Is Democracy Good for Peace?

Not necessarily. Sandeep Baliga (Northwestern), David Lucca (Federal Reserve Board), and Tomas Sjostrom (Rutgers) built a game-theoretic model where “aggression an be triggered by domestic political concerns as well as the fear of being attacked.”

In the model, leaders of full and limited democracies risk losing power if they do not stand up to threats from abroad. In addition, the leader of a fully democratic country loses the support of the median voter if he attacks a non-hostile country. The result is a non-monotonic relationship between democracy and peace. Using the Polity IV dataset, we classify countries as full democracies, limited democracies, and dictatorships. For the period 1816-2000, Correlates of War data suggest that limited democracies are more aggressive than other regime types, including dictatorships, and not only during periods when the political regime is changing. In particular, a dyad of limited democracies is more likely to be involved in a militarized dispute than any other dyad (including “mixed” dyads, where the two countries have different regime types). Thus, while full democratization might advance the cause of peace, limited democratization might advance the cause of war. We also find that as the environment becomes more hostile, fully democratic countries become more aggressive faster than other regime types.

TABOR

Gerald Prante of the Tax Foundation has an interesting take on what TABOR means for the foundations of the American political system.

TABOR, for those unfamiliar with the term, refers to Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights provision that imposes exogenous limits on the amount state and local government spending can grow in a state. Similar provisions are being proposed in those two states. But is it necessary?

If government always acted in the best interest of society, TABOR would never be needed. Therefore, the supposed need for TABOR is derived from a lack of trust of the representative democratic system. TABOR is kind of like the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution: the Founding Fathers imposed restrictions on Congress (representatives of the people) from passing laws that restrict speech, establish religion, etc. If the Founding Fathers thought that Congress would always do what’s in society’s best interest, we wouldn’t have needed a 1st Amendment that starts with the phrase “Congress shall make no law…” The Bill of Rights is inherently anti-democratic.

Maybe as a first-best solution (in a world of a purely benevolent government), the First Amendment isn’t the best policy. But it’s probably a second-best solution given that Congress isn’t to be trusted when it comes to actively regulating speech, religion, etc.

And that’s the ultimate question with TABOR. If government was purely benevolent, the first-best solution would be some optimal tax-spending mix. But if government is pre-disposed to get larger and larger (when left to its own devices) and be at a size that is far above optimal, a TABOR has the potential to improve societal well-being. It’s likely not to lead to a perfect outcome, but it shouldn’t be compared to what a perfect, purely benevolent government would do. It should be compared to what an imperfect government is actually doing (and likely to do in the future).

That being said, for TABOR to be successful at improving social well-being, it must be the case that there is a significant amount of waste in the state’s spending. If politicians aren’t interested in maximizing social well-being (which is the necessary condition for TABOR in the first place), then who is to say that the spending cuts they make in response to TABOR are going to be right ones?

If the politicians decide to cut funding for some wasteful project as a result of TABOR, then society wins. Resources that were being wasted are now being put to better use (via lower taxes). But if those politicians, in response to TABOR, cut spending that actually has a high marginal social value (higher than the total marginal cost from taxation), social well-being could be made worse off as a result of TABOR. (Just saying that because government spending / GDP fell that such a policy change is good is nonsense. It depends on what type of spending was cut.)

In summary, TABOR would undoubtedly improve social well-being if politicians cut the least valuable government service in response to TABOR’s enactment. But given that TABOR is necessary because we can’t trust the politicians in the first place to do what is right for society, what is the probability that they are going to cut spending in response to TABOR that has a value to society less than the taxes that TABOR would be cutting? That’s the second-best question for both TABOR opponents and TABOR supporters that is most important, yet rarely asked.

The main point here is one that is rarely brought up but extremely important. All government spending is not created equal. Some government spending is absolutely necessary (i.e. police, fire protection, and military spending), some is beneficial but not critical (education spending), and some is no better than putting money into a pile and burning it (subsidies for failing industries). Unfortunately, it seems that the more useless – or even harmful – the type of spending, the more effective a tool it is for politicians to buy votes from various groups (rather than representing the interests of the individual).

This brings us to the issue of TABOR as an “anti-democratic” measure – which it absolutely is, as is the Bill of Rights. But this anti-democratic nature is by no means a negative. Democracy, by its very nature, is anti-freedom. Democracy is rule by the majority, and if history has taught us anything, it is that a majority will frequently find cause to violate the rights of the minority. Freedom can only mean one thing: individual liberty. The concept of  “collective rights” is an absurdity. No group of people, no matter the number, can possess rights. Only individuals possess rights. And when we are dealing with questions of government spending and taxes, we are dealing with one of the most sacred category of rights: property rights. Any legislative body that has any control over its citizens property (i.e., any legislative body that levies taxes) must be subject to severe anti-democratic measures.

Milton Friedman on the responsibility to the poor

The video below is from a 1978 debate between Milton Friedman and members of the student body at Stanford University. In one segment, Dr. Friedman receives a question on the government’s responsibility to the poor. He calmly replies that the government holds no responsibility over poverty, only people do.

Agitated murmurs from the audience can be heard as a student shouts, “Have you ever been on welfare…or poor,” implying that a wealthy economist, such as Milton Friedman, could not empathize with poor people and thus could not prescribe a proper remedy.

Milton Friedman quickly replies, “Of course…but that is all irrelevant. Is there one of you who is going to say you don’t want a doctor to treat you for cancer unless he himself has had cancer?”

Quote of the Day

“Freedom (i.e. individual liberty) and democracy (i.e. unlimited majority rule over the individual) are entirely different and incompatible things, the second being an enemy of the first.”

~ Yaron Brook

Said the Pot to the Kettle

The DNC has launched a new TV ad chastising Republicans for their “mob” behavior at town hall meetings. The irony is overwhelming. Liberals are the champions of the “common good”, the “collective”, “democracy” – in other words, the left champions rule by the majority, rule by the mob, rule by force. For collectivists to disparagingly label any group a “mob” is laughable. Gateway Pundit has the ad here, along with some very ironic words from (then) Senator Obama.

Global attitudes towards torture

The Economist recently published poll numbers on global attitudes towards torture. Surprisingly, The Economist said,

Democracies are not necessarily more hostile to the practice than non-democracies. According to the polls, Americans are more willing to tolerate the use of torture than are Chinese.

Islam and Democracy – A Gallup Study

A 2006 report released by the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies finds,

A recent in-depth Gallup survey in 10 predominantly Muslim countries, representing more than 80% of the global Muslim population, shows that when asked what they admire most about the West, Muslims frequently mention political freedom, liberty, fair judicial systems, and freedom of speech. When asked to critique their own societies, extremism and inadequate adherence to Islamic teachings were their top grievances.

However, while Muslims say they admire freedom and an open political system, Gallup surveys suggest that they do not believe they must choose between
Islam and democracy, but rather, that the two can co-exist inside one functional government.

Some  observations I had:

• Lebanon appears the most liberal. I would attribute this to the diversity of the country’s population (Muslims, Christians, and Druze) in addition to its close historical and cultural connections to Europe.
• Turkey’s answers seem to reflect the outcome of Ataturk’s post-WWI secularism crusade. It also coincides with Turkey’s push toward Europeanism as highlighted by their unsuccessful attempts to enter the European Union.
• Iran’s population, after years of living under a less-than-free government, has developed an affinity for the West. Perhaps this is a case of “the enemy of your enemy is my friend.”