Definitions Matter

Listen to Al Franken discussing his proposed new bill:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/05/20/bullying/

Tangent: Is Al Franken our dumbest senator? I realize he has a lot of competition for this title, but he's right up there.

Back to the blog post. Here is a transcript of a portion of the interview, courtesy of James Taranto (Wall Street Journal, Best of the Web Today):
===========================================================
Wurzer: As other parents listen to our conversation here, and maybe their child's been the target of a bully--maybe the child's not gay or lesbian. Could you,,in the statute, say--why not just bullying is for any reason?

Franken: Well, uh, we, you know, it--it is illegal for so many reasons that--you know, race, religion, uh, national origin, disability, uh--I guess, I guess you can say that bullying--then it kind of depends on what you're talking about. If, you know, I guess kids have a right not to bully, but to basically, you know, tease each other about the stupidest things, but certainly not about those things.

Wurzer: Um, would a court--

Franken: You know, "I don't like your taste in TV shows," or something like that--

Wurzer: Right. Or how you're dressed.

Franken: To get to a point where we got to define these things.

Wurzer: Right. And in this case, you're talking about being bullied--a student being bullied for either being gay or being perceived as gay, which--

Franken: Yeah.

Wurzer: --you could say is quite hurtful.

Franken: Mm-hmm.

Wurzer: What constitutes harassment under your bill, specifically?

Franken: Uh, I think that harassment and bullying is really, uh, it's one of these things that you know it when you see it.

Wurzer: Does--but does the bill outline anything specific?

Franken: I don't, uh, believe we have the language in it to define bullying, but maybe I do. I'm not--I'm not sure about that aspect of, of the bill. I know that it's, it's, it's defined the same way as it is for, um, race or for religion, or, um, the, uh, disability--the other reasons that are outlawed in, in--nationally. In other words, all these other things, uh, are, are national, uh, but not, uh, gay and lesbian.

Wurzer: Public schools, under this bill evidently, that violate the statute could lose federal money or be sued by victims?

Franken: Yeah.

Wurzer: How would a court determine that a school ignored harassment? Have you figured that out yet?

Franken: Uh, I think that they would just, uh, the facts of the case--I mean, that would be up to the court, and if the, um--you know, what I'm hoping is, is this'll start disappearing. Unfortunately, it's all too--it's almost sanctioned, as you can tell by the story in Anoka, by the schools, and I think that once we raise awareness about this, and have a law, that it'll, it'll, uh, bring down the incidence of this and make life a lot better for these kids.
===========================================================

So, to recap, in this interview Franken...
1) cannot or will not tell us why bullying for any reason is wrong, and why we need a special law for bullies who target gays or lesbians.
2) cannot or will not define what constitutes harassment in his bill.
3) cannot or will not give a specific example of what he intends to outlaw with this bill, to help clarify what he failed to define earlier.
4) cannot or will not clarify how a school may be determined to have ignored harassment, to help them avoid being sued or penalized by the loss of federal funds.

Is it really too much to ask that the the bill clearly define what is illegal? And that the author of the bill be able to explain what is in his own bill? Maybe define what a school must do to avoid being sued? They can't define any of these words. But they have no trouble writing these laws anyway. This leaves interpretation up to government agencies and, ultimately, the courts. And we wonder why the courts have so much power nowadays--but that's a whole post of its own...

These laws, where everything is open to interpretation, are pathetic. They remind me of people who decry "profiteering" or "price gouging" without ever sufficiently defining these terms. Write a vague law to make yourself feel better and ignore the concept of clarity, not to mention basic economics.

Let's look at one law in particular, Florida's price gouging law. I've always been amazed at such price gouging laws. First, here is the law:
http://myfloridalegal.com/pages.nsf/Main/351A2341C335428185257038005FB8AB

Next, here are some FAQs about the law:
http://myfloridalegal.com/pages.nsf/Main/5D2710E379EAD6BC85256F03006AA2C5?OpenDocument
http://www.800helpfla.com/price_gouging.html

Wikipedia also has a decent overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_gouging

Back to the Florida law. What is an "unconscionable" price? What is a "gross disparity"? What does "grossly exceeds" mean?

The laws of economics cannot be ignored. If prices are suppressed for scarce items there WILL be shortages, with little incentive for remote suppliers to divert needed goods to the area affected by the emergency. Is that really what we want?

Here are a couple viewpoints that disagree with Florida:
http://rexcurry.net/price-gouging.html
http://www.ftc.gov/be/meyergouging.pdf

And here is an interesting piece exploring a way to avoid being charged with price gouging:
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=6063
In one sense, it is a silly question. But it just points out how stupid and arbitrary the price gouging law is. Also note that the state will not clarify whether this is gouging or not. Better to keep people wondering about what the law means so that they can arbitrarily choose to prosecute or not, depending on the whims of the government officials.

And now let's talk about "profiteering." What is it, anyway?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profiteering_(business)

Some of this is a bad, I agree, such as taking advantage of political corruption to get business. But more often you'll see definitions like this:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/profiteering
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/profiteering

Making excessive profit on goods in short supply. Okay, fine, but what is "excessive"? What is "short supply"? These are arbitrary terms. I have talked about this with people who make this accusation. In addition to not being able to define the word, or the words in the definition if you drill down, they are very subjective about how they apply this term. It is an excuse to criticize companies or industries that they don't like.

They'll tell you that people are entitled to a "reasonable" profit. Well, some companies make very high profits because they provide great products and services. Sometimes they get lucky. Are those companies that do a great job not entitled to be rewarded? On a personal level, what if you bought a house that greatly appreciated in value, then later sold and made a lot of money? Should you give some back? I don't see these people selling houses below market value because they're making excessive profits on real estate that is in short supply.

Another example: Gas prices. I've had people who use the "profiteering" argument tell me that gas stations should not be able to sell gas that they bought at, say, $2/gallon for $4/gallon if gas prices suddenly doubled. They should not charge market price when they make so much money. (Yes, people have really said this to me. I'm not making this up.) I then ask them, what if gas prices fell by half? By that logic, shouldn't they be able to sell for the original planned price (now ridiculously high, by market standards)? Would YOU still pay them for the higher price because it was "fair" to them? Funny, I don't see these people agreeing to pay for the higher-priced gas. That's just not the way economics works. Not that they know or care.