Gold Standard vs. Fiat Money

Data Gathered here and here . Although it's not possible (or maybe it is, ask an economist!) to predict what gold prices would've been like if we were on the gold standard (maybe they would've been more stable), it bears to keep in mind that the U.S. is not the only country in the world, and other countries do use fiat money. Although the overall trend is for the gold to stay roughly the same price, it often moves unpredictably. The CPI (which is basically a measure of inflation, if you're in a year where CPI is 200, your money is half as valuable as in the year where it is 100), on the other hand, has a predictable movement. Something that is predictable is the next best thing to something being constant. Anyways, this chart is why, in my opinion, it is not at all useful, and probably even dangerous to go back to the gold standard.

The Only Real Question

Today is a Tuesday, just like any other Tuesday. But at the same time, it is not like any other Tuesday. Because on no other Tuesday did I sit at this table out in the Court of Sciences at UCLA and begin to write about my state of being. How many Tuesdays have passed like today, how many Tuesdays are to come? What is there that I have that can make my Tuesdays unique? What can I do next Tuesday that makes it worthwhile? These are interesting talking points, points that I don't intend to talk about. These questions presuppose other notions that make these questions possible. Notions such as our existence is real and that this existence may or may not possess intrinsic meaning or value. Why are we here? What am I and why do I do what I do? These are the questions that everyone asks and no one answers, no one can answer, no one will answer. Because it is not the answer that interests the inquirer but that which he discovers about himself along the way. It is important every once in a while to talk to yourself, make sure your still there. Make sure you know who it is you are and who it is you intend to become, or if you want to become. Thoreau said that the greatest tragedy is when you die with the realization that in fact you had never lived. I would amend that statement by saying the greatest human tragedy would be to look at oneself before retiring from this world and not to recognize your oneself, to die realizing you did not know who you were. Without knowing self, you cannot realize your life, your ambitions, your dreams, your goals, your loves, your hates, your existence and maybe even your purpose or meaning. You will die not having lived if you live not knowing who you are. So the final question then is this, who am I. Yahweh says I AM WHO AM. Lets think about that.

White Collar Crime, An Alternative Explanation

Here I shall deal with the apparent injustice of the punishments metered out to white collar criminals versus violent crimes. I take as a given that such an injustice exists (though this is certainly debatable). I cannot prove that my explanation is the correct one, but I only hear one explanation for this, and lest we fall into the trap of thinking that since it's the only one it must be the correct one, I am providing an alternative. The common explanation is that the white collar criminals are rich, and thus aren't prosecuted to the full extent.

A little introduction before my alternative explanation is necessary. I think that all laws can be classified into either a general or specific category. The laws I assign to the specific category are laws that few people would break even if they didn't exist (like murder). The laws that I assign to the general category are laws that many people would break if they didn't exist (like speeding, even though everyone breaks that law anyway).

My explanation is that white collar crimes fall into the general category, whereas violent crimes fall into the specific one. Thus, ultimately we feel that we are not that different from white collar criminals, because we would act the same in their position, and that is why we don't want to punish them as much as violent offenders. We feel that violent offenders are very different from us, and have no moral standing. White collar criminals are really just like us, except they aren't afraid of the law. Violent criminals are pathological and dangerous.

Before you say "I'd never commit fraud against my customers" or something like that, let's consider a simpler example. Insider Trading. You are not allowed to spread knowledge about your company in private. That is, suppose you're the CEO of Intel, and you have this giant chip coming out that's going to be huge. You can't tell your friend that this is happening and advise him to buy stock. If you tell someone, you have to tell everyone publicly. Certainly, people would do it hand over fist if the law didn't exist. Yet it's something that damages the people that aren't in the know. How is it really different from fraud? Or how about this, you and your competitor agree to pay a certain amount to your employees. Hey, you're saving money, you're not tricking anyone, why wouldn't you do it? Well, it's illegal, and it hurts the employees.

So, my alternative explanation is that White Collar Crime is punished less because we feel more empathy towards those criminals, than we do towards the Violent ones.

Our Government Loves Us

I recently read about how an official in the Department of Homeland Security is interested in requiring ever air plane passenger to wear an "Electronic ID bracelet." These bracelets contain information about the passenger (taking the place of a boarding pass) so passengers could be easily tracked and it would have the ability to act as a taser device against the wearer if necessary. These devices would supposedly be very effective to fend off terrorists while in air.

I found it interesting when reading about this bracelet that the government only seems to want to use them to protect plane passengers. I mean, planes are one type of transportation that could be targeted by terrorists, but what about buses? Can't you imagine a terrorist wreaking havoc on buses and trains killing dozens of innocent passengers just as easily as on air planes? Sure the air plane is more difficult to exit in an emergency, but buses are in even more public places than planes, allowing for people who are not even on the bus to be hurt.

For that matter, why should we restrict the use of these bracelets to buses and trains? What if a terrorist is walking around on the streets of some major city and decides he is going to whip out enough explosives to blow up a city block? What if a terrorist is on the run and no one knows where? An electronic tracking device/taser seems like the perfect remedy for these horrible situations.

In conclusion, I believe the proponents of this device at the Department of Homeland Security should broaden the scope of their argument and look into requiring this bracelet for any person, citizen or not, who resides or will soon reside within the United States at any time. After that they should consider installing cameras in every television set sold and seeking enough funding for the Department of Homeland Security enough so that every citizen can be monitored at all times to ensure they are staying out of trouble and only eating trans fats on weekends.

How to Control the World

The most effective way to control the world is to control the supply of an essential item such as water or oxygen. Fortunately, completely controlling the supply of essentials is usually very difficult. Unfortunately, our patenting system in the United States has recently been transforming in such a way that encourages monopolies of control over many very common items, including food.

One of the biggest problems I see with our patent system is that it allows for the complete control over strains of genetically modified food and animals. At first glance it may not seem like a monopoly on specific strains of food would matter much. Farmers would just be able to not buy the strain or to use the seeds from their own already modified plants if they so wished, right? Wrong.

The U.S. patenting system allows for genetically modified seed to be sold in mass with restrictive stipulations placed upon them. For example, genetically modified seeds are often sold with the restriction that the seeds cannot be reused in the next years crop, so the farmer must purchase more costly seeds directly from source next year. This allows for a monopoly on this specific strain of seeds such that anyone who has these genetically modified plants are forced to buy their seeds from the supplier with the patent.

This doesn't seem so bad, right? A smart farmer would just not buy the genetically modified seeds in the first place if these crazy stipulations were placed on the use of these seeds. Unfortunately, this approach still does not circumvent this flawed system. Many plants spread their pollen far and wide, ensuring that genetically modified plants will contaminate any crops near them. Once a genetically modified hybrid plant has been produced, the law leaves the ownership of this plant in a potentially very dangerous place.

A company called Monsanto has been practicing this form of controlling the world over the years and they are becoming increasingly better at it. Monsanto owns thousands of patents on herbicides, insecticides, genetically modified seeds, and they have even filed a patent for genes present in pigs. Monsanto distributes the most popular herbicide and they are by far the leading producer and patent owner of genetically modified seed.

There are many conspiracy videos explaining how Monsanto is attempting to gain control of all pigs worldwide and is generally harming the world as a whole. Regardless of Monsanto's intentions, they obviously do not care at all about the health of the world (see Agent Orange) and they are in a position that allows them nearly complete control over all food. It is a bit curious how many people have supposedly been fired or humiliated for researching or reporting bad information about Monsanto.

Although people are fighting back and sometimes winning battles, Monsanto is winning the war. Congratulations to the Monsanto Corporation for grossly taking advantage of human ignorance and obtaining the power to control the world in the most effective way I have ever seen.

Why I'm Not A Libertarian

I recently read a very interesting quote that goes something like this:

"If your neighbor came over and pointed a gun at you and demanded food for another neighbor in need, we would consider this criminal and immoral. So why is it O.K. for a million people with guns (in the form of a government) to do the same?"

This quote embodies half of the Libertarian ideal. So, why is it O.K. for a government to do this? First, the quote is misleading. It expects you to take the point of view of the person having the gun pointed at them. But let's take a different point of view. That of the person pointing the gun. Let me paint you the picture.

My friend, through no fault of his own, falls on hard times. So hard that he's going to starve to death. I'd share my food with him, but I'm not well off enough to feed 2 people. But I have a gun. And I know of a person who has enough food to feed 10 people. I would not consider it morally wrong to go to that person and demand food for my friend. Perhaps this is the difference between the Libertarian and me: The Libertarian would consider it morally wrong to do this. Now, I'd try to pay the person back eventually, but if I couldn't, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

So, I argue, it is O.K. for a person to do this. But a person might encounter many problems, the rich person might have a gun himself, and this could result in a loss of life really easily. Moreover, there is the problem that the person becomes judge, jury, and executioner (after all, how do I really know my friend is starving through no fault of his own). This is one thing that the government can do better than a private person. Now the scope to which the government is allowed to perform this transfer of wealth is a more difficult question. But the transfer of wealth is a duty of the government.

The Will of the Majority

Although here I will assert two very general statements, they are brought about by pondering about a specific issue. Many people claim that a vast majority of Americans wants to withdraw from Iraq and that therefore we should withdraw. There are many good reasons to withdraw from Iraq, but that is not one of them. First of all, strictly speaking it's a logical fallacy. What a person or group believes is the correct course of action is not a reason for the course of action because the group must have its own reasons in the first place. But, of course, the counterargument is that what this situation demonstrates is that the government is out of touch and doesn't listen to the people, not the correctness of the approach (which in any case won't be decided for decades, if ever).

But that is also not true. The government does not have to, nor should it, listen to the majority. In my high school days, I came across a very interesting list in my government textbook. It was a list that a majority of Americans believed should be allowed or not allowed by the government. The list included some things I would have liked to have (getting rid of the electoral college), and it had some things I wouldn't have liked (allowing prayer in public schools). Personally, I would've rather had none of those things than all of them. Now, although I can't say this with certainty, it struck me that most people would probably rather have none of those things than all of them. So, this leads to my first statement. There is no such thing as a majority. By this I don't mean that on an issue it's impossible to have more than 50% of people agreeing. By this I mean that there is no majority voting block that votes the same way all the time (that is the same 50% of people always vote together). This means that if the government actually listened to the majority, it would end up pissing the majority of people off. So, this is why the government does not have to, nor should it, listen to the majority.

Moreover, a place in which such a majority bloc does exist (The same 50% of people always voting together) a democracy cannot exist. This is simply because the minority in this case will have no reason to even vote. The majority always gets their way, and there's nothing to be done about it. The minority either becomes disenfranchised and oppressed, or secedes to form their own country. In order for a democracy to exist, the government has to sometimes ignore the will of the majority.

Allegiance, Loyalty, and Citizenship

What does it mean to be loyal?

As near as I can tell it means the willingness to do something that you generally consider "wrong," or not do something that you would normally do, for the benefit of another person. For example, if you see someone shoplifting, you might report them (assuming you care enough, most people would think this is the proper course of action). If you see your best friend shoplifting, you wouldn't report him. This is because you're loyal to your friend, but not a random stranger. Of course loyalty is usually limited (if you saw your best friend commit murder, you would probably be very conflicted, and maybe report him). Some people have good objections to this view of loyalty, but this is the way I believe it works.

Although loyalty to a person is relatively easy to define, loyalty to an ideal or a country is harder, but I believe it follows the same general vein. Loyalty to an ideal means you're willing to do some things wrong, to further the goals of this ideal.

Loyalty to a country means you're willing to put the interests of your country above the interests of other countries. That is, you want your country to win, even if it means other countries lose. Unfortunately, there's also a problem with defining what a country is. Is a country the nation-state? Is a country the people that live in it? Is a country the government? Or is it the ideals that a country claims to embody? (Sometimes the main loyalty also isn't to a country, but to a religion say).

In any case, it is not too far of a stretch (in my opinion it's not a stretch at all) to see that Citizenship is granted based on loyalties. That is, you get Citizenship to the country you value more than any other. Of course than there's the problem with dual citizenship, but usually you're only allowed to get that if your two countries are allies. I know several people that openly proclaim that their main loyalty is not to the United States, and are US Citizens. Should they be denied citizenship? (well, according to the rules of dual citizenship they shouldn't, but...) Then I know some people that say they feel no loyalty to the US, what about them? Finally, there's people like me, I feel no loyalty to any country that I can think of? Where should I get Citizenship?

Anyways, I think the whole idea of loyalty is... not good in some senses. For example, if you're in a court case with a judge, you definetly want the judge to have no loyalties to any of the people involved. So, inside your country you always have a person that fixes things when loyalty gets in the way, but in the world at large, no such arbiter exists. (As I learned in my poli sci class, this is called an anarchic system). So, whereas loyalty doesn't cause any major problems in a country, it can cause major problems between countries.

United States Drug Schedule Madness

In the United States Drug Schedules are used to determine to what extent certain drugs are federally regulated. Drugs in Schedules I and II have a high potential for abuse. Drugs in Schedule I have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and there is a lack of accepted safety of the drug under medical supervision.

Given the use of medical marijuana in California, I would have to argue that there is definitely a medical use of this drug. I would also argue that there is not a lack of accepted safety with this drug because it is difficulty to accidentally overdose. Unfortunately marijuana is on the Schedule I drug list. This means that legally marijuana has no accepted medical use and it is illegal to use marijuana medically.

Cocaine is used to some extent nationally in hospitals as a topical anesthetic. Cocaine's usage has decreased over the years, but it is definitely still used. Cocaine is on the Schedule II drug list. This means that by law there is a currently accepted medical use for cocaine. This is certainly true, although decreasingly so.

The thing that greatly bothers me about the United States Drug Schedules is that it is ruled that there is no acceptable medical use for marijuana, but there is an acceptable medical use for cocaine. Marijuana is a fairly effective painkiller that is much less physically shocking and much less addictive than many alternative painkillers that are legally prescribed. Cocaine is much more dangerous recreationally and therefore has a much greater potential for abuse. Why should cocaine be legal to prescribe if marijuana is not?