those at the 33rd percentile in such spending. It may be that this is indeed just another indicator rather than a replacement for purposes of benefit calculation, but I tend to agree with some of the critics that it indicates an unfortunate aspect of the administration's ideology.

As Robert Samuelson writes:

What produces this outcome is a different view of poverty. The present concept is an absolute one: The poverty threshold reflects the amount estimated to meet basic needs. By contrast, the supplemental measure embraces a relative notion of poverty: People are automatically poor if they're a given distance from the top, even if their incomes are increasing. The idea is that they suffer psychological deprivation by being far outside the mainstream. The math of this relative definition makes it hard for people at the bottom ever to escape "poverty."

This isn't anything like my intuitive idea of poverty. This is imbuing the definition of poverty with an egalitarian slant, that makes it more of a measure of inequality than one of poverty. Even if everybody were ten times as wealthy tomorrow morning, this definition of poverty would still include many people who live better than kings did a few hundred years ago. Egalitarians would like the distribution of wealth to be something closer to what I like to think of as the kindergarten model: where everybody shares everything, and nobody has a lot while somebody else has much less. But, I think reaching this outcome requires using force to change what would otherwise be the natural outcome of people exercising their choices freely. So, rather than enhancing justice, I think it would violate justice.

Also, I think this captures the guilt of some of the better off more than it captures the perceived poverty of the less well off. Because, many of those who meet the current definition of poverty in the US are Hispanic immigrants. I think it's usually better to judge people's opinions by their actions rather than their words. As Don Boudreaux notes:

If being relatively poor were truly a devastating psychological experience for most people, Hispanics would remain in Latin America instead of immigrating to – and remaining in – the United States where, in their relative poverty here, they are “far outside the mainstream.”

This pattern of immigration counsels skepticism of those who assert that people care so overwhelmingly about their relative economic positions that the typical poor person would prefer that the rich be made poorer today rather than the poor have access to opportunities to grow rich tomorrow.

I don't think that wealth outcomes of market activity are unequal because some people are stealing from others (for the most part). They're unequal because people's capabilities and preferences are different. Some people are more productive or are willing to devote more of their time and energies to their careers and seek to maximize their wealth. Others prefer simpler lifestyles and would rather spend most of their time pursuing other projects (e.g., art, charity, learning, open source projects, family activity, etc.). You may disagree with the choices, or dislike the outcome. If so, you're welcome to offer your advice or contribute your own wealth to those who are worse off economically and to urge others to do likewise. But, if you impose coercion to equalize the results I don't think what you're doing is righting a wrong. I think you're doing wrong.

A war on this new kind of poverty is more of a war on human nature, freedom, and arithmetic.

I'm against it.

I realized that my previous post may have left the impression that I thought that every decision should be determined by whether the benefits outweigh the costs of each individual act.

I don't.

For example, it's possible that a policy against appeasing extortionists will lead to better outcomes in the long run, even if it imposes greater costs than benefits in individual instances of its application. Likewise, I think we all benefit if many people are willing to impose costs on others (bigots, liars, etc.) who are guilty of despicable behavior even though they (the imposers) may absorb some extra costs themselves while doing so. It's good that people choose not to associate or do business with people or companies that have horrible behaviors and policies, because that tends to deter those sorts of behaviors and policies. I don't want coercive legislation against non-coercive bad behavior, but I'm happy that many people peacefully enforce standards of decency through social pressure. Sometimes this enforcement has immediate costs that exceed immediate benefits.

And, I'm sure that people who support the San Jose State University ban on blood drives (while the restriction against gay men donating is in effect) believe that they are engaging in just such a worthy endeavor. They think that the principle of opposing the irrational discrimination against homosexuals is so important that it should be fought whenever possible, irrespective (or almost irrespective) of the immediate costs.

But, of course, I don't agree with that last part.

For one thing, the degree of the costs imposed does matter, and that's where the sense of perspective comes in. If all that you can reasonably expect from your protest is that some people will say "right on," some people will die, and a tiny chance that the pressure of the publicity and effects of the protest (and potential copycat protests) will trickle up to those in a position to change the offending policy and will cause them to actually change the policy, then I don't think that this particular protest is worthwhile. The expected costs are too much higher than the expected benefits.

There are a few other relevant points in this case.

One is that the offending ban doesn't impose serious costs on homosexuals. It denies them the opportunity to donate blood (something that many others would consider a cost worth paying to avoid). It doesn't deny them blood. I'm sure it feels bad to have your generosity refused in this way, but it's not as if the policy is intended to harm homosexuals, or to deny them a basic right. It's a bureaucracy being overly cautious, and there are better ways to criticize it.

Another important aspect of this case is that the people actually harmed by the protest are not those who are guilty of the perceived offense, but people in need of a blood transfusion (who may be homosexuals) but can't get one because some university students, teachers, and administrators wanted to make a symbolic point about discrimination. The pressure on those who are in a position to revise the blood screening regulations is extremely indirect. I think this makes the protest much less virtuous. It targets innocents in order to affect the policies of others.

So, I don't think each act must have benefits that outweigh costs in order to be praisworthy. Sometimes costly acts are part of a larger campaign or policy that has aggregate benefits that justify the individual costs. My point is that wanting to be part of such campaigns doesn't mean that each attempt is immune from criticism. It may be that the campaign organizers are mistaken about whether this is a worthwhile contribution to a justified project.

In this case, and many others, I think this sort of mistake has been made.