Chip Gibbons calculates something interesting, assuming that some given data is correct.#

But just for kicks I did correlate the average IQ scores by state with the number of electoral college votes that each state has. In our system, individual votes don't really count except to determine who wins the state's electoral college votes.

What I found out (assuming the data in the table to be correct) is that the states with average IQ over 100 control 211 electoral votes. States with average IQ below 100 control 309 electoral votes. 270 electoral votes are needed to win the election.

You can draw your own conclusions.

Don Boudreaux on how the government creates externalities.#

One externality created by government — a negative externality — is the grouping of all citizens of a nation into one lump. For example, I'm an American. People who dislike (for whatever reason) policies pursued by the U.S. government often blame all Americans, even those who disagree with the particular policy in question.

In the past, I have talked about François-René Rideau's article on the "public goods" that the government produces. If you are unfamiliar with externalities, this may be a helpful read.

Joi Ito on the corrupt government of Japan.#

I rarely say "fuck" on my blog, but "Fuck you Japanese politicians!" (Lucky the FCC doesn't control my blog... yet.) I've paid about 1/2 of all of my life earnings in tax to the Japanese government and have paid my premiums to the national pension system even though studies that I worked on at the Association of Corporate Executives showed that I would most likely not benefit from these pensions. Now it turns out many Japanese politicians don't pay their national pension premiums. Actually, a third of the cabinet members haven't paid their pension premiums. The "Vice President" of Japan, Yasuo Fukuda just resigned for not paying his premiums. This is all amid a move by the government to increase premiums and lower pay-outs. The study we did showed that unless you were about retirement age today, would would most likely not benefit from the pension system.

Andy Budd on semantic coding:#

The question that springs to my mind is "does it matter?" Despite what we'd like to think, not everything has semantic meaning. Some things are purely presentational and sometimes it's going to be impossible to completely separate meaning from display. While it's reasonable to expect that current and future computer systems will be able to understand the meaning behind a <cite> element, is it reasonable to expect them to understand each individual authors personal semantic vocabulary? Because let's face it, there really is no standard way of semantically identifying page elements outside the regular (X)HTML tags. As such, pretty much all this "semantic" information is meaningless. It makes up happy (and to an extent makes development easier) but it's not really intended for anybody other than ourselves.

Matthew Thomas continues his discussion of semantics in HTML.

Ogged links to two awesome articles about Iran by Nick Kristof.#

Chip Gibbons on what Jefferson meant and why Aaron Swartz doesn't understand.#

Jefferson is saying that we each have our beliefs and we cannot be forced to finance the beliefs of others. For example, Aaron Swartz is entitled to his beliefs about the meaning of Jefferson's quote, but he should not be able to stick a gun in my face and force me to finance his belief. In a free country I should be able to use my money to support and promote my own beliefs.

His original meaning may have been confined to religion, just as his ideas about liberty were confined to whites. But he was a smart man. He would have had to realize at some point that treating people like slaves doesn't mean they are not human, and that he was in fact forcing blacks to support his unfounded beliefs about biology with their freedom and free labor.

Take it one step further and he would also have had to realize that forcing others to financially support one's beliefs about anything is the same thing as forcing others to finance one's beliefs about religion.

Ian on self-enforcement in the adult film industry.#

For those who may have been paying attention, there's apparently a bit of a shake-up in the adult film industry. It seems that several performers have tested positive for HIV. In the wake of such a tragedy, the entire US business has placed a 60 day moratorium on the production of hardcore films. And it's a ban that's working, apparently.

Now, I don't mean to come down on either side of the debate about adult films in general, and don't really care to bring it up here. My interest is in the mechanism that's resulted in the shutdown of production. The current California law hasn't mandated such a move. There isn't a national adult films regulatory agency that's enforcing it. Apparenlty, the decision is made from a (sane, if you ask me) rational decision that everyone should stop until widespread testing clears as many people as possible. The costs of defecting are incredibly high, of course, making cooperation seem like the best idea.

DKR asks who the greatest MCs of all time are.#

My picks, without order:

• Kool Keith
• Jay-Z
• Q-Tip
• Chali 2na
• Lyrics Born
• Gift of Gab

Yes, most of these are on his list.

Don Boudreaux and his essay on Hayek led me to a discussion of advertising between Hayek and Galbraith.#

One of his most well known and widely studied legacies was created from a section of his book dealing with advertising. Galbraith asserted that advertising is a device by which business creates desires in consumers which must be acted on and thus produce what he called "the dependency effect." In other words, consumers become dependent on corporations because the latter create desires in them for the goods and services they offer for sale. By this means, corporations become wealthy, make huge profits, while resources are taken away from far more important projects, you guessed it, those the government wants to provide for us. The public sector is diminished and the private sector unfairly benefits.

This famous section of The Affluent Society is reprinted in nearly all business ethics readers serving as text books for business school students across the world. Far fewer of these volumes offer the decisive rebuttal to Galbraith's position, penned by the great economists, the late F. A. Hayek. Hayek noted that Galbraith's claim is true but not just for business and advertisers but also of all human creative endeavors.

The difference is that unlike Galbraith, Hayek did not believe that the desires that people might cultivate for what is presented to them must be acted on. Instead, we have the freedom to choose whether to try to fulfill our desires, however they might be created. Advertising appeals to us but cannot make us do anything. It is a promotional project by which producers call out to us hoping we would consider what they have to offer and to purchase it. But there is no guarantee at all that we will act as the advertisers wishes we would.

Mises.org has a copy of The Non Sequitur of the "Dependence Effect", the article F. A. Hayek wrote in response to Galbraith that is referenced here.