…comes from page 80 of Roger Koppl’s excellent 2018 book Expert Failure (link added, original emphasis):
Earlier we saw Lee Ellis argue for chemical castration of young men with “crime-prone genes.” Writers who, like Ellis (2008), view experts as reliable and nonexperts as powerless do not usually subject their theories to the reflexivity requirement. Ellis’ essay illistrates, however, the importance of the reflexivity that all agents of the system be modeled. He models persons with “crime-prone genes,” but not the experts who would administer sterilization policies. He consequently wishes to place discretionary power in the hands of persons unlikely to exercise such power with the Solomonic disinterest and wisdom his policies would require even under the assumption that his eugenic ideas are correct. In the theory of experts, as in all of social science, all agents must be modeled if we are to minimize the risk of proposing policies that would require some actors to behave in ways that are inconsistent with their incentives or beyond human capabilities.
JMM: Economics, and the social sciences in general, try to emulate the natural sciences by means and methods. But the social sciences differ from the natural sciences in the key way that Koppl mentions here: we are part of the very thing we are modeling. To borrow a metaphor from elsewhere in Koppl, we are also the ants in the anthill. So is government.
The big assumption made by many people, both on the left and on the right, is that government is somehow made out of finer clay than the rest of us mere mortals. This may be because they were elected, or appointed by God, or appointed by some panel of experts, or whatever. That, for some reason never really explained, those imposing rules and regulations upon us are free of the “crime-prone genes” or self-interest or moral failings of the rest of us. Were this true, were men really ruled by angels, then we would be near Heaven. But alas, human history indicates that this is not so. We all make mistakes, even under the best of intentions. The question is how to limit the danger of those mistakes.
A Force for Good 
[Big assumption made] “That, for some reason never really explained, those imposing rules and regulations upon us are free of the “crime-prone genes” or self-interest or moral failings of the rest of us.”
Bingo. That point could be repeated far more often than it is. In that sense it’s actually true that “government is us”
It’s pretty obvious that many ofthose in positions of authority are NOT free of “crime-prone genes”.
LikeLike
I have never met a single one of of these people who think that government actors “are free of the “crime-prone genes” or self-interest or moral failings of the rest of us.”
But if I ever do, I will tell them how ridiculous that idea is. In the meantime I am meeting a lot of people who think the government actors they disagree with are mostly criminals.
LikeLike
Greg
It’s undeniable that government actors engage in activities that would be considered crimes if engaged in by non-government actors, and at other times engage in criminal activity under color of law. In those cases I tend to disagree with them.
Here’s an interesting question on that subject by Jason Brennan. what do you think?
https://reason.com/archives/2018/12/07/when-nonviolence-isnt-enough
LikeLike
Ron,
No one has yet been identified who thinks that government agents can’t be criminals who commit crimes. Here is what Jason Brennan said in that essay:
“The Moral Parity Thesis has radical implications. It means you may assassinate leaders to stop them from launching unjust wars. You may fight back against a police officer who arrests you for something that shouldn’t be a crime—e.g., marijuana possession or homosexuality. ”
There are many people who think that EVERY war is unjust for one reason or another. The Moral Parity Thesis permits each of them to “assassinate” any and every politician who has supported a war they view as unjust. That means it would be open season on all political leaders. That is not the route to less violence and coercion.
In the actual case he raises, the police violence was videotaped and well publicized and the victim will certainly get a huge and well deserved civil settlement. This is a much better result for everyone than having some citizen execute two police officers for police brutality which would certainly result in much more violence and danger to everyone in the area.
It’s also worth noting that, after he was initially thrown to the ground, the victim was passively resisting even as his wife begged him not to. That was very foolish even though it did not justify the level of violence indulged in by the police.
LikeLike
Many people do indeed act as if government actors are angels. Indeed, that’s what calls for positive regulations are all about. Yes, you might think “the other guy” is a crook, but your guy is always an angel. Utopia is always just one more law away
LikeLike
Jon, I think “My Guy” is a crook too. 🙂
LikeLike
>—“Utopia is always just one more law away”
Who is it that is saying this and what exactly did they say?
LikeLike
Greg
Greg
“No one has yet been identified who thinks that government agents can’t be criminals who commit crimes. ”
We agree on that. The question in this case is whether government agents are permitted to engage in criminal activity in the performance of their jobs, and more importantly whether people are justified in defending themselves or others against criminal acts.
It’s too bad Brennan went directly to the most extreme method of self defense, rather than something like “the use of sufficient force to deter the criminal activity.” I think most people would agree that physically interfering with two non-government actors administering a beating like the one we see here, would be justified. Why would the uniforms make a difference? It seems reasonable to argue that an assult is an assault, no matter who the perpetrator is.
“The Moral Parity Thesis has radical implications. It means you may assassinate leaders to stop them from launching unjust wars.”
Yes. That’s why I chose that particular article. It’s very thought provoking. Shades of Lysander Spooner! 🙂
Brennan also wrote: “The Moral Parity Thesis vindicates helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson, who threatened to kill fellow American soldiers to stop them from killing civilians during the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. It vindicates Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden for sharing at least some state secrets. It vindicates government agents who sabotage unjust efforts from within.”
“. You may fight back against a police officer who arrests you for something that shouldn’t be a crime—e.g., marijuana possession or homosexuality”
That seems reasonable, unless you are willing to excuse the actions of government actors who claim “I was only following orders.” That defense didn’t fly at Nuremberg. Individual moral responsibility doesn’t fly out the window just because you were ordered to do something.
“There are many people who think that EVERY war is unjust for one reason or another.”
Until war can be waged against only the actual wrongdoers, I count myself among those people. Killing innocent non-combatants is unjust and immoral. For example vaporizing 80,000 people in Hiroshima in a single instant, very few of whom were combatants, is an enormous atrocity. Bombing civilians in Syria and every other place the US government is bombing civilians is immoral. We can assume that defense against an actual invasion is justified because those involved are active aggressors.
“ The Moral Parity Thesis permits each of them to “assassinate” any and every politician who has supported a war they view as unjust. That means it would be open season on all political leaders. That is not the route to less violence and coercion.”
Not at first, perhaps, but eventually no one would run for political office or accept assignments to public office out of fear of being killed. That would result in much less government coercion and violence. (some amount of tongue in cheek)
“In the actual case he raises, the police violence was videotaped and well publicized and the victim will certainly get a huge and well deserved civil settlement.”
Hopefully so, although it will be the taxpayers who pay the settlement, not the individual criminals. As far as I know there has been no criminal prosecution of the criminals in theis case, although at least one of them was fired for this, the last in a long list of abuses of private citizens. That seems inadequate.
“It’s also worth noting that, after he was initially thrown to the ground, the victim was passively resisting even as his wife begged him not to. That was very foolish even though it did not justify the level of violence indulged in by the police.”
In the videos I saw it appears that he was trying to protect himself from the physical blows. Not sure at what point passive protection of one’s head crosses the line into criminal resistance. Keep in mind, too, this stop was for a minor traffic violation. How much force was really justified?
“It’s also worth noting that, after he was initially thrown to the ground, the victim was passively resisting even as his wife begged him not to.”
Why was the victim thrown to the ground after a routine traffic stop? Before that point I saw no resistance of any kind. And it’s not clear from the report or the video that the woman was his wife. 🙂 Was she loudly and continually yelling at the victim or the police to stop? I can’t tell.
Would she, and other witnesses have had a moral right to physically interfere with the two men cruelly beating the victim if they hadn’t been cops?
LikeLike
Ron,
Yes this case was an outrage. The victim deserves to be well compensated for his injuries and he will be.
Meanwhile many other people who won’t be compensated at all were beat up by non-state actors on the same day and that interests you not at all in comparison.
LikeLike
Greg
The people compensating Hubbard should be the people who assaulted him, but we know it will be innocent taxpayers instead.
I promise to get appropriately outraged by non-state actors beating people if you can find some videos to show me.
LikeLike
Also I DO know someone who believes government actors are more likely to provide justice, and economic stability, and are somehow immune to some of the perverse incentives that plague the rest of us mortals.
LikeLike