Courts and regulatory agencies as markets

For most of us every day folk, courts are places where we want a judgment that says, “We are right.” But courts are also “rules markets.” Rules markets are where frameworks for how we engage each other going forward are produced and depending on how broad the issue is defined, those rules may be forcibly consumed by others who were not a party to the conflict that brought the original rule producers together in the first place.

The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission provides an example. While the issue in that case focused on whether Colorado’s equal rights agency applied its civil rights rules in a neutral manner where civil rights violations were alleged, some Americans questioned why the consequences of that case should spill outside of Colorado and impact citizens and businesses in other states. The short answer is that externalities, whether positive or negative, from a court ruling enter society because of the structure of our legal system. The legal structure is centralized and the ripple effect of legal decisions spreads out to more citizens the higher up the legal rule production hierarchy you go. The interpretation as to what the rule should be for governing a relationship or conflict becomes the “law of the land” where the highest court becomes the market for producing legal rules.

I heard some of this concern from every day folk during a CSPAN session the day after the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling. “Why did this conflict have to escalate?” some asked. It escalated because a centralized legal system provides opportunities for individuals occupying a minority class to extend its views on how society should work to the rest of America by accessing and participating in the rule making process.

Conflict is a high cost for entering this “centralized rules” market, but a higher price is paid by the rest of society where we are subjected to rules produced by a small number of participants seeking to produce rules that favor their behavior and the detriment of limiting or modifying everyone else’s.

In my opinion, the limitation of the behavior of others as a result of rules produced in a centralized market is a negative externality or negative benefit. No matter the noble intent of the rule producers, where the rule produced impacts my behavior, it impacts my liberty.

One way to limit the negative externalities of centralized rulemaking is for parties to enter into voluntary agreements, agreements limited to the parties resolving the immediate conflict. It would be a lot cheaper for parties in actual conflict or anticipating conflict if the rules were produced as a result of voluntary engagement designed to head off conflict versus the other way around. It would also be less expensive for members of society who are not direct parties to the conflict since they would not be subject to rules that they did not produce.

For the individual, the political economy is micro.

Individuals have to act like foragers even in this technology dependent society. By forager I don’t mean having to grope around in the soil looking for roots, climbing trees for fruit, or hunting for fresh game. I mean that the approach to obtaining and using resources should be a microeconomic approach versus a macroeconomic approach.

The media especially persuades individuals that attention should be paid to the macroeconomy, whether domestic or global. Is national gross domestic product improving? How many millions were employed last month? How many more people applied for unemployment benefits? Did the President’s latest tweeted announcements lead to an uptick in the financial markets?

On the ground, particularly within the black population, I don’t hear chatter about the illusionary macroeconomy. The chatter is about the nominal prices faced by a shopper, whether the costs of food fits their budget, whether an employer has reduced a consumer’s work hours, and whether a family member can help out with a few extra bucks. People are preoccupied with managing the resources that are actually on hand.

It’s probably why macroeconomists sound so ivory tower, their policy proposals so pie in the sky. The average person in my population couldn’t relate to them if they tried because the positions of the macroeconomist sound so detached.

The late James Gapinski wouldn’t take kindly to hearing one of his former students writing off his branch of the economics profession so brusquely and being a fan of Diane Swonk (yes, some economists do have groupies), I cannot say that as people or professionals that macroeconomists don’t empathize with the everyday person. I believe most do. At best they present data about changes in the prices of commodities i.e. copper, corn, wheat, cocoa, oil, etc., that directly impact an individual’s microeconomy, but if global trade were curtailed would that mean the end of my existence or simply mean seeking alternative resources within closer proximity?

So where does the “foraging” come in? What do we mean by foraging? It is my term for self-sustainability. We should consider producing our own energy at a minimum, enjoying the benefit of less reliance on the grid along with lower costs per kilowatt hour of consuming electricity. Supplementing our food purchases with food that we can grow at home would provide an additional benefit of lower food costs.

The self-sustainable approach also makes us less susceptible to not only changes in the macroeconomy, but less susceptible to the transmission of macro rhetoric. Media and politicians would have less fear and uncertainty upon which to leverage their narratives and messaging. The political landscape would either be less noisy or we may see political packages that better align with the increased freedom garnered from self-sustainability.

The second scenario is less likely, unfortunately, because providing political packages that enhance personal freedom is out of sync with the goals of the State which is to create and maintain a dependent collective. Self-sustainability and certainty is a potent competitor to fear and uncertainty and the State would rather not aid the former.

A reining in of the political media should be expected under a nation-state model

Forbes reported today about a statement of work issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on 3 April 2018.  The statement of work seeks prospective vendors capable of providing the Department’s National Protection and Programs Acquisition Division with the capabilities to monitor traditional and social media. The specific objective of the services is:

“Services shall enable NPPD/OUS to monitor traditional news sources as well as social media, identify any and all media coverage related to the Department of Homeland Security or a particular event. Services shall provide media comparison tools, design and rebranding tools, communication tools, and the ability to identify top media influencers.”

The statement of work does not get into any specifics as to why the Department would need such a program. It could be one of three reasons. One reason could be a push back by the Trump Administration on what it calls “fake news.” Mr Trump has shown a disdain for what he terms as unfair reporting typically from media perceived to be left leaning. He has no love for CNN, a lack of love expressed with so much disdain that he came out against the Time Warner-AT&T merger, one that is now being challenged by the Trump Justice Department.

The second reason for the proposed statement of work may be to create another tool for dealing with the media attacks a Russian troll service has been accused of. By monitoring media influencers, the United States could make a preemptive strike against journalists, bloggers, broadcasters, etc., that spread fake news and set the stage for divisiveness in American politics.

The third reason I see is that the political media has to be reined in by the nation-state. Part of the nation-state’s political ordering of and for society should include keeping the collective in order by controlling the messaging. While some spin is allowed in order for news organizations to establish some type of brand differentiation, i.e., MSNBC leans liberally forward while FOX is conservatively fair and questionably balanced, the general messages issued by the nation-state via the political media must be uniform enough to keep the masses in line or distracted. Too much spin to the left or to the right creates chaos in the collective, a disturbance in the force that the nation-state cannot afford.

I believe reason three is the purpose for the Department’s statement of work. Some Americans may see the proposal as an attack on a free press, but has the press ever really been free? Except for the occasional “breaking news” (which amounts to a press secretary given their favorite reporter or a reporter they can use the first shot at a story), most political news is initiated by a state actor with the media being tasked for commercial and political reasons for distributing it.

Probably over the weekend we may see some discussion on the meaning of a “free press.” Given that this story is not even trending on Twitter anymore has me wondering how seriously the media is taking the Department’s action.

The new cyber society will see the poor pay more for government

I sense a major “cost shift” for tax payers over the next twenty to fifty years as the more affluent of United States citizens move more of their survivability activities into cyber society versus current brick and mortar society.

I believe one key will be the use of cyber currency by an increasing number of service providers and producers. Less dependence on fiat money and more reliance on a block chain that cuts out the middleman providing for faster payment systems. In addition, the affluent are re-imagining the use of public infrastructure by using it less frequently or more efficiently. Think drones, driver-less & fuel efficient vehicles, or the delivery of groceries via Instacart.

The affluent will also find more innovative ways to provide security, from improved security technology to private police forces. In short, as the affluent pursue an increasingly self-sovereign approach to life, they will make the case for dishing the traditional services of the State while arguing that their tax burdens should be less. Why support police and road services that hey hardly need. If anything, they will argue, let us reduce our tax bills by the amount that we spend on providing these services for ourselves.

For low income individuals and a large proportion of communities of color, they will experience the burden of the “cost shift” as tax jurisdictions pass on the costs of providing traditional State services to these communities. These communities will not be able to bear the burden given their low incomes. Services will be reduced as traditional government finds itself facing competition from non-State actors financed by the more affluent.

The State will react violently at first. It will create laws designed to slow down the affluent’s abandonment of the traditional State system. It may, ironically, use net neutrality laws to slow down deployment of the advanced networks necessary for delivering services to taxpayers leaving the system. It will further reduce renewable energy subsidies to residents that generate electricity at their residences.

I don’t expect the State’s attempts at holding sovereign individuals hostage will be successful. The attempts will invalidate the State’s arguments that it represents democracy when the actions to squelch freedom are the furthest from the truth.