Taken from this Aphorism I wrote in 2003.

Can there be no doubt that a frustrated organism will generate novel responses as a means to overcome that frustration? Furthermore, can not one of the responses be vocal in nature?

Suppose a primate frustrated with the actions of another in the troop emits a sound of frustration towards that primate. Further suppose, that the response by the other primate then was to modify their behaviour, in such a way, that the frustration of the vocal primate is reduced. Ah, but we need a process of natural selection, we need to Darwinify the argument.

What we need are primates within a troop that ‘realizes’ their verbalizations, are recognized as frustration, by the other primates (1). This group would yield significant power over the other primates because they would be able to recognize other brain states and capitalize by manipulating such states. Adaptive value would be the acumen of other’s brain states and the ability to influence these brain states via demonstrable behaviour (I.e. verbal utterances).

Could this mean that language finds its genesis in frustration. What is frustration but mental perturbation, I suppose it should be no surprise that the priest created language. How else would he generate frustration as a means to control?

Finally Christians have an argument God’s existence: Some entity necessarily must exist to give life to Darwin so that he could give adaptive value to the ecclesiastic baboon.

UPDATE: Man I must really like this aphorism I have already posted about it.

Over at personal responsibility Darwin states:

For normal employees, it’s important to allow employees to unionize because consumers don’t have much control over how employees are treated; therefore unions are useful to make sure that the balance between employee rights/pay and corporate profit/efficiency is maintained.

Seriously, are you fucking high? Do you smoke crack? Companies are constantly pressured by consumers to change. If they don’t adjust to consumer demands they will very quickly find themselves out of business. Companies are not like the government, they cant force people to do their will, they actually have to appeal to the people.

When thinking about this kind of thing, one must be wise enough to understand that a successful company already has a base of consumers willing to support the actions of that company. Those that take objection to the company are most likely in the minority. Or at the very least, are unpersuasive in convincing other consumers to stop supporting the company.

Given that the objectionable actions of the company have not already put them out of business, and the groups of people that object have been unpersuasive with those that do support the company, it seems reasonable to assume those against the company do not have a majority. This is precisely why they seek state regulation. To get around the problem of not having consumer support, which is a much better determinant of the people’s will then a democratic vote.

In choosing the state as the means to regulate a company, the activist is very clearly attempting to force their values down the throats of consumers. Environmentalists demand increasing taxes on gas guzzling SUVs as a way to reduce how many are produced and in turn ‘help’ the environment. The fact that these companies sell them year after year implies that there is a consumer base that supports this kind of vehicle. This means two things. First that a large groups of people support SUV by way of purchasing them, and secondly the environmentalist arguments for not purchasing SUVs are unpersuasive. Thus, the environmentalist decides to shove their environmental values down the throats of the SUV consumers via the state. This is the kind of attitude that liberals have, and it is what I most strongly object to.

Because capitalism does not use coercion, it is the best measure of the people’s will. Activist that don’t like the people’s will seek the coercive force of the state to format people’s will to be more consistent with their own values. In the case of Darwin, he supports jailing people that believe in the value of self protection by firearm.

Using Experts to Justify Shoving Your Values Down Someone Else’s Throat

No doubt you will want to counter by stating that the SUV is bad for the environment. Let me entertain this argument and in the process bring Dan into the discussion. Since supporters of SUV are likely to be unconvinced by environmentalist’s arguments that the vehicles does harm to the environment, the environmentalist will bring in the ‘expert’. Since he is an expert, he knows the ‘truth’ about SUV causing harm to the environment. Since he is ‘knowledgeable’ and has done ‘science’ its clear that he should be the arbiter of truth regarding SUV harm. Remarkably his conclusion’s support the environmentalist’s claims.

But let’s say that with use of the expert, the environmentalist wins the day and state legislation is passed increasing the tax on SUVs. This is an interesting precedent. Its okay to call on the state to shove your values down the throats of others so long as you have an expert that says the benefits are ‘true’.

Well then knowing that, let me introduce you to a website Diatribe came across documenting over 200 studies showing the ‘truth’ about children being raised in single parent home. The experts show that it’s ‘harmful’ to the child, and in turn society in general, to grow up with a single parent. A savvy Christian that believes that God’s wish is for children to be raised in a two parent home would be wise to employ these experts in showing this effect to get legislation passed forcing single parents to give up their children.

Something tells me Darwin would oppose the state forcing this Christian value down the throats of single parents. But on what grounds? The experts have determined the ‘truth’. Single parent households are harmful to children. When ‘experts’ use ‘science’ to determine ‘truth’ there is no more debate. Those that oppose the legislation must relent because the ‘truth’ has been settled.

There is no doubt there would be a significant drop off in gun violence if the state forbid raising children in a one parent home. Yet I doubt Darwin would see this as a fair trade, however he would gladly take away your constitutional right to firearms just to reduce gun violence.

Experts are useful, just not when they are used to justify using the state coercive force to shove one group’s value down another groups throat. In the context of this blog, this is almost always the way I’m attacking experts. When it comes to minority groups trying to force their will on others it best to ignore their experts. Even when the experts are the scientific consensus on global warming.

On Failing to Convince the Consumer

Highly vocal critics of some corporations always seem to forget that in many cases there is a much larger silent consumer base that does not object to the company. Those on the left seem painfully unaware of this large ‘voting block’ which enjoys a great deal of control over the corporations that need their money to survive. Companies that have a tin ear towards their consumers will very quickly find themselves out of business. Companies that have a tin ear towards activist will not find themselves out of businesses. It’s this indifference towards the activist that leads to dumbass statements like this:

consumers don’t have much control over how employees are treated

Its not that the consumer doesn’t have control, its just that they don’t care about the activist hang up towards this company and continue to support it, and its practices towards labor. Furthermore, consumers are right to be dubious of experts telling them their actions are ‘harmful’ and should object on principle to using experts to justify value coercion. Believe me, when the consumer base that supports a company decides against the company, that company will make changes or be filing for bankruptcy in short order.

In the end, its not that the activist lacks control over the company, it’s that the activist lacks control over the consumers that support that company. Failing to convince the consumer, the activist’s next move is to bring in the state to force the consumers to follow the values of the activist. I object to this both from the liberal and the conservative side. The only question in my mind is why you draw exceptions for liberals but join me in resisting conservative attempts at value coercion.

This is going to leave a mark.

Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent. The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal. As such counterinsurgency should consider deterrence and incapacitation rather than simply search and destroy missions.

Science shows that democrats are bad for the war in Iraq. Given that its science, and therefore true, it seems wise to implement federal regulation censoring voices critical of the war. Its like global warming. If science shows its true, then its okay to infringe on people’s rights.

Let the hell storm begin.

Michael Yon makes some observations about two pundits debating Iraq.

This morning I watched the television screen in Mosul as Kagan and Rosen debated Iraq, hosted by Jim Lehrer. Kagan’s statements were entirely consistent with what I see and hear unfolding here. By comparison, Rosen came across as a new Baghdad Bob. While he might be articulate, well dressed and highly credentialed, Rosen’s characterizations of the situation were at best inconsistent with ground-based realities, and at worst completely false . Kagan is worth listening to. Nir Rosen is not.

Being as they are experts, they have access to the truth, and therefore, should agree. Im confused. Someone help me out. How can experts disagree about the truth?

Apparently Fallujah had its first community race. Why is this not a top story?

Created a new wallpaper. Check it out here.

This video features US wars and battles done with different kinds of food. Its is ridiculously well done and I highly recommend you check it out.

I have no problem with the courts stepping in and forcing Microsoft to release documents showing how they labeled computers wrongly to imply Vista capable when they were not. However, I also like the way its being done. Someone had to bring case up against the company and a judge had to rule that something bad was going on. I much prefer this over legislating laws to ‘regulate’ this kind of deception.

I would also like to point out that regardless of legal redress, the markets have already responded. People have not been switching over to Vista as quickly as anticipated. Even without legislators to protect consumers people quickly figure out if a product is bad. Its almost like their are adults.

It also interesting to see that within the Microsoft Corporation their was in house fighting about the proper way to label computers. To often one thinks of the corporation as a one monolithic singular entity. These court obtained documents show that there are people working in corporation and just anywhere else we find humans, there are differing opinions as to how to proceed.

George McGovern, the 1972 democratic candidate for president has this to say:

Since leaving office I’ve written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I’ve come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society.

Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don’t take away cars because we don’t like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don’t operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.

The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else.

Here is to hoping that in time some of my left leaning reader will also come to the realization that liberty means letting people have the freedom to make and be responsible for their mistakes.

Worse idea ever?

It’s exactly the same situation as if we charge a 25-year-old the same amount for a year’s term life insurance as we charge his 75-year-old grandfather: it may make the insurance more affordable for Granddad, but it does so by overcharging young Elmo. Add in the “mandate,” so Elmo can’t opt out, and we have a universal care plan that forces Elmo to pay for services he doesn’t get so that Granddad can pay less for the services he gets. But it’s “voluntary” — you get to pick your insurance plan to some extent — and it’s not “tax-supported” because you are just paying the insurance company directly.

Except for the cost of administering the plan itself, and the wages they take through a garnishee if I don’t “volunteer.”

So in this mandated universal coverage plan, the government comes and makes me give someone money so it can be distributed to other people, and I don’t have any choice about participating. Where I come from, we call that a “tax.”

Whatever it is, it ain’t insurance.

More on the worst idea ever:

But this is not true. We force everyone to pay into fire departments because fires have very bad negative externalities: if your house catches on fire, unless you live on a rural farm, there’s a good chance that your neighbor’s house will burn down too. Fire prevention is a genuine public good; most health care, with the exception of things meant to stop the spread of infectious disease, simply isn’t.

One can make a modestly compelling moral hazard argument for a mandate–people will be tempted to free ride on the rest of us, knowing that we won’t deny them health care in extremis, so the only thing to do is make them pay up front. But I’m persistently disturbed by the notion that most of our fellow citizens are intellectual children who need to be forced to do what is good for them even at massive cost to their liberty, and ours.