Thanks For The Memories

Bob Hope died late last night at 100.

I’ve always enjoyed and admired Hope for his great humor and cleverness; but also for his tireless efforts to entertain American troops wherever they were stationed.

He said he wanted to be remembered “for the laughs.”

He will be, and for much more.


Tyler Cowen has been blogging about telemarketing at the Volokh Conspiracy here, here, here, here and here.

In that last post Tyler says:

YOU ARE EMBOLDENING ME: Being a contrarian by nature, the more you all attack telemarketing, the more I like it.

The ideal situation would be to have a market in telemarketing. That is, you could contract for how many calls you would receive, and what kind of calls. You might, for instance, get a discount on your phone service for allowing ten calls a month, or whatever. Plus we can imagine various kinds of intermediaries, perhaps computer-based in nature, to “screen” your calls, offering to take them at varying prices, based on your previous instructions.

I can imagine fifteen reasons why this is impractical, but I bet that lasts only for a short time. Europe has already experimented with lower cost phone service, if you are willing to hear an ad before you place a call (see my What Price Fame? on this, updates on where it has gone, if anywhere, would be welcome).

So five years from now we could have such a market. Now, does the do not call list hasten or slow down this development? On one hand, it may hasten it, by forcing telemarketers to buy consent. On the other hand, the blanket prohibition of the list may make it harder to arrange these future transactions. After all, you would first have to get your name off the list, I wonder how responsive our government would be, and how liability would work if there were mistakes, lags, etc.

I could imagine that a do not call list could make it harder to make the transition to a real market in unsolicited phone calls. In which case we are back to the do not call list as perhaps being a bad thing.

I think he’s right that we should have a market in phone-call access. Telemarketing isn’t all bad. Some people like to get these calls. Most of us wouldn’t mind an occasional interruption if it was for something that we’d be likely to be interested in, and/or if we could get paid for it a price we specify. And it’s an interesting question whether the Do-Not-Call list will help or hinder our path to this.

I currently think it will help, because before we can have a market in phone-call access, we need a legal framework that obliges marketers to comply with the wishes of the recipients. The Do-Not-Call program is a crude, but first, attempt at this.

We probably also need a similar mechanism to address e-mail spam. And, perhaps, even snail mail junk-mail since unwanted snail mail imposes costs on us, too. It takes our time to sort through, and if we get a lot of junk mail we’re more likely to miss an important message in the pile.

But, I think he’s wrong to consider this as a purely economic issue. I think there are rights involved and these should supersede consideration of whether violating them maximizes aggregate want-satisfaction. I think people should be able to avoid unwanted interruptions in their home by taking steps to declare which messages are welcome, which are not, etc. This should be respected, and violating these wishes is wrong, even if some people actually want interruptions and allowing interruptions would lead to more genuine want-satisfaction than a simple “No Solicitors” mechanism would.

To see what I mean, consider this: If you were to find that there would be an aggregate increase of true want-satisfaction if men forced themselves on women who said “No” (some of them really mean “Yes” and many of the men are really interested, etc.), would you advocate allowing it?

So, I agree that telemarketing can be a good thing, but I insist that it must be voluntary. I think it’s important to give recipients control of who can access them in their homes.


This exchange between congressman John Dingell and Ward Connerly is amusing but embarrassing to me as a citizen (as is this recent incident).

The congressman was so proud of his stupid letter that he put a link to it on his web page. What an idiot!

I’m glad Connerly’s response got published. It’s pretty good.


We just got the Fourth Season DVD set of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and we’re loving it. Excellent quality and some cool special features.

I was a latecomer to Buffy. I saw the movie a long time ago and didn’t like it that much. And, I’m not usually big on fantasy stories that center on magic and demons, etc.. But, lately, I’ve been watching old epsodes (captured by Tivo) with my son and having a blast. The writing is excellent. The dialog is great, the action is fun, the characters are interesting, and the stories often involve interesting and important ideas.

So, if you aren’t already into Buffy, you might want to check it out. And if you are, but don’t have the DVDs, I can at least recommend the Fourth Season set. The descriptions of the earlier seasons’ sets didn’t strike me as being quite as compelling (hard to say why), but they might be worthwhile also.


Wow. I just noticed that somebody hit this site by searching Yahoo for: anti-Masturbation device for your son.

I’m hoping that it was just a search out of morbid curiosity, and not out of an intent to inflict such a thing on someone.

Let there be no ambiguity. This blog supports the right of people to masturbate. And to dance. And to do weird web searches. Any attempts to prohibit people from ever doing these things are evil.



There has been a great deal of discussion online lately about whether gay marriages should be allowed, or whether the Federal Marriage Amendment should be passed, etc.

My opinion (the reasonable one, of course) is that there’s no good reason to deny homosexuals the legal benefits of marriage nor the social recognition of their relationships.

But, the larger issue that this brings up is: Why is this a legal issue at all? Why should the government be in the business of deciding whether or not to promote or disparage particular relationships? Is that really required to secure liberty?

A lot of these controversial issues (e.g. teaching Creationism along with Evolution in schools) are only problems because the state has gone way beyond its proper scope. The government should set up the minimum framework required to protect people from force and fraud and otherwise leave people free to define and pursue their own relationships, values, etc.

I understand that many legal issues (e.g. inheritance, immigration, child custody, forced testimony, etc.) hinge on whether there is a special relationship between people and we use marriage as a surrogate for these. It’s an easy “bright line” to test for that makes enforcement simpler. But these issues can be resolved by appropriate contracts and tests to satisfy the requirements of each situation.

We should be past the days when all of people’s religious values have to be enshrined in the law.

I realize that many traditions encapsulate a lot of knowledge, but why do they have to be defined legally? If some groups want to recognize some relationships as “marriage” and not others, let them set up private organizations to grant their official seal of approval (as with Kosher foods) and leave the government out of it.

Immoral Bush

Ok, I defended Bush and his administration in the last post. Now it’s time to bash them.

I don’t know that much about Bush, personally; but my sense is that he’s probably basically a decent guy. He’s certainly not as dumb as many liberals would like to believe, but probably not as clever as many conservatives would like to believe. I think we’re pretty lucky that he was president during 9/11 because he and his advisors have a good sense of what the problem is and how it must be faced.

But, I’m not one of those who is comforted by his religion-guided sense of morality. It bothers me a lot. It’s a bit scary to me that he seems to believe that he’s on a mission from God. I’m disturbed by his proclamations about how “America” has decided to act to do various things to address all the badness in the world (as evidenced on his recent trip to Africa). He is not America. He’s its servant. He should remember whose money and lives he is committing.

And his economic policy is immoral. Republicans complain about the problems of big government, and have always blamed the Democrats. But now we have a Republican-controlled White House, Senate, House of Representatives and we have record-breaking overspending. We’ve seen huge agricultural subsidies, tarrifs on steel and timber, new drug benefits, etc. It’s an attack on the economy and economic liberty of the country; now and in the far future, all for the sake of winning the next election. It’s awful.

Perhaps I’m wrong and this is all an incredibly clever scheme to fight big government. Perhaps this is necessary to gain a stronger control of the congress, and make it politically feasible to address the crisis that this will help bring about; with massive cuts to spending, regulations, and programs; as well as the approval of liberty-respecting Supreme Court nominees.

This is a case where I hope I’m wrong. But I suspect I’m not.