Everyday Skeptic, Part 2: What is Truth?

Note: the video contains the same information as the article, but in a more conversational form.

Now that we have established why it is important to be skeptical, and what sort of situations should prompt you to be extra careful, we can dive into the methods used to be skeptical.

Being a skeptic doesn’t mean you disbelieve everything and everyone, it means that you demand proof of claims before you commit them to belief or take action. In future articles, we will delve into what constitutes good and bad sources of evidence, and how to tell if evidence is used properly. For now, let us discuss an important logical concept: truth.

I. What makes something true?

The concept of truth is as old as philosophy. For the purposes of this article, which deals with claims, true means that something really exists, and can be proven. This concept can be defined quite briefly:

A statement is true if it is a positive claim and there is credible evidence to affirm it, while there is no credible contrary evidence that makes the statement untrue.

Like all brief statements, this one can be somewhat complex, so let’s take a closer look at the three conditions contained in the statement:

Everyday Skeptic, Part 1: Why and When to be Skeptical

Please note: The video below contains the same information as the article, but in a more conversational form. Choose which format you prefer!

I. Series Introduction: Information and Expertise

Everyday life is filled with decisions. Many of these decisions are made without knowing what the outcome will be. We rely on many things to help us make these decisions, including our own experience, intuition, assumptions how other people will act, and, the subject of this article, information from other people.

Everybody is an expert in something, but nobody, not even the super intelligent, can be an expert in everything. Each person trades the knowledge and skills he has in his own area for the knowledge and skills of other people’s areas. This is the division of labor that makes economies work, but also represents an information exchange. We trust our doctor to give us information about our health, and the doctor in turn trusts us to give him the benefits of our expertise – plumbing, teaching, even food service is an expertise – to meet his needs. Sometimes, money is involved in the trade, but often the information exchange is free and part of our friendships and social interactions. Advice about which wine tastes good or which plumber does the best job, are examples of this.

The members of the media are sort of information specialists, telling us about events that we cannot witness for ourselves. Often, however, media outlets do more than report events. They can move into areas that are well beyond news description, discussing scientific findings, political motivations, or promoting various prescriptions for action. On the internet, many such claims are made and distributed through a variety of networks, such as Facebook and Twitter, but just because something is published or claims to speak from authority, does not make it the truth. There is no media police to enforce honesty and integrity.

The purpose of this article, and the ones that will follow, is to assist the everyday person in figuring out which claims are likely to be true or likely to be false, without having to become an expert in the field. This way, we can spend our time on what matters – our own passions, expertise, and personal lives – and not on determining if a news story is true or not.

II. Three reasons we should all be skeptical

Judgment!

Judgment. It’s a pretty naughty word these days. Everywhere I look, I see a message that I should “stop judging people.” Usually the act of judging is made synonymous with puritanical motivations, fundamentalist religion, or bigotry. Here are just a few articles on the matter, all of which point the finger back at the judger for his or her own failings:

http://www.positivelypresent.com/2009/05/stop-judging.html

http://tinybuddha.com/blog/3-causes-for-judging-people-how-to-accept-yourself/

http://dalepartridge.com/please-stop-judging-people-heres/

We’re told not to judge people for a host of things they wear, do or proclaim:

http://hellogiggles.com/lets-stop-judging-women-tattoos

There are also acceptance movements, to help you get over judging particular books by their relative colors. Fat Acceptance is a good example:

http://ineedfatacceptance.tumblr.com/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/fat-acceptance/

There’s tumblrs dedicated to stopping judgment:

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/stop-judging

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/stop-judging-people

There’s even a wikihow to help you stop:

http://www.wikihow.com/Stop-Judging-and-Criticizing-People

There seems to be a lot of social pressure out there to “stop judging,” but just what does that mean? Are such sentiments valid? Those of you who know me best know that I’m not going to just echo the sentiments of the writers above. It’s time to dig a bit deeper.

I actually consider judgment one of the fundamental ways we interact with the world and with others. Judgment is how we make pragmatic decisions, evaluate risk, and choose social relationships. Judgment isn’t always negative either. When we choose to do business or be friends with somebody, we have a made a positive judgment; we have not failed to judge.

Because it is so ingrained in the human experience, judgment is something that we are very unlikely to avoid. Doing exactly what we want and expecting nobody to have a negative reaction to it is not a realistic attitude. No matter what, people are judging you, and you are judging them. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that.

Violence: The Kind of Work You Don't Want to Bring Home

Fighting, Porn, Abuse, and Assault in Las Vegas

Note: this article is opinion, reflection, and analysis, not authoritative accounts of factual events. Source material should be used for citation, not this article, except as it pertains to the opinions of the author.

Rarely do I step outside of my usual fiction-philosophy mode of content for this site and do current event topics, but an interesting story popped up on my radar from my former home of Las Vegas. It seems that a professional MMA fighter promoted through Bellator MMA who calls himself “War Machine” (allegedly) severely beat his girlfriend, porn star Christy Mack, sending her to the hospital. He is now a fugitive and wanted by the LVPD, which hasn’t stopped him from making a fool of himself over twitter. Before I dive into some analysis, some philosophical discussion, and some practical advice, let’s have a quick rundown of some of the facts.

John “War Machine” Koppenhaver (For more, try Wikipedia):

“War Machine” is the legal name of the fighter in question. His birth name was John Koppenhaver. He changed his name legally in 2008.

War Machine fought on the Ultimate Fighter series under his birth name. He was eliminated in the first round.

His father died when he was thirteen, while Koppenhaver attempted to revive him using CPR.

He has been convicted of numerous assaults. He has received probation and was also sentenced to a year in prison in 2011.

War Machine performed as a pornographic actor in more than 12 films and has worked at a gay nightclub. He was also accused of assaulting people at a birthday party for a pornographic actress.

After being trolled by users of 4chan in 2013, he punched himself numerous times in the face. (source-video below)

He began his relationship with Christy Mack by stalking her over twitter. She eventually responded to the advances. He is ten years her senior.

He has a tattoo of “Mack” on the front of his neck for his girlfriend.

Christy Mack (For more, try Wikipedia):

Christy Mack is a pornographic actress and has worked in the industry for about two years. She was not involved in porn while War Machine was active in the industry.

She is recognizable for her extensive tattoo work and her unique hairstyle, which looks like a Mohawk.

She has claimed that she wanted to retire from the industry but had a large house and had to take care of her mother (source in video below)

She has a tattoo reading “Property of War Machine” on her shoulder (source: twitter)

Echobox

Echobox.

It’s a box… that echoes, obviously

Everybody’s second voice

Second talk, second mind,

Echoes back a righteous choice

Zion! Zion! To Zion we shall go! Infidels cannot hold Zion against its rightful heirs!

Billy sat and played with his toys. Mother’s echobox was on again, firing its angry nonsense words down the hall. It seemed like it was always on, even when she slept. He wanted to close the door, but he knew if he did, he would get in trouble. She would take away the toys.

Billy… What a stupid, average, nothing name, he thought as he piled brick upon brick. Slowly the castle he held in his small mind would take its recognizable shape in the physical world. He had run out grey bricks of the correct size, and so had to fill in some gaps in the castle wall with blue and red, but he didn’t mind. He imagined that they were decorations put there by the powerful king who built the castle. He saw two of the blue bricks next to each other, and an image popped into his mind.

A wolf.

He tore down the wall and started building again. This time, the blue bricks formed an image in the wall, of a blue wolf with red eyes (formed by a few small red bricks).

No king was ever called Billy. He pulled one of the little men from his chest. He put a crown on him. William. King William Wolsfbane. He put the little king on top of the wall. He imagined the dull, brown carpet of his bedroom was an expanse of wilderness before the fortress.

The dark army of Abaz will have to get through all these wastes to assail these walls. These wastes… they are our home! William the boy put more men on the walls. These he armed with spears and axes and shields. They were smiling. Men at war do not smile, unless they are certain of victory. Abaz will destroy himself upon these walls! He cannot wrest this sacred land from us! We are the rightful heirs of the soulforge. Our blood is in everything –even the rocks are our kin.

“Billy!”

He looked up. His mother was standing at the edge of the room. How long had she been there?

Teachers make a DIFFERENCE! What about YOU? Huh?

A Reflection on the Ego of the Teaching Profession

I had a different article in mind for today, but a conversation I had during work yesterday with my screenwriting partner Matt (find his website here) inspired me to create a different piece. Thanks for reading and don’t forget to share!

Credit/Source: Zen Pencils, zenpencils.com 

            I am a teacher.

            I have been a teacher for more than ten years, in various faculties. I’ve taught at private and public school. I’ve taught individuals and I’ve taught classrooms full of kids. I’ve taught at the college level and the elementary school level. Given my experience, it seems that the label of teacher is inescapable. Indeed, it seems I am the only one in my life actively contesting the title.

            I am a writer.

            I am a musician.

            I am a craftsman.

I am many other things to myself, my family, and my friends, but to people who have just met me, it all gets boiled down to “teacher.” Why then, do I rebel?

The Grand Magicians and False Prophets

There is no magic; There are only illusions.

There are no wizards; There are only magicians.

The crowd waits for the reveal with bated breath. The curtain drops, and what was, is no longer. The magician bows and accepts the prestige of the illusion. They love the show, and the lights, and the costumes. The crowd love watching the impossible become real. Not because they really believe it, but because they know, ultimately, that it is all a lie.

That’s the fun of it. We know that what our eyes see and our hears hear is not what is true. Penn didn’t really shoot Teller. The real magic is in being fooled, and in admitting that the magician has crafted a puzzle too perfect for us to solve. The audience claps not because they have been made to believe, but because they are impressed.

Sometimes there are people who believe – people who truly think Teller caught the bullet in his teeth. We tend to think of such individuals as strange, foolish… even childlike, because we understand it is all a lie.

There is no more prophesy; there are only false promises.

There are no more prophets; there are only liars.

The stage has been yielded to a magician of another sort. His coy words speak to old roads of the audience’s mind, so well-tread by ancient teachers, and so he is anointed. He plays the part of Christ himself, promising the feed the five thousand.

Five loaves and two fish are all the faith that is required, and so they are given up. Before the crowd, the man who would be Christ eats the loaves, then the fish, and throws the crumbs to his assistants.

“The five thousand are fed!”

The crowd cheers.

He does it again. Then again. Soon, there are less fish and less loaves to offer up, so what is left must be taken.

Still, the crowd cheers at the miracle; the magic. The want to believe. They want to believe.

“I believe! Yes! I believe!”

There are no messiahs among men; there is only the discipline of fire and demise.

There are no creators among men; there are only illuminators.

One man does not join the crowd and cheer for the false Christ, the democratic false savior of misplaced faith. He stands apart, cast in the darkness for which he pitied man.

Feared and reviled, hated and maligned, the fire thief stands alone. 

Prometheus weeps.

Why We All Have High Hopes for Net Neutrality

1: Radio emerges. Some stations broadcast on the same wavelength.

2: Create the FCC to keep the airwaves "clean."

3: FCC creates broadcast monopolies within each local market, hurting consumers and benefiting established broadcasters.

4: FCC institutes sweeping censorship laws retarding the growth of art and prevents wholesale any political discourse.

5: Television emerges to challenge radio.

6: FCC licenses, monopolizes, and censors television. For decades, only three major networks exist.

7: Cable companies emerge to challenge existing broadcast monopolies, offering a much wider variety of programing direct to consumers.

8: The government grants cable companies a total monopoly in each local market, hurting consumers and benefiting established cable providers.

9: The internet emerges, challenging existing media monopolies and offering an untold amount of variety and information

10: Some ISPs (many of which are cable companies) throttle high-bandwidth traffic and content that competes with their own.

11: Defying convention and 100 years of history, the FCC steps in and creates net neutrality rules, saving the day and making the internet a better place for everyone, with no added expense or consequence. Netflix streams flawlessly.

Everybody likes surprises. Too bad we never get any.

Prometheus weeps.

Discrimination: Rights and Consequences

There has been a great deal of jabs thrown about a bill recently passed by the Arizona state legislature that is intended to protect freedom of religion or enshrine discrimination against gays, depending on your position. The bill, called “SB1062” (or AB 1062, the assembly version) in the typical fashion of laws, is short by most legislative statutes and attempts to expand the state’s definition of free exercise of religion to include economic activities, or more specifically, the denial thereof. Though no specific mention of LGBT categories of persons are made, both proponents and opponents of the law have made mention of it. The law may be found here:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

The bill may be partially in reaction to a recent New Mexico supreme court case that upheld a lawsuit against a wedding photographer who refused to photograph a gay wedding, citing religious objections. The law being argued over was the New Mexico Constitution’s Human Rights Act, which extends equal protection of law to those who are not heterosexual. For more information on this case, I suggest checking out an article from last year by Doug Mataconis, and includes many sides to the court’s opinion:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/court-holds-that-wedding-photographer-cannot-refuse-service-to-gay-couples/

He is somewhat wrong on one claim, which is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was necessary to end private discrimination in the south; the truth is that Jim Crow laws created legal mandates for discrimination on the part of private entities. It was illegal to not discriminate. The Civil Rights Act was a monolithic way of paving over those old racist laws. Undoubtedly, some private discrimination would have continued had the laws been discarded some other way, but the fact remains that the bulk of discrimination occurred through government, not in spite of it.

Elane Photography vs. Vanessa Willcock, along with the Arizona law that is partially in reaction to it, is interesting and contentious across a wide array of rights and legalities. This article will attempt to disassemble some of the ethical, philosophical, and cultural issues that surround it and gay discrimination in general. One issue in particular this is being omitted is the de facto equation that the New Mexico Supreme Court made between the statuses of race and sexual orientation. Just how things are equal or not equal requires a bit more analysis, of perhaps a more controversial nature, than is desirable for this article.

I. How Far Do Religious Rights Go?

In a practical sense, there are always limits to the practice of religion in a society whether free or politicized. People do not have exceptions to written or common law simply because they can claim to follow a religion that contraindicates the directives of society. Very few people would argue the right to murder or steal by virtue of religious law, and there are plenty of modern examples of the limitation of religious action. Sharia dictates within small Muslim communities in the United States and Europe are examples of these staunch limitations. Philosophically, most of these limitations occur along one lines: the non-aggression principle, which prohibits assaults and theft. Really, the right to practice one’s religion is limited to the voluntary actions you take as part of it.

What is interesting about Elane vs. Willcock is that the argument does not occur along lines of action, for Elane Photography was initiating no force or enacting no theft, but along a line of inaction, the refusal to render services. In this case neither party suffered damages per se, but damages were civil and to society. Elane Photography refused to photograph the gay wedding and gave a reason in a religious objection, which is where most of the focus has been. According to the court, religious rights do not include the right of refusal once you enter the marketplace. I contend that the religious argument confuses and obscures the real argument, which is about economic, not religious, freedom.

II. Voluntary and Involuntary Transactions

The economic liberty at stake with the Elane  case is a fundamental one, which is the right to sell your services to who you desire. This is a right that is not specifically protected in the US constitution, though I argue there are many rights left out of that particular document, and yet you will frequently see signs proclaiming the right (usually inside gas station snack stops). The right to conduct business with who you see fit is a right so fundamental, so sacred, that it is almost never referred to in written law. More than 800 years of common law support this right, and you legally cannot take a person to court for refusing to give you something in a trade that they don’t like. This, as stated above, is the right of refusal, the liberty to refuse to sell your services or property, which are one and the same.

This right might not be specifically stated, but it is inferred in the US constitution via the specific exceptions to the right mentioned in the text. One is imminent domain, when the government forces you to sell your property to them for their use (public use has been a hot issue in the last few years because of the decision of Kelo vs City of New London,  but this article is too brief to deal with the abuse of this government power). In this case, they must pay just compensation, or market value. The other exception in the constitution is the selected services, or the draft, which applies only to males and does not  pay you market value for services you might otherwise be generating if you weren't forced to serve in the armed forces.

III. Thoughtcrime: Motive and Action-Local Moral Reasoning

Elane exhibits apparently another exception to this basic right (from the government’s perspective; neither the draft nor imminent domain is philosophically valid), which is that you cannot refuse to sell your services or property if the motive for doing so is discrimination. Since the motive itself is illegal (thoughtcrime, as Orwell so famously coined), the right of refusal apparently does not apply. If the photography company had refused because they were booked, or didn’t want to accept the pay the bride was offering, or even because they disliked the bride because of her political affiliation, no law would have been violated, and no party would have suffered any damages, real or civil or psychic.

When considering thoughtcrime laws (much like futurecrime), one must first question the moral reasoning that goes into their creation. The separation between thought and action is an important distinction when operating in a physical, logical world. Contemplating murder is not a crime, only murder is, as much because contemplation has no effect on the physical world as because it is impossible to determine the inner thoughts of a human being. Elane  is therefore also interesting because the thoughtcrime involved only exists because the photographer gave an honest and truthful set of reasoning for her refusal to conduct business. Had she chosen to lie, there would be no thoughtcrime, and therefore no damages.

So the end result is a rather odd situation, in which vendors (which is what the photography company was deemed to be) are still able to discriminate against others by refusing to do business, so long as they do not reveal their motivations for doing so.

IV. Market Forces and Social Consequences

One of the most overlooked aspects of freedom is the constant incentive businesses and individuals have to suppress prejudice. This runs contrary to the mistaken belief that freedom in the market causes greater discrimination against minorities and other marginal groups. Businesses generally exist to make money, and they generally do so by serving as many people as possible for as high a price as the market will allow.

Wedding photographers have a natural incentive not to discriminate against couples who do not fit their ideal, because they are getting paid to do so. To refuse to do business for any arbitrary prejudice is to take a loss. The same applies to the employment of minority or marginalized individuals. To limit one’s talent pool for arbitrary reasons is to damage the business by increasing costs or decreasing productivity. The incentive is to dampen one’s prejudices – to sacrifice them on the altar of increased profits and business health.

Adding to this suppression are the social consequences for outright bigotry, which can include social stigma, isolation, and the refusal of service to the discriminator. As far as non-violent action goes, social consequences for unwanted behavior are some of the most effective. The photographer in Elane  might very well suffer these through her refusal to serve a gay couple. There may be individuals still interested in the service, but may experience social pressure from their own wedding guests not to use the services of someone they consider a bigot. These social interaction eventually translate into negative economic consequences as well.

This creates what I believe to be the typical person as he acts in the marketplace, who has certain prejudices against certain types of people but does not express these because it is better for his business and personal life to serve all.

V. Conclusion: But They’re Still a Bigot!

Ultimately, the mental states and internal prejudices of people are not alterable directly. No amount of force on the part of government or individuals will get people to stop thinking what they are thinking, short of perhaps the final act of 1984. If somebody has hate in their heart, yet treats everybody with respect outwardly, are they evil? Actions are what matters, not thought. Actions are right or wrong, not will. From Orwell’s 1984:

Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you.

A Visual Guide to Identifying Genetically Modified Dogs

The above is a takeoff of a Facebook page's "A Visual Guide to Genetically Modified Corn," found here:

IFLS 

People are often very misled about what "genetically modified" means. Man has been altering life-forms to suit his needs for thousands and thousands of years through the mechanisms of selective breeding, hybrids, and only lately through direct modification of code.

Corn is a great example of this. It's nature-made predecessor looks nothing like it. The ears are tiny and unusable; the casings of the kernels are thick and chewy. This makes sense for a natural plant, which seeks to spread its seeds, not provide nourishment for man or any other organism directly. The peoples of the Americas, over the course of many generations, turned this wild species into what it is today: a tall plant with ears so heavy they may break the stalks, with easily digestible kernels packed with energy. Modern corn cannot even fertilize any plant besides itself; it is literally impossible for modern corn to grow wild.

What separates this plant from the "GMO" corn of today, created and distributed by Monsanto and other agricultural businesses? The addition of traits is done through direct manipulation of the code, producing specific proteins for specific purposes, rather than through selection of random mutations. Understandably, some people think of this as "unnatural," because it is the result of such direct human intervention, but the host organism itself is unnatural. Actually, direct code manipulation is likely much safer than phenotype selection for traits, as the genes inserted produce known proteins, whereas older methods of genetic modification produced unknown sets of proteins.

How does all this apply to dogs? We have many breeds of dogs, all of them produced by man from a single species: the gray wolf. In fact, technically, wolves are considered the same species as all breeds of dogs because they can mate and produce viable offspring. Dogs are actually a great example of the breakdown of the idea of species as that definition. A chihuaha and a Great Dane are both dogs, but physical mating between the two is nigh impossible. However, it is possible with every breed in between the two, making a range of compatible genetic populations, most of which can also breed with wolves.

If you have a dog (or any domesticated animal, for that matter), you are interacting with a man-made being. You are feeding it man-made food, derived from other organisms created by man out of the building blocks of life - genes - whether the method of design was through careful selection or direct coding.

It not man's nature to adapt to his environment, it is his nature to adapt his environment to himself.

Minimum Wage: Moral, Amoral, and Practical Arguments; Ad Hominem Non-Arguments.

The minimum wage as a political issue has long been a dangerous one to oppose. Recent trends have included phrases such as “living wage” in addition to a minimum, though the sentiments are much the same as they were when the minimum wage was first enacted back in 1933 (a law the Supreme Court later found unconstitutional). Proponents of wage controls generally make moral arguments, primarily that wages should reflect some correlation to the cost of living at some level of affluence, and that failing to pay such a wage was an immoral act. Opponents, however, tend to focus on practical arguments, noting that minimum wage laws create unemployment among low-skilled and young workers. These arguments do not meet each other very well, for moral arguments require moral rebuttals, and vice versa.

I. Employer and Employee: An Amoral Relationship

Let’s break down the moral arguments for wage controls, whether you choose to define them as “living wages” or “minimum wages.”

Argument: People require a certain amount of money or income to live. As such, denying to any person the level of income necessary to live victimizes them; it is immoral. Therefore, companies that pay low wages are acting immorally.

Rebuttal: This argument makes an assumption that individuals and corporations that employ others for productive purposes have a moral obligation toward some preferable condition. This is not true, for several reasons. Whenever an employer and employee work together it is toward some end of production, either a good or a service that is sold to a third party. Their relationship is voluntary; either party may exit the relationship when they choose. The worker is not a slave of the company, so the company has no moral obligation (in a biblical sense) to see to his end needs.

Businesses pay workers based on the amount of production they bring to the end goal, not based on the needs of the worker. Indeed, it would be very difficult to even determine what the end needs of all the employees are attempt to meet them. The goal is to produce a product for consumers at a particular price point. This is a thoroughly amoral condition.

Attempting to prescribe wages based on the many consequences and costs of life is also a consequentialist endeavor. The act of paying a worker a low wage is argued as immoral not because of some universality of preference in wage, but because the consequence is not a preferable condition. This bad condition is also not universal; minimum wage may be a boon to one person, who has low living expenses, and be a very low wage to another who has high living expenses. It’s not quite future crime, but fairly close to it.

Not addressed in the argument is the option to not hire somebody at all, which is the result of wage controls. If a company refuses to hire somebody at all, are they acting immorally by denying the person a living wage by denying them a job?

Argument: If employers are unwilling to do what is right, the government must step in and force them to pay their employees a living wage.

Rebuttal: The most important moral argument against minimum wage is the means by which it is achieved, justified in the above argument by the fact that companies do not voluntarily pay their workers what they are entitled to. Minimum wage laws make the government a silent third party in any agreement between two individuals, with the threat of force (death) the consequence for acting outside of the wage control. If somebody wants to work for less than the minimum wage, they are legally prohibited from doing so (if you are wondering why anyone would want to work for less than minimum wage, remember that philosophically wants are always part of a realm of possibilities, not part of imagination; an individual with no skills might prefer to work for a low wage rather than be unemployed). In essence, enforcing minimum wage is an act of violence against the worker and employer.

II. “Right to Life”

Behind both arguments above is the concept of entitlement, which can be called a “positive right.” As a matter of philosophy and semantics, I consider all authentic rights to be negative, in other words, “freedom from” things like theft, murder, or interference in your personal affairs. Entitlements, which are sometimes called rights by proponents of such, are usually expressed as a “right to,” such as a right to healthcare, security, etc. Sometimes, as was the case when Franklin Roosevelt was promoting the “worker’s bill of rights,” these entitlements are expressed as reflexively negative, such as the “right to be free from unfair completion,” or the right to be “free from hunger,” and so on. Of course, freedom from hunger really means entitlement to food, not freedom to buy food, as freedom requires no special condition; it is the default.

This concept is important when understanding the moral claim for a “living wage.” Some argue that it is an extension of the “right to life,” in so much as you must be able to eat and find shelter to live. However, an authentic “right to life” really means a freedom from being murdered by others, and if it is extended beyond such, the argument becomes self-defeating; you must threaten murder in order to use state power to tax in order to provide entitlement.

Even ignoring the double-think involved with such a position, in order for something to be provided, someone must do the providing. Wage controls place this blame on companies, organizations whose collective purpose is a good or service, not the welfare of people everywhere, as stated above. This extension of the right is also difficult to determine, or make universal (also stated above), because of the variance of needs across geographic lines and across the myriad of individuals’ choices. Contrast this to a negative right, in which somebody’s right not to be murdered is very easily determined. You have either been murdered or not; there is no grey area.

III. Practicality

If the minimum wage were some cure for poverty, then seventy years’ worth of experimentation in that department should have yielded some claim to that effect. Instead, poverty continues as it always has, though the people who are considered poor today are substantially better off than the middle class when the law was enacted. If it were really possible to help people out by controlling wages, we could just all make 100,000 dollars a year and be perfectly happy. Even those who are proponents of such programs would not go that far, for they know that wage controls cannot have such an effect. That is why minimum wage rates have hovered at or slightly below the market equilibrium base rate for unskilled labor for the past 20 years or so.

The truth is that the minimum wage does not have a great effect at the moment, positive or negative, because inflation has made it mostly irrelevant. Even large “evil” companies like Walmart employ only a small percentage of their workforce at the minimum rate. If wages were actually raised above the market equilibrium, the effects would be mostly negative, such as they are. For those near the bottom, some might see a slight raise. Others, above that wage, would likely see no change whatsoever. The middle and upper classes would not see their wages go up, for setting a market minimum for wages does not cause all wages to go up.

The negative is that those who have low skills, or who are young (these are usually the same group) will find a tougher job market waiting for them. Employers are less likely to hire an employee when his or her productive output will not match his wage for some time while he acquires skills. They may take a chance on an investment of human capital, but they will need convincing.

IV. You Hate the Poor!

First, I can only feel emotions toward individuals, not whole classes of people. Second, if I did hate the poor, I’d be pretty self-hating, as I’ve made far below what the US government considers the poverty line for the last few years (and I’ve never collected a dime in entitlements, in case you are wondering, though I would have if it were possible, given how much I still pay in taxes as a self-employed person). I don’t hate anyone, which is why I am an advocate for freedom. Yet this is one of the arguments given against proponents of freedom, the ad-hominem that we “hate the poor.”

Minimum wage is actually very bad for the poor and the young, who are usually the same category. It makes entry into the job market harder, because when you set a minimum wage, you also set a minimum of production. Workers who do not meet that minimum of production, usually because they lack skills, have a harder time finding work. This is the way in which price controls on labor create unemployment.

A worker can gain skills two ways: through education, or through work experience. The latter must be paid for in advance, or else financed as debt, making the worker start behind when he enters the workforce. Of course, if he can gain training and experience through work itself, he can increase his human capital while making money. Once he has skills, he can demand higher wages from his employer, of find another who will pay him according to his value. The minimum wage, therefore, would only serve him for a limited time while he increases his human capital.

Minimum wage laws are also of note because, unlike things like direct entitlements, they act violently against both the poor person and the rich person, buy preventing the poor person from working for a wage he might find agreeable, at least for a time.

V. Just Like Peter Schiff, You Think the Intellectually Disabled are Worthless

I’m referencing, of course, a horribly dishonest Daily Show feature of an interview of Peter Schiff (an economist and CEO, as well as radio host and advocate for freedom), in which a four hour interview is reduced to a ninety second heavily edited interchange that makes Peter sound like he said “mentally retarded” people are worth two dollars an hour. I could explore the moral problems of the presentation, such as the fact that before that answer Peter Schiff pondered how anyone could have such little value, or how the daily show keeps on interns that are unpaid, but since it is from a comedy show and subject to its own farce I shall make just a single point.

Of the two people sitting in that room, only Peter Schiff sees any value with individuals who have intellectual disabilities. If a company must hire a person with Down syndrome, with its cognitive impairment component present, at some sort of “living wage,” then that person will essentially become unemployable, since he or she may not have the productive capacities to produce that equivalent wage. Schiff, on the other hand, sees them as valuable to the degree that they can produce, even if it is limited by their disability. A free market means that every individual, whether disabled mentally or physically, has the capacity to contribute to society.

With a living wage, many disabled people may become effectively worthless to society, which they aren’t. Allowing disabled individuals to work is good for society, even if production is not great, because it frees up other human capital and also provides a meaningful service to consumers. It is good for the individuals who are hired, who may have the opportunity to develop skills, get paid and have financial goals of their own, and make social connections when they would otherwise be marginalized in society because of their disability. The disabled don’t have to be a charity case; they can contribute meaningfully to society, if only they are permitted.

VI. Walmart as Welfare Queen

I’d like to address another point that is often thrown around by advocates of things like “living wages,” and that is the notion that companies who hire unskilled labor for relatively low wages are somehow gaming the system because their employees consume entitlements. If you hunt you can probably find the practical data in support or rejection of the notion, but as a principled argument, you cannot pin upon McDonalds or Walmart the cost of entitlement spending.

Even if they benefit somehow from programs such as food stamps, companies that hire low-skill workers did not create the law, or carry it out using violence. The fact remains that employees are paid based on their ability to produce; external factors are not relevant. If there were no entitlements, would workers be able to demand more? The answer is no, because their pay is determined by how they contribute to earnings.

When making the argument for a living wage, the question must be also be begged: why should cost of charity (for that is what paying a worker more than he produces really is) be placed wholly on those who choose to employ others in productive activities? We as individuals have the capacity to help the poor directly, no violent state intervention necessary. If violence is somehow justified (for those of you willing to sacrifice the means of violence to the end of egalitarianism), why should it be upon the people who are employers, and not everyone? We could just as easily (perhaps more so) accomplish the same thing using a negative income tax, which does not cast into the role of robber-baron those who wish to employ others.

VII. Conclusion

I hope my points have made you think, however you may value the minimum wage and its role in society. One thing to consider when thinking about the raising of the minimum wage is how much it has been raised in the past, and how much inflation has lowered it over the years, and how much economic efficiency has in turn prevented the devaluing of labor. In 1963 the minimum wage was $1.25, but was payable in $25 worth of today’s dollars in silver (I will provide a useful link to some organized data on the subject at the bottom). It may seem like we are being quite stingy with today’s money, but in the past fifty years the economy has become exponentially more efficient, and that $25 worth of silver will by more goods and services of a higher quality than existed in the past. The free market, with its ability to produce more and more for less and less, has been the saving grace of the poor, not the government regulators, who only have the ability enact violence, even between two people who have already agreed on a price for labor.

External links:

Don't Bother Raising the Minimum Wage

(I'm not linking to the Daily Show, or the Huffington Post. They don't deserve the traffic.)

Inequality in America

I've seen the above video linked quite a bit on social networks during the recent past, and while I don't usually stop to pick up every pebble in the road, I felt a little compulsion to do so with this bit of misinformation today. I don't have time to debunk the many, many problems in this video, so I'll just hit the big points. The first and most important is the sources, which are not sources of actual data, and he mixes them inappropriately, producing a graphic that is factually inaccurate. He also mixes the terms "money," "wealth," and "income" as if they are interchangeable terms and concepts, which they are most definitely not. He also talks about wealth or income "distribution," but none of these things are distributed; they are earned by producing goods and services. He doesn't really talk about just what "equality" is, or why it is important, or to what degree; nor does he make any significant moral argument for it as preferable condition. He just assumes his audience believes it is a preferable condition and speaks as if the point had already been established, or else is so obvious as to deny the time to argue for it. He doesn't address how any one person becomes "wealthy" (again, a problematic term because he confuses the meaning with other terms like money), but infers that somehow the rich are rich at the expense of the poor, but this is just untrue. The vast, overwhelming majority of the rich are rich because others have voluntarily given them their money in exchange for something they found useful or valuable. 

Although the video prescribes no solution to circumstances of "inequality" that he dislikes, any actual "solutions" would involve violence, and ugly means must be taken into account when considering any circumstance, whether they are part of a moral condition or amoral condition. 

If you are interested in a more thorough video, please take the time to watch at least the first half (the second half is all debate) of 5th part of Rose and Milton Friedman's Free to Choose, "Created Equal." It's telling of our society that the video from the top has 15 million views, and a sound video making actual moral arguments and using real economics has but 15 thousand. 

Prometheus weeps. 

Future Crime: The Moral Difficulties of Indeterminate Consequentialism

http://youtu.be/wEkIJb12GVA

Above is a video I made as a companion to this piece for those who prefer speaking and video to reading. The content covers the same rough areas but is spoken in different words. The essay begins below.

            “Future crime” is not a term of my own making; it’s one I lifted from the Spielberg movie “Minority Report,” which was based on a Phillip Dick story of the same name. In it, there are three mutants who are able to see the future, specifically murders, which are most disturbing to them. The police react to these visions by arresting those responsible before they commit the act, thereby creating a time paradox. The individuals responsible are not murders, as they have failed to commit the acts the mutant “precogs” have envisioned for them, but are kept interred because of the understanding that without intervention they would have committed those acts. The nature of free will is brought into question as the policeman in charge of the program sees himself committing a murder in the future.

            Many people might view the film and find it an interesting hypothetical, but think no further on it. The reality is that many of our laws, regulations, and statutes rely on the concept of future crime for legitimacy of their workings. Everything from seat-belt laws to safety regulations to drunk driving laws require making illegal conditions which have not yet generated any consequences. The last of those, a particularly politically charged law area- one might even say politically suicidal to oppose at this point in time- I will attempt to dismantle at the end of this article.

            Whether such laws are effective can be taken into consideration when passing them, but first I always consider first the moral conditions a law creates or relies upon in order to be legitimate in the eyes of voters or law-makers.

I. Consequentialism

            Consequentialism, as a broad ethical theory category, concerns itself with categorizing action into moral or immoral areas based on the consequences of the act. Many philosophers, including Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill attempted to create systems of rational morality based on consequence, notably the “hedonistic calculus.” I personally do not consider consequentialism a good basis for any rational system of ethics, preferring instead to work within the confines of action-local moral reasoning or deontological systems, but the fact that actions have consequences is important to legal processes beyond the simpler workings of morality.

            Extremely thorough discussion of this might require its own article, but I will attempt to summarize. I dislike consequentialism for two reasons. First, it ascribes moral status to actions that are accidental or otherwise amoral, that is, would not be considered moral in another circumstance that produced different results. This was Immanuel Kant’s general objection to consequential moral reasoning, that it eliminated the concept of will, thereby making all investigations into moral action mostly irrelevant. The second reason is that it either qualifies moral or immoral status of an action after the fact (when consequences occur) or it asks the actor in a situation to predict the future, with the possibility of miscalculating the results and still acting immorally. This makes it difficult or impossible for a moral actor to determine the morality of his actions prior to acting them out, the point of moral systems being to inform decisions about actions prior to their occurrences.

            In minority report, the problems of the second reason above are mostly taken care of, at least in the concept of murder. The future consequence is certain, and so the police can act in accordance with it, saving lives all the way. We, however, are not precogs; any attempt to predict the future is a best guess, and so we may be wrong or right. This does not mean we should never try to predict the outcome of our actions, quite the opposite. We frequently and necessarily use predictive means to infer outcomes, usually quite well. We know that when we put our foot on the gas the car will go. We guess that when we buy stock in a company it will not go out of business. Our lives are based around predictions.

II. Consequences and Responsibility

            Even if we operate according to action-local principles and ignore consequentialism as a system of ethics, consequences are still very important. In our legal system (I live in the USA), and indeed in the common law system in England for the last few centuries, people are able to seek compensation for damages, that is, consequences of the actions of others. When an electrician fails to install wires properly, regardless of the condition that might have caused him to do so, he may be asked to pay for the expense of having it done correctly, or face penalties when his condition causes the house to burn down. A man may be driving the speed limit, but fail to see a pedestrian in a residential area, and hit and injure him. He did not commit crime per se, but may have to pay restitution for negligence, his failure to pay attention.

            Consequences in these cases, and many others, are subject to civil and common law, which may operate using written law or just based on sound principles. We may require the police to enforce the legal decisions of court, but we do not need a universal law to deal with particulars. This is the concept of extra-moral responsibility, the idea that our actions have consequences that we ourselves own, both positive and negative, regardless of any consideration of morality.

            To ascribe morality to such mechanisms, however, is not so easy. The man who invests his own money poorly may be pitiable, but not evil. A man who invests his family’s money poorly we may find less mercy for, once we see his destitute wife and children on the streets. Do we make a law to prevent men from investing their money unwisely, thereby preventing the negative consequence? What about the man who makes risky investments that pay off? The law may then impose a less-good outcome on him and his family. There are definite problems to creating universal prohibitions on situation-dependent outcomes.

III. Future Crime as a Category of Law

            Consequentialism has been used greatly in the history of my country to outlaw a host of objects and behaviors as well as force people into other sets of behaviors, listing possible outcomes as the justification for the use of force in making such things illegal. Just a few of these are: Drug Prohibition (and alcohol prohibition in the 20s), gun control, motorcycle helmet laws, seat-belt laws, many building codes, restrictions on purchasing pseudoephedrine, most laws regarding the sale and use of alcohol and tobacco, lots of anti-piracy laws (such as the DMCA), the Patient Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), Social Security, Medicare, and most licensing laws.

            If were to show how each of these represents future crime it would be a very long article indeed. As a litmus test, you can ask whether the law seeks as justification for its existence to prevent some condition or action that might exist in the future, or is part of prohibiting some condition which is believed to lead to undesired consequences. Laws restricting pseudoephedrine are a great example. The vast, overwhelming majority of people who purchase pseudoephedrine do not do so desiring to produce methamphetamine with it (meth itself represents future crime), and so the law supposes to stop people from making a “bad” substance in the future by restricting all purchasing of it in the present. In this case, the drug itself is not bad at all, its abuse is non-existent as it is, and the negative conditions feared as well as the benefits are entirely hypothetical.

            The last point, the negative conditions and benefits being hypothetical, requires some expansion. As with the case of most future crime laws, the benefits exist only in the negative of some other condition. Supposedly there is less methamphetamine available because of restrictions on pseudoephedrine, but it is unprovable whether this is a positive. If less meth is available, so what? We do not have a parallel universe to compare the two availabilities of meth and determine that the lack thereof produces a better result (except for those that consider meth itself to be an evil- more on that later). Those of us who oppose the concept of this future crime are left trying to do what is logically impossible- disprove a negative. We can’t see the future, which makes future crime laws seem effective; you lock someone up for something, and he is unable to perform evil, but there is no way to know whether he would have done the evil action at all in the absence of intervention. He is punished for something he has not done.

IV. Morality and Trade-offs

            I usually make an argument that moral conditions are part of a universal law that is centered on actions, or means, not their consequences, or ends, with the addendum that people are still responsible for the results of their actions, whether achieved through moral or immoral behavior and yielding good or bad results. However, it is important to acknowledge that not all people share my vision of a rational action-local morality. If they did, the government buildings and police stations would stand empty, a testament to the moral difficulties of initiating force against others. In acknowledging such a view, I must also explain, and perhaps challenge it.

            Those who believe in the capacity of law to create good conditions (as opposed to law addressing bad conditions, such laws against theft or murder) fit into two categories: the constrained and the unconstrained, to lift terms once again from Thomas Sowell. The constrained viewpoint believes laws that seek to restrict future ills are valid and worthwhile, but only as part of a prudent trade-off. If the cost of enforcing a particular law, either in monetary terms or social ones, is higher than what it prevents, the law should be discarded. In this way the focus is on particulars, and reform happens a piece at a time.

            The unconstrained viewpoint views the ends as the center of judgment; process costs are not taken into account, for in order for the end to justify the means, the end must be achieved. Therefore the cost is always worth the result, for the result is the only moral condition and the only way to value any action. What shall I say to those with the unconstrained vision? I can either attack their moral system or not. No amount of cost-benefit analysis will persuade them, and our principles are at deep odds. For those with a constrained vision, the best I (or we, if you too consider yourself a liberty-minded individual) can do is to convince them of the process costs involved in future crime.

V. Application: DUIs and Other Hazardous Conditions

            Applying the points I have made in explaining future crime could be a book in itself (and perhaps it will be, once I have tired of fiction), but I will limit myself to one truly suicidal argument: drunk driving. The villainy of drunk driving has risen to prominence in the public eye over the last few decades, and the trend has continued as states continue to lower the legal blood-alcohol limits, set up unconstitutional drunk driving checkpoints and even detain bar patrons before they even drive (talk about future crime!). Organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) continue to push for tougher laws, creating political consequences for those who do not vote according to their maxims. Before I go further, let me say that I do not approve of driving while intoxicated (with alcohol or any other substance), nor is my aim with criticizing the nature of the law to fill the streets with drunken lunatics; my sole purpose is to show how DUI (driving under the influence) laws constitute future crime, punishing individuals for crimes they have yet to commit. Driving while intoxicated is a bad idea, is still illegal no matter what I say, and I would not expect any jury in the country to nullify the law based on my arguments.

Before we begin, let us examine the nature of crime. Crime (or immoral action) generally consists of an action (as opposed to inaction, though that division has been tackled by greater philosophers than myself, and the debate marches on). It may have conditions that allow it to happen or to exist, but those conditions are not moral or immoral in themselves. A person can wear a ski mask and carry a crowbar, and these things are not crimes, but conditions that might allow him to commit an actual crime, breaking and entering or theft. If he is arrested for carrying a crowbar, it is future crime, as he has yet to break into anyone’s home.

In the same way, driving while intoxicated is a condition, not the locus of moral action itself. Though there are few alternative scenarios we could imagine for a masked man carrying a crowbar (perhaps he has to break a crate in his backyard for firewood, and it is cold outside), there are very few indeed we could think of as allowable for a drunk driver. Perhaps he is on his own land, perhaps an empty field, and therefore a danger to nobody (Drunk driving has also been studied on closed courses, so the condition known as drunk driving cannot be called universally immoral). Regardless of whether the condition can be justified in some way, the fact remains that it is just that: a condition, and not the locus of moral action.

The actual locus of moral action occurs when the driver, regardless of conditions affecting him, causes harm to another through his own negligence. The real crime is destruction of property, or manslaughter (if you hit someone), or reckless driving. The individual is responsible for their actions whether they have been drinking, smoking cannabis, or were talking on the cell phone. The conditions (the cause of the negligence) merely help explain actions, not excuse them. When you arrest someone, or cite them (in the case of cell-phone driving laws), you are punishing them for an immoral action which has not yet occurred.

Even as a practical matter, DUI laws are mostly unnecessary, with the actions that drunk drivers initiate being predominantly illegal themselves. If they crash their car into some else’s they should have to pay damages (and they would, whether intoxicated or not). If they hurt someone, they should be subject to civil and criminal penalties (indeed they are, even if not intoxicated). Adding another layer of punishment on top of such does not change the consequences of the actions, but instead punishes the same actions in two different ways.

DUI laws also have severe process costs. They cost a great deal of money to enforce, and have also allowed erosion of liberty through things like DUI stings and drunk driving checkpoints (which are equivalent to asking someone for their “papers,” and actually catch more people for suspended licenses and registration errors than drunk drivers). It also imposes costs on individuals who may not have committed any actual crime, costing them time, money, reputation, and employment because they happened to be at an arbitrary blood alcohol level.  These are people who become part of the criminal system without having actually impact anyone else as of yet. They are future criminals.

Most importantly, we cannot logically ascribe any positive effects to the law. We have no way of knowing whether arresting someone for drunk driving prevented that person from hurting someone else’s body or property.  The benefit is hypothetical and a negative, which means it cannot be disproven. We simply have no idea what the outcomes of the uninterrupted progression of events would have been, positive or negative. Advocates of the law cannot meet the burden of proof of benefit, much less morality.

We can apply the same kind of reasoning to other things which might be part of a hazardous condition, including talking on the phone, driving on bald tires or bad brakes, driving in the snow or rain, being high while driving or riding a bike, driving in high heels, getting on the road as a student driver, etc. Conditions don’t matter, actions do.

VI. Conclusion

            Thank you for reading this short exploration of what I like to call “future crime,” the act of punishing individuals for actions they have yet to commit. I hope you will think deeply about proposed legislation that justifies itself with the prevention of negative conditions or tasks itself with the prevention of a future consequences. If you believe in trade-offs, consider all the process costs involved in prohibiting a condition or substance, including the cost to society and the individuals themselves. If your moral sense is like mine, do your best to oppose the expansion of the state through future crime. After all, if a policeman arrests me for something I will do in the future, how will I them prove him wrong?