TGIF: Government Undermines Civilization

The good, great, and prosperous society depends on ever-widening trust among strangers. It's not blind trust -- ways to hedge against cheaters abound -- but trust is vital. It is as vital as respect for private property and privacy. Like the system of private property, the system of trust can withstand repeated assaults, but it is not invulnerable. It can crumble and fall.

We deal constantly with people around the world whom we do not know (we don't even know their names) and will never meet. We're better off -- richer and more comfortable -- for it. Trust is fostered through repeat dealings, reputation, credit-card dispute resolution, loan collateral, online ratings of sellers and buyers, and more. Think of eBay and Yelp. We need to trust people who have things we want to buy or rent but also people who know more than we do. No one can know everything. Hence, we rely on experts and authorities in the nonpolitical sense.

Imagine if all your dealings were exclusively with the members of your small tribe (assuming you could trust all the members). Life would be far poorer, not to mention short. Adam Smith famously spelled out the reason: the division of labor, specialization, innovation, greater productivity, and trade. Smith went on to say that "the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market." Globalization -- worldwide trust -- is the thing to strive for.

The point is that whatever undermines trust on a large scale necessarily undermines civilization, civility, prosperity, and the ability to flourish. It is no small matter.

No individual or private group can erode trust on a large scale. But the government can. To state the obvious, the people who constitute the government routinely exercise powers no one else may exercise. Its monopoly excludes competition and suppresses disagreement. It can disparage rivals and protect its status as the only source of valid information. The state is centralized decision-making in contrast to the decentralized competitive decision-making of the marketplace. Disagreement cannot be suppressed, only rebutted. The marketplace encompasses the production of ideas, not only goods and services. Indeed, if government controls the production of goods and services, it necessarily controls the production of ideas and vice versa.

The state's power flows from a combination of ideology (analogous to religion) and force that most people consider legitimate because of the ideology they've been taught. That's why the state invests so much in propaganda through schools, media, and other vehicles.

Because of its unique features, the state can erode trust in a big way, and the results can be catastrophic. If anyone needs proof, consider the COVID-19 pandemic. Because the government dominates medicine and medical research at the federal and state levels, the pandemic information and policy response was concentrated in a relatively small number of politicians, bureaucrats, and anointed authorities. Unsurprisingly, from the start they erred, lied (nobly and cynically), misled, fudged, obscured, misinformed, and engaged in countless other dubious actions, including face-saving, that harmed the public. The subjects included the alleged need for self-quarantine, business closings, distancing, masking, vaccines, discrediting any inquiry into COVID's origin, and more,

Motives are secondary. Even sincere people will tell "noble lies" for their "good cause." Assuming good motives does not give the decision-makers and their advisors a pass. We all know how the road to hell is paved.

Because the government's performance during the pandemic was so outrageous, the status of experts seems to have fallen -- not just the government's experts, but all experts. It may not have filtered down to the auto mechanics, but I imagine it has spread far. (My doctor has the best of intentions, but he probably takes guidance from government-backed research and health agencies, if for no other reason than to protect himself from lawsuits.) Skepticism about experts is understandable. What would happen if another pandemic were to come along? Would most people believe the government or think it's up to its old tricks? Remember the boy who cried wolf?

This distrust is both good and bad, but we have to make distinctions. We ought to distinguish between the government's "experts" and truly independent experts in a system left unmolested by the state. Unfortunately, we live in a mixed system. So what can we do when the government has poisoned the concept of expertise?

The best solution is to separate state and medicine, as we must separate it from the rest of reality. Pending that, however, reason must be our guide to the sweet spot between blind faith and total rejection. We need experts and authorities. Few of us can accurately self-diagnose or properly self-medicate. (It should not be illegal, of course.) We need doctors, dentists, lawyers, car mechanics, plumbers, accountants, electricians, and so on. For most of us, DIY goes only so far, even in the age of blessed YouTube. Relying on experts requires trust. We can acquire information from friends, private certification boards, consumer magazines, and rating agencies, but that does not dispense with the need for trust. (Possessing a government license is certainly no protection from quacks and shysters.)

Still, even with fully independent experts, we would do well to be cautious. Every expert is a human being, with all the potential weaknesses the rest of us share in varying degrees: biases, fallibility, pride, myopia, a weakness for flattery, an aversion to looking foolish or bad, and a reluctance to say those two most difficult phrases: I don't know and I was wrong. This is why people often get second opinions on important matters.

This is not just a reason to be cautious; it's why we must keep the experts away from power. It's why we must abolish power. When allied with politicians, experts are largely exempt from the tests they would face every day in the marketplace. Dissidents would not be suppressed when exposing errors, misinterpretations of data, and flawed methods for testing medicines and vaccines.

Moreover, medical experts advising politicians, could not pretend that their political and moral preferences were dispassionate scientific judgments. Science would not so readily become scientism. Doctors and other scientists don't have college degrees in making trade-offs for other people.

Yes, the marketplace is risky. People who have no idea what they are talking about would be free to say anything. But that would be better than having those people in government positions. The decentralized free marketplace provides abundant protection from frauds and incompetents.

Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. We should not reject expertise and discriminating trust. But we should get rid of the corrupter of those things: the state.

TGIF: How the State Violated Free Speech during the Pandemic

Is anyone shocked by this observation?

Public statements, emails, and recent publicly released documents establish that the President of the United States and other senior officials in the Biden Administration violated the First Amendment by directing social-media companies to censor viewpoints that conflict with the government’s messaging on Covid-19....

This insidious censorship was the direct result of the federal government’s ongoing campaign to silence those who voice perspectives that deviate from those of the Biden Administration. Government officials’ public threats to punish social media companies that did not do their bidding demonstrate this linkage, as do emails from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to social media companies that only recently were made public.

So states the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) in announcing its lawsuit against President Joe Biden, former chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci, and other government public-health officials,  departments, and spokesmen. The case now before a federal district court in Louisiana is called State of Missouri ex rel. Schmitt, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., et al. No social-media company was named as a defendant. Rather, the suit is about the government's illegal and unconstitutional conduct. (See the complaint for the eye-opening details.) In fact, the complaint states: "Notably ... prior to Defendants’ campaign of threats and pressure, social-media platforms generally declined to engage in the acts of censorship alleged herein." 

The plaintiffs are the states of Missouri and Louisiana and several health care experts, including Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University (among other prestigious affiliations) and Dr. Martin Kuldorff of Harvard University, two of the three authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, published in October 2020 and signed by thousands of medical professionals. The Declaration challenged the government-led strategy of shutting down American society through a variety of mandates as though everyone -- young and old, healthy and ill -- were equally vulnerable to the dangers of COVID-19. The government's data on who was suffering serious, possibly lethal illness and requiring hospitalization contradicted that baseless premise early in the pandemic.

The Declaration, which today has signatures from more than 62,000 scientists and health care professionals (and 932,000 signatures overall) called instead for "focused protection" of the elderly and those with already-compromised immune systems. Otherwise, Americans should be left free to live normal lives. The shutdown of society, this view holds, would inflict untold harm in regard to health (because of deferred medical examinations/treatments), psychological well-being, children's education, and lost income. All of this and more have now been documented. "Focused protection," it must be emphasized, was not a radical position in 2020. Rather, it had been the mainstream approach to pandemics for the previous 100 years.

Unfortunately, the authors, who also included Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University, were smeared by government officials and spokesmen as fringe characters who could be safely ignored. At the same time, the national government pressured social media to suppress challenges to its message and policies. In other words, the government did everything it could short of direct censorship to keep the American people from knowing that eminently qualified doctors and other scientists disagreed with the party line.

Under the U.S. Constitution and case law, the government is not only barred from directly interfering with speech on the basis of content, but it is also prohibited from inducing or coercing private entities, such as social networks, to do so. The Supreme Court has spoken on this.

The plaintiffs contend that this is precisely what the defendants did during the pandemic through "express and implied threats" against the social networks, including the threat of antitrust action and the threat to withdraw the protection provided by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which immunizes the platforms from liability for what participants post. 

NCLA says:

Government-induced censorship is achieved through a wide variety of mechanisms, ranging from complete bans, temporary bans, “shadow bans” (where often neither the user nor his audience is notified of the suppression of speech), deboosting, de-platforming, de-monetizing, restricting access to content, requiring users to take down content, and imposing warning labels that require click-through to access content, among others. These methods also include temporary and permanent suspensions of disfavored speakers.

This sort of censorship, which strikes at the heart of what the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect—free speech, especially political speech—constitutes unlawful government action. The federal government is deciding whose voices and ideas may be heard, and whose voices and ideas must be silenced. Moreover, this state action deprives Americans of their right to hear the views of those who are being silenced, a First Amendment corollary of the right to free speech.

The lawsuit seeks no monetary damages, but it asks the court to declare that the plaintiffs acted illegally. It also asks the court to

Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants, their officers, officials, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons acting in concert or participation with them, from taking any steps to demand, urge, pressure, or otherwise induce any social-media platform to censor, suppress, de-platform, suspend, shadow-ban, de-boost, restrict access to content, or take any other adverse action against any speaker, content or viewpoint expressed on social media.

Going further, we must demand an end to the government-university-science complex, which puts a heavy political thumb on the scale of scientific debate without which the truth cannot be ascertained. As the complaint states, "Yesterday’s 'misinformation' often becomes today’s viable theory and tomorrow’s established fact.... This prediction has proven true, again and again, when it comes to suppressing 'misinformation' and 'disinformation' on social media." (The complaint notes other examples of similar reversals despite official government efforts, including the Hunter Biden laptop story and the Wuhan lab-leak theory of the coronavirus's origins. These once-belittled accounts either have been confirmed, as with the laptop story, or have achieved reasonable credibility if not confirmation, as with the lab-leak theory.)

Government officials must not be permitted to suppress, directly or indirectly, public-health and other sorts of claims they disagree with. Officials of course can say what they believe are the facts, but they must not attempt to smear, marginalize, and silence dissenters. The very act of financing scientific research is prejudicial because of the stamp of exclusive legitimacy it implies. As the pandemic illustrates, a truly free marketplace of ideas is literally a matter of life and death.

TGIF: Safety in Freedom

With the emergence of the Omicron COVID-19 variant, renewed restrictions on liberty or calls for their reinstatement have broken out around the world. The new wave is probably only beginning, and with it will surely come sermons on how we must face trade-offs between liberty and safety. This seems to be the new normal.

The usual justifications for this purported necessity always feel inadequate, with gaping holes in the case for expanding government power to extraordinary lengths. Since we all now have a good deal of experience with COVID under our belts, let's hope that the public's doubts about any new power grab will be strong and loudly expressed.

What brought this subject to mind was a recent Oxford Union debate, which I ran across on YouTube. While I've watched only a little, it quickly occurred to me that the case for a necessary trade-off between liberty and safety runs aground with the realization that liberty is a necessary condition for safety. After all, it's not always clear how one can best stay safe in a situation: that requires thought, discourse, action, and therefore liberty.

Moreover, that matter is separate from the question of how safe any particular person may wish to be. Indeed, people have different preferences with respect to risk and safety in part because life is complicated and trade-offs are ubiquitous. Increasing one's safety in some measure by abstaining from some desirable activity will likely require too big a sacrifice for some people, although for others the benefit will be well worth the cost. (A person cannot violate his own freedom.) So who's to decide? Why should a faceless bureaucrat or a charismatic politician make the call?

Few people understand that there's safety in liberty, specifically, the freedom to think, improvise, and innovate. This is true for individuals, but when the potential danger is social or global, the case for liberty is equally clear. That's precisely when we all need many minds searching for solutions without central direction. Knowledge is dispersed, and no one can say who will have a key insight. Competition is the universal solvent. And to be effective, thinking requires freedom of action.

Matt Ridley and Julian Simon before him elaborated how we all benefit from the often unintentional combination of ideas generated in different and unlikely places. By now, the serendipity that freedom produces ought to be expected. The results often are imaginative approaches to vexing problems that few would have dreamed possible.

The case for giving up freedom to acquire a measure of safety is actually an appeal to trust in an anointed central authority. And that means a threat of force is at least implied.

But where is the actual safety in that arrangement? Why should anyone believe that the anointed know what they are doing? They operate in a centralized, bureaucratic environment. The rulers expect the ruled to behave like children who have been told that all will be fine if they obey. Unfortunately, the ruled often think of themselves as children when it comes to the latest risk proclaimed by their rulers.

So are people really safer than they would have been in a free, decentralized, and competitive environment? We find no evidence for this in places that imposed harsh restrictions on liberty in response to COVID-19. Lockdowns, vaccine and mask mandates, and travel bans show no signs of delivering on the politicians' promises. There just is no good substitute for freedom at every level because no central authority is knowledgeable enough.

Finally, what about the risks that individuals might present to others and not just to themselves? There are big differences between 1) the potential risks to others that anyone may pose in simply going about the normal business of life and 2) the dangers produced by aggression, gross negligence, and inadvertent toxic pollution, where identifiable individuals entitled to due process can be shown to present demonstrable peril to others. For one thing, in the first case, people are not passive victims-in-waiting but generally informed agents capable of taking precautions against infection. Imagine the nightmare that would come from the principle that everyone in society may be viewed as a threat to everyone else merely by breathing. We don't have to imagine it, do we? That's how most governments throughout the world -- blunt instruments that they are -- responded to the pandemic. As a result, our livelihoods -- our lives-- are now subject to cancellation without notice.

(Photo credit: Dev Asangbam, Unsplash License)

TGIF: Safety Can Be Hazardous to Our Health

Kudos to Glenn Greenwald, a rare leftist voice of sanity on so many issues, for opening his recent article this way:

In virtually every realm of public policy, Americans embrace policies which they know will kill people, sometimes large numbers of people. They do so not because they are psychopaths but because they are rational: they assess that those deaths that will inevitably result from the policies they support are worth it in exchange for the benefits those policies provide. This rational cost-benefit analysis, even when not expressed in such explicit or crude terms, is foundational to public policy debates — except when it comes to COVID, where it has been bizarrely declared off-limits.

He goes on to write that the "quickest and most guaranteed way to save hundreds of thousands of lives with policy changes would be to ban the use of automobiles, or severely restrict their usage to those authorized by the state on the ground of essential need (e.g., ambulances or food-delivery vehicles), or at least lower the nationwide speed limit to 25 mph." (Watch the video version.)

But no one advocates any of those restrictions, and anyone who did would be dismissed as a fringe character. But why, considering how many lives would surely be saved (1.3 million worldwide)? It's not because opponents don't care about human life; it's because people understand that the costs in so many ways would be far worse the benefits:

It is because we employ a rational framework of cost-benefit analysis, whereby, when making public policy choices, we do not examine only one side of the ledger (number of people who will die if cars are permitted) but also consider the immense costs generated by policies that would prevent those deaths (massive limits on our ability to travel, vastly increased times to get from one place to another, restrictions on what we can experience in our lives, enormous financial costs from returning to the pre-automobile days). So foundational is the use of this cost-benefit analysis that it is embraced and touted by everyone from right-wing economists to the left-wing European environmental policy group CIVITAS....

Exactly so. Once you put safety not just first but above everything else you're able to come up with the most insane proposals for reshaping society. Heaven help us from those who are concerned only about safety.

Risk is integral to life, social life included. As Thomas Sowell puts it, there are no solutions, only trade-offs--you can't do only one thing. So each of us does cost-benefit analyses all the time in everyday life. As individuals we could be completely protected from other people simply by living as hermits. But few choose to do so for entirely understandable reasons. Instead we live among others, taking reasonable precautions. Indeed, some of the most admired places to live are the most densely populated places on earth. We accept the costs because the the benefits dwarf them--so much so that we don't normally have to explain it to other people.

But some people forget to apply this common sense in particular matters. Greenwald's target is draconian COVID-19 policy: "It is now extremely common in Western democracies for large factions of citizens to demand that any measures undertaken to prevent COVID deaths are vital, regardless of the costs imposed by those policies." Yet, he continues, "It is impossible to overstate the costs imposed on children of all ages from the sustained, enduring and severe disruptions to their lives justified in the name of COVID.

"However, "The latest CDC data reveals that the grand total of children under 18 who have died in the U.S. from COVID since the start of the pandemic sixteen months ago is 361 — in a country of 330 million people, including 74.2 million people under 18."

Children, of course, are not the only ones who have suffered from lockdowns and lesser restrictions on their activities.

Unfortunately, opponents of these blunt-instrument, liberty-violating approaches, such as the authors and signers of the Great Barrington Declaration, are smeared, if not as uncaring sociopaths, then as blind ideologues or sell-outs.

Greenwald also properly see a class conflict in how the COVID policy has affected people:

The richer you are, the less likely you are to be affected by these harms from COVID restrictions. Wealth allows people to leave their homes, hire private tutors, temporarily live in the countryside or mountains, or enjoy outdoor space at home. It is the poor and the economically deprived who bear the worst of these deprivations, which — along with not having children at all — may be one reason they are assigned little to no weight in mainstream discourse.

He emphasizes that "this is not an argument in favor of or against any particular policy undertaken in the name of fighting COVID. What it is, instead, is an attempt to highlight the pervasive and deeply misguided refusal to assign any costs to the harms caused by anti-COVID policies themselves."

Consider the "precautionary principle," the admonition that nothing should be allowed unless it's proven to be totally safe. Now think of where mankind would be today had our ancestors had adopted this principle. The human race would be considerably smaller. Has it ever occurred to its advocates that the precautionary principle cannot even pass its own test?

COVID is only the latest example of how the obsession with safety can be hazardous to our health. It is by no means the only one. The other most prominent case relates to fossil fuels and climate change. As I discussed recently, if the economic way of thinking--that is, the cost-benefit trade-off approach--informed the discussion of the environment and our place in it, that discussion would look very different. Why? Because people would realize that the elimination or radical reduction of fossil-fuel use worldwide literally would shorten billions of lives, and make the rest of them miserable. Even a small benefit from oil, gas, and coal would outweigh that cost. But in fact the benefits are immense.

Government's Perverse Incentives

It might seem reasonable to think that in the early days of a pandemic involving an unfamiliar pathogen, the public ought to allow the government leeway in its imposition of extreme measures, such as the virtual shut down of economic activity. But the initial impression ought to dissolve when one reminds oneself that we're talking about government, a monopolistic organization shot through with perverse incentives because it gets its revenue through coercion (taxation) and faces no profit-and-lost test. (We also must understand that extreme measures were imposed on the basis of a widely criticized computer model, not on any facts.)

Obviously everyone will know less about a newly emerged virus on Day 1 (whenever that may be) than on Day 30 and beyond. That ought to mean that policymakers and their advisers in the world of science should be prepared and eager to retreat from the early extreme measures when the data point in that direction. But, again, we're talking about politicians, bureaucrats, and the anointed experts who have their ears and don't wish to lose them. They all face perverse incentives that induce bureaucratic sclerosis. (Other perverse incentives also apply.) This phenomenon has long been identified with the Food and Drug Administration. Look at the incentives facing a bureaucrat who must choose between approving a new drug or not. If he approves and headline-catching unanticipated rare side-effects emerge, the bureaucrat's name on the dotted line could be mud, no matter how beneficial the drug is on the whole. Career ruined. But if he doesn't sign off and people keep dying because the drug remains unavailable, few among the public will call the bureaucrat a killer because his responsibility will escape most people's notice.

You can see the parallel with the pandemic. Even if new information showed the initial extreme measures to be inappropriate, officials would have almost no incentive to remove them. If they did and the number of cases and death rose, they would be pilloried in the press, whether or not their policies had anything to do with the rise. But if they didn't remove the extreme measures and cases or deaths surged, they would not be on the hook. In fact, they would say their policy actions kept the surge from being even greater. (The policy makers would be even less accountable for the deaths directly caused by the policies themselves, which is the case with the shutdown.)

However formidable, these perverse incentives are not insurmountable, and occasionally someone in the government world admits a mistake. But this is not to be expected often. Government is deadly.

The only cure is full freedom, decentralization, and open debate in an environment where dissenter are not officially stigmatized, shunned, or repressed. In other words, we need a radically freed market, which rewards rather than penalizes the identification and correction of errors.

About Those Shutdowns

When the only tool in your toolkit is a blunt instrument, every problem looks like one that can be addressed only with a blunt instrument.

Cuomo's Wager

Pascal’s Wager is a familiar idea. It goes something like this: regardless of what you may think about the existence of God, rational cost-benefit analysis says you should sign on. After all, if you do and you’re wrong, what have you lost? But if you don’t and you’re wrong, uh oh — you’re in big trouble, buster. (I’m not saying this makes sense, by the way.)

Something similar has gone on with the coronavirus pandemic and the draconian economic policies embraced by many governors in the United States, best exemplified New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. They have made a wager sort of like this: if we don’t shut the economy down and the pandemic fulfills the worst-case scenario, we are all in big trouble; but if we do shut the economic down and the pandemic falls closer to the best-case scenario, what will have been lost?

For those with their eyes open, the answer to this last question is simple: a lot. Forbidding most economic activity has to impose substantial hardship — material and otherwise — on countless people, not to mention future generations. I won’t go into detail, and I shouldn’t need to. Just think about it for a few moments. (See David Henderson’s “End the Lockdowns Now.”) And I haven’t mentioned the future harm from government’s so-called solutions: enormous deficit spending, money creation by the Federal Reserve, and the ratchet (specifically, the Higgs) effect from precedents set.

The point is that it’s easy to “reason” to the policy outcome you want if you list only the real and imagined benefits and ignore all the burdens. This was what Frédéric Bastiat was getting at in his brilliant essay “What Is Seen and What Is Unseen.”

The blunt-instrument policies adopted by many governors were chosen in the dark. Flawed statistical models seemed to shed light, but knowledgeable people questioned the validity of those models from Day One. At any rate, we know more now (though not nearly enough), so it’s time for the lockdown orders to be lifted, liberating society’s widespread entrepreneurial problem-solving process to do its thing.