The stock market went down quite a bit last Friday.

I often notice that this upsets lots of people who, like me, contribute regularly to broad index funds for retirement savings.

Unless one thinks that the loss indicates a severe, lasting, problem with the economy, I don’t think that this makes much sense. I admit that I like to look at my balances, and reflexively prefer to see higher paper-values to lower ones. But, a little thought helps me get over this reaction and realize that these drops are nothing to worry about.

The way I like to look at it is that one should remember the adage that it’s good to “Buy low and sell high.” One should consider whether he expects his near-term trades to be predominantly buying or selling. If it’s buying, then a temporary drop in prices is a good thing, because you’ll be getting a bargain on your purchases. As long as one expects the market to rise in the long term, he should be happy, as a buyer, to see some low prices along the way.

Michael Kinsley is a smart guy, and has written an interesting essay for Time Magazine: Libertarians Rising. Go read it. It’s short and I’ll wait.

The good news is that the success (relative to most people’s expectations) of the Ron Paul campaign has caused many people to reconsider libertarianism and the benefits to the major parties of appealing to those of us who favor libertarian policies. I’m not ready to talk about anything like the historical inevitibility of libertarian success, but I’m always happy to see hopeful signs of progress.

I’m also happy to see Kinsley write disparagingly about “Communitarians” and positively about libertarians:

And every time the Democrats lose an election, critics scold that they must put less emphasis on the sterile rights of individuals and more emphasis on responsibilities to society. That is, they should become less libertarian and more communitarian. Usually this boils down to advocating mandatory so-called voluntary national service by people younger than whoever is doing the advocating.

Libertarians and communitarians (to continue this unjustified generalizing) are different character types. Communitarians tend to be bossy, boring and self-important, if they’re not being over sweetened and touchy-feely. Libertarians, by contrast, are not the selfish monsters you might expect.

I won’t quibble with everything I disagree with in the essay (which Kinsley acknowledges is generalizing), but I feel that I must point out that the opposite of libertarianism is not communitarianism. See this article about their compatibility. The opposite of libertarianism is statism. Many libertarians favor many of the communitarian values, and in contrast to Kinsley’s characterization of them as “Smart loners, many of them rich and some of them complacently Darwinian, convinced that they don’t need society–nor should anyone else,” they often sing the praises of civil society (you’ll find this in many Cato articles, like this one).

What we oppose is the idea that the way to promote these values is through coercive state action.

I’m glad president Bush vetoed the bloated SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) bill, and I hope the veto is not overridden.

While he was wrong to favor any increase in the program, he was right to try to hold the line somewhere. He vetoed this bill for good reasons.

Maybe some more good will come from his current situation, and he’ll find the courage to make more principled vetoes.

Ilya Somin, at the Volokh Conspiracy, has written an important post about proposals for mandatory “national service.”

I’m often disappointed to hear people, who otherwise seem to respect civil rights, argue that mandatory national service is a good idea.

As Ilya points out, mandatory national service is forced labor. It’s morally repulsive.

We don’t seem to be under an imminent threat of its passage, but unless there is widespread recognition of the nature of this awful idea we’re only one crisis away from it. And then, who knows how long after the crisis has passed it will take before the program is ended?

Since the Supreme Court has been unwilling to recognize the military draft as involuntary servitude (and thus, a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution), we can’t rely on it to protect us from a broader government institution of slavery.

Instead, we have to rely on general recognition that a govenment slavery program is a very bad idea.

UPDATE: Somin has posted some interesting follow-ups to this post. Go here to see all of the related posts.

I’m a huge fan of Mel Brooks’ movie Young Frankenstein.

So, when I went to see the musical (last day in Seattle, before moving on to Broadway) with my son today, I was both excited, and worried that the play might butcher the classic movie.

Fortunately, the play was great. Most of the gags from the movie were left intact, some with few cute twists. And the songs were fun.

I hadn’t realized that Meagan Mullally (of Will & Grace fame) was going to play Elizabeth (Frankenstein’s fiancée; played by Madeline Kahn in the film). That was inspired casting, and she did a great job.

Anyway, if you get a chance to catch the play, give it a shot.

I’ve never found feminism to be very convincing at explaining the world, as I observed it.

So, I was pleased to come across this speech transcript (by Roy F. Baumeister) that seems to give very sensible and enlightening explanations for some of the differences we find between men and women.

The thesis is that these differences arise from dispositions that have evolved from the different roles the genders have played throughout human history. Successful (at propagating) women were more disposed towards maintaining intimate relationships with individuals, and successful men were more disposed towards thriving in more shallow relationships with larger groups. Women performed the vital role of raising children, and men were engaged in developing cultural institutions. These cultural institutions have become more important in modern times (and the source of much wealth, power, and knowledge), and men’s dominance in them explains the inequality that feminists abhor (and explain with silly conspiracy theories). Also, successful women were more conservative, while successful men were more likely to be risk-takers.

I’m probably not doing it justice, so go read it yourself!

HT: Richard Chappell

A co-worker sent me a link to this picture the other day:

Geek humor, but I liked it.

I wonder why?

Ever since Hillary Clinton distanced herself from the word “liberal” in the YouTube debate, bloggers and commentators have been discussing the leftist retreat from “liberal” towards “progressive.”

I think people should be able to call themselves whatever they want (short of intentional fraud), so I don’t really care that much about it.

But, I have always thought that it was interesting that the left has chosen labels that mean the opposite of what they actually stand for. And, it seems like now that they have completely ruined the word “liberal”, they’re moving on to the next one.

I agree that they have some social views that are progress when compared to the worst of conservatives, but their economic views are progressive only in the Marxist sense (“progressing” from capitalism to socialism to communism). I don’t think that moving from individualism towards collectivism is progress. It’s regressive!

I like Don Boudreaux’s take:

…

Of course, when medieval superstitions, stasis and status eventually gave way to individualism, society did not collapse. It thrived as never before. Great cities were built. The profit motive led entrepreneurs to invent lifesaving medicines, more abundant food supplies, vibrant cultural products available to anyone who wished to partake in them and creature comforts undreamed of by even the wealthiest medieval monarchs.

In short, individualism — and the freedom and free markets that it entails — sparked and sustained progress as never before.

Today’s “Progressives” seek a return to the status and static society in which the few direct and “protect” the many. That, of course, is the
opposite of genuine progress.

I recently read Douglas Hofstadter‘s I Am A Strange Loop.

If, like me, you enjoyed his classic book: Gödel, Escher, Bach, I think you’ll probably enjoy this one as well. It’s not as ambitious a work, but it shares a lot of the marvelously clever features; it’s fun to read, has brilliant analogies and word-play, etc (take a look at the last two footnotes, or his insanely elaborate index). Hofstadter writes that the book is to elaborate on the central theme of GEB (which was missed by many readers): “GEB is a very personal attempt to say how it is that animate beings can come out of inanimate matter. What is a self, and how can a self come out of stuff that is as selfless as a stone or a puddle?”

The book also has a different character, being a lot more personal, with many of the anecdotes coming from his own life. I probably didn’t appreciate this aspect as much as many others will. I love riding along with him in the world of scientific ideas, and thinking about thinking. It became less fun for me to see glimpses of his political leftism or his musical snobbery. But these were very short detours along a most enjoyable journey.

One thing that occured to me as I was completing the book was that it should probably be added to the recent spate of books challenging theism (including: Breaking the Spell, The God Delusion, God Is Not Great). But, unlike the latter two, rather than being antagonistic towards religion and the religious, it offers compelling natural explanations that help to address some of the deepest mysteries that tend to motivate religious thinking.

Addressing religious arguments head-on has its place and can be valuable. But, I suspect that Hofstadter’s enjoyable explanations will prove more effective at bringing people around to his way of thinking about souls and consciousness and life.

Will Wilkinson has chosen to today to “Cast aspersion on unthinking patriotism.”

Unthinking patriotism is, indeed, a bad thing. But, I think many celebrate the great principles that America was founded upon, some of which were expressed in the Declaration of Independence, rather than a blind allegiance to this government, or this place.

As Will writes:

Indepedence Day ought not be a celebration of this place, America, its imaginary history, and the imaginary solidarity of its people. It ought to be a celebration of the universal ideal of a society in which all are equally without right to rule one another and equally invested with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — a celebration of the ideals of the Declaration.

So, let’s not celebrate tribalism.

Let’s celebrate the great political ideals that America represents. Ideals that form a necessary foundation for general human flourishing. Let’s honor those who have defended those ideals. And, let’s recognize that people everywhere should benefit from those ideals; no matter where they were born or where they live.