Keeping an eye on the broader game
I was listening to Lex Fridman’s interview of Marc Andreesen, which was jam-packed with interesting discussion, and I picked up a new phrase for me: “Baptists and Bootleggers”.
Essentially, the idea is that in any circumstance in which you see groups lobbying to regulate some activity, some seemingly disparate groups may share the underlying intentions of regulating said activity for some ulterior beneficial purpose, thus permitting them to work together.
Baptists take the moral high ground for ‘pure’ reasons that may or may not actually align with their rhetoric, and bootleggers do the same because they have devised some means of profiting (e.g. through wealth or power). The prototypical example being when alcohol was outlawed in the States over a century ago, supported by moral purists who felt it was sinful, and powerful interests that cultivated the very lucractive and powerful black market.
Maybe it’s just my sociology degree talking, but I am generally attacted to this way of looking at the world - taking a step back and identifying the power interests at play in any given situation, trying to determine who ultimately wins or loses if X or Y happens. It’s often an interesting underlying code to events that frequently proves to provide a more accurate layout of things than whatever the surface level conversation is.
Barrie Ontario was recently in the news for considering new municipal by-laws that would fine providing food and shelter items to the homeless population on public property without a permit - this was not well-received publicly (rightfully so), and appears to have been tabled for the time being. Anyone who works in a field with daily experience of regulating human behaviour, like criminal law or public policy, knows that this stuff doesn’t work. Attempting to outlaw natural human behaviour simply doesn’t work, and criminalizing poverty/homelessness (or in this case, criminalizing the ‘johns’ of poverty/homelessness, I suppose) is just not an effective solution, setting aside any politics of whether it’s humane.
It’s interesting to consider this through the baptist/bootlegger lens. Barrie has a strong conservative population led by a newly-elected conservative mayor. Having worked in local criminal justice for years now, and being well-acquainted with many members of law enforcement, it’s become clear to me that even stout conservatives in government and law enforcement know just how ineffective a strategy this type of thing is - so why do it?
Hard not to see the politicians and law enforcement officials as bootleggers who see ’tough-on-crime’ strategies, designed to court votes and support from ‘baptist conservative voters’ concerned about ’the homeless problem’, as the key to future elections and ever-growing public budgets.
Always interesting to try on mental models that help to suss out the forest from the trees.