Author: Loquitur Veritatem

See https://politicsandprosperity.com/about/.

On Liberty

This inaugural post is in two parts: “What Liberty Is Not” and “What Liberty Is.” This post is a springboard for future posts, which will explore politics, economics, and their interplay from a libertarian-conservative perspective.

WHAT LIBERTY IS NOT

Who can doubt that many people have forgotten, for very obvious reasons, Mill’s qualifications of personal sovereignty, namely that it applies to conduct that “merely concerns himself”?

— Theodore Dalrymple, In Praise of Prejudice:
The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas

Liberty is not license, as the saying goes, for what should be an obvious reason: Unrestrained behavior is bound, at some point, to intrude on those who do not wish to partake of it, or its consequences. The intrusion may be direct, as in the case of a wild party that devolves into a brawl and thence to the destruction of property. Or the intrusion may be indirect, as in the gradual weakening of social norms that had contained (if not stifled) licentious behavior and, therefore, its consequences.

Nor is liberty found in anarchy, which is an open invitation to thuggery. This is true even in free-market anarchism, a Utopian scheme in which the state is replaced by private institutions offering police protection, justice, and other defense services. There is nothing in free-market anarchism to prevent contractual bargains of the vilest sort: murder by the low bidder, for example. Who could stand in the way of such a contract and its execution if the parties to it can summon more force than any objector?

John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty (1869), preaches neither license nor anarchy, or so it seems. He offers a deceptively benign description of liberty:

It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological. The liberty of expressing and publishing opinions may seem to fall under a different principle, since it belongs to that part of the conduct of an individual which concerns other people; but, being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself, and resting in great part on the same reasons, is practically inseparable from it. Secondly, the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow: without impediment from our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong. Thirdly, from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced or deceived.[1]

That description, strangely, follows Mill’s prescription for the realization of liberty, which is his “harm principle” beloved of both libertarians and modern liberals (i.e., leftists). It is as if Mill began with the harm principle in mind, then concocted a description of liberty to justify it. The “devil”, in this case, lies not in the details but in the harm principle:

That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.[2]

Given the individualistic thrust of this passage and the surrounding text, the only plausible interpretation of the harm principle is as follows: An individual may do as he pleases, as long as he does not believe that he is causing harm to others.[3] That is Mill’s prescription for liberty. It is, in fact, an invitation to license and anarchy.

Libertarians and leftists, even those who claim to reject license and anarchy, embrace the harm principle, for all of its simple-mindedness. Theodore Dalrymple writes:

It has long been an objection to Mill that, except for the anchorite in the Syrian desert who subsists on honey and locusts, no man is an island (and even an anchorite may have a mother who is disappointed by her son’s choice of career); and therefore that the smallest of his acts may have some impact or consequences for others. If one amends the [harm] principle to take that part of a man’s conduct that concerns principally himself, rather than only himself, one will be left with endless and insoluble disputes as to which part of his conduct that is….

But, as the great historian Lord Acton said, “Ideas have a radiation and development, an ancestry and posterity of their own, in which men play the part of godfathers and godmothers more than that of legitimate parents.” Who can doubt that many people have forgotten, for very obvious reasons, Mill’s qualifications of personal sovereignty, namely that it applies to conduct that “merely concerns himself”?[4]

The main appeal of On Liberty to libertarians and leftists is Mill’s defense of conduct that (in his view) “only” offends social norms:

Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.[5]

Thus Mill rejects the enforcement of social norms, “except [in] a few of the most obvious cases,”[6] by either the state or “society”. Lest anyone mistake Mill’s position, he expands on it a few paragraphs later:

These are good reasons for remonstrating with [a person who acts contrary to social custom], or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil [including social censure] in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.[7]

In Mill’s usage, “calculated” means “intended”.[8] By that logic, which is implicit throughout On Liberty, an individual is except in “a few of the most obvious cases” a law unto himself, and may do as he pleases as long as he believes (or claims to believe) that his conduct is not harmful to others.

Mill’s bias against the enforcement of social norms, in all but a few “obvious cases” (murder? theft? rape?), ignores the civilizing influence of those norms. That influence is of no account to Mill, as Dalrymple explains:

For Mill, custom is an evil that is the principle obstruction to progress and moral improvement, and its group on society is so strong that originality, unconventionality, and rebellion against it are goods in themselves, irrespective of their actual content. The man who flouts a convention ipso facto raises society from its torpor and lets everyone know that there are different, and better, ways of doing things. The more such people there are, the greater the likelihood of progress….

Of radical evil, in which the [twentieth] century was to abound, [Mill] has nothing to say, and therefore he had no idea that a mania for progress could result in its very antithesis, or that some defense against such radical evil, of which the commission was not possible without the co-operation and participation of many men, was necessary. The abandonment of customary restraint and inverted moral prejudice was not necessarily followed by improvement.[9]

There is a high price to be paid for the blind rejection of long-standing social norms, whether by individuals, organized groups, legislatures, or courts wishing to “do their own thing”, exact “social justice”, make life “fair”, or just “shake things up” for the sake of doing so. The price is liberty.

WHAT LIBERTY IS

A man at liberty is a person neither in chains, under confinement, nor intimidated like a slave by the fear of punishment…. [T]o consider inability of soaring to the clouds like the eagle, of living under the water like the whale, of making ourselves king or pope, as a want of liberty, would be ridiculous.

— Claude Adrien Helvétius, Essays on the Mind and Its Several Faculties

 License and anarchy, even in John Stuart Mill’s deceptive packaging of them, are antithetical to liberty. For it is the general observance of social norms that enables a people to enjoy liberty, which is:

peaceful, willing coexistence and its concomitant: beneficially cooperative behavior

That, simply stated, is liberty or something as close to it as can be found on Earth. It encompasses the Founders’ three desiderata “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” thusly:

Liberty is impossible without life, or where one lives in constant fear of one’s life.

Liberty therefore requires peaceful coexistence with one’s fellows, even if it must be ensured by force of arms.

Liberty is meaningless unless all are able to pursue happiness, that is, to cooperate (as they will) in mutually beneficial undertakings.

True liberty must be “ordered liberty”, in that it cannot arise from license or anarchy, as prescribed by Mill or his more radical progeny (e.g. Murray Rothbard). Nor can liberty arise from modern leftism, which has been diagnosed, quite rightly, as a superficially benign kind of fascism.[10]

Mill’s prescription for the attainment of liberty (the harm principle) focuses on what the individual may do. Anarchists and Objectivists seize on Mill’s prescription because they are preoccupied with individualism, as opposed to liberty, a concept they invoke ritually without understanding it. Leftists pay lip service to Mill’s prescription because it seems to justify unfettered pursuit of their personal preferences (whatever those might be). Leftists then demonstrate their lack of principle by contradictorily and unabashedly using the state to impose their preferences on others, especially for the adolescent thrill of subverting social norms.

A valid prescription for the attainment of liberty focuses on what liberty is, and the proper role of the state in securing it. Liberty, as I describe it, requires four things:

  • the general observance of social norms and, accordingly, their enforcement through social censure;
  • an accountable, minimal state, dedicated to the protection of its citizens;
  • voice, the opportunity for dissent from social norms and laws (though not the right to have one’s dissent honored); and
  • exit, the right to leave one’s neighborhood, city, State, or country without prejudice.

I will have more to say about those four points in future posts. Here, I will say a bit more about the role of the state, which is important to the effectiveness of my prescription for liberty The state’s proper role is negative, in the main. The state may not:

  • tax citizens more than is necessary to protect them from enemies, foreign and domestic;[11]
  • enable predatory or parasitic behavior among the populace;[12]
  • compel anyone to observe social norms, except those that the state enforces for the protection of all citizens;
  • interfere in the voluntary evolution or operation of social norms, except as those might impinge on voice or exit;
  • bar exit or impose a cost on it, except as necessary to execute justice and defend the nation; or
  • consistently overstep its rightful authority.

Consistent violation of rightful authority exposes the state to overthrow by political action or rebellion, as necessary.

If that prescription seems familiar, it is because of its provenance in the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution.

It is true that the power of the state is prone to abuse. And the state must sometimes act against the preferences of some citizens (even a majority of them), for not everyone can agree at all times about the proper and necessary scope of state action in matters of justice and defense. But the state is a necessary bulwark against anarchy. The relevant issue is not whether to empower a state but how much power to give it and how to contain that power.

Reflexive opposition to the idea of the state is not libertarian; it is Utopian. The issue is not whether to have a state, but how to harness it in the service of liberty.

*     *     *

[1] On Liberty (1869), Chapter I, paragraph 12. (All citations of On Liberty refer to the version at Bartleby.com: http://www.bartelby.com/130/index.html.)

[2] On Liberty (1869), Chapter I, paragraph 9.

[3] As I show below, I am not misreading the quoted passage.

[4] In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas (2007), pp. 44-5.

[5] On Liberty, Chapter I, paragraph 5. See also Chapter IV: On the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual, paragraph 3.

[6] On Liberty. Chapter I, paragraph 6.

[7] On Liberty, Chapter I, paragraph 9.

[8] See, for example, Mill’s use of “calculated” in Chapter IV, paragraph 19.

[9] In Praise of Prejudice, pp. 57-8.

[10] See, for example, Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism (2007).

[11] This allows a few (and only a few) positive acts on the part of the state: the maintenance and use of national-defense forces, the administration of justice through police and courts.

[12] There are predators other than murderers, thieves, etc. There are, for example, those who would use the coercive power of the state (e.g., legal bans on smoking in private establishments, licensing laws) to deny liberty to others, sometimes on behalf of parasites. Parasites benefit from coercive power state power, and depend on it instead of depending on their own efforts. Parasites, who can be classes of individuals or corporations, benefit from such things as affirmative action, income redistribution and regulatory protection from competitors.

[13] Voice does not include such acts as subornation, incitation, or treason, which undermine defense and justice. And no one, not even members of the press, should be shielded from prosecution for such acts.

Timely Trivia Question

One person administered the presidential oath of office nine times (a record). Who was that person, and to which presidents did he administer the oath? Scroll down for the answer.

John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States from 1801 to 1835, administered the oath to Thomas Jefferson in 1801 and 1805, James Madison in 1809 and 1813, James Monroe in 1817 and 1821, John Quincy Adams in 1825, and Andrew Jackson in 1829 and 1833.

Roger B. Taney, Marshall’s successor as Chief Justice (1836 to 1864), administered the oath of office seven times. Warren E. Burger (Chief Justice from 1969 to 1986) administered the oath six times.

For more trivia about inauguration day, go here.

Math Puzzler

Here is the problem (from Misha Lemeshko, via Eugene Volokh):

8809 = 6
7111 = 0
2172 = 0
6666 = 4
1111 = 0
3213 = 0
7662 = 2
9312 = 1
0000 = 4
2222 = 0
3333 = 0
5555 = 0
8193 = 3
8096 = 5
7777 = 0
9999 = 4
7756 = 1
6855 = 3
9881 = 5
5531 = 0

2581 = ?

I found the general and specific solutions to the problem after pondering it for about 15 minutes. Can you do it?

If you’ve given up, or want to check your answers against mine, scroll down.

Specific solution: 2581 = 2, because…

General solution: The value of a string of numbers comprising the integers 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 is equal to the sum of the values of the integers contained in the string, where the value assigned to each integer is equal to the number of closed curves contained in it. Thus: 0 = 1, 2 = 0, 3 = 0, 5 = 0, 6 = 1, 7 = 0, 8 = 2, and 9 = 1. Therefore, for example, 0000 = 4 because each integer in the string has 1 closed curve; that is, 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4.

Note that the preceding general solution omits the integer 4. Why? There is no way of determining the value of 4 because it doesn’t occur in Lemeshko’s list of strings. If, however, the value of 4 were known to be 0 (e.g., 8884 = 6, 1114 = 0), the general solution would be as follows: The value of a string of numbers comprising the integers 0 through 9 is equal to the sum of the values of the integers contained in the string, where the value assigned to each integer is equal to the number of closed curves contained in it. Thus: 0 = 1, 2 = 0, 3 = 0, 4 = 0, 5 = 0, 6 = 1, 7 = 0, 8 = 2, and 9 = 1. Therefore, for example, 4444 = 0 (0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0) because 4 (in standard typography) contains a closed area but not a closed curve.

If, however, the value of 4 were known to be 1 (e.g., 8884 = 7, or 1114 =1), the general solution would be as follows: The value of a string of numbers comprising the integers 0 through 9 is equal to the sum of the values of the integers contained in the string, where the value assigned to each integer is equal to the number of closed areas contained in it. Thus: 0 = 1, 2 = 0, 3 = 0, 4 = 1, 5 = 0, 6 = 1, 7 = 0, 8 = 2, and 9 = 1. Therefore, for example, 4444 = 4 because each integer in the string has 1 closed area; that is, 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4.

A Logical Fallacy

The sub-hed of an article at City Journal asks “If human beings are naturally risk-averse, then what the heck happened on Wall Street?” The question can be expressed in the following syllogism:

Major premise: All humans are risk-averse.

Minor premise: Humans work on Wall Street (i.e., financial markets).

Conclusion: The humans who work on Wall Street are risk-averse.

It should be obvious to the casual observer that both the major premise and conclusion are false.

The article, by the way, is spot-on. Don’t be deceived by its flawed sub-hed.

The Fed and Business Cycles

Given the recent (official) announcement that the U.S. has been in recession since December 2007, I decided to look at the record of business cycles compiled by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The following graphs depict the length of expansions and contractions (and the trends in both), before and since the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913.

Source: “Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions,” National Bureau of Economic Research.

It seems that the creation of the Fed might have had a stabilizing effect on business cycles. (How much of an effect is impossible to tell, given the many other variables at work.)

But…the graphs don’t depict the relative severity of the various contractions. It is worth noting that the worst of them all — the Great Depression — occurred after the creation of the Fed and, in part, because of actions taken by the Fed. (A note to the history-challenged: The Great Depression began in September 1929 and ended only because of America’s entry into World War II.)

In any event, the long-run cost of economic stability has been high. (See this and this, for example.)

By Their Musical Preferences Ye Shall Know Them

Marginal Revolution has become an increasingly “marginal” blog because its dominant contributor, Tyler Cowen, has become increasingly incoherent. It turns out that Cowen is a fan of Elliott Carter, who writes incoherent “music,” of which many samples can be heard here.

Neither sound economics nor good music is consistent with incoherence. Therefore, I have scratched Marginal Revolution from my reading list, just as years ago I scratched my copy of a chamber-music LP to eradicate an unlistenable piece by Elliott Carter.

Maddux to the Hall?

Greg Maddux, who is about to announce his retirement from baseball, is a cinch for election to the Hall of Fame: 355 wins, .610 winning average, ERA+ of 132. But Maddux, like recently-retired Mike Mussina, shouldn’t be ranked with the “immortals” — the 16 Hall of Fame pitchers whose excellence, in my view, ranks them above their peers. (See this post and this post for relevant background.)

Maddux had only two 20-win seasons, which is why he isn’t an “immortal” pitcher, in my book. Roger Clemens, Maddux’s contemporary, had six 20-win seasons (in addition to his 354 wins, .658 winning average, ERA+ of 143), which would make him an “immortal” but for the strong suspicion that his career totals were inflated by steroids and HGH. (It is, by the way, a strong suspicion that cannot be confirmed by statistical evidence.)

P.S. (12/08/08) The election of Joe Gordon to the Hall of Fame is a joke, by my reckoning.

My Crystal Ball

From a post at my old blog, dated January 16, 2008:

On November 14, 2007, I wrote:

Is it possible that the current bull market reached a temporary peak in May of this year, and is now descending toward a secondary bottom that it will not reach for a few years?

This was my tentative answer, then:

A reversal that lasts a year or two seems entirely possible to me.

My less tentative answer, now, is that the stock market (as measured by the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Composite Index) has crossed into “bear country.” That is, it has met the two conditions which indicate a “correction” or bear market that will last for months or years:

  • the index has dropped below its 250-trading-day average, and
  • the 250-day average is moving downward (if imperceptibly)….

P.S. [added March 12, 2008] By my reckoning, every downturn in the 250-day average since 1970 has signaled every recession since 1970.

It’s been obvious for months that we’re in a bear market. It’s now also obvious (to the National Bureau of Economic Research) that we’re in a recession and have been since January of this year (a “peak” in economic activity having occurred in December 2007).

Macroeconomics and Microeconomics: Part I

Macroeconomics (the study of aggregate economic activity), in most expositions of it that I have seen, fails on two counts. First, macroeconomics usually ignores or accounts inadequately for microeconomic behavior, that is, the behavior of individual persons and firms. Second, it aggregates that which cannot be aggregated, namely, disparate forms of economic activity performed by disparate actors.

Regarding the first point, macro without micro is meaningless. Macroeconomic aggregates have no independent existence.

Secondly, an aggregate is meaningless if it represents disparate phenomena. A foot (measure of distance) is a meaningful measure only if it represents a collection of inches (or fractions thereof); a pound (measure of weight) is meaningful only if it represents a collection of ounces (or fractions thereof); and so on. But a foot is a foot, and a pound is a pound; the two cannot be aggregated because they measure different things. (Yes, there is in physics a measure of force known as the foot-pound, which “is the amount of energy expended when a force of one pound acts through a distance of one foot along the direction of the force.” But “foot-pound” is something distinct from “foot” and “pound”; it is a measure of force, not a way of making length and weight commensurate.)

This post illustrates both points. Consider A and B, who have discovered, through trial and error, that each can have more clothing and more food if they specialize: A in the manufacture of clothing, B in the production of food.

Our primitive pair also has discovered a “just right” balance in the amount and allocation of clothing and food that they make and consume. Through voluntary exchange (bargaining), they have found a jointly satisfactory balance of production and consumption. A makes “just enough” clothing so that he can cover himself adequately, keep some clothing on hand for emergencies, trade the balance to B for “just enough” food, and enjoy “just enough” leisure. B does likewise with food. Both A and B might like to have more clothing and/or food, but both are doing as well as they can do in a voluntary relationship.

A and B’s respective decisions and actions are microeconomic; the sum of their decisions, macroeconomic. The microeconomic picture might look like this:

  • A produces 10 units of clothing a week, 5 of which he trades to B for 5 units of food a week, 4 of which he uses each week, and 1 of which he saves for an emergency.
  • B, like A, uses 4 units of clothing each week and saves 1 for an emergency.
  • B produces 10 units of food a week, 5 of which she trades to A for 5 units of clothing a week, 4 of which she consumes each week, and 1 of which she saves for an emergency.
  • A, like B, consumes 4 units of food each week and saves 1 for an emergency.

Given the microeconomic picture, it is trivial to depict the macroeconomic situation:

  • Gross weekly output = 10 units of clothing and 10 units of food
  • Weekly consumption = 8 units of clothing and 8 units of food
  • Weekly saving = 2 units of clothing and 2 units of food

You will note that the macroeconomic metrics add no useful information; they merely summarize the salient facts of A and B’s economic lives — though not the essential facts of their lives, which include (but are far from limited to) the degree of satisfaction that A and B derive from their economic activities.

The customary way of getting around the aggregation problem is to sum the dollar value of microeconomic activity. But this method simply masks the aggregation problem by assuming that it is possible to add the marginal valuations (i.e., prices) of disparate products and services being bought and sold at disparate moments in time by disparate individuals and firms for disparate purposes. One might as well add two bananas to two apples and call the result four bapples. The essential problem is that A, B, and everyone else will derive different types and levels of enjoyment from clothing and food (both of which come in many forms), not to mention the vast array of other kinds of goods and services that are bought and sold. (For a long disquisition on this point, go here.)

In sum, macroeconomic concepts (e.g., aggregate demand) are not exogenous entities that exist independently of microeconomic activity. At best, they are ambiguous, qualitative proxies for a host of disparate microeconomic activities.

In future installments I will cover such topics as recession and fiscal policy.

Putting Risks in Perspective

According to the Centers for Disease Control, about eight-tenths of one percent of Americans died in 2005 (the most recent year for which CDC has published death rates). That’s about 800 persons (825.9 to be precise) out of every 100,000.

To put that number in perspective, imagine a dozen dozen eggs (i.e., a gross of eggs, for those who still know the numeric meaning of “gross”). Only about one of those eggs is broken in the span of a year, in spite of all of the hazards to which the eggs are exposed.

Remember that analogy the next time you read or hear about the “threats” posed by heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s, motor-vehicle accidents, firearms, etc., etc., etc. The combined effect of all such “threats” is close to nil; more than 99 percent of Americans survive every year, and more than 70 percent of those who don’t survive are old (age 65 and older). But that’s not the kind of “news” of that sells advertising.

(For much more about mortality in the United States, go here.)

November 22, 1963

I have said all that I wish to say about November 22, 1963, as a political event, and about JFK’s performance as president. My purpose here is simply to mark what ranks as the third-most shocking day of my lifetime. The most shocking, because I remember it all too well, is September 11, 2001. The second-most shocking, which I remember not at all (because I was so young), is December 7, 1941.

JFK’s assassination was a mighty shock for two reasons:

  • It had been 62 years since the assassination of a president (William McKinley, 1901).
  • There was, in the early 1960s, less of the intense political polarization that would now render a president’s assassination almost unsurprising.

Why Settle for a Theoretical Estimate…

…of the Laffer Curve, when you can have the real thing? The author of the first-linked item suggests that the amount of income remaining in private hands is maximized at an overall tax rate of 25 percent. My empirically-based estimate (second link) puts the private-income maximizing tax rate at 15 percent. The latter figure is a practical minimum:

The normal peacetime burden of government spending between the end of the Civil War and the eve of the Great Depression ranged from 5 to 10 percent of GDP,1 enough to maintain law and order and to provide minimal “social services.” To that I would add 5 to 10 percent for the kind of defense that we need in these parlous times. (See this post, for example.)

You can’t have a vibrant economy without law, order, and defense from foreign enemies.

Mussina to the Hall?

I once opined that a

Hall of Fame [starting] pitcher will have

  • at least 300 wins
  • or, at least 250 wins and an ERA+ of 120 or higher. (Go here and scroll down for the definition of ERA+.)
  • or, at least 200 wins and a W-L average of .600 or better and an ERA+ of 120 or higher.

I opined, further, that an ” ‘immortal’ pitcher will have at least 250 wins, a winning average of at least .600, and an ERA+ of at least 120.”

Well, it turns out that, by my definition, Mike Mussina qualifies as an “immortal”: 270 wins, a winning average of .638, and an ERA+ of 123. Not so fast.

Mussina, who has just announced his retirement, deserves to be in the Hall of Fame; I have no quibble with his qualifications on that score. But Mussina doesn’t strike me as an “immortal,” which is an honor that I would reserve for these starting pitchers:

Pete Alexander
John Clarkson
Bob Feller
Lefty Grove
Carl Hubbell
Walter Johnson
Tim Keefe
Christy Mathewson
Kid Nichols
Jim Palmer
Eddie Plank
Charley Radbourn
Tom Seaver
Cy Young

Accordingly, I must add another criterion for “immortality” among starting pitchers: at least five seasons with 20 or more wins. Mussina had only one such season: his last.

If — in this era of the relief pitcher — there is never another “immortal” starting pitcher, so be it. Tom Seaver will then have the honor of being the last of the breed.

Musical Memories

The six songs I remember from an early age:

“I’ve Got Spurs That Jingle Jangle Jingle” (probably sung by Gene Autry)

“You Are My Sunshine” (probably sung by Jimmie Davis, who wrote it)

“Cool Water” (sung by the Sons of the Pioneers)

“Always” (sung by Dinah Shore)

“Mairzy Doats” (probably sung by the Andrews Sisters)

“Let It Snow“

Presidential Heights

I once remarked on the longevity of presidents:

The [following] graph highlights trends (such as they are) in the age at which presidents have died (or to which they have survived if still living), the age at which they were elected or succeeded to the presidency, and the number of years by which they survived (or have thus far survived) election or succession. (I have omitted assassinated presidents from the data for age of death and number of years surviving, thus the gaps in the first and third series.)

It seems to me that the early presidents were generally “healthy and wise” (and wealthy, by the standards of their time). That is, they were of superior genetic stock, relative to the average person. Their successors have tended to be of less-superior stock, and it shows in the downward trends after 1836.

The general rise in life expectancies since 1900 masks the relative inferiority of twentieth century presidents. The rising age of accession to the presidency after 1932 and the rise in years of survivorship after 1924 (both with wide variations around the trend) should not be taken to indicate that presidents of the twentieth century are on a par, genetically, with the early presidents. They are not.

These observations are consistent with the following graph of presidents’ heights (here including only those men who were elected to the presidency):

Source: “Heights of United States presidents and presidential candidates” at Wikipedia.

With the notable exception of Lincoln, presidential heights generally diminished from the late 1700s to the late 1800s. The upward trend since 1900 attests to the general health and vigor of the population; it says nothing about the relative robustness of the men who have been elected to the presidency in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Popular-Vote Margins in Presidential Elections

I present the following graph as a matter of historical interest; no political commentary is intended or implied.

Draw your own conclusions, if there are any to be drawn.

Random Thoughts

Why is “gunite” pronounced gun-ite, whereas “granite” is pronounced gran-it?

If, in 1950, Harry Truman had said “four score and seven years ago,” he would have been referring to 1863, the year in which Abraham Lincoln uttered that famous phrase.

In the computer industry, “email” is preferred to “e-mail.” But it seems to me that “e-mail” better represents the phrase “electronic mail.” The meaning of “e-mail” is immediately obvious to me; “email,” at first glance, looks like a typo.

If the dismal northern weather of early April and late October — which delayed the start of the 2008 baseball season in some cities and then disrupted the World Series — doesn’t convince Major League Baseball to lop two weeks from each end of the regular season, nothing will.

One of the funniest movies I’ve seen is Harold Lloyd’s Dr. Jack (1922). It starts slowly, but builds to a hilariously frantic finish. Lloyd’s Safety Last! is better known — and deservedly considered a comedy classic — but it isn’t half as funny as Dr. Jack.

Between novels, I have been slogging my way through Thomas K. McCraw’s Prophet of Innovation: Joseph Schumpeter and Creative Destruction. There’s too much armchair psychology in it, but it whets my appetite for Schumpeter’s classic Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, which (I hate to admit) I haven’t read. Schumpter’s famous term for capitalism, “creative destruction,” often is applied with an emphasis on “destruction”; the emphasis should be on “creative.”

I must observe, relatedly, that my grandmother’s lifetime (1880-1977) spanned the invention and adoption of far more new technology than is likely to emerge in my lifetime, even if I live as long as my grandmother did.

The Names, They Are A Changing

The popularity of the first names of my grandparents, in the years of their birth (all in the last three decades of the nineteenth century):

Joseph – 7th (all ranks from the Social Security index of popular baby names)
Delia – 126th
Ernest – 24th
Hazel – 26th

As of 2007:

Joseph – 13th
Delia – 989th
Ernest – not in the top 1000
Hazel – 361st

Whereas, in 2007,

Anthony was 7th among male names (103rd when Joseph was born);
Serenity was 126th among female names (not in top 1000 when Delia was born);
Nathan was 24th among male names (136th when Ernest was born); and
Kayla was 26th among female names (not in top 1000 when Hazel was born, probably not a name then).

In 1908, the five most popular female names were Mary, Helen, Margaret, Ruth, and Anna. In 2007, the five most popular female names were Emily, Isabella, Emma, Ava, and Madison. The top five male names in 1908 were John, William, James, George, and Robert; in 2007 the top five male names were Jacob, Michael, Ethan, Joshua, and Daniel — an ironic turn toward the Old Testament in this secular age.

My own name — which is associated mainly with an Apostle — stood at or near 10th place from 1880 through the mid-1960s. It has slipped to 51st place.

The Seven-Game World Series

The seven-game World Series holds the promise of high drama. That promise is fulfilled if the Series stretches to a seventh game and that game goes down to the wire. Courtesy of Baseball-Reference.com, here is what has happened in the deciding game of the Series that have been played to date:

1909 – Pittsburgh (NL) 8 – Detroit (AL) 0

1912 – Boston (AL) 3 – New York (NL) 2 (10 innings)

1925 – Pittsburgh (NL) 9 – Washington (AL) 7

1926 – St. Louis (NL) 3 – New York (AL) 2

1931 – St. Louis (NL) 4 – Philadelphia (AL) 2

1934 – St. Louis (NL) 11 – Detroit (AL) 0

1940 – Cincinnati (NL) 2 – Detroit (AL) 1

1945 – Detroit (AL) 9 – Chicago (NL) 3

1947 – New York (AL) 5 – Brooklyn (NL) 2

1955 – Brooklyn (NL) 2 – New York (AL) 0

1956 – New York (AL) 9 – Brooklyn (NL) 0

1957 – Milwaukee (NL) 5 – New York (AL) 0

1958 – New York (AL) 6 – Milwaukee (NL) 2

1960 – Pittsburgh (NL) 10 New York (AL) 9 (decided by Bill Mazeroski’s home run in the bottom of the 9th)

1965 – Los Angeles (NL) 2 – Minnesota (AL) 0

1967 – St. Louis (NL) 7 – Boston (AL) 2

1968 – Detroit (AL) 4 – St. Louis (NL) 1

1971 – Pittsburgh (NL) 2 – Baltimore (AL) 1

1972 – Oakland (AL) 3 – Cincinnati (NL) 2

1973 – Oakland (AL) 5 – New York (NL) 2

1975 – Cincinnati (AL) 4 – Boston (AL) 3

1979 – Pittsburgh (NL) 4 – Baltimore (AL) 1

1982 – St. Louis (NL) 6 – Milwaukee (AL) 3

1985 – Kansas City (AL) 11 – St. Louis (NL) 0

1986 – New York (NL) 8 – Boston (AL) 5

1987 – Minnesota (AL) 4 – St. Louis (NL) 2

1991 – Minnesota (AL) 1 – Atlanta (NL) 0 (10 innings)

1997 – Florida (NL) 3 – Cleveland (AL) 2 (11 innings)

2001 – Arizona (NL) 3 – New York (AL) 2 (decided in the bottom of the 9th)

2002 – Anaheim (AL) 4 – San Francisco (NL) 1

Summary statistics:

30 seven-game Series (29 percent of 103 series played, including 4 in a best-of-nine format, none of which lasted 9 games)

15 Series decided by 1 or 2 runs

10 of those 15 Series decided by 1 run (5 times in extra innings or the winning team’s last at-bat)

4 consecutive seven-game Series 1955-58, all involving the New York Yankees (21 percent of the Yankees’ Series — 8 of 39 — went to seven games)

Does the World Series deliver high drama? Seldom. In fact, only about 10 percent of the time. The other 90 percent of the time it’s merely an excuse to fill seats and sell advertising.

What Is Truth?

Apropos nothing (or everything): Truth is not what someone says it is, or is not. Truth is truth, no matter the fame, wealth, position, or prestige of the person who proclaims a truth or advances a falsehood.