More photos here.
Wednesday, December 27. 2006
Christmas 2006
This year, we stayed home for Christmas. But we invited my family and Melissa's sister and mother. It was a nice weekend. I have posted a gallery.
More photos here.
More photos here.
Thursday, December 21. 2006
Why ZFS Matters to Mac Users
Stan has posted an interesting summary of why ZFS, which is being included in the next release of Mac OS, is important. This is pretty much required reading. There is also a ZFS-fuse project for Linux and possibly soon we'll also see the development of a kernel-level ZFS implementation also.
Read the blog post in Tech at 08:54 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)
Read the blog post in Tech at 08:54 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)
Wednesday, December 20. 2006
Photo: Street "Musicians"
Friday, December 15. 2006
Socialism Leads to Stupidity
Looks like LRC has published my 30th article! I wrote it with Wilt Alston and is called Socialism Leads to Stupidity.
Socialism Leads To Stupidity
Manuel Lora and Wilton D. Alston
"...to a greater or lesser extent, the prevention of the exercise of the entrepreneurial function makes it impossible for entrepreneurs to discover the disallocations that take place in society. By coercively impeding actors from taking advantage of the opportunities for profit that every disallocation generates, such opportunities are not even appreciated by the actor, who, therefore, is not aware of its existence and thus these opportunities go unnoticed or unperceived. And even if by chance a coerced actor were to notice or to appreciate the opportunity for profit, this would be irrelevant, since the institutional coercion would hinder the actions necessary to profit from it." -Jesús Huerta de Soto, "Socialism, Economic Calculation and the Entrepreneurial Function"
There are numerous pro-market think tanks, institutes, organizations, and bloggers that specialize in being pro-capitalism, pro-freedom and thus oppose the nefarious economic and political outcomes of socialism. But one particularly interesting area that is left behind is a more vocal and visible analysis of the consequences of socialism on society itself, its institutions, dynamics and the relationships between them. The purpose of this essay, thus, is to briefly highlight some of the most devastating effects of socialism that often get lost under the traditional (but no less important) economic analysis.
In his "Socialism, Economic Calculation and the Entrepreneurial Function", Jesus Huerta de Soto defines socialism as the "institutionalization of aggression against the free exercise of entrepreneurial action" This is also quite appropriately the definition of the state itself. Indeed, there is nothing that the state does or can potentially do that does not aggress against the right of free enterprise, and thus property rights. Even the minimal state ("minarchy") would have a forceful monopoly as the only organization capable of engaging in dispute-resolution. Regardless of what one might think as the better arrangement of society, it is nonetheless correct to refer to the state as ultimately being nothing but socialist. Whatever its ends, its means are aggressive, collectivistic and its very nature is monopolistic.
Seen under this light, this "dis-education" or learned stupidity, for lack of a better term, is the inevitable result as the state grows. Richard Hammer speaks to this process in "Gateway to an Altered Landscape" when he describes this process of the state becoming a state of mind. He uses four stages to illustrate:
1. Before the state takes over a function, most people in a society will be comfortable with the existing institutions in which the function is performed privately. For example, most Americans are now comfortable with the ideas that parents can decide for themselves how many children to bear, and that people can decide for themselves what qualities are necessary in a spouse.
2. Shortly after the state takes over a function, most people in the society will probably agree with state control of that function, but almost all of them will remember that there had been a debate, and some will acknowledge that there had been plausible arguments against state takeover. For example, the regulation of what tobacco companies say in their advertisements.
3. A few generations after state takeover of a function, probably 80% or more of the population will assume that the state must perform that function, and only libertarians will be aware that there had ever been a debate. For examples, compulsory schooling and zoning of land in cities.
4. Hundreds of years after state takeover of a function, virtually everyone in the society will assume without question that the state must perform that function. Even the history of private performance of the function will be forgotten by all but a few academics. Examples of functions in this category are: streets, criminal law, and defense from external attack.
As a means of illustration, one can examine one practice across history and see it migrate through the four stages. The obvious question then, is what would it take for society to remember, if you will, what used to happen? For example, let's look at something as basic as supplying fresh, potable water to a home. Originally, this was something that everyone who built a home needed to understand and plan for. At some point, it became standard for the municipality where one lived to handle this. Now, for most people, but particularly those who live in cities, if the state stopped handling this service they would likely die of thirst - after mass pandemonium and fights over bottled water at the local grocery stores! Clearly then, the state has become a state of mind regarding a need as basic at that of potable water.
State intervention in the economy inevitably results in symptoms of acute dependence. As organizations, companies, and other institutions are crowded out by government agencies, dependence grows. Now, instead of having ordinary people or entrepreneurs in charge of the production of a good or service, there is only one monopolistic "option." Generally this option is presented as the best choice when in fact, it is often the only choice! And this situation becomes a breeding ground for targeted attack by various lobbying groups, each one trying to extract from the state, like a piñata, some tax-funded handout. In the market, however, where there are no barriers to entry, a multitude of providers can exist simultaneously, each one trying to offer the best service at the best price. Competition and decentralization tends to increase availability and improve quality. If you don't like the way company X is handling things, there's a chance that Y or Z would welcome your patronage. Nothing like this exists under a socialist organization. You are forced, at gunpoint if necessary, to fund whatever the state declares necessary.
After the state takes over functions, it becomes less and less of a priority for the market to provide services and people start to see things as a "right", as something that they are entitled to no matter what. Whether it is health care, education, defense, transportation or housing: given that the state has been providing such things for so long it is not surprising that society assumes that there is no other way. Free market health care, education, defense, transportation --all these things are anathema to the modern citizen who bathes in a puddle of putrid social democracy rhetoric. Now, one could argue that certain functions -- such as the potable water case -- lead to state intervention simply due to economies of scale. Simply put, everyone needs the service, therefore it is better to have one central provider. And given that the state can be "depended upon" to provide for everyone anyway, the single-source nature of water supply represents evolution, not intervention.
One might be inclined to accept this logic, except for the fact that the state is ready, willing, and able to artificially preclude entry into markets where competition would otherwise exist, and thereby make certain that they and only they supply the needs of the public. One of the best examples of this practice is the delivery of mail. Certainly few in the U.S. are not exposed to the Postal Service routinely. As such, everyone accepts that the government -- and only the government -- delivers personal mail, i.e., letters and such. (Let us for a moment ignore the package delivery services, such as Federal Express and United Parcel Service.) Commensurate with this acceptance, everyone is willing to allow a receptacle that is normally bought, paid for, and maintained by the homeowner, to be "owned" in a sense, by the Postal Service. No one else can lawfully put any mail in that slot! But how many people know that there was once a competing service to the USPS? How many people know that it is because of this competition that the cost of a stamp was driven down? And how many know that in response to this competition, the state passed a law forbidding anyone from competing with them in the area of mail delivery? So we see that the state not only imposes itself on the market via the "evolution" of learned dependence, but also via legislation. Nice racket!
What can be expected, then, when the advocates of freedom and civilization challenge the established views? Not a whole lot, unfortunately. The statist mentality clouds clear thought. Common excuses such as "there's no other way of doing things" or "it would not work" or even "what's wrong with the way things work today?" reflect not only the economic illiteracy of most people but also a contempt for their fellow man because they are, often quite explicitly, against voluntary cooperation. Let's imagine that the government has monopolized the means of production of shoes; it is the only one who has for a long time been producing them. This means that no person alive has ever been a shoe entrepreneur. Granted, the state is employing a few people who do know how to make shoes but those are not entrepreneurs, much less capitalists. The state is using central planning and taxes to provide shoes. It does not have to risk anything or respond to market desires because there simply isn't a shoe market. Take it or leave it! In that context, the average person would be appalled to consider a non-state shoe. How would they be done? In what amounts? How much would they cost? Who would deliver them, or sell them, and where? What about quality? Colors? Sizes? Madness!
Regulations, taxation, and prohibition bring us closer to a socialist state where a select few are given the power to enter the market. These conditions foster ignorance and mental laziness. With every piece of interventionist legislation, the incentive to offer a product or service is lessened. The inexorable result is decadence and poverty and a world with fewer experts, fewer entrepreneurs and less capital.
Socialism is a guaranteed step towards barbarism and against civilization and progress. And the agent of socialism, the state, is stupefying. Reject its advances and withhold your consent.
Manuel Lora and Wilton D. Alston
There are numerous pro-market think tanks, institutes, organizations, and bloggers that specialize in being pro-capitalism, pro-freedom and thus oppose the nefarious economic and political outcomes of socialism. But one particularly interesting area that is left behind is a more vocal and visible analysis of the consequences of socialism on society itself, its institutions, dynamics and the relationships between them. The purpose of this essay, thus, is to briefly highlight some of the most devastating effects of socialism that often get lost under the traditional (but no less important) economic analysis.
In his "Socialism, Economic Calculation and the Entrepreneurial Function", Jesus Huerta de Soto defines socialism as the "institutionalization of aggression against the free exercise of entrepreneurial action" This is also quite appropriately the definition of the state itself. Indeed, there is nothing that the state does or can potentially do that does not aggress against the right of free enterprise, and thus property rights. Even the minimal state ("minarchy") would have a forceful monopoly as the only organization capable of engaging in dispute-resolution. Regardless of what one might think as the better arrangement of society, it is nonetheless correct to refer to the state as ultimately being nothing but socialist. Whatever its ends, its means are aggressive, collectivistic and its very nature is monopolistic.
Seen under this light, this "dis-education" or learned stupidity, for lack of a better term, is the inevitable result as the state grows. Richard Hammer speaks to this process in "Gateway to an Altered Landscape" when he describes this process of the state becoming a state of mind. He uses four stages to illustrate:
As a means of illustration, one can examine one practice across history and see it migrate through the four stages. The obvious question then, is what would it take for society to remember, if you will, what used to happen? For example, let's look at something as basic as supplying fresh, potable water to a home. Originally, this was something that everyone who built a home needed to understand and plan for. At some point, it became standard for the municipality where one lived to handle this. Now, for most people, but particularly those who live in cities, if the state stopped handling this service they would likely die of thirst - after mass pandemonium and fights over bottled water at the local grocery stores! Clearly then, the state has become a state of mind regarding a need as basic at that of potable water.
State intervention in the economy inevitably results in symptoms of acute dependence. As organizations, companies, and other institutions are crowded out by government agencies, dependence grows. Now, instead of having ordinary people or entrepreneurs in charge of the production of a good or service, there is only one monopolistic "option." Generally this option is presented as the best choice when in fact, it is often the only choice! And this situation becomes a breeding ground for targeted attack by various lobbying groups, each one trying to extract from the state, like a piñata, some tax-funded handout. In the market, however, where there are no barriers to entry, a multitude of providers can exist simultaneously, each one trying to offer the best service at the best price. Competition and decentralization tends to increase availability and improve quality. If you don't like the way company X is handling things, there's a chance that Y or Z would welcome your patronage. Nothing like this exists under a socialist organization. You are forced, at gunpoint if necessary, to fund whatever the state declares necessary.
After the state takes over functions, it becomes less and less of a priority for the market to provide services and people start to see things as a "right", as something that they are entitled to no matter what. Whether it is health care, education, defense, transportation or housing: given that the state has been providing such things for so long it is not surprising that society assumes that there is no other way. Free market health care, education, defense, transportation --all these things are anathema to the modern citizen who bathes in a puddle of putrid social democracy rhetoric. Now, one could argue that certain functions -- such as the potable water case -- lead to state intervention simply due to economies of scale. Simply put, everyone needs the service, therefore it is better to have one central provider. And given that the state can be "depended upon" to provide for everyone anyway, the single-source nature of water supply represents evolution, not intervention.
One might be inclined to accept this logic, except for the fact that the state is ready, willing, and able to artificially preclude entry into markets where competition would otherwise exist, and thereby make certain that they and only they supply the needs of the public. One of the best examples of this practice is the delivery of mail. Certainly few in the U.S. are not exposed to the Postal Service routinely. As such, everyone accepts that the government -- and only the government -- delivers personal mail, i.e., letters and such. (Let us for a moment ignore the package delivery services, such as Federal Express and United Parcel Service.) Commensurate with this acceptance, everyone is willing to allow a receptacle that is normally bought, paid for, and maintained by the homeowner, to be "owned" in a sense, by the Postal Service. No one else can lawfully put any mail in that slot! But how many people know that there was once a competing service to the USPS? How many people know that it is because of this competition that the cost of a stamp was driven down? And how many know that in response to this competition, the state passed a law forbidding anyone from competing with them in the area of mail delivery? So we see that the state not only imposes itself on the market via the "evolution" of learned dependence, but also via legislation. Nice racket!
What can be expected, then, when the advocates of freedom and civilization challenge the established views? Not a whole lot, unfortunately. The statist mentality clouds clear thought. Common excuses such as "there's no other way of doing things" or "it would not work" or even "what's wrong with the way things work today?" reflect not only the economic illiteracy of most people but also a contempt for their fellow man because they are, often quite explicitly, against voluntary cooperation. Let's imagine that the government has monopolized the means of production of shoes; it is the only one who has for a long time been producing them. This means that no person alive has ever been a shoe entrepreneur. Granted, the state is employing a few people who do know how to make shoes but those are not entrepreneurs, much less capitalists. The state is using central planning and taxes to provide shoes. It does not have to risk anything or respond to market desires because there simply isn't a shoe market. Take it or leave it! In that context, the average person would be appalled to consider a non-state shoe. How would they be done? In what amounts? How much would they cost? Who would deliver them, or sell them, and where? What about quality? Colors? Sizes? Madness!
Regulations, taxation, and prohibition bring us closer to a socialist state where a select few are given the power to enter the market. These conditions foster ignorance and mental laziness. With every piece of interventionist legislation, the incentive to offer a product or service is lessened. The inexorable result is decadence and poverty and a world with fewer experts, fewer entrepreneurs and less capital.
Socialism is a guaranteed step towards barbarism and against civilization and progress. And the agent of socialism, the state, is stupefying. Reject its advances and withhold your consent.
Wednesday, December 13. 2006
Ithaca truisms
David has posted a list of Ithaca truisms, which I am copying here:
1. There are more Subaru Outbacks in this city than anywhere else in the world. Including the Subaru manufacturing plant in Lafayette, Indiana.
2. On any given weekend, roughly 60% of the town congregates at the best grocery store in the northern hemisphere: Wegmans. Note, this is a horrible time to do all of your grocery shopping.
3. Including the Subaru Outbacks, most cars don on average 2 bumper stickers. While some do have none - like ours - others have in upwards of 30-40, making 2 the magic number.
4. The Farmer’s Market that is so widely celebrated and well known really isn’t that big physically. It’s certainly smaller than those in San Francisco and Seattle, to name a few. The price of basil at the Ithaca Farmer’s Market, however, is unbeatable.
5. I’ve never seen as many local ice-cream shops as they have here. Purity Ice Cream, Ithaca Creamery, Cornell Dairy Bar, Friendly’s, etc. It’s very good ice cream, by the way.
6. More pet lovers here than anywhere else in Andromeda.
7. Taxes are beyond comprehension. Think roughly $3500/year for every $100k of your home for city and property taxes. Sales tax at 8% too.
7a. City taxes apparently don’t go towards city maintenance - no sidewalks, no streetlights, many potholes.
8. You can’t turn on red in the town of Ithaca.
8a. All streetlights are on set timers, so get comfy if you are the first one at a stop light.
9. The city has four cabs.
10. The Finger Lakes are incredibly deep, and incredibly clean. Once in it, you’ll never want to be in cloudy water again.
11. While Ithaca indeed has its own currency that is supposedly good at any store or shop in the city, I’ve never seen it.
12. This is a relatively untouched city - very green, very beautiful. To that end, plan on rain for any given day.
1. There are more Subaru Outbacks in this city than anywhere else in the world. Including the Subaru manufacturing plant in Lafayette, Indiana.
2. On any given weekend, roughly 60% of the town congregates at the best grocery store in the northern hemisphere: Wegmans. Note, this is a horrible time to do all of your grocery shopping.
3. Including the Subaru Outbacks, most cars don on average 2 bumper stickers. While some do have none - like ours - others have in upwards of 30-40, making 2 the magic number.
4. The Farmer’s Market that is so widely celebrated and well known really isn’t that big physically. It’s certainly smaller than those in San Francisco and Seattle, to name a few. The price of basil at the Ithaca Farmer’s Market, however, is unbeatable.
5. I’ve never seen as many local ice-cream shops as they have here. Purity Ice Cream, Ithaca Creamery, Cornell Dairy Bar, Friendly’s, etc. It’s very good ice cream, by the way.
6. More pet lovers here than anywhere else in Andromeda.
7. Taxes are beyond comprehension. Think roughly $3500/year for every $100k of your home for city and property taxes. Sales tax at 8% too.
7a. City taxes apparently don’t go towards city maintenance - no sidewalks, no streetlights, many potholes.
8. You can’t turn on red in the town of Ithaca.
8a. All streetlights are on set timers, so get comfy if you are the first one at a stop light.
9. The city has four cabs.
10. The Finger Lakes are incredibly deep, and incredibly clean. Once in it, you’ll never want to be in cloudy water again.
11. While Ithaca indeed has its own currency that is supposedly good at any store or shop in the city, I’ve never seen it.
12. This is a relatively untouched city - very green, very beautiful. To that end, plan on rain for any given day.
Monday, December 4. 2006
Craig's list, eBay and (old film) cameras
LRC today has an article called Old Cameras, eBay and Craig’s List where the market efficiency, particularly in photography, of eBay is compared to Craig's list. I have not used the latter. I took a quick look at it earlier today (the Ithaca page) and reminds me of newspaper classifieds. The author of the article linked above has some useful conclusions:
This seems to be a decent assessment. Prices are coming down on old cameras, film or digital, and this makes used equipmet even cheaper these days. I'm not sure why he says that finding bargains on eBay is hard. Maybe I've been lucky. Unlike Craig's list, where people want to "get rid of things" (and thus the prices are low), on eBay, people want to try to sell things (with the intention of getting some cash).
Photo fans who shop for used stuff might find the article entertaining at least.
The overall mark of eBay is its extreme efficiency. Cult cameras or well-described cameras in good condition will attract multiple bids and will be sold at the market price. Like any other market, eBay takes uncertainty (risk) into account. Non-cult cameras sold by non-experts are unlikely to command high prices, usually with good reason.
This efficiency means that cameras which I’d like to buy are usually too expensive for my budget. So I left eBay and started using Craig’s list. Craig’s list is totally unlike eBay. Search capabilities are minimal. There are no "histories" associated with sellers and buyers. There are no services like PAYPAL. Most importantly, it is organized geographically, so you deal with locals.
Dealing with locals has several advantages: there are no shipping costs, you can avoid some scams by dealing face to face, and you can check out the merchandize before you buy. The last advantage is key. Once in a while, you can get a working camera in good condition for a song and you don’t waste your money on broken junk.
Now for the disadvantages: it’s not as well-organized as eBay, it has fewer offerings, and, more importantly, it is dominated by occasional and personal equipment sellers, i.e., amateurs and novices as far as selling is concerned (experts and power sellers tend to stay away). Many have unreasonable expectations anchored in the purchase price. E.g., a seller wants to sell a used lens for $300. A new lens like that costs $150. I point out this fact to him and suggest that a price around $100 could be more reasonable. No, answers the seller, I paid $400 for it. $300 is my price and I won’t budge. Here is another example: a lady has a camera and lens for sale. What’s the camera and lens model, I ask. Just give me your offer, she replies and don’t bother me with questions…
Overall, Craig’s list isn’t terribly efficient. On average, its sellers are less professional and sophisticated than those on eBay. Yet, this is what makes a source of occasional incredible bargains. Some Craig’s list sellers seem to have an easy attitude – I don’t need this, let me just give it to someone who can make use of it!
This seems to be a decent assessment. Prices are coming down on old cameras, film or digital, and this makes used equipmet even cheaper these days. I'm not sure why he says that finding bargains on eBay is hard. Maybe I've been lucky. Unlike Craig's list, where people want to "get rid of things" (and thus the prices are low), on eBay, people want to try to sell things (with the intention of getting some cash).
Photo fans who shop for used stuff might find the article entertaining at least.
Friday, December 1. 2006
Photos: Thanksgiving
We went to Maryland to visit my parents for Thanksgiving. We also went to Monticello, the plantation home of Thomas Jefferson. Here's the gallery.
More photos here.
More photos here.
(Page 1 of 1, totaling 7 entries)
