I took a look at my past posts and I more or less ran the gauntlet -- progressivism, libertarianism, liberalism, conservatism, socialism, you name it, I probably wrote a blog post that would make you think there's actually an ideological school that I follow.
I've come to realize that there's no ideology that's absolutely right; there's no ideology that everybody should adhere to; and there's no ideology that's immune from endless ridicule. The truth is humanity from all corners engage in a chess game where the moves made only have personal psychological attachment and thus individual value. Personally, I'm more fascinated in the strategy where people make their decisions -- basically, I'm looking at people from a perspective that is loosely rooted in game theory.
I could sit here and preach free market fundamentalism all day long, but the vaunted free market is populated by people like myself, who have little difference from myself, and not worth it's purported pedestal. Not every thing can be regressed to an average submission of market forces (or in other words, not everything is going to submit to "market forces and behaviors"). Conversely, I can equally advocate for endless government interventionist economic policy and also realize that anybody can turn a disadvantage into an advantage if they seize the opportunity to do so (see, "Fractional Reserve Banking"). As long as there are new discoveries being made, there will be new avenues found for people to capitalize on opportunities that present itself at the behest or the chagrin of others. It is absolutely foolish to believe that governments can act as a "cure-all".
I could buy into conspiracy theories -- the truthers, the birthers, the New World Order, the Illuminati, the Bilderberg Group -- yet, I see that they're game theory exercises. The "plausible explanations" that come from the target of suspicion are exercises as well, just with the intent of a different outcome (comfort and control versus revelation and revolution). In truth, what I see, is two sides firing at each other in a blindfolded attempt to make a zero-sum game out of a game that is far from being zero-sum -- not even close, in my opinion. Remember: questions lead to discoveries; discoveries lead to challenges; and challenges lead to questions and whole cycle repeats itself.
I can sit here and advocate for liberty, but what liberty? The positive liberty that aims to where everybody has a fair shot in a given society or the negative liberty that advocates for freedom from coercion? Either way, strict advocacy for either will be undermined by the fact that human wants and needs are complicated, in no way, shape, or form can be reconciled to a basic set of given principles, and the unavoidable fact that advocacy of either requires a massive gamble on altruism that has yet to truly manifest itself into a bet that is safe enough to ensure that a given interpretation of liberty is the solution to the social Rubik's cube. Altruism is not an end in itself (and I hate that I use that term so much); effectiveness is key.
What about pushing for anarchy? Totalitarianism? Communism? Theocracy? Social forms of conduct (rather than me calling them political ideologies) that mainly try to paint itself as the zenith, but only illustrate themselves as an end in itself, will indeed find it's end in itself (there I go again using that phrase). It's blatant redundancy to make a point: if a political system creates dead ends then it will forced to change or ultimately destroy itself. India and China learned this as both countries embraced private enterprise in the 1980s and 1990s. The Civil War and the Great Depression arguably ended any chance of the United States returning back to a small national government when population growth, new social awareness, and the Industrial Revolution spurred convoluted issues that crumbled the small government model. It's why the USSR ended up falling on its face as it's communist model was unable to properly address new challenges and issues that arose from the impending post-industrial revolution.
What about a society built around time-honored, "traditional" values? Sounds cute until individual desire and thus hypocrisy comes into play. What about a society that is build solely on altruism? I think I mentioned this before as an unwise bet to make, but I think it's cute too until individual desire and hypocrisy comes into play. Romantic political grandstanding is cute too, until the realization that politicians win elections (as a side note, that's probably why Rand Paul will ultimately have a much more successful, effective, and memorable career than his daddy). We can dream of an ideology and philosophy becoming a global world view, but there has to be effectiveness (there's that word again) on implementation and maintenance, which includes the ability to anticipate and solve problems in damn near perfect omnipotence.
In the end though, I cannot help but to be fascinated. The hedges. The bets. The push and pull and manipulation and benevolence and malevolence and everything in between. In truth, at least for myself, I'm more interested in developing a strategy that allows me to mitigate through life rather than taking sides. However, I'll always err for human rights.
Well then, I guess even I had to take a side somewhere.
And if you have an open mind, you'd get my riddle with that.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Yet even more commentary on health care
One of the better health care commentaries I've read was written by Houston Chronicle conservative blogger Chris Ladd last Thursday. His piece, which is a call to Republicans to abandon the free market elitism that is endlessly churned out by the hard-right and libertarian wings of the Republican Party when it comes to health care, is not necessarily a watershed moment in Republican thought. It is however, the realization that there are far deeper issues when it comes to health care than trying to turn to a free market or government-based cure all.
Those in the health care debate generally fall into two camps -- the health care as a civil and human right, advocated by those on the left, and health care as a purely economic good, so regarded by those on the right. Both sides are overwhelmingly undermined by the the lack of a legitimate buffer of altruism that would fulfill their dreams of what the health care system should be in the United States. While we would like to think that the matter of health care could easily reconcile itself to an argument over rights and personal responsibility, the truth is that as health care becomes more advanced, lives are being extended, and we search for more and more ways to provide more effective and efficient care, the stakes become raised as the issues become just as complicated.
An interesting piece from a while back that a friend shared with me, which was a New York Times op-ed that was endorsed jointly by then-U.S. Senator John Kerry, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and Oakland Athletics General Manager Billy Beane, pushed for evidence-based health care. The idea, coming from Billy Beane's successful approach of using statistical analysis on baseball to find success with what would be traditionally undervalued players, is thoughtful and I was a champion of it for years. However, while I still agree with the premise, I am also aware that ultimately effectiveness costs money and there's a reason why nobody ever has had a 1.000 on base percentage and a 0.00 WHIP and played an entire Major League Baseball season.
The root of changing American health care is ultimately changing how medicine is practiced in the United States. Health care costs have exploded since the 1960s ultimately because new medical discoveries and new effective treatments are being made faster than ever, and as stated before, your money spent on health care is ultimately spent paying for effectiveness and paying for the research and development that actually went into forming that certain treatment -- from medicine to equipment. You can forget about market forces being able to even buoy that with uninhibited success, considering that markets ultimately function in voluntary, mutual transactions based upon an anticipated need. Where one would demand a new computer similar to how they would demand fine dining, web design services, a new house, or a new car, one would not demand health care services in the same fashion because demand for health care services is almost always due to personal demand shock. The aforementioned change in the way medicine is practiced would require attempting to realign practicing medicine to a system that would allow health care to be framed into an idealized regular good or service that would submit to market forces, namely the force of anticipation. That's an absurd and unrealistic expectation, because then and there you would have two forms of moral hazard acting upon each other in an even worse Nash equilibrium game that exists now.
So is it up to the government to save the day? That is an equally disastrous position to take: most American health care laws are driven by emotion and ideology, and less so much critical thinking. The Affordable Health Care Act (which is more or less the maturation of the idea that the Heritage Foundation conjured up in 1989), was driven by the emotion out of a desire to provide health insurance to everybody while at the same time driven by an ideology that yes health care risk could be allocated similar to the risk of getting your car fucked up in a car accident. The AHCA primarily focuses on the intermediary of health care in the United States: the insurance company. It only complicates the actuarial science in regards to developing health care plans and the premiums that go with it: the cost of those premiums would have to be weighted between being competitive in health insurance exchanges as well as having the ability to afford claims. Denying coverage and providing for affordable premiums is completely different than being able to successfully pay out insurance claims.
In the end of it all, it's psychological and cultural. The medical profession, especially in the highest stake positions, is a high paying position where doctors charge based upon their skills and make money on their effectiveness (many get the first part, but forget the second part). The drug and insurance companies, in an advantageous position because of what they provide, could keep health care on the trek of being the first realistic example of a Giffen good. Ultimately, it is about people, just like you and me, to take advantage of others. If we collectively demand an unattainable level of altruism and collectively culturally accept otherwise simultaneously, then it is completely ridiculous to expect that overarching government involvement or the venerable free market could ever manage to a cure all when it comes to reigning in the costs of health care. I'm well aware about preventive care -- however, preventive care, in my opinion, will become the next health care cash cow.
The romanticism of the free market and the vision of the United States becoming a complete social democracy has created debate that is badly off base. We can discuss and lament Obamacare; we can whine and bitch about the insurance and drug companies; we can champion preventive care all day; however, the bottom line is that the health care riddle will not be solved until Americans, in an overwhelming fashion, ultimately decide if health care should be a "right" or should be an economic good. I will say this though -- it comes down to how big of an altruistic bet are Americans, on both the demand-side and the supply-side, are willing to make.
Those in the health care debate generally fall into two camps -- the health care as a civil and human right, advocated by those on the left, and health care as a purely economic good, so regarded by those on the right. Both sides are overwhelmingly undermined by the the lack of a legitimate buffer of altruism that would fulfill their dreams of what the health care system should be in the United States. While we would like to think that the matter of health care could easily reconcile itself to an argument over rights and personal responsibility, the truth is that as health care becomes more advanced, lives are being extended, and we search for more and more ways to provide more effective and efficient care, the stakes become raised as the issues become just as complicated.
An interesting piece from a while back that a friend shared with me, which was a New York Times op-ed that was endorsed jointly by then-U.S. Senator John Kerry, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and Oakland Athletics General Manager Billy Beane, pushed for evidence-based health care. The idea, coming from Billy Beane's successful approach of using statistical analysis on baseball to find success with what would be traditionally undervalued players, is thoughtful and I was a champion of it for years. However, while I still agree with the premise, I am also aware that ultimately effectiveness costs money and there's a reason why nobody ever has had a 1.000 on base percentage and a 0.00 WHIP and played an entire Major League Baseball season.
The root of changing American health care is ultimately changing how medicine is practiced in the United States. Health care costs have exploded since the 1960s ultimately because new medical discoveries and new effective treatments are being made faster than ever, and as stated before, your money spent on health care is ultimately spent paying for effectiveness and paying for the research and development that actually went into forming that certain treatment -- from medicine to equipment. You can forget about market forces being able to even buoy that with uninhibited success, considering that markets ultimately function in voluntary, mutual transactions based upon an anticipated need. Where one would demand a new computer similar to how they would demand fine dining, web design services, a new house, or a new car, one would not demand health care services in the same fashion because demand for health care services is almost always due to personal demand shock. The aforementioned change in the way medicine is practiced would require attempting to realign practicing medicine to a system that would allow health care to be framed into an idealized regular good or service that would submit to market forces, namely the force of anticipation. That's an absurd and unrealistic expectation, because then and there you would have two forms of moral hazard acting upon each other in an even worse Nash equilibrium game that exists now.
So is it up to the government to save the day? That is an equally disastrous position to take: most American health care laws are driven by emotion and ideology, and less so much critical thinking. The Affordable Health Care Act (which is more or less the maturation of the idea that the Heritage Foundation conjured up in 1989), was driven by the emotion out of a desire to provide health insurance to everybody while at the same time driven by an ideology that yes health care risk could be allocated similar to the risk of getting your car fucked up in a car accident. The AHCA primarily focuses on the intermediary of health care in the United States: the insurance company. It only complicates the actuarial science in regards to developing health care plans and the premiums that go with it: the cost of those premiums would have to be weighted between being competitive in health insurance exchanges as well as having the ability to afford claims. Denying coverage and providing for affordable premiums is completely different than being able to successfully pay out insurance claims.
In the end of it all, it's psychological and cultural. The medical profession, especially in the highest stake positions, is a high paying position where doctors charge based upon their skills and make money on their effectiveness (many get the first part, but forget the second part). The drug and insurance companies, in an advantageous position because of what they provide, could keep health care on the trek of being the first realistic example of a Giffen good. Ultimately, it is about people, just like you and me, to take advantage of others. If we collectively demand an unattainable level of altruism and collectively culturally accept otherwise simultaneously, then it is completely ridiculous to expect that overarching government involvement or the venerable free market could ever manage to a cure all when it comes to reigning in the costs of health care. I'm well aware about preventive care -- however, preventive care, in my opinion, will become the next health care cash cow.
The romanticism of the free market and the vision of the United States becoming a complete social democracy has created debate that is badly off base. We can discuss and lament Obamacare; we can whine and bitch about the insurance and drug companies; we can champion preventive care all day; however, the bottom line is that the health care riddle will not be solved until Americans, in an overwhelming fashion, ultimately decide if health care should be a "right" or should be an economic good. I will say this though -- it comes down to how big of an altruistic bet are Americans, on both the demand-side and the supply-side, are willing to make.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Bankers and the Truth About Power
Power is not given, it's taken.
Carl Menger, founder of the Austrian School of Economics (which, for the record, I don't really care for because of the sanctimony some have for this and it completely turned me off), wrote that fractional reserve banking only started when bankers (generally goldsmiths), realized that not all depositors withdraw (demand payment) at the same time. Thus an opportunity arose: goldsmiths that normally stored gold and silver could make extra income by giving out interest bearing loans, because receipts, such as ones given out by the Bank of Amsterdam, were not always redeemed at the same time. More or less, fractional reserve banking, the heart and soul of contemporary banking, was born. Goldsmiths realized the advantage that they had as being storage points of bullion for holders and saw the opportunity of how they could earn more money doing it. An advantage was realized, the opportunity was seized, and power was gained.
The Bank of Amsterdam had similarities to the current United States Treasury and the Federal Reserve: they stored currency, gave out loans, conducted a lot of business with no transparency, and all currencies and monies were backed by government. The Bank of Amsterdam was no stranger to be opportunistic -- it charged storage fees, became a source of revenue for the city, but as it allowed too many accounts to be overdrawn, it crumbled under insolvency in the aftermath of its lending practices becoming public knowledge towards the end of the 18th century, finally closing after nearly 2 centuries in operation in 1819.
The Federal Reserve and United States Treasury hasn't suffered the same fate because the functionality has been effectively split. However, the Reserve is effectively shrouded and secrecy and aside from establishing the federal funds rate ("interest rate"), economic analysis, setting inflation goals, and basically being the psychological economic base of the United States -- their methodology and reasoning leaves much to speculation. What is truly known and what doesn't need any speculation is this -- the Bank of Amsterdam, the Federal Reserve, and the United States Treasury, ran by human beings, are not above what human beings are going to do anyways -- to take advantage of a given situation and seize any opportunities that will be provided.
I'm no conspiracy theorist, and I'm not going to speculate on theories. However, I will say that banking enterprises and corporate coalitions achieved the position that they are in because of being effective at seizing the opportunities given to them. The crowning achievement of the banker influence on day to day operations of the United States government is not anything you've see in the past few years: it was when John Pierpont Morgan, along with the Rothschild banking dynasty, personally bailed out the U.S. Treasury during the Panic of 1893. Combine that with William McKinley's victory over the populist William Jennings Bryan in the election of 1896, and it is no surprise that the aforementioned enterprise and coalitions have reached the pedestal that they sit on.
Taking advantage and seizing opportunities is not a villainous concept: it's something that each of us do every single day on just about anything -- no matter how morally reputable, ambiguous, or reprehensible it may be. As much as we are willing to respect the rights of others based upon a given moral and ethical benchmark, we are willing to violate same the rights of others on that same benchmark, if we feel that we can emotionally, physically, or mentally have the means justified by the end outcomes. However, at it's bottom line, rights are not facts, but widely accepted and valued opinions that haven't been or ever will be shielded from differing opinions.
We do it every single day. I always found it funny that a lot of people romanticize where they stand right now, especially on the class ladder, lamenting how these big banking enterprises and corporations are opportunistic and always get their way, when in reality, they're ran by people, just as we are people (no, they are not boogeymen that emerged from a black hole) that do what is natural: they look at themselves, see their advantages, see the opportunities that can be had with those said advantages, and take them. As I said, we do it every day, whether it is kids trying to get something out of their parents, students cheating on a test, successfully getting someone to join your cause, petitions, a man trying to get laid, you name it -- it's the same thing much of a time albeit a different medium. However, collective action takes an equal and more effective reaction. You saw that in the 2012 Presidential Election.
Wealth is not necessarily power. Wealth is the accumulation of resources deemed valuable by others and coveted by them as well. Power, however, is the ability to be in a leveraged position with those said resources and use that position effectively to, once again, seize opportunities and take advantage of a given situation. Hence why power is not given, it's taken. The United States Constitution can provide expressed powers to Congress, reserved powers to States and the People, and implied powers out of Alexander Hamilton's vision, but if the given advantage is not realized and opportunities are not seized upon, then the words are worthless -- might as well not even have it.
The truth about power -- along with these vaunted and vilified (and many times, rightfully so) banking enterprises and corporations -- is that they seize opportunities presented to them with the advantages that they have. There's a reason why that Chase and Bank of America can charge $3 to $4 dollar ATM fees and still be the most widely used banks in the country; there's a reason why Chase, Bank of America, HSBC, amongst others can be subject to millions and millions of dollars in legal fines and fees and still be in business doing the same thing as before; there's a reason why Goldman Sachs is the U.S. Treasury Secretary Factory; there's a reason why countries defend human rights causes as fast as they violate them; there's a reason why global derivatives and other financial institutions have been backed for years by one of the most damning instances of banking collusion in history that shows that LIBOR is a banking cartel of the grandest stage.
If you're interested in curbing the power of banks and corporations, you must do the exact same thing that they are doing -- using the advantage that you have (in being the consumer, the constituent, the taxpayer, the everyday working person, or however you want to romanticize yourself to be in your socioeconomic and sociopolitical position) and seizing the opportunities that are given by your advantageous position. The key thing is -- your eyes have to be open to it.
Their eyes are, why don't you open yours?
Remember, power is not given -- it's taken.
Carl Menger, founder of the Austrian School of Economics (which, for the record, I don't really care for because of the sanctimony some have for this and it completely turned me off), wrote that fractional reserve banking only started when bankers (generally goldsmiths), realized that not all depositors withdraw (demand payment) at the same time. Thus an opportunity arose: goldsmiths that normally stored gold and silver could make extra income by giving out interest bearing loans, because receipts, such as ones given out by the Bank of Amsterdam, were not always redeemed at the same time. More or less, fractional reserve banking, the heart and soul of contemporary banking, was born. Goldsmiths realized the advantage that they had as being storage points of bullion for holders and saw the opportunity of how they could earn more money doing it. An advantage was realized, the opportunity was seized, and power was gained.
The Bank of Amsterdam had similarities to the current United States Treasury and the Federal Reserve: they stored currency, gave out loans, conducted a lot of business with no transparency, and all currencies and monies were backed by government. The Bank of Amsterdam was no stranger to be opportunistic -- it charged storage fees, became a source of revenue for the city, but as it allowed too many accounts to be overdrawn, it crumbled under insolvency in the aftermath of its lending practices becoming public knowledge towards the end of the 18th century, finally closing after nearly 2 centuries in operation in 1819.
The Federal Reserve and United States Treasury hasn't suffered the same fate because the functionality has been effectively split. However, the Reserve is effectively shrouded and secrecy and aside from establishing the federal funds rate ("interest rate"), economic analysis, setting inflation goals, and basically being the psychological economic base of the United States -- their methodology and reasoning leaves much to speculation. What is truly known and what doesn't need any speculation is this -- the Bank of Amsterdam, the Federal Reserve, and the United States Treasury, ran by human beings, are not above what human beings are going to do anyways -- to take advantage of a given situation and seize any opportunities that will be provided.
I'm no conspiracy theorist, and I'm not going to speculate on theories. However, I will say that banking enterprises and corporate coalitions achieved the position that they are in because of being effective at seizing the opportunities given to them. The crowning achievement of the banker influence on day to day operations of the United States government is not anything you've see in the past few years: it was when John Pierpont Morgan, along with the Rothschild banking dynasty, personally bailed out the U.S. Treasury during the Panic of 1893. Combine that with William McKinley's victory over the populist William Jennings Bryan in the election of 1896, and it is no surprise that the aforementioned enterprise and coalitions have reached the pedestal that they sit on.
Taking advantage and seizing opportunities is not a villainous concept: it's something that each of us do every single day on just about anything -- no matter how morally reputable, ambiguous, or reprehensible it may be. As much as we are willing to respect the rights of others based upon a given moral and ethical benchmark, we are willing to violate same the rights of others on that same benchmark, if we feel that we can emotionally, physically, or mentally have the means justified by the end outcomes. However, at it's bottom line, rights are not facts, but widely accepted and valued opinions that haven't been or ever will be shielded from differing opinions.
We do it every single day. I always found it funny that a lot of people romanticize where they stand right now, especially on the class ladder, lamenting how these big banking enterprises and corporations are opportunistic and always get their way, when in reality, they're ran by people, just as we are people (no, they are not boogeymen that emerged from a black hole) that do what is natural: they look at themselves, see their advantages, see the opportunities that can be had with those said advantages, and take them. As I said, we do it every day, whether it is kids trying to get something out of their parents, students cheating on a test, successfully getting someone to join your cause, petitions, a man trying to get laid, you name it -- it's the same thing much of a time albeit a different medium. However, collective action takes an equal and more effective reaction. You saw that in the 2012 Presidential Election.
Wealth is not necessarily power. Wealth is the accumulation of resources deemed valuable by others and coveted by them as well. Power, however, is the ability to be in a leveraged position with those said resources and use that position effectively to, once again, seize opportunities and take advantage of a given situation. Hence why power is not given, it's taken. The United States Constitution can provide expressed powers to Congress, reserved powers to States and the People, and implied powers out of Alexander Hamilton's vision, but if the given advantage is not realized and opportunities are not seized upon, then the words are worthless -- might as well not even have it.
The truth about power -- along with these vaunted and vilified (and many times, rightfully so) banking enterprises and corporations -- is that they seize opportunities presented to them with the advantages that they have. There's a reason why that Chase and Bank of America can charge $3 to $4 dollar ATM fees and still be the most widely used banks in the country; there's a reason why Chase, Bank of America, HSBC, amongst others can be subject to millions and millions of dollars in legal fines and fees and still be in business doing the same thing as before; there's a reason why Goldman Sachs is the U.S. Treasury Secretary Factory; there's a reason why countries defend human rights causes as fast as they violate them; there's a reason why global derivatives and other financial institutions have been backed for years by one of the most damning instances of banking collusion in history that shows that LIBOR is a banking cartel of the grandest stage.
If you're interested in curbing the power of banks and corporations, you must do the exact same thing that they are doing -- using the advantage that you have (in being the consumer, the constituent, the taxpayer, the everyday working person, or however you want to romanticize yourself to be in your socioeconomic and sociopolitical position) and seizing the opportunities that are given by your advantageous position. The key thing is -- your eyes have to be open to it.
Their eyes are, why don't you open yours?
Remember, power is not given -- it's taken.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Constitutional Exploitation
By the way, the redundancy is blatant.
The 1816 letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval can be claimed to validate to just about any political ideology. From his laments about abuses of power that would be positively received by conservatives and libertarians, to the need to actually change with the times that liberals and progressives can find agreement with, it is nothing short of a remarkable document. However, there's one passage that leaped out at me:
His warning was illustrated as later in that paragraph he noted the turmoil going on in Europe at the time, where he described monarchs that were too interested in maintaining the status quo instead of listening to the people. He also warned in the few preceding passages how institutions, such as the United States, can fall victim to the "abuses of man".
In my previous post about shadow government, I alluded to the fact that systems are basically established and then exploited for gain. Basically, for every one system that is established there is going to be one person seeking to do whatever they can to get whatever ends they want to get out of it. The United States Constitution is no different. The Constitution established a system, albeit with unintentionally dubious interpretation, that was designed to give Congress more power and consequently the central government. Anyone that truly believed then, and even now, that the Constitution wouldn't be exploited is extremely shortsighted and filled with too much romantic vision that pushes themselves to delve deeper into the apparent sanctimony of the American civil religion. Robert Bellah was not crazy to coin such a thing -- there is a distinct nearly religious quality to the American historical experience, that (and this is my own conclusion here), leads to unreasonable, yet understandable, expectations. Sanctimonious mountains aren't being climbed; we're only dealing with hills.
The first big government advocate was none other than Alexander Hamilton, who actually came up with the implied powers of the Constitution. In truth, Hamilton, as opposed to Jefferson and James Madison, got it: if one sees the opportunity to take a rule as far as it can go, then they'll take it. Humans are opportunistic creatures, that's just nature. To insure the rest of humanity against our own natural habit has been a riddle since Urukagina, Ur-Nammu, and Hammurabi. The United States Constitution is just another document in the series of legal documents that attempted to address that riddle; however, the United States Constitution is a document for human beings, produced by human beings, to illustrate how human beings are to cooperate and coexist with other human beings.
As the world became smaller, the riddle became a race. As new social issues arose during the Enlightenment and later the Industrial Revolution, this riddle took on a new shape. Concepts of human rights, social liberalism, classical liberalism, and populism emerged. The social order changed as those that were accustomed to control had to answer to those that they believed to be in control of. The aspirations of positive liberty (the egalitarian state as the vindication of cooperation) and the demands of negative liberty (the individualist state as a rejection of forced cooperation) clashed. The evolution of the riddle continues to today: conspiracy theories, populist movements, Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, the government address of gay rights, governmental intervention in the economy, the Arab Spring, and so on. As the riddle evolved, so did the stakes, the awareness, and the constant willingness to exploit.
Insurance against exploitation is a curious goal, being that it takes further exploitation to counter exploitation. Exploit changing social attitudes to ensure more (or less) rights; exploit sputtering systems to advocate for more personal and economic freedom; exploit tragedies to create more restrictions. A lot of my friends often post things that note how the Constitution is being disregarded, ignored, shit on, and etc., posts stories and memes and whatnot, and in a way its hard to argue against their position for that the Constitution is still a system. A system is a system and a system will be exploited for gain, no matter what it is. The root of it is the aforementioned riddle; the reason its a race now is because, as Jefferson noted, as "new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances", the desire for triumph -- any triumph really -- becomes fervent. If the big evil corporation wants to bank roll candidates as a mean to secure the end, its an exploitation of the system; if feverish supporters of a certain candidate will want to challenge and stretch bylaws and conventions in desire for a preferred outcome, then it's an exploitation of the system.
The bottom line really is that it's impossible to insure against exploitation. Altruism is merely a hedge against exploitation, and to bank on it is silly. This post is not necessarily advocating for anything; its just an observation, for that I know pretty damn well that the pursuit for the optimal, functional system will continue, that the game will be continued to be played, and the riddle will modify and evolve exponentially.
The 1816 letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval can be claimed to validate to just about any political ideology. From his laments about abuses of power that would be positively received by conservatives and libertarians, to the need to actually change with the times that liberals and progressives can find agreement with, it is nothing short of a remarkable document. However, there's one passage that leaped out at me:
"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times."
His warning was illustrated as later in that paragraph he noted the turmoil going on in Europe at the time, where he described monarchs that were too interested in maintaining the status quo instead of listening to the people. He also warned in the few preceding passages how institutions, such as the United States, can fall victim to the "abuses of man".
In my previous post about shadow government, I alluded to the fact that systems are basically established and then exploited for gain. Basically, for every one system that is established there is going to be one person seeking to do whatever they can to get whatever ends they want to get out of it. The United States Constitution is no different. The Constitution established a system, albeit with unintentionally dubious interpretation, that was designed to give Congress more power and consequently the central government. Anyone that truly believed then, and even now, that the Constitution wouldn't be exploited is extremely shortsighted and filled with too much romantic vision that pushes themselves to delve deeper into the apparent sanctimony of the American civil religion. Robert Bellah was not crazy to coin such a thing -- there is a distinct nearly religious quality to the American historical experience, that (and this is my own conclusion here), leads to unreasonable, yet understandable, expectations. Sanctimonious mountains aren't being climbed; we're only dealing with hills.
The first big government advocate was none other than Alexander Hamilton, who actually came up with the implied powers of the Constitution. In truth, Hamilton, as opposed to Jefferson and James Madison, got it: if one sees the opportunity to take a rule as far as it can go, then they'll take it. Humans are opportunistic creatures, that's just nature. To insure the rest of humanity against our own natural habit has been a riddle since Urukagina, Ur-Nammu, and Hammurabi. The United States Constitution is just another document in the series of legal documents that attempted to address that riddle; however, the United States Constitution is a document for human beings, produced by human beings, to illustrate how human beings are to cooperate and coexist with other human beings.
As the world became smaller, the riddle became a race. As new social issues arose during the Enlightenment and later the Industrial Revolution, this riddle took on a new shape. Concepts of human rights, social liberalism, classical liberalism, and populism emerged. The social order changed as those that were accustomed to control had to answer to those that they believed to be in control of. The aspirations of positive liberty (the egalitarian state as the vindication of cooperation) and the demands of negative liberty (the individualist state as a rejection of forced cooperation) clashed. The evolution of the riddle continues to today: conspiracy theories, populist movements, Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, the government address of gay rights, governmental intervention in the economy, the Arab Spring, and so on. As the riddle evolved, so did the stakes, the awareness, and the constant willingness to exploit.
Insurance against exploitation is a curious goal, being that it takes further exploitation to counter exploitation. Exploit changing social attitudes to ensure more (or less) rights; exploit sputtering systems to advocate for more personal and economic freedom; exploit tragedies to create more restrictions. A lot of my friends often post things that note how the Constitution is being disregarded, ignored, shit on, and etc., posts stories and memes and whatnot, and in a way its hard to argue against their position for that the Constitution is still a system. A system is a system and a system will be exploited for gain, no matter what it is. The root of it is the aforementioned riddle; the reason its a race now is because, as Jefferson noted, as "new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances", the desire for triumph -- any triumph really -- becomes fervent. If the big evil corporation wants to bank roll candidates as a mean to secure the end, its an exploitation of the system; if feverish supporters of a certain candidate will want to challenge and stretch bylaws and conventions in desire for a preferred outcome, then it's an exploitation of the system.
The bottom line really is that it's impossible to insure against exploitation. Altruism is merely a hedge against exploitation, and to bank on it is silly. This post is not necessarily advocating for anything; its just an observation, for that I know pretty damn well that the pursuit for the optimal, functional system will continue, that the game will be continued to be played, and the riddle will modify and evolve exponentially.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
The Shadow Government and the Nash Equilibrium
Austin-based radio host Alex Jones is decried as a conspiracy theorist and lauded as an American patriot. His primary website, InfoWars.com, is dedicated to, and I say this out of purely objective observation, reporting to illustrate how things aren't simply what they seem to be, no matter how the mainstream media shapes for it to be.
Increasingly, its been noted that both "Aurora" and "Sandy Hook" has been referenced in the 2012 blockbuster The Dark Knight Rises. Unsurprisingly, InfoWars.com has been all over it, and many corners of the Internet have as well. Even the most skeptical have to wonder about the coincidence between two terrible tragedies coincidentally having their names being referenced in a blockbuster film.
I'm remaining neutral on it, but not for the reason people would think.
I don't dismiss or really bank on conspiracy theories. I don't go on "truth quests". However, considering that there are many out there, including some of my friends, that believe in the existence of a shadow government, might as well write about it in the only way that fits me and my neutrality:
In short, we're going to play a Nash equilibrium game.
So, let's say a shadow government actually does, without any chance for refutation, exist. We'll assign the title of Player A in this sequence. Player B, consequently, would be the governed and the effective rest of the population. The decision payoff in this game? Both Player A and Player B are making the best decisions they can, influenced by the other player's decision -- the decision in this case is the successful manipulation of a given system to achieve a particular objective.
A system is, more or less, any form of a set of components interacting interdependently to form a relationship. In this case, it is the socioecopolitical system of the United States (yes, it's a brand new portmanteau that I will not take credit for).
You can take this Nash equilibrium game in one of two directions: the Braess Paradox or the Prisoner's Dilemma.
The Braess Paradox, which is mainly a focus on road traffic networks but can be put into good use here, is not a paradox per-se, but as the Virtual Cell Program at the Harvard Medical School writes, a "counter-intuitive observation". In short, the Braess Paradox occurs when the payoff of an additional transportation link does not yield any additional benefits and actually creates the opposite outcome. An example of this, in a non transportation sense, is the 2011 Egyptian revolt. For this case, the variables will be on two sides taking their own path, as a natural antithesis to each other. While this is not exactly the purest form of the Braess Paradox (in the purest form, the player has three directions to go in, while in this case, there's two -- but an individual deciding which "side" to be on does have three directions, so in a way it reconciles itself), it will still serve as a useful model.
In this case: Player A and Player B both START at the current state, and will take separate means to reach the END, which will be the preferred state. The desire of the shadow government would be a greater disbursement control, dominated by a privileged few; the desire of the governed will be a greater disbursement of control, dominated by altruism. The separate roads, or paths, really, would be the means in which they plan to achieve their separate objectives. The paradox would arrive in a potential short cut that connects both courses at their midpoint. Of course, this is the grand bargain with the hope of a payoff: the shadow government's grand bargain would be greater popular involvement; the grand bargain for the governed would be creating awareness by any means necessary. As such, it creates a massive complication: the shadow government can either be threatened by increased awareness, voluntarily or involuntarily, or it could choose to take advantage of that increased awareness by framing the awareness into something more palatable to their objective; the governed could be threatened by increased popular involvement, making it harder to reach out to others, or it could choose to take advantage of increased popular involvement by infiltrating or altering that involvement to a more desirable outcome.
The Prisoner's Dilemma occurs when the best decision for each player in the game is to defect so that they individually achieve their most optimal outcome. The example given by the Dilemma is when two criminals are interrogated separately by authorities, and in a divide and conquer strategy, put both of them against each other: give up the other, one sided punishment; don't give up the other, the punishment is further disbursed. An example would be France and Britain's political maneuvering in Europe at the height of their international rivalry.
Defection in this case, on both parts, would be to disrupt and distort a given system. The shadow government would cause disruption through suspect operation and execution of control; the governed would disrupt and distort a given system through rejection by any means necessary. However, what is at stake? The shadow government would use more suspect operation and execution of control to stymie rejection, while on the other hand, the governed could continue to cause further disruption and distortion to even more rejection, fueled by the increase in the actions of the shadow government. As such, there's no real triumph. Given that systems are made in anticipation for future exploitation, its more or less a cycle that keeps repeating itself, especially with the advent of more and more technology. Remember, the most successful in any system are the ones that are best able to take advantage of it. Nearly all of the time, the parameters played by one are the same ones played by the other.
So what's the reason for my neutrality? Because it's a game. And it's more or less a case of who plays it better. And this game will keep being played.
We'll take for example the Constitution of the United States. While Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton bickered and bitched about what should have been the proper interpretation, a debate that still exists to this day, both Jefferson and Hamilton laid foundations for supporters of either side of the argument to be able to take advantage of the system that the Constitution created. Want limited government? Advocate for a by-the-letter interpretation of the Constitution. Want bigger government? Advocate for a loose interpretation of the Constitution. Hell bent on achieving the means? Do what you have to, by any means felt to be necessary -- and nobody is above it considering we're all human.
I'll close this with one of my favorite scenes from the 1978-91 series Dallas. (You can view here as embedding was disabled). In this scene Pamela Barnes (played by Victoria Principal) confronts J.R Ewing (Larry Hagman) and Jock Ewing (Jim Davis) about how the Ewings went to the papers and basically ruined her brother Cliff's (Ken Kercheval, not in this scene) candidacy for the House of Representatives seat. Pay attention to the last two things that Pamela and J.R. said to each other.
Increasingly, its been noted that both "Aurora" and "Sandy Hook" has been referenced in the 2012 blockbuster The Dark Knight Rises. Unsurprisingly, InfoWars.com has been all over it, and many corners of the Internet have as well. Even the most skeptical have to wonder about the coincidence between two terrible tragedies coincidentally having their names being referenced in a blockbuster film.
I'm remaining neutral on it, but not for the reason people would think.
I don't dismiss or really bank on conspiracy theories. I don't go on "truth quests". However, considering that there are many out there, including some of my friends, that believe in the existence of a shadow government, might as well write about it in the only way that fits me and my neutrality:
In short, we're going to play a Nash equilibrium game.
So, let's say a shadow government actually does, without any chance for refutation, exist. We'll assign the title of Player A in this sequence. Player B, consequently, would be the governed and the effective rest of the population. The decision payoff in this game? Both Player A and Player B are making the best decisions they can, influenced by the other player's decision -- the decision in this case is the successful manipulation of a given system to achieve a particular objective.
A system is, more or less, any form of a set of components interacting interdependently to form a relationship. In this case, it is the socioecopolitical system of the United States (yes, it's a brand new portmanteau that I will not take credit for).
You can take this Nash equilibrium game in one of two directions: the Braess Paradox or the Prisoner's Dilemma.
The Braess Paradox, which is mainly a focus on road traffic networks but can be put into good use here, is not a paradox per-se, but as the Virtual Cell Program at the Harvard Medical School writes, a "counter-intuitive observation". In short, the Braess Paradox occurs when the payoff of an additional transportation link does not yield any additional benefits and actually creates the opposite outcome. An example of this, in a non transportation sense, is the 2011 Egyptian revolt. For this case, the variables will be on two sides taking their own path, as a natural antithesis to each other. While this is not exactly the purest form of the Braess Paradox (in the purest form, the player has three directions to go in, while in this case, there's two -- but an individual deciding which "side" to be on does have three directions, so in a way it reconciles itself), it will still serve as a useful model.
In this case: Player A and Player B both START at the current state, and will take separate means to reach the END, which will be the preferred state. The desire of the shadow government would be a greater disbursement control, dominated by a privileged few; the desire of the governed will be a greater disbursement of control, dominated by altruism. The separate roads, or paths, really, would be the means in which they plan to achieve their separate objectives. The paradox would arrive in a potential short cut that connects both courses at their midpoint. Of course, this is the grand bargain with the hope of a payoff: the shadow government's grand bargain would be greater popular involvement; the grand bargain for the governed would be creating awareness by any means necessary. As such, it creates a massive complication: the shadow government can either be threatened by increased awareness, voluntarily or involuntarily, or it could choose to take advantage of that increased awareness by framing the awareness into something more palatable to their objective; the governed could be threatened by increased popular involvement, making it harder to reach out to others, or it could choose to take advantage of increased popular involvement by infiltrating or altering that involvement to a more desirable outcome.
The Prisoner's Dilemma occurs when the best decision for each player in the game is to defect so that they individually achieve their most optimal outcome. The example given by the Dilemma is when two criminals are interrogated separately by authorities, and in a divide and conquer strategy, put both of them against each other: give up the other, one sided punishment; don't give up the other, the punishment is further disbursed. An example would be France and Britain's political maneuvering in Europe at the height of their international rivalry.
Defection in this case, on both parts, would be to disrupt and distort a given system. The shadow government would cause disruption through suspect operation and execution of control; the governed would disrupt and distort a given system through rejection by any means necessary. However, what is at stake? The shadow government would use more suspect operation and execution of control to stymie rejection, while on the other hand, the governed could continue to cause further disruption and distortion to even more rejection, fueled by the increase in the actions of the shadow government. As such, there's no real triumph. Given that systems are made in anticipation for future exploitation, its more or less a cycle that keeps repeating itself, especially with the advent of more and more technology. Remember, the most successful in any system are the ones that are best able to take advantage of it. Nearly all of the time, the parameters played by one are the same ones played by the other.
So what's the reason for my neutrality? Because it's a game. And it's more or less a case of who plays it better. And this game will keep being played.
We'll take for example the Constitution of the United States. While Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton bickered and bitched about what should have been the proper interpretation, a debate that still exists to this day, both Jefferson and Hamilton laid foundations for supporters of either side of the argument to be able to take advantage of the system that the Constitution created. Want limited government? Advocate for a by-the-letter interpretation of the Constitution. Want bigger government? Advocate for a loose interpretation of the Constitution. Hell bent on achieving the means? Do what you have to, by any means felt to be necessary -- and nobody is above it considering we're all human.
I'll close this with one of my favorite scenes from the 1978-91 series Dallas. (You can view here as embedding was disabled). In this scene Pamela Barnes (played by Victoria Principal) confronts J.R Ewing (Larry Hagman) and Jock Ewing (Jim Davis) about how the Ewings went to the papers and basically ruined her brother Cliff's (Ken Kercheval, not in this scene) candidacy for the House of Representatives seat. Pay attention to the last two things that Pamela and J.R. said to each other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)