Government For The Post-Naive
Robert D. McFadden writes economist James M. Buchanan's obit in The New York Times -- a piece that is pretty instructive about his thinking about "public choice theory":
Dr. Buchanan, a professor emeritus at George Mason, in Fairfax, Va., was a leading proponent of public choice theory, which assumes that politicians and government officials, like everyone else, are motivated by self-interest -- getting re-elected or gaining more power -- and do not necessarily act in the public interest.He argued that their actions could be analyzed, and even predicted, by applying the tools of economics to political science in ways that yield insights into the tendencies of governments to grow, increase spending, borrow money, run large deficits and let regulations proliferate.
The logic of self-interest was nothing new. Machiavelli's 16th-century treatise "The Prince" detailed cynical rules of statecraft to extend political power. Thomas Hobbes, in his 17th-century book "Leviathan," held that aggressive, self-serving acts were "natural" unless forbidden by law. Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations," published in 1776, noted that people pursuing their own good also produced benefits for society at large.
But Dr. Buchanan contended that the pursuit of self-interest by modern politicians often led to harmful public results. Courting voters at election time, for example, legislators will approve tax cuts and spending increases for projects and entitlements favored by the electorate. This combination can lead to ever-rising deficits, public debt burdens and increasingly large governments to conduct the public's business.
Indeed, he said, governments had grown so vast and complex that it was no longer possible for elected officials to make more than a fraction of the policy decisions that genuinely affect the people. Thus, he said, much discretionary power is actually held by civil functionaries who can manipulate priorities, impose barriers to entitlements and pressure legislators for rules and budgets favorable to their own interests.
Dr. Buchanan did not invent the theory of public choice, an idea whose origins are obscure but that arose in modern economics literature in the late 1940s. But from the 1950s onward, he became its leading proponent, spearheading a group of economists in Virginia that sought to change the nature of the political process, to bring it more into line with what the group considered the wishes of most Americans.
In lectures, articles and more than 30 books, Dr. Buchanan amplified on the theory of public choice and argued for smaller government, lower deficits and fewer regulations.
...Over the years since Dr. Buchanan won the Nobel, much of what he predicted has played out. Government is bigger than ever. Tax revenue has fallen far short of public programs' needs. Public and private borrowing has become a way of life. Politicians still act in their own interests while espousing the public good, and national deficits have soared into the trillions.
Government does not protect you; it parasites off of you. Last night, I had a professor (of biochemstry) message me rather nastily about my post, "Big Government: Run On Embezzlers' Accounting Tricks." He sided with government as a protector of the people.
A few excerpts from what I wrote back:
If you think the government protects you - well, that's a naive position....No need to get nasty, either ("you can learn your nutrition from Monsanto and Pfizer"). If I remember correctly from my reading of "Good Calories, Bad Calories," the obesity epidemic started around the time George McGovern had a bunch of people with no science background put together the food pyramid, and then had the government put it out.
...That's why I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican. Both parties are corrupt because they are populated by people. Those who think otherwise are the people responsible for getting us in the current civil-liberties-challenged bottomless fiscal bog we're in.
Back in my mid-1970s teenage days, when conservatism was very unfashionable, Buchanan was one of the first conservatives who really impressed me. His op-eds were one of the "other views" columns carried in the center-left Chattanooga Times. Truth be told, I didn't know enough about economics to really understand his columns on that subject, but he wrote on a variety of issues. The death penalty was a big topic of discussion back then (the Supreme Court had just banned it nationwide, a ban that stuck until about 1980). Buchanan was one of the first columnists to point out the real reason that people supported the death penalty -- not that they wanted the perps put to death, necessarily, but that it was the one sure way of preventing leftist judges from turning violent criminals loose to commit more crimes. Even though I thought of myself as a liberal back then, the common sense of that resonated with me.
Cousin Dave at January 10, 2013 6:24 AM
In somewhat simple terms, the currency in politics is votes. For private individuals the currency used to make decisions is money. For the public sector the currency to decision making is how to get votes. This is why gov't decision making is never rational from fiscal standpoint.
Bill O Rights at January 10, 2013 8:08 AM
If you don't think what Bill O just said is true, then how do you explain the Illinois Senate and House approving giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants? No one in Illinois thought this was a good idea except for the people who are courting the Hispanic vote (especially in Chicago where anyone can vote - dead or alive) and the illegal immigrants who are looking for yet another handout.
Kima at January 10, 2013 10:37 AM
Government does not protect you; it parasites off of you. Last night, I had a professor (of biochemstry) message me rather nastily about my post, "Big Government: Run On Embezzlers' Accounting Tricks." He sided with government as a protector of the people.
Amy, I wouldn't go quite that far. Government is a parasite on the productive, but it's a necessary evil, as anarchy protects no one's rights. There is, I think, an inflection point somewhere near the minarchist position.
That professor should learn the term "democide." 20th Century governments killed their own people at a rate six times greater than died in war. Hobbes's Leviathan, in application, concentrates power in the hand of a few who then set about to murder their own people.
Tyler at January 10, 2013 3:00 PM
Sorry. Quotes missing above.
Tyler at January 10, 2013 3:02 PM
Cut 'em open with little scissors from your carry-on bag.
"Scissors - metal with pointed tips and blades shorter than 4 inches are allowed, but blades longer than 4 inches are prohibited"
http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/prohibited-items
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 10, 2013 7:02 PM
The problem with your argument is that you expect the productive to subsidize the non-productive. I don't say the social safety net isn't needed. I'm saying that the social safety net is paying forever with no return.
That Jane Doe can live her whole life without working is just sad, especially feeling entitled to our subsistence.
We need to change that Jane Doe will contribute to society and be a productive taxpayer at some point. We need to stop rewarding her for popping out another kid in a year.
She does not get more money for kid #2. She has an additional one year until the assistance is cut off. Once she is off assistance -- she has a two-three before she can re-apply. The reapplication is more stringent.
Jim P. at January 10, 2013 8:32 PM
Jim P, you're putting words in my mouth. To pay for national defense and a judicial system, some sort of taxes are required. And, I suppose, the poor and unproductive will benefit from national defense even if they can't pay any taxes. I don't think that can be avoided except with anarchy.
Tyler at January 11, 2013 5:44 AM
Does anyone seriously believe that this country is going to let Jane Doe and kids starve? I agree with the sentiment, but can't see how the implementation is going to work.
I've heard things like make them pick up trash. With an infant?
We have built a system that rewards free riders, and we have free riders.
MarkD at January 11, 2013 5:51 AM
I have a simple test for the role of government. If government has a monopoly on force, then every tax is a robbery. Therefore, every spending program must be the choice between the lesser of two evils, ie. is it worse to let someone starve (or die for lack of medical treatment) or is it worse to rob you? I'd say the former. However, robbing you to pay for a frivolous use of your money is immoral.
Tyler at January 11, 2013 6:32 AM
Only problem with that, Tyler, is now every theif can argue self defense for holding you up at gun point
lujlp at January 11, 2013 7:26 AM
lujlp, I think that's taking it too far. I did write that "government has a monopoly on force," not that every citizen can use force everytime they're starving.
But, yes, the government robbers can argue self-defense when you try to stop then from collecting their tax money. Hence, excise and sales taxes are preferrable, as they are less compulsory in nature.
Tyler at January 11, 2013 10:27 AM
Put shame back into the system. Make the alternative look better than the safety net.
Make the "food stamps" stamps again. Or the stores that accept them put up a blinking light that lights up every time they are used. Make the cards bright pink and purple.
If the family is getting food stamps -- the kids don't get free school lunches on top of food stamps. The kids should be brown bagging.
If you get welfare or unemployment you need to show up at co-located unemployment office, social services and community center. The children that are not school age have a daycare they can stay in. The adults that run the day care are the welfare parents. The mothers and fathers can then go pick up road trash or clean graffiti or any other jobs. The soup kitchen, staffed by other recipients, accepts the food stamp cards as well.
If you're an unemployment recipient -- you get 12 weeks to do nothing but job searches. But you still have to show up at least three times a week. Regardless after 26 weeks, your benefits get cut by 10%. None of this 99 weeker bullshit.
The point is that going to work for McDonald's or anything is better than depending on the net. Or if you want to live on the safety net -- it is going to suck.
Jim P. at January 11, 2013 8:17 PM
Leave a comment