License to Smoke??

Australia is thinking about implementing a licensing system for smokers. The idea is that you pay for a graduated license where the cost depends on whether you want the license to purchase up to 1 pack, 2 packs, or 3 packs a day. Nobody could buy more than that, to prevent a black market in cigarettes from developing. You get your money back if you give up the license, so in theory its revenue neutral.

The libertarian and behaviorist in me are fighting it out. On one hand, the libertarian in me doesn’t want to see the government get involved in our lives any more than it already does or create new restrictions on our freedom to choose our behaviors. On the other hand, there are several effects of this license idea that would be predicted by behavioral science

One is immediate gratification bias. You can’t start smoking one drunken evening. If you have to wait until the next day, the idea is that the delay will get you to think more about the decision. Second is the idea of default bias. When people want to start smoking, they may be too lazy to go buy a license. Third, they could force a limit on themselves by getting only a one pack a day license. Fourth, there would be an added incentive to quit (you would get your money back).

An add-on idea is to require a smoking test to get the license. You don’t have to know how to smoke, you have to know the health consequences of smoking. Again, this is to take advantage of the laziness bias. Even though the test would be easy, just having to learn a few facts before getting the license might make a few more people never start.

My own add-on idea would be to have a limited number of licenses and auction them, kind of like the carbon emissions market.

So which side wins out, the libertarian or behaviorist? Is this a legitimate Pigouvian tax because of the negative externalities of smoking on health care costs? Or are the behavioral benefits worth the additional government intrusion costs? What do you think?

Protect the Fourth Amendment

Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision regarding the 4^th Amendment concerns me. The case revolves around the concept that the police need a warrant to enter private property unless they have reason to believe that evidence is being destroyed. But where do you set the bar on that “reason”? How much evidence do they need that evidence is being destroyed? And does it matter how serious the crime is that they are investigating? Does a police officer’s suspicion that someone is destroying evidence in a murder case give them more reason to enter without a warrant that an equal amount of suspicion that someone is destroying evidence of petty theft?

The reason the Supreme Court decision concerns me is that the case they were hearing involved the police smelling marijuana through an apartment door. They banged on the door and got no response. They heard “movement” inside. They suspected that the evidence (drugs) was being destroyed and so they entered. A lower court found that they didn’t have enough evidence that evidence was being destroyed. They assumed so because they banged on the door and it’s only natural for a drug suspect to flush the drugs when the cops are outside. The lower court said they shouldn’t have banged on the door. They should have got the warrant first. Then, the people inside wouldn’t have known they were there and wouldn’t have destroyed evidence. And hearing “movement” inside is not much proof. I find it even more worrying when the crime is only smoking marijuana. I can imagine the police being really worried that a murder suspect would get away with his or her crime. But smoking pot? Even if you are in favor of it being illegal, are you willing to give up your 4^th Amendment rights across the board to make sure no one ever gets away with it by flushing the evidence?

It seems to be that we have no more 4^th Amendment rights. All the police have to do is knock on the door or otherwise announce their presence and they can assume that the suspect is destroying the evidence for whatever crime the police are investigating. Or they can assume that the suspect knows the police are coming and would naturally destroy evidence. This is not even close to the probable cause standard. Scary.

First Amendment Free Speech and the Florida Pastor

Anyone who knows me or has followed my blogs knows that I am a big supporter of behavioral freedoms. These are the ones that let you do what you want as long as you aren’t harming anyone else. Freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of assembly. It also includes equality under the law for all demographic categories (gender, age, race, gender identity, etc.). (Note - It doesn’t include things like freedom from disease or freedom from hunger because that requires someone else to provide you with the health care or food, significantly complicating the problem. That is a debate for another time).

This doesn’t mean you can yell “Fire” in a movie theater because that leads to harm of other people. Same thing for false advertising claims or fraudulent financial dealings. These don’t conform to the principle.

This leads to some unfortunate side effects, such as the right to be an idiot, bigot, overall bad person in your private matters. For example, it allows that pastor in Florida to hold a public trial accusing the Koran of being evil and then burning it. It gives neo-nazi groups the right to march and protest just as often and publicly as any other group.

It scares me when I see politicians trying to find exceptions. I heard a Republican on the CBS morning show who wanted to make burning the Koran illegal because it incites Muslims to violence. He also wanted to make burning national flags illegal for the same reason. We can’t let extremists limit our freedoms just by reacting badly. A better response would be not to give them any publicity. I loved it when the media refused to cover the Koran burning because they knew they were being manipulated. Unfortunately, a single blogger in Afghanistan put it on the Internet and all hell broke loose. But better that than the alternative. Those who sacrifice freedom for safety end up with neither [I think that’s Ben Franklin].

Another example of our government being clueless

Congress was so proud of themselves. They averted a government shutdown. Just in time, right? No harm, no foul.

But what they seem to fail to realize is that a lot of plans were screwed up because of the potential of a shutdown. For example, a celebration of the British retreat from Lexington in 1775 was canceled 2 days before the shutdown because they didn't know if the federal property would be open or not. 11pm the night before is too late.

This may seem like a trivial example, but I am sure it is just one of many. How many tourists canceled their travel plans to various federal museums and parks? I would love to see some economic estimates of what these clowns really cost us. And I would also love to see a poll of Congress to see who realizes what they did.

Ivory Coast

A reporter from the Ivory Coast made an important point on BBC last night. Just because Ouattara is the one who won the election, doesn't mean he is a liberal democratic good guy. She explained that his history is just about as bad as Gbagbo. Even if the Civil War gets resolved, the West shouldn't be under and false impressions about how "democracy" has won.

I don't know whether/how true that is. But I can't believe that I hadn't thought of that point earlier. It is an excellent point. How many of you jumped to that conclusion?

April 9 update: It looks like a was prescient on this one. I heard a BBC reporter today with primary reporting that Ouattara’s militia was committing atrocities on civilians during their retreat today.

H1B Visas

I am a firm believer that we need more high-skill immigration (perhaps low-skill too, but that is a topic for a different day). The more brilliant minds and hands we recruit, the more our economy will grow and the better we will compete with the countries we steal these people from.

But when we have a law that is wrong (such as overly restrictive), the solution is to change it. Not to create either legal loopholes (which makes more business for lawyers, but not others) or illegal loopholes (such as lax enforcement of silly rules - which gives more business to the unethical). These are both less effective, and create an atmosphere of rule-breaking that does in fact create a slippery slope according to all of the ethics research that I have read over many years of studying this.

So I was reading a deposition in a lawsuit this week. The lawyer was trying to make the point that the company had incompetent designers, so he pulled a quote from the deponent's blog that said "we can't find any qualified engineers." The implication of course was that they had to hire second best, and that is why the product was defective.

The response was very telling. To paraphrase, he said that he only wrote that blog, as well as similar letters to his Senator and Representative, because he had an Italian engineer that he wanted to hire permanently and was trying to get him an H-1B Visa. He freely admitted that his blog and his letters were complete lies created just for this purpose. "That's what everyone does" he testified under oath.

I understand that he was more comfortable hiring the Italian employee he knew was good then to take a risk on a new applicant who was US. But if this is the way it happens, we really need to rethink our immigration laws. Of course, we already knew that.

David Frum was on Marketplace last night with a commentary on the deficit. He said what we all know to be true, but politicians are too timid to do anything about. All of the deficit reduction proposals being promoted by the right and by the left are just diddling around the edges. If we ignore the 800 pound gorillas in the room, the deficit will just keep on growing. His suggestions (my paraphrasing) make a lot of sense to me:

1. Social Security: Slowly increase the retirement age to 70 and means test benefits.
2. Defense: Get out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Cut programs that the DoD admits aren't needed but politicians have been protecting because they are pork projects in their own districts.
3. Medicare/Medicaid: Radical reform that is not a mutant political compromise like Obamacare.

Saying that we should cut foreign aid, food stamps, and high speed rail may sound good to deficit hawks, but the savings are really just peanuts.