Modern Polymathism

Artist Subsidies: The Cost of Culture?

I hang out with a lot of arty-types and lately there's been a huge movement to “save PA arts” by continuing to fund Pennsylvania art programs. This includes a lot grant programs, art organizations, and maybe some post-secondary (non-college) education, etc. The people making a big deal about it were of course the artists whose livelihood is based on these grants and such programs that pay them for making art.

I have to say this behavior really pisses me off. Yes, I'd like to defund most programs the government has, however if you'll allow me to put my pragmatist hat on for a second, I have to ask the simple question of ROI: return on investment. Really, in this case it can be considered a Keynesian multiplier – meaning for X dollars put into a program it generates Y dollars for the economy. Some government spending has a positive multiplier effect such as building roads and tax cuts, however I have to say that arts programs probably don't have these effects and are a net loss of value.

This is very controversial – especially to anyone who likes art. I can hear them now saying, “How dare you say art doesn't have any value! Art is culture, and that's very important!” Let me put a disclaimer on this and say that I love art and pften enjoy going to museums, crawls, etc. With this said, I don't think the ROI for art, even taking into account the cultural benefit thereof, is at all in the black.

Let me also say that culture definitely has value. Culture is some condensed form of the spirit of humanity, and that is very important for social cohesion, quality of life, etc. I'm not questioning that, I'm questioning whether funded art in aggregate adds more cultural value than it would otherwise.

There's another question to be asked also: Are the modern arts relevant? Artists reading this are probably getting pissed at me by now. To continue, if I ask Joe SixPack what he likes about art he'll invariably say “things that look good” or “things I can identify with”. The problem is that many of the modern arts have largely rejected the concept of natural beauty. In doing so, they've become mostly irrelevant to the majority. Heck, the majority of people will never set foot in an art museum, gallery, etc. in their adult lives to admire the masters - let alone the modern stuff. That's the truth.

Let me also clarify that by “art” I mean objects that are made only for form – not function. Design is a completely different thing – hence why designers can get paid pretty easily without any government subsidies. Average Joe loves design because it makes things look cool (Ferrari) or function better (iPhone). Design is highly marketable; art on-the-other-hand largely isn't.

I wish I could be paid to build race cars all day. The government could buy them and display them on a pedestal. Heck, I'd even let people drive them. However, the point is that it's silly to subsidize me building unmarketable cars just because some people get to enjoy them. I see no difference between that and art programs. You may cry “Culture!” , but I'll tell you: Our culture prefers car shows / races over art any day – not that I'm proud of that fact, but it's just the truth.

Comments welcome!

A Rationalist Political Platform

It seems like there's a place for a party that's both socially liberal and fiscally conservative yet isn't as hardline as libertarian candidates. I'd like to reach out to all rationalists, freethinkers, etc. to highly critique this admittedly crude platform for such a political party.

Economic & Business Issues:

• Monetary Policy

  • Keep the Federal Reserve, but have fully transparency via the CBO and/or GOA

  • Members on Federal Reserve Boards (especially open market committees) must not be able to return to the industry for 5 years after their term, may serve only one term, and must be closely auditted for 10 years after serving their term.

• Financial Regulation

  • Increase transparency of financial institutions

  • All financial instruments must reveal the exact model for value including underlying asset models & assumptions – this will be public data. They need not reveal formulas (trade secrets), but customers must have the ability to model during & after purchase.

  • Implement long-term smoothed mark-to-market laws

  • No regulation on types of financial products.

• Taxes

  • Decrease corporate taxes to lower bound of 1^st world international levels

  • Move to bracketed system with no deductions, but lower rates. Flat tax maybe?

  • Local: move to land value taxation

• Import / Export

  • Gradually remove all tariffs, quotas, etc. on all imported goods (sugar, steel, etc.).

• Subsidies

  • Gradually remove all agricultural subsidies (corn, beats, etc.).

• Government Spending

  • Transparency

    • All documents will be fully & publicly viewable online, unless secret. Secret documents may be opened by appeal of a sequestered jury of non-involved citizens.

  • PayGo

    • All spending will be budgeted on a pay-as-you-go basis, no deficit spending.

• Employment

  • Unions

    • Remove majority takes all rule that establishes “union shops”.

    • Allow unions to form in any industry, etc. without any government permits.

    • Allow unions to be regulated by the Sherman anti-trust act (monopoly breakup)

• Energy

  • Nuclear

    • Streamline nuclear energy permits w/ irrevocable long term guarantees to decrease risk for funding organizations.

    • Get Yucca Mountain up and running.

  • Increasing funding (refer to research policy)

• Transportation

  • Ease restrictions on small automotive manufacturers (under 10,000 cars a year).

  • Remove most emissions and all fuel efficiency standards (refer to environmental taxing)

• Communications

  • FCC

    • Mostly discontinue bandwidth auctions

    • Encourage as many open bands as possible with common standards (aka WiFi)

    • Reduce government and military usage of bands.
    • Encourage new technologies spread spectrum, band hopping, etc.

    • No “fairness doctrine”

  • Internet

    • Pass amendment for never taxing the internet

    • Regulate all ISPs equally (Cable, DSL, etc.)

    • Mandate 3^rd party bulk plug in rates (ie, anyone must be able to buy bulk bandwidth from big guys to start a rival ISP or other)

  • Disband all NSA, CIA, etc. wide-net listening programs

• Intellectual Property

  • Reduce patent term to a minimum of 2 years over 5 years

  • Ban: gene, software, business method, and research patents

  • Reduce copyright to 3 years

  • Broaden “fair use” right-to-clear biased against copyright holder

  • Common law or no-fee trademark registration, enforced like fraudulent name use

• Research Policy

  • Increase all research funding

  • Repeal Bayh-Dole Act, all publicly funded research must be public resource for all to access free of charge.

  • Setup a national X-Prize and/or develop incentives to establishment of private ones

Social Issues:

• Education

  • Federal: Move Dept. of Edu. programs into state management and reduce federal funding.

  • Local Level

  • • Employ voucher systems that give a tax credits to enable school choice.
    • Encourage alternative education, home schooling, gifted programs, etc.

  • Increase school transparency (all expenditures must be public)

  • Repeal No Child Left Behind

  • No national tests (like NCLB)

• Welfare

  • Simplify benefit structures

  • Consolidate programs

  • Decrease duration of benefits

  • Reduce benefits over time
  • Index to CPI

• Health Care

  • Patent reforms (see IP section) that lead to better medicine and medical device prices

  • Increase NSF, etc. funding (see research section)

  • Allow AMA, AHA, ADA, etc. to be regulated by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

  • Reduce FDA hurdles and increase funding to streamline the approval process

  • Allow experimental medicine to be tried by consenting adults

  • Repeal HMO laws that benefit only the established firms

  • Reform courts frivolous lawsuits (damage caps, etc.)

  • Repeal all federal, state, and local mandates for health insurance and benefit structures

• Social Security

  • Private accounts, consolidate 401k and IRA into one account with no taxes on money put in or taken out (aka completely free).

  • Current system minimal age to be indexed to the average death rate.
  • A discounted pay-in system will be allowed per age bracket. This allows younger people to not be in the system at all and the older people may opt-out but not fully.
  • Greatly reduce Social Security benefits for the lower and middle of the age brackets.

• Marriage / Civil Unions

  • No federal law, state / local: allow gay marriage / civil unions

• Crime

  • Thesis: mainly a result of socioeconomic conditions

  • Drugs:

    • Decriminalize at federal level, allow states rights their own enforcement

    • No federal prosecution

    • Stop “drug war” campaign

    • Treat as a medical condition

  • Gun Control

    • Thesis: 2nd amendment is right for citizens to own weapons for protection against the government and all other enemies.

    • Maintain current instant background check system

    • Allow post-86 samples with tax stamp to anyone who passes check

    • Remove import / export regulations on small arms

    • No federal carry laws, state rights prevail

  • Air travel
  • • Re-privatize TSA
    • Vastly reduce of all federal security mandates for air travel - allow new models, but airlines must have full disclosure. Reduce duties to non-invasive metal & explosives scanning & detection.
    • Disband "Air Marshall" program. Each airline will form their own solution.
  • Revoke the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and NSPD 51
  • Consolidate federal crime & intellience depts.
  • • FBI, BATF, DEA, etc. will be folded into one organization with the task of enforcing laws within the boarders
    • CIA, NSA, NRO, etc. will be combined to form our outward intelligence and community
    • Homeland Security Dept. will be folded into the Dept of Justice and will work as an interface layer between both new consolidated department and the Dept. of Defense

• Environment

  • Thesis: much of the environment is a national issue with high externality effects. Therefore, we must employ regulations to protect all aspects of the environment, however benefits of each program must be weighed - no "feel-goodery", only real results

  • Emissions Tax System

  • • CO2, NOx, SOx, etc. taxation

  • Recycling

  • • Repeal all federal government subsidies.
  • Maintain most wildlife & plant protection programs - defund ineffective programs.
• Abortion
• • Federal law is pro-choice per State's rights
  • States may decide which position to take.

Foreign Policy:

• Theses:

  • No preemptive wars – period.

  • The more immigrants the better.
  • Mostly open boarders.

• Military Spending

  • Thesis: Quality over quantity

  • Vastly reduce production of 3^rd generation warfare systems (F22, F35, etc.)

  • Convensional forces will take on a defensive stance in purpose.

  • Increase funding to SOCOM, all special forces and 4th generational warfare systems.

  • Reduce convensional force size of all branches dramatically (ie: well over 50%).

• Current conflicts

  • Slowly remove troops from all occupied zones, work with local governments to smooth transition

• “Terrorism”

  • Recognize that US focused terrorism is a result of occupation and poor geo-politics of the past century from before WWI.

  • We must stop intervening into other countries', regions', tribes', etc. affairs.

• Israel and Palestine

• • Defund both sides - slowly for Palestine.
    

  • Stop all US geo-political influence.

• Torture

  • Torture is defined to include any physical or mental hardship (waterboarding) & we'll be having none of that.

  • Prisons open to oversight reviews with full FOIA access.

• Military Commissions

  • Repeal MCA 2003

  • Confine military commissions to uniformed troops & spies (defined as foreign non-uniformed units fighting US troops directly).

  • Civilian "terrorism" tried in civilian courts.

  • Uphold habeas corpus in all cases (charges & evidence must be produced)

• Foreign Bases

  • Reduce foreign bases from 720 to 50 worldwide within 5 years.

• International Aid

  • Stop all international aid to dictators, rebel groups, etc.

Derivative Crime

If there's something I'm against, it's coercion. I especially can't stand seeing people coerced for no good reason. There's a category of crimes I call “derivative crimes” because the person committing them really isn't doing anything wrong – they're just deriving benefits from another's crimes. I'm sure many people will get upset by some of the things on this list, but I stand by them all.

The first such crime is that of possession of stolen property. This is completely counterproductive and is really just used as a gotcha by law enforcement in the same way that the Feds got Al Capone for evading taxes on his illegal income. It's a cop-out for poor crime fighting. If I buy something at a pawnshop, there's a good chance it's been stolen. I know this going in. This risk premium is what prices the goods there lower. However, the only risk you should really incur is that of having the property repossessed if it can be proven to belong to someone else. However, I don't think you should be prosecuted for merely holding it.

The next big area of abuse is when a blog or newspaper publishes leaks from the government and the government then uses its power to have the retract the story or otherwise. This happened with WikiLeaks.org which is an awesome site to publish leaks where the media people hang out to instantly report the findings. I think this is an amazing public service – of course the government thinks otherwise... It's funny when conservatives support these measures and say this has nothing to do with the 1^st Amendment – if it were regulations on the 2^nd I'm sure they'd be shouting. I'd like to see the policy of the US be that if anything is leaked there is no suppressive power. That is – the onus is on the government to keep its information classified – if it gets out it's free game.

The most controversial derivative crime is possession of child porn. Whoa – your mind just exploded! “You're supporting child porn?” you're asking me. No! I'm for prosecuting the people who take the pictures and video to the fullest extent. What I don't think is needed is to call the sickos who watch this stuff criminal merely for viewing or possessing something that's illegal to create. I've seen videos recorded by insurgents of their sniping of American troops, and I don't think I should be considered a criminal because I viewed heinous crimes.

I have an issue with government overstepping the intent of the law. Laws against stealing – fine, laws against owning stolen goods – fruitless. The same goes for leaked materials or child porn. The initial crime is all that needs punished – derivative crimes are just a drain on the system.

Any other examples? Any exceptions to bring to light?

Automotive Insights on Social Class

Over time I've spotted an occurrence that at first glance doesn't add up. It seems like people think people who drive BMWs and Mercedes' are all assholes, but anyone in a Ferrari or Lamborghini are just really cool. People are always moaning about BMW drivers and how they're jerks, etc. If you go to BrandTags.net under BMW, you'll find the word “asshole” has one of the highest response rates for first impressions of their brand. If you go under Ferrari though, you'll mostly see positive tags.

Why would this be? If you don't like people with more money than you, why does the Ferrari still win you over? I think the root of the answer lies in people's aspiration sets.

I bet most people see the guy in the BMW as someone that they went to school with who ended up doing better than them, or even someone they already know. In the case of the Ferrari, few people know anyone with a car like this, and hence they assume it's some guy who got lucky and struck it rich. I think the luck part is actually a lot of it. Luck removes the feeling that it can be attained by “mere morals”.

There have always been three classes. At first: the proletariat (peasants), the bourgeoisie (merchant class), and the aristocracy (Kings, Lords, etc.). We now call them blue collar, white collar and rich, but it's really the same thing. In medieval times, the peasants generally loved the king and hated the bourgeoisie. The middle class was disliked because they must have cheated to get ahead in business. The king was given his position by divine writ, and thus was probably just in his position – again something out of their control.

The working class want to believe that their position is due to their bad luck or unwillingness to cheat to get ahead. They need a defense mechanism - something to show why they're not doing as good. While there are definite structural issues at play that keep them down, I believe they embrace the class system because it gives them this feel-good feedback. As much as they complain about class, they actually love the system. They don't believe in social mobility because it would shine a bad light on them.

It's funny – my socialist friends who don't do anything are always showing me a video of some millionaire who said they were lucky. They'll say, “Look! Look! It's all just luck!” Obviously, there is a lot of luck involved in being successful, but there's a lot of hard work to be able to make use of the luck. My rich friends are a hell of a lot more than just an average dude with a lot of luck.

I'm not sure they really believe this, or maybe it's just their psychological immune system protecting them from feeling of inadequacy. It makes sense now that anyone who has an interest in saying wealth is derived from luck would support systems that distribute it to those haven't had the “fortune” to have such wealth.

Am I wrong here, or just cold-hearted?

The Derivation of Sovereignty

I was talking to a friend recently who's an anarcho-capitalist. Under this system, people are free to enter into contracts at will and social and business institutions are all completely private and entered into without any coercion. As a libertarian, I really wish this system would actually work, however I think it has some major flaws

My thesis is that humans, being highly social animals, prefer the company of others and in fact are genetically and culturally predisposed to seek out groups with leaders and hierarchy. We can even see primitive forms of this in many primates – so we know it dates back pretty far. If we apply this to anarchy, we'll find that people will forms groups as soon as they're placed into this circumstance. At first families and later in the form of tribes. These tribes would be led by a dominate individual or faction whether formally or ad hoc. Eventually, in order to protect themselves from other tribes they'd form alliances with other tribes and hence states (the Greeks called them leagues, like the Achaean   League) would start to form.

So how does this relate to sovereignty? All groups of humans in this situation form their units by mutual consent and in doing so they give up a little sovereignty to receive some type of benefit derived from the group. Forming groups like this is really nothing more than trading personal sovereignty (the root of all sovereignty) for some benefits.

In tribes, it would be group protection from enemies, the ability to hunt larger game, helpers to build better dwellings and devices, etc. In modern society, we haven't been given the choice ourselves, but during the founding we did in fact give up some sovereignty for personal and group benefits. The United States is now used as a singular noun but before the Civil War people would've said “the United States are” - as a plural. Lincoln, by removing the right of secession (which was a horrible result from this war), gave the United States more group cohesion that would pave the way for the highly powerful Federal government we have today – with its benefits and downsides.

So why should we care about sovereignty? What is it anyway? Really, it's just a fancy way of saying the ability to carry out your will: freedom, as opposed to liberty (refer to my last post to see the difference). The amount of personal sovereignty is the degree to which you're able to carry out your will independently – it doesn't include positive liberties such as technology, social contracts, etc., however you can trade it for these things.

The issue for us all to define then is really to what extent we want to control our lives and to what extent do we what the advantages of these group benefits. There is no correct answer. Every society, and really every individual, will have their own answer to this question. Since humans are poor at predicting what we prefer before the fact, the real issue is the ability to trade back the benefits for personal sovereignty so you can try again. This way, if I find I don't want all the benefits, I can give them back with no harm done. Unfortunately, the system doesn't easily allow this. I can change or renounce my citizenship, but I can't prevent the country I live in from coercing me into following their rules.

There are two answers to this problem: federalism and secession. In federalism, we push the power down to the lowest possible level so that most group sovereignty (as derived from the citizenry) is retained at a local level which allows the smallest possible group (who should have the most similarities in preferences) to define the laws and hence coercion they're subject to. It also allows a lot of experimentation with the correct balance of personal and group power. This is how the United States was set up in the beginning – although it has severely decayed since.

Secession, on the other hand, allows a group of people to opt out of the higher powers all together. The issue with this is that when the higher power (such as the federal government) has more power than the group (say a state) that power has the ability to coerce the group regardless of their preferences – this is our current system.

I find it interesting that most people are completely opposed to both of the above techniques. It seems that most people prefer the benefits of the group over their personal sovereignty. I'm not sure why this is – maybe it dates back to primates again who lose benefits due to individuals leaving the group

This would happen in our society as well. For instance, if a state seceded and lowered their income tax to 5%, but with few government benefits, the rich would move there in droves if it was stable. The poor in the other states who rely on the benefits would find those budgets drying up due to a lack of tax revenue. It seems the right of secession doesn't allow much free-ridership – maybe this is why the leftists oppose it.

I'd really like to get everyone's thoughts on this as I'm always looking for where I'm wrong. Comments are very welcome!

Liberty: Theory vs. Reality

One of the guiding principles of my philosophy is that, as a society, we should pursue the path that results in the greatest amount of liberties for everyone. First, we have to define liberty, and I can think of no better way than this: the absence of coercion. I use coercion because, when you get down to it, liberty isn't some intangible concept that philosophers debate – it's really the ability to do the things that you want to – to “pursue happiness” as the Founding Fathers put it.

I think it's interesting how we regard liberty and freedom as synonymous, however they are actually two sides of the same coin. Freedom refers to being free of coercive powers, however this doesn't include additive liberties such as various technologies and social contracts. Liberty, on the other hand, refers not only to this freedom from coercion, but also liberties that are afforded to us by engineering and social contract.

There are several constraints on liberty in our world. One of which is physics. Even though flying cars are legal – there's none in the marketplace. The way to overcome this is through technology. I would argue that technology increases liberty because it increases your ability to fulfill your dreams.

Another constraint is coercion of which there are multiple forms. The most fundamental is the type which your mind imposes on you – such as self-confidence, etc. Another form is societal – such as the various norms and mores that all peoples are subject to. The heaviest form is governmental – which can actually give you real punishments that often involve minimizing your liberty. The last form is the hardest to overcome & most powerful form of coercion - hence its the major constraint on liberty.

There are two ways to measure liberty: one way is to look at what the laws say and the other has to do with what most people are able to get away with. For instance, in Pennsylvania the speed limit on the interstate is 65mph, however the actual speed is probably closer to 75mph. This difference between the law and daily reality is exactly what I'm driving at.

In the United States, we like to think we have a lot of liberty, and in many ways we do, but let's not let our preconceptions cloud reality. We have relatively open laws, and they're quite well enforced. I think the standard for speed limited is probably pretty correlative with the sum of American daily reality.

By contrast, in Africa there are many regimes that wield totalitarian power that highly restrains liberty, however their power might only extend 50 miles from the capital. If you're out in the countryside, you really aren't subject to their coercion at all, and you might live completely as you would under no laws at all. If freedom was measured in speed limits, I'd bet their laws are closer to 10mph and reality is closer to 100mph – disregarding technology and liberties which only a government can give – such as property rights, roads, etc.

If I have liberty seeking behavior, it would seem like I'd try to live in a land that has the highest amount of real freedom – adjusted for every constraint. I'm not sure anyone keeps tabs on this, but I'd really like to see the numbers.

I'd welcome some comments on this!

Eating for Energy

I always tell people about my method of eating that gives me energy. A friend of mine said I I should write a post on it - so here it is. I have to write the disclaimer that I might be entirely wrong, but I think I'm close to reality. I'm not a nutritionist by any means.

I was always hit with "brain fog" that killed my ability to think, and I started exploring how to get the brain woken up. I found that the key is blood glucose. The brain only consumer glucose - it doesn't store anything (unlike fat or muscle cells for instance), because of this it's quite beholden to blood glucose levels.

We all know that when you give kids sugar they get hyper - this is caused by sucrose (table sugar commonly found in most sweet) and fructose (found in nearly every food in the USA) breaking down into glucose - then supercharging your brain. The issue is that insulin comes in to kill the sugar & you get a sharp drop in energy.

The key to having lasting energy is to smooth the peaks. To do this, we need to know what rate different foods burn at. The fastest are simple sugars (sucrose, glucose, fructose) which pretty much should be eaten at all for a lot of reasons (energy peaks, high calories, etc.). Then there's the simple carbs like white bread which are actually just sugars linked together to form chains. If you eat white bread, it burns very quickly. In fact, your mouth actually starts digestion by enzymes in your saliva. This is why if you chew on bread for a while it turns sweet - the enzymes are cutting the chains into their constituent sugars.
Fun fact: Did you know that paper and cotton (aka cellulose) are actually made of long chains of glucose? Termites have bacteria in their stomachs that have enzymes that can break these very strong chains into sugar, which is how they can actually eat wood for energy - wild!

So, what should you eat to spread out these peaks? Firstly, complex carbs like whole wheat bread, etc. You should check the label to make sure it has whole wheat as the first ingredient - many "wheat" breads actually just have a mix of white & whole wheat flour. These will last about 1-2hours depending on metabolism - about 40% longer than white bread.

Secondly, protein. These take even longer to digest. As the complex carbs are digested, the body burns this protein by converting their stored energy into glucose - this helps smooth the energy release.

Lastly, fats. These take longer to digest than the previous two, and hence release energy later and smoother. This adds to the effect.

In the end, you want levels of energy from carbs, proteins, and fats so that as one source dies the others pick up the slack. By the time the next meal rolls around - your blood glucose is still stable and hence the brain doesn't have to be foggy.

Thoughts?