I think that Google, whose informal motto is “Don’t Be Evil,” has been failing to live up to that motto.

They’ve been trying to use the government to force Microsoft to make it more convenient and practical for users of Microsoft’s Vista operating system to replace the built-in desktop search functionality with Google’s own (free) alternative software.

Critics of antitrust enforcement, such as that against Microsoft, have warned that it would be used as a weapon to protect competitors, rather than consumers; and Google is proving them correct. There’s been no outcry for this redundant functionality from consumers. And, while I suspect Microsoft would have improved the ease of replacement of search software if enough consumers asked for it, it’s perfectly understandable that they didn’t make it a priority when pushing to complete their initial version of the operating system.

I don’t have a problem with Google trying to encourage Microsoft to open this area up to competition. I do have a problem with them using the force of government to do it for them.

Also, I think Google should be careful about getting into this game. Their dominance of web-search, and financial success, has made them a potential target of others (competitors and politicians) who would exploit antitrust laws for their own benefit.

I really like this post by Russ Roberts at Cafe Hayek.

In it, Roberts explains why he thinks we should fight a policy like the ban on trans fats, rather than let it go because it’s really “No big deal.”

The argument is that, while each individual encroachment on liberty is not a big deal, in the aggregate we do lose a great deal. And, if we talk ourselves out of fighting each small incremental loss, we’ll find that we have lost a lot.

This reminds me of a problem with diet and exercise. It’s easy to convince yourself that one instance of having a snack that’s off your diet, or skipping one exercise session will not have a great impact on your goals. It’s easy because it’s true, and I think it’s reasonable to go ahead and indulge in these things on occasion.

The danger, though, is making this argument with yourself every time! Even though each instance has a small effect, the total effect of adopting this policy can be dramatic. Whether straying from our personal plans, or defending important political principles, we can find that what we’ve lost through repeated “No big deal” arguments is much harder to get back than it would have been to maintain through consistent support of good policies (and resistance to bad ones).

I’ve been reading about plans for an Atlas Shrugged film or TV mini-series for over 20 years (and apparently they began before that).

But now, it looks like there’s active development on the movie(s). They say that Angelina Jolie is confirmed to play Dagny Taggart and Brad Pitt is rumored to be cast as John Galt.

I understand that the principals all “get” and appreciate the novel, and are dedicated to doing it justice.

I hope it turns out well.

I’ve been commuting on the bus for the last few months. Not because I think it will help with global warming, but because the company I’m working for pays for it, and I thought letting somebody else drive would be less stressful. It doesn’t save me time, but I think it’s an improvement.

One major benefit is that I have so much time, with so few options, that I’ve been able to catch up on my reading. I’m actually reading fiction again.

So, what I wanted to pass along is that after reading and enjoying John Scalzi’s Old Man’s War, I read the sequel: The Ghost Brigades. And, I enjoyed that even more! I think I’ll read the rest of his works, now. He’s got a great sense of humor. Check his works out, if you get a chance.

Sorry I haven’t posted for quite a while. I didn’t have much original to say about the Virginia Tech shootings, or any other news lately.

Here’s an odd thing I thought about recently, though. I’m not sure what
the point is, but I figured it was something I could pass along…

I must have heard the Mac Davis song: “Hard To Be Humble” dozens of times since 1980. I always found it cute and amusing. One part of it goes like this:

Some folks say that I’m “egotistical”,

Hell, I don’t even know what that means!

I guess it has something to do with the way

That I fill out my skin-tight blue jeans.

I always thought it was just funny/silly; that this conceited hick didn’t understand the word, and just assumed, egotistically, that it was a positive reference to his form.

But, I heard the lines the other day and thought for the first time that maybe it was also a play on the similarity between the last three syllables of “egotistical” and “testicle”. That would better explain the jump from an unfamiliar word to the filling out of his “skin-tight blue jeans.”

I have no idea if that’s right (I couldn’t find any corroboration on the net with a quick search), but it just struck me as odd that I made a connection this time that I failed to make all of the previous times I’d heard the lines.

It’s just another example of how strange brains are (especially mine).

I’ve been very loosly following recent discussions about happiness research and public policy implications. By far, the best observations I’ve seen have come from Will Wilkinson, who has a new paper out that everyone interested in the subject should read.

There’s also a new Cato Unbound discussion on the subject in which Wilkinson will participate (he’s also the managing editor).

It’s that discusson that moved me to post.

In today’s reaction essay, psychology professor Barry Schwartz defends the idea that “societies” should pursue happiness. The essay is mostly a game of semantics that doesn’t really address the real challenges made in the lead essay.

But, what really annoyed me was this bit defending the thesis of Richard Layard:

Layard’s argument, in essence, is that one of the things nations do is pursue policies. Given that nations pursue policies, they ought to be pursuing policies that promote the welfare of their citizens.

Hidden behind the harmless-looking phrase “pursue policies” is the fact that governments do things with force. What he’s saying is that’s it’s a given that governments coerce people to do things against their will, so we might as well have a lot more of it in a direction that he likes. That doesn’t follow from anything that’s “given” at all.

If he wants to argue that the best way to help people to be happier is to point guns at them (or threaten to) and take away their hard-earned wealth and freedom to make choices for themselves, then he should have the honesty to say so directly. I suspect he’d find that sort of direct claim much harder to defend than his dancing around the issue. If he isn’t talking about naked coercion, then he shouldn’t be talking about nations “pursu[ing] policies”. Nobody (that I know of) objects to private groups promoting happiness through voluntary projects.

It seems to me that this happiness research is a lot like Barack Obama. It doesn’t really say anything definitive, and everyone sees what they want to see in it.

Schwartz also repeats the suggestion that research indicates that “Increased affluence is in many ways decreasing welfare.”

If he believes this, then I hereby offer him the opportunity to relieve himself of some of his burden (let’s say $10,000), by sending it to me. Since he seems to think it would help, he could pay some thug to force him to send it to me.

He thinks the extra affluence is making him less happy, and I think it would make me more happy.

It’s a win-win!

Here’s something else I’ve been meaning to pass along.

Last week Don Boudreaux, at Cafe Hayek wrote a post with a brilliant thought experiment to show how foolish the mercantilist ideas on trade are:

The poisonous core of mercantilism, you see, features the silly belief that a nation’s wealth lies in what its people produce rather than in what its people consume.

Mercantilism also includes the myth that protecting domestic producers of high-value consumption items makes the domestic economy thrive. Again I ask: suppose a generous Namibian scientist discovers a very inexpensive way to combine table salt, tap water, and ordinary bread crumbs into a medicine that cures — and inoculates against — cancer, tuberculosis, and erectile disfunction. This generous scientist gives his knowledge away for free, publishing it on the web so that ordinary men and women throughout the world can, at virtually zero cost, protect themselves from these diseases.

Would Americans be made worse off as a result? Treating these diseases today is big business. People pay lots of money for treatment by highly skilled specialists, as well as lots of money for medicines made by other highly skilled specialists. Does America’s wealth lie in the production of these high-valued outputs? Or does America’s wealth lie in Americans’ ability to consume these high-valued outputs — in our ability to take steps to cure ourselves of these ailments?

It’s true that, given the current scarcity of resources and knowledge that enable us to cure ourselves of these awful diseases, the prices that we willingly pay for access to high-quality treatments are high. Hence, the remuneration of the specialists who provide these treatments is generally high. But it is a mistake to assume that we are made wealthy by the existence of such high-paying jobs — for such an
assumption implies that the greater the number of obstacles that we face, the wealthier we become.

If Prof. Morici’s mercantilist logic were correct, then America would become a poorer place if an inexpensive sure-cure for cancer, tuberculosis, and erectile dysfunction were discovered and information about it widely distributed. But clearly we would be wealthier, not poorer, if such a wonderful discovery were made — just as we are wealthier the greater is our access to low-cost goods and services produced wherever, even abroad.

So, what do we want? Do we want to deny ourselves more cost-effective solutions to problems that are produced abroad in order to protect less cost-effective domestic solution-providers?

To me, the question answers itself. We should avail ourselves of the best value that we can get to solve our problems. Yes, some people will have to adjust when foreign competition makes their jobs unnecessary, or less valuable. But, we’ll all be better off in the aggregate, and even those who have to change will also benefit from all of the better options they have because of free-trade in other industries.

I know that there are people who take the other position, but I really want to believe that they are just unfamiliar with the arguments for free-trade, rather than incredibly stupid or evil.

For a while now, I’ve been meaning to comment on Tyler  Cowen‘s recent contribution  to the Cato  Unbound discussion (Libertarianism: Past and Prospects, a discussion  prompted by a lead  essay by Brian Doherty, author of the recently published Radicals  for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American  Libertarian Movement). I recommend that you read the whole  discussion. In fact, I recommend that you regularly read Cato Unbound.

Cowen is a brilliant guy who knows a lot more than I do about many  things. I appreciate his unconventional, contrarian takes on a lot of  issues. Perhaps I, and others, are over-reacting to his provocative  points, but I do think that what he has said deserves criticism.

Basically, his main point seems to be that libertarian influences have improved government (by making the more outrageous economic  interventions out-of-bounds) and have helped to make many of us more  wealthy. Paradoxically, he says, these changes make people demand more  from government, not less, and further libertarian advances become more  difficult.

So far, so good.

But, then he seems to argue that libertarians should stop resisting big government and accept that growing wealth and growing government is a package deal. He repeats this, but never makes a real argument that it is so.

The closest he comes is this:

…No, we should not be extreme fatalists, but the welfare state is here  to stay, whether we like it or not.

The bottom line is this: human beings have deeply rooted impulses to take newly acquired wealth and spend some of it on more government and  especially on transfer payments. Let’s deal with that.

It’s hard to argue that this isn’t true, but it’s easy to argue that it  isn’t an eternal truth that will always control the institutions of  government.

I think that human beings have deeply rooted impulses to control the communication of others, but we’ve managed to spread respect for the freedoms protected by the First Amendment enough that we have a consensus that it’s valuable to protect speech, even if we don’t like the speech. I don’t see why economic liberty needs to be different.

Cowen may be right that we shouldn’t be disappointed if we don’t make  dramatic progress in the near future, but I think it’s bad advice (if  that’s what this is) that we should stop advocating it.

Cowen then goes on to list some potential global issues that may require big government to address. Whether he’s right about these things or not, it doesn’t actually support his arguments against resisting the growing  welfare state.

There has been quite a bit of libertarian reaction to the essay,  including Arnold Kling and Bryan Caplan and Tom  G. Palmer. But, the best reaction I’ve seen so far comes from Gene  Healy. Among other good points, he writes:

If the welfare state impedes human flourishing, if the drug war is an abomination, if the New Deal constitutional revolution was an intellectual fraud from top to bottom, then libertarians ought to say those things. Because they’re true. Because they’re not said often enough. And because describing the world accurately is the first step towards changing it.

What sort of changes are possible? Who knows? But even if you think the  best we can hope for is a less-awful welfare state, don’t underestimate  the clarifying effect of bold, uncompromising ideas. Such ideas can help  make positive, incremental reforms possible. The welfare reform we got  in 1996 — generally a good thing — looks more like Robert  Rector’s program than Charles Murray’s “end welfare” thought  experiment in Losing  Ground. But would we have gotten that sort of reform if Murray  had decided that imagining a world without welfare wasn’t worth the effort?

Last week my brother mentioned that while watching an episode of 1 vs. 100 he noticed that they asked a question that was the equivalent of:

Which of the following containers can hold all of the blood from an
average human adult?

a) A 1-quart pitcher

b) A 2-liter bottle

c) A 2-gallon jug

I’m not certain that these were the choices but I’m pretty sure about the last two.

My brother realized that you didn’t have to know anything about how much blood is in a human body, because if you know that the c) has the largest capacity, it can’t be wrong. The question didn’t say anything about which came closest to the exact amount; just which was large enough to hold it all. Even if b) were closer, c) isn’t wrong.

In last night’s episode of Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader? they asked something like:

If you cross the northern border of the United States, which country would you be in?

Obviously, they expected the answer to be: Canada.

My son said something like “The northern-most border is to the north of Alaska, and I don’t think there is a country to the north of that.”

I said “The question doesn’t say you have to be heading north, so if you cross any northern border of the United States going south, you’ll be in the United States. So, saying the United States shouldn’t be wrong.”

My point, besides that I have a family of smart-asses, is that game show writers should be more careful when formulating questions. Especially when there’s a lot of money at stake. It’s hard to believe that people get paid high salaries to write these questions without taking care to remove ambiguity.

I agree with Jonathan Adler.

The Muffin Joke is funny:

So there are these two muffins baking in an oven. One of them yells, “Wow, it’s hot in here!” And the other muffin replies: “Holy cow! A talking muffin!”

I realize that the John Tierney article was more about laughter than humor, but it should have acknowledged the humor in the joke.