On Liberty and Regulation; Theory and Practicality

Eric's Grumbles makes a post with the excellent point: If you want corporate money out of politics, take away their incentive to spend it there. In other words, remove the power of the politicians to regulate market behavior. When politics has less influence over corporations, corporations will exert less influence over politicians. I love this in theory. Practicality, however, is different. Let us say that Embalming Rivers Detergent Company discharges effluent into the rivers, but through a series of shell companies its marketed under a diverse number of brand names that change whenever the public catches onto one. Because it's cheaper than Ethical Wash Detergent's product, the buyers of major consumer distributors will buy it no matter the name. It is much cheaper to change the name of the product when consumers "catch on" than it is to actually be a good citizen. Furthermore, in today's society there is an information overload. I don't know who makes that brand of soap and chances are slim that I will find out it's one of Embalming Rivers' shell companies, all I know is that it's cheap. It is less expensive to society, and more effective, to directly regulate their pollutants in the first place. I wish it were not so, but my wishing doesn't change the universe, much as I would like it to.



Reasons like this are why I won't shop Wal-Mart and similar operations - they don't care about the environmental provenance or their soap, or costs to the community, or anything that a responsible citizen does. All they care about is margin and volume, which is fine and what they should do up to a point, but they go well beyond that point. I don't care that they put mom and pop stores out of business. I do care that they put corporate competitors who are better citizens and pay a living wage to their employees out of business, while we the taxpayers pick up the tab in higher taxes and other costs. I've always thought that the best way to protest Walmart effectively, inform Wal-Mart's shoppers how much every $100 they save at Walmart costs their community as opposed to shopping their competitors. "Congratulations! Your $12.38 in savings just cost our town $197.38 of your tax money! Doesn't that make you feel great!" Of course, it's a tragedy of the commons situation, and government employees, public health care workers, and such might might then feel even more obliged to shop Wal Mart, and (sarcasm on) we can all see how effective this whole boycott Wal Mart thing has been, can't we? Looks like they're going out of business any time now, right? (sarcasm off) Being devoted to individual liberty means I must allow you to make and act upon your choices no matter how wrong I believe them to be (as long as you don't hurt anyone else). I can inform people of what the costs are, but many, if not the vast majority, see only the $12.38 they save, and the $197.38 is not important to them as it is spread out among many times more than the breakeven amount of population. They see only that they are paying for everyone else's $197.38 anyway, so they might as well save their $12.38 and make everyone else pay their $197.38, and, as I cannot show any direct victims, I must permit them to do so. I don't like it, and I certainly don't have to participate, but I am not morally justified in preventing them.



I think Eric as well as most people would agree with me on this, but due to the corporations looking at things from a "tragedy of the commons" angle as well as individuals, every path away from the current environmental regulation laws leads directly to ecological catastrophe. Every path away from securities and banking regulation leads to economic collapse. Every path away from limiting the supply of unskilled labor (i.e. unlimited legal immigration) leads to unbelievable social costs.



I would really like to take these awful equations out of politics, but It Ain't Going To Happen. Might as well wish for the ability to travel faster than light by flapping your arms. Just because we don't have complete quantifications for the laws of society and politics doesn't mean they are less real, and the basis in society means that the social safety net, corporate regulations, and the like are not going away in a democracy until and unless the political will shifts and stays shifted and focused for at least a full generation. Furthermore, the politicians we elect aren't so stupid as to not realize that their power, their importance to their constituents, and everything else flows from their ability to regulate. Even the most radical reformer automatically becomes a politician - part of the power structure - as soon as they are elected. They will work to sabotage any such change they are actually forced to make to the maximum extent possible, which is quite a lot. The most we can do is work to lessen their influence while working to change society's direction. We can work to keep it as small and as rational as possible, and this is kind of like fighting entropy or shoveling water, but enough of us doing it will make a difference and every little bit helps, but there are people out there who are Damned Clever and/or Damned Intelligent working to subvert or avoid the system to their own benefit, and every one who succeeds makes the position I take and the work I and those on my side want to do that much More Damned Difficult.



It would be easier in a lot of senses to just set up a dictatorship. I remember back in my college days the idiots who went around telling us to "Question Authority" would always get upset when I immediately asked them "Why?", and even more upset when I had to explain to them that they were trying to set themselves up as part of the authority structure and thus were therefore fair game for their own question, and to get used to it now because it was only going to get worse the closer they got to office, and much worse still if they ever got into office. They didn't want to be the power structure in a democracy, of course. They wanted to be named Benevolent Dictator™ but if you've noticed all of the Benevolent Dictators™ in the world lately, their regimes have one heck of a strong tendency to turn into the worst damned hellholes on the planet.



Alleged humans like that are the reason we need the First Amendment, and in case it fails, the Second.



The point to all of this is that dictatorship is an easy trap to fall into, and sometimes the paths to avoiding a dictorship lead us into some pretty bizarre territory, and places we really would rather not be. But given the choice between taking corporate regulation out of politics so that they have no incentive to invest in politicians, and the status quo, I will take the status quo and work to keep the regulations reasonable, rational, supportive of competition and individual choices, and effective. Yes, it's harder than the alternatives of allowing the companies to do what they want, or of capricious enforcement by a dictatorship. The benefits to be gained, however, are much larger and market forces are clearly insufficient to the task by themselves. It is easy to granstand about the value of liberty and how regulation is choking the country and individuals will make rational choices and Let's Just Do Away With The Whole Thing, but as G.K. Chesterton points out:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from

deforming them, there is one plain and simple

principle; a principle which will probably be called a

paradox. There exists in such a case a certain

institution or law; let us say, for the sake of

simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The

more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and

says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it

away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer

will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of

it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away

and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me

that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to

destroy it."



This paradox rests on the most elementary common

sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was

not set up by somnambulists who built it in their

sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there

by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in

the street. Some person had some reason for thinking

it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we

know what the reason was, we really cannot judge

whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely

probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of

the question, if something set up by human beings like

ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and

mysterious. There are reformers who get over this

difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were

fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly

appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is

that nobody has any business to destroy a social

institution until he has really seen it as an

historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and

what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really

be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they

have since become bad purposes, or that they are

purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply

stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that

has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not

the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

(HT to Asymmetrical Information for bringing this passage to my attention some time ago)



To make a long point short, each and every law and regulation that we have has a historical reason why it was enacted. Many of them are stupid, redundant, pointless, or foolish, but we will do far better to glean through them with an eye to repealing such laws, or to prevent such laws from being passed in the first place than to advocate a clean sweep of all regulation. It's hard work, thankless, and unpopular, because every one of them has a constituency. Remember, they weren't enacted without a reason. Nobody proposes laws and regulations without an agenda and a constituency. That constituency may not survive the harsh light of public scrutiny, but that constituency is there, and they will do their best to stop scrutiny before it gets to a level they cannot defend against. It is far easier, and more popular, for a politician to propose a new law to "Solve The Problem". After all, you Look Busy, and if you didn't think the new law's constituency was larger and more powerful than its opposition, you probably wouldn't have proposed it.



With all this going on in the background, being a rational proponent of individual liberty and limiting the authority of the state is about the most difficult, unpopular, and overwhelming work possible. Most people who call themselves advocates of liberty are in point of fact, advocates of license (as in John Stuart Mill's "License they mean when they bawl Liberty!"). This among other reasons, is why I'm not welcome at most Libertarian meetings, any more than I'm welcome over at Idiots In Search of a Benevolent Dictatorship™. There's certainly no money in it, and chances are dim of finding your way into the history books. But it remains the right place to be.





Afterward: This started as part of a Daily Links and Minifeatures, and got out of hand.



I've long thought Robert Heinlein's most intelligent proposal was a bicameral legislature where one house can make laws by a two-thirds majority, and the other house can repeal them with a one-third minorty. To this, I ask the obvious questions: Which house would be more powerful? Which house would be more influential? Which house would be more heavily scrutinized, and thus accountable? What are the points on which each house (or both) would most likely fail to correctly discharge its assigned duty to the populace at large?



This causes me to want to add provisos that legislation concerning each house and its members responsibilities shall be made by the other house with a one-third vote, repealed by a two thirds vote, and regarding their pay and entitlements shall be enacted with a two thirds vote and repealed with a one third vote. Of course, unless such a system is set up in the aftermath of a revolution, it's not likely to happen.



politics liberty culture daily life history life law regulation opinion philosophy rants regulation