Frediano

RE: The Money Masters I've had the same interesting reaction recently, talking to folks about arbitrage, and the appearance of once nearly 'risk free' trading. When explained, the universal response has been akin to 'you have to be kidding me?' Caveat emptor; this all may not be complete or comprehensive, but it is close enough to get the 'you have got to be kidding me?' gist of it. So, there exist multiple markets in which the same or similar commodities, or increasingly entities/complex constructs with slightly varying cashflows, are traded at the same moment in time. In spite of the fact that there are pressures -- including true arbitrage itself -- which tend to equalize prices in these varying markets, this equalization occurs imperfectly, and for various durations of time, there can exist differentials of price for 'the same' things in multiple markets. These differences, because of these pressures, are usually small, and don't exist very long, but if a trader could detect and make buy/sell transactions fast enough in both markets, he could effectively make a nominally 'risk free' trade. Because the price differentials are usually small, the only way to make money is to leverage the trades with massive amounts of often borrowed money, or a large pool of OPM, of folks seeking large(over time)returns on a seemingly 'risk free' basis. By using this large pool of managed/borrowed money to make lots of these small difference 'risk free' trades over time, these pools could promise large nearly 'risk free' returns over time. The key words are both 'large' and 'nearly.' One tends to cloud the reality of the other. But of course, these are not totally 'risk free', because there are multiple arbitrageurs making similar plays and watching the same markets, and a given arbitrageur is subject to his own risk of execution speed, and so, the game is fought on the basis of speed of analysis and execution of transactions. But this type of 'true arbitrage' is mostly risk risk free, and serves as the mechanism which equalizes prices in different markets. It's like a price enforcer. Over time, this has become a battlefield over milliseconds and microseconds. This game quickly had pressure to move beyond merely observed fluctuations in the noise(in theory, anyone can do that with fast enough access and silicon) and shifted towards 'mostly' predictable anticipations of fluctuations in the noise based on news analysis(not just the news itself, but the source of the news and the predicted--if possible -- differences in impact on two markets), with now significant added risk to poorly modeled real-time scenarios. Depending now on the time frame of the analysis and trades, this has become 'risk arbitrage.' Not nearly risk free trading. So risk arbitrage models that work 'most of the time' in predicting these things, coupled with speed of execution and forward reach of (risky) analysis, can 'mostly' achieve advantage...until they don't, like LTCM(which clearly wasn't 'risk free' trading.) And because of the leveraging pressure, these misses can be astronomically large, which is the flip side of astronomical hits. And, the specter of disparate and constantly changing real time computer trading models battling each other over millisecond response times to fluctuations in the intelligent guessed at noise sometimes leads to system instability, digital lemmings, and ridiculous rapid fluctuations in prices that bear no reflection to anything real, other than battling computer code executing in real time and making trades untouched by human hands. This barely understood system dynamics problem causes regulators to endlessly reconsider safety valves and automatic trading stops, as crude measures to deal with the worst consequences of this kind of silicone and logic based 'trading.' (It can't be based on real time wetbits because that would be way too slow...) It's crazy sounding to most people, no doubt. But these traders promised and mostly delivered ridiculous returns. And so, not just moneyed folks, but the managers of teachers pension funds, and so on, were drawn to these managed funds. So when the inevitable rainy day came, and the weather was suddenly not sunny and warm in San Diego, like in 1998/LTCM, it wasn't just a bunch of rich guys taking risk looking for ridiculous returns that were going to take a bath, but potentially, the managers of things like state teachers pension funds. So... they cried to the fed, 'save us.' And the fed responded with at least guaranteed backup if not actual payout that time, but no matter, the concept of moral hazard was born. LTCM was worked out without a Fed payout that time, but we were told in 1998, when the backup was only 3.5 billion, that this was a 'once in a hundred year event.' Not ten years later the actual taxpayer bailout of moral hazard was a trillion dollars or so of actual payout. And moral hazard has latched onto the tribe like a social disease, which is an apt metaphor for the socialization of risk. At the peak of the miracle Clinton economies, these folks chasing ridiculous returns couldn't have taken a haircut? That 3.5 billion in 'education' was going to ruin those economies? If not during those economies, then when is market education possible? How do we unwind moral hazard? We seem to be every day winding in exactly the wrong direction. The Money Masters indeed. That was what was wrong with the Fed; it was abused to ruin our economies. Sure thing, some teacher pensions would have taken a spanking for chasing ridiculous returns, and fund manager heads would have been placed on figurative pikes-- as they should have. And, we'd have long forgotten it and moved on. Instead, what good was served by teeing up the much larger national disaster which followed just ten years later? To be clear, at the time, in 1998, a long list of economics academics from top universities signed a statement responding to the administrations report on the LTCM crisis clearly claiming "Don't...stop....no!" and were totally ignored. http://www.luc.edu/orgs/finroundtable/statement99.html Moral hazard, full speed ahead. Have we learned anything, even in 2011?

I think it could be acting consistent with your ethics, and thus, moral, but it depends on an analysis of the ethics involved; the ethical consistency of your actions depends on the morality of the government you are responding to, and the ethical consistency of its actions. I think your question really is, do you have an ethical obligation to follow the laws of a government that acts outside of ethical constraint, and are you moral when you break those laws? IMO, that can't be answered without examining the government as an actor in this conflict. I regard ethics as our analytical foundation, which exists outside of actors as instances of entities which either act or do not act with morality-- an adherence to ethical standards. So morality is an attribute of some actor, while ethics is the analytical study of our foundation of morality. We exist in a political context. In our specific instance, we clearly benefit from the special nature of that collective political context. This is a criticism of Rand's assertion in AS that 'Galt's Gulch' had been 'paid for' by Midas Mulligan with gold or whatever. That was only true within the definition of an expensively obtained political context, the true cost of which was 16 million Americans in uniform leaving 400,000 of themselves in a meatgrinder, and the sacrifices of their families in a nation less than half our present size that borrowed the equivalent of 3T dollars to stand up their own version of soft fascism -- the Arsenal of Democracy -- in a do-or-die confrontation with meat eating totalitarian alternatives. It had to be done. Hitler and the Third Reich was not going to be faced down by a pirate and six of his sharp shooting friends sailing the world in a Hinckley yacht masked by miracle rays. Had the German's shown up in Galt's Gulch, they were not going to be appeased by Midas Mulligan's receipt for the land that he had 'paid for.' His receipt was only worth anything in an expensively established and maintained political context. This can be warped into a kind of paradox of freedom, but it is not. It is true, this nation did embrace totalitarianism -- in the face of totalitarianism -- in a do-or-die act of existential necessity. The paradox is, or should still be, that the people of this nation join together and form a government dedicated ultimately to our mutual right to live free from each other. For that tribal purpose; to deliberately fetter the concept of "tribe uber alles," unless and until threatened by outside tribes claiming "tribe uber alles." It is a principle that in principle can be supported by gays, straights, PETA, meat eaters, businessmen, artists, etc. living under a paradigm of free association,... except for the inevitable still remaining emperor wannabees that erupt from time to time imbued with their really good ideas that require forced association. The difference today is, increasingly, the threat to freedom is internal. The result, I think, of decades of attack across open borders and open campuses by global totalitarian leaning adversaries. We've been over-run with the mid 1800's German philosophers inspired freedom eating disease. For fully half of America, individual liberty is the enemy these days. The attack on freedom no longer unites this nation, as it did in WWII, it divides it. Make no mistake, freedom was academically attacked; a nation that cannot define freedom cannot defend freedom. Freedom ultimately is, freedom from each other, though under clear peer based principles of freedom; freedom is not the right to sprint headlong across the public sphere without regard to the existence of other's freedom. Freedom is the freedom to navigate that public square, mindful of the freedom of others. As peers, living under a model of free association. We ask each other, we don't tell each other. That is, until we are overcome with the trueness of our own religion, be it Social Scientology or any religion, and revert to the urge to grab the guns of state to tell others that "S"ociety is the true God, the state is its proper church, and America must become a theocracy under this religion and run 'The Economy' for the benefit of The "S"ociety, as divined by the elite priests speaking for this latest totalitarian 'it.' We still benefit from our always going to be imperfect political context, and for as long as we do, and for as long as and that extent that it is supportable(ie, acts morally, under ethical standards), we have an ethical obligation to obey its laws. So what are our ethical choices when confronted with the imperfections of our political context, and our ethical disagreements over the actions of our tribe in this political context? What are our ethical choices when we disagree with the actions of the collective/state in our political context on a particular issue? 1] We can act politically to change the political wind on the given issue of disagreement, even as we continue to largely receive benefit from and pay for our political context and obey its laws. 2] We can accede. Pick our battles. Move on. Even as we continue to largely receive benefit from and pay for our political context. Surrender the issue(one of hundreds of issues). Do you take it to the streets on every issue you don't get your way on, or do you pick and choose? Not your only choice. It is entirely possible to say, "I do not agree with everything this state does, and so, I will regard the taxes I pay as paying only for the things that it does that I agree with" and call it a day, and get on with our lives. Because to believe otherwise is to attempt to elevate myself as emperor over what other peers of mine in freedom do agree with and do support with their tax dollars. (Which admittedly has a flaw, if what they agree to is to eat me, but that would be violating a required principle of peer based freedom and would quickly move such an issue further down this list.) 3] Leave. www.privateislandsonline.com. I'm not impressed by 'I can't afford it arguments.' Are you impressed by 'I can't afford it arguments' when someone uses that as an excuse to take what they want? Because, in this political context, it is in fact possible to afford it. That is one of its offered benefits. The above are the ethical choices within (or about to politely leave) a given political context. And, I would argue, the slide of America towards socialism is being fought in the above ethical framework-- even if the politics include lies, deceit, fraud, and propaganda. 4] Scofflaw. Go for it. Stay, accept some benefits, but don't pay for them, in protest of other issues. Self immolation, as protest. Be a pirate. (The existing political context is not going to be handing out Get Out Of Jail Free cards. It is still there, after your protest. Maybe moved to change, and maybe moved to grant itself greater powers. Depends on the nature of the protest, doesn't it? If by a bunch of cranks who've come to the end of their short ropes, then this goes one way. If goaded by their political opponents to half-baked actions, then the political outcome can easily be 180 degrees from their intent. Like, Schumer in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, freshly targeting the Caymans with renewed vigor and greater government powers(McVeigh's effective legacy.) In the face of a sufficiently egregious issue, one that cannot be tolerated, there is one more choice which is beyond political ethics(ethics within a given political context) and in the realm of pure ethics. Depending on the principles being fought for, the pure ethics are subject to analysis, but not the outcome; the outcome is determined by brute force. 5] Megapolitical overthrow. Revolution. Be an effective pirate. But, no half-way here. It's all in, all or nothing. A revolution that rolls the boulder 99% up the hill is a failure; it has to go over the top, and prevail, and establish a new political context with a new ethical foundation requiring defense from those who disagree. Lather, rinse, repeat. I included a hint in 2] at an interpretation of our present political context which suggests a more formal model based purely on free association. But it is immediately somewhat accessible simply with an attitude shift. Imagine if taxation were not only purely voluntary(and thus no longer strictly 'tax' but let's use that as a shorthand)but as well, 100% specifiable as to use. You would imperfectly voluntarily contribute to common government, and could, if you wish, imperfectly direct what your tax dollars were used for. Or, you were free to contribute as 'unspecified' and the same imperfect representative process would imperfectly direct use of those funds as occurs today. In addition, this being a free nation of free people based on free assocation, you were free to, or not, use as the basis for discrimination of your socius(for commerce or fraternity or whatever)knowledge of your socius voluntary contribution of state funding. You would also be free to not require this of your commerce, fraternity, as would those seeking it. If you chose to -- up to you, it's a free nation after all--, you could base your commerce or fraternity on your personal analysis of your socius support or lack of support for any public issues you considered important. Such discrimination may severely restrict your opportunities for commerce or fraternity, but this is a free nation and that is your choice. In this purely hypothetical, you would have recourse to restrict your commerce and fraternity, for example, only to those who either supported or did not support state funding for abortion. If you felt that strongly about that issue, you would have recourse to severely restrict your support of and socius with that portion of the state in total that diasgreed with your position. You could apply this to as few or as many public issues as you wished, life is choices and you live with them. Lather, rinse, repeat. In that purely hypothetical world -- your taxes support only public issues you support, and your socius can be restricted to only those who sufficiently(defined by you)align with your ethics -- would it ever be moral to be a pirate and attack the shipments supported by others who freely disagreed with you? What if the issue is human slavery? We know what happens. The issue is ultimately decided by prevailing via brute force, not ethics. But, what happens to a nation when that same issue is conflated with an orthogonal issue -- slavery to the state? Only one side prevailed in the Civil War, with less than perfect outcome, because those issues are orthogonal but related, and one side championed human slavery, while the other side championed slavery to the state. The Civil War in this nation is not over. We've resolved the issue of human slavery, and are still wrestling with slavery to the state. So there yet may be opportunity to be an ethical pirate. But for sure, as America flirts with its own flavor of totalitarianism, there are increasing ethical opportunities to avoid and finesse laws which are themselves outside of an ethics based on individual freedom and liberty, and fight them with every fiber and resource we have. In this lingering civil war, there is a reason that our economies look more and more like a giant middle finger raised at each other. regards, Fred

Michael: I tend to believe you. It is hard to reconcile months and months of announcements of weekly first time apps for unemployment in the hundreds of thousands per week, coupled with weak announcements of the number of 'jobs created' per month, and conclude that the national unemployment rate is so constant. Especially in a nation with an underlying 1% rate of growth in the population. That 9% has to be a peculiarly arrived at unemployment figure. We are being finessed by numbers that do not add up. But it is for our own good, you see, because economies--sorry, 'The Economy' -- runs on animal spirits, PR, and Madison Ave inspired BS. Here are some more numbers which don't add up. 1] A 1.8%, revised upward to 1.9% annualized growth in GDP was reported for the 1st quarter of 2011. 2] Our deficit last year was about 1.5 trillion dollars, with GDP at around 14 trillion dollars. ie, just over 10% of GDP. 3] During the first six months of the fiscal year just ended in March, which includes the quarter above, that 1.5 trillion deficit was reported to have grown by 15.7%, for an annualized rate of over 30% (without compounding, by simply annualizing.) 5] 1.9% of a 14 trillion dollar GDP is about 266B dollars, annualized, or about 67B for the quarter in 'growth' of GDP. 6] 3% of 14 trillion dollars of that is growth in the deficit, about 420B dollars, or about 105B for the quarter, in 'growth' of the deficit... If the deficit represents about 10% of GDP, and it grew at over 30%, then it alone accounted for over 3% in the rate of growth of GDP; GDP as defined includes government spending includes the deficit. So if the aggregate number was 1.9%, and 3% was due purely to the rate of growth of the federal deficit -- borrowing from the future economies -- then that means the the current economies are actually net contracting. Which is consistent not only with your assertion above, but the following: 1] The number of 'For Sale' and 'Available' signs springing up throughout industrial parks everywhere(with the exception of proximity to DC) 2] The look on Bernanke, Geithner, and Obama's faces whenever they are forced by circumstances to cheerlead the numbers; they don't want to 'talk down' economies already heading SOuth, and yet, 'talking them up' is no substitute for continuing to ride them like bloated parasites. 3] That clear dip visibly shown here: http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp But surely, with all the growth reported in GDP, that GDP should show an uptick when finally updated for 2010 and 2011. Because after all, GDP includes government spending, includes deficit fueled government spending, and that, at least, is growing. There is only a looming problem if we consider what part of the economies are expected to actually pay for that glut of profligate government spending. How are they doing? In the meantime, let's all focus on GDP. Look! It's growing! Never mind that 3% of that growth is growth in the deficit... That's good news, right? That means 'the economy' is growing, right? Uh-oh... Say. Why have we been normalizing things like deficit and government spending to ... a number that includes government spending and the deficit? JFK's America gave him a 100B federal budget in the middle of the Cold War at the peak of the post WWII economies. CPI/inflation adjust: x 7.5 = 750B. Population adjust = barely x2 = 1500B. How do we reconcile today's $3800B to JFK's America $1500B? Are we still in those post WW-II economies? That is some difference. Perhaps we should check our 'constant % of GDP' economic theories, because our economies -- sorry, 'The Economy' -- don't seem to be holding up very well under that model, and as well, governments at every level are now in constant fiscal crisis. How do we got from JFK's 1500B to today's 3800B? We could cut 100% of defense (550B) and still have a long way to go. Medicare in 1966 was 3B. Same CPI/inflation and population adjusted to 45B. Yet, 2011 budget is 466B for Medicare. That is a factor of 10x times 19966 CPI and population adjusted number. We could get rid of 100% of defense, and 100% of Medicare, and still only be down to $2800B. How do we get down to JFK's 1500B? We'd still need to make $1300B in cuts(after eliminating 100% of defense and 100% of Medicare...) How do we explain that size of government over-bloat on our economies, relative to JFK's America at the peak of the Cold War, in the middle of the post WW-II economies? That America provided the worlds best ... everything. Economic opportunities...educational opportunities....infrastructure programs....even, Apollo Moon programs. As well, governments at every level were not in constant fiscal crisis. That is because, enough of those economies were still building beast, not carving carcass. How do any of us explain this? "Expenditures averaged 20.6% GDP from 1971 to 2008, generally ranging +/-2% GDP from that level. In 2009 and 2010, expenditures averaged 24.4% GDP." ... is part of this explanation, but not all of it. regards, Fred

Michael: Saw this today, thought of you: http://blogs.wsj.com/brussels/2011/06/24/brady-bonds-an-exit-for-greece/?mod=WSJBlog&mod=brussels regards, Fred

I clearly have not done that. In my worldview, you are free to give up your freedom, and go live in a totalitarian commune, if that is what is good for you. Or even, wax Amish. Feel free for as long as you want. And yes, I have no hesitation at all in asserting that, because it places no obligation on you to accept my worldview. None. Do you honestly not understand the point here? If a person voluntarily joins a commune and is free to leave at any time, then there is nothing "totalitarian" about that arrangement. It is merely one form of voluntary association among many. Ghs And do you honestly not understand, that is exactly why I condone that voluntary arrangement, because there is nothing 'totalitarian' about that arrangement, that it is merely one form of voluntary association among many? ??? That is exactly what I said. What did you think I said? regards, Fred

Fine. Then you don't really believe that universal, one-size-fits-all value judgments are somehow totalitarian. This leaves me wondering what the point was to all your blustering about Shayne's original question. If ever a mountain was made out of a molehill, this was it. How on earth did you come up the godawful metaphor of "one skin, one driver"? I googled the expression, thinking it might be from an obscure movie or book, but all I found were more repetitions of it by you. I would say that the metaphor is too clever by half, but that would be an unwarranted compliment. Ghs Re: One skin, one driver: They are well understood words, readily bolted together. Original, but not 'patentable.' When I find a more personally usable moral axiom, I will readily trash it. So far, nada. If 'one' is too few drivers, than how many others should we involuntarily surrender the driving of our skins to? Most skins uber alles? One skin uber alles? Some skins uber alles? I have, over the years, noticed a tsunami of leg lifting arguments trying to convince me to surrender my one and only life to implement the worldview of others, but have never understood that as anything other than carny hucksterism. Sometimes, its in the name of God. Other times, its in the name of 'S'ociety, or some other unseen Magic Spirit in the Sky. Always, it is obvious and clumsy leg lifting, high priests borrowing unseen authority safely far away and unseen, and unseeable. It is exactly what happens when you go to some carnivals, and lose your wallet. Like, what goes on at those over-run playgrounds of subsidy and indoctrination, from our salad days. But, many of us move on from college. I'd love to hear your non-godawful pithy alternatives to the godawful "one skin, one driver." And, if you mustered sufficient political argument for your alternatives, I might even be convinced to throw 'one skin, one driver' onto the trash heap, and replace it with your superior vision and argument, so far nowhere in evidence. You 'googled' to find the authority to interpret 'one skin, one driver?' To find someone to tell you what to think of those three words, with 'one' repeated twice? Wouldn't it be better to have 'grokked' instead of googled? Perhaps you disagree with the sentiment. I can live with that, and do. Quite well. Especially since there's been exactly no argument to convince me otherwise. None, zero, nada, zilch. Childish hostility in lieu of actual debate. Another day ending in 'y' on the in-ter-net. regards, Fred

I clearly have not done that. In my worldview, you are free to give up your freedom, and go live in a totalitarian commune, if that is what is good for you. Or even, wax Amish. Feel free for as long as you want. And yes, I have no hesitation at all in asserting that, because it places no obligation on you to accept my worldview. None. It is not a symmetric claim by others that I must also join their totalitarian commune, that what is good for them and theirs is that I give up my freedom. That isn't a mere vanilla/chocolate polite disagreement between us as peers. My advocacy of my own freedom is not subject to public debate. You advocacy of your own is none of my business or concern. That sophistry might sell well in some Freshmen Philo 101 courses, but not with everybody. The practical realpolitick of that worldview is, it wasn't possible to build the walls high enough in East Germany. There weren't enough guard towers and barbed wire to compel folks to buy the 'universal' wisdom of those truths. A proud moment, when a 'superior intellectual paradigm' must resort to thuggery to even try to fly. One free nation could yet survive with 191 totalitarian pissholes on earth. More power to them. But, 191 totalitarian pissholes could not exist as long as there was still 1 free nation on earth. It would not be possible to build the walls high enough. Such is the proud legacy of totalitarian ideas. And a corollary to that is, the capable do not easily surrender the average, no matter how the game is constructivistly rigged. (As in, see 'child-only' health insurance plans, RIP.) In the current many decade long class war, waged now for almost a hundred years in this nation, only one side has showed up to the battlefield. But hey, if the class warriors are happy with the results, I'm happy. Now, excuse me while I go meet with my employees...wait a minute, I've been neither an employee nor employer for over 25 years. What was I thinking? I'd lost it there for a second. In America, since 1992, "It's the economy, stupid!" We live in a centrally planned, command/control 'the' economy these days. And, sure enough, for the last several decades, I've been doing nothing but patiently waiting for instructions from 'The Economy' runners. Sure I have. But, OK. Let's all wait. Shoelaces or Green Potatoes tomorrow? Forget 'Green.' Welcome to the Grey Economies of Waiting... regards, Fred

You appear to believe that freedom is good for everyone. If so, isn't this the kind of universal, one-size-fits-all, freedom-eating statement that "defines Totalitarianism," according to your statements above? Why don't you merely declare that freedom is good for you and refrain from universalizing? We wouldn't want you to lapse into totalitarianism, after all. Ghs Good grief no. There is nothing in my belief system that would preclude 50 people from forming a communist commune in Vermont, and freely giving it the old college try. Again. In fact, there is nothing in my belief system that would preclude 50 people in Alabama from forming a plantation with slave labor-- as long as the slaves freely associated with that universal idea. (If they were in fact involuntary slaves, then in our political context, I'd support showing up and freeing such unwilling partners in slavery.) Plantations. Board rooms. The concept is the same. regards, Fred Your reply merely reaffirms the universal value of freedom. You claim that all human associations should be freely entered into, including voluntary communism and voluntary slavery. (The latter is a contradiction in terms, btw.) My point, therefore, remains the same as it was before, namely: You have no hesitation to assert what is good for every person, and not merely for yourself, when it suits your purpose. Yet this is the kind of universal, one-size-fits-all statement that you condemned as totalitarian. Ghs I claim that all human associations should be freely entered into, and sleep like a baby advocating that. Exactly. And I support the use of state force in response to violations of that principle, and that principle only. If others want to justify the alternatives to that -- slavery, forced association, coercion, etc., then let them justify that, and let them wear it, too. Proudly, as I do my advocacy of freedom. Without a moment's doubt. There is a clear moral axiom -- violation of 'one skin, one driver' -- that I can personally apply to justify the use of state force. (State force ultimately does not require sanction, it just is. I am referring only to my personal sanction of its use, as in, a political/philosophical argument in support of.) It is easy to apply, in the cases of slavery, coercion, murder, rape, stealing, fraud -- the foisting of crap as value, etc. And it is equally easily applied when someone shows up with specious arguments based on the 'quintile/decimile/percentile' distribution of income in America to apply the use of guns to forcefully redistribute 'quintile' statistics, or some similar Marxist gibberish. I'm still waiting...after 20 years of asking the same question -- for one of the quintile social justice warriors to illustrate a single example of either of the following: 1] An example of an economic entity acting primarily as a 'quintile.' 2] An example of any individual acting primarily as a member of a 'quintile.' And yet, I'm assured that 'quintiles' are real. They exist, after all, in the Excel spreadsheets at Census. Well, then it shouldn't be difficult to dream up just one example of what I am asking for. In exasperation, I don't even limit the request to 'real' examples. Any lost episode of 'Star Trek' would do. How do 'quintiles' acts as economic actors? Alas, it is easier to find pictures of UFOs and BigFoot on the in-ter-net than it is for the social justice warriors to come up with an example of 'quintiles' acting as economic actors. And since that is the basis for all the 'redistributive science', that science clearly has no basis, and so, is not justification for the use of real state guns aimed at real individuals to adjust the 'quintile' distribution of anything. I think the advocates of redistribution should feel free to make all the arguments and advocacy for that they want. Including "we are our brother's keepers." Including "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." In church. On the commons. At my front door, when I freely answer the door and freely engage with them, as here. And, if their arguments are intellectually sound, if they are poltitically convincing, then I will freely associate and contribute to their cause. And when they fail in that polite debate, and reach instead for the guns of state, I will do what I've done for the past 25 years, and simply dodge the fork to the best of my abilities, and sleep like a baby. regards, Fred

Wow, something we actually agree on. Shayne The Amish are relieved that you agree to their voluntary form of association. That is, they would be, if they knew you agreed. Funny thing about the Amish. I live within minutes of some of them, and not once have they insisted I live according to their vision, or accessed the guns of government to impress their True Believer Religious Views on Mankind. They are very respectful of 'one skin, one driver.' As I imagine that theoretical communist commune in Vermont would be. regards, Fred

You appear to believe that freedom is good for everyone. If so, isn't this the kind of universal, one-size-fits-all, freedom-eating statement that "defines Totalitarianism," according to your statements above? Why don't you merely declare that freedom is good for you and refrain from universalizing? We wouldn't want you to lapse into totalitarianism, after all. Ghs Good grief no. There is nothing in my belief system that would preclude 50 people from forming a communist commune in Vermont, and freely giving it the old college try. Again. In fact, there is nothing in my belief system that would preclude 50 people in Alabama from forming a plantation with slave labor-- as long as the slaves freely associated with that universal idea. (If they were in fact involuntary slaves, then in our political context, I'd support showing up and freeing such unwilling partners in slavery.) Plantations. Board rooms. The concept is the same. regards, Fred ??? Now I get it. You thought my view of 'freedom' was like a vanilla alternative to the chocolate of totalitarianism. No, I think I've been clear on my axiom. "One skin, one driver." Not "my skin uber alles." Not "most skins uber alles." I'll leave the alternatives for others to justify, when they come knocking on my skin to justify their naked agression. I'm not telling anyone not to go form the next failed Marxist pisshole on earth.

Your universal answer is to avoid universal answers. I get it. You're a walking contradiction and a hypocrite. And it is contradictions in basic ideas and with reality that leads to totalitarianism, not questions about how we might voluntarily work toward liberty (as many have in the past). You haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. You just have a hot-button item on "universality" and "one-size-fits-all" and this nonsense has worked its way to the core of your psycho-epistemology, such that you can't even have rational conversations anymore, you can't read without what you see being distorted through this pure nonsense. Shayne My universal answer is to qualify universal answers. If they are consistent with 'one skin, one driver', if they are consistent with free association and do not involve forced association, then you got my vote. regards, Fred

in response to what I said, in total: Freely claim universality all you want. In church. On the commons. At my front door, when I freely answer the door and engage with you, as here. Just, in the full context of what I actually wrote, stop short of advocating the implementation of forced association to impress those religious beliefs on others. As in, stay away from the guns of state with any such religious based beliefs in universality, beyond the basic tenets of freedom. An expensively maintained free political context does not and should not freely embrace ideas and concepts that are tantamout to the destruction of a free political context. That is not a paradox, that is not a conundrum, that is common sense. I did not say YOU the person did that, or even, advocate the forced association of your claims of universality on others. I have no idea if you the person do or do not, my bias would be, since you are posting here at this instance of free association that you do not. regards, Fred

This is just basic logic: The subset of answers to: 1] "Why am I here? What am I supposed to be doing now as a result of that?" includes the possibility of the subset of answers to 2] "Why are we here? What are we supposed to be doing now as a result of that?" that imply only universal answers to those questions. "Universal, OneSizeFitsAll answers only" 2] is clearly the more restrictive, freedom eating alternative. (It in fact defines Totalitarianism.) As long as the answers to 1] are modulated by the morality of 'one skin, one drive', I can sleep like a baby advocating it. Freedom ultimately means, freedom from each other, except via free association. So feel free. That you can find 'Nazi thug' in any of that is perplexing. The only conclusion I can reach is, I squarely hit a nerve. You've taken personal offense to some idea I've expressed. I get it, we disagree. I can live with that. Well. regards, Fred

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater (and calling it an insane evil foolish fool narcissist as he does so) is Shayne "The Borderline Personality" Wissler's biggest hobby. In fact, he even created this thread after killing the last one where patents were being discussed. TED; It's good to read your stuff again. regards, Fred

DP

For all I knew, Shayne was ridiculing the same 'this group of geniuses' as I was. I have characterized such as 'paternalistic megalomania', and I have linked 'paternalism' to 'the Fatherland' and the kind of paternalistic megalomania which characterized 20s Gernamny and the Great Volksgemeinschaft. If I am one of the boys mentioned above who has called anybody anything, can you refer me to the post where I directed any such insult at Shayne the person? If so, I will immediately off to remove it and replace it with an apology to Shayne the person. regards, Fred You are 100% pure whacko. The only point in my phrasing it the way I did was to say "what is the best possible approach that the most intelligent sensible people might come up with for freeing us from this tyranny that runs across the globe." George Smith, reasonable person that he is, interpreted my question in a sane manner and in the intended manner. Could I have asked a better-phrased question? Sure. But that doesn't give you license to read like a deranged lunatic. Shayne You phrased the question perfectly, and exactly identified the freedom-eating urge that runs through 'mankind.' It is precisely the overwhelming urge one feels at 3am in the dorm, when one is overwhelmed with the latest incarnation of The True Religion Truth, sufficient to cause one to launch the latest crusade to Save Mankind -- by ruling it -- that is the freedom eating disease. It is precisely characterized by the phrase 'Paternalistic Megalomania.' It is sophistry to characterize the ideas of freedom promulgated by this nation's founders without fully acknowledging what those ideas mean, in their full context. They were not advocating endless campaigns by self-proclaimed elites to 'save mankind' by ruling it. They were brilliant in creating the 1st Amendment, and referring to 'religion' and not 'Christianity' or any big 'R' 'R'eligion, and making that the first amendment in a bill of individual rights, not a bill of collective rights. There are many instances of big 'R' religions, but that isn't the Congressional prohibition in the 1stA: the prohibition is regarding the meta-concept 'religion.' Resulting in a kind of conundrum reflected by no such definition in the US Code, from even defining 'religion.' Not even with a ten foot pole will one find "The term 'religion' shall mean..." anywhere in the US Code. But this is not a practical problem because of the 1stA in total. Congress has no need to define 'religion' for any purpose--including, the curious act of prohibiting it's free exercise anywhere in America. Which begs the question, when anyone petitions government to remove 'religion' from the public commons, on what basis does government rule that the activity either is or isn't 'religion?' Does our government maintain a list of some kind? Approved religions? Not even in the IRS code. Not even with a ten foot pole. Must the petitioners themselves actually believe that the religion in question is 'real?' (Athiests..no.) Is there a God-O-Meter of some kind involved, that tests the 'validity' of supernaturtal beings, such that Congress 'knows' that the Christian God is a 'real' supernatural God, but the Gods of Theatre or Football or Durkheim's foaming at the mouth "S"ociety are 'unreal' supernatural Gods? But that statutory conundrum is just interesting, not nearly the point of religious freedom. The prohibition is very broad -- against the meta-concept 'religion,' not a particular 'R'eligion, an instance of freely definable 'religion.' So, what is the meta-concept 'religion?' It is not nearly as simple as 'belief in a supernatural being or God' or else Taoism is not religion. It clearly overlaps philosophy as a meta-concept, and literally does so in many universities. The fact is, in our political context, I don't get to define 'religion' for you. And, vice versa. Lather, rinse, repeat. Feel free in any instance of religion to worship Tuna fish. Or "S"ociety, for that matter. Knock yourself out. But in our political context, with its individual BoR, I and a sufficiently motivated gang of my fraternity brothers don't get to define it for you, even as you are free to freely associate with as many like minded Tuna/"S"ociety worshippers as you see fit. At least until this becomes the Tuna Theocracy. We would not be fooled if a bunch of Tuna worshipping long liner fishermen suddenly showed up with "Tuna Scientology" and foisted that as "science/not a religion" to become the basis of a national Tuna Theocracy. On the other hand, if a bunch of "S"ociety worshipping Social Scientologists pulled the same stunt, we might actually fall for it, and did, over a hundred years ago. For me only, I define the meta-concept 'religion' as a philosophical peer concept: Any conscious pondering of the questions, "Why am I here, and what am I supposed to be doing now as a result of that?" Individually, we all answer those questions by living our lives--even when we don't consciously ask the questions, we answer them. Our lives, in the end, are the answer to those questions. (Which is the genius of making that prohibition the 1stA in an Individual BoR, in the constitition of Liberty.) But when we consciously ponder those questions and apply the answers to our lives, we are engaged in the meta-concept 'religion.' I chose the form of those questions carefully. Notice that I do not bias 'religion' by posing those questions in the following aggressive form: "Why are we here, and what are we supposed to be doing now as a result of that?" That form of those questions presupposes that there is a singular answer, for 'all of mankind', to those questions. That is a particular instance of a religious belief-- a particularly virulent, freedom eating, infectious instance. The unsubstantiated belief that there exists a single answer for all of mankind to those fundamental questions of 'religion' is a naked assertion by some of those who set out to answer those questions for all of mankind. In order to rule it, even if it is deeply religiously believed, 'for its own good.' That is the freedom eating paternalistic megalomania of elites, smitten with The True Religion. Under our political context and definition of individual freedom, free association is possible, and folks who freely share answers to those questions are freely able to associate, and more power to them. But, it is a naked act of political aggression for any such religion to claim universality to those answers, sufficient to advocate the implementation of forced association in order to impress those religious beliefs on others. The fundamental individual answering of those questions are the very foundation of 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,' and the naked assertion that there are universal answers impressible upon all of mankind is exactly the freedom eating disease that freedom must be defended from. All of which is easily wrapped up in 4 words: "one skin, one driver." Which condones neither 'my skin uber alles' nor 'most skins uber alles.' Which embraces free association, and condemns forced association. And, phrasing that as 'one skin, one driver' readily illuminates the alternatives for what they are, which are, naked acts of agression by others against individuals. regards, Fred

My comments were directed at 'this group of geniuses' who 'believe that it is in their own interest to advance mankind in the best way they can devise' in the following post. For all I knew, Shayne was ridiculing the same 'this group of geniuses' as I was. I have characterized such as 'paternalistic megalomania', and I have linked 'paternalism' to 'the Fatherland' and the kind of paternalistic megalomania which characterized 20s Gernamny and the Great Volksgemeinschaft. If I am one of the boys mentioned above who has called anybody anything, can you refer me to the post where I directed any such insult at Shayne the person? If so, I will immediately off to remove it and replace it with an apology to Shayne the person. regards, Fred

I understood them clearly. They understood the essence of freedom. It is the single concept, the one rallying theme that gays, straights, artists, atheists, priests, businessmen, vegans, meateaters, pacifists, military, criminals, cops, musicians, plumbers, accountants, stock brokers, rodeo clowns, students, teachers, ... and Amway salesmen can all possibly line up behind, sufficient to dedicate their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, etc: The right to be free from each other. The right to participate in free, not forced, associations. Certainly, not forced associations dreamed up by self-proclaimed social geniuses, intent on working out their paternalistic megalomania tendencies on the others. They need to relax: one skin is plenty to run. No matter how good it all sounded at 3am in the dorm one night, when 'The Truth' visited the religiously delusional and their plans for "S"ociety/mankind/others...call paternalistic megalomania what you will. Religiously delusional? Where did I get that? From the "still seminal" Emil Durkheim, and his, no, not a footnote, but prominently in his summary at the end of Formes: Society is not at all the illogical or a-logical, incoherent and fantastic being which has too often been considered. Quite on the contrary, the collective consciousness is the highest form of psychic life, since it is the consciousness of consciousness. Being placed outside of and above individual and local contingencies, it sees things only in their permanent and essential aspects, which it crystallizes into communicable ideas. At the same time that it sees from above, it sees farther; at every moment of time it embraces all known reality; that is why it alone can furnish the minds with the moulds which are applicable to the totality of things and which make it possible to think of them. ...excuse me, I have to get some air. All that nutcake religious fervor is making me a little woozy. Free people are constantly assaulted by the foaming at the mouth visions of the self-anointed 'geniuses' -- just like Durkheim, when he rolled his eyes into the back of his head and delivered the only honest definition of "S"ociety (an alternative religious totem for 'mankind' when a religious nut is lifting his leg and trying to speak on behalf of Magic Spirits in The Sky.) I wasn't kidding about that telethon. We should throw telethons, not elections. There is a cure out there somewhere. regards, Fred

How will I ever survive?

I take it you don't watch the news. Shayne We don't hold telethons for Paternalistic Megalomania: we hold elections. We don't hold telethons for Paternalistic Megalomania: we hold people at gunpoint, take their money, and use it to make the world a "better" place, all while pretending that the elections confer consent to take such criminal actions. What you think this has to do with the thread at hand, who knows. Shayne It was a direct response to the command: I have only one personal moral axiom against which I weigh the thoughts and actions of myself and others: "One skin, one driver." That does not include 'my skin uber alles', nor does it include 'most skins uber alles.' Neither does it preclude free association, though it does preclude forced association. I can sleep well with that axiom guiding my personal moral and ethical decisions. So, when someone starts out with the must have it premise of "geniuses who beleive that it is in their own interest to advance MANKIND in the best way they can devise," I recognize the self-awarded necessary carte blanch at the foundation of every million corpses ever found rotting under the Sun: "We do this not for us, but for MANKIND." It is clearly a sign of paternalistic pa·ter·nal·ism (p-tûrn-lzm) n. A policy or practice of treating or governing people in a fatherly manner, especially by providing for their needs without giving them rights or responsibilities. pa·ternal·ist adj. & n. pa·ternal·istic adj. pa·ternal·isti·cal·ly adv. megalomania meg·a·lo·ma·ni·a (mg-l-mn-, -mny) n. 1. A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence. 2. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions. as in, 'advance MANKIND in the best way they can devise.' and the balance of free people, when they sniff this running loose AGAIN, need to get out the Lysol and CLorox and assert "Hey geniuses: one skin is enough. Run it well." Fatherland: See 20's Germany and the birth of the following song: Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, Über alles in der Welt, Wenn es stets zu Schutz und Trutze Brüderlich zusammenhält. Von der Maas bis an die Memel, Von der Etsch bis an den Belt, |: Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, Über alles in der Welt! :| Germany, Germany above all, Above all in the world, When, for protection and defence, it always takes a brotherly stand together. From the Meuse to the Memel, From the Adige to the Belt, |: Germany, Germany above everything, Above everything in the world. :| Second stanza Deutsche Frauen, deutsche Treue, Deutscher Wein und deutscher Sang Sollen in der Welt behalten Ihren alten schönen Klang, Und zu edler Tat begeistern Unser ganzes Leben lang. |: Deutsche Frauen, deutsche Treue, Deutscher Wein und deutscher Sang! :| German women, German loyalty, German wine and German song Shall retain in the world Their old beautiful chime And inspire us to noble deeds During all of our life. |: German women, German loyalty, German wine and German song! :| Third stanza (Germany's National Anthem) Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit Für das deutsche Vaterland! Danach lasst uns alle streben Brüderlich mit Herz und Hand! Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit Sind des Glückes Unterpfand; |: Blüh' im Glanze dieses Glückes, Blühe, deutsches Vaterland. Unity and justice and freedom For the German fatherland! For these let us all strive Brotherly with heart and hand! Unity and justice and freedom Are the pledge of fortune; |: Bloom in this fortune's blessing, Bloom, German fatherland. :| "Das Lied der Deutschen" or "The Song of the Germans"), has been used wholly or partially as the national anthem of Germany since 1922. 20's Germany Volksgemeinschaft + dead German phioposophers from the 1800s = the dung heap. Is it possible to dig up dead German philosophers from the 1800s-- 'the 'geniuses' who yet foul the body politic today with their 'for mankind' nonsense -- and freshly hang and bury them a second time, for all the damage they have done to actual living breathing individuals, in the name of their God "S"ociety? As in, "S"ociety is God, and the state is its proper church. social scientology-- the vampire religion that dare not ever speak its own name in the light of day. regards, Fred

Let's play the NAKED ASSERTION in-ter-net drinking game, where folks who merely disagree resort to paternalistic megaolamnia leg lifting over perfect strangers. The burden of proof lies on the person who advocates the first use of force. I have no objection to this formulation, it's exactly the same as what I've been saying. You want to focus on the least important case[NAKED ASSERTION1]- for the obvious reason that you have no logical answer to me.[NAKED ASSERTION2] Here is the most important case[NAKED ASSERTION3]: If person A thinks of an idea, and person B independently thinks of the same idea, there is no apparent force upon A from B. Further, B was just thinking on his own, independently, he was using his mind, and then transforming matter according to his own independent thoughts -- he was acting in a totally rational, life-sustaining manner -- and yet you would punish him for it.[NAKED ASSERTION4] And you have no proof. Just mouth-foaming[NAKED ASSERTION5] (the portion of your post I snipped). That makes you someone who provides aid and comfort to criminals.[NAKED ASSERTION6] Note how little reference to principles or logic you make in your post.[NAKED ASSERTION7] About 95% of your post[NAKED ASSERTION8] -- and I do not exaggerate[NAKED ASSETION9] -- is artistic puffery devoid of logic.[NAKED ASSERTION10] This isn't fiction-writing class Frediano, this is a serious matter of individual rights violations. Shayne I(and nobody else, either)can't see inside your mind to divine your innermost secrets and motivations. I have no idea if you independently thought of the same idea, or are merely claiming to have independently thought of the same idea. Therefore, I and others must rely on the objective truth of, who thought of and made the effort to register that same idea first. (One of the reasons for being for the patent system is exactly to permit original thinkers to fully publicly disclose their orignal thoughts, to make them generally available and published without fear of the, yes, when you're right, you're right, unprovable to anybody 'me-too!' claims of second-handers As you say, there is a burden of 'proof' that second-handers are unable to come up with, else any idiot could simply claim "I independently thought of that...but was just too lazy to register it." When truly original thought patent ideas are diclosed, as opposed to held as trade-secrets, others freely benefit from publicly seeing the ideas, which is not the same thing as claiming "I independently thought of exactly the same thing." Patent is an incentive -- a reward -- for publicly disclosing ideas that could just as well be closely held as trade secrets. Witholding that reward -- to folks who do not make the effort -- is not 'punishment.' Until and if you originally think of a way to read peoples inner most secrets(if you do, then p;atent it), I'm going to have to put my personal 'one skin, one driver' seal of approval -- important only to me-- on a scheme that relies on objective evidence of ownership. And for all those too late geniuses out there that independently thought of great ideas --- after someone else made them public knowledge -- I can only say "life's a bitch and the hours are terrible." And for the tiny sliver of folks who actually simultaneously thought of the same 'patentable' idea at the very same moment, and just lost the rush to the patent office, I can only say "Think faster next time, bust a gut. The rewards go to those who do." If we had a rational patent system -- where only truly innovative, complex, and new ideas were patentable, the probability of this latter event is 1 in ten to the 60th(NAKED ASSERTION11). regards, Fred

I take it you don't watch the news. Shayne We don't hold telethons for Paternalistic Megalomania: we hold elections.

The burden of proof lies on the person who advocates the first use of force. There is no such burden on the person who advocates superior violence, aka self defense, which is what a rational patent system should be. The problem is, ours is not a rational patent system. You seem to be arguing that the concept itself is flawed -- that the creative efforts of others are open to steal without a second thought, and that they must somehow defend their self-defense from such naked agression. In this instance, stealing would be the first use of force. Intellectual property is property. I know, especially when 100% of ones life is spent at some fully subsidized academic caccoon living off of OPM, listening to Dust Bunny radicals(they collect up at these caccoons of pure subsidy like Dust Bunnies collecting up under a nice, warm, safe bed), it is painless to take on radical thoughts like 'private property is an myth' and so on. But such fringe radical pure nonsense is easy to spout, when living off of daddy's dollars on campus and sacking out in mom's basement when home for the holidays. It is practically a cliche, the kind of precious 'vanguard of a new era' naivete that is looked backwards on with embarrassement. Those 'ideas' are nothing more than the infoctrination aimed at young eager to please adults away from home for the first time in their lives, anxious to sit up and please the in loco parentis spouting their Dust Bunny U. radical gibberish. Richard Stahlman? Are you kidding me? There is a reason that Western universities are over-run with pure radical gibberish, and it is a patently obvious reason. From long before you and I were born. The reason is obvious and trivial to understand. Open country, with open borders and historically open campuses, places of near complete academic freedom. A long term global conflict with totalitarian leaning adversaries. Of course they attacked the West by way of our open borders and open universites! What would possibly have stopped them? Goodwill? Our open borders? That sense of complete academic freedom--which through sophistry, was turned around to incluse advocacy and tolerence of freedom eating ideas? Of course Marxism should have been freely studied on American campuses -- just like cancer, with the hope for a cure someday. But not as the its just vanilla alternative to its just chocolate freedom in America. From long before when you and I were born. The debate isn't even with the current wave of instructoids lurching out of these inbred centers of indoctrination. The debate is with those who instructed those who instructed those who instructed those who instructed the current wave of instructoids, rotely spouting back their radical gibberish and too many of whom go on to infest our law schools and law firms and the institutions and machinery of state which was exactly the point of that attack from long ago. We didn't win the Cold War, we caught too much of the Cold. Because in our implementation of patents, they have been handed out for anything at all, creating property rights in most cases out of thin air--and in so doing, destroying the concept of 'property rights.' As if that wasn't exactly the intent. Especially so in the area of software patents. I think once patents are awarded for the concepts of 'generally programmable machines,' then the myriad instances of 'generally programming' those machines had better be truly susbtantive and unique ideas before someone is awarded a patent for having simply 'generally programmed' them. So, other than a tiny handfull of truly unique and significant ideas -- something of the order of LZV compression, or Catmull Rom smoothing or truly innovative search algorithms, the awarding of software patents for mere application of well known concepts and ideas is what has led to the current mess. It came down to the patent office either did not have the first clue as to what it was looking at in most cases, or, this was a deliberate destruction of the patent system by activist aparatchiks. In an irony of ironies, after a decade or more of singing the OpenSOurce hosannahs, Sun sells Java to Oracle and the courts are once again busy sorting out 'information wants to be free.'

Orqanize a telethon for Paternalistic Megalomania? With their help, we could finally find a cure.

The flaw in the current patent system is not the concept of original inception. The flaw is in the totally willy-nilly methodology used to grant 'patents' for truly trivial and obvious configurations of pre-existing concepts. Software patents have been especialy clueless in this regards. There was a point when some genius was granted a 'patent' on the concept of placing a box around text. Whovever designed this control is 'violating' hundreds of such patents. (Far more than actual elements on this control...) Essentially, in the current wild-wild-west of patent law, lawyers are granting other lawyers rights to sue and countersue, period. The only reason to hold patents these days is as prophylactics against the inevitable claims of infringement by lawyered up carcass carvers out to carve an easy buck. Patent law no longer has anything to do with protecting legitimately original thought, or the rights of legitimate original thinkers, it is all about making sure that lessor minds will have a legal means of attacking new, innovative thought and riding it on the basis of claims of 'patent infringment.' Patent law is a total mess, serving only deadwood carcass carvers. Look in any yellow pages under 'inventors.' (ha!) Now, look under 'attorneys.' (not a laughing matter...) Like eels, carp, and other bottom feeders, swarming at the bottom over the occasional scraps of dead fish that happen to fall into the swarm. Don't ask why. On average, we're average.