Our media?  Apparently falling all over themselves to be the very first to diagnose the entire event down to political ideology, caused by heightened rhetoric, hopefully with easily attacked names attached, all without anything remotely resembling even a slight understanding of the shooter.

It is impressive in not only how fast this meme started, but also the complete coverage of it.  Almost anywhere you read this news or watching it discussed on tv, the attempt to blame is either extremely obvious or being discussed as being extremely obvious.

Liberals blame Sarah Palin, which the right absolutely abhors….  And besides, according to them, the shooter was a leftist anyway (irony?).

But wait!  If you don’t like that, it’s ok, because really the level of vitriol is the real problem.  Ask the Collegian, this conversation has to take place….  after of course the author talks about Glen Beck and Fox News’ level of rhetoric (irony?).

Irregardless, this conversation is important – just listen to the investigating sheriff, and you suddenly learn it’s Rush Limbaugh’s fault.

(side bar: Notice that word “investigating” always precedes the Sheriff… as if the mere act that the crazy guy with a gun pulled the trigger in his jurisdiction, gives him the right, knowledge, or understanding of political rhetoric and its ramifications)

Ahh, the Sheriff, proving, just like Katrina where rumors ran rampant due in large part to public officials, the propensity for public officials to cast off the shackles of thoughtful and deliberate actions and act irrationally.  Just listen to the Sheriff’s words “I have a feeling” and “millions agree” – as if this would be considered “proof” of anything.  Not to mention the fact that a public official should be duty-bound and intelligent enough to know not to make things worse through public speculation.

 But I digress, because in case you didn’t know, there’s a reason for his behavior too.  The Sheriff is a leftist.  & like other leftists, whether the level of rhetoric is high or low is meaningless, because it’s time for gun control.

Neither of which will work of course, because the real problem is that violence is rooted in American culture – so basically it’s everyone’s fault….

Though Jon Stewart assures us it’s not the level of rhetoric which is to blame, & he does have friends; according to a recent poll, 60% agree with this thought as well.

But let’s do note at least one decent posting on the subject, discussing this tragedy in light of other mass murderers (small mass, think group), including the divergence between what we thought we knew instantly and what we found out (here).

Aside from the few however, it appears stating openly “we don’t know enough and will not speculate” isn’t near as interesting nor attention grabbing as the fear inducing meme that speech, tv, political rhetoric, guns, or anything else which is all around you, is in fact out to get you.

It just goes on and on and on and on….  & just like the debates about which party is more closely linked with the actions of Hitler; is it Bushitler the warmonger?  Or the Democrats and the “can’t smoke in private restaurants” crowd? 

Or arguments about who Jesus would vote for; is it the downtrodden protectors the Democrats or the “teach a man to fish” Republicans?

Or what Jesus would drive; a Prius for the environment or an F150 for a carpenter? 

All impossible to answer, all nothing more than mere guilt/credit by association, yet the fight is feverish as many try to answer this very question about one lone gunman.

& All of it presented to you, with the air of intelligent thought and analysis, by the self-proclaimed 4th Estate.

Oil leaks into the Gulf of Mexico from the end of the pipe that was supposed to pump oil from the sea floor before the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded Photo: AP

The audacity of writers will never cease to amaze me and today is no exception.

In a piece at Salon.com, authored by Andrew Leonard, and titled Gulf oil spill gas price blackmail Mr. Leonard tries to make the case that the Obama Administration should:

Ignore critics of regulation who warn of rising pump prices. They are obsessed with the wrong bottom line.

Though his only reasoning seems to be that the opponents of new regulations only came to be after a major crisis. First, he starts with some of the current opposition statements:

The International Energy Agency is frightened, reports the Financial Times that “a knee-jerk reaction by regulators, banning new offshore licensing altogether,” in response to the Gulf oil spill, will end up increasing costs for the oil industry, and “therefore oil prices.”….

This helps us understand why he uses words like blackmail and frightened…. because these people are only looking at the bottom line.   From here, now that we understand these people are greedy and uncaring for anything other than money, he moves quickly into the timing of this opposition:

…it’s impressive to see how quickly the clamor advising the White House not to go overboard on offshore regulation has flared up. The parallels with the financial crisis are irresistible: A massive failure of markets and government oversight leads to a disaster, but before the wreckage has even been cleared away, we are told that regulatory overkill will be bad for business….

What he seemingly fails to grasp is, well, with all due respect to Mr. Leonard, he is failing to grasp the obvious – people generally don’t oppose or support regulations when they aren’t being proposed at all. So this argument about timing is completely irrelevant.

Logically, people, groups, communities, companies…. all of us have enough to worry about that we don’t usually worry about those things that aren’t happening.

It’s possible the author is unaware, but most of the pro-life movement didn’t really exist until 1973 as it wasn’t necessary prior to that. Maybe he finds this suspect as well?

But logic be damned, he uses this to springboard into the current investigation to explain why drastic changes in regulations are needed right now:

…But focusing only on the bottom line without taking into account the larger picture of what could go wrong — and what is going wrong — is exactly how we ended up with a giant Gulf oil slick in the first place….

Ironically, & potentially unwittingly, he then gives reasons why major regulation change should be avoided. By trying to conflate some idea of greed into this, but still keep the appearance of some factual stance, he states some of the issues clearly and properly notices that we don’t yet know what happened.

The main reason we don’t know – the only real people currently talking are those with a stake in not being blamed and there are 3 primary private actors and a multitude of government actors. Independent investigators will sort through all parties statements, responsibilities, duties, actions, and all the rest and hopefully come to some answer as to what really took place. Until then, any newly proposed regulation will be premature and wholly inconsistent with wise decision-making.

Additionally, he never refutes the words used by opponents, because he simply can’t. Economics shows us without emotion or emotion-filled words such as “blackmail” that regulations cost businesses money and those costs have to be borne out by the consumers.

The one interesting thing he noted was about the parallel to the financial market, but here he sees reverse of reality. The parallel Mr. Leonard should easily see is that we have a government bent on adding more and more power at the federal level attempting to use fear of another crisis to grab more power before even understanding why the crisis happened in the first place. Instead, of fearing this, he seems to be concerned only for some hypothetical lack of regulation, as if that has been the problem all along.

The reality is there. Going back historically, let’s say, going way, way back to… how about 6 months ago? When fear of another financial crisis was & is still being used to add regulations on entities such as pay-day loan companies, on investment vehicles such as derivatives, on compensation of employees, and many, many more things which had absolutely nothing to do with the current crisis, his concern for lack of regulation seems oddly misplaced.

After all, this is not only the same administration which is pushing for specious financial regulations, but they are also the same group which after years of railing against the Patriot Act, when the time came to do something, they did. They reauthorized its use to maintain their power.

Please note though – it’s not just this administration. Historically, governments seek to expand their power, they use crises to do so, and once those crises are mitigated, they keep the power they promised us was only necessary under the circumstances.

Whether a terrorist event, an economic crisis, or even an oil spill by greedy business people, allowing the government to take more and more powers before we even have an idea of what took place is the perfect move for those who want reduced freedoms.

As Hayek stated:

‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.

It might be trivial to write at this point, but I of course disagreed.  To be fair, I believe this is completely true on foreign policy.  Libertarianism seems like a domestic political philosophy only, but more on that in the future.

On the childish part – in some ways I can see why that perception exists as well.  I’ve jokingly said before the reason libertarianism has a bad name, is because of libertarians.  The cultural norm in libertarian thinkers who draw large numbers of readers seems to be to take one basic principle and stretch it to infinity.

For instance – it’s your property, you can do with as you please.  So you can put a brothel next door to an elementary school and the only recourse should be neighbors buying the lot to out price the brothel.

To many, including me, this is stupid.  The point in giving as many freedom to others as possible, simply can not include a dissolution of society itself by subjecting populations to things they don’t want.  Also, I think they already have this type of vision in local government using SOME zoning laws.

Additionally though, libertarians do believe in contracts.  So if a bunch of people bought tons of land, they could sell those plots with any caveat they want – even religious requirement.  By buying the lot, you are signing the contract and therefore willingly entering into that agreement with those constraints.

While I firmly believe this is possible, legal, and potentially preferable, it seems like that’s a community/town.  Their issue however with government control is one of the use of force, but I think that’s due to too much centralization.  Studies have shown, more decentralization, IE – more local control, leads to better outcomes (here).  What this would mean, if we were to ever take it seriously, is that while New York might maintain 18 million people for the economic possibilities that provides, government spending and programs should be on a much smaller level.

Please note – this doesn’t mean that no federal government should exist or that taxes should only exist on a very local level, just to say that smaller communities providing for their own fire, police, education, etc, etc, etc works better than 3 million people trying the same thing.  The idea is a state tax or federal tax would be required for things such as national defense, but the majority of expenditures should be directed more locally by a mayor or city manager at a much smaller level.

So it’s not that I believe the community should completely dissipate, it’s that I firmly believe that when the government gets involved, it actually distorts the system to the point where people simply don’t take care of themselves…. or their neighbors.   I think this is backed up by basic human behaviors and thinking as well as all of our uniquely “urban” problems.

One of the human conditions which helps this continue is that of group think.  By safely removing yourself far away from the negative results the government produces with its Wars on poverty, terrorism, obesity…. kids?  People can insulate themselves in larger communities due to increased anonymity by blaming society at large, instead of assuming any direct responsibility.

Listen carefully when people argue about police abuse, or crappy government inefficiencies with social spending, or politician’s lack of values…. they place blame it lots of places, but never on themselves and usually, oddly enough, never on the voters either.

Going further, the government exploits our fears with the media willing accomplices (Politics of Fear) into giving up more control to the government and thereby reinforcing the notion that the government is the answer, when it fact it’s people.

For instance.. violent crime is down a great deal since 1990 (uptick recently, but very small and declining again), but the reporting of crime has increased on average around 500%.  Thanks to multiple 24 hour news shows, combined with a finite amount of news, sensational stories about very rare events influences people’s fears about those events.

We humans aren’t that good at evaluating risk as it is, without doing so in a very methodical way, but with the government’s various wars on everything: AIDs, H1N1, Poverty, Terrorism, Obesity, Smoking, Drugs, Cancer…. kids?  All with the media willingly pushing these sensationalized news stories, people have exaggerated fears towards rare events and minimal fears towards much more likely catastrophic events (great video here ~20 minutes).

Add to this, a general lack of skepticism and critical thinking, most people never take the time to see if their fears, concerns, or core set of understanding of the world is accurate.  I believe this is due to a lack of appropriate priorities for most people, but more on that later.*

Looking at society, you can see the fear we have in our neighbors.  For example, in lots of neighborhoods in lots of places, people will more quickly call the cops on a loud neighbor than just walk over and ask politely.  We go to court when cutting down a tree that crosses property lines, we call the cops when we think the neighbor has too many dogs, we…. we just call the cops because people are scared of their neighbors.  & not because they know about the bunker with a year’s worth of rations and ammunition, but because we continue to allow our human frailty in risk assessment to be exploited by those only seeking more power.

Additionally, we willingly take away rights from others.  The most consistent comment from friends, colleagues, strangers who accidentally started a conversation with me…. but for those I did talk to around carry conceal laws during a vote in MO had, by definition of a binary question, one of two answers. Yes or No

The interesting part of the nos was almost all used the same basic reasoning when talking to me:  “You’re fine. It wouldn’t bother me a bit if you carried a gun, you were in the military and trained.  I just don’t know about everyone else.”  Other than showing a lack of knowledge of how little an electronic technician trains on weapons, I think it shows our general distrust of others.

Not surprisingly, even when confronted with the stats that prove FL, TX, and other states did not turn into the Wild West (not that the West was truly all that “wild”) where horn honks during rush hour turned into shootouts between soccer moms & insurance salesmen, were all safely ignored.

I guess the cognitive dissonance was too much to handle because stats like those in FL & TX demonstrate that our 99.9% of our neighbors who might get a carry conceal permit are not planning to emulate Rambo on the morning commute did nothing to waver the opponents.

With all that being said – I’m proffering the idea that in an odd, perverse, but easily understandable way, government involvement, even in very charitable actions, can actually reduce our incentive to live together peacefully and take responsibility for our communities.

*On the lack of priorities, I don’t believe all people should run out and research everything I know because I think everyone should read what I read.  I think the very first rule in critical thinking that all trying to be honest analysts have to understand is that like all other humans, even those trained and educated in analysis, will still have the same frailties in their thinking process.  Potentially less pronounced, but never completely mitigated.

Therefore, when writing that peoples’ priorities seem to be off, I think our failure isn’t with not reading what I read – but in being a well rounded person by honestly reflecting and actively deciding their core values.

As a corollary to that – I believe society is teaching people right now that this is a good thing. Valueless employees ask fewer questions and do more as their told without contemplating reality and what the decision’s effects most likely are. & Even if they do contemplate and know it’s wrong, they do it anyway. Therefore people who don’t make waves, get promoted. Those who ask pertinent questions, even if necessary and correct, get ostracized.

This is not only true of our business leaders, Bernie Madoff, Enron, MCI, but our politicians as well.  Unethical leaders leading secret lives, even the corrupt politicians among us, seem to get a reprieve from the voters… so long as you’re on their side and they’re not mean.

Additionally the leadership selection process seems perverted for the same reasons the leaders aren’t what we should expect.  Someone who is arbitrary, but polite and educated, is someone a lot of people like.   In a deep seeded wish to reduce not only any discomfort we might experience, but for civility’s sake try to prevent others’ discomfort, society has conflated the ideas of social skills with leadership to the detriment of society as a whole.

On the whole, it seems our desire for civility has the unintended consequence of making us less civil and more prone to failure.

& like all consistent lessons from history, we haven’t seemed to have learned this lesson and seem to be determined to repeat it.

Towards that end, the Wall Street Journal online published two articles on Friday, under the shared title, Undressing the Terror Threat. The first article by Paul Campos & Nate Silver explains correctly:

…The world’s greatest nation seems bent on subjecting itself to a similarly humiliating defeat, by playing a game that could be called Terrorball. The first two rules of Terrorball are:

(1) The game lasts as long as there are terrorists who want to harm Americans; and

(2) If terrorists should manage to kill or injure or seriously frighten any of us, they win.

These rules help explain the otherwise inexplicable wave of hysteria that has swept over our government in the wake of the failed attempt by a rather pathetic aspiring terrorist to blow up a plane on Christmas Day. For two weeks now, this mildly troubling but essentially minor incident has dominated headlines and airwaves, and sent politicians from the president on down scurrying to outdo each other with statements that such incidents are “unacceptable,” and that all sorts of new and better procedures will be implemented to make sure nothing like this ever happens again.

Meanwhile, millions of travelers are being subjected to increasingly pointless and invasive searches and the resultant delays, such as the one that practically shut down Newark Liberty International Airport last week, after a man accidentally walked through the wrong gate, or Tuesday’s incident at a California airport, which closed for hours after a “potentially explosive substance” was found in a traveler’s luggage. (It turned out to be honey.)…

The authors make a very good point here, though I do object to the term “rather pathetic aspiring terrorist”… as I saw on a blog somewhere in retort “What you really need are suicide bombers with experience!”.

Beyond that, they then try to take some statistics too far.  Using murder & suicide rates to show how are fears aren’t lined up with a real assessment of risks, they write:

…The country’s homicide rate is approximately six times higher than that of most other developed nations; we have 15,000 more murders per year than we would if the rate were comparable to that of otherwise similar countries. Americans own around 200 million firearms, which is to say there are nearly as many privately owned guns as there are adults in the country. In addition, there are about 200,000 convicted murderers walking free in America today (there have been more than 600,000 murders in America over the past 30 years, and the average time served for the crime is about 12 years)….

Taking those numbers, they conclude that which doesn’t follow:

…Given these statistics, there is little doubt that banning private gun ownership and making life without parole mandatory for anyone convicted of murder would reduce the homicide rate in America significantly….

& Even though they aren’t advocating such a policy, they basically state that the number of guns in private hands necessarily affects either homicide or suicide rates.

I think this ignores the historical evidence that governments typically ban weapons prior to mass murdering their own citizens, but it also isn’t proven by the numbers they give.  Because regardless of how people kill themselves or others, removing the primary instrument doesn’t necessarily means those actions will halt.  Lastly of course, even that assumes the government has the ability to remove the primary instrument in question, which is highly unlikely.

Either way, overall they use the example that is hysteria over terrorism to show parallels to the war on drugs, traffic accidents, and other risks to conclude:

…What then is to be done? A little intelligence and a few drops of courage remind us that life is full of risk, and that of all the risks we confront in America every day, terrorism is a very minor one. Taking prudent steps to reasonably minimize the tiny threat we face from a few fanatic criminals need not grant them the attention they crave….

The thing is that I agree with the authors’ basic premise, or what seems to be their basic premise, that fear based policies are wrong, even though I disagree with the facts they’ve lined up and think that using terrorism as too narrow an example has severely undermined their case.

First, while it’s certainly true that the gap between objective terrorism threats and hysterical policies seems large, there are valid reasons for that.  They discuss one, which is we need to focus money on preventing mass catastrophes such as a nuclear detonation, but they fail to mention the organizations themselves and how they differ from murder in general.

It’s true, that in any free society, a lone nut, bent on killing others, will have the opportunity to do so and there’s little we can do, while maintaining a free society to prevent that from happening.

However, were terrorism and even gangs, the mob, and other criminal organizations differ is that we have to attack those organizations directly.  Dealing with each instance of terrorism as non-related criminal events is exactly what allows their organizations to gain grounds on operational abilities.  Ignoring the organization therefore, seems to dictate a increase in the likelihood of a major incident.

Outside these specific critiques however, I think our society has become very easily motivated by fears instead of reason and logic.  When we allow victims of drunk driving incidents dictate the driving laws, or say a murdered victim’s family members to seek emotional healing through a policy of revenge, or use those in the most destitute of scenarios to control medical policy… whatever it is, if  we allow fear to take a hold of our government policy, new legislation, or even on a personal level, allowing fear to control our own lives… if we allow this, we should at least be doing so with the knowledge that it’s not conducive to freedom.

Detailed Abstractions has more articles about fear based policies here, here, & here.

…This seemingly paradoxical view is based on several overlapping strands of research in economics as it pertains to development, history, technology, business expansion, and new-firm formation. According to this view, entrepreneurs at work in the economy – in finance, high tech, manufacturing, services, and beyond – are constantly experimenting, creating new business models, techniques, and technologies that upend the established order of things.

Some new technologies and innovations are genuine improvements and are long-lasting welfare enhancers. But others are the basketball equivalent of pump fakes – they look like the real deal and prompt market actors to leap hastily into action, only to realize later that their bets were wrong.

Given this dynamic, markets are unpredictable, prone to booms and busts, characterized by bouts of exuberance that are rational or irrational only in hindsight.  But markets are also the only reliable mechanism for sorting out this messy process quickly. In spite of the booms and busts, markets drive genuine long-run innovation and wealth creation.

Not as eloquently as they did, I wrote about this earlier in the year (here):

…the dynamic system of the United States might have felt more pain that other countries during this crisis, but due to the mostly decentralized economic model, we will recover more quickly than most…

It then seems for most people to become a question of risk adversity.  Do we allow for individual freedom and understand that sometimes failure is a part of the process?  Or do we constantly attempt to control individual behavior for fear of potential negative consequences?

Only if we first believe in the premise that by trading freedom for stability, we actually get stability.  The CSMonitor article continues:

…When governments attempt to impose order on this chaotic and inherently risky process, they immediately run up against two serious dangers.

The first is that they strangle new innovations before they can emerge. Thus proposals for a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, a systemic risk regulator, a public health insurance plan, a green jobs policy, or any attempt at top-down planning may do more harm than good.

The second danger has to do with the nature of political economy. Politics creates its own kind of innovators who can be as destabilizing to markets as market actors themselves – but in far more pernicious ways.

Economists call these political entrepreneurs “rent-seekers.”…

…This gets to the key difference between markets and governments. When innovation-driven excesses and imbalances are recognized in the marketplace, the system can correct itself quickly. This is less the case when government policy failure occurs.

Because political failure is less publicly tolerable than market failure, the temptation becomes for policymakers to avoid acknowledging their role in creating or perpetuating problems.  Or they double down on bad bets. So rather than recognize the government’s central role in the housing boom and bust and quickly changing its ways, we see the federal policy apparatus continuing to throw good money after bad in the mortgage market and on Wall Street….

I wrote about this “doubling down”  (here):

…For those playing the home game, this means we are taking a problem caused by excessive credit and government incentives and trying to fix it by:

1. Preventing the normal contraction that needs to happen by artificially propping up failed business and bad home purchasing decisions.
2. Keep money cheap by keeping interest rates very low.
3. Then, repeat the same process that got you to the recession in the first place by incentivizing the market to buy a commodity (housing) which is still overvalued in some places….

…I’m not really into prediction making as it’s obviously fraught with so many problems, but I’ll never understand how the solution to cheap money and an over investment of housing, is to keep money cheap and incentivize home buying…

As historically known, the vast majority of centralized government intrusions into free markets and free people has led to disastrous consequences.  NBER research suggests that two of the reasons for the current global economic crisis are due to unfree markets:

…The inability of emerging economies to absorb savings through domestic investment and consumption due to inadequate national financial markets and difficulties in enforcing financial contracts; the currency controls motivated by immediate national objectives;…

Everywhere we look objectively, freedom gives us more of everything.  Do you want to fix healthcare?  Using the government will likely lead to higher rates and more control, using individual freedom however doesn’t cost much as has been proven in other avenues such as food.  Something I think is just as important as healthcare, but been left to the market unlike health care.

& the market has responded.  Food costs as a percentage of disposable income has decreased from 23.4% in 1929, to just 9.6% in 2009 (here).

Meanwhile health care costs continue to increase with government regulation.  In just the past 5 years spending on health care as a percentage of GDP has continue to go up and is projected on that trend still.  In 2005 spending was 15.9% of GDP whereas in 2009 is it 16.9% and projected to be 19.5% in 2017  (here).

It seems that the overwhelming majority of evidence suggests to honestly help the most needy, freedom is not only a moral good, but a requirement for anything approaching success…. yet what seems to be an irrational fear of “economic crisis” many people can’t see the forest for the trees.