lines in the sand

They're B-a-a-a-ck!!

In the spirit of the day, a reprise of my most popular post ever:

I See Dead Peeps!

Friedman and Donahue

Phil has a question for Milton.

Energy Costs Threaten Economy

The rising cost of energy is about to destroy the economy and TJIC has pictures.

Says he:

Oh, wait...

Arbitrage Happens

Hannah Montana priced her tickets too low, says the Fed, according to Reuters.

"The more fundamental issue is that promoters of the Hannah Montana series apparently haven't priced tickets commensurate with demand, opening the door to a secondary market with much higher prices," the Fed said.

This secondary market has sky-rocketed. Hannah Montana tickets officially priced at $25-$65 for a show on Monday in Seattle were for sale on one major private on-line ticket brokerage for between $163-$393. Seats near the stage for a November 7 performance in Los Angeles were $2,427 each.

They should have put them on eBay in the first place.

Miley Cyrus would have reaped the full value her fans place on her performance and little Suzie Gotbucks's parents would have still had the opportunity to pay $2,427 for her ticket.

"But too many deserving little girls won't be able to afford tickets!" goes the wail.  Maybe Miley even feels that way.  Possibly her promoters do, t... nah.  Staples Center only seats about 25,000 deserving little girls, so there will be a lot who don't get in whatever the price.  And even if enforcing $65 seats worked, it would just mean that Mama Gotbucks saved two grand without guaranteeing that any poor but deserving little girls got in.  Supply side charity doesn't target the target.

So what's a warmhearted rockstar to do?

"One version would be a system in which a certain number of seats are auctioned off to the highest bidders, with the remaining ones sold for a flat price.

I would see that the vast majority were in the auction group.  My flat price would be $0 and they would be "sold" to churches, homeless shelters and other groups that would get them to deserving little girls who couldn't have bought the $25 tickets.

And I suspect that once the promoter sees the potential, he would push for another concert, making seats available for another 25,000 dlg's.  Does anybody see a loser here?  Other than the arbtrageurs scalpers?

For Pro-Choice Bikers

A great T-shirt for bikers who like to ride without a helmet.  Available from the National Organization for Women.  The caption on the product page works well, too:  Laws should protect our liberty, not infringe on our right to make decisions for ourselves!

Hat tip to Coyote Blog, whose post is actually about universal health care but is related to the helmet issue, especially when he quotes The Economist:

Well, when, by force of law, you externalise responsibility for providing a good, such as health care, then the effects of all individual choices that affect the cost of providing that good for the individual are thereby transformed from internal to external effects. If you, like Mr Dubois, are in the grip of the blithe assumption that reducing negative externalities by raising the cost of the behaviour that causes them is simply what government does, then obviously my gluttony and sloth are public problems. Because public policy made them public problems! So, obviously, it's up to the government to fiddle with prices to manipulate our behavior in order to minimise its impact on the tax-financed national budget.

Nannie's arguments usually include a reference to increased costs for taxpayers, when that only happens because the taxpayers, through their representatives, insist on paying them.

With helmets, when the manipulation is not through outright mandate, it's through the price of compliance with requirements like Florida's additional insurance or the just passed (but unsigned as yet) Michigan law creating a $100 annual permit.

Are Libertarians Rising?

Time's Michael Kinsley says libertarians are rising and explains the difference between them and other people:

Libertarians are against government in all its manifestations. Domestically, they are against social-welfare programs. They favor self-reliance (as they see it) over Big Government spending. Internationally, they are isolationists. Like George Washington, they loathe "foreign entanglements," and they think the rest of the world can go to hell without America's help. They don't care--or at least they don't think the government should care--about what people are reading, thinking, drinking, smoking or doing in bed. And what is the opposite of libertarianism? Libertarians would say fascism. But in the American political context, it is something infinitely milder that calls itself communitarianism. The term is not as familiar, and communitarians are far less organized as a movement than libertarians, ironically enough. But in general communitarians emphasize society rather than the individual and believe that group responsibilities (to family, community, nation, the globe) should trump individual rights.

Nice try Mike, but it doesn't quite work with this libertarian.

He's talking about libertarianism as a social philosophy where I see it more as a political one.  I recognize responsibilities to family, community, nation and the world.  I just don't believe that the way to meet such obligations is through government action.  The opposite of libertarian is neither communitarian nor fascist but statist (a component of fascism but not the same thing).

Big government is not a problem, it is a symptom.  The problem is the role of government.  To statists, it is the primary structure of society.  Whether in a dictatorship or a pure democracy, it is the body through which society thinks, speaks and acts in all things.  If there is anything a society should do, government must try to do it.

Few libertarians I know are "against government in all its manifestations."  We are not anarchists, well, mostly.  The best description of government's role is Frederick Bastiat's pamphlet, The Law.  (In fact, Mr. Kinsley would do well to read the section titled A Confusion of Terms.)  Simply put, government is to protect us from other nations and from each other. 

Society has many institutions - government, religion, commerce, philanthropy to name a few - that make up its character.  Ideally, each would perform its own function and respect the others.  But ideals rarely happen.  History is filled with collusion, especially of government and religion.  But others have worried us, too.  Ike warned of the the "military-industrial complex"; "government enforced philanthropy" seems a pretty good description of socialism; and many get upset over the commercialization of Christmas (funny how pretty much the same group gets upset when a store tells its employees to wish people a happy holiday.  But I digress.)

The state's job is protection.  It should have a military, a police force and courts.  It should protect those who provide food, shelter, education, insurance, sacraments and TV programs, but should not be the source of any of them.

Kinsley is right in believing the political parties will not align along libertarian-non-libertarian lines.  Nor will the Libertarian Party ever run the country.  Politics is power and power is top-down.  Libertarianism is bottom-up.  A libertarian society would not come from Washington, but from Alaskans outraged at not being allowed to drill for oil and Floridians outraged at being made to.  And Alaskans must be willing to  forgo  Floridian money for bridges while Floridians decline Alaskan money for commuter trains.

Libertarians should be less concerned with winning office and more with educating voters.  Libertarian thought informing the direction of all parties will work better than a Libertarian Party winning the White House.

In other words, I'm not as optimistic as Kinsley.

HT: Alan Sullivan

 

Health Care: The Main Issue

Michael Tanner addresses it:

Health Care Debate’s Real Issue is Who Decides.

Hint: Who sign's the doctor's check?

Foreign policy?

Coyote Blog: I Honestly Don't Understand Where We Are on Foreign Policy.

Is it then Pelosi's position that morality in foreign policy consists
of pointing out evil actions committed by our allies eighty years ago,
but avoiding calling out current evil actions by our enemies?

Except for declaring war, if I remember right, the Constitution assigns the foreign policy portfolio to the President.  This situation makes it pretty obvious why: despite her position, Pelosi is essentially a local politician who is answerable to (i.e. gets reelected by) the good people of San Fran.  She sees calling the Turks to answer for their grandparents as a winner with her voters, whatever the consequences.

I became a cynic when it hit me that politicians don't make economic decisions but political ones that have economic consequences.  Then stem cells and global warming made it clear that this principle applies throughout the sciences.  This is just another example that shows there really are no limits.

Her action has nothing to with foreign policy.  It's just the play she's decided to call on this down in the political football game.  And it just happens to have foreign policy consequences.

Nobel for Hot Air goes to...

It's official!  Al ranks right up there with Jimmuh and Yasser.

Sincere Flattery

At one time or another a surprisingly wide variety of commentators, from Freepers to Democratic Underground, et al, have drawn parallels between Hillary Clinton and Richard Nixon.

Now her campaign team even includes a burglar.

HT: Alan Sullivan

Horn Tooting

I posted this letter on helmet laws after giving up on the Ledger actually printing it.  They did yesterday.

How to get results

In my last couple of posts I mentioned the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation.  I had never heard of them until then, but today  Coyote writes about them and one way they get people to respond to surveys.

When survey gal called me on the phone last week, it was "Please don't call me any more."  When the officer with a survey form stopped me on I-4 awhile back it was "Yes, sir, I go this way often."