Gone Galt

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

$

Cognitive Dissonance: Laissez Fair Capitalism vs Democracy

In a perfectly-efficient laissez faire capitalist society, everyone works toward their own economic self-interest. So long as contracts are enforced and property is protected, this is functional because economies of scale are not a zero-sum game; if each citizen was highly productive, and each was as productive as the next, everyone could be rich.

However, in a political game that is zero-sum, where the government is willing and able to redistribute money from one group and give it to another (meaning that someone winning means someone else losing), everyone serving their own self-interest will lead to an equilibrium where the person(s)/group(s) with the most influence seek to take as much as they can from the rest of society without suffering backlash.

What are the implications here? Does a pure capitalist economy coupled with a pure democratic political system necessarily lead to two sets of disagreeing values, one economic and one political, in the citizens? Would the citizens of such a society move toward an equilibrium between the two ideologies, or lean more toward one or the other? Is it functional to do so? Is it morally correct to do so? Would one part of the society naturally stratify itself according to its members' wealth/income, and another part do the opposite? If so, what would happen to the middle class/middle ground, and would civil war/rebellion/revolution be unavoidable?

Utopia

We all want different things from our government. Better national security or more privacy. Better-paying jobs or a globally competitive business environment. Some believe these things so vehemently that we write articles, essays, and books hoping to persuade readers to our points of view, or at least let the world know where we are coming from. The readers themselves likely spend hundreds, even thousands of hours throughout their lifetimes reading the material presented to them. If nothing else, we are a group of people who know what they want.

But unfortunately we can't have it. Our disagreements run too deep, and our dilemma, the “voter's dilemma,” pits us the citizens against each other. For every difference of opinion, for every theory not in evidence, we reach a game that we call politics. The textbooks definition of politics is “who gets what and when.” But in deciding who gets what, there must be parties; groups that disagree with one another. At their most basic level (and for simplicity's sake), we will say that parties argue that their members ought to get some benefit from their government. And the way that the government gets money to sponsor these benefits is by taxing the opposing group(s). So we can conclude that in America, politics is a series of games that is played with 2 major players, democrats and republicans, with some minor players making a move or two occasionally. Every issue to be voted on is its own game, and the results will take from one group and give to another. So, we have a situation in America where there are always losers and always winners. It is impossible for everybody to win at once; the closest thing to it is a groups' wins equaling their losses. In the game of politics, a tie is the best thing that any group can ever hope to achieve. Keep in mind that the oppression of the losing group is unavoidable.

Democracies and republics have been struggling with this fact for hundreds of years. George Washington was strongly against the party system, but most of the rest of the founding fathers either could not see the damage that was being done to the citizens or were unable to think of a solution to the problem. The noble men that founded this country did not have the tools or advantages we have today; they did not have instant communication or speedy transportation. They could not understand the ability to keep track of thousands of transactions across the nation through the use of computers. They did not know that we would be competing with nations on the other side of the world and need every advantage we can get just to keep up with a highly competitive global economy. These are not mistakes that could have been foreseen, but they are mistakes that need to be corrected, and the sooner the better. Our mothers, our fathers, our sisters and brothers, our sons and our daughters deserve to live in a better place. We ourselves deserve to live better, richer, fuller lives. I encourage you to read the last two sentences out loud. Go ahead; there's no reason to be ashamed of wanting a better world. Follow me for a moment to such a place.

Imagine yourself, whether you are a socialist, capitalist, fascist, anarchist, or anything in between, imagine yourself under a government that caters to your needs. I'm talking about something that has never existed; a government that pleases everyone in it. This government gives everyone what they require from it, and only taxes and regulates what its citizens approve. Imagine yourself in your perfect government, surrounded by like-minded people that want the best for the citizens and agree with the way to implement fixes. You pay your taxes and you reap the benefits that you want.

Now imagine yourself discontent, ruled by a government that acts differently from they way you think it ought to. I'm sure there are a lot of us in this same situation right now; big business bailouts, poor monetary policy... you get the picture. And imagine being able to just step away from a government that you disagree with.

What I am suggesting is exactly that, in so many words; the freedom for every person to choose how they will be governed. Say there were numerous different governments that all governed differently; a few would be socialist, some libertarian, some fascist, etc. Each of these governments would be sovereign; they would have their own rules, citizens, justice systems; things we expect from a government. Some would provide numerous public services, while others would have lower taxes. Everyone would have the ability to become a citizen in any government they choose, and could leave if they decided that government no longer met their needs.

A common question raised against this ideology is concern over the intricacies of the justice system between citizens of differing governments. The answer is simple: let the governments decide how to deal with foreigners. If the citizens approved of the government's policies, they would continue to support it. If not, they would move on to a different one that had better policies.

Similarly, war between governments would ultimately be decided by the citizens. If a country were to declare war on another and the citizens didn't agree, then the citizens could leave. An unfunded war with no citizens to serve in the military would be extremely difficult to fight.

We don't all want the same thing; some of us shop at Dollar General, some at Wal-Mart, and some at Target. Why should we expect to all go to the same government to give us what we need?

How to Kill Your Newspaper (And Why You Should)

Let me direct you to a news article I recently had the opportunity to read:

How to Save Your Newspaper

The article's basic precept is that we need to save America's newspapers from going under. This new news craze has caught a lot of the old-fashioned media's attention, and for good reason; it's their hide on the line. Walter Isaacson from the Aspen Institute, who happened to write the Time article I just linked to, was just recently interviewed on the Daily Show concerning his views on how newspapers could be ruined by online competitors, and what they could do to stop such a problem. More importantly, Mr. Isaacson goes on to tell readers and viewers why newspapers are worth saving. I'll address a few of his points, and counter with my own.

The first of these claims is that “Newspapers have more readers than ever...the problem is that fewer of these consumers are paying.” Let's shoot straight here, Mr. Isaacson: you and I both know there's no such thing as a free lunch. The amount of time I am forced to allocate to closing popups and listening to talking banner ads is not only considerable, it is so much so that I would gladly subscribe to a newspaper were it not for several disadvantages that I will be describing shortly.

Based around this argument, Mr. Isaacson moves on to state that “...free [not directly-paid-for] felt like the future of journalism only in the sense that a steep cliff is the future for a herd of lemmings.” You know, I'd really wish that American journalism would stop accusing the market of complete incompetence. It's one thing to blame an economic crisis on businesses, but to actually say that the market will not fill such a vital role as news is so full of ignorance it's scary. News is in high demand. I would be willing to argue that it's one of the most demanded things out there besides food, fuel, shelter, and entertainment. What's more, news will always be profitable because
1. supply cannot equal demand; that is, no matter how many people want to be informed, there cannot be as many informers as informees.
and
2. Barriers to entry are low; it's fairly easy to make a list of the most important things that happened today in a given area, write something about it, and put it up somewhere for people to read.
So no, Mr. Isaacson. The notion that people will stop writing news because they can't get any direct money from it is ridiculous.

Mr. Isaacson has it in his head that advertising revenue is not enough to support a staff of writers. I'd like to know what a writer expects for his work. Advertising revenue is typically linked to the number of visitors per page, which is linked to the quality of the work and how many readers the site has. I'd also like to know why a staff of writers is necessary. Surely Mr. Isaacson doesn't expect us to believe that large quantities of people on a given project guarantees quality. Inversely, I hope none of us believe that a single writer cannot produce quality work. If you did, I imagine you wouldn't be here. Neither of these assertions make logical sense; in fact, if Mr. Isaacson played by his own rules, wouldn't the article itself have a co-writer or two?

The last of Mr. Isaacson's claims that I'd like to address is the idea that relying on advertising revenue means that information distributors will be governed by the ad revenues rather than the readers. I've heard this claim so many times that it's getting on my nerves. Let me ask you this: How many commercials you saw during your favorite tv show directly affected the program? Likewise, how many of those programs were ran into the ground because they catered too exclusively to ads? My point is that any intelligent blogger writes for his or her readers and counts on the ads to do their own advertising.

Now, one of the downsides of newspapers: impersonality syndrome. Everyone can imagine the mom-and-pop retail store slowly growing into a chain and then going public. Suddenly, no one gets to see Mr. Walton because he's too busy running so many stores and managing so many employees. This is exactly what has happened to newspapers and magazines; rather than getting to talk to the person in charge and really feel like you, the customer, have made a positive difference when you bring in a legitimate concern to the company, you get to talk to a base-level $8.00/hr employee that calmly types what you say into a computer to be reviewed by their manager's manager later that month. Compare this to Steve Pavlina over at StevePavlina.com, whose self-help blog is visited by hundreds of thousands of people and he still takes time out to respond on the forums and reply to comments on his entries.

Waste. I'm not one to jump on the environmentalist bandwagon, but logic says that the more stuff we throw away that takes up space, the less space we are going to have. Furthermore, why pay for ink and paper when you could pay for cheaper (or free, that is, not-directly-paid-for) bandwidth? With portable devices like blackberries, iPhones, and laptops that let you take the internet with you, the need for a physical copy of the news is getting less and less necessary.

The information tax. I'm of the opinion that humanity has just taken a great leap forward in guaranteeing an equal opportunity for everyone with the advent of free information. No longer are children inhibited by whether or not the library carry the news or a certain book; a quick trip to their computer or the local library and they have the whole world's knowledge at their fingertips. We can communicate with people across the world at a whim. We can know what is happening on the other side of the country literally as it is happening without having to plan a day around a television screen. But Mr. Isaacson is against this; if he had his way, we would all have to pay for the information we receive, with no regard to whether or not it is correct or quality content. It seems that Mr. Isaacson is making his best attempt to bias quality information toward people with expendable incomes. And his motivation? He just doesn't want an antiquated, incompetent industry to go under.

Where have we heard that before?

Let's stop this before it gets out of hand. Write an email to your local newspaper telling them what a horrible idea this is.

Economics 101

After my last (unbelievably long) blog post, admittedly not that interesting, I almost regret posting a mini lesson on economics this time. But I'll be making a lot of assumptions concerning your knowledge of the economy in future posts, so I might as well establish a few basics before going on.

Ok, so I'll start with prices. Being a business student, I'm reminded every day of Supply and Demand. That is, that the price of a product is dictated by supply and demand.

First, I need to define "price." This isn't the idea that you would normally think when you hear the word. All of these key terms: price, supply, and demand are in "aggregate," so we measure them in large amounts everywhere. So we couldn't go to either Wal-Mart or the Armani Exchange and expect the exact prices we would see on the supply and demand graph. That being said, the price of a certain product, as we will define it, is the average amount ($) of money that all the sellers can charge for the product.

Now, supply. Supply is defined as the amount (#) of products that the sellers are willing to sell at a given price. Obviously, the people that sell stuff (Wal-Mart, Armani) need to get money to pay their expenses like paying their employees and paying for their rent/building. They also want to make a profit (usually 4-6% profit in a recession and 8-10% in a boom, the opposite of a recession) to reward them for their work and risks they take with their money.

Finally, demand. We can say that demand is the amount (#) of products that the buyers are willing to buy at a given price.

Now, price is dictated by supply and demand. In fact, if we drew a rudimentary graph (in MS Paint), it would look something like this:
In this graph, the letter "p" represents price and the letter "n" represents the number sold. So, if suddenly the product became rare or harder to make, the price would rise. Similarly, if more people want the product, the price would go up. If the product gets easier to make or fewer people want it, the price would go down.

Real life example: before TVs became flat-panel plasma or LCD, there were only tube (box-style) TVs. Whenever plasma/LCDs came out, the demand (# of them wanted) for old tube TVs dropped, making their prices go down.

Let me wrap this lesson up. The market (the aggregate one; not one specific store but all the buyers and sellers in America and around the world) has a mechanism that many refer to as self correction. What this means is that the price of a product isn't always exactly where it should be according to the graph. But, because buyers are (usually) smart, they will not pay more than they should for a product. Similarly, because sellers are usually smart, they will not charge less than they should for a product.

And that's the basics of economics and how the market works. I'll be assuming that you know this stuff for my next post. Later!

Modern Sense

First off:
This is merely a modern rendition of Thomas Paine's Common Sense, a pamphlet passed out to garner attention and support for the American Revolution written in 1776. In no way, shape, or form is this my material. While reading Common Sense recently, I was surprised at how close to home the essay hit, so I decided to do my best in translating it so that the average non-politician or historian could read it. I will post the first part of the essay now, and will hopefully get another section out in a week or two. I encourage you to read the real thing here, and I hope that it ignites within you the same passion for freedom that it did in me.

Introduction

Maybe what I'm going to write about here isn't going to be very popular. You see, people have a habit of thinking that something is right just because it hasn't been considered wrong. And when you say, “Hey, maybe that's wrong,” people get upset. They get upset because they're used to the way things are done. And sometimes, that's ok. Traditions are in place for a reason. But every tradition needs to be examined every once in a while. Maybe people will at least take me seriously. But to be honest, I don't think the stuff I say here will convert that many people to this cause; time, and only time, will shift peoples' outlooks.

Usually, we're ok with someone else having power over us. Especially when we're talking about our and our family's security. But when the people who have authority abuse that power for a long time, we begin to wonder whether or not it's ok for them to remain in power. And, since the United States government has used its power to abuse us, its innocent citizens, we have both the right and the obligation to call our government into question. Not only that, but we have the right to reject the authority of our government.

In the following essay, I have done my best to spread this message to every American, not just the people who like politics. Because the people who like politics have already read all the essays they want to, and decided to agree or disagree with me before they even started reading.

The great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once told us: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” While I don't mean to belittle African-Americans' struggle to obtain their rights, I think that he would agree with me when I interpret his quote to mean that any time someone, being black or white, rich or poor, young or old, is denied their freedom, everyone should come to their defense. Because when someone else is denied their freedom, then it's only a matter of time before you are denied your own freedom

I should point out that in the big scheme of things, my identity is irrelevant to how you read this essay. I say that because the ideals that I write about don't have anything to do with who I am, but instead speak for themselves. I am not paid by any company, organization, government, person, or anyone or thing in regards to this essay. I write this because I think that it is the best thing that I can do to help the people of the world in their constant struggle for freedom.


Part One:
How a Government Starts, and How it Should Work

It's important to draw a line between society and government. Society is what people make when they are together and want or need things, like food or shelter. Government is what people make to prevent each other from doing something wrong.

An example of society is a Wal-Mart. 2 groups of people can be seen in a Wal-Mart: the employees and the shoppers. The shoppers are there to buy things like food that we need. The employees are there to make money so they can go out and buy things that they need.

An example of government is a group of citizens and a police force. This time, there are 3 groups of people being discussed. The 1st group are the policemen, who are paid by the 2nd and 3rd groups. The 2nd group of people are the ones who are paying the policemen and tell them what laws they enforce. The 3rd group of people are the ones who used to be in the 1st or 2nd groups, but no longer are because they violated the law that the 2nd group set up, and are in prison and/or are not allowed to have a voice when the laws are made.

You can see that at a Wal-Mart, 2 groups of people come together because they both have needs. But in the police force example, there were 3 groups of people and 1 group was cut off from the rest. For that reason, government at its best always separates people. Thomas Paine, someone who wrote during the American Revolution, said that at its best, government is a necessary evil. That is, government is something that we need, but that can never be good.

Not only can government never be good, but an especially bad government, one that abuses its power, makes us suffer the same things that we would be suffering if we had no government at all.

I'd like you to read that last sentence again and pause for just a second to let it sink in.

What I'm saying is that an abusive government is one that serves no purpose other than to make the people under it suffer. You see, the only reason that government is around is that we don't trust one another, or trust ourselves, to do the right thing all the time. I don't mean stealing a stick of gum from the store, I mean we don't trust people to run things the way they should be run. We think that some corporate executives will try to swindle their employees and/or their bosses out of money. Or we think that someone who's hungry and jobless won't be able to resist the temptation to rob the local liquor store. And secretly, we think that there's a chance that we might do the same in those kinds of situations.

And when people get away with doing things like this under the current government, when people are encouraged or even forced to rob convenience stores, steal electronics, or deal in inside trading, what difference does it make whether there is a government or not? Ask yourself how your life would be different without your government in place. Would your roads stop being repaired? Growing up in a poor area of a major city, I can remember my roads were only repaired once every year or two. Would the crime rates go up? There's no reason to think so, and I say so because statistics show that the same crimes are committed everywhere you go depending on your location. Go to any major city and you'll see drug addiction and robberies. Go to any suburb and you'll see a drug addiction to a different substance and “white-collar crime.” Go to any rural area and you'll see yet another kind of drug addiction and vandalism. All of these things listed, and maybe some others, are the reasons we establish a government.

I'd like to back up to get a glimpse of how a government is formed; how it starts out. Let's take an imaginary group of 5 or so people and put them on an island somewhere without contact with the rest of the world. At first, these people might try to live on their own. But sooner or later, they would come together to form a society where they would trade with one another so that each can make his or her own life easier.

After a while, the number of people grow from just a few to 10 or 20. And now, because there are that many, it is possible for someone to steal from someone without being noticed. When that happens, the people come together to prevent it from happening again. So, they form a government.

In this government, all the people are treated as equals and they can all meet in the same place at the same time. At their meetings, they will decide what they are and are not allowed to do, and what the punishment will be for breaking a rule.

But as the years go by, the number of people in the island increases to 100 and they spread farther and farther apart. And, since each of these people will have their own opinion on each issue or rule that is brought up during the meetings, it becomes hard for everyone to meet at one location at one time. Because of this, the people on the island decide to leave the government to a small number of people who will act the same way as everyone on the island.

If the number of people on the island continues to increase and spread further away from one another, the number of people in the government will have to keep increasing as well so that they can keep expressing the opinions of everyone equally. And because the people on the island, or the voters, want to make sure that the people they elect (the government) are expressing the voters' views, they will make each elected person run for election every so often. In this way, the elected officials and the voters will cooperate with one another naturally. The strength of the government and the happiness of the voters is founded on their cooperation.

This is an example of how a government is started and grows. I used the example to tell you why we, as people, establish a government: because we cannot rely on ourselves or on other people to do what is right. I also used the example to show what the goal of government is: to make sure we are safe from one other.

I draw my ideas about how a government should be run from basic logic that anyone can agree with: the idea that the simpler something is, the harder it is to break. The fewer parts to a toy or the fewer links in a chain, the tougher and more durable it will be. And, if the simple toy or chain does break, the easier it is to put back together. If you look at the Constitution of the United States of America the same way we look at toys and chains, you will find a few things that I'd like to point out. I agree with and appreciate the fact that the Constitution was a great document in the 1700s, after a long time of government oppression, and that it gave people liberties that had never been given before. But the Constitution remains imperfect and cannot give the people governed by it the liberties that it seems to guarantee. I will present some examples of these imperfections.

I first have to mention that dictatorships, governments that are run by just one person, have one good thing about them: that they are simple. If the country is in trouble, there can only be one cause: the person in charge has done something wrong. I'm not saying that dictatorships are good; they are evil, and everything that people in this great country have worked for up until this point have been to free ourselves from dictatorships. But comparing the convenience of knowing what is wrong with the country to the confusion that the American government encourages, where the Senate blames the president, who blames the House, which blames the Supreme Court, which blames the Fed, who turns around and blames the Senate... well, you get the idea. The point is that people like you and me can suffer through a recession or a violation of our rights without ever knowing who to blame or who to turn to.

I know that it is difficult to really look at what the Constitution says; as a proud American who loves and respects his country, I sometimes feel guilty or anti-patriotic when I scrutinize the Constitution. But I know that it is for the greater good, and for the good of my unborn children. I encourage you to read this the same way that I am writing it. And when you do, you will realize that the 3 governing bodies that the Constitution sets up (the president, congress, and Supreme Court) are based on old world ideals with only a hint of democracy.

The first old world ideal, the dictatorship, is found in the presidency. The second ideal, the aristocracy (rule by the elite few) is found in the Supreme Court. Only in the congress do we find the democratic process at work, because only the congress men and women are elected directly by the people.

Thinking about the president's role in the government, his or her only job is to be a figurehead and leader of the United States, and this job leads him or her to either maintain the rights of the people as they are or to take away those rights. Never has a president given the people more rights, because that is the duty of the Supreme Court.

Moving on to the Supreme Court as the rule of the aristocracy, we see that the Supreme Court's only real power, to apply and interpret the laws that have been passed by the congress, could easily be done by congress itself. Moreover, couldn't these laws be interpreted better by the people that voted on them in the first place? And if the congress could actively vote on laws that are being appealed, wouldn't they reflect the needs of the people better than a bunch of out-of-touch judges that were appointed rather than elected? Moving on.

Now, it is popular to say that the three branches of American government are a union of three powers that serve to check one another. Let me say that when you think about it, the idea is ridiculous. You'll see that I've put two words in bold; the words union and check. The word check comes from the game of chess, where one player puts the other into “check,” meaning that the opponent cannot move until a threat has been eliminated. So, knowing this, we can figure out that a union that checks itself just doesn't make any sense. To put it simply, it's as though the government is playing chess with itself, and it's always losing.

First of all, to say that the congress is a check on the president, you must assume two very important (and revealing) things:

1. That the president cannot be trusted without being looked after, or in other words, that a thirst for power will get the better of anyone who becomes the president.

2. That the congress, by being elected to put a check on the president, are either wiser or more trustworthy than the president himself.

But the same Constitution that gives the congress the power to check the president through impeachment gives the president the power to check the congress, which is supposed to be wiser or more trustworthy, by being able to veto its legislation.

The idea that our forefathers had when they made the Constitution was to limit one part of the government from becoming too powerful. But our forefathers made the mistake of assuming that there needed to be more than one part, or branch, of government at all, and that the different branches of government would not needlessly or consistently check one another. More on that later.

A final thought before I wrap this part up. Why does America (or anyone, for that matter) need a far-removed institution like the Supreme Court that decides what the congress meant when they said this or that? Why does America need a president that the people are afraid to trust, and that we feel a constant need to check? In fact, what is the reason for the establishment of a power that needs to be checked by another power at all? Is there ultimately any reason that the people cannot rule themselves through the congress, without a president or a supreme court?

Freedom, Part I

I assume you've heard of it. Freedom, that is.

It's the stuff they write movies about. The stuff our forefathers fought and died for. It is the glue that holds America and its people together; the one thing that we all have in common.

But when is the last time we exercised our freedom? Certainly we had the opportunity to do so during the last election, and I hope you did. I know I voted, and I felt great about it. But that's beside the point.

When is the last time you really exercised your freedom? Have you ever sent a letter or email to your congress man or woman? Did you ever get a reply? I'm willing to bet that you haven't. And that's ok. We're busy people; we don't always have time for the monotonies of writing to our officials.

I've written several emails; mostly about how I supported them on this or that issue or encouraged them to vote this way or that way on legislation. I got the habit from my dad; to this day, he still sends plenty of letters to his congresswoman telling her how he feels on particular issues. In total, I'd say we've written over 50 letters to different congresspeople. Not once have we received a reply.

Maybe I'm an extremist. Maybe I'm oldfashioned or I require too much out of my senator or representative. Maybe the views my dad and I present in these letters and emails don't reflect what the majority of people think, and they're ignored. Or maybe the issues are so hot-button that the congresspeople just don't want to deal with their voters. Or maybe, as I suspect, our congress men and women don't care what we, the American people, have to say.

I'm going to try something. It's simple, really. But I'll need some participation. Go to this website: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress and click on the state you live in. Then email one or both of your senators (the 2 people at the top of the list). The email shouldn't be anything bad or negative. It could be your opinion on an issue you feel strongly about, or it could just be a friendly, "hello."

If you don't like the idea of emailing your senators, why not try President-Elect Barack Obama or President Bush?

Contact Barack Obama: http://change.gov/page/content/contact
Contact President Bush: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Why would I ask you to do this? Because I have faith that there are Americans out there like my dad and me; people who just want those they elect to listen. And what I want, more than anything, is to know that somewhere out there is a government official who is willing to listen to us. Willing, at the very least, to listen to you.

I dare you, the reader of this blog, to contact the elected official of your choice and comment on this blog that you have done so. My challenge is this: find a member of the government who will listen to what you wrote and genuinely reply to it. Auto-replies don't count; an email or letter from them back to you stating their opinions on the issue is key in determining whether or not they are truly listening. I sincerely hope that you accept this challenge, and that your official replies to your needs, your wants, or your casual greeting.

Thanks.