End Of 2019 Update

I see that I haven’t posted in a long time.  I don’t have anything profound to post about now, but I thought I’d catch up a bit.

I really enjoyed my vacation to Europe, but came back sick, and got knocked out of my normal habits, and neglected this blog.  I’m fine now.

The big story, lately, has been Trump’s impeachment over his Ukraine shenanigans, and obstruction.  I agree that his behavior was terrible, justifies impeachment, and the world would be better if he were not president, and other similarly unqualified and corrupt people do not try to repeat this embarrassing period in our history.

I’m not sure, however, whether an impeachment followed by a failure to remove him will end up being a net positive. I guess we’ll see.  Some people might be more motivated to remove him via the ballot, but others will be motivated to override what they see as an unfair persecution.

Thus far, the Democrats have fielded terrible candidates, and I can imagine that many people will cast another vote for Trump as the lesser evil.

I don’t know what will happen, but I’m hoping for the best, as always.

Happy New Year, everyone!

The View From Abroad

I’m going on a vacation to Europe soon (Italy and Greece).

I’m a bit curious about what people on the street there think about the United States, and what they think about Donald Trump.

I’ve been to Mexico since Trump has become president, and it was very predictable what they would think about him.  There were some great t-shirts available.

But, I’d like to know if Europeans think as poorly of him as I do, and if they also think very poorly of the country as a whole.

My guess is that there will be a range of opinions. And, feelings about the country could be very different from feelings about its president.  But, some of those views might be clearly dominant.

We’ll see (maybe).

Are Libertarians Selfish?

I just came across this article on Libertarianism.org. I’m mostly posting this to help myself refer to it when somebody accuses libertarianism of being primarily an expression of anti-social selfishness. It’s really not. I wasn’t aware of the Oscar Wilde quote, but I like it:

Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live. And unselfishness is letting other people’s lives alone, not interfering with them. Selfishness always aims at creating around it an absolute uniformity of type. Unselfishness recognizes infinite variety of type as a delightful thing, accepts it, acquiesces in it, enjoys it.

Of course, that only captures part of the story.

It isn’t selfish to respect everybody’s right to be free of coercion. It’s selfish to deny it, and forcibly impose your own schemes upon others who disagree with the policies. (It’s not only selfish, it’s also arrogant and foolish…)

I also agree with the point that just as it’s a mistake to assume libertarians are acting in bad faith, it’s also a mistake to assume that non-libertarians are acting out of a desire to “domineer and control” rather than out of the mistaken idea that state is the best way to achieve attractive social goals. We can and should argue about the means, but not automatically assume bad intentions.

Bullshitter In Chief

Donald Trump is a Bullshitter. He doesn’t just say things that he knows to be false; he says things without concern for whether or not they are false. He says things because he thinks it’s convenient at the moment to say them.

The most recent dust-up in this respect is his denial that he ever called Meghan Markle “nasty”, even though there is clear audio evidence that he responded to information in an interview about things she said about him with: “I never knew she was nasty.”

Now, I suppose it’s possible to parse that response as something other than “calling her” nasty (à la Bill Clinton quibbling about what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is). But, I don’t think that’s what the dispute is about.

I think Trump didn’t want it to be true that he called her “nasty”, so he forcefully denied having done it. This is different from lying, and I think it could be worse.

Like Winston Churchill, I think democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried from time to time. We often do not get people who are good at performing the duties of the office. We get people who are good at campaigning; and, that’s a completely different skill.

The main benefit of democracy is that it allows for error correction. If current office holders are objectively bad then a majority is likely to realize it and be motivated to correct the previous error and replace them with (hopefully) better candidates.

That is, of course, assuming that the electorate actually cares about what’s better, what’s worse, what’s true, and what’s false. If they stop caring about that, and only care about whether their team is “winning” (or, as is often the case, whether the other team is “losing”), then things can go horribly wrong without getting corrected.

That’s the danger with Trump and his supporters. If they deny facts, and lose all concern for whether or not they are true, then things can get very, very, bad.

It would be one thing if it were just some blowhard in a bar trying to impress his foolish friends. But, it’s a serious problem to have the words of the Commander In Chief be so unreliable that foreign governments learn to ignore them. Many people can die over lack of clarity of this sort.

Trump isn’t the only politician who bends the truth for his own convenience, but he seems to be unique in his success at cultivating a base of support that seems impervious to evidence and devoid of concern about what the actual truth of the matter is. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, for example, say things that are dangerously wrong all the time, but I think that their supporters believe they are true, care about them being true, and would be affected by evidence that they are wrong.

I’m not sure what the worst outcome for the country is (there’s a lot of competition for bad outcomes and a lot of uncertainty), but cultivating a lack of concern about the truth is a very bad one.

The Hazards of Watching Weird Shows

I’m copying this from a Facebook post, since I haven’t posted to the blog in a while:

I started watching Season 2 of The Tick, on Amazon Video, and the audio was weird. It was stopping and repeating in short bursts. At first I thought it was a streaming glitch, but then I wondered if it was an intentional part of the show, and some super-villain had messed with the space-time continuum or something. I thought the characters looked a bit perplexed, and even saw the video repeat a few times…

I watched that way for over 10 minutes before deciding to exit and start streaming again.

It was just a streaming glitch.

Living Wages

The recent news items about abolishing billionaires and condemning Amazon and other companies for paying poor wages has brought back discussions of living wages in my social media feed.

Here are a couple of old posts that I really liked from Jason Brennan on the Bleeding Heart Libertarians site:

Against the Living Wage/”Subsidy” Arguments

Some Questions For Living Wage Advocates

And, here’s a comment that I made on a thread that explains the fundamental reasons why I think that Living/Minimum Wage arguments and policies are bad:

I understand the desire for people to be able to work to support themselves and the inclination to just make it a mandate that people who work should make enough to support themselves.

But, it doesn’t actually make sense to use that particular method to help people.

People making economic transactions is one thing, and people being able to pay their expenses is a separate, related, thing.

If somebody is willing to work for less than a living wage, and somebody else wants to hire him under mutually agreeable terms (and the work isn’t harming others unreasonably, etc.), then they should be free to do that. It’s not helping poor people to forbid those transactions. It just makes people worse off by reducing work opportunities and putting potential beneficiaries of the project in a worse position to accomplish their goals (which will often include helping others who need it).

Not every job that is good for all parties has to provide a living wage. Some people are still learning to become more productive or are unable to become that productive, some have others to help share expenses, some are doing the work because they find it interesting or educational or fun (not, because they need the money to live on), etc.

People aren’t pawns on a chessboard. They are independent agents with their own plans and priorities and it’s wrong to interfere with their preferences in the name of helping them.

We don’t know enough to declare which voluntary arrangements should be forbidden. We should leave people free to pursue the best opportunities that they can find (and we can help them to find them), and expect that as they become more productive and the economy grows those opportunities will tend to improve.

If some people still need help, then people (not necessarily just their employers) can (and often should) help them. But, forbidding job opportunities that don’t fully provide for all of their expenses is a counterproductive, and I think immoral, way to try to help others.