That way lies tyranny

Dr. Jonathan Gruber - technocrat.

Liberty is a precious commodity. According to Freedom House in a 2011 report, only 43% of the world’s population live in freedom. And with Russian incursions into Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and ISIS murdering Christians and non-Sunni  Muslims in droves, and Chinese crackdowns in Tibet and Hong Kong, the trend is not a happy one.

Our country is based on a unique concept that all men are created equal. All humans – man, woman, gay straight, black, white, all colors, all genders, all races – are equal in the eyes of God.

This fundamentally important concept is enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Everyone is familiar with that part. But equally important is the next:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Let’s stop to think what this means.

In the American ideal, no other person is your better. This is a great departure from European monarchies, where rulers derived their authority by the divine right of kings. In a monarchy, the rulers are your betters and you are but a subject. The (hopefully) kind, benevolent, and wise ruler directs you on how to live your life.

But in our system of government, the young Latina working at Starbucks is every bit the equal of the governor of Massachusetts. Or of the President of the United States. Or of Jonathan Gruber. As citizens, all are equal in the eyes of God.

Which is why Dr. Gruber’s attitude is so outrageous.

In a revealing sequence of videos, Dr. Gruber, an MIT economist and contracted architect of the Affordable Care Act, pretty much informed us of his view of the electorate.

That the ACA was passed only due to the “stupidity of the American voter” and intentional obfuscation which created a lack of transparency.  That it would never have passed if we had only known the truth.

And the president joined in: if you like your plan you can keep it; if you like your doctor, you can keep her. And that costs would be contained. Dear reader, we personally can attest that none of these are true.

But the details do not matter – it is the attitudes that do.

Dr. Gruber, President Obama, and a plethora of other politicians and technocrats, share this belief: that they are your betters, that they know what is good for you, that they can force you to comply (for your own good, of course). Michael Bloomberg, for instance, as the mayor of New York, attempted to ban the sale of soft drinks in excess of 16 ounces. (The New York Court of Appeals, however, disagreed, and the ban was lifted).

A term for this is a technocracy, where government control of society is based on an elite of politicians and scientists, engineers and psychologists, and various other experts. And they all know how you should live your life. Makes one feel much like a lab rat.

And it’s easy to see how this has come to pass. Science is fabulous and has created many wonders.  Technology is powerful, recently turning North America into a net energy producer. Atheism has swept the land, pushing religion out of the public sphere (Happy Holidays). As technocrats come to believe less in a common creator, it is easier for them to believe that they are our superiors.

Is it possible that large sugary drinks are bad? Is it possible that universal healthcare is good? Absolutely.  But to impose mandates and bans is not the American way. Because the do-gooders who strive to do good are not your betters, they are your equals. Your choice to follow their advice should be just that: a choice.

The do-gooders should advise, should educate. And you should make reasoned decisions whether to eschew sugar, or wear a seatbelt, or buy health insurance. Your choice, informed and educated. But not compelled.

We are all equals. The brainiacs do not rule us.

That way lies tyranny.

Celebrate! The war is over.

President Obama, in a major foreign policy speech at the National Defense University,  has declared that the war on terror is over. This is a very interesting tactic that might have been very useful if only known to Franklin Roosevelt. In June, 1944, sixty nine years ago, the beaches and fields of Normandy were a muddy, bloody cauldron as allied troops strove to wrest a beachhead from the Nazi juggernaut.  Over 200,000 American, British, and Canadian troops were killed or wounded in a campaign that could have been completely avoided if only Roosevelt had simply declared the war over.

But no matter. The current administration has elected to choose a path of lessening America’s role in the world. The president, his supporters, and confidantes are of the view that America is an enemy of freedom rather that its defender. The newly-appointed U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, has said: “Some anti-Americanism derives simply from our being a colossus that bestrides the earth. But much anti-Americanism derives from the role U.S. political, economic and military power has played in denying such freedoms to others.”

So in support of this view, the administration is cutting military budgets, withdrawing from the heartlands of radical Islamic Jihadism, and is ceding the world  stage to our benevolent competitors. Surely the military planners in the Kremlin and Beijing are celebrating this wondrous gift. And in the vacuum created by America’s withdrawal, they will surely lead the way in advancing the cause of freedom and individual liberty. (News item – Russia backs Syria’s despotic leader, Bashar Al-Assad, and promises to deliver advanced anti-aircraft missile systems).

In the meantime, while asserting that America in the world is too big, the administration is simultaneously arguing that American government at home is too small. Even though the president has declared the end of the war on terror, his National Security Agency is spending billions to collate the phone calls, emails and tweets of hundreds of millions of Americans. The IRS, soon to be responsible for enforcing the onerous terms of the “Affordable Care Act,” was somehow unable to respect the constitutional rights of those who disagree with the President’s politics. And the Justice Department is going after journalists, wiretapping and threatening charges for simply reporting the news.

Where is this heading? Unfortunately, nowhere good. By reducing America’s presence in the world, the cause of freedom will be harmed. Likewise, by growing government’s scope and power at home, our individual liberties are lessened. If you believe that freedom and democracy are fundamentally good, this is not good news. Is this truly the path we want to follow?

A funny thing happened on the way to the quorum

In a recent fascinating article (“Swarm Savvy”, Science News, May 9, 2009), we learn how swarms of ants, bees, fish, and primates (yes, that includes us) make collective decisions that are usually correct. Evolved over millions of years, with extinction at stake, an effective, quorum-based decision making process has emerged. It works wonderfully for honey bees, rock ants, and guppies. Humans? Not so much.

A quorum is the minimum number of deciders required to agree before an option is selected. In a monarchy, the quorum is one (the Queen). In a democratic parliament, it is a simple majority. For a swarm of bees searching for a new home, it might be as little as fifty out of ten thousand. In order to maximize the probability that the quorum will make a correct decision, three conditions must be met:

1. The number of voters (quorum size) must be large enough,
2. The votes must be independent, i.e., the individuals cannot copy the vote of another (who may be mistaken), and;
3. An adequate number, or range, of alternatives must be considered.

The first two conditions are very important (and interrelated). For instance, if we assume that each decider has a 1 in 10 chance of selecting a really bad alternative, then the Queen alone has a 10% chance of monumentally screwing up. But if she accepts the counsel of her husband, their joint probability of failure falls to 1%. And in an independent parliament of 200 souls, the odds of selecting that awful option are a vanishing 1 out of 10,000.

But note the requirement of independence. If the King copies the Queen’s vote just to please her, there is really only one vote and the odds of failure jump back up to 10%.

It should be painfully obvious that the third condition is crucial as well. If for any reason the most desirable option is not among those deliberated, then it cannot be chosen. You might be asked to select the most desirable means of commuting twenty five mile to work from among two choices, roller blades or a bicycle. But your decision might be quite different if a third choice, a Ford Focus, were added to the list. (Ever so much better for those New England winters).

Human quorums can be very effective when the above conditions are met. Being judged by a jury of twelve is remarkably accurate. Population-wide votes (propositions or referendums) tend to accurately reflect society’s sense of what is right. But human quorums can go disastrously wrong, as exemplified by a number of our state governments (witness the morass in California). The culprit? One party rule.

One party rule nearly guarantees that conditions 2) and 3) are violated. Because of ideology, the party in power tends to vote in lock-step, violating the independence requirement. Also because of ideology, options which do not fit that party’s platform are not even considered.

Let us consider a real world example. The Democratic Massachusetts legislature just decided to raise taxes by over $1 billion in order to close a yawning budget deficit. Because of ideology, power politics, and fear of losing perks, the Democrats voted nearly unanimously with their leadership. There was little independence of vote among the Democrats, and the Republicans are so paltry in number as to be meaningless. It was as if there were a single, Democratic monarch casting a single, “supervote”.

Meanwhile, the feckless Republicans had offered up a series of five proposals which, in toto, reduced spending by over $1 billion -- balancing the budget in a different way. But these proposals were never seriously considered and hence, were not among the range of options considered by the legislature at large. Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown (R-Wrentham), sums this up quite nicely (“Reform before revenue”, Boston Globe, 6/16/09).

Whether Democrat or Republican solutions are better overall is for the ideologues to argue. But that the system is broken is undeniable. A quorum in name only, the Massachusetts legislature is sick and nearly guaranteed to churn out suboptimal decisions.

Alas, the situation shows little sign of improvement. In a recent election to replace the disgraced former speaker of the house, Sal DiMasi (hmmm – another outcome of one-party rule?), the Republican candidate garnered less than 5% of the vote. (“Ex-aide snares DiMasi's seat” Boston Globe, 6/17/09). Massachusetts, you may continue on your course and become as bankrupt as California. Or, you may consider the true meaning of quorum and attempt to restore it.