Category Archives: politics

Einstein failed high-school math –not.

I don’t know quite why people persist in claiming that Einstein failed high school math. Perhaps it’s to put down teachers –who clearly can’t teach or recognize genius — or perhaps to stake a claim to a higher understanding that’s masked by ADHD — a disease Einstein is supposed to have had. But, sorry to say, it ain’t true. Here’s Einstein’s diploma, 1896. His math and physics scores are perfect. Only his English seems to have been lacking. He would have been 17 at the time.

Einstein's high school diploma

Albert Einstein’s high school diploma, 1896.

Robert Buxbaum, December 16, 2014. Here’s Einstein relaxing in Princeton. Here’s something on black holes, and on High School calculus for non-continuous functions.

von NotHaus, the terrorist who uttered money.

2 Replies

Bernard von NotHaus was sentenced two days ago, December 3, 2014 in Federal court, North Carolina on charges of terrorism for the crime of making token coinage. This crime is called uttering money in English common law, but it is not generally considered terrorism, or generally prosecuted at all in modern times. The sentencing was covered by only one newspaper, The New York Sun. The New York Times and others, I guess, found it wasn’t news fit to print. But I find it newsworthy enough to blog about.

The current price of silver (as I write) is $16.60 per ounce. Had Bernard von NotHaus limited himself to selling ordinary, one ounce, silver medallions for $20 each, he could have made money on each, and perhaps been awarded a medal for his artistry. Instead, von NotHaus stands convicted as a terrorist against the US economy. The problem: his $20 medallions include the symbol “$20” and the word “dollar” on the coins. The government’s claim is that people might come to use his silver medallions to buy $20 worth of products, and this, it was argued, could bring down the government. Also incendiary was the phrase “Trust in God.” The federal prosecutor argued this was too close to our government’s, “In God we Trust.”

A liberty dollar. The crime is terrorism by uttering money -- saying that this coin should be used as $20 currency.

A liberty $20 piece The crime is terrorism, undermining the US by suggesting people use this coin as currency.

Von NotHaus was arrested on June 6, 2009, and had his coins and metal confiscated. He was convicted of terrorism March, 2011. Among the evidence are gold coins with the image of Ron Paul and certificates with von NotHaus’s image marked as 1 Dollar negotiable currency. Making these items isn’t quite counterfeiting, as the coins and certificates don’t look like US currency, but the US government decided it’s worse: economic terrorism. Anne Tompkins, the federal prosecutor successfully argued that von NotHaus is suggesting that the currency of the US is somehow deficient, and perhaps that the president and his crowd are doing something wrong in their efforts to drive inflation by printing excess currency. Ms. Tompkins successfully argued that such “attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism” and that they “represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country.” I’d say that’s over-reacting.

The Liberty Dollar. It's not counterfeiting, but the crime of terrorism by uttering money. Printing certificates with the intent of having them used as currency.

The Liberty Dollar. It’s not counterfeiting, but terrorism. 20 of these can be exchanged for a silver coin. US currency is non-negotiable; you have no right to change

The mechanism whereby these items are supposed to undermine the economic stability is the reverse of Gresham’s law. Gresham’s law is that the worse currency will stay in circulation and the better will be driven out. Applied here, Gresham would predict that people will hoard these liberty dollars and will spend only the paper. That’s what happens with ordinary art, or gold bars. But our government’s terrorism argument assumes Gresham’s theories are wrong, and that people will hoard Obama’s paper while spending von NotHaus’s coins. On that chance, Mr. von NotHaus stands convicted of terrorism. Mr. von NotHaus’s defense is that he never claimed his medallions should be used as currency. The judge rejected this defense. For all I know, Ms Tompkins could now pursue Von NotHaus for sedition: suggesting there is something wrong with the way we pursue minters.

The Ron Paul $1000, weapon of mass destruction.

The Ron Paul, $1000 weapon of national destruction.

At sentencing yesterday, Judge Voorhees ignored rules that should have condemned von NotHause to life in prison. Instead, he ruled for 6 month’s house arrest and 3 years probation saying he didn’t believe von NotHaus was motivated by evil intent, but rather by philosophical speech (something partially protected by the first amendment). I’m always glad for lenient sentencing, especially when the argument involves freedom of speech. I’m also glad for philosophy, but that does not mean I’m happy about the outcome. To me, von NotHaus deserves a medal; he is the Rosa Parks of hard currency. And I think that’s fit to print.

Part of the reason this conviction bugs me is that I got a free education courtesy of Peter Cooper, the citizen industrialist of the 19th century who founded the greenback party. He published (uttered) $3 bread notes to advertise his cause. Robert Buxbaum is a good US citizen, who uses only non-negotiable, fiat currency; none of this negotiable stuff for me. December 5, 2014.

Hong Kong and Palestine; what makes a country?

6 Replies

As I write this, Hong Kong protesters are battling for a degree of independence from China — something China seemed to have agreed to when taking over the province in 1997. While there is some sympathy for the protesters, not one country so far supports them. Meanwhile, by a vote of 138 to 9, the United Nations has accepted Palestine as an independent, observer state, the same status as the Vatican and Switzerland. A majority of nations have further stated that it is illegal for Israel to erect a wall between itself and Palestine as the wall implies a de-facto border. Why the differences, and what’s wrong with borders?

Distinctive dress, traditions, or physiology can justify a country's independence, as can a military tradition.

Britain has been shaved of many of its possessions since WWII, The possessions have demanded independent nation status based on their distinctive dress, language, history, traditions, or physiology.

Perhaps a good place to start is with British ownership of Hong Kong and Israel/Palestine. Britain acquired both by war, and both were possessions during World War II. Hong Kong island was ceded to Great Britain by the Treaty of Nanking ending the first Opium War. British control of Israel/ Palestine was achieved by invasion in World War I and confirmed by the League of Nations. Following WWII, British Palestine was split into several nations: Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia … Israel declared independence in 1948 — and was accepted to the United Nations in 1949 following its war of independence. Hong Kong did not fight any war, but was handed to China in 1997 in return for guarantees of autonomy. If Hong Kong had not been handed over, it would probably be independent today, like Ireland, Canada, Jamaica, Belize, Micronesia, Malaysia, Bali, Indonesia, etc.

Clearly part of the reason no one accepts Hong Kong as a country, while a majority of the UN accepts Palestine (and Israel?) as countries, is that both Arab Palestine and Israel have fought wars for independence, while Hong Kong has been a peaceful go-along. Another difference is related to how the world perceives China and Arab Palestine. China may be a semi-autocratic, one party oppressor of Inner Mongolia and Tibet, but its economic and military power helps insure that China is considered the respected, socialist owner of semi-democratic HK. Israel is much weaker, and much less-well regarded. It is viewed as a dispensable, European annoyance stuck improbably into the Middle east, and thus its claim on existence is weakened. The UN resolved in 1975 that Zionism is racism, and world leaders routinely called Israel a racist or apartheid occupier, as a state religion is considered anathema to freedom — they don’t have this problem with the state religions of the Vatican or Saudi Arabia. Ex-president Jimmy Carter calls Israel an occupier state, suggesting that Israel has no right to exist, and many western religious and academic groups agree or have voted to treat it as such. In 2013 alone, the UN passed 21 resolutions of protest against Israel, and only 3 against all other nations combined (A historical list is presented here). But disdained or not Israel goes on, in part by military might, in part by meeting the Montevideo requirements of 1933.

Comparison Hong Kong and Gaza

A map used to support Hong Kong Independence showing that Hong Kong is roughly 4 times the size of Gaza; and about twice the population. The government is more stable, and less divided too.

The UN’s grudging acceptance of Israel rests in part, on its meeting the four Montevideo conference (1933) requirements. A country must have: 1. a fixed population (more-or-less met) 2. fixed borders (war gains are an issue here, as is Palestine’s claim to all of Israel). 3. an internal government with internal control (here Israel exceeds Arab Palestine having a stable government. While Palestine manages to keep some law on a local level there are no unified elections, and only minimal education and healthcare. The two halves would likely shoot each other if they could shoot over Israel). The final Montevideo requirement, 4 is that a country must have the ability to make binding foreign treaties. This something Israel has, while neither Hong Kong nor Arab Palestine does. Both Palestine and Hong Kong are prevented from making treaties– with Israel and with China. Some in The United Nations have seen fit to waive this requirement for Palestine, but not Hong Kong.

While neither the Montevideo protocols nor the UN requires that a country must be democratic in any sense (most every country signing was a monarchy or dictatorship, and many still are (Jordan, Syria, Cuba, China….), there is a growing consensus that the age of kings is over, or ending. That a united Palestine would likely be a dictatorship, or kleptocracy thus runs afoul of another, uniquely American approach to state-hood — natural law, and the Rights of Man.

The United States, at its inception, appealed to the self-evident, Rights of Man, as a justification for its independence. That is to Justice, and to “Nature and Nature’s God.” We never claimed to have clear borders, or a fixed population, or any other Montevideo requirement. Instead we claimed nation-status by “the powers of the earth.” It was never clear what the legal limits of these powers were, not what Nature’s God demanded, but the idea is not mere poetry, but shows up throughout the policy speeches of Lincoln, Wilson, and Kennedy and Reagan. I’ve speculated that the poor reviews Lincoln got for his Gettysburg Address were due to the foreign-ness of these claims back in 1863, but 150 years later many thinkers seem to accept, at least as an ideal, that the legitimacy of a county rests on the will of its people, freely exercised. It’s a standard that hardly any country of the 19th century met, but that Israel meets, while Arab Palestine does not.

And that brings us back to the first and oldest basis of statehood: force of arms; self-preservation as a raison d’estat. If the people see death around them and are willing fight hard enough to keep out an enemy, they become a country. Even if they can not keep fixed borders, and even if they disband their army later, the fight for independence makes them so. (Micronesia has no army, but presumably would fight if they had to, and while Costa Rica had army once, the president disbanded it after he took over by military coup — it’s a threat to his life-long leadership). This view is the grim side of Nature’s law, that country is any organized horde who manage, by any means, to keep from being killed or disbanded. So long as the group survives, anywhere, it’s a nation. The Confederate States are not any sort of country, largely because the union has had such a stronger military that their army could operate against us, nor could the paramilitary remnant (the KKK) remain as an operational horde within our borders. China so over-matches Hong Kong that there can be no independent Hong Kong without China’s approval. Israel’s army, similarly, is strong enough to defeat any likely invasion or civil insurrection, though it might lose land, or gain it. It’s the dark version of natural law: the strong and vigorous survive at the expense of the weak and willing.

My observation is that neither Hong Kong nor Palestine is ready for independent statehood, via any of the justifications above, while Israel is a country by all of them. As for when to step in to create a state, my answer is only rarely; see my essay, when to enter a neighbor’s war.

Robert Buxbaum, December 4, 2014.

Seniors are not bad drivers.

4 Replies
Seniors cause accidents, but need to get places too

Seniors are often made fun of for confusion and speeding, but it’s not clear they speed, and it is clear they need to get places. Would reduced speed limits help them arrive alive?

Seniors have more accidents per-mile traveled than middle age drivers. As shown on the chart below, older Canadians, 75+, get into seven times more fatal accidents per mile than 35 to 55 year olds. At first glance, this would suggest they are bad drivers who should be kept from the road, or at least made to drive slower. But I’m not so sure they are bad drivers, and am pretty certain that lower speed limits should not be generally imposed. I suspect that a lot of the problem comes from the a per-mile basis comparison with folks who drive long distances on the same superhighways instead of longer, leisurely drives on country roads. I suspect that, on a per-hour basis, the seniors would look a lot safer, and on a per highway-mile basis they might look identical to younger drivers.

Canadian Vehicle Survey, 2001, Statistics Canada, includes drivers of light duty vehicles.

Deaths per billion km. Canadian Vehicle Survey, 2001, Statistics Canada, includes light duty vehicles.

Another source of misunderstanding, I find, is that comparisons tend to overlook how very low the accident rates are. The fatal accent rate for 75+ year old drivers sounds high when you report it as 20 deaths per billion km. But that’s 50,000,000 km between fatalities, or roughly one fatality for each 1300 drives around the earth. In absolute terms it’s nothing to worry about. Old folks driving provides far fewer deaths per km than 12-29 year olds walking, and fewer deaths per km than for 16-19 year olds driving.

When starting to research this essay, I thought I’d find that the high death rates were the result of bad reaction times for the elderly. I half expected to find that reduced speed limits for them helped. I’ve not found any data directly related to reduced speeds, but now think that lowered speed limits would not help them any more than anyone else. I note that seniors drive for pleasure more than younger folks and do a lot more short errand drives too — to the stores, for example. These are places where accidents are more common. By contrast, 40 to 70 year olds drive more miles on roads that are relatively safe.

Don't walk, especially if you're old.

Don’t walk, especially if you’re old. Netherlands data, 2001-2005 fatalities per billion km.

The Netherlands data above suggest that any proposed solution should not involve getting seniors out of their cars. Not only do seniors find walking difficult, statistics suggest walking is 8 to 10 times more dangerous than driving, and bicycling is little better. A far better solution, I suspect, is reduced speeds for everyone on rural roads. If you’re zipping along a one-lane road at the posted 40, 55, or 60 mph and someone backs out of a driveway, you’re toast. The high posted speeds on these roads pose a particular danger to bicyclists and motorcyclists of all ages – and these are folks who I suspect drive a lot on the rural roads. I suspect that a 5 mph reduction would do quite a lot.

For automobiles on super-highways, it may be worthwhile to increase the speed limits. As things are now, the accident fatality rates are near zero, and the main problem may be the time wasted behind the wheel – driving from place to place. I suspect that an automobile speed limit raise to 80 mph would make sense on most US and Canadian superhighways; it’s already higher on the Autobahn in Germany.

Robert Buxbaum, November 24, 2014. Expect an essay about death on tax-day, coming soon. I’ve also written about marijuana, and about ADHD.

General Tso’s chicken

Self promotion. It's not for everyone.

Self promotion. It’s not for everyone.

Is funny because …. it’s classical metaphysical humor. The lowly chicken becomes the hero and leader, and the troops are following him/it (to victory).

We know that some unlikely leaders are successful, perhaps just because they’ve the pluck to get up and do something (that’s the secret of American success). Presumably the troops are too timid to lead, and are following this chicken because of his determined air, and his hat and horse: clothes make the man. You should not follow every leader with determination, a fancy hat and a horse, by the way. Some leaders will devour their followers, and most do not care for self promoting underlings.

Robert Buxbaum, Nov.12, 2014.

Loyalty, part 2: power hurts the leader

3 Replies

In a previous post, I made the case that one should avoid accepting loyalty requests as these are generally requests for your self-destruction. Someone who asks for loyalty is not saying he’ll provide you with good pay, a comfortable environment, empowerment, and good security. Rather that he wants your service despite little or not pay, discomfort, enslavement, and likely death or disgrace. There are some, few exceptions, but loyal service of this type rarely serves the servant.

Your chance of surviving as a minion is low; your chance as master is lower.

Your chance of surviving as a minion is low; your chance as master is lower.

I’d now like to claim that having loyal followers hurts the leader, too, costing him good service, and separating him from health, friends, and family. Most leaders are better off as half of a duopoly, without minions, and only loose control of their workers. The first reason for this is to note that minions don’t do good work relative to free men. They die for no good reason (e.g. you forgot to feed them), or they stop work and wonder what you’d like next, or they get drunk and gripe, or they beat each other up over fervor or small territorial issues. They very rarely innovate or work together, and for any complex project like taking over the world (or the tristate area) needs workers who do. Good work requires pride in achievement, and a loyal slave has none.

Having loyal followers precludes one from having a close relationship with the followers (you can’t appear weak), and also with friends (your minions must have one leader, not two). The leader gets used to being surrounded by sycophants, and begins to doubt those who behave otherwise. The boss will begin to distrust friends and allies, those he needs to stay in power, as these are the very people who could most easily assist others to take leadership from him. Over time, the king, boss, monopolist and dictator share less and less. As a result they end up secret and bitter, with many fears and none he can call close. And what pleasure is there in power, if one can’t share the rewards with friends and family, or share the burden with others.

Only support someone who could rule reasonably honestly and well. Chaos is worse than a dictator. Kanin from the New Yorker.

Only support someone who could rule reasonably honestly and well. Chaos is worse than a dictator. Kanin from the New Yorker.

A great number of kings have killed themselves in one way or another, very often because of overly large ambitions (see cartoon). King Saul, in the Bible is perhaps the first, Hitler is perhaps the most famous, and Colonel Qadhafi of Libya is perhaps the most recent. More often, maximum leaders are murdered, typically by friends and family. Famous examples include Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, and Nero; Charles I, Louis XVI, Richard III, and Tzar Alexander. Both the king of rock (Elvis) and the king of pop (Michael Jackson) killed themselves with drugs. Yet others died in needless wars or were exiled. Napoleon was defeated, exiled, returned, re-exiled and then murdered by an associate.  It’s not that safe to be the infallible king. Perhaps the wisest move is that of Pope Benedict, who last year left Rome for a life of monk-like solitude. Machiavelli points out, in “The Prince”, that only two Roman Emperors died of natural causes, one because he became emperor at a very old age, and the other was Marcus Aurelius, an advanced ruler who empowered his subjects.

The great leaders create so much space for others to lead that they are almost invisible: they lead by offering encouragement.

Political bosses and monopolist businessmen, though lower in power, don’t fare much better in life. Boss Tweed died in jail, as did Capone, Boss Pendergast. Even if they avoid jail, the fact that no one likes you takes a toll. No one liked Vanderbilt or Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan, or Fisk. While they lived, they could expect nothing more than senate investigations and ugly lampoons in the free press, plus an unfavorable memory after death. William Hearst and Howard Hughes died as virtual hermits, best remembered as the inspiration for “Citizen Kane” and “The Navigator.” Peter Cooper and Steve Jobs are different,  industrialists liked in life and in death; and Bill Gates may join them too. Their secret was to empower others.

He's being eaten alive by his power, money, and respect. In the end, he had none.

He’s being eaten alive by his power, money, and respect, as are all those he might love.

Woe to the wife, child or friend of the dictator. The wife and children of a king or king-pin rarely enjoy much of the power. The king-pin doesn’t trust them (often with good reason), and neither do the people. Stalin killed his wife and children as did Nero, Frederick the Great, Herod, Hitler, and quite a few others. It was said that is was preferable to be an animal in the courtyard of these greats than a son at their table. And even if the king or king-pin doesn’t kill his wife child or son, the people often do e.g. Marie Antoinette was killed shortly after Louis XVI and the Tzarina of Russia alongside Alexander III. Similarly, the wife of Hitler, the Mistress of Mussolini, and the wife of Nicolae Ceausescu all died at their husband’s side, sharing the punishment for their husband’s ambition.

The kings of Sparta fared relatively well, as did their wives, despite the militarism of Sparta. Their trick was that Sparta was a du-archy, a country with two kings. Sparta was strong and stable, and their kings (mostly) died at home. In business too, it seems the selfish leader should step back and become almost invisible. It helps him, and helps the people too. If the leader can’t share power this way, he or she should at least give people a simple choice between two things he controls and accepts (chocolate and vanilla; Democrat and Republican). Workers with a choice, even a small one, learn to act somewhat independently, and customers (or citizens) don’t complain as much either if they have some control over their fate. All will come to like the leader more, and the leader will like himself more. People stopped resenting Microsoft when there was a viable alternative, Apple, and Microsoft engineers benefitted by having a competitor to their products. I suspect that Bill Gates realized this would happen when he helped fund Apple’s return to the market. Unfortunately, most monopolists, bosses, and king-pins are too stupid, or too afraid to do this. In the end, it’s the trapped employee or follower who shoots the leader from behind.

Einstein on freedom producing good. I'd say freedom is also a good in itself

The ideal situation is a delicate balance between control and freedom. A great leader will empower those around him and support the opposition. That was the unrealized sense of Mao Tse Tung’s hundred flowers movement (let 100 flowers bloom; left 100 schools of thought contend). It’s political tensegrity. Most leaders can not let go to do this (Mao could not). Still, there IS a sanity clause, Virginia. And a leader should know that there is no benefit to the king who gains the whole world and loses his friends, family and sleep.

Robert Buxbaum. Remember, remember the 5th of November; those oppressed, and those imagining themselves oppressed rise and plot.

When is loyalty a good thing? pt. 1

2 Replies

Loyalty to a person or institution is generally presented as a good thing — a sign of good character. Disloyalty, by contrast, is considered one of the basest of character traits — the sign of a dastard, a poltroon. But I’d like to make the case that the loyalty that leaders demand (the most common loyalty situation) isn’t real loyalty, but stupidity or worse, toadyship disguised as loyalty. I’d further like to suggest that this attachment hurts the leaders as much as the followers in most situations — well, nearly as much. That is, a sane leader is better off where there is a viable alternative to his product, leadership, or service — a loyal opposition party, as it were.

If you give loyalty for free don't expect it in return.

If you give loyalty above your self interest, don’t expect it in return. If you don’t value yourself, no one else will.

But first, what is Loyalty? If I believe a teacher because he makes sense, or serve a boss because he pays me well, this is not loyalty, but common self-interest. Similarly, if I eat at a restaurant or buy a product regularly, it isn’t loyalty if the quality is particularly good and the prices particularly reasonable. Loyalty is when you eat at a place despite the quality being bad, or the prices high; or follow a leader who pays poorly and provides only danger and hardship. Or who’s crooked and damaging to your sense of self.

If you give a company or group loyalty for free, they are likely to take it and you for granted; if you don't value yourself, no one else will.

If you give a company or person loyal service, they are likely to take it and you for granted; Matt Johnson, 2010.

In general, there are only two reasons why any person would follow a leader like this. One is an attachment to the leader’s vision of the horrible future if you do not. Tales of grisly torture from a distant enemy are good to keep the underlings in their place. An even better reason is attachment to a brilliant future if you do suffer in the present. Tales of the glorious messianic future where you and those you love benefit from the current struggle and sacrifice. It doesn’t have to be a godly messiah; communism presents a messianic vision without a god, but it’s glorious, and the sun always shines. Generally speaking leaders who ask for loyalty ask from both perspectives: a horrible enemy at the gates, and a glorious future if you follow.

There may be a rational basis to fear a grisly enemy, or to suffer and follow in hopes of a glorious future, but if you find you are being asked to follow a single individual or a group that’s controlled by one individual, it’s worthwhile worrying that the leader may not be loyalty to you. Ask yourself: does the leader share real power and information? Does the leader make you feel worthless for the heck of it? If you have a leader like that, it might be worth considering: if the messianic vision ever does materialize (unlikely) the leader may forget to reward your part. History has quite a few examples of this.

Loyalty to country includes the imperative to try to improve the leadership.

Loyalty to country requires one try to improve the leadership. Leadership rarely agrees.

Where real loyalty shows up as a sign of a fine personality, is in marriage where both parties share power, money, and information. Or in loyalty to a country where you (or your child) has a real, rational chance of being leader. If you really trust the significant other (a good marriage) or where there is reason to think one’s home and family will benefit from one’s personal sacrifice, one might rationally give up ones comfort and life following to protect one’s significant others. Even so, the real loyalty is not to the leader, but rather to an organization that one believes will protect one’s children and community. A leads who asks you to kill innocents (Al Qaeda, Stalin, HItler, Jonestown), or who amuses himself by your suffering, e.g. (Stalin) probably has lost the connection between your loyalty and the goal. (Cue the song– we don’t get fooled again).

An honest military leader will have a soldier council or protective group above him to keep him (and others) from over-reaching. There will also be a time limit on the loyalty commitment and an explicit understanding that service does not include suicide, genocide, immolation, or personal embarrassment for the amusement of others. There is an also understanding that the follower’s life and well-being will not be sacrificed in vain, and that no one will be expected to accept suicide rather than capture. On the other hand, a soldier who runs away from all danger and thus endangers his fellows or mission should expect punishment or courts-marshal.

Church groups don't often look favorably on oversight

Church groups don’t often look favorably on oversight

Many groups don’t tolerate oversight of this type, and these groups should be viewed with suspicion. Church groups for example, are often led by those would like you to believe that suspicion of them is suspicion of God, it isn’t — it’s suspicion of a person. An honest leader gives the option of going to the police or the union representative, or the newspaper if necessary. Without redress, the worker/soldier/churchman may come to suffer needlessly or come to commit atrocities because of the power of the organization or the personal charisma of the leader. Any organization with a messianic vision of the future is dangerous; all the more so if there is no half-way point, no real sharing of power in the way to get there, and no real oversight for the grand-high pooh-bah (or whatever the grand leader’s title). Let the follower beware.

A Parable: The Donkey and the Brigands, by I don’t know who (I can’t find a source, but know this isn’t my own creation).

There once was a farmer who had a donkey — a talking donkey, as is the way with these parables. At one point, as they were traveling through the woods, they heard the approach of brigands (thieves). “Move quickly,” the farmer said to the donkey, otherwise we’ll be captured.” “Will the brigands treat me any worse than you do?” asked the donkey. “No,” said the farmer, about the same.” “Will they feed me any less than you do, or beat me any more?” “No,” said the farmer, about the same, I’d guess.” Will they load me any heavier, or make me go on longer journeys?” No, said the farmer, about the same, I’d guess.” “When I’m too old to work, will they keep me in my old age, or will they kill me, as you likely will for animal feed and for my bones and skin?” “Probably they’ll do as I would,” said the farmer. “In that case,” said the donkey, “I’ll go at my pace and what will be with the capture will be.” The moral: loyal service has to be a two-way street.

In part 2 of this essay, I’ll explain why even the leader doesn’t benefit from your complete loyalty.

Robert Buxbaum, October 20, 2014. I run my own business, and sometimes think about it, and life.

Political tensegrity: the west is best

6 Replies

We are regularly lectured about the lack of kindness and humility of the western countries. Eastern and communist leaders in Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia point to Western pollution, consumerism, unemployment as prof you need a strong leader and central control to do good by regulation, thought policing, and wealth redistribution.

Let me point out that the good these leaders provide is extracted from the populace, and the advantage of central control is rarely as clear to the populous as to the leadership. When leaders redistribute wealth or place limits on the internet, movies or books, the leaders are generally exempted, and the populous are not made more moral or generous either. One does not say a prisoner or slave-worker is more generous of moral than one on the outside despite the prisoner working for free. The leaders feel certain they are protecting their people from thought and greed, but it isn’t clear outside of the leadership that these dangers are as great as the danger of despotism or rule by whim.

Authors and thoughts are blocked in the East by the whim of a supreme leader who also determines who is an infidel or enemy, or friend, and which businesses should flourish, and who should be rich (his buddies). By contrast, two fundamentals of western society — things that lead to purported immorality, are citizen rights and the rule of law: that citizens can possess things and do things for their own reasons, or no reason at all, and that citizens may stand as equals before a bar of law, to be judged by spelled-out laws or freed, with equal believability and claim.

In Russia or Iran, the Commissar and Imam have special rights: they can take possessions from others at whim, shut down businesses at whim; imprison at whim  — all based on their own interpretation of God’s will, the Koran, or “the good of the state.” Only they can sense the true good, or the true God well enough to make these decisions and laws. And when they violate those laws they are protected from the consequences; the masses can be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and then some, not even requiring a trial in many places (Gaza, for example) if the leader feels speed is needed. The rule of law with equal treatment is a fundamental of western civilization (republicanism). It is commanded by Moses in the Bible at least seven times: Numbers 15:15, Numbers 15:16, Numbers 15:29, Exodus 12:49, Numbers 9:14, and Leviticus 24:22, “One law and one ordinance you should have, for the home-born, and the foreigner who dwells among you.”

The equal treatment under the law: for rich and poor, king and commoner, citizen and foreigner is a revolutionary idea of the west; that justice is blind. Another idea is personal possessions and freedoms. There is no concept of equality under business law unless there is a business that you can own, and personal possessions and rights. These are not in place in eastern theocracies: they tend to treat the preachers (imams) better than non preachers because they are presumed smarter and better; similarly men are treated better than women, who have few rights, and the state religion is treated better than infidels. In communist countries and dictatorships the dictator can get away with anything. Admittedly, in capitalistic states the rich and powerful find loopholes while the poor find prison, but not always (our Detroit’s ex-mayor is in prison) and it’s not the law. A feature of Eastern theocracies and dictatorships is that they lack a free press, and thus no forum for public exposure of legal mischief.

Einstein on freedom producing good. I'd say freedom is also a good in itself

Einstein on freedom producing good. I’d say freedom is also a good in itself.

The strongest arguments for socialist dictatorship and theocracy is that this is needed to protect the weak. Clement Attlee (labor socialist British Prime Minister, 1945 -56) explained his government’s take over of almost all British business: “There was a time when employers were free to work little children for sixteen hours a day… when employers were free to employ sweated women workers on finishing trousers at a penny halfpenny a pair. There was a time when people were free to neglect sanitation so that thousands died of preventable diseases. For years every attempt to remedy these crying evils was blocked by the same plea of freedom for the individual. It was in fact freedom for the rich and slavery for the poor. Make no mistake, it has only been through the power of the State, given to it by Parliament, that the general public has been protected against the greed of ruthless profit-makers and property owners.”  (Quotes from Spartacus.edu). it’s a brilliant speech, and it taps into the government’s role in the common defense, but it’s not at all clear that a chinless bureaucrat will be a better boss than the capitalist who built the firm. Nor is it clear that you help people by preventing them from work at a salary you decide is too low. 

England suffered a malaise from public ownership and the distribution of profit by those close the liberal party. Under Attlee there was lack of food and coal while the rest of Europe, and particularly Germany prospered, and passed England in productivity. Germany had no minimum wage, and  still doesn’t have one. In eastern countries, ingenuity is deadened by the knowledge that whatever a genius or worker achieves is taken by the state and redistributed. A cute joke exchange: Churchill and Attlee are supposed to have found themselves in adjoining stalls of the men’s room of Parliament. Churchill is supposed to have moved as far as possible from Attlee. “Feeling standoffish, Winston” Attlee is supposed to have said. “No. Frightened. “Whenever you see something large you try to nationalize it.” Perhaps more telling is this Margret Thatcher’s comment, and exchange. Making everyone’s outcome equal does more to penalize those with real pride in their ideas and work than it does to help the truly needy.

While there is a need for government in regards to safety, roads, and standards, and to maintain that equality of law. It seems to me the state should aid the poor only to the extent that it does not turn them into dependents. There is thus a natural tension between private good and public service similar to the tensegrity that holds cells together. Capitalists can only make money by providing desired goods and services at worthwhile rate, and paying enough to keep workers; they should be allowed to keep some of that, while some must be taken from them to get great things done. I’ve related the tensegrity of society to the balance between order and disorder in a chemical system.

Robert E. Buxbaum,  August 27, 2014. This essay owes special thanks to a Princeton chum, Val Martinez. Though my training is in engineering, I’ve written hobby pieces on art, governance, history, and society. Check out the links at right.

Grammar on the high seas, pirate joke, trans ready

4 Replies
Grammar Pirate by Scott Clark, 2013.

Grammar Pirate by Scott Clark, 2013.

Pirate grammar has a special place in American English. The father of our country’s navy was likely John Paul Jones, a pirate; he redesigned our ships, captured some 16 British merchant vessels in the Revolution, and helped supply Washington’s army with guns and powder. Jean Lafitte, pirate hero of the war of 1812, may have been Jewish! The state of Michigan officially celebrates “Talk LIke a Pirate Day” September 19, the day before national pickle day.

No other country states in their constitution that a purpose of the government is to give out letters of marque — that is to mint pirates. Piracy is a great way to fight a war –severely underestimated. ISIS does it quite well. By taking supplies from the other side you weaken them while strengthening yourself. Assuming you need the stuff, you avoid the cost of manufacture, shipping, and logistics, and even if you don’t need some of it, you can usually trade these items you for items you need. It’s a great way to make foreign friends and allies. Ben Franklin sold our pirates’  captured stuff for them during the American Revolution making himself and us better liked — we had no direct need for red uniforms, for example. Pirates should not kill captured merchant seamen, I think, but ransom them , or put them to service in the cause. The Somali pirates do this; not everyone is impressed. Pirate beards may encourage bravery by showing commitment to a revolution. Here’s a song relating beards to piracy: mannen met baarden (men with beards). Bet your aaars, it’s in Dutch.

Pirate grammar is a dialect, not a sign of poor education or lack of success. I suspect that pirate grammar is more useful than standard for referring to people on the fringes of society. For example, how would you introduce a patent lawyer who’s a some-time cross-dresser? It’s simple in pirate-speak: ‘Ms Smith, pleased to meet Johnson, arrrgh patent lawyer.’ Pirate speak can also avoid the uncomfortable he/she by use of the pirate “e”: ‘E’s a scurvy sea dog, e is.’

Robert Buxbaum, July 2, 2014. I think I’ll be havin’ a rum now, and toast to Arrrgh country.

My solution to the world’s problems: better people

Most of the problems of the world are caused by people. Look at war, it’s caused by people; look at pollution, people; look at overeating, or welfare, or gun violence. You name it, the problem is people. My simple solution, then: better people. Immigration is a simple solution for a county that can do it selectively (take in the best, leave the rest); it’s worked for the US and it doesn’t have to beggar the third world. Education is another way to help, but we’re not quite sure what sort of education makes people better. “An uneducated man may steel from a boxcar, an educated one may steal the whole railroad.” Theodore Roosevelt is supposed to have quipped.

Those who claim they are uncommonly moral and good at teaching have barely any proof that they are. American schools produce financially successful people, but not particularly moral ones; Europe’s approach is different, but there’s no indication they’ve done better at moral education. We look to the 18th century, or the Greeks, but they were no more moral than us, as best I can tell. The Taliban, the communists, or similar fundamentalists claim moral superiority over the west, but from my perspective, they look even worse. 

I notice that people learn morality from one another — that is each person acts like his neighbor. I also note that people tend to act better when they are involved, and feel part of whatever country, city or group they are in. Targeted immigration might bring in better people–honest, hard working, non-violent — and these people might help improve and motivate the locals. And even if we don’t improve by interaction, perhaps lazy Americans will ride on the backs of the hard-working immigrants. But it strikes me that the disconnect between world problems of high unemployment, world hunger, and lots of open, US jobs is a moral problem that could be solved by targeted love. Allowing some increased mobility from country to country and job to job (plus better preaching?). If you can move you are more-likely to find a job or place where you feel fulfilled, and you are likely to do better and more there. Even the countries and jobs that are left might benefit by being rid of their malcontents. And we don’t have to take everyone.

From "Hispanic-hope."

From “Hispanic-hope.”, an interesting combination of Bible-study and immigration morality.

Living in America is desirable for most people from most countries. Far more people want to live here than we can accept. As a result, we are in a position to target the bright, honest, hard-working Peoples from virtually any country. These folks are helpful to industry and to the US tax base as these immigrants tend to work out — or get deported. In the short-term they might displace Americans or depress salaries, but even that is not certain. There is no fixed slate of US jobs nor a fixed amount of work need. Yesterday’s job taker is tomorrow’s job creator. Our country is built on immigrants, and has not suffered from it. We should not take those who hate the US, or those who hate freedom, or have no skills, criminals and the sick. Nor should we give citizenship immediately. But that still leaves plenty who we’d want, and who want to be here. Th. Roosevelt said, “you can not take in too many of the right people, and even one of the wrong type is too many.” I suspect this is true.

I suspect we’d have 90+% odds picking good people from a crowd. The Immigration system does a good job now, and the great colleges have done better for years. The past is usually a great indicator. If someone is well, and has worked for years, or has been here in school; if they’ve managed to stay productive and out of trouble, he/she is a good candidate. A first step would be a work permit, and in a few years they can apply for permanent residence or citizenship. Many of the most successful people in America are either immigrants or descendents of immigrants. The founders of Google and Facebook; the builders and the shakers. These people have the ‘get-up and go.’ You can tell because they’ve gotten up and gone.

Dr. Robert Buxbaum, June 16, 2014. I’m a child of an immigrant, went to public school, got a PhD at Princeton, have built my own company, and have (so far) avoided arrest, imprisonment or serious scandal. With the help of my Canadian-immigrant wife, I’ve produced three Buxbaum clones, my biggest contribution to improving the US and the world.