Is voting reasonable?

I think that the correct answer is: it depends.

If the reason you’re voting is to affect the outcome of the current election, then it seems pretty unreasonable to me. As the number of voters grows, the probability of your individual vote swaying the election approaches zero. As the article I refer to later says:

Since the chance of one’s own vote proving decisive is less by several orders of magnitude than the likelihood of being maimed in an auto accident while on the way to the polls, it would seem that a truly rational person will instead devote the half hour in question to reading a good book, drinking whiskey sours, or pursuing some other end that yields a perceptible positive return.

But is there another, rational, reason to vote?

Yes, I think so. In 1992, I read an article by Loren Lomasky in Reason Magazine that still affects my thinking on this issue.

In it, Lomasky argues that rational people vote for expressive reasons rather than the instrumental reason of deciding the outcome of the election. He gives the analogies of cheering at a football game or giving a “Get Well Quick!” card to a sick friend. We don’t do these things because we expect to change the outcome (or, more precisely, that the probability of changing the outcome multiplied by the value to us of that change exceeds the cost of the action). We do them because we want to express our support. We want other people to know what we support, and to just feel good about doing something that expresses that support. If you value the returns from this expression more than the expected costs to you, then it makes sense for you to do it.

So, suppose that you favor libertarian policies, but would prefer that a Republican candidate win vs. the Democrat candidate. This election has a Libertarian candidate as well. What should you do? It seems to me that the reasonable thing to do depends on what you’re trying to accomplish.

If you’re trying to sway the election, you should forget about it and go read a good book or something.

But, if you’re voting for expressive reasons, then I think you should vote for the candidate who best represents your preferences. And that candidate is the Libertarian. I think you should do this even if you don’t really want this particular candidate to win (let’s say his approach to how to transition to libertarianism is different from yours). You should want people who analyze the results of the election to get the right message from your vote. You should want them to know that there was one more voter who favors libertarian policies, and hopefully they’ll modify their behavior to try to accomodate libertarians a bit more. But if you vote for the Republican, you’ll be sending the wrong message (or at least an ambiguous one).

So, if you want to send a libertarian message you should vote Libertarian. If you want to send a Republican message, you should vote Republican.

If you want to send a Democrat or Green message, you shouldn’t bother voting. Your vote won’t affect the outcome.

Do It For The Children!!!

I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking: “Gil, what can I do to help secure the future of reasonableness?”

I’m glad you asked.

I think that the best way to ensure that most people are reasonable in the future is to raise reasonable children. Despite what you may have heard, children start off incredibly reasonable. They have to be. They must learn thousands of things without much help. They have to form theories, and then criticize them successfully so that they can improve them and eventually discover solutions that work. This requires developing rationality.

So, if kids are so reasonable, then why do some of them grow up to be so unreasonable?

Because of their parents (and teachers and others; but mostly because of their parents). Often with the best of intentions, parents systematically inhibit their children’s ability to reason about different things and cause them to develop entrenched irrationalities.

Before we became enlightened, people in power used to think various other groups of people were inferior and needed to be coerced in order to be happy, or to at least to become cooperative. They thought this about the poor, they thought this about blacks, they thought this about women, and many of us still think this about children. It’s The Final Prejudice.

If you’re a parent, or if you plan to become a parent, or if you’re just interested in how adults should treat children, then I urge you to become familar with the information at this site. I know it will seem radical. I know that it will contradict things that Everybody Knows. But, please try to suspend your doubts until after you become familiar with the theory.

If we want to raise children who will value liberty, responsibility, and reason then we should raise them to be free, responsible, and used to resolving conflicts with good natured, creative efforts to find common preferences rather than resorting to coercion.

Taking Children Seriously (TCS) just might save the world. And even if it doesn’t, it’s still the decent and reasonable way to treat people.

Do It For The Children!

Odd Joke

I’ve always liked this joke:

Man #1: You look familiar. Did we meet at a convention in Chicago last

Man #2: No, I’ve never been to Chicago.

Man #1: Neither have I. It must have been two other guys.

I think it might be because it doesn’t follow the standard joke-pattern. It’s not just the last line that is absurd on its own. It makes you jump to a higher-level and think about how absurd the entire conversation is; that nobody would actually have said the first line.

It’s cool.


What makes things funny?

It seems like such a simple question that it must have a simple answer. But, I don’t think that there is one simple answer. I’ve always been considered funny. I’ve been good at coming up with a funny quip, telling jokes, predicting the punch lines of new jokes. I have a good internal sense of what I find funny, and what others will find funny; but I’ve never been satisfied with any explicit theory about what makes things funny.

Here are some tentative thoughts.

First of all, I’d like to distinguish between things that are funny and reasons we laugh. I think we laugh for other reasons in addition to finding things funny. We often laugh to communicate things to people; that we share values, that we’re not threatening (or that we are), etc. I’m sure there are lots of evolutionary sociological reasons that explain laughter. I’m not very interested in these.

But, what makes something funny?

The only thing that I can say that all funny things have in common is that they “tickle” our minds in an interesting way that pleases us.

I’ve heard it said that all humor is happiness at the misfortune of others. That’s not quite true, but it does seem to be the case that a lot of humor removes the dignity of somebody. Sometimes we’re being cruel to some group that’s out of favor in our local culture; but this might be more about the social aspect, like laughing, than about the pure humor. Also, we seem to like bursting the bubble of people who have a level of undeserved dignity, or superiority. That’s why bosses, teachers, politicians, priests, prudes, etc. are often the target of jokes. We are amused when they are shown to have human frailty and there’s nothing they can do to us about it. Also, slapstick seems to involve a quick transition from a noble, thinking, human to a lump of matter subjected to uncaring natural forces. We’re also amused by things that violate taboos because it’s fun to bring down those who think that some things should be off-limits to jokes. We don’t feel really threatened because humor keeps us safe from serious social attack; we were only joking, we’re not serious, etc. But being able to play with forbidden ideas is serious, and we like it.

But not all humor is like that. Some humor is just a clever turn of phrase, or double meaning, or surprise, or outrageous idea. While you might be able to find some imagined person whose dignity was diminished by the joke, I don’t think that’s what makes it funny.

I think we like to have our minds stimulated in interesting ways. We like to have to make or recognize a clever association. We like to be surprised; to have to switch contexts to see things in a new way. I think this is partially because this “cleverness” triggers a positive response. We like cleverness. We solved problems as children by changing our perspective, making new associations, etc. And we drew squeals of joy and other indications of approval from our mothers and other adults when we performed these feats. It makes sense that they would stay pleasing to us.

By the way, I realize that most funny things comprise both elements: context switch AND dignity reduction. I just wanted to make it clear that the dignity reduction wasn’t an essential part of all humor.

Anyway, these are my tentative thoughts. Criticisms are welcome.

Especially funny ones.

UPDATE 3: The book described in this post, now represents my best theory of humor.

UPDATE 2: This post is relevant.

UPDATE 1: I just heard that it’s Bob Hope’s 100th birthday today. Seems appropriate. Happy Birthday, Bob!

This Is It

Anybody who has been following the news lately is aware that there was a major event last week. I’m sure you’ve all been wondering how I’ve managed to avoid writing about it. Well, I’m finally going to address this momentous event.

Of course, I’m talking about Poodle Hat.

Poodle Hat is “Weird Al” Yankovic‘s latest album. It has been nearly four years since his prior album, Running With Scissors was released.

I’ve been enjoying Al’s brilliance ever since he first appeared on the Dr. Demento radio show in 1980. Many have tried to imitate him, but none have come close.

I liked all of the songs on Poodle Hat. The only one that I don’t really have to hear anymore is “Bob”, a song in the incomprehensible Dylan style consisting entirely of palindromes.

One bit of controversy…Eminem refused to give Al permission to do a video of “Couch Potato” (Al’s parody of Eminem’s “Lose Yourself”); proving that Eminem is more cowardly than Michael Jackson, who gave Al permission to do two of his most memorable videos, “Eat It” and “Fat”.

If you don’t appreciate Weird Al, there’s something wrong with you and you should have it checked out.

So, go out and buy the album. Don’t download tracks off the Internet, though. That would be wrong.

Protecting (or not) Innocent Third Parties

Eugene blogged about how even (most) libertarians don’t say that laws shouldn’t restrict people from engaging in activities that might (and will in the aggregate) impose costs on innocent third parties because these activities don’t harm anyone. Eugene argues that these activities do harm people. In most of these cases, he agrees with the hardcore libertarians who say that the liberty of the people engaged in behaviors that endanger others is worth preserving. But he denies that that’s because their behavior does no harm. It’s worth preserving because, on balance, it’s better and sometimes we have to weigh these things.

I think he’s right. I’m probably more libertarian (i.e. more skeptical about the ethical and practical merits of governmental interventions) than Eugene is, but even I think that a simple application of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP; basically that nobody has the right to initiate force against other people) to all cases is wrong. Sometimes we should take actions that will initate force
against people who have not directly harmed anyone. Sometimes reckless people impose uacceptable risk on innocent third parties and should be stopped before they actually harm them. I suspect we’d all draw the line somewhere (blindfolded-spinning-nuclear-weapons-juggling, anyone?).

On the other side of the coin, sometimes we must harm innocent third parties when there is no practical alternative. An example of this is waging war against an enemy who has used human shields to protect his military targets.

It sucks. It would be nice if life were simple and a trivial rule always yielded the best results. But we don’t live in a world like that. We live in this one, and sometimes it gets messy. This is not a reason to ignore the issue of coercion, or invite abuse. It does make sense to give tremendous weight to the value of liberty and innocent human life. But not infinite weight.

I think the NAP is a great general guideline. I think it encapsulates a lot of knowledge and wisdom about people and force. But it is not an immutable law of nature. It is not encoded into our DNA. There are cases when it’s unreasonable; and libertarians need a good theory to address how institutions should identify and handle these cases (including how errors can be corrected).

While looking for a good link for the NAP, I came across this article by J. Neil Schulman that I think is excellent.


Eugene Volokh has added me to his blogroll. Wow!

This is the kind of spontaneous publicity I need! My name in print! That really makes somebody! Things are going to start happening to me now.

A gold star goes to whomever correctly identifies that quote first in the comments (No fair using a search engine!).