Note: this section is in work with much to be added as time permits.
Vagueness in Politics and Governing
"I believe there are more instances of abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent an sudden usurpations..." - James MadisonAs I discussed above, the various functions provided or imposed by the government have an equilibrium breakpoint determined by the opposing desires, the desire for more money by the government and the opposition to more taxes by the citizens. Both of these sub-functions can be manipulated by the government, the press, and others.
First off, the government may increase its desire for more income. In general, government tends to grow and their desired benefits continue to increase. For example, the staffing level of the congresspersons and the administration have both increased enormously in the last few years. Much of the money that the politicians spend has to do with buying votes. As politics has become more sophisticated and more competitive, the cost of buying these votes has tended to increase dramatically. This also has increased the desire for more money.
But the most important way that the equilibrium is changed is by manipulating the "public opposition" side of the equilibrium equation. It turns out that the public is quite easily manipulated with regard to most government issues, but particularly so with taxes. 
The best example of how this "opposition" can be manipulated, is the simple invention of the tax withholding scheme, described below.
Politics and governing is the epitome of what this series of essays at this site is all about for it incorporates all of the problems, paradoxes, and dilemmas discussed herein. Vagueness is a major part of politics and governance as will be demonstrated in the remainder of this essay. The Social Dilemmas raise their ugly head in every aspect of governance from voting (by both citizens and representatives) to rent-seeking to taxation and distribution. The whole system of compliance of citizens without rebellion is founded on the application of memes. Finally, it is all made possible by the lack of common sense and rational thinking by the majority of the citizens.
- Vagueness is Calamitous for Democracy
The concept of "democracy" is more of a meme that the result of rational thought. That is, most people act as if the word has a clear meaning without a clue as to what it may mean. For our purposes here, let us just say it has something to do with a form of governance in which people are led to believe that they have some input into the governing process. Typically this would mean that they at least go through the periodic process of voting. Whether that voting is actually effective or not is something most people never think about.
Given that vagueness exists then what is the impact on politics and governance? Or, more to the point, is democracy even possible in a vague world?
I will discuss the impact of the first question is subsequent sections but right now let us explore the second question.
The Various Difficulties Created by Vagueness and the Social Dilemmas
- No Citizen has any Significant Impact on Their Government through Voting
- Legislators are Helpless
- How many Citizens per Representative?
- How much is too much?
- Politicians are driven by Self-Interest
- Making Maximum use of Memes
- The Problems of Acting for the "Common Good"
- Rational Actions are Almost Non-existent
- Tax Withholding Scheme The chart at the right is a representation of the opposing forces with regard to income tax rate. F(x) represents the government's desire for a range of tax rates -- which is that the higher the tax rate, x, the higher the desire. When income taxes were paid once a year, the opposition curve was very steep, as shown by curve Oo(x) in the chart. Therefore the equilibrium point was reached at a low level of taxation (Point "A") -- which was actually around 5 percent of the GDP. In 1942, or so, the government started the clever scheme of tax withholding. This lowered the opposition curve dramatically -- schematically represented by curve On(x) at the right. Now the equilibrium point moves up to Point "B" -- which is actually around 20 percent of the GDP! Please notice how easily this was done. While the government genuinely needed more money in World War II, it wasn't the need, for the most part, that created the new equilibrium tax rate, but the lowering of the opposition. Of course there was no reason to go back to the old method after the war was over!
- Propaganda for "You have a Duty to Pay more Taxes"
The government, with the help of the press and the liberal spokespersons, has successfully injected the meme "You have a Duty to Pay more Taxes"
into the general population. This is quite amazing that many people readily absorb and act under the influence of this meme as it is obvious under the most limited investigation that governments simply spend whatever their income is -- plus a little bit more!
- Creation of Public Fear or 'Bogeymen'
Another way that the government can reduce the slope of the Public Opposition Curve is to create a 'bogeyman' and then convince the public that they need to throw their full support in fighting this bogeyman. Examples are the various "wars" (such as the Gulf War) and the incredibly disastrous War on Drugs. While the drug marijuana is acknowledged by most knowledgeable scientists as being not nearly as harmful as alcohol, the government was able to convince the public that allowing the drug to be legally used would surely result in mass hallucinations, murder, suicide and brain deterioration. As a result of this conditioning of the public, the government was able to increase taxes and to spend more money on fun things such as international meddling, harassment of ships and planes in international waters, and to seize property of the citizens of the US without due process (Amendment 5 of the Bill of Rights).
The government has also been very successful in convincing the public that they cannot take care of themselves but need multi-billion dollar programs to ensure their health and safety. Therefore, we have the huge agencies devoted to health and safety. To create the equilibrium point that allows the necessary taxing, the public must be made to feel that they are quite helpless in day to day living. So, we have programs that tell farmers that they should put up signs warning that cow manure on concrete is slippery, public announcements that tell us that the wonderfully tasting theater popcorn should be avoided, and labels on beer bottles telling us that drinking could cause us to get drunk and possibly pregnant -- or some such.
A related successful technique of the government is to create massive public guilt. The government has billions of dollars at stake and thousands of jobs in the fields of welfare and related functions such as child abuse. While these areas of public duty are certainly valid concerns of the citizens and need to be addressed in some way, that is not the real concern of the government. It is simply used as a tool for more spending and more government jobs -- which often results in great human tragedy (see the web page by VOCAL) -- just to support a few government jobs. To ensure the success in these operations requires massive propaganda -- primarily through the liberal press and academia.
Vagueness and Morality
While the application of vagueness by the government is probably the most serious impact on our lives, vague definitions of morality can also be disruptive to a happy life.While many of our "leaders" would have you believe that morals are absolute and God given, the reality is that morals are an arbitrary set of rules that the community agrees to live by (see my Common Sense essay). Actually that definition is a bit generous -- a primary purpose of morals is for some people to control the actions of others. To do this, it is beneficial to keep the rules vague.
- God was Smarter
In the Old Testament of the Jewish Bible, God is alleged to have given to Moses a set of rules to live by called the Ten Commandments. Being a lot smarter (or maybe, more ethical) than the modern day morality police, he avoided vagueness. He said "Thou shall not kill". Simple, easy to understand. But modern, civilized humans, being a lot smarter than God (or whoever came up with these laws) have added many qualifications. Some killing is ok, some is not. Which is which is very vague. Sometimes we decide whether the killing is bad based on the intentions of the perpetrator, sometimes we decide based on the result. A story is told of a man who tried to kill his wife with a gun but botched it and only wounded her. She was taken to the hospital, however. While in the hospital, she contracted a fatal disease -- that she picked up from the emergency room -- and died. Should the husband be prosecuted for murder? You can decide that one.
Another example is the commandment to "Honor thy father and mother". What if my father and murder were disgusting perverts, drug addicts, and petty thieves? Modern moralists would cut us some slack and allow us to turn them into the police. Note that God makes no mention of such qualifications.
- Seriously Vague Examples
Probably the most vague and difficult moral is the admonition against rape. Rape is purely a subjective, vague term. Either extreme on the range of definitions of rape is harmful to society. On the one end, it is obviously not good that women be forced to have sex when they absolutely have no desire to. On the other end, as we are practising today, it is just as harmful to identify as rape the most casual sexual activity that both parties agree to -- if not by words, by actions. So what is rape? The definition is purely arbitrary and likely to be defined differently by every individual. Yet there are many who are rotting in jail as a result of this vague and arbitrary definition.
Pornography is also a vague term that is the basis for throwing people in jail. At the present time (December, 1996) we have a federal law that provides serious penalties for putting anything indecent on the internet. What is indecent? I suspect that my definition, your definition, and the judge's definition will all be different. For example, I think the law itself is indecent. But I find nothing inherently indecent about the naked human body. Of course, pictures that contain naked humans can be created that are indecent. But so can pictures that include fully clothed human beings. It is not the nakedness that makes them indecent. Not even if they are involved in sexual activity (imagine a picture of a loving man and wife in sexual intercourse -- is that indecent?)
What about such terms as charity, compassion, tolerance, prejudiced -- terms that are currently used mostly by some to make others feel guilty? None of these terms have clear, well-defined definitions. For example, which is more compassionate: to give your lazy teenage son more money every time he begs for more or to force him to get off his butt and get a job? Many today would endorse the first option. In any case, compassion is not an absolute term but a relative term. That is, the best you can say is that Joe might be more compassionate than Sally but it is dishonest to say that Joe is compassionate and Sally is not.
Vagueness and the Law
- Threshold Based Activity As Matt Ridley and Bobbi S. Low explain in their September 1993, Atlantic Monthly essay, "Can Selfishness Save the Environment?", when government sets a threshold by means of establishing a law for a function that is normally continuous, people's behaviour changes. Instead of responding continuously and proportionately to a developing problem, people do nothing until the law-based threshold is near. The goal shifts from trying to solve the problem to trying to avoid trouble with the government.
- The Drift to the Extreme Setpoints if Law is involved
When we have normal human interaction without outside interference, a vague definition can still be workable. We can tell our children, "Look, if you drive recklessly, I will take away your driving privileges", and the admonition will be functional. But, as we have seen in the discussions on these pages, it is totally another matter if the government is involved. We sometimes drift into a totally meaningless situation. Some recent examples in the news:
- A Child was Arrested for Carrying a "Dangerous Weapon" to School
News item:
GOBLES, Mich. (Feb. 11) - A high school honor student who said she brought a knife to school to cut a friend's birthday brownies will serve a 10-day suspension.
Amber Nash, 15, admitted bringing the knife to school earlier this month. When she rushed to help a friend who had fainted, a school employee noticed the kitchen knife.
Gobles Superintendent Tom Saylor had recommended that the freshman be suspended 33 school days and be barred from making up missed classes for violating the school's weapons policy.
The "weapon" was a kitchen knife. The problem is that there is no justifiable place to set the break point for "Dangerous Weapon". So it must be set at "anything". That is, anything that could possibly be used to hurt someone must be forbidden.
- A Child is Arrested for Kissing Another Child (Sexual Abuse)
News Item:
LEXINGTON, North Carolina (AP) -- These days, a kiss isn't just a kiss -- not even in the first grade. A 6-year-old boy who kissed a girl on the cheek was suspended last week on the grounds of sexual harassment. Jackie Prevette said the school overreacted to an innocent peck on the cheek by banishing her son, Johnathan, to a room apart from his classmates. Johnathan said that the girl asked him to kiss her and that he was expressing friendship, according to his mother. "Can't you just imagine children skipping down the hall holding hands? Isn't that Norman Rockwell America?" Prevette said. District spokeswoman Jane Martin said the policy is clear: "A 6-year-old kissing another 6-year-old is inappropriate behavior. Unwelcome is unwelcome at any age." The rules are outlined in a student handbook given to each child at the start of the school year. Parents are asked to sign a form confirming that they explained the do's and don't's, Martin said. A teacher who saw the incident reported it to the principal, who decided the first-grader should be punished. Johnathan missed out on coloring and playing with his friends. He also missed an ice-cream party honoring students with good attendance. Prevette said she could understand a sexual harassment rule directed at older students. She said she will ask the school board to make allowances for children in third grade and below. "This makes children wonder `Should I hug somebody?"' she said. "It's no wonder we have all these people with behavior problems."O.K., the child was only 6 years old. But where would you set the age limit for Sexual Abuse? And exactly what is Sexual Abuse? The easy answer (always the choice of bureaucrats, politicians, and law enforcers) is to make kissing by anyone of any age an act of Sexual Abuse!
Note the suggestion by the official to set the age breakpoint at "third grade and below". Can she justify that?
- A Teenager goes to Jail Instead of going to the Alter
As this article was being written, it was reported in the news that a 17 year old boy and a 16 year old girl had their wedding plans thwarted when the 17 years old was arrested and put in jail for statutory rape. It seems the two had sexual relations and she became pregnant. They talked with each other and their parents and decided that the thing to do was to get married. Surprising -- since this happened in a small town -- the police had different ideas. They arrested the young man on the basis of the statutory rape law which forbids sex with 16 year old or younger girls.
The law is the law and in this case we have clear breakpoint. But is it what we really want? Notice that if she had of been one day older than 16, that is, 17, then he would not have been in nearly as much trouble if he had abandoned her! Does that make sense?
- A Child was Arrested for Carrying a "Dangerous Weapon" to School
News item:
Consequences of the Arbitrariness of the Breakpoint
How to Boil a Frog
Since vague entities are continuous (or nearly so), no particular breakpoint can be justified. Imagine that you have a 10 foot ribbon on your wall that is solid red on one end and solid green on the other. In between the two ends, the ribbon varies in color continuously and smoothly from red to green. Now imagine that you go up to the ribbon with a mask that has a quarter inch slot in it through which you can see a quarter inch of ribbon. Now look at the first quarter inch of the red end. What color is it? Obviously, red. What would you say the color is if you move the slot over by a quarter of an inch? It will look exactly the same to your eyes! So it must be red again. No matter where you examine the ribbon, the adjacent quarter inch samples look exactly like the one you are looking at! So as you move across, it would appear that the ribbon is always red. Yet we know the other end is green. A puzzlement.Individuals in society and, in particular, the government take advantage of this phenomenon (See "The Boiling Frog Syndrome", by Steven Yates). If only a very small change in a continuous entity is made, it cannot be detected and, in any case, is below the threshold for which anyone would object. But the accumulation of many of these small increments can be very serious. The technique of small gradual changes is called the "Slippery Slope" by many but I prefer to call it the "How to boil the frog" method!
I quote the story from "NTC and the Boiling Frogs" (no longer on the net):
If you place a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will immediately try to scramble out. But if you place the frog in room temperature water, and don't scare him, he'll stay put. Now, if the pot sits on a heat source, and if you gradually turn up the temperature, something very interesting happens. As the temperature rises from 70 to 80 degrees F., the frog will do nothing. In fact, he will show every sign of enjoying himself. As the temperature gradually increases, the frog will become groggier and groggier, until he is unable to climb out of the pot. Though there is nothing restraining him, the frog will sit there and boil.
An example of the "Boiling the frog" approach -- the incremental change of the breakpoint -- is the definition of drunkenness by the state. At first it was set at 0.1% alcohol in the blood. Purely arbitrary, of course. Later, they changed it to 0.08%. Who would complain about that? It is not a significant difference. Changing it to 0.06% from 0.08% would also be insignificant. So, while they can't defend their value of the breakpoint, you can't defend it either! So, who can object to 0.02% changes?The same goes for the National Debt. How can you argue with a small increase (a few billion dollars!)? But now it is over $5 trillion! Same for military readiness. Same for the "poverty level". Small changes cannot be challenged, yet the summation of the small changes can be a disaster.
Fighting Incremental Changes may cost more than the cost of the change
In fact, this is more common than not. A small change can be too expensive to fight!Consider this scenario. Suppose you buy a nice place in the country. Later, your next door neighbor builds a fence between you and him. You notice that the fence is about a foot over on your property. You figure he managed to take about $500 worth of your property. You go to a lawyer. The lawyer says it will cost you at least $1,000 in legal fees to try to get it back. So, you forget about it. But what would you do if a few years later, he moved the fence over another foot on your property?
Summary
In this essay, I have shown that continuous entities are often arbitrarily forced into discrete entities by means of a break point. That is, whereas for ordinary conversation, we are comfortable with "short", "tall", or "drunk", the government and other elements of our society find it necessary to define these precisely by setting a breakpoint. For example, if your blood alcohol is more than 0.1%, you are drunk. These breakpoints are arbitrary and without defence in that an incremental change up or down cannot be defended.So, how are breakpoints established? Often a breakpoint is establish as the dynamic equilibrium point between opposing forces. The government wants more taxes, the citizens want less. The value settled on is the point where these forces are balanced.
Other examples of arbitrary breakpoints are demonstrated by issues of morality and law.
Finally, we see that breakpoints can be incrementally changed with little or no opposition. This is often called the "Slippery Slope" or incrementalism. It is the way that a society can be made to accept what would be an unacceptable imposition if it were all done at once. The National Debt is a good example.
While defence against government and other societal functions that abuse our welfare with vagueness is difficult, having a little knowledge about what is going on cannot hurt.
