Cartoon of the Day: Dilbert Explains the Difference Between Economic Ignorance and Political Movement

Dilbert on populist politics (hat tip: NYU Professor Bill Easterly)

Quote of the Day: Voting is Not a Duty, but a Right—Including the Right to Abstain

Economist Gary Galles writes at the Independent Institute on voting:

“If you don’t vote, you don’t have a voice in government”: This claim is falsified by the fact that even casting your vote won’t give you an effective voice in government.

“If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain about government”: This argument fails for the same reason. It also ignores the fact that facing what are typically binary choices between candidates, and yes-or-no votes on special-interest initiatives, further degrades your ability to invoke your preferences.

“If you don’t vote, you don’t care about America”: This is similarly unconvincing when your vote doesn’t alter the outcome. Not only has abstaining been common since America’s foundation, but not voting is perhaps the most effective way to protest that “none of the above” represent what you consider acceptable, because voting for “the lesser of two evils” is still voting for an evil.

“It is your duty to vote”: This assertion runs aground because if your vote won’t change the outcome, it cannot be your social duty. Voting is not a duty, but a right—including the right to abstain. Further, most voters are far from informed on most issues, and casting an uninformed vote is more a dereliction of duty than a fulfillment of it.

“You must vote, because the electoral process would collapse if no one voted”: This ignores two facts—that your individual vote won’t matter, and that virtually no one’s individual choice of whether to and/or how to vote alters an appreciable number of others’ voting choices. (Politicians, who won’t be taken seriously if they abstain from voting, are an exception.)

Does the fact that so many “your vote is crucially important” arguments are invalid imply you shouldn’t vote? No. However, those claims cannot justify voting on issues you are uninformed about, since that offers society no benefits. Since your electorally insignificant vote won’t change the outcome, it also means that voting to forcibly transfer others’ wealth to you or your pet causes is ineffective, as well as morally objectionable.

However, if such errors are avoided, voting can provide a means of cheering for those candidates and proposals that advance what James Madison called “the general and permanent good of the whole” without plundering others. So, while logic does not demand that you vote or that you abstain, it does impose limits on what one can justify voting for.

The above should not just apply to America, but elsewhere, including the Philippines

Graphic of the Day: Voting: The Illusion of Free Choice

Hat tip Bob Wenzel's Target Liberty

Quote of the Day: Politicians are Inveterate Liars

Writes Robert Higgs, Senior Fellow in Political Economy at The Independent Institute (source of the below quote) and editor at Large of the Institute’s quarterly journal The Independent Review: (bold mine)

Between the would-be, public office-holder on the one hand and the citizen in general and voter in particular on the other, lies a huge barrier that precludes the establishment of any rational connection. Think of genuine “representative government” on anything other than a very small scale as a practical impossibility. Many reasons explain the existence of this barrier, including the logical impossibility of an agent’s accurately representing each member of a group of principals who do not agree among themselves, but certainly one of the most fundamental factors is that the office seekers often lie to the public, or at least obfuscate and hedge about their statements in a way that makes them de facto lies.

Thus, Mr. Blowhard promises that if you elect him, he will do X. After he is elected, however, he does not do X, but offers an endless litany of excuses for his misfeasance or malfeasance in office. In any case, the essential reality is that no one can hold the successful office seeker to account for his infidelity in carrying out his promises. Everyone is stuck with him until the next election, in anticipation of which he will spew out another ridiculous series of lies and worthless promises. The office-seekers’ lies cover pretty much the whole ground of their speech. Of course, they are not forthcoming about past defalcations, de jure and de facto bribe takings, and personal peccadilloes. They almost invariably misrepresent their true reasons for seeking office, putting the shiniest possible public-service gloss on their raw ambition and lust for power. And they rarely if ever reveal truthfully the actual coterie to which they will be ultimately beholden, normally the largest and most influential supporters in their electoral campaign. Instead, they ludicrously declare that they will invariably “serve all the people.”

In policy matters, they lie about everything, although some of their lies may actually spring at least in part from their ignorance of how the world works and from their ideological blindness, rather than from deliberate, knowing attempts to misrepresent themselves and situations they will have to deal with in office. The lies about domestic policy are perhaps somewhat less blatant because many members of the public have personal acquaintance or contact with various aspects of such government action, which limits how big a whopper a politician can hope to get away with, whereas in defense and foreign-policy policy the office-seekers, regardless of their personal preferences or knowledge, can always rely on the general public’s near-complete ignorance of foreign lands and the political, social, and economic conditions that prevail there, and hence there is no practical limit to the enormousness—and the enormity—of the lies they can tell in regard to these types of issues.

In the case of past presidents seeking reelection, it is a simple and oft-performed exercise to document the lies they told to gain reelection, usually by representing themselves in some fashion as “peace candidates,” even while in some cases they were actively maneuvering to involve the United States in foreign quarrels that might well have been avoided if the office-seekers/office-holders had been concerned with the nation’s genuine security and well-being, as opposed to their place in the history books as “great presidents” or “world saviors.” These cases are illustrative, too, of the uselessness of elections as checks on office-holders’ departures from their campaign promises. Voters who cast their ballots for Woodrow Wilson in 1916, for Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940, and for Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 in a quest to help elect the self-represented “peace candidate” must have been sorely disappointed by the actions these men took immediately after their reelections, but what could the voters do once so much fat was in the fire? By the time the next election came around, the world had been utterly transformed—and millions of lives had been lost, as well.

So, what possible intelligence can voters exercise in casting their ballots? They can vote in accordance with the appeal a particular candidate’s promises hold for them, but relying on candidates to carry out their promises would be childishly foolish. Anyone who pays the slightest attention to politics knows that politicians are inveterate liars; many would sooner lie than speak truthfully even if the truth did not thwart their purposes, because lying would be more congenial to their true, dishonest character. Thus, voters can do nothing more than throw ideological darts, casting their ballots for the candidate who makes the most appealing noises, has the handsomest face, or displays peacock-like the most fabulous partisan posturing.

To perceive any fixed and reliable link between what the candidates promise and what they deliver in office would be wildly counterfactual. Politicians have no more backbone than an earthworm. Even if they could not be bought—and most obviously can be—they are constantly at auction for rent, and the bidding never ceases. Thus, we can count on them with complete confidence in only one regard: their mendacious shilly-shallying.

Dilbert's Scott Adam's on A Voter's Guide to Thinking

At his website, Scott Adams of the Dilbert comic strip fame offers eight tips to improve a voter's thinking process

A Voter’s Guide to Thinking

1. If you are comparing Plan A to Plan B, you might be doing a good job of thinking. But if you are comparing Plan A to an imaginary situation in which there are no tradeoffs in life, you are not thinking.

2. If you see quotes taken out of context, and you form an opinion anyway, that’s probably not thinking. If you believe you need no further context because there is only one imaginable explanation for the meaning of the quotes, you might have a poor imagination. Sometimes a poor imagination feels a lot like knowledge, but it’s closer to the opposite.

3. If a debate lends itself to estimates of cost (in money or human suffering) and you aren’t willing to offer an estimate in support of your opinion, you don’t yet have an opinion.

4. If you are sure you know how a leader performed during his or her tenure, and you don’t know how someone else would have performed in the same situation, you don’t actually know anything. It just feels like you do.

5. If something reminds you of something else (such as Hitler, to pick one example) that doesn’t mean you are thinking. That just means something reminded you of something. A strong association of that type can prevent you from thinking, but it is not itself a component of reason.

6. Analogies are not an element of reason. Analogies are good for explaining things to people who are new to a topic. If I am busy as a beaver, that does not imply that I also build dams by gnawing on wood. It just means I’m busy.

7. If you think your well-informed and reasoned opinions as a voter are bringing up the average, let me introduce you to the 100% of other voters who believe they are bringing up the average as well.

8. If your opinion is based on your innate ability to predict the future, you might be employing more magical thinking than reason. The exceptions would be the people who use data to predict the future, such as Nate Silver. That stuff is credible albeit imperfect by nature. Your imagination is less reliable.

 Dandy.

Election Promises are Mostly About Spending Other People’s Money

To all the voters out there. Be reminded that there is nothing called as a “free lunch”. Every scarce resources expended or consumed will have to be worked and paid for. What always seems free, someone will have to shoulder the cost.

Elections have mostly been predicated on promises, particularly noble sounding promises backed by the spending of other people’s money.

It’s important for the public to know and understand of the behavioral difference of how money is spent.

The distinguished free market economist Milton Friedman explains in the following video

Yet the easiest thing to do is to spend other’s peoples money. That's the expertise of political agents. But there will always be a price paid for this.

The following quote from the legendary investor Jim Rogers on the Fed’s policies embodies such dynamic:

If You Give Me A Trillion Dollars I'll Show You A Good Time

Why I Will Not Vote; Liquor Ban and No Stock Market Commentary

I will not participate or risk my life and limb or spend scarce time, effort, and resources in the selection process of so-called political leaders, undergirded by a political system that legitimizes the systematic picking of people’s pockets and the progressive curtailment of liberty through organized institutional violence under the guise of the ‘social justice’ sham

I will also not partake on the delusion where individuals have been programmed to believe that they are primarily members of the collective, which the individual is subordinate to, and that people have control over such leaders. In reality, such elections serve no more than a spectator sport or the race to bottom to manipulate the electorate with freedom constricting, “free lunches” tomfoolery themes in order to justify their assumption to office. This quasi mob rule (either by majority or plurality) selection process, of course, serves as the foundation to the system’s legitimacy.

Such pretentious virtues can already be seen via the election liquor ban regulation. The edict logically implies that election violence is a direct result of alcoholic intoxication rather than of mainly impassioned electoral competition (among the other many but trivial or coincidental factors). The ban essentially lumps two different variables into one, which is a logical absurdity. Electoral violence will happen with or without alcohol.

The Supreme Court struck down the administration’s extension of such ban. Yet such arbitrary regulations reveals of the priorities of those in power that gives preference to the political—the coercive picking of the pocket of Juan to give or transfer some of Juan’s money to Pedro, as the chosen political leaders keep the rest of the booty for themselves—rather than to the socio-economic system. More signs why today’s economic boom has been a paper tiger.

Of course, every arbitrary rule has beneficiaries. Aside from politicians, the tourism industry is exempted from such prohibition, thus the ban signifies an implicit subsidy to the latter. So there will be a boom in tourism and tourism related establishments at the expense of the sari-sari stores, carinderias, bars, and etc.., where the latter group will theoretically bear the brunt in terms of lost incomes. See how arbitrary rules promote inequality? Under the whims of political agents, those politically blessed get the benefits while the rest are left stuck in a rut. That’s “social justice” for you.

On the other hand, affected consumers, like me, will be displeased as prohibition takes away our satisfactions, and most importantly, limits our freedom of choice.

Also the people who will patronize prohibition exempted tourist and tourist related establishments are most likely the well off. So the “haves” can publicly swill on alcohol while the “non-haves” cannot. Thus prohibition statutes essentially discriminate against the lower segments of the society, which ironically and duplicitously, such supposed “virtuous” institutions proclaim to protect.

Worst, repressive prohibition fiats are imposed on us by people who pretend to know what is best for us. In reality, political paternalism represents a charade which has been used as an excuse to pick on our pockets and expand political control over our actions. As an old saw goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

But the good thing is that because the domestic posse (dictionary.com: a body or force armed with legal authority) will be concentrating much of their efforts in the monitoring of electoral grounds or voting precincts, this means the prohibition will likely be infringed upon or would generally be toothless, but with exceptions. 

As an aside, this doesn’t mean that banned establishments will be serving alcohol but rather transactions will be done underground.

The exclusion is that the liquor ban policies can be or will be used selectively as strong-arm or harassment tactic against political foes.

This can also be used by authorities as pretext to mulct on the hapless consumer which is a source of corruption

In other words, such skewed, unfair and immoral legal restrictions, aside from heated political competition, incentivize electoral violence regardless of the presence of alcohol.

All these reveals how arbitrary statutes debauch on society’s moral fiber. These are things the public does not see and which the political class and media will not tell you. Economics function as a fundamental pillar of ethics.

In view of the senselessness of “feel good” politics, I will take this opportunity to spend precious moments with my family this extended weekend. Thus I will not be publishing my weekly stock market commentary and may limit my blogging activities

And if you want to know more on why I wouldn’t vote, my favorite iconoclast comedian the late George Carlin explains two reasons which I share…

Thank you for your patronage.

Have a great and safe weekend

Yours in truth and in liberty

Benson

The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.  

-- H. L. Mencken

(1880-1956) American Journalist, Editor, Essayist, Linguist, Lexicographer, and Critic

Richard Ebeling: No Voting Right for Those Living at the Taxpayer’s Expense

Parasites should be disenfranchised from the rights to suffrage argues Austrian economist and Northwood University professor Richard Ebeling at the Epic Times

One of the most sacred ideas in our democratic era is the belief in the universal and equal right of all citizens to have the voting franchise. Yet, some have argued against this “right.” But their challenge to an unlimited right to vote has not been based on grounds of gender, age, or property ownership.

One such critic was the famous British social philosopher and political economist, John Stuart Mill. In his 1859 book, “Reflections on Representative Government,” (Chapter 8, ‘Of the Extension of the Suffrage’), Mill argued that those who received “public assistance” (government welfare) should be denied the voting franchise for as long as they receive such tax-based financial support and livelihood.

Simply put, Mill reasoned that this creates an inescapable conflict of interest, in the ability of some to vote for the very government funds that are taxed away from others for their own benefit. Or as Mill expresses it:

“It is important, that the assembly which votes the taxes, either general or local, should be elected exclusively by those who pay something towards the taxes imposed. Those who pay no taxes, disposing by their votes of other people’s money, have every motive to be lavish and none to economize.

“As far as money matters are concerned, any power of voting possessed by them is a violation of the fundamental principle of free government . . . It amounts to allowing them to put their hands into other people’s pockets for any purpose which they think fit to call a public one.”

Mill went on to explain why he considered this to be especially true for those relying upon tax-based, redistributed welfare dependency, which in 19th century Great Britain was dispersed by the local parishes of the Church of England. Said Mill:

“I regard it as required by first principles, that the receipt of parish relief should be a peremptory disqualification for the [voting] franchise. He who cannot by his labor suffice for his own support has no claim to the privilege of helping himself to the money of others . . .

“Those to whom he is indebted for the continuance of his very existence may justly claim the exclusive management of those common concerns, to which he now brings nothing, or less than he takes away.

“As a condition of the franchise, a term should be fixed, say five years previous to the registry, during which the applicant’s name has not been on the parish books as a recipient of relief.”

Read the rest here.

Video: Should Voting Be Mandatory? 13 More Reasons Not to Vote

The following video explains why mandatory or coercing people to vote will not be constructive for a society

From Learnliberty.org (thanks to Tim Hedberg for the video):

Professor Jason Brennan offers several reasons for not making voting mandatory. 

-Political scientists find that most citizens are badly informed. 

-Citizens appear to make systematic mistakes about the most basic issues in economics, political science, and sociology. People who would fail econ 101 should not be required to make decisions about economic policy. 

-People who tend to abstain from voting are more ignorant than people who vote. Forcing them to vote would lead to a more ignorant pool of voters, which leads to political candidates who reflect voters’ misperceptions. The end result is bad public policy. 

One objection to this argument is that the disadvantaged, the poor, the unemployed, and the uneducated are less likely to vote than other groups. Some argue that people should be forced to vote so the disadvantaged won’t be taken advantage of. Professor Brennan says this objection relies upon the false assumption that people vote for their own interests. In contrast, political scientists have found over and again that people tend to vote for what they believe to be the national interest. We don’t need to worry about protecting nonvoters from selfish voters. Instead, we should worry about whether voters will invest the time to learn which policies really serve the public good.

According to Brennan, bad decisions in the voting booth contribute to bad government; needless wars; homophobic, sexist, and racist legislation; lost prosperity; and more. While all citizens should have an equal right to vote, someone who wants to abstain from voting because he doesn’t feel he knows the right answers—or for any other reason—should be allowed to do so. Brennan concludes that mandatory voting guarantees high turnout but not better government.

 

If mandatory voting would not helpful, then refraining from voting could should be seen as an alternative. [See my previous posts here, and here.]

EPJ's Bob Wenzel has 13 quotes to justify non-voting:

1. If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal. --Emma Goldman 

2. The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting. --Charles Bukowski 

3.Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom.--Friedrich August von Hayek 

4. Why do the people humiliate themselves by voting? I didn't vote because I have dignity. If I had closed my nose and voted for one of them, I would spit on my own face. --Oriana Fallaci 

5. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Next time, go all out and write in Lucifer on the ballot --Jarod Kintz, 99 Cents For Some Nonsense 

6. Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. ― H.L. Mencken 

7. Don't vote, it only encourages them. - - Old anarchist saying 

8. Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people. - - Oscar Wilde 

9.Representative government is artifice, a political myth, designed to conceal from the masses the dominance of a self-selected, self-perpetuating, and self-serving traditional ruling class. ― Giuseppe Prezzolini 

10. Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). --Ayn Rand 

11. I have never voted in my life...I have always known and understood that the idiots are in a majority so it's certain they will win. --Louis-Ferdinand Celine 

12. No matter whom you vote for, the Government always gets in. --Unknown 

13. You want to know about voting. I'm here to tell you about voting. Imagine you're locked in a huge underground night-club filled with sinners, whores, freaks and unnameable things that rape pitbulls for fun. And you ain't allowed out until you all vote on what you're going to do tonight. You like to put your feet up and watch "Republican Party Reservation". They like to have sex with normal people using knives, guns, and brand new sexual organs you did not even know existed. So you vote for television, and everyone else, as far as your eye can see, votes to fuck you with switchblades. That's voting. You're welcome. --Warren Ellis, Transmetropolitan, Vol. 3: Year of the Bastard

I would add a 14th reason: It's not worth to risk one's life or limb to engage in a charade where the risk of political violence is high during election day.

Quote of the Day: Voting and Complaining

I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote — who did not even leave the house on Election Day — am in no way responsible for what these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created.

This is from comedian George Carlin (source The LRC Blog)

Quote of the Day: The Benefit of Not Voting

we do have the freedom not to vote. No one has yet drafted us into the voting booth. I suggest that we exercise this right not to participate. It is one of the few rights we have left. Nonparticipation sends a message that we no longer believe in the racket they have cooked up for us, and we want no part of it.

You might say that this is ineffective. But what effect does voting have? It gives them what they need most: a mandate. Nonparticipation helps deny that to them. It makes them, just on the margin, a bit more fearful that they are ruling us without our consent. This is all to the good. The government should fear the people. Not voting is a good beginning toward instilling that fear

This is from Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, at the LewRockwell.com

Andrew Napolitano on Elections: What If…?

Another gem from Judge Andrew Napolitano

What if elections were actually useful tools of social control? What if they just provided the populace with meaningless participation in a process that validates an establishment that never meaningfully changes? What if that establishment doesn't want and doesn't have the consent of the governed? What if the two-party system was actually a mechanism used to limit so-called public opinion? What if there were more than two sides to every issue, but the two parties wanted to box you in to one of their corners?

What if there's no such thing as public opinion, because every thinking person has opinions that are uniquely his own? What if public opinion was just a manufactured narrative that makes it easier to convince people that if their views are different, there's something wrong with that -- or something wrong with them?

What if the whole purpose of the Democratic and Republican parties was not to expand voters' choices, but to limit them? What if the widely perceived differences between the two parties was just an illusion? What if the heart of government policy remains the same, no matter who's in the White House? What if the heart of government policy remains the same, no matter what the people want?

What if those vaunted differences between Democrat and Republican were actually just minor disagreements? What if both parties just want power and are willing to have young people fight meaningless wars in order to enhance that power? What if both parties continue to fight the war on drugs just to give bureaucrats and cops bigger budgets and more jobs?

What if government policies didn't change when government's leaders did? What if no matter who won an election, government stayed the same? What if government was really a revolving door of political hacks, bent on exploiting the people while they're in charge?

What if both parties supported welfare, war, debt, bailouts and big government? What if the rhetoric that candidates displayed on the campaign trail was dumped after electoral victory?

Read the rest here

I view Mr. Napolitano’s trenchant questions as universally applicable to democracies including the Philippines.

President Aquino’s Cabinet Appointments: The More Things Change, The More They Remain The Same

As the Aquino Administration matures, current developments seem to be confirming my predictions that there will hardly be any change in the administration’s political direction.

This from the Philippine Inquirer, (bold emphasis mine)

“President Benigno Aquino lll’s decision to pick executives from big business for key Cabinet posts has placed his administration in potential conflict-of-interest situations, particularly in state-regulated enterprises, such as power, water, telecommunications and toll roads, lawmakers noted Tuesday.

They said the big business appointments were a growing public concern because they were identified with four of the most influential business conglomerates in the country – the Ayala, Lopez, Aboitiz and Metro Pacific groups – to positions with powers to make or unmake business empires.”

Some thoughts

1. It’s payback time. Election campaign bills come due.

2. Conflicts of interests depend on the definition. Every person sitting on a regulatory agency or bureaucracy has an interest which will always come in conflict of the interest of the regulated. (Yes, I mean personal interest. Political leaders and bureaucrats are not gods nor are they supposed to embody our perception of interest)

In the above, what is clearly being defined as conflict of interests is regulatory capture or as defined by Wikipedia.org as “when a state regulatory agency created to act in the public interest instead acts in favor of the commercial or special interests that dominate in the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure, as it can act as an encouragement for large firms to produce negative externalities. The agencies are called Captured Agencies.”

In other words, regulatory agencies function to advance the interest of select or favoured groups at the expense of the rest of society.

By the use of the regulatory body as legal barrier, competition is therefore restrained, and thus, economic opportunities are allotted based on political concessions via the arbitrary application of regulations or what is known as economic rent.

3. Insider versus outsider game. Insiders are those who comprise the economic-political elite class. Outsiders are those in the periphery who are made to believe that genuine change is in the offing. And outsiders are the majority and wielded by the insiders for election purposes.

The Aquino appointments clearly demonstrate this deeply rooted Insider based relationship in the context of the Philippine political economy.

Hence, the only thing that has changed are the personalities involved in manning the bureaucracy, and not the anti market political patronage system. The net effect is a status quo.

And as we previously predicted, ``The rule of the entrenched political class means 'the more things change the more they remain the same'.”

We also anticipated the kingmaker role of the personalities involved in the Meralco takeover in the recently concluded elections, which apparently has emerged in the appointments.

Elections are, therefore, a vehicle which grants a mantle of legitimacy to the immoral alliances of vested interest group and the political class.

As H.L. Mencken rightly labeled, “[Democracy] has become simply a battle of charlatans for the votes of idiots."

Mainstream’s Three “Wise” Monkey Solution To Social Problems

Say what you want
Say what you will
'Cos I find you think what makes it easier
And lies spread on lies
We don't care
Belief is our relief
We don't care

-Roland Orzabal, Tears For Fears, Ideas As Opiates

For the mainstream, our social problems can be simplified into three “wise monkey” solutions:

First, speak no evil-throw money at every problem.

Everyone desires a free lunch. Almost everybody believes that they deserve a special place in this world. Since society’s interests are divergent, such sense of entitlement should come at the expense of someone else. It’s usually dignified and justified with the word “right”. One man’s effort is another man’s privilege.

For them, scarcity of resources can only solved by forcible redistribution. It doesn’t really matter if there are limitations to the scale of taxation. It also doesn’t matter if redistribution reduces the incentives to produce and trade. It doesn’t matter if “picking winners” takes away resources meant for productive activities which have been meant to enhance livelihood. The only thing significant is to be at the receiving end. And it’s hardly ever been asked “when is enough, enough”?

Heck, it would even be politically incorrect to argue for prudence. ‘Moral’ justifications demand for immediate gratification. It’s almost always about NOW. Forget the future.

That’s why the intellectual classes long came up with varied theories in support of these political demands.

Importantly that’s why the political classes are enamoured with these concepts. Redistribution enhances only their power, esteem and control over the others. And that’s why “inflation” has long been a part of human nature, since the introduction of government.

For as long as the system is tolerant of such nebulous tradeoff, trouble can be kept at bay, ergo speak no evil.

The other way to see it is that while everyone wants to rule the world, in reality this isn’t feasible. It’s a mass delusion. The universal law of scarcity always prevails. By force of nature, artificially induced imbalances are resolved eventually.

Second, see no evil-elect or put in place a virtuous leader.

The popular redress to most social problems has been premised mostly on hope, cosmetically embellished by “specific” ennobling goals.

In times of frustrations, the next alternative has been to look for a saviour.

Yet hope is mostly anchored on symbolism. And these are what elections are mostly all about. Even if one’s vote doesn’t truly count, everybody believes they do. Elections are reduced to the polemic of self-import.

Hardly has the directions of policies been the context of any meaningful discussion. People’s arguments will always be simplified to what seems “moral” in the popular sense. Yet, a vote on a person to office is a carte blanche vote on the ensuing policies. But it’s hardly about stakes involved and the prospective costs, but mostly about emotions and the feeling of being in the winning camp.

And since the world has been condensed into strictly a “moral” sphere, political leaders are most frequently deemed to have been transformed into demigods.

Once in power, people mistakenly believe that these entities have transcended the laws of scarcity. People have assumed that they possess the superlative knowledge that is needed to effect the exigent balance on a complex and continuously evolving society. These leaders are presumed to know of our needs, our values, our priorities and our preferences, which lay as basis of our actions in response to ever changing conditions.

Not of only of knowledge, but people also expect leaders and officials to dispense justice and equity according to our sense of definition. Many see these leaders as reflecting on their values. And that’s why many fall for the dichotomous trappings of the well meaning “motivations”. Yet, motivations barely distinguish the role of “means” and “ends”.

Essentially genuflecting on hope to see one’s moral desires as represented by politics can be construed as refusing to see evil for what it is.

And it’s only when the rubber meets the road, from which people come to realize that their expectations have misaligned with reality-and usually through deepening frustrations or in the aftermath of some horrifying outcome.

Hardly has it been comprehended that politics and bureaucratic activities are merely HUMAN activities.

That leaders and officials are subject to the very same foibles as anyone else. That these people see things and act according to the incentives brought about by their interpretation of events, their existing limited and ‘biased’ knowledge and are swayed by influences brought about by cognitive biases, networks, familiarity, assessment of prevailing conditions, information relayed by the underlings, varying degree of stakes of involved and et. al.

Importantly like everyone else, their actions skewed based on personal values. So when a political or bureaucratic leader forces upon their sense of moral vision to a constituency and which has not well received, the result in some cases has been political upheavals.

Yet in spite of the repeated errors, people never learn from George Santayana’s admonition that those who ignore the past are condemned to repeat it.

The third intuitive recourse to any social problems is to hear no evil by enacting new rules/laws.

Like any “throw the money” and “virtuous leader” syndromes, rules are little seen for its costs but nevertheless oftenly envisaged as preferred nostrums to existing problems as identified from the biased viewpoint of the observer/s.

Causal factors are hardly considered in the appraisal of the existing problems. What seems more important is to automatically blame market forces and unduly impose proscriptions. Never mind if the past ills have been caused by the same underlying dynamic-previous interventionism.

The act of simply “doing something” is meant to be perceptibly seen by the voting public for political purposes (extension of career by vote or by appointment). Thus the “hear no evil” therapy, which is merely adding rules for extant fallibilities, are simply props for more of the same malaise.

Many rules, regulations, edicts or laws are imposed upon the “populist demand of the moment”, without the realization that rules, which tend to realign people’s behaviour, can cause huge unintended consequences and likewise entails costs of enforcement. Hence when new rules create distortions in the political economic order, the instinctive response is to have more of rules or regulations.

Importantly, popular clamor for new rules/laws hardly differentiates “rule of laws” against “rule of men”.

Rule of Law are in effect, the guiding principles or the laws that had been a legacy from our forefathers, as the great Friedrich August von Hayek wrote, ``Political wisdom, dearly bought by the bitter experience of generations, is often lost through the gradual change in the meaning of the words which express its maxims[1]”. (underscore mine)

This means because these laws have been constant, are anticipated by all and easily observed or practiced, they become part of our heritage. Again we quote the Mr. Hayek, ``Stripped of all technicalities, this means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand.[2]”

In stateless Somalia, customary laws serve as default laws after her government had been eviscerated,

Benjamin Powell writes[3], ``Somali law is based on custom interpreted and enforced by decentralized clan networks. The Somali customary law, Xeer, has existed since pre-colonial times and continued to operate under colonial rule. The Somali nation-state tried to replace the Xeer with government legislation and enforcement. However, in rural areas and border regions where the Somali government lacked firm control, people continued to apply the common law. When the Somali state collapsed, much of the population returned to their traditional legal system... But Somalia does demonstrate that a reasonable level of law and order can be provided by nonstate customary legal systems and that such systems are capable of providing some basis for economic development. This is particularly true when the alternative is not a limited government but instead a particularly brutal and repressive government such as Somalia had and is likely to have again if a government is reestablished.” [bold highlights mine]

That’s simply proof that “rule of laws” exists even outside of the realm of governments, which also goes to show that society can exist stateless. None of this is meant to say that we should be stateless, but the point is rule of law is what organizes society.

Importantly, “rules of law” have been passed through the ages as a means to protect the citizens from the abuses of the authority, again Mr. Hayek[4],

``The main point is that, in the use of its coercive powers, the discretion of the authorities should be so strictly bound by laws laid down beforehand that the individual can foresee with fair certainty how these powers will be used in particular instances; and that the laws themselves are truly general and create no privileges for class or person because they are made in view of their long-run effects and therefore in necessary ignorance of who will be the particular individuals who will be benefited or harmed by them. That the law should be an instrument to be used by the individuals for their ends and not an instrument used upon the people by the legislators is the ultimate meaning of the Rule of Law.” (emphasis added)

In short, the fundamental characteristics of respected and effective laws are those that to limited, steady or constant, designed for the benefit of everyone and importantly a law that is clearly enforceable.

Of course this doesn’t overrule the occasional use of arbitrary laws, but nevertheless arbitrary rules should compliment and NOT displace the essence of the “rule of law”.

Mr. Hayek quotes David Hume[5], ``No government, at that time, appeared in the world, nor is perhaps found in the records of any history, which subsisted without a mixture of some arbitrary authority, committed to some magistrate; and it might reasonably, beforehand, appear doubtful whether human society could ever arrive at that state of perfection, as to support itself with no other control, than the general and rigid maxims of law and equity.”

In essence, in contrast to mainstream thinking, the rule of law and not simply arbitrary regulations, serves as the central element to well functioning societies.

Former President Ronald Reagan nicely captures part of our “Three Wise Monkey” solution as seen by the mainstream, “The government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it”, from which I would add, “if subsidies are not enough, elect one who makes sure it would”.

---

[1] Hayek, Friedrich August von, Decline of the Rule of Law, Part 1, The Freeman April 20, 1953

[2] Hayek, Friedrich August von, Decline of the Rule of Law, Part 1, The Freeman April 20, 1953

[3] Powell, Benjamin; Somalia: Failed State, Economic Success? The Freeman

[4] Hayek, Friedrich August von, The Road To Serfdom

[5] Hume, David; The history of England, from the invasion of Julius Caesar to the revolution, we earlier quoted this see Graphic: Origin of The Rule of Law

Milton Friedman: Why Electing The Right People Isn't Enough

People have a great misconception in this way, they think way they solve things by electing the right people. Its nice to elect the right people, but that isn’t the way you solve them. The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right things!