Month: January 2021

STREET FIGHTING MAN

Everywhere I hear the sound of marching, charging feet, boys.

The election’s here, and the time is right for fighting in the street, boys.

__________

But what can a Proud Boy do?

For the time of the storm’s at hand.

But in liberal Washington

There’s just no place for a street fighting man.

No!

____________________

I think the time is right for a counterrevolution.

‘Cause where we sit, we don’t admit of compromise solutions.

____________

But what can a Proud Boy do?

For the time of the storm’s at hand.

But in liberal Washington

There’s just no place for a street fighting man.

No!

Get down!

_____________

Hey! So we promised a disturbance!

We shout and scream; we kill the libs;

Their MSM servants!

________________

But what can a Proud Boy do?

For the time of the storm’s at hand.

But in liberal Washington

There’s just no place for a street fighting man.

No!

Get down!

______________

Parody of “Street Fighting Man” by the Rolling Stones.

The new administration is almost certainly going to increase taxes on the wealthy to pay for additional spending on poor and middle-class people. This attempt to increase equality of outcomes clearly reduces negative freedom for affluent people. But what about freedom as a whole?

If you’re a CL, you never reach that question, because using the state to reduce inequality of outcomes is inappropriate and possibly even immoral. Maximizing negative freedom is all that matters. Most of us are not CLs, however; we care about positive as well as negative freedom. How should we analyze the issue?

You start with the concept of marginal utility. A dollar in the pocket of a wealthy person, in general, contributes less to the well-being of society as a whole, and certainly to the individual, than an additional dollar in the pocket of someone who desperately needs to spend it for essentials. Not only is the service provided more valuable; the immediate impact on the economy is greater, as well. Under current conditions, it sounds like a fairly simple calculation.

Conditions can change, however. If the program is run poorly, the dollar could disappear into the unworthy pocket of a bureaucrat. In some countries, the welfare state is already so large, the dollar might just encourage more dependency. And what if that dollar, in the pocket of a wealthy man, would be invested in a company which creates tremendous social value–not just a government bond? Wouldn’t that change the equation?

It would. The bottom line is that each attempt by the state to decrease inequality has to be judged on the totality of the facts. There is no general rule that always works here.

As I noted in a previous post, equality does not exist in nature, or in a feudal state; the size of the state is thus tied to the level of equality to which it aspires. Here’s how it works:

1. EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW: Typically associated with states emerging from feudalism in the 17th and 18th centuries. In some cases, the abolition of status-driven law was accomplished by “enlightened despots” (think Prussia and Austria); in others, it was the result of more democratic forces (France and the UK).
2. EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY: This requires some additional application of state power to redistribute resources from the fortunate to the less affluent. It is the objective of modern liberal democracies.
3. EQUALITY OF OUTCOME: In its perfect form, which has never remotely existed in history, this is communism; the state controls everything, and then theoretically disappears. There are obviously a variety of degrees, ranging from a stingy welfare state (the US) to genuinely socialist countries.

The key here is that the more equality you want, the larger the state must be to enforce it. As a result, as you increase the equality of outcome, you inevitably decrease the amount of negative freedom you offer your citizens. But what about the overall level of freedom–both positive and negative? I will address that issue in my last post on the subject.

Hardly a day goes by without reading an article featuring a progressive demanding that “Biden must abolish the filibuster.” Say what? Biden doesn’t have any control over the Senate’s rules. These people need to be talking to Joe Manchin, not Biden.

The reason they aren’t, of course, is that they (correctly) perceive that they have no influence whatsoever with Manchin. What are they going to do? Threaten to primary him in one of the reddest of red states if he doesn’t buy into the entire progressive agenda? Cancel him on Twitter? He would probably view that as a badge of honor.

The bottom line is that the filibuster is here to stay for at least the next two years. Bernie Sanders is more realistic about that than most of his supporters. There are two ways to deal with it: reconciliation; and pairing Democratic initiatives with items designed to attract Republican votes. Expect to see both of these tactics in the next few months.

It is fairly easy to come up with a working definition of “equality”: treating similar things similarly. The issue is with the application. To what extent are different people similar, and thus entitled to identical treatment by the state?

There are two ways to look at the issue. In a religious sense, every soul has the same value to God; hence, the similarities among people outweigh any genetic differences. This approach is found in the Declaration of Independence and is the foundation for American liberal democracy. Jefferson said it was “self-evident.” But it isn’t; if you look at physical, mental, and emotional characteristics of individuals instead of souls, you may well be more impressed by the level of difference than the similarities.

In a state of nature, or at least of a primitive state, equality doesn’t exist. Equality is not a typical attribute of families, tribes, or feudal states. Enforcing equality requires action on the part of the state–even states that we would consider, by modern standards, to be fairly minimal. How that works will be the topic of my next post on the subject.

I don’t see any reason to doubt the sincerity of Mitch McConnell’s pre- and post-riot speeches about Trump in the Senate. It is clear that he thinks the GOP would have a brighter future without the stain of Trumpism, particularly after the debacle in Georgia. But Mitch is a pragmatist. He sees no point in trying to lead the party where it resolutely will not go.

McConnell sent a message to the other GOP senators by showing his willingness to vote for conviction without firmly committing himself one way or the other. When the rest of the group refused to take the hint, he decided that the devil of the Trump connection was less bad than the deep blue sea of a party more alienated from its base. As a result, he’s going to vote for acquittal and hope that the donor class can be mollified with the passage of time. So will the vast majority of his compatriots.

My prediction from the weekend is right on the mark, so far.

American children are taught that the Revolution was all about “freedom.” Is that true?

It depends on your definition of “freedom”. The limitations on movement into Indian areas west of the Appalachians, while perfectly reasonable from the British point of view, were undoubtedly viewed as being oppressive by a fair number of enterprising colonists, and disappeared after the end of the war. In addition, the Intolerable Acts were an unjustified measure of collective punishment of residents of Boston after the Tea Party, and the Navigation Acts were designed to benefit the mother country, not the colonists. Otherwise, the British had a light footprint in America. The intensity of government did not really change after 1783.

The point of the Revolution was not to reduce the size of government, but to recognize that America was a separate nation worthy of self-determination. If you view “freedom” solely in terms of degrees of individual freedom from state control, as CLs tend to do, the Revolution was probably counterproductive. If you view freedom as being synonymous with national autonomy, it is a different story; your teacher was right.

The new administration apparently wants to return to the plan to replace Andrew Jackson with Harriett Tubman on the $20 bill. Is that a good idea?

Under other circumstances, probably, but not today. This looks very much like blue team culture war smashmouth politics. It will be a constant and powerful irritant to tens of millions of reactionaries, unlike the opening of the military to transgender personnel, which will mostly be out of sight and out of mind. It’s an initiative that needs to wait for several more years. It’s the opposite of “unity,” by any reasonable definition of the term.

Reactionaries and CLs frequently object to mask mandates on the basis that they inappropriately reduce their “freedom.” If you look solely at negative freedoms, they are clearly correct. Is that the entire story?

Obviously, no. Mask mandates enhance the freedom of people who are particularly vulnerable to the virus. If properly enforced, they make it possible to reopen restaurants, cultural facilities, and schools which would otherwise remain closed due to health risks. These are positive freedoms.

In short, this is a balancing act, but the increased freedoms arising from the wearing of masks far outweigh the inconveniences. It isn’t even close.

Marco Rubio thinks the trial is “stupid.” Is he right?

No. Whether you agree with it or not (I don’t), the trial has a clear and appropriate purpose that is proportionate to the crime. It is not “stupid.”

Rubio is a man of some intellect and principle who, when the chips are down, never lets them get in the way of his ambition to be president. When he says the trial is “stupid,” he really means that he resents having to cast a vote that is either going to look bad to the base or to the donor class.

In other words, he views his best interests as being identical to those of the country. Now, that’s stupid.

In retirement, one of my favorite pastimes is to ride my bike in the neighborhood each morning. Right-wingers would describe my ability to do that as a “negative freedom” attributable to the absence of a government prohibition. Are they right?

It’s more complicated than that. First of all, there is nothing in the Constitution forbidding the federal government from prohibiting my bike rides; the same would be true of state and local governments, as well. The absence of a regulation is a matter of common sense and legislative discretion, not an overriding legal limitation. Second, the bike rides are only possible because the federal, state, and local governments provide the necessary degree of security against crime and external threats; in, say, South Sudan, the situation would be totally different. Third, the neighborhood association, which has regulatory powers even though it is not technically a government, has chosen to permit the rides. Finally, I can afford to engage in the pastime due to the existence of a federal entitlement program–Social Security. No money, no bike, and no rides.

All of these factors are intertwined in the result. The outcome is the product of a combination of positive and negative freedoms, as well as power and common sense. As a practical matter, the apparently clear dichotomy between the two kinds of freedom is illusory.

I was reading an article in Politico yesterday which indicated that Americans valued “freedom” over “equality.” What do these terms mean, as experienced by the average American, and how do they interact in real life? I will be discussing those issues in a series of posts over the next week.

I will start with a working definition: “freedom” is the practical ability to behave in accordance with one’s free will.

The most important part of this definition is “practical ability;” it is not just a legal concept. I will use two examples to illustrate the point. If you visit a significant number of tourist attractions in China, you will see people taking photos all over the place notwithstanding large signs prohibiting the practice and the presence of guards. The Chinese clearly are “free” in that instance regardless of the letter of the law. On the other hand, poor people in America have the same legal right as wealthy people to purchase a Lexus, but no practical ability to do so. In the real world, that is not “freedom.”

Analysts frequently refer to two types of freedom: “negative” freedom from government action; and “positive” freedom assisted by government action. Right-wingers typically extol the former and reject the latter. For the average person in a typical situation, the distinction isn’t really that clean. I will address that in my next post.

On the 45th president Trump.

By our country he finally was dumped.

Exiled in Palm Beach;

Now he’s being impeached

And his fortunes continue to slump.

Here’s what I’m betting will happen at the trial:

1. No more than five Republicans will vote to convict.
2. There will be little effort on the part of the rest to justify his conduct on this occasion.
3. The senators voting to acquit will either parse Trump’s words or argue that impeaching someone who is out of office is unconstitutional.
4. Their real motivation will be to suck up to the base (particularly if they didn’t vote to overturn the election), while trying to look respectable to the donor class.
5. Trump will say that he has been vindicated, and that he was the victim of yet another hoax. The base, encouraged by Fox News, will believe him.
6. Once again, impeachment has been shown to be a completely ineffectual remedy. The GOP won’t support it regardless of the severity of the violation.
7. The Democrats will claim that they won a moral victory by getting a few Republican votes and standing up for an important principle. They didn’t. There are no moral victories at this stage of the process.

On the man that they call 45.

Without tweets, is he even alive?

An American Lear,

The Republicans fear

That his anger helps Democrats thrive.