Many liberal states have high costs of living due to the high rate of taxation. Many living in the localities of New York and California would want to move to a low-tax jurisdiction. However, there is a conspicuous Prisoner’s Dilemma (1950) between the state officials and the average resident of California. [1].
If California lowers its taxes, the current residents would be more apt to stay. Providing validation for the assumptions of the Laffer Curve. If taxation becomes too onerous, the state/ provincial government will lose money.
The reward for Mutual Cooperation: R= 0
Punishment for Defecting: $8.8 billion (Lost revenue for CA), 8,000 for the cost of moving
Progressive pundits and advocates for social justice often hold conflicting views in the name of upholding political correctness. Analogous to other manifestations of inconsistencies, proponents of contemporary progressive ideals will be backed into a corner by their logically incompatible beliefs. This is not an underhanded jab at modern liberalism; but an observation that suggests that hyper-woke social justice is rationally untenable. The grabbled jargon of critical race theory has only served to muddy the logic behind defending the disadvantaged based on sexual, racial, religious, and gender identity [1].
The burning question for every wide-eyed young adult is which discriminated group deserves a privileged status in society. The ideal answer would be every non-white, non-male, non-Christian, and member of the LGBTQ+ community. But this is not a perfect world with cleanly delineated categories. The social justice crowd has tried to rely on intersectionality as a heuristic to make this determination. However, activistic pursuits, like other resources, are finite and best allocated to the most productive use. Activists have ascertained that not every minority group is entitled to the same degree of reparative policies. Some of the most salient evidence is the Asian college admission (e.g. Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College) controversies. Are Asians too successful for us to treat them like a minority in the United States? What about the racial discrimination Asian Americans have faced in recent years since the COVID-19 outbreak? These are some of the precarious questions that social justice advocates need to answer, when does an ethnic minority group’s success place them outside of minority status?
The reverse discrimination of successful minority groups creates Prisoner Dilemma-like social dynamics. After all, these individuals came to America, followed the law, contributed to their communities, and independently achieved economic success. Harvard’s college admissions practices are a slap in the face. It is not likely that these individuals will lose their work ethic and start slacking off all because of this double standard. It will have other unintended consequences, such as individuals not wanting to fully participate in American public life and choosing to keep to themselves in their ethnic communities. Potentially fostering distrust of non-Asians, regardless of their intentions.
Condition 1:
· T>R>P>S
· 1> .5> 0 > -1
Condition 2:
· (T+S)/2<R
· (1+-1)/2 <.5
· (0)/2 <.5
· 0 < .5
Notes
1.) In the opinion of the author of this essay, Critical Race Theory was never intended to enter public discourse. It was a highly technical and wonkish framework that was purely academic. There is a danger of unsavvy SJWs misinterpreting the theory and incorrectly applying it in activism. Many of the core assumptions of CRT are inherently flawed.
It is irrefutable that Black Friday is the busiest shopping day in the United States. The unofficial kickoff to the holiday season initiates a month of stress and conflict for most Americans. Tensions running high, it is easy to forget the true spirit of holidays at the center of the winter months. Creating conditions perfect for ample Prisoner’s Dilemmas, one example being department stores opting to open their doors earlier on Black Friday, but fewer employees are willing to work earlier hours (this example is courtesy of Cornell University).
However, the example provided in this brief essay will be much more conspicuous than the example above. This inaugural event ushering in the holidays is renowned for inspiring violent and aggressive behavior. Causing injuries, deaths, arrests, and damage to private property. If shoppers maintained their decorum and could find peaceful means of settling disputes over who gets to purchase the last Play Station 5, Black Friday shopping would not have the same negative undercurrent. The adrenaline-fueled frenzy of overzealous bargain hunters; tend to lose themselves in the pandemonium. It is reasonable to wonder if the big-ticket items they are after or the thrill of getting a good deal.
To model this the Prisoner’s Dilemma dynamics of the skirmishes of Black Friday Shopping. Let us construct the conditions for a potential scenario. Jack and Jim are vying for the same insane deal on a new Ryobi table saw at Home Depot. These men are known for having aggressive alpha-male personalities; neither is willing to back down from a challenge. Both gentlemen camp out at Home Depot hours before they open for Black Friday sales, but neither were the first ones to arrive (some more eccentric individuals have been camping for days). By the time Jack and Jim enter the store, only one Ryobi table saw is left; Jim spots it first. Jack then shouts “Hey, buddy that’s mine.” Jim replies “ ***K you pal, I am not giving this up without a fight”. Jack and Jim drunk on the thrill of a killer deal, testosterone, and entitlement square off to assault each other. Their impulsivity does not account for the adverse long-term consequences of fighting over a $300 table saw.
The reward for Mutual Cooperation: R= $100
While both men may not walk out with the saw, they both avoid the municipal fine of ($100.00) for fighting/ disturbing the peace.
Punishment for Defecting: P=-$ 100
The punishment for Defecting would be a loss of -$100, but Jack and Jim are too headstrong to press assault charges against the other; the only penalty cost will be the $100 fine from the town.
· Temptation to Defect: T= $275
Home Depot is practically giving the saw away for $25.00 (MSRP: $300.00), there is a significant temptation to defect because this is the offer of a lifetime.
· Sucker’s Payoff: S=-$275
The sucker’s payoff would be a -$275 Why? Because forgoing the deal without fighting (considering the penalty is extraordinarily low, Jack and Jim live in a small rural community prone to bar fights and domestic violence, their fight is a minor issue in the opinion of local law enforcement). The -$275 represents the difference between paying for the saw at full cost.
Does the question become does the conflict between Jack and Jim fulfill the conditions of a Prisoner’s Dilemma? Per Nordstrom the two conditions that need to be met are 1.) T>R>P>S and 2.) (T+S)/2<R.
Condition 1:
T>R>P>S
+$275> +$100>-$ 100> – $275
Condition 2:
(T+S)/2<R
(275+ -275)/2< 100
(0)/2<100
0<100
Based on this rudimentary model, which may not accurately reflect real-world conditions, reflects a Prisoner’s Dilemma.
By now, most of you are aware of the new workplace phenomenon known as Quiet Quitting. Forbes defines Quite Quitting as “..unsatisfied employees put forth the least amount of effort possible to keep their paychecks…”. Most employees might think they are clever for only doing the bare minimum, but managers have their strategy for handling underperforming employees; Dehiring. Instead of outright firing the troublesome employee, management directly acknowledges their dissatisfaction with the job role. The hope is that this might prompt them to find another job.
Dehiring has been described as a win-win scenario because it acknowledges the mutual frustration of the worker and the firm. Side-stepping the legal and psychological hurdles of navigating the labor laws governing terminating a subpar employee. However, what if either employee isn’t getting the hint? Managers tend to be ineffective due to poor communication skills, which could muddle the succinct message of “Please find a new job!”. If there is any breakdown in the messaging, both worker and their boss; will result in a Prisoner’s Dilemma. The ineffectual expression of shared frustration will make this process protracted and end in an actual firing.
The reward for Mutual Cooperation: R= .5
Either the employee or manager could hope; if they play hardball, the other will eventually fold. The manager ultimately hopes the employee will change their ways, it is always easier and cheaper to have a current employee change their attitude than find a new hire. Concurrently, worker wishes that rules will loosen up, higher pay, or lighter workload, banking on the fact that their boss “needs” them.
Both parties holding these zero-sum strategies are being obtuse; neither outcome is realistic. The best approach would be for each coalition in this game (company/management vs. unhappy worker) to directly and honestly express their concerns. Not only would this path be more efficient, but if the manager is faithful to the etiquette of dehiring, the problematic employee should have time to find a new job.
· Punishment for Defecting: P=0
It would be improbable to have a central authority that can definitively prove and punish either the manager or the worker for using passive-aggressive or unclear communication. Since this is a game-theoretical model, for the sake of simplicity, let us assign the punishment value at zero.
· Temptation to Defect: T=1
As mentioned previously, it is tempting to adopt the longshot strategy; after all, either coalition gets all their preferred conditions met; with exerting the least effort possible. It is easy to view ambiguity as an excuse to hold out for a no-compromise solution.
· Sucker’s Payoff: S=-1
In a no-compromise strategy, it has win-take-all dynamics. The costs of buckling for either coalition are high. Arguably, the monetary costs are much higher for the firm, but the subjective evaluation of the worker’s disutility of conforming to their boss’s parameters would be difficult to measure.
Condition 1:
· T>R>P>S
· 1> .5> 0 > -1
Condition 2:
· (T+S)/2<R
· (1+-1)/2 <.5
· (0)/2 <.5
· 0 < .5
Overall, it appears as if the Quiet Quitting controversy, sloppy communication combined with employees and employers giving into their desire to be lazy and have all their preferences met engenders a Prisoner’s Dilemma.
Professor Bryan Caplan makes some impressive observations in his 2020 essay The Anti-Jerk Law. Caplan uses the hypothetical example of an Anti-Jerk law to emphasize the fallacies of anti-discrimination laws. At their core, both the fabricated example of the Anti-Jerk law and current discrimination laws suffer from numerous flaws. Instances of discrimination are not clear-cut, much like how your boss is a jerk is subject to interpretation. But if juries are predisposed to sympathize with instances of discrimination or the censure of a mean boss, this may “… lower the de facto burden of proof…” in ligation cases. More importantly, firms might be less apt to hire individuals that can make discrimination claims. Resulting in more indirect discrimination, creating a cobra effect. Laws and policies; designed to reduce discrimination, increasing discrimination.
Effectively, anti-discrimination laws are prone to create Prisoner’s Dilemmas. Why? Employers and Employees(ethnic minorities, religious minorities, transgender people, homosexuals, women) are predisposed to work against one another. Firms are ligation adverse and seek to avoid lawsuits costs and bad publicity. On the other hand, minority employees (emboldened by anti-discrimination regulations) have laws incentivizing them to pursue maximum damages for any perceived incident of discrimination. It is evident that both incentive structures are at odds and will cause both parties to choose to defect (using the vernacular of game theory) rather than cooperate.
The Calculations:
The above scenario is a zero-sum game; due to neither party wanting to compromise and the perception of winner-take-all dynamics. To numerically determine that this scenario is a Prisoner’s Dilemma, we must validate that the situation satisfies the two conditions expressed by Nordstrom; 1.) T>R>P>S and 2.) (T+S)/2<R.
Defining The Variable:
· Reward For Mutual Cooperation: R =.5
The value of .5 has been assigned for the gains of cooperation because the values expressed are predicated on a significant potential stance of discrimination ligation. The firm could take a chance on a risky employee and an employee could tolerate mild forms of discrimination (insensitive jokes, run-of-the-mill micro-aggressions) and not sue. Functioning as an archetypal compromise, neither party is pleased with the arrangement but still better than non-cooperation.
· Punishment for Defection: P =0
There is little to no proper punishment for defection. For the hiring company, it is difficult/ nearly impossible to prove that they choose the 20-something, recent college graduate, male over a riskier job application (from an anti-discrimination standpoint). There is virtually no actual punishment despite the formal parameters of discrimination laws. For the employee, since the social norms are aligned with anti-discrimination legislation, the social costs for suing are low (but there might be monetary costs associated with legal action which are difficult to quantify.
· Temptation to Defection: T=1
The firm has a lot to lose by hiring an employee with a high probability of suing them; the employee has a lot to gain in situations of discrimination.
· Sucker’s Payoff: S=-1
Both parties can lose a lot if the other does not compromise.
Condition 1:
· T>R>P>S
· 1> .5> 0 > -1
Condition 2:
· (T+S)/2<R
· (1+-1)/2 <.5
· (0)/2 <.5
· 0 < .5
Prima facie, it does seem as if numerically and qualitatively that anti-discrimination laws are inclined to create Prisoner’s Dilemmas.
As mentioned in Part A, the lack of foresight and economic ignorance of Massachusetts voters are a notable feature of the Fiasco on the Vineyard saga. However, Governor DeSantis is far from innocent in this debacle. He essentially used tax dollars to make an existing problem worse. All in the name of political gamesmanship. Yes, DeSantis is correct that Massachusetts does not fully bare the cost of liberal immigration policies. Many immigrants avoid Massachusetts because the state is financially inhospitable due to the high cost of living. It is tempting to give a political actors a dose of their own medicine when they have virtually no skin in the game.
DeSantis marooned these people in a jurisdiction where they do not have much hope for economic mobility, only stressing the island’s meager resources. Massachusetts voters defected first, by favoring immigration policies that will not impact their communities. The governor of Florida (DeSantis) chose to punch back and flew fifty migrants to an affluent tourist town in the Bay State. Not only was this tactless and passive-aggressive, but it was also lazy. It is easier to make a political spectacle out of the immigration debate than to advocate and implement reforms. The suboptimal result is; a group of impoverished immigrants stranded on a prohibitively expensive island. It is reasonable to argue that this situation is the second layer (and most salient) layer of this Prisoner’s Dilemma Dynamic.
The model for Validating the DeSantis vs. Martha Vineyard PD
Condition 1: T>R>P>S
1> .5>0>-1
This expression is typical in political Prisoner’s Dilemma centered on a single issue. 1= represents a single victory, .5= a compromise, 0= the lack of direct political blowback for refusing to compromise, and -1 = political defeat. If two political adversaries are competing over multiple policies that are being implemented independently of each other then the Temptation to defect would surpass the value of 1.
Considering the current political animosity between Democrats and Republics; this situation numerically and quantitively fits this condition.
The Martha’s Vineyard Immigrant debacle encapsulates the hideous nature of contemporary politics. It is a saga that depicts partisanship, hypocrisy, and lack of concern for effective policy. Both conservatives and the quixotic-minded and progressive residents of Martha’s Vineyard are responsible for this situation.
The controversy began when Republican Governor Ron DeSantis (using tax dollars) flew 50 migrants to the left-leaning tourist island of Martha’s Vineyard. The coordinator of the island’s homeless shelter has publicly expressed that their facility does not have the resources to provide services for the new arrivals. Even stating that the influx of migrants will exacerbate the current housing crisis. Economist Tyler Cowen addresses the scarcity of affordable housing on the island in his latest OP-ED piece:
“…Real estate is very expensive. And the island is strictly zoned, making it hard to build a lot of dense, low-cost housing…
Wages there are below the Massachusetts average, and living expenses are prohibitively expensive. Those realities stem from decisions about land use made by the island’s population. (I am OK with such community-supported zoning restrictions when they apply to very limited local areas, such as Martha’s Vineyard, and there are many options to look elsewhere. The problem arises when they start infesting a larger part of the U.S., as they have.)..”
Stringent zoning ordinances and below-average wages are a recipe for a housing crisis. In 2012, the average home was valued at “..$535,000 but average Islander could afford only $310,000..”.The cost of housing is prohibitive even for U.S. citizens residing on the island, never mind impoverished immigrants looking for better opportunities.
It is difficult to refute that this situation fits within the definition of a Prisoner’s Dilemma because two defecting coalitions made the scenario worse by not compromising. If anything, this occurrence might be a multifaceted Prisoner’s Dilemma; DeSantis owning the Libs isn’t the only game contributing to Martha’s Vineyard fiasco. The progressive islanders have conflicting desires politically, they effectively have had an intra-temporal Prisoner’s Dilemma with themselves. This is where Tyler Cowen’s observation, but the community’s hypocrisy regarding income inequality, comes into play. Because the island’s residents vocally support progressive policies in the name of economic justice. But concurrently, favor zoning ordinances that restrict the supply of homes and artificially inflate the cost of housing.
The model for Validating the Intra-institutional Prisoner’s Dilemma
Applying the model used by Nordstrom to validate Prisoner’s Dilemmas:
Condition 1:
The temptation to Defect (2= Signifies implementing both favorable zoning and left-wing economic policies)> Reward for Cooperation (1= The island recognizes the opportunity cost and amends its zoning laws; only one of the preferred policies is implemented)> Punishment For Defection (0= The majority of residents do not see that both policies cancel each other out)> Sucker’s Payoff (-1= The costs of creating political division by not favoring both varieties of policies).
T(2)> R(1)> P(0)> S(-1).
Condition 2:
(T+S)/2<R
(2+-1)/2 <1 ; (1)/2<1; .5 < 1
Even though the Fiasco on The Vineyard does numerically match the two conditions for a prisoner’s dilemma, this application of the PD incentives dynamic was creative. Game Theory purists might claim that it is erroneous to apply this lens so abstractly. However, the attributes of this intra-coalitional game do look like a cooperative game superficially. But the fact that local government and the constituents are attempting to balance conflicting interests. This situation may even validate Peter Clark’s Paradox of Implicit Logrolling (2021); however, there may be other factors at play. Per the public choice literature on rational ignorance, voters still select policies and elected officials even though they face severe information asymmetries.
The DeSantis versus Martha’s Vineyard game will be reviewed in part B.
Anyone who has observed the chaos of local politics has seen the Machiavellian dynamics of a municipal committee elected by the town. The best example is seated on the town council. The incentive structure of the council members; is driven by the fact that their position is secured or eliminated by the will of the people. Setting up the classical variables for any Public Choice analysis, as the council members tailor their platforms and rhetoric to the voter preferences. If the same council members are either reelected or run unopposed, there is the incentive to form a coalition with the other recurring council men, formulating an informal agreement to have each other’s back. Effectively creating a cartelization since the other sitting council members have consented to support your policy prescriptions and justify your controversies. Per Katz and Mair (2018):
“…The mainstream parties, and most minor parties as well, have effectively formed a cartel, through which they protect their interests in ways that sap the capacity of their erstwhile principal—the electorate—actually to control the parties that are supposed to be the agents of the electorate. While the appearance of competition is preserved, in terms of political substance it has become spectacle (p.7)…”
By forming tight bonds and backing the rest of the elected officials on the council, each works to consolidate the power within this single unit of governance. Forming an impermeable oligarchy that the voters cannot vote out office due to a lack of policy competition. Analogous to an economic cartel, where consenting producers all fix prices in unison, all politicians “fix policy” to conform to the rest of the representatives on the council. This keeps external influences out of the fold, enabling all to retain their seats if they play ball. Much like all participants in an economic cartel enjoy larger profit margins, if no one reneges.
Hypothetically, let’s say there are four council members; one of the incumbents decides to resign mid-term. The replacement candidate is an insurgent candidate, breaking the unanimity among the colluding council members. This loosens the relational foundation among the incumbents; we start to see instances of defection among them. What was once complete accord among the old boys club quickly devolves into a prisoner’s dilemma. It is important to remember that cartels seldom are sustainable indefinitely. Eventually, the temptation of one party to undercut the rest of the colluding companies will cause them to defect (Tullock, 1985, p. 1076). For example, one particularly narcissistic council member may claim responsibility for policy reforms that his other cohorts co-sponsored. This type of behavior only undercuts the contributions of the others, leading them to undermine this arrogant council member. The cadre of incumbents suffer from the eroded trust. The newer member with innovative policy prescriptions; only proceeds to dimmish the creditability of the old boys club.
For now, President Biden was able to pump the breaks on the railroad strikes. Biden appointed arbitrators to negotiate mutually agreeable recommended revisions to the current labor contracts. This action kept “..115,000 rail workers on the job..” and narrowly side-stepped work stoppages from occurring on Monday (July 18th). In a time of preexisting supply-chain constraints, labor disputes would only exacerbate matters (the best real example would be the situation in the UK).
The dynamics of organized labor have a long history of being contentious, and striking is their secret weapon in gaining leverage at the collective bargaining table. If a policy does not contour to union interests, the relationship between the government and the labor movement devolves into a standoff. Since both factions have competing goals, this negotiation process is a Prisoner’s Dilemma. Lawmakers tailored policies to the preferences of the majority (union members only make up 13% of the US labor force). Also, in the anti-union camp, management possesses a fiduciary responsibility to enforce policies that are advantageous for the firm.
These sets of incentives are opposed to the interests of the unions. Organized labor aims for higher wages, better benefits, more safety measures, and other generous forms of compensating differential. These new desired measures may be more costly for the firm or adversely impact consumers with higher prices or a lower grade of customer service (inefficiency). The demands of the labor unions tend to concentrate the benefitsand impose costs on the rest of the economy. Even in sectors that are only tangentially connected to the industry where the workers are on the brink of striking. When their proposals are ignored or rules they dislike come into play, they defect by halting production and picketing.
How neither party can reach a consensus generates Pareto-inefficient outcomes; should be self-evident. Because employers and policymakers might not want to cooperate or even meet the unions in the middle, they are defecting. In turn, the unions initiate strikes which create product scarcity, production bottlenecks, and higher prices. The ripple effects of the lack of agreement will hurt every economic actor in the market.
The libertarian party is arguably the most disorganized political party in the United States.
For years, debates have waged over the gulf between the actual political philosophy and the official party’s platform. Many hardcore libertarians feel the party has long since lost its way. For many disillusioned lovers of liberty; the remedy came in the form of the Mises Caucus founded in 2017. The emergence of this faction within the LP has been met with controversy. As more members of the caucus assume leadership roles within the national party, concerns arise regarding the tendinous social views of this strain of libertarianism. Accusations of racism and transphobia have surfaced and put the Mises Caucus in the crosshairs of LP party leadership.
To the casual observer, this tension in the LP may seem like a new development; but the political in-fighting has been a fixture of the party’s institutional dynamics since its inception in the 1970s. The antipathy sowed between the libertarian establishment and Austro-libertarianism dates back to the founding of the Cato Institute. The intellectual father of the political movement sweeping the structure of the LP was none other than economist Murray Rothbard. Rothbard co-founded the institute with the vision of it being an academic nexus between libertarian thought and Austrian economics. Rothbard’s unwillingness to compromise on Cato’s messaging, he was ousted from the institute. He then moved on to establish the Mises Institute in the early 1980s. It is reasonable to this one event as a manifestation of a major schism within libertarianism. A rivalry formed between the moderate libertarian political philosophy and the convictions of full-on anarcho-capitalism. A system of beliefs exalting ideological purity, articulating rhetoric steeped in social conservatism and the mechanism of Austrian economics.
The competing philosophies of Cato and the Mises Institute are the lines between academic establishment and the populist tendencies of the liberty movement[1]. Cato has the ear of the academy, while the Mises orbit has the ear of the people. However, this is not to say there isn’t a deep tradition of scholarly work within the Austro-libertarian tradition; the cadre of academics advancing this political philosophy has to produce voluminous amounts of literature. Cato has not had the same effect on the advancement of libertarianism on the ground level. Aside from the popularity of Rothbard’s polemical pamphlets in the 1970s and 1980s; the movement gained new life in the 2000s with the Presidential campaign of Ron Paul. The Cato Institute attempted to distance itself from Ron Paul for his reluctance to condemn political extremism. Former Senator Paul was an instrumental figure in founding the Mises Institute. He has also had longstanding professional relationships with figures such as Lew Rockwell and Rothbard.
The variety of libertarianism with a hint of social conservatism advocated for by Ron Paul and the Mises Institute cannot disavow extremism as it is part of their political strategy. In contrast to the libertarian establishment, Austro-libertarians have formed alliances with paleo-conservatives, injecting planks of Old Right sensibilities into their platform. Libertarians favoring this hard-right strategy perceive the virtues of multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism to be treasonous to individual liberty. Many Rothbardians/Hoppeans believe that policies such as open immigration will erode cultural identity, and private property rights and expand the welfare state.
This is not to insinuate that the Mises Institute nor Ron Paul’s campaign was managed by Klansmen. That would be a bad faith assessment of the political dynamics of Austro-libertarianism, there is not enough evidence to make such a claim. The attempts to annex populous conservatives and the far-right were more pragmatism on Rothbard’s part. The run-of-the-mill country club Reaganite Republican will not have any appetite to “end the fed”; naturally this individual would be a lackluster bedfellow in such an endeavor. On the other hand, a gentleman living in the rural south, raised in an environment of culturally entrenched conservatism and a distaste for centralization, would be a more likely partner in crime.
Rothbard could foresee the logical instability in the Reaganite brand of “fusionism”. The political progeny of National Review editor Frank Meyer; a doctrine suggesting that libertarians and conservatives should make minor compromises and join forces to gain more ground in American politics. Realistically, this approach is shortsighted in a climate of winner-take-allpolitics. Disagreements on core wedge issues will eventually create fault lines that cannot be repaired. Rothbard’s vision of liberty was immoderate and immune from the debasing effects of implicit logrolling.
The strife between the two warring factions of libertarianism is nothing short of a textbook example of a prisoner’s dilemma. Frank Meyer was not off base with such a suggestion of political compromise, but neither party agrees to make any concessions. The very stance of the Mises Caucus and other Austro-libertarian organizations is nothing more than an automatic defection. Their hard-nosed commitment to ideological integrity has already taken the possibility of bargaining off the table. Developing a libertarian with the rigidity of Aristotle’s ethical virtue of “right reason”; which is utterly inflexible. The libertarian insiders in the Washington D.C. belt away may garner more appeal to establishments and academics outside of the movement; due to their ideological moderation. These movers and shakers at the think tanks have made no effort to reach out to the populous wing of the libertarian party[2]. If anything, they have either ignored or condemned Ron Paul supporters as hopeless racists or conspiracy-mongering dingbats. None of this is productive when it comes to advancing a political philosophy. It is as much of defection as the resolute principles of the droves of lay libertarians regularly reading the Mises Wire.
The suboptimal results engendered by this mutual defection should be conspicuous; we have yet to have had a true Libertarian in the oval office since the establishment of the official party. The overall lack of consensus has stymied libertarianism’s influence on American politics. There are always several groups arguing over what libertarianism truly is; instead of working together to make an impact. This gives outsiders the impression that libertarians are politically disorganized. It is not that they are a bunch of lazy hippies, bearded mountain men, or a gaggle of goofy naked men kvetching about drivers’ licenses. The party has been sidetracked by years of internal conflict, making this turmoil the ultimate collective action problem.
Footnotes:
The Mises Caucus might be the “Trump moment” for the LP, a populous takeover of the formal structure of the political organization.
2. This is not a defense of the Mises Caucus nor a jab at the libertarian establishment. Rather, it is an expression of how neither subset of the LP is willing to compromise with the other.
In the immediate aftermath of any tragedy, we often struggle to make sense of the situation. The senseless loss of life following a mass shooting is no exception. Various experts and media talking heads list all the potential antecedents that pushed a mentally unstable person to commit such an atrocity. The frequently cited causes of domestic mass murder include bellicose political rhetoric, violent song lyrics, psychiatric drugs, video games, disenfranchisement, mental health issues, and access to firearms (although the effect of gun control on preventing such events is inconclusive).
It would be rash to assume that any one of these purported preconditions for molding a mass murder is the sole reason for these tragedies. It is more likely that various environmental, genetic, and social factors drive a person to perpetrate such heinous acts. One potential cause of violence that often gets overlooked; is media coverage of such incidents [1].
Even when we take a cursory view of the incentives of media outlets, they are not going to take any responsibility for inspiring new school shooters and other varieties of a deranged shooter. After all, they are the mouthpiece for all the experts touting the evils of Marilyn Manson (I apologize for the dated reference), political extremism, and guns. Fixating on these gruesome stories and participating in conspiratorial conjecture about the impetus was for a demented young man to kill innocent people. Sadly, negativity sells, making it lucrative for business. Human beings are plagued by what is known as the negativity bias; we are more apt to engage with articles or news programming that has a negative tone. News outlets lay into this bias by exaggerating the severity of negative news. Validated by the fact that fifty percent (p.5) of news coverage features stories on crime. Media companies have a lot to gain from obsessively presenting all the gory updates on the Uvalde massacre. Business is good when you have audience captivity by the horror and depravity of a madman.
At its core, the dynamics of how media outlets cover mass shootings is a Prisoner’s Dilemma. The media companies act in their self-interest by bombarding us with all the horrific details of these mass killing events. This is done so with little consideration for the ethical consequence of how the story is framed. Typically, there is more coverage of the perpetrator than on the heroes who intervened and stopped the killing spree or even the victims (p.22). The tight focus on the gunman aggrandizes the image of the killer. In the mind of narcissistic (p.16) or otherwise mentally unstable people, they become the protagonist in the story of a folk anti-hero. The previous mass shooter serves as a template for how to quickly gain notoriety. In the canonical literature, there is a model known as the contagion effect, where essentially publicized shootings beget more publicized shootings. We begin to see copycat shooters. A 1999 study found that “.. of 83 would-be mass killers or assassins, who noted that evidence in their belongings or writings indicated that 38% of them emulated previous killers…”(p.24). A 2013 study, found a positive correlation between tweets about mass shootings and the likelihood of another one occurring (p.27). The shooters end up “defecting” by orchestrating and executing a shooting event, believing they are acting in their self-interest by indulging their angst and narcissism.
The suboptimal results in this situation would be the victims of the shooting. They are merely collateral damage in the pursuits of media outlets and mass shooters. Truly this mutual defection is the story of excesses. Whether it be improperly channeled rage, vanity, and narcissism or profit and callous political opportunism [2], innocent people had to die to achieve these ends.
Footnotes
1.) The suggestion that the media companies bare some responsibility for mass shootings is not an indictment of capitalism or freedom of the press. This presents an ironic fact; news outlets blame many distal factors for shootings; it never occurs to them to look in the mirror. Especially considering that most mass murders have proclivities towards narcissism.
2.) The incentives structure of media outlets may extend beyond the profit-loss mechanism, as they are generally ideologically driven. Many of the news channels and publications of esteem are politically left-wing, meaning they may also have anti-gun agenda. In effect; driving the obsessive coverage of gun violence.
Inverted logic 