Freedom versus control is an everyday dilemma, in business, in government policy, in parenting. There can be valid arguments to swing the pendulum one way or another – like so many things, it depends on context. It is also fine to start with some bias, so long as that doesn’t give you blinkers. Many conservatives, business people, and people who saw the negative effects of communism start with a bias towards freedom, at least in most aspects of their lives. Others have a control bias.
Sadly, all too often bias trumps logic. And, just as sadly, bullshit is dressed up as logic. Here are some statements, frequently made, which should make you sit up and challenge hard when you hear them.
Among those arguing for control, a common emotive expression used to support their case is the postcode lottery. According to these people, it can never be right that people suffer different outcomes based on random factors such as where they live. Bullshit. Take schools. If you give freedom to head teachers and governing bodies, some schools will be better run than others. Outcomes will be different. Some kids will get a better education than others. It is a postcode lottery, to some extent and that is good.
The alternative is to mandate all schools to be identical. That takes away most of the incentive for excellence. And that ensures a mediocre outcome for all. Some freedom is good, and the outcomes may be randomly different. It is a price worth paying for innovation, motivation and excellence.
Now, if you tell me that the system favours the rich, because fee paying schools take all the best teachers, or because better teachers gravitate towards areas where affluent, easier pupils live, then you have a case to argue this as unfair. So play with the regulation to incentivise teachers more to work in tougher districts, and remove charitable tax breaks for private schools. This is good control. But please don’t use the postcode lottery argument, it does not wash.
The next bullshit argument for more control is the pareto distribution. This one is used by consultants, who should know better. Take any organisation, let us a sales reps. Some will do better some will do worse. It is a fact of life. You cannot alter it. Indeed, we should glory in it, because difference leads to learning and improvement potential. Its existence in no way justifies mandating more how individual sales reps behave. Make the poor learn from the good, even fire them if you must, but please don’t remove freedom and drive everyone towards an average, since that average will be worse than todays.
This one you hear about UK police forces. Seemingly, because there are forty something county forces, and some have better records than others, they should be merged into fewer forces. Bullshit. It may be that mergers make sense on cost economy grounds, but not on difference grounds.
Similar to the pareto bullshit is the isolated example bullshit. Yes, there are mass murderers and paedophiles in society. It is sad. But you don’t solve the problem by locking everyone up after 9pm, nor by forcing everyone onto some standardised training course, nor even by punishing the parents. Control freaks can make this case, and it is a bad one. By the same token, if you devise a scheme where doctors have more incentives for performance, there will be one who trousers an obscene amount of money somewhere, within the rules or outside them, and no doubt a newspaper will find him. Does that invalidate the system of freedom? Bullshit.
If half the doctors become millionaires and half go bankrupt then something is wrong. If the overall performance goes down or costs spiral then the system has failed. But one isolated example does not make a bad system.
There are a couple more bullshit calls for control of a different type, often made by socialists or bigots. These are protectionist arguments. “British jobs for British people” is an example. Bullshit. All this does is reduce incentives for excellence, and that is generally bad. The end result is a distorted web of tax breaks and subsidies which drives everything to mediocrity. Similarly, companies are often blamed for pursuing “short-term profits”. Sorry, isn’t that what businesses are supposed to be doing?
These examples all come from the control freaks. But there are just as many bullshit warning lights from the freedom fighters.
First, watch out for people or privileged sectors who demand who oppose all regulation, oppose all change, or demand self-regulation. Bullshit. These are warning signs that an existing freedom based system has become complacent and offered easy pickings for the lucky few. We often tend to look at trade unions here, and they are not immune, but in my view bankers and pensioners are worse. These arguments are almost always an attempt to frustrate necessary change. And sometimes the system is so broken that only a lurch towards control can offer a remedy.
Next, there are the sneering anti-HSE or anti nanny state brigade. Bullshit. Society needs some rules, and occasionally control and regulation is the only way to drive a necessary change. That emissions legislation has become a nation versus nation competitive game is a travesty. The tory opposition to the social chapter of the EU and to the minimum wage were disgraceful, in my view. People who obey speed limits have no reason to complain about speed cameras, and freedom is a wholly spurious argument against them.
On a similar line, beware people who argue against fair taxes. True, the old system of very high marginal tax rates had to change, but now many countries have moved to the other extreme. I have a freedom bias, but how can it be right, or even sustainable, for 1% of the people to own 50% of the wealth? And, especially in a system with freedom, progressive tax is the only way to equalise. Don’t tell me that a CEO earning $10m needs $15m or won’t be incentivised. If anything, it is the opposite, he will become so rich that further effort becomes pointless. It is one of the travesties of our era that inequality has become so extreme. Sadly, in history it has often needed a unifying event such as a war to rebalance this – 2010 does not look unlike 1910 (or even 10 BC) in that respect. You can have a freedom bias and still support progressive taxes.
Finally, watch out for the asset strippers. Privatisation has become a modern panacea, and is often a good solution to an efficient behemoth. I have spent long enough queuing in Portuguese Telecom offices to wish for an injection of freedom there. But privatisation has to happen when legal and regulatory and tax frameworks are in place to share out the benefits fairly. Otherwise you end up with Yeltsin’s Russia. Or Egypt in 2012? Or Greece? It is not a coincidence that those clamouring loudest for freedom are the managers or dubious investors who could exploit a weak freedom system. Private equity people or greedy CEO’s who outsource everything without a thought for retaining core skills are in the same category. Do not trust these bullshitters please. And if you have a monopolist who is also your prime minister then you are in real trouble – and probably Italian.
No comments:
Post a Comment