I've found that government regulations give corporations and the 1% an artificial advantage by making it impossible for most entrepreneurs and small business owners to succeed in business independently. If most federal and state regulations were removed (with the two key types of regulations being antitrust and environmental regulations, enforced reasonably and conscientiously), the obstacles to widespread independent business ownership will be largely removed, thus leveling the playing field and allowing capitalism to function properly. The reason why capitalism doesn't work isn't so much because it's inherently bad, but because most strains of capitalism are dysfunctional.
There are quite a few countries (especially Nordic countries) who's economies are primarily private sector, and they enjoy some of the highest socio-economic equality, democratic participation, and HDI/quality of life rankings in the world. The greatest example of this is Iceland. If the U.S. followed in Iceland's footsteps, Capitalism would work quite well, better in fact than every implementation of public-sector based economy to date. The argument for a socialist economy is on this basis alone null and void as proven by real world metrics.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Monday, February 25, 2013
My Position On Climate Science
My actual position on AGW (Anthropomorphic Global Warming) is the same as a sizable portion of metereologists: not enough evidence to reliably predict climate change or its causes. I think that while there is some truth to the AGW scientific consensus, it is based on incomplete data with a myriad of factors, both known and unknown, that are not accounted for either because of:
a. the lack of sufficiently reliable instrumentation
b. insufficient precedent for conducting proper analyses of
the data (Climatology is still a relatively new science, I'd say in coder-speak they're in alpha stage).
c. an considerable confirmation bias has (in my view) tainted the interpretation of the data.
d. There is strong political incentive in most democratic countries to implement aggressive green reforms, and this requires a "Green Scare" to effect change in a stagnant bureaucracy that drags its feet for any kind of change, especially change that impacts their investment portfolios/[political backers.
a. the lack of sufficiently reliable instrumentation
b. insufficient precedent for conducting proper analyses of
the data (Climatology is still a relatively new science, I'd say in coder-speak they're in alpha stage).
c. an considerable confirmation bias has (in my view) tainted the interpretation of the data.
d. There is strong political incentive in most democratic countries to implement aggressive green reforms, and this requires a "Green Scare" to effect change in a stagnant bureaucracy that drags its feet for any kind of change, especially change that impacts their investment portfolios/[political backers.
On The Uncertainties of Climatology
There are three different kinds of statistical uncertainties that Climatology must deal with to predict the climate effectively:
1. The causes of climate change, and how much is anthropomorphic:
There are three main causes of global warming: solar activity, greenhouse gases, and geothermal activity.
a. It is known that solar activity runs in cycles which vary in temperature range and intensity, With the hottest cycle far exceeding our current mean temperature. Because we don't have enough information on solar cycles to accurately predict the effects of the sun on the warming of the earth, it is difficult to assess how much, if any of the earth's temperature is solar, and how much comes from geothermal/anthropomorphic sources.
b. While our understanding of geothermal reactions is fairly well-developed, its effect in climate change is ill-studied, required additional research to accurately assess its effect on the climate.
c. Historical knowledge of temperature changes over the past few centuries have shown that even in periods of time where there was no human-generated greenhouse gases, The earth's temperature reached record-highs. Since climate predictions are based on correlative, as supposed to causal relationships, there is a great deal of uncertainty over the actual causes of global warming.
d. Since there are many other kinds of greenhouse gases, and other sources of global warming which are ill-studied or even unknown, it is impossible to accurately assess the net impact of the various sources to the increase in the mean temperature, much less determine the actual human contribution.
2. The positive impact, of any of the reduction/elimination of anthropomorphic greenhouse gases on the mean temperature
a. There is no precedent to show that reducing carbon emissions has any significant impact on climate change, and the evidence showing C02 emissions to increase the earth's temperature is mostly correlative. So we are basically guessing (albeit an educated guess) that major carbon reductions will lower the earth's temperature.
b. If the sun's warming cycle ends soon, the reduction of emissions now would be the equivalent of shaving one's head to cool off....right before the winter season starts. Reduction in carbon emissions does not account for uncertainties of the changes of the solar cycle.
3. The feasibility of environmental reform, and its effectiveness in the net improvement of human quality of life:
a. The resources required to reduce carbon emissions are diverted by other possibly more important matters, such as AIDS/HIV/cancer research, terraforming and modernizing undeveloped countries, the reduction of accidental death and sickness, etc. Until there is evidence that the need for greenhouse gas reduction is greater than these other concerns, it amounts to little more than a very expensive science experiment.
b. Effective environmental reform requires the support of the politicians and citizens of countries, particularly countries producing large amounts of emissions, such as the United States and China. The human factor is the biggest source of uncertainty overall, due to the complexity and diversity of humans.
c. The cost of large-scale reforms, especially if done too fast, can destabilize a country and its economy, as has been the case with many overambitious countries (most notably the Soviet Union, the Roman Empire, and possibly (in progress) the European Union.
-----
In addition to these issues, carbon emission / climate measuring instruments remains limited in their scope, scalability, and accuracy. Considering that even with modern weather instruments, meteorologists still can't predict same-day weather much more accurately (or specifically) than tarot card readers, long-term assessments of the climate have a great deal of uncertainty.
It's for this reason that many people, both learned and laymen, consider Climatology the voodoo of the science world- good at guessing, but lacking the tools of precedent for the consistent reproduction of results. Until Climatology becomes more reliable in its predictions, it'll be about as real of a science as economic theory.
1. The causes of climate change, and how much is anthropomorphic:
There are three main causes of global warming: solar activity, greenhouse gases, and geothermal activity.
a. It is known that solar activity runs in cycles which vary in temperature range and intensity, With the hottest cycle far exceeding our current mean temperature. Because we don't have enough information on solar cycles to accurately predict the effects of the sun on the warming of the earth, it is difficult to assess how much, if any of the earth's temperature is solar, and how much comes from geothermal/anthropomorphic sources.
b. While our understanding of geothermal reactions is fairly well-developed, its effect in climate change is ill-studied, required additional research to accurately assess its effect on the climate.
c. Historical knowledge of temperature changes over the past few centuries have shown that even in periods of time where there was no human-generated greenhouse gases, The earth's temperature reached record-highs. Since climate predictions are based on correlative, as supposed to causal relationships, there is a great deal of uncertainty over the actual causes of global warming.
d. Since there are many other kinds of greenhouse gases, and other sources of global warming which are ill-studied or even unknown, it is impossible to accurately assess the net impact of the various sources to the increase in the mean temperature, much less determine the actual human contribution.
2. The positive impact, of any of the reduction/elimination of anthropomorphic greenhouse gases on the mean temperature
a. There is no precedent to show that reducing carbon emissions has any significant impact on climate change, and the evidence showing C02 emissions to increase the earth's temperature is mostly correlative. So we are basically guessing (albeit an educated guess) that major carbon reductions will lower the earth's temperature.
b. If the sun's warming cycle ends soon, the reduction of emissions now would be the equivalent of shaving one's head to cool off....right before the winter season starts. Reduction in carbon emissions does not account for uncertainties of the changes of the solar cycle.
3. The feasibility of environmental reform, and its effectiveness in the net improvement of human quality of life:
a. The resources required to reduce carbon emissions are diverted by other possibly more important matters, such as AIDS/HIV/cancer research, terraforming and modernizing undeveloped countries, the reduction of accidental death and sickness, etc. Until there is evidence that the need for greenhouse gas reduction is greater than these other concerns, it amounts to little more than a very expensive science experiment.
b. Effective environmental reform requires the support of the politicians and citizens of countries, particularly countries producing large amounts of emissions, such as the United States and China. The human factor is the biggest source of uncertainty overall, due to the complexity and diversity of humans.
c. The cost of large-scale reforms, especially if done too fast, can destabilize a country and its economy, as has been the case with many overambitious countries (most notably the Soviet Union, the Roman Empire, and possibly (in progress) the European Union.
-----
In addition to these issues, carbon emission / climate measuring instruments remains limited in their scope, scalability, and accuracy. Considering that even with modern weather instruments, meteorologists still can't predict same-day weather much more accurately (or specifically) than tarot card readers, long-term assessments of the climate have a great deal of uncertainty.
It's for this reason that many people, both learned and laymen, consider Climatology the voodoo of the science world- good at guessing, but lacking the tools of precedent for the consistent reproduction of results. Until Climatology becomes more reliable in its predictions, it'll be about as real of a science as economic theory.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
My Views On Gun Control: An Argument For Stronger Gun Control *And* Stronger Gun Rights
American gun violence is a big problem, but I think we should be more concerned with our obesity problem (which kills an estimated 200,000 Americans each year), or our car safety problem (cars accidents kill around 40,000 Americans each year). By comparison, guns kill around 9,000 Americans each year. So yes, the amount of gun violence and death in America is disgusting, but we have bigger fish to fry!
That being said, I do understand the need to gun control policies for an immature, selfish, and compulsively violent country like America. When the most popular movies, video games, and sports here are gratuitously violent, how can we expect anything good to come from freely available firearms?
While the ability to legally purchase/acquire, and possess firearms should be protected, for the interests of self-defense and of ensuring a free society, to treat firearm trade and possession as a "God given, inalienable right" is just plain absurd.
For Americans who care about defending themselves and preserving their civil liberties (if necessary), tight gun controls are a small price to pay for the right to gun ownership, so why not maintain strict gun controls to ensure that only those mentally competent, certifiably sane, and proficient in the handling and use of guns- can purchase and possess guns? Robust and comprehensive gun control measures are necessary to minimize gun violence and reinforce the accountability gun ownership entails.
That being said, I do understand the need to gun control policies for an immature, selfish, and compulsively violent country like America. When the most popular movies, video games, and sports here are gratuitously violent, how can we expect anything good to come from freely available firearms?
While the ability to legally purchase/acquire, and possess firearms should be protected, for the interests of self-defense and of ensuring a free society, to treat firearm trade and possession as a "God given, inalienable right" is just plain absurd.
For Americans who care about defending themselves and preserving their civil liberties (if necessary), tight gun controls are a small price to pay for the right to gun ownership, so why not maintain strict gun controls to ensure that only those mentally competent, certifiably sane, and proficient in the handling and use of guns- can purchase and possess guns? Robust and comprehensive gun control measures are necessary to minimize gun violence and reinforce the accountability gun ownership entails.
Spirituality vs. Religion: The Difference is Bigger Than You Think
I criticize religion in general, because it is a system of servitude, either willful (conversion), through family upbringing (indoctrination), or cultural (brainwashing). Moral values and spiritual pathways/beliefs are a wonderful thing, religion is a hateful system that turns wonderful truths into terrible perversions of those truths, exploited by those in power to control the masses.
That being said, even though I might find religion to be an awful, disgusting thing, I respect the opinions of those that adhere to it, and seek to achieve an understanding with them despite any barriers of belief there might be between us.
I think it is good for one to be convicted in their spiritual beliefs/values/etc., what I am against (and thus criticize) is the forced consolidation of beliefs in the form of religion, which is at the core the statism of spirituality. Those who are supportive of libertarian values should understand my disgust of religious institutions on that basis alone.
I understand peoples' choice to consolidate their beliefs into a larger body of like-minded individuals; so long as they don't mind the dogma, doctrine, and patriarchy it comes with. But I believe that one should not have to conform to a religion to benefit from the spirituality/relationships/etc. it entails, not any more than one should have to go to college to gain the recognition of being well-educated.
However, such an idealistic way of thinking isn't particularly practical in an institution-driven world, so I can understand why conformance to religion is natural for so many people.
That being said, even though I might find religion to be an awful, disgusting thing, I respect the opinions of those that adhere to it, and seek to achieve an understanding with them despite any barriers of belief there might be between us.
I think it is good for one to be convicted in their spiritual beliefs/values/etc., what I am against (and thus criticize) is the forced consolidation of beliefs in the form of religion, which is at the core the statism of spirituality. Those who are supportive of libertarian values should understand my disgust of religious institutions on that basis alone.
I understand peoples' choice to consolidate their beliefs into a larger body of like-minded individuals; so long as they don't mind the dogma, doctrine, and patriarchy it comes with. But I believe that one should not have to conform to a religion to benefit from the spirituality/relationships/etc. it entails, not any more than one should have to go to college to gain the recognition of being well-educated.
However, such an idealistic way of thinking isn't particularly practical in an institution-driven world, so I can understand why conformance to religion is natural for so many people.
Religion vs. Personal Beliefs
Religion is distinguished from personal beliefs in that:
a. It is dogmatic (is closed-minded)
b. It is political (exploits belief to control people)
c. It is statist (prioritizes the collective over the individual)
d. It is dualistic (believes in black/white conceptions of morality), making religion inherently intolerant.
e. It is hierarchical (views God/the church/etc. as structured in a hierarchy of power, the authority of a member of the given religion being determined by their position in the proverbial pyramid).
While the word "religion" can be applied to virtually anything, all recognized world religions contain all of the above characteristics, and IMO, all of the above characteristics are ultimately hateful in nature.
a. It is dogmatic (is closed-minded)
b. It is political (exploits belief to control people)
c. It is statist (prioritizes the collective over the individual)
d. It is dualistic (believes in black/white conceptions of morality), making religion inherently intolerant.
e. It is hierarchical (views God/the church/etc. as structured in a hierarchy of power, the authority of a member of the given religion being determined by their position in the proverbial pyramid).
While the word "religion" can be applied to virtually anything, all recognized world religions contain all of the above characteristics, and IMO, all of the above characteristics are ultimately hateful in nature.
Obstacles To The Construction Of A Utopia, And Proposed Solutions: In Defense of Voluntaryism
The essential problem with the utopia is "according to whom?" While a government that provides a means and infrastructure to foster an objectively-validated improvement of the quality of life (such as the HDI, PQLI, Gini, and OECD rankings), there will never be a universally accepted understanding of "happiness", "freedom", "equality", or any of the characteristics that constitute a utopia, much less agreement on the proper implementation of such.
While it's optimal for the government and society to be working together to improve the character and quality of life for humanity in mother-father fashion, No one should be forced into the system. Regardless of how great or "rational" a system may appear to be to its adherents, forcing the people to conform to it is nothing short of tyranny, albeit a benevolent dictatorship (to borrow the open-source term).
For this reason, I assert that in the interests of ensuring that said values of socio-economic liberation, equality, interdependence, societal integration, and environmental stewardship do not jeopardize the individual right to free will and the unabated autonomy it compasses (so long as it does not infringe on the freedoms of others), we should permit an opting-out of the system(s) for individuals who find it counter to their interests, or better yet- a modular approach in which people are only required to conform to the aspects of the system to which they contractually agree. Now that would be a truly workable (and universally beneficial) social contract!
While it's optimal for the government and society to be working together to improve the character and quality of life for humanity in mother-father fashion, No one should be forced into the system. Regardless of how great or "rational" a system may appear to be to its adherents, forcing the people to conform to it is nothing short of tyranny, albeit a benevolent dictatorship (to borrow the open-source term).
For this reason, I assert that in the interests of ensuring that said values of socio-economic liberation, equality, interdependence, societal integration, and environmental stewardship do not jeopardize the individual right to free will and the unabated autonomy it compasses (so long as it does not infringe on the freedoms of others), we should permit an opting-out of the system(s) for individuals who find it counter to their interests, or better yet- a modular approach in which people are only required to conform to the aspects of the system to which they contractually agree. Now that would be a truly workable (and universally beneficial) social contract!
On The Virtues of Individuality And The Irrationality of Conformity
Considering that the diversity of values and opinions is in great measure what makes humanity the evolutionarily superior race, what is the merit of solidarity, standardization, consensus, and other forms of conformity?
As neither communication nor collaboration requires compatibility of opinions (so long as the ends are held in common, the difference in motivations is essentially irrelevant), why do people (and more broadly, why does society) manufacture consensus, promote standardization, and all but require solidarity?
Why is conformity indoctrinated from childhood as the greater good, if it has no intrinsic function besides preserving the illusion of societal unity, and endangers the diverse plethora of individual opinions that has made humanity so innovative, creative, and richly cultured? Conformity seems to me to be backwards thinking, and reeks of an ignorance not so different than that of the dark ages.
As neither communication nor collaboration requires compatibility of opinions (so long as the ends are held in common, the difference in motivations is essentially irrelevant), why do people (and more broadly, why does society) manufacture consensus, promote standardization, and all but require solidarity?
Why is conformity indoctrinated from childhood as the greater good, if it has no intrinsic function besides preserving the illusion of societal unity, and endangers the diverse plethora of individual opinions that has made humanity so innovative, creative, and richly cultured? Conformity seems to me to be backwards thinking, and reeks of an ignorance not so different than that of the dark ages.
Why Collectivism Is A Bad Thing, Even In Times Of Crisis
The vast majority of war, conflict, and killing in the world is caused by collectivism, of a religious (crusades, jihads, etc.), political (conquest, wars on terror, nationalism) ideological (revolutionary communism, ethnic cleansing, "spreading democracy"), or cultural (apartheid resistance, antisemitism, etc.) nature.
I am confident in my opinion that collectivism causes more problems and crises than it solves, and see no evidence for the claim that individuals could not congregate as effectively, if not more, effectively, than the collective.
There are of course exceptions, such as Japan, but even that only applies to natural disasters. They still have been able to do almost nothing about their four most pressing issues: their high suicide rate, their obscenely high debt-to-GDP ratio, their rapidly aging mean population, & their lazy and rebellious younger generation.
Seeing as how Japan is considered the most collectivist society in the world, it demonstrates quite effectively how ill-equipped collectivist cultures are for handing most crises.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)