A pretty good story in the Wall Street Journal, with references to Ayn Rand and Objectivism: "A Less-Visible Role For the Fed Chief: Freeing Up Markets Greenspan Blessed Mergers And Blocked Regulation; Using the 1800s as a Model." Greenspan is currently mentioned in the #1, #4, and #6 most popular WSJ articles, while Bush is only mentioned in #3.
I don’t think there is any acceptable excuse for opposing the very existence of the Fed while at the same time heading it, but Greenspan is nevertheless a powerful voice for the free market. His hypocrisy is not without consequence however: the continued “success†of the Fed supports those who advocate of a “moderate†level of interventionism.
More importantly, his actions undermine his own ideas by furthering a dichotomy between theory and practice. The effect is to encourage aspiring intellectuals to compromise on their principles. The primary political result of this compromise is the deceptive notion of “smaller, more efficient, government†based on “market principles.†This fraudulent idea, which began with Reagan and has persisted with every president since evades the fact that there can be no compromise between force and reason, and thus any compromise with a mixed-economy is advocacy of socialism. There is no statist equivalent to market prices, no matter how “market-based†bureaucrats try to become.
A quote from Friedrich Hayek’s "The Intellectuals and Socialism" is relevant here:
“We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage. What we lack is a liberal Utopia, a programme which seems neither a mere defence of things as they are nor a diluted kind of socialism, but a truly liberal radicalism which does spare the susceptibilities of the mighty (including the trade unions), which is not too severely practical and which does not confine itself to what appears today as politically possible. We need intellectual leaders who are prepared to resist the blandishments of power and influence and who are willing to work for an ideal, however small may be the prospects of its early realization. They must be men who are willing to stick to principles and to fight for their full realization, however remote. The practical compromises they must leave to politicians. Free trade and freedom of opportunity are ideals which still may rouse the imaginations of large numbers, but a mere ’reasonable freedom of trade’ or a mere ’relaxation of controls’ is neither intellectually respectable nor likely to inspire any enthusiasm. […] if we can regain that belief in power of ideas which was the mark of liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost.â€
"The Incredibles", Pixar's latest animated hit, has received numerous (mostly negative) comparisons to Ayn Rand, despite serious contradictions and at best a very broad and confused celebration of heroism - which is not to say that it is not a fun movie relative to the plot-less junk coming out of Hollywood. Still, I wonder why critics who deride Ayn Rand are so eager to use the movie to attack Objectivism, when the parallels are so tenuous. Are they merely parroting the original reference, or might they be so ignorant of her ideas (yet aware of her rising popular influence) that they think the movie accurately represents them? Or perhaps, the critics see this as an opportunity to push egalitarianism, using Rand as a stand it for Nietzsche.
Check out this MSNBC profile on Intellectual Ventures, a company created by Microsoft alumni Nathan Myhrvold with a bold new business plan: create a marketplace for intellectual property. Rather than produce any material good, the company does nothing but buy up patents and lease them to the highest bidder.
This development is significant because I believe that intellectual property trading will become, in one form or another, the primary business of the 21st century, and ultimately the final stage of mankind’s technological evolution. While material goods will remain valuable as long as human beings depend on material values for their survival, the primary trend of technological development is the substitution of physical labor for mental labor.
The evolution of technology (which I define as “a material entity created by the application of mental and physical effort to nature in order to achieve some valueâ€) in human history has followed three stages.
The pre-technological period, in which all other animal species remain today, was an a-rational period of the prehistoric man.
The emergence of technology, which was made possible by the development of the rational faculty, paved the way for the first stage: the tool. A tool is material object such as a spear, arrow, or hammer that augments physical labor to more efficiently achieve his objective. Tools allow man to do things impossible to accomplish with his body alone, such as seeing minute details with a microscope, manipulating heavy objects with a pulley and cart, or carrying volumes of water in a bucket.
The second technological stage was the creation of the machine. A machine (a powered machine to be more precise) is a tool that substitutes the element of human physical effort, and requires the operator only to control its function. Examples are: cars, trains, computers, and lights. Machines allow man to tremendously exceed the limitations of his body, by for example, transporting him much faster than he could move by foot – even to the moon.
The third, and final stage of technological evolution is the automaton. The automaton is a machine that removes the element of human control with an automatic algorithm. Example of machines with exhibit this characteristic are digital watches, automatic telephone switches, pacemakers, and computer programs.
Ultimately, this evolution follows two trends: the replacement of physical labor with more efficient mental labor, and the resulting greater degree of control over our natural environment, including our ability to transform raw materials into ever more complex and pliable products. This process culminates with man’s ability to achieve all of the material values technologically possible to him by mental effort. (It is unlikely however, that we will want to do this, since we enjoy some forms of physical labor – such as gardening, weaving, driving, or brushing our hair.)
The economic implications of the above theory is that intellectual labor – and thus intellectual property will become increasingly more important relative to material labor and physical goods. The creation of a market for intellectual property is an indication that our civilization is transforming into the final stages of technological evolution. For obvious reasons, it is not surprising that the leader in this field is a former manager from Microsoft, the leader in the creation of automaton-type technology.
(The tool-machine-automaton idea comes from Czech philosopher Radovan Richta’s 1967 publication “Man and Technology in the Revolution of Our Dayâ€)
CNN broadcast news had a story today about President Bush moving forward with medical savings accounts as a legal alternative to employer insurance. Combined with the fact that Americans are spending a good amount of money on health related books, this is very good news for personal medical freedom.
Thousands of Egalitarians must have given a collective moan when this was announced. Already the anti-HSA spin has started with criticisms that will cause people to avoid going to doctors, hurt the poor or elderly, and lead to an inequality of healthcare.
HSA's have put the highest quality of healthcare available into the hands of millions of middle class Americans. For example, the MAYO clinic (viewed as the elite of hospitals) will accept HSA's.
Unfortunately many doctors and nurses are ingrained with the egalitarian ideal that medical care quality should not be based on money. If HSA's are to gain full acceptance with employers and doctors they will have to overcome that entrenched mindset.
We are likely about to see a battle between mediocrities/handouts vs producers/investment. Hopefully Americans will understand that healthcare spending on extending ones life is as sensible an investment as getting a good home mortgage. Its a battle for the minds of ants vs. grasshoppers.
One aspect of HSA's that is particularly important is that employers offer them to alternatives to employers subsidized medical benefits. It is also important that HSA's be open-ended as far as what medical expenses they cover. Consumers must have the freedom to visit any medical provider and seek any treatment. This should include incentives to join a gym or buy books on healthy eating. Currently HSA's cover expenses approved by the IRS as medical.
Considering the third-world shoddiness of most hospitals, varying options in medical treatments, and constant advances in medicine, consumers have an incentive to break away from the status quo of managed care limitations. HSA's have not just the ability to lead to smart healthcare spending but can also put good money into developing medical advancements. A real victory for the ants.
For more info on HSA's/MSA's: All About MSA's
In response to the recent ballyhoo about “red vs blue†states, a Princeton prof created a color-gradated county-level map which makes the real trend clear: large urban cities vs. America. Kerry’s support came primarily from those who didn't attend high school (50% ) and post-grads (55%). In areas with a high-concentration of both, such as Washington D.C., the vote was 90% Democratic. This trend was much stronger than religion or “moral values.†According to CNN, 58% Bush and 41% of Kerry voters reported “weekly church attendanceâ€, 50% of Bush and 49% of Kerry voters reported “monthly church attendanceâ€,†and 45% Bush, 54% of Kerry voters reported attending church “seldom/few times a year.†Definitely a relationship, but a mild one that is little changed from 2000.
I believe that the explanation for the overall trend is nothing new: the major sponsors and the major beneficiaries of the welfare state - the intellectual elite and welfare recipients voted overwhelmingly for the candidate who promised to direct the wealth back into their pockets, while the rest of America voted to keep it in theirs.
It’s an open secret that government bureaucracies in the United States hire minority racial groups significantly over their proportion in the general population. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the EEOC overhired blacks by 623%, the U.S. Dept. of Education overhired by 462% and HUD overhired by 430%. Other federal agencies beat their racial quotas by similarly high ratios, so that only 23 out of every 100 new federal jobs went to non-preferred individuals. My experiences indicates that less drastic but similar patterns are found within state-subsidized as well as large private bureaucracies within private industry, particularly those with low skill/intelligence requirements such as H/R departments, janitorial services and especially university staff.
I think that this overt and institutional racism is due to three factors: (a) policies which explicitly discriminate against non-preferred groups, (b) the dominance of leftist politics within minority areas such as inner cities and public universities, and (c) a self-reinforcing anti-entrepreneurial, pro-entitlement mentality within minority groups.
While the focus of advocates for color-blind policies has been on the harm done to those discriminated against, I think the primary damage is to the very beneficiaries of racist hiring policies. The very environment of government bureaucracies is extremely anti-productive and destructive of the human spirit. It is impossible to maintain a productive workplace when merit depends primarily on race, seniority, and political wrangling rather than individual achievement of productive values. (This may actually be a positive in the case of state agencies, where “productivity†usually means finding better ways to pilfer from the public.)
A relevant example comes from post-colonial African and Asian countries where young men pin their hopes on getting a position in public office as their highest aspiration. This attitude has led to massive bureaucracies within the capital cities which drain scarce wealth and brains from the rest of the nation while destroying productive activities with socialist regulations and price controls. The eventual consequence of policies which destroy productive activity and the entrepreneurial spirit is the destruction of civilization and ultimate reduction to tribal warfare, as has been evidence over and over in places like Serbia, Rwanda, Uganda, Sudan, and a dozen of places all over the world.
The United States, which has the most diverse and integrated society on earth is both particularly resistant and susceptible to this fate. Resistant, because of the remnants of an enlightenment philosophy which values individual achievement over collectivism. Susceptible, because that enlightenment philosophy has been rejected by its leading intellectuals and all but forgotten in its universities while competing political groups use the democratic process to rob other blind in an undeclared state of civil war.
Could such a great nation annihilate itself in an orgy of collectivism and multiculturalism like so many other societies? I believe that depends on whether a new generation of intellectuals rejects the predominant intellectual climate and returns to our enlightenment values.
How strange that so many people would credit religion with having won the election for Bush. Religion is such a weak force that its adherents rarely accomplish anything noteworthy, especially in the degree to their adherence. Genuinely religious people are mentally passive, expecting God to provide the greater part of the thinking; hoping somehow to be rescued from their default by divine assistance.
Bush's particular character, for example, is a perfect example of a religious psychology. In the election he looked as if he were a puppet of outside forces, often saying things that he did not appear to fully understand. To outside observers, he clearly was heavily driven by his advisors. Furthermore his reliance on the advice of John McCain to threaten to silence the Swift-Boat veterans, made me question how much he actually understood about the importance of the election or the issues. I would actually argue that you could find plenty of examples that Bush's religion almost cost him the election, and that non-religious voters came to the rescue.
See: http://www.drhurd.com/news_1073.html
In my own personal life I have seen examples time and again of failures by religious business managers. I have noticed how often religious people are not able to think beyond very safe and traditional bounds. They are taught that reasoning is evil, which has stunted their mental ability. Their mental functioning often consists of accepting a lesser form of thinking, for example hiring friends and family because they do not know how to judge a potential employee's value. They choose the traditional, the personal, and the popular, even in areas where it would be safe to try new thinking.
Hopefully our president will discover that religion is not a substitute for leadership, or else his legacy will be a timid one.
The U.S. Air Force recently published a "Teleportation Physics Report," which among other things, calls for $7.5 million to conduct "psychic teleportation experiments." An Air Force Research Lab spokesman justified the report by stating "If we don't turn over stones, we don't know if we have missed something."
What kind of philosophic corruption makes such a statement possible? Imagine if psychics and faith healers were taken as seriously as scientists. Any crack-pot could present his delusions and demand that they be taken as seriously and potentially valid as a scientific theory that comes from careful research, a rigorous inductive process, and published, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence.
Any man who wants to apply scientific research to the creation of values that improve human life must first recognize that not all claims are equal - that valid knowledge can only come from perceiving reality, and integrating new evidence with the rest of one's knowledge. A scientist cannot randomly pull theories out of thin air- he must look at the evidence before him, and integrate it with his existing knowledge to propose new explanations for previously unknown or misunderstood phenomena - and then validate his explanations by testing his hypothesis against new evidence. Only by strict observance of the scientific process, can he have confidence that he made the best conclusion possible from the facts available to him.
When this process is circumvented by allowing arbitrary claims on the same cognitive plane as empirically validated knowledge, the result is not just to turn over more "stones," as the Air Force spokesman claims. The result is to destroy and void the entire scientific process. Why invest the effort in lengthy and difficult validation and fact-checking, when one can simply imagine an infinity of theories and present them all as potentially valid? Violating the integrity of the process even once is equivalent to a surgeon who flips a coin to decide the next step of an operation.
It's not surprising that this came from the Air Force, which has previously flirted with "remote viewing" and other hoaxes. An entrepreneur who is interested in creating values is successful to the extent that he can identify men who know how to think. There is no guarantee that he will be honest or choose correctly, but the market will reward him to the extent that he does. Government sponsored scientists on the other hand, have little incentive to focus on reality. On the contrary, their incentive is to maximize research grants, which have more to do with political popularity, and the politics of academic and government bureaucracies.
