Category Archives: Three-Axes Model

Targeted Killing

Posted on by

In a long piece, Glenn Greenwald writes,

Ultimately, what is most extraordinary about all of this – most confounding to me – is how violently contrary this mentality is to the ethos with which all Americans are instilled: namely, that the first and most inviolable rule of government is that leaders must not be trusted to exercise powers without constant restraints – without what we’re all taught in elementary school are called “checks and balances”.

He discusses Presidential exercise of power in the name of fighting terrorism. Read the whole thing. There are many interesting issues here. My thoughts:

1. One hundred years ago, if you did not have a mass of men wearing uniforms, you could not pose much of a threat to society. One hundred years ago, governments did not have available to them the surveillance technology and drone strike technology that some governments have today. I am not saying that I am confident about which old rules, if any, no longer apply, but it is worth thinking about the issue. For a book-length treatment that pre-dates 9/11 (but anticipated it), see David Brin’s The Transparent Society. To see my alternative to Brin’s solution, read The Constitution of Surveillance.

2. My general view is that if we want the government to have new powers, then we ought to build in new checks and balances. I think this applies to much more than just the issue of terrorism, drone strikes, and surveillance. I have written about the generic benefits of having a strong audit function in government.

3. It could be that the best principle to follow when it comes to drone strikes is “never do them.” I think it is easy to develop the hypothesis that they will do more harm than good. It is also quite hard to think of a way to test that hypothesis reliably.

4. At the very least, it would seem better to arrive at a “kill list” by having suspects tried in absentia under some form of courtroom procedure (obviously not with full rights for the accused, and not necessarily public, but subject to audit) than simply have suspects nominated by the intelligence bureaucracy and approved by the President.

5. How does this issue play out with libertarians, progressives, and conservatives? One of Greenwald’s main points is that progressives are not consistent on the issue. They distrusted the Bush Administration but not the Obama Administration. I would say that conservatives fairly consistently support the use of unusual powers. Remember that, as I see it, conservatives’ main focus is on the struggle between civilization and barbarism. Through that lens, provided that you see our side as representing civilization and the members of terror organizations as representing barbarism, drone strikes look good. I would say that libertarians are fairly consistent on the opposite side, because libertarians fundamentally distrust government exercise of power.

6. I think of the essence of progressivism as being on the side of the oppressed against the oppressors. I suspect, as does Greenwald, that because progressives see Obama as on the side of the oppressed they have difficulty imagining that he would abuse power. That does not strike me as a very charitable interpretation of the progressive position. Can one do better?

Axes of Exaggeration

Posted on by

Partly in response to comments, here are a few more thoughts on the three axes I propose. I think the axes help to predict which threats will be exaggerated by which partisan.

A conservative will exaggerate the extent to which a practice leads to barbarism. Again, I use the example of illegal immigration. A conservative emphasizes that it is illegal, therefore the immigrants are lawbreakers by definition, hence the threat to civilization is intrinsic. In general, I think that conservatives view social trends as much more dire than I do and see society in decline more readily than I do.

A progressive will exaggerate the extent to which people fall into classes of oppressors and oppressed. If you look at the biography of UN Ambassador Susan Rice, she apparently both inherited and married into wealth, received an elite education, worked for McKinsey, and now has a net worth of over $20 million. Yet people on the left describe her as oppressed, because she is African-American and female. I want to say, “Really?”

A libertarian will exaggerate the extent to which a practice represents coercion. They are fond of saying, “If you don’t comply with xyz policy, men with guns will come and take you to prison.” I understand this argument and I generally take it as valid. However, I can also understand how someone with a different point of view might argue that when they pay taxes what they get in return is a fair deal.

I also believe that the three axes are different. A practice can be barbaric without being coercive or oppressive. Body piercing, for example. A practice can be coercive without being oppressive or barbaric. Social Security, for example. A practice can be oppressive without being coercive or barbaric. Owners of restaurants refusing to serve non-white customers, for example.

It is Sometimes Appropriate…

Posted on by

I wish that people would begin political conversations by conceding that the generic way that their opponents view the world is sometimes correct. Start by saying, “It is sometimes appropriate…”

My hypothesis is that progressives, conservatives, and libertarians view politics along three different axes. For progressives, the main axis has oppressors at one end and the oppressed at the other. For conservatives, the main axis has civilization at one end and barbarism at the other. For libertarians, the main axis has coercion at one end and free choice at the other. So here is what I recommend doing when arguing with each:

When arguing with a progressive, start by saying, “It is sometimes appropriate to view particular classes of people as oppressors and other classes as oppressed.” Slavery is an example. Proceed then to suggest that, on the other hand, there are instances in which this way of looking at things is not so compelling. For example, if you think about it, borrowers who obtained homes with no money down are not necessarily oppressed, and the banks that lent them the money are not necessarily oppressors.

When arguing with a conservative, start by saying, “It is sometimes appropriate to view particular practices as barbaric and to view tradition and authority as protecting civilization.” There are, for example, criminals who commit assault and murder without remorse. Proceed then to suggest that, on the other hand, there are instances in which this way of looking at things is not so compelling. For example, if you think about it, Latin Americans who sneak across the border in order to work in this country are probably more civilized than barbaric.

When arguing with a libertarian, start by saying, “It is sometimes appropriate to view particular policies as coercion.” For example, taking tax revenue to hand out political favors. Proceed then to suggest, that, on the other hand, there are instances in which this way of looking at things is not so compelling. For example, if you think about it, it is plausible that some activities function better as monopolies: water and sewer service; courts; road systems. If competition is unworkable, then provision via elected government should not be considered coercive.

Again, I will have an essay that delves more into this way of characterizing ideological differences.

Being Uncharitable to Those Who Disagree

Posted on by

In his recent book, Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know, Jason Brennan writes,

American politics has two large camps. The first camp advocates an American police state–one that polices the world at large while policing its citizens’ lifestyles. It advocates having government promote traditional Judeo-Christian virtues. It wants to marginalize or expel alternative modes of life. The second camp advocates an American nanny state–one that tries to nudge and control the behavior of its citizens “for their own good.” Both camps support having the government manage, control, and prop up industry and commerce. In rhetoric, a vicious divide separates the two camps. Yet when in power, the two camps act much the same.

Brennan’s book is in large part an effort to refute the uncharitable views that others hold about libertarians. In that regard, it may be valuable. However, the quoted paragraph offers what I believe is an uncharitable view of progressives and, especially, conservatives.

Consider Bryan Caplan’s Ideological Turing Test. If you were to say, “I advocate an American police state,” would conservatives be convinced by that statement that you share their beliefs? Instead, I think that they would view this as a highly uncharitable characterization of conservatism.

I think that if you want to be convincing in an argument, taking an uncharitable view of the opponent is a bad strategy. Just as libertarians become scornful and defensive toward those who take an uncharitable view of our beliefs (think of people who say “libertarians just want to let people starve” or “libertarians believe markets are perfect”), we can expect others to become scornful and defensive if we take an uncharitable view of their beliefs.

I have written an essay, to appear next month, in which I suggest that the core conservative belief is that civilization is always threatened by barbarism. Think Lord of the Flies. Meanwhile, I think that progressives also see a threat everywhere–the threat of oppression. Think of the Biblical story of the Exodus. Libertarians do not typically focus on barbarism or oppression. Instead, we focus on coercion vs. free choice. We celebrate the fruits of voluntary cooperation via markets. Think I, Pencil.

Suppose that my characterization of conservatives is correct. Then libertarians need to address their concern. How do you keep civilization from sliding into barbarism? Conservatives viewed Communism as barbaric, and they saw a need for our government to defend against it. Similarly, they see terrorism as barbaric, and they see a need for our government to defend against it.

How should this concern with external barbarian threats be addressed? One approach is to deny the threat or to insist that our side is just as bad. I think of Murray Rothbard and his descendants as taking that path (am I being uncharitable?). It seems to me that you have to be incredibly selective in your choice of facts in order to sustain that position. A more promising approach, in my view, is to emphasize the costs and risks of various government strategies (airport screening, foreign invasion) for dealing with these threats.

Conservatives view a number of cultural phenomena as representing a slide into barbarism. There certainly is room to disagree with conservatives about what constitutes barbarism (gay marriage? marijuana?). However, nearly everyone I know shares some of the conservative’s worries. Few would argue that teenage motherhood, heavy drug use, or poor impulse control are desirable. Again, I think that the place to make a stand is to be skeptical of the practical results of government policies that purport to improve social character.

Finally, note that the pattern of demonization is likely to be predictable. Libertarians will demonize their opponents as statists, because what libertarians care most about is the coercion-freedom axis. Conservatives will demonize their opponents as enemies of civilization (“the left wants to destroy our way of life”), because what conservatives care most about is the civilization-barbarism axis. Finally, progressives will demonize their opponents as oppressors (“they want poor people to suffer”), because what progressives care most about is the oppressor-oppressed axis. One psychological benefit of demonization is that it provides a way of coping with people with whom you disagree without having to acknowledge the possible partial validity to their perspective. However, the cost of demonization is that it accentuates animosity–both yours and that of the group that you demonize.