Monthly Archives: September 2012

DA Candidate Weir Shares Goals, Views of Drug Policy

Pete Weir, district attorney candidate for Colorado’s First Judicial district (Jefferson and Gilpin counties), discusses the balance between helping low-level offenders rehabilitate and cracking down on hardened criminals. He also discusses drug offenses and proposals to legalize marijuana.

Weir spoke September 27 at the Wheat Ridge United Neighborhoods Election Preview Forum.

Am. 65 Versus Free Speech

Yes, free speech can sometimes be annoying, but the only alternative to free speech is censorship, letting politicians and bureaucrats decide who may speak, how they may speak, and what they may say.

Colorado’s Amendment 65 calls for political control of campaign speech. Last night I delivered a short talk against it at the Wheat Ridge United Neighborhoods Election Preview Forum.

The Debate Over Public Choice Misdefines “Self Interest” and “Public Interest”

Gordon TullockAre political actors (politicians, voters, and bureaucrats) motivated by “self interest” or “public interest?” That is the central question as it is posed in the academic debate over the Public Choice school of economics. However, it is the wrong question.

Public Choice economists and their critics agree that, at least sometimes, political actors pursue financial gain and power at the expense of others, and obviously that is true. To take a few examples, recall the Youtube video in which a woman recites her reasons for supporting Barack Obama: “I won’t have to work [to] put gas in my car, I won’t have to work [to] pay my mortgage.” Does anyone doubt that political actions over the last few years to expand food stamps, expand unemployment benefits, increase subsidies for students loans, bail out auto unions, subsidize solar and wind companies, and expand Medicare coverage were calculated to gain political support? The typical member of congress today sees it as his primary responsibility to bring home the pork to (select voters within) his district.

The problem lies in describing the issue as “self interest” versus “public interest.” Before addressing that issue, though, let us first look in more detail at the debate surrounding Public Choice.

In his book Government Failure, Gordon Tullock (one of the founders of Public Choice) describes what he sees as the problem with the traditional view of politics, as well as his alternative:

Throughout the 19th and well into the 20th century, economists assumed that individuals are primarily concerned with their own interest and worked out the consequences of that assumption. In contrast, during this same period political science largely assumed that political actors are mainly concerned with the public interest. . . .

Economists changed this bifurcated view of human behavior by developing the theory of public choice, which amounts, in essence, to transplanting the general analytical framework of economics into political science. The statement that the voter in the voting booth is the same person as the customer in the supermarket does not seem radical, but it is nevertheless a very dramatic change from the political science literature. (pp. 4–5)

While Tullock grants that political actors do not necessarily act in a “self interested” way (as he uses the term), he thinks they ordinarily do:

Of course, empirical confirmation of any theoretical proposition is more important than analytical elegance. When considering the behavior of any individual politician, most people realize that the politician behaves in a self-interested way; similarly, when considering the factors that affect votes, most people assume that personal gain is certainly an aspect. (p. 6)

The critics of Public Choice, on the other hand, argue that political actors tend to act in the “public interest.” Jeffrey Friedman, editor of Critical Review, describes the debate in the Winter-Spring 1995 issue (Vol. 9, Nos. 1–2) of his journal:

[A] distinction should be drawn between two terms that are often used imprecisely or synonymously: rational choice and public choice. One understanding of the difference holds that public choice theory applies economic analysis to political (i.e., “public”) decision making, while rational choice theory goes even farther, applying economics to other nonmarket realms, such as family life. This distinction, to adopt John Ferejohn’s [citation omitted] terminology, attributes to both public and rational choice theory a “thin” understanding of the economists’ rationality postulate: individuals are assumed to have only the inclination to satisfy their stable and ordered preferences, whether these are selfish or not. But outside the academy, public choice theory has a decidedly “thick” connotation, referring to the alleged propensity of political actors to pursue their material self-interest. . . .

Like most important ideas . . . public choice theory is liable to polemical oversimplification. The main danger is that the possibility that people are as self-interested in their political as their economic behavior may be treated as the assumption that self-interest is always and everywhere the real fountainhead of politics. . . .

[T]he effort of comparing public choice hypotheses against alternatives frequently falls to non-public choice scholars. One such effort is Leif Lewin’s Self-Interest and Public Interest in Western Democracies, published by Oxford University Press in 1991. Reviewing in detail the empirical literature on a variety of public choice claims—almost all of which was written by non-public choice researchers—Lewin found that in no case does public choice theory withstand scrutiny as a general hypothesis about the ubiquity of self-interest in politics. (pp. 1–3)

Friedman goes on to explain that, according to Lewin’s findings, voters tend to select politicians they deem “likeliest to benefit the economy of their society as a whole,” and bureaucrats too frequently act outside the boundaries of what the Public Choicers predict for them (pp. 3–4).

Notably, a recent issue of Critical Review (Vol. 23, No. 3 from 2011) explores Lewin’s work in more detail, featuring an essay by Lewin himself.

Lewin writes that, today, even many Public Choicers agree “that voters, politicians, and bureaucrats are much more public spirited than public-choice theorists originally maintained” (p. 361). However, Lewin acknowledges the problem of interest groups in politics. He writes, “[I]t is hardly unexpected that people pursue their self-interest when they enroll in interest groups. That is the whole rationale for membership.”

Public Choice economists and their critics, then, agree that sometimes political actors act in their “self interest” and sometimes in the “public interest.” They disagree over how prevalent one is over the other.

The huge problem with this debate is that neither of the sides presented offers a coherent definition of “self interest” or “public interest.”

As the scholars quoted above use the term, “self interest” applies to political practices of taking others’ wealth by force, forcibly blocking or harming competitors, gaining special political favors, and the like. The opposite of “self interest,” goes this line of thinking, is “public interest,” which means acting for the general well-being of society as a whole. Neither of those definitions withstands scrutiny.

Begin with “self interest.” One’s actual, long-term, selfish interests consist substantially in achieving and supporting a government that protects individual rights, not one that forcibly transfers wealth and doles out favors. It is only within a rights-respecting society that an individual is free to act consistently for his own purposes and in accordance with his own, unhindered judgment. If one holds that the “public interest” consists in establishing a rights-protecting government—the only sensible use of the term—then there is no clash between pursuing the “public interest” and pursuing one’s “self interest,” properly conceived.

With the sloppy treatment of “public interest” within the debate over Public Choice theory, however, the “public interest” can be conceived in any number of contradictory ways, ranging from the American Founders’ support for a rights-respecting government to the communists’ support for collectivism and mass slavery. What matters is the content of one’s ideology, and referring to some undefined “public interest” only obfuscates that issue.

History shows that what we have to fear are not primarily the petty politicians who act to advance their narrow interests of wealth and power by abusing their positions, as annoying and destructive as they are. What we should fear are those politicians who sincerely act in the “public interest” conceived apart from individual rights—and who stop at nothing to achieve it.

Image of Gordon Tulluck: Mercatus Center

TOS Fall Articles

I wrote two book reviews and conducted two interviews for the Fall 2012 edition of The Objective Standard.

Yaron Brook and Don Watkins wrote the just-published Free Market Revolution. I conclude:

Free Market Revolution could not have come at a better time. Given America’s continued economic troubles and ballooning debt, President Obama’s continuous calls for “spreading the wealth around” and controlling businesses, and Paul Ryan’s injection of Ayn Rand’s ideas into popular discourse (however much Ryan strays from those ideas), Americans are both desperately in need of a principled defense of capitalism and, in many cases, eager to hear it.

Free Market Revolution is well worth buying and reading—and more, it is worth promoting among Tea Party activists, business leaders, students, and anyone concerned with freedom and open to reason.

John Allison, former CEO of BB&T, wrote The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure. Allison, I review, offers a detailed account of how failed government regulations led to and worsened the mortgage meltdown.

In my first interview, Curt Levey discusses the future of the Supreme Court in the context of the presidential race.

In the other interview, Robert Zubrin discusses his book on the “antihumanist” movement of Malthus and the modern environmentalists.

Both interviews are available only by subscription or direct purchase, but I found both to be very enlightening.

Image of Robert Zubrin: Wikimedia Commons

TOS Blog Update: Islamist Violence, Obama and FDR, the 47 Percent

Here I link to my recent blog entries for The Objective Standard. See my TOS category for a complete listing of my work for TOS.

September 10, 2012
Obama’s “Forward” Politics of the 1930s

September 12, 2012
Islamists Celebrate 9/11 by Murdering More Americans; U.S. Embassy Demands “Respect” for Islam

September 14, 2012
Islamists Embrace Universal Rights Violations

September 15, 2012
Blame Not American Speech But Islamist Acts of War

September 18, 2012
LA Times Writer Calls for End of First Amendment

September 19, 2012
Romney Addresses Entitlement Mentality, Misses Fundamental

September 22, 2012
Sam Harris Pointedly Defends Free Speech

Gun Ownership and Personal Responsibility

How does the right to own a gun fit in with the general program for liberty? I discussed the matter September 10 at an event hosted by the Evergreen Tea Party.

I really enjoyed talking with members of the group; around 40 people attended.

Some of the material I covered I also wrote about in a first and second article for TOS blog. I also referenced several other articles.

See the Cato report, “Tough Targets,” concerning defensive gun use.

I also quoted from the Christian Science Monitor:

In the past 20 years . . . the murder rate in the United States has dropped by almost half, from 9.8 per 100,000 people in 1991 to 5.0 in 2009. Meanwhile, robberies were down 10 percent in 2010 from the year before and 8 percent in 2009.

ABC carries one of the many stories on the fast pace of gun sales.

Gallup reports:

Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993. . . .

Finally, NPR reports:

The Los Angeles riots stunned the nation in 1992, claiming more than 50 lives in that city. As the unrest approached Koreatown, store owner Kee Whan Ha mobilized his fellow business owners to arm themselves and defend their property.

Check out the entire talk for these points in context.

TOS Blog Update: Cronyism, Paul Ryan, “You Didn’t Build That”

Here I link to my recent blog entries for The Objective Standard. See my TOS category for a complete listing of my work for TOS.

August 28, 2012
Indian Patients Wait Weeks for Treatment—Can You Guess Why?

August 29, 2012
Cronyism for the Children?

August 30, 2012
Ryan’s Pro-Freedom Rhetoric Clashes with His Promise of Government Controls

August 31, 2012
Paul Ryan’s Altruism Leads to His Statist Measures

September 1, 2012
Rice and Republicans Condemn Politics of Envy

September 4, 2012
“You Didn’t Build That”—Elementary School Edition