Last month, a strange new ad appeared on your television sets.
In case you don’t have a fast connection, the following words roll up the screen over the image of a beauty pageant:
Why are we sitting watching I Wanna be the Galaxy’s Best Supernova Diva Star?
Dutifully phoning in our votes for the next big thing while we wait on our couches to die.
Continue in this so-called democracy and you just might stop thinking for yourself
That’s when you are officially dead.
Most people take this ad for Converse shoes to be a critique of reality shows. But it could just as easily be a critique of the most annoying reality show of all: the presidential primaries. With countless debates, endless polls, and too many candidates to remember, the primaries mainly serve to divert public attention from the fact that both Congress and the administration have approval ratings of 30 percent or less. If it takes two years to select someone for a four-year job, when are they actually going to get any work done?
The drug viagra for uk does not in any way boost sexual performance. Furthermore, http://www.donssite.com/Old_Barnyards_donssite.htm levitra online uk Plus also contains vitamins B-12 and B-6, as well as folic acid and L-Arginine, which are all ingredients aimed at enhancing the potency of erection and making men robust in the bed. This is how the fruit acts on the erectile tissue of male genital levitra online canada part to increase the blood circulation and increase the libido of a man. Women is always considered as a working machine in any work field from every viagra pharmacy morning to night without taking zero minutes rest, It may be our sisters, mom, wife and can be daughters. As a democratic process, it’s a farce, and not simply because all the decisions will likely be made by the time my state gets to vote. Iowa has to be the first primary to weed out anyone who won’t support continued subsidies to Archer-Daniels-Midland. Beyond that, the issues don’t count; instead, what’s important is whether Hillary really shed a tear or that Obama’s semantically empty speechifying somehow sends shivers up people’s spines.
The real problem is that Americans have lost their fear of government. In most of the nineteenth century, Americans believed that government was something to use at last resort. Democracy, for them, existed to keep government out of their lives, not make it bigger.
Consider Henry David Thoreau, who said, “This American government . . . is excellent, we must all allow. Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way.” To him, government was something “by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone.”
If we were to judge government regulators “wholly by the effects of their actions and not partly by their intentions,” said Thoreau, “they would deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievious persons who put obstructions on the railroads.”
Thoreau held that there are many important moral principles in the world, but that we can’t rely on democracy to express those principles. “A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men.”
I have often thought that a perfect democracy would be one in which you could vote as often as you wanted, where you could win even if you were in the minority, and if a majority of other people wanted something that you didn’t want, you wouldn’t have to help pay for it. That democracy already exists, and it is called the free market.
We have more effect on agricultural policy when we buy organic or non-organic produce at the supermarket than when we vote. We have more effect on moral issues when we choose not to buy meat or not to buy tuna caught by people who kill dolphins than when we try to lobby our representatives on Congress. If you want to be powerful, use the market.
Someone will always say, “the market gives rich people more influence than poor.” And politics doesn’t? The difference is that masses of poor people have enormous influence on the market, and may have almost no influence on politics. The political system magnifies the power of wealth. That’s just one more reason why we should rely on markets, not politics, to solve our problems.
Randal, [in your eyes, most likely] despite my being a professional municipal planner, I often agree with your prevailing political philosophy but wind up coming to slightly different conclusions about the nature of planning. After reading this post, it would be interesting to have a similar post on your thoughts on the nature of federalism (all the way down to local governments and even neighborhood governments).
Of course the problem with Randal’s viewpoint is that markets are creations of human social systems and culture, and cannot operate at all without the law–which can only be provided through something we call “government” or resemble “government.” Contrary to the theology of some libertarians, property rights don’t fall upon individual humans from on high, but rather are socially constructed creations that ultimately require the legitimatized use of force to protect property rights, provide for a banking and finance system, and so forth.
Without the legitimate power of government and laws, you get the Russian sort of chaos after the fall of the Soviet Empire, with its mafias and brigandage, both economic and political. For good or worse, laws creating and regulating markets are derived from political processes, either through legitimately elected legislatures and executives, or from the successful warlords who gain power strictly through brute force. People like Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte come to mind, among thousands of other warlords, kings and other thugs who ruled earlier societies as their private property, if you will.
From Civil Disobedience, Thoreau on majority rule:
“…any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one already.”
However, Thoreau was not exactly Ayn Rand when it came to commerce and markets; he did not particularly care one way or the other on the tariff issue (Emerson stated that HDT opposed tariffs, contra Civil Disobedience), and he did not approve of the pursuit of wealth (see Life Without Principle).
It would be safe to say that the old abolitionist would be appalled by the extent to which Americans have surrendered their personal autonomy to the state.
Msetty said:
“Contrary to the theology of some libertarians, property rights don’t fall upon individual humans from on high, but rather are socially constructed creations that ultimately require the legitimatized use of force to protect property rights…”
If anyone is going to advance the argument that property rights are socially constructed creations that are bestowed upon citizens and enforced by governments, then you will have to mount a cogent defense against the idea that those same legitimized governments, at the behest of other citizens, will then try to use state power to swipe away or destroy some (or all) of those “socially constructed” bundles of property rights of other citizens, by one means or another, without giving anything back to them. I am giving advice to a hapless group of citizens where I live who have belatedly discovered that this is exactly what has happened to them.
If anyone is going to advance the argument that property rights are socially constructed creations that are bestowed upon citizens and enforced by governments, then you will have to mount a cogent defense against the idea that those same legitimized governments, at the behest of other citizens, will then try to use state power to swipe away or destroy some (or all) of those “socially constructed†bundles of property rights of other citizens, by one means or another, without giving anything back to them.
Well, first the “scare quotes” are unnecessary, because in fact property rights are socially constructed bundles, no matter how hard or how long adherents of a small-minority ideology scrunch their eyes tight and wish otherwise.
Second, I personally don’t think its a necessary condition to enforce property rights by th’ gummint, but seeing as there is no other system on the planet other than this, and Neil or no one else has offered a realistic alternative, then we’re stuck with some organized institution that enforces agreements, prevents theft or scamming, and upholds law.
Surely no one here seriously thinks laws are in the way of pertektin’ yer property rights – so how are laws to be enforced? By the Easter bunny?
Of course humans take from each other – welcome to planet earth.
It is equally likely that someone from group gummint can take from you as someone from group peer or group church or group work. That doesn’t mean that because someone from group peer or group work can take from you that group peer or group work can be abolished. Pffft.
Silly wabbit – falling for wetorwical twicks is for kids.
DS
I agree that democracy is largely overrated as a decision-making mechanism. It is hard to reconcile ‘democratic’ ideals with the facts that:
1) Even in general elections, a large share of the population does not vote.
2) Among those that do, outcomes are the result of choices on a suite of issues where, in many cases, both the voters and candidates are ill-informed (or biased).
3) On many critical issues, interest groups exert an overwhelming influence (e.g. ethanol subsidies)
4) Elections present a one-man, one vote framework, whereas markets allow individuals to express the intensity of their preferences through price mechanisms.
Disagreements about the scope of government abound, as evidenced by the debate here. However, many prefer enforceable contracts as a way of securing and preserving rights. Government is involved to the extent that a court system provides a recourse when one party shirks on their obligations.
In a few cases (broadcast radio & television), all the government does is create a property right where none existed before
Those words were written by the Antiplanner himself. Even the AP acknowledges that property rights do not just “exist”, but rather are created by government.
AP, your article led me to re-read Civil Disobedience. You probably remember that HDT spent a night in jail for refusing to pay the poll-tax; however, he stated “I never declined paying the highway tax, because I am as desirous of being a good neighbor as I am of being a bad subject” — does that make Henry the first proponent of user fees?
By coincidence today is the birthday of Daniel Webster, a nationalist and statist greatly disliked by Thoreau. Noting the current crop of leading presidential candidates of both partiees, it’s clear Webster’s political philosophy prevailed.
4) Elections present a one-man, one vote framework, whereas markets allow individuals to express the intensity of their preferences through price mechanisms.
I was nodding my head agreeing with all the points until here. Preferences are gamed via Madison Avenue and its hundred billion corporate ad budgets, influencing consumer choices via all manner of mechanisms, including shame, guilt, manufactured fear (I’ve fallen and I can’t get up) lowered self-esteem, advertising to children (guilt too), etc.
DS
Manufactured fear? Do you really think that elderly people, or at least those that try to care for them, don’t have a fear of them being alone, falling and not being able to get up? One of my great grandfather’s had this happen to him. Garbage was strewn everywhere. He was like that for a couple days and nearly died. Some of the fear may be overblown but a certain level of it is very real and not manufactured.
manufactured fear exactly
in fact adds are designed with the purpose of getting people to make irrational decisions. If adds, promotions, store layouts, etc were merely to inform the consumer, then we’d have car adds that didnt make it seem like speeding made you younger, coca-cola makes you cool, oh and pepsi makes you younger as well, etc. Why did malls put effort into making sure that their were two anchor stores, each at one end of the mall, with plenty of visually exciting stores thrown in between, and a even a clock or fountain in the middle to boot.
Dan,
There may be a kernel of truth to your argument, but I do not believe that consumers are slavishly led around by advertising. Some advertising is effective, but if it were as effective as you suggest, firms would be pouring a lot more money into it.
Sustainibertarian,
Remember that consumption is a system of voluntary exchange. No one can take your consumer dollars without your consent.
Also, I’d like to point out that guilt, fear, shame, and other forms of coercion are not limited to the private sector. In fact, they play a major part in most election campaigns. When was the last time you heard of a policy prescription being sold as “for the children”?
but I do not believe that consumers are slavishly led around by advertising. Some advertising is effective, but if it were as effective as you suggest, firms would be pouring a lot more money into it.
Of course, I never said ‘slavish’.
Nonetheless, your argument would explain the 5.7% growth in advertising worldwide the last 10 years, to a total of $US631B. Oh, wait: your argument doesn’t explain it. Never mind.
DS
Not that i had made any such claims about people “tak[ing] your consumer dollars without your consent.” But what the hell, i guess i’ll counter your criticism of a point i never made to begin with, just to show you what a good sport i am!
The supposed consent you speak of may in fact be manipulated or manufactured through advertisements. And as Dan points to the large amount spent on advertising, either advertising influences the consumer and marketers apparently understand people better than you do, or marketing is pointless, in which case you should advise all those advertising agents and corporations that they are wasting their darn money. Of course i’m not saying people are helpless dupes, but are they beyond advertising influences or influences leading to non-rational behaviour?
that’s why chomsky’s book is called manufacturing consent although his book is about media manipulation of public opinion and i would be surprised if most of the antiplanners here gave a hoot what one of those ‘left wing radicals’ was saying anyway. but maybe im wrong? or not. too often people are deemed wrong not on evidence but on ideology. what a shame.
Dan, no need to get snippy.
I interpreted your explanation as being that consumers are not only ‘irrational’, but that they are also being led around by their noses at the hands of corporate advertising. In fact, my argument does support your claims about advertising growth. 5.7 percent growth annualized over 10 years is about 1/2 of one percent per year. I know that GDP and business profits have grown at rates far greater than 0.5% per year over this period, so the increases are proportionately quite small. Also, once you get over the Carl Sagan factor, $631 billion in spending worldwide is not really surprising. GDP in the US alone is in the range of 14-15 trillion.
Sustainibertarian,
I do not read Noam Chomsky. He peddles simple answers to complex problems. Ideology does matter, but then again so do incentives. If people spend their money irrationally, due to advertising or other influences, they will suffer the consequences, but no one else is involved. When voters choose irrationally, due to misinformation or bias (for example, on economic policy), they create an externality, since others must bear the burden of their flawed choices.
You can rail all you like against the excesses of advertising, but the costs of bad policy due to democratic failure outweigh them by an order of magnitude.
Clarification: my editor did not catch my error, and the 5.7% growth is per annum. I’ve spoken with my Editor regarding this issue. Apologies.
Nonetheless, the literature is quite fascinating regarding how one can craft advertising* to get rational utility maximizing agents to purchase their cr*p. And wait till ‘social marketing’ goes mainstream.
DS
* http://healthaff.highwire.org/cgi/reprint/19/2/110
the costs of bad policy due to democratic failure outweigh them by an order of magnitude.
It may not be the best, but it’s the best there is. I’ll take the dêmos any day, messy, slow and all.
DS
U.S growth for 2007 = 1.2, not that great eh, canada even beatcha at 2.2 per cent (oh im canadian). oh and all those welfare states in europe beat the U.S. too.
Growth rates don’t mean much without reference to baselines, consumption, and production. For example, Both India and Kazakhstan had greater GDP growth rates than either the U.S. or Canada (2007 est.). Of course, in the case of Kazakhstan, the per capita GDP (ppp) is less than a third of Canada’s. I saw Borat; I also doubt the quality of life is any better, either.
As for Canada and the U.S., the latter’s per capita GDP (ppp) is about 17% greater than the former’s. In time, Canada’s output may soon approach America’s: around 2000, Canada starting cutting its corporate tax rates to the point where businesses, in terms of top rates, capital gains treatment, and deductions for R & D, receive better treatment than their American counterparts.
Pulling numbers out of context can result in some interesting conclusions. From a recent thread for example, predicting (based on consumption while omitting production and substitution) that the world is going is going to run out of cement (U.S.A.’s fault, of course).
I don’t doubt that the US government is evil, it’s been that way since 1776.