Cafe Hayek

Stupid Cult of Political Personality

Here's a letter that I sent today to the New York Times:

Maureen Dowd wants President Obama to display his healthy, low-fat eating habits more publicly ("Hold the Fries," June 17).  The idea is that Our Leader's ostentatious display of his preferred diet will inspire ordinary Americans to eat better.

What has become of Americans?  How different are we now from Louis XIV's French subjects who gazed in awe upon him at his table?  And are we so childish that our dietary choices are directed by political celebrities?

If we Americans are indeed such mindless lemmings as Ms. Dowd assumes, I'd prefer that Pres. Obama spend lots of time being filmed gobbling Big Macs while, between bites, insisting that each of us take control of our own individual lives and that we would do well to reject the stupid cult of celebrity that now surrounds high government officials.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

We Need a Permanent Vacation from Him and His Ilk

Here's a letter that I sent yesterday to Politico.com:

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) has introduced legislation to force employers to provide up to two weeks of paid vacation for all employees ("Alan Grayson to introduce Paid Vacation Act," May 21).  His rationale?: "There's a reason why Disney World is the happiest place on Earth: The people who go there are on vacation."

A lengthy article is required to enumerate each flaw in this goofy reasoning.  But I can't help but wonder if Mr. Grayson's Mickey Mouse idea has anything to do with the fact that the district he represents includes Disney World.  If he represented instead, say, Hollywood, he might conclude that, because people are in a good mood when attending movies, that Uncle Sam should force employers to give each employee a daily 'movie break.'  And Jiminy!  Who knows what Mr. Grayson would propose if he represented Las Vegas?!

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Regressivism

I read Tocqueville's Democracy in America well over a decade ago.  I now want to read it again.  This desire is prompted by this passage below, taken from today's column by George Will.  I'm chagrined to admit I do not recall, from my own long-ago reading of that great book, the Tocqueville quotation :

In "Democracy in America," Alexis de Tocqueville anticipated people being governed by "an immense, tutelary power" determined to take "sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate." It would be a power "absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident and gentle," aiming for our happiness but wanting "to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness." It would, Tocqueville said, provide people security, anticipate their needs, direct their industries and divide their inheritances. It would envelop society in "a network of petty regulations -- complicated, minute and uniform." But softly: "It does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and directs them" until people resemble "a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."

So what today seems as modern as Matisse once seemed was foreseen 17 decades ago.

I have in my living room an engraving of New Hampshire's state motto, "Live Free or Die."  It's a proud and worthy sentiment for a free people, but not one shared generally by Americans today -- or by any other peoples, it seems.  Increasingly, Americans' sentiments would be more aptly captured by the motto "Exist as Coddled Children or Cry."

And I have hanging in my office a replica of the revolutionary-era flag "Don't Tread on Me" -- another proud sentiment worthy of a free people, but one that now, in America, ought to read "Please Care for Me."

Update: My friend Fred Foote suggests that the image to accompany the motto "Please Care for Me" would be, not a fierce and coiled snake, but a begging piglit.

Make Risky Loans!

This letter in today's Wall Street Journal hits an important nail square on the head:

Regarding your editorial "Fannie Mae's Patron Saint" (Sept. 9): We are all talking about subprime loans and the havoc they've wreaked on the economy, but no one is talking about why banks give out these loans -- they are required to by law. Since the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, Congress requires banks to offer loans to minorities in low-income areas, even if the clients can't make down payments, don't have good credit histories, or even employment histories.

Since these clients are high-credit risks, the only loans lenders can offer are high-interest loans that don't require a down payment or good credit history. These loans frequently default.

In order to cut down on the number of subprime loans an institution must make, it must cut down on all loans, because its subprime business is a proportion of its overall business.

Are we willing to crash our economy over some misplaced idealism? Congress must rescind the CRA or this problem will continue beyond today's bailouts.

M. Franks

Little Rock, Ark.

The foolishiness that is the Community Reinvestment Act is not the only reason for the mortgage-market meltdown, but it must be exposed and take its share of the blame.

No Nudging

Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler endorse what they call "libertarian paternalism."  My initial temptation is to accuse this term of possessing no more meaning than terms such as "dry water" or "ugly beauty."  But reflection nudges me away from such a harsh conclusion.  There is genuine content to their proposal -- content that is worthwhile to carefully consider.

As I say in my letter (below), a nudge from government is better than a command from government.  Preserving the freedom to resist government nudges is a good thing, particularly if the alternative is to be commanded by government.

Maximum freedom of individual choice might well capture the core policy prescription of libertarianism (or, better, "radical [classical] liberalism").  But the political philosophy that today stands on the strong shoulders of the likes of Adam Smith, Wilhelm von Humboldt, F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, and James Buchanan involves more than a commitment to maximum possible freedom of individual choice.  It involves also a tolerance of all peaceful individual preferences, even when -- perhaps even especially when -- these preferences differ from those of the majority or of the prevalent opinion leaders.

That is, it's not just that libertarians want everyone to have maximum possible freedom of choice; libertarians also resist passing judgment on other person's peaceful choices.  Libertarian Joe will (indeed, should) judge how well Sam's peaceful choices might comport with Joe's own values and lifestyle, but libertarian Joe will not stand in judgment of Sam's peaceful choices as these affect Sam's life.

In short, libertarians neither want government to nudge them into making different choices nor to nudge other persons into making those choices that we would make if we were those other persons.

And, at a more practical level, libertarians recognize the state to be an institution more vile and cagey than it is generally understood to be by non-libertarians.  Thus my letter to the Financial Times:

Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler seek to replace most government force with government "nudges" ("The dramatic effect of a firm nudge," August 13).  They say that such nudging preserves "freedom of choice [as] an important safeguard against the bias, confusion and self-interest of government."  While I agree that nudges are preferable to force, better still would be to stop government, as much as possible, from having ANY influence on persons' choices.  Neither force nor nudging.

Profs. Sunstein and Thaler inadvertently offer a reason why government nudging is dangerous, namely, that government decision-making is biased, confused, and self-interested.  Surely such an institution is not to be trusted to act wisely when it nudges us - especially if the authors are correct that we respond to nudges so dramatically.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

A Cause for Applause?

The national minimum-wage rises today from $5.85 per hour to $6.55 per hour.  In other words, Uncle Sam today arbitrarily increases the cost of employing low-skilled workers by 12 percent.

Tabarrok on Krugman

This post by my and Russ's colleague Alex Tabarrok, from this past Friday over at Marginal Revolution, is not to be missed.  In it, Alex casts serious doubt on Paul Krugman's facile claim that today's instances of tainted food are the result of deregulation of the sort championed by Milton Friedman.

None of the State's Business

I applaud this ruling.  It's obscene for the state to interfere so cavalierly into private family matters.  Here are the lead paragraphs from the New York Times report on the ruling:

A Texas state court of appeals ruled Thursday afternoon that the state of Texas had no right to seize more than 400 children from a polygamist ranch in Eldorado, in the western part of the state, because there was not sufficient proof that they were in immediate danger.

The ruling asserted that the state’s child protection agency acted hastily in removing the children from the Yearning for Zion ranch in April and did not make a reasonable effort “to ascertain if some measure short of removal and/or separation from parents would have eliminated the risk” of abuse toward the children of 48 mothers who filed the suit. The district court was ordered to remove its restraining order giving the state custody of those children, but it was not immediately clear how the hundreds of other children, now in foster care, would be affected.

Why it's none of your business

In an earlier post, I expressed dismay that when my 13 year-old son went in for his annual checkup, the doctor asked my son if he wanted his mother to leave the room so that the two of them could talk privately.

A number of the comments on that post took issue with my dismay, so I thought it might be worthwhile to make it clear as to why I found the doctor's behavior so disturbing.

I understand that there are many topics that my son might not want to talk about in front of me. Sex. Drugs. What happened in school today. It's probably a pretty long list. Some of the things on the list are important. Some less so. It is surely essential for children to talk to people other than their parents. It is essential for children to have privacy of various kinds.

But as a parent, I try to choose who my son gets advice from and who influences my son. Not completely, of course. His friends and teachers influence him all day without any oversight or input from me. So not surprisingly, many parents choose their kids' school with some care. We can't control our kids' friends. But many parents try to steer their kids away from friends who we think might push our kids to do unhealthy things.

Thoughtful parents can disagree on when one's role as parent ends, if ever. Some parents behave as if it never ends. They desire to control and influence their kids forever. They try to influence who their kids marry, what jobs they take, where they live, and so on. Most parents stop at some point. They let the bird leave the cage and fly around on its own. So in some sense, it's only a question of where you draw the line.

I don't draw the line at thirteen. My thirteen year-old has some autonomy in his life. But I control a lot of it. I don't let him watch 24 or CSI or R-rated movies. I try and get him to do his homework. I have various ethical guidelines that I expect him to live up to with respect to his siblings and to his parents and to his friends.

You might think I'm wrong on some of these. You might applaud me. But I certainly don't want you to have the right to influence my son without my permission, especially when I don't know much about you. And I assume you don't want me to influence your children without your permission, or without knowing much about me.

If my son is in crisis, I might want him to talk one-on-one with someone other than my wife or me--to a doctor, a rabbi, a family friend, a teacher, or a classmate. But who should make that choice? My son? Me? A stranger?

But I don't want my doctor talking to my kid about sex or drugs, just to take the two most obvious examples. If I were uncomfortable talking to my kid about sex, I would encourage my wife or someone else to have a conversation with him. But his doctor? Sex isn't just about anatomy and physiology, which are the doctor's strong suits.

You might disagree. Fine. Encourage your son to talk to the doctor without you being in the room. But why does the doctor presume to have the right to talk to my son without my approval?

I assume the doctor presumes to talk to my son without my approval so that my son can get help with a problem (drug use, sexual curiousity, sexual experience, sexually-transmitted disease) that he's uncomfortable discussing with a parent. It seems like a good idea. But my preference would be for the doctor to talk to me about it first. I have this quaint idea that my doctor works for me. Even my son's doctor works for me. The doctor does not work for my son. My son's doctor doesn't work for you, either. You might be worried about my son. But the incentives aren't there for the doctor to do a good job carrying out your mission.

Of course, I might be a bad parent. I might be encouraging my son to believe in God. And my son might be able to ask the doctor privately if God really exists. The doctor could explain to my son that the whole religion thing is a fairy tale. Or I could be encouraging my son to be an atheist. And my son could ask the doctor if there was something to this "God" thing that his friends in school talk about. And the doctor could explain to my son that religion and belief in God are a wonderful thing that he was missing out on.

Is either of those scenarios attractive? Would you want anyone proselytizing your son on any topic—religion, atheism, sexual practice, hygiene, fashion, diet—without your approval?

Let me make it clear. I can imagine lots of scenarios where I would want my children to have the opportunity to talk to people without me being there because my presence affects the outcome. But why would the doctor presume to have that conversation without my agreement?

If a doctor suspects that a parent beats his or her child, the issue gets murkier. But my guess is that many doctors ask all children if they want to talk privately. I think this reduces the power of families and expands the influence of the culture at-large on our children. This itself is part of a larger cultural trend to increase the autonomy of children and to push children toward adulthood at earlier and earlier ages. I think that's a bad thing. You disagree? Fine. Raise your children as you see fit. Just don't presume to raise mine for me.

None of your business

My wife recently took our 13 year-old son to the doctor for his annual checkup. He's doing fine. At the end of the visit, the doctor asked my son if he wanted my wife to leave so he could talk freely to the doctor about anything he wished. My son said no. If I'd been there I would have asked the doctor why he thought it was appropriate for him to even ask to talk to my son without me there. I told the story to a friend who said he'd had the same experience.

I'm curious to know if anyone else has had this happen. What's the source of it? Is the AMA suggesting it? I'm sure it's justified with some argument about public health.

If it ever happens when I'm in the room, I'm going to ask the doctor when I can talk privately to his son. I want to make sure that his son understands how markets work. In the name of public economic health, of course.

On Smuggling and Law

My colleague Walter Williams offers great good sense here.

When legislation is harmful -- such as when it attempts to restrict the carrying out of peaceful exchange among consenting adults -- it is widely disrespected.  One of the many unfortunate consequences of harmful legislation is that the disrespect it engenders risks becoming disrespect for law.  Legislation is not at all synonymous with law.

Shughart on Bailouts

My former GMU colleague (now at the University of Mississippi, and a Senior Fellow at The Independent Institute) Bill Shughart wrote this important warning about government-funded and directed bailouts.  Here's an excerpt:

The record of government bailouts of private financial institutions in the 1930s, of Continental Illinois Bank in 1984 (which cost $8 billion) and of the entire U.S. savings & loan industry in the late 1980s and early 1990s (which cost $125 billion) teaches that emergency loans keep weak institutions alive just long enough for their problems to increase. Bailouts encourage more risk-taking and eliminate the freedom to fail that is just as essential to a free-market economy as the freedom to succeed.

The end result is likely to be further government intrusion into the private economy.

No Cause for Pessimism

George Will has long been one of my favorite conservative columnists.  I often disagree with him, but even more often I agree with him.  And, boy, do I agree with the lesson he conveys in his column appearing in today's Washington Post.  Will's point is that to call today's economic woes a "crisis" is to define the word "crisis" way, way down.  Here's are the opening few paragraphs from this excellent column:

During presidential elections, when candidates postulate this or that "crisis" for which each is the indispensable and sufficient cure, economic hypochondria is encouraged, so a sense of suffering is rampant. Recently the Wall Street Journal, like Joseph Conrad contemplating the Congo, surveyed today's economic jungle and cried, "The horror! The horror!"

Declines in housing values and the stock market are causing some Americans to delay retirement. A Kansas City man had been eager to retire to Arizona but now, the Journal says, "figures he'll stay put for another couple of years." He is 59.

So, this is a facet of today's hydra-headed "crisis" -- the man must linger in the labor force until, say, 62. That is the earliest age at which a person can, and most recipients do, begin collecting Social Security.

The proportion of people aged 55 to 64 who are working rose 1.5 percentage points from April 2007 to February 2008, during which the percentage of working Americans older than 65 rose two-tenths of one percentage point. The Journal grimly reported, "The prospect of millions of grandparents toiling away in their golden years doesn't square with the American dream."

Oh? The idea that protracted golden years of idleness are a universal right is a delusion of recent vintage. Deranged by the entitlement mentality fostered by a metastasizing welfare state, Americans now have such low pain thresholds that suffering is defined as a slight delay in beginning a subsidized retirement often lasting one-third of the retiree's adult lifetime.

George Will's wisdom inoculates him from the pessimistic bias.

I would add only that government subsidies to Americans in their 60s and older (most notably, Social Security and Medicare) are not the only forces enabling Americans today to retire earlier than in the past.  The increasing wealth generated by the private sector is another reason -- in fact, I suspect, the principal reason.

How Dare She

I just read Ryan Lizza's March 17th New Yorker essay on Hillary Clinton.  That essay inspired this letter:

I'm outraged that Hillary Clinton promises, if elected president, to help people (in her words) "quit smoking, to get more exercise, to eat right, to take their vitamins" ("The Iron Lady," March 17).  Perhaps I'm overreacting because I buried my mother on Wednesday, but neither Uncle Sam nor Mrs. Clinton is my parent.  That role was performed remarkably well and lovingly by the persons who had responsibility for it: my father and late mother.  I, like any self-respecting adult, resent beyond words the impertinence of any stranger presuming to possess the moral authority to intrude into my affairs.

To my own dying day, I will live by the creed instilled in me by my parents: My life is my own, and just as I have no right (or wish) to meddle in the affairs of others, no one - regardless of how exalted her status or how large her electoral majority - has the right to meddle in mine.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

A Non Sequitur

Just last week, David Brooks described many successful politicians (such as Eliot Spitzer) thusly: "their sensitivity synapses are still performing at preschool levels" and they "have an almost limitless capacity for self-pity."  Not a pretty picture of people in power.

But reading Brooks's latest column (in yesterday's edition of the New Orleans Times-Picayune), I discover that Brooks -- with disquieting inconsistency -- nevertheless trusts these emotional and ethical dwarves with power to regulate persons' private choices.  I sent this letter in response.

David Brooks notes that "behavioral economists demonstrate every day [that] human beings are powerfully and unconsciously influenced by ... ideas and assumptions" that cause them sometimss to make systematic mistakes ("Not a good time to trust the market," March 20).  True.  But Mr. Brooks himself mistakenly draws the conclusion that this fact justifies government regulation.

The undeniable truth that each of us frequently makes foolish decisions does not justify overriding our freedoms, especially if (as is likely) the same "powerful and unconscious ideas and assumptions" that cause us to err when acting privately will cause us to err when acting politically -- and will cause also those persons in political office to err when exercising their power.

For all of their insights, behavioral economists have never demonstrated that political power cures its holders of any of the cognitive ailments that afflict the general lot of humankind.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Butt Out

Here's a letter that I sent yesterday to the New York Times:

Senator Arlen Specter imagines that it is his and his fellow maharajahs' duty to investigate why the National Football League destroyed the Patriots' tapes of the Jets ("Goodell Defends Handling of Patriots' Spying Case," February 2).

If I were NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, I would respond to Sen. Specter's threat to call a Senate committee hearing to investigate this matter by saying only "Dear Sen. Specter:  The rule that the Patriots violated is one that the NFL, not Congress, created.  We are a private organization quite capable of enforcing our own rules.  So butt out; this matter is none of your damn business.  Sincerely...."

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Walter Williams on Government Control Over Thermostatsl

My colleague Walter Williams shares his spot-on insights about the proposal in California to give a government agency the power and authority to remotely control thermostats in private buildings.  Here are some paragraphs from Walter's column:

Some people might agree with this level of government control over their lives, but if these amendments become law, you can safely bet other intrusive energy-saving proposals are waiting in the wing.

For now, California's energy Nazis are simply testing how much intrusiveness Californians will peaceably accept. I can easily imagine California's Energy Commission requiring remotely controlled main circuit-breaker boxes that control all the electricity coming into your house. That would enable the energy czar to better manage your use.

Say you're preparing a big dinner. The energy czar might decide you don't need so much heat in the rest of the house. Or, preparing a big dinner might mean the energy czar would turn off the energy to your washing machine and dryer while the electric stove is on.

There's no end to what the energy czar could do, particularly if he enlists the aid of California's Department of Health Services. Getting six to eight hours sleep each night is healthy; good health lowers health costs. So why not make it possible for the energy czar to turn the lights off at a certain hour?California's Department of Education knows children should do their homework after school rather than sit playing videogames or watching television. The energy czar could improve education outcomes simply by turning off the television, or at least turning off all noneducational programs.Of course, there could be a generous provision whereby if an adult is present, he could use a password to operate the television.You say, "Williams, you must be mad. All that would never happen." That's the same charge one might have made back in the '60s, when the anti-tobacco movement started, if someone predicted that the day would come when some cities, such as Calabasas, Calif., would outlaw smoking on public streets.

Rampaging Regulators

Quoting from an e-mail sent out by the good people at Free Market Environmentalism Roundtable (a project of PERC):

As some of you may already know, the California Energy Commission has proposed amendments to its standards for building energy efficiency. These standards include a requirement that any new or modified heating or air conditioning system will have to include a thermostat whose set point can be remotely controlled by government authorities who would be empowered to lower (in winter) or raise (in summer) your thermostat's temperature set point during "emergency events." The comment period closes on January 30th for those of you (especially California residents) who would like to register your ire and opposition.

Here's the document: CEC-400-2007-017-45DAY.PDF .  Check out pages 63-64 of this document for the offensive section.  (HT Roger Meiners)

I understand that any clever economist or philosopher can build models or offer coherent arguments "proving" that giving government power to control the thermostats in private buildings will improve "social welfare."  But no one can explain how such power does not diminish human freedom -- and is not a huge leap down the road to serfdom.

I quote again the final lines of Thomas Sowell's greatest book: Knowledge and Decisions:

[Freedom] is, above all, the right of ordinary people to find elbow rooms for themselves and a refuge from the rampaging presumptions of their "betters."

Sweet Land of Liberty

Here's my latest column in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.  And below are the opening paragraphs:

In this sweet land of liberty it is surprising how readily we modern Americans let others rule us. I'm not talking about Americans letting some foreign government rule us. That won't happen anytime soon. There's no risk that, say, we will quietly surrender to an invading army sent from the likes of Moscow or Beijing.

I'm talking about being ruled by homegrown politicians and petty tyrants who butt their noses into the sizes of our toilets, the amount of salt we consume and countless other provinces of our daily lives.

Continuing Assaults

At a family gathering this weekend in New Orleans -- as I enjoyed a rich, very yummy, and sodium-laden bowl of okra gumbo -- I complained to a cousin about the recent calls to have the government force food-preparers to use less sodium.  Karol -- sitting nearby and enjoying her own sodium-enriched Cajun dish -- lamented with me the fact that our freedoms are increasingly under assault (pun intended).  But, she pointed out, the alleged justification for such intrusions isn't so much a simple nanny-state itch to treat us as children but, rather, the need to control health-care costs.

Of course Karol is correct.  This "stop each of us from imposing costs on others" justification is typically used to support motorcycle-helmet regulations, smoking bans, and, now, eat-less-salt commands.  And as more and more of Americans' health care is provided collectively, the ring of validity to such justifications increases in volume.  As Russ points out, if you're paying, I'm ordering the expensive menu items.

If you are obliged to subsidize the costs of my behavior, then you clearly have an interest in restricting any of my behaviors that might potentially raise the costs you bear as my subsidizer.

But a question: if the proponents of greater collectivization of health-care provision not only recognize this fact but cite it as a justification for restricting personal freedoms that would otherwise be no one else's business, it seems to follow that these proponents of collectivization of health-care provision would recognize also that the problem is so general that it indicts the very idea of collectivization of health-care provision.

Because such collectivization creates a giant tragedy of the commons – because such collectivization enables each of us at each moment of making health-care choices to impose most of the costs of our choices on others – such collectivization will require not only that government restrict our access to fun but unhealthy life choices (such as eating lots of Cajun food), but also restrict our access to medical-care.

So the idea that a young mother whose child has a runny nose will be able to skip off to the pediatrician pronto for a diagnosis and treatment is chimerical.  Just as collectivization of health-care provision will encourage people to eat too much sodium and too much bacon, it will also encourage people to seek medical treatment too frequently and too frivolously.  And in both cases, these attempts to free-ride on the largess of the collective will oblige the protectors of the collective to restrict personal freedoms and personal choices lest the collective be utterly ruined.

Threat of a law suit

In this earlier post, I mentioned how even one occurrence of an unlikely event, leads to action, no matter how rational or irrational. Michael, commenting on the post, mentions an example I had been thinking about as well, the tragedy of the girl killed by a puck at a hockey game and how that led to nets at the ends of the stadium to protect customers from a one in a million risk.

I wonder how much of this response is due to the threat of a law suit. Once something has happened, no matter how unlikely, the second time is considered negligence. So the first time someone is killed by a hockey puck, it's bad luck. But the second time, no matter how unlikely, you get sued for not having nets up to block the puck. So maybe it's not 'salience' but the legal environment that explains seemingly irrational overreaction to remote risks.

Unhappy Development

I sent this letter yesterday to the New York Times:

Here's the scariest line I've read in ages: "The era of laissez-faire happiness might be coming to an end.  Some prominent economists and psychologists are looking into ways to measure happiness to draw it into the public policy realm" ("All They Are Saying Is Give Happiness a Chance," November 12).

Several decades ago, many economists - enamored of their increasing ability to describe statistically existing patterns of production - fancied that a new age was dawning in which government would improve the lot of ordinary people by substituting its own production and distribution "plans" for the results of the market.  These fancies proved to be dangerous fantasies.  We would all be much better off - happier, even! - if this new generation of planners are laughed out of the public arena before their power grows to be as large as their gargantuan arrogance.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Another strike against libertarian paternalism

In this post on energy policy, I wrote about economists' role as policy advocates. I suggested it was naive to expect government to do what's best for us (whatever that means). Rather we should expect politicians to respond to incentives. Not the same thing. And that's one of the reasons I oppose so-called "libertarian paternalism," where government suggests good behaviors rather than imposing them. I wrote:

Shouldn't we support having government encourage (not force) people to make better decisions if without that encouragement people will make bad decisions? My answer is no. I don't expect pigs to fly. Why should I expect government to be good at helping people make good decisions?

Today's Washington Post has this depressing story:

In an attempt to raise the nation's historically low rate of breast-feeding, federal health officials commissioned an attention-grabbing advertising campaign a few years ago to convince mothers that their babies faced real health risks if they did not breast-feed. It featured striking photos of insulin syringes and asthma inhalers topped with rubber nipples.

Plans to run these blunt ads infuriated the politically powerful infant formula industry, which hired a former chairman of the Republican National Committee and a former top regulatory official to lobby the Health and Human Services Department. Not long afterward, department political appointees toned down the campaign.

Don't expect pigs to fly, cats to bark or politicians to act as if they care about us. They care about us if it helps them prosper. If it doesn't, they care about more important influences.

Regressives

Here's my latest column in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.  In it, I argue that the so-called "Progressives" in modern America are, in fact, anything but.  A better name for them would be "Regressives."

The Politics of Prohibition

Why did the U.S. government prohibit alcohol starting in 1920?  And why did it end this ignoble "experiment" in 1933?  I have a theory.  (Hint: the reason for both the launch and the sinking of alcohol prohibition centers on tax revenue.)

The Big Deal

In an earlier post, I challenged readers to discuss the trans-fat ban by Montgomery County. Should we fight it? Challenge it? Or just assume it's no big deal, a reaction I heard from a number of friends. Their attitude was come on, don't get worked about it. There are lots of substitutes for trans-fats. So what's the big deal. And some of our readers made the point that when you get worked up over trans-fats, most people will assume you're a nut. And that reduces your chance to have them take other, more important ideas seriously. You'll be dismissed, and maybe rightly so.

I want to thank all of the readers who contributed to the excellent discussion in the comments to that post.

Here, I'll give my two cents. Or four.

Going without trans-fats is no big deal. But a ban by the Montgomery County Council is a big deal and this paradox is why the politics and strategic aspect of the issue is so tricky.

I don't smoke. Never have. So a ban on smoking, in public or private places, is if anything, good for me. I don't like second-hand smoke.

I wear my seat belt when I ride in my car. Requiring people to wear seat belts doesn't affect me. I won't be getting a ticket any time soon.

I've been on a motorcycle once in my life. It scared me. So I don't care if people riding a motorcycle have to wear a helmet. If anything, the requirement supposedly keeps my taxes down.

I don't really care about the mouth-feel of pastry or whether it's a little more expensive. Using trans-fats supposedly leads to better mouth feel and a longer shelf life. Come on, would you go to the barricades over mouth feel?

Nope. Not worth it. None of these things are really worth fighting for, are they? Are you going to picket a politician for making some other folks stop smoking or wear their seat belt? Not worth it.

Of course, that's how the nanny state grows. It's just not worth fighting any one infringement of liberty. So no, I'm not going to fight for the right to buy a locally-baked pastry with good mouth feel.

But I will fight against the idea that the Montgomery County Council has the right to ban trans-fats. That's why I'm writing this post. That's why I mention it to my neighbors. It requires a bit of schizophrenia. But it's healthy. I don't care about trans-fats, but I care about the ban. I care about the principle.

The principle is tricky. It's not the right to eat trans-fats. The principle is that I don't want powerful people to decide what I do with my body or my life. Those are my responsibility. They are my responsibility because that's what adulthood is. Adulthood is being responsible for the risks you take, reaping the rewards and enduring the costs.

But those decisions are also my responsibility because I have a lot of incentives to make the right choice. I bear the costs and reap the rewards, remember? I admit I'm imperfect. I'm frail. I'm weak. I don't always make the right choice. Sometimes I eat too much. Sometimes I drink too much. And I suspect my neighbors make mistakes even when I don't. So I understand the appeal of being constrained. That's what friends are for, or rabbis or even self-help books. Those are the sources I want to get my constraints from.

I don't want to live in a world where a bunch of strangers sitting on the Montgomery County Council act in my name to constrain us. Those strangers don't love me. They don't care about me (though they protest that yes, they do.) They are responsive to all kinds of forces besides my well-being. So I don't want to expand their authority to make decisions for me. I want to reduce it.

So when your friend laughs at you for caring about something as trivial as trans fats, tell your friend you don't care about trans fat. You care about the principle that's at stake. The principle is that when your health is a justification for restricting liberty, then the power of politics climbs in your car, in your kitchen and in your bedroom.  Today it's trans fats. Tomorrow it's meat or single-malt scotch, or skiing or sex. It's not about whether some cost-benefit analysis proves that on this particular case or that one, the ban is worthwhile. It's about whether you're free to be an adult and pursue what you enjoy, knowing that nothing is entirely safe. I choose adulthood for adults.

Chapter Three of The Invisible Heart deals with these issues.

Here's an essay I wrote on obesity as a justification for regulation.

Nudging Us -- With Advice, or with Guns?

At the Wall Street Journal's Econoblog, Mario Rizzo, one of my former professors at NYU, recently debated the University of Chicago's Richard Thaler on "libertarian paternalism." 

The following is from Thaler's opening remarks:

In light of human limitations, Cass Sunstein and I argue for policies that we call libertarian paternalism. Although the phrase sounds like an oxymoron, we contend that it is often possible to design policies, in both the public and private sector, that make people better off -- as judged by themselves -- without coercion. We oppose bans; instead, we favor nudges.

Consider two examples, both designed to increase savings. The first is to enroll people, automatically, into savings plans -- while allowing them to opt out. The second is the Save More Tomorrow plan, which allows employees to commit themselves now to increasing their savings rates later, when they get raises. Both approaches have been remarkably successful.

Well-chosen default rules are examples of helpful "choice architecture." Since it is often impossible for private and public institutions to avoid picking some option as the default, why not pick one that is helpful?

And what's next here is excerpted from Rizzo's contribution:

It is a good thing to help people make better decisions. But law requires us to go beyond intention. What is the appropriate standard for better decisions? Thaler and Sunstein say it's what people would do if they had "complete information, unlimited cognitive abilities, and no lack of willpower." This is a very ambitious standard that could tax the abilities of even well-meaning policymakers.

Can we discover "true" preferences through individuals' statements that they are too fat and save too little? Talk is cheap. These could be expressions of mere desire, not a real willingness to make trade-offs between values. We all want to have more savings and more consumption, too.

Moreover, the public sector is not governed by science or even by behavioral economists, but by ambitious people with limited cognitive abilities, lack of willpower, and faulty memories, not to mention expanding waistlines. Whom should we trust more: individuals who face the costs and benefits of their own choices, or politicians and bureaucrats who do not?

I encourage you to read the entire, interesting debate here.

By the way, you can hear here a podcast that Russ did with Thaler back in November 2006.  And here you can hear a podcast that Russ did with Ed Glaeser, who is critical of the concept of "libertarian paternalism."

What's the big deal?

In an earlier post, I wrote about the ban on trans fats in Montgomery County, MD. When I bring the topic up with neighbors, their general attitude is, what's the big deal? Restaurants will find substitutes. Prices might rise a little. Yes, freedom is infringed, but is the freedom to buy locally-made trans fats products very important?

A number of readers here at Cafe Hayek have raised similar points in the past in conversations on related topics. Their argument goes something like this: there are so many important issues to fight for, why fight over these nanny state issues? What's the big deal about mandatory seat belts or motorcycle helmets or the ban on trans fats. They basically do more good than harm, goes the argument, so why get worked up over something so trivial? Plus, they say, it turns off those who are skeptical about freedom. They think I'm crazy for getting excited over something so innocuous.

I disagree with these arguments. I think it is a big deal for many reasons. But before I make my case, I'd like to hear you make yours on either side of this issue. Is this kind of seemingly petty regulation worth fighting? Or should we just ignore it and save our breath and energy for more what are perhaps more important issues?

They care so much about me

They protect me from late taxis. They protect me from big retailers. Now, they're protecting me from trans fats:

The Montgomery County Council unanimously approved a ban on partially hydrogenated oils in restaurants, supermarket bakeries and delis yesterday, becoming the first county in the nation to restrict artery-clogging trans fats.

....

Montgomery's measure follows similar legislation in New York and Philadelphia, which ordered trans fats removed from restaurant menus this year and next. The county's new health regulation will take effect in January for restaurants and other establishments serving food and in January 2009 for establishments offering baked goods, other than packaged goods made outside the county.

Sara Lee cakes, for example, will be exempt. Dunkin' Donuts, which bakes doughnuts in its stores daily, will have to comply. The annual church supper, which fits the county's definition of a food service establishment, would have to stop using trans fatty oils unless organizers get a waiver from the county health department. Foods with 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving are allowed.

My favorite part of the article:

Council member Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At Large), the bill's chief sponsor, said she thinks the food industry will be able to adjust. Some Montgomery establishments, such as the Silver Diner and Marriott Corp., stopped using trans fats voluntarily.

"The goal is to protect the public health," she said. "People want to know what they are eating."

I wish it were a quote. She thinks the food industry will be able to adjust. Great! It should work out. Probably. Besides, people want to know what they're eating so we'll prevent them from eating something as a way to let them know what they're eating.

There is nothing in the article that discusses the costs of the ban in either reduced freedom or higher food costs that will be passed on to consumers. There is nothing in the article about the impossibility of enforcing the regulation. There is one negative paragraph in the entire article, a hint of the possibility of unintended consequences:

Restaurateurs say that it could be difficult for them to find healthy replacements for trans fatty oils and that they might have to use artery-clogging palm and coconut oils or butter.

Vonnegut on "Equality"

My favorite of all the works of the late Kurt Vonnegut that I've read is his 1961 short story "Harrison Bergeron."  It's a gruesome tale of government-enforced "equality" of outcomes.

On "Libertarian Paternalism"

Gary Becker and Richard Posner offer sensible criticisms of "libertarian paternalism."

I especially like this point made by Becker:

In effect, the libertarian claim is that the "process" of making choices leads to individuals who are more capable of making good choices. Strangely perhaps, libertarian paternalists emphasize process when claiming conflict among multiple selves within a person, but ignore the classical emphasis on decision-making process that helps individuals make better choices.

Government Paternalism in Action

I was talking to some people last night about different approaches to government. A woman asked me if there was anything I thought government did better than the private sector. Sure, I replied. Killing people. That is the government's best thing and governments have had unparalleled success in killing people over the last 100 years. Start with the murder of innocents. Hitler and Stalin dwarf the worst serial killer. Even if you count 9/11 as a private act of murder, that's a few thousand versus many millions. No comparison.

Then there's war. Government is very good at war relative to the private sector. Some wars are better than others. Some are ghastly. But there is no disputing that government armies, regardless of the merits of the cause, are better at killing people than private armies.

Come on, someone else said, before I could lengthen the list with maybe the enforcement of contracts and the rest of a very short list. What about education and health care? We can't leave that to the private sector. That launched us into a long discussion of the current state of the public schools and whether the vigilance of the FDA in protecting us from dangerous drugs has been a net benefit or a net loss. Let's turn the question around, I asked. Is there anything the government does well?

As an example of the dangers of using the government as an instrument for good, no matter how well-intentioned matters begin initially, I gave the example of the Tobacco Settlement. Cigarettes are nasty. Most people thought it was a good idea to take Big Tobacco to the cleaners and force them to pay for the health care costs of smokers. I thought it was a very bad idea for many reasons. But suppose you thought it was a good idea. How did it turn out in practice?

Very badly. Not like it was "supposed to." Basically, it enriched tobacco companies and trial lawyers out of the pockets of smokers who are relatively poor. What an repulsive thing it turned out to be, all done in the name of the children and health.  Read this careful account by Jeremy Bulow of how it actually played it.

I'd like to say that the Who were right: we won't get fooled again. But we will until we remember that what we want government to do well and what it can do well are not the same thing.

The Road to Hell

New York City, in its unending love for its citizens is considering a ban on trans fats in all restaurants. The AP reports:

Three years after the city banned smoking in restaurants, health officials are talking about prohibiting something they say is almost as bad: artificial trans fatty acids.

The city health department unveiled a proposal Tuesday that would bar cooks at any of the city's 24,600 food service establishments from using ingredients that contain the artery-clogging substance, commonly listed on food labels as partially hydrogenated oil.

Artificial trans fats are found in some shortenings, margarine and frying oils and turn up in foods from pie crusts to french fries to doughnuts.

At the bottom of the story comes a reaction from academia:

Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard University School of Public Health, praised New York health officials for considering a ban, which he said could save lives.

"Artificial trans fats are very toxic, and they almost surely causes tens of thousands of premature deaths each year," he said. "The federal government should have done this long ago."

Almost surely. They almost surely cause tens of thousands of premature deaths. Probably. Maybe. But it's OK. It's a move toward health and who can be against that?

Wake up out there, folks. This is the death of liberty by a thousand cuts. And how do you argue against any one of those sword thrusts? It seems pretty silly to take a stand in favor of trans fats. They're clearly not good for you. I doubt they cause tens of thousands of premature deaths but they're probably not the best thing to put in your body. So how do you fight this? Is it really such a big deal if one ordinance gets passed that's well-motivated and enacted to save lives?

Actually, I think it's a very big deal. And I encourage you to hear what Ed Glaeser has to say about government paternalism. I think he comes up with some very powerful arguments for why this kind of "public health" measure is dangerous rather than benign.

One argument he makes is the slippery slope argument. First the government puts a warning label on cigarettes on the grounds that it's not really an infringement of liberty—after all, you're still free to smoke. This is followed by real regulation. Bans on smoking in public. Enormous taxes and bans on entry.

The trans fat think is going the same way. It starts out with mandatory labeling. Who can be against that? Then an outright ban is proposed. Well come on, we know it's dangerous don't we?

First of all, dangerous is a meaningless term. It makes for good politics but lousy economics and takes the joy of life. Everything is dangerous. Skiing is dangerous. Bicycles are dangerous. Swimming pools are dangerous. Even Vitamin C is dangerous.

One reason we don't want the government banning "dangerous" products is because it's undefinable. Another reason is because the government doesn't always know the real risk of something.

But the most important reason we don't want the government banning "dangerous products is that the government doesn't love me. It doesn't care about me. Walter Willet of Harvard doesn't love me.  From the same AP article, here's the bureaucrat pushing this idea:

Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden acknowledged that the ban would be a challenge for restaurants, but he said trans fats can easily be replaced with substitute oils that taste the same or better and are far less unhealthy.

"It is a dangerous and unnecessary ingredient," Frieden said. "No one will miss it when it's gone."

Thomas Frieden doesn't love me either. Doesn't care about me. Doesn't know me. Doesn't know my relative likes and dislikes. Doesn't know how trans fats affect me or give me pleasure or cause me pain. Doesn't know my tolerance for risk.

But it's worse than that. It's not just that Thomas Frieden wants to do good but has imperfect information. He doesn't only want to do good. His real full set of motivations is more complex. There are political pressures on him. Which brings me to the quiet side of this story. Why trans fat? Why now? What else is going on? Is there some group out there that has a stake in the trans fat ban that is hidden? What products would be used in place of trans fat? Do the makers of those products have a stake in quietly lobbying the city of New York to enrich them in the name of public health?

And once you're in that world, and that is the real world that Thomas Frieden lives in, why would you ever assume that the Thomas Frieden's of the world have the incentive to do the right thing?

If you live in New York, and even if you don't, speak out against this proposed ban. If you don't live there, speak out, too.

The Mayor's office invites feedback. Email the mayor, Michael Bloomberg. Email Thomas Frieden. Politely let them know that you would like to make your own choices about what you eat. Tell them that if trans fat is so obviously bad for you, you'd expect restaurants to eliminate them on their own and to start advertising that they are trans fat free. Tell them that you expect the government to stay out of the kitchen and the bedroom and the ski slope and everywhere else that we make choices that are best left to ourselves and out of the hands of power where those decisions can be influenced by special interests. And tell them that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.