Le Cygne Gris

More On Wealth Inequality

2012-03-07T06:58:00.000Z

However, both works share the same recognition of the intrinsically flawed nature of the three primary forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. They also recognize the way these forms tend to degrade over time and transform into the others. Both Plato and Cicero are fundamentally skeptical about democracy, as Plato sees as the second-worst form of government leading eventually to demagogic tyranny as liberty devolves into license, whereas Cicero instead observes it as a prelude to aristocracy. [Emphasis added.]

I noted in a prior post that wide margins of wealth inequality should be viewed with suspicion. I now think, in light of Vox’s comments, that prolonged occurrences of radical inequality serve as evidence of a coming aristocracy.

Simply put, the elites will use their wealth and power to manipulate the political process for their own profit. As wealth inequality increases, the number of people excluded from controlling the political process increases, until there are only the wealthy elites who, practically speaking, control the political system, which is a de facto aristocracy.

Blowing Things Out Of Proportion

2012-03-07T06:48:00.000Z

Apparently Walt Disney is caving to pressure from the fatties:

Walt Disney World is retooling an Epcot exhibit on childhood obesity after critics complained it was insensitive to obese kids and reinforced stereotypes.

The interactive exhibit, Habit Heroes, featured animated fitness superheroes Will Power and Callie Stenics and super-sized villains Snacker and Lead Bottom, who eat junk food and watch too much television. Critics said the exhibit reinforces stereotypes that obese children are lazy and have poor eating habits.

Doctors say obesity can sometimes be attributed to genetics and certain medications, and food can be used as a coping mechanism.

"We’re appalled to learn that Disney, a traditional hallmark of childhood happiness and joy, has fallen under the shadow of negativity and discrimination," the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance said in a statement.

Three things:

First, the reason why stereotypes about fat people exist is because, for the most part, they are true! Most fat people do have poor eating habits, and most fat people are lazy. Sure, the standard American diet of highly processed food doesn’t do anyone any favors (it would be difficult to imagine someone overeating, say, a bunch of carrots), but that doesn’t mean it’s wise to eat lots of junk food and never do anything strenuous. Anyhow, there is generally a correlation between fatness, inactivity, and bad eating habits. Making this claim isn’t stereotyping; it’s statistical analysis.

Second, while it’s true that medications (read: synthetically derived chemical compounds) and genetics can play a role in obesity, these are not, relatively speaking, major or common factors. In fact, one’s aforementioned diet and exercise play a considerably more prominent role in determining weight.

Third, why is there a national organization dedicated to fat acceptance? Why should anyone accept a state of being that correlates to serious health problems, imposes heavy costs on taxpayers, and increases aggregate ugliness?

How can anyone claim to care about other people and not speak out when they engage in self-destructive behavior, like being obese? How can anyone say they want what’s best for the country and be accepting of people whose lifestyle will indisputably impose increased social costs* through increased health spending? Quite simply, the fat acceptance movement is asking people to approve of a costly, destructive behavior, as if social acceptance of obesity will somehow negate its actual costs.

Quite simply, obese people need to be ashamed of their obesity, and they should use their shame as motivation to start engaging in healthy behaviors. Fighting people who hurt their feelings won’t solve their larger problem; getting into shape will. And if mockery and social stigma help motivate fatties to lose weight, then the fat acceptance movement (talk about an oxymoron, amirite?) is the worst thing in the world for those for whom it claims to advocate.

* I say this in light of the current march towards universal health care.

Beware Self-Selection

2012-03-07T06:23:00.000Z

PRCalDude, in the comments on this post:

Game theorists spend so much time blogging about it and going back-and-forth with one-another in the comments you can tell they'll never overcome their mental hang-ups to truly be alpha. Alpha-male status is not a thing that requires conscious effort.

And:

The guys on these blogs commenting back-an-forth endlessly are never going to get it because they have major character flaws (like pathological narcissim) that prevent them from learning it.

…

If you ask me, most of the comments of men on a lot of these game blogs come from absolute lunatics who are trying to revenge-fvck women to make up for past slights they've received from the female gender.

There is a bit of truth to this. There do indeed appear to be some pathological men that frequent Game sites and blogs, and they do spend a lot of time discussing minutiae in an effort to overcome their mental hang-ups. However, the comments section of Game blogs do not tell the whole story.

Allow me to project: I’ve had over 100k pageviews, coupled with roughly 1000 comments, for a comment rate of 1% (i.e. 1 in every 100 readers leaves a comment). I’m guessing this is a bit low, relatively speaking, in part because I have a rather tough comments policy, and in part because I restrict commenting on the blog (e.g. I prohibited anonymous commenting). Let us assume, then, that the average comment rate for a Game blog is 3%, which is to say that 3 in every 100 blog visitors leaves a blog comment. If this is the case, then it is a mistake to judge the general practitioners of Game based on the behavior of a small number of readers represented in the comments section.

In the first place, the readers that are almost put together, in terms of Game, are not going to spend a lot of time writing comments because they will be too busy having sex with women. They just need to make a few minor adjustments to how they behave, comport themselves, stand, talk, interact, dress, etc. They have a large number of things going for them; they simply need to make a few minor improvements in a couple of areas and they’ll be fine. These are greater betas/lesser alphas. They aren’t pathologically driven to revenge-rape women, nor do they have any mental hang-ups. They’re simply guys who need to make a couple of adjustments.

In the second place, there are also some readers who can read about Game and grasp the concepts behind it without having to discuss it in a great level of detail. These men likewise have no need to light up the comments section because they have nothing they need to say or ask.

Finally, in the third place, there are some readers who show up late to the party, and then realize that their question has already been asked and answered in the comments, and so they don’t feel the need to compulsively ask questions in order to feel some sense of self-aggrandizement. Quite simply, these men are able to learn from the examples of others, and so they remain quiet.

The conclusion to be drawn from this is that Game can, in fact, provide quite a bit of unacknowledged help to a large number of men. They may be silent; they may refrain from posting on a blog or in the comments section, but they are there nonetheless. These men should not be ignored or discounted simply because a couple of blowhards engage in an endless circle jerk about the best ways to score women. And while there are many things that can be quite annoying about Game, and more especially about the bloggers who write about it, it is a mistake to dismiss it out of hand because its most vocal proponents happen to be jackasses. For every braying fool that brags about all the women he’s slept with and how he’s a manipulative jerk, there are likely five men quietly taking the principles behind the actions and improving their marriages. And that’s why Game and its theorists are still important.

Why Child Labor Laws Suck

2012-03-07T06:00:00.000Z

Here’s an example:

Hasbrook, who turned 17 in January according to her Tumblr, is a high school junior from Oregon. During this NYFW, she walked for Marc Jacobs, Proenza Schouler, Theyskens' Theory, Marc by Marc Jacobs, Lacoste, Victoria by Victoria Beckham, and Houghton. That's a big debut for a model. On her blog, she also describes doing looks for Reem Acra, shooting a video for Lacoste, and working various photo shoots; again, typical for a successful new face during fashion week. These long hours are just one reason why the CFDA recommends that girls under 16 not work fashion week: the shows last a month, which often has the effect of forcing these girls to make an uncomfortable choice between staying in school and pursuing their careers, and while some underaged models are chaperoned (Hasbrook says her mother traveled with her to New York), many girls — especially the majority of models who come from poorer countries — are not so lucky, and work unsupervised. No organization currently conducts background checks on the adults who work with minors in the fashion industry.

Before discussing this in depth, there are a couple of things that must first be clarified. First, the primary purpose of education is to increase a child’s intellectual capital, and so prepare him or her for work later on. Second, teenagers are perfectly capable of work (just ask this guy). Third, my personal bias is toward child labor, primarily as way to train children to become productive adults. For what it’s worth, I had a paper route at age eight, started mowing lawns for money when I was twelve, started painting when I was fourteen, and had my first “official” job when I was sixteen. I’m very used to working, and I don’t think it all that demanding for children, and more especially teenagers to have jobs that fall within the range of their abilities.

Now, in the first place, it seems obvious that having a job and, more broadly, work experience of some sort is a good thing. This is true even if you’re a young lady working as a fashion model. Remember, the whole point of an education is to prepare you for work. Now, if you’re already working, there isn’t actually that much of a point in going to school, since you already have the benefits of school (i.e. a job). Thus, the tradeoff between work and school is in many ways a false dichotomy because school does not have that much more to offer you if you’re already working as a supermodel.

In the second place, the career trajectory of female models differs quite a bit from their looks-challenged counterparts. As Vox pointed out, there are a decent number of hot young models that have married young and started families, usually at the expense of their career. There does not appear to be any extensive data on whether this is a trend, but the anecdotal evidence seems to bear it out. As such, it is somewhat ludicrous to even suggest that education in general is all that important to girls who go into modeling because it is highly likely that a significant number of them will leverage their looks into marrying a high-status (read: usually wealthy) man. For those who were educated in public school, this means that looks, not education, are the relevant factor for a model’s long-term plans, and so it would be far more beneficial for models to skip school in favor of their careers, as it will help them to widen the pool of potential mates.

Therefore, we can conclude that child labor laws suck, because their general application is actually counterproductive in some cases.* As is seen in this case, the proposed labor regulations would actually be harmful to under-aged models, as it would prevent them from achieving their general goals. Since it is feminists that are proposing these laws (and ugly ones at that), it seems reasonable that this proposed legislation is motivate more by jealousy than actual concern. Of course, once the old hamster starts spinning, it becomes increasingly more difficult to tell the difference between the two.

* Yes, I know that labor don’t apply in this case. However, it is an article calling for legislation/regulation of some sort, and is thus relevant to my broader point regarding labor laws.

Love and Anger

2012-03-07T05:08:00.000Z

It turns out that women believe the two are related:

It revealed women most likely enjoyed spotting when their partner was dissatisfied because it showed his strong “engagement” or “investment” in their time together.

Dr Shiri Cohen, the study’s lead author, said: “It could be that for women, seeing that their male partner is upset reflects some degree of the man's investment and emotional engagement in the relationship, even during difficult times.

It has been said that the opposite of love is not hate but rather apathy; the results of the aforementioned survey would suggest that it is indeed the case. In a way, it makes sense, since you only fight over the things you care about. So, if you’re fighting about your relationship, it stands to reason that you care about it.

Incidentally, this is a lesson betas need to learn. It is almost always better to express anger (though it’s probably best to avoid doing so in a manner that can land you in jail) than to bottle it up. And if you don’t get worked up over your relationship when things start to go south, it’s quite probably doomed.

On Wealth Inequality

2012-03-04T05:30:00.000Z

Joseph Stiglitz:

Inequality is bad for growth, stability and efficiency. … Inequality peaked both before the Great Depression and before the Great Recession, and it's not an accident. So basically, when we have a lot of inequality, demand goes down. … All this inequality was offset by creating a bubble. The bubble allowed people to consume more. Now we have the inequality but we don't have a bubble, and that means that we will have persistent, weak demand, and therefore unless we create another bubble it's going to be very difficult for us to get back to full employment.

A lot of the inequality that we have in the United States is created by distortions – excessive financial sector, monopolies like Microsoft … giving the oil companies, mining companies resources at a discount. … These things distort the economy, while they create wealth at the top. So it's not wealth creation – it's wealth redistribution, which makes the size of the pie smaller.

In a materialist sense, no two people are equal. We each have differing physiques, talents, interests, motivations, limits, and abilities. As such, even if given perfect equality of opportunity, it is reasonable that we would never have equality of outcome. Thus, there will always be some level of inequality among human beings. This is perfectly natural, and entirely unavoidable, no matter how many Marxist revolutions try to say otherwise.

That said, there is something to Joseph Stiglitz’s observation that this degree of inequality is economically detrimental. Stiglitz is undoubtedly better versed on the subject of inequality than I am, but I wonder if his tendency to view these sorts of matter through the mainstream economics lens handicaps him, and so I disagree with his assertion that radical inequality causes economic decline. I theorize that it merely correlates with economic decline. As Stiglitz noted, there are many economic distortions caused by the federal government, and these economic distortions have a nasty habit of benefiting the wealthy, politically connected elite.

As such, there should be an inherent distrust of radical inequality, and it should be coupled with a suspicion that the wealthy are trying to use the government to exploit everyone. This is a fairly common occurrence in the world today, and has been the historical norm. Businessmen,* therefore, are no more deserving of trust than politicians because both groups are human, and are more or less equally susceptible to the vices that have plagued humans for millennia: greed, lust, and hunger for power. Therefore, any time inequality is present to a radical degree, it should be suspected that the wealthy elite are in cahoots with the government to enrich themselves.**

* Caveat no. 1: “businessmen” is not synonymous with “free market.” I fully support the free market because it is an inherently trustworthy process. Even though the market may be an implicitly trustworthy process, it does not follow that its participants are.

** While we should suspect collusion, we should not assume it. We should merely check to see if businessmen are, in fact, colluding with politicians for the purpose of self-enrichment. If they are, we should demand that said collusion be brought to an end. And if they are not, we should get over our envy.

Is Morality Increasing?

2012-03-04T05:09:00.000Z

Someone seems to think so:

But what are these problems? When considering America's moral decline, my first instinct was to look at the crime rate. If Satan is at work in America, he's probably nicking wallets and assaulting old ladies. But over the past several decades the crime rate has fallen dramatically, despite what you may think. The homicide rate has been cut in half since 1991; violent crime and property crime are also way down. Even those pesky kids are committing less crime. There are some caveats to these statistics, as my colleague points out, but I think we can conclude that crime is not the cause of America's moral decline.

There are several problems with using legality as a proxy for morality: The two obviously are not the same. At all. Since R.M. references Satan, I will assume that he is referring specifically to the Judeo-Christian moral code. As such, his attempt to conflate legality and morality is especially inept.

First, there are many immoral actions that are not illegal: homosexual intercourse, adultery, fornication, abortion, disrespecting one’s parents (an act that was punishable by death in the Old Testament, incidentally), and so on. In fact, from a moral perspective, the current legal code is effectively and considerably more libertine than the Christian moral code. As such, appealing to crime statistics is simply nonsensical because they cannot accurately measure all forms of immorality. (Also, crime statistics cannot, by definition, account for unreported crime, which would skew towards inreased immorality.)

So let's look elsewhere. Abortion has returned as a hot-button issue, perhaps it is eating away at our moral fiber. Hmm, the abortion rate declined by 8% between 2000 and 2008. Increases in divorce and infidelity could be considered indicators of our moral decay. There's just one problem: according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the divorce rate is the lowest it has been since the early 1970s. This is in part due to the recession, but infidelity is down too.

A declining abortion rate proves nothing. The more relevant question is: how many women are having unwanted pregnancies? (Remember, that’s the whole point of abortion). The abortion rate is nothing more than a case study in self-selection bias, and a decline in the abortion could prove nothing more than the increasing efficacy of birth control.

The self-selection bias also plays a role in the declining divorce rates. Not only are there fewer divorces (relatively and absolutely), there are also fewer marriages. Now, it could be that the decline in the marriage rate explains the decline in the divorce rate, since those who are more likely to have their marriages end in divorce may find it more advantageous to skip marriage in the first place. This explanation, though unproven, seems to be rather likely given the current incentives that modern family law provides.

This same sort of analysis can apply to infidelity rates. It may be that there is massive self-selection going on at this point in time, wherein the majority of people who choose to get married in this day and age are those who are most likely to be committed to their vows, which means that those who would ordinarily cheat simply avoid marriage, and thus avoid being part of the infidelity statistics.

Other areas that might indicate declining virtue are also going against the perceived trend. For example, charitable giving is up after a decline during the recession. The teenage pregnancy rate is at its lowest level in 40 years. And according to Education Week, "the nation’s graduation rate stands at 72 percent, the highest level of high school completion in more than two decades." So where is the evidence of this moral decline?

Note also that the DOW is up after the recession. Not to be a pessimistic ass, but I would bet that charitable giving declines going into the next recession, which should hit once the massive, interventionist legislation popularly known as ObamaCare takes effect. Toss in the never-ending increases in bureaucratic fiat, the likely tax raises that will accompany increased spending (and remember, inflation is a tax), and it is thus highly likely that charitable giving will go straight down the tubes, and will do so shortly.

A lower teenage pregnancy rate is murky at best, for the same reasons that lower abortion rates are. It may simply prove that teenagers are better at avoiding pregnancy than ever before. It does not necessarily prove that they are having sex less frequently.

The high school graduation rate is completely irrelevant to the question of morality, as the Judeo-Christian ethic says nothing of attending high school, or indeed of graduating from it. One does not need to have any moral strength to pass high school, as the whole educational system is designed to make it absurdly easy for anyone to pass. Indeed, at this point in time, one has to work actively to fail high school. Additionally, scholastic standards have changed so much that cross-generational comparisons of the high school graduation rate are unfair, especially in light of the differing economic conditions.

In all, this exercise in self-confident reassurance that we’re as moral as we’ve ever been is nothing more than shallow statistical analysis coupled with imprecise thinking. Between term conflation, argument from correlation, and a general inability to account for self-selection biases, this attempt at moral cheerleading is nothing short of inept. I think this video provides a nice summary:

Masculine Style

2012-03-02T18:26:00.000Z

Tanner has a blog call Masculine Style, dedicated to explaining the basics of, well, masculine style. His blog fits nicely into the Game niche, albeit his focus on how clothes can complement one's Game. I've added a link to his blog on my blogroll (right sidebar).

I've also submitted several pictures of my favorite outfits to his blog, and he has graciously posted them. I don't normally comment on fashion or aesthetics at this blog, so it seemed to me that a post such as this would fit better at a blog dedicated to men's fashion. Anyhow, feel free to check out the post on my personal style, and comment there if you so desire. I'll be checking in at Masculine Style periodically over the next couple of days, so if you have questions feel free to ask them in the comments at Masculine Style. Also, add the blog to your RSS feed or bookmark it, as it is very much worth the time.

The Future of Slavery

2012-03-02T04:17:00.002Z

It will look remarkably similar to its history;

The Southern convict leasing systems were a means of extending slavery for African Americans well past the Civil War, Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th and 14th amendments. Southern laws were crafted to guarantee that the now “free” African Americans would be incarcerated at much higher rates than whites. Blacks were picked up, hauled off and locked up for ridiculous crimes such as “vagrancy” (being homeless or unemployed), loitering in public, speaking loudly in the company of white women or selling farm products after dark, to name only a few.

Once these people were matriculated into the prison system, they had effectively become slave laborers again. The state allowed convicts to be leased out to private corporations for little more than a pittance - convict laborers were rented out at monthly rates that represented a 50-80% discount over the wages paid to free laborers. They were forced to work in some of the most dangerous environments at the time, laying railroad and mining coal, and a significant percentage developed severe illness/injuries and died in the course of such work.

It is estimated that at least 9000 convict workers were murdered or died of “natural causes” over a few decades under this system alone. As one historian described it, the system was “brutal in a social sense, but fiendishly rational in an economical sense”. That is really the crux of the matter – the Southern plantation economy, as well as newly developing transport industries, was very dependent on extremely low-cost labor, in both an economic and psychological sense. Convict leasing proved to be even more profitable than slavery in many cases, since there was really no need to keep the workers healthy and alive for very long.

There is a book, called Three Felonies a Day (referenced here), that details how complex the federal legal code has become. The main point of the book is that legal principles have been replaced by legislative fiat and, as a result, pretty much every citizen commits three felonies a day. Furthermore, there has been a precedent in recent years of tossing out the legal tradition of mens rea, which means that ignorance* is no longer used as a valid excuse for having committed a crime.

As such, the conditions are now perfect for rounding up large numbers of citizens for “crimes” they have committed and tossing them in jail. It has already been well-established to use prisoners for labor as a punitive measure. Some work without wages; some work for a pittance. In either case, prison-labor is essentially slave labor. It seems quite possible, then, that this current enlargement of the legal code is but a prelude for future slavery.

Not only that, the banking institutions have effectively convinced the government to encourage young people to sell themselves as slaves (through college loans), and encourage poor people to voluntarily enslave themselves as well (through undeserved home loans). Perhaps one of the reasons why giant corporations support massive increases in regulation is because it increases the probability that any given person will be tossed in jail and, later on, pressed into some form of slave labor.

As was seen before in history, the government can certainly be used to press people into slavery. There is no reason to think it won’t happen again. Especially since the foundation for this form of slavery has already been laid.

* If memory serves me correctly, the context of the phrase “ignorance of the law is no excuse” stems from an argument that some activities cannot not be known to be wrong. For example, murder is universally recognized as a crime, as is theft, and so anyone who murders or steals cannot reasonably claim that they didn’t this sort of thing was wrong because, in a sense, everyone knows it is wrong to murder or steal, even if one does not bother to read the relevant statutes.

UPDATE: This post at LRC details some of the inane laws in the legal code that an be used for prosecutorial purposes, illustrating one of my points made above.

Conservatism is Done

2012-03-02T03:59:00.000Z

As Paul Krugman correctly points out:

So now we see a primary struggle in which the choice is between a series of not-Romneys whose political and policy views are stark raving mad, on one side, and the not-not-Romney who is, maybe, just pretending to share those views. How did that happen?

The answer, as Brad suggests, is that it happened a long time ago. The GOP isn’t just spectacularly unlucky in its menu of candidates; this is what the party has been for decades. Rick Santorum isn’t someone out of left field; he’s always been what you see now, and he was a central figure in his Senate days.

This election clearly reveals that, as an intellectual movement, conservatism is completely bankrupt. There have been several conservative pundits who have tried to explain why Romney is conservative and the rest are fakers (ahem, Ann Coulter), why Gingrich is conservative and the rest are fakers (ahem, Thomas Sowell), and why Santorum is conservative and the rest are fakers (John Hawkins and Chuck Norris, at times). Worst of all, not one single mainstream conservative pundit even gives Ron Paul the time of day.

Now, self-described conservatives will claim that they favor limited government, abiding by the constitution, lower taxes, a free economy, and a strong military. The only current GOP candidate that has a history of supporting all these things is Ron Paul.* And yet, conservatives continue to reject the one person who holds their nominal beliefs.

Now, some conservatives make a big to-do about social issues. But Romney is not going to be there man, and Newt is too politically pragmatic to be their man. That just leaves Santorum and Paul. And of the two, Santorum has enough disregard for the constitution to try to enact conservative social policy.

Thus, the conservative movement, such as it is, is so intellectually bankrupt that they will most strongly support the one candidate who is liberal on everything except social policy and, in a display of hamsterific cognitive dissonance, call this man a true conservative. The simple fact of the matter, as Krugman points out, is that conservatism is dead. The GOP wants no part of it, and all the nominal conservatives will rationalize their tacit support of liberalism instead of holding GOP party leaders’ feet to the fire. And once you reach the point of calling “conservatism” “liberalism,” you have effectively rendered “conservative” meaningless.

On what grounds can conservatives oppose state intervention into health care? They want to keep Medicaid and Medicare. On what grounds can conservatives support limited government? They want the federal government to regulate people’s personal lives. And how can they support low taxes? These massive expenditures, including the military, have to be paid for somehow.

Indeed, there is no consistent application of principles when it comes to conservatism. Conservatives want what they want, and they will find a way to rationalize it. They want to control other people’s lives (hence the desire to make Biblical morality part of the legal code), but they don’t want to be controlled (hence the call for lower taxes and deregulation). They don’t want to pay for liberals’ wants (hence their opposition to universal health care, welfare, other social programs), but they want liberals to pay for their imperialism. Conservatives are hypocrites of the worst kind, inconsistent in their “principles,” and guided by nothing other than a desire to control others, in the hope of molding a society in their own image. The rationalizations that accompany their attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable is nothing more than the movement’s death knell.

Regarding the military, let me point at that strong militaries and war-mongering are not the same thing. Now, it is true that war-mongering can only happen if one has a strong military, but that doesn’t mean that war-mongering strengthens the military. In fact, war-mongering weakens the army, what with the loss of life and the continual destruction of military items.

A Mess Of One’s Own Making

2012-03-01T22:33:00.000Z

Ron Taffel:

That evening, I met with hundreds of parents from the same community. In a weirdly antiphonal response to what I’d heard earlier in the day, they rocked the school auditorium with their complaints of how hard—no, impossible—it was to be a parent today. School was a bureaucratic, relentlessly demanding, social and academic rat race that wasn’t even preparing their kids for the future. A vast and frightening Internet culture was hijacking their kids, and they were helpless to do much about it. These parents said they were trying so hard to make ends meet that they had little time left over just to be with their kids, much less maintain consistent authority over their lives.

One thing that really stand out about this laundry list of complaints is that much of it is self-caused.

In the first place, parents choose to send their children to public school, even though private school and home school are two very viable alternatives. In fact, home schooling eliminates the bureaucracy of higher education, scales down the demands to something more reasonable, and eliminates the social and academic rat race (which often helps kids win said rat races). So, parents that complain about the problems that arise from putting their kids in school are essentially saying that they aren’t responsible for the fundamental choice that put them in this quandary. Namely, parents are absolving themselves of their decision to enroll their children in public schools in the first place.

In the second place, the internet culture can very much be avoided, and rather easily to boot: don’t have the internet in your house. This is pretty extreme, obviously, but the fact that parents don’t even consider this option tells us that parents aren’t actually that concerned about their children’s exposure to the internet. I would bet that most of them don’t actually make any serious efforts to regulate their children’s exposure to the internet.

In the third place, parents are very much responsible for their desire to make ends meet. I wonder how many of these parents pay for cable, high-speed internet, designer clothes, expensive housing in prime neighborhoods, and so on. Many parents decide on the ends before figuring out how to make them meet. They get sucked into materialist dreams, and then work to make them reality. This is precisely the opposite of how it should be. It would be better to consider what it would take to pay for the bare necessities, and then find a job that covers the costs of said necessities. Then, one should only considering earning more than what is necessary than the minimum if doing so doesn’t require spending long hours away from home.

Thus, it is truly astonishing to see how many problems parents face simply because they think they need to do something that is, in fact, entirely optional. It is sad to see how many problems parents visit upon their families and upon themselves because they are too materialistic to learn contentment. And, it is disgusting to see how parents have confused wants for needs, and have thus been sucked into the discomfiting rat race, deprived of happiness in the pursuit of material wealth.

Paragraphs to Ponder

2012-03-01T21:58:00.002Z

Karl Denninger:

We as a nation need to be done with this crap. Were I President I would tomorrow declare peace, but with a clear warning -- the next time an Islamic terrorist killed just oneAmerican I would level Mecca with a tactical nuclear weapon, rendering that "hallowed ground" impassable for a thousand years. If it happened again I'd level Medina in exactly the same way, consigning, under these people's beliefs, every single one of them to Hell as they'd be unable to complete their holy obligations -- forever. And I'd order the military to dip their rounds in pig's blood so that any of these jackals that happened to get a special-delivery present at 3200fps would believe that they, under their own set of beliefs, would be unclean and go straight to eternal Hell if they were shot by them.

Perhaps that would be sufficient deterrent and perhaps not, but I would never, ever apologize to anyone who responded to speech or the disposal of unwanted simple pieces of paper with violence.

It is time for America as a nation and Americans as people to say "enough, damnit!" If you want to behave like animals then have at it, but not with our people, not on our land, and not with our help. Do whatever you want between yourselves -- we'll watch the pretty fireworks from a distance and munch tasty strips of bacon at the same time.

But if you **** with the bull, you're going to get the horns. Period. No more "nice" rules of engagement, no more pithy pontification from the West Wing, just one thing will happen in response -- overwhelming and immediate retaliatory force. We will not initiate force, as that's wrong and indefensible, but we will also not stand for anyone else doing so "in the name of (any) God" -- ever again.

This strikes me as the most reasonable approach to foreign policy. Don’t initiate violence, but do react with swiftly and completely toward any initiations of violence. So, while we won’t start any fights, we will certainly end them, and convincingly so.

The Golden Rule

2012-03-01T17:38:00.000Z

Ever since I’ve begun reading Feministing on a daily basis, I’ve begun to get the feeling that the whole site is one giant prank, wherein someone adopts the persona of a young feminist and says nonsensical things in a deliberate attempt to troll people. Here’s an example of what I’m talking about:

Republican supporters are saying it isn’t that big a deal–that it’s just the same conscious protections that have always been in place. In fact, allowing even non-religious employers to refuse to cover any services they want is a radical new move. Any employer–even a Taco Bell–could deny their employees coverage of key preventive services that are guaranteed to everyone else under health care reform on the basis of their own personal “morals.”

I’m not sure how else to say this, but employers pretty much have the right to offer their employees any compensation they want. If an employer so chose, he or she could offer cash in lieu of health insurance (the current income tax code disincenitvizes this sort of behavior, but it is perfectly legal). In fact, no employer is mandated to provide insurance to any of its employees. Thus, if an employer wants to offer insurance, it can place whatever restrictions or limits it desires and—here’s the important part—if employees dislike the benefits offer, they can go work somewhere else. Workers are not forced into their jobs, nor do they *have* to accept an employer’s compensation offer. If they don’t like it, they can decline it and work elsewhere. Remember the golden rule: whoever has the gold makes the rules. You can take them or leave them.

Game: So Easy a Girl Can Do It

2012-03-01T17:22:00.000Z

Sofia has a remarkably funny post on online dating Game. She is apparently quite good at it. Some excerpts:

So, I created a fake online dating profile (as a man) for experimental purposes about an hour ago. In that time I’ve messaged maybe a dozen girls and have had a fairly successful response rate. The guy whose likeness I’m using is perfectly average looking, probably comparable to Roosh.

A couple things I learned:

- Girls are completely homogeneous and predictable. You don’t even need to read their stupid, carefully cultivated profiles to send them messages. Here is an average female self-summary I’m spontaneously composing, for example: I’m a really fun-loving and adventurous (arbitrary adjectives that bear little actual meaning). I’m a huge foodie, and I love to travel. Likes include rainy days, hand-knitted mittens and live music. I’m looking for someone intelligent, funny and down to earth (grossly generalized categories).

And:

- If all else fails, being a dick works. I sent outright insulting messages that actually got decent feedback. For example, I modified Roosh’s tweet as an opener for girls with cropped haircuts: When I meet a girl who has short hair, I put a sympathetic look on my face and ask her if she recently had cancer. It couldn’t hurt.

ONE GIRL ENDED UP PROPOSITIONING ME FOR SEX. She was a 6.5 with potential. I did cocky-funny and it worked. She is giving me LMR at the moment (I think I fucked it up marginally after the proposition — forgive me! I’ve never swooped girls before). Also, I’ll give credit where credit is due: Aaron helped me come up with witty openers.

So if there are any ~~men~~ betas out there who still aren’t convinced about the efficacy of Game, this should pretty much serve as proof. Also, as a ~~man~~ beta you should be ashamed of yourself if you are less attractive to women than a completely fake online dating profile.

The Iranian “Threat”

2012-03-01T17:04:00.000Z

Here it is:

An estimated 45-50% of Iran’s small, obsolete air force is grounded by lack of spare parts or repairs. Iran’s pilots, who last saw action during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, have critically little flying time. Iran’s air force lacks modern radars, communications or electronic warfare equipment.

The mainstay of Iran’s air force remains about 60 ancient US-built F-14 naval fighters, F-4 Phantom strike aircraft dating from the Vietnam era, and some old US F-5 trainers. Iran also has a grab bag of some 25 Soviet/Russian Mig-29’s, a similar number of capable SU-24 strike aircraft, and some 20 Chinese outdated F-7 fighters. The US -supplied aircraft all suffer from metal fatigue and are more of a danger to their hapless pilots than an enemy.

Iran’s bathtub navy has a few small frigates and three modern Russian Kilo-class submarines that are effective in shallow coastal waters. Iran’s sizeable numbers of Chinese anti-ship missiles on shore, at sea and carried by aircraft might score a few lucky hits on the mighty US Navy or oil tankers, as could its ample supply of magnetic mines.

But any US assault of Iran, would open by surprise attacks from waves of cruise missiles and stealth aircraft against Iranian air bases, ports and communications hubs. Most of Iran’s air force and navy would be destroyed. Iran’s obsolete air defenses would be put out of action by missile and cyber-warfare attacks.

Iran’s primary method of counter-attacking would consist of commando raids against US bases in the Gulf, Afghanistan, Pakistan and, possibly, on Saudi oil installations. But no such attacks would prove decisive or alter the course of the conflict. Iran would be pounded until its attackers decided to cease fire.

Now, can we dispense with nonsense on stilts that the Republican chickenhawks keep peddling, in regards to grave military threat we face from Iran, and focus instead on things that actually matter, like the economy?

Two Flaws

2012-02-29T05:24:00.000Z

Chuck Norris, on what presidential candidate the Founding Fathers would vote for:

No wonder John Jay -- the first chief justice of the United States, appointed by George Washington himself -- wrote to Jedidiah Morse on Feb. 28, 1797: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

First off, it doesn’t matter what opinion any founding father had about government. What matters is what the constitution says, because the constitution trumps personal opinion when it comes to government. This is how rule of law functions.

Second, “Christian nation” is not the same as “Christian government.” The government of a nation is a subset of a nation. Regardless of you define members of the US government (I refer solely to federal employees, but including eligible voters strikes me as a reasonable metric as well), the number of people who are a part of the government is always smaller than the number of citizens. As such, it is simply ludicrous to think that claiming that America is “a Christian nation” is somehow proof that the US government should be a theocracy. The fact of the matter is that America is a Christian nation with a secular federal government. As such, religion has no official role in the federal government (hence the whole “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion).

While Christians would hopefully have a better grasp of natural law and rule of law than non-Christians, it is not imperative that they be elected, especially if they are elected solely on their merits of claiming to believe in God. The Founding Fathers, then, would vote for someone who understood rule of law and had respect for the constitution. We all know who he is. (Hint for Chuck Norris: It’s not Rick Santorum.)

More Bad Arguments from Environmentalists

2012-02-29T05:09:00.000Z

Source.

First off, this is a false dichotomy. It doesn’t matter which theory makes more sense, as it is entirely possible that neither accurately describe reality.

In the second place, environmentalism isn’t exactly hurting for money (just Al Gore!). The amount of money that gets poured into researching global warming is pretty massive. The federal government has handed out atleast $50 billion to global warming research since 1997. From what I can gather (and this is by no means conclusive), it appears that pro-warming researchers have received more than twice as much as skeptics (counting all sources of funding, not just the federal government). Thus, presenting the issue as “poor, honest scientists” being pitted against “big (profitable) oil” is simply dishonest, and there is no excuse for it.

In the third place, massive conspiracy is both misleading and accurate. If the East Anglia is any indication, there certainly have been some global warming apologists that have conspired to mislead. O the other hand, it doesn’t appear that there is a massive conspiracy as much as there is simple correlation of interests, which is mostly a case of self-selection. So it’s not so much that the apparently vast majority of environmental scientists are all secretly colluding with one another as much as they have coinciding interests and acting together.

In the fourth place, the implication of intentions is irrelevant. It seems likely that most global warming apologists are well-intentioned, albeit ignorant, illogical, and not given to introspection. Thus, they don’t intend to destroy the global economy. Unfortunately, that will certainly be what happens if they have their way in setting environmental policy. And so, their intentions are irrelevant; drawing attention to them is a false flag.

In all, this amusingly illogical and counterfactual “infographic” feels more like a piece of propaganda than a legitimate argument. And if the greens are resorting to propaganda, you can bet the movement is on its last legs.

In Which Feminists Learn That Democracy Sucks

2012-02-29T04:42:00.000Z

And cue the feminists snarkily complaining about how the government goes against their desires:

The Virginia Senate passed its mandatory ultrasound bill today. A Democratic Senator tried to amend it so that the Virginia women who are subjected to a mandatory medically unnecessary medical procedure aren’t also required to cover the cost of that procedure. Republicans said, “No thanks.”

The Alabama State Senator who proposed a mandatory transvaginal ultrasound bill has changed it so that a woman would be able to choose between a medically unnecessary transvaginal sonogram and a medically unnecessary abdominal sonogram. Damn, it feels good to have choice, doesn’t it ladies?

As I noted for conservatives, and also for liberals, if you’re going to use the government to impose your vision on the world, don’t be surprised if it comes back to bite you in the butt. To quote an insightful, highly intelligent blogger:

Ultimately, the downside of going all in for ~~mob rule~~ democracy is that the mob can turn against you rather quickly. And as undoubtedly pleasant as it is to force other people to conform to your will, the reverse is pretty horrible. Which is why democracy sucks. The mob is often wrong, and it’s very unpleasant when forcing its wrongness on others.

Flaws in the Defense of Free Trade

2012-02-28T18:47:00.000Z

From Art Carden:

But there’s more to this than meets the eye. What we don’t see are the hidden costs of protectionism. The first is the waste from using costly production methods. Protectionism changes manufacturers’ incentives, and they use capital and labor that could have been better-used elsewhere to produce (say) cars. The economic imagination is useful here. If people weren’t making cars, they could be making medical devices. Or tacos. Or automotive repair services (it stands to reason that if you can build cars, you can probably also fix them). Or any of a number of other things. As Russell Roberts points out in The Choice, there might be some short-run costs for workers who have trouble retooling; however, free trade leads to new opportunities for the next generation.

Replace the word “protectionism” with the word “regulation,” and note that the resulting paragraph makes a compelling case against government regulation. The altered paragraph also explains why free trade is terrible idea at this point in time: there are a massive number of regulations imposed on businesses by the federal government. Allowing for free trade, then, will not make the country wealthier. Rather, all it will do is decrease the cost of consumable goods while simultaneously transferring wealth to foreign businesses. As such, supporting free trade during a time of high domestic economic regulation is akin to supporting government-based foreign aid.

The second cost comes from the fact that tariffs increase the price of cars. When prices rise, people demand less of something. Consumers are worse off because they have fewer cars, and the cars they are no longer buying are cars that would cost less than consumers are willing to pay in the absence of tariffs. Interventions like tariffs raise the incomes of some workers by impoverishing others.

As mentioned before, there are a large number of governmental regulations that hinder the domestic economy. If tariffs were enacted to enforce regulatory parity, prices would naturally go up (or the quality of products would go down) as a response because consumers would have to bear the costs of their government’s regulatory interference. In a democratic country like the US, citizens would have to live with the consequences of the choices their elected representatives make. Thus, by simultaneously desiring free trade and a high degree of regulatory “protection,” Americans are essentially saying that they want societal luxury goods (like minimum wage, reduced pollution, worker safety, etc.) without having to actually pay for them. Unfortunately, nothing is free in this world, and the cost of regulation will be paid for, either in the form of higher prices, in the form of diminished capital, or in the form of increased debt.

The third cost comes from the change in incentives when it is discovered that people can raise their incomes by getting favors from the government. At best, favors from the government are a zero-sum transfer from one group of people to another. In reality, however, people use scarce resources to effect these transfers. Consider just one cost: the cost of flying to and from Washington, DC. The plane that is flying auto executives and union representatives from Detroit to DC could be used for something else, like flying people from Detroit to New York for business or from Detroit to Los Angeles for a vacation. The prospect of subsidies, tariffs, and other benefits from the government means that people will take valuable resources that could have been used to create wealth (planes, the time and energy of flight attendants and pilots, bags of roasted peanuts) and instead use them to transfer wealth. On net, we’re all worse off.

It is true that one government intervention usually begets another. What’s ignored is that not all second-order governmental interventions are irrational or illogical. While the initial tinkering in the economy usually leads to unintended and undesirable consequences, it does not follow that further interventions will do the same. And thus, while it is better for the government to not tinker in the first place, it is ludicrous to suggest that further tinkering will always be a net negative. Furthermore, if we take Carden’s argument at face value, the most appropriate response would be to focus our energy on deregulating the domestic economy instead pursuing free trade, since the domestic economy plays a much larger role in consumers’ lives than foreign trade.

Incidentally, coupling a highly-regulated domestic economy with free foreign trade is economic suicide in the long run because the domestic producers will their ability to innovate to be quite stifled (what with regulation and all), and so they will outsource their innovation to freer countries that offer comparable labor markets. And since production usually initially occurs at the same place as the innovation that leads to said production, it stands to reason that the innovative industries of the future will begin outside of the highly regulated economy that has encouraged outsourcing via free trade.

As should be clear, Art Carden’s argument suffers from the same flaws as all the others made by free traders: it’s shallow, ignores economic complexity, and is based on highly idealistic economic theories instead of actual reality. As such, his policy prescriptions should be ignored.

Whence Inheritance

2012-02-28T17:56:00.000Z

Here’s an explanation called the “rotten parent theorem”:

Wealthy kids are usually wealthy because their wealthy parents left them a lot of money. You might think that’s because parents are altruistic towards their kids. Indeed every dollar bequeathed is a dollar less of consumption for the parent. But think about this: if parents are so generous towards their kids why do they wait until they die to give them all that money? For a truly altruistic parent, the sooner the gift, the better. By definition, a parent never lives to see the warm glow of an inheritance.

A better theory of bequests is that they incentivize the children to call, visit, and take care of the parents in their old age. An inheritance is a carrot that awaits a child who is good to the parent until the very end. That’s the theory of strategic bequests in Bernheim, Shleiffer and Summers.

What seems to be left out of the discussion are two important factors: historical precedent and lack of perfect knowledge. Also, the theory seems to be predicated on the assumption that people are perfectly rational.

In the first place, historical precedent counts for a lot when it comes to human habits. Humans have a tendency to do things a certain way simply because that’s how things have always been done. Given that death could come at relatively young ages, in times past, and come rather unexpectedly at many cases, it made sense to defer giving one’s wealth to one’s children until one’s death, since there was no way to know in advance how much of one’s accumulated wealth one would need to live out one’s life. And, given that the vast majority of people that have ever existed were poor, it’s hard to give away a meaningful amount of your wealth when you’re not sure how much of it you’ll end up needing. Really, this period of massive personal wealth—relatively speaking—is an historical abnormality, so it should come as no surprise that humans have not developed new habits to replace a centuries-old custom.

In the second place, and in keeping with the first point, people do not know when they are going to die. Furthermore, they do not know the circumstances of their death, nor do they know what expenses they will incur between the present and their death. As such, it makes sense to keep a decent amount of money on hand to take care of one’s expenses, as well as handle whatever emergency medical expenses might come. Now, one might reasonably object that by keeping their money for themselves, parents are essentially saying they don’t trust their children to take care of them. This is certainly plausible, but one must also consider the issue of convenience. Even if one’s children were to be trusted perfectly, it still makes sense to keep money on hand anyway, since it usually easier to pay for things for yourself than to wait on someone to make your payments for you.

Finally, it makes no sense to assume that people approach the matter of inheritance with any degree of rationality. Since the transfer of wealth via the mechanism of inheritance is closely tied to death, it is understandable that many people do not spend a lot of time contemplating the matter. And since the current system of inheritance serves its purpose well, there isn’t that much to be gained from changing.

How To Make a Bad Argument

2012-02-28T05:46:00.000Z

In regards to how conservatives are anti-science:

Someone had sent me a 2008 Pew report documenting the intense partisan divide in the U.S. over the reality of global warming.. It’s a divide that, maddeningly for scientists, has shown a paradoxical tendency to widen even as the basic facts about global warming have become more firmly established.

Those facts are these: Humans, since the industrial revolution, have been burning more and more fossil fuels to power their societies, and this has led to a steady accumulation of greenhouse gases, and especially carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere. At this point, very simple physics takes over, and you are pretty much doomed, by what scientists refer to as the “radiative” properties of carbon dioxide molecules (which trap infrared heat radiation that would otherwise escape to space), to have a warming planet. Since about 1995, scientists have not only confirmed that this warming is taking place, but have also grown confident that it has, like the gun in a murder mystery, our fingerprint on it. Natural fluctuations, although they exist, can’t explain what we’re seeing. The only reasonable verdict is that humans did it, in the atmosphere, with their cars and their smokestacks.

Such is what is known to science--what is true (no matter what Rick Santorum might say). But the Pew data showed that humans aren’t as predictable as carbon dioxide molecules. Despite a growing scientific consensus about global warming, as of 2008 Democrats and Republicans had cleaved over the facts stated above, like a divorcing couple. One side bought into them, one side didn’t—and if anything, knowledge and intelligence seemed to be worsening matters.

Let’s consider the various components of the argument one by one:

“The basic facts about global warming have become more firmly established.” Someone has apparently forgotten all about East Anglia, and how a decent amount of temperature data was ~~fraudulently altered~~ massaged into proving global warming. Furthermore, in the US at least, there is a strong heat bias among the vast majority of weather stations, which means that the assertion of global warming is overrated.

“Humans, since the industrial revolution, have been burning more and more fossil fuels to power their societies, and this has led to a steady accumulation of greenhouse gases, and especially carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere.” While the first premise is true, the second premise has not been proven. In fact, the second premise cannot be proven, at least if one follows the scientific method. In order for an hypothesis to be acceptable, it must be testable, which means that it must be falsifiable. As such, no scientific claim can be considered true; it can only be considered unfalsified. (Note that a theory can be reliable if it has been properly and extensively tested without ever being falsified). Additionally, the only link between burning fossil fuels and the accumulation of greenhouse gases is correlative, not causal.

“At this point, very simple physics takes over, and you are pretty much doomed, by what scientists refer to as the “radiative” properties of carbon dioxide molecules…to have a warming planet.” The physics of CO2 is pretty well-esablished at this point, but the practical, real-world effects of increased CO2 levels haven’t actually materialized, which is to say that surface temperatures haven’t actually increased by the predicted amounts. The reason for this is pretty simple: though scientists have apparently found a workable model of the direct effects of CO2 concentrations, they have not yet found a predictable model for the feedbacks of CO2 concentrations. (See here for proof of this paragraph’s assertions.)

“Natural fluctuations, although they exist, can’t explain what we’re seeing.” This is a logical error, known informally as an appeal to ignorance. That scientists cannot model a potential causal relationship between natural fluctuations and temperature doesn’t prove that such relationships don’t exist, it only proves that scientists are apparently incapable of constructing a model that explains a potential relationship between natural fluctuations and temperature.

“Such is what is known to science--what is true.” Since I’m on the subject, I may as well pick a nit or two. Science is not living entity, and cannot know anything in any meaningful sense.

“Despite a growing scientific consensus about global warming…” This is the fundamental flaw of the entire argument. Consensus proves nothing, and this assertion is nothing more than the appeal to authority fallacy. A million scientists claiming that global warming is occurring stands as proof of fact to the same extent that a million scientists claiming that liberals are retarded sub-humans does. The human element of science is exactly why it cannot be trusted implicitly. To simply measure things without regards to what they mean is mere statistics. To interpret the meaning of data is science, and said interpretation requires human analysis. And, unfortunately, human analysis has the exact same problems as humans: biases, prejudices, imperfections, and the limits of finiteness.

“One side bought into them, one side didn’t—and if anything, knowledge and intelligence seemed to be worsening matters.” I completely agree. Being moderately intelligent often has the unfortunate effect of causing one to be overconfident, and succumbing to the pretense of knowledge. The problem is not the absence of knowledge and intelligence, the problem is an incomplete amount of knowledge coupled with a finite amount of intelligence. Quite simply, the proponents of global warming are not intelligent enough to recognize the limits of their knowledge, nor can they account for it. They readily grasp the argument for global warming, but simply are not intelligent enough to consider its fallacies and shortcomings. They are too clever by half.

The Limits of Freedom

2012-02-28T04:24:00.000Z

Vox:

I believe it is now time for Western Christians and non-Christians alike to acknowledge that men such as Alexis de Tocqueville were correct and various concepts such as free expression, freedom of association, and other hallowed concepts of Western civilization simply do not translate outside of Western Christian culture. What was once theoretical is now empirical thanks to more than sixty years of evidence that strongly suggests conventional Western views of human liberty are simply not compatible with non-Christian, non-Western cultures.

I’ve noted elsewhere that not everyone wants to be free. Furthermore, there are those who may desire freedom for themselves while simultaneously wishing that others did not have freedom. Thus, there are a large number of people who simply do not want freedom. As such, there are very real limits to freedom simply because not everyone wants freedom.

Because there are limits to humans’ desire for freedom, it necessarily follows that there will be practical limits to the exercise of freedom, which in turn means that freedom is both relative and, in a sense, finite. The goal, then, is to maximize the amount of freedom that can be exercised at a given point in time. Paradoxically, this will mean restricting the rights and freedoms of some people.

For starters, if freedom is going to be preserved to any degree, there will be a need for some form of the state because the state, by definition, has coercive powers that do not exist in a state of freedom. The need to concentrate power in the state stems from the willingness of those who are anti-freedom to use force to attain their goals. From a practical standpoint, the main defense of freedom will be a complete and total willingness to kill people who would strive against freedom.

In the second place, there must be limits to citizenship within the geographical parameters of the state. By this I mean that people from societies that have a history of being anti-freedom should be prohibited from making their home among the free. The surest way to lose freedom is to allow the seductive arguments of authoritarianism to have a say among the free. Additionally, it would be wise to avoid democracy as a political system, if for no other reason than to ensure that those who oppose freedom have no say in the governance of the state.

Finally, the state must be limited in scope and power. It’s only responsibilities should be the preservation of liberty and justice. The state should not be authorized to spend massive amounts of money, nor should the state be authorized to micro-manage people’s lives. The state should not be expected do much of anything, except defend liberty whenever it is threatened or attacked. Additionally, the state should be ruthless in defense of liberty.

This is but a starter list of the practical prerequisites of liberty. While perfect, complete liberty is a deserving ideal, it will not be possible as long as there exist those who oppose liberty. As such, the defenders of liberty should keep in mind that liberty can only be optimized, not attained, and adjust their policies and prescriptions accordingly.

Hubris

2012-02-28T03:39:00.001Z

That’s definitely the word for this behavior:

To add insult to injury the word "tip" was circled on the receipt, and the banker wrote "get a real job" on the bill. The picture of the receipt was taken and uploaded to the blog Future Ex-Banker by a person who was dining with the anonymous banker. As expected, the blog received a lot of attention and has now been taken down. The author of the blog wrote, "mention the 99% in my boss' presence and feel his wrath. So proudly does he wear his 1% badge of honor that he tips exactly 1% every time he feels the server doesn't sufficiently bow down to his holiness."

It takes an incredible amount of arrogance and stupidity to do something like this, in the age of the internet. While the banksters don’t deserve all the blame for the United States’ current economic misfortune (cronies in congress certainly contributed to the mess), they do deserve a fair portion of the blame, seeing as how they found it profitable to encourage real estate speculation and the college bubble, among other things. Then, when this blew up in their face, they took billions of taxpayer dollars to cover the mess they had made.

Because of this, the economy has been mired in a recession, due in part to economic and legal uncertainty, and also in part to the radical misallocation of resources. One reason it’s difficult to find “real jobs” is simply due to the fundamental economic inefficiencies the US economy faces. While congress and the fed made a good portion of this happen, they mostly did so at the behest of their banker cronies, who found the resulting market distortion to be quite profitable. Thus, it is simply detestable for a bankster who likely contributed to the conditions that would prevent someone from getting a “real job” to tell someone to get a “real job.”

Additionally, being a server is a real job. Who, exactly, does this bankster think will serve him if everyone has “real jobs”? The fact of the matter is that anyone who gets paid for providing a good or service has a real job. To say otherwise is to ignore the very basics of trade and the division of labor.

UPDATE: It turns out that the receipt is fake.

Everything You Need to Know

2012-02-28T03:14:00.000Z

About the 2012 Republican Party candidates:

CFRB compares the candidates’ plans to a “realistic” baseline that assumes the Bush tax cuts are made permanent and the automatic sequesters required by the Budget Control Act of 2011 are waived, among other things. Relative to that extremely pessimistic baseline, Santorum and Gingrich still want huge increases to the national debt; only Paul’s proposals would reduce it. Romney’s proposals would have little impact, but that was before his latest attempt to pander to the base: an across-the-board, 20 percent reduction in income tax rates. [Emphasis added.]

How is this possible, since all of them have promised to cut spending? Huge tax cuts, on top of the Bush tax cuts. Romney, as mentioned above, would reduce all rates by 20 percent, repeal the AMT, and repeal the estate tax. Santorum would cut taxes by $6 trillion over the next decade. Gingrich would cut taxes by $7 trillion. Paul, the responsible one, would only cut taxes by $5 trillion.

Of course, these projections need to be taken with a grain of salt since they are nothing more than an attempt to apply static analysis to a dynamic system. Nonetheless, it should be quite telling that the two most nominally conservative candidates have the most fiscally irresponsible budgets. (The penultimate paragraph of this post deals briefly with this subject). The moderate businessman has an essentially balanced budget, and the libertarian is the only one of the lot that actually attempts to decrease the national debt.

The reason why the “conservative” candidates’ budgets aren’t fiscally responsible is because they simply do not understand the simple reality that government spending is essentially the same as taxation. Every dollar that government spends must come from taxes. This can happen directly, indirectly (e.g. inflation), or it can be deferred (e.g. borrowing). However, at some point, government spending must come from tax revenue of some form. As such, it is downright irresponsible to cut taxes without also cutting an equal or greater amount of spending. Therefore, both Gingrich and Santorum are nothing more than political parlor magicians who are using sleight of lower taxes to distract from the insufficient budgetary cuts. Sadly, there are too many conservatives who will fall for this, and ignore the plain and simple fact that government dollars must first come from citizens’ pockets.

This is not to say that taxes should not be cut. To the contrary, the relatively high-rate of federal taxes are undoubtedly stifling the economy. Ultimately, though, these tax rates are nothing other than a reflection of the high rate of government spending. Thus, it is government spending that is stifling the economy, and therefore the federal budget must be cut if the United States are going to recover. At this point, it should be clear that there is only one candidate who grasps this underlying reality. We all know who he is.

The God of Feminism

2012-02-27T20:52:00.000Z

From Laura Grace Robbins:

In an indirect way The Thinking Housewife says society does not worship women, but rather still men since women are really men these days. The thing is society does not understand that it forces women to "negate their femaleness". Society does not think women are taking on manly traits, but rather equally womanly traits that were there all along, but were just oppressed by men. It then celebrates and worships women for rising above male oppression and being the strong women they always were.

As I’ve noted before, feminists define themselves by men, and view men as the ideal. More specifically, they view alpha males as the ideal, and essentially worship them, as evidenced by how feminists act like alpha males (aggressiveness, defining themselves by their social status, etc.). Really, everything about feminism is defined by men.

The metrics of equality and accomplishment are always based on comparisons to men. For example, feminists often complain about how women are marginalized in sports, even though sports and athletic competition has long been the province of men. Feminists also complain about how women are less accomplished in business than men, even though business has long been the province of men.

Furthermore, as Laura notes, everything that is distinctly feminine in women is looked down upon by feminists (at least of the first wave variety). Instead of emphasizing their unique abilities and specific, gender-conferred advantages, feminists choose to focus on being like men and besting them. In doing so, they necessarily focus on being better than men in those specific areas where men have their greatest advantage. In doing so, feminists confine themselves to a life of misery because they are continually picking fights where they have the greatest disadvantage and belittling the fights where they have the greatest advantage, which results in continually emphasizing their areas of inferiority while simultaneously belittling their areas of superiority.

Ultimately, feminism isn’t focused on women at all, except in a nominal sense. Ultimately, feminism is about being like one of the boys. Or, as The Thinking Housewife puts it, “modern feminism is penis envy writ large.”

An Irrelevant Metric

2012-02-27T20:30:00.000Z

From The Telegraph:

Men are turned off by successful women

FALSE

The rise of the alpha female is one of the most striking features of modern society. A century ago, intelligent and capable women were frustrated by laws and conventions that kept them out of the professions, and were not even seen as desirable mates. Now, such women are succeeding sexually as well as professionally. Fifty years ago, male surgeons married nurses; now they are as likely to marry other doctors. This effect is seen most strongly in IT and engineering, which until recently were strongly male-dominated. In Silicon Valley, the influx of women has led to a proliferation of high-flying techno-families.

Male attraction, by and large, is not dependent on a woman’s economic success. In fact, male attraction is largely contingent on a woman’s looks. As long as a woman is sufficiently attractive, she will generally be able to attract men regardless of whether she’s a Fortune 500 CEO or a broke college student. As such, a woman’s socio-economic status is pretty much irrelevant to the question of male attraction.

Remember Lot’s Daughters

2012-02-26T15:30:00.005Z

Then Lot went up out of Zoar and dwelt in the mountains, and his two daughters were with him; for he was afraid to dwell in Zoar. And he and his two daughters dwelt in a cave. Now the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man on the earth to come in to us as is the custom of all the earth. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve the lineage of our father.” So they made their father drink wine that night. And the firstborn went in and lay with her father, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.

It happened on the next day that the firstborn said to the younger, “Indeed I lay with my father last night; let us make him drink wine tonight also, and you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve the lineage of our father.” Then they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose and lay with him, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.

Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father. The firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day. And the younger, she also bore a son and called his name Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the people of Ammon to this day.

—Genesis 19:30-38

Assuming the blogs of various pick-up artists are to be believed, it seems reasonable to say that most men have no qualms about getting a woman drunk in order to increase their chances of having sex with her. This is because men don’t generally have a whole lot in the way of scruples when it comes to getting laid.

But, as the Bible helpfully reminds us, this same sort of callousness in the pursuit of fleshly desires is also found in the minds and spirits of women. In fact, if this passage teaches anything, it teaches that women have fewer scruples when it comes to getting laid than men do. See, while men have proven themselves to be willing to get a girl drunk in order to have sex with her, pretty much all of them will draw the line if the girl in question is their mom. It does not appear that the same can be said for women.

Anyhow, the point in all this is that all human of every sex have the same tendency to do evil, and have the same ability to succumb to temptation and all manner of evil desires. Even women, which is why it is best not to pedestalize them.

A Heartening Trend

2012-02-25T06:40:00.000Z

From FoxNews:

Over the years, Eric Fischer had grown suspicious of whether he was really the father of his youngest daughter. So he secretly got a sample of the girl's hair, grabbed one from his own head and sent them to a lab for DNA testing.

Sure enough, he was right. The girl was the product of an affair between Fischer's wife, Pamela Tournier, and her business partner, Richard Zollino.

Now, five years later, the State Supreme Court has ruled that Fischer can proceed with a lawsuit demanding that the girl's biological father pay him $190,000—half the cost of raising her.

I have no issue with fathers being expected to provide for their children.* However, it is patently unjust to expect men to care for some other man’s child, particularly if forced to do so at gunpoint. As such, it is somewhat refreshing to see that men now have a legal precedent for reclaiming what was taken from them under false pretenses (which was once known as fraud). Hopefully other men will also be able to expect legal recourse for being defrauded by false claims of parentage.

* Just so MRAs don’t get their panties in a knot, I also have no qualms about mothers being expected to take care of their children.

They Never Learn

2012-02-25T06:24:00.000Z

John Hawkins, on Rick “Santorum” Santorum:

2) Santorum isn't JUST a social conservative. Based on his time in office, the most conservative candidate in the race is Newt Gingrich, although he's gone off the reservation on a number of issues in the last few years, which has naturally given some people pause. Going by his record in Massachusetts, where he raised taxes, implemented Romneycare, backed gay marriages, pursued a multi-state cap and trade scheme, and gave $10,000 to a radical gay group that taught fisting and "water sports" to high school students under his watch, Mitt Romney is a barely center-right politician -- at best. Although Santorum has his flaws, I will at least give him credit for being a conservative across the board.

Santorum's social conservative credentials are beyond reproach and on foreign policy issues, he's a knowledgeable hawk who spent 8 years on the Armed Services Committee and has been sounding the alarm on Iran for years. Fiscal conservatism is not Santorum's strong suit, but even there, he's not quite as weak as you might think.

The National Taxpayers Union said Santorum had the 5th best record out of 50 senators during his tenure in office. On the other hand, the extremely harsh graders Club for Growth said Santorum was above average, but had some flaws of note.

On the whole, Rick Santorum’s record on economic issues in the U.S. Senate was above average. More precisely, it was quite strong in some areas and quite weak in others. He has a strong record on taxes, and his leadership on welfare reform and Social Security was exemplary. But his record also contains several very weak spots, including his active support of wasteful spending earmarks, his penchant for trade protectionism, and his willingness to support large government expansions like the Medicare prescription drug bill and the 2005 Highway Bill.

I have no idea when conservatives will wake up to the fact that the trio of social conservatism, imperialism, and small government simply cannot work. You cannot have an empire on the cheap. It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about a domestic empire where the government controls every aspect of your personal life (e.g. China) or an international empire where the government tries to boss around other people because they talk funny. You cannot be an imperialist and have a small government.

Beyond that, I also have no idea when conservatives will wake up to the fact that, of the two alternatives, small government is more sustainable than any form of imperialism. Quite simply, the United States cannot continue to wage war with Middle Eastern countries indefinitely. The costs of doing so are astronomical and unsustainable. Additionally, the costs of maintaining a domestic empire wherein all citizens are subject to a veritable army of bureaucrats is also costly and unsustainable in the long run, especially if citizens get upset with the infringement of their liberties and decide to revolt. Given the sheer number of firearms (and the staggering amount of ammunition) in this country, trying to suppress an insurrection could turn costly. Yet, conservatives continue to push their chickenhawk imperialism and social conservatism, even though these things are nothing more than fantastical flights of fantasy in the long run.

Finally, note the hilarity of the claim that Santorum is strong on taxes but weak on spending. In the long-run, if you’re weak on spending, you are going to be weak on taxes. Everything has to be paid for at some point, and even if Santorum plans on defaulting on federal debt at some point, the moment he does so is the moment the credit spigot gets turned off. Thus, the current level of spending will have to be paid for in some form of taxation (and recall that inflation is merely an indirect form of taxation). And so while Santorum has voted for low current tax rates, his votes for increased spending virtually guarantee in an increase in taxes at some point.

Thus, conservative support for Rick Santorum is completely baffling and illogical. He has spent his entire career voting against liberty and for increased taxes, which is the exact opposite of the stated conservative stance. If this is the best conservatives can offer, they may as well consider their political movement dead.

No Kidding

2012-02-25T06:05:00.000Z

In what will undoubtedly be a shock to a lot of people, thinner wives make for happier marriages:

Marriages are happier when wives are thinner than their husbands, according to a new study. Researchers at the University of Tennessee studied the BMI (body mass index, a common measure of obesity) of nearly 170 newlywed couples, along with their marital satisfaction over time.

Andrea Meltzer, the lead author and a doctoral candidate at UT, told Discovery News that "We found this effect initially on husbands' satisfaction at the beginning of marriage... husbands were more satisfied at the time of marriage to the extent that their wives had a lower BMI than themselves."

The fact that men tend to be happier with a thinner wife may not be surprising, but Meltzer and her colleagues also found that women who had a lower BMI than their husbands were significantly more satisfied with their marriage over time. Thinner wives make both spouses happier.

Obviously, men are going to be happy coming to home to an attractive wife. And wives are going to be happy if they’re attractive, mostly because it means that they’re married to an alpha.

Now, it is axiomatic that happy marriages are the most likely to succeed. Also, it is axiomatic that marriage is the bedrock of society. Therefore, attractive women are good for society.

So, ladies, that means it’s time for you to get in shape. While you’re at it, feel free to wear makeup, wear feminine clothes, and grow out your hair. The health of our society depends on it.

An Irrelevant Argument

2012-02-25T05:54:00.000Z

By Jonathan Blanks:

Those who defend the Confederacy in the name of liberty today must assume, against all historical evidence, that rationality and economic benefit would have otherwise trumped the exploitation and irrational hate that drove the institution of slavery, the rebellion to defend slavery, and the Jim Crow South to avenge slavery’s defeat. That the Southern states used the power restored to them after Reconstruction to keep their citizens in poverty and deny them their rights as American citizens is the best argument for the federal government in living memory. That this is often used by the Left and others to presume benevolence in directives from Washington is unfortunate to libertarians who believe in a bounded federalism that protects the rights of the individual while providing states the power to be the laboratories of democracy that they were intended to be. Libertarians would better serve the cause of liberty and decentralization by recognizing that absolutes—such as granting the state absolute authority to do as its elites wish—are as sure a road to tyranny as amassing uncheckable power in a chief executive. There is nothing libertarian about granting any government so broad authority in order to quash the fundamental rights of the individual, a power inherent to an unbounded state “right” to secession.

While I cannot speak for all libertarians, what with each of them being precious snowflakes with highly nuanced views of liberty, I can say that Blanks argument is mostly irrelevant to mine. In an absolute sense, the confederacy was terrible. In a relative sense, not so much.

The difference is that the increased centralization undertaken by the federal government since their victory in the “civil” war has been radically anti-rights. Worse yet, since this undertaking is so centralized, the trampling of individual rights has affected everyone uniformly. While a “states’ rights” approach would have undoubtedly trampled individual rights (I point I willingly concede), I doubt very much that said trampling would have occurred uniformly. As such, individual states would have an incentive to not go overboard in enacting draconian measures against its people, else their people would leave for another, freer state.

Also, the ex post extrapolations of southern states’ behavior after reconstruction is a non-starter. There is simply no way to be sure that they would have behaved the same way or even worse had the confederacy won. The incentive structure for such behavior would have been quite different.

Additionally, this argument begs the question: if the federal government’s intervention in the war was sufficient to stop the racist institution of slavery, why did the federal government not step in after reconstruction? Perhaps the answer is that those who were concerned with centralizing power were as racist and anti-rights as those who opposed centralization.

Incidentally, this brings us back to the main thrust of the post: if there is going to be a regime of anti-rights statism, it’s best that it is decentralized, so as to ensure the best prospects for liberty. In this event, it can be said that the confederacy is the lesser of two evils, and therefore worthy of support, in a relative sense. Basically, if the two choices are suboptimal, it is best to pick the more optimal choice.

There Is No Conflict

2012-02-25T05:33:00.000Z

From Feministing:

U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton heard closing arguments earlier this month in a lawsuit that claimed state rules violate the constitutional rights of pharmacists by requiring them to dispense such medicine. The state requires pharmacies to dispense any medication for which there is a community need and to stock a representative assortment of drugs needed by their patients.

This is bullshit. The state had a very compelling reason for the requirement: As we all know, EC gets less effective over time and in rural areas there may not be another pharmacy for miles. And pharmacists who don’t believe in birth control or erroneously think that EC is an abortifacient were free to pass the prescription off to coworker who would fill it. As the Seattle Times wrote in an editorial calling on the state to appeal the ruling, this decision “sends a message that pharmacists’ personal views can take priority over patients’ rights.”

A couple of qualifications are in order. First, there is no need for EC if one does not have sex, which means that any need that arises is voluntarily inflicted. Second, it would more accurate to say that some pharmacists and/or pharmacy owners may not believe EC to moral, and therefore believe that they should not personally sell EC, or have it stocked and available for sale in their store. Third, there is no inherent conflict between patients’ rights and other people’s personal views.

Quite simply, no one ever has the right to force someone else to do something that would (tautologically) be against their will. If it’s wrong to force someone to, say, pay for Bibles to be delivered to atheists, then it is wrong to force someone to, say, pay for birth control pills. If it is wrong to, say, be forced to stock and sell Bibles against their will, then it is also wrong to, say, be forced to stock and sell birth control pills. Since there is basically no one who takes a positive-rights approach to both of extremes (seeing as how everyone picks one extreme or the other), the positive-rights approach falls apart on its own inconsistency of application.*

That leaves the negativist view of rights, which means that one owns oneself (and all attendant property, wherein ownership is generally well-defined by longstanding legal tradition), and therefore no one has the right to interfere with your self-ownership. The basics of this approach is summarized in the non-aggression principle. At any rate, one can act on one’s personal views in whatever way one sees fit, provided that one’s actions do not violate the non-aggression principle and, consequently, others’ rights.

As such, if one does not wish to sell, say, either Bibles or birth control, one cannot be forced to do so. By the same token, one has no right to prevent other from purchasing or rightfully acquiring either Bibles or birth control. Therefore, an unwillingness to trade certain items with others violates no one’s rights because no one can be compelled to engage in trade. If a given person does not wish to engage in trade with someone else, they are certainly within their rights to refuse. It would be just as wrong to force someone to buy something as it would be to force someone to sell something. Therefore, the hand-wringing over the violation of patients’’ rights is simply unmerited.

* In the first place, it can be argued that everyone has the right to whatever they desire. The finite limits of the temporal realm make it immediately obvious that this ideal is unattainable. In the second place, positive rights have no permanency. This means that, unless a right has existed from the beginning of time, no rights actually exist with any degree of certainty. If rights can evolve into being, they can also evolve out of being. And if rights are granted on the basis of majority rule, as would generally be the case in a democracy, there can be no logical calls for ex ante oughtness. There are other issues with the positivist view of rights, but such are beyond the scope of this post.

Living by the Sword

2012-02-24T00:01:00.000Z

Jezebel inadvertently proves why democracy sucks:

If social conservatives were hoping to ride to the White House on tide of unquenchable Puritan backlash against President Obama's birth control mandate, they'll find their hopes tragically dashed. According to a new poll, the majority of Americans like the idea of giving birth control to anyone who wants it.

The poll, conducted by Quinnipiac University, found that 54% of Americans support the administration's mandate that employer sponsored plans provide birth control at no cost to employees who wish to use it under the Affordable Care Act. Only 38% of poll respondents opposed the measure.

Let us suppose that there was poll in which 54% of respondents supported a government initiative to kill off everyone who wrote for Jezebel’s online publication, with only 38% of respondents opposing such an initiative. I wonder how our intrepid Jezebel respondent would feel then.

Ultimately, the downside of going all in for ~~mob rule~~ democracy is that the mob can turn against you rather quickly. And as undoubtedly pleasant as it is to force other people to conform to your will, the reverse is pretty horrible. Which is why democracy sucks. The mob is often wrong, and it’s very unpleasant when forcing its wrongness on others.

Incidentally, this is why rule-of-law-based governments (usually governments based on constitutions that take a negative-rights view of things) are considerably better, even if most people don’t have the “right” to vote. Quite simply, your rights exist independently of other people’s desires, actions, and consent. While you do not have the right to take from others for your own personal gain (like, for example, using the government to take money from other people to pay for your birth control), by the same token, people cannot take things from you for their own personal gain (like, say, killing an annoying feminist writer so that the internet is not filled with as much mindless drivel).

And so, while it sounds wonderful to say that you should be able to force other people to provide birth control for you to use, going down this road inevitably leads to your own destruction because the power you give the government for your own benefit is also the same power you give the government for others’ benefit. And when those benefits clash, the government will always favor the majority, which is all fun and games until you find that you’re no longer in the majority. And then you’re screwed.

Book Review

2012-02-22T07:39:00.000Z

How To Answer “"Do These Pants Make My Ass Look Fat?" And Get Laid Like Tile! by Athol Kay

Longtime readers won’t anything new in this book, as it is more or less a collection of Athol Kay’s self-selected best posts. He covers a lot of fundamental subjects, like the definitions of alpha and beta, as well as the roles the respective traits the two play in marriage. He also covers some aspects of his personal life, as well as providing plenty of examples of how he Games Jennifer on a day-to-day basis. For some reason, there seems to be a disproportionate number of sci-fi references in this book as well.

More importantly, this book serves as a decent substitute to his blog, so that people can find his more relevant and insightful works quickly. It’s like holding all of his better posts in hand, as a convenient reference and/or review.

While, as mentioned before, this book is basically a bunch of his better blog posts (which means that its contents can be found on his blog), it is still worth buying for two reasons. First, it’s a convenient reference that can be filled with notes and highlights (which is especially easy with a Kindle). Instead of bookmarking a bunch of his posts, you can have easy access to his best posts and you can add to them in a manner of speaking a well as highlight his more profound or applicable observations.

Second, this book would serve as a great introduction to Game. His first primer is better geared to those who have already accepted the reality of Game (though it can serve as an introduction), but this book is less threatening, and more humorous than the Primer. As such, it should serve as a fairly innocuous introduction to Game, and would likely make a good wedding present.

Also, buying the book is a good way to support Athol for his wonderful contributions to the manosphere. He’s written quite a bit worthy of recommendation and appreciation, and buying his book is probably easier than buying him a cold one. Also, he doesn’t handle alcohol so well (or so says the book), so buying the book would probably be better received.

In all, the book is a fun, engaging read, much like his blog (quelle surprise, non?). There is a lot of good stuff in the book, and it’s an easy way to read the highlights of the blog. There isn’t anything new, of course, but what’s there is worth revisiting from time to time, and the book makes it easy to do so.

Movie Review: Moneyball

2012-02-22T07:17:00.000Z

I have a review of Moneyball at Allusions of Grandeur. An excerpt:

Even though the movie is fundamentally about statistical analysis, the attempts at humanizing the story largely work. Beane is presented as somewhat quirky (he never watches a game in person, preferring instead to work out), and he is also portrayed as regretting his decision to enter the majors instead of going to college because he ended up being a wash even though he was considered one of the best prospects of his time. Beane eventually warms up to his players throughout the movie, taking time to get to know them, to coach them (with the help of statistical analysis, of course). It helps that Beane is played by Brad Pitt, who brings a wonderful human warmness and complexity to this role.

Brand is played by Jonah Hill, he does an excellent job of playing the shy, nerdish stats geek. Beane encourages Brand to become more involved with the players, and Hill gets the initial awkwardness of Brand’s antisocial tendencies just right. Hill also brings some depth to Brand, in subtly portraying him as a bit of an overachiever who often seems embarrassed by his ambition and passion for stats and baseball.

The rest is here.

Guaranteed Failure

2012-02-22T06:51:00.000Z

I agree with everything in this post, except for this:

In short, men will man up when women woman up. Because women, as the gatekeepers of sex, get the men they deserve. And, more often than not, what they deserve is what they want.

This paragraph seems highly ironic coming from a man whose blog continually makes and reinforces the point that men need to take the lead if they want to be successful with women. The constant advice for initiating, demonstrating confidence, keeping frame, and passing fitness tests can all be boiled down thusly: you’re the leader in the relationship; act like it.

That men are most successful with women when they take the lead is certainly true on a micro level. It stands to extrapolation, if not reason, that men will most successful with women on a macro level if men take the lead. And thus, the call for women to take the lead and “woman” up is somewhat misguided.*

Think about it. The fundamental problem is that men accepted and complied with women’s frame. How then can one think that the problem will be solved by men accepting and complying with women’s frame? The problem is not the specifics of the frame, it is the compliance. If this mess is going to be solved, it will only be solved by men taking the lead.

Now, to be sure, part of men’s leadership should be telling and expecting women to act like women, which is to say that women should be expected to be submissive, supportive, feminine, and pretty (among other things). But ultimately, women will only “woman up” if men make this the frame with which women comply. And this means that men will have to man up and take the lead. If they don’t, then all the calls for women to “woman up” will inevitably end in failure.

* The taking the lead part, not the “woman up” part.

What Can Women Do To Help Men Take the Lead?

2012-02-22T06:31:00.000Z

I had originally asked Olive to help me out with this, but it seems now that it’s more appropriate to just go ahead and say what needs to be said. But first, an observation from Olive:

What I've found, interestingly, is that as I become more feminine and less obnoxious (don't argue, don't nag, just let my BF do his own thing and make his own decisions), he becomes more "alpha"...which is actually not how he's been throughout most of our relationship (something my brother was pointing out to me tonight, but with different words). The change is gradual, but it's there.

In a prior post, I had made the argument that men will have to take the lead and, to use a phrase, “man up” if the problems caused by feminism are going to be fixed. Now, I suppose that there are some who are wondering what women can do to help this process along. I have another post planned that deals with specific behaviors, but for now I just want to make a couple of general points.

First, women should avoid taking the lead. This seems obvious, but I’m actually referring to something a little more subtle. Specifically, women should never tell, command, or even ask men to take the lead. The reason for this seems obvious to me, but nonetheless I will spell it out just to make sure we’re all on the same page. Telling someone to take the lead can never, by definition, be obeyed because attempted compliance to the command is an implicit acceptance of someone else’s authority.

Second, women must generally refuse to take the lead. This doesn’t mean they can never give advice or counsel, only that they can’t make the final decision. Always let the responsibility for the final decision remain with your husband or boyfriend.

Third, stop fitness testing as much as possible. I know this is difficult, as it is in women’s natures to do this in order to test a man’s fitness. But doing this can undermine his confidence and his leadership, and he may then decide that he doesn’t to take the lead anymore, thus finding porn and video games to an acceptable diversion from women.

Fourth, be supportive. When he makes a decision, back it 100%, even if you think it’s wrong (and remember, it’s not like you’re right all the time either). He may end up being right; he may end up being wrong. Either way, the important thing is that you support him.

Finally, be a woman. Heartiste has an excellent post on this, and I recommend starting there. Proverbs 31 and Titus 2:3-5 also provide some really good pointers as well. Understand that the process of getting men to become the leaders they need to be is not going to happen overnight, and will likely be an unsure, somewhat painful promise. But if women are acting as the submissive, supportive, feminine women they ought to be, it will make the process much easier.

In closing, let me note that it is entirely possible that men will refuse to take the lead (see here for proof). If men still refuse to take the lead, even after women do what they can to make taking the lead as easy as possible, then all the calls for women to “woman up” are for naught. And, ultimately, those who have called for women to “woman up” will be revealed as nothing more than the weak, spineless betas they really and truly were. And they will have no right or reason to complain.

Paragraphs to Ponder

2012-02-22T05:37:00.000Z

Jason Whitlock says it more eloquently than I ever could:

Jeremy Lin is a great story.

From the point-guard position, he has imposed his personality, his values, his culture and his style of play on the New York Knicks and, for the moment, those attributes have transformed the formerly underachieving Knicks into winners.

Amar'e and 'Melo should be embarrassed. They have more raw talent than Jeremy Lin. They should wonder what is it about their personalities, their values, their culture and their style of play that didn't allow them to impose a winning imprint on the Knicks.

Lin's success, even if it disappears, should not be dismissed. There is something to be learned from the results of his play and the absence of two star hip-hop, AAU athletes, 'Melo and Amar'e.

Yes, I played the hip-hop culture card. Hip-hop music is a capitalistic success. Hip-hop culture is an utter failure. The me-first, rebellious, anti-intellect culture directly contradicts all the values taught in team sports and most of the values necessary to sustain a civilized society.

The rest is very much worth reading.

Keynesian Tautologies

2012-02-22T05:32:00.000Z

From Paul Krugman:

Watching Europe sink into recession – and Greece plunge into the abyss – I found myself wondering what it would take to convince the chattering classes that austerity in the face of an already depressed economy is a terrible idea.

After all, all it took was the predictable and predicted failure of an inadequate stimulus plan to convince our political elite that stimulus never works, and that we should pivot immediately to austerity, never mind three generations’ worth of economic research telling us that this was exactly the wrong thing to do. Why isn’t the overwhelming, and much more decisive, failure of austerity in Europe producing a similar reaction?

Let’s lay out some definitions first: GDP, by definition, includes government spending; success, according to Keynesians, is some amount of economic growth (measured over arbitrary time periods and in the aggregate); austerity, by definition, will generally require cutting government spending. Now, Keynesians generally don’t care where increases in GDP come, so long as increases occur. Austerity, though, very much emphasizes balancing government budgets, which generally means cutting spending since it is rare for a government to a) be running only a minor deficit and b) raise tax rates enough to cover the current deficits. Thus, austerity usually requires a significant cut in government spending, and thus a cut in GDP (since government spending is a component of GDP). Thus, complaining that austerity doesn’t immediately lead to economic growth is like complaining that water is wet, in that we’re only really dealing with definitions.

Furthermore, austerity does not directly concern itself with growth. As was mentioned before, austerity is mostly about balancing a government’s budget (to put it crudely). Trying to evaluate austerity in Keynesian terms, then, is somewhat disingenuous as austerity does not have Keynesian goals, nor does it concern itself with the Keynesian analytical framework. Rather, austerity focuses on paying back government creditors, and that is thus the framework by which it should be analyzed. To use Keynesian metrics and goals to measure the success of austerity measures is akin to analyzing quarterbacks by their OBP. In both cases, the analytical framework simply is not suited for the thing being analyzed. Therefore, it is safe to say that only a fool, an ignoramus, or a liar would judge austerity by the economic growth it provides.

Houston, We May Have A Problem

2012-02-22T05:14:00.000Z

Ron Paul may not be as scrupulous as he appears:

Roll Call reported Feb. 6 that Paul was repeatedly paid twice for flights between Washington, D.C., and his Congressional district, receiving reimbursement from taxpayers and also from a network of political and nonprofit organizations he controlled, according to public records and credit card statements for an American Express card in Paul’s name.

Spokesman Jesse Benton said then it was “possible that wholly inadvertent errors were made in a handful of instances” in which flights were reimbursed twice, but he maintained that “absolutely zero taxpayer funds were ever misused.”

But James’ recollection and new documents obtained by Roll Call suggest Paul was aware that he was often being reimbursed twice for individual flights. In all, Roll Call found 26 flights in which several layers of documentation show double payments: credit card statements that detail the ticket purchases, a payment to Paul from his taxpayer-funded House account for reimbursement of a flight and Federal Election Commission records or copies of checks that verify a second payment from a separate group for the same flight.

Roll Call obtained copies of checks from the Liberty Committee to American Express that paid for Paul’s expenses. The records obtained by Roll Call cover about 17 nonconsecutive months. Beyond the 26 flights, documents show an additional 31 flights where it appears Paul was double-reimbursed but the records lack sufficient detail to prove duplicate payments. [Hat tip: Karl Denninger.]

Now, I like Ron Paul, and he has built up a large amount of goodwill with me, and I am therefore inclined to wait and see if there is some sort of misunderstanding, or lack of documentation that explains how this happened, or even an opportunistic staffer that decided to commit a host of other fraud. However, if it is the case that Ron Paul has been defrauding the taxpayers, then there is no way that I can continue to support or otherwise endorse him.

I say this because it is the little things that demonstrate a man’s character. A wise man once said that “he who is faithful over little will be faithful over much.” Conversely, one who defrauds others for small amounts is one who will defraud others for large amounts.

Furthermore, it is hypocritical for Ron Paul to complain about the massive fraud perpetrated by Washington and The Fed when he himself contributes to it. He’s not part of the solution, he’s part of the problem. And while he may not play as large a role in the problem as others, he plays a role nonetheless, and he cannot therefore be trusted to contribute to the solution.

Now, it is my hope that Roll Call is wrong or mistaken, and it is also my hope that Ron Paul is in the clear on this matter. But if he is not, then it is time to simply accept the fact that there is no one who can lead us out of this mess.

Obamao the Fraud

2012-02-22T04:59:00.000Z

It isn’t news that Obamao is a statist masquerading as a pro-Civil Rights leftist. It is news, though, that his statism has taken a turn for the drug war:

But over the past year, the Obama administration has quietly unleashed a multiagency crackdown on medical cannabis that goes far beyond anything undertaken by George W. Bush. The feds are busting growers who operate in full compliance with state laws, vowing to seize the property of anyone who dares to even rent to legal pot dispensaries, and threatening to imprison state employees responsible for regulating medical marijuana. With more than 100 raids on pot dispensaries during his first three years, Obama is now on pace to exceed Bush's record for medical-marijuana busts. "There's no question that Obama's the worst president on medical marijuana," says Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project. "He's gone from first to worst."

The federal crackdown imperils the medical care of the estimated 730,000 patients nationwide – many of them seriously ill or dying – who rely on state-sanctioned marijuana recommended by their doctors. In addition, drug experts warn, the White House's war on law-abiding providers of medical marijuana will only drum up business for real criminals. "The administration is going after legal dispensaries and state and local authorities in ways that are going to push this stuff back underground again," says Ethan Nadelmann, director of the Drug Policy Alliance. Gov. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, a former Republican senator who has urged the DEA to legalize medical marijuana, pulls no punches in describing the state of affairs produced by Obama's efforts to circumvent state law: "Utter chaos."

The drug war is a losing proposition for a variety of reasons. First, it does nothing to eliminate (or, apparently, even reduce) demand for drugs. Second, the incentives posed by the drug war strongly incentivize increasing the black market for drugs. Third, the drug war contributes to political corruption and increases state power and violence. As such, the drug war is all costs and no benefits.

Additionally, the drug war fundamentally ignores human rights. As long as one’s actions do not directly interfere with anyone else’s exercise of personal rights, then one can do whatever one wants. The consumption of marijuana is not inherently an infringement on someone else’s rights, and should therefore not be outlawed.

Finally, medical marijuana—the issue at hand—is no more problematic as a drug than morphine, oxycontin or vicodin. If these drugs can be used legally, why not marijuana? After all, people have getting addicted to morphine, oxycontin, vicodin, and other powerful painkillers. And it’s not like marijuana isn’t a painkiller. If one generally non-deadly pain reliever can be permitted, then all generally non-deadly pain relievers can also be permitted. To do otherwise is nothing more than hypocritical moral posturing.

At this point, it should be clear that Obama is continuing the moralist’s war on marijuana, and continuing the statism that has been encroaching on US citizens’ liberty for decades. As such, it is time for him to go.

Imagine That!

2012-02-21T06:03:00.000Z

Here’s an explanation of why Americans are less inclined to riot in this day and age:

"So why," Katz asks, "had collective violence more or less disappeared from the streets of American cities?"

He tackles this question in a new book, Why Don't American Cities Burn?, which he discussed Friday in Washington at a forum hosted by the New America Foundation. What's so striking about his answer is that many of the trends implicated in our quiet streets are not necessarily good ones. It's true, American cities aren't burning. But we shouldn't pat ourselves on the back just yet.

Some of Katz' explanations are good news: Previously marginalized groups that once felt they had no other outlet now have more voices in the political process. White flight ceded whole cities – and their governments – to African Americans in the U.S. And this left neighborhood boundaries less contentious, Katz argues, eliminating one of the causes of urban friction. In the 1960s, by contrast, large numbers of African Americans were moving into the city at a time when whites had not yet left.

So, racial homogeneity corresponds with reductions in riots? Who could ever have guessed it? Anyway, it looks like diversity is not all that it’s cracked up to be. Maybe, then, we shouldn’t try to force the issue. Maybe, then, we should simply let people decide who they want to live with and who they want to live near to. And maybe we should leave those people alone.

More On The Ethics of Receiving Government Benefits

2012-02-21T05:53:00.001Z

From Think Markets:

In addition Mr. Krugman cites evidence suggesting large percentages of Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries are confused about their use of these government programs. They don’t seem to think they’re getting handouts.

Maybe that’s because they’re in fact not getting handouts. As they were reminded every time they looked at their paycheck stub and saw the Social Security and Medicare tax deductions, they were forced to sacrifice part of their income for these programs through their working lives. The programs are compulsory; there is no opting out of them; the taxes come out of your paycheck whether you like it or not.

Therefore the notion that people who don’t like big government should not get Social Security and Medicare is utter nonsense. What are they supposed to do? Refuse the benefits that they already paid for? You’d have to be rich to do that. But one can see why left-liberals keep bringing up this humbug. People who don’t share their love of big government are labeled inconsistent for doing what by law they are coerced to do, mocked for complaining about a government apparatus from which they can’t escape.

And Paul Krugman:

But why do regions that rely on the safety net elect politicians who want to tear it down? I’ve seen three main explanations.

First, there is Thomas Frank’s thesis in his book “What’s the Matter With Kansas?”: working-class Americans are induced to vote against their own interests by the G.O.P.’s exploitation of social issues. And it’s true that, for example, Americans who regularly attend church are much more likely to vote Republican, at any given level of income, than those who don’t.

Alternatively, as I proposed before, they may simply see this as sunk costs to be recovered. They can’t avoid paying taxes, so they might as well try to recover as much as they can. Furthermore, opposing the political program one uses makes sense because political programs tend to be monopolies for the poor. If the government offers medical care for poor people, they are going to have an impossible time trying to refuse it, especially since taxes (both direct and indirect) eat up a decent portion of their budget. In a sense, the only people who can refuse government programs are the sufficiently wealthy because they can afford to bite the bullet on taxes while also avoiding government programs. The poor cannot do this. The only way a poor person can opt out of a suboptimal government program is vote against it. Thus, it should make sense that some poor people oppose the government programs from which they receive benefits because they would much prefer to simply not go through the government to get their benefits.

Correcting Markets

2012-02-21T05:38:00.000Z

From the Mises Institute:

And so began the downward trend in America's free market in medicine. With fewer medical schools — and thus fewer doctors — wages can be kept higher than would exist in a market dominated by free enterprise and the unobstructed entry into practice. Consumers, who ordinarily determine the success of producers, have lost out as they face higher costs on top of being deemed too ignorant to choose an adequate doctor without the aid of the state. Rent seeking becomes ingrained in an industry that must devote increasing amounts of financial resources to appease public officials.

At first, the problem was presumably that doctors weren’t getting paid as much as they truly deserved because they had to compete with hacks. Therefore, the government had to step in to ensure that doctors got paid the proper amount of money. This led, unsurprisingly, to increasing health care costs, and so the government was asked to step in again to reduce the costs of medical care, this time in the form of subsidy. And so the government obliged.

The lesson to be learned from this is that once the government interferes in the market, it must continue and increase its interference in the market so as to preserve equity. What’s interesting, though, is that governmental interference, when all is said and done, is only intended to produce a minor tweak. That is, the result of governmental interference is only supposed to lead to a result that is only slightly different from the market result. What actually happens is that the government’s result is different by an order of magnitude, which leads to more and increasing “corrections.”

At some point, though, it has to be asked of whether the slight market modification is worth the massive cost, for government interference has a tendency to spiral out of control and become very costly. As the costs of modifying the market increase while the benefits for doing so remain small, it becomes increasingly reasonable to ask whether it is better to accept the market’s perceived imperfections so as to save money and scarce resources, especially since the market is self-adjusting and will likely solve the problem more equitably anyway.

Mandated Heath Market Inefficiencies

2012-02-21T05:25:00.000Z

Karl Denninger:

We cannot permit America to be the "pay line" for every worldwide drug and device development program. The same pill sold here in America for $25 is $2 in Canada and other nations. The cost of reproduction is covered by the $2, but development is not. The free market would normally prohibit this activity since people would simply buy the drug in Canada and re-import it here, but the drug and device makers lobbied Congress to make that illegal.

A good portion of these sort of inefficiencies could be eliminated simply by removing patent protection for drugs. If the US eliminated the patent system, drug companies wouldn’t be able to prevent competitors from selling identical drugs on the cheap (although competitors would not be able to recreate any placebo effects that occur with brand names).

Of course, this action is opposed because it would lead to less drug research, particularly in the treatment of rare diseases. But, were this the case, the market would work as effectively as it should. One of the problems the US faces in regards to medical care is that everyone wants a drug to solve their medical issues. Between patent law, health insurance mandates, and anti-competition laws, the US government has managed to effectively subsidize research for diseases that would not ordinarily merit research.

One effect of this effective subsidy has been the increase in unhealthy behaviors. Since people are implicitly promised health care and medicine no matter what, it would be reasonable to expect people to take more health risks. And, given the current obesity epidemic, it seems that this is certainly the case. As such, removing the effective subsidy of drug research would help to encourage people to live healthier because drug companies would be much less inclined to research drugs that cure rare or complex diseases. Thus, by removing subsidies, health becomes cheaper.

Societal Fitness Test

2012-02-21T05:08:00.001Z

This post as been a long time in the making, but something Elusive Wapiti wrote has served as the inspiration needed to finish putting my thoughts together:

In short, this movie offers much of the same as Fireproof, only with a slightly different twist. It was steeply exhortative of men, while speaking little to women's needs for behavioral reform. Moreover, the movie's stance on paternal abandonment is simply not consistent with the facts, and unfortunately repeats some of the same incorrect pap we've had to endure for two generations now.

I view feminism as a macro-level fitness test. Women, on a society-wide scale, tested the resolve of men and found them wanting. Women demanded to be treated equally (in a positive-rights sense), they demanded to be given power, and they demanded to be taken seriously. And now, the results speak for themselves.

Women should have been put in their place, they should have been told—by men—that they were not going to be given power, treated as equals (again, in a positive-rights sense), or be taken seriously. Men, in general, failed this test was it was presented to them. From the suffragette movement to the temperance movement to the sexual revolution, and many times in between, women have made demands of men that should have simply been denied. They were not, and the results speak for themselves.

As has been well-established by the Dark Lord of the Crimson Arts, women want strong dominant men. The evidence, whether it be personal experience or a scientific study, proves time and again that women want men that won’t capitulate to their solipsistic whims. This is certainly generally true on an individual level, and I suspect it’s true on a macro level as well. And so, when society’s men were tested by women, they failed, and failed miserably. The men caved to the women’s demands, and now the results speak for themselves.

Who, then, can blame women for engaging in their current behavior? Many men are simply too unmasculine to merit feminine women. It has been said by many that men and women always deserve the other. And since leadership always starts with men, it would stand to reason that many modern social ills are a result of men abdicating their God-given authority to women. Again, the results speak for themselves.

So what does this have to do with Elusive Wapiti’s review of Courageous? Well, EW laments that it is always men—never women—who are told to improve, to fix society, to fix the problem. Here’s the thing, though: men are the natural fixers, the natural problem-solvers. What is that women always complain* about: men never listen to their problems, instead men always try to fix their problems.

This time is no different. Men will have to step up and fix the problems wrought by feminism. Men, in failing to stand up to the societal fitness test thrown at them by women through the political movement known as feminism, allowed to mess to be made. To be sure, men did not initially make the mess, but they allowed it to happen when they could have easily prevented it.

Men’s natural role is that of leader and women’s natural role is that of follower. Women will comply to men’s frames as long as men stick to their frames. If men want women to improve, they will have to expect women to improve, and they will also have to demand that women improve. And expecting women to take the lead on this matter is ludicrous because women are simply not designed to lead. They are, after all, the helpmeet. Thus, men need to be men in order for women to be women.

Some women have even recognized this fact, calling for men to man up, the ill-received Kay Hymowitz op-ed being but one example. And though women might recognize the problem (as I believe Ms. Hymowitz has), they are generally ill-equipped to solve the problem. For one, as the aforementioned op-ed by Ms. Hymowitz readily indicates, women are not good at providing solutions that strike at the root of the problem. For two, it is utterly absurd and counter-productive for women to tell men to take the lead.

Ultimately, the problem with men is that, by and large, most of them simply are not ready to lead. Many young men, as Ms. Hymowitz suggested, lack direction in their lives. They are content to work dead end jobs and play video games, foregoing real, meaningful accomplishments. Incidentally, it’s not hard to see why the younger generation would do this; they grew up watching their dads being emasculated by their moms (and society), and have rationally concluded that marriage—maybe even relationships with women in general—is a terrible, costly idea (and not only that, they have been constantly told that men are worthless, and that men are crap). And while there is a certain rationality to their actions, what’s undeniable is that these sort of actions are not the hallmarks of leaders; they are the hallmarks of quitters.**

Thus, solving the problems brought upon society by earlier men’s failures will require that men take the lead and refuse to yield to solipsistic desires and protests of women. Men need to give up the quitter’s mindset and once again take their rightful place. This means that men need to act, to be confident, to do, to have a plan, to have a sense of direction. This means saying goodbye to dead-end jobs, to hours wasted on pointless video games, to living in virtual worlds, to accumulating massive amounts of anime. This means taking on the responsibilities of leadership.

Fixing the problems caused by the long-ago failures of men is not going to be accomplished by a handful of men; it requires everyone. Hopefully the current generation is up to it. But if it is not, the problem will eventually resolve itself. Thanks to the sexual revolution, women are now in a better position to have sex with attractive men. Attractive men are usually those that refuse to put up with a woman’s nonsense. The sons of these men will likely inherit this same ability, which means that, over time, truly masculine men will once again be in abundance, and will thus effectively pass women’s fitness tests, both on an individual and social level. And so, even if the current generation decides that it’s better to surrender than fight, all is not lost, for these problems have a way of fixing themselves. And, ultimately, it is men who will fix this problem.

* As always, what women say they want and what women actually want can be two different things. There is no reason to believe that it is different when it comes to men listening to their problems.

** To be clear: quitting, in this context, is not irrational. However, the implicit surrender to women is not going to make the current problems brought about by feminism go away.

Austerity and Reality

2012-02-20T06:03:00.000Z

Paul Krugman still doesn’t get it:

Watching Europe sink into recession – and Greece plunge into the abyss – I found myself wondering what it would take to convince the chattering classes that austerity in the face of an already depressed economy is a terrible idea.

After all, all it took was the predictable and predicted failure of an inadequate stimulus plan to convince our political elite that stimulus never works, and that we should pivot immediately to austerity, never mind three generations’ worth of economic research telling us that this was exactly the wrong thing to do. Why isn’t the overwhelming, and much more decisive, failure of austerity in Europe producing a similar reaction?

Here’s the simple answer: austerity is not about promoting growth, it’s about getting one’s fiscal house in order, which is to say that austerity is all about reducing government spending and government debt. More to the point, there are a couple of flaws worth pointing out here.

First, there is the obvious flaw of growth measurements. Growth measurements include government spending so, by definition, whenever government spending contracts, growth will decline. Complaining about the lack of growth in light of government budget cuts is like complaining about the definition of wet.

Second, the main problem right now is debt. Namely, that it has to be paid. When you borrow from the future, you will eventually hit a point when the money you borrowed is due, with interest. And that point is here. People have to pay their debts, which is one reason why austerity is necessary.

Third, and along the lines of the second point, the current situation does not fit in any way with three generations of economic research. If one were to actually read Keynes’ policy prescription, one would find that it has very little bearing to reality. Keynes’ fundamental prescription for smoothing out economic turbulence was to raise taxes and save money when the economy was experiencing growth and lower taxes and spend money when the economy was cooling down. (Incidentally, this very thing has worked at least once in history.) The problem is that the experts in Washington only did one of those four things.

See, the only part of the policy that Washington followed was increasing spending at the start of the downturn. Washington lowered taxes during the boom, exacerbating the boom, and then failed to save money for the inevitable decline. And now that the decline is in full force, Washington is considering raising taxes. So even if the economic research is correct, it is certainly not being followed in any meaningful way. As such, appealing to this research is simply ludicrous, as it doesn’t apply anyway.

If Only There Were Some Way to Fix This

2012-02-20T05:30:00.000Z

Here’s a summary of a recent paper:

The trends in offshoring and international trade that we have described are likely to accelerate. China currently employs around 120 million people in the manufacturing sector and, although some reports indicate that wages are rising in China, those wages are still only a tiny fraction of wages in the United States. Moreover, China is expanding its manufacturing base to low-wage countries across the globe through a series of overseas economic zones. The implication for American workers is that in order to regain ground, they will need to find jobs outside of manufacturing where wages are comparable to those in manufacturing.

I know I’ve harped on this plenty of times before, so I’ll be brief: Given the current regulatory regime in place at the federal and state level in the United States, it makes absolutely no sense to have free trade with China. Given that citizens of the United States are legally prohibited from competing for jobs on price, ad given that employers in the United States are expected to comply with onerous regulations, it is safe to say that there is no free market in the United States. As such, it is equally ludicrous to say that it is possible to mimic the outcomes of the free market by partially freeing up foreign import restrictions, and it is politically foolish (not to mention heartless and unpatriotic) to enact an economic policy that has had a measurable effect on closing part of the labor market to Americans.

Apatocracy*

2012-02-20T05:28:00.000Z

That’s what America has:

Our democratic process requires an effective system for maintaining accurate voter registration information. Voter registration lists are used to assign precincts, send sample ballots, provide polling place information, identify and verify voters at polling places, and determine how resources, such as paper ballots and voting machines, are deployed on Election Day. However, these systems are plagued with errors and inefficiencies that waste taxpayer dollars, undermine voter confidence, and fuel partisan disputes over the integrity of our elections.

Voter registration in the United States largely reflects its 19th-century origins and has not kept pace with advancing technology and a mobile society. States’ systems must be brought into the 21st century to be more accurate, cost-effective, and efficient.

Seeing as how there are more stringent ID requirements for buying Sudafed, I think it is safe to say that the requirements for voting are rather lax. The reason for this is obvious: politicians are less concerned about the identity of voters than allergy-sufferers.

Stated another way, it’s harder to fraudulently buy allergy meds than it is to vote. Since politicians find voter fraud to be more personally profitable than drug fraud, the other obvious conclusion to be drawn for this current state of affairs as regards the lax ID requirements for voting is that politicians are dependent on committing voter fraud to win elections, which is why they make committing voter fraud so easy. That politicians are corrupt is not news, by any means, but at least now it is provable. And thus, it can be concluded that democracy in America is nothing more than a pretty lie and a complete fraud.

* “Apatocracy” is taken from the Greek word apati and kratos, which mean “fraud” and “rule,” respectively. “Apatocracy,” then, refers to rule by fraud. Kratos is also one of the rood words of “democracy.”

When No Plan Is Better than One

2012-02-17T23:10:00.000Z

Source. Pay attention around the 1:40 mark.

A lot of libertarian and conservative pundits have been upset about Geithner’s remarks. I can sympathize, but only to a limited extent. Why? Because I’m getting tired of central planning.

In fact, I would actually prefer Getihner’s lack of plans to Ryan’s plan. Ryan, like all the other politicians in this game, is hindered by the fatal conceit. Namely, that they can plan, or in any meaningful way manage all or even a significant portion of the economy.*

My proposal, then, is this: let’s only spend what the constitution permits the federal government to spend, and stop trying to plan so much of the economy. Ryan’s plan won’t work, in the long run; neither will Geithner’s, when he finally puts his together. Both plans are based on the pretense of knowledge, and both plans ignore the role of knowledge in the economy. Top-down, major plans like these will always be doomed to failure, so it is best to give up on them and simply let people plan their futures for themselves.

* By definition, current federal spending accounts for 15% of GDP, which certainly means that managing the government means managing a significant portion of the economy. Walmart, in comparison, only accounts for .1% of GDP, and they’re one of the largest domestic businesses.

CBO Nonsense

2012-02-17T22:54:00.000Z

From the CBO Director’s blog:

Many factors are responsible for the rise in unemployment in general and in long-term unemployment:

-Weak demand for goods and services, as a result of the recession and its aftermath, which results in weak demand for workers;

The better question is: what is causing weak demand? Could it be that people are realizing that it’s fiscally unhealthy to spend lots of many that they don’t technically have? Could it be that the extend-and-pretend games of the last thirty years are starting to catch up to us? Could it be that, having pulled demand forward for so long, the future is now finally catching up to us?

-Mismatches between would-be employers’ needs and the skills or location of the unemployed;

This is actually a valid point, although it’s probably helpful to look at a couple of points that contribute to this situation. The declining value of an American education certainly contributes to mismatched needs and abilities. Interestingly, the sheer vapidity of modern American education is mostly due to Boomer tinkering. Also interesting is that Boomers are now in charge of major businesses, just in time to find out how terribly awry their experiments in education have gone. Furthermore, their arrogance and blind trust in their educational model prevented them from doing the one thing that would currently save their companies: hiring bright kids out of high school and training them on the job instead of waiting for them to get a college diploma. (Of course, it probably didn’t help that Boomers made employment testing illegal.)

Regarding location, I think there are three reasons people refuse to move for work. First, government benefits currently make staying in the same place to wait for a new job feasible. Second, I would theorize that most of the once-employed are intelligent to suspect that government benefits may not be around forever, and therefore it is best to stay where one is, since one will have more social capital at one’s current location than at a new location. Finally, the increasingly transient nature of jobs discourages employees from travelling, particularly in light of government benefits. Why endure moving a thousand miles away only to lose your job after a year? Especially when, after moving costs and loss of social capital are accounted for, you’re fiscally worse off than if you’d been on government benefits?

-Incentives for people to stay in the labor force and continue searching for work that result from extensions of unemployment insurance benefits; and

This is more of a technical point, as unemployment statistics are calculated by dividing the number of unemployed workers by the total labor force. The issue is defining the labor force (if memory serves me correctly, the government has six or seven definitions). Some metrics only consider adults that are currently looking for work as part of the labor force, and so the claim being made by the CBO is that rates are artificially (or, more accurately, tautologically) high because there are some who are looking for work instead of just giving up.

-The erosion of unemployed workers’ skills and the belief of some employers that people who have been unemployed for a long time would be low-quality workers (a phenomenon sometimes called stigma).

This is pretty much the same as above. As the social stigma that comes with long-term unemployment wears off, more of those workers who were at one time out of the labor force will come back into the labor force (by seeking jobs) and tautologically drive up the unemployment rate.

In all, the CBO is blaming increased unemployment rates on the fact that Americans are finally realizing that man cannot live by debt alone and on an increasing number of people who have the gall to seek employment again. In essence, the CBO would prefer that people continue to spend money they do not have and just go back to being lazy and unproductive. And that’s how the government plans on reducing unemployment.

The Ethics of Receiving Government Benefits

2012-02-17T22:20:00.000Z

James Kwak:

Many liberals like to point out the apparent hypocrisy of the people featured in the article, who rail against big government, demand lower spending, and simultaneously rake in benefits from the federal government that they hate. The central figure in the article, Ki Gulbranson, works hard yet has barely enough money to support his family, even with the earned income tax credit* and reduced-price school lunches for his kids. His conclusion: the country is going bankrupt, but people don’t make enough money to pay more taxes, so we should have smaller government. He would rather go without his current benefits—but he can’t imagine retiring without Medicare and Social Security. [Ed.—the rest of the article is worth reading as well.]

I have no opposition to people pursuing or receiving government benefits if they’ve paid into the system, even if they oppose the offering of those benefits. There are two reasons for this.

First, if you’ve paid taxes, you should be able to recoup them because the government is supposed to act in your interests. Some benefits will be indirect (military spending, e.g.), some are indirect (highway construction, e.g.), and some are direct (welfare, e.g.). The problem with government is that all benefits are part of the same basket; you can’t opt out of paying for any of the benefits. As such, there is little reason to opt out of receiving any benefits because you’ve already paid for them and, as is the case in a democracy, they belong to you (what with it being a government of the people, by the people, for the people and all).

Second, the government does things that incentivize the receipt of direct benefits. Taxation is one example, in that taxation prevents you from taking care of things for yourself. More people would be able to afford their own health care if the government cut health spending and the corresponding taxes. Another example is regulation (which is in many cases not enacted democratically), which also makes many things more expensive. More people could more easily afford the things they need if regulatory compliance costs were reduced.

Now, political principles are indeed wonderful things, as they give us some idea of where we want to go. But we should never mistake political principles for political reality. It would be great if there weren’t any unconstitutional government programs and their corresponding taxes. But that is currently not the case, and our ethical considerations need to account for the various distortions that come at the hands of the government. If the government is going to force you to make bricks, there’s no principled reason to refuse their straw.

* Caveat 1: while I argue that people shouldn’t be considered hypocrites for receiving government benefits that they argue against, they should also be aware that there are costs to qualifying for government benefits, and that they should be prepared to comply with them.

Caveat 2: this ethical analysis only applies to people who have paid taxes. Those who haven’t paid a dime in taxes should not receive a dime in benefits.

Still Not Learning

2012-02-17T21:59:00.001Z

John Hawkins had a brilliant article giving five reasons why “Gay Marriage” isn’t a big deal. Just kidding, he had a terrible article giving five reasons why gay marriage should be opposed:

1) Gay marriage is incompatible with Christianity (and for that matter, Islam & Judaism).

Here’s the thing: congress isn’t allowed to make any laws respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof. A random sample of state constitutions (Texas, California, and New Jersey) finds similar language. The conclusion to be drawn from this is that church and state are not the same, and that there is to be a wall of separation between the two. The government (federal and state) is not to enforce religious laws and beliefs. So, while gay marriage is undeniably incompatible with Christianity, it is not at all incompatible with government.

2) Gay marriage will end up infringing on religious freedom.

A long time ago, there was a Jewish carpenter that said that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Religious folk, for a long time, used the government to persecute homosexuals (think: sodomy laws). Once you give the government the power to do this, it should not be surprising when the government reverse course. While religious freedoms should not be infringed upon in a just society, it is hard to claim that a society which infringed upon others’ rights is a just society, and it is therefore difficult to have sympathy for them.

3) Civil unions could confer every "right" that marriage does.

If this is the case, then why do conservative parents never tell their children to grow up and enter a civil union? More to the point, if there is no practical legal distinction between marriage and a civil union, why bother with a semantic distinction? (Hint: see point number one, above.)

4) Gay marriage may be where it starts, but it wouldn't be where it ends.

Actually, gay marriage is most certainly not where it starts. The present course was started upon many years ago when the government was given control of marriage. It belonged in the hands of the church, but the church shirked its duty and handed it off to the state. At first, there wasn’t much of a problem, as the state’s law closely mirrored divine law. Then the state began to loosen the rules of divorce, while also incentivizing hypergamous behavior in women, which has led to the current state of affairs.

Gay marriage would certainly continue the trend, which would probably extend to incestuous marriages and polygamy. But the trend did not begin with gay marriage, and gay marriage wouldn’t actually do that much more damage, comparatively speaking. At this point, the institution of marriage has become meaningless. The only fix is to reverse course and wrest marriage away from the state. Halting just short of gay marriage won’t fix anything.

5) Marriage already has enough problems as it is without gay marriage.

This is true. Gay marriage certainly won’t help fix them. But, as per above, unless conservatives are going to argue that marriage should be taken from the state and given back to the church, there’s no point in even having this argument. Preventing gays from getting a piece of paper from the government declaring them to be married is not going to fix the messes caused by decades of no-fault divorce, or in the increased cheapening of the value of marriage that has been the result of the sexual revolution.

Ultimately, arguments like these show quite clearly that conservatives are, by and large, mostly unserious about fixing marriage. The main reason they make gay marriage a big deal is to signal cultural beliefs. There is nothing wrong with signaling one’s group affiliation, but doing so in the political arena can be dangerous, especially if you’re in the minority, or if you lose your power.

The Saga Continues

2012-02-17T21:28:00.000Z

With the Chris Brown “scandal”:

Public fury over Chris Brown's recent Grammy appearance and his apparent lack of remorse over beating ex-girlfriend Rihanna is rooted, at least in part, in the fact that his career not only has survived but thrived in recent years. Whether on his own songs or as a guest on other artists' tracks, Brown is the closest thing to a sure thing on urban radio right now. Now even Rihanna is looking to exploit Brown's commercial clout—the troubled couple is set to make a musical reunion on Rihanna's forthcoming single, "Birthday Cake (Remix)." Apparently Brown will sing on one verse and rap on another, and presumably promise not to beat anybody in exchange for sexual favors. In addition to this collaboration, Brown reportedly attended Rihanna's birthday party recently. "Birthday Cake (Remix)" is expected to be released next week.

It appears that Rihanna has forgiven Chris Brown. And if Rihanna has already forgiven Chris Brown for his mistreatment of her, why shouldn’t everyone else?

But, more to the point, this ongoing story should serve as evidence that there are actually some women who like violent thugs. There’s probably not a lot that can be done to change this. As such, the best thing to do is simply let those women have their rough-love thugs and leave them be.

Incidentally, if “society” doesn’t want men to act like thugs, it would be more effective to shame the sluts that willingly have sex them than to shame the thugs themselves. After all, why would any thug care what society thinks of him as long as he’s getting laid regularly? Conversely, why would any man act like a thug if he could never get laid as a result? Thus, if society wants men to stop beating the crap out of women (and other assorted thuggery), the best course of action would be to shame the ~~whores~~ women who sleep with said thugs.

The David Brooks Fallacy

2012-02-17T04:44:00.000Z

David Brooks, in an article titled “The Materialist Fallacy,” comes to this hilarious conclusion:

The American social fabric is now so depleted that even if manufacturing jobs miraculously came back we still would not be producing enough stable, skilled workers to fill them. It’s not enough just to have economic growth policies. The country also needs to rebuild orderly communities.

So now the theory is not that Americans won't do these jobs, it's that they can't do these jobs because they're so messed up. If only someone had thought to test this theory. Oh wait, someone did. Alabama decided to crack down on illegal immigrants and miraculously their unemployment rate went down. Funny how that works.

The larger issue with Brooks’ fallacy is that, in my opinion, he gets causality wrong. Communities don’t have unemployment because they’re disorderly; if anything, it’s high unemployment that begets disorderliness. If orderliness were the issue (and it presumably is, seeing as how Brooks is implying that foreign labor have more orderly communities), then you would expect productivity, not wages to be the deciding factor. But, for the most part, foreign labor competes primarily on price, not productivity. As such, the issue of community “orderliness” is quite irrelevant, and appears to be nothing more than a pretty lie that the pro-immigration crowd needs in order to feel good about making life more difficult for their fellow citizens.*

* On a tangentially related note, how come free traders and free laborers argue more fervently on behalf of foreign business and labor interests than domestic business and labor interests? Couldn’t they channel all the energy and righteous indignation into arguing for deregulation of domestic businesses and labor, which would benefit their fellow citizens?

Automation and Guaranteed Minimum Income

2012-02-16T20:49:00.000Z

Here’s a comment Glowing Face Man left on a blog post titled “It’s No Coincidence”:

You (and the supermajority of pundits) labor under the false assumption that everybody needs jobs, that a healthy economy involves 90%+ employment. This simply is not consistent with the reality of automation, it will become less and less consistent in coming decades. Immigration and outsourcing are small factors next to automation. Within a couple generations, almost everything is going to be automated, and a realistically healthy economy would have single-digit EMployment, rather than UNemployment. The proper fix is a completely unconditional universal guaranteed basic income.

I’ll be upfront about my biases as they relate to this subject. First, as a Christian, I believe that man was created by God to work, and therefore it is wholly unnatural for man to not work, and therefore man will always need to have a way of working. I also believe that the unemployment statistics are a useful—though imperfect—barometer of whether people are actually working, as would natural for them. There are obviously some differences between the ideal of work and its reality, but they can be ignored for the time being.

Now, as to the topic at hand, it is entirely true that I assume that a healthy economy is one where everyone works. But it is also true that those who argue for complete automation are making some assumptions of their own. In many ways, the proponents of a guaranteed minimum on the basis of the automation of production (which renders human labor unnecessary) are making several assumptions of their own, some of which may or may not turn out to occur.

The first and most obvious assumption is that the current trend towards automation will actually continue. If the business cycle is any indication, it is not only possible that the trend of automation ceases at some point in the future, it is likely. Just as innovations in papyrus production were superseded by paper production, which was then superseded by the various digital formats, so too is it possible that the current trend towards automation may be superseded by something else altogether.

A second assumption is that advances in technology won’t hit a serious point of diminishing returns. Imagine, for example, the sheer amount of technology that would be necessary to automate, say, apple picking or painting houses. It certainly possible that these activities could be automated (i.e. it is within the realm of technical feasibility). But it is not necessarily possible that it would be worth the R&D costs to automate these things. And there are thousands of more activities similar to these that would have generally high costs of development.

A third assumption is that technology will able to interface with humans in such a way as to handle the vagaries and nuances of human interaction. Which is to say, it is assumed that technology will be able to, say, address customer complaints (or, more broadly, customer emotions).

A fourth assumption, as it relates to the guaranteed minimum income, is that human ingenuity will not spread beyond its current state. By this I mean that it is assumed that humans will not use the eventual automation of production as the foundation for expanding production into new, uncharted territory. Stated another way, the automation of production could enable people to simply open up new frontiers of innovation and production that are not directly based on automation (i.e. open up another level of goods).

A fifth assumption is that the economy will not collapse and undo any of the current technological advances we currently enjoy. Massive economic and cultural collapses usually correlate to technological collapses as well. See the collapse of the Roman Empire for an example. See also Neurodiversity for an in-depth look at the subject.

A sixth assumption is that status-seeking will no longer exist. Quite simply, automation should lead to decreasing prices in what were once luxury goods (see: the costs of silk stockings after the beginning of the Industrial Revolution). Things that were once the province of the wealthy will become available to everyone. As such, wealthy status-seekers will need to find a new way to demonstrate value, which simply turn into direct displays of controlling labor (the current model is an indirect display of controlling labor). Alternatively, the market could invert back to increased demand for direct craftsmanship, like that which was once seen prior to the Industrial Revolution (Etsy seems to be an indication of this trend). This could be easily accomplished with increasingly user-friendly CADs and 3D printers.

A seventh assumption is that human interaction won’t become an economic good. If prostitution is any indication, there is no substitute for another human being. Human nature, generally being a constant, suggests that there might always be demand for other people’s time, and might lead to people getting paid for it, which is simply a higher-order form of employment.

An eighth assumption is that technology will develop to the point where only a few people are needed to manage it. Also, in keeping with this, it is assumed that GUIs won’t be dumbed-down enough to the point where non-engineers can manage them. Given the massive amount of IT support needed to maintain this level of technology, it seems reasonable to conclude that increases in the ubiquity of technology will drive demand for IT, particularly as technology handles increasingly complex tasks. Now, in response, the UIs of technology should dumb down to the point where non-engineers can solve basic problems The cumulative effect of this will be an increase in demand for IT support while simultaneously enabling growth in the pool of potential labor candidates in this field.

As can be seen, there are a myriad of conditions necessary to see the complete automation of production. It is certainly possible that all of them can be met; I will leave it to the reader to determine whether it is likely and whether, by extension, a guaranteed minimum income will be necessary.

“Fat Shaming”

2012-02-16T20:08:00.000Z

That’s the title of my most recent post at In Mala Fide. In it, I take a lesbian feminist to task for hypocrisy. An excerpt:

What’s overlooked in this debate is the social benefits of fat-shaming. Now that the US has universal health care, and given that fatties tend to have more health problems and higher health costs, it behooves society as a whole to shame the fatties for being overweight because if society fails to do this, healthcare will eat more and more of the federal budget and impose increasing costs on the taxpayers. Given that health care is now a national issue, and given that a sizeable portion of aggregate health costs come from the overweight, fat shaming is no longer the patriarchy’s way of keeping women down; it’s now every American’s patriotic duty. And if fat shaming happens to increase aggregate beauty, then that’s just a bonus.

The rest can be found here.

A Possible Way to Reduce Terrorist Attacks

2012-02-16T20:02:00.000Z

Consider this abstract from a paper titled “Economic Conditions and the Quality of Suicide Terrorism” (rough draft here):

This article analyzes the link between economic conditions and the quality of suicide terrorism. While the existing empirical literature shows that poverty and economic conditions are not correlated with the quantity of terror, theory predicts that poverty and poor economic conditions may affect the quality of terror. Poor economic conditions may lead more able and better-educated individuals to participate in terror attacks, allowing terror organizations to send better-qualified terrorists to more complex, higher-impact terror missions. Using the universe of Palestinian suicide terrorists who acted against Israeli targets in 2000–06, we provide evidence of the correlation between economic conditions, the characteristics of suicide terrorists, and the targets they attack. High levels of unemployment enable terror organizations to recruit better educated, more mature, and more experienced suicide terrorists, who in turn attack more important Israeli targets.

Let’s first dispense with the obvious shortcomings: the study only establishes correlation, the results are inherently tautological (though objective), and the study is very narrow in scope. The conclusion of the study is that there is a link between increased poverty and the increased effectiveness of suicide terrorism. The authors of the quoted paper recommend a foreign policy of aid to reduce terrorism.

I have another idea: How about the US stops sowing the seed of future terrorist actions by impoverishing Middle Easterners through the continual bombing and warmongering that has repeatedly occurred over there for the last twenty-five years or so? All that war has accomplished over there is keeping Middle Easterners in poverty while rapidly leading the US government to the point of bankruptcy. Not only that, keeping Middle Easterners in poverty appears to enable them to commit acts of terror more effectively. Thus, one way to combat terror more effectively is to stop combatting it at all. Let the terrorists become more preoccupied with accumulating and maintaining wealth instead of resenting the US empire, and maybe they won’t be as inclined to attack us.

Give Peace a Chance

2012-02-16T07:17:00.000Z

Jonah Goldberg, ladies and gentlemen:

The irony is that few worldviews better describe the general liberal orientation to public policy and the culture war. The left often complains about the culture war as if it's a war they don't want to fight. They insist they just want to follow "sound science" or "what works" when it comes to public policy, but those crazy knuckle-dragging right-wingers constantly want to talk about gays and abortion and other hot-button issues.

It's all a farce. Liberals are the aggressors in the culture war (and not always for the worse, as the civil rights movement demonstrates). What they object to isn't so much the government imposing its values on people -- heck, they love that. They see nothing wrong with imposing their views about diet, exercise, sex, race and the environment on Americans. What outrages them is resistance, or even non-compliance with their agenda. "Why are you making such a scene?" progressives complain. "Just do what we want and there will be no fuss."

The drug war, perhaps the most violent effort of the current culture war has been largely unsuccessful. In re: Marriage Cases was overturned by Proposition 8. Why did both these government-based, top down approaches to changing the culture fail? Because the government, fundamentally, cannot change men’s hearts or minds.

Yes, the government can impact behavior, at the margins. And yes, there is likely a self-reinforcing feedback loop to cultural change and governmental involvement (people change, leading to governmental change, leading the people to change, and so on, ad infinitum). But, fundamentally, the government cannot change men’s hearts or minds.

If someone really wants to do drugs, the government will not stop him. If someone wants to enter into a long-term relationship with someone of the same sex, the government will not stop him. If someone wants to vehemently oppose gay marriage, the government cannot stop him. The lesson to be learned from this is that, oftentimes, fighting the culture war is pointless, at least if one takes a top-down approach.

Culture is not top-down, it is bottom-up. Having a pissing contest about culture at the top is not going to accomplish anything because it doesn’t get at the root of culture. As such, it is time to call for armistice in this culture war because this war will never actually resolve anything. It can kill people (see the war on drugs, e.g.), but it cannot change their hearts. As such, there is simply no point in fighting, because there is no possibility for victory, only death.

But Wait, There’s More

2012-02-16T06:54:00.000Z

My earlier post on expanding safety net recipients has an addendum:

While the findings are not directly comparable because of differences in methodology, the new study suggests that the recent recession did not cause any significant increase in the share of benefits flowing to the poor, as might once have been expected.

The study found that older people received slightly more than half of government benefits, while the nonelderly with disabilities received an additional 20 percent. These benefits are not means-tested - indeed, better-paid workers get more in Social Security.

My general point from before still stands, as removing illegal immigrants, reducing immigration, and cutting down the guest worker program will cut the labor supply, making American workers more desirable to employers, and thus reducing unemployment, which in turn reduces safety net spending.

What’s more depressing is that a good portion of safety net spending has increased because the Boomers have finally decided to claim their government benefits. The only way to reduce this spending is to cut the benefits (which hilariously is more likely under Obama than Romney, at least if Romney is to be believed) or kill the recipients. On the hand, we’ll reduce government entitlements; on the other hand, the Boomers will be dead. Frankly, this is not a bad choice to have.

One thing’s for sure: with the increase in federal safety spending being due to changing demographics, this trend is unsustainable. The end of this trend will not be pleasant.

It’s Not That Simple

2012-02-16T06:26:00.002Z

Katie Kieffer understands the problem, but only gets the solution half-right:

A girl’s father shapes who she eventually finds herself attracted to. A girl whose father spoils her and stymies her with excessive attention will end up being irresponsible and incompetent. On the flip side, research shows that a girl whose father abandons her when she is young will prematurely reach sexual maturity and end up feeling both abandoned and sexually insecure. This insecurity could lead her to attach herself to smooth-talking bumpkins who use her and lose her.

I think the most influential man in every woman’s life is her father. Tomorrow is Valentine’s Day. Be a father figure to your daughter—or a woman who needs one. You will change the world.

Some men do need to be told to man up. Not all persecuted men are wholly undeserving of persecution. However, what prevents men from having the proper role in their daughters’ lives is not unwillingness but inability.

What Ms. Kieffer does not yet seem to realize is that a lot of fathers are prohibited from being involved in their children’s lives. Custody laws are a bitch like that.

Quite simply, the legal regime in this country is not friendly to men, nor is it friendly to fathers. Fathers have no say in whether their unborn child will be born. Fathers, if they are not married to the mothers of their children, will likely not have custody of their children, and will likely find that access to their children will be highly limited at times.

Daughters that grow up without fathers playing a major role in their lives will find their lives to be miserable, and will try to cope with the misery by seeking substitutes for the masculine, manly guidance they crave and need. And those substitutes pale mightily in comparison to the real thing. In a sense, there is no substitute for fathers.

A good number of fathers recognize instinctively that they need to be the man in their children’s lives. But they aren’t able to. Ultimately, it is often the case that it is not the fathers who desire that their daughters grow up fatherless, but the mothers and their partner-in-crime: the state. Thus, Ms. Kieffer’s message is correct; it is just directed at the wrong audience.

Why Kids Have Parents

2012-02-16T06:04:00.000Z

Here’s a fun story:

Kids usually don't think before they steal, but you can bet 13-year-old Natia Wade never thought she'd end up standing on the corner of a busy intersection holding up a hand-written sign that read, "I steal from my family." Wade, who lives in Memphis, ended up there after she racked up a record of taking things—mostly small, inconsequential things—without asking her mom. Apparently the final straw was when she took her mom's debit card and used it to reactivate her cell phone, which he mom had taken away.

Natia's aunt, Lauren Scales, was standing outside with her, and told the local news that she wasn't happy to have to shame the girl in public, but that she needed to learn a lesson.

Don't get me wrong because you never want to put your child in this situation because they're fragile. But with all of the things that are going on with kids stealing things and all the crime being committed in Memphis, she will not be one of them.

For her part, Natia does look chastened, but she said she didn't really know what she was doing was wrong. Who knows if this will have any lasting impact on her sticky fingers, but let's hope that public shaming doesn't become the next big thing in parenting—or we'll have kids with signs everywhere we look and dads shooting up laptops left and right.

When my sister was four, she decided to steal a pencil from a Christian bookstore. When my mom found out, she took her back to the store and made her return the pencil. Then my mom took my sister to the police station and threatened to leave her there, with all the other thieves. Since my sister was all of four at the time, the mere thought of not being with her parents, plus living with the shame of being a thief, was enough to scare her and make her cry. This lesson took on the first attempt, and never had to be taught again.

The thing that snarky feminists and well-meaning non-parents alike need to understand that fear and shame are the two most powerful tools in the parents’ toolbox. Fear and shame are extremely powerful motivators, and parents need to make the most of them.

Another thing that people need to learn is that crimes always start small. People start their life of crime with murder, or by burning a house. They start with considerably smaller, similarly revealing pathologies. The same is true of thieves. Does anyone think that the person who just knocked over a convenience store never stole from his family when he was a kid? Does anyone think that the person caught shoplifting never took things that didn’t belong to her when she was a child?

These pathologies start young and need to be eliminated as soon as they arise. Instilling aversion to these practices can be easily accomplished by ensuring that your child feels an intense amount of fear or shame. There’s no need to understand why kids steal, or listen to the rationalizations they make for their behavior. There’s no reason to excuse a child’s theft. The only thing that is necessary is making it clear, in no uncertain terms, that such behavior will not be tolerated.

Welcome to the Club

2012-02-15T22:01:00.000Z

Some readers may have noticed that Cranberry comments rather frequently on this esteemed blog, and that many of her comments are lengthy and insightful. She has started a blog and, unsurprisingly, it already has a couple of good posts. I’m probably biased, but this is my favorite post so far. Anyway, check her out, add her to your RSS feed manager, bookmark her blog, and check her out. If it helps, there’s a link to her blog in my blogroll on the right sidebar.

Just Get Married Already

2012-02-15T07:14:00.000Z

So there are some evangelicals who apparently want to take the licentiousness out of (St.) Valentine’s day, and they have decided to make February 14th into “Purity Day,” wherein white bread middle class evangelicals pledge to remain pure until marriage. This holiday even comes with a completely cringe-worthy video, perhaps in an attempt to embarrass takers of the purity pledge and thus test their resolve.

I, of course, completely support remaining pure until being married, seeing as how that’s pretty much God’s expectation (at least as I understand God’s condemnation of fornication). However, I think that there’s a better alternative to Purity Day. It’s called Wedding Day, when a horny young Christian male gets married to a horny young Christian female, mainly for the purpose of having sex in a non-fornicative manner, and also for sharing lives, having kids, and all that jazz.

While remaining pure until marriage is a very good and Godly thing, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to heavily push purity without also heavily pushing marriage. Haley has discussed the latter topic to some degree of depth at her blog, and the main point is this: among white bread middle-class evangelicals, there is a decent amount of pressure to wait for God to provide someone for you, which will likely happen once your life is perfect.*

The best advice, then, would be to remain pure until marriage and get married ASAP. The Purity Day initiative tacitly admits that young people have powerful sexual urges; how is “deny them indefinitely” better advice than “find a way to take satiate them morally”? Again, the mind boggles at this backwardness, wherein presumably well-intentioned people give advice that ignores half of the relevant conclusions, and will thus lead to unnecessary frustration. Thus, evangelicals need to stop saying “just keep staying pure” and start saying “just get married already.”

* Incidentally, this is terrible theology. One’s life will only ever be perfect in heaven where, as Christ noted, “they neither marry nor are given in marriage.”

Just the Tips

2012-02-15T06:38:00.000Z

Apparently the restaurant industry is terrible to teh wimminz:

Anyone who has ever worked in the restaurant industry can tell you that it can be incredibly unpleasant for everyone involved, but a new study has found that, in fact, it's an especially terrible place for women to work. To begin with, they make less money. Women servers who work full-time earn 68 percent of the salary their male counterparts make—and black women servers make only 60 percent. This disparity is explained largely by the fact that the highest-earning positions in the industry are dominated by men. For instance, only 19 percent of chefs are women.

Women tend to have the lower paying jobs, like server and host, in lower-cost restaurants. Sixty-eight percent of tipped workers are women, and tipped workers can be paid a lower minimum wage of just $2.13 an hour, as long as they make up the difference between that and the actual minimum wage of $7.25 an hour in tips (though many restaurants don't worry about whether their employees actually close the gap). According to the study, "[T]he lower minimum wage for tipped workers is essentially creating legalized gender inequity in the restaurant industry."

First off, as Chuck has already noted, servers in general tend to underreport their tips for tax purposes. Relying on this metric is problematic because the metric is known to be inaccurate, but it is not known to what degree this inaccuracy reaches. As such, women will more likely appear to earn less than men because they are in a better position to hide a good portion of their income.

Second, industries with a low minimum wage offer a better view of workers’ actual market value. This means that when people actually have to earn their money instead of relying on government fiat, we will actually know how much someone is worth. Now, if women are earning less than men in the restaurant industry, and if women are considerably more likely to actually have to earn their money directly (through the tip mechanism), then one should at least consider the idea that women workers in the restaurant industry aren’t actually that good at their jobs.

This then brings us to the crux of the matter: the assumption of equality. Maybe, just maybe, women don’t earn pay equal to men because they don’t provide value equal to men. And if they aren’t providing equal value, then it should be expected that they earn less. Thus, there are at least two distinct reasons for why women earn less than men: discrimination and lack of equal ability. The evidence is not clear enough to defend either position with certainty. As such, any definitive assertion of either position reveals more about the biases of the one make the assertion than of the study itself.

It’s No Coincidence

2012-02-15T06:15:00.000Z

Here’s Paul Krugman:

James Kwak and Larry Mishel, in slightly different ways, make a point I was planning to get to: the rise in safety net spending over the past decade does not reflect an expansion of that safety net. Instead, it reflects two things: rising health care costs, and a terrible economic slump that has put many more people in need.

Basically, the rise in safety net spending is due to increases in qualified recipients, not an expansion of average net benefits. Here’s the LA Times:

But now, as the economic rebound picks up a bit of steam, Latinos are scoring bigger job gains than most other demographic groups and proving to be a bright spot in the fledgling recovery.

While they make up only 15% of the country's workforce, Latinos have racked up half the employment gains posted since the economy began adding jobs in early 2010, Labor Department data showed.

Expanding the labor pool while simultaneously placing restraints on businesses will have the unfortunate consequence of driving down wages and preventing demand for labor from expanding. Tack on a price floor for labor, the high costs of regulatory compliance, plus the ability to easily escape onerous regulations via free trade agreements, and you have a recipe for high unemployment and low wages for those that remain employed.

Anyhow, one immediate step that can be taken by the government is to kick out illegal immigrants, eliminate the guest worker program, and cut down on legal immigration, particularly of the low-skill variety. This would reduce the labor pool, helping the currently unemployed have more opportunities to find employment, and eventually reduce safety net dependence, thus cutting government spending.

Also, given that the government is supposed to act in its citizens’ best interest, it should be a no-brainer to put the labor interest of citizens ahead of the labor interests of non-citizens. Especially since doing so will reduce government spending.

A Moderate, A Liberal, and A Conservative Walk Into a Bar

2012-02-15T05:56:00.000Z

The bartender looks up and says, “hey Mitt:”

In line with the Republican view, Romney criticized Obama this morning for doing nothing to reform entitlements. “This week, President Obama will release a budget that won’t take any meaningful steps toward solving our entitlement crisis,” Romney said in a statement e-mailed to reporters. “The president has failed to offer a single serious idea to save Social Security and is the only president in modern history to cut Medicare benefits for seniors. I believe we can save Social Security and Medicare with a few common-sense reforms, and – unlike President Obama – I’m not afraid to put them on the table.”

So conservative Mitt says we need to solve our entitlement crisis and liberal Mitt says we do that by saving Social Security and Medicare, which are the two largest federal expenditures. You know, the GOP could have an exciting primary just with Mitt running against himself.

Dear Republican Party Bosses

2012-02-15T04:58:00.000Z

Let’s cut the crap.

You want Mitt Romney to win the nomination. Who can blame you? After all, more than any other current GOP candidate, he’s the most inclined to support the status quo, fellate the banksters, and continue the panem et circenses that is the hallmark of American society.

Not only that, he’s presidential looking, has a nice family and doesn’t have any skeletons in his closet. Every attempted media smear has backfired because Romney’s a nice guy. Really, the only scandal facing Romney is that he is incredibly boring and safe. He’s not a firecracker like Gingrich, he’s not stupid like Santorum, and he doesn’t actually want any real change like Ron Paul. He’s predictable, and mind-numbingly so. And that’s the worst that can be said about him.

I get it. Romney is your guy. He’s safe, he’ll maintain GOP power, and he’s likable enough to beat Obama. That’s why you, the GOP party bosses, want him. But could you dispense with the pretext of democracy?

Look, no one likes him. You and your media acolytes keep calling him the clear frontrunner—that’s been your hype, after all. Yet, he’s only won four of the nine primaries/caucuses in which he’s participated. He got more than fifty percent of the vote in just one state, and even then just barely. No one likes him.

So, if you’re going to make him the nominee, regardless of the outcome, could you stop insulting us with this pretense of democracy? You think he’s the best candidate, the best leader, the best fit for America, the best representative of Republican values. Most Republicans disagree. So cut the crap and stop acting like the GOP is party in a democratic country.

If you want Romney to be the GOP candidate, just go ahead and do it. Quit making party members abase themselves in the futile attempt to appear like they’re participating in something meaningful. Stop lying to us, stop insulting what little intelligence we have, and just govern by fiat. Quit the charade of voting, quit the voter fraud, and just go ahead and make Romney the nominee.

Sincerely,

Simon Grey

PS- One benefit of dispensing with the pretext of caring about what party members want is that Romney can go ahead and start using Bankster money to campaign against Barack Obama, which will then force Obama to start using Bankster money to campaign against Romney. That’s the great thing about American democracy: no matter how the votes are tallied in November, the banks always win. Anyhow, let’s just go ahead and dispense with the charade.

GreyMail: Divorce and Marriage

2012-02-14T18:54:00.000Z

CC writes:

Well written article on the 3 lessons for conservatives. But I am curious, you made one exception for divorce, but what if one party does something against the law along the lines of domestic abuse? Also curious to what you think of the right for people that are homosexual to marry?

It should be noted that there are a couple of lenses through which to analyze the general subject of marriage. There is the legal aspect of marriage, the socio-cultural aspect of marriage, the religious aspect of marriage, the entertainment aspect of marriage (i.e. how marriage is portrayed in pop culture among the various media), and so on. For sake of brevity, I will only concern myself with the first three analytical lenses.

I actually deny the moral authority of state-ordained marriages, though I do recognize that legal marriages do offer certain exclusive legal rights, and make the exercising of other legal rights more convenient. As such, I think any human should be allowed to enter into a legal marriage with any number and type of other humans for as long as said human so desires. I also think that anyone should be able to terminate their legal marital contract at any time for any reason. I’m also of the opinion that there should not be any form of default alimony or child support, and that these things should only be granted when one marital party has obviously violated the terms of marital contract (note: if all or no parties violate the marital contract, then alimony and child support would be off the table). Since I don’t view the state as having moral authority in this matter, I see no reason for the state to place any restrictions on marital contracts, which I mean in the same sense that I see no reason for the state to place any restriction on business contracts.

As both a Christian and libertarian, I consider the socio-cultural aspects of marriage, particularly gay marriage, to be of no political concern. As a Christian, my duty is to preach and teach God’s word; it is not my duty to use the government to impose Biblical morality. As a libertarian, it is not my ethical duty to control other people’s lives; in fact, any attempt to do so would be unethical. Thus, if there are negative socio-cultural consequences to gays having the legal right to marry, so be it. If a majority of my fellow citizens wish to go down this path, it is certainly their choice, and I cannot coercively prevent them from doing so. I may (and should) warn them of the consequences of their decisions, but I cannot coercively prevent them from making what I judge to be bad decisions. As such, I have no desire or right to regulate marriage on socio-cultural grounds.

Finally, from a religious perspective, I should probably clarify that I’m not the one who made the singular exception for divorce. Jesus, in Matthew 19, said that, “I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,* and marries another, commits adultery.” As a Christian, I believe that God created the institution of marriage and, as such, he is the one who gets to regulate it. Jesus also teaches in Matthew 19 that marriage is intended to be one man and one woman until death does them part. I don’t get a say in determining these rules; I only get to live by them. Thus, from a religious perspective, I reject the validity of gay marriages, polygamous marriages, and adulterous marriages. If God doesn’t recognize these unions as valid, then how can I?

Regarding domestic violence, I think a couple of points are in order. First, domestic violence would be implicitly condemned in scriptures (cf. Eph. 5:22-33), and therefore has no place in marriage. However, it is not a reason for divorce (see Matt. 19:9, above). It’s also worth pointing out that men are, per a study undertaken by the CDC, more likely to be the victims of domestic abuse than the perpetrators. It’s also worth pointing out that a decent number of women seem to be attracted to violence, as evidenced by this study of rape fantasies.

I also recall seeing a study a long time ago (I was unable to find a link for it, though, sorry) that most women were able to predict the violent tendencies of men just by looking at them, which implies that most women who end up suffering domestic abuse are able to have predicted such an outcome. I have no sympathy for women who decide to marry violent psychopaths knowing full well that they are marrying violent psychopaths. If you choose a certain bed, you’re going to have to lie in it.

At any rate, I hope this answers your questions. I realize I wasn’t as clear on distinguishing between my analytical assumptions in my prior post. I do make a distinction between the legal institution of marriage and the religious institution of marriage, and have actually written extensively on how to separate the two. Ultimately, legality does not equal morality, and it is a mistake to think otherwise.

* From the Greek word porneia, which means “all illicit sexual activity.” Anyone who commits any form of fornication, then, has by definition committed adultery, and can (not “must”) be divorced. Note also that divorcing anyone on any other grounds and remarrying also constitutes adultery, which implies that one is still effectively married even when one divorces for any other reason than adultery because, by definition, only married people can commit adultery.

Electoral Shenanigans

2012-02-14T06:56:00.000Z

From the GOP:

Caucuses in Washington County that had been scheduled for Saturday were postponed until Feb. 18 because of a major snowstorm that blanketed the region. Earlier, party Executive Director Michael Quatrano said county officials had been told the results of that caucus would not count toward the total.

Incidentally, Ron Paul polled very well in Washington County. And, given the low turnout of the state caucus, some have suggested that the results from Washington County alone would have been enough to tip the state his way.

That aside, it’s extremely troubling that the GOP is acting in this matter. Suddenly deciding that some people’s votes don’t count is simply unbecoming. Anyway, the lesson to take away from this is that party members’ votes will always count as long as members vote for the party boss’s preferred candidate. And that’s how democracy works, folks.

Three Lessons Conservatives Need to Learn

2012-02-14T06:45:00.000Z

From gay marriage:

Gov. Christine Gregoire signed legislation on Monday to make Washington the seventh state to legalize same-sex marriage, but opponents said they would try to seek its repeal through a ballot measure. Ms. Gregoire, a Democrat and a Roman Catholic, said, “I’m proud of who and what we are as a state.” Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont recognize same-sex marriage, as does Washington, D.C. The measure will take effect 90 days after the legislative session ends.

First, conservatives need to learn that the government cannot be trusted to uphold traditional values. The reason why conservatives, particularly social conservatives need to stop making social matters a political issue is because, in the long run, they always lose. The government is evil, supports evil, loves evil, and traffics in evil. Evil is the currency of government, which is why no one should ever look to it to uphold traditional morality. Everything about politics and government works in the opposite direction of traditional morality. Getting the government to uphold traditional values is always short-lived, with the government eventually going in the opposite direction. Thus, trusting the government to uphold traditional values is like trusting a fox to guard a henhouse: only a fool would do it.

Second, conservatives need to learn that this sort of immorality does not happen overnight. Gay marriage is not the first, nor the worst assault on the institution of marriage. Feminism and the sexual revolution were earlier and did more damage. Feminism worked against marriage by making it easier for women to divorce their boring husbands, and get paid (i.e. receive alimony) for doing so, and all without having to lose the kids. Then the sexual revolution came and completely eliminated the need for marriage since women were no longer shamed for riding the carousel. As such, women had no reason to marry except to lock into guaranteed income, which would exist even after a divorce. These two elements, then, have completely destroyed marriage; there’s not much left for the gays to do to it.

Third, conservatives need to learn when and how to quit. At this point, the legal war has been lost. The gays will pretty much all be able to get a piece of paper from the government saying that they’re married. This will be inevitable. But the culture war hasn’t been lost—and needn’t be—as long conservatives play their cards right. The first step is to stop going to the government for marriage. Don’t get marriage certificates or licenses; instead, get married by religious officials in churches and simply take your vow before God and a handful of witnesses. The second step, in conjunction with the first, is to make sure that churches who marry people enforce the marriages, which means no divorces except for the cause of adultery, and no alimony (I’d make an exception for child support, to be paid by the adulterous spouse). Once this is in place, conservatives can then feel free to mock government-issued marriage licenses as worthless pieces of paper, and refuse to recognize immoral marriages. For what it’s worth, I seriously doubt that conservatives would undertake this, mostly because conservatives aren’t actually as concerned about marriage as they claim.

Why the Tea Party Fizzled Out

2012-02-14T04:17:00.001Z

This picture should explain pretty clearly why the conservative revolt was so easily co-opted by Washington:

Source.

The chart shows what percent of the average state’s citizen’s income is comprised of federal money (i.e. how much of one’s income comes in the form of federal handouts). As is clear, conservative states receive a larger proportion of federal handouts.

However, it needs to be noted that there are two serious shortcomings to this analysis. First, the analysis is relative, not absolute. It may be that liberal receive more federal money in absolute terms but it is distributed among a larger population. Second, the analysis is on a state level, instead of a county or individual level. I’m not inclined to believe that the analysis would change dramatically if measurements were absolute and at an individual level, though it is possible.

Anyhow, if this analysis is to be believed, the reason why the Tea Party never actually managed to get the federal government to cut spending is because the conservatives that comprised the Tea Party are just as big government as the liberals they claim to oppose.

The Chris Brown Scandal

2012-02-14T04:06:00.000Z

Some people are apparently upset that Chris Brown performed at the Grammys:

I’m sick and tired of people acting like it’s no big deal that Chris Brown will be performing at the Grammys.

I’m frustrated that the mainstream media is covering this story like it’s any comeback story, like an exiled prince’s return to a former glory, like this is another political timeline — as though some rich and powerful old white men in the music business have not just issued an enormous ‘f**k you’ to every woman who has been, is or will be on the receiving end of domestic violence.

We should be furious.

Why aren’t we?

Well, I can’t answer for everyone, but there are two reasons why I’m not upset about this. First off, Rihanna is back with Chris Brown. If she’s forgiven him for his domestic violence why shouldn’t I?

Second, the Grammys are about music, not supporting the victims of domestic abuse. While I’m not a fan of Chris Brown’s “music,” I can’t say that it’s all that problematic that a music artist (a phrase used loosely in this context) was invited to participate in an awards show in which he was nominated for an award. He was being awarded for his music, not his relationship skills.

Also, the most relevant question to ask is why Rihanna wasn’t furious about Chris Brown’s invite. After all, she was expected to be in the same venue with him. And, again, if she’s not upset about this, why should I be?

The Military and Rape

2012-02-14T03:55:00.000Z

From Jezebel:

Trotta apparently believes that the way to prevent rape in the military is to simply take all the women away rather than try to do something to help these women who are being "raped too much." But has she considered that maybe something is wrong with the male culture of the military that the men can't seem to stop raping? Nope!

First off, the culture of the military is such that men (and presumably women) are expected to commit what would generally be considered profoundly immoral acts (i.e. murder) without a moment’s thought or hesitation. This is pretty much the whole point of the military: to do heinous things without concern for morality. Thus, if men are trained to kill others without spending a lot of time in quiet introspection to determine whether killing is justified in the specific context in which it would occur, it shouldn’t be at all surprising if rape gets added to the list of actions that are generally immoral but soldiers do without reflecting upon first. This is not to justify the rape of women serving in the military, only to explain that the military is not an entity that is best suited to not-raping women.

Second, there are a limited number of ways to prevent women from being raped while serving in the military. In an earlier post, I showed how the government can prevent crime, and those principles can be applied here, such that the government using the penal system to deter and passively prevent crime. Since military law already forbids rape and prosecutes rapists, there isn’t much more that can be gained here.

That, then, leaves just two other ways the government can prevent women from being raped in a military context: Forbid women from serving in the military or change the culture of the military to the point where men are strongly hesitant to do immoral things. Obviously, enacting the latter will greatly reduce the effectiveness of the military, perhaps to the point where having a military is kind of pointless. Thus, the only real solution to preventing women from get raped in the military is to prevent women from serving in the military in the first place.

While forbidding women from serving might sound unfair, it is really the only way to have both a military that does what militaries do and prevent women from being raped while in the military. If one wants women to serve in the military without reducing the effectiveness of the military, then one will have to accept the fact the some number of rapes will simply be inevitable.

Natural Monopolies and Cap and Trade

2012-02-14T03:35:00.000Z

Note: this post is intended as discussion of economic theory. The use of certain analytical tools should not be construed as approval or said tools, nor should assertions and arguments be construed as advocacy. This is simply an exercise in economic analysis.

Taking the mainstream definition of natural monopolies, and assuming that the human-produced carbon dioxide that inevitably results when producing electricity does contribute to global warming, I think it’s safe to say that cap-and-trade schemes are superfluous.

In the first place, note that natural monopolies are generally defined are markets that have high entrance costs with minimal variation in products. Landline telephone service would be an example of this, as the infrastructure necessary for building a market is extremely expensive, while the product available generally doesn’t vary (i.e. you get to call people). In contrast, mass-market retail (think: Walmart or Meijer) is not a natural monopoly because the costs of market entry are not necessarily high—insofar as they can be localized—and there can be quite a variation in products available. For purposes of analysis, electricity is considered a natural monopoly since market entrance costs are high and the product is uniform.

In the second place, note that one common assertion made by mainstream economists is that natural monopolies are anti-market (or, more accurately, anti-consumer) because they impose what is assumed to be artificially high prices on consumers, which in turn requires consumers to lower electricity usage or reduce other forms of spending to afford their electrical bills. As such, the argument is that the government needs to interfere in this market so as to make sure that consumers do not have to make difficult decisions about economic tradeoffs. In doing so, the government lowers the price of electricity, and increases the amount of electricity consumed.

In the third place, producing electricity exacerbates global warming. Most electricity in the US is produced from fossil fuels (i.e. coal, crude oil, and natural gas). Fossil fuel refinement and usage releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which traps heat.

In the fourth place, there is a proposed solution for carbon-dioxide-based global warming: cap-and-trade. This seeks to discourage the use and refinement of fossil fuels by imposing a tax on carbon usage and production.

Now, here’s where things get confounding: if natural monopolies could simply exist and charge consumers higher prices for electricity, then there would be no need for cap-and-trade since the market would solve that problem naturally by the price mechanism. Not only that, this would also help to ensure the long-term stability of carbon-based energy prices, as this would further ensure that demand is not pulled too far forward (which is what happens when the government artificially lowers prices). Of course, allowing natural monopolies to do this means that money goes to businessmen instead of politicians, so the real reason for cap-and-trade is to a) correct for a government-caused market inefficiency and b) enrich politicians. Isn’t it amazing how all that works out?

Bad Parenting

2012-02-13T07:23:00.000Z

Why American parents suck:

Yet the French have managed to be involved with their families without becoming obsessive. They assume that even good parents aren't at the constant service of their children, and that there is no need to feel guilty about this. "For me, the evenings are for the parents," one Parisian mother told me. "My daughter can be with us if she wants, but it's adult time." French parents want their kids to be stimulated, but not all the time. While some American toddlers are getting Mandarin tutors and preliteracy training, French kids are—by design—toddling around by themselves.

I'm hardly the first to point out that middle-class America has a parenting problem. This problem has been painstakingly diagnosed, critiqued and named: overparenting, hyperparenting, helicopter parenting, and my personal favorite, the kindergarchy. Nobody seems to like the relentless, unhappy pace of American parenting, least of all parents themselves. [Hat tip: Mangan]

I do not have children, or any theories for raising them. I have no idea how much of a role nurture plays in child development. I can’t even begin to anticipate the sort of messes kids can get themselves into.

However, I do know that overparenting annoys me. Whenever I see some parent trying to micro-manage their brat, I want to go up to them and punch them in their face.

Kids are, for the most part, boring little turds. They have nothing of value to say, and rarely offer insight. The wisdom of children is the wisdom of adults, except in a cute voice, and without as many rationalizations. I do not see how anyone finds giving their undivided attention to children to be rewarding because kids are, simply put, annoying.

And yet, American parents are, for the most part, hyper-involved in their kids’ lives. Look, we all get that you care, that you want what’s best for your kids, etc. But here’s the thing: children are humans, not accessories. And they do not need your undivided attention to make it to adulthood.

My parents would probably have been considered neglectful because I simply did not receive much attention from either of them. And I was homeschooled through sophomore year. By the time I was nine, I was expected to be out of bed by 8:00 AM, and started on schoolwork by 9:00 AM. I was supposed to do my own work without prompting or supervision, and only ask for my mom’s attention if I needed help with something. Once I was done with school, I was pretty much free to do whatever I wanted with the rest of my day, provided I got my chores done without prompting. When dad came home from work, we work expected to leave him alone so he could spend time with mom “talking about his day.”

I managed to make it to adulthood without any emotional scarring, or other major consequences of parental neglect. I assume I’m one of the lucky ones. I feel bad about myself now, having been deprived of a childhood with overbearing parents that wanted to micromanage my life. How ever was I to rebel?

Anyway, parents in America have turned this country into a bizarre Benjamin Button world, where you become more childish as you age. Normally, it is the children who focus on the parents. In America, though, it’s the opposite: the parents focus on the children.

I think that’s what most annoying about American parents. Their lives are so devoid of personal value that they use their kids for social status. That’s why they always focus on their kids, signing them up for sport every season, plus music and language lessons, not to mention play dates and worthless academic competitions. American parents have nothing to show for their years wasted at colleges and in cubicles, so they live vicariously through their children, turning them into narcissists in the process, only to set themselves up for inevitable disappointment once the kids finally realize they don’t want to be prodigies.

This culture is so dysfunctional. Kids can’t be kids because adults won’t be adults. Kids have to be artists, athletes, and academics, and parents have to be their kids’ personal trainers, managing every second of their lives.

The worst conversationalists in the world are American mothers. They are devoid of personality. They have no life of their own; only of their children. All they talk about is their children, or things related to their children. When you talk politics with them, it always comes back to their children. Cooking, art, clothes, etc., it always comes back to their children.

The dads don’t say much, though. Probably because they’re always at work, earning money to be spent on their kids’ activities. They don’t know much about their kids, about their dreams, about their interests. They only know about their activities.

What’s sad about all this is that American parents get parenting completely wrong. They overparent, but not where it counts. They are over-involved in their children’s lives when it comes to superfluous things, like sports and art, but they are never involved enough to actually discipline their children and mold them into functional adults. They give their children license where boundaries are needed and boundaries where license is needed.

Res ipsa loquitur.

Big Ag Attacks Freedom

2012-02-13T06:39:00.000Z

More like the United Statists of America, amirite?

Senate Bill 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act, has been called "the most dangerous bill in the history of the United States of America." It would grant the U.S. government new authority over the public's right to grow, trade and transport any foods. This would give Big brother the power to regulate the tomato plants in your backyard. It would grant them the power to arrest and imprison people selling cucumbers at farmer's markets. It would criminalize the transporting of organic produce if you don't comply with the authoritarian rules of the federal government.

"It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one's choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God." - Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada Health whistleblower.

This tyrannical law puts all food production (yes, even food produced in your own garden) under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security. Yep -- the very same people running the TSA and its naked body scanner / passenger groping programs.

First, I don’t see how homegrown food is a concern of DHS. What, are they afraid of literal homegrown terrorists? Because I’m pretty sure it doesn’t work that way.

But more to the point, people have been growing and cultivating their own crops for thousands of years. If the current global population of 7 billion is any indication, we’ve done a decent job of growing food. In fact, there isn’t much that’s complicated about, you plant a seed in the ground, water it, pull the weeds that spring up around it, water it some more, then harvest it. Humans have been this without issue for thousands of years with no government oversight. I think we’ll be able to manage for a few more decades before we need our nominally omniscient overlords to tell us how to make food to eat.

This bill was originally sponsored by Ted “The Dead” Kennedy way back in 2009, though getting a thorough history of the bill is nearly impossible (it’s almost as if senate.gov is designed to be deliberately unhelpful). Anyway, S.510 tracks through 2010, then kind of vanishes from there, except in individual senator’s personal senate sites. It also appears that Senator John “Dingleberry” Dingell is a current co-sponsor. For what it’s worth, his largest campaign contributor a lobbying firm that lobbies on behalf of various agricultural interests, which is probably just coincidental.

At any rate, I can’t be bothered to actually prove who’s behind all this because I can simply infer the answer to that question simply by asking who stands to profit from this. Big Ag, obviously, because it increases fixed costs for producers, which makes margins thinner for small competitors. Big-government democrats (but I repeat myself) and big-government Republicans (there I go again) are obviously sponsoring it because those big-government types like big government.

And so, the land of the free takes another step closer to becoming the home of the slave. The majority doesn’t care because it doesn’t impact them directly, and also Snooki is on right now so could you just shut up about stupid politics already?

Spot the Fallacies

2012-02-13T06:03:00.000Z

I count three:

Capitalism is currently undergoing its most serious crisis since the Great Depression. The solutions offered by the Right are the same as they were then: Do nothing and let the natural cycle of business (the invisible hand of the free market) straighten itself out. Well, that’s not going to work. Hoover did that for three years and had nothing to show for it. Rooseveldt’s [sic] approach of course made sense. Recessions and depressions mandate an activist state and its massive intervention, otherwise, you’re in Hell forever. But then, I’m a Keynesian, eh?

First, we have a little bit of term conflation to start things off. If capitalism is defined as anything approaching the free market, then what’s happening right now in America is not a crisis of capitalism. Corporatism, maybe. Or the-electorate-wants-all-the-benefits-of-socialism-without-actually-paying-for-it-or-allowing-the-government-to-regulate-them-ism (aka magical-rainbow-unicorn-ism). At any rate, the current crisis is not one of capitalism, the free market, or laissez-faire, because none of those actually exist outside of theory in America these days.

Second, Hoover was not laissez-faire by any stretch of the imagination. Unless laissez-faire now means interventionist statism. The difference between Hoover and Roosevelt is like the difference between Bushitler and Obamao: it’s of degree, not kind.

Third, the solutions offered by the right are not, so far as I know, “do-nothing.” They might be non-interventionist, but that now requires removing market impediments (which, it should be noted, is the very definition of doing something). At any rate, most of the right’s proposals ten to be along the lines of reducing* taxes, deregulating* businesses, and reducing* spending.

There are probably other fallacies I’ve overlooked. If so, point them out in the comments.

* Note that all of these words are verbs, which are action words. In essence, each of these words means doing something.

Athol Kay's New Book

2012-02-12T05:48:00.000Z

Athol Kay has a new book out called Do These Pants Make My Ass Look Fat? It's available on Amazon in Kindle and dead tree format. Show him some support by buying the book. I did, and I'll have a review up sometime soon. Anyway, buy the book, read it, and swing by Athol's blog to let him know what you think.

PS: clicking on the one of the Amazon links on my blog helps support me, so if you buy the book through my blog, you get to help two of your favorite bloggers for the price of one. What a deal!

More on Preventing Crime

2012-02-12T04:10:00.000Z

Charles Murray:

Cumulatively, however, two things happen. First, more and more of the “dirty 7 percent” of offenders who commit about 50 percent of all crime end up in prison. They cannot commit crimes, except against other criminals. Second, the cumulative impact of much higher imprisonment rates does make an impression—the idea that crime doesn’t pay is no longer completely a joke. For violent crime, the tipping point occurred in 1992, when imprisonment rates were heading straight up. By the time that the imprisonment rate for violent crime reached its 1960 level in 1998, the downward trendline was well established.

Since violent crimes are, by definition, property crimes, it would seem that having the government focus on incarcerating violent offenders would do a pretty efficient job of minimizing crime. Couple this with the increasing tendency to make things crime-proof (see here), and there’s a pretty compelling utilitarian case for the government to avoid active prevention of crimes.

Follow the Money

2012-02-12T03:55:00.000Z

Here’s why there’s so much talk about Iran:

If you want to know what’s wrong with our campaign finance laws – and our political system in a more general sense – look at the way Sheldon Adelson is buying the Republican nomination for his sock puppet, Newt Gingrich.

…

He and his allies have been campaigning for war with Iran for years, not only here but in the Middle East. Adelson is a major financial backer of Israel’s ultra-nationalist Likud party, which calls in its platform for a “Greater Israel,” and he has backed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the hilt. The 16th richest man in the world, with his casino empire stretching from Macao to Las Vegas, he thought nothing of giving $60 million to Israel’s anniversary celebration. He is also a major backer of AIPAC, the most important pro-Israel lobbying organization – but downsized his contribution when the group signed on to the two-state solution advanced by both Republican and Democratic presidents – on the grounds that the plan means Israel is “committing suicide.” He supports the extremist – and increasingly violent – “settler” movement, and is the money-bags behind the “Clarion Fund,” which is responsible for flooding the US with anti-Arab propaganda.

I wasn’t even in high school when the US went to war with Iraq, on the grounds that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and posed an imminent threat the US. I was in middle school at the time, and my parents were (and remain) staunch conservatives. As such, I strongly supported the war in Iraq, right up until Saddam was killed, and it was revealed that there were no WMDs.

Even then, I still supported the war, just not as strongly as before. By the time college rolled around, and I was forced to sign up for Selective Service, I no longer supported the war in Iraq. It was costly, predicated on a lie, and was getting bogged down in lots of generally meaningless fighting.

My aversion to war with Iran stems from my limited experience with Iraq. While there are quite possibly significant military risks posed by Iran—just as there were with Iraq—there is also a lot of big talk surrounding the debate. The politicians seem quite confident in their analysis of the threat, just as they were with Iraq, with Vietnam, with Afghanistan, and with all wars prior. But the simple fact of the matter is that no one is omniscient, and that any one’s predictions about the future are probabilistic.

Once you factor in how much support he’s receiving from a PAC dedicated to supporting Israel and encouraging war, you have to question just how much Gingrich’s certainty about Iran should be trusted. Yes, Iran may be a threat, as Iraq once was supposedly was. But when analysis of the threat consists primarily of hyperbolic doomsday scenarios and propagandistic warmongering, as it did with Iraq, you have to wonder if attacking Iran will reveal that there wasn’t ever a real threat, as was the case with Iraq. And you have to wonder if invading Iran will turn into an expensive debacle, as it did with Iraq.

Ultimately, my aversion to war with Iran stems from a distinct feeling of déjà vu, as if I’ve seen this before. I’m not interested in seeing history repeat itself, at least in this instance. Plus, I’m not interested in being fooled again, either. When we went to war with Iraq, it was because George Bush fooled us. If we go to war with Iran, it will be because we fooled ourselves.

Paragraphs to Ponder

2012-02-11T07:54:00.000Z

From Heartiste:

Chew on that. Realize what is being said here. If you do, you should feel a shudder descend your spine. Individualism and freedom of thought are the enemies of the very values and morality which gave birth to them and elevated them to primacy among advanced nations.

What libertarian, conservative OR liberal could read and accept the above premise and not feel at least some elemental — some PRIMAL — part of his worldview shatter into a million pieces. Libertarians: laissez faire means the cementing of intractable human hereditary differences into antagonistic classes and milieus. Conservatives: freedom and prosperity mean a slackening of external behavioral motivators and the erosion of commonality and shared values and the means with which to argue for them. Liberals: nonjudgmental individualism means a collapse of social capital and a surrender of any moral or aesthetic authority.

None of this is to say that people would, or should, prefer to live in less prosperous, backward nations. I don’t see too many Westerners clamoring to move to Zimbabwe for the quality of life. And yet, there has to be a recognition among the cognoscenti that a deeply embedded human nature exists, and that this nature — immutable, unalterable, suppressed only with great effort — when allowed to fully express or, alternately, when stifled at great psychic expense guarantees the slow unwinding of the very prosperity it desires and refuses to relinquish when it achieves.

The Lion King was right: It’s the circle of life. Prosperity sows the seeds of decline. Decline sows the seeds of destruction. Destruction sows the seeds of prosperity. Ad infinitum.

Humanity is never content. This lack of contentment is a double-edged sword which kills and by which one is killed. Man’s lack of contentment causes him to pursue new ideas, in the hope of increasing prosperity. Man will try freedom until it fails to produce the desired results, or produce the desired results fast enough. Then man will slavery, until that fails to produce the desired results, or produce the desired results fast enough. Man will always oscillate between the two, believing that the grass is always greener on the other side.

Strangely enough, the grass is always greener, until it’s over-consumed. And so, having razed one field, man will go back to the other, in search of greener pastures to raze again. Back and forth, back and forth, man always swings between two extremes, never content, always experimenting. This is why man succeeds and, paradoxically, why he fails.

Because man is never content, man must always try new solutions to the problems that continuously plague man. Sometimes humanity’s lot will improve; sometimes humanity’s lot will decline. At this point, humanity is poised to decline.

Bozell the Bozo

2012-02-11T07:16:00.001Z

Here he is, putting the blame where it doesn’t belong:

Super Bowl XLVI was a good football game, marred once again by the bohemian elite at NBC. NBC could have prevented, but failed to stop, the broadcast of a female rapper "flipping the bird" at 114 million viewers during Madonna's halftime show. It was another "fleeting expletive" of the hand-gesture variety, and somehow, despite elaborate rehearsals, no one at NBC could seem to stop it.

Unless I’m mistaken (note: I’m not), neither NBC nor the NFL forced anyone to watch either the Super Bowl or the Super Bowl Halftime Show. (I certainly wasn’t.) As such, the only person who is at fault for watching M.I.A. extend her middle finger during the Super Bowl halftime show are those who actually made the choice to watch M.I.A. extend her middle finger during the Super Bowl halftime show.

Get a clue already, Brent.

Q: How do you know when something distasteful is going to happen at the Super Bowl halftime show?

A: A woman is headlining.

For some reason, Bozell the bozo has not yet grasped that woman are far less decorous and well-behaved than men, at least in this day and age. “Like a Virgin” wasn’t sung by The Who, it was sung by Madonna. The Who are famous primarily for their music (and Keith Moon was primarily known for his off-stage antics), whereas Madonna is famous for being shocking. How then does it surprise anyone when something shocking happens during Madonna’s Super Bowl halftime performance? For crying out loud, her stage name was intended to be sacrilegious. Of course her on-stage behavior is going to be boorish.

Thus, it was easily predictable that something terrible would happen during the halftime show. (That’s why I didn’t bother to watch it. Or any other Super Bowl halftime performance. Ever. I even missed the Janet Jackson slut show.) The easiest way to handle this problem is ridiculously simple: change the channel.

Plus, what’s that old saying? “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” After Janet Jackson’s performance, you should have made a point of not getting fooled again. In this case, it means boycotting, at the least, the Super Bowl halftime show. So, how about instead of complaining about things you can’t control, you take matters into your own hands and change the channel once the Big Game hits halftime?

The Take Over, The Break’s Over

2012-02-11T06:57:00.000Z

Now, back to my woman-hating ways:

The Colorado teenager who made national headlines when her racy senior pictured was rejected by the editors of her school yearbook has been the victim of bullying and discrimination and will continue to fight after the school rejected a third photo and used her school ID photo instead, her mother says.

Miki Spies, the mother of Durango High School senior Sydney Spies, told Westword magazine that she and Sydney's father plan to file a complaint with the Durango, Colo., school board and superintendent in the hope that they "acknowledge that there's been a lot of mishandling of this situation."

"Sydney feels very bullied, by the entire school, basically," Spies, 44, told Westword. "The school has been awful and the kids have been awful. She's received very little support in any way from anybody. There's been a ton of cyber-bullying, where people can say whatever they want without looking the person in the eyes. It's been extremely hurtful for our entire family."

I hope the whole school continues to ~~bully~~ shame this little slut. Frankly, it is not at all unreasonable for Sydney’s classmates to want to have their school represented well. If this means precluding a slut from having her slutty, whorish, prostituting pictures precluded from the yearbook, then so be it. If she wants to attention-whore, she can do what all high school attention whores do: sign up for a Facebook page.

There’s more to life than oneself, as slutty Sydney has apparently yet to learn. Her school picture does not only reflect on her, but on the whole school as well. If her classmates don’t want a whore for a school mascot, that is certainly their prerogative. Slutty Sydney needs to quit whining and just accept the fact that not everyone likes to be known for going to a school that has a serious prostitute problem.

In many ways, this smells just like a woman’s normal form of testing. My hope is that school officials keep their balls and stand up to this little whore and continue to tell her no. The whole world knows there is at least one slut at the school; what’s the point in making sure there’s permanent photo evidence of this?

A Brief Respite

2012-02-11T06:46:00.000Z

From my normal cynicism, misanthropy, and pessimism. Here’s why:

But just two years after winning her “wings,” the 21-year-old brunette has retired her lingerie, as she revealed the entire time she was struggling inside to reconcile her revealing career with her Christian faith.

“Victoria’s Secret was my absolutely biggest goal in life, and it was all I ever wanted career-wise,” Bisutti is quoted as saying by IBT. “But the more I was modeling lingerie, and lingerie isn’t clothing, I just started becoming more uncomfortable with it because of my faith. I’m Christian, and reading the Bible more, I was becoming more conflicted about it.”

Kylie, who married shortly before she won the model search in 2009, also admits her role as a wife and someone that was looked up to in her church body played a large part in her choice to quit.

“My body should only be for my husband and it’s just a sacred thing,” she said. “I didn’t really want to be that kind of role model for younger girls because I had a lot of younger Christian girls that were looking up to me and then thinking that it was okay for them to walk around and show their bodies in lingerie to guys.”

I can’t think of much more to say about this, other than it’s refreshing to see a Christian woman take her faith seriously, to the point where she’ll turn down a sizeable amount of income to live in accordance with God’s word.* It’s also nice to see a woman show this sort of concern about her relationship with her husband, and how her career would impact that. You know what? It’s just nice to see that somewhere in America, there’s an attractive Christian wife who is thoughtful, considerate, and actually concerned about what God says.

* Cf. I Tim. 2:9-10; Titus 2:3-5; I Pet. 3:1-4; Phil. 2:12; and II Tim. 2:15.