The upside of it

The last two times that I was looking for apartments, I made extensive use of Craig's List. I was looking at 1, 2, and 3 bedroom apartments, with 2's the expectation. So I was generally looking to move in with someone that I didn't know. I looked at quite a few places in person, and tons of places online. Sometimes I'd go to see a place and the prospective roommate(s) was weird in some way that made me think that I didn't want to live there, even though the place itself was good. A frustrating waste of time. A lot of times when looking at listings, I could tell that the apartment was not for me. Every once in a while, the listing would look really good, and then I'd see that the lister had put something like only "white people", or "no Asians". Thank goodness that they were able to put that stuff in their ads; if they hadn't I might have wound up seeing the place, liking it and thinking that they were normal, and moved in. Selfishly, I want racist people like that to be free to express their racism in (non-violent) acts and expressions; I want to know who these assholes are, so I can avoid them.

Robustitude

Krugman blogged what he sees as the Nth reason libertarianism doesn't work (no hints as to what A thru M are, nor if part O is forthcoming). Various bloggers respond negatively (here, here, and here, for instance). I have to say, though, Paul's right. Libertarians (at least the vast majority) are in favor of the government; we want much less of it than other people, but libs still support the institution. Every institution requires good people in decision-making positions (we'll interpret Paul's "incorruptible" as "honest" or the like). I guess what Paul misses is that shrinking an institution's role reduces the damage that comes from having not-so-good people in charge of it; conversely, expanding an institution makes the damage that comes from having those people in charge much worse. As a negative bonus, bad people tend to be attracted to more powerful institutions. Libertarianism is far more robust to the inevitable occurrence of bad people in positions of power than is big government

Paging Dr. Hayek

Humana sends out a letter to its policyholders on possible effects of reform. And is threatened by the federal government from ever doing so again, under threat of fines and jail time.
Congress is considering putting explicit limits on health care executives pay, as a result of other "reforms" under consideration.
Hmm, there's definitely not a chance that health care reform as it's being debated will lead to the complete takeover of the system. It's just a lie to say something like that. Clearly the people who say and think that are simply racists, or idiots. Or both.

I Don't Think that Word Means what you Think it Means

DeLong tells us what economics calls for, to chew out Allen Meltzer. Unfortunately for DeWrong, economics does not call for anything. Certain moral theories combined with economics may call for certain things, but economics calls for property rights and subsidies and such as much as astronomy calls for dividing the year into 12 months. Not the only mistake that DeLong makes in the post, but the most egregious in my mind.

Comment on a Special Comment

Olbermann had a nice special comment verbally spanking Obama about the need for prosecutions of torturers. A couple quibbles with it, but I want to highlight one thing he said near the end of it. He talked about Lincoln and "the evils of secession and slavery". Slavery, obviously evil. But secession? How is secession evil? I'm sure someone will try to say he just meant that particular secession, but I think it was pretty clear he was referring to all secession. So, does he hate the US for seceding from the British? Ukraine for leaving the USSR? Saintly Canada? West Virginia for seceding from Virginia during the (misnamed) Civil War? What about The Czech Republic and Slovakia splitting up, who was the evil party there?

Let Them Be

And here's one to make most gay rights supporters annoyed at me. I think it would be nice if eHarmony voluntarily offered its services to homosexuals, but forcing them to is an assault on rights. The right of free association also means the right to not associate. You have the right to not associate with someone for whatever reason, whether that's because that person is mean, dumb, a criminal, or for bad reasons like that they're gay. The right to be an asshole is one of our fundamental rights. Feel free to criticize people for being assholes, but if you use force to change their behavior, you're the asshole.

A Little Zen

Excellent set of comments over at MR, in response to how people stay sane.

You may be cool....

but you'll never be 4 popped-collars cool. (Others here)

A Card Short

Orson Scott Card, writing in the Moron Times, I mean the Mormon Times, lays out an argument against gay marriage. I actually agree with it. Certainly not the conclusion nor all of the sub-arguments, but there are smart things in there. Unfortunately, he has no recognition of the actually implications of what he does get right, but hopefully I can help a little.

He says that “marriage is older than government”. Absolutely right. And because of this, like he says, government can’t redefine what marriage is. One man and one woman is just such a redefinition. Contrary to what he claims, marriage does not universally mean “the permanent or semipermanent bond between a man and a woman, establishing responsibilities between the couple and any children that ensue”. How do I know that? Because some people disagree. Hence, there is no universal definition.

He argues that we must destroy governments that act in insane and destructive ways. And that “authority extends only as far as people choose to obey”. Again, absolutely correct. If Card wants to leave the authority of the US government, I fully support his right to do so. I don’t support his right to impose a government on me that won’t let my gay friends marry each other if they so choose.

A point he never explicitly makes, but that is clear throughout, is that he doesn’t think that gay people can love each other. They can be friends and affectionate and attracted to each other, but not in love. In a word, bullshit. He clearly has had very little in the way of interaction with gay people, and filters what he has had through his Moron faith. Sorry again, his Mormon faith. OSC, stop believing in transparent fairy tales, and start living in the real world.

A lot has happened since I last posted. The Celtics beat the Lakers in the NBA's first 6 game sweep. George Carlin died. There was a ninja scare. And, I came across this, the most awesome 2 voicemails ever. So awesome.

Racism, Government, and Society

I'm not quite sure what Tyler thinks he's showing with this post. I think he thinks it shows that government isn't the only source of racism. Duh. To me it affirms that government doesn't really matter. If people are racist, having Jim Crow laws is largely redundant. If people are racist, having anti-discrimination laws is useless. If people are not racist, anti-discrimination laws are unnecessary. If people are not racist, Jim Crow laws only matter marginally. It's individuals that matter, not government.

I am not a fan of Steve Landsburg, but this column about the stimulus package is right on. Don Boudreaux (chair of GMU's economics department) agrees. Paul Krugman's reaction to it is to write what is, to use the technical philosophical term, a fuck you post. I'll grant (grudgingly) that there is the possibility that Landsburg could be wrong. His position, though, is not a "crime" and evidence that he "obviously just doesn't get it". People who think that Keynes was wrong aren't morons or charlatans. They may be wrong, but it is very much up to debate. This wasn't an academic paper, it was a column promoting certain ideas. He has to be honest is so doing, but has free range to consider whatever ideas he sees fit and that fit into the space available. Honestly, I expect a little better from someone who is on the list for winning the Nobel Prize, teaches at Princeton, writes a regular column for the NY Times, and is writing on the NY Times site. But maybe I'm being unrealistic.

Yikes

Tom Cruise goes off about what Scientology means to him. I trust that no commentary is needed.

Oh man

Reading this spot on analysis of Alan Greenspan's supposed commitment to freedom (via Peter Boettke), I was reminded of Tyler Cowen's recent thoughts on Ron Paul. Re-reading Tyler, even more than when I first read the post, I find myself thinking he is either a fake friend of freedom, he makes the perfect the enemy of the good (odd for someone committed to a Marginal Revolution), or he is scared of success. Yes, I don't 100% agree with Dr. Paul. And if you're someone who thinks that supporting any candidate is supporting the system generally, that's fine, but that's not Tyler. While I can't completely discount the fear of success idea, it doesn't fit my image of the man. I am saddened to be forced to agree with Bryan Caplan, "Tyler Cowen is a Sith Lord". Oh man.

Books I Need to Read

Meditations, by Marcus Aurelius. I particularly like this takeaway from it: Not being a tyrant was something he had to work at one day at a time, and writing down these injunctions for himself was part of that effort.

(via MR).