The Most Libertarian Superhero

I recently found out that the Green Lantern is making a run for the mayor of Washington D.C. He is even running against Spider-Man, Superman, Batwoman and The Atom. Although these heroes have proven themselves qualified in saving lives, I'm not so sure they would get my vote in an political election. So then who would a self respecting comic book nerd libertarian want as his mayor?

The obvious choice is Batman. By taking the law into their own hands vigilantes are inherently libertarian, but Batman is most famous for this. This can be clearly seen in my favorite Batman comic to date: All Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder by Frank Miller. You can also see his anti-government roots in my favorite comic of all time Red Son. Here Batman rises to stop a power hungry soviet Superman (trust me its worth reading). There even seems to be an economic incentive in Batman/Bruce Wayne's actions:

At times, the Batman movies even hint at the possibility that big businessmen actually have a self-interested incentive to help provide the public good of reducing violent crime. After all, they stand to lose a lot of profit if high crime rates reduce investment and drive away their customers and skilled workers. Precisely because of the vast size of his firm, Wayne has less incentive to free ride on the crime-fighting efforts of others in providing the public good of crime control. He will capture enough of the benefits of crime-fighting to justifying investing in it, even if he has to pay a very high proportion of the costs himself.

However, if you take a closer look you realize Batman is more of an fringe conservative than a libertarian. He is regularly breaking up shipments brought into Gotham that have not been regulated by the city. He is a staunch advocate for limiting drug use and gambling. And most importantly, his solution to the problem of crime is not better laws, but better politicians. "I believe in Harvey Dent" is the mantra of the most recent Batman film. This sounds more like an an Obama fan than a libertarian to me.

The second obvious answer comes from another recent film, The Watchmen. Rorschach is the moral voice of the series. He will, in his own words, "Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon." Even the DC characters he was based on, Mr A and The Question, seem to lean libertarian. There is even a hint of the importance of personal choice written in his journal:

Dog carcass in alley this morning, tire tread on burst stomach. This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout "Save us!"... and I'll look down and whisper "No." They had a choice, all of them. They could have followed in the footsteps of good men like my father or President Truman. Decent men who believed in a day's work for a day's pay. Instead they followed the droppings of lechers and communists and didn't realize that the trail led over a precipice until it was too late. Don't tell me they didn't have a choice. Now the whole world stands on the brink, staring down into bloodly Hell, all those liberals and intellectuals and smooth-talkers... and all of a sudden nobody can think of anything to say.

However, whereas Batman was a long term optimist, hoping one day to hangup his cape and cowl, Rorschach seems to think man is corrupted to a point of hopelessness. But libertarians are optimists. We see how much life has improved, we see the silver lining of hard times, and we certainly don't see Harry Truman as a role model.

Although I am big fans of Batman and Rorschach, their love of freedom pales in comparison to the most libertarians superhero, V. Like our previous heroes he's a little crazy, but his insanity drives him to an anarchist libertarianism unspoiled by traditional conservatism. He has a defense of terrorists that only our founding fathers could appreciate. And he able to do what all libertarians dream to do, influence the people to stand up and take back the liberty they deserve:

Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot.

Economics of The Economist

In a time when print media is going the way of beepers, The Economist is holding its own:

Unlike its rivals, The Economist has been unaffected by the explosion of digital media; if anything, the digital revolution has cemented its relevance. The Economist has become an arbiter of right-thinking opinion (free-market right-center, if you want to be technical about it; with a dose of left-center social progressivism) at a time when arbiters in general are in ill favor. It is a general-interest magazine for an ever-increasing audience, the self-styled global elite, at a time when general-interest anything is having a hard time interesting anybody. And it sells more than 75,000 copies a week on U.S. newsstands for $6.99 (!) at a time when we’re told information wants to be free and newsstands are disappearing.

But why?

The Economist prides itself on cleverly distilling the world into a reasonably compact survey. Another word for this is blogging, or at least what blogging might be after it matures—meaning, after it transcends its current status as a free-fire zone and settles into a more comprehensive system of gathering and presenting information. As a result, although its self-marketing subtly sells a kind of sleek, mid-last-century Concorde-flying sangfroid, The Economist has reached its current level of influence and importance because it is, in every sense of the word, a true global digest for an age when the amount of undigested, undigestible information online continues to metastasize. And that’s a very good place to be in 2009.

True, The Economist virtually never gets scoops, and the information it does provide is available elsewhere … if you care to spend 20 hours Googling. But now that information is infinitely replicable and pervasive, original reporting will never again receive its due. The real value of The Economist lies in its smart analysis of everything it deems worth knowing—and smart packaging, which may be the last truly unique attribute in the digital age.

And you thought blogging wouldn't last.

Safety and the Law of Unintended Consequences

In a recent post I showed how child safety laws are based on their cost and benefits. Here's a John Stossel piece on whether bike helmets are worth the cost:
If parents have such a hard time assessing risk for their own children, how much better can politicians assess the risk for millions of Americans?

Why I'll Probably Never Vote for a Democrat

One of the main differences between liberals and conservatives (by the American definition of those words) is who they fear. Liberals fear unchecked businesses, whereas conservatives tend to fear unchecked government (or at least based on their rhetoric). Here is a video from Zimbabwe, that helps show why I usually side with the conservatives. I challenge you to find an example of a bad business that has done anything remotely as destructive as bad governments (think Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-il, and Castro).

Economics of Child Safety

Child safety laws in cars are so extreme that most parents don't even follow them. For example, in my state of North Carolina, a child must be in a restraint device until they are older than 8 years old and over 80 lbs. And yet, parents are allowed to fly in planes while holding their children. In response to this very question, the FAA stated that:

the cost of an extra ticket could force parents to travel by car instead. Car crashes are the leading cause of death for children. On the other hand, the problem of child safety in air travel, the F.A.A. said, 'barely exists.'

This is a good example of how hard it is for people to assess risk. As this graphic explains (thanks Justin) you actually have a better chance of dying on a bicycle than in a plane.

Worthwhile Sentences on People

From Alex Tabarrok Jacqueline Novogratz: "Philanthropy can appeal to people who want to be loved more than they want to make a difference."

From Arnold Kling summarizing Thomas Sowell: "the [political] right thinks that social problems primarily reflect basic constraints, while the left thinks that they reflect the failure of good to triumph over evil."

From Walter Williams: "Having been around for 73 years, I have been through a number of names. Among the polite ones are: colored, Negro, Afro-American, black, and now African-American. Among those names, African-American is probably the most unintelligent."

From Allison Schrager: "Like most people, I am far too self-involved to make it as a cheat."

From Tyler Cowen: "take the smartest person you know and put him or her on TV for hours a week, for years, and see what happens."

*Past worthwhile sentences.

Economics of "Hello"

If you've ever lived in a small town or, in my case, went to college in a small town, you may have noticed strangers like to say "hello" to each other. But go to any big city and you'll notice no one says hello on the street. Here are some possible reasons why:

1) In big cities the opportunity cost of saying hello is high because there many other things to do. People vacation in big cities because there is always something fun going on. Time spent talking to strangers is more expensive to busy city dwellers.

2) In America making eye contact with someone usually results in a polite hello. So the less eye contact there is, the less hellos there will be. In big cities there is a large number of commuters, vacationers and just plain people. Your likelihood of seeing someone you know on the street is pretty low. So you look at peoples faces less, make eye contact less, and say hello less.

3) If you say hello to one person, you usually say hello to all people. In a small town you may pass a few people every so often. In a big city you are constantly walking pass strangers and can't be expected to say hello to all of them. This may be why people on boats wave to each other, but people in cars do not.

4) Most big cities are in the North where the weather is colder. When people dress warmly you see less of their face. Less face to face contact will result in less hellos. This could be another explanation of why people on boats (or motorcycles or convertibles) wave to each other.

5) Because of reasons 1, 2, 3, and 4 most big cities have created a culture of people that don't say hello. It's like the final episode of Seinfeld when Jerry, George, Kramer, and Elaine are weired out that people in the small town keep saying hello to them. A lasting cultural norm may increase the cost of saying hello and ensure that New Yorkers are always rude.

More Celebrities, More Celebrity Deaths

In the last week or so, Steve McNair, Karl Malden, Billy Mays, Farrah Fawcett, Ed McMahon, and Michael Jackson have all died. Is this a series of freak occurances or a signal of an increasing trend? After the coverage of the death of Billy Mays, it occured to me that this increase in celebrity deaths is due to an increase in celebrities. We live in a time where information is so free flowing that a man known only for selling cleaning products becomes the top searched item on Google. There are even websites dedicated to keeping you up to date on famous deaths (www.celebritydeaths.net and www.hollywoodmemoir.com). With movies, music, TV (reality TV), YouTube, blogs, etc, there are so many ways to have your name known. I imagine the list of "famous people" was much smaller even just a generation ago.

Baptists, Bootleggers, and Wal-Mart

In case you haven't heard, Wal-Mart has come out in support of Obama's plan to force employers to provide health insurance to workers. What you haven't heard, is why:

I find it hard to believe that none of the liberal commentators breathlessly celebrating Wal-Mart's "capitulation" on national health care have even entertained the most parsimonious explanation: that Wal-Mart is in favor of this because it raises the barriers to entry in the retail market, and hammers Wal-Mart's competition.

Politics makes strange bedfellows. Here is another example from Clemson University economics professor (and all around nice guy) Bruce Yandle's famous paper: Bootleggers and Baptists: The Education of a Regulatory Economist.

Economics of Capture

From TechCrunch (thanks to Justin):

In November 2008, Rohde was captured and held hostage by the Taliban, along with a local reporter, Tahir Ludin, and their driver, Asadullah Mangal. But until he managed to escape, most of the general public had absolutely no clue. To prevent Rohde’s value in the eyes of his captors from rising, the New York Times kept more than 35 major news organizations from reporting on the story. They believed that the publicity from reporting his capture would inflate the value of Rohde’s life, increasing the difficulty of negotiating for Rohde’s release. Keeping 35 news organizations quiet was actually not the hard part - but staving off Wikipedia users from publishing the news? That was a bit trickier.

This story is interesting to me for a couple reasons. One, that the price of a prisoner is derived from the public. The more we want people free, the more the government will pay/do to free them. If people don't know, the hostages are worthless. Compare this to President Carter's headache, the Iran hostage crisis. There were repeated rescue attempts that all that failed (because they were valuable to the captors). Where as these hostages were able to climb over a wall and run away.

The other interesting part is how this story almost broke in the New York Times (the largest metropolitan newspaper in the US) and Wikipedia. I've posted before on how accurate Wikipedia is, but this is proof that they are also where news comes first. Although I'm happy they were able to keep the story suppressed for a while, I'm comforted that it was so difficult to keep such an important story quiet.