Calm Belief in Authoritative Grades

Confirmation of the ideas that FTC Commissioner Lina Khan outlined in her recent investigation of Microsoft reflects the zeitgeist of our time. Talking to The Wall Street Journal, explains that Microsoft may have violated the antitrust law-or rather the policy and politics, because it is not the right law-by hiring the founder of Inflection AI and almost all of its employees, and compensates for ongoing concerns with license fees. . Watch the accompanying video for the story “FTC Opens Antitrust Probe of Microsoft AI Deal,” June 6, 2024. It is political correctness that makes sense when Ms. Khan said:

In Washington, there is a growing recognition that we cannot as a government just sit back and get out of the way.

I wonder how quickly a young law professor appointed by Joe Biden thinks the federal government is “already out of power” and “off the rails.” It would be interesting to know what evidence he has to support his argument.

He also said:

You are right that in some ways this will look different. … And we as policy makers and we as a community can help make decisions and decisions that will guide technology in a way that really works for us rather than a model where a few companies just give more to the community, to the creators. , and people feel helpless to react.

Who are “we as policy makers” and “we as a society”? Are these two political “we” the same? Doesn’t “we as policy makers” represent the best 50% +1 of “we as society”? And that is a very good case. I suspect that our political office in Washington has not seen much of these issues and entertains a more accurate and rational democratic vision. 20th century social economic theory and social choice, often developed by economists, such as Ms. Khan, who had a passion for economic and social planning, pointed out that “we as a society” raise problems by combining interests that can only be solved. by tyranny—”tyranny,” in the words of Kenneth Arrow’s famous theorem. Only a community of like-minded people can be thought of as “we” (in our collective mouth). James Buchanan and public choice economics added a realistic view of “we as policy makers” and a rational view of democracy.

In fact, the speech of Ms. Khan saying “we as policy makers” hides a totalitarian desire to control society:

At FTC … we consider the entire stack, from the chip, to the cloud, to the models, to the applications. … Most of the materials used for these tools are in the hands of very few companies. … There may be spontaneity, there may be discrimination, there may be exclusion, so that great people grow up to the detriment of everyone else.

Ms Khan seems to be unconsciously admitting that her crusade is part of a general ideology of social engineering from above.

Could Microsoft and Inflection have structured their deal so that it doesn’t fall into what the surveillance world doesn’t like? That is a real possibility. It’s a scary thing, but not in the way Khan seems to think. The law does not involve a central government using a vast and ever-growing complex of laws and regulations to prohibit whatever “we as policymakers” don’t like and to approve whatever “we as policymakers” want. Such a view of government stands for “government of the people” (OK, make it “of the people”), not “government of laws.” With the proliferation of laws and regulations, there should be at least one legal instrument for every potential power grab. Refusal to see this suggests a disregard for both economic and social science research and for modern libertarianism, in favor of the unexamined and dangerous assumption of collective choice over individual choice.

As an emotional attachment to mass democracy—we as policy makers representing we as the current majority in society— Ms. Khan should be as happy if Donald Trump is elected as the policy boss as if the crown is given to Joe Biden. People will have spoken on one side as on the other. To pose the problem in these terms suggests that the risk of group selection is the same on the right and the left as we know it: under a strong leader, “we” impose “our” preferences on all other “us.” It is urgent to think outside the political box.

******************************