This fall, LIFE magazine has published a special issue commemorating the 50th anniversary of the movie M*A*S*H. Despite the hook, the issue focuses on the ensuing TV series, which ran from 1972 to 1983. Though the show has often been characterized as being politically left-wing, it actually is heavily classically liberal, celebrating the individual, civil liberties, and the market, and harshly criticizing anti-individualism, government compulsion, and government decision-making. In a series of essays, I examine the classical liberalism of M*A*S*H. This is Part 4. Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here. Part 3 is here.   When M*A*S*H debuted, the U.S. armed forces still used conscription to fill out its ranks. The peacetime draft began in 1948, following the expiration of World War II conscription, and included a special “doctor’s draft” for medical personnel. Selective service was vital to staffing up the U.S. military for both the Korean and Vietnam wars and was particularly despised by Vietnam protesters. Partway through M*A*S*H’s first season, the Pentagon announced that it would shift to an all-volunteer force, with the last inductions occurring before the TV season ended. Among government institutions, conscription is one of the most disturbing. People of a particular demographic group — young men — are taken from their private lives and forced to work and live under strict government direction, at great risk to life and limb. The draft is regularly derided on M*A*S*H; as Hawkeye explains about his draft board in “Yankee Doodle Doctor” (s. 1), “When they came for me, I was hiding, trying to puncture my eardrum with an ice pick.” No element of the show better represents opposition to the draft than the character Klinger. The show’s first seven seasons depict his many schemes to get discharged from the Army: trying to hang-glide out of Korea (“The Trial of Henry Blake,” s. 2), preparing to raft across the Pacific to California (“Dear Peggy,” s. 4), threatening to immolate himself (“The Most Unforgettable Characters,” s. 5), attempting to eat a jeep (“38 Across,” s. 5), pretending to believe he’s back home in Toledo (“The Young and the Restless,” s. 7). In “Mail Call” (s. 2), he claims his father is near death, hoping for a hardship discharge. Blake then flips through Klinger’s file: BLAKE Father dying last year. Mother dying last year. Mother and father dying. Mother, father and older sister dying. Mother dying and older sister pregnant. Older sister dying and mother pregnant. Younger sister pregnant and older sister dying. Here’s an oldie but a goody: half of the family dying, other half pregnant. Klinger, aren’t you ashamed of yourself? KLINGER Yes, sir. I don’t deserve to be in the Army. Klinger’s longest-running scheme is pretending to be a transvestite in the hope of earning a “Section 8” psychiatric discharge. Among the outfits from 20th Century Fox’s wardrobe shop that Farr wore (sometimes while puffing on a stogie) were Ginger Rogers’ Cleopatra costume (“April Fools,” s. 8) and a woolen coat of Betty Grable’s (“Major Ego,” s. 7), as well as reproductions of Dorothy’s pinafore dress from the Wizard of Oz and a Scarlett O’Hara gown from Gone With the Wind (“Major Ego,” s. 7), and a flare-torched Statue of Liberty get-up (“Big Mac,” s. 3). Klinger usually provides comic relief, but in “War of Nerves” (s. 6) he delivers a serious condemnation of the draft. Confiding in Sidney, who previously knocked down several of Klinger’s Section 8 schemes, he says he really does fear he’s going crazy because of his attempts to get out of the Army. Sidney asks Klinger why he wants out: KLINGER Why? Well, there’s — there’s lots of reasons. I guess death tops the list. I don’t want to die. And I don’t want to look at other people while they do it. And I don’t want to be told where to stand while it happens to me. And I don’t want to be told how to do it to somebody else. And I ain’t gonna. Period. That’s it. I’m gettin’ out. SIDNEY You don’t like death. KLINGER Overall, I’d rather lay in a hammock with a couple of girls than be dead — yes. SIDNEY Listen, Klinger. You’re not crazy. KLINGER I’m not? Really? SIDNEY You’re a tribute to man’s endurance. A monument to hope in size-12 pumps. I hope you do get out someday. There would be a battalion of men in hoopskirts right behind you. (0 COMMENTS)

I’ve always been weird, but at this point in my life I feel like I understand non-weird people quite well.  If you’re still baffled, my weird friends, one simple principle captures most of what you need to know.   The Principle of Normality: A normal person says what others say, but does what others do.   Notice that this principle captures two distinct features of normality. First, conformism.  People dislike expressing views or taking actions unless other people express the same views and take the same actions. Second, the chasm between words and actions.  Normal people lack integrity.  They feel little need to bring their actions in harmony with their words – or their words in harmony with their actions. Example: A normal person will say, “We should do everything possible to fight global warming” – yet donate zero to environmental charities.  How can they cope with the cognitive dissonance?  Because this psychological experience is alien to them.  They speak environmentalist words to echo the environmentalist words they hear other people say.  They donate zero to environmental charities because to mimic what they see other people do. For normal people, Social Desirability Bias is far more than a bias; it is their way of life. Once you understand the Principle of Normality, my weird friends, you are also ready to look in the mirror and understand weirdness in all its manifestations.  While some weird people exhibit multiple manifestations, most weird people strongly emphasize just one.  (I think). Manifestation #1: Saying unconventional things.  Some weird people like speaking about odd, off-putting, or socially disapproved topics, despite strong social pressure.  Picture the comic book nerd, the gaming nerd, the literary nerd, or the anti-religious nerd.  They still live much like other people; they just say weird things. Manifestation #2: Doing unconventional actions.  Other weird people focus on doing odd, off-putting, or socially disapproved things, again despite strong social pressure.  Picture the polyamorist, the punker, the Hare Krishna (in Western societies), or the junkie.  They still speak much like other people; they just do weird things. Manifestation #3: The integrity of good.  A third variety of weird person starts with plausible, even popular verbal premises.  Then they stun the rest of the world by striving to bring their behavior into strict conformity with these premises.  Picture the Effective Altruist, the vegan, the abolitionist, or the proponent of radical honesty. Manifestation #4: The integrity of evil.  The last variety of weird person starts with bizarre verbal premises that seem absurd unless you’re thoroughly brainwashed.  They they horrify the rest of the world by striving to bring their behavior into strict conformity with these premises.  Picture the Islamic fundamentalist, the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary, or the theonomist.   To point out the obvious: Manifestation #4 is responsible for almost all of the political horrors of the last three centuries.  Most weird people are not violent fanatics, but all violent fanatics are weird.  So while I’m personally high on Manifestations 1, 2, and especially 3, I can understand why weird people tend to frighten normal people.  In defense of the weird, however, I have to point out that most moral progress comes from Manifestation #3 – the abolition of slavery being the greatest example.  Normal people rarely initiate awful crimes on their own, but once violent fanatics make awful crimes normal, normal people will support them by word and deed. (0 COMMENTS)

No, but it might have cost him Georgia’s electoral votes. My friend and fellow economist Walter Block has an op/ed in the Wall Street Journal (November 8 and November 9 print edition) titled “Libertarians Spoil the Election.” Here’s his argument: Did the Libertarian Party throw the election to Joe Biden? Maybe. At this writing nominee Jo Jorgensen’s vote total exceeds Mr. Biden’s margin over President Trump in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and Pennsylvania, enough to change the outcome. First, he’s wrong about Pennsylvania and Nevada. Jorgenson’s vote doesn’t cover the spread. He has a better case for Arizona and Georgia. But even there, here’s the problem: Walter is assuming implicitly that the vast majority of votes that went to Jo Jorgenson would have gone to Trump. I think that’s wrong for two reasons. First, I would bet that about 20 percent of the people who voted for Jorgenson would not have bothered voting had they not been offered that alternative. (What’s my evidence? I admit that it’s gut feel.) Second, consider the remaining 80 percent. I would bet that at most 2/3 of this remaining 80 percent would have voted for Trump had Jorgenson not run. Why as much as 2/3? Because what I have observed is that young libertarianish people would have preferred Biden over Trump and older libertarianish people would have preferred Trump over Biden, and a much higher percent of older people than of younger people vote. If I’m right, that means that we would have to take the difference between 2/3 of 80% and 1/3 of 80%, which is, of course 1/3 of 80% and apply that to the Jorgenson totals in each state. Do that and Walter’s point might work for Arizona and Georgia but it’s not a slam dunk. Arizona: Biden gets 1,645,277 votes, Trump gets 1,629,845 votes, and Jorgenson gets 50, 121 votes. 80% of the Jorgenson vote = 40,097 votes. 1/3 of that = 13,366 votes. Biden minus Trump = 15,432. So even there, not clear that Trump would have won Arizona. Georgia: Biden gets 2,467,870 votes, Trump gets 2,456,275 votes, and Jorgenson gets 61,951 votes. 80% of the Jorgenson vote = 49,561 votes. 1/3 of that = 16,520 votes. Biden minus Trump = 11,595 votes. So there there’s a much better shot at Walter’s point. In his op/ed, Walter makes a strong case for Trump over Biden, most of which I agree with. Walter is critical of Trump on protectionism, as he should be. But he does leave out a major issue, one on which Biden is head and shoulders above Trump: immigration.     (0 COMMENTS)

A few years ago, Germany was heavily criticized for taking in roughly a million refugees from mostly Muslim countries. Today we discover that the promising Pfizer vaccine that might help to end the pandemic was developed by the children of Turkish migrants to Germany: Admittedly, most of the recent refugees are not likely to produce important medical breakthroughs.  But Şahin’s father worked in a German car factory, and I doubt that many people in Germany thought the child of one of those Turkish factory workers would someday help to save the world economy.  As Bryan Caplan likes to point out, more people leads to more ideas–especially when the extra people are given opportunities denied in their home country. Once this pandemic is over, I very much hope the US government reconsiders the ban on travel from certain Muslim countries. (0 COMMENTS)

I’ve spent over 30 years arguing about ideas.  During those decades, I’ve learned a lot.  I’ve changed my mind.  I’ve changed minds. Normally, however, arguing about ideas is fruitless.  Tempers fray.  Discussion goes in circles.  Each and every mental corruption that Philip Tetlock has explored rears itself ugly epistemic head.  You even lose friends. When a conversation goes off the rails, I’m sorely tempted to bluntly assess the other party’s deep intellectual flaws.  (As I repeatedly told my mom when I was a teenager, “When will you get it through your thick skull that…”)  You don’t have to master Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People to predict the results.  The other party typically has the temerity to bluntly assess my deep intellectual flaws, which in turn sparks an even more unpleasant, fruitless, and potentially friendship-ending exchange. The wise approach to fruitless argument, rather, is to politely disengage.  Yet how can you do this without counter-productively moving the conversation from bad to worse? The classic move is to make “one last point,” then terminate the conversation.  Again, you don’t have to master Carnegie to predict the results.  The other side rushes to get in their “one last point” and the cycle of suffering resumes. A better approach is to meekly announce, “I can’t think of anything else productive to say.”  Alas, this is still red meat in the eyes of many disputants.  “Aha, so you can’t even answer my brilliant arguments.  Typical!” The best ejector button I’ve discovered so far is a single word: “Impasse.”  You can stretch it out to, “I fear we’ve reached an impasse,” but even that provides a hand-hold for the other party to say, “Oh, we’ve reached an impasse, eh?  Speak for yourself.”  When you say, “Impasse” and stop talking, the conversation swiftly ends.  The other side won’t like it, but at this point you should meet further taunts with a silent shrug.  While this might spawn a grudge, it’s less likely to do so than further wasted words. Admittedly, if your real goal is to manipulate the other party into purging you, your best bet is probably Agree and Amplify.  But if that’s your goal, you have no need of my help. (0 COMMENTS)

I was very pleased to see Thomas Firey’s thoughtful series on the classical liberal currents in what was, arguably, the greatest television comedy ever, M*A*S*H.  The two original stars of the show were Alan Alda and the late Wayne Rogers.  What is lesser known of the latter, Wayne attended many Liberty Fund conferences between 2003 And 2015.  I had the privilege of knowing him for a number of years during his long and productive relationship with Liberty Fund. By CBS Television – Public Domain   Wayne first became acquainted with Liberty Fund through a personal relationship with a member of the Liberty Fund Board of Directors. Wayne began to attend our events, and he grew to love Liberty Fund.  I still vividly remember watching Wayne on his Fox Business show “Cashing In” wearing a Liberty Fund tie early on Saturday mornings.  I first met Wayne at a conference in 2006 on biology and the origins of virtue (directed by a long time friend of EconLib, the ever humble Mike Munger).  Wayne and I hit it off immediately and over the years I had the opportunity to work with him twice as he directed Liberty Fund conferences.   Wayne’s involvement was not simply because of his fame as a celebrity.  He was a graduate of Princeton and was sharp as a whip.  Sure he could tell stories about his days on M*A*S*H or hanging out with Cher, but he was a voracious reader, and a tenacious advocate for positions he believed him.  Woe be the person who disagreed with him on Glass-Stegall.  Anyone who thought he was just some Hollywood figure quickly learned that Wayne was an intellectual of the first order who was prepared to push you if you couldn’t defend your position or the text didn’t support your views.   For a while, people used to joke that Wayne Rogers must have financially regretted leaving the cast of M*A*S*H after just two seasons because of a contract dispute.  But trust me, Wayne got the last laugh.  At the root of his departure was what he described as his attraction to puzzles, most of them involving how to make money in a wide range of businesses and endeavors.  As I recall, the first deal that Wayne told me he was involved with was river barges, and because Wayne could tell a story, he made a business story about river barges seem like a pirate’s adventure along the Mississippi.   He went onto to be involved in a multitude of other businesses including wine making, banks, investments for some of his acting friends, such as Peter Falk, and perhaps most famously he was co-owner of a little bridal shop in New York called Kleinfeld. You may have heard of it because Wayne produced one of the most popular reality shows ever based at the shop called “Say Yes to the Dress” as just one of the many businesses he was involved with. In short, Wayne did just fine.   I’ll always remember Wayne for his energy and drive, his generosity with this time, the passion with which he lived his life, and his firm and unyielding commitment to the principles of liberty.  He loved playing what he called his “one string banjo” – his tendency to emphasize a point again and again until he convinced you of his position.  He was one of a kind, and as part of a one of a kind show, Wayne fit right in at the 4077th.  And he would have loved Tom’s discussion of the show’s classical liberal themes. (0 COMMENTS)

Author and economist Steven Levitt is the William B. Ogden Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago and host of the podcast “People I (Mostly) Admire.” He is best known as the co-author, with Stephen Dubner, of Freakonomics. The book, published in 2005, became a phenomenon, selling more than 5 million copies […] The post Steven Levitt on Freakonomics and the State of Economics appeared first on Econlib.

A friend of mine in Los Angeles recently took off 10 days to celebrate his birthday and drive up to northern California. To do so, he rented a car and paid just under $300, including tax, for those 10 days. He rented from Enterprise. It was a nice Toyota Camry too, as I noted when he stopped to visit me for coffee on the way up. While driving on a bad road in one of the national parks in northern California, he hit some solid underbrush and damaged a plastic panel of the car. I asked him what happened next. He called the rental car company and told them about it. The person who answered told him to take it to the nearest Firestone or Pep Boys. He found a Firestone nearby and took it in, where it was repaired quickly. “How much did you have to pay?,” I asked. “Nothing,” he answered. (0 COMMENTS)

That masked man struck even harder than I had thought. On yesterday’s post on income taxes in Illinois and other states, commenter Boris pointed out something I had missed. He stated what I had written about Illinois governor Pritzker’s proposal for the top marginal tax rate to be 7.99% and then added: It’s worse than that. It’s 7.99% on all your income if your income is over that line. So for a married couple, going from $999,999 to $1,000,001 (to be safe; not sure how exactly $1 million is treated) increases tax liability from $70,935 to $79,900. I still haven’t figured out who thought it was a good idea to have a discontinuity in the assessed tax like that and why everyone played along. This is so important that it deserves a post of its own. First, thanks to Boris. I checked his math and he’s right. I did add the pennies. So the 1,000,001th dollar that puts the married couple over the line causes the couple to pay $79,900.08 in income tax. That’s an increase of $8,965.08. So the marginal tax rate on that 1,000,001th dollar would be 896,508%. I’m guessing that in reality there are at least a couple of tax writers on the Democratic staff in Springfield, IL who would have seen this. What would have been interesting, though, and fortunately we won’t see it, would have been what they did when they discovered it. (0 COMMENTS)

On the first Friday of October I laid out the somewhat good news on employment and unemployment for September. This Friday (today), the news is fantastic! 1. The number of people employed increased by 2.243 million. A typical increase in normal times is between 0.2 and 0.3 million, so this is 7 to 10 times as large. 2. The employment to population ratio increased from 56.6 percent to 57.4 percent, a large increase. 3. The number of people unemployed fell from 12.580 million to 11.061 million, a drop of 1.519 million. 4. The unemployment rate fell from 7.9 percent to 6.9 percent. 5. The unemployment rate for people in every single category: black, white, men, women, teenagers, Asian, and Hispanic or Latino, fell. For many of those groups it fell by more than 1 percentage point. The above are all data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics household survey. The data from the establishment survey are also good, especially in the details. 1. Private employment rose by 906,000. 2. Leisure and hospitality, one of the sectors hardest hit by both the pandemic and the lockdowns, rose by 208,000. 3. Government employment fell by 268,000. (1 COMMENTS)