The Paradox of Implicit Logrolling Has been Accepted by the Journal of Brief Ideas

Photo by Edmond Dantu00e8s on Pexels.com

Click here for the Link

The process of Implicit Logrolling (Buchanan & Tullock,1962) is a form of indirect vote-trading that heavily relies on the bundling of wedge issues. By way of tying specific groupings of policies to attract targeted demographics of voters to a political platform. This political strategy is especially effective in capturing the commitment of single-issue voters. These voters need to tacitly accept the rest of the policies on the political platform to have their one area of interest acknowledged. This is why implicit logrolling is such an effective mechanism in shaping the American political landscape.

Most analysts ignore how voters reconcile selecting programs and political candidates that hold logically inconsistent views. For example, an individual that defends abortion rights on the grounds of a bodily integrity argument concurrently favoring vaccine mandates. Here is where the Paradox of Implicit Logrolling comes in; voters then must rationalize these discrepancies due to the lack of logical consistency. In vote trading, the individual voter expects to make some concessions. However, when these concessions present logical and philosophical contradictions, few people question the conflict. In short, the paradox describes how people are willing to accept contrary political positions if parceled with a party or policy they favor.

Clark, Peter. (2021). The Paradox of Implicit Logrolling. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5606090


Bootleggers & Baptists: XXXVII: Salmon in Alaska (The Fight Against GMO Food)

Photo by Huy Phan on Pexels.com

Genetically modified food is a flashpoint in the public debate over the wholesomeness of the modern diet. Many speculate that consuming GMOs has been linked to several various health problems. Few people question whether there are any benefits to producing genetically modified food products. There is a bit of irony here since most anti-GMO activists also happen to be exponents of environmentalism. In certain situations, GMO food could feasibly be sustainable alternatives to dwindling supplies of natural food sources. One salient example is in the market for edible fish. 

The Fall 2021 issue of Regulation magazine details the struggle of AquAdvantage to obtain approval from the FDA for their edible genetically modified salmon. However, even after nearly 13 years of pending FDA approval, AquAdvantage still has other legal hurdles to clear, obstructing their entry into the market of consumable fish. This threat is coming from the political and business interests in the state of Alaska. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R–AK) assuming the veneer of consumer production advocate; argues that consumers need to know what they are consuming. Murkowski:

“… attached a rider to the FY 2019 appropriations bill that required genetically engineered salmon approved before the labeling standards created by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard regulation to include the words “genetically engineered” in its market name — a requirement seemingly intended to spook consumers…” (P.3).

The “moral” concern expressed by Murkowski; creates a dynamic conducive to Bootlegger and Baptist’s (1983) coalitions. Murkowski can be considered a Baptist for articulating consumer protection concerns for the stringent labeling requirements. She also could arguably fall into the category of Duel-Role Actor if her consumer protection advocacy is sincere. After all, Murkowski is a politician and has an incentive to appease her constituency. Consumer protection advocacy is a win-win strategy. Since the average voter may superficially perceive this initiative as being in their best interest, of their health and safety, continue to vote for Murkowski. But arguably, the most more powerful voter-bloc she will need to win would be the salmon fisherman and hatcheries. The industry surrounding food-grade salmon production is estimated to generate $600 million annually in economic output. Making it quite evident who the Bootleggers are! However, placing restrictions on genetically modified salmon creates a bit of a Prisoners Dilemmaas the U.S. producers cannot meet domestic demand for salmon, 90 % of all salmon sold in America is imported.  

Op-Ed Published: Water District Rates Arizona

Photo by Greta Hoffman on Pexels.com

(Click here)

Editor, Casa Grande Dispatch:

The Arizona Supreme Court has finally settled the controversy regarding the legality of setting uniform rates for consolidated water districts in the October 2021 ruling Sun City Home Owners Ass’n v. Arizona Corp. Commission. The Sun City HOA claimed that the setting of uniform rate was an act of discriminatory pricing, violating Article 15, Section 12 of the Arizona Constitution. After being compared to the other communities serviced by EPCOR for municipal water services, Sun City has historically had some of the lowest operational costs. Most municipalities experienced a decrease in rates, while Sun City was the exception. The increase in the price of water service offsetting the cost to other communities functions as cross-subsidy.

The state Supreme Court did not rule in favor of the HOA, but there are further ethical and economic concerns to evaluate. For one, the rate-setting power conferred by the state Constitution (Article 15, Section 3) to the ACC mirrors the congressionally allotted privilege of chevron deference at the federal level. This judicial doctrine does differ from the powers allocated in the Arizona Constitution; chevron provides judicial power to bureaucratic agencies; in contrast, the state permits quasi-legislative authority, a rule-making power that is inappropriate for a bureaucratic agency to wield. Hence why we have a legislature. Economic exchange determines prices (the law of supply and demand) and not the edicts of lawmakers or bureaucratic agencies. Town governments and EPCOR need to negotiate the rates, not state agencies.

Focal Points- Part IV: Truth, The Ultimate Focal Point!

Photo by Magda Ehlers on Pexels.com

In-game theory, the concept of a focal point is a conceptual locus of convergence in the absence of pre-arranged communication. Generally, these mutually agreed-upon center points are culturally contingent. Although, there is one focal point that transcends culture and is arguably the ultimate point of unspoken convergence; that is truth. Some social commentators claim that truth is relative, quickly dispelling the argument that truth is a universal focal point. The facts are the facts. When something is axiomatically true, it is self-evident. To claim that truth is subjective is a puzzling assertion. We cannot simply deny the laws of mathematics, then suddenly, the rules governing the order of operations become invalid. The assumption of truth being subjective confuse methodology with results. Pluralism is valid so long as it reflects the truth. For example, there are multiple ways to solve an equation, but only one correct answer.

When people formulate rules, they must do so in a manner congruent with the immutable laws of the social and natural sciences. Otherwise, we will fall victim to the natural consequences of violating these eternal laws. Truth is such a magnetic focal point that it is inescapable. Sure, it is possible to contrive a convincing delusion, but while delusions may dissolve, the truth remains fixed. Regardless of whether we are truth-orientated immutable facts pull us in like the force of gravity bringing us back down to Earth. We can fight gravity; however, even when interpersonal communication is absent, any semi-rational person already knows that such resistance is inevitably futile.

Prisoner’s Dilemmas- VI: Job Interviews & Telling the Truth

Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko on Pexels.com

The game-theoretical concept of a “Prisoner’s Dilemma” applies to situations where no overt defection has occurred. Many readers may be perplexed by this assertion since, by definition, Prisoner’s Dilemmas entail “players” selecting uncooperative strategies. However, there are scenarios where the selection of a specific approach could lead to non-optimal outcomes. But such a strategy would not be considered a direct form of defection. These strategies are analogous to a defecting because the participating economic agents are moving away from a given focal point; rather than converging upon it. Even though the participants are not directly undercutting each other but inadvertently select noncooperative strategies. One salient example of this is any situation in which both parties choose to lie to the other. Both agents believe it is in their self-interest to obscure the truth, but doing so will only engender more problems.

A novel application of this theory would be in job interviews. Why? The hiring manager and the applicant concurrently have incentives to distort the facts. The prospective employee stands to benefit from embellishing their credentials. Likewise, the hiring manager might think it is shrewd to exaggerate or overemphasize the company culture when it is difficult to find a qualified candidate. When used in unison, the consequences are disastrous. The new employee will not be unqualified for the position and will also have unrealistic expectations for the job role. Ultimately, creating more issues for the hiring manager and the jobseeker. Telling a lie may not be a direct form of uncooperative behavior, can often yield similar results.

Bootleggers & Baptists: XXXVI- Woke Capitalism and Coalitions of Opportunity

Photo by cottonbro on Pexels.com

            The Bootlegger and Baptist (1983) theory of regulation present a practical explanation for why these such coalitions are effective vehicles for camouflaging rent-seeking behavior by a firm. Armed with the public appeal of the moral arguments posited by the Baptists, the Bootleggers can quietly lurk in the shadows, funding initiatives that will advance their self-interest. The ethical advocates create a smokescreen that provides cover for the business interests, superficially obscuring the stigma of corporate advocacy. Since few examples of political action invoke the ire of the average citizen than policy campaigns that line the pockets of big business.

           The trend of “woke capitalism” is bringing the Bootleggers out of shadows and into plain sight. CEOs are now openly standing in unison with political activists speaking out against topics ranging from police brutality to environmental issues. The Bootleggers can work openly with the Baptists to promote a positive image while still silently providing monetary support in the background. The social justice messaging of “Woke Capitalism” extends beyond corporate activism and is observable in the product market and advertising. Some companies adopt marketing that emphasizes social consciousness to secure the business of Gen-Z. Typically, companies use this tactic to target younger consumers with higher preferences for ethical products and brand authenticity, requiring companies to go beyond philanthropy and mandating community services hours for their employees; their ethics almost be conveyed in their branding.

           The most recent alliances forged between business interests and political activists take the form of four main taxonomical categories. Some of the various types of Bootlegger and Baptist coalitions feature collaboration between firms and activists. Other coalition types that form within the technocratic structure of the corporation; are between different departments within the organization. Woke coalitions have several notable classifications of “woke” corporate alliances. The main subcategories include proactive and reactive forms of rent-seeking.

           The reactive models for “woke” coalitions include two subtypes of collective action organization, the interaction between external actors and collaboration between internal employees. The first variety of reactive coalitions are rent-seeking alliances formed to restore the company from a sullied reputation caused by criticism. The objective being to mitigate the loss of sales and social currency amid public controversy. Some firms directly attempt to distance themselves from the controversy through their activistic partnerships. The second type of reactive “woke” coalitions are the intracompany factions designed to divert attention from potentially costly internal controversies. In instances of hostile work environment ligation, the legal team, the human resources department, and executive management band together to avoid a publicity nightmare. Human Resources and legal work together to legally distance the company from a harassment incident. Legal working on navigating the statutory and tort concerns while HR works internally to establish an anti-harassment campaign intracompany. All the while shielding executive management from more scrutiny and accountability.

           Finally, the last two variants of “woke” coalitions aligning business interests with moral advocates to facilitate proactive forms of rent-seeking. Similarly, the proactive coalitions can be delineated into examples of internal and external collaboration. Proactive partnerships form to capture potential gains and avert the costs of prospective controversies. The most salient example of such external cooperation would be firms standing behind a woke cause, anticipating that such an alliance will obscure the firm attempting to shape current regulation (regulatory capture). However, we cannot forget the proactive inter-department coalitions that are emerging within corporations. For example, several companies are hiring diversity and inclusion “coaches” as a peripheral subset of human resources. The human resources department defends the existence of these staff members by emphasizing the need to educate employees to avoid instances of harassment and discrimination. The diversity coaches preach the virtues of cultural sensitivity and other tenants of the “woke” philosophy.

           Superficially these alliances between big business and “woke” activists seem relatively benign. However, there are profound consequences for the integrity of capitalism and the rule of law. This paper will demonstrate how the four types of woke B&B coalitions undermine capitalism and the rule of law. Woke capitalism has made it easier than ever for business interests to create the façade of morality but are unjustly bending the rules-of-the game in their favor. Wokeism provides the veil obscuring corporate America’s hand in the legislative till. In effect, generating more anti-competitive laws that undermine both the rule of law and free trade. 

Bootleggers & Baptists-XXXV: Multiple Listing Services & Real Estate

Photo by Curtis Adams on Pexels.com

It is well known that trade associations and related organizations have an anticompetitive effect on the market. One salient example of such consequences is American Real estate. Per Vol. 44, Issue 2 of Regulation Magazine, the rules favored trade association, National Association of Realtors (NAR), has created an implicit tying-agreement. The NAR established the networks known as Multiple Listing Services which home listing with a NAR-affiliated realty agent are posted (p.28). Frequently potential homebuyers are persuaded to avoid purchasing homes listed outside of the MLS network, referred to as For-Sale-By-Owner (FSBO), in a practice known as steering (p.28, 30). In such a system, the commission for the broker is not only predetermined but also “… the listening agent must make a blanket-unilateral offer in advance to pay the buyer’s broker’s fee… despite not having information on the services provided…” (p.30). It should be noted that tying agreements are often scrutinized by the U.S government (see the USA v. Microsoft Corp, No. 97-5343 (D.C. Cir. 1998)).

As another variant of anticompetitive market behavior, there are generally moral arguments for supporting the measure. This means that advocacy for maintaining this system is subject to Bootlegger and Baptist’s (1983) dynamics. Concurrently, while some argue that the MLS system from a consumer interest standpoint inevitably NAR realtors are the ones that benefit. Our Bootleggers realtors profit handsomely. Not only does this practice allow the buying brokers from having to negotiate fees, but American realtors are paid “… two to three times higher than in other developed nations..” (p.30). Effectively operating as a transfer of wealth from the consumer to the service provider (p.30). However, some realty companies such as Clever Real Estate assume as a Dual-Role Actor. Such a firm is a beneficiary of the current trade practices; they also argue that the MLS system is more convenient for sellers to expediently sell their homes

Bootleggers & Baptists: XXXIV: The Supervisor Spot at Work

Photo by RODNAE Productions on Pexels.com

Everyone is familiar with the concept of soft power in office politics. An individual lacking any formal authority but has the ear of management. The author of this brief essay has found himself in this peculiar situation. While I may have a relatively meager position at our company, my manager still seriously regards my input. If I have a concern, he is quick to find a remedy. The evidence of my implicit influence became evident when my boss was looking to fill a supervisor spot for our team. After a candid off-hand conversation, I expressed my preferred co-worker for the position. Then was subsequently told, “I like your logic”. Fast forward two weeks later, my preferred candidate was announced to be the new supervisor. 

It is possible I misconstrued the events that transpired in the supervisor selection process. My perception of having any influence over my manager’s decision could merely be a delusional illusion. Irrespective of my impact on this decision, this was a clear Bootlegger and Baptist (1983)  dynamic. At this point, it should be evident who the Bootlegger and who the Baptist is. My manager possessing the moral advocacy for the favorable candidate for the supervisor makes the Baptist. He seeks to hire an individual with the best potential for success within the position, the most qualified person. I hate to admit it; I was more motivated by self-interest. I am the salient Bootlegger in this coalition. I based my advocacy on wanting a supervisor that would not micromanage me. I had little concern for the candidate’s qualifications.

Suicide as a Natural Right -Part IV (a): Social Capital

Photo by u0410u043bu0435u043au0441u0435u0439 u0412u0435u0447u0435u0440u0438u043d on Pexels.com

Following Dr. Block’s supposition that a person can commodify themselves and effectively sell or alienate themselves (p.6), we must address the issue of capital destruction. The economic costs go beyond losses in productivity but also have more subtle ramifications throughout the economy. The act of suicide destroys a person’s body; however, the intangible assets lost are arguably the most detrimental. Most notably, in the form of squandered human capital and social capital. While these forms of social capital are refutably mere constructs, they still seem to possess a priceless qualitative value. In the absence of the knowledge, credentials, and necessary social networks financial success is not possible. 

Commodifying these abstract concepts applies them to John Locke’s postulations regarding wasting resources (p.12). But if the value of commodities is subjective, we have to evaluate Locke’s assumptions regarding frivolous resource consumption. Furthermore, if we accept this notion of wasteful consumption, we must apply it to other areas of resource allocation. For example, investing too in production can be considered a wasteful form of resource allocation. Under Locke’s theory, if extrapolated, we should bar entrepreneurs from making overinvestments in their firms. Not only would such a law be unenforceable, but it also suffers from the Hayekian Pretense of Knowledge. Neither the businessman nor the lawmaker has access to perfect information. How would the lawmaker even know if a business owner engaged in malinvestment until the downstream effects have come to full fruition, paralleling the flaws of proactive legal sanctions? Entrepreneurial decision-making is enveloped in uncertainty. To quote the great Frank H.Knight:

It will appear that a measurable uncertainty, or “risk” proper, as we shall use the term, is so far different from an unmeasurable one that it is not in effect an uncertainty at all. We shall accordingly restrict the term “uncertainty” to cases of the non-quantitative type. It is this “true” uncertainty, and not risk, as has been argued, which forms the basis of a valid theory of profit and accounts for the divergence between actual and theoretical competition. (p.84)

To preemptively declare a form of capital use or manipulation as “…wasteful..” is fallacious. At best, we can attempt to use market signals as a guide for appropriately deploying capital. Whether an investment was prudent or foolish will only be known once the downstream consequences are evident. In this respect suicide is just a form of managing the “… social..” capital structure through the informal destruction (p.21) of such social assets. Allowing people to dispose of capital at their own free will allows for the unfettered restructuring [1] of productive activities utilizing human and social capital. Allowing the substitution or destruction of “..social..” inputs. 

Foot Notes:

  1. A reference to the Austrian Theory of Capital

Suicide as a Natural Right- Part III: The Externalities Argument

Photo by cottonbro on Pexels.com

Part I:

Part II:

Most legally mandated suicide prevention measures fixate on its impact on society. An individual assuming an externalities defense of the involuntary hospitalization of those with suicidal tendencies falls prey to a fallacy that all prohibitions of vices are subject to operating as a preemptive measure. Prompting the question, what is the committed offense outside of the state statutory code? What most Libertarians would refer to as victimless crimes. Enforcement of victimless crimes does not remedy the loss of property or harm to any non-consenting third parties. Rather, such laws have the unfortunate propensity of conflating potential consequences with actual damage done. Most arguments for maintaining the federal ban on illicit drugs emphasize prospective ramifications versus actual outcomes. Even drunk driving laws fail to meet the criteria for a violation of our private property rights. Operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated only increases the odds of bodily harm and destruction of property, but it does not guarantee this consequence. 

US civil law no longer recognizes personal suicide attempts as a criminal offense. However, the criminality of physician-assisted suicide varies radically by state. Suicide is no longer a crime. Suicide prevention laws are completely constructionist inventions. More importantly, it also fails to fulfill the criterion for violating another person’s natural rights. Arizona has an involuntary commitment law codified under Title 36 of Arizona Revised Statutes. If there is no crime committed, can detention be perceived as lawful?

Such fits the definition legally sanctioned form of kidnapping. The basis of the logic of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments provides fodder. If it were not for Title 36, it would be considered unlawful confinement. The only rational inference is that these mandates are the illegitimate byproduct of legal positivism. The standpoint drove by a “moral” concern for potential externalities. Codifying morality is never a justifiable reason for exercising the authority of governing institutions!

Bootleggers and Baptists XXXIII- The Three-Tiered Distribution of Beer in the “Bible Belt”

Photo by cottonbro on Pexels.com

The southeastern region of the United States has a peculiar relationship with alcoholic beverages. Southern states such as Kentucky and Tennessee have a long history of whiskey production. The south is also the home of many conservative Baptists that view alcohol consumption as being immoral. The result of the ethical opposition has been the formation of dry counties and onerous laws governing alcohol production and sales. Presenting more opportunities for interest groups (Bootleggers) to find ways of strategically gaming the system from multiple points of the supply chain (p.386). Often the Bootleggers, operate as a source of backdoor funding for morally justifiable policy campaigns (Regulation Magazine, Vol 44, No.1, p.14-15). The geographic “chessboard” strategy of keeping dry counties adjacent to wet counties dry is far from the only approach deployed by various interest groups (p.397).

Another strategy used by business interests in the south’s beer industry is regulatory capture. A means of leveraging market power to mold regulations to the benefit of corporations; is a typical extension of soft-political power used by corporations throughout the United States. States such as Georgia have long prohibited direct-to-customer sales from breweries, historically referred to as tied-house (p.390). States that have permitted self-distribution by smaller brewers since 1978 have seen more growth in craft breweries (p.392). These restrictions date back to the legally sanctioned distribution arrangement of tiered distribution systems. In this system, beer is distributed to retail outlets via a licensed distributor. Favored by larger breweries such as Pabst and Miller since the market share they lost in the years before the Volstead Act from smaller breweries self-distributing their beer (p.390). The reason why bigger breweries still favor these archaic laws is that they would rather not have to compete with the dizzying array of microbreweries for shelf space (p.395).

However, has the moral argument of limiting direct sales reduced the instances of problematic drinking held up to scrutiny? That would be resounding no. Empirically, restricting direct alcohol sales has had little influence on overall alcohol consumption (p.399). It also should be noted that craft breweries have stronger connections to their communities. As stated by the executive director of the Georgia Craft Beer Guild:

“….I would like to think that craft breweries, because of the community connection, aren’t nearly the threat to intemperance that multi-nationals are, or Wal-Mart…”

Bodily Integrity Arguments and Misapplications

Photo by Elina Fairytale on Pexels.com

People have the unfortunate tendency of favoring reasoning that is favorable to their preferences. Once an individual encounters the same logic applied to a position they disagree with, the application is assumed to be invalid. The abortion debate is no different in this respect. Pro-Choice advocates basing their stance on the logic of bodily integrity must be willing to extrapolate this same principle to other situations. Anything else would merely be convenient cherry-picking.

For example, advocating for choice regarding bodily integrity also applies to several other controversial topics. Such subject areas include drug use, the right to commit suicide, and objections to vaccine mandates, to name a few. Despite any Pro-Choice advocate’s misgivings about permitting the listed rights above to be consistent, they must begrudgingly accept that these are rights that cannot be prohibited by law. Any counterargument or suggestion to criminalize the above positions is a deviation from the logic of bodily integrity. Permitting an activity does not mean you believe it is moral. Moreover, this argument is predicated on an externalities argument; in a rash attempt to weigh the societal costs.

However, many Pro-Choice proponents may then surmise that individuals defending the decision to use drugs, commit suicide, and decline immunizations must accept abortion as a permissible procedure. Reverse application is not quite so linear and has several complications. Indeed, abortion presents a predicament for exponents of a Lockean conception of self-ownership. In one sense, abortion violates the Lockean notion of self-ownership. As Locke asserts that we cannot “… nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other… or take away the life or property of another..”(p.43)[1].

If we define the fetus as a living being, there is a conflict between the mother and the unborn child. Drug abuse, refusing immunization, and suicide confines direct bodily harm to the individual making the decision, thereby comporting with the tenants of the Non-Aggression Principle. Although, even in a legal sense, living children do not have rights[2] as they are under the guardianship of their parents. Also, if we truly own ourselves, can’t we choose which procedures we can have performed on our bodies? There is no easy solution to this complex and taxing quandary. 

Foot Notes:

1.) I omitted the portion of the quote regarding self-destruction. This portion of the doctrine is wholly illegitimate. If we own bodies, we have a right to dispose of ourselves; if God exists, he transferred our spirit to our corporal bodies. Through this transfer, God relinquishes ownership of our essence extending to us full possession of our bodies. Meaning we can maintain our physical bodies how we see fit, including but not limited to drug use and suicide.

2.) See Rothbard pages 97-113.

Prisoner’s Dilemmas- V: The Texas Heart Beat Bill

Photo by Viktoria Slowikowska on Pexels.com

The headlines in the news have been animated by the controversial Texas law, SB 8; colloquially known as the Heartbeat Bill. The legislation boasts several stringent limitations on abortions that operate analogously to a de facto ban. However, the most shocking aspect of the bill is that it allows private citizens to sue facilities that have performed abortions for $10,000 or more per procedure. This feature of the law indirectly deputizes the residents of Texas and has the potential to lead to some unforeseen consequences. At its core, the Heartbeat Bill is a legal manifestation of the partisan tug-of-war in the abortion debate. While Pro-Life advocates may believe they have won this round, little do they realize Texas now has a Prisoner’s Dilemma on its hands. The blowback from this contentious [1] the legislation will impose economic costs on the state of Texas.

It is worth noting that only a minuscule number of the citizenry in Texas has had an abortion. Per the Guttmacher Institute, in 2017, only 55,440  Texas residents had abortions performed. This figure is meager when compared to the total of all adult female Texans. Also, most voters are conservative. How could this move be detrimental to the entire state of Texas? The state only has a few liberal oases (West Texas & Austin); the overall impact of citizens moving to more progressive jurisdictions would only have a marginal effect on tax revenue. Perversely, this might have a disparate effect, leaving left-leaning municipalities such as Austin with a significant loss in local tax revenue. 

Texas having lower taxes and an affordable cost of living has resulted in population growth in recent years. Population growth and economic growth are correlated. Most of the Texas transplants are not coming from conservative-leaning states, but liberal high tax states such as California and New York. Arizona is another state currently experiencing a large diaspora of Americans migrating from high-tax states. Epitomized in the slogan “.. Don’t California, My Arizona..”. What happens when the conservative values of a low tax state become too off-putting for prospective residents? Not only hampers the economy through decreased tax revenue, but it hampers economic development in other ways. Left-leaning Tech Companies may enjoy the corporate tax rate of Texas. What happens when companies start choosing to avoid setting up offices in Texas for ethical reasons? More companies may opt to establish a campus in Phoenix instead of Austin. Causing an unfortunate ripple effect through the entire state economy. The Pro-Life camp is not doing themselves any favors by not striking a political middle ground. Progressives are only shooting themselves in the foot by avoiding Texas because of the Heartbeat Bill.

Foot Notes:

1.) This brief essay is in no way a commentary on the morality of abortion. Any such normative arguments would only detract from a game-theoretical assessment of the situation described.

Vaccine Op-Ed Has Been Published

Photo by cottonbro on Pexels.com

Published by The Casa Grande Dispatch (Pinal Central): Click here

Editor, Casa Grande Dispatch:

There has been a lot of debate over vaccine mandates in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Most arguments revolve around the science of vaccines or the ethical concerns of state-sanctioned requirements. However, are such policy prescriptions even legal? Much of the justification based in past case law depends upon which level of government is issuing the mandate. Several Supreme Court rulings from the early half of the 20th century validate the legality of state and local (Jacobson v. Massachusetts and Zucht v. King) immunization requirements. What about at the federal level? The Biden administration’s proposal seeks to implement a nationwide vaccine mandate. Arizona and 23 other states are rightfully challenging this encroachment upon states’ rights.

Past case law does not justify top-down mandates from the federal government. Limiting the defense of a national vaccine requirement to using circuitous channels, President Biden directed OSHA to establish a vaccination requirement for employers with 100 or more employees. The president relies on the authority conferred to the agency, under Section 6 of the OSH Act, endowing OSHA with the ability to promulgate occupational regulations. Judging by the amount of opposition to this emergency measure by state governments, the president initiated a bureaucratic cold war, fought in the courts. COVID-19 has been devastating to the entire county, but ultimately measures to combat the virus should be left to the states — a statement validated by past case precedence; a maxim guiding the core legal arguments of the litigating states.

The Paradox of Implicit Logrolling

Photo by Mikhail Nilov on Pexels.com

The Paradox of Implicit Logrolling

The process of implicit logrolling (p.101) is a form of indirect vote-trading that heavily relies on the bundling of wedge issues. By way of tying specific groupings of policies and candidates to attract target demographics of voters. Per Buchanan and Tullock (1962), such arrangements encompassing political platforms can be manipulated by “…political entrepreneurs…”. Simultaneously considering the zealous nature of many single-issue voters, it is easy to see why implicit logrolling is such an effective mechanism in shaping the American political landscape. If the American voters continue to support controversial political positions, implicit logrolling will be effective.

Most analysts ignore how voters reconcile selecting programs and political candidates that hold logically inconsistent views. For example, an individual that defends abortion rights on the grounds of a bodily integrity argument concurrently favoring vaccine mandates. Whatever happened to “my body, my choice”? Although, if this individual held both positions on the grounds of an externalities argument, perhaps there might not be any logical discrepancies. However, few voters delve that deep into the logic of their political philosophies. Here lies the Paradox of Implicit Logrolling; political platforms drive voters to support policies they would not otherwise choose. We have most saliently observed this phenomenon in the demographic shifts within the Republican Party. The GOP was once favoring free trade, now advocates for tariffs.

Suicide as a Natural Right- Part II

Photo by Ryanniel Masucol on Pexels.com

Part I

The Lockean conception of shelf-ownership does not work if we cannot alienate self-hood. In the context of involuntary slavery, our absolute right (p.10) to self-possession is relinquished through coercive force [1]. The notion of natural rights almost always implies that the individual owns. For instance, the right of free speech codified under the First Amendment of the Constitution implies self-ownership. Individuals embroiled in political debate must utilize the very bodies they own and utilize scarce resources (p.2)to engage in the passionate exchange[2]. There is one glaring flaw that most ethical theorists get dead wrong about natural rights. Our negative rights that are part-and-parcel with our personhood may be self-evident, but they are certainly not inalienable. The American Declaration of Independence echoes this sentiment and forever cements it in the public consciousness: 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

The claim that these rights are unalienable does not connote ownership of these rights in any meaningful sense. By the inseparable nature of self-ownership and natural rights, we do not truly have unfettered possession of ourselves. The ability to alienate something is that can only be the consequence of ownership. True ownership implies that an individual can transfer, maintain, sell, deface, lease, destroy, etc. the article in question as they see fit. One of the strongest arguments for this radical interpretation of ownership comes from economist and Libertarian theorist Walter Block. Dr. Block writing “..No law should be enacted prohibiting or even limiting in any way people’s rights to alienate those things they own. This is “full monte” alienability, or commodification…” (p. 6) [3]. Block surmises that an unlimited condition of ownership naturally extends to the person, meaning that if an individual chooses to sell themselves into slavery this is legitimate. Unlike the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the individual being sold is consenting to the arrangement [4].

However, most, and moral theorists would suggest that natural rights, especially selfhood cannot be alienated or dispensed with. As our mind and body are typically inseparable; neither can be reallocated nor disposed of. This supposition suffers from an unfortunate fallacy because a person can voluntarily absolve their will and sentience. In the most extreme case, a person could give themselves a lobotomy effectively alienating their will and severing their mind from their corporal body (p.8) [5]. 

There are less extreme examples of people abstractly selling off natural rights in exchange for material gain. One only needs to look to employment contracts to see a ubiquitous example of this selective selling of rights. It is common for employers to include social media policies as a condition of employment. Effectively acting as a voluntarily acknowledged limit on free expression; a right codified under the First Amendment. Regardless of whether this restriction is a temporary sale of this right or permanent alienation it is a legitimate exchange. From the standpoint of Rothbardian contract law, this arrangement fulfills the criteria for an enforceable contract. Under this theory of contract law, the property must be exchanged for the contract to be binding, any other agreement is a mere promise (p.133-135). At the core of an employment contract or conditions of employment, the property is being exchanged. The employer is transferring compensation (monetary and additional benefits) to the employee. This exchange is contingent upon the employee following the company’s internal policies. Indirectly operating as a form of selling or “renting” natural rights in exchange for employment.

Selling property is merely one means of alienating property. Other more drastic measures can achieve this same outcome. The concept that an individual can condemn their property, mirroring the same privilege current held by various tiers of the U.S. government. The only difference is that when the state does it, they do so without the consent of the owner. Even when eminent domain is practiced within the parameters of the takings clause, however, the property owner generally does not have the right to refuse to surrender their property. Regardless of whether they are justly compensated for the relinquishment of their business, land, or home this arrangement is still inherently coercive. In stark contrast, if a property owner dedicates to transfer or otherwise condemn the land they own, this is legitimate. Effectively, suicide is an example of a person opting to condemn themselves. A person choosing to forever dispose of themselves permanently disables their ability to contribute to society; mimicking how governing institutions can decree that land or a build is no longer fit for occupation or commercial use. The state typically initiates such a directive in the context of habitation or use of the property would pose a “safety hazard”. However, a person contemplating “condemning” themselves does not need to fabricate such vague excuses. If they truly own their own body and mind, they do not have to provide any justification for performing such action. Unlike eminent domain, the individual can consent to the decision they have made. 

Most people might argue that allowing others to commit suicide with no mandated intervention would squander human lives [6]. Further supporting this statement by repeating tired platitudes about how it is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. No doubt, suicide does come with a wide array of societal costs. The individual can never be replaced nor can their human capital because no two people have the same experiences. If we set aside the externalities of the act, there’s a deeper conflict at play. There’s a long tradition of property owners having the right to destroy what they own. The right to destroy one’s property has its roots in the doctrines of Roman and English Common law (p.8). Moreover, there is a long-standing tradition that arguably supersedes the concerns of modern environmentalists or other public interest initiatives. The concern for wasting resources was even voiced by John Locke back in the seventeenth century:

The same law of nature, which does by this means give us property, does also bound that property. God has given us all things richly, 1 Tim. vi. 12. is the voice of reason confirmed by inspiration. But how far has he given it to us? To enjoy. As much as anyone can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his Tabour fix a property in whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy. (p.12).

While Locke provides us with prudent advice regarding resource management, it is nevertheless, a suggestion. A just legal system would defend the property owners’ right to dispose of their property how they choose, even if it is considered wasteful. A legal system that has penalties or restrictions impeding the right to destroy one’s property, provides a perverted form of justice. Much like anything else a person owns, they should be able to “destroy” themselves. In a sense, we legally permit other more protracted forms of incremental suicide. For instance, currently, no laws are prohibiting the sale or consumption of sugar-saturated and chemical ladened soft drinks. Although cigarettes are highly taxed and regulated, we still live in a society where smoking is still legally tolerated. Both soda and cigarettes slowly kill the person ingesting either product; despite this fact, these products should remain legal. Following this same logic, if the person should be able to choose what they put into their body, they can choose to also ultimately dispose of their body.

Footnotes

[1]. The account of Slavery in Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1690).

[2]. An allusion to  Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s theory of Argumentation Ethics.

[3]. In reference to Block’s postulations related to the possibility of voluntary Slavery.

[4]. How slavery was practiced in the United States was a reprehensible institution. The trans-Atlantic slave trade was incompatible with a property rights justification for self-ownership. 

[5]. An example Walter Block borrowed from legal theorist Stephan Kinsella.

[6]. The idea of wasting human life can be applied in an economic sense. The decreasing fertility rates in the Western world present challenges to the labor force and the tax pool. Especially, after all the Baby-boomers die.

Suicide as a Natural Right- Part I

Photo by RODNAE Productions on Pexels.com

The act of suicide is a serious matter that has a litany of inseparable moral, physiological, psychological, and societal considerations. Unanimously, the institutional consensus is that intervention is imperative in addressing the issue of suicide. Although little consideration is given to whether intervening in every alleged suicide attempt is ethical. In most cases, intervention entails involuntary commitment orders placed upon “suicidal” individuals. There is often a wide degree of digression allotted to mental health professionals in determining who is a danger to themselves. The nuances within these laws vary state by state. It should be noted the majority of states have involuntary commitment laws. As noted in a recent Supreme Court decision has indicated that the reasonableness for involuntary commitment under due process has already been established. Citing Addington v. Texas   , O’Connor v. Donaldson, and Foucha v. Louisiana. Do the despondent nature and impending bodily harm of a suicidal person warrant them being held against their will? Despite any ethical counterarguments, the law of the land indicates that such measures are justified.

All because a specific policy is codified in statutory law or is validated in case laws does not make it moral. Our law ought to reflect a sense of justice, however, this normative ideal is seldom achieved. Often many laws appear to be a capricious byproduct of overextended digression. If the Lockean proviso people do own themselves, at the very least involuntary commitment laws present a conflict between the legal statute and our natural right of self-ownership. From a Libertarian perspective, this is a right that should not be infringed upon. The Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume wrote:

A man who retires from life does not harm society: he only ceases to do good, which, if it is an injury, is of the lowest kind. All our obligations to do good to society seem to imply something reciprocal. I receive the benefits of society, and therefore ought to promote its interests; but when I withdraw myself altogether from society, can I be bound any longer? But allowing that our obligations to do good were perpetual, they have certainly some bounds. I am not obliged to do a small well to society at the expense of great harm to myself. Why then should I prolong a miserable existence because of some frivolous advantage which the public may perhaps receive from me?

This short excerpt from the large corpus of Hume’s work encapsulates the issue with mandatory commitment laws; suicide presents little harm to society. In contrast, hold a man against his will for committing no crime would be quite damaging. It also should be noted that “suicide” across the board is not universally condemned, but is permissible based upon a qualifying context. For instance, some argue that elderly people suffering from chronic illness(es) have the right to end their own lives. Predicted upon the basis that they no longer owe anything else to society and are no longer a stakeholder. If membership to a community is voluntary, then withdrawal through either suicide or self-isolation should also be voluntary, making anything else coercion. The preference towards the norms of suicide towards the elderly and sick are also reflected in our laws.  As of 2019, eight states allow for physician-assisted suicide this privilege is only permitted for those suffering from a terminal illness. There are two interrelated flaws with the logic behind only allowing the terminally ill to have legal permission to end their own lives. The first concern is that this undermines the severity of mental illness. Through sanctioning such procedures to those suffering from physical illness, a double standard has been created. For years we have heard that mental illness is also an illness, however, mental health professions do not even vindicate their own words. These individuals are actively allowing for physical illness to hold a privileged legal status over mental illness. The second fallacy is that one of the prevalent arguments for intervention in suicide attempts is that the person’s thinking is impaired by psychological distress or intoxication. To allow the chronically ill to do the same is hypocritical under this very same line of logic. Those who are terminally are generally on psychoactive pain killers or are in intense pain. Couldn’t their capacity for reasoning be questionable at best under such debilitating conditions? If mental illness is an illness couldn’t it be terminal in its own right? These are two discrepancies that few pundits in civil society would have the courage to address honesty.

If we own ourselves, we have the implicit right to kill ourselves without any interference. That does not necessarily provide a moral justification for a suicide attempt but is moral condemnation obstruct this right. Analogous to how soliciting a prostitute may not necessarily be moral, but to utilize legal institutions to disrupt this exchange is unquestionably immoral. If under Arizona statute ARS 13-1304 sustains that holding a person against their will is illegal, then the same can be said about involuntary commitment. The difference is due to a pedantic technicality than a justifiable ethical argument. 

Editorial Graveyard- Part II: Credential Debasement.- Published December 2021.

Photo by RODNAE Productions on Pexels.com

Update: This essay was published as of December 2021.

Submitted to the Foundation for Economic Education

What is Inflation?

The concept of inflation (the depreciation of purchasing power of a specific currency) applies to other goods besides money. Inflation is related to the Law of Supply and Demand. As the supply of a commodity increases, the value decreases. Conversely, as the good becomes more scarce, the value of the commodity increases. This same concept is also applicable to tangible items such as vintage baseball cards and rare art. These are rare commodities that cannot be authentically replicated and command a high value on the market. On the other hand, mass-produced rookie cards and replications of Monet’s work are plentiful. Yield little value on the market.

Inflation and the opposite principle of deflation can also apply to intangible goods. When looking at the job market, this becomes quite evident. Jobs that require skills that are rare or exceptional tend to pay higher wages. There is a notable caveat to this observation, which is compensating differentials. Such a form of compensation accounts for the risky or unattractive nature of undesirable jobs. The higher wages are due to a lack of workers willing to accept the position rather than possessing skills that are in demand.

The Signaling Function of College Degrees.

Over the past couple of decades, credentialing of intangible employment value has become more prevalent. Credentials can range from college degrees to professional certifications. One of the most common forms of credentialing has become a 4-year college degree. This category of human capital documentation has evolved to take on an alternate function. Outside of a few notable exceptions, a bachelor’s degree serves a signaling function. George Mason economics professor, Bryan Caplan, argues that this function of a college degree is a signal to potential employers that a job applicant has desirable characteristics. Earning a college degree is more of a validation process than skill-building. Employers desire workers that are not only intelligent but also compliant and punctual. The premise of the signaling model is valid because many graduates are not using their degrees. In 2013, that only 27 % of graduates had a job related to their major.

Due to the signaling function of a bachelor’s degree over the year, there have substantial increases in the number of job seekers possessing a 4-year degree. Retention rates for 4-year institutions reached an all-time high of 81 percent in 2017. In 1900 only 27,410 students earned a bachelor’s degree. This number ballooned to 4.2 million by 1940. That number has increased to 99.5 million. These numbers demonstrate the sharp increase in the number of Americans earning college degrees. Today, nearly 40 % of all Americans hold a 4-year degree. Considering the vast increase in college attendance and completion, it fair to question if a college degree retains its “purchasing power” on the job market? Much of the evidence seems to suggest that it has not.

What is Credential Inflation?

The signaling function of college degrees may have distorted by the phenomenon known as credential inflation. Credential inflation is nothing more than “… an increase in the education credentials required for a job..”. Many jobs that previously required no more than a high school diploma now are only accepting applicants with bachelor’s degrees. This shift in credential preferences among employers has now made the 4-year degree the unofficial minimum standard for educational requirements. This fact is embodied in gov the high rates of underemployment among college graduates. Approximately 41% of all recent graduates are working jobs that do not require a college degree. It is shocking when you consider that 17 % of hotel clerks and 23.5 % of amusement park attendants hold 4-year degrees. None of these jobs have traditionally required a college degree. Due to a competitive job market where most applicants have degrees, many recent graduates have no means of distinguishing themselves from other potential employees. Many recent graduates have no other option but to accept low-paying jobs. 

The Two-Pronged Debasement.

The value of the college degree has decreased in value in two ways. First, its value has depreciated due to the vast increase in workers possessing degrees. This form of debasement mimics the effect of printing more money. Following the Law of Supply and Demand, the greater the quantity of a commodity, the lesser the value. The hordes of guidance counselors and parents urging kids to attend college certainly have helped this matter. However, public policy has served to amplify this issue. Various kinds of loan programsgovernment scholarships, and other programs incentivized more students to pursue college degrees. These policies that make college more accessible are what are devaluing college degrees. The current proposal for “free college” would be more expansive than our current policies. More people attending college makes degrees even more common and further depreciated.

The second form of credential debasement is a qualitative form of depreciation. Proving that the quality of a college education has decreased over the years is difficult to validate. Similar to how the Ancient Romans debased their currency by diluting the silver content of their coins, we have done the same to the college curriculum. College students are rarely studying but are attaining higher GPAs than previous generations. The average full-time student spends less than 30 hours a week focusing on coursework. Amounting to approximately 900 hours a year (average full-time worker devotes 1,800-2,000 annual to their job). Yet, the average GPA has climbed from 2.5 in 1940 to 3.1. A potential sign that college is not as academically rigorous as it once was.

Conclusion.

It is not to say that brilliant students with aspirations of a career in STEM fields should avoid college. For the average student, it may be a malinvestment in their future. Incurring large amounts of debt to work for minimum wage is not a wise decision. When faced with policies and social pressure that have made college the norm, the signaling function of a degree becomes distorted. If students focused more on obtaining skills than credentials, they might find a way to stand out in a job market flooded with degrees.

Terri Schiavo- From the Perspective of Lockean Property Rights

Photo by Ksenia Chernaya on Pexels.com

Here is a hypothetical situation that presents us with a challenging conundrum that would drive most legal scholars and moral philosophers mad. There is as a person in a vegetive state who is hooked up to a variety of life-sustaining medical equipment (feeding-tube, ventilator etc.). Let’s say that the individual is married, and their spouse has been their legal guardian since they have become clinically brain dead. Does the parents of the incapacitated person have a say over the end-of-life decision making for their child? Should this heavy burden be left to the spouse and rightful guardian? It should be noted that the moral analysis must be separated from the determination of legality. All because something is legal does not necessarily make it moral. For instance, abortion in the United States is sanctioned around quasi-arbitrary timeframes with little consideration for situational context or biological development of the fetus. The decree of legislative fiat does not automatically make a policy moral. There are many legal protections within American statutory law that prevent individuals from facing criminal penalty or ligation. If crimes against persons and property cannot be subjected to restorative justice then there is no point in calling a legal system just.  In other words, we will be reviewing this situation from a philosophical standpoint, specifically from the perspective of individual property rights.

The above scenario is not quite so hypothetical but is a concise description of the Terri Schiavo case. However, one striking difference between the scenario presented above and the Schiavo case is that :

Terri Schiavo breathes on her own. She is not on a ventilator or respirator. Although she swallows, she is sustained through a gastric feeding tube. She is not in distress or imminent danger of death.(P.5).

Despite Schiavo’s lack of cognitive functionality for the most part she was able to “live” in the most basic sense of the term.  It should also be note that prior to her cognitive impairment she made no will directing her “wishes” for medical treatment. Also including end-of-life decisions. Therefore, leaving the variable of individual consent obscured by Schiavo’s incapacitated state. There was a rift between Schiavo’s husband/ guardian wanted to remove her feeding tube while her parents staunchly disagreed with this decision. Ultimately, the courts sided with the husband and Terri ended up dying after having her feeding tube removed. This may have been the legally permitted course of events, but was it moral from the paradigm of individual property rights?

The economist and Libertarian Philosopher Walter Block provides a remedy to this quandary squarely from the standpoint of Lockean property rights. A grown adult who has lost their cognitive faculties is analogous to a child and exist in purgatorial grey area when it comes to the prospect of Lockean ownership (p.5).Block takes the Rothbardian approach to addressing a parents required commitment to child rearing, which in fact allows parents to relinquish this right (p. 6). Much like how Lockean homesteading does not preclude an economic agent from taking ownership of an abandoned patch of land, this analogy can be applied to raising children. If an adult within the community is willing to devout the resources to raising a child discarded in dumpster, this should count as a transfer of guardianship (p.7). Based upon the premise of Lockean homesteading the Supreme Court of Florida was morally wrong in assigning the right to end Terri Schiavo’s life to her husband. Through wanting to end her life with no prior record or request of her wanting such measures taken, he effectively relinquished his guardianship. Clearly he did not do so in the modern legal sense, but he did so within the context of Lockean property rights. If her parents were willing to assume guardianship of their daughter then the court’s decision is nothing more than perverse.

And if they are, then whoever is at first control of her must maintain her; if he refuses, her guardianship reverts to the second closest party, her parents. If they will not homestead her, then perhaps her siblings. If not them, then anyone who wishes to take up this burden. Based on the number of protests at the callous way she is being treated ( Block, 2011, p.7)

Bootleggers and Baptists XXXII: The Bootleggers of Mask Mandates

Photo by Ketut Subiyanto on Pexels.com

The COVID-19 Pandemic impacted almost every facet of daily life. The emergence of this unknown pathogen has generated an enormous amount of panic; acting as a pretext for laws and regulation.  It is easy to see how the insights of political economist Robert Higgs have been validated by the number of laws and relief bills that have proliferated in the name of the pandemic. Government action hardly ever has a neutral effect on the incentive structures of constituents, business interests, bureaucrats, and politicians.  There is always a beneficiary of any implemented policy that exists within every decision-making structure. Even in the context of an apolitical governing institution such as a Home-Owners Association

The most common form of COVID-related laws have been mask mandates, like another policy, there are disparate effects. Since benefits can be conferred through mask mandates they apply to Bootlegger and Baptist’s (1983)  coalition building. In almost any scenario the scientists would be our proverbial “Baptists” due to their vocal concern for public safety. This statement does not validate whether masks are effective at curtailing the spread of COVID-19. It most likely connotes a sincere concern for public welfare making it a normative position, therefore a moral argument for mask mandates.

Once we start to address who benefits from mask mandates the conversation starts to get interesting. Similar to the COVID engendered microchip shortage the beneficiaries of mask requirements have changed over time. The most notable “Bootlegger” of the nascent period of the pandemic were Mask producers. Specifically, mask manufactures are based out of China. It would be a mistake to interpret this observation as a tacit critique of free trade, this fact is self-evident.  The increase in mask sales does not require any further explanation beyond mask mandates and fear of the virus spreading. The question of why this was more fruitful for Chinese producers than other mask manufactures does need to be elucidated. That was largely a byproduct of the recommendations of the FDA.  Per the Brown Political Review:

“…A lack of knowledge and trust in these companies has led hospitals to severely ration their workers’ N95s rather than purchase additional supplies. The private market is no better: Facebook, Amazon, and Google are largely blocking domestic N95 manufacturers from advertising and selling their products. At the same time, most consumers feel obliged to use less-protective cloth or surgical masks due to continuing CDC guidance to reserve N95s for hospitals that will not even accept them. The CDC defends this policy by pointing to the relative efficacy of cloth masks and citing “reasons supported by science, comfort, costs, and practicality,” though these reasons seem increasingly outdated. So, the pandemic continues, millions of Americans live in fear of getting sick, and all the while tens of millions of life-saving products are sitting unused in storage facilities. The N95 shortage is an illusion, and as the virus and its variants continue to spread, more must be done to disseminate the essential products throughout the population…”

Even though domestic producers invested millions into expanding their production capacity, foreign masks were still preferred. It is estimated that “… between March and September 2020…” the shipping containers containing N95 masks imported into the U.S. increased from 6 to 3,000. While “…National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) approved 19 domestic manufacturers to begin to produce N95s..” the agency neglected to promote the masks and clearly articulate the distribution plan. Even outside of China’s relative comparative advantage for manufacturing other factors funneled production demand in their direction. Several domestic policies made the sale and distribution of domestically produced masks more onerous. Clearing the U.S. market for Chinese producers.

China’s domination of the mask production market has advantages that extend beyond economic benefits. China also garnered some soft political power through possessing a surplus of N95 masks. The Chinese government utilized the distribution of masks as a tool of diplomacy. Whether this decision was a moral one is a firm subject for debate. It is undeniable that China appropriates some “political purchasing power” from their superior efficiency in manufacturing masks. This is true even in the absence of some of the more obtuse regulatory policies implemented by the United States. The Chinese government capitalized on this opportunity to exercise the nation’s political and economic strength.  Many of the countries that received the most generously mask donations were nations that had the friendliest relations with China. Fully recognizing the potential for gaining social currency through these “benevolent” humanitarian gestures turned this venture in foreign aid into a publicity campaign.

The Chinese government seized the opportunity to “tell China’s story well” (Jacob 2020) and started donating medical equipment to other countries. While China sought discretion from donors such as the EU (when foreign medical supplies were sent to Hubei province in January 2020), the Chinese state media were quick to portray China’s donations as acts of benevolence (Popescu 2020). Many leaders of recipient countries duly praised China in return. For example, Serbia’s president welcomed a team of Chinese doctors in March 2020 by kissing the flag of the People’s Republic (CGTN 2020).

Many Americans may view the pandemic global aid initiative as a cynical ploy on China’s part. Such evaluations may be relatively inconsequential at least China was willing to help someone. In contrast, China could have opted to just horde all the N95 masks and callously sell what they could share from their domestic demand. However, it would also be naïve to completely ignore the political optics of the situation.


As time has passed and the pandemic continues, we have seen a shift in the beneficiaries of domestic mask mandates. Irrespective of the U.S. mask supply, the mask shortages of the early pandemic period have fallen out of public consciousness. Now the debate over mask mandates has devolved from a civil liberties debate to a diametrical shouting match. This uncivil discourse leaves little to no room for any grey area. Either you are either pro-mask or anti-mask with the underlying implication being that you either favor the mandates or oppose them. Few, if any pundits enrapture in this schoolyard squabble, would ever dare to oppose the mandates, but actively choose to wear a mask in public. Despite the fact, such a position is perfectly rational. Once again, we do live in an age of hyper-political polarization. In a similar manner to how the vaccines would later become politicized, any precautionary measure against COVID has morphed into the rhetorical argument. Where both sides of the debate completely dispense with facts and reason, leading to the assumption that both factions are more concerned with winning the debate than generating effective policy.

From the pro-mask campaign, an insidious and morally objectionable practice has emerged. That is the public shaming of mask and vaccine skeptics that have died of COVID. It is reasonable to argue that these media campaigns from the predominately left-wing media are more morally depraved than China’s mask allocation policies. The media has been joyously publishing headlines highlighting how COVID-skeptical public figures ranging from politicians to radio talk show hosts have succumbed to the virus. This public ridicule goes far deeper than utilizing these narratives as evidence that COVID is truly dangerous. There is a deeply ingrained derisive cruelty implied in it this public displace. In all honesty, is tantamount to dancing on the graves of these vocal opponents of mask mandates. The pro-mask camp unscrupulously benefits through utilizing these individuals as examples of why masks are necessary. In the same breath derive callous amusement out of mocking their “stupidity” with no regard or respect for the person that died.