James Buchanan

Radley Balko has an interesting essay discussing the importance of James Buchanan on the occasion of his passing.  If anything, Buchanan's public choice theory attempts to explain the behavior of political actors and the tenacity of government programs. Is there a competitor that does a job at least as well? 

The Appropriate Lens

This is not an original thought, but perhaps the contrastive terms--Republicans/Democrats, conservative/liberal,  right/left--have lost their usefulness.  Perhaps a better distinction in politics would be to classify those who would tend to see the state as the best tool for accomplishing good ends versus those who don't.  One word used to describe the former is "statist."  For the latter, one could use "libertarian," although this carries too much baggage.  Maybe "nonstatist" would be better. 

I was thinking of this when I read this article by Nina Totenberg, in which she discusses Missouri v. McNeely.  McNeely was stopped under suspicion of drunk driving.  He refused a breathalyzer test.  The police drew a blood sample without a warrant.  The Missouri State Supreme Court argued that this was a violation of the Fourth Amendment's proscription against search/seizure without a warrant.  Missouri argues that the state can do this in these kinds of circumstances.  The Obama's administration supports Missouri, the "statist" position I would argue.

The Obama administration has supported the use of state power in many decisions where the nonstatist would draw back.  The use of drones would be another example.  Perhaps its a function of the presidency to always support the statist position.  The previous president was not known for his reluctance to use state power.   The Pyrhhonian in me worries about this, if only that the consequences of embuing the state with so much power are hard to determine and potentially mortally dangerous. 

Don't Play the Lottery!

Back when I was a young skeptic, I bussed tables at a nice restaurant.  The kitchen crew included a few patients from the local state hospital, who were undergoing treatment for drug abuse.  One was a drug dealer from Indianapolis who educated me on the various ways he'd operate to stay out of harm's way.  One conclusion he had made and shared me with this: "Fast money goes fast."  While he asserted he made up to $500-$1500 per day, he never was able to put any of that aside.

A confirmation of this maxim can be found with lottery winners.  There are numerous studies which show large winners of quick sums do not do well; go here for a description of some of them.  Yesterday's news carried another reason: fast money may kill you.   Urooj Khan cashed his check from winning a million, and then promptly died from cyanide poisoning.  Police are investigating. 

Finally, for purely rational reasons, there is no reason to play the lottery.  The expectations for winning are low, and there are better avenues for acquiring the frissons gambling provides. 

Great Minds etc.

One of my favorite bloggers, Virginia Postrel, discovered this image, an ad from 1974, while doing some research:

 Coincidence?  You decide!

Bud Logic

By now, you've probably seen the commercials,such as the above.  I'm not sure what's worse: promoting a bad beer or pushing superstition.  The tag line is "It's only weird if it doesn't work."  Guess what, Bud!  It Doesn't Work!  Ergo,  It's Weird!

Some of you might wonder if I over-react.  One of the radio commercials congratulates those fans who refuse to "hang out with the bad luck guy on game day."  I suppose it would be amusing if no one was superstitious, but given evidence to the contrary, there are a lot of bad luck guys who are hurt by their irrational friends.

Today's Comic

This captures so many things I'm interested in, courtesy of Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal.

Happy New Year!

Sorry for the thin blogging, but will be back soon!