An answer to the Welfare case

In a previous post, I demonstrated the economic absurdity of the welfare state. I did this by proving that the transaction from the top to bottom created a landscape where more responsible individuals who invested their money in productive things had to yield some of that productivity to the wasteful and unfrugal welfare recipients. The overall productivity loss is aggravated by the wastefulness of the welfare distributors (aka the Government), and diverts money from the productive private sector to the counterproductive public one.

In another earlier post, I conclusively established that the welfare state is not an implication of the moral dictates of the Bible and Christianity, and that *Christian Socialists* don't know their theology very well.

But whenever I am successful in demolishing an interculocutor's argument, there is always a plea of desperation exhibited by the losing party. In this case, there still is another fallback position thrown by the petty libborg when they are desperate laying prone to bite my ankles. Unfortunately for them, just as my intellect outstrips theirs' by a few standard deviations, my ankles are immune to their critism. By their fallback position I mean their dissent from logical and economic reality to morality and justice - how the leftists arrive at such notions is beyond me, but then again, they aren't exactly known for their swell thinking abilities, the ivy leagues high I.Q's notwithstanding. Moreover, the idea that expropriation is in accordance to morality and justice reeks of a scary system of ethics.

They repeat their appeals of empathy for the poor and unfortunate. Implying that it is not so much the total economic output as it is the number of individuals under poverty, so while the welfare state may detract from the aggregate economy, it coushens the blow of poverty.

The moral motivation isn't all that unreasonable, but it argues on false premises. Because the reality is that welfare doesn't even help the poor. There are reasons why the welfare state is antithetical to the poverous. 1) receiving free money doesn't help one's morale by keeping them even more dependant 2) In a capitalist economy, where one gets rich by serving the consumers, one cannot seperate *aggregate* and *individual*, in a pure free-market economy, wealth is (almost) positive sum, and most importantly 3) the free market is already a system where wealth is distributed. Very like welfare with one distinct difference: the medium of distribution. In a socialist commonwealth, the State acts as the medium by instigating the process. In a free market system, production acts as the medium. In both cases, distribution occurs, in one case you have a house or a car leftover, with the hard worker doing paid off, in the other case you have wasted capital and human labor leftover, with the unproductive being paid off. This is why the more concentrated the welfare pill, the poorer that everyone, including the lower class, becomes.

Merry Christmas

What a great Christmas. I got as many gifts as I can be grateful for, and my family and I have had a great Christmas vacation so far. I thank my Father, Mother, Grandfather, Grandmother, Oma, Uncle, and Aunt (I home I didn't miss any) for all of the amazing presents they gave me.

But what I am most thankful for is the gift, the Ultimate Gift, bestowed by our Creator through the coming of Jesus Christ into this world on that very first Christmas, who liberated us not from the harsh Roman rule, but from the even nastier rule of the spirit of evil in this world. It is because of that first Christmas, the Divine invasion, that we may live forever in peace and love.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

My intellectual influences

Like everyone, I have had individuals that have influenced me and are part of the reason for how I got to be. This list below is an effort to document those intellectuals who have influenced my thinking in some way or another. The list intentionally leaves out my personal acquaintances whom I know. Their absence isn't to degrade their affect on me, but rather a focus on the historical figures whom I have drawn inspiration from. So here it is:

Jesus Christ

Leonardo Da Vinci

Vox Day

Roissy

Benjamin Franklin

C.S Lewis

Isaac Newton

Isaac Asimov

Thomas Jefferson

Ludwig Von Mises


There are a host more figures that have influenced me, but those are the primary ones. It is my intention to make a series devoting each character one post in order to outline the specific ways these figures have inspired me.

It seems to be a vicious cycle, having government public schools influencing the public opinion, which in turn determines the votes....

Mission Acomplished

Today marked the accomplishment of a goal that I set at the beginning of 2010 to read 30 books. Mid way through, I was a little dubious that I could fulfill it, but I persisted and it payed off. The 30 books are on the right. Next year the goal is 50.

Playing into the historical narrative

History is seldom as romantic as history books make us believe. In truth, it is a messy, unpredictable, and unbalanced narrative. Last night, I was surprised to read that Michaelango actively disliked leonardo da vinci and hated Raphael even more. So the trinity of the artistic Renascence moment were entrenched in contention? Even more significant was how bitter the relationships between some of America's Founding Father's were. Reading Founding Brothers has been a very enlightening exercise for me in this regard; it wasn't just a matter of Federalist versus Republican, John Adams despised Alexander Hamilton more than any the other members of the opposing party.

John Adams, in his embittered years as ex-president, 1800-1805, describes how the historical accounts of America's quest for independence and the events that occurred within the Continental congress were highly romanticized into one flowing and seemingly inevitable narrative, when this wasn't actually the case. Adam's insight, that there is an enormous discrepancy between witnessing history and viewing it through post-facto documentation, is key to understanding the significance of the American Revolution. According to Adam's account, Jefferson was a second rate player in the continental congress who could hardly find it within himself to utter 3 sentences. His ascendancy to fame was the result his fortuitous role in drafting the Declaration of Independence; Jefferson seemed to have perfect pitch when it came to playing what the historical accounts wanted to hear. While Adam's played a larger role, Jefferson got the credit. This is not to detract from Jefferson's voluminous accomplishments as a statesmen, which are justifiably well regarded, especially later in his career . Adam's was a great admirer of this Jeffersonian trait, realizing that that it was this ability that made Jefferson more memorable. And in truth, the volatility of the situation was such that the premises were built upon a plethora of contingencies that anything could happen. The seemingly momentous can turn out trivial and the seemingly trivial and turn out momentous. So contrary to what many of us think, the American revolution was not inevitable. The salient point was that history painted a true but misleadingly smooth picture.

This ties in quite nicely with Nassim Taleb's exellent book, The Black Swan, which unfortunately I have been remiss in reviewing. Talebs dubs this history-book way of perceiving "the narrative fallacy." And one in which we would do well not to engage in. Citing World War 1 as an example, he demonstrates that with the benefit of hindsight we retroactively attach an obviousness about the outcome which was wholly unknown to the actual players in the historical arena. Because the reality of it is, the real world is messy and wayward to our predictions; it is after the events that that it starts making sense, making us fall into a false sense of epistemic arrogance regarding the future, just because we can rationally explain the past into a smooth, sensible narrative.

This is not an attack on the profession of historians; it is important to make history fun, which it is, of course.

The Vanfair Worldview

Part of the Vanfair worldview dictates that talent is more a result of nurture than nature. This is not to say that nature doesn't bestow on those fortunate individuals enviable talents, merely that nature seems to be play a submajor role in the talent equation. And that cultivation through deliberate practice is what truly brings the effective results.

The rapidly progressing state of neuroscience is confirming the Vanfair worldview. By way of example, the skill of drawing, often ascribed to be a result of God-given talent, can now be taught in an effective way that even the most artistically deficient individuals can learn and even excel.

I'm convinced that the talent-is-innate club is becoming more and more outdated and is a consequence of a childish mentality. Consider the following: when you were a youngster, didn't you believe that talent was more of a result of natural skill than deliberate cultivation? There is a reason why most of us believed that in our youth. The primary reason being that when you were younger, most of your colleagues were talent because of their genetics, given their very limited years of practice. But the older one gets the less relevant genetics become.

In my own experience, I always thought that ambidexterity was a matter of genetics. I am now convinced that anyone can use both hands proficiently. Being ambidextrous is one of my goals that I have amidst a framework of an ambitious Renascence Man program. So if I am able to fulfill that goal, then that will be another confirmation of the Vanfair worldview.

Interesting Connection

The elusive waitapi has some excellent posts about the evils that the feminist movement has wrought upon society. One article in particular does an excellent job in sketching a brief history of the ideological roots of feminism. Interestingly enough, he documents the historical link between marxism, as was envisioned by Karl Marx, and feminism. While I was aware of the relationship between historical fascism and feminism, particularly the declaration of universal suffrage in the fascist manifesto, I was blind to its relationship to communism. I should have known, as both marxism and feminism declare war on the nuclear family and traditional folkway. And since most feminists are active socialists by heart.

Many may object to the historical link, and I will kindly let the reader go to the original post and decide whether his analysis is accurate or not.

But what can not be so easily dissmissed, however, is the undeniable consequences brought by the ideas of maraget sanger and other leading lights. We may not be living in the soviet union, yet, but everyday confirms the fact the we are witnessing a matriarchal dystopia that is every bit as crippling and degenerating to our culture as communism was to the soviet economy.

I'm thinking about writing a series on this topic, as it demands far more consideration that a single blog post can provide.

Anyway, go read the article.

Don't be foolish, and don't fall for the neo-cons

It has been a regrettable pitfall of the modern conservative movement to base one's vote on the non-democrat. No positive traits are required, he just has to be the most popular - and thus has the best chance of winning - opposition to the democratic candidate, and that voting for a third party candidate is a "wasted vote," so we are told.

But while this may be sound from a tactical and short-term perspective, it only creates problems from a strategical and long-term one. As is becoming abundantly clear, voting for pseudo-conservatives only damages the republican party, setting up for a guaranteed democrat victory in the next election cycle. Moreover, it is a demonstrable fact that the republicans are every bit as pro-government and pro-bank as the are democrats are. If we are truly witnessing the end days of America, then we can be sure that the Republicans are as much to blame for it as are the democrats.

It is because of this profoundly un-principled mentality that Ron Paul, one of the greatest defenders of freedom and sound money of our time, was rejected by they republican party for the third-rate politician that is John McCain. Not only was this utter tomfoolery, but it doesn't even make sense from voting perspective. How on earth is a pro-war, pro-bank,and pro-amnesty candidate going to win when all of this positions go against views of the majority of Americans? That strategy will not work.

On Epistemic arrogance

It is often said that the more you know, the more you realize how how little you really know. On the flipside, however, its contrapositive indicates that the less we know, and the more ignorant we are, the more delusional we are about the level of our knowledge. Hence:

Vanfair Maxim #57. Even the highest degree of intellectual humility is insufficient to subvert the natural human tendency to underestimate our own ignorance.

Good to see it

I am generally picky about the writers that I like; I actively resist reading those that simply rehash talking points. So I was somewhat surprised reading Allen Keyes in his recent column 2012: a test for American leadership. In that article, he correctly argues the shortcomings of the two party system, producing an elite that our founding fathers were afraid of. Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for our current predicament by veering us off the path set by the wisdom of our founders. And for those pseudo conservatives that take offense to his bi-criticism, please note that it was a Republican that preceded Obama in passing a stimulus package, bailed out the banks, followed a lax immigration policy, and spent trillions of dollars overseas in foreign aid and military policy, all with the assent of the Republican majority in Congress. The GOP has abandoned its conservative roots ever since Reagan left office, and it is unlikely that it will ever return to them. The tea-party's mission is noble and should be lauded, but its goal of restoring the conservatism of the GOP is unlikely to succeed. It must create a third party to contravene our binary system by offering genuinely conservative and classical liberal candidates. While I believe that the tea-party is weak on some of the major issues we face, I must admit that it is a real positive force that has a potential to break our current binary political system that thrives on the exploitation of the voters.

Anyway, the article is very well-written, showcasing higher-level vocabulary that my intellect needs in order to keep on reading. And while I am unfamiliar with some of the views held by Mr. keyes, I have no doubt that he is an insightful writer, maybe even worthy of going on and reading him yourself.