The Case for Freedom

Column for week of December 22, 2014

     In the nine columns so far in this series we have
considered how people endlessly seek to maximize their
satisfaction.  We noted that everyone's satisfaction largely
depends on the actions of many others.  None of us produce
much of what we use.  We also gain much satisfaction from
interactions with others.  Interaction with others is vital to the
satisfaction of everyone.

     We also saw there are two ways to govern our
interactions with each other.  We can all be free to interact or
not interact as we see fit.  Everyone can have a veto on
interactions with others.  In such an environment all
interactions are voluntary.

     Under freedom individuals seeking something from
others must ask and offer rewards to gain what they seek from
others.  Exploitation is impossible.  Everyone has the right to
say "No."  Everyone can refuse to let you have his car, or to
have lunch with you.

     If you want his car, companionship, or anything else,
you must offer something satisfying to the other person.  He
may accept money in exchange for his car.  Your
companionship may be enough to reward him for joining you
for lunch.

     The important point here is that commercial exchanges
and social exchanges are motivated in the same way.  All the
participants expect to gain satisfaction.  The things that
contribute to this satisfaction may be tangible, such as a car, or
intangible, such as companionship.  Social interactions involve
mutually beneficial exchanges as much as do commercial ones. 
Freedom in one realm is as important as in the other.  The
opposite of freedom is exploitation.

     If our interactions aren't conducted in an environment of
freedom, they must be conducted in an environment of
coercion.  Some will be forced into interactions they don't
want, or they will be forced to forgo interactions they want, or
both.

     In the world of forced and controlled interactions those
who do the forcing can gain at the expense of their victims. 
Considering that everyone seeks to maximize his satisfaction,
the individual who forces or prevents interactions will always
act in the way he believes will bring him the most satisfaction. 
The most others can hope for is that what is most satisfying to
the forcer will be most satisfying to them.  Of course, if it is
most satisfying to them, they won't have to be forced.

     Interactions based on force usually are exploitative.  If
individuals have the option to take what they want rather than
produce and trade, many, probably most, will take rather than
produce.  History is filled with slave masters, kings and other
thieves who preferred taking to producing and trading.

     People haven't changed.  At most their environment has
changed.  Given the chance to force and take, millions will. 
Even if they don't take themselves, they will eagerly take a cut
of the loot in exchange for supporting the looters.  They will
attempt to soothe their consciences by claiming they are
entitled to the loot.  Those who get the loot lose their incentive
to produce for their own use, or for trading with others.

     Only freedom and the free exchange that springs from
freedom motivate everyone to better serve others.  The more
and better chairs we produce for others, the more and better
food they will produce and exchange for the chairs.  In
freedom we don't need legions of government enforcers to
police suppliers and hold them accountable.

     Free customers police the suppliers and punish those
who fall short by buying elsewhere.  Government enforcers are
few (even if it doesn't seem that way) and aren't usually on the
job.  The consumer enforcers are on the job 24/7/365.  The
consumers are always on the scene instantly punishing
suppliers by refusing to buy.

     Under freedom, pressure from consumers pushes us all
toward better serving others.  Only those in government, and
those empowered by them, can lawfully exploit others.  And,
exploit they do.

     Next time: What should be the role of government?

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

The Destructiveness of Parasites

Column for week of December 15, 2014

     So far we have seen how free people seek to better
serve others.  By better serving others, we get them to better
serve us.  In free markets the wealthiest people will be those
who best serve others.  We don't need a library full of laws
and legions of bureaucrats to motivate individuals to serve each
other.

     The baker who best serves his customers will have the
most customers.  If the baker is efficient he will earn more
income than will other bakers.  Quality service plus efficiency
equal wealth.  The individuals who are well served shouldn't
complain that the baker earns profits, even lots of profits. 
Profits are his reward for serving his customers.  The quest for
those rewards motivates us all to better serve others.  The
rewards might not be profits.  They can be wages, intangibles,
or something else.

     Also, we have seen the other way to gain wealth.  That
is to use force and threats to take from others.  Those who
resort to "Do it my way, or I will hurt you" don't gain their
wealth through increasing service to others.  They are parasites
who feed on others, rather than serve others.  They consume
without producing.  Unlike the baker, their gain is someone
else's loss.

     These parasites try to hide behind slogans and high
sounding names.  "I'm a parasite.  Give me something, or I will
hurt you" doesn't win much support.   "I'm a public servant. 
Sacrifice for the common good" plays better.  It shouldn't.

     The task at hand is to dissect some of these terms that
so impress some people.  You may want to hold your nose
while we cut into these sacred cows.

     What is the "common good?"  If it is good for
everyone, Why would anyone oppose it?  Everything happens
at the individual level.  Only individuals choose, act, enjoy or
suffer.  There are no common goods or bads.  The closest we
can come to common good is something that more than one
person considers to be good.  Even if everyone finds something
to be good, the good still exists only at the individual level.

     Hang on to your wallet and cover your back anytime
someone starts preaching about sacrificing for the common
good.  It may be good for some.  You can be certain it will be
bad for others.  Also, you can be sure that the one doing the
preaching expects it will be good for him, no matter how much
it hurts others.  Minimum wages may be good for those who
collect the higher pay.  The minimum wage isn't so good for
those who are unemployed because of it and get no pay at all.

     "Sacrifice for the common good" translates as "Sacrifice
for me and my friends."  The 
term definitely loses something in the translation.  It becomes a
trick phrase minus the trick.

     Government's main functions today are 1) to take from
some and give to others, and 2) to favor some at the expense
of others.  Government doesn't gain its wealth through
voluntary exchanges that benefit others more than they cost. 
Government wealth is gained from "Pay me, or I will hurt
you."  People pay because they believe paying will be less
painful than not paying.

     As we saw at the beginning of this series, individuals
don't sacrifice their satisfaction for others.  The politicians and
bureaucrats who claim to be public servants are not exceptions. 
First and foremost they serve themselves and their supporters. 
To everyone else they are parasites.  Only free people
voluntarily serve others.  They serve because they benefit. 
People who have freedom in the marketplace produce to
exchange with others.  Then the "public servants" make them
their servants by taking what they produce.

     "Public servants" are more accurately called public
parasites.  Unless we stop parasitic "public servants" they will
suck out our wealth and productivity until we perish.  The only
good news is that any surviving parasites will then be on their
own.

     Next time: The case for freedom.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

Why Do Prices Lie?

Column for week of December 8, 2014

     We have considered ways to achieve satisfaction.  We
saw how free people trading with each other endlessly seek to
better serve others to get more satisfaction from those others. 
Last time we considered the importance of rules to human
interaction.  Today we will consider more about how free
people coordinate their actions for mutual benefit.

     To achieve prosperity we must specialize and trade with
each other.  The productivity of self sufficient individuals is so
low that they are inevitably poor.  How can billions of people
coordinate their production and consumption so as to provide
everyone with an abundance of what they want?

     No one person comes close to knowing what everyone
wants.  Likewise, no one knows how to produce all of those
things, or how much to produce.  Thus, putting a great
commander in charge of production can't possibly yield good
results.  We will end up with inefficient, wasteful production of
much of the wrong stuff.  Remember the Soviet Union?

     How can people in China know how to best serve
people in the USA?  We have already seen that people in
China will want to better serve people in the USA to motivate
people in the USA to better serve people in China.

     When we think of prices, How many people think
beyond what something will cost, or how much they can sell it
for?  Prices are far more important than that.  Prices are
communications.

     The price we offer for something tells the world how
much we want that thing.  The prices we ask for something tell
the world how willing we are to supply the thing.  When we
offer higher prices we are saying "Produce more."   Lower
offers say "Produce less."

     When we offer more for flowers and less for nails, we
say "Produce more flowers and fewer nails."  To get the best
price for their efforts producers must shift from nails to
flowers.

     Free market prices tell everyone what to do to maximize
the price he will receive for his efforts.  Prices guide producers,
from workers to land owners, to use their resources to produce
the things others value the most.

     Prices guide workers to better use the skills they have
and to develop new skills.  Also, prices direct owners to devote
natural resources to their most valuable uses.

     Anything that interferes with free market pricing
disrupts production by sending false signals about supply,
demand and best uses.  Prices other than free market prices lie. 
Lying prices deceive producers into producing the wrong
things.  Shortages and surpluses result.

     One of the most destructive price lies of our time was
natural gas prices from the 1950s into the 1970s.  Government
capped natural gas prices at a very low level.  The message
sent was "Don't produce more natural gas."  The result was the
natural gas shortages of the 1960s and 1970s.  Only after the
end of price controls and lying prices did free market producers
provide an abundant supply of natural gas.  They found ways
to do this even though many "experts" said it was impossible.

     Government creates subsidy payments, special tax
breaks, quotas, minimum wage laws, and a morass of other
laws and regulations.  By doing this government has turned
most prices into liars.  These lying prices have deceived
businesses and consumers into making disastrous choices.

     Lying prices were the force that inflated the housing
bubble.  Lying interest rates set by the Federal Reserve
deceived almost everyone about the supply of wealth leading to
many ill-advised investments, including investment in housing. 
The crash of the bad investments gave us the recession.

     The human race figured out ages ago that lying is
destructive and dangerous.  How long will it take to figure out
that prices are the most destructive of liars?

     Prices are not willing liars.  They lie because
government tortures them.  We will never have real economic
recovery until government allows prices to freely speak the
truth.

     Next time: The destructiveness of parasites.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

How Do Free People Coordinate Their Actions?

Column for week of December 1, 2014

     We have considered the vital importance of the
contributions others make to our satisfaction.  We can't benefit
from the actions of others without interacting with them.  To
smoothly interact with others their actions must to some extent
be predictable, and coordinated with ours.  Of course, our
actions must also be predictable by them.  Imagine driving if
you had no way of predicting what other drivers would do.

     Commonly observed rules are vital to our interactions
with others.  Sometimes it isn't vital which choice others will
make.  It is vital that we can predict that choice.  It isn't
important whether the approaching drivers hold to the left or
the right.  What is important is that we know which choice
they will make.

     Some choices are so destructive to peace and prosperity
that we need to eliminate, or at least minimize, those choices. 
Murder, robbery, fraud and other aggressive actions are
destructive to peace and prosperity.  The lists of destructive
choices and choices we need to be able to predict are indeed
long ones.

     From the time people began interacting experience has
defined the choices we must be able to predict and the ones we
must try to eliminate.  It would have been impossible for the
first humans to have fashioned a list of all those choices.

     Fortunately we have the benefit of experiences down
through history.  Essentially every society has arrived at lists of
dos and don'ts that are quite similar.  These rules were not
enacted by kings or legislatures.  These vital rules were
discovered independently by many societies.   Legislation
followed the rules rather than creating them.  They became
rules to live by, not because they were enacted, rather because
people lived by them and found them beneficial.

     Whether a rule is a good one or not depends on whether
it aids the general pursuit of satisfaction, not on how many
politicians vote for it.  The natural, beneficial rules gain
widespread acceptance simply because people recognize the
benefits that flow from observing the rules.  The most that
government and enacted laws can do is try to enforce the
generally accepted rules against the few violators.

     Making up rules and trying to enforce them against a
population that contains a substantial number of dissenters
doesn't work.  It only creates strife and controversy, even if the
rule might be a beneficial one if generally accepted.  The world
might be a better, more satisfying place if people used far less
alcohol and drugs.  Trying to enforce no alcohol, no drug rules
against substantial dissent only creates strife and disaster.  The
rules of society must be discovered and accepted if they are to
work.

     Rules against destructive practices, such as "honor
killings" and racially motivated attacks won't work unless a
substantial majority of people accept the rules.   Education and
persuasion, not legislation, are the effective ways to change
behavior.  The peer pressure that goes with generally accepted
rules is far more powerful than cops and courts.

     The most cops and courts can do is round up a few
stragglers that refuse to abide by the rules already generally
accepted and enforced by peer pressure.  If most people treat
drunk drivers as unclean misfits and shun them, drunk driving
will cease to be a major problem.  So long as society shows
tolerance for drunk drivers, drunks will continue to drive.

      Within the framework of accepted rules, free individuals
agree to interact as they may choose.  So long as the rules
forbid aggression, no one is free to forcibly interfere with any
peaceful conduct.

     The more we look to government for new rules and the
imposition of old ones, the less effective all rules will become. 
Such an avalanche of laws will destroy respect for all laws,
including the natural ones that have evolved and passed the test
of time.

     Next time: Why do prices lie?

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

What Happens When People Are Free to Trade?

Column for week of November 17, 2014

     We have considered satisfaction, the ultimate goal that
we all seek.  Part of the consideration was of how we influence
others to do the things that satisfy us.  We will now give
further consideration to the trading of satisfactions. 
Exchanging lesser satisfactions for greater ones is the sole
objective of free trade.

     There are two kinds of exchanges, forced ones and
voluntary ones.  A trade isn't voluntary unless all parties to the
trade voluntary participate without coercion.  A forced trade
isn't really a trade.  It is at least in part a forced taking, also
known as theft.

     When a bully forces another child to "trade" sandwiches
the bully is forcibly taking something.  Perhaps the other child
would have freely traded half of his sandwich for the bully's
sandwich.  In such case the bully traded his sandwich for half
of the other sandwich and forcibly took the other half.  Half a
theft is still theft.  The victim is forced to give up satisfaction
rather than being compensated by getting a greater satisfaction
than he lost.

     Instead of the bully taking the sandwich, he may
prevent its owner from trading for something, perhaps a cookie,
he believes will increase his satisfaction.  The victim has still
been forcibly deprived of satisfaction.

     In fully free trade everyone is free to trade for anything
with anyone.  Of course, that someone else always has veto
power over the trade.  He doesn't have to settle for decreased
satisfaction.

     How important is trade?  What do you have or consume
that you produced for yourself?  Without trade or gifts, or theft
you wouldn't have anything you didn't produce.  What would
your life be like?  Could you even survive?

     Trade is one of the cornerstones of our prosperity. 
Without trade and the specialization it makes possible, most
people would have very little.  Most of us would live on the
edge of survival, or not survive.

     All free trade is motivated by the desire to obtain
something that will yield greater satisfaction.  How can both
parties to a trade gain satisfaction?  It is because both don't
expect the same satisfaction from the things traded.

     Alice has apples.  Betty has potatoes.  Betty offers a
potato for an apple.  Alice says no.  She values the satisfaction
from the apple more than that from the potato.  Betty raises her
offer until it reaches 10 potatoes.  Alice accepts.  She values 10
potatoes more than one apple.  Betty places the greater value
on the apple.  Both gain satisfaction.

     This example also illustrates the point that the more
value we offer someone, the more value they will offer back. 
In other words, the better we serve others, the better they will
serve us.  If we want more from others, we must produce more
for them.  No one is ripping anyone off.

     This reality motivates free people to endlessly seek to
serve others better.  We don't serve others because we aren't
selfish.  We serve them because we are selfish.  We want more
and serve others better to get it.

     If we become satisfied with what we are getting, we no
longer have any reason to increase our service to others.  Why
train for a different job that better serves others unless we are
trying to get more satisfaction for ourselves?

     I'm sure that when people train for and seek higher
paying jobs they don't spend a lot of time thinking about
serving others better.  They most likely think about what they
will get.  If the higher paying job didn't serve others better, it
wouldn't be higher paying, unless it is a government job.

     The gains possible through free trade push everyone to
increased productivity and increased service to others.  It is the
only way to organize society without creating winners and
losers.

     Next time:  The alternative to free trade.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

The Alternative to Free Trade

Column for week of November 24, 2014

     We have considered what people want and some ways
of satisfying those wants.  We saw that everyone's ultimate
goal is to maximize their satisfaction.  When it comes to
satisfaction, we are all totally greedy.  We always make the
choice we believe will bring the most satisfaction. 

     Last time we considered how free people can pursue
satisfaction.  Now we will consider the alternative.

     The only alternative to freedom to choose is coercion
with force and threats.  Free people don't have to march to
anyone else's drum.  They are free to march to the beat of their
own drum, or any other drum they choose.

     The individual isn't free if he faces the threat of  "Do it
my way, or I will hurt you."  The threat may come from
bandits or government.   Being free means no more, and no
less, than being free from the threat of aggression by all others. 
To be truly free everyone must be free from the threats of
others.

     It may seem paradoxical that true freedom requires that
no one be free to commit aggression.  Aggression is initiating
or threatening the use of force, deceit or stealth against
peaceful people.  Free people are free to do anything they
choose, so long as they don't initiate force, deceit or stealth
against peaceful people.  The only justifications for the use of
force are prevention of aggression and the forcing of restitution
for harm caused by aggression.

     Free people aren't answerable to any commander.  Each
is his own commander.  His only obligation is to respect the
equal freedom of all others.  All interactions among individuals
are voluntary.  Considering that we all need the aid of others in
pursuit of our satisfaction, freedom leads to voluntary
interaction and cooperation.  Each party to an interaction
expects to increase his satisfaction through the interaction. 
There are no masters or slaves, and no losers.

     The only alternatives to freedom are coercion and
deceit.  Some individuals use force and threats of force to
coerce others to do the will of the dominator.  This creates a
world of "Do it my way, or I will hurt you."

     In our world we live with a mixture of free choice and
"Do it my way, or I will hurt you."  In some societies the
threats are dominant.  In others people enjoy substantial
amounts of freedom to choose.

     We saw that in free markets individuals gain the
cooperation of others by rewarding them.  The rewards may be
substantial sums of money, or as simple as a smile or a
greeting.  In freedom we gain the aid of others by aiding them. 
There are no losers.  No one is forced to sacrifice his
satisfaction to satisfy others.

     In the world of coercion some dominate others.  The
dominators can gain satisfaction without providing any
satisfaction in return.  Those who are exploited don't appreciate
this.  They are likely to seek ways to resist.  The dominators
are parasites.  They live off others while having no incentive to
produce anything for anyone.

     The world of domination is a world of strife and a low
level of productivity.  Think North Korea or Cuba.  The world
of domination by "Do it my way, or I will hurt you" is
inevitably a world of strife, poverty, and misery for most.

     In a world of freedom and free markets we won't
achieve utopia.  We will endlessly move toward more
satisfaction.  In the world of "Do it my way, or I will hurt you"
we will endlessly spiral down into strife, poverty and misery.

     I am not interested in the possibility that we might share
the strife, poverty and misery equally.  I prefer peace,
prosperity and satisfaction, even if some earn bigger scoops
than do others.

     Next time:  How can free individuals coordinate their
actions with each other?

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

Trading for Satisfaction

Column for week of November 10, 2014

     We have considered how everyone's goal is to
maximize their satisfaction.  Also we have observed that
individuals won't change the choices they make unless we
block their chosen road to satisfaction, or they find what they
believe is a better road.  Our consideration also included some
of the ways individuals can try to influence others in their
pursuit of satisfaction.  We will now consider trading
satisfactions.

     Last time Fred was trying to influence Erwin to refrain
from eating a candy bar.  We saw that merely arguing or
debating with Erwin could easily fail to influence him to
refrain from eating the candy.  Does Fred have another string
on his bow?

     Fred might try to make an offer Erwin couldn't resist. 
Suppose Fred offered Erwin a new car in exchange for the
candy bar.  What are the chances that Erwin would pass up the
satisfaction from a new car for the satisfaction of eating the
candy?

     You might ask, Why would Fred offer a car for a candy
bar?   Whether he would or not isn't important.  As in the old
joke, we have established that Erwin has a price.  At most we
now quibble over how low that price will go.

     Some reward of alternate satisfaction will be enough to
get Erwin to give up the candy bar.  As the saying goes,
everyone has a  price.  That price may not be measured in
dollars.  Yet, there are few satisfactions that individuals will
not give up for the right exchange.  The robber's victim gives
up his money for his life.

     Most of our exchanges aren't that extreme.  Yet, we
endlessly give up one satisfaction for another.  We trade free
time and effort for wages.  Those money wages aren't what we
want.  We want the satisfaction we hope to gain from the
things we trade the wages for.  The money wages are only
coupons we hope to exchange for satisfying things.

     By offering trades we constantly influence others to
give up a lesser satisfaction for a greater one.  The merchant
gives up the satisfaction offered by a loaf of bread because he
expects to gain more satisfaction from the two dollars he
receives.  At the same time, the buyer expects more satisfaction
from the bread.  In fact, he expects more satisfaction from the
bread than from any other thing he could buy with the two
dollars.   If something else promised more satisfaction, he
would buy it instead of the bread.

     We also trade satisfactions over time.  He who saves
the candy bar to eat tomorrow instead of now believes he will
gain more satisfaction by doing it.  The person who saves to
spend later is trying to trade present satisfaction for future
satisfaction.  The ways we trade lesser satisfactions for greater
ones are almost endless.

     Rewards have so much potential for increasing
satisfaction that they should be our first resort when trying to
influence the choices of others.  Unfortunately many turn first
to the force of government.  Exchange and rewards create
winners.  Government's use of force and threats creates victims
and losers.  The victims are coerced into reduced satisfaction. 
Someone has to pay for the coercion.  The effort spent on
coercion produces no value except for the person who gains
satisfaction from dominating others.

     The person coerced to give up a satisfaction to satisfy
someone else sacrifices his satisfaction to satisfy the other
person.  The one coerced is partially enslaved by the one he is
coerced to serve.  If total slavery is wrong and bad, How can
partial slavery be right and good?

     Next time:  What happens when free people trade
satisfactions?

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

Persuading Others

Column for week of November 3, 2014                            

     In prior columns we have considered that everyone
always makes the choices they believe will be the most
satisfying.  We also considered forcible obstruction and
punishment as ways to prevent or discourage others from
making the choices they believe will bring the most
satisfaction.  Now we will consider using persuasion to
influence others to alter their choices.

     Back to the candy bar example.  Suppose Erwin is
about to eat his candy bar.  Fred wants to persuade Erwin to
refrain from eating the candy.  There is only one way Fred can
succeed.  He must convince Erwin that he will gain more
satisfaction from refraining from eating the candy bar than
from eating it now.

     Fred might convince Erwin that he will gain the most
satisfaction from giving away or destroying the candy bar. 
Perhaps Fred only convinces Erwin that he can increase his
satisfaction by postponing eating the candy.  If Fred's goal is to
stop Erwin from eating the candy bar, the latter result buys
Fred more time to pursue his goal.  If Erwin still believes the
most satisfying thing he can do is eat the candy now, he will
start chewing.

     We might give a thought or two to why Fred wants to
keep Erwin from eating the candy.  The bottom line is that
Fred expects to gain satisfaction from persuading Erwin to
refrain from eating the candy bar.

     Not only that, Fred also believes that in his present
circumstances the most satisfying thing Fred can do is try to
persuade Erwin to not eat the candy.  If Fred believed he had
an option that would bring him more satisfaction, he would
forget about Erwin and the candy to pursue the more satisfying
option.

     How might Fred gain satisfaction from keeping Erwin
from eating the candy?  Perhaps Fred believes candy will be
bad for Erwin.  Fred might gain satisfaction from doing a good
deed.  Possibly Fred hopes to get the candy from Erwin.  Fred
might gain satisfaction merely from convincing Erwin not to
eat the candy.  The possibilities are nearly endless.  Only Fred
could know the real reason.  He might not be honest enough
with himself to even recognize his real motivation.

     Fred could make a serious and honest argument to
Erwin.  Also, Fred could make an emotional appeal.  Outright
lying and fraud are other possibilities.  The bottom line is that
Fred must somehow influence Erwin to expect more
satisfaction from passing up the candy than from eating it.

     What really happens to Erwin's satisfaction in the long
run is irrelevant to the choice Erwin will make.  He has only
his expectations to guide him when he chooses.  The
consequence of the choice may influence future choices and
Erwin's confidence in Fred.

     Trying to influence the choices of anyone for any
reason is subject to all of the same limitations and pit falls.  It
generally isn't easy to convince most people to change their
expectations about satisfaction.

     Often people don't even try using persuasion to
influence others' choices about what is satisfying.  Instead, they
cry out "there ought to be a law."  Saying there ought to be a
law is usually an appeal to force, violence and threats thereof. 
A law is merely an order from government that is meaningless
if not backed by the threat of forcibly decreasing the
satisfaction of the violator.

     The law could offer a reward for certain changes, such
as a bounty for killing foxes.  An individual could offer the
reward without any law.  When someone appeals to
government to offer a reward they are asking government to
use force to collect the money to pay the reward.

     So far in our search for ways to influence others in the
choices they make while pursuing satisfaction, we haven't
found anything that promises great success.

     Next time: Trading for satisfaction.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

Influencing the Choices of Others With Force

Column for week of October 27, 2014              

     Last time we saw that the ultimate goal of every person
is to maximize satisfaction.  Things and activities aren't the
ultimate goals of anyone.  We only seek the satisfaction we
hope to gain through things and activities.  If we want to
influence the choices of others we must physically limit their
choices, or get the individual to alter his views at to what is
satisfying.

     Today we will consider only the use of force to alter
choices.  When I was a child my mother tried various ways to
physically limit my choices.  When she went shopping in
Muskegon she first confined me in a buggy.

     When I grew she turned to a harness and a tether that
she held.  Both were reasonably effective in limiting my
choices.  At home if she frowned on what I was doing she
sometimes tied me in a chair.  This limit was imperfect.  I
could still choose to tip the chair over.

     Imprisoning individuals is a way of limiting their
choices.  Killing is the ultimate limit on choices.  It eliminates
the individual's option of making choices we don't like.  It also
eliminates all other choices.

     Imprisonment isn't totally effective in limiting the
choices we consider undesirable.  Inmates still do things that
their captors don't like.  The problem is that mere
imprisonment usually doesn't change the prisoner's views of
what he believes will be satisfying.

     Another way of changing the individual's view of what
will be satisfying is to eliminate the anticipated satisfaction. 
Altering an individual so that drinking alcohol will make him
sick immediately is likely to discourage him from seeking
satisfaction from drinking.

     Beating or imprisoning a thief may take the satisfaction
out of theft.  Of course, if the thief rightly, or wrongly,
believes he can avoid the beating or imprisonment next time,
the past punishment will not influence him to quit stealing. 
Punishment doesn't do much to alter the future choices of the
dumb or short sighted who choose to steal without considering
the possible consequence.  Neither does it limit the choices of
those who believe they are clever enough to get away with it
next time.

     Force can also be used to alter the choices of
individuals who have done nothing wrong.  The threats of an
armed robber may alter the victim's views of the net
satisfaction he is likely to get from trying to keep his money. 
The victim many conclude that he will gain more satisfaction
from staying alive and healthy than from fighting to keep his
money.

     None of the uses of force are likely to alter the
individual's basic beliefs about what he will find satisfying. 
Remove the threat of force and the individual will most likely
revert to making the same choices as before.

     Consider immigration.  If we could totally seal the
borders so no one could cross, immigration would end.   We
can't do that or even come close, no matter how many fences
we build.  The next line of defense is to inflict dissatisfaction
on illegal immigrants.  How much dissatisfaction must we
inflict to discourage a would be immigrant who faces mainly
misery and starvation at home?  What are the chances he won't
still see illegal entry as a way to increase his satisfaction?

     Force, either for blocking choices or punishing them,
isn't very effective at stopping individuals from making choices
we don't like.  One of the reasons people so quickly resort to
the force option is that many among us gain satisfaction from
using force to control others.

     These people are control freaks.  They control others
not so much for altering the choices of others as for the
satisfaction gained from controlling others.  Not surprisingly
these individuals are likely to migrate to government. 
Government, and those specially privileged by it, are the only
ones who may legally use aggressive force.   More about this
later.

     Next time: Persuasion as a way to alter the choices of
others.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

Who Is Greedy?

Column for week of October 20, 2014

     Many people claim rampant greed causes all our
problems.  Greedy people ruthlessly exploit everyone in sight. 
Before dissecting this theory we should consider, Who is
greedy?

     Consider a multiple choice question.  Several
individuals each have a candy bar.  Abner gives the candy bar
to a poor person.   Beth puts her candy bar away to eat it
another day.  Chuck destroys his candy bar.  Debbie trades her
candy bar for an apple.  Erwin eats his candy bar while beating
off hungry people.  Now, rank the five based on who was the
greediest.

     Why did each choose to act in a different way?  Abner
believed he would gain more satisfaction from giving the candy
bar away than from putting it to any other use.  Beth believed
that she could gain the most satisfaction by putting the candy
bar to some use later.  Chuck hated candy bars and believed
they were bad for people.  He gained the most satisfaction
from destroying the candy.  Debbie believed the apple would
bring more satisfaction than the candy bar.  Erwin believed that
protecting and eating the candy would bring him the most
satisfaction.

     Each individual acted in the way expected to maximize
his personal satisfaction.  Each had a different opinion about
what was satisfying.  Some, or all, may not have gained the
satisfaction they expected.  That was irrelevant when choosing. 
We always act based on what we expect rather than what we
eventually get.  That is the only way we can choose.  We have
no way of knowing how the future will play out.

     Some choices were most likely more beneficial to third
parties than were others.  Still, the chooser made his choice
based on what was best for the satisfaction of the chooser. 
Part of the motivation for the choices we make is the
satisfaction we gain from the satisfaction of others.

     All of the choosers were equally greedy.  Each sought
to maximize his own self interest.  Those who gain satisfaction
from the satisfaction of others are more likely to make choices
that increase the satisfaction of others.  Their real motivation is
maximizing self satisfaction.  When it comes to our most basic
pursuit, satisfaction, we are all 100 percent greedy.  No one
ever considers his choices and then deliberately picks one that
he believes won't be the most satisfying.

     Blaming problems on greed is a dead end street.  If
greed is the basic problem there aren't any solutions.  We can't
eliminate or reduce human greed.  We are hard wired to pursue
our own self interest.  The Declaration of Independence
recognized this when it identified "life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness" as our core rights.  Without life there is no
satisfaction.  Each individual knows best what makes him
happy or satisfied.  For individuals to pursue happiness, each
must have the liberty to choose.

     Tangible things and activities aren't anyone's ultimate
goals.  We don't seek automobiles and ski weekends for the
sake of the thing or the action.  Individuals seek them for the
satisfaction they expect to gain.

     There are only two ways to influence the choices of
others.  One is to physically interfere with some of the choices
so as to make them difficult or impossible.  The government
tried to do this when it banned the manufacture of incandescent
light bulbs.  The goal was to make it impossible for individuals
to choose incandescent bulbs.  Government's ban on marijuana
is another attempt to prevent individuals from choosing what
they believe will be the most satisfying.

 Bans and mandates are achievable only by totally
destroying the option, or by commanding "Do it my way, or I
will hurt you."  (Please note that  attempted bans usually fail
miserably while yielding all sorts of unintended
consequences.)

     Short of resorts to force and violence there is only one
way to influence the choices of others.  We must influence the
individual's views about what is satisfying.

     The next 12 columns will consider the journey to
satisfaction.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

When a Religion Dies

Column for week of October 13, 2014

     I have read in history about the death of religions. 
Perhaps the best known passing of a system of belief is that of
the gods of the Romans.  Even after those gods were fully
discredited, some still clung to and defended them.  Beliefs die
hard, especially beliefs based on emotions rather than facts.

     I never witnessed a religion going through its death
throws, until now.  Believers in man-made global warming
exhibit the characteristics of religious fanatics.  They claim to be
100 percent right while claiming that anyone who even slightly
disagrees with them is not only totally wrong, but also evil.  The
stronger the challenge to their cherished beliefs, the more
hysterical their defense becomes.

     The global warmists and their beliefs are in a bit of a
bind.  They face the inconvenient truth that satellite data show
the atmosphere hasn't warmed for over 18 years.  For them that
is a bitter pill to swallow.

     First they dropped "global warming" from their
vocabulary.  Now they call the great threat to human survival
"climate change."  Predicting climate change is safe.  It is as
safe as predicting that the sun shall rise.  Climate has been
changing for so long as we have any evidence of climate.  It is a
safe bet climate will continue to change for as long as there is
climate.

     The fanatics are so certain people are warming the world
that they refuse to even consider the possibility they aren't. 
Among other things they claim the deep oceans are sucking the
heat out of the atmosphere and hiding it.  In 20 or 30 years this
heat is supposed to pour up from the depths and boil us all.

     A recent report from the NASA poured cold water on
that one.  The NASA conducted the only serious study of heat in
the ocean depths.  It reluctantly reported that it didn't find the
missing heat.

     The man-made global warming cult will likely either
claim the NASA didn't look hard enough, or that the missing
heat is hiding somewhere else.  Perhaps they will offer a reward
to whoever finds the heat.

     Recent rants by Robert Kennedy, Jr. are a good example
of how fanatics respond when their insupportable beliefs are
challenged.  His first utterance was that questioning man-made
global warming should be a crime.  Those who express such
ideas should be punished.  So much for free speech.

     Feeling a bit of heat generated by those remarks, he tried
to do some damage control.  He conceded that even ignorant,
stupid people should be allowed to speak.  He followed that up
by demanding the death penalty for any foundation, or
corporation that denied the existence of man-made global
warming.  He wanted Attorney Generals to have the offenders'
charters revoked.

     Corporations don't speak.   The only voices corporations
have are the voices of real live people who speak on the
corporation's behalf.  Kennedy is still demanding that
government silence the voices he doesn't want to hear.  This
brings to mind how the British used heresy laws to silence Joan
of Arc.  Perhaps we should have at least a touch of sympathy for
those whose ideas are so weak they can defend them only by
silencing their critics.

     The global warmists may not have a god, unless she is
mother earth.  They do have their devil, carbon dioxide, that is
supposed frighten all into submission.

     It is pointless to try to reason with members of the global
warming (excuse me, climate change) cult.  It is impossible to
reason with anyone whose beliefs are founded on emotion rather
than reason.

     There is little to do other than watch, and enjoy if you
like, the cult go through its death throws.  It may be difficult to
enjoy their ordeal.  Some of the emotional fanatics will likely
turn violent as more and more people reject their beliefs.  There
are bound to be some unpleasantries over the next few decades
before real science reclaims the realm of climate change.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

If the Whole World Were a School

Column for week of October 6, 2014

     I endlessly hear the complaint that profit making
businesses shouldn't be allowed to run our schools.  This
complaint seems to spring from several reasons.  Schools are too
important to be left to greedy, profit seeking businesses. 
Education money shouldn't be wasted on profits.  Only
government can be held accountable for what it does. 
Businesses would provide low quality education for high prices.

     If all this is true, Why should we tolerate greedy, profit
seeking businesses providing our food, clothing and shelter?  A
person could live for at least a year without a school.  How long
could anyone live without food?  In Michigan, How many would
survive a year without any clothing or shelter?

     How will we continue to survive if we remain dependent
on greedy, untrustworthy businesses to provide the vital
necessities of life?  Why shouldn't we turn to government for all
of our necessities?  For that matter, if government is such a
great, efficient and trustworthy provider of necessities, Why
shouldn't we turn to it for the provision of everything?

     Following the fine example of the great government
schools we can start by establishing food districts.  Everyone
will live in a food district that will provide commissaries and
mess halls to feed everyone for free.  Of course, the districts will
provide only healthy nutritious food, as defined by the
government.

     Food will be provided only in the quantity and at the
times deemed best by the providers.  People have learned to
adjust their schedules and educational tastes to one size fits all
schools.  They should easily adjust to one size fits all food
service.  If you don't like the menu, bring it up at the next
election of the food board.  This may not be the  perfect
solution.  The food board will only be able to beg its superiors
in the state capital and  D.C. for permission to change.  After
all, people in Michigan can't be allowed to have different food
than those who live in California.

     Someone has to pay for all that free food.  Even
government can't repeal the laws of economics.  It can make
some big messes while trying.  Of course, the taxpayers will
gladly pay for their free food.  Supposedly on average we spend
15 to 20 percent of our income on food.  We can start by
levying an additional 15 percent income tax on everyone to pay
for food.  Considering the importance of food, that tax will have
to be increased if it is inadequate to cover the cost.  For
necessities no tax is too high.

     A few malcontents will complain about eating
government gruel.  They will be free to buy food from greedy
businesses, if they have any money left after paying their food
tax.  Of course, even ungrateful malcontents deserve the
protection of government.  The private businesses will be
regulated to where food they can sell won't be much different
from government gruel. 

     Once everyone learns to love government food we can
move on to creating housing districts to efficiently provide high
quality safe housing for everyone.  This will be easy.  We
already have government housing project and Indian reservations
to use as models.

     Once the program is fully implemented, government will
provide everything for everyone.  We can forget about taxes and
pay checks.  Everyone will work for the government that will
dole out whatever is left after the politicians, bureaucrats and
their cronies get their cut off the top.

     In this utopia everyone can sleep peacefully every night
knowing that no one is earning a profit by providing necessities
to others.  Who knows, someday someone may even find a way
to eliminate the graft and corruption that replaced profits.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum