On Power

by Andrew

In which I write about what people seem to have thought I was writing about when I talked about libertarian Democrats. For those looking to catch up, you can start here, here, and here.

While I am not really a libertarian, I do tend to distrust aggregations of power because, even if those power centers are necessary, they will attract people who wish to acquire power to impose their will. That is the case whether the power in question is a government, a corporation, a union, or even a mob. But I do reserve special care for government power over any other kind, and I believe there are good reasons for doing so.

We grant government a monopoly on the use of force. In a civilized society, it is inappropriate to initate the use of force (except in obvious cases of imminent danger). Only government agents are granted the power to initiate force legitimately, because ultimately it is force that underlies government, although in modern society that force is well-hidden because most citizens have internalized the rules of their society. Having given this power to government, it should surprise no one that people who seek to gain power for themselves will frequently seek out government office in order to do so. The power, after all, already exists, so a person seeking to impose his will on others can use the extant apparatus of government to do so without having to first create it. Bill Gates may have wielded a lot of power when he ran Microsoft, but he had to build it from the ground up. President Bush immediately inherited far greater power simply by winning (being declared the winner, if you prefer) the 2000 election.

Government also has a patina of legitimacy that most other forms of power lack. Few of us are foolish enough to believe that corporations won't act to serve their bottom line, regardless of the effects that may have on the rest of us. Nor are too many people still naive enough to believe that unions will act in the best interests of all (or even, necessarily, in the best interests of their members). But government has a legitimacy these other forms of power do not, because we insist on holding elections to choose who will serve in government. This is a wise precaution (although it tends to founder for lack of an informed electorate, but that's a topic for another time), because the assent of the people is a legitimate source of power, if properly restrained. We therefore tend to accept the use of government power in ways that would be more firmly resisted if attempted by other sources of power. This makes government power easier to abuse.

Government is also generally granted powers that would be grounds for prosecution if utilized by other power centers. Given the current climate concerning the federal government's power to monitor people's phone calls, imprison people for years without charge, torture suspected terrorists, and so on, one might think that questions about government power would be a bit more common than they are. But our culture has changed so greatly from our beginnings that the idea that maybe government shouldn't be allowed to do these things at all has little traction. Some are concerned only because they're worried what President Bush might do with those powers (just as some who rightly raised alarms about some things President Clinton did now turn a blind eye because they share party allegiance with the man in office). Many more, probably most, simply don't see any real danger with the government having those powers. And there are arguments to be made in favor of granting government some of the powers the Bush administration has taken to itself. None of those arguments apply, however, to a corporation or other power base. Government gets a special dispensation to do things that we would not tolerate from any other source.

American culture has changed a great deal since the closing years of the 19th century. Defenders of big government argue that corporations will return to their habits of a century ago if not vigorously restrained by activist government. While I'm confident that many large businesses would, if they thought they could get away with it, doing so is not as simple as some seem to think. Does anyone think that a business could get away with hiring people to physically assault their laborers in today's society? I am not a journalist, but that sounds like an awfully good story for the media to run with, and that kind of publicity would hardly help a business's bottom line. When you consider what businesses already do to avoid negative publicity, the idea they would throw those principles away to gain an advantage with their workers seems implausible at best.

This kind of thinking also assumes that shrinking the government would be done in such a way as to eliminate any government oversight over business. Even assuming that would be desirable, it would hardly be politically practical. Contrary to the beliefs of some, right-wingers are not particularly eager to return to the days when rivers could catch on fire and when nobody needed to fear drowning in the Hudson River because they would dissolve first. While we might favor redesigning the EPA to make it less burdensome, I would only support such changes if they were tied to stringent requirements to continue to reduce our environmental impact so we can all enjoy the beauty of nature for the foreseeable future. Nor would we support eliminating the police who would still be required to protect people from violence, such as the use of violence by business against its workers. This, indeed, is one of the primary functions of government: to protect people's rights, and there are few rights more fundamental than the right not to be physically assaulted. Even were libertarians to seize power, one of the last functions of government they would dismantle would be the police power, because that's one of the few functions of government that nearly all libertarians (less the anarcho-capitalists) agree on.

I would not suggest, and have not suggested, that we simply throw out the federal government and trust the good will of corporations. I make no argument in favor of the benign intentions of business; they exist to make money, and in that pursuit we can expect some of them to do everything they believe they can get away with in order to maximize their profits. Any concentration of power poses a threat to individual liberty.

But in today's society it seems crystal clear that the power possessed by government is of a wholly different nature than that possessed by any other power center. Government can do things no other organization can. It has more actual power in terms of armies and police, it has a veneer of respectability that no other organization can approach, and it has the advantage of cultural deferment to government power. Can businesses abuse their power? Absolutely. Can businesses in contemporary America do more damage than the United States Government? I look forward to someone on this site explaining to me how Bill Gates represents a greater threat to their liberties than President Bush.

Ultimately, this is an academic discussion for the United States. No state is going to voluntarily surrender power, and modern American culture tends to view the government's purview as virtually limitless. The discussion on the role of the government between liberals and libertarians reminds of nothing so much as the old W.C. Fields routine in which he approaches an attractive young woman and asks, "Would you sleep with me for $1 million?" She thinks about it and nods, "Sure, for $1 million, I'd do it." Fields then asks, "Would you sleep with me for $20?" The young lady slaps him and asks, "What kind of woman do you think I am?" Fields rejoinder: "We have already established that; now we're just haggling over price."

Comments

[Slartibartfast]

Septic tanks are supposed to leak, aren't they?

Because if not, I'm in trouble.

[Jesurgislac]

Andrew: I'm against it.

Eh. You know, if you don't want to answer the question "What is your solution", it would be politer to say so. But it's Friday: so you're probably OD'd on too much espresso and too many frosted donuts to be sensible. I wish I were. (I like the sort with chocolate filling and chocolate frosting, plus a really big mug of latte with three shots of espresso.)

[Francis]

well, the true libertarian solution would be to wait for the affected parties downstream to sue. however, as many communities with Superfund sites have discovered, proving up the source of underground contamination is incredibly difficult and expensive.

an ounce of enforced prevention, in this context, really is worth several pounds of cure.

[Dantheman]

Slarti,

"Septic tanks are supposed to leak, aren't they?"

They're supposed to leach, not leak. Only a slight difference, in spelling, but a big difference in controlling the run-off.

[Andrew]

Surely in all the time you've known me, you have learned by now that my social skills are horrifically poor?

I don't drink coffee. No doughnuts, either.

I cannot offer a good solution because I do not know enough about septic tanks to consider what a good solution would be. I will note, however, that the reason I raised that particular issue is because my Dad mentioned having to do it and that, when the septic tank guy came over to check the system, the guy said outright that annual inspections were unnecessary.

But, if you would like a solution caveated with the fact I know next-to-nothing about septic tanks, I suspect that there is some role for government in this case, because the potential exists for destruction of a common and markets are, by their nature, poor at handling such situations. So, were I king for a day, I would get a group of people who do know something about septic systems together and have them come up with a reasonable regimen for checking to ensure that people's septic systems were not leaking into local groundwater supplies, then implement that solution.

[kenB]

Well, have we verified that in this particular case there's a true danger to the water table and that a once-a-year cleaning requirement is reasonable? In my neck of the woods, once every three years is the default recommended frequency and the costs of not maintaining one's tank are unlikely to affect anyone besides the property owner.

[Jesurgislac]

Andrew: So, were I king for a day, I would get a group of people who do know something about septic systems together and have them come up with a reasonable regimen for checking to ensure that people's septic systems were not leaking into local groundwater supplies, then implement that solution.

In short: the governmental solution. *grin*

I don't drink coffee. No doughnuts, either.

*flails* But ... how do you get through the week without coffee or doughnuts?

[Andrew]

In short: the governmental solution.

This is precisely why I try to avoid terms like libertarian. I have said on numerous occasions that I believe that environmental regulation is an area where government interference is not just wise, but necessary.

But ... how do you get through the week without coffee or doughnuts?

Poorly, it would seem.

[Slartibartfast]

Mr Bad Example, here: I lived in a house with a septic system for about five years, and we never once had it pumped out.

Probably, this is all a function of use, and of tank size. But in all likelihood, the septic system was overdue for maintenance. I think the low end of the recommended timescale for tankenausgepumpen is probably for the smallest tanks and the most active (and careless; you have to be careful about what you flush because some things just stubbornly defy biodegradation) of households, while ours was relatively inactive (mostly just the two adults, with a separate dry-well for the washer outflow) and very careful. And we had a truly mammoth tank; the guy must have gotten a deal on it.

[kenB]

In short: the governmental solution.

Well, *a* government solution, but one that's based on the best and most impartial reading of the underlying science and data. It's yet to be established that the governmental solution in the case under discussion could be so described.

[Gary Farber]

"Columbia. Meh."

Playing late catchup, I can't figure out what this is in reference to. Something about the District of Columbia that I can't find?

[John Thullen]

To continue the septic tank theme, I have relatives who are nice enough to invite my wife and me to their beautiful summer home on a bunch of lakes in a pretty state.

Once, the relatives (all fairly libertarian when it comes to government action, unlike me, and, like me, loud about their preferences) got into a rip-roaring discussion, in which they all agreed that the city fathers' plan to force the residents (mostly summer fare) to install septic tanks or hook up to the local sewer system because population growth and the resulting human waste leeching into the lakes was causing a growing health problem in the area, was, well, think up your own invective having to do with Karl Marx's illegitimate children.

Someone quipped quite scientifically that goose droppings alone probably cause just as much of a problem as the human waste, so why don't the city fathers do something about that, the busybodies, to which my quiet wife, the wetland scientist, who mucks about in water treatment plants all over the West, sweetly pointed out that humans are not effected by the bacteria in goose poop too much, and then listed a long series of ugly bugs we pick up from untreated human waste.

The assembled libertarians (I exaggerate) went silent for a few moments and looked at her like she was the second coming of Emma Goldman. I tried to look innocent.

Then my uncle coughed and asked no one in particular what time it was. Five P.M. came the reply. Start fixing the martinis.

Yet another way to kill those bugs.

Andrew, I would agree that if the guy running the septic tank inspection business was the brother-in-law of the big shots who made the decision, we have a problem.

Still, an enterprising individual could start a second inspection business and underbid the next time the contract came up for renewal. As to the government using its implied monopoly force to make you do it, I'm a little upset about the stop sign at the end of my street and have thought about barricading myself in my house and threatening insurrection if they don't let ME decide when to stop, but I'm a little anxious about the entire manpower from Fort Carson showing up at my door to convince me otherwise, which would be a role reversal neither one of us could explain.

Also, I don't necessarily believe all Democrats look to government first to solve problems. I do believe some Republicans look to government to last.

The problems tend to exist for a very long time before ANYONE looks to government and then there is another lag while the legislative machinery works out the compromises.

To invoke Jes' country for a moment, I'm sure liberal and conservative alike in London before 1850 or so happily slogged through sewage running in the streets every day before anyone did anything about it. Yes, there was some do-gooder whining, finally. Read about early America. I'm sure guys stood in the gutter with sewage running over their boots for decades arguing about the relative merits of taxing the citizenry to clean up the mess.

But then a libertarian caught cholera. Then EVERYONE had to step up.

I suspect there was a need for the FDA and EPA and Social Security and Medicare long, long before anyone looked to government first. We just had to wait until the guys who look to government last got over it.

[Andrew]

But then a libertarian caught cholera.

And if you d*mn do-gooders would have just let him die, all this trouble could have been avoided.

[John Thullen]

"leeching"

leaching.

So, pass a law. I can handle it.

Andrew: If we're going to avoid terms like "libertarian", how will Democrats know if they have recruited libertarians or not? ;)

[Jesurgislac]

John Thullen: I'm sure liberal and conservative alike in London before 1850 or so happily slogged through sewage running in the streets every day before anyone did anything about it.

Sometimes you really do have to raise a great big stink to get politicians to act:

In 1858, the summer was unusually warm. The Thames and many of its urban tributaries were extremely polluted; the warm weather encouraged bacteria to thrive and the resulting smell was so overwhelming that it affected the work of the House of Commons (countermeasures included draping curtains soaked in chloride of lime, while members considered relocating upstream to Hampton Court) and the law courts (plans were made to evacuate to Oxford and St Albans). Heavy rain finally broke the hot and humid summer and the immediate crisis ended. However, a House of Commons select committee was appointed to report on the Stink and recommend how to put an end to the problem.cite

[Andrew]

John,

When a Democrat can use the term 'school voucher' without being stoned, we'll know.

[John Thullen]

hmm, affected, not "effected".

I declare martial law.

[KCinDC]

Gary, try the link at the end of Jes's 11:46 comment. I'm not aware of people using "Columbia" as a short form of "District of Columbia", but it is a frequent misspelling of "Colombia".

[Jesurgislac]

Andrew: When a Democrat can use the term 'school voucher' without being stoned, we'll know.

First, we have to figure out which Democrats use the term 'school voucher' when stoned. And how stoned they have to be. Also, does being drunk count?

[John Thullen]

Andrew:

If you're stoned, you're already an honorary Democrat.

[kenB]

Until I read Nell's rejoinder, I assumed the link had had something to do with the university in NYC.

[Jesurgislac]

Until I read Nell's rejoinder, I assumed the link had had something to do with the university in NYC.

My bad. It was a stupid typo, which I regret to say I not only didn't notice when I typed it, but I didn't even register when I usually notice typos - a second after I hit Post.

[LizardBreath]

I don't think you did type it -- wasn't it Slart? But vastly unimportant in any case.

[Jesurgislac]

I don't think you did type it -- wasn't it Slart?

It was. Oh well. Slart will probably consider my taking the blame for his typo my just desserts.

[Slartibartfast]

Slart will probably consider my taking the blame for his typo my just desserts

Nah. Guilt all mine; subject me to your worst. This is not quite a spelling flame, is it?

[bob mcmanus]

I can't believe this thread devolved into a discussion of septic tank maintenance. Yes I can. But it really interrupted the flow, and created a horrible mess. Great thoughts are backing up and overflowing onto other threads.

Where's the moderation?

[Slartibartfast]

I submit that discussion of septic tank maintenance is relevant to ANY thread on politics.

[yip]

"Also, I don't necessarily believe all Democrats look to government first to solve problems. I do believe some Republicans look to government to last."

Look, I'm desperate for Republicans to be removed from power, but this seems typical of a lot of the complaints leveled against Andrew here. It's somewhat disingenuous to compare _not all_ Democrats looking to government first with _some_ Republicans looking to government last (sorry to pick on you, John).

The burden constantly seems to be that Andrew is asked to defend all potential cases when that's not even his position while the other side dismisses examples by effectively saying that democrats don't support _all_ government, just _good_ government.

It's almost felt like a back and forth where when things started with general principles, that was dismissed as theory and Andrew was asked for some examples, those were dismissed as isolated and he was pressed to prove the overarching point, which was dismissed as theory and... While many of you have encouraged him to relax, reading down through the comments has made me a bit surprised at his continued good graces. However, that said, this is about the most civil blog discussion I've seen, so in the context of this criticism, let me oddly say that it's nice to see a _more_ civilized board than the norm :).

[Jesurgislac]

Slarti: This is not quite a spelling flame, is it?

I would say more a spelling flambé.

[liberal japonicus]

Why is it ironic that the one thing almost everyone accepts as a legitimate use of government power might be better funded than things that have very contested acceptance?

I'll cop to using 'it is ironic' far too much, but my point is that the waste and pork in the defense portion of the budget far outstrips anything else in the budget. Of course, I don't want to get into a threadfight linking pie charts and stuff like that.

I think that the irony comes in the fact that libertarians seem to have an underlying principle that things can get done without government intervention, as long as we have the very very big stick of the military to prevent Nicaragua from annexing Texas.

Now, I don't want a flippant observation to descend into a comment spat, but it seems to me that libertarian principles, if they were applied to international relations, would result a remaking of the armed forces. However, if one wants to argue that libertarian principles only go to the water's edge, this is a sort of American exceptionalism. I would also point out that many of Bremer's/CPA's hairbrained schemes for post war Iraq seemed to be libertarianism run amok, so if one wants to claim that libertarianism is good for everyone in every situation, you are going to have to wear that example around your neck.

There's a lot of things I could say about libertarian philosophy at this point that would not be all that kind, and much of it would be because of the schmulibertarians (I can't spell it correctly to find it, but I think there was recently an Arthur Silber post about that, who, btw, might be someone to be asked to make a guest post at ObWi) who invoke libertarian principles as cover but don't believe the actual basis of libertarian principles unless it is to give them the moral high ground (please accept that this is not directed at anyone here)

But this is spinning off to a rant, so a couple of questions that I pose that might be interesting to answer.
-what would a libertarian armed forces look like?
-if libertarianism does not extend to the armed forces, why should this be considered a more realistic view of libertarianism
-had a libertarian been king of the US when the iron curtain collapsed, what would they have done differently?

This is pre coffee, so ignore any ranty parts.

[John Thullen]

yip:

Hey, pick away.

Actually, I think it was Sebastian way up thread who pointed out the proclivities of which Party looks to government first, which I neglected to cite in my own riff.

As to the civility of the thread, I give Andrew all of the credit for that.

It's difficult to be uncivil to a guy who is not a libertarian or a Republican, but who still feels a little put out about folks sticking their noses into his septic tank. It's like blaming Slart for Tom Delay's tenure in office when Delay never actually let Slart know who he was.

[Andrew]

lj,

I see no reason not to attack waste in the defense sector as vigorously as in any other. And, of course, some libertarians believe that national defense should be outsourced as well, although I do not subscribe to that particular belief. I do wonder, though, when I see a long rant that ends with 'Oh, but this doesn't apply to anyone here, of course,' just what I'm expected to do with it. I'll take you at your word when you say that I'm not cherry-picking libertarian principles, but then, if it doesn't apply to me, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond.

[liberal japonicus]

In reverse order, it's just to give some sort of background to my opinions, and I add that just to make it clear. I've got a particularly dark feelings for the Malkin trapeze act, who got her start as a libertarian, and I have never felt favorable inclined towards instahack, who using libertarian as a shield. Not to mention the noxious attempt by the Republicans to get the libertarian candidate in the race in PA. Trying to separate out those feelings (and not being all that successful) to discuss exactly what it is that's the problem is very difficult, and when I look up at a page long comment, I get worried that you might say 'well, I never said X, so why does this apply to me?' So part of it is in reaction to that, which is the problem with rhetoric, the only way you can not use something is to just ignore it, which then can lead to assumptions that arguments are being cherry picked.

I accept that libertarians want to go after waste in defense spending, but their definition of waste, and a liberal/progressive's definition of waste is probably quite different. I think that nuclear bunker busters are quite a waste, not simply from the fact that having them ensures that countries with bunkers are going to keep digging them deeper, it seems very much the case that stepping back from these sorts of assumptions would dictate much less shock and awe and a much different armed forces.

[yip]

-what would a libertarian armed forces look like?
Look, the canonical libertarian answer would probably be no _initiation_ of force. In practice, ask 10 libertarians, get 10 answers. Try, what would the democratic armed forces look like... (heck, ask that question to the last batch of democratic presidential candidates and you'll get a wide spread of answers)

-if libertarianism does not extend to the armed forces, why should this be considered a more realistic view of libertarianism
All libertarians I know think that you have to discuss the armed forces as a part of discussing government. But, to keep repeating, if you're looking for the a single set of precise positions, you need to ask an individual (which is probably as close to a libertarian principle as I know :) ).

-had a libertarian been king of the US when the iron curtain collapsed, what would they have done differently?
Abolished the monarchy.

[Andrew]

I'm not a libertarian, as I've noted previously. I suspect that I would have been wiser leaving Kos' essay alone, in retrospect, as I appear to have stirred up quite a few feelings to no good purpose. A good lesson learned, I suppose. But all I can answer here with certainty is what I think. In that respect, I probably do cherry-pick some libertarian tenets, since, as I said, I am not one, but I do believe some of the same things they do.

To move from the general to the specific, the offense has always had an advantage over the defense when it comes to technology. It's a lot easier to destroy something than to protect it from something, and nuclear bunker busters speak to that. There is a limit to how thoroughly an enemy can protect a site against a nuclear device. Therefore, there is a tactical case for creation of such devices. (Personally, I dislike them because I'm leery of any use of nuclear weapons, but I'm not sure I can justify that logically.)

[kenB]

I submit that discussion of septic tank maintenance is relevant to ANY thread on politics.

Slart, I think you should flesh out this thesis, turn it into a book, and call it "Politics and the Art of Septic Tank Maintenance". I know I'd buy it.

[liberal japonicus]

Thanks yip, andrew. I have to admit that I am a bit taken with the progressive notion of a armed forces, which could just as easily attacked as the libertarian stuff here with the 'give me an example, oh, that example doesn't count', so it is more a philosophical stance rather than an actual to do plan. But had we started remolding the armed forces after the Soviet collapse to be a true peace keeping force rather than an offensive force that dabbles in peace keeping, I think it would have been better. I think the notion that it could be done and done well was what motivated many on the left to support the war in Afghanistan, on the presumption that the nation building that would take place afterwards would demonstrate to other countries in the region that the benefits would outweigh everything else. I think it was Beinart who said a year or two ago that if the liberal interventionist type wants to have any credibility at all, they are going to need to figure out how to repair the damage caused by the neo-con vision of utopia.

One could argue that a force devoted to peace keeping could never be made from the parts of the armed forces that is devoted to massive applications of force, which has always been the traditional American doctrine, which may be true, but I still think that it would have been possible, and even if it weren't, the attempt would have placed us in a better situation than we are in now.

[Gary Farber]

"Gary, try the link at the end of Jes's 11:46 comment. I'm not aware of people using 'Columbia' as a short form of 'District of Columbia', but it is a frequent misspelling of 'Colombia'."

Indeed, but I am sufficiently prone to being thought rude -- or genuinely being rude -- that I am reluctant to point that common illiteracy out. (I spent at least a minute trying to avoid making that point when asking the question, fearing the answer was going to be.)

(Reading link.)

Okay, so Slart was, ah, imprecise. Tsk.

At least he wasn't being complementary about being complimentary.

[Andrew]

lj,

Rather than changing the force for peacekeeping, we really need to orient it for counterinsurgency. I am reviewing the new COIN handbook now and will probably post about it over at Chez Olmsted when I'm done.

[Gary Farber]

"Will the Democrats introduce a bill repealing the Detainee Treatment Act? Will they speak up for 4th amendment protections? I think we all know the answers to those questions, and while there are good answers to be given to them, that brings me back to the issue of the systemic problem we face."

I don't know the answer. I think it depends on a bunch of stuff, including the environment, the courage of the Democrats, what support we give them, what pressure we put on them, and so on.

You may be right if you're assuming the cynical answer, but all I can say is that I will fight such an answer as best I can.

Hey, I'm the guy who idiotically managed to call for armed resistance, and the overthrow of the government, in a moment of complete anger and extremism and rage; don't expect I won't do less to fight for habeas corpus.

(I'm a little sad Bob McManus never congratulated me on my call for armed overthrow.)

[Andrew]

Gary,

I think that it might have carried more weight if, well, you actually were armed.

[Francis]

I suspect that I would have been wiser leaving Kos' essay alone, in retrospect, as I appear to have stirred up quite a few feelings to no good purpose. A good lesson learned, I suppose.

NO! WRONG! The WHOLE point of this site is to be a forum for debating strongly held views. Debates about weakly held views aren't all that interesting.

Limiting the power of government was what the US Constitution was all about. But state constitutions (well, California's) give very broad powers to the state govt to act for the general welfare of its citizens. Finding the appropriate balance between federal power, state power and MYOB is not only vitally important but also interesting.

to return to a point I made above, I think that most liberals have no problem with the idea that government intervention should be approached with healthy skepticism. It's the moral component to libertarianism -- that government ought not to intervene, even if government intervention could solve the problem at issue -- where we part company.

As to debating the relative dangerousness of governments vs. corporations, I think that this thread pretty clearly establishes that such a debate is useless. Both can be dangerous; both need monitoring by concerned citizens.

Frankly, I see the debate on relative dangerousness asking the question: Do you want to be beaten by a baseball bat or a hockey stick?

Neither, thanks.

[yip]

lj, I agree that remodelling the military after the fall of the Soviet Union was a huge missed opportunity. The continued focus on building a military capable of fighting an equal enemy was ridiculous then and has just grown more so.

Andrew, it seems like a lot of the focus on counterinsurgency has been working up through the ranks lately. What I've heard has suggested that the stumbling block to making this a strategic focus rather than just innovating at the tactical level remains the Pentagon. In any case, I'll be curious to read what you post so I'll be watching your blog (I think it was another thread here where the claim was made that cross-posting hurt readership at the original blog...).

[Phil]

My potential levers with them are either to not buy their stuff, or to somehow dissuade others from patronizing them. The first assumes I want to buy what they are selling, the latter assumes I have some way of identifying, contacting, and changing the behavior of their other customers. Both are more often than not untrue.

No, the latter assumes that someone has already invented the boycott, the inexpensive (or free) news release, and the internet. Fortunately, all three are in fact true. Surely you've heard of them? A large-scale boycott of a company and its products can be easily instigated without ever identifying a single individual consumer.

[yip]

"A large-scale boycott of a company and its products can be easily instigated without ever identifying a single individual consumer."

And, often the mere existence of the boycott is more effective than any actual losses. Often, changes will be made just to stop the negative press.

[hilzoy]

Yay! I completely agree with Andrew about septic tanks!

What I don't agree with is this -- which I copied, but now can't recall who said it (Andrew or Seb, if memory serves, qhich it often doesn't):

"Democrats tend to look to government first when there's a problem."

This isn't right. For one thing, it's only even plausible for the range of problems that normally strike people as the sort of problem where government would be a remotely plausible solution. That range is already much, much smaller than the range of 'problems' -- e.g., it does not include problems like a leaky faucet (where the government is not my landlord), a broken car, a child with a cold, me and my persistent failure to get my email under control, and all that stuff. And I don't mention this just to be annoying: I think it represents a real and very large range of problems where all of us agree that a governmental solution would not be best.

Moreover, I actually don't think that wanting government to be the solution to all those problems is a partisan trait. I think that large numbers of people suppose that the government should solve a problem when it's their problem (and it's in that 'not nuts to think that government should solve it' range), and which party is likely to side on them depends on which problem it is.

For instance, Republicans seem to me to be more likely to propose government solutions to such problems as: ranchers in the West not wanting to pay fair market rent for grazing on government lands, farmers in Oregon wanting water that might otherwise support salmon diverted onto their farms, farmers in CA expecting to have the government provide heavily subsidized water rights so that they can grow rice, of all things, in perpetuity, etc.

I think that looking to government to solve one's problems is something that people do on a bipartisan basis, and that different parties tend to be better at resisting different constituencies, depending on how much a given party relies on the constituency in question.

Personally, I do not look to the government to solve all problems, even in the narrowed range I spoke of.

[Andrew]

Francis,

I can't help but get a chuckle at a post in which you say I'm wrong in suggesting I should have avoided the topic, then close by noting that the debate on the topic is useless.

[bob mcmanus]

(I'm a little sad Bob McManus never congratulated me on my call for armed overthrow.)

That is because I did it first, on this very blog. (I just did some searching, but can't find it;not long before you did.)

I also researched the legal stuff; and I think we have to do it in harmony or something to get arrested.

Now, OTOH, over at Unfogged we agreed that saying the Other Bad Thing will likely get the Secret Service knocking at your door.

[Francis]

yeah, well it's Friday afternoon.

and didn't someone smart once say that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds?

Hil: If you want to join SH in the argument that the CVP (Central Valley Project) and SWP (State Water Project) should be put primarily to M&I (municipal and industrial -- not ag.) use, I will gladly join the battle. but that's not a topic for this thread.

issues to think about, if you want to take me on:

who decides what crops farmers grow?

California's Central Valley is, with a controlled source of water, some of the best farmland on the planet. Why shouldn't it be used that way? (please note that all water used in the Central Valley comes from within California.)

the farmers were there first. the massive explosion in population occurred only after the facilities were built. A core doctrine of western water law (and property law in general) is first-in-time, first in right. why should farming in the Central Valley be different?

The SWP and CVP now exist (as does all sorts of infrastructure, some of it rivalrous and some non-rivalrous, built by the federal government). While one can argue that they never should have been built in the first place, these are now sunk costs. So, on a going forward basis, what should the allocation be?

and coming full circle, there is no such thing as a "market" for large volumes of water, either potable or raw. San Diego (to continue picking on Sebastian) would have a population of at most a few hundred if it weren't for enormous expenditures by public agencies to bring water there. Since it's a true monopoly, there's no way to price it at a market price.

[the last is an oversimplification. various government agencies do charge each other for delivering water in various ways. but it gets very complicated in a hurry.]

[yip]

hilzoy, I don't think there is a "real and very large range of problems where all of us agree that a governmental solution would not be best". Nearly every time there is a crisis (however minor), there is a corresponding cry that government should "do something" about it. This doesn't always work, but more often than not, laws are passed and power expands.

That power is then left up for grabs. Governments don't tend to release power once they've acquired it. And, since that power itself is valuable, it tends to get acquired by those willing to bid the most to acquire it.

In practice, this means that regulatory and bureaucratic systems are often captured by the very groups they are designed to restrain. Consider the way the national park service was captured by logging/mining interests to the point that vast areas of federal acreage were logged that would have been uneconomical _without_ the supposed conservation services building them free logging roads.

If our goal with government is to check forces that we consider more powerful than us, we're doomed to failure. If they are more powerful than us, they are going to be better able to win control over the government institutions created to control them.

I also don't agree with the libertarian position that markets are enough. I think organization is required.

But the ratcheting up of government power and its subsequent cooption by powerful players in the system seems to me a greater threat than is acknowledged.

As a slight coda, I think republicans are worse at this than democrats. Their efforts to use government to control cultural definitions of morality seems to me a singularly threatening move (not to mention the general destruction of the last 1000 years of legal protections for the individual). So please don't think when I talk about democrats that I'm coming at it from a republican perspective. I will be supporting the democrats in a month and it's that fact that motivates me to discuss some of this in forums like this.

[hilzoy]

yip: " Nearly every time there is a crisis (however minor), there is a corresponding cry that government should "do something" about it."

-- I think it seems this way because a lot of problems don't so much as occur to us as possibly having a governmental solution, and that this represents a consensus we don't normally think about. E.g., we probably all agree that the problem of not everyone who wants them having tickets to baseball games does not require a governmental solution. Likewise, the problem of having to mow one's lawn even if you think it's a drag, the problem of heartbreak, etc.

[yip]

hilzoy, I should have been more clear. It's not that I think there are no areas where there is no real call for government control, it's that I think it's a smaller area than you suggest. From your initial list, there have been calls for government to get involved in _every_ item you originally listed.
leaky faucet: mandated landlord repair standards
broken car: government sponsored repair work for lower-income families
child with a cold: all manner of government regulated child-care and health care
me and my persistent failure to get my email under control: here, they've actually passed legislation in terms of various anti-spam acts!

Thankfully, I have not yet heard calls for government to mend a broken heart :).

In any case, this is a relatively minor part of the point. The idea that there are some areas that government is not being called into doesn't change the more central points on regulatory and bureaucratic capture and general struggles for control over expanded power after the initial public focus wears off.

[liberal japonicus]

re the new counter insurgency manual, ounce of prevention=pound of cure. hindsight I tole you so, but I can't help feel that if we actually took that peace dividend seriously, we would have done something like that. Perhaps if a liberal had been in office when the Soviet union collapsed ;^)

yip, that's a good point, but as I mentioned earlier, when you have population density increase, it becomes more necessary to control what your neighbors do and to make sure that small problems do not become greater ones. It's a bit of a misnomer to claim that kids with colds are behind mandated health care and child care or leaky faucets are at the heart of demanding landlords have minimal standards, or spam in your mailbox is the sole reason for anti spam legislation. I've never heard of gov sponsored repair work for cars, but the reason we have mandated inspections is that a bad car can cause huge amount of damage.

While the spam legislation might be the closest to gov handling trivial problems, phishing and fake offers designed to evade the state regulatory apparatus (spammers who engage in these schemes are very careful to avoid the US mail to avoid wire fraud indictments, I believe) are the norm, and by finding a way to turn off the spigot, one deals with those kinds of problems.

[DaveC]

Interesting reactionary post about radically changing the government. Via right-wing loons at Winds of Change.

[yip]

lj, I actually agree that there is a need for oiling markets. I think effective markets are complex human creations and not some natural state of being as some libertarians treat them. I just think that there's a need for a greater awareness of the risks of government power as a way to handle those adjustments (what I take as Andrew's original point in the way back time). As I said before, these particulars of how far calls for government power extend are somewhat tangential to my main point and somewhat immaterial (I probably should have not mixed them into a single post and perhaps suggested some necessary connection).

The main issue for me is that these power structures we create to deal with real and pressing problems are more likely to end up under the control of the forces they are designed to restrain. As I stated, government power is open to control, and it is precisely those who are most powerful who are going to be most effective at taking that control. Particularly, powerful, concentrated interests have proven effective in this regard.

This does not mean we don't use government for anything. It does not mean there is no place for government. It does mean that both in deciding when to make use of those powers and how to craft those powers, we must have a keen awareness of these unique risks of government power.

The costs associated with those risks lead me to prefer a much more cautious use of government power than many here seem to advocate. But, at the underlying point, I think we can agree both given current and historical events that caution is warranted. But caution is just the starting point, innovation is required because, under present conditions, we are allowing our efforts to use government for good to simply strengthen the very dangers we sought to use it against.

[CharleyCarp]

DaveC, that's interesting, but I'm not sure I'd agree with either repeal of the 17th Amendment or limitation of the 14th. Taking the latter first, what happens under the 14th, and incorporation, is that a minimal standard is set for state interference with civil liberties. Through the Fourteenth, the Fourth Amendment is a floor, but if a state wants to have greater respect for privacy in interpreting its own constitutional analogues, it is free to do so. Because it is only the floor, and not the ceiling, the 14th, and the federal courts, are not forcing all states to meet the same standards everywhere -- and abortion is an example. Within the constitutional limits, states have a real variety of provisions on this issue.

On state legislative selection of Senators, I'm not convinced either. The point of changing was to get rid of a body appointed by elitists of elitists, which was, at the time, a great protector of elite values. This fits the 18th century conception well, but I really don't see any interest in stepping away from democracy in this way. I'd be interested to know if any readers think we should revert to the original method of selecting senators.

I have no problem with prosecuting leakers. I can think of plenty of reasons why the government wouldn't want to do it -- and why it isn't often done. For one thing, if there even is any real evidence, for example, that the NYT story on the NSA program actually damaged national security, the government isn't going to want to put introduce it at trial, much less subject it to challenge by the defendant, and its proponents to cross-examination.

In my view, the current dysfunction in the legislative branch is transitory. It's not usually a feature of one-party rule, but in this case, where the President has something like a cult of personality going, and members of his party in Congress are loathe to challenge him seriously, the legislature isn't doing its job.

DaveC, anyone who says something like 'the Democrats should have introduced a bill and dared the Republicans to shoot it down' doesn't understand how Congress works. The Republicans don't shoot down bills introduced by Democrats. They ignore them. Introducing legislation is often not the best use of a member's time -- while investigation often serves the change executive policy, even without legislation. Just knowing that someone is going to have to defend a policy in public has an effect on what policies get pursued. This is probably the greatest impact divided government will have, if we get there. Legislating the repeal of the MCA -- while it would be good -- is a waste of time. First because the President would veto any such bill, second because it's more efficient to let him know that all claims of torture are going to be seriously investigated. The latter is enough to deter virtually any member of the armed forces from doing anything outside the field manual (if indeed they are not already deterred). Or any CIA officer.

[liberal japonicus]

I'm in basic agreement with most of what you say. However, one reason I advocate more governmental action rather than less is that, again, because of population, it is far easier to have problems quickly arise. So, when you invoke kids getting colds for mandated child health care, (or health care in general) you not only overlook the risk of pandemics like bird flu, but creates a situation of haves and have nots that is corrosive to society. In that regard, I would suggest Richard Evans book _Death in Hamburg: Society and Politics in the Cholera Years, 1830-1910_, which, in the course of discussing the cholera epidemic in Hamburg, suggests the relationship between free-market approaches and the epidemic.

[liberal japonicus]

Sorry, that last was to yip

[bob mcmanus]

"I'd be interested to know if any readers think we should revert to the original method of selecting senators."

I am actually indifferent to this. I really do not consider my Texas state legislature a group of elites, and I doubt we would turn out worse than Hutchinson and Cornyn. Senators would be more products of state politics, and might motivate more interest in state elections.

[russell]

Don't know if anyone's still reading way down here, but a couple of quick things:

Yes, I'm aware of boycotts.

The issue here is who is more accountable to me, government or corporations. I have to cause a corporation a lot of pain before they will even notice my existence. It takes a lot of work, and often has no effect on the particular thing I'd like the corporation to change.

If you think through the examples I've given, I think you'll see that boycotts or other consumer-level actions aren't going to make a dent. It takes government intervention.

In contrast, there are a large number of political officers who I can either call directly or whose offices I can call, speak to someone I know, engage in an intelligent conversation, and have my concerns heard and responded to.

I don't always get my wish, which is appropriate, but my wishes are always heard and accounted for. And, since very few people actually bother to do anything, my call makes a large impact relative to my personal importance and resources (which are negligible), especially at the more local levels.

In my direct, personal experience, and my observation of the experience of others, government is generally far more responsive and accountable to normal people than corporations are. I therefore find government, even with it's option of force, less of a threat than corporations. That's all I'm saying.

Regarding Andrew's original issue -- the relative threat of government force vs. corporate malfeasance -- here is an observation.

The people who I think have gotten this closest to right, at least until very recently, are the Swiss. Traditionally, they have had, at most, a very minimal standing army. The military is pretty close to a true citizen militia.

All males are eligible for service from age 18 to their early 30's, and most serve. Officers serve longer. Everyone gets military training, and is issued a weapon.

Women are not required to serve, but can do so, in any branch, if they wish.

It would be more or less impossible to imagine the state oppressing the citizens by force in that environment. The citizens are the force, literally.

I think that is close to what the founders of this country intended, although it's not what we have now.

Thanks -