I don’t know wherefrom the strange idea comes that a slippery-slope argument is a kind of logical fallacy. It is an institutional or political-economy concept, not a logical one. Slippery slopes occurs in social affairs, and a contribution of economics is precisely to help determine when the logic of institutions—that is, of individual incentives under certain social arrangements—lead to results inconsistent with officially-proclaimed or idealistic intentions; that is, when slippery slopes are likely.
No-fly lists were and remain a slippery accident waiting to happen. We should know. The Patriot Act that has been used to go after suspected drug sellers and to spy on ordinary Americans. The RICO Act has been invoked to prosecute people with no mafia connections whatsoever. Anti-tobacco laws now serve to regulate vaping which does not involve tobacco. And so forth. Except if they are effectively constrained, not an easy feat, politicians and government bureaucrats can be expected to maximally exploit the powers granted to them, because it is generally in their personal interests to do so.
Who would have thought that no-fly lists would be used against crypto entrepreneurs? This just occurred in South Korea as the Financial Times reports (“Workers at Embattled Crypto Operator Terraform Labs Put on No-Fly List,” June 20):
South Korean prosecutors have banned Terraform Labs employees from leaving the country as an investigation into the company and its co-founders deepens after the $40bn implosion of its cryptocurrency.
The Seoul Southern District Prosecutors Office told the Financial Times on Tuesday that the travel ban had been imposed on “dozens” of former and current Terraform Labs employees, declining to give further details.
I don’t know if, in this specific case, any fraud is involved, especially if we define “fraud” otherwise than “anything the government doesn’t like.” But even supposing that there a reasonable suspicion of real fraud, states already have enough (read: too much) power to enforce ordinary laws against fraud, without prosecutors (bureaucrats) resorting to instruments of mass control against a group in which some people are vaguely suspected of something.
Against which sets or groups of people will no-fly lists be used next time?
READER COMMENTS
OneEyedMan
Jun 23 2022 at 7:59am
Detectives telling suspects and other people of interest, “don’t leave town” is a well established police practice that long predates no fly lists and the global war on terror more generally. It is also common for people on bail to surrender their passports.
Yes, I wish no fly lists were better governed by due process and they are probably used too much. But this doest seem like evidence of a slippery slope.
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 23 2022 at 12:32pm
There is a big difference between a judge forbidding an individual charged with a crime from leaving the country (or leaving town) until his trial, and prohibiting a class of people charged with no crime (thus presumably innocent in all meanings of the word) from flying.
The slippery slope is obvious. No-fly lists were meant to prevent suspected terrorists from flying (and using airplanes as a weapon), not to prohibit possible suspects of white-collar crimes (charged with nothing) from traveling. Once you grant the state power to boss around people who haven’t been charged with any crime, you are already on a very slippery slope. You can’t administer arbitrary power within the rule of law.
Craig
Jun 23 2022 at 4:29pm
“The Seoul Southern District Prosecutors Office told the Financial Times on Tuesday that the travel ban had been imposed on “dozens” of former and current Terraform Labs employees, declining to give further details.”
This is the law of South Korea? We have to be careful here because many times the journalists writing these stories aren’t aware of nuances in law much less foreign law. As written it suggests the executive branch unilaterally banned these people from traveling internationally. Ok, maybe that is true, but is it also possible that they have probable cause and got a warrant/writ from a court in South Korea? Well, maybe, I’m not confident enough in a foreign story about the application of foreign law within its own borders to really make a definitive statement.
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 23 2022 at 8:22pm
Craig: I agree that one has to be careful on one’s sources of information. In international matters, the Financial Times is probably the best source in English (and French), I would be very suspici0us of Fox News or CNN or something like this.
Craig
Jun 24 2022 at 9:28am
FT is fine. I’m not suggesting fake news, my point is a bit nore subtle, ie we’re drawing inferences about SK Due Process from an article that really isn’t about that. The problem is many, and this might include the SK source itself often describe complicated procedural things by way of shortcut.
Craig
Jun 23 2022 at 4:25pm
“Detectives telling suspects and other people of interest, “don’t leave town” is a well established police practice”
I’ve seen it in movies and I’m sure they try it and hope their authority impels obedience in the suspect, but this is not actually recognized in law.
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 23 2022 at 8:22pm
Craig: Good point.
zeke5123
Jun 23 2022 at 4:57pm
I agree. Establishing a no-fly list changes the cost of expanding the no-fly list. If you go back to before the no-fly list, there was a bunch of cost required to set it up. That might dissuade some people from creating a no-fly list. But the cost of expanding is often less compared to the cost of creating. Therefore, all other things equal, we’d expect an expansion of the no-fly list.
David Seltzer
Jun 23 2022 at 5:02pm
It seems the “slippery slope” fallacy was applied at the municipal level as well. Mayor Giuliani’s Broken Windows is an example. Broken windows led to stop and frisk, which often violated individual rights in terms of reasonable search law. Racial profiling also occurred. BW focused on fair jumpers on the New York City Subway. It was found, criminals were fare jumpers but most fare jumpers were not criminals. That is, for most fare jumpers, fare jumping did not lead to other crimes.
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 23 2022 at 8:34pm
David: Giuliani has shown his authoritarian beliefs for several decades. See my EconLog post “Giuliani’s Well-Deserved Disgrace” (although it did not yet turn out to be a disgrace) and my still older post “Liberty, Authority, and Giuliani,” which mentions his stop-and-frisk policy.
David Seltzer
Jun 24 2022 at 11:02am
Thanks Pierre.
Zeke5123
Jun 24 2022 at 8:08am
Fare jumping is a crime!
David Seltzer
Jun 24 2022 at 10:59am
Zeke, I concede to your point. My argument: for fare jumpers there was little evidence of recidivism. Did fare jumping lead to more murders, robberies and assaults?
Craig
Jun 24 2022 at 4:11pm
The theory was ‘don’t ignore the small stuff’ and in the end the result absotely created an atmosphere of lawfulness. They called it ‘broken windows’ for short and that was more Bratton thab Giuliani.
Jose Pablo
Jun 25 2022 at 12:02pm
Slippery slopes do exist, actually, they are everywhere.
Take the 10th amendment. That’s a pretty clear wording limiting the powers of the Federal Government (explicitly designed to limit the powers of the Federal Government as a matter of fact).
Now look at Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
How on earth, the 10th amendment + Article 1, Section 8, allow the Federal Government to stablish a minimum wage or giving loans to college students?
The question, in fact, is more like, can “slippery slopes” being avoided when the government is involved? Not even the best worded constitutions, trying to do precisely that: make the slope not slippery, have been successful. Actually, quite the opposite.
Everything (even the “anti-slippery slopes”) are a slippery slope for the Leviathan.
Comments are closed.