LovesLife

It's the trade-off between losing someone that's valuable to you in one way and living a life fully aligned with my values that I find particularly difficult. The rationality that I value above all else will force me to give up other things that I value almost as much. I can see how people fall so easily into the traps of compromise and pragmatism.

The people around me have been saying that I'm going through a "mid life crisis" for the last six months or so. However, I've come to the conclusion that it is really a philosophical crisis, focused around how I fit into and interact with the world. I call it a crisis because as I try to adjust my life to be more in-line with my philosophy, I can see how strongly my beliefs clash with those of my friends and family. As a result of that recognition I find that I'm in danger of hurting or losing some people who are very important to me. Has anyone here gone through something similar? If so, I would be interested in hearing about your experiences.

Trying to argue with a bureaucrat about the role of government is futile. You're wasting your time. A better approach is to either: 1. Show how their suggested "solutions" will do more harm than good (particularly effective if you can identify a way that it will harm the bureaucrat himself), or 2. Redirect their legislative impulse into something less harmful, or 3. Explain how their approach is morally wrong, in terms that they are likely to understand and accept I personally think that #3 is the best long-term solution, but it's also the most difficult.

Newton's "invisible force" is not at variance with the senses. Newton proposed a theory that explained what his senses were telling him. It turns out that his theory was not exactly correct, but it was a reasonable approximation based on the accuracy with which he was able to observe at the time. Saying that Newton's prediction that an object would continue to move in a straight line forever in the absence of gravity and friction was a lucky guess and that it was in contradiction to his observations is absurd. His prediction was made on the basis of careful observation, analysis and REASON. Rather than contradicting his observations, his prediction helped explain them. True. However, humans are capable of overcoming that non-conscious thinking with reason. Observations can be challenged, or approached from multiple directions. Apparent contradictions can be identified and then explained. In fact, that's a key aspect of how new discoveries are made. If sensory evidence is to be doubted or dismissed entirely, then by what mechanism do modern scientists perform or obtain results from their experiments? Osmosis? There is a difference between using one type of sensory evidence to thoroughly explain a particular phenomenon and using sensory evidence from multiple sources. I haven't read Galileo, but I believe his argument and that of modern scientists is not that sensory evidence should be dismissed, but that it should be confirmed with additional sensory evidence obtained in other ways. Saying that gravity has an identity is like saying the electricity or light has an identity. Only things can have an identity, not concepts or forces. A given thing can't be ubiquitous, therefore something that is ubiquitous is a non-thing, and therefore can have no identity.

One theory about dreams is that they come about as part of the process of integrating short-term memories into long-term ones as you sleep. Memory storage in the brain is an interesting process. Memories aren't stored in a particular spot; they are spread over much of the brain. Rather than being like bits of memory in a computer, they seem to be more like sets of electronic waves and semi-holographic interference patterns. The brain never turns off. Random electronic impulses might cause random images or sequences to occur (many dreams that feel like they take place over a long period actually happen very quickly). As with memory and the brain in general, the exact mechanisms are not well-understood. There's no magic about dreams, although it's certainly possible that they have some psychological significance -- perhaps as a view into other thoughts or memories.

Why is it OK under altruistic ethics for someone to use force to steal from Richie to pay for Timmy's cancer treatment? What if there are ten Timmys? Or ten million? Where does it stop? Who says enough is enough?

You just answered your own question. Of course it would be in a tree harvester's best interest to plant more trees. Otherwise, what are they going to have left to harvest when the trees are all gone? Not surprisingly, that exact approach is followed in the industry. The argument tends to get more difficult when it comes to things like air and water pollution, where the supply appears "infinite." I would argue that it is still in the best interest of large companies to preserve the environment around them, for several reasons: public relations, employee health and safety (benefits costs, minimizing sick time, etc), smoothing the path to future growth, etc. There is also a large moral component to it, and successful companies tend to understand that morality plays an increasingly important role in their business. However, this line of thinking should be balanced against the other side of the coin, which is employee support and consumer demand. Without both of those, the company couldn't exist. For example, people buy cars and work for car manufacturers even though the cars pollute the air because they believe the trade-off is worth it.

Something else to keep in mind when choosing a career is the concept of the "sanction of the victim." For example, if you don't believe in big government, then don't get a government job. If you believe that the way your government applies military force is immoral, then don't join the military or get a job building products for them. If pollution is important to you, then don't get a job with a company that pollutes. This can be applied in a positive way, too. The point is that the product of your labor has an impact on more than just you; it feeds back into the world around you. A rational understanding of that impact should therefore be factored into your career choice.

It seems to me that peer pressure is a big factor that prevents people from learning more about Objectivism and integrating it into their daily lives. Just saying that you think altruism is evil, that you're an atheist and you're selfish is enough to alienate you from a large number of social groups -- not to mention close friends and family (in fact, simple alienation can easily and quickly turn into downright hatred). The fact that most people don't accept or understand explanations of those ideas just compounds the problem.

Like most bureaucrats, this one clearly only sees one side of the equation. A few points, in addition to the ones offered in the previous posts: -- Who makes the decisions about much pollution is too much, about which industries or companies get exceptions, etc? Laws such as these will only serve to favor certain individuals and companies over others. -- If the costs of environmental regulation are made too high, the companies that are impacted the most (that don't receive special favors) will be forced to either move to an area or country with more favorable rules, or close down. Either way, local jobs are lost, which has a direct impact on those individuals and their families. -- Why should be against the law to pollute here, but OK in another country? We all breathe the same air. -- Manufacturing industries, the oft-accused source of pollution, is the real source of wealth in this country. Most other businesses indirectly rely on manufacturing. If all manufacturing is driven out of the country, the rest of the economy will go with it. We should be relaxing rules for manufacturers, encouraging them to grow, not the reverse. -- A more productive way to apply legislation would be to require industries to fully and accurately disclose the pollution that they cause. That could then give concerned consumers enough information to make an informed choice for alternatives.

In order for the process of rational argument (and the associated potential persuasion) to work, the parties involved need to be rational. Arguing with an irrational person is doomed to fail, because at any point they can claim "A is B" to backup their position. I'm convinced that it's not possible to be both fully rational and be a religionist or any other type of mystic -- which means that arguing with them is doomed to fail. I think this is also the root cause of why religionists so often end up wanting to kill people who don't believe the same thing they do -- their irrationality works against them when they try to persuade non-believers, and in the end all that's left is violence. I'm also convinced that the majority of humans have a very difficult time separating things like feelings, imagination and dreams from objective reality. Most people I know believe that knowledge of their surroundings can be obtained through those mechanisms. Many even believe that they can learn about far-away places, alternate dimensions, other universes, etc, that way. They combine imagination with personal desire and emotion, and construct a virtual world that becomes their "reality," and as a consequence, they also stop perceiving many details about the real world.

So if the counterfeiter in my example told his customers that he was giving them perfect-looking, undetectable counterfeit money, then it would be acceptable? Imagine a music producer. He spends a lot of time, money and effort to find a good band, get studio time and do the other tasks needed to create a top-selling CD. The resulting recording has value; he is able to selling copies of it in the free market for a price that allows him to recoup his investment and make a profit. He expects the price he can get for his work to fluctuate in the free market. Now someone comes along who makes copies of his recording without his permission and either gives them away or sells them at a low price -- he even tells people that he is providing unauthorized copies. The result is that the music producer is not able to sell as many copies as he could before and that the price he can obtain has declined. The overall value of his work is lower. He has been deprived of that value against his will by fraudulent means. Has a crime has been committed against him? Of course it has.

It's possible for the value of money to decrease in the presence of inflation. Monetary inflation and price inflation are two different things. Something similar to the 19th century happened in the 1920's, prior to the stock market crash. The money supply was being inflated tremendously, and yet prices fell. Japan in the 1990's is another example. Factors in addition to the money supply, such as the demand for money, cash hoarding, import/export balance, general improvements in production, etc, also influence prices.

Inflation, according to Mises at least, is defined as an increase in the money supply. The source of that increase is secondary. The discovery of a lot of gold is inflationary. More gold competing for the same products would cause prices to go up as the value of money went down. Bank lending is also inflationary, for the same reason. The underlying mechanisms of inflation for governments, banks and gold discoveries might be different, but the net economic effect is the same. The same word is used for different, but related, concepts all the time. How about if the equivalent of a central bank were to arise in the market? A large bank voluntarily gets together with other banks and agrees to share reserves. Wouldn't that be a "voluntary banking practice"? I'm not saying that people have a right to a constant value of money. The purchasing power of money, like with any other medium of exchange or commodity, can and does vary with the free market. The moral flaw with FRB stems from the fact that it allows something to be created from nothing. It is that aspect that differentiates FRB from the basic free market, and theft is the end result. How is FRB fundamentally different from counterfeiting? Let's say I open two businesses. In the first one, I accept deposits. I pay interest to depositors and pledge to store their funds securely. In the other one, I print very high-quality counterfeit money. I offer to exchange the money for a promise to repay (a loan), if the borrower agrees to pay a fee (interest). Most people would agree that the actions of the second company are criminal. After all, the money isn't "real". And yet, when the two companies are combined, that is exactly what FRB allows -- only the money that it creates is checkbook money rather than actual notes. Establishing some artificial connection between the deposited funds and the newly created money ("reserves") doesn't make the counterfeiting any less criminal.

Whether it's practical or not doesn't matter if it's not moral. What I meant by a "true gold standard" is that all money in circulation can be redeemed for gold at any time. Since fractional reserve banking creates new money through bookkeeping entries, it cannot exist under that definition. And what is a bookkeeping entry if not "fiat"? Your definition of a "proper gold standard" is really a fractional gold standard, where only some of the money in circulation can be fully redeemed for gold. To me, that's not a gold standard at all. What are the reasons for adopting a gold standard in the first place? Eliminating inflation should be at the top of the list -- which includes the ability of government or banks to debase the currency and for them to steal from net savers. A fractional gold standard doesn't accomplish that. There isn't really a fundamental difference between fractionally-backed money and fiat money, since both can be created in indefinite amounts. You might argue that on a fractional gold standard, at some point there would be market push-back, where people would exchange their currency for gold if it got too diluted by fractional lending or other forms of money creation. That's basically what happened in 1933, when FDR was forced to devalue the dollar against gold, and again in 1971 when Nixon was forced to abandon Bretton-Woods -- it results in a crisis as reserves are withdrawn from the banking system, and it's not conducive to long-term market stability.

Some initial inflation happened that took the fraction from 100% down to some lower number. To say that's acceptable is like saying that it's OK if a thief only steals from you once. It's still immoral. Also, inflation can still happen with a constant reserve fraction, if new reserves are introduced. On a gold standard (without debt-based money), that could happen with increased foreign exchange reserves, for example. Perhaps you have a different definition of the term "economy" than I do. I don't deny that new capital can enter the economy. I do deny that existing capital isn't part of the economy. I don't understand the concept of something existing outside of the economy, provided that its existence is known. Even money buried in my back yard is still in the economy. Of course if I die or forget that it's there, then it's no longer in the economy. Until then, I've made a conscious choice to leave it there, based on the other options available to me. Other potential investments are competing for those funds, so they are still a player in the (dynamic, not static) economy, even though they are owned outright. I agree that more money doesn't need to be printed to create new capital. In the normal circumstance where newly created capital has more value than the money it took to create it, I don't see how that could fail to increase the value of money, given a constant supply. However, that increased value is still the market value. Is that what you mean? What about time deposits? It's possible to have a 100% reserve, where current account depositors pay a regular "management" fee, and interest is only paid on time deposits. What about people who don't keep their money in banks? FRB devalues their holdings, without their consent. Wage earners or those on fixed incomes are similarly damaged. That is not a free market.

Unlimited immigration is not a "form of attack". It's competition. How does immigration threaten anyone's freedom? Aren't the people who were there first still free to choose where they work and to set a minimum on how much they want to be paid? What specific freedoms do you think are impaired? The law of supply and demand says that if more people with the same abilities enter the marketplace, everything else staying equal, then wages will decline. It doesn't interfere with people's ability to do something about it; for example, they can choose not to work at the new, lower wage -- or they can improve themselves to the point where an employer would be willing to pay more -- or they can start their own business. Why would free markets stop applying just because there was an abundance of labor at all skill levels? Why would your ability to bargain be impaired? Your ability to be paid the same amount as before the immigrants arrived might well be impaired, but that is because of the free market, not because the free market doesn't apply. It sounds like you're assuming that there are only a limited number of jobs, and that the unlimited number of immigrants will somehow take those jobs from the people who currently hold them. That's not logical. With an "unlimited" number of immigrants, an "unlimited" number of jobs would be required to provide the materials and services that the new immigrants require. The immigrants would compete for those jobs on the basis of their skills, experience and the pay they're willing to accept. People would still have alternatives.

What problem are you talking about? One of the biggest problems with fractional reserve banking is that it is an enabler of the hidden tax of inflation. Although central banking increases a bank's ability to inflate without suffering a run and going out of business, eliminating the central bank doesn't solve the inflation problem entirely (although inflation is definitely reduced with higher reserves).

Drawn into the economy from where? How is it possible for capital to exist outside of the economy? What you're describing is the process by which inflation distorts capital allocation, in violation of the free market. The supply of capital doesn't increase; it just gets reallocated. The results are the typical booms and busts of the business cycle.

Monetization of assets is not the same thing as creating new money. New money is created by banks all the time backed by nothing more than a promise from the borrower that it will be repaid. Under a full gold standard, FRB isn't possible. A full gold standard means that all currency is redeemable for gold at any time. With FRB, if I deposit $1000 worth of gold, the banking system as a whole can create $9000 worth of new money (assuming a 10% reserve ratio). That new money is entirely inflationary, and as such devalues the money that was previously in circulation. On a gold standard, money is defined in terms of gold: $20 = 1 oz, or something like that -- so obtaining a profit by melting coins isn't as easy as it might seem. However, the gold could be exchanged for a foreign currency -- and in fact that's exactly what happened in the 1920's when the Fed inflated the money supply prior to the Great Depression: the dollar lost value, and huge amounts of gold were moved out of the country as a result. If I buy gas from one company instead of another, my actions are voluntary, and the profits of the companies involved are derived from the free market. I am not taking anything from one company for the profit of another. If I am a net saver and you borrow money from a FRB, you are stealing from me. The value of my money declines, without my consent, through the process of inflation. If you steal from me to feed your family, that "economic action" benefits you, but it's still theft, and it's immoral.

I don't know specifically about eggs, but in general, one of the features of the way the CPI is calculated is something called "hedonic" adjustments. The idea is that if something gets too expensive, consumers will switch to a lower cost alternative. So one explanation for eggs might be that they switched from one type of egg to another -- maybe large AA to small, or something like that. The CPI is a heavily manipulated number. For a more realistic estimate, see the graph below. For a calculator that uses those numbers, see: http://www.shadowstats.com/inflation_calculator It says that $1 in 2000 is worth $2.07 today. Very, very few people are able to "demand" wage increases that match or exceed the real rate of inflation if their work output is constant.

My first objection to FRB is a moral one. A corollary of FRB is that banks are allowed to create new money. In doing so, they reduce the value of all other money through inflation. Net savers are penalized for the benefit of net debtors, which is immoral. I also object to FRB on the grounds of general banking stability. History shows that over the long term, FRB are subject to failure, bank runs, etc. -- central banks were created as a backstop to help limit the damage caused by banking failures. It doesn't appear to be possible to have FRB without central banks, and without the arbitrary fiat money creation that comes with them. My final objection is that FRB requires fiat money. With something like a true gold standard, FRB isn't possible.

That's very helpful; thanks!

Interesting that so many of the attacks against atheism would be based on evolution vs. creationism. I would have suspected a lot of other, more significant issues. In fact, I know a number of very religious people who believe in evolution...

Has anyone read the books by Eckhart Tolle? My wife is really into him at the moment. He's sold something like 3 million books, and has become a celebrity of sorts. I haven't read the books, so I'm sure I don't know the whole story. But I listened to a CD where he's talking about his ideas, and also watched a video by him. From what I can tell, it seems like his basic message is to act based on feelings rather than rational thought. Os that right? Am I missing something?