"Rev. Al Sharpton, black leaders planning boycott of New York Post over controversial chimp cartoon"
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/02/19/2009-02-19_rev_al_sharpton_black_leaders_planning_b.html
Al Sharpton needs to take a big bottle of chill pills. Perhaps he doesn't realize that Congress wrote and mangled most of this bill, not the president.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
Why software engineers are Libertarians
Software engineers are probably the most libertarian people around. More than half of the software engineers I know are libertarian, or libertarian-leaning. Why? They are super smart, rational people who understand how complex systems work. Law is software, it just runs on a different platform. Software engineers see all the bugs in our system, and how much of our legal software is ineffective, outdated, and counterproductive. They understand that the best software designs are simple and elegant, like our constitution, but that the various upgrades and features we have added over the last 100 years have caused our system to become bloated and inefficient. They have experience with complex interactions between different parts of a system, and know how common unexpected interactions are and how harmful they can be. And they can see that the solution is decentralization of power and emphasis on personal choice and freedom, rather than top-down control.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
What kind of people do you want running your government?
Who do I want to run my government? CEOs and economists. CEOs, because they know how to manage large organizations, they know how things work in the real world, and they know how to get things done. Economists, because they understand how our economy works and how policy changes are likely to impact it. And they are more likely to use objective data to measure the impact of such changes, in order to tweak or reverse them if they are ineffective.
However, almost half of our congresscriters are lawyers. This is unfortunate, because I think that their mindset actually contributes to our problems. Lawyers like laws. They make their living around laws. They want more of them, because they think more laws will solve more problems. But I disagree. We have to damn many laws already. Also, lawyers are paid to advocate on behalf of someone or some cause, even if they personally disagree. Thus, their votes are more likely to be swayed by contributions and lobbyists. Most of our legislators have no experience running a business in the real world, and have little understanding of economics. What a shame.
However, almost half of our congresscriters are lawyers. This is unfortunate, because I think that their mindset actually contributes to our problems. Lawyers like laws. They make their living around laws. They want more of them, because they think more laws will solve more problems. But I disagree. We have to damn many laws already. Also, lawyers are paid to advocate on behalf of someone or some cause, even if they personally disagree. Thus, their votes are more likely to be swayed by contributions and lobbyists. Most of our legislators have no experience running a business in the real world, and have little understanding of economics. What a shame.
Friday, February 6, 2009
The biggest problem in the world
Hunger. Poverty. Resource depletion. Environmental pollution. Climate change. Traffic congestion. Species extinction. There is one major factor underlying all of these problems: overpopulation.
There are too many people in the world competing for a finite amount of resources. Reduce the world’s population and all of these problems become far easier to deal with. Increase the population, and they become intractable. I think it is futile to attempt to solve these problems without addressing the major underlying cause.
Year - Population
1800 - 1 billion
1900 - 1.6 billion
2000 - 6 billion
2100 - 9 billion
Anyone see a problem here? Why doesn’t anybody want to talk about it, or even acknowledge it? I think people tend to be blind to it for a variety of reasons: the problem seems too large and intractable, they don’t see any solutions, various religions encourage large families and discourage birth control, various cultures value large families, it’s politically incorrect to pick on the poor countries where population growth is greatest, the problem is “over there”, etc.
The solution is simple, in concept: if each couple has less than 2.3 children, the overall population will decline. All we need to do is reduce birth rates. This will occur through cultural change; as a people (particularly women) become better educated, they tend to have fewer children. But we also need to get it into people’s heads that it is simply not ok to have 14 children. As great as children are, having more than two doesn’t do the rest of us any good.
We also need better and more widely available contraceptive technology. A few billion dollars invested in birth control in the countries where population growth is highest and in developing new technology could in the long term save trillions in aid and environmental damage, and prevent untold misery (but the politician who first proposes this had better be wearing an asbestos suit).
How to get the solution into practice? I have no idea.
There are too many people in the world competing for a finite amount of resources. Reduce the world’s population and all of these problems become far easier to deal with. Increase the population, and they become intractable. I think it is futile to attempt to solve these problems without addressing the major underlying cause.
Year - Population
1800 - 1 billion
1900 - 1.6 billion
2000 - 6 billion
2100 - 9 billion
Anyone see a problem here? Why doesn’t anybody want to talk about it, or even acknowledge it? I think people tend to be blind to it for a variety of reasons: the problem seems too large and intractable, they don’t see any solutions, various religions encourage large families and discourage birth control, various cultures value large families, it’s politically incorrect to pick on the poor countries where population growth is greatest, the problem is “over there”, etc.
The solution is simple, in concept: if each couple has less than 2.3 children, the overall population will decline. All we need to do is reduce birth rates. This will occur through cultural change; as a people (particularly women) become better educated, they tend to have fewer children. But we also need to get it into people’s heads that it is simply not ok to have 14 children. As great as children are, having more than two doesn’t do the rest of us any good.
We also need better and more widely available contraceptive technology. A few billion dollars invested in birth control in the countries where population growth is highest and in developing new technology could in the long term save trillions in aid and environmental damage, and prevent untold misery (but the politician who first proposes this had better be wearing an asbestos suit).
How to get the solution into practice? I have no idea.
Real stimulus
Our congressmen are bickering about whether the stimulus bill should be $879 billion or $921 billion (or something like that). Does it really matter? The whole thing is completely insane. It is a futile attempt to treat the symptom of a much deeper disease, like taking an aspirin to treat cancer.
But nobody wants to talk about the cancer. We have to "do something", as if "something" is always better than nothing. In fact, the somethings that are done hurriedly in emergency situations are often much worse than nothing, because people tend not to make rational decisions in a panic.
Let me summarize my objections to the stimulus plan:
1. There is considerable evidence that Keynesian style stimulus doesn't work, and very little evidence that it does work. It didn’t work for Japan. Bush’s stimulus did a big fat nothing.
2. It will cost almost a trillion dollars. It is immoral to spend money you don’t have and then force someone else to pay for it later.
3. This money has to come from somewhere. It will be taken out of the economy by selling government bonds. The money would probably do more good if it was left in the hands of investors and consumers, to spend invest more prudently in productive enterprise. Taking money from one pocket and putting it in the other pocket doesn’t really get us anywhere.
4. The bill is full of pork and spending that would have been quite controversial and heavily debated if it were not part of the “emergency stimulus”. The democrats are just throwing all their pet projects in a pile and calling it an emergency bill that must be passed or else.
5. Related to #3 and #4, government spending is inherently less efficient and less beneficial to the economy than private spending. There are several reasons for this. One always makes more careful decisions about spending one’s own money than someone else’s. Government has almost no incentive to conserve or spend wisely and put resources where they will be most useful, while individuals and businesses do. Politicians almost always rewarded (with votes) for handing out the goodies, not for being stingy.
So what else can we do to help the economy? A lot! Cutting taxes has been proven over and over as one of the most effective ways to stimulate economic growth. The tax cuts must be permanent to be effective; studies show that short term cuts have little impact because people and business plan their spending based on future earnings. To get the most impact, we should permanently eliminate corporate income tax. I can hear the gasping and groaning already. “But we need the money.” “We should stick it greedy corporations even harder.” Wrong. Here’s what’s wrong with corporate income taxes:
1. The US has the second highest corporate income tax in the world (Japan’s is slightly higher). This makes our companies less competitive both at home and abroad. This costs jobs and hurts our economy.
2. Corporations don’t pay taxes, people do. 100% of corporate income tax is passed on to consumers as higher cost of goods, or to shareholders as reduced return on investment. The idea that a corporation is or should be a taxpayer is misguided.
3. Corporate profits go to the shareholders. Contrary to public perception, most corporations are owned by the mutual funds making up grandma’s pension plan and dad’s 401(k) retirement account, not by some greedy fat cat. Taxing corporations is taxing grandma.
4. Corporate taxation is double taxation. First the corporation’s income is taxed, then what’s left is distributed to the shareholders and taxed again as income tax. This makes no sense.
5. Corporations spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year complying with tens of thousands of pages of complex tax law. This is wasted time and money which could be better spent growing business and creating jobs.
6. Corporations organize themselves and their business in convoluted contortionist ways and perform absurd gyrations in order to minimize the taxes they pay. This is a drag on efficiency and productivity. I know, I’ve been through it several times.
The bottom line: corporate income tax creates friction and sucks money out of the system, which hurts economic growth and costs jobs. Eliminating it would likely create more jobs and growth than Obama's stimulus plan.
“But we need the money!” Not exactly. Eliminating corporate income tax would only reduce the government’s take by around $350 billion per year; 1/3 of the stimulus bill. Yet the tax cuts would lead increased economic activity. This in turn would generate more tax revenue for the government (increased personal income tax revenue). It might even generate enough increased revenue to pay for itself. And it would stimulate economic growth more than any government spending plan. But even if no additional tax revenue were generated by the increased economic activity, we would still be better off eliminating corporate taxes and increasing personal taxes to compensate.
So why is nobody talking about this? Because sticking it to corporations is politically popular; because most people (including most politicians) have never run a business or studied economics and really don’t understand this stuff.
This article explains the argument better than I have: http://www.reason.com/news/show/131556.html
The democrats have been claiming that economists all agree that we need this stimulus bill. That's a lie. The Cato institute recently published an ad in the NYT and Washington Post, signed by 200 prominent economists including 3 Nobel laureates, who disagree. http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf
So there’s a real stimulus. But why do we need one in the first place? What about the cancer? The cancer is the fundamental structure of our monetary and banking system. Fractional reserve banking (which is inherently fraudulent but rarely questioned), fiat money, and inflationary monetary policy are what got us into that mess. I’ve written a bit about that before here, but I’ll save the rest of that rant for another day.
But nobody wants to talk about the cancer. We have to "do something", as if "something" is always better than nothing. In fact, the somethings that are done hurriedly in emergency situations are often much worse than nothing, because people tend not to make rational decisions in a panic.
Let me summarize my objections to the stimulus plan:
1. There is considerable evidence that Keynesian style stimulus doesn't work, and very little evidence that it does work. It didn’t work for Japan. Bush’s stimulus did a big fat nothing.
2. It will cost almost a trillion dollars. It is immoral to spend money you don’t have and then force someone else to pay for it later.
3. This money has to come from somewhere. It will be taken out of the economy by selling government bonds. The money would probably do more good if it was left in the hands of investors and consumers, to spend invest more prudently in productive enterprise. Taking money from one pocket and putting it in the other pocket doesn’t really get us anywhere.
4. The bill is full of pork and spending that would have been quite controversial and heavily debated if it were not part of the “emergency stimulus”. The democrats are just throwing all their pet projects in a pile and calling it an emergency bill that must be passed or else.
5. Related to #3 and #4, government spending is inherently less efficient and less beneficial to the economy than private spending. There are several reasons for this. One always makes more careful decisions about spending one’s own money than someone else’s. Government has almost no incentive to conserve or spend wisely and put resources where they will be most useful, while individuals and businesses do. Politicians almost always rewarded (with votes) for handing out the goodies, not for being stingy.
So what else can we do to help the economy? A lot! Cutting taxes has been proven over and over as one of the most effective ways to stimulate economic growth. The tax cuts must be permanent to be effective; studies show that short term cuts have little impact because people and business plan their spending based on future earnings. To get the most impact, we should permanently eliminate corporate income tax. I can hear the gasping and groaning already. “But we need the money.” “We should stick it greedy corporations even harder.” Wrong. Here’s what’s wrong with corporate income taxes:
1. The US has the second highest corporate income tax in the world (Japan’s is slightly higher). This makes our companies less competitive both at home and abroad. This costs jobs and hurts our economy.
2. Corporations don’t pay taxes, people do. 100% of corporate income tax is passed on to consumers as higher cost of goods, or to shareholders as reduced return on investment. The idea that a corporation is or should be a taxpayer is misguided.
3. Corporate profits go to the shareholders. Contrary to public perception, most corporations are owned by the mutual funds making up grandma’s pension plan and dad’s 401(k) retirement account, not by some greedy fat cat. Taxing corporations is taxing grandma.
4. Corporate taxation is double taxation. First the corporation’s income is taxed, then what’s left is distributed to the shareholders and taxed again as income tax. This makes no sense.
5. Corporations spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year complying with tens of thousands of pages of complex tax law. This is wasted time and money which could be better spent growing business and creating jobs.
6. Corporations organize themselves and their business in convoluted contortionist ways and perform absurd gyrations in order to minimize the taxes they pay. This is a drag on efficiency and productivity. I know, I’ve been through it several times.
The bottom line: corporate income tax creates friction and sucks money out of the system, which hurts economic growth and costs jobs. Eliminating it would likely create more jobs and growth than Obama's stimulus plan.
“But we need the money!” Not exactly. Eliminating corporate income tax would only reduce the government’s take by around $350 billion per year; 1/3 of the stimulus bill. Yet the tax cuts would lead increased economic activity. This in turn would generate more tax revenue for the government (increased personal income tax revenue). It might even generate enough increased revenue to pay for itself. And it would stimulate economic growth more than any government spending plan. But even if no additional tax revenue were generated by the increased economic activity, we would still be better off eliminating corporate taxes and increasing personal taxes to compensate.
So why is nobody talking about this? Because sticking it to corporations is politically popular; because most people (including most politicians) have never run a business or studied economics and really don’t understand this stuff.
This article explains the argument better than I have: http://www.reason.com/news/show/131556.html
The democrats have been claiming that economists all agree that we need this stimulus bill. That's a lie. The Cato institute recently published an ad in the NYT and Washington Post, signed by 200 prominent economists including 3 Nobel laureates, who disagree. http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf
So there’s a real stimulus. But why do we need one in the first place? What about the cancer? The cancer is the fundamental structure of our monetary and banking system. Fractional reserve banking (which is inherently fraudulent but rarely questioned), fiat money, and inflationary monetary policy are what got us into that mess. I’ve written a bit about that before here, but I’ll save the rest of that rant for another day.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Obama's economic stimulus plan is insane
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)