The Wisdom of Milton Friedman

Here, he is commenting on JFK's famous statement: "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."

"It is a striking sign of the temper of our times that the controversy about this passage centered on its origin and not on its content. Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic "what your government can do for you" implies that the government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man's belief in his own destiny. The organismic, "what you can do for your country" implies that government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary. To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshiped and served. He recognizes no national goal except as it is the consensus of the goals that the citizens severally serve. He recognizes no national purpose except as it is the consensus of the purposes for which the citizens severally strive."

Hat tip to David Henderson.

Scots Favour Free Trade: Adam Smith would be Proud

YouGov's Antony Wells of UK Polling Report links to a new Scottish poll conducted by Panelbase for the Sunday Times.

Asking about free trade and immigration in the context of the UK having left the EU, by 65% to 11% (20% were neutral and 4% didn't know) Scots were overwhelmingly in favour of companies in other EU countries remaining free to sell goods as easily in Scotland as in their own countries.

The view isn't quite as rosy for immigration, with people favouring free immigration from other EU countries by just 40% to 36% against (19% were neutral and 4% didn't know).  Still, that's a net +4% approval rating for a free movement policy.

I hope Holyrood are paying attention.

The Wisdom of Bryan Caplan

"Since I think that most news is overblown fluff, I have little sympathy for the endless pieces about "What we've learned about the world in 2016."  Against the background of all of human history, 2016 taught us next to nothing.  If you just discovered that horrible people often gain vast political power with widespread popular support, you're in dire need of remedial history.  If you've just discovered that politicians' personalities matter at least as much as their policy views, you're in dire need of remedial political science.  If you've just discovered that demagogic appeals to national identity work, you're in dire need of remedial psychology."

Quotation of the Day

Is from David Henderson, blogging at EconLog:

"I would love to have politicians who are effective at protecting and increasing our freedom. But sometimes the best we can do is get politicians who are ineffective at reducing our freedom."

Quotation of the Day

Edgar Mitchell, 6th man on the moon, describing his experience of seeing the Earth from the Moon:

"You develop an instant global consciousness, a people orientation, an intense dissatisfaction with the state of the world, and a compulsion to do something about it. From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch'."

Quotation of the Day

Is from Michael Rizzo (AKA wintercow20) blogging at The Unbroken Window:

"It would also be nice if folks just staked their positions out instead of trying to cloak them up. My mental model is progressives are for anything that isn’t 'scary-tale versions of capitalism' based on what some ideologue 5th grade teacher told them about World War 2 ending the Depression, FDR saving America, labor market regulations designed to help the worst off, where our prosperity comes from, the role the robber barons played, etc. and the 'right' is for anything other than what progressives seem to be about. I do not think either is actually very much principled. If they were. then at least say, 'I am for liberty in every aspect and every regard even if it produces some outcomes which may seem reprehensible, and here is why …' or 'I am for the elites running things, or I am for industrial planning, even if it has produced historical global horror stories, and here is why …' But we can’t even get that. Just a lot of dressed-up gobbledegook."

Read the whole thing.

Quotation of the Day

Is from Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, Part VI, Section II, Chapter II,  'Of The Order in which Societies are by Nature Recommended to Our Beneficence':

"The man of system... is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder."

Quotation of the Day

Is from Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, Part VI, Section II, Chapter II,  'Of The Order in which Societies are by Nature Recommended to Our Beneficence':

"The man whose public spirit is prompted altogether by humanity and benevolence... When he cannot conquer the rooted prejudices of the people by reason and persuasion, he will not attempt to subdue them by force; but will religiously observe... never to use violence to his country... He will accommodate, as well as he can, his public arrangements to the confirmed habits and prejudices of the people; and will remedy as well as he can, the inconveniencies which may flow from the want of those regulations which the people are averse to submit to. When he cannot establish the right, he will not disdain to ameliorate the wrong; but like Solon, when he cannot establish the best system of laws, he will endeavour to establish the best that the people can bear."

Quotation of the Day

Is from Kevin Grier:

"Neither the Fed nor the President “runs” the economy. There is no stable, exploitable Phillips Curve / sous vide machine that lets us cook at a certain temperature."

Hat tip to Alex Tabarrok for this one.

Quotation of the Day

Is from Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, Part VI, Section II, Chapter II,  'Of The Order in which Societies are by Nature Recommended to Our Beneficence':

"Amidst the turbulence and disorder of faction, a certain spirit of system is apt to mix itself with that public spirit which is founded upon the love of humanity, upon a real fellow-feeling with the inconveniencies and distresses to which some of our fellow-citizens may be exposed. This spirit of system commonly takes the direction of that more gentle public spirit; always animates it, and often inflames it even to the madness of fanaticism. The leaders of the discontented party seldom fail to hold out some plausible plan of reformation which, they pretend, will not only remove the inconveniencies and relieve the distresses immediately complained of, but will prevent, in all time coming, any return of the like inconveniencies and distresses. They often propose, upon this account, to new-model the constitution, and to alter, in some of its most essential parts, that system of government under which the subjects of a great empire have enjoyed, perhaps, peace, security, and even glory, during the course of several centuries together. The great body of the party are commonly intoxicated with the imaginary beauty of this ideal system, of which they have no experience, but which has been represented to them in all the most dazzling colours in which the eloquence of their leaders could paint it. Those leaders themselves, though they originally may have meant nothing but their own aggrandisement, become many of them in time the dupes of their own sophistry, and are as eager for this great reformation as the weakest and foolishest of their followers. Even though the leaders should have preserved their own heads, as indeed they commonly do, free from this fanaticism, yet they dare not always disappoint the expectation of their followers; but are often obliged, though contrary to their principle and their conscience, to act as if they were under the common delusion. The violence of the party, refusing all palliatives, all temperaments, all reasonable accommodations, by requiring too much frequently obtains nothing; and those inconveniencies and distresses which, with a little moderation, might in a great measure have been removed and relieved, are left altogether without the hope of a remedy."

Quotation of the Day

Is from Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, Part VI, Section II, Chapter II,  'Of The Order in which Societies are by Nature Recommended to Our Beneficence':

"...it often requires, perhaps, the highest effort of political wisdom to determine when a real patriot ought to support and endeavour to re-establish the authority of the old system, and when he ought to give way to the more daring, but often dangerous spirit of innovation."

On Burdens of Proof

This post, like several other recent posts was inspired by Scott Alexander’s Slate Star Codex blog and some of the discussion in the comments there.

In one particular exchange there, I attempted (albeit poorly) to advocate the position that there is nothing special about the presence of an international border which changes the fundamental nature of trade.


I.
Here’s a hypothetical example:

Alice and Bill both live in Wonderland.  Alice produces apples.  Bill makes burgers.  Neither Alice nor Bill wish to live on apples or burgers alone.  So, they decide to trade with one another.  Let’s say they agree to an exchange rate of 5 apples per burger.  Each week they meet up and Alice gives Bill 35 apples; Bill, in turn, gives Alice 7 burgers.  Both are extremely satisfied with this arrangement.

Now, let’s change the example slightly:

Alice lives in Wonderland.  Humpty Dumpty lives in Mirrorland.  Alice produces apples.  Humpty makes burgers.  Neither Alice nor Humpty wish to live on apples or burgers alone.  So, they decide to trade with one another.  Let’s say they agree to an exchange rate of 4 apples per burger.  Each week they meet up and Alice gives Humpty 28 apples; Humpty Dumpty, in turn, gives Alice 7 burgers.  Both are extremely satisfied with this arrangement.

The question that must be answered by advocates of protectionism, in it’s various forms, is:

What about the fact that Humpty Dumpty resides in Mirrorland, rather than in Wonderland, changes the fundamental nature of the above trade?

Or, asked another way:

What is it about the fact that Humpty Dumpty resides in Mirrorland that makes the trade between Alice and Humpty different from the trade between Alice and Bill in a way that justifies placing certain restrictions on the former, but not placing the same restrictions on the latter?

These questions are not rhetorical.  And despite the lighthearted appearance of my examples, they are serious questions that require serious answers by advocates of protectionism.

In numerous discussions of these issues with advocates of protectionism, I have not yet received satisfactory answers to such questions.  I find this somewhat baffling.


II.
In one such exchange, I asserted that, as the ones proposing that the government actively intervenes by imposing trade restrictions – thereby restricting the freedom of individuals and businesses to conduct peaceful, mutually beneficial exchange – the burden of proof falls on advocates of protectionism to back-up their calls for such trade restrictions with evidence that they are either necessary or desirable.

One response I got to this was that my appeals to ‘burden of proof’ were a red herring.

In one sense, this is quite correct.

The protectionist claims: ‘There is a substantive difference between intranational and international trade that justifies the imposition of certain restrictions on the latter that do not apply to the former.’

The free-marketeer claims: ‘There is no substantive difference between intranational and international trade that justifies the imposition of certain restrictions on the latter that do not apply to the former.’

This is analogous to Matt Dillahunty’s jar of gumballs example.

The protectionist is claiming the number of gumballs is even.
The free-marketeer is claiming the number of gumballs is odd.

In both cases, we have two equal and opposite – and mutually exclusive – claims being made.

As explained on Wikipedia [emphasis added]:

“Either claim could be explored separately; however, both claims represent the same proposition and do in fact ask the same question.  Odd in this case means ‘not even’ and could be described as a negative claim. 

Before we have any information about the number of gumballs, we have no means of checking either of the two claims.  When we have no evidence to resolve the proposition, we may suspend judgment.  From a cognitive sense, when no personal preference toward opposing claims exists, one may be either skeptical of both claims or ambivalent of both claims. 

If there is a claim proposed and that claim is disputed, the burden of proof falls onto the proponent of the claim.”

So, the sense in which ‘burden of proof’ being a red herring is correct is:

If a protectionist wants to claim there is a substantive difference between intranational and international trade that justifies the imposition of certain restrictions on the latter that do not apply to the former, they ought to be able to back-up such a claim with some kind of evidence.

Of course, this is symetrical.  If a free-marketeer wants to claim there is not a substantive difference between intranational and international trade that would justify the imposition of certain restrictions on the latter, but not on the former, they also ought to be able to back-up such a claim with some kind of evidence.

In short, advocates of either position ought to be able to back up their position with evidence and reasoning.  Appeals to ‘burden of proof’ (i.e. pointing to the lack of evidence for the opposing position) are not sufficient and are kind of a cop-out.  Just because the evidence for the opposing position is weak or nonexistent doesn’t mean the evidence for your position is any better.


III.
In another sense, however, I don’t think the ‘burden of proof’ is entirely a red herring.  Maybe it’s only an orange herring?  That is to say, I think it may at least hint at something important.

In order to convince someone who doesn’t agree with me, I have to show her such-and-such evidence according to her standards.  If she wants to convince me, she has to show me such-and-such evidence according to my standards.  This is the philosophic burden of proof that we’ve been discussing thus far.

But what if we're discussing the passing of legislation?

Consider the example of drunk driving.  Driving whilst intoxicated is a crime in the vast majority of countries around the World.  Why?  What’s the moral justification for outlawing drunk driving?  I think it has something to do with there being a general consensus that the benefits that society gets from not having lots of drunk people driving around, causing chaos on the roads, getting into car accidents and killing lots of people, outweighs the costs to potential drunk drivers of not being able to drive home from the pub, having to catch a lift or have a designated driver with them, take a taxi or public transport home, or not have that second pint with dinner.

That is, laws that prohibit drunk driving pass some sort of cost-benefit test.

Sure, we can quibble about the finer details of some of the exact costs and benefits.  Maybe you could argue that the optimal level to set the drink-drive limit at should be 0.06% BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) instead of 0.05% or 0.08% BAC.  I don’t know precisely what the optimal limit is, viewed in terms of its total costs vs. its total benefits to society.

Some countries take a zero tolerance approach* – any amount of alcohol detected in your breath/blood/urine will be met with sanctions of some sort – this is probably too strict.  On the other hand, there are a handful of countries** that don’t appear to have any limit on how much alcohol you can drink before getting behind the wheel and this is almost certainly too permissive.

What I don’t think is in much doubt, is that it makes sense to have some sort of limit.

Asking what the appropriate limit is, is partly an empirical question and partly a values question.  There is no objectively ‘right’ answer, there is only a range of broadly socially tolerable answers.

This is similar to the example used by Steven Landsburg in one of his books*** when he asks what the optimal level of pollution is?  The answer depends on your values and on how you define ‘optimal’, but is almost certainly not zero.


IV.
In English common law – which forms the underlying basis for much of the English speaking world's legal codes – there is a presumption in favour of individual freedom.  That is, anything not expressly prohibited by law is permitted.

So, for example, driving drunk wasn’t illegal in the UK until 1967 when the Road Safety Act was passed, prohibiting it.

It may be a red herring to talk about burden of proof in a philosophical sense, but in order to enact legislation that restricts individual freedom it should be incumbent on advocates of that legislation to prove – to themselves at least as much as anyone else – that that legislation is worthwhile having.

If someone advocates a certain policy, call it ‘X’, that person should be able to provide some sort of justification for their belief that policy ‘X’ is either necessary or desirable.

It seems crazy to me that anyone would advocate for any particular policy without also holding the belief that said policy is necessary or desirable.  And presumably they have reasons for holding those particular beliefs.  And if I ask them ‘what are your reasons for holding those particular beliefs?’ and they can’t articulate an answer to me.  And they instead respond with ‘well, what are your reasons for NOT holding these particular beliefs?’ that’s not very helpful, nor is it conducive to productive discourse.

Part of my reasons for not holding those particular beliefs may be because no-one has ever been able to present to me any strong evidence or articulate any good reasons for doing so.



* These are mostly majority Muslim countries where there are strong social norms against alcohol consumption and alcohol is typically more strictly controlled.  e.g. Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Comoros, Indonesia, Iran, Libya, Turkmenistan, and the UAE.  Although the Czech Republic, Hungary, Nepal, Paraguay, Romania, and Slovakia all also take a zero tolerance approach.
The list gets even longer when one takes into account countries that take a zero tolerance approach for certain types of drivers (but not all drivers), such as learners or newly qualified drivers, commercial and professional drivers.  This includes Australia, Germany, Macedonia, New Zealand, Palau, Serbia, Slovenia, Tanzania, and Thailand.
This list is by no means complete or definitive.

** I’m looking at you Guatemala, Kenya, Niger, Togo, and The Gambia.

*** It was either ‘The Armchair Economist’, ‘More Sex is Safer Sex’ or ‘The Big Questions’, I can’t remember which, but read them all, they’re all excellent.

I disagree, therefore you are stupid scum

When discussing politics, there is an almost ubiquitous tendency for people to characterise those with viewpoints which differ from their own as ignorant, stupid, or even just downright evil.  This phenomenon seems to be particularly prevalent on Facebook and other social media platforms.

It is, of course, far easier to characterise those whose political viewpoints with which you disagree as ignorant, stupid and/or evil than it is to acknowledge that those people may have a point.  That their ideas may have some merit to them.  That their objections and criticisms of your views, even if not entirely accurate or fair, may carry some element of truth.  That your views are not as infallible as you would like to think they are and those of your political adversaries may not be as flawed as you would like to think they are.

We are all prone to bias and self-serving after-the-fact rationalisation.  Remain aware of this and recognise that virtually all political views have some merit to them, but none are perfect, all have their own flaws and weaknesses.  Remember that you are not your beliefs and you are free to change your beliefs in the face of new information, despite what your ego and your pride tell you.

Above all, remember that just because someone disagrees with you politically does not mean that person is necessarily ignorant, or stupid, or evil.  Most people are reasonably intelligent and, most of the time, well meaning.  They may just see the World in a slightly different way, which is no more or less valid than how you see the World.  Or they may just have different values or priorities than you do.  Ultimately, most political issues boil down to a moral judgement, and we have no way of making moral judgements objectively.

This means that no-one can ever be ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ on political matters, unless one is acting on or judging a situation based on incorrect or false information.  So, by all means, discuss, debate, argue, and attempt to persuade others of the superiority of your positions.  Present the facts and arguments which led you to your conclusions and dissect those of others’ to attempt to arrive at a more complete and sophisticated understanding of things.

But don’t call someone ‘an idiot’ or ‘scum’ just because they happen to disagree with you.  It’s a disrespectful, intellectually lazy, ad hominem and does nothing to further your arguments or strengthen your position.  If someone's ‘facts’ are wrong, or arguments are shoddy, attack the incorrect facts and the shoddy arguments, not the person making them, who in all likelihood genuinely believes them, is neither an idiot nor Satan incarnate, and is acting in good faith, just like you.

Self-serving Bias: Confusing Inputs & Outcomes Since 1967

This post was borne out of a small debate I recently got into online with a couple of people, which highlighted to me what I think is quite a common cognitive error.  I have no data to back up my view that this error is particularly prevalent, this is entirely conjecture based on personal experience.

The error is this:
Confusing outcomes with inputs.

Or perhaps it would be better thought of as:
Disregarding the process(es) used to take us from inputs to outcomes.

This came up in the context of discussing elections and election results.  Specifically, I had two people independently assert to me something along the lines of:

“At the last election, country X voted overwhelmingly for party Y.”

I challenged this statement as highly misleading*, on the basis that party Y, whilst winning an overwhelming majority of parliamentary seats, did not win an outright majority of votes, rather the party won only a plurality of votes.**

Party Y actually received slightly less than 50% of the votes cast in the election in question.

I suggested that it is far more accurate to categorise this level of support as a ‘pretty even split’ than as ‘overwhelming support’.

The response I got from both of my online adversaries was (paraphrasing):

“They won almost all of the seats.  I’d call that overwhelming.”

And:

“They received more than twice as many votes as the 2nd placed party.  And they received more votes than the 2nd, 3rd and 4th placed parties put together.  Looks pretty overwhelming to me.”

Both of these responses have two things in common:

The factual statements made in them are entirely accurate.
The factual statements made in them are entirely irrelevant.

Both of these people have completely missed my point.  They have both made the mistake of confusing outcomes with inputs, or of disregarding the process(es) used to take us from inputs to outcomes.

I do not disagree that winning almost all of the available seats in an election is rightfully considered an overwhelming victory for any party.

However, this is a very different thing from the party in question having ‘overwhelming support’ or the electorate ‘voting overwhelmingly for’ them.

“The electorate of Country X voted overwhelmingly for Party Y.” is a statement about the INPUT to the election.

“Party Y won an overwhelming victory, taking almost all of the seats in Country X’s Parliament.” is a statement about the OUTCOME of the election.

These statement are talking about two very different things.  It is entirely possible for either one of these statements to be true and the other false simultaneously.

Statements about INPUTS do not directly translate into equivalent statements about OUTCOMES and vice-versa.

The link between INPUTS and OUTCOMES are PROCESSES.  In this case, the process is the particular voting system used: how people cast their ballots, how votes are counted, how the electorate is divided into constituencies, etc.

It’s not possible to turn INPUTS into OUTCOMES without PROCESSES.  Similarly, it’s not possible to turn a statement about INPUTS into a statement about OUTCOMES (or vice-versa) without considering the particular PROCESS(ES) that took us from those INPUTS to those OUTCOMES.

As an example, if a political party wins 100% of the seats, without receiving any votes (e.g. in an absolute dictatorship), it is correct to say that such a party has overwhelming power or authority, but an error to say that it has overwhelming support.

The reverse is also true.  If a political party doesn’t win any seats, despite receiving 99% of the votes, due to extreme gerrymandering or a rigged election say, most people wouldn’t argue against the notion that such a party has overwhelming support, but it would be an error to say that it had won an overwhelming electoral victory.

These examples are extreme to illustrate my point.  In modern democracies, things are rarely so one-sided.  This is probably for the best.

I think in these cases this error is a manifestation of self-serving bias.  The people I was discussing this with were clearly supporters of Party Y.  They like to think – as do we all – that other people mostly see the World the way they do (or would, if only the ignorant fools were better informed) and are broadly supportive of the same things, that their ideas are popular and that ‘their team’ is ‘winning’.

This was illustrated when I brought up another vote on which one of my debating partners was on the ‘losing team’ by a relatively narrow margin.  They were unwilling to characterise this as ‘overwhelming opposition’ to their position.  The lack of symmetry is striking.  They are happy to characterise a mite under 50% support for their position as ‘overwhelming support’, but refuse to refer to 55% opposition to their position as ‘overwhelming opposition’.  The cognitive dissonance is immediately obvious to anyone not emotionally invested in their ‘team’.

I knew I’d won the argument when I got a response to this point that began:

“Whatever…”


* Put aside for now the fact that a country, as a collective, has no agency or ‘will’ of it’s own and so cannot be said to vote for/against anything (unless the vote is unanimous, and even then there are caveats), as if the views and opinions and wishes of the entire populace were homogenous.  For our purposes here ‘Country X’ is convenient shorthand for ‘The electorate of Country X’.

** I’d go further than that and say that even if a party wins 50% + 1 votes, it’s still highly misleading to describe this as ‘overwhelming’ support.  However, reasonable people can and will disagree about exactly where to draw the line between what constitutes ‘overwhelming support’ and merely ‘support’.  Some people may draw that line at 66.7%, some at 75%, some maybe at 90%, or even higher.  However, something I do not think is at doubt is that the point at which something can be considered to have ‘overwhelming support’ is definitely somewhere north of 50% (i.e. at minimum has a majority behind it).

A Modest Proposal from Tim Harford

"let's just abolish the Budget"

As he explains:

"Would the country’s economic policy really be harmed if the chancellor set out his fiscal direction at the beginning of the parliament and left it unchanged unless extraordinary circumstances intervened?
We should abolish 100 per cent of Autumn Statements and 80 per cent of Budgets — that’s a fiscal rule that I could really get behind."

Here, here.

Quotation of the Day

Is from Adam Smith's 'Theory of Moral Sentiments', Part III, Chapter 3: Of the Influence and Authority of Conscience:

"It is needless to observe, I presume, that both rebels and heretics are those unlucky persons, who, when things have come to a certain degree of violence, have the misfortune to be of the weaker party. In a nation distracted by faction, there are, no doubt, always a few, though commonly but a very few, who preserve their judgment untainted by the general contagion. They seldom amount to more than, here and there, a solitary individual, without any influence, excluded, by his own candour, from the confidence of either party, and who, though he may be one of the wisest, is necessarily, upon that very account, one of the most insignificant men in the society. All such people are held in contempt and derision, frequently in detestation, by the furious zealots of both parties. A true party-man hates and despises candour; and, in reality, there is no vice which could so effectually disqualify him for the trade of a party-man as that single virtue."

Quotation of the Day

Something to keep in mind if you're heading to the polls tomorrow:

"For between the state, which is hugely generous with impossible promises, and the general public, which has conceived unattainable hopes, have come two classes of men, those with ambition and those with utopian dreams.  Their role is clearly laid out by the situation.  It is enough for these courtiers of popularity to shout into the people’s ears: “The authorities are misleading you; if we were in their place, we would shower you with benefits and relieve you of taxes.”

And the people believe this, and the people hope…."

That is from page 100 of of Volume 2 (“The Law,” “The State,” and Other Political Writings, 2012) of Liberty Fund’s The Collected Works of Frederic Bastiat; specifically, it’s a passage from Bastiat’s September 1848 essay “The State”.

Hat tip to Don Boudreaux.

Chris Dillow on Laffer Curves

Chris Dillow blogs on Laffer Curves over at Stumbling and Mumbling.

A slice:

"8. There are two contrary but tenable positions here.  One is "the revenue-maximizing tax rate might be high, but high taxes are undesirable because they infringe freedom."  The other is "The revenue-maximizing tax rate could be low, but high taxes are justified to reduce the adverse effects of inequality."  Both of these positions are rare - which makes me suspect that there's quite a lot of motivated reasoning on both sides."

My position is something akin to the former, i.e. "the revenue-maximizing tax rate might be high, but high taxes are undesirable because they infringe freedom."

Worthwhile reading the whole thing, it is short and contains a lot of clear insight.

Sentences I Could Have Written

"Those people who make their living by devising and offering better mousetraps to willing buyers are too often portrayed as villains, while those other people who promise to forcibly take the fruits of the mousetrap factories from their creators and ‘re-distribute’ those fruits to the masses are portrayed as heroes."

That is from Don Boudreaux commenting on an 1883 essay by William Graham Sumner.

Alex Salmond doesn't understand the legitimate role of government or the point of a constitution

In the lead-up to the Scottish Independence referendum Alex Salmond was interviewed on Reporting Scotland on the 13th August 2014, where he stated that he desires to protect the NHS and maintain health services "free" at the point of use.  Whilst I don't necessarily agree with that (which I realise is a very uncommon and unpopular point of view in the UK) it is a position that many reasonable people hold.  I fully understand that where people sit on this issue, and others like it, is largely the result of subjective value judgements.  However...

Salmond then went on to state his desire for a written constitution (fine - this is a goal that I can completely get on board with) and that he would work to ensure that in an independent Scotland "health services free at the point of use" were constitutionally protected as a right.

I have to be very careful here, because I don't want to understate the significance of this:

THIS IS AN ABSOLUTELY INSANE, CRAZY, WACKY, RECKLESS, OUTRAGEOUS AND DOWNRIGHT TERRIBLE IDEA!!!

Regardless of your subjective values and your opinion on whether or not you think healthcare should be provided by the state, or by private providers, or some combination of the two, the notion to protect this as a "right" is a total nonsense.

You cannot have a "right" to healthcare that's free at the point of delivery just as you cannot have a "right" to housing or watermelons or education or yachts or mortgage advice or courier services that are free at the point of delivery.  What all of these things have in common is that they cost money to provide - in order to receive them they first must by produced (at some cost) by someone else.  You can't have a "right" to them because that would put an obligation on someone else to provide them at their own cost.

A "right" to free healthcare for you is an obligation to provide free healthcare on your Doctor.  You don't expect to go to work and get paid nothing for your labour so why should your Doctor?