Chicken Pot Pie and Other Childrens' Stories

To thine own self be true

2009-08-05T21:36:00.000-07:00

“To thine own self be true” Hamlet Act 1, scene 3, 78–82

There was once a psychological experiment done that I find terribly interesting. It was conducted by Solomon Asch as follows: a volunteer (the test subject) was placed in a room with a group of other people, sitting in a circle. The volunteer was led to believe that the other people in the room were also volunteer subjects who were participating in the same experiment. They were in fact part of the experimenting team, and were ‘in’ on the trick of the experiment. The volunteer knew that the experiment was investigating human behavior, but was not told what behavior specifically was the target. They were told simply to answer the questions that the experimenter asked. The experimenter asked outrageously simple questions, such as “which line is longer?”, when there were only two lines on the card. The people in the room proceeded to go around the circle answering the questions one after another. The ‘in’ people always answered incorrectly, and it was arranged that the test subject always answered last. Does the subject follow suit with the rest of the group and answer incorrectly, defying his own senses and mind, or does he stand alone and answer correctly?

Can you imagine yourself in this test? What goes through the subject’s mind the first time the question is asked and someone answers wrongly? You would probably assume that the first
person is a little slow mentally. But then the second person gives the same answer. “Hmm… that’s a little weird”, you may think. Then the third answers the same, then the fourth, fifth, six, and so on. By the time the experimenter gets to you, you are perplexed. You know which line is longer on the card, yet everyone is answering wrongly. Do they know something that you do not? Are you missing a crucial fact somewhere? How can so many people all be wrong? Who are you to think you know better than all these other people? What do you do? Answer as you know, or go with the crowd?

The results of the experiment were startling. I do not remember the exact numbers (you can look them up), but qualitatively there was a majority of people who consistently answered incorrectly in accordance with the rest of the group.
This experiment resulted in the first identification of what we call peer pressure, and it is usually discussed in relation to peer pressure. I want to look at it from another angle, however. I want to examine this experiment at its more fundamental level, the epistemological level. (Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that studies how we gain knowledge, i.e. faith or reason, emotions or logic, etc.)

How many of the people who gave in to the group do you suppose believed that they were answering correctly? I do not mean that they were dolts and couldn’t figure out which line was longer. I am assuming that initially everyone knew the correct answer. What I mean is that by the time their turn to answer came around, they had actually changed their mind about what the right answer was. My thesis is that there were many who did just that. In the face of other people answering contrary to their first assessment, they revised their assessment to agree with the group, in effect convincing themselves that they must have been wrong initially. Additionally, I bet that many of the subjects eventually just stopped looking at the cards as the questions were asked, and instead just listened to their neighbors’ responses for guidance. (Now undoubtedly there were also many people who knew they were answering wrongly and were just caving in to pressure, but I am less interested in them.)

This phenomenon was identified by Howard Roark in Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead as the principle of the 2nd hander. A 2nd hander is someone who relies on other people for his mental processes. The 2nd hander forms ideas and convictions based on the ideas and convictions of other people. To a second hander the value of an idea is gauged by how many people agree with it. When confronted with a problem the first response of a second hander is to seek guidance, form a committee, ask an expert, take a poll, search for someone else’s previously tried solution, etc. In contrast, an independent minded person, when confronted with a problem, would look first to reality, then, relying on his own mind struggle to come up with a solution.

Now before anyone objects let me add some caveats: I am not saying that it is bad for other people to be of assistance to you, or that you have to discover everything about life on your own. As the bromide goes, you don’t have to re-invent the wheel. Getting aid from others does not make one a second hander. What does make one a second hander is when other people’s thought is substituted for, or given prominence over, your own.

For example, suppose you are taking a backpacking trip in a wilderness area. You would need to decide what equipment to bring with you. A first handed mentality would consider what sorts of conditions they would be likely to encounter, and plan equipment accordingly. A second handed mentality would ask their neighbor what to bring, because they know that the neighbor likes camping. A first handed person would know exactly where he was going on the map, will have studied the surrounding area, memorized landmarks, mileages, trail junctions, elevations, etc. A second handed person would be sure to bring along a first handed person who knew where he was going, or he would not make the trip. On the trail a first handed person would have a good (if not exact) grasp of where he was based on time of travel and landmarks. A 2nd hander would be constantly asking everyone else how far they had gone, where they were, and when they were to reach the summit (even when the summit was clearly in sight). Upon arrival at the destination, a first hander would begin looking for a good camping sight, based upon definable criteria such as tree cover, flat ground for a tent, logs or rocks for seating, proximity to water, seclusion from the trail, etc. A 2nd hander would follow the first hander he brought along, and uncritically accept whatever spot was chosen regardless of its merit, or lacking any 1st hander, the 2nd hander would simply look for evidence of someone else’s previous camping spot. When it came time to fish the 1st hander would search for the right spot where he suspected the most fish to be. The 2nd hander would look for the side of the lake with the most people fishing on it, assuming that to be the prime spot.

Now of course, the second hander in my example was carried to the extreme. No one is entirely second handed. We all form some thoughts on our own. The question is, what is our primary orientation? What is our default setting? Most people have some areas in which they feel confident, but when they are outside their comfort zone they switch to 2nd hand mode. It almost seems that the more important the issue, the more second handed some people become. They feel fine forming their own opinions about trivia, but allow the course of their life to be set (through the ethics they accept) by what they have always been told. (“Traditions of their fathers”)

Now the 1st handed person may receive help from other people, but that is not necessarily 2nd handed. For example, the first hander above may have received advice from someone who had been to the wilderness area before about which lake was the best to go to. But he would have expected reasons to be given in support of the person’s suggestion. He would have inquired about why the person thought it was the best lake. Was the fishing good? Was it picturesque? Was it less crowded? He may then decide, based on this information as well as any other corroborating evidence, to act on the person’s advice. But the key is that he still made his own judgment call based on the information available to him, including the person’s testimony. The 2nd hander by contrast is not concerned with why the person recommends the lake, but merely that he does recommend it. To a 2nd hander the persons advice is not information in the decision making process, it is the entire process.

A similar pattern is evident in gaining knowledge. I am not expected to discover on my own that energy and matter are interchangeable, and that the equation governing that interchange is e = mc2. I learn from those who went before me. But I cannot claim that I know that e = mc2 unless I have gone through the mental effort necessary to understand the concept. Einstein may have discovered it, but the concept becomes mine when I can make the mental connections on my own. Any trained parrot can squawk “eee equals emmm see squared!”, but none of us would claim that it has mastered the Theory of Special Relativity. A first hander gains knowledge from many sources, including other people, but he takes the responsibility to learn that knowledge himself, whatever the source. And he never accepts the knowledge uncritically. He demands that it makes sense, that it jives with previous knowledge he has gathered, and that all the sources are valid. He goes through a process of validating everything he believes.

A second hander however accepts ‘knowledge’ (if you can call it that) uncritically. He doesn’t bother to look at the experimental results, reason through implications, or check credibility. The fact that it was in a text book, or said by a professor, or an expert, etc. is enough for him. And the second hander rarely makes an effort to understand for himself the knowledge he has managed to copy. They simply memorize sayings, slogans, formulas, or bromides, such as e = mc2, use the formula on the test, and promptly forget any semblance of meaning they may have randomly associated with it. 2nd handers rarely have an original idea or conviction of their own. When confronted with a choice they always look outward for answers.

Now I ask you, how can you to be true to yourself? You are, in the deepest metaphysical sense, your mind. What you think makes you who you are. You can call it your Spirit if you like, it makes no difference what the name is. But to be true to yourself you have to have a self. When your mind is a junk pile of recycled ideas, borrowed convictions, or hastily accepted evaluations; when it is open to any and all comers, and its course is dictated by their whim, based on no criteria other than that they are someone other than you; when your greatest fear is trusting yourself (your mind), how can you ever be true to yourself? The only way to be true to yourself is to reject 2nd handedness fully, to think for yourself, to make your own judgments, to stick to your convictions, and to never accept any authority over the authority of your own mind. When you accept yourself as the only sovereign over your own mind, then you are true to yourself.

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." –Thomas Jefferson, inscribed on his monument

“I recognize no authority higher than that of my own mind” – Me

(p.s. thanks to Brandon who encouraged me to do another post)

Atlas

2009-04-17T09:38:00.000-07:00

Do you remember the Greek myth about the giant Atlas? He was tasked to hold up the entire world. Ayn Rand used this story as a metaphor in her book Atlas Shrugged (must read). She equated Atlas with the producers of the world, the men/women of the mind, those whose creative effort brings into existence all of our material abundance. She noted that they labored under the strain of holding up the rest of the world, the moochers and looters, who couldn't be bothered with producing their own sustanence, just as Atlas held up the world in the myth. In a famous conversation in her book between two heroes, Fransico D'Anconia asks Hank Rearden what he would do if he saw Atlas, bent and bleeding, struggling with all his might to hold up the world. Hank doesn't know what he could do, and so turns the question back to Fransisco. Fransisco replys, "Tell him to shrug." (Hence the title of the book)

I find Miss Rand's metaphor extremely accurate. If you look around the world today it is clear that there is a minority of people who, through their tremendous effort, are supporting the rest. This support is manifest in many ways: welfare, foreign aid, medicare/medicade, social security, public works, etc. In all cases though the pattern is the same -- the most productive people (i.e. rich people) have their hard earned production taken away from them (via taxes) to support various 'noble' causes (i.e. handouts to moochers/looters).

My question is this: can this continue? (Of course it should not continue.) The moochers and looters have always relied on one implicit assumption: that there will always be some producer around for them to loot from. I would like to explore this assumption and see wether it is true.

There are two important factors that will determine whether there remain any producers in the world (or at least enough producers to support the rest). First, there must be people willing to produce. Second, they must be able to do so. The moochers/looters take for granted that the first condition will always be satisfied. They understand that there is a basic (and noble) human drive to be productive, and they count on some people to follow it. The second condition is never considered by the moochers/looters. They, having renounced the mind, are unable/unwilling to consider how things are produced and under what conditions such production is possible. They have the mentality that goods simply exist, and will always continue to exist. How? Somehow is the ubiquitous answer.

So let us consider each condition. Will there always be people willing to produce? To answer this we must consider what gets them to do so in the first place? They must have some motivation. Naturally, men's selfish desire to live (which is a good thing) usually serves as their motivation. But what if they knew that any action that they could take in an attempt to advance their good would ultimately not serve that end? Would it still serve as a compelling motivation? No. So in the realm of production, what could frustrate a persons attempts to further his good? The confiscation of his wealth is one thing. For example, you go to work in order to earn an income. Would you continue to do so if you recieved no income? No. (You may like your job, and have other secondary reasons for doing it, but they are not the primary reason. Earning an income is primary.) Also, it should be noted that it need not be all of you income that is confiscated for your motivation to be squashed. There is a critical level of confiscation, above which all motivation to produce is lost. So we have found one condition that will quell peoples desire to produce: confiscation of their wealth. (there are others, but it this is the most prevelant one today)

Next let us consider whether there exist conditions that make production impossible, even if hypothetically there remained some people willing to try. First let us note that when men are compelled by force, they cannot produce. Oh they can go through motions, perform manual labor, etc., but that is not the root of production. Production is a product of the mind, and the mind is paralyzed by force. Just look at the former Soviet Union; they had millions of people forced to labor and what did it get them? Starvation, stagnation, and the slow distruction of a nation. Not only can you not compell production, but you cannot restrain those who do produce and expect them to continue. Freedom is a neccacerry condition for production. When men are not free to make the decisions that are best for their productive enterprise, they cannot produce long. Production is an active process, that cannot survive stagnation. For example, suppose you own a development company. You obtain a section of land and start to build a housing subdivision on it. Half way through excavation you are served with a court order to stop building. Apparantly there is an endangered field mouse who may live on your property, and as such you are now restricted from developing it. You however have sunk millions of dollars into this project already, anticiating a large return after completion. Now you are stuck with a worthless peice of land that cannot be developed, and you go bankrupt. As a bonus, the bank that financed your expedition cannot bare the blow of your bankruptcey, and thus goes under too. Of course that was a made up example, and it only illustrates how one restriction hurts one person, but the principle is true across the board. Whenever there is a regulation placed on a producer it can only hinder his production, but never increase it. When regulation becomes total and complete, however, all production fails. (it is like chaining a man frome nose to toes, and then expecting him to be able to work)

In addition to regulation, confiscation of wealth also hinders production. In an industrial society business concerns are made possible by financing through capital. (such as the bank lending money to the developer in the above example) Banks however get their money through the savings of other producers. (see post below) If everyone's wealth is confiscated though, then there can be no excess capital to be put to good use, and thus no advanced in production. Even when confiscation is not total, the incentive to investors is diminished, and thus capital is reduced, thereby, through a chain effect, stunting production. (would you buy a stock if 75% of its earnings were taxed away?)

It is interesting that the very two things that are most popular today in our government, taxation and regulation, are the very things that cause production to cease.

Now any of you who know me know that I am a math/science geek, and the rest of the post will reflect this. I wanted to come up with a mathmatical and visual way a representing what I have argued above. So here goes:

let p be a variable representing the fraction of producers in our society. (thus p = 0.30 means 30% of the people in our soceity are producers)
let m be a variable representing the fraction of moochers/looters in our society. (thus m = 0.70 means 70% of the people in our soceity are producers)
note that p + m = 1 because the total percent of producers added to the total percent of moochers/looters must be 100%. (so if the number of producers goes down, then the number of moochers/looters must go up)
let a be a variable representing how much the producers can produce.
let b be a variable representing how much the moochers/looters steal from the producers.
define P(p,m,a,b) to be a function that represents the total excess production, meaning that which the producers produce less that which the moochers/looters steal.
Then P = ap - bm , but because p + m = 1 , ==> P = ap - b(1 - p) = p(a + b) - b .

Now the looters assumptions can be quantified as follows: their assumption that there will always be those willing to produce is the same as assuming that p does not decrease, and their assumtion that production will always be possible is the same as assuming that a will not decrease. If that where true then the excess production could simply be determined by setting b at the appropriate level. The following graphs illustrate how setting b at different levels changes production, P.

The goal of the moochers/looters is illustrated in the third graph. They want to take as much as possible from the producers, while still having P > 0. (if P is less than 0, then people are starving).

However, a and p are not constants. As I argued above, they are diminished by the presence of confiscation and controls (represented by b). Thus, as long as b does not equal 0, a and p will be decreasing functions of b. The actual functional relationship may be very complex, but a good approximation is given here.

let a(b,t) = a - ct^(db) . I realize that the math looks weird, but all that is going on is a is decreasing in time, t, and the speed at which it is decreasing depends on the size of b. (a, c, and d are just constants that can be figured out for particular cases) What this function represents is the diminishing of productive capacity by the presence of confiscation and controls.

let p(b,t) = p -et^(fb) . This is the same idea as the function for a, p is diminishing as time goes on with speed set by b. This represents how the number of people willing to produce decreases in the presence of confiscation.

With thess additions our graphs change:

Of course the actual numbers in the graphs are made up, but what I am going for is a visual understanding of the problem, not a rigorous proof. As you can see, the very presence of controls and confiscation diminishes productivity, and the more the controls/confiscation, the faster it does so. Eventually the moochers/looters end up taking more from the producers than is produced (when the red line crosses zero). At this point the society is in trouble.

Ok, no more math stuff. Let me recap my point (cause I kinda got lost). Producers cannot be exploited indefinitely. If the confiscations and controls they are currently enduring are not lifted then they eventually will "shrug" and drop the world. The assumption of the moochers/looters that someone will always be there to produce, ...somehow..., is wrong. With their motivation squashed and their hands tied, even the best eventually will fall. What is the solution? Freedom of course.

Has the Free Market Failed?

2009-04-10T10:20:00.000-07:00

I was listening to a talk show the other day, and they were debating the consequences of the AIG crash. (spurred on by the news of the multi-million dollar bonuses some executives were getting after ruining the company and receiving billions of bailout-dollars) The show host argued that the failure of AIG proved that more government regulation is needed, while the guest was supporting the free market. The host raised the following questions: "didn't the free market already have it's chance? The credit-default-swap market (the genesis of AIG's failure) was completely unregulated, and look what happened as a result. Shouldn't the government have stopped AIG from investing so irresponsibly?"

I am not interested right now in arguing who was right between the host and the guest (you probably know what I would say anyway), but I did want to explore what I consider to be the underlying issue. The host is saying that the free market did not work. I would like to ask what he means by "the free market did not work"? The obvious answer is: look at AIG! The biggest insurance company in the world went bankrupt, the government had to bail them out, the credit market went into a tail-spin as a result, and the entire economy is tanking. (I am, of course, putting words into someones mouth, but I think it is a fair representation.) For decades now, ever since the New Deal really, this same formula has been used -- when something bad happens in the economy say that the free market has failed, and that we need more regulation to save us.

But has the free market really failed? I argue that the facts listed above about AIG and the economy are true, but that they do not show that the free market does not work. They are in fact instances of the free market working! It is quite simple really: what is the free market's mechanism for discouraging bad investment? Risk, i.e. the possibility of failure. AIG made horrible investments (bad risk), and as a result they should fail! AIG's failure is the result of their actions, and represents the way the market automatically adjusts to discourage such actions.

Imagine for a moment that the government had let AIG go under instead of bailing them out. Would any reasonable company make similarly silly investments in the C.D.S. market? Of course not! They would say to themselves, "Holy Crap! We need to dump that risky C.D.S. stuff, or we are going to go the way of AIG." The market would correct itself without the need of some Regulator to go around deciding who could invest in what and how much, based solely on his discretion. Is it moral for a Regulator to tell people or companies how they can invest? No. But beyond that I am saying that, moral or not, it is not even needed! Of course the government did not let AIG die, so the message sent instead was this: do what ever you want, because if your risky investments turn south, you will be bailed out. The government essentially has removed the cautionary incentive of Risk, thereby undercutting the free market, all the while blaming the free market that it has hog tied!

Let me return to my main point though. What would a failure of the free market consist of? Failure is a completely conditional concept, i.e. it depends on what the goal is. For example, if I asked you "is earning $10.00 a failure?", how would you respond? You would likely be confused. Why? Because I did not specify a context. If the goal was earning $1000.00 to buy a new computer, then yes, $10.00 is a failure. If, however the goal was getting a hamburger, then $10.00 would be a success. This may seem like a trivial example, but the people who are claiming that the free market doesn't work are doing the exact same thing. They (referred to as Statists from here on) say the market failed, but specify no yard stick by which to measure failure.

The Statists do, of course, have a yard stick, but the do not express it explicitly. Their measure is this: if something bad happens in the economy, such as large companies going bankrupt, high unemployment, inflation, stock market drops, etc., then that is a failure of the free market. (it is important to note that they do not consider the bad event a failure of those involved, but of the market itself) In other words, the goal is uninterrupted economic growth with no setbacks, losses, or bad deals. That sounds on the surface like a good goal, and I believe most people would accept it initially. That is one reason why the Statists feel no need to explicitly state it. However, the goal does not stand up long to any rational scrutiny, which is the second reason the Statists don't want to openly state it. They are afraid to let their goal be rationally discussed, and instead deflect discussion to more catchy emotional subjects, like the bonuses to the executives, or sob stories of needy workers, etc. They are dependent on the fact that most people take things for granted and accept their initial feelings about a subject as sufficient, never examining closely the ideas they accept. (I say most people. There are those who do think deeply about things. I wish there were more.)

So then, let us scrutinize the goal of perfect prosperity. First, is it achievable in real life? No. In real life there is always the possibility that someone will fail. This is true of free and controlled markets (more on that later). Second, why should we want to achieve it? It is true that in general terms prosperity is good, but we cannot consider it in a vacuum, out of context. Whether the goal is good or not depends entirely on what price would have to be paid to achieve it. I say that the goal of perfect prosperity is evil, because of the price that must be paid for it. The only way to ensure no bad economic outcomes is to remove the possibility of any variation in outcomes at all. That means the elimination of good outcomes. For, after all, if one can succeed then one must also be able to fail. (for those of you who are LDS: it is the same thing we believe Satan wanted to do. He wanted to eliminate all choices in order to remove the possibility of making a bad choice)

Consider an analogy -- We would all probably agree that health is a good thing. However, there is always the possibility of disease in real life. If I proposed, in the name of uninterrupted health, placing everyone in a protective quarantine plastic bubble (such as the one in the Jon Travolta movie), would you say my goal is noble? No. Health is only a valid goal because it promotes our living a vibrant life. But as we all know, living vibrantly is more than bodily function, and living in a bubble is no life at all. Thus we cannot say that my goal is noble, but just not realistic. The very price of the goal negates its goodness: health ceases to be good if it is destroying ones capacity to live (in the broader sense of live). It is the same with the Statists alleged goal.

So why do the Statists hold such an unachievable, irrational goal as a standard of measure? Precisely because they know it is unachievable. When bad things inevitably happen, they can step in, as they are now, and say the free market has failed. This opens the door for them to do as they please. They naturally promise that they will be able to do better, and we naively believe them. Of course they cannot achieve their goal either, but that is not the point. When more failures occur they will have an ace up their sleeve. Simply blame the free market again! Then even more controls will be clamored for. It is a self reinforcing cycle that repeats with the ultimate end being total state economic control. Of course then when the failures continue to happen there will be no free market left to blame, but by then it wont matter.

What is the solution? We must insist on a proper measuring stick of success. That measure should be freedom. The success of the economy must be measured by how free it is. Not because we believe that freedom will somehow mystically ensure uninterrupted prosperity (as some conservatives argue), because that is falling into the trap of accepting the Statists premises. There will be unfortunate events from time to time in a free economy, but freedom should be our goal because it is right.

What is Wealth?

2009-04-05T11:25:00.000-07:00

Well, here we are in a full blown recession. It seems like all we hear about on the news anymore are debates about what President Obama should do to "fix" the economic woes of the country. There are Multi-Billion Dollar bailouts plans, and Multi-Trillion Dollar stimulus plans, being tossed around. (for those of us who find it hard to imagine what a trillion dollars is, it is: $1.0 x 10^12; or $1,000,000,000,000; or One Thousand-Billion dollars, or One Million-Million dollars, or One Thousand-Thousand-Thousand-Thousand Dollars... i.e. a lot! Consider this if you earned a hefty $100-Million per year you would have to work Ten-Thousand years to earn a Trillion dollars.)

Naturally, the political lines have been drawn: Democrats are salivating at the opportunity to hugely expand the governments role and spend oodles-&-gobs of money, while the Republicans, in classic "I'm still rel event" fashion, are opposing anything and everything the D's want to do. They do agree on one thing though: that the government needs to do something to fix the economy. The R's just don't want the D's to get the credit for doing it!

I challenge both the R's and the D's basic premise: that the government has the responsibility, or even the right, to try fixing the economy. But that is for another post -- so for the sake of argument I will assume that the health of the economy is a valid concern for the government. What then characterizes a healthy economy? One in which wealth is maximized. But this begs the question that is the title of this post, what is wealth?

For nations wealth is measured in GDP, for a financial planner it is Assets less Debts, but in the end it all boils down to plain old dollars. This seems like a simple answer, wealth is dollars, ...duhh. But have you ever asked yourself what money is? I don't mean paper or metal, or even the means of exchange for goods. I mean what is it? Only by understanding this can we know how to maximize it.

Money is products that have been produced but not consumed. In our modern economy it is often hard to see this link between production and money, so it is helpful to think in more basic terms first, and then project upward. Suppose everyone were farmers. You could only eat that which you had produced. If you produce more than you need, then that surplus represents your wealth. This wealth could be saved in case the next year was less productive, or traded via barter to other farmers for rudimentary goods. However you would not be able to save much, because the food would naturally spoil after time. And trading with other farmers would not alleviate this problem because all they have to trade to you is also their surplus food (aside from a negligible amount of home-made products) which will also spoil. So there is a natural ceiling to the total production possible to a community.

For example, suppose you become so productive as a farmer that you can reap 3 years worth of food in one year. What are you going to do with the other 2 years worth of food? Suppose you can save one years worth without it spoiling, then what about the other extra year? Maybe you can trade a quarter of it to other people for durable goods, but the last 3/4 goes to waste. This is where money steps in. If you could exchange your extra 2 years of food for money, then that money would not spoil, and in the future you could trade the money back for food or other goods if needed. Thus money is a means of saving. Of course it is also a means of exchange, but that is not it's primary purpose. Money is not important because it makes trading easier, it is important because it makes savings possible. It is savings that allows man to progress beyond a Dark Age style hand-to-mouth existence.

Without savings our modern economy would never be possible. Consider any non-farming profession: lets take an Auto maker for example. An Auto maker does not produce anything that can be readily consumed. So how does an Auto maker live (he/she has to eat something)? They must somehow obtain food from those who do produce it (farmers). If the farmers are only producing enough for themselves though, this is impossible. So the very existence of non-farming professions depends on the farmers being able to save. And, as outlined above, the degree to which farmers can save is severely limited without money, and therefor so also is the possibility of professions limited without money.

Of course we do have money, so we know how an Auto maker could survive: he sells his cars for money, and then trades that money to farmers for their food. (they then can buy things, such as cars) Here is the crucial point though: the Auto maker only got the money because he had produced something (the car). Likewise the farmer only received the money from the Auto maker because he had produced something (the food). This is true for every link in the chain of selling all the way back to the miner who brought the money (gold) out of the ground with his blood, sweat, and tears.

Now back to our society and the question at hand. Knowing that wealth is goods produced but not consumed (i.e. money, i.e. savings), how can it be maximized? Only by producing more goods than are consumed! This is the secret that the D's and the R's refuse to see. Production is wealth. The governmental approach to the economy however seeks simply to give money to certain groups, thereby "stimulating" the economy. How does this moving around of money increase wealth? Where, after all, does the government get its trillions to stimulate the economy? By taking it from people who already have it. How did the people get it? By producing. Does taking the money from them and giving it to someone else somehow increase that which had been produced? No. The total amount of production remains unchanged, and, tragically, a horrible injustice is also perpetrated. However, even if one disagrees with me that it is unjust to do this, surely one can see that it does not work!

In the primitive society imagined above, if some people refused to produce they would starve (or be left to the charity of those who did produce). However in our modern society there is the possibility of delaying this process through the use of credit. Many people consume more than they produce through this means, but we all know that eventually it catches up to them. Our government is now doing the same thing. By refusing to see that the only way to increase wealth is by increasing production the government is living on borrowed money. But government or individual, the time of reckoning always comes.

Suing the BCS?

2009-01-07T17:29:00.000-08:00

Most people from Utah are familiar with the BCS system (the five major college football bowls) and its bizarre and unfair selection processes, given that the University of Utah football team has 'broken in' to the BCS twice in the last four years. In both of those years the Utes didn't loose a single game the whole year, and yet they didn't even get a chance to play for the national championship, while the teams that did all had losses.

In light of the Utes' impressive win over Alabama in the Sugar Bowl this year, the argument that the BCS system is flawed seems more valid than ever (although there are good arguments on the other side too: case in point -- Florida, one loss, but undoubtedly a better team than Utah). That debate will continue to rage, but there is something much more interesting, and troubling, that has surfaced regarding Utah and the BCS. Apparently Utah's Attorney General, Mark Shurtlef, is planning to sue the BCS, alleging that they have violated federal anti-trust laws. (http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20090107/SPORTS/701069748/1093/SPORTS06)

I hope you are as shocked as I was when I heard this. Mr. Shurtlef has finally flipped his lid. There are at least three reasons why this action is stupid: first, it will not work, second, there will be negative repercussions for Utah and all other non-BCS schools, and third, it is a complete moral outrage.

Legally our honorable AG has no standing in this case. The BCS system is equivalent to a private business. They work in conjunction with the NCAA, but really they are in it for the money (which I mean as a compliment, not a denigration as it is commonly used). The various bowls invite teams to come play for them, promising them a purse whether they win or loose. In return the bowls get to pocket the ticket receipts, and more importantly the TV rating proceeds. Naturally the bowls will want the teams that will draw the biggest audiences, so that they can make a profit. The bowls purchase the venues, pay for the promotions, and make all the arrangements -- in short the own the bowl. Given that fact, what right does anyone, be they the AG of Utah or the Queen of Sheba, have to tell the bowls who they must host in their bowl game? If they want to have the University of Ulaanbaatar in their bowl game then that is their right (they may loose money though, as there aren't many TVs in Mongolia).

Not only does the BCS have a right to choose whomever they want on whatever basis they want, there is also no way that they could be considered a Trust (monopoly). To be prosecuted as such it would have to be shown that they A) have a nearly exclusive market share, B) exercise pricing power independent of the market, and C) use coercive means to restrict competition in the market. In refutation of: condition A -- there are 29 non BCS bowl games, condition B -- there really isn't a price, other than for tickets, and the bowls certainly can't charge whatever they want for those or no one would go, and for condition C -- anyone could start a bowl game and the BCS would have no power to stop them (whether they could get anyone to care about their game is a different problem). So if the BCS in no way resembles a Trust then pray tell how does Mr. Shurtlef plan to prosecute them under anti-trust laws?

Not only is the plan to sue the BSC misguided, it is not practical. I assume that the AG's objective is to get more fair treatment of non-BCS teams in the BCS system. The only consequence of his actions, however will be more disdain from the BCS toward non-BCS teams. His suit is the equivalent of a child throwing a tantrum when he doesn't get what he wants. And although the child's tantrum may blow off some emotional steam, it usually lands him in time-out. In this case the time-out will be greater difficulty for any non-BCS team trying to 'bust in'.

Lastly, and most importantly, the suit is morally offensive. First because of the means employed. The anti-trust laws of the United States are unconstitutional, non-objective, and designed to punish the good for being good. It is a tragedy that they were passed, and is a crime that they haven't been repealed. The ends do not justify the means, even when the ends are good (which they are not), and in this case the means make the end even worse. Second the suit is immoral because of its main premises: egalitarianism. Mark clearly believes the egalitarian mantra that everyone needs to be equal in all things. His entire argument rests on the premise that if one school has an unequal advantage over another school in getting to a bowl game, this is somehow wrong, and must be remedied, not by persuasion but by governmental force. The fact that in order to do this justice is denied and rights are violated doesn't bother him, but it does me.

The best argument against the current BCS system is the one that the Ute's gave in New Orleans. The system may be flawed, and we can work to change it, but lets not be petty little children about it. And lets certainly not sell our souls to the devil (no that isn't hyperbole, I really do feel that way about anti-trust) in an ill-fated attempt to get what we want.

Democracy

2008-12-24T17:45:00.000-08:00

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

2008-09-07T18:51:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-08-27T17:46:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-03T20:34:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-20T17:13:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-07-12T16:43:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-06-28T06:51:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-06-26T17:34:00.000-07:00

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.