One common argument for the absolute pablum that passes for education today is that it has “benefits that cannot be quantified.” That is to say, if a very high proportion of what one learns in schools is ultimately not useful in “real life,” somehow this learning has unmeasurable benefit.

If these so-called “benefits” truly indeed cannot be “quantified,” how exactly does one know that they exist? Consider the tricky issue of measuring the value of life. As difficult a problem this is, there are ways of arranging and sorting life. One may accomplish this by categorizing in terms of size, genetic complexity, physical resemblance, or even social impact. Some of these ways may be more or less valuable (and, certainly, occupy many dimensions), but they are all methods of quantifying life.

Not only is it possible to quantify “life,” there are many ways of doing so. Surely, there must be at least one way to quantify the sorts of “non-useful” things that one must sit through in grade school.

Couple this with the student who is graduated through school and ends up with a diploma in his hands, yet lacks basic reading and arithmetic skills. Assuming that “unquantifiable benefits” even exist, how can they be considered beneficial for this poor slob? It sounds to me like that student just had 12 years of his life wasted while not learning anything of real substance. He hasn’t learned how to get by, nor will he unless he takes the initiative. The track record of such individuals is exceedingly poor.

As an aside, I don’t really think that there should even be grades, per se. There ought to be something more like a map of studies, with reading and arithmetic being the core (and perhaps one or two other subjects). In much the same way that college operates, there ought to be general areas of study. I think that a child, with parental consultation, ought to be able to make the decision based on what interests him as opposed to being forced into a box. If the child does not want to proceed beyond the core studies, then the child ought not to be forced to do so. The child may come around, in time, or he may not, but at least then he has the rudimentary skills to get by.

That said, I find it hard to believe that a child would not be interested in learning something at least for an hour or two a day, at first.

Ex-senator injured in mugging outside Chicago home

I heard this story on the radio, and I immediately rushed to the telephone to let all of my friends know, because it was such an important event that I felt that everybody needed to hear it.

Actually, no, I didn’t do that. I would have probably lost friends, as I heard about the story at around 6AM. Also, I was less than impressed by the headline: “Former US Senator blah blah blah.”

The first thought to my mind was, who the fuck cares? This was, of course, even before I heard the name of this very important person that has warranted news articles and radio air time (and probably television air time to boot): Carol Moseley Braun.

ZOMG! I remember her! She was the woman who courageously submitted the bill to impeach Bush–as a lame duck with about a month to go. Yeah, that’s courage and bravery.

I’m not going to downplay mugging and crime. Being victimized by somebody who wants nothing more than to rob you of your possessions is pretty frightening. But I’m not about to feel much sympathy for Braun, because that was her job as a US Senator! Only, she was doing it–along with her fellow senators and representatives–in the name of “the people,” “the greater good,” “the common good,” and so on.

Those phrases are bandied about, but they aren’t very meaningful, usually. Often, “the greater good” isn’t necessarily what’s best for the greatest number of people, but part of the thug’s–I mean, “elected representative’s”–vision for “society.” But most of the time, it isn’t even that–it’s about scratching your friends’ backs so they’ll scratch yours.

Of course, Braun will get a few more minutes in the spotlight but she doesn’t deserve them. Muggings happen all of the time. This one really isn’t special except for the delicious irony surrounding it.

Convicted tax evaders due in court Tuesday

People like Ed Brown make it difficult to articulate my position with credibility. It’s not that he and I believe the same things–we don’t.

I suppose that it’s not so much of a problem, really. I don’t know why Ed Brown takes the position he does… I do have a sense that if he believed in a fully voluntary society, he would not take the position he currently holds. He might say, “molon labe,” after a fashion, but he would not necessarily be issuing writs to the court, ordering the case to be closed… he would not make pronouncements like, “I speak for her. You speak to the head. You don’t speak to the woman. That’s the way it was until the last decade or so.”

I know Ed’s been under a lot of stress lately, but the things he says are getting progressively nuttier. Not only that, but that last statement of his reflects a willingness to clobber his wife’s right to voluntary association… not to mention that wives of men have been “allowed” to speak to men that aren’t their husbands for a little longer than “about a decade” now.

My stance is that a society is based upon voluntary interaction. The society is primal. Anything that involves coercion is an aberration.

Due in large part to these thoughts, I’ve been considering rescinding my signature from the Free State Project’s Statement of Intent. Since I hold that, to paraphrase Gandhi, there is no wall of separation between the means and the end, I have significant problems with the modus operandi of the majority of the members of the FSP. They believe that one ought to use the system (a system of coercive power) against the system. But the means, in this case, is coercion! Coercion cannot induce voluntary action–it never has, and it never will. Coercion will actually depress voluntary action!

There are members of the FSP who do not kowtow to what is effectively the party line. But these, who are few in number, what do they accomplish? They throw themselves as a wrench into the gears. Have you ever seen a wrench that’s been tossed to the gears? It gets mangled. It quickly loses its effectiveness as a wrench.

Aside from all of this, the geographical limitations of the Free State Project are something of an absurdity. What about all of the individuals elsewhere that believe strongly in voluntaryism? Must they tear themselves away from their lives where they live, reducing their potential effectiveness as voluntary individuals in their communities, families, and social circles? Not only that, but the FSP is horribly limited in scope… and I’ll admit it: New Hampshire is cold. I like cold, moreso than hot, but it’s still cold.

I found myself selecting “neither” far more often than the standard “A or B” choices.

I could go into the assumptions behind each question, but I don’t have the time nor the interest to do so (and I’m not sure you have the time or interest to read my rantings on it, anyway), but I will give one example: “Prescription Drugs” is merely a term for government-approved drugs, so I don’t care if you get your “prescription drugs” from Canada or whatever–I think that the whole notion of “prescription drugs” ought to be delegitimized.

Since the questions were so skewed, I didn’t bother attempting to point out whether something was more or less important to me.

So I’ve pasted in my results:

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Kent McManigal (88%)
3. Ron Paul (81%)
4. Chuck Hagel (61%)
5. Newt Gingrich (54%)
6. Sam Brownback (53%)
7. Mitt Romney (48%)
8. Dennis Kucinich (46%)
9. Barack Obama (43%)
10. Tommy Thompson (38%)
11. Bill Richardson (37%)
12. Christopher Dodd (37%)
13. John McCain (37%)
14. Tom Tancredo (36%)
15. Elaine Brown (33%)
16. Al Gore (32%)
17. Fred Thompson (31%)
18. Duncan Hunter (30%)
19. Rudolph Giuliani (30%)
20. Mike Huckabee (27%)
21. Wesley Clark (26%)
22. John Edwards (25%)
23. Hillary Clinton (22%)
24. Jim Gilmore (21%)
25. Mike Gravel (21%)
26. Joseph Biden (18%)

I don’t really know who the majority of these people are… and honestly, I’m surprised to see that Newt Gingrich is considered to be in agreement with me on a simple majority of “the issues”… reading his “profile,” however, reassures me that he probably matched more of my “neither” votes; his actual positions are still quite far from mine.

The Libertarian guy comes closest, but there’s still the little detail of having to have a president at all that I disagree with on a fundamental level, so he doesn’t get my vote, either.

All of the “traditional” candidates are, predictably, not in agreement with me the vast majority of the time. This is of no surprise to me, however, as all of them are committed to stealing the resources of others to redistribute to their friends.

I do have a name for the “Theoretical Ideal Candidate,” however: “None of the Above.”

I think that the election for the president of the United States of America ought to be treated with all of the respect it deserves.

So let’s make fun of potential presidential candidate match-ups!

The first one that came to mind was: Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani. If they run against each other, it’ll be known as “The Subway Series.”

Let’s hear your ideas.

Throughout history, people have demanded credit. That is, one or more individuals find themselves with a venture they wish to undertake without having sufficient resources at hand to pursue said venture. Law has vacillated on the appropriate amount of interest, and oftentimes religious law has come into play when defining appropriate conduct regarding interest (including from whom you may require interest and if you’re allowed to at all).

Generally speaking, the interest rate is part of the contract between the borrower and the lender. The lender agrees to lend the borrower a certain amount of money provided the borrower pay back an additional fee, usually defined by an interest rate. If the buyer defaults on the loan, the lender may take steps to have his money returned to him (in this way, theft of money might be considered a loan with a zero-length term; no interest comes into play, but you can certainly take legal recourse to get your money returned to you). Legally speaking, a lender can sue you for the defaulted sum plus interest plus court costs, though settlements are commonplace.

There are laws that prohibit interest rates above a certain amount. The term “usury” has meant different things over time; in most Western nations, it refers to overly high interest rates, generally the ones prohibited by law. I believe that the maximum interest rate on credit cards (I don’t know about loans) is around 24%. The United States has different criteria for interest rates and lending, depending on the locality and the scope of the lending.

So, why do I bother writing about this?

Credit, as is everything else, is subject to supply and demand. In this case, the commodity is money, and the price refers to the interest rate and repayment terms. “Credit risk” is something that is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. However, generally speaking, those with a low credit risk are able to obtain more favorable terms of credit than those who have higher credit risk. Credit risk is generally determined by credit history. It may or may not have anything to do with your current ability to pay credit fees, depending on the type of credit you’re asking for.

Generally speaking, if the overall population is paying their balances on time, a credit company is able to keep prices low–that is, offer low interest rates and favorable payoff terms. However, if the population is not paying their balances, a credit company must raise their prices in order to cover costs of default. If this seems unfair, remember that, as a borrower, you are the one borrowing money, and you’re borrowing it on their terms.

Interest rate caps put an upper limit on supply. Beyond that point, a credit company cannot legally lend you money if you’re considered a high credit risk.

There may be many reasons why one might need to borrow money, but I’m afraid that most people do not do it out of necessity. This is something we hear a lot about on the news, especially things like consumer debt being out of control and the like.

We also hear a lot about deficit spending when it comes to the government. However, deficit spending as a general term refers to spending more money than you’re currently making. In many circumstances, we do this because there’s an obvious payoff involved, such as owning a car or a house. But all too often, we compound that with additional credit card debt (and I’m no exception).

It’s difficult to blame the government for egregious deficit spending when we ourselves engage in it.

It is the case that individuals make up the government, so the actions of the government are no more than the accumulated actions of many individuals. In order to change the attitude in government, we must first change the attitude in ourselves.

This is no easy task. If we are addicted to anything regarding consumption, we are addicted to spending. We are addicted to wanting more, more, more. We can hardly help walking into a store and buying something that we want just because we want it. “Delayed gratification” is just a term in the dictionary for us.

But, you may ask, what is the problem with deficit spending in government? Does it really matter if the government spends more than it takes in?

I think it does matter. First, the way the government obtains credit is by issuing bonds. These are basically slips of paper that tell the holder that they may request the value of the bond from the government at any time, and the government will pay it.

Currently, the national debt is over eight trillion dollars. That is the numeral eight followed by twelve zeroes. Twelve. $8,000,000,000,000.

The United States takes in approximately $2.1 trillion in revenue. That means that unless the US government has $8 trillion sitting around, it would take the US government four years to pay all of the bonds and debt that has accumulated, not counting interest, if it did nothing but pay back bonds (that means no services whatsoever–no medicare, no defense, no meetings of Congress–nothing)!

Worth noting is that our GDP (one way to measure the value of output) is over $12 trillion. That means that the government takes in about 16% of what the country produces in terms of cash, but is unable to prevent itself from overspending.

My financial situation certainly isn’t great, but at least my level of debt isn’t four times my income (at least, not until I purchase a house).

Now, as I mentioned earlier, some debt is OK. Occasionally, we will enter into a venture that puts us in “over our head” because it is worth it to us for some reason. However, we still have to pay that debt off. It is possible to not enter into that kind of debt, but it takes a lot of hard work. Basically, going into debt is easier than the alternative.

Our government should exercise fiscal responsibility. However, to do this, the people must also exercise fiscal responsibility. This extends beyond making sure you pay off your credit cards: you should make sure that you can provide for your own retirement either by working or saving up over a long period of time. Part of this is a risk–you don’t want to save too little, but you don’t really want to save too much. Many people continue working into retirement, and technology will only continue to make that increasingly possible.

Even if the government is able to make the adjustments to benefits to keep Social Security afloat, keep in mind that it was never intended to be the only source of income in your twilight years. It was based on an ultimately false theory that Big Government, Big Business, and Big Labor would continue to exist in order to provide a three-part pension for the retired (very few of which actually lived past the retirement age at the time).

I’m not going to discuss what it is that the government should or should not spend its money on. I tend to think that the government has far too much to say about how we currently run our lives and attempts to make us dependent, so I would most likely cut services, lift regulations, cut taxes, and allow the creation of competing legislative providers. At least then, Presidential elections would not be filled with idiots claiming that they can “create jobs” and “stimulate the economy.”

We would be living in a society that would have high levels of inequality, but it is inaccurate to say that inequality is a bad thing. It is merely a fact of life–some people will invariably be better than others at any given task. Punishing success does not bring us to a better place–it brings us all down to the same miserable place.

OK, done preaching for now.

« Newer Posts