Playing basketball at the park is was one of my favorite things to do as a teen and young adult. It's a great way to get exercise and fresh air while having fun and making new friends, and being competitive. Never in my life did I think I would want to write a blog post about the mechanics of a game of ball but here we are. In the following I will describe the decision making process for each aspect of a game of basketball at a park.
1. The first decision to make on a basketball court is what kind of game you are going to play. The most popular games are "21" or evenly divided teams. This decision is subliminally made based on the ages and number of people playing. If only 3 people are present at the court, most likely the game is going to be "21." Evenly divided teams are not selected usually unless there are at least 6 players willing to participate. This decision can be made very fast: someone, anyone, on the court will say "let's shoot up a game of 21" or "let's shoot teams."
2. After the kind of game to play is chosen, the players have to pick a ball to play with, as there are likely several different ones to choose from. Players will take a vote by passing the ball to each other for inspection. The ball with the best grip, best size, and that bounces best usually gets picked. The decision does not have to be unanimous, but when there's the general feeling that most people want a certain ball, that becomes the chosen ball.
3. If the players decide to play 21, the player nearest the free-throw line sets himself up to shoot while the other players gather under the rim waiting for a rebound. Nobody directs players exactly where to stand, everyone finds an empty space that is reasonable in distance from other players and the rim. None of the players under the rim try to gain advantage for a rebound until the moment the ball leaves the shooter's hands. There are no official rules in this game, however, the expected norms still apply. Participants are still expected to dribble the ball when moving and nobody punches or trips or shoves the ball handler on purpose to steal the ball.
4. If players elect to play a game with evenly divided teams, the first decision is to pick teams. Since players often don't know each other, what happens is they line up and take turns shooting from the free-throw line. If there are a total of 6 playing, the first 3 to make the shot will be on a team. Sometimes the same thing is done, only the first 2 to make the shot become "captains", and they take turns picking teams. Once teams are picked, the have to decide whether to play full court or half court basketball. This will depend on how many people are playing; if there are 10 players then full court will probably be the way to go, but with only 6 the game will likely be played on one half of the court.
5. Who gets the ball first in a team game? This one is easy. To get the game started, almost always a player from either team will grab the ball and shoot from the 3-point-line and call out "this is for ball." If he makes the shot, his team gets the ball first. If he misses, the other team gets the ball first.
6. Let's say during game-play there is a dispute over whether or not a rule of basketball was broken. Other players on the court who witnessed the event will chime in. Even players on the offender's team... because everyone on an instinctual wants an honest victory. Nobody wants to win over a cheap call. But what happens when both sides are truly divided over a play? Again, easy. A player will take a shot from the 3 point line "for the ball" or they will simply restart the play in question. Usually a shot is taken only if the decision would change which team gets the ball.
7. If new players arrive during game play, how is it organized? The new players will wait patiently aside the court. When the game is over, they will say "I have next" and choose players from the losing team. The winning team has "earned the right to remain on the court by winning." It's true, some teams dominate the basketball court all afternoon, but everyone recognizes it would not be fair to them to have to quit playing just because they are good.
8. How to choose a victor. Games at public courts do not come with timers, so what happens is the players decide on a point number to play to. Sometimes it's 11, sometimes 11 win by 2, sometimes it's 21, sometimes it's 21 win by 2, sometimes it's 21 with 7 point whitewash (meaning the game is over if either team goes up 7-0), sometimes it's 15 or 13... the general sweet-spot is between 11 and 21; lower scores are reserved for games that appear to be lop-sided, that is, where the best players are on one side and the not so good players on the other, in order to keep from dragging out the game unnecessarily.
The things that happen on public basketball courts can be very complex. Since it is after all just a game, disputes are resolved quickly and grudges are rarely held... the point in all this is, I have never in my life seen or played in a game at a park where players even chose someone as a referee, let alone sit at a table in order to attempt to plan out actions for every conceivable circumstance. It would literally take all day and night to do that and not a single game would be played. Instead, resolutions are decided on the fly. Of course it's not always perfect, but unless you get hurt, you usually go home happy to have gotten to the park and played some ball. Even in games like 21, where the defining feature of the game is there are no official rules, norms like dribbling are still expected to be followed.
Also, again, this is just a game of basketball... some days there are over 20 people at the court wanting to play... more than enough to play full court 5 on 5 ball, and still nobody wants even a referee just to keep the game going. This is a blog about anarchy as well so I have to ask the reader: if 20 people have a shared admission that nothing will get done if decisions and conflicts are not resolved in a timely manner to the point that they forgo even having a referee, and decide to ref the game themselves, how can a few hundred people think they can effectively plan out society with even more complexity as well as more precision?
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Saturday, September 13, 2014
What makes a person ethical?
For most of my life I believed that if a person generally understood the difference between right and wrong, it meant that they were a moral person. Maybe they did not see the actions they were taking as being immoral for some reason, but the people themselves had good intentions at heart. The best example I can think of of this kind of person would have to be a supporter of say the war on drugs.
Drugs are completely destructive. In my opinion, people become addicted to them because fantasy is preferable to the reality of their lives. The drug replaces the pain of reality with the pleasure of fantasy. It erodes the need for the people to take actions which would make their lives better. Sometimes life changes that are necessary for a person's true happiness can be difficult and perhaps be seen as completely unobtainable; why not take x drug, by the way we are talking prescription or street-drugs, and do it that way?
So the drug warrior is looking at the situation saying "this is awful! we need to get drugs off the street and out of our society." Fine. This is a goal that I believe in as well, though I do not consider myself a supporter of the war on drugs. So "Hooray" for those cops fighting the good fight...
BUT
There is a problem with the drug war. It involves coercing people who have not initiated force against other people. Whenever force is used against someone that is not in the immediate defense of them-self or another person, that force is not justified. Everyone gets this. As a private citizen, I cannot "defend myself" against my neighbor when he is in his home smoking a joint. His actions are not causing me harm. The police, however, claim the moral obligation/right to knock down the door and drag that neighbor out of his house and throw him into a jail cell.
So here we have a violation of principle; using force against someone in a circumstance other than defense, or simply aggressive force. The use of aggressive force is being considered ok, only on the part of cops mind you, to get drugs off the streets.
"Sure", the drug warrior will say, "it is a violation of the non-aggression principle, but look at how harmful the drugs are!"
Yes, we all understand the point about the drugs. What the drug warrior is not doing is putting the aggressive force under the same microscope. He is accepting that which he considers evil (aggressive force) to eliminate that which he considers evil (drugs).
This situation challenges my former theory that a person is ethical so long as they know the difference between right and wrong, for an ethical person cannot by definition accept evil as an acceptable methodology to solve problems.
In hindsight, the person who knows right from wrong AND accepts an evil methodology is worse than the person who does not know. At least the person who does not know has the potential for morality; the person who knowingly accepts evil has sealed their coffin.
Sure, accepting evil methodologies in life can be revised and actions can change so as to reject evil methodologies, but as long as evil is accepted, I for one can no longer accept the proposition that knowledge is enough for morality.
Since we are saying knowledge is not enough and judging the drug warrior based on their actions, we must add a condition of action to what makes a person ethical. The knowledge must be applied.
Note: I am not going to discuss the need for knowledge to determine if a person is ethical. The need for knowledge is too obvious: accidentally doing the right thing is just that, an accident.
Knowledge includes moral principles. Most people get this principle in Kindergarten. Don't steal, don't hit, don't lie... Libertarian circles simply call it the Non Aggression Principle (NAP). The logic behind the NAP is very simple: Man is a limited being. Man does not have perfect knowledge, cannot be everywhere at once, and must choose what endeavors to pursue in his own life. Man deals with reality the best he can. Any person interfering with this reality in others blocks their ability to freely and openly live their lives. If you steal from someone, you rob them of the choice to do what they wish with their own things. If you lie to someone, you distort their perception of reality in order to trick them into doing something they wouldn't otherwise do. If you hit someone, you damage the vessel with which they live. <---Disclaimer: Sometimes people prefer being lied to, sometimes people prefer being stolen from, and sometimes people want to be hit. A boss at work may request that you leave out details of an event so they do not have to take a particular action. A person addicted from heroin may plea with a friend to "please go into my house while I'm at work tomorrow and get all my 'stuff' out, so that if I want to do it, I won't be able to." And a person who takes pleasure out of boxing may jump in the ring with another and spar. These situations are sometimes tricky and each one must be treated as an individual case, as specifics vary, but generally, when someone WANTS to be hit, jumping into the ring and sparring does not constitute a violation of the NAP since they WANT it.
The harder thing which knowledge includes sometimes is the perception that a certain action violates moral principles. Most of the confusion here rests with government. Government is the only entity in society which may tell people all over the country that they will "pay their taxes or get locked up in jail." Yet many people miss this obvious violation of the NAP. Indeed, any time the government passes a law, the message taken away is "Do x or you will be locked up in jail." When x does not = a restraint from initiating aggressive force against other people, the government IS initiating aggressive force!
Force can only be aggressive or defensive. These two categories are not hard to see at all... Sure, if you turn a corner of a building somewhere and see one person hitting another, it is true that you do not understand the context that warranted, or didn't warrant for that matter, the striking. However, when someone clearly says to people "you will drive how I want you to drive or you will receive tickets from my agents, and if you don't pay those tickets you will eventually be thrown in jail" then the aggressive party is known.
To summarize, what makes a person ethical is they must first have ethical standards. Second, they must consciously try to live up to their ethical standards, and finally, if their attention is brought to the fact that they are doing something that does NOT live up to their ethical standards, they must abandon that action.
Drugs are completely destructive. In my opinion, people become addicted to them because fantasy is preferable to the reality of their lives. The drug replaces the pain of reality with the pleasure of fantasy. It erodes the need for the people to take actions which would make their lives better. Sometimes life changes that are necessary for a person's true happiness can be difficult and perhaps be seen as completely unobtainable; why not take x drug, by the way we are talking prescription or street-drugs, and do it that way?
So the drug warrior is looking at the situation saying "this is awful! we need to get drugs off the street and out of our society." Fine. This is a goal that I believe in as well, though I do not consider myself a supporter of the war on drugs. So "Hooray" for those cops fighting the good fight...
BUT
There is a problem with the drug war. It involves coercing people who have not initiated force against other people. Whenever force is used against someone that is not in the immediate defense of them-self or another person, that force is not justified. Everyone gets this. As a private citizen, I cannot "defend myself" against my neighbor when he is in his home smoking a joint. His actions are not causing me harm. The police, however, claim the moral obligation/right to knock down the door and drag that neighbor out of his house and throw him into a jail cell.
So here we have a violation of principle; using force against someone in a circumstance other than defense, or simply aggressive force. The use of aggressive force is being considered ok, only on the part of cops mind you, to get drugs off the streets.
"Sure", the drug warrior will say, "it is a violation of the non-aggression principle, but look at how harmful the drugs are!"
Yes, we all understand the point about the drugs. What the drug warrior is not doing is putting the aggressive force under the same microscope. He is accepting that which he considers evil (aggressive force) to eliminate that which he considers evil (drugs).
This situation challenges my former theory that a person is ethical so long as they know the difference between right and wrong, for an ethical person cannot by definition accept evil as an acceptable methodology to solve problems.
In hindsight, the person who knows right from wrong AND accepts an evil methodology is worse than the person who does not know. At least the person who does not know has the potential for morality; the person who knowingly accepts evil has sealed their coffin.
Sure, accepting evil methodologies in life can be revised and actions can change so as to reject evil methodologies, but as long as evil is accepted, I for one can no longer accept the proposition that knowledge is enough for morality.
Since we are saying knowledge is not enough and judging the drug warrior based on their actions, we must add a condition of action to what makes a person ethical. The knowledge must be applied.
Note: I am not going to discuss the need for knowledge to determine if a person is ethical. The need for knowledge is too obvious: accidentally doing the right thing is just that, an accident.
Knowledge includes moral principles. Most people get this principle in Kindergarten. Don't steal, don't hit, don't lie... Libertarian circles simply call it the Non Aggression Principle (NAP). The logic behind the NAP is very simple: Man is a limited being. Man does not have perfect knowledge, cannot be everywhere at once, and must choose what endeavors to pursue in his own life. Man deals with reality the best he can. Any person interfering with this reality in others blocks their ability to freely and openly live their lives. If you steal from someone, you rob them of the choice to do what they wish with their own things. If you lie to someone, you distort their perception of reality in order to trick them into doing something they wouldn't otherwise do. If you hit someone, you damage the vessel with which they live. <---Disclaimer: Sometimes people prefer being lied to, sometimes people prefer being stolen from, and sometimes people want to be hit. A boss at work may request that you leave out details of an event so they do not have to take a particular action. A person addicted from heroin may plea with a friend to "please go into my house while I'm at work tomorrow and get all my 'stuff' out, so that if I want to do it, I won't be able to." And a person who takes pleasure out of boxing may jump in the ring with another and spar. These situations are sometimes tricky and each one must be treated as an individual case, as specifics vary, but generally, when someone WANTS to be hit, jumping into the ring and sparring does not constitute a violation of the NAP since they WANT it.
The harder thing which knowledge includes sometimes is the perception that a certain action violates moral principles. Most of the confusion here rests with government. Government is the only entity in society which may tell people all over the country that they will "pay their taxes or get locked up in jail." Yet many people miss this obvious violation of the NAP. Indeed, any time the government passes a law, the message taken away is "Do x or you will be locked up in jail." When x does not = a restraint from initiating aggressive force against other people, the government IS initiating aggressive force!
Force can only be aggressive or defensive. These two categories are not hard to see at all... Sure, if you turn a corner of a building somewhere and see one person hitting another, it is true that you do not understand the context that warranted, or didn't warrant for that matter, the striking. However, when someone clearly says to people "you will drive how I want you to drive or you will receive tickets from my agents, and if you don't pay those tickets you will eventually be thrown in jail" then the aggressive party is known.
To summarize, what makes a person ethical is they must first have ethical standards. Second, they must consciously try to live up to their ethical standards, and finally, if their attention is brought to the fact that they are doing something that does NOT live up to their ethical standards, they must abandon that action.
Friday, April 4, 2014
My God
My God
My God is not a mysterious person in the sky... my god is called Logic.
When I disobey my God, and act illogically, there are consequences to my actions. I do not reach my goal(s) and as a result, my life suffers a temporary or permanent set back.
My God can be proven; that is, its essence is with us every day. If it were not, you would have no understanding of the words written here... heck, you probably would not be alive if you were completely without logic.
My God is simple. "If A then B" is a great starting point for following my god.
My God has never killed an innocent person... although people have died as a result of not following my god in some cases... but Logic itself is incapable of killing anyone.
My God does not require me to believe many things which I know are non-sense, such as talking snakes, in order to believe its narrative. The narrative is simple; if you want to live, follow Logic. If you don't, and you decide not to eat when you need food or drink when you need water, you will not make it. In fact, my god demands that I question things that sound unrealistic.
My God does not need big buildings or men and women dressed in goofy outfits to get followers. It gets followers on its own merit.
Unlike any other God, if children were indoctrinated with a belief in my God, there would not be such resistance as there is with the mystical person in the sky, and children would actually benefit... for raising children with a foundation in Logic may actually be useful for them their entire lives, and does not require threatening their soul with eternal damnation.
My God does not require any other God to not exist in order to be proven. It simply says "Ok, show me some proof of that." while other Gods(?) say "Following me is of the utmost importance, and no, I will no prove myself to exist to you, you simply must believe it."
I am not always the best follower of My God, for I am human and prone to err. But that does not invalidate the authenticity of my god... if anything, it reinforces it... for it takes following Logic to prove someone has acted illogically.
My God is the most powerful force known to man. Without him we may not have ever come out of our caves. and yet, unlike other gods, it does not require money... Logic does not demand you to give any percentage of your income to anyone. Rather, it would ask you to question who it is you give your money to and determine if it is what you really want.
You may say you choose not to follow my god, but we both know that to be a lie. You follow logic when it suits you and perhaps use energy rejecting logic when that suits you... no doubt to gain some end that you have in mind... which in and of itself is an act based on logic... it is to say "if i question this or look at it logically, I may not believe it, so I won't." Now, there are reasons which you may do this... I am not here to question the why, but to point out the action. See Cognitive Dissonance.
Thank You for reading about My God.
My God is not a mysterious person in the sky... my god is called Logic.
When I disobey my God, and act illogically, there are consequences to my actions. I do not reach my goal(s) and as a result, my life suffers a temporary or permanent set back.
My God can be proven; that is, its essence is with us every day. If it were not, you would have no understanding of the words written here... heck, you probably would not be alive if you were completely without logic.
My God is simple. "If A then B" is a great starting point for following my god.
My God has never killed an innocent person... although people have died as a result of not following my god in some cases... but Logic itself is incapable of killing anyone.
My God does not require me to believe many things which I know are non-sense, such as talking snakes, in order to believe its narrative. The narrative is simple; if you want to live, follow Logic. If you don't, and you decide not to eat when you need food or drink when you need water, you will not make it. In fact, my god demands that I question things that sound unrealistic.
My God does not need big buildings or men and women dressed in goofy outfits to get followers. It gets followers on its own merit.
Unlike any other God, if children were indoctrinated with a belief in my God, there would not be such resistance as there is with the mystical person in the sky, and children would actually benefit... for raising children with a foundation in Logic may actually be useful for them their entire lives, and does not require threatening their soul with eternal damnation.
My God does not require any other God to not exist in order to be proven. It simply says "Ok, show me some proof of that." while other Gods(?) say "Following me is of the utmost importance, and no, I will no prove myself to exist to you, you simply must believe it."
I am not always the best follower of My God, for I am human and prone to err. But that does not invalidate the authenticity of my god... if anything, it reinforces it... for it takes following Logic to prove someone has acted illogically.
My God is the most powerful force known to man. Without him we may not have ever come out of our caves. and yet, unlike other gods, it does not require money... Logic does not demand you to give any percentage of your income to anyone. Rather, it would ask you to question who it is you give your money to and determine if it is what you really want.
You may say you choose not to follow my god, but we both know that to be a lie. You follow logic when it suits you and perhaps use energy rejecting logic when that suits you... no doubt to gain some end that you have in mind... which in and of itself is an act based on logic... it is to say "if i question this or look at it logically, I may not believe it, so I won't." Now, there are reasons which you may do this... I am not here to question the why, but to point out the action. See Cognitive Dissonance.
Thank You for reading about My God.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
If shoe fits, wear it...
For me, the road to becoming an anarchist had many turns and twists. I started out what people refer to now as a moderate. Moderate meaning someone who takes on conservative ideas on some issues, liberal ideas on others. I was more conservative on foreign policy issues and liberal on domestic policy issues. In other words, while I thought of myself as a moderate, and was called a moderate, I was a full blown statist. So as you can imagine, becoming an anarchist is not something that happened over night. Since I discovered the ideas of liberty I have sought a way to describe my experience in simple terms, but that proved more difficult than I imagined it would be, despite the simplicity of some of the ideas (i.e. freedom means the absence of force; the state is the monopoly of force). However, I think I have found a suitable analogy.
Imagine you are poor and you stumble upon a job that requires you to wear dress shoes. Someone lends you enough money to buy whatever dress shoes you think are necessary and you begin to shop. Out of nowhere you spot the perfect pair of shoes. As you approach these shoes, you become more and more humbled by their appearance. You decide to hold them and begin to think: these shoes will be perfect for my new job. Absolutely perfect. But before you give them the automatic A, you begin to question the idea of perfection. Surely we have all heard the expression "if it seems too good to be true, it probably is." You begin to wonder if these shoes will last long, or fit right, or match your clothes in just the right way, etc. This point is crucial because it defines the point and basis on which you will make your decisions. There are some people who put the shoes back just because they seem a little too good (too good to be true), but others will try the shoes on. At first the shoes seem constricting. It may even hurt different places of your foot at first, or it may fit perfectly right off the bat. After walking in the shoes for a while, you realize that the shoe begins to conform to the shape of the foot. Your found the perfect looking shoe, tried it on, and now it is changing for comfort as well.
This has been my experience dealing with becoming an anarchist. The idea of non-aggression sounds really good, but would it actually work? Would things such as road building get done? But ultimately I took the plunge because the non-aggression principle is not about building roads or schooling children, it is about how we treat our fellow human beings. I simply could not accept the idea of legitimized aggression simply to have roads or to have schools... especially since so many other services don't require aggression.
Now that I have gotten over that barrier (the idea that it must not be too good to be true since it seems that way; it meaning the rejection of legitimized force) and have worn the shoe for a little while, I have found that it is easier to describe the ideas and think them through. The term "anarchist" is not a term that any longer sounds extreme or negative in any way.
Be that as it may, there still are some parties that I do not come right out and tell I am an anarchist the first time I meet them. Co-workers who are retired-detectives and current military members can be tricky, since teamwork and trust are so important. But that is to be expected in such a statist world. But all-in-all I am proud of my new shoes and anxious to show them off, even to my co-workers :)
Imagine you are poor and you stumble upon a job that requires you to wear dress shoes. Someone lends you enough money to buy whatever dress shoes you think are necessary and you begin to shop. Out of nowhere you spot the perfect pair of shoes. As you approach these shoes, you become more and more humbled by their appearance. You decide to hold them and begin to think: these shoes will be perfect for my new job. Absolutely perfect. But before you give them the automatic A, you begin to question the idea of perfection. Surely we have all heard the expression "if it seems too good to be true, it probably is." You begin to wonder if these shoes will last long, or fit right, or match your clothes in just the right way, etc. This point is crucial because it defines the point and basis on which you will make your decisions. There are some people who put the shoes back just because they seem a little too good (too good to be true), but others will try the shoes on. At first the shoes seem constricting. It may even hurt different places of your foot at first, or it may fit perfectly right off the bat. After walking in the shoes for a while, you realize that the shoe begins to conform to the shape of the foot. Your found the perfect looking shoe, tried it on, and now it is changing for comfort as well.
This has been my experience dealing with becoming an anarchist. The idea of non-aggression sounds really good, but would it actually work? Would things such as road building get done? But ultimately I took the plunge because the non-aggression principle is not about building roads or schooling children, it is about how we treat our fellow human beings. I simply could not accept the idea of legitimized aggression simply to have roads or to have schools... especially since so many other services don't require aggression.
Now that I have gotten over that barrier (the idea that it must not be too good to be true since it seems that way; it meaning the rejection of legitimized force) and have worn the shoe for a little while, I have found that it is easier to describe the ideas and think them through. The term "anarchist" is not a term that any longer sounds extreme or negative in any way.
Be that as it may, there still are some parties that I do not come right out and tell I am an anarchist the first time I meet them. Co-workers who are retired-detectives and current military members can be tricky, since teamwork and trust are so important. But that is to be expected in such a statist world. But all-in-all I am proud of my new shoes and anxious to show them off, even to my co-workers :)
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Is the United States a "Christian Nation"?
My opinion on this debate is explained here without going into the fact that nations don't really exist, nor do they have any characteristics of their own.
There seems to be a disagreement between plenty in the politically active as to whether the United States is a Christian nation. In my opinion, this is not a productive debate to have, and here is why.
If this is a "Christian Nation", then passing laws forcing people to behave in a "christian" manner is unnecessary. People will voluntarily choose to live their lives in such a way if that is where their faith lies. If the U.S. is not a "Christian nation", passing laws will only lead to behavioral control efforts, and not a change in faith. Non-believers will be pushed away from christianity, since members of the church would be seeking to control them, rather than win over their minds and hearts.
So regardless of whether the United States is a christian nation, laws passed to promote christian values can only have negative effects, no positive. I'm sure there are some who would say that laws against murder are inspired by christian values... but that is also irrelevant. Murder, theft, and other acts of aggression are not solely christian issues, they are universal issues.
It is easily understandable why this debate evokes such passionate feelings. Some people want Christianity taught in schools and that sort of thing, while others don't want their kids being taught such things. Then there is abortion... but what people have to realize is the real problem is whenever government gets involved, you only have one way of doing things. Only in free markets can parents really choose what kind of education their child receives. So the solution to this problem is to get government out of education... that way some parents can send their kids to christian schools and others won't have to. Sure, christians teach religion outside of school, and it is very likely that non-believers who are forced to pay for schools teaching religion (and as a result can't afford to send their kids to any other school) will simply tell their kids that the religion aspects of their education are completely illogical and lack any real proof.
The same thing goes for abortions. Experience has shown that abortions, like drugs, simply get pushed to back alley deals and black market operations rather than truly being dealt with.
If you are pro-christian-values, I leave you with this bit of common sense: the government is not going to pass some magical law that makes everyone behave how you want, and agree with everything you believe. It never has happened and it never will happen. If you want to drive people away from your religion, strive for the passage of any law necessary... that is one sure way to turn people off to christianity.
There seems to be a disagreement between plenty in the politically active as to whether the United States is a Christian nation. In my opinion, this is not a productive debate to have, and here is why.
If this is a "Christian Nation", then passing laws forcing people to behave in a "christian" manner is unnecessary. People will voluntarily choose to live their lives in such a way if that is where their faith lies. If the U.S. is not a "Christian nation", passing laws will only lead to behavioral control efforts, and not a change in faith. Non-believers will be pushed away from christianity, since members of the church would be seeking to control them, rather than win over their minds and hearts.
So regardless of whether the United States is a christian nation, laws passed to promote christian values can only have negative effects, no positive. I'm sure there are some who would say that laws against murder are inspired by christian values... but that is also irrelevant. Murder, theft, and other acts of aggression are not solely christian issues, they are universal issues.
It is easily understandable why this debate evokes such passionate feelings. Some people want Christianity taught in schools and that sort of thing, while others don't want their kids being taught such things. Then there is abortion... but what people have to realize is the real problem is whenever government gets involved, you only have one way of doing things. Only in free markets can parents really choose what kind of education their child receives. So the solution to this problem is to get government out of education... that way some parents can send their kids to christian schools and others won't have to. Sure, christians teach religion outside of school, and it is very likely that non-believers who are forced to pay for schools teaching religion (and as a result can't afford to send their kids to any other school) will simply tell their kids that the religion aspects of their education are completely illogical and lack any real proof.
The same thing goes for abortions. Experience has shown that abortions, like drugs, simply get pushed to back alley deals and black market operations rather than truly being dealt with.
If you are pro-christian-values, I leave you with this bit of common sense: the government is not going to pass some magical law that makes everyone behave how you want, and agree with everything you believe. It never has happened and it never will happen. If you want to drive people away from your religion, strive for the passage of any law necessary... that is one sure way to turn people off to christianity.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Time For A New Social Contract
The social contract... some say a necessary bond between individuals in society in order to keep it running smoothly, others say a scam used to blind people to the violent reality of the state.
My perception of the social contract, perhaps due to government schooling, went as follows for most of my life:
whenever there is a threat to civil society, the people within it acknowledge that it is necessary to give up a portion of our rights to the government for their protection. This would mean that anyone arguing against the forfeiture of such rights inherently breaks the contract. For example: theft. We need policemen to prevent theft, hence we need the government to lay taxes to pay for policemen to prevent theft. Taxes paid represent freedom given up, prevention of theft represents the government's responsibility of taking care of the threat.
Wikipedia defines the social contract as follows: The social contract or political contract is an intellectual device intended to explain the appropriate relationship between individuals and their governments. Social contract arguments assert that individuals unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules and accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one another from violence and other kinds of harm.
Now that I am older, and versed in the philosophy of freedom, it is easy to see the problem here. Governments have to encroach on our rights in order to protect them. They must coerce tax funds for police and jails to imprison those who want to do us harm. But failure to pay for the police and prisons leads to imprisonment in itself. The contradiction is obvious.
If what we really want is the lack of aggression committed against peaceful people in any form, it is clear that we need a new social contract. Since applying a social contract to everyone has a variety of problems, most notably the fact that I do not know everyone else's preferences in society, it is necessary to design it to be universally accepted. But what do we know that everyone would agree to, without knowing them personally?
Like economics, there are self-evident facts about human life we can use to format our social contract around. First of all, nobody likes to be coerced to do anything. Everyone has their own goals they want to meet, their own special circumstances in life, etc. Everyone can only be in one place at one time. So right off the bat, the social contract must involve an acknowledgement that the use of force against each other in order to repel an external threat is out of the question. So if there is to be no giving up of liberties in order to obtain security, what remains? Clearly, the inverse of force is voluntarism. There must be an understanding between people that if crime is left unchecked, it eventually turns into a form of organized crime, whether it is a mafia, street gang, or dare I say a government.
Voluntary ways of dealing with crime may involve able individuals coming to assist others when they are being victimized; creating security products (cameras, offering time to act as guards, etc.), or perhaps using jury nullification when dealing with the government.
In my experience in spreading word of the voluntary philosophy to others, I have found that the most common objection to this is the idea that if it's voluntary, there is no guarantee it will happen. This ideology applied to the social contract is a reflection of shallow thinking. When "the people" give up their rights to the government in exchange for security, they COMPLETELY RUIN ANY CHANCE OF GETTING THE SECURITY THEY WANT. That is the catch. Allowing the government to threaten others with jail time for refusing to pay for prisons and police is an act of theft in and of itself... far greater than what any individual criminal could ever dream of achieving by the way. Not to mention the various problems of waste involved when services are provided on a coercive basis (the resources used to track down "tax cheats" and not real thieves, the inflated prices due to the income coming in on a forceful basis rather than a voluntary basis, etc.)
The New Social Contract Must Revolve Around Voluntarism For All.
My perception of the social contract, perhaps due to government schooling, went as follows for most of my life:
whenever there is a threat to civil society, the people within it acknowledge that it is necessary to give up a portion of our rights to the government for their protection. This would mean that anyone arguing against the forfeiture of such rights inherently breaks the contract. For example: theft. We need policemen to prevent theft, hence we need the government to lay taxes to pay for policemen to prevent theft. Taxes paid represent freedom given up, prevention of theft represents the government's responsibility of taking care of the threat.
Wikipedia defines the social contract as follows: The social contract or political contract is an intellectual device intended to explain the appropriate relationship between individuals and their governments. Social contract arguments assert that individuals unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules and accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one another from violence and other kinds of harm.
Now that I am older, and versed in the philosophy of freedom, it is easy to see the problem here. Governments have to encroach on our rights in order to protect them. They must coerce tax funds for police and jails to imprison those who want to do us harm. But failure to pay for the police and prisons leads to imprisonment in itself. The contradiction is obvious.
If what we really want is the lack of aggression committed against peaceful people in any form, it is clear that we need a new social contract. Since applying a social contract to everyone has a variety of problems, most notably the fact that I do not know everyone else's preferences in society, it is necessary to design it to be universally accepted. But what do we know that everyone would agree to, without knowing them personally?
Like economics, there are self-evident facts about human life we can use to format our social contract around. First of all, nobody likes to be coerced to do anything. Everyone has their own goals they want to meet, their own special circumstances in life, etc. Everyone can only be in one place at one time. So right off the bat, the social contract must involve an acknowledgement that the use of force against each other in order to repel an external threat is out of the question. So if there is to be no giving up of liberties in order to obtain security, what remains? Clearly, the inverse of force is voluntarism. There must be an understanding between people that if crime is left unchecked, it eventually turns into a form of organized crime, whether it is a mafia, street gang, or dare I say a government.
Voluntary ways of dealing with crime may involve able individuals coming to assist others when they are being victimized; creating security products (cameras, offering time to act as guards, etc.), or perhaps using jury nullification when dealing with the government.
In my experience in spreading word of the voluntary philosophy to others, I have found that the most common objection to this is the idea that if it's voluntary, there is no guarantee it will happen. This ideology applied to the social contract is a reflection of shallow thinking. When "the people" give up their rights to the government in exchange for security, they COMPLETELY RUIN ANY CHANCE OF GETTING THE SECURITY THEY WANT. That is the catch. Allowing the government to threaten others with jail time for refusing to pay for prisons and police is an act of theft in and of itself... far greater than what any individual criminal could ever dream of achieving by the way. Not to mention the various problems of waste involved when services are provided on a coercive basis (the resources used to track down "tax cheats" and not real thieves, the inflated prices due to the income coming in on a forceful basis rather than a voluntary basis, etc.)
The New Social Contract Must Revolve Around Voluntarism For All.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Capitalism is Socialism, Socialism is Capitalism
People do not refer to a dictionary every time they learn the meaning of a word... most words can be defined by looking at context in which they are used, and as a result, we have people using the same words with various different meanings. For the purposes of this article, let me define the terms Capitalism and Socialism, in order to make my point.
Capitalism - Capitalism occurs when the mean so of production are in private hands. In this system, the role of the state is to do whatever it must to protect private business from failure, and regulate as is deemed necessary.
Socialism - Socialism occurs when the means of production are commonly owned. The role of the state is to act as a conduit to enforce the public will in the production process.
From what I gather, these are the two most common definitions of these words. These two definition are virtually identical.
The role of the state under our definition of capitalism is to control business. The role of the state in our definition of socialism is to control production. Business and production are the same thing. Trade occurs in capitalism either to fulfill a production need or to consume a product. Obviously, under socialism, resources will still be sent back and forth in order to produce something for consumption. Again, capitalist business and Socialist production have the exact same meaning.
If the role of the state under capitalism is to regulate business and protect them from failure, does it matter that the means of production are privately owned? After all, to assume a position of regulating business as they see fit, the state assumes a position of control. Not to mention the position of deciding who is worth bailing out and who is not. As more and more regulations are written, and more and more state control is put on private business, the term private becomes a mere technicality. Ownership is about control. If the state operates businesses as they see fit, why not simply claim ownership and admit that they are the ones running things? Well, in America it's because the citizens wouldn't allow it, at least not yet.
Our definition of socialism already defines the state as the people in control. Sure, they claim to do what the people want, but have you seen the government's approval ratings lately? And who among us really knows anyways? Ron Paul could be the most popular politician in the country and lose every election he runs in because as private individuals, we don't know who everyone is voting for. It seems pretty clear the election process is not 100% honest... So I think it's pretty safe to assume the state will do whatever they want, regardless of what the people think under socialism...
If these two systems are the same, why the conflict? Well, my theory is that it gives people the illusion of choice. But these two systems are really not the same. There is little difference between a republican who says he thinks regulated free markets work and a democrat who wants to overhaul various sectors because free markets don't work. Neither of these people believe in free markets; both believe in central control.
The real confusion here exists because this is a poor definition of capitalism. Capitalism is not about regulating business and bailing out losers. In fact, that is what fascism is about. Capitalism is about letting people make decisions with their property freely, so long as they don't infringe on anyone else's property. As far as the role of the state goes, capitalism is not a system in the planning sense of the word. In a pure market, there is no central authority enforcing systematic decisions. There is only private property working in a constant flux to satisfy ends of people. Nobody is forced to give the state money for any service.
In a previous blog post I discussed customary law, if you think the state is needed to enforce private property rights, I suggest you study customary law.
So am I saying fascism and socialism are the same thing? Technically no, but operationally yes. Both systems are about state control of business (and both have lead to mass murder by the state, surprisingly socialism more than fascism. Joseph Stalin was more of a blood thirsty tyrant than Adolf Hitler). Under socialism, the state admits control by assuming direct ownership. Under fascism, control of the production means are left in "private" hands, while the state issues orders telling everyone what to do.
The lesson here: define your terms before you go around saying capitalism is bad because of the bailouts. Indeed, define your terms correctly before you go around saying you even live in a capitalist country.
---"Omnipotent Government" by Ludwig Von Mises is a great work regarding socialism and fascism---
Capitalism - Capitalism occurs when the mean so of production are in private hands. In this system, the role of the state is to do whatever it must to protect private business from failure, and regulate as is deemed necessary.
Socialism - Socialism occurs when the means of production are commonly owned. The role of the state is to act as a conduit to enforce the public will in the production process.
From what I gather, these are the two most common definitions of these words. These two definition are virtually identical.
The role of the state under our definition of capitalism is to control business. The role of the state in our definition of socialism is to control production. Business and production are the same thing. Trade occurs in capitalism either to fulfill a production need or to consume a product. Obviously, under socialism, resources will still be sent back and forth in order to produce something for consumption. Again, capitalist business and Socialist production have the exact same meaning.
If the role of the state under capitalism is to regulate business and protect them from failure, does it matter that the means of production are privately owned? After all, to assume a position of regulating business as they see fit, the state assumes a position of control. Not to mention the position of deciding who is worth bailing out and who is not. As more and more regulations are written, and more and more state control is put on private business, the term private becomes a mere technicality. Ownership is about control. If the state operates businesses as they see fit, why not simply claim ownership and admit that they are the ones running things? Well, in America it's because the citizens wouldn't allow it, at least not yet.
Our definition of socialism already defines the state as the people in control. Sure, they claim to do what the people want, but have you seen the government's approval ratings lately? And who among us really knows anyways? Ron Paul could be the most popular politician in the country and lose every election he runs in because as private individuals, we don't know who everyone is voting for. It seems pretty clear the election process is not 100% honest... So I think it's pretty safe to assume the state will do whatever they want, regardless of what the people think under socialism...
If these two systems are the same, why the conflict? Well, my theory is that it gives people the illusion of choice. But these two systems are really not the same. There is little difference between a republican who says he thinks regulated free markets work and a democrat who wants to overhaul various sectors because free markets don't work. Neither of these people believe in free markets; both believe in central control.
The real confusion here exists because this is a poor definition of capitalism. Capitalism is not about regulating business and bailing out losers. In fact, that is what fascism is about. Capitalism is about letting people make decisions with their property freely, so long as they don't infringe on anyone else's property. As far as the role of the state goes, capitalism is not a system in the planning sense of the word. In a pure market, there is no central authority enforcing systematic decisions. There is only private property working in a constant flux to satisfy ends of people. Nobody is forced to give the state money for any service.
In a previous blog post I discussed customary law, if you think the state is needed to enforce private property rights, I suggest you study customary law.
So am I saying fascism and socialism are the same thing? Technically no, but operationally yes. Both systems are about state control of business (and both have lead to mass murder by the state, surprisingly socialism more than fascism. Joseph Stalin was more of a blood thirsty tyrant than Adolf Hitler). Under socialism, the state admits control by assuming direct ownership. Under fascism, control of the production means are left in "private" hands, while the state issues orders telling everyone what to do.
The lesson here: define your terms before you go around saying capitalism is bad because of the bailouts. Indeed, define your terms correctly before you go around saying you even live in a capitalist country.
---"Omnipotent Government" by Ludwig Von Mises is a great work regarding socialism and fascism---
Liberals, Conservatives, and Tension
Where does tension come from, and how does it build? Tension comes from conflict. No matter how big or small the conflict is, with every conflict comes an equal amount of tension. The "size" of the conflict depends on the level of importance the issue is to the parties involved. This is a subjective matter; if you don't think so, look at your partner's list of pet peeves. Most likely you will find something on that list that you think is completely irrelevant.
Escalating such tension is a simple matter. Leave the conflict unresolved and simply add more conflict than there was before. If your partner hates it when you leave your socks on the floor, getting your clean socks out of your dresser drawer and tossing them on the ground randomly is a great way to escalate the level of tension between the two of you. Not only did you not pick up the socks that were there before but you blatantly threw more socks on the ground for the sole purpose of making your partner angry.
I submit that this is what happens between Liberals and Conservatives. They are opposites who argue over the best way to use state power. When liberals are in power, they tell conservatives "not only are you not going to get your way, but you're going to be forced to do what we want for a while", and vice versa when the conservatives are in power. And every time one side wins, that pile of socks on the floor gets bigger and bigger. In fact, this level of tension has become so great that it is less and less common for a liberal and conservative to be friends. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but pay attention to level of tension every time you see a conservative and liberal debate the issues. Personal attacks seem to be inevitable.
And it's only going to get worse. Every "left wing" administration will bring in new "left wing" policies, and every "right wing" administration will bring in new "right wing" policies. The tea party and occupy protests make it clear that we have a divided country.
As a security guard, I have observed that when tension continuously builds between people, it will eventually release in the form of a fight. If I see tensions getting too high in my line of work, my job is to work to defuse such tensions so they are released before a fight happens. I'm not to simply wrangle people for fighting, but to prevent the fight all together. That way, the store I work for can keep its reputation, rather than having it be known as some poorly managed store where people go to fight.
It seems to me that the way to reduce the tensions between liberals and conservatives and to push for voluntary interactions. If liberals want to see people get free health care, they should network with each other to work on ways to accomplish free education and volunteer medical centers. If conservatives want to go out and police the world, they should network together to organize transportation and weapons and go be the heroes they think they are.
I realize that not every issue is this simple, but all that need be done to balance the budget and reduce tensions is to make things voluntary. What has been bankrupting the people in this land mass named the united states is the bailouts, wars, and domestic welfare programs. Well, if you think these big banks should stay operational despite what they have done, cut them a check. If you want to give people money who are struggling, cut them a check. If you want to pay some group of people to attack the government of some foreign country because you see the injustices being committed by them, cut them a check.
But recognize that 1) you have no right spending other people's money, and supporting the state doing it does not mean that you are not guilty of a form of theft and 2) if you want to get along with the people in this country, you have to let them decide for themselves what they support and what they don't, rather than supporting the state's "legitimacy" in making decisions for all of us, with our lives and with our money.
If we do not defuse the tension between these two major groups of people, we just may end up with a civil war like situation on our hands...
(Liberals and Conservatives are not the only political groups who feel tensions and get upset, but they are the most prevalent. This has not been intended to suggest that they are the only ones alienated by the state... as an anarchist, I'm sure you can appreciate my sincerity in that)
Escalating such tension is a simple matter. Leave the conflict unresolved and simply add more conflict than there was before. If your partner hates it when you leave your socks on the floor, getting your clean socks out of your dresser drawer and tossing them on the ground randomly is a great way to escalate the level of tension between the two of you. Not only did you not pick up the socks that were there before but you blatantly threw more socks on the ground for the sole purpose of making your partner angry.
I submit that this is what happens between Liberals and Conservatives. They are opposites who argue over the best way to use state power. When liberals are in power, they tell conservatives "not only are you not going to get your way, but you're going to be forced to do what we want for a while", and vice versa when the conservatives are in power. And every time one side wins, that pile of socks on the floor gets bigger and bigger. In fact, this level of tension has become so great that it is less and less common for a liberal and conservative to be friends. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but pay attention to level of tension every time you see a conservative and liberal debate the issues. Personal attacks seem to be inevitable.
And it's only going to get worse. Every "left wing" administration will bring in new "left wing" policies, and every "right wing" administration will bring in new "right wing" policies. The tea party and occupy protests make it clear that we have a divided country.
As a security guard, I have observed that when tension continuously builds between people, it will eventually release in the form of a fight. If I see tensions getting too high in my line of work, my job is to work to defuse such tensions so they are released before a fight happens. I'm not to simply wrangle people for fighting, but to prevent the fight all together. That way, the store I work for can keep its reputation, rather than having it be known as some poorly managed store where people go to fight.
It seems to me that the way to reduce the tensions between liberals and conservatives and to push for voluntary interactions. If liberals want to see people get free health care, they should network with each other to work on ways to accomplish free education and volunteer medical centers. If conservatives want to go out and police the world, they should network together to organize transportation and weapons and go be the heroes they think they are.
I realize that not every issue is this simple, but all that need be done to balance the budget and reduce tensions is to make things voluntary. What has been bankrupting the people in this land mass named the united states is the bailouts, wars, and domestic welfare programs. Well, if you think these big banks should stay operational despite what they have done, cut them a check. If you want to give people money who are struggling, cut them a check. If you want to pay some group of people to attack the government of some foreign country because you see the injustices being committed by them, cut them a check.
But recognize that 1) you have no right spending other people's money, and supporting the state doing it does not mean that you are not guilty of a form of theft and 2) if you want to get along with the people in this country, you have to let them decide for themselves what they support and what they don't, rather than supporting the state's "legitimacy" in making decisions for all of us, with our lives and with our money.
If we do not defuse the tension between these two major groups of people, we just may end up with a civil war like situation on our hands...
(Liberals and Conservatives are not the only political groups who feel tensions and get upset, but they are the most prevalent. This has not been intended to suggest that they are the only ones alienated by the state... as an anarchist, I'm sure you can appreciate my sincerity in that)
Sunday, January 15, 2012
In Defense of Praxeology as a Science
Praxeology is a study of Human Action based on the axiom of action and the axiom of argumentation. The axiom of action clearly states that man acts in order to fulfill some felt uneasiness; he acts to change the world around him so that it is more in tune with what he feels will make him happier. The axiom of argumentation states that since all people can argue, all people inherently assume a cause and effect world. Neither of these axioms can be denied without proving them. An attempt to prove that human action is not aimed at satisfying some purpose is in itself an action aimed at satisfying a purpose. If I tell you you can argue, and you claim you cannot argue, you are putting up an argument.
This science of human action uses deductive logic from these two axioms in order to explain economic phenomena. "Kris went to the store to buy milk because he wanted milk and did not have any at the time." In that sentence, we see "Kris" acting with a purpose... to get some milk. We can deduce that he wanted milk based on the deduction that if he did not want the milk, he would not have bought it. And finally, if he already had milk, there would have been no need to go out and buy some. This is a pretty simple example of deductions that can be made based on the axioms of action and argumentation, but unfortunately there are many out there who would deny their validity.
The scientific method, which is just a scholarly way to say "trial and error", is used in the natural sciences in order to explain the workings of inanimate objects. The idea is to gather information, form a hypothesis that explains how the object will react to different stimuli, and then test that hypothesis and record the results. A chemist might say to himself, "If I mix A B and C chemicals, X will be the reaction." Then he would proceed with his experiment and mix A B and C, and record the results. If he gets the predicted results, he will proceed to run tests until he is certain that all variables have been accounted for, and there is absolutely no dispute that X is the result every single time A B and C are mixed together. This method is absolutely invaluable when it comes to natural sciences.
But social sciences are much different. A B and C are inanimate chemicals that have no choice but to obey the laws of physics (or the universe if you will). Human beings are different. While it is true that as human beings, we have our own inherent nature specific to us, there is no evidence that humans will react in the same exact way when exposed to the same exact stimuli. For example, it used to be that "I will never read a book. Books are boring, and better suited to fix lop-sided couches and tables." but now days, it is much more likely the case that "if I have the time, I would love to read some more of the classics and maybe something on economics, philosophy, logic, epistemology, mathematics, physics, banking, history, or freedom."
A praxeologist, observing people as thinking and animate beings, would argue that perhaps "kris had simply knocked books before giving them a try, and was persuaded to read a couple books at some point, and has discovered he was wrong about them." whereas a natural scientist, looking at people as though they react to the same stimuli in the same way, would say "somehow Kris likes books now. maybe it was the change in his diet, or maybe when his bed time changed, or perhaps when he tried beer for the first time, he started liking books. We should run some field tests to see what happened."
As it applies to economics, the person applying natural science principles to economics might say: "In case of a depression, the State should take some of everyone's money through taxation and go to war, to fix the economy. After all, some statistics argue that World War II got the U.S. out of the Great Depression." (A praxeologist would say, in the case of a depression, that the State should not take this course of action. Instead, it should relax regulations and cut spending so that people can spend their own money, and production can be directed towards fulfilling people's demands.)
Rather than making the obvious economic arguments here, I'm going to take a different route. The main thing that exists with both methods, that is the "trial and error" method and the "deductions based on axioms" method is that they are both based strongly in logic. Logic is about making arguments in the following format: "if A then B." In the natural sciences, the equation put into words would read "If my hypothesis is correct, then the outcome will be the same every time." A praxeological equation put into words would read something like "If Kris wants to write a blog post then he will set time aside to write it."
But why are experiments not included in the praxeological method? That is simple. The logical statement that makes experimentation the best way to study the natural sciences runs as the following: "If all variables can be controlled, and all characteristics in the object(s) under study can be known, never change then I should be able to determine how the object(s) will react to any given stimuli in every instance." With human beings - "all variables cannot be controlled, all characteristics change and cannot be known, therefore I should NOT be able to determine how they will react to a given stimuli in every instance."
The variables are endless; how clean was the air you breathed today? What have you thought about from the beginning of the day through now? What did you eat for breakfast and in what quantity? What time did you take your shower? Did you happen to see anything that would make you change your mind about jumping in front of a bus in order to save that squirrel? As it applies to economics, the necessary data is neither observable or quantifiable: "How bad do you want that glass of water? Would you rather have that five dollar bill, or that glass of water? Would you make the same decision if you were in the desert about to die of thirst? What would you pay for oxygen? Would say the same if you were on a shuttle in outer space, and oxygen was running low? Of course, therefore, this methodology is not justified to apply to human beings.
But what makes deductions from the axioms of argumentation and action a justified method? As stated above, every action is purposeful, and that purpose is to relieve one's uneasiness. "Yes, I wanted a glass of water, but then I discovered they also have Pepsi." <-- Here it must have been the case that new information changed my mind. My aim, however, never changed. I simply decided that Pepsi would remove more uneasiness I had than water.
The praxeological may be limited, since we assume (or I would say admit) that there are no constants in human actions or desires, but at least praxeology has with it the logic of admitting this truth. Those who want to use the scientific method to conduct social science are at a loss, since they approach the situation assuming that knowledge about how everyone will act and react and what their desires are can be quantified, measured, and used to conduct social engineering. This is precisely what F.A. Hayek referred to as "The Pretense of Knowledge." The humble scientist who is willing to admit that since there are no constants pertaining to the subject under study, such a methodology will only lead to mistakes. It is quite clear who the real scientist is... the person who is willing to admit there are limitations to we know when constants are non-existent.
If you are not convinced here, then by all means, use the trial-and-error method when conducting social science. But, keep in mind that in order to be honest with yourself, you should not propose any engineering until you have absolutely all the information you need, lest you want to make grave errors. If you are an honest natural scientist in this respect, you will never propose any sort of engineering, as you will never have all the information you need (since it is not quantifiable, and since it is literally always changing).
Thank You.
This science of human action uses deductive logic from these two axioms in order to explain economic phenomena. "Kris went to the store to buy milk because he wanted milk and did not have any at the time." In that sentence, we see "Kris" acting with a purpose... to get some milk. We can deduce that he wanted milk based on the deduction that if he did not want the milk, he would not have bought it. And finally, if he already had milk, there would have been no need to go out and buy some. This is a pretty simple example of deductions that can be made based on the axioms of action and argumentation, but unfortunately there are many out there who would deny their validity.
The scientific method, which is just a scholarly way to say "trial and error", is used in the natural sciences in order to explain the workings of inanimate objects. The idea is to gather information, form a hypothesis that explains how the object will react to different stimuli, and then test that hypothesis and record the results. A chemist might say to himself, "If I mix A B and C chemicals, X will be the reaction." Then he would proceed with his experiment and mix A B and C, and record the results. If he gets the predicted results, he will proceed to run tests until he is certain that all variables have been accounted for, and there is absolutely no dispute that X is the result every single time A B and C are mixed together. This method is absolutely invaluable when it comes to natural sciences.
But social sciences are much different. A B and C are inanimate chemicals that have no choice but to obey the laws of physics (or the universe if you will). Human beings are different. While it is true that as human beings, we have our own inherent nature specific to us, there is no evidence that humans will react in the same exact way when exposed to the same exact stimuli. For example, it used to be that "I will never read a book. Books are boring, and better suited to fix lop-sided couches and tables." but now days, it is much more likely the case that "if I have the time, I would love to read some more of the classics and maybe something on economics, philosophy, logic, epistemology, mathematics, physics, banking, history, or freedom."
A praxeologist, observing people as thinking and animate beings, would argue that perhaps "kris had simply knocked books before giving them a try, and was persuaded to read a couple books at some point, and has discovered he was wrong about them." whereas a natural scientist, looking at people as though they react to the same stimuli in the same way, would say "somehow Kris likes books now. maybe it was the change in his diet, or maybe when his bed time changed, or perhaps when he tried beer for the first time, he started liking books. We should run some field tests to see what happened."
As it applies to economics, the person applying natural science principles to economics might say: "In case of a depression, the State should take some of everyone's money through taxation and go to war, to fix the economy. After all, some statistics argue that World War II got the U.S. out of the Great Depression." (A praxeologist would say, in the case of a depression, that the State should not take this course of action. Instead, it should relax regulations and cut spending so that people can spend their own money, and production can be directed towards fulfilling people's demands.)
Rather than making the obvious economic arguments here, I'm going to take a different route. The main thing that exists with both methods, that is the "trial and error" method and the "deductions based on axioms" method is that they are both based strongly in logic. Logic is about making arguments in the following format: "if A then B." In the natural sciences, the equation put into words would read "If my hypothesis is correct, then the outcome will be the same every time." A praxeological equation put into words would read something like "If Kris wants to write a blog post then he will set time aside to write it."
But why are experiments not included in the praxeological method? That is simple. The logical statement that makes experimentation the best way to study the natural sciences runs as the following: "If all variables can be controlled, and all characteristics in the object(s) under study can be known, never change then I should be able to determine how the object(s) will react to any given stimuli in every instance." With human beings - "all variables cannot be controlled, all characteristics change and cannot be known, therefore I should NOT be able to determine how they will react to a given stimuli in every instance."
The variables are endless; how clean was the air you breathed today? What have you thought about from the beginning of the day through now? What did you eat for breakfast and in what quantity? What time did you take your shower? Did you happen to see anything that would make you change your mind about jumping in front of a bus in order to save that squirrel? As it applies to economics, the necessary data is neither observable or quantifiable: "How bad do you want that glass of water? Would you rather have that five dollar bill, or that glass of water? Would you make the same decision if you were in the desert about to die of thirst? What would you pay for oxygen? Would say the same if you were on a shuttle in outer space, and oxygen was running low? Of course, therefore, this methodology is not justified to apply to human beings.
But what makes deductions from the axioms of argumentation and action a justified method? As stated above, every action is purposeful, and that purpose is to relieve one's uneasiness. "Yes, I wanted a glass of water, but then I discovered they also have Pepsi." <-- Here it must have been the case that new information changed my mind. My aim, however, never changed. I simply decided that Pepsi would remove more uneasiness I had than water.
The praxeological may be limited, since we assume (or I would say admit) that there are no constants in human actions or desires, but at least praxeology has with it the logic of admitting this truth. Those who want to use the scientific method to conduct social science are at a loss, since they approach the situation assuming that knowledge about how everyone will act and react and what their desires are can be quantified, measured, and used to conduct social engineering. This is precisely what F.A. Hayek referred to as "The Pretense of Knowledge." The humble scientist who is willing to admit that since there are no constants pertaining to the subject under study, such a methodology will only lead to mistakes. It is quite clear who the real scientist is... the person who is willing to admit there are limitations to we know when constants are non-existent.
If you are not convinced here, then by all means, use the trial-and-error method when conducting social science. But, keep in mind that in order to be honest with yourself, you should not propose any engineering until you have absolutely all the information you need, lest you want to make grave errors. If you are an honest natural scientist in this respect, you will never propose any sort of engineering, as you will never have all the information you need (since it is not quantifiable, and since it is literally always changing).
Thank You.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
A Little Something To Consider About Jesus
At best I consider myself to be a Quaker. I believe there is goodness in each and every person, and following that goodness is a simple decision. But since the dominant religion in the United States is Christianity, and the story of Jesus, whether true or not true, holds an enormous value to me, here are my thoughts.
Statists tend to believe that "if only people were forced to do A, B, or C, we would live in a much better world than we do now." or perhaps even just "if only people did A, B, or C..." and then go on passively accepting legislation to make it happen. (ex: If only people paid a higher wage... well, I'm not for actively forcing people to pay a higher wage, but if the state should pass a law to make it happen, I will not interfere with it.)
What I don't understand is, why don't more people look to Jesus' example when it comes to force?
Disclaimer: Jesus' name has been introduced to justify just about any political idea one can think of, so what I am going to do here is present the audience with a few simple facts to make my case... and I think it's one that is hard to ignore.
Here is a list of some of the miracles performed by Jesus:
After all, if God is all powerful, why doesn't He just force us to do as he wishes? The answer is hopefully obvious at this point. That particular method of solving problems is wrong.
So, when it comes to advocating state intervention to solve problems, why don't more people follow Jesus' example and choose peaceful methods over the state?
I thought about writing this blog because I see a man who comes by my work every single day, telling people about how they need to find Jesus. This man had the nerve to tell me, when I suggested that Barack Obama likes to kill people (see the acknowledged innocents who are dying because of our drones) his response wasn't that "that's part of war" or some other cliche, but it was "if it spreads the gospel, it is justified."
In other words, he thinks that BLOWING PEOPLE UP IS JUSTIFIED IF IT SPREADS CHRISTIANITY!! Again, Jesus could have forced people to follow him without harming a soul and he chose not to... does anyone honestly believe He would have said "bomb people until they choose to follow me"? The problem is, I know this man is not the only "Christian" who thinks this way.
If Christianity is about saving souls, what is the point of blowing up people engaged in blasphemy? Blowing them up would not save their soul, it would damn them (and perhaps your own in the process). If Christians want to save souls, it is clear that they should use the power of persuasion/reason and not force, as religious beliefs cannot be forced on a man; and blowing up blasphemers destroys their chance for repentance. It simply makes no sense to use force to spread a religion of peace.
I just want to wrap this up by being clear: it is not my intention to make an enemy out of Christianity. I think there are very good things about the religion... the 10 commandments are great, the message of love that I take from it is invaluable. My intention is to question the strategy of using force to spread the gospel, and any other good for that matter, and question whether or not people who advocate using violence to spread the gospel ought to be considered Christians at all.
Statists tend to believe that "if only people were forced to do A, B, or C, we would live in a much better world than we do now." or perhaps even just "if only people did A, B, or C..." and then go on passively accepting legislation to make it happen. (ex: If only people paid a higher wage... well, I'm not for actively forcing people to pay a higher wage, but if the state should pass a law to make it happen, I will not interfere with it.)
What I don't understand is, why don't more people look to Jesus' example when it comes to force?
Disclaimer: Jesus' name has been introduced to justify just about any political idea one can think of, so what I am going to do here is present the audience with a few simple facts to make my case... and I think it's one that is hard to ignore.
Here is a list of some of the miracles performed by Jesus:
- Turning Water into Wine
- The miracle of draught of fishes
- The Feeding of the 5000 and of the 4000 men
- Walking on water
- Transfiguration of Jesus
- Calming the storm
- Finding a Coin in the fish's mouth
- The Cursing of the Fig Tree
- He knew he was going to be betrayed
- Raising of Lazarus
- His own Resurrection
After all, if God is all powerful, why doesn't He just force us to do as he wishes? The answer is hopefully obvious at this point. That particular method of solving problems is wrong.
So, when it comes to advocating state intervention to solve problems, why don't more people follow Jesus' example and choose peaceful methods over the state?
I thought about writing this blog because I see a man who comes by my work every single day, telling people about how they need to find Jesus. This man had the nerve to tell me, when I suggested that Barack Obama likes to kill people (see the acknowledged innocents who are dying because of our drones) his response wasn't that "that's part of war" or some other cliche, but it was "if it spreads the gospel, it is justified."
In other words, he thinks that BLOWING PEOPLE UP IS JUSTIFIED IF IT SPREADS CHRISTIANITY!! Again, Jesus could have forced people to follow him without harming a soul and he chose not to... does anyone honestly believe He would have said "bomb people until they choose to follow me"? The problem is, I know this man is not the only "Christian" who thinks this way.
If Christianity is about saving souls, what is the point of blowing up people engaged in blasphemy? Blowing them up would not save their soul, it would damn them (and perhaps your own in the process). If Christians want to save souls, it is clear that they should use the power of persuasion/reason and not force, as religious beliefs cannot be forced on a man; and blowing up blasphemers destroys their chance for repentance. It simply makes no sense to use force to spread a religion of peace.
I just want to wrap this up by being clear: it is not my intention to make an enemy out of Christianity. I think there are very good things about the religion... the 10 commandments are great, the message of love that I take from it is invaluable. My intention is to question the strategy of using force to spread the gospel, and any other good for that matter, and question whether or not people who advocate using violence to spread the gospel ought to be considered Christians at all.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Why Limited Government Inevitably Grows
Since we are in a minority, I don't make it a hobby of arguing with other libertarians, but I feel this is something I must share.
The concept of limited government in libertarianism is the philosophy that Government should be limited to the protection of private property. Assuming that this is possible while at the same time collecting taxes, this system of government will inevitably grow in the long run, and here is why.
Austrian economists and other philosophical libertarians often make the case that the state doesn't produce anything of any value. This is not entirely accurate. What the state provides is the feeling of security, or anxiety relief, seemingly regardless of its excessive failure in reality. After all, the product is in the eye of the consumer. (This analysis leaves out the people who support statism simply in order to make money through subsidy or some other form of state preference)
The feeling of anxiety can be seen in every little thing the state does. "who will protect us from criminals?" "who will provide retirement when I'm too old to work?" "who will see to it the elderly and poor receive medical care?" "drugs will run rampant if the state does not outlaw them!" and you can do this with literally every other service the state provides...
Logically it follows that those who say "who will protect private property if not the state" are consuming the exact same product as the person who says "who will protect the sanctity of marriage if not the state." Both people are consumers of anxiety relief. And we can see this with the unofficial axioms that have come about when describing state action. "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away" - It is most likely the case that people who use this phrase still support the state to provide security. Or, even after shown all the data as to why the war on drugs will always be a failure, the state is still supported in its prohibition efforts. Or, despite the TSA's constant failures at its own tests when it comes to screening for weapons at the airport, the state is still seen as the best source of airport security; even despite the fact they were in charge of security on 9/11/01.
Any government limited to helping people overcome the anxiety that someone might infringe on their property rights will inevitably fine some other issue people have anxiety about and work to relieve it from that source. The product is not the protection of private property, it is anxiety relief... and the list of things that gives us anxiety when we think about them hard enough is probably endless. While it is true that this is not enough to suggest the libertarian in question would support state growth to protect against all sources of anxiety, it is inevitable that the agency of the state will keep pressing different issues until support for its expansion is gained; and since it's all the same product, the libertarian in question would be somewhat at a loss to tell others the state power is ok for his purposes, but not for theirs.
If this is you, seeking anxiety relief, take the time to look past your anxiety and imagine alternatives to the obvious failures of the state. An institution that thrives from coercing you cannot possibly protect you. The feeling of anxiety relief, or security, is nowhere near as good a product as security in reality.
The concept of limited government in libertarianism is the philosophy that Government should be limited to the protection of private property. Assuming that this is possible while at the same time collecting taxes, this system of government will inevitably grow in the long run, and here is why.
Austrian economists and other philosophical libertarians often make the case that the state doesn't produce anything of any value. This is not entirely accurate. What the state provides is the feeling of security, or anxiety relief, seemingly regardless of its excessive failure in reality. After all, the product is in the eye of the consumer. (This analysis leaves out the people who support statism simply in order to make money through subsidy or some other form of state preference)
The feeling of anxiety can be seen in every little thing the state does. "who will protect us from criminals?" "who will provide retirement when I'm too old to work?" "who will see to it the elderly and poor receive medical care?" "drugs will run rampant if the state does not outlaw them!" and you can do this with literally every other service the state provides...
Logically it follows that those who say "who will protect private property if not the state" are consuming the exact same product as the person who says "who will protect the sanctity of marriage if not the state." Both people are consumers of anxiety relief. And we can see this with the unofficial axioms that have come about when describing state action. "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away" - It is most likely the case that people who use this phrase still support the state to provide security. Or, even after shown all the data as to why the war on drugs will always be a failure, the state is still supported in its prohibition efforts. Or, despite the TSA's constant failures at its own tests when it comes to screening for weapons at the airport, the state is still seen as the best source of airport security; even despite the fact they were in charge of security on 9/11/01.
Any government limited to helping people overcome the anxiety that someone might infringe on their property rights will inevitably fine some other issue people have anxiety about and work to relieve it from that source. The product is not the protection of private property, it is anxiety relief... and the list of things that gives us anxiety when we think about them hard enough is probably endless. While it is true that this is not enough to suggest the libertarian in question would support state growth to protect against all sources of anxiety, it is inevitable that the agency of the state will keep pressing different issues until support for its expansion is gained; and since it's all the same product, the libertarian in question would be somewhat at a loss to tell others the state power is ok for his purposes, but not for theirs.
If this is you, seeking anxiety relief, take the time to look past your anxiety and imagine alternatives to the obvious failures of the state. An institution that thrives from coercing you cannot possibly protect you. The feeling of anxiety relief, or security, is nowhere near as good a product as security in reality.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Open letter to Occupy Wall Street
Perhaps the biggest reason I take issue with the idea that any of you speak for me is this ludicrous list of demands that you claim 99% are in favor of. From what I can gather, you simply want the state to solve all your problems. A living wage... a trillion dollars for this or that, debt forgiveness, free college, extended union rights, rights based on gender or race... you know the list. The only thing you do propose that I am in agreement with is your proposal for open borders.
If you truly want living standards to raise in this country, then from my point of view, you should want more investment in capital goods. If you want wage rates to raise, again, more investment, since investment capital is used to pay for wages during the production process prior to the consumer good hitting the market. The only way for an economy to grow is through savings and investment; that is the reality of living in a world of scarcity. Forgoing consumption in the present in order to invest in tools (capital goods) that make production of consumer demands quicker and easier. All this government manipulation of the market place will only make us all impoverished in the long run. Hence, if you really want the end to fossil fuels, you should be investing in alternatives and refusing to use fossil fuels. I wonder how many people out there who hate oil have actually refused to use it? I wonder how many people out there who think cars are causing global warming or climate change, and constantly complain about their existence, have stopped using cars themselves?
Why? because everything the government does is through force. Any proposal for a "living wage" neglects the very purpose of the pricing system to begin with. Housing, cars, healthcare, and every other good out there, does not come out of thin air. Labor, mixed with land and capital, is needed for it all. This is because we live in a world of scarcity. The affect of a living wage would simply be widespread unemployment and a situation in which big business has even more of a strangle hold on everyone else, since they would be the only ones capable of paying this living wage, and after all, not everyone can work for big business.
Rather than going through your complete list of demands, and how most of it would go a long way towards wrecking our economy and making everyone poor, I will finish off by a discussion of justice. I wanted to be a police officer once, but then I realized that all the government is is a monopoly of force in a given geographic area, marked by political borders. It's not that the government wants to end injustice, it wants a monopoly on injustice. Their theft is called taxation, their murders are called wars, their blackmail is called regulation, you get the picture. Why would anyone want to work for an entity that survives by stealing money from people who have done no wrong? This is what the mafia does... yet when the state does it, it is just. Taxes are supposed to be just a part of life, getting licenses to do anything you want to do is just another part i suppose... but my question is, where is the justice in having government in the form of a state? (state meaning a monopoly of force) What would you say if the people stopping you from driving too fast did not wear a uniform and have a badge on their chest? If the tax collector did not work for the state, what would separate that person from any other extortionist? If I cannot go to my neighbor's house and demand at gun point that he pay for my college debt, or to my boss and demand that he pay me my arbitrary estimate of a living wage, why should a person claiming to be a member of the state be able to do it??
If you can't tell by now, I am an anarchist. I do not believe the state is capable of providing justice since it thrives on committing injustices. And here you are, claiming to represent me and my voice, asking the state to inflict society with whatever injustices needed to get you what you want. Unfortunately for all of you who support the OWS list of demands, natural law cannot be repealed. Justice will be served. If, like a robber in the night, you wish to survive by inflicting injustices on everyone in society, whether it's to force them to pay for your debts or to extort money from your bosses, etc., the result will be more impoverishment. If force is your tool, in my point of view you do not deserve to attain your goals, and basic economics proves that you will not. Socialism doesn't work because the state in reality is not god. It has no possible way of turning the qualitative reality of human existence into quantitative measurements, let alone implementing a plan to keep up with the constant changes in human demands. That is to say nothing about building higher productivity through savings and investment. A society, like ours, that spends all its money on consumer goods, cannot possibly hope to develop the necessary capital goods required for the expansion of an economy. Socialism is by definition the elimination of such capital.
So please, don't claim to represent me. I am but a security guard, barely making enough money to attain subsistence. But I don't support your goals, because I find them to be evil in nature, acts of gross injustice, and quite frankly, a contradiction in their own terms. Using state power to obtain better living standards is akin to burning your home in order to maintain shelter.
***I realize not everyone in the OWS movement agrees with the list of demands, indeed there are those in the movement who are anarchists like myself... this is directed towards those who want the government to step in and control everything for them. Please do everyone a favor and at least read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises before claiming to represent 99% and thinking the state can solve all your problems***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)