Expert only as to Me

Much of politics today can be summarized:

MY lying narcissistic egomaniac is better than YOUR lying narcissistic egomaniac because mine uses the compulsory authority of the state and the coercive power of government to benefit me and mine as opposed to you and yours.

Predictable and repeated political failures arise not because the wrong persons are in the wrong offices but because government is being assigned inconsistent tasks, for which is it ill-suited, and given incompatible roles, which are contrary to its inherent nature. At its most basic, government — of any kind and at all levels — is a brute force whereby an electoral majority (or controlling voting bloc) seeks to impose its self-serving will upon a reluctant minority (or disfavored group).

As citizens, or more aptly as “the People,” we serve as the only legitimate source of state authority and government power; however, we are commanded by self-serving political minions and technocrats to cede power to the state and to place blind faith in a Nanny State bureaucracy. We are promised safety and security, but we are to be made “safe” from all but the state and “secure” from all but government. We are told that government, by and through the legacy parties, knows better than individuals what is best for all individuals. If only all persons were smart enough to recognize their superiority of the political classes, we would dutifully capitulate and submit ourselves to the will of the collective (or its minders).

However, the state is not forever altruistic, and government cannot be perpetually benign. There are millennia of uninterrupted histories that support these propositions. As power trends toward absolute, so does the certainty for corruption, and corruption gives rise to abuse, oppression, and tyranny. Even if political minions, either individually or collectively, possessed the omniscience, which would be necessary for Central Planning to be successful, such perfect knowledge would still be insufficient to assure that the resulting actions were fair, just, and equitable.

From the Big Book thought experiment:

Suppose one of you were an omniscient person and therefore knew all the movements of all the bodies in the world dead or alive and that you also knew all the states of mind of all human beings that ever lived, and suppose you wrote all you knew in a big book, then this book would contain the whole description of the world; and what I want to say is, that this book would contain nothing that we would call an ethical judgment or anything that would logically imply such a judgment.

The current nominee to the Supreme Court was recently asked to define a “woman,” to which the nominee responded, “I’m not a biologist.” Some decades ago, a prior Supreme Court Justice in struggling to define another word famously said, “[P]erhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it….”

Nearly everyone has an intuitive understanding of a “woman.” Dictionaries define the word: An adult female person (or human being). As an intellectual exercise, we might engage in mental gymnastics by parsing each one of the words contained within the given definition. Persons may endeavor to identify limited examples, in which the generally accepted meanings of those words may not apply, or identify rare instances, in which there may be exceptions to the clearly accepted and well established definition of “woman.” However, the existence of limited exception(s) to a given rule does not negate the general application or benefit of the rule itself. For the vast majority of persons in innumerable day-to-day applications, the traditional and accepted definition of “woman” is all that is required or desired.

Any effort to change the effect or to cloud the meaning by challenging the definition provides no benefit to those, for whom the longstanding definition is perfectly apt and acceptable. The objective in changing this and other words is to decrease efficiencies and to increase transaction costs among persons, who agree with and “benefit” from the established definition(s). Their agreement and conformity with the standard understanding or definition is deemed by others to confer excessive “privilege,” and those, who seek change or modification, deem themselves more “worthy” of the much-coveted benefits. Their hope and expectation are that by decreasing efficiencies and by increasing transaction costs, some portion of the perceived benefits might flow to the agents of change, as opposed to those for whom the existing definitions and normative behaviors are satisfactory (and beneficial).

What other words might the esteemed justice not be able to define? Without a common understanding of language, what is the purpose and meaning of the rulings and opinions that SCOTUS (or any other court) might hand down? If words mean whatever someone may choose for them to mean at a given time under whatever circumstances might then exist, then effective communication is impossible and the rule of law is meaningless.

The deference afforded to “biologists” in defining a woman was principally an effort by the nominee to avoid (or perhaps to engage in) political theater; nevertheless, the implied messages were clear:

First, that we should defer to credentialed (or even self-professed) “experts” on any given issue. Certainly, if a potential SCOTUS Justice is not qualified to offer an opinion on the definition of a word in common use, then no one else, except an expert “biologist,” should be heard to opine as to that issue or any similar issue; and

Second, that, as a recognized “expert” jurist, her opinions should enjoy the same deference that she is affording to other experts in their respective fields. It is a not-so-subtle command to sit down and shut up and let the “grownups” make your decisions for you, as the People are infantilized and the Nanny State acts in loco parentis.

One noted definition of an “expert” is: Someone who knows more and more about less and less until (s)he eventually knows EVERYTHING about NOTHING. Every person should be presumed to be expert at one thing in particular: managing his own life. Even if one is not, in fact, expert he should be privileged to live his life as he sees fit — even if his actions are objectively irrational or personally detrimental — so long as his actions do not cause affirmative harm to another person or to the property of another. In order to be actionable, the harm alleged must be more than theoretical or harm to another’s delicate sensibilities. The harm should be demonstrable, material, and proximate to the act to be remedied or proscribed. Lives well lived can serve as exemplars for others to follow. Whereas, lives poorly lived also serve an important purpose as cautionary tales.

Decision making consists of weighing “pros” and “cons.” It is a cost-benefit analysis, whereby parties seek the greatest reasonable benefit relative to the least potential costs. While such an analysis certainly applies to financial transactions, it also applies to (individual and societal) behaviors. Actions have consequences, and we should endeavor to engage in productive actions resulting in the least harm or unintended adverse consequences. Central Planning presumes that a cadre of “experts” is capable of designing a perfectly efficient and effective system (economic and social). They are not.

No matter how much information one might have, it is impossible to “fix” a market. Perceived consumer benefits may vary depending upon available offerings and viable alternatives. Sufficient producer benefits encourage additional market participants and continuous product development thus affecting volume, quality, and price. Temporal manipulation of markets is possible — usually with great efforts and (opportunity) costs — but markets ultimately conform to underlying realities.

Even if one could identify a point of perfect equilibrium under a given set of variables at a specific point in time, there are motivations by consumers and producers — individuals and institutions — alike to manipulate and influence the market to their respective advantages. Compare this to meteorology, whose erroneous forecasting is the frequent butt of jokes. Weather prognostication is a “first level” chaos system. Although there are numerous interrelated variables, effective forecasting is presumably possible with sufficient information and computing power. Weather does not consciously and deliberately alter and change itself and its behaviors just to prove the forecasters wrong. Despite its obvious complexities, forecasting the weather is infinitely easier than accurately predicting human behavior across an entire population.

Human behavior is a “second level” chaos system. Of even greater import than the myriad of interrelated variables and interpersonal relationships is the fact that individual decisions are affected and personal behaviors are altered based upon constantly evolving information. For this reason, economic models are effectively obsolete as soon as they are communicated. Such models may reflect past behavior with relative accuracy, but the mere act of modeling transactions and behaviors is itself information, which will almost certainly motivate parties to alter individual transactions and behavior. Therefore, a price, which is fixed by Central Planning, is obsolete the moment that it is implemented or communicated, and a dictated “norm” is similarly ineffective. Once the “price” or “norm” is established, there are often conscious and deliberate efforts by individuals either to conform transactions (or behaviors) to a given price (or norm) or to demonstrate why the product offerings (or behaviors) vary materially from “average.”

Meaningful and effective cost-benefit analyses are necessarily based upon individual decisions as opposed to collective endeavors: Value propositions vary among individuals depending upon personal objectives, differing priorities, and available alternatives, and risk tolerances are similarly subjective. A given market (including the marketplace of ideas) may reflect an established trend. Market conditions (or the prevailing zeitgeist) may be reflected in an “average” price or “normative” range of behaviors. Those conditions apply predictably to many transactions; however, there are always outliers. Expecting the outliers to define the market or to establish the rules is akin to betting on the longshot in each and every race. There is the opportunity to “win” big, but for the average participant, it is more likely that going against the odds will result in losing badly and repeatedly. However, eliminating the outliers and the “exceptional” by commanding conformity in all things and at all times also means there is little to no opportunity for improvement, development, and evolution of the system and individuals within it.

In any meaningful or effective analysis, one should consider:

· Who is the (intended or actual) beneficiary of the proposed policy or program?

· Is the intended or proposed act “good,” and if so, for whom? Most persons will deem “good” (or even morally compelled) acts, which benefit them personally.

· Is that personal benefit “good” enough to justify any act by the beneficiary or action at his behest or on his behalf?

· Should we consider the effects of that action upon others and the offsetting costs, which might be imposed upon unrelated (or only ostensibly related) parties?

· Is it possible to undertake a cost-benefit analysis when the benefitted parties, are distinct and removed from other parties, who must bear the burdens, pay the costs, or suffer the sacrifices?

· Is it enough to say that more persons within a given population benefit than suffer detriment (or participate in the costs)?

· Should we consider the relative benefits versus the costs incurred?

· Must the individual capitulate and be subservient to the greater number? Must the individual suffer for the benefit of the collective?

· Should qualitative factors be considered or should we limit consideration to quantity only?

· Who is to make such determinations … the directly affected individuals or the collective (at the behest of a controlling voting bloc or electoral majority)?

Human beings are motivated by inherent instincts: self-preservation, self-advancement, and self-propagation. It is only in the exercise of intellect and reason, which distinguishes us from our slightly more bestial cousins, that we overcome our instinctive selves and earn the moniker “humane” beings. Institutions, including government, have no moral compasses of their own. Instead, they reflect or mirror the (im)moral inclinations of their constituent members. Therefore, the same foibles, flaws, and shortcomings that exist within individuals are necessarily exhibited by societal institutions. In addition to a lack of omniscience, this is another reason why Central Planning fails forever and always.

The debate about the meanings of words is not the underlying issue. It is instead a smokescreen or obfuscation. The objective is to hide the true motivations of the parties. The effort is to manufacture an “intellectual” justification for base (selfish) behavior. If one can control (or change) the meanings of words, then he can control and thus win the underlying argument or debate. What is presented as a cerebral undertaking is nothing more than a power play. We can recognize it as such and defend against it, or we can capitulate and surrender to it.