Thanks - I'll check that out!

The book I mentioned touches a bit on that, ie "...if you've ever bought an expensive item you'd sworn you'd never buy, the salesperson was probably a master at creating the "illusion of choice," a core technique of magic."

It's all very fascinating stuff (at least to me), and as you mention, for the most part, we really don't know what the hell is going on in a lot of our day-to-day decision making/observations, and fill in our "reasons" after the fact.

I read a fascinating book on the topic, called "Sleights of Mind: What the Neuroscience of Magic Reveals about Our Everyday Deceptions" - highly recommend it - the authors investigate what happens from a neurological perspective when magicians perform tricks, and also how we routinely deceive ourselves about the "reality" we think we perceive (deceptions which magicians routinely rely upon).

I can't imagine any libertarian in favor of one in five people working for the government, which is the case in Greece (US isn't far behind, at about 1 in 7)...

"...if it does not produce a sizable return in just a single 6 week quarter" - ya, they ought to give their products at least an 8 week quarter!

I suppose it's only a matter of time until the government does indeed get into the act and dictate maximum compensation - they are already in the business of dictating compensation, insofar as demanding people sell their labor for not less than a government dictated price (ie minimum wage laws), so price-fixing of labor at the other end of the spectrum is a natural progression. People already accept that it is appropriate for government to remove the free will of an individual to sell his or her labor at the price of his or her choosing when that person picks a price point too low; it's natural that the government would next remove the free will of an individual to buy labor at the price of his or her choosing - really, it's all just a matter of degrees once you cede the principle that adults are free to decide their labor's price.

I currently live in Toronto, where they've privatized a lot of the offices which provide government services - they're all over town and are run independently. Having misplaced my license a while ago, I expected to lose half a day or so getting a replacement. Instead, I waited less than 3 minutes, paid $10 and I was out of there in less than 10 mins. It was quite startling, actually, compared to the usual government run operations.

Probably because I got fed up and pulled out my phone and started filming it...

Well, as I mentioned before, there is indeed profit in monitoring fault lines, and that profit is being made daily by providers of modeling systems to insurance companies. Likewise, insurance companies who provide coverage for such things as supply chain disruptions and contingent business interruption have a vested interest in monitoring volcanic activity (when a volcano blows and disrupts the supply chain, it can trigger coverage under some policies). Insurance companies rely heavily on geological data to help determine pricing for earthquake insurance coverage, where freedom to set prices still exists. I can tell you for a fact there is indeed a lot of money at stake on this data: I know first hand of companies walking away from tens of millions of dollars in premiums because the risk didn't make sense economically. I'm just suggesting these companies, or whoever else finds the data valuable, pay for its gathering themselves.

I won't comment on what the west coast of the US would or wouldn't do politically, because the people of those regions have shown an unfailingly consistent ability to preferentially select inept representatives. But don't you think it is the responsibility of people in those regions to handle these issues, perhaps at the state level? In other words, to your view, do you believe it is impossible for any entity other than the federal government to manage these responsibilities, if I grant for the moment that they are governmental responsibilities?

Where I think we'll agree is in your assertion that government's role is to protect people when it is outright impossible for the free market to offer adequate protection (ie the justice system, military defense (but not military offense), policing, etc.). I also think the points you are making aren't bad ones, because you are questioning items that may or may not be a fundamental role of government, and you have a strong argument that they may indeed be. This differs substantially from a lot of the debate, which centers around things which government was never permitted to do in the first place and which are unnecessary (see Dept of Ed, etc) and which US taxpayers certainly can no longer afford.

I do believe you are incorrect in equating the closure of certain Departments with the elimination of all services they provide. You do not necessarily need a Department, with all the bureaucracy it entails, to carry out these functions.

I have many more unkind things to say about FDR than I do about Lincoln, but we can agree to disagree on that :)

Interestingly, I see in the plan Ron Paul released the other day that he proposes to eliminate the TSA in its entirety. That's just the sort of common sense thing that's going to ensure his continued marginalization.

Yes, I've had a similar encounter at one of the arbitrary DUI check points:

Officer: "Have you had anything to drink tonight?"

Me: "No."

Officer: "Where are you going?"

Me: "That needn't concern you."

Officer: "Pull over to the side and park your vehicle and get out your papers, now!"

After producing my papers and waiting over half an hour while they no doubt looked for any possible way to arrest/ticket me, I was released. There was no cause to detain me, other than my refusal to reveal my destination (as is my right). It is odd, but not at all unusual anymore, that the government should exercise its power over individuals for asserting their rights.

Yes, to your second sentence.

I'm not suggesting government needs to "do" anything in terms of inserting themselves into the decision where people choose to live, which is what the government currently does and which costs taxpayers money and results in deaths and destruction. Rather, I'm saying that, in the absence of government, those high hazard areas would not get so densely populated (if you eliminated all the subsidies, catastrophe bailouts and other government mechanisms that permit people to live in these areas they otherwise couldn't afford to, yes: the areas would depopulate).

My points were really meant to convey two things, in response to yours:

- other entities do have a motivation under a free market to engage in things like geological surveys and early alert systems; and

- the government's current involvement in these things extends to programs which actively encourage people to put themselves in harm's way.

I find it odd that the government should employ scientists to determine a region geologically dangerous, and instead of saying, "we very strongly recommend you do not live here, and if you do, we will not impose upon others to pay for the consequences of that decision", they say, "the market will not permit you to live here, therefore we will subsidize your decision to live here, and if anything goes wrong, we will further get your more prudent neighbors in other parts of the country to pay for any resultant damage".

Really, your second sentence is spot on: is there a compelling reason a federal government should involve itself in any way in terms of where people choose to live?

It isn't "magic", it is the alignment of interests and competitive pressures (read: choice) which in most cases results in more efficiencies. If something is non-profitable, then either efficiencies will be discovered which make it possible to extract a profit, or capital will look elsewhere for opportunity, because the people do not deem the benefits worth the cost.

If something is "unprofitable", it means that the people refuse to pay the cost for something. By suggesting "government" should provide this, you are saying you refuse to pay the cost for that thing unless your neighbors pay some of the costs too, and those neighbors should be given no say in the matter. I've found that many of the same people who argue vociferously against any sort of private monopoly, on the basis that such a monopoly removes choice, efficiencies and freedom, at the same time argue vociferously in favor of "government", which is in all cases a total monopoly, with similar results (except that, in the case of government, they further enjoy coercive powers).

If the government were to produce all computers, do you think those computers would have the same features, at the same price, with the same reliability which your current free market computer has? Do you think it would be even better? If not, ask yourself why not: why wouldn't the government, as sole producer and provider of computers produce the best computer at the best price with the best reliability and with the highest margins? The reasons you come up with should help explain to you the source of the "magic" you refer to in your comment. That same "magic" is what's currently in the process of making space tourism affordable for you and me.

For starters, insurance companies which cover the perils of earthquake, floodings, etc are highly motivated to cultivate this data themselves, and create alert systems. As it is, there are companies who make a very fine return by packaging up government data and selling it to insurance companies, and their returns are subsidized because they are getting their data for "free", where here "free" means that you pay for their input costs via your taxes (companies like RMS who sell earthquake modelling systems to insurance companies). In fact, the entire idea for "fire departments" started with insurance companies, who had their own fire departments and would only respond to those fires affecting or threatening their customers (their customers were given plaques to hang outside their homes to inform the fire department they were covered).

In general, a lot of government policy surrounding catastrophe management actively encourages people to put themselves in harms way. For example, hurricane Katrina could not have done anywhere near the damage to property and lives in the absence of a government flood insurance pool, because no private market participants were willing to offer flood insurance in those regions where there was little doubt a significant flood/hurricane event would occur, and lenders are unwilling to lend to borrowers who cannot obtain insurance to protect the asset against which the loan is being made - the vast majority of people simply would be unable to live in ultra high risk areas. This was seen as a "problem", and "fixed" with a taxpayer funded federal flood insurance pool, which got the lenders lending and the people building houses and living in very dangerous areas. The same things goes on in California with earthquake insurance pools and regulations. And what does the government do when catastrophe strikes and cities are destroyed (as they are predicted to be by that same government's scientists)? They commit to use taxpayer money to rebuild in the very same spot! It is a "bailout", pure and simple.

I guess some people are comfortable with the idea that they (and their neighbors, who may not agree) should be forced to pay for the imprudent decision of another person who chooses to live in a high hazard zone, but it would be far less likely for a person to be able to live in those kinds of areas absent government intervention.

In short, there are a lot of very negative consequences, and more importantly, lives lost, because of government's role here. And while I can appreciate the self-interested appeal of forcing people (because it is not voluntary) by way of government to pay for research you find interesting or useful, it is hard (for me, at least) to describe that as "fair".

Good point, and I suspect most /. readers further realize that you can bypass the paywall by entering the site via google, including via rss feeds of stories in google reader.