I have been trying to notify anyone at TH that the comments on blogs do not work, and have found that (1) the "contact us" form does not work on at least 2 types of web browser, (2)the staff member addresses I had no longer work, (3) there is no webmaster email address and (4) the "info" email address given on a page is no longer working. In short, I think it is nearly impossible to actually contact a human at TH. Which is odd, as clearly they are maintaining the site, changing the look, even banning Moshe periodically, but it appears they have left no way to contact them.

I have one last hope. I am going to flag this essay as offensive and hope that gets someone on the staff to read it so maybe they will realize their site is broken. Otherwise, I think it is time to move to a site that works properly. I have done all I can out of a sense of loyalty (and perhaps a bit of nostalgia) for Townhall. If they make it impossible to let them know when something goes wrong (or don't care), then I will take the hint.

For those who want to contact me, for now I have set up a page on what is likely to become my new blog, which can be found at "Fugitive From Townhall". Please leave any comments there.

I was reading an article about Belgium's Flemish secessionist movement's recent victories, when I was surprised to find it followed by an interesting mini-essay about US monetary policy.Not that it was anything now, basically arguments about whether US monetary policies are or are not designed to weaken the dollar and give trade advantage against "emerging markets". However, the last few paragraphs are interesting, though not for the reasons the essayist would assume:

Bernanke has the gall to b___h about currency manipulation when his policies are designed to do the same thing. QE is designed to weaken the US dollar, and somehow that is OK, but not straight-up currency intervention.

Speaking of which, why is Bernanke and the entire rest of the world willing to sit back and say nothing about the biggest straight-up currency manipulation in history? I am talking of course about the Swiss National Bank and its unlimited measures to prevent the rise of the Swiss Franc vs. the Euro.

Quite frankly, they are all beggar-thy-neighbor hypocrites, which is what currency wars are all about.

What makes this interesting is, that. yes, the policies are clearly designed as "beggar thy neighbor" efforts, but, given the realities of managed currencies entirely divorced from gold (or even non-convertible, or semi-convertible gold-standard central banks, as the US had from 1934 until 1973), is that one can adopt only one of two positions. Either one can plan policy in such a way as to devalue the currency to one's advantage, or one can not, and thus suffer the effects of others doing so. As the title says, you are either a wolf or a sheep, there is no third possibility.

I will grant, those who manage the currency often have other goals than trade advantage, or exporting inflation to other lands, they may try to create "continual growth", they may want to encourage savings or consumption, they may want to do a lot of things, but in the end, monetary policy is, though slightly less obviously, just like tariff policy, an area where every decision touches the rest of the world, and, in the end, either helps or harms our trade partners.

Conceivably, one could adopt a fully neutral policy, as was (somewhat) the goal of the IMF, with all nations inflating and deflating in unison, to make it much more difficult to use monetary policy to put trading partners at a disadvantage, but that creates many problems, most notably the issue which led to the collapse of the IMF*, forcing all member nations to mirror the monetary policy of the most reckless, inflation prone members. In other words, it allows a single member to force all of the nations into whatever degree of inflation it wishes, and thus penalizes prudent nations. Which, in the end, causes any such scheme to collapse, and thus leaves us where we started, with a situation which encourages nations to pursue periodic recklessness, to deceive trade partners, and engage in deceptive, hostile monetary manipulation, lest our partners do it to us first.

Let us think of it this way. Imagine a world where all trade was done without legally enforceable contracts. And with no recourse to the law. And assume it simply is not possible to avoid all trade. In such a situation, it would be to the advantage of nations wishing to trade to establish a good reputation by engaging in a number of small, honest trades. And, as nations need to trade, they would look for those with a good record to make such exchanges. However, once one has established such a reputation, it would be very tempting to betray a partner on a large exchange, for two reasons. First, because trade will take place after the betrayal, and one can recover his reputation eventually, especially if everyone has betrayed others at one time or another. Second, because that tempting large exchange could just as easily be the time when the partner decides to betray us, making betrayal not only a means to windfall, but also the sole means of avoiding injury.

And that is the environment that fiat currency places us in when the whole world has abandoned any sort of commodity standard. Nations, or those residing within them, must trade, and to that end they must hold foreign currency. However, it is very tempting, and terribly easy, for foreign nations to engage in hostile monetary policies in order to secure advantage, as well as avoid being the victim of another's currency depreciation. There are some limits, one cannot inflate without restraint and avoid hyperinflation. And it is possible that a sufficiently hostile monetary policy could incur trade sanctions, possibly even worse. But, so long as one plays "within the rules", we basically have a world-wide game of liar's poker -- or fill in your own game involving bluff and deceit -- where individual nations simultaneously seek to appear honest, while planning their own next deception, and, all the while, worry that everyone else in the game is planning the same.

The single solution, and a very simple one, is to revert to commodity money, and one without an inflationary central bank. Gold alone will not completely avoid this problem, as we saw from 1917 to 1934, and even before with the "state banking" schemes following the Civil War, which basically created something much like the Fed, but with a number of independent New York City banks taking the place of the single Federal Reserve Bank, resulting in a slightly less uniform inflation. (Though it did feature the tying of money to debt, a troubling trend that persists to today, and which means any efforts to create a debt-free government would actually play havoc with our monetary system.) So long as we have a central inflationary authority, and especially one which has limited redemption laws (as between 1934 and 1973), there will remain an ability to create money with little or no thought of actual specie reserves, and we will see these policies persist.

Once we revert to a full gold standard**, none of this will be an issue. An ounce of gold is an ounce of gold. Same for silver. It would still be possible for nations to play with the definition of their unit of currency, changing a dollar for 80 to the ounce to, say, 100, but businessmen will easily avoid that problem by defining their units of exchange in the contracts, either using a known stable currency (eg. the Byzantine coins before Michael VII, used throughout the Mediterranean because of their stability) or as a fixed weight of metal of a given fineness. And, if such clauses are legal, it will likely have one other salutary effect, if contracts tend to be made in specific popular currencies, it will work to the advantage of those minting those coins, and the disadvantage of those who tend to debase their currency.

Of course, this requires much more discussion, it is a complex topic, and I do not have the time to do it justice. I just wanted to point out the obvious that, while we may be guilty of beggar thy neighbor policies, there really is no alternative. The current monetary policy, just like protectionist trade policies, allows one to be only villain or victim, there is no other choice.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* This statement may confuse some, as the IMF still exists. What I mean by  "collapse" is the point in time when the IMF gave up on its initial plans to have currencies strongly tied to one another. Or, to be even more generous, the later period when it gave up on even the floating "pegs" with currencies tied to ranges of values relative to one another. The IMF continues to espouse such policies, but since the mid to late 1970's, there has been no serious belief that the IMF would maintain stringent control over any national currency. And that is what I mean by "collapse", when the IMF went from the successor of the Bretton Woods accords to a toothless debating society and source of handouts.

** Some who advocate for the gold standard argue for laws against fractional reserve banking, requiring 100% specie backing for all notes or lines of credit. I do not think such a policy is necessary, but only if we eliminate central banking, and do not give any special legal rights to banks, such as declaring "banking holidays" to prevent rushes on banks and the like. If banks must legally redeem all notes on demand, or as per the terms of the note, then bankers will exercise caution. Granted, at times there may be individual bank failures, but, historically, other banks, wanting to avoid crisis, have usually continued to accept such notes, pursuing redemption of them quietly on their own. Thus, the public most often suffers less under a free system than critics suggest. Again, whether to not to allow private fractional reserve is a difficult question, and one deserving a full essay on its own. I will say only one more thing. Legally, I fail to see how we can logically prevent fractional reserve. I can draw up a contract today to sell you something in one month which I do not now own. So long as I deliver, it does not matter if I have it now or buy it a minute before delivery. And that is all fractional reserve is, assuming we view gold as nothing more than a commodity. And so, as I said, a true libertarian, free market position would have a hard time consistently arguing against private banks issuing notes and credit beyond their reserves. (As, clearly, a fully free market would not have government mandated reserve ratios and the like.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

My more recent writing on the gold standard and monetary policy can be found in "Inflation and Uncertainty", "Bad Economics Part 7", "Bad Economics Part 8", "What Is Money? ", "What Is A Dollar?", "The Gold Question, Not "Why?" But "When?"", "Monetary Issues Made Simple Part I", "Monetary Issues Made Simple Part II" and "Stupid Quote of the Day (January 7, 2012)". I also recommend "Greed Versus Evil",  "A New Look At Intervention", "The Threat of Perfection", "Utopianism and Disaster", "Tyranny Without Tyrants", "An Examination of the Economics and Sociology of Government Spending", "How the Government Corrupts Relationships", "Competition",  "A Short Follow Up on Monopolies", "Bureaucracy and Arbitrary Power", "The Right People, The Wrong People and "Just Plain Folks"", "The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism", "Big Box Stores and "The Climate of Greed"" and "The Case for Small Government".

It appears the comments links are broken on Townhall. I assume, since they broke either Friday, or over the weekend, that they will be fixed when TH opens up Monday. However, if they are not, then I will probably end up moving my content to the blogger site to which I have been slowly transferring this content. As I have only moved about 1500 of the 4500 blog entries I wrote from 2008 to the present, I will be mixing current and old posts, but if TH comments do not work for a prolonged time, that may be the only solution. (And, as a bonus, blogger comments can be deleted by the blog owner.)

We shall see if I end up moving or not. I am still happy with TH, and I feel some loyalty, having blogged here for so long, and generally having had nothing but good experiences with the management, the readers and other bloggers (excepting the recent infestation in my comments), so I would prefer to stay here, possibly posting simultaneously here and on blogger at some future date, but if the comments are broken for a long time, I may have to move.

When we hear people denouncing the free market, inevitably one of the favored complaints is that the free market creates a "climate of greed" where money is all that matters, employers try to ruthlessly exploit employees, sellers try to exploit buyers and, in general, the market is designed in such a way as to bring out the worst in everyone. As I mentioned elsewhere, even conservatives often buy into this nonsense, talking about how the free market relies upon ethical behavior and requires "common sense regulation". Of course, I have also argued that this is a terrible position to take, that by making regulation an unavoidable part of the equation, conservatives have basically conceded every liberal argument for limitless regulation,but, rather than revisit all that, let me look at something a little different. Let us talk about "big box stores", and how they create a climate of greed, though probably not the one you imagine, especially if you have been listening to liberals.

Before we go on, let us ask, why do people shop at big box stores? It certainly isn't because they have an immediate need for ten gallons of mayonnaise or a  metric ton of drinking straws. Nor is it because of the well known impeccable customer service of the big box stores. Not that they are unfriendly, but they are hardly the model of obsequious attention. No, people buy in big box stores because they save money. Because they can buy food at half the price they would pay elsewhere. In short, they buy at big box stores, because they are greedy.

I am sure that last line drew a few silent complaints. No doubt many readers just thought, "No! People who save money on food aren't greedy, they are thrifty. You have to make your money last, why not get the best deal?" And all that is true. But it is also true that they are trying to buy for as little money as possible, putting money above the feelings and livelihoods of owners and workers at higher priced stores, and if they were employers or manufacturers, we would call that behavior greedy.

Which brings me to my point (much more quickly than in most of these essays). When consumers try to save money, that is when they try to arrange an exchange to get as much as possible for as little expenditure as possible, we call it thrifty, think it is sound, say it favors those manufacturers who are most efficient, think it improves the market and so on. But when employers try to buy labor using the same principles, we denounce it as evil and corrupt. Apparently, employers are to pay more than they need for labor, favor the inefficient, make the market work worse, all to somehow better things. And that even ignores the fact that, were employers to act in this way, then prices would rise, and all those thrifty consumers would end up having to pay out more as well, which, somehow, I don't imagine they would enjoy.

Let us make this very simple. The free market, for all its flaws, works very well, and very equitably, but  it is not a social welfare scheme. What it does, is take the wealth of the community and invest it efficiently. It favors those who produce well, be they workers or manufacturers or sellers. It favors those who do a good job, and encourages the rest to try to do better.  It does not reward bad behavior or inefficiency, it is true, but do we want those to be the hallmarks of our society?

As I have said elsewhere, it is not perfect, it has flaws, and it only points toward the optimal situation, it never reaches it, but it is also better than any other conceivable system, and is the only system of organization I know which takes our most base instincts, our greed and desire for more, and forces us to satisfy them by providing as well as possible for others. In short, it turns our greed into service to others. You can't say that about any other system I know.

POSTSCRIPT

My earlier writing can be found in my posts "Moral For Me, But Not For Thee", "Symmetry and Greed", "Cutting "Costs"", "Misunderstanding Profits", "Two Examples of "Inefficiency" in Capitalism", "Third Best Economy", "Mistaken Perceptions of the Industrial Age", "Some Additional Thoughts on Technocrats", "A Thought on Technology and Technocrats", "A New Look At Intervention", "The Threat of Perfection", "Utopianism and Disaster", "Tyranny Without Tyrants", "An Examination of the Economics and Sociology of Government Spending", "How the Government Corrupts Relationships", "Competition",  "A Short Follow Up on Monopolies", "The Case for Small Government" and "Greed Versus Evil". There are any number of others, but they can be found by following the links within those cited here.

I was reading articles on TH today, when I saw Michelle Malkin's article which mentioned an economic analysis of Obama's stimulus act. It was filled with the usual criticisms, that each job created cost X dollars, or was at the expense of Y jobs in the private sector. And, reading through it, I was reminded of dozens of similar essays, those criticizing Bush's steel tariff, for example, arguing it cost $100,000 for every $50,000/year job saved, and so on. And, though I find such studies useful in reminding people that government spending comes at a cost, and usually ends up costing more in the private sector than it gives in the public sector, I have to say that there is one big problem. They are rubbish. Or, more precisely, they are very misleading, because by giving precise numbers they create the illusion we can know what would have happened but for a single economic event with absolute precision, and that is simply untrue. Worse, by granting such illusions credence, they support the delusion that we might one day "scientifically" manage the economy. ("The Limits of "Scientific" Management") And nothing could be farther from the truth.

Allow me to explain.

As I have explained elsewhere("Competition",  "A Short Follow Up on Monopolies", "The Case for Small Government"), every price, and every cost, is the result of countless individual desires, taken in the aggregate. And when one factor changes, it sends ripples through all of those costs and prices, which then have reverberations in other costs and prices and so on and so on. And quantitative economics accepts this. And basically, it says, if we wait and take measurements over a period of time, we can see the net effect of  a single change, and get the precise effect of a single event.

Of course, at the same time there are millions of other changes, other prices are changing for other reasons, the supply of one item goes up, another down, someone is hired, another fired, and so on. Modern economics recognizes that this is a terribly complex problem to solve, but argues that they can approximate the results, or, given powerful enough computers and precise enough equations, even figure out the exact effect. And thus we get strangely precise costs for each job created, sometimes down to the cent!

But that is not my objection. My objection is that there is one other factor they cannot control, and which can cause changes which cannot be considered. People simply change their minds. The man who buys a new car every year decides this year he won't. The woman who always eats ham and cheese buys chicken soup. These sort of changes can, and do, happen all the time. Most often they are tiny. But tiny changes, taken over a year, with millions of individuals and hundreds and hundreds of tiny shifts per individual, means that we need to recognize that what would have happened but for a given economic event is always a guess. Yes, a company hired ten fewer seasonal employees than in previous years with similar economic conditions, and that may be due to the stimulus costs, but it could also be due to a change in the employer's business model, or a decision to try to cut costs, or maybe simply a lack of good day labor that year. You just can't know.

I am not saying that we should never put out such reports. I think they are useful, even the numbers are helpful in understanding the broad outlines of the economic impact of policies, but we need to do two things. First, avoid giving a false sense of precision, do not calculate down to the dollar or cent, give large, round numbers. Respect significant figures as you would in science, and recognize these are loose estimates at best. Second, make this point explicit, tell everyone these numbers are estimates. Explain why they are estimates, but also make it very, very clear they are estimates. I know most honest economists make this clear in the body of the work, but the abstracts and other shorter blurbs relied upon by the less economically educated tend to downplay this fact, and, if they use overly precise numbers, can give the mistaken impression they are much more exact than they are. And, even if the work itself emphasizes the numbers are estimates, once you have given ten, twenty, thirty or more pages of formulae for controlling every possible influence and produce a figure precise to the cent, you are giving the impression your number is exact, even if you say otherwise, which is why I emphasize both stating the obvious, and keeping the numbers round to avoid misleading false precision.

Finally, we need to do this not only to make sure that the public is properly informed, or out of a respect for honesty, though those are important, but because we often have a far too great faith in quantitative economics, and imagine that such precise numbers mean we really do know supply and demand curves down to the fraction of a cent, a myth that has played into many myths of the failures of the free market and the wonders of technocratic scientific management ("Cutting "Costs"", "Misunderstanding Profits", "Two Examples of "Inefficiency" in Capitalism", "Third Best Economy", "Mistaken Perceptions of the Industrial Age", "Some Additional Thoughts on Technocrats", "A Thought on Technology and Technocrats", "A New Look At Intervention", "The Threat of Perfection", "Utopianism and Disaster", "Moral For Me, But Not For Thee"), and we need to avoid such perceptions, s they are a sure path to lead well meaning people into disastrous policy decisions. ("Tyranny Without Tyrants", "An Examination of the Economics and Sociology of Government Spending", "How the Government Corrupts Relationships")

I haven't written a grammar nazi post in quite some time, the last one being "A New Poster Boy", but it is time. You see, I have noticed a new error occurring with startling frequency, and it is a doozy.

I think it is a reaction to constantly having those of us who remember our grammar pointing out that "your" and "you're" mean different things. I really have no other way to explain it; recently I have seen, several times, people replacing the word "where" with "we're". I know, hard to believe. I couldn't believe it when I first saw it. but there is no other possible way to read "this is we're the positive comments end." Sadly, it seems, being unable to tell the difference between "your" and "you're", people have now decided to add to the incomprehensible posts on the internet by confusing "where" and "we're".

Fortunately, there are no additional, equally absurd new observations to report. All the old idiocies remain. People still seem to believe "rediculous" is a word, and "to" and "too" are regularly confused (when not replaced with "2"), as are "your" and "you're" (again, when not replaced by "ur"). But other than this crazy use of "we're" for "where", I haven't seen any new grammatical abominations.

But I am sure that will change. Just wait.

I normally try to avoid making too much mention of the two trolls who lurk on my site who I have dubbed "The Idiot Twins", but as one has given me a perfect example to make an important point, I am afraid I must give them more attention than I like. Normally, when I mention them at all (as in "The Glory of Eisenhower?" and "The Secret of Success, or, Why Government Fails"), I dismiss them with a sarcastic note at the open or close of a blog post, though in the case of "Back-Handed Compliment", and more significantly in "The Inability to Compromise" and "Backwards Logic", I have already used them to introduce the main subject of a post. And so I suppose there is some precedent, though I hope it won't be one that will become a long standing tradition. Mostly as I hope the Idiot Twins will find some other location to infest. But, be that as it may, for the moment, they are the albatross, or pair of rotting sea fowl, about my neck, and so I shall take what little advantage I can wring from them. (I just realized, following on the metaphor of rotting sea fowl, the term "wring from them" conjures up rather distasteful images. Then again, given the subject of this paragraph, perhaps it is fitting.)

For those blessed souls who are unfamiliar with the idiot twins, one, whose name changes so often I have not even developed a private nickname to use to identify him, claims to be an anarchist, but at times spouts the rhetoric of national socialism and at others of the occupy Wall Street movement, and generally follows the lead of the second Twin when he is about, which suggests he doesn't have a terribly well developed political identity, and, having met his partner in crime has adopted the other's beliefs as his own, at least in most cases. His other half also goes through names rather quickly, mostly because he is repeatedly kicked off the site, though at times he does it himself to adopt such cute monickers as "HumanLampShade" and "BarofSoap" to express his beliefs about the holocaust. And that should tell you all you need to know about him. He is one of those who give the right such a black eye, by claiming to be a true patriot, and espousing nationalism with a dash of national socialism. Or, in his case, expressly stating an adoration for Hitler. Of course, he mocks "conservatives", but by giving the impression that he is somehow the true "right" he perpetuates the idiotic myth that national socialism is a right wing movement.

Which is why I am writing.

I already wrote at length debunking the idea of the "political spectrum" we all learned in Civics class ("The Political Spectrum"), the one with moderates in the center, liberals and conservatives to either side, European socialists and central American despots beyond those and then Stalin and Hitler forming the poles at either end. It is simply nonsense.

Let us start with the obvious, economics. As von Mises has argued so effectively, national socialism is socialism (or communism) as much as the economy of the old Soviet Union, or Cuba, or China (at least for the most part). The Nazi leadership allowed the myth of private enterprise to persist by allowing inequality in wages, and allowing shop owners to persist as "betriebsfuehrers", but the state controlled everything. Price, supply, production schedules, all shipments, sales, everything was done at the state's command. Granted, it took some time for this to be fully implemented, and for a time some private enterprise persisted, but so did private farms and small shops in the early days of the Soviet Union, so that is not an indication of a party's political beliefs. If you want any additional proof  -- well, besides the fact that except for wage inequality and titles, there was not a whit of difference between communists and national socialists, or the fact that they called themselves the national socialists -- how about the fact that the party, especially in Berlin, formed out of many socialist labor groups who left their old parties not because they rejected socialism, but only because they disdained the internationalist message? Is there any more proof needed to show communism and national socialism are nowhere near opposite poles?

Oh, but I am not here to make this case which I have made countless times before. I always seem to forget myself and get carried away when this argument comes up, mostly because this slander has done more to harm conservatism in the popular mind than any other mistake. But I must cut myself short here, and instead return to my main point, which is the way that one of the Idiot Twins demonstrates precisely the same point.

You see, our not so welcome visitor Moshe has a tendency to talk about World War II, among many, many other topics, and he inevitably argues the US was improperly involved in the war, as we were not in any danger, that we were an aggressor, and we should never have attacked Germany. On the other hand, he thinks Hitler was a great man and a hero (he has used both those descriptions verbatim), who fixed the wrongs of Versailles. Apparently, Hitler was threatened by Poland and Holland and Belgium and Luxemburg and France and Yugoslavia Czechoslovakia and Austria and Denmark and Norway and the Soviet Union and Albania and many others besides. Of course, Hitler was just righting the wrong committed against him, and was in no way an aggressor, and cannot be blamed. He was in the right, the US in the wrong.

Sound familiar? It should. Except for the Nazi patina, it is the Noam Chomsky view of Vietnam, and all of history for that matter. It is the left's favorite blame-America-first view of the world. No matter how aggressive another nation might be, they are justified, while no matter the provocation we are aggressors. Moshe even adds in the Jew hatred that many leftists adopt from the Arab nationalism movements they support.

Do you need any more evidence that supposed "national socialist conservatives" or "national socialists of the right", as well as the "libertarian" allies (which I have often criticized as "the libertarian left"* -- see "The Libertarian Left", "Liquid Ice? Female Father? That's Nothing!", "The Failure of Wikipedia", "Copyright as Politics", "Some Libertarian Analogies", "Revelation From Bottom Feeding" and "The Tragedy of the Creative Commons") are about as close to the political left as one can get? They may imagine they are somehow different from the liberals, just as many years ago I am sure there were a number of Buchanan supporters thought their religious and political beliefs made their pro-union, pro-protection, anti-NAFTA, anti-Israel, anti-NATO position somehow different from the left's pro-union, pro-protection, anti-NAFTA, anti-Israel, anti-NATO position (see "A Question for "Paelo-Conservatives"", "Term in Search of a Definition", "Misplaced Blame and A Power Play", "I'm Sorry, Mr. Buchanan" and "Pat Buchanan Becomes Putin's Lord Haw Haw?"), but incidentals are just that, incidental. The central beliefs are what matter. Wrap whatever words around it you want, the policies you support are what is important, and there is very little to differentiate these men of the "right' and these supposed "libertarians" from the farthest left of radicals.

Odd how that works out, isn't it?

==========================================================================

* Oddly, Camille Paglia described herself as a "libertarian Democrat" in a recent article I discussed in "". Many of the comments about the original article took issue with this description, arguing such a beast is unthinkable. Others argued that it depended whether one cared more about social or economic freedoms, a position I once believed in the 1980's -- when my political views were much different -- but have now dismissed as no longer valid, see "Economic Versus Social".

==========================================================================

POSTSCRIPT

By the way, CW has, in comments, been telling me for some time that the Idiot Twins espouse the views they do because they are politically on the left. She is almost right, they are effectively politically on the left, but, in their minds, they probably think otherwise. Though their beliefs are identical with those who throw rocks at anti-globalization rallies and WTO protests, they probably detest them. Strangely, though they share identical views, they think their beliefs spring from a different source and thus are not the same. And so, though they hold the same views as those on the left, they don't see themselves as being on the left.

UPDATE (Later the same evening): I was looking at the comments made to my post "Revelation From Bottom Feeding", an article about some would be pundits using the nearly meaningless word "corporatism" (supposedly to describe our tendency toward larger business structures), and efforts to somehow link it -- entirely due to a coincidence of names -- with Mussolini's stato coporativo. In my reply to a comment, I found a single sentence that could have been substituted for this entire post. Admittedly, it lacks the argument part, but what it lacks in substance it makes up for in brevity and amusing imagery:

No, the "right" in the US today has as much to do with Nazism as walruses have to do with the Crimean War.

I came across this post from the days after the 2008 general election, and it struck me as being quite appropriate for today. Oddly, it also seems to help explain why even the far left,even MSNBC -- wonder of wonders!-- was saying Romney won the debates. Obama had lost his smile, and Romney found it. Obama was a bit glum and backpedaling, and Romney was cheery. Now, I admit, it is a crazy reason for anyone to win an election, and it probably isn't enough on its own (I certainly hope it isn't enough on its own), but it definitely does gain you a few points here and there, and those points do tell in the end. I am not the biggest Romney booster, but I do think he has taken the right tone in the race so far, and this old post suggests, in part, why it is working.

I was thinking about the fact that I have been posting rather light-hearted, less serious posts this long holiday weekend, when it occurred to me, that light-hearted tone has been sadly missing form conservative sites for a few weeks. Ever since the Obama victory we have become a rather somber lot, full of premonitions of doom, expectations of bad things for the Republican party, and so on. Granted, I was as dejected as anyone over the Obama victory, but I like to think I kept my site rather upbeat. I did post a few thoughts on Obama, mentioned a few less than promising signs, and did comment somewhat negatively on the future course of the party, but, I also turned away from that and wrote a number of more general posts, as well as tossing out the usual silly posts accusing Thomas Sowell of plagiarism and seeking people to create anti-feminist feminist anthems.

So, why does it matter?

Well, it matters because not only does no one like a loser, no one likes a sad sack either. Think about the recent Democrats. Sure, Al Gore is hated by everyone but die hard Democrats because he is a terrible scold, but why do they seem to hate John Kerry just as much? Because, ever since he lost, he has been in a funk, and has spent four years telling everyone why it was so unfair he lost. Similarly, when Jimmy Carter started talking to the nation about their gloomy future, full of sweaters and cold houses and malaise, he guaranteed that the Republicans would win. Had they run the Adolph Hitler and Judas Iscariot ticket Carter still would have lost. Not because of his inept handling of everything from the Panama Canal to the oil crisis to the hostages, but simply because he was such a mopey downer that no one could stand hearing him talk for another four years. (Though sadly he still hasn't shut up yet.)

And that is the lesson we need to learn. The lesson of Reagan and Rush Limbaugh. Why did Reagan so thoroughly crush others in debates? It was not a strong grasp of the subject matter, nor was it simple charisma, nor was it a fine turn of phrase. He had all three, but they were not enough to win over his audiences. What won over the audience was his ability to laugh, not just at his opponents, but at himself. He seemed genuinely upbeat and happy. The same with Rush Limbaugh. In the darkest days of the Clinton administration, Rush, though obviously troubled by what was going on, still remained optimistic and cheerful. And finally, on the other side of the aisle, part of the appeal of Obama is that, rather than foretelling doom, he sold the country on an optimistic future filled with (unspecified) change.

Optimism wins. We need to recall that. Rather than predicting doom, or moping, or worrying about the course the party will take, we need to smile and tell people that, whatever may come, there is better in store.

We need to stop selling the problems of the other guy and start pushing the virtues of our own. Don't tell how bad regulation is, tell how good the free market is. Don't cry about high taxes, preach about low taxes. Don't talk about the threats abroad, talk about the safety we are going to enjoy. Emphasize the benefits we will bring, not the harm the other guy is doing. That was what got the Democrat congress down into single digit approval ratings, that was what kept the Democrats on the defensive throughout the Reagan years, being the party of the negative, the men always saying "no" and telling us what was wrong. We need to stop following a losing course.

It is a lesson we forgot. And one we would do well to learn again.

People don't vote for the scolds and nags and those who tell them how bad everything is. They vote for those who promise something better, and seem to believe in it. Even when it is a snake oil salesman like Obama.

POSTSCRIPT

No, this doesn't mean we can never explain what is wrong with our opponent's theories, we just need to do it with a smile, and follow up every criticism with a half dozen cheery plugs for our own positions. Make our campaign more about what is right about us and less about what is wrong with them.

And, no, it is not easy. Even while I have tried to be optimistic, I have found myself far too often complaining about what is wrong. Then again, I am not running for office, so I don't have to abide by this rule as strictly as the politicians do.

Still, it wouldn't hurt the image of the Republican party if the rank and file stopped sounding so negative and instead began to be seen as optimistic and cheery folks, confident in the plans promoted by their leadership, sure that those plans would bring about great things. (Of course, it would help if our leaders set an example for us to follow in this regard. And that is something we have been sorely lacking lately.)

Originally posted on 2008/11/28.

NOTE: I completely expect the Idiot Twins to enjoy tearing into any mention of Romney or Reagan, but, in the spirit of this essay, I greet their cretinous antics with a tolerant smile. As nothing I can do will make them leave, I will simply treat them like a brain damaged distant cousin who drinks out of the toilet and soils himself, and ask that visitors not take their behavior as indicative of the nature of the rest of my website. (No offense intended to those who have suffered head injuries, I used to work with them as a vocational instructor when I was much younger and, fortunately, they were uniformly more affable and better behaved than the Idiot Twins. I simply cannot think of another possible cause that would explain the Twins' behavior. Possession, perhaps? Oh, that's right, conspiracy theories! How could I forget? More injurious than brain damage.)

I have read Camille Paglia since the late 1980's, when a fellow writer suggested her first published collection, and, though at the time my political views were somewhat different than they are now,I found her both terribly interesting and often wrong. Since then I have followed her off and on, and, as she has moved in and out of conservative and libertarian circles as their on again, off again darling, pet reformed liberal, favorite lesbian (when Tammy Bruce isn't available), devil's advocate and sometime enfant terrible -- the last often preceding an ejection from the fold, at least for a time --  and I have continued to find her exactly the same, amusing, interesting, and still quite often wrong.

So, I was not surprised to find much of interest in her recent Wall Street Journal article, a few points with which I agree, even a few I have made myself in the past, a number of small points of disagreement (her choice of artists and architects to praise, for example¹, not to mention her inability to get over an inexplicable respect for Warhol²)  and a central premise completely off the mark.

I know I am given to long, drawn out discussions, but let me make this one short and sweet. I am used to all sorts of nonsensical claims being made about the move of manual trades and industry overseas, but the loss of fine arts is a new one for me. Considering how many of the highlights of the fine arts in England and Holland came from mercantile and aristocratic classes with no more contact with manual trades than our own technophiles this is just nonsense. And it is doubly absurd, as Ms. Paglia touches on the real cause in her own essay, at least indirectly.

Painting is dying because it is not being taught, or more precisely because it is being taught by those who destroyed traditional painting. Though she may elevate Rothko and Pollock, the movement they inaugurated (and which was born long before them to be fair), destroyed painting. By removing any connection between the painting and the subject the logical endpoint was the monochrome canvas, or the many layers of multicolor globs, perhaps with applied bits of debris. And when students are taught that such is the work of the best and brightest, is it any wonder they are not likely to put in the effort to become the next Rembrandt or Vermeer, when they can just trickle paint and glue on baby doll parts and get NEA grants for life? Or, even better, ignore paining, go into video or photography and not even have to bother? It is not that the manual trades left, it is that we have degraded art, so that no one in their right mind would put in the effort, as no one is left to appreciate the effort it takes to become a true master.

If you need evidence, look at art schools where once students vied with one another to impress their masters with more and better reproductions of reality, with more clever techniques, with more interesting stylistic choices, with well chosen subjects and so on. Now they compete with faux-Matisse prints and mock-Minimalist canvases of differing shades of gray. Is it likely that such art schools will produce great painters? Especially when painting is a discipline which takes long practice and dedication to master? I don't think so.

So, rather than fighting to keep the mills in New Bedford and Durham to save the arts, I think we would do better to try to foster a bit of respect for the arts in our schools. (And eliminate government sponsorship of the dreck that today passes for art³.) To do so would do much more than some sort of protectionism for Art's sake.

=====================================================================================

1. I know art is subjective, but certain movements in art tended to inspire a decline in standards, and a few of those Paglia selected seem to be more a part of the problem than exemplars of the craft at its best. Note also, while one may work with great passion and verve, it does not mean that the product of one's efforts will be worthy of praise.

2. Warhol may have been clever in pointing out the commercial nature of art and in cutting through the hypocritical posturing of some of his contemporaries, but he was also part of the same trend of denigrating art and lowering standards that was taking place throughout his lifetime. So, while he seemed to be mocking many of those trends, he also helped to advance them, or at least rush along their end results.

3. See my posts "Patronage Versus Choice", "Subsidies and Censorship", "My Censorship Is Your Discretion", "Time to End the NEA", "The Problem of Pornography" and "Canada, Subsidies, The Free Market and Intractible Reality". See also "Why I Won't Be Contributing to Wikipedia", especially footnote 1 which reads:

It is interesting to view those fundraising claims in light of the proliferation of cable channels. I recall many times hearing PBS claim that without voluntary donations (and government subsidies) there would be no broadcasts of cooking shows, travel programs, home improvement shows, foreign programming and so on. However, as The Cooking Channel, Food Network, Travel Network, Home and Garden, BBC America, IFC and a host of other channels now turn a profit specializing in just one of those topics each, it shows how little truth there was to that claim. Of course, in the era of heavily limited broadcast bandwidth, and stringent government control of broadcasting (including PSA requirements, the fairness doctrine, and many other limits on content), it probably would have been difficult to create such channels, but in part that was also because such channels would have been in competition with the subsidized government channels. (Not to mention that PBS channels used up several of those very scarce broadcast channels, making the remaining channels even more expensive and difficult to obtain.) I wrote on this before in my essay "The Debt Ceiling".

====================================================================================

POSTSCRIPT

I know I generally avoid current events, and that includes commenting on current articles. However, I stumbled across this article and it was both so interesting and so wrong I couldn't help myself.

I am always amused reading comments on Amazon and IMDB, as it gives such an interesting insight into humanity. You can see so much of someone's personality in what they blame for the failings of our culture. Some seem to find the low quality of movies to be the fault of Hollywood's need to "chase after money" and use of "focus groups", the need to "appeal to yahoos", while others blame it on "arrogant directors" and "out of touch studios" who don't listen to what people want. It is all rather amusing. Of course, both sides have some points in their favor, and both sides are also partly wrong, and, as should be obvious, both arguments are often used to support supposed solutions that are completely idiotic.

The truth is, sometimes a great film can come about because of the brilliant vision of a single auteur, but just as often a singular vision can produce total rubbish. And, on the opposite side, appealing to focus groups can sometimes result in sidelining what would have been a hit, but other times it can result in keeping a flop from being put into production. There is no sure formula for success. The arrogant elitist and populist both have arguments in their favor, but neither has a monopoly on the truth. The popular vote can err, and so can the individual.

Which brings me to my point, which should not come as much of a surprise, as I have made it over and over again.

This is the reason I argue so vehemently for limiting the power of the state, keeping decisions, both political and economic, as narrow as possible. Allow economic decisions to be made by those who own the assets for which they are deciding. And let political decisions be made effecting the smallest political unit possible, and then only when there must be a decision at all.

Errors are inevitable. Errors are even common. And when an error is made, people suffer. When an error is made in a private decision, only the individual suffers, or those who have entered into voluntary relationships with him, and he can quickly correct the mistake, minimizing the harm. When the error is in a governmental decision, many suffer, whether they choose to do so or not, and it takes far too long for the error to be set right, and the consequences may persist for far too long.

And it is for that reason, among others, that I argue that we should try to keep the exercise of power as limited as possible.

POSTSCRIPT

For those who wish to see my other arguments in support of this topic, I suggest "Oven Mitts and Safety Regulation", "The Case for Small Government", "Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government", "Government Intervention and the Purpose of Government", "Negative and Positive Rights", "The Single Greatest Weakness", "The Consequences of Bad Laws", "Government Versus Culture - A Forgotten Distinction", "The Importance of Error", "The Secret of Success, or, Why Government Fails", "Inflexibility and Bureaucracy", "Adaptability and Government", "Best Practices and Resistance to Change, Bureaucracy and the Free Market" and  "The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism".

At one time, for better or worse¹, the state thought it had a role to play in upholding personal morality. To this end, it passed laws against prostitution, public drunkenness, adultery, pornography, and various other things that were seen as leading to a decline in public morals. The justifications for doing so were mostly of a religious, or at least, spiritual, nature, arguing that such behavior coarsened mankind, tarnished him and so on. There were some who offered pragmatic arguments about such lack of public morals leading to other crimes, but for the most part, those arguments are of more modern provenance, when we had to develop secular arguments for ethics. In the past more spiritual arguments were far more common.

As the 19th century wore on and and bled into the 20th, policy gradually became more secular, and religious argument fell into some disrepute. It took quite a while, but over time secular forces began to undermine the public morals laws. Not all of them, certainly, but many. For example, adultery, though for a time remaining technically a crime to give grounds for divorce charges², became less and less a public matter and more a private one, as did sexual relations between unmarried individuals. Similarly, drunkenness, loitering, vagrancy and many other nuisance charges fell into disuse, as alcoholism became an illness and homelessness a noble affliction rather than a sign of idleness.  Even homosexuality, once quite a scandalous charge, became not only permissible, but accepted³. There were exceptions, of course. As laws about sexuality became more lax, drugs laws were born, and became ever more strict. (Though, as we shall see, in part there is a very good reason for that⁴.) Nor did laws against prostitution ever disappear except in a very few locales.

None of this should come as news to anyone alive today who knows anything of history. Much that was once illegal, from pornography to birth control, is now commonplace. And, in part, if not in whole, it arose because of an argument from a secular morality. Basically, an effort to remove ethics from the religious realm, or, more accurately, to argue that since there was no single revealed set of ethical standards, it was not the place of the government to enforce an individual ethical standard.

What is amusing is that the same materialist ethics actually had a flip side, an authoritarian evil twin, which came into its own only a few decades ago, and is today coming to rival the more liberating materialist ethic. And, in a quite ironic twist, this authoritarian version of materialist ethics, should it come to be applied consistently, will likely end up reinstating all those rules the earlier movement eliminated.

Allow me to explain.

Many, confronted with a purely material world, without an afterlife, or with no certainty of one, develop the belief that their lifetime upon this earth must be prolonged to the greatest extent possible⁵. This is not the sole motivation behind today's fixation on "health" as an absolute value⁶, but it definitely is one of them. As George Carlin once commented, "We lost the soul, so we'll save the body." Without any prospect of existence beyond the immediate material, the material is made the end all.

Which would be fine were it held as a purely individual faith. But those who adopt this belief often embrace it with a missionary zeal, convinced those of us who do not place health above all else are misguided fools who need salvation, and thus the modern "health nazis" are born. And we are greeted by the sight of the same people who once campaigned against the government "meddling in our bedrooms" telling us the government should be meddling in our kitchens, and our smoking habits, and our gardens and our choice of pesticides, and automobiles and just about everything else. We are told the state can't keep children from fornicating, but can keep them from eating burgers. That we have no right to tell someone with whom he can copulate, but have every right to dictate every morsel of food he places in his mouth.

Which is where the irony of the whole situation arises. You see, the original movement, for better or worse, made certain areas of individual choice sacrosanct, and we still abide by that today, for the most part. But, at the same time, the modern successors have made health the sine qua non of policy. And, whether sacrosanct or not, sexuality, for example, has  an influence upon health. And so, while saying we cannot allow an individual to consume transfats because of some minimal health risk, at the same time we are prohibited from establishing, say, an AIDS registry⁷, or legally prohibiting those with known STDs from transmitting them to others.

Such contradictions cannot long stand. One way or another, this one will eventually collapse, and, as authoritarian movements almost always win in such conflicts, I expect to see the end of sexual liberation. Given that extramarital, premarital and other sexual encounters have detrimental health effects, I would expect to see increasing pressures to return to a more puritanical view of sex. Not that there won't be resistance, those promoting sexual freedom will certainly struggle, and the gay rights movement, having been long associated with them will join in as well⁸, but, in the end, I expect that we will see a return to much less liberal sexual attitudes, ironically thanks to many of the same thinkers who gave it to us originally, or at least their descendants. Of course, only time will tell.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. In general, I oppose the government involving itself in such questions. However, I support quite strongly allowing the public to eschew any and all contact with those whose morals offend them, including refusing to trade and other actions which would today be illegal. I believe allowing such shunning would actually create a stronger force than government laws, while not using the power of the state inappropriately. However, as we have not had the freedom to do so for quite some time, it is a hard point to prove at the moment. (See "The Consequences of Bad Laws", "Government Versus Culture - A Forgotten Distinction", "Shame and Understanding" and "Social Pressure".)

2. For those who are quite young, or who don't recall, "no fault" divorce is relatively new. Originally divorce required grounds, such as adultery on the part of one party, though even before no fault divorce "irreconcilable differences" was invented as a way to allow for a basically amicable split. Because grounds were required, the criminal charge of adultery persisted, and tot his day remains on the books in many states, though, as should be obvious, is rarely if ever prosecuted. (The UCMJ is another matter. I am not up to date on current practice, but I know about a decade ago they were still taking adultery by service members, especially officers, quite seriously.)

3. Again, I do not say this is a bad thing. Unlike some other conservatives (though like many others), I am of the mindset that government power is best limited to preventing one individual from violating the rights of others. When it comes to moral questions which do not involve the violation of rights, social disapprobation, persuasion, education, individual conscience and a host of other tools seem much more appropriate. Especially as questions of what is and is not proper individual morality have so many and widely varied answers, even within a single branch of Christianity, much less within a single faith, or within the nation as a whole, it seems absurd to pick a single answer and force it upon the whole. If we select wrong, in even one case, then would we not be forcing the whole of the nation into immorality? That seems worse than allowing individual error to persist.

4. The movement to prohibit drugs was in part an outgrowth of the health nazi movement, but it had other roots as well. For example, as drugs were associated with both counter culture movements and minority groups, fighting drugs, especially in the early 60s and earlier, was a convenient means to attack those groups without obviously doing so.

5. Obviously, a fixation upon health is not limited to those holding these beliefs, but there is definitely a historical tendency for strong "wellness" movements to arise during periods when secular feelings run high. (Eg. The National Socialist Movement, many 19th century American utopian movements, etc.) Not that there are no religious movements which promote individual health, but it seems to have a much stronger hold when one is deprived of belief in an afterlife.

6. See my essays "Absolute Values".

7. Though, thanks to our inconsistencies, some diseases, even STDs, are tracked in some states, despite "reproductive freedoms". Because the change in perspective was so recent, what is and is not a violation of individual sexual liberties is still not quite a settled question, and, as the authoritarian tendency which will move counter to such freedom is already on the rise, I do not expect such questions to ever be settled.

8. Then again, many in the gay community have become involved in health care activism, which sometimes takes on a quite authoritarian cast, so it is likely there will be strong division here as well. (Not to mention that the gay rights movement, despite liberal beliefs, is not synonymous with all homosexuals, and so there will be many gay voters adopting different positions entirely.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

There is nothing unusual about such a backlash, to be honest. Many radical movements originate with antinomian elements. Many variations of communism, and even some factions with the national socialist movement, espoused the destruction of traditional morality. However, over time, either the excesses of such movements bring a backlash and a renewed puritanism, or else the authoritarianism in other area begins to apply itself to those areas which were previously governed by traditional ethics. (As is the case here.) Whatever the cause, what starts as a wild, unrestrained anarchic movement very often ends up even more puritanical than the beliefs it hopes to replace. (Though there may remain, here and there, areas of license, either through simple oversight, or for practical reasons, such as the national socialist disregard for monogamy when creating plans for breeding centers.)

POSTSCRIPT II

I realize this sounds like I am championing the cause of traditional morality and government enforced ethics, and nothing could be farther from the truth. If there is a point to this essay it is that a movement without a clear vision and a proper understanding of the role of the state can often achieve good goals only to have them slip away. Though, in some cases, I disagree with the directions in which the sexual liberation movement took, especially its tendency to try to shock the public in hopes of "educating", I agree with removing the state from many issues. But, as we can see, because they lacked a proper understanding of the role of the state, in the end their own movement ended up in conflict with them, and, if I am right, will end up destroying what they created

I was looking over my last lists of "Upcoming Posts" and trying to see what remained to write and sadly, there were quite a few. Of the original list, all of these remain:

1. The Arrogance of Psychological Explanations - A look at the modern habit of using psychological, or pseudo-psychological explanations as a substitute for explanations based on motive, volition and choice. Also, a short digression on the flip side of the same issue, the use of psychological "insights" to eliminate culpability.
2. Government Investment - An examination of the argument that government spending, even if wasteful, still serves a beneficial purpose by employing individuals and sometimes even "keeping alive" entire towns. (I will also look back at similar arguments in the past, such as the arguments for the steel tariffs of a decade ago.)
3. Untitled - A look at how government financing has changed academia. As I said in an earlier post: " I want to look at how funding of academia has changed the character of the academic world. Actually, there are three related topics, all of which I addressed in less detail before. First, the ways research grants have changed academia. Second, how student loans and other aids, as well as the growth of public universities and community colleges, changed our views of education. And, finally, how funding of the arts has changed both academia and the world of arts and letters."
4. Liberalism - I will finally write the last few sections of my series "Liberalism, Its Origins and Consequences".

I know, it is still a considerable list, but I will try to get through it in the next week if I can, well all except for finishing my serial post. That may take two weeks or so.

Whenever I speak of conspiracy theories, those who are proponents of the paranoid world view to which I refer when I mention "conspiracy theories" tend to defend themselves by making the pathetic argument that I am terribly unrealistic by denying that anyone in power has ever conspired with others. It is a bizarre argument, and an absurd one. I am not denying anything, and I admit there have been conspiracies, though they have inevitably been discovered very rapidly. No, when I speak of "conspiracy theories" I am talking about a particular mindset that can be identified by a few distinct beliefs:

1. The hidden matters more than the visible - To conspiracy theorists, what is seen is irrelevant, the forces that drive history are the hidden, secret plots. A conspiracy theorist not only admits that there is conspiracy, to him the conspiracy is the primary force driving history.
2. The powerful are never seen - Conspiracy theorists inevitably believe the "true" power is where it is least expected. The congress and president are just pawns, some other shadowy group pulls the strings. Whether Jews or bankers or Illuminati or CIA agents or the Gnomes of Zurich, there is some other secret group which no one suspects.
3. The plot is eternal - Not only is there a conspiracy, to almost every conspiracy theorist it is ongoing. Unlike real history, where plots are generally formed ad hoc, for a limited time, to obtain a limited goal, and then disbanded, if not discovered or thwarted, the conspiracies of conspiracy theories are like the energizer bunny, going on and on and on forever.
4. The plot is all powerful - Conspiracy theories tend to paint plots which are all powerful. They don't just manipulate, they twist the world like James Bond supervillains. They don't simply shoot someone in an alley, they fly whole planes to secret airfields and exterminate the passengers at NASA death camps.
5. Who knows what evil lurks in men's hearts? - According to conspiracy theories, the conspiracy is ruthless. Unlike the real world, where soldiers, cops, even CIA agents often balk at even small irregularities, turning whistle blower, the conspiracy theory exists in a world where anyone can be convinced to commit murder, poison children, torture grandmothers and otherwise indulge in any atrocity at the drop of a hat, and, what's more, there are countless who will do so without ever having second thoughts.
6. The Truth is out there - Despite being all powerful, and having endless resources, and being so clever they can manipulate the world without being noticed, the conspiracy is kind of like the Riddler of cartoon fame, they just can't stop leaving clues. And so, though they are omnipotent and near omniscient, they leave little hints that can be discovered by some basement dwelling bachelor using nothing but the internet. And, even more peculiar, they must have a sense of fair play, as once someone discovers these clues, the intrepid whistle blowers are not killed, nor is the story stifled, the conspiracy allows it to be broadcast far and wide.

And those are the traits I have in mind when I think of "conspiracy theory".

And, for the record, I hardly deny there have been plots and conspiracies in the past, but, as I said elsewhere, they have inevitably been revealed, and revealed pretty rapidly, unlike those imagined by conspiracy theorists. For example, perhaps the most famous conspiracy in history, the Sicilian Vespers, not only were suspected by some even prior to the outbreak of violence, but within months it was pretty certain that John of Procida was one of the main forces behind it, and most of the other details were discovered by the world at large within John's lifetime.

Compare that real life conspiracy with the conspiracy theory belief in never-ending, wide open conspiracies which remain concealed for years, even decades or centuries, without anyone being the wiser, driving the entire world in the direction they desire.

Is it now clear that the claim that to deny conspiracy theories is to deny any conspiracies at all is a straw man argument?

UPDATE (2012/10/01)

Allow me to explain my last point.

Conspiracies either are slipshod and careless and leave clues, in which case there should be many, and the conspiracy should be quite obvious, or else they are clever, and the clues left behind, if any, should be so subtle it would require intense scrutiny. However, the conspiracies postulated by these theories are both, and neither. They carry off seemingly impossible plots (eg convincing people a missile at the Pentagon was a plane) yet leave behind clues so supposedly obvious anyone could see them. (Not that these clues are really so obvious, but such are the claims of the theories.) In other words, the conspirators are like the GWB of the Democrats in the 2000's, simultaneously a genius and an idiot. As Bush was too stupid to function, but also so clever he manipulated all the Democrats into war, the conspirators are so clever they can manipulate the world and carry off complex plots, yet so stupid they leave clues one can find with simple internet search engines.)

Allow me to offer one example. Let us suppose, though it is untrue, that burning jet fuel (well fuel coupled with damage from being struck by a very fast plane) could not bring down a skyscraper. If this truther belief were true, then the conspirators would be fools for trying to convince us of this, when they could simply have faked evidence of, say, oxygen cylinders being on board the planes, adding to the heat, or maybe the terrorists packing explosives or incendiaries in their cargo. If the conspirators are so all powerful, they could have found cargo handler patsies to blame for smuggling the illicit materials aboard even. So, why wouldn't they?

Or, say flight 93 really was diverted to Ohio as some crazy theories state, rather than crashing in Pennsylvania. If it was, why did the conspiracy allow mention of this landing to be broadcast? You think, if they were landing the plane, they would have landed it somewhere out of sight of local news reporters. Or changed the markings and call signs when they landed it at the supposed "death camp" where they executed the crew and passengers. That they would land the plane in plain sight with its markings visible is idiotic. And yet that is supposedly what these people did, even though they were clever enough to fake all these other incidents. It makes no sense.

You see why I say they remind me of the Riddler? It is as if they MUST leave clues, in the minds of these conspiracy theorists. And, worse yet, once found out, though happy to kill thousands, they will not kill off one unknown internet film maker or blogger. And, though able to fake an entire plane at the Pentagon, or hide traces of flight 93, they cannot suppress one little website or youtube film? Absurd!

If there is one change we could make today that would help more than any other, it would be to eliminate the idea that the normal state of affairs is perfect safety. I suppose that needs a little explanation, so perhaps it would be better to say, I want people to stop believing that life is free of risk, and that, whenever anything goes wrong, someone should step in and make everything right. I will grant there are many differences separating us from the men and women of the 19th century who founded our government, but one of the largest differences is that they, and even most in the 19th century, accepted the simple fact that life entailed risk, mishaps were common, and that normally we had to help ourselves overcome misfortune.I a not going to claim that this mindset was the sole reason they created the government they did, or embraced the philosophies they chose, but it definitely played a part, or, to be more precise, the abandonment of that mindset played a large part in destroying those philosophies.

There are, clearly, many expressions of this mindset, from the welfare state to the parading of sob stories on American Idol, but the most obvious embodiment of this concept is to be found in our courts, especially in the area of liability law, and I believe, if we are ever going to reform our state, one of the first steps is a reform of the tort system (and contracts as well), as doing so will go a long way toward changing how we view the world.

If you doubt this, simply suggest that people should not be allowed to sue a manufacturer of defective products if they signed a waiver. A few will probably nod in agreement, but I guarantee a goodly number will decry the unfairness of such a concept, asking why these unfortunates should suffer, and how we will help them if we eliminate such lawsuits. For that matter, perhaps even a few of my readers have had just such a reaction. All of which shows how far we have come. Rather than allowing individuals the right to be treated as adults, to use contracts to define their interactions and assume they know best what they do and do not want or need, instead we have assumed that, whenever misfortune befalls someone, the first responsibility of the state is to ensure someone pays for their misfortune.

The problem, of course, is to be found in our changed perspectives on life, specifically in two modern concepts. First, that life can be made risk free, or, if not, that it can be so arranged that any harm can be made right. Second, that the ideal is a state where any harm is immediately compensated, where, in essence, there are no consequences.

What makes this so interesting is how much we have internalized these concepts. I bet, even as you read those lines, many of my readers found nothing objectionable in them. "Of course," many probably thought, "what is so bad about eliminating any risk from life? Or making sure we don't suffer from our mistakes?" It is a very modern mindset, and a common one, but also one greatly at odds with the perspective of those who founded our nation, and even those who lived but a few generations ago. And it is a mindset which is profoundly dangerous.

The dangers of this should be obvious, but, strangely, they are not.

The first, and most obvious, is that risk can only be avoided entirely by limiting our choice of actions. Yes, we can try to compensate people for their injuries, but that is costly if we do not, simultaneously, try to limit people's riskiest behaviors. The consequence of which is,the much maligned nanny state. Which is somewhat surprising as many who decry the nanny state have no problem with our modern philosophy of risk avoidance.

A second problem, and almost as damaging, is the need to compensate those who do suffer a mishap. As we have chosen to do so through the civil courts, the tendency is to make compensation the responsibility of the wealthiest bystander. That is, the richest man present whose actions can be in somewhat plausibly linked to the harm. Of course, there is a lot of legal verbiage written to obscure this rather mercenary approach, but, oddly enough, the law journals themselves are much more open about their approach, and admit to questing after deep pockets. Oh, they excuse it by arguing the deepest pockets could probably do the most to prevent accidents, but, whatever the justification, law journals admit pretty openly that the riskiest thing to be is a rich man near an accident.

The quest for deep pockets has three consequences. First, a general drag on the economy, as wealth is dispersed, making it more difficult to gather the needed amounts to start new ventures or capitalize old. Second, it tends to cause firms to entirely avoid any field which is more likely to attract liability suits, leaving large swathes of the economy underdeveloped. Finally, it makes actual safety improvements, which tend to be found near accidents, extremely risky, and so makes improvements in safety the area of the economy least likely to find financing. In short, despite the arguments of the liability theorists, the current tort system decreases overall safety, rather than increasing it.

But even if we ignored the immediate consequences, there is one final question we need to ask. That is, do we want to eliminate risk? Risk exists for a reason. When we suffer harm, we know we have made a bad choice, the same way benefit teaches us we have done well. If we manage to eliminate risk, or to ensure immediate compensation, do we not run the risk of removing the forces which keep our economy improving? Think of what happened with the welfare state when we removed the consequences of unemployment, having more children than one could support and so on. By removing consequences, we made such actions easier to undertake, and as a result we got more of things we would otherwise have wished to avoid. And, if we remove consequences from the economy as  whole, do we not risk doing the same?

Many will argue that I overstate the condition of the present liability law, that they do not seek to eliminate risk, only to compensate those who suffered from wrongful actions. But the truth seems to be otherwise. When a person can sign a waiver, while being videotaped hearing an explanation of that waiver in her native language, and admit in court she would have tkane the medication whether or not the waiver had been offered*, and still prevail in court, we are not talking about informed consent or preventing negligent action, we have moved, as the tort theorists proposed, into the realm of social insurance, and that means nothing less than the attempt to eliminate risk, or, if you prefer, remove all consequences. And that is something we  do not want to do.

================================================================================

* To be completely honest, I conflated a few cases here, though there are a number of waiver cases where multiple approaches were tried, so this is not that far from the truth. Of course, this is not the case in all trials. There are still courts, and juries, who respect waivers, but that is because we are still in a state of flux. As time goes on, it becomes more and more common to find waivers, or the entire concept of informed consent, ignored entirely. As I said, it is not always the case, but just as contract was removed through legal subterfuge a few decades ago, at least when it came to tort liability, so too waivers and other protective measures are being quickly eliminated.

I wrote before, several times (cf "The Bureaucratic Mind", "Gun Control, The FDA and Regulating the Law Abiding", "Who Is Safer?", "Worker Safety") that regulatory practices are often pointless, or more often harmful, as they do nothing but either tell people to follow safety practices they already do, or else enforce showy actions that give the appearance of improving safety but actually distract from real safety measures. (As we will see in some examples, shortly.) It is not a difficult argument to make, though oddly one I hear very rarely. Far more often, the argument is made that, while they may be pointless, or stress appearance over substance, it is better to have regulations than leave people to their own devices. (""Better Safe Than Sorry" Usually Leaves Us Even More Sorry, And Much Less Safe") I have argued against such positions many times, but usually with little support. So I was quite interested to find a post, which, while not exactly supporting my position, seems to raise some of the same points. This one comes from a discussion of Australian aviation safety regulations, and says a few things that should be self-evident, but which, strangely, are often completely overlooked, even by supposed conservatives, when they discuss regulation:

The safety record for this country... for what its worth.
"Excellent and unique" according to CASA.
"Ordinary" by world stats by more objective reseachers.
Why do we have a "good" record...notwithstanding with some unfortunate blemishes recently.
IMHO its because 99.99999% of aviators try their very best to stay alive, and try not to do anything knowingly unsafe or plain dumb.
Therefore, those that do.. become a statistic and into the Safety Digest.

You could bury most of CASA and the regs underground and the result would be the same.
Above ground most engineers will carefully maintain things, and most pilots will 'professionally' fly things....not because of CASA, but to keep their respective ar$es intact. Its the survival thing.

Yes, the statement is common sense, and it really doesn't say much, but it does make one point, one which seems to escape many who argue for safety regulations, and that is the common sense fact that people have a selfish interest in safety, and even without regulation will act to protect themselves. It sounds like common sense, but sadly, when it comes to discussing safety regulations, many on the right and left seem to forget this truth, and end up supporting big government as a result.

Let us start with a very simple question, hopefully one for which every single reader will provide the same answer:

When you bake cookies, why do you use an oven mitt?

I hope that every single reader said "So I won't get burned" or something tot hat effect. In fact, I not only hope that was the answer, but I have trouble imagining any other answer even being possible. I suppose a few might want to be difficult and could try to say "because mom did" or "I like how they look", but I don't think they would be taken very seriously. And I am almost certain no one would say "Because of OSHA regulations."

However, if you were a commercial baker, that would be the answer, if not for the use of oven mitts, certainly for any number of equally common sense measures. Things that you do without thinking at home, because they keep you safe, or prevent very obvious risks, are repeatedly mandated by the state¹ when it comes to business.

Which brings me to the first argument against government safety mandates, the fact that individuals will take steps to ensure their own safety without prompting, and, when it comes to ensuring their own safety, will likely make better cost-benefit assessments than any "one size fits all" government regulation. It seems self evident, but since some seem to fail to grasp this simple fact, let me spell it out. People do not want to be injured. However, people also recognize some degree of risk is inevitable. Thus, they weigh the amount of risk they are willing to accept against the costs -- both in terms of money and inconvenience -- and decide what is the best course for them. On the other hand, the state, thinking in the abstract, exists to ensure "safety" as a vague notion. For the most part, regulators do not bear the costs or inconveniences of their regulations², and so, for the most part, they tend to impose excessive safety regulations, far more than individuals would choose for themselves, as they do not bear the costs of safety rules, but they could be blamed should there be too many injuries or accidents in the industry they oversee. And even when they do not go to extremes, they still tend to regulate with a broad brush, imposing rules across the boards, or at the most regulating by industry, and as a result, they cannot consider variations between firms, look at differing circumstances, consider individual risk tolerances, and the like, and so they will inevitable produce more poor fits than good ones, if they ever achieve the latter at all.

Of course, most often these measures are not sold as protecting people from themselves, though that has been argued at times, instead they are proposed as a means to protect employees from the evil actions of greedy employers who ignore safety to save a few dollars. And, to be fair, if the questions were entirely as postulated, that employees would work regardless of safety measures, and there were no cost to ignoring safety for employees, then it would make sense to sacrifice worker safety to save money. However, the situation postulated by those arguing for such measures not only has never existed, but, cannot exist. Even if we imagine a totalitarian state that could force workers to labor, there would still be the costs of ignoring worker safety, which means, in the real world, circumstances are not such that employers may simply ignore safety.

The first problem, and the most obvious, is the simple fact that employees work voluntarily. This fact, so often ignored by those determined to protect workers, is the nail in the coffin of most such supposedly pro-labor laws³. Workers, unlike the mindless automata of the theory, actually consider the environment in which they will work, the record of the company, the opinions of those who have worked there, and, if they make a mistake and find themselves employed in substandard conditions, they leave and take a different job. If you doubt this, think back tot he last time you looked for a job. Did you just jump at the first job offered? Did you randomly apply to every job listing? Or did you consider which job seemed best, in terms of pay, safety, working conditions and host of other considerations? And if you did so, why would you imagine the rest of humanity does not take similar factors into account? Are the masses so much inferior to you⁴?

But even if workers were unable to defend themselves, unable to select jobs in their own iterest⁵, there are still other reasons for employers to take safety into consideration⁶. Most notably because employees rise in value the longer they are employed. In some part this is due tot he acquisition of job skills, as well as "institutional memories", that is knowledge of how things work within an organization that can only be acquired through experience. But there is more to it than that. In addition, as an employee is employed for longer times, his superiors come to know him, know his work habits, know how reliable he is, know what can be asked of him and hat cannot. With new employees there is no such store of knowledge, and that makes new employees risky, and thus less valuable. When handing out assignments, it is easy to determine which long-term employee can or cannot be asked to perform a given task, not so with newly hired men. And so, to retain these valuable assets, employers would be wiling to invest in their safety. It may not be valuable enough for him to enact every safety rule the government would compel, but it certainly is in his interest to spend as much on safety as he would lose should these employees be injured or killed.

In addition to the value of existing workers, there is the cost of new workers. We have already mentioned the unpredictability, and the need for them to acquire job skills and knowledge of the organization, but that is not all. First, when an employee is injured, time is lost on a given project, not only during the injury, but afterward until that employee can be replaced. There is then the cost of actual hiring, the cost of advertising a position or engaging a staffing service, the cost of confirming references and job history, perhaps of testing various skills, of interviewing, of time lost for managers who must conduct such interviews, and, inevitably, the loss inherent in those who are hired and later prove a poor fit and must be let go⁷.

Those who argue against such assumptions tend to point to the industrial revolution, to child labor and poor safety standards, but such arguments are anachronistic in the extreme⁸. First, because in general safety standards were lower, and more risk was accepted all around. Second, it ignores the generally more impoverished conditions of the time, with lower profits and safety measures more costly, making it much more costly to introduce any safety measures. Finally, in many cases, but especially in the case of child labor, it often overlooks the even worse alternatives, which made factory work, though dangerous by today's standards, seem appealing. There are other issues as well,as there usually are when trying to apply modern thought to past eras, but for now that should be enough.

The only other serious counter argument offered are the illegal sweat shops run using illegal immigrants. However, the very description points out why they do not follow the pattern of all other business. Sweat shops employ illegal labor and are themselves illegal. As such, they expect to be shut down regularly, and also expect a high turnover of labor. That being the case, there is no expectation of developing labor to any degree, either in acquiring skills, or even in developing a better knowledge of one's employees. Given those circumstances,there is no financial interest in maintaining worker well being. Thus, the lack of safety regulation is not due to being beyond the reach of government regulators, but because illegal businesses experience different incentives than legitimate firms. Just as drug dealers turn to violence through being cut off from legal means of settling contractual disputes⁸, the transient nature of illegal alien employees tend to discourage pressures that woudl exist in legitimate firms.

I had intended to go on, to describe how such laws were not just pointless, but also costly and damaging. The cost should, to a degree, be obvious. Any government regulation entails overhead, the cost of bureaucrats, of legislation, of inspection, of prosecutions, of false charges, of money spent on compliance measures which do not improve safety⁹, reporting costs and so on. But there are far greater costs as well. However, as I am aware I tend to write at too great a length, I have decided to split this in two. I will end here, having shown the pointlessness of safety regulations, and will, very soon, follow up with a description of the costs and other harms done by such laws¹⁰.

===================================================================================

1. For the moment we will ignore pointless, or overly cautious, rules, such as the "three chamber sink" rules of which I have been so critical (eg. I once worked a bar which served only bottled wine, canned juice and soda, and beer and liquor in disposable plastic cups, yet we had to have a three chamber sink for health reasons, as well as sterilization tablets so we could wash dishes we did not use -- see also "The "Right To Sue" As Our Only Right" and "Real Life and Regulation"), and assume for this argument that all safety regulations actually mandate useful actions, which are neither overly cautious nor ineffective.

2. Sometimes the regulatory agencies become so burdensome that the industry will expend time, money and political capital to have the regulators removed. Or, in the worst case, the industry as a whole will begin to fail (as happened, unrelated to safety, when the unions were given too much power in the auto industry). In either case, the regulators will, for a time, be forced to err in the opposite direction. However, as discussed in "Fear Driven Enterprises", "The Inevitability of Bureaucratic Management in Government Enterprises" and "Grow or Die, The Inevitable Expansion of Everything", the pressure is always toward more intervention.

3. Similar considerations make minimum wage laws pointless as well. See "There Ought To Be a Law", "Fairness and the Free Market" and "A New Look At Intervention".

4. This is one of the great failings of liberal theories. For them to make sense, one must imagine that he is superior to the bulk of humanity, as otherwise there is no easy way to explain that you and I behave rationally, while we imagine most people do not. It is on the basis of such arrogant assumptions that most liberal theories rest. See "The Weakest Gun Control Argument", "Seeing People As Stupid", "Arrogance and Gun Control", "Appealing to Arrogance", "The Path of Least Resistance" and "Liberalism, Its Origins and Consequences".

5. Realistically, excluding a totalitarian state which can compel labor, it is hard to think of a circumstance where this would be true. Perhaps in an economy in a state of collapse due to hyperinflation. But, in general, it is unlikely that circumstances would ever be such, in a normal, relatively healthy economy, that individuals would be unable to choose between jobs. And the possibility of collusion between employers to limit safety is unlikely, for the same reasons such collusions fails in minimum wage arguments, if they are so greedy, then one or more will break the agreement to reap massive rewards.

6. Pro-labor theories tend to be populated with caricature Snidely Whiplash types, so I won't even mention that many employees, being ordinary humans, have a compassionate interest in the safety of their fellow man, including their employees. It is a valid consideration, but as most liberals, and even some conservatives, will dismiss such a possibility, I will not bother with this argument. It doesn't matter, in any case, as there are more than enough economic arguments.

7. On an unrelated note, many of these costs are part of the explanation for "gender disparity". Women, whether they choose to do so or not, are capable of bearing children, and many leave either temporarily or permanently when doing so. As a result, all of these costs are potentially incurred one or more times for every woman hired. And there is no way to avoid them, as all our "reproductive rights" would prevent any firm from including penalties in a contract for taking maternity leave. Thus, it is inevitable women and men will find their salaries somewhat different, no matter how much it troubles economists and womens' studies majors.

8. See "Mistaken Perceptions of the Industrial Age" and "Child Labor and the Industrial Revolution".

9. By this I mean actions which are required by law, such as providing an over abundance of material safety sheets, or filing proper paperwork, which do not, in themselves improve safety. They are, admittedly, a necessary part of a bureaucratic safety regime, and so are not "waste" per se. However, I would argue that, given a non-bureaucratic safety regime can produce the same or better results, while avoiding such overhead, they are additional costs. (This is the opposite of arguments offered concerning the supposed "waste" of the free market. See "Cutting "Costs"", "Misunderstanding Profits", "Two Examples of "Inefficiency" in Capitalism" and "Third Best Economy".)

10. As mentioned before, I discuss some of the costs in "Who Is Safer?" and "Worker Safety".