What the...? Tommy Robinson

This video has been "de-prioritized" by Youtube.  I don't know if what Tommy Robinson says is all accurate, but if any of this is true, it needs to be considered in any debate of the subject.

And because Youtube won't let me share it, here's the link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnhwBoFxaDI)

They claim that it is inappropriate or offensive to some audiences.  That should not be considered sufficient to impede it's spread.  I could see the police in the UK, if they are guilty of two tier policing, finding it very offensive if people find out about it.  Or the grooming gangs would also be very offended by people finding out about what they're doing, if they are indeed doing it.  And if that's the case, in needs to be spread BECAUSE they find it offensive.

Suppose, though, that everything he claims is false, should it be silenced?  Really?  This?  He does not call for violence.  There is so much more on the internet, on Youtube, that could truly offend.  And this interview is the one that should be shut down?  That seems suspect.  But suppose you're in the group that is being "slandered", then engaging in honest, open debate is the course before you.  We get called names on the internet.  It's unfortunate but necessary because the solution to silence the "mean" voices is too easily coopted.  Engage politely, or don't engage at all, or post your own video.  We need more speech, not less.

The topics are very mature.  And in case anyone unstable is reading, whether his claims are true or not, no, we don't need any violent action.  Independent of the veracity of the claims, we need the honest rule of law.  And those that don't honestly apply the rule of law, need to be brought to account.

And here's the follow-up interview:

Who knows if Youtube will leave that one up (rather, whether they'll bend to the those that claim that it's "offensive").  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv0TW2LF_dE

It's all food for thought.

In and Out

While preparing a talk I found this quote and really enjoyed it.  Gordon B Hinckley quoted Edwin Markham, an early 20th century literary figure.  This little poem is called "Outwitted".  Even if we don't agree, could we still be kind to one another?

He drew a circle that shut me out—

Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.

But Love and I had the wit to win:

We drew a circle that took him in!

Money, Money, Money...

I've heard a few people in my life wish for a society without money.  "Wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to have money?!  We would all just serve one another!  I'd do what I do for you and you'd do what you do for me."  Is there something appealing about that to you?  I guess, in a certain light, it sounds less greedy, you're serving and being served in turn but I think deep down the draw is that there is an implied love and concern for those around us.  I'm not serving to get something in return, I'm serving out of love.  In turn I receive service because those around me, love me.  I can see the draw of that.  There is a 'but' though.

Role of Money
What is money anyway?  Just poke around the intertubes and you'll find lots of information on that topic.

Here's a fun primer:


Money represents the goods and services that are around us.  It solves the two problems mentioned, two parties having to have what the other wants (double incidence of wants problem) and being able to save up enough goods to barter for something expensive (retention of value problem).  But money doesn't necessarily have to be paper printed by a government.  Sometimes it's rock salt, brass rings, shells, or even tobacco (skip to 3:30).  What's important is that you have a medium of exchange.  Another thing springs up when you have money, prices.  Prices are amazing!  They transmit scarce knowledge and provide motivation to act on it.  No money means no prices and missing information.  We'll come back to that.

Amorality of Money
I think some see money as filthy.  I'm not sure where that comes from, but I think at least partially, it's a cultural thing.  But money isn't filthy.  Money is amoral, it is lacking in morals.  Dave Ramsey compares it to a brick.  A brick is neither good nor bad.  It can be used for good or bad things, but the brick doesn't determine that, the person that picks it up does.  When you see jerks with "bricks", it's not a brick problem, they're just jerks.  Though, the argument that when people get lots of "bricks" they get confused and tend to be more jerk-ish, isn't lost on me.  Prosperity can be one of the most difficult character challenges of all.

Confusing Intentions with Outcomes
I think part of the aversion to money also comes from a feeling that if I'm doing something for money, it's very mercenary.  Maybe that's true some of the time, but I know lots of people, myself included, that do things for more than mere money.  The work itself is gratifying and challenging.  The greater cause we're working for is worthwhile and a blessing to the world.  The money is only part of it.

Maybe people think that without money, the motivations to serve would be more pure.  For a given example that may or may not be true, but does it really matter to the one getting served?  If you push me off a building or accidentally knock me off, aren't the consequences the same to me?  Which would you prefer, "good" intentions and poor service or mercenary intentions and excellent service?  Intentions can certainly have bearings on our relationships, but it's more difficult than we usually want to believe to know with certainty others' intentions.  We need to guard against confusing difficult to divine intentions from plain outcomes.

Another Way to Think About It
Because someone gets money for serving us doesn't mean that the money is the primary motivator, nor does it diminish the service we get.  All of this can be turned around by considering a scenario that Walter Williams came up with.  You enter the grocery store and pick up a carton of eggs, a gallon of milk, and a loaf of bread.  You get up to the front and the grocer asks you, "Why should your fellow men work and serve you by providing you with those goods?  You in turn pull out a series of certificates that prove that you served your fellowmen yourself, you mowed the lawn, trimmed the hedge, and walked the dog of your fellowmen, so you are in turn worthy to be served by them.  You can think of the money you received as certificates verifying that you served; they're your certificates of appreciation.  Money doesn't necessarily denigrate service.

Knowledge
Furthermore, if we didn't have money, we wouldn't have prices.  Prices are signals (like radio waves) that carry data or knowledge to members of our society.  They carry data or knowledge of what's needed and what's not needed and how best to achieve those ends.  How would we find and transmit that knowledge without money and prices?

A World with Money
I think money is actually a very useful invention.  Like nearly all inventions it can be use by evil people for evil purposes, and maybe because it has, so many people have bad feelings about money, but it doesn't have to be that way.  When I think about money as an instrument to illustrate service I've performed and I give it out when others serve me, I'm supremely grateful for service the money itself performs.  With that understanding, it also helps me think different about the work I perform.  I think, I'm getting this money for service I perform, how can I better serve?  And you know what, when you serve better, eventually more money finds its way to you.

Freedom and Virtue

True virtue isn't possible without freedom.  And those that seek to make us virtuous by denying freedom will also make true virtue impossible.  Freedom is the highest civic virtue because it is prerequisite for the rest of them.  I believe love should be the the highest private virtue, but we should be free to make that choice ourselves.

Yes with freedom come those that use their freedom poorly, but the only way to eliminate those poor choices is to take choice away, which to me is worse than the poor choices.  Of course you must also have responsibility for those choices.  I think that because we've sought to disassociate responsibility from choice, maybe because we don't want to believe that some people are responsible for their situation or choices, we in turn seek another mechanism to guide people's choices.  "Sorry, no freedom for you.  Give up your liberty over just a few things and we'll take care of you from cradle to grave".

Here's an interesting article about freedom and virtue.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/03/is-freedom-possible-without-virtue

And on a lighter note, consider the Dilbert parody of libertarianism, that's all too often understood as true libertarianism.  "Libertarians just want to get rid of the rules so that they can do all this awful stuff.  We're only protected by the rules!"

http://dilbert.com/2012-06-15/

Being coerced to follow rules doesn't make you moral.

I, Pencil

Have you ever heard of the essay "I, Pencil", by Leonard Read ?

You're in for a treat. It's an illustration of the miracle of free association and cooperation that is called "the market".

I talked about it in this post about the Magic of the Market. Milton took his story from the essay mentioned above. This video is an illustration of the essay. Enjoy!

Creative Destruction

http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/27/the-future-of-books-a-dystopian-timeline/

I saw this on TechCrunch and it made me think.  It's basically a timeline that lays out the death of the printed book.  For sake of argument, suppose this happened just as described.  That's a lot of jobs that would be gone.  Would someone complain?  Should someone ask for a tax against eBooks.  I mean c'mon, we have to level the playing field.  We want competition, but we want fair competition (whatever that means).

Here's an opportunity to fight for America.  Save our publishing jobs!

Or you might consider all the cool new jobs that will be available in America, including those potential authors that will have a much lower bar of entry.

Government Regulation

Regulation, oh regulation.  How do you feel about government regulations?  There is at least one person that likes each regulation.  Right?  If there isn't, how did it become a regulation?

I'm not going to argue for "this" regulation or against "that" regulation; they may or may not have merit, but I would like to point out two things.  One, when someone considers the merit of a regulation, they often don't consider the "unseen".  Two, the more the regulations and the bigger the organization, the easier it is for regulations to become bureaucratically idiotic.

We may be better off in one dimension, but there are costs associated with every regulation, some of which are unseen.  Consider, the government requires a company to use a specific technology to reduce pollution.  True, in one dimension we're better off, we have less pollution, but what is unseen is how that regulation affected the companies behavior or choices toward other parties involved.  What might the company have bought if they wouldn't have had to buy this new technology?  How has the new regulation affected their business strategy?  Likely the cost is passed on to the customers, what might have they done with their money if their costs hadn't increased?  The consequences are hard to observe, let alone measure, but that doesn't mean they're not there.

As the regulations multiply in large organizations, it is easy for them to become more and more idiotic.  Consider this story and the examples of regulation stupidity.  The stupidity is bad enough (time waster), but that time wasting starts to cost us.  The regulation has to be dreamt up.  It has to be documented.  The regulation has to be enforced.  These are all costs associated with the regulation and when its not even possible for one part of an organization to know what another part is doing, you get inter-regulation inefficiencies.  Sometimes even working at cross purposes.

The upshot?  Try to consider the unseen when measuring a regulation's merit and even with merit there is a point where enough is enough.  I wrote a funny poem once where Congress finished they're work.  They came up with all the laws we needed and then were able to go home and close Congress.  That would never happen, but it's something to think about.  Do we come up the regulations because we feel compelled to come up with regulations, to try to fix the world through legislation?  Can you imagine a point where all the laws you wanted passed, were passed?

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

—C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (1970)