Saturday, November 03, 2012
Election Endorsements
OK, here are some endorsements:
President: Gary Johnson (L) is far and away the best candidate in the running for president. He's running with the Libertarian Party, which unfortunately entirely abandoned libertarianism four years ago with the cranky Barr-Root conservative ticket. I have no particular love for the LP, but Johnson actually is a libertarian, and seems to sane as well. (These days, you have to check.)
Of course, voting for Johnson is "throwing your vote away" because he won't win. But then, voting for any losing candidate is "throwing your vote away," because it didn't matter. Of course, voting for a winning candidate is also "throwing your vote away," unless the margin was so close your vote mattered. So if you prefer literally to throw your vote away by not voting, I endorse that too. But if you must participate in the battle of the two evils, Mitt Romney is definitely the lesser evil; while neither Romney nor Obama is any good, Obama and his party are far more likely to make fundamental changes in our political system that will speed our decline into totalitarianism than are Romney and his Republicans. I won't make that case here, but if you are interested, I've laid it out fairly carefully in an debate with Gennady Stolyarov in his Rational Argumentator. Here is Stolyarov's initial challenge, next my two part response (part one here) (part two here). Then Stolyarov's rebuttal part one and part two, and my final shot.
In the end, it doesn't matter that much, because the only votes that matter are those of a handful of voters in swing districts in swing states, and of course the Electors of the Electoral College.
But there are other races. As is my habit, I'll continue to Montana politics.
U.S. Senate: Dennis Rehberg (R) gets the UC endorsement. Six years ago I predicted and then celebrated the victory of John Tester (D) over corrupt incumbent Conrad Burns (R). Of all the arguments I heard for Tester in that campaign, my favorite was, "might as well vote for Tester, it will take him at least a full term to become as corrupt as Burns." Prescient words. Tester is ranked as the number 1 recipient of lobbyist funds in the U.S. Senate, and number 2 among all politicians, even beating out Barack Obama. Only Mitt Romney beat him out ("yay, GOP, we're number 1!")... but Romney isn't an elected official in this go-around. Tester's opponent, Denny Rehberg (R), has been in the House for some time, and has been pretty good. He's unfailingly opposed gun controls, introduced legislation to block the NDAA authorization of permanent detention without trial, and seems to be about as good as we'll get. There is a candidate from LP, Dan Cox, who appears to be a constitutionalist rather than a libertarian, so far as I can tell. That's fine, but he has no chance of winning, and Rehberg is much more likely to oppose Obama's second term plans than Tester is.
OK, I have no Montana readers, so I'll not belabor the rest of the races.
Montana does have a number of citizen ballot initiatives. Most of them this time around are ill-considered, but one deserves special attention: Initiative No. 166. The core of this initiative is that "corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights because they are not human beings..."
Wow! Insane? Evil? Stupid? Heck, it's all three! And potentially terrifically destructive besides!
Montana law carefully distinguishes between individuals (human beings) and legal persons (individuals plus other entities such as corporations. Individuals are a subset of persons, of course. Not all individual rights pertain to persons; this is all laid out in law and in decisions by the Montana Supreme Court. Corporations, which include nearly 100% of family farms, 100% of private medical practices, 100% of small businesses, 100% of churches, 100% of nonprofits, 100% of political organizations, and 100% of news outlets, do have rights under current law. Their property cannot be confiscated without due process of law. Laws can't be passed forbidding them from free expression. Their property cannot be searched without a warrant. They cannot be prevented from petitioning for redress of grievances.
This initiative would strip them of these rights. The initiative language includes a statement that the purpose is to end corporate campaign funding, but the language explicitly strips all rights form corporations and directs government officials to implement that policy, i.e. state officials would be required to remove protections against search and seizure of property without warrant, corporations would be denied due process of law when property was seized, and there'd be no legal barriers to government censorship of the media (all TV, radio, and newspapers in Montana are corporations) or internet (most likely all ISP's are corporations).
The people behind this -- a motley collection of Democrat populists and leftists -- entirely ignored the arguments of critics in the Initiative Guide sent out by the MT Secretary of State (it contains arguments from proponents and critics, plus a rebuttal from each side). I gather that they do understand what they are proposing but are loathe to admit it in public. At the national level, Democrats have introduced a similarly totalitarian constitutional amendment, the People's Rights Amendment; the Montana initiative isn't just a one-off. (I've written a blog piece on this that I'll post after the election -- it isn't time sensitive.)
When I suggested earlier that currently Democrats are more likely to push for fundamental institutional changes that will be destructive of liberty than are Republicans, this is the kind of thing I meant.
It's clear that nothing extremely good can come out of this election, but some results are far scarier than others.
Comments:
<< Home
Would you please define "corruption" a it applies to politicians? Could you please explain why an "honest" politician is necessarily better than a "corrupt" one, all other things being equal? Could you please list, specify, or explain the harms done by Tester and other "corrupt" politicians? Are these harms necessarily worse then those caused by "honest" politicians?
Yes. You've asked four questions, so...
1. Corruption is "sale of government property for personal gain," in Shleifer and Vishny's seminal work on the subject.
2. An honest politician isn't necessarily better than a corrupt one. I don't think an a-institutional a-historical answer can make sense here; this isn't a question that can be answered by pure logic. Circumstances of the particular case matter.
3. Burns became infamous for his ability at snagging useless pork for Montana and benefiting himself in the process, so much so that even his supporters started getting disgusted by it. Tester campaigned on cleaning this up, but seems to be doing the same damn thing. And no, not all MT senators have done this sort of thing.
4. Are the harms necessarily worse? No. Again it depends on specifics of the case, but here the ceteris paribus condition is applicable. A politician who accelerates useless pork projects causes govt to grow bigger and debt to grow faster than one who doesn't. Also, such a politician accelerates Bastiat's "vicious cycle of plunder" in which those plundered then demand increasingly plunder on their behalf.
1. Corruption is "sale of government property for personal gain," in Shleifer and Vishny's seminal work on the subject.
2. An honest politician isn't necessarily better than a corrupt one. I don't think an a-institutional a-historical answer can make sense here; this isn't a question that can be answered by pure logic. Circumstances of the particular case matter.
3. Burns became infamous for his ability at snagging useless pork for Montana and benefiting himself in the process, so much so that even his supporters started getting disgusted by it. Tester campaigned on cleaning this up, but seems to be doing the same damn thing. And no, not all MT senators have done this sort of thing.
4. Are the harms necessarily worse? No. Again it depends on specifics of the case, but here the ceteris paribus condition is applicable. A politician who accelerates useless pork projects causes govt to grow bigger and debt to grow faster than one who doesn't. Also, such a politician accelerates Bastiat's "vicious cycle of plunder" in which those plundered then demand increasingly plunder on their behalf.
Addendum to 4: Obviously in Burns'case, the "vicious cycle" didn't work, and Bastiat's "virtuous cycle," in which at least some demand an end (or at least reduction) to plunder did have some effect. I hope this will happen in Tester's case as well.
I don't know what made you decide that Shleifer's and Vishny's definition is the canonical one, but let's stick to it.
First, you need to acknowledge that all "government property" is stolen property, and thus that "government property" doesn't exist.
Second, their definition does not say "monetary/financial/material gain"; it just says "personal gain". What politician does not sell "government property" for personal gain? Can you provide an example?
And even if you could, why is selling "government property" for personal gain worse than selling it for some other kind of gain, or for no gain at all?
What's your definition of "useless pork", anyway?
"A politician who accelerates useless pork projects causes govt to grow bigger and debt to grow faster than one who doesn't."
Is cancer research useless pork? Space exploration? Building a bridge over a canal in the middle of nowhere? Nationalized healthcare? A large marble statue of M.L. King? Of Michael Jordan?
How 'bout a politician who supports a war that kills 100,000 people? Is that pork?
Your ideas of honesty and pork seem to be based on the pre-conceived notion that government has some legitimate roles that rogue politicians transgress. I see them as pigs who decide, justifiably, that the other pigs' definitions are not etched in stone and that they, too, have a right to eat and shit all over the place.
First, you need to acknowledge that all "government property" is stolen property, and thus that "government property" doesn't exist.
Second, their definition does not say "monetary/financial/material gain"; it just says "personal gain". What politician does not sell "government property" for personal gain? Can you provide an example?
And even if you could, why is selling "government property" for personal gain worse than selling it for some other kind of gain, or for no gain at all?
What's your definition of "useless pork", anyway?
"A politician who accelerates useless pork projects causes govt to grow bigger and debt to grow faster than one who doesn't."
Is cancer research useless pork? Space exploration? Building a bridge over a canal in the middle of nowhere? Nationalized healthcare? A large marble statue of M.L. King? Of Michael Jordan?
How 'bout a politician who supports a war that kills 100,000 people? Is that pork?
Your ideas of honesty and pork seem to be based on the pre-conceived notion that government has some legitimate roles that rogue politicians transgress. I see them as pigs who decide, justifiably, that the other pigs' definitions are not etched in stone and that they, too, have a right to eat and shit all over the place.
Dr. Steele,
I am pleased to learn of your endorsement of Gary Johnson. For all of our disagreements as to whether Romney is the "lesser evil" - we ultimately favor the same candidate in this election. In practice, then, our sometimes divergent ways of thinking regarding this election have led us to the same liberty-friendly decision.
I am pleased to learn of your endorsement of Gary Johnson. For all of our disagreements as to whether Romney is the "lesser evil" - we ultimately favor the same candidate in this election. In practice, then, our sometimes divergent ways of thinking regarding this election have led us to the same liberty-friendly decision.
Gennady: In our "two evils" debate, the issue was never "what should someone do." I frequently thought you lost sight of that and were debating other issues. And why would you have supposed I favored MR over GJ?
PL: 1. You asked for my definition of corruption. I gave it. It's the standard one in academic economics.
2. An elected politician takes an oath of office. If s/he violates those parameters in order to benefit her/himself at the expense of the public, that's corrupt. Despite the denials of some, the U.S. Constitution does provide reasonable limits to what govt officials may do. Violating these for personal benefit is wrong.
3. The term "property" as used in economics (at least in the property rights school, with which V&S are somewhat aligned) isn't simply chattel and real property; it's broader and includes control over actions.
4. How about a multi-million dollar remodeling project for a customs and immigration checkpoint on the U.S. Canadian border, approved after the Canadians announced they were permanently closing the post their side of the border, with the contract going to a donor to Democratic campaigns? (Happily public outrage got this one cancelled.)
Do you really not know what pork barrel spending means? That's absurd.
Yes, of course there are legitimate roles for institutionalized force. And hence yes, there is such a distinction as a proper role for govt, and an improper one.
If anarcho-capitalists wish to argue that their proposed system would do a better job than the govt of fulfilling this role, that's fine, and worth discussing. But denying the distinction makes no sense.
PL: 1. You asked for my definition of corruption. I gave it. It's the standard one in academic economics.
2. An elected politician takes an oath of office. If s/he violates those parameters in order to benefit her/himself at the expense of the public, that's corrupt. Despite the denials of some, the U.S. Constitution does provide reasonable limits to what govt officials may do. Violating these for personal benefit is wrong.
3. The term "property" as used in economics (at least in the property rights school, with which V&S are somewhat aligned) isn't simply chattel and real property; it's broader and includes control over actions.
4. How about a multi-million dollar remodeling project for a customs and immigration checkpoint on the U.S. Canadian border, approved after the Canadians announced they were permanently closing the post their side of the border, with the contract going to a donor to Democratic campaigns? (Happily public outrage got this one cancelled.)
Do you really not know what pork barrel spending means? That's absurd.
Yes, of course there are legitimate roles for institutionalized force. And hence yes, there is such a distinction as a proper role for govt, and an improper one.
If anarcho-capitalists wish to argue that their proposed system would do a better job than the govt of fulfilling this role, that's fine, and worth discussing. But denying the distinction makes no sense.
Gennady: In our "two evils" debate, the issue was never "what should someone do." I frequently thought you lost sight of that and were debating other issues. And why would you have supposed I favored MR over GJ?
PL: 1. You asked for my definition of corruption. I gave it. It's the standard one in academic economics.
2. An elected politician takes an oath of office. If s/he violates those parameters in order to benefit her/himself at the expense of the public, that's corrupt. Despite the denials of some, the U.S. Constitution does provide reasonable limits to what govt officials may do. Violating these for personal benefit is wrong.
3. The term "property" as used in economics (at least in the property rights school, with which V&S are somewhat aligned) isn't simply chattel and real property; it's broader and includes control over actions.
4. How about a multi-million dollar remodeling project for a customs and immigration checkpoint on the U.S. Canadian border, approved after the Canadians announced they were permanently closing the post their side of the border, with the contract going to a donor to Democratic campaigns? (Happily public outrage got this one cancelled.)
Do you really not know what pork barrel spending means? That's absurd.
Yes, of course there are legitimate roles for institutionalized force. And hence yes, there is such a distinction as a proper role for govt, and an improper one.
If anarcho-capitalists wish to argue that their proposed system would do a better job than the govt of fulfilling this role, that's fine, and worth discussing. But denying the distinction makes no sense.
PL: 1. You asked for my definition of corruption. I gave it. It's the standard one in academic economics.
2. An elected politician takes an oath of office. If s/he violates those parameters in order to benefit her/himself at the expense of the public, that's corrupt. Despite the denials of some, the U.S. Constitution does provide reasonable limits to what govt officials may do. Violating these for personal benefit is wrong.
3. The term "property" as used in economics (at least in the property rights school, with which V&S are somewhat aligned) isn't simply chattel and real property; it's broader and includes control over actions.
4. How about a multi-million dollar remodeling project for a customs and immigration checkpoint on the U.S. Canadian border, approved after the Canadians announced they were permanently closing the post their side of the border, with the contract going to a donor to Democratic campaigns? (Happily public outrage got this one cancelled.)
Do you really not know what pork barrel spending means? That's absurd.
Yes, of course there are legitimate roles for institutionalized force. And hence yes, there is such a distinction as a proper role for govt, and an improper one.
If anarcho-capitalists wish to argue that their proposed system would do a better job than the govt of fulfilling this role, that's fine, and worth discussing. But denying the distinction makes no sense.
"If s/he violates those parameters in order to benefit her/himself at the expense of the public, that's corrupt."
What politician does not benefit himself at the expense of the public? And why does self-benefit so horrible in your eyes, relative to other crimes politicians commit?
So Tester stole a few millions. Big deal. The war in Iraq cost trillions and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. If Tester stole, say, $100,000,000 and voted against the war, then he is far less harmful than someone who voted for the war and never put a penny in his pocket. Ignore all death, suffering, and misery and focus only on dollars and cents, and you still reach the conclusion that the most corrupt dove costs us a tiny fraction of the most "honest" hawk.
You seem to like Gary Johnson. Imagine you had the power to appoint him President, but that you know he would buy himself 16 private jets and ten luxury yachts at the public's expense, and steal $100,000,000 into a Swiss bank account. Considering all the benefits he would allegedly bring (lower taxes, less regulation, end the war on drugs, curtail the empire, end foreign aid, etc.), wouldn't you take him over Romney any day?
What politician does not benefit himself at the expense of the public? And why does self-benefit so horrible in your eyes, relative to other crimes politicians commit?
So Tester stole a few millions. Big deal. The war in Iraq cost trillions and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. If Tester stole, say, $100,000,000 and voted against the war, then he is far less harmful than someone who voted for the war and never put a penny in his pocket. Ignore all death, suffering, and misery and focus only on dollars and cents, and you still reach the conclusion that the most corrupt dove costs us a tiny fraction of the most "honest" hawk.
You seem to like Gary Johnson. Imagine you had the power to appoint him President, but that you know he would buy himself 16 private jets and ten luxury yachts at the public's expense, and steal $100,000,000 into a Swiss bank account. Considering all the benefits he would allegedly bring (lower taxes, less regulation, end the war on drugs, curtail the empire, end foreign aid, etc.), wouldn't you take him over Romney any day?
Dr. Steele,
I do try to relate my views to some sort of action imperative, and the issue of who should be one’s ultimate choice in this election was an underlying motive in my discussion with you. My insistence that Romney is not a “lesser evil” was precisely founded on the understanding of what the “lesser evil” mindset leads many people to do in voting.
I knew that you admire Gary Johnson, but I was not sure, based on your comments on the relative (de)merits of Romney and Obama, that you would consider supporting Johnson to be a higher goal than helping to defeat Obama. (I have met too many Romney supporters with libertarian sympathies in recent months, so keep in mind that, prior to our exchange, I have had discussions with quite a few of them, whose fear of Obama led them straight into the pro-Romney trap.) I was not sure if there was some sort of action imperative present in your claim that Romney was a lesser evil. But now I am glad that you seem to have preferred the former option (support for Gary Johnson) all along.
I will share my last pre-election commentary, a video that sums up my views (many of which will be familiar to you from our discussion).
One aspect of my thinking on empirical matters (e.g., the relative merits of candidates in an election) is to synthesize vast and seemingly distinct “chunks” of information into a coherent understanding. (This is very different from my approach to conclusions for which only or mostly logical deduction from first premises would be required.) Perhaps many of the issues you considered to be of little relevance to the discussion were, in fact, my presentation of these various “chunks” of data that I find to have a bearing on the current political situation and the broader context in which this election takes place.
I do try to relate my views to some sort of action imperative, and the issue of who should be one’s ultimate choice in this election was an underlying motive in my discussion with you. My insistence that Romney is not a “lesser evil” was precisely founded on the understanding of what the “lesser evil” mindset leads many people to do in voting.
I knew that you admire Gary Johnson, but I was not sure, based on your comments on the relative (de)merits of Romney and Obama, that you would consider supporting Johnson to be a higher goal than helping to defeat Obama. (I have met too many Romney supporters with libertarian sympathies in recent months, so keep in mind that, prior to our exchange, I have had discussions with quite a few of them, whose fear of Obama led them straight into the pro-Romney trap.) I was not sure if there was some sort of action imperative present in your claim that Romney was a lesser evil. But now I am glad that you seem to have preferred the former option (support for Gary Johnson) all along.
I will share my last pre-election commentary, a video that sums up my views (many of which will be familiar to you from our discussion).
One aspect of my thinking on empirical matters (e.g., the relative merits of candidates in an election) is to synthesize vast and seemingly distinct “chunks” of information into a coherent understanding. (This is very different from my approach to conclusions for which only or mostly logical deduction from first premises would be required.) Perhaps many of the issues you considered to be of little relevance to the discussion were, in fact, my presentation of these various “chunks” of data that I find to have a bearing on the current political situation and the broader context in which this election takes place.
PL, would you please pay attention to my argument? I was very careful to point out that the pork issue is ceteris paribus. If one politician is honest but starts Armageddon, he's worse than a dishonest one who simply steals a few millions for himself and goes home.
But that's not the issue at hand, but rather specifics of Tester v. Rehberg. (Tester was re-elected, BTW.)
But that's not the issue at hand, but rather specifics of Tester v. Rehberg. (Tester was re-elected, BTW.)
Gennady, I have to correct what I think is a misunderstanding on your part. I do not/did not think that supporting Johnson was a higher goal than beating Obama. Neither do I did I think beating Obama a higher goal than supporting Johnson. When I say people should vote or abstain according to their judgment, I mean it. I see/saw no imperative here. (Perhaps this is the only time I will ever write "see/saw" so I'd better highlight it!)
I think your last paragraph hits the nail on the head. That's the source of our disagreements over whether Romney is/was a lesser evil.
One thing I'm very happy about, BTW, is that this election was a disaster for conservative religious "values voters."
I think your last paragraph hits the nail on the head. That's the source of our disagreements over whether Romney is/was a lesser evil.
One thing I'm very happy about, BTW, is that this election was a disaster for conservative religious "values voters."
No, I get the ceteris paribus, but it generally seems that you pay too much attention to political corruption issues. And it's not just you: I think most people consider corruption to be some sort of a plague of politics, where in fact it's a minor issue relative to everything else politicians do.
For example, people who are not politically involved or don't care usually say something like, "Oh, well, they're all corrupt anyway," as if that is the reason to stay away from politicians.
For example, people who are not politically involved or don't care usually say something like, "Oh, well, they're all corrupt anyway," as if that is the reason to stay away from politicians.
And although I get the ceteris paribus argument, I don't necessarily agree with it. One can argue that the corrupt politician is superior to the "honest" one for reasons similar to those brought by Block in defense of the corrupt cop and because the corrupt politician undermines the public's trust in politics and in politicians, thus making the public more likely to rely on economic means than on political means to achieve its goals.
I disagree with the argument that corruption will discredit the system and turn people away from statism. Its at least as likely to lead to endemic corruption everywhere.
I lived in the ex-USSR. The communist economic system didn't work and encouraged corruption to make things work and get anything done. The corruption became habitual in work, and then spread into daily life, family life. personal life. Once it becomes a way of life, it poisons everything. No one can be trusted in business relationships, in personal relationships, etc. It's destructive.
Post a Comment
I lived in the ex-USSR. The communist economic system didn't work and encouraged corruption to make things work and get anything done. The corruption became habitual in work, and then spread into daily life, family life. personal life. Once it becomes a way of life, it poisons everything. No one can be trusted in business relationships, in personal relationships, etc. It's destructive.
<< Home
