Which to ban first - Alcohol or Guns?

In 2006, an estimated 17,941 people died in alcohol related traffic accidents.  This relatively narrow measure of the likelihood of deaths involving alcohol comes out to about 60 deaths per 100,000 citizens (the average population of the US in 2006 was about 298,594,000).

The homicide by firearm death rate in the United States, from 2009, was 3.7 per 100,000 citizens.

You are about 16 times more likely to die as a result of an alcohol related traffic accident (to say nothing of other alcohol related crimes) than you are to be killed by someone else wielding a gun.

Since the discussion about gun control that has been re-ignited by the horrific shooting at Sandy Brook Elementary School in Newtown, CT has focused almost exclusively of the costs of gun ownership, and therefore, the benefit of banning them, what would a similar analysis lead us to do about alcohol?  We can even make many of the same flippant arguments marginalizing responsible alcohol users that we do responsible gun users.  We could say that alcohol is only useful for getting wasted.  That no one really needs alcohol nowadays anyway.  Some may say that they don't want to ban alcohol entirely, but only want to restrict access to high power liquor - assault liquor, if you will.  Every single argument made to dismiss the virtues of gun ownership could be made in the same spirit to dismiss the virtues of drinking.  So if one is fine with the alcohol, while simultaneously arguing for a new era of gun prohibition, maybe they're more motivated by personal preferences and moral judgments (guns bad, alcohol OK) than they are a dispassionate analysis of the facts.

(And if the natural response to this is to protest that we tried alcohol prohibition and it was a massive failure: GOOD! That's thinking about more than just the benefits of prohibition.  Now we can start having a more serious discussion than what's going on in popular media (and, apparently, college basketball press conferences).)

Evaluating Coaching: Identifying the Inputs and Outputs

Note: this post ended up being way too long.  If you want to get to the point, just skip down to the section on recruiting.

So we're back to bickering over a coach at NC State, this time (again?) it's football coach Tom O'Brien.  One of the must frustrating aspects about these debates, if one can call them that, is that people argue past each other over issues that shouldn't matter.  Which I why I wanted to list out things that I hear people argue about, and give my thoughts on whether or not a coach should be held to them.  The idea being that many factors are inputs into the program.  They may well have great effect on how successful the program is.  But we only should care about the outputs - the results the program generates (obviously some outputs may be inputs themselves to other outputs).  And obviously some outputs are more important that others.

Primary Outputs

1. Winning - This has to be one of the primary factors when evaluating a coach.  How much does the program win?  Now what level of success is expected may be judged against expectations, but you have to win.  At NC State, this probably means (in my opinion, judging from our past) consistent trips to bowl games, with an expectation to win most of them.  Hopefully to good bowl games.  Every now and then, the pieces should fall into place that send us to a high tier bowl game (see 2002/03).

We can debate what level of winning should be expected from our program, but no one can debate that it matters.

2. Ethics - Cheating, whether literally in the game, or off the field academically, cannot be tolerated.  Compliance rules must be adhered to.  A focus on good citizenship must be maintained.  Game decisions should adhere to the common understanding of sportsmanship.

Secondary Outputs

1. Entertainment value - This one drives me nuts.  This was particularly contentious in the debate over he-who-shall-not-be-named (HWSNBN).  Many fans found HWSNBN's approach to offense unbearable.  But at times, State succeeded, indeed improving under the change in offense (and with the addition of a key assistant), to the best of HWSNBN's tenure.  I thought it was ridiculous to find in the way the team played a reason to can the coach.  If the program is producing enough of the primary outputs, entertainment value should not be considered.  We've never had the luxury of risking a winning coach on another coach who may win satisfactorily and also has the team playing in an exciting fashion.  When Sidney Lowe replaced HWSNBN, he promised a style much more along the lines of what the average fan wanted, but couldn't produce the wins.  Even with all that said, if the program is at the margin in primary output, considering secondary outputs may come into play.  All else being equal, I'd like to see a more entertaining style of play than not.  But above all, I want to see wins.  Are we seeing this come into play with Tom O'Brien?  I don't know.  I do hear a lot about how we look in games, but unless we're all agreed on whether the primary outputs are sufficient, why are we discussing secondary outputs?

2. Coach's charisma/personality - This is similar to entertainment value, but at NC State, we love to have a coach that represents our passion.  Ever since the high-water mark in this regard in Jim Valvano, coaches in the major sports have fell under a long shadow.  While I think we largely appreciated the caretaker role Les Robinson filled while guiding us through the wilderness, going from him to the vanilla HWSNBN was almost a slap in the face.  O'Brien suffers from many of the same problems, but has bolstered his appeal with the fans by defending the integrity of the university as a whole from attacks, most notably from UNC interim head coach Everett Wthers.  Still, this seems even less important than the style of play on the field, and it seems hard to imagine getting to the point where this should be a deciding factor in retaining a coach.

Inputs

1. Recruiting - Ok, I admit that I've buried the lede.  Seriously, I probably should have just posted, "Don't evaluate a coach for recruiting.  Evaluate a coach for whether he wins.  Recruiting is just an input!" and saved a lot of time.  Kudos to the two of you who got this far.  But this is the most important point.  People keep complaining about O'Brien's recruiting, bringing it up as a reason unto itself to not retain him.  To which I emphatically respond: WHAT MATTERS IS WINNING (WITH CLASS).  Yes, recruiting obviously matters a great deal as to whether you win.  But whether you win is what's important!  If you can't make the argument to fire a coach based on the outputs of the program, then you have no argument!  None!  O'Brien's protest that "staaahs" don't matter will be borne out in whether we win or lose.  This is an election season, so the analogy is obvious: this is just like deciding the president based on polling conducted before the election!

2. Everything else you could possibly think of - It's either an input or it's not.  Either way, it's not a part of the discussion.

Discussion point - Facilities: input or output?

Random Thought on the NCAA and the Federal Reserve

If I may draw an off-the-wall comparison, I think there are two organizations that are rarely thought of together but bear some similarities.  Both are autonomous, secretive, and their actions and decisions are scrutinized by a captive group of smaller institutions.

They are the Federal Reserve and the NCAA.  Somehow in my mind, I made a connection between the PSU penalties and the bailouts of companies like Goldman Sachs.  In both cases, the Authority acted of its own volition, with differing degrees of legitimacy, but in a way that had critics warning of setting a precedent.  Without getting into the relative wisdom of either decision (I'm much more sympathetic to the punishment Penn State to be sure), both decisions left it open to discussion: is this how the Authority will respond in the future?

Which lead me to another comparison: Lehman Brothers and UNC.  Now there are some reasons within the logic of the bailouts themselves that Lehman (or their creditors) were not worthy of rescue.  I also have to imagine that the Fed really does acknowledge, however inadequately, the notion of moral hazard.  But maybe it's just that when you have indiscriminate power, acting with unpredictability _enhances_ the sway you have.  In either case, when many people were saying, "You just have to bailout Lehman, after all, you bailed out AIG and Goldman," it was precisely for that reason the Fed _couldn't_.

So now wihtin the same calendar year, just like 2008, the Authority is witholding action while people are screaming, "You took out Penn State, what about UNC!?"  Perhaps they're making the same pointed show of their sovereign discretion.  Either way, the member institutions are drowing in the same sea of unpredictability.

Open Letter to Michael Barone

This was an email I typed up but the form at TownHall.com didn't allow enough space.  It was in response to his statements during a Cato forum on David Lampo's book: http://www.amazon.com/Fundamental-Freedom-Republicans-Conservatives-Libertarians/dp/1442215712/ref=la_B006INUPGC_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343049119&sr=1-1

Subject: Cato Forum - Thank You

This is one of those issues on which I think I have a unique perspective.  As a North Carolinian, I saw all this play out in great detail in blogs, Facebook posts, newspaper columns, bumper stickers, billboards, etc.  I myself voted against the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage recognition, but I'm very close to many who voted for it.  Because I'm also a Christian and a member of a very theologically conservative church.

I consider myself a classical liberal, and while it's not a classical position, I take the libertarian position that the state should not be deciding  what marriage is.  Of course, the libertarian ideal is not realistic, so I think the next-best course of action is to extend marriage recognition.  As you can imagine, my view was not the prevalent view among my fellow congregants.  But I know well their hearts, and what they ultimately want is what I want: that the glory and grace of God be demonstrated and that many more will come to believe in Jesus Christ as their savior.  We just have different views of what the goal of civil society should be.

So when the word "hate" was quick on the lips of many of the opponents of the amendment, I took great offense to this.  I didn't let it sway my vote, as my vote was formed in my conscience, but it did lead me to expend time and emotional energy defending my brethren.  Time that may have been spent doing more to support the opposition.

I don't think I'm alone in support of these positions amongst religiously conservative Christians.  Indeed, David Lampo pointed out evidence to that fact.  But the Christians at the margin of this issue will not likely be swayed by hearing themselves and their brethren called hateful.  This is a severe miscalculation, if not an unfair slander.

So thank you.  Thank you very, very much for taking seriously the opponents of SSM.  Not that there are none hateful, but that it is only fair to presume their good faith.

Feel free to share this email if you are so inclined.

John Covil
http://ncpimaster.blogspot.com

Is the matter settled?

Classic American Hypocrisy

Clinton: no return on Egypt democracy

"Even if they are temporary, they appear to expand the power of the military to detain civilians and roll back their civil liberties," [Hillary] Clinton said of the [ruling military] decrees.

The Justice of Unenforced Laws

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/04/weighing_the_co.html

Bryan Caplan has been carrying on an interesting discussion of gender equality, liberty and marriage law with Jason Kuznicki. That post makes a handful of points about the libertarian response to things like coverture (a legal arrangement of marriage in which a woman surrenders some autonomy in legal matters). Without getting into all the points that he's making, he does say the following about what the response to what bad laws should be:

3. Degree of enforcement. Suppose the government has one unalterable definition of marriage, and officially bans all other arrangements resembling marriage. If it strictly enforces its laws, then this is very coercive indeed. The less it's enforced, the less coercive it becomes. At the other extreme, if the laws against other arrangements are never enforced, then it's hard to see the big deal. Virginia still officially bans cohabitation. But since the law is a dead letter, it's no more than mildly coercive.

Here I have a small quibble. There is a harmful effect of unenforced/unenforceable laws that's not mentioned here. Maybe it doesn't rise to the level of a "big deal," but it's still there. Unenforced laws restrict freedom unequally. They only affect the behavior of the conscientiously law abiding. Consider 1 Peter 2:13:

Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, (NKJV)

It doesn't say to obey only laws believed to be just. Now those who actively, if imperfectly, try to live out this principle may be in a small minority (and may do so for any number of reasons not limited to living Biblically), but it does mean that some of us alter our behavior against our 'druthers based on laws that we find unwise for any number of reasons, whether practical or principled or both. One can imagine a law that outlawed, for instance, ice cream consumption as being very anti-liberty. However, if the law is not enforced at all, there are still those who feel compelled to obey it and limit an otherwise innocent pleasure.

Taking it just a bit further, I also have to wonder if having a legal code filled with well-known, but wholly ignored laws, would engender in society a blase attitude towards following the law. "If I think it's right and I don't get caught, what's the harm?"

Freedom of Conscience for Me but not for Thee

I've been thinking about this issue for a while since it's come to light. Roman Catholics, and much more of the general public, were rightly outraged when the Obama administration ruled that religious institutions, unless they exclusively served members of their own religion, would be required to offer health care coverage that would include contraception and abortifacients. This is, of course, in direct contradiction to Catholic teaching, and the reaction was swift and severe. Priests and Bishops took to the pulpit to denounce the policy, and even reliably liberal Catholic Democrats were critical.

All this raises one question: where was the outrage before the policy was announced? Before today's reversal by the Obama administration, I started wondering what would have happened if the very narrow exemption the administration originally crafted, which would have exempted churches themselves, but likely not schools and hospitals, had been expanded to include all religious institutions that might morally object to providing such cover? Would they have been satisfied? I take the Freedom of Religion very, very seriously. I believe it is of the utmost importance, and among the most important causes for American identity and independence. But why should the freedom of conscience of religious institutions only be protected? What if I were an employer, and held such drugs in similar esteem? Why should the violence of the State be used to force me to supply those things to my employees, when it does not do so for others?

Aside: those who cast this whole debate as an issue involving the freedom of women to use contraception are so totally mistaken, it should be laughable. The supply of such things on the open market is not at stake here. But it should be not be surprising that people who regularly wrap affirmative/positive rights in the language of the negative rights upon which this nation was founded would be confused on the matter. Suffice it to say that my refusal to give you something is not in limiting your freedom to have it.

Anyway, we shall see if the bellicose rhetoric from the Catholic pulpit persists. The administration has changed the policy, in light of opposition, to exempt religious institutions from providing coverage including the offending items and forcing insurers to provide it for free. In other words, we will all pay (since we will be legally obliged to buy from the existing insurance cartel or the coming exchanges). Having acquired their exemption, I wonder if they will let the issue go. The shame is that it took getting to this point to make plain to people the disharmony that comes from using violence to force people to betray their values. Yet that is the nature of government action when it extends beyond the core principles upon which it was established. We see it all the time, most notably in government schools, where battles are raged over what should be taught, what dress should be allowed, what should be served in the cafeteria, etc. But healthcare extends the battlefield. Mortgage financing extends the battlefield. Industrial policy extends the battlefield. Every reach of government into different areas of life means an erosion of organization through voluntary agreement. Even forgetting the lessons of public choice, with the concentrated benefits and diffuse costs and the bootlegger/Baptists paradigms, inevitably, political choice means forcing people to violate their own choice. Choices sometimes found in avarice or simple pursuit of pleasure, but other times found in deep seated beliefs and values that no other man can extirpate.

The contraception ruling brought a renewed awareness of all this to a lot of people. I hope today's "resolution" doesn't satisfy their concerns and push them back onto the sidelines.

----

image used under Creative Commons license. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Palm-sunday-latin-mass.jpg

A chance for Obama to serve the country and himself

A lot of people are speculating that in response to the tragic shooting at Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' event over the weekend, President Obama should or will react like President Bill Clinton did in response to the Oklahoma City Bombing, and blame the far-right, and by implication, the right. I think he should take a different page from Clinton's book. I think this could be Obama's Sister Souljah moment, and he could use it to help the nation and his own political stature at the same time.

Food Protectionism

http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2011/LuskNorwoodlocavore.html?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d2606ed53774f09,0

Really strong essay taking on many of the arguments of the locavore movement. Though I do think that there are some good elements that usually come with it that extend beyond simply buying local. Locavores tend to pay a lot more attention to the food they put into their bodies. While the values with which they judge the food I may not share, it's hardly a bad thing to be a more educated consumer (in two senses of the word, I guess). And buying local may help instill an appreciation for one's own culture, which I think can have positive benefits for that person and their relationships with those around them.

But on the economics, they knock this one out of the park. It's international protectionism writ small. To their credit, I suppose, the application of protectionism (imports are bad!!1) within a national economy for the 'benefit' of local economies shows that not all protectionists are xenophobes. One doesn't often hear, "I don't want to buy no tomato grown by no Californian!" the same way one might hear, "I don't want to buy no car made by no Koh-Ree-An!"

One of the amusing parts of the locavore movement, though, is how easily the principles are set aside. The theme of this month's issue of Saveur is 100 favorite things sent in by lots of favorite chefs. Included in the list are some up-and-coming chefs recommended by more established chefs. A common compliment is that the chef has built their restaurant around the principle of buying locally. And then many other items are where chefs have written in about their favorite, exotic ingredient from around the world. What are the environmental impacts of flying in authentic Japanese ingredients? And how does that "keep the money in the local economy?"

The locavore movement has also unfortunately attained some of the more annoying trappings of similar such issues (like recycling). Like the litmus test ("What do you mean you don't buy local!?") and the orthodoxy ("What do you mean grass-fed beef causes more pollution!? You're a right-wing, knuckle-dragging, science-hating cretin!"*). And like similar such issues, where persuasion fails, the activists threaten to turn to coercion. Everyone should be free to buy locally. No one should be forced to.

--------------------------

* or, "What do you mean recycling plastic is a net negative for the environment!?"

FTR, I think recycling makes sense for some things. Just not everything. Of course, I'm adding this disclaimer because I fear the social scorn that comes with hinting that recycling everything that you can isn't necessarily the best thing, economically or environmentally. And that's what the locavore movement is turning into.

(cross posted from my Facebook page, but fleshed out a bit more)

Same Song, Different Vice

As I was driving home today, I heard an item on WTOP about the $0.05/bag fee the DC City Council put into place last year. As reported on the radio, the program was or was not a success, depending on what standard you judge it. Turns out that while the program accomplished one of its stated goals in cutting plastic bag usage by about half, revenue from the program came in at about $2 million. And they were anticipating about twice that much. Imagine that. I wonder how they calculated their revenue projections (answer: they probably hired the CBO).

As with similar sin taxes on things like cigarettes and alcohol, I'm sure the statists had some trouble deciding whether to cheer or lament the revenue they didn't take in.

I hate bumper stickers

Why can't we gut fish and houses? Why can't we make love and war? Why can't we make windmills and bombs?

The Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade makes no sense

Self absorbed and often embarrassingly dressed pop stars lip sync their radio hits on ludicrous floats as children dance around dressed as doctors and cops and taxis. What sort of worldly, hallucinatory fever dream is this?

TSA: What we need is a little empathy

My solution, or part of it at least, to the controversy over the TSA's latest dehumanization campaign is simple:

1) Make every TSA employee pose for a fancy new x-ray backspatter image.
2) Put the images in a searchable, public database online, along with full names and portraits.

While we're at, we might as well start at the top of DHS...

It's no Bastiat Prize

But it's close.

Raleigh and the Food Cartel

Just read this one in the print edition of Carolina Journal.

Raleigh wants to limit food truck access to the city. And it's really interesting why.

When asked why the city restricts the number and location of mobile food units, Raleigh City Councilwoman Mary-Ann Baldwin said it was necessary to protect established restaurants from competition and to keep the streets looking neat and tidy.

“You want to balance what’s good for the entrepreneur with what’s good for your restaurant owners,” Baldwin said. “You don’t want to hurt them and put them out of business. They’ve made a huge investment.”

So it's the job of the city of Raleigh to deny consumer choice to protect restaurateurs from competition?

Not a finalist

Despite my unquestionably brilliant work, lately, I was not a finalist for the 2010 Bastiat Prize for Economic Journalism.

Missed it by that much.

Jeremy Clarkson: consider yourself on notice

10:10 mini-movie - No Pressure

And you thought it would be the Morris Marina Owners' Club that would do you in. These people will surely get you first.

Warning: graphic violence at the link. Note: this is not an anti-AGW parody.

The Banality of Hope

Famed Obama 'Hope' poster artist losing hope

The story's really not all that interesting, except for one very telling little bit:

Fairey explained that when he came up with the poster in 2008, he was trying to find a single image that embodied the issues he cared most about -- promoting [communitarian] health care, helping labor [unions], and curtailing lobbyists. He likened the issues to projectiles.

"Looking at Obama's standpoint on various policies, it was like, 'Why throw all these particular projectiles over the wall... when I could put all those things in one projectile that I could hurl over the wall,'" Fairey said in a phone interview from Los Angeles, where he lives. "Obama was the delivery device in theory. Now, I realize that he maybe is not the correct delivery device, and I'll just deal with those issues separately."

[my comments]

Isn't that just a lovely picture of contemporary, electoral politics. Why make forthright statements about what you stand for when you can wrap it all up into one inoffensive word. Call it, "Hope," and let everyone see in it what they want. Fits right in with our lazy, trite, selfish, spiritual-but-not-religious, shallow, navel-gazing, Oprah-y, unsophisticated, immature culture. At least, "a chicken in every pot," was a tangible promise. "Hope in every heart," is our new aim. And so we create a government so devoid of first principles that the only ideal is power.

And we have no one to blame but ourselves. Not just with our choices in the voting booth, but our choices when we watch TV, go to the movies, pick up a magazine, listen to the radio, interact (or not) with our neighbors, etc. Or humble ourselves (or not) before God. It's our culture and I'm a part of it, and chances are, so are you.

Kathleen Sebelius is a tyrant

Cato @ Liberty: Secretary Sebelius Slips on the Brass Knuckles

ObamaCare gave the HHS secretary considerable new powers. Is one of those the power to regulate what insurers say about ObamaCare?

ATSRTWT