RoR: Forum

Forum : Article Discussions : A Corrupt Profession

Tuesday
May 13, 2008

A Corrupt Profession by Tibor R. Machan

There are those who believe that business is inherently corrupt--communists would be among those, and socialists. The very idea of striving to make a profit is treated by these people as morally objectionable. Of course, some even think medicine fits the bill, or military service. And there are animal rights advocates who believe the entire meat industry is morally base. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (74 messages)

Post 60

Monday, May 19 - 1:32am

Link

Edit

Oh, and about politics being a profession, say it is a vocation, job, task, service, occupation, or calling--I am not wedded to any of these but want to focus on the fact that many folks take up politics as their sort of work and that it tends to be corrupt since it involves what for others would amount to a crime, forcibly taking resources from innocent people and using it for purposes to which they didn't consent. Compared to this bookies are embarking on a noble occupation.
(Edited by Machan on 5/19, 1:35am)

Post 61

Monday, May 19 - 4:15am

Link

Edit

Ted, words have meaning -- and, yes, meanings change. While I would call carpentry a craft or a skilled trade. Done right, it is "workmanlike." Even if carpentry can be a "profession" that still leaves the fact that professionals are not amateurs.

In politics we have both.

The Athenians were probably the first to pay themselves to attend the assembly. Just as we have forgotten how politics was done before the American colonists and the Enlightenment, we have forgotten what it meant that European nations were ruled by "houses" -- the House of Hapsburg, the House of Hohenzollern, and so on. They were literally and truly organized as houses. The lands that we, today, call "nations" (Poland, Hungary, Spain...) were merely the farmlands, etc., of the house. Ministers in the house did not get paid, they got fed. Today, we do things differently. With the Olympics in the news, it is good to remember that at first, the athletes are amateurs. Professionals -- those who were paid -- were banned. That has changed, but the distinction remains. And it remains in politics. Not all politicians are paid. Many local posts are unpaid.

Professional politicians are those who get paid for their work.

Post 62

Monday, May 19 - 4:28am

Link

Edit

Dr. Machan, as long you have government -- however limited or constitutionally defined or voluntarily paid for -- you are going to have politicians.

Would you say that we did not need new laws concerning intellectual property, that the old laws about land and machinery were enough? What about those laws concerning machinery? Did we need them 100 years ago, or were the old laws about real estate enough?

If the invention of radio created a new kind of property -- as Rand claimed it did -- then, did not the government need some kind of enabling legislation in order to parcel it out and enforce rights to it --- as Rand claimed it did?

Again, I point to the topic in Objectivism on Rational Government. What would it look it? How does an objectively based society choose its leaders? Its government clerks? Are those not two different groups? If the government has grounds of its own, offices for business, military forts, camps, and ports (water, air, orbit), then does not the government need people who can manage these facilities? Are they to be elected? Should legislators be elected? We Objectivsts give an easy go to "democracy" but if you think the problem through from first principles, you might have other ideas. I did and I have.

Libertarians of all stripes enjoy tirades against the government. Calling all elected officials thieves is perhaps important emotionally. However, you are left with all of the same problems in an ideal, perfect, -- or "... best or optimal possible society or legal order, one that is is attainable but not very likely to be attained, sort of like an optimal marriage or best possible lecture or book."

Post 63

Monday, May 19 - 9:56am

Link

Edit

I have in the past posted lists of articles and even books addressing all of these issues. I am curious whether those raising them to me this time have ever taken even a cursory look at, say, Human Rights and Human Liberties, A Radical Reconsideration of the American Political Tradition (1975). Not likely, based on how earnestly the questions are posed, as if I had never bothered with them at all.

Post 64

Monday, May 19 - 9:59am

Link

Edit

Volunteers can be professionals--a retired engineer could volunteer his or her skills/craft/professional expertise in a charitable venture. So not all professionals are paid!

Post 65

Monday, May 19 - 2:10pm

Link

Edit

Over the years I have worked for governments as well as private industry, in education and elsewhere. Even did a stint on a committee at the Department of Education. All the time I fought to cut back the government--one year I managed to stop the committee from writing to Congress to ask for more money! And at state colleges and universities I tried to instill the notion in colleagues, et al., that the privatization alternative is morally and otherwise superior. There are many ways to oppose the beast right from inside its belly! Many do it in much more dramatic ways in places like the old USSR. Some kid just received the Milton Friedman prize from the Cato Institute for this kind of work in Venezuela! The point is to never let up on efforts to cut back the government to its proper function. As to democracy, I have a full discussion of its place in a fully free society in my The Passion for Liberty (2003) should anyone be really interested. Also, see Machan, ed., Liberty and Democracy (Hoover Institution Press, 2002), with four superb essays by the likes of John Hospers.

Post 66

Monday, May 19 - 3:54pm

Link

Edit

We Don't Elect Dermatologists

I have suggested two main ways by which we might try to improve our system: link compensation to real improvement in the economy, as an inducement to lawmakers to cut government spending and regulation, and lengthen terms of office while limiting the number of terms to one in order to prevent electioneering and to focus officeholders on the longer term. I have also suggested that if a budget cannot be passed, that current levels of spending and taxation be reduced across the board by an automatic mechanism.

In what I see as a lesser but still important matter, I think we have to stop seeing office holding as a profession. Professionals work for profit. We don't elect people to become dermatologists or expect the waitresses at hooters not to line their pockets by laying on the honey. We have had enough of "professional" politicians holding office or government jobs from the time they graduate at the bottom of their class until the day they are impeached, resign, or decide to "spend more time with their families."

There are many other solutions. Reduce the upper house to one senator per state, while repealing the direct election amendment. Chose the members of the lower house by lot. Have all laws lapse after a set term unless they are renewed de novo.

We have to have a government. The alternatives are a good limited constitutional republic, another form closer to statism or tyranny, or anarchy. History shows anarchy always leads to civil war ending in the rule of feudal warlords, criminal syndicates, or a dictatorship.

Finally, if the statement "if you ask for government you will get government" is a valid postulate, then what about "if you ask for less or for honest government you will get less or get honest government?

These insights and suggestions are not unique to Objectivists, nor are they bizarre or abstruse. For bizarre or abstruse, check with anarcho-capitalists or the pages of Liberty magazine.

image from www.whaletail.com

Post 67

Monday, May 19 - 4:46pm

Link

Edit

Ted:

I really appreciate your efforts to think of solutions for a better way to structure government. I have had two ideas myself that I have floated in the past.

1: My less serious idea is that if any politician wants to pass a law which regulates or restricts any profession, then first let them get the same education and pass all registration exams, etc. within that profession, before allowing them to even think about imposing further laws or regulations in that arena. You want to regulate building design and construction? Then take six years to get a Master of Architecture degree and another three years (minimum) of working within the profession under strict professional development guidelines in order to have the privilege of taking the multi-day registration exam. If you pass the exam, then lets talk. (As an architect, I'm not too concerned about many politicians being able to pass that test). You want to regulate universal health care? Spend the next twelve or so years to become a practicing physician and then let's see how willing you are to shackle that investment of time and effort with the ball and chain of countless additional restrictions on the profession.

2: My more serious proposal is that every politician be rigged with a non-removable shock collar and that every person in the electorate be given a button. If you are displeased with the conduct or performance of your elected representative, then press the button, which adds a very small additional charge to the collar. Should enough citizens be displeased, the politician gets immediate feedback. And in the case of a super-majority of displeased citizens, it quickly becomes time to hold a new election! This is the ultimate example of democracy in action. And talk about citizen initiative! This proposal is guaranteed to get almost everyone interested and active in politics. I can't wait. I've got a brick ready for my button.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 68

Monday, May 19 - 8:19pm

Link

Edit

Ted: History shows anarchy always leads to civil war ending in the rule of feudal warlords, criminal syndicates, or a dictatorship.

History also shows that when ground transport systems break down - e.g., railroads, highways - due to some natural or man-caused disaster, people resort to their feet. This is not much fun or productive. If there are airplanes and helicoptors available, then people use them. Before air travel, however, you were pretty much stuck.

Lack of enforceable, rational governence leads to civil war, not "anarchy." At least not the kind that the anarcho-capitalists generally call for. I could argue as well that history shows states always lead to civil war ending in the rule of feudal warlords, criminal syndicates, or a dictatorship. Of course, not every existing state is there yet, but history certainly points in that direction.

The states that have survived really long term, such as Britain and Switzerland, as good examples, seem focused on the idea that the state exists to protect the citizen's freedom. When they deviate too far from that goal, then the electorate eventually wakes up and forces a correction. The process is hardly perfect or efficient.

Post 69

Monday, May 19 - 8:38pm

Link

Edit

Ted Keer opined: There are many other solutions. Reduce the upper house to one senator per state, while repealing the direct election amendment. Chose the members of the lower house by lot. Have all laws lapse after a set term unless they are renewed de novo.

.
Indeed, theoretical political science is a lot of fun! Heinlein spun off a few alternatives in one parargraph of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. As I noted earlier, one of the proposals of the anti-Federalist Paper was the the President of the USA would be elected by the governors of the States. That led me to suggest that the Attorney General of the USA be elected by the Attys Genl of the states. You can do this all day and all night, dream up these proposals.

If the government were truly limited by a workable and enforcible constitution, then it could be a one-man dictatorship, for all the difference it would make...

... but it makes a difference because no constitution can permanently restrain a government. That is one of the many (many) arguments in favor of anarchy. "History shows..." whatever you want it to show.... but history shows that governments expand to the limit of the resources of the society.

The change has to be philosophical before it can be political.

Let me ask you this: How many ways are there to wind a motor? Maybe three? How many ways can you organize a government? Maybe a million? Which of the two problems is less connected to reality?

Post 70

Monday, May 19 - 9:46pm

Link

Edit

The Will to Failure

"The change has to be philosophical before it can be political."

Have I ever disputed the importance of philosophy? Do you dispute the possibility of incremental improvement? Is the good the enemy of the perfect? Does nothing ever go right?

This thread is about political corruption. My suggestions are neither absurd nor irrelevant. Your criticisms have been both fallacious - equivocations and ad hominem - yet strangely flattering - putting me in the same class as Heinlein. You make me blush!

In private communication someone drew an analogy with computer glitches and Goedel's theorem. Maybe we are adding patches that would embarrass MicroSoft? Goedel's theorem proves nothing about reality - it only proves that sometimes people try to instantiate self-contradictions. (E.g., "This is sentence is not true" is in reality merely black squiggles. It only becomes a contradiction if one assumes that "this" is referring to some non-arbitrary assertion of fact.) Politicians certainly do try to instantiate self-contradictions. But have I done so on this thread?

Or maybe we're simply doomed, like parasite riddled old Lions or the Roman Empire a la Phil O.? Shall we build arks and dig bunkers?

I believe in free will, and in studying history, and I think making reasonable suggestions is more productive than using sophistical arguments to poke holes in what others are saying. The federalists and anti-federalists did it, did they have a divine dispensation that I don't?

Let's hear your brilliant suggestions, Mike and Phil, not the clouds you find attached to the pearls cast before you.

Post 71

Tuesday, May 20 - 8:14pm

Link

Edit

Suggestion 1: A general social contract, purely private, offered by Pay Pal or whoever to begin with affirming an agreement among all the signatories to settle any disputes between them by means of options spelled out in the contract, such as mediation, arbitration (if the mediation doesn't work), and a full dress common law trial as a last resort. Note that many, perhaps most, jurisdictions worldwide recognize arbitration contracts as binding. As an example of something similar which is in widespread use, take a look at the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code , from the wiki:

"The overriding philosophy of the Uniform Commercial Code is to allow people to make the contracts they want, but to fill in any missing provisions where the agreements they make are silent. The law also seeks to impose uniformity and streamlining of routine transactions like the processing of checks, notes, and other routine commercial paper. The law frequently distinguishes between merchants, who customarily deal in a commodity and are presumed to know well the business they are in, and consumers, who are not.
The UCC also seeks to discourage the use of legal formalities in making business contracts, in order to allow business to move forward without the intervention of lawyers or the preparation of elaborate documents. This last point is perhaps the most questionable part of its underlying philosophy; many in the legal profession have argued that legal formalities discourage litigation by requiring some kind of ritual that provides a clear dividing line that tells people when they have made a final deal over which they could be sued."

The role of the state judiciary in promoting the welfare of whatever group is in power is well known. When I suggested this idea to libertarian activist George O'Brien a couple decades ago, he responded with a discussion of the way that the Irish took back Ireland from the Brits. The key element was that they set up their own courts and ignored any judgements from the British courts.

We often see a frenzy of non-sensical speculation on methods of "punishment," which has nothing at all to do with "justice," even here on RoR, as people drool over the idea of the bad guys "getting theirs." It will be a clear sign of hope when people start to get excited over a better legal process, aimed at keeping what is theirs in their own hands, not at promoting some social-metaphysically justified, legally sanctioned vendetta.

Post 72

Wednesday, May 21 - 6:49am

Link

Edit

Phil, nice catch on the UCC. I have referred to it myself in such discussions. You have a buyer and a seller who do business over the phone, they send the thing and the money and each case, they send their own purchase order and invoice and those two documents might contain contrdictory provisions and usually it is not a problem... but sometimes it is... Thus the UCC.

Also, have you read anything by Wolf Devoon over on Objectivist Living? Wolf is a legal anarchist. As a lawyer himself, he sees the law as one thing and government as another. Law precedes government, he says and he makes a good case for it. He has a science fiction novella, The Good Walk Alone, that demonstrates this principle. The viewpoint characters are cops in Laissez Faire City, Costa Rica, circa 2050.

Post 73

Wednesday, May 21 - 7:00am

Link

Edit

Dr. Machan, I confess that I have not read any of your books. I stopped reading libertarian polemics about 1973. There was The Market for Liberty in 1971 and then Freedom in an Unfree World. Before that, being in YAF, I had read Cliches of Socialism and a lot of other Freeman materials and a ton of Birch anti-communist propaganda, like the classic John Franklin Letters. I never read Machinery of Freedom, for instance.

I did read What Has Government Done to Our Money? In that vein, just a couple of years ago, I bought Rothbard's History of U.S. Banking, but as I have said here on RoR, I found the scholarship lacking. However, I did trace one of his sources, joined the Adam Smith Society, donated some money to them for putting up pages on their website and bought myself an Adam Smith necktie. The source work in question was a history of the "Suffolk System" of banking. Rothbard fudged his facts to fit his theory, but the Suffolk System of Massachusetts between 1830 and 1860 was historically important as an example of market pressure on unregulated banking. Anyway, that was all for a paper I never finished writing for the American Numismatic Association.

The bottom line is that I will request your book, Human Rights and Human Liberties (1975), via interlibrary loan. I owe you that much in exchange for your engagement here. Thanks.