Atloggerheads

Have you ever noticed that people will throw around the label “fascist” (in a political context) or “fundamentalist” (in a religious context) at times? What I’ve always found slightly amusing about these labels is that they tend to signify far more about the person tossing the label out than the person the label is being applied too.

Alvin Plantinga famously observed that a “fundamentalist” is normally an epithet applied to someone who is a “stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine”. He made this observation on page 245 of his brilliant work Warranted Christian Belief.

I think it would be fair to say that such a definition would be just as fruitfully applied to someone who shouts “fascist” in a political context. Keep that in mind next time someone accuses you of being a “fascist” or a “fundamentalist”. Especially when it is clear that they are unfamiliar with the origins of the Fundamentalist movement in late 19th/Early 20th century Christendom or don’t really have even a passing idea of what Mussolini was on about when he started his Fascist^W Movement.

I thought this was a particularly genius Dilbert post. It left me well gruntled for the day.

It seems that US Senate Candidate Rand Paul has gotten himself in trouble because he said store owners should be allowed to refuse service to black customers if they want too. This has meant that the usual collection of leftist idiots have decried him as a racist and a bigot. I guess that is simpler than listening to the point he was actually making.

After all, he did say that he thought discrimination was a bad thing, but that ultimately he thought the private property rights of the owners was more important. You know what. He is 100% right. If a business owner wants to refuse service to a customer why shouldn’t that business owner be allowed to? Whatever reason the person might have for refusing service, however unpleasant or objectionable, surely they have the right to use their private property as they see fit.

If you don’t think that freedom and liberty should protect someones right to be a jackass like that with brier private property and pay the price for it (after all the business owner is turning a paying customer away) then to be honest, you don’t believe in freedom and liberty at all.

This is just like free speech. If you don’t support the freedom of speech for ideas you disagree with then you don’t support freedom of speech at all.

The sort of totalitarian impulse that is beig shown here by those who disagree with what Rand Paul said should be carefully noted. This is the way they hinkbpeople who disagree with hem should be treated. These people are wanna be tyrants and are showing their true colours in this case.

Andrew Klavan explains the central argument from leftists the world over. He pretty much nails it.

Why can’t we get more politicians like this? I just hope if he gets elected he holds true to his word, but I’ve heard a few interviews with the guy and I’d give him the benefit of the doubt.

I had an interesting conversation at bible study last night when the topic of “global warming” came up and I got some odd looks when I came out in favor of the proposition that much of it is essentially a fraud. I’m not really sure why that was such a controversial position but it did inspire me to put electrons to disc platter and outline my thoughts on the position.

To properly set the scene I have for many years followed the Intelligent Design movement and the things they have been doing and I’ve seen how a collection of interests in the scientific community with a philosophical agenda has sought to suppress their dissent from a materialist orthodoxy in the biological sciences. I’ve also seen a deep similarity between the sorts of tactics used by them and the sorts of tactics that are used by “climate change proponents” to quell dissent from their point of view. The upshot of this is that I think skepticism of “global warmers” is at least as justified as my skepticism of “Darwinian materialists”.

The first thing I should have communicated to my Bible Study members (and I failed too, but limits of time didn’t really help) was my observation (and reason for my skepticism) that stemmed largely from a failure of climate change proponents to be clear in the way they present evidence and how they essentially cheat in the way they present things. I have a real problem with this approach and it makes me extremely skeptical of either the competence or honesty. Either way, they are not to be trusted in the claims they make, but I will explain further.

Typically when someone makes claims about climate change and the need to “do something” they will try to present some evidence to buttress their claims and then claim this demonstrates that man made global warming is a fact and that “debate is over” as a result. “Apocalypse” Al Gore is particularly good at engaging in this sort of practice and he should be dismissed because he does this.

Consider the steps that are required to demonstrate the claims of global warming alarmists like Apocalypse Al and then compare that to the evidence they typically present.

Normally what will be presented is some observed change in weather patterns or global temperatures over some period of time. But what does this actually demonstrate? The answer is very very little. That the climate changes over time is not in dispute. The climate has been warmer (The Medieval Warm Period) and cooler in the past and these variations precede the industrial revolution, or as some smart alec put it, “Whose SUV’s caused the Medieval Warm Period?”. No amount of observations about changes over time in the temperature or weather patterns will demonstrate anything more than that the climate is variable and changes over time. Nothing in such data sets will allow you to distinguish a natural cycle in the climate from a supposed man made one.

Now there is an additional problem with these data sets, and that is one of selective culling of data points to suit a conclusion. Only pointing to observations that agree with your case (some area of sea ice has shrunk, or a particular glacier or set of glaciers is in retreat) while ignoring data points that disagree with the conclusion (other glaciers advancing, snow in all 50 states of the US etc) that is desired. I guess a person can do this, but it is dishonest and it certainly isn’t science. Still, even with the selective observations, none of it differentiates a natural cycle from a man made one.

Another trick, one Apocalypse Al used in his grossly fraudulent propaganda piece “An Inconvenient Truth”, was to misrepresent data. Al pointed to a large graph that purported to show CO2 levels and temperature went up and down together over time. It is even true there is a rough correlation between the two, but the rise in temperature precedes the rise in CO2 levels rather than follows it. Such gross dishonesty (or absolutely monumental incompetence) should make people stop listening to a clown like Al Gore immediately but for some reason it doesn’t. Honestly I don’t understand this. If some one makes a error this bad (deliberate or due to a staggering degree of incompetence) it really should utterly destroy their credibility.

Of course the problem gets worse from there. What is actually required to demonstrate that man is responsible for the climate change due to something we are doing requires that some work is done to show that there is a causal relation between something man has done and the change in the temperature over time. This really hasn’t been done. The claim is made that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere as a result of the industrial revolution are causing the change in temperature, but that is problematic as we have seen changes greater than what is observed prior to the industrial revolution. So just pointing to some supposed trend based on CO2 levels and temperature is insufficient. Much more work is needed to actually even show the change over time is not some simple natural cycle that we are not going to be able to make a difference too.

Additionally, there is the simple historical reality that in the 70’s scientists were panicking about “global cooling”, prior to that there was a concern about warming, and before that a previous concern about cooling. Such chicken little behavior is hardly conducive to the idea that climatologists have any idea what they are talking about. Plus the previous round of panic about cooling contained all sorts of suggestions of things that must be done now to prevent it. How much worse would things be now if such actions had been undertaken I wonder?

Finally, a last thought. Even if the claims of man made climate change were substantiated it doesn’t mean we should do anything about it at all, or that we should try to prevent it. Even if it has negative side effects (an open question, CO2 is plant food after all) there is good reason to think that human innovation and attempts to ameliorate the problems will be cheaper and more effective than grand schemes to prevent the problem in the first place. All of the schemes to “prevent global warming” that have been proposed would ultimately be ineffective (take Kyoto for example) even if the targets could be reached and would prove devastating to industrial economies around the world. Why does it make sense to utterly destroy wealthy economies in the quest to “prevent global warming” when it is clear that the effort is expensive and pointless? We would be better off being wealthier as wealthier nations are better able to weather things like climate change than poorer nations. It isn’t a coincidence that you measure the lives lost from hurricanes in the industrialized west in the 10’s or 100’s, but the body count for them in chronically poor places like Bangladesh routinely starts at 1000’s and go up from there.

One of the Bible Study members cited some data point that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere will render some crop grown in some poor part of the world poisonous. I’ve not heard this, but lets assume it is true and not based on a misunderstanding. Surely it makes sense to provide the farmers in the region a new staple food crop (assuming that is what is was) to grow in place of the crop that can no longer be safely grown. That would be cheaper and more effective than indulging in futile gestures designed to “prevent global warming”.

Just some random thoughts …

An interesting video from the folks at RSA. It was presented to me as evidence that the profit motive was mistaken. I’m not sure why exactly. Especially as the video stated explicitly that the profit motive works perfectly for some tasks and that for other tasks the best option was to pay enough money to make it no longer an issue. Unsurprisingly that pretty much exactly matches my experience of working as a software engineer. That the job is interesting is much more important than the amount of money paid past a certain point. Heck, I used to work in a call center doing internet technical support. There is nearly no amount of money that I could be paid to do that job again.

If you haven’t seen this film I highly recommend you pick it up. It is a disturbing tale about a world where everybody is equal and one man who dares to buck the system and show it up for the evil that it is.

2081 | based on Kurt Vonnegut’s "Harrison Bergeron"

There was an interesting picture taken of someone at a Tea Party in the US recently. There was a young woman photographed with a sign reading “Jesus was a Socialist”. This struck me as a rather perculiar sign to have given who Jesus was and the nature of socialism as a political system. Maybe someone can explain it to me?

After all Jesus made a claim to be God incarnate, the Son of God the Father. So we can get some idea how Jesus would approach the business of organising the state. There was a functionng state and rules for organising government presented in the Old Testament and the organisation of the state of Israel. It is an admittedly imperfect model as it was a theocracy directly ruled by God and we don’t have such a system today, although I think the argument could be made that a republic governed by l the rule of law is actually a fairly similar form of government, but that is a topic for another time.

Now socialism as a system is based fundamentally on the idea of a redistriubtion of wealth by the state. That the state is entitled to take money from one group and give it to another. This is normally done for some high sounding motives about “equality” and “justice” or some sort of “duty to help the less fortunate”. The way I would normally think of much of it is as government enforced “charity” that is administered by the state with the state deciding who is “truly needy”.

I would contend that this is little more than government sanctioned theft, or as Bastiat termed it “legalized plunder”. Given that that would be a wholesale violation of the 8th commandment by the state it seems strange to claim that Jesus, part of the trinity, and therefore one of the authors of the old testament law, would be in favour of a political system that conflicts with one of the 10 commandments.

Now in fairness the girl made another basic error with her use of the term “was” as Jesus is alive today and isn’t properly referred to in the past tense.

Still I find the idea that Jesus would embrace a socialist apprach to government a bit strange given that He had ample opportunity extoll the virtues of it in His earthly ministry and the old testament law could have included explict tennents like that.

But maybe that is just me…

I thought I would share this absolutely genius piece of middle 19th century economic satire. I had a good laugh at it. Perhaps that says more about me than the quality of humor among 19th Century French economists.

A PETITION From the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, sticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers, and Extinguishers, and from Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol, and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting.
To the Honourable Members of the Chamber of Deputies.

Gentlemen:
You are on the right track. You reject abstract theories and have little regard for abundance and low prices. You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the producer. You wish to free him from foreign competition, that is, to reserve the domestic market for domestic industry.

We come to offer you a wonderful opportunity for your — what shall we call it? Your theory? No, nothing is more deceptive than theory. Your doctrine? Your system? Your principle? But you dislike doctrines, you have a horror of systems, as for principles, you deny that there are any in political economy; therefore we shall call it your practice — your practice without theory and without principle.

We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of French industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation. This rival, which is none other than the sun, is waging war on us so mercilessly we suspect he is being stirred up against us by perfidious Albion (excellent diplomacy nowadays!), particularly because he has for that haughty island a respect that he does not show for us.

We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull’s-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.

Be good enough, honourable deputies, to take our request seriously, and do not reject it without at least hearing the reasons that we have to advance in its support.

First, if you shut off as much as possible all access to natural light, and thereby create a need for artificial light, what industry in France will not ultimately be encouraged?

If France consumes more tallow, there will have to be more cattle and sheep, and, consequently, we shall see an increase in cleared fields, meat, wool, leather, and especially manure, the basis of all agricultural wealth.

If France consumes more oil, we shall see an expansion in the cultivation of the poppy, the olive, and rapeseed. These rich yet soil-exhausting plants will come at just the right time to enable us to put to profitable use the increased fertility that the breeding of cattle will impart to the land.

Our moors will be covered with resinous trees. Numerous swarms of bees will gather from our mountains the perfumed treasures that today waste their fragrance, like the flowers from which they emanate. Thus, there is not one branch of agriculture that would not undergo a great expansion.

The same holds true of shipping. Thousands of vessels will engage in whaling, and in a short time we shall have a fleet capable of upholding the honour of France and of gratifying the patriotic aspirations of the undersigned petitioners, chandlers, etc.

But what shall we say of the specialities of Parisian manufacture? Henceforth you will behold gilding, bronze, and crystal in candlesticks, in lamps, in chandeliers, in candelabra sparkling in spacious emporia compared with which those of today are but stalls.

There is no needy resin-collector on the heights of his sand dunes, no poor miner in the depths of his black pit, who will not receive higher wages and enjoy increased prosperity.

It needs but a little reflection, gentlemen, to be convinced that there is perhaps not one Frenchman, from the wealthy stockholder of the Anzin Company to the humblest vendor of matches, whose condition would not be improved by the success of our petition.

We anticipate your objections, gentlemen; but there is not a single one of them that you have not picked up from the musty old books of the advocates of free trade. We defy you to utter a word against us that will not instantly rebound against yourselves and the principle behind all your policy.

Will you tell us that, though we may gain by this protection, France will not gain at all, because the consumer will bear the expense?

We have our answer ready:

You no longer have the right to invoke the interests of the consumer. You have sacrificed him whenever you have found his interests opposed to those of the producer. You have done so in order to encourage industry and to increase employment. For the same reason you ought to do so this time too.

Indeed, you yourselves have anticipated this objection. When told that the consumer has a stake in the free entry of iron, coal, sesame, wheat, and textiles, “Yes,” you reply, “but the producer has a stake in their exclusion.” Very well, surely if consumers have a stake in the admission of natural light, producers have a stake in its interdiction.

“But,” you may still say, “the producer and the consumer are one and the same person. If the manufacturer profits by protection, he will make the farmer prosperous. Contrariwise, if agriculture is prosperous, it will open markets for manufactured goods.” Very well, If you grant us a monopoly over the production of lighting during the day, first of all we shall buy large amounts of tallow, charcoal, oil, resin, wax, alcohol, silver, iron, bronze, and crystal, to supply our industry; and, moreover, we and our numerous suppliers, having become rich, will consume a great deal and spread prosperity into all areas of domestic industry.

Will you say that the light of the sun is a gratuitous gift of Nature, and that to reject such gifts would be to reject wealth itself under the pretext of encouraging the means of acquiring it?

But if you take this position, you strike a mortal blow at your own policy; remember that up to now you have always excluded foreign goods because and in proportion as they approximate gratuitous gifts. You have only half as good a reason for complying with the demands of other monopolists as you have for granting our petition, which is in complete accord with your established policy; and to reject our demands precisely because they are better founded than anyone else’s would be tantamount to accepting the equation: + x + = -; in other words, it would be to heap absurdity upon absurdity.

Labour and Nature collaborate in varying proportions, depending upon the country and the climate, in the production of a commodity. The part that Nature contributes is always free of charge; it is the part contributed by human labour that constitutes value and is paid for.

If an orange from Lisbon sells for half the price of an orange from Paris, it is because the natural heat of the sun, which is, of course, free of charge, does for the former what the latter owes to artificial heating, which necessarily has to be paid for in the market.

Thus, when an orange reaches us from Portugal, one can say that it is given to us half free of charge, or, in other words, at half price as compared with those from Paris.

Now, it is precisely on the basis of its being semigratuitous (pardon the word) that you maintain it should be barred. You ask: “How can French labour withstand the competition of foreign labour when the former has to do all the work, whereas the latter has to do only half, the sun taking care of the rest?” But if the fact that a product is half free of charge leads you to exclude it from competition, how can its being totally free of charge induce you to admit it into competition? Either you are not consistent, or you should, after excluding what is half free of charge as harmful to our domestic industry, exclude what is totally gratuitous with all the more reason and with twice the zeal.

To take another example: When a product — coal, iron, wheat, or textiles — comes to us from abroad, and when we can acquire it for less labour than if we produced it ourselves, the difference is a gratuitous gift that is conferred up on us. The size of this gift is proportionate to the extent of this difference. It is a quarter, a half, or three-quarters of the value of the product if the foreigner asks of us only three-quarters, one-half, or one-quarter as high a price. It is as complete as it can be when the donor, like the sun in providing us with light, asks nothing from us. The question, and we pose it formally, is whether what you desire for France is the benefit of consumption free of charge or the alleged advantages of onerous production. Make your choice, but be logical; for as long as you ban, as you do, foreign coal, iron, wheat, and textiles, in proportion as their price approaches zero, how inconsistent it would be to admit the light of the sun, whose price is zero all day long!

Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850), Sophismes économiques, 1845 taken from Bastiat.org