My son, Thomas, loves Star Trek — all series, all movies, all of it. And he's turned me into something of a Trekkie.
One of the most vile of all villains in Star Trek is the Borg. The Borg is (or "are" – the correct pronoun is not obvious in this case) an immense collective, filled with drones, all of whom work only for the (alleged) good of the collective. The drones are assimilated from other species that the Borg encounters — some drones are human, some are Vulcan, some are Bajoran – the list is long. But once assimilated, each individual loses his or her individuality and becomes a cog in the giant, ominous, gluttonous collective.
Assimilation takes place when a member of the Borg collective — usually a drone, but sometimes the "Queen" — injects Borg "nano-probes" into a victim. In very short order, that victim's individuality is suffocated by the nano-probes and the victim, once an individual, is now assimilated into the Borg, with no mind or will of its own, no desire for self-determination.
I thought of the Borg today when I read this report in the New York Times. It's on labor-union efforts to constrain Wells Fargo's attempt to recover the money it loaned to the clothing maker HartMarx. HartMarx is now bankrupt. The following line is the one that brought the Borg to my mind:
and their union are arguing that Wells Fargo, having received $25
billion in the bank bailout, should keep a 122-year-old American
company like Hartmarx in business and preserve some 3,600 jobs.
In other words, because Wells Fargo received government bailout funds, it is now (and likely forever) subject not to traditional rules of the market, but should be obliged to sacrifice for some alleged collective good — to do the bidding of government, which in fact means, in most cases, to be forced to satisfy vocal special-interest groups, regardless of the consequences that such actions have on the larger economy.
You see, bailout dollars are like Borg nano-probes: everything that they are injected into is assimilated into a grotesque and dangerous collective. But with two important differences.
First, in some cases the victims of these political nano-probes requested assimilation.
Second, assimilation does not really promote the best interest of the collective; rather, it promotes only the selfish interests of parts of the collective — those parts that are politically well-organized and vocal (including, of course, the state itself).
Regardless of whether the victim asked to be injected with nano-probing bailout bucks or were injected with such probes unwillingly – and regardless of the motives of the assimilators — the result is the same: the collective grows and, as it does so, annihilates individuality, choice, freedom, and the institutions necessary for economic growth.
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 49 comments }
One key difference between the borg and the progressives is that when the borg assimilated someone the assimilated person apparently kept on doing productive work, while when the progressives assimilate someone they start doing meaningless political stuff. The difference is good – because while the borg could grow indefinitely, the progressives cannot.
Depends on whether you use American or British English.
How do I come out agreeing with you on the details very often (the union's position is bogus, as is Obama's similar position on Chrysler bondholders) – but STILL have the sense that you use these reasonable responses to build a trumped up charge against something like the bailout money.
Is the union wrong?
Of course it is.
Can we conclude from that that bailout money is like the borg and therefore the bailout is completely indefensible???
In your dreams!
You're going to have to connect the dots a little better than that, Don. Not that I don't appreciate analogy and artistic license, but I hope you don't think this was a solid case against the bailout itself.
One warning made repeatedly by persons (such as myself) opposed to the bailout is that it would serve as a pretext for additional restraints and intrusions. Once taken, the bailout dollars would be the excuse for government to regulate and command bailed-out firms in ways that government could not so easily have done had there been no bailout.
Facts are already revealing the wisdom of this warning.
There are certainly some troubling developments around those restrictions – and I never disagreed with that assessment. I think a lot of people had that assessment.
But it's worth talking about the relative intrusiveness of different regulations foisted on bailed-out firms. It's also not helpful to take a union's twisted view of a company's obligation (it's a union after all! what else would we expect them to say), and use that as a launching point for a blanket condemnation of the bailout.
That the bailouts have costs and have been abused by those in power is not at issue here, Don. An assessment of the bailouts needs to explore whether the benefits of saving those firms outweighs the costs of the meddling that's emerged. I'm confident where you fall out on that – I know we'd still disagree. But the case you make here just seems very trumped up and dependent on this union's statement.
Daniel, I don't think Don is using Gene Roddenberry as a pretext to prove bailouts as unsound. Those arguments are played out many other places on this forum.
He's merely drawing the parallel to the notion that one can be assimilated into a different mandate of behaviors against one's will — which IS the case with the Borg.
Don isn't required to prove anything else within the context of this post.
That said, the bailouts fail for being both ineffectual and immoral.
Is resistance futile?
Yes, it is.
"And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords" – K. Brockman
Don,
Excellent analogy and post.
It seems to this old man that back during FDR's time, the Federal government gained a lot of control, particularly of the primary school system, by offering huge sums of money to the states to aid in "keeping things going"; and, the states quickly found out that along with accepting those dollars they had accepted federal government dictat.
They didn't call it bailouts, but a rose is a rose is a rose, by any other name it should smell so sweet.
One warning made repeatedly by persons (such as myself) opposed to the bailout is that it would serve as a pretext for additional restraints and intrusions. Once taken, the bailout dollars would be the excuse for government to regulate and command bailed-out firms in ways that government could not so easily have done had there been no bailout.
Of all the obvious problems the bailouts I've thought this was the most damaging. I fear the systemic changes will only be limited by the imagination and energy of the powers that be.
"That the bailouts have costs and have been abused by those in power is not at issue here, Don. An assessment of the bailouts needs to explore whether the benefits of saving those firms outweighs the costs of the meddling that's emerged. I'm confident where you fall out on that – I know we'd still disagree. But the case you make here just seems very trumped up and dependent on this union's statement.
Posted by: Daniel Kuehn | May 12, 2009 9:55:07 AM"
Daniel,
Egads son, how did you so suddenly come by such strong conservative/libertarian views?
When last seen in past posts you were decidedly a leftleaner.
LMAO at responses.
Let's see…
Progressives are better than Borg because they don't fly around in a stupid cube-shaped spaceship. Most don't even need a spaceship to fly around.
Progressives wouldn't assimilate your whole body, just your wallet.
Though the Borg outfits are very cool, and most progressives would love one, they wouldn't all wear them at the same time (except to a union meeting).
Are there any gay Borg?
Hence the square spaceship.
vidyohs -
RE: "Egads son, how did you so suddenly come by such strong conservative/libertarian views? When last seen in past posts you were decidedly a leftleaner."
No, that's just how I was always interpreted by people who would skim through my posts, see "Keynes", "regulation", "climate change", or "market failure" and assume I was a leftist! I actually check in on Cafe Hayek precisely because I have a few residual libertarian sympathies from those halcyon days when I considered myself one.
vidyohs –
Don't get me wrong – I still support the bailouts whole heartedly. The involvement in executive pay has bothered me from the begining. The insinuation that the bondholders are unpatriotic because they don't accept a deal bothers me. Lots of this bothers me – and I recognize there are costs. But life is about tradeoffs – there are huge costs to bailing out something like AIG. My approval of the bailout is a result of my belief that those costs are worth it to prevent an AIG collapse – NOT because I approve of all the meddling that is going to be coming down the pipeline as a result.
And again, this isn't because I'm opposed to tighter regulation of the finance industry. I think that's a good idea. But I don't think it should be as intrusive as it has been with the bailout firms, and I think it should be done in a comprehensive, democratic way – not done by taking advantage of the bailout.
Two of my favorite topics, Borg and Individualism, all in one post!
Love it!
Daniel, How is it you can you agree on the details and completely miss Don's point? Repeatedly.
Forest. Trees.
Federal money is like heroin.
Methinks –
You're going to have to expound on that more. I agree with him on the details about the union. I have no clue why pointing out that the union made a bogus (albeit predictable) demand of Wells Fargo has one iota to do with the advisability of the bailout itself. So if that's the forest/trees problem you have with my disagreement with Don, I have to disagree with you. What would you have me do? Accept all left-leaning constituencies/arguments in toto and not distinguish between them? The logic of the unions is false. The logic of the bailouts is completely independent of the logic that the unions are using.
If your forest/trees concern is that I can acknowledge that some bad ideas have been crammed through to bailed out firms and still support the bailout – again, I'd have to disagree with you. I understand why Don thinks the bailout isn't worth it as a result. I personally see it differently – it's not that I've missed the forest. I choose door number three – the bailouts were necessary but we need to keep the administration from regulating executive pay, etc. by slipping it through the back door. What's wrong/inconsistent with that position????
What is even more ironic about this specific instance is that originally, Wells Fargo did not even want the bailout money. They were "compelled"* by Paulson to take it for the good of the system.
* By compelled I mean they were told by Paulson if they did not take it they would receive a call from their regulator the next day.
"Progressives are better than Borg because they don't fly around in a stupid cube-shaped spaceship. Most don't even need a spaceship to fly around." K. Ackermann
Oh well, at least it's not bad as this guy who reckons being a leftie is a mental illness.
Dr. Boudreaux, I never realized you were a Trekkie. Did you recently see "First Contact" again, hence your reference to nano-probes? "The Best of Both Worlds II" is slightly different in that Picard was injected only to make him unconscious; he still had his faculties for a while, a necessary part of the story so he could make his grand speech to the hive mind.
Yet despite Picard's insistence that "Our culture is based on freedom and self determination," the Federation is economically irrational. I'm sure you could expound for hours about allied planets that don't use money, yet somehow know what to produce among themselves, and moreover what to trade with non-Federation worlds (q.v. the TNG episode "The Price").
Locutus: "Why do you resist? We only wish to raise quality of life, for all species."
Worf: "I like my species the way it is."
Locutus: "A narrow vision."
(However, as Seven of Nine confirmed, the Borg did deem some species "unworthy of assimilation." Locutus' statement still could be accurate in that the Borg wouldn't bother assimilating a plant, a bear, or a humanoid species that hadn't advanced enough to have "biological and technological distinctiveness" to benefit the collective.)
Yet as evil as the Borg are, human collectivism is still worse. All Borg are perfectly equal; there's no nomenklatura. Leader figures like Locutus and the queen don't seek power for themselves, being only representative of the hive's collective will. Human collectivism may feature leaders who claim to work "for the people," but history shows it's always about their own self interest.
P.S. There's a recent editorial cartoon (check townhall.com) about Barack Spock: "Live long and hand over your prosperity."
Savage is right.
You missed the tongue in cheek, Daniel, tongue in cheek. Satire, Onionesque.
LOL.
So you're defying Sir Winston, and telling me that at 20 you were a conservative/libertarian because you had a brain; and, now at 40 you've become a socialist because you found your heart? Winston will just have to think less of you, I guess.
Well, mother nature allows for all kinds. Be happy, just stay out of my pocket and don't tell me how to do business.
Pshaw borther Gil! How could it not be?
100% record of total failure, agbsolute degradation of people, morals, character, economies, and standard of livings is damn pretty dismal record for socialism.
The conventional wisdom says that doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results each time is a layman's definition of insanity.
By that definition Savage is right on the money, eh old chap?
Oh well, at least it's not bad as this guy who reckons being a leftie is a mental illness.
Haven't you heard? It's now cool to be mentally ill. The latest Newsweek has an article about the mentally ill throwing away their meds and celebrating their gift.
If Rush reads that article, we may not hear from him for a while because he will be following them around picking up their meds.
That might get them to start taking them again, because everytime they turn around there is a paranoid guy following them.
B.T.W. this site has run out of italics.
vidyohs -
RE: "So you're defying Sir Winston, and telling me that at 20 you were a conservative/libertarian because you had a brain; and, now at 40 you've become a socialist because you found your heart? Winston will just have to think less of you, I guess."
Ya… I personally never got that Churchill insight. Quite the contrary – I used to be more of a libertarian because of the raw pathos of the libertarian message. And I still identify with that pathos to a certain extent. It was the further enrichment of my brain that lead me to moderate that. Never been a socialist in my life – I can't comment on what might lead someone down that road.
Yes, DK the bailout is completely indefensible. And it still would be even if it was a good idea that would work.
NOT!
The costs and benefits are irrelevant in this case. The bailout is not among the enumerated powers granted to the government in the US Constitution. Therefore, it is an illegal violation of the constitution O-slime-a, our representatives and senators swore to uphold and defend. BHO and most members of the house and senate should be in prison.
"The bailout is not among the enumerated powers granted to the government in the US Constitution."
You mean to say that if a power is not specifically given to the government by the Constitution that it belongs to the States or the People?
Come on!
Anything goes as long as it is not specifically forbidden by the Constitution.
And even if actions by the federal government are blatantly un-Constitutional, nobody has legal footing to challenge those actions in court.
So it's anything goes!
D'oh!
What was I thinking?
yet another Dave -
O-slime-a is pretty funny, but it took me a while to get the joke. That unforunately cut into it's effectiveness.
As for the powers of Congress – they have the power to regulate interstate commerce. While I can understand some theoretical economic arguments against the bailout and perhaps some philosophical libertarian objections to it, I fail to see how intervening and for a temporary period steering the banking industry doesn't fall under "regulating interstate commerce". And given that they have the authority to intervene, the Congress certainly has the authority to appropriate money for it's Constitutionally allowable activities. Then again, I'm not a constitutional lawyer. I'm interested in hearing exactly what you think "interstate commerce" means if the finance industry and credit markets aren't included under that umbrella!
Speaking of that oath, I found Get your HTML codes here!
">this hilarious and yet also very sad the other day (I'm assuming the Cafe Hayek crowd agrees with my opposition to torturing prisoners… but maybe not).
damnit – still no good at that html code, I guess. even when I have example code!!!
Just click on the link – it should get you there.
This is the link about the oath of office!
The interstate commerce clause was to prevent states from setting up tariffs between one another.
However it has been interpreted to mean everything and anything that might possibly cross a state border is subject to federal regulations.
Just like "provide for the General Welfare" has been interpreted to mean providing everything from food to housing to medical care to, well, anything.
Tenth Amendment be damned!
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/how-cheney-remembers-his-oath.html
bah – screw it. I don't know why I can't do this today
"So you're defying Sir Winston, and telling me that at 20 you were a conservative/libertarian because you had a brain; and, now at 40 you've become a socialist because you found your heart?"
Found his heart or lower testosterone levels?
I think the language "general welfare" uses the word "general" for a reason. I don't see why the fact that the framers wouldn't have spent on these things means that we can't. If the framers wanted to constrain us to what they thought should be done by government, they wouldn't have used vague language like "general welfare". I'm more or less a constructionist as well. I just think you're twisting the very construction of the Constitution if you interpret general welfare or interstate commerce so decisively as a matter of constitutional interpretation. The scope of general welfare that should be provided for and interstate commerce that should be regulated should be determined by Congress – not dictated by law scholars (although their imput is obviously important to consider – their own opinions don't magically rewrite the Constitution to take the "general" out of "general welfare").
John,
Actually, the interstate commerce clause has been interpreted so the Federal Government can regulate anything which influences trade across state borders–anything at all! According to the Supreme Court, the Federal Government can even regulate farming for private consumption under the interstate commerce clause, since growing and consuming your own food may reduce demand for farming products from another state.
Thus a clause originally intended to preserve open trade between the states has been twisted into a carte blanche for the Federal Government to regulate the economy.
John -
And I'll add that your "tenth amendment be damned" sentiment is not shared by people who feel the way I do about the general welfare clause. There is no contradiction between the two and full appreciation of states rights – unless you invent a contradiction by imprinting unwritten restrictions on what the Constitution said.
The notion that the commerce clause was ever intended to authorise anything like the bailouts is laughable. Modern constitutional law has nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution–it is one big lie.
Lee Kelly –
It never ceases to amaze me how alternative interpretations (and I'll note – interpretations that have been around since the beginning of the Republic) are dismissed as lies and conspiracies. It's fine to disagree on what powers the commerce clause implies (I'd agree that some of the applications have been silly, and I'm glad the Rehnquist court finally started placing some limits on it). But you really need to learn how to give those who disagree with you the benefit of the doubt. You don't have to agree with them – but it'd be nice if you didn't think of them as liars that aren't even concerned with the Constitution.
I actually like that John brought up the General Welfare clause. I'd actually agree that that offers a much more soid basis for regulation and intervention. I think it makes perfect sense that credit markets would fall under "interstate commerce" – but if that doesn't satisfy, I think the General Welfare clause speaks to this point as well.
Many of FDRs interventions were ruled by the supreme court as unconstitutional – FDR of course stacked the court and resolved the pesky problem
Constitutional Law seems to be based upon precedent, not the Constitution.
So all preceding interpretations are right, fair and just.
Judges do not make mistakes.
It is patently impossible that a preceding decision overstepped the constraints of the Constitution because the government does not make mistakes.
Sorry, I forgot the sarcasm filter.
If General Welfare and the Commerce Clause were to mean anything and everything, then why the 10th Amendment?
If the founders intended a totalitarian state why didn't they just say so?
John -
Precedence ensures that interpretations of the Constitution DON'T go too far afield. But they are revisited all the time. When precedence is inconsistent with the Constitution, it often gets overturned. Case in point – the DC gun ban was overturned less than a year ago. Precedent has to be important, but you're wrong to think it is sacrosanct. It's not.
RE: "If General Welfare and the Commerce Clause were to mean anything and everything, then why the 10th Amendment?"
Well, for one thing the general welfare and commerce clause don't mean anything and everything. On the Tenth Amendment – you're REALLY going to have to explain why you think there's a contradiction. The 10th amendment says that any powers not delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or the people. The powers in the general welfare clause and the interstate commerce clause ARE in the Constitution, so how can any powers granted by those clauses violate the 10th Amendment???? Should we debate what those clauses mean? Sure we should. But whatever the correct answer to that question is, it by definition can't violate the 10th Amendment.
RE: "If the founders intended a totalitarian state why didn't they just say so?"
Well… I think because they didn't intend a totalitarian state. Am I missing something???
Daniel,
You have got to be joking. The general welfare "clause" is in the frigging preamble! The preamble for Wotan's sake! A preamble, according to my dictionary, is "a preliminary statement, especially the introduction to a formal document that serves to explain its purpose."
If I were today to write a libertarian constitution for the United States, do you think I would be against the general welfare? My policy preferences with regard to the limits of government certainly do have the general welfare in mind. In a preamble–a statement of intent–it would be entirely reasonable for me to explain that one of the purposes of limiting the government is to promote the general welfare. For someone to later take that expressed purpose as permission to ignore any inconvenient constitutional restraint would be to miss the point entirely.
The early Federal Government began pushing against what they understood as constitutional restraints from the beginning. It is a testament to the imbecility of modern constitutional law that no attention is given to what the original ratifiers considered limitations on their power.
By the way, I know it says "general welfare" in section 8, too. But my point is much the same.
"Should we debate what those clauses mean? Sure we should."
What's the point?
I'll say the clauses were limitations, you'll say they were broad generalities.
You'll tell me I have no idea what they meant, then tell me what they meant.
In the end the interpretation that gives the government the most power becomes the accepted one, because once the government has taken power it does not relinquish it willingly.
Lee Kelly -
First and foremost, you need to read your Constitution. Yes, it is in the preamble, certainly. And that alone wouldn't imply any powers for either Congress or the administration because it's a statement of intent, as you say. However, it is also in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 – the article that identifies the powers granted to the Congress.
I'm not saying that the general welfare clause NECESSITATES bailouts, regulation, etc. A libertarian program would also be consistent with the general welfare clause if those were the policies that the people felt were best to guarantee the general welfare. Certainly. What I'm saying is that when the people think that another set of policies is best for guaranteeing the general welfare, they are empowered to implement those policies as well (barring, of course, violation of reserved individual or states rights in the process).
Please stop refering to modern constitutional law as imbeciles. They know about these debates over the meaning of the Constitution. Just because they come to the same conclusion you do doesn't mean they place no value in the original ratifiers' positions. And I guarantee you – Constitutional law scholars are also aware of an place value in the fact that the general welfare clause appears in Article 1, and not just in the preamble.
Lee Kelly -
First and foremost, you need to read your Constitution. Yes, it is in the preamble, certainly. And that alone wouldn't imply any powers for either Congress or the administration because it's a statement of intent, as you say. However, it is also in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 – the article that identifies the powers granted to the Congress.
I'm not saying that the general welfare clause NECESSITATES bailouts, regulation, etc. A libertarian program would also be consistent with the general welfare clause if those were the policies that the people felt were best to guarantee the general welfare. Certainly. What I'm saying is that when the people think that another set of policies is best for guaranteeing the general welfare, they are empowered to implement those policies as well (barring, of course, violation of reserved individual or states rights in the process).
Please stop refering to modern constitutional law as imbeciles. They know about these debates over the meaning of the Constitution. Just because they come to the same conclusion you do doesn't mean they place no value in the original ratifiers' positions. And I guarantee you – Constitutional law scholars are also aware of an place value in the fact that the general welfare clause appears in Article 1, and not just in the preamble.