Eugene Volokh has some interesting posts asking readers, both religious, and irreligious, to answer some challenging questions (the religious to explain their belief in miracles, and the irreligious to explain their secular moral axioms).

As Eugene says:

I’m not expecting or intending to convert anyone in either direction — just to enlighten people about others’ world views, by asking each side to explain themselves about something that I think the other side really is curious about.

It’s a cool idea. Let’s see how well it works out.

I heard a few reports the other day about how Vice President Cheney was out condemning those who criticize the war, the way the intelligence was misrepresented, etc…

So I decided to actually read the speech myself.

I don’t see what the fuss is all about. The more I hear from Cheney, the more I like him. Yes, he was critical of what he considered irresponsible statements from senators. But, it seemed to me to be a balanced and well crafted statement.

Not only is there an element of humor:

These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence materials. They are known to have a high opinion of their own analytical capabilities.

But it is also far from a blanket condemnation of constructive criticism:

Nor is there any problem with debating whether the United States and our allies should have liberated Iraq in the first place. Here, as well, the differing views are very passionately and forcefully stated. But nobody is saying we should not be having this discussion, or that you cannot reexamine a decision made by the President and the Congress some years ago. To the contrary, I believe it is critical that we continue to remind ourselves why this nation took action, and why Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, and why we have a duty to persevere.

I might not agree with every word of the speech, but it strikes me as a thoughtful statement.

Perhaps it’s a left-brain/right-brain thing, but I’m able to hear (and read) his words and perceive a cogent argument. Others seem to react emotionally, as if he were some kind of a monster. Maybe it’s a self-defense mechanism to help them avoid his argument.

Radley Balko (The Agitator) posted this topical version of an old joke:

Three guys are in a jail cell. They start to talking and find out that they’re all gas station owners.

The first one says, “I set my prices at a couple of cents higher than my competitors. I’m in here for price-gouging.”

The second one says “I set my prices at a couple of cents lower than my competitors. I’m in here for predatory practices.”

The third one says “I set my prices at the same price as my competitors. I’m in here for collusion!”

Radley says: “It’s funny ’cause it’s true.”

I remember first seeing this same notion when I read the marvelous short poem
Tom Smith and his Incredible Bread Machine over twenty years ago. If you haven’t read it yet, please do. The similar portion of the poem reads:

“You’re gouging on your prices if
You charge more than the rest.
But it’s unfair competition
If you think you can charge less.

“A second point that we would make
To help avoid confusion:
Don’t try to charge the same amount:
That would be collusion!”

I’m not going to try to debunk the bad economic reasoning that leads people to hold the theories that these “crimes” are based on. It’s been done often and better than I can do. Anyone interested in these arguments can find them.

What I’m going to complain about is the moral reasoning that leads people to conclude that they have a right to coerce people into changing the way they do business.

Businesses aren’t monsters from space. They are the individual and collective efforts of human beings. They are people who contribute their time, effort, and creativity to be productive and to succeed in the marketplace; where success is principally achieved by providing more value to customers than competitors offer.

It’s true that sometimes other people act in ways that we don’t think are in our (and often their own) best interests. That’s an inevitable consequence of freedom.

Decent people don’t apply force (or the threat of force) to get others to conform to their wishes. They use arguments and reason. They try to convince them to make better choices. Or, they try to convince enough other people that there is good reason to apply enough non-coercive pressure to try to make the “wrongdoers” change their behavior. Failing in these efforts, they learn to live with their disappointment.

I think that a fundamental moral notion is that (aside from extraordinary emergency situations) people should be treated as ends in themselves, rather than as means to the ends of others. I don’t know any good reason why people engaging in commercial activity shouldn’t warrant this kind of consideration.

Ok, I know I shouldn’t pay so much attention to lyrics, but I heard an old Supremes song this morning and noticed:

He’s back in my arms again
Right by my side

Isn’t that kind of awkward?

Tim Lee has written an interesting blog post arguing that if the Supreme Court should happen to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision, it might actually have a beneficial effect on meaningful access to abortion.

Just as eminent domain abuse hasn’t been an issue that voters were focusing on before the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo that the constitution doesn’t protect their property from the state taking it to give to other private parties, so the reversal of Roe might alert people to the many regulations that have caused many abortion clinics to close; leaving many people legal, but not actual, access to abortion.

I’m not sure exactly how this would play out. In the long run, I’m pretty confident that abortion rights will be protected. In the shorter run, it’s hard to say. It will probably vary a lot by region.

In any event, I think it’s an interesting question. And, I’m always happy to see people challenging the conventional wisdom, and thinking about non-obvious consequences of possible changes.

James Lileks got it right, as usual, when considering the US dissent from a UN compact promoting national censorship to conserve unpopular culture…

The New York Times put it thus: “As with the Kyoto Protocol climate treaty and the treaty creating the International Criminal Court, (The US) will likely remain a critical – and perhaps obstructionist – outsider.”

Imagine that! The killjoy nation. Monarchy, Communism, Fascism, Socialism, now Tribalism – the US never quite joins in the fun. Everyone else jumps off the bridge, and we hang back, taking notes. Like we’re special or something.

Yesterday I received a check in the mail that I’m feeling weird about. It’s not a huge amount, but it’s not trivially small, either.

The payment is a pro-rata share from the Vizcaino v. Microsoft class action suit.

As you may recall, this was the case in which some Microsoft temporary workers (sometimes designated permatemps) sued Microsoft for employee benefits. The claim was that, even though they signed explicit contracts to the contrary, they were common-law employees and entitled to the benefits of regular full-time employees, FTEs, including lucrative stock options and employee-purchase-plan discounted stocks. They argued that they were really treated just like employees (worked at Microsoft for years, did identical work under identical conditions as FTEs, participated in meetings and morale events, etc.) and that Microsoft only designated them differently to avoid paying them benefits and to avoid employer taxes.

But, this is absurd. These people, including me, had agreed to a different deal. In most cases, contractors made more money (in terms of pay and immediate benefits) than their FTE counterparts. I know several people, and I’m sure that there are many more, who specifically chose not to pursue full-time employment because they preferred their compensation packages over that of full-time employees. They weren’t being cheated. They agreed to different terms, and Microsoft lived up to its obligations completely.

It was only afterwards, when some saw their FTE counterparts getting rich from the stock growth of the 1990s that they decided that Microsoft should pay them more.

Court decisions were going against Microsoft and they settled the case in December of 2000 for about $100 million.

While some benefit from this, mostly lawyers, many suffer. For example, as a result of this case, Microsoft has changed its Human Resources policies with respect to contractors. Contractors cannot work longer than one year on an assignment. After an assignment, contractors must take a 100 day break away from Microsoft before engaging in any other assignments. Many other distinctions, like exclusion from morale events without overcoming burdensome hurdles, have made life worse for contractors and the overall morale of the teams they are on.

A few years ago, I was notified that I had been identified as a member of the class in the settlement and was asked to confirm the facts of my employment at Microsoft around 1999. I contacted Microsoft’s legal department expressing my disagreement with the lawsuit and to find out whether my choosing to not participate would help Microsoft keep some of the wrongly taken money. I had a nice exchange with a Microsoft lawyer who explained to me that Microsoft had already made its settlement payment and that it would not receive refunds for rejected awards. He thought that if I refused payment, that would only increase the amount received by those who accepted payment. Neither of us could see how that result would serve justice; in fact it would probably do the opposite by rewarding and encouraging those who approved of this sort of thing. Furthermore, Microsoft was not arranging any mechanism for the voluntary return of funds from the settlement (I suspect that they correctly judged that the bad press from such an arrangement would outweigh the benefit of the retrieved money). He did thank me for my support and acknowledged how frustrating the entire case had been.

So here I am with money I don’t think I earned. My first emotional instinct is to give it away; perhaps to the Cato Institute or the Institute For Justice or some other group that will promote the principles of free markets, private property, and contracts that were trashed by this case.

On the other hand, logically, I don’t think it makes sense. The money is now mine, legally and morally. If I could push a button to reverse the entire case (or the portion that benefited me) I would do it. But I can’t. So, I shouldn’t feel guilty about having the money. And, just as I shouldn’t consider sunk costs when deciding what to do with my assets in the future, I don’t think I should let my emotional feelings about the origin of this money affect how I should use it. I think I should treat it just as I would a bonus from my employer. I might give some of it away (because I’m now in a better financial position to do so), but only if I think that’s the best way to further my chosen values; not because I feel like reacting emotionally.

But, on a meta-level, I’m glad that I feel a bit uncomfortable about getting this money. It tells me that I have a strong sense of justice.

I wish the judges in this case had one.

I’ve been out of town for a few days, and now I have a cold, so please understand the lack of posting recently.

I think there’s an interesting comment thread here about funding the rebuilding of New Orleans, and “public goods” in general.

And, I think Tom Bell’s skeptical take on the Miers supreme court nomination is intriguing. It’s helping me stay optimistic about the choice, anyway.