An argument against the concept of child support laws

Imagine I had a frail constitution, including a well-known predisposition for asthma attacks (for the record, I don’t), yet a friend invited me on a hiking trip. I couldn’t resist the temptation, and I accepted, without taking proper precautions or taking any preventive medication. Imagine that the hike made me sick with an asthma attack. Would it be fair to blame my friend, or would I be the one responsible for my body's response? If I asked him to pay for my expensive evacuation and asthma treatment, some members of society would find my request laughable, some would find my chutzpah offensive, but most would agree that I am being completely and utterly ridiculous. If I were to take my actions to court, no honest judge would award me any compensation.

Allow me to change the underlined words in the above paragraph.

Imagine I had a uterus, including a well-known predisposition for pregnancy (for the record, I don’t), yet a friend invited me to have sex. I couldn’t resist the temptation, and I accepted, without taking proper precautions or taking any preventive medication. Imagine that the sex made me pregnant with a child. Would it be fair to blame my friend, or would I be the one responsible for my body's response? If I asked him to pay for my expensive childbirth and child rearing costs, some members of society would find my request laughable, some would find my chutzpah highly offensive, but most would agree that I am being ridiculous.

Unfortunately (for the fans of logic), the last statement in the second paragraph is not accurate in our society, despite being completely on the mark in the first one. However, this basic argument makes it clear why I am opposed to child support laws as commonly applied in the Western world (where the man is forced to pay for a woman's pregnancy and child rearing costs).

Is the concept of personal responsibility dead in the West? Do we, as a society, allow the shift of responsibility or blame so easily due to sentimental or political reasons? If we are to survive, as a society, it’s time we re-calibrate our moral compass.

Capitalism: An Utopia

As much as I detest socialism and collectivism, as an ideology, I have arrived at the conclusion that capitalism is also an utopia, which, when put into practice, cannot exist in reality.

The problem with socialism, American-style liberalism, and related ideologies is very simple: the principle might be good (I disagree with that too, but let's not get too philosophical here) - the more advantaged provide for the rest. Goods and services produced are redistributed in a more equitable way. The problem is very simple: the redistribution is done by an elite, a small privileged group, and thus cannot be equitable no matter how you turn it. In addition to the incentives created ("why should I produce anything when I won't be able to enjoy it, because some douche will take it away from me on a whim?") it is also highly inefficient. People will no longer produce all they are capable of producing because of the lack of incentives, and humanity will suffer (basically it will be poorer than otherwise).

The apparent solution is capitalism. I will not rewrite economic theory here, why that system is more efficient, nor will I go into the moral arguments of why it is more equitable (people produce only things that are needed by others, with minimal waste, and uncoerced).

However, I realized that this ideal is also an unattainable utopia. Capitalism relies on a fair and blind justice system, and an unbiased legal environment where the market can thrive and people can prosper. However, this environment must also be upkept and enforced by somebody, and again that is a small elite. And the probability of this elite being incorruptable, of upholding the law and never according special favors, is for all purposes 0.

Many point to the Russian ogligarchy as the failure of capitalism; I saw it as a system that was as far away from capitalistic as possible (there was no rule of law to protect the uncoerced transactions between individuals and firms; law enforcement was monopolized by an entity that formed winners and losers in the system, as opposed to allowing the market to determine them). Now that I look back at it, I see things more clearly: it is impossible to have an impartial entity protect the mentioned transactions and their fairness.

Because no elite in power or watchdog will ever protect or enforce the fair and unbiased system of property rights laws and other legal pillars of capitalism, I reached the conclusion that such a system is utopian in nature. Having reached this conclusion, I offer no alternative solution for a system best equiped to fostering human advancement. Perhaps a return to slavery, where I am the master and everyone else my slave, but even that wouldn't be too efficient, because I don't have dictatorial tendencies, or even desires, and I am prone to wasting time writing blogs instead of enforcing maximum production. The only solution I can think of now is anarchy, or the law of the jungle. But it's not popular, and the generations indoctrinated in the public school systems around the world are not likely to even listen to the arguments in its favor.

Human Perception of Technology in Time

I have an interesting view on technology: every new advancement is met with great enthusiasm, and the benefits are touted. Everyone jumps on the bandwagon (a common human behavior) and that new advancement becomes widespread. At some point, after the initial enthusiasm, all of a sudden everyone realizes that dangers and downsides to adopting this new technological advancements do exist , and they become afraid all of a sudden. Over time, the new technology becomes accepted with its pluses and flaws, until a new one comes along, going through the same process.

The newest craze is with cell phones: at the beginning, only the benefits were seen. People could communicate like never before, third world countries with poor telecommunications infrastructure only had to build a few towers and all of a sudden have the communications capabilities of the most developed countries, and so on. Now it seems all we hear about are the health risks of using cell phones, whether through cancer-causing radiation, the dangers of text messaging and talking while driving, and so on. The technology is here to stay, and has enough benefits (despite its cost) to continue existing, until something new is invented. It will eventually be accepted with all its flaws.

Perhaps this initial enthusiasm happens because the vast majority of people do not think in terms of “cost-benefit analysis” in most of their interactions (perhaps it is more efficient to think of “either good or bad” in most actions, saving the time otherwise wasted by thinking things out). Thus the reaction of the masses: “it is good” initially, then “it is bad”; then, once they think about what it would be like without the new technology, finally they accept the “good” and the “bad” associated with it.

I can think of so many new technologies that went through this process of enthusiastic adoption, repudiation, and then ambiguous acceptance (pesticides, agriculture, airplanes, landmines, etc.) They are used extensively at first, since their costs are minimized; then once their costs are becoming known, there is a massive campaign about the evil they cause. With pesticides, there was a campaign against DDT (although from what I learned, an unintended benefit was the eradication of malaria, at the cost of pollution, where it was applied). Agriculture was first considered by scholars the first major achievement of the human race, allowing humans enough surplus food and thus time to develop civilization, instead of foraging in the forest all day; then it was considered the greatest evil to human health (causing sedentarism, starchy diets lowering life expectancy, etc) and paving the way for full time armies, potent warfare, and empire-building. Now most people accept it as something that happened and cannot be turned back (despite the existence of fad diets advocating the consumption of raw food only). Landmines were once considered by armies an effective way to fight invasion. Afterwards, they realized that the costs were enormous after the war was over, since they killed and maimed the local population as well. The list of examples could go on.

I invite my readers to find an exception.

Common mistakes in language

I am overwhelmed by the number of mistakes I see – even in the emails of educated people, from whom I expect more precision. I am not referring to typos, but to mistakes which indicate that the person typing does not think logically when transferring their thought to paper (or computer screen).

I see it in every language I use on a daily basis (English, Romanian, Spanish). It seems that mistakes are becoming more common – but it is just a gut feeling. Maybe we are relying more on email and chat programs and comment forums, and I am just reading more “regular people” writing than before, when writings were generally found in books and encyclopedias. However, I also see mistakes fairly often in “serious” (I hate that word) publications.

Most tell me to let these mistakes go, because the message is important, not the actual way it is written (as long as the message is clear). I see the point.

On the other hand, when I see these mistakes, the information conveyed is that writer was either not thinking logically, or has certain gaps in his or her education. Maybe I am being too cruel.

I am wondering why these mistakes occur so often. Is a matter of people automatically typing, without thinking? Perhaps you, my readers, can offer some theories as to why I see these mistakes all the time.

Here are some common ones (in English):

• · it’s instead of its (not the other way around) – I see this all the time; however, this is a convention that one either knows or doesn’t; this is not a matter of logic, only of (basic) education; e.g. “the dog wagged it’s tail”
• · there instead of their (and not the other way around); e.g. “there mother told them”
• · capitol versus capital; e.g. “I am an educated and ambitious fuck and I live in Capital Hill” or “I am very proud of being born and raised in the nation’s capitol”
• · I’m suppose to instead of I’m supposed to (this is a mistake I generally see black people make)
• · who’s instead of whose
• · using an apostrophe to indicate a plural (e.g. “this is for all the amateur photographer’s in the office”)
• · you’re versus your; e.g. “you’re zipper is open” or “I am smart and your an idiot”
• · mine instead of mind (again, black people tend to be overrepresented here); e.g. “he changed his mine”
• · if I was instead of if I were (virtually everyone makes this mistake, so in a few decades it might become the “correct” form officially)
• · a women instead of a woman (this one is generally done by women, who say things such as “I am a smart, educated, and beautiful women …”)
• · could of instead of could have
• · principal versus principle (maybe because they sound alike?)
• · affect versus effect (maybe because they sound alike?)
• · renumeration instead of remuneration
• to loose (as a verb) instead of to lose

And the list could go on and on… is our society being dumbed down? Are too many people having access to a medium for expressing their thoughts publicly, such as blogs? (I see the irony here, don’t worry). Any theories as to why this trend is happening?

Anarcho-capitalism

Economist, legal scholar, philosopher David D. Freidman, son of the late Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate in economics, argues (very logically and ably) for an anarcho-capitalist society. His main point is that society would not break apart (and anarchy is not a bad word), but – just like the free competitive market delivers light bulbs and hair cuts more efficiently than a centralized monopoly would, the free competitive market would deliver services such as legal protection and arbitration more efficiently than a centralized monopoly (i.e. the government) would.

A sample of his writing can be found here:

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

The arguments are brilliant and logical (and more importantly, easy to follow).

However, I can think of a counterargument to his entire thesis: I would argue that we now DO live in an anarcho-capitalist society. Or rather, we are a result of an anarcho-capitalist society, we evolved from one. Our ancestors lived in that state, in caves and jungles. Eventually they developed more intricate mechanisms of protection and arbitration, whether through iron weapons, walled cities, empires, or national governments based on a common language, religion, and tribal identity.

Where Friedman calls for private protection agencies instead of a police force, we have national governments (which compete with other governments; sometimes they settle disagreements through a commonly-chosen arbitrator, sometimes by compromise, sometimes by force). Consumers have a choice of changing the protection agency (i.e. moving to a different country), but the costs are high (learning a new language, escaping illegally from the original country, waiting years for a visa, living illegally in the new country, etc). These private protection agencies (which we refer to as national governments) offer protection, but in return hold the monopoly on force in their own area.

If we put Friedman’s ideas into practice, and started anew, abolishing governments and following an anarcho-capitalist system, what guarantees do we have that in a few hundred/thousand years we would not evolve again into a system similar to the current one, of powerful “private protection agencies” with limitless power in their own realms?

I am wondering if it is a human trait to seek like ones, band together based on tribal identity, and collectively give up individual liberties in return for protection. I am beginning to think that this is the case indeed.

Human actions are not motivated by morality

There is no good or evil. There’s only matter.

/*Begin disclaimer*/ These thoughts only pertain to things from a material point of view – given that we live in a material era. This is not an atheist creed, and I am too much of a skeptic to consider myself a follower of the atheist religion. More so, I personally need the moral compass of good and evil in my own perspective on life, for purposes of stability and automatic decision-making. When discussing the absence of good and evil, I am referring only to human (and non-human) action, and how things work in the universe. /*End disclaimer*/

The closest biological relatives of our human race are the great apes – and looking at their behavior can offer an interesting perspective on ours. My idea expressed in this blog came from simultaneously reading (superficially) about power structures in a chimpanzee society, with its alpha male, lackeys, the matron, etc., and reading (also superficially) about a study theorizing that politics has nothing to do with issues or candidates or even logic (which I long suspected), but rather instinctual yearnings of humans to be part of a tribe, and a dominant tribe at that. Just like sports. A third influence was rereading Golding’s insightful “Lord of the Flies”.

Human society is not about good and evil, nor is it only about survival and reproduction. It is about power struggle (perhaps related to both survival and reproduction?). I am ashamed to find something logical in puerile madman Karl Marx, who claimed that the history of mankind is an evolving class struggle – but in a way it is. However, it is not about social classes. It is about classes of humans. Personality, inherited genetics, and the such.

The system is irrelevant. Yes, some systems are better at allocating Earth’s scarce resources where they are most wanted (I purposefully avoided the word “needed”) – capitalism, decentralization, and the rule of law, for example. However, these are merely details. The dominant monkeys will eat the choicest steaks in a capitalist system with the freest of markets, and they would do the same in a kibbutz.

In a way, slavery is a natural human institution. It has only been outlawed in the “civilized” world (read “Lord of the Flies” or modern European history to put the word “civilized” into perspective) for the past century and half, two centuries at most. And it was outlawed in the most advanced societies first – where other much more subtle and efficient means to enslave fellow man were devised, rendering the chain and whip of traditional slavery primitive and obsolete.

The reason I boldly and improperly state that slavery is an intrinsic human trait is because we all want to have more with less effort. Since the things we want (again, I am avoiding the word “need”, which David D. Friedman, son of Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, designated as a non-grata concept in economics) generally don’t produce themselves, we prefer others to do the work for us – starting with the inanimate, moving on to animals, and then to fellow humans. It is a human desire to have others produce for them (as long as the perceived cost of enslaving others is lower than the perceived benefit).

In a classroom, the bully will enjoy the fruits of another child’s labor (or that of the child’s parents) through sheer strength. “Give me your lunch money.” In most societies that is still the norm in adulthood. The pretty girls, lacking the physical strength to do the same, try to win the attention of the bully in order to have access to the material things he acquires. They will try to indirectly get to the goods through manipulation and winning the sympathy of the dominant male. The class clown – also lacking the physical strength necessary to partake in the plunder – will try to win the bully’s heart through antics and goofiness. The weak will receive a beating from the bully, as well as the contempt of the girls and other weaklings – for I have never seen them band together.

The appearance of another potential bully will cause power struggles, both physical and psychological. If the resources are relatively plentiful, the bullies can come to a peaceful and separate coexistence – much like a cartel in economic terms – but neither can sleep soundly or lower his guard.

This is continued in adulthood in many societies to this day. This is the way of the tribal warlords in various countries in Asia. This is the way neighborhood gangs operate in cities in the civilized and uncivilized world. This is how nations are run.

In more advanced societies, again, it becomes too costly to rely on physical might. Psychological dominance replaces it little by little (see centuries of development in the “civilized” world). Manipulation, rallying masses with illusory causes, and using them as weapons of mass destruction is less costly than using a military arsenal (it is easier to use willing servants than those forced into submission).

Dominant people in society will use their charm (politicians), religion and the promise to be on the side of “good” (i.e. to belong to the tribe that will dominate in the end), scare tactics (the world will overpopulate, overheat, succumb to disease, be overtaken by the “bad” guys – the competition, the tribe that is supposed to lose in the end), etc. Their goal, consciously or not, is to dominate the weak majority. A behavioral South Africa (under apartheid). Sometimes the dominant ones benefit materially (money, fame, women, luxuries, pride) and sometimes only through the knowledge that they possess power and, very importantly, reputation.

I sympathize with revolutionaries. I experienced one (a revolution, not a revolutionary, for the smartasses still reading this), live, with machine gun fire and terror, all eclipsed by the feeling of bursting freedom, of toppling the most insurmountable dam, a feeling that cannot be matched by a lifetime of orgasms. I feel for the Iranian youth today, fighting for change. I feel for the Cuban dissidents and for others like them. I respect them, and I envy them (they have something concrete to live for, they have a goal and no moral doubts about their actions). However, I am skeptical that they will change anything in the large scheme of things. It’s just that “their” guys will replace the “other” guys – don’t get me wrong, if I had a choice, I would associate myself with “their guys” on the spot, as I completely despise the “other guys”.

I did not lay out a clear idea in the above paragraphs. Just some rambling. If I read this aloud, I can start using some ideas from here to write many mini essays, or even try my hand at a novel, based on concepts found in these notes.

My cousin's thoughts on Romanian politics

My cousin Cristian Vimer, who lives in New York City, has given me his gracious permission to post his comment on my blog. I have nothing else worth adding; therefore, here are his comments on the status of Romanian politics (applicable to any modern democracy):

Ladies and gentle RBPA men,

I am pretty sure that my opinion will be considered rather absurd by most of our members here who probably have clear sympathies for one candidate or another in the forthcoming Romanian elections, but I have to say it nonetheless. So, here it goes, just bear with me for a couple of minutes: as I was meditating the other day about a problem that haunted many sleepless nights of all responsible Romanians, since the days of Caragiale - "Who do I vote for?" - and, I realized this is the first time in my life I don't have a clear choice - I equally dislike all the candidates, for various reasons which are not really important for this conversation. Moreover, my mom called me one day to convince me to go to vote to save the country from the evil Base, who wants to get rid of the Parliament, and my pop called me to vote for the aforementioned Base, to save the country from the claws of all the securisti from the other parties.

Sooo, as I was staying there cursing the candidates mothers and deciding there is no point in voting this time, a sudden thought illuminated my brain like the light bulb above the cartoon character's head: I just realized that for the first time after 1989 Romania finally became one of the world's civilized countries (Huh? What?). Hey, hey, no need to throw rotten eggs, just listen to my point for a second: using my keen sense of observation, as well as my experience as an inhabitant of a civilized part of the planet (I was talking about Brooklyn), I noticed that the advanced democratic systems are tuned in such a way that it doesn't really matter who becomes the President of a specific country (and here in the US, probably the President's role is much more important than in the European Union, where, on top of everybody we have an European Parliament). Do you think that everything will change if, say, Kelemen Hunor wins the elections in Romania? Or Gigi Becali? Or Barack Obama, or Eleva Porno (I'd vote for her, but I couldn't find her on any list)? Think about it for a second: we are in the European Union, we have laws copied from the European ones (not that we respect them, but that's a whole different subject), the direction is set for the next decades, so that's that. I don't know if this is good or bad, if it's democracy, Judeo-Masonic Plot, New World Order, lizard men or common sense, but I don't think the country will change its course whether the next president is called Base or Lily, or Geoana.

So go ahead and vote on Sunday based solely on beautiful eyes, I think it's the first time it doesn't really matter. Or maybe I just turned into a blase (with an accent) old guy who knows everything...

And those were my five pence on the subject.

Cristian Vimer

PS - no time and patience to edit it, so I apologize in advance for any errors (not in judgement, of course).