tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95716472024-03-08T05:50:12.895+03:00Devil's MindThis is a personal weblog maintained by <i>surprisingly</i> me! You are welcome to check in here periodically cuz I post things that I find interesting here. Topics posted can range from technology news, opinions, events, links, and cool miscellaneous stuff! If you are a visitor please try to enjoy the stay :DDevil's Mindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.comBlogger384125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571647.post-12766513795644690442014-12-13T17:22:00.000+02:002018-05-05T16:21:27.052+03:00Intimacy, Relationships, and The Problems of MonogamyWhat is intimacy?<br />
<br />
Intimacy is the creation of genuine connections with people. Some people see that sexual intercourse is the only "real" form of intimacy. However, I think that this is a narrow-sighted view of what intimacy is.<br />
<br />
There is a wide array of things that can create intimate connections with people. Simple gestures that convey a loving attitude are intimate. Sharing similar views on certain topics can be intimate. Being excited about an idea can be intimate. And sex for sure can be intimate.<br />
<br />
And therefore, when monogamous people insist on the exclusivity of sex I see it as an indirect declaration that sex is the only thing that matters in a relationship. I think sex is important, but by far not the only thing that is important.<br />
<br />
So, when we see that restricting sexual intercourse is an indirect attempt to restrict intimacy a large array of problems come into light.<br />
<br />
If someone takes seriously the idea of restricting the intimate connections that their partner has with other people, there is far a lot more than just sex that needs to be restricted. A simple conversation can be intimate, and how are you going to control that? Are you going to prohibit your partner from having meaningful conversations with other people?<br />
<br />
Let's say a couple had a rule that they are not allowed to have deep meaningful conversations with other people in order to restrict intimate connections. What is the definition of a "deep meaningful conversation"?<br />
<br />
For example, you can sit with someone and talk about something mundane... Like say, the weather. Let's imagine the following conversation:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>- "Hey, the weather is nice today."<br />
- "Yes, it is a lovely day today."<br />
- "Did you watch the news? Do you have any idea how the weather is going to be tomorrow?"<br />
- "Yeah, it is going to have some light rain tomorrow!"<br />
- "Yay, I love rainy weather!"<br />
- "Me too. Why is it that you love rainy weather?"<br />
- "I just love going out in the rain. The feel of rain drops splashing my face is fantastic!"<br />
- "Oh wow... I have the same feeling too... It's just so liberating!!"<br />
- "Liberating... That's exactly the word I would describe that feeling!"</blockquote><br />
Looking at the conversation above, it might seem to some people to be about two people just conversing about the weather - nothing intimate about it. However, this conversation can be seen by some as an intimate conversation where people are sharing how they feel. A simple conversation like that can be the start of a great relationship, if the two people felt connected at a deep level, and sharing that attitude towards the rain had deep significance to them.<br />
<br />
So, if you were in a monogamous relationship, how would you feel about your partner having that conversation with someone else?!<br />
<br />
What if the conversation took a deeper turn? Let's say the two people started talking about the weather, and ended up talking about their dreams and aspirations. Maybe they both were for example atheists, and created a connection when they both became honest about their views of something that goes deep into the human psyche like religion. Maybe even they shared stories of having to fight social pressure to conform to mainstream religion, and so they felt a deep intimate connection?!<br />
<br />
What would you think of the following conversation:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>- "Hey, the weather is nice today."<br />
- "Yes, it is a lovely day today."<br />
- "Did you watch the news? Do you have any idea how the weather is going to be tomorrow?"<br />
- "Yeah, it is going to have some light rain tomorrow!"<br />
- "Yay, I love rainy weather!"<br />
- "Me too. Why is it that you love rainy weather?"<br />
- "I just love going out in the rain. The feel of rain drops splashing my face is fantastic!"<br />
- "Oh wow... I have the same feeling too... It's just so liberating!!"<br />
- "Liberating... That's exactly the word I would describe that feeling!"<br />
- "Do you know what else I find liberating?"<br />
- "What?"<br />
- "Being honest with other people."<br />
- "I agree. And in that spirit, I want to share something with you about myself."<br />
- "What is that?"<br />
- "I am an atheist, and it plays a huge role in my views about life!"<br />
- "I am not atheist, however I am an agnostic! But wow, that was a really brave thing to say, seeing how much atheists are frowned upon in our society. I face a lot of negative reactions about my agnosticism, to the point of being afraid to tell others that aspect of myself!"<br />
- "I do too, however I felt a good connection with you, and so I felt at ease sharing that with you!"<br />
- "Yes, me too. The feeling is mutual, I also feel ecstatic that we could share that about ourselves."</blockquote><br />
What do you think of THAT? Now imagine that instead of the conversation above, the following conversation happened:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>- "Hey, the weather is nice today."<br />
- "Yes, it is a lovely day today."<br />
- "Did you watch the news? Do you have any idea how the weather is going to be tomorrow?"<br />
- "Yeah, it is going to have some light rain tomorrow!"<br />
- "Yay, I love rainy weather!"<br />
- "Me too. Why is it that you love rainy weather?"<br />
- "I just love going out in the rain. The feel of rain drops splashing my face is fantastic!"<br />
- "Oh wow... I have the same feeling too... It's just so liberating!!"<br />
- "Ouch, I am sorry. I have a girlfriend. I sense this conversation is becoming meaningful. I am not interested in any conversation that goes beyond 'That's a nice weather!'... I prefer to only have meaningful conversations with my girlfriend."</blockquote><br />
What do you think?<br />
<br />
I personally would feel abhorred by such over-protective fear of human connections and intimacy, that people feel they have to sabotage any meaningful intimate connections with others.<br />
<br />
In my view, sex is an advanced stage of such intimate connections. It's not much different than simply cutting of a conversation that have just become interesting and meaningful. Relationships by their nature advance as people become more accepting and in tune with the other person. So, whether you cut off the conversation just when it has become interesting, or cutting off a relationship just when you feel that sexual intimacy is just few inches away, it all about sabotaging and being afraid of intimate connections happening between people!!<br />
<br />
It's just an arbitrary line drawn in the sand!!<br />
<br />
Also, if you were a person in the business of disallowing their partner from intimate connections with other people. What is sufficient protection? Even a seemingly innocent conversation about the weather can turn out to have an intimate aspect to it. So, what are you going to do? Ban conversing altogether?!<br />
<br />
So, it really does not make sense to think you can simply make a bunch of rules to restrict intimacy.Devil's Mindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571647.post-1776276203620831562014-02-28T16:50:00.002+02:002014-07-20T02:11:29.089+03:00The Human Core: Pansexuality, Polyamory, and Relationship AnarchyThere are three aspects of the human experience that exemplify it's core values: Love, sexuality, and relationships. In this post, I will address those most essential elements of the human experience.<br />
<br />
Let's start with a few quick definitions before we delve into the subject.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Pansexuality</i></b> is a term used to describe undiscriminating choice for sexual and\or romantic partners. Most people are familiar with the term "bisexuality", which includes both "homo" and "hetero" partners for sexual and\or romantic affairs. Pansexuality extends beyond bisexuality, to include the sexes that are usually referred to as "others", including -but not limited to- transsexuals (people who undergone a sex-change operation) and intersexes (people who don't fall in either male or female profiles). I have expressed my admiration for pansexuality in previous posts, like <a href="http://zeidspex.blogspot.com/2007/04/omnisexuality-unrestrained-sexual.html">this one</a>.<br />
<br />
It is worth noting that pansexuals don't have to actually be attracted to that full spectrum. A pansexual might be someone who is in fact heterosexual, but refuses to identify with that label because they would not repress any attractions towards someone from the same sex (if it happened), although they realistically know that they may never feel such an attraction. The same logic also applies to homosexuals who may or may not experience heterosexual urges.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Relationship anarchy</i></b> is the practice of forming relationships that are not bound by set rules. Relationship anarchy has strong connections with open relationships, although being distinct from open relationships. It differs from other relationship models by postulating that there need not be a formal distinction between different types of relationships. Relationship anarchists look at each relationship (romantic or otherwise) individually, as opposed to categorizing them according to societal norms such as 'just friends', 'in a relationship', 'in an open relationship', etc.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Polyamory</i></b> is the belief that it is possible to love more than one person at the same time. I have addressed this topic on multiple occasions in this blog. What follows are three posts that discuss the concept of polyamory:<br />
- <a href="http://zeidspex.blogspot.com/2011/03/can-you-love-more-than-one-person-at.html">Can You Love More Than One Person At The Same Time?</a><br />
- <a href="http://zeidspex.blogspot.com/2011/06/polyamory-ethical-problems-of-monogamy.html">Polyamory: The Ethical Problems of Monogamy</a><br />
- <a href="http://zeidspex.blogspot.com/2012/02/dissecting-concept-of-monogamy.html">Dissecting The Concept of Monogamy</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The questions that are at the core of this post are:</b> <i>In what ways are those three concepts connected? What are the common values that those perspectives share? And why I believe that those three concepts work beautifully well together that there is a good chance that someone who subscribes to one is likely to subscribe to the others as well?</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<u><b>Fluidity:</b></u><br />
The first word that comes to mind to describe those three positions is <i>fluidity</i>! I believe that the common values go much deeper than that, but this is a good place to start. Pansexuality is about being fluid about your sexual preferences. A pansexual person is one who is not willing to limit his or her sexual preferences in a normative manner. This can to be contrasted with self-identified heterosexuals, who may have some homosexual urges, but choose to repress those urges in order to avoid a situation where they might have to question their sexual orientation. A pansexual would give themselves permission to act on their desire without feeling the need to question their attraction.<br />
<br />
In a similar fashion, a relationship anarchist would not 'define' and consequently <i>constrain</i> their relationships with other people. They prefer to keep their relationships fluid, and hence lack the need to constrain themselves or others through rules, but even more importantly, <i>roles</i>!<br />
<br />
And finally, let's address polyamory. Monogamy in this context can be seen as a limiting belief, that may cause a person to repress an emotional connection that is developing with another person, due to the fact that they believe that loving more than one person at the same time is somehow not 'real love'!! In the same way that a heterosexual might ignore feeling of attraction to someone of the same gender based on normative considerations, a monogamist might ignore an evolving emotional bond based on normative considerations of a similar nature.<br />
<br />
<br />
<u><b>Genuine Connectedness and Freedom of Expression:</b></u><br />
In a very similar manner of understanding, those three concepts allow a person have have the freedom to express themselves, and allow others to express themselves openly and honestly. The outcome of an atmosphere of freedom is <i>genuineness</i>.<br />
<br />
Since love, sexuality, and relationships are the most profound aspects of the human experience, the expression of those elements expresses the fundamental values of the personal identity. Our inner most values as humans are expressed through love, sex, and relationships. Any act that aims to censor or inhibit the free expression of those values hides away an aspect of our personal identify. The people we enter relationships with are a mirror to our inner most needs, desires, and values.<br />
<br />
In order to maximize the genuineness of the interpersonal bonds with our fellow human beings, we need to maximize their ability to express their inner most selves genuinely without manipulation or censorship.<br />
<br />
Pansexuality, polyamory, and relationship anarchy are effective tools to guarantee that yourself and others are free to express themselves in the most genuine manner...<br />
<br />
<br />
<u><b>Avoiding Self-Limiting Beliefs:</b></u><br />
As has been explained in the previous section, adopting the social norms that create normative barriers to self-expression are self-limiting beliefs, that encourage the person holding those beliefs to not fully explore their inner-selves. It shuts down routes that may lead to experiencing life without any barriers.<br />
<br />
However, it is my personal belief that the most gratifying relationships are with those who both are <i>willing</i> to be open and honest, and also have done the necessary <i>self-reflection</i> to actually know themselves deeply enough. After all, you cannot share your values if you have not done what is necessary to discover those values.<br />
<br />
<br />
<u><b>Acceptance and Celebrating Our Humanity:</b></u><br />
Love, sex, and relationships are momentous experiences. Without them life would be dull, and frankly meaningless. When we experience love we feel joy. When we experience sex we feel joy. And when we have genuine relationships we feel joy. Any of those experiences calls for a celebration. It is a celebration that expresses our humanity. Humans are social creatures, and all those experiences exemplify the best aspects of our social selves.<br />
<br />
Pansexuality, polyamory, and relationship anarchy demonstrates an acceptance and receptiveness to all those joys of life. It allows us to experience life to its fullest potential without having to feel guilt, shame, or internal conflict while expressing our values.<br />
<br />
I shall quote from an article that expresses such concerns quite eloquently:<br />
<blockquote>"[Monogamy] makes a person feel guilty about having a feeling that I consider to be one of the most important feelings of all. Our ability to connect with other people, to admire other people for their greatness, to be attracted to what we value (spiritually and physically), the ability to love – is probably our most vital characteristic in this life. Monogamy takes a somewhat controversial stance towards it – this property is considered wonderful in a person if he is single, but once he already has one romantic relationship, this very same property is labeled as extremely immoral and wrong. [...] So, basically, if you're in a monogamous relationship, and there's this other person that you realize is absolutely awesome, then you should feel somewhat guilty. You should reject this realization." (<a href="http://petite-lambda.livejournal.com/7226.html">source</a>)</blockquote><br />
And within this understanding, the goal is to celebrate our core human values without guilt or repression. To give ourselves and those we are in a relationship with the means to experience the joys of life.Devil's Mindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571647.post-13945761181683674352013-07-02T21:18:00.000+03:002013-07-02T21:26:24.792+03:00How To Protect Your Privacy OnlineThe internet is becoming more and more hostile towards privacy. Did you know that websites like Google, Facebook, and Twitter know about every webpage you visit on the web?!<br />
<br />
How do they do that?! There are several techniques for such websites to monitor your every move on the web. The two most important ones are 1- Referers and 2- Cookies. These two tools can be used by any website that has content borrowed from it on another website.<br />
<br />
Consider for example the Facebook's "Like" button that is omnipresent all over the internet. Everytime a website shows you the "Like" Facebook knows that you visited that webpage. Facebook knows even that it is precisely YOU who visited if you have a Facebook account because the Facebook cookie is sent along with the request.<br />
<br />
What is a cookie?! A cookie is a set of information that is stored by your browser that is sent to websites that you visit. Each website has it's own cookie, and that cookie is sent everytime you visit that website again. For example, if you signed up to Facebook, closed your browser, and at a later point of time visited Facebook again, you'd notice that you visit that page already logged on with the same account you visited Facebook the last time. This is because the browsers sends Facebook a cookie that lets them know it's the same person (or more precisely, it is the same browser being used).<br />
<br />
Now, the same cookie that is used to identify you when you visit Facebook.com is also sent with every page that you visit over the web that has a Facebook "Like" button. So, every time you see Facebook's "Like" button the Facebook company that you (identified by your user account) has visited that specific page.<br />
<br />
The same applies to Google, which is even more omnipresent on the web, even in ways that are hidden and not immediately visible. So, even if you don't see the "Google Plus" icon in a website, there is a good chance that Google knows that you visited that particular page.<br />
<br />
Google also tracks which links you clicked when you search using their search engine. They used to hide this fact in the old days, but they are openly admitting it now. If you ever saw the "Search History" feature, you'll know what I am talking about.<br />
<br />
So, what's the solution?!<br />
<br />
The best available solution is to use <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/">Firefox 22</a> (or later version) and do some tweaking that will be explained now.<br />
<br />
Google Chrome users have weaker protection available to their privacy, so Firefox is still recommended, but I will point out the equivalent methods for Google Chrome users.<br />
<br />
<u><b>1- Disable Third-Party Cookies Completely</b></u><br />
<br />
The first step is to disable 3rd-party cookies. The latest Firefox versions (ie. 22 and later) have stronger protection against 3rd-party cookies than the previous versions. Other web-browsers provide the same level of protection that Firefox 21 (and earlier) used to provide.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgL-B7nTrtShSE2hDvRsiYGtjara5y_s7rK4QrgszW2ctGHI1F_k-TjGs0KHKc3jwtTyuqIdXX5VVJXGv2G-Lc7g5KTQZmANTpSgj5LZlicKRlABnMhNMCEfK-uCNcYmYDbjWqPVw/s1600/ff-privacy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgL-B7nTrtShSE2hDvRsiYGtjara5y_s7rK4QrgszW2ctGHI1F_k-TjGs0KHKc3jwtTyuqIdXX5VVJXGv2G-Lc7g5KTQZmANTpSgj5LZlicKRlABnMhNMCEfK-uCNcYmYDbjWqPVw/s400/ff-privacy.jpg" /></a></div><br />
Note that the "Accept third-party cookies" option is set to "Never".<br />
<br />
For Google Chrome: <a href="https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/95647?hl=en">read here</a><br />
<br />
<u><b>2- Install Adblock Plus with the additional subscriptions</b></u><br />
<br />
Installed <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-plus/">Adblock Plus</a>. Additionally, install the <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-plus-pop-up-addon/">Popup Blocker</a>.<br />
<br />
And finally, add the following subscriptions:<br />
1- <a href="abp:subscribe?location=https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/easylist.txt&title=EasyList">Easylist</a> (installed by default, so skip this one)<br />
2- <a href="abp:subscribe?location=https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/easyprivacy.txt&title=EasyPrivacy&requiresLocation=https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/easylist.txt&requiresTitle=EasyList">EasyPrivacy</a><br />
3- <a href="abp:subscribe?location=https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/fanboy-annoyance.txt&title=fanboy-annoyances&requiresLocation=https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/easylist.txt&requiresTitle=Easylist">Fanboy's Annoyances</a><br />
<br />
For Google Chrome: Install Adblock Plus from <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/empty-title/cfhdojbkjhnklbpkdaibdccddilifddb">here</a><br />
<br />
<u><b>3- Block Referers:</b></u><br />
<br />
Install <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/smart-referer/">Smart Referer</a>. <br />
<br />
For Google Chrome: There is no simple alternative. The best I could find is <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/referer-control/hnkcfpcejkafcihlgbojoidoihckciin">this</a>. However, this extension requires manual configuration to work.<br />
<br />
<u><b>4- Block Flash-based Cookies:</b></u><br />
<br />
Install <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/betterprivacy/">Better Privacy</a>. <br />
<br />
(No Google Chrome equivalent)<br />
<br />
<u><b>5- Google search link fix:</b></u><br />
<br />
If you don't want Google to remember the websites you visited, and have no interest in using the "Search History" feature, <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-search-link-fix/">this addon</a> stops Google from knowing which websites you visited from their search engine. <br />
<br />
(No Google Chrome equivalent)<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>PS:</i> If anyone knows about Google Chrome equivalents that I am not aware of, please share in the comments section.Devil's Mindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571647.post-82961189292708379812013-03-23T07:19:00.002+03:002013-03-24T22:17:24.179+03:00What Is The False Self?In <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JEBj_Zijuk">this video</a>, Stefan Molyneux explains the concept of "the false self".<br />
<br />
<iframe width="445" height="250" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5JEBj_Zijuk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Devil's Mindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571647.post-9735897910004722092013-01-29T23:12:00.002+03:002013-02-25T10:25:44.114+03:00The Myth of Class StruggleCheck out <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8u70_Bbj2U">this video</a> for a very interesting lecture debunking the hypothesis of class struggle.<br />
<br />
<iframe width="420" height="334" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/M8u70_Bbj2U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Devil's Mindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571647.post-10005317496544926902013-01-25T21:36:00.000+03:002013-01-25T21:40:41.177+03:00Talk by Stefan Molyneux: Arguments for AnarchismCheck out <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD_1nbahAts">this video</a> for a very interesting speech by "Stephan Molyneux" about arguing for anarcho-capitalism.<br />
<br />
<iframe width="445" height="250" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UD_1nbahAts" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Devil's Mindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571647.post-79750081346017257162012-12-25T04:20:00.003+03:002013-01-17T01:01:49.305+03:00The Feminist Movement RevisedCheck out <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C46rSIfTum4">this video</a> about the flaws of the current feminist ideology, and how it is counter productive to the stated goals of feminism, namely gender equality.<br />
<br />
<iframe width="445" height="250" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/C46rSIfTum4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Devil's Mindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571647.post-80340540996218395702012-12-23T20:12:00.000+03:002012-12-23T20:12:43.287+03:00Murray Rothbard: Who Is The State? <iframe width="445" height="250" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Mr4WN4vyevA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Devil's Mindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571647.post-62386056757166076552012-08-10T06:55:00.000+03:002012-08-10T06:56:30.546+03:00John Stossel's Illegal EverythingCheck out <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBiJB8YuDBQ">this video</a> about the numerous threats to our freedom.<br />
<br />
<iframe width="445" height="250" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/nBiJB8YuDBQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Devil's Mindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571647.post-61829873381537361202012-07-30T17:30:00.000+03:002012-08-09T16:51:27.561+03:00Intellectuals and Society: Poverty And Wealth<blockquote>Intellectuals have a great tendency to see poverty as a great moral problem to which they have the solution. The human race began in poverty, so there's no mysterious explanation as to why some people are poor. The question is why have some people gotten prosperous, and in particular why some have gotten prosperous to a greater degree than others. But everybody started poor, so poverty is not a mystery to be solved by intellectuals. More than that, intellectuals have no interest in what creates wealth, and what inhibits the creation of wealth. They are very concerned about the distribution of it, but they act as if wealth just exists - somehow. It's like manna from heaven, it's only a question of how we split it up.<br />
<br />
[...] Most intellectuals in most countries around the world see the issue as how those who are more prosperous should be brought down, and moreover that the people who are lagging should cling to their culture. I don’t know how you're going to keep on doing what you've always done and get results that are different from what you’ve always gotten.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell">Thomas Sowell</a></blockquote><br />
What is wealth?! This is a basic question one might ask. Paper money is not wealth! Wealth are the actual goods and services that a person has access to. Wealth are the goods and services which can be used to satisfy our human desires and needs.<br />
<br />
A fish swimming in the ocean is not wealth. A fish caught in the net of a fisherman is wealth. The difference is that the fish in the ocean is not accessible to anyone, it cannot satisfy hunger by the virtue of existing. However, once that fish is caught, it becomes accessible and can satisfy hunger. Then, and only then, that fish is considered wealth.<br />
<br />
Rocks found in nature are not wealth. A house that is built with those rocks is wealth, because houses can be used to satisfy the need for shelter.<br />
<br />
In other words, <i>our wealth depends on our capacity to transform raw materials found in nature into useful products that we can use in our everyday life</i>. This process requires deliberate actions made by individuals.<br />
<br />
A caveman no matter how much wealthier he is compared to his fellow cavemen is much less wealthier than most of the people we consider as poor in our day and age. There are two fundamentally different ways to measure poverty and wealth. The first is absolute measurement; Such measurement would lead us to see how the poor individuals of today are indeed much wealthier than their predecessors. The second way is comparative; That is comparing the wealth of one person to another. However, the second way can lead to disasters in terms of human progress. Most intellectuals on the left-wing of politics focus on the question of wealth in the comparative sense, but without the faintest understanding of how their type of analysis affects wealth in the absolute sense.<br />
<br />
Having millions of dollars means nothing if there were no fish to eat, no houses to live in, no cars to drive, or no mobiles to use. In a world without goods and services, it does not make a difference if you have a million dollars or no money at all, because there is nothing to buy in the first place. <i>Money derives its value from the goods and services you can buy, not from any intrinsic value that money has</i>.<br />
<br />
Without Microsoft Inc. there would be no MS Windows to buy; Without Apple Inc. there would be no iPads to buy; Without GM Ford Inc. there would be no cars to buy; And without IBM Inc. there would be no computers. Without the effort the individuals behind those companies invested, the products which we take for granted would not have existed. So, is it reasonable to claim that it is unfair that Bill Gates owns more money than other people, when the reason he became rich is that individuals found the products and services his company provided beneficial to billions of people around the globe?! Every single individual who bought MS Windows has participated in creating Bill Gate's wealth: His wealth is proportional to the amount of service he provided to individual people.<br />
<br />
There is general fallacy that people generally commit when thinking that paper money is a measure of wealth. For example, let's say a person bought a car for 4000$; Did that person lose wealth or gain wealth?! Most people would say that this person lost wealth because he now has 4000$ less. This is the fallacy of thinking that money is a measure of wealth. 4000$ sitting in a bank account is worthless if you do not benefit from it. So, the person who bought the car has converted "virtual" wealth in the form of paper money into <i>real wealth</i> which is the car. The car itself is the real wealth, not the paper money.<br />
<br />
<i>Real wealth</i> is a function of technology (also called "capital"). Real wealth depends on our ability to convert raw materials found in nature into useful products that we can use in our real life. A fishing net is technology: It enables fishermen to extract fish found in the ocean into fish that we can consume. Before the invention of fishing nets, people had to catch fish by their bare hands. Such a method might require numerous hours to get 4 or 5 fishes to eat. Using fishing nets we can now get hundreds of fish to eat in a small amount of time. The fishing net is thus called capital.<br />
<br />
It can be easily seen that in a primitive society that has not invented fishing nets would be much poorer (even if the fish were evenly distributed among members of that society) than one where fishing nets have been invented (even if the fish is not evenly distributed) because the second society has higher <i>yield</i> of fish. Yield is the amount of resources required to obtain certain goods; Time is one of the resources that is required obtain goods; So, the higher yield in the second society is because they were able to produce more fish in a given amount of time. This increased efficiency would improve the wealth of society as a whole and the individuals within that society.<br />
<br />
In a primitive society, if an oil field exploded in your farm, this would be a disaster, because the crude oil would destroy your crops. In that case, oil is not wealth because the technology that makes use of oil has not been discovered yet. On the other hand, in today's world this would be great fortune, because that oil can be used to run cars or be used in industry; Oil is now a commodity that serves our human needs. In other words, a primitive society cannot convert the natural resource of oil into a valuable commodity, but an industrial society does.<br />
<br />
In short, wealth is a function of technology. The discoveries that improve our use of scarce raw materials that are found in nature. Whether it is a fish that you don't have the tools to hunt, or the oil that you cannot put to use in your day-to-day life. And those technological advancements are what creates <i>real wealth</i>.<br />
<br />
Technology makes it possible to divide labor and makes better use of our time. In a primitive society (assuming it depended on fishing to eat), all people would be busy fishing because each individual can barely feed himself and his family. However, once the technology of fishing nets are discovered, only a handful of people would become fishermen and the rest would go about their day trying to make other kinds of products that they desire or need. Those individuals can then trade their products with the fishermen to satisfy their hunger, and the fishermen would have excess fish and food that they would be glad to trade their fish for the other services that have now become possible due to the process of freeing up people's time to provide new services. In this scenario, those new products -that were not possible before- are how a society as a whole become more wealthy and prosperous than another society that is not using that technology.<br />
<br />
In other words, the technology of fishing nets freed up the time of the people in that society. They can now think about philosophy, make up theories about geometry and math, or make scientific discoveries. All of these endeavors would consequently be used to invent new technologies that would bring that society even more technological advancements that is needed to create more wealth.<br />
<br />
Some people worry that improved technology like automated industries are not good because then the people who worked in those factories would lose their jobs. But in reality, this is how real wealth is created; Those people are now freed up and can make better use of their productive capacity and employ that capacity in new services that were not possible before, or in places they are needed more. Those automated industries can now produce more products in less time at a cheaper prince, and the workforce is now available to provide their services in other products and services.<br />
<br />
Technology does have the <i>short-term</i> effect of causing some people to lose their jobs. Another example is the email. The mailman might be upset that his job is now obsolete since people can now use the email, but if every new technological advancement had to be discouraged due to it's short-term impact on a small sector of individuals nothing would ever be accomplished.<br />
<br />
Wealth creation generally tends to improve society as a whole. And the wealth distribution generally remains roughly constant among different sectors of society like say, business owners and employees. The wealth gap might increase, but this should not be considered as a serious problem.<br />
<br />
To give a numerical example, let's suppose that a certain sum of money is going to be divided between you and another person (say, 30% to you and 70% to the other person). In that setup, which is better: Splitting 100$ such that you get 30$ and 70$ for the other person?! Or splitting 1000$ such that you get 300$ and 700$ for the other person?! If you focus on the wealth gap, you would conclude that splitting a 100$ is better because the gap is 40$ compared to 400$. On the other hand, if you focus on absolute wealth you conclude that splitting 1000$ is better because you got more money. [Of course, we should not focus on paper money, but real wealth in terms of products and services, but let's assume that the purchasing power of money in this example is constant.]<br />
<br />
Empirical evidence generally shows that the best way to improve the quality of life for all people (regardless of economic class) in the <i>long-term</i> is not to redistribute wealth, but to increase the wealth of the nation in absolute terms. Wealth does naturally flow around, and the more wealth that exists the more there is to go around.<br />
<br />
It is a known fact (although not commonly understood and sometimes deliberately ignored) that socialism and communism have negative impact on real wealth. Socialism destroys real wealth (for many reasons that will be explained in later posts), and in the long-run all wealth would ultimately be destroyed, leaving society in dire poverty in terms of absolute wealth. One of the reasons is that our wealth depends on our capacity to transform raw materials found in nature into useful products that we can use in our everyday life. Socialism and communism interfere with the natural mechanisms that enables us to put natural resources into their most efficient use. This in turn would turn the natural progress towards more wealth in the opposite direction of less wealth, until wealth runs out completely.Devil's Mindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571647.post-83307575390583422112012-07-26T16:56:00.000+03:002012-07-27T01:25:19.207+03:00Libertarianism: Grounds Up Formulation<b><u>Introduction and Basic Definition:</u></b><br />
In this post, I will informally describe the philosophy of libertarianism from the basic foundations. This is not meant to be comprehensive definition and analysis, however it presents the philosophy from it's foundational principles.<br />
<br />
The beauty of libertarianism is it's simplicity. It is the simplest political philosophy to understand, because it rests essentially on a single axiom. Everything else is made through extrapolation from that single axiom.<br />
<br />
The axiom of libertarianism is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_ownership">self-ownership</a>: You own yourself. Your body is your property.<br />
<br />
Owning property means that you have an exclusive right to control and make decisions about the use and function of the property you own.<br />
<br />
With that in mind, this means by definition that owning your body means that you have an exclusive right to control and make decisions about the use and function of your body. Your body is the first property you own once you are born.<br />
<br />
By careful analysis and study of the implications of the concept of self-ownership, we reach three further theoretical constructs that are conclusions from the axiom of self-ownership. Theory of property rights, theory of contracts, and theory of crime. I will not go into details of how those theories are formally derived from the concept of self-ownership; I will address that in future posts. Let's briefly discuss those theoretical constructs.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><u>The Theory of Property Rights:</u></b><br />
The major question of property rights is how does a person go from owning one property (his body) to owning external things in the world. There are two principles that need to be in place to answer this question.<br />
<br />
1- <i>The homesteading principle</i>: The homesteading principle describes how a person might acquire what is previously unowned by anyone else. The principle states that a person gains property by mixing his labor with nature. Since a person owns his body, he also owns his labor. This means that a person can appropriate those parts of nature which he invested labor in.<br />
<br />
2- <i>Legitimate title transfer</i>: The legitimate title transfer describes how one person might acquire the legitimate property of another person. A legitimate title transfer is defined as a voluntary transfer of property authorized by it's legitimate owner. There are many ways to transfer property: Giving someone a gift; Exchanging items through trade or barter (buying and selling); Inheritance; Or contractual agreements; All of these are examples of legitimate title transfer.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><u>The Theory of Contracts:</u></b><br />
Contracts are necessary to ensure securing property rights. Contracts can be simply understood as future (possibly conditional) property rights. For example, if you lend your friend a sum of money on the condition that they return it next week; This means that you have a right to that sum of money next week to be provided by that same person. If you buy an item on eBay, this means that you have a right to receive the item in question in the future. If you make a bet with someone on the outcome of a football match, it means that the property rights to certain sums of money are conditional upon the unfolding of a future event.<br />
<br />
Contracts are important because they provide the necessary tools to secure property rights. In the case of lending someone a sum of money, the lender would have only agreed to voluntarily give up his property under the conditions of the contract. Violating contracts is a violation of the terms of the voluntary exchange under which one party agreed to transfer the property in question.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><u>The Theory of Crime:</u></b><br />
In libertarianism there is one -and only one- type of criminal activity: Violations of the property rights of others. In other words, any activity that violates the property of another person is a crime. Any activity that does not violate the property of another is legal.<br />
<br />
In this understanding, we see that crimes generally fall under one of three broad categories of property crimes:<br />
<br />
1- <i>Crimes against property of the self</i>: Since by definition every person owns his body, then violating the property rights of the body is a crime. Murder, rape, or physical violence are all crimes against the property rights of that person in his body. Murder, rape, and violence are akin to vandalism of the property rights of others.<br />
<br />
2- <i>Crimes against external property</i>: Theft and vandalism are crimes against the property rights of others in external objects in the world.<br />
<br />
3- <i>Breach of contract</i>: Since contracts are future property rights, thus breaching contracts is akin to theft in retrospective regard.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><u>Libertarian Analysis of Some Political Issues:</u></b><br />
The libertarian perspective is utterly simple as has been discussed earlier. All rights are essentially property rights. And all crimes are property crimes, and anything that is not a property crime should be legal.<br />
<br />
<i><u>Should murder be legal?</u></i><br />
Murder is a violation of the property rights of individuals in their own bodies. Murder should not be legal.<br />
<br />
<i><u>Should rape be legal?</u></i><br />
Rape is a violation of the property rights of individuals in their own bodies. Rape should not be legal.<br />
<br />
<i><u>Should slavery be legal?</u></i><br />
Slavery violates the property rights of the individual slaves to control and decide the use and function of their bodies. Slavery should not be legal.<br />
<br />
<i><u>Should theft be legal?</u></i><br />
Theft is a violation of the property rights of individuals in their legitimately acquired property. Theft should not be legal.<br />
<br />
<i><u>Should free speech be legal?</u></i><br />
Speech does not violate the property rights of any individuals. All speech should be legal.<br />
<br />
<i><u>Should refusing to pay rent be legal?</u></i><br />
Refusing to pay rent is a breach of contract. It violates the property rights of renters through retrospective theft. In other words, that person was given conditional rights to use the rented house, and not satisfying those conditions means that this person was retrospectively illegally using the house which they refused to pay the rent for.<br />
<br />
<i><u>Should homosexuality be legal?</u></i><br />
Since individuals are the owners of their bodies, individuals have exclusive right to control and decide the use and function of their bodies. Consequently, they have unrestrained right to practice sexuality with any consenting individuals. Consent is required because without it, it would be a property crime (rape).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, banning the practice by means of force or violence is a crime, since it is a violation of the property rights of individual homosexuals in their bodies, and their rights to control and decide the use and function of their property.<br />
<br />
<i><u>Should prostitution be legal?</u></i><br />
Prostitution similarly is an exercise of the property rights of the prostitute with respect to her body. Prostitution is a legitimate contract since it does not violate the property rights of any individuals.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, banning the practice by means of force or violence is a crime, since it is a violation of the property rights of the individual prostitutes in their bodies, and their rights to control and decide the use and function of their property.<br />
<br />
<i><u>Should drugs be legal?</u></i><br />
Buying and selling drugs is a legitimate title transfer of property. The use of drugs by itself does not violate the property rights of anyone, thus it should be legal. The individual has the right control and decide what goes into their bodies.<br />
<br />
<i><u>Should driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs be legal?</u></i><br />
This is a borderline issue. While drunk driving is not, in and of itself, a crime, it significantly increases the chance of committing a crime (namely, involuntary manslaughter). This question and other similar questions like "Should polluting the environment be legal?" require analysis of the theory of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities">externalities</a>; A theory I have not discussed in this post. The theory of externalities basically deals with indirect violations of property rights. For example, selling expired food imposes an externality on individuals whose health is damaged by such a practice.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><u>Final Remarks:</u></b><br />
There is a common saying that goes: <i>"All you need to know about libertarianism you learnt in kinder garden: Don't hit other people, don't take their stuff, and keep your promises."</i> - That is indeed all you need to know to understand the philosophy of libertarianism.Devil's Mindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571647.post-37180013700717037922012-07-24T03:53:00.000+03:002012-07-24T12:30:49.559+03:00Ayn Rand VS Jesus: Love<blockquote>{5:44} But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; {5:45} That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. {5:46} For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?<br />
<br />
<i>source:</i> The Christian Bible / Matthew 5:42-46 (<a href="http://www.davince.com/download/kjvbible.pdf">PDF</a>)</blockquote><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_N5W2T0dBC4_LrR45Bx7TDimPbikA4GTWzjIMov55U1UijmxDdlfAaxYGNmuryRlYEzXMAjG0QfFBFt-C7flQrJ08SDr_-tJ4b9pC948pO9JIaFoN2bm1X1l0Gq1VjxdxjxV5cg/s1600/poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="175" width="220" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_N5W2T0dBC4_LrR45Bx7TDimPbikA4GTWzjIMov55U1UijmxDdlfAaxYGNmuryRlYEzXMAjG0QfFBFt-C7flQrJ08SDr_-tJ4b9pC948pO9JIaFoN2bm1X1l0Gq1VjxdxjxV5cg/s1600/poster.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<blockquote>When it comes to love, the highest of emotions, you permit them to shriek at you accusingly that you are a moral delinquent if you’re incapable of feeling causeless love. When a man feels fear without reason, you call him to the attention of a psychiatrist; <i><b>you are not so careful to protect the meaning, the nature and the dignity of love.</b></i><br />
<br />
<i><b>Love is the expression of one’s values</b></i>, the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person, the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another. <i><b>Your morality demands that you divorce your love from values</b></i> and hand it down to any vagrant, not as response to his worth, but as response to his need, not as reward, but as alms, not as a payment for virtues, but as a blank check on vices. Your morality tells you that the purpose of love is to set you free of the bonds of morality, that love is superior to moral judgment, that true love transcends, forgives and survives every manner of evil in its object, and the greater the love the greater the depravity it permits to the loved. <i><b>To love a man for his virtues is paltry and human, it tells you; to love him for his flaws is divine. To love those who are worthy of it is self-interest; to love the unworthy is sacrifice.</b></i> You owe your love to those who don’t deserve it, and the less they deserve it, the more love you owe them - the more loathsome the object, the nobler your love - the more unfastidious your love, the greater the virtue - and if you can bring your soul to the state of a dump heap that welcomes anything on equal terms, if you can cease to value moral values, you have achieved the state of moral perfection.<br />
<br />
The degree of your ability to live was the degree to which you broke your moral code, yet you believe that those who preach it are friends of humanity, you damn yourself and dare not question their motives or their goals.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_rand">Ayn Rand</a></blockquote>Devil's Mindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571647.post-73569455315275630492012-07-21T12:26:00.000+03:002012-07-21T17:01:21.537+03:00The Morality of Seduction: Is Redistribution of Wealth Moral?Libertarians generally believe that the actions of government should follow the same ethical principles that private individuals follow. It is generally believed that theft is unethical. Assuming that theft is immoral, should redistribution of wealth through government be considered moral?!<br />
<br />
The morality of seduction is the principle that moral human relationships are <i>voluntary interactions</i> (some libertarians do call themselves <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism">voluntaryists</a>). The morality of rape is the idea that moral human relationships can be coercive by the use of force. Is redistribution of wealth consistent with the morality of seduction or the morality of rape?!<br />
<br />
See <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhkHEoFfqp0">this video</a> of Economist Walter Williams making the moral case against the redistribution of wealth.Devil's Mindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571647.post-33229809600383121092012-07-18T23:00:00.000+03:002012-07-18T23:01:55.367+03:00To Think or Not To Think<blockquote>"I exist, therefore I'll think."<br />
<br />
"Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking."<br />
<br />
"Man’s mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch – or build a cyclotron – without a knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think.<br />
But to think is an act of choice. [...] In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival – so that for you, who are a human being, the question ‘to be or not to be’ is the question ‘to think or not to think’."<br />
<br />
"Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_rand">Ayn Rand</a></blockquote>Devil's Mindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571647.post-88303296451095361652012-07-18T10:17:00.000+03:002012-07-20T01:09:50.680+03:00Economics and The Theory of Value (2)<b><u>Profit in the Subjective Theory of Value:</u></b><br />
In the <a href="http://zeidspex.blogspot.com/2012/07/theory-of-value-in-economics-1.html">previous part</a>, we discussed Karl Marx's theory of exploitation, and the thesis that profit is made though exploitation of one person of another. The subjective theory of value provides an alternative explanation of how profit is made in trade.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhX6-TnEzllgTEWom35t9HzQPEUuuIsXsnTYRkq8C-Q9fJ0GcJjIQo2S9VQgDUyDX8huv7F9DfcFm8k0g-XJzwklai5lbqQ8011LIlvyn7DOsunAQBKxXoEp_lgSKfbR2Ys0hk1Ng/s1600/tt.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="157.5" width="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhX6-TnEzllgTEWom35t9HzQPEUuuIsXsnTYRkq8C-Q9fJ0GcJjIQo2S9VQgDUyDX8huv7F9DfcFm8k0g-XJzwklai5lbqQ8011LIlvyn7DOsunAQBKxXoEp_lgSKfbR2Ys0hk1Ng/s1600/tt.png" /></a></div><br />
Let's review the story of Mr. Jesus Lover and Mr. Jesus Hater discussed earlier. In that story, Mr. Jesus Lover got a T-shirt as a gift with "I hate Jesus" written on it. Mr. Jesus Hater got a T-shirt as a gift with "I love Jesus" written on it. In this scenario, both of these individuals have <i>negative valuation</i> of the items they have.<br />
<br />
Unlike our previous example, in this scenario, those individuals don't know each other; So, they are not going to engage in direct trade. Instead, let's suppose there is Mr. Trader. Mr. Trader meets Mr. Jesus Lover and offers him 6$ to get that shirt. Later, Mr. Trader meets Mr. Jesus Hater and offers him another 6$ to get that shirt from him.<br />
<br />
Note that each of these trades are good bargains for these individuals, since for each of them, the shirt they have is <i>worthless</i>; But now each one of them has 6$ instead of a worthless shirt!!<br />
<br />
Suppose now that Mr. Trader puts these shirts on sale. He offers both shirts for 10$. Let's assume that Mr. Jesus Lover values the first T-shirt for 12$, and Mr. Jesus Hater values the second T-shirt for 12$ also. Both of these individuals visit Mr. Trader's shop and buy their favorite shirts for 10$.<br />
<br />
Let's examine what happened with this step-by-step table:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjO7i95AF5hfTNpdw2cUkA563KXz6mdqx20-4PoGbRF3Ssol43COd2EOgBF7hPwBkFZbRRXj7zYcp4lJnV8FtJdsCfboWU_AmUiFXH1K4FpRjeP5ktFo8qtX326NoFATY5gr50Rtw/s1600/tt_table.jpg" imageanchor="1" style=""><img border="0" height="232" width="445" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjO7i95AF5hfTNpdw2cUkA563KXz6mdqx20-4PoGbRF3Ssol43COd2EOgBF7hPwBkFZbRRXj7zYcp4lJnV8FtJdsCfboWU_AmUiFXH1K4FpRjeP5ktFo8qtX326NoFATY5gr50Rtw/s1600/tt_table.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
As we can see, Mr. Jesus Lover started out with a worthless shirt and 10$ in his pocket. He ended up with a shirt he subjectively values at 12$ and 6$ in his pocket. Giving him a total of 18$ in value. Mr. Jesus Lover has gained the equivalent of 8$ in this process!!<br />
<br />
Mr. Jesus Hater started out with a worthless shirt and 10$ in his pocket. He ended with a shirt he subjectively values at 12$ and 6$ in his pocket. Mr. Jesus Hater gained the equivalent of 8$ in this process.<br />
<br />
Mr. Trader started out with 12$ in his pocket, and ended up with 20$ in his pocket. Mr. Trader has made a profit of 8$ as well...<br />
<br />
As a total for all people involved, we started with the equivalent of 32$ in value, and ended up with the equivalent of 56$ in value. The net gain for all people involved is the equivalent of 24$... Also, note that each step in this process increases the amount of value in the system, because each step is itself a positive-sum game as the people involved wouldn't trade unless each one of them subjectively views the trade as profitable.<br />
<br />
By understanding this scenario, we learn three very important lessons: <br />
1- In trade, everyone involved is a winner.<br />
2- Trade CREATES new value.<br />
3- In trade, profit is made in the process of different subjective valuation of the same commodities.<br />
<br />
In our scenario, Mr. Trader profited from the process of transferring the ownership title of the two shirts, from the individuals who least wanted those items, to the hands of those who most wanted those items.<br />
<br />
In technical economic terminology, <i>profit is made by efficient allocation and reallocation of resources</i>. In our example, the trader served to reallocate the existing resources (the shirts), from it's inefficient initial allocation (as worthless shirts) to their more efficient allocation (valued shirts).<br />
<br />
Labor is a resource just like any other resource in the market. And business owners maximize their profit by allocating labor to it's most efficient use. This might not be easily understood as the trading example, and I will elaborate on this in future posts.<br />
<br />
Trade brings profit by increasing the efficiency of allocating resources. In the T-shirts example, profit was made by goods simply exchanging hands. But, this is not the only way trade is beneficial. Trade also improves efficiency by <i>conserving</i> resources. See <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdcQLWGaJoM">video below</a> as another example of how trade increases efficiency of allocating resources in a more concrete sense.<br />
<br />
<iframe width="445" height="250" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qdcQLWGaJoM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br />
<br />
<br />
In this series:<br />
<a href="http://zeidspex.blogspot.com/2012/07/theory-of-value-in-economics-1.html">Economics and The Theory of Value (1)</a><br />
<a href="http://zeidspex.blogspot.com/2012/07/economics-and-theory-of-value-2.html">Economics and The Theory of Value (2)</a><br />
<i>Next: Economics and The Theory of Value (3)</i>Devil's Mindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571647.post-35994649957879038902012-07-16T05:20:00.000+03:002012-07-16T05:22:53.755+03:00Re-Evaluating DiscriminationEconomist Walter Williams gives great lecture about the common myths and misunderstandings about discrimination.<br />
<br />
Watch the full lecture, titled "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKgHc6bWqZ4">How Much Can Discrimination Explain?</a>".Devil's Mindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571647.post-45741711603020302982012-07-14T08:41:00.000+03:002012-07-14T08:49:34.586+03:00Economic Freedom and Personal FreedomIn politics, views are usually divided into right-wing and left-wing politics. However, this 1-dimentional division does overlook some critical differences in political views. One important distinction is economic freedom and personal freedom.<br />
<br />
The general trend is that the right-wingers (conservatives) usually support economic freedom, but suppress personal freedom. On the other hand, left-wingers (social liberals) usually support personal freedom, but suppress economic freedom. However, this left-right dichotomy makes people unaware of the existence of those distinctions.<br />
<br />
Instead of a 1-dimentional political spectrum, a 2-dimentional political spectrum is usually used. Some people have devised 3-dimentional political spectrum, but that is beyond this post. What this political spectrum shows is the distinction of the classical liberals (usually called "libertarians" to avoid confusion with the more widespread social liberals). Classical liberals support BOTH economic freedom and personal freedom; That is because classical liberalism is based on the idea of <i>least government control</i> in people's lives.<br />
<br />
Take this <a href="http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/">short test</a> to see where you fall on the political spectrum.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQ8wLNaM1BVDn4FtqPDXvBUYzXtawPysKGvBCnUeQETrjJFh3pBgBIX5SmeEDQsPwvs-l4irHtrQXEJPEP-JK28Pywdu806lqbzHXxmSTd7-mkqlOTEjzigEYPV-rTRd4LYxxNcg/s1600/quiz.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="357" width="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQ8wLNaM1BVDn4FtqPDXvBUYzXtawPysKGvBCnUeQETrjJFh3pBgBIX5SmeEDQsPwvs-l4irHtrQXEJPEP-JK28Pywdu806lqbzHXxmSTd7-mkqlOTEjzigEYPV-rTRd4LYxxNcg/s1600/quiz.jpg" /></a></div><br />
On this diagram, notice the personal freedom score and the economic freedom score. In this diagram, going from right-to-left measures how much your views oppose tradition. Right being most traditional, and Left being most opposed to tradition. On the other hand, going from bottom-to-top measures how much you believe that government should control people's lives. The bottom means you believe government should take complete control in people's lives, and top means you believe government should not control people's lives.<br />
<br />
To learn more, check those two YouTube videos:<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWAyEzyp2xQ">Economic Vs. Civil Liberties</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ9WOqJG-2s">Who favors more freedom, liberals or conservatives? </a>Devil's Mindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571647.post-60497370993172065482012-07-09T20:42:00.003+03:002012-07-18T10:19:54.632+03:00Economics and The Theory of Value (1)An important concept in the theory of economics is the <i>theory of value</i>. Unfortunately, numerous economical theories have misguided theories of value. The prevalent theory of value in the 19th century is called "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value">The labor theory of value</a>" and most economists of that time used that theory of value.<br />
<br />
Karl Marx in his formulation of the economic system of communism had made five fatal flaws in making in his theories. Those flaws are:<br />
1- Using the labor theory of value.<br />
2- Lack of understanding of information propagation and signaling in the market.<br />
3- Lack of understanding of the role of discovery, learning, and creativity in the market.<br />
4- Misinterpreting the direction of history (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism">historical materialism</a>).<br />
5- Lack of understanding of the laws of causality (the relationship between cause and effect).<br />
<br />
In this post, I will address the first topic, namely the theory of value. Hopefully, in future posts I will address the rest of the flaws in Karl Marx's theory of economics. Please note that most of the flaws in Karl Marx's theory were result of poor understanding of economics in the 19th century, so this post is not meant to question the intelligence of Karl Marx, but rather review his theory in the light of advances in economic theory in the 20th and the 21st century.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><u>The Labor Theory of Value:</u></b><br />
The labor theory of value states that the value of a commodity is proportional to the amount of labor that went into the production of that commodity. This means that any two commodities that had the same amount of labor invested in them should be equally priced, and sold for the same price. Similarly, if twice the amount of labor went into one commodity, then it's price should be double.<br />
<br />
The labor theory of value is part of a sub-class of theories of value, called <i>objective theories of value</i>. Objective theories of value are those theories that state that commodities should have a specific value (and consequently specific price). Labor is one of the metrics that objective theories of value use.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><u>The Subjective Theory of Value:</u></b><br />
The subjective theory of value state that the value of a commodity is subjectively determined by both producers and consumers.<br />
<br />
To illustrate the flaws of the labor theory of value, let's consider this example:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhX6-TnEzllgTEWom35t9HzQPEUuuIsXsnTYRkq8C-Q9fJ0GcJjIQo2S9VQgDUyDX8huv7F9DfcFm8k0g-XJzwklai5lbqQ8011LIlvyn7DOsunAQBKxXoEp_lgSKfbR2Ys0hk1Ng/s1600/tt.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="157.5" width="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhX6-TnEzllgTEWom35t9HzQPEUuuIsXsnTYRkq8C-Q9fJ0GcJjIQo2S9VQgDUyDX8huv7F9DfcFm8k0g-XJzwklai5lbqQ8011LIlvyn7DOsunAQBKxXoEp_lgSKfbR2Ys0hk1Ng/s320/tt.png" /></a></div><br />
Let's assume for the sake of argument, that the same amount of labor went into the production of those two T-shirts. Do both T-shirts have the same value?! Certainly not! For a person who loves Jesus, the second T-shirt has <i>negative</i> value. That is to say, that person would not take the second T-shirt even if it was offered <i>for free</i>! Different people would have different <i>valuations</i> for the <i>same</i> commodity. This means that objective theories of value are all necessarily false including -among others- the labor theory of value.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><u>Trade is a Positive-Sum Game:</u></b><br />
A positive-sum game is the type of game where the sum of values of all players after the process is larger than the sum of values of all players before the process.<br />
<br />
Let's consider an example of a zero-sum game to illustrate the meaning of the term. Let's say that two friends make a bet on the outcome of a football match, such that the loser of the bet would pay the winner of the bet 10$. This is a zero-sum game because in order for one person to gain 10$, the other person has to lose 10$. So, the winner had 10$ before, and 20$ after. The loser had 10$ before, and 0$ after. The sum of money before was 10$+10$ = 20$, and after is 20$+0$ = 20$. <br />
<br />
Since, the difference in the amount before and after is zero, then it is a zero-sum game. In other words, in a zero-sum game, in order for one player to gain a certain amount of value, the other player must lose an equal amount of value.<br />
<br />
Sexual intercourse is a good example of a positive-sum game. Both parties involved in a sexual interaction gain satisfaction. In other words, it is a win-win situation, where all players gain value.<br />
<br />
<i>Is trade a zero-sum game? Positive-sum game? Or negative-sum game?</i><br />
<br />
If we assume that commodities have a fixed objective value, then trade is a zero-sum game. If PersonX owned ItemX and PersonY owned ItemY, and those items had fixed objective values, then a trade will not change the sum of values in the system.<br />
<br />
However, when we assume the subjective theory of value, we see how trade is a positive-sum game. To illustrate that, let's go back to our T-shirts example. Say, Mr. Jesus Lover got the "I hate Jesus" T-shirt as a gift. And his friend, Mr. Jesus Hater got the "I love Jesus" T-shirt as a gift. Both of these individuals have negative valuation of the items they received. On the other hand, they both have positive valuation of the item their friend has received.<br />
<br />
Let's say, Mr. Jesus Lover proposes a trade to Mr. Jesus Hater. Let's consider the conditions on which this trade will be successful.<br />
1- Mr. Jesus Lover values the shirt his friend has more than he values the shirt he already has; Otherwise, he wouldn't have proposed the trade in the first place.<br />
2- Mr. Jesus Hater values the shirt his friend offered more than he values the shirt he already has. If he did not value it more, he would refuse to make the trade.<br />
<br />
From (1) and (2), we can easily see that voluntary trade is necessarily a positive-sum game.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><u>Karl Marx's Theory of Exploitation:</u></b><br />
I am not going to explore Marx's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation_theory">theory of exploitation</a> in full, it is a mathematically intensive theory. But what is important to realize, is that the whole theory is based on the labor theory of value, and that trade is a zero-sum game.<br />
<br />
According to the theory of exploitation, every trade is either neutral or exploitative. So, if two individuals enter into a trade, they are either going to trade items of equal value, or trade items of different values. In the case two people trade of items of different values, the person who got the more valuable item is an "exploiter", and the person who got the less valuable item is "exploited". <br />
<br />
Then Marx focused on the trade between a business owner (the capitalist) and the employee (proletariat). And then went on to prove that the wages employees get is necessarily exploitative. In other words, employees are always exploited.<br />
<br />
The proof is relatively simple. The price at which a product that is sold on the market equals the amount of labor that went into making the product. So, the only way the business owner can make a profit is to pay his employees less than the true value of their labor. So, the only way a business owner can make any profit whatsoever, is by exploiting his employees. And the more profit a business owner makes, the more exploitative his wages are.<br />
<br />
To give a numerical example, let's say a cars factory owner bought the raw materials (steel and other raw materials) for 200$. This 200$ is the value of labor required to mine those raw materials. He then hires one worker to assemble a car in his factory. Later, the factory owner sells the car for, say, 1200$. According to the labor theory of value, the price of the car (1200$) is the value of the total labor that went into the production of the car. The value that the worker at the factory added is 1000$ (since 200$ was the price of the raw materials). So, if the factory owner gives his worker 800$ as a salary, and keeps 200$ as profit, then the factory owner has exploited his worker by not compensating him for 20% of his labor (200$ of the 1000$).<br />
<br />
It can be easily seen, how in the labor theory of value, any profit a business owner makes is necessarily an act of exploiting his workers. Fortunately, it is obvious that the labor theory of value is not a valid assumption to build a theory.<br />
<br />
It is also important to note that, Karl Marx's theory of historical materialism is derived from his theory of exploitation, and so, that theory as well needs to be put in question.<br />
<br />
<br />
In this series:<br />
<a href="http://zeidspex.blogspot.com/2012/07/theory-of-value-in-economics-1.html">Economics and The Theory of Value (1)</a><br />
<a href="http://zeidspex.blogspot.com/2012/07/economics-and-theory-of-value-2.html">Economics and The Theory of Value (2)</a><br />
<i>Next: Economics and The Theory of Value (3)</i>Devil's Mindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571647.post-73296097675958243012012-07-08T19:29:00.000+03:002012-07-11T15:26:31.313+03:00How Good Is Greed?!Is greed a virtue or a vice?! Economist Walter Williams believes that greed is the noblest of human motivations... I happen to agree, do you?!<br />
<br />
See <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK_-iVppgQs">this video</a> of Walter Williams explaining the virtues of greed.Devil's Mindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571647.post-58323870007447378022012-06-24T15:19:00.000+03:002012-06-25T13:14:59.283+03:00The Importance of Freedom of Speech<blockquote>Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind.<br />
<br />
A rational mind does not work under compulsion; it does not subordinate its grasp of reality to anyone’s orders, directives, or controls; it does not sacrifice its knowledge, its view of the truth, to anyone’s opinions, threats, wishes, plans, or “welfare”. Such a mind may be hampered by others, it may be silenced, proscribed, imprisoned, or destroyed; it cannot be forced; a gun is not an argument. (An example and symbol of this attitude is Galileo.)<br />
<br />
It is from the work and the inviolate integrity of such minds—from the intransigent innovators—that all of mankind’s knowledge and achievements have come. It is to such minds that mankind owes its survival.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_rand">Ayn Rand</a></blockquote>Devil's Mindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571647.post-27176652462598401242012-06-17T13:33:00.000+03:002012-06-21T22:38:40.336+03:00Libertarianism: Short EssayAn interesting article by someone who used to be a conservative, then decided to become a liberal, and finally decided that libertarianism is the way to go...<br />
<br />
<blockquote><b>Title: <i>Why I Am A Libertarian: A Brief Treatise About My Politics</i></b><br />
<br />
Both conservatives and liberals are wrong!<br />
<br />
For most of the earlier years of my life, I was a conservative. Like most conservatives I was pro-business, pro-tax cuts, pro-life. I believed that government could tell people what they could and could not put into their bodies, that it should be involved in marriage, and that we needed to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. As I got older, I let altruism and my feelings make me more liberal. I began to think that capitalism was flawed, and that the government needed to do more for people.<br />
<br />
I continued down this psychotic path until the election of President Obama. That is when I started to “wake up”. I began to realize that conservatives and liberals are not that different. <i>Both are Statist.</i> Both want to control people—liberals want to control people economically, conservatives want to control people morally, and both are pro-war.<br />
<br />
Liberals were never really anti-war, they were anti-Bush. Observe that the war movement among the liberals virtually disappeared overnight after Obama became president. Even though he is now waging three immoral wars, liberals are silent. He has continued the foreign policy of the Bush administration, but you will not likely find liberals rallying or protesting in the streets like they were while Bush was in office.<br />
<br />
This leads me to my next point: both conservatism and liberalism are inconsistent and contain within their own philosophies, many contradictions. Upon further examination, the liberals are actually more consistent than the conservatives. For example, conservatives claim to be defenders of capitalism while acting as apologizers. They have a disdain for the welfare state but love corporate welfare. Some of them are advocates of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. How can any moral man be a defender capitalism, i.e., property rights, and be in favor of socialism (redistribution of wealth), i.e., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid? He cannot. To be in favor of both is a complete and utter contradiction. But such is conservativism.<br />
<br />
Conservatives say that capitalism is good, but some parts of it are bad(!). They say that men should be free to trade while at the same time admitting that government needs to impose some regulations and interfere in the market place. Observe the anti-trust laws. Many conservatives advocated them and continue to advocate them to this day in the name of “preserving competition”.<br />
<br />
Conservatives, like liberals, are altruistic, though not as much as the liberals. Altruism is incompatible with capitalism. One cannot be a capitalist and an altruist at the same time.<br />
<br />
Conservatives are worse than the liberals. Why? They lack intellectual leadership and have failed to defend capitalism by moral default. It is their inconsistency and miserable failures that aid the liberals in their attacks against capitalism, thereby becoming accessories to its destruction.<br />
<br />
If I am neither a conservative nor a liberal, then what am I? If I am to be identified by a political label, then I would have to be labeled a libertarian. What is a libertarian? A libertarian is anyone who believes in and advocates individual liberty. They are individualists that are for <i>limited</i> government. They are most often described as socially liberal and fiscally (economically) conservative. They don’t want to control people neither morally nor economically (unlike liberals and conservatives) and believe that men should be free to pursue their own self-interests as long as they do not violate the rights of others.<br />
<br />
Many of the Founding Fathers were libertarians, or classical liberals (libertarianism and classical liberalism are the same thing). They created a politico-economic system of maximal liberty and minimal government.<br />
<br />
Modern liberals have perverted the term liberal. It no longer means advocating individual freedom. The only way that they are really “liberal” is with other people’s money. Conservatives used to be very classically liberal but the modern conservatives have completely changed that. They are willing to protect only those freedoms that they are comfortable with.<br />
<br />
Libertarians do not necessarily believe that there is nothing wrong with certain people like drug abusers or prostitutes. They simply believe that those people should be free to be immoral and that government should leave them alone as long as they do not violate the rights of others.<br />
<br />
Before finally deciding to become a libertarian, which was a process that took months, I had to re-examine my core values and beliefs. <i>The very most core belief that I examined was that of man’s agency. Man owns his life and has a right to it. No one else owns his life or may control it. Therefore, man must be free to choose.</i> Freedom means absence of force. No other man may violate his rights, nor may he violate the rights of others through force.<br />
<br />
Since each individual man owns his own life, he owns the products of his life: his property! No man may forcibly confiscate the property of others nor may any other man forcibly confiscate his. It is only by voluntary trade that men may obtain resources from each other. This means that taxation is theft. The income tax is a complete and utter violation of individual rights.<br />
<br />
Only individuals have rights. No group, or collective, has rights, as collectives do not exist. A collective is only a number of individuals. It is only an abstraction, not a concrete, and can, therefore, not be embodied as a living entity that has rights. Only an individual man can have rights, because he exists. Rights do not come from government, as a government is merely another abstraction composed of individual men who may not violate the rights of others. After all, how can a disembodied abstraction grant rights if it doesn’t even exist at all but is merely a number of individuals? Therefore, rights are merely an effect of existence. We have them because we exist. No majority can vote away the rights of any minority and <i>the individual is the smallest minority of all</i>.<br />
<br />
It is for this reason that the founders created a Constitution and a republic (not a democracy) that protects our natural, inalienable rights from the arbitrary whims of government. All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator (whether that Creator is God, or nature, or some other force) with certain inalienable rights: Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness.<br />
<br />
The right to Life, the right to Property, and the right to the pursuit of Happiness are redundancies. They are all one in the same. You do not have a right to your life if you do not have a right to what your life produces. You do not have the right to your life if you are not free to pursue your happiness through trade and living how you see fit. Any limitation on anyone of these is a limitation on all—on life, on freedom.<br />
<br />
Therefore, in order to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. That means that the only proper role and function of government is to protect the rights of its citizens, or, in other words, to protect them from force. That means that the government must have a police force to protect citizens from criminals that are among them. It must also have a strong military to protect its citizens from foreign attack and invasion. It must also supply a court system in order to enforce contracts among traders and settle their disputes if any should arise, all in order to protect them from force and fraud. That is all government may do. Nothing else! Anything beyond that is not morally justified.<br />
<br />
Conservatives do not believe this and neither do liberals. Neither is based upon reason or in reality. That is why I reject both. <i>My political philosophy is based on reason.</i> Not on irrationality, not on dogma, not on my feelings, and not my subjective beliefs. This is why I am a libertarian.<br />
<br />
<i>source:</i> <a href="http://cbl2988.hubpages.com/hub/Why-I-Am-A-Libertarian-A-Brief-Treatise-About-My-Politics">Why I Am A Libertarian: A Brief Treatise About My Politics</a></blockquote>Devil's Mindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571647.post-67186816186185492752012-06-16T05:09:00.003+03:002012-06-23T18:12:02.852+03:00Socialism: Behind The Curtains<img border="0" height="320" width="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgToDbLDgDW5NOyTC9GYtTCeH5kxx0VnwLtMz7w03rgZoTPxYPGzzBvVNTvz6Tt5zNqlbm3dSsK_cskDaaPt_Gv9JC2NEzdV-bdjTAVqBprXJqDIsG5yw7lfOmHRwtGL-Lrv9zAhQ/s1600/socialism-socialism-politics-obama-demotivational-poster-1253890946.jpg"/><br />
<br />
This post is a prelude to posts that critique socialism/communism.<br />
<br />
The question is: If it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that socialism would lead to massive poverty, would you still support socialism?! If making everyone equal in terms of financial wealth meant that the average wealth of people in a socialist society is below the average of wealth in a capitalist society, would that change your mind?! What if the average wealth in a socialist society will be below the poverty level by today's standards, would that concern you?!<br />
<br />
Would you rather live in a society where everyone is equally "poor"?! Or a society where wealth is disproportionate, but where even the poorest individuals are relatively well-off?!<br />
<br />
I would love to hear from anyone who supports socialism/communism their perspective on the subject. Is financial equality the be-all-end-all value?!Devil's Mindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571647.post-58271983135306751942012-05-24T11:52:00.001+03:002012-05-26T17:19:54.711+03:00The Psychology and Politics of Self-ResponsibilityDr. Nathaniel Brandon is a well-known psychologist and gives a talk about self-esteem and self-responsibility, and how it affects the political arena of the current world.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LURSc-PwRyU">Click here</a> to see the video.Devil's Mindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571647.post-19777150639037485572012-05-15T17:37:00.000+03:002012-05-15T17:45:23.721+03:00Do The Minimum Wage Laws Cause Poverty?Government intervention in a free market causes lots of problems. Minimum wage laws are just one example of how the government limiting the freedom of individuals to create contracts hurts individuals.<br />
<br />
To better understand how minimum wage laws hurts individuals and causes poverty, check the videos below:<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct1Moeaa-W8">Does the Minimum Wage Hurt Workers?</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85OIBOSJTwg">John Stossel - The State Against Blacks</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbuJYhX3prc">How the Minimum Wage Creates Unemployment</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMMN3UIQmEk">The Job-Killing Impact of Minimum Wage Laws</a>Devil's Mindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571647.post-27987536319262195682012-04-28T13:50:00.001+03:002012-05-06T01:53:39.960+03:00Do We Need Government?!While I don't have strong beliefs whether a government is absolutely necessary, or can be completely discarded, there are good reasons to believe that it might be possible that we don't need government in any form. The functions of the government might be subject to privatization, and this may lead to more efficient and flexible security implementations.<br />
<br />
See those four videos that explain the possible mechanisms that government can be discarded. The first two videos are short straight to the point explanation. The third and fourth videos are complete lectures that provides additional insights how such a system can happen, and how this is already widely used in our current times.<br />
<br />
1- <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79ZosnxGKgk">Social Cooperation: Why Thieves Hate Free Markets</a><br />
2- <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0">Law without Government: Conflict Resolution in a Free Society</a> <br />
3- <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItjiDWa48q4">Do We Need Government?</a><br />
4- <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmXDrm5Q-eQ">Anarchy and Efficient Law</a>Devil's Mindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.com3