Monday, August 31, 2009
+ The US should invade and conquer Canada
JFK once said that America does difficult things "not because they are easy, but because they are hard". While it sounds nice, like much of what JFK said, this is an obviously moronic statement. Why ever take the more difficult path, just because it's more difficult? There you have the first reason I would support an invasion of Canada.. because it would be easy. Unlike say, Iraq, Canada is geographically close so we need not expend energy resources to move our troops there. Second, we have already convinced them to send their army to the Middle East, so our army will encounter little resistance. Second, just like Iraq, Canada is full of useful energy resources ripe for American consumption. We can therefore solve our energy crisis while demonstrating our martial superiority and boosting our military industry. For years our Alaskan citizens have had to travel through foreign lands to visit friends and relatives.. yet another problem solved by an annexation of Canada. Finally, many of are sick of hearing complaints about how Canada gives "free" healthcare to its citizens. If Canada was a colony of the US, we could simply send our sick people up there to be treated for "free" and return safe. We can also use it as a penal colony to easy our overcrowded prisons. And many of us detest the idea that the British queen still maintains sovereignty over land in our hemisphere.So many reasons to invade.. and practically none to hold us back. Some times a course of action is so obvious that thinking people see right through it. This appears to be one of those times. An invasion of Canada would be easy, cheap and would benefit us in multiple ways.. so lets rally the troops!
Saturday, August 29, 2009
+ the US is better off without Ted Kennedy
Every time someone famous dies it seems that the only emotion one must express is sadness. Well, I for one, am happy at the passing of this buffoon. Not only was of suspect intellect and morality, and possibly responsible for a MURDER.. his policies and in particular his "bi-partisanship" were key tools in the oppression of individual rights and freedom. His very existence as a powerful politician demonstrated nepotism, and spoke the peculiar and disgusting American yearning for aristocracy.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
+ Libertarianism is the last remaining revolutionary ideology
Karl Marx is famous for stating that Capitalism is the most revolutionary force known to man, and was in fact a great admirer of the American Revolution (which was a libertarian revolution in principle). History has given birth to a scant few truly revolutionary political ideologies: empire, democracy, theocracy and Marxism to name a few. One by one, each of these has proven to be unsustainable.
The age of Empires certainly resulted in the spread of technology throughout the world, but also lead to massive oppression, disaster and tyranny. Eventually maintaining a physical Empire proved too expensive to sustain. Democracy likewise led to the tyranny of the majority, while theocracy failed because it's subjects would eventually realize that the premise on which they were ruled was illogical and oppressive.
Marxism was the most radical of revolutions, but at the same time was the shortest lived, as it's prescriptions for society failed to take into account the nature of Man as a self-interested being. This proved to hold true whether or not men we're acting independently or as part of government. The enforcement of Marxism demanded adherence to a totalitarian state, and did not take into account the specific wants and needs of each individual and subjected them to the will of "the party".
The Jeffersonian revolution lives on through much of the world, as it most closely matches the individual aspirations of each man and women. It is perhaps the simplest of revolutions.. based on the idea that there is no objective means of determining what is "good" for society, and therefore individuals must have the right to decide for themselves. Government exists only to prevent these individuals from enforcing their will on their fellow men. The Jeffersonian revolution has the unique position of being an eternally revolutionary ideology independent of History. That is, as long as a single human being around the world is held under direct oppression by another, the revolution is still to come for THAT individual. As Jefferson stated, he wished to see an Empire of Liberty, where the most powerful authority was that of an Individual over his own thoughts and actions.
The age of Empires certainly resulted in the spread of technology throughout the world, but also lead to massive oppression, disaster and tyranny. Eventually maintaining a physical Empire proved too expensive to sustain. Democracy likewise led to the tyranny of the majority, while theocracy failed because it's subjects would eventually realize that the premise on which they were ruled was illogical and oppressive.
Marxism was the most radical of revolutions, but at the same time was the shortest lived, as it's prescriptions for society failed to take into account the nature of Man as a self-interested being. This proved to hold true whether or not men we're acting independently or as part of government. The enforcement of Marxism demanded adherence to a totalitarian state, and did not take into account the specific wants and needs of each individual and subjected them to the will of "the party".
The Jeffersonian revolution lives on through much of the world, as it most closely matches the individual aspirations of each man and women. It is perhaps the simplest of revolutions.. based on the idea that there is no objective means of determining what is "good" for society, and therefore individuals must have the right to decide for themselves. Government exists only to prevent these individuals from enforcing their will on their fellow men. The Jeffersonian revolution has the unique position of being an eternally revolutionary ideology independent of History. That is, as long as a single human being around the world is held under direct oppression by another, the revolution is still to come for THAT individual. As Jefferson stated, he wished to see an Empire of Liberty, where the most powerful authority was that of an Individual over his own thoughts and actions.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
+ the Obama administration is showing signs of fascist behavior
I was browsing a libertarian page on Facebook, and I came across the following post...
Ryan Sheehan I wrote flag@whitehouse.gov and gave them the names of people giving"fishy" info about healthcare. Obama, dems in the house and senate. Oh yeah and ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC. Fox news thank you for being honest.
Thinking (or perhaps hoping) it was some sort of hoax, I googled flag@whitehouse.gov and confirmed my worst fears... The US government is asking Private citizens to act as INFORMANTS regarding the political views of their fellow citizens....
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
- http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/facts-are-stubborn-things/
I've often wondered how Fascism and Statism really start.. what the first signs would be for ordinary citizens. I came to the conclusions that they would arrive as innocuous requests by the government.. to act in accordance with the public will, to "avoid spreading misinformation". Scary, Orwellian stuff. Watch out America, before its too late.
Ryan Sheehan I wrote flag@whitehouse.gov and gave them the names of people giving"fishy" info about healthcare. Obama, dems in the house and senate. Oh yeah and ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC. Fox news thank you for being honest.
Thinking (or perhaps hoping) it was some sort of hoax, I googled flag@whitehouse.gov and confirmed my worst fears... The US government is asking Private citizens to act as INFORMANTS regarding the political views of their fellow citizens....
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
- http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/facts-are-stubborn-things/
I've often wondered how Fascism and Statism really start.. what the first signs would be for ordinary citizens. I came to the conclusions that they would arrive as innocuous requests by the government.. to act in accordance with the public will, to "avoid spreading misinformation". Scary, Orwellian stuff. Watch out America, before its too late.
The Beginnings of Fascism
I was browsing a libertarian page on Facebook, and I came across the following post:
Ryan Sheehan I wrote flag@whitehouse.gov and gave them the names of people giving"fishy" info about healthcare. Obama, dems in the house and senate. Oh yeah and ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC. Fox news thank you for being honest.
Thinking (or perhaps hoping) it was some sort of hoax, I googled flag@whitehouse.gov and confirmed my worst fears... The US government is asking Private citizens to act as INFORMANTS regarding the political views of their fellow citizens....
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
- http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/facts-are-stubborn-things/
I've often wondered how Fascism and Statism really start.. what the first signs would be for ordinary citizens. I came to the conclusions that they would arrive as innocuous requests by the government.. to act in accordance with the public will, to "avoid spreading misinformation". Scary, Orwellian stuff. Watch out America, before its too late.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
+ Those who lean on religion are Weak
Clearly, religion is for the weak, who do not have the capability to think for themselves and abdicate this responsibility to those who would think for them.
- Marriage and family life should be supported by government
In our culture there is a perverse idea that Marriage and Family are universally desired, and therefore the State should recognize and support them. I for one do not "desire" marriage one bit, not can I say for sure that I will ever desire it. Therefore, BY DEFINITION, neither marriage nor family can be considered Universal (which would require that absolutely 100% of all people agreed).
If I decide never to get married, why is it that I have to pay for the tax breaks, child support, education and other government subsidies for families. It is absurd, and utterly unfair. They are making a choice, and they should pay the true costs for it.
If I decide never to get married, why is it that I have to pay for the tax breaks, child support, education and other government subsidies for families. It is absurd, and utterly unfair. They are making a choice, and they should pay the true costs for it.
Friday, August 14, 2009
+ the world would be a better place if everyone just spoke English
I do not believe that any government should ban people from speaking any language they wish to speak, or that there is nothing valuable in languages other than English, or even that English is a better language than any other. However Given that English is a language used throughout the world, and especially in the most important country in the world, the US, it makes sense for parents to prefer their children grow up speaking it.
The universal use of English has precedent historically. Various other languages have been nearly universal at different times in history, particularly amongst the intelligentsia. (Latin, Greek, German even to some extent Arabic and Chinese). The plain fact is that most scientific inquiry currently is conducted through the use of English, and not to know it is a huge disadvantage.
Furthermore, with the internet and other modern digital technology, it is more likely than at any time in history that we will be able to preserve other languages for posterity. The preservation of a language is no longer dependent on it having active speakers, so this alone cannot be a reason for forcing children to learn it in public schools.
I admit there will be, and even I feel, a certain loss at the fact that many languages are (and will) vanish across the world in the homogenization of culture that is part of globalization. However, nostalgia is not a valid reason to hold the people of the world back from embracing a scientifically advanced future.
The universal use of English has precedent historically. Various other languages have been nearly universal at different times in history, particularly amongst the intelligentsia. (Latin, Greek, German even to some extent Arabic and Chinese). The plain fact is that most scientific inquiry currently is conducted through the use of English, and not to know it is a huge disadvantage.
Furthermore, with the internet and other modern digital technology, it is more likely than at any time in history that we will be able to preserve other languages for posterity. The preservation of a language is no longer dependent on it having active speakers, so this alone cannot be a reason for forcing children to learn it in public schools.
I admit there will be, and even I feel, a certain loss at the fact that many languages are (and will) vanish across the world in the homogenization of culture that is part of globalization. However, nostalgia is not a valid reason to hold the people of the world back from embracing a scientifically advanced future.
+ Those who lean on religion are Weak
Clearly, religion is for the weak, who do not have the capability to think for themselves and abdicate this responsibility to those who would think for them.
+ the world would be a better place if everyone just spoke English
I do not believe that any government should ban people from speaking any language they wish to speak, or that there is nothing valuable in languages other than English, or even that English is a better language than any other. However Given that English is a language used throughout the world, and especially in the most important country in the world, the US, it makes sense for parents to prefer their children grow up speaking it.
The universal use of English has precedent historically. Various other languages have been nearly universal at different times in history, particularly amongst the intelligentsia. (Latin, Greek, German even to some extent Arabic and Chinese). The plain fact is that most scientific inquiry currently is conducted through the use of English, and not to know it is a huge disadvantage.
Furthermore, with the internet and other modern digital technology, it is more likely than at any time in history that we will be able to preserve other languages for posterity. The preservation of a language is no longer dependent on it having active speakers, so this alone cannot be a reason for forcing children to learn it in public schools.
I admit there will be, and even I feel, a certain loss at the fact that many languages are (and will) vanish across the world in the homogenization of culture that is part of globalization. However, nostalgia is not a valid reason to hold the people of the world back from embracing a scientifically advanced future.
The universal use of English has precedent historically. Various other languages have been nearly universal at different times in history, particularly amongst the intelligentsia. (Latin, Greek, German even to some extent Arabic and Chinese). The plain fact is that most scientific inquiry currently is conducted through the use of English, and not to know it is a huge disadvantage.
Furthermore, with the internet and other modern digital technology, it is more likely than at any time in history that we will be able to preserve other languages for posterity. The preservation of a language is no longer dependent on it having active speakers, so this alone cannot be a reason for forcing children to learn it in public schools.
I admit there will be, and even I feel, a certain loss at the fact that many languages are (and will) vanish across the world in the homogenization of culture that is part of globalization. However, nostalgia is not a valid reason to hold the people of the world back from embracing a scientifically advanced future.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
+ Americans have the right to use as much energy as we like
When I buy a bottle of water, the price includes the cost of making the bottle, which includes the value of its ingredients. The term "Waste" is hard to define. It's certainly not a waste for the user, as he takes full advantage of the product he buys. You can say that it was a less efficient way of using that energy, and you might have a "better" use for it. It's your right to buy that same energy and use it in your more efficient way if you like, and mine to use it in my less efficient way. Americans therefore, are wrongly indicted on the count of "wasting" energy, as they are not using something they didn't pay for.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
- Public Schools
Why, some ask, should the children of the rich get better schooling than those of the poor? Aren't we all "born equal", shouldn't we all get "equal opportunities" for success in life? Shouldn't society therefore, through government, aim to bridge this divide by paying for the schooling of poor children?
There are two distinct arguments that one can make against Public Schooling; one economic and social (the government doesn't do a good job of educating children), and the other philosophical. I will deal with the latter in this argument.
Unfairness of all kinds can be divided into two distinct types: that which results from the Choices of other Humans, and that which results from Nature and its Laws. The first type of unfairness is obvious; you might be murdered by another, or he/she may steal your property. This type can, and should, be remedied by Government. The second type is much larger and more vague. Dumb fortune is one example of this unfairness; one day you could win the lottery, the next you might be struck by lightning. Genetics and inheritance are yet another; you could have the genes of Michael Jordan or Mozart, or you could be short, fat and musically incompetent. You might have affluent, dedicated parents or poor lousy ones. All these phenomena have one thing in common; no human choice is ever involved in creating the situation at hand. When government attempts to remedy this type of unfairness, it necessarily increases the first type, as it must regulate and tax to accomplish this.
Public schooling falls clearly into the second type of Unfairness. When government pays for the education of poor children, it must tax everyone to cover the costs. For those with children, or those who hope to have children, this cost seems only fair. When one makes the choice to pass on his genetic and monetary inheritance by having kids, he/she should have to pay for the consequences of that choice, which include the resources spent raising them. However, having kids is a Choice not an obligation. It is far more Unfair for the childless to have to pay for a Choice they did not make, than for some to have to think carefully about whether they have the resources to raise kids of their own.
For anyone that believes in individual Freedom, any action of government must be subject to the same stringent test: does it preserve or promote freedom or does it impinge upon it. Public schooling certainly fails this test, and therefore I am obligated to oppose it.
There are two distinct arguments that one can make against Public Schooling; one economic and social (the government doesn't do a good job of educating children), and the other philosophical. I will deal with the latter in this argument.
Unfairness of all kinds can be divided into two distinct types: that which results from the Choices of other Humans, and that which results from Nature and its Laws. The first type of unfairness is obvious; you might be murdered by another, or he/she may steal your property. This type can, and should, be remedied by Government. The second type is much larger and more vague. Dumb fortune is one example of this unfairness; one day you could win the lottery, the next you might be struck by lightning. Genetics and inheritance are yet another; you could have the genes of Michael Jordan or Mozart, or you could be short, fat and musically incompetent. You might have affluent, dedicated parents or poor lousy ones. All these phenomena have one thing in common; no human choice is ever involved in creating the situation at hand. When government attempts to remedy this type of unfairness, it necessarily increases the first type, as it must regulate and tax to accomplish this.
Public schooling falls clearly into the second type of Unfairness. When government pays for the education of poor children, it must tax everyone to cover the costs. For those with children, or those who hope to have children, this cost seems only fair. When one makes the choice to pass on his genetic and monetary inheritance by having kids, he/she should have to pay for the consequences of that choice, which include the resources spent raising them. However, having kids is a Choice not an obligation. It is far more Unfair for the childless to have to pay for a Choice they did not make, than for some to have to think carefully about whether they have the resources to raise kids of their own.
For anyone that believes in individual Freedom, any action of government must be subject to the same stringent test: does it preserve or promote freedom or does it impinge upon it. Public schooling certainly fails this test, and therefore I am obligated to oppose it.
- India's early leaders were understandably wary of foreign investment
What is "understandable" about a group of individuals (India's early leaders), due to their irrational fears, deciding that ANOTHER group of individuals (the people of India) are incapable of making important decisions. For anyone who, like you, purports to believe in Freedom it should be seen as an extremely arrogant and tyrannical attitude. Tyrannical government is never understandable nor acceptable under any circumstance.
Freedom and Independence are two separate things. Independence alone is meaningless. If I were a slave, what difference does it make if my master was British or Indian? Did the Indian people rid themselves of the British only to become slaves of the Congress Party's whims? India may have gained "independence" from Britain in 1947, but it was not (and still isn't in many respects) a truly free society.
Freedom and Independence are two separate things. Independence alone is meaningless. If I were a slave, what difference does it make if my master was British or Indian? Did the Indian people rid themselves of the British only to become slaves of the Congress Party's whims? India may have gained "independence" from Britain in 1947, but it was not (and still isn't in many respects) a truly free society.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
+ Bottled Water
When you buy a bottle of water, you know exactly what you pay for it. You might buy them in bulk, thereby making your per bottle cost cheaper, or you might buy a single bottle from a vending machine for a buck. You can rest assured that it will be safe, and effective in quenching your thirst. What makes you come to this conclusion? You have done it before, and you have seen others do it before, successfully. You know what taste to expect from each particular brand (Aquafina wins hands down in my opinion). Whether you are in California, New York or Mumbai a bottle of Aquafina still tastes just as good. Can any of you "tap water" drinkers make the same claim? I think not. In fact a cup in Mumbai could kill you, and one in Cali could make you gag.
Lets take a look at this insidious species known as "tap water." Where does it come from? You think it comes from a local public reservoir, but it's truly a mystery. Whereas with Aquafina you can verify the process by which it's made online, by way of a nice graphical presentation. With "tap water", you must hope that the local government isn't corrupted into adding chlorine or a number of other potentially toxic substances. If Aquafina does this, you can sue or boycott them and take away the livelihood of their shareholders and employees. With "tap water", you must wait for the next election to change the system. You must hope that improvement of "tap water" is somewhere in the packages of promises made by various self-interested politicians.
You "tap water" drinkers make the ridiculous claim that it is "free", and to drink bottled water is a waste of resources. Do not kid yourself that it is free. You are paying for it through the mysterious phenomenon known as TAXES. What is the price you pay? It is not easily determined, as each inefficient government institution involved in its creation will add a not-insignificant cost.
Most of all, bottled water proves that the Free Market can handle with excellence even the most basic essentials of life (a concept that escapes most of you "tap water" drinkers). If you want a truly efficient system to distribute any resource at any time and of any kind, the Free Market is infinitely and eternally superior to government institutions.
Lets take a look at this insidious species known as "tap water." Where does it come from? You think it comes from a local public reservoir, but it's truly a mystery. Whereas with Aquafina you can verify the process by which it's made online, by way of a nice graphical presentation. With "tap water", you must hope that the local government isn't corrupted into adding chlorine or a number of other potentially toxic substances. If Aquafina does this, you can sue or boycott them and take away the livelihood of their shareholders and employees. With "tap water", you must wait for the next election to change the system. You must hope that improvement of "tap water" is somewhere in the packages of promises made by various self-interested politicians.
You "tap water" drinkers make the ridiculous claim that it is "free", and to drink bottled water is a waste of resources. Do not kid yourself that it is free. You are paying for it through the mysterious phenomenon known as TAXES. What is the price you pay? It is not easily determined, as each inefficient government institution involved in its creation will add a not-insignificant cost.
Most of all, bottled water proves that the Free Market can handle with excellence even the most basic essentials of life (a concept that escapes most of you "tap water" drinkers). If you want a truly efficient system to distribute any resource at any time and of any kind, the Free Market is infinitely and eternally superior to government institutions.
Monday, August 10, 2009
- the solution to the healthcare crisis involves more government involvement
Your analysis of the healthcare situation is accurate, and all the institutions you mentioned are very much to blame. Obama's solution, which you apparently support, involves increasing the level of government involvement. Yet there is an easier, cheaper and more direct solution, and one that does not involve the government taking control of our bodies out of our hands. That is to combat those very institutions that you mention (insurance companies, the AMA, giant pharma and the malpractice lawyers), and to remove the special privileges they have acquired THROUGH GOVERNMENT.
Lets take the case of the AMA, which has managed to convince the American people and the government that the regulations they support (licensing for professions, monopoly over medical education facilities, prescription drug laws) are in the greater interest of Society. Imagine how much more affordable healthcare would be if these regulations were removed.. Rather than having to go back to the doctor every time to get a prescription, and essentially paying him/her a "tax", you would be able to look up your symptoms and order the appropriate medication from India at a fraction of the cost.
This is just one example of reducing government involvement will be better for the patient than increasing it. I'm sure that if you analyze the governmental regulations imposed by each of the institutions you mentioned, you would realize that the true solution to the crisis is getting the government out of healthcare entirely.
Lets take the case of the AMA, which has managed to convince the American people and the government that the regulations they support (licensing for professions, monopoly over medical education facilities, prescription drug laws) are in the greater interest of Society. Imagine how much more affordable healthcare would be if these regulations were removed.. Rather than having to go back to the doctor every time to get a prescription, and essentially paying him/her a "tax", you would be able to look up your symptoms and order the appropriate medication from India at a fraction of the cost.
This is just one example of reducing government involvement will be better for the patient than increasing it. I'm sure that if you analyze the governmental regulations imposed by each of the institutions you mentioned, you would realize that the true solution to the crisis is getting the government out of healthcare entirely.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
- A complicated society requires a complex government
One of the great knocks on Milton Friedman was that his ideas were "out of the 18th century (due to their association with Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson)," and were too naive for the complex modern world. Let's ignore, for a second, the fatuous proposition that support for individual rights and freedom can ever be considered "naive" and consider only the so called impracticality of a minimalist government.
During the 19th century there were two great scientific theories that conclusively demonstrated that it was possible for complex and efficient systems to arise without intelligent oversight. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection powerfully showed this for the most complicated natural systems in the universe; mammalian organisms. Adam Smith's invisible hand did likewise for human economic systems. In the Wealth of Nations, he proved that prosperity did not depend on government management, but rather on the unstoppable desire for individual men and women to do better by themselves and their family. In fact a strong government often damaged the economy, as it separated the self-interested intentions of individuals from economic decision making, thereby reducing efficiency.
Now, certainly, one cannot prove that some ingenious individual or group of individuals (government) will never be able to design a better economic system at a particular point in time. After all, individuals and companies prove every day that it is possible for the tiniest David to fell the mightiest Goliath. If there is anything to be said about our species it should be to expect the unthinkable. However, the question should not be whether or not it is possible for government to design a superior system, but rather is it likely and sustainable.. and what are the costs imposed on various parties.
Given that in any liberal Democracy there are thousands of ideas floating around on how to fix various problems, and that there is little scientific consensus on which policies would be better for society as a whole, it seems highly unlikely that the particular group of people with the particular set of policies that Might effect a superior system at a particular point in time would simultaneously hold governmental power to enact them. Second, while this theoretical system might be superior to a free market at the current point in time, there is no guarantee that it will be better in the long run. In fact, this seems unlikely given that technological and social change occur at such a dramatic place in the modern world.
In a Friedmanite/Smithian/Jeffersonian Free Market, however, the best set of economic designers need not be involved in government at the right time. The would instead be involved in starting various companies, inventing various new devices and generally improving society independent of authority. When their ideas become outdated, there will be automatically be a new set of ideas waiting in the wings to advance the greater interest of society. The ideas that fail will not be promoted, and the ideas that succeed necessarily bring some benefit to society (or they would not succeed). The Free Market deals with economic complexity much like Natural Selection deals with biological complexity. While it's solutions are not always perfect, the end result is usually a highly efficient system. If one were to knock these ideas as antiquated, then I, for one, would be more than proud to accept the label myself.
During the 19th century there were two great scientific theories that conclusively demonstrated that it was possible for complex and efficient systems to arise without intelligent oversight. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection powerfully showed this for the most complicated natural systems in the universe; mammalian organisms. Adam Smith's invisible hand did likewise for human economic systems. In the Wealth of Nations, he proved that prosperity did not depend on government management, but rather on the unstoppable desire for individual men and women to do better by themselves and their family. In fact a strong government often damaged the economy, as it separated the self-interested intentions of individuals from economic decision making, thereby reducing efficiency.
Now, certainly, one cannot prove that some ingenious individual or group of individuals (government) will never be able to design a better economic system at a particular point in time. After all, individuals and companies prove every day that it is possible for the tiniest David to fell the mightiest Goliath. If there is anything to be said about our species it should be to expect the unthinkable. However, the question should not be whether or not it is possible for government to design a superior system, but rather is it likely and sustainable.. and what are the costs imposed on various parties.
Given that in any liberal Democracy there are thousands of ideas floating around on how to fix various problems, and that there is little scientific consensus on which policies would be better for society as a whole, it seems highly unlikely that the particular group of people with the particular set of policies that Might effect a superior system at a particular point in time would simultaneously hold governmental power to enact them. Second, while this theoretical system might be superior to a free market at the current point in time, there is no guarantee that it will be better in the long run. In fact, this seems unlikely given that technological and social change occur at such a dramatic place in the modern world.
In a Friedmanite/Smithian/Jeffersonian Free Market, however, the best set of economic designers need not be involved in government at the right time. The would instead be involved in starting various companies, inventing various new devices and generally improving society independent of authority. When their ideas become outdated, there will be automatically be a new set of ideas waiting in the wings to advance the greater interest of society. The ideas that fail will not be promoted, and the ideas that succeed necessarily bring some benefit to society (or they would not succeed). The Free Market deals with economic complexity much like Natural Selection deals with biological complexity. While it's solutions are not always perfect, the end result is usually a highly efficient system. If one were to knock these ideas as antiquated, then I, for one, would be more than proud to accept the label myself.
+ morality should be defined as the ability to make ethical decisions
Morality stems from the the concept of free will. If human beings have free will, they have the ability to make decisions based on their views of what is right and wrong.. i.e. ethical decisions. Morality therefore must derive primarily from human reasoning ability, and the freedom to exercise it. Lower animals do not have the reasoning ability required to make such decisions.. therefore we cannot say a lion is immoral because it cruelly kills gazelles, etc.
Friday, August 7, 2009
+ morality should be defined as the ability to make ethical decisions
Morality stems from the the concept of free will. If human beings have free will, they have the ability to make decisions based on their views of what is right and wrong.. i.e. ethical decisions. Morality therefore must derive primarily from human reasoning ability, and the freedom to exercise it. Lower animals do not have the reasoning ability required to make such decisions.. therefore we cannot say a lion is immoral because it cruelly kills gazelles, etc.
+ one man's freedom ends where another's begins
You either do not understand the meaning of freedom, or simply don't believe in it. I have a feeling your idea of personal freedom includes the right to control my actions and thoughts through the democratic prerogative. As I tried to explain before, freedom must be understood from the point of view of negative liberty: the rights ordained by the inherent nature of man as a reasoning being. You have every right to do as you wish with YOUR life, liberty and property.. but not to control how I use mine. You have every right to act as YOU believe is ethical, but not to limit my actions to the criteria you choose. You have every right to buy healthcare for Yourself, or donate money for scientific research, but not to tell me how I spend MY resources. You have every right not to use drugs, or alcohol, but NO natural right to tell me what I do with my body. Freedom cannot be defined as the will of a society, because a society is not of uniform mind and therefore unable to make ethical decisions. Freedom can only defined as the will of the individual, within the constraints of the freedom of other individuals. I have no freedom to murder or steal, because those actions impinge on the rights of the victims. Another way of looking at it is that an individual has infinite natural rights to rule himself, and absolutely zero rights to rule another human being. I agree that a system which effects these beliefs is impractical. For this reason, I am willing to accept a minimalist government that sticks to the role I defined.
- any decision made by the majority should be accepted
You are walking a dangerous line between the democratic values you wish to uphold, and the possible tyranny that could result. You should note that Hitler came to power partly through democratic means. Do you honestly believe that if a majority of our country, at some point in time, wishes to exterminate a particular ethnicity or to enslave them, that decision ought to be permitted by our system of government? Where do you draw the line? The verdict of history is clear.. a tyranny of the majority is just as dangerous as the tyranny of a fascist. The ideal government should prevent any tyranny whatsoever. I believe that the US system comes closest to achieving this, but it is anything but perfect.
- responding separately to points is counter-intuitive
While the usual method of response in digital media is by aggregate arguments, I disagree that it is the naturally intuitive method of conversation. In verbal conversation, it is quite natural to say, for example, wait a second.. you said point A, now I find that absurd and disconcerting. With multiple participants present, verbal conversations tend to split up into various modes of discourse.. person A may disagree with statement B as stated by person B, but agree with statement C by person D etc. In addition, several parallel conversations may be occuring at the same time. This type of discussion is difficult in traditional digital media, but is in fact promoted on Argumentum. You can engage in natural conversation through the comment system with person D, while disputing statement B using a follow-up argument.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
- Argumentum prohibits users from reacting with aggregate arguments
The Argumentum comment system is intended to facilitate 1 on 1 discussions in a similar manner to Email or regular Forums. On a forum, such discussion often leads away from the main topic so that incoming users are confused about what exactly to respond to. On Argumentum however, such conversation is naturally filtered away from the primary argument views, so that other users are not inundated with this unrelated "noise". This permits natural conversation while maintaining the integrity of the primary conversation.
+ Argumentum focuses discussion on specific points of contention
When a person claims "if you believe point A, then point B is the logical conclusion," he makes an implicit assertion that you Should believe point A. In the majority of these cases, you will find that point A is a moral assertion and one that is often politically incorrect to deny. You might preface your response with the fact that you do not accept the premise of his point, but this is often lost or misfit in the overall argument you intend on making. Either way, the fact remains that point A exists, and it is often tangential to the primary argument. How then can you attack point A without interrupting argumentative flow? On Argumentum, all you have to do is create a follow-up proposition with the same fundamental meaning as point A. You can then oppose it, without interfering with the original discussion. Hidden assumptions are the scourge of rational discussion, in the sense that once taken they allow for all sorts of obfuscation. Argumentum allows reason to triumph over such assumptions since it allows them to be attacked on an individual basis.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
- anti-americanism
The following is an excerpt from a review of Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, a book by supposed "scholar" Mahmood Mamdani..
Mamdani‘s perspective on America also leads him to uncritically accept others’ attacks on American actions, for example the use of depleted uranium munitions in the Gulf War. He describe DU as “radioactive and highly toxic,” claiming that it is responsible for a huge increase in cancers in Iraq. That, however, is implausible.
He notes that U-238 has a “half-life of four and a half billion years,” but fails to appreciate what that means: The shorter an element’s half-life, the more energy is gives off; the longer an element’s half-life, the less energy it gives off. The half-life of U-238 is as long as the age of the earth because it gives off so little energy.
Essentially, these shells are no more radioactive than the Lead shells which have been used for decades (or any other heavy metal for that matter).
Now, apparently I have one friend who recommends this book, and another who is now reading it (seriously). Ok, you say, seems an innocent enough mistake, considering the book is widely perceived a credible thesis by a credible author concerning the supposed American roots of Islamic terror. But given that such a perception exists, it is not MORE important to independently verify the claims made within, and not LESS? This is an acceptable mistake for a high school history student, not a Columbia professor. In fact, I would go further and make the claim that such an egregious error from a scholar of such repute ought to be taken not as a simple misunderstanding of nuclear physics, but as a betrayal of the author's allegiance to a widely held school of modern leftist thought: anti-Americanism. In plainer words, he seems to be able to say anything as long as it supports the claim that the United States of America is responsible for all the evil in the world.
During the 20th century, these treasonous types chose America's opposition to Socialism and Communism (two related and truly evil ideologies) as their prime focus, but in more recent years it is the American opposition to Islamo-fascism which has been the target of their wrath. This opposition (unlike what Dr. Mamdani suggests) did not begin with the Cold War, but was in fact the theater of some of our earliest military operations. In the early 1800s, the Muslim Barbary pirates of North Africa were waging a relentless war against the Western powers.. often invading and taking entire Irish villages, and European and American naval crews as slaves. Until this point, Thomas Jefferson had fervently believed that this violence was retribution for Christian crusade tainted European Imperalism. Why on earth would they attack ships of the newly independent United States? Imagine his shock at the following events....
From wikipedia:
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
""
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. ""
It was this that ended his innocence about the nature of the non-European powers, and eventually convinced him to launch the Barbary Wars when he ascended to the Presidency. (the most important outcome of which is the only official US document which mentions the Christian religion: "the United States is not, in any sense, a Christian nation.")
It is more important than ever that this neglected history of American-Islamic relations be revisited in light of the modern world. Especially by people such as Dr. Mamdani, who would otherwise believe that the United States has brought this Islamic violence upon itself by its own actions. It is extremely important to note, that the violence we see from fundamentalist Muslims today is NOT a reaction to perceived injustices, but rather an extension of standard Islamic views on the nature of world power. Islam contends that IT IS the last and final revelation of God, and this revelation INCLUDES the entitlement to world dominance under Shariah law. It is for this reason, that we do not see, for example, terrorists from Cambodia, Laos, Chile or Vietnam (nations which would in any just view have equal entitlement to feel slighted by American actions during the cold war).
Anti-Americanism, as exhibited by Dr. Mamdani, is a cute rebellious ideology, but it is fundamentally flawed in its implicit thesis that without American commitment to individual freedom, the world would be a better place. If America has any wish to remain a prosperous nation of free people, it must realize and directly confront the nature of the beast which faces us: religious bigotry of the highest order.
updated:
@jcrunkleton
I dispute this assertion. As I demonstrated above, Jefferson realized that the American way was incompatible with the existence of tyranny around the globe.
Mamdani‘s perspective on America also leads him to uncritically accept others’ attacks on American actions, for example the use of depleted uranium munitions in the Gulf War. He describe DU as “radioactive and highly toxic,” claiming that it is responsible for a huge increase in cancers in Iraq. That, however, is implausible.
He notes that U-238 has a “half-life of four and a half billion years,” but fails to appreciate what that means: The shorter an element’s half-life, the more energy is gives off; the longer an element’s half-life, the less energy it gives off. The half-life of U-238 is as long as the age of the earth because it gives off so little energy.
Essentially, these shells are no more radioactive than the Lead shells which have been used for decades (or any other heavy metal for that matter).
Now, apparently I have one friend who recommends this book, and another who is now reading it (seriously). Ok, you say, seems an innocent enough mistake, considering the book is widely perceived a credible thesis by a credible author concerning the supposed American roots of Islamic terror. But given that such a perception exists, it is not MORE important to independently verify the claims made within, and not LESS? This is an acceptable mistake for a high school history student, not a Columbia professor. In fact, I would go further and make the claim that such an egregious error from a scholar of such repute ought to be taken not as a simple misunderstanding of nuclear physics, but as a betrayal of the author's allegiance to a widely held school of modern leftist thought: anti-Americanism. In plainer words, he seems to be able to say anything as long as it supports the claim that the United States of America is responsible for all the evil in the world.
During the 20th century, these treasonous types chose America's opposition to Socialism and Communism (two related and truly evil ideologies) as their prime focus, but in more recent years it is the American opposition to Islamo-fascism which has been the target of their wrath. This opposition (unlike what Dr. Mamdani suggests) did not begin with the Cold War, but was in fact the theater of some of our earliest military operations. In the early 1800s, the Muslim Barbary pirates of North Africa were waging a relentless war against the Western powers.. often invading and taking entire Irish villages, and European and American naval crews as slaves. Until this point, Thomas Jefferson had fervently believed that this violence was retribution for Christian crusade tainted European Imperalism. Why on earth would they attack ships of the newly independent United States? Imagine his shock at the following events....
From wikipedia:
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
""
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. ""
It was this that ended his innocence about the nature of the non-European powers, and eventually convinced him to launch the Barbary Wars when he ascended to the Presidency. (the most important outcome of which is the only official US document which mentions the Christian religion: "the United States is not, in any sense, a Christian nation.")
It is more important than ever that this neglected history of American-Islamic relations be revisited in light of the modern world. Especially by people such as Dr. Mamdani, who would otherwise believe that the United States has brought this Islamic violence upon itself by its own actions. It is extremely important to note, that the violence we see from fundamentalist Muslims today is NOT a reaction to perceived injustices, but rather an extension of standard Islamic views on the nature of world power. Islam contends that IT IS the last and final revelation of God, and this revelation INCLUDES the entitlement to world dominance under Shariah law. It is for this reason, that we do not see, for example, terrorists from Cambodia, Laos, Chile or Vietnam (nations which would in any just view have equal entitlement to feel slighted by American actions during the cold war).
Anti-Americanism, as exhibited by Dr. Mamdani, is a cute rebellious ideology, but it is fundamentally flawed in its implicit thesis that without American commitment to individual freedom, the world would be a better place. If America has any wish to remain a prosperous nation of free people, it must realize and directly confront the nature of the beast which faces us: religious bigotry of the highest order.
updated:
@jcrunkleton
I dispute this assertion. As I demonstrated above, Jefferson realized that the American way was incompatible with the existence of tyranny around the globe.
- while private entities care only for their bottom line, government has the public interest at heart
You have to realize that every single individual person, whether acting privately or as part of 'government' acts only in their self-interest. The government bureaucrat has no special concern for public safety, that the private CEO doesn't have. There is only ONE place where such concern lies, and that is in the individual who is driving a car, and doesn't want to die. The question becomes how do you translate that concern into a system that provides what the individuals in society want? Gaurav's contention, and mine, would be that the free market is more responsive to the individual's concern than the government.
- government should fund research
While it may SEEM sensible for government to fund scientific research in the "greater interest" of society, there are several problems that arise. First, how do you define the "greater interest"? Should it really be up to a few beaurocrats in government to make this decision? When government funds research it skews the research community towards the fields which it funds. Second, sure, some funding may seem beneficial, such as curing cancer. Others its debateable. For example in a lab I worked at, DARPA was funding research into brain-machine interfaces; a technology which is quite far from having any practical use. Does it really make sense for Joe Sixpack to have to pay for my esoteric research? What will he get out of it.. It makes more sense that the Free Market drives research innovation, as it is the best predictor of what is in the "greater interest" of society at large.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
- net neutrality
While the aims of net neutrality are noble, those who promote it fail to notice the potential dangers. One problem is that for different people, net neutrality means different things. At one level are college students, who don't want to be charged extra for downloading movies or using youtube. At another are small web sites, who fear that their sites will be shut out as big companies buy out available bandwidth. The biggest supporters of net neutrality, however, are companies like Google, Facebook, Craigslist, Youtube etc, who do not want to see their empires threatened by other big companies.
These companies know that their revenue depends on people wasting extra time on their sites, without worrying about any extra cost. Youtube is especially dependent on this, as it would be the most affected by restriction on bandwidth use. Google fears that a company like Comcast might charge a small fee for using its search engine. This might hurt Google, but isn't it more fair to people who use only email.. that they be charged for using only email?
A more worrisome situation is one like the following: Microsoft might pay Comcast a licensing fee for Bing to be its sole search provider. However, proponents of net neutrality fail to notice that this situation (an agreement in restraint of trade) is covered by existing anti-trust laws. In fact, the vast majority of truly worrisome outcomes (mostly related to ISPs preferring access to certain sites over others) are covered by these laws anyway, since telecom providers usually have localized monopolies as is.
While it certainly would suck to have to pay more, to use more, it seems fair: simultaneously those who use less would pay less. My prediction is that usage based pricing will eventually lead to lower costs over the wide range of normal internet use.
These companies know that their revenue depends on people wasting extra time on their sites, without worrying about any extra cost. Youtube is especially dependent on this, as it would be the most affected by restriction on bandwidth use. Google fears that a company like Comcast might charge a small fee for using its search engine. This might hurt Google, but isn't it more fair to people who use only email.. that they be charged for using only email?
A more worrisome situation is one like the following: Microsoft might pay Comcast a licensing fee for Bing to be its sole search provider. However, proponents of net neutrality fail to notice that this situation (an agreement in restraint of trade) is covered by existing anti-trust laws. In fact, the vast majority of truly worrisome outcomes (mostly related to ISPs preferring access to certain sites over others) are covered by these laws anyway, since telecom providers usually have localized monopolies as is.
While it certainly would suck to have to pay more, to use more, it seems fair: simultaneously those who use less would pay less. My prediction is that usage based pricing will eventually lead to lower costs over the wide range of normal internet use.
- cash for clunkers
President Obama proclaims the now bankrupt "cash for clunkers" program as an overwhelming success. The state of the economy is such, apparently, that when middle class people take free money it is a cause to be celebrated. Now of course, the middle class market for new cars is not the only segment to benefit from this largess. Since the $4500 is a "voucher" to be used at car dealerships, it is ultimately a gift from the government directly to the pockets of some of the same executives who demonstrated their utter incompetence by failing to avoid bankruptcy AFTER receiving a bailout from the government.
Now, one could say that the point of the program was to benefit the environment. 200,000 inefficient cars are off the road, says our dear leader. Well lets take a quick look at the numbers. The eligibility requirement for the program were cars with <18MPG. The replacement cars must have a combined MPG of 22. This 4mpg difference is unlikely to produce an improvement in the environment commensurate with the price of the program, not to mention the environmental cost of building, and destroying 200,000 automobiles. Like many of the recent democratic proposals, this seems to be a political ploy to avoid responsibility for the party's ineptness.
Now, one could say that the point of the program was to benefit the environment. 200,000 inefficient cars are off the road, says our dear leader. Well lets take a quick look at the numbers. The eligibility requirement for the program were cars with <18MPG. The replacement cars must have a combined MPG of 22. This 4mpg difference is unlikely to produce an improvement in the environment commensurate with the price of the program, not to mention the environmental cost of building, and destroying 200,000 automobiles. Like many of the recent democratic proposals, this seems to be a political ploy to avoid responsibility for the party's ineptness.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)