What’s With Candidates’ Non-Responses
Tibor R. Machan
Someone with the views about the proper scope of politics that I have concluded is sound may be thought to be completely cynical about politicians. As one character’s thinking in Alan Furst’s spy novel, Dark Star, would have it, “Politicians were like talking dogs in a circus; the fact that they existed was uncommonly interesting, but no sane person would actually believe what they said.”
I cannot say I am not tempted to think this way. Why?
All you need to do is follow for just a little bit the current California scramble to attract voters to the October 7 special election. Whenever one of these people is asked a question – or indeed, whenever their campaign managers is asked something – invariably the response is obfuscation, changing the subject, broad generalities, and, well, BS, to be plain about it. “What would X do about the California deficit?” “Well, there are many problems in the state and our candidate is best qualified to deal with them and his or her staff really has a plan that will make it all right.” Or perhaps, “Now that you mention the deficit, isn’t it interesting that those in office haven’t been diligent enough to come to terms with it.” Or, and here is the most frequent ploy, “I am glad you asked that question because we are willing to go anywhere in the state to address anyone’s concerns about anything, any time, so you can see that we are best suited to run the state government.” As if any of this amounted to an answer.
Why are politicians so blatantly evasive? One suggestion that seems to carry conviction is that since they are dealing with such a huge electorate, each with such an incredibly long and diverse wish-list, politicians and their spin doctors have concluded that saying nothing is safer than to say anything at all.
If they did propose something specific and clear cut, odds are they would more likely alienate a great many voters instead of attracting a sizable number to their camp. Any specific proposal will only please a small percentage, whereas saying nothing at all leaves open the possibility that no one will notice the evasion and some kind of blind hope or a reliance on image and charisma will carry the day.
As much as this sounds like a promising answer, it is so cynical about voters that I find it very difficult to accept it. I do not consider myself such a superior being, compared to other voters, that only I and a few others – like Alan Furst’s fictional character – could notice the rank evasion in how candidates handle questions. Nor do I think my values are so unique that only I and a few others would find this repeated, persistent evasiveness and obfuscation an unworthy trait in a person, let alone someone who aspires conscientiously to serve millions of people in state or any other government.
So what may well be true is that because many others are just as disgusted with the deliberate shelling out of non-answers to questions posed to candidates as I am, this sizable group simply does not vote. The remaining millions are those who do have some kind of blind faith in – or are moved by the irrelevant imagery projected by – some candidate. And there are the loyalists who line up behind some special interest leadership – say, the public service or teacher unions – and vote for anyone these people recommend.
But the reason why such a relatively small percentage of the voting population goes to the polls is probably that the disgust with evasiveness is indeed widespread.
How might this be remedied? Only by getting government out of the zillions of tasks it hasn’t any business trying to perform and giving it a clear mandate everyone has a stake in, defending our rights. Then the issue will indeed be what Michael Dukakis once said – and was roundly condemned for having said – namely, a candidate should be judged primarily on competence. Not on how he or she can fulfill a wish-list that not even Santa could handle.
Thursday, September 04, 2003
Wishes versus Individual Rights
Tibor R. Machan
When social life becomes politicized, one is tempted to present all one’s wishes to politicians and bureaucrats because they have the power to fulfill them. A local resident, for example, wishes that a restaurant down the street from him not play any music he doesn’t like, anytime of the day. Even though the various bureaucracies dealing with these matters gave permission for the restaurant to feature live music, this resident wrote to the politician who represents the area, who then managed to sic the AFT on the proprietor and the music got banned. Or a parcel of land is being planned for development, all in line with the rules, passing various boards and commissions. But, no, those with strong wishes against it are needling their politicians and even the courts to get the thing stopped.
The case of the Alabama court house display of the Ten Commandments is not unlike these others. A great many people who are devout Christians wish for one of their icons to be displayed in the court house, so that’s what should happen, period. Or many wish that there be no smoking in any restaurants in California or New York or wherever, so they appeal to the politicians and bureaucrats and they, in turn, deliver.
The examples could continue ad infinitum. This kind of populism – enacting into law whatever enough people wish for – is, of course, a form of dictatorship. No, not the dictatorship of one powerful person such as a Mussolini, Hitler or Stalin but of several thousand or millions who happen to share strong wishes among themselves.
But notice that there is also a tradition in the American system that opposes such lynch mob politics. This tradition emphasizes individual rights and their protection by the law. According to that tradition, within one’s own realm of authority – that is, when it comes to oneself, one’s home, one’s business establishment – the decisions lie in one’s own hands not in those of politicians. And the public authority within that venerable tradition is severely limited.
In short, in the American political tradition of limited government, politicians and bureaucrats have just one basic job: to secure the rights of all individuals. They are not there to promote the projects of any group of these individuals.
No one’s favorite idea is supposed to get special government endorsement or support. If I do not wish for people to smoke, I am supposed to advocate this, promote it through various voluntary means without getting politicians to back my wish and ban smoking for folks who don’t want to live by my wishes. Or if I have a strong wish for my fellow citizens to pay attention to my ideals and principles, I must proselytize on my own and with my cohorts without getting government to pick us for favorites, as against all the others with their own ideals and principles. Unless the music from the restaurant is unreasonably loud, just because some cranky guy nearby wishes there to be none in “his” region, he does not get to call the shots with the aid of the local sheriff or the state senator. Nor do a bunch of citizens get to have their wish for “no more people and homes in ‘our’ neighborhood” fulfilled by means that crush the rights of others – they have the option to purchase the land they want unoccupied or to persuade the owner not to build on it, in peaceful, non-coercive ways.
But this idea that government upholds the basic rules of a free society and leaves the rest to peaceful cooperation – or lack thereof – among the rest of the citizenry seems to have very little standing in our day. Everyone thinks his or her wishes should rule, never mind other’s rights and the limits of state.
Yet, it is exactly that idea of politics – whereby government is supposed to secure our rights and we must go about getting our wishes without its favoring us with its forcible intervention – that made this country special and politically sound in the world. That is what earned it the label, “leader of the free world.” For the only freedom that’s really worth having is individual freedom.
Tibor R. Machan
When social life becomes politicized, one is tempted to present all one’s wishes to politicians and bureaucrats because they have the power to fulfill them. A local resident, for example, wishes that a restaurant down the street from him not play any music he doesn’t like, anytime of the day. Even though the various bureaucracies dealing with these matters gave permission for the restaurant to feature live music, this resident wrote to the politician who represents the area, who then managed to sic the AFT on the proprietor and the music got banned. Or a parcel of land is being planned for development, all in line with the rules, passing various boards and commissions. But, no, those with strong wishes against it are needling their politicians and even the courts to get the thing stopped.
The case of the Alabama court house display of the Ten Commandments is not unlike these others. A great many people who are devout Christians wish for one of their icons to be displayed in the court house, so that’s what should happen, period. Or many wish that there be no smoking in any restaurants in California or New York or wherever, so they appeal to the politicians and bureaucrats and they, in turn, deliver.
The examples could continue ad infinitum. This kind of populism – enacting into law whatever enough people wish for – is, of course, a form of dictatorship. No, not the dictatorship of one powerful person such as a Mussolini, Hitler or Stalin but of several thousand or millions who happen to share strong wishes among themselves.
But notice that there is also a tradition in the American system that opposes such lynch mob politics. This tradition emphasizes individual rights and their protection by the law. According to that tradition, within one’s own realm of authority – that is, when it comes to oneself, one’s home, one’s business establishment – the decisions lie in one’s own hands not in those of politicians. And the public authority within that venerable tradition is severely limited.
In short, in the American political tradition of limited government, politicians and bureaucrats have just one basic job: to secure the rights of all individuals. They are not there to promote the projects of any group of these individuals.
No one’s favorite idea is supposed to get special government endorsement or support. If I do not wish for people to smoke, I am supposed to advocate this, promote it through various voluntary means without getting politicians to back my wish and ban smoking for folks who don’t want to live by my wishes. Or if I have a strong wish for my fellow citizens to pay attention to my ideals and principles, I must proselytize on my own and with my cohorts without getting government to pick us for favorites, as against all the others with their own ideals and principles. Unless the music from the restaurant is unreasonably loud, just because some cranky guy nearby wishes there to be none in “his” region, he does not get to call the shots with the aid of the local sheriff or the state senator. Nor do a bunch of citizens get to have their wish for “no more people and homes in ‘our’ neighborhood” fulfilled by means that crush the rights of others – they have the option to purchase the land they want unoccupied or to persuade the owner not to build on it, in peaceful, non-coercive ways.
But this idea that government upholds the basic rules of a free society and leaves the rest to peaceful cooperation – or lack thereof – among the rest of the citizenry seems to have very little standing in our day. Everyone thinks his or her wishes should rule, never mind other’s rights and the limits of state.
Yet, it is exactly that idea of politics – whereby government is supposed to secure our rights and we must go about getting our wishes without its favoring us with its forcible intervention – that made this country special and politically sound in the world. That is what earned it the label, “leader of the free world.” For the only freedom that’s really worth having is individual freedom.
Espresso Tax and the hidden costs
Tibor R. Machan
News reports had it the other day that Seattle’s politicians and bureaucrats have cooked up yet another extortion scheme. They are now planning to put a 10 cent tax on every shot of espresso coffee. No, regular coffee, which is drunk by nearly everyone, will not be taxed – one may assume opposition to that would be too costly for the Seattle extortionists. But espresso coffee, which is drunk by fewer folks who probably will not bother to organize any serious opposition since they have better things to do with their time, will get the axe.
Now why is this of any significance? After all, such schemes have been the norm ever since taxation was invented in the ancient feudal eras and, in America, ever since politicians have managed to hoodwink the public into voting in the income tax, which pretty much opened the floodgates so there’s no principled way to stop a tax. What is interesting about the Seattle extortion scheme is how some journalists – in this instance the CBS radio correspondent who reported the item midday August 25th – have become naively or consciously complicit in perpetrating it.
After reporting the plan, this particular CBS network radio anchor mentioned that the ten cent tax on espresso coffee will produce various wonderful public projects, such as child care facilities, in greater Seattle. Thus the reporter managed to provide a boost to the idea, mentioning only that the extorted funds will be very helpful to some needy people in the city.
What about the millions of folks who will be the victims of the extortion? Did the CBS anchor say anything about what the loss of millions of dollars will do to other projects, ones that might have been funded by espresso coffee drinkers? Of course not, proving, once again, the insight of Frederick Bastiat, the 19th century French political economist who wrote “[ fcp://@fc.freedom.com,%231011100/MailBox/That_//www.jim.com/ ]That which is seen, that which is not seen,” the essay which explains how because political projects get a lot of visibility, their costs tend to be largely unreported, even unnoticed. Our CBS radio network anchor’s conduct is a typical instance of Bastiat’s point.
Of course, there is something else amiss with the CBS anchor’s conduct – it is entirely unprofessional. By reporting only on what the proposed espresso tax is partially going to produce – and only “partially” because, after all, the taxation process will also eat up a good deal of the funds obtained – this rather prominent CBS journalist was exhibiting an undeniable bias. It is just this bias that many journalists – especially at CBS, the target of the expose book, Bias (Perennial, 2002), by Bernard Goldberg – are contesting. Yet here is an instance of it that stares us in the face.
Of course, the CBS anchor would claim that he was merely reporting what the politicians claimed. Yet, why was he not reporting what critics of the tax claimed?
Taxes, as all extorted funds, not only take resources from projects taxpayers would prefer as against what the politicians prefer. But they also increase the of politicians and decrease that of citizens. That, indeed, is the point of trying to keep one’s funds under one’s own control – not greed, not meanness, not lack of compassion, not stinginess. It is to be in the position to provide the direction to one’s resources, whatever that direction may be.
The ten cents robbed from espresso consumers in Seattle – and the billions of dollars from the American public – by politicians and bureaucrats might have been left to those who own those funds to use and dispose for various projects, be these personal, familiar, social, religions, philanthropic, or recreational. The central point though is that it would have been the owners of the resources who decided what use is made of them, not the politicians and bureaucrats.
And that is just what makes taxes so important to those politicians and bureaucrats – the more taxes there are, the more power they!
Tibor R. Machan
News reports had it the other day that Seattle’s politicians and bureaucrats have cooked up yet another extortion scheme. They are now planning to put a 10 cent tax on every shot of espresso coffee. No, regular coffee, which is drunk by nearly everyone, will not be taxed – one may assume opposition to that would be too costly for the Seattle extortionists. But espresso coffee, which is drunk by fewer folks who probably will not bother to organize any serious opposition since they have better things to do with their time, will get the axe.
Now why is this of any significance? After all, such schemes have been the norm ever since taxation was invented in the ancient feudal eras and, in America, ever since politicians have managed to hoodwink the public into voting in the income tax, which pretty much opened the floodgates so there’s no principled way to stop a tax. What is interesting about the Seattle extortion scheme is how some journalists – in this instance the CBS radio correspondent who reported the item midday August 25th – have become naively or consciously complicit in perpetrating it.
After reporting the plan, this particular CBS network radio anchor mentioned that the ten cent tax on espresso coffee will produce various wonderful public projects, such as child care facilities, in greater Seattle. Thus the reporter managed to provide a boost to the idea, mentioning only that the extorted funds will be very helpful to some needy people in the city.
What about the millions of folks who will be the victims of the extortion? Did the CBS anchor say anything about what the loss of millions of dollars will do to other projects, ones that might have been funded by espresso coffee drinkers? Of course not, proving, once again, the insight of Frederick Bastiat, the 19th century French political economist who wrote “[ fcp://@fc.freedom.com,%231011100/MailBox/That_//www.jim.com/ ]That which is seen, that which is not seen,” the essay which explains how because political projects get a lot of visibility, their costs tend to be largely unreported, even unnoticed. Our CBS radio network anchor’s conduct is a typical instance of Bastiat’s point.
Of course, there is something else amiss with the CBS anchor’s conduct – it is entirely unprofessional. By reporting only on what the proposed espresso tax is partially going to produce – and only “partially” because, after all, the taxation process will also eat up a good deal of the funds obtained – this rather prominent CBS journalist was exhibiting an undeniable bias. It is just this bias that many journalists – especially at CBS, the target of the expose book, Bias (Perennial, 2002), by Bernard Goldberg – are contesting. Yet here is an instance of it that stares us in the face.
Of course, the CBS anchor would claim that he was merely reporting what the politicians claimed. Yet, why was he not reporting what critics of the tax claimed?
Taxes, as all extorted funds, not only take resources from projects taxpayers would prefer as against what the politicians prefer. But they also increase the of politicians and decrease that of citizens. That, indeed, is the point of trying to keep one’s funds under one’s own control – not greed, not meanness, not lack of compassion, not stinginess. It is to be in the position to provide the direction to one’s resources, whatever that direction may be.
The ten cents robbed from espresso consumers in Seattle – and the billions of dollars from the American public – by politicians and bureaucrats might have been left to those who own those funds to use and dispose for various projects, be these personal, familiar, social, religions, philanthropic, or recreational. The central point though is that it would have been the owners of the resources who decided what use is made of them, not the politicians and bureaucrats.
And that is just what makes taxes so important to those politicians and bureaucrats – the more taxes there are, the more power they!
Why Taxes are Really a Bad Thing
Tibor R. Machan
This is one of my favorite topics because I like to tell it like it is even when so many fashionable folks think I am way off base.
You’ve heard it before, I am sure – taxes are the price we pay for civilization. Bunk – that’s a ruse someone who loved big government dearly tried to perpetrate and, yes, one with which he managed to fool quite a lot of people. Millions still believe that taxes are necessary just to have a decent community.
Well, here is what’s wrong with that. Even the most vital services governments provide can be bought instead of extorted from us. There is no free rider problem – meaning, because some pay for something others can use, others will stubbornly refuse to contribute -- and even if there were one, it wouldn’t justify extortion.
What folks don’t seem to understand is that a truly just society is a place where people can live without having to deny their basic humanity. And our humanity consist primarily in needing to be free of other people’s oppression. That is why slavery was such a vicious institution. That is why oppression is so terrible, be it by one bloke, a party, or a majority. That is why any kind of coercion must be banned. People require, for their flourishing, to be free to choose and when this freedom is impeded, even just a little bit, their humanity is being assaulted.
The fact that in most of human history people lived under oppression doesn’t in the slightest undermine the moral point I am making here. Throughout history there has also been theft, rape, robbery, murder, assault and all kinds of related evils, yet no one would seriously argue that those are just part of the price we pay for civilization. That’s because it is clear cut enough that these practices are evil.
Yet what is taxation but imposing an ongoing, heavy burden on persons without their consent, just so that they can make a living, own property, and buy and sell goods in the market place.
Sure, there are services that make working free of intrusion more likely and these services cost something. But we should only have to pay and get these services if we choose to do so. That is what civilized life requires. We should be able to try doing without the services and suffer the consequences.
But most of us would not try to live without cops, courts, and the military, all of which make working, owning property, trading things and stuff more convenient. And we can arrange to obtain these services without deploying any kind of coercive force, contrary to what those try to peddle us who hold that extortion and coercion are needed so as to reduce, well, extortion and coercion. That is just nonsense.
OK, so it hasn’t been tried too often to get legal services governments provide without extracting funds for this coercively, at the point of a gun. Taxes are common, so they are widely thought to be necessary, but this is where the big mistake lies.
Why, however, would so many bright enough people insist that taxation is necessary and moral?
In her first novel, We The Living, Ayn Rand has one of her characters ask, “And what is the state but a servant and a convenience for a large number of people, just like the electric light and the plumbing system? And wouldn’t it be preposterous to claim that men must exist for their plumbing, not the plumbing for the men.”
Yes it would be but there are many, many people who love the idea of ripping off the rest so as to get greater control of the world around them, including of other people. And these folks want to peddle the idea that someone must be authorized to extract from the rest of us funds and labor time and goods and services so as to do certain kinds of good things.
They start by saying, “Well, we must have such extractions so as to provide us with the police, the military and the courts.” But they never end there. Once they have gotten millions of us to say, “Oh, yes, those things are vital, so you go ahead and use coercion to get them,” they proceed to say, “Well, now that we have the authority to use coercion, why not use it for all kinds of purposes other than proving security from others?” And the state then grows and grows and grows and the moral argument against it has been lost.
As I said, the whole thing is a ruse and it is about time for folks to recognize it. The main reason taxation actually prevails is that we haven’t yet fully grasped the implication of asserting individual rights and rejecting the divine rights of kings and the supremacy of government.
We need, in other words, to extend the American revolution to its logical conclusion.
Tibor R. Machan
This is one of my favorite topics because I like to tell it like it is even when so many fashionable folks think I am way off base.
You’ve heard it before, I am sure – taxes are the price we pay for civilization. Bunk – that’s a ruse someone who loved big government dearly tried to perpetrate and, yes, one with which he managed to fool quite a lot of people. Millions still believe that taxes are necessary just to have a decent community.
Well, here is what’s wrong with that. Even the most vital services governments provide can be bought instead of extorted from us. There is no free rider problem – meaning, because some pay for something others can use, others will stubbornly refuse to contribute -- and even if there were one, it wouldn’t justify extortion.
What folks don’t seem to understand is that a truly just society is a place where people can live without having to deny their basic humanity. And our humanity consist primarily in needing to be free of other people’s oppression. That is why slavery was such a vicious institution. That is why oppression is so terrible, be it by one bloke, a party, or a majority. That is why any kind of coercion must be banned. People require, for their flourishing, to be free to choose and when this freedom is impeded, even just a little bit, their humanity is being assaulted.
The fact that in most of human history people lived under oppression doesn’t in the slightest undermine the moral point I am making here. Throughout history there has also been theft, rape, robbery, murder, assault and all kinds of related evils, yet no one would seriously argue that those are just part of the price we pay for civilization. That’s because it is clear cut enough that these practices are evil.
Yet what is taxation but imposing an ongoing, heavy burden on persons without their consent, just so that they can make a living, own property, and buy and sell goods in the market place.
Sure, there are services that make working free of intrusion more likely and these services cost something. But we should only have to pay and get these services if we choose to do so. That is what civilized life requires. We should be able to try doing without the services and suffer the consequences.
But most of us would not try to live without cops, courts, and the military, all of which make working, owning property, trading things and stuff more convenient. And we can arrange to obtain these services without deploying any kind of coercive force, contrary to what those try to peddle us who hold that extortion and coercion are needed so as to reduce, well, extortion and coercion. That is just nonsense.
OK, so it hasn’t been tried too often to get legal services governments provide without extracting funds for this coercively, at the point of a gun. Taxes are common, so they are widely thought to be necessary, but this is where the big mistake lies.
Why, however, would so many bright enough people insist that taxation is necessary and moral?
In her first novel, We The Living, Ayn Rand has one of her characters ask, “And what is the state but a servant and a convenience for a large number of people, just like the electric light and the plumbing system? And wouldn’t it be preposterous to claim that men must exist for their plumbing, not the plumbing for the men.”
Yes it would be but there are many, many people who love the idea of ripping off the rest so as to get greater control of the world around them, including of other people. And these folks want to peddle the idea that someone must be authorized to extract from the rest of us funds and labor time and goods and services so as to do certain kinds of good things.
They start by saying, “Well, we must have such extractions so as to provide us with the police, the military and the courts.” But they never end there. Once they have gotten millions of us to say, “Oh, yes, those things are vital, so you go ahead and use coercion to get them,” they proceed to say, “Well, now that we have the authority to use coercion, why not use it for all kinds of purposes other than proving security from others?” And the state then grows and grows and grows and the moral argument against it has been lost.
As I said, the whole thing is a ruse and it is about time for folks to recognize it. The main reason taxation actually prevails is that we haven’t yet fully grasped the implication of asserting individual rights and rejecting the divine rights of kings and the supremacy of government.
We need, in other words, to extend the American revolution to its logical conclusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)