On Racism

First off racism is bad. (I believe God commands me to treat all men as brothers, racism clearly violates that command, from a more secular point of view it is also bad – if you are civilized)
I think this slate post on racism has misunderstood what racism is and what fuels it. It supposes that racism is about genetic differences and if genetic differences relating to IQ (among others) can be proven to exist then racism logically should follow.
I say: bullcrap. Racism has and never will be about genetic differences. Racism is pure and simply tribalism. Tribalism is the banding together of humans who define members of their group as being in the law (or tradition) and everyone else outside it as being prey and enemies. You are required to help and cooperate with the in-members but can do what you will to outsiders.
The Saletan theory accepts what racists say, namely that the other group is inferior because of ­­­­­­______ (IQ or whatever attribute is considered important at the time)
My theory explains what they do. For example, a Nazi party member would always have been valued over a Jew even if that Jew had demonstrably higher IQ, or usefulness to the state, solidarity or whatever attributes the party is claiming justifies persecution of Jews regardless of what they have done.
In other words, it ain’t IQ which is motivating racists – it is the instinct of humans to form groups in order to benefit themselves in competition with other similar groups. Before civilization, neighboring tribes would usually be genetically and culturally indistinguishable from each other – yet they would fight and paint the other group as cannibalistic demons and so forth. This benefitted the group who were in competition with neighboring tribes for resources.
Civilization was the realization that by cooperating on a larger scale, every one of various tribes could be benefitted. (First by trouncing the non allied tribes, then later trade and specialization and such.) Of course this first took place with tribes that were already culturally and genetically similar. For this to work, however new systems of preventing free-loaders had to be devised as the old ones would not work with the larger numbers of people involved. Under the new system tribalism had to be checked, controlled and punished just as individualism had been under the tribal system. (Individualism being defined in this use as the pursuit of self interest heedless of cost to others).
That being the case we would expect racist groups, like all tribal groups to be suppressed by various means by the society at large as they are overtly tribalistic.
Tribalism is of course a universal human instinct. Some people suppress it, other channel it into less rigid forms of tribalism; as an example partisanship. You can detect it whenever somebody is automatically assumed to be stupid, avaricious or immoral because of his group regardless of individual attributes and actions. Consider the hatred often directed toward southerners/the south/the redneck. (It never ceases to amaze me how people can condemn racism and then turn around and condemn southerners en masse as being stupid, ignorant and worthy of hate. The human tribal mind is subtle and very very ingrained.)
Take That Patrick Thomas.

Academic Incest

I am in favor of a moderate amount of it.

Let me explain. Academic incest is when a student goes to the same school for their bachelors, masters and doctorate etc. Or, when a schools faculty is (by design or not) all of the same academic background (I suppose uniformity in academic/ideological beliefs would also qualify for academic incest)

The reason why this is considered to be ‘incest’ (negative connotations intended) is because these practices tend to isolate ideas. These ideas once isolated tend to develop ‘in a vacuum’ and develop provincial school of thoughts: for example in economics: “the Chicago school”, “the saltwater school”, “the Austrian school”.

The assumption is that you can develop your institution into a dynamic center of learning and ideas if you can have some professors trained in each of the ‘schools’ and if your education includes a mix of all the school of thoughts. In short the idea is to take advantage of hybrid vigor.

The problem with the prevailing practice is that you need to create and maintain the pure breeds if you want to have cross breeds. If you do not, then every academic institution produces similar graduates who have been exposed to the same mixes of the different schools of thought and the whole system falls to a dismaying uniformity and lack of originality.

The second reason for moderate academic incest is that the hope of creating a master in all schools of thought is, I think, overly ambitious. It would require a polymath to keep them all straight and then be able to form a synthesis that was as valid and complex as the prior ideas. To expect this to happen as a matter of putting students through the classes is unrealistic. As a president of a corporation or of a nation my preference would be then, to have a board of advisors who are experts each in their own school (which I cannot judge between because of inexpertise).

The third reason for moderate academic incest is that not all schools of thought are created equal. What if the saltwater school of thought is fuzzy headed and mostly wrong? I would do a disservice if I hired professors who where trained in that school.
For example I believe that string theory is an academic black hole. Therefore I would, in hiring for the physics department, like to be able to choose between professors who had spent a lot of time studying it and those who had not. It is better to have choice between viable alternatives because it is more likely for there to be a right choice. If there isn’t the entire field is at least more conducive to new schools of though arising. The economic schools of though I mentioned are in a sense ancient – they all predate 1975 and are less defined now then they were – for the reasons I’ve mentioned.

RIP The Company Man

1950-1975: heyday of the company man. You went to work out of high school gave loyal devoted service until you retired. You earned good wages, had access to affordable health insurance and your company planned and provided your retirement. This is now exceptional.
In many ways this was an artificial time period, a product of World War II solidarity and the political supremacy of the old democrats.
(The old democrats controlled the party from ’32-68. The New Deal was their charter and they sought to provide a comfortable living for the working class and ‘common man’ through the ‘family wage’. I consider the riots of ’68 to mark the transition to the new democrats who wanted to re-invent the world by eliminating traditional mores and customs with the aim of establishing justice without judgment for everybody. To them, the common man is someone with deplorable prejudices and socioeconomic habits that must be re-educated. There are still old democrats in the party but the new are the leaders.)
The opposing political party was concerned with containing communism and promoting business interests. The deal struck between the two was to fund the cold war, protect business by allowing de facto car tels and monop oli es in exchange for conceding labor unions demands and expanding the safety net of the new deal. The market control of the cartels was sufficiently lucrative to let everyone have a piece of the pie.
But what happened to the company man? The new democrats did not dismantle the old system as it was still a source of political power – its decline is a little more complex.
1) Free Trade – this effectively destroyed the cartels as foreign competition put the competitors outside of any one government’s control. The new democrats supported it because it went hand in hand with their internationalist ideals. The opposition party supported it because it benefitted their business allies. (keep in mind business will deal - whoever is in power; so this ‘alliance’ is somewhat asymmetric)
2) Organizational Decay – this refers to the tendency of organizations to become bloated, insular, and unresponsive with time. This is due to inertia, groups within the organization acting for their self-benefit. Market disrupting innovation can hurt it or at best maintain its position as the market leader – therefore its incentive to innovate is small.


P.S. I believe a flux period is beginning for the parties where they can dramatically change across a few election cycles.

The Guns of August

I recently read The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman. It dealt with the first month of WWI and was very good. You might recall that I did a little piece that dwelt on the First World War a while back. From this book I learned some of my assumptions were wrong but the main point: that railroads allow defenders to reinforce rapidly at any point thus preventing breakthroughs to develop to be sound.
First, the von Schlieffen plan was a surprise to the French and the British. I had assumed that it would be well known as it decades old—surely it would have leaked out? In fact the entire plan as an official copy had been bought from a German general, but the French staff discounted it (and other signs- For example; the German military controlled the railroads in Imperial Germany and had built railroads to the Belgium frontier for the purpose of supporting the mobilization and logistics required by the von Schlieffen plan.) as being implausible and most likely a German deception.
As for my point, two of the victories in the first part of the war were due to defenders shifting troops rapidly by rail. The Germans in the East shifted Corps from their position facing the first Russian army to flank the second Russian army in the south- annihilating it. Of course they were able to attack with one army momentarily uncovered because they were listening in on Russian communications (unencoded) and knew what the first army was going to do.
At the battle of the Marne, the French pulled a number of troops off of the line on their left as well as the Parisian garrison to rapidly exploit the hole in the German lines. One could not have imagines the Germans as being able to do something similar as their lines at that point were far away from abundant rails with their resupply and reinforcement.
On the whole the book was very excellent. One thing was missing, though: It mentions that in the month of August the Russians gained a decisive victory over the Austrians, capturing so many officers that the Austrians were crippled for the duration of the war. It did not go into any details of that battle, which was unfortunate in my opinion.
Also, the author states that after August (Really August plus a week or two) the war entered into a stalemate and attrition without anything interesting happening. I disagree. World War I is, among other things, very interesting because it is the first war where the strategy of technology is first consciously used with combatants deploying all kinds of new weapons such as gas, tanks, and vastly improving others such as planes, subs, siege guns etc. (The American Civil War had something like it but generally a bottom up sort of thing, not a top down). I highly recommend it for any military historian buff.

Mens Foresight

As humans I think we can ‘see’ the future in a way that has no parallel. That is a scary thing, as what we see in the future are dangers and problems. The result of this is that we take action to eliminate those dangers and problems.
An example of this is the panther in Little House in the Big Woods. It attacked one man unsuccessfully and all of the men came together to hunt it down and kill it, no doubt envisioning the panther attacking them or one of their children. (This is why large predators are mostly extinct or endangered today.)
Generally this is good, and works out well for us. The problem that arises is when we try to us this same process (foresight-preventive action) on other people--- as they are not definitely our enemies but partially our brothers.
This affects government policy. First the whole idea of preventive war is based on the need to strike now to avoid future threats. This makes war much more likely and this mindset helped trigger World War 1 over a minor issue. However this is a bad example for my point because other nations, can, in fact be your enemy.
Better examples are found in domestic law. Sarbanes-Oxley was passed in response to accounting scandals like those of Enron. It was intended to prevent fraud of that nature from even being possible. It has resulted in a slightly increased cost of doing business (more so for small companies) without doing much to prevent fraud. See Bernie Madoff. The problem is that unlike the panthers etc., our fellow humans are just as smart as we. Therefore we can make preventative measures and they can then unwind them and do what they want anyway. It makes it slightly more difficult for them, but then again it makes it slightly more difficult for us too.
In short: “good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." –Republic Plato
I think it is sufficient that people who do commit fraud get caught and punished. As for prevention we should look to methods of instilling virtue, not to procedures. What protections we can make, other men can unmake. Also an examination of incentives are in order. Why was it that CEO’s pay was linked to short term stock price increases?

Subsidiarity

Subsidiarity should be a guiding principle when making laws, regulations etc. The essence of subsidiarity is that power, authority and decision making should be at the lowest possible level, and that organizations should be no larger than necessary.
Our anti-trust laws are an example of this principle already. I think our anti-trust laws do no go far enough for corporations and could be strengthened. I would go farther, though, and also apply something similar to government—returning power and decision making to more local levels.
Reason why:
Better decisions as the authorities are closer to the ground
Easier access to authorities to appeal decisions.
Local flavor.
People can shape communities to suit themselves/culture.

With respect to corporations---laws and policies that benefit the large and comparatively disadvantage the small should be reconsidered. Much regulation falls into this category. Sometimes such regulation is worth the cost (in terms of making our world more monolithic), other times it is not. Lawmakers need to think about this and rethink our current regulations on its impact.

In a nutshell, out quality of life is lowered when we constantly have to deal with employees who have no power to fix our problems --- or are ourselves in such a position. That is also true for government as well. I would add the caveat that there needs to be oversight where larger organization can step in and stop local oppressions. Of course one wonders what steps in and stops central oppression.

The Future Generation

Families must be supported by the government. Raising children and teaching them civilized values is EXTREMELY important to society. Even if you don’t care what happens after you die, you should care what happens in your old age. Throughout history, support for the aged was primarily their grown children. Social Security merely pools that--- it assumes people are having and raising kids. Therefore the government that backs social security has an obligation to make the system workable by subsidizing fertility when it drops too low.
Some, perhaps, oppose such policy because they want the human race to die out or it’s numbers drastically reduced. At them I sneer, that is not going to happen; people have kids all across the globe despite adverse conditions-it is a fundamental human drive. Attempts to reduce fertility rates by government policy will merely ensure that more kids will be raised in poverty and by parents who have not been able to plan a secure future for their kids.
I consider deliberately having no kids despite the ability to raise them to be immoral, as a default to societal obligations (Imagine the effects on social security, pensions, investments, public services if no one/few had kids + 50 years. Substantially contributing to raising other people’s kids, I think, mostly mitigates the immorality of deliberate childlessness.) The government already spends a lot of money on supporting families and the raising of children, but I think more and better focused spending/tax breaks are needed.

That said, women, under all circumstances should have the final say on having children and how many—government and society can incentivize and persuade but it is immoral for them to dictate---either to limit or to mandate. I have not reached any conclusion as to welfare for single mothers with kids as it creates moral hazard. Ideally, I would like policy that supports such children without incentivizing fatherlessness-but nothing occurs to me so far.
I consider abortion immoral proportional to its proximity to birth. Infanticide is murder, contraception is not immoral, because of that, as a pragmatist, I would consider a political compromise where all but early term abortions are allowed in exchange for government subsidized contraceptives and matching available sex-ed. The goal is to reduce number of abortions per capita, especially late term abortions. Some exceptions for abortion: Incest, Rape, Mothers life at risk in carrying to term, and if the fetus will not survive childhood. That moral call in those cases should delegated to individuals.

One final issue: I oppose designer babies for the following reasons;
1. We don’t know what to select for. This has always been the fundamental problem of eugenics. Consider sickle cell and that our civilization may collapse or be radically different in the future.
2. It reduces the value of human life in a similar fashion to racism by making it plain that certain lives are to be valued above others.
3. It reduces human genetic diversity, which impoverishes society and makes humanity less adaptable and less disease resistant.

Lincoln, War and Slavery

President Lincoln when talking about the struggle of his countries Civil War, and his desire to see it through its end said, “Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword..” Lincoln is proposing that the destruction of the civil war could be seen in part as punishment (Justice) for the misery and death allowed to perpetuate by the nation prior.
Logically, if that were the case, slavery world wide would need to also have been ended in a destructive struggle. I propose that the Napoleonic wars were that struggle, and that the most decisive blow against slavery was inadvertently dealt because of it.
The greatest blow ever dealt slavery was when the British Parliament outlawed the slave trade – not just for themselves but for every nation that sailed upon the deep. This simply couldn’t have happened without the Napoleonic wars.
Without the backdrop of war a measure that called for regulating all shipping on the seas not just British ships – would have been considered absurd. Such a course would surely lead to war – as in fact it did in 1812 with the Americans, upset that their commercial shipping was routinely boarded by the British. While it was true that many British citizens were sympathetic to the plight of slaves, it is doubtful they would have risked a major war to hinder the practice. In the middle of wartime however, the risk was minimal as Britain already was at war---and shipping everywhere was interdicted.
Since this ban was universal, it severely weakened the whole institution. First, in the future the mass expansion of slavery would be impracticable. Secondly, the practice of working slaves to death and then replacing them cheaply with ones fresh from Africa was no longer viable. If slavery was to survive it would have to be by treating the slaves well enough that they could replace their own numbers or even increase their populations.
The effect of this was to reduce the profitability of slavery drastically. In the long term, the economic system of slavery could not grow, (economically speaking), as quickly as the competing free labor system. With its economic power fading, slave owning societies lost power and eventually were defeated by anti-slavery factions both as internal politics and international politics. A good example of this is the divergence of the economic fortunes of the South and the North after the ban and its eventual conclusion in the American Civil War. Both economies grew, but the North simply outpaced the South.
In less than a century after the slave trade was banned, slavery was almost non-existent all over the globe. It is most fortuitous for humanity that cheap supplies of slaves were abolished just at the moment that the Industrial Revolution began in earnest. Certainly the inhumanities of that revolution took a mighty struggle to correct – and that was in a free labor markets system! I do not wish to imagine the horror that could conceivably have resulted.
Blood drawn --- 750,000 American CW, 4-5 million in the Napoleonic Wars
A lot of treasure lost in both wars.
Slaves brought across the atlantic, to North and S.America approx 15 million.

Class Mobility, Rent Seekers & Inheritance

I believe that socio-economic classes are a fact of civilized life. No society has mananged to prevent the formation of classes. (Look for the irony in the authors actions). Attempts to abolish class such as socialism or communism have resulted in a new class where rank is determined not by income but by how effectively one can control/influence the resulting all powerful bureaucracies. I believe any attempt in the U.S. to equalize incomes will have those same corrupt results
If we don’t know how to abolish classes then our design must be to minimize the harm that the existence of classes does. Namely: class warfare, inhumane treatment of lower classes, power accrued to upper classes in excess of their competence. In other words: revolution, oppression and incompetence.
Democracy solves many of those problems. However in order for it to function well, there needs to be healthy class mobility. This Study shows there is still a large amount of class mobility. Some counter-arguments here. Our system is more or less working and attempts to increase income equality jeopardize income mobility w/o any substantial success.
To the end of increasing class mobility I propose abolishing capital gains taxes on small business (perhaps with a cap, after which taxes kick back in). I also propose giving poor kids school vouchers (especially in areas where school kid population is temporarily up) so they have opportunities currently available only to more privileged kids. Additionally;
I oppose rent seeking. Rent seekers are those who try to assure themselves a comfortable wealthy life style regardless of its effect on the body economic. Some examples are agriculturists who receive massive subsidies (ethanol and corn comes to mind) for dubious economic improvement. Industries that get high tariffs/excessive regulations to block their competitors from their markets (We pay for those in higher prices and less selection). Unions that use their political muscle to dictate terms to their employees (Hello UAW). The effect of this is to enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of us. Why did I go to school? That is not the worst though. In many instances these rent seekers block reform and contribute to general dysfunction. The teachers union is an example of this. Bad teachers can’t be fired, nor incentives put in place to reward good ones–even if their current salaries are untouched.
Finally, I think that inheritance taxes should be increased somewhat. I am concerned that an excessive long term concentration of wealth into a family or trust or foundation (I’m talking to you Harvard) leads to concentration of power in the hands of the incompetent. Additionally, it distorts my ideals of capitalism where capital tends to accrue to producers. Of course this is usually a self-correcting problem.

Policies I am in favor of.

This is stuff that seems acheivable and desirable. It is intended to be a general framework, not a complete list and is vague in some places for that reason. I am going to expand on this points in future posts. One every wednesday until done.

1. Class mobility should be increased. I believe the elimination of classes is not possible as a function of public policy. Therefore increased mobility is the best method of preventing destructive class struggles. 2, 3 to support this goal.
2. Rent seeking should be curtailed as much as possible. It redistributes wealth to those who are already well off, and rent seekers protecting their turf often interfere with the adoption of sane public policy.
3. Inherited wealth should be taxed at high enough rate that it dissipates in two or three generations. Both for individuals and foundations.
4. Families should be subsidized and protected.
5. I oppose all forms eugenics, support free birth control, and want to restrict abortion more than it is now.
6. Advocate subsidiaritywhere practical with a larger entity to step in, in case of local failure – for both government and private entities.
7. Markets need to be corrected by government intervention. Some behaviors prohibited and externalities corrected.
8. Against the “This can never be allowed to happen again” mentality as its goal is unrealistic and unduly hampers normal functioning. As an example I oppose Sarbanes-Oxley.
9. Research should be amply funded, through various mechanisms. I have some ideas on how this could be done differently than it is now.
10. Practicality and people should always be above ideology.

Why the crucifixion?

I have been reading GK Chesterton. He advocates trying to see Christianity fresh as if you were someone who had never heard it before. I would be very confused if I did so.
The passion of the Christ is the central theme of Christianity. According to Christians this is the central act of the world and central to the message of Christianity. Some questions I would have. Q represents my fresh view. A my understanding.

Why did Christ need to die?
A: To save us from death.
B: But, God gave us life before. Why does he need to die to give us life again?
A: Because he is going to give us a better type of life: eternal life. In giving us that God takes something that is finite and makes it infinite. To balance that celestial checkbook something finite

A: To save us from sin, of which we are all guilty.
Q: What can God do about our guilt?
A: God can forgive us; we are then cleansed from sin.
Q: How can God be the one whose forgiveness we need if we hurt somebody else?
A: I don’t know. It just works. I know from my experience as well as others. Perhaps God can do this while we can’t because we are his, he made us.

Q: What is sin, and why do we need to be saved?
A: Sin is living contrary to the purposes for which God created us: namely to be happy together (unity) [this is why God is three]. Sin therefore is anything that separates us from God and with our fellow being. Separation refers not just to location but also desires, hopes etc. God as our creator knows these things better than we do. Ultimately it is only through his authority that we can hope to be more unified.
Q: Why does God need to be involved? Can’t I just change what I am doing?
A: No. You broke the order which makes it possible for people to live together. As an outlaw you are an enemy. How can they know you aren’t just lying in order to take advantage of them again? A trusted third party has to accept liability for you so you can be re-integrated into society. [this is another reason why god is three]

Q: Why didn’t Christs life create paradise here, why is this world still fallen? Also, why didn’t he do this sooner?
A: It was His plan from the beginning that we live in a fallen world, where because of imperfections we can have real choice. His kingdom is not of this world. Ultimately the choice is to reign in our own solitary hell, or be subjects in his kingdom.

To a certain extent I think that this is a true story that God is telling the world (as a character in it) so we can understand love.

Politicizing Science

I was recently reading an article in which the author references the “War on Science”
He advocates not only correcting this situation but radically altering the structure of the system to ensure it can never happen again. His proposal is that scientists should devote a lot of effort to re-educating the public to hold correct views, so that funding will remain constant and steady. Read it here.
This is a bad idea because it puts into place a feedback loop between scientists and politicians that is likely to corrupt both. Scientists would then need to convince the public that their science is the most important. Politicians would use this public opinion to get elected and then vote funds for the scientist allies. The scientists now are incentivized to overdramatize their findings and suppress ones that contradict that image. This already occurs somewhat as they fight for grants but the added politicization would merely exacerbate the problem.
As this relationship stabilized something akin to a state church would have formed. The government supports the church which has the task of teaching the public the ‘truth’. Curiously ‘the truth’ never condemns the rulers. If scientists worked “to win over the hearts and minds of the American public” it would be similar to the state church just substitute Science for ‘the truth’. I capitalize to distinguish the word as synonym for ‘the truth’ with its meaning as a system of inquiry and comparing hypothesis against repeatable experiments (preferable) and observational data. Historically Science has progressed amid is controversy and disagreement. Bad theories were generally replaced by newer better ones. Scientists doubling as politicians would be under a lot of pressure to conform to ‘consensus’ or risk funding cuts and marginalization. That is bad science.
As an example let us suppose an advocate of String Theory (Which has cool multiple curled up dimensions. I think it is a load of rubbish because it hasn’t made any successful predictions and if observed data contradicts this theory one merely has fiddle with its parameters and it is again in agreement.) Now suppose as part of our scientific re-education a supporter of string theory goes on Oprah. He is charming and good at describing his theory. Everyone then sees just how cool string theory is. A politician adopts extra funding for string theory as one of his planks and is elected. University departments now only want to hire people who want to work in string theory (the believers) because that’s where the grants are. If you doubt it is hard to find a job and you end up with either a less prestigious post or go work for industry. In any case your voice in the community is much decreased or nil. Rinse and repeat. Soon we have uniform consensus that String Theory is the word without actually having to refute pesky counterarguments. Dissenters are attacked by their fellow scientists and politicians because it is profitable for both that the feedback loop remain undisturbed.
The danger to the scientific community is real. There are numerous historical examples of vibrant scientific communities progressing and then ossifying while going through the same motions as their predecessors but merely cycling through the same old tired theories. Consider the early Greeks. Consider the flowering of Arab science. Contrast that with their later stagnation and ossification. Consider the Chinese, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, and the Maya, on and on.

We have a more or less functioning scientific community today. We must be careful politicizing it lest it not always be so.

Truth and Argument Part 1: The Private Sphere

I recently read a biography of John Adams. One thing I noticed was that Mr. Adams loved to argue and was convinced that argument was the best method of finding and convincing others of the truth. Of the founding fathers he was the most admirable to me because he had integrity, intelligence and many positions that seem reasonable even today.
And argument is indeed a great tool for finding truth – if we are the arguer. Argument forces us to clarify and state our positions. In doing so we can realize that they are not as solid as previously thought. Additionally argument exposes us to new information and new points of view. By incorporating these into our world view – or ultimately rejecting them as false our understanding increases.
Since argument is inherently a social activity we must consider the other people involved before using it for discovery. People deceive for a variety of reasons and we may be arguing with a deceiver or a deceived. For that reason argument should be avoided with individuals with greater knowledge or experience in that particular area except as part a complete program of learning and gaining knowledge in that area. The advantages of arguing yourself are that it makes you able to discern when people are ‘cheating’ in an argument. Straw man and ad hominem arguments are some examples of this.
Another thing to consider is that some arguments may be inherently more persuasive by their very nature independent of how true it is. For example our minds are drawn to compelling narratives. Our minds also like simplicity. A simple compelling narrative is difficult for us to resist. For a detailed exploration read this book about a theory of progressive history. (Oftentimes the truth is simpler yet the application is more complex and difficult such as epicycles versus elliptical orbits. Jungle of epicycles -> one simple equation, a new math and a need to account for all planetary bodies)
Those things that we want to be true comprise another category of intrinsically more persuasive arguments. Some of these are: arguments that make us seem more important; arguments that help us to be/feel part of an in-group; arguments that make us seem smarter; or excuse us from onerous duties that we would rather avoid. This fact is the basis of most advertising but is applicable to any discussion.
In short argument is a good method of learning truth. You have to know its limitations and pitfalls. And you have to consider that argument doesn’t create truth it is a secondhand source – and builds on it I suppose. Roughly this corresponds to verbal intelligence versus our ability to observe and create theories about our observations. Obviously these two need to be used together.

Truth and Argument Part 2: The Public Sphere

Truth and Argument Part 2: The Public Sphere.
The idea that argument is the best method of finding and convincing others of the truth is the basis of our public institutions. In the legal system a lawyer is nothing else if not a professional arguer. In politics a political campaign hosts debates and the campaigns in general could are an extended argument to determine who and what should be in our government.
I have heard general public discussion over what is right, what is wrong and over policy referred to as ‘the conversation’. This is broader than any issue, specific political campaign or court decision. It is almost universally accepted that this generally leads, over time, to the correct policy and viewpoint i.e. the consensus is correct and tends to become more correct over time. It troubles this basic premise is mostly unexamined.
But first let us consider an important aspect of debate that often determines who/what wins the debate. That is the medium in which the debate is conducted. Newspapers, radio and TV each were in their successive turn the dominant medium of the conversation. Men such as FDR, Kennedy and Reagan had enormous political power and influence because they had mastered the common medium of their time to a much greater degree than their opponents.
The medium of TV requires that one look good in front of the camera, manipulate images for public consumption, and that one has catchy sound bites that can be replayed when the news summarizes arguments for its viewers. If your argument cannot be reduced into a simple and powerful phrase, than it cannot become the ‘truth’ of the public sphere. In the newspaper age, however, more complex arguments were required.
An example of this is the effect that television media had on public perceptions of war. Casualties had to reach huge proportions in the newspaper age before protests would become widespread such as in Civil War New York. The public was only mildly concerned with casualties in World War I or in the Philippines adventure. Contrast that with the widespread protests at the fairly light number of casualties in Vietnam. The difference was TV. TV made it easier to follow the news, and presented death, blood and suffering in your living room. See the different versions of ‘truth’ that the conversation produced when the medium was changed. Which POV then is more correct?
Some arguments, by their very nature are more persuasive than others for reasons discussed in part 1. Arguments that are more persuasive will be propagated. If the argument also persuades to pass itself on (i.e. viral) propagation accelerates. These arguments then can be successful even in a community of interested, smart, truth seeking individuals regardless of their verity. Then add people who are manipulating public opinions as self appointed crusades and you can see that the consensus is likely to be skewed away from the truth in those directions. Caveat Auditor!



What effect does the medium of the internet have on the conversation?

Peace On Earth

Peace on Earth, goodwill to men. Of course there would be a lot of peace on earth if it weren’t for men. I am reminded of GK Chesterton, when asked what the matter with the world was wrote simply, “I am.”
In that vein let us consider what we, personally, can do to increase peace on Earth. There is little I can do to affect fighting in Darfur or Afghanistan. Even if I commanded armies and millions of dollars I am not sure if there is a clear road to peace I could follow. So let us think smaller and more relevant to our own lives and spheres of action.
What can we do increase peace amongst our friends and families? The fighting between friends or family is often of a peculiar kind. The combatants do not really have anything against each other and often times have a lot of compatible interests and goals. It seems to me that often times these fights escalate and get out of control because of pride. Neither party is willing to admit fault and make peace. In a nutshell they would rather be right than be reconciled.
Contrast this with the example that our savior Christ set for us. Christ in fact was always in the right. Nevertheless he set this aside and let himself be counted among the wrong doers, yea, he let judgment come upon him as the guilty one who had erred. The reason for this was so that reconciliation could be effected between the Father and his children – so that the prodigal son could be washed, leave behind his rebellion and return home. I am awed by the greatness of spirit that he has.
Unlike Christ we are not always in the right. But the path indicated for us is clear. Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors the scriptures say. Of you it is required to forgive all men. Now in no way should my words be construed to mean that we should allow evil to flourish unchecked in its cloak of darkness and secrecy. No evil must be resisted and revealed whenever we get the chance. In my experience most people are neither evil nor very good especially in the small circle of family or friends. Let us than pray to forgive and pray for the humility to recognize our wrongs and apologize. Our even let ourselves be thought of as wrong.
My I always seek peace more than to be justified in my own eyes. Or another words may I seek God’s approval first, last and always.
Amen.

Focused Learning.

I propose that education be changed from its current traditional structure of 4-5 classes at a time to 2-3 at a time. Each class would have a similar number of hours and each semester would have a similar number of credits. You would start with two classes go up to three and end on another two classes. (Ninth grade up). I think that this is advantageous because it more closely fits the way people work and think, focusing on a few things at a time aside from routine caretaking activities.
First this has the advantage that more learning is likely to take place. Neural connections form as pathways are repeatedly utilized i.e. heavy use (CTRL+F Homosynaptic plasticity). A little there a little here isn’t as effective as sustained heavy use.
As part of this system I would propose that the beginning and end of classes be staggered somewhat eliminating finals weeks and midterm clusters. This is feasible with 2-3 but not 4-5 classes because you have less staggering (2 weeks v four). This would be a vast improvement under the current system as the stress of everything hitting the fan at once would be alleviated. Each class would have a gear up stage, homework and test stage and then project and final as its last stage.
Scheduling could be more flexible as you could not take the end of semester classes and end your semester early – allowing you to take a job or an internship. Alternatively if you need to squeeze in a few more credits in order to get back on track you could delay your summer.
The main downside I can think of for this system is for someone who is trying to figure out what they want to major in. In that case the current mile wide and an inch deep approach is probably the best.
Still, as presently constituted, school can be very stressful. With less areas to focus on at one time this would be lessened somewhat.

The Modern Moral System

Let’s define morality thusly: It is a code of conduct making it possible for people to coexist in a mutually profitable and sustainable fashion.
First we should ask if there is in fact a generally accepted morality. I think the answer is yes, as evidenced by the fact that people still generally get along and society is still functioning.
Moral Relativism is said by some to be on the ascendant. That seems ridiculous to me. I have never met and don’t believe any true moral relativist exists. For more discussion check this out (after 'chestnut' particularly). Moral relativism is used as a shield to deflect moral judgement not intended to be an actual moral system.
The first candidate we have is the diminishing structure of traditional morality. I say diminishing because no universally respected authority is still promoting it in our society.
The second candidate does have powerful forces promoting it but it only as a limited proscription. You might have encountered it as ethics training either at work or perhaps at school. This ethics training is attempting to promote a morality aimed specifically for institutions such as corporations or government agencies. Institutions are large groups of people coexisting together so it is hardly surprising that they recognize the need for morality. However they limit themselves to work related situations, not because good family morality doesn’t benefit them but because their ability to affect it is small, the risks are large (sue, sue, sue), and it doesn’t offer a competitive advantage as an increased moral climate benefits all companies.
Make no mistake, economics as we know it is impossible without a universal morality. Check out the popes musings on the subject.
The funny thing to me about this though is that these codes of conducts almost universally frown on romantic relationships – and this even though they want to stay out of family morality. This is because they have learned by experience the danger that these pose. This strikes me as funny because people who often disdain traditional morality agree with it in one of its basic assertions: sexual relationships can be dangerous to society. It offers no real solution (avoid fallout!) to this problem though, unlike traditional morality which attempts to channel it into acceptable venues where everyone knows the rules.

A review: Mencius UR

I read Mencius UR sometimes. He is insightful and interesting because he says things no one else says and makes compelling arguments from them. He describes himself as a Jacobite (Carlist) and spends a lot of time pointing out the failures of democracy. Mainly he highlights political power feedbacks known as machines (modern forms). I would summarize his argument against democracy as saying that its basic proposition that government must be by the consent of the governed means that the business of government then becomes to manufacture that consent (or reward those who do). He shows that most agencies, the press and educators work together to control and mold public opinion to a ‘progressive’ agenda and that is the reason that both parties consistently move left over time. He spends a lot of time focusing on how the resulting governance has a lot of crime, and wastes peoples lives in meaningless bureacratic quagmire. He compares modern governance to government in the gilded age to highlight effective goverment (At least as far as crime).
To remedy this situation he advocates as the ultimate solution (there are a lot of compromise solutions he talks about) the division into city states ruled as corporations with executives having ultimate power to combat crime and manage things efficiently without the necessity to feed a political machine. Human rights are to be secured and agreed upon by the complete freedom of people to move to any city state that will have them if they are unhappy with their current locale/freedoms.

The irony is that Mencius is the ultimate progressive. He wants a more ‘scientific’ government. His system is very internationalist and globalized.
He sees corporations as having the most rational governance so it becomes the model for his utopia. Moving, while attractive to a progressive is not really a good solution to a Tory who feels attachment to his native land, his town history, his roots etc. That as a guarantee of rights seems loathsome to a true Tory.
Unlike most progressives he realizes the goals of progressivism are ultimately hindered by democracy, and the two are not naturally symbiotic.

The Fundamental Right?

The idea of freedom is tied up inextricably with the idea of rights. It is impossible to imagine freedom without imagining rights that attend it. The concept I wish to explore today is that of fundamental right. In a nutshell it is the right which safeguards all other rights. If lost all other rights are only temporarily granted on sufferance of your lord and master. With just this one right all other rights can be expected to be gained, and the people are in a position to make deals with their rulers regarding accepted rights. I will examine the right to bear arms and the right to vote as fundamental rights as well as some other possible candidates.
The right to bear arms as the fundamental guarantee of rights is an old concept. Indeed the idea of rights stems from the Magna Carta which was signed and kept in place under threat of arms from the governed. The idea of this as the fundamental right is that ultimately your rulers will be afraid to oppress as they and their supporters will be risking defeat. As Mao says, “power flows from the barrel of gun”. To support this as the candidate for universal rights one needs merely to consider the American Revolution, the Roman revolt and every other successful revolution. To argue against it one need merely bring up every failed armed revolt in history of which there are an abundance.
The right to vote seems to be merely a formalized version of the right to bear arms. The military right rests on the ability to project and resist military power. That is based on numbers. Who has the most people on their side can be favored to win any military conflict. More recently the right to vote has become based on consent. Considering recent failed attempts to rig elections or ignore their results one doesn’t see it devolve into military action. Rather what happens is that people refuse to cooperate with the ruler(s) because they see their authority as illegitimate. In favor of this as the fundamental argument we can observe the general trend in democratic countries of increasing rights for its citizenry. There is however the maxim, “one man, one vote, one time.” What now the Roman/Weimar Republic?
Two other proposed fundamental rights are as follows: Tenure or in other words the right to be protected from the outrages of fortune -even of your own devising, Immigration in a multi state system – in this system you pick your government and rulers by voting with your feet.

Vox Populi Vox Dei

A major transistion in theory of governance has taken place. We have transistioned from a theory of goverment that held that goverment was acceptable because it was the will of god or the gods and that right flowed from them to one where goverment is only legitimate if it is by consent of the governed. Note that this does not neccesarily mean democracy merely consent.
We can see this in the langauge. We go from the "divine right of kings", "mandate of heaven", "vox dei vox populi" to the phrase "the will of the people".

This change in phrases reflects the belief, as expounded by Locke, that people have the right and the responsibility to govern. His is not an argument that they would be the best governors - but that it is their duty to so choose their goverment. Some things in life you have to do yourself and according to this view goverment is one of them.
This has changed everything. Religion is no longer worth controlling because power does not flow from it. Freedom of religion then becomes inevitable. Religious wars have all but ceased where this tenet is accepted. Instead that energy is now channeled to controlling the hearts and minds of the people - manufacturing consent if you will. This is done either through the soft persuasion of a political campaign and power of political networks or the hard persuasion of secret police, information control, and gulags. Both stalin and hitler accepted this tenet of Locke's. That is why their regimes were both so concerned with controlling what their people were thinking and they both acted in similar ways even though their philosophies were wildly different in other ways.

The first order of business for all rulers is to stay in power. If rulers will not manufacture the neccesary consent then rest assured another will.

Democracy & Federalism

There are many supporters of a federalist system. It is not difficult to see why. A federalist government hopes to enjoy the advantages of a large nation and without its disadvantages of crushing conformity and oppression. It enjoys the military strength and diplomatic clout that comes through sheer numbers. It also enjoys the advantages of a large heavily integrated free trade network existing within its borders. Unlike a centralized state however, as many issues and powers are held on a local level, it has flexibility in governing. Problems can be dealt with swiftly and sensibly by administrators on the ground and intimate with the circumstances. Additionally the smaller governments can experiment with various laws and social institutions as well as a adopting those successfully pioneered by others.
It is dismaying to note however, that democracy by nature seems to steadily eradicate federalism and centralize power. As an example the United States Government (USG) has undergone a steady transformation from its beginning, becoming more powerful relative to state governments and more democratic. Some of the powers it has gained are increased taxation authority, regulatory oversight of businesses/banks, a standing army, voter qualifications and many more.
To consider why this might be we will consider the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Slavery was a big issue at that time. Lincoln was unequivocal in his stance against slavery. Douglas vacillated and said that slavery was a matter for states to decide. In the later presidential campaign douglas was decisively defeated because neither pro nor anti-slavery faction supported him. So his federalist stance looked weak. Additionally it doesn’t hold any appeal for voters. Essentially the message is: vote for me so you all can settle the issues later. That’s nice but just not competitive when compared to someone who wants to settle the issue now, decisively and forever.
That seems to be the primary reason for centralization to occur if the top layer is highly democratic. Power wins elections. Not only can we see this in the context of a social crusade like that of slavery but also more crassly in machine politics. Rewarding supporters, getting benefits to the voters who elected you is all much easier in the context of expanding power of the central government.
A non democratic top layer on the other hand will run into problems if it tries to grab power. The sub entities’ (states) will band together and oppose what they see as a curtailing of their privileges. One can see this in the early American senate when senators where more like ambassadors for their respective states. Compromises where each state decides it’s policy would be an appealing solution for this body in many cases. A similar designed organization – The UN – also shows no sign of growing more powerful as time goes by.
Has this decreasing federalism been bad or good? A stronger central government was instrumental in ending slavery, and winning the civil rights fight of the sixties. On the other hand the federal government seems incapable of decreasing in size or in changing programs to meet changing circumstances. For example social security has structural flaws, most think it will fail, most want something that fills its function. However there is almost zero chance of any major reforms. One imagines that if each state had their own version that various alternatives would have been tried and a better system would be in place in most places.