This cartoon is from 1948. Apparently it was pretty far fetched back then...
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
The Battlefield of Ideas
Now, in the heat of the electorate debates, there is a lot of talk about ideas. Who has the best ideas? Who has the most ideas? And everyone seems to fall for it. We want someone who is innovative and clever at solving our problems, don’t we?
Liberals in particular make this argument, that they have the ideas to make America better. But conservatives are not short on their own ideas to fix the country. Politicians tout the number of bills they’ve proposed and passed, the programs they’ve created, the solutions they’ve supported. And we are drawn to this like flies to the fire. We want smart people governing us, we want people with ideas.
When we elect people with ideas, and give them the power to implement these ideas, we actually have an interesting and devastating side-effect. We destroy ideas. The world is a battlefield of ideas. Individuals in different locales and different circumstances are constantly working on the best ideas for their own situation. These individual ideas compete with each other, and the best ideas emerge as others see success and imitate it. But when we choose to push the idea making to politicians, we limit the idea-making to a very few, reducing our battlefield of ideas to a mere catfight. We monopolize the market of ideas, thus cutting off the majority of minds from contributing to the progress of the whole.
I recently read the Foundation series by Isaac Asimov, which pins the fate of the universe on a decision between individual freedom and the system of Gaia, a world whose inhabitants share a mental connection, thus the world itself was essentially one big mind. Ultimately Gaia was chosen in the novel, a premise supposed to support the utopian liberal ideology of collectivism. But we are not, nor ever can be Gaia. We are individuals. Regardless of how collectively we organize, our thoughts are our own. If we could link our minds and share each other’s knowledge, then a case could be made. But we can’t, and the conclusion of this particular story is non-applicable.
In reality, we would achieve a far greater summation of universal intelligence through freedom than collectivism. The reason is that community intelligence in a free society is essentially a summation of the discoveries, ideas and knowledge of all individuals. Bad ideas are implemented, as are good ideas. The good ideas produce better results, while the bad ideas quickly fizzle. Thus good ideas alone are universally adopted, and the number of these ideas far exceeds the number of ideas any single person can conjure.
In a collectivist society, community intelligence is but the sum of the community leaders alone, for it is only they who implement ideas. Ideas by non-leaders must either rely on the concurrence of the leaders for their implementation or they are stifled completely without any consideration at all (depending on the open-mindedness of the leadership). Thus there is no competition, no experimentation, and a very limited pool of political thought. All ideas from leadership, good or bad, are automatically universally adopted by force. The large size of the investment into any bad ideas from leadership, along with a lack of alternative ideas, as well as the typical stubbornness of the idea-maker to admit error, tend to prolong the life of these bad ideas often to excruciating lengths, doing far more damage than good.
The only benefit to such a collectivist system, which is obviously the focal point of proponents’ arguments, is the ability to get good ideas universally adopted almost immediately (by force). But a risk-reward analysis would hardly show that the possible benefit outweighs the risk. You leave these ideas in the hands of very few, who, from past experience (Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao), achieved their leadership status because of their abilities to act without regard to moral values, and of course ruled the same manner. Members of such societies are doomed to suffer the bad ideas of these rulers.
A free society grows in only good ideas, only having small subsets suffering through short periods of bad ideas until they are weeded out, while the whole only adopts those that prove good. And the progress, or the number of good ideas implemented, far exceeds the possibilities achievable to a dictator or a small group of leaders. And the smaller the groups you break the whole into, the greater the number of ideas, and the faster the overall growth and progress.
We need to be breaking our communities up, not unifying them into a collective whole. We’ve already proven the concept of freedom. Why would we give that up? Stop electing innovators.
Liberals in particular make this argument, that they have the ideas to make America better. But conservatives are not short on their own ideas to fix the country. Politicians tout the number of bills they’ve proposed and passed, the programs they’ve created, the solutions they’ve supported. And we are drawn to this like flies to the fire. We want smart people governing us, we want people with ideas.
When we elect people with ideas, and give them the power to implement these ideas, we actually have an interesting and devastating side-effect. We destroy ideas. The world is a battlefield of ideas. Individuals in different locales and different circumstances are constantly working on the best ideas for their own situation. These individual ideas compete with each other, and the best ideas emerge as others see success and imitate it. But when we choose to push the idea making to politicians, we limit the idea-making to a very few, reducing our battlefield of ideas to a mere catfight. We monopolize the market of ideas, thus cutting off the majority of minds from contributing to the progress of the whole.
I recently read the Foundation series by Isaac Asimov, which pins the fate of the universe on a decision between individual freedom and the system of Gaia, a world whose inhabitants share a mental connection, thus the world itself was essentially one big mind. Ultimately Gaia was chosen in the novel, a premise supposed to support the utopian liberal ideology of collectivism. But we are not, nor ever can be Gaia. We are individuals. Regardless of how collectively we organize, our thoughts are our own. If we could link our minds and share each other’s knowledge, then a case could be made. But we can’t, and the conclusion of this particular story is non-applicable.
In reality, we would achieve a far greater summation of universal intelligence through freedom than collectivism. The reason is that community intelligence in a free society is essentially a summation of the discoveries, ideas and knowledge of all individuals. Bad ideas are implemented, as are good ideas. The good ideas produce better results, while the bad ideas quickly fizzle. Thus good ideas alone are universally adopted, and the number of these ideas far exceeds the number of ideas any single person can conjure.
In a collectivist society, community intelligence is but the sum of the community leaders alone, for it is only they who implement ideas. Ideas by non-leaders must either rely on the concurrence of the leaders for their implementation or they are stifled completely without any consideration at all (depending on the open-mindedness of the leadership). Thus there is no competition, no experimentation, and a very limited pool of political thought. All ideas from leadership, good or bad, are automatically universally adopted by force. The large size of the investment into any bad ideas from leadership, along with a lack of alternative ideas, as well as the typical stubbornness of the idea-maker to admit error, tend to prolong the life of these bad ideas often to excruciating lengths, doing far more damage than good.
The only benefit to such a collectivist system, which is obviously the focal point of proponents’ arguments, is the ability to get good ideas universally adopted almost immediately (by force). But a risk-reward analysis would hardly show that the possible benefit outweighs the risk. You leave these ideas in the hands of very few, who, from past experience (Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao), achieved their leadership status because of their abilities to act without regard to moral values, and of course ruled the same manner. Members of such societies are doomed to suffer the bad ideas of these rulers.
A free society grows in only good ideas, only having small subsets suffering through short periods of bad ideas until they are weeded out, while the whole only adopts those that prove good. And the progress, or the number of good ideas implemented, far exceeds the possibilities achievable to a dictator or a small group of leaders. And the smaller the groups you break the whole into, the greater the number of ideas, and the faster the overall growth and progress.
We need to be breaking our communities up, not unifying them into a collective whole. We’ve already proven the concept of freedom. Why would we give that up? Stop electing innovators.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Energy Independence
We’ve heard since the 60’s presidents and politicians promising to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We have actively sought energy independence, to produce our own energy ourselves. We hate depending on the oil barons of the middle east and OPEC for our standard of life. We think that we are throwing away money from our nation to foreign nations, giving up our wealth to make them rich.
It’s time we stop the stupidity and rethink the logic.
We’ve had the resources and capability to achieve energy independence for decades, but have chosen not to pursue it. Chosen. Yes, our political thinkers have created a crisis in our foreign oil trade that has given them talking points for a generation. But we have plenty of oil all around our nation in offshore deposits, shale, natural gas, and other mostly untapped resources. Why are they untapped? Because the leaders of the nation have chosen environmental priorities over energy independence. Is it a bad decision? Not necessarily, if that’s what our priorities are. But it does mean that energy independence is not as important to us as many try to make it out to be.
Why is it so vital to so many that we achieve independence in our energy sources? Some argue that national security is checked by the unstable trade relations. We pay for our foreign oil in military costs. But we are not at danger because of oil trade. The trade, if anything, strengthens our foreign relations (it is our end of the trade, as buyers, that is in danger of emotional reaction). We are not hated because we buy their oil. Is it for financial reasons? Economically speaking, if we could produce the energy cheaper here, we would already be doing it. If you were to remodel your kitchen, and determined that with your skills and resources could do it yourself for $5000, but found a contractor who bid the job at $3000, would it be financially advisable to do it yourself? If someone else can do it for cheaper than you yourself can, it actually hurts you financially to do it yourself. Is it because our dependence on their oil puts us in a vulnerable economic position where they could strip us of our energy source if they chose?
The fact of the matter is that we choose the trade because it is economically wise. It is cheaper to buy from foreign nations, and we should be grateful to them for providing the resources at such an affordable price. If, at any time, those nations chose to cut their business with us for political, religious or any other reasons, or if they raise their prices to where their oil would be economically inadvisable, we simply have to stop doing business with them. Can we produce the energy ourselves? Absolutely. And if became so expensive as to significantly affect our standard of life, we could choose to prioritize our local oil resources over our concerns for the environment, and get rid of the restrictions that currently are keeping us from doing it ourselves. Many of us already do.
So this is the point I’m driving at: we are already energy independent! We could produce the energy we need by ourselves if we should choose to. But we choose not to. We are not dependent on foreign nations for our energy, but because they provide it cheaper than we can ourselves (again, because we have self-imposed restrictions on our oil and energy industry which have driven up the prices), we buy it from them instead. It’s a voluntary trade, it is optional, and therefore no dependency exists.
Our constant focus on energy independence has resulted in the proposal to voluntarily cut ties with our foreign providers. We want to reject the $3000 bid and do it ourselves. We can, certainly. But remember it’s going to cost us $5000. And I can’t think of any good reason to forfeit the $2000 we save through trade.
It’s time we stop the stupidity and rethink the logic.
We’ve had the resources and capability to achieve energy independence for decades, but have chosen not to pursue it. Chosen. Yes, our political thinkers have created a crisis in our foreign oil trade that has given them talking points for a generation. But we have plenty of oil all around our nation in offshore deposits, shale, natural gas, and other mostly untapped resources. Why are they untapped? Because the leaders of the nation have chosen environmental priorities over energy independence. Is it a bad decision? Not necessarily, if that’s what our priorities are. But it does mean that energy independence is not as important to us as many try to make it out to be.
Why is it so vital to so many that we achieve independence in our energy sources? Some argue that national security is checked by the unstable trade relations. We pay for our foreign oil in military costs. But we are not at danger because of oil trade. The trade, if anything, strengthens our foreign relations (it is our end of the trade, as buyers, that is in danger of emotional reaction). We are not hated because we buy their oil. Is it for financial reasons? Economically speaking, if we could produce the energy cheaper here, we would already be doing it. If you were to remodel your kitchen, and determined that with your skills and resources could do it yourself for $5000, but found a contractor who bid the job at $3000, would it be financially advisable to do it yourself? If someone else can do it for cheaper than you yourself can, it actually hurts you financially to do it yourself. Is it because our dependence on their oil puts us in a vulnerable economic position where they could strip us of our energy source if they chose?
The fact of the matter is that we choose the trade because it is economically wise. It is cheaper to buy from foreign nations, and we should be grateful to them for providing the resources at such an affordable price. If, at any time, those nations chose to cut their business with us for political, religious or any other reasons, or if they raise their prices to where their oil would be economically inadvisable, we simply have to stop doing business with them. Can we produce the energy ourselves? Absolutely. And if became so expensive as to significantly affect our standard of life, we could choose to prioritize our local oil resources over our concerns for the environment, and get rid of the restrictions that currently are keeping us from doing it ourselves. Many of us already do.
So this is the point I’m driving at: we are already energy independent! We could produce the energy we need by ourselves if we should choose to. But we choose not to. We are not dependent on foreign nations for our energy, but because they provide it cheaper than we can ourselves (again, because we have self-imposed restrictions on our oil and energy industry which have driven up the prices), we buy it from them instead. It’s a voluntary trade, it is optional, and therefore no dependency exists.
Our constant focus on energy independence has resulted in the proposal to voluntarily cut ties with our foreign providers. We want to reject the $3000 bid and do it ourselves. We can, certainly. But remember it’s going to cost us $5000. And I can’t think of any good reason to forfeit the $2000 we save through trade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
