Why do we disagree?

This question matters.  It determines the scope of debate and helps us understand differing viewpoints.  It is also answered with confusion or misinformation with hilarious frequency.  I'll touch on how to think about these disagreements and briefly highlight some examples of confusion in the tax and voter ID debates.  Anyway, why do we disagree?

In politics, it seems to come down to a few things:

1. Differing, empirically testable, ideas about the world (facts)
2. Differing, empirically testable, ideas about how the world works (models)
3. Differing ideas about the proper values and goals of society 
4. Differing ideas about the proper powers of government

or, if you like:

1. What is the world like?
2. What can we do about it?
3. What should we do about it?
4. How shouldn't we do it?

None of that is terribly controversial, but I think that people often confuse the origins of their disagreement.  

I often, for instance, hear conservatives saying that the government shouldn't raise taxes on the rich, but depending on who you talk to, the answer to why varies a lot.  For some it is "because they are job creators", but for others it is "because it isn't fair".  These world views have the same conclusion, but different implications.  We can, to some extent, test the proposition that raising taxes will mean less job creation.  If a person genuinely believes this to be the primary reason not to raise taxes on the rich, then empirical arguments are the most appropriate forum of discussion.  For the "it isn't fair" person, the proper arguments are philosophical--diminishing marginal utility, &c.  Of course, people often convolve many different types of reasons, or simply hold positions as an aspect of group identity, but the basic point still stands.

Now, I don't think it is impossible to convince people to change their positions in 3 & 4 type disagreements, but it's substantially harder.  It is, however, possible to give people better access to facts, and in many cases that changes the nature of the discussion for the better.

Presenting evidence of the extremely low incidence of voter ID fraud, for instance, seems to have shifted the debate from "we need to curb rampant voter ID fraud" to "it is right and proper for voters to show ID in order to vote".  In other words, the debate has shifted from an empirical one to an ideological one.  From my perspective, that is good, because ideological questions are the only valid questions to ask voters in my idealized constitutional anarchy model of government.   Voters are, in fact, quite bad at discerning which facts and models best reflect the real world.  But, they are excellent at determining what they think are good goals to focus on as a society, and what they think are categorically unacceptable ways of achieving those goals.

I'll have more on practical applications of this idea, and ways in which it might help move the debate forward in a later post.

Random Representation

Despite routine assertions of the moral superiority of Democracy, people seem uncomfortable with any ideas about implementing one in which the people actually decide anything (we're talking about direct democracy here).  We often get excuses about this under the heading of "impracticality", though in the internet age that argument gets increasingly difficult to swallow.  It really seems like people are just uncomfortable with the idea.

Consider this thought experiment proposed by Yglesias (an experiment bearing marked similarities to conversations my lab mates and I have had in the past few months).  Basically the idea goes like this:

1. Assume that direct democracy is still unfeasible for logistical reasons.
2. A mathematically pleasing proxy is just to take a random statistically representative sampling of the population and make them the representatives of the people.  Do that, and let them rule.

or

3. In Yglesias' argument, you make them a sort of check on the actual governing body (say a city council and/or mayor or whatever) so that they are just approving (or denying) actions and budgets rather than making policies, and occasionally deciding whether we need a new governing body.

One would imagine that almost by definition this would better represent the spread of views in the population than the results of a "winner takes all" style election.  I know you all agree with me, but are still squirming in your seats as you contemplate the various sorts of people who would get minor positions of authority in this setting.  I like Yglesias' take on it, because it makes them into a sort of check on the person or people doing the actual governance, rather than the governors themselves, which seems to alleviate the majority of my squirming (a squirming I firmly believe is more closely tied to prejudice than to practicality).  I can even imagine that in the right small town you might be able to convince people to agree to give this a try.  Anyone want to form a new community with me and give this a shot?

Separating Means and Ends

I've noticed an ongoing trend in my recent discussions regarding issues in the political process.  Basically, here's what I think: discussions are often clouded when the means to an end are discussed at the same time as the end itself.  When you criticize a plan it's unclear whether you object to the means or the ends, so people can (for instance) accuse you of being soft on terror when all you really think is that basic freedoms shouldn't be abandoned.  Tricky stuff.  You see similar problems with the Fed.  You can't decide whether they're doing a bad job because they picked the wrong goals, or they're doing a bad job because they were shoddy at achieving them.

This post talks at length about the Fed's bad situation here.  Yglesias goes beyond the separation of means and end in his post, but it serves as an important starting point for the discussion.  Last post I spent some time talking about how this particular problem clouds the party lines and makes political discourse difficult. If someone is for a law because of its end they have a hard time communicating with people who are against a law because of its means.

Basically, I think that we need a way to decide on the ends that we, as a country, want to pursue.  We then need to (separately) explore means of achieving those ends.  This can help pin down the disagreements and  prevent at least some of the prevarication that politicians manage.

Democrats V. Republicans

I've been thinking about what divides the Republican and Democratic parties and here's basically my take on it.

The general goal of the Republican party is to enact a set of laws which codify their party's shared values.  They want a flat tax because they think it is fair or just.  They want to end welfare because it allows people who don't work to benefit from the labor of those who do.  They want to make gay marriage illegal because they think it's wrong for people with the same combination of sex chromosomes to sex each other.  By contrast, it seems that the Democratic party generally attempts to enact legislation in order to achieve explicit goals, such as reducing the negative effects of poverty, providing people with healthcare, &c.

This naturally throws up an obstacle to useful political discourse.  Republicans tend to look bad when asked what their programs will do because they didn't come to their policy ideas based on studies, but rather came to the studies based on their policy ideas (informed by evaluations of those policies with respect to the moral code they want to enact).  Democrats look bad when asked to justify the moral legitimacy of their policies because, well, they were too busy thinking about what they wanted to do.

I think that both parties are being stupid.  In order to have a meaningful discussion you need shared assumptions.  In this case we need to have candid political discussions about what our shared values are, and the nature of our disagreements.  Some values might be hard and non-negotiable.  Differences in the abortion debate spring to mind.  Others might be more flexible.  Many people are willing to budge on completely equal treatment in order to get more equal results, even if they value both kinds of equality.  Many are willing to sacrifice some freedoms for increased security.

Issues controlled by hard values need to be decided by the voters and when it comes down to it that means that the most important thing is to recognize the value judgment, describe it accurately, and have both sides of the issue make their arguments to the people.  It might even be most appropriate for such issues to be decided by referendum.  For just about everything else, we should be agreeing on goals for the nation (informed by our values) and then asking experts for the most effective means towards achieving those goals.  We should then recognize what values might be impacted by the most effective means and weigh those values explicitly against the values we were pursuing when considering the end goal of the law.  But the most important thing to remember in those sorts of debates is that the process started with agreement that the end goal of the law was worth pursuing.  If one particular method looks to infringe too deeply on some values, other methods need to be considered.

I'd like to mention that this is basically a rehashing of my constitutional anarchy ideas within the context of our current political situation.  I'd love to add a clause to the constitution that requires a nationwide referendum on any law codifying a value.

Entitlement (edited for improvement)

EDIT: This post is badly written and reasoned.  I have other better opinions about this that I will one day expound upon.  I'm leaving this up as a sort of "history of Rory's thoughts" post, but it no longer reflects my views on this subject.

Today we will settle once and for all the argument about entitlement programs.  People hate these for all sorts of reasons.  Commonly cited:

1. We can't afford them
2. Big Government is bad
3. Government shouldn't enforce redistribution of wealth (related to 2); leave charity to the choice of individuals
4. Moral Hazard (Perverse incentive encouraging them what are poor not to do work)

In brief, my responses to 1-4 are as follows:

1. As they are now, agree
2. what does that even mean?
3. I am too angry to briefly address this, but it is stupid and I can prove it with Science and also Reason (related to 2)
4. Sure, there is moral hazard, but you know what else is morally hazardous? allowing innocent people to suffer and/or die when you could have given up money to stop it (related to 3, and 2)

Later, when I am less angry, I will write some stuff about how misguided beliefs 2 through 4 are.  For now, I will content myself with my proposal to remove the legitimate objection (that's number 1 for those of you who werent counting, or can't)

Once again, I propose a rights based approach.  Here's the deal: the thing I care about most is that people who are poor don't die or get sick or get injured on account of being poor.  I think that when that happens it is bad and also not good.  That's my primary concern.  So I figure, we should do with other entitlement programs what we've done with our most successful entitlement programs to date (education and the post), give them to everyone, everywhere, and make everyone, everywhere, pay for them.

In practice, I think it would look something like this:

1. Mail everyone a multi-vitamin with the stuff that peeps actually need in it (as much as medical science can anyway)
2. Mail everyone food stamps or maybe even actual food to the point where every person has the means of acquiring enough calories to be healthy
3. Guarantee FREE emergency and routine medical care (though only for bottom shelf medicines, treatments, &c)
4. Provide some baseline housing allowance to all people, payed directly from the government to the provider of housing (so the money can't be redirected to, you know, drugs or the like)

Please note that this system would apply equally to everyone.  Any purchases you made above and beyond this would of course be up to you, but there would be no reason for (for instance) health insurance companies to provide a basic coverage package, though there's still plenty of incentive to buy health insurance if you want to benefit from the pinacle of medical science and have the money to do so.  Furthermore, the government would be paying hospitals for all of their procedures, rather than forcing them to eat the cost of emergency medical care for the uninsured (as they currently do).  Likewise, the rich could put their housing allowance towards their second or third home, and would benefit as much (monetarily) as the poorest people.  The rich would also get their vitamins and food stamps, but would have the opportunity to go out and pay the premium on top of those food stamps to get nicer food or eat at restaurants and the like.

How would we pay for this? Taxes! and yes, stepped taxes, that means that the rich will pay out more in taxes than they take in in government living support.  On the upside, they will never ever ever have to feel guilty when they don't want to give a beggar money, on account of they KNOW BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that that person has enough food, nutrients, shelter, and medical care. 

Incidentally, if we do this we can get rid of social security, medicare and medicade, which would be nice.  Since we're not providing any income or luxuries, people would still be motivated to find work, but if they didn't find work, no one's health would be at risk.  As a bonus, no one would ever die from neglect-by-society which, you know, could be cool.  Let me know what you think, and feel free to point out how I might be an idiot and am also almost certainly a communist.

EDIT: How does this save us money on entitlements?

This saves us money in a few key ways.  First of all, it lets us get rid of social security.  Secondly, it dramatically reduces the benefits provided to people (no cell phones, no cash-per-kid).  Thirdly, it eliminates the possibility of fraud and all of the resources that attempting to combat that would take up.  Fourthly, it simplifies the system, greatly reducing the administrative cost of running it.  The administration required to support such a system would basically be post office infrastructure, and maybe a way to connect landlords and their client's housing allowance.

Practical Anarchy

Last post I discussed Wolff's book In Defense of Anarchism and promised to talk about a potential way out of his assertion that no practical government can have moral legitimacy.  Now I'm following through on that promise.  So Wolff puts forth that Unanimous Direct Democracy can have authority without undermining personal moral autonomy.  Within that section, he points out that even arbitration can be codified within such a system.  Those two points are the basis for my idea of a practical form of governance by practical direct democracy.  I need a catchy term for this form of government.  Here are the ingredients I think we need to make this work.

1. Unanimous passage of items in a bill of rights.
2. Unanimous passage of a process for ascertaining the best ways to guarantee these rights.

It seems to me that the vast majority of politics isn't about the right thing to do, it's about the right way to do it.  Democrats and Republicans alike agree that people have a right to life, for instance, and that the taking of a life without due process and control is unacceptable, they disagree on the best way of ensuring that life taking is minimized.  In our government, there is no mechanism for finding the best way, testing enacted laws to verify they are in fact improving the situation, or rigorously studying the impact of our legal strategies at all.

I think that a large and diverse group of people could agree upon a significant number of fundamental rights if asked to consider merely the right thing without concern for its implications or practical significance.

Then comes the tricky part.  This group of people would need to agree on a mechanism for developing procedures to protect the rights they have codified.  This is akin to an arbitration process.  Personally, I would advocate the scientific method.  Allow people to propose mechanisms for enhancing protections of the codified rights.  Require rigor in these proposals.  In other words, place the burden on the bill writer to demonstrate that the bill does not contradict existing rights, and has a plausible mechanism for enhancing the support or protection of one of those rights, and provides metrics by which the impact of the bill could be measured.  Select several proposals at random, and apply them to test groups determined in an appropriately random and statistically rigorous manner.  If the law is found to violate existing rights by some unintended consequence it is immediately abolished.  If, after an appropriate trial period, the law is found not to significantly improve the metric(s) it provided, it is abolished.  If it succeeds in improving its metrics appropriately, its scope is progressively expanded, its impacts reverified, and its consistency with the bill of rights reevaluated, until such time as it is implemented nationwide.  Following nationwide implementation, bills are periodically reviewed for consistency with the bill of rights (though their efficacy is no longer tested as there is no control population).

I think that a large number of people could agree to this strategy or one like it, and I think that such a governance strategy would create a government capable of developing a recognizable and appropriately far reaching legal code without undermining the moral autonomy of the population.  Let's call it a Constitutional Anarchy.  This is my current best effort with regards to an ideal form of governance, and it is basically going to be the yardstick by which I judge ongoing legal and political discussions in the US.

Here are the questions I would ask of any law or political policy.

1. Does it attempt to protect or enhance a universally acknowledged right? (answer should be yes)
2. Does it impede any universally acknowledged rights? (answer should be no)
3. Does it provide rigorous support for its chosen strategy? (answer should be yes)
4. Does it provide for the measurement of its impact, and repeal if shown to be ineffective? (answer should be yes)

I think those are in order of importance, but I'd say that giving the wrong answer to any of 1-3 should be a deal breaker.