It seems my thoughts are catching on. First Krauthammer wrote about liberal arrogance, as I described in "I Said It First", and now there is much discussion of the article "Why are liberals so condescending?" The answer is obvious, and one I have been giving for years. Liberals are condescending because the philosophical basis for all intervention is a belief in the general incompetence of mankind. Once you believe man is competent, there is no need to intervene. Thus, liberals are condescending because they must be, otherwise they wouldn't be liberals.

Still, it is nice that at least a few people are noticing the patterns I have been explaining for years.

It seems conservatives are big fans of liquid ice, or female fathers. How else to explain "compassionate conservatism"? Or the fact that many "paleo-cons", repeating the liberal platform of anti-trade, pro-union and anti-war are called part of the right? (See "The Political Spectrum" and "A Question for "Paleo-Conservatives"") Or, most recently, how to explain the many conservatives calling for a "reasonable energy policy?"

Let me ask you, if you went to a marriage counselor, who said he was an advocate of traditional values in a monogamous marriage, and he proposed that the best solution was to adopt a "traditional open marriage", would you think he was really a supporter of traditional monogamy, or that he had some clearly mistaken ideas about what traditional marriage means?

That is how I feel when I hear conservatives calling for "an energy policy", whatever the specifics.

The worst part of this is that, unlike say social security, or the Federal Reserve, "energy policies" have no venerable history. We are not talking about century old traditions which may cause confusion in conservatives. Prior to Carter creating the Department of Energy int he late 70's, there WERE NO FEDERAL ENERGY POLICIES. Energy was treated as any other commodity.Prior to Carter, talk of a federal energy policy would sound as absurd as talk of a federal taffeta policy or a federal whipped cream program*. So, when conservatives adopt "energy policy" as an essential part of government, they are not recognizing the fact that Wilson or FDR changed our image of government, they are conceding that we won't even be free of Carter era absurdities, and that seems pretty defeatist to me.

The Department of Energy, and all federal meddling in energy, are ideal examples of the process I described in "The Endless Cycle of Intervention" and "The Cycle of Compassion". There was no great clamor for energy regulation in the 1960's. Look at the "big steel" Detroit was turning out, the poorly insulated homes, the spread of suburbs, and you can see that not only energy cheap and plentiful, but everyone involved in the question (other than a handful of environmentalists) expected things to continue in that vein**.

Then came Nixon's monetary meddling. I won't bore you with the details, as I have covered it over and over. (See "The Inflation Engine", "The Limits of Technocracy", "Sorry, President Jackson", "The Best Historical Example", "Careful What You Wish For") However, there was one consequence which matters here. Seeing prices spiral out of control, Nixon adopted the same foolish solution adopted by authoritarian types since at least the Emperor Diocletian, he imposed price controls. Unfortunately, not only did he impose price controls, but he tried to do it in a "clever" way. Rather than simply freeze prices, he established "experts" to set prices to what they "should" be. And one such "proper" price level was to set "new" oil, that is domestic oil from wells recently dug, at a price lower than "old" oil from pre-existing wells. Which had the predictable consequence of putting an end to all domestic drilling and exploration, increasing dramatically the amount of imported oil. And so we saw the paid of OPEC embargoes, as newly empowered oil producers, realizing how badly we had sabotaged ourselves with our price controls, flexed their political and economic muscles.

Thanks to these embargoes, inflationary price increases, and the consequences of the growing environmental movement, making other forms of energy harder and harder to produce, energy did become a major concern for the public in the 1970's, and, true to his Democrat tradition, Carter "solved" this crisis by establishing a new federal bureaucracy and creating the concept of "federal energy policy", basically taking what was a private concern and putting it, at least partly, under control of the federal government.

What confuses me is why conservatives would accept this history and adopt this Carter era stupidity as their own. We are supposed to be the party of individual initiative and free enterprise. So, why are we promoting any sort of "energy policy"? I know some conservative think we endanger ourselves by sending money overseas***, but that sort of anti-trade rhetoric is also anti-conservative. (See "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, and More Jobs", "Free Trade, Employment, Outsourcing, and Protectionism", "Fear of Trade", "Pro Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc" and "Cheap Lighters, Overseas Dumping and Monopolies") If we favor trade, we favor trade, and if we favor freedom, we favor freedom, we do not favor freedom and trade right up to the water's edge and no farther. After all, Jefferson did not write "all American men are created equal". If we believe in rights and freedom, we believe they extend beyond the borders****.

But some of those are contentious points, so let us leave them alone and just stick to the basics. If we accept a "federal energy policy", then why not a federal food policy? Or shoe policy? They are all "essential". If we accept that the government must manage our energy production and consumption for "our own good", then what is beyond the potential grasp of big government? ("Inescapable Logic")

And that is why I am shocked to hear the conservatives of today call for any energy policy. We should instead be calling for government to get out of the energy market. Our argument should not be for any "policy", but for the removal of regulatory roadblocks, restrictions on the use of one's own property, and the government's ability to make mineral leases worthless by preventing exploitation. Once the government gets out of the way, I think we will find we have plenty of energy without any need for a "policy" of any kind.

After all, without any policy at all, we are awash in shoes, clothing, consumer electronics and a host of other goods. Why would energy be different?

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

* OK, to be fair that second one may have existed under the myriad farm programs that manage to exist, even under nominally conservative administrations. But I discussed that specific absurdity in "Bad Economics Part 6".

** Before anyone credit the environmentalists with prescience, recall my arguments in "Why Peak Oil is Laughable ", "Rejecting "Peak Oil"", "A Thought on Oil Reserves" and  "Shocking Numbers", as well as later in this post. The "oil crisis" was neither technological, nor environmental, it was an entirely political creation.

*** My post about fears of "supporting terrorists" by buying foreign oil will be written soon. While there is technically truth in the argument, it is no more valid than worrying that buying an Audi in the 1980's supported European communist front groups. But more of that later.

**** Likewise, my post on the fact that a truly free society must recognize the rights of all, not just citizens will be forthcoming. Though I don't think my conclusions will be pleasing to either side of this dispute, as recognizing rights is not necessarily the same as actively protecting them.

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

POSTSCRIPT

During the height of our oil scare in 2008 I wrote several posts about the many absurd arguments being made by supposed conservatives, many arguing for restrictions on export of domestic oil, limiting "speculation" and other very intrusive solutions. These can be found at "In Defense of Speculators", "Authoritarian Oil Talk", "Those Darn Speculators" and "Speculators Again?".

The government always amuses me when one division provides common sense advice to the public and the remaining divisons do their best to make that advice impossible to implement. For example, emergency management groups always suggest keeping "one month of spare medication". It sounds fine, except thanks to billing practices modeled after the government, insurers are loathe to give more than a month of pills at a time, much less allow for a redundant prescription. And, if you take opiate pain relievers, you better not have more than you absolutely need. For that matter, my prescription must be picked up in person, the law prohibits calling it in to the pharmacy, and I can only receive one month at a time. I am now worrying because they are calling for more snow on top of our nearly 3 feet and I have to refill my prescription Wednesday. If I cannot physically show up, I may have to visit and ER or enjoy the lovely world of withdrawal again.

But that is hardly the only area where the government acts at cross purposes. It is in the nature of government for each divisions to engage in myopic planning, without a thought of consequences. After all, the DEA is charged with ensuring no one anywhere gets a drug they are not supposed to have. They do not suffer if people can't get drugs they need, that is not their concern. So, if the DEA makes life unpleasant for the sick, it does not impair the DEA's mission, and so they can safely ignore those concerns. (At least until it becomes a "political issue" at which time they have to suddenly reverse course, another trait which makes our government so wonderfully unpredictable.)

I wrote about this before, when discussing the FDA. They are charged with making sure food and drugs are "safe" (and "effective", but mainly "safe"). If they allow a drug that kills someone, they are in trouble. If they wrongly deny 100 functional, safe drugs, no one knows. And so, they will always favor prohibition over permissions, and risk avoidance over risk taking.

It is at this point most traditional writers would jump in with some blather about "common sense" in government, or "reform", or making sure "government is more responsive". I am afraid I can't do that, as I know the very nature of government favors myopic missions, blame avoidance, risk aversion and the rest of the traits which create just such fiascoes. It is not our specific government, or even the people involved, it is the nature of government to do so, as I described in "The Inevitability of Bureaucratic Management in Government Enterprises". So, rather than dream of "functional government", why not adopt a real solution? Why not limit government to those areas where it is absolutely needed? If we accept that drug use is a personal choice, and that individuals have the right to do things we consider bad, so long as they violate no one's rights, then we don't need to control access of sick people to medications, we can allow them to buy off the shelf, keep a supply, buy what they need, even choose form competing brands, rather than our current cartelized, non-competitive, over-regulated system. (See "Medical Regulation II", "The Right Way", "The Danger Inherent in Banning "Bad Ideas"".) Similarly, if we accept that fraud will exist, and should be handled after the fact as a law enforcement issue, not trying to stop it (fruitlessly) as a "regulatory" matter, we can avoid all the burden of the FDA, and do what we do now anyway, prosecute fraud after the fact*.

I could go on and on, and doubtless each example would find some in agreement, and some arguing vehemently against me, but the principle is the same. And if you admit it, you really must admit it for all. So, before you say "but that one is a GOOD regulation", ask yourself if that logic could not be applied to justify things you find offensive. And maybe, just maybe, your "good" regulation is just as damaging to someone else, as the regulators you detest are to you.

But I seem to be getting a bit far afield here. My point is, the government tends to meddle in too much, and to do it badly, and in the process creates chaotic situations which are offensive to common sense. That being the case, does it not make sense to keep the scope of government as small as possible? If government intervention tends to result in inefficient and clumsy management, doesn't it make sense to limit it to those areas where government is absolutely required, and leave the rest of our affairs in the hands of more efficient private management?

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

* Though both right and left seem to think the FDA is wonderful, I have to ask, how do things differ since the FDA? There is still fraud, there are still quacks, and food is still sold in unfit condition. The only change seems to be legitimate businesses now have the added headache and expense of massive regulation, while the fraudulent sellers look even better as they avoid such expenses. (See "Gun Control, The FDA and Regulating the Law Abiding".)

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

POSTSCRIPT

Sorry for the continued slow pace of posting. My hands have been bothering me off and on, and I am otherwise feeling ill as well, so between numb fingers and a very bad cold or flu, I haven't had it in me to write a lot. Still, I wanted to get something written, and so I posted this. It is a bit disjointed, I know, but I am going to blame that on lack of sleep. It still does make my point, I just wish it had been a bit more concise.

For a more elaborate presentation of some of the same ideas, I recommend "My Political Philosophy" or "A True Conservative Platform".

It seems that global warming dumped two feet plus of snow on Maryland since last night, and it continues to accumulate. Now, I know that snow does not invalidate the theories of AGW, in fact some predict paradoxically more extreme winters. However, as every warm day, drought, heat wave, or mild winter elicits crows from the AGW crowd, claiming it proves their theories, I figure I would take the same simple-minded approach and claim a cold winter with heavy snow must disprove them.

Of course, by pointing out how silly this claim is, I am more honest than every local weather caster (or congressman), who uses a warm day to "make a point" about AGW. At least I admit it is a load of rubbish.

After seeing all the comments lauding Mr. Krauthammer's insight in his current post, I must, despite my inclination to modesty, say "I have been saying that for years now!" That Democrats think people are foolish and only the liberal elite's righteous insights will save the rest of the masses from failure? That is my premise in post after post. From "The Essence of Liberalism" through "My Political Philosophy", I have said it over and over again.

So, to all those praising Mr. Krauthammer, I can only say "Thank you!"

I have written about the FairTax a lot, though not recently as it has not received much attention recently. Still, I see it come up from time to time, so I thought I would explain what my main objections are. I won't go into the many objections I have to claims of the proponents, such as "revenue neutrality" or "reduced bureaucracy"¹, as, while I think they are wrong, those are secondary issues. Even if we assume the FairTax would produce revenue neutral results and would not require a massive federal bureaucracy, even if it could be piggy backed cost free onto state systems (including in states which don't presently have a sales tax), I would still object. So, granting their many claims, here are the reasons I still object to the FairTax².

My first, and most significant objection is that the FairTax is every bit as dishonest as our current system. It has been my contention since I wrote "Making Taxes Hurt" that our problem is that we don't know how much tax we pay. We hear all kinds of figures, we are told we work for the state until June or July, but we don't really feel it. We not only don't see the taxes withheld, but we never even consider all the corporate taxes, sales taxes, fees, and other government exactions which we pay in whole or part. And the FairTax continues this tradition, by hiding the money in every purchase, making it hard for us to realize how much we pay.

Now, some will claim "it's right there on the receipt", and so is sales tax. And your withholding is on your pay stub, along with SUTA and FUTA and FICA and so on. But we don't really feel it. And the FairTax is even worse, as they want it to be incorporated in the sale price, rather than added on like a sales tax. At least a sales tax, being added, makes us notice it. The FairTax, being "embedded" is even less obvious. And as a result, it allows the politicians to get away with dunning us for a fortune without us even noticing. Worse still, if they raise the rate, will we blame Washington? No! Because the retail prices will increase, we will likely blame the sellers and manufacturers, not Washington, making the FairTax an ideal mechanism to avoid blame even for increasing taxes³.

What we need is a tax which draws our attention to the amount of money Washington takes. That is why I have argued before for eliminating all fees, tariffs, and the rest, as well as all corporate taxes, inheritance taxes, capital gains taxes, and the like, and rely solely upon a direct flat income tax, assessed upon everyone who earns even one dollar, and paid in its entirety once a year, or, at most, quarterly. Once we have to cut a check for 50% of our quarterly income four times a year, we may have a different perspective on whether or not Washington "needs" more money or not.

But the FairTax does just the opposite. It hides the costs of the state inside the cost of the goods you buy, and not only hides it, but makes it difficult to tell even how much of the cost is tax, unless you specifically seek out that information. And, despite claims to the contrary, it is a rate that is likely to change, especially if consumption patterns change. Which means, not only is the amount of taxes we pay hidden, but likely over time it will vary, and, worst of all, that variation will most likely be blamed on the vendors, not on the government⁴.

A second problem is the inequitable nature of the FairTax. While I am hardly a booster of progressive taxation, and I have always argued "fair" is a generally meaningless description in politics ("Protean Terminology"), I do think we should avoid systems of taxation which are intentionally regressive. Though I have always argued that the main purpose of taxes, in fact the sole purpose, should be maintaining the needed revenue for the government, I do believe practical considerations demand that taxes be assessed in a manner those paying agree is equitable, as a system to which too many object could serve as a destabilizing influence. ("Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government", "Misunderstanding Democracy")

Yet the FairTax fails in that regard. And the proponents quietly acknowledge this, though they pretend they have solved the problem. The basic problem is that the tax falls entirely one the purchase of new, retail goods. As anyone can tell you, the poorer you are, the higher the percentage of your income you commit to retail purchases. Of course, at the very low end of the scale, used purchases are more common⁵, but except for the very lowest echelons, it is obvious that a higher percentage of the income of the poor and lower middle class will be taxed than of the upper middle and upper classes.

Now, the proponents make two counter arguments. First, they argue you can "decide how much tax to pay" by controlling your purchases, but unless you live on a self-sufficient farm, make your own clothes and ride a horse, most people have a large number of required purchases they cannot ignore. In any case, telling the middle class they can "avoid taxes" by adopting austerity and forgoing purchases of luxuries or recreation is not likely to win many friends. Effectively it would be akin to imposing some sort of austerity program, in other words, imposing the FairTax boosters' values on the world through their tax system⁶. Though, in reality, rather than adopting austerity, most likely the poor and middle class would simply end up paying more of the tax burden and resenting it, making them easy targets for a populist rabble rouser proposing some sort of tax revolt.

The other argument is that the prebate offsets necessary purchases, but even this is only a small concession. For some level of poverty, this will offset the inequity, but for much of the middle class, they will continue to spend more in terms of income than more wealthy, and will continue to find the system inequitable. The prebate may remove the most poor from the dissatisfied, but only by moving the dissatisfaction to the middle class.

I have proposed three methods of making taxes fair, though both would obviously upset many. Provided we must have an income tax, the most equitable solution seems to me to place a fixed percentage on every dollar earned, without exemption or income requirement. That way, everyone who earns any money will share in the burden equally, and everyone will experience the same burden of government. That would eliminate the current problem of a class which pays no taxes, yet receives benefits. (Which would exist under the FairTax as well, thanks to the prebate.)

My second method only works if we move away from income taxes and reduce government size. If government is small enough, I could see having a single government fee assessed against everyone equally. This sounds unfair, but if you think about it, everyone gets the same benefit from the state, so they should pay the same price. Your cab ride isn't cheaper because you are poorer than I am, so why should government work that way? But, obviously, the government would have to be much smaller to make such a system affordable to most Americans. Or, to change this to a third variation, we could assess such a fee, but the failure to pay would carry no disability except for the inability to vote. Only those paid up on their taxes have a say in government. It could potentially backfire, if enough people decide to give up voting and bankrupt the state, but it does seem quite fair, at least in the abstract.

But I am not here to discuss my thoughts, simply to point out the problems of the FairTax, and looking at taxes as a percentage of income, it becomes evident, even with the prebate and enforced austerity, the FairTax will end up striking some part of the lower and middle classes most harshly, which cannot be considered fair. Even with the prebate added, it simply shift the burden from some of the lower class to the middle class.

And, having mentioned the prebate, that brings me to my third objection, which is the prebate itself. The prebate should terrify every single small government conservative, and, that it does not tells me how far we have come from our roots. Think about what the prebate means. It means absolutely every US citizen comes to expect a monthly check from Uncle Sam. It is bad enough that we have been tricked into thinking of our tax "rebate" check as a good thing, instead of a sign that we loaned money to the government interest free, the prebate makes of every man woman and child a welfare recipient. Oh, it is sold as "getting our money back", but that doesn't change the fact that we will become used to seeing the government as a source of money, instead of a taker of wealth. The same way withholding and refund checks warped our understanding of the income tax, the prebate will warp our understanding of taxes entirely.

But the problems don't stop there. Besides making us see the government as the source of money, the prebate itself could easily be misused. No one in 1917 thought the internal revenue code would be used for welfare, but the EITC is precisely that, a "rebate" of money no one paid. Why would the prebate be any different? What is to prevent the prebate checks from being used to support select groups? Or to encourage politically preferred purchases? Once you give the government the ability to send out checks, you have granted them the ability to use that money for whatever ends they prefer, and the prebate, being universal, is an ideal vehicle for various government subsidies and spending schemes.

Moving on from the prebate, we get to my fourth problem, one I discussed in "The Problems of Spending and Taxes", "Some Thoughts On Taxes" and "Truths About Taxation", that the FairTax does not focus solely on providing revenue, but continues to use the taxation system to implement policy, "encouraging" desired behaviors.  As I have discussed, the purpose of government is to protect rights, and the purpose of taxes are to raise revenue, anything else is an illegitimate use. Granted, the FairTax is less policy heavy than our present system, but it still has policy disguised as revenue generation.

What policy? The one I mentioned earlier, the one hidden in the assumptions behind the statement "you can decide how much tax to pay by how much you spend." It sounds like a neutral statement until you think about the implications. The FairTax, by tying taxes to spending, implicitly adopts the position that spending for consumption is something to be avoided, and money "should" be directed to investment and savings. Now this may or may not be a valid position, but it is not a position the government should be taking, and certainly not one it should be enforcing through the tax system. Individuals are perfectly capable of deciding what to spend and what to save, and by changing those decisions through the tax system, you end up making individuals less happy than they would be otherwise.

Worse still, by hiding this policy aspect inside the FairTax, the FairTax admits that the tax system should be used to encourage desired behaviors. Once that concession is made, as I argued in "Inescapable Logic", there is no way to argue against the logical implications. So, if a future politician wants to "encourage" home ownership by exempting them from the tax, what is the argument against it? The principle has been admitted, is an integral part of the FairTax, so there is no counter argument. And in that way, the FairTax sets itself up to become as convoluted and exception ridden as our current system, as it admits the same policy considerations that made our current system what it is.

Which brings me to my fifth problem, the trade implications of the FairTax. Though it may be a matter of indifference domestically whether we have 22% "embedded" tax, or 23% FairTax, for foreign merchants selling in the US, a 23/30% tariff (and they will see it as 30%⁷) will definitely raise objections, likely WTO level objections. Though we might argue that it is necessary for domestic reasons, it seems likely the imposed tariffs demanded by the FairTax will bring retaliatory taxes from foreign nations. Of course, if we don't impose such tariffs, we will likely see foreign goods come to dominate our markets, so it is something of a lose-lose. Still, it is something we need to consider.

My sixth objection is based solely on my federalist leanings, but in that respect the FairTax is every bit as bad as our present tax (or as a flat tax, for that matter). Any plan which leaves the tax power in the hands of the central government encourages wasteful pork projects to buy off states. Only by returning funding to the states will we make pork a losing proposition. So, though it is a problem shared by all forms of centralized taxation, I do still have to mention that the FairTax, by keeping the taxing power centralized, does nothing to eliminate the problem of bribery of states through pork spending.

My seventh objection is one that should be obvious, but which is routinely dismissed by FairTax advocates, and that is that there is nothing to prevent other taxes form being added to the FairTax. Though they claim :the law prevents it", there is no reason that law could not be changed.  Having passed the FairTax, nothing prevents congress from adding another tax, even an income tax. Even though it requires the repeal of the 16th Amendment, recall that there was an income tax during the Civil War, long before the 16th Amendment, so even some form of income taxation could be added. Not to mention all the non-income taxes possible. There is nothing that guarantees the FairTax will be the only tax. Of course, this is true of all taxes, but I had to point it out, as the advocates often act as if the FairTax, due to its wording, somehow avoids this fate. It doesn't.

Which brings me to the eighth objection, the really large problem with the FairTax, and the reason that some, otherwise unlikely, supporters may sign on. The FairTax, despite the claims of proponents, is an easy way to backdoor in a VAT on the US. If you eliminate the new/used and retail/wholesale distinction, the FairTax becomes nothing but a very expensive VAT. And, as many Americans may not understand the significance of those two distinctions, it would not be a huge legislative hurdle to make that quick transformation once the FairTax is law. As the transformation rests on eliminating two distinctions that appear relatively minor to those not well versed in the matter, it would likely not even meet with strong opposition. And so, should the FairTax ever become law, we would need to be ever vigilant against the possibility of it becoming our own VAT⁷.

Mentioning the distinction between new and used and retail and wholesale brings me to my ninth objection, the economic dislocations that such distinctions will cause. In a footnote I mentioned the economic consequences of favoring used goods over new, but that is but one problem. As many have mentioned, the FairTax would also be a major blow to the single family home. If a "retail purchase" pays the 23/30% tax, while a "wholesale" purchase does not, it would follow that those buying for the rental market would buy houses at a 23/30% discount. This would almost guarantee they could outbid any homeowner, making it very difficult for individuals to purchase single family homes. It is but a single example, but it does show how little thought was given to some of the consequences of such distinctions.

Actually, there is another issue related to this distinction which is not precisely a problem, but has always troubled me. Suppose I buy a second house with the intention of renting it out. I pay the price, but not the 23/30% tax. It sits on the market for a year, and no one rents it. In the end, I sell my present house and move into the house I bought to rent. That house has now transformed from a "wholesale" to a "retail" purchase. So, do I now have to send 23/30% of the price to the tax authority? And if so, who would monitor such events? And how?

Which brings me to my tenth objection. If such situations could arise by accident, why not on purpose? What if I know I am going to buy a house, but pretend to buy it to rent, make token efforts for a month, then sell my present house and move into the rental. Who would notice this? As taxes are tied to the transaction, not the individual, there would be no easy way to monitor that individuals used wholesale or retail goods as they declared. Similarly, every individual would do well to claim to be a caterer, buy all their food at 23/30% discount, then just consume it. As taxes are not monitored per individual but per transaction, no one could tell that Jim Smith had never bought any food retail in his life.  And the examples go on and on. The new and used distinction presents similar potential for fraud.

Of course, fraud is not unique to the FairTax, it exists in all tax systems, my objections are that the FairTax makes many types of fraud easy and lucrative. And, in addition, the FairTax is being sold on requiring no big bureaucracy and avoiding intrusive reporting. If such fraud becomes too rife, or defrauding the state becomes too easy, I am certain that both of those claims will prove quite illusory, as we will find ourselves saddled with reporting requirements every bit as intrusive as those today.With fraud being so easy, and so hard to catch, I can't see the problem being resolved with anything less than a quite intrusive reporting burden placed on every individual.

And that completes the list, at least the ten greatest objections. I have raised a few others in my earlier posts, and there are some complaints I have with the veracity of some claims about the tax system, but as those depend on interpretations FairTax advocates will likely contest, I think these ten are the best, as they are fairly easily demonstrated and still show more than enough reasons to be concerned with the FairTax.

Not that I think the FairTax is a complete failure. It likely would be slightly better than the present system. However, as changing systems will cause huge problems, and will require  a major undertaking, it seems a small improvement does not justify the effort. In addition, if we are going to completely overhaul the system, then it seems there are better choices. A flat income tax with no exemptions requires even less change, and yet provides many benefits, perhaps more than the FairTax. Or, if we want really dramatic change, returning to state financing gives us 50 different tax systems, as well as the other benefits of federalism. So, if we want to make radical change, that seems a better candidate.

In short, I am not saying the FairTax is completely wrong, or even worse than what we have, just that there are better options, especially as the FairTax has many flaws the advocates have overlooked.

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

1. These two are the most obvious problem. Revenue neutrality, as it assumes the 22% embedded tax is evenly distributed, where in reality, some items will go up in price, some down, and some industries will end without protective tariffs, thus producing anything but revenue neutrality. ("The 22%", "So Why Do I Care") The bureaucracy is also not going away as we need a central body to collate information between states, adjudicate policy questions, and handle taxes for states lacking sales tax administrations which refuse to establish one for the FairTax. ("A Partial Reply to yt_knight", "Another Reply to Yt_knight", "Reply to FairTax Comments", "Reply to Fair Tax Comment II", "Reply to FairTax Comment III", "Two old ones (plus three)") As these questions grow in importance, the bureaucracy will grow. In addition, as states see the no-tax states saving the cost of a sales tax administration, likely they too will try to offload the duty on the federal agency, requiring a bureaucracy every bit as big as the IRS. And that is ignoring the many headaches of administering the prebate, determining eligibility, finding interstate fraud, and prosecuting offenders.("What is Wrong with a Prebate?", "Truths About Taxation", "The Problems of Spending and Taxes")

2. For those curious about my arguments against the claims made in favor of the FairTax, I suggest reading through my lengthy series of posts on the topic. These can be found by starting with "An Interesting Analogy",  "The Runaway Stagecoach" and "Keyhole Thinking" and following the many links. A few claims have been dropped (eg. Indian Reservation questions) as they were answered, and a few others have become less prominent in my arguments as other objections have arisen. Still, I stand by my entire body of work on this topic, just bear in mind a few of the older posts do mention points I am no longer arguing.

3. FairTax supporters always counter this by stating the rate is "written into the law", as if that would prevent congress form changing the law. A lot of things have been written into law that no longer apply, and there is no reason to think the FairTax legislation will be more immutable than any other law In fact, in "Short Reply To Doctor Adams", I mention the fact that FairTax advocates often argue that other tax laws could be changed, but assume the FairTax laws never will be, in effect establishing an impossible double standard for evaluating any competing tax scheme.

4. There exists a potential catastrophe in the FairTax, though an unlikely one. Should consumption levels decline, as it stands now, the FairTax would require a rate increase to maintain government spending. However, as we know, price increases reduce consumption. That being the case, it is possible to conceive a weak economy, with declining sales, being kicked into a full-fledged recession due to increases in the FairTax and the resultant decline in consumption. Granted, current taxes also have recessionary impacts, and the FairTax based recession is a remote potential, but it is worth mentioning as the FairTax boosters have a tendency to deny any negatives,  so they need to be pointed out by someone, even the more remote possibilities.

5. One other potential consequence of the FairTax will be an increase in the cost of used goods. Both new and used goods will see the elimination of any "embedded taxes", so both will see prices decline. But the new goods will have the added 23/30% tax. This will increase demand for used goods, due to the massive discount. That increased demand will cause prices to rise relative to new goods. So used goods will become less affordable relative to new. In addition, as demand goes to used goods, due to the massive price difference, even after this increase, sales of new goods will decline, making ti less likely the FairTax will remain revenue neutral as claimed. (See postscript II for thoughts on the many likely, but unanticipated, consequences of this policy.)

6. We will talk later of the propriety of imposing any social policy through taxation, but, ignoring that, there remains the question whether or not the values of the FairTaxers, their emphasis of saving over consumption, is something that should be imposed. See "The Right Way" and "The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism" for my arguments against imposing values upon others, and "Man's Nature and Government", "The Citizen Dichotomy", "My Political Philosophy" and "Inescapable Logic" for the logical consequences.

7. It is not my purpose here to discuss the relative merits of the VAT. I know it has its proponents, some even nominal conservatives. I think, by basically weighting the tax burden by the amount of processing done, it tends to favor raw materials over processed goods, which would work well in certain economies, but is quite painful in a modern, heavily industrialized society. As a result, I think the VAT would do more economic harm than good. In addition, for those who fear the shift to "service jobs" (though I disagree with such fears - See ""Fair Trade"", "Small Business Fetish" and "Free Trade, Employment, Outsourcing, and Protectionism") the VAT would clearly favor those providing "services" over those producing goods, and so would hasten the destruction of the manufacturing sector in favor of firms which produce no physical output. Without processed goods, it is difficult to accumulate the many layers of VAT that heavily modified, manufactured goods do.

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

POSTSCRIPT

Please note, many people I like and respect support the FairTax. I have been a fan of Michael Reagan and Neal Boortz (though we have disagreed before -- "Short Response to Boortz"). And I understand there are many sincere supporters. However, in this case I think all that support is misguided. Wanting to reform taxation is laudable, I just think this is not the right reform. If we want to do a complete overhaul, we should wait for a better solution.

POSTSCRIPT II

As should be obvious from many postscripts, I find the assumptions behind the FairTax untenable. First, the embedded taxes are not evenly distributed, so removing them and adding in 23/30% will likely hit different goods differently, including destroying industries relying on protective tariffs. On top of that, the price discrimination between new and used, and retail and wholesale, will introduce absolutely unpredictable changes into the marketplace. There are more, but just those should show how little faith we should place in claims of "revenue neutrality". No one could predict that the market would look like after the FairTax, and so any predictions based upon precise numbers should be taken with a massive grain of salt.

POSTSCRIPT III

For those curious why I say 23/30% when describing the tax rate, it is because the FarTax advocates claim it is a 23% tax rate because it represents 23% of the total of price plus tax. However we traditionally calculate tax rates as the percentage of the non-tax price added, and by that figure it is 30%. Rather than argue this over and over, I just provide both percentages. (See "Definitions" for details.)

In my last post, "Abstinence Versus Moderation", I wrote quite a bit, but I failed to point out one significant distinction until I reached the postscripts. As it now seems to me to be a significant omission, I have decided to reexamine the two differing approaches used in more recent abstinence focused sex education.

Actually, before I begin, let me mention that I can see the importance of both understanding and guilt or shame as social controls. I have written about the use of shame-based social controls in "Shame and Behavior", "Social Controls", "Changing Incentives" and elsewhere. And, when we are unable to persuade individuals of the benefit of obeying the socially desirable course of action, shame and guilt can provide a very viable safety net. So, the use of shame and guilt as a second line of societal defense makes sense to me. However, relying on guilt also produces very different influences from the use of understanding, and that is the crux of the distinctions I am about to make.

You see, as I see it, abstinence approaches rest on two differing motives. The older approach, though now returning to popularity in the form of abstinence pledges, is the shame/guilt approach, attempting to motivate youth to avoid sexual activity by portraying early sex as a form of failure, be it an ethical failure, a failure of self-control, or simply a breach of a promise. The more recent approach, though sometimes combined with the earlier, is to attempt to convince students that avoiding sex will benefit them in some way. This approach tries to emphasize the need for students to avoid sex for their own benefit. In some ways the two mirror traditional negative and positive reinforcement. One assigns punishment for engaging in an undesired behavior, the other convinces them there is a benefit in engaging in the desired behavior.

Both obviously have their place. It would be tempting to say the method of instilling understanding is always preferable, but that is too simplistic an approach. After all, many simply will not be convinced by any argument. Especially when the benefit is so intangible and remote in time. Not to mention when many societal influences tell them that sexual activity brings so many other benefits, many much more tangible. So, while it would probably be best for every student to understand that he should wait to have sex, it is unlikely we will ever bring about that state.

And that is where guilt can play a role. Or rather guilt and shame, as even guilt requires some degree of understanding, while shame simply requires a social setting which does not approve of one's activities. When we cannot rely upon a rational understanding, or even an internalize control in the form of guilt, the last line of defense is the disapproval of society.

And that may be where our sex ed falls down. We are good at instilling understanding, at least to the degree possible, but we have trouble creating the social pressures required for shame. And that is where the negative reinforcement approach tends to fail. We may induce guilt in some individuals, which could serve to control them, were it coupled with shame from those around them, but we do not instill it in enough of their peers to provide this external reinforcement.

And that is when you run into the situations I described in my last post. When an individual has internalized the guilt, but the society around him does not discourage him through shame, the situations I described arise. As he feels guilt over nay failure, he is likely to want to  indulge in binges whenever he falters, and, without societal pressures to discourage him from doing so, that is precisely what he does. Only when society acts as a check on these negative impulses can guilt work as an adequate safeguard.

And that brings me back to my earlier conclusion. Sex ed base don abstinence works when we instill understanding without guilt, but only on a limited group. Likewise, it works when we instill guilt, but only in circumstances where there is an adequate social support system to reinforce that guilt with shame. In situations where we instill guilt, but the society around the individual do not discourage the behavior, we tend to produce the outcomes I described.

Hopefully that makes a little more clear what I was trying to say in the final postscript to my last post.

I have recently seen two articles that have made me think about abstinence and moderation as alternate approaches to various social problems. Specifically, I saw an article (mentioned in "Interesting Timing"), which discussed how recent studies had proved that abstinence education produced some positive results in reducing teen pregnancy. Second, I saw another post (though indulging in some mathematical sleight of hand, see below) tried to argue that moderation in smoking was pointless, and one should quit or do nothing¹. While the second did not discuss results, a post I was writing about it (now abandoned) pointed out the potential the argument presents to encourage smokers with less willpower to do nothing rather than gain some benefit by reducing the amount they smoke².

And so, both posts brought to mind the question of abstinence versus moderation, and drew to my attention the fact that, on different questions, my perspectives seem to be quite different. Which brings me to the point of this post. Or rather the question I hope to answer. In at least some cases, or perhaps all, by endorsing abstinence as the only goal, we run the risk of producing paradoxical results. That being the case, are there situations where other factors make it an effective position? Or are there situations where, despite the negative possible consequences, we would still want to endorse abstinence? In other words, given my doubts about social controls which promote abstinence in some situations, are there circumstances which could overcome those doubts?

Perhaps it would be beneficial to look at three examples, to provide some background and make clear my worries and the purpose behind my question.

Let us start with the theories behind Alcoholics Anonymous³. One element of the AA treatment is the belief that an individual who takes even a single drink has set himself along the path toward relapsing. On the other hand, moderation-based therapies, emphasizing reduction rather than abstinence, tend to allow momentary lapses which lead to slightly excessive drinking. The reason I mention this is, for some people at least, the AA doctrine can be dangerous. Because they see a single drink as a "failure", rather than stopping after the single drink, they figure they have already "failed" why not go all the way, and indulge in a binge because of a single drink. For such individuals, the moderation approach may be more beneficial, as a slightly increased level of drinking would not seem a failure, and would allow them to recognize the lapse without going on a binge⁴.

But, as I mention in the footnotes, that may be a contentious point, so let me move to my smoking article. In the post I was writing, I pointed out two things. First, the mathematical absurdity of their argument. By saying reducing smoking by 3 cigarettes was much more beneficial when you smoke 3 than when you smoke 20, they tried to suggest quitting was much better than reduction, so much better one shouldn't bother with moderation at all. But that is all just mathematical gibberish. Think in terms of percentages, rather than numbers. They are saying, reducing smoking by 100% is much better than reducing it by 15%. Well, of course! But that does not prove reducing it by 15% is pointless, just less beneficial than 100%. Not only is their argument mathematically deceptive, but the conclusions they reach aren't supported by either form of the argument⁵.

My second point, though, was the one which is relevant to our argument. I pointed out that if this doctrine becomes accepted it could produce paradoxical results. It is easy to see why. According to their conclusions (legitimate or not), quitting is the only viable option, reduction of smoking is not worth doing. If people believe that, then those who have the willpower to quit entirely will do so, but likely they would have done so anyway. Everyone else, who do not have the willpower, will face two options, trying to quit outright, or doing nothing. As moderation is said to be pointless, likely many who would try to reduce smoking under other circumstances now won't even try. Figuring they can't quit "cold turkey", rather than gain the benefit of reducing the number of cigarettes, they will simply do nothing. And so, by its emphasis on abstinence, this doctrine will likely produce more smoking, not less.

And that brings me to my third example, abstinence education about sexual matters. Many who have opposed it have basically argued the same points I have above⁶, that by putting emphasis on an unrealistic abstinence it encourages those who fail to "go wild", as well as fail to take basic precautions to prevent disease and pregnancy. I have often argued this position is wrong, but as it does parallel my other arguments, I do now find myself in the uncomfortable position of asking myself why. How can I argue on one side that abstinence is untenable, and on the other is viable.

And that is the origin of my question⁷.

Having given it some thought, I think the short answer is that I am right about the drinking and smoking, and unfortunately wrong about the sex ed, but only due to present circumstances. Or, to make a slightly longer answer, the sex ed solution works or doesn't depending upon context, while the smoking and drinking ones do not, again because of context.

Allow me to explain.

I believe my basic premise is correct. Abstinence, in general, is an embodiment of the perfect being the enemy of the good. When something is readily available, individuals who are obviously drawn to it, and told to abstain, as well as told failure to abstain is total failure, will obviously have many opportunities to fail, and will likely then go to the opposite extreme, or, if not, will at least feel themselves unable to quit and adopt something of a fatalistic attitude. Basically, with something readily available, and tempting, an abstinence program makes failure more likely.

But notice the many conditions in that statement. And that is where there is potential for sex ed to work.

Cigarettes and alcohol are both legal and readily available, which is why abstinence is so difficult. Drug, despite being illegal, tend to be readily available to those trying to abstain, and so similar problems exist. In fact, the best drug result occur when one not only tries abstinence, but also breaks off contact with old associates, and thus can no longer get easy access to drugs.

And that is where the sex ed program can, and does, work. Different teen groups have different sub-cultures, and in some sex may be readily available. In others, sex is not. And, in some, sex ed may change a culture marginally sexual to one marginally abstinent. And so, if it either takes place in an abstinent group, or else changes the culture of a group, abstinence only sex ed can work. However, if it takes place in a group in which sex is readily available, and the student is inclined to experiment sexually, then likely abstinence can produce the same negative results as the other abstinence programs.

Which brings me to the biggest hurdle abstinence based sex ed faces, and that is our larger culture. While individual cultural groups retain their own values, and many maintain traditional attitudes toward sex, the popular culture is a strong force and tends to push an attitude which is quite casual about sexual encounters, which is especially influential among impressionable children. And so, given our dominant culture, it is difficult to fight the battle to encourage abstinence. It is not impossible, many have opposed the popular culture in the past, and many do now, but it is an up hill battle.

And that is, I think, the biggest hurdle facing any sort of abstinence education, the charge of hypocrisy. So long as the adults in our culture continue to promote the values of over-sexed teens, we will see teens who do not listen when we ask them to behave better. Once we start promoting adults who behave the way adults should, then we may have some success.

And that is, I think, my answer. It is not as clear cut as I had hoped, but I think it is accurate. Basically, abstinence can work, but only when dealing with someone who is not tempted, or who is tempted, but is in an environment where temptation is not readily available, or, even when temptation is available, in the few rare cases where an individual is personally very strongly motivated. Otherwise, when an individual who is tempted and has ready access to whatever tempts them, abstinence tends to create an environment which can lead to either binges or discouragement quite easily.

So, in general, for accepted activities, in which an individual is prone to over-indulge, abstinence may be counter-productive. On the other hand, for activities which are not accepted and not generally available, abstinence may work, but only if we are consistent in opposing those activities. In short, abstinence sex ed may work, but only if it is in the right group, or applied with enough consistency to change the group's behavior. In groups where teenage sexual activity is common and accepted, it likely will be less successful⁸.

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

1. There is another problem with the post, that it engages in the mistake I discuss in "Absolute Values" and "The Right Way". The argument made, that there is a "safe" moderate amount of drinking, but no "safe" moderate amount of smoking, is a value judgment disguised as a health position. Both have risks at any level, and both have benefits based on the subjective valuation of the user. So either could be "safe enough" if the benefit is high enough. To say no benefit of smoking could justify the risk is to impose one's own value judgment on all smokers, not to make a rational medical decision. (See also "It Doesn't Matter to ME...".)

2. This seems to be part of the "cold turkey" push I have noticed recently. In my post "Coincidence", I questioned whether there were political motives behind the "public health" push and related research.

3. I do not seek to debate the merits of AA here. I have my doubts about whether or not it is more successful than other therapies, and think in some respects its dominance of the treatment market rest on PR more than results. Still, for some it may be the proper course, so I don't believe it needs to be abandoned entirely. However, my doubts are not the issue here. my sole point is that, for some, the AA doctrine can produce damaging results.

4. I know there is argument over this point, as one can also argue that moderation allows individuals to engage in excessive drinking without admitting it. So there is some argument over this point. However, in this case, I tend to side with Stanton Peale. The examples of this sort of behavior are too common in everyday life. For example, the stereotypical "temperance movement drunk" pattern, where one drink is a failure, leading to a wild binge followed by many morning after regrets. (The pattern is stereotypically associated with the Irish, but tends to exist in many groups where temperance movements are strong.) Even outside of stereotypes, everyone knows, at least at second hand, at least one person who has taken one bad act, felt remorse, and allowed those regrets to drive him to engage in numerous bad acts, figuring he had already "messed everything up". And that is the pattern established, or at least made possible, by excessive emphasis of abstinence.

5. Actually, looked at in percentage terms, their argument suggests the opposite. Here is part of their article:

He also notes that cutting back from 20 cigarettes per day to 17 wouldn't give you nearly the same reduction in risk as going from three cigarettes per day to zero. Per his findings, the first would cut your risk by 35 percent, whereas the latter would cut it by 64 percent.

Looked at in percentages, that first 15% produces 35% benefit, while a full 100% produces only 64%, or less than doubling the benefit. That would suggest moderation is not only easier, but gives you a disproportionate amount of benefit. So the numbers suggest eliminating those first few cigarettes may produce a lot more benefit than not smoking those last two or three.

6. Oddly, those arguing against abstinence based sex ed tend to mirror my own problems. They support AA and stop smoking abstinence, while encouraging "moderation" for sex ed. On the other hand, I tend to support the opposite. What will be interesting is to see whether either of us is right in our inconsistencies, or if we both may have some errors to correct.

7. Before proceeding, let me say that I truly believe "sex ed" is more the province of parents than schools, and, ideally, this question should not even exist. Were schools entirely private, parents could consider "sex ed" in the whole gamut of factors when choosing a school and then pick a school which taught what they believe, or taught nothing, and then teach their own beliefs at home. However, as it is presently a public policy question, I guess we need to deal with it.

8. This is not to say it should not be tried. As humans are volitional being, even in groups where sex is widely practiced and accepted, it is possible the right message will change their behavior.

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

POSTSCRIPT

Such analysis always has one shortcoming, which is why I feel the need to add this postscripts. Most such essays have a tendency to overlook one factor in all human activities, and that is that humans are volitional beings. So, though I can say "in general X will produce Y", none of this says anything about the response of any single human, or even any specific group. While it is useful to understand the general behavior of humans, and the most likely responses, it is also possible any given individual or group will respond differently. So, though I have painted the general reaction, I am well aware there are probably many examples of individuals and even small groups responding differently.

POSTSCRIPT II

I mentioned above the tendency for adults to adopt the sexual mores of teens. It is a topic I develop more thoroughly in several posts, most recently "Inversion of Traditional Values". Please consult that post for a list of links to earlier article son the same topic.

POSTSCRIPT III

This may also help explain why different studies show differing results. Controlling for socio-economic, cultural or educational standards may not be enough, we should really study groups with identical previous sexual behaviors to understand whether sex education based on abstinence works. In other words, current studies may examine groups which, while superficially identical, have underlying differences in their attitudes towards sex, which result in higher or lower success rates. Thus, unseen factors may influence the studies more than the explicitly recognized influences.

POSTSCRIPT IV

There is one final difference I did not mention above. In many sexual abstinence programs, abstaining is not presented as a question of success or failure, but as a beneficial activity. That may avoid many of the pitfalls of the abstinence approach discussed above. Once the question of "failure" is removed, the guilt element also goes away. So, many modern abstinence programs may not fall in the category I described, though a lot of traditional, especially religious, approaches, which emphasize success and failure, could fall into the same category as the drinking and smoking cessation discussed above. Even some newer programs, especially those emphasizing a "pledge", would also fall under this category.

I know I keep adding to my list, but I promise this is the last one. I had intended to include these in "Comprehensive List of Upcoming Posts" and the following post  "One Final Post", but forgot.

First, let me add RJ1's suggested addition to the "Sky's Not Falling" series. Part 10 will be about the many overblown claims concerning immigration. As he rightly points out, the claims have often gone to extreme lengths in describing the potential harm of both immigration and amnesty. While I am not a proponent of even a limited amnesty, I do think that some of the claims of the results of amnesty went quite a bit farther than the facts support. Likewise, while immigration will definitely change the political landscape, I think anyone who predicts it dooming the Republicans or even conservatism go too far, that Hispanic voters, even illegals, are not, and definitely do not remain over time, as monolithic as this theory would suggest. Similarly, thanks to voting being state-based, irregular distribution of immigrants will also result in different and less damaging results than predicted. But, that will all be made clear in the post. It is not intended to claim "nothing is wrong", but it will argue "things are nowhere near as bad as has been claimed."

Second, I want to address the many supposed conservative who claim they want a different "energy policy". As I will point out, until Carter created the Department of Energy, there was no :energy policy" at all, so why have even conservatives accepted the logic that the government should be involved in providing what should be simply another good? Rather than an "energy policy", conservatives should be fighting for government leaving energy companies alone. But, sadly, even conservatives seem to adopted the big government logic for "essential" goods, and thus give away the game to the left. (The same is true of farm subsidies, and several other areas.) It will also give me another chance to remind conservatives to remain consistent and no give away the argument to the left.

Third, I want to look at the bizarre claim that buying foreign oil supports terrorism. I will argue that more likely this represents the effort to use a topical issue (terrorism) to support a position they like. Whether it be removing drilling restrictions on the right, protectionists seeking to restrict export of Alaskan oil, or "green energy" on the left. I will point out the same was tried with drug consumption in the 1980's, tying a topical issue to a pet cause (arguing that drugs propped up terrorists in South America, southeast Asia and the Middle East). I will also point out many successful terrorists, the PLO, Hammas, Bader Meinhof, Red Brigades, etc who did not, or did not until recently, have any access to oil money, or any state money at all, yet managed to maintain a successful reign of terror. While it is true oil money goes to nations which sometimes sponsor terrorism, so does money from exotic woods, citrus fruit and so on. Do we talk about forgoing those to avoid terrorism? No, this seems more about political maneuvering than a realistic assessment, especially as most oil money goes not to terrorism but paying all the costs of middle eastern states and the personal consumption of the ruling elite there, the amount going to terrorism is actually very small. (Not to mention the many alternative sources of funds, including sources as diverse as UN subsidies and cigarette smuggling here in Maryland.)

Finally, as it was brought up in response to my post "Rational National Defense", I will demonstrate why the claims we invaded Afghanistan to secure the gas pipeline for Unocal are nonsense. Fortunately, as Michael Moore made this claim, there is a lot of good evidence, from right and left, showing why the claim is nonsense. (See here, here and here for some examples.) Normally I would not bother, but as it gives me a good reason to examine why conspiracy theories such as this arise, and why they enjoy such popularity, it piqued my interest. (See "False Flag Theories and 9/11", "Maybe Obama Was Born in Gulf Breeze, Florida" and "Mumia, the DaVinci Code, Full Body Scans, and Loose Change - How Conspiracy Theories Arise" for some earlier thoughts on similar topics, and links to even earlier writing on the topic.)

And that's it. The rest is as listed in earlier posts. And until I exhaust these lists, I will not be adding topics. Now I just have to actually get around to finally writing all of them (not to mention my still half-finished FairTax post.)

Sorry for the lack of posts. I know I have been promising to get back to my regular pace, but between work and my up and down health it has been difficult to get to my list of outstanding articles. I have completed a few, and I am about half way through my FairTax piece, but I seem to be at a dead stop right now. We are expecting bad snow tonight and tomorrow, so that may allow me some free time to catch up, but if not, then it will likely be next week as my son's birthday party is this weekend.

Again, sorry for the continuing delays, but I will try my best to get back to writing at my normal pace as soon as possible.

In the late 1980's I recall an interesting bit of legislation. After spending a decade researching acid rain and the impact of various factors on the formation of acid rain, the federal government forced through stringent regulations just weeks before the final report was published. Surprisingly, the final report announced acid rain was less of an issue than had been assumed, and thus the rushed legislation basically intended to solve a problem the government report said was not a problem after all.

All this came back to me today as I read a WebMD article on abstinence only education. Apparently, illegitimate teen births are on the rise for the first time in years. Since Bush pushed abstinence only education, the assumption was made that these programs were to blame, and so Obama cut funding for them. Except now studies say that such programs are effective.

But the push to cut funding is hardly usrprising, if not from a rational point of view, at least from an ideological one. Yes, abstinence only did receive increased funding, but there are so many factors leading to illegitimate births that latching on to that cause seems much more ideological than anything else. After all, traditional "safer sex" programs also received funding, as did all the many "values education" programs. Not to mention the continued changes in our overall culture, which likely have more impact than any "sex ed" will ever have. So, jumping to the conclusion that abstinence only education is to blame seems a strange assumption.

But, as with acid rain, it is hardly surprising to find the federal government acting swiftly to impose ideologically desirable legislation ahead of embarrassing data. So I can't say I am surprised.

POSTSCRIPT

The two studies I mention happen to be liberal/progressive issues, but I am afraid both parties are guilty of the same. I don't want to give the impression that this is entirely a crime of the left. Some of those pushing for tighter control over broadcast content, for example, push for swift action on dubious foundations. So, this is hardly a partisan issue.

As I described briefly in my post "One Final Post", I have tried several times to provide a short synopsis of my political philosophy, and each time I have failed to do so in a satisfactory manner. Despite that, I think it is important to continue to try, as an explicit description of my political philosophy could be quite useful. Useful for me, as putting my thoughts into a concrete form is helpful in both bringing to light any contradictions or omissions, and useful for my readers who will understand the thoughts and assumptions which form the foundation of my arguments, and they can then decide how much weight to give my arguments based upon the degree to which they agree with my assumptions. Not to mention that those assumptions are, in themselves, a sort of political argument, and so by making explicit my political beliefs I will also be arguing for the validity of those beliefs, and, hopefully, showing the error of conflicting premises and the political systems which depend upon them. (For example, the many authoritarian systems which rely upon an assumption of general incompetence -- see "Man's Nature and Government", "Our View of Our Fellow Citizens"and "Seeing People As Stupid".)

The problem with any such post is deciding where to start. In the description of this post provided in "One Final Post", I started by defining myself as a "conservative, libertarian federalist", and proceeded to define each term. On the other hand, in "A True Conservative Platform" I started with an itemized political agenda, ignoring all underlying philosophical questions. And, at the other end of the spectrum, in "My Vision of Government" and "My Vision of Government Part II" (and "Prelude", "Revisiting an Old Post" and "Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government", as well), I started with some basic premises and began building upon them, much as I did in "Planning For Imperfection" and "Greed Versus Evil" in defending the free market, or in "The Citizen Dichotomy" and "The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism" in taking apart the assumptions underlying liberalism. And each approach has something to recommend it. But, in this case, I think I will follow the final approach, and start with some very low level assumptions, explaining the way I conceive of man, and from there build up to my understanding of the nature of society and government, and finally to a specific ideology and the political implications of the same.

But that presents some difficult questions of its own. Where to begin? How basic is basic enough? No matter where I start, I am afraid someone will object to some assumption, whether it is the assumption that the evidence of our senses is trustworthy or that reason can truly know reality. So, there is no point in trying to find some ground level upon which everyone will agree, as I have learned over the years that there is no fact so obvious that there is not someone willing to dispute it. So, it is a fool's game to try to base a philosophy upon a premise upon which absolutely everyone can agree. In fact, it is pretty far fetched to think there are even facts with which all reasonable people can agree. No matter where we start, it will be a matter of some controversy, and so, I find it best to just state my assumptions, provide the arguments that persuade me they are true, and leave it at that. There will be some dispute no matter what I say, so it is best to just dive in and deal with the arguments afterward. Any other alternative simply adds many lengthy digressions, adding little to the argument, and resulting in no fewer disputes.

My political philosophy arises from my assumptions about human nature. These are basically as stated in "Man's Nature and Government" and "The Citizen Dichotomy". As I understand it, there are two ways we can view our fellow man, as a being mostly like ourselves, or as a begin who differs from us in one or more respects. This sounds strange, I know, but it really does lie at the foundation of most political philosophies, as you shall see.

The latter assumption, that others are different from us, is, unfortunately, the more common, usually taking the form described in "Seeing People As Stupid", "Those Other People", "Deadly Cynicism" and "Our View of Our Fellow Citizens". That is, we imagine that, while we can be trusted to manage our own affairs, the bulk of humanity is in some way deficient, and needs some form of assistance in making decisions about important matters in their lives. The reason for this incapacity is unimportant, it may be because they are intellectually inferior, because they are unable to make significant connections, because they are easily misled or even because malicious forces are manipulating them, the specifics do not matter. What matters is that there are many people in the world who, unlike ourselves, need to be told what to do.

There is, implicit in this assumption, a second assumption, as described in "The Right Way". That is that these other people, in addition to not being able to manage their own affairs, have difficulty telling what they need. Under traditional economic analysis, an individual's desires are taken as a given, and so his desires are not open to analysis. But, for us to claim that an individual needs guidance, we must also assume that his own assumptions about his needs are, in some respect, deficient as well, and so he must be shown the "right way" to pursue the "proper goals".

Finally, this thesis contains one more provision. As a theory which consistently posited a defective humanity would result in the pessimistic assumption that we are all doomed, as such a defective group could not form anything but flawed governments, there is the necessity for positing a group of elites, who can help guide this group. It is rarely stated explicitly, as it is bad form to voice elitist pretensions in an elective states, but it is necessary, and implicit in the assumption "we" are different. As I described in "The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism", every proponent of a paternal state, caring for its misguided citizens, must assume those in charge are smarter than the average, or else it makes no sense.

And so, we end up with the trinity of ideas which underlie all forms of intervention. The assumption of an incompetent populace, the assumption of objective economic valuation and, finally, the assumption of an enlightened elite capable of providing guidance.

On the other hand, my political philosophy rests on the opposite assumption, that others are mostly like me, that they are capable of determining the best course of actions, and that, in terms of providing for their happiness, they are the best judge of what would and would not make them happy. In other words, that there is no objective economic value, but that the worth of any given good or service is what an individual determines it to be for himself.

Lest critics try to raise straw man arguments against this theory, let me start by saying that this theory doe snot assume perfection.It does not state that each individual is going to know the best way to achieve his goals, or that his actions will always result in the maximum possible satisfaction. I admit freely that humans are fallible. (I assume the other position admits this as well, as positing perfection seems to be unrealistic, even for their hypothetical elite.) All I do say is there is no way in advance to determine who is best suited to determine the best methods, and, as an individual has the greatest interest in his own happiness, placing him in charge of his own actions will tend to produce the best results, as his personal motivation to make himself happy tends to minimize mistakes. It is not perfect, but it does produce a system which tends to push us in the direction of perfection more than any other system.

And that is the foundation upon which my philosophy is built. As opposed to an incompetent populace, controlled by an elite using objective values, I believe in a homogeneous mass of competent adults, guided by their subjective valuations, working collectively, but independently, to produce the greatest possible mutual satisfaction. (For a more in depth analysis of some of the specifics see the previously mentioned "Greed Versus Evil", as well as "An Analogy",  "Planning For Imperfection", "The Limits of "Scientific" Management" and "Fairness and the Free Market".)

I suppose I should add one additional step, as it is important to understand prior to moving on to more explicitly political thoughts. And that is the idea of rights, and of social contracts, but from a functional, as well as theoretical/ethical viewpoint. You see, I agree that individuals are endowed with the right to life, liberty and property, as in a state of nature they would have every right to defend those prerogatives with force if they needed to do so. Upon entering into society, they deputize the state to act in those capacities for them, but do not surrender those rights.

Why do I say this? Simple. Because the state serves a purpose for individuals. Were the state without benefit, they would see no reason to leave the state of nature. So they enter a social contract for a purpose, that purpose being more efficient defense of their rights, a more peaceful coexistence, a more predictable life, and all the other benefits inherent in civilized life. And because they get benefits from society, they also want that society to remain stable, as instability would deprive them of the benefits of social life. But, as I wrote in "Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government", the most stable societies are those that provide the most evenly distributed rights, and allow citizens to continue to exercise their own rights. I recognize (in "Bad Economics Part 9") that there are some circumstances where individuals may be willing to surrender their rights under dire circumstances as security or stability make it worthwhile. But in the long term, survival of a society depends upon even distribution of rights and recognition of individual exercise of the same rights. Those two, along with predictable rules, are the necessary precursors of successful societies. (For a more comprehensive argument on this topic, read the posts linked in this paragraph, as well as "Misunderstanding Democracy", "The Single Greatest Weakness", "A Rational Approach to Punishment" and "The Danger Inherent in Banning "Bad Ideas"". They provide a more comprehensive examination of this topic than I can provide in the space available, as well as explaining the reason elective government is the preferred form of government in terms of long term stability.)

And it is from those premises that I re-enter familiar territory, the six basic principles I established in "My Vision of Government". For the benefit of those who have not read that post, I will reproduce them in their entirety:

1. Privacy - Unless there is a good reason for government to be involved, it shouldn't be
2. Universality - Unless there is a very good reason to distinguish one person, one product or one transaction from another, all must be treated the same.
3. Delegation - The government has rights only because citizens delegate it to act on their behalf. It has no rights an individual does not.
4. Inalienability - Deputizing the government does not strip an individual of any rights, he still retain his rights even while the government acts as deputy.
5. Narrowness - All government should be as narrowly empowered as possible. The government should have no more power than necessary, and that power should be granted to as small a division of government as necessary.
6. Proximity - This really is just an elaboration on narrowness. Government should operate as close to the citizens as possible. A decision should be on a town or locality basis, unless it must be on a state level. And on a state level unless it must be national.

And that brings me to a crossroad. I can simply proceed with explaining each of these principles, or I could jump to the larger, unifying principles which embody them, and explain why I have chosen to describe my views as "conservative, libertarian federalism". The first may be easier, but as the latter would likely provide a more easily understood framework, and prevent serious misunderstandings, I think I will follow that course.

Each of the three elements of my description is an essential part of my philosophy, and every element interacts with the others, helping to both expand and restrict the others, keeping government both large enough to function, and limited enough to prevent it from overwhelming the citizens. By combining the three elements I like to think I manage to avoid the many weaknesses that each one has when viewed in isolation.

Let me start by reproduce the brief summary of the three elements I gave in "One Final Post":

I am at heart a libertarian, as I believe the principles I laid out in "My Vision of Government" and "My Vision of Government Part II". I believe government should exist solely to protect our rights to life, liberty and property. I think the best basic statement of this may be "Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government".

On the other hand, I am a federalist, as I believe we cannot impose libertarianism from above, and that even when we have full freedom, there will be specific details about which individuals could still differ. (Eg. what is the right punishment for robbery) So, I would prefer to see government broken down into the smallest possible units, so that good ideas get a fair shake, and then might spread by example. I explain this best in  "Why I Am Not A Libertarian", "The Benefits of Federalism" and "Consolidation and Diffusion".

Finally, I am a conservative because I believe changes should be made slowly and gradually, and we should respect the precedents of the past, changing them only when there is a very good reason, and then only in bits and pieces. I respect the fact that tradition represents the best thoughts of very many people, many quite clever, over a very long time, and I should not reject their conclusions lightly. I explain this best in "In Defense of Standards", "Addenda to "In Defense of Standards"", "Bad Economics Part 9", "Changing Incentives" and "How Fast Things Change".

But, perhaps it would help to provide some concrete examples of how the various aspects interact.

For example, libertarianism. I have been critical in the past of libertarianism's tendency to try to impose a "one size fits all" solution from above. And others, as I know well, often find the libertarian solutions, including my own minimal government solutions, to be excessive. They agree that government is too small, but are wary of completely eliminating the role of government in various areas.

And that is where both federalism and conservatism come in. The conservative tendency is to say "we will keep this long standing rule until it seems there is a very good reason to change it." And even then, the conservative response is to make the smallest change necessary. So, in most cases, when they are working adequately, government regulations would remain in place.

But the federalist part allows for one exception. Let us say one state decides that they believe the benefits of change DO outweigh the benefits of the current system. That single state could experiment with deregulation. The other states, true to their conservative principles, could keep the system as it is now, while the other state could try deregulation. And, over time, the citizens fo each state could look at the two different outcomes, and decide for themselves if the change was worth the cost. Even more, they can also choose to not adopt one position or the other, but a variety of half-way steps in between the two, providing samples of dozens of different answers, allowing the other states to compare not just two answers, but a whole gamut of solutions. And from that array of answer, eventually the best will spread to more and more states, until at length it becomes the de facto solution. (Though, should some states remain which find it inconvenient, they could still keep the old solution, or some other answer, allowing for a variety of answers, instead of a single imposed solution for everyone.)

And likewise libertarianism, by providing a framework and a direction in which to proceed remedies many of the shortcomings of conservatism. As I mentioned before, conservative has come to mean too many things to too many people. As "tradition" is too broad, covering too many possibilities, it is possible for someone to claim to be "conservative" while supporting a huge range of positions. So, by combining libertarianism with conservatism, I provide a general direction, I limit the number of acceptable views. Rather than blindly allowing equal weight to any existing viewpoint, we assign additional weight to those views which promote individual liberty, support individual rights, or limit the size of government. Likewise, by combining federalism, we eliminate the many nominally conservative views which endorse larger central government. The admixture of libertarian and federalist principles serves to define conservatism, creating a much more clear understanding of what is and is not acceptable.

Which brings me to my final point, the relative weights of the principles. It is fine and good to say that I support all three, but in practice the three do sometimes conflict with one another, and in those cases we must ask which takes precedence.

It is tempting to say that individual rights are the defining aspect, that we should always favor the protection of rights, but that creates as many troubles as it avoids. For instance, it could easily be sued by libertarian types to strike down almost any government act as a violation of individual rights. So, though it is tempting to say we must "always" protect rights, I think in some cases we need to allow that existing infringements of rights will persist for a time, or even that some token violations may arise.

Likewise, veneration of tradition raises similar problems. While I have made a strong case ("Inversion of Traditional Values", "How Fast Things Change") that our lack of respect for existing traditions causes untold harm to our society, it doe snot follow that we should always stand on the side of tradition. Valuable as tradition is, wise as the best minds of the past may have been, tradition can be wrong. I have not yet written the post I planned ("FYI") making the distinction between respecting tradition and being bound by it, but I think the distinction is clear enough. We do need to show deference to the practices of the past, but as we do not live in paradise obviously existing practices can be found lacking, and so we have to be able to break with tradition if we are to improve our lot. Meaning, while we must honor the past, we also need to retain the ability to change.

And so, I am forced to argue that federalism is to take preeminence. As we will undoubtedly make mistakes, and as from time to time the populace will be moved by passion rather than reason, we will inevitably have bad laws. And, on the other hand, we will form time to time choose to eliminate traditions we should keep, or we will choose to keep traditions we should eliminate. If changes are predominantly made on a state level, or even a local level, then errors will have the most limited scope possible. In addition, because we will have examples of the right choice with which to compare,w e will be able to spot the mistake and correct it. Which means that federalism, as a principle, should take precedence over libertarianism.

That does not mean that I place no value on libertarian or conservative principles, when making changes I believe we should both favor those changes which increase individual freedoms, and also defer to established practices, but I believe we should implement those on a local level, allowing them to spread through imitation due to the observation of beneficial results.

I could go on, but I think that provides the best brief summary of my political views I could provide. I could probably go on, but I would just end up repeating other posts I have written, so I will leave it at that.

POSTSCRIPT

Some will argue that politicians will spin the results of competing state responses, and thus citizens will be unable to decide between the various answers allowed by federalism. But history argues otherwise. During the colonial era, when various northeastern states experimented with schemes such as land banks, the subsequent collapses were rightly blamed by other states on those experiments. Yes, northeastern politicians looked for scapegoats, but outside of some interested parties protecting their self-interest no one was fooled. If an issue as complex as banking theory can be easily understood in an era when information took a long time to travel and during which educational standards were much lower, then there is no reason to think modern results would be worse.

I have written often about reforming education, and I admit that my proposals, the suggestion that we completely privatize the system and eliminate all public education as well as all government oversight and licensing, is extreme. I still believe it is the right answer, but I recognize that many will find it too much.

Be that as it may, I think it may come to be more widely accepted, and I found one positive sign. As anyone who reads his columns knows, Roger Ebert is a very liberal man. He has occasionally criticized specific cultural excesses, and as a result was ostracized by some libertine fringes of liberalism, but it is clear his politics are almost entirely to the left of the mainstream. Come on! The guy says NPR is the only radio station which thoughtfully analyzes political questions! Even the people who work at NPR don't make that claim.

So it shocked me to find a review by Roger Ebert which said, and in quite clear terms, that the teachers' unions were the single cause of our failing schools. Now, I think that may a bit too reductionist, as the teachers; unions are a major, but not the only cause. And it also may overlook the possibility that the teachers' unions themselves are nothing but the inevitable consequence of the bureaucratic management of public enterprises, and so not so much the cause as a symptom of the problems.

Still, the point is important. If the NEA and their ilk cannot even count on Roger Ebert, they have truly lost middle America. And that gives me a tiny glimmer of hope. If the public finally comes to see the public schools, and their biggest boosters in the unions, as the problem, then there may be real for eventual reform. It may not go as far as I wish, but any reform, as long as it is in the right direction, is better than none.

POSTSCRIPT

My most recent writing on teaching can be found in "You Don't Drown in a Glass of Water - Vouchers Revisited", "Why Vouchers are not the Answer" and "Never Ascribe To Evil, A Discussion of Education". I also make some comments on education in "A True Conservative Platform", and discussed some of the philosophical foundations of our public education system, and the reasons it fails (among other topics) in "Deadly Cynicism" and "The Right Way". Finally, I wrote about unionization and rules-driven management in government owned business, which includes schools, in my post "The Inevitability of Bureaucratic Management in Government Enterprises".

I hate to admit it, but I have not been following the news as closely as I usually do. Thanks to my many physical ailments documented in this blog, I have been a bit distracted. Still, I do generally keep up on current events, and I have to say, I have heard very little criticism of Obama, considering that the Dow dropped from 10700 on January 20 to just above 10000 on January 29. Granted, it was not a dramatic one day drop (though we did drop 200 points from January 21 to January 22), but it would seem a 700 point drop in about a week would have made headlines in any other administration, especially with the economy already such a hot topic.

Though I suppose if it did come up, the story would be the Brown victory foiled health care reform, and a disappointed public sold low to express their fears over continued high health care costs, or some such nonsense. Not a word about Obama's many populist threats, which portend a coming year full of absurd measures taken to "rein in big business".

Well, the Dow is up 70 points today, and if ti closes anywhere near there I am sure the press will rediscover the stock market as they rush to give Obama credit for this sudden rally. Just as they want to credit him for cutting a budget he helped swell to absurd levels, I am sure they will praise him for a "recovery" from a crash he helped create. (Before any Bush-bashers jump in, I mean the late January slump, not the overall collapse. Though in the senate he did oppose investigations into, or limits on Fannie and Freddie, so he DID have a role in the overall slump as well.)

But I suppose it is silly for me to complain about media bias. They haven't really been able to pretend they are objective since Obama tossed his hat in the ring. Criticizing the press for pro-Democrat, or specifically pro-Obama, partiality is like criticizing coyotes for eating sheep, liberal bias is in their nature. Now if they would just admit it.

I have written several times of my annoyance at things "everyone knows" which turn out to be completely wrong. ("Roman Legions, Hopscotch, Killer Gays, "Got AIDS Yet", WMDs and a "Damn Piece of Paper"", "Everyone Knows", "The Power of Myth on the Internet", "A Mystery Quote, Several Dubious Quotes, More Boring Quotes, and One Very Bad Conclusion") Well, I have come across another one. This one is neither political nor economic, so this is an off topic post, but as it is short, hopefully it won't be too painful.

Whenever the topic comes up that swastikas appear in some specific Asian context, some "in the know" hipster feels the need to point out that the swastika is "an ancient symbol" and that it the Nazis "coopted it from Asia". Unfortunately, they are not exactly right. In fact, they are about half right.

Yes, the swastika is an ancient symbol. And, as with many simple, geometric symbols, it has been invented many times over. Just like the upward pointing arrow, the three pronged Y (think the inside of the peace symbol), the circle, a broken circle, a single slash, a cross, and so on, the swastika is simple enough it developed many places. Or, perhaps, it doe shave a single source and spread in time immemorial through transmission from culture to culture. In either case, it is an ancient symbol, but not a strictly Asian one.

And that is where the hipsters fail. They see an Asian use, and think that is where the Nazi usage originated.

Unfortunately for them, the swastika was also an ancient runic symbol, used for the letter "TH", which meant it was picked up by the mystic/racist/nationalist Thule society, which is one origin suggested by many writers. On the other hand, it was also a well known runic symbol, and also a popular character used to fill blank space in medieval manuscripts. So it could have been picked up from dozens of sources.

Or, if we are willing to look for more remote explanations, it is possible some orientalist in Nazi circles picked it up from Asian sources, though, given the runic connection to racist and nationalist organizations, that seems much less likely.

But the specific origin is irrelevant. My point here is that once again, the "facts" that appear over and over on the internet, stated with such certainty, are simply wrong. And yet, as they are stated, and stated with certainty, they are picked up, passed along, and treated as truth. In one of those ironies of the internet, the truth of a statement matters less than the consistency and frequency with which it is stated. And so, as in so many of the cases I ahve recorded, the truth loses out to a more easily digested fallacy.

Which is, I suppose, a little more on-topic than I originally thought, as the same sort of errors muddy the political and economic waters as well as the historical. So not so off topic after all.