Reducing Disparities

File under: doctrine of unintended consequences.

S.799 - Protecting Our Infants Act of 2015

Whitman's Sampler:

HHS must publish a report that includes: 

• an assessment of existing research on neonatal abstinence syndrome; an evaluation of the causes, and barriers to treatment, of opioid use disorders among women of reproductive age and recommendations on preventing opioid use disorders in these women; 

• an evaluation of, and recommendations on, treatment for pregnant women with opioid use disorders and the effects of prenatal opioid use on infants; and 

• an evaluation of the differences in prenatal opioid use between demographic groups and recommendations on reducing disparities [emphasis added].

A curious approach to legislation. Mandated demographic discrimination. I'm sure this will proceed swimmingly.

When We Meet Again, It Won't Be Me.

Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick urges law-abiding Texans to pay for his gendarmes' coffee and pie when they see them out and about enjoying Dale Cooper's preferred repast.

The relevant text (link):

I challenge all Texans to think about how underappreciated our officers must feel, how dangerous their jobs are, how they leave their families everyday not knowing if they are coming home and more importantly, if there is anything you can do to help make their job a little easier. 

Join me in changing this negative attitude toward those that protect us, by practicing the following:

• Start calling our officers sir and ma’am all of the time. It’s a show of respect they deserve.
• Every time you see an officer anywhere, let them know you appreciate their service to our community and you stand with them.
• If you are financially able, when you see them in a restaurant on duty pick up their lunch check, send over a dessert, or simply stop by their table briefly and say thank you for their service.
• Put their charities on your giving list.
• If your local law enforcement has volunteer-citizen job opportunities, sign up.

For more on the opportunistic politics of the press release, read Mark Bennett here. For remarks on how the sentiments behind the statement obfuscate the central issues of excessively expansive criminal codes and police incompetence, read Scott Greenfield here. For a great deal of heat and very little light, you can scroll through my twitter timeline a day prior to the publication of this post. You can follow me here.

I have nothing to add on the moral, legal, or social aspects of Lt. Gov. Patrick's call for obeisance. Well, apart from snickering at the fact that he's asking constituents to commit what might in other circumstances be considered bribery (if you've ever worked DoD procurement, you'll know what I mean). I will however comment on the economics.

Patrick is calling for side payments, what economists might call "non-pecuniary benefits" paid directly to his praetorians by citizens. He's asking for a compensating differential, in other words. The converse of the "employees with hazardous duties must receive additional pay to induce them to accept the job" is that employees with marginally more pleasant work environments will not so vigorously insist on higher salaries. Rational taxpayers should welcome any opportunity to reduce their annual share of tribute to the constabulary, and for people like me, middle-aged white parents who might also be veterans, the marginal cost of using the sort of language that was drilled into us in boot camp is negligible. I fancy myself to be a fairly affable sort, even if that might not extend to paying for a cop's dessert.

But willingness-to-pay is linked to value, which is subjective. My subjective cost to greet a police officer with a smile and a polite, "how may I help you today, sir?" is considerably lower than someone at greater risk of being the target of a no-knock raid or a spurious traffic stop. Patrick's request is, to use a technical term, regressive. Regressive not in the sense that it's barbaric or reactionary, but regressive in the sense that lower income citizens pay a larger share of their income or wealth than do higher income citizens. Of course, since we're talking about non-cash payment, you have to squint your eyes a little and picture "income" as including things like peace of mind, patience, forbearance, tolerance, and the like. Imagine some sort of mental budget where you have a limited capacity to treat with kindness a class of people who can slaughter your pets and murder your kin in the streets with impunity.

So Mark's mostly right when he says that the list of demands is a dog whistle from the ruling class to the praetorian guard, but there's also a wink and a nod to the comfortable, middle-class, law-abiding citizens not at risk of falling into the "undesirables" category. NORPs like me aren't being asked to much change our behavior. Dusky complexioned Texans from the wrong side of the tracks are.

As for the moral intuition here, I think reasonable people can disagree. It is certainly individually prudent to defer to people who carry guns as part of their official duties. However, it is institutionally bonkers to maintain policies and legislation that grant these people unfettered, extensive authority to intervene into private, otherwise peaceful affairs. Consider the possibility that it might be easier for members of the black community to speak respectfully to an officer if they knew they were at lower risk for being pulled over on a DWB or if they didn't have to fear SWAT busting in at 2am to the wrong address because some dyslexic clerk botched the house number on the warrant application.

Freedom of Association, Private Discrimination, and Public Discrimination

Interesting article, though 12 years old, from Roger Pilon.

Excerpt:


The “problem” of discrimination arises in the context of human association. We believe in freedom of association — it’s implicit in the First Amendment, in fact — but that freedom entails not only the right to associate with those willing to associate with us but the right not to associate — the right to discriminate, on any ground, good or bad, or no ground at all. Absent that, freedom of association is compromised. It means that others choose the grounds for us. Others tell us which grounds are and are not acceptable. That’s not freedom.

Raising the question:  when can businesses discriminate?  Can "we" substitute our judgment for the business's judgment about whom to hire, for example?  "We" have decided that we can, to some extent, when it comes to race and gender.  The stated reason is that the business wanted to use criteria not germane to the practice of business, but based only on personal predjudice.  How can "we" tell?  It's hard to read someone's mind, so we look at outcomes:  if there is a pattern of disparate treatment then we simply infer prejudice.

But sometimes businesses openly state a prejudice.  For example, A. Some businesses in Indiana more or less openly stated their unwillingness to serve gay couples in the actual process of getting married.  That is, a baker might be unwilling to be paid to put a same sex couple doll set on top of a wedding cake, or a photographer might be unwilling to take pictures of a same sex couple kissing.

Or, B, A business NOT in Indiana might more or less openly state their unwillingness to buy or sell from businesses in Indiana, because of the Indiana law that enables businesses there to exercise their freedom of association.

Many of my friends think open example of discrimination A is bad, and should be punished.  But open example of discrimination B is not only not bad, but good.  In fact, anyone NOT willing to engage in action B should be punished be also being discriminated against by having the refusal to do business extended.  So anyone who discriminates should be discriminated against, and anyone who refuses to discriminate against the original discriminator will also be discriminated against, just as if he or she were the original discriminator.  Failure to condemn the original discrimination is a sin just as bad as the original discrimination.

I can see their point.  But I am skeptical of their optimism about their ability to decide when discrimination is justified.  Remember, my friends are NOT condemning discrimination.  Far from it.  They are actively advocating discrimination.

Now, one could go through the above paragraphs and take out "discrimination" and substitute "commit acts of violence."  Would the argument go through?  After all initiating violence might be wrong, but then the person threatened might be justified in threatening violence in self-defense.  Most of us, even relative pacifists, would accept a "self-defense" exception to rules against commiting acts of violence?

Does discrimination work the same way?  I don't think so.   "I am hitting you a bat" is different from "I would prefer not to do business with you."

The point, as Pilon makes very clearly, is that there is a tension between "Arbitrary discrimination is bad" and "freedom of association of private persons is good, and in fact is a fundamental right."

So, the problem:  If I am forced to provide a service, that's not a voluntary exchange.

But if I am "open for business," I have an obligation to fulfill the implied contract.  If a sign says, "Wedding Cakes:  $75" that is an offer to do business.  I can't say, "Nope, no cake for you!" 

(Although..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNwbjcuQUv8.)  (And some backstory.  Is this discrimination? Clearly a violation of the "open for business" rule...)

The bottom line for me is that I am disturbed at how many people, on both sides, think this is just an easy question.  It's not.  It's a hard question.


.