Interdisciplinary World

The Absurdity of "Fairness"

2009-07-13T17:36:00.003-05:00

What is a "fair" wage? When we ask that question, the real question should be "fair to whom"? It is always someone outside the interaction declaring that this or that wage is or isn't fair. But what is meant by fair? Is the same wage for different activities fair? A coal miner should make the same money as a checkout person at Walmart? If it is not absolute equality, then how do you determine what is "fair"? Is $35/hour to mine coal fair, but $10/hr (or $1000/hr) unfair? How about $20/hr? Let's say you agree that $20/hr is fair, but no lower than that . . . so $19.99/hr is unfair? That's nitpicking, you say? Well, how do you decide, then? It boils down to an arbitrary decision. And it is, of course. That's why only those parties directly involved in the decision should be a party to that decision -- the worker (and perhaps his union) and the employer. The worker knows what his own labor is worth, what he is willing to work for, and the employer also knows what he is willing to pay to get that work done, with the pool of workers available. Those who wish to step in, who are not party to the contract being written, are essentially telling the worker that he's too stupid to know what's good for him, that he's treating HIMSELF unfairly. Can one treat oneself unfairly or unjustly? That's absurd on the face of it.

Of course, there are those who will argue that the employer is being unfair or unjust and is exploiting the worker. So offer the worker something better yourself. Give the worker options, rather than taking options away from him. If you really cared about "fair wages," you would start up a company and hire people at that wage. Or do you think you can get something more -- more money, more power -- by using government?

Brain is Self-Organized Critical

2009-07-13T12:34:00.004-05:00

Not that I'm surprised . . . but we now have actual evidence that the brain works on the edge of chaos, known as self-organized criticality. A healthy cell is in this realm. A healthy organism is in this realm. A healthy brain is in this realm. So is, I suspect, a healthy ecosystem, culture, society, and economy. If this is true, then the best we can say about interventions into the economy is that the results will be completely unpredictable. If a politician or economist says that this or that law will have a certain effect, they are either delusional, at best, or liars, at worst. Attempts to order it are attempts to get it away from this delicate state on the edge of order and chaos where creativity occurs. Interventions thus either kill an economy by throwing it into true chaos, eliminate creativity by crystalizing it, or throw the system into wild fluctuations, boom-bust cycles.

But, to get back to the brain . . . what this says about creativity is that it truly is random. One just has to be prepared to catch what comes when it does. That's the difference between everyone else and the artistic genius -- the latter is always prepared to catch what comes to mind.

Looks like creativity in a brain and creativity in an economy are the same thing.

Consider, for example, the following quote: "It might seem precarious to have a brain that plunges randomly into periods of instability, but the disorder is actually essential to the brain's ability to transmit information and solve problems." Now consider this rewrite: "It might seem precarious to have an economy that plunges randomly into periods of instability, but the disorder is actually essential to the economy's ability to transmit information and solve problems." In fact, one could rewrite the entire article, replacing "brain" with "economy", and you would almost have a perfect description of a healthy economy.

Is an Economics Degree in My Future?

2009-07-11T18:58:00.003-05:00

So, I'm thinking about going to George Mason University and getting a graduate degree in Economics. They allow you to concentrate on the Austrians. They have a really interesting program, with classes on the history of economics, institutional economics, philosophy of economics, etc. WIth most economics programs unfortunately focusing on econometrics -- that is, economics as a field of mathematics -- it is refreshing to know there is a program out there that actually deals with the economy as a complex system. Using the simplest methods (math) to understand a highly complex system doesn't work. It results in stupid decisions and stupid ideas, for the most part. Math overly simplifies things, and oversimplification is what has caused most of our economics messes throughout the world, throughout history. Socialism was an attempt to mathematize/scientize the economy, and econometrics approaches are mostly evidence that we didn't learn the lessons of history. GMU is a place where the full range of economics is still studied. Math has its place, of course -- just just is a tiny, tiny, tiny corner of economics.

So, what does everyone think of me going to GMU to get a graduate degree in economics?

Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation

2009-07-09T11:06:00.002-05:00

As David Books notes in a New York Times Op-Ed, there is a correlation between the rules by which one lives and one's moral behavior, as exemplified by George Washington's Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation. Indeed, the best way for one to learn ethical behavior is by first learning etiquette. This culture has certainly dropped the ball on that one. Virtue and liberty are two sides of the same coin. We too often forget that.

Happy 4th

2009-07-04T00:32:00.002-05:00

Happy Birthday, America! Once the p[romise of economic liberty, civil liberty, and political liberty -- free market capitalism, a liberal society, and a constitutional democratic republic -- I hope one day you realize that promise, that we get you back on the path to truth, justice, and virtue. May the USA become beautiful!

Life

2009-07-04T00:21:00.002-05:00

I just bought David Hare's play "The Verticle Hour." In it there is a character named "Dennis Dutton" -- you cannot tell me that is an accident, especially considering his political ideology -- who is arguing with his political science professor. In their discussion, she accuses him of being a capitalist. He responses that he doesn't like the word "capitalism." When asked what word he would prefer for the system he prefers, he answers: Life.

I love that, because that is exactly what it is. YOu can choose vibrant life, sick life, or terminal illness leading to death: a liberal spontaneous order economic system (free market), various interventionisms and welfare states, or socialism. Friederich von Hayek says that fascism is what you get when socialism proves a failure. Fascism: the final death throes after the terminal illness of socialism.

My New Op-Ed on Education

2009-06-26T11:08:00.003-05:00

I have a new op-ed in the Dallas Morning News on education. In it I propose that not everyone should go to college, and that an academic education isn't for everyone. Should be fun to see the fallout to this one.

Beauty and Desecration

2009-06-25T23:50:00.000-05:00

Roger Scruton on beauty.

Kropotkin and Obama

2009-06-22T22:27:00.002-05:00

In "The Conquest of Bread," anarcho-communist Petr Kropotkin, argued that one positive development in the right direction would be: "Trade-unionism, with a growing tendency towards organizing the different trades internationally, and of being not only an instrument for the improvement of the conditions of labour, but also of becoming an organization which might, at a given moment, take into its hands the management of production". Much like what Obama did with GM and Chrysler. Kropotkin admits "Of course, none of these may, in any degree, be taken as a substitute for Communism, or even for Socialism," but that such would be a move in the right direction.

What I have read by Kropotkin so far shows him to have some very rose-colored glasses when it comes to his pro-socialist understanding of both human nature and history. And it's downright laughable after you're read Hayek's takedown of economic planning.

Complex Systems -- Healthy and Unhealthy

2009-06-22T21:32:00.003-05:00

Here is an article that makes an interesting argument: that there may be things too complex to exist. I'm not so sure about that. However, that does not mean the author does not have some valid points. At the same time, he misses the main point, which is that the problem may not be that of being too complex, but of the system being improperly structured.

We have seen the issue of "too big to fail" raised in this current depression. The response has been to keep the big guys afloat and create a situation where even more companies will get even larger from absorbing many more small ones. This will only exacerbate the problem in the future. In fact, if we continue to push for ever-larger, ever-fewer companies in the world, we should expect a truly catastrophic collapse in the near future. The author generally agrees with this assessment, and pushed for smaller firms. However, the answer isn't just smaller firms for the sake of smaller firms. A healthy economy is a healthy self-organizing system, and systems self-organize when they obey power law distributions. In other words, big companies per se aren't necessarily the problem -- the number of big companies is the problem. In a healthy economy, one would expect firm size to be on a power law distribution. The second largest employer should be half the size of the largest employer, the third largest a third of its size, etc. More, there should be very few large employers, a medium number of medium-sized ones, and many, many small companies. The same should also be true of profits -- or whatever measure you want to use. We can take a look at the auto industry as an example of an unhealthy industry -- in the U.S. there are three companies, the Big Three, and that is all. Talk about improper distribution! If the government were going to intervene, they should have broken GM and Chrysler into smaller companies based on model. That would have gone a long way to creating a power law distribution of car companies in this country. More, it would open up the industry so that new companies could actually come into existence. The lack of new companies for this many decades now shows how unhealthy the industry has been for a long time. The presence of many companies doing the same thing also creates redundancy, which is also an indication of a healthy natural system. The socialist/engineering attitude or removing redundancy actually creates the kind of situation we are in. This is one of the main problems of monopoly -- whether private or government. With high redundancy, you don't end up with catastrophic failure, because there are so many other pathways information can follow. The problem, then, is bottlenecks, which should always be avoided in a self-organizing system. Regulations too often create bottlenecks. We need to find those that do, and get rid of them.

The bottom line is that the author is wrong insofar as he is arguing that our economy is too complex. It's not. It's unhealthy. Primarily because of legislation and regulations which create bottlenecks, give false information, prevent knowledge, and favor the creation of megacorporations. WIth the right rules, one will get a healthy system of very, very high complexity.

What Kind of Reform Would This Bring?

2009-06-20T14:35:00.003-05:00

Here's an idea for a petition that would see just how keen Congress members become about government-run health care:

“I, the undersigned citizen of the United States of America, petition the U.S. Congress to pass legislation ensuring that both the President and Congress will receive only the worst care that any government-provided health care and insurance provides, to ensure that the citizens will receive only the best overall system of care and insurance.”

I think there should be a law that states that all laws must apply equally to everyone, including those in government. I think this is a way of actually ensuring that.

Teaching Teachers Not to Teach on TV (Sort Of)

2009-06-18T17:04:00.002-05:00

Just learned that my article which appeared in the Dallas Morning News also appeared on the WFAA website.

A Few Addenda to Diaphysics

2009-06-17T23:03:00.002-05:00

Energy self-organized into atoms. Atoms self-organized into molecules. Organic molecules self-organized into cells. Cells self-organized into organisms. Organisms self-organized into ecosystems. Neurons self-organized into minds. Humans self-organized into democratic governments, economies, societies, and cultures. Order and complexity comes about in nature from the bottom-up, through self-organization, changing over time through evolutionary processes.

What do you not see? Top-down organization. There is no orderer needed to get any of these things. More, the evidence strongly suggests that an orderer only interferes with the spontaneous orders. Thus, disrupted, they break down and can even die.

Those who believe in creationism believe in top-down organization of the universe.

Those who believe in intelligent design believe in top-down organization of life.

Those who believe in a soul that exists prior to the existence of the body believe in top-down organization of the mind/soul.

Those who believe in socialism (no matter what kind) believe in top-down organization of the government, economy, society, and culture.

In other words, there is no actual difference between a creationist and a socialist when it comes to understanding the fundamental nature of things. You cannot pick and choose which things you want to be spontaneous orders.

Diaphysics Available!

2009-06-15T17:45:00.002-05:00

Well, Diaphysics is now officially out. Everyone should now drop everything they are doing and go out and buy copies for themselves and everyone they know!

More Capitalism In Our Schools

2009-06-12T15:57:00.003-05:00

In an article on the recent decision in New York to pay students for making good grades, Glenn Beck argues this is a bad idea. To be honest, I once thought this was a bad idea, but I have changed my mind about it, at least when it comes to payment for good grades (I still agree with myself on paying for tutoring). Beck's main argument is that we shouldn't be paying students because free education is a gift. If only things were that simple. I happen to think education is a gift -- but only when it is free to take it or leave it. We thus shouldn't be paying college students to make good grades, for example. But with pre-college public education, people are forced by law to be there. For people like me, this isn't an issue, because I loved learning. However, I know plenty of people who think of the gift of education as a gift of a rattlesnake. Worse, there is someone there with a shotgun telling you that if you don't take the rattlesnake, they will shoot you in the head. An extreme analogy, perhaps, but I think it makes the point. For such students, some sort of incentive is absolutely necessary. Money works. More, contra Beck's belief, it will in fact teach students to appreciate capitalism more, as they will learn about earning money -- something too many young people know nothing about. Thus, it really is analogous to giving your children an allowance -- something I will certainly be doing with my child. All in all, Stu is right, and Beck is wrong on this.

In the end, society is better off with an educated populace. If this will do it, let's do it. If it applies to everyone, there's not a problem. You would be surprised at how rapidly sutdent IQ's will rise when they have incentives to learn. Also, it would be a nice way to get back a little tax money.

Leftist Extremist Attacks Holocaust Museum

2009-06-11T21:39:00.003-05:00

Naturally, the Left in this country is blaming conservatives for the attack this week on the Holocaust Museum. But there is a problem with this. The man who did it is a racist and, more, a Nazi. Now, racism is a kind of collectivism. And Nazis are National Socialists, and socialism is also a form of collectivism. The distinguishing feature of the Left is their collectivism -- in particular, they are socialists. So really, we should be blaming the far Left for the attack on the Holocaust Museum, as fascism is the natural result of socialism, and racism is a form of collectivism. The Right? Well, American conservatives really aren't on the Right. At least, not fully so. Economically, at least, many are classical liberals (too many are Keynesians, which pushes them toward the "center"). The Right were histprically royalists, and there aren't many of them in the U.S. Except on the Left, that is. So let us be honest and truthful about this incident: it was an attack perpetuated by someone on the racist far Left. That IS the definition of a Nazi, after all.

Barney Frank Is an Idiot

2009-06-11T19:43:00.003-05:00

Why do we have to be inflicted with the embarrassment that is Barney Frank by MA? Seriously. That moronic idiot (and I use these terms in the original Greek sense)is now demanding the federal government engage in wage controls because he claims that that is what caused this depression. Of course, anyone who knows anything about political economy knows it is primarily everything Frank ever supported in the realm of economics that caused this.

On the Road (to Serfdom)

2009-06-10T01:38:00.003-05:00

It's been a crazy week and a half. Last week, my wife's grandfather died, and we had to run down the the Valley to attend his funeral. He was buried Thursday, and Friday we left to drive to CA. Right now I am in Hermosa Beach, CA at a Liberty Fund colloquium on Hayek. Been very interesting so far. Especially with the way I've been thinking of using the idea of spontaneous order to explain artistic production. I've been encouraged to think about how to bring Hayekian ideas to life in literature. How to demonstrate the idea of spontaneous order in a play?

"Almost Ithaciad" Wins PIA Award

2009-06-02T20:55:00.002-05:00

"Almost Ithaciad" won the PIA Award! I am now the author of an award-winning play!

More Places to Buy Diaphysics

2009-05-31T20:38:00.002-05:00

Some new places to buy Diaphysics: Booktopia, Shop4.com and Books Nation.

Russians Warning Us Against Creeping Marxism

2009-05-31T20:36:00.002-05:00

Aside from the laughable claims about the Russian people not rolling over passively under Marxism, this author at Pravda does make some interesting observations regarding America. We should listen.

My Debut as a Playwright

2009-05-31T00:33:00.004-05:00

Last night was my debut as a playwright with "Almost Ithacaiad." It was part of Cyberfest, and was reviewed by The Examiner. I think it was a good review overall. I wish he had been able to review tonight's (Saturday) performance (it showed last night and tonight), because the actors for my play really rose to the occasion tonight. It's really something to see others bring your words to life.

The Slow Creep of Socialism, Starting With GM

2009-05-29T18:30:00.001-05:00

The federal government just announced it will own about 70% of GM. For all intents and purposes, that's nationalization. GM will be run by the federal government. Now, GM is dependent upon all sorts of resources. Suppose, to get GM back on its feet, the bureaucrat in charge decides GM needs to sell cheaper cars. What is a good way to get cheaper cars? Cheaper materials. If GM cannot get steel for the price desired, what will it do? Since it a government company, it can rather insist on lower prices for steel. Perhaps threaten. Or perhaps find a steel company and nationalize it so that it can make steel at the cheaper price (how can it make steel at a cheeper price? subsidies, of course), or even open up its own steel company to make steel at subsidized prices, which, being cheaper, will drop the price of steel and drive out competitors, creating a government monopoly on steel (which is essentially nationalization of the industry). The government would then be able to determine who gets steel and who does not. But now, to cut the price of steel, we need cheaper iron and coal . . . you see where this is going?

Why Background Is Irrelevant

2009-05-28T20:35:00.003-05:00

With the nomination of Sotomayor, we have heard many Hispanics saying they are thrilled at her nomination because she will give Hispanics a "voice" on the Supreme Court. Comments such as this are about as evil as one can imagine in a complex, advanced civilization such ours, so deeply rooted in the worst aspects of tribalist thinking as they are. I don't need poor, Southern white men on the Supreme Court to have a voice, and my wife doesn't need poor, Mexican-American women on the Supreme Court to have one, either. In fact, if you wanted to represent me on the Supreme Court, you could probably not make better choices than either Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell. They are going to represent me in the only way that matters.

But let's look at this from a different angle, to see what utter nonsense this really is. My world view is probably not fundamentally different from that of Frederick Turner's. The two of us developed the same world views completely independently of each other, with no influence in any way, shape, or form on each other until we met when I entered graduate school at UTD and became his student. Turner was born in Scotland to Victor and Edith Turner. Victor Turner was one of the greatest anthropologists to ever live (if his presence in every book of anthropology I have ever seen is any indication). Fred was raised a relatively privileged life, notwithstanding his childhood in Africa with the tribe his father studied. His parents were atheist Marxists, though they gave up being atheists and converted to Catholicism in England, when they returned. Fred went to great schools, including getting his degree at Oxford. Fred immigrated to the U.S. and became a citizen. Over time, he came to support free market economics, and is very active in the intellectual arena of libertarianism. He also actively uses evolutionary theory in his scholarly work. One day in class, Fred asked everyone to tell a little about themselves. Fred knew about my own world view by that time, so when I pointed out that I was raised in rural Kentucky by a father who worked in coal mine (and was a UMWA member) and only went to 8th grade, went to rural Kentucky schools, was raised Baptist (and a creationist), but that I went on to college to major in recombinant gene technology (at a small Kentucky college, WKU), Fred looked right at me and said, "How on earth did the two of us come to the same conclusions?" Indeed. Frederick Turner and I both have the same fundamental world views -- and, I would suggest, would have the same judicial philosophies. We have completely different backgrounds. But what does that matter when it comes to sensibly viewing the world? Or not?

San Diego County Trying to Violate 2 Parts of 1st Amendment

2009-05-28T14:51:00.004-05:00

San Diego County, in California, is trying to blatantly violate a couple's 1st Amendment rights to both freedom of worship and freedom of assembly by trying to make them get a permit to have a few friends over for Bible study. What business is it of the county who meets in their home for what? To charge people to meet is a de facto attempt to prevent freedom of assembly (more, it is granting privileges to those who can afford it, thus violating rule of law, which does not grant privilege). I hope they do sue the County. And they had better win that lawsuit, or else we will have thrown out even the attempt at a facade of liberty in this country.