I'm pretty excited. My wife and I are leaving this afternoon to visit our daughter, her husband and two of our grandchildren in Tucson. We are driving not flying on this trip; we both have the time (my wife has spring break next week and I have all the time in the world) and I like to go on long drives.
It is a perfect day to take off. Sunny blue sky with scattered high clouds and no rain in the forecast. I'm not sure where I get my love for taking long drives. Maybe from my childhood. My parents loved to travel and in that era flying was much more costly. We traveled quite a bit from Berkeley to Southern CA to seem my paternal grandparents and to Utah and Idaho to seem my Mom's family. Oddly enough I quite enjoyed those trips.
There's something about travel, as I noted in a previous post, that is otherworldly. I feel suspended from the present unmoored in time and space; The box has not yet been opened and anything is possible.
T minus 3 hours on the mark.
Thursday, April 10, 2014
The Regulatory State Redux
Kevin Williamson's column at National Review today put me in mind of another thought I had about the effect of overregulation. Williamson uses the current example of a Rancher in Nevada who apparently has acted in defiance of Federal Regulations relating to the protected Desert Tortoise and now for his act of rebellion faces fines, confiscation of his property, imprisonment and perhaps death (the BLM has deployed snipers by some accounts, which is another discussion entirely: why are so many federal agencies so heavily armed?)
Focusing on the left's attempts to squelch dissent and prevent contrary views from being reflected in public policy he notes
That may not lead directly to open potentially violent confrontations, but it could lead to a type of anarchy where laws exist and enforced on the books, but are in fact ignored while everyone acts in their own best interest regardless of legal niceties.
Focusing on the left's attempts to squelch dissent and prevent contrary views from being reflected in public policy he notes
the Left’s attempts to restrict citizens’ ability to influence policy through things such as campaign donations, to say nothing of proposals to lock people up for unpopular political speech, are more dangerous than is appreciated: With those remedies diminished, open defiance becomes more attractive.But, the frustration that leads to defiance need not be engendered solely by the perception that remedies have been blocked. That frustration can also arise from the types of bureaucratic nightmares I referenced in my post this morning. The frustration need not lead to open defiance to be dangerous either. Because our society, as any society, depends on widespread voluntary compliance with the law anything that undermines the will to comply is dangerous to the society. When people are faced with a daunting regulatory burden seemingly divorced from the real world they will ignore the regulations imposing the burden. If such burdens are common the practice of ignoring them will become equally widespread. At some point most citizens will then feel free and even justified in ignoring the law.
That may not lead directly to open potentially violent confrontations, but it could lead to a type of anarchy where laws exist and enforced on the books, but are in fact ignored while everyone acts in their own best interest regardless of legal niceties.
The Regualtory State
Apparently Phillip Howard has a new book out "The Rule of Nobody" discussed here at Had Enough Therapy. I read his first book "The Death of Common Sense" many years ago. In his new book he apparently returns to the theme of overregulation and its pernicious effects on regulators' ability to exercise discretion and judgment. Preventing the exercise of judgment and discretion results in absurdities such as being unable to remove a fallen tree from a stream even though it was causing flooding without spending thousands of dollars on engineering and planning work required by regulation.
As Schneiderman notes regulators and legislators like detailed regulations for various reasons. The trade off for the regulators is that they in turn escape responsibility. In addition to detailed regulations furthering regulators raison d'etre such regulations also prevent regulators from having to exercise judgment and discretion. Regulators are thus able to avoid any responsibility. This is an advantage as well for legislators who enact broad mandates and leave the detailed implementation to regulators.
This is a common problem. Accountability is widely seen as something to be avoided at all costs. Most people operate by the axiom that they don't care what happens as long as it's not their fault. So, in my view the issue of overregulation is merely a symptom of a larger problem: how do we make our "representatives" in government accountable? It seems to me that the trend over the life of our Republic has been to diffuse accountability. Partly this is a result of a growing population more people means paradoxically fewer people to answer to. But it is also a result of the human tendency to want to avoid responsibility the result of which is that people alter the structures in which they operate to deflect responsibility. Here I am thinking of the tendency to pass laws giving regulators broad discretion in implementation.
Moreover, even when the structures cannot be altered enough to avoid responsibility people try to form a narrative which absolves them of responsibility. Currently this is manifest in Democrats seeking to persuade people that whatever ill effects Obamacare is inflicting are either 1) not that bad really or 2) not their fault.
It has seemed to me that the this problem can only be solved by devolving more governmental power to local political units. It is much more difficult to avoid answering your neighbor's questions than it is to avoid the questions of someone whom you have never seen before and will never see again. This in theory is an approach liberals and conservatives should be able to support. It would allow both to have the chance to implement their particular world views more thoroughly than would otherwise be possible.
Regardless of the approach, something must be done to make those who govern us more accountable for their actions.
As Schneiderman notes regulators and legislators like detailed regulations for various reasons. The trade off for the regulators is that they in turn escape responsibility. In addition to detailed regulations furthering regulators raison d'etre such regulations also prevent regulators from having to exercise judgment and discretion. Regulators are thus able to avoid any responsibility. This is an advantage as well for legislators who enact broad mandates and leave the detailed implementation to regulators.
This is a common problem. Accountability is widely seen as something to be avoided at all costs. Most people operate by the axiom that they don't care what happens as long as it's not their fault. So, in my view the issue of overregulation is merely a symptom of a larger problem: how do we make our "representatives" in government accountable? It seems to me that the trend over the life of our Republic has been to diffuse accountability. Partly this is a result of a growing population more people means paradoxically fewer people to answer to. But it is also a result of the human tendency to want to avoid responsibility the result of which is that people alter the structures in which they operate to deflect responsibility. Here I am thinking of the tendency to pass laws giving regulators broad discretion in implementation.
Moreover, even when the structures cannot be altered enough to avoid responsibility people try to form a narrative which absolves them of responsibility. Currently this is manifest in Democrats seeking to persuade people that whatever ill effects Obamacare is inflicting are either 1) not that bad really or 2) not their fault.
It has seemed to me that the this problem can only be solved by devolving more governmental power to local political units. It is much more difficult to avoid answering your neighbor's questions than it is to avoid the questions of someone whom you have never seen before and will never see again. This in theory is an approach liberals and conservatives should be able to support. It would allow both to have the chance to implement their particular world views more thoroughly than would otherwise be possible.
Regardless of the approach, something must be done to make those who govern us more accountable for their actions.
Sunday, April 6, 2014
Economics
I am not an economist. Whatever understanding I have of economics comes from reading general interest stories about economics. I also have my own views based on my observations of my own and others behavior. I thought a bit about economics yesterday.
As part of my exercise routine I use a nordictrack ski machine (I know very old school, but there it is). I watch TV while I'm working out and I find it difficult to hear dialogue sometimes over the noise of the exercise machine. I have addressed that problem recently by watching a Swedish detective show on Netflix called "Wallander" I read the subtitles and don't have to worry about hearing the dialogue.
In yesterday's episode, a priest was shot. As the detectives and policemen were discussing the crime it came out that the priest worked with an outfit that purchases used and surplus medical equipment then resells the equipment to Africa and makes a profit on the sale. This revelation was accompanied by disapproving noises and comments. The company's business was not seen as a voluntary interaction between a willing buyer and willing seller, but evidently as a transaction in which the Swedish party was taking advantage of the African party. The key issue seemed to be the profit the Swedes made in the transaction. If was a minor point in the show, but it got me thinking a bit.
At an emotional level I got the complaints voiced by the Swedish policemen. It felt wrong somehow as if the Swedes were taking advantage of the Africans because I perceived the Swedes as strong and the Africans as week.
At the same time, the business was filling an unoccupied niche. If a charitable organization existed to perform that function, the business would not have been successful. In the absence of such an organization was it not better that the Africans had access to some medical equipment rather than none? And if the policemen really felt that the company was acting inappropriately, why didn't they form a charitable organization and undercut the company?
I think my dual reactions are pretty typical. Most of us feel at some level that material inequality is somehow wrong or at least it makes us feel uncomfortable. Why is that? I think that our feeling of discomfort is an echo in our spirits from our pre-mortal lives. I think that our spirits at some level realize that the appropriate order is for all of God's children to be "equal in earthly things."
Most of us also are disinclined to act completely without reference to our own benefit. The answer to the question about why the charitable niche went unfilled is that people were not sufficiently charitable. I think that our lack of charity is a result of (or demonstrates) our fallen nature. We are separated by our sinful nature from God the source of all charity.
So how do we address the dichotomy and what are the results of our "solutions"?
One way of reacting is to use the force of law to attempt to prevent the inequality: enact legislation making it illegal to buy used medical equipment and sell it to third world countries or requiring that used equipment be provided to Africans for free. This is the communistic impulse. In the real world this doesn't work because if people were inclined to perform that sort of charitable service they would do so without legal coercion and if they are not inclined to such performances legal coercion will not make them. We have fallen and our nature cannot be changed by force. True believers ignore the nature of our fall and insist that the failure to change results simply from the application of insufficient force. This approach may provide some psychic reward, but it causes much physical suffering.
One way of reacting is to allow the inequality. This works in the real world because it allows men to act in accordance with their natures, the physical suffering is less, but it does not sit well with many people because they sense that the results are inappropriate. Allowing such freedom is a much better resolution of the problem than the use of force, because the use of force inevitably leads to corruption of those who wield the force.
So, what we do is attempt to find a middle ground: partially socialistic governments or mostly free but highly regulated societies. But those attempts are never stable because people tug the system one way and the other and in the background, the adversary foments discord leading to violence whenever possible. He attempts to distort all of our impulses noble or base to vicious ends.
The only solution is to change mankind's nature. That cannot be done with outward pressure. Such a change can only be wrought by God working with people who are willing to change and accept him as their leader and guide. Neither unrestrained freedom to act, nor complete control of everyone's actions is the answer. The so-called third way does not consist of any mix of the two extreme approaches; the third way is in fact the only way accepting God in our lives and allowing him to change our nature.
As part of my exercise routine I use a nordictrack ski machine (I know very old school, but there it is). I watch TV while I'm working out and I find it difficult to hear dialogue sometimes over the noise of the exercise machine. I have addressed that problem recently by watching a Swedish detective show on Netflix called "Wallander" I read the subtitles and don't have to worry about hearing the dialogue.
In yesterday's episode, a priest was shot. As the detectives and policemen were discussing the crime it came out that the priest worked with an outfit that purchases used and surplus medical equipment then resells the equipment to Africa and makes a profit on the sale. This revelation was accompanied by disapproving noises and comments. The company's business was not seen as a voluntary interaction between a willing buyer and willing seller, but evidently as a transaction in which the Swedish party was taking advantage of the African party. The key issue seemed to be the profit the Swedes made in the transaction. If was a minor point in the show, but it got me thinking a bit.
At an emotional level I got the complaints voiced by the Swedish policemen. It felt wrong somehow as if the Swedes were taking advantage of the Africans because I perceived the Swedes as strong and the Africans as week.
At the same time, the business was filling an unoccupied niche. If a charitable organization existed to perform that function, the business would not have been successful. In the absence of such an organization was it not better that the Africans had access to some medical equipment rather than none? And if the policemen really felt that the company was acting inappropriately, why didn't they form a charitable organization and undercut the company?
I think my dual reactions are pretty typical. Most of us feel at some level that material inequality is somehow wrong or at least it makes us feel uncomfortable. Why is that? I think that our feeling of discomfort is an echo in our spirits from our pre-mortal lives. I think that our spirits at some level realize that the appropriate order is for all of God's children to be "equal in earthly things."
Most of us also are disinclined to act completely without reference to our own benefit. The answer to the question about why the charitable niche went unfilled is that people were not sufficiently charitable. I think that our lack of charity is a result of (or demonstrates) our fallen nature. We are separated by our sinful nature from God the source of all charity.
So how do we address the dichotomy and what are the results of our "solutions"?
One way of reacting is to use the force of law to attempt to prevent the inequality: enact legislation making it illegal to buy used medical equipment and sell it to third world countries or requiring that used equipment be provided to Africans for free. This is the communistic impulse. In the real world this doesn't work because if people were inclined to perform that sort of charitable service they would do so without legal coercion and if they are not inclined to such performances legal coercion will not make them. We have fallen and our nature cannot be changed by force. True believers ignore the nature of our fall and insist that the failure to change results simply from the application of insufficient force. This approach may provide some psychic reward, but it causes much physical suffering.
One way of reacting is to allow the inequality. This works in the real world because it allows men to act in accordance with their natures, the physical suffering is less, but it does not sit well with many people because they sense that the results are inappropriate. Allowing such freedom is a much better resolution of the problem than the use of force, because the use of force inevitably leads to corruption of those who wield the force.
So, what we do is attempt to find a middle ground: partially socialistic governments or mostly free but highly regulated societies. But those attempts are never stable because people tug the system one way and the other and in the background, the adversary foments discord leading to violence whenever possible. He attempts to distort all of our impulses noble or base to vicious ends.
The only solution is to change mankind's nature. That cannot be done with outward pressure. Such a change can only be wrought by God working with people who are willing to change and accept him as their leader and guide. Neither unrestrained freedom to act, nor complete control of everyone's actions is the answer. The so-called third way does not consist of any mix of the two extreme approaches; the third way is in fact the only way accepting God in our lives and allowing him to change our nature.
Friday, April 4, 2014
Spring Birds
I just sat down to write another post and noticed that the birds are back. The upstairs living room in our house has a cathedral ceiling with windows affording us a nice view of the mountains. A single wooden beam runs the length of the living room supporting the roof. The beam extends beyond the front set of windows outside the walls of our house. Where the beam and the roof soffit meet there is a little gap.
For many years after we moved in birds would appear in the Spring work their way through the gap between the beam and the soffit and nest in our ceiling. At least that is what I surmised from observing the birds and listenting to the sound of birds coming from the ceiling.
Eventually I tired of hearing the birds scrabbling around every year and concluded that it probably was not good for the structure to have them in there year after year. So about 7 or 8 years ago I borrowed a very tall ladder from a neighbor, bought some metal screening and closed off the gap between the beam and the soffit. The birds can no longer access our roof to nest, yet they return every year to make the attempt.
I guess that with birds as with humans old habits die hard.
For many years after we moved in birds would appear in the Spring work their way through the gap between the beam and the soffit and nest in our ceiling. At least that is what I surmised from observing the birds and listenting to the sound of birds coming from the ceiling.
Eventually I tired of hearing the birds scrabbling around every year and concluded that it probably was not good for the structure to have them in there year after year. So about 7 or 8 years ago I borrowed a very tall ladder from a neighbor, bought some metal screening and closed off the gap between the beam and the soffit. The birds can no longer access our roof to nest, yet they return every year to make the attempt.
I guess that with birds as with humans old habits die hard.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
For the Power is In Them
I thought this article was interesting, the author's underlying assumption being that our circumstances essentially determine who we will be. Change the circumstances and you change the individual. He says for example that
This view has always seemed rather demeaning. It contains within itself a message of powerlessness. The message is that you completely lack any means of transcending your condition that you are at the mercy of whatever circumstances in which you happen to find yourself.
I do not disagree that circumstances can affect how we feel about ourselves and can encourage or discourage behaviors, but an individual who cedes all of his power to the circumstances in which he find himself does so by his own choice.
The sense of powerlessness engendered by this philosophy leads to despair which leads to nihlism. If one can do nothing nothing one does matters. We are all protagonists in The Stranger.
Moreover, the author's world view is internally inconsistent as demonstrated by his view of rich people. If we are all controlled by our circumstances then a rich person is no more to be blamed for actions the author perceives to be pernicious than are poor people. If violence by poor people is justified by reason of their circumstances (as the author clearly suggests), then the actions of the rich are equally justified by reason of their circumstances. After all they are only acting according to the programming inherent in their surroundings just as the poor are.
The author by suggesting that rich people are somehow guilty or responsible for the plight of poor people is completely at odds with his argument that actions are dictated and absovlved by circumstnces. One cannot argue that only certain people and not others are controlled by their circumstances and therefore blameless regardless of how they act.
The author's insistence on maintaining this inconsistency, by implying that rich people should change the way in which they act in order to assist the poor, clearly implies that rich people have a power, the power to transcend their circumstances, that poor people lack.
I prefer not to think of certain groups of people as being helpless in the face of their circumstances. All God's children have power, the power to choose, the power to live a happy life, the power to change their circumstances. Some require assistance. Some who are incapable of taking care of themselves need to be cared for. Others who lack the knowledge or habits to be able to care for themselves require teaching, encouragement and material assistance until they can do so. But they have the power and if they never use that power they miss one of life's great experiences.
Certainly there are cultural differences as you scale the income ladder. Living in abundance, not fearing for your children's safety, and having decent food around will have its effect.It is not clear what effect he refers to, but it is clear that in his view material surrounding affect a person's behavior. Change the surroundings and the behavior will change.
This view has always seemed rather demeaning. It contains within itself a message of powerlessness. The message is that you completely lack any means of transcending your condition that you are at the mercy of whatever circumstances in which you happen to find yourself.
I do not disagree that circumstances can affect how we feel about ourselves and can encourage or discourage behaviors, but an individual who cedes all of his power to the circumstances in which he find himself does so by his own choice.
The sense of powerlessness engendered by this philosophy leads to despair which leads to nihlism. If one can do nothing nothing one does matters. We are all protagonists in The Stranger.
Moreover, the author's world view is internally inconsistent as demonstrated by his view of rich people. If we are all controlled by our circumstances then a rich person is no more to be blamed for actions the author perceives to be pernicious than are poor people. If violence by poor people is justified by reason of their circumstances (as the author clearly suggests), then the actions of the rich are equally justified by reason of their circumstances. After all they are only acting according to the programming inherent in their surroundings just as the poor are.
The author by suggesting that rich people are somehow guilty or responsible for the plight of poor people is completely at odds with his argument that actions are dictated and absovlved by circumstnces. One cannot argue that only certain people and not others are controlled by their circumstances and therefore blameless regardless of how they act.
The author's insistence on maintaining this inconsistency, by implying that rich people should change the way in which they act in order to assist the poor, clearly implies that rich people have a power, the power to transcend their circumstances, that poor people lack.
I prefer not to think of certain groups of people as being helpless in the face of their circumstances. All God's children have power, the power to choose, the power to live a happy life, the power to change their circumstances. Some require assistance. Some who are incapable of taking care of themselves need to be cared for. Others who lack the knowledge or habits to be able to care for themselves require teaching, encouragement and material assistance until they can do so. But they have the power and if they never use that power they miss one of life's great experiences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)