Fuzzy Thinking
Language Can Corrupt Thought
George Orwell warned, “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” That is the challenge—not allowing language and ill-defined terms to corrupt thought—that I face teaching economics to both graduate and undergraduate students. Terms that are widely used can have considerable emotional worth but little or no analytical value, ambiguous meaning, or unappreciated implications. In analytical usage precise, operational definitions must be found.
“Equality of opportunity” is a widely used term, but what does it mean? Sometimes I ask students if they are for or against equal opportunity. Most say they are for it.
Then I ask how can they tell if equality of opportunity exists in a given activity. For example, does everyone in the class have an equal opportunity to earn an A? If not, how would they create equal opportunity? I ask them whether it is unfair when another is denied equal opportunity. Then I cite examples where I have denied others equal opportunity. For instance, not every woman was given an equal opportunity to marry me. I systematically discriminated against white and Asian women, handicapped women, women with criminal records, and women who did not bathe regularly. None of my criteria for setting up a long-term contractual arrangement would have met EEOC standards.
Occasionally, a student might rejoin by saying marriage and earning an A are different—equality of opportunity mostly refers to employment or college admission. At that point I ask whether they think every employer should give them equal opportunity to be hired or every college give them equal opportunity to be admitted. Most often the reply is yes, at which point I ask whether they plan to give every employer equal opportunity to hire them or gave every college equal opportunity to admit them. Most often their answer is no; they plan to discriminate among employers, and they have already discriminated in choosing a college. I then ask them, if they’re not going to give every employer an equal chance to hire them, why should every employer give them an equal chance to be hired?
Part of the justification for various labor-market restrictions, such as minimum-wage laws, collective-bargaining legislation, and work-hour legislation is to protect workers from the alleged superior bargaining power of employers. What is meant by superior bargaining power? Let’s see. The president of George Mason University, where I am employed, has the power to tell me that the maximum wage he is willing to pay me is $20,000 a year. I have the power to tell him how many hours I am willing to work at $20,000 a year, namely, zero. So who has the superior bargaining power, me or the president? He has the power of price and I have the power of quantity. Alternatively, I have the power to tell him that I refuse to work for less than $500,000 a year. He has the power to decide how many hours he is willing to hire me at that price. Again, who has the superior bargaining power? I think it is impossible to say. What sets the minimum price the president pays for my labor services? If he wants my services, the minimum salary he can pay me is the salary I could earn at some other university. What sets the maximum salary I could get from him is the salary some other economist will accept to do the same job that I am doing. Bargaining power is a vacuous concept. What truly protects the worker is the number of employers competing for his services. Similarly, what protects the employer is the number of employees competing for his job.
The Perils of Majority Rule
Another example of fuzzy thinking involves the word “democracy.” So often we hear that our nation is a democracy. Somehow Americans have come to accept whatever our congressmen, state legislatures, or city council can muster a majority vote on. There is nothing benign about majority-rule decision-making. In fact, majority rule gives an aura of legitimacy to acts that would otherwise be deemed tyranny. Let’s look at it while asking ourselves how many decisions in our daily lives would we like to be settled through majority rule.
How many people would like the majority to decide whether we have turkey or ham as the main course for Thanksgiving dinner? If turkey won the vote, it would be illegal to serve ham. What about the kind of car that we drive? If Lexus won the vote, it would be illegal to drive other cars. I am sure that if majority rule were the decision-making criteria in these and most other areas of our lives, we would deem it tyranny. Is it not the same when majority rule is used to dictate how we provide for our health care, how we prepare for retirement, or whether restaurants permit smoking, use trans fats, or serve foie gras?
In addition to majority rule being a form of tyranny, it is a major contributor to human conflict. The reason is that majority rule can be a zero-sum game. One group of people has their wishes satisfied at the expense of another group of people who do not have their wishes satisfied. In the Thanksgiving-dinner example, turkey lovers have their wishes satisfied at the expense of ham lovers. Ham lovers then have high incentives to enter into conflict with turkey lovers because they know that if turkey lovers win it will be at their expense. There would be no conflict if, as it is now, the decision on what to have for Thanksgiving dinner is made by individuals. In general, decision-making at the individual or market levels is conflict-reducing, while making decisions collectively or at the political level is conflict-enhancing.
Our nation’s founders had absolute disdain for democracy and majority rule. James Madison, in Federalist 10, said in a pure democracy, “[T]here is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said that “in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.” John Adams said, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Chief Justice John Marshall added, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” The founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny suffered under King George III. The term democracy appears in none of our founding documents. Their vision for us was a republic and limited government.
Comment by Corey Mondello on 30 December 2008:
Democracy, majority rule, mob behavior…sounds like what happened in California on Prop 8, odd those who support oppressing others, tend to hate the word Democracy and are the most vocal about taking away the rights of minority groups throughout the history of the USA.
Comment by Al on 31 December 2008:
FOR COREY MONDELLO: For the US Government to incorporate “marriage law-making” into their baliwick was of course folly on their part. It has only been an avenue of taxation for the government, hence the “marriage license”. Marriage, in the religious sense, was ordained by God, not government. The perspective however, is that it’s now a “right” since “the union” can be sought from government judges and even religious ministers have to pay a license fee to “marry” people. Corey, please understand that in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, nowhere is marriage found as a US Government “right”. It basically is a “practice” historically from Judeao-Christian teachings. If my memory serves, the practice is between a man and woman only. In these modern times, I would think that there will be people petitioning the government for the “right” to marry their pet sheep and other such “non-religious” unions. You see Corey, the US Government as it was intended in the late 1700′s, has been shall we say, perverted by the power brokers that followed the founding fathers. I’m sure that at some time, unbeknownst to me, I have voted for one or more of those charletons(sp?). For that act, I do apologize.
Texas T-Sip
Comment by Chris on 4 January 2009:
FOR COREY MONDELLO: Your comment seemingly contradicts itself. On the one hand, you denegrate democracy as “mob behavior”. On the other, you make the falacious claim that those who don’t like democracy (such as yourself?), support oppressing others and “are the most vocal about taking away the rights of minority groups throughout the history of the USA.” …which is a ridiculous statement in itself. What’s the point you’re attempting to make? Moving on… No rights were taken away from anyone in California. Everyone has the same rights. While it seems to me the constitutional amendment has gone too far, that extreme measure of prop 8 was taken as a reaction to the circumstances of extremists trying to push the majority around using undemocratic methods. Homosexual marriage doesn’t provide any unique creative benefit to society at all. Homosexuality itself, has no value to anyone except those few who engage in it. However, it has been a destructive force in many ways. Normal heterosexual marriage is the bedrock of civilization and still the best way to raise the next generation of well balanced citizens. And all human life springs from heterosexuality – a rather unique creative contribution, wouldn’t you say? Marriage as a positive context for heterosexuality and reproduction is worthy of being elevated, encouraged and valued as a cultural ideal, because without it, civilization degenerates into a larger pack of lost and damaged people. Because of it’s pointlessness to society, homosexuality isn’t worthy of being elevated or accepted as a cultural ideal. Imagine if all homosexuality stopped taking place, and all those who engaged in it became heterosexual. That being the only difference… they’re still the same people, only now hetero, would there be any negative consequences of that happening? Now, imagine if all heterosexual people became homosexual instead. Would there be any negative consequences of that happening? The point is, the world doesn’t need homosexuality. It provides no unique constructive or even useful benefit. For some people it’s a want. For the world, it’s not a need. Those who want it, are certainly free to engage in it. However, there’s no justification for, or point in, institutionalizing it. Marriage isn’t about benefits for the married. It’s about benefits for society and culture.
Comment by Jack on 5 January 2009:
Tyranny of the majority obviously exists in the U.S. And the three posters above me have proven the point, made by the author that,
“In general, decision-making at the individual or market levels is conflict-reducing, while making decisions collectively or at the political level is conflict-enhancing.”
Al you might re-examine the Bill of Rights and the Constitution from the perspective that it is there to limit the government’s power. The 10th amendment reserves all unwritten rights to the people, regardless of sexuality or any other characteristic. Why is the government involved in marriage at all? To make sure we don’t marry our cousins? (unless they are third cousins, third cousins are ok according to some states) And why can we only have one spouse at a time? Were the Mormons populating to quickly? And so what if someone wants to marry their sheep, how does it harm society? Because it teaches my kid that it is ok to marry a sheep? (I’ll tell him what I think is right, but I will let him make his own decision) or is it because the divorce hearings would clog up the courts?
Oh and there is this new magical thing called artificial insemination, a homosexual man can donate his sperm to a homosexual woman and have a baby without sex at all so all life doesn’t come from heterosexuality, and let’s not yet get into cloning.
It might do us all some good to learn our Constitution, including the amendments and start to think of them as a Bill of Restrictions instead of a Bill of Rights. Only one gives the government more power, the 16th, and there is some evidence that its ratification was fraudulent.
So in our democracy here, I vote for more individual and market level decision making-how about you? Come on join the freedom!
Comment by Augo Knoke on 9 January 2009:
Oh, if the world were so easy as to avoid fuzzy language and even fuzzy logic! While it is difficult enough to find well defined, unambiguous and useful scientific terms (you inevitably get a recurrency problem, because you define the term using other terms which might have to be defined again, ad infinitum), in other social interaction, fuzziness is the norm rather than the exception.
Take the fuzzy term \"democracy\" which you seem to equate to majority rule. My understanding is different because in addition and sometimes in opposition to majority rule it encompasses the protection of individual rights (Bill of Rights) and minority rights. We probably could also agree on that the decision of turkey or ham on Thanksgiving cannot be subject to majority decision. But there are indeed areas where it is extremely difficult to say whether the \"tyranny\" of majority rule is not warranted or not. And there are others where clearly it is.
The fuzziness is not due to sloppy thinking, it is due to the fact that in a society each and every member – provided (s)he does not prefer a solitary existence on Robinson\’s island – brings different concepts and values \"into the market place\". And different concepts and values permeat the language we use and the way we define terms. Are we to auction off the meanings of terms and phrases we use to the highest bidder? Or are there sages or priests to decide which term is sufficiently \"unfuzzy\"?
I simply don\’t think that it is possible, I doubt it is necessary, and I even wonder if it is desirable.
On another point: Let us assume for a moment for argument\’s sake your premise that majority rule enhances conflict is correct. So what? Why is it that conflict is undesirable? Who decides that conflict is undesirable?
Even if it were: Let us take the example of traffic which John Stossel\’s in his column alludes to – and indeed exposes the stop sign rule as the idiocy it is. Are you suggesting that there is a market mechanism that would regulate traffic? If not, by what other mechanism do we avoid carnage on the street?
I think we can argue for ever about to what extent societal mechanisms other than the market would be appropriate but it is difficult to ascertain that market will regulate everything. And by the way, what would be the mechanisms by which we could make sure that everybody plays by the market rules, i.e. your president does pay you the $500k that he promised you for working 24/7?
Considering this, I can live with fuzzy concepts and fuzzy thinking, and in the arts and in in intercultural meetings I even cherish all the variations of fuzziness. But maybe that is because I did not graduate from your classes at George Mason.
Comment by Lysander on 17 January 2009:
I have become really amazed at the term democratic rule. THANKS for the post. I will be using it in my classes: Civics and Economics. When the idea of tyranny of the majority first was heard in a lecture by Mortimer Adler I was terrified by the possibility. The only way was for me to slow down the process by becoming a teacher and at least a little educate my students to republican ideals, history of our nation, economic individual decision-making. Alas, what a fool!!!
Last week I submitted a new curriculum for Civics with reading attached, discussion questions, outlines, etc. My boss returned it with “nobody will be able to do this.” “half of your students will not even read the materials!” It contained even a readability of 9th-10th grade, too high for my students (10-12th grade).
Students were to read Mayflower Compact, Magna Carta, Gettysburg Address, Preamble (which was to be memorized), 3 Federalist essays (10, 14, 74), Declaration, plus lecture. Two essays were singled out as totally unacceptable, impossible to use: On Happiness by Aristotle and Crito by Plato.
Maybe I should have asked was it the students they worried about, or the fear the Curriculum Board didn’t understand the materials????
Comment by Jerry Citti on 17 January 2009:
Augo Knoke,
I attempt to respond to your post dated 1/9/9.
\"Take the fuzzy term \\\"democracy\\\" which you seem to equate to majority rule.\"
It is majority rule. Please consult any reputable political science text. In practice, members of a Democracy elect representatives, but the principle of majority rules remains.
\"My understanding is different…\"
Your understanding is mistaken.
\"…because in addition and sometimes in opposition to majority rule it encompasses the protection of individual rights (Bill of Rights) and minority rights.\"
You are confusing what we do in this country with a Democracy. The United States was formed as a Constitutional Republic not as a Democracy. That is we are governed by laws; our government is limited by those laws defining what powers it may legally use.
\"But there are indeed areas where it is extremely difficult to say whether the \\\"tyranny\\\" of majority rule is not warranted or not. And there are others where clearly it is.\"
Actually I think it not so difficult at all to say that tyranny of majority rule is wrong. It is nearly always employed to violate rights.
As to the fuzziness inherent in a society where peopole bring various concepts to the table, it is one thing to have different ideas, it is quite another to use words to mean different things. The one brings variety, the other brings chaos. If we all use different meanings for terms then we have no way to communicate.
\"And by the way, what would be the mechanisms by which we could make sure that everybody plays by the market rules, i.e. your president does pay you the $500k that he promised you for working 24/7?\"
They are called contracts.
Comment by Augo Knoke on 17 January 2009:
Jerry,
thanks for the time you took to respond to my somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment.
Let me start out by saying that I agree with Orwell\’s thesis that language can corrupt thought, and that I have a lot of sympathies with the concept of liberty from majority intervention.
However, I still contest the narrow definition of majority rule with \\"democracy\\". If it truly were the case then one or the other term would be superfluous. But there are quite a few countries around the world that have a system similar – but not exactly so – to yours, and we all call ourselves \\"democracy\\". And if we want to nitpick, etymologically, \\"democracy\\" is based on \\"δημος\\" (people) and \\"κρατειν\\" (to rule), no majority rule there. Therefore, while indeed, in the city states of ancient Greece the citizens (in reality a minority of the population) would decide by majority rule on most aspects of public life, you won\\\’t find that type of direct democracy very often nowadays – maybe on a lot of issues in the Swiss cantons. In one of them – I think it is Appenzell Innerrhoden – they all (~ 15,000) meet once a year and decide by majority rule.
Most others do have a system quite aptly described in Wikipedia, and though that is certainly not an authorative source it reflects what I have seen in my textbooks.
But I am not going to haggle with you about the meaning, because, terms are conventions, most conventions are by usage, and their understanding is often times \\"unfuzzy\\" enough to preclude chaos – but they are still fuzzy.
What I would like to contest is your evaluation of majority rule. I asked the author in what way other than the market he would guarantee that the necessary minimum of societal rules is reinforced. And your answer \\"contract\\" is a case in point. Contracts are indeed one of the bases of a functioning market; therefore, again, by which mechanisms are contracts to be enforced? Yes, there is a judicial system – which by the way in most European countries is not directly subject to majority rules but it certainly is not governed by the market. So, if not the market, what then?
What I would hold is that you need majority rule – even a qualified majority rule – to decide on what mechanisms and systems you will base the interactions within society. I think the history of your country – as well as mine – shows that particularly in economic interaction individuals are far more threatened by powerful organizations than they are by majority rule. Whatever you might think about the progressive movement at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries, that the majority of \\"the small guys\\" was in peril and the market mechanisms had been suspended if in their favor, cannot be seriously contested.
Let me end on a conciliatory note: your founding fathers rendered an enormous service to mankind by writing your constitution as a protection of the individual against a tyrranic state. Yet it also provides for rules when one right stands against another, and as societal interactions tend to get very complex nowadays, in the end, there are easily somebody\\\’s rights being violated. But that\\\’s because of the opposing rights of individuals, not because of majority rule.
Comment by David on 10 March 2009:
Love your trashing of democracy, the worst of all sham political systems. Read Tage Lindbom\’s classic, \"The Myth of Democracy\". He really shows the whole thing for what it is.