March 10, 2007
From the desk of Jane Galt:Why I heart Glen Whitman
He explains the comb over in terms of the Sorites paradox. Also, he ably addresses the central objection that I think a lot of people have to libertarian civil rights (near) absolutism in a post on that pinpoint search article everyone's been talking about:
Jeff Goldstein is unconcerned, because he agrees with David Brin that the possibility for micro-enforcement will create a groundswell of support for changing the laws in question . . . [t]his strikes me as hopelessly optimistic because it ignores the way state authorities actually work. Perhaps in the case of speeding, which virtually everyone does from time to time, the uproar might be sufficient to force a change in the law if the law is enforced uniformly (say, by automatic traffic cameras). But for most of the laws we’re talking about, there is ample reason to think the laws will be enforced selectively on targeted individuals and groups. In addition, the authorities use minor infractions like drug possession as leverage to justify arrests that could not otherwise be justified, to motivate testimony from unwilling witnesses, to extract plea bargains from suspects they cannot convict of worse offenses, and so forth. And everyone knows this. It’s standard operating procedure.The proliferation and laws and regulations that make virtually everyone guilty of something gives state authorities the discretion to punish whomever they want, whenever they want. This is a problem already, and technology that eases the detection of every little infraction will only exacerbate it.
Debates about civil liberties often hinge on some sort of moral algebra. So people favouring increased power for the police say "Yes, there will be some more abuses, some innocent people may end up in jail, but we will also prevent X number of crimes". The object becomes altering the ratio of intrusions by the police to the number of violations by criminals until both sides of the equation balance.
But that kind of power changes the character of the government. It increases the number of detectable offenses until not all of them can be prosecuted, or even paid attention to. It puts me in mind of that novel . . . and damned if I can remember WHAT novel . . . when the man from the government laughs in surprise "Do you imagine we want you to obey the law?" Laws become an instrumental means not for maintaining public order, but for targeting persons.
Posted by Jane Galt at March 10, 2007 4:28 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksThe novel in question, IIRC, is Atlas Shrugged. (I'd italicize the title, but I seem to have forgotten how.)
Whatever its other relative virtues, the work of Ayn Rand does pretty much self-italicize.
Maybe it was a blogger named Wendy Mouch?
Okay, it wasn't Wesley Mouch...it was Dr. Ferris.
"But, after all, I did break one of your laws."
"Well, what do you think they're for?"
Dr. Ferris did not notice the sudden look on Rearden's face, the look of a man hit by the first vision of that which had sought to see. Dr. Ferris was past the stage of seeing; he was intent upon delivering the last blows to an animal caught in a trap.
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?", said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against -- then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power that any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
Watching Dr. Ferris watch him, Rearden saw the sudden twitch of anxiety, the look that precedes panic, as if a clean card had fallen on the table from a deck Dr. Ferris had never seen before.
(Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged", 1957, p. 436, emphases original)
Found in a comment on Samizdata. Thanks, Google.
Coincidentally I just wrote an essay on the downside of too many laws at my blog
May well have been more specific elsewhere, but:
[Rearden:] "But, after all, I did break one of your laws."
[Dr. Ferris:] "Well, what do you think they're there for?"
Atlas Shrugged, Part 2, Chapter III. Bit where they try to use the threat of a trial to get Rearden to "voluntarily" sell Rearden Metal to the government.
Glen Whitman's comb-over theory is amusing but just doesn't seem likely. Even the most reality-denying man is going to realize at some point that his comb-over looks ridiculous, no matter how incremental the steps leading to its full development may have been. Self-deception only goes so far.
I'm reminded that in Greece the reason laws were written down in the first place came about because prior to doing so the law was whatever the aristocrat of the week said it was. The primary emphasis for those who supported democracy over oligarchy was on written law so that it would be both knowable and consistent while the aristocrats, quite naturally, opposed this tooth and nail. The reason's Draco's laws were considered an improvement, harsh as they were, was that they were knowable. I guess we may consider it one of the ironies of modern time that a multiplication of laws and of lawmakers (within both the judiciary and the regulatory agencies) may have contrived to bring us back full circle. >_
I'm sure Jane Galt is being coy when she claims not to remember that novel. In case she isn't, thank goodness she runs a blog read by hundreds who can immediately do a pinpoint cite of page, paragraph and clause.
Hey,
I just wanted to let you know that PardonLibby.org is for sale on eBay. The auction is here:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=003&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&viewitem=&item=130088305011&rd=1&rd=1
"The novel in question, IIRC, is Atlas Shrugged."
Guys! Chill out! I think John -- I mean Jane was kidding!
Jane,
Please refrain from using the word "heart" as a substitute for "love". If you must, then use the actual symbol instead.
Anyone expecting microenforcement to lead to some sort of long-term groundswell is hopelessly optimistic. Red-light cameras have generated some protests in some cities, but no substantial court challenges or other real opposition. So long as the perceived price of opposition in terms of time and money is seen to be higher than going along, that won't change. In the modern overentertained society, so long as there's electric power and cable TV, a whole lot of people won't get worked up about much of anything.
IMO.
Okay, so we have thousands of laws, most of which apply to very specific situations. Does anyone really care that pesticide trucks with a tank on back have to have an airgap or a backflow preventer on the water supply side? Well most members of the public should- the reason why is so that you don't get poisoned by the nice young man who dropped out of high school who sprays your bugs. Most of government is engaged in trying to regulate things that should be common sense, but somehow manage to elude most of the populace.
Get to the federal government and then you can complain- your local dog catcher is just doing their job. Same goes for most people's interactions with government. What do you mean I can't build my slaughterhouse next to the school- after all I already am next door to the old folks home;-}
Boring, really boring how the Cato institute folks took a good idea of streamlining regulation and turned it into an industry that has no real basis.
But then they are nothing but a bunch of retired bureaucratic ideologues;-}
Nothing but fools sheared by lobbyists. If your business is large enough to worry about most regulations, it already has a lobbyist.
Allenm writes:
Get to the federal government and then you can complain- your local dog catcher is just doing their job. Same goes for most people's interactions with government.
Forty years ago you would have had a point. Since the 70's, local government has increasingly been federalized de facto by unfunded mandates, by overreaching regulation, etc. For example, take the Corps of Engineers, who "only" get to regulate "navigable waterways"...but that definition can and has included wet spots that have no connection to any stream, river or tidal basin. Environmental regulations lead to city councils getting to decide whether a farmer 5 miles out of town can have 11 or 12 sheep in a pasture, and so forth and so on.
It's not 1965, and hasn't been for a loooong time.
ellipsis,
You just made my point for me- Federal problems pushed down to the local and state level where they can't be dealt with.
NCLB is a great example of idiocy at the federal level. Now, if you want to change anything you know where to start.
Of course I remember Newtie boy's pledge that he promptly forgot when he heard about Lewinsky...but he sure hasn't owned up to his own idiocy.
Now the feds don't even know how to write tax rules- check out the NYT article on how the private lawyers are going to write the code- the IRS is going to suffer big time for this bright idea from the Cato folks.
You just made my point for me- Federal problems pushed down to the local and state level where they can't be dealt with.
Allenm, nice try, but no cigar. You are the one who claimed that local government is "just doing their job", you can't have it both ways by now turning around and arguing that somehow local government is absolved when they do stupid stuff because Big Daddy Fed made them do it. Because many times it's local government that is overreaching beyond Federal or State regs, just because they can. I know smallholder farmers who are being regulated off their land by city and county zoning boards, while developers literally right across the road from them get all manner of waivers from the same boards, for example. Why a city should have the power to zone 5 miles or more out of its borders is a long, and political, story but the fact is it exists. A lot of people are regulated beyond belief by local and state regulators, as well as by the feds.
NCLB is a great example of idiocy at the federal level. Now, if you want to change anything you know where to start.
With Senator-for-life Edward Kennedy, whose staff wrote that legislation, clearly. But I bet you didn't mean it that way...
Of course I remember Newtie boy's pledge that he promptly forgot when he heard about Lewinsky...but he sure hasn't owned up to his own idiocy.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
Now the feds don't even know how to write tax rules- check out the NYT article on how the private lawyers are going to write the code- the IRS is going to suffer big time for this bright idea from the Cato folks.
Oh, my, are you really so naive as to believe that private lawyers haven't been involved in the income tax code since Woodrow Wilson was President?
Having never read this ayn rand novel, I'm now curious. I think I'll have to pick up a copy from the used bookstore
OT, but Jane's guesthouse doesn't have comments...
Manhattan is a special case for a number of reasons: it's a world city/luxury brand decoupled from the American economy (or at least less-closely tied), Manhattan is the upper class district for a regional population of 15M as well as being the urban district for that population, benefiting from the forces that sustain high end and urban real estate, co-ops help - it's the total opposite of no-doc suburb purchases since a significant proportion want cash purchases with liquid net worth several times above the apartment price... mortgage rates and availability dont affect this market much, the monstrous supply constrainst help, and finally the very interesting aspects of the Manhattan economy help support real estate along a very different cycle than the rest of the economy - prices are affected by deal flow and market returns rather than GDP growth... countercyclical profits from vulture funds and workout professionals help support the market when the longs and IBs are doing badly.
Actually ellipsis I did mean it that way regarding NCLB- As for zoning miles outside of city limits maybe where you live, but I sure don't see it here.
NG's big contract with america? Doesn't ring any bells? Of course Hillbilly will get us *free* medical care too.
Look e, you want to talk abuse, start in DC- local govs have always had occasional idiots in charge, and local politics can be cruel and mean and those who have the money often get the breaks. I really don't care which party you like, cause they both lunch at the same country club- get it?
If you travel the toll roads via SpeedPass or FastPass then they already know that you exceed the speed limit (if you do) and when you are on the road. They can't charge you with speeding based on that information, because the law says they may not, but laws can be changed especially for the benefit of "THE CHILDREN". If they decide they want to go after you they just need to monitor when you get on the toll road and dispatch a trooper to catch you in the act.
Either that or I'm just a paranoid anti-statist nut job.
Allenm throws up the usual strawman loved by those who don't understand the negative impact of excess regulation.
He converts a concern over excess regulation to a desire for no regulation. After this he rapidly moves to asserting that those nasty people concerned about excess regulation are trying to poison us.
Well most members of the public should- the reason why is so that you don't get poisoned by the nice young man who dropped out of high school who sprays your bugs.
Allenm, and others who love excess regulation never see the damage it causes. He should look at a recent example in New Orleans where excess local regulation is keeping healthcare from being delivered to the underprivileged in that city.
In this case the regulations Allenm loves so much are preventing low cost health clinics from being placed next to schools, where they could do the most good. The local bureaucrats (dogcatchers in Allenm's worldview) are just doing their job so that makes it ok with Allenm.
Allenm further illustrates his ignorance by saying
If your business is large enough to worry about most regulations, it already has a lobbyist.In Allenm's world the poor people in New Orleans made a mistake by deciding to buy groceries instead of hiring a lobbyist. After all they are a large enough group to be hurt by excess regulation so they should have a lobbyist.
The fact that individuals are hurt by excess regulation never enters Allenm's worldview. Or maybe Allenm just doesn't care about the poor people who are hurt by excess regulation.
Reader, if you can't find a copy at the used bookstore, check Amazon or any bookstore that sells new. It's still in print.
NG's big contract with america? Doesn't ring any bells?
You mean the eight items they promised to pass (and did) and the ten items that they promised to finally bring up for a vote (and did), what about them?
You should have an open thread for people who want to commment on your Instapundit musings.
I get all nervous and blushing when I lie...
More people should be like that; the world would be a better place.
I must take issue with the combover business. I think Rudy has done wonders with that single shock of earhair.
Allenm at Post 14: "Okay, so we have thousands of laws, most of which apply to very specific situations..."
Allenm,
"most" is a very elastic word when you think of it. If 51% of the laws apply to very specific situations should we take comfort from the fact that the other 49% are so vague as to be utterly meaningless up the moment some random patronage hound wants to use them to toss you into a Kakfa-like situation? o_O
For that matter, do you really feel that it's A Good Thing if your "very specific" laws are so obscure as to be unknowable or contradict one another because none of the fools who made them took the time to see what the other fools making "laws" (& it's worth remembering that a number of these laws are by the fiat of paperpushers or judges usurping the legistlative function) were doing? O_O
Please understand that the excess multiplication of laws ultimately serves to undermine the Law itself. A Law that becomes impossible to obey forfeits all moral right to allegiance by those whom it claims to rule and in doing so forfeits its right *and ability* to exist as well. :P
By the way:
♥ (example: ♥ )
♥ (example: ♥ )
♥ (example: ♥ )
And italics uses <i> and </i>, like so: and
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2006/12/boudreaux_on_la.html
-dk
Allenm wrote:
Actually ellipsis I did mean it that way regarding NCLB-
Ok, how do you propose to get Senator-for-life Kennedy's staff to make the slightest change in NCLB? Or are you seriously suggesting that the Senator-for-life can be unseated by anything short of liver failure? The local politics of Massachusetts means that Edward Kennedy is Senator-for-life and not going away any time soon, and thanks to the Carter Administration the US is saddled with a Department of Edjookashun, and it's not going away soon, either.
So what's your point? That meddling in my life by a Fed is bad, but meddling in my life by a Senator or a Governor or a County Commissioner is no big deal?
As for zoning miles outside of city limits maybe where you live, but I sure don't see it here.
So? I'm sure there's stupid things your local gummint does that don't happen 'round here. Does that make those things any less stupid, annoying and anti=liberty? What's your point?
NG's big contract with america? Doesn't ring any bells?
Now that you put it in something other than a cryptic slogan suitable for a bumpersticker on a rusted out 1978 Volvo, yes. So what?
Of course Hillbilly will get us *free* medical care too.
So?
Look e, you want to talk abuse, start in DC- local govs have always had occasional idiots in charge, and local politics can be cruel and mean and those who have the money often get the breaks. I really don't care which party you like, cause they both lunch at the same country club- get it?
Do you have any point to make at all, or are you just tossing cliches up at random?
Laws are passed for the political prestige of the politician. They have little affect on the daily lives of citizens. The goal is to solve a problem that annoyed only a few. A quiet electorate is an incumbent majority. Saying "No" creates openings for political opponents.
Laws are enforced selectively. Crime neighborhoods get more enforcement. If you can't arrest em for murder or drugs you arrest em for littering, broken tail lights or tax evasion. Going to crime free neighborhoods to enforce minor laws is silly and the public knows it.
Using tax laws and RICO to pursue businessmen for routine business deals creates crimes where none were intended.
The Gov of NY going after an insurance company because the Chairman is a political opponent is extortion. Undercover of law it is praiseworthy, but it is still extortion. It also removed a political opponent and showed the rest of the community where their donations should be directed. It worked.
We have no watchdog protecting the public from the Govt abuses. As long as they only screw the wealthy, we don't care. We want a balanced and safe community so that we can continue our search for sex, food, and comfortable shoes. As long as -WE- are not being screwed we won't react... Like the Good Germans who stood quietly while hell arose around them. Like the Russians who voted in corruption by govt vs corruption by private enterprise. Like the Venezuelans who voted thems selves into slavery for the promises to bring down the rich...
Comments are Closed.