The Super-Failure: Why the Super-Committee Failed

I don't usually blog on national political news, but this one is hard to resist! As we all know, the so-called "Super- Committee" failed to reach a consensus on budget cuts and revenue. Although, the blogosphere is teeming with complex post-mortem explanations as to why it failed, I have a much simpler explanation. They were asked to "cut the budget" and/or "enhance revenue." What they really needed to do is reform wasteful programs and departments within that budget and reform the tax code.

Congress has a moral and political responsibility to make sure that tax dollars are spent as efficiently as possible. However, nearly every government program and department is riddled with well-documented wasteful spending. By far the worst budget-busters are the departments of Defense and Homeland Security. The "visible waste" in  these bloated, unsupervised bureaucracies is legendary, while the "invisible waste" is hidden away in budgetary "black holes," where little is known and budgets are fictional. There's no telling how many investigations have been conducted by both governmental and non-governmental watchdog groups: costly research that invariably disappears into other well known "black hole:" the "congressional archives." Ironically, some of the best unread research is conducted by Congressional Budget Office. In short, everyone agrees that these programs and departments need reform, and there's plenty of information out there prescribing what needs to be done. The same can be said for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. But simply cutting the budgets of inefficient, bureacracies will only make those programs less efficient and more wasteful.

What about revenue enhancement? Again, everyone in Congress knows that our tax system has become a bastion of unfairness and incomprehensibility. It's so arcane and complex that most Americans employ third parties to file their taxes. It's even incomprehensible to the IRS! The astronomical error rate for the chronically understaffed, under-brained IRS has been documented many times over, in 6,000 page reports. Unfortunately, those reports are ultimately filed away in the Congressional Archives, or well hidden from Internet search engines, never to be seen again. Moreover, everyone knows that the tax code needs to be reformed from top to bottom, but that's not  even on the political horizon. Herman Cain's feeble-minded 9-9-9 tax proposal clearly illustrates this tendency to ignore well-known facts. 

So, if Congress already has access to the information necessary to reform and/or eliminate wasteful spending, why don't they do it? That's a good question. Here's my theory. First of all, individual congressmen rarely if ever read anything substantive. Why not? First of all, there's so much information, misinformation, and disinformation manufactured by government agencies that it's impossible for any one human to read even a small portion of it. That's why individual lawmakers hire an army of congressional staffers to read it and summarize it. Now, there's no guarantee that staff members are themselves competent and/or actually read and comprehend those 6,000 page reports. Nevertheless, staffers pass on those summaries to illiterate congressmen, who may (or may not) read them.  

So why is it that politicians don't read and act on this vast body of well-documented information? Well, it's because they are politicians and therefore spend most of their time, energy, and resources running for re-election. Watch C-Span and marvel at the quasi-articulate speeches delivered before an empty rooms! But then again, when they do show up for work, they rarely vote on anything. Check out what congress has actually accomplished this year! Your jaw will drop! 

So why did the super-committee fail? Well, for starters they were pursuing the wrong goal. Why pay a group of lawyers to argue endlessly over whether to cut budget items and/or increase revenue under the guise of half-baked political and economic theories? They should have been actually fixing and/or cutting inefficient programs and departments and the reforming the tax code. My modest solution? I think we need a whole new batch of politicians with a strong work ethic; statesmen that read more, attend more, and simply act more. I would also argue that we have WAY too many lawyers in Congress that stay in office WAY too long. Let's insist that the forthcoming 2012 Congress actually read, attend, and act upon what's already known. In sum, we Americans have been WAY too tolerant of incompetent lawmakers. Next November, I propose that we vote out every single incumbant in the House and Senate, and whenever possible vote for third party candidates. In short, let's fix the system ourselves.                 

Why Read Machiavelli's THE PRINCE?

Over the years non-philosophers done a pretty effective job of disparaging the philosophical writings of Nicolo Machiavelli's writings. Leadership scholars simply dismiss his works under the rubric of "bad leadership." Among psychologists the term "Machiavellian intelligence" refers to the human (and Chimpanzee) propensity for deception. In fact, the adjective itself, "Machiavellian," has become synonymous with deception and immorality. Philosophers, political scientists, and scholars that have actually read (and understand) his seminal works: The Prince, Discourses on Livy, and  The Art of War have a much more nuanced assessment.

As you read The Prince it's important to understand Machiavelli's philosophical moorings. First and foremost, Machiavelli is a descriptive empiricist. Therefore, in contrast to the a priori, deductive, rational epistemology employed by Plato in The Republic, Machiavelli believes that human knowledge can only be ascertained via inductive observation of the world, or as Plato would say "in the cave." In other words, if you want to know how to organize a group of human beings, Machiavelli suggests that the best way to begin that process is to uncover the descriptive facts: How are sucessful organizations organized?

Second, Machiavelli is a prescriptive utilitarian; that is, he (like Plato) believes that a good organization produces more happiness than unhappiness. Like Plato, Machiavelli believed that political leadership is especially important and that "bad leaders" destroy themselves and their organizations and "good leaders" preserve themselves and their organization. Based on historical evidence, Machiavelli described how thoroughout the course of human history, leaders and followers tend to behave within certain kinds of organizational contexts. At the beginning of The Prince he identifies two different organizational contexts: republics (shared governance) and principalities (monarchy).  The Prince explores the "nature" of principalities. So as you read The Prince keep in mind that he is not "prescribing" monarchy as the best way to organizise human beings, he's only "describing" the kind of behavior that you'll observe in principalities. Of course, some principalities survive for a long time, while others have suffer extinction.

Now it's important to emphasize that both Plato and Machiavelli are both utilitarians of sorts, and therefore agree that the primary value of collective life is that it brings about more happiness than unhappiness. Philosophers call this flourishment. Therefore, Plato and Machiavelli that are trying identify the underlying political arrangements that increase happiness and decrease unhappiness. Recall that in The Republic Plato attempted to prove that tyrants are unhappy and the organizations that they head are also unhappy. Well, what Machiavelli is going to argue in The Prince is exactly what Thrasymachus would have argued in The Republic if he had chosen to remain engaged in the dialectic with Socrates. In other words, Machiavelli is going to do philosophy within "the cave," in a world where humans actually possess the equivalent of "Gyges Ring."

One of Machiavelli's of The Prince is the idea that sometimes leaders have to make decisions where none of anticipated outcomes are ideal. In short sometimes leaders must get their hands dirty; that is "choose between lesser evils." Philosophers call this the "ethics of dirty hands." Political leadership often takes place within this context, however you might argue that other leadership contexts also entail getting your hands dirty. Machiavelli argued that virtue-based ethics in the Greek and Judeo-Christian traditions cannot provide moral guidance in these contexts and that "virtuous leaders" (in the Platonic sense) are deposed by followers and/or conquered by other nations. The question for you is as follows: "Are there times when leaders MUST "enter into evil" in order to avoid catastrophic consequences? If so, does this apply to other leadership contexts?"             

African Development

A Facebook friend of mine from Ghana asked me what I thought about "African Development." That's a tough question...given the fact that I don't know very much about Africa or the various nation states that currently dominate political discussions. But like most philosophers, I won't let my ignorance of the facts stand in the way of participating in that discussion. That's because there are philosophical issues that I can help sort out. The following is my edited and expanded response. 

First, what do you mean by "African development?" It could mean many things. Philosophically, the concept of development signifies progress toward a desirable goal via some means. So to talk "development" we need to identify both a GOAL and the MEANS of achieving that goal. Also, we need to clarify what you mean by "Africa." Are you referring to the entire continent of Africa as a whole or the nation-state of Ghana? There are also "long-term goals" and "short-term goals" and various means of achieving both. Some "goals" are realistic (means are known and can be implimented) and others are idealistic (imaginable but impossible to realize). Of course, we don't always KNOW with certainty which goals are "realistic" and what's "idealistic." Right now, it's hard to set long-term or short-term development goals for Africa as a whole because there's very little social, cultural, or political unity. Even national identity in many African countries are currently in a flux. Do you envision African unity, where all the various tribes, religions, and nation states "cooperate" toward a specific ENDS? If so, by what means MEANS to you plan to to impliment in bringing about that end?

Having said all that, let's return to the original question: "What do you mean by African development?" I assume that you are referring to "economic development." Does your vision for African economic development refer to the ability of Africa to operate (survive or thrive?) independent of the rest of the world (autonomy and self-sufficiency); or,  do you want Africa to develop the capacity to participate in the global economy? Both goals have implications for one's vision of the future of African identity. If economic autonomy and self-sufficiency are your long term goals, then what social, cultural, and political traditions do you embrace, and how do you instill those values? How do you reject the old values? In short, how does economic development relate to sociopolitical development?

Now if your ultimate goal is for Africa to participate in a global economy, you'll have to promote social, cultural, and political traditions that are not hostile to participation in global trade. First of all, Africa would have to embrace rule of law; that is Africans will have to obey rules (that apply to everyone) not what leaders say.  Africans would have reject violence, theft, fraud and breach of contract. If Africa is unable or unwilling to monitor and enforce these basic moral rules, then other nations will not willingly trade with Africa. If you want Africa to be "autonomous and self-sustaining" those same moral and legal rules would have to be enforced. In fact, I would argue that any nation on earth (at any time or any place) that wants to "develop" will have to follow these rules.

 I wish I could say that the United States provides a useful role model, but our society has fallen far short of the "ideal." In fact, much of the economic recession can be attributed to our own failure to uphold these values. So...back again to your original question. What is your vision for Africa 20 years from now? Do you seek a unified Africa (one single sociopolitical entity), or many different competing and cooperating states (like the US and European Union)? Do you want the everyday lives of future Africans to revolve around work, religion, family? Do you want Africans to own a lot of stuff (homes, automobiles, airports, trains, Chinese food, McDonalds food, Western clothes, Western music, Western art etc.)? Or, would you rather revive lost traditions, such as tribal association or subsistence agriculture? What do you think? What is your long-term vision for Africa and how might that vision be realized? What must you do in the sort-term to realize this goal?

Plato's, REPUBLIC: In defense of the "A Priori Method"

Recall that Peirce identified four methods for the fixation of belief: tenacity, authority, a priori, and science. Plato is the undisputed king of the a priori method, therefore it's worth looking into the epistemological assumptions that underlie Plato's ideal state. As you dive into "Book 1" of the Republic, it becomes immediately evident that Socrates is playing an active role in guiding the conversation toward a conclusion. Plato called this process of "questioning and answering" the dialectic, which is known today as the basis of all human inquiry. In the early going, the main question to be addressed is clearly identified: "What is justice?" Of course, the underlying assumption is that it is possible to "know" what justice "really is" and whether this knowledge has some kind of a foundation, and whether this knowledge is accessible to everyone. Throughout history, philosophers have defended one of two alternative "foundations" for human knowledge: the empirical foundation and the rational foundation. Empiricist philosophers anchor human knowledge in the observation of either: an exterior material world that resides "outside" of the human mind; or, an interior world of ideas that lies "inside" the human mind. Today, most philosophers and scientists are empiricists in the materialist tradition. Since Plato, rationalism has been associated with with the reality of this internal world of a priori ideas.

Plato grounded his rational foundation in a priori knowledge; that is, knowledge that exists "before human experience." In other words, Plato believed that the human mind comes front-loaded with a body of knowledge. Plato and subsequent rationalists tend to identify "real knowledge" with timeless universality. However, according to Plato, if you want to gain access to this vast body of timelessly, universal Truth you must possess both innate intelligence (nature) and many years of training and education (nurture). Plato argued that stable political regimes must have leaders that possess timelessly universal knowledge. Thus political science is mostly about identifying naturally intelligent leaders and educating them. One of the necessary conditions for entering the a priori world is the natural ability to learn mathematics and geometry. Therefore, before any student could enroll in Plato's school, "The Academy," they had to know mathematics and geometry.

What's so special about mathematics and geometry? Well, they both provide access to timelessly, universal truth; that is, 7+5=12 always was and always will be true...everywhere in the universe! Therefore, knowledge of mathematics and geometry provides students with an initial glimpse into this internal world of a priori truth.  Now...back to justice! If you want to answer the question "What is justice and how do you come to know it?" There are two possibilities. You can "look out" at instances of justice in the material world, or you can "look in" at the idea of justice. Obviously, if you look at material world, you'll probably find more "injustice" than "justice," therefore that's not a very promising strategy. Therefore, Socrates chooses to explore the ideas of "justice" and "injustice." Socrates argues that the concepts of  "justice" and "injustice" possess a timelessly, universal form that transcends all human languages. Unfortunately, not all of us are capable of knowing the difference between justice and injustice, therefore we must acknowledge (and trust) the authority of those naturally gifted, well-trained experts. So in an ideal political regime, authority must be based on the possession of privileged, timelessly universal knowledge that only a few can possess. Followers must be taught to submit to the authority of this naturally gifted, carefully groomed "class" of "philosopher kings."

Now in Book 1, Thrasymachus argues that "justice is in the interest of the stronger." Most of his arguments, and Glaucon's and Adeimantus' subsequent arguments are based mostly on empirical observation of how powerful humans, in fact, behave in the "material world." But does the apparent fact that the unjust tend to fare better than the unjust, necessarily imply that injustice is preferable to injustice? Interestingly, over the next nine books, Plato attempts to prove that the unjust do not, in fact, fare better than the rest of us. So...by now you're you're probably wondering, "What is justice?" Well, you'll have to read the rest of the book. As you read, pay close attention to "Gyges Ring" and the "Allegory of the Metals" (gold, silver, and bronze).                   

Plato's, REPUBLIC: Introductory Remarks

For the next few weeks I'll be using the Freedom's Philosopher blog to post supplemental reading for my philosophy courses. The first few entries will be on Plato's Republic.

Although there is very little agreement among contemporary philosophers...about anything! I suspect that most of us agree the Plato's Republic is the greatest and most important work in all of Western Philosophy. It has, without a doubt, exerted a profound influence on the subsequent development of both Western philosophy and political science. It's certainly one of those timelessly universal classics. At times, you'll get the sense that Plato is writing directly to those of us living in the twenty-first century. Although it was written in 375 B.C., I want you to read the Republic as if it were written in 2011. What kinds of questions does Plato ask? What are his answers? Are these questions and answers relevant today? Can we learn anything from this ancient Greek philosopher?

Well...who was Plato? Actually, we know a lot about him. There are many references to Plato made by ancient philosophers, historians, and other writers. Plato also left behind and astonishing body of philosophical work, about 35 dialogues that address a wide variety philosophical questions. In these dialogues, Socrates is the main character. We also know that Socrates was, in fact, the "teacher" of Plato and his brothers Adeimantus and Glaucon and that Socrates, apparently, never wrote anything. Therefore, most of what we know about him and his philosophy is from other sources. One might question whether Plato's dialogues accurately document Socrates' thought, or wheter Plato merely used Socrates as the main character in his own dialogues to articulate his own views. I'm not particularly interested in that question.

I assume that Plato was profoundly influenced by not only Socrates, but also by other historical forces. For example, we know that the dialogue depicts a fictional conversation that took place between 431 and 411. We know that Plato was deeply influenced by the Pelopponesian War (431-404) between the city-states (and empires) of Athens and Sparta. Therefore, we know that most of Plato's political thought responds to the political arrangements of those warring city states: Athens was a Democracy, Sparta was an Oligarchy. We know that Socrates served honorably in that war, and that although he was a stone mason by trade, he spent most of his time teaching philosophy to the "youth of Athens" (young men).  Finally, we also know that Socrates was put to death in 399 by the Athenian government, for "corrupting the youth of Athens" and "worshipping false Gods" and that Plato wrote a series of dialogues that depict the trial and death of his teacher.  (Apology, Crito, and Phaedo)

The over-riding theme of the Republic is established in the Book 1, where Socrates is invited to a party, where the conversation eventually converges on the question: "What is justice?" After Socrates effectively dismisses several incomplete theories, Thrasymachus (a local sophist) argued that justice is "nothing more than the interest of the stronger." Although, Socrates initially presented Thrasymachus with several semi-plausible counter-arguments, Thrasymachus left the discussion rather abruptly, and Plato's brothers took over the argument. Throughout the next nine books, Socrates attempts to convince Glaucon and Adeimantus that Thrasymachus' views is wrong. As you read the Republic be aware of the following elements: "Justice is in the interest of the stronger," Gyges Ring, The Divided Line and the Allegory of the Sun (Plato's theory of knowledge), the Noble Lie (gold, silver, bronze), three part division of the soul and the state, tyranny, democracy, oligarchy, timocracy, and aristocracy, and the Myth of Er. Our class discussions will focus on these elements. My next blog will outline Plato's theory of knowledge and how it relates to the refutation of Thrasymachus.           

"Is Bigger Really Better?" Part 2

As I pointed out in my last blog entry, we now live in a world dominated by large, complex, impersonal, and ineffective social institutions: corporations, schools, hospitals, and a variety of governmental entities. At the moment we're just now beginning to realize that governmental entities such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are in dire need of reform. The U.S. military has been on a functional losing streak here recently, despite the fact that we spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined. Interestingly, we rarely conclude that these entities are just too large and complex to be functional. Instead, we vacuously argue that all they really need is a little reform; that is, we believe that we need new and more effective rules and/or more intelligent, dedicated, monitors and enforcers. However, when we look large-scale exemplars of functionality that might serve as a models for other large institutions, we find ourselves at a loss. My point here is that we've all been blinded to large scale dysfunctionality by an ideology that tells us, repeatedly, that "bigger is better," despite an enormous body of evidence to the contrary.
So how has most of Western civilization been infected by an ideological disease that has led to our prevailing epidemic of institutional dysfunctionality? Much of it can be explained by human nature. The fact is that human beings have an uncanny ability to "identify" with groups. Throughout most of human history we identified with small groups: families, clans, and tribes. The agricultural revolution led to the formation of much larger groups (cities, empires, and nations) that were held together not by face-to-face personal relationships but by the imposition of abstract rules and laws. The belief in the sanctity of laws led to a corresponding belief in the sanctity of lawmakers. In fact, many large-scale rulers still rule by "Divine Right." Today, we still teach our children to "respect" leaders, especially their parents, teachers, religious leaders, and government officials. This demand for respect for formal authority was "backed up" by systems of monitoring and enforcement. As the number of formal rules increased, so did the number of monitors and enforcers. And of course, those "bureaucrats" really do not produce anything of value, but nevertheless draw paychecks. In fact, not only do they draw paychecks, they now draw heftier paychecks than those who actually produce something of value. Thus, today we have a growing number of highly-paid bureaucrats and a dwindling number of lowly-paid producers. Ironically, under this cultural anamoly, when we get "promoted" it usually means that we take on more "responsibility" in terms of monitoring and enforcement, but produce less value.

Now let's be honest! This is not a mere cultural anamoly, it's a full blown epidemic. Today we're faced with the realization that our lives are shaped by more rules and laws than we can possibly know, and more monitors and enforcers than we can afford to pay. And of course, as the number monitors and enforcers increase, the number of innovators declines proportionately. Unquestioned rule compliance, therefore,  invariably leads to a stagnant society of obedient followers led by non-substantive, ineffective, inefficient leaders. Although, I blame the "bigger is better" ideology for our current epidemic of dysfunctionality, we must ultimately blame ourselves for believing it.

Is "Bigger" Really "Better?" Libertarian Ruminations on the Economy of Scale

Unless you've been living under a rock, it should be obvious that human social organization in the Western world is increasingly being dominated by large-scale organizational structures. Examples are obvious and bountiful. Why is the financial world today controlled by a handful and large Wall Street banks that have grown to the point where they are "too big to fail," and why are small local banks struggling to stay in business? Why are a few large scale retailers like Amazon, Walmart, Home Depot, and Target, thriving while small local "mom and pop" stores are out of business? Why are individual schools getting larger and often bundled and "administrated" into large school districts or corporate entities? Why are small family-owned farms being usurped by large "factory farms" owned by huge corporations? And finally, why are Federal and State governments growing by leaps and bounds, while small local governments are struggling to remain solvent?

Orthodox economic theory says that the natural evolution of markets inevitably leads to dominance by a few large scale competitors and that the rise of oligopolies is a sign of economic maturity or progress. In other words, "Big is Good!" But what if orthodoxy is wrong? What if our current state of social organization is actually a malaise? What if the "bigger is better" thesis is actually a well-disguised ideology that has created large scale social structures that are really "too big to survive?" In short: What if "smaller is better?"

For the sake of argument, let's assume that most of what Adam Smith identified as the basics of free market competition is more-or-less accurate. Namely, that economic activity involves competition between buyers, between sellers, and between buyers and sellers. And that all competition takes place on two axis: quality and price. The quality of a good or service is determined by the free choices made by the buyers and sellers in the form of a contract. The price refers to what the buyer is willing to pay for it, and what the seller is willing to accept. The "Holy Grail" of economic competition is to provide high quality goods or services at the lowest price. The defenders of the "bigger is better" thesis say that larger organizations naturally benefit from "economy of scale" because larger organizations are more innovative and efficient than small organizations, and therefore can produce higher quality products and services at a lower price. Thus, it seems as though the "free market" leads inevitably to dominance by a few large scale organizations, or oligarchy. The problem with all this is that "bigger is better" contradicts almost everyone's "real world" experience with large-scale, centralized, bureaucratic social structures.

I currently teach at a small liberal arts college, but I have also taught at a major state university. Most small private liberal arts colleges are now "out of business" while the larger ones are thriving. Orthodoxy says that large universities benefit from "economy of scale" and therefore are more innovative, efficient, and therefore less costly. Of course anyone that ever attended or taught at a major university will readily question all three of those statements. How can a major university provide a superior education if most of the courses are taught by graduate students and adjuncts? If large universities are indeed "better" then why are the retention rates of large universities so dismal in comparison to small colleges? Admittedly, the issue is much more complex than this, but the question remains: "Is bigger really better?"

Libertarians like myself argue that the rise of large scale corporations are often the product of "crony capitalism" and not "free market capitalism." Thus, governments drive small organizations into extinction by: subsidizing the costs of large organizations, issuing expensive regulations that small organizations cannot afford, and via tax policy. In my next blog, I'll explore the coevolution of "big government" and "big corporations" and the difference between "crony capitalism" and "free market capitalism." I will argue that, contrary to what orthodoxy says, with few exceptions, in the absence of large scale government intervention, "smaller is almost always better."