On liberty amid a pandemic
On Liberty. That is a clear reference to one of my favorite theorists-- John Stuart Mill. Today's post isn't directly about Mill's ideas, but I figured I'd reference the title anyway.
FREEDOM!!! Are you picturing Mel Gibson getting eviscerated right now? As Trump tweeted about how various governors should lift their lock-down orders, I couldn't help but picture Mel in Blueface doing the Braveheart yell, and knowing what we know about Mel, I'm sure he and Trump would get along famously.
Liberate. Do you feel unfree? So here's the thing. I'm a big 1st Amendment advocate. Kind of a purist. You may have noticed a theme. I really care about the 1st Amendment. This is me engaging in protected speech, right now! You know what else is in that puppy? The "right of the people peaceably to assemble."
So... Um... Uh...
Well. OK, so when was the last time you assembled, Avengers-style? I suspect it has been a while. Do you count a line at the grocery store, standing on a strip of tape like you're trying to hit your mark on stage?
There are protests going on occasionally in which opponents of lock-down orders are advocating their right peaceably to assemble. How, then, do we assess this? Technically, the 1st Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law," and this isn't Congress. Yeah, Trump keeps saying that he has total authority, and similar nonsense, but that's just Trumpian bluster. This is happening at the state and local level. But, that's not quite an "out," as far as constitutional principles are concerned. You see, we also have this little thingamajig called the 14th Amendment. There is a "due process" clause, saying that no state shall deprive anyone of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Meaning...
Um...
Yeah. So over time, what has happened is that the SCOTUS has interpreted that to mean that the states about bound to respect the Bill of Rights. The process of getting to that interpretation of the 14th Amendment is the process of "incorporation."
And here we get to "without due process of law."
So if a governor says lock-down, has your right to due process been respected?
There's the rub. What are the conditions under which these rights... the 1st Amendment rights that are kind of a big thing for me... can get restricted? If you are reading this, you know that freedom of speech is a really big thing for me. Restricting speech... you've got a really high bar to meet before you can do that.
Assembly?
Well, personally, this isn't usually a big thing for me, preferring the company of books to the company of people, but this country was built on fightin' back against the man, man! Even though the men who did it were just a different "man." Or something. No, I'm not joining the Sanders revolution. Anyway, it is hard to have that kind of country without free assembly.
And I recognize that other people prefer people to books, and generally speaking, I have a live and let live attitude about things.
However, time for a lesson in basic economics. "Externalities." An externality occurs when two people engage in a transaction, and a third is affected, even without engaging in that transaction. When externalities occur, markets are inefficient.
I had a student ask about the Coase Theorem the other day in class, and the quick answer here is that the assumptions of the Coase theorem are particularly unrealistic, and they don't actually get you to the outcomes that you really want. Fun math, and useful to study but not useful for social guidance.
Anyway, a negative externality occurs when a transaction occurs, and someone uninvolved in that transaction is hurt by the transaction. In the case of a negative externality, the market overproduces the good, so governments can move the market towards efficiency by taxing or otherwise trying to limit the production and sale of the good.
Assembly. OK, so I am fine staying in my house. Granted, I can work from home, and I prefer the company of books. There are things I'd like to do that I can't, but there are people who have it way worse than I do. Perspective. There are people who can't work, and need money.
But... they aren't the full set of people protesting.
Suppose I decided that, given my age, health status, etc., I were willing to take the risk for myself of bein' out'n'about and gettin' 'Rona'ed. That 2% mortality figure that we saw earlier may very well be too high, and it can be mitigated, so maybe I say to myself, I want to go out, and do... something.
I'm not the only one affected. People can get infected, and then transmit without knowing it because not everyone even knows that they are infected. You can have it without showing symptoms. So, by goin' out'n'about, I help spread 'Rona, and maybe I don't get sick, or die because I'm not elderly, but I increase the rate at which it is spread, and someone else gets sick and dies. That's a negative externality, in economic terminology.
This, in economic terms, is where government intervenes to create efficient outcomes. Where economics and philosophy can collide is the extent to which we sacrifice economic efficiency for liberty, or vice versa. Is this a circumstance in which the infringement on liberty is acceptable for the creation of efficiency?
Of course, I haven't even addressed the general macroeconomic picture. I'm just talking about the number of people who get sick and die. Notice, though, that the way I portray this continues to break from the "we're all in this together" mantra. 'Cuz... that's really not what this is about. A negative externality occurs when I do something to benefit me, and it hurts someone else. So, if some segment of society wants to go out, reopen businesses, etc., that may be a rational calculation given their utility functions, but there are externalities. A Murder of COVIDs flies around the country, and instead of a flat curve, we get a big, ole' bump of mortality.
Notice how different this is from speech. When Pacifica Radio broadcast George Carlin's seven words bit... who was hurt? Like, actually hurt? Being offended doesn't count. Why not? Watch. You're offended? I'm offended that you are trying to restrict speech, and I am not being flippant. At all. Whose umbrage wins? Umbrage can't be a standard because you are offended and I am offended about how you handle being offended, and then you are offended about how I handle you being offended, and so on, ad infinitum. The 1st Amendment doesn't say "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, unless the speech offends someone, 'cuz we need to never offend people." If it said that, the whole thing would be meaningless. Nobody has a right to go through life un-offended. Try to construct that right, and you wind up in a self-contradictory loop.
When does speech do what assembly now does? When does speech... kill? Incitement to riot? You're getting into a whole, separate thing there, but you see my point, and Carlin never incited a riot.
So do you accept an infringement on liberty, during a pandemic? Most do. Not all.
What is interesting here, as I have noted on several occasions, is how low the mortality is for COVID the Birdie to cause such chaos. Or, in some sense, order since we're all at home. 2% mortality, on the high end of current estimates. This ain't Captain Trips, the Georgia Flu, or anything like that. That's not to say restricting the constitutional right to free assembly is wrong at the moment.
There's a reason that those looking around the country for a model of effective governance are looking at my governor-- Mike DeWine-- right now. While Trump does his Trump thing, Mike DeWine is saving lives, and doing so by declaring that he has used what he considers to be due process to limit the right of the people of Ohio to assemble peaceably.
How many lives have to be at stake before you side with lives over liberty? That's an ugly question, isn't it? Yet, I'm pretty clearly siding with my boy, Mikey here.
And as I conclude here, would the tradeoff be different without the technology? Working from home is an option for a significant portion of the country. Not everyone, but a lot, and bluntly, the most privileged. I just had some students read Martin Gilens's work on how political outcomes tend to reflect the preferences of wealthier people, which is a nice reference for my comments at the moment, but not my main point. Still, technology allows us to stay at home. It isn't just that I'm writing a silly, pointless blog post on a Saturday morning... 'cuz. I can teach a University class from home. Is it the best way to teach? No, but I can do it. I can order deliveries from around the country. Groceries can be delivered, along with damn-near anything. All of this changes the calculus.
Take that away. Imagine a world, pre-internet. No workin' from home, no Amazon, no Zoom/Skype/FaceTime/Whatever. Do you think we'd sacrifice the right of the people peaceably to assemble for a virus with a 2% mortality rate?
How high would that number have to get, in the pre-internet era, for people to accept the limits on civil liberties that we are currently accepting? Or, that most of us currently accept, anyway.
It's all about tradeoffs anyway.
FREEDOM!!! Are you picturing Mel Gibson getting eviscerated right now? As Trump tweeted about how various governors should lift their lock-down orders, I couldn't help but picture Mel in Blueface doing the Braveheart yell, and knowing what we know about Mel, I'm sure he and Trump would get along famously.
Liberate. Do you feel unfree? So here's the thing. I'm a big 1st Amendment advocate. Kind of a purist. You may have noticed a theme. I really care about the 1st Amendment. This is me engaging in protected speech, right now! You know what else is in that puppy? The "right of the people peaceably to assemble."
So... Um... Uh...
Well. OK, so when was the last time you assembled, Avengers-style? I suspect it has been a while. Do you count a line at the grocery store, standing on a strip of tape like you're trying to hit your mark on stage?
There are protests going on occasionally in which opponents of lock-down orders are advocating their right peaceably to assemble. How, then, do we assess this? Technically, the 1st Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law," and this isn't Congress. Yeah, Trump keeps saying that he has total authority, and similar nonsense, but that's just Trumpian bluster. This is happening at the state and local level. But, that's not quite an "out," as far as constitutional principles are concerned. You see, we also have this little thingamajig called the 14th Amendment. There is a "due process" clause, saying that no state shall deprive anyone of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Meaning...
Um...
Yeah. So over time, what has happened is that the SCOTUS has interpreted that to mean that the states about bound to respect the Bill of Rights. The process of getting to that interpretation of the 14th Amendment is the process of "incorporation."
And here we get to "without due process of law."
So if a governor says lock-down, has your right to due process been respected?
There's the rub. What are the conditions under which these rights... the 1st Amendment rights that are kind of a big thing for me... can get restricted? If you are reading this, you know that freedom of speech is a really big thing for me. Restricting speech... you've got a really high bar to meet before you can do that.
Assembly?
Well, personally, this isn't usually a big thing for me, preferring the company of books to the company of people, but this country was built on fightin' back against the man, man! Even though the men who did it were just a different "man." Or something. No, I'm not joining the Sanders revolution. Anyway, it is hard to have that kind of country without free assembly.
And I recognize that other people prefer people to books, and generally speaking, I have a live and let live attitude about things.
However, time for a lesson in basic economics. "Externalities." An externality occurs when two people engage in a transaction, and a third is affected, even without engaging in that transaction. When externalities occur, markets are inefficient.
I had a student ask about the Coase Theorem the other day in class, and the quick answer here is that the assumptions of the Coase theorem are particularly unrealistic, and they don't actually get you to the outcomes that you really want. Fun math, and useful to study but not useful for social guidance.
Anyway, a negative externality occurs when a transaction occurs, and someone uninvolved in that transaction is hurt by the transaction. In the case of a negative externality, the market overproduces the good, so governments can move the market towards efficiency by taxing or otherwise trying to limit the production and sale of the good.
Assembly. OK, so I am fine staying in my house. Granted, I can work from home, and I prefer the company of books. There are things I'd like to do that I can't, but there are people who have it way worse than I do. Perspective. There are people who can't work, and need money.
But... they aren't the full set of people protesting.
Suppose I decided that, given my age, health status, etc., I were willing to take the risk for myself of bein' out'n'about and gettin' 'Rona'ed. That 2% mortality figure that we saw earlier may very well be too high, and it can be mitigated, so maybe I say to myself, I want to go out, and do... something.
I'm not the only one affected. People can get infected, and then transmit without knowing it because not everyone even knows that they are infected. You can have it without showing symptoms. So, by goin' out'n'about, I help spread 'Rona, and maybe I don't get sick, or die because I'm not elderly, but I increase the rate at which it is spread, and someone else gets sick and dies. That's a negative externality, in economic terminology.
This, in economic terms, is where government intervenes to create efficient outcomes. Where economics and philosophy can collide is the extent to which we sacrifice economic efficiency for liberty, or vice versa. Is this a circumstance in which the infringement on liberty is acceptable for the creation of efficiency?
Of course, I haven't even addressed the general macroeconomic picture. I'm just talking about the number of people who get sick and die. Notice, though, that the way I portray this continues to break from the "we're all in this together" mantra. 'Cuz... that's really not what this is about. A negative externality occurs when I do something to benefit me, and it hurts someone else. So, if some segment of society wants to go out, reopen businesses, etc., that may be a rational calculation given their utility functions, but there are externalities. A Murder of COVIDs flies around the country, and instead of a flat curve, we get a big, ole' bump of mortality.
Notice how different this is from speech. When Pacifica Radio broadcast George Carlin's seven words bit... who was hurt? Like, actually hurt? Being offended doesn't count. Why not? Watch. You're offended? I'm offended that you are trying to restrict speech, and I am not being flippant. At all. Whose umbrage wins? Umbrage can't be a standard because you are offended and I am offended about how you handle being offended, and then you are offended about how I handle you being offended, and so on, ad infinitum. The 1st Amendment doesn't say "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, unless the speech offends someone, 'cuz we need to never offend people." If it said that, the whole thing would be meaningless. Nobody has a right to go through life un-offended. Try to construct that right, and you wind up in a self-contradictory loop.
When does speech do what assembly now does? When does speech... kill? Incitement to riot? You're getting into a whole, separate thing there, but you see my point, and Carlin never incited a riot.
So do you accept an infringement on liberty, during a pandemic? Most do. Not all.
What is interesting here, as I have noted on several occasions, is how low the mortality is for COVID the Birdie to cause such chaos. Or, in some sense, order since we're all at home. 2% mortality, on the high end of current estimates. This ain't Captain Trips, the Georgia Flu, or anything like that. That's not to say restricting the constitutional right to free assembly is wrong at the moment.
There's a reason that those looking around the country for a model of effective governance are looking at my governor-- Mike DeWine-- right now. While Trump does his Trump thing, Mike DeWine is saving lives, and doing so by declaring that he has used what he considers to be due process to limit the right of the people of Ohio to assemble peaceably.
How many lives have to be at stake before you side with lives over liberty? That's an ugly question, isn't it? Yet, I'm pretty clearly siding with my boy, Mikey here.
And as I conclude here, would the tradeoff be different without the technology? Working from home is an option for a significant portion of the country. Not everyone, but a lot, and bluntly, the most privileged. I just had some students read Martin Gilens's work on how political outcomes tend to reflect the preferences of wealthier people, which is a nice reference for my comments at the moment, but not my main point. Still, technology allows us to stay at home. It isn't just that I'm writing a silly, pointless blog post on a Saturday morning... 'cuz. I can teach a University class from home. Is it the best way to teach? No, but I can do it. I can order deliveries from around the country. Groceries can be delivered, along with damn-near anything. All of this changes the calculus.
Take that away. Imagine a world, pre-internet. No workin' from home, no Amazon, no Zoom/Skype/FaceTime/Whatever. Do you think we'd sacrifice the right of the people peaceably to assemble for a virus with a 2% mortality rate?
How high would that number have to get, in the pre-internet era, for people to accept the limits on civil liberties that we are currently accepting? Or, that most of us currently accept, anyway.
It's all about tradeoffs anyway.
Comments
Post a Comment