I came across an article titled The Public Sector: Standing In Our Way Until We Pay Up (browsing Catallaxy Files). Both are recommended reading. The article is written from an American perspective, but speaks of experiences both Americans and non-Americans would be familiar with. I have reproduced what I found to be the more thought-provoking parts of the article here:
…one popular theory of the state — one that is pretty well-supported by the historical evidence in the European context — is that this is where governments come from: protection rackets that survive for a long enough period of time that they take on a patina of legitimacy. At some point, Romulus-and-Remus stories are invented to explain that the local Mafiosi have not only historical roots but divine sanction.
The fundamental problem — the provision of services — never really goes away. It is even today a critical issue in places that are (or recently have been) ruled by crime syndicates such as the Taliban and Fatah. Hamas, especially, is known to put some real effort into the social-services front. There are some services that markets historically have not done a very good job of providing — these are called “public goods,” which is a specific term from political economy and not a synonym for “stuff the public thinks is desirable” — and their provision is the only real reason we have governments. Or, more precisely: Providing public goods is the only legitimate reason we have governments.
In reality, we have governments for lots of reasons, most of them illegitimate: That ancient instinct toward banditry is powerful, and the desire to make a living by simply commanding economic resources rather than earning them through trade or labor seems to be a fixed feature of a certain subset of human beings. Patronage and clientelism are very strong forces, too, and government can be used to create public-sector salaries or welfare benefits that are well in excess of the wages that political clients could expect to earn in honest work. In the United States, our swollen public-sector payrolls, particularly at the state and local level, are little more than a supplementary welfare state, providing a more dignified form of public dependency for relatively low-skilled and mainly unenterprising people.
(…)
When it comes to government, if you aren’t involved in the provision of actual public goods, you are involved in extortion. It may be legal. It may have the blessing of the mayor, the city council, and your union representative, but it’s still extortion. And you should be ashamed of yourself. If your only purpose is getting in the way until somebody hands you money, then you are part of a protection racket. And you might want to think about going into a more honorable line of work.Prior to reading the article, I was familiar with the hypothesis that the origin of the modern state has its roots in criminal enterprise, yet it is always amusing attempting to reconcile this with the modern state’s increasingly matronly efforts to get its subjects to behave themselves. And it is certainly far from an implausible theory, when you consider how similar the objectives of a criminal enterprise and a state can be. The major difference is, of course, that the state functions within the law – hardly surprising since it is the major source of law – while criminal organisations operate outside of the law. But honestly, how could the activity of a crime gang that defeated a local rival in a turf war be described as anything other than a spot of localised gun control – in terms of ends, if perhaps not means?
But the article got me thinking about what we can do and perhaps intend to do about what Sean Gabb would describe as “the ruling class” – the politicians and senior bureaucrats – but also the minor apparatchiks, too. In terms of the big picture stuff, the bolded part above resonates with me as particularly axiomatic, and if libertarians or classical liberals or small government conservatives or one of the very many labels we choose to call ourselves – if we stand for any one single thing, surely it is for the obliteration of this instinct, this scourge, from the human species. Yes, I am fully aware that previous efforts to change human nature for various ends have generally worked out appallingly, so maybe I should write about ‘disincentivising’ an instinct rather than ‘obliterating’ it. (I’m keeping ‘scourge’. Fair’s fair.) Although there are those amongst us who favour a muscular Ceaușescu solution to big government for those who believe they can spend our hard-earned better than we can, along with those willing to assist them in taking it off us and spending it. Others prefer an incremental strategy of rolling back government to the point that those who wish to “command economic resources” for a living find they enjoy slightly less demand for their services than a VCR repairman. I suspect both methods, perhaps working in concert at times, will be necessary at differing stages of the struggle against the statists if we are ever to be able to declare victory over them (and then leave them alone, as Glenn Reynolds is wont to say).
I do have a gripe about a distinction the author makes between paper-stamping, useless, make-work bureaucracy, and “public goods” bureaucracy, an example of which he doesn’t actually specify, although throughout the piece the inference is quite clear that he’s referring to schools and hospitals and the like – and presumably in the parts of schools and hospitals where service provision takes place; not where the (many) papers are pushed and stamped. Now, many here (rightly, I believe) probably object to the contention made that the market traditionally failed to provide such services of the “public good”, hence the state springing to the rescue to address this “market failure”. There are many people here – Paul Marks comes to mind – who will know a great deal more than I do about the patchwork of friendly societies and other private arrangements that individuals and their families paid into voluntarily and turned to for financial aid in times of illness, unemployment, or other trouble, as well as the nature of the education sector prior to the era of compulsory government schooling; the vast majority of which was crowded out by “free” state healthcare and education. However, my purpose is not wish to dwell on this now, interesting a topic as it is.
The fact is that the market can and has provided those services more efficiently than the state. Too many otherwise informed people, including the author of this article, appear to put the cart before the horse when they speak of “public goods” like universal healthcare and mandatory government-funded education. I realise that the article is American and the author is not writing about the NHS, but he could just as easily be. The point I want to make is that the UK has universal healthcare and education because it is a wealthy nation. It did not become a wealthy nation because it introduced universal healthcare and education. It seems that not very many people in modern Britain realise this, let alone the fact that the UK remains a wealthy nation in spite of universal healthcare and mandatory government-funded education, not because of it. Universal healthcare and mandatory government-funded education destroy wealth. The NHS, the welfare state, the whole bloody edifice is an almighty testament to the enormous wealth-creating power of the free market; so strong that it can carry about these colossal parasites and still deliver increased prosperity to the brave, the hardworking, the clever and the ambitious. So never allow disgraces like the NHS, the state school system and so forth to be defended as “public goods” that the market had failed to provide so the state was forced to fill the breach. No. This was not so. Nor should these “public goods” be described as the “legitimate functions of government”. They are not.
As an aside, I would argue that there are a small number of legitimate functions of government – I am not an anarcho-capitalist. A (very) small number of services are demanded uniformly across society. Perhaps when the author speaks of “public goods”, these services are what he is referring to, as they would not be improved by competition and the profit motive in a free market context. They are best provided collectively, and the state should manage them on behalf of all of those who benefit from them. I am speaking of national defence. Law enforcement and the judiciary. Disease and pandemic control. This is not revolutionary stuff for any regular reader of Samizdata, but I want to point it out as I am so bemused by the patently false claim that states these days often maintain near-monopolies on “public goods” of the sort Fatah, Hamas and the Taliban offer, that providing such “public goods” is a legitimate role of the state, and a genuinely free market “has not historically done a very good job of providing” these “public goods”. However, I will happily accept that the free market has not historically been very good at running judiciaries, preventing the spread of epidemics or defending nation-states.
Anyway, that whinge aside, the final paragraph of the article had me cheering. Someone recently suggested to me that I should consider joining the bureaucracy if I ever felt the need for a career change. God. No. Never. And that paragraph sums up exactly why. I am somewhat conflicted, though. I have a few friends and family members who are bureaucrats, and many are reasonably senior bureaucrats. They are exactly the sort of people I’d fire (though not in the Ceaușescu sense) on day one if I were made king. But they are friends and family who I love and am close to. Yet they are part of the reason why I am forced to pay a large chunk of my income to the government. Shouldn’t I resent them more? People like them cost me thousands. “Even though your job is perfectly legal, you are involved in extortion”, shouldn’t I feel like telling them? “You should be ashamed of yourself”? No, I would not tell them that.
Compare this to a time when I genuinely was extorted by bureaucrats. I was married in a South-East Asian nation at the provincial capital town hall. This was a lengthy process, involving several visits over about a month, primarily due to negotiations over the size of the bribe that would have to be paid for the paperwork to be completed in a reasonable length of time. Anyway, finally it was all over, the bribe was finalised and paid (it was about USD800 – negotiated down from USD1600), the marriage papers were handed over, and business was completed. Then the chief bureaucrat in charge of marriages for the province, the woman who we dealt with all the way through and whose language I did not speak – now wanted to get all friendly with me. Er, no. You’ve stolen my money to do something that you are already paid to do. No, I also am not buying the hoary old chestnut about low public servant salaries resulting in corruption – you and your colleagues are paid salaries that others in your country envy, and you enjoy a number of other comfortable perks that the poor in your country could only dream about, such as the opportunity for overseas travel and the use of a government car. You sit around all day drinking tea in your air-conditioned office with its backup generator in case the power goes out. You are simply corrupt because you can get away with it – if you were told tomorrow that you could no longer steal money from the people you are paid to serve, you would remain materially comfortable by your country’s standards on your salary alone. And, in the same way I am not going to sit down and drink tea and have a friendly chat with someone who has broken into my house and is in the process of stealing my DVD player, I am not going to be Mr Charming with you. As far as I am concerned, you are a thief and I do not like you, and I do not wish to be in your presence one second longer than I must. And that was exactly how it was. When we had the papers and the bureaucrat had the money, she started smiling at me and pouring tea. I did not return the smile or say a word; I abruptly walked out and waited outside in a manner that her and her colleagues would have regarded as rude, which was exactly the manner I was hoping to convey. Give me my money back and apologise for taking it in the first place – then I will drink tea with you.But hang on. The fact is that I paid a lot less tax in that country than in the developed world country I live in now. Here, I am never asked for bribes. There, I sometimes had to bribe officials, but even if you count them along with the tax I paid, I still pay much, much more tax here. Nevertheless, I regarded the bribe-takers there as utter swine. Why not the hostility towards the typical indifferent public servant here? They ultimately cost me much more – the only difference is I pay it indirectly to them through the tax system. Oh, and it’s completely legal, so no problem. Whereas in the South East Asian country my wife is from, asking for bribes is illegal but widespread. That’s why I couldn’t stand the bribe-takers there who shook me down a few times – the illegality, the extortion, the abuse of power. The trouble is that the start of this article hypothesises that European governments evolved from criminal enterprises that had such longevity that they acquired the credibility to govern. It seems I am quite fine with an organisation that has its roots in criminality and makes me pay it a hefty chunk of my income, partially to fund the generous salaries of its agents, who I am perfectly cordial towards? On the other hand, when I am in my wife’s country, I despise the government agent demanding a relatively small bribe. I shouldn’t have to pay that. It is illegal.
That seems to be the key difference – the bureaucrats here do not act illegally towards me, in spite of the fact I am paying much more for their typically bureaucratic, massive and massively overpaid service through the tax system. But the bureaucrats in my wife’s country who sometimes asked for bribes – unacceptable! Illegal! Now, I think I am right to object to illegal imposts placed upon me by bureaucrats anywhere. However, I do not understand why I don’t feel at least equal contempt for the bureaucrats of my own country. They should be chided as the article chides them:
you are involved in extortion. It may be legal. It may have the blessing of the mayor, the city council, and your union representative, but it’s still extortion. And you should be ashamed of yourself. If your only purpose is getting in the way until somebody hands you money, then you are part of a protection racket. And you might want to think about going into a more honorable line of work.Perhaps this should be my general attitude towards them, too: you are involved in extortion. You should be ashamed of yourself. You should find a job with more integrity. You should create wealth; not legally expropriate the wealth that others have created. This would not make me a very popular person with some people I know. And I cannot imagine treating them as such. Then again, maybe I should. Maybe all of us who pay the wages of their make-work jobs should. If nothing else, surely a broader awareness of who adds to the pot and who takes out would be a positive development?
*** NB: I want to mention that I have – with considerable resentment – made the decision to publish this post anonymously. However, the inescapable fact is that we live in a world where relatively harmless opinions such as those expressed and promoted by me here could conceivably result in someone like me being passed over for a job interview or promotion. It would only take the wrong member of a selection panel to be appointed to carry out due diligence on me. It would only take a split second decision by that member to look through just one more page of links uncovered by a Google search of my name. Perhaps that would be where they found this highly incendiary, provocative, offensive, discriminatory article that resulted in the “we will keep your details on file” pro forma letter or the company e-mail informing me my application for a promotion “was unsuccessful on this occasion”. I would love to be in a position in my working life to be able to give the venerable double forks to such people, who are very often of the “relatively low-skilled and mainly unenterprising” sort mentioned in the article, yet they can regrettably still act as the gatekeepers of a person’s career. Forget diamonds; the internet is forever. Maybe it is, but then again, maybe in ten years I will be happy to put my name to something as relatively innocent as this posting. I certainly would have ten years ago. Alternatively, maybe it will never again be prudent to be openly critical of a system in which so many hold such a deep interest in maintaining. In any event, for now, I state the above anonymously – and a little bit shamefully as a consequence.
November 9th, 2015 |
The desire to escape from the necessity to act economically is the root of much evil, and the route to many evils. Be it price controls, fiat money, compulsory purchase, taxation, planning controls or whatever step is taken to create an alternative to peaceful exchange.
Reality does not go away however, and to make sure that those living under socialism are content, the sterner socialists often resort to killing those who are or may be malcontents.
Re: NB
There is no responsibility to declare one’s identity when it would be used by the vile to subvert the consequences that would fall to you in a world of freedom and self-responsibility. Anonymity is a necessary tool to protect oneself against the unnatural order they have imposed, and from which they benefit at your expense.
With respect to the corrupt official who wanted to sit and have tea once you had finished negotiating the size of your bribe, I will observe – something that you undoubtedly know – that bribery and corruption often has extremely complicated local rules and etiquette. There is a specific way that it is done, and there are always local words and illusions about how it is done and what it means. A lot of this exists to preserve people’s self image – the idea that the people paying and receiving the bribes are decent and honest people – and it can therefore be seen as a tremendous insult if you do not bribe by the rules, and just come out and say that it’s a bribe. People doing business in foreign countries often get into trouble in this way, and I think you were taking a certain amount of risk by showing your contempt and refusing to have tea.
This kind of thing is prevalent in many places where the taking and receiving of bribes is clearly and obviously illegal. The main subject of this article – rent seeking and ticket clipping being made legal as part of the state apparatus and the people who do it feeling perfectly good about themselves because “we work for the government” and this is legal – may just be a slightly different form of the same thing.
The state does not exist to provide ‘public goods’ that markets were ‘historically poor at’. A lesser objection is that these negative historical assessments are often interested, and sometimes honest but mistaken. A greater objection is Milton Friedman’s point: things innately difficult for a market are likewise innately difficult for a government, so that the imperfect market may still outperform the imperfect government.
The essence of a state is to monopolise the use of force. The meaning of ‘monopolise’ can be extreme (everyone disarmed and helpless before the state) or mild: a state can have an ultimate overawing force, sufficient provided a serious majority of citizens are not hostile, as in the ‘small standing army, no police’ Britain of some centuries back. To minimise the use of force in society, by being the overawing force that prevents lesser forces from invading or growing from within, is the essence of a state, not to provide any other public good.
“Who guards the guards?” is the problem – a problem to which there is no final solution, merely balance-of-power, “better than the alternative” solutions.
One consequence of this is that law and order are productive, and can promote much freedom, when stable and predictable, even if also unjust. The poster’s experience that bribes are more annoying than laws is not such a bad instinct. Another commenters discussion of whether the bribes were arbitrary or were controlled by an unwritten customary law is also relevant. When government cheats on law, when the judge gives the politically correct answer, not the one the law’s words predicted, then things are getting worse. Likewise, when the bribes are arbitrary, not predictable, then things are worse.
A final aside: in the third world, civil servant salaries can easily be 30 times what the same person at the same relative level would earn in non-government work. This is huge compared to the difference in 18th century England, for example. So the poster’s well-argued dismissal of “poor public salaries make for corruption” arguments is sensible.
Given the reference to political economy, when talking about public goods he means “a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous in that individuals cannot be effectively excluded from use and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others.” One could argue these include defence of the nation, light-houses, road signs and so on. Comrade Worstall has been pointing this out for ages, which is how I know about the definition.
Same here, and it’s been useful. As the linked article says, and which appears to have been lost on here, a public good is *not* a pubic service which is of benefit. Hospitals and schools simply aren’t.
Some 30 years ago I was at a meeting with a female tax inspector (to sort out my tax affairs). She was about 35, quite attractive, and at the end of the meeting the talk became rather more general. I was of a similar age; there was no flirting going on, merely an attempt by her, I think, to counter my opinion, based on experience, of her local office.
She mentioned that she had recently attended a (ballroom-type) dance. One man who asked her to dance also asked her, while on the dance-floor, what, if anything, she did for a living. When she told him, he just let go of her and walked away, leaving her standing alone and utterly humiliated.
On a human level this was indefensibly rude; but one does not know what frustrations and expense or even threats the man had suffered at the hands of the Revenue.
The incident had obviously made a deep impression on her. Previously she may have regarded herself as an honourable public servant, an enabler of schools ‘n’ hospitals, etc., and she must have been astounded to be treated as a pariah.
I mention this because her conduct at our meeting struck me as being unusually helpful and reasonable; her attitude suggested that it was in fact I, as one of the many taxpayers funding the government, who was doing her a favour rather than the other way around.
So all in all it might be a good idea to let public servants know who their employers are. Of course this would not be advisable when they have any discretion about giving you a hard time, which does rather restrict such re-education to the social context.
I find “Everyone is the hero of their own story” explains more and more as time goes on.
“…the state functions within the law…”
That would be an excellent start.
Cost of living would drop 8% “on day one” of EU exit says economist
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06p01sf/select-committees-eu-membership-committee
Even if a historical market failure existed that required government provision, rapidly changing technology means that the market failure cannot be presumed to continue over time. Rather, private provision moves from being technological or institutionally infeasible to simply being crowded out by a free-at-point-of-use government monopoly. The Royal Mail is a good example – it continued in its legal monopoly long after it was clear that 99% of its services could be provided as cheaply by private activities.
The more simple-minded statist will claim that the alternative to the NHS is no healthcare for the working class – because no such provider currently exists.
What’s the alternative? It’s hard to get five year governments to consider the long term dynamic implications of market intervention – which might argue to permit short-term “market failure” in the expectation of a competitive market just around the corner. But a second-best solution would be to ensure provision always allows some space for private entry. In short – government funding but not government provision. School vouchers, personal healthcare budgets, and compulsary social insurance saving are the three big ones.
For information of how provision of education, healthcare and other suchlike State Owned provision was deliverd, this link has many documents on these topics:
http://www.civitas.org.uk/books/openAccess.php
Yes, organized crime syndicates are competing small governments, and many gangs even have a sort of internal democracy. As to what is legal or illegal, much if it is arbitrary. If you shoot a member of a rival street gang, you’re a murderer. If you shoot a member of a rival tribe in Afghanistan, you’re a war hero. Timothy McVeigh was awarded the Silver Star as a war hero, then came home and blew up the OK federal building. I would imagine that in his mind, it’s much the same thing.
Myno, exactly, which is why nom de guerre(s) exist.
Dear Samizdata Illuminatus
What is the difference between government and organised crime?
One is illegal.
However, neither is lawful.
DP
Imagine that a stranger to our planet comes here for some sufficient reason, and talks to one of us about the order that reigns in this world . Among the curious things that are recounted to him, he is told that corruption and vices, about which he has been fully informed, in certain circumstances require men to die by the hand of men, and that we restrict this right to kill legally to the executioner and to the soldier. He will also be told: “ The first brings death to convicted and condemned criminals, and these executions are so rare fortunately that one of these ministers of death suffices for each province. As for soldiers, there are never enough of them for they kill without restraint, and they always kill honest men. Of these two professional killers, the soldier and the executioner, the one is greatly honoured and has always been so honoured among the peoples that up to present have inhabited this planet to which you have come. The other, on the contrary, has just as generally been declared infamous. Can you guess on which one the condemnation falls?
Surely this travelling spirit would not hesitate for a moment; he would accord the executioner all the praise that you could not refuse him the other day, Count, despite all our prejudices, when you spoke to us of this gentleman, as Voltaire would have said ‘This sublime being,’ he would have told us, ‘is the cornerstone of society; since crime has become habitual on your earth, and since it can only be arrested by punishment, if you deprive the world of the executioner all order will disappear with him. Moreover. What greatness of soul, what noble disinterestedness must necessarily be assumed to exist in a man who devotes himself to functions that are undoubtedly deserving of respect, but which are so trying and contrary to your nature! For since I have been among you, I have noticed that it distresses you to kill a chicken on cold blood. I am therefore persuaded that opinion surrounds him with all the honour that he needs and that is justly due him. As for the soldier, he is, all things considered, an agent of cruelty and injustice. How many obviously just wars have there been? How many obviously unjust! How many individual injustices, horrors and useless atrocities! So I imagine that opinion among you has very justly poured as much shame on the head of the solider as it has poured glory on that impartial executioner of the judgement of sovereign justice.’
— Joseph de Maistre, “St Petersburg Dialogues”
In his final book, Power and Prosperity (2000), Olson distinguished between the economic effects of different types of government, in particular, tyranny, anarchy, and democracy. Olson argued that under anarchy, a “roving bandit” only has the incentive to steal and destroy, whilst a “stationary bandit”—a tyrant—has an incentive to encourage some degree of economic success as he expects to remain in power long enough to benefit from that success. A stationary bandit thereby begins to take on the governmental function of protecting citizens and their property against roving bandits. In the move from roving to stationary bandits, Olson sees the seeds of civilization, paving the way, eventually for democracy, which by giving power to those who align with the wishes of the population, improves incentives for good government.[5]
— Wikipedia
80% of the crap the government ‘provides’ can be done faster, cheaper and better by the private sector. This is not a secret.
In the US by 2030 public sector unions will be in the trash bin.
… but, despite the demise of US public sector unions, America will continue to become less and less free; micromanaged by more and more bureaucrats.
States tend to arise in the same way – war.
Not, normally, conquest – but the leaders of a people in their defence against invasion.
Hardly a Mafia origin of the state – indeed the Mafia was anti state organisation (created under the old Bourbon monarchy of the Kingdom of Naples – of “Kingdom of the Two Sicily..” and massively attacked by Mussolini).
The example of the Mafia actually shows that there is nothing AUTOMATICALLY good with being “anti state” – not if one is a private criminal.
Why do leaders in the defence of the people against invasion end up massively taxing them (normally now mostly for things nothing to do with the military) and regulating every aspect of human life?
Well yes greed does play a part – but the “ideology of the ruling class” (if we must really use the language of cod Marxism) is normally nothing to do with the “material interests of the ruling class”.
Political ideas do not, generally, come from material interests – ideas are just that (ideas – beliefs, principles).
When Parliament votes for lots of spending on health, education and welfare and supports endless regulation of this and that the people involved (both politicians and Civil Servants) believe they are doing good.
A Civil Servant does not get paid more money for enforcing lots of regulations (at least they did not use to) – a Civil Servant might prefer to just wait for the bell for morning tea and cakes, lunch, and then afternoon tea and cakes (full disclosure – I was a Civil Servant for a little while), rather than spending their day working.
So where does the idea that lots of government spending and lots of regulations come from – if it does not come from the material interests of members of Parliament and Civil Servants.
It comes from the schools and universities of course – and they only transmit what the “intellectuals” think up.
Intellectuals such as Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes – with their Positivist idea that “law” is just the will of the ruler or rulers (not the Common Law as a limitations upon government).
The ideas of Sir William Petty and Jeremy Bentham for endless government departments using mathematical planning and so on to promote the happiness of the people.
The ideas of John Stuart Mill and co (supposedly “Classical Liberals”) that “everyone agrees” that the state should do…………….
If you want to see the results of the view of the state taught (in Britain and elsewhere) by various intellectuals – then look around you, for this is what they have produced.
And they were, generally, totally sincere – and NOT motivated by self interest.
By the way – in a specifically British context….
It is utterly bizarre to be upset about the decline of the principles of the Common Law and then support Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes (rather than Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke and Chief Justice Sir John Holt).
Just as it is utterly bizarre to be upset about the decline in respect for human freedom and moral responsibility (moral choice) and support David Hume – not Thomas Reid.
Or to be upset about the growth of a professional Civil Service with endless departments covering just about everything – and then support Jeremy Bentham, and James and John Stuart Mill.
As the late Harold Prichard pointed out 80 years ago (see his essay on T. H. Green in “Moral Obligation”) even liberals who presented themselves as critics of Thomas Hobbes actually assumed his basic (and false) assumptions to be true.
Using the words “freedom” and “liberty” endlessly does not mean that an intellectual means the same things by these words that an ordinary human being would.
On the contrary, intellectuals who use these words (“freedom” and “liberty”) a lot are often opponents of freedom – both philosophical freedom (the capacity for moral choice – the ability to choose to do other than we do) and political freedom – the private property rights of the landowners, large scale manufacturers and so on AGAINST the state and its desire to increase “happiness” by its interventions for “the good of the worker”, the “good of the consumer” and so on.
Want a less statist world?
Then promote the ideas of people of intellect (“intellectuals” of a different sort) who teach that there should be less statism.
More freedom does not just “evolve” (in some sort of Hayekian way) – people have to believe in it (believe that the state should be limited) and then work to achieve this result.
“But Paul that is an OLD Whig point of view”.
Yes – and an OLD Whig is what I am.
Paul is right that some states are created by defensive war. England is a classic example, created by Alfred the Great, and his son and daughter, defending against the vikings, whose attack had no element of provocation to justify it. This origin is very valid – better than most – and might of course be an item in the causes of our developing into a freer state than some with worse origins.
Re the de Maistre quote in an earlier comment, the reason executioners are less admired than soldiers is that they do not risk their lives. Those who execute in a duel are admired – it’s a. One could imagine a legal system where the sentence was not 5 years but 5 encounters with volunteers – _true_ ‘public defenders’ – who would try to kill the culprit, risking their lives in the process. I believe in the death penalty, and despise PC arguments against it, but I think safe execution, done as a job by someone who lives comfortably, can never be admired like the life of a soldier.
(BTW, I recommend the C. Walter Hodges books ‘The Namesake’ and ‘The Marsh King’ if you want your kids to learn anything of how England came to be.)
“- it’s a.” Sentence should have ended “- it’s the ending of many a film.”
I like seeing these long articles on Samizdata.
Anyway, think I don’t care much about the legality, I feel the same way towards all these thieves. I am polite to them to the extent I have something to fear from them, and no more.
John Galt III said, “In the US by 2030 public sector unions will be in the trash bin.”
I don’t see how given that government can make laws mandating that certain services can be monopolized by gov entities. The USPS’ monopoly on the delivery of first class mail is one example.
“Well yes greed does play a part – but the “ideology of the ruling class” (if we must really use the language of cod Marxism) is normally nothing to do with the “material interests of the ruling class”.
Political ideas do not, generally, come from material interests – ideas are just that (ideas – beliefs, principles).
When Parliament votes for lots of spending on health, education and welfare and supports endless regulation of this and that the people involved (both politicians and Civil Servants) believe they are doing good.”
I beg to differ, Paul. The people involved in government do not care one whit about doing good. They only want to keep power and, yes, the material benefits derived from it.
Political ideas are just the ornaments used to attract followers in the mendacious process called democracy.
Yup.
Like Cristina, i also take exception to what Paul said, but for somewhat different reasons.
First, the comcept of “ruling class” was not Marx’s original idea. According to Gaetano Mosca, the concept was introduced by Saint-Simon, although it was implicit in Machiavelli’s work — and, i would add, in Aristotle’s Politics; and there might have been others.
My main objection, however, is that there is a Darwinian process at work. Every member of the ruling class has free will, in the commonsense meaning of the word: each of them CAN adopt an ideology contrary to their interests. The problem is, those who DO adopt an ideology contrary to their interests, drop out of the ruling class; so that the people who remain in the ruling class have ideologies that suit their interests.
That is correct, but, as should be clear from the above, irrelevant: even though ideas do not “come from” material interests in the inductive/Marxisant sense, they end up coinciding with material interests by a Darwinist/trial and error process.
“The problem is, those who DO adopt an ideology contrary to their interests, drop out of the ruling class”
Snorri Godhi, could you, please illustrate the above quote with an example? I find particularly intriguing the adoption of an ideology contrary to their interests that you mentioned.
Somebody had better state here exactly what is meant by “their interests,” as in “contrary to their interests.”
If Rep. X or Sen. Y refuses to “go along to get along” with his cohort in Congress and with his Party’s PTB or even what his constituency thinks it wants, or to accept some sort of “favors” for the same reason or in order to be re-elected or climb the political career ladder or attract fawningly “favorable” attention, speaking gigs at ginormous sums, blah blah blah — á la the excrescence T. Kennedy — does this really mean he is “adopting an ideology contrary to [his] interests”?
Or is he sticking to principles because, in the long run, he thinks that abandoning the principles for a short-term or tangible gain of some lesser sort according to his own system of values and understanding of ItAll will eventually come back to bite him in some sub-equatorial region of his anatomy?
This is just as true for non-libertarianish types as it is for libertarians, by the way. (For a non-politician of this type, consider C. Hitchens, who never entirely left the Left, but who became persuaded that various Leftist opinions and judgments, as well as parts of the standard Leftist ideology, were bushwah, and said so — and was denounced by many as a turncoat. I’m not the greatest Hitch fan, but in that he showed backbone. There are various Lefty pundits who are vocally non-climate-alarmists, taken to task by their readership, who yet do not change their opinion. Or consider the ostracism and excoriation by All the Left That Matters of former Inner-Sanctum lefties like David Horowitz, who emerge from the Long Dark Night of the Soul as anti-Leftists through and through, and pay the price of losing their friends, their social identity so to speak, and find themselves unable to get reviews or even mentions of publication of their books in the rags that formerly fawned over them — such as the NYT.)
There are short-term “interests” and long-term interests, and while the world may tend to view the former as what “in his interests” means because they are fairly obvious or plausible “gains” by some measure for someone, the individual may well hold to the latter as the real meaning of the concept “in my interests.”
That is why people return things to the Customer-Service counter in the store when they discover that for some reason the cashier overlooked charging them for something. And it’s part of why we make our kids confess to the storekeeper and return a shoplifted item, be it ever so inexpensive and the theft done, really, as an experiment rather than out of any attempt to get something for nothing.
It’s also why people sometimes will risk being shunned by the others in their social circles over disagreements about principles or the appropriate practical applications thereof.
So, don’t we need to very clear about exactly what we mean when we talk about a person’s “interests”?
Christina wrote:
One word, Jesus. LOL
Shlomo,
There are a lot of ideas in our culture that are upside down, for example, in many christian denominations it’s thought that satan works for god and punishes “the bad people” in hell, whilst god “destroys the righteous and the wicked” (Job 9), and “He laughs when a plague suddenly kills the innocent” (Job 9:23 NLT).
Which, of course, would make satan a hero and god a mass-murdering amoral phychopath.
Satan is supposed to be thrown into Hell at the last Judgement, so he doesn’t rule it. As for Job, his own life refutes those ideas. Yes, his kids do get wiped out, but he gets some new ones afterwards, even better than the old!
And as for God’s character, since HE created everything, HE is the owner and boss, the ultimate king (hence the use of royal pronouns).
Nicholas Gray,
Do you really want to go there? First off, I said according to some denominations. There are over 33,000 christian denominations and sects on the planet. Secondly, slaughtering innocent sons and daughters to impress the devil, and then giving him “better” daughters to sell off in a dowry hardly classifies said deity as a winner of the father of the year award. Thirdly, according to the story, whirlwind god shows up and says that Job is right and his friends (who said that god wouldn’t order the torture of the good, innocent and devoted) were wrong, and whirlwind god was pissed at both parties. He was pissed at Job, not because he was right or wrong, but because he dared make presumptions about him, a being that beat Nietzsche to the “might makes right” punch.
“Slaughtering innocent sons and daughters to impress the devil”? Where is that? I thought the devil did that to Job. Live and learn. God ended up pleased with Job, and displeased with his friends, as I recall.
Those denominations must be lousy readers. The clearest part of that obscure book ‘Revelations’ says that the devil will be taken away and put into a lake of fire. Until then, he’s been free to go around the world.
And if you want to confuse traditional Christians, ask them ‘Who are the Sons of God, in Job?’ Jesus is supposed to have the exclusive franchise on that title!
Cristina: it is not easy to give examples of people who adopt an ideology contrary to their interests, because such people drop out of the ruling class and tend to be forgotten. There is also the issue mentioned by Julie, that nobody knows for sure where an ideology leads, in the long term. It’s only a posteriori that we can say whether an ideology went contrary to a person’s interests … just as, in biological evolution, it’s only a posteriori that we can say that a given mutation increases or decreases reproductive fitness.
Nonetheless, i shall try to come up with a few examples.
Enoch Powell: embraced an anti-immigration ideology that presumably was shared by his constituency, but nonetheless led to his dropping out of the ruling class. Two points to note. 1st, i believe that Powell was wrong in worrying about immigration from the West Indies, because there were not enough people in the British Caribbean to swamp Britain (in Pakistan, otoh…); but whether Powell was right or wrong, is irrelevant here. 2nd, it is also irrelevant whether Powell was sincerely concerned about immigration or was cynically endorsing an ideology that he thought would enhance his position in the ruling class.
Tony Blair: embraced multiculturalism late into his first term, and at first it seemed to work, because the Tories were demonized as xenophobes at the following election; but in the longer term, it opened the doors of the European Parliament to the BNP.
Angela Merkel: well, we’ll see how her open-borders policy plays out, but it does not look good for her.
As should be clear from the above, open borders can be either in the interersts of the ruling class, or against it: it depends on context, and on how cleverly people play their cards.
Another example: in the 1930s, Churchill adopted an ideology that marginalized him, though he did not drop out of the ruling class; but the contrary ideology of appeasement was eventually going to be confronted by reality, and when that happened, Churchill gained the upper hand and the appeasers dropped out of the ruling class. Again, it does not matter whether Chamberlain really thought that was could be avoided, or was just buying time: the fact remains that he adopted an ideology that ruined him as a politician.
I’ll try to think of examples from more than a century ago.
Actually most of the leading statists (the politicians – not just the intellectuals) did and do want to do good.
To assume they are after their material interests is Cod Marxism.
As for government employees – yes some of them are now highly paid, but that is a quite recent development.
In the days of the massive expansion of the British state government employees were paid low – and expected to work very hard out of a sense of public duty.
And many of them did just that.
The idea that big government does not work because people are after their own interests is just WRONG.
It does not work – because it CAN NOT work.
And the unhistorical blather that people such as Clement Atlee in Britain or Woodrow Wilson did not “really” want to do good (that they were “really” after power for its own sake – or because it would give them access to money) is well – unhistorical blather.
I have no reason to suppose it was different in other countries.
Yes people are often corrupt.
But they can be sincere (utterly sincere) and still massively expand the state – thinking they doing good.
The war of ideas is just that – it is about ideas.
The position (itself an “idea”) that people adopt the ideas that suit their material interests is, generally, false.
Indeed it is depressing to see such Cod Marxism being presented as libertarianism.
I repeat that government workers (and so on) are now often highly paid – but that this is a quite recent development historically speaking.
The culture of low pay and hard work (motivated by a sense of the “public good”) used to be the norm in the Civil Service.
And not just the British Civil Service.
Big government does not work NOT because of the corruption or laziness of government workers and politicians – it does not work because it CAN NOT work.
Even if government is entirely made up of saints.
Leaving aside the drivel that people generally adopt basic moral and political principles (ideas)out of material self interest…..
I did make one obvious mistake – and I am surprised that no one spotted it.
I can not claim it was a deliberate mistake to test you all – it was just a blunder on my part.
I mentioned the Old Whigs and I mentioned F.A. Hayek (when I mocked “Hayekian evolution” in relation to freedom) – without mentioning that Hayek claimed to be an Old Whig – indeed specifically an OLD Whig.
Yes indeed Hayek made this claim – and I should have mentioned it and utterly failed to do so.
However, the claim that Hayek made about himself was undermined by the following.
F.A. Hayek says that the “Classical Liberal” position was undermined by its being associated with certain philosophical ideas.
What philosophical ideas?
Specifically the ideas that human beings can work out moral good and moral evil – basic principles of universal moral good and moral evil (not subject to country or historical period).
And the principle that human beings can CHOOSE to follow moral good against our desire to do evil.
Where are these principles from?
Well they can be traced back to various Classical writers of course – such as Cicero in “On Obligations” or Alexander the “Commentator” on Aristotle (indeed partly Aristotle himself – at least some of the time).
However, these principles were specifically the foundation of a political group.
Which political group?
Certainly not “19th century liberals” as a whole – many “19th century liberals” rejected these principles (J. Bentham, the Mills, T.H. Green……) – but only those “19th century liberals” who harked back to another political group.
Which political group?
Specifically the Old Whigs.
People such as Chief Justice Sir John Holt or, the best part of a century later, Edmund Burke (at least most of the time – see his writings on Ireland and his writings on India).
The ability of human beings, with effort, to tell basic principles of moral right and wrong – and the ability of human beings to CHOOSE between them.
These are not casual associations of the Old Whigs.
They are the FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES of the Old Whigs.
The idea that Hayek seems to have had that one could dispense with these Foundational Principles and still keep the POLITICS of the Old Whigs is utterly mistaken.
Even the Tory Dr Johnson could have told Hayek that – as the best Tory folk held to the same basic moral principles.
The existence of principles of basic moral conduct – as true in India as in the forests of America, and as true in the stone age as in 18th century London. And the ability of human beings (with great effort – and with, yes, backsliding and failures) to CHOOSE to do the right thing against our desire to do evil.
Hence the contempt that Dr Johnson showed for his “fellow Tory” David Hume.
Dr Johnson took the ideas of David Hume seriously (rather than assuming that Hume “could not” mean them) – and, therefore, despised Mr Hume.
The contempt was actually paying Mr Hume the complement of taking his ideas seriously – rather than treating philosophy (moral, political and otherwise) as a nice-little-game.
When F.A. Hayek embraced the “modern” ideas (actually these ideas to can be traced back to the ancient world – there is nothing really new about them) of moral relativism and philosophical DETERMINISM, he (Hayek) thought that he could keep the politics of the Old Whigs.
One can not do that – it can not be done.
One can not cut a tree off from its roots and expect the tree to thrive.
Nor can one destroy the foundations of a building and expect the building to stand securely.
The moral relativism (nothing is universally morally true – nothing is worth dying to defend…..) and philosophical DETERMINISM of David Hume leads to the “euthanasia of the constitution”.
And, of course, Mr Hume knew it did.
That is why it would have been considered mad, in his own lifetime, to call Mr Hume a Whig – and it is also why decent Tory folk (such as Dr Johnson) who accepted the foundational principles, despised their “fellow Tory”.
It is a pity that “modern” liberals (for a couple of centuries now) have often been so obsessed with complexity and detail – that they have forgotten the basics.
If a human being can not work out basic moral right and wrong (“the same in the Golden Wood as in his own house” as Tolkien put it) and can not CHOOSE between basic moral good and evil – then everything else is a waste of time.
An utter and complete waste of time.
One can not get to the spirit of 1688 or 1776, or the Battle of Britain in 1940, from the philosophy produced by the smiling face of David Hume, any more than one can from the (much the same – but in less gentle language) philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. And this is NOT an accident.
Does a person stand with 1688, 1776, and 1940.
Do you support the people who went in their aircraft to face death (horrible death by being burned alive) to fight the Nazis who stood for the denial of the existence of universal moral truths and the ability of human beings to CHOOSE universal good against evil?
If your answer is “no” or some version of “not sure” or “it is more complicated than that Paul”.
Then just go away.
As the President of France (who so much German, and Soviet, efforts went into attacking – as late as the 1920s) said in 1914.
The Declaration of War by Germany was not really a Declaration of War against France – as a country.
The tissue-of-lies that was the German Declaration of War in 1914 was really a PHILOSOPHICAL document.
A formal rejection of the principles of “universal reason and justice”.
Not in the false “political rule” form of the French Revolutionaries of 1789 (who has Burke pointed out used their talk of freedom and justice as a cover for their devotion to the ideas of Rousseau – who, in turn, had more IN COMMON with Thomas Hobbes and co than he was different to them), but in a much more basic sense.
The lies in the German Declaration of War of 1914 were not some casual matter of propaganda – they were making a basic philosophical point.
They were a rejection by the German academic-political elite of the concepts of universal truth and the ability of human beings to choose between good and evil.
NOT a matter of whether one has an elected government or not – but a matter of whether there is such a thing as objective moral right and moral wrong, and whether human beings have the ability (and the duty) to choose to moral right and oppose moral wrong.
This is the foundation of a Christian Monarchy just as much as a decent Republic.
It is a duty of subject to OPPOSE (if need be to the death) a King who breaks the moral law – a “King” who attacks the weak and innocent, for such a “King” is no King (as Kings themselves often admitted). Just as it also the duty of a person to stand with a King (again stand – to the death) who is faced by rebels against the basic moral law.
The ability, and the duty, of a human being to work out basic (not detailed – basic) moral right and wrong, and to stand with truth and justice against evil – to the death.
Yes to the death – whatever country or “historical period” this person may find themselves in.
To the bitter end – if bitter it must be.
I repeat my message of some moments ago.
If you stand with the enemy (the ancient enemy) or you are unsure on which side you stand……
Then please go away.
Indeed a King may find that those who argued with him most – when he was in his pomp and power (and tempted by evil), are the same people who later come to his defence.
Come to his defence when things go badly for him and he is peril – and all his flattering “friends” have melted away.
Julie, you made a very good argument about different interests. None, in my opinion, about somebody working against his personal interest.
Thailover, since I’m still waiting for your answer to my last question to you, I will refrain to comment on the witless statement about Jesus.
Snorri Godhi, I think you are assuming as the truth your idea of what the interests of, say, E.Powell or A. Blair were.
Paul, it’s very sweet of you to have such a high opinion of our swindlers par excellence. Two small details for you to notice: I did mention power before the material benefits, important as they are. I’m not and never will be a libertarian.
In the Anglo-American system, the descended from criminals explanation for government doesn’t come close to working. At the time of the Commonwealth and the Revolution, the culture of government itself was anti-government. Almost all the “extortionist” aspects of our governments have arisen in the last century and a half. If government were the descendant of extortionists, it would have started out with the extortions.
Our petty extortions are as the author says an artefact of our wealth. We gave power to government to win wars, and then the culture sought to use the same power to defeat what it saw as social problems.
If the government can mobilise our collective strength to defeat Napoleon or the Confederacy, then why not use it to defeat filth, or ignorance, or ill health, or ugliness?
Every one of the extortionate aspects of Anglo-American bureaucracy is the direct result of free choices by the people at large expressed through their representatives.
We invented the DMV because we wanted it.
PM-
Please, this is the first time I have encountered the term, “Cod Marxism”. By which you mean…?
Paul, you have fallen prey to a fallacy of equivocation: when you say that
“they are (or aren’t) after their material interests”
you mean (judging from context) that
“they are (or aren’t) CONSCIOUSLY after their material interests”.
But that is not what is being discussed here, at least not by me. My claim is that
“they are BEHAVING in a way that promotes their interests.”
That is a very different claim: what “they” consciously want, becomes irrelevant. Intentions are irrelevant in politics. It is Cod Marxists who are obsessed with intentions, and in this sense you are closer to them than i am.
And btw, i am NOT talking about MATERIAL interests: i am talking about power, not material gains.
To put it another way, people do not pursue the interests of the ruling class because they are members of the ruling class. It’s the other way around: people are members of the ruling class because they pursue their own interests (more successfully than average).
BTW i am no Hume scholar, but i think i can say that i understand Hume better than Kant, and your interpretation of Hume looks to me as remote from what Hume actually wrote*, as Ayn Rand’s interpretation of Kant from what Kant actually wrote. Just to mention 2 specific worries: your claim that Hume did not believe in free will, and your claim that Hobbes’ philosophy is “much the same” as Hume’s.
* please note that i take Hume literally: no nonsense about “he did not really mean that”.
Cristina: when i talk about “interests”, in this context, i am talking about gaining power. I am not talking about CONSCIOUS interests.Tony Blair might have been CONSCIOUSLY interested in all sorts of worthy causes, but as a member of the ruling class, his interest, by definition, is to gain more power.
I am with Snorri on this, at least to the extent I understand his point: whatever we may call them – politicians, statists, gangsters – we are discussing people who seek power. The purposes for which they seek and use that power – be that pursuit of abstract or practical ideas, material gain for themselves or others, doing “good” or “bad” – are secondary to this. And yes Paul, that is why government does not work, no matter how good the intentions may be.
The pursuit of power is their main interest, the fact that it often takes the shape of monetary or “material” gain is irrelevant to this.
My approach to folk who want to work for the State is to differentiate, to some extent, between a person who is at least involved with what I see as the legitimate core functions of a state (I am a minarchist, not an anarchist) such as someone who runs a court, a soldier and so on, and those whose work should properly be in private, non-coercive areas of life. Another way I approach things is if I meet an undergraduate or youngster thinking of a career, I always try to encourage them to avoid working in government or even those hybrids such as NGOs.
The true distinction is between those whose jobs would exist in the private sector (nurse, teacher) even if there was no state, and those (not few!) who don’t (diversity manager, MP, health and safety managers).
I would also say that those who seek power are not necessarily evil – just deluded. They labour under the delusion that society needs to be managed (obviously!), and, in their self-conceit, they believe that they somehow have the skills and insight that will get them into the elite club of managers.
You see this at work in the private sector as well, but unlike in the government sector failure is not tolerated, and poorly thought through projects fall by the way side. BUT, unproductive activity can still get you places and it is is annoying seeing all these people getting well rewarded for, essentially, messing about.
the idea that the people paying and receiving the bribes are decent and honest people – and it can therefore be seen as a tremendous insult if you do not bribe by the rules, and just come out and say that it’s a bribe. People doing business in foreign countries often get into trouble in this way, and I think you were taking a certain amount of risk by showing your contempt and refusing to have tea
Well, we’d gone through the tea and smiling sessions several times before in the process of negotiating the bribe. By the time I made my rather silly stand, the papers had been stamped, signed, sealed and delivered and the money passed over. The process was complete, no going back there. I also mentioned to my far more pragmatic wife beforehand what I was intending to do, and – whilst sharing with me my lowly opinion of the corrupt local officals, she saw my stand for what it was – am ineffectual gesture that will change nothing, apart from giving me a false sense of sticking it to The Man (after he’s just shaken me down for USD800). I actually ran the idea of using my wife to say something to the corrupt official once everything had been settled that would be very similar to that found in the article linked above, but perhaps with a few more expletives, although my wife put the kybosh on that. You just never know, she said. Maybe in 10 years time we might need this petty career bureaucrat’s assistance for something or other. I doubt she would recall the foreigner who refused to drink tea with her a decade ago. But the foreigner who called her a whore, and then corrected himself and apologised to whores, because at least they conduct an honest trade, and described the bureaucrat as lower than a whore? Well, she might remember that.
Like I said, my wife is pragmatic.
The linked article says that, but goes on to contradict his definition in several places and makes it quite clear that he is referring to public services which are if benefit. For instance, he mentions the kinds of “provisions of services” by the Taliban, Fatah and Hamas. Now if he’s not talking about “stuff that the public finds desirable”, then I’m a monkey’s uncle. And this paragraph is instructive:
What do they get for it, indeed. See earlier monkey’s uncle statement.
The author of the article, while initially defining a “public good”, makes a number of inferences that quickly abandon his definition of a “public good” for that which he insists it is not. So I do not think it is at all irrelevant to include schools and hospitals in this debate. The author rather coyly has when he winks at what the Scandinavians receive in return for their massive tax burden.
One issue that has only been very briefly touched upon in this thread, as it’s the primary reason I wrote the blogpost in the first place, and it is actually something that I’d like to hear as many perspectives as possible over – what if your loved ones or loved ones are one of the taxeaters? Should this impact upon your relationship with them? I consider the way they earn a quid to be immoral. And not just a little bit, either. They are a cog in a machine that creates untold misery to millions.
I think it has been touched upon here more than briefly. What I personally gather from the majority of the comments here is the fact that although most of us* share similar core values, we differ quite extensively on the principles and their structure which guide us in pursuit and upholding of those values. So for myself, as a case of an idealistic anarchist but a realistic minarchist, I am quite happy with a loved one who makes his living serving in the military or the fire brigade. However, I would be much less happy with someone who chose to join the police force. Others may be more at peace with the police thing, for the usual reasons. What about the legal profession? A tough one for me as it would greatly depend on details (is it a defense attorney, a judge or a prosecutor?), but less so than a career in teaching in a nationalized education system. Other may have views that vary slightly. Or not.
*And it’s not just ‘us’ as libertarians or whatever other label we here may choose – it’s just the same with most of the population, at least in what one may call Western Culture, where human life and property are still for the most part held as primary values (our usual – and quite justified – complaints here notwithstanding). So one person may draw the line in his personal relationships at something like murder or rape, another at theft, and yet another at fraud or even a “mere” lie.
And I do apologize if I missed the point of the question.
To me, it depends upon the nature of the position. Most government employees are simply happy to have a job and are performing a task which is, if not truly beneficial, at least relatively innocuous (even if most of us here would agree that said task would be better performed by the private sector). I don’t see much point in making a big stink about it, given the pervasive level of government in our lives. But if someone I knew worked for the NSA or the TSA, or some similar overtly freedom-destroying agency, I would shun him. It’s a matter of degree.
My brother is a city planner for a small town in Connecticut. He knows quite well how I feel about the “benefits” of central planning, the morality of legalized property theft (eminent domain), and the various petty tyrannies he visits on the unfortunate developers he deals with. I don’t shun him (not that I see him very often); we simply have a tacit understanding during our relatively brief meetings to avoid discussing those issues. But if he should take a job with the NSA I would shun him. That would be beyond the pale.