SelfishReasons.com

There are so many problems with this story.

While driving home from work today, I had my radio on our local NPR station to hear about the plight of L.A. Teachers who are facing “budget cuts.”  (I put that in quotes for a reason.)

After that story, I could not tell you what else was on the radio.  I was too obsessed with the school employees featured in the story to hear anything else.

To begin with, it’s important to note that the L.A. teachers walked out of class to protest a purported budget cut.  The only problem is that they are receiving a $200 Million budget increase.

Oh, but it doesn’t cover their standard of living increase, they complain.  They received $200 million extra.

Oh, but it doesn’t cover new education mandates.  They receieved $200 million extra.

Now, they may think it is an inadequate increase, but a larger budget is a budget increase, even if it is only a single dollar, and no matter the cost of living.  The budget has increased!

But that wasn’t the bad part.  (We’ve heard this (il)logic come out of Congress every year.)  The part that made me weep for America was their chant.

Teachers with megaphones were shouting, “What do we want? No Budget Cuts! When do we want it? Now!”

These are teachers.  TEACHERS!  They are responsible for guiding kids to education! And they couldn’t figure out that bit of poor logic?  Not one math teacher or physics teacher came out and said, “Guys, let’s not do that particular chant…” And this while they are asking for a raise?

L.A. Unified Superintendent Brewer said that he “supports the teachers 200%…” Really? 200%? Did you learn math and statistics from the same teachers who are in charge of explaining logic?

In the end, the point they are trying to make is that they aren’t receiving what they feel is fair compensation for the demands of their work.  We’ll ignore the fact that they work at their mutual pleasure, and can leave at any time. The reality is that they are not receiving a budget cut. They shouldn’t assume that the public is too stupid to understand the reality of an inadequate budget as opposed to a budget cut - unless they are too ignorant to understand the difference, which I doubt. Rather than treating the public as idiots, they should be genuine in their requests.

Furthermore, is there no teacher in the L.A. school system who can explain how their rhetoric makes them sound like the least capable people to be receiving any kind of budget benefit, let alone be put in charge of educating others?

***SPOILER ALERT***  While I don’t believe I’m giving any secrets away, use your discretion if you don’t want to know any plot details.

An article by Jeffery Tucker on Mises Economic Blog asks the question, Is Speed Racer Anti-Capitalist?

The conclusion there is that any anti-capitalist rhetoric was weak and ineffectual, if intended.  Instead, Tucker writes, “if you consider the core institutions of capitalism as private property, consumer sovereignty, competitive rivalry, and the like, this movie actually heralds all of them.”

He notes that in the film, “…the underdog with no money or power goes up against the well-funded and well-connected champion machine and prevails through guts and determination, etc., and, in the course of it refusing to be bought out or to sell out. The crowd goes wild. So far as I know, this is the most typical plot device one can imagine.”

Tucker is right, but I think you can go further in analyzing the movie in light of capitalist economics.  If the writer and director do have an anti-capitalistic agenda (and ignoring the more likely agenda of the money-making portrayal of the Hero going up against the Giant, which crowds do love), they failed to demonstrate it’s shortcomings and actually exemplify its power.

On the surface, the movie portrays business as universally corrupt in a generational tradition. Speed Racer’s brother, Rex, fought them when he was young. His dad seems to be the victim of such battles. The fix had been in for every race, and it was organized by capitalists to manipulate their stock prices. Every corporation was in on it, and the silent conspiracy made a watertight oligopoly.

Evil corporations!  Government should step in to fix this.

But who did fix it?  An individual.  He was faster and better than the racers of the oligopoly.   He broke their stranglehold on the industry as a byproduct of winning their race.

This is more than a David-and-Goliath scene.  It’s an education in the unsustainability of monopolistic power.  Although it was maintained for generations in this story, it was weak and vulnerable to the first major challenge it faced.

It’s why price fixing doesn’t work.  While oil companies are often accused by grumpy and suspicious individuals of colluding to determine a high price, it will always be in some company’s interest to break the compact and undercut the competition.  When higher prices cause lower demand (by lowering sales), some company will gain least, and probably face the brunt of the lost demand. Their first step in undercutting the price fix causes the whole system to collapse.

Monopolies are not able to maintain their power unless they are supported by force - government, usually. Absent that kind of power, a monopoly will eventually have to compete with someone who is not falsly inflating their value and their price.  When Speed Racer met the competition, they were not as good as they proclaimed because it was not necessary for them to be so. If you are the chosen winner, you don’t have to gain the skill necessary to surpass the skills of your competitors.

Meanwhile, governments in every nation prop up monopolies - often owned and operated by those same governments.  They eliminate competition and allow the operators to pretend that they are immune from market factors.  Those monopolies act as though inefficiency cannot affect them, because they are never made to feel the effects of inefficiency and choice.  Government influence only shields companies from the realities they face regarding supply and demand.

If Speed Racer was a race car driver in modern America, he would likely be prevented from racing by government regulation. Of course, there would be problems in the pit crew (which included children and animals) as well as the dangerous track conditions. But more importantly, government regulations tend to protect the interests of the established industry powers rather than ensuring that all citizens can compete if they so desire without adding unnecessary expense and difficulty from government “helpers.”

All monopolies will come to an end as long as capitalism rules, because markets move scarce resources to their most beneficial uses.  Monopolies are notoriously inefficient, and can only survive by force.

Speed Racer, then, embodies the power of a free-market capitalist to break down the superficial power of the oligopoly.

When restaurant owner Danny Falcone wanted to put up an awning with the colors of the Italian flag, the Edmond Planning Commission voted against it. The city council then voted against it. They didn’t object to the awning itself. They objected to the colors.

The awning at Falcone’s is now a single shade of red. Below it, the lower-quarter of his windows is painted the red, green, and white which would have otherwise adorned his awning. The city council and planning commission had no say on that subject.

As a result of the vote, Falcone’s now bears a sign above the front counter banning three women responsible for the controversy.

The sign reads,

“We [respectfully] reserve the right to refuse
service to the following people:
Suzy Thrash and Ingrid Young
of the Edmond City Planning Commission,
Lydia Lee of the Edmond
Neighborhood Alliance
You are not welcomed here, please take
your business elsewhere and do not come
back on our property
Thank you”

When the matter came before the city planning commission, only three members were present that evening. Two voted against the colors. One citizen from the neighborhood alliance stood to speak in opposition to the awning.

No one disputes Mr. Falcone’s right to refuse service to any individual. The question of decorating taste is irrelevant to this discussion as well. The real question is this:  Should these city organizations have the right to make such an arbitrary decision? Do they have a compelling and vested interest in the color of the awning outside Falcone’s restaurant?

One of the three, Lydia Lee, argued that it wasn’t a personal issue until Danny Falcone made it one. Lee stood at the commission meeting to argue against the colors.  She claims to be an advocate of free speech, arguing that she has just as much right to her opinion as he does. Her belief in free speech does not extend to his expression of heritage, apparently.

Mr. Falcone has invested his own money in his restaurant. He has absorbed the risk of the business. If it fails, he loses money. If it succeeds, he profits. He is risking his livelihood in this restaurant, and failure could affect his ability to provide for his future and feed his family.  Since poverty can lead to starvation, and prosperity leads to security, the choices Mr. Falcone makes in running his business are his personal struggle to live.

The reader may think I’m overstating the issue - it is just an awning - but the issue is a matter of degree. If the awning at Falcone’s is attractive to consumers, they may be influenced to stop. If it sends a subtle negative signal, they may drive by and eat elsewhere. Either way, the gamble potentially determines the future of Mr. Falcone’s livelihood.

When the city tells Mr. Falcone that he may not install the colors he wishes, they are preventing him from working towards his own survival.

Will he live or die based upon that awning? Probably not - though it may be a factor in his success. (His darn good Prosciutto and Mozzarella sandwich should keep him in business.)  The rub is that the city is forcing him to act against what he believes to be in his best interest.

Some might argue that the city has an interest in maintaining a certain look. However, if it is beneficial to the business, the owner will choose to maintain the local look - or else suffer in sales because of it. There is a reason why fancy commercial districts tend to look similar - and it’s not simply that the city forces the look. If it is not beneficial to the business, then why should the business owner be forced to work against his own best interest? Why should he be forced to take steps toward his own demise?

The difference between this situation and a centrally-planned government is a matter of degree. Tyranny on a small scale is still tyranny.

The city has nothing but a difference in taste as justification for this act. The women involved would be wise to consider how they might feel if the city decided to disallow their curtains, their house color, their shrubbery. They might consider their own well-being if they were forced to spend their hard-earned income on projects which might cause their own financial ruin.

But I doubt they will lose sleep, satisfied in knowing that their decorating sense is the approved one, so they are in no danger from being out of style.  Power has its advantage.

An energy bill signed by President Bush eliminates the incandescent light bulb from our store shelves in 2012, four years from now. It has had a long life since Thomas Edison invented the first practical one in 1879.

That invention was described by Paul Harvey as the day when Edison “turned off the dark.” As a cartoon illustration, it stood as the symbol for an idea, an enlightenment, a solution.

Recently it has been the bane of environmentalists and their simplest proposal to cut costs and decrease carbon emisions. As such, they successfully petitioned Congress for its removal from the marketplace, following the lead of Australia and other nations.

Global Climate Change skeptics have responded with expected fury, claiming increased mercury contamination risks, irrelevant energy savings, and poorer lighting conditions. Some have even recognized the increased risk involved for epileptics who may be strongly adversly affected by the move.

What seems to be missing from the discussion is whether it is even proper for the government to make such a decision. How can something so simple and relatively harmless be outlawed?

“But it hurts the environment! The government has a vested interest! You’ll save money! It’s for your own good…” Shouldn’t I be convinced without force? Is this not a demonstration of the weakness of the argument?

“But it’s such a small thing. Why get worked up?” It’s exactly because it is a small thing that it is such a tyrannical act. It’s insignificant effect on anyone else in the world should be reason enough to keep it legal.

“But all of it adds up to a big deal!” Theoretically. I’m not even going to bother to argue about that. I’ll take that as a given. But the correlation is that it adds up to a big deal for individuals as well.  Besides, why must the government use a threat of force against me because I wish to light my room from a different source?

Take the light bulb as an analogy. Tyrannical governments have always suppressed unorthodox thinking. Few people have been free to think in ways contrary to the official stance of political or religious leaders. Fewer still have the power to communicate those ideas to others. There is danger in ideas.

The light bulb stands as the symbol for enlightenment - the opening of a mind to a previously undiscovered truth. Where governments have suppressed knowledge, they suppress light. It is always done for the greater good, for the common interest, or so they would have you believe. But light pierces darkness, and cannot be suppressed. It mutes out shadows and guides the path.

Tyrannical men are always acting to snuff out other light. They hold tightly the torches carrying their flames and attempt to force men to seek out their fire, or be left in the dark. “It’s this light, or none at all.”

Our government is eliminating one bulb in favor of another. Most will probably not even notice the difference. It’s only light. It’s such a small thing.

But where does it end? Why accept this tyranny simply because it’s on a small scale?

Am I making too big a deal out of this? Maybe. Or perhaps you haven’t yet seen the light.

YouTube driven debates are an interesting reflection of the Internet Age.  The idea is that any American can ask a candidate any question… It reflects that American ideal that any person from any background can become President.  Imagine, you can ask them anything - ANYTHING! - and the candidates feel the fire.

It’s a warm and snuggly feeling for any person who participates, that their question just might become an agent for change in a political campaign, and maybe the next President just might be elected by your question.  Maybe your question will become policy!  What power!

The unfortunate truth is that the YouTube debates do not solve the basic problem in modern political debates.  Ask any question you wish - tough or softball.  The candidates just don’t answer the questions. 

Politicians are coached NOT to make strong policy statements during campaigns.  Keep it light, keep it vague, or else you run the risk of alienating somebody somewhere, some certain percentage that might change their vote if they didn’t like the answer.  So debates are filled with doublespeak and non-responses.  They ignore the actual question and answer one originating in their own heads, full of talking points and placations. 

But we feel connected in the YouTube debates.  After all, they heard our words!  Questions from the common folk!

Did we hear anything new?  Did anyone give bold answers?  Did the candidates truly define their differences and explain their ideology? 

For that matter, when is the last time you heard a politician give an answer to a tough question which lasted more than 30 seconds? 

Reagan was a great political orator.  He was witty and concise - but his choice of words did not mask his thinking.  His words revealed his thoughts, conveyed them.  Listeners were convinced because he explained himself so well.  Clinton was also an excellent orator, but of a completely different style.  He was a master of saying little but conveying the emotion he wanted the viewer to feel.  He was skilled at avoiding tough questions which revealed any weakness in policy, but his audience felt emotionally connected to him regardless. 

Politicians since Clinton have followed his formula, though none have had his talent for it.  Instead, we have all the vague answers with a complete emotional disconnect.  If you have a horse in the race, you most likely believe that he/she did a pretty decent job, but feel that all the others wouldn’t answer the questions…  Most likely, yours didn’t answer any either. 

And so the resolution to our disconnect with the political elite is YouTube.  After all, they are asked Tough Questions.  If only there were a YouTube which gave us real answers.

Religions get a bad rap for their attempts at converting others to their beliefs.  They see nothing wrong with it; they believe they hold special truths not understood by others, and desire that others consider their beliefs.  The idea is that the other person, once they consider this new argument, will find it persuasive and convert to their mode of thinking.  It’s not simply the domain of religion; philosophers, politicians and activists each proselytize.

No one much enjoys listening to another person proselytize.  Considerate people may give an attentive ear, knowing that they may have missed something, and just might be persuaded - even if they are skeptical.  It’s always prudent to consider that one’s thinking might be incomplete or incorrect; an open mind is a good thing.  But in the end, most people have reasons why they do not believe a different faith or philosophy. 

But if a person believes they have discovered a truth worth consideration, they sense an obligation to tell the world.  Otherwise, is it really WORTH considering? 

It’s the thinking behind everything from scientific journals to books to classroom teaching. 

So is proselytizing a good thing?  Does anyone have an obligation to spread their own Good News?

Ayn Rand was of the mindset that every man held an obligation to himself to think - to rationalize his way through the information his senses gathered.  But every man must rely on the minds of the past - the inventors of language and symbolism and mathematics, of engineering and grammar.  We truly are dwarves on the shoulders of giants, those great men of the past who made it possible to make the discoveries of today. 

Ayn’s view of personal responsibility ought to be viewed in light of her view of history.  She recounts that the discoverer of fire was probably burned at the stake - that men of creativity and ingenuity are often enslaved rather than set free to create even greater things.  Mankind has often felt that the successful owed the unsuccessful, simply for having the “good fortune” to be successful.  There are brief periods of enlightenment bookended by longer periods of dark ages and dim thinking.

In light of that, Ayn staged the protest of Atlas Shrugged. 

If it is in mankind’s interest to allow freedom for creators - and in particular, the interest of the truly inventive - then would it not be in mankind’s interest to educate the world to the benefits of personal responsibility?  Would the men of ingenuity be best served by proselytizing? 

If you haven’t seen the various articles showing interest in Free Will, you  may want to view these links:

See these:
The Economist (two articles there)

New Scientist

NY Times

Scientific thinking since Newton tells us that everything is cause-and-effect. There are quantum physical explainations for anomallies of unpredictable cause & effect, but in principle, the physical universe is determined. No atom just decides it’s going to move - it is caused to move by another atom, which was caused by one before it, and so on….

Absent God, everything is determined. Why the wind blows where it does, why grass grows where it does, why a dog sniffs *that* tree and not another… it’s all determined. Even human thought. Your brain behaves the way it does because of an extremely complicated system of cause-and-effect. Thought is nothing more than all of those various systems colliding, and we live under the illusion that we’re really “thinking.”

If you haven’t noticed lately, many magazines, scientific journals, books, etc. have discussed whether or not free will exists. More and more research says that it might not. For instance, one study asked people to volunarily raise their hands whenever they so chose. They could wait one second or one minute - their choice. What they found was that a few milliseconds before people raised their hands, something triggers in a particular part of the brain. It didn’t matter *when* they raised their hands. But before they started the process of raising their hands, their brain told them that it was time to do so. (This is a cliffs notes version - don’t get bogged down in the details of my explanation. That’s outside the scope.  For details, see the various links above.)

“Voila!” shouted neuroscience. “We’ve demonstrated that we only *think* that we chose when to raise our hands, but in actuality, our brains told us when to chose to raise our hands! Free will is an illusion!”

In light of strict determinism - the only (IMHO) reasonable conclusion to a closed-universe where no atom decides to move on its own - Free Will is only an illusion to a mind which really isn’t thinking. No, you aren’t thinking right now. You are just reacting to stimulus, and the complicated systems of your brain tell you that you are sensing what you describe as “thinking.”  You are not a causal agent.

In my view, though, Free Will does NOT exist… outside of the existence of God. All animals behave in a determined way. We humans have the spark of God in ourselves. Thinking is an act of creation - a cause without a preceding cause. When we think, we have a small demonstration of the power of God let loose on His creation. Free Will adds energy to our “closed system.” Free Will is an evidence for the existence of God.  The only alternative seems to be a determinist view of existence.

Absent an open-system universe, how would you explain the existence of Free Will?  How can Determinism be argued against?  (This is an honest question!)

My friend Matt wrote up a brief explanation of the main points of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism.  It was a good description of my beliefs on the subject, and may serve as the starting point for explaining my own thinking.

Sacrifice

To Ayn Rand, sacrifice held a very different meaning than the one we hold today. This, along with her concept of “selfishness”, is the basis for most misunderstanding in regard to her philosophy. A surface glance at Rand’s work, be it from reading the Cliff’s Notes version of Atlas Shrugged, a wikipedia entry or even The Fountainhead in some cases, will lead to a misguided understanding of Objectivism (Rand’s philosophy). It is a complex and deep philosophy that is jarring to our popular sensibilities, which can lead to confusion over her intent. Without proper context, her ideas appear heartless and cruel. For example, when Rand speaks of sacrifice it is portrayed as something negative. Sacrifice to Rand was the act of paying a price for something of little or no value. For example: A mother has only enough food to feed one person. In this scenario the mother can either give the food to her child and she go without or give the food to a stranger’s child causing her and her child to go without. Rand would argue that the latter is a true sacrifice, because the mother was making a value judgement that her child is not worth as much as the stranger’s. Had the mother given the food to her own child, this would not have been a sacrifice because she holds value in the life and happiness of her child. In fact, to Rand, this option would be an act of selfishness. Which brings us to Rand’s understanding of “selfishness.”

Selfishness

Ms. Rand believed it is only through man’s pursuit of his own rational self interests that he can sustain his life, and consequently, his liberty. Man is the only creature on earth that can consciously act towards his own destruction. An animal is preprogrammed with all it needs to survive, and its actions are automated, instinctual. A human however, must consciously decide to live and take the steps to sustain that life. You make the decision to be productive by working, which provides you with the means to procure food. The junkie however, consciously decides to act counter to his own rational self interests by engaging in behavior which will lead to his destruction. So is the same true for the welfare recipient who depends on the hand of government to feed him. He may not meet the destruction which ends his physical life, thanks to the artificial interference of government, but by choosing not to be productive and think he is acting for his moral and intellectual death. To Rand, the pursuit of one’s rational self interests is the definition of selfishness. Therefor, there is virtue in selfishness as it is the act of man choosing reason as his means of survival. This led to the creation of the term Rational Egoist. All too many confuse Rational Egoist with narcissist, leading to more confusion. There is a tremendous difference between acting rationally for your own survival and vanity, as narcissism leads to destruction due to the void of reason which exists therein.

Altruism

If Rand believed in the virtue of selfishness, as defined by her, what did she see as being evil and destructive? The answer for her was altruism. Here again, we have to define what we are talking about to avoid confusion. To Rand, altruism was the act of unreasoning charity; giving to a person or idea that you did not find value in, even to your own detriment. This is where she is labeled as a heartless individual who encouraged cruelty. However, when you truly look at what she is saying, she is not condemning acts of charity. If you find value in helping a friend, family member or stranger, Rand would not tell you this was bad. She would praise it as a selfish act, and encouraged it. What she took issue with is the idea of giving to those things you do not find value in, merely because someone told you that you should. Would you be excited to give $20 to the meth addict, whom you know for a fact will use it to buy meth? Should you give, despite your reservations? To take it a step further, should you be forced by the government to give to something you find no value in, because it is being done for “the greater good”? Rand believed this is what altruism is, and why she devoted her life to pointing out how the core of collectivism is rooted in the philosophy of altruism. Rand was not against acts of “charity”, she was however against altruism as she saw it, more especially coerced altruism.

Faith

I call myself a small “o”, Objectivist, because I am a Christian. Christian being defined as someone who believes Jesus Christ was the messiah who died on the cross for my sins and was risen on the third day. While I was taken aback by Rand’s scathing views on religion (perhaps faith is the better word), I can honestly see some of her points as being valid. Predominately is the assessment that many people of faith, Christians included, often use faith as a crutch or excuse not to use reason and thought. I call these people, “easy Christians”, where nothing is viewed critically or questioned and everything is axiomatic. Galileo Galilei once wrote, “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” Where I part ways with Rand is that she painted with too broad of a stroke and lumped all people of faith into one group.

Personal opinions are controversial if they are expressed without reservation. Best friends and close family members can be seperated because of opinions. It shouldn’t be that way, but we each have a desire for other people to agree with us, or at the very least, not express their disagreement.

I don’t want to clog up my family & friends website with politics, philosophy and such.  That is supposed to be safe ground, and I don’t want to alienate people who may not have the time or inclination to understand my opinions before they form soured opinions of me.

I expect my thoughts here to be honest and challenging.  I encourage healthy disagreement.  I will try my best to listen to dissent with respect - if it is reciprocated.