François-René Rideau writes about the Étatistes and their psychosis.#

En fait, quand on regarde les choses de plus près, on se rend compte que le problème n'en est un qu'en présence du monopole de l'état, qui suscite et exacerbe ce problème par le principe de l'irresponsabilité des acteurs en présence: les contribuables paient et les usagers reçoivent sans décider, les décideurs ne sont pas tenus comptables de leurs décisions. On cherche en vain un responsable - c'est toujours l'autre. Cette dynamique mène à l'accaparement des ressources par des cleptocrates les plus habiles, et à leur destruction par des zérocrates. Compétition dans la surenchère des jeux de pouvoir: démagogie, lobbying, pressions occultes, népotisme, censure, privilèges, corporatisme, syndicalisme, etc.

In fact, when one looks closely, one will realize that the problem [supposedly solved by the state] only exists in the presence of the monopoly of the state, a monopoly which causes and exacerbates this problem by the irresponsibility it cultivates in every one involved: the taxpayers pay and the users use without decision [because of the monopoly] and the decision makers are not accountable to their decisions. If one seeks the person in charge, it is in vain - the statist will always point to another. This dynamic leads to the success of the most skilled cleptocrats and the destruction of resources by zerocrats. Competition is only possible through shows of force: occult demagogy, lobbying, pressures, nepotism, censure, privilege, corporatism, and trade unionism.

This is a rough translation, I am not fluent in French, so if you disagree incredibly with this it is best to criticize me and my translation rather than Faré, because this might not be what he wrote.

François-René Rideau writes about the great fear of the "market failure."#

Ceux qui justifient l'intervention politique par des scénarios catastrophes ne comprennent pas plus la nature d'un marché libre que celle de l'État; ils en restent à la pensée magique. La grande peur des défaillances du marché n'est autre chose que cette névrose de ceux qui ont peur de la liberté, et se cherchent désespérément en l'État un parent pour les soulager d'avoir à se comporter en adulte.

Those who justify political intervention by these "catastrophic scenarios" do not understand the free market because their nature is tainted by belief in the State: they reason only through and about magic. The great fear of "market failures" is only a result of the neurosis that afflicts those who are afraid of freedom, and hopelessly seek in the State a parent to relieve them of the responsibility to behave as an adult.

See above note about my translation skills.

Faré has written about market failures and public goods before: My commentary on Public Goods Fallacies: False Justifications For Government.

Michael Feldman posts headlines from 2035.#

Last remaining Fundamentalist Muslim dies in the American Territory of the Middle East (formerly known as Iran, Iraq, Afganistan, [Syria] and Lebanon

Castro finally dies at 112, Cuban cigars can now be legally imported, but President Chelsea Clinton has banned all tobacco smoking anywhere

George Z. Bush announces he will oppose Clinton in '36

Massachusetts executes last remaining Conservative

Jay Rosen explains that Joe Trippi didn't say what Reuters said he said at ETech.#

The transparency of the anti-establishment Dean campaign made it hard to respond to political attacks from his eight other Democratic opponents and media criticism of the candidate's missteps, he said.

No quotes in this graph. That's because it's wrong and Trippi didn't say it. It wasn't hard to respond to attacks. It was hard to explain to Net supporters a.) why Trippi was playing hardball, shifting tactics, concealing his hand, b.) what they should be doing to help Howard Dean win, since this was an emergency. The "transparency" of this "anti-establishment" campaign created problems, yes, but they were not the variety named by Reuters: losing the element of surprise, not replying to criticism, feeling hobbled.

I love this sort of thing calling the Dean campaign transparent in the same breath as saying the official campaign was keeping things from the supporters.

Amy Lamboley criticizes Ampersand's description of "rape culture."#

For instance, in the social circles where I spend my time (intellectual, socially liberal, generally coastal) I'm not entirely positive I've ever heard the phrase "Be a man" or one of its varients used unironically. Entitlement is out, empathy is de rigeur, and any man who even implies that women are inferior is liable to find himself criticized as strongly by his fellow men as by any women who may be present. If anything, the pendulum has perhaps swung too far away from misogyny here--while men often take grief for holding fairly innocuous stereotypes, women can get away with fairly egregious attacks on men as a whole without fear of social disapproval.

However, when it came to the sort of men I encountered on the streets (of the South Side of Chicago, at least), all of the attitudes Ampersand described were alive and well. While some of them expressed it crudely, and others expressed it suavely, I would certainly agree that majority of men who struck up a conversation on a street corner or yelled and honked from a passing car were looking essentially for a validation of their masculinity, and that it was of no particular interest to them whether or not I appreciated their rather dubious compliments.

Brian Micklethwait writes about what is so great about France and that a French libertarian should focus on those things.#

And as for the French social scientists — and especially literary theorists of the post-Modernistical persuasion - who are bullshit artists of the top rank, well, my point is exactly that. French has the best bullshitters in the world. They have utterly conquered American academia, and the achievement is all the more impressive given that it is all such complete bullshit. Persuading someone of the truth can be hard, but it is basically an unimpressive achievement, for in the end the truth speaks for itself. But to foist a pack of lies on a generation of American intellectuals, well, that takes some doing. Lies do not speak for themselves. French lies, on the other hand, have a habit of being believed. French intellectuals, perhaps because they always obey persuasion rule number one (first convince yourself), are hugely persuasive and have immense intellectual self-confidence. Their entire demeanour, when they are foisting one of their Great Intellectual Abstractions on you, says: we are French, so it is impossible that we could possibly be mistaken. It is true. If you do not accept it, this is your loss. Take it or leave it.

This works, again and again.

What French intellectuals think, right or wrong, is a fact in the world of collosal importance. When French intellectuals thought Soviet Communism was good, Soviet Communism was untouchable. As soon as the French intellectuals decided, in the late 1970s, that Soviet Communism was foolishness, it was doomed. That is a simplification, but not nearly as much of one as you might suppose.

My primary philosophical influencer right now is a Frenchman, but there is also the Italian.

Hugh Elliot writes about Love for Valentine's Day.#

So here We are, once again. Valentine's Day, when Love is reduced to pink and red (the colors of wounds), hearts and apparently naked children holding weapons. It's an unusual but safe way to categorize what we can't really describe, replace what we can not or will not express with symbols we can avoid explaining.

You and I, however, are different. Our love is secret. There is apparently no place for this Love, my Love. It does not beg for court intervention nor political gain. It does not need approval from anyone.

He is probably not talking about what you think he is, so click through.

Jack M. Balkin writes about The U.S. Army investigating attendants of a conference on Islam.#

What the Army did may or may not violate anybody's constitutional rights. But there's a larger threat to free expression and association that we shouldn't overlook here. By attending conferences and asking for names, the Army is sending a message: if you are the sort of person who goes to these conferences, we may choose to create a file on you. For many people, that will be a strong disincentive to attend conferences, exchange ideas, and speak freely, especially if they have controversial or unpopular views. Moreover, it will also make it more difficult for groups like Biddle's and Aziz's to hold conferences on Islam and get funding for them, because some people will be afraid to attend, and potential sponsors will be afraid to become associated with conferences that the Army may be spying on.

Will Baude links to Henry Farrell on the interesting policies of nations.#

Many countries impose jail sentences on people who pay kidnap ransoms. The reasoning is obvious - if nobody were willing to pay ransom (because they would face a hefty jail sentence) then nobody would have an incentive to kidnap; therefore everyone (except kidnappers) would be better off.

Richard Tallent has a few interesting questions about Gay Marriage: 1. What software changes would be required, and 2.:#

Humans come in two genders, so marriage between two humans of opposite genders makes logical sense. But if legal marriage between persons of the same gender is permitted, why is there still the assumption of pairing? If the "reason for two" is no longer related to procreation and population-pairing by gender, why two? Under the reasoning of gay marriage proponents, how can we possibly deny those same legal rights to a loving man and two women, or a woman and two men? Or more? Why not entire communes of 20 or more people in loving, sexual, long-term relationships with one another? I'm not trying to make a slippery-slope argument here, promise! I'm not even saying that the issue would come up if gay marriage is allowed. I'm also not promoting polygamy or polynamy. I'm just asking, why would we stop at two? Of course, if such a thing ever did come about, the above question of software problems would definitely become an issue!

Jagdish Bhagwati defends globalization. (Amanda, you might want to read this.)#

John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, described executives who import services — such as using lower-paid workers in foreign countries to handle customer-service calls and Internet queries from American consumers — as "Benedict Arnold C.E.O.'s."

In objecting to moving service jobs overseas, Senator Kerry is wrong on two counts. First, his economics is faulty: the practice only adds to the overall economic pie and improves the competitiveness of American companies. In a world economy, firms that forgo cheaper supplies of services are doomed to lose markets, and hence production. And companies that die out, of course, do not employ people.

Second, Mr. Kerry is making a political error. By playing to the understandable but incorrect fears of American workers that outsourcing is "taking away" jobs from Americans, he is painting the Democratic Party into the wrong corner on trade issues.

Free Trade++

Richard plans to start programming more.#

MUST: code for an hour. PHP is the only language I know, so PHP it is. As I get more comfortable with the concepts of programming, I hope to move on to Python.

Rationale: it is something I enjoy doing, but it is something that I have little formal training in--other than a university course in Pascal and another one in C++. Knowing a programming language is also something that is [insert here something other than the word "marketable"].

A friend of mine said to me, "You're so lucky you know how to program: You can do anything. If you ever have a problem, you can just write a program to solve it." I said, "Yup."

Lance Arthur posts a photo-essay entitled, The San Francisco St. Valentine's Day Massacre of Love, to celebrate gay marriage.#

Julie Leung is intent on proving to everyone that the Leungs are, in fact, the cutest couple.#

Abigail our five year old has been discovering some old songs playing on the radio. She's particulary fond of an Amy Grant one, one that makes me remember Life Before Marriage. When it comes on the radio, Abigail exclaims "Oh it's this one!" and then starts dancing around her bedroom. It's as if the song belongs to our daughter.

I want to tell her, "Hey, do you know that your dad dedicated this song to your mom?" "Do you know that your parents danced to this before you were born?" "Do you know how your dad said these lyrics were about me?" When this song comes on, I can still see Ted's apartment from thirteen years ago, the stereo in the living room there that's now in our living room here, my then-boyfriend telling me how the lyrics reminded him of me and our relationship. I can still see the look in his eyes ;)

Philip Greenspun explains where some of the money you pay for a hotel goes.#

Expedia, a company spun off by Microsoft in 1999 but presumably still substantially owned by Microsoft and Bill Gates, uses its dominant market position to arrange favorable deals with hotels. The deal might be that Expedia gets to buy up to 50 rooms per night for $75 each, for example. If the market is soft Expedia can resell those rooms to consumers for $100 per night. If the market is tight Expedia can resell those rooms for $200 per night, pocketing the $125 difference between what they charge the traveler and what they pay the hotel. If things are so bad that nobody wants to pay $75 on a particular night, Expedia dumps the vacant rooms back on the hotel. Much of the profits that hotels formerly earned and invested back in their properties is now being captured by Expedia.

I feel like when I say how stunningly hilarious The Black Saint is no believes me, like I'm just saying it or something. I have just recovered from an uncontrollable bout of laughter at the behest of this recent posting:#

Generally speaking, I think people wind up having their bodies stolen by Satanists far too easily these days. I mean, how can you ignore all the warning signs? If I'd written this movie, here's how a key scene would have gone:

Alda: Darling, dinner was delightful. However, I'm afraid I will have to skip our standard post-Scrabble sexual intercourse because Duncan Ely has agreed to let me interview him.

Bisset (impatiently): Good grief, isn't this like the third time this year you've almost had your body stolen by a Satanist? Father warned me about marrying a Harvard man.

Alda: What are you talking about?

Ross Random Bytes responds to John Robb on Atom vs. RSS, who says it would be nice to just have one standard rather than two.#

There are no syndication standards today. That's the problem. There are a bunch of formats and a bunch of people dickering over whose attempt at a standard is the "best". This is why moving the discussion to a forum devote to the development of standards is so important. Developing a syndication and publishing specification inside the IETF will result in one standard and a bunch of "also-rans". Today, we have a bunch of contenders - RSS 2, RSS 1, ATOM .3 etc. and this is where the failure lies.

Richard Tallent wonders about the hypocrisy of "decency."#

An important issue that was brought up was that of violence. We in America have a fixation on nudity and excretory functions and sex as being "indecent" (though we all have and do them), yet murder and rape and drug use and drunkenness, maiming and just plain cruelty (things we generally try not to do to ourselves and each other) are staples of our entertainment. I'm not advocating the former necessarily, just pointing out that we are serious hypocrites on the latter. Yeah, I love CSI as much as the other 30,000,000 Americans who watch it every week, but if a Jackson boob is beyond the pale of our cultural acceptance, how are the themes and simulated gore of police dramas placed in prime time every week without controversy?

Tyler Cowen quotes from a story about some research on income inequality.#

Some of his more provocative findings concern middle-borns. In families with three or more children, Mr. Conley says, middle offspring are less likely to receive financial support for their education and may do less well in school than their older and younger siblings. The chances that a second child will attend private school drop by 25 percent with the birth of a third, Mr. Conley found, and the likelihood that he or she will be held back a year increased severalfold. Unlike typical first- and last-borns, he reasons, middle children never experience family life as an only child; instead, they are forced to compete with their siblings for money and attention. (In this sense, he concedes, birth order does matter: not as a psychological variable but as a constraint on family resources.)

Michael Feldman covers the Barbie & Ken break up.#

This sad, pathetic story is playing out again, as rumors of Barbie Running Wild, gin-soaked vacations in Australia and on certain South Sea Islands, participation in a Doll-swapping ring in an attempt to breath a little life into their moribund relation, and a steamy sex video involving the voluptuous 40-something articulated model and an entire Welsh Rugby Team swirl around the respective camps.

Although we have not yet been able to get our sweaty hands on a copy of the video, numerous still shots have started circulating on the Internet, documenting a sick and twisted descent into perversion and depravity, testifying once again to the seductive allure of the fast lane and its ability to corrupt even the most wholesome of American icons.

Matthew Yglesias wants to rob you and I.#

At a different New America event I heard one guy briefly discuss his "Christian libertarian" outlook in response to Amy Sullivan's Christian liberalism. Basically, he said, all this stuff liberals (and particularly religious liberals) say about the moral imperative to aid the poor, etc. is all quite true. That's why he thinks he has a duty to live his life virtuously by giving time, money, etc. to helping others. When he does this, he does a good deed personally, and provides help to a second person. If, however, he were to try and force me to give my money to help someone else, that would not be a virtuous act on his part or on mine. Christian compassion is all well and good, but using the state as a surrogate Robin Hood is not.

Now I don't agree with that at all. Indeed, I think it's roughly the reverse of correct. Cultivating personal virtue, whether in myself or in others, is irrelevant. The key is to help those in need by hook or by crook and, indeed, in the ideal set-up everyone would just act selfishly and the mechanisms of the state would ensure that our selfish behavior winds up serving the general interest. Like Adam Smith's invisible hand, but with progressive taxation.

Dienekes quotes Frederica Mathewes-Green on the meaning of Christ's suffering.#

Yet for the first millennium, and continuing in Eastern Christianity today, the Cross means "victory." In this idea of the atonement ("theory" would be too strong a word for a view expressed with a light, wondering touch, and without expectation of wholly satisfying human curiosity or logic) God in Christ effects a rescue mission. Humans are being held captive by Death, due to their voluntary involvement in sin, and are helpless to free themselves. In a majestic sweep of events Jesus takes on human life in order to die, invade hell, and set the captives free. The focus is much broader than the Crucifixion alone.

[...]

How then could Jesus be a ransom, sacrifice, or offering? Early Christians understood such terms to mean that it cost Jesus his life to rescue us. It was a sacrifice to the Father, as a soldier might offer a superlative act of courage to his beloved general. It was the price of entry into the realm of Death. It cost Jesus his life's blood to enter Hades and save us, but it wasn't a payment to anybody.

Frederica notes that the change in Christian interpretation happened in the 11th century. In Dante's Inferno, written in the 14th century, seems to have a very similar outlook on Christ: Christ is always referred to has having paved the way or "created the path" to Paradise and freeing the souls of Limbo.

Michael Feldman is running a survey. Please fill it out. The Sixty-Second Blog Survey.#

Micha Ghertner quotes Brian Caplan on libertarian principles.#

[I]t is a common observation among libertarians that everyone follows libertarian principles in his or her private life; it is only where government is concerned that they grant a moral sanction to the initiation of force. And if you asked your average person why it was wrong to commit murders, or rob, or defraud others, one popular answer would be: "That's just common sense." Indeed it is; the principle of non-initiation of force is just common sense; which is to say, that even the simplest mind, if it honestly and critically turns itself to the proposition that it is wrong to use violence against peaceful persons, or rob them of what they have produced, can immediately grasp its truth. All that would then be required to establish libertarian moral theory would be to couple this everyday insight of direct reason with the premise, derived from observation, that governments habitually violate the non-initiation of force principle, and then use deductive reason to draw the final inference that most, if not all, of what government does is wrong and must be stopped at once.

Alex Tabarrok posts something too perfect to counter John Edwards.#

In his stump speech, John Edwards is fond of empathizing with the plight of a 10-year old girl "somewhere in America," who goes to bed "praying that tomorrow will not be as cold as today, because she doesn't have the coat to keep her warm."

Yet, as John Tierney points out, "clothing has become so cheap and plentiful (partly because of textile imports, which Mr. Edwards has proposed to limit) that there is a glut of second-hand clothing, and consequently most clothing donated to charity is shipped abroad. The second-hand children's coats that remain in America typically sell for about $5 in thrift shops."

Matt May writes about poker. But what I really link him for is because he says one reason he hasn't been blogging he because he caught the "blogger blahs." Hah.#

Halley Suitt is most funniest.#

I am awash in feeling blessed this morning. For one thing, my eye is NOT awash, which is to say, yesterday was the last day of eye drops I had to take every day for the last month since my cataract surgery. In the week immediately following the operation, you do drops more than six times a day. I had three little bottles. I had to stop whatever I was doing, lie down, do one drop in my eye --- wait 3 minutes -- do the next drop -- wait 3 minutes -- do the next drop -- wait 3 minutes. Doesn't sound like a big deal, but it reminded me of breastfeeding schedules, which when you read them BEFORE you have a baby sound reasonable, but once you have your baby, you suddenly realize, "Oh, I get it, I'm going to spend every minute of every day breastfeeding this baby!"

Alexander Payne has a new style for his blog. Cute.#

Tibor R. Machan writes about why compassionate conservatism is impossible.#

Compassionate conservatism always was a fraud but just how straightforward a fraud it is can be seen from recent statements from Bush Administration officials.

Why was it a fraud to start with? Because government cannot — yes, literally, cannot — be compassionate toward people with other people's money. You, I, our friends and neighbors can be compassionate, in the sense that we can consider some people's misfortune, even bad choices, and reach out to them with our help, be this money or some service we could offer. That's compassion. But when we see such misfortune and go out to rob a neighbor and hand over the loot to those in need, that isn't compassion, conservative, liberal or any other kind! It is criminal — maybe we ought to dub it "criminal 'compassion'"!

Matt May was interviewed about blogs and accessibility. I'm mentioned, wee. Thanks Matt.#

What's so cool about being a blogger? What's the coolest thing that's happened in connection to your blog?

I have to say, a lot of people think they're cool because they're bloggers. I don't get that. I think it's a personal statement that you spend too much time staring at your navel. I do it because I think I have a point of view that a lot of others aren't going to have, and I like knowing that a few dozen people a day come just to see what I have to say.

As for cool things, I've had someone quote myself back to me more than once. That's good stuff. It shows that my name doesn't have to stick with people for my ideas to.

This is brilliant observation:

There's a disconnect between the sort of essay communication that happens on blogs, and the live-action arguments you see on TV. You can reach a deep understanding of each participant's views online, provided they're lucid enough to give you one, but it's hard to arrive at synthesis. With real-time communication, it's easy to synthesize, but also entirely too easy to oversimplify or omit relevant information. There's got to be a middle way.

Richard Soon-To-Have-Millions-Of-Babies-With-Women-In-Red Gwai Lo writes aboot taking our "internal cinema" into real life.#

I wonder what the cost of taking what we do in our internal cinemas into the real world is. The only people we would embarrass ourselves in front of are strangers. Who cares about those assholes anyway? They don't know us, and can't bring our embarrassment up in conversation the next day, because the next day is jusg going to bring a completely different group of strangers. It probably means making a mental script—well, okay, the motion picture metaphor is an easy one to slip into—and substitute the details as necessary. Instead of the above blue dreadlocks, it could be the fact that she's wearing all red, including hair and shoes. Isn't that, despite her shy posture, something she does to call attention to herself? Same goes for girls who see the cute guy but shy guy with glasses, who is reading an interesting looking book and is totally not a convenient way for me to insert myself into the scenario. I'll bet you dollar to doughnuts that he would rather talk to a pretty yet shy girl than be lost in a book. (Hell, he may even be thinking of something to say to you!) It needs to be something like what George Costanza did: exactly opposite of what his instincts told him. I know that saying to someone like that "I couldn't help notice you're dressed all in red, but y'know, it works for you. What's your name?" is exactly the opposite of what I'd say. It's pretty crazy, but maybe it's crazy enough to work?

Darren Barrenfoot writes about gender-neutral bathrooms.#

Why do we have gender-specific changerooms? Presumably, it's because of a Puritanical belief that if men and women are permitted to see each other naked, they'll be unable to control themselves and rampant orgies will ensue.

If that's the case, then why aren't our changerooms sexual-preference-specific? Why don't we have Gay Men, Straight Men, Gay Women, Straight Women and individual stalls for the Bisexuals? I considered this when, while at the Rec Centre (but not in the changeroom), I was hit on by a gay man. My metrosexuality aside, the incident reminded me that the gender-specific changeroom wans't necessarily a desexualized environment.

Me, I'm for one big changeroom. If an orgy breaks out, all the better.