The Difference Makes a Difference

In a November 2015 Reason article, Elizabeth Nolan Brown compares how our government is repeating the mistakes of its failed war on drugs by so adamantly going after sex trafficking. She suggests we’ve deliberately loosely defined trafficking in order to puritanically prohibit up any sort of prostitution, as well, and from there, she’s off and running on her argument about overreach.

There’s a lot to unpack there, and I’m still forming my opinion on a lot of those ethical issues. I’m happy to hear your thoughts and opinions, but what I’m most immediately drawn to is the data behind this scenario. When Brown points out that the government has been taking action based on outdated and often disavowed research papers, and that the media loves to leap onto shocking numbers, no matter how tenuously sourced, I grow concerned. Throughout the 2016 election, we saw many people mourning the rise of fake news (not just Faux News) and the many pants-on-fire lies blatantly committed by Trump. (Clinton’s false claims were both fewer in number and at least far closer to truthiness.) Shouldn’t we be just as, if not more, skeptical of the statistical improprieties that our government utilizes in order to galvanize the public to action? You’d think that we’d be more skeptical after the false narrative about WMDs that the government created post-9/11 in order to shepherd the fearful masses into a glut of redundant and over-expensive programs (Homeland Security) and wars (Iraq, Afghanistan). Why aren’t we?

“Regardless of whether the number is 300,000 or 30,000, something must be done to protect these children at risk of exploitation and trafficking,” said Moira Bagley Smith… But it’s exactly this kind of thinking that inflicts real-world policy damage. Whether there are 30,000 or 300,000 crime victims makes a great deal of difference in terms of fashioning an appropriate response, as does the context of the victim’s circumstances. Separating the mythology of sex trafficking from the facts is crucial for addressing problems as they exist, not problems as we might want, fear, or imagine them to be.

In our everyday lives, we are expected to be as calm and rational as an actuary. Those of us with the privilege of affording health care often choose between a variety of policies based on how likely we feel we are to need coverage; we do our best to be financially prudent when deciding whether to insure certain items. Given infinite resources, we would insure ourselves against even the most improbable events, but then again, if we had infinite resources, we wouldn’t have to bother with insurance. Why, then, is it OK for the government to spend so lavishly on things it likely doesn’t need? Shouldn’t we pay far closer attention to the numbers the government produces when it comes to military expenditures (when we already have a significantly larger and more advanced army than those of our nearest rivals combined)? From a purely logical perspective, you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who would rather see New York City expend its resources preparing for a volcanic eruption as opposed to beefing up its shoreline defense against rising tides and stronger hurricanes. As Brown puts it above, we must address the problems that exist, not the ones we fear or imagine.

It is possible, surely, that prostitution can lead to sex trafficking. (You’d think, though, that illegal prostitution would be far more responsible for this than legal prostitution.) Then again, so can going outside. It seems to me that once you remove actual statistics and risks from your decision-making process, you can justify any action, and actually end up causing far more harm than good, especially in the often invisible long term. Within the world of medicine, things like triage exist so as to make the best of a bad situation. Research often works the same way, as the most resources are often spent on the diseases that affect the most people–that’s where the customers/money lies, after all. I don’t think anybody would disagree than an individual with spinal bifida is suffering and should have better treatment options; if, however, that care were to come at the expense of those struggling with cancer, we might reconsider our moral calculus. There is nothing controversial about the suggestion that government grants should be based on need, and that that need should be driven by data–that is, after all, the way we currently do things. The issue is with false data, and those who knowingly propagate it.

In the case of sex trafficking, Brown notes how damning hyperbolic statistics can be, especially when they redirect resources away from options that are both far likelier to succeed and much less intrusive:

For a fraction of the money spent on these measures, state governments or private foundations could fund more beds at emergency shelters. [Lack of safe resources is often why homeless youths first turn to prostitution.] The resources that churches, charities, and radical feminists use trying to convince people that all sex workers are victims (and their clients predatory) could go toward helping that minority of sex workers who do feel trapped in prostitution with job placement or getting an education. For the majority of vulnerable sex workers, the greatest barriers to exit aren’t ankle-cuffs, isolation, and shadowy kidnappers with guns, but a lack of money, transportation, identification, or other practical things. Is helping with this stuff not sexy enough?

If by “sexy,” we mean agenda-driven, then that’s exactly the rationale Brown is getting at. Instead of following the numbers to where the most good can be done, she suggests that the government is being manipulated into overreactive policies by those who condemn certain behaviors. In fairness, Scott Shackford’s article in the same issue of Reason makes a similar case against liberals, suggesting that gay, lesbian, and transgendered citizens don’t need the government to step in to pass anti-discrimination laws on their behalf because the numbers don’t actually back up their claims. Here’s where I have a harder time agreeing, because now we’re talking about an issue that I actually care about, where I am less removed and more emotionally charged. But isn’t that exactly the place that we were just agreeing we shouldn’t be legislating from? That we should be listening to the data?

This isn’t saying that people aren’t discriminating against LGBTQ employees, mind you, and they absolutely shouldn’t. It is, however, suggesting that incidents in which bakers or even doctors unfairly treat certain people (1) don’t happen nearly often enough to necessitate political interference and (2) that there are enough alternative actions for these individuals such that the government need not step in. I’m angered by the idea that someone would refuse service to someone on the basis of sexual orientation. And I do think that this election demonstrates that there are more than enough pockets in which normal social resistance wouldn’t be enough, and where the refusal to service certain people might become so widespread that it would be far more than a simple inconvenience. (After all, Memories Pizza was forced to close after refusing to cater a gay wedding, but then made nearly $800,000 through homophobic supporters on GoFundMe.)

Ultimately, I guess it comes down to something as simple as cost to me, be it a moral cost, actual monetary cost, or expenditure of political currency. Activism might be free, but any governmental response takes time–and that cost goes up with increases in bureaucracy. Actually implementing policy is also likely to have an effect, whether you believe in backlash politics or not, as it immediately widens a rift between parties or shifts some of the once-undeclared voters and angers one group of individuals or another. The more direct the action, the more immediate this cost, so wouldn’t it be wise to make the passing of new laws and/or restrictions a last-resort measure? At the very least, if action needs to be taken for the safety or freedom of a group of citizens, shouldn’t there be clear data to back up the decision?

When we ask for radical, sweeping changes, don’t numbers grow more important, not less? I wish that even a single improper shooting of an unarmed black citizen would inspire police departments to change (to self-police), but is the massive hand of politics suited for the individual, or is it better employed to handle a consistent or systemic set of circumstances in which violence is unanswered, unpunished, un-prevented? As Shackford puts it, “there should be something more than an ever-shrinking number of unpopular…decisions before asking Leviathan to step in.” I feel torn between two desires and have no idea how to resolve them. Any ideas?


Transactional Costs (and Hidden Flaws)

Katherine Mangu-Ward offers up a seemingly great metaphor for how government contracts waste money in her most recent editorial for Reason:

Imagine you want a cone of mint chocolate chip ice cream. You walk into an ice cream store and say, “How much for mint chocolate chip, please?” They either say, “That’ll be $3,” or, “We don’t have that flavor right now. Try the shop next door.”

[The U.S. government] stands in the middle of the street and shouts, “I WANT ICE CREAM” until someone who makes a related product–pudding, say–comes by and says, “I might be able to make you some ice cream. What were you looking for?” Then the government says, “Great, we will draft hundreds of pages of specifications for the ice cream, and send officials to your R&D facility, your factory, and your distribution warehouses to supervise and advise you while you make it. That way we can be sure to get the ice cream we want. Also, you can’t hire any foreigners and you can only make the ice cream with American ingredients. At the end of the process, you can add up all the costs you incurred to make our special ice cream, charge us the full amount, and then add a little extra on top so that you make a profit.” Four years later, the government gets a $1,263 cup of slightly melted fudge ripple.

Lockheed Martin and Boeing are the bespoke pudding peddlers. SpaceX and Orbital Sciences are Haagen Dazs and Ben & Jerry’s.

A few problems, though, that the ice cream overgeneralizes. To begin with, the government is rarely asking for a product that already exists. Compounding that, they’re often seeking technology for military or other secretive applications; the government has the ability and wallet to buy a wide range of already existing airplanes, but they want the flying fortress that is Air Force One, and they pay a premium to make sure nobody gets their hands on the plans.

Then again, current contracts with Lockheed Martin or Boeing still put the government in a situation in which they’re trusting a private contractor to handle secret information, and for all that Mangu-Ward suggests that the government “supervises and advises,” it’s fairly clear from the multitude of over-budget and past-deadline projects that they’re not actually keeping their eyes on the ball, nor holding their contractors liable. To use the ice cream example, this is akin to asking Ben & Jerry’s to cater your wedding, having a terrible experience, and then continuing to hire them anyway, a non-competitive situation that doesn’t exactly inspire the best work and is basically as far from capitalism as it gets.

Reason suggests that we have a wonderful marketplace; our government really should make use of it, at least so far as to lower the costs from its more “trusted” partners.

How to Beat Yiannopoulos

I’ve seen a lot of articles posted lately about how Simon & Schuster needs to back down and immediately cease their publication of Yiannopoulos’s upcoming book, Dangerous. That, my friends, is censorship, no matter how angrily Leslie Jones and a wide variety of celebrities or liberals sugarcoat it. Yes, it’s true that Yiannopoulos is provocative, and liable to rile up the easily impressionable people from the right wing, whether you call them Neo-Nazis or the alt right. But if S&S doesn’t publish the book, someone else surely will, and while they might not have the outreach of S&S, the publicity they’ll get from a banned book will surely propel that book into the homes of every “deplorable” that you’re misguidedly trying to protect. All the profits from sales of that book will go directly back into the sort of right-wing enterprises that you’d like to be protected from. Here are some better options.

  1. S&S publishes the book. They use some of their profits to fund books that offer counterpoints or which enhance the conversation. Make sure you buy those books, because in the end, S&S is going to publish whatever makes it the most money, and if you don’t buy books, you can’t really criticize them for catering to those who do.
  2. A few brave readers from the left read through Yiannopoulos’s treatise, word for word, and pick it apart. I’m not talking about minor grammatical critiques, mind you. I’m talking about taking the scope of his argument and dissecting it, pointing out the major factual errors and leaps of logic. You don’t defeat something by ignoring it; you shine light on it.
  3. Nobody talks shit about Yiannopoulos’s work unless they’ve read it. This is one of the biggest issues. It’s very easy to call out Ann Coulter or Bill O’Reilly or any number of other right-wing talking heads whom you hate from their appearances on shows that you do watch. But if you don’t actually know the work in question, don’t try to argue how bad it is. Don’t express shock and horror that someone is actually reading it, unless you know firsthand how bad it is. (And even then, since you’ve presumably read it, don’t make an attack on the reader’s character. Try to engage in a discussion of ideas. That’s the point of literature.)

Everything else that I’ve heard people suggesting is just outright bullying. It’s motivated from a place of fear and good intentions, sure, but it still comes down to suppressing the fundamental right of someone to express their opinion and someone else to agree with it. Besides, wouldn’t you want to know what your right wing rivals are thinking and talking about? Wouldn’t that make it easier to work against their agenda?

The Beginner’s Guide

Most of my friends tell me that 2016 was a terrible year. Celebrity deaths, political catastrophe, and more. So here’s a New Year’s Resolution: Stop ascribing your own personal beliefs to what others experience. Not only is a cigar sometimes just a cigar; to some people, it will always and only ever has been a cigar.

It may help if you play through The Beginner’s Guide, and it would be helpful if you did so before reading any further.

What I wrote above is nonsense. All that life is, all that we experience, is a matter of how we process. What’s important is that we realize we might sometimes be wrong, and that we do not force our conclusions upon others. To me, The Beginner’s Guide is a deeply personal attack on criticism, one that carefully uses Davey Wreden’s narrative to coerce players into adapting a certain belief about Coda, the purported developer of the anthology of “games” that you’re walking through, before pulling the rug out from under players.

But Wreden isn’t asking people not to think, not to engage. He’s just warning you not to ruin something for other people because it’s not your cup of tea. I personally prefer that a game has so-called “lampposts” or the Mario-like goals that clearly celebrate the end of a level, and I wouldn’t want to engage in an endless cleaning simulator. Whether it’s realistic or not, I’m opposed to the sort of endurance puzzles found in Jonathan Blow’s games, but I can understand a creator’s prerogative to utilize them, especially if the design is metaphorical, with a roomful of ideas accessible only after a lengthy and arduous climb. Sometimes a game is work (and I’m not talking just about grinding).

In the Age of Oversharing, we feel useless if we’re not “contributing” to a conversation, and within that metric, we feel devalued without external validation, those bright and shiny likes. Literary criticism is filled with those who feel they must make their mark by finding some new insight or interpretation, no matter how contrarian, and we are so afraid of being wrong that we’ll constantly change the conversation, redirect the focus, so that we never have to worry about how we might look.

This is about me. Perhaps it’s about you, too. It’s about the prison we build for ourselves by feeling obligated to conform to standards–in the case of The Beginner’s Guide, the pressure not to simply be weird for weirdness’s sake or to have familiar, playable conventions so as to be salable. It’s about accepting that not everything is for us.

10/24/16: on when we can’t afford success

Everything this author writes makes financial sense. That, more than anything else, is proof of why cold, hard economics alone cannot be permitted to run our government, why the banks must be tempered and–yes–regulated by external checks and balances. A businessman like Trump would gladly improve the revenue for a service by making it unaffordable to the poor, but would also ignore the fact that America was not founded on exclusivity, even if it has lately become obsessed with it. That’s not to say we aren’t a culture of ownership and entitlement, but while we can’t all drive an Aston Martin, almost all of us have the freedom to, in some form or another, drive.

Of Hamilton, then, this author has identified an actual problem: tickets are being scalped, and this largely benefits the scalper, not the producers of the actual product being sold. Let’s ignore that this is essentially true of the stock market itself, in which the people actually executing your trades are the ones most immediately profiting from it. Instead, the author believes that instead of making the act of scalping illegal, he feels that the theater itself should counter these scalpers by raising their prices accordingly, such that demand decreases to a point at which those who desire tickets can buy them directly from the theater. That’s a bit like if the government decided to stop drug dealers not by arresting them but by dealing the product itself at a lower rate.

The biggest issue I have with this article is that it implies that the best solution to any problem is the one that maximizes profit for the producer. That’s Shkreli logic. It’s ironic that this is used, of all things, on a show like Hamilton, which spends a great deal of time on the passage of government for the benefit of all. Wouldn’t a better solution be one that adds additional seats to the theater, or moves to a bigger venue? If Louie C.K. decided he were going to perform at the Comedy Cellar, he might be able to charge a premium for each ticket; by choosing a larger venue like Madison Square Garden, he is able to charge less money per ticket and yet still make as much of a profit, even factoring in overhead for the venue, the security, etc. Adding a second date would make it even easier for those who wanted to get a ticket to get one–just as making scalping illegal would help to prevent those fans from competing with those who want not to see the show, but to profit from it.

I’m not against compromise. When I attend Six Flags, I sometimes have to wait longer because people have paid extra for the privilege of waiting 50% to 75% less. When I fly on a plane, I have very little leg room and am often next to a squalling baby. Wouldn’t the best solution to Hamilton, then, be to find another compromise? Where once premium Orchestra seats were enough to satisfy the rich, with the poor increasingly relegated to nosebleed Balcony seats, perhaps we could offer more Livestream options. Those who want to see it up close and in person could go to the actual theater; those who couldn’t afford that might go to a neighboring movie theater. Everybody would still get to see the show–for a popular one, would get to see it many times over–and everybody would profit. Isn’t that, ultimately, what we want from America? A country where everyone wins?

Mind you, we’re talking about something like Hamilton, which only seems essential. What if we were talking about vaccines? If we could only manufacture 1,000 doses a day, would you really want the pharmacy setting prices based on the most money they could get from a customer? Assume, hypothetically, that these vaccines were transferrable (i.e., pills rather than an injection): would you want to have to stand in line along with those who had already received a dose and who were now simply trying to resell additional ones? This economist is in favor of scalpers, then, because they ensure that he–a member of the wealthy–will always be able to get a ticket. What happens, then, to all of those who *cannot* afford those rates? They become dependent on lotteries, on government-subsidized ticket initiatives, or they simply go without. Of course this economist favors that system; he’s basically describing America as it is, not as it is idealized.



Blog at

%d bloggers like this: