Be realistic about politics

Dear Sara:

Thanks for writing. I often say, quite sincerely, that I'm not cynical about politics; I'm realistic about politics.

If a stranger knocks on your door and tells you that he or she is here for the express purpose of helping you, of serving you, of making your life better -- not because of anything that he or she will gain by doing so, but because he or she believes in your goodness and knows that you deserve more than you have -- what would you think? Would you give this person the benefit of the doubt, and trust that he or she really and truly is motivated chiefly and overwhelmingly by a desire to serve you?

Would you continue to give this person the benefit of the doubt on this score when he or she informs you that, to help you, he or she must have the power to tax you and to take away some of your liberties? When he or she assures you that, by some mysterious process, he or she "feels your pain"? When he or she modestly exclaims that those other persons standing on your porch ready to make pretty much the same offer cannot possibly care about you as much as he or she cares about you -- cannot possibly have sufficient skill, determination, and wisdom to improve your life; that only he or she possesses these qualities?

Would that benefit of the doubt continue to be given when you learn that, should you decide to trust this stranger with some of your wealth and your liberties, he or she will get lots of prestige and acclaim and applause simply because he or she holds power over you?

And would you persist in giving this person the benefit of the doubt when, should you ask probing questions about his or her motives or about inconsistencies you believe to have spotted in the plans he or she laid out for helping you, he or she suddenly begins dissembling or speaking in platitudes or vague generalities, or launches into stories of his or her past glory in some endeavor or other that has little to do with the power that he or she now seeks from you?

I suspect, Sara, that should such a person arrive at your door and deliver such a spiel to you that you'd quickly slam the door in his or her face, convinced (and correctly so) that that person is either an utter goofball or a supremely arrogant busybody. You'd want nothing at all to do with him or her, and if he or she persisted in knocking on your door you'd call the police or your bouncer-friend Bubba to escort this obnoxious person as far away from your home as possible.

So, if you'd not give such a person the benefit of the doubt, why in the world are you surprised that I don't give Barack Obama, John McCain, or any other successful politician you care to name the benefit of the doubt?

Sincerely,
Don Boudreaux

Another of Don's Letters

Robert Kennedy, Jr., might be correct that electricity is best provided in Chile by means other than hydroelectric dams (Letters, April 8). His presumption, however, about the source of prosperity casts doubt on the quality of his argument.

Mr. Kennedy opposes dams because he wants to protect "nature's bounty." But nature is not bountiful. If it were, human history would be one of prosperity and long, healthy lives rather than one of oppressive poverty and short, miserable lives. Nature is miserly. The bounty that Mr. Kennedy presumes comes from nature is, in fact, the relatively recent product of human creativity and industry unleashed by free markets - and now threatened by the mindless worship of nature.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Another of Don's Letters

One of Don Boudreaux's recent letters;

David Brooks notes that "behavioral economists demonstrate every day [that] human beings are powerfully and unconsciously influenced by ... ideas and assumptions" that cause them sometimss to make systematic mistakes ("Not a good time to trust the market," March 20). True. But Mr. Brooks himself mistakenly draws the conclusion that this fact justifies government regulation.

The undeniable truth that each of us frequently makes foolish decisions does not justify overriding our freedoms, especially if (as is likely) the same "powerful and unconscious ideas and assumptions" that cause us to err when acting privately will cause us to err when acting politically -- and will cause also those persons in political office to err when exercising their power.

For all of their insights, behavioral economists have never demonstrated that political power cures its holders of any of the cognitive ailments that afflict the general lot of humankind.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Super-delegate and Client 9

Another of Don's letters;

Gov. Eliot Spitzer says that his patronage of prostitutes is a "private matter" ("Spitzer Is Linked to Prostitution Ring," March 10). He's correct; that matter is between himself and his family and is no one else's business. I wish only that Mr. Spitzer understood that many of his most famous crusades - for example, against musical-recording companies aggressively marketing their products, against banks lending money to lower-income consumers, and, indeed, even against prostitution rings(!) - were crusades against behaviors that in each case is a "private matter."

If Mr. Spitzer wants us to butt out of his private affairs, he should from here on in set an example by butting out of everyone else's private affairs.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Why is it a crime?

Federal prosecutors rarely charge clients in prostitution cases, which are generally seen as state crimes. But the Mann Act, passed by Congress in 1910 to address prostitution, human trafficking and what was viewed at the time as immorality in general, makes it a crime to transport someone between states for the purpose of prostitution. The four defendants charged in the case unsealed last week were all charged with that crime, along with several others.

Related;
The oldest question about the oldest profession.;

In the end, this seems like the most salient question: Forget Eliot Spitzer. Shouldn't prostitution laws come down to working conditions and the legal rules that would lead to better ones for sex workers? According to a recent working paper by economist Steven Levitt and anthropologist Sudhir Venkatesh, despite all the fighting and all the preaching, we apparently don't know that much about the specifics of the structure of the sex market—how much prostitutes make on average, how many tricks they turn a year, how frequently they and their pimps and johns actually get arrested.

To start filling in the gap, Levitt and Venkatesh took a look at data from the Chicago Police Department. They found that women working the streets were making $27 an hour but less than $20,000 a year (they don't log a lot of hours). The risks of the trade were serious: "an annual average of a dozen incidents of violence and 300 instances of unprotected sex." There was also a "surprisingly high prevalence of police officers demanding sex from prostitutes in return for avoiding arrest." That looks like another argument against the bans on prostitution—presumably women wouldn't be caught in this particular trap if they weren't worried about going to jail in the first place. Levitt and Venkatesh also offer up this statistic: Prostitutes get arrested about once per 450 tricks and johns even less frequently. Two lessons here: 1) A law that isn't being enforced much may not be worth having; and 2) Eliot Spitzer looks really, really unlucky.

Pray for a bigger Trade Deficit

Another of Don's letters;

Sir, Pat Buchanan's hostility to free trade (Letters, March 5) reflects his misunderstanding of fundamental concepts. He complains that "since Nafta . . . we have run $5,000bn in trade deficits". For Mr Buchanan, this fact is clear evidence of the dangers of freer trade. But let us reword his complaint: "Since Nafta, we have run $5,000bn in investment surpluses." Putting it like this - which is simply another way of reporting the fact that Mr Buchanan finds so troubling - reveals that, since Nafta, $5,000bn worth of capital has flowed into the US.

This capital helped to create and modernise many US companies, to fund research and development, to train workers, and to ease the burden imposed on Americans by Uncle Sam's profligacy. Does Mr Buchanan really lament this capital inflow?

It is worth pointing out, too, that this inflow of capital is precisely the opposite of what Ross "Giant Sucking Sound" Perot predicted would happen if Nafta were passed.

Donald J. Boudreaux,

Don's Letters

Prof. Don Boudreaux's latest letter;

Among Robert Lighthizer's objections to principled free-traders is their opposition to protectionism "no matter how many jobs are lost" ("Grand Old Protectionists," March 6).

If Mr. Lighthizer is referring to overall employment, his facts are wrong. Free trade does not reduce net employment. But perhaps he's talking about specific jobs, such as those lost in Carolina textile mills when Americans buy more textiles from abroad. The argument seems to be that practical statecraft often justifies protecting such jobs even if doing so prevents the creation of other jobs in their place. If this is Mr. Lighthizer's point, he's too modest when calling for trade policies that allow for "practicality, nuance or flexibility." Because technology destroys far more jobs than does trade, Mr. Lighthizer should endorse also a "pragmatic" approach to innovation - empowering government with the flexibly and nuance to block firms' introduction of efficiency-enhancing production techniques that displace workers. Surely, according to Mr. Lighthizer's practical logic, we must reject the "dogma" that tolerates "unbridled" improvements in firms' operating efficiencies.

As you noticed I created a new category for the Prof. Don's letters.