Tuesday, September 30, 2008

What is Philosophy?

I spent four years studying philosophy at the University of Alberta. Whenever strangers, acquaintances, or relatives found out I was studying something as superfluous as philosophy I was asked all encompassing questions like “what is philosophy?” or “what is your philosophy?” When I was younger I am sure that I carried away prattling off about the search for higher truths, pure reasoning… mostly stuff that you couldn’t pin me down on. I was a moving target. School provided me with no logical paradigm of what philosophy was on a whole scale. As far as I could critically reach—the more complicated the text was, then the more ephemeral and cryptic truths it contained. This type of model leads to many conceptual mistakes. It was only when I was out of school that I developed the humility to ask my self these daunting, yet amazingly simple questions. Here is a simple version of what is philosophy.

The five branches of philosophy

Metaphysics; the study of what is real

One of man’s first thoughts must have been something like— what is this? What is that? Do I exist? What is real? What is reality? Metaphysics is where everyone’s favourite philosophical question comes from— if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it still make a sound? Two answers are available here. The first claims yes there is a sound, because the tree is real and exists independent of our minds perception of it. The second answer is more sceptical. Since the only way the sound is validated is through sensory perception; thus the sound does not exist independent of the mind. One school says the world exists independent of our minds the other claims the world only exists because of our minds.

Epistemology: where does knowledge come from? Is it possible to gain real knowledge or is all knowledge tainted by the bias of our minds? Aristotle believed man’s mind was his weapon at deciphering the world. Aristotle believed in science, and that our mind could be used to formulate truths and physical laws. Plato thought the mind was more complicated, that it deceived us and that true knowledge was unattainable. All we could hope for were imperfect recreations and representations of perfect ideas and objects that were based on perfect forms. Because Plato’s metaphysics were otherworldly, the mind in its limited physical relations was of little use in learning the highest truths. Here one has to ask themselves— does knowledge come from mystical experiences, sudden intuition, meditation or does it come from sensory information and rational conception?

Ethics: How aught one act, what is right and what is wrong. Once our first thinker has decided what is real and what is not real, and then come to realize how we gain knowledge and what use knowledge has to a human’s survival, the next logical question is— what is right and what is wrong. How aught one act? Ethics is the first of the normative branches of thinking. What ought to be done. Philosophy 101 treats all of these subjects individually—abortion, death penalty…. Etc. Some philosophers think all human constructs are meaningless (nilhism) and that morals are for the weak. Others believe ethics are duty implied (Christians). The main point to remember here is that what you believe metaphysically and epistemologically will have a large impact on your ethical values.

Politics; Once you have decided how the individual ought to act in a moral context the next great normative question is—how should society be organized? Once again we can have a wide arrange of conclusions. They key is now to investigate the premises on which those conclusions rest. For example a man that believes reality exists independent of us (metaphysics), and that our tool for survival is his mind (epistemology), will certainly advocate for a political system in which a man is free to act upon the conclusions that his minds has come. Communism would not be his cup of tea, because a collective political structure invalidates and individual’s right to act upon his conclusions.

Art: Art is the climax of the philosophical paradigm— why does man create? Plato would claim mystical inspiration. Aristotle would probably believe that men create to understand what they have learned? Once again your prior philosophical premises will determine how you view art.


Objectivists helped simplify what philosophy was for me and I hope this breakdown will do the same for someone else.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

NFL picks

Last week we were 2-1. No reason to quit while we are ahead.

Atlanta at Carolina, Carolina -6.5

Sure Matt Ryan made us money last week, but that was at home. Ryan has looked good at home versus bad teams (Detroit, Kansas city), and awful against good teams on the road (Tampa Bay). Carolina, coming off a road loss will aggressively go after Matt Ryan. I think this game is a blow out. The aggressive Carolina Defense will be too much for the young Atalnta Falcons.

Philadelphia at Chicago, Philadelphia -3

Assaunte Samuel, Lito Shepard, and Brian Dawkins are good enough to handle the Bear receivers in man coverage, which means Jim Johnson is free to let his front seven blitz and stunt all day. This will be a nightmare for Orton. The Bears defense sometimes has a tendency to over pursue leaving them vulnerable to counters and screen plays. The Eagles offence is especially suited for this type of attack.

Minnesota at Tennessee, Minnesota +3.5

1-2 teams with a positive PPG differential go onto a 144-125 SU (53.5%) and 144-114 ATS (55.8%) record. This means that for the remainder of the season, these clubs have gone 128-93 SU (57.9%) & 120-95 ATS (56%). Watch out for San Diego, Chicago, and Minnesota.

This is a man’s game. Physical, hard hitting and defensive till the end. 3.5 is too much for the Vikings in a field goal game.

Friday, September 26, 2008

Socialism, Art and the Tories

Artists, actors say Tory arts cuts equal censorship

When I read stuff like this my head nearly explodes...

Near the end of the nineteenth century, when the rest of the western world’s academics first began seeking ways to trade in the responsibility of individual freedom for bigger governments and existential despair, art was desperately struggling to resist the bureaucratic reach. Painter Edouard Manet and the poet Baudelaire resented the arbitrary and oppressive standards of official Paris Salon and started the Salon Des Refusal in protest. The uncensored Salon Des Refusal left the production of art up to the artists, and therefore open to greater innovations and competition. Napoleon III admitted that he could see “little difference between those pieces rejected, and those accepted” for the official Salon.

Through out history artists, thinkers, and creators have fought for their right to expression regardless of cultural norms. The Salon arbitrary standards were viewed as oppressive and were not acceptable. Today the artistic community no longer views the oppressive Salon as bad for art. In fact, like everyone else living in a mixed economy they coo for its affection, believing it to be the only viable path in achieving their aims.

Why is it the duty of society ti support the Artist?

The artistic community continually links a lack of taxpayer support to the “inevitable demise of art”. This is ridiculous-- men have always created. it goes much deeper than monetary reward. man creates to understand. men create out of compulsion. It is how we survive.

The mistake a politically motivated subculture has made:

They’ve deluded themselves into believing that the right to freely express, or more specifically the right to freedom of speech, entitles the means of that expression to be provided for. The artists right to public funding negate other citizens’ right to freedom of choice. Isn’t the negation of one group’s rights for the privilege of another group is immoral? The right to freedom of speech entails one only to the right of that expression without the threat of coercion. It doesn’t guarantee the means of developing that expression or providing the soap box on which to stand. The type of guarantee, and this is important, which provides the means to produce can only come at the expense of someone else’s natural right to exist as a free individual.

The irony is that artists throughout history have always defended individualism. They were the first to know that only individuals could create, and the Salon’s approval or disapproval was inconsequential to the process. Instead the Salon was a repressive regime that only stifled art’s advancement. Artists had to be allowed to create unconditionally, but unconditional freedom can only come at the expense of unconditional responsibility. But now artists, once again, have rejected the responsibility of being individuals, in favor of collectivist propaganda, believing that creation and production can only be achieved at the expense of someone else.

It’s a creed that further erodes individual freedoms in all spheres of society. A mixed economy philosophy alienates art from the people that are forced to support it.Locally, the new Salon is the Alberta Arts Foundation. On its website it brags that “Albertans enjoy an enhanced quality of life through their opportunities to participate in the arts”, largely due to the 19 million dollars of support it receives annually from the provincial government. It is a claim typical of all bureaucratic institutions, implying that art would not exist without their altruistic support. Whose quality of life is enhanced by the Alberta Arts Foundation? Has the life of the rejected artist that must sell more shoes, fix more engines, or wait more tables to support the government-supported artist been enhanced? Does his having to work longer hours for the purpose of supporting some arbitrarily chosen artist allow him to create unconditionally, or even enhance his chances of becoming a successful artist? Or does his coerced support rob him of the valuable time, energy and financial stability required to develop his own purposeful art? The enhancement of certain artists’ careers comes at the expense of other struggling artists, other working citizens, and art itself.

The government forcing citizens to allot some per cent of their earned income towards artists that they haven’t chosen to support is intellectual tyranny. Intellectual tyranny, or forced artistic support fosters the lethargy, ambivalence, and distrust that dominate the contemporary artistic scene and the general public’s approach to art as a whole. When support for a movie, book or painting is forced, resentment and distrust are far more likely to be the response than appreciation and excitement. Just ask any Soviet playwright.

And I know right now there are many clinging to collectivist cliches crying "it’s society’s duty to expand the intellectual capacities of its citizens." In response to the immorality of altruism I’ll argue with a specific instance. Historically, the arts have mostly been the pursuits of the affluent upper classes. So why should the lower classes who have more immediate concerns, such as food, shelter, and education be required to designate any portion of their income to supporting productions enjoyed primarily by the wealthy? Is the lower earner's consciousness expanded by his forced support of books he doesn't read or by art he doesn't appreciate? What type of morality is this?

The Alberta Arts Foundation is comprised of a four member executive branch and an eight member board that is essentially in charge of determining which artists, art institutions, and film productions are worthy of the province’s support, and which are not. Armed with 19 million dollars, this 12 person committee is responsible for determining the cultural path of over 3.5 million people. Is this type of prediction possible? What criteria is used to determine the worthiness of each artist? Is this subjective criteria dependable enough to forgo the rights of the rejected artists, and the province’s other citizens? Is it possible that art, and culture are beyond the abilities of a 12 person board?

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

The Moral Banker

Throughout history man has sought to manipulate currency levels, first with the clipping of coins, then the slightly more sophisticated debasement of coin content to the fiat banking which we have today. This money manipulation raises many moral questions.

At one time banking deposits used to be backed with gold, meaning if the bank accepted your deposits they had to, by law, maintain that amount of gold in their vaults in case you wanted your money back. All dollars were backed with gold. Then fractional reserve banking took over. This meant that banks only had to keep a certain percentage of their deposits accessible (backed by gold). This allowed the banks greater flexibility in making loans, basically allowing them to lend out the money of their customers and earn themselves interest on that money (which was not theirs in the first place).

The next step was fiat banking. Fiat banking does not require banks to hold onto any certain amount of gold to back deposits, and citizens are required by law to accept bank notes as money. Fiat banking has always been the last step to destroying financial stability of a country (see world history). The western world thinks they have overcome this by guaranteeing deposits via a central bank. The way this vulnerability is overcome is by backing all bank deposits with the Central Bank of Canada. The Central Bank has the power to print notes at its discretion. Now if everyone wants their money all at once, the bank of Canada has the power to print notes to cover everyone’s deposits. As well, bad loans are guaranteed by the taxpayer (central banks can back bad loans by printing more money, which essentially means you and I guarantees loans, because we are the one affected by inflation). This is why high risk massive loans to the third world are more advantageous than mortgage loans.

Having said all of this I want to ask why we pay interest on money created out of thin air? Why does my government (me) pay interest on money arbitrarily created? This is the best racket going. A private institution prints money and then has the right to charge interest on that money! Sign me up. In Canada 15 cents of every dollar collected from income tax goes toward debt financing. Worse yet is the fact I have to produce real wealth (earn real money—this means drilling for real oil, mining for real gold, making real sneakers, baling real hay) to pay the interest on imaginary money that was loaned.

As Canadian we debate Conservative vs. Liberal, left vs. right, capitalist vs. socialist, but is this debate not trivial at best when the rulers have already socialized the money supply. No?

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Football Bets for Today

I love philosophy, economics, literature and gambling. Today is about gambling. I love trying to decipher conflicting messages in trying to decide who will win a sporting event. I won a lot of money betting on the NFL last year. Take that with a grain of salt though, because I lost a lot money betting on baseball this summer. Peaks and Valleys, peaks and valleys. My selections for today.

Atlanta falcons -9.5

I got the Falcons earlier in the week at -4.5 points befor KC announced some guy named Tyler Thigpen was playing for them. You can still get this game on proline @ 1.7 which is a bargain. Anyway Atlanta is a power run team(they average over 250ypg)and the Cheifs cant stop the run. Losing Jarred Allen didn't help. Matt Ryan is in a good situan because KC will have to keep 8 or 9 guys in the box which let Matt Ryan be effective enough to blow out KC.


Cle +2.5, +120 on moneyline

I love desperate teams and the Browns are desperate. This game could define their season. Another loss and a playoff prediction team could be in big trouble. Baltimore is a decent defence with a lead footed rookie quarterback. I don't get a good feeling from wattching Flacco, which is a shame because he keeps taking money from me on Sundays.

Vikings -3

Another desperate team. I hated the decision to bench Jackson. the Vikings should be trying to win the superbowl, not finish 9-7. Gus Ferotte leads you teams to 9-7 records. Anyway Carolina is due for a letdown and the Vikings are desperate for a big effort and plus they are at home. Buig day for Petterson and the Vikings

Thanks

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Searchers and Planners; and my first Book


I once read a book by William Easterly Called The White man's Burden. The book dealt with African Poverty and the fact that our well intentioned efforts to relieve it have in fact only enabled and entrenched it. The following passage left a strong impression on me.

Planners announce good intentions but don't motivate anyone to carry them out; searchers find things that work and get some reward. Planners raise expectations but take no responsibility for their actions; searchers must accept responsibiliry for their actions. Planners determine what to supply; searchers find out what is demand. Planners apply global blueprints; searchers adapt to local conditions. planners at the top lack knowledge at the bottom; searchers find out what the reality is at the bottom. planners never hear whether the planned got what it needed; searchers find out if the cutomer is satisfied.....


I like many other freedom lovers have always felt trapped in a world of planners. I spent 5 years working in the remote oilfield sites all over the frozen north. I spent my nights writing fantastic paranoid stories about being trapped in a civilization of planners and a world dominated by planner worship. I have just published five of these stories in my first book called Isonomia. I hope you will check it and maybe buy it. When people ask me to describe the book I have been using the sentence-- Kafka for Libertarians.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Inflation myths

Myth # 1: "Dependence on Foreign Oil"
This myth basically suggests that the problem with oil prices is due to America's "dependence" on foreign oil. One of the worst economic myths, it plays on economic nationalism and on xenophobic feelings that are sometimes pervasive in the United States.

The high price of oil has nothing to do with its origin; the price of oil is determined in international markets. Even if the United States were to produce 100% of the oil it consumes, the price would be the same if the worldwide supply and demand of oil were to remain the same. Oil is a commodity, so the price of a barrel produced in the United States is basically the same as the price of a barrel of oil produced in any other country, but the costs of labor, land, and regulatory compliance are usually higher in the United States than in third-world countries. Lowering these costs would help increase supply. Increasing supply, whether in the United States or elsewhere, will push prices lower.

Importing a product does not mean you "depend" on it. This is like saying that when we "import" food from our local supermarket we "depend" on that supermarket. The opposite is usually true; exporters depend on us, since we are the customers. Also, importing a product usually means buying at lower prices, whereas producing in the United States often means consuming at higher prices. This point is proven when we see the cheap imports we can purchase from China and the higher prices of many of these same products manufactured in the United States. The amazing thing is that the protectionists claim, on the one hand, that America should be "protected" from cheap imports, but when it comes to oil, they say we should be "protected" from "expensive imported" oil.

Most, if not all, of the higher price of oil can be explained by the expansion of the money supply or the debasement of the dollar. The foreign producers are not at fault; our national central bank is the culprit.

Myth # 2: "Inflation is caused by rising oil prices."
False. If the money supply were to remain constant, then an increase in the price of one good, such as oil, would cause a decrease in the price of other goods. If more money is spent on oil, then less money will be available to spend on other goods. This will in turn cause a drop in the demand for other goods, which will subsequently cause a drop in the prices of these goods. The reality is that inflation is always a monetary matter, caused by the increase in the money supply due to the interest-rate-easing policies of central banks.

Myth # 3: "Current inflation is being caused by the increased demand of millions of new consumers in China and India."
At first this myth might seem true. Millions of new Asian consumers have entered the market, thus, there is higher demand for most goods, which would apparently cause higher prices. What is being overlooked is that these new consumers are also new producers. In general, most people produce far more than they consume, because most workers have to produce more than what they earn in wages (if not, they lose their jobs). While it is true that demand has risen due to these new consumers, supply has increased even more, due to their increased production. This can clearly be seen by the frequent drop in prices of most goods being manufactured in China. On the other hand, the only way these new workers can increase their consumption beyond what they produce is through credit. Thus we return to the real culprit behind inflation: credit expansion due to central banks' intervention in the financial markets.

David Saied

Sunday, September 07, 2008

Is Free a Relative Word?

The other night my wife and I started our prenatal classes at the Royal Alexandra Hospital. During the class a question was asked about the pros and cons of formula feeding versus breast feeding. The registered nurse informed the class that WHO (World Health Organization) has made it illegal for her to talk about formula feeding. There are two problems with this law.

1. Canada is supposed to be a free country.
2. Canada is supposed to be a sovereign nation.

In a free country discourse is encouraged through the elimination of government censorship. Contradictory opinions and theories are the intellectual base of the western world. Certain ideas, however vile, tasteless or absurd are given the right to be heard. Since the process of discovery can’t be plotted no single person or group is allowed to decide what type of expression or ideas should and shouldn’t be permitted. Every fact, theory or law that exists today was in the minority at some point in its existence. It is only from free discourse that ideas are discovered, proved or disproved and then accepted or discredited. It is for this very reason that censorship is so hated in a free society.

Censorship is synonymous with slave cultures like Iran, China, Medieval Europe. The western world fought to break free from this type of arbitrary unaccountable tyrannical rule and now our governments are slowly handing over our autonomy to unelected organizations like the WHO. Organizations that wield the power to censor and coerce.

It would be bad enough if the Canadian government tried to pass this type of draconian law, but the World Health Organization should not be allowed to pass any laws that limit the freedom and choices of Canadians. Canadians do not elect the WHO lawmakers. The World Health Organization is an unelected board of bureaucrats whose headquarters are located in Geneva Switzerland. People complain about an Ottawa disconnect in Canada.

What would we do if the WHO declared a one child policy? Maybe the World Trade Organization tries to enforce a North America Carbon Tax.