Something a little bit different (continued again)

Today I am going to continue the discussion I had on Tuesday and Wednesday: my idea of an economic system, called Applied Monetary Management, that uses fiat money to create economic prosperity. If you have not read Tuesday or Wednesday’s posts, I strongly recommend doing so.

I would like to respond (again) to the claim that AMM is socialistic/communistic and suffers because of it. As I have stated before, the national dividend is not enough to live off of, meaning that it will not cause anyone to work less. Also, the dividend does not have to be distributed equally—as I discussed previously, this is up to policy makers, who represent the will of the people. Also, after re-reading parts of C.H. Douglas’s book Social Credit, I noticed that even Douglas (pictured on right) suggests not giving the dividend to someone who has not worked in a long period of time. So, AMM is not communistic—like Social Credit, it is a “third way” between capitalism and socialism, incorporating aspects of both.

On a similar vein, an interesting thought occurred to me today: AMM can be used as a “bridge” to communism (or something like it), and because of the way AMM works the country implementing it would only reach communism if it was economically viable. As I explained on Wednesday, AMM distributes a national dividend to everyone to increase the public’s purchasing power. This dividend is not enough to live off of, so it is only a supplement to a person’s income. However, as technology increases the amount of labor required to create a product decreases—as we get closer an closer to the technological singularity, the amount of time it take to produce goods will decrease dramatically. When this happens, the result in an AMM society would be that the national dividend would increase sharply, as less people are working but there are more goods to consume. Eventually, society would reach a point where the only people who still worked are people who want to. At this point, incidentally, the national dividend would be enough to live off (think about it: no one else can be dissuaded from work by the dividend, meaning that it is enough for everyone else to live off of. Do the math if you don’t follow my logic.) The result is communism, or at least something like it. But unlike every other attempt at communism, which has failed because the society was not economically prepared, AMM only evolves into communism when the society and technology the society possesses is ready. I doubt this will ever happen—technology may never reach that point, and when it does society may not let the economy become a communistic one. But is an interesting thought.

Next, I would like to explain where AMM differs from Douglas’s Social Credit. Though the systems are similar, I have removed Douglas’s “Just Price” mechanism, which freezes prices, and replaced it with an optional government subsidy to lower prices. Also, AMM nationalizes trade, creates a powerful national bank, and places harsher restrictions on privately owned banks. (To those unfamiliar with the details of Social Credit, it might seem that AMM and Social Credit are exactly the same, and I wanted to correct this notion.)

This ends my five-day series of posts about economics and economic philosophy. However, this is certainly not the last you will hear about AMM or economic philosophy in general.

On Obama’s words of wisdom

On Tuesday President Obama spoke to Congress about the state of the economy. In this speech, he justified his economic stimulus plan and explained why America needs it. There are a few comments I have about the content and delivery of the speech that I would like to discuss.

Overall, I was impressed with Obama’s tone and delivery of the speech. He did not shy away from telling us what we needed to hear, but neither did he say anything that would make Wall Street panic again (or at least it didn’t sound like it). I did find the incessant applause breaks annoying, though. A few times I found them quite reminiscent of those during speeches given by fascist leaders, particularly because of the fact that they were scripted. (I am not calling Obama a fascist—I am just making a comparison.) Though Obama does need to “sell” his plan to us, are theatrics really necessary? Besides, the applause breaks give Obama’s opponents a chance to snub him by not clapping at the appropriate moments (which many did). Beyond that, though, I have no complaints about the delivery of the speech—as always, Obama is an erudite orator.

Throughout the speech, Obama had outlined where his plan’s money was going and why. I found most of his explanations satisfactory. But after the speech, I had a startling thought: Who the heck is paying for all this? And when? At one point in the speech, he states that “we cannot leave the deficit my administration inherited for future generations.” Fine, fine. But then he goes on to say, “families making under $250,000 a year will receive a tax rebate and no tax increase.” He went on to talk about other tax cuts included in his plan. But if he is not raising taxes, who is going to pay for this? Yes, Obama is raising taxes on the rich, but surely this will not pay off $800 billion + the existing deficit + however much Gietner’s absurd plan is going to cost. Though I am a supporter of fiat money, Obama must “play by the rules” and pay back any debt he creates. So, is he going to leave some of this debt for future generations anyway? Or does he have something else in mind?

In general, I do agree with Obama’s stance that we must avoid the “politicians’ fallacy” (known as the Thatcherite fallacy in the UK) when dealing with the recession. For those unfamiliar with this logic error, the proof looks something like this:

1) We must do something.

2) This is something.

3) Therefore, we must do this.

Instead, Obama has always stated that we cannot afford to make a mistake here. Though action is necessary, it must be the right kind of action. With any luck we will eventually reap the benefits of this stimulus plan, which the President has put so much faith in. 

Tomorrow I will return to what I was discussing yesterday: Applied Monetary Management. 

Something a little bit different (continued)

Today I am going to launch into a more detailed explanation of the economic system I proposed yesterday. If you have not read yesterday’s post, I strongly recommend it. Before I begin: for the purpose of convenience (my own), I have decided to dub the system I discussed yesterday “Applied Monetary Management,” or AMM. This name is somewhat appropriate, and it will spare me some lengthy sentences.

I would first like to discuss overproduction in more detail, since this is one of the central points I brought up yesterday. Overproduction is a condition in which a nation produces more products than it can consume. In a capitalist system, this is disastrous to the economy if the country suffering from overproduction cannot find an economically viable way to get rid of the excess. In most cases, though, the philosophy of “favorable balance of trade,” in which countries are encouraged to export more than they import, has countered overproduction in most cases. Today, the concept of foreign aid has been added to this as a way to alleviate overproduction. But where there are no more markets for the excess goods, prices plummet and the economy crashes. (This is what happened during the Great Depression—demand dropped because Europe could no longer afford to buy our goods and did not need war materiel, so the US was left with a surplus we were unable to get rid of.) According to C.H. Douglas, overproduction—or at least shortage of money—occurs naturally in capitalism. Douglas explained this idea in his A + B Theorem. In this proof, Douglas explained that a product’s cost is made up of two parts, A, the cost of wages to pay the employees who produce the product, and B, the cost of the materials (including land) needed to produce it. Thus, the price of the product must be A + B + C, where C is the profit. But how can the public possibly purchase all the products created if the collective purchasing power is equal to A when the collective price of all products is equal to A + B + C? The answer: they can’t. This is the rationale for Douglas’s Social Credit as well as for AMM—if more money is pumped into the economy, overproduction can be turned into an advantage rather than a liability.

Next, I would like to talk about taxation and investments in relation to my AMM system. Taxation is entirely useless, as it withdraws money from circulation. Since the national dividend is the opposite of taxation and the government can just print fiat money anyway, taxation is useless. Investments detract from the productivity of an AMM nation, since money used to buy insurance or invested cannot be used to purchase products. Thus, both of these would have to be discouraged and perhaps more strictly regulated (though not banned) in an AMM system. 

I would also like to briefly touch on trade in an AMM system. As I mentioned yesterday, all trade is to be controlled by the government because of the fact that the AMM nation’s currency would probably be worthless elsewhere in the world. Thus, the government will use the barter system to get what it needs from other countries and foreign companies. Though this is somewhat cumbersome, it adds to the power of the government in terms of economic control, which is central to the success of the AMM system as a whole. This does make it difficult to travel to other countries, but this is a minor concern in the big picture.

I would now like to counter some of the standard arguments that are used against C.H. Douglas’s Social Credit, as many of them apply to AMM, the system I am proposing.

Firstly, I would like to counter the argument that AMM suffers because it is overly socialistic. Though it is true that the concept of the national dividend is somewhat socialistic, it does not make anyone’s job into a sinecure. As I briefly touched on yesterday, AMM accounts for the cultural factor that is often the downfall of socialistic systems: lack of incentive to work.  Recall that the national dividend can be distributed either in a more socialistic way (more equal) or in a more capitalistic way (rewarding hard work). Also, remember that it is elected officials who determine how the dividend is doled out. Thus, whichever way the cultural pendulum swings, the distribution of the national dividend can account for it.

Secondly, I would like to further discuss the issue of hyperinflation. As mentioned in the paragraph above, AMM can account for the cultural factor present in the downfall of socialistic systems. Also (and perhaps more importantly) AMM creates perpetual, unlimited demand. This, in turn, creates more production, and hence more work. Also, remember that the government also controls prices to a certain extent. (This is one of the fundamental differences between AMM and Social Credit—Douglas proposes freezing prices, which he calls the “Just Price” system; I propose giving an option fiat money subsidy to lower prices. Companies would prefer to accept this, because not only ensures that they will be paid well for what they produce, but also because the lowered cost (coupled with the national dividend) ensures that they will not have excess goods.

Lastly, I would like to explain my apparent grudge against bankers and capitalists. As I discussed previously when talking about the automakers’ hearing in Congress, the self-declared motive of any capitalist is to seek wealth and personal gain. I am not begrudging selfishness as a personal philosophy, though; I see no problems with selfishness or egoism in general. The problem is that when a company or a few companies are the only major ones in their industry, the executives of those companies have an enormous social responsibility thrust upon them: they are now charged with ensuring the continued prosperity of that industry. But what have they done to earn this position? Though many hold that their ability to succeed in their industry is what qualifies them—however, this is only half true. Though having proficiency in running a company of a particular industry does qualify that person to manage the industry, it does not change the fact that that person is self-serving, not a public servant. Instead, controlling the direction of an industry (as opposed to directly managing it) is a job that should be taken up by the government, which serves the people.

I have also expressed my distaste for powerful privately owned banks and other financial institutions; I would like to explain my reasons for this as well. Banks and other financial institutions are among the most powerful organizations when it comes to determining the value of money; banks can even create money using fractional-reserve banking policies. This is dangerous because banks, like capitalist individuals, have selfish motives. To allow organizations with selfish motives to have so much power over the monetary system is clearly very dangerous. Instead, the government should ensure that it has the most control over the monetary system by forcing banks to utilize commodity money-based polices. Once again, since the government serves the people it is a far better candidate to control the value of money than a bank owned by a self-serving capitalist.

I would also like to discuss some of my influences and some recommended reading on this subject. For information on the economic philosophy of Social Credit, I recommend reading three of C.H. Douglas’s books, Social Credit, Economic Democracy, and Credit-Power and Democracy. Though these aren’t among the most gripping or entertaining books out there, they explain Douglas’s ideas and are very thought provoking. I would also recommend Robert A. Heinlein’s 1939 novel For Us, the Living, which is more of a lecture than a novel, in which Heinlein offers his own take on Douglas and applies to philosophy of Social Credit to culture.

**As a side note: Any real economists reading this are probably laughing at me. I have thus far failed to provide any hypothetical examples, case studies, or any other proof besides logic to back up my arguments. My theory is based mostly off of early 20^th century thinkers rather than modern economics, which probably makes it obsolete. I admit, I am quite a neophyte as far as economics goes—this is mostly the reason I approached this problem from a philosophical standpoint rather than an economic one. But this theory is the best one I’ve got, and I suspect there is actually some validity something to it. In the future, I will do some research and try to provide some tangible proof for what I am saying. 

Tomorrow I may or may not continue on this subject—I may decide to take a day off from it to discuss the global economic crisis instead, in particular President Obama’s recent speech. 

Something a little bit different

I realize that today’s post is quite long. However, I think it makes up for this by being perhaps the most interesting blog entry I have ever written; I urge you to read it if you have the time. Today, as I promised yesterday, I am going to outline my own views on economics. I believe that an economic system can be analyzed by asking two key questions about it. I shall submit my own system to this analysis so as to best explain how it works and its moral justifications.

The first question we must ask when discussing economics is “what is the purpose of a particular economic system?” As odd as this may seem, it is actually a key question to understanding why certain economic systems function the way they do. For example, the purpose of capitalism is to allow land, labor, and capitol to be privately owned and traded. Communism, however, has a different goal: the development of a classless society. Because of the fundamental difference in why these systems exist, each functions in very different way. So, what is my answer to the question regarding the purpose of economics? Simply this: The purpose of an economic system is to allow the greatest amount of prosperity in terms of goods and services, and to allow these to be distributed to the constituents of society in a utilitarian manner. This sounds complicated, but is actually quite simple: the system’s chief goal is producing the most/highest quality goods and services (don’t worry about how for the moment) and distributing in a way that allows the most happiness for the most people. This leaves some room for flexibility, as it calls for an equal distribution of goods, but only to the point where this does not affect prosperity. This allows for the system to change as the culture of the society does (as the society fluctuates from considering classlessness as a virtue to considering the labor theory of value a virtue). The rationale for this goal—the “why” behind the “why”—is also relatively simple. To quote the economist C.H. Douglas, who is perhaps my most important influence as far as economic philosophy, “Systems were made for men, and not men for systems, and the interest of man, which is self-development, is above all systems.” The reason I encourage prosperity in terms of goods is simple: imagine what happens when an economic system is mismanaged and loses track of this goal. The best example I can think of is this: during the Great Depression, farmers were paid to destroy their crops so that the overall price of crops would rise. This is sacrificing goods for the sake of money; in my mind, this is incredibly foolish, as it means a decline in overall prosperity and wealth (it obviously means this because goods are being destroyed). Thus, seeking wealth and prosperity in terms of goods and services is a better goal for an economic system, as it means that this system works for the utilitarian benefit of all.

The second question we must ask when examining economic systems is “how does the system achieve its goal?” In some cases, there are multiple ways of a achieving the goal; communism, for example, could work toward a classless society by encouraging private ownership rather than collective ownership. Thus, you may agree with my opinion on the best purpose of an economic system but not the way I plan to achieve this purpose. I propose a system similar to C.H. Douglas’s “Social Credit.”

But before I explain the nuances of this system, I would like to quickly explain the nature of money, as it is crucial to understanding what I am about to propose. Money is defined as anything that can be exchanged for goods or services (that is not already a good or service, of course). Also, money is not an absolute; it has no value except in relation to human beings, and it is human beings who decide the exact value of monetary units. Similar to the reason that “dog” only means “dog” because we so choose, a dollar means more than a scrap of paper because we, the general public, have decided that it has a certain value. This value often (but not always) correlates to the quantity theory of value, better known as the idea of supply and demand. Of course, like any other commodity, the value of money to each particular person varies and fluctuates—but because it has at least some value to most people it can function as a part of society. Often, though, organizations such as the government or banks have more control over the value of money than individuals. Money generally functions as a medium of exchange, but, in some instances, it can take on other purposes. The main point, though, is that money is not made “in a factory”—in direct correlation with the production of goods/services—as fiscal conservatives claim, but instead by whoever controls its value (i.e. the government, banks, the people, etc.)

So, here is the system I am proposing: The government should take an extremely active role in economics for the purpose of encouraging overproduction. Though in capitalist systems overproduction is disastrous (it was one of the main causes of the Great Depression), it can be handled easily in “my” system. The government can achieve this by severely restricting trade of goods that can hypothetically be consumed domestically and by providing stimuli (in the form of payments and loans) to encourage the production of goods that can hypothetically be consumed there as well. The government also discourages imports with protectionist tariffs or similar measures. As I mentioned before, this encourages domestic overproduction. Once this occurs, the government is to offer a subsidy to companies to lower prices of their goods. Next, the government issues a “national dividend” to all citizens, giving them the money to purchase the all products produced that can be consumed. This also creates a perpetual demand, which will encourage more production in the next term, but will not alter prices because of the government’s pre-existing subsidy. This subsidy/dividend system ensures that most, if not all of the good produced domestically than can be consumed domestically are purchased and consumed. As I mentioned above, how the dividend is distributed depends on cultural factors (which is fine, because it is determined by politicians, who are elected officials). But where does all this money come from? Very simply—and this is the single most important aspect of what I am proposing—this money is fiat money. It is not backed by gold or any other standard; the government simply prints it at a mint and issues it. It appears that this would cause inflation and collapse, but, as I shall explain two paragraphs below, this is not so.

Additionally, as a matter of policy, the government is the only organization allowed to coin money and regulate its value. Private banks and other financial institutions must deal with money as if it were a physical commodity: under no circumstances may a bank loan more money than it physically possesses. (Today, believe it or not, banks can loan out more money than they actually have; the process is known as fractional-reserve banking.) Also, there is to be a single national bank, which can serve all of the purposes a conventional bank. This bank, however, being a part of the government, does not have to deal with money as a commodity like privately owned financial institutions. This national bank also serves to distribute the national dividend and handle the subsidies used to lower the cost of domestic products.

At first glance it appears that this system suffers from numerous practical flaws, the most prominent being that it encourages hyperinflation. However, remember that companies are paid a subsidy to lower prices and the national dividend creates unlimited demand and purchasing power—this ensure that all the goods produced that can be consumed are purchased. The only instance in which the system encourages inflation is in instances in which the government overcompensates and the national dividend is far greater than the total quantity of products produced. Also, it would appear to be worthless to a country such as Venezuela, which relies heavily on one or two exports. However, the government can deal with this by purchasing quantities of this product with fiat money (or just nationalizing that industry) and bartering with other countries for the products needed (few capitalist countries would want to work with a currency that is not backed by gold and is under the thumb of the government). Also, remember that the currency is only used inside the particular country utilizing the system, and that privately owned banks are very weak compared to those today, meaning that the government has an enormous degree of control over the value of the currency. This should prevent the currency from inflating, though I am sure that some inflation is going to occur. However, as long as there is only a minimal amount of inflation and it does not detract from the efficiency of the system as a whole, it is not much of a concern. Also, it appears that the system would not work for a country that relies heavily on imports. This is true, but, as I suggested above, there are methods by which a country can stimulate its own economy provided it has the natural resources to do so. Another complaint is that this system encourages wastefulness. Though this is a valid argument, the same can be said of capitalism; my system is no more wasteful than a capitalist one.

I welcome any comments on this topic; tomorrow I shall go into more detail and perhaps provide a hypothetical example of how this system would work. Again, sorry about the length of today’s post—I realize it was a bit hard on the eyes. 

Fiat power, fiat money

Unfortunately I was unable to write anything this weekend, as I was quite busy. However, I was only off for two days, which is really not that much in the big scheme of things, and two days is as close to a hiatus as my blog has ever come. But I have devoted this week to discussing topics related to economics, and for the next five days I am going to type out some very interesting posts. Today, the series on economics begins with a discussion of the legality of fiat money.

In these stressful economic times, all eyes are on Obama and his stimulus plan, which just passed through Congress. However, many conservatives are fundamentally opposed to the bill because it requires huge government spending at a time when the government is already very far in debt. Many hold that the government can never engage in deficit spending or even “meddle” with the economy at all. But I believe that economic “meddling” is legally justifiable in the US; whether it is morally justifiable or practical is regardless. Furthermore, I believe that many banks are actually violating US monetary laws with some of their policies. Today, I would like to briefly explain these concepts.

In the US Constitution, there is a line in Article 1 that states, “Congress shall have the power to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign coin.” This is the main piece of evidence on which my argument is based. This authorizes Congress to print as much money as it desires, including fiat money, or currency not backed by gold or any other standard. Furthermore, nowhere in the Constitution is deficit spending forbidden, and I believe it is implied in the phrase “regulate the Value thereof,” as this allows the government to deal with money in any way it wishes. Thus, the government can print as much money as it wishes, and demand that people accept it. 

However, though the government is allowed to do all of these things, banks are not. I take issue with some of the polices of banks, as many of them mess with our economy more than we think. Perhaps the most dangerous is the fact that banks are not required to possess all of the money they loan out; some of it is simply “checkbook money,” not true commodity money. What this means is that banks can give you money that they never really had in the first place; they get away with it by assuming that you are eventually going to pay them this money, plus interest. In doing so, they are coining money, which only the government is allowed to do. Banks also (indirectly) control the exchange rates of foreign currencies. This, too, is technically not allowed as per the quote above; only the government should be allowed to tell people how much of a foreign currency their US dollars are worth (in accordance with the “regulate the value of foreign coin” part).

Of course, these claims sound silly in today’s world, in which our financial system is based on credit, non-commodity money, and imaginary market values. I realize I probably sound like one of those crackpot economists from the 1930s who suggested all kinds of radical schemes, such as printing huge amounts of fiat money or abolishing the stock market. However, remember that credit and the other fundamentals aspects of our economy are what contributed to this crisis in the first place—perhaps it is time to look closely at our economic system and see if it truly works the way we want it to. Also, remember that if we allow banks to have the power to manipulate the economy by being able to regulate the value of currency (directly or indirectly), we are surly headed for disaster—because bankers and capitalists, by nature, serve themselves. The government, however, does not, and allowing it to regulate currency, as it is supposed to, is perhaps our most important weapon against economic disaster. 

Tomorrow, I will discuss my own economic views and their justifications. 

On revisionist history

Yesterday I saw Oliver Stone’s recent movie “W.” The film chronicles the life of George W. Bush from his early days to the decision to invade Iraq. The movie was quite entertaining—thought it was almost two and a half hours long, the interesting portrayal of Bush and his advisors kept it from being soporific. However, like some of Stone’s previous works, the film reeks of revisionist history. Stone deliberately inserted some of Bush’s more embarrassing quotes into the film, often out of context. He certainly took liberties in depicting the Bush family dynamic—several of the Bushes criticized the film for this, in fact. He also included several scenes featuring confidential meetings between Bush and his advisors—the details of these are obviously unknown, so it is clear Stone made them up for the film. Overall, the film definitely has something of an anti-Bush bias—George W. is portrayed as bumbling, clueless, and overly dogmatic.

But today’s post is not just about beating up on Oliver Stone—I would like to talk about the dangers of revisionist history in general. Like “W,” much of the American media has become politically charged. Conservatives point the finger at liberal elites and the so-called “liberal media”—though they do have a point there are conservativism-based news broadcasters as well as liberal ones. But regardless of which side manipulating the facts, the fact is that the media is often not as neutral as we would like to think. And I don’t just mean news stations—as I showed with “W.” the deep divide between Democrats and Republicans has infiltrated all corners of our media. Perhaps worst of all are the films and television shows that, like “W,” pose as truth but are actually fiction. I have the same complaint about the “docu-drama,” a new genre of television that twists the facts about historical events for entertainment purposes.

Overall, revisionist history is dangerous, in both the long term and the short term. In the short term, it manipulates people’s opinions about a person or thing for false reasons. This is obviously the intent of such material in the first place; I am sorry to admit that it often works. In the case of “W,” the film probably cemented many people’s anti-Bush feelings for the wrong reasons. In the long term, too, revisionist history is dangerous. When future generations look back on our era, what they will see in our media is not the truth but fabrication; the real truth will be lost in time because our politically-charged media does not bother to cover it.

But what can we do about this? Very little, it seems. The spirit of partisanship has cemented itself in American politics and in the American media, and there is little the average person can do. I read the BBC news, as I have mentioned before, but I am not solving the problem by doing so—I am merely circumventing it, though only temporarily and to a certain extent. For now, we can merely hope that the US will someday rise above the petty partisan squabbling and resume reporting the truth. 

The bane of cities

The bigger they are, the harder they fall. Or so the saying goes. Today I would like to discuss this idea in relation to cities; I believe that the larger a city is, it crashes more spectacularly, and is even far more likely to crash in the first place.

The logic behind my theory is simple: During the Industrial Revolution, cities and urban population soared as more and more people flocked to factory work. Ever since, cities have become increasingly larger and more populous. The percent of people who live in cities is steadily rising, and this trend does not look like it is going to slow down any time soon. However, there is also a serious disadvantage to this trend: as cities have become larger and larger, they have also become more vulnerable to both natural and man-made catastrophes.

Consider New York City as an example. In the 1800’s NYC was little more than a collection of hovels and shacks; pigs ran wild up and down what is now Broadway. However, back in those days there were farms located all around the city, and it was not overly dependent (at least in the short term) on trade and food shipments. But New York City today is another matter entirely. For example, imagine what would happen if all of the vehicles—trucks, trains, planes, boats—that take food into the Big Apple were to stop for some reason. The result is more dramatic than you might think: in a matter of days food riots would occur, probably followed by a mass exodus of hungry people in search of food. In a serious catastrophe, such as an EMP attack, this would result in a huge “death zone” that would spread for about a hundred miles around the city. The message is clear: as cities become larger, they become more dependent on the utilities and outside help that allowed them to grow in the first place. Once a city is bereft of these utilities, it inevitably crashes and is abandoned.

Also, note that large cities are also prime targets for terrorism, the fear of which has increased in the last decade or so. The reason that cities are more often targets is simple: effect. An attack on a rural area is less dramatic, and it is less likely to kill as many people. Can you think of the last time there was a terrorist attack on a rural or even suburban area? I can’t. Also, by this reasoning larger cities are more likely to be attacked, and because they house more people they are probably more vulnerable (easier for someone to slip in undetected). Cities are also breeding grounds for disease as well as prime spots to spread diseases; a plague is far more devastating to an urban area than a rural one.

But what can we do about this? How can we make our cities more resilient and less dependent? I am not sure if there is an answer. Making a city even slightly more independent would take an enormous amount of effort. There are so many aspects of cities that are dependent utilities and outside aid that fixing one will not solve the problem completely. However, I do have a few suggestions: vertical farming, which I have talked about before when discussing overpopulation, can solve a city’s food issues somewhat. Decentralizing water and energy systems can prevent a crisis from occurring if something happens to one facility. And energy independence for that city couldn’t hurt either. A security “ring” like the one New York has could help deter terrorism, though I believe that if a terrorist truly wanted to harm a big city there is little we could do. Beyond that, though, there is little we can do to make our cities less vulnerable. 

More 4D mazes

Below are some more 4D mazes I made; I hope you will enjoy solving them. For the instructions, see one of my previous posts, “4D mazes.”

This first one is pretty hard: 

This one is even harder: 

I think this last one is the hardest of all, but perhaps you will find it easier: 

Anyway, I hope you have enjoyed these puzzles, which I find fascinating. Even if you do not understand the concept of the fourth spatial dimension these mazes are still interesting logic puzzles.

Even the Crusades?

Are all wars caused by population pressure? Do all conflicts between adjacent societies have their roots in population overflow and the subsequent expansion that this overflow requires? Are cultural and social causes, such as the religious fervor found in wars such as the Crusades, merely side effects of conflicts that are inevitable because of population pressure?

Before I answer let me explain the importance of these questions. Besides that fact that a “yes” would simply anthropology and sociology immensely, it would be justification for imperialism and imperialistic Social Darwinism. You see, the most famous person to answer “yes” to this question was Adolf Hitler, who used it alongside his racist attitudes as an excuse for WWII.

But don’t worry—I am pretty sure the answer is no. Though sociologists, anthropologists and social scientists have found that economic causes are usually the underlying reasons for many conflicts, population pressure is not always the determining factor in war. Consider, for example, the conquests of Alexander or Genghis Khan—both captured areas that were far beyond what was necessary to feed the expanding populations of their empires. Also, look at the US during WWI and WWII—on both cases, the US only entered because of trade agreements an policy—population pressure was not a factor at all; the US had—and still has—an enormous tract of unsettled land in the West. Lastly, the Crusades were clearly caused by Pope Urban’s mandate, not overpopulation, as most historians will tell you. There are countless other counterexamples to this theory; if you are interested, look at the causes of almost any conflict—I think you will find that for most of them population pressure is only a minor factor if a factor at all.

Also, consider warfare in the modern world; here the population pressure explanation really breaks down. For example, the Vietnam War and Korean War were fought to prevent the spread of communism; the US did not seek to gain any land or resources from them. Additionally, nuclear war shatters the analogy entirely—it destroys resources and land, and even though it may reduce the total world population it offers nothing in the way of reliving population pressure for the people who are alive after a nuclear war.

However, there is a little merit to the population pressure theory—a conventional war cannot be fought without at least a little population pressure—otherwise, there would not be enough people to go off to fight the war in the first place. Also, recall that in most societies in the past, during wartime, (even in recent wars such as WWII) it was considered virtuous to have many children and send them off to war. Thus population pressure was certainly a factor in conventional wars in the past, especially longer ones, but it was by no means the underlying cause. 

4D mazes

For today’s second post, I would like to talk about four-dimensional mazes. In a six-part series I wrote in January, I explained a few aspects of the fourth spatial dimension. This post is not a continuation of this series—it is more like a supplement to it.

Before I begin, though, I would like to clarify some points about mazes in general. When we see a maze drawn on paper, it is a two-dimensional maze. It utilizes the available 4 perpendicular directions that the second dimension possesses. When we see a physical maze, like those “corn mazes” out in the Midwest, this is also a 2D maze because it does not utilize all 6 directions of the third dimension. Thus, a true 3D maze would be a building where each floor contains a 2D maze, meaning that it is several 2D mazes stacked on top of each other. Likewise, a four-dimensional maze would consist of several three dimensional mazes stacked on top of each other. Surprisingly, such a maze can be drawn and solved. The maze below is one I created as an example.

This is how the maze works: Each 3x3 box is a two-dimensional slice of this maze. Each column is a three-dimensional maze, since all 3 of the boxes in each column are stacked on top of each other. Thus, the whole picture is really all three columns stacked on top of each other. But this is impossible to visualize, so it is better to explain it this way: the three boxes in each column are stacked, and all 3 boxes in each row are stacked in the same way. This means that it is possible to move from one box to the one above it, below it, or next to it.

The maze is played like this: begin at the yellow square and try to reach the green square. You can move into any adjacent square above, below, or next to you (no diagonals) that is not a wall (black square). You can also “jump” to the corresponding square in the box above you, below you, or next to you because they are on top/below the box you are in (again, no diagonals). You cannot do so if a wall is in the square you are trying to jump to. For example: on your first move you can either move to the square to the right or below or jump to the upper left corner in the box to the right or below. 

Of course, much harder mazes, such as 4 by 4 by 4 or larger ones, can be created as well. Perhaps in the future I will make a few more and put them up on this site. If you are still unclear as to how the maze works there are some articles on the internet that may be able to explain them—this idea was based off of similar puzzles I found on the internet. 

Amendment 1 vs. the FCC

In the past I have mentioned my libertarian views on government in the social sphere and my firm belief in a complete separation of church and state. However, what many people do not realize is that even the most secular administrations in the US haven’t even come close to a true separation of church and state. I am disgusted that cultural and religious minorities are ostracized and prevented from practicing what they believe in. But that’s old news—if you are interested in hearing the long litany of government violations of the First Amendment, see one or two of my previous posts.

But today something new occurred to me: do the FCC and the MPAA rating system violate this principle as well?

As far as I can tell, the answer is yes. Remember that both the FCC and the MPAA rating system are chiefly based on violent content, sexual content, and language. I have no problem with censoring the first, since it has been proven that too much exposure to violence can be harmful to children. However, the other two criteria are another matter. I have found no research suggesting that exposing children to sexual content or foul language is harmful to them. Why, then, is it censored in the first place? This is where the first Amendment comes in. Sexual content is censored not because viewing it is harmful to our health, but because the government believes it morally wrong and bad for us on a moral level. The situation is similar for language: certain words or phrases are considered obscene by certain groups because of cultural or religious connotations, and for this reason the government bans them. This is the violation of the First Amendment: the government is not supposed to tell us what we are allowed to view based on any kind of moral rating system.

Of course, if you support the FCC and MPAA rating system censoring sexual content, you are probably thinking, “What about all the innocent, ingenuous children? Don’t they deserve protection?” Yes, of course. But think about what exactly you are trying to protect them from when banning sexual content. You are preventing them from viewing sexual content because you believe it is morally wrong for them to view it, not because it is physically unhealthy for them to see it. Again, this is what violates the First Amendment: the government is not allowed to tell people what is moral and what is not.

Overall, I suspect that a society that brings sexuality into the open is probably far happier than one that declares it a taboo and shoves it into the closet. But that’s beside the point; the main idea is that people should have the ability to view content that others view as immoral if they so desire. Though I doubt such measures will even come into effect in the US—too much Judeo-Christian moral influence—I hope that we at least recognize that what we are doing is religious and cultural tyranny. Though democracy is what makes America so special, allowing the majority to vote to oppress the minority violates the US’s most important principle: our pledge to protect civil liberties and allow citizens to believe whatever they want. 

Randomness and determinism

Classical physics would seem to suggest that the world is deterministic. According to classical physics, if someone had an infinitely large memory and could perform calculations in their mind instantaneously, they would be able to predict the location of every particle at any moment in time. How? Because there is no inherent randomness in classical physics: everything, even something as seemingly random as rolling dice, can be explained and predicted with 100% accuracy using mathematical equations. Assuming that the brain and not the mind controls human decisions, this means that everything, even what human beings do, can be predicted with physics because the particles inside of a person’s brain are still subject to physical laws.

But, as it turns out, classical physics is not the only set of laws governing the universe—in recent years more and more proof has turned up for quantum mechanics. Unlike classical physics, quantum mechanics does include random factors, namely the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

So, how does quantum mechanics mesh with the determinism/free will debate?

Firstly, it is obvious that the original model of determinism must be discarded. If random factors are influencing the interactions of particles, then the movements and interactions of these particles can no longer be explained with classical physics. Thus, they can no longer be predicted with any accuracy, making it obvious that determinism must be discarded. Most scientists agree with this analysis, stating that quantum mechanics suggests that the universe is probabilistic rather than deterministic. 

However, in terms of the relationship to human beings, the result remains interestingly similar to determinism. In a deterministic universe, human beings have no control over their actions, and everything they do is predetermined. Again, assuming that the brain and not the mind control a human being, even in a quantum mechanics based universe human beings still don’t have control over their bodies. Remember that in the previous case human choices were simply a product of the predetermined motions of atoms in the brain interacting with each other; now, they are the product of non-predestined atoms in the brain interacting. So even determinism no longer exists, humans still have no free will in the traditional sense.

Of course, remember that this is assuming against the existence of the mind. If human decisions cannot be explained by the interactions of the atoms in the brain and non-physical minds do exist, we would have free will anyway. 

“The enemy’s gate is down”

The quote above comes from Orson Scott Card’s science fiction novel Ender’s Game, which I am going to talk about briefly today. Ender’s Game helped to establish Card as a notable science-fiction author, and it spawned several sequels that follow the main characters from Ender’s Game. The book won both the Hugo and the Nebula awards, which is an astonishing feat that only a few SF novels have ever achieved. (Warning: I am going to give away some plot details, so don't read the next paragraph if you don't to hear how the book ends.) 

The novel bears some striking similarities to Starship Troopers, which I have been talking about a lot recently. As in Heinlein’s controversial classic, mankind is at war with insectoid, hive-minded aliens, and as a result a very militaristic culture has taken hold of Earth. The plot chronicles the story of Ender Wiggin, a genius six-year-old American boy who is conscripted into the military. Ender is shipped off to Battle School, an orbiting space station where similar gifted children are taken to learn military strategy. The children are educated in military tactics with the use of games, notably something known as the Battle Room. This is a zero-gravity chamber in which opposing teams fight in a mock battle with pretend laser guns, similar to a paintball match. There, Ender revolutionizes the game by showing his peers how to use the ability to pick which direction is up in zero-g and how to use that to one’s advantage. (This is where the line “The enemy’s gate is down” comes from—Ender orients himself so that the other sides of the room is down, not forward, so that his legs shield him from enemy fire.) Ender’s strategic genius is soon recognized by the high command, and he is shipped off to another military academy, where he learns military strategy on a larger scale. Soon Ender is forced to command an entire “fleet” in a strenuous series of computer-simulated battles; eventually he becomes so fed up that in one such simulation he completely obliterates an enemy planet so that the game will end and he can stop playing it. After this, it is revealed that this was not a simulation—he actually commanded a fleet and destroyed the alien planet remotely. Ender is then paralyzed by guilt, particularly after traveling to a former enemy planet and realizing that the enemy was not as ruthless as he once thought. The book ends with Ender’s decision to travel and speak for the race he unknowingly destroyed.

Like Starship Troopers, Ender’s Game subtly comments on wartime culture, particularly racism. In the novel, the official term for the aliens is the Formics, but the derogatory slang term “Buggers” is far more prominent. On Earth, the term “Bugger” has become the worst kind of insult. Also, in one scene near the beginning of the novel, it is explained that children play a game called “Buggers and Astronauts,” in which the children stage a pretend battle. Ender remarks that these games often get very violent, and those forced to play the Buggers are often brutally beat up. Though the world government is not as fascist as its counterpart in Starship Troopers, the message that people have a duty to the state is very clear. One character, a military officer, remarks that “human beings are free except when humanity needs them.” This theme is also present in the psychological trickery used to coax out Ender’s brutal side, which the military needs in order to win the war.

Additionally, like in Starship Troopers, the theme of Social Darwinism is ever-present in Ender’s Game. Ender’s normally compassionate self is often forced into being ruthless and cruel. At one point, Ender comments that “The power to cause pain is the only power that matters, the power to kill and destroy, because if you can't kill then you are always subject to those who can, and nothing and no one will ever save you.” This struggle between compassion and ruthlessness is the chief conflict of the book. Interesting, even thought the military is being cruel to Ender by forcing him to fight the Buggers, they justify this claim by saying that they are showing compassion by protecting humanity.

Unlike Starship Troopers, the true message of Ender’s Game is not only subtle but also quite mysterious. Though there are many anti-war themes present in the novel, it is still on the reading lists of many military academies. Card asks many questions, but does not always provide answers. Heinlein, on the other hand, is all about giving answers, whether they are purposely wrong or not.

Overall I strongly recommend the book; it is a fascinating read, short and sweet. I doubt this is the last you will hear about Ender’s Game; many of its themes are universal, and many of its questions remain unanswered.              

On “Starship Troopers” (part 3)

I realize I have been discussing a lot of Robert A. Heinlein's fiction on this blog, and I would like to justify it. I have a strong predilection for Heinlein's works, mostly because of his remarkable ability to blend philosophical topics and entertaining science fiction. After all, he did help found the genre of "classic" science fiction, and because of the nature of what he discusses in his works, Heinlein novels are the perfect topics for this blog. Anyway, on to business: today I would like to talk about some more of the political concepts Heinlein explores in Starship Troopers.

First, I would like to continue my discussion of whether Starship Troopers is a fascist manifesto or a libertarian one. Though the narrator’s voice is clearly fascist and slightly militarist, I believe Heinlein has inserted a few hints to show the reader that he is not actually promoting fascism.

Throughout the book there are several “messages” that the characters meant to represent authority or reason pound into the head of the main character: the idea that individuals have duties to the state, Social Darwinism, and the rejection of Marxian communism. Also, note that even though the system in Starship Troopers is democratic, it does not rule with the approval of everyone it governs. However, though the main character describes this system as idea, Heinlein inserts some very subtle clues that hint at his real message.

The first is the belief that “all wars arise from population pressure.” Heinlein’s characters half-prove this with his assertion that man is a wild animal, but the quote is actually an obvious reference to Hitler, who once said something similar. Also, one of the characters goes on to assert that even the Crusades were caused by population pressure, which is obviously wrong. The character then goes on to say:

“Nevertheless, let's assume the human race manages to balance birth and death... and thereby becomes peaceful. What happens? Soon (about next Wednesday) the Bugs move in, kill off this breed which 'ain't gonna study war no more' and the universe forgets us.... Both races are tough and smart and want the same real estate....But does man have any 'right' to spread throughout the universe?...The universe will let us know—later—whether or not Man has any 'right' to expand through it.”

This Social Darwinist perspective is a clear satire of fascism, and it hints at the fact that Heinlein’s message is not what it seems.

The next clue is the most obvious: one of the characters states: “The basis of all morality is duty, a concept with the same relation to group that self-interest has to individual. [In 20^th century America] nobody preached duty...the society they were in told them endlessly about their "rights"…No nation, so constituted, can endure.”

This is an obvious clue because of Heinlein’s proclamation of his libertarian views; in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, he proudly declares that the state can never place it’s survival over an individual.

At first, Heinlein’s libertarian views seem to clash with his opinions about sacrificing oneself to help others. However, there is actually no conflict between the two: Heinlein wanted society to give people the freedom to do what they want, but he greatly respects those who are willing to work to help others. A society which subjugates people and forces people to live for others—or for the state—is something else entirely.

Heinlein also makes references to the POW’s rumored to be held by the North Koreans and Chinese after the Korean War; in the novel, one of the characters (a professor) explains that if an enemy nation holds prisoners, the number of people is irrelevant—if even one prisoner is kept, that is enough justification to start a war. This viewpoint reflected that of many Americans at the time, though I am not entirely sure if Heinlein is speaking for of against it.

Tomorrow I will discuss Ender’s Game, which is an excellent science-fiction novel that was written in response to Starship Troopers. 

On “Starship Troopers” (part 2)

Today I am going to discuss some of the philosophical aspects of Robert A. Heinlein’s Starship Troopers. Yesterday I addressed some of the many criticisms of the novel, and today I will extend this to philosophical criticisms.

The first and most important aspect of Starship Troopers is militarism, fascism, and ultra-patriotism. In the novel, human society has consolidated into a single world government, “the Federation.” This government is democratic, but only “public servants”—veterans—can run for office and vote. Indeed, veterans are referred to as “citizens”, and everyone else is simply “civilians.” Furthermore, the society is portrayed as being very close to ideal, and because of this Heinlein was harshly criticized for promoting militarism.

I believe the answer is a bit more complicated than this. Starship Troopers is somewhat militaristic in that is does glorify patriotism and the military, but it is important to remember that Heinlein speaks out strongly against conscription, which he refers to disgustingly as “slave armies.” The military force in Starship Troopers is a volunteer force, and Heinlein emphasizes that the military cannot turn anyone down; they must allow everyone a chance to perform public service. However, recruiting stations are present in every school in Starship Troopers, and students are required to take a class called History and Moral Philosophy, which is simply a teacher lecturing on why to join the army. The whole culture of the society is based very much around the military, and “citizens” are glorified. In terms of prosperity, the society Heinlein describes is so ideal it is almost utopian—and remember that the original definition of utopia is “no place,” a society too perfect to exist. The justification for the society is rooted in the idea that man is simply a wild animal, without any higher moral authority. This theme is prevalent thought the novel, and though it does justify mankind’s war with the novel’s aliens it does not fully account for the nature of the society. One of the characters defends the society by saying that veterans are more responsible than non-veterans, and they are more qualified to vote because they are lacking in civic virtue. To put it politely, this completely absurd. A government of veterans would be just as corrupt and inefficient as a regular one, and civic virtue is not as important as intelligence when voting. I suspect that this justification, along with the fact that the society is portrayed as ideal, is not meant to be taken as face value: it is actually satire. In many other books, Heinlein satires a concept by pretending to promote it; here, though he does show militarism in a positive light in some ways, Heinlein is mocking the society he is describing. The only part of it that has any legitimacy is the idea that man is a wild animal, which his reflected in some of his other novels.

Additionally, there are several famous soliloquies in the novel, in which Heinlein comments on various philosophical topics. I have already discussed one of these in a previous post, but I would like to tackle another one.

The first is a speech given by the teacher of a History and Moral Philosophy class. In it, the teacher justifies corporal punishment, stating that because man has no moral instinct, our moral sense must be cultivated with cause-and-effect learning. He compares it to raising a puppy, saying that if a puppy were never scolded for doing something wrong he would never learn. He then goes on to relate this to juvenile delinquents, stating that minor criminals must be punished so that they learn proper morals. The idea of moral sense rather than moral instinct is very prevalent in all of Heinlein’s works, so I suspect that this speech is not a mockery or a satire. Here I agree with Heinlein in terms of the concept of moral sense, but I disagree in the corporal punishment is not always necessary to cultivate moral sense.

Also, Heinlein viciously attacks communism in Starship Troopers. Though Heinlein was a leftist in his early days, the left of the 40’s understood the fundamental difference between socialism and communism; Heinlein was a socialist but not a communist. In Starship Troopers, Heinlein calls Marx a “pompous fraud,” and denounces Plato’s The Republic as “weird in the extreme.” He bashes Marx’s labor theory of value, explaining how the theory pales in comparison to the traditional supply and demand model. Also, the alien race in the novel, the Bugs, is a hive-mind organism. Heinlein uses them to speak out against communism as well; he admits that communism is useful for a species evolved for it, but he still points out many flaws in the Bugs' society. Here Heinlein is not equivocating or being subtle—his message is abundantly clear. For whatever reason, Heinlein has a serious personal vendetta against communism, and it is very apparent in his works.

Tomorrow I will cover more of the philosophical and political aspects of Starship Troopers. 

On “Starship Troopers” (part 1)

Today I would like to discuss one of my favorite books, Robert A. Heinlein’s extremely controversial science-fiction novel Starship Troopers. The book was so popular—and so controversial—that has spawned a B-movie series and has become a permanent fixture in the history of “classic” science fiction. I would like to address several of the concepts explored in the novel, as well as some of the book’s criticisms.

The plot of Starship Troopers is relatively simple: the novel follows a Filipino infantryman’s plight through a futuristic boot camp and into a war with insect-like aliens.

However, the plot is probably the least important aspect of the novel—Heinlein fills it to the brim with lectures about politics, philosophy, social issues, and economics. There is far more description and discussion than dialogue or action, and most of the time the plot and the character development take a back seat.

The main complaint Heinlein received was that Starship Troopers glorifies the military. Because Heinlein was discharged from the Navy for tuberculosis just before WWII, many complain that he knows nothing about war. Heinlein denied the claim that the book was militaristic, since all of the army recruits in Starship Troopers are volunteers, and at the time the book was written the draft was still in use. He also stated that the infantry deserves to be glorified, because they are rarely appreciated. On the whole, though, Heinlein’s picture of the military is unrealistic—I doubt any army in history ever saw so much action. And, even though Heinlein states that war is something to be endured, not enjoyed, he does glorify patriotism and dying for one’s country.

Heinlein was also criticized for racism. This complaint, though, must be dismissed immediately: Heinlein was one of the most progressive thinkers of his time when it came to race—few of his books feature white protagonists (including Starship Troopers, whose protagonist is Filipino), and his attitudes toward race are clearly explained in his other books, sometimes in eyebrow-raising ways. (For example: in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, written in the early 1960’s, the main character, a person of  “mixed race” drops bombs on North America.) What critics are referring to in Starship Troopers is Earth’s attitude toward the aliens—they are referred to as “Bugs” or similar derogatory terms. In fact, what Heinlein is doing is showing what happens to a culture dominated by militarism; he is portraying racism in a negative way. This is probably a reference to the Korean War, which had just ended when the book was published, and WWII (the internment of Japanese Americans).

The book has also come under fire from literary critics. Many complain that his character are undeveloped, the plot is almost non-existent, and Heinlein’s lecturing dominates the novel. Though all of these claims are clearly true, these critics are incorrect in saying that Heinlein’s fiction suffers because of his writing style. Starship Troopers (and many of his other works that feature excessive lecturing) remain hugely popular, proving that the public does not share the same view as these critics. For this reason, Heinlein is clearly not “lecturing at the expense of his fiction.”

Interestingly, Starship Troopers spawned the subgenre of “military science fiction,” which is ironic because there are so few action scenes in the novel. Scores of books were written in response to it, including Ender’s Game, The Forever War, Armor, and many others. Starship Troopers is on the reading list of several military academies, and the military is currently researching the concept of “powered armor,” which was first mentioned in the book.

Tomorrow, I will discuss some of the philosophical topics explored in the novel. 

Avoiding MAD

I have briefly discussed the concept of MAD, or mutually assured destruction, here on this blog before. To review: during the Cold War, the US and the USSR followed a policy of “deterrence”—they realized that MAD would occur if either side attacked the other, so they tacitly agree to not take military direction against each other. But, as the Cold War proved, there are many ways to work around the policy of deterrence and MAD, as well as flaws in the theory itself.

When two nations have nuclear weapons and can destroy each other, in theory relations between the two should be tense but peaceful. Of course, the obvious problem is that even though this creates peace, this peace is jejune and superficial, as it did not come about by a true mutual agreement. Next, MAD does not account for technological advancement—if one country develops superior missile interception technology, that country can attack the other nation with impunity, as they no longer have to fear MAD. Additionally, there is the “Dr. Strangelove” argument—incompetence in government or a rouge faction of the military can create a situation that leads to war and eventually MAD. Next, if a government is willing to accept the terrible humanitarian toll of a nuclear war, they may go ahead and fight one anyway, in defiance of the theory of deterrence. Finally, MAD only applies to those countries with ICBMs—third world countries, which are not tied down to deterrence, can still attack or be attacked without the fear of nuclear bombing.

Even worse, as the Cold War proves, MAD does not necessarily mean an end to war. During the Cold War, the US implemented a plan of “containment,” in which we attempted to keep Soviet ideology from spreading. (This culminated in the Marshall Plan, which pumped $12 billion into post-war Europe to prevent them from lapsing into communism.) Also, as the Korean and the Vietnam war prove, proxy wars can still be fought in areas outside of the countries practicing deterrence. Lastly, the nations practicing deterrence can agree to fight each other using conventional warfare.

Out of all of these methods to circumvent MAD, the most frightening are the concepts that world leaders will continue to find technology to break out of MAD, and the fact that the military could settle for a nuclear war with “acceptable” losses. Also, during the Cold War both the US and the USSR worked to develop superior ballistic missile technologies, and both sides claimed that their own missiles were ahead of any competition, in what was called the “missile gap.” Amazingly, both the US and USSR made provisions for rebuilding their countries in the event of a nuclear attack, and both continued to develop missile defense technology. (“Dr. Strangelove” satirizes this aspect of the Cold War by suggesting that both countries will attempt to out-plan each other in this respect; when it is suggested to the US military that people can survive a nuclear blast by hiding in mine shaft, one general demands that mines be built deeper so that the US does not fall behind the Soviets in the “mine shaft gap.”)

Interestingly, the threat of MAD is just as prevalent as it was during the Cold War, yet the fear of nuclear war is no longer as prevalent as it once was. I suspect that the main reason for this is that there are no longer nations that were polar opposites and enemies as much as the United States and Soviet Union. Though tensions between superpowers flare up occasionally, the Cold War mentality of ultra-nationalism is mostly extinct. Next, remember that today we are more afraid of terrorist nuclear attacks rather than ballistic missiles. Bu the threat of MAD still exists; nuclear stockpiles are as large as they have ever been, and developing countries such as North Korea and Iran are soon going to be nuclear as well.

Despite its flaws, though, MAD and deterrence did prevent bloodshed, particularly during the Cold War. However, for countries to be truly at peace they must be allies, not enemies kept from war because of the fear of MAD. 

What baseball can learn from cycling

Today’s post is very different from the philosophical topics I usually discuss here, but it is a somewhat pressing cultural issue so I believe it deserves mention.

I have always been a follower of European Pro-Tour cycling. Here in America, though, most people criticize cycling for its never-ending stream of doping scandals. The sport is seen as “dirty” and “unfair” because of all this alleged doping, and its popularity here in the US is extremely low. However, I disagree with most of these claims: admittedly there have been a significant number of doping scandals in the sport over the past decade, but overall I believe cycling is far cleaner than most American sports.

The main piece of evidence for this is the simple fact that Pro-Tour cycling does more than any other sport in the world to prevent the use of performance enhancing drugs. The sheer amount of drug testing dwarfs that of most other sports—during the racing season, more than half of the riders are tested every day. Baseball and football rarely test players, and the results of drug tests performed on American athletes are often left unreleased until years later. Also, cycling uses the newest technology to perform drug tests, including the so-called “genetic passport. ”

More importantly, the punishment for using performance-enhancing drugs in cycling is swift and harsh. The first time a cyclist is caught using any sort of performance enhancing drugs, that cyclist is banned for at least 2 years from the sport, and the team that cyclist was on is investigated and sometimes banned as well. Additionally, cyclists have been banned simply because they used doctors known to give out performance-enhancing drugs, even if they never tested positive themselves. American sports, on the other hand, barely punish their athletes if they use steroids. In American football, for example, if a player tests positive their name isn’t even released until the second offence. Additionally, American officials are quick to give pardons to athletes who “cooperate” with authorities—in cycling, someone who tests positive is never given any sort of pardon whatsoever.

Why, then, does cycling seem to be so much dirtier than American sports if there are so many rules that punish dopers? The answer is that doping is much more publicized in cycling. When a scandal erupts, it is not brushed under the rug like steroid scandals are here in America. Also, because of the frequent drug testing in cycling, athletes are caught as soon as they use any performance-enhancing drugs. In American sports, as we know, many athletes are able to hide what they have done for years. In fact, there are probably many American athletes who are using performance-enhancing drugs who have not been caught, which renders most statistics that "prove" that cycling is dirtier based on the number of scandals false. 

So, what can sports like baseball learn from cycling? The answer is very, very simple: be harsher. If baseball wants to clean up its act, it has to take a hard line of steroid use. I hope that sooner or later the American public will get fed up with all the performance-enhancing drugs in American sports and demand action. However, based on our current reaction, all we will ever do is wag the finger at these athletes and then let them back into sports. 

Democracy and responsibility

“Quiet! Your leader is going to speak now. Everyone turn off your mind.” –Chad Urmston

I would like to devote today’s post to a discussion about how to avoid the kind of society that follows the advice of the quote above. (Urmston actually meant the quote above as a response to Americans blindly following former President Bush, but I am going to take his ironic statement into the general sense today.) What Umston is describing is a society in which the people stare, transfixed, at their leaders, listening to every word without stopping to question it. In a fascist system, this would be a virtue (at least to the government) but in a democracy an educated, cautious citizen contributes to democracy more than an uniformed one. The reason is simple: an uninformed citizen can fall victim to the waves of bunkum propaganda that have come to dominate elections, at least in the US. An educated citizen has a much better idea of sort of leader they want, both policy-wise and character-wise.

There are two different ways to approach this problem: the first involves restricting suffrage to certain groups to ensure that people lacking in intelligence or civic virtue cannot vote. The second involves forcing education and civic virtue upon citizens to ensure they vote in a more educated way.

The first is not as alien or unjust as it sounds—even a so-called “unlimited democracy” does limit suffrage from some people. In the US, for example, one must be 18 to vote, entirely excluding younger citizens from voting. Throughout history, philosophers have suggested systems that would exclude certain groups from voting for the betterment of society. Many of these have had racist undertones, but some of the more reasonable ones included denying franchise to anyone with an IQ lower than a certain number. In one of his books, Robert A. Heinlein satirically suggest only allowing people who work for the government the ability to vote, because they clearly have more “civic virtue.” However, this raises some ethical issues, mainly the fact that too much restriction goes against the whole point of democracy in the first place. Also, the overriding practical issue with these systems is that they are subject to bias. “Intelligence” is often difficult to determine, and “responsibility” and “civic virtue” are even harder to measure.

Because of these flaws, the second option sounds more desirable. But how to go about executing it? A school curriculum that includes modern history is a good start, but this does not prevent citizens from falling prey to campaign propaganda. Another possibility is to have the government organize an objective news broadcasting body. Though this would in theory be neutral, in reality it would probably be just as prone to bias as any other news station.

Thus, I think the most reasonable method is actually a third alternative. Part of what Urmston is saying has to do with the way we portray our leaders. In the 1930’s, Hitler and Mussolini used planned theatrics to appear like Herculean supermen (metaphorically), and their august uniforms made them look the part of powerful leaders. In other words: it is often the image of a leader that determines how people feel about that person. In recent years, this is how politicians in the US have been treated (at least by those of the corresponding political party). In addition to educating people, we need to humanize our leaders.

Regardless of how we go about it, we must ensure that we, the citizens of democratic nations, do not allow our system to decay into totalitarianism simply because we were not responsible. Democracy and responsibility must go hand in hand, or else we will foolishly elect leaders who betray the very principles of democracy. It is my hope that the United States in particular stays true to the principles on which it was founded. Though dictatorship can look just as good as democracy on paper, history clearly shows that democracy is the superior system, if the citizens it rules are responsible enough.