Throwing "government money" (there really is no such thing) at the slouching economy isn't going to make it better. It's been done before, and it rarely helps. At best, we might get a temporary spike in economic activity as a result of the spending, but like the high from a hit of crack, it will not be sustained, it will not be "real" economic activity, and when the spending stops we'll have a nasty hangover.
This WSJ article explains it nicely.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122938932478509075.html
The best thing government can do to help the situation is to get out of the way, untie the hands of businesses, lower taxes, and allow private companies and individuals to go about the process of creating wealth. Government cannot create wealth, it can only destroy it.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy
A new article in Nature: "Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy"
Holy cow, a sensible attitude toward drugs from one of the most respected science journals! Dare I hope that this attitude may eventually spread to include other drugs?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/456702a.html
Society must respond to the growing demand for cognitive enhancement. That response must start by rejecting the idea that 'enhancement' is a dirty word, argue Henry Greely and colleagues.
Holy cow, a sensible attitude toward drugs from one of the most respected science journals! Dare I hope that this attitude may eventually spread to include other drugs?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/456702a.html
Monday, November 24, 2008
The Cause of the Crisis
It is popular to blame the current economic crisis on the free market, and to turn to government for the solution. However, I believe that the opposite is true: the root cause of the crisis is government policies, and more government intervention is likely to exacerbate our problems in the long term, rather than to solve them.
Let me be clear that I do not think that financial markets should be entirely unregulated. Some regulations are appropriate. But I do not think that any sort of regulations would have completely prevented this crisis, nor was lack of them the cause.
There was a huge bubble in real estate. The bubble burst. The existence of the bubble was the problem.
Sub prime mortgages, credit default swaps, and all that may have been the straw that broke the camel's back, or the manner in which more fundamental problems manifested, but they were not the root cause of our trouble.
The root cause of our trouble, the reason why there was a bubble in the first place, is the Federal Reserve system, fiat money, and to a lesser extent, our system of fractional reserve banking.
Since its creation in 1913, the Fed has continually inflated the money supply, creating new money which enables government to spend more without directly taxing people, but taxing them indirectly through inflation. Inflationary monetary policy is also the cause of economic boom-bust cycles. In the most recent case, the Fed pushed interest rates down to an artificially low level from 2002-2005. This caused excess liquidity to flow into our economy, and all that money had to go somewhere. Much of it went into real estate, creating a bubble which, as all bubbles, would eventually burst.
The Japanese government contributed to this as well. For nearly a decade, they pushed real interest rates to near zero. Investors borrowed billions of dollars for nearly no cost from Japanese banks, and invested the money in US markets, where they could earn a reasonable rate of return, and pocket the difference in interest as profit. Outcome: bubble.
All of this is possible for one reason: fiat money. Before the creation of the Fed, US money was tied to gold. The government could not arbitrarily create more of it, because it could not create more gold. This kept the money supply in check, and prevented government manipulation of interest rates. While on the gold standard, there were few booms and busts; growth was steadier, and inflation was very low. Since then, our money is not tied to anything of intrinsic value; there are no limits on how much of it government can print. And since then, we have suffered from one depression/recession after another, with bubbles in between, and constant inflation which saps money from the middle class and transfers it to government and those who suckle from its tit.
I can name perhaps a dozen other factors which led or contributed to the financial crisis, and government is to blame for many of them as well. But we will never stop this from happening again as long as we ignore the root of the problem. The idea that government should control our money supply, should have a monopoly on legal tender, and should be allowed to manipulate interest rates, is the fundamental flaw in our thinking. Until we correct it, we will continue to lurch from bubble to crisis.
These are not my ideas. These are the ideas of the Austrian school of economists. They are widely ignored by the media, but actively promoted by leaders such as Ron Paul, the Cato institute, the Meises institute, Lew Rockwell, and others. And they not only explain, but actually predicted our economic crisis.
http://mises.org/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
http://cato.org/
Let me be clear that I do not think that financial markets should be entirely unregulated. Some regulations are appropriate. But I do not think that any sort of regulations would have completely prevented this crisis, nor was lack of them the cause.
There was a huge bubble in real estate. The bubble burst. The existence of the bubble was the problem.
Sub prime mortgages, credit default swaps, and all that may have been the straw that broke the camel's back, or the manner in which more fundamental problems manifested, but they were not the root cause of our trouble.
The root cause of our trouble, the reason why there was a bubble in the first place, is the Federal Reserve system, fiat money, and to a lesser extent, our system of fractional reserve banking.
Since its creation in 1913, the Fed has continually inflated the money supply, creating new money which enables government to spend more without directly taxing people, but taxing them indirectly through inflation. Inflationary monetary policy is also the cause of economic boom-bust cycles. In the most recent case, the Fed pushed interest rates down to an artificially low level from 2002-2005. This caused excess liquidity to flow into our economy, and all that money had to go somewhere. Much of it went into real estate, creating a bubble which, as all bubbles, would eventually burst.
The Japanese government contributed to this as well. For nearly a decade, they pushed real interest rates to near zero. Investors borrowed billions of dollars for nearly no cost from Japanese banks, and invested the money in US markets, where they could earn a reasonable rate of return, and pocket the difference in interest as profit. Outcome: bubble.
All of this is possible for one reason: fiat money. Before the creation of the Fed, US money was tied to gold. The government could not arbitrarily create more of it, because it could not create more gold. This kept the money supply in check, and prevented government manipulation of interest rates. While on the gold standard, there were few booms and busts; growth was steadier, and inflation was very low. Since then, our money is not tied to anything of intrinsic value; there are no limits on how much of it government can print. And since then, we have suffered from one depression/recession after another, with bubbles in between, and constant inflation which saps money from the middle class and transfers it to government and those who suckle from its tit.
I can name perhaps a dozen other factors which led or contributed to the financial crisis, and government is to blame for many of them as well. But we will never stop this from happening again as long as we ignore the root of the problem. The idea that government should control our money supply, should have a monopoly on legal tender, and should be allowed to manipulate interest rates, is the fundamental flaw in our thinking. Until we correct it, we will continue to lurch from bubble to crisis.
These are not my ideas. These are the ideas of the Austrian school of economists. They are widely ignored by the media, but actively promoted by leaders such as Ron Paul, the Cato institute, the Meises institute, Lew Rockwell, and others. And they not only explain, but actually predicted our economic crisis.
http://mises.org/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
http://cato.org/
The Essence of Spirituality
As a word, it has more baggage than American Airlines. People sometimes ask if I am “spiritual”, and am I tongue tied. I want to say no, because I think that what it means to them is different from what it means to me, and if say yes it will mislead them. My true answer is complicated and difficult to explain. Yet some think me a spiritual person. So here is what I think spirituality is really about; the essence of spirituality.
First, let me say that I do not believe in god, the soul, afterlife, or any sort of mysterious life force, cosmic consciousness, reincarnation, karma, etc. There is simply no convincing (to me) evidence for these things, no plausible theory to explain their existence, and nothing to be gained by belief in them. That’s not to say I am certain that they do not exist, for that is impossible to prove. But I can see no reason to believe in them, because in my view and experience, all observable phenomena can be explained more simply and clearly without them. These ideas were formed as an early attempt at science, to explain the world around us, to comfort us, to guide us, and (in the case of many religions) to manipulate and control us. But in the thousands of years since, we have come up with better theories, just as we have come up with better theories to explain the workings of the solar system (Galileo) or the diversity of life forms (Darwin). The primary purpose of theories is to make predictions, and in my view these old theories are no longer useful, and can be replaced by simpler, more elegant theories which make better predictions and correlate more closely with observed reality.
Furthermore, I do not think these beliefs equate with spirituality. There are plenty of people who believe in god, afterlife, and all that, but who are anything but what I would consider spiritual.
The essence of my idea of spirituality is understanding one’s self at a deep level – what makes one happy or unhappy, what are one’s goals and values and why one has them, and what sort of actions and interactions with others will lead one toward those goals and values. The better one understands these things, at a detailed, deep, and intuitive level, the more successful one is likely to be at life.
This sort of wisdom and understanding comes from introspection and, to a lesser extent, the study of philosophy. Self reflection also leads to identification and resolution of internal conflicts, which we are all full of, as well as a deeper understanding of the true sources of happiness and unhappiness. The study of philosophy can also help us clarify our goals and values, and put ideas into practice.
Understanding one’s self is necessary in order to make accurate predictions about the effect of different actions we might take. Will eating this ice cream make me happy? Or will not getting fat make me happier? Will taking this high paying job make me happy? Or would I be happier with the lower paying job that gives me more free time? Will I be happier if I beat the crap out of the guy who scratched my car, or will I be happier if I let it slide?
People tend to be bad at making these kinds of decisions because we suffer from “cognitive biases” – our brains tell us we want option A, but in fact option B will make us happier. Our brains are riddled with these systematic errors; many books have been written about them. People are often unaware of them because our brains are like a black box to us. In order to overcome them, we must become aware of them and learn how to think our way around them. We need a deeper level of understanding of ourselves, how our minds works, and what really makes us happy. This sort of understanding can only come from introspection, often aided by study of philosophy.
So, to recap, I think that what most people really mean when they talk about spirituality is a sophisticated understanding of one’s own mind, a high level of self awareness, coupled with the ability to use that knowledge in order to achieve what we all want, which is happiness. And this has little to do with the nature or existence of a soul, or afterlife, or god; those are merely outdated models for understanding the nature of life.
First, let me say that I do not believe in god, the soul, afterlife, or any sort of mysterious life force, cosmic consciousness, reincarnation, karma, etc. There is simply no convincing (to me) evidence for these things, no plausible theory to explain their existence, and nothing to be gained by belief in them. That’s not to say I am certain that they do not exist, for that is impossible to prove. But I can see no reason to believe in them, because in my view and experience, all observable phenomena can be explained more simply and clearly without them. These ideas were formed as an early attempt at science, to explain the world around us, to comfort us, to guide us, and (in the case of many religions) to manipulate and control us. But in the thousands of years since, we have come up with better theories, just as we have come up with better theories to explain the workings of the solar system (Galileo) or the diversity of life forms (Darwin). The primary purpose of theories is to make predictions, and in my view these old theories are no longer useful, and can be replaced by simpler, more elegant theories which make better predictions and correlate more closely with observed reality.
Furthermore, I do not think these beliefs equate with spirituality. There are plenty of people who believe in god, afterlife, and all that, but who are anything but what I would consider spiritual.
The essence of my idea of spirituality is understanding one’s self at a deep level – what makes one happy or unhappy, what are one’s goals and values and why one has them, and what sort of actions and interactions with others will lead one toward those goals and values. The better one understands these things, at a detailed, deep, and intuitive level, the more successful one is likely to be at life.
This sort of wisdom and understanding comes from introspection and, to a lesser extent, the study of philosophy. Self reflection also leads to identification and resolution of internal conflicts, which we are all full of, as well as a deeper understanding of the true sources of happiness and unhappiness. The study of philosophy can also help us clarify our goals and values, and put ideas into practice.
Understanding one’s self is necessary in order to make accurate predictions about the effect of different actions we might take. Will eating this ice cream make me happy? Or will not getting fat make me happier? Will taking this high paying job make me happy? Or would I be happier with the lower paying job that gives me more free time? Will I be happier if I beat the crap out of the guy who scratched my car, or will I be happier if I let it slide?
People tend to be bad at making these kinds of decisions because we suffer from “cognitive biases” – our brains tell us we want option A, but in fact option B will make us happier. Our brains are riddled with these systematic errors; many books have been written about them. People are often unaware of them because our brains are like a black box to us. In order to overcome them, we must become aware of them and learn how to think our way around them. We need a deeper level of understanding of ourselves, how our minds works, and what really makes us happy. This sort of understanding can only come from introspection, often aided by study of philosophy.
So, to recap, I think that what most people really mean when they talk about spirituality is a sophisticated understanding of one’s own mind, a high level of self awareness, coupled with the ability to use that knowledge in order to achieve what we all want, which is happiness. And this has little to do with the nature or existence of a soul, or afterlife, or god; those are merely outdated models for understanding the nature of life.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Tyrrany of the Majority: Prop 8 protests expose hypocracy
The recent passage of Proposition 8 in California, which revoked the rights of gays to marry, has exposed a degree of hypocrisy among those who support our democratic "majority rules" system of government. Millions of people, both straight and gay, are really pissed off at the fact that 52% of voters had the ability to take away the rights of a minority. And rightly so! They have awakened to one of the faults of our present form of government: tyranny of the majority. Government should exist to protect our rights, not to take them away.
Yet, these same people who are so offended by the 52% of voters who passed Prop 8 seem to see no contradiction when they advocate increasing taxes on the wealthy. I think it is safe to say that the majority of Prop 8's opponents are left-leaning and tend to be Obama supporters. As such, they advocate the involuntary confiscation of wealth from 5% of the population by 52% of voters (the 52% who voted for Obama, in this case).
The top 5% of taxpayers already pay 60% of all income tax, while the bottom 50% pay only 3% of the taxes. So one cannot reasonably argue that taxpayers are proportionally represented among voters. This is clearly tyranny of the majority. This is 52% of voters ganging up on 5% and taking away their money. Sounds a lot like Prop 8 to me! (Don't believe my statistics? Here's the data: summary here and direct from the IRS).
One may argue that taxation and the right to marry are completely different. But I disagree. Taxation is the forced confiscation of the fruits of one's labor by another. It is the moral equivalent of slavery: forcing one man to work for the benefit of another, under threat of violence. It punishes those who have worked very hard, taken risks, and found success. And it is a violation of the right to private property. Government's proper role is to protect our rights, not to violate them.
I can already hear people groaning about how we need taxes to pay for this and that, and without taxation our society would fall apart. Fine, perhaps we do need some taxation. But to the extent that we do, we should be acutely aware of the trouble with tyranny of the majority, and we should not be so quick to heap the burdens of the masses on a minority which is by definition defenseless under our majority-rules system of democracy.
In the long term, we should reconsider the role of government in our society: should it exist to protect our rights, or to "manage" the economy and redistribute wealth. These goals are incompatible.
Yet, these same people who are so offended by the 52% of voters who passed Prop 8 seem to see no contradiction when they advocate increasing taxes on the wealthy. I think it is safe to say that the majority of Prop 8's opponents are left-leaning and tend to be Obama supporters. As such, they advocate the involuntary confiscation of wealth from 5% of the population by 52% of voters (the 52% who voted for Obama, in this case).
The top 5% of taxpayers already pay 60% of all income tax, while the bottom 50% pay only 3% of the taxes. So one cannot reasonably argue that taxpayers are proportionally represented among voters. This is clearly tyranny of the majority. This is 52% of voters ganging up on 5% and taking away their money. Sounds a lot like Prop 8 to me! (Don't believe my statistics? Here's the data: summary here and direct from the IRS).
One may argue that taxation and the right to marry are completely different. But I disagree. Taxation is the forced confiscation of the fruits of one's labor by another. It is the moral equivalent of slavery: forcing one man to work for the benefit of another, under threat of violence. It punishes those who have worked very hard, taken risks, and found success. And it is a violation of the right to private property. Government's proper role is to protect our rights, not to violate them.
I can already hear people groaning about how we need taxes to pay for this and that, and without taxation our society would fall apart. Fine, perhaps we do need some taxation. But to the extent that we do, we should be acutely aware of the trouble with tyranny of the majority, and we should not be so quick to heap the burdens of the masses on a minority which is by definition defenseless under our majority-rules system of democracy.
In the long term, we should reconsider the role of government in our society: should it exist to protect our rights, or to "manage" the economy and redistribute wealth. These goals are incompatible.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The most sensible thing I've read about the financial crisis so far
Is this: http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9660
Also, I'm sick of hearing "the financial crisis was caused by X" (where X varies depending on one's political leanings). There is no single cause. There are many complex causes and contributing factors which added up to create a crisis. Some point directly at government policies, and others point at the market. But understanding all of them is difficult, and people want a simple answer that supports their political preconceptions, so they tend to single out one or two of these factors.
This Wikipedia article provides a good overview of most of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_subprime_mortgage_financial_crisis#Causes_of_crisis
One of the root causes which I think has not received enough attention is the fact that we have fiat money. If our money was based on something like gold, which has real value and the supply of which cannot be arbitrarily increased by government, we would not have the kind of bubble/bust cycle that got us into this mess. I support Ron Paul's effort to abolish the Fed, and to restore the use of gold as a form of legal tender, which would restrain the federal government from inflating the money supply and manipulating interest rates, and would help to keep us out of these sorts of predicaments in the future.
Also, I'm sick of hearing "the financial crisis was caused by X" (where X varies depending on one's political leanings). There is no single cause. There are many complex causes and contributing factors which added up to create a crisis. Some point directly at government policies, and others point at the market. But understanding all of them is difficult, and people want a simple answer that supports their political preconceptions, so they tend to single out one or two of these factors.
This Wikipedia article provides a good overview of most of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_subprime_mortgage_financial_crisis#Causes_of_crisis
One of the root causes which I think has not received enough attention is the fact that we have fiat money. If our money was based on something like gold, which has real value and the supply of which cannot be arbitrarily increased by government, we would not have the kind of bubble/bust cycle that got us into this mess. I support Ron Paul's effort to abolish the Fed, and to restore the use of gold as a form of legal tender, which would restrain the federal government from inflating the money supply and manipulating interest rates, and would help to keep us out of these sorts of predicaments in the future.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Airport security.... keeping us safe from drawings of dangerous things
Stop the presses! This just in: not only are actual guns forbidden on airplanes.... now it is forbidden to fly with a cartoon drawing of a gun! I could not make this up.
http://www.theedgeofmadness.com/index.php?title=no_t_shirt_no_flight
http://www.theedgeofmadness.com/index.php?title=no_t_shirt_no_flight
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
This makes me want to scream! (Farmers Market accident lawsuits settled)
“Santa Monica Farmers Market crash payouts reach $21 million”
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-market22-2008may22,0,5516449.story
“The city of Santa Monica and other defendants will pay $6 million to settle two lawsuits stemming from a vehicle crash at the Farmers Market that left 10 people dead, bringing the total of payouts to plaintiffs in the case to $21 million. …”
So some old guy loses it and taxpayers get screwed out of $21 million!!! WTF?!?! This money does not just magically appear in the City’s bank accounts – it is stolen from hardworking taxpayers. You cannot expect the government (taxpayers) to protect you from every random freak accident. Shit happens. Should we demand that the government build a meteor-proof roof over the city to protect us from meteor strikes? Should we demand free bullet-proof vests for everyone to protect us all from crazy gang bangers? Maybe we should just bubble-wrap everyone!
The plaintiffs argument was that the wooden barricades blocking off the street were insufficient to stop a car. COME ON!!!! Do we have to hold every public event inside Fort Knox from now on? Thousands of farmers markets and other public events have been held in streets all across the country for hundreds of years, with just wooden barricades blocking the traffic. So because of this one freak accident and a bunch of greedy lawyers and their whiny, unreasonable plaintiffs, I suppose a lot of cities are going to have to either close down their farmers markets or spend a lot of money installing expensive steel barricades in the street. A lot of taxpayers are going to get screwed into paying more taxes to support higher insurance rates and the expensive new barriers. Farmers whose markets are shut down will lose money also.
I think we really need some tort reform here. For one thing, pain and suffering and emotional distress damages should be eliminated. They do nothing but encourage people to be whiny and greedy and encourage the victim mentality. Secondly, government entities should never be forced into paying punitive damages, since they only punish the taxpayer and not the people who did something wrong. Third, economic and other damages should be capped.
And another thing: why can’t the taxpayers counter sue these bastard lawyers for ripping us off?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-market22-2008may22,0,5516449.story
“The city of Santa Monica and other defendants will pay $6 million to settle two lawsuits stemming from a vehicle crash at the Farmers Market that left 10 people dead, bringing the total of payouts to plaintiffs in the case to $21 million. …”
So some old guy loses it and taxpayers get screwed out of $21 million!!! WTF?!?! This money does not just magically appear in the City’s bank accounts – it is stolen from hardworking taxpayers. You cannot expect the government (taxpayers) to protect you from every random freak accident. Shit happens. Should we demand that the government build a meteor-proof roof over the city to protect us from meteor strikes? Should we demand free bullet-proof vests for everyone to protect us all from crazy gang bangers? Maybe we should just bubble-wrap everyone!
The plaintiffs argument was that the wooden barricades blocking off the street were insufficient to stop a car. COME ON!!!! Do we have to hold every public event inside Fort Knox from now on? Thousands of farmers markets and other public events have been held in streets all across the country for hundreds of years, with just wooden barricades blocking the traffic. So because of this one freak accident and a bunch of greedy lawyers and their whiny, unreasonable plaintiffs, I suppose a lot of cities are going to have to either close down their farmers markets or spend a lot of money installing expensive steel barricades in the street. A lot of taxpayers are going to get screwed into paying more taxes to support higher insurance rates and the expensive new barriers. Farmers whose markets are shut down will lose money also.
I think we really need some tort reform here. For one thing, pain and suffering and emotional distress damages should be eliminated. They do nothing but encourage people to be whiny and greedy and encourage the victim mentality. Secondly, government entities should never be forced into paying punitive damages, since they only punish the taxpayer and not the people who did something wrong. Third, economic and other damages should be capped.
And another thing: why can’t the taxpayers counter sue these bastard lawyers for ripping us off?
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Why gas isn't too expensive
I came across a great article that explains why gas really isn’t that expensive: http://mises.org/story/2940
I think gas is far too cheap. It’s one of the cheapest liquids you can buy. Cheaper than milk. Cheaper than bottled water. If you think about what it takes to get from oil in the ground to gas in your tank, it’s remarkable how cheap it is.
America has some of the cheapest gas in the world. Europeans pay $7-9 per gallon. In Asia it’s $5-6 per gallon. Even poor Brazilians pay far more than we do.
The rising price of gas causes us so much pain because we are spoiled. We are used to driving gas guzzling vehicles and driving long distances to and from work. We do not have to live this way. Our habits must change.
I often hear people talk about how we should drive more efficient cars and commute less out of some notion of benevolence or altruism. This is nonsense. You should buy a more efficient car because it benefits you, and specifically, your bank account. Conservation should be motivated by financial reward or other direct, tangible benefit to the conserver. If there is insufficient financial motive to conserve, then perhaps the system should be adjusted so as to provide a greater incentive (through internalization of externalities or adjusting taxes for example). But we should not expect people to change their behavior on a large scale out of vague notion of helping the environment. That will not work.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Podcasts I've been enjoying lately
Here are the podcasts I’ve been enjoying lately. I tend to like short (5-20 min) to-the-point discussions of interesting political or philosophical topics, or readings of fiction. Good for listening to on the way to and from work. All of them can be found in iTunes.
Cato Daily Podcast – Short and insightful political opinions from the nation’s leading Libertarian think tank
http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/podcast-archive.php
Cory Doctorow’s Craphound – Readings by one of my favorite sci fi authors and digital rights activists
http://www.craphound.com/index.php?cat=6
Liberty Radio Underground – Discussion of Libertarian principles
http://libertyradiounderground.com/
Skeptoid - Critical analysis of pop phenomena, debunking pseudoscience with actual science
http://skeptoid.com/subscribe.php
The Ethicist – short discussions of ethical dilemmas
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/multimedia/podcasts.html
Radio Free Liberty – More libertarian propaganda
http://www.radiofreeliberty.com/
Slate Explainer – Short explanations of topics in the news
http://www.slate.com/id/2119317/
IT Conversations – Hardcore geek stuff
http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/channelFeeds.html
Cato Daily Podcast – Short and insightful political opinions from the nation’s leading Libertarian think tank
http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/podcast-archive.php
Cory Doctorow’s Craphound – Readings by one of my favorite sci fi authors and digital rights activists
http://www.craphound.com/index.php?cat=6
Liberty Radio Underground – Discussion of Libertarian principles
http://libertyradiounderground.com/
Skeptoid - Critical analysis of pop phenomena, debunking pseudoscience with actual science
http://skeptoid.com/subscribe.php
The Ethicist – short discussions of ethical dilemmas
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/multimedia/podcasts.html
Radio Free Liberty – More libertarian propaganda
http://www.radiofreeliberty.com/
Slate Explainer – Short explanations of topics in the news
http://www.slate.com/id/2119317/
IT Conversations – Hardcore geek stuff
http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/channelFeeds.html
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Who cares about performance enhancing drugs?
I am so sick of hearing about the performance-enhancing drugs scandals in major league sports, I don’t dare turn on the TV for fear I might vomit. Who @$#% cares??? Why does the United States Congress waste time with hearings about something like this when we have war going on, and so many other issues that are FAR more important? It’s insane, just like the country’s morbid fixation on the plight of Britney Spears.
As technology advances, there will be more and more ways to enhance or improve our bodies. I admit that it’s unfair for those who use technology to enhance their performance to compete with those who do not. But lets embrace technology. Let’s have two leagues: one for “enhanced” athletes, and one for “naturals.”
Personally, I think the enhanced league will be much more interesting to watch.
As technology advances, there will be more and more ways to enhance or improve our bodies. I admit that it’s unfair for those who use technology to enhance their performance to compete with those who do not. But lets embrace technology. Let’s have two leagues: one for “enhanced” athletes, and one for “naturals.”
Personally, I think the enhanced league will be much more interesting to watch.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Voters just proved themselves dumber that I ever imagined
California’s Proposition 91 was qualified for this election in 2006, but shortly thereafter another measure was enacted which rendered Prop 91 obsolete. There was no way to get it off the ballot, so the original proponents published the following as the argument IN FAVOR of this proposition in the voter’s guide.
“VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 91. IT'S NO LONGER NEEDED.
As the official proponents of this measure, we are encouraging you to VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 91….”
And so on, explaining why it’s obsolete but stuck on the ballot and should not be supported.
See http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/argu_rebut/argu_rebutt91.html
Another example: Los Angeles’ Proposition S was a trick – it authorizes a tax on cell phones, but used deceptive wording to sell itself as a tax reduction. It passed by a wide margin. I suspect that most people who voted for it thought they were voting to decrease taxes, not raise them. Suckers!!
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Liberals and conservatives are two different species?
Well, not quite… but the cover story of this week’s issue of New Scientist brings up an issue I’ve been kicking around in the back of my mind for a couple of years. It’s the idea that our political persuasions are linked to our personality types which are largely determined by our genes.
"Are political leanings all in the genes?" http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19726411.800-are-political-leanings-all-in-the-genes.html
There is a substantial and growing amount of evidence that conservatism and liberalism are strongly correlated with personality traits such as openness, extroversion, and conscientiousness. Liberals are more open, tolerant, and more extroverted; conservatives are more honest, dutiful, and conscientious (organized, self-disciplined, and responsible). Xenophobia and stronger fear of death are also correlated with conservatism. Liberals are less troubled by conflicting sources of information, and tend to be more open to new ideas. All of this data comes from psychological testing and studies involving heredity, including identical twin studies (as well as common sense).
I suspect that there are other genetically determined factors at play. I think that libertarians value their personal freedom above all else, and are more likely to recoil from someone else telling them what to do. They are independent, risk takers, and they value freedom and possibilities more than equality and safety. Liberals and socialists are more risk-averse and don’t mind someone else being in charge of their lives, as long as they are taken care of and don’t have to worry about the future. They value equality more than freedom and opportunity for growth. These characteristics are probably genetically linked as well.
What is the implication of this? The best political/economic system is the one under which people are happiest. But if people are fundamentally different in what makes them happy, then there may not be any single best political or economic system. Perhaps there should be different systems that people can choose from, either by moving or by opting into our out of certain programs. This also supports the idea of federalism: that the states should be free to control their own policies and politics, and should only be loosely bound together by the federal government, as opposed to the one-size-fits-all top-down system which the US has been moving toward for the last several decades. But perhaps we can go even farther – perhaps we can find a way to accommodate both types within the same system by giving people options, so that they can live together in peace.
The closing paragraph of the New Scientist article reads:
"Are political leanings all in the genes?" http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19726411.800-are-political-leanings-all-in-the-genes.html
There is a substantial and growing amount of evidence that conservatism and liberalism are strongly correlated with personality traits such as openness, extroversion, and conscientiousness. Liberals are more open, tolerant, and more extroverted; conservatives are more honest, dutiful, and conscientious (organized, self-disciplined, and responsible). Xenophobia and stronger fear of death are also correlated with conservatism. Liberals are less troubled by conflicting sources of information, and tend to be more open to new ideas. All of this data comes from psychological testing and studies involving heredity, including identical twin studies (as well as common sense).
I suspect that there are other genetically determined factors at play. I think that libertarians value their personal freedom above all else, and are more likely to recoil from someone else telling them what to do. They are independent, risk takers, and they value freedom and possibilities more than equality and safety. Liberals and socialists are more risk-averse and don’t mind someone else being in charge of their lives, as long as they are taken care of and don’t have to worry about the future. They value equality more than freedom and opportunity for growth. These characteristics are probably genetically linked as well.
What is the implication of this? The best political/economic system is the one under which people are happiest. But if people are fundamentally different in what makes them happy, then there may not be any single best political or economic system. Perhaps there should be different systems that people can choose from, either by moving or by opting into our out of certain programs. This also supports the idea of federalism: that the states should be free to control their own policies and politics, and should only be loosely bound together by the federal government, as opposed to the one-size-fits-all top-down system which the US has been moving toward for the last several decades. But perhaps we can go even farther – perhaps we can find a way to accommodate both types within the same system by giving people options, so that they can live together in peace.
The closing paragraph of the New Scientist article reads:
So the guy at the bar may never agree with you, but perhaps realising that can be liberating. "We spend a lot of energy getting upset with the other side," says Alford. We often think our opponents are misinformed or stubborn. Accepting that people are born with some of their views changes that, Alford points out. Come to terms with these differences, and you can spend the energy now wasted on persuasion on figuring out ways of accommodating both points of view.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Lets amend the constitution
In the last several decades, Congress seems to have gotten all kinds of crazy ideas about what the federal government should and is permitted by the Constitution to do. The Constitution doesn't say anything about education, health care, housing, energy, drugs, or agriculture. I suspect that the founding fathers intended those to be left to the states. So just to clarify things, I propose an amendment to the Constitution. It can be short and simple. Here is my proposed wording:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Think it will pass?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Think it will pass?
Thursday, January 10, 2008
An alternative to welfare
I often rant about how it’s wrong for the government (or anyone) to use force to take money from one person and give it to another. One of my biggest gripes against the democrats (and sometimes republicans too) is that it seems like their solution to every problem is to increase taxes and spending, and increase the power and use of force by government to intrude into people’s lives, and I am fundamentally opposed to that. Yet I realize that there is a need to do something to help those at the bottom of the ladder, who for whatever reason can’t seem to make it on their own. What can we do?
In the long run, I think that the adoption of libertarian social and economic policies will lead toward a more prosperous society with fewer poor people. But we still have a problem today. And even in my libertarian utopia, there may still be a few who just can’t make it. How can we deal with that?
Many people who don’t know me well probably think that I’m a cold heartless bastard because I oppose government social programs.
1. People feel a much greater sense of compassion toward an individual who they know than toward a statistic. “A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic” Stalin said, and I think that applies to poverty and other problems as well. If you meet someone, get to know them, learn their story, and know that they have only you to help them out, you will be much more inclined to help them out.
3. The recipients will be more thankful for the help, since it is given to them voluntarily by someone they know, rather than taken as an entitlement from a big faceless system. They will appreciate it, rather than expecting it and taking it for granted.
4. I think a lot of wealthy people resent the fact that so much of their money is taken by government to feed the system, and they figure that since they have paid their taxes they have no further obligation to help the poor. They may even resent the poor who are perceived (often rightfully so) as taking advantage of the system and leaching off of it. If taxes were reduced and social programs eliminated in favor of this system, that source of resentment would no longer exist.
5. Eliminating a large beaurocracy which is rife with waste and fraud would save lots of money.
In the long run, I think that the adoption of libertarian social and economic policies will lead toward a more prosperous society with fewer poor people. But we still have a problem today. And even in my libertarian utopia, there may still be a few who just can’t make it. How can we deal with that?
Many people who don’t know me well probably think that I’m a cold heartless bastard because I oppose government social programs.
1. People feel a much greater sense of compassion toward an individual who they know than toward a statistic. “A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic” Stalin said, and I think that applies to poverty and other problems as well. If you meet someone, get to know them, learn their story, and know that they have only you to help them out, you will be much more inclined to help them out.
3. The recipients will be more thankful for the help, since it is given to them voluntarily by someone they know, rather than taken as an entitlement from a big faceless system. They will appreciate it, rather than expecting it and taking it for granted.
4. I think a lot of wealthy people resent the fact that so much of their money is taken by government to feed the system, and they figure that since they have paid their taxes they have no further obligation to help the poor. They may even resent the poor who are perceived (often rightfully so) as taking advantage of the system and leaching off of it. If taxes were reduced and social programs eliminated in favor of this system, that source of resentment would no longer exist.
5. Eliminating a large beaurocracy which is rife with waste and fraud would save lots of money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)