Categories
life National

Libertarianism


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Early in my political study I flirted with the ideas of libertarianism. I was highly disenchanted with the Republicans and skeptical of the chances that the Democrats could right their party which, at the time, lacked a specific direction. I had taken the worlds smallest political quiz and though my score varied at times I was consistently conservative on the economic scale so I was not a “Statist” (big government) but I had enough movement to score as a Republican, a Libertarian, or a Centrist. I have since concluded that part of the reason I scored as a Libertarian at times is that the quiz is made by Libertarians and the questions are worded so that if you are borderline you are likely to score as a Libertarian.

So why do I bring up this old information? Because I was surprised to learn about some other people who have traveled a similar path of considering Libertarianism. The difference is that Scott is much more articulate in stating Why I Am Not a Pure Libertarian. I think the explanation is beneficial for Libertarians or anyone who is exploring their own political leanings. (This also explains why I agree with Scott such a high percentage of the time.)

Categories
General

Economies of Scale


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

This news is disturbing but hardly surprising – our existing entitlement programs are unsustainable in the long term. The more I think about it the more I realize that this is like a lesson I learned as a child about ants. There’s an old movie that depicts 25-foot tall ants attacking people. What I learned as a child was that ants could not exist at that scale.

Ants at their existing scale are extremely strong. They can carry many times their body weight with their little exoskeletal bodies. Ants at the scale depicted in the movie would collapse under their own weight. As it turns out, people are the same way. I remember watching a documentary on giants and one thing that really caught my attention is that they have extra health problems because of their size. In fact, their life expectancy is decades shorter society as a whole because their organs tend to fail trying to maintain bodies that are larger than human organs are meant to support.

What I am realizing now is that the same principles of scale hold true for governments as well. Large, intrusive governments are unsustainable over time. The larger a government is, meaning the more it tries to do for citizens, the shorter it can remain stable. Either it must be scaled back or it will collapse. In our case we are staring at the possibility of economic collapse, but sometimes the collapse is a societal collapse.

If you want more proof that there exists a natural law of scale just remember that all the largest elements that have been “discovered” in the last few decades have actually been manufactured in labs. Without exception they rapidly decay into smaller elements because atoms larger than Uranium (weight 238 au) are not sustainable.

Categories
culture

The Law of Abundance


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I have thought for a long time about the basic premise of capitalism and economics. Thanks to the discussion on Wealth is Always Distributed I have decided to write down my thoughts on the subject.

Economics are based on the assumption of scarcity. My observations lead me to believe that the only real scarcity is a scarcity of effort, and a scarcity of time. Even when we consider those two scarcities we do not actually have any shortage of resources with which to meet our needs as a society.

This thinking has led me to what I call the Law of Abundance. This law is illustrated in Each Little Bit Helps from last year. I think the law could be stated that we could accomplish anything (besides defying the laws of physics) if people would just get in and help make things happen without asking the questions of scarcity – Is it going to be fair? Will I get paid for my work? How much will it cost? The only question that is asked under the law of abundance is – Should this be done? Once that question is answered then the work moves forward. Questions of efficiency (such as maximizing profits) are laid aside (although answers about efficient means are still welcome).

I admit that this law of abundance is not very useful on an individual, day-to-day scale. As an individual I have to eat and provide for my family so I am not always free to just jump in and do things without regard to what’s in it for me. I am very interested in the development of my community, but unless someone can pay me for it I can’t devote all my time to those efforts – I must still remain gainfully employed. (I’m lucky enough to enjoy my gainful employment but that is not the topic of this post.)

Where the law of abundance works is things like feeding the hungry and clothing the naked. When we operate under this law of abundance we do not let fields lay fallow in order to receive a government subsidy or prop up the price of the crop we could have been producing. Instead we produce the crop and get it into the hands of those who need it. In essence, production becomes more important than profit. We do not avoid hard work so long as the work has value. We would rather have grain rotting in bins than stomaches rotting with hunger while there is any way to provide food.

We often see an attitude similar to this during times of crisis when people pull out all the stops and just make things happen without prejudice, favoritism, or concern for financial repercussions. I argue that we should operate in this mindset more – always where possible. The key is to make sure that we are careful about getting the right answer to the “should it be done” question.

Categories
culture

Think Globally; Act Locally


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I think that the idea of “think globally, act locally” (TGAL) points us in the wrong direction. If I base my local actions on what is best for everyone globally it leads to uninformed decisions because I have a very limited knowledge or control over the global repercussions of my actions. No matter how much I study I cannot fully understand the situation, needs, motivations, and perceptions of others. The further they are from me, the more built in error to my decisions. And no matter how good my understanding I have no control over the actions of those other global people.

I think that the world would be better served if we were to practice “plan for the future, act in the present.” There are still many elements that I cannot control or know about the future, but my thoughts and actions are now entirely focused on those things which are my responsibility. I also believe that this attitude would encompass those aspects of TGAL which are beneficial. If I think of my future I will do those things which are beneficial to others where that may have a positive impact on my future.

Interestingly, after I started this post I received a link to a book on economics that seems to suggest that one of the causes for bad economics is thinking of the present but not the future.

Categories
culture

Wealth is Always Distributed


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I’ve been thinking about the whole distribution of wealth thing and I begin to wonder if it is really a problem. What happens when Alex Rodriguez gets paid $25 million dollars a year? (I pick him because I know his salary)

I have heard arguments that if we tax the rich too heavily they will not be motivated to compete – in my mind, there’s no difference between $25 million and $20 million a year – both are more than I can spend so why would I work harder to earn more money if I am already drowning in the stuff. Then I realized something – these guys probably learn really fast how to spend more money than I can imagine because they have it. If I’m making $2 million a month but I have managed to acquire $1.8 million a month in expenses and I can see another $400,000 a month that I could spend my money on, then I am going to be motivated to try to earn $2.2 million a month.

What I realized is that the very wealthy are spending large amounts of money and that money provides work for the rest of us. If someone buys a mink coat for $100,000 dollars I might say that no coat is worth that price, but where does that money go? It does not go into the fur – it goes into the economy. It arrives in the accounts of the store that sold the coat, but then it is used to pay bills, sales commissions, coat makers, mink farmers, mink food producers, etc. Someone will complain, “but they don’t spend all of it, some of that money goes to corporate profits.” Corporate profits are used to produce more goods, pay investors, or expand businesses. For those who want to argue that “investors” tend to be the already wealthy I reply that they are busy spending their money one way or the other. Those people who would hoard their wealth eventually die and pass it on. Somewhere down the line it will still get spent – and there’s no need to worry about the detrimental effect of hoarding – even if Bill Gates were to sit on all his Billions (as if most of his money were not already tied up in charitable causes) it would hardly even register on our national economy.

When someone argues that there is a problem with some people having more wealth than others they do so with an assumption that there is a limit to how much wealth is available. Even if that were true (and I’m not sure it is) that is only a problem if there is not enough wealth to provide for everyone. We all know very well that there is plenty of wealth available to meet the basic needs of our entire society with much to spare.

Wealth is not about cash, it is about cash flow – to be wealthy all you really need to do is flow less cash out than in. Because of the flowing nature of wealth we need not worry that someone else has it, all we have to do is find a way to the waters edge by producing something that others find valuable enough that they flow cash through us. In fact, the worst thing that could happen economically is to set up a system which gives some people incentive to not produce anything.