Comical discomfort with the human body.

This is outrageous and funny all at the same time:




The poor guys just trying to get his morning pick-me-up and suddenly the cops are involved. I personally think its obvious enough that this was not crime that the arresting officers should be liable for grief they've caused the guy. It sounds like the state has zero chance of convicting him, but it could be an interesting jump off point for a discussion of property rights. The guy was in his own home on his own property. The person who saw him was IN HIS YARD. She was peering into his home early in the morning. What obligations does a person have the power to impose on you without your knowledge simply buy peeping into your window? How does the fact that she was and is free to make it a habit not to look into people homes apply to the question? How would the situation change if she was standing on the public right of way? Would it change at all? What percentage of people do you suppose could be arrested for the same crime of daring to be naked in their own home without bolting all the shudders? My guess is its north of 99.99% and the people aren't guilty likely have some deep seated issues.

BTW by what stretch of the imagination are we supposed to believe that the mere, momentary sight of another human being sans clothing could somehow damage either the woman or the little boy?

We're all just folks, one built same as the last. If you don't like the view move along.

The Buisiness of Marriage 2 - The Plot Thickens

Posted as a comment on The Business of Marriage

On the surface, it might appear as though the State's authority to approve a marriage is required because of its needed involvement when things go south in a bad marriage. Legal separation, custody battles, the traditionally-required alimony become the State's problem when two not-so-happy-ever-after-the-wedding parties decide to break up a marriage. So we can try to conclude right here that a State needs to authorize a union just so it can "fairly" unauthorize it.

"But aha", cry Apos and Trisco (they both actually and separately did, when I presented this argument to them), "why can't marriage then be just like another business contract? A contract that can be drawn up between two separate parties, albeit with a notary present, and doesn't require a license , State's approval, definitely no tax breaks and can still be a legal basis for fairness when the parties break the contract!"

That's a great point. So why can't a marriage just be a business contract? Lets dig deeper.

A marriage is a legal union of two individuals. The State has to be in the dirty business of this union because it has put itself in the dirty business of approving of who is legally an individual! The State is in one's life to begin with (that's right ...at the moment when you were born and had no idea of what's right and what's wrong - in the hospital...right after you blink your pretty little eyes at your loving mom). Must to Realism's outrage and Nihilism's delight, you don't really exist as an individual until the State grants you an existence license in the form of a birth certificate. And in fact, it's even consistent in handing out a nice tax break, albeit to your parents, for your recent appearance in this world. The State is there to begin with - without this birth certificate, you cannot get a drivers license, a passport or hell, even a marriage license. Since we all have implicitly accepted this power of the State to authorize the existence of an individual, by extension we have to accept (damn, logically, for rationality's sake, we have to demand !) the State's power to grant the union of two individuals as a single entity (and again by extension, demand a tax break for the same).

You cannot drink, travel, drive, earn, move, own, marry, and technically exist, without the State's consent.

Realism squirms and Nihilism shrugs as we walk away with our driver's license secure in our pockets.

ps: As a side note, it is very interesting how the tax breaks encourage the traditional role of a female as a home-keeper. The tax breaks, when filing as a couple, help only those whose incomes are very lopsided (maximized when only one person earns). In fact, if you have a spouse who makes the same amount (albeit extremely low), you are better off filing separately. Being single, why do I know this? Coz,I am suspicious of Govts. trying to nudge the masses. With nudge comes power (and we all know with great power comes current squared times resistance :P). And marriage is a classic instance of this.

What Is Property?

When it comes to property rights, it is easy for me to follow the logic that when you CREATE something, like a sword or a painting or a piece of furniture, that it belongs to you*. I can also follow the logic that when you trade what someone has created at some agreed price, that it now belongs to you. However, I have a difficult time following the logic of land rights, or rights to anything that none of us created. Anyone have an opinion about this? I would love to be able to understand this better!

*you can be an individual or an organization

What Do You Deserve?

We live in a world where everyone talks about how the weak deserve food, deserve money, deserve happiness.. that it is our moral obligation to make sure that they get these things. But what about those people who create their own wealth, who create their own means to food and who create their own means to happiness.... why do we think that these people don't deserve to keep what they have created?

Mental vs. Physical pain.

I often hear the idealogy (and I am paraphrasing) : “People should be free to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn’t hurt an innocent third party” .

I really like this idealogy, and I feel it is the correct ideaology to have -- deep down this rings true in my soul. However, as a practical man, and a man who thinks about how to implement this in a government, I sometimes ask very pressing, even annoying questions about what this means. We cannot build a government on what we “feel” is right, but rather must have a logical and rational basis for our beliefs.

To this end, I’d like to discuss the concept of “hurt”. What does it actually mean? “To hurt” is defined as “1) cause physical pain or injury to; 2) cause mental pain or distress to; 2) feel mental pain or distress; 4) be detrimental to” accodeing to the dictionary on my Macbook.
We can see two key things in the definition of hurt, physical and mental pain or distress. Let’s focus on these two.

In physical pain or injury, there is some impediment that causes an inability to act in a manner that one sees fit. If someone breaks my leg, it means that I cannot walk or run, even if I want to. for instance. To a large extent we are very familiar with what physical pain and injury means.

However, the same is not true for mental pain or distress. Suppose I tell someone that they are ugly, we can kind of intuit that this causes mental pain or distress. However it is much more complicated because we don’t actually see the effect on the person directly, but must see it through their actions and behaviors.

Now, whenever I discuss the idealogy above, I am always flummoxed by why physical pain is almost always the only definition of hurt that is considered. Oftentimes, mental pain is said to be something that can be “just gotten over”. But I think if we take a deeper look things are not as clear.

First, who says that mental pain can be just gotten over? If so, the area of psychology would not exist, and people would be able to get over experiences from their childhood easily -- but clearly not. Painful incidences and memories permeate the present and influence behavior -- and some, people, if not all, cannot control how these past incidents influence and bias their current decision making.

Secondly, if we look at the biology of the brain, aren’t memories stored in neurons? Thus memories change the physical nature of the brain by causing certain neurons to fire etc. Now if someone sets your neurons in a particular way which causes you to not be able to do what you want, then isn’t that a physical hurt akin to a breaking of the leg? Perhaps we cannot set the neurons to certain values, but we can say stuff to the person and that could set the neurons.

As I said, I really like the idealogy stated above and I want this idealogy to become more prominent in the government. However to do so, we will have to ask the hard questions and not rely on just our intuition to tell us what is “hurt” and what isn’t -- as always, we should let rationality and logic be our light. And by we, I mean all those who believe in this idealogy and want to see it shine forth, of which I count myself one.

The Business Of Getting Married

First of all let me say that I am a romantic at heart and the idea of a forever after with your true love sounds wonderful, and I might even go "awwww". But then reality dawns on me of the dirty business of getting married. I say "dirty" because of the involvement of the state in terms of issuing marriage licenses. Um, can I ask WHY in the world is this the business of the state?? It seems ridiculous to me that the government has monopolized this industry of marriages. Not to mention their tax breaks and other benefits of marriage, which certainty create incentives for us to get married. And why exactly should I pay less in taxes if I am married? Or more in taxes if I am not married? I also say "dirty" because I ask myself "what is the point of marriage?" and it is nothing but setting a contract with another person that you will be there for them in x, y and z situations, and establishing a power-of-attorney-type-exchange. In which case, WHY WHY WHY is this something that the state needs to be involved in?

Perhaps at one time in the distant past, people believed that marriages, in this type of contract form, would ensure that they creates a stable family.. but really does this even exist anymore? With the insanely high divorce rates and prenuptial agreements to get ready for divorce before getting married.. it is difficult to argue that marriages create a stable family.

Please enlighten me with your positive views towards marriage so that I can be less cynical about it. :)

Healthcare "Raises"

Here is a beutiful chart from econompicdata:

The real costs and benefits is essentially health care. If you were given the choice, wouldn't you rather have the cash? The sad part is most of this rise is inflating health care costs, not more or better health care.

Frankly, banks own the place!

Some time ago, in a breathless freak-out over Bailouts (If I get to thinking about it, I practically hyperventilate with anger and frustration at the sheer multi-leveled injustice of it all, so lately I try not to.) I asserted that your congress and senate are bought and payed for. I gave you links to some undigested data to figure this out for your self.

Now straight from Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL):

"Frankly, banks own the place."

And from Collin Peterson, Chairman of the Agriculture Committee:

“The banks run the place. I will tell you what the problem is — they give three times more money than the next biggest group. It’s huge the amount of money they put into politics.”

If its not enough to hear it straight from the horses mouth, this morning on The Big Picture, I came across some truely great linkage (Seriously, read this and follow a few links!) that more obviously makes the case.

I would just like to highlight something:
This is not freedom. This is not laissez faire. This is not capitalism. This is people buying government interference on their behalf to protect them from competition and their own failures. If we want to keep our freedom, bailout can not be tolerated.

A few of my favorite bits:

Also here is a excel file with that shows how much TARP recipients gave to congress, with a calculation of their absurd return on investment.