Hexadecimperial metrics

I was reminded recently of a conversation I had a while back about weights and measures.  Though I was raised bilingually, speaking both Imperial and Metric, I find myself admiring metric but using imperial day-to-day.  (Of course, there are some archaic units I have a fondness for... I love cubits because they are one of the few units of measure I've found that intrinsically imply a lack of precision)  While I do love metric units, the entire SI finds itself mired in a tradition of base 10 numbering (side note:  that's a really poor way to name numbering systems.  All numbering systems are base 10, they simply disagree on the value of 10-1.  Shouldn't it be called base 9+1?  But I digress) Why does anyone think it makes inherent sense for a kilogram to be equal to 0x3E8 grams? (OK, one more side note:  that number is highly frustrating to those, like me, who are fans of both hexadecimal and scientific E notation.)

There are so many places where imperial units get things so tantalizingly close to right.  Rulers are already generally marked off in 1/0x10ths of an inch.  0x10 ounces make a pound.  Of course, they then wander off into lala land with 0xE lbs to the stone, 0xB inches to the foot, etc.  But instead of dismissing entirely, I say let's fix what's broken.  I say let's make a new system of heximetric (HM) measures based on imperial units, so that those with a familiarity with imperial can easily transition because their mental approximations are still approximately right.

0x10 inches to the HM cubit (off by 2 inches)
0x20 inches to the HM yard (off by 4 inches)
0x100 inches to the HM rod (off by 58 inches)
 (call 0x1000 inches a HM half-furlong)
0x2000 inches in the HM furlong (off by 272 inches)
0x10000 inches in the HM mile (off by 2176 inches)

(I'm shocked that a mile is so close to 64k inches, it's only off by
about 3%.  That's kind of neat)

0x10 drachm in an oz (exact)
0x10 oz in a lb (exact)
0x10 lb in a HM stone (off by 2 lbs)
0x80 lb in a HM hundredweight (off by 16 lbs)
 0x100 lb in 2 HM hundredweight
0x800 lb in a HM ton (off by 152 lbs)
 0x1000 in 2 HM tons
0x10 tons in another day older and deeper in debt

One of the minor side-coolnesses to this that I noticed in my conversation is light speed.  To 2 significant digits, lightspeed would be 0x2C,000 HM miles per second.  That just strikes me as kind of cool, in a c=2c way.  (although I would say that I need a better means of notation for powers of 2.  0x2c * 0x10^7 inches/second just looks uglier than 3E8 m/s (dammit, there's that number again.  It's haunting me.))

So, who's with me?

Perspective

One of the things I'm always fascinated by is how the fundamental assumptions we make shape our beliefs, and how those beliefs shape our views of the world and, perhaps most importantly, shape our views of those with different assumptions.  I talked about this sort of thing with respect to crime and punishment in a previous blog post.

A very similar sort of dynamic shows up in the politics of economics.  On the one hand there are people who believe that wealth is money, or the related belief that wealth is a relatively static thing that can be sliced up like a pie and distributed in either a fair or unfair manner.  On the other hand you have people who believe that wealth is a side effect of the movement of money (or that the movement of money is a side effect of the creation of wealth) and that the forcible movement of money not only fails to create wealth, but that it hinders the natural movement of money and the associated wealth thereby generated.  Personally, I clearly fall into the latter category, but this post isn't about right and wrong, it's about how the adherents of those two viewpoints perceive one another.

If you look at economics as an exercise in slicing an immutable pie, then questions on such topics as tax policy are a matter of balance, where harm to the rich is balanced against help for the poor. Or perhaps it's a question of fairness.  Sure, maybe they'll admit that someone who has worked hard and made a bunch of money deserves to end up with a bit more than someone who hasn't, but "How much more is really fair?" they'll ask.

From the other point of view, tax policy is not at all a balancing act.  If the  creation of wealth by the free movement of money is damaged by the non-free movement of money, then taxes aren't a boon to the poor at the expense of the rich, they are instead a harm to all to the benefit of none and the fairest policy is one where they are kept to the minimum possible amount.

What's really interesting to me here is how each side's actions appear to one another. If you believe in equalized redistribution, then the capitalist insistence on minimum taxation appears to be motivated by an insatiable greed.  On the other hand, to a capitalist, the redistributionist's call for fair and balanced taxation make no sense whatsoever in terms of compassion and kindness.  From the perspective that taxation hurts the poor as much or more than it hurts the rich, then an insistence on balance in taxation is not a question of balancing help for the poor against hurt for the rich, but a question of how much hurt to the poor can be tolerated in order to provide hurt to the rich.  Such a thing cannot be explained by compassion, but only makes sense in the context of hatred for the rich.  So say, as an example, that you're looking at a 1% tax increase on someone who makes ten million dollars a year.  From the redistributionist's standpoint, they see resistance as insatiable greed.  "How can you fight against this $100 thousand?  That's merely a drop in the bucket with relation to your income!  You'll barely be inconvenienced by it!  How could you be so greedy as to deny that small amount?  Do you have no human compassion at all?  What kind of vile monster are you?"  While on the other side, the rich capitalist is thinking "That is a fairly small amount, it won't make much difference to the overall quality of my life, perhaps I can afford to let go a groundskeeper or two, I'm sure a slightly disheveled lawn will be a barely noticeable inconvenience to me.  How much coldhearted hatred must these people have for me, that they're willing to sacrifice the entire livelihoods of a few groundskeepers in order to merely mildly inconvenience me?  Do they have no human compassion whatsoever?  What kind of vile monsters are they?"

Compromise

Over the past year or few, it seems there's always a lot of talk about compromise between the parties, or more accurately the lack thereof.  Democrats say that the Republicans are resistant to compromise, Republicans say that Democrats have redefined compromise to mean getting what they want, and the media wails and moans about how everything would be rainbows and unicorns if everyone would just be willing to compromise a bit.  I've always had a more sanguine view that sure, there are times when compromise is good, but, to give an analogy, when someone says they want to stab you in the heart 20 times, a compromise position of just 10 times doesn't really do you much good.  Now I'm starting to re-think my stand (not on the stabbing part.  I'm still firmly anti-stabbing).

Personally, I compromise all the time.  Most often with myself, usually along the lines of an uneasy peace between my tongue and the size of my waist.  I compromise with my family, my friends, my co-workers.  All of that is fine and good, but I just don't think it scales to the size and shape of politics and government.  Let's take a logical look at it, unrelated to any particular issue.  If the Republicans believe that what the Democrats want to do is harmful to the country, and the Democrats think that what the Republicans want to do is harmful to the country, then what does compromise get us?  It gets us a little of what Republicans want, in exchange for a little of what Democrats want.  If only one side is right, then compromise just hurts the country a little bit.  If both sides are right, then compromise hurts the country more.  Arguing for compromise means that you're working on the assumption that your opponent's beliefs are wrong, as are your own.  Maybe my initial assumptions are wrong.  Maybe one side or the other doesn't really believe that the other side's desires would ultimately be harmful.  I find that unlikely.  I personally know plenty of Republicans who claim to view Democrat policies as immensely harmful.  The same is true of Democrats and their espoused view of Republican policies.  Certainly it's possible that both sides are lying about their views, but that brings up the obvious question, if they don't really see the opponent's policies as harmful, why do they resist them at all?

All of this is certainly not to say that Democrats and Republicans (as well as adherents to any other political philosophies) can't work together.  Going back to my stabbing analogy and making it much more literal, I think that stabbing someone even just once is almost always wrong.  I think there should be a law against it.  I think there is a law against it.  Probably several of them.  I think that Republicans, Democrats, and nearly every third party out there would stand behind that sort of law.  That is an example of working together.  But it's not compromise, it's agreement, and that is an entirely different thing.

Minimum jobs

Way back during Obama's first presidential campaign, one of the things he promised was a $3,000 tax credit for new full-time jobs.  Looks like it's still listed in the change.gov website, under "New American Jobs Tax Credit".  Now, promises are promises, and when they come from a politician they're fairly suspect to begin with (when you don't have absolute dictatorial power, they're both easier and harder - it can often be hard to keep them, but it's easy to blame a failure to keep your promises on someone else).  This particular promise was, and is, unique in a few ways.  First of all, it's an offer to lower (albeit very slightly) taxes on businesses by creating a new loophole for them (hey, if we're going to start saying that every company that uses the tax code as written to get out of paying taxes is using loopholes, let's at least be consistent in our terminology).  It's at least trying to use economic incentives to induce companies to engage in behavior that actually benefits the economy.  Those are shocking things to have proposed by a Democrat.  Of course, it's a one-time thing, and the amount promised is dwarfed by the actual expense of hiring a new employee, but I'll take laws that are minimally effective over ones that are actually dangerous and harmful any day.

There's another way this promise was unusual - it was actually kept, to some extent.  For most of 2010, new hires were worth a $1,000 tax credit, and were exempt from the employer side of Social Security taxes through the end of 2010, which would be a savings of between $940 (for a 40-hour a week minimum wage employee) to $8,010 (for an employee making $106,800 or more during that period, or $128,160 per year if they started on the day the exemption began).  So for some employees, it actually was a $3,000 tax credit, though it could have been as little as $1,940 or as much as $9,010.  As far as fulfilled promises go, that ranks better than most.

Did Obama view it as a complete and total failure?  Because, during his State of the Union address, he said he wanted to raise the federal minimum wage to $9 per hour.  By my calculations, that's a cost of $3,913 to companies for each full time minimum wage employee they have.  So the person who believed a one-time $1,940 tax break for new hires during most of a single year would encourage job growth for some reason doesn't believe that an additional $3,913 per year cost per minimum wage employee - and a cost that lasts forever at that - will hurt employment?

So say I have a company with 200 employees, half of them minimum wage.  I'm going to be paying an extra $391,300 per year.  If I were planning to hire new employees, I could just cut the number I was planning to hire by 26, and it'd balance out.  If I wasn't, I could fire 20 people, on the assumption that the other 80 could manage to work 20% harder (that's probably not a good assumption).  I could cut the wages of the other 100 non-minimum-wage employees.  That certainly wouldn't be a popular choice, but maybe it's the only choice I could make.  I could always raise my prices to compensate, and maybe that would work, or maybe my customers would decide that they could do without my product and demand would dry up.  If I wasn't planning to expand, my workers can't work harder, my non-minimum-wage employees either make too little to be able to drop their pay or have other opportunities that they would take if I tried to, and if my customers won't pay more, then eventually, I will end up closing up shop and putting all 200 people out of work.  Which of those choices is compassionate?  Because they all sound pretty bad to me.

Now the really fun thing is the plan to index minimum wage to inflation.  That's a horrible idea, but does raise a very interesting possibility.  Inflation is the rising cost of goods.  Goods are made by people earning wages.  If we were to tie the wage to the cost of goods, then all it would take is for companies to tie the cost of goods to the minimum wage (which they already do, it's just not obvious), and in mathematical terms we've set the minimum wage to infinity.  Say in simplified terms, that inflation is the cost of a Big Mac, and the minimum wage is set to be 2 Big Mac's worth per hour.  Now all it would take is for McDonald's to set the price of a Big Mac to be one minimum wage hour's worth, and suddenly everyone is making infinite money, but can't afford to buy a burger.

The best analogy I've seen for minimum wage is a short basketball player.  "I sure do wish I could slam-dunk" he thinks to himself, "but I'm only 5'9", and all the guys who can dunk are over 6' tall."  So he comes up with a plan.  He goes to his garage and works late into the night, and the next day heads out to the court.  "Guys" he says "last night I built myself this ruler.  The feet on this ruler are 11" long. I just measured my height with it, and I'm 6'3", so watch me dunk now!"

A Wealth of People

I have to say that I'm a little excited about the current state of US politics, which is unusual for me. It's been a fairly depressing decade or two for a political mutt of my particular pedigree. My leanings are somewhere in the constellation of Republican, Conservative, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, or perhaps even Federalist. It's hard for me to find any party that shares most of my beliefs, and I always find myself saddened when I stand firm, then watch the major parties wander further and further away from me. That's why I find myself deeply gladdened to see a major force within the Republican party taking up as their core issue a push to decrease federal spending. It's like I'm getting Christmas early.

But nothing's so good that it can't be made better, and there's something about the current crop that drives me to confusion. At the base of it is a question of the value of a person. Not the emotional or spiritual value of a human being, but the economic value. I've long held that one of the core differences between Capitalist and Socialist systems hinges on the value of people. In a free market, the minimum economic value that a person can have is zero. But most people have more value than that. Every person in the society is someone with whom I may engage in trade. In a free market, all trade is voluntary, so if my trade with another person has negative value to me, I will chose not to engage in it. Expanding the volume of people gives me both a broader market to sell what I produce, and a broader market of people producing things I may want to buy. Both ways, I win. Adding a person to the society doesn't mean he's taking "his share" of the overall production of the society, it means he's adding his share to it, participating in the overall flow of money and wealth. In contrast, a Socialist society takes on the responsibility of caring for its citizens. While that may sound noble and generally laudable, in practical terms it means that the value of an individual to society is negative. Each person in that society is a liability, not an asset. Each person is someone with needs that must be met. They certainly may have value as well, and in general people who live in Socialist or Communist societies do end up creating value and wealth, but while the Capitalist philosophy guarantees that a person's value can be no lower than zero, a Socialist philosophy can only guarantee that there is a negative component to each individual's value, with no such guarantee as to the magnitude or even existence of any positive component. My gut feeling is that this is the reason why so many of the mass murders of history were committed by Socialist dictators such as Mao and Stalin - for those societies, there existed the possibility that a person's value to society could be increased if they ceased to exist.

So this brings me to my perplexity at the attitude of our staunchest Capitalists towards immigration. In a free market, every immigrant will add to the overall health and well-being of the economy, just as every other person does. You could say that the problem stems from the fact that we have strayed so far from a free market that immigrants may bring with them a negative value, but I see no one articulating that point. If that's what people are thinking, then I have to respond that the solution to that problem is to fix the free market, not try and cure the symptom by restricting immigration. You could argue that illegal immigration is bad, and I'd have to agree with you there, at least insofar as when laws are broken, and even more so when the breaking of those laws is ignored, it foments a general contempt for the rule of law as a whole. The problem with illegal immigration isn't the immigration part, it's the illegal part. Once again, it's a problem of too many laws.

When I read The New Colossus, I can't help but get a bit misty-eyed. It's a powerful poem. When I see those words

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

I think that may be descriptive of some, but certainly not all. Immigrants aren't necessarily tired nor poor. We shouldn't refuse to allow entry to those who fail to prove that they are wretched refuse, or that the shores they hail from are insufficiently teeming. Hidden within all of that loose description is the one requirement that I believe should be the foundation of our immigration policy. Those that wish to join this great nation, be they rich or poor, strong or weak, wretched refuse or shining beacon of humanity, they must meet one fundamental requirement: They must yearn to breathe free. If we wholeheartedly embraced that philosophy, I think we would all be better for it.

Avoiding Taxes

A "moderate" friend recently sent an e-mail to me and some of our mutual friends, and I felt like the answer should have a wider audience and discussion, so I'm putting it here. He asked:

Remember how we had a conversation a few weeks ago about taxes? Can my conservative friends help me understand why something like this is NOT a bad thing?

I don't want to raise taxes, I just don't think that having a tax code that allows you to dodge them in this way (provided you're a corporation and have enough money to do so) is something that should be tolerated. However, any attempt to close this "loophole" (or whatever you want to call it) is attacked as "They want to raise taxes!!!!!".

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/google-loophole-dodge-corporate-taxes-bloomberg-report/story?id=11939752
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html

Google is saving money. Let me assure you that they don’t have a secret cave in the hills of Nevada filled with millions of mattresses stuffed to overflowing with $20 bills. They’re going to do something with it. That something will involve buying things or hiring people. If you make things or want a job, or provide services for people who make things or have jobs, then you might be happy to know that there’s more of that going on. Cash sitting in a vault does not equal an economy. An economy consists of money moving. Kind of like electrons sitting in atoms are fine and dandy, but when they start moving around, then you’ve got power happening. People generally want money to move. They want it to move into their wallet as fast as possible, but they also want it to move out of their wallet and be replaced by a nice big flat-screen in their living room. Money moves in three ways: first, by freely executed exchanges. This generally makes up the bulk of an economy, and in a micro scale consists of a bidirectional flow where money flows in one direction while value flows in the other. The money is neither created nor destroyed, but by its movement creates value. On a macro scale, this appears as a turbulent flow of money that generates a steady stream of value. The second manner in which money moves is by individual forcible action, such as theft, extortion, fraud, etc. In these cases, money still moves, but in the process of doing so generates no value. If a guy mugs me, he gets my money, but I don’t get to demand a flat-screen in return (or if I do demand it, I’m likely to be disappointed. Also shot). The third way is through taxation, which in economic terms is indistinguishable from theft, extortion, or fraud in that money moves, but no value is created. (there are actually some sub-categories of taxation, for instance fiat currency can be created out of nothingness, or time-shifted taxation in the form of bonds can be used to divert money from useful endeavors into zero-value transactions, but they all fall under the same umbrella concept of moving money without creating anything useful)

Closing these loopholes is all well and good, but if that’s all you do, then you’re taking money that could be creating value and stopping it from doing so. So yes, it is “raising taxes”. Any work to close loopholes such as this needs to be balanced with work on lowering other taxation. Or, more importantly, with lowering government spending, no matter what you do with taxes. (actually, it is possible to go too far with this. If you reduce spending below the level of taxation, you end up with a surplus, which is fine and dandy while you have a national debt, but once that debt is paid, the surplus equates to money coming out of circulation, which causes deflation of the currency, which is bad in its own ways. Much as I generally dislike inflating the monetary supply, it is useful in some ways. It discourages the hoarding of cash, thus encouraging a higher velocity of money, and it lets employers lower functional wages for unproductive employees without having the psychological burden of actually enacting a pay cut. The one nice thing about a fiat currency is that it gives you precise control of inflation. The down side is that you aren’t forced to exercise that control, and can let it run rampant, the Weimar Republic being the poster child of exactly that problem)

It’s also a great object lesson in how lowering taxes can raise revenue. Here’s a huge chunk of tax revenue that would stay in the US if the US taxes were low enough that it would be unprofitable to export that money elsewhere.

Evolution

Darwin and The Origin of Species have been in the news quite a bit lately, seeing as how they're both nice big round numbers old recently. It's been over 80 years since the Scopes trial. It's very depressing to realize that almost no one believes in evolution. Of course, you probably disagree. Perhaps you think that too many people believe in evolution. Perhaps you think that you believe in evolution. Chances are, you're wrong. Let me explain. (Unlike Inigo Montoya, I suck at summing up. I'm sure those of you who've been reading here long agree...)

As with so very many things, it all comes down to a question of definitions. First, let's talk some about what evolution is. There are certainly some good definitions in a nearby dictionary, but those are generally immaterial to the point at hand. What's more interesting to me is what people tend to mean when they say "evolution". The first is the most entirely logical. If you accept as fact that organisms inherit traits from their parents, then it follows naturally that if an organism is unable to procreate, its traits will not flow into the next generation. Thus, the average traits of that organism have a tendency to migrate towards a configuration that is capable of reproduction before death. I believe that this is generally accepted. (So, perhaps nearly everyone believes in evolution. I'm sure there's some disagreement there too.)

So, what do people mean when they say they don't believe in evolution? They may mean that they don't believe that all life evolved from archean prokaryotes. That is certainly a tough pill to swallow, but I think the biggest barrier is the ability to conceptualize a billion years, let alone four. For many, it may mean a disagreement on the genesis of life which, interestingly, has little or nothing to do with evolution. In order for evolution to exist, life must precede it. There are plenty of theories about where life came from, be it random chance, panspermia, or the hand of God, but evolution talks about what happened after that. For most, it seems to mean that they don't believe that man evolved from the lesser primates. Some believe that God created man. While this doesn't preclude a belief in evolution, those who hold this belief generally claim that they don't believe in evolution. (Personally, I have difficulty believing in the possibility of a non-omnipotent God. An omnipotent God could have created the universe 14 billion years ago. He could have created the Earth 4 billion years ago. He could have created everything on Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC. He could have created everything 4 minutes ago, including you, me, and all of our memories. But I digress...)

So, let us consider the people who claim that they believe in evolution. For many, their attitudes do not bear that out. You will note that among those who claim a belief in evolution, there is a very strong tendency to make a distinction between that which is natural, and that which is man-made. If you actually do believe in evolution, then that which is man-made is a subset of that which is natural. Also, this begs the question(1), exactly when did the works of man break off as no longer a work of nature? Was it the advent of H. Erectus? The beginnings of civilization? Last Tuesday?

Moving on from that, we come to our next definition, that being the word "believe". There are two distinct definitions of this word. The sense that I have used in the preceding paragraphs is that of accepting the existence of a thing. The other sense is that of accepting as beneficial. Most notably among those who believe in the existence of evolution, one finds a notable lack of a belief that it's a good idea. Consider gopherus agassizii, a turtle which, when picked up by a helpful person trying to move it out of the road, will become so frightened that it will empty its bladder, thus losing so much water that it becomes dehydrated and dies. If your reaction to the perception of a threat is effectively suicide, there may well be an entirely valid reason that you are becoming extinct. And yet, those who say this animal should be protected are often those same ones who claim to believe in evolution.

Even better, try an experiment (please note that I do not accept any liability for damages you may incur as a result). Find a person who meets these three criteria:

1. They claim to believe in evolution.
2. They are concerned about the extinction of species from our planet.
3. They are concerned about the dangers of nuclear waste.

As these beliefs tend to cluster, it shouldn't be particularly difficult to find a subject affected by all of them, however if you wish you may merely imagine a person who might well fit all of those criteria. Tell them that you have devised a novel solution to problems 2 and 3. Explain to them that we can box up nuclear waste, load it aboard cargo planes, fly it to South America, and drop it in the Amazon Rain Forest. The lush, tropical climate, when combined with the ionizing radiation from the nuclear waste, should produce a strong tendency towards mutation. This will in turn cause rapidly enhanced speciation, thus replenishing the earth of the number of species that have been lost to extinction. After outlining this proposal, observe the subject's reaction. Ask yourself this question: Is this the response you would expect from someone who really believes in evolution?

Note 1: For all of you pedantic grammarians out there, yes, I'm well aware that I am misusing that phrase. Irregardless(2) of what you think I will continue to use it as I see fit.

Note 2: OK, yeah, I'm just screwing with you on that one.

Crime and Punishment

Over here is a discussion on what should happen to Bernie Madoff. Posit that he's guilty, I don't think there's much doubt of it. The author is calling for "cruel and unusual" punishment, and asking for suggestions. I'm sure he'll get many. Some will probably be morbidly amusing, some will be just morbid, perhaps a few will be insightful. Some will want him dead, others will want him in prison for the rest of his life. Interesting that the solution to someone who's stolen $50 billion is to have his food, shelter, and clothing paid for for the rest of his life by me, you, and the rest of us. (Please don't misunderstand, I think that punishment of criminals, including incarceration, is one of the few completely justifiable uses of taxpayer money, and Madoff's is an entirely appropriate place for it. I do think it gets over-used, and when someone commits a crime that harms no one but themselves, it does an injustice to us all. The criminal is harmed, the nation is deprived of whatever value the criminal could have otherwise provided during his incarceration, the taxpayers are harmed by having to support him, and we are all harmed by the loss of freedom embodied in the law)

I've always been fascinated by what people call for when it comes to the punishment for crimes. Entirely reasonable people can have wildly divergent views of what is appropriate, views so different that they simply cannot fathom the opposing point of view. Whenever intelligent and thoughtful people disagree so strongly, there's usually something interesting at the root of it all. In this case, I believe that people have fundamentally different opinions on the purpose of criminal sentencing. I can see four basic purposes for criminal sentencing: rehabilitation, revenge, deterrence, and prevention. People will generally weigh one or two of those very heavily, and often don't even acknowledge the existence of the others. This is what leads to the disjoint.

Rehabilitation is generally based on the idea that there is something about a criminal that caused him to commit his crime. Moreover, it's based on the idea that whatever that thing is, it can be changed. Perhaps he doesn't realize that what he did was wrong, or the harm that it did. I don't understand people who do not recognize that harming others is fundamentally wrong, but I acknowledge that they exist. I find it hard to believe that they can be made to understand, but perhaps there are some that can. The difficulty comes because it's difficult to distingush between those who cannot learn and those who merely haven't. If rehabilitation fails, is it because the dosage is too low, or is it the wrong medicine? There's another form of rehabilitation which is a bit trickier. If a person has no skills that he can use to acquire gainful employment, he may have little choice but to commit crimes. Crime may not pay, but it is always hiring. If such a person is given training in useful skills, then upon his release he will have an actual choice: continue to support himself by crime, in which case he falls into the former category of people who don't understand that crime is wrong; or he supports himself by creating value, in which case everyone is better off because of it. So here we have a conundrum. We can see that there is a subset of the population for whom the only path to becoming productive members of society is via crime, followed by arrest, sentencing, rehabilitation, and finally, hopefully, employment. This is far from optimal for anyone involved. It would certainly be nice if our education system produced people fit for immediate employment on graduation, and in most cases it does, but far too often it completely fails in this regard. There may be solutions to that problem, but most of the proposed solutions are either ineffective, unpopular, or both. Once the education system has failed, the next best hope is an employer who is willing to train. Unfortunately, there is a strong disincintive for any business to hire someone who is unable to create sufficient value to offset a minimum wage salary. The solution to that problem is both obvious and widely unpopular.

Next we find revenge. Here is where you will find the calls for cruel and unusual punishments. Here is where you see people clamoring for "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," at least whenever such a thing can be done. Revenge is impractical, illogical, and emotional, but very popular. It doesn't resonate with me (although I certainly feel sympathy with the victims of crimes), so I can't speak much to the underlying motiviations for it. The distinguishing characteristic here is that those who clamor for revenge often care little for rehabilitation, and in fact are often strongly opposed to it. Their primary concern is that the criminal must be harmed proportionally to his crime. I do feel that it is worth noting that much of the purpose of systems of justice lie in the prevention of revenge. Victims are not given the task of sentencing. The judges and juries who have that responsibility are, we hope, impartial.

Deterrence is somewhat similar to revenge, but the purpose is different. In a way, it is revenge made practical. Unlike both rehabilitation and revenge, which focus on the criminal, deterrence focuses on other potential criminals. It provides punishments severe enough that those who may consider commiting a crime are given a reason to reconsider, in their own best interests. While both are certainly laudable, deterrence is often at cross-purposes with rehabilitation. I found it very interesting to see the distinction in the different views during a, shall we say spirited conversation that followed a rather crude joke involving prison rape. For an advocate of rehabilitation, such a thing is completely offensive. There is no way that prison rape is in any way beneficial to rehabilitation. For the advocate of revenge, perhaps it's seen as a justified part of a criminal's punishment. If the purpose of prison is to be horrific, then that certainly qualifies. However, for the advocate of deterrence, the most important thing is the perception of prison as a horrific experience to be avoided at all costs. For that person, even if prison rape is (rightfully) considered abhorrent and should be prevented if at all possible, joking about it is actually beneficial, as it increases the percieved detriment of a prison sentence. It's easy to see how a pure advocate for each of these purposes could completely fail to understand the others.

Prevention isn't exactly the right term, so let me explain what I mean. A thief who is in prison is unable to steal, so long as he remains in prison. Or at least, he's only able to steal from his fellow inmates. Prevention in this sense has only limited utility, and is best when combined with rehabilitation. The thief is prevented from stealing by incarceration until such time as his rehabilitation is complete and he no longer has a desire or need to steal. For more serious crimes, where rehabilitation fails, prevention may be the only solution. For a serial killer, incarceration may have elements of revenge and deterrence, but it also has the practical effect of preventing the criminal from killing again. In this sense, capital punishment can be viewed as a form of permanent incarceration with no chance of parole, pardon, or escape. Unfortunately, capital punishment is usually viewed, both by its advocates and its detractors, as purely a vehicle of revenge.

So now, in light of all of that, lets return to Bernard Madoff. Besides his fraud, he was a successful businessman, so I seriously doubt that employment rehabilitation is of much use in this case. I suspect that he knows well that what he did was wrong. I also get the distinct impression that he didn't care, and probably never will. Thus, rehabilitation seems a bit pointless in this case. I'm not sure that he understands that what he did was also stupid. He is a businessman. He certainly should understand that entering into a business whose only viable exit strategies are death or prison is just plain stupid. Revenge is popular, and that is where we see the calls for cruel and unusual punishment. His crime was certainly unusual in its unprecedented magnitude, but it wasn't particularly cruel. While he certainly harmed many people, he didn't physically damage anyone. Yes, there has been one suicide, which certainly seems to me a gross overreaction to any financial calamity. Some people lost nearly all they had. As a side note, those people will hopefully act as a deterrent themselves. Hopefully someone will learn the lesson that diversification of one's investments is an important protection against many things, including but not limited to gross fraud. Acting as a teacher in such a way certainly doesn't diminish the magnitude of the fraud Madoff committed, but I do hope that at least some good came of it. As a deterrent to potential frauds of the future it's certainly important that Madoff be sent to jail. Given the stupidity of his actions, and the fact that few are ever in a position to be able to commit fraud of this magnitude without first being elected to congress, I don't know how much of an effective deterrent his punishment may be. Will a street-corner con man be given second thoughs by Madoff being handed a life sentence? Probably not. But for those few people who are in a position to commit fraud on a grand scale, I'd certainly like to see the message sent that such acts will be dealt with harshly. And then there's finally the aspect of prevention. I don't know what Madoff's sentence will be. It certainly should consist of at least the loss of all his assets and a significant time in prison. Given that he's 70 years old, any reasonable sentence will most likely be a life sentence. But I will say this: if he ever is released from prison, I do hope that at least one special condition is attached to his sentence. I hope that he is legally prohibited from ever changing his name. Given the publicity and magnitude of his crime, that should certainly prohibit anyone from ever trusting him enough to ever let him commit a similar fraud.

Economic theory, part the first

First off, let me say that I am not in any way a trained economist. This may be a significant disadvantage when formulating an economic theory, or maybe not. It's entirely possible that my ideas are taught to every economics student in Econ 101. It's entirely possible that they are taught as an example of how to be horribly, terribly, wrong. Of course there's always some small chance that I'll think of something both novel and interesting. I wouldn't bet on it myself, but I do hope that it will be at the very least interesting and thought-provoking.

Some time ago, I was thinking about the nature of value. I thought some about what goes into anything of value. I wondered where it came from. This led me initially past the labor theory of value. I thought that it would be possible to dissect the value of a thing down to its component parts, which are necessarily some combination of labor and the use of land. While true that all value derives from these things, it didn't seem particularly useful to think in those terms. The price of a thing is what the market will bear, and if you happen to be wandering across your small property and stub your toe on a diamond the size of a baseball, the market will bear a high price for it even though you've put very little labor or land towards it. On the other end of the spectrum, though you may spend weeks putting a fine polished shine on a ball of poop, unless you're the Mythbusters, the market will probably be uninterested.

It was at this point that I came to a realization. That realization is that I was conflating several related, but distinctly different concepts. These concepts I will refer to as cost, price, and value. The value of a thing is the most subjective of the three. At an individual level, it is what someone is willing to pay to acquire a thing. On a population level, it is a distribution curve of what people are willing to pay for a thing. This is related to demand, and when combined with what people or populations are able to pay for a thing is related to effective demand. On the other side lies cost, which is most closely similar to the labor theory of value. While value is defined on the side of the buyer as what he is willing to pay, cost is defined on the side of the seller as what he has already paid. For a person providing a pure service, it is the labor he provides. For the builder, the artisan, or the machinist, it is the cost of his raw materials plus the labor that he adds to them to craft his work. For the pure trader, it is the cost he paid for a thing himself, plus any labor he has expended in the process of executing his trades. The third component is price, and this is what the market will bear. From the perspective of the seller, he has the freedom to set this as he sees fit, but his realistic constraints are that it must not be higher than the effective value assigned to it by his potential buyers, else he will not be able to sell it. It must also be above his cost, else he will incur losses with each sale. This is a situation which cannot endure. With a population both of sellers and buyers, this will also form a distribution curve. A post for a different day will hopefully contain pretty graphs to illustrate this, as soon as I can find the right software to show what I see so clearly in my mind's eye.

Note that these three distributions form one point in an overall flow of value. In general, a flow of money in one direction will induce a flow of value in the other. This value may be created, consumed, or pass through an individual. So a thing may be created at a labor cost to an individual, who will then assign it a price according to the value buyers place on it. That price then becomes the buyer's cost, which he will use to assign his own price. This flow in its own right has interesting analogs to electrical flow. When a current flows from one end of a wire to another, electrons do not move the entire length of the wire. Similarly, a flow of money in one direction (note that a particular dollar, much like an electron, does not make the whole trip) will induce a flow of value in the other, but that value does not necessarily flow all the way through. There is a certain flexibility in the value flow, corresponding the the capacity of each individual in the chain for saving and debt, but generally a person will consume value at the same rate that he creates it.

Note also that I use the term person loosely. I say individual, but is could be a family, a company, a town, or a nation. I suppose in theory you could go the other direction and analyze cellular economics, but as metabolic processes operate purely on the barter system, things become a bit more muddied and are probably best left to biologists and chemists.

And finally note that there is no particular point that I am trying to make here, it's merely a bit of insight as to how I see economics, and a reference that I can use in later posts on related topics.

What this country needs

Now there's a broad topic not amenable to brief enumeration. Nor am I going to attempt to fully enumerate it. What I have here is a proposal for one specific thing that's needed by this country (or some country, or some state, or somewhere). What we need is a card, or badge, or some sort of certification guaranteeing the holder's acceptance of personal responsibility. Of course, I would hate to see any private business forced to change their behavior when presented with this card, but I would like to see government change its behavior with respect to it, and I'd certainly like for businesses to do so as well, preferably without the use of force. The card might not necessarily be free, but instead require that some funds be held in escrow to back up one's responsibilities. Let me see if I can enumerate some of the courtesies I'd like to see extended to cardholders:

• Seat belts and motorcycle helmets come directly to mind. Some fraction of the escrow funds would be set aside so that, in the event of an accident in which a cardholder was not wearing his seatbelt, any damages his body caused to anyone else's property after it was flung from his vehicle would be compensated. The remainder of the escrow funds would be available to any hospital which wished to treat the cardholder. I'm not entirely sure what should happen when the escrow runs out. If the hospital wants to stop treating the cardholder and let him die, that's certainly always acceptable. If the hospital continues to help the cardholder, I'm not sure if it should be understood that they're doing it on their own dime, or if they should be able to, if successful, bill the cardholder with the understanding that he may be unable to pay, or if there should be a notation on the card as to the cardholder's wishes in that situation. Note, of course, that being a cardholder does not in any way preclude one from wearing a seatbelt or helmet. Were I a cardholder, I would probably wear both (though probably not at the same time). It merely means that I have a choice, and will accept the consequences of that choice.
• A chardholder should have the freedom to order a rare hamburger. Not all restaurants have to comply. I certainly wouldn't expect the local fast food joint to go out of their way to accommodate a cardholder, but if a restaurant offers a choice of how a burger is cooked, and a cardholder orders it rare, that's how he should get it. If the response to a rare order is "I'm sorry, we can't serve it that way because overcooking reduces the risks of salmonella (it does), mad cow disease (it doesn't) and evil spirits (who knows? It might)," then the cardholder should be able to respond with "Here's my card. I accept those risks. Bring me a rare burger or a better excuse." I would also add to this the decision to have tomatoes on said hamburger during a country-wide salmonella outbreak that may involve tomatoes. At some point long ago, the phrase "one in a million" was used to denote an occurence of extreme unlikeliness and miniscule probability. Apparently, since that time, a one in three hundred million chance of death (or one in 1/4 million chance of illness) is such a phenomenally high risk that I cannot be permitted to run the risk of enjoying said fruit on my salad.
• A cardholder would be permitted to make investments that might be financially risky. To some extent, this is already done. The SEC and other such bodies have a concept known as a "qualified investor". Such a person is so wealthy that it is assumed (probably rightfully so) that he or she has an understanding of the trade-offs of risk and reward inherent in investments. It is my understanding that some of the current financial unpleasantness stems from people who were not qualified investors investing in institutions that were qualified, who then turned around and put that money into investments that were significantly risky. When those investments failed, so did the qualified institutions that had invested in them, and the unqualified investors in those institutions found themselves faced with the unfortunate results of a risk they were unaware that they had been taking. If we replace the financial qualification with a personal responsibility qualification, then there is no longer a need for the institutional middle-man, and anyone who is willing to personally accept the consequences of a failed risk is permitted to do so.
• Cardholders should have the authority (commensurate with responsibility) over how to treat the ills of their body. They should also have the authority to define what they consider to be ills. This is fairly straightforward at the core, but gets to be more controversial at the edges. Treating a headache with an analgesic is simple. Deciding not to treat a serious illness is more complex. Treating a terminal illness with an untested therapy is more complex. Considering sobriety as an illness for which there is a readily available cure is more complex. Knowing that smoking will kill you and doing it anyway is more complex. The response to these is so often "but he'll get sick, or get sicker, or die". While true, this is irrelevant. It's easy and simple to chose the option that is both popular and right. Having the freedom to make the wrong choice requires the authority to do so, and having that authority should only require the responsibility to face the consequences.

The card should absolutely not give its holder complete freedom to do anything he or she wishes. Specifically, it should only give the freedom to take actions whose consequences will be borne by the cardholder alone. Cardholders should not have the freedom to harm someone else. They shouldn't even have the freedom to indiscriminately destroy other's property, even if they will bear the responsibility of replacing it. They shouldn't have the freedom to put other's lives or property at significant risk. The scenario that comes to mind is when a person is either impaired or merely reckless while operating a potentially dangerous device, such as a motor vehicle, a firearm, or Congress. While in general I feel that negligence should merely enhance the severity of a crime once provable damage has actually been done, there comes a point where a sufficiently increased risk becomes its own form of damage. It's unfortunate that the exact location of that point is difficult to quantify.

Non-metaphorical pie

Having used pie as a failed metaphor for economic equality, let me consider for a bit some real, actual, tasty pie. A while back, I tried my hand at making some chicken pot pie. It was horrible, but instructive. My second one was pretty tasty, and they've been good ever since. So, in the pursuit of incremental improvement, I made some small changes. The result was that my last pot pie was fantastic. But now that leaves me in a quandary, because I realize that, without meaning to, I changed just about everything. Instead of chicken, I used turkey, because it's a turkey time of the year. Instead of carrots, celery, and onion, I used carrots, celery, and leeks, because I had some lying around and thought they'd be tasty. The vegetables looked a bit dry when I was cooking them, so I made a cup and a half of béchamel sauce instead of the cup that I usually use. And then there's the crust. Unbeknown to me, my wife did not realize that I'd brought home two distinct bags of flour from the last grocery trip. After noticing that the piecrust cookies I'd made with the leftover crust were most especially chewy, I checked the pantry, and sure enough, there was a bag of all purpose flour there. Which means that the bag of bread flour is what ended up going in the flour canister, and thus into the crust.

So I am now left with the dicision: Do I accept that I've made a clean break to a new recipe, and stick with it? (which means, of course, that pot pie will necessarily become the terminal end of the life cycle of a roasted turkey. And means that if I want a pot pie, I'll have to roast a turkey.) Or do I experiment with ingredients, varying them individually to find out, for example, the partial differential tastiness of pot pie with respect to the leek axis? In doing so, I would almost certainly subject my family to inferior pie. But is that too high a price to pay for the chance to discover the Pot Pie of Maximal Tastiness? Perhaps it is, perhaps not. My dilemma is manifest.

Polarization

It's so very frustrating when any issue becomes polarized. The very term evokes the thought of a magnet, which has a north and a south, and there's not much more that you can say about it save its strength. But politics, economics, society and civilization aren't so much about solving the dilemmas that face the world, because that word also is too restrictive, taking its etymology from di, meaning two, and lemma, meaning premise. The problems of the world are generally more subtle and intricate multilemmas. It's not always a matter of north and south, of left and right, republican and democrat, yin and yang; it's almost always more nuanced. Much more on that later, but as an example, let's take environmentalism.

Environmentalism is an issue that has become horribly polarized. On the one side are the liberals, the democrats, the advocates of an expansive and powerful centralized government. Among them you will find those who truly and deeply care about the environment. Also, you will find those who will reap the benefits of the power and control to be garnered by exploiting environmentalism. It's difficult to distinguish the two, as the polarization has lumped them all together. On the other side, you find conservatives, republicans, and advocates for large, primarily manufacturing-based indistries. Among them you will find those who care deeply about human and economic freedom. Also, you will find industry shills, intent on reaping the monetary benefits that can be maximized by disregard for the environment (note here that disregard does not imply wanton destruction. It simply means that destruction does not incur costs, and therefore can be considered if there are benefits to be had from it). Once again, the two are difficult to distinguish.

There should be cooperation between the more honorable of both sides. True conservatives should be environmentalists. First off, I've never met a conservative (and few human beings) who didn't respect and love the Great Outdoors. There is something so inherently moving about a mountain sunset that it takes a strange person not to appreciate the beauty of it, even if they don't want to go camping. But the true conservative should be allied with the true environmentalist and against both the advocates of big government and big business. The true conservative should fight for environmentalism in the context of property rights. Property rights have historically been defended to a large extent by tort law, and in some cases it's easy to apply to environmental concerns. (Not being a lawyer, I come at this with an amature's perspective. Some of my explanations may stray from actual legal reality into the realm of what law should be.) If an entity damages its own property, then it has diminished its own holdings which, while probably foolish, should not be tortious. If that entity is a joint stock company, then there may be reason for the holders of that stock to take issue with the diminished value of the property that they have equity in, or perhaps not. However, when an entity damages the property belonging to someone else, then they have interfered with that other person's property rights, and should be held liable for that damage. If an entity dumps waste into a river, then it damages the property owned by those downstream. Those people form a class damaged by either an intentional or negligent tort. That seems to me a reasonably simple case of civil liability. I'm also reasonably sure that most legal systems make things much more complex. And even that case is simple. A river is a reasonably well defined thing, and most of the wastes that can be put in it have some hope of being quantifiably damaging. But what happens if you have a larger class? If you release persistent and harmful gasses into the atmosphere, you may be doing damage to the class of people who breathe. The class of people who own property which is covered by the Earth's atmosphere. If you do a dollar's worth of damage to that class, you find yourself liable for $6 Billion. What jury could decide that case? Who would they pay it to? To my mind, it stretches the limits of tort law. It is one of the few areas where it may be right for a centralized government to act. But the important consideration is that the government should only act if it is provable that the damages done are universal.

And that brings us to the second particularly important and difficult consideration, and that is the quantification of damage. At best, quantification of damage on a global scale is difficult. At worst, we find global warming. As wide as the rift may be between law and science, we find an even larger chasm between the world of science and the politics of global climate change. And that is because the politics of global climate change have transcended science and have become religion. The parallels are fascinating. On the one hand, we have the various sects and denominations with their varying but unwavering faith in global warming, varying degrees of faith that such climate change is man-made, and various beliefs in what the results will be. There may have even been a protestant reformation when those who believed in global cooling fell out of favor. Fortunately, the term "global climate change" is still inclusive of them, much as Catholics are still considered Christian. Then there are the environmental athiests, with a firm and unwavering faith that man is not changing the climate of the Earth. Some believe that it isn't changing, while others believe it is changing, but not by the hand of man. There are even environmental satanists. In religion, I've generally observed that Satanists are those who firmly believe in the existence of the Catholic god, but are rooting for the other team. These would be the industry shills who may privately believe that man-made climate change exists, but who don't care in the face of immediate profits.

And then there's me, the environmental agnostic. Much as the religiously agnostic are often misunderstood by both the devoutly religious and the staunchly atheist, we environmental agnostics are misunderstood by both poles who view us as probably belonging to the other side. I do have faith. I have strong and unwavering faith that, on this issue, there is far too much money to be had on the one hand and power to be had on the other for there to be any chance of objective truth being distinguishable from a clever fiction. I do not believe in man-made global warming. Nor do I believe that it is false. I strongly believe that I do not know the truth, and moreover I believe that at this time I cannot know the truth. It's a frustrating position to be in, but there is a good fight to be fought here. On the one hand, it's a fight against any who object to attempts to quantify what may be happening. On the other hand, it's a fight against those who propose to expand their own power in order to fight this problem, while not being able to show how the power that they take would actually be a benefit should the problem prove to be real. It's a difficult position to take, but I invite all of you from all across the various political spectra to join me in fighting this good fight. Our reward should we win will be meaningful solutions to problems that have objective proof of existence. That reward is welcome in any field of human endeavor.

Forgiveness

A few weeks ago, some friends were over and, as they are both history buffs, I dug some of the family history out of the basement to peruse. The old photos and family bibles and such were pretty interesting, but what really captivated us were two journals from two military men in my family's history. I hadn't actually read either of them yet (I've only recently become the family historian, and we have a lot of history).

The first of these was from my granduncle. It starts on Sunday, October 18, 1941, when he was leaving for his first assignment: Manila, in the Philippines. For those who might not know, the Philippines were not a good place to be for an American soldier in late 1941. He took part in the battle of Bataan (although the few months worth of journal detailing that experience are, according to a note in the margins, "buried somewhere on Bataan, North W. of Mariveles." After the conclusion of that battle, he became a part of the Bataan Death March. The bulk of the journal describes the next 3 1/2 years as a Japanese prisoner of war. The constant disease, the beatings, the mistreatment, the starvation rations, it's incredible that anyone could make it through such an experience... and many didn't. But for all of that, the one thing that amazes me more than anything came after the end of the war, after the surrender of Japan, when he and his fellow prisoners stopped being "prisoners of war" and suddenly became "displaced persons". It took some time for the logistics to catch up so that they could be brought back from their camp in the Fukui prefecture of Japan to the States. His entry from September 2, 1945 speaks volumes. In part:

The supplies dropped to us yesterday have us swamped - food, candy, clothing, smokes, -everything- ten loads dropped by B-29's flying at low altitudes littered the compound and hillsides - red, yellow, green, white, blue parachutes, - some bundles and boxes went thru roofs of barracks, there were a number of close shaves, one Nip hurt.
...
Here's something we thought we'd never do; give extra supplies to Nips; the local school children and villagers - It's so weird - up until two days ago for 3 1/2 years we've dreamed and longed and planned for the goodies and food of normal life - now we have more candy, foods, clothing, cigarets than we can use before we leave.

To me, that's amazing. Granted, as he says, they had more than they could use; but still: after 3 1/2 years of horrible conditions at the hands of a nation, to be able to turn around and freely give your food to them in the aftermath of such a horrible war, speaks of a forgiveness that inspires awe. I don't know if I could be that person. I hope I could.

The other journal is from my great great grandfather, also written while he was a prisoner of war (apparently my family, while reasonably talented at serving in the armed forces during wartime and fairly talented at not dying while doing so, aren't quite so great when it comes to not being captured by the enemy.) He was a POW held at Johnson's Island near Sandusky, Ohio in the early 1860's. His journal isn't so detailed, mostly containing poetry he wrote but, historically speaking, the prisoners of Johnson's Island were apparently treated fairly well, and all things considered it wasn't a particularly terrible situation, given that it was a prison. It's been 145 years now, and it's still hard to muster up the sort of forgiveness that my granduncle showed just two weeks after the surrender of Japan. I suppose forgiveness is a lot harder after you've lost the war.

Monoculture is bad

As with almost any such blanket statement, it's trivially simple to prove this one false in specific cases, for specific groups. As an example, the monoculture of yeast that went into a cold tasty frothy beverage resulted in an excellent refreshment. You will note, however, that it didn't work out so well for the yeast. They're all dead. So, let me say more specifically that monoculture is usually bad for the population to which it applies. The fundamental reason that monoculture is bad is because a single flaw is necessarily endemic to the population. A fatal flaw will result in extinction.

The problem is that monoculture is so cursedly alluring. On the grand scale, it's so very tempting to attempt to design a perfect society. The problem with that is that perfection is so very hard to achieve. On the smaller scale, the problem centers around the desire to do what's best for oneself. In general, this tendency helps society and individuals to flourish and grow. The problem arises when society is confronted with complex issues. Often, these issues are complex enough that it requires years of study and a fairly keen mind to understand them sufficiently well to make a good decision. In such circumstances, it's entirely reasonable to defer the decision to a trusted expert who has a keen mind, and who has spent the requisite years of study in the field. However, for a complex enough subject, experts sometimes disagree. If you have enough knowledge to know which expert to believe, then you probably don't need an expert in the first place. Thus the next place to turn is a consensus of experts. Now, don't take this to imply that a consensus of experts is necessarily wrong. Chances are, they're the best people to listen to (depending, of course, on the subject). The problem is that the consensus of experts can be wrong, and if they are universally followed, then any fallibility becomes hugely magnified. If 60% of doctors think that drug X will save the lives of their patients, and prescribes drug X for them, then if it turns out that drug X is deadly, 60% of the population will die. That's an unthinkable tragedy. If, on the other hand, the AMA listens to those 60%, bases policy on that consensus, and causes 100% of doctors to prescribe drug X to their patients in accorance with their guidelines, then if that drug turns out to be fatal, it means the extinction of the entire population. That's worse. This raises the stakes of evolution from the individual level to the societal level. If an individual makes a bad choice and dies from it, the species improves as a result. If a monocultural society makes a bad choice that results in its extinction then, well, it depends on what the universe is made up of. If the Earth is all there is, then if humanity extinguishes itself then maybe the cockroaches will have better luck. If life is endemic, then perhaps the little green men on Epsilon Eridani will make better choices. If the Deists are right and God is more of a clockmaker, then perhaps someday He'll wander back by, look at the Earth, sigh and wind us up again.

It is for this reason that I am of the political mindset that I am, which I often find seems to be confusing to so many others. I'm strongly in favor of diversity, though not so much the kind that people display by having different skin colors, wearing different clothes, and speaking different languages. I mean the sort of diversity where people live under different laws. This puts me at odds with the liberals who want the nation or even the world to conform to their view of enforced universal charity, as well as the conservatives who want the nation or world to conform to their view of enforced universal morality. While this often puts me solidly in the camp of the libertarians, even that doesn't quite fit. This is because of two simple yet humbling truths: First off, as much as I love freedom, I am forced to recognize that there do exist people who do not want to be free. The second is that while I strongly believe that freedom is the best way for society to progress, I am humble enough to admit that I may be wrong. For this reason, I am strongly in favor of a diversity of laws, and there is only one freedom that I feel should be completely inviolable. That freedom is the freedom to move from a society whose laws you do not agree with to a society whose laws you find more comfortable.

This puts me mostly in the company of the constitutionalists. The most important part of the constitution is that tenth amendment, which states, for those of you who may have forgotten "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This means that, with 50 states and binary issues, it is possible for every single American to live in a state whose laws precisely reflect their opinion on at least 5 issues. If the states delegate some issues to the respective counties, and the counties to the cities, and the cities to the neighborhoods, and the neighborhoods to the families and individuals, then it's possible to imagine a nation where everyone is happy with their laws.

This of course does not take into account those people for whom it is important to prevent everyone from doing those things that they find distasteful. A sufficient number of those who wish to impose their laws on others (absent, of course, a monoculture of such people) will always result in some dissapointment.

But it gets better. If there is freedom of movement, and freedom to choose your own laws, then the society will have a tendency to separate, and form a diversity of monocultures, where people not only live under a set of laws that they are happy with, but live amongst people who are like-minded. It doesn't really solve the problem of consensus extinction, but it does at least give the chance that those who reject the consensus will have a place to go where their quackery is accepted. If that quackery turns out to be right, then their corner of society may be all that's left. If not, then we have the chance to see evolution in action.

The Irony Test

My father recently told me about a single-question political test he sometimes slips into conversation with friends and acquaintances. He tells them a particular fact, and if they fail to detect the irony inherent in that fact, then they have proven themselves so far away from him on the political spectrum that any political discourse with them will undoubtedly lead to nothing but frustration on all sides. I have taken his single fact and started expanding it to include others. I hope to add to it from time to time. As it currently is:

The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Commission was created by an act of Congress in June 1934. The commission oversaw the building of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial. The Commission spent over $3M of federal funds to complete the memorial, which was dedicated on April 13, 1943. Inscribed on a frieze inside the dome of the memorial is a quotation from Thomas Jefferson: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

In 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Wooley v. Maynard that New Hampshire could not prosecute motorists who chose to hide part or all of its motto, "Live free or die" [which is printed on state license plates]. That ruling came about because George Maynard, a Jehovah's Witness, cut off "or die" from his plate. He found the phrase offensive because according to his faith, Jehovah's Kingdom offers everlasting life and it would be contrary to that belief to die for an earthly government. He was convicted of breaking a state law against altering license plates.

How many ironies do you detect?

Have some pie

I recently heard someone talking about economics, taxation, wealth redistribution, et cetera... She said that some people have too big a slice of the pie. I posit that anyone who ever uses the phrase "their piece of the pie" in reference to economics, does not actually understand money at all. Pie is fundamentally different than money. Let me illustrate. Has anyone ever offered you some used pie? If someone came to you and said that they had some pie yesterday, passed it through their digestive tract, deposited what remained back in the original pie tin, and saved it just for you, would you find that offer offensive? Disgusting? More than a little bit odd? Perhaps all of the above?

Now, for contrast, say that you were in a job interview. The company obviously liked you, and was attempting to woo you by extolling upon their own virtues. What if they told you that, while they may not pay quite as much as some other companies, their pay was of higher quality, because unlike those other companies that pay their employees with "used" money, they print their money up fresh every payday so that their employees only get brand new never-before-used money. Would your first instinct be to take that job on the spot, or to perhaps call the secret service?

Pie and money are fundamentally different. When you phrase things in terms of a piece of the pie, it makes people think that there's $14 Trillion dollars out there in the economy, and if someone makes a billion of it, there's less for everyone else, just like if Alice, Bob, Carol, and Dave are sharing some pie, and Alice takes a huge half-pie slice, that means Bob Carol and Dave aren't going to have quite so much left. But money isn't like that. Money flows. It doesn't decrease in value as it does so. Quite the contrary, the byproduct of that flow is that useful things get done. So say I give $20 to the neighbor kid to mow my lawn. How much value would you say that $20 has lost in the transaction? Interestingly, none. The size of the "pie" is still the same, but now my lawn has been mowed. If I go to the store and pay them a dollar for a soda, how much value has it lost? Well, in that case, it's actually lost 7 cents. Sales tax, you know. And I suppose if the neighbor's kid reports that $20 to the IRS, he'll lose some of it too.

So, someone who's making a million dollars a year isn't doing it by going out and taking a big slice of pie before anyone else has even got their forks out. Even the phrase "making money" is misleading. Unless you're the US mint or that fictional company I was talking about that was offering the "fresh" paychecks, no one can actually "make" money. In order to get money, you have to do something so useful for someone else that they give you their money. There are really only three exceptions to this rule. The first is charity, which I think that everyone of any political leaning would tend to think is good all around, and is in a class of its own. The other two ways are by theft, extortion, blackmail, or other sorts of illegal forcible coercion; or by taxation. I will leave the definition of what differentiates those two as an exercise to the reader, as I have yet to figure it out. If you aren't doing one of those things, then your income measures how much good you have done for other people. (or at least measures the lowest amount of good you might have done. It's entirely possible to do good for someone without being paid. It is not, however, possible to have someone pay you for doing something they don't want, unless you are a crook or a government.)

So basically, what I'm saying here is that other people making money shouldn't be seen as a financial detriment. Sure, it's no fun if you have a tendency towards envy, but if you're concerned primarily with your own well-being, then the more money other people earn, the more money there is out there for me to earn from them, and the more good those people are doing in order to earn the money they have.

Frost Pist

So, here I am with a blog. What would I want with such a thing? Well... so very often, I find myself coming up with interesting ideas, usually in the realm of politics, economics, and the various sciences of varying hardness. Sometimes I'm lucky enough to be in the company of friends who enjoy my rants (or at least pretend to), but even then I often have a tendency to lose my train of thought. Sometimes I write down my thoughts. The disadvantage of that is that there is no feedback from those who might have interesting or complementary thoughts. And thus it seems that a blog is the perfect medium. It permits me to say what I want in an essay form, thus letting me express my thoughts in their full form, yet still permits discussion and commentary. Assuming, of course, that anyone ever reads them. :)