A Brief Response to the President's Inauguration Speech

Well it's good to know I'm part of a "we"- obligated by my unchosen birthplace to serve hundreds of millions of people I will never meet, know or care about. How truly sympathetic of our ever-caring president, on his day of inauguration, to endorse coercion on *other people* to provide for his distinguished public programs of utter uselessness.

You know, being president-dictator doesn't actually give you the right- surprisingly enough- to demand the provision of stuff to the less-capable- stuff that isn't free, mind you. If he really thinks that by swearing an oath to his God, he somehow invokes such a power, I wish him a very, very short existence.

How interesting that the free market functions more "competitively" under his arbitrary rules and special privileges. Truly fascinating that with one wave of his magical wand of "fairness", we get a redistribution society of nationalization, centralization, and power by the elite- the government elite.

Get your hands out of the market.

I want one solid reason to justify spending everyone else's money on climate change. What's the unemployment rate these days? 8%? Drop dead. I don't have a single care to give if humans are heating the globe, or if they aren't- the evidence is inconclusive that it results in a net-negative effect on the population. Unemployment at 8%, and inflation at whatever God-forsaken number, *is* *conclusively* *bad* for a whole country of people. How about you fix that instead?

And what about individual freedom- to keep stuff like money, and guns? Is that a thing these days? Or is Obama too hip for that? Because he's the hip president, you know. Smoking marijuana and using "a little blow," only to turn around and incarcerate millions who did the exact same thing he did in college. As "criminals", apparently. What a joke. Set them free, and let people keep their things, and let people sell whatever inanimate objects they want to sell, and then *maybe* I'll be convinced that by legalizing gay marriage- you actually care about liberation.

Talkin real smooth is nice, but walking like you talk is a hell of a lot nicer.

Dorm Privatization: The Experiment

For the next while, this blog will track my upcoming experiment, which I'm excited to watch unfold:

The Dorm Privatization Experiment.

Simply put, I'm surrounded by college dorm rooms, and have the money to pay people to temporarily abide by a FULL dorm privatization, like I've described in past posts here, and here.

Dorm rooms will be sampled in a random manner.

Dorms with less than 6 members will be excluded as possible sampling options.

If girls and boys dorms are used (to be determined), there will be equal representation of these in both the regular dorm organization and the private dorm organization, as gender plays a major role in dorm tidiness and functionality.

The experiment will run for one month, with 5 dorms being payed to enact privatization, and another 5 being payed a much smaller sum for my being allowed to observe them in their "normal" state.

Those "experimented upon" will be payed with a weekly sum, based on their continued participation in the experiment.

Values measured will be:

-Time spent with transaction (by survey)

-Couch usage

-Dish clutter

-Table clutter

-Counter cleanliness

-Overabundance of trash

-Individual Contentedness (by survey)

-Refrigerator and Freezer Clutter/Organization

-Efficiency of Cabinet Space Use

-I'm open to further recommendations.

It's a valid complaint that people in each dorm will have differing level of value ascribed to clutter, and the removal thereof, which is why these are simply values to be *measured.* I'm not to conclude, immediately, that given any range of values one system functions "better" than another-- conclusions about the data collected can be made after the experiment has ended. As a result of this method, it is preferable to observe more things than less, as I can always discard irrelevant data, but may wish I had collected something I didn't by the experiment's end.

Privatized dorms will be discouraged from freely granting favors to one another, instead using a system of money, which I will introduce to their newfound micro-economy. What to use for this money has yet to be determined, but it will abide by the criteria for money I have outlined in my blog post, here. The amount of money I introduce will be a fixed, relatively large number, and all members of the dorm will accept it amongst one another as terms for participation in the experiment.

I will be present for the initial auctioning of capital in the dorm, to make sure the process does, in fact, privatize the dorm, but I will otherwise remain aloof from those in the experiment. I will not intervene in their activities, provide recommendations, or tell them what it is I'm attempting to observe (so readers of my blog can't be participants, sorry. ;) ). 

Observation will occur on a daily basis, at the same time of day for all participants- most likely sometime in the late evening. The kitchen area will be observed only when the participants are not in the room with me.

I expect, from this experiment, to see dramatic changes in the behavior of college dorm students. Obviously such dramatic results would be required to establish any sort of causation, given the relatively-small sample size, and the imperfection of measurement for the qualities observed.

Any readers who have suggestions as to modifications I can make for conducting the experiment are welcome to post them in the comments.

The experiment will start officially on January 28th, and last through the 28th of February. Blog posts may be sporadic until that time, as preparations still have to be made.

Selfish Romance

First, an update on the dorm:

The new chart. *sigh of relief*

So... they didn't go for my idea of dividing out the dishes, or the dishwasher, the sink, the toilet and everything else-- but at least we're not running through 108 eggs every week. The chart is, as you can see, *much* smaller than it was last time around, so I've got that going for me. Which is nice.

[Insert topics segway]

Greetings, Objectivist friends!

Ha! Funny, right? Get it? That would imply there's still a person in this morally-obtuse, socialist commune who sees Ayn Rand as something other than a figurative punching bag! I'm keeling over! Every single person you know, with virtually no exception, is adamantly and unknowingly a proponent of slavery through overbearing government.

Besides me, of course - your fearless leader of liberty and truth, as evidenced by a brilliant quote of Miss Rand's that has remained at the foot of my blog since its founding.

Anyway, the audience for this post is anyone. If you like politics and philosophy, consider it an elaboration on Randian ideas-- expanding upon her theories to improve social conditions for society by way of improvement in personal, loving interaction. If you just like girls/boys (in that way), consider it a long piece of dating advice, with the occasional interjection from an old, angry Russian. If neither of those prospects interests you, feel free to go. So that you didn't feel it was a total waste of your time, here's a picture of my adorable cat in his awkward pose by the Christmas tree.

Photo Cred: Mallory Oveson

I've brought you here to discuss the meaning of romance, and how a very particular form of 'selfishness' can amplify the utility gained through romantic relationships. Before you point a crooked finger with "RANDROOOOOOOOID" ...hear me out. I have my own critiques of Rand (too much government for my taste), but she's damn-well respected for a reason. Mostly because she's right when nobody wants her to be. Bear with me and bring an open mind, friend-- we all have a little something to learn from our former-Russian comrade.

Here's a concise video (¡y con subtítulos españoles!) with the Randian position I'm going to argue. For those who can't video, a transcription of what she says is provided below.

"You fall in love with a person, because you regard him or her as a value, and because they contribute to your personal happiness. Now, you couldn't fall in love with a person by saying: 'You mean nothing to me. I don't care whether you live or die, but you need me, and therefore I am in love with you.' If someone offered love of that kind, everyone would regard that as a deadly insult. That isn't love. Therefore, romantic love is a selfish emotion. It is the choice of a person as a great value, and what you fall in love with is the same values-- which you choose-- embodied in another person."
-Ayn Rand

"Deep stuff."
-Me

So let me give you some background. Skip the blue if you know what's up.

Ayn Rand's code of morality asserts that if you want to do anything- do it. And if you don't, that's immoral (assuming you could). But only for certain definitions of "want."

Rational people, she figures, are those who apply reason to their circumstance, and choose actions with the goal of maximizing their own long-term happiness. Therefore, if you "want" to rob a bank, on a whim, you aren't condoned to do so by Rand, because what you really don't want is to end up in jail (and if you sat down and thought about it, for even a second, you'd probably reach the same conclusion).

In essence, it's a philosophy of intelligent selfishness. Since "intelligent" and "selfish" are essentially the defining characteristics of "asshole," Rand doesn't get a lot of attention these days.

But don't think of it like that. It's not that kind of selfish. Rand has often replaced the term with "self-esteem" which, given people's modern interpretation of words, is a better description of what we're looking at here. You need self-esteem-- and lots of it. Because you aren't going to be happy otherwise.

To reiterate Rand a little bit, imagine the following scenario: your boyfriend/girlfriend/significant other pulls up in a car by your house to deliver an important message to you, in person. S/he says: "Look, I don't actually get anything out of being with you. I'm not happier when I'm around you, and I'd really rather spend my time with someone else instead. But I know that you need me, and so I, in my benevolent selflessness, will remain with you, and in love with you, but for your sake alone."

And you say something like: "I've got two fists and roughly zero reasons to stop myself."

But seriously, nobody wants that! Screw that "love!" True love is when person A wants person B, for being B, and person B wants person A, for being A. True lovers treat each other like precious diamonds, not like slave drivers.

At this point you might be thinking simple enough, I go after the one that I want-- and that's a good starting place. Lots of the "sympathetic" types try to date the ones they don't want, in an attempt to make "unwanted" people feel better about themselves. Please don't do that. The funny thing about love is that there really is somebody for everybody, and the fact that you see them as undesirable doesn't mean that everyone else will too. It's just a matter of preference. When you go to the ice cream shop, you don't pick up vanilla when you want chocolate in order to give vanilla some business. Vanilla's responsible for advertising itself-- and it's doing just fine, thank you very much. I freaking can't get enough vanilla ice cream.

There are disastrous consequences resulting from the inevitable break-up of a relationship founded on pity (unless you don't break-up, in which case, welcome to hell). Not only do both parties get a nice, hefty feel-bad session, the unlucky man or woman you strived to help will proceed to torture his own self-esteem-- the very worst of pains. In the dating world, this is called "leading on." In the world of economics, it's called idiocy (or, more accurately, "irrationality").

The second piece to accompany your conclusion is that you have to follow through. You actually have to go after the ones you want. Fear and nervousness can be really self-destructive in large quantities, especially when it comes to romance. If you want someone, it's your task to decide if they're worth going for, by carefully analyzing the scenario with your mind. With reason. If they're worth it-- by the long-term benefits outweighing the costs, according to the values you ascribe, then you have a moral obligation to go forth and romance. Allowing your laziness, shallowness, nervousness, fear, or any other short-sighted emotion get in the way of that, is wrong. It's unfair to you.

I'm not suggesting, as I worry far too many people misunderstand, that we should adopt some heartless, calculated philosophy where one discards his emotions in favor of cold, hard logic. Emotions and logic go hand-in-hand, especially when the goal in the first place is to create happy emotions. In any given happenstance, it's the job of people to internally evaluate their emotions, what inspired them, and what they should do about them. However, none of them should let his emotions influence his judgement. It's easy to get carried away and satisfy an emotion felt in the present, but do so in a way that dictates many negative emotions to come for the future. Long-term happiness should be favored to that of the short-term, and distinguishing between the two requires that people be in-tune with their feelings, as well as their thinking mind. Reason, then, should be the means by which decisions are processed, and emotions should be the acknowledged product of those decisions.

Rand says it better, if you're willing to take a whole entire five minutes out of your day to watch her. A younger her, mind you.

I'm very curious about the reader's thoughts on this, and on Ayn Rand-- please leave a comment if you feel so inclined.

Zillow's "Make Me Move" in Mass-Application [Long]

The internet has got some breathtakingly awesome applications in the marketplace, one of which is being the middle-man for various transactions. Websites like Craigslist, or KSL (for the Utahnians), take advantage of a computerized ease and accessibility that gets buyers and sellers together.

One such site is Zillow, for people to put houses on the market.

The cool thing about Zillow is its "Make Me Move" feature, which is designed for users who are *not* looking to sell a house. It allows a content homeowner to list a dollar value, however ridiculous, that he would be forced to accept in its ridiculousness. As described on Zillow's webpage:

"a free and easy way to tell others the price you'd be willing to sell your home for, without actually putting it on the market. It's that magical number you just can't refuse."

This is the Make Me Move (MMM) price.

It is useful because it allows mutually beneficial transactions to occur that otherwise wouldn't have. It takes "not for sale" items, and gives them a tag. Even if you wouldn't move for any less than a whole shipload of cash, there's a chance that some other prefers your house to that payment.

Why not just buy a similar house on the market then, you ask? Because while any given house can be, and has been, replicated in almost every fashion imaginable, there are some qualities that cannot be replicated. The house's history, for example, is unique solely to that house, and so too its precise location; perhaps also its architect. As a result, a particular house may have something special to offer that cannot be offered elsewhere, and a particular individual may be willing to pay far more than the market price for that house.

If your reaction was like mine: "holy prophets of economic genius- we applaud your divine scripture," let's work together and make a Bible out of this.

Imagine with me a world without such a thing as "not for sale."

The idea, simply, is that every item, every service, and every possible future service is attached to a Make Me Move/Give/Render/Do price, as set by the owner.

Ever walked into Starbucks and wanted first in line because you're late to class, but the guy up front is some rulesy, clean-cut coffee lover who wants his tarred caffeine in the next minute?

Make him move.

Now you want him to dress up? How about like Bond, complete with a gruffly, Shawn Connery apology for being a rulesy, clean-cut coffee lover that needs a pool of literal darkness to function like an ordinary human being?

Just another payment.

The next guy's getting impatient as you laugh your arteries into different locations throughout your body, but James Bond hasn't finished, and the next cashier looks as though she'd make a perfect 'M' of the British Secret Intelligence.

Make him get over it.

Better yet, have him grab you a chair and a drink.

The world is at your fingertips.

Now, the point could be made that, in the vast majority of circumstances, any given stranger is going to be "busy." Because that stranger has a life to live, the cost of making him do any string of random acts would be pretty absurdly high. It remains true, however, that sometimes a person is willing to pay that high price. When the circumstances are unique, and a potential service or good provided in such a circumstance is also unique by extension, or at least very difficult to replicate, there are often individuals that are willing to pay a larger than market-price sum in order to gain what they cannot gain elsewhere. It's the reason why the fans of a great book- but not just everyone who reads it- will go out of their way to have the author sign a copy, and why enthusiasts of an upcoming movie will pay through the nose to watch it with Peter Jackson himself.

Our fantasy land is then taken to new heights, as we expand the principle to include *allowing* actions that are otherwise impermissible. Every corvette would have a "steal me" price, every highway a "speed on me" price, every handicapped zone a "park in me" price, every person a "punch me," "kiss me," "kidnap me," "kill me," and "rape me" price. Whether or not the last of these would continue to qualify as rape, given its newfound voluntary nature, is questionable-- I'm sure there are plenty of Republican congressman with enlightening contributions to make on the matter.*

Different people will ascribe differing prices to these allowances, based on their preferences and their values. In some cases, one may value a thing too highly to create a 'MMM' price. 

While some have goals of greater importance than life preservation, and would be willing to die were these goals forwarded, others see their own life as being of ultimate importance, and would not give it up for any possible offer. Still others find life to be miserable, and would prefer death- or accept it at trivial expense to a killer.

Poor, but unmarketable persons may choose to accept a relatively low fee in exchange for getting raped, desiring the money more than the discomfort. A Catholic priest may reject a MMM price for being sexually involved with another in any fashion, for fear of eternal damnation. Others will lie in between.

If you consider those who permit action/render service/give goods to gain money as the "sellers," in a transaction through a MMM price, the "buyers" are those who act/receive service/gain goods by giving money-- any individual can and will become both a buyer and seller of various things. 

The Utilitarian should be overjoyed by this, as it will result in more human transactions that are mutually beneficial, thereby raising overall utility amongst sentient beings. Furthermore, it will grant new constructive outlets for those of irregular taste, who would otherwise exercise their passions in a destructive manner. Take, for example, the psychopath who finds joy in killing others. The vast majority of human beings do not find joy in this way, and so the market has failed to accommodate the few that do. Furthermore, most governments, in their abounding ignorance, have determined the action of killing people to be criminal in virtually all cases, even when all parties voluntarily consent to the action. As a result, killing people has been labeled "wrong," or otherwise undesirable, in many cases where it is remarkably beneficial. Like I said before, there are many who value some things more than their own life-- made evident by acts of suicide, and by those who allow themselves to die for a stated cause, be it the betterment of their country or the forwarding of a socio-political movement. If the psychopath could provide that something, and would prefer to lose it if he were granted right to kill the 'seller,' a transaction has occurred with a net-benefit to all parties, despite its criminal label by government.

The Voluntarist and the freedom-lover should already be in support of my case. Disallowing two men to perform any sort of action, even a killing, on voluntary terms is an oppressive, and therefore immoral, thing to do.

There's a number of reasons why we don't have this system set up in today's world.

Firstly, much of what I'm proposing is currently illegal. Paying a man to act like James Bond? Probably not. Raping someone and paying them afterward? Certainly yes. The current legal system favors the inclusion of criminal law (an entirely non-sensical thing, being inferior to tort law-- a topic deserving of another post), which strives, first and foremost, to *deter* a person from committing crime. Unfortunately, as we've seen earlier, much of what the United States legal system considers "crime" is in fact desirable, provided the "criminal" is willing to pay, and the "victim" is accepting of the payment. Thus, with crime defined in this manner, the goal of deterrence is a faulty one, as the optimal level of crime to be committed is greater than zero, provided it's the right kind of crime.

Secondly, the transaction costs are significant in many cases. How many possible crimes would a given person have to consider, and then determine a price for? If someone punches me, they owe me x, if someone rapes me, they owe me y-- and that's not to mention the variance in price depending on the force applied in a particular scenario. I can say with experience that some punches are worse than others. It's my experience-free opinion that some rapes are probably worse than others as well. In addition to all this, there would have to be a method of communicating these prices to others, just as Zillow communicates a long list of Make Me Move prices. It's hard to predict how many sorts of actions would actually receive a MMM price in a purely free market, though it stands to reason the answer is: "more than today," on the grounds that many transactions that might be viable with MMM are illegal, rendering them highly unviable. There is an incentive for the marketplace to create methods that reduce transaction costs in all cases, which will be expanded upon as time progresses and technology improves, and which would be furthered by a reduction of government intervention in the economy, as this would allow for a richer society. The internet will more than likely play a key role in this, though my limited understanding of internet-market applications restricts my ability to elaborate.

People are far off when they imagine the typical societal Utopia. They've got their minds in the wrong place. It's always a skewed vision of an impossible world surrounded by perfect people, all of whom share the same preference, each of which strives for the same goal. They sit and wonder why, despite its supposed perfection, a thought dwelled too long in this sickening sameness leads one to believe that Utopia is not Utopia-- an imagined paradox rooted in some philosophical conundrum, which gives rise to hideous and deadly social movements that favor communal underdevelopment, deconstruction and sacrifice. It drives people mad as they ponder on a world where everyone is happy, but they wouldn't be. It makes them try, in vain, to change who they are, and to try, barbarically, to change the nature of others. Utopia isn't found in some wallowing, childish plaything, distorted to match the inhuman characteristic of an arbitrarily labeled "perfection." It's found in pure, unrestricted liberation from tribe, and from state, where people accept the means by which others ascribe value, and embrace the means by which they ascribe it themselves. It's a world of smiles and sideways frowns, of blissful ignorance and intense thought, of supreme fitness and bloated fatness, of sex, drugs and abstention, of peace and war, of death and of life- where if you don't like the latter, you go right ahead and substitute the former. See where it takes you.

+++

*- For the less politically-inclined, a number of prominent Republicans in recent time have nose-driven their reputations with rape-related statements. Mourdock's comment is most well-known.