Friday, November 25, 2011
Who is visiting my blog from Moscow?
I seem to get a number of visits from someone with an IP address in Moscow.
Hello Moscow!
I can't help but wonder who in Moscow is checking my blog and why. It would be nice to think someone found something I wrote at least mildly interesting. I'm not even convinced my 4 "followers" find my blog all that interesting...
So...Moscow...say Hi sometime.
Spoiler vote is BS
Our political system here in the USA is very broken.
The voting system is particularly bad. I'm of the opinion that the voting system we have may in fact be unconstitutional in that it allows states to draw districts that will have the effect of disenfranchising minorities that otherwise would have representation. Just quickly think about this example: Imagine a voter base of 100 voters. We'll chop those voters up not by arbitrary criteria, but rather based upon the theoretical way in which they would like to vote...or their actual political opinions about the type of representation they would like. We'll pretend that there are 30 people who consider themselves Red, 30 Blue, 10 Green, 10 Yellow, 10 Orange, and 10 Purple. If we allow the populace to elect 1 representative for every 10 voters, we'll end up with 3R, 3B, 1G, 1Y, 1O, and 1P. If instead we draw a district map and have the subset of 10 people within the district elect someone based upon a "plurality" such as we do, then we'll end up with a government that is likely made up of 5R and 5B. All the minorities are likely to be eliminated from representation. I believe that it can be proven that all district maps will have the effect of eliminating minority representation and disenfranchising voters.
In our given example, a typical district will have 3R, 3B, 1G, 1Y, 1O, and 1B voter. All the minorities are likely to be given a false choice between a B or a R representative. It's likely that a typical district will have 7 out of 10 voters not really like their representative. Compare that to the district-less voting where every minority capable of getting 10 votes gets a representative.
Then Imagine a single seat election, like for governor. Chances are that the R and B candidates will be leading in the polls. Chances are good that 70 out of 100 of our voters won't really like whomever ends up winning if we jut do straight plurality voting. Range voting would guarantee that the most preferred candidate would win any single seat election.
Multiple seat elections, such as for congress would be better off using a proxy vote system, or at the very least using re-weighted range voting.
I'll go on more about that another time.
I just got riled up because I saw Chris Mathews make the same stupid spoiler vote argument I've heard so many times before. He said essentially this: "when you vote for a third party candidate, you aren't voting for a winner, but instead you're depriving someone else of your vote and you are spoiling the election and wasting your vote." This whole idea is nonsense for a number of reasons.
Once again, I'll jump into an example to point out what I consider the absurdity of this argument. Imagine that Satan and Pestilence (of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse fame) are leading in the polls and that Jesus (or insert your favorite good being here) is also running but trails badly. It seems like Chris would say that you are wrong, even foolish, to vote for Jesus when he trails in the polls. It seems like Chris ignores the fact that you don't want either of the leading candidates to win. Here, it seems as if Chris assumes, and makes an ass of himself, that you have a preference of the leading candidates and thus you ought to vote for one of them. To tell the truth, I would in fact be a little surprised if Chris wouldn't back down given my example and admit that the problem here in fact is all those claiming that they will be voting for Satan or Pestilence, as it is clear that Jesus (or insert optimum candidate here) would be better by nearly every imaginable measure. Perhaps Chris (along with most sane people) would also admit that any voting system that would bias the system and give us this false choice of Satan or Pestilence is in fact part of the problem. Perhaps, he would even admit that the media spoon feeding us who we ought to vote for or not because they supposedly can or can't win is part of the problem...but I doubt it.
Our system of voting in the USA is nearly the worst possible one you could come up with. It is almost guaranteed to disenfranchise voters and cause massive polarity. However, the only two ways we can hope to overcome this problem is to A) vote for the candidates that don't favor the biased system such as the Republican or Democrat, or Ron Paul, or B) have a bloody revolution.
You can side with Chris Mathews and continue to throw your vote away on typical republicans and democrats and you'll get more and more corruption and eventually a collapse of society, perhaps into revolution. Or, you can try to vote some honest people like Ron Paul into important offices despite the fact that that you'll need to fight an uphill battle against the system and the "polls" won't show you to be winning right away.
The voting system is particularly bad. I'm of the opinion that the voting system we have may in fact be unconstitutional in that it allows states to draw districts that will have the effect of disenfranchising minorities that otherwise would have representation. Just quickly think about this example: Imagine a voter base of 100 voters. We'll chop those voters up not by arbitrary criteria, but rather based upon the theoretical way in which they would like to vote...or their actual political opinions about the type of representation they would like. We'll pretend that there are 30 people who consider themselves Red, 30 Blue, 10 Green, 10 Yellow, 10 Orange, and 10 Purple. If we allow the populace to elect 1 representative for every 10 voters, we'll end up with 3R, 3B, 1G, 1Y, 1O, and 1P. If instead we draw a district map and have the subset of 10 people within the district elect someone based upon a "plurality" such as we do, then we'll end up with a government that is likely made up of 5R and 5B. All the minorities are likely to be eliminated from representation. I believe that it can be proven that all district maps will have the effect of eliminating minority representation and disenfranchising voters.
In our given example, a typical district will have 3R, 3B, 1G, 1Y, 1O, and 1B voter. All the minorities are likely to be given a false choice between a B or a R representative. It's likely that a typical district will have 7 out of 10 voters not really like their representative. Compare that to the district-less voting where every minority capable of getting 10 votes gets a representative.
Then Imagine a single seat election, like for governor. Chances are that the R and B candidates will be leading in the polls. Chances are good that 70 out of 100 of our voters won't really like whomever ends up winning if we jut do straight plurality voting. Range voting would guarantee that the most preferred candidate would win any single seat election.
Multiple seat elections, such as for congress would be better off using a proxy vote system, or at the very least using re-weighted range voting.
I'll go on more about that another time.
I just got riled up because I saw Chris Mathews make the same stupid spoiler vote argument I've heard so many times before. He said essentially this: "when you vote for a third party candidate, you aren't voting for a winner, but instead you're depriving someone else of your vote and you are spoiling the election and wasting your vote." This whole idea is nonsense for a number of reasons.
Once again, I'll jump into an example to point out what I consider the absurdity of this argument. Imagine that Satan and Pestilence (of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse fame) are leading in the polls and that Jesus (or insert your favorite good being here) is also running but trails badly. It seems like Chris would say that you are wrong, even foolish, to vote for Jesus when he trails in the polls. It seems like Chris ignores the fact that you don't want either of the leading candidates to win. Here, it seems as if Chris assumes, and makes an ass of himself, that you have a preference of the leading candidates and thus you ought to vote for one of them. To tell the truth, I would in fact be a little surprised if Chris wouldn't back down given my example and admit that the problem here in fact is all those claiming that they will be voting for Satan or Pestilence, as it is clear that Jesus (or insert optimum candidate here) would be better by nearly every imaginable measure. Perhaps Chris (along with most sane people) would also admit that any voting system that would bias the system and give us this false choice of Satan or Pestilence is in fact part of the problem. Perhaps, he would even admit that the media spoon feeding us who we ought to vote for or not because they supposedly can or can't win is part of the problem...but I doubt it.
Our system of voting in the USA is nearly the worst possible one you could come up with. It is almost guaranteed to disenfranchise voters and cause massive polarity. However, the only two ways we can hope to overcome this problem is to A) vote for the candidates that don't favor the biased system such as the Republican or Democrat, or Ron Paul, or B) have a bloody revolution.
You can side with Chris Mathews and continue to throw your vote away on typical republicans and democrats and you'll get more and more corruption and eventually a collapse of society, perhaps into revolution. Or, you can try to vote some honest people like Ron Paul into important offices despite the fact that that you'll need to fight an uphill battle against the system and the "polls" won't show you to be winning right away.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
The best moral rules
I was discussing morality again the other day with someone and my wife asked me to make another post about the matter. So...I've included some of my thoughts and comments below:
I'll lay it out for you in as simple terms as I can. Volumes have been written on the issue, but I'll try to sum up in a few lines.
1. Individuals all want and value different things. Everyone thinks something different is "good" from their point of view.
2. Society is made up of individuals
3. Morality deals with how one ought to behave in the context of a society
4. Rights deal with how one should expect to be treated under the moral rules of the society
5. A moral rule, to be of interest to any given individual, should be one that they want to see society follow because it helps them in their own self interests, whatever they may be. in this way, people will be moral out of self-interest despite the fact that everyone has different self interests and values. Advocating morality is good for the individual and the society.
6. The non-aggression principle - to not use force against others and their property is an optimum moral rule because it meets the self interest of everyone (except for those who by definition wish to cause harm itself - serial killers, rapists, child molesters...these people are not self interested in following this rule, but they can't be part of any moral society).
If you as an individual do not have to worry about others harming you or your property then you are objectively better off in whatever your arbitrary goals may be...thus, it is in your interest to be in a society with this moral standard no matter who you are (again, excepting for people who by definition wish to cause harm). This is as universal as a moral gets. most people, by definition, OUGHT to want this moral rule. It is objectively true for nearly everyone. That's not arrogant, that's a fact.
How to I judge the "rightness" of the non-aggression principle? Via my subjective values and wants as mentioned in item #1, just like everyone else. The great thing about the non-aggression principle is that it ought to be followed by all non-violent people all over the world because it will serve their self interests and values, no matter how subjective or different from mine they may be. This is why I consider this to be the best moral rule. It is true no matter your subjective views of the world or what you want.
7. Any moral rule that advocates the use of force against some innocent* subset of individuals is poor because it begins to run contrary to the interests of more and more individuals, both those having force used against them and those using the force. Any such rule will, by definition, reduce the both the potential size of a society and the potential opportunity for individuals to pursue what they want. Why would an individual want to follow or advocate a moral rule that is clearly contrary to their own self interests or subjective values? This is why most other moral rules are lesser than the one I'm advocating.
* innocent in this context means that they haven't violated #6. They are not, and have not, used force or fraud against others or their property.
9. Given a large, and inclusive, moral society that is following the non-aggression principle there is no reason that people can't or won't freely band together in order to pursue things like education, medical care, cars, and pretty toe nails. These are all arbitrary ends as covered in #1. All of these ends, and all other non-violent ends of all other people, can be pursued in relative safety under the non-aggression principle. You can freely help your community and family and so can everyone else if they want to...or I can live like a hermit if I want to.
10. It is true that some people may fail and it is true that by use of force some people, may some times, achieve more of what they want at the expense of what others want but there is no objective way to measure your arbitrary wants and desires against those of another and the introduction of force against innocents to achieve any given arbitrary end has removed you from what most people would universally (by their own subjective standards) agree is moral* and put you in the subset of people that want to use violence for arbitrary means (rapists, killers, molestors)
*moral here means that all non-violent people everyone can recognize that they are better off in a society with the non-aggression principle...that they ought to advocate for it. (this doesn't mean that people might not perceive they are better off with other rules, only that objectively they are better off with THIS rule than without it).
In sum: Since morality deals with how one ought to act in a society, and it is true that for all non-violent ends, an individual would be objectively better off with this the non-aggression rule in place than without it, then it should follow that this rule is objectively true for all non-violent ends.
We all should attempt to follow the non-aggression principle.
This is not a thesis, but I tried to cover the jist of things.
I'll lay it out for you in as simple terms as I can. Volumes have been written on the issue, but I'll try to sum up in a few lines.
1. Individuals all want and value different things. Everyone thinks something different is "good" from their point of view.
2. Society is made up of individuals
3. Morality deals with how one ought to behave in the context of a society
4. Rights deal with how one should expect to be treated under the moral rules of the society
5. A moral rule, to be of interest to any given individual, should be one that they want to see society follow because it helps them in their own self interests, whatever they may be. in this way, people will be moral out of self-interest despite the fact that everyone has different self interests and values. Advocating morality is good for the individual and the society.
6. The non-aggression principle - to not use force against others and their property is an optimum moral rule because it meets the self interest of everyone (except for those who by definition wish to cause harm itself - serial killers, rapists, child molesters...these people are not self interested in following this rule, but they can't be part of any moral society).
If you as an individual do not have to worry about others harming you or your property then you are objectively better off in whatever your arbitrary goals may be...thus, it is in your interest to be in a society with this moral standard no matter who you are (again, excepting for people who by definition wish to cause harm). This is as universal as a moral gets. most people, by definition, OUGHT to want this moral rule. It is objectively true for nearly everyone. That's not arrogant, that's a fact.
How to I judge the "rightness" of the non-aggression principle? Via my subjective values and wants as mentioned in item #1, just like everyone else. The great thing about the non-aggression principle is that it ought to be followed by all non-violent people all over the world because it will serve their self interests and values, no matter how subjective or different from mine they may be. This is why I consider this to be the best moral rule. It is true no matter your subjective views of the world or what you want.
7. Any moral rule that advocates the use of force against some innocent* subset of individuals is poor because it begins to run contrary to the interests of more and more individuals, both those having force used against them and those using the force. Any such rule will, by definition, reduce the both the potential size of a society and the potential opportunity for individuals to pursue what they want. Why would an individual want to follow or advocate a moral rule that is clearly contrary to their own self interests or subjective values? This is why most other moral rules are lesser than the one I'm advocating.
* innocent in this context means that they haven't violated #6. They are not, and have not, used force or fraud against others or their property.
9. Given a large, and inclusive, moral society that is following the non-aggression principle there is no reason that people can't or won't freely band together in order to pursue things like education, medical care, cars, and pretty toe nails. These are all arbitrary ends as covered in #1. All of these ends, and all other non-violent ends of all other people, can be pursued in relative safety under the non-aggression principle. You can freely help your community and family and so can everyone else if they want to...or I can live like a hermit if I want to.
10. It is true that some people may fail and it is true that by use of force some people, may some times, achieve more of what they want at the expense of what others want but there is no objective way to measure your arbitrary wants and desires against those of another and the introduction of force against innocents to achieve any given arbitrary end has removed you from what most people would universally (by their own subjective standards) agree is moral* and put you in the subset of people that want to use violence for arbitrary means (rapists, killers, molestors)
*moral here means that all non-violent people everyone can recognize that they are better off in a society with the non-aggression principle...that they ought to advocate for it. (this doesn't mean that people might not perceive they are better off with other rules, only that objectively they are better off with THIS rule than without it).
In sum: Since morality deals with how one ought to act in a society, and it is true that for all non-violent ends, an individual would be objectively better off with this the non-aggression rule in place than without it, then it should follow that this rule is objectively true for all non-violent ends.
We all should attempt to follow the non-aggression principle.
This is not a thesis, but I tried to cover the jist of things.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Why the end is nigh...
No, the world isn't going to blow up, or at least if it is I don't know about it.
The end I'm talking about is the global economy, and even more particularly, the US economy.
The topics I'll be talking about are difficult to summarize but I'll do my best. Some of the issues and ideas I'll be bring up have their own sections at the library or courses at schools, and yet here I'll try to sum them up in a couple of paragraphs.
It seems to me that the system itself is completely doomed to fail. It is, by it's very nature, unsustainable in the long term.
I'll use the post to talk about why I think this is the case. I may come back and keep editing this post in order to flesh out my ideas and arguments on the issue further. I may also choose to make more and more posts on the subject, or maybe I'll do both.
I'll start by focusing on why the US economy will fail but I may wander into the global spectrum from time to time. I think arguments like those I'll use in dealing with the US will also apply to all other countries, as all other countries that I'm aware of suffer from the same issues to different degrees.
Here is the bare bones, over-simplified, argument as to why the US economy is doomed to fail:
1. We use a debt based fiat currency. In effect, all of our money is "borrowed" into existence. In order for debtors to pay back their principle plus interest, it is required that even more people borrow even more money into existence or else there won't be enough money to pay back everything owed.
2. Oil and other fossil fuels are finite. We will peak in production of these fuels some day. That day may already be here.
3. Monetary inflation is required for our monetary system. We always need more money to be made so that we can pay back the principle plus the interest. The system itself can not allow the money supply to shrink too much because the effects would be devastating to debtors...and since nearly everyone is a debtor, deflation would be devastating to nearly everyone. In general, falling prices or deflation, is bad for people in debt as they lose income and possibly default. Bottom line is that inflation is basically a requirement of our monetary system.
4. Our inflation requires a growing energy supply or ever increasing production or else our monetary inflation turns rapidly into price inflation. If we aren't producing ever more real goods and services, then what we get is more and more dollars chasing the same or less goods. This will result in real price increases.
5. Real price increases of the sort mentioned above are bad for the currency. They tend to reduce faith in the currency and make future investment less likely. Future investment also means future debt...which according to#1 we require ever more of. Thus, we can't have people lose too much faith in the currency or else they stop going into debt fast enough and if they aren't going into debt fast enough then the system fails. Real price increases will also tend to increase interest rates (though our FED can screw that up to a large degree) and as interest rates go up, people tend to want to borrow less...and again, we need people to borrow ever more money or else there simply isn't enough money for everyone to pay back their principle plus interest which means systemic failures become ever more probable. I believe this condition where we have high inflation and little or no economic growth is often referred to as "stagflation."
6. Our regulations and property laws, including intellectual property laws, are skewed very badly so as to prevent individual workers from being entrepreneurial and converting natural resources and labor into profitable goods and services on their own. In other words, natural "market forces" are badly warped out of shape and are prevented from functioning. Sometimes government policy is to actively encourage the exact opposite of what needs to happen in order for the system to heal. We don't have homestead laws and our 10% unemployed can't just start farming for themselves until they figure out a better job. They can't just enter into all sorts of fields because the barriers to entry are ever greater.
7. The price of oil is artificially, and tenuously, attached to the dollar. Oil is bought and sold in dollars. The worlds major oil markets and major oil producers all use dollars and have done so for 50 years. When the US rapidly borrows more money into existence our price inflation is greatly tempered by this fact because as the cost of oil goes up, everyone else in the world requires more dollars to buy the oil they want and they thus need to suck dollars out of circulation here...slowing down the price growth of everything else for Americans.
8. The baby-boomer population bubble is problematic.
I'll elaborate more on all of the above points more as I go.
Right now I'd just like to point out that I think that a large deal of what we see in the US economy right now can be explained by these points and that looking at the US economy with these ideas in mind it seems like we may, in fact, be headed for a systemic failure.
We have had greater than 9% unemployment and close to 20% under-employment for a couple of years now. The biggest "dips" in the unemployment rate during that time have come from government expansion and things like census jobs.
Our job creation is having trouble keeping up with population growth. Several reasons our employment rate isn't getting higher even faster include the fact that people "fall off" the unemployment rolls, that if people earn even a tiny bit of money they aren't unemployed, that if a young person opts to go to school or just fails to look for a job then they too aren't unemployed.
That's enough for now.
I'll be back for more later.
The end I'm talking about is the global economy, and even more particularly, the US economy.
The topics I'll be talking about are difficult to summarize but I'll do my best. Some of the issues and ideas I'll be bring up have their own sections at the library or courses at schools, and yet here I'll try to sum them up in a couple of paragraphs.
It seems to me that the system itself is completely doomed to fail. It is, by it's very nature, unsustainable in the long term.
I'll use the post to talk about why I think this is the case. I may come back and keep editing this post in order to flesh out my ideas and arguments on the issue further. I may also choose to make more and more posts on the subject, or maybe I'll do both.
I'll start by focusing on why the US economy will fail but I may wander into the global spectrum from time to time. I think arguments like those I'll use in dealing with the US will also apply to all other countries, as all other countries that I'm aware of suffer from the same issues to different degrees.
Here is the bare bones, over-simplified, argument as to why the US economy is doomed to fail:
1. We use a debt based fiat currency. In effect, all of our money is "borrowed" into existence. In order for debtors to pay back their principle plus interest, it is required that even more people borrow even more money into existence or else there won't be enough money to pay back everything owed.
2. Oil and other fossil fuels are finite. We will peak in production of these fuels some day. That day may already be here.
3. Monetary inflation is required for our monetary system. We always need more money to be made so that we can pay back the principle plus the interest. The system itself can not allow the money supply to shrink too much because the effects would be devastating to debtors...and since nearly everyone is a debtor, deflation would be devastating to nearly everyone. In general, falling prices or deflation, is bad for people in debt as they lose income and possibly default. Bottom line is that inflation is basically a requirement of our monetary system.
4. Our inflation requires a growing energy supply or ever increasing production or else our monetary inflation turns rapidly into price inflation. If we aren't producing ever more real goods and services, then what we get is more and more dollars chasing the same or less goods. This will result in real price increases.
5. Real price increases of the sort mentioned above are bad for the currency. They tend to reduce faith in the currency and make future investment less likely. Future investment also means future debt...which according to#1 we require ever more of. Thus, we can't have people lose too much faith in the currency or else they stop going into debt fast enough and if they aren't going into debt fast enough then the system fails. Real price increases will also tend to increase interest rates (though our FED can screw that up to a large degree) and as interest rates go up, people tend to want to borrow less...and again, we need people to borrow ever more money or else there simply isn't enough money for everyone to pay back their principle plus interest which means systemic failures become ever more probable. I believe this condition where we have high inflation and little or no economic growth is often referred to as "stagflation."
6. Our regulations and property laws, including intellectual property laws, are skewed very badly so as to prevent individual workers from being entrepreneurial and converting natural resources and labor into profitable goods and services on their own. In other words, natural "market forces" are badly warped out of shape and are prevented from functioning. Sometimes government policy is to actively encourage the exact opposite of what needs to happen in order for the system to heal. We don't have homestead laws and our 10% unemployed can't just start farming for themselves until they figure out a better job. They can't just enter into all sorts of fields because the barriers to entry are ever greater.
7. The price of oil is artificially, and tenuously, attached to the dollar. Oil is bought and sold in dollars. The worlds major oil markets and major oil producers all use dollars and have done so for 50 years. When the US rapidly borrows more money into existence our price inflation is greatly tempered by this fact because as the cost of oil goes up, everyone else in the world requires more dollars to buy the oil they want and they thus need to suck dollars out of circulation here...slowing down the price growth of everything else for Americans.
8. The baby-boomer population bubble is problematic.
I'll elaborate more on all of the above points more as I go.
Right now I'd just like to point out that I think that a large deal of what we see in the US economy right now can be explained by these points and that looking at the US economy with these ideas in mind it seems like we may, in fact, be headed for a systemic failure.
We have had greater than 9% unemployment and close to 20% under-employment for a couple of years now. The biggest "dips" in the unemployment rate during that time have come from government expansion and things like census jobs.
Our job creation is having trouble keeping up with population growth. Several reasons our employment rate isn't getting higher even faster include the fact that people "fall off" the unemployment rolls, that if people earn even a tiny bit of money they aren't unemployed, that if a young person opts to go to school or just fails to look for a job then they too aren't unemployed.
That's enough for now.
I'll be back for more later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)