It is a topic I have addressed a few times, but it is one I think we get wrong often enough that it should be repeated regularly. And that topic is, for lack of a better description, the proper attitude toward government. There are clearly any number of ways one can look at government. Liberals tend to see government as a Swiss Army Knife, capable of solving almost any problem, endlessly versatile. Really far left liberals see government as a combination warden and therapist, saving us from all those evil exploiters and protecting us from ourselves at the same time. The authoritarians supposedly on the right (though I disagree -- "The Political Spectrum") tend to share this view, though some go even farther and see government in some Hegelian sense, as an end in itself, bigger, better and more important than those individuals of which it consists. Communists have a similar perspective, though they substitute pseudo-scientific historical processes for mystical Hegelian weltgeister.

On the opposite end, conservatives tend to see government in negative terms. "Necessary evil" is the most common description, along with a host of other negative quotes, such as equating the power to tax with the power to destroy. They will sometimes admit to some grudging admiration, praise the Constitution as a brilliant creation, but usually only in terms of the way in which it restrains government. It is somewhat paradoxical, but conservatives seem only able to praise the state when it is designed in such a way as to trip over its own feet. Libertarians, both the traditional and the isolationist, near anarchic fringe types I dubbed the "libertarian left", tend to have a similar set of beliefs, only more so, with many dropping the "necessary" from "necessary evil" and suggesting we could somehow live without a state at all. ("The State of Nature and Man's Rights") Often their plans involve some sort of collective agreements, some sort of communal standards, and, in the end, basically amount to sneaking in government through the back door, calling it by another name. Still, regardless of their inconsistencies, they are united in denouncing government as harmful and dangerous.

In the middle, among the average folks who don't spend much time thinking about the government, who don't read political essays, vote irregularly, and generally live apolitical lives, the attitude seems to be a combination of the two, inconsistent, incompatible, constantly shifting emphasis. When they think of  the state abstractly, they tend to think well of it, seeing the state as police and armies and highways, the things the state provides that benefit them. And, because of this, they are sometimes prone to accepting a little bit of the Swiss Army Knife perspective. But only a little. And that is because of the flip side. When they actually have to deal with the government, and for some time afterward, they tend to think of the state in terms of bureaucracy, inefficiency and aggravation, and thus tend to move toward the "necessary evil" end of the spectrum. Which is why the moderates seem to swing back and forth between the two extremes. When times are good and people have few dealings with the state, they are willing to allow more government, to offer to help others, or to allow some regulation for the good of all (at least that is the supposed aim). But those very measures end up increasing the amount of government intrusion, and the number of times they have to deal with the state, which tends to push them in the opposite direction. There are other mechanisms working as well, but this simple shift of perspective explains a lot of what is inspires many to describe public opinion as a pendulum.

That is not my purpose today, however. I do not want to discuss public perceptions of the state, or even the perspectives of the various factions. Instead, I want to discuss, for lack of a better description, what is the proper perspective. I know that sounds a bit arrogant, but then again, all persuasive essays are. And in this case, there is a very good reason for arguing for a specific perspective. As I have shown many times before, it is their boundless faith in the state, and their lack of confidence in their fellow man, that explains everything about liberalism, and other authoritarian beliefs. ("The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism", "Liberalism, Its Origins and Consequences",  "Our View of Our Fellow Citizens", "Those Other People", "Seeing People As Stupid", "Arrogance and Gun Control", "Appealing to Arrogance", "The Intellectual Elite", "The Essence of Liberalism", "Bad Arguments", "So Very Special") And, though I have discussed it less, there is a similar consequence to the belief that the government is evil, necessary or otherwise. ("War As Last Resort", "O Tempora! O Mores!, or, The High Cost of Supposed Freedom", "Politics as a Suicide Pact") With both of those perspectives having consequences, it stands to reason that other perspectives would as well, be they shadings of perspective between those two, or something else entirely, the way one views the state will influence how he acts, what powers he allows the state, what goals he assigns to the political system and the entire gamut of political decisions. And so, if we accept that there is a proper function for the state, that there is a proper way to arrange our government, and so on, then it follows that there is a proper way to view the state, the one which is consistent with our other beliefs.

Actually, in a way, the answer is simple, as the proper perspective is the one which sees a properly run state and recognizes it as such, or which recognizes the failings in a mismanaged state. However, that is a bit of a cop out, as there is more to one's perspective than simply the ability to see things as they are. We must also have a perspective which drives us to wish to make the state function in the proper way, or at least avoid the many harmful forms of improper government. So, though we might be able to start from this simple description, there is much more to it than there seems. As I shall show right now.

Those who describe the state as a necessary evil often believe this perspective is what I have described. They attribute the Constitution to a strong awareness of the many potential abuses of government, for example, they see the Bill of Rights as a means to avoid the worst abuses. Those who think about this more than most even argue that the view of the state as a necessary evil works as a counterbalance to the liberal perspective, seeing the state in this way prevents one form turning first to the state when trying to resolve problems, and certainly makes them less inclined to grant the state near limitless power as do many who believe in the benevolence and effectiveness of government.

And they are right, or partly so. Their perspective is certainly closer to the truth, and much closer to the proper point of view, than that on the other end of the spectrum. There is definite benefit in recognizing the potential for abuse, the ways in which state power tends to grow unless checked, and the many incentives for those in power to seek to expand their authority*. On the other hand, they err in making this recognition the whole of their philosophy. While they praise the drafters of the Constitution for their brilliance in crafting many ways to restrain state power, they overlook the other facet of the Constitution, that it also seeks to establish a functional, helpful government. It was drafted because its even more limited predecessor proved unworkable. And so, though many see the Constitution entirely in terms of limits on power, it actually represents an extension of power beyond that granted in the Articles of Confederation.

But the best argument against this position is not that it avoids some very important considerations (though that is significant, as I will show shortly), but the consequences of holding this view, especially when taken to its logical extreme.

Fortunately, we do not need to indulge in hypothetical cases or models in order to see the consequences of this belief, we can simply look at the aforementioned libertarians, especially their most extreme fringe. As you can see, the problem is, once you say government is evil, even necessary evil, you begin to fear the state. Granted, most begin by remembering the state is something essential, but with so much focus on the evil, on the potential harm the state can do, they begin to slowly forget that fact. If the state is evil, if it is inevitable it will be abused, do harm, grow out of control and so on, then what is our best plan? It is not only to give the state as little power as possible, but to pare back what we do give it until we have left it nothing but the essentials. However, when one begins down this road, it is very easy to argue that any power is not necessary, or that we get more harm than benefit. With this fear of the state foremost in one's mind, it is quite easy to make every judgment call fall on the side of less government.

To a degree, this is a good plan, but only to a point. And, unfortunately, when one sees the state as nothing but a necessary evil, there is no way to define where that point might be. As I have argued elsewhere ("Inescapable Logic", "Pyrrhic Victories", "Damn the Torpedoes!", "You Lose When You Think You Win"), whoever holds a view most consistently will win out in the end, and, in this case, the most consistent application of the belief in the evil of government is that of the anarchists. So long as one sees the state as evil alone, then one must grant the anarchist arguments, or risk contradicting himself. Which means, over time, this belief leads one to either embrace anarchist beliefs, or else abandon the necessary evil perspective and take a different approach, often one even worse**.

What the necessary evil perspective misses is that government is not only "necessary", but that it can be positively beneficial. Government is a tool, and like all tools, it can be used to solve problems. When used properly, for a problem for which it is suited, it produces fine results. When used for problems for which it was not designed, or when used improperly, it produces bad results, or even does more harm than good. That is precisely what we need to bear in mind.

Why should we bother? What is the difference if we see government as a necessary evil or as a tool which can be abused? Perhaps a few examples will help.

The first concerns taxes. If we think of taxes only in terms of the power to tax being the power to destroy, or see them as something harmful which  we should be loathe to assess, then we can produce dangerous results. The taking of taxes prevents them from being applied to the uses we had originally intended for that money. It is easy to see that and imagine it is harmful. Money taken in taxes cannot be spent on investment, or consumption, but is instead diverted tot he state. However, that is true of every use of money. Money we spend on food is not available for anything else, the same for money spent on our children. Yet we do not call eating or children evil or harmful. The problem is, because we fear government and are so used to seeing taxes only in terms of overspending, we cannot recognize that some uses of tax money can produce a benefit greater than that to which we would otherwise put the money. Money that provides police and military, protecting us from harm, can easily provide more benefit (though we may not always recognize it) than the consumption or investment to which that money would have gone. But to recognize this truth, we must abandon the perspective seeing the state as an evil, and taxes as always negative. We need to view the state as a means of obtain certain benefits, and taxes as the money necessary for that tool to function, then we can honestly perform cost-benefit analysis and decide whether or not taxes were beneficial for us.

Or let us look at the question of police. I have written many times about how at one time police were viewed as benevolent figures, and were the sole embodiment of government most people encountered in everyday life. Today, thanks to our rampant suspicion of government, both from the left wing fear of police and adoration of "outsiders", and from the right's fear of government power in general, we tend to see police in terms of opposition. The right might pay lip service to respecting police and supporting law and order, but they show a different attitude when it comes to specific cases, especially when dealing with federal law enforcement. Granted, the right tends to be less hostile, but that is because their beliefs are less consistent, which also means the left will win when it comes to debating matters relating to police.

What makes this interesting is that it causes endless problems that need not exist. By creating an atmosphere in which police are suspect, it tends to sap morale among police, it makes it harder to recruit good people, and to retain those we find. It tends to create an "us vs them" attitude among both police and the public which can actually result in more problems, and which encourages the police to be more secretive than necessary, as well as creating a siege mentality which encourages police to hide misdeeds among their ranks they otherwise would not tolerate. And finally, it creates a lack of respect for the law, and law enforcement, which actively encourages petty criminality.

What makes this all so troubling is that many of the problems with law enforcement come, not from police, but from the laws themselves. When the law becomes more arbitrary, and judgement calls more common, more and more corruption becomes possible. ("Transparency, Corruption and Reform") When the laws are minimal and well defined, there is still room for corruption, but much less for the sort of systematic corruption which tends to be the largest problem. Thus, we create the bad situation through our misapplication of government, and then blame government for the failing, and allow our fear of government to turn us against the police officer, when the real problem is that we have applied government in the wrong way.

But, as we have convinced ourselves government is a necessary evil, and will always produce corruption, when we are certain power will always be abused, we do not expect any better, and imagine there is no cure, and so we do not look for a cure, instead taking a path that just makes things worse. Not is this true only of the police, our attitude toward politicians tends to have many similar features. ("The Presumption of Dishonesty", "Don't Blame the Politicians", "Doing Something", "The Single Greatest Weakness", "Self-Serving Cynicism and Our Cultural Immaturity") When we expect corruption, dishonesty and criminality from politicians, imagine it an inherent part of the system, then we tend to get what we want, and worse, and our attitudes tend to produce the apathy which allows those problems to continue***.

All of which is why I argued before, and continue to do so now, that we must view government, not as a necessary evil, and certainly not as a panacea, but instead as a tool, which can be applied improperly, and which, when applied properly or improperly, can sometimes experience unwarranted growth or extension of power. Which means we should not fear the state, but we should be wary. We should limit the state to protecting us from force, theft and fraud, and nothing more, and even then, whenever there is a proposal for a new measure,w e should be wary lest we grant the state excessive power, or power so ill defined that it can be abused. But we should not fear the state, or assume it will always abuse the power granted. That will lead us to making the wrong choices more often than not.


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

* It is not necessary to postulate bad or corrupt officials for this to be true. In fact, the emphasis on the quality of office holders as a means of making government work properly is a bit frightening, as eventually every state will elect someone not quite right. Any state which cannot withstand a bad office holder is doomed. ("The Right People, The Wrong People and "Just Plain Folks"") But, as I said, power will expand, regardless of the morality of the office holder, if only because office holders believe they know the answers, and so, to help others with those answers, they seek ever more power, to reach more people. ("Grow or Die, The Inevitable Expansion of Everything", "In The Most Favorable Light", "With Good Intentions", "Tyranny Without Tyrants", "The Difficulty of Principle") It is akin to the tendency to seek laws favoring one's reelection. It does not necessarily mean one is corrupt. If I believe I am going to save the world, I would want to be reelected, not for my benefit, but to do the good I think I can. Many places in government, what we ascribe to base motives can also come about from the highest motives, which is why checking power is so important. Though, as I shall argue, not the only important goal.

** This is why so many conservatives end up abandoning this perspective for either simple traditionalism, embracing all that is old because it is old, or some variant on authoritarianism, some of which call themselves paleoconservatism or social conservatism. Of course, many others, balking at accepting the anarchist conclusions of this belief, simply abandon theoretical approaches entirely, embracing a variant of "whatever works", which is both a dangerous belief to hold and a weak position on which to base one's arguments when debating against the left. ( "The Shortcomings of Pragmatism", "Pragmatism Revisited", "Pragmatism Revistied, Again", "The Plural of Anecdote is Not Data", "Rules of Grammar and Pragmatism", "The Problem of the Small Picture", "Keyhole Thinking", "Impractical Pragmatists", "The Lunacy of "Common Sense"", ""Seems About Right", Another Lesson in Common Sense and Its Futility", "A Look at Common Sense", "Res Ipsa Loquitur") Whatever else they might be, the left is replete with intellectual justifications for their theories, making anti-intellectual pragmatism sound even more hollow, which helps those on the left claim to carry the mantle of the educated, despite basing their beliefs on an arrogant, largely emotional theory -- albeit one concealed by a mountain of pseudo-intellectual theories.

*** I know I said some of the abuses of government are unavoidable, and that is true. Power tends to grow and people seek greater scope for their authority, but that is very different from corruption of this sort. Most of our worst problems arise from the fact that we gave too much power int he first place, or defined rules so loosely abuse was inevitable.

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

POSTSCRIPT

This explains why I favor a distributed, federalist system. ("The Benefits of Federalism", "Concentrated and Diffuse Power") When power is widely scattered, with many small units exercising control over a very few people and a very small area, abuses tend to be very difficult to create, and are easily spotted. And since moving a very short distance can put one beyond the reach of a given abuse, the abuses also tend to be easily remedied as well. It is not perfect, abuses can still take place, even severe abuses, but it does tend to help us keep the proper perspective on the state when we can see government working properly in so many cases, and failing in but a few.

I mentioned before that I have recently had a run in with the IRS("Your Tax Dollars Hard At Work"), and as a result I have recently been thinking once more about capital gains taxes. And not just capital gains taxes, but all taxation, individual and corporate, as well as fees, duties and the rest. Basically, as I thought of the problems with capital gains taxation, it struck me that almost everything about our tax system is designed to produce incentives to act in ways we would not desire, but that few seem to recognize this. Worse, the few systems of taxation that are fair, or would produce fair outcomes, are often declared off limits for one reason or another.

Let us start with capital gains. There are any number of problems with this system, but let us point out the most obvious. When you earn money on investments, it is not just income, but income treated with an additional tax. However, when you lose money, it is simply an offset against income (if it can be claimed at all). In other words, you receive for a loss much less of a write off than you are penalized for earning. And that is doubly foolish, as we constantly hear how Americans do not save or invest enough (though I sometimes argue with this perception -- "Debt", "To Correct Debra Saunders", "Nation of Debtors", "Morris Gets His Economics Wrong Again" [Language filters once allowed his first name, but now I must delete it]),  yet this tax scheme is designed precisely to discourage investment and savings, by penalizing those who do so successfully.

Then again, the entire system seems designed to penalize success. The progressive income tax, for example, is designed in such a way that increasing one's earning can produce much less proportional increases in income, and, at some points, can even produce a net loss. In the long run, this serves as an incentive against increasing earnings at certain points, and generally discourages people from putting in effort to obtain additional income, or at least putting in as much effort as they would were they to be taxed at a flat rate.

Of course, the problem becomes more severe at the other end. With progressive tax, deductions and the like, many people end up paying no tax, which means there are a significant number of voters who have no reason to oppose any government spending or taxes, as they know they will not be touched. (Actually, the economic consequences will touch them, but our general lack of economic understanding means most of us never consider that effect of taxes.)

A similar problem to capital gains is brought about by death taxes. Of course, for those with even a modest estate, the subterfuge of a trust is always available, as is the option of giving away one's assets while alive. But, for those unwilling or unable to avail themselves of this option, the death duties end up doing little more than confiscating accumulations of wealth, breaking up family businesses, and depriving some of money that could be invested or saved, and thus used to fund business expansion or new ventures. ("The Benefits of Inequalities of Wealth", "A Great Quote", "Envy Kills II", "The "Lucky" Rich")

Then there are corporate taxes, which are quite pleasing to populists as they strike at evil corporations. However, when viewed realistically, they do nothing of the kind. Corporations are, despite the legal claims, not people, and do not pay taxes. The taxes are paid, not by corporations, but by the customers, in terms of increased prices, and by the owners, who, often, are not "fat cats" and "plutocrats", but those owning 401ks, or life insurance, or union pension funds, or bond holders. They end up paying much of the tax. But not just them, and not just customers. by taking away profits that could expand ventures, corporate taxes also end up stopping investment and decreasing pay, meaning that current workers, and potential new hires also suffer. The taxes strike all across the board. And worse still, they strike in random and unpredictable ways. By applying a tax which is then distributed by uncontrolled processes, we effectively apply a tax randomly.

And that is my complaint with the many fees , duties, fines and the like used as substitute taxes. They too often end up being passed along by those who supposedly pay, and thus become random taxes as well, being passe don to customers, to employees, to investors and others, all in an unpredictable manner.

Which brings me to sales taxes ("The Failings of Sales Taxes"). I know this plan enjoys new popularity thanks to the FairTax crowd, but I have many concerns with that scheme. ("The FairTax's Liberal Assumptions", "An Interesting Analogy, "Why I Dislike the FairTax ", "The Best Argument Against the FairTax ", "Truths About Taxation", "A Partial Reply to yt_knight", "The VAT Versus The FairTax", "What we need", "Making Taxes Hurt", "The FairTax's Liberal Assumptions") Even if I didn't, sales taxes are hardly a good system. While I complained about the progressive tax being a bad idea, the sales tax is a regressive tax, which is just a sbad. Because the poor consume a greater percentage of their income, they end up paying more taxes, per dollar earned, than other groups, which is unlikely to produce a happy electorate. I know the FairTax booster argue you can control spending and thus control your taxes, but that is like saying you can avoid income taxes by choosing not to work, a suggestion that shows how out of touch many of them are. When a tax is imposed that strikes the poor so much more than others, all such excuses will mean nothing, and a nationwide, substantial sales tax will be a polarizing, dangerous proposal.

So, what taxes make sense?

First, let me say ideally I would like to see taxes collected by states, which would then fund the federal government, as the constitution requires. This would allow for multiple systems of taxation, as well as making the states interested in decreasing federal spending to keep more tax money at home. ("What we need", "Minimal Reforms") However, that plan is unlikely to come about soon, and so, as a compromise, I will now look at federal systems that are improvements upon what we now have*.

The most obvious solution, because it would require the fewest changes and thus create the least disruption, would be moving to a flat tax, and, not only a flat tax, but a flat tax as the single source of income. Under this system, the government would estimate taxable income for the coming year, apply a small margin for error and failure to collect, and then describe expenditures as a percentage of that income. All individuals would have to pay that percentage of all they earned, from a nickel to a hundred billion dollars, all without exemptions, deduction, everything. The tax would be assessed against all income, and everyone, from the poorest to richest would have to pay their share.

This would be beneficial in two ways. First, it would mean no one would be exempt from taxes and thus uninterested in fiscal responsibility. Everyone would have to concern themselves with spending. Second, by eliminating all deductions, it would stop taxes from being a tool of social policy and, at the same time, simplify taxes considerably. Lastly, if we changed from a  withholding system to demanding quarterly or yearly payment, as I often propose ("If we must...", "Making Taxes Hurt"), it would also make the amount of taxes we all pay quite obvious and may make fiscal responsibility a major election issue once more.

Another alternative strikes me as even more fair, though it is one alternative that is pretty much off limits in tax debate. Many suggest the flat tax is fair, but I beg to differ. The benefits we receive from government are not proportional to our income. We all get the same benefits from police and army and voting regardless of income And thus, a much more fair system would be to take the yearly costs and divide by the number of adult citizens, and then ask each to pay their share. Obviously, this might be a problem for the indigent, but then again, perhaps that would be an incentive for liberals to spend less, so as to put less of a burden on the working (and non-working) poor.

Of course, some will argue that the rich receive more benefit from police as they have more to protect, and thus say my proposal is still unfair. I would counter by arguing that a rich man suffers less from a burglary than a poor man, not to mention that the poor are more likely to suffer break ins and street crime, and thus the poor should actually pay somewhat more. But even with that argument, I think this per capita tax is unlikely to ever be proposed. Fair as it is, it is unlikely to win sufficient votes, mostly because of the problems of figuring out what to do with those unable to pay, as well as the many who would consider it heartless.

Which brings me back to the flat tax. If we are unable to return to state taxes, and cannot apply a tax per capita, the best alternative is the flat tax paid on a quarterly or yearly basis. Without other taxes, without deductions, it would both ensure everyone paid their share of taxes, and would make everyone feel the true burden of taxes. All without the additional negatives of most of our current tax schemes, or the even worse consequences of inflationary financing.

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

* Ideally, taxes would be voluntary, in one way or another, but that is a tricky proposal and has many risks. Since it would probably prove difficult, if not impossible, in practice, while I mention voluntary taxes as an ideal, I recognize that it is unlikely we will ever eliminate some form of involuntary taxation. (One possibility would be a yearly bill, presented to every citizen, payment of which would be required to vote, to file suit in civil court, and to otherwise make use of any government services besides police and military protection. But this idea would need to be examined in more detail, which I shall do in the near future in another post.)

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

POSTSCRIPT

This essay is meant to be nothing but a quick survey of a topic I hope to address in much greater detail very soon. I have long been thinking about examining the many issues surrounding taxation. Thus I wrote this to give a general outline to the essay I shall write in a few days.

I have written many times about the two types of compromise, compromise on principles and compromise over legislation ( "Inescapable Logic", "Defending Freedom?", "Why We Lose", "Giving Away the Game", "The Single Greatest Weakness",  "What We Deserve", "What is Wrong with Us", "Pyrrhic Victories", "Who Is To Blame?", "Don't Blame the Politicians", "The Difficulty of Principle", "Damn the Torpedoes!", "You Lose When You Think You Win"), and the necessity for the second, the absence of which can lead groups to self-destruct. ("Cigarettes, Sudan and Abortion") However, recently I have been given yet another perfect example of this principle, and so decided to examine this one more time.

First, let me make clear what compromise is dangerous and what is necessary. As this suggests, there are two types of compromise, which I shall all compromise of principles and compromise of practice.

The first is when one is willing to give up some of his principles and embrace belief with which he does not agree. For example, when a free market believer, despite his belief in the benefits of unrestricted commerce, begins to argue that some regulation is needed to correct imperfections in the market. This is the dangerous form of compromise. The problem here is, as I have often said, once you accept a principle, even in a very limited way, you have conceded victory to the entire philosophy underlying it, as, in arguments, those holding the most consistent beliefs wins. Thus, the "maverick" conservative  who allows some concessions to regulation effectively gives victory to those who seek total government regimentation, as the basis for full control is the same as for limited regulation, and once he accepts one, he implicitly accept the other.

On the other hand, there is a second form of concession, which many confuse with the first, but which is not only not harmful, but actually necessary in all but the most single-minded of popularly elected governments. And that is a compromise over practices rather than principles. In the first case, one might say that some regulation is needed to correct imbalances or avoid excesses of greed. In other words, he admits the propriety of opposing positions. In the second form of compromise, one does not admit the validity of an opposing position, but instead accepts that he must allow for some opposing rules, while still denying their validity. In this case, one doe snot say regulations are needed, but instead says that regulations are unavoidable, at least if he wants to get other, better, measures passed, and so he accepts laws, even if he disagrees with them.

Unfortunately, in modern times, the distinction between the two has been lost for many, and many oppose either form of compromising, adopting an "all or nothing" political philosophy, and thus manage to make themselves politically irrelevant by adopting what they think is a principled position.

The truth is, without compromise, popular government is impossible. Unless you have a majority so large that vetoes are impossible, and so single-minded that there will never be internal dissent, you need to compromise from time to time. It is how laws are passed which the opposition may dislike, because in the process they also receive something they want, which you may dislike.

This first came up on this blog in 2008, when the idea of "winning by losing"* began to appear. ("Winning By Losing? Not A Chance!") This was a foolish belief that, since McCain was insufficiently conservative, we would be better off allowing a liberal to be voted in, to drive conservatives to the right by letting them experience the horrors of true liberalism. The logic sounded good, at least so long as you accepted the premises of the proponents, but once you thought it through, the problems became apparent. First, there is the dubious assumption that losing to a liberal Democrat would convince Republicans they need to be more conservative.  Historically, when a liberal wins, the assumption is that the voters are moving leftward and Republicans need to be more centrist, not more conservative, meaning letting a liberal win could rive the party left, not right. Second, the assumption is also made that four years of presidency will not provide a significant advantage in the subsequent election which could more than make up for the Republicans driven tot he right. Third, it assumes that the moderate voters, who are often more conservative than they appear, but who also often can be driven to vote left by rhetoric about "arch-conservatives", will not be driven away by a rightward move, and lost in greater numbers than conservatives will be picked up.

And finally, and most importantly, it assumes that an insufficiently conservative candidate will remain so for four years, showing no changes in beliefs or practices, with no shifts in policy. As I argued about McCain, he might only be 20% right, but Obama is 0% right, and 20% of 4 years is an awful lot of legislation. Not to mention that, once elected, McCain could have expected the Democrats to oppose him on everything, even liberal positions, just on party principle. Which would mean two things. First, McCain would find no way to follow his more liberal inclinations, as conservatives would oppose him and his Democrat support would vanish because of factionalism. Second, for those policies he might get through, he would need conservative support, which would provide leverage for more conservative elements to move him rightward. All of which would mean that in opposing him, conservatives not only risked driving their own party left, but also lost out on a great potential to turn a weak conservative into a much stronger one.

I mention this because of a silly comment on one of my articles.

One of the Idiot Twins was trying to get a rise out of me by rambling on about Reagan raising taxes, and calling him a liberal. I explained that my beliefs have nothing to do with Reagan, and that his actions, for good or ill, did not change my beliefs, nor did I suffer unduly from finding that he was flawed, as I assume all human beings are.

However, I also decided to clarify something for my simpleminded admirers, and pointed out that taxation is not always an ill. As expected, they immediately adopted a pompous, holier-than-thou tone, decrying my statement as the "new face of conservatism" and otherwise implying I was somehow insufficiently conservative.

Which reminded me of the importance of compromise. You see, taxation is generally undesirable, but it is not an absolute evil. First of all, though many forget it**, some revenue is needed to run government and thus some amount of taxation is not only necessary but a positive good, by providing benefits far out of proportion to costs. Second, there are times when taxation is unavoidable, even what could be called excessive taxation. For example, during times of war, a nation may need funds for its defense, and to raise such funds by taxation is hardly wrong. Likewise, a state which mismanagement has driven into bankruptcy may, for a time, combine high taxes and strong austerity measures to restore economic stability. It can be painful, but the long term benefits more than outweigh the costs***.

And that was my point in my statement. I argued that if the government would not stop spending, then honest, open taxation, or borrowing through open, direct sales of bonds, was much better than inflation, as either alternative did much less economic harm. In addition, by making the amount being spent more obvious to citizens, it made it easier for them to judge realistically whether or  not they thought the government was providing services worth the amount they paid in taxes****, making it far more likely that, at some point, pressure would increase to reduce spending and taxes.

This is the perfect example of a proper compromise. I am neither admitting the propriety of high taxes, nor of big government and the required spending. What I am doing is accepting that, for the present, there is no likelihood of reducing the scope of government, nor spending less to fund it. So, to avoid the massive economic harm done by inflation, and deny the state the chance to hide expenditures through inflation, I would rather compromise and ask the state openly tax or borrow the funds.

The important point here is that we are not saying that taxation for excessive government spending is proper, or that such spending is the proper role of government. What we are saying is, that we cannot presently stop such spending, and given the choice between openly taking the money in taxes, or indirectly taxing through monetary inflation, and all the attendant damage that does to the economy, we choose taxation, as the less harmful solution until such a time as we can resolve the bigger issue.

As many would call this "selling out", let us take a different approach, and apply the "take no prisoners", "no compromise" approach of those who invented "winning by losing" and apply it to a less political fields. let us say, medicine.

Medicine is, for lack of a better description, all about compromise. We will never beat death, we will never find any action which is entirely beneficial. All actions we take provide some benefits and some harm, in terms of health. And thus, all of medicine is about compromise, choosing the course which best achieves the goals the patient desires.

However, let us apply the all or nothing thought process to medicine.

The first thing we notice is that antibiotics are out. While they do kill germs, antibiotics, as the name suggests, do harm to all organic tissue. Thus, while they might cure an ailment, they will also do harm to the patient, and, since compromise is not allowed, anything which is not purely beneficial is out.

And so chemotherapy is also out, as it targets fast growing cells (in most cases), making it very good at destroying cancer, but also making it harm other types of cells, such as bone marrow. We must also eliminate surgery, as it not only involves the direct harm of cutting, but also increases the chances of infection, and does countless other harmful things.

I could go on, but I think I made my point.

Of course, many will argue my example is absurd, that they know medicine is about cost and benefits, but politics is different, it is about principles, and we must be firm, must not allow any evil. But that is absurd. Politics is a tool, as is medicine. The government exists to perform a function, and thus government too is about costs and benefits.

Nor is it right to talk about practical matters as if they were unprincipled. medicine rests on principles and politics is practical, both describe everything we do. We have principles to allow us to understand how things work, and what we must do to achieve ends. We then must balance our needs and desires against the realities that confront us and choose how best to reach the best end result we can. Whether politics or medicine or cooking or driving or child rearing, all fit that model. And in all, we must either choose to balance costs and benefits, or else face the fact that we will be unable to act.

Yet somehow, whenever I say this, even relatively sane people, people who are otherwise far from extreme, accuse me of relativism, of selling out and so on. However, I think the description more true of them than me. I keep my principles, just as they do. However, I allow that we may sometimes have to compromise on the application in order to get what we want. On the other hand, they insist on all or nothing, and, since they will never get all, they render themselves politically impotent.

So, who is more of a "sell out", he who is so concerned with not being seen to betray his principles that he achieves nothing, or one who holds to his principles, but compromises concerning practice and gets some part of his goals? Is it better to remain "pure" and impotent, or to be seen as sullied by extremists and get things done?
 
===================================================================================

* The other popular phrase was "tired of voting for the lesser of two evils" or "the lesser of two evils is still evil." In response to which I pointed out that refusing to vote did not mean no one would win, there would still be a president. And if we reject the lesser of two evils, the we get the greater, which seems an odd choice to willingly make. ("The Need for Realism", "A Problem With Certain Conservatives")

** We often seem trapped by pithy quotes. The "necessary evil" quotes about government have misled us into thinking government is evil, rather than a tool which is often misapplied. (See "War As Last Resort", "O Tempora! O Mores!, or, The High Cost of Supposed Freedom" and "Politics as a Suicide Pact") Likewise, the quotes about power of taxation being the power to destroy has blinded us tot he fact that some amount of taxation is beneficial, providing as it does needed government. Taxes are only harmful when applied excessively. Unless one ascribes to a foolish neo-anarchist scheme. ("The State of Nature and Man's Rights")

*** I have debated from time to time the relative benefit of paying down national debt versus the costs of repudiating them. Repudiation obviously brings about serious short term harm, but also makes it much harder to run up similar debts int eh future, while paying down the debt is much better for owners of the debt, but takes a considerable period during which the economy will suffer from a sluggish pace. But that is way off topic in this essay, so it shall need to be examined in another post, at another time.

**** In addition, when the tremendous cost of government is more obvious, it becomes more likely individuals will blame economic slow downs, a lack of investment and other ills on the state, where they rightly belong.

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

POSTSCRIPT

It is funny. Most moderate and even somewhat conservative conservatives accuse me of extremism when I oppose, say, public schooling, or drug laws, or medical licensing. And yet the extremists accuse me of being a socialist because I believe in a government and an army. And then, should I admit I know I won't get everything I want all at once, and propose accomplishing it piece by piece, both sides come together and accuse me of relativism and selling out. Some days it seems hardly worth the effort. We on the right (and those on the left, too) have become so obsessed with appearing pure that we can no longer accomplish anything. No wonder the slimy, belief-free career politicians run everything, those with nay beliefs are too busy tearing one another apart, accusing each other of not being sufficiently orthodox.

I know it has become "common knowledge" that a space object colliding with Earth wiped out the dinosaurs, but am I the only one who recalls that at one time there was considerable opposition, many of whom pointed out that the "sudden" extinction took, in the case of many species, a million years or more, hardly the pace of change a catastrophic event would have caused. Actually, I should correct myself. these opponents still exist, it is just that the media-friendly disaster story, tying in as it does to the causes of the day (AGW today, nuclear winter -- a favorite of disarmament and anti-nuclear power groups -- when first proposed), and dramatic enough to create simple, easily understood images, is the only one the public hears any longer.

I ask this because I happened to stumble upon yet another "disaster" tale, and this one is even more ludicrous, as there is so little evidence. In this case, a tree ring expert noted cooling in 540, which likely was related to many of the disasters of that time --plague, famine, and so on -- and decided it must have been from a comet, because of reports of increased meteoric activity. Of course, not to be outdone, other experts have decided it must have been a "mega-volcano".

Are we so dedicated to AGW, and the myth that only disastrous events can change weather, that we cannot imagine that sudden changes in climate can come about naturally? Without disaster? I am not saying another cause is impossible, but form what I have read there is little enough evidence for any disaster, yet people keep looking. Why? Is it not quite plausible that normal changes, which can swing temperatures tens of degrees in a year, could change it a few degrees more? Why could it not be sun spot cycles? Atmospheric events? Any of a dozen other small normal processes about which we are unaware since detailed climate, atmospheric and astronomic data covers only a very few years of our history?

In short, confronted with a total lack of knowledge, why assume a change must be due to a disaster? Why not admit we simply don't know?

Well, I can answer the last. As with the (until recently universal) denial that the Little Ice Age took place, admitting that climate changes on its own, without disasters, can lead some to ask if current temperature shifts (if they even exist, as the trend evidence is rather shaky) might be due to natural processes and not AGW. And that is not allowed, as at least one university scandal has shown.

POSTSCRIPT

I do agree there have been disasters which have changed the climate, I am not denying that impacts from space and large volcanic eruptions can cause changes, it is well documented, and in the case of volcanic activity in recent times.  But it is bad reasoning to assume any dramatic change comes form such causes. that is akin to seeing two people get shot and die and then assuming that everyone who dies must have been shot. Dramatic events can change the climate, but every climate change does not come from dramatic events.

I would also like to point out I am not denying the possibility of a collision with an asteroid playing a role in extinctions. Of course, much of the "evidence" used in pop science is simply proof there was an impact, or large scale volcanism, it does not prove that that played a role in extinctions. To continue my shooting analogy, even if you find a shell casing nearby, it still doesn't prove every dead body was shot.

What I wanted to point out is that this theory is far from certain and that the opposition I remember being so strong in the 1970's and 1980's still exists. It is only the popular media which has decided the question is settled. Which amazes me, as many otherwise well informed people seem to believe the matter is decided. Isn't it amazing how much influence simple media bias can have? In this case, those pressing for the theory most strongly supporting the AGW camp.

POSTSCRIPT II

I want to clarify my parenthetic statement about the Little Ice Age.

The denial of the Little Ice Age was not "universal" in the sense that everyone denied it. It was denied by all AGW supporters, but no one else. The evidence is simply too great, and, until about 1988 and the "hockeystick"'s rise in popularity, it was accepted by environmentalists along with everyone else that the historical record of the Little Ice Age matched well with evidence.

But as the "hockeystick" required flattening all temperature fluctuations back to about 1100 AD to make the present rise more dramatic, suddenly AGW boosters denied the Little Ice Age took place.

Which brings us to my statement. What has happened recently, for reasons not entirely clear, is that some AGW boosters have started to back away from the hockeystick and admit the Little Ice Age happened. Maybe they are reacting to the tremendous amount of evidence the hockeystick is flawed, terribly flawed. ("Some Global Warming Links", "Debunking "Debunking Global Cooling"", "Very Quick and Simple Logic") Or maybe they have decided it is pretty difficult to look scientific while denying tremendous amounts of evidence. Whatever the cause, the AGW camp has started to admit the Little Ice Age did happen.

A few months ago, I had actually begun to wonder why I bothered writing this blog. I always had a handful of readers, and from time to time a new one would pop up. But then again, old ones regularly dropped out, and I never had the volume of traffic I did when I actively promoted it back in 2008-2010, when I was almost constantly in the TH top 10 blogs. But, just when I thought about shutting the doors, I was saved by the Idiot Twins.

Don't get me wrong, these guys still annoy me to no end. And their complaints are absurd in the extreme. ("Mott Romney"'s "LIE-O-METER" is a HOOT! He faults me for things I quoted from Shirer, for not naming the parties in France in the 1930's, and for saying things with which he disagrees! Sorry, but you are not the standard of truth. And saying "Paulbot" does not constitute a lie. In fact, his calling everyone with whom he disagrees a "socialist"-- a well defined term which does not apply where he uses it -- is more of a lie than using the very loosely defined term "Paulbot".) However, annoying as they are, in a way they reminded me why I bother.

No, it is not all the attention they have given me either. Though I have to admit, I was somewhat flattered at the way they followed me around like love-sick school girls, berating me for various fictional faults simply because I paid them no attention, getting more abusive the more I ignored them, but that was not enough to keep me going. No, what truly inspired me was to read that they thought I was some kind of professional agent of disinformation.

You see, that is not the first time. Yt_Knight once accused me of being in the pay of the "Anti-FairTax lobby" I guess the IRs. Or maybe the FASB. HR Block? Who knows? Similarly, these dolts say I am "too slick" and must be in the pay of... Israel? The ZOA? JDL? Paul Wolfowitz? The ghost of Meier Kahane? Who knows? But apparently, they too think I am some sort of tool of whatever conspiracy they think runs things.

And that keeps me going. If my writing is good enough to get conspiracy theorists so worked up, to get them in a lather and make them post at a rate of 5-10 posts per hour, every hour, every day, then I am doing something right, and must be accomplishing some good. And THAT keeps me going.

I know, I know. Repeatedly I said I write for my own enjoyment, not for the audience, and that is true, it is not an empty claim. But where I write does depend on the audience. if I am just writing for myself, I can do it on my computer, without worrying about formatting and presentation and the rest. I only write here because I have hope of readers. And so, that is the sense in which the criticisms of the Idiot Twins keep me going.

Not that this means I want them to stick around. I am hardly a fan of their work. I am just saying, hearing time and again from paranoids that I must be an agent of their favorite bogeyman makes my heart a little less heavy, and keeps me working a little bit harder. Yes, I also enjoy hearing from others, such as Wylie E. Coyote, CW, Crawfish, Nee, Redhead, Georgetwin, Doc Steech, Gunny G, or any of the others who have read this blog with any regularity over the years, that I have made a particularly apt point, or that I have given them a new perspective on things*. That is truly what I hope to accomplish with my blog. But I admit it, I am still enough of a juvenile, enough of that punk rocker I was in my teens to get a tiny little thrill out of hearing form the nutters that I have driven then to distraction, that I have so agitated them that I simply MUST be a tool of the all encompassing conspiracy.

So, just for them, let me say this": You're right. I put fluoride in your water and blew up the Twin Towers. I was behind Oklahoma City and the levees in New Orleans. I shot Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Princess Anastasia and Salvador Allende. I was the one who arranged the Sicilian Vespers and  killed Dagobert II. I was responsible for Haymarket Square and sinking the Maine, the Lusitania AND the Titanic. I did it all! Beware the Zionist conspiracy for world domination, inefficient taxation, immigration reform and bad government! We steal your money, corrupt your children and make your teeth rot. Beware!

There, that should keep a few of them worked up for a few more days.

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

* I do not mean to suggest any of those one time regular or semi-regular readers I listed were inclined to agree with me on everything. Every one I listed at one time or another disagreed with me on more points than they agreed. I have had arguments on some topic with every one. But at least once, each and every one of them also said I had made a good point somewhere. And even if they had not, the fact that what I wrote was important enough to them to provoke an argument, that says something as well.

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

POSTSCRIPT

By the way, at the risk of losing the closing tone with an slight digression, I have to say the most amusing faux conspiracy theory I ever read was the suggestion (though I forget the source) that Ayn Rand was really Tsarevna Anastasia. It is perhaps the only genealogical conspiracy that puts the premise of Holy Blood, Holy Grail (and its plagiarism in The DaVinci Code) to shame. The only possible improvement would be to combine the two, and make Ayn Rand not just Anastasia but the last Merovingian descendant of Jesus as well. (Any way we could also make her descended of ancient astronauts too?)

I just saw an online article about the government's prosecution of Sketchers for fraud in the advertising of their "Shape up" shoes, and it reminded me why I favor such a limited definition of fraud, and, more importantly, why I think such government prosecutions such a waste of resources.

Fraud, in the most basic sense, is the use of deception to obtain goods or services from another. A classic example, which would be fraud under any definition, would be promising to deliver something to an individual tomorrow if he pays today, and then simply failing to deliver. That would be a perfect example of using misrepresentation to gain another's possessions.

The problem is that fraud has been expanded, and has come to include "false advertising", as well as disputes over the validity of claims made by a seller. Contract law used to have a simple rule, which worked quite well in civil law. So long as one did not promise to deliver something, he was not culpable for his promises. That is, I could claim my new drink would make you brilliant and charming and younger and healthier, but if I contracted simply to deliver the drink, then you could not sure if it failed to fulfill those promises. Only if the contract promised to give those results would I be on the hook.

It sounds harsh, but it is actually a pretty good system. At least it is if you look at the alternatives. If we allow in evidence from outside the contract, we end up with individuals engaging in "he said, she said", disputing what was precisely promised, what was implied and so on. On the other hand, if only the contract counts, we have an easy decision before us. And, it also provided a simple solution for buyers. If someone offered the moon, but would only contract for a very limited delivery, then you should suspect his honesty. Yes, it would allow unethical sellers to exploit the foolish, but the foolish are almost always going to be exploited, because they are foolish. Our present system does no better at saving those with bad judgment from themselves.

I mention all of this because the current decision is even more idiotic. Sketchers advertised that studies said their shoes would provide benefits to those wearing them. The FCC disagreed and sued. However, Sketchers, even now, states they have such studies. In other words, this suit is not even about differing understandings of promises, but over whose experts are right. Do we really need to waste government money fighting over which expert opinion is right about running shoe's performance? Is that truly a crime? That they relied on experts who said nice things about their product? (Actually, since they have experts who support the claims they made, who can say their claims are false? It strikes me that this sounds more like some government officials looking for a big case to make a name, or one with a personal grudge. It certainly is not one of the major ills afflicting our society.)

I think it is time we went back to a more simple understanding of fraud. Whatever is promised, in writing or verbally, that is whatever is part of the sale, is all that is important. Advertisements, no matter how prominent, are not part of a sale. And it is time we recognized that advertisements will always be biased in favor of the seller. We do not need the government policing them for accuracy when we have insufficient assets for other, more essential functions. If we, as a nation, are truly upset by deceptive ads, then the solution is easy, and cheap, listen to watchdog groups and boycott those who deceive. We do not need to spend a dime of government money to implement that solution. And if we cannot make that solution work, then clearly we, as a people, are not that concerned with the veracity of advertisements.

Unfortunately, even as I write this, I am being contacted by a coworker, so I doubt I will be able to wrap this up as I had hoped. For now, let me just end this here. I will come back a little later and take a second look at the topic of fraud, both criminal and civil, and our obsession with policing advertisements, as well as the question of whether or not the state should be involved in a struggle of dueling experts when it comes to advertising claims. When time allows, I will come back to this topic and look at it in much more detail.

When the Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action was unjust, but might be necessary for the next 25 years, every conservative writer I read made fun of that contradictory, nonsensical decision.And rightly so. Either affirmative action and other "good" discrimination is allowable, or it is not, it is not something that is good for X years, then becomes bad. The ruling was nonsense.

However, conservatives often make the same error, without recognizing it.

I am not arguing here that all such time-limited rules are bad. For example, many plans to fix social security or welfare or medicaid have periods during which reduced benefits will be paid, or clauses allowing current recipients to continue receiving benefits. Such plans, unlike O'Connor's ruling, are practical allowances, continuing current benefits for a time to allow recipients to adjust to the upcoming change. Unlike the affirmative action ruling, however, these plans do not suggest the old system is "good' until the cutoff date, then turn bad. Unlike the relatively absurd ruling, they allow a period of adjustment for humanitarian reasons, or else because without such a period it would be impossible to get such reforms enacted.

But not all such cutoff dates make sense, and some are every bit as nonsensical as the affirmative action ruling. For instance, how many plans have you read by conservatives trying to solve one problem or another that include "No immigration for X years." This is an example of the sort of cutoff that makes no sense. Either immigration is harmful, and thus needs to be ended, or it isn't, in which case cutting it off, for good or for a period of time, makes no sense. However, cutting it off for a set time, then allowing it makes no sense, as it says, in effect, "it is bad, but we will start it up again anyway".

Then again, our entire set of immigration laws is quite absurd, when looked at rationally. For example, the limits on annual immigration. Not only does the system of distributing them by nation make no sense, but the idea that each year X immigrants are good, but more than X are bad, is itself a highly questionable contention. As I said earlier, either it is harmful, in which case we should shut it down entirely, or it is not, in which case arbitrary limits are absurd.

I suppose there are two argument which are offered for such limits, though one actually makes little sense. The nonsensical one is that immigrants place a strain on our public resources, and so we can handle only so many. Why this is nonsensical is that, supposedly, immigrants are required to either have employment, or have a sponsor responsible for their support. In the first case, their income and taxes should pay for their use of public services, as with non-immigrants. In the second, the immigrant should not use most public services, and the little they do use should be more than supported by the sponsor's additional income required to support an immigrant. In either case, if the laws are enforced, there should be no concerns about use of public resources¹.

The second argument is a bit more plausible, though one that seems both outside the proper scope of government, and internally inconsistent. Not to mention that it seems to run counter to the immigration laws in place today. That argument is that unlimited immigration would threaten to harm our national culture. By incorporating too many foreigners, we would lose our national identity. This is actually a somewhat plausible argument, at least superficially, but it is not the purpose of government to protect a national culture, not to mention that our national culture is, in itself, the product of many foreign cultures, created during periods when unlimited immigration was the norm (prior to 1914). And there is the other problem, that if our goal is to preserve our culture as it exists today, then any immigration is potentially harmful, as any immigration would dilute it. It would be akin to saying "we would allow some poison, just not too much." If we truly were concerned with this sort of cultural argument, then we should stop all immigration. Not to mention that, whether or not we allow immigration, the current quotas do not fit with this vision, as the post 1960's quotas tend to reduce the number of immigrants from nations with which me share more cultural similarities, and favor nations with which we share fewer traits.So this argument is both inconsistent, and contrary to our current laws.

Let us look at the original rules on immigration. Or, to be more accurate, the lack of rules. The United States, when it was founded, was something like the Lenin-Stalin view of the Soviet Union, not a nation state, so much as an embodiment of an ideal. Unlike the USSR, however, America was not going to be the nucleus of a revolution that would spread across the world, instead it was both a refuge for those seeking freedom, and an example for other nations to follow. As such, there were few limits on immigration. Of course, it was also a very different world in the 18th century, but the lack of restrictions on immigration remained, for the most part, until 1914, when the increasingly interventionist and centralized US government finally imposed limits on immigration. So, even when we were experiencing massive immigration from, not just Europe, but across the globe, there were still few restrictions on entering the US².

Of course, that does not mean we should do the same. While I do believe the principles of the constitution should be upheld (for the most part, there were a few flaws in that document), there is also the possibility that the way they were implemented in the past would not work under changed circumstances. So let us look at immigration and ask why the current system exists, and whether it serves any legitimate purpose,and, if ti doesn't, what alternative would.

Ostensibly, the present system is designed to prevent the immigration of those who would pose a public health risk, would place a burden on public services, or would be unable too support themselves. However, in practice the system does little of what it is supposed to do. for example, the quotas make no sense in themselves, and even less when divided by nation. Were we interested in allowing in only those with guaranteed jobs, family members, sufficient personal assets or employable skills, there would be no sense in setting rigid quotas. After all, if one year we get only 100 eligible immigrants, we would still admit many more who aren't because of the quota. Similarly, if one year we got more than the quota, we would turn away acceptable immigrants for no reason. And there certainly is no probability at all that desirable immigrants would present themselves from nations in the fixed proportions we have in the quotas.

No, were we really trying to limit immigration to those with money, jobs, skills or sponsors, then we would have some sort of test, and admit all who met it regardless of origin, or number admitted that year. We would not limit it to a yearly quota, and certainly would not limit it by nationality. The present system makes no sense given the supposed purpose of immigration laws³.

However, before we go about creating a system fitting those immigration requirements, let us ask whether those limitations make sense, that is whether we should be using those criteria or not.

I suppose I should answer this in two ways. An ideal and a practical.

Ideally, there is no proper governmental reason to limit immigration. Or, rather to limit immigration with exception of a few defined categories. It is not the government's purpose to keep wages artificially high, or to protect a given culture. So, under ideal circumstances, I would see immigration laws limited to excluding individuals from hostile nations during war time, those with communicable diseases⁴ and -- though it is an arguable point -- known criminals⁵. Under an ideal system, there would be no welfare system, and state and federal services would be kept to a minimum, so even if an immigrant had no means of support, he would not be able to impose much burden on the nation by immigrating, and, finding himself unable to pay for his upkeep, would likely have to leave if he could not become self-sufficient quickly⁶.

But this is not an ideal world, and even my optimal government is far from what we have, so this ideal is not yet possible. Thus we must adjust the system to allow for present imperfections. Most notably, that means recognizing that public services, including welfare, are costly, and so immigrants must be limited to those likely to contribute. And to do that, I would basically implement a system akin to what I proposed earlier. We would apply the restrictions mentioned under the ideal, and, in addition, we would restrict immigrants to those who have a guaranteed job, employable skills, sufficient private assets or a sponsor. We would also need to be vigilant in deporting those who no longer matched these categories, that is those who could no longer support themselves, but had not yet become permanent residents or citizens. Other than that, there are few restrictions that make sense. There is no need for rigid quotas, either for total immigration or by nation. The sole criteria would be the ability to be employed, along with health, criminal record and those originating in a hostile nation.

This system has one great benefit, that is that it is consistent. It recognizes that immigration is not a negative, that all should be admitted under the same criteria, and, except for allowances made for the costly welfare state under which we presently labor, that our nation remains a refuge for those seeking individual liberty⁷.That makes much more sense than any sort of quota, any covert effort to retain high wages, or any other inconsistent or illegitimate system of immigration laws.

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

1. Actually, this argument always struck me as absurd, since the simple solution is simply to deny non-citizens access to most public services. Yes, they would still put a small strain on roads, add a limited burden to police and the like, but so do tourists and they are not limited int he way immigrants are. But, somehow the obvious solution is ignored, and instead of simply denying immigrants costly services, the law would prefer to limit immigration. (Ideally, we would have a lot fewer public services to worry about, but since this is a practical argument about the real world, I cannot argue that ending welfare, free medical care and public schooling would solve a lot of these concerns.)

2. Some paranoia about Asians led to a handful of efforts to limit immigration by Asians, but those were exceptions, not the rule. Until 1914, the US was almost completely open to foreign immigrants. There were limits upon obtaining citizenship, and after the late 19th century there were public health quarantines and other procedural hoops through which one had to leap, but the door was still largely open.

3. The system does make sense for one purpose, though one rarely admitted. For a relatively underpopulated nation, such as the US, a quota allows us to keep wages relatively high compared to the world norm. Of course, our wages would be higher than the norm due to investment in capital ( "Capital Investment") even with free immigration, but it is kept even higher by this restriction on the free movement of labor. Of course, that also keeps prices relatively high, meaning the net result may be negative rather than positive. But since the higher costs are hard to see, while the higher wages are not, it is easy to quietly sell this to unions and others as "pro-labor".

4. The public health restrictions have always seemed a little odd, as we do not impose such rigid restrictions upon tourists coming to the US, or US citizens who have gone abroad and are returning, yet both could just as easily infect our fellow citizens as immigrants. Still, the weakness of one system is no reason to include it in others, so the answer is not to allow in those with diseases as immigrants, but to impose similar public health measures on foreign tourists and returning citizens. (Though this raises the question of how far we can go in limiting freedoms in the interest of public health, which is another issue entirely, so perhaps we may need to examine the communicable disease question in more detail at another time.)

5. The restriction on criminals can be a problem. For instance, if another nation wished to keep dissidents from fleeing overseas, it could charge them with crimes to make them undesirable to other lands. Some may circumvent this by claiming amnesty of some sort, or the state could help by ignoring political crimes when judging immigrants, but since many states have tremendous control over public records, it is possible states would then start charging dissidents not with political crimes, but with fabricated criminal acts such as rape, murder or other conventional crimes, which could make it tricky to tell true undesirable criminals from political dissidents. And that does not even consider the fact that crimes are defined quite differently in some lands, making a criminal in some nations no such thing here. Thus, criminal restrictions may need to be examined along with health issues in a future essay.

6. Under such a system there remains the problem of those who come to the US to commit crime, then flee to their home to avoid arrest, basically crossing borders whenever the police lose in. But such problems exist under the present system as well, and would exist under any conceivable system short of totally closed borders. (And would still exist to a lesser degree even then.) So this is not a mark against my proposed system simply an unavoidable problem. Of course, a strong criminal justice system would minimize the harm, though not eliminate it.

7. Another topic which deserves examination in a future essay is the fact that the founders viewed the rights they described as the rights of man, not of citizens. This did not mean the state would not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens, the state had different obligations to citizens and aliens, but the rights described by the founders were very clearly not limited to citizens. This has some interesting implications, especially for immigration, but not necessarily all the implications some other have imagined come from this discovery.

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

POSTSCRIPT

Assimilation is an issue, and one we do need to address, but it is an issue for individuals, for society as a whole, and not for the government. ("Government Versus Culture - A Forgotten Distinction", "Immigration and Assimilation", "Assimilation At Home and Abroad", "Mickey Mouse and World Peace") As I argued elsewhere, if individuals are left free to act as they desire, the pressure will be strong for immigrants to assimilate. Without government sponsored multicultural programs, there will be too many costs to remaining isolated, and most immigrants will assimilate quickly. Those who do not will be free to d so, but will bear the costs of their choice. In the long run, this combination of costs and benefits will encourage the vast majority to assimilate.

I have recently been reading some works written by writers with a moderately left-leaning bias,specifically the mid-20th century pro-labor, moderately liberal position which was ubiquitous among intellectuals of a non-socialist bent at that time. In reading such writing, one thing struck me quite often, and that was the tendency to confuse what was in the interests of union labor, or even only in the interest of the union leadership, with what was in the interest of all workers. It was hardly the only mistake common to such viewpoints*, but it was the one which was most noticeable.

I suppose some may ask why I would bother writing about the inherent conflict between the interests of unions, or even union leadership, and the interests of workers in general. After all, I have covered the subject, in one way or another in "Pro-Labor Cannibalism, A Look At The Union Food Chain", "The Harm of Closed Shops and Collective Bargaining",  "Fairness and the Free Market", "In Praise of Contracts", "Planning For Imperfection", "Greed Versus Evil " and many more. And, even had I not, unions are definitely in decline. They may have been granted a new lease on life by the Obama administration, but even a strongly pro-Union administration cannot hide the fact that unions are still in decline. Which does make it seem rather pointless to cover unions and the problems of labor legislation. Or it would, were it not that such observations have applications far beyond simple unions, revealing flaws in many other laws, many of which remain popular among politicians, making it much more relevant than it first seems.

I suppose the very first thing we need to point out is something everyone knows, yet few ever point out. Union laws are a good deal for those in unions, or rather subset of those in unions, but they are not beneficial to labor in general, or the populace as a whole. Nor is the solution to this to unionize everyone, as some suggest, as universal unionization would have dreadful consequences, but we shall look at that in a moment. First, let us look at why union laws, such as mandatory collective bargaining and closed shops, hurt the public.

Well, the first problem, the one most recognize, is that union collective bargaining and closed shops raise wages, but by raising wages above market, they create chronic unemployment, or underemployment. Either they limit the number of workers to a number smaller than would be employed at the market wage, or else they keep the same number of workers working fewer hours**. In the few cases where unions attempt to resist reduction of workforce, or of working hours, the eventual consequence is the eventual failure of the industry in question, either driving it overseas or, if unionization is not universal in the nation, driving it to non-union shops.

However, there are a number of other consequences many do not recognize, and ones that are more severe, and effect more people. For example, as I mentioned in "Fear of Trade", "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, and More Jobs", "Pro Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc" and elsewhere, all workers are also consumers, and unionization tends to result in higher costs for goods produced by unions. Not only because the price of labor is elevated, making it more costly to produce the same amount as a non-union shop, but also because the reduced profits brought about by unionization tend to reduce reinvestment in either research or new capital equipment and plant, causing prices to slowly rise over time, or, though it is hard to see this, price to fail to fall when they otherwise would. As all workers are also consumers, this means that all workers suffer higher costs, while only some workers get the benefits of higher wages. And, even among those workers, the higher wages may not offset the higher costs, depending upon how widespread unionization is, and in which industries it exists.

Unionization also harms non-union workers in another way. Because union wages force a reduction in workers from the number the market would demand, there is created a chronic unemployment, a pool of unemployed labor, which tends to depress the wages offered in non-union jobs. In addition, because unions make entry into unionized jobs more difficult, and the pool of unemployed make it harder to find entry level positions outside of unions, unionization harms especially those who are seeking to enter the job market for the first time, as well as those who possess limited skills or experience. Ironically, this is most pronounced in those manual fields, skilled and unskilled, that unions are supposed to represent and protect. White collar labor, being less sensitive to this pool of unemployed, tends to suffer much less.

The preceding should help to answer a question we raised earlier, why universal unionization would not work. If we attempt to raise all wages, in real terms, the result will be nothing but widespread unemployment, coupled with a general reduction in production which would drive costs up tremendously, resulting in widespread poverty. It is simply not possible to raise all wages because of Say's Law. Though concealed by money, goods still trade against goods, and unions might raise wages, but not productivity. Thus a given worker still produces a fixed amount of goods, and if raising wages results in less employment, he will still produce the same amount of goods, but will be trading against a reduced pool of other products, as a result, he will end up actually receiving less, not more.

Of course, there is one way to raise all wages if we were to universally unionize, the way Keynes once proposed. By divorcing money from gold, or any other objective standard, we can increase the money supply many time over, allowing us to raise monetary wages, without increasing real wages. However, this will have negative effects unrelated to unionization ("Inflation and Uncertainty", "Bad Economics Part 7", "Bad Economics Part 8", "What Is Money? ", "What Is A Dollar?", "The Gold Question, Not "Why?" But "When?"", "Monetary Issues Made Simple Part I", "Monetary Issues Made Simple Part II" and "Stupid Quote of the Day (January 7, 2012)"), and likely will not even work. unions have long been aware of inflation, and have incorporated escalator clauses, cost of living adjustments, indexing and other means into their contracts to make sure real wages, not nominal wages, rise. So, as in the many past attempts to do just this, what we will get will be all the ills of inflation mixed with the ills of unionization, and nothing more.

It only remains to explain why these observations seem worthwhile to discuss, given the relatively weak position of contemporary unions. But that is rather easy to answer. Just as many confuse the needs of the labor movement with the needs of labor, it is easy to confuse the needs of lifelong welfare recipients with those all all of the poor, or the needs of specific vocal groups with the wants or needs of "workers" or "the middle class". Not only is such confusion easy to find, it also often has the same outcome as union laws do, resulting in a few small groups receiving some small benefit, while the majority sees none, or even suffers.

Welfare is a good example, as the convoluted rules, anti-work mentality and a host of other problems make it quite beneficial to a small group which knows how to "game" the system to receive the maximum benefit, while many who actually need help get little or none, and everyone, rich or poor, suffers the economic woes created by financing a permanent class of unemployed. And yet, these laws which benefit only a minority, and often harm the poor, are touted as being for the benefit of the very poor they often harm. ("In The Most Favorable Light", "With Good Intentions", "In The Most Favorable Light",  "We Have Won the "War on Poverty"", "How Democrats Keep the Poor Poor").

Which is why I bothered writing any of this. Neither union laws nor welfare exhaust the situations where this problem occurs. There are any number of circumstances where well meaning people support laws they think will benefit a group and instead end up harming many of those they wanted to help. ("When Help Hurts", "Tyranny Without Tyrants", "Anti-Business Businesses")

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

* An interesting error in The Collapse of the Third Republic concerns the author's constant mention of how French labor was largely excluded from the political system, and the tendency to blame that for low wages and a lack of "pro-labor laws", such as restrictions on working hours. The truth is, France was not backwards because of a lack of labor laws, or an excess of free market, but rather because of the long standing system of patronage, subsidies, monopolies and other government granted privileges to certain well connected families. As we see in the late 20th and early 21st century, strong labor laws in France hardly solved the nation's ills. What was needed was, not labor laws or strong unions, but an actual free market, which France has never experienced.

** Longshoremen are a good example of this, where work is spread out among workers in an attempt to keep everyone earning.

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

POSTSCRIPT

Doubtless some will say that welfare laws and union regulations were not intended to benefit the supposed recipients, but instead had alternate political motives, which they fulfilled. And that is likely true for some individuals. However, among the liberal rank and file, and even among many moderates, there are any number of people who have no such hidden motives, and really believe in these programs. And it is for the benefit of those people that I write these essays, hoping that one might, as I did back in my misdirected youth, recognize the flaws in their reasoning and take a second look at their political beliefs.

I hate to say I even read something Moshe wrote, but one of his quotes showing how evil and perfidious Jews are made me laugh out loud.

Here is his quote, from either this site or this one (I didn't bother to check which one):

403. "Which are you first, a Jew or an American? A Jew."
(David Ben Gurion)

Now, there is something pretty amusing about this quote. David Ben Gurion, the first PM of Israel, was born in Russian Poland, he then migrated to Palestine, where he was strongly involved in the Zionist movement. He was never in his life a citizen of the United States, nor did he even reside within the United States for any period of time. So, it would surprise me if anyone ever even asked him the question above. And had he ever been asked, and had he said he was an American first or second, or third, or even one thousandth, it would surprise me, as he was not an American.

So, rather than showing me how Jews lack loyalty to the nations in which they reside, this shows me both Moshe and the owner of the site he quotes (assuming Moshe truly cited it correctly, I was doubled over with laughter and thus unable to check) are complete dolts.
 
POSTSCRIPT

Wait, perhaps I misread that. And he is saying that Ben Gurion asked that hypothetically, then answered. Well, yes, that may have been Ben Gurion's perspective. So what? I have read Christians who said communism was the answer. Does that make all Christians communists? Jews hold a variety of opinions, and only bigots like Moshe think individual quotes show we all think alike. Does he agree with everything every Christian ever said? Every European? Every white person? If he does, he must be quite the schizophrenic.

I can show him quotes from many Jews who were strong nationalists in their respective lands. Does that prove all Jews are patriots? Of course not.

But why should I even argue. Obviously he is a cretin. And an offensive one at that. My only small worry is that there are a small number of supposed conservatives who share his beliefs, and that the number of liberals who are Jewish serves to convince some that he is right. (Oddly, the significant number of Irish and Italian Democrats never convinces anyone those groups are conspiring. It is just Jews.)

POSTSCRIPT II

One final correction, that was not from Moshe, but, I think, from his compatriot who claimed not to hold the same antisemitic views, but seems to be goosestepping out of the closet as we watch.

POSTSCRIPT III

What amuses me is the way these people who claim Jews are plotting to destroy the world, or take over, or whatever, think Jews, who are secretly scheming, would leave these quotes around to be found. If we are truly such masters of deception, would we allow people like Moshe and the nameless one to find our true plans?

And then, when they find quotes that show Jews espousing patriotism or other views that don't fit, THEN they claim we're lying. But at other times, we oddly decide to tell the truth in public arenas so they can accumulate quotes against us. It is as nonsensical as those who think the US blew up the twin towers then dropped hints like little bread crumbs for conspiracy theory Hansels and Gretls to find.

Either we Jews are sneaky liars, in which case there would be no quotes, or we are stupid enough to leave such quotes, in which case the rest of the world must be REALLY stupid to be manipulated by us. Or, the option I prefer, we are a group like many others, who hold a variety of views. Like many immigrants in the late 19th century, we were welcomed by Democrats in urban areas, and so have strong Democrat ties, which lasted even after the party transformed in the the early 20th century (same for Italians, Irish, the US south, and many others.) In addition Jews are centered largely in the northeast and west coast, traditionally liberal areas, and in cities, so when we enter politics, we tend to favor the left. those of us who do not, tend not to get elected, and so are not seen. We also tend to be better educated and more affluent which (for reason that escape me) tends to be associated with liberalism in most ethnic an religious groups. All of this means there are prominent Jewish liberals, but then there are also prominent conservatives, just not as many. However,t he same is true of many immigrant groups that were strongly urbanized and Democrat until recently.

Look at the many groups which were traditionally urban Democrat mainstays. The Irish and Italians seem to have broken free of Democrat monopoly a little earlier than Jews, and blacks are only now beginning to develop a noticeable conservative minority. Does that mean all of these groups are plotting world takeover? Or does it mean Jews followed a pattern common to much of American political history? The legacy of nationalist Republicans of the 19th century, and city machine politics have more to do with this than any innate tendency toward liberalism. If anyone doubts that, look at the more orthodox Jews and see how much more conservative they are than the reform Jews. But, again, why bother arguing. No one with a brain in their head buys what these two are selling. And those who do are not going to listen to evidence.

POSTSCRIPT IV

Also interesting is that these two denounce conservatives for demonizing Moslems, and would probably scoff at selected passages being mined from the Koran to show how evil Islam is. Yet they allow the same to be done to Jews. Just as I pointed out to many that the arguments they used against Islam are often used by atheists against Christians, I have to say they are doing something quite unfair here.

Somehow, I don't think that realization will matter much to the Idiot Twins, though.

I know I promised to start writing again soon, but I have had some trouble getting started. I made starts non two posts today, one on false dichotomies(using some FairTax arguments as examples), and another on the strange fact that both the most simplistic of believers and skeptics use "divine will" arguments to bolster their point, imagining their narrow reading of something as good or bad is the only possible interpretation.(It made more sense when developed at greater length.) However, both were rather slow getting started, and I just could not quite wrap them up. So, for the moment, I am afraid there won't be any posts. But don't worry, I am coming up with ideas, and writing, it is just a matter of getting the right essay and there will be new posts.

Until then, sorry for the lack of new content.

Long ago, when I started this blog, I made a number of promises. Among them was the promise that I would reply to every comment. And I kept that promise until very recently. However, in the past few weeks, I have found myself refusing to reply to those I have dubbed "the Idiot Twins" (mostly because one has no fixed name... well that and the fact that they're idiots.)

And so I feel I must explain why.

My purpose here is to engage in discussion that might help myself and others see things more clearly. I do not debate with readers in order to convince them, at least I accept that will happen quite rarely. Instead, I debate because it helps test my own theories, and those offered up by others, making both of our arguments stronger, and helping others to see the issues with clarity.

And that is why I do not debate the Idiot Twins.

You see, they are immune to argument. No matter what I say, they return tot he exact same points, repeat the same arguments, whether or it not they match the points. It is as if I argued with a loop tape, there is no movement, no change. And thus, it is not a debate, but simply a monologue from them, which does not require my input. And thus, I refuse to debate.

I admit the rather offensive statements, rude tone and general immaturity of the Idiot Twins inspired me to stop trying more quickly than I would had they been a bit more civil, but had they actually debated, rather than simply make pronouncements, I would perhaps I have ignored their tone and content. But combining the offensiveness of their statements with their inability to respond to arguments made it easy to decide to stop.

And that is why I have stopped responding to them, despite my general willingness to reply to nearly any comments, regardless of politics. I thought I owed it to my other readers to explain why I will no longer reply to those two.

Recently, I was struck by one bizarre aspect of the Paulbots and their foreign policy. The Paulabots are, if anything, even more obsessed with the topic of sovereignty than most conservatives, finding threats to our independence even where none exist. And, due to this obsession, they often rant about the need not to meddle in the policies of other nations. They have lengthy tirades against nation building, and insist we never use our foreign policy to shape the policies of other nations.

Unless that nation is Israel. Suddenly, many of the Paulbots who oppose nation building have no problem trying to build a bigger, stronger Palestine, and those who oppose forcing our policies on others have no objections to using punitive foreign policy measures to punish Israel for being bad.

But the Paulbots are not alone in this. Right and left, far too often foreign policy debate stop being pragmatic discussions of national interests, and instead turn into beauty contests, or recriminations over supporting bad people.

This struck me while reading more of The Collapse of the Third Republic. In one passage the author was discussing French foreign policy in the early to mid 1930's and described it as being like the US foreign policy of the 1950's and 1960's, dangerously subservient to domestic politics. And, sad to say, both parties today, as well as the Paulbot fringe, seem to also subscribe to that belief, and forget the purpose of foreign policy.

Foreign policy does not exist to make friends, or to promote freedom, or to make the world better, or people nicer. Foreign policy is an extension of the purpose of government, just acting in the area outside our territorial boundaries. And the purpose of government being to protect our citizens from force, theft and fraud*, foreign policy is simply an extension of that, protecting our nation's borders against aggression, protecting the persons of property of our citizens abroad, and taking steps which make those goals easier to achieve, such as forming alliances, establishing bases and-- much as the Paulbots hate it -- eliminating threats before they can do harm.

Which brings me to our confusion over alliances. In the 80's, there was probably no bigger scandal than the Iran-Contra affair. And for the most part, the public was upset we were dealing with "bad guys" in Iran. (The most significant issue from a legal perspective was circumventing prohibitions on aiding the Contras, but that got lost in the press focus on Iran, and later on panties**. ) And that attitude shows what is wrong with the way we view foreign policy. Dealing with "bad guys" is not in itself right or wrong. The question is, was it beneficial? Did it help protect our interests?

So often politicians will criticize one another for supporting oppressive or inhumane regimes, and that shows just how absurd our view of foreign policy has become.  Granted, were the world filled with federations of small states, each respecting individual rights, with minimal government and free markets, peace would be the likely outcome, but it is not our job to establish such. In fact, odds are good we could not do it, as we have enough trouble maintaining anything even close to that at home. If there is the opportunity to install such a state when we have other policy reasons to fight, that is fine, but it is not our ambition to free people. Our goal, cynical as it sounds, is to protect ourselves. And often this means dealing with bad guys, such as when we played Iran and Iraq against one another, both to weaken them, and to keep either from turning to the USSR. (Interestingly, it is only after this policy fell apart that Iraq, and later Iran, became serious problems.) We cannot ask "is this a good guy" because that will often prevent us from taking steps necessary for our protection.

What is fascinating here is that this absurdity, the idea we should only side with virtuous nations, was the province of hippies, liberal academics and the others on the left. Now it seems to have been taken up by Paulbots who claim to be on the right. (Though many sound more leftists than rightist, another reason to worry about Paul...) And even mainstream conservatives are losing sight of the practical aspects of foreign policy. Sadly, we all seem to be turning into mushy headed idealists, imaging we can somehow only deal with nice people and yet keep ourselves safe.

I could say much more, but it is late, and I simply wanted to point out a common error I noticed. Those interested in my thoughts on foreign policy in general can read "Rational National Defense", "Rights Versus Laws", "Last Word on Defense", "Foreign Policy", "My (Informal) Nobel Peace Prize Nomination", "Inconsistencies in Historical Perspectives",  "Stupid Quote of the Day (January 5, 2012)" and "Knights and Bandits". Should that prove too little, come back in a few days, as I will likely revisit this topic in more detail when I have more time and feel slightly better.

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

* Actually, within our borders, the purpose of government is to protect all individuals' rights, citizen or not. However, once we move beyond our borders, the interest of our government becomes more limited, as it can rightfully only act as a protector for our citizens. This makes sense, as domestically, preventing criminals, no matter who they target, benefits citizens, while in foreign policy, protecting our citizens benefits them, while trying to protect everyone would overextend our nation and result in no good consequences.

** Somewhere in my basement I still have the New York Post "Pantygate" issue, as it seemed at the time a landmark in tasteless sensationalism... If only I knew what was yet to come. After the blue dress and associated stains, Pantygate seems tame.

Sorry for the prolonged silence again. I think I commented Friday or Saturday, but other than that, I have done little writing. For once, it is not work or frustration with the idiot twins and their jihad against civil discourse. No, I have been feeling poorly for a few days now and just have not had the energy or will to write. Hopefully it will pass soon, and I shall return to posting, but for now accept my apologies for my prolonged silence.

It has been four years since I have nominated a best neologism, but I think it is time to bring back this interesting honor. My past nominee, as befits this site, was rather political in nature. It was Best of the Web's coinage of Obamanalities to describe Obama's many pedestrian, unimaginative promises. ("Word of the Day") My new favorite neologism is completely divorced from politics, but it is just so perfect, I cannot resist. My word of the day comes from the site Braineater, a site reviewing a host of b-movies, which, in describing Mexican b-actress Lorena Velazquez, coined the word "luchadorable". Perhaps the term in not original to the site. It has the sound of a word that would be invented simultaneously by a number of people. But original or not, it still amuses me enough I had to mention it.

POSTSCRIPT

I know this is mostly off-topic, but I have had a long love affair with neologisms. Ever since, as a teen punk rocker, I invented the term "oi-ttitude" to describe skin head snobbery, I have been fascinated with particularly apt verbal  inventions. So, though it may be off topic, I can't help myself.

I have recently run afoul of the IRS. It seems 2 years ago, my ex-wife did not include my stock losses in our tax return. Not that I blame her. I lost $900, not enough to make much of a difference, so I probably would have skipped it as well. Unfortunately, the IRS noticed I had not reported my stock transactions, and, since they could not tell how much the stocks cost, they decided every transaction was 100% profit, and so I under reported my income by $100,000.

This is not the important part. It is a rather foolish way to approach unreported stock income, as it is certain to overestimate income, but I suppose from the IRS's point of view, it maximizes taxes, so it is a good thing. No, what I want to mention is the many things I had to do to just find someone to whom I could speak about this.

First, I took half a day off work to go to the local IRS office. They welcome walk ins, or so they say. But, since it was close to April 15, when I went, I was told they were just accepting payments, and no one could talk to me until the afternoon. As I had to work that afternoon, I gave up on that, and instead called the number for the taxpayer advocate included with the claim. I was supposed to get a response in 2 business days. After two calls, and one month, I am still waiting. I sent all my documents certified mail to the same person, and, once again. Nothing.

And so, today, I again called my local office. No one answers the phone, you get a long recording and have to leave a message. A few hours later, I actually did get a return call, but from someone at a different location, who stated they could not talk about tax issues on the phone, or set appointments. When I asked if anyone would be available at the local office to talk to me, I was told, they didn't know. It depended on what the people in the office had been trained to do.

The reason I mention all this is that this entire massive apparatus, all these offices and advocates and useless phone calls, all are paid for with our tax dollars, and yet they manage to be just one step short of useless. No, I am not going to talk about wasting money, or our tax system being far from optimal, those are old topics. What troubles me is how much money the government spends on services that are either unwanted or failures. And, in truth, it is almost inevitable. it is not the result of patronage, or bad planning, it is inherent in the bureaucratic system. Divorced from profit concerns, or a need to please the customer, with the main pressures being to satisfy those who might cause any problems, be they politicians with pet projects, community activists who raise or fuss, or anyone else who might get a department into political trouble, it is inevitable that bureaucratic agencies will establish wasteful and useless procedures, as they are driven by the wrong pressures. ("The Inevitability of Bureaucratic Management in Government Enterprises", "Organizations as Filters", "Bureaucracy and Arbitrary Power", "Grow or Die, The Inevitable Expansion of Everything", "Fear Driven Enterprises", "Adaptability and Government", "Best Practices and Resistance to Change, Bureaucracy and the Free Market", "Bureaucratic Management", "Killing the Railroads", "The Bureaucratic Mind", "The Wrong Solution to Bureaucracy", "Bureaucratic Management and Self-Policing", "Inflexibility and Bureaucracy", "Bureaucracy Revisited")

What is interesting is how profoundly hostile government is to the free market, and yet the free market, time and again, proves itself more efficient than the government. And, in those few places where the free market, or supposed free market, takes on bureaucratic characteristics, such as local utilities, or at one time the phone company, it was because the company in question was insulated from competition by government decree.

No, the free market is not perfect, perfection is not to be found in this life, but it produces results superior to any other option. It fails at times, sometimes the results are particularly bad, but so does every other system. What the free market does well is catch and correct those mistakes, and do it quickly. No other system does that. ("Third Best Economy", "Planning For Imperfection", "Greed Versus Evil")

And every time I have to deal with the government, I am reminded of that.

POSTSCRIPT

Having recently dealt with the government, I am reminded once again of a question I ask often. Who could possibly imagine, having dealt with the government, that it is a good idea to entrust any more power than absolutely necessary to government bureaucracy?