Checksum Arcanius

Europe, long lauded as more progressive than the US, struts its compassion with laws like this “sunshine directive.”

Of course it would be more funny if the US were not headed down the same path.

In other news, I get to register for classes at the UW today. I have yet to report on the business trip – expect that in the near future – and there is much interesting news on Katrina, including the forced evacuation of people for their own good. It just keeps getting better down there.

I am a strong believer that the federal government really shouldn’t be spending $27 billion to fix up Florida and $10.5 billion to fix up the Gulf States after hurricanes. Through various types of insurance, the private sector provides a system for providing money after a disaster that places the payment burden on those that take the risk. People that chose to live in the dangerous areas should pay the insurance premiums, not those that chose to live in places where disasters are less likely to occur.

On the other hand, the scope of suffering in Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana truly is unprecedented in this country and in this age. Although I’m disturbed by the complete sense of victimization and seeming inability of these people to help themselves, I don’t I don’t believe they should be forced to fend for themselves. I encourage anyone who has the means to make a donation with to the Red Cross Hurricane relief fund by clicking the image above.

The Hurricane known as Katrina exposed the weaknesses of a city below sea level as well as the weaknesses of a society largely free of a moral compass. Just as the flooding, though horrific, was inevitable, without morality, a good society without a good economy seems to be an impossibility. I recall clearly a night at BYU in the basement of Deseret Towers’ W Hall having to stare down those who would have wantonly stolen from a distressed vending machine until the repairman arrived. In New Orleans, it is worse, with gangs looting everything from basic supplies to flat-screen TVs. The destruction is agonizing even if inevitable, and the desolation of civilization is distressing, though perhaps it should have been expected. With government assistance already fueling so much dependency, should anyone really expect a response other than “when is the help coming?”

A major road on the way to my house was blocked off by a few police officers. I rolled my window down and slowed down – with nobody behind me – to ask what was going on. I’m a concerned citizen, I figure I should be privy to the information. The cop continued to wave me on without acknowledging me. So I asked again, with the car almost stopped. He looked away, refusing to acknowledge me, and waved me on more insistently. Who the heck does he think he is? I pay his salary. I am a good citizen. I don’t steal, I don’t hurt people, I clean up after myself, I vote, I support the troops… and the guy won’t even acknowledge that I exist. Another complete jack off, just like all cops, everywhere, that I’ve met. If they want my respect, they have to earn it, and they continue to do a piss-poor job at that.

A wonderful debate has been bouncing back and forth between The Well of Mimir and Carrotlife… In most ways, the debate boils down to the role of government, and there are some good excepts from Theo’s latest post. Here’s my favorite:

But socialism isn’t an elitist creed. Socialists don’t think of themselves as the upperclass trying to control the masses. But the idea of having elite administrators (as opposed to whatever the hell we have right now) does sound appealing, doesn’t it? People who know what they are doing?

You just contradicted yourself. Socialists don’t think of themselves as economically upperclass because they don’t believe in a free market. They think of themselves as politically upperclass. They don’t want to have more possessions than everyone, just tell them what to do and how to do it. Personally, I find the idea of elite administrators offensive – I am a grown man, and I can take care of my own life, thank you. Well, that is not entirely true, but for the most part that reflects my views.

And my reply to Dan: NO “elite administrators” does NOT sound appealing.

But the reason I like this so much is because it reminds me of this time in a recent Philosophy of Science class I took. Basically, the instructor liked to hear himself talk about current social issues. His favorite was the evolution-vs-creationism fray, but he also touched on many other topics dear heart as well. One day, he was pontificating about the glory of some government-administered social program; I forget which one exactly, because he seemed to love them all, but I digress. He gave a specific example of how the program coudl help somebody out. As his soliloquey ended, I responded (highly paraphrased):

You see, that’s the difference between people like you and people like me. You see a problem, and you say “we need a government program to fix this.” I see a problem and I say, “I can do something about this.”

The reality is that my response was magnitudes better than whatever it is I wrote above, and fit the context perfectly. The discussion on that particular topic basically ended right there – as class was also ending. It felt very good at the time.

Inspired by Bobby’s recent post.

Two countries, A and B.

Citizens of A can produce 10 bottles of milk a day or 10 loaves of bread.
Citizens of B can produce 5 bottles of milk a day or 2 loaves of bread.
These differences are due to superior technology or circumstances in country A. Country A has what is called a absolute advantage in both bread and milk, so why would country A care about what county B could do?

Comparative advantage is why.

Say that both countries have 10 people, and people like to eat as much bread and milk as possible. In addition, people prefer to have one bottle of milk with each loaf of bread, if possible. Now lets say there are 70 people in each country.

In country A alone, 35 people make milk, and 35 people make bread. 350 bottles and loaves are created each day, and each person gets to consume 5 bottles of milk and 5 loaves on bread. Everyone is fairly happy.

In country B alone, 50 people make bread, and 20 people make milk, producing 100 loaves of bread and 100 bottles of milk a day. People get to consume 10/7 of a loaf and 10/7 of a bottle each day. People in country B look to country A with envy.

Now lets consider the possibility that these two countries trade. Why would they do this? Remember, everyone wants to consume as much as possible. Why would country A trade, then? Wouldn’t they lose out? No, says comparative advantage. Take a look:

While A has an absolute advantage in all goods, B has a “comparative advantage” in milk. This is because to produce five more bottles of milk, B only gives up two loaves of bread. For A to produce five more bottles of milk, A must give up five loaves of bread, an unhappy proposition. (If this doesn’t make sense, recall that a Citizen of A can produce 10 bottle OR 10 loaves, and a citizen of B can produce 5 bottles OR 2 loaves, but each citizen can’t produce both at the same time.)

Now, since B has a comparative advantage in milk, lets have all 70 B people produce milk – for a total of 350 bottles of milk. Then lets take 35 A people and have them produce bread – for 350 loaves of bread. We’ll then take the rest of the A people and split them between milk and bread – for another 175 loaves of bread, and another 175 bottles of milk. If you are keeping track, you may have noticed that the total world production just went up – without increasing anybody’s ability to produce. Before, we had 450 loaves of bread and 450 bottles of milk (350 from A + 100 from B of each). And now we have 175 + 350 = 525 bottles and 525 loaves of bread. 75 extra bottles and loaves are floating around the world.

But, you say, B has only milk, and A has way too much bread. So, the two countries trade at a rate they both find acceptable. Because of the comparative advantages of each nation, this rate will naturally fall somewhere between a milk to bread ratio from 1:1 to 5:2. Lets say it settles in at 2 bottles of milk for a loaf of bread. So B trades 234 bottles of milk to A for 117 loaves of bread. They now have 116 milks and 117 loaves, and each person gets to consume more milk and bread in B (before, they only had 100 of each).

Over in A, they now have 234 bottles + 175 bottles = 409 bottles and 525 – 117 = 408 loaves of bread. Once again, each person gets more (before, they only had 350 of each). All of this comes about, remember, without any increases in productive capability – just specialization and trade.

I have been running very low on my disposable contacts for quite some time now. Were it not for the extraordinary lifetime of the ones I am currently using, I would certainly be out by now. Billed as two week disposables, I have actually been wearing these for much longer – I don’t know exactly how long, but certainly over six months, and, I believe, perhaps even more than a year. I have one pair left, and I decided I really probably should move along, since I cannot rely on these guys to hold out forever. Past ones have torn, been lost, began irritating my eyes, and so on. In fact, my right contact is beginning to irritate my eye sometimes, but so far I have usually been able to get it feeling ok again after a while. Nevertheless, all signs point to my need to move along.

So today, I began checking out where to get some more. I went to 1800contacts.com, and was thrilled to find that I could simply enter in the same information contained on the bottom on my current contacts box and get some more. But there was a catch: I needed to enter my eye doctor’s info. The problem this created for me is that I haven’t seen an optomitrist in a long time – so long that the only doctor I’ve ever seen moved to a new private practice. My old prescription is still working fine, and I don’t see any particular reason to have another check-up at this time. But why do they need the doctor’s info at all? When I checked with other contact-delivery stores, the story was the same. All wanted to talk to the doc that I hadn’t spoken to in 3 years. Why would they need that info?

A little link titled “Why do we need your birthday?” led to more information:

A Federal Law passed in February 2004 requires us to verify your prescription with your eye care provider. Many eye care providers use your birthday to find your prescription information.

When did contacts become a controlled substance? Who will be harmed if I order the incorrect contacts? What are their addictive properties? What possible cause could there be to require contact distributors to check in with an eye doctor?

And the simple answer is, of course, that some group of optomirists lobbied to make it so. By requiring that eye doctors be in the loop, they entrenched their own position, making it illegal for people to take them out of the loop. They became another layer of government-enforced oligarchy.

The end result is that I don’t know if I’ll ever get new contacts without jumping through a series of ridiculous hoops to get there. All due to a government that has replaced a love of liberty with a subtle – but very real – tyranny.