I have recently blogged about Peter Levine's book New Progressive Era and note that although Levine claims that public deliberation ought to replace free markets, public deliberation is impossible because progressives dislike speech that disagrees with their own and because progressives' choices, which are mostly erroneous, become institutionalized. Upon institutionalization, discussion about them is foreclosed. Some examples are the rat-infested New York City subway system; the near-bankrupt social security system; and the income-inequality and poverty-generating Federal Reserve Bank.
As well, a key problem with progressivism is the willingness of progressives to distort facts, to lie, in order to secure programs or institutions that are bound to fail. The public finds it difficult to debate when, for instance, the Fed claims it is managing the "federal funds rate" rather than increasing the money supply (or more to the point, counterfeiting). Likewise, the public finds it difficult to debate about "social security" when its proponents claim that it is a fair insurance program rather than primarily a welfare or transfer program.
Perhaps the worst lies of all concern the names that the "progressives" call themselves. When I was growing up in New York,the high crime rates were attributable to "limousine liberals". Liberals became associated with the ACLU, welfare, corruption and incompetence. Rather than divulge the truth, today's liberals call themselves "progressives". It would be much more conducive to intelligent dialogue for all of us, and much fairer, to call liberals "suppressives".
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Progressivism and Authorianism
I am beginning to read Peter Levine's New Progressive Era: Toward a Fair and Deliberative Democracy (Lanham, MD., Rowman and Littlefield, 2000. 255 pp.) and am intrigued by Levine's discussion of deliberation in a democracy. The concept of deliberation resonates with me, in part because of its Aristotelian foundation (deliberation is the foundation of Aristotle's ethical model in Nichomachean Ethics). But the progressive model that Levine proposes is totalitarian in its implications. The campus left's intolerance of and refusal to hire political conservatives, for instance, is intimately linked to its claim to be deliberative via collegial processes. Excessive emphasis on deliberation induces tyranny of the majority and suppression of minority views. It is only through the limited state that deliberation's implicit authoritarian threat can be contained.
The problem with the deliberative solution is that it faces the cost and information constraints that all democratic processes face. Deliberation devolves into authoritative nostrums proposed by authoritarian progressives.
Importantly, the advantages of marginalism are lost when the public becomes overzealous in making decisions. Most or all economic actors make errors. Distorted decisions result in social losses. If there is no equation of marginal costs and benefits, the errors become massive. Such massive errors are characteristic of totalitarianism. Marginalism involves the equilibration of costs and benefits by firms and consumers who bear the costs of their own decisions. They also must cope with the possibility of counter-strategies by economic actors who have insights (either because of intuition or better information) that counteract the mistakes of the infra-marginal establishment. Much of the establishment is made up of conformists who are wrong much of the time. Mutual fund managers do not beat the stock market, for example. Without marginal decision making society will become stagnant. Nikola Tesla, the eccentric inventor of AC electricity, could not have succeeded in a deliberative society. If Peter Levine has his way, we will be living in primitive huts working in farming as serfs. It is only marginalism that can induce progress, not deliberation.
The results of excessive emphasis on deliberation are extremism, poverty and exclusion. Levine does not address what to do if democratic processes result in, for instance the Nuremberg Laws. Indeed, these outcomes have been intimately linked to progressivism in the past. The first "progressive" state was Bismarck's Germany, which preceded Hitler's Germany by fifty years.
Levine's discussion of deliberative democracy and the progressives' ideas is inspiring, but deliberation's totalitarian implications become evident when he talks about the "marketplace" (p. 17). He emphasizes that economic power is distributed unequally, suggesting that markets are inequitable. But he neglects to comment about the skewness in progressives' definitions of the terms of public debate that typically also are distributed unequally.
Thus, for instance, intelligent debate about the Federal Reserve Bank is difficult when the field of economics, the news media and politicians cloak a simple relationship between money supply and inflation in nonsensical terminology such as "reducing the federal funds rate" and claim, as does the Economist this week, that the people who expand the money supply at the Fed are geniuses whose work in causing inflation is really fighting inflation and cannot be understood by ordinary people. Levine does not address this kind of distortion, on which most of the progressives' successes have depended. Rather he emphasizes that sellers of goods are larger than buyers.
Worst of all, Levine claims that "through the democratic process I can advocate general rules that will bind me and all of my fellow citizens permanently." This is a frightening argument. Levine argues that although people say that they would be willing to pay more for a better environment, when it comes to actually buying they do not favor environmentally friendly merchandise. So Levine feels that it would be advantageous to for people to be able to force each other to live by the self-important statements they make to polling agencies.
It doesn't occur to Levine that mass psychology and cognitive dissonance favor nice-sounding public statements, but those statements may be unrealistic. Millions of Germans saluted Hitler. Levine seems to think that it is all to the good that they weren't forced to pay up out of their own pockets for the policies that Hitler implemented, the war, the concentration camps, etc., all of the massive costs that deliberation in Germany caused.
The problem with the deliberative solution is that it faces the cost and information constraints that all democratic processes face. Deliberation devolves into authoritative nostrums proposed by authoritarian progressives.
Importantly, the advantages of marginalism are lost when the public becomes overzealous in making decisions. Most or all economic actors make errors. Distorted decisions result in social losses. If there is no equation of marginal costs and benefits, the errors become massive. Such massive errors are characteristic of totalitarianism. Marginalism involves the equilibration of costs and benefits by firms and consumers who bear the costs of their own decisions. They also must cope with the possibility of counter-strategies by economic actors who have insights (either because of intuition or better information) that counteract the mistakes of the infra-marginal establishment. Much of the establishment is made up of conformists who are wrong much of the time. Mutual fund managers do not beat the stock market, for example. Without marginal decision making society will become stagnant. Nikola Tesla, the eccentric inventor of AC electricity, could not have succeeded in a deliberative society. If Peter Levine has his way, we will be living in primitive huts working in farming as serfs. It is only marginalism that can induce progress, not deliberation.
The results of excessive emphasis on deliberation are extremism, poverty and exclusion. Levine does not address what to do if democratic processes result in, for instance the Nuremberg Laws. Indeed, these outcomes have been intimately linked to progressivism in the past. The first "progressive" state was Bismarck's Germany, which preceded Hitler's Germany by fifty years.
Levine's discussion of deliberative democracy and the progressives' ideas is inspiring, but deliberation's totalitarian implications become evident when he talks about the "marketplace" (p. 17). He emphasizes that economic power is distributed unequally, suggesting that markets are inequitable. But he neglects to comment about the skewness in progressives' definitions of the terms of public debate that typically also are distributed unequally.
Thus, for instance, intelligent debate about the Federal Reserve Bank is difficult when the field of economics, the news media and politicians cloak a simple relationship between money supply and inflation in nonsensical terminology such as "reducing the federal funds rate" and claim, as does the Economist this week, that the people who expand the money supply at the Fed are geniuses whose work in causing inflation is really fighting inflation and cannot be understood by ordinary people. Levine does not address this kind of distortion, on which most of the progressives' successes have depended. Rather he emphasizes that sellers of goods are larger than buyers.
Worst of all, Levine claims that "through the democratic process I can advocate general rules that will bind me and all of my fellow citizens permanently." This is a frightening argument. Levine argues that although people say that they would be willing to pay more for a better environment, when it comes to actually buying they do not favor environmentally friendly merchandise. So Levine feels that it would be advantageous to for people to be able to force each other to live by the self-important statements they make to polling agencies.
It doesn't occur to Levine that mass psychology and cognitive dissonance favor nice-sounding public statements, but those statements may be unrealistic. Millions of Germans saluted Hitler. Levine seems to think that it is all to the good that they weren't forced to pay up out of their own pockets for the policies that Hitler implemented, the war, the concentration camps, etc., all of the massive costs that deliberation in Germany caused.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Stop the Internet Tax
Oct 23, 2007
Senator Charles Schumer
United States Senate
313 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-0001
Dear Senator Schumer,
I urge you to support Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), John Sununu (R-N.H.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) in their drive to enact a permanent ban on Internet taxes. New York State does not need more taxes, especially since so much of our bleeding economy depends on the Internet.
Last week, the House passed a bill that would extend the existing moratorium on Internet taxes until 2011, and the Senate is scheduled to take up legislation this week. Sens. McCain, I urge you to propose an extension until 2211. Better yet, I urge you to support a permanent ban.
Congress wisely decided some years ago that Internet access and commerce should not be encumbered with multiple state and local taxes. Due in no small part to this decision, the Internet and e-commerce have thrived. Today, approximately 70 percent of the U.S. population uses the Internet, and it has become a vital engine for economic growth.
Enacting a permanent ban will provide much-needed consumer and business confidence and help keep our economy robust and strong.
I urge you to support any effort to make the Internet tax ban permanent.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
PO Box 130
West Shokan, NY 12494
Senator Charles Schumer
United States Senate
313 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-0001
Dear Senator Schumer,
I urge you to support Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), John Sununu (R-N.H.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) in their drive to enact a permanent ban on Internet taxes. New York State does not need more taxes, especially since so much of our bleeding economy depends on the Internet.
Last week, the House passed a bill that would extend the existing moratorium on Internet taxes until 2011, and the Senate is scheduled to take up legislation this week. Sens. McCain, I urge you to propose an extension until 2211. Better yet, I urge you to support a permanent ban.
Congress wisely decided some years ago that Internet access and commerce should not be encumbered with multiple state and local taxes. Due in no small part to this decision, the Internet and e-commerce have thrived. Today, approximately 70 percent of the U.S. population uses the Internet, and it has become a vital engine for economic growth.
Enacting a permanent ban will provide much-needed consumer and business confidence and help keep our economy robust and strong.
I urge you to support any effort to make the Internet tax ban permanent.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
PO Box 130
West Shokan, NY 12494
Queen of Collegiality: Susan O'Malley Serves Legal Papers
Susan O'Malley, former faculty representative on the CUNY board of trustees, and officer of CUNY's extremely left wing and dysfunctional union, the Professional Staff Congress, has filed a law suit against Sharad Karkhanis, a Community College professor who has criticized her extensive no-teaching time and her political views. O'Malley, represented by Attorney Joseph Martin Carasso, is suing Karkhanis for $2 million dollars for:
"wrongful statements made and printed and or published by defendants and based on the causes of actions of libel, defamation, inflection of emotional distress, both intentional and negligent, violation of the right of privacy, and for a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from making, printing, publishing and distributing wrongful statements regarding the plaintiff herein in the future, and such other and further relief that this Court finds just and equitable."
Although O'Malley was critical of Professor KC Johnson, claiming that he "lacked collegiality", O'Malley resorts to a law suit to resolve conflicts with Karkhanis.
"wrongful statements made and printed and or published by defendants and based on the causes of actions of libel, defamation, inflection of emotional distress, both intentional and negligent, violation of the right of privacy, and for a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from making, printing, publishing and distributing wrongful statements regarding the plaintiff herein in the future, and such other and further relief that this Court finds just and equitable."
Although O'Malley was critical of Professor KC Johnson, claiming that he "lacked collegiality", O'Malley resorts to a law suit to resolve conflicts with Karkhanis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
