Influential books

A while ago, several of the blogs I follow saw it's contributors offer up what books had been most influential in their lives and thinking. I thought I'd give an attempt to do the same, in case anybody here feels their reading list isn't long enough.

To qualify for the list, a book has to be more than informative and interesting. I've read many books that can fit this label. The books below, however, fundamentally changed my thinking and view of the world.

1. A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles by Thomas Sowell.

This book is particularly valuable because Sowell dedicates it to the study of axioms. This is an often neglected line of inquiry. Many books, ideas, and lines of argument don't clearly lay out the fundamental axioms which must make the basis of the argument. This is a shame, because it's often the starting points which make the most interesting discussion. Further, the more aware one is of the premise of their argument, the better equipped we are to modify our conclusions in a way consistent with that premise. Sowell identifies two broad traditions in the history of political philosophy, opposite in their basic starting points about the nature of humanity, justice, equality, knowledge, and so forth. He shows how these basic starting points lead to different ideas on how to deal with social, political, or economic issues.

As he says, "One of the curious things about political opinions is how often the same people line up on opposite sides of different issues. The issues themselves may have no intrinsic connection with each other. They may range from military spending to drug laws to monetary policy to education. Yet the same familiar faces can be found glaring at each other from opposite sides of the political fence, again and again. It happens to often to be a coincidence and is to uncontrolled to be a plot. A closer look at the arguments on both sides often shows that they are reasoning from fundamentally different premises. These different premises - often implicit - are what provide the consistency behind the repeated opposition of individuals and group on numerous, unrelated issues. They have different visions of how the world works."

Elsewhere, he writes, "A creature from another galaxy who sought information about human beings from reading William Godwin's Enquiry Concerning Political Justice in 1793 would hardly recognize man, as he appears there, as the same being who was described in The Federalist Papers just five years earlier. The contrast would only be slightly less if he compared man as he appeared in Thomas Paine and in Edmund Burke, or today in John Kenneth Galbraith and in Friedrich A. Hayek."

2. The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements by Eric Hoffer

Eric Hoffer's monumental book on the nature of mass movements nearly defies the laws of physics in how much wisdom it can fit into so few pages. If you haven't yet read this book, you're doing it wrong.

Hoffer posits that people join mass movements as a sort of escapism; to free themselves from an unsatisfying individual life. They become crusaders, fighting for a cause, full of a sense of importance they were never able to realize on their own. One particular gem that begs to be quoted: "Unless a man has talents to make something of himself, freedom is an irksome burden. Of what avail is freedom to choose if the self be ineffectual? We join a mass movement to escape individual responsibility, or, in the words of the ardent young Nazi, 'to be free from freedom.' It was not sheer hypocrisy when the rank-and-file Nazis declared themselves not guilty of all the enormities they had committed. They considered themselves cheated and maligned when made to shoulder responsibility for obeying orders. Had they not joined the Nazi movement in order to be free from responsibility?"

Hoffer also makes an important distinction in what sort of a collective undertaking qualifies as a mass movement in his analysis. "There is a fundamental difference between the appeal of a mass movement and the appeal of a practical organization. The practical organization offers opportunities for self-advancement, and its appeal is mainly to self-interest. On the other hand, a mass movement, particularly in its active, revivalist phase, appeals not to those intent on bolstering and advancing a cherished self, but to those who crave to be rid of an unwanted self. A mass movement attracts and holds a following not because it can satisfy the desire for self-advancement, but because it can satisfy the passion for self-renunciation."

My experience in the military makes section 47 particularly powerful. I'll leave it to you to read it.

3. The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker

My father once commented on my, ahem, legendary social skills. "Whether such things arise from nature or nurture," he informed me, "you were pretty much screwed from the start."

Steven Pinker's book deals with the nature/nurture debate, and before I read it I didn't fully understand the depth and importance of the issue. Pinker argues forcefully that human nature is a very real thing, and lays out the magnitude of the implications as far as politics, economics, war, crime, and a host of other important issues. The reality of human nature also means any any attempt to respond to these issues which is in conflict with human nature will be a wasteful failure. He also lays bare just how much of public discourse assumes that human beings are in fact a blank slate at birth, and how damaging the arguments which follow from this premise are.

To make things even better, Pinker even finds ways to illustrate his points with strips from Dilbert and Calvin and Hobbes. If that right there doesn't convince you this book is worth reading, I don't know what would.

4. The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies by Bryan Caplan.

Anyone who writes a book attacking the fundamental theory of democracy is a brave man indeed. Bryan Caplan is more than up to the task in this magnificent book, which casts the political process in a new, if somewhat depressing, light.

Caplan notes that many people hold irrational beliefs when it provides them with a psychological benefit. This makes irrationality something of a consumption good. And, like with all consumption goods, it's subject to the laws of supply and demand. Demand curves slope downward. The higher the cost of irrationality, the less people will indulge. This leads to one of Caplan's starting points. "A critical premise of this book is that irrationality, like ignorance, is selective. We habitually tune out unwanted information on subjects we don't care about. In the same vein, I claim we turn off our rational faculties on subjects where we don't care about the truth. Economists have long argued that public ignorance is a predictable response to the fact that one vote doesn't matter. Why study the issues if you can't change the outcome? I generalize this insight: Why control your knee-jerk emotional and ideological reactions if you can't change the outcome?"

This leads him to a very bold claim: "In my view, democracy fails because it does what the voters want. In economic jargon, democracy has a built in externality...Since most of the cost of voter irrationality is external--paid for by other people, why not indulge?" Or, as he states later in the book, "Since delusional political beliefs are free, the voter consumes until he reaches his 'satiation point,' believing whatever makes him feel best."

In markets, irrationality is minimized because you will pay for it. For individual voters, Caplan contends, irrationality is virtually costless to indulge, and pays off with comforting beliefs. Therefore it is rational for people to hold silly or wrongheaded views if they find comfort in those beliefs. He calls this rational irrationality. Democracy lacks the incentives which cause the downward slope in a demand curve.

The book is filled with fascinating theory and data. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

5. Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke.

Robin Hanson once pointed out that "Since our minds are smaller than the world, the world tends to be more complicated than our mental models of it." This observation may sound so pedestrian that it's not even worth taking the time to emphasize. But there is a large difference between recognizing a fact and understanding the implications of that fact. After all, Issac Newton wasn't the first one to see an apple fall, he was just the first one to understand the implications of the apple falling.

Similarly, Edmund Burke understood the implications of this seemingly mundane observation. He emphasized it passionately in his assessment, and condemnation, of the French Revolution. Burke was one of Britain's staunchest supporters of the American Revolution. But while many of his contemporaries celebrated the French Revolution, Burke saw something unsettling at the core of it. It was a movement based on sweeping and abstract ideas upon which the whole of society would be rebuilt. This enthusiasm for the abstract clouded an understanding for the dense, unknowable complexity any society holds at its core.

Burke's prose is better than my summary of it. "But I cannot stand forward, and give praise or blame to any thing which relates to human actions, and human concerns, on a simple view of the object as it stands stripped of every relation, in all the nakedness and solitude of metaphysical abstraction. Circumstances (which some gentleman pass for nothing) give in reality to every political principle its distinguishing colour, and discriminating effect...Abstractly speaking, government, as well as liberty, is good; yet could I, in common sense, ten years ago, have felicitated France on her government (for she then had a government) without enquiry what the nature of that government was, and how it was administered?...Is it because liberty in the abstract may be classed amongst the blessings of mankind, that I am seriously to felicitate a madman, who has escaped from the protecting restraint and wholesome darkness of his cell, on his restoration to the enjoyment of light and liberty? Am I to congratulate an highwayman and murderer, who has broke prison, upon the recovery of his natural rights?"

One of F. A. Hayek's greatest intellectual influences was Edmund Burke. Once you have read Burke's Reflections, you can see the blueprint of his mind at work in the background of Hayek's writings. This is particularly true for the first volume of Hayek's Law, Legislation, and Liberty, and the second chapter of The Constitution of Liberty. Hayek made the point that at economy is vastly more complex than anyone could understand, and any attempt to "plan" a "controlled" economy is doomed to fail. Similarly, Burke understood that civilization, history, tradition, and the like, contain far more information and experience than any mind can contain. Attempting to rebuild civilization from scratch is doomed to fail. This is the crucial distinction Burke saw in the American and French Revolutions. The American Revolution was fought because the colonists were attempting to reclaim their rights as Englishman. The French Revolution was trying to erase the whole of society and start over.

The strength of any theory is it's predictive power. The list of Burke’s accurate predictions really is astounding: constitutional incompetence and instability; the despotic power of the Paris street; financial incompetence and runaway inflation; famine; trouble with the peasants squeezed by new landowners; trouble with peasants loyal to their priests; trouble with the traditional provinces chopped up by an absurdly abstract system of representation; the threat to property in general by the confiscation of the property of the Church; and, of course, instability in the army and the rise of a military dictator, which came in the form of Napoleon. Historians have debated for some time why the French Revolution failed and descended into the Reign of Terror. Yet all of this was foreseeable to Burke ex ante. This gives great credit to his views. But, whether or not you agree with Burke, you impoverish yourself if you ignore him.

Movie Review - I Heart Huckabees

I watched the movie "I Heart Huckabees" a few weeks ago and I wanted to write a little bit about it. If you haven't seen it, here's what I think.

As a movie....it was horrible. as a existential philosophical treatise, pretty ok, but kinda still retarded. constant non-consciousness is impossible because of the inevitability of human drama? cmon. isnt that self evident? thats essentially saying you cant live like a vegetable because you're human. duh

the interconnectedness thing growing from the manure of human trouble? put down the writings of guatuma buddha and stop adding to his already flawed philosophy. everything is nothing and nothing is everything. this violates the laws of equivocation and non-contradiction. two words that symbolize two separate and exclusive ideas cannot mean the same thing. "everything" cannot be "nothing." All the stuff in the universe cannot be none of the stuff in the universe

i also didn't like the whole "how do i know if im being myself?" line, that one dies the the death of human simplicity. for example, someone asked me how they could know if they exist? my response: "then who may i ask is begging the question?"

a lot of existentialism is serious examination of humanity, but the issues i find with it are two-fold: it doesn't adequately provide a solution to the problem of human suffering and it ends up asking philosophical questions that seem deep but really are nonsensical or self-evident.

altho i admit there was one funny part. i loved the elevator scuffle scene at the end of the movie. the rest of it was meaningless and retarded.

here is my overall rating of the movie: better than "terrible", but not as good as "awful". it pretty much just "sucks" haha

if they wanted to make a movie that hits hard on the philosophy of existentialism, they should've done it more like "no country for old men" or "there will be blood". But I do think it's worth watching simply for the sake of being able to say to others and yourself that you've seen it.

A follow up to Ruthi's post

Ruthi raised quite a few topics in her most recent post. I'm not going to add thoughts to all of them, but I will focus on a few subjects I felt were particularly key.

I'm sure we've all heard "you're an idealist" before. It's a classic example of a statement absent an argument. Simply saying that a point of view is idealistic is, of course, not enough. One must explain why this is the case. For that, one needs a theory. I'll return to this shortly.

Now, it's worth pointing out that Ruthi's fellow passenger seemed to be an idealist of sorts himself. These days in particular, we hear a very pressing call for more regulation, a desire that the government "do something." But governments can't just do something. They have to do something specific. And 95% of the time, that's when the conversation will get very fuzzy. It's taken as an article of faith by most Americans that the government can and should make things better. But press the issue a bit, and the conversation falls apart. What exactly should the government be doing? Why will this make it better? What will be the effects on incentives faced by other parties, in the short term and the long term? How much influence will special interests play in the decision making process? These questions are rarely asked, much less answered.

I find it somewhat disturbing that it is so commonly taken for granted that government intervention is equal to improvement. "Markets can fail," we are told. Indubitably. There is nothing easier to do than show how something involving human beings is imperfect. But governments can also fail. A perfect government could certainly perform more efficiently than the actual market. And a perfect market would perform better than the actual government. What's missing so often from the conversation is a comparison of actual verses actual.

Joseph Stiglitz had the following to say:

The fact that markets with imperfect information do not work perfectly provides a rationale for potential government actions. The older theory said that no government, no matter how well organized, could do better than markets. If that was true, then we had little need to inquire into the nature of government. The modern theory says that government might improve on matters, but to ascertain whether or not this is the case requires a closer examination of how governments actually behave, or might behave under various rules.

The opening sentence of that paragraph put me on red alert on my first reading. But by the last sentence, Stiglitz sounds much more reasonable. Unfortunately, I don't think he's ever lived up in his other writings to carry out an "examination of how governments actually behave."

A pattern commonly found among the political left is a tendency to assume the reason their plans don't work out well is because the wrong people are in charge. And there seems to be eternal optimism that if only the right leaders were at the helm, a plethora of problems could be solved. But disappointment often frustrates their desires. Stiglitz has had nothing but harsh words for the Obama administration. The prime movers of President Obama's economic policy are described by Stiglitz as "either in the pocket of the banks or they’re incompetent." He complains bitterly about the administration talking counterproductive measures, covering politically connected interests, and generally holding "a strategy trying to recreate that bubble...That’s not likely to provide a long-run solution. It’s a solution that says let’s kick the can down the road a little bit."

My only question for Stilitz and his fellow travelers is why they would expect anything else. Thomas Sowell constantly points out that politician's incentives don't go past the next election, so a strategy which only kicks the can down the road is exactly what one should expect. And the idea that those making policy would be in the pockets of the banks shouldn't surprise anyone. Milton Friedman said that "one of the reasons I am in favor of less government is because when you have more government, industrialists take it over, and the two form a coalition against the ordinary worker and the ordinary consumer." None of this should be a surprise to anyone familiar with Public Choice economics.

This is where I make my return to the need for theory. An old cliche about socialism is that "it's good in theory, but it doesn't work in practice." I think that this cliche misses a very important point. If an idea fails to work in practice, then there is no way it can be described as good in theory. Rather, the fact that it fails in practice shows that the theory itself is bad. Similarly, the ideas of Stiglitz and those of like mind fail to work in practice because they are based on a bad theory. Their theory tells us that, at least some of the time, government should be able to bring about substantial improvement. But in practice, the government always does more of the same, to their continuing and bitter disappointment. It never seems to register to them that, like the scorpion of fable, government does these things because this is it's nature. Why the failure of their ideas in practice never seem to give them doubt is a subject for another time.

All of this seems extremely tangential, but it brings me back to another point Ruthi raised. She asks, "Am I really an idealist because I think that entities such as the US government can change for the better? Have there not been such changes in the past to suggest this possibility? And even if I am an idealist, couldn't enough idealists working towards a similar goal achieve better results than are currently being achieved?"

I'll take these in reverse order.

Absolutely enough idealists working towards a similar goal can indeed change things for the better. The American Revolution is a good example of that. But, it also raises an uncomfortable realization. Out of the American Revolution, we had small government with limited power, and a straightforward Constitution without the creative interpretation we find these days. Plus, the Tenth Amendment seemed to still exist. But even with that start, we have been slowly moving away from that, in bits and pieces, with the occasional Great Leap Forward. This is an inherent tendency of government; it can shake off its Constitutional shackles in ways that would confound Houdini. We can push the tide back, but lovers of freedom, I fear, are doomed to recreate the life of Sisyphus, forever pushing the boulder up the mountain.

A brief flight into the mind of an American

My name is Ruthi, and I hail from the great state of Minnesota, USA. For the last three years I have been studying International Banking and Finance as well as Political Science at Franklin College in Lugano, Switzerland. The following is just a chip from a whole cookie of ideas on liberty.

It fascinates me to no end to see how quickly people come to the defense of the U.S. government in solving their problems; yet are also inclined to believe, when shown that their thoughts on government may be void of any logical structure, that no change can happen for the better in our political system.

I was recently on a plane, heading from Greensboro to Detroit, when I met a man who had immigrated to the United States from Iran, and was now finishing his last two years of training to become a pediatric neurologist. Normally I do not talk to people on planes, but this particular gentleman seemed so eager to talk I figured he must have something interesting to say.

After many a pleasantry regarding what we each do and why, I decided to make the conversation something of an educational experience. I asked him his thoughts on the new health care bill, and more specifically its effect on doctors. His view on the matter was that, on his end, there was very little that would change, and that the large pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies were still going to be the ones in power over the market. He was also of the impression that doctors really have no say or influence on the subject; so I asked him about his thoughts on the AMA- whether he thought it was helpful for doctors or not- he seem to dislike the organization, although refusing to say it outright. The real problem for doctors was a legal one. "Tort reform" he said was the major problem solver.

I asked him if he thought any of the problems with healthcare on the whole could be solved and fixed. He said no. Impossible. It's too much of a mess, nothing can be done.

Short break for reading, then the beverage cart arrived.

"How do you feel about the whole BP disaster?" he asked. Over the last month this question seems to be the new source of heated small-talk debate. Every person who has asked me this question seems to believe that it is blasphemous to say anything other than a general agreeing statement about the evil nature of BP (and oil companies in general for that matter) and the government's need to do something about the problem. This conversation was no exception. My reply was something to the effect of 'BP is taking responsibility for the situation to the extent that they have the incentive to do so, and their incentive is stronger than any other entity who has been suggested as a substitute.' Needless to say, the support of BP and its actions does not go over well with the majority of people who bring the subject into a conversation, and this instance was no exception.

My new acquaintance followed the school of thought favorable to mass public media- that the government should not only intervene in the situation, but that it is Obama's duty to both solve this problem today, and create the regulations to keep it from happening again tomorrow.

On this first point he held the belief that the situation should be taken over by the coastguard and the navy immediately- they could do a much better job at solving the problem, and should therefore be appointed to the task- or, if nothing else, the cost guard and the navy should serve as onlookers and regulators of BP's progress on cleanup. My difficulty in understanding this assertion has to do with the knowledge-base of the coastguard and navy, and so I inquired about the expertise of the aforementioned entities in off-shore drilling and mass oil cleanup. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, I received no answer.*

I tend to believe that BP has the largest vested interest in solving the problem of oil cleanup and prevention since it is in fact BP that will eventually have to pay the costs of repercussions- extending beyond general decline in sales and overall competitiveness to the realms of compensation for the losses of individuals and any lawsuits that may ensue.** As the entity with the greatest vested interest in solving the overall problem it can reasonably be assumed that BP has the greatest incentives for creating a solution as well. Would it not also be realistic to presume that BP also has the best access to (if they are not already present) specialists in this particular area of knowledge? Given their incentives for solving the problem it follows that they are the most likely candidate for hiring the best specialists at the most competitive price. In contrast, the American tax payer, who most likely has only a small fraction of vested interest in solving the problem, will not be willing to put forth the resources required for paying the highest price to the best specialists. Why is this important? Well, the specialists will most likely go to the highest bidder, and if they can utilize their knowledge and abilities elsewhere at a higher wage they will do so. This is one of the reasons (amongst many) that the cost guard and the navy will not have the necessary means to solve the gulf problem. This assertion was taken with a fair amount of acceptance, although some skepticism remained within my seating partner.

This brought the conversation to the second point asserted by my 'single-serving friend,' the point that Obama really needs to insert the proper regulations to make another one of these catastrophes impossible. This may come as a shock to you, the reader, but I thought this proposal was also ridiculous. My first question concerned what sort of regulation should be put in place. The reply to which was a suggestion that no particular regulations should be imposed, but rather a committee of sorts should be created to monitor any offshore drilling, and create regulations as necessary. These people must be held accountable for their actions.

As a reply, I inquired as to the success of similar organizations that are currently serving the purpose he advocates. For instance, I asked him, how well does the FDA perform its role of ensuring overall public health? The first retort was that it was the best feasible system we (the United States) could employ, but after a few minutes of chatting on this subject he conceded that the costs associated with the FDA (which he suggested)- such as restricting products that would ultimately have a net benefit to the public, taking an extraordinarily long time to give the go-ahead on a drug which ultimately results in hindering the prevention of a death, and the taxes to pay for the whole system- actually outweigh the benefits. He also granted that there are indeed private organizations which do a much better job of ensuring what the FDA was originally intended for. Given the comparison, he agreed that maybe having some sort of committee or governmental organization was not the best solution.

"But you are an idealist." 'Things like this sound pretty in theory, but they could never be achieved in the real world.' "You're young," he said "full of optimism that you can change the world and its problems, give it time and experience, you'll see."

What baffles me is the immediate transition from 'the government can and must solve my problems,' to 'the system is entrenched; nothing can be done.' Am I really an idealist because I think that entities such as the US government can change for the better? Have there not been such changes in the past to suggest this possibility? And even if I am an idealist, couldn't enough idealists working towards a similar goal achieve better results than are currently being achieved?

Flight lands; "If you're ever in Detroit, give me a ring."

*It should be noted of course that my acquaintance was not an expert on the subject, I mentioned previously that he was pediatric neurologist, and I in no way mean to portray him as such. Rather, I view him as a demonstrative voice of the masses to show what rhetoric is being used by the various medias, and how it is being re-asserted by the average citizen.

**This assertion only holds true under the assumption that BP's stakeholders believe that the company can survive the disaster, lest they would actually have a disincentive to spend more resources on solving the problem. However this assumption is a reasonable one due to the fact that if investors believed that BP's future cash flows were zero (meaning BP had gone bankrupt) they would in fact value the bonds and stocks as such.

Stuff I hate...

Ok so I guess I'll be the first person to post on this bad boy. hmmmmm what to write about? ooo I'll talk about all the things I hate because it's fun to bitch about stuff.

I hate people who say "I feel that..." when they're talking about what they think. Don't be retarded. If you're talking about your feelings, say "I feel like..." When you're talking about what you think, say "I think that..." Don't be an idiot.

I hate when someone is asked to give a comparison about two people (like giving a ruling on who won a debate) and they start off by saying something like, "I just wanna say that you both did so well." Dude, forget the high school cheerleader crap; you're gonna ripping one of them. Be straight up with them and just be honest. And stop being a pussy by hiding behind some bullshit phrase. If you really think that one person did better than the other, there's no reason to say that "they both did so well." No they didn't! If they really both did "so well", then they'd be equal and you wouldn't be able to say which one was better. Make a decision without turning into a stinky vagina.

I hate people who refuse to concede a point in an argument even when they know they're wrong. Shut up, swallow your pride, and just say these words..."Ya know what? you're right. I'll give you that one."

I hate it when people lose an argument, realize it, and then resort to petty name calling and ad hominem attacks. I finished kindergarten when I was 6, I'm shocked that you didn't finish that one yet.

I hate liberals (politically left people). Usually because they're guilty of the above 4 faux pas. (is the plural form of faux pas written as "fauxes pas" or is it just "faux pas"? someone who speaks french help me out here.)

I don't have much to say in terms of libertarian thoughts or ideals really. Although I guess I can mention the fact that I have the freedom to say what I hate. There ya go. The aforementioned random crap is now relevant to the overall intention of this blog. BOOM!