Letters to the Editor
-
@mikeinportc - thanks for that reminder
That wasn't what I was thinking, though. I dredged up some old memory and found in wiki on ChoicePoint, I found the following paragraph in the National Security Contracts section:
It has been reported that this work was contracted to private companies because they could compile and use information in ways that government officials could not. US privacy and information laws, strictly limit the government's ability to conduct surveillance on US citizens, but these restrictions do not apply to corporations
q.v.,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChoicePoint
This was what I had been thinking of.
-
ChoicePoint
Just acquired by Reed Elsevier (Publishers Weekly), who gushed over Jonah's book, Liberal Fascism, and charachterized Glenn's new book as a descent into a partisan screed like Ann Coulter's product.
-
The Free Loader or The Free Rider
re: Robert Bork is a liberal?
A liberal? Are you asserting that Bork is trying to get something for nothing, as a liberal would?
-- shooter242
From Reason (the false libertarians according to Bucky1, the consumate Lew Rockwell reading idiot):
Confessions of a Welfare Queen
How rich bastards like me rip off taxpayers for millions of dollars
John Stossel | March 2004 Print Edition
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29067.html
I'm often critical of Stossel and Reason, but credit should be given where credit is due. Not all Cato or Reason folks agree with each or the other about everything. Room for improvement there as well.
The comment by Shooter about Bork, both of whom are freeloaders, brought to mind this Digby post about Spocko, rhetorical framing, and his victory in getting Melanie Morgan fired:
Spocko, (the guy who chased Melanie Morgan off San Francisco radio) wrote this in the comments to our "pudding" series about questioning the premises of these right wing frames. He makes an excellent observation:
I decided that the only way to have an impact on the charade of the "market place of ideas" was to go to the only people they really listen to, the ones who paid them. The advertisers.
This is the "real world" and it is the ultimate of rejecting their premise.
I reject the entire premise of their show. The fake participation, the stacked deck with loving callers. I reject their rhetorical tricks that are used on people who do get through occasionally who they destroy with their high school debating tricks and shouting. (Hannity especially)
People like Rush, Hannity, Grover Norquist, Bill O' Reilly and Coulter are the ones who create these kind of rhetorical games. They think up the frame. They then give them to their listeners who repeat them for their co-workers and family. My mom regularly uses the rhetorical tricks that Rush uses on the one person in the family who disagrees with her. But because this person doesn't want to attack my mom she thinks she has "won the conversation". Personally I hate having to have these conversations with people because I really don't like confrontation. Especially if my goal it really to persuade and change someone's mind rather than WIN the conversation. I think some men thing that if they humiliate the other person that they will then admit defeat. And that is what they want. "All right! You are right! I was wrong. You are the smarter person. I will change my ways!" These people often want to appeal to some third party and argue as if a impartial judge of debate is listening in.
What do I gain if I "win" a conversation on talk radio? Even if I had a segment where they didn't control my volume and my on button, if I "won" the argument the second I'm off the air they will mock me. They never modify their opinion with the correct information. See how often they bring back Zombie facts. As Monty nicely put it, it's NOT about an "honest inquiry or debate." It's about entertainment, stirring the pot or creating the media's standard "X vs. Y" controversy story.
When I went after the talk radio hosts I chose to change the venue, work on them from outside their frame and even from outside the venue they control. And it had an impact.
The financial impact on the station was big, but the bigger picture method was bigger. They listened to the money people because even if they say, "We had great ratings!" the money people say, "We don't care, we only like great ratings if they give us more money." To save face (and to avoid a breach of contract lawsuit) they didn't fire the K S F O radio hosts at the time, but eventually they slipped them the pink slip for doing the one sin that corporate radio doesn't forgive, costing them money.
Spocko deserves a medal for fighting back against that shrieking creep Melanie Morgan. And that's how he did it. Liberals should do it more often.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/hit-em-where-it-hurts-by-digby-spocko.html
Shooter tries to frame "something for nothing" or the problem of free riding in a manner which is the exact opposite of the actual definition of the practice. Liberals and real conservatives alike, and all libertarians (real or imagined) should be aware of this. Most of us are.
See below.
-
Free Rider Problem
In economics, collective bargaining, psychology and political science, "free riders" are actors that consume more than their fair share of a resource, or shoulder less than a fair share of the costs of its production. The free rider problem is the question of how to prevent free riding from taking place, or at least limit its negative effects.
Because the notion of "fairness" is controversial, free riding is usually only considered to be an economic "problem" when it leads to the non-production or under-production of a public good, and thus to Pareto inefficiency, or when it leads to the excessive use of a common property resource. See also collective action problem.
A common example of a free rider problem is defense spending: no one person can be excluded from being defended by a state's military forces, and thus free riders may refuse or avoid paying for being defended, even though they are still as well guarded as those who contribute to the state's efforts. Therefore, it is usual for governments to avoid relying on volunteer donations, using taxes and, in some countries, conscription instead.
Government is indeed the primary mechanism by which societies address free rider problems. In addition to fiscal measures noted above, regulation is another form of collective action taken by governments to resolve free riders problems such as environmental degradation or excessive resource use.
In the labor union context, a free rider is an employee who pays no union dues or agency shop fees, but nonetheless receives the same benefits of union representation as dues-payers. Under U.S. law, unions owe a duty of fair representation to all workers they represent, regardless of whether they pay dues. Some jurists have questioned the fairness, if not the legality, of this practice.
(...)
Example
Suppose there is a street on which 25 people live. There is a chance to install a street-wide litter collection system to reduce unseemly garbage, the cost of which is $2,500. Suppose that each person is prepared (i.e., able and willing) to pay $100 or more for the benefit of a cleaner street.
If the system is installed everyone will benefit. However, it is possible that some people on the street will refuse to pay, anticipating that the system will be installed in any event.
Despite the fact they may be prepared to contribute $100, they will claim that they are not prepared to pay, and instead hope that others in the street will pay for the system anyway, and they receive the benefit for no personal expense.
The result is that it is possible no system will be installed, an example of market failure. This is despite the fact that allocative efficiency would be improved.
Solution
One common solution to the problem is to gather the 25 participants and make them behave like one customer, so the decision is reduced from 25 independent decisions to one. A vote can be taken, but if the answer is yes, everyone will be forced to pay regardless of their individual support. This is why public services such as military defense and police service are almost exclusively provided by governments.
The free rider problem is also one justification for the existence of public goods. Some ideologies, such as libertarian capitalism, are often rebuked, because in such a system all property in a society would be privately owned, away from any state involvement or regulation. Libertarians counter that potential free riders within their system could face social ostracism, which may deter those who accept services without donating any payment for them. Libertarians stress that the need to healthily co-operate and interact with others in society would lessen the risk and likelihood of free riders.* (see note 1)
Problems
The solution suggested above is not without its problems. The utility for the 25 people may vary from one person to another, and each person may place a different value on the service. Deciding how the cost is split among the people raises important political considerations. A simple even split ($100 each) may not be considered equitable.
Bargaining
The free rider problem has deep roots in more general bargaining, and issues to do with incentive compatibility. That is to say that, when involved in bargaining problems, players may often bid less than they are prepared to pay in the hope of improving their own position. This creates problems because it is impossible to discover the players' true demand payoff curves, and therefore inefficient allocation of resources is likely to ensue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem
*note 1: ("That hope hasn't worked as well as was wished. A wish is just a wish. A hope is just a hope. Sorry, Obama.)
many related links at the wiki page