Democracy

In common usage today democracy is equated with freedom. For example when politicians talk of the ‘free nations’ of the word, they are almost always talking about the democratic nations of the world. We are told that we need to bring 'freedom' to the Middle East, while what is meant is that we need to bring democracy: witness the elated media coverage of purple fingered Iraqi voters, hailed as a triumph of liberty. In America we are told that voting is a hallowed privilege and a solemn duty, and that democracy is the mark of free, civilized societies. This conceptual pairing of democracy and freedom is incorrect, misleading, and harmful. Democracy is not only not a sufficient condition for freedom, it is not even a necessary condition.

Let me define my terms so that it is clear what I mean:

Freedom, in a political context, means freedom from coercion (i.e. physical force). The political principle that ensures freedom is individual rights. A free society is one in which every person's rights are protected from infringement by others.

Democracy is a term used loosely today to denote any political system based on the principle of majority rule, whether it is pure (ancient Greece), representative (U.S.), parliamentary (England), etc. The meaning of majority rule is that whatever the majority of a population decides should be law, is law; and even beyond that, it not only is law, but should be law. This subtle distinction is important, so let me rephrase it: majority rule per se is not just a system of making law, it is a moral sanction on the majority's choices, i.e. the majority not only rules de facto, but by right.

It is this foundational principle of democracy, majority rule, that is antithetical to the principle of rights, and thus also to freedom. If a majority can do whatever it wants, which it can if it rules by right, then that includes violation of rights. If the majority decides that a certain minority segment should be repressed, then repression becomes the law. In other words, the fact that a majority makes a law in no way insures that the law will respect rights. The majority certainly can respect rights, but the key issue is that it can just as easily not. This is not only true in theory, but also in practice. There are now and have been many repressive governments that were all democratically elected: the Palestinian Authority, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Egypt, Venezuela, Columbia, Russia, Nazi Germany (that's right, Hitler was elected Chancellor, and the Nazi party was a political party that was voted into power), and even the United States during years slavery was legal.

Perhaps the best example of the tyranny that a democracy can represent is given in the death of Socrates. Socrates was one of the fathers of philosophy who lived in democratic ancient Greece. At one point he was put on trial for arguing against the Greek gods and "corrupting the youth". The jury found him guilty and sentenced him to death. Socrates was given every opportunity to flee to save his life, but he refused. He decided that, despite the injustice of his sentence, he had to respect the will of the majority. He drank, of his own free will, a cup of poison. Two tragic aspects of this story: first the fact that the society even could sentence him to death for something so silly, and second that he would willingly comply with his own murder in the name of majority rule.

What then is the role of democracy? Is it always evil? Of course not. My point is not that democracy is bad. My point is that democracy alone does not ensure freedom. Democracy can be an effective mode of government only if it is completely restrained in such a way that individual rights are completely protected. This was the purpose of the constitution of the United States. In this setting, democracy is the best form of government. The primary principle however must be freedom. The proper formula is: freedom first, then choose a method of government. Theoretically if freedom were insured by restricting government (e.g. through an iron-clad constitution and checks/balances), there would be nothing wrong with a government that was not democratically elected. The president, for example, could be an office passed on from generation to generation, in the same manner as royalty (though without the absolute power). This mode of government of course would be stupid, because family connections are not good measures of competence to rule. That is one reason democracy is the best method for choosing leaders: we can vote for the most competent rulers. The point is however that although the aforementioned method of government would be stupid it would be compatible with freedom, so long as the government is restricted to respect individual rights. The choice of the particular mode of selecting rulers then becomes secondary. How you select a leader becomes a question of effectiveness and efficiency rather than a moral question. As long as rights are protected, almost any mode of government will work (although the case can be made that democracy is the best choice).

It is time that we recognize the tribal, collectivist notion of majority rule as anti-freedom, and dethrone it as a cardinal American principle, replacing it with the true principle of freedom: absolute individual rights. We should stop exporting democracy, as if it is the magic cure all of 3rd world ills, and instead insist on the respect of individual rights. When rights are secure, democracy will naturally flourish, but the reverse is not necessarily true.

Sacrifice

Sacrifice is a word that is completely misunderstood and misused in our current cultural vocabulary. This is important because the concept of sacrifice is at the center of the biggest ethical debate in history. The dominant ethical theory of our day, the theory of Altruism, places sacrifice in the high seat of it's cardinal virtue. According to Altrusit theories, both the religious and the secular, sacrifice is the moral duty and the highest moral aspiration of men.

But what does it mean to sacrifice? An accurate definition would be to give up a higher value for a lesser value. For example: you value time spent with your family more than time spent with a borish aquantance, but you give up time spent with your family (higher value) to spend time with the aquantance (lesser value). That could be described as a sacrifice. Though the example is a seamingly trivial one, it serves to show in a simple way how one could sacrifice. Unfortunately the term is not very often used in this way. It is more often misused in the following ways:

-"Sacrifice to get blessings" This is one that most church goers will be familiar with. It is the promise that if you give up certain things now, you will recieve greater things later. This is called the principle of sacrifice, but it has nothing at all to do with sacrifice! Put aside whether you believe in God or not, that is not relevant to the question at hand. The question is what is being advocated by the principle described above? The best word that should be used is investment. When you give up a value, but do so in anticipation of a future greater value as a return, is that a sacrifice? No it is not. Just consider the act of investing in stock, you give up a value (money) in order to gain a greater value in the future (more money). The fact that this example deals with money, while others do not is irrelevant.

-"You must sacrifice in your relationship in order to make it work." This statement is usually given as advice with the implicit understanding that what is meant is that in order to have a happy relationship each person has to give up some things that they might have otherwise valued, such as time with friends, hobbies, goals, energy, etc. The problem though is that what is overlooked is the enormous value that one recieves in return, a happy fullfilling relationship! Of course the advice includes this aspect in it, and yet few people make the mental connection that if they are giving something up for something that they really want more they are not sacrificing. They are merely paying the price that is required to maintain a happy relationship. If on the other hand one does not value the relationship as much as the things being given up it could be properly termed a sacrifice. But in that case the couple has no buisness pretending to be in love, and there is no point giving them advice.

-"You need to sacrifice now while you are going to school so you can have a great job later." I won't say anything more about this one because it should be obvious that it makes the same mistake as the last two.

There are myriad other examples, but they all share the same error: they use the word sacrifice to denote giving up anything in order to get something you value more in the future, which is really investment. Why does this matter at all? Am I just arguing symantics? The answer is that words direct our thought. Our conceptual faculty is based upon using words to denote ideas. When a word becomes corrupted and is used with incorrect meaning is also corrupts the underlying ideas in our minds. When you use the word sacrifice to describe what is really investment you associate sacrifice in your mind with something good and useful. Then later when someone (your preacher, politician, professor, etc.) tells you that you need to sacrifice, and this time they really mean sacrifice, i.e. give up things you value for nothing in return, then you have a hard time resisting them because you have implicitly accepted that sacrifice is good. After all, you reason to yourself, I sacrificed all those times in the past and it turned out well, so it must be a true principle. And then they've got you. In fact this is often the goal of those that pervert words and their meaning. Its a form of the old bait and switch tactic.

So what is the lesson to be taken away from this? 1) Works have exact meanings and they are important. 2) If you want something, pay the price for it. (but don't fool yourself that you are 'sacrificing')

Whats So Wrong With Slavery?

Before anyone freaks out let me state that I do of course think that slavery is evil. I am also confident that nearly everyone would agree with me on that. So why would I bother to write about something so universally accepted? Because I am equally confident that many people have no idea why slavery is evil. This is a tragedy.

So, here I go: slavery is evil because every person has an absolute right to his/her own life.

Before I explore that concept further let me confront, and dismiss, some erroneous reasons that people sometimes give:

-Slavery is evil because it is a racist institution. This is ridiculous. If this argument were true then if you enslaved someone of your own race, (as many African tribes still do) there would be nothing wrong with it. Racism is morally wrong, and many people seek to justify slavery on racist grounds, but it is not the reason slavery is evil. Not only is this a flawed argument, it actually trivializes a very serious evil by equating it with a mere foolish error. Yes, that is right, racism is just a foolish mental error. People who are racist are stupid, but they are in no way as evil as slave holders.

-Slavery is evil because the slave owners are viscous to their slaves: they beat them, verbally abuse them, rape them, malnourish them, work them too hard in harsh conditions, etc. This argument is laughable once stated explicitly, but it is very often repeated implicitly by many people. It amounts to the vague feeling that slavery is bad because it involves people being mean to people. So does that mean that if you were 'nice' to your slaves it would be okay? If you treated them like members of the family, but they just couldn't leave, had to work for you, and didn't get paid, everything would be fine? Obviously not, it would still be evil. As a side note: the cruelty with which slave owners treated their slaves was evil, but it was not the reason slavery is evil. A slave owner who abuses his slaves is more evil than one who doesn't, but both are still evil.

-Slavery is evil because the strong are oppressing the weak. This argument is often accepted by people when they hear it, thought they may feel like it could be improved. The reason for this is that the argument combines two seemingly true statements. Slavery is evil -- True. The strong are oppressing the weak in slavery -- Mostly True. The problem is that this argument is a form of begging the question. It shares the same flaw as the following statement: the Bible is true because it says so right here in Mathew 10:15. Slavery is a form of oppression, but the argument offers no explanation for why this oppression is wrong, other than that it is oppression. So we gain no new understanding from this argument. In addition it tries to divert attention away from the true evil of slavery by throwing into the mix some silly strong vs. week class warfare crap. Though it is unlikely, one could imagine a situation in which someone weak enslaves someone strong, e.g. through blackmail or threats toward loved ones etc., and once again, this would still be wrong.

Okay, I won't go through any more examples of bad arguments, because they all can be dealt with in a similar manner. The point is that most people cannot give a good reason why slavery is evil.

Now let me return to the real reason why slavery is evil. Slavery violates a mans right to his life. What does this mean? Obviously it does not mean that as long as one doesn't kill one's slaves then everything is fine. Living only in the biological sense, i.e. breathing & heart beating, is not living as a human being. A man has not only the right to breath, but the right to live his life. He has a right to pursue his happiness. He has a right to direct the course of his life, to take chances, to succeed or fail. And most importantly he has a right to work, and keep the products of his work. This last principle is called the right to property, and it is derived directly from a persons right to life. If man's means for surviving is his own work/mind, then how can he properly have a right to live if he cannot work, keep his products, and thereby survive?

Within the institution of slavery a mans right to life is violated in many ways, but it is chiefly his right to property that is violated. If every other violation of his rights were remedied except for his right to keep the product of his work, would things be okay? If you could travel where you wanted to, live where ever you wanted to live, make decisions about your life, be guaranteed freedom from physical abuse, etc., etc., except that everything you produced by your hard work went to me, and then I gave you some allowance, would you be free or a slave? The answer should be clear that you would still be a slave. In fact on many American slave plantations the slaves were 'free' to lead 'somewhat' normal lives: they had villages with complex social structures, they formed families, they sang songs and entertained themselves, they received rudimentary education, and by and large lived much better than their African counterparts. BUT THEY WERE STILL SLAVES! What was done to them was EVIL. I am NOT justifying it by saying it was 'not that bad.' On the contrary I am pointing out just why it was so bad. If a man does not own the property produced by his own hands, then he does not own his life. This is the root of the evil of slavery. The very idea that one man can own another violates every person's right to life.

Now if a man has a right to his life; if he has a right to his property; can those rights be violated justly some of the time? In other words: can we say that slavery is wrong and evil because it violates a mans right to his life and property, and then turn around and say that a man's right to life and property can be violated under certain circumstances, for example if it serves the greater good, and then in this case it is perfectly fine? (this is one of the arguments put forward by southerners to defend slavery, that it benefited the 'public good' and ending it would be disastrous to the 'general welfare') Is a right absolute or malleable? The answer should be obvious. If a right is not absolute then it is meaningless. If someone can decide that circumstance A makes my right non effectual, then why can't I decide that circumstance B makes your right non effectual? If you feel like the 'greater good' means you can violate my right to property, then why can't I violate your right to life, for some equally silly reason? Degrees make no difference. Once a right is violated, even a little, it is worthless. If you own 5% of my life and that is moral, then why can't you own 6% of my life? Why not 7% or 25% or 75%, or all of my life for that matter. I either own all of my life, or I do not own it at all.

At last we come to the real reason why most people don't identify why slavery is evil. Because if they consciously identified it, then they would know that so much else of what they have accepted as good is also evil by the same exact reason that condemns slavery! They would have to either change their whole mindset, reject former conclusions, give up pet theories, let go of favorable (to them) government programs, and in short: let the slaves go free. Unfortunately many people are not willing to be that honest with themselves. They are content not to know, then they don't have to make any of the painful mental connections. This is why people delude themselves with alternative explanations. If slavery was wrong because of racism, violence, strong vs weak, etc., then there is no threat to their progressive ideas which eschew such things.

Others are willing to know the truth, but ignore the contradictions that this creates with their other beliefs. They are willing to say that a sixteenth century white Georgian man who owned slaves was evil because he violated men's' right to life, but a twenty first century politician who violates a businessman's right to his life is perfectly justified. But they are wrong. Slavery is evil, whether practiced fully in the open as in the 1700s, or piecemeal, partially, through diverse routes, and programs as today. The only remedy is to let men live. Let men own their own life. Let every man relinquish any and all claims they think they may have on their fellow men, and in so doing set themselves and everyone free.

Ignoring cause and effect

There is a series of passages in Atlas Shrugged that I always thought I understood, but only recently have I been able to take their meaning and apply it to something in real life. The passages are those that describe Dagny's first ball, as well as the party at the Reardens' house. Dagny was surprised to discover that no one at the ball was really enjoying themselves. She noted that everyone seemed to expect the lights, decorations, dresses, etc. at the ball to give some sort of special meaning to the occasion that otherwise was not there. It was as if the people were not happy, but somehow expected the setting to make them so. She realized that only those people who have done anything truly worth celebrating can really enjoy a celebration. The people at the ball were not there to celebrate their lives and their love of it, but rather to somehow absorb some form of enjoyment through going through the motions of celebrating. As if their doing that which happy men of self esteem do would give them self esteem. Ayn Rand has identified this as one instance of a larger more common error that people make: ignoring the law of cause and effect. In this case happiness and the ability to celebrate are the effect, self esteem is the cause. The people at Dagny's ball were attempting to gain the effect without the necessary cause. It of course doesn't work and that is why she notices that they are so unhappy.

I have recently made a connection between the principle discussed above and every day life. I think it is worth exploring; not only to further concretize the principle for myself, but also because I think it is just interesting. The effect that people want to fake is sexual enjoyment. By this I don't mean only the physical feelings involved. Anyone can experience those. Sadly however, for many people that is as far as enjoying sex goes, just physical sensations. But there is so much more that can be emotionally enjoyed about sex. But the enjoyment is an effect, not a cause. Without the cause one cannot have the effect. People who desire to have the effect but don't want to be bothered with the causes think that going through the motions will somehow provide for them what they seek. It is just like the people at Dagny's ball who expected the party to provide them with worth, not their worth making the party truly enjoyable.

So if sexual enjoyment is the effect what is the cause? This, I think has many aspects that contribute to it but to name the one I feel is dominant: the cause is an inviolate metaphysical love of life. By this I mean that one has to love one's own life. Of course everyone does love their life to some extent, but they have also accepted so many other contradictory premises that this love is suppressed and not allowed to manifest itself. For example the dominant ethics of altruism teaches people that it is wrong to love ones self above others. People are taught that self love is selfish (which it is, but not in the bad way that altruists imply) and that loving everyone else indiscriminately is the only moral course. Acceptance of this doctrine effectively cuts oneself off from ones sense of loving life, letting it surface only occasionally, and then only to produce guilt in oneself for being 'selfish.' Is it any wonder that people who are cut off from their love of life cannot enjoy the one act that is the physical manifestation of that love? Sex is the physical act that lets one express and live that deep sense of loving life. Without that sense it it just an empty shell, a set of sensations, an animal pleasure.

To give a more narrow example of what I mean: Why do people buy lingerie? There may be many reasons, but a dominant one is just because they think they are supposed to. Girls know that when they get married they are supposed to get some lingerie. But why? Well... because their husband will like it. Why will he like it, and why is that important? BLANK OUT. Most new brides would have no answer to those last questions. People know that they are supposed to somehow enjoy sex, and they think that somehow lingerie will help them in this. Why, well it works for other people doesn't it? The lingerie is like the lights and decorations at the ball, they can serve to make the occasion very nice for those who can celebrate, but for those who have nothing to celebrate they can do nothing. But just as those unhappy people have balls in the hopes that the lights and decorations will make them happy, some couples think that lingerie will help them to be sexy and enjoy sex. How? Somehow.

In truth lingerie does serve a purpose and can greatly enhance sexual enjoyment, but only if the cause, love of life, is there. Without that it is just a waste. The law of cause and effect cannot be ignored.

You can even see this principle manifest physically in the manner in which the lingerie is used. Usually those people who lack the cause of sexual enjoyment will just put the lingerie on and wait to see what happens. A scenario may go like this:
"Wanna have sex?"
"Yeah sure."
"Want me to put lingerie on?"
"O.k."
"Which one?"
"Oh I don't know, which ever."
She goes and puts it on an comes back to bed. She gets under the covers and lays there. He finally musters the interest to go through the motions, and the rest is history. Eventually even this less than thrilling scene begins to happen less and less until the lingerie only comes out on 'special' occasions. And maybe not even then. Why? Well even the most self deluded people can't help but notice that the lingerie is a waste of time, with neither party really enjoying it that much. They eventually drop the pretense, wondering what the big deal was all about. The sad part is that it didn't have to be that way.

Trendy vs Unique

How many of us approve of those people who latch onto anything and everything that is popular? They only listen to top 40 music. They only wear trendy clothes. They love only mass produced popular books and movies. They must drive the current fad car. They accept any idea, slogan, or campaign that is popular. And so on.

It is silly for people to behave in that manner. The fact that something is popular doesn't make it good, and the desire to 'fit in' is hardly a noble motivation. However most people I know don't have a problem with that. There is a different 'trend' though in the opposite direction. This new trend is to dislike anything and everything that is popular. According to this line of thought if a song makes the top 40 you cannot like it, you can only enjoy music if nobody else has heard of it first. If certain clothes are in fashion then you shouldn't wear them, you should only dress in eccentric non-conformist styles. If a book or movie is popular then it isn't worth your time, its probably just mindless and simple anyway and you should stick to obscure works that no one has heard of. And the only cars you can like are either weird 'smart car' type things, or old beaters. According to this mind set things are good because they are not popular, and ones motivation is non-conformity.

These two views, though seemingly opposite come from the same place. Both methods of evaluating value use a criteria based on what other people think. Instead of looking at something and deciding whether you like it for objective reasons, you decide whether other people like it (or at least enough people) and this makes up your mind for you. The essence of both trends is giving up the responsibility of independent thinking. This is the one goal of modern philosophy, to get people to give up the independent use of their mind. The simple solution to combat this is to think. It doesn't matter one way or another whether everyone in the world likes something, or whether no one does. Your judgement is all that matters to you. Never surrender it to popular, or un-popular opinion.

So go ahead and admit it, you like that one Justin Timberlake song. There's no need to be embarrassed, so long as you actually like it and aren't blindly following (or rebelling against) everyone else.

Why be mean to the food server?

Speaker: ...chhhhhhh... "can I take your order?" ...

Customer: ... "uhh, yeah I want a peach shake" ...

Speaker: ...chhhhhhh... "did you say peach or heath?"

Customer: ...(yelling) "WHAT ARE YOU F*$%!@& DEAF? I SAID PEACH! PEEEACCHHH! P-E-A-C-H!"

Speaker: ...chhhhhhh... "oh ... sorry ... please pull forward."
(Dramatization based on real experience)

Some of you may question whether there really are 'normal' people (excluding the anomalous mental cases) that behave in the manner dramatized above. Let me assure you that there is a significant portion of the population that regularly behave like jerks towards their food servers, be they fast food workers, waiters, delivery drivers, etc. Lest you doubt my qualification for giving said assurance let me mention my credentials: I have worked in fast food for 5 years, pizza delivery for 1 year, and have frequented many food consumption establishments over my 25 years of life, wherein many observations of a variety of people have been made. All my experience points toward supporting the conclusion that some otherwise 'normal' people are @$$holes toward food servers.

All kidding aside though, this observation has always puzzled me a bit. Don't these jerks know that the people they are ticking off are the very same people who are going to be preparing/delivering their food? Don't the offensive guests worry that if they are mean to the employee their food may be adulterated in some way, e.g. skimping on portions, inserting spit, or adding foreign objects? Even if the food is not tampered with (usually because the pesky manager happened to be close by) there certainly will be some other negative repercussions, such as over-charging the order, taking exceptionally long for the order, or simply 'forgetting' to include essential items in the order such as utensils, napkins, or sauces.

So why do these jerks behave in the manner they do? It cannot be that they are too stupid to make the mental connections that are required to come to the conclusion outlined above, for anyone able to speak or drive a car has shown that they have the mental capacity needed for that. (i.e. its not that hard to figure out) No it isn't that they cannot do the thinking, it is simply that they don't bother to.

Now that is an interesting observation. Why would people not bother to think about something so simple, and that directly affects them regularly? The answer is this: people have been taught that reason is impotent and that emotionalism, i.e. letting feelings dictate ones actions, is the way to go. (If you think I'm exaggerating consider the ubiquitous bromide 'follow your heart'. QED) Most people don't consciously accept such swill, and yet lacking any integrated philosophy to guide them they often subconsciously latch onto bits and pieces of the theory. As a result many people feel no qualms about following every whim they experience. If they are annoyed they are going to be a jerk and nothing is going to stop them, least of all their mind.

Another interesting observation related to the above: there is another group of people who would look at the example before illustrated and agree that in that case it is foolish to follow every whim one has, such as the whim to be mean to your server. They would readily agree that emotions cannot rule us ... at least not always. But then they turn around and try to claim that in some things feelings do, and should, trump the mind and reason, e.g. in finding a lover, or discovering spiritual truth. In other words they have consciously accepted the supremacy of emotionalism (the same principle driving the jerks), but then proceed to demand inconsistent application of the principle. In other words feelings and whims do reign, but only sometimes. But how does one decide when those sometimes are? By whim of course! One simply arbitrarily decides when one will be guided by whim and when one won't.

Moving now from epistemology to ethics, let us examine the same scenario in another light. What are you and I doing when we look at a situation, rationally evaluate it, decide what is in our best interest, and then act accordingly? We are following an ethics of rational self interest, or being rationally selfish. This of course is the ethics of objectivism, Ayn Rand's philosophy. I do not intend to explain or verify the ethics of rational self interest here, but just to debunk a common misconception. Altruists claim that selfishness is an evil and that if people followed objectivist ethics it would lead to meanness, callousness, and conflict. The little anecdote at the beginning of the post is only one of many examples that prove that rational selfishness leads to the opposite of meanness, callousness, and conflict. The rationally selfish person is the one who recognizes that it is in his best interest to be nice to the server. It is the emotionalist who behaves badly.

Now an Altruist may object that their ethics also leads to the outcome of being nice to the worker, so what makes rational self interest so special? They are wrong in both their claim and their evaluation. Altruism would not lead to the same outcome in this case. If Altruism were followed consistently then one could not even go into a restaurant to by food, because that would mean seeking a value for yourself when you should be giving up all values to other people. So rather than buying a sandwich you should be giving the worker your wallet. Of course there wouldn't be any restaurant though in an altruist society because a restaurant requires investment and ownership and, dare I say it, profit, all of which are selfish. However in reality no one follows altruism consistently. (the dirtiest little secret is that they aren't supposed to) People always act to some degree in their own interest. So for the sake of argument lets assume that altruism does result in the same outcome. This proves nothing. The point is not that rational self interest is good because it leads to niceness to food workers, or to anyone for that matter. Rational self interest is good on its own merits. My pointing out that rational self interest leads to treating servers better is meant to debunk an attack on objectivist ethics, but it is certainly not the validation of the ethics.

So be nice to the server, for your own sake. Listen to you mind. Use your emotions to add richness and color to your life, but not to guide it. And don't fall for the silly altruist attacks on selfishness.

Why does popcorn cost so much at the movies?

Everyone probably knows that the answer to this question is the standard answer to every economics question, supply and demand. The demand for popcorn is high and the supply is limited, thus the price is high. But why is the supply limited? In a normal market when there is a high demand for a product and the price is high there is a very large incentive for new business to move into the field in order to take advantage of the high profitability. This influx of new business increases supply and the price begins to lower. The price continues to fall until it reaches a point where it is no longer lucrative enough for new investment, and the price equalizes at its correct level. It should be apparent however that this cannot be the case at the movie theatre. It certainly would be a great investment for an entrepreneur to open up a popcorn stand in the theatre and start charging 50 cents less for popcorn, he would make a killing. But the theatre would never allow it! This is the key issue. Because the theatre can keep competition out they can charge what they want.

Now what does this have to do with real life? How many of us have wondered why gas prices can be so high? There are certainly many answers being given by politicians: greedy big oil, greedy Saudis, greedy speculators, etc. These answers are appealing to people because they get to blame things that 'everybody' hates, e.g. anything big, rich, or successful. But who is the real culprit? The example that started this post provides the answer. No, movie theatres are not the cause of high gas prices, but rather they are a small example of the process that causes high prices. If popcorn costs so much because the movie theatres won't let in competition, who won't let in competition in the oil field? There is only one entity which has the power to do this, the government. The government has closed the field to new development in oil. What is the result? Limited supply and high price, just like with popcorn at theatres. There is of course a simple solution to the problem. Just like opening up a popcorn stand in the theatre would drive prices down, if new concerns where allowed to enter the oil field, or if present ones where allowed to actually go after more supply, the price would naturally fall. It may be comforting to blame the greed of the rich as the source of our problems, but in reality it is that very greed that would be the force that drives prices down. Consider your average rich greedy man. Would he pass up an opportunity for easy profits, as are currently available in the oil industry? Of course he wouldn't! He would take his money and invest in a new oil company knowing he would reap great rewards. All the new companies flooding the field would greatly increase the supply of oil. This would greatly lower the price until it was at a level low enough that it was no longer extremely profitable for new investment. So what is stopping the greedy rich men from doing this? It is illegal for them to do it! Consider that the majority of U.S. oil is located in off shore fields. It is illegal to drill off shore. The second largest reserves are in Alaska. It is currently illegal to drill in ANWAR. There are huge shale oil deposits all throughout the west, but they are not open for exploration either. Even the few places that the government does allow oil companies to explore are severely regulated. Oil companies have to go through an excruciating process of getting dozens of permits from dozens of agencies who grant or deny their permits on purely subjective grounds. They are forced to deal with power hungry bureaucrats; they have to bribe them, schmooze them, use all the political 'pull' they can muster just to be allowed to do their job. And then the same bureaucrats turn around and blame them for high gas prices, and demand a windfall profits tax be levied on them to suck away the fruits of all their hard work. Under these circumstances how could any sane man want to enter the oil industry? And thus we are in the state we are in. So when you go to the pump and are hit with $50 a tank, just remember who brought it to you.

What's this all about?

I have debated with myself the wisdom of including an 'introduction' to my blog. Would it be too contrived and formulaic, or would it be a useful tool for people trying to understand whats going on? In the end the pro-intro side won the debate. So let me explain briefly what I envision for this blog: I plan to think out loud. I don't expect many readers, and that is fine with me. Truly I just need a place to work out some of the complex ideas that are swirling around not fully integrated in my mind. Let me note however that I do not subscribe to the 'stream of consciousness' school of writing, i.e. regurgitating whatever random thoughts surface in ones mind with out any logical connections. When I say that I will think out loud the emphasis is on thinking. Thought requires a rigorous logical process, and this is what I hope to present. Through the process of presenting my thoughts I hope to be able to fully concretize them for myself.

So what kinds of thoughts will I think out loud about? Mostly philosophical thoughts. Before you fall asleep or flee in terror however consider this: every human being lives by some philosophy or another which guides all of his actions and shapes the outcome of his life. You cannot escape the need for some form of philosophy. But how many people have taken the time and mental effort to consciously examine the philosophy that directs them? Very few I would venture to say. So what then guides them? Random bits and pieces of various philosophies picked up here and there. Slogans, vague generalities, and trite bromides are heard in passing conversation, at school or work, picked up in books and movies, or invented on the spot, etc. Lacking any conscious effort to digest these ideas, the subconscious is forced to take them and mash them together into a mongrel philosophy. This Frankenstein of a philosophy becomes the guide of ones life, directing how one thinks, acts, and lives. But are the ideas that are guiding you true, i.e. consistent with reality? Do the principles you have accepted contradict each other? Where do the guidelines you subscribe to lead you when they are followed to their logical conclusion? Do you even know how to draw a logical conclusion? If you have not consciously thought through your philosophy then you cannot know the answers to these questions. How risky is it to let the thing that guides your entire life to be left up to chance! We generally look down on the fool who goes to Vegas and bets the house on the roulette wheel because he feels lucky, but then many of us are willing to bet our very lives that the random ideas we've been exposed to will serve us just fine and bear no further thought.

I am digressing however. My object is not to convince you that philosophy is important, but rather to explain my reason for my subject matter. I do hope you take the opportunity to think about the questions I write about, and you may agree with me or not, that matters little. In fact, as I have already written this blog is mostly for myself and my process of self examination.

A few disclaimers:
-I will not present an entire philosophy from beginning to logical end here. I will write as questions come to me and elaborate on principles when I think it is relevant. One should never accept an idea, however, without understanding the underlying principles and premises it relies upon. Therefor if you are interested in understanding the philosophy that guides me it is called Objectivism and was created by the great author and thinker Ayn Rand. I refer you to her work which is much more qualified to present the full basis of her philosophy.
-I am writing for myself so forgive me if sometimes I sound preachy or condescending. I will do my best to not be overly long winded, and I intend to severely edit myself to make my writing readable, but I am who I am and my style is how it is. Sorry in advance.