My apologies for the missing quotes. Not only did I not post the two old quotes I had promised (for the 21st and 22nd), but today's quote is missing as well. I had originally intended to post all three today, but I ended up spending much of the day playing with my son and simply never got to it. I did do some writing, but on an unrelated topic. I will likely wrap that up tonight and post it, and then will post today's quote and tomorrows on tomorrow, perhaps along with the two missing posts. Sadly, while I have the two quotes for past days, I don't have a quote ready for today, but I shouldn't have trouble tracking down one for tomorrow.

Still, I do apologize for my poor scheduling of these things. It makes me quite glad I never decided to work for, or run, a newspaper.

As with a few previous quotes, this quote is not so much "stupid" as "misguided". However, I don't have two columns, one for stupid and one for misguided quotes, so, as with my earlier posts (eg "Stupid Quotes of the Day (January 24, 2012)"), I am just going have to call a misguided quote stupid for the moment.

This quote comes from another writer for whom I have a degree of respect, though probably not as much as I have for, say, Jefferson, Madison or Jackson. That man is Thomas Paine. While Paine did write quite a bit on freedom, I tend to think of him more as an agitator and popularizer than a deep thinker. From time to time he did print something a bit more profound, but for the most part, his writing strikes me as the colonial equivalent of sound bites. Still, his writing is quite easy to read and remains enjoyable, so I have a fairly high opinion of him. However, there is a quote from his writing, one of the best known, with which I have issues:

Government at its best is a necessary evil, and at its worst, an intolerant one.

I realize this quote is likely to make this post a repeat of the debate in "Stupid Quote of the Day (January 23, 2012)" and "Stupid Quotes of the Day (January 24, 2012)", but as the topic continues to arise, I think it is worth visiting again, especially as I have had time to give it more thought, and have some more ideas to offer my readers.

The first thing I realized when considering this recently is that the argument about government being a necessary evil resembles nothing so much as the arguments for gun control. Guns and government are both tools, both can be used in a variety of ways, and both have outcomes that depend upon who controls them and how he uses them. Guns can be used for good or ill, but those advocating gun control see guns being used almost entirely for ill and so suggest guns are themselves the problem, and must be regulated. Similarly, government can ensure freedom, or destroy it ("The State of Nature and Man's Rights"), but as most small government advocates have only seen government being used improperly, they decide that government is inherently evil. However, just as guns are not evil just because criminals use them, government is not evil simply because it has yet to be run properly.

Allow me to illustrate. Imagine for a moment a government which is run as pr my ideals. The laws are established by a state legislature, supplemented with a handful of local legislation passed by counties or cities. The law enforcement is done primarily by county or city law enforcement, either supplemented by a state force, or else by compacts allowing intercounty cooperation. the federal government would be concerned entirely with foreign relations and the military defense of the nation, as well as ensuring free passage between states and the elimination of trade barriers between states. Interstate crimes would be handled entirely by compacts between the states. There would be federal civil courts, but they would use federal law only to establish procedure, the substantive law would be defined by the states involved in the dispute. (Supposedly this is how many cases should work in our federal courts, but more and more federal procedure is used to smuggle in substantive law.)

As far as laws are concerned, they would be the minimum required for peaceful coexistence. Individuals would be prohibited from violating the rights of another to life, liberty or property. Taxes will be levied by individual states, with each state using its own method, with the states then providing funding to the federal government. Thus, it will be ensured that the state legislatures will try to limit federal spending, as each federal dollar spent is a dollar they will not have to spend.

I could probably continue to write something the length of Plato's Republic about this ideal state, but I am sure you get the picture.

Such a state would present quite a few restrictions upon individuals, only those which I described as rational limitations in "A Rational Approach to Punishment".  So long as the state operated on the basis I have described, most individuals would have little or no contact with the state at all. It would be as if there were no state. On the other hand, it would be superior to actual anarchy (as described in "The State of Nature and Man's Rights") as the state would be available to defend his rights should the need arise, as well as providing a deterrent to those who might be tempted to commit crime.

The reason I bring this up is that such a state is in no way evil. Yes, with time and effort it could be corrupted into a totalitarian state, but that is akin to condemning the institution of the family as it could always be corrupted by introducing a molester or abuser. A state can be turned into something bad, a gun can be misused, medicine in the wrong dose is poison, none of those make guns, medicine or states evil. And I think my description of a minimal, distributed state shows that a state can be imagined that is in no way evil. ("Consolidation and Diffusion")

I talked elsewhere of the negative consequences of seeing the state as evil, so I won't go into that here. I will just ask that those tempted to imagine the state truly is a necessary evil, ask themselves whether a state is inherently evil, or whether they are simply drawing that conclusion from their experience of bad states. Finally, I would also ask, since anarchy is obviously harmful, and they imagine a state is evil, then what could possibly be good? Or are they condemned to perpetual pessimism, as every alternative is evil?

POSTSCRIPT

I mentioned earlier that I would be posting belated quotes for January 20th, 21st and 22nd. I have posted the 20th, but the other two are still waiting. I just wanted to mention that, though I am running a bit late, I will still post those two over this weekend. I actually have both quotes already, unless, of course, I change my mind. But for now, it appears one will be on communism, and the other on labor, wages and exploitation. (I admit the second quote comes from an article by a relative unknown, but I really wanted to write about labor, world trade and the claims of exploitation, especially after "Stupid Quotes of the Day (January 26, 2011)", so I took what I could find.)

I have generally avoided discussing the present primary campaign in this blog. First, because, for reasons I described in "Should I?" I made a conscious decision to avoid most current events and stick to more general political, economic and philosophical principles (as well as the periodic gripe about spelling and grammar). Second, in this specific case, because I am not thrilled by most of the front runners. Santorum is not bad (provided the media can quit painting him as Torquemada incarnate), and Newt could be acceptable to a degree (especially as I don't particularly care if he is arrogant, what politician isn't? Newt just lets it show), but Romney suffers from the trifecta of being a chronic compromiser, being far too much of the traditional glad handing politician and, worst of all, just being boring (and this is from someone who was a Phil Gramm supporter). So I have avoided the election for the most part.

However, a recent article I stumbled across made me break that rule, just once. The article is "The Long Run" from the New York Times. I don't know if any critics have responded to this yet, but I know for me, it turned me from a lukewarm Newt supporter into someone much more willing to become a fan.

The article is full of moderate Republicans basically saying Newt should not be elected because he fights with Democrats. The basic argument is that Newt is just not a good compromiser. To which I reply "hallelujah!" We need someone who will fight Democrats rather than letting them enact their agenda piecemeal under the pretense of "getting along". The Democrats have managed to get quite a bit through the Washington GOP thanks to having dominated congress for a long period, it is about time someone applied the brakes.

And, honestly, if Newt was so bad, how did the class of 1994 get so much done? If he can't compromise or manage to win his fights, what happened there? Does Dole really think Bill Clinton invented welfare reform?

So, thanks Bob Dole and the rest, you have managed to make me like Newt a lot more than I did. He still has some big problems, as do all candidates running on both sides, but Newt definitely seems much more appealing now.

Today I am going to deviate from my established pattern of pointing out the errors made on the conservative side of the aisle to get back to the original inspiration of this series, absurd statements by liberal thinkers. And so, rather than dither about with lesser lights, I am going to post a good companion to my quotes from John Maynard Keynes ("Stupid Quote of the Day (January 7, 2012)", "Stupid Quote of the Day (January 9, 2012 - Delayed)"), a set of quotes from the grandfather of the modern welfare state (assuming LBJ was its father), the man himself, FDR.

We shall start with a general quote, but one so patently false, you have to admire the brazen soul that could actually say it with a straight face:

It was this administration which saved the system of private profit and free enterprise after it had been dragged to the brink of ruin.

And,  to give us something that might allow for a bit more detailed commentary, let us follow that with this interesting theory on the economy, one, I shudder to admit, that has been followed by every subsequent presidency, and is now so enshrined in policy that I fear even some conservatives believe it makes sense:

If all employers in each competitive group agree to pay their workers the same wages... and require the same hours... then higher wages and shorter hours will hurt no employer. Moreover, such action is better for the employer than unemployment and low wages, because it makes more buyers for his product.

So, where to begin?

I suppose we should begin at the beginning, and point out that FDR, far from saving capitalism, actually did quite a bit of damage. But, even that is of secondary importance compared to pointing out that the crisis which he confronted was itself not a product of the free market, but of prior intervention, problems which time alone would have cured, had the government not chosen to prolong them under the guise of trying to solve them¹.

I know, I learned all the common stories in school just like everyone else. The Depression was just the worst example of the boom-bust cycle inherent in capitalism, the excesses and overspending and recklessness of the roaring 20's led to the collapse and the depression, and FDR put us back to work and solved the crisis. It is all nice and tidy, and it matches well with FDR's claim in our first quote. The only problem is, it is absolutely wrong.

Let us begin at the beginning. The "boom-bust cycle" is no part of capitalism. There is no inherent cyclical pattern of growth and recession. One need only look at the pattern from 1836, when the Second bank of the US died, until about 1880 or so, when the more intrusive measures of the "state banking system", predecessor of the Federal reserve, were put in place, and you can see there was not a hint of any such cycle. Or look at Scotland from the 1700's or so, until the Bank of England was forced upon that nation, creating fiat currency, fractional reserve and central banking. In both cases, there was not a hint of boom and bust cycles in a mostly free market. And a market, most importantly, dominated by free, independent, and competing banks².

The boom-bust cycle was born as the government centralized banks, allowing it to pile paper currency on top of a very small reserve of gold. Originally, each bank would issue, say, three times as much paper as they had reserves. However, the government created a multi-tier system, where local banks had to have reserves on deposit in regional banks, but could use regional bank notes as reserves, the same as gold, and then the regionals had to have money in the central New York banks, with the same deal. So, in short, a small amount of gold in the central bank could support ten times as much paper, or more.

But more damaging was the way this system made inflation uniform. In a private banking system, each bank decided how much paper to issue and when. So money supplies went up and down in small increments, and randomly, and banks had differing reserve ratios, some more stable some less. The central system allowed a single central bank's plan to inflate to then be passed up the pyramid, making all banks inflate. And thus began the boom-bust cycle, with inflation spurring growth, until eventually the rate of growth grew too great, and interest rates caused a collapse, or, especially in the early days, loss of confidence resulted in bank runs and brought the system down. A private, decentralized system could not support such a cycle, but this central system made it inevitable³.

The boom-bust cycle caused by the federally imposed "state banking system" was then used as an excuse to create the even more centralized Federal Reserve system, which then brought about the Great Depression, which, interestingly enough, was blamed on the free market⁴. And, even more interesting, the failure of this increased intervention, justified by the failure of earlier intervention, was used as an excuse for still more government, all while blaming the free market. And, even more amusingly, while claiming to save the free market from its own shortcomings.

But I have been through all this many times, and many links can be found in the notes and postscript for those interested in the details of inflation and intervention. So, let us leave aside FDR's most absurd and unsupportable claim and move to the more technical quote, as debunking it will help dispose of two related follies, the minimum wage and government job creation, as well as related foolishness such as "living wage" policies and the like.

The first problem with the entire quote is the assumption that employers simply "set" wages, that they decide what to pay arbitrarily, and that they can adjust the salaries they offer at a whim.  In addition, it errs by treating every firm as if it were a sole proprietorship, where arbitrarily setting or changing wages can be done at the discretion of the employer, without thought of obligation to stockholders, bondholders or creditors who expect the company to earn a competitive rate of profit. Of course, these pale in comparison to the larger errors, such as the failure to understand how the market sets wages, the failure to understand Say's Law and the simple ignorance of how the market works in general.

So, with so many errors to examine, I suppose we should get started.

I have discussed it many times⁵, but let us start at the beginning. Employers want to make a profit, and so in general would pay as little as possible, and do pay as little as they can. However, there is another force at work. Other employers are also looking for a profit making opportunity, as well as those not presently employing anyone, but who would open a firm if they saw an opportunity, and investors who would back them. Thus, if an employer tries to pay too little⁶, a competitor, or potential competitor, would see the opportunity and hire those workers away from the first employer, by offering a small raise, and make a profit by pocketing the difference between the higher wage and their productivity. Of course, if they paid too little as well, trying to make too much profit, then they would be out bid by another competitor, and so on and so on, until employee wages come to rest at the market level, most often just slightly less than the amount of value a given worker produces⁷.

This is important for the quote above, as it also works in reverse. If all existing employers took FDR's plea to heart, and raised wages 50% and cut hours 50%, effectively giving their employees a 200% raise, there would be several consequences. First, there would be a tremendous decline in profits. And it would be directly proportional to the amount of labor used. Labor intensive industries would be bankrupted, less labor intensive would suffer tremendous losses, and jobs employing few workers would suffer minor losses. Of course, in all cases, the firms would begin to see overseas competition edge into the market, as even with transportation costs, and likely less productive foreign labor, such an increase in wages would result in overseas production becoming much more attractive⁸.

But we do not need to consider overseas competitors, as there is an even more immediate fix. Even if every existing employer colluded to raise wages, that would not bind newcomers. Seeing wages so horribly elevated, it would be easy for a competitor to break into the market, paying a reasonable wage, and making tremendous profit. Of course, he could not steal labor from the employers overpaying employees, but as I said, many of those would go bankrupt, so even if there was little free labor at the moment, soon labor would be available in considerable quantities, allowing the newcomers to earn a reasonable profit, while undercutting the others and taking over a huge market share. Only by closing out competition, as is done today with minimum wage, could this be prevented⁹.

The only way to make FDR's scheme work would be to not only raise wages, but to also raise all prices the same percentage, effectively to inflate everything. But, if that were done, there would be no difference. If everything that was $1 was now $2, it would be as if nothing changed. Yet that is the only way to make such a policy work.

This explanation should make clear why FDR's claim his plan would produce new consumers is imply absurd, but there is another logical problem with his proposition. Raising wages does not create new goods. If a man makes 100 shoes a day, and is paid $10, or if he makes 100 shoes a day and is paid $20, there are still only 100 shoes in the economy. As Lord Say argued, goods exchange against good. he can only buy what his 100 shoes will support. If he is paid more, then other prices will rise. So even if this policy did not result in economic collapse, the most likely outcome would be a tremendous rise in consumer prices, which would make the "new consumers" argument pointless, as they could buy only as much as the old consumers.

I could probably go on about this for days, as it such Keynesian nonsense, embodying so many of the fallacies of interventionist beliefs that it begs a rebuttal in detail. But I doubt anyone wants to sit through such a lengthy piece. At least not anyone reading my "Stupid Quote" series. Perhaps later I will return to this concept and discuss it again. But for now, I think I have shown quite well why these particular quotes are wrong, and why it is a good idea to take claims about FDR fixing the economy with a grain of salt.

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

1. It is not precisely on point for this essay, but I do want to dispel one more myth, often offered by FDR's critics, the theory that FDR did not end the depression, World War II did. In fact, war does nothing to improve the economy, and thus there is no way World War II fixed anything. To be completely accurate, some of the effects of World War II may have prevented FDR from making things worse, and the distraction of the war prevented him from following up on his dangerous intervention, and so indirectly solved the problem by allowing the market to fix itself, but the war in itself did not end the depression. See  "War Stimulates the Economy? Let's Nuke San Francisco!".

2. The US government actually began to regulate banks even before the Civil War, and so there was some pressure toward this cycle, and we can see a minor cycle developing in the 1870's and 1880's. In addition, thanks to the introduction of the inflationary "greenbacks" during the Civil War, there was some nationwide monetary meddling, but it was eliminated shortly after the war, when Grant retired the last greenbacks, returning the nation to a mostly private gold standard. (Though early "free silver" agitation did threaten inflationary pressures to come, which had a bit of impact as well. Sadly, it is hard to find a truly free economy in US history, every period I choose as an example needs a half page of qualifiers.)

3. It is remotely possible a private banking system could cause a short-term boom-bust cycle in two ways. If all banks inflated at the same time, they could induce a boom-bust cycle, but it is doubtful they would continue to do so for any length of time. In addition, if a single bank were large enough to dominate a region, it could cause a single boom-bust cycle on its own, but the resultant collapse would likely liquidate that bank, causing competitors to dominate the market. (See "The Inflation Engine", "Derivatives and Other Investments", "Inflation and Uncertainty", "Living Large During the Good Times", "Those Greedy Bankers" and "Explaining Past Crashes".)

4. See "How To Blame the Free Market", "The Endless Cycle of Intervention", "Perverting Self Interest ", "Slieght of Hand", "Recipe For Disaster" and "Government Quackery".

4. See "Exploited Labor", "Capital Investment",  "Fairness and the Free Market","The Harm of Closed Shops and Collective Bargaining", "Pro-Labor Cannibalism, A Look At The Union Food Chain" and "Why Do They Earn So Much For Playing a Game? ".

6. Recall wages are not just money, but also benefits, taxes contributed by the employer (such as matching social security contributions) and other non-monetary payments, such as leave time, training and anything else paid per employee.

7. The productivity of the worker is dependent on capital investment, and also varies by tasks. So, for example, a skilled shoe maker might be much less productive if hired by a mine, and so his wage would be much lower. In addition, a firm with a large capital investment in machinery will see higher productivity from workers (provided they can operate the machinery) and so can pay more. All of this needs to be kept in mind when discussing productivity and wages, as too much discussion treats all employees as unskilled labor operating without any capital investment.

8. This is the reason so many interventionist governments were involve din extensive protectionist legislation. Without cutting off foreign competition, it is simply impossible to enact laws that ignore economic laws. The laws still have destructive effects, but with the foreign markets excluded it takes longer for the ill effects to become obvious. ( "Smaller Government , Fair Weather Friends and Special Cases", "Cheap Lighters, Overseas Dumping and Monopolies", "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, and More Jobs", "Protectionism", "Protectionism Right and Left", "Fear of Trade",  "The Inevitable Corruption of Protectionism", "Simple Evidence")

9. The minimum wage illustrates my point well. Why is so much low-profit farm work done by illegals? Because it is not profitable if minimum wage is paid. Actually, it is also why illegals have spread to so many other jobs, they simply cannot be done at minimum wage. (Especially as illegals also do not require the other benefits, taxes and so on legal workers must have paid by law.) This is not the only reason for the spread of illegals, but the minimum wage has created many ills. See "A New Look At Intervention", "Exploiting Workers?", "Fairness and the Free Market", "Capital Investment", "Exploited Labor", "What Is Fair? or, How Game Theory Leads Us Astray, "Pay Disparities", "When Help Hurts", "How Democrats Keep the Poor Poor" and "Hope You Like Unpaid Internships".

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

POSTSCRIPT

For some very simple discussion of inflation and monetary policy in general I suggest reading "Monetary Issues Made Simple Part I", "Monetary Issues Made Simple Part II ", "Inflation and Uncertainty", "Bad Economics Part 7", "Bad Economics Part 8", "What Is Money? ", "What Is A Dollar?" and "The Gold Question, Not "Why?" But "When?"".

As I was looking for this quote, I came across a particularly apt statement by George Washington that tempted me to replace my usual stupid quote with something along the lines of "Depressingly Apt Quote of the Day". However, that seems a bit of a cop out, and so I decided against it. And so, much as I want to examine the Washington quote ("Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness."), I will wait to write about it in a post of its own, and will instead spend my time here examining an erroneous quote.

As is the case with many of my stupid quotes, the quote itself is not exactly stupid, but it does show a remarkable blindness, and one likely to have dangerous consequences. And so, thought not precisely stupid, I want to examine this quote as something dangerously deceptive. And so, in place of any more introduction, allow me to present our quote, from Michael Bakunin:

The state is a force incarnate. Worse, it is the silly parading of force. It never seeks to prevail by persuasion. Whenever it thrusts its finger into anything it does so in the most unfriendly way. Its essence is command and compulsion.

As I said, this quote is partly correct. The state is, in part, force incarnate, and many times its intervention is both forceful and hostile. Regulation, for instance, almost always takes on a confrontational cast. But even less hostile economic intervention, such as Obama's GM bailout, is accepted because, implicit in the government's requests, is the threat that refusing to comply could result in much less pleasant responses from the state.

But that is only one face of the state, and the one it likes to show least often. There is another face of the state, the face of the Small Business Administration, the face of the yearly tax refund, the face of the welfare case worker, in short, the face of the man handing out checks. And that face has nothing to do with force. Or at least not openly. Once, perhaps,. it was a bit more closely tied to force, as the funds given away were taken by force in the form of taxes, but thanks to managed currencies, and the stealthy theft of inflation, the government can now disburse money it did not obviously take from anyone, making it the smiling avuncular power, which can create money form nothing and dole it out like Santa Claus.

And that is why I point out this quote and call attention to its mistakes. Yes, the state can often be seen as the commissar, the policeman, the soldier. It is often seen to exercise force, and we are often asked to be wary of such abuses. But we then tend to forget that just as much damage, or even more, can be done by the government choosing who will and who will not receive its generosity. One needs only realize communism is nothing but a scheme of state funding of everything to see the potential for harm. The state may do damage through the use of force, but it can do much more, and it do it very quietly, through nothing but generosity.

And that is what I find troubling in this quote. We need to be aware of both faces of the state, of the risk posed by both. But by focusing all our attention on the government as the application of force, we can be persuaded to overlook many of the worst abuses, many of the greatest threats to freedom. And thus I suggest we not limit our view f the sate, and see its generosity as an abused eery bit as great, and every bit as dangerous as gulags and star chamber courts.

As the title suggests, this is my attempt to make up for the three days of posts I lost to the gremlins which disabled my internet access last weekend. I know I already posted on quote in an attempt to make up for their loss, but I am ignoring that and will try, over the next day or two, to post the three missing quotes. I already have two quotes to use for the January 21st quote, and as you are reading this, I obviously have the quote for the 20th, so I now only need the 22nd to complete the missing posts. (I don't intend right now to make up earlier missing posts from my illness on the 12th, 13th and 14th, or the other missing quote from the 4th, but who knows, I may do so yet.

Before I begin, let me offer a short disclaimer. I have always been a fan of Thomas Jefferson. In my youth probably a bit more so than now, but even now I find him quite an interesting writer and a fairly consistent theorist of free government, as well as a mostly consistent proponent of distributed government (which we now call "federalism", though in his day "federalists" argued for precisely the opposite position). As I read more of later thinkers, I believe I lost a little of my awe of Jefferson, as I realized that he had come to overshadow Madison, who was probably a bit more consistent than Jefferson in many respects, and lost a little more as I realized how his successor Jackson was not only ignored, but slandered as some sort of ignorant rube. Realizing the stature of those who came after, Jefferson stood a little less tall in my mind than in the minds of others, but I still have great respect for him.

Having said that, Jefferson was also a human being, and as such was given to errors, both transient slips of the tongue or errors of thought, as well as persistent mistakes based upon incorrect assumptions. Many tend to gloss over such errors, but I think that is unfair to the man. Jefferson stood by his statements when he was alive, and so I think it is not our place to try to cover up his errors now. And that is why I had no problem writing "The World's Oldest Myth", explaining my objection to Jefferson's erroneous belief that farmers held some sort of innate virtue¹, as well as writing "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", which implicitly attack his cherished plan for public schooling². And that is also why I have no problem with my choice of quote, which also comes from Jefferson.

Allow me to make a statement that somewhat qualifies my "stupid" designation. As I will discuss below, the quote itself is not precisely foolish, or at least at one time it was not. When Jefferson spoke, it was probably an accurate statement of the world he saw about him. However, with the passage of time, conditions have changed, and what was arguably an accurate statement from Jefferson has turned into a completely erroneous statement, and thus, when I call it stupid, I do so in terms of those who continue to quote Jefferson, as if it applied to contemporary life and not to Jefferson himself.

But I seem to be burying this essay in qualifiers even before I get tot he quote itself. So, rather than drag this out any farther, allow me to present our quote:

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty

In Jefferson's era, this quote was most likely accurate in one very specific sense. As despotism was the predominant form of government in most contemporary states³, it makes sense to equate timidity with support of despotism, as political inertia would by default support the existing tyrannical governments. Thus, to say the timid favor despotism is almost tautological, at least if we assume political inactivity is an innate aspect of timid individuals.

On the other hand, as my discovery of this quote on a page of "Libertarian Quotes" demonstrates, many continue to put forth this quote as true, and that means that we can no longer view it in the same light. While possibly a tautology in Jefferson's age, it is no longer so. Our own state, whatever its failings, is far from a despotism, and many of the other states in the west are much the same. Which means that it is no longer a case of timid men failing to rise up against the despotic status quo, the quote implies that timidity leads one to actively support the despot, which is a very different thing, and not so easily supported by argument or the evidence of our senses.

Looking at the world today, the truth is that inertia is actually the friend of freedom. Despite the many problems with our states, there is still quite a bit of freedom left in our forms of government. Regulation may have intruded into much of our lives ("Collective Action and Government", ""...Then Who Would Do it?""), but it is still held in check, at least in the United States, by an implicit belief that any new intrusion needs at least a superficial justification. We have yet to accept regulation for the sake of regulation. And given that, inaction is probably the best friend of liberty, as the less government does, the less it intrudes.

And that would mean that the timid man, by definition inactive, unless bullied into obedience, tends to be a friend of freedom right now. What we have to fear in our modern world, is not the timid man, but the "heroic" individual who woudl save the world, who would make things perfect, who will force change ( "The Threat of Perfection", "Utopianism and Disaster", "The Fascination with Change", "Uniqueness"), it is the hero, the man of action, the bold reformer who is our greatest threat. Jefferson may have seen the timid allowing the perpetuation of despotism, but in our age the timid are not the foe, it is the reformer.

But this quote persists for very self-indulgent reasons. By describing the foes of freedom as timid, and those fighting for liberty as bold, it flatters the egos of libertarians that they are some sort of champions, fighting the good fight. It is somewhat juvenile, and it worries me that so many still need to hear that they are doing something heroic, but that seems to be the main appeal of such quotes. After all, unlike most of these quotes, it tells us little, provides little guidance, and says nothing more than that our opposite number are timid men. And even in that, as I have shown, it is no longer correct.

Which is why I have chosen to highlight such an inconsequential quote. After all, if we are going to bother to promote certain quotes, the least we can do is make sure they are both accurate and informative. This one is neither. Other than boosting the egos of the libertarian rank and file, it does little, and even in doing that it makes assertions that are dubious to say the least. At least when Jefferson spoke those words, they were accurate, and likely meant to goad those quietly supporting the status quo into action. But now, what does it do? Little or nothing, except stir to action a handful scared of being called timid, and, who being spurred into action, likely will take up causes no more likely to promote freedom than the timid men of Jefferson's day.

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

1. It is arguable whether Jefferson found some moral virtue in farming (though he would not be the first to do so), or whether he was ascribing virtue to farmers as part of a general support of property requirements for voting. The latter is an understandable position, especially given the fear many had of demagogues stirring up urban masses (though few such masses yet existed in the United States), but even if understandable, it would have had dire consequences in the long run. (See "Misunderstanding Democracy" and "Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government".)

2. At least Jefferson's plan was largely a state scheme, rather than a national one, and so would have avoided some of the worst aspects of our current system with is partial federal funding. Still, I stand by my position that public schooling is harmful. On the othe rhand, as a federalist, I have no objection to allowing each state to try its own system, free of federal intervention, to allow us to discover which is the best solution. After all, as Jefferson would have well understood, that is one of the many benefits of federalism (as opposed to the libertarian dream of imposing freedom from above. See "Why I Am Not A Libertarian" and "The Benefits of Federalism".)

3. Calling England of the day despotic was probably a bit of patriotic hyperbole on Jefferson's part. While Britain may have enacted laws which inspired the colonials to revolt, in a large part that revolt was brought about by the previous history of quite liberal government. Being used to the generally free government of English colonies, the imposition of laws which would have seemed insignificant in many other states, were seen as intolerable to the colonies. It is a testament to England's generally liberal government that laws such as the Stamp Act, or the quartering of troops in homes during war time, were seen as tyrannical.

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

POSTSCRIPT

Some may challenge my beliefs that the timid are more pro-freedom than pro-despotism, or that inaction is beneficial, but I contend both are true. Of course we will not reach total freedom, or anything approaching an ideal government without change, but for the moment the majority is hardly supporting a program of small, distributed government. Given that, change is moving almost always in the direction of more government, more centralization and less freedom. And thus, when the choice is action or inaction, until public understanding of the role of the state and the proper function of government has changed tremendously,  inaction is almost always likely to preserve freedoms we currently have, while action will almost always grow government. ("Grow or Die, The Inevitable Expansion of Everything") As a result, inaction is often the friend of freedom, and the timid, by tending toward inaction, often do more to promote freedom than the most activist of libertarians. And it is for that reason I disagree with calling the timid enemies of liberty. At least in modern times.

POSTSCRIPT II

I also wish to make clear that, speaking in general, freedom does not require brave or bold men to exist. I know we have a tendency to talk of struggles and bravery and fights and use very military terminology when speaking of freedom, but that metaphor is of limited accuracy. A largely timid electorate, but one which is well aware of the proper role of government and the dangers of granting centralized power to the state, can maintain freedom quite well. On the other hand, bold, brave men can create a perfectly horrible government, as the men who fought in World War I voted in FDR at home and Hitler abroad, and those who fought in World War II voted in the people who brought us to our present condition, starting with the Great Society programs. So there is no correlation between bravery and freedom. I agree to remain free we must have some willingness to defend ourselves, but beyond that baseline requirement, there is no additional need for especially bravery, just an understanding of the role of the state and the dangers of deviating from the proper course.

Today I am breaking with the pattern of the last two days, and drawing a quote from current events, in this case from our president and his state of the union address. Don't worry, I am going to also draw from my usual source. Since I missed three days, I am going to go to my normal source and create three back dated posts for those missing days. But, for now, let us look at the president and his, hopefully final, state of the union address.

Of course, there is much to call foolish in the address. His call for soak the rich schemes, his demands that the rich "play by the same rules", blaming the free market for the economic crisis caused by inflation and idiotic mortgage rules, the attempts to regulate ourselves into prosperity, many, many idiocies. But those sort of stupidities have been debunked ad nauseam in this blog, so it would be a bit pointless to repeat them once more.

Instead, I am going to do something a little different and pick a quote which seems relatively inoffensive, maybe even something a conservative could say, and look at that instead. And so, from our president, I select this quote:

When you’re marching into battle, you look out for the person next to you, or the mission fails.

First, let me point out one truly strange thing about this line. Liberals, for the most part, are hardly strong backers of the military. Yes, in elections years John Kerry may be "reporting for duty",  but for the most part, when conservative bring out military analogies, liberals groan and roll their eyes, even bring out charges of jingoism. It seems only when they fear they are in trouble, when they worry they have lost the support of middle America do liberals find themselves in love with the military. Well, then or when they are asking us to make truly horrific sacrifices for no good reason. In Obama's case, it seems to be a bit of both.

But it doesn't matter who said it, not really, it is the quote itself which troubles me. Granted, it is but one in a long tradition, or two traditions -- calls for unity and sacrifice, as well as military analogies -- but being part of a tradition makes it no less foolish. However, since so few seem to object to either calls for sacrifice or military analogies, I suppose I should lay out my case against both.

Before looking at military quotes in general, as well as calls for sacrifice, let me point out an unrelated problem with Obama's analogy. He paints a very nice picture, one that is common in Hollywood films and inspirational quotes, but it actually states things quite incorrectly. When soldiers are undertaking a mission, they succeed or fail based upon their dedication to achieving that goal, even if it means allowing some sacrifices to be made. Deaths are part of warfare, and sometimes intentional sacrifices take place. Yes, soldiers will watch out for one another when possible, and when it does not endanger the mission, but it is hardly the foundation upon which success or failure is based. And a too great a dedication to protecting one another could actually compromise the effectiveness of a unit. (I mentioned this in my essay on the potential risks of women in combat. See "An Old Bone of Contention" and "Utopianism and Disaster".)

But let us ignore this gaffe from our president (just as the press continually ignores all his many gaffes), and ask instead whether it makes sense to draw analogies from the military to the citizens of a free society. I know it is commonplace in politics, but does it really make sense?

Obviously, there are many huge differences between civil society and the military. The military, or a single military unit, is a small group of select individuals within a larger society with which it interacts regularly, while civil society is a limited group, but largely isolated, surrounded by other groups, but largely interacting only with itself. In addition, the military rests upon the concept of obedience to orders from above, with units active with a single goal, a description which does not describe even the most totalitarian of states, much less a supposedly free society. But let us ignore these very obvious differences and ask one other question, the one most pertinent to the quote. What obligation do citizens have to one another in a free state? (Assuming, for the moment, the obligation in the military is actually as Obama claims.)

That is where many military analogies fall apart. While it is nice when making a speech to say "we're all in this together" and "we have to work as a team" and "ask not what your country can do for you..." the truth is, a free society is predicated upon precisely the sort of autonomy these quotes deny. Individuals are obligated to one another in only one sense, they must refrain from violating the rights of another. (Well, they must also abide the decisions of civil courts, but that is the only other obligation.) Some individuals may choose to join the military to assist in defending the state, either because they value the existence of that state or because they see it as the best employment option, but that does not mean citizens have any obligations to one another. Citizens can choose to work together, can choose to assist one another, but that is voluntary. There is no formal obligation.

Of course, some may agree citizens have no formal obligation, politicians are simply saying that, if we do not choose to work together, things will get worse. But I find that quite suspect. As I have written so many places ("Planning For Imperfection", "Greed Versus Evil", "Perverting Self Interest ", "Third Best Economy", "Individual and Aggregate"), the free market is at its best when citizens pursue their own interests. When we try to achieve our own goals, we succeed only by satisfying the wants of others, and so we produce best, and help most, when we selfishly chase our own needs. That being the case, calling for us to somehow work together to follow a single state plan seems a prescription for disaster, not success. After all, if pursuing the state goal helped, we would be doing it anyway. The fact that we need to be asked to do it suggests that the only one benefiting from such a plan is the state.

Which is actually also my complaint against calls for sacrifice. If sacrifice were beneficial, well, it wouldn't be sacrifice. And if it does not benefit anyone, then why should we do it? And if it did benefit someone, then they would be willing to trade to have the action undertaken and it would no longer be sacrifice, but work. So, one must conclude that sacrifice is beneficial only to the state, the one group which never seems to need to sacrifice in such plans.

I suppose this quote is not quite as foolish as some I could have extracted, but it just struck me as one of many lines which sound so nice, and yet are so completely wrong. As with Kennedy's "ask not.." it seems to speak to our moral nature, and yet when examined closely, it is simply asking us to be good servants of the state, giving up what we value so the state doesn't have to. If an individual made such a demand, the same people would call him selfish, but when the state does it, they call it inspirational.

I cannot. I have to call it a stupid quote.

POSTSCRIPT

Military analogies are successful for a number of reasons, but one I failed to mention above is the way in which calls for heoism and sacrifice appeal to that childish lust for glory that lead so many to seek to save the world, even when theya re old enough to know better. See my posts  "Catastrophic Thinking, The Political, Economic and Social Impact of Seeing History in the Superlative", "Historic Myopia", "The Runaway Stagecoach" and "All Life in a Day, or, How Our Mistaken View of History Distorts Our Understanding of Events".

I have to admit up front that my title today is a bit misleading. The two quotes I intend to examine today are not exactly stupid, in fact they are quotes that many would endorse, and quotes which even I find laudable in some respects. Rather than stupid, they should perhaps be called "misguided". They are quotes which, while sounding sensible enough, actually manage to completely miss the point and argue for exactly the wrong thing. They aren't precisely stupid, instead they are quotes which manage to emphasize the wrong aspect of a problem, or, alternately, mange to find problems where none exist, and miss others.

Before examining the quotes themselves, allow me one more brief digression. Since I managed to miss three days in a tow due to a combination of family obligations and gremlin induced technical problems, I am going to post multiple quotes for the next few days. I may not do it every day, but I figure if I manage to do it three times this week I will have made up for my many missing posts. Of course, it doesn't hurt that I found a number of quotes worth examining on the "Libertarian Quotes" page I mentioned in "Stupid Quote of the Day (January 23, 2012)". And so, for the next few days, don't be surprised if you find my posts examining more than one quote.

Which brings us to the purpose of this essay, the quotes themselves, starting with an anonymous quote I have seen reproduced many times:

Where morality is present, laws are unnecessary. Without morality, laws are unenforceable.

And let us follow that with a rather well known, and frequently cites, quote by Lord Acton:

Liberty is not a means to a political end. It is itself the highest political end.

As I said, both appear quite unobjectionable. In fact, they could probably be used as a plank in any conservative platform. At first glance, it would be difficult to find anything in either to which one could object. However, as with most things in life, it is usually necessary to look beyond our first impressions, and in these cases, a little reflection should make it clear that both quotes are quite misleading, or even simply wrong. At least I hope it would be clear, but experience has taught me not to presume that such matters are always easy to recognize, so I shall take a moment and explain the problems with each.

I suppose the degree to which the first quote is wrong depends on how one understands the term "laws". Not that there exists a reading which renders the quote correct, but depending on whether one imagines only the criminal law, or includes civil law as well, the quote can be made more or less inaccurate.

Let us start with the first half, the idea that moral individuals do not need law. This, while it sounds sensible enough, is actually nonsense, along the lines of the argument that communism needs perfect individuals to work. (In reality, even angels could not make communism work, due to the lack of valid measures. See "The Limits of "Scientific" Management".) Just because individuals possess perfect morality does not mean they are incapable of misunderstandings. Individuals with perfect morals could still disagree over, let us say, who owns a given piece of property, and thus would need recourse to civil courts. They could also disagree over the meaning of a contract, or could become involved in an auto accident, the remuneration for which they may be unable to determine in a mutually satisfactory way. In all of these cases, there would be need for the civil courts, and, if one were to take possession of something which another claims to be his, perhaps even the criminal courts.

We can go even farther if we imagine that our own land's morality is not universal. If there are strangers lacking our perfect moral qualities, then we also might need the law to keep these strangers in check. Or even to keep our own in line when they make mistakes, such as harming one of our citizens when mistaking him for a dangerous stranger. But some would argue that the original clause imagined perfect morality was universal, and thus such issues would not arise. And I will grant that may be the case. Still, even with universal morality, there are the previously mentioned disagreements, accidents and other situations, which certainly will call for civil courts, and could sometimes even involve the criminal law.

Of course, some will say that the first half of the quote intended only criminal courts, and thus my argument doesn't really work. And I will admit, if you imagine morality is universal, and limit the argument to criminal law, there might be little enough for the courts to do, though I deny they would have absolutely nothing, but even if we allow a little leeway and claim the first half of the quote might be generously called correct, the second half is far from it, no matter how we define law.

In some ways the concept that a lack of morality makes laws ineffective mirrors my arguments elsewhere, that a culture which disagrees with a set of laws will find ways to refuse to enforce them. ("The Problem With Tort Reform", "The Limits of Law, A Look at Jury Nullification, Executive Discretion and Government Reform") However, immorality is much broader description, and its interaction with the laws as a whole is quite different than the interaction of a specific cultural belief and narrowly defined set of laws. And so I shall argue that, while it seems counter-intuitive, immorality is in no way an impediment to maintaining a system of law and order, that unethical individuals can easily keep a legal system, both civil and criminal, functioning quite efficiently.

I suppose first we need to decide how we define immorality. If we are simply speaking of a group giving into its most base instincts, then the argument is quite simple, as there is no inconsistency with a system of laws and a desire to fulfill ones more indecent needs. On the other hand, if we define immorality as a desire to sacrifice others to one's own advantage, then there is a bit more argument needed.

As I have discussed elsewhere ("The Right People, The Wrong People and "Just Plain Folks"", "The Wrong People", "Third Best Economy", "An End to War") it is a mistake to think that the free market relies upon ethical businessmen, or that if businessmen are unethical, then we need some sort of regulation or supervision ("Et Tu, Town Hall?", "The Threat of Perfection ", "Utopianism and Disaster"). The genius of the free market is, as I have said before ("Planning For Imperfection", "Greed Versus Evil", "Perverting Self Interest ", "Third Best Economy", "Individual and Aggregate") that the free market harnesses our most base instincts and channels them into activities which benefit those around us. And that works whether or not we have ethical individuals.

Let us just imagine a society of completely amoral individuals. Let us also assume they recognize that, each being amoral and interested in his own well being alone, there is no chance of forming a conspiracy against the rest. Thus, each must look out for his own interest. In that case, the arguments I made in "A Rational Approach to Punishment" apply, and each will soon recognize that it is in his own interest to be protected from others, as they can collectively do much more harm to him, than he can benefit from being able to plunder them. Thus, we will end up with a state with symmetrical protection of rights. ("Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government") In such a state, there is no way for an individual to satisfy his own wants but to provide for others. He can work to satisfy his own desires, but he is unlikely to be able to do as well trying for autarchy as he would making something for trade. And thus, even with the most base motives, and the most amoral individuals, the free market ends up being the most effective solution, and, recognizing as much, law can quite easily exist when there are amoral individuals.

Now, let us turn to our second quote, the one which asserts that liberty is, in itself, the highest political good.

I don't know if I need to point this out, but one thing which always sets off alarm bells for me is when something is asserted as an end in itself, as an absolute good. As I have argued many times ("Absolute Values", "The Right Way", "Every Kid Likes Hot Dogs", "The Most Misleading Word", "Luxury and Necessity", "Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmentalism", "In defense of White Bread", "The Great "What If?" - Advertising, Gullibility, Education, Capitalism and Socialism"), asserting something is an absolute good, something for which any cost is acceptable, produces endless logical errors.  Even if we ignore the basic fact that all valuation is subjective, predicated upon the individual hierarchy of desires, ignoring that entirely, there is a serious problem accepting that any value is absolute. After all, if we accept that, then we must also accept that an individual, who feels that need, will sacrifice absolutely everything for it, will kill their family, torture their loved ones, sacrifice their own lives and all their possessions, just to obtain it. That is the true meaning of an "absolute value", that something is so precious it will be pursued to the exclusion of all else. As I have yet to see anyone in life who behaved in such a manner (with the possible exception of a handful of psychotics), and as no one would argue that is a sensible pattern of behavior, I have to assume those who call something an absolute good do not truly mean what they say.

And, in fact, I have definite evidence that liberty is not an absolute good, even in free states, or at least that most individuals do not see it as such*, as there is one behavior, which even most proponents of liberty accept, even praise, which is inconsistent with the belief that liberty is an absolute good.

People serve in the military.

Before we move along, let me say I am not making any moral judgments, or discussing in any way how the military operates, I am simply discussing here how the military actually does work, and the implications of that reality for this argument.

The problem for those who claim liberty is an absolute value, an end in itself, the only thing of worth, is that many behave in ways which argue against this, even among the advocates of liberty. And joining the military is a perfect example. After all, when one joins the military, whatever else he may gain or lose, one thing is certain, he surrenders some of his liberty. For example, an individual who has joined the military cannot choose when to leave the service (for the most part), nor does he have freedom of movement. Not just that, but his freedom of speech is also limited, as is his freedom to choose what to wear, how to cut his hair and a host of other small freedoms we take for granted. Admittedly, the loss of these freedoms is temporary, and individuals accept them because they think what they gain is much more important, but still, there is a loss of liberty involved, and that undermines most argument made for freedom being an absolute good.

You see, if freedom were an absolute good, then we would not be willing to give it up. Even if we thought the military served a noble purpose, if freedom were the highest good, that noble purpose would not be enough to convince us to give up our freedom. And so, the very fact that most who sing the praises of liberty do not object to the military, even in its current form, suggests they have, once again, not thought through what they are saying.

But perhaps I am making the wrong argument here. Possible Lord Acton was not proposing freedom as an absolute value, but instead simply saying that it was a very valuable goal, the most important goal, but still one which could be sacrificed at times in pursuit of other goals. That would be a very different point, though one I still find quite wrong. But, as it is so very different, let us look at this other possibility.

Lest I come across as someone too little interested in freedom, let me say that I am quite an ardent champion of individual freedom. If my obsession with minimal government and protection of rights is not enough ("A True Conservative Platform",  "My Vision of Government", "My Vision of Government Part II", "Why I Am Not A Libertarian", "The Benefits of Federalism", "An Analogy For Government", "A Simple Proposal", "Consolidation and Diffusion",  "Man's Nature and Government", "Prelude"), I have written several times about the significance of freedom in our government ("Why Freedom Is Essential", "A New Look At Intervention", "Defending Freedom?"). However, in those essays, there is one difference between the position I espouse and the reading we are giving to Lord Acton's quote. It may seem a trivial difference to some, but to my thinking it is an essential difference, and one that explains why I find Acton's quote so misleading.

In my writing, freedom is presented in two ways, as a precondition for individual action and the satisfaction of wants, and as a means to achieve the same. That is, when I discuss freedom, I discuss it in a functional sense, as a tool, a very important tool, but a tool. When I write, I do not start off thinking of freedom as an end, but instead think first of individual desires, freedom enters the picture only when its absence makes the satisfaction of those desires more difficult. Unlike the quote in question, and many who place excessive emphasis on freedom, I do not see it as an end in itself, but as a means to an end. And thus, while I think it is politically important, as it is essential to forming an effective state, I do not see it as an end in itself.

Some may be confused by this position, seeing freedom described as a right, they may think of it as an end in itself, and may wonder if I am not denying the right o freedom, or at least deprecating it, by describing it as a mean to and end, rather than something precious in itself.  But I think that is absurd. All our rights are means to ends. The right to free speech does not exist because we think speech is precious in itself, but because the expression of their thoughts and beliefs is important to satisfying individual desires**. Similarly, we do not value the right to property because owning property is valuable in itself, but because property ownership and disposition of that property is essential to the satisfaction of individual desires. And, likewise, liberty is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

By saying these things, I do not think I am making any of these rights seem less valuable, I am simply recognizing that they are precious, not in themselves, but because they are the foundation upon which much more important abilities rest.

Of course, after reading all that some may ask "So what? Why bother distinguishing between the two? What is the difference if we see freedom as a means to an end, or an end in itself?" To which I reply that the distinction, which may seem rather academic and unimportant, is actually quite important, as once one begins to think of freedom as an end in itself, he can be led into mistakes every bit as dangerous as those who deny us liberty.

There are many ways such mistaken beliefs can express themselves, but it seems the most common today is the belief that government is a necessary evil. Of course, there is nothing new in such a belief, it has probably been around since the first state was formed. However, in the past, it was generally limited to a small fringe, perhaps a few cynics who tried to pass themselves off as great wits, it was not the mainstream view of the state. Today, while it may not be the majority view, it certainly is the most common perception among members of one of the two major political philosophies.

Allow me to clarify. Liberals, being dedicated to the assertion that the state is the best tool, or at least a valid tool, to help men better themselves, or, if not that, is a means to prevent one set of men from exploiting the rest, must argue that the state is a good, that it is beneficial. ("Liberalism, Its Origins and Consequences") However, their opposite number among the conservatives, tend to fall on the other end of the spectrum (as much as a true spectrum still exists -- cf. "The Political Spectrum"). Conservatives view the state in a much more limited role. Some may allow some degree of regulatory power, or even some place in trying to protect individuals from themselves (eg laws about drugs and prostitution), but they do not see the state as the ideal tool for such functions. Even those who accept such state intervention tend to do so reluctantly. And thus, among conservatives, it has become common to see the state, not as a morally neutral tool, nor as a savior, but as a necessary evil, a dangerous entity we have to tolerate as its lack is even worse.

And that belief is most often the result of the belief that freedom is an end in itself, and thus limiting freedom in any way, as the state does, is suspect. As the state is a tool designed precisely to limit freedom, and a tool capable of limiting it more should it wish, it is common to see the state just as I described, as a dangerous beast, something suspect. A view which has, as I described before ("Stupid Quote of the Day (January 23, 2012)") quite negative consequences.

And it does not stop there. The same view can get even worse. If we take every restriction of freedom as suspect, as something to be deplored, then does it not follow that any state is a bad thing? That the state is not a necessary evil, but simply an evil? If we simply place a slightly higher value on freedom, and downplay the risks of a world without laws, it is very easy tot ake this philosophy and arrive at the ideas of the modern neo-anarchists. ("The State of Nature and Man's Rights") And that foolishness can be quite dangerous if taken seriously.

I could probably go into much more detail about the negative consequences of such misplaced emphasis and mistaken beliefs, but I have already discussed many of the topics elsewhere. And so, for the moment, I will leave it as it is, and hope the combination of discussion and links will make clear what my concerns are with the beliefs these quotes embody. Should it later appear I was insufficiently clear, perhaps I will revisit one or both. Until then, I would just ask my readers remains wary of anyone who claims something is an absolute value, so precious it can never be exchanged for another goal.

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

* There are some extreme libertarians and neo-anarchists who insist any state restrictions are invalid, and they perhaps may be the one group which comes close to holding liberty as an absolute value. However, there are a number of inconsistencies in their reasoning, which I debunked in my post "The State of Nature and Man's Rights".

** It is a common mistake to think we have the right to free speech because it allows for the exchange of ideas and the progress of knowledge. That justification is often used, and may be true, but in reality, as with all rights, the reason we are granted these rights is that their restriction by the state is detrimental to individual pursuit of happiness. (See "The Danger Inherent in Banning "Bad Ideas"".) It may be useful to read "Misunderstanding Democracy", which discusses a similar misconception about popular elections and their purpose.

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

POSTSCRIPT

I want to clarify two points raised above.

First, let me examine my assertion that amoral or not, a rational examination of self interest will lead to a minimal, free market economy, as assertion I am sure some will find dubious.

Of course amoral individuals may try to exploit their fellows, and may even succeed. My point here is that amoral individuals may also come to the conclusion that a free market society with limited government is still the best choice. I am not saying it is impossible to exploit others, the world around us shows that is true. However, it is also quite possible to have a predictable, minimal government with a free market without requiring ethical individuals.

Second, let us look at my declaration that valuation is subjective.

This statement has haunted me ever since I wrote "Absolute Values", as chronicled in "Why Republicans Lose, We Eat Our Own" and "A Point I Thought Clear". I do not mean to assert that good and evil in an ethical sense are subjective, nor do I intend to assert some sort of ethical relativism. When I speak of values here, I speak of economic values, of the values which drive human decisions. When I say "I value X", it means that X is worth something to me, as it will provide me with some satisfaction. However, what X is worth, what I would be willing to exchange for it, depends upon my desires, how much I want X, and how much I want the alternatives. And that is what I mean by valuation being subjective. I am not saying right and wrong are meaningless, I am not speaking of right and wrong at all. I am simply speaking here of what individuals want, and what they will sacrifice for it.

Apologies for the several missed installments. Thanks to a combination of family obligations and gremlins destroying my equipment, this is my first chance to post since Thursday. I was tempted to post multiple quotes to make up for the missing ones, but decided to save good quotes for future posts instead, so I can give each the proper attention, rather than rushing through four mediocre posts to make up for missed days.

Today's quote is foolish in itself, but also points to an issue I have addressed before, and which I find important. So, here is our stupid quote of the day, from the witty, but hit or miss, H.L. Mencken:

Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.

Now, I admit I have something of a soft spot for Mencken, despite his many shortcomings. He was, first, from one of my former hometowns, Baltimore (I consider Baltimore and Annapolis both my homes, as I feel comfortable in both in a way I never did in Frederick MD, though I lived there for years.)  Second, his writing often manages to elicit at least a chuckle, even if I disagree with him, which is quite an accomplishment.

On the other hand, I have quite a few objections as well. First, his cynicism seems to be a precursor of the modern know it all attitude which I find so annoying. ("The Era of the Cocky Know It All") Second, I also find a strain of elitism, rather common among cynics, which is not just annoying, but rather unseemly. (I find the older I get, the less I can stand those who write as if author and reader were part of an elite, mocking those they discuss.) I could probably find a few more, including, to some degree, the mainstream complaints about his racial views (though they suffer, to some degree, from anachronistic moralizing, there is still some validity to them), but let us just leave it at this: I have mixed feelings about the writing of Mencken. I find him amusing, and sometimes insightful, but I also find traces in his writing of much of what I dislike about our modern culture.

But let us move on and look at this specific quote, rather discuss the man in general.

At first glance, I think many might find nothing objectionable about this quote. Then again, many have no objection to describing government as a necessary evil, either, while I find both problematic statements. In both cases, the assumption is that government, even in the absolutely best case, can be nothing more than a useful tyranny. And that is the larger perspective I wanted to examine, the concept that government can never be good, that it is inherently evil

I will be the first to admit government is often a problem in itself. Our modern state is a perfect example of this, providing some essential services, but more often restricting our freedoms, confiscating our possessions and otherwise limiting or injuring us. Even when it means well, even when laws are enacted with the most altruistic motives, it ends up hurting us. So, it is easy to see how the state could come to be seen as inherently evil, how the many neo-anarchist and extreme libertarian philosophies could arise. ("Tyranny Without Tyrants", "The State of Nature and Man's Rights", "In The Most Favorable Light", "With Good Intentions")

However, that is the wrong way to understand government. It is akin to the error I discussed in "Perverting Self Interest ", looking at how businessmen behave under an interventionist system, and then blaming them for exploiting government power. In this case, we are looking at the many interventionist states, and assuming there can never be better. And that is a mistake. A state is a tool. Like all tools, it can be used well or badly. When used well, it accomplishes its goals, when used badly, it doesn't, or it does, but at a high cost. But until we understand the proper role of government, until we ask for the powers of the state to be used properly, it is foolish to look at the states around us and take them as representing all possible forms of government. ("The Single Greatest Weakness")

So, can a state exist which is not a necessary evil?

Yes and no.

I know that sounds like a cop out, a way to dodge a difficult question, or to refuse to admit defeat, but in truth, it is the best answer I can give, but only because we are using such ill defined terms. You see, "evil" is a meaningless word, or at least a term with such an elastic definition that it is difficult to use it in a meaningful argument.

Let me avoid the word evil for a moment, and answer this way instead. There will never be a state which does not in some way limit individual freedom, as that is the purpose of states. If one adopts a view that any restriction of freedom is invalid, then no, the state will always be evil. On the other hand, if one recognizes that in a state of nature, the concept of rights does not have any meaning ("The State of Nature and Man's Rights"), and understands that a reciprocal restriction upon freedoms is valid ("Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government"), then it is quite possible to see the trade offs demanded by a minimal state as quite valid, and thus not evil in any meaningful sense.

Which is why, though I suppose some extreme libertarians may disagree, I have to say this is a stupid quote. Granted, most men should be ashamed of the present governments under which they live, it is wrong to make of that shame an absolute rule, as it is quite possible that one day one or more states would exist which would be sources of pride, not embarrassment.

Before I end, however, there is one more topic.

In reading the quote, my first inclination was to read the quote as I discussed above. Reading it again, I considered whether or not I might have read it wrong. Perhaps it is not the government itself. Maybe he is deploring the deeds necessary for men to achieve government office. Or perhaps the way in which government officials pander to the electorate. It seems an odd way to phrase such an objection, but as it is a possible reading, I should give it a moment's response.

And a moment is really all it takes, as the answer to any such objection, to complaints that politicians try to buy voters with gifts, or give speeches pandering to our base desires, is to point out that politicians are what we make them. ("What We Deserve", "Who Is To Blame?", "Don't Blame the Politicians") The political arena is a Darwinian environment, but in fast forward. Politicians adjust instantly to our wishes, those who do not are removed. Unlike the real world, where traits which are harmful (eg. Huntington's chorea) may persist, even the slightest deviation from the wishes of the public tends to bring about loss, as some rival will quickly exploit the opportunity. Similarly, in the real world traits which are neutral in an evolutionary sense, which neither help nor hurt, tend to remain, while in politics activities or beliefs which do not advance one's prospects tend to be, not neutral, but harmful, as the limited time available in a political campaign makes every moment important.

The point of all this is that there is nothing politicians do which is not the result of our own behaviors. If they regulate businesses it is because enough of us want them to do so. Likewise, if they eschew elaborate explanations for visceral, brief soundbites, it is because we show preference for them. So, while it may make us feel superior to look down upon politicians for pandering to the masses, recall we are part of those masses, and, unless we are so arrogant as to see everyone else as our inferiors, we have to admit politicians are as bad as they are because we make them that way.

As I said, I think that latter reading is far less likely than the former, but I thought I should deal with both. However, whichever reading you choose to accept, the fact remains that the quote itself is deserving of the designation "stupid quote of the day".

POSTSCRIPT

My quote today, and the one I intend to use tomorrow, came from the site "Libertarian Quotes", which contains a fairly representative sampling of quotes that represent the libertarian mindset. Actually, that is part of the reason I found some useful quotes there. Much as I agree with the basic premises of libertarianism, I also have trouble with many specifics, as well as the premises of various factions among the libertarians. (See "The Libertarian Left" and "Why Ron Paul Scares Me".) Not to mention that I have come to disagree with the entire premise of enforcing freedom from above, rather than creating an environment where freedom may eventually triumph ("Why I Am Not A Libertarian") Still, it is interesting that, while I found a number of foolish quotes, I also found many with which I agree completely, so I have to recognize that, while I have my problems with libertarianism ("Reticent To Adopt a Title", "A Possible Designation", "The Right Identity") I also share much of their outlook.

It is funny that my last post was an apology for a "slight delay". At the time, I thought I was just putting off writing until the next day. However, thanks to the gremlins which seem to be following me lately, I have been off line since that message. I am back on line at the moment, but have to work, so I am afraid I still won't be posting for a little while, but I do hope to write something tonight, so stay tuned, and, again, sorry for the silence.

I am afraid my quote for today may not be posted until tomorrow. While I wrote a decent amount today, I put off that particular essay, thinking I had plenty of time. As it turns out, I am rather busy tonight, so I think it will probably be tomorrow before I can post my daily stupid quote. My apologies to anyone expecting the post tonight.

I have recently been reading again an old on-line favorite. The book in question is "The Spy and His Masters". Strangely, the easiest place to find it is on sites critical of Scientology, as it was supposedly used as a text by Scientologists concerned with espionage against political enemies, as well as former church members. (I cannot vouch for the validity of any of this, I simply report what the various sites claim about the text.) As is stated on the title page to which the above link directs one, the book was published in England in1963. It is apparently written by an American intelligence agent, and from some internal mentions, it appears he may have been involved in intelligence, even in the days before the OSS was established.

The reason I mention this work, besides the fact that it is a good read, whatever its actual provenance, is that one chapter, dealing with the incredible bureaucratic oversight operating in the CIA, helps to make one point I have often mentioned. Please go read again my essays "Fear Driven Enterprises", "Bureaucratic Management and Self-Policing", "The Inevitability of Bureaucratic Management in Government Enterprises" and maybe others, and the read Chapter 3 of this work and tell me that my descriptions of the many weaknesses of bureaucracy are not incredibly close to the truth as described there.

Of course, it is no secret our intelligence agencies, along with our military and police forces, are saddled with the same bureaucratic tendencies that hobble our government and make state run enterprises so inefficient. The one salvation in many cases is that the operational wings of the military and intelligence, as well as the actual police force, tend to have results to which they can point, in some ways mitigating the bureaucratic forces. It is why, despite a largely bureaucratic management the military and police remain much more efficient than most government agencies. But, having read this work, I am a bit surprised to see how little relief the ability to point to results provides. It seems in truth I was a bit overly optimistic, and the bureaucracy in those agencies is worse than I had thought. (Having worked for the military two times as a contractor, I should have known better, but thought that bureaucracy was simply more prevalent as I worked once at the Pentagon -- center of the military bureaucracy -- and once in logistics, which can be somewhat bureaucratic even in profit making enterprises.)

I am thinking of revisiting the topic of bureaucracy again soon, so I won't go on, as this discovery will likely be part of that new essay. I just wanted to make mention of this, as it might be of interest to my regular readers.

POSTSCRIPT

The full list of my posts on bureaucracy is as follows:

The Bureaucratic Mind
Bureaucratic Management
The Inevitability of Bureaucratic Management in Government Enterprises
Organizations as Filters
Bureaucracy and Arbitrary Power
Somewhat Off-Topic Rants
Bureaucracy Revisited
How the Government Corrupts Relationships
Bureaucratic Management and Self-Policing
Inflexibility and Bureaucracy
In The Most Favorable Light
With Good Intentions
Grow or Die, The Inevitable Expansion of Everything
Fear Driven Enterprises
Adaptability and Government
The Wrong Solution to Bureaucracy
Best Practices and Resistance to Change, Bureaucracy and the Free Market
Stupid Quote of the Day (January 3, 2012)

There are a few other mentions of bureaucracy throughout my writing, but those are the essay that are most concerned with bureaucracy.

POSTSCRIPT II

There is nothing on this book in the English Wikipedia. There is a note on a mailing list suggesting one be dubious of the book, but the book clearly exists, as one can find it for sale on a few used book sites, so a physical book, independent of Scientology did exist. The German Wikipedia attributes the book to James G. McCargar, who the mailing list I mentioned earlier claimed was involved in covert operations against Albania at one time, so it is possible this book is exactly what is claimed, a memoir by a former intelligence agent. Then again, since conspiracy theories often propagate through the internet corrupting many sites, it is possible the book really exists, but the attribution is nonsense. It is hard to say, as the evidence simply isn't there, as far as I can tell.

I don't normally watch American Idol. At one time I would watch it sporadically, mostly for the audition episodes, and then to see how bad the acts could be, but at some point it just got boring, even the auditions,and I lost interest entirely. Which makes it odd that I recently watched two episodes of the most recent auditions. But, there was very little on television, and, though I could just turn the ting off, I was a bit drowsy, and so left it running while doing other things. And thus I ended up watching American idol.

And was a bit surprised to find how low it has fallen.

My mother and I always used to joke that you couldn't get on the show unless you had a sob story, but it seems the show has gone far beyond that. Now it seems not only is it required that you have some hard luck story, but the contest seems to rest more and more often on who has the worst of the hard luck stories. It is kind of a perversion  of the Horatio Alger story, one goes from rags to riches, but without the need for all that pesky striving in the middle, you just need to lay out the hardest of hard luck tales, and your history of suffering is enough on its own to bring you success.

I exaggerate, of course, there is still some contest involved, but the emphasis on hardships and stories of suffering really is getting quite absurd. I have yet to see a contestant who does not have some tale of woe, which the program then suggests somehow justifies their success.

Of course, that fits very well with our cultural beliefs. Our emphasis on victimhood, our desire to see ourselves as being the pawns of fate, rather than its master, all the things I find wrong with the modern word*.

Part of the problem is found in that tradition I already mentioned, the Horatio Alger rags to riches story, or perhaps we should call it the Abe Lincoln model, as so many tales arose about his deprived youth. It is a part of our cultural heritage, the stories of those who came from a hard background, who underwent great hardships, and still rose tot he top. However, those stories arose, not to emphasize the hardships, but to teach us about the opportunities all around us, and to tell us we could succeed even if we had great difficulties, if only we tried.

Now, the stories sound the same, but the emphasis has changed. Now it is not the struggle which matters, but the suffering. Instead of rising from our own efforts, we are the playthings of fate, and if we succeed, it is either through dumb luck, or because we were saved from our fates. And that is how the story has changed. We are no longer hearing of suffering in order to emphasize how much we can accomplish, the suffering is used to justify the later success. After all, success alone is a bad thing, a sign the individual was an exploiter, or at least just lucky, and got what they did not deserve. By making them suffer, we make them worthy of success.

If this is confused, I am sorry, but the story itself is a bit confused. Our modern world has not yet reached the point where they can tear down all success and write abominable proletarian literature as some extremists on the left once suggested. We still love our celebrities too much, and, despite our envy, we want to imagine we will be rich one day. So, to allow us those tales, we make the heroes poor, suffering stiffs, so our victim based ethics makes their eventual triumph justified. It is a confused view of the world, but ours is an age in transition, so it is inevitable.

And, unfortunately, American Idol, being on the forefront of pop culture, is a perfect expression of that confused ideology. It is a topic which certainly needs more examination, but for which I lack the time right now. But worry not, I wrote on this before, and shall again, I am sure. So, please hold on for a few more days, as I am certain I will write about this once again soon.

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

* There is an interesting article I stumbled upon which discusses the same change in attitude. I was surprised to find something so sensible in Psychology Today, but, there it is.

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

POSTSCRIPT

Some of my writing on our culture can be found in  "Cranky Old Man?", "Faux "Maturity"", "Catastrophic Thinking, The Political, Economic and Social Impact of Seeing History in the Superlative", "Pushing the Envelope", "I Blame the Romantics", "The Adoration of Youth", "In Defense of Standards", "Addenda to "In Defense of Standards"", "Deadly Cynicism", "Juvenile Intellectuals", "Trophy Spouses", "O Tempora! O Mores!, or, The High Cost of Supposed Freedom" and "Self-Serving Cynicism and Our Cultural Immaturity". There are many more, but these should provide more than enough links to find most of my thoughts on the topic.

I have been hard on Ron Paul("Why Ron Paul Scares Me", "Stupid Quote of the Day (January 5, 2012)", "Stupid Quotes of the Day (January 8, 2012)"), but, as I was writing my most recent criticism ("A Perfect Example"), it struck me that the quote in that post would also make a perfect stupid quote of the day. Not because I wish to attack Ron Paul one more time, but instead because I actually feel like defending him, and those who share some of his positions. Thus, I will here reproduce that quote, and take a good hard look at it:

Actually the FEMA camps started being built all over during the Bush Administration. Ron Paul has some good ideas and many old worn out and just plain crazy ideas. I certainly agree with some of them that make sense but he will not be elected for two reasons: He's too old and old fashioned looking back to the past 100 years and He doesn't face up to the reality of our enormous poverty situation here in our country. I can't understand how a doctor would allow millions of people to starve, live on the streets, die of diseases and basically without help or compassion. He hates big government but wants to be the head of it? What? So he can eliminate more jobs and destroy more lives? Like I said...I agree with bringing all our military home and some other things but our country needs real solutions for the reality we live in now; not way back during his generation. We need to carefully move forward; not backwards.

We will ignore here the part about ending our involvement overseas, as well as the loopiness about the FEMA camps, as those were already discussed in "A Perfect Example". Instead, I want to take a look at the main body of that quote, specifically the concept, which I hear quite often, that something about our "poverty situation" means that, were the government to stop aid to the poor, we would have mass starvation, plagues, homelessness and a host of other problems.

Let us start with a simple observation I have made repeatedly. If we have such rampant poverty, how can the government afford to waste resources on frivolities such as cell phones for the poor? ("Solving Problems We Created ") For that matter, how is that we have fat poor people? I know this sounds rude, but throughout much of the past, and still in many countries, poverty means malnutrition. Poverty means no housing or clothing. In our nation, poverty means too many fatty foods and many sets of clothing. Our poor are fed, housed, have clothes and cars and televisions. In other words, in the third world they would be at least middle class, if not rich. For that matter, if they went back to the middle ages, they would be equivalent to the richest of burghers. So, how can we say we have poverty? I don't say it is enjoyable being poor int he US, obviously given the choice I would have money rather than not, but if you must be supposedly poor, the US is definitely a better place than Sierra Leone or Papua New Guinea. And that is because what we have is relative poverty, that is, people who have less than their neighbors, but not real poverty. People are not starving in the streets or walking around in rags, they have clothes and food, just not as nice as the rest of us. But to call that poverty is absurd.

Perhaps it would help my argument if we looked at a time when there was much more poverty than today, during the great depression. Recall, the nation as a whole was much less wealthy then. Televisions were in their infancy, where they even existed, and computers were unknown. Radio was popular, but families likely owned only one, if that, as the transistor revolution and cheap mass produced radios were far in the future. Households which owned cars almost always owned only one. There were still vast regions which did not yet have electricity. Ice boxes were just that, boxes holding ice, some with electric fans, some without. In short, even the wealthy were much less wealthy, not to mention the poor. So when the crash came, and the hard times started, everyone began with much less, and so they need up much poorer than they would today.

And yet, even with that relatively impoverished beginning, even with the depression terribly prolonged, and made worse, by constant intervention ("What Is A Dollar?", "Stupid Quote of the Day (January 7, 2012)", "Explaining Past Crashes ", "The Inflation Engine", "War Stimulates the Economy? Let's Nuke San Francisco!"), the fact is, no one starved. ("Amusing "Truths""), no one walked about naked, we did not have deaths in the streets. And this was at a time when there was no great society, when social security was just starting, when there was none of the safety net which these supporters of the nanny state take for granted. And yet, starting much lower, falling much farther, and without any welfare of note, we all survived.

That is very important to recall whenever we hear people talk of starvation, plague and mass deaths should we do away with the welfare state. Unless they imagine we are going to somehow magically lose 90% or more of our wealth, and then decide to do nothing to better our lot, I just don't see how they expect their predictions to come about. People throughout the ages survived without a welfare state, and without deaths in the streets. In fact, looking through the ages, the worst poverty, the only eras which match their descriptions, were those times and places where tyrants held the people in slavery. And, oddly enough, it is the welfare state and its policies which make such slavery most likely ("The Right People, The Wrong People and "Just Plain Folks"", "Tyranny Without Tyrants", "A New Look At Intervention", "How the Government Corrupts Relationships"). And so, in the end, the best safeguard against poverty and starvation is to eliminate just those programs they say we should keep. ("Subsidizing Irresponsibility and Poor Planning ")

I have to apologize in advance. Today was rather busy. I am wrapping that up now, but I have some personal matters to which I must attend, so I don't know how much writing I will be doing tonight. I started on two other essays during slow moments, but neither one seemed worth completing once I wrote a bit, so most likely, if I do write, it will only be to write my usual "Stupid Quote" installment. If later I decide one of the two posts is worth finishing (though I doubt I will, as both were a bit weak to begin with, and became more muddled as they went along), I may do that as well, but most likely there will be nothing but my quote today. Hopefully that will be completed by midnight, but if it is a bit late, accept my apologies as well.