There was a very nice article by Tim Harford in Slate last week.

In it, Harford discussed the fact that people often make economically unsound decisions because their fear of risk and loss is way out of proportion to the actual expected costs.

I don’t blame insurance companies for taking advantage of this demand people have to hedge their risks; even when it will almost certainly make them (the people) worse off monetarily

But, I do think people would be better off if they would think about the issue, decide to try to put things into proper perspective, and resolve to discover and pursue the course that makes the most sense.

Sometimes, it makes sense to spend money to soothe one’s fears.

But, if it’s possible to reduce one’s fears by thinking about the truth of the matter, then I think we should try.

Some risks are worth taking. Becoming more comfortable with taking them will pay off in many ways.

One of my favorite stories is that of the very young Carl Friedrich Gauss outwitting a mean teacher by solving a problem intended to inflict many minutes of drudgery (adding up the numbers from 1 to 100) by quickly discovering a shortcut to the answer.

I was reminded of the story by this interesting article that examines the story in a few ways.

I guess I don’t really care if it’s true. It’s still a great story.

One reason I like it is that it shows the victory of a young child over a cruel adult who was abusing his position of power. It shows that the common assumption of which of these people is smarter can be very wrong.

But, the main reason I like it is because it’s a great tale of cleverness.

And, I really like cleverness.

(By the way, the version I was told had Gauss performing the problem as an individual punishment, rather than being the first to complete a task assigned to the entire class. Somehow, I think that’s an even better story.)

Today is the 200th anniversary of the birth of John Stuart Mill.

Cattalarchy has Mill-Fest of blog posts in celebration.

While it can be challenging at times (some really, really, long sentences, for example), I have to say that On Liberty is one of the few works that I’m happy to have been required to read in college.

I’m not often big on tradition, but a bicentennial anniversary strikes me as a good excuse to spend some time reviewing and celebrating Mill’s works.

I’m a strong believer in pursuing one’s own rational self-interest.

But, I also think it’s good to cultivate and promote virtues that may not maximize one’s prospects in every individual circumstance, but (especially if widely adopted) will help to protect and promote those things we most value in the long run.

Thus, I agree with Eugene Volokh’s recent post about Courage, Shame, and Practice.

In it, Eugene responds to a commentator who questions whether he would behave differently from those (neighbors who sought the eviction of a terror target) he had criticized.

Eugene is no Bill Whittle, but I think he makes very strong points in his own clearheaded style.

We shouldn’t be foolhardy, but we also shouldn’t be cowardly. A culture of people who are often ready and willing to protect each other is stronger and safer than one where predators can be confident that their individual threats will meet little resistance.

I particularly liked Eugene’s final paragraph:

But dark days are here, and darker still are ahead. Each of us may one day indeed face a terrible test. If we don’t perform the small acts of bravery, how will we ever be able to perform the large ones? If we don’t try to make a habit of courage — if we don’t seize, in our mostly safe and comfortable lives, the opportunities to be brave — how can we make sure that our courage will be there when we really need it?

There was also an amusing exchange in the comments, in which a commentator began his criticism of that final paragraph with “Are you psychotic?”, and Eugene replied:

Tip 1: If you want a substantive discussion, don’t start by asking the other person whether he’s psychotic.

Tip 2: Assume the other person is not psychotic, and ask yourself whether there could be a sensible interpretation of what he’s saying.

Today I heard a radio advertisement that struck me as odd.

I don’t remember it precisely but I think the ad said something like “You know how you feel when you find a $5 bill? Well, imagine how you’d feel if you found a $5 bill, and right next to it a $495 bill? That’s what it’s like to switch to Geico for your auto insurance because new Geico customers report saving an average of $500 dollars…”

I was thinking, “Yeah it’s just like that. Superficially attractive, but clearly fraudulent!”

I suspect I’m not the only one.

That should get me some more readers!

Things are heating up at the Volokh Conspiracy where the newest full-time Conspirator, Ilya Somin, has suggested that bans on public nudity and sex should be abolished (with a few exceptions) for moral and policy (rather than legal) reasons. Somin is not happy with laws that use the force of government to restrict the peaceful (although offensive to many) behavior of others merely because most people think the behavior is “Yucky.”

Eugene Volokh has also posted, coming to the defense of such bans for what seem to me to be rather flimsy attempts to justify the enforcement of conventional disapproval.

I’m with Ilya on this one. And, I think he makes a great addition to the Conspiracy. His posts have been excellent.

But, this issue is just another instance of the problem being the difficulty in satisfying people about what should be allowed “in public.” Many of these issues would largely go away if we would shrink public spaces and allow private people to control what’s allowed on their property. I suspect that most private places would support widely-held preferences and forbid behavior that offends many customers. And, there would be other places where such things would be tolerated, or even encouraged!

Everybody wins!

Except for miserable people who feel the need to control the behavior of others, even when it isn’t harming anyone. And I don’t really mind those people losing.

The Cato Institute has a new weblog: Cato@Liberty.

So far, it looks like it should be a great place to find quick-takes on recent events from the bright members of perhaps the most effective libertarian think tank.

Catallarchy has repeated their wonderful May Day tradition of posting some great essays about the legacy of communism.

Check it out!

I went to see United 93 today with my son.

I thought that it was very well done. It avoided sensationalizing the events and characters, and presented a realistic account of ordinary people dealing with extraordinary events.

The film didn’t resort to cheap tricks to appeal to the emotions of the audience. If you were moved, as I was, it’s because of the personality and ideas you brought with you to the theater.

I’m a bit surprised by how much fuss is being made over the film by those strongly for or against the Iraq war. I wouldn’t expect watching this film to change the mind, with respect to Iraq, of anybody who is aware of the uncontroversial facts of that day.

Perhaps the fact that some anti-war people think that reminding people of the events of that day will hurt support for their position says something about the quality of that position rather than anything about the movie.

I wouldn’t say anything like “All Americans Must See United 93,” but I do think it’s good and important work; and it wouldn’t be a waste of an interested person’s time.

UPDATE: One more good reason to go see the movie is to express your profound disagreement with this guy.

I think that Eugene Volokh is correct (as usual) when he criticizes the Ninth Circuit Court’s recent Harper v. Poway Unified School Dist. decision permitting a high-school to prohibit a student from wearing a T-shirt that read: “HOMOSEXUALITY IS SHAMEFUL.” Public schools should respect students’ free speech rights as much as possible; and when they are restricted, it should be in a viewpoint-neutral way.

Children aren’t sub-humans who need to be protected from some ideas in order to function. All of the reasons for why it’s important to have speech rights for adults apply to children at school. Schools should provide an environment where ideas (even unpopular ones) can be confronted and considered and criticized; not banned.

I don’t like schools.

While I agree that they provide valuable opportunities for some children, I’m confident that they do a great deal of harm, and should certainly not be compulsory. I hope that we’ll get better institutions for kids that will provide more of the benefits and fewer of the costs that traditional schools currently provide.

But, if there are going to be schools, I think that we need to move away from government-run schools and toward privately-run schools. I’m under no illusion that all private schools are better than all public schools (with respect to speech rights, or anything else), but I think we’re more likely to have an evolution toward more useful schools when they compete for the business of their customers: students and their parents.

This particular case is just reason #42893743 why the government is incompetent to manage the education of citizens.