Experience-Free Opinion is Go- But in Stasis.

Received an adequate number of confirmations, and then some, that the Experience-Free Opinion is worth my time and contains readers who would like to hear what I have to say.

I also received in-depth feedback from a number of sources, and the blog will be undergoing some major revisions.

Until then, this blog will be in stasis. Updates should not be expected in the near future, but they will come when a few milestones have been successfully reached:

-A means by which to attract a larger audience.

-Additional writers, in order to keep posts frequent and the blog lively.

-A compilation of evidence, and a means by which to easily connect it with big ideas.

I thank each of you for your time, your appreciation and your thoughts. The heart of this blog is still pumping-- partially because of you and mostly because of faith-- and even as the posts cease, for a time, the resources for improvement are being sought for.

It's hard to say how long the blog will remain inactive, but rest assured it will return (and you *will* be notified when this happens- so don't bother checking here). Better than ever, of course.

Until then,

God be with you. Carry on.

The Blog: Is It Worth My Time?

After all, I could be busy with bioengineering hoping to create the elixir of life.

There are 3 questions that must be answered:

1. Who, if anyone, reads The Experience-Free Opinion? It's hard to say. Are there page views? Blogger says so. But a page view is different from a reading, much less an analysis or understanding. The material is certainly deep, the posts are wordy and filled with complex or abstract thinking that any given passerby may not have interest enough to examine further.

2. Are readers (assuming they're out there) getting 'something' out of their reading? Most of my opinions are favored by very few. Anarcho-capitalism, even minimalism in government, which topics are found in the majority of posts, are uncommon ideas to the general public. Most people like to read material they agree with. And if they do read it, and find it nothing but completely absurd, was their time reading, and my time composing, honestly well-spent?

3. Are the answers to questions 1 and 2 significant enough to make writing blog posts worth my time? It takes a lot of time. And a lot of brainpower. It's exhausting and fairly difficult to do. That said, the challenge is also entertaining, on a personal level, and there's gain to be had aside from other's reading, but this benefit alone is not enough. Composing my thoughts is a pretty good idea, but the time spent to make them easily (or at least more easily) understood by others is a great deal of time indeed, time spent for the benefit of others who, if not significant in quantity, may not be worth my efforts.

SO I ASK YOU NOW, AS A READER, leave a comment- on this post, on my facebook page (if posting here isn't working out for you) or at my email address- jacob.oveson@gmail.com and answer these questions for me: Do you read The Experience-Free Opinion on a regular or semi-regular basis? Are you getting 'something' out of your reading? Would you like me to continue making posts?

I value your appreciation, the appreciation of each of you, highly- and I understand that this is still a fledging blog, and I don't expect a host of respondents.

Should I get just 3 people to post in one of these manners, with the answers: Yes, I read your blog (on a regular or semi-regular basis), Yes, I get 'something' out of my reading (even if it's not much) and Yes, I would like to continue seeing posts, then the blog will continue. If not, I'll have to reconsider.

 Your feedback is greatly appreciated.

What is One's Purpose in Life?

A question old as time will be answered, by me, today:
What is the meaning of life?

Mathematically speaking, one aspect of this question can be answered very easily. If you don't live forever, your life is meaningless. If, in fact, life is as Thomas Hobbes described it: "brutish and short", and, as Bertrand Russell illustrated, you wait to be hit by the inevitable wave of non-existence, whatever you choose to do is irrelevant. Relative to the infinities, your time as a person is nothing and so you are nothing.

It follows that the sensible thing to do- indeed the only thing that truly matters- is maximizing your chances of living forever.

Edit: That's not to say that happiness isn't important. Obviously, it is the thing that each of us strives for on a daily basis. However, ultimately, what you do, and how happy you are has no relevance if your life lasts for a finite period of time.

Think of it like a mathematical equation. Though it isn't easy to do (some might say it's undoable) quantify a "happiness level" into a number. The more happiness you achieve in your lifetime, the higher the number gets. Ultimately, your goal is to make that number as large as possible.

If the amount of time that you have to increase that number is finite- even if you lived for 10,000 years- the number, ultimately, will be finite. You will increase your happiness level for however long you live, and when your consciousness fades into a theoretical non-existence, your time is up.

However, even though you have run out of time, time itself, by definition, has not. Time will press onward for an infinite length, and as any good mathematician knows, a finite number divided by infinity is equal to zero. And so in the "long run", over the grand scheme of material existence, the happiness you have collected will have a worth of zero.

Living forever is the means by which a happiness level can reach an infinite number. Provided this is done, the worth of one's happiness comes into play, and life has meaning. 

 Is there an afterlife? Everyone's got a different opinion and each individual would apply a different chance to its reality.

Regardless, no matter your belief, it makes sense to push for the ability to live forever here, in what you know for certain to exist.

And so, since it can be logically deduced that the ability to live forever here in the existence we know of will most likely come as a result of technology, it is in the best interest of every person to push for technological advancement. Which comes as a result of progression.

So life does have meaning. To create the means of giving it meaning.

+++

Government hinders progression.

Private Defense Agencies Explained

OF ALL THE Beliefs I've held over the years, none has raised so many questions as the private defense agency (not even Mormonism). Here I will explain the idea, and how the private sector can do the job of the Police better than the Police.

To start, this idea is not my own, so I grant credit where it is due. David D. Friedman (daviddfriedman.blogspot.com) illustrated this concept in his book The Machinery of Freedom, which I highly recommend reading, and from where I have drawn many of my own opinions.

The link to the book itself in pdf form is here: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

Simply put, a private defense agency is a private organization that is involved in the protection of the citizenry by force. Today, such organizations do not exist in the United States because the government has a monopoly on the industry with the police force-- one cannot compete with an organization that the entire country is forced to pay for.

What if instead there was no police force? Those without any faith in the market or its abilities are imagining a lawless society of complete and utter chaos. But those of us who understand how the market works a little better would think twice.

Consider: wherever there is money, there's a market. Without a police force, people across the nation would desire, and be willing to pay for, some sort of defense for themselves. Sure, they could always buy a gun, but that alone may not be enough. As a result, companies would naturally take on the business of providing defense for others. Contracts would be made that ensure protection from criminals for some sort of fee, and companies would have a strong incentive to uphold these contracts, lest they become distrusted by the consumers and left behind by their competitors.

Now the question becomes- by what rule of law do private defense agencies operate? One thing is certain- people will desire that their rights be protected. Whether or not you're a murderer or a thief, chances are that you don't want to *get murdered* or *get robbed*, so you want to hire a defense agency that will punish those who violate your rights.

However, suppose you also want a defense agency that protects you from other defense agencies- even when *you* violate the rights of others. If I'm a thief, and I steal your wallet, your private defense agency (let's say Sunnyside) might show up at my door. I would then have interest in hiring a defense agency (say Deep Green) that would show up at my door to protect me from whatever punishment is about to ensue- so what happens? Do our agencies duke it out and whoever has the most goons wins?

Look at it from the companies' perspective. Without a doubt, there are going to be a large number of companies wrapped up in the defense industry-- it's something that virtually everyone wants. Just like consumers have about a million options of where to buy food, so they will have a plethora of choices regarding who will defend them against "crime." If I run the private defense agency Sunnyside and you run Deep Green, what are the odds you and I will still be in business if we have a miniature war between the two of us while, in the meantime, the competing private defense agencies Mithril, Gunsmart, and GoonsRUs learn to get along? It's like a FFA game of Risk, where the surest way to win is to let your opponents kill each other and then swoop in for the victory.

It is for this reason that private defense agencies have an incentive *not* to fight each other.

Furthermore, as a customer, do I really want to hire a private defense agency that I know makes special exceptions for customers who pay extra? Do I want to hire an agency that might look the other way when another one of its own customers who's a little wealthier than I am decides to take something of mine? The market for such a risky agency is, without a doubt, very small.

Most people are going to be OK with a private defense agency that ensures protection for everyone, even if that means that a customer could be punished by his own defense agency if he sticks his nose in somebody else's business. It's more desirable, for most people, to have guaranteed safety from others at the expense of being punished for "criminal activity", then it is to have a defense agency that's a little lenient with your crimes at the expense of less-than-assured protection.

And so, in order to satisfy the interests of the protectors and those they protect, private defense agencies will couple with private arbitration agencies to form a desirable rule of law. The vast majority of the market will hire those defense agencies whose arbitration agencies have a double-edged 'don't tread on me' law system- where protection from others comes first and foremost above all else.

Note that "victimless crimes", such as using drugs or drinking 'under age' do not exist in a society with private arbitration agencies, because there is no market for the enforcing of such laws. This opens the doorway to increased social freedom, thereby making the society a more desirable place to live in (which is always a good thing).

There will, however, be differences in what sorts of law people choose to apply to others (and themselves). On the subject of how people are punished, for example, there can be differences in opinion, and thereby law structure, even if both variants of law are double-edged 'don't tread on me' systems.

Let's say, for example, that I'm a customer who favors the death penalty for any man who attempts to murder, or successfully does murder, another man. I have my reasons (maybe I believe this will serve as a strong crime deterrent), and so I hire an agency who advertises pro-capital punishment arbitration.

You, on the other hand, would rather not have capital punishment for any reason. Perhaps the risk of being wrongly (or rightly) convicted and executed outweighs any minor gain in deterrence that execution has over a standard imprisonment.

On one afternoon, an attempt is made at my life by a masked gunman, and though I was successful in fleeing, you are accused of being the man in the mask.

By my system of law, you could be killed if found guilty. However, by your system of law, you would only be sentenced to prison. So what happens?

Our private defense agencies would have a talk.

Rather than whipping out all as many guns as possible, it makes far more sense economically, for both of our agencies, to work out the court case peacefully.

Your anti-capital punishment agency determines that a guarantee for all crimes related to murder to be sent to an anti-capital punishment court has a value of $100,000 per year to its customers.

My pro-capital punishment agency, on the other hand, determines that a guarantee of its own for all crimes related to murder to be sent to a pro-capital punishment court has a value of only $60,000 per year to its customers.

Your private defense agency offers my private defense agency $80,000 per year in exchange for accepting an anti-capital punishment court. My defense agency accepts, since this is more money than it could make by holding to a pro-capital punishment guarantee. Your private defense agency could then raise its rates to bring in an extra revenue of $90,000 per year- which is OK with the agency's customers, since this is of less value to them then the guarantee for anti-capital punishment courts, and it's OK with your defense agency, since they are making an additional $90,000 per year at the cost of $80,000 per year. My defense agency then lowers its rates by $70,000 per year, which is OK by its customers, who would prefer this amount to a guarantee of a pro-capital punishment court (which they value at only $60,000 per year). This is something my defense agency can afford to do, since they are losing $70,000 per year at the price of gaining $80,000 per year from your defense agency.

Just as happens in any good trade, everyone wins (and our case would go to an anti-captial punishment court).

In this way, laws that are desired for most strongly by the population will overrule those which are less favored. Note that even if more money tends to back an anti-capital punishment law system, capital punishment would still be used when the private defense agencies of both customers in question are coupled with a pro-capital punishment arbitration agency. Because that's what both of you want.

This is true democracy.

+++

So what are the advantages of private defense agencies over a Police force? There are many.

First of all, as in any industry, competition brings about higher quality at a lower cost. Defense agencies would be forced to push the limits in protection capabilities, as their ability to arrive quickly at the scene of a crime and quickly apprehend criminals would be pivotal to their success over their competitors. Funds would be allocated reasonably and efficiently to reduce costs and make their hire as attractive as possible.

As I've stated before, it would result in the elimination of "victimless crimes", which have no place in civilized society.

Perhaps most importantly, laws wouldn't have to go through the painful, expensive, lengthy and obscure process laid on by politics. Wherever people are willing to attribute the most money (in other words, where society as a whole feels the most strongly), there is where the law structure will be formed. Defense agencies will have to be transparent (and there would be no incentive to hide anything) regarding exactly what laws their arbitration agencies support. The law would be in the hands of the people, rather than whichever politicians can best break the system.

Furthermore, since people would be charged, at least in part, based on how much they make use of their defense agency, people would be incentivized not to waste protection resources. With a police force being "free" and readily available, people will make a call to 911 and demand the presence of officers without a moment's hesitation at even the slightest sign of trouble. As a result, the police force has become riddled with inefficiency, and increases have been made where perhaps they weren't necessary. If demanding the presence of private defense agency operatives is attached to a price, even a minor one, those resources will be allocated to where they are best served, as people make calls for help only when the cost of doing so is outweighed by the benefit they receive.

Externalities: The Government is not the "Solution"

First, a brief introduction regarding 'What is an externality'?

According to Wikipedia,

"An externality is a cost or benefit that is not transmitted through prices and is incurred by a party not involved as the buyer or seller of the goods or services causing the cost or benefit."

Pollution is the best example to illustrate this concept.

When you buy gasoline (a good) from King Soopers to fill up your car, you (the buyer) pay King Soopers (the seller) $3 per gallon of gasoline (the price). You obtain the benefit of driving your car, which is reflected by the price of $3 per gallon. However, there is another cost at work. When you run your car, some amount of pollution escapes into the atmosphere. This pollution (the externality) risks health (the cost not transmitted in the price of the gasoline) of whoever breathes in the affected air (the party not involved as the buyer or seller).

This is an externality that deals with an added cost. It's a problem because the producers of gasoline have no incentive to reduce this cost, and the cost is not factored in to the decision of the buyer.

Because of externalities, consumers might make inefficient decisions- decisions in purchasing a good that is more costly for what it does than another similar good.

For example, let's say King Sooper's gasoline has a listed price of $3 per gallon, but costs an additional $1 per gallon as a result of the harmful effects of the pollution it creates. On the other hand, Costco sells more eco-friendly gasoline for $3.30 per gallon, which only costs an additional 20 cents as a result of reduced pollution.

In this case, the actual cost of King Soopers gasoline is $4 per gallon, versus Costco's gasoline at $3.50. However, consumers are more likely to purchase King Soopers gasoline, since the internal cost (the cost to the buyer) is merely $3, versus Costco's $3.30. The added costs are external, thereby making them externalities.

The "solution" to this problem has long been government intervention. If King Soopers is taxed- $1 per gallon of gasoline- and Costco is taxed- $.20 per gallon of gasoline- and then that money was directly distributed to those who incurred the cost of pollution, the externality could be accounted for.

Unfortunately, the government rarely operates in the way intended. When we apply realism, this ideal situation never manifests. Taxes are complicated, and many gasoline companies receive subsidies. Furthermore, the cost of externalities has yet to be determined (the government may as well be pulling a number out of a hat regarding 'what is the added cost'?), and the tax money they *do* receive is hardly given to those effected by the externality. Instead it is added to a large pool of funds, which are distributed to a wide array of programs (ranging in effectiveness from inefficient to harmful) that ultimately have nothing to do with the problem that we started with.

Fortunately, people do recognize externalities in products they purchase.

Eco-friendly options have been praised in the private sector without government influence because that's what people have decided they want to buy. They recognize, at least in part, the harmful effects of pollution- to an appropriate extent- and they act accordingly. It won't be exact, but the market accounts for externalities by tending to choose options that have less cost to others not involved in the transaction. The fact is that no "solution" to the problem of externalities is perfect, and there has yet to be formed an answer that accounts for them entirely, but when government is involved it can be counted on to make matters worse.

Here's a Retort and also a Guide

IF YOU BROWSE The internet enough, you're more than likely to find arguments like:

-The rich take too much of the wealth pie.

-The percentage of "good" jobs is decreasing, so is, therefore, the quality of life in the middle class-- good being defined by the CEPR as: 

• Make at least $18.50 an hour, or $37,000 annually (the median hourly pay in 2010, which means that in 2010, exactly half of all employees made more and half made less than $18.50 an hour).
• Get any employer-sponsored health plan, no matter how paltry, for which the employer pays some portion, no matter how small, of the premium.
• Have an employer-sponsored pension or retirement plan.

    -Romney's tax plan = A rise in taxes for the middle class according to that one Tax Policy Center study.

  Today I ran into all three of these arguments in a single post, and I decided to go ahead and refute them outright. I post it here as well so that A) you can become educated in how to refute such ignorant remarks, B) to hear your criticisms and C) so that if/when it gets deleted by the post's left-wing author, my essay can remain in existence in safety.

Enjoy.

+++

I’m afraid that your assessment of the studies is fundamentally flawed. There is no “wealth pie”– for this implies the amount of wealth in the world is fixed, when in fact wealth can be created. The process of taking the world’s natural resources and making them more useful for society as a whole is wealth creation, and it happens constantly.

It’s true that of the wealth we create on a daily basis the top 5% get a disproportionally large amount. It’s true that these exceedingly rich people are only getting richer, and it’s also true that the gap between them and the bottom 5% is rising. But that doesn’t mean that anyone is falling- no one is getting poorer. The “rich” simply get richer faster than the “poor” get richer.

The increases in wealth from the richest in society are ultimately to the benefit of all of society’s members. We know from experience that the ultra-rich are exceedingly charitable, and in this way wealth trickles down from the top to the bottom. Furthermore, for the most part, the very reason these people become wealthier is because they provide products that are superior and cheaper to what previously existed, which results in an improved quality of life for people of all income levels.

You say you’d like me to be the judge regarding your data? How about I explain what it actually means:

Nothing.

You’re looking at percentages of jobs acquired by the population, which takes into account more factors than you or I have time to discuss. You’ve shown a correlation- that over time the percentage of jobs held which are “good” decreases- but haven’t the slightest ounce of evidence to prove that anything in particular caused that change. Therefore, you can’t even verify it’s an undesirable thing to occur.

Consider for example that between the time periods of 1980 and 2010 far more young people have chosen to apply for college instead of going directly to a line of work. The jobs people apply for in college are going to be part-time, and therefore less likely to be “good.” College students will likely retain these “bad” jobs for a long portion of their college career, whereas people who enter the workforce immediately would find a “good” job more quickly.

I’m not saying I can verify that college explains the statistics you’ve presented, but it is reasonable to assume that it contributes, even though the increase in education has been beneficial for society in numerous ways (and detrimental only in that it’s been producing more liberals.).

In response to your criticism of Romney’s tax plan, I will take a jab at the “highly reputable” Tax Policy Center. Romney has never proposed raising taxes for anyone, and a closer look reveals: “The study, filling in the gaps, assumed that he would have to eliminate various tax breaks like mortgage-interest deductions that would result in a net tax increase for 95 percent of taxpayers.”

It’s not what Romney *is* going to do- it’s what the “non-partisan” Tax Policy Center *assumes* he *must* do in order for his plan to “work out revenue-neutral.” I would argue that they underestimate the effects of the Laffer Curve in their assumption- tax revenues would rise through tax cuts due to an increase in economic growth- and seeing as it’s impossible to determine exactly how it would come into effect, the study’s ability to throw out exact numbers like “a raise of $546″ is as wrong as it is utterly absurd.

I’m not contesting your sources (for the most part), but your interpretation is irreparably misconstrued.

Charity: Is it Always Appropriate?

THE STRANGE THING About charity is that sometimes it isn't helpful.

"Incentive" is a word I'm sure most of us are familiar with. For those who aren't, it's as simple as "a thing that motivates or encourages people to do something", or 'a thing that people respond to.'

It's important in any given situation to determine what the incentives are for each person involved. If you can determine their incentive, you can also guess at how they're probably going to act.

In the case of the homeless- what happens when you give them money?

Depends a lot on the guy.

Arguably, many people will have reduced incentives to get a job and earn money for a house. After all, if all they have to do is hold out a cup and watch money fall into it, the lazier ones could see that as a better alternative to a work schedule, and even the somewhat-less lazy might think twice about moving on.

Which is not to mention the intense correlation between substance abuse and homelessness. A study by the National Coalition for the homeless determined "38% of homeless people were dependent on alcohol and 26% abused other drugs" in 2007*. It's entirely possible, even likely, that the money you spend will be spent in such a manner, reducing further any chance that the one you have "aided" will ever seek employment or become productive. 

*[Source: http://www.cohhio.org/pdf/Training/Homeless%20Sub-Populations.pdf]

If you spend money on a man in need and in so doing reduce the odds that he will rise in socio-economic status, you may have given him enough money to sustain himself for weeks, but have you really done him a favor in the long run?

+++

On the other hand, efforts such as disaster relief have little else besides a positive impact. The fact that a member of the red cross saved my life by providing food and shelter, which was taken away from me by a hurricane, probably isn't going to make me consider working less or living off charity.

Charitable organizations that take kids from failing public schools and pay for their tuition at a functioning private school will likely skyrocket a child's odds of becoming successful.

Funding the growth of a church organization that teaches adequate moral behavior and encourages a good culture is going to be in the best interest of the people under its influence.

So it's a case-by-case basis.

Even amongst feeding the homeless it's a case-by-case basis-- though oftentimes I think this does more harm than good.

If your internal moral compass drives you to help someone in need by the side of the road, a word of advice to you, to at least prevent your efforts from going to waste on something so careless as alcohol:

Instead of money, give them food.