Theory and practice, in theory and in practice

[...]

The playful mantras of our adolescence have become a way of life for later generations. At least in the ’60s we knew, whatever we said, that sex was about…sex. All the same, what followed is our fault. We—the left, academics, teachers—have abandoned politics to those for whom actual power is far more interesting than its metaphorical implications. Political correctness, gender politics, and above all hypersensitivity to wounded sentiments (as though there were a right not to be offended): this will be our legacy.

Why should I not close my office door or take a student to a play? If I hesitate, have I not internalized the worst sort of communitarian self-censorship—anticipating my own guilt long before I am accused and setting a pusillanimous example for others? Yes: and if only for these reasons I see nothing wrong in my behavior. But were it not for the mandarin self-assurance of my Oxbridge years, I too might lack the courage of my convictions—though I readily concede that the volatile mix of intellectual arrogance and generational exceptionalism can ignite delusions of invulnerability.

[...]

Superb historical/biographical account by Tony Judt, in "Girls! Girls! Girls!". A must read for all us elitists without scruples (some things will always be the same)... and anybody else who dares.

Quote for week 10th-16th Feb '08

At the root of the difference between the Libertarian and welfarist-Utilitarian conception of optimal tax policy is the relationship of the individual to the state. The welfarist-Utilitarian model sees the state as an entity outside the individuals who compose it, in that the government puts in place policies that are optimal according to its own social welfare function. This function is dependent upon the individuals' welfare, but by combining them in a particular way the state assumes an authority to force individuals to act in ways with which they may disagree. In constrast, a Libertarian model sees the state as merely a collection of individuals who agree to cooperate only insofar as it serves their individual interests. Thus, all contributions by individuals to the state's activities must be voluntary, and the state has authority over individuals only insomuch as they wish to grant it.

N. Gregory Mankiw and Matthew Weinzierl, in "The Optimal Taxation of Height: A Case Study of Utilitarian Income Redistribution"

Read the quote of the previous week.

Quote of the week 8th to 14th of July '07

Am I God after all, made the universe, we dreamed it up together
or got tumbled out of the Chute onto the Planet, looking for progenitors?
I know I'm not God, are you? Don't be silly.
God? God? Everybody's God? Don't be silly.

excerpt from Allen Ginsberg's "God"

Previous quote of the week.

Best "Political Compass" so far. And where I stand on the left-right political-economic plan

You should do this 'politiquiz' (particularly if you are already a politician/ decision maker or consider a career in this direction :-)). There are lots of things that can still be improved in it, but it is the best "where you stand on the political/ economic dimensions" questionnaire I've encountered so far.

Here's a fragment from the intro to the 'Political Compass' to convince you:

Welcome to The Political Compass™.
There's abundant evidence for the need of it. The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ?
On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook.
That's about as much as we should tell you for now. After you've responded to the following propositions during the next 3-5 minutes, all will be explained. In each instance, you're asked to choose the response that best describes your feeling: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree or Strongly Agree. At the end of the test, you'll be given the compass, with your own special position on it.

And you can see below where I stand: somewhat more libertarian and much closer in longitude to the center than the far (economic) rightist Milton Friedman; but a (moderate) libertarian rightist I am indeed, as you can see from the picture (click on it to enlarge). Among the examples of personalities discussed at the above link, good old professor Friedman is my only quadrant neighbour :-).

Update, some minutes later: I am being notified that my political/economic position is very close to Tchaikovsky's and Chopin's, among the 'grande musique' composers. So this is it, now you have it, I've just discovered myself: I am a complex combination of Tchaikovsky and Chopin. Unfortunately, in terms of their economic and politic views and not their music. But still...

Control freaks

I keep wondering how can there be such a mixture of (not always) good (sometimes excellent!) economic policies (far better than most 'opposition' in the USA advocate- and that's one problem there: the alternative might be worse, in overall terms), but absolutely insane 'political' ones (eventually leading to bad economic outcomes as well...), interfering with private life/ choice and meant to control, there is this obsession with controlling each and everybody's activities, thoughts etc., for the 'sake of security', in the USA (unfortunately even amazing thinkers- in general- like Gary Becker and Richard Posner- sustain some tradeoffs between privacy and security in this respect- I think all that is sheer nonsense and simply shows incapacity of the government, who, let's not forget, is supposed to serve their people, not to control them; if one is an Economist one should recall Milton Friedman's position on all that- Ave Milton, morituri te salutant!). There is no doubt that this dichotomy in policy making only confuses the masses, since in the end you have to prioritize, you have to choose- no side seems to offer you the whole best package, which is completely non-strategic (ok, maybe not in the USA...).

But back to the concrete story here: for now, that was just a (nice?...) visit and probably some-incipient- intimidation, but I would not bet that the decision makers would not translate such attitudes in policies (some of such policies are in fact on the way) as long as President Bush and his (political; it is amazing to see that his econ advisers have been/still are some of the best in the USA) entourage have their way. The funny part is that you can find this 'anonymous surfing', 'IP-hide' software everywhere on the internet and I have been myself using some of them (not Tor, though) in the past. So what's the problem?

PS. Talking about control freaks, for long time now I think Mr. Basescu, the Romanian President, got inspired by the wrong side of Mr. Bush.

On Dutch coffeeshops and the war on drugs

Since I recently blogged about libertarianism, the Netherlands is in some respects (however, mind you: NL is far from being a pure 'laissez faire' country in general) a champion in succesfully implementing libertarian policies. And they also seem to know what they are doing- their approach is very effective- as, for instance, this well organized Drug Policy Alliance website concisely explains. In fact, Becker or Posner are not the only ones who do not find economic (or hardly any, for that matter) arguments for waging the total war on drugs anywhere outside the Netherlands (with the focus on the USA).

For more informal, but still informed opinions, here's a post explaining the difference between Dutch coffeeshops and Dutch coffeehouses (with a linked Youtube amateur videoclip which probably wants to be a user's manual but fails and a bunch of other things...). Or- iff you read Romanian- you can also consult a surprinsingly well written article on the topic by Cosmin Popan, for Cotidianul, that I blogged about, among other things, some time ago.

PS. If you are already in or plan to visit A'dam soon, you can check out this local coffeeshop directory. That being said, for a first visit, I would rather spend my time in the Rijksmuseum than in any A'dam coffeeshop or De Wallen (for a second visit or a longer stay I would avoid 'touristic Amsterdam' altogether: this amazing city has so much more to offer), but hey, the most important idea is that you are free to choose! And nobody should be interfering with that right.

Becker and Posner on 'Libertarian Paternalism'

I have just read a wonderful critique of 'libertarian paternalism' by Gary Becker, complemented very nicely by Richard Posner. Some excerpts from both texts below (which also attempt a summary of the main arguments):

The term is indeed an oxymoron. Libertarianism, as expounded in John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, is the doctrine that government should confine its interventions in the private sector to what Mill called "other-regarding" acts, which is to say acts that cause harm to nonconsenting strangers, as distinct from "self-regarding" acts, which are acts that harm only oneself or people with whom one has consensual relations authorizing acts that may result in harm. So, for example, if you are hurt in a boxing match, that is a "self-regarding" event with which the government has no proper business, provided the boxer who hurt you was in compliance with rules--to which you had consented--governing the match, and provided you were of sound mind and so could give meaningful consent.

Paternalism is the opposite. It is the idea that someone else knows better than you do what is good for you, and therefore he should be free to interfere with your self-regarding acts. Paternalism makes perfectly good sense when the "pater" is indeed a father or other parent and the individual whose self-regarding acts are in issue is a child. In its more common sense, "paternalism" refers to governmental interference with the self-regarding acts of mentally competent adults, and so understood it is indeed the opposite of libertarianism. The yoking of the two in the oxymoron "libertarian paternalism" is an effort to soften the negative connotation of paternalism with the positive connotation of libertarianism.

(Posner)

A serious problem arises if libertarian paternalism is not just considered an intellectual exercise, but is supposed to be implemented in policies that control choices, such as how many calories people are allowed to consume, whether adults are allowed to use marijuana or smoke, or how much they can save. Even best-intentioned government officials should be considered subject to the same bounds on rationality, limits on self-control, myopia in looking forward, and the other cognitive defects that are supposed to affect choices by us ordinary individuals. Can one have the slightest degree of confidence that these officials will promote the interests of individuals better than these individuals do themselves?

(Becker)

One of the great weaknesses of "libertarian paternalism" is failure to weigh adequately the significance of the operation of the cognitive and psychological quirks emphasized by libertarian paternalists on government officials. The quirks are not a function of low IQ or a poor education; they are universal, although there is a tendency for the people least afflicted by them to enter those fields, such as gambling, speculation, arbitrage, and insurance, in which the quirks have the greatest negative effect on rational decision making. As Edward Glaeser has pointed out, the cost of these quirks to officials--who are not selected for immunity to them--is lower than the cost to consumers, because the officials are making decisions for other people rather than for themselves.

(Posner)