I realized that my previous post may have left the impression that I thought that every decision should be determined by whether the benefits outweigh the costs of each individual act.

I don’t.

For example, it’s possible that a policy against appeasing extortionists will lead to better outcomes in the long run, even if it imposes greater costs than benefits in individual instances of its application. Likewise, I think we all benefit if many people are willing to impose costs on others (bigots, liars, etc.) who are guilty of despicable behavior even though they (the imposers) may absorb some extra costs themselves while doing so. It’s good that people choose not to associate or do business with people or companies that have horrible behaviors and policies, because that tends to deter those sorts of behaviors and policies. I don’t want coercive legislation against non-coercive bad behavior, but I’m happy that many people peacefully enforce standards of decency through social pressure. Sometimes this enforcement has immediate costs that exceed immediate benefits.

And, I’m sure that people who support the San Jose State University ban on blood drives (while the restriction against gay men donating is in effect) believe that they are engaging in just such a worthy endeavor. They think that the principle of opposing the irrational discrimination against homosexuals is so important that it should be fought whenever possible, irrespective (or almost irrespective) of the immediate costs.

But, of course, I don’t agree with that last part.

For one thing, the degree of the costs imposed does matter, and that’s where the sense of perspective comes in. If all that you can reasonably expect from your protest is that some people will say “right on,” some people will die, and a tiny chance that the pressure of the publicity and effects of the protest (and potential copycat protests) will trickle up to those in a position to change the offending policy and will cause them to actually change the policy, then I don’t think that this particular protest is worthwhile. The expected costs are too much higher than the expected benefits.

There are a few other relevant points in this case.

One is that the offending ban doesn’t impose serious costs on homosexuals. It denies them the opportunity to donate blood (something that many others would consider a cost worth paying to avoid). It doesn’t deny them blood. I’m sure it feels bad to have your generosity refused in this way, but it’s not as if the policy is intended to harm homosexuals, or to deny them a basic right. It’s a bureaucracy being overly cautious, and there are better ways to criticize it.

Another important aspect of this case is that the people actually harmed by the protest are not those who are guilty of the perceived offense, but people in need of a blood transfusion (who may be homosexuals) but can’t get one because some university students, teachers, and administrators wanted to make a symbolic point about discrimination. The pressure on those who are in a position to revise the blood screening regulations is extremely indirect. I think this makes the protest much less virtuous. It targets innocents in order to affect the policies of others.

So, I don’t think each act must have benefits that outweigh costs in order to be praisworthy. Sometimes costly acts are part of a larger campaign or policy that has aggregate benefits that justify the individual costs. My point is that wanting to be part of such campaigns doesn’t mean that each attempt is immune from criticism. It may be that the campaign organizers are mistaken about whether this is a worthwhile contribution to a justified project.

In this case, and many others, I think this sort of mistake has been made.

Eugene Volokh has a nice post criticizing San Jose State University’s policy of suspending campus blood drives, because they oppose the FDA’s ban on donation by men who have had sex with men since 1977.

I don’t know enough about the economics of blood screening to judge whether the policy makes sense with respect to reasonable tradeoffs of cost, safety, inclusiveness, etc. It’s possible that it makes sense, but it’s quite likely that it doesn’t.

But, either way, I agree with Eugene that this type of protest shows a tremendous lack of perspective. In order to express their displeasure, they are quite likely causing much more harm than good. I think it’s worth something to express your displeasure at what you think is an unfair or immoral practice, but the costs (to everyone) shouldn’t be completely out of proportion to the expected benefits.

I see the same problem with many environmentalists who insist on practices that impose more costs than expected benefits (most kinds of recycling, for example), but leave the practitioner feeling more virtuous. They value that feeling, and the opportunity to signal commitment, more than they seem to actually care about the likely effects of their actions.

I also find it somewhat ironic that many of the same people who would support this protest actually endorse the type of hyper-cautious  precautionary principle-inspired sorts of policies, like this one by the FDA,  when it comes to things that may impinge on the environment.

Make up your mind!

When I was a kid, I loved seeing “MARK OF EXCELLENCE” near the GM logo, because those are my initials, too.

Unfortunately, the corporate logo now represents failure and political manipulation.

Most Americans were opposed to the bailout of General Motors because they thought, correctly, that it was a very bad idea for the government to get so deeply involved with running a particular company. So, the recent GM statements and commercial proclaiming that the bailout loans have now been paid in full, with interest, five years ahead of schedule, seemed to be a pleasant surprise.

Apparently not.

Shikha Dalmia wrote an op-ed in Forbes explaining that what has happened is not a sign of success, but rather a prelude to another loan with worse terms for taxpayers (and only a small part of the bailout is being repaid, with
another part).

Appropriately, it seems like there are already Truth-In-Advertising concerns being raised.

I hope this bailout does end in success for the company and taxpayers, but that doesn’t seem to be the way to bet. And, if it does happen, we’ll have to find out about it from a more reliable source.

UPDATE: Here’s Nick Gillespie of Reason.TV explaining this in a short video.

I always thought “Libertarian Paternalism” was an oxymoron. So, I was happy to see that this month’s Cato Unbound is about “Slippery Slopes and the New Paternalism“. I think Glen Whitman did a great job with his lead essay, and his follow-up to Richard Thaler’s disappointing, dismissive reply.

The other replies were at least a bit more responsive to Glen’s concerns, and I hope there’s even better debate to come.

I think the issue is important, because it seems superficially attractive to “architect” choices so that people will be more likely to get what they really want. But, other than trivial examples, what’s more likely is for regulations to be based on political pull, bias, and popular nannyism. And, even paternalistic rules that do improve things when enacted are likely to remain in place (or worsened) long after the facts on the ground change so that they will inhibit people from making their best choices.

And, the slippery slope is a serious danger, and Thaler’s lack of concern about it should make the rest of us even more concerned about it.

(By the way…Comments are working again. Thanks Dale!)

UPDATE: Ilya Somin at The Volokh Conspiracy had an excellent post on the subject today; pointing out that it isn’t just the objects of “libertarian paternalism” who have cognitive biases, but so do regulators and voters!

Also, I probably shouldn’t have even mentioned slippery slopes without directing people to Eugene Volokh’s great The Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope law review article.

Civil forfeiture laws represent one of the most serious assaults on private property rights in the nation today. Under civil forfeiture, police and prosecutors can seize your car or other property, sell it and use the proceeds to fund agency budgets—all without so much as charging you with a crime. Unlike criminal forfeiture, where property is taken after its owner has been found guilty in a court of law, with civil forfeiture, owners need not be charged with or convicted of a crime to lose homes, cars, cash or other property.

Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but civil forfeiture turns that principle on its head. With civil forfeiture, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent.

If the Democrats are going to pass that steaming pile of Health Care interference, then I’m leaving the country.

Actually, I had a vacation scheduled for next week anyway. I’ll be back.

I have little doubt that this “reform” will inhibit innovation in so many areas related to health care (oh, and liberty) enough to make the actual costs many times higher than the benefits. Some people were saying that not passing it would cause many extra deaths, but I’m pretty confident that passing it will.

Maybe, some day, it will be repealed (or never even passed). But, that doesn’t seem to be the way to bet.

I was going to write a post responding to the widespread complaints (largely against the Senate filibuster) that the government is broken, because a majority party can’t always get what it wants.

Fortunately, Will Wilkinson already wrote it.

Key excerpt:

From this perspective, the fact that a party decidedly but temporarily in the minority is able to defeat a measure that would have profound, long-term effects on the basic structure of the United States’ institutions is very good evidence that the system works!

What scares me is what will happen after some Republican gains, and the proposals get more “moderate”, and government starts “working.”

This morning, I listened to this Cato Podcast featuring gay British MP Nick Herbert, discussing the benefits of the recent changes in the Conservative Party towards equal rights for gay people in the UK. I was very impressed.

As a libertarian, I’ve never thought that it was proper for the government to favor or disfavor people because of their sexual orientation. And, just as a modern, sensible (I hope) person, I find prejudice against gay people to be stupid and repulsive.

Also, as a purely practical, strategic, political matter, I think that conservatives in general and the Republican Party in particular would be wise to heed Herbert’s call and stop supporting anti-gay public policy measures. Young people are overwhelmingly more tolerant of differences in sexual orientation than their elders, and will be likely to oppose the groups that they find hateful and backwardly stupid. The demographic trend is away from supporters of such policies.

You don’t have to find the behavior personally appealing, but to promote legal sanctions against those who do is irrational on many levels.

I’m experimenting with a new web host. Things will probably be broken occasionally while I try things out. I appreciate your patience. Re-using this post to test posting from a new computer…

This is a bit late, but if you haven’t seen it yet, you should definitely check out the Hayek vs. Keynes “Fear the Boom and Bust” rap video currently on the home page of econstories.tv.

It might be a little too econ-geeky for many, but it seems like a fun way to exhibit good information about a serious debate that’s still with us.

Enjoy!