Laws Don't Always Work as They Should in a Complex World

[wolfpup]

@adaher

Government is a necessary evil, because government involves the use of force, which is also not only a necessary evil, but should be utilized as little as possible. The argument for minimal government isn’t some libertarian article of faith. It’s a very well reasoned argument. Liberals tend to elide this argument by seeing the use of potentially deadly force as a positive good as long as it’s used in the service of a cause liberals support, like preventing people from selling loose cigarettes on the streets of NYC. Then they decry the use of force and call for these little laws to not be enforced. Then the whole concept of rule of law gets undermined. Just don’t pass laws you aren’t willing to kill for in the first place.

That’s an absolutely absurd characterization of government. It is, once again, the libertarian maligning government in the language of provocative melodrama. In point of fact this fanciful notion of “use of force” is a misdirection because if you want to take an analytical view of it, “force” is the recourse of last resort in all human relationships – an employee who persistently fails to follow orders and gets fired but refuses to leave; a parent or teacher dealing with an uncontrollable unruly child; an irate customer who obstructs business and won’t leave the premises – all these situations are likely to lead to use of force by either private or public authorities.

It is manifestly absurd to suggest that “use of force” is the signature characteristic of government, as if our elected representatives routinely carry around nightsticks and horsewhips. It’s not the nature of government, it’s the nature of the human condition. The signature characteristic and purpose of government is the protection and furtherance of the public interest. It is a fundamentally benign purpose, which is what makes anti-government libertarians so frustratingly and dangerously wrong-headed. Dangerous because if government doesn’t safeguard the public interest, the public interest will be usurped by powers that are self-serving and far from benign. Like dishonest corporations. Like polluting industries that poison our environment. Like the Koch brothers. Like Wall Street.

And, no, contrary to some earlier comments, passing laws isn’t an infringement of freedoms. Unless they believe that infringing the freedom to be a racist bigot, or dump toxins into our drinking water, or the freedom to get free money from banks at gunpoint, or the freedom to run a dishonest business and rob your customers blind, are all freedoms worth having.

And no, as well, to the fiction that “law or no law” is ever a coin-toss where, due to the previous fiction about freedoms, “no law” is always the better choice. The better choice is the one that fulfills the above-stated purpose of government by furthering a public interest, that creates a better society by improving in some small way our security, justice, quality of life, or just our ability to live peaceful lives.

[brickbacon]

I for one would like to see more data on the credit report issue. It seems odd to me to posit that is the reason for the observed effects for a few reasons.

1. It’s not like drug tests because unlike drug use, Blacks tend to actually have worse credit scores, so you are not correcting an unfounded assumption.

2. Employers don’t usually check credit scores, but rather credit reports. One informs the other, but there is not a neat overlap, thus using credit scores in the study adds some ambiguity.

Additionally, employers don’t tend to check credit until fairly late in the process. The article posits the credit check is being used as a means of weeding out applicants, but I don’t think it typically functions in that way. Employers are far more likely in both the presence and absence of the ability to check one’s credit, to use education, experience, and other factors to weed out applicants initially. Strangely, the article posits that employers are doing that more in the absence of the ability to check credit reports, but that really doesn’t make much sense to me.

3. Even if it hurts Black employment, the law still may be good since it eliminates one irrelevant basis for which employers were discriminating.

Either way, I wouldn’t put much stock in just one study.

[adaher]

@wolfpup

That’s an absolutely absurd characterization of government. It is, once again, the libertarian maligning government in the language of provocative melodrama. In point of fact this fanciful notion of “use of force” is a misdirection because if you want to take an analytical view of it, “force” is the recourse of last resort in all human relationships – an employee who persistently fails to follow orders and gets fired but refuses to leave; a parent or teacher dealing with an uncontrollable unruly child; an irate customer who obstructs business and won’t leave the premises – all these situations are likely to lead to use of force by either private or public authorities.

Force is supposed to be a last resort. In practice, people do get killed for minor infractions. More frequent is not death, but lives ruined by minor infractions. Every law ruins a life, most laws ruin many lives. The idea that laws should be passed with care and not just to “make a statement” should not be a controversial idea. And that’s before we get into the unintended consequences. That guy that got killed selling loosies was not an unintended consequences of the law. It was a very predictable outcome of that law.

It is manifestly absurd to suggest that “use of force” is the signature characteristic of government, as if our elected representatives routinely carry around nightsticks and horsewhips. It’s not the nature of government, it’s the nature of the human condition. The signature characteristic and purpose of government is the protection and furtherance of the public interest. It is a fundamentally benign purpose, which is what makes anti-government libertarians so frustratingly and dangerously wrong-headed. Dangerous because if government doesn’t safeguard the public interest, the public interest will be usurped by powers that are self-serving and far from benign. Like dishonest corporations. Like polluting industries that poison our environment. Like the Koch brothers. Like Wall Street.

You’re right except about the benign part. It is a necessary purpose, but not benign at all. Not particularly intelligent either.

And, no, contrary to some earlier comments, passing laws isn’t an infringement of freedoms. Unless they believe that infringing the freedom to be a racist bigot, or dump toxins into our drinking water, or the freedom to get free money from banks at gunpoint, or the freedom to run a dishonest business and rob your customers blind, are all freedoms worth having.

I agree with you there. However, a lot of laws are of the “for your own good” variety, not the protection of victims from perpetrators. Those laws just should not happen.

And no, as well, to the fiction that “law or no law” is ever a coin-toss where, due to the previous fiction about freedoms, “no law” is always the better choice. The better choice is the one that fulfills the above-stated purpose of government by furthering a public interest, that creates a better society by improving in some small way our security, justice, quality of life, or just our ability to live peaceful lives.

For what it’s worth, I don’t like the practice of credit checks for jobs. So I’m glad the law was passed. But I never saw it as a tool to address racial discrimination. And the good thing about corporate law is that corporations generally don’t violently resist regulations, or resist enforcement when caught violating them. and for the most part, the agents tasked with investigating them aren’t carrying guns(although there has been a proliferation of federal agents with guns, which is not a good trend).

[bldysabba]

@wolfpup

The signature characteristic and purpose of government is the protection and furtherance of the public interest.

In theory.

[wolfpup]

I’m glad you agree with some of my points, and much of what you disagree with is basic ideology that we could argue forever and not resolve. For the record, though, your repeated references to the guy selling “loosies” needs some rebuttal.

@adaher

Every law ruins a life, most laws ruin many lives.

Cite for that remarkable sweeping statement? How does that compare with the lives that laws save? This is just that libertarian “evil gubbermint” mantra again.

@adaher

…And that’s before we get into the unintended consequences. That guy that got killed selling loosies was not an unintended consequences of the law. It was a very predictable outcome of that law.

No. Just no. Exactly backwards. This was not the result of “a law” and its “predictable outcome”, it was the result of a right-wing Republican “law and order” crackdown that came to be known as the broken windows theory, promulgated by Rudy Guliani and his police henchman Bill Bratton. The idea being that if you crack down hard on the small stuff, it will eventually drive out the bigger crimes, too.

Eric Garner died not because of “loosie cigarette” laws, he died because of the police brutality fueled by the “broken windows” policy. As I understand it he wasn’t even selling the loosies at the time and didn’t have any in his possession – he was accosted and murdered by police because he was known and recognized and confronted because of things he might have been doing, because he had been arrested by the NYPD thirty times since 1980 on charges such as assault, resisting arrest, and grand larceny. Do you want to abolish those laws, too? Or would it just be better to have a more decent society and a less brutal, racist, and prejudicial police force? You know what? Where I live such an unwarranted police intrusion on a citizen without cause is prohibited by law. How about that. A law.

[adaher]

@wolfpup

Cite for that remarkable sweeping statement? How does that compare with the lives that laws save? This is just that libertarian “evil gubbermint” mantra again.

Do laws against selling loosies save lives? No, that’s the government wanting its money. Money motivates the government in much the same way it motivates organized crime. It’s the main reason the SSA isn’t allowed to inform you if your SS# is used by another to gain employment. The government wants that tax revenue more than it wants to fight illegal employment.

No. Just no. Exactly backwards. This was not the result of “a law” and its “predictable outcome”, it was the result of a right-wing Republican “law and order” crackdown that came to be known as the broken windows theory, promulgated by Rudy Guliani and his police henchman Bill Bratton. The idea being that if you crack down hard on the small stuff, it will eventually drive out the bigger crimes, too.

Breaking a window actually hurts someone. See, that’s the other problem with modern liberals. They don’t want the laws enforced once they see what enforcement means. But it wasn’t conservatives that passed those laws. it was liberals. Liberals just shied away from the enforcement. No, “Pass a bunch of laws, but then don’t enforce them” is not rule of law. It’s a mockery of rule of law.

What should happen is legalization of selling loosies, and any other “violation” that hurts no one but the state. Crimes against the state should be unconstitutional by definition and I’m actually surprised the founders left that out.

[adaher]

As a matter of fact, I’d like a constitutional amendment passed that no law can be enforced except on behalf of a victim or potential victim. No victim, no crime.

[Flyer]

@adaher

As a matter of fact, I’d like a constitutional amendment passed that no law can be enforced except on behalf of a victim or potential victim. No victim, no crime.

Your heart is in the right place, but that standard is absolutely meaningless. Under that standard, anti-prostitution laws very well might be enforced more vigorously than they are now. After all, every customer of a prostitute is a potential victim of an STD. For that matter, we could outlaw ALL premarital sex under that standard.

[wolfpup]

@adaher

Do laws against selling loosies save lives? No, that’s the government wanting its money. Money motivates the government in much the same way it motivates organized crime.

Really? If the government is so motivated by the money to be made from cigarettes, how come they’ve banned tobacco advertising, cracked down on and sued tobacco companies, discouraged tobacco sales, and spent millions on tobacco research and warning people against its dangers? Is this how organized crime behaves? And tell us, if government is so unscrupulously motivated by money, just what is it that you imagine motivates private enterprise?

Look, I’m willing to give a lot of lack to basic ideological differences, but not to statements like that which are so outrageously wrong. The “loosies” law isn’t about money, it’s about something that may as well be called the “being a public nuisance on the sidewalk law” or perhaps “peddling while black”. It’s one of the enablers of the broken-windows policy that led to so many civil rights abuses and ultimately the death of Eric Garner. Who, as I mentioned, had already been arrested some thirty times, so he was either one of the world’s most nefarious criminals or else he was a victim of misguided policies.

@adaher

Breaking a window actually hurts someone. See, that’s the other problem with modern liberals. They don’t want the laws enforced once they see what enforcement means. But it wasn’t conservatives that passed those laws. it was liberals.

It’s news to me that Rudy Guliani is a “liberal”. And I doubt the guy he appointed as his police commissioner was, either. It’s amazing how you try to turn around misguided right-wing “law’n’order” policies into an attack on liberals.

I’ll repeat what I asked before. Wouldn’t it just be better to have a more decent society and a less brutal, racist, and prejudicial police force? And as I also said before – and I’ll give you a link this time – where I live such an unwarranted police intrusion on a citizen without cause is prohibited by law. How about that. A law.

Merely one small example of the fact that the purpose of laws – and the purpose of government – is to protect and further the public interest. And that’s an example of a law that restrains police and protects the civil rights of vulnerable minorities, preventing exactly the types of abuse that have been occurring in NYC. A law passed by an unabashedly liberal government. A law that exposes the libertarian characterization of laws and government as authoritarian promoters of coercive force to be an absurd and paranoid fiction.

@adaher

Crimes against the state should be unconstitutional by definition … As a matter of fact, I’d like a constitutional amendment passed that no law can be enforced except on behalf of a victim or potential victim. No victim, no crime.

As already pointed out, that’s so broad as to be ridiculously unworkable and counterproductive. Should it be unconstitutional to have a law against quietly and peacefully selling nuclear secrets and technology to North Korea or the Islamic State? It is, after all, only “a crime against the state”. Should it be unconstitutional to engage in tax fraud or welfare fraud? After all, those are just crimes against an evil government! How about the wondrous victimless crime of counterfeiting currency?

In a different context, we might argue about things like seat belt laws, or even distracted-driving and drunk-driving laws. I still remember libertarians ranting about seat belt laws and perhaps some still do, and I’m certain that they also ranted about having to pay more for cars with all the safety features that have been introduced over the past half century or so, not to mention paying more for emission controls.

Yet these laws were effective in vastly reducing deaths and injuries and giving us cleaner air in our cities, as much as libertarians frothed at the mouth about them. Were there unintended consequences? Sure there were. Cars with early emission controls sometimes didn’t perform well. There’s always some oddball anecdote about someone whose life was saved because he wasn’t wearing a seat belt, or who died because he was. But the unintended consequences were few and far between and today cars are far safer and cleaner than they used to be. We live in a better world because of those laws that supported a public interest.

[ITR_champion]

@wolfpup

This is exactly like the argument that says that government is capable of being corrupt and stupid, and therefore the solution is to have minimal government. Actually, no, the solution is to have honest and competent government.
…
Your argument is nothing more than a restatement of the libertarian’s prime article of faith.

When you get that honest and competent government up and running, send me a message, and I’ll stop being a libertarian.

[wolfpup]

@ITR_champion

When you get that honest and competent government up and running, send me a message, and I’ll stop being a libertarian.

Funny you should ask.

It’s true. See here. And here.

But that’s just recent stuff. How do you think most advanced nations in the world got universal health care and a strong social safety net?

Of course even in Canada we elected a bunch of right-wing loons for a time who left a tragic legacy of environmental destruction, regressive taxation, and a weakening of the social infrastructure including a gradual increase of the age of non-contributory social security eligibility. All of which the present government has reversed. For example.

The problem with government in the US isn’t anything innate in society or its politicians, it’s having too many voters who think government is evil and useless and then electing like-minded cynical and self-serving politicians who prove them right.

[PatrickLondon]

@Flyer

Far too many people assume that the sole purpose of Congress is to pass laws (“a do-something Congress”). We have too many laws already. The purpose of Congress is to govern. Contrary to popular opinion, that does NOT simply mean passing laws–it means to act in accordance with the Constitution, and to pass laws only when there is a genuine need for a new law.

Out of curiosity, to what extent would US posters see the function of Congress as holding the executive to account for the administration of government and law, rather than writing legislation? Does a member’s reputation and standing depend more on introducing a law than on asking the awkward questions?

In our system, the opportunity for individual MPs to devise and introduce legislation is very limited indeed: almost all comes from executive proposals and drafts. But they do have plenty of opportunities to badger ministers about the detailed implementation and administration of policy and law.

[wolfpup]

@Flyer

… Far too many people assume that the sole purpose of Congress is to pass laws (“a do-something Congress”). We have too many laws already. The purpose of Congress is to govern. Contrary to popular opinion, that does NOT simply mean passing laws–it means to act in accordance with the Constitution, and to pass laws only when there is a genuine need for a new law.

As already noted, laws can be just as much about granting or guaranteeing freedoms as about curtailing them. How did you manage to get appointed arbiter of how many laws is “too many”? Who decides where the balance should be between the rule of law and its opposite, which is anarchy? Isn’t that the job of the people who, collectively, vote for legislators that they hope will give them the kind of society that they want to live in?

@PatrickLondon

Out of curiosity, to what extent would US posters see the function of Congress as holding the executive to account for the administration of government and law, rather than writing legislation? Does a member’s reputation and standing depend more on introducing a law than on asking the awkward questions?

In our system, the opportunity for individual MPs to devise and introduce legislation is very limited indeed: almost all comes from executive proposals and drafts. But they do have plenty of opportunities to badger ministers about the detailed implementation and administration of policy and law.

Good question. In Westminster parliamentary systems the head of government and his/her cabinet ministers are part of the legislative body and are accosted daily over their record of governance. In the US presidential system the executive branch enjoys a kind of fortified remoteness symbolized by the White House itself.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@adaher

This is where democracy breaks down, actually. Some sensible people will call for its repeal(REpublicans), and emotional people will say that Republicans want to make it easier for employers to discriminate(Democrats).

Cite?

[adaher]

Can’t cite something that hasn’t happened yet. ALthough no one has called for this law’s repeal, despite the fact that it doesn’t work, which should already demonstrate how politics trumps good policy.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Well, presumably you are relying on your experience with similar laws. Feel free to cite similar past occurrences.

[brickbacon]

@adaher

Can’t cite something that hasn’t happened yet. ALthough no one has called for this law’s repeal, despite the fact that it doesn’t work, which should already demonstrate how politics trumps good policy.

Why do you think one questionable (IMO) study demonstrates the law doesn’t work? And even if the study is correct, all it demonstrates is that law, in aggregate, doesn’t directly help the people some lawmakers thought it would. Why would that be SO bad it warrants repeal? Using someone’s credit history to determine whether they would be a good employee is dumb on it’s face, and should be outlawed.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Er, what? Should it be against the law for employers to do dumb things in general?

[Acsenray]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Er, what? Should it be against the law for employers to do dumb things in general?

It should be against the law for employers to do dumb things that interfere with an employee’s privacy, surely.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

A candidate for employment doesn’t have much privacy anyway. Employers are going to know where you live, how much you make, whether you’re married, and all sorts of shit that would otherwise be private. I don’t really see why a credit history is special in this regard.

If I have a philosophical problem with the practice (I have no objection to the law banning it on the grounds that it disproportionately disqualifies minorities on principle) it’s that credit histories are maintained by private vendors with almost no incentive to verify their accuracy.