Some updates

No, I haven't given up blogging, I've just been busy.

I had been unbusy enough to start doing blog-related work again by last week, but a comment by Dr Binswanger on HBL regarding the Weights and Measures clause got me to looking at and editing my Constitution again. He said that the government has no business dictating weights and measures where instead that private organisations should be doing that kind of work and market forces converging on the convenient standards. To a great extent he has a point: no standard should be dictated.

That being said, I do think there is room for some creation by government of standards for government use. What I had in mind - actually before Dr Binswanger even raised the topic but which I had not incorporated in a new edit yet - was that there was a legitimate role for the military to set standards for its own needs of precision. In the US, for instance, I see no reason why a specification of weights and standards cannot be a part of the United States Military Standards.

Of course, as that wikipedia entry itself indicates, a proliferation of standards causes problems in its own right. And, there is no reason why these military standards cannot themselves just be drawn from pre-existing commercial and academic standards. But all this is just administrative issues that do not negate the principle: there are legitimate grounds for government interest in formulating at least some standards for its own needs. Then, with a decent set of those in place I further see no reason why private individuals and organisations can choose simply to refer to these military standards, so long as the right to use standards at odds with those of government devising is not abridged. For that reason I have kept a weights and measures clause in my own Constitution - but I did make sure to enumerate that right expressly and to shift responsibility for formulation from Justice to Defence.

The same principle is also applicable to accounting standards, given the legitimate need for law specifying standards for the recording and reporting of government accounts. And, sure enough, accounting standards are a hot-topic, too. Still, there is a provision for that in my own Constitution, which I have had there for a while and have left in for the same reason as above. As a practical point, however, it is probably better that the law in question just adopt commercial standards with only some adjustments - but that I leave to the accountants and the actual context in which a future LFC government finds itself.

While I was at it I took the opportunity to cut the whole thing back. At 17,500 words it is still just over twice as long as the US Constitution, but I did cut out about 3,000 words of material that is best left to statute created under the Reasonable Person standard. The files of the latest version - in Word Doc, PDF for A4 paper, and PDF for US Letter paper - are available in the File Cabinet. I am also told that the numbering system for the Word Doc doesn't work properly in Open Office or some other freeware (the same reason why I gave up on Google Docs, btw), so if the sections aren't numbered continously from 1 to 129 then take the PDF of your choice.

I increased the main version number from 12 to 13 because the deletion of a number of sections caused all the later ones after the first deletion to be renumbered, plus of course because of the substantial amount I cut out. Feel free to comment, and I will bear good commentary in mind for a future edit, but I wont be touching it for a while: now it's back to working on OTI posts.

JJM

A simple connection

Of course *palm-forehead-smack*! I just realised - leftists look at the world of business and think it is a larger version of their tiresomely cliche` view of the schoolyard as seen in movies: brainless jocks at the top of the pecking order hoarding all the resources for their own interests, always bashing down the weaker but smarter kids, teachers/politicians dealing with insufficient funding unless they work in relation to the jocks' interests, etc etc etc. Heck, there's even at least one whiny song I know of explicitly about it - Simple Plan's "High School never ends".

Update: second *palm-forehead-smack*... the Comprachicos. Simple Plan don't know the half of it.

These movies and song etc are of course of the creations of other leftists, working from previous incarnations of the same mentality that set their premisses, and they so experience an echo-chamber that acts as psychological and psychepistemological reinforcement. That's the same lunatic mentality seen when they prattled on about how that the fake military letter about Bush at the heart of Rathergate was something that "bespeaks a truth" or whatever that commentary was even after the fakeness was demonstrated.

Question: is there any connection of the above to the hateful reaction to the Atlas Shrugged movie (which I haven't seen) that is more than just about the sociopolitical content? Specifically, I am wondering if they instinctively realise that the Altas Shrugged movie - however poor it may or may not be as a stand-alone piece of art - could hinder that echo-chamber mechanism at the unspoken psychoepistemological level. I am not in any position to find out, at present. This question must therefore one more thing for others, more immersed in concretes than I, to follow up on if they judge fit.

JJM

Seen on the internet

Michael Moore hates guns because he is fearful of being mistaken for a rampaging, brain-damaged, feral hog and shot for public safety reasons.

- commenter deguello, here.

(Hat-tip: Dr Paul Hsieh on facebook).

JJM

Lest We Forget

Today, 25th April, it is ANZAC Day.

The day was initially instituted to remember those who died in the Gallipoli campaign, which was a horrendous affair marked also by great heroism on both sides. It has since grown to remember all the theatres in which Australian and New Zealander solders have fallen, to reflect on the cost of war and what it takes to defend our freedoms.

The word "sacrifice" is mentioned a lot. It is times like these one really feels the loss of not having a good solid and active verb for being willing to bear immense costs in order to secure and promote something of even greater value. When the servicemen and women mention this word the honest listener knows what they mean, and approve of that meaning and its spirit. And on the day, that's what is important - the battle for epistemology can be put aside until tomorrow.

In the meantime, this day is not over. I have not personally lost anyone in war, and I will not be a mere recreational griever cheapening the pain of those who have. But I do say this: for those who fell so that I may remain free, I am forever grateful, and to the men and women in still living and armed service, who have taken an oath such that I may sleep safely tonight,

thank you.

JJM

Thorium reactors?

I saw a cool comment about wind turbines recently, wanted to post it with proper attributions, forgot where I saw it, so I googled it and found it:

wind turbines are nothing but prayer wheels for suburbanite Buddhists.

Down in the comments I saw one from Billy Beck, who gave a youtube link. I looked at it. Whoah! It is highly edited to be extremely fast-paced, and most of it will just fly right past you like a fighter jet on full afterburners if you're not already pretty much up to speed on chemistry and basic nuclear physics. But it is worth looking at if you are, or are willing to stop frequently and keep on going back to re-listen.



Btw, piece of trivia: that is an Australian 20c coin shown top left at the 15 min mark.

Speaking of money, there is a disclosure I should make: I own shares in Arafura Resources, whose interests includes thorium from rare earths processing.

JJM

God as government

This is fascinating - and telling... The cynical idea that religion and socialism are the only two alternatives.

The fact is that one cannot establish a philosophic positive by demolishing a negative. Commentary like this shows that atheism alone is nowhere near enough to establish liberty - without reason and egoism being proudly promoted as essential parts of the secularisation of society the sense-of-life of religion - not to mention the false alternative of dogmatism versus skepticism - will continue to poison the ethical and political codes even even alleged athiests, and the consequences of the spectacle itself gives fuel back to the religious cause.

The real enemy of man has always been religion, not socialism, for the latter feeds on the former and cannot survive long without its lasting influence. Religion must be despatched from this world - but the method of despatching it can only be by putting the greatness of "Reality, Reason, and Rights" in its place.

JJM

A question and a dare

A question for various segments of alleged atheists (they know who they are):

If you consider yourself truly to be atheist, why do speak and act as though emotions were some magical connection to an infallible source of truth and goodness that reason is impudent if it dares question?

Don't say I am not looking at you: all those who posit subjectivism - of either the individual or social variety - are as guilty as sin in this regard.

Emotions are essential for human life, without which life is neither worth living nor even capable of being lived. But emotions are not tools of cognition - they are not means by which one can determine "this is true" and "this is good". So, certainly, they have pride of place in human life - but cognition is not that place.

Here's the dare:

Find out how emotions arise. Then go find a standard of value without committing that sin in any shape or manner. And, once you've done that, question every value judgement you've ever made.

JJM

New Constitution, v12.3

I did an edit of my Constitution as a break from philosophising (yes, really). Version 12.3 is now available in the cabinet for your reading pleasure.

JJM

CR and DR

RealistTheorist quickly got the easy answer: CR is short for credit, DR is short for debit. One cookie.

The significance in this context comes from how that in the accounts presented the CR and DR are quoted from the perspective of my bank (Commonwealth Bank of Australia). Whenever one looks at one's bank statement what one is actually looking at is an extract from that bank's own accounting books, made available to the extent that one has the right to look at those books.

To the bank, the amounts listed as CR are liabilities. From their perspective these amounts are payable to me - CBA owes me those amounts (and hence they are also receivables in my own perspective). Here is the rub: in regards to my relationship with the CBA I have property in receivables from it, not in cash held by it. The amounts receivable by me and payable by CBA are the principals in a creditor-debtor relationship between us (likewise the sole DR is the amount I owe to the CBA on my credit card, and which amount to them is a receivables asset and not indicative of ownership in part of my physical cash holdings). This what the law, actual financial practice, and actual accounting practice have all now long been saying.

I don't know of any who made the following mistake, and I never made it, but it wouldn't hurt to give this warning against it: take care not to make the rationalist deduction "the amounts are listed as credit-side entries in accounting therefore they are items of credit in financial law". In fact it is the other way around, because the law takes priority and is what causes that financial-credit to be required to be listed on the credit-side in the books. Note that there are other reasons for listing credit-side entries in the books besides law-of-credit payables. Not every liability is an amount of financial credit, the equity holdings are also credit-side, and there even "contra assets" that are effectively credit-side even though their source is attachment to particular entries in the asset column (which is on the debit-side). The two contexts - accounting and finance - happen to use the same word, but what each context takes the word to mean is different to what the other takes it to mean and there is one point of overlap in referents.

The upshot of all this is that it further concretises the fact that in the real world today the bulk of the money supply is credit - in Australia as of Nov 2010, currency was $47b and demand deposits were $215b, giving an M1 of $262b. The credit in question is part of the money supply, additional to actual notes and coins, because I can easily reassign to others my property in claims upon the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. These monetised-credit mechanics are already here, fully in place and eminently capable of serving the needs of a sophisticated economy - and while something physical somewhere is necessary the use of credit as money does not strictly require physical cash (pay particular attention to paragraph 3 of this). The only thing that the financial sector need do if the courts begin taking heed of the epistemological complaints regarding the use of the word 'deposit' is simply to refrain from using that word. Until the rationalists on the topic of FRB understand that fact they are going to get absolutely nowhere in terms of theory and, in terms of practice in the event they actually succeed in influencing the courts, they will find themselves in the same position as the British Currency School when its members railed against FRB on notes in the mid 19th century: simultaneously listened to and promptly stepped around.

JJM

Update:
The numerical entry under the "available funds" column for my credit card line is the amount remaining unused from my credit limit. That's the amount I could further borrow but have not actually borrowed, so it isn't credit I've actually taken. Similarly, to get the CC relationship started I didn't have to make any initial deposits or whatnot in, so it isn't credit that I've granted the bank and the bank does not owe me anything either. In short, it is not as simple as saying "It's CR because it is available credit" in rationalist fashion as already warned against. So, here's another question for you - what does the implied credit-side classification of CR there signify? This time I don't know for definite, but I do have an educated guess that I am confident of.

Still misunderstood Pt 2

This continues and concludes my response to Doug, as per Max’s request.

Dr Brook to speak in Sydney

Dr Brook is coming to Australia for a presentation on the 11th October this year in the Tattersalls Club in Sydney. The topic is the moral case for capitalism. I'll need to check with the boss because I live halfway across the country and will need to take a whole day off work, but I will certainly try to make it.

In the process I also discovered the Sydney Ayn Rand Meetup group, which I hadn't heard of before. I am not liable to go very often, but I would like to know what's on and when in the event that I am in town at the time.

JJM

New Constitution, v12.1

(Edit: I did not know it was Constitution Day in the US when I made this post - the timing was pure coincidence. I, despite not being an American, will be forever grateful that a group of men risked life and limb to found a country on such admirable principles, and draw much inspiration from what they achieved on this day in 1787. Thank you.)

I've completed a review of my Constitution after finding Google Sites. In due time I will make my Site dedicated to large articles on politics and economics, but for the time being it's what Google allows as a "file cabinet." Here's the URL. I'll sort out the existing commentary soon, too, and resume making new commentary when that's done. That too, will be in a separate file, which will grow over time. That means essentially that the blogposts I do here will be the individual extracts from that file.

For the record, it is version 12 because I've been writing this over the course of 15 years. Versions 1.1 to 10.5 were previously published under the IRC name "Legendre", with the last being updated in 2003. I hadn't touched it after that until I joined ObjectivismOnline. The version previously published on this blog I called v11.1, so since I did a major structural change the new version is 12.1.

Changes from v11.1 ...

Response to anarchism: answer 2

To reiterate, the answer to the first question was that a man had a right to intervene unilaterally in others’ disputes existed when those others were using or were about to use force because the principles being used or set up by those others had a clear implication for that first man. It is in his interests to see to it, in at least some form and with major caveats, that principles and precedents in the use of force that are too much at variance with reason do not get a foothold within the minds of other men who are frequently in proximity to him (usually meaning those in his society), because those bad principles and precedents could be used against him. What else they do, outside their use of force, is not his concern, but when they are using force it becomes very much his concern.

The second question was how such a right lead to justifying a single government that rightfully had the monopoly on the non-emergency use of force. Again, I am presuming that most people recognise their moral obligations to act rationally and live according to principle, whose application to the use of force is the basis for that right and is the main part of the caveats surrounding its implementation.

Response to anarchism: answer 1

Here’s the answer I came up with to the first question I left you with before. I will get to the second one tomorrow or Friday (but if not by Friday it will be on Sunday or Monday because I am taking a weekender that includes a joy-flight over Lake Eyre - I'll bring back lots of photos).

That first question was, how does one demonstrate some sort of right to intervene in others’ disputes at no disputants’ request and demand that they settle the disputes reasonably? Steve had this mostly right. The right comes from that the establishment or cementing of various principles of action in others’ minds may be identifiable as a causative factor in a future threat to one’s own interests, where those principles must include reference to use of force because this inclusion then generates the potential of being made subject to those principles and therefore justifies some sort of response through invoking the right to self-defence.

In regards to criminal action, unreasonable behaviour during the hearing of the dispute itself clearly indicates that someone is apt to be unreasonable in their general exercise of their right to use force in self-defence, but there is more than that to consider and the principle at issue covers all stages of the justice process. In the detection of crimes, how an aggrieved or representative thereof gathers evidence or other information is implicitly establishing principles of this and which may be applied in the future to me, not just by that aggrieved but by others following his cue. For example, when there is sufficient evidence for strong suspicion but not belief for guilt beyond reasonable doubt there are grounds for further evidence-gathering activities that would ordinarily be a breach of rights. Whoever invokes this against another is making it clear that they presume authority to invoke it against me, so I am justified in responding with force to ensure the establishment of the principle of using reason in its invocation even though I have no concrete interest in any particular matter at the time. Similarly, in sentencing of the guilty, an excessive sentence is itself a violation of the guilty party’s rights and, by implication, a threat to my own rights in the event I am guilty of something, while an inadequate sentence insufficiently discourages any others to commit crimes and which again puts me in the firing line. And so on.

The application of the right is broader than just criminal action, and covers civil action as well. A civil dispute ought to be settled privately if it can be, where ordinarily outside parties don’t have the right to intervene (hence to that extent Steve was partly right). However, if the dispute goes far enough such that each party is beginning to think of invoking its right to self-defence to defend what each believes is his entitlements, then again principles regarding the use of force are being put into play and give an opening for others to intervene, even without either party calling for such intervention. As with criminal cases, it is not just the resolution alone that is at issue, but also that one’s interest in the principles of the use of force includes interim measures prior to final resolution. For instance, if there is sufficient evidence for it someone may be justified in demanding that someone pause acting for a while until some investigation of potential for non-criminal but rights-violating action is undertaken, such as the question of whether a miner’s blasting is improperly destabilising someone else’s property above. That then leads a right to seek injunctions and other court orders, which are examples of remedies I mentioned in comments earlier. I am justified in taking an active interest in how such a right is invoked and using force myself in response to ensure that it is invoked reasonably.

In these examples and others like them, plus others still I could discuss, it is most definitely in my interests that the course of justice actually follows the virtue of justice and all the other virtues as appropriate. Moreover, because the security of rights in principle are at stake, the principles regarding the use of force are being invoked where it is clearly implied that I may be made subject to them in future, I in turn am justified in invoking my right to self-defence to ensure that reason and justice prevail not just in concrete but as principles that people are expected to adhere to. To deny there being any right to intervene in disputes is to deny the existence of principles and to eviscerate the right of self-defence. But the in-principle existence of such a right does not translate to carte-blanche right to action even if one were dedicated to being reasonable in acting, so the obvious next questions are of when do I have sufficient grounds for this and how am I entitled to act when I do have grounds. We’ll come back to that later because it is part of the answer to the second question.

JJM

The impudence of authoritarians

Feh - each and every impudence condemning some thing has an equal and opposite impudence enjoining that same thing. Barely twelve hours between reports! Impudent bastards the lot of them.

The same one root impudence is not simply that the needs of collective are the primary consideration, but that the mere fact of man's capacity for choice and its exercise by private individuals in pursuit of their own desires irritates the hell out of the authoritarians. Some are still old-school thieves, while others are newly-revived older-school puritans. Whichever type the authoritarians are, leaving people to go to hell in their own damn way, to quote Wild Bill Hickock a la Deadwood, is of course out of the question.

(Edit: title fix)

JJM

Response to anarchism: the questions

I've been mulling this one over for a while, but haven't researched it, so, yet again, I have no idea how original I am. I'm just putting my thoughts out there.

Everything in our social existence, including the operations of government, must be applications of what is right and wrong for individuals to do. Each individual must be able to identify what they are morally entitled to do and morally obliged to accept that others are morally entitled to do, at least in the first instance of such action. In regards to government, the anarchist is one who never gets past that final caveat, and says that there is only that "first instance" in all cases. They are not querying the use of voluntary mediation, for instance, but of the existence of the state, of a body embued with a monopoly on the non-emergency use of retaliatory force. It is that monopoly they reject, not the existence of a body as such. So, how does one respond to this without relying solely on mere pragmatic reference to separation of whim and force? How does one fully justify one's insistence for such a monopoly and even the right to enforce it upon others at the point of a gun?

After some thought I discovered that is actually quite simple in principle. Here's my thesis: if, when two parties A and B have a dispute, one can demonstrate that in at least some circumstances third party C is morally entitled to unilaterally intervene in that dispute and demand that it be settled in such-and-such reasonable fashion on pain of both A and B being subject to C's retaliation independently of the content of the dispute A and B have, and justify this unilateral intervention on the basis of C's own rational self-interests as an individual rather than reference to social good or whatnot, then as a matter of principle one has blown anarchism out of the water and has given the foundation of the State while retaining the principles of rationality, egoism and the inviolability of the rights of man all with their full force.

Reference to rights as the means to making society subject to the moral law, and of having a single body with a monopoly whose reason for being is so that the use of force is separated from the potential for individual whim, while entirely correct, comes after that. With that I leave you for now with two related questions: how does one make such a demonstration as a matter of principle, and, how does this translate into the State and all this entails? Have a think, and post a comment if you care to.

JJM

Hung Parliament and Republicanism

After our election on 21 August, we in Australia currently have ourselves a "hung parliament." A hung parliament is where no single party has a clear majority and so a Federal Executive Council (the Cabinet) - comprised of the Prime Minister and other Ministers of State - cannot be pre-determined by party operations and adopted by Parliament in a rubber-stamp fashion. Instead we get what we have now, a lot of wrangling between the major parties and each negotiating or whatnot with minor parties and independents. Until this is sorted we only have a "caretaker" government composed of the previous Council, insofar as Members retain their Seats in Parliament. Thus, despite the election, Ms Gillard is still our PM until a deal is struck somewhere that sees either Labor no longer have the upper hand or, if Labor does cobble up an alliance, she gets booted by her own party just as Rudd did.

This situation made me wonder whether I had underrated the importance of a particular reform. I have always been in favour of a republic in principle, but never got behind any of the Republican movements because their motives and priorities were, at best, skewiff. My own attitude had been that, yes, we should be a republic, but this was a low priority that paled in comparison to reform of powers of Parliament (the monstrosity that is Section 51). I still wont get behind any of the current Republican movements I am aware of and will until further notice consistently vote against them, but this situation has given me occasion to reconsider my own attitude.

(As to my own Constitution, I have since realised there were some errors in it, such as excessively making land ownership of the surface extend all the way down to the Mohorovicic Discontinuity. I'll resume posting commentary when I can get time.)

North Korea begins paying a debt

Headline from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's online news site:

"North Korea to pay off debt with roots"

You have to be Australian to appreciate that. Yet it fits, actually. It is not at all beyond the bounds of imagination to envisage NK's leaders forcibly turning the population to prostitution. Indeed, think of this: a damn fool woman gets herself into really serious trouble, and not surprisingly when she's getting close to bottom her thoughts begin turning to the streets.

That headline was, of course, totally deliberate, and apt even if crude. Most of the time the ABC is quite leftist, but every now and then someone throws in jibes against the left either because they can get away with it or because they are making token "See, we're not biased!" attempts. I have no idea which it is today.

JJM

My Constitution, Section 31

Section 31 - Classification of nationality

My Constitution, Section 30

Section 30 - Powers of direction and writ