TGIF: About Politicians

The best-selling social scientist and, it so happens, libertarian Bryan Caplan thinks politicians are immoral. Sounds promising. He's discussed this online and in one of his published blog-post collections, How Evil Are Politicians?: Essays on Demagoguery. What are we to make of his contention?

Caplan isn't using the libertarian nonaggression standard here. Even people who never heard of that standard or who oppose it ought to be at least open to his case. He's really talking about basic decency: the need to avoid gross negligence. Moreover, he thinks it's irrelevant that politicians may believe they are doing the right thing. That's not good enough; it doesn't get them off Caplan's hook.

He starts by talking about everyone and not just politicians. It won't do, he writes, for people merely to go along with what everyone else expects them to do -- not if they want to be virtuous.

[V]irtuous people can’t just conform to the expectations of their society. Everyone has at least a modest moral obligation to perform “due diligence” – to investigate whether their society’s expectations are immoral. And whenever their society fails to measure up, virtuous people spurn social expectations and do the morally right thing.

Caplan doesn't say here what he means by virtuous (from other writings we know he's a moral intuitionist), but that statement surely makes sense. Think of Socrates. No one should suspend their moral judgment or rest content with an unexamined life even in the face of social opposition. Taking into consideration the predominant opinion among most people or the most reputable people is a good starting point (as Aristotle acknowledged), but it is no substitute for thinking for oneself. One should be on the lookout for good reasons for questioning and even rejecting conventional wisdom.

Then Caplan moves on to politicians, who face an even tougher standard for obvious reasons.

Second, anyone in a position of political power has a greatly elevated moral obligation to perform this due diligence. Yes, with great power comes great responsibility. If you’re in a position to pass or enforce laws, lives and freedom are in your hands.  Common decency requires you to act with extreme moral trepidation at all times, ever mindful of the possibility that you’re trampling the rights of the morally innocent.

Of course, "trampling the rights of the morally innocent" might mean killing, maiming, or otherwise ruining people's lives. It certainly will make them poorer No one should have such power in the first place, but if someone is in power, then exercising due diligence is the least he or she can do.

How could anyone take issue with this? Again, it's just common decency. Policymakers should think hard about the likely consequences of their actions or policy proposals. Exercise care, politician, before you decree. Do no harm. No Ph.D. is required to know that.

Caplan asks, "How much time and mental energy does the average politician pour into moral due diligence?  A few hours a year seems like a high estimate." He gives them too much credit. Do they even know what due diligence is? "They don’t just fall a tad short of their moral obligations," Caplan continues. "They’re too busy passing laws and giving orders to face the possibility that they’re wielding power illegitimately."

As he notes, the problem -- our problem -- is that political systems hold no rewards for politicians who are not evil in this respect. They have no career incentive to be moral even by his low standard. "Political systems reward them for seeming good by conventional standards," Caplan writes. "If we’re lucky, this spurs leaders to do what most people consider good. More likely, it spurs leaders to spin control – packaging even their worst actions in conventional moral garb."

And we wonder why, as Jefferson pointed out, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground."

Another problem, which Caplan often writes about, is social desirability bias. Here's what he means: "When the truth sounds bad, human beings deceive and self-deceive. This deceit in turn routinely rationalizes bad policies." Voters judge proposals by how they nice sound, and politicians understand this. Policies that lock aspiring immigrants in poverty are said to "protect our jobs and culture."

Even if the politicians know better (which they usually don't), they don't want to say things that will make voters think badly of them. 

Caplan wraps up by saying,

Admittedly, if it turned out that our society’s conventional moral standards were basically right, our politicians’ vice would be harmless. That’s a much bigger question. But whatever the whole truth about morality might be, politicians ... are almost invariably guilty of pervasive gross moral negligence.  Politicians, repent!

I won't hold my breath. We need to find ways to limit, if not eliminate, the politicians' power. They are largely unaccountable. One vote barely counts; the cost of organizing is usually prohibitive; and officeholders can blame the private sector for policy failings.

But limiting power is a problem because, ruling out a revolution, we'd need their help in that endeavor, and they certainly won't want to help us.

So where does that leave us?

TGIF: Paternalists Cross the Free-Speech Line

Some pundits are puzzled that respectable mainstream Democrats and  "progressives" are no longer free-speech absolutists but rather are enthusiastic defenders of the government's massive effort to squelch expression on the social media platforms. (Glenn Greenwald is one of those puzzled pundits.)

The center-left goes so far as to smear the exposers and critics of government censorship as tin-foil-hatted conspiracy theorists. For example, Matt Taibbi is called a "so-called journalist" for his work on the Twitter Files, despite his award-winning career in investigative reporting. And look how hysterically the center-left reacted to a judge's preliminary injunction against government pressure on social media to suppress dissenting and inconvenient posts.

But why should those pundits be agape? If censorship (by which I mean government suppression of expression) is motivated at least in part by the paternalist desire to protect people from themselves, then I don't see why the censorship arrow would not be in the paternalist's quiver. Any consistent paternalist would believe that the unenlightened public can't be sensible enough to sift "information" from "mis- and disinformation" and read only the "proper" things.

Maybe the paternalists took longer to cross the free-speech line than they might have -- the First Amendment is a powerful taboo in America-- but cross it they now have. Is that so mysterious?

The statement The center-left is paternalist should occasion no controversy. We already knew that. (Of course, it has no monopoly on paternalism, but it is a strong element there.) Government interference with people's freedom to choose in the market is always proposed at least partly to protect them from themselves.

I acknowledge that the line between intending to protect people from themselves and intending to protect them from others can be blurry. Both rationales qualify as paternalistic, and both have been used to limit speech: think of the laws restricting commercial speech. But the former is definitely present.

Classical liberals have rejected that sort of paternalism. John Stuart Mill (not the most hardcore classical liberal) wrote:  "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant." (On Liberty) That is, the government should not protect people from themselves.

It's not just classical liberals and full libertarians who have criticized paternalism, or nanny statism. We've all heard that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." We've been told that the words most to be feared are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." It's been said that "a government powerful enough to do everything for you is powerful enough to do anything to you." In politics the term do-gooder is an insult.

I admit that the paternalist's defense of invasive government action might be a lie to cover another objective, such as power or unearned financial gain. But I see no reason to doubt that the expression of paternalism is usually sincere. I'm not saying that sincerity is a good defense of paternalism. We might want to despise the paternalist who really means it even more than the liar because as C. S. Lewis wrote:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Lewis was no libertarian, so here's Lysander Spooner in No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority:

The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life. And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.

The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the road side, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

I also acknowledge that honest paternalists are happy to join with (usually tacitly) seekers of unearned income in pressing their policy preferences. Don't forget the "bootleggers and Baptists" phenomenon. That's Bruce Yandle's term for when preachers, for example, team up with moonshiners to make or keep liquor illegal. That doesn't change what the paternalists are up to.

The point is that for a long time American paternalists drew the line at the First Amendment because censorship was such a taboo. Alas, that taboo is gone.

 

 

TGIF: Free Speech Upsets Powers that Be

The Biden administration, along with mainstream politicians and journalists, are really upset that U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty has forbidden the executive branch of the central government from communicating with social-media platforms for the purpose of censoring or otherwise suppressing constitutionally protected speech. Judge Doughty's action came in an important free-speech lawsuit filed against the government.

He wrote in an accompanying statement: 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.” 

So-called respectable government officials, journalists, and pundits -- the alleged adults in a room -- consider the judge's temporary injunction the worse thing that could possibly happen. The headline in the "progressive" publication The American Prospect screamed in panic: "Trump Judge Effectively Names Himself President." (That "Trump judge," by the way, was confirmed by the Senate 98-0.)

Imagine it: agents from the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and other government agencies may not even "suggest" to Facebook, Twitter, etc., that they ought to take down or hide posts that take issue with the government's official line about ... whatever. Of course, when government officials suggest something to a private party, the suggestion may be interpreted as being accompanied by the subtle threat to retaliate legally if the suggestion is ignored. Think of protection racketeer telling a shop owner, "You have a nice place here. It would be a shame if it burned down." Get the picture?

As we know, the government has been doing stuff like this for years, whether the matter was related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Hunter Biden laptop, the Russia-Ukraine war, Russia's alleged collusive 2016 election tampering, and who knows what else. According to a congressional committee, the FBI apparently even collaborated with Ukrainian intelligence to censor Americans' frowned-on discussion of the Ukraine war on social media.

The posts that government agencies wanted suppressed included not only statements that were perhaps provably wrong  -- incorrect speech per se is constitutionally protected, incidentally -- but also accurate information that the government simply found inconvenient, like posts and links that might make people hesitate to get the COVID-19 vaccine, wear masks, accept totalitarian social lockdowns, or trust that the coronavirus came from a Chinese market rather than a U.S.-funded lab in Wuhan, China.

Let's remember that much of the challenge to the government's take on the pandemic and other matters -- criticism belittled as "tin-foil" conspiracy-mongering -- turned out to be true. Contrary to the government's position, the search for the truth requires the freedom to openly disagree and debate. That search abhors centralization, coercion, and the exclusion of anyone but the politically anointed "experts." The right to free speech is a practical necessity if we are to pursue our well-being. Any step toward the paternalistic centralization of research and control of communication is not only immoral (by whatever standard you like) but also inimical to health, wealth, and other aspects of a fully human way of life.

In other words, as the judge acknowledged, the central government has gone to extraordinary lengths to control what the public can read and say on social media. It's as if free speech were not a pillar of liberal philosophy and tradition -- liberal in the older and best sense of a presumption of individual liberty in all spheres. Further, it's as if the first restriction on government power in the Bill of Rights was not the absolute prohibition on the infringement of free speech and press. It's a well-established principle of American law that the government may not pressure private parties to do what it itself may not constitutionally do. Yet that's exactly what happened -- repeatedly. It's a disgrace. How can the government be trusted? It never could be.

Since the Biden administration, urged on by the power elite and the insecure establishment media, does not like being told that it may not violate our freedom of speech, it asked Judge Doughty to suspend his temporary injunction while the Justice Department appeals it. Judge Doughty said no. So the action moved to the appellate court. The Washington Post said that "The Justice Department’s filing signaled that it could seek the intervention of the Supreme Court, saying that at a minimum, the 5th Circuit should put the order on pause for 10 days to give the nation’s highest court time to consider an application for a stay."

I sense desperation. The judge must have done something right. Remember that the injunction, alas, does not bar all government contact with social-media companies: he listed exceptions for actual criminality and national security. Only interference with constitutionally protected expression was included. I don't remind readers of these exceptions to comfort them -- the government will likely abuse the exceptions. I remind readers only to show that the order contains those exceptions. So what is the government so worried about? It says that the judge's order is hopelessly vague and doesn't address every possible eventuality. The answer is easy: if the choice is between vagueness in restricting government power and violating individual liberty, I know which I prefer. This is supposed to be America, isn't it? Rights precede government.

Good people have enough to be concerned about when it comes to social media restricting their expression. Yes, they are private companies, and it's easy to think of people who are so obnoxious that one wouldn't want to encounter them online.

On the other hand, no one has reason to be confident that Twitter, Facebook, YouTube (Google), etc., will use exercise that right judiciously. That you have a right to do something does not mean you should do it. Can does not imply ought. YouTube reportedly deleted Jordan Peterson's interview with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. because it contains what it regards as -- and well may be -- misinformation about vaccines. Kennedy is challenging Joe Biden for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination. One need not agree with Kennedy on vaccines (I'm inclined not to) to be uneasy about YouTube's decision. We also can't rule out that YouTube acted in anticipation of the government's disapproval. Government casts a shadow over everything.

We mustn't call on the government to manage social media through antitrust or regulation. We should favor real competition. But we should insist on a prohibition of government action, direct and indirect, to suppress speech on those platforms or anywhere else. Judge Doughty understands that. Let's hope other judges do too.

TGIF: Good News on Free Speech -- for Now

Occasionally, the news makes one cheer. That's the case with a preliminary injunction granted this week (July 4) to stop the federal government from suppressing lawful speech on social media. U.S. District Court Judge Terry A. Doughty took the action in the case of State of Missouri ex rel. Schmitt, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., et al. (which I wrote about last year). The pending lawsuit challenged, among other things, the government's power to cajole, lean on, and otherwise less-than-explicitly compel Twitter, Facebook, and the other platforms to remove or suppress lawful speech that federal authorities deem to be dangerous "disinformation" or "misinformation."

The government's conduct related to posts about the COVID-19 pandemic -- including masks, vaccines, and the possible U.S.-funded/Chinese-lab origin -- figures heavily in the lawsuit. But other reasons for suppression and any future suppression are also in the crosshairs. The idea behind the suit is that under the First Amendment, the government may not do indirectly what it is constitutionally barred from doing directly.

We must understand that the motives for government censorship are irrelevant. Even with the best motives in the world -- say, to safeguard public health during a dangerous pandemic -- the government may not suppress speech directly or threaten to regulate private companies if they don't do the suppressing. This, of course, is exactly what the government did, as we know from the Twitter Files and many other sources.

Of course, as a preliminary injunction, the ban is not permanent. That must await a full airing of the case. Still, it's something to cheer about. A whole slew of federal agencies and officials are ordered not to interfere with social media -- which means with the people who use social media. It doesn't mean that the platforms, which after all are private companies, can't do their own interfering. It just means that for now, government officials can't even raise an eyebrow to signal that lawful posts should be taken down. (The courts have long held that some speech, such as defamation and outright direct incitement to violence, is not protected by the First Amendment. Whether this leaves the government too much leeway is not the issue here.)

Under the judge's temporary order, the agencies and officials "are hereby enjoined and restrained from ... meeting with social-media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms."

But that's not all. The defendants are also prohibited from "specifically flagging content or posts on social-media platforms and/or forwarding such [posts] to social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner [emphasis added] for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech." How about that!

Other forbidden activities name are:

urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner social-media companies to change their guidelines for removing, deleting, suppressing, or reducing content containing protected free speech;

emailing, calling, sending letters, texting, or engaging in any communication of any kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech;

collaborating, coordinating, partnering, switchboarding, and/or jointly working with the Election Integrity Partnership, the Virality Project, the Stanford Internet Observatory, or any like project or group for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content posted with social-media companies containing protected free speech;

threatening, pressuring, or coercing social-media companies in any manner to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce posted content of postings containing protected free speech;

taking any action such as urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce posted content protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution;

following up with social-media companies to determine whether the social-media companies removed, deleted, suppressed, or reduced previous social-media postings containing protected free speech;

requesting content reports from social-media companies detailing actions taken to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce content containing protected free speech; and

notifying social-media companies to Be on The Lookout (“BOLO”) for postings containing protected free speech.

The judge also made clear what he was not forbidding the government from doing. This includes telling the social-media companies about criminal activity and national security threats, "exercising permissible public government speech promoting government policies or views on matters of public concern," and "communicating with social-media companies about deleting, removing, suppressing, or reducing posts on social-media platforms that are not protected free speech by the Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."

Whether the government will use the exceptions to get around the injunction remains to be seen. Some worry it will, and given what we know about government officials, who would be surprised? Vigilance is the price of liberty. Nevertheless, supporters of paternalistic government suppression of free speech, including establishment reporters (!) and pundits, are alarmed by the broad scope of the preliminary injunction. (On the concerns that the injunction is both too broad and too narrow, see this.)

The injunction, wrote the judge, "shall remain in effect pending the final resolution of this case or until further orders issue from this Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, or the Supreme Court of the United States." The plaintiffs only ask the court to declare that the defendants broke the law by interfering with free speech and to forbid government officials from doing it again.

Alas, the U.S. government today can do almost anything it wants. Fortunately, a few things still stand in the way, as some recent Supreme Court rulings have demonstrated. The First Amendment is one of those things. But how long will it remain that way?