Ray Bradbury said, ""

Political hate-speak

The OK Democrat posted the following at the Balance of Power:

For today's post (Thursday, June 30), I want to discuss what I refer to as hate-speak in American politics. While I personally believe there is more hate-speak in the Republican half of the political spectrum, I am forced to admit that hateful language is prevalent in BOTH sides of the political aisle. My goal with this post is to prove that hate-speak exists in politics today, examine why it is a serious problem and finally, make suggestions on how to remedy this situation. Let's take a look at this now shall we?

First, let's look at the proof that hate-speak is prevalent in both major political parties. We'll attack the Democrats first. Earlier this year, while on the campaign trail for the Democratic Party Chairmanship, Howard Dean said, "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for, but I admire their discipline and their organization." This proves that the Democratic Party is infested with hate-speak. Dean's attempt at a save at the end of his statement was a failure. What about the Republican Party? Anyone who believes the GOP is innocent in this matter is sadly mistaken. Remember what Congressman Tom DeLay (TX) said of the judges in the Terri Schiavo case last spring? "The judges need to be intimidated, they need to uphold the Constitution. If they don't behave, we're going to go after them in a big way," he said. Pretty hateful? You bet. What about Karl Rove's long history of hateful comments? "As people do better, they start voting like Republicans," he said once a few years ago. Is it really appropriate for our nations highest leadership to be acting like this?

Ok, now that we have established the existence of this kind of rhetoric, is it truly harmful to our nation? I believe it is. Think back to your childhood folks. As a kid, did you get along better with your siblings when they were nice or when they called you a name? Think of high school now. Didn't fights result from name-calling? It certainly wasn't the compliments. Now consider Washington or even your local city council and state government. How many times can you remember the work of the government bogging down because one or both sides of the aisle were too busy slandering the other to get down to work? Do you have a better time at work when you are being called names? Does that make it easier to function in your job capacity? Does that give you inclination to compromise with your co-workers to solve problems? The answer is no to all of these questions. This is why something must be done about the hate-speak so inherent in our political system.

Now we can discuss our options. What can we do to put a stopper in the ever-increasing flow of hate-speak from our political leaders? I suggest that the first thing voters should do is educate themselves on the issues instead of letting their leaders tell them how to vote. Too many on both sides of the aisle vote the way their party leaders say. The second thing we can do is to mail and email leaders who choose to use such language, whether they be of our party or not. The third thing we can and should do is remember that we elect leaders and we can un-elect them and even call for their removal if they do not stop using hate-speak. What is needed here is an end to party line loyalty. It might be hard but it is the cure to this problem. That will send a message to extremists like Dean, DeLay, Durbin, Frist and Rove that we won't take this anymore. It's up to us. This tripe only happens because we haven't done anything about it.

I responded:

The political process is characterised not by its ends, but its means. The ends of all politicians are identical to each other and to private individuals: prosperity and peace. Even the regimes of horror in Soviet Russia and National Socialist Germany held those as their final goals. No political movement ever promised misery and abject poverty to its followers; even the ascetic theocracies of Iran and Saudi Arabia promise their citizens eternal prosperity in exchange for their obedience to the laws.

The means of the political process is coercion, whereas the means of private social relations is voluntary agreement and cooperation. Government only possesses that which it has first extracted through taxation or inflation. It acts through decrees, which forcibly replace the will of the many private individuals with the will of a few in government. The means government has to attain its ends are founded in coercion, whether against the criminal or the innocent. Regardless of the justification, it cannot be denied that the political process is inextricably connected with the use of coercion.

The coercive element in politics, when government is limited by isonomy, popular sovereignty, and equal rights, is reduced to its application against criminals. Debate is narrowed to, not whose rights are more valued than another's rights, whose benefit is worth more than the harm to another, but whose rights have been violated. There is no consideration entered between which rights outweigh other rights, whose well-being is more valued than another. A government so limited possesses a focused application of coercion in which disagreement is characterized by the application of coercion to criminals, not innocents. Political debates focus on the subject of crime, people who have violated rights. Antipathy toward criminals is an antipathy toward those who disintegrate social cooperation and bring harm; such antipathy may result in extreme policies against criminals but will leave innocents unharmed. An innocent man has no need to fear his neighbor's politics in such a limited government.

A government which rejects isonomy, and begins creating laws specific to a certain segment of the population, simultaneously casts the apparatus of coercion into a wider arena. One portion of the population must inevitably be harmed to benefit the other portion. Equal rights and popular sovereignty yield to the widened application of coercion to innocent individuals.

It is this expansion of the means of the political process beyond criminal activities and into the realm of voluntary and peaceful social relationships that produces the emotional element in political debate. The moment the law takes on a specific target, rejecting isonomy and equal rights, some one must be harmed for every person benefitted. The benefits government provide come at the expense of harm to others. As a rule, the benefit will be focused and specific, provided to a delineated portion of the population, while this harm will be diffuse, scattered among the remainder. Those groups which benefit will possess more incentive to increase their privileges than will those groups which are harmed will possess to decrease their burdens.

With the collapse of isonomy, a nation fractures into groups competing with each other by proxy of the government. Each vies for some privilege with an inherently greater drive than they vie for the absence of burden in providing privilege to another group.

The only result possible is antipathy. A man must now fear the politics of his neighbor. Subsidized farmers seek to extract more benefits from burdened mothers, who in turn seek their own subsidies. A manufacturer seeks protection from a rival, this protection to come at the expense of the tax-payers and the rights of all the parties involved. One man's protection is another man's burden: each group will have an incentive to paint the necessity of its own well-being higher than the harm which must come to other groups to provide it. Each group will see an incentive to not only cast the other groups seeking to extract benefits as less important to public policy, but will seek to portray their well-being in antipathy to the interests of the rest of society.

In such a fractured society, the well-being of one group is detrimental to another group. In the voluntary cooperation of a society ordered on equal rights, isonomy, and popular sovereignty, the well-being of one man benefits every other man. No one is harmed through voluntary charity and voluntary exchange. In contrast, through political processes, the well-being of one man necessitates that harm come to another man. When well-being is sought through the political process, it becomes synonymous with the idea of a "zero-sum game," in which each man's health is another man's disease. Neighbors look upon each other's prosperity as a threat to their own. And what we see in our politics is what one would naturally see in response to a threat.

I note here that classical liberalism and Jeffersonian conservativism embrace isonomy and equal rights as the fundamental basis of a constitutional republic, as our nation is. It is quite easy to see which political beliefs reject isonomic law, and it is also quite easy to see the correlation between these beliefs and the ferocity of emotional responses.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at June 29, 2005 12:13 EST | Permalink | comments (7) |
politics, economics, best posts

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

I made my decision

I made my decision. I spent the first 20 years of my life a goy, but I will die on my deathbed a Jewish grandfather.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at June 27, 2005 13:57 EST | Permalink | comments (7) |
religion

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

Charity v. Welfare IV

Previous posts: I, II, III

As I showed previously, the decision-making process of government welfare is qualitatively different than that of charity. I showed how the role of coercion and harm in government welfare introduces by its very existence civil strife. I will now illustrate the methods of government welfare as compared to charity.

Economic calculation is only possible within the orbit of voluntary cooperation in a market economy ordered on private property rights. The scale of valuations of a lone individual can be expressed only by ordinal notation: one desires X by some degree more than Y, and Z by some degree more than both. These different values may only be arranged in ordinal notation, admitting of no precise reckoning and weighing. With money, the ordinal reckoning of crude inequalities yields to the cardinal notation of prices. It becomes possible to state that one desires a certain means twice, or four and a half, times as much as another means, rather than simply "more than." The existence of money admits of a more precise weighing of wants and needs against the costs of the means to satisfy them. Prices express the scale of valuations of each individual within a market economy. They coordinate the scale of values of buyers with sellers, with a degree not possible outside the sphere of a market economy. They convey the information of each individual's unique and immeasurable scale of wants, in a form free of the myriad elements which went into consideration. Their condensation of the knowledge which went into a decision, allows for a diffusion of a body of knowledge greater than can enter into the considerations of any one or a few individuals.

All action is directed toward the removal of some uneasiness. From an ascetic who seeks to remove the uneasiness of material wants, to a playboy who seeks to remove the uneasiness of a period of celibacy, all human action aims toward a less imperfect state of satisfaction. Humans aim toward ends, and are faced with a variety of means to attain those ends. Some of those means will be commensurate with those ends, and others will be incommensurate. Some means will result in a situation which from the point of view of the individual is more satisfying, others will have no impact, and others will result in a situation which from the point of view of the individual is less desirable. The selection of a means commensurate to an end, resulting in less uneasiness, is profit. The selection of a means incommensurate with the end, is loss. These categories exist prior to the introduction of money. A man experiences a psychic profit, a feeling of satisfaction which does not admit of anything other than the statement that he is by some degree more satisfied after the action than before the action. A man experiences a psychic loss, a feeling of dissatisfaction which does not admit of anything other than the statement that he is by some degree less satisfied after the action than before the action. Within a market economy ordered on private property, profit and loss admit of monetary calculation. It becomes possible to weigh more precisely the commensurability of means and ends. The precision enabled by monetary profit and loss calculations allows a greater ability to apportion means to ends.

Observe Robinson Crusoe. He cannot entertain economic calculation beyond crude inequalities: he desires the meat of a pig by some degree more than that of a chicken, the time spent building a hut by some degree more than that spent constructing a boat, etc. He can if desired arrange his wants in a Maslow hierarchy, but cannot determine their precise relations with each other. Within the sphere of his will, he is incapable of achieving greater precision in weighing his scale of values than inequalities. Upon the introduction of Friday and the formation of a market economy, the voluntary cooperation of both wills and scales of values yields economic calculation. Crusoe can now state that he values a pig three and a half, or five times, as much as a chicken. Prices come about only by the existence of two or more wills acting within the frame-work of a market economy ordered on private property. If Crusoe were to exert complete domination over Friday by constant threats and coercion, the only scale of values expressed will be that of Crusoe: Friday will have become a tool, an instrument of Crusoe's will. The only actor will be Crusoe; he will again be faced with the inability to perform economic calculation. To the degree that Crusoe coerces Friday and replaces his will and scale of values with his own, the pricing process will deteriorate until, with complete subjugation of Friday, Crusoe returns to the same state of inadequate calculation which prevailed when he was solitary. Coercion, in replacing the will and scale of values of an individual with that of another, reduces the ability to perform economic calculation. It reduces the interaction of wills and the pool of knowledge available for action.

To the degree coercion is present, decisions are made on progressively cruder comparisons of alternative means. With full coercion, the complete domination of one individual by another, the market economy breaks down into socialism, in which the pool of knowledge is reduced to one or a few individuals whose will replaces all of society. Without the condensed information conveyed by prices, the coercive will is incapable of gathering and comprehending the enormous amount of knowledge necessary to coordinate anything beyond the division of labor necessary for human life beyond the most savage level of existence. A society beyond the crudest level of sophistication could not exist under the absolute domination of a single will, if at all. When coercion coexists with a market economy otherwise characterized by voluntary cooperation, bureaucracy exists. Bureaucracy is the attempt by a coercive entity to undertake means commensurate with ends by partially substituting the price system with decrees. It relies upon a mixture of monetary calculation and the ordinal reckoning of a single will exerted through decree.

The bureaucratic decree is often an attempt to evaluate that which admits of no monetary expression. By what means is "education" to be weighed against its costs? How does one weigh the costs of running a police station against the benefit of security it provides? In both cases, the costs can be ascertained through prices, yet the benefit remains an elusive quantity which does not admit of monetary expression. How does one measure literacy against the cost of a textbook or an additional teacher's employment? The capture of 200 more criminals per year against the cost of new forensic equipment? Security versus privacy? Such decisions cannot be decided on the basis of weighing costs in monetary terms against benefits in monetary terms. It is dependant on one will, whether a town manager or council or popular vote, to express an ordinal reckoning through decree over competing wills. In all such cases, this ordinal reckoning introduces some non-monetary factor into its decision-making.

When individuals weigh their scales of values according to the myriad factors which enter into their considerations, from aesthetic appreciation to religious doctrines to monetary-profit seeking, the weight attached to a value is condensed in the act of exchange into a price. This price conveys information about the scales of valuations of both buyer and seller, and is dependant on their mutual calculations and pool of knowledge. When a coercive entity weighs its own scale of values according to its own myriad factors, the weight attached to the value is condensed in the act of enforcing a decree. The decree conveys information only about the will of the coercive entity. Whereas all prices convey information about all parties involved, and are the expression of a mutual decision based on different scales of values, a decree conveys only information about the decree-giver's knowledge and scale of values. It is divorced from a mutual apprehension of values through a precise cardinal notation of prices.

Decrees do not admit of monetary profit and loss calculation. The satisfaction of the decree-giver cannot be measured in monetary terms: the increased literacy as a result of the purchase of new textbooks is outside the realm of monetary expression, for example. Decrees cannot achieve the precise weighing of means versus ends available to individuals using monetary calculation of profit and loss. They operate on the same ordinal expression of profit and loss that a solitary individual employs.

A summary so far: All government welfare programs start with the acquisition of wealth through taxation or inflation. The very acquisition of funds by government requires that harm come to some portion of society. The benefit which comes to a specific group as a result of the welfare program is valued more highly than the harm which must necessarily befall another group. This justification of harm annihilates equal rights and isonomy, introducing civil conflict in which each group wars against other groups by proxy of the government. The use of the wealth is determined by a small group of individuals whose will in some area of decision replaces that of the rest of society through decree. This small group of individuals inherently possesses a body of knowledge inadequate to comprehend the mass of knowledge necessary to coordinate the decisions of the rest of society. This small group of individuals is inherently unable to apply monetary profit and loss calculations to its selection of means.  It is literally incapable of making the same decisions private individuals operating within a charitable organization make.

Next: more on the implications of the difference in decision-making in the use of funds for government welfare.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at June 26, 2005 04:10 EST | Permalink | comments |
politics, economics

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

Grokking is for hippies

Robert Heinlein in "A Stranger in a Strange Land" invented the word "grok" to encompass the thought processes of his Martian protagonist. To grok something is not to understand or to know it, but is some other conceptual category of appreciation. The category of knowledge is bound by three necessary conditions: 1) The proposition must be true, 2) one must believe the proposition is true, and 3) one must be justified in believing the proposition is true. Understanding is the non-contradictory integration of knowledge, dependant on logic and the existence of truth. Grokking possesses none of the necessary conditions of knowledge, it is a forteriori incompatible with understanding. It is a category alien to truth, logic, and evidence.

I like this word for hippy New Age ideas. If you believe in crystal healing, pyramid power, tarot, psychokinesis, Kirilian auras, or other "Progressive" beliefs, don't dignify yourself by using the words "know" and "understand." They imply that you are dealing with a logical construction, truth, justified belief. They hold you to a different standard than that which you are using: they claim that you are dealing with your beliefs on the same basis an engineer deals with his science. Say that you grok "energy vortexes," not that you know about them or understand them.  You may grok pyramid power, but the dullest electrical engineering student knows the laws of induction. You may grok foot reflexology, but a neurological scientist understands the operation of neurons. Don't make it sound like you are both holding your beliefs to the same standard.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at June 26, 2005 02:56 EST | Permalink | comments |
philosophy, satire, best posts

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

On the verge of a choice

I had to go for two days to Tenafly, New Jersey, the town in which I was born, to attend the wake of my great-aunt Kay. Wakes are supposed to be filled with funny anecdotes of the beloved, memories of comfort. The conversations at this wake consisted mostly of driving directions, recounts of movie plots, and stories of drunken nights (every single male on my mother's side, without exception, is or was an alcoholic).

I realized more vividly the lack of understood tradition and coherent morality in myself and my family. Understood tradition, a tradition bound by law which justifies and explains it, is absent in my life and most others.

I have been on the cusp of a decision for a while now. If I decide one way, I will have long decades of learning and hard work to do before I can rightfully embrace the consequence. If I decide the other way, I will still have long decades of learning ahead of me. Both alternatives would yield rewards, both can coexist. It is opportunity cost which guides my choice, more than other considerations.

I am deciding whether or not to convert to Judaism from my own awkwardly assembled religious beliefs, which as Pastorius of Cuanas knows will enrage almost every other human on earth.  If I choose it,  I must undertake long study before I can even consider myself worthy of accepting the responsibility of the Law, and even harder study afterwards. If I choose otherwise, I must undertake hard study to understand both my own amalgamated belief and the reason why I chose it over Judaism.  I must either way examine each step of my reasoning in morality,  and understand it. 

As I say often in these matters, ask me about it in a couple decades.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at June 26, 2005 02:05 EST | Permalink | comments |
religion, philosophy

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

Charity v. Welfare III

Previous posts:

• Charity v. Welfare I
• Charity v. Welfare II
  

In charity, the acquisition of funds is determined by individual donors who choose some definite charitable effort as the highest valued alternative for their wealth. In government welfare, the acquisition of funds is determined by a small group of individuals who extract money by force from individuals who would otherwise use their wealth differently according to their own plans. In the former, the relation between the individual and the organization is peaceful and within the orbit of equal rights. In the latter, the relation is that of coercion, with the rights of some group evaluated to be superior to the rights of the individual. In the former, the individual must choose between which of the various alternatives available to him will yield him the most satisfaction, which charitable effort will yield the greatest benefit. In the latter, a government official must evaluate the benefit to one individual as higher than the harm which will inevitably befall another individual. This difference in the basis for decisions marks an inherent and irreducible conflict between the two systems: a government official inherently cannot make the same decision as a private donor does. The different basis for decisions marks a fundamental chasm between the two methods of action between which no bridge exists other than the end toward which both aim.
 
In charity, the response to social ills is determined and coordinated by the collective decisions of a great many people. They react to disasters, coordinating through their pool of knowledge the most efficient use of charitable donations toward the resolution of a social ill. In government welfare, the response to social ills is determined by the decisions of an inherently far smaller portion of the population. Its response to disasters is divorced from the pool of knowledge necessary to coordinate the myriad decisions which must be made, and instead relies upon the inherently inadequate knowledge of a few whose plans are to replace those of the many. The acquisition of funds for welfare is involuntary, independant from the mechanism of coordination which prevails in charity. Some one man or a few men must decide for a great many individuals, how much wealth they require for the means. This decision cannot rest on the pool of knowledge of the majority, cannot rest on the principles of supply and demand. It must rest on an arbitrary allocation of funds acquired through the levy of a tax or an inflationary monetary policy. Some one man or a few men must decide, on an arbitrary basis, how much money is needed for their plans, and extract that amount from the general population. The decision regarding the method of extracting this wealth, through taxation or inflation, rests on an entirely different basis than that of charity.

The decision-making process of charitable organizations is based upon the increase in well-being of all parties involved. No one must be harmed in the process. No one has a stake in the process other than that determined by his desire to help a fellow man by the method he believes is most efficient in this end. Individual donors may debate about which peaceful means may bring about the most well-being, but these debates are characterized by a weighing between the efficiency and necessity of various peaceful means, on the basis of mutual prosperity.

The decision-making process of government welfare is based on the evaluation of some means over the well-being of some group. Someone is inevitably harmed in the process. Individuals therefore have a (sometimes literal) stake in the process. The decision becomes political, each individual and group vying to avoid being that which is harmed. This political strife will be characterized by persuading the decision-making body which group has precedence over another group. One party will emphasize the needs of the Elderly, to be opposed by another party which points out the burden those needs will impose on the Middle Class. Another party will condemn both for neglecting the needs of the Poor, which over-ride the decisions of both groups. Each party will seek to extract benefits from another group by proxy of the government. The decisions of each party, founded in the justification of harm, ensures that no matter which party gains power, some portion of the population will be harmed. Regardless of which group is at some point given precedence over other groups, someone will be harmed. The nature of the political process is inextricably linked with harm. Regardless of which means the government chooses, the very nature of government welfare ensures civil conflict.

The civil conflict which arises out of the very nature of the decision-making process, is characterized by the justification of harm. The cost of any party's policy is harm, the cost-benefit analysis of charitable organizations cannot apply to the political debate. No political party has ever come out for abject poverty, misery, and filth: each party proclaims its ends are prosperity and happiness. Each party, if honest, will focus its debates upon its evaluation that the needs of some group outweigh the rights of another group, on the means having accepted the universal ends. If dishonest, the party will obscure the role harm must inevitably play, and focus its debate solely on the end which it advances. The latter method frequently occurs in democratic nations and republics in the form of the fallacy of the illicit minor: "my opponent is against X policy, therefore he is against prosperity/freedom/equality/the Elderly, etc." The diversion of the debate away from the specific means to be chosen, is often simultaneous with a gradual change in the political lexicon to make the fallacy of the illicit minor appear more persuasive through equivocation. Words such as "equality" and "freedom" will adopt new meanings, grow to encompass their antonyms, and become meaningless in the process. The political process will corrupt the language of the nation as words become political instruments for coercion, each opposing group chipping away at their meaning until the words become nothing but clubs with which to beat the other groups into submission.

And this all occurs before the government even begins to use the money.

Next: more on the qualitative difference in the decision-making process, the political process, and the actual use of funds.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at June 21, 2005 08:27 EST | Permalink | comments (1) |
economics

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

Charity v. Welfare II: Means of Acquisition

In my previous post on the differences between voluntary charitable organizations and government welfare programs, I highlighted the harmful effects of taxation and inflation. I will here go further into the differences between the means of acquiring wealth. I'll continue this later, with a look at the differences in economic calculation within both systems.

The goal of government welfare programs may be said to be identical with the goals of charity: to increase the well-being of others. It is the means chosen to bring about this goal, which marks the vast differences between charity and welfare programs. The means fall into two areas: the acquisition of funds, and the use of these funds.

Charitable organizations acquire their funds through the peaceful and voluntary donations of individuals who value charity higher than the myriad alternative uses for the wealth they donate. Coercion does not enter into the relation between donors and the charitable organizations. Individuals at no point are forced to choose a less valued alternative. No one is harmed in the acquisition of charitable funds.

Government welfare programs acquire their funds through either coerced payment or the fraudulent exchange of inflated currency. The acquisition of the wealth comes about by a means which substitutes the government's scales of values for the individual's: taxation forces an individual to choose an alternative less valued to him, and inflation compels an individual to value those means selected by the government artificially higher than he would otherwise. Both replace the plans of the many, with the plans of the few. The reason for their coercive nature is precisely because a majority of individuals possess plans different than those of the government for their wealth. The plans of the government supersede those of the public, and require coercion to undertake. The acquisition of funds for government welfare programs is not dependent on the valuations of individuals, and is in fact antithetical to their own scale of values. Both taxation and inflation harm people, regardless of  what the government does later with the money. Every act of government benevolence, must first involve an act of government malevolence. The very acquisition of funds for government welfare programs harms people, in utter contrast with the acquisition by charitable organizations.

The harm the acquisition of funds for government welfare programs inherently causes, makes necessary a decision which does not apply to charitable organizations. Government must ask whether the goal is commensurate with the inherently harmful means of acquiring the funds. Government must decide whether the benefits of a program outweigh the harm which inherently occurs through its very existence. Is it worth raising income taxes to 90 percent, in order to provide X amount of money to people over 65 years old? Is it worth sustaining a chronic 15 percent inflation rate, in order to build a hydroelectric dam? Is national healthcare worth a high tax rate and increased punishments for tax evasion? Government will seek to mitigate this harm by further means, which also enter into the consideration. Is it worth sustaining a 15 percent inflation and a comprehensive system of price fixes, in order to build up a delapidated region? The question of how much harm is justified, must be decided upon a basis other than the individuals. Someone must decide which people must be harmed for the sake of the program. The very existence of the question, signals the rejection of equal rights. The rights of some are given precedence over the rights of others. The former group is to benefit at the expense of the latter group. The decision of which group is to be harmed, cannot be decided on the basis of equal rights or economics. Some factor outside the individuals involved must be invoked: the welfare of the state, Zeitgeist, G-d's will, the Poor, the Elderly, etc. It is by some arbitrary value upon which the decision must be based. This value out-weighs the value of equal rights, justifies the harm which must come to some select group. Its precedence over the individual requires that the individual submit by force to it. After all, what say does one man have compared to the welfare of the state? The acquisition of funds does not depend on the values of the individuals, but the strength with which the over-riding value is enforced.

Next: the difference in utilization of resources between charitable organizations and government welfare programs.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at June 18, 2005 12:24 EST | Permalink | comments (2) |
politics, economics

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

An excellent statement at Liberty for Sale of how the LP must change:

I wonder if any of these people hell bent on stating this ideal Libertarian world plan saw an attractive woman in a bar and decided he wanted to eventually have sex with her if he would want up and say “Hi, wanna f***?”I doubt it; he would probably ask if she wanted to go out first. He knows the goal, he knows what he wants, and he is not deceiving her or leaving his principles behind. He just understand that if he walks up and says “Hi, wanna f***?” that he would not only risk a slap in the face, but he would have only a slight chance of success and most likely would come of looking like a fruitcake. It will not work.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at June 17, 2005 11:13 EST | Permalink | comments |
libertarianism

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

Things that make me dismiss other people's arguments

Two things make me completely dismiss what someone is saying: the presence of exclamation points on sentences which should be declarative, and logical fallacies. The former indicates the person thinks I am a dog which responds only to the tone in which one speaks, and the latter indicates he has nothing to say and knows it. Both annoy me to no end, and their presence in an argument automatically will make me dismiss it, even if it is uttered by James Madison himself. These things multiply faster than rabbits snorting powdered viagra; I usually will not enter a thread in which they have made their appearance, for I know the thread will most likely continue its descent.

I will step through some of the most common logical fallacies which occur in arguments. For a whole hell of alot more, read David Fischer's "Historian's Fallacies."

There are four forms of logical fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of presumption, fallacies of ambiguity, and formal fallacies. Fallacies of relevance occur when someone attempts to persuade another of the validity of a conclusion by pointing to irrelevant material. Fallacies of presumption occur where an unwarrented assumption is hidden in order to make an argument appear valid. Fallacies of ambiguity occur where the terms in an argument change meaning, giving the appearance of validity. Formal fallacies occur when someone attempts to persuade another of the validity of a conclusion by a disingenous and invalid argument- I'll go through them later.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Argument toward ignorance. It is the attempt to prove the truth of a proposition by arguing that it has not been proved false, or vice versa. "Just because you never saw the UFO, doesn't mean it wasn't there."  It is an appeal to ignorance, an attempt to prove a negative.  It is valid only in cases governed by "innocent until proven guilty," such as medical research, background checks, the reasonable-doubt standard of judicial arguments, etc., where no evidence of harm or guilt can be validly taken to prove the absence of side effects or innocence.  Remember that you cannot prove a negative.

Argumentum ad verecundiam. Argument toward an inappropriate authority. It is the attempt to prove a proposition true by appealing to an authority without expertise in the relevant field.  "Even Leonard Euler called interest usury." This is usually easy to spot in commercials, celebrity statements, or when college students cite Werner Heisenberg's physics to support arguments for moral relativism (Interesting note: Heisenberg published a book, Physics and Philosophy, condemning all attempts by contemporary moral relativists to extract moral lessons from his Uncertainty Principle). 

Argumentum ad hominem, abusive. An abusive argument toward a person. In modern times, it is the attempt to prove a proposition true by saying that the person claiming it is Hitler. It turns the argument away from the conclusion, and targets the person claiming it. Remember that for a dime, any no-good neo-Nazi promiscuous bum on the street can recite a mathematical formula or a statement of fact. Any derogatory mention whatsoever of the person, falls under this fallacy. Keep in mind that unless it is physically impossible for an asshole to state a truth,  calling him on his character has no bearing.

Argumentum ad hominem, circumstantial. It is the attempt to prove a proposition true by appealing to the circumstances of the person claiming it. "You're just saying that because of your background." It is very persuasive, until you remember that for a dime, anyone in any circumstance could recite a mathematical formula or a statement of fact.  Keep in mind that unless it is physically impossible for some one from some group to state a truth, calling him on his circumstance has no bearing.

Argumentum ad hominem, tu quoque. "You yourself." Keep in mind that unless it is physically impossible for a hypocrite to state a truth, it has no bearing.

Poisoning the well. This fallacy was born out of an argument between Charles Kingsley and Cardinal John Henry Newman. Kingsley had argued that Newman's arguments were invalid because as a Roman Catholic, Newman's prime loyalty was not to truth but to G-d. Newman responded by arguing that according to Kingsley, this made it impossible for any Roman Catholic to advance any argument, as everything they said would be tainted. Newman called this "poisoning the well of discourse."  It is an attempt to render impossible any arguments from a specific group by tainting them.

Argumentum ad populum. Argument toward the mob's emotions. It is an attempt to prove the truth of a proposition by emotionally-charged rhetoric. This is most commonly seen nowadays by people publicly calling their opponents Hitler. It is an attempt to circumvent the process of argument, and appeal directly to people's emotions. This rhetoric can also, as the name implies, take the form of merely appealing to a majority consensus.

Argument ad misericordiam. Argument toward pity. It is an appeal to the emotion of pity and an attempt to prove the truth of a proposition by the sorrows facing the person claiming it. The most famous case is that of an apocryphal child who killed his parents, then argued in court, "Take pity on me, I'm an orphan." This is most often seen in political arguments about the elderly- "Look at this old lady struggling to open a can. Obviously, our country needs nationalized healthcare for the elderly."

Argumentum ad baculum. Argument by the stick. It is literally the act of pointing to a stick and saying, "feel lucky, punk?" It is the most obvious fallacy. "Anyone who is so careless to make this fallacy, ought to be sent to North Korea," would be an example.

Ignoratio Elenchi. Mistaken proof. Also known as the non sequitur. It is an attempt to establish a conclusion from an argument which instead establishes a different conclusion.  The argument does not establish the conclusion, but is close enough to seem plausible.  This is most common in politics, wherein an argument is put forth claiming the existence of a general social problem, but concludes in a specific solution. For example, an argument that there is indeed poverty in America, is taken to lead to the conclusion that the welfare program must be expanded, the argument that the elderly do indeed have troubles, is taken to lead to the conclusion that social insurance programs must be expanded. It ignores the question of which means is most appropriate to the ends. Given that poverty exists, how does its mere existence prove that welfare, and not any of the other possible methods of eradicating it, is required? Ask yourself- "Ok, X exists. But why do Y?"


Complex question. The asking of a question which assumes an affirmative response to a previous question. "When did you stop beating your wife?" implies that you already answered "yes" to the question, "did you ever start beating your wife."  "Why did you kill Bob?" implies that you already answered "yes" to the question, "did you kill Bob?"  Wherever a question presumes the truth of some conclusion in it, this fallacy occurs.  Watch out for a complex question when you see someone aggressively pushing for a simple "yes or no" answer.

False Cause. The presumption of a causal connection which does not exist.  The most famous example is claiming that since every mass murderer drinks water, water causes mass murder. When this causal connection is proposed simply because one thing preceeded another thing, this fallacy is called post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Petitio Principii. Begging the question. It is to assume the conclusion to be true in the attempt to prove it. It is a circular argument. It is valid- as such an arugment does prove the conclusion, merely by containing it as one of the premises.

Accident and converse accident. A fallacy of accident is the application of a generalization to an individual case which does not fall within it.  A converse accident occurs when from a specific case a generalization is extended to a number of cases.


Equivocation. It is the use of several meanings of a word in one argument, placing a pun in an argument. One example is "All men are rational animals. Women are not men. Therefore women are not rational animals." The word "men" is used in the first premise to mean "all humans," in the second premise it means only males.

Amphiboly, or the fallacy of accent. The way in which the argument is worded or spoken changes its meaning. This includes everything from accenting a specific word, to removing context. The most famous example is that of a captain disgusted with the alcoholism of his first mate, and almost every day wrote "The mate was drunk today." The mate waited until a day when the captain was sick, then wrote in the log, "The captain was sober today."

Composition. Claiming that the attributes of parts can be claimed of the whole, or that the attributes of the parts of a collection can be claimed of the whole collection. To claim that since  "this car has high gas mileage," the radio also has high gas mileage, is nonsensical. Care must be taken to distinguish between the use of a term distributively, regarding each member of a class, or collectively, regarding the entire class. For instance, although college students may each drink more than homeless people, homeless people may collectively drink more than college students.

Division. Claiming that what is true of a whole must also be true of its parts, or that the attributes of a whole collection are applicable to each element of the collection. For instance, to claim that since McDonalds is a wealthy corporation, the janitor in a local McDonalds is therefore wealthy.  Another famous example is: dogs are frequently encountered on the streets of Brooklyn, Shitzu's are dogs, therefore shitzu's are frequently encountered on the streets of Brooklyn.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at June 17, 2005 10:33 EST | Permalink | comments (2) |
politics, philosophy, hateblogging

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

Wowza

I must marry this woman. If she is already married, I shall duel the man to the death.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at June 16, 2005 06:17 EST | Permalink | comments (2) |
libertarianism

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

That's it,

I have got to read every single book on this list before I die.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at June 16, 2005 05:08 EST | Permalink | comments |
books

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

Charity vs. Welfare

Patricia began her post on poverty in America at the Balance of Power by speaking about charity and ended it by speaking about government transfer payments. The conflation of the two is a source of endless conflict and much social ills. I will here go through some of the differences between voluntary charitable donations and transfer payments funded by taxation.

Charity is a voluntary act of goodwill, someone helping another through a difficult time out of his own pocket, without coercion or harm ever entering into his considerations. A man decides if and how much to give to a charitable organization, and enters it into his plans. Charitable donations depend on the valuations of individual donors: each man values the dollar given to charity as a source of more satisfaction to him than spending that dollar on food or some other thing. So long as charity is determined by the valuations of individuals, it follows the principles of supply and demand. Those causes which are viewed as more important in increasing well-being by the donors, receive more donations. The charitable response to disasters is coordinated by the valuations of each donor, with donations being distributed to those efforts which from the point of view of the donors are the most vital to increasing well-being, and responding to the decreasing demand as the afflicted region recuperates. The accumulated knowledge of countless individuals compels charitable organizations to address social ills which both actually exist, and which are from the point of view of the donors more critical in increasing well-being than others. It channels charitable action into those means which are more efficient than others. Those social ills which do exist and which men would not voluntarily act to diminish, due to either more pressing ills or to an inadequate knowledge of the cause of those ills, could only receive charity by persuasion. A charitable organization must appeal to donors and persuade them of not only the existence of the social ill which it addresses, but also of the efficiency with which the organization will diminish the ill. Those organizations which do not adequately persuade donors that the social ill they address exists, will not recieve voluntary donations. Those organizations which are viewed as incompetent, will not receive voluntary donations. The valuations of the donors, expressed voluntarily, is the self-regulating mechanism whereby people can peacefully cooperate to resolve a social ill. Whether it turns out that a man is helped more by being employed than by receiving charity, nonetheless both he and the employer/donor are benefited by peaceful cooperation. At no time does coercion enter into the valuations of the donors. At no time is a donor forced to choose the alternative less valued to him. It is important to understand that not only is no one harmed in providing charity, but that it is precisely its dependence upon the valuations of individual donors through peaceful expression which allocates donations to those efforts viewed as most necessary in increasing well-being.

Every dollar that government has, must first have been taken from individuals through taxation or inflation. The effects of these actions occur regardless of what the government does with that money, so I will elaborate a bit on it. Taxation is a coerced draw upon the income of an individual, under threat of harm, independent of his valuations or plans. All taxes affect income, which subsequently affects consumption and saving-investment- there is no such thing as a pure "consumption tax." Taxes artificially raise the cost of certain means beyond what they would otherwise be, distorting the relation between the benefit an action provides to an individual and the cost he must incur to achieve that benefit. Taxes remove wealth which would otherwise be used according to the plans of a large number of individuals, and places it at the disposal of the plans of a smaller number of individuals. Regardless of what it is used for, taxation replaces the plans of the many in some area of decision, with the plans of a few. It affects the valuations of individuals by increasing their costs, and by reducing the sphere of their own decisions. In replacing the plans of the many with the plans of the few, taxation reduces the pool of knowledge of the decision-makers, making them less able (and less still as the sphere of their decisions encompasses more of what was once that of a majority, until with absolute consolidation of decision-making in one man or a few, completely unable) to decide rationally which means to undertake to acheive their ends. This reduced pool of knowledge available for decisio- making renders more faulty the plans of the few, and increases the time and effort which must be expended to adjust a course of action to new information. As the pool of knowledge decreases until the plans of one man or a few replaces the plans of everyone else, the difference between the information required by the bureaucrats to plan rationally, and that which they actually possess, increases until it becomes literally impossible to plan. It is important to understand that taxation necessarily involves a threat of coercion not present in voluntary exchanges. This threat of coercion exists precisely because the majority of the population has plans different than the individuals in government for their wealth, and value other uses of their wealth as more valuable than the use which government intends. If otherwise, there would be no need to threaten harm. Taxation forces individuals to choose an alternative which from their point of view is less valued than others available.

Inflation is the production of new money by a government. This new money enters the economy at some definite location and is exchanged for some definite commodity to some definite individuals. The government receives their goods or services at the almost insignificant cost of printing the new money, not at the nominal amount of the bills. As the new money flows from those who first receive it, each group benefits at the expense of the next group. The individuals who receive it benefit by exchanging it at artificially higher levels and in different compositions than would otherwise be due to their decreased cash preference. Those groups further from the origin of the inflation are harmed by the distorted constellation of prices. Inflation is a form of taxation whereby the government benefits at the expense of those to whom it provides the new money, and whereby each group benefits at the expense of those who receive the new money later. It is important to understand that inflation is the increase in the money supply, not the resulting possible increase in average price levels. Inflation does not necessarily have to result in a generally increased average price level, only in a constellation of prices different than what would otherwise have been. It not only harms each successive group, but distorts the economy by artificially decreasing the costs individuals must incur to achieve their means: it spurs the individuals who initially benefit from the inflation to take risks which they would not otherwise have taken, to misconstrue the actual state of affairs and put wealth into avenues which are less productive than they would otherwise have done. Inflation interferes with the ability of individuals to plan ahead, to plan their actions according to the actual state of affairs. Needless to say, the origin of inflation lays in the expression of the plans of a few individuals in government, not with the rest of the population.

Once government has acquired wealth through taxation or inflation, it places it at the disposal of a smaller group of individuals. This smaller group of individuals will dispose of the wealth according to their own plans, which must necessarily lack the information required to replace the combined plans of the rest of the population.

I'll finish this up later today.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at June 16, 2005 04:42 EST | Permalink | comments |
economics

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

An invalid witticism

Karl von Clausewitz said "War is policy by other means."

Policy is war by other means.

(I know it is impermissible to take the converse of a universal affirmative)

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at June 15, 2005 06:57 EST | Permalink | comments |
politics, boredomblogging

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

Morning in the Catskills

The view outside my window.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at June 15, 2005 04:38 EST | Permalink | comments (1) |
hick life, beauty

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

Argh

I have to figure out a topic and write up a post for the next Balance of Power post by tomorrow. Also, I found out that there is a 5 member limit on the main post, so I just pinged that post with my Abortion post.  Since I'm usually only able to get online in the dead of night or early morning, I just got Zaph's email.

I'm running through the list of possible topics. What do I wish to write about?

Epistemological foundation of isonomy and the link between expanded government and post-modernism?

The fallacy of the illicit minor in political arguments- "If you're against national healthcare, you want the elderly to starve!"?

My immediate and mediate inferences on the Preamble of the Constitution?

The Federal Reserve system and the cause of the Great Depression?

The difference between constitutional republicanism and democracy?

The meaning of equal freedom?

The non-existence of "animal rights"?

The history of the Commerce Clause?

The epistemological foundation of economics and the pervasive rot caused by the use of words which have been perverted from their proper meanings?

Herbert Hoover's interventionism?

Feh. I have to figure out what I want to write about, and write it by the time I can get online next (most likely 4 in the morning).

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at June 15, 2005 04:15 EST | Permalink | comments (3) |
blogging

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

Damn

The job didn't work out. I was to replace my friend Isaiah while he was celebrating Tishram (sp), but the employer decided at the last minute to use a current employee rather than hire someone else (me).

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at June 15, 2005 03:26 EST | Permalink | comments (1) |
hick life

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

Abortion

This is my post for the Balance of Power issue this week.

Abortion does not admit of a uniform solution. The division between supporters and opponents rests not only in the selection of initial premises, but with the implications they then derive from them, almost all of which are incompatible with and necessitate the illegality of the others. It is precisely this vast array of different evaluations of premises, construction of inferences, and wilful rejections of various conclusions, which causes its controversy. I will offer my analysis. Drop a comment if you believe I left out a necessary condition or two, or left another wide gap in my thoughts.

Life either begins at conception or it does not, and equal inalienable rights either exist or they do not.

If life begins at conception and equal inalienable rights exist, and a fetus is incapable of aggressing against another, then a fetus is a human being throughout the pregnancy, and any act which destroys it is murder, whether it be a medical procedure or an assault by a mugger. The issue of the different intentions of a mother and an attacker would not enter into consideration. The status of a fetus would be uniform- mens rea as self defense could not apply to a being incapable of aggressing. The legal system would recognize all injury to a fetus, whether by mother or attacker, as assault, and all destruction as murder. No act of destruction of the fetus would be accepted unless one rejects the premises that life begins at conception, that a fetus is incapable of aggressing against another, or that equal inalienable rights exist.

An immediately obvious objection appears: a fetus which places the mother in mortal danger could be considered to be aggressing against her, and abortion would therefore be justified as self defense. Mens rea would now enter into consideration. The legal system would recognize as self defense the abortion of a fetus which places the mother in mortal danger. All other instances would still be recognized as murder. Like an adult, the death of a fetus would only be legally justified in case of mortal harm to another. This is the position adopted by the Jews, and the legal situation in America until the Roe v. Wade decision (Drop a comment if I am wrong about the Judaic opinion).

Note: accepting both that life begins at conception, and that humans possess equal and inalienable rights, any other act of destruction of a fetus is untenable and impermissible. One may reject one or both premises, accepting either that life begins at a later date, or that there is no such thing as equal inalienable rights. The rejection of these premises each lead to enormously variant systems of morality and law. Nonetheless, it is impermissible to accept both premises and yet accept abortion for any other reason. I will cleave to the principle of charity, and will not assume another individual will willingly uphold an untenable position.

If life does not begin at conception and equal rights exist, then both life and the consequent possesion of equal rights occurs after conception. The period of birth before life and equal rights begins, is a period during which a fetus may with impunity be destroyed as a non-living non-human. After this period, the status of the fetus depends on whether it is considered to be capable of aggressing against another, and it will be accorded one of the statuses as defined above.The selection of a date following conception on which a fetus acquires life and equal rights, admits of infinite diversity. There are some who may argue life begins with the formation of specific bodily features, some who argue life begins after a certain and uniformly specified period after conception, and some who argue it begins at the moment of birth. There are even some, like Peter Singer, who argues that life begins up to a year after birth, before which time abortion is fully admissible. Then, there is the fearsome expression found on bumperstickers claiming that "life begins at 40." This infinite diversity produces infinite conflict. Suppose one man proposes that life begins a minute after conception. All acts of destruction of a fetus afterward would be considered murder. Suppose that another man argues that life begins in the 24th week after conception, after which time all acts of destruction of a fetus would be considered murder. Suppose Peter Singer kills a 6 month old infant of a mother who only accepts abortion up to the beginning of the second trimester. How could these differing beliefs be settled? What would happen to Peter Singer under such a nebulous system- would he be hanged? Could I know for certain that he would be hanged 50 years from now? Each relies on an arbitrary selection of a date, and any consensus reached must be itself arbitrary and vastly repugnant to some minority. There can be no question that under such shifting, nebulous, and retro-active law, equal rights would not exist. The concept of equal rights can have no meaning if there exist some individuals whose status of being alive can fluctuate. This position introduces a contradiction which renders it untenable. I will assume the principle of charity.

If life does not begin at conception and equal rights do not exist, then life begins some time after conception. Rights may vary according to any number of factors, such as age, race, sex, wealth, political influence, etc. Before life begins, a fetus may be destroyed as a non-living non-human. After life begins, a fetus may still be destroyed after a consideration of varying rights evaluates that of the mother more highly than the fetus. Given the above discussion of the vast diversity in the selection of the date after conception after which life begins, add to that the further immensity of variation in the possible differences in rights, and such a position becomes ever more untenable. I will again assume the principle of charity. How may this position be strengthened? One may limit the number of ways in which rights vary. Assume they vary only according to age. This introduces another period of subjective opinion, this time between conception and the acquisition of full rights, yet since no claim is made to equal rights, this position is consistent. If one holds that life does not begin at conception, and that rights depend on age, one could without contradiction accept as abortion the destruction of a fetus which does not endanger the mother's life. Yet one will not be rid of immensely varying beliefs, and the constant flux of law as consensuses build around different opinions. I leave it to the reader to understand that although this position is consistent in allowing all abortion, it also would equally allow a society to exterminate or enslave all individuals over 40, or execute or segregate any chosen individuals under 40; remember that any traditional period such as 18 or 21 years until the full possession of rights, would still be a subjectively determined opinion, even if established through a census. Evaluate what you would gain from upholding this belief, and what you would lose, even disregarding the issue of abortion.

I have here outlined several positions on abortion, assuming individuals will cleave to consistency. Glancing at any newspaper, or looking into my own heart,  I know this is not so. People doubtless exist who accept the several premises, yet reach different conclusions. They must understand that introducing a new layer of subjectivity merely makes more difficult the formation of a legal system which does not revolt a minority (or possibly a vast majority, as Peter Singer's ideal would).

What is the most efficient way of dealing with this issue, which admits of so many views? I hold that only a decentralized system of limited constitutional government, operating under federalism and republicanism, toward the equal protection of equal rights, could allow the coexistence of those who reject "morning after pills" and those who accept them; those who would beat Peter Singer into a bloody pulp, and those who would cheer him. Let those who hold untenable positions, see just how untenable they are, as long as they have no claim against the lives of my future children. I will be disgusted by them, and if any attempts to force his views on my future wife and child I shall have to regard it as violent assault and treat is as such, yet I realize that to maim everyone who disagrees with me would be eliminate most of the human race at one fell swoop. To paraphrase a famous dead man, "In the long-run, it is easy to see which groups held the wrong views. They no longer exist."

Addenda: I admit I am not fully consistent in my own position. This only supports my point. I have no more ability to rule over another man, then he does over me. I will not feign omniscience, and a gun is waiting for those who would.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at June 15, 2005 03:16 EST | Permalink | comments |
politics, philosophy, libertarianism, best posts

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

Feline moon-gazers?

Figure out what conclusion validly follows from these premises, using the arithmetical Cancellation method:

The only animals in this house are cats.
Every animal that loves to gaze at the moon is suitable for a pet.
Animals that I detest are animals that I avoid.
Only animals that prowl at night are carnivorous.
No cat fails to catch mice.
Only the animals in this house ever take to me.
Kangaroos are not suitable for pets.
None but carnivores kill mice.
I detest animals that do not take to me.
Animals that prowl at night always love to gaze at the moon.

First: convert the propositions into standard categorical form.

All the animals in this house are cats.
All animals that love to gaze at the moon are animals which are suitable for pets.
All animals that I detest are animals that I avoid.
All carnivores are animals that prowl at night.
All cats are creatures which catch mice.
All the animals that take to me are animals in this house.
No kangaroo is an animal which is suitable for a pet.
All creatures which catch mice are carnivores.
All animals that do not take to me are animals I detest.
All animals that prowl at night are animals that love to gaze at the moon.

Remember that particular propositions assert "there exists at least one S which is P," they thus make a claim about not just a relation, but of the existence of both classes. This claim is called Existential Import. Universal propositions make no claim to the existence of either class. The relation between the two is one way: from particular propositions to universals. It is impermissible to claim that since "All Sirens are beautiful but deadly women," there exist actual Sirens, for example.

In notation, a + sign indicates either a claim to existence in the form of a particular proposition, or a claim to categorical inclusion, depending on its location.  A + sign before the subject symbol, indicates a particular proposition; a + sign following the subject symbol indicates the inclusion of the predicate. A - sign outside parentheses indicates either no claim to existence, or the non-inclusion of a category. Inside parentheses, it indicates the complement of a class Thus:

All S is P = -S+P
No S is P = -S-P
There exists at least one S which is P  = +S+P
There exists at least one S which is not P = +S-P
All things which are not S = (-S)

The proposition "All S is P," is equivalent to the negation of the contradictory proposition "Some S is not P," or the proposition "It is false that some S is not P."  Since the universal propostion makes no claim to existence, it must be derived from the particular proposition: -(+S-P).  Distributing the negative sign, we derive the proposition -S+P, thereby maintaining the existential import- it is impossible to make the error of claiming that Sirens exist.

Now, go back through the premises and put them into symbolic form. I will use whole words rather than single letters.

-House+Cat
-Gaze+Suitable
-Detest+Avoid
-Carnivores+Prowl
-Cat+Creatures
-Animals+House
-Kangaroo-Suitable
-Creatures+ Carnivores
-(-Animals)+Detest
-Prowl+Gaze

Now, go through this and cross out those terms which cancel each other out. Remember that +A and -A cannot both be true: the relation A AND not A is thus false.

-House+Cat
-Gaze+Suitable
-Detest+Avoid
-Carnivores+Prowl
-Cat+Creatures
-Animals+House
-Kangaroo-Suitable
-Creatures+ Carnivores
-(-Animals)+Detest
-Prowl+Gaze

The only terms left are -Kangaroo and +Avoid. Thus, the valid conclusion is "All kangaroos are animals that I avoid," or "I avoid kangaroos."

Simple, eh?

Actually, this method can work on regular sentences. As long as you know what type of proposition a regular sentence is, you can put it into symbols. This method works on arguments of any number of categorical premises.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at June 11, 2005 03:22 EST | Permalink | comments (7) |
humor, cats, best posts

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

Woo hoo! I got a job!

I got an off-the-books job in construction, mixing cement. It starts on Monday. I will get blisters, sunburn, and ache- I'll love it. I can't wait to start working and receiving exactly what I earn.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at June 11, 2005 02:30 EST | Permalink | comments (8) |
hick life

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

NY sales tax and damn greedy merchants

I saw a funny thing on the news yesterday (offline, but here's a link). The New York state government lowered its sales tax a bit. Retailers apparently neglected to take into account this change, leaving prices the same, while paying a now lower percentage to the state. This was supposed to be an example of their evil greed.

Suppose the government decides to institute a 20 cent increase in the tax on cigarettes. Simple logic: if a tobacco company could earn a profit by selling cigarettes for 20 cents more, it would already have done so.

A sales tax artificially raises the price of a good higher than the market would bear. It thus has the effect of a price minimum which tends toward an inventory surplus: individuals who would have valued the good highly enough to purchase, now seek other goods; with coercion making more difficult the reduction of price. It is a fallacy to believe that the real price of a commodity does not include the tax- the total price is the datum which the consumer will evaluate in his scale of wants and needs; it, not a fictional portion, determines his behavior. The price of a can of soda is not $1.18, with a 7 cent tax, it is the full $1.25 a consumer must exchange for it. No portion of the price enters into the consideration of a consumer.

A sales tax, artificially raising prices of commodities beyond what the individuals involved would otherwise bear, forces firms to misallocate their resources. It inhibits firms from acting to most efficiently satisfy the wants of the consumers, forcibly preventing them from following the will of the consumers. Furthermore, since new market information will continually disrupt previous price constellations, all decisions regarding the percentage of a tax, and subsequent price increase, must be arbitrary and inherently transient. No price can be considered "stable," as the valuations of consumers is constantly changing.

When a government institutes a sales tax, a firm has limited options for dealing with it. Simply lowering the "pre-tax" price by the percent taxed, and maintaining what appears to be an unchanged price, will appear as if the good now is at what was an equilibrium price, but the firm will now earn less relative to the demand for its goods- it will have the same effect as a price ceiling below what the market will bear.

Raising the "pre-tax" price by the percent taxed, to earn as much per unit as before the tax, is even more obviously pernicious: if the firm could have raised prices by that much and still earned a profit, it would already have done so. Such a move will merely exacerbate the inventory surplus.

It is obvious that since the existence of any tax is other than what the market would bear, no change in any direction or degree will eliminate this effect.

The only option a firm has, outside evading the tax by illegal means, is a reduction in its costs concurrent with the tax. If it costs 40 cents to make a toy which sold at $1.00 before a 7 percent tax, the firm could reduce the effect by reducing its cost of production per unit by 7 percent to 37 cents. As mentioned above, new information continually creates new prices, no price can be considered "stable"; this margin is inherently a changing quantity as the valuations of consumers change. This course of action could reduce or eliminate the effect of a sales tax only temporarily, and is quite obviously limited by diminishing returns and the cost of research enabling such cost reductions. It is still inadequate in allowing a firm to follow the will of its consumers despite the existence of a tax.

Now, observe what occurred in New York. The media made an issue out of the retailers charging the same prices they did under the tax. When the price increase was instituted by force, and only evaded completely through the black market, it was a blessing. When retailers attempted to charge the same amount voluntarily, it was avarice. For the government, the increased price was just. For retailers who wish to see their profit margin as large as possible, holding that same price was an evil.  When businesses attempted peacefully what the government did by force, the media condemned them. Nevermind that businesses will be incrementally more exposed to the will of their consumers, and that they will be just that much more able to allocate their resources efficiently. It is the same story told throughout ages, of businessmen condemned for attempting without guns what the government attempts with guns.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at June 10, 2005 04:05 EST | Permalink | comments (9) |
news, economics, best posts

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

A suggestion

Godwin's Law ought to be enforceable by mandatory deep study of the Holocaust.

In the future, after we have created perfect spam-blockers and can finally have cybernetic transplants installed, Godwin's Law should be enforced by a sudden gigabyte flood of Holocaust recordings and the testimonies of Survivors, the moment a comparison is made.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at June 09, 2005 03:05 EST | Permalink | comments |
hateblogging

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

Moving

I am in the middle of moving now, from a house in which the bathroom hasn't worked for months and which was flooded for most of the winter, into a trailer in a trailer park.

I have lived in trailers for most of my life, but never in a trailer park.  Living in a solitary trailer must be quite different than being surrounded by other people. Whether I end up statisfied there or not, I will have taken one more step toward being even more hick.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at June 07, 2005 07:19 EST | Permalink | comments (6) |
hick life

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

Definitions

Fuzzy words are the death of mankind.

To define a word is to find its borders and to limit its scope. It allows one to manipulate the concept it expresses more precisely. The evolution of language is the process of reducing the scope words express- from the primitive cry which can signify anything, to the most specific scientific term- while at the same time making clear as such the connotations words come to acquire. The limitation of words allows them to be placed in logical constructions. The narrower the scope of a word, the more solid the foundation upon which an argument as a whole becomes, the more readily will fallacies be discerned. The more blurry the distinction between notation and connotation, the more readily will an argument invite fallacies and contradictory interpretations.

With the rise of Marxist polylogism in the 19th century, the words of the philosophy of liberty were perverted into their antonyms, rendered not only meaningless, but tools of the advancement of pernicious beliefs. They were systematically expanded to include their antonyms, their connotations were manipulated to produce the persuasive fallacies of Lenin and others. The result was the purposive encroachments of the same fallacies which had plagued mankind for all human history, now newly disguised. In the name of "democracy," the Progressive education movement declared holding students to uniform standards was undemocratic; one of the founders declared it "undemocratic" to expect every child to be literate.  In the name of an "economic freedom" which promised people relief from the bother of wages and prices, various governments enforced famines, deliberate starvation and destruction of food, and shackled men. In the name of "equality," the French Revolution slaughtered, the Soviet Revolution butchered, and the American Democrats maintained a portion of the population held as victims, guinea pigs to which they could continually apply their supposed solutions to cure "inequality." In the name of "diversity," acadamies have fallen and criminals have gained entrance in government services. In the field of economics, the word "inflation," has come to mean, rather than the expansion of a money supply, the price increase which such an expansion produces; thereby rendering blind and wholly impossible any attempts to understand the nature, cause of, and solution to inflation.

I am sick of the state of the modern lexicon of economics, politics, and philosophy. Too many times I have talked across someone,  was compelled to adopt a compromise between the word as it is properly defined and the husk which now exists, or was constrained by a literal impossibility to describe a concept which no longer has a word to signify it.  No more. Over this summer, I will endeavor to remove as much as possible from my speech those perversions which render the idea of freedom unattainable. 

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at June 04, 2005 15:55 EST | Permalink | comments (5) |
hateblogging, libertarianism, best posts

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

Finally back online

Blogging has been slow lately, partly because my sister now spends 16 hours playing games online everyday. I can only catch an opportunity sometime after 3 or 4 in the morning.

I missed Ogre's debut of his horizontal blog. Check it out, if you haven't already. And I missed much funny stuff. Hopefully I'll be able to frequent the blogosphere when it isn't inhabited by strange night-timers like me.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at June 03, 2005 03:44 EST | Permalink | comments (3) |
blogging

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

This site is a member of WebRing. To browse visit Here.