Re: Operation Politically Homeless

George J. Lee (gjlee@uclink4.berkeley.edu)
06 Dec 1997 17:27:52 -0800 

schoen@uclink4.Berkeley.EDU (Seth David Schoen) writes:

> George J. Lee writes:
> 
> >schoen@uclink4.Berkeley.EDU (Seth David Schoen) writes:

<snip>

> >As you know, they make many errors and false assumptions in those
> >parodies. I could refute just about every single one of them, but the
> >point is we are trying to sell liberty. To do so, we have to make
> >people see its importance and necessity.
> 
> Well, why "necessity"?  Populists are popular; market democracies/social
> democracies/mixed economies are stable.  (Though see David Friedman's
> comments about medieval Iceland.)

True. I should say "benefits" instead of "necessity".

> >Though it was designed by libertarians,
> 
> I'm concerned about this, you see... why do libertarians use the WSPQ,
> where others don't?  Clearly Republicans and Democrats are popular enough
> already not to need a quiz to attract support -- but why do we imagine
> that only libertarians would feel enthusiastic about using the test to
> find members?

I would imagine part of the reason is because Democrats and
Republicans do not follow consistent policies on most issues. Most
other parties do not have consistent ideologies either, with the
possible exception of socialists. Socialists, however, mostly make
emotional arguments (e.g. Capitalists are greedy and care only about
profits, not about workers) whereas libertarians usually appeal to
reason (e.g. Of course businesses care about their employees. If they
treated them badly, they would lose both employees and customers). I
think libertarians have more to benefit by asking people to think
objectively on the issues. It's probably harder to make an unbiased
quiz favorable for socialists than an unbiased quiz favorable for
libertarians, because the emotional bias would be more evident (e.g. I
have the right to go wherever I want. Abolish private property.). It's
true the WSPQ is slightly biased toward libertarians, but most of the
questions are straightforward, as you mentioned.

> Can you imagine the ISO giving the test to "make people think about
> politics" and see if they might be socialists?
> 
> One criticism made is that the libertarian answers are all "yes" --
> agreeing.  This doesn't automatically make the test biased, but it shows
> that criticisms of the WSPQ emphasizing benefits of libertarian positions
> are plausible.  And this may be something to be concerned about.
>
> Sometimes people who have no particular political philosophy are susceptible
> to a strong positive argument for many different things.  I gave one girl
> in my dorm an argument for a libertarian position on something, and she
> said she agreed, and then I gave her an argument for the a socialist
> position on the same issue, and she said she agreed with that too.  Now,
> she saw the problem of the contradiction, but ultimately she didn't feel
> that she had any basis for judgment.  Yes, strong centrists will probably
> come out, well, in the center of the WSPQ, but the genuine Politically
> Homeless seem likely to score libertarian on this test, and socialist on
> a WSPQ parody test.

I do agree that it's a bit biased in this sense. That could work to
our advantage, however. We want to attract people who are open to our
ideas. If they answer "yes" to most of the questions just because
they're unsure, they are still receptive to libertarianism even if
they are not yet consistent in their beliefs. These are precisely the
people whom we want to attract.

<snip>

> I suspect that ("principled, consistent") libertarianism is a lot more
> unpopular than the WSPQ results indicate, so that the criticism can be
> made that the WSPQ _is_ trying to get people to think of themselves as
> libertarians by exaggerating any anti-government tendencies people may
> have.

Principled, consistent libertarianism is more unpopular. We don't want
people to think one must be an unyielding, gun-toting, government
hater to be a libertarian. We want people to see that they are already
libertarians in some ways. That's why we want them to take the quiz;
that way we can see where they agree with us and where we need to
explain our position better.

> It's not as manipulative or deceptive as it might be, but I do think...
> well, you can see below.

I will admit that the WSPQ is not entirely objective, but fine for our
purposes. I don't think most people will see it as intentionally
deceptive. I don't think it's possible to make an objective quiz
without making it several pages long anyway.

We should think of ourselves as salesmen trying to convince people
that they would be better in a libertarian society. We want to present
our ideas in a positive light without being deceptive, and I don't
think the WSPQ is very deceptive. The people who find the WSPQ unfair
will probably be suspicious of everything we say anyway. Remember that
we are targeting those receptive to our ideas; I don't think our
target audience would argue with the wording of the quiz.

<snip>

> >Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet.
> 
> People may not realize that this entails
> 
> (1) Abolition of the FCC (all functions)
> (2) Overturn of FCC v. Pacifica (broadcast indecency)
> (3) Overturn of Roth v. United States (legality of obscene materials)
> 
> The conventional view of control in these areas appears to be more
> limited, thanks to the various Supreme Court decisions which have defined
> certain types of censorship as not being censorship.
> 
> There is a mainstream view that many people have right now to the effect
> that the government does not control the press or the Internet.  (People
> are aware that the FCC licenses radio and TV stations, of course.)
> Under this view, libertarians presumably only want the status quo (of
> "no control") with regard to the press and the Internet.  But of course
> this is not the case; libertarians are very critical of the existing
> legal regime on the First Amendment.

Very true, but people who answer yes without realizing everything that
statement entails are still potential libertarians. These people agree
with at least the idea of no government control.

> >Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults.
> 
> One WSPQ critic above pointed out that this includes prostitution, which
> may not be acceptable to respondents, but they're unlikely to think of it
> on first seeing the question.
> 
> And this also has connotations of overturning Roth v. U.S. again; after
> all, pornography is plausibly one form of sexcrime.
> 
> A lot of liberals love the "consenting adults" idea, but never when it
> involves money; they tend to think that money is never really part of
> consent.  They are therefore likely to complain when they see the
> "consenting adults" idea applied to legalizing prostitution, indentured
> servitude, and workplace safety/nondiscrimination regulations.

Again, my response is that these questions are intended to help us
find our target audience. I think those who are opposed to
prostitution as well as anti-sodomy laws can still be receptive to our
ideas.

<snip>

> >Let peaceful people cross borders freely.
> 
> Does this include allowing them to get jobs, or not?   Does it include
> paying them welfare?

That is a tough question. This was one of the questions originally
intended to "weed-out" those who aren't true libertarians. Most people
will probably be against or unsure of this one. I would interpret it
to mean exactly what it says: let all immigrants in as long as they're
not violent criminals. That means they can get jobs and collect
welfare. I doubt whether many people could answer yes to this without
also believing in the abolition of government welfare.

<snip>

> >People are better off with free trade than with tariffs.
> 
> Hmmm, tariffs aren't the only aspect of trade policies which prevent free
> trade.
> 
> There are immigration and labor controls, which are huge.
> 
> There are embargoes against countries, like Cuba.
> 
> There are quotas and negotiated "policies" on production.
> 
> There are import and export controls like the ITAR.
> 
> There are bureaucratic reporting requirements -- import and export
> documentation, reporting of currency movements, reporting of various
> technology exports permitted under ITAR (to the Department of Commerce),
> and so on.  There are sometimes hidden taxes to discourage imports which
> don't get tarred as "tariffs".
> 
> And there there are the various standards which are sometimes enforced as
> a condition of trade benefits -- human rights, labor standards, and
> environmental standards.  (Oh, and usually drug policy enforcement, more
> frequently than human rights -- those who suppress drugs can get trade
> benefits more readily than those who suppress speech, but that's another
> matter.)
> 
> I hate all this stuff (especially because I'm an internationalist as well
> as a libertarian), but many people like it -- they think it protects jobs,
> improves national security, strengthens foreign policy, provides revenue,
> provides a venue for making moral statements and improving conditions
> elsewhere...  The impediments to free trade are more and far broader than
> just tariffs.

Good points, but I think the gist is still the same. Most people
against tariffs are also against other trade restrictions. The inverse
is also true, so I think the question is fair enough.

> >Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them.
> 
> Minimum wage laws also cause redistribution.  Many economic liberals want
> redistribution and frequently even think of minimum wage laws as a relatively
> unobtrusive way to obtain it.
> 
> The argument is usually that most labor markets are buyers' markets, and
> profits from labor are typically large at market wages, so that a
> redistribution can be included in the system which benefits workers
> 
> Additionally, if the demand for labor is relatively inelastic but the
> labor market is relatively monopsonistic (as many left economists believe),
> the amount of unemployment caused by these laws will be _very small_
> compared to the redistribution benefits, which may even have a multiplier
> effect.  (Because of the redistribution, poor workers are able to buy more
> goods and services ... a classic demand-side argument.)  In this scenario,
> the minimum wage law is seen partly as restoring a (competitive) market
> equilibrium which is lost because of a lack of competition among employers.
> 
> Notice that this WSPQ item is trying to argue the end of minimum wage
> from the claim that minimum wage _hurts workers_, so if you want to help
> workers, you, too, will oppose the minimum wage.  Whereas most people
> usually think minimum wage laws _help_ workers.
> 
> I think minimum wage laws definitely do help workers in the short run.
> In the long run, it's plausible that they hurt workers.  But in any case,
> they hurt employers all the time, and I think that's the genuinely
> libertarian reason to oppose them -- after all, the employers are the ones
> prevented from making the contracts they desire.  The employees are never
> (directly) prevented from making any contracts they would prefer to those
> they actually make.
> 
> While we can argue that any government interference hurts workers by
> slowing economic growth, I doubt this is the only major objection
> libertarians typically have to minimum wages; they usually feel that market
> controls are unpredictable in their impacts (and so may be counterproductive)
> and that government has no authority to dictate these matters.  It's strange
> that the WSPQ item doesn't try to appeal to these issues, but tries to
> appeal to a generic concern for workers' well-being.

I highly recommend the book "Healing Our World" by Dr. Ruwart. It does
a good job of addressing those issues about which liberals are most
concerned, such as minimum wage. There is a copy on-line at
http://www.cyberpop.com/ebooks/ruwart/ruhomeframeset.html. I also have
the dead-tree edition if anyone wants to borrow it. Dr. Ruwart devotes
an entire chapter to the harm of minimum wage laws. Her arguments are
very convincing and include lots of facts and statistics to back them
up. Her point is that they do the most harm to unskilled and
inexperienced workers. To use one of her examples, suppose you own a
chair factory that employed people at $4 to $5 dollars an hour,
depending on their experience. If a minimum wage were imposed at $5,
you have several options:

1) Increase wages to $5-$6 an hour (those who made $5 before will now
   demand higher wages) and increase the price of the chairs to make up
   for the cost. You will now sell less chairs and make less money. You
   will have to lay off some workers, probably the least experienced
   ones. Now those who made $4/hour are now making nothing.

2) Replace your unskilled workers with machines costing $4.50/hour to
   operate. The machine factory (mostly skilled) hires more skilled
   workers because of increased demand for machines. Your unskilled
   workers making $4/hour are now unemployed.

3) Lay off some unnecessary workers. For example, if you paid some
   people $4/hr to paint the chairs, you may just lay them off and have
   the customers paint the chairs themselves.

4) Cut back on employee benefits. Make up for the increase in wages by
   reducing health coverage, paid vacation, etc.

5) Close down your factory and go do something else employing skilled 
   workers unaffected by the minimum wage hike.

The unskilled lose their jobs while some skilled workers benefit.
That's why skilled labor unions often lobby for minimum wage hikes.

> >End taxes. Pay for services with user fees.
> >All foreign aid should be privately funded.
> 
> These two seem pretty straightforward.
> 
> What I mean by "exaggerating" is that the WSPQ, in its real-world effect on
> those taking it, exaggerates certain similarities between the world we now
> live in and the world libertarians would like to see.  Therefore, from a
> non-libertarian point of view, it could be said to be exaggerating the
> benefits of libertarianism.
> 
> Similarly, WSPQ parodies exaggerate the harms that would result from
> libertarian policies.

True, but we are salesmen after all.

-- 
George J. Lee

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire,
it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master." --George Washington