“Human beings are animals whose preference for group membership is simultaneously the source of their greatest salvation and their ultimate destruction“
- Xenocrates
This group of happy campers has a rude awakening afoot. Literally.
Some people would like to think that I’m a relatively smart guy. I never really took such regards seriously as I always thought that there were many, many smarter people out there. However, the more I got involved with social debating on various issues, the more I became aware of an ubiquitous intellectual deficit that would seem to suggest that the phrase “common sense” may actually be an oxymoron.
At first, I thought the deficit was a reflection of the cognitive limitations of people in my immediate environment. But when I moved my discussions to the more public domain of the internet, I encountered the same rubbish online as I did offline. As it turns out, even on the internet, the proportion of smart vs. average remained exactly the same.
I now realise that when I perceive simple-mindedness in the folks I regularly interact with in the real world, it is not limited to my immediate geographic location. It seems that 80% of the entire human race is made from the same cognitive mold. They all have the same stupid ideas and do the same stupid things – it’s herd logic.
I call it “herd logic”, because it is akin to a whole herd of wildebeests or a school of fish that suddenly, but in perfect synchrony, go this way or that, in response to a perceived threat. The thing with herd logic, is that most of the participants are trusting the decision of the herd – even if it will inexorably lead to their doom:
Similarly, it appears that about 80% of the people in the world go through their entire lives following everyone else, doing exactly the same thing, making exactly the same mistakes, ultimately sharing exactly the same doom. Herd logic may be intended to protect the group, but birds of a feather may ultimately die together.
This limitation is not only evident in humans; we see it all over the animal kingdom as well; a kingdom of mediocrity. Thus my perception of this cognitive limitation is not a function of my culture. It’s not my environment either. It seems that our DNA makes several permutations of the same crap before it eventually leaps forward.
80% of the world is made of people who aren’t smart enough to think independently, because it is our nature to think that being a maverick is dangerous. Technically it is. It’s just that the herd is oftentimes collectively stupid. All this means is that I can choose to be patient – which I must admit is not very gratifying. Here’s why:
Even when I use the Socratic method, stupid just can’t be beat. Fighting stupid is like multiplying 1 billion and zero. You’ll still get zero. So what do I do when I come across stupid? Simple: Employ the use of conversation management. Who says what they say has to be validated?
As such, I hereby relinquish the propensity to dignify every idiot with an intelligent response. If Richard Dawkins is right about memes competing for survival, then by design, my intentions are to viciously defend the right to common sense – one idiot at a time. Sooner or later, a more intelligent idiot will take their place.
I learned a long time ago that you should never argue with a fool. They will bring you down to their level and beat you. Thus, it has become my new MO to perpetually indulge in ignoring all obnoxious forms of stupidity until it becomes naturally selected for elimination from the meme pool. That pun – however satisfying – was not intended.
There are many classifications of Herd out there. The following then is a breakdown the top 5 types of collective that have proven themselves worthy of elimination. Yes, I’m doing it again; putting people in boxes. If you have a problem with this, I’ll send you a memo of concession as soon as I care:
5. The Groupie Variety
A school of Humpback Snappers - Perfectly synchronized in swimming
On more than one occasion, I had found myself as a teen in a group of other boys who would find time after school to go to the video game arcade to shell out our parents’ hard earned money playing coin op Street Fighter 2. Why did I do it? Because it felt good to be a part of a group. I sucked at fighting games, but the company was intoxicating.
This I now realise, is a necessary cognitive function of humanity. We like to belong – even if belonging is detrimental to our existence. We seem to think of ourselves as having a greater sense of purpose once we’ve identified with a group – which ultimately nullifies our individuality. My question is however, how long does it take for us to realise when group membership is not in our best interest?
As a young boy, it took only two trips to the arcade for me to realise who my friends really were. They would love me once I partook of their folly and hate me if I decided to finish my homework at the library instead. How many of you realised that you were suffering from the groupie syndrome before you severed ties?
As I grew older, it became easier and easier to separate myself from certain groups that I thought were dangerous to me. Whether it was an abusive Christian cult or a collective of self serving “friends”, group separation become more meaningful to me because I learned to think for myself. I very highly value my individuality.
I realise however, that most people can’t. They just… can’t. They do not possess the cognitive capacity to identify self separate and apart from a group. In fact, I asked a colleague of mine recently if all of his friends jumped off a cliff to their deaths, if he would follow them. Without missing a beat, he said: “Yes! – I don’t want to be alone!“
So there you have it ladies and gentlemen; a perfectly logical explanation for peer pressure. Just like a school of herring that keeps together to avoid being eaten by diving ducks, only to be swallowed whole by a marauding hump back whale, human beings are animals whose preference for group membership is simultaneously the source of their greatest salvation and their ultimate destruction.
4. The Wagon Rider Variety
Hyenas mob and kill a wildebeest. Mobs are so much fun.
Have you ever seen a bunch of people saying that they love or hate this or that football team just because they’ve heard other people saying the same thing? Doesn’t that just annoy you? No? Well that’s probably because you’re one of them. When people do this in sports, that’s one thing. When they do it on topical issues, that’s another.
Wagon riders are people who have no opinion on a particular matter. So when there’s an uproar of excitement around them, they go with the preference of whatever appears to have the largest supporting audience. So even if the audience shifts its preference, so do they. That actually shows that much of the audience is also on a wagon.
Wagon riders are probably the best example of herd logic. They feed off the collective energy of all the other people generating it. They then feed into this energy and replicate the same behaviour, magnetizing all others around them who have a similar inkling to join the band. There are essentially two types: 1) Anarchist Mobs and 2) Emo-junkies.
Anarchist Mobs
The first type are the people who would goad two people into a fight, cheering “fight!, fight!, fight!…” until somebody throws the first punch. They are the ones who would randomly join in the attacking of another person once they demographically identify with the attackers, throwing a kick or a punch here and there just for the sheer thrill of it.
They are the morons who you see on television trashing police cars, breaking into stores, looting and setting fires everywhere when Rodney King’s law enforcement attackers (who are also of the Anarchist Wagon rider variety) were set free. They’re not doing these things out of revenge. They’re just joining in the thrill of the city’s madness.
Anarchist mobs are also the people who usually appear on the internet as “trolls”. They have a habit of searching the internet for heated conversations. Once there appears to be a “gang up” on one person’s comment, they join in, hurling expletives and what not, just to get their two cents in.You’ll find them on YouTube and Digg in droves.
Anarchists are thrill junkies. They don’t need any purpose or direction. This is the reason why I would never go to a football match in England, be anywhere near Southern LA when a black man is on trial, or be caught in the middle of a corn field in southern Texas when a white man says the word “nigger” and “yee-haw” in the same sentence.
Emo-Junkies
Emo-junkies on the other hand are the folks who get so emotionally caught up in a public debate that they resort to bizarre acts of public protest that borders on sheer lunacy. Included in this bunch are environmentalists, pro-life anti-abortionists, and celebrity enthusiasts, like this moron who cried on YouTube during Britney Spears’ meltdown.
Like their vile, anarchist counterparts, emo-junkies are not motivated by the issue at hand. They just like being caught up in the emotional drama of it all. They get a genuine kick out of it. This is partly why most of these people are usually women and gay men (or men with 80 girlfriends who are still virgins).
Emo-junkies like tying themselves to trees, blocking construction workers, burning effigies of unborn children, protesting the invitation of a pro-choice President at a catholic university, marching in a protest about corporate giants ignoring the environment, just because this makes them feel like they’re passionate about something.
The trouble is, most of the time, none of these people know anything about what they’re protesting. Pro-life people for example are strangely oblivious to the needs of women who were raped. They don’t seem to care about her health either – especially if bringing a child to term would severely endanger her life.
Most environmental activists know virtually nothing about science, about water purification, about natural ecological decay, or even what it means to say that a technology is “eco-friendly”. So long as you tack the word “green” onto something, most of them would be satisfied that you’re being a good citizen of the earth.
*yawn*
To say that emo-junkies are senseless, clueless and stupefyingly moronic crowd followers would be an understatement of epic proportions. They, like their anarchist “set the roof on fire” thrill junkies are examples of how the energy of a group can motivate people to do unbelievably stupid, stupid things. Woodstock, anyone?
3. The Gullible Variety
Groups tend to propagate nonsense. There’s no such thing as safety in numbers.
Apparently, the government is out to get us all – at least that’s what conspiracy theorists think. I am profoundly amazed at how many people in the world still think that George Bush orchestrated 9/11 so that he could go to war with Iraq for their oil. I think those people are far dumber than Bush just for thinking he’s anywhere near that smart.
Never mind the fact that the bumbling idiot of a president was voted in twice, (vis-a-vis, dumbsploitation), what amuses me is how much these conspiracy theorists are motivated to go as far as having conventions and what not to discuss the monstrously ludicrous nature of their beliefs.
I’m not saying that 9/11 was a cut and dry case of terrorism; but the things these people collectively believe in makes Jehovah’s Witnesses seem sane! Yes, I said it. JW’s are crackpots. So is anyone who subscribes to a religion whose rules and precepts could tear your family apart. Yet people do it anyway.
But wait a minute, how did I just jump from conspiracy theorists to Jehovah’s Witnesses? Because they’re all the same kind of people. They’re all profoundly gullible. Conspiracy theorists, religious cult members, superstitious believers, Charismatic Christians, people who think the moon landing was staged, UFO enthusiasts, extremist Muslims – they’re all the same class of idiot – and they are many.
What really makes these people dangerous is when they proceed to forming themselves into groups, hash agendas and impose themselves onto the world. When you examine the true nature of human belief, it is not hard to understand why these types of people become dangerous to social order in short order.
Conspiracy theorists are no different from people who believe in superstition and religion. They only believe in something just because several thousand other people believe it too. They believe so blindly with so little evidence outside of numbers and a hunch, that they are often willing to bet the farm and the kitchen sink on it. Amazing.
If you should tell them it is all a load of crock, they’ll break down into these ad hominem episodes, like an angry atheist who’s just been told that Jesus is real, or an angry theist who is told that Jesus is fake. You can’t reason with a numbers believer, because they are compelled by the power of their group’s size – not its logic.
If two billion people believe a lie, it doesn’t make it any less of a lie. A lie is a lie is a lie. But no matter how much you tell some of these idiots that there were people on those planes that hit the World Trade Center, and that the war in Iraq is not in any way related to 9/11, they’ll still believe it anyway. You just can’t combat stupid.
Y’know what would be interesting? Some of today’s religious folk who hail their faith as being infallible should be transported back in time to ancient Egypt when their religion didn’t exist. I wonder how they would react when they suddenly realise they’re the only person in the world who is a Christian or a Muslim? That would be hilarious.
Similarly, I would love some conspiracy theorists to meet with the surviving families of 9/11 victims so that they could beat their insensitive idiocy to a pulp. Never the less, just like how we no longer believe that the earth is flat, I suppose this legion of extraordinary idiocy will eventually dissipate with time. Ooh, I can’t wait.
2. The Obvious Variety
This group thinks that not all sharks are mindless bloodthirsty monsters.
There are some people in the world who have a remarkable talent for stating the obvious. “OMG, that’s a stereotype!” Yes, I know. That’s why I used it. Stereotypes wouldn’t exist if they didn’t exist. It’s like declaring the remarkable obviousness of the colour of the sky. There’s a reason why nobody does that, by the way.
(Hint: The sky doesn’t actually have a colour, but never mind…)
However, the intention of this herd’s propensity for declaring the obvious is not to obviously declare the obvious. That’s would be pretty… well… obvious, obviously. Their problem is that they lack the capacity to differentiate from when the obvious is used to do harm as opposed to when it is used to point out a fact.
Where as one could say that “Women generally love chocolate” (that’s a stereotype that is based on fact), one could also say that “Women are poor decision makers“, which is partly factual, but mostly debatable. However, the obvious herd doesn’t understand things like “context” and so both uses will be categorically seen as a bad thing.
People have for so long considered stereotypes only for the negative connotation that the word communicates, that the original mostly positive intentions have been overshadowed by the collective stupidity of pop culture. It’s the same way how words like “faggot” and “gay” have become a part of a silly pop culture derision for homosexuality.
How did this happen? Oh right, 80% of the word is intellectually challenged. There, I used another stereotype. But before you get irate, remember this: There is a certain hypocrisy in all this since only stereotypes that fit a certain demographic are declared. All other stereotypes are conveniently ignored. Allow me to illustrate:
If I were to wax misogynistic, only women (and nice guys who have 80 girlfriends but are still virgins) would get pissed off. If I were to do the same thing about men, the women would remain quiet. Pick any demographic out there: White people, black people, Muslims – and you will see exactly the same behaviour.
Humans are so nauseatingly predictable.
People who conveniently use this nonsensical “that’s a stereotype!” declaration only expose themselves as not only proof of the validity of the stereotype, but also as a herd of dissenters who validate themselves by the fact that they collectively agree – not because they collectively make sense.
After all, who needs logic when we all agree on nonsense? After all, black people have no souls, the world is flat, the sun goes around the earth, the earth sits on the back of a giant, you can cure aids by having sex with a virgin, and removing your tonsils will cure you of tonsillitis. *sigh* We’ve come such a long, long way.
1. The Treacherous Variety
Herd leaders don’t always know what they’re doing. That’s not a log in the water.
I now realise that for every characteristic that exists in someone I like that brings me utter joy in conversation, there exists a permutation of that personality in the world that has the capacity to bring me equally as much frustration. They are just as intelligent as the others, but nowhere near as smart.
Now let me be clear: Idiocy is not a measure of intelligence (or lack thereof, for that matter). Idiocy is a complete refusal to adhere to the rules of logic – often for selfish, emotional gratification. So no matter how educated someone is, they may be a complete, utterly profound idiot of Biblical proportions.
There are so many permutations of idiot out there, that it is invariably impossible to avoid the process of weeding out the rubbish. So almost every time I indulge others with my thoughts, I have to prepare to go through 50 idiots before I can find one gem. I have since accepted and reconciled such as the inescapable cost of infamy.
But the trouble with these people is that on first encounter, they are hard to differentiate from the idiot pile to which they truly belong. So most of the time, one spends an inordinate amount of time talking with them before they realise who they’re talking to. That’s when then embarrassment sets in. Walk away. Slowly.
That’s why there’s nothing more dangerous than an educated fool. Any Harvard Business School graduate or Texas drunk can get up on a podium and promise to bring back decency and dignity to the White House. But at what cost? After a comedic masterpiece spanning eight years, four thousand dead troops, an escalating religious war and an epic economic deficit, the voters all sigh a collective “doh”.
So the next time you have a disagreement with a Republican who prefers to let the dying economy manage itself (just like Coolidge did, leading to the great depression), remember that you’re dealing with a very different, very dangerous kind of fool.Don’t mistake their education for validation.
When they join a group, that’s when the education becomes replaced with ideological principles. It’s like spending 7 years studying kung-fu, only to go brawl in a bar with Hell’s Angels. The group membership demands an unwavering subscription to their principles, even if it flies in the face of prior education.
That is why it should not be surprising when you see how many highly educated Republicans still hang on to the old ways (even in the face of near inextricable ruin) and how many doctors, lawyers and engineers get caught up in religious extremist groups. Their level of education becomes meaningless inside that group. Loyalty trumps all.
You would think that with all that education behind one’s belt, that they would not become victim to herd logic. Unfortunately, our human need to belong is probably greater than our need to make sense. I’m pretty sure there was one herring in the school who saw the whale coming – but stuck with the group because he didn’t want to stand out.
Social suicide you say? But at what cost? All the herring in that school of fish are busy digesting in a whale’s belly!
Therefore;
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to detract from the validity of group membership. Many things are better addressed by groups – democracy is one example. It’s where a group decides its leadership. However, democracy is also bound to the average of intelligence of all members of the selecting body. That is its weakness.
This is why herd logic is only useful up to a point. When it attains a certain critical mass, it’s size ultimately becomes detrimental to its viability. Too many cooks do spoil the broth, you see. An over sized group is also the key bottleneck in an overwhelming system of bureaucracy.
Everyone is still an individual with the capacity to think for themselves. Too often we forget that and feel that our loyalty to others trumps our loyalty to self. This is when we do the stupid thing of trusting the group. Little do you realise that the entire group is made up of individuals who are just as clueless as you are, constituting an infinitely recursive system of blind leading blind.
I can respect both Republicans and Democrats who jump ship because they feel those groups didn’t adequately represent them personally. I can appreciate those who believe in governance from the center. It shows that they are thinking as individuals, not as a herd. Group loyalty is overrated. It will reward us just as much as it will punish us.
I know that extracting one’s self from a group is hard. It requires a level of maturity and emotional depth to deal with the fallout. I should know. I was raised in what I thought was a very conservative Christian congregation. It took me a while to realise that it was yet another cult.
It took much, but my separation was one of the best things that I’ve ever done – especially considering what happened several years afterward. Today, I feel like the one or two herring that got away from the whale when it swooped in to collect the entire school.
So the next time you find yourself annoyed with the little things that your affiliated group does, maybe its time that you seriously consider revising the terms of your membership. Group affiliation is the road to obscurity. It suppresses individuality and promotes ubiquitous stupidity. The group can never think for you.
Think for yourself. If more people tried to have their own individual thoughts more frequently instead of regurgitating what everyone else is saying, I sincerely believe that we would have advanced our civilization in leaps and bounds at such an exponential rate that even God would have reason to be threatened by our existence.
Maybe that’s why God made 80% of us with only an average level of intelligence. Ahh… It all makes sense now.
23 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 14, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Dalton
I really enjoyed your post and your sense of humor, but I have a disagreement with something you stated on the periphery of your topic.
–“The next time you have a disagreement with a Republican who prefers to let the dying economy manage itself (just like Coolidge did, leading to the great depression), remember that you’re dealing with a very different, very dangerous kind of fool.”
I do agree that many members of the Republican Party are obsessed with tradition and group loyalty, but stereotyping all Republicans is not a good way to present an argument. Members of the GOP don’t support a Laissez-faire economy just because all their buddies support it. They support a hands-off approach to government because it is the most effective system (I’m not speaking for all Republicans, because the party in general has been sliding to the left over the years).
If you look at the richest countries in the world you will see a very strong correlation with economic freedom. And among the poorer countries, you will see numerous economic regulations. To say that Calvin Coolidge’s policies led to the Great Depression is absurd. The Great Depression was not caused because the government didn’t do enough to prevent it. It occurred because people took part in this “herd logic.” They were scared that the stock market might crash, so they made it crash by taking all of their money out of it. The government does not have the insight or strategy to prevent any kind of crash. This is illustrated by the automotive bailouts. Chrysler declared bankruptcy after receiving billions of dollars of tax payer money. The issue must be addressed at the foundation; these companies suffered from poor management- not even billions of dollars can fix stupidity. In fact, free money only perpetuates bad practices. Government intervention does not lead to economic success.
Sorry about that minor sidetrack. I think my main point was going to be that I don’t affiliate myself with the Republican Party, but I reach the same conclusion in relation to economic freedom. No person or group or tradition forced me into believing what I believe. Group loyalty does not trump individualism, at least for me.
Thank you for all the insight. I think a world with 20% of people that think for themselves isn’t so bad.
June 14, 2009 at 4:32 pm
xenlogic
Hi Dalton,
You are absolutely right. No amount of money can fix stupidity – I’m glad you actually read between the lines and saw that. That’s part of the reason why the Obama administration has sought to temporarily replace the management of these failing companies. That’s one of the many things that Republicans are against – and they are largely only against it because of the group think in the Republican party – not because it makes any sense.
That is true to some extent, but not to a larger extent. Aside from the United States, a number of the richest countries in the world are also Socialist economies – like Sweden for example, to whom the United States owes billions in loans. Most of the poorer countries in the world have neither the infrastructure, the technical know how nor the economies of scale of the United States, Britain, Germany and other wealthy European states – even without excessive Government intervention. So that is really an irrelevant correlation as well.
I concur. But what about when the Republicans stereotype Democrats as Socialists? Consider this:
One of the things that surprises me is the Mob mentality of the Republican party. Obama’s plan is obviously working. However, once that idiot Sean Hannity called Obama a socialist, everyone in the Republican party joined the wagon rider gang and started on this nonsensical socialist chant. What Obama is trying to do is not to transform the economy into a socialist one. He has merely attempted to temporarily level the playing field until the economy gets back on its feet.
…yet the ganging up continues.
My only regret, Dan is that Obama’s plan to govern from the center (much to the chagrin of his own ultra-left Democratic associates) was basically thrown back into his face by a bitter gang of old white men. They have even stooped to the ultimate act of affirmative action by putting Michael Steele into the pillbox to show that they aren’t as racist as people would like to think they are. It’s so pathetically predictable. I wonder if they realise that this doesn’t work with just any black man?
Then when their attack dog Limbaugh goes ballistic on Steele, the grand ole party backed their age old policies and pulled the rug from under him, tanking the party even further. Michael Steele is a GOP puppet show that doesn’t know that he is a facade. But I am not surprised. This is a party filled with men from the old school, some of whom were once members of the KKK. I guess old habits die hard and the group think still dominates their capacity for individual thought.
That’s the idiocy of group think for ya.
I’m glad you said that. But why stop there? Do you realise that there are two competing types of herd logic here that led to the Great Depression?
The GoP could’ve done something to prevent the Great Depression (or at the very least, slow its effect), much in the same way Obama did. Coolidge’s hands off policy on the giddy rise of the stock market in 1928 proved to be irresponsible. He was sticking to the GoP policy of small government, which did not do the American economy one bit of good back in 1929 when the market tanked after he handed over to Hoover. This is proof that unequivocal adherence to group policy isn’t necessarily the smartest idea.
Then there’s the mob effect of the stock market investors. They all got into this frenzy. Since humans are intrinsically paranoid about all other humans, the mob effect practically crippled the stock market, the banks and the big companies whose individual failures would send the entire market into a spiral of death. The Mob effect is a product of the Wagon rider class of herd logic. It surprises me that there are people in America who would think that the idea of “too big to fail” is ludicrous. They are clearly not thinking about the thousands of smaller state side economies that would be crippled in the fallout – much in the same way Coolidge did nothing to address the needs of the poor.
Again, that’s the stupidity of group think for ya.
Therefore;
A government that is willing to do nothing (treacherous) + The herd panic stampede that brought down the market (wagonist) = a crippled economy.
A more regulated market would have stopped (or controlled to some extent) the madness. Coolidge (like both Bush presidents), seemed to be completely disconnected from the suffering condition of the American people.
It is not absurd to think that the President of the most powerful nation on earth should be held responsible for ensuring that it’s financial market doesn’t collapse. However, to think that the economy will just magically “fix” itself during a period of crisis is what is absurd.
What is even more absurd is the complete aloofness that Republicans today have towards the economies of other countries on the planet which overwhelmingly depend on the stability of the American market. That, my good friend, is absurd.
I agree with you 100% on this.
Thank god that one of the 20% is back in the White House after an eight year absence of such.
June 15, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Alamanach
I have to agree with Dalton, there is a lot of logic and reason (and history) supporting the laissez-faire approach. One has to be extremely careful when introducing government regulation into an economy. It is easy for us to see after the fact that certain specific regulations could have been introduced by Coolidge that might have been helpful, but that doesn’t mean Coolidge was following herd logic by failing to introduce them. Rather, he was functioning on imperfect information (as we all are). You can be plenty smart and thougtful and logical and independent and you will still get things wrong sometimes.
Occasional crashes are a part of capitalism. Capitalism rewards innovation, but innovation necessitates some risk, and people are willing to take greater risks when times are good and seem stable. Naturally, there will be moments in which a number of substantial risks go bad at the same time; statistically, that has to happen. We cannot eliminate all risk from the system because none of us are operating with perfect information. So, we cannot eliminate all crashes.
But a crash is not the end of the world. It is just a crash. Government intervention might be able to soften the fall sometimes, and sometimes the right policies might prevent certain crashes, but even if there were no government at all, the system would just rise back up again on its own; it’s the nature of the beast. (I know you said such a thing is absurd, but just where do you think the economy came from in the first place? I’ll give you a hint, economic development predates every form of government.) Adam Smith showed that people will work towards what is in their own best interest, and this is true at all times; in prosperity as well as in depression. This self-interest is what drives the entire system forward. Government is not needed.
On the other hand, government policies can often distort market prices, which in turn channels resources away from where they can do the most good. In the extreme cases, like with communism, government can destroy wealth as fast as the economy creates it. (See China under Mao, for example.) Government intervention is rarely a good thing for an economy and it is often a bad thing. This being the case, it is understandable on plain rational grounds why Coolidge would have hesitated to use it.
One thing a government is needed for is the promotion of justice. With wealth comes power and as some people become wealthy, they may be tempted to use their new-found power to warp the system to their advantage. This is as detrimental to the economy as poor government intervention. For example, industrial America around the start of the 20th century was built on the backs of poor, mistreated laborers who were not allowed to unionize. This is unjust, as all men have the right to assembly. Government was needed to protect that right, as a matter of justice. Unionization allowed the country to develop a large, prosperous middle class, which has been great for the country’s economic health.
Laws favorable to unions went too far, and dictated that a union could require all employees of a given company to join. This, too, is unjust, as people must obviously have the right not to assemble, should they so choose. But that law was never overturned, and the United Auto Workers accumulated wealth and power disproportionate to their contribution to the economy. This has been a major factor in the ruination of GM and Chrysler, bankruptcies which are having far-reaching consequences.
If we ensure justice, the rest takes care of itself. You may call that “absurd” or “magic” if you like, but then you would be the one who wasn’t thinking.
June 15, 2009 at 9:59 pm
xenlogic
So basically what you’re saying is that the only role of Government should be to uphold justice, and the rest will sort itself out?
June 15, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Alamanach
As far as the economy is concerned, pretty much, yeah. I’m okay with having some safety nets in place for those who fall down– some welfare– and some rare instances of minor regulation, but that’s about it.
I had a proposal cross my desk the other day for an aid program that would give goats, chickens, and agricultural training to disadvantaged rural Afghan women. Actually, it was a lot like all the other aid programs out here. I nixed it. I pointed out that by giving these things away, people would accept them whether they could make good use of them or not. This would accomplish nothing beyond depressing the local livestock prices. I suggested we instead have the women earn the livestock by doing some community service first. The more work they did, the more livestock they would qualify for, up to a maximum. By putting a price on our aid in this way, we accomplish two things. First, we genuinely help the economy because only people who can make good use of a goat or chicken will bother to earn one. (I motivate them to consider which is more valuable– the goat or their labor– and to allocate their resources accordingly.) Second, it gives people pride of ownership rather than the humiliation of a handout. If we see women bartering their time and livestock with each other to maximize everyone’s holdings, then we’ll know we set our prices correctly.
The individual rural Afghan woman knows far more about her situation and her needs than I ever can. She might know that she’s already full up on goats and chickens, but that her neighbor has the capacity to handle double our aid limit. It would make sense for the first woman to earn livestock to sell to the second woman for a price equal to the labor she performed to acquire them. This is economic growth, and those two women will sort it out for themselves; my limited resources and imperfect knowledge would never be able to arrange this deal for them. Markets work if we let them.
Now here’s the interesting bit. What is justice? Justice (as defined by Aquinas) is the act of giving someone that which is due him. How do we know what is due him? Well, if by withholding it or taking it from him you do more damage to yourself than you do to him, then it was properly his and taking it was an injustice. The thief in a robbery suffers more harm than the victim.
Now, if I give women goats and chickens and they give nothing in return, who fares worse? In the long run, they do, and in some very real, material ways. Livestock prices are depressed, which devalues the labor of all the established goat and chicken farmers in the community. A habit of dependency is created as Afghans get used to moving from one aid handout to another (this is happening currently). Waste is encouraged as people not prepared to raise chickens receive them anyway, just to consume for tonight’s dinner. (And why not? It was free!) Commerce, exchange, and innovation are discouraged because there is little point to them; there’s less incentive for you and I to collaborate if our resources come to us for free. Everything goes to mush. I, meanwhile, am only out some goats and chickens. I do not suffer nearly as badly.
All this turns around if I require recipients to give me that which is my due. I will pay you chickens, goats, and agricultural training if you do some community service work for me. You owe me that. Now those goats and chickens are worth something more than an easy dinner. The training I’m giving suddenly has value, too, because it teaches how to maximize returns on the gaots and chickens. By putting just prices on these things, we make them far more useful than they were when they were free.
Nobody is done any favors by ignoring justice.
June 16, 2009 at 8:39 am
sweetwaffles
It’s Dalton, not Dan. But I’m changing my screen name back to sweetwaffles anyway.
-“The Obama administration has sought to temporarily replace the management of these failing companies.”
What Republicans, and many others, are scared of is that Obama is going to let the government be in permanent control of these failed companies. The government is not only stepping in to “temporarily” manage the companies, they are buying large shares of stock with taxpayers’ money. Americans did not elect their officials to be in control of (previously) private owned countries. It is such an incredible misuse of taxpayers’ money.
And even though theses companies have seen poor management, I think the government will manage them even worse. Having government officials run the automotive industry is like having a secretary tell an electrician how to correctly wire a building.
-“A number of the richest countries in the world are also Socialist economies – like Sweden for example, to whom the United States owes billions in loans. Most of the poorer countries in the world have neither the infrastructure, the technical know how nor the economies of scale of the United States, Britain, Germany and other wealthy European states – even without excessive Government intervention. So that is really an irrelevant correlation as well.”
Sweden is not a good example of an effective socialist government. Until the 1930s, it was a fairly capitalistic country. The government inherited the wealth gained by laissez-faire economics. And Sweden doesn’t even have a completely socialistic government; they have a mixed economy. So to be a clear-cut example of a successful socialist government, Sweden needs to end all capitalistic policies for a few years.
The reason for success in these mixed economies is not government intervention, it is ingenuity, hard work, and a little bit of economic freedom. To picture what the U.S. or Sweden or the U.K. might look like with a little more economic freedom, just look at Hong Kong. It was just industrialized in the 1950’s, and because of economic freedom, today it is one of the richest countries in the world. It boasts the 14th highest per capita income in the world; that’s nine places higher than Sweden, which has had much longer to perfect an economic system.
-“Obama’s plan is obviously working.”
If you mean working by increasing government regulations, then yes, it’s working. Whether or not Obama is a socialist is debatable. He is increasing government ownership of the means for production; a staple in a socialist government. I don’t see any evidence for Obama’s plan boosting the economy. If you have any examples I’d like hear about them.
I agree with what you stated about Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh. The Republican Party needs to organize itself if it wants to have any chance at winning back some seats in Congress. I doubt that they can pull out a win in the 2012 presidential election.
-“It is not absurd to think that the President of the most powerful nation on earth should be held responsible for ensuring that it’s financial market doesn’t collapse. However, to think that the economy will just magically “fix” itself during a period of crisis is what is absurd.”
What is even more absurd is the complete aloofness that Republicans today have towards the economies of other countries on the planet which overwhelmingly depend on the stability of the American market. That, my good friend, is absurd.”
The president is not responsible to ensure that America’s market doesn’t collapse. How could anyone hold this responsibility? One man is not capable of such a feat. Individuals are responsible for their own actions. The president having control over citizens’ lives is an infringement of individual rights. To think that America has a responsibility to ensure the stability of other countries is even more fantastic. America created its own wealth from its own effort. Other countries are free to do the same. Our government giving aid to foreign countries is a purposeless drain of our wealth.
You’re right that an economy can’t just magically fix itself. An economy stabilizes and grows because of the cumulative effort of a country’s individuals.
While a stimulus plan may help short term, it will not benefit a country in the long run. FDR’s New Deal is a good example of this. WWII is what really helped America out of the Depression.
I agree that a government willing to do nothing is treacherous. Without government, all we have is mob rule and anarchy. That’s why it’s important for a government to protect individual rights. No one has the right to take my money and give it to GM’s CEO, to Congressman’s pork-barrel projects, or foreign countries.
June 16, 2009 at 7:09 pm
xenlogic
HTML Tips:
Hey guys, you can embrace your words with the <strong> </strong> key words to make it appear bold, the <em> </em> key words to make it italicised and the <blockquote> </blockquote> keywords to embrace bits of text that you want to quote to give this effect:
Therefore, the above text would be coded in your comments exactly as follows:
<blockquote><strong>Dalton:</strong> “<em>What Republicans, and many others, are scared of is…</em>”</blockquote>
Just a thought. It would make it easier to read the large blocks of text we quote regularly.
END of HTML tips
June 16, 2009 at 7:51 pm
xenlogic
Back to the discussion:
I’m not sure I completely agree with that statement. Isn’t it self interest that got the world economies into this spot to begin with?
Point well taken. Question: Should a government step in when a relatively unregulated market is going to take a nose dive? If not, why not?
My apologies. However, I hope you don’t mind; I prefer Dalton. Sweetwaffles is kinda… well it’s not Dalton.
I can understand the fear. In fact, the massive spending does worry me a bit. But I’m looking at the big picture (as is he). He doesn’t want to let the system fall into a depression. The way I look at it is that he’s making an unpleasant sacrifice to save the market from itself. Is that necessarily a bad thing?
If that constitutes a misuse, would you consider the billions/month spent in Iraq during Bush’s term to be more or less of a misuse?
Again, that’s an understandable fear. However, my understanding is that the Gov’t is appointing specialists in the Industry to manage those companies. The temporary management does not consist of government workers to my knowledge. Those gov’t employees will only provide oversight and report back to the President.
So is it Republican herd logic that is creating this propaganda campaign to certify Sweden as being a great example of what America should not become?
I was referring to stabilizing the economy. I apologize if I wasn’t being clear.
I don’t think that’s his intention at this stage. He was very clear about gaining stability in the markets before letting it fly on its own by pulling out of these companies. So far he’s kept most of his promises. I only say “most” because I can’t think of one he has outrightly broken yet. I’m sure there’s a couple of them in there. Even though, I reckon he was forced to make a hard decision on that.
I concur. They’re a House of Cards in a hurricane at this point… yeech.
I’m pretty sure I didn’t read this right. So who do you think America is going to blame when it commits economic suicide using mob logic on the financial market?
Certainly not. That’s why there’s an administration with the power of regulation. Isn’t that part of the reason why it’s there?
Isn’t that a bit of a leap in logic? I don’t think he is controlling lives as much as he is trying to nullify what can only be described as certain anarchy. No one can deny that there is certifiable indiscipline in the market. That’s what led to this mess. He is attempting to first stabilize the economy then to introduce regulation to prevent this from happening again. Am I reading this wrong?
Some would call this “American Narcissism”.
Well, so much for goodwill and all that.
Corollary: And so did Germany who instigated it. Careful how you phrase this one.
I agree. However, I wouldn’t cast such a blanket statement. Yes, there were irregularities in how the funds were managed. However, to be completely utilitarian about this, many lives and businesses were saved vis-a-vis the stimulus effect. So I have to ask:
Is there any other way to have achieved the same effect without getting a rise out of citizens who may be too objectively compromised to see the big picture?
June 16, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Dalton
Okay, I agree to keep my screen name as Dalton. Hopefully I won’t change my mind for at least a few days. Thanks for the HTML tips. I get so impatient with code so I don’t know how stringent I’ll be with it.
Obama doesn’t need to make any unpleasant sacrifices under any circumstances. Like Alamanach said, “Occasional crashes are a part of capitalism. Capitalism rewards innovation, but innovation necessitates some risk.” It is unfortunate that such crashes occur, but a country can get right back on its feet without any government intervention. It is a bad thing that the government is helping out struggling businesses. In a free economy, the good businesses remain because they learned from their own mistakes or from the mistakes of failed businesses. Consumers benefit from the uprooting of failing companies.
”
While this was the immediate effect of the stimulus, it is not helping America in the long run. Like I just said, society benefits when the best businesses survive. Giving money to struggling companies is rewarding bad behavior. Also, such a huge amount of money flooded into the economy is sure to cause tremendous inflation. Businesses and individuals will struggle even more because of this.
”
A misuse of taxpayer’s money is a misuse no matter the political ideology of the president or the amount of support for the expenditures. A misuse occurs whenever people are forced to pay for something that isn’t directly related to the protection of individual rights or the basic infrastructure of the country.
”
Are you saying it’s ok to blame the president for a failing economy? It is the individuals acting as a mob that causes economic downturn. You can’t blame Obama for the things that America’s citizens are doing. It is not his job or responsibility to stabilize the economy. Even with his administration and numerous regulations, he is not going to help America do anything that it couldn’t do by itself. So many people have this idea that politicians can fix anything with the right policies and regulations. Self-interest is really what sets an economy straight. People don’t need politicians telling them how to live their lives. Individuals are responsible for their own well-being.
”
When the government takes money out of its peoples’ pockets and gives it to others it is controlling lives. It’s basically saying, “You don’t know how to effectively spend your money. Let me take it and have people vote on where to put it.” This is complete garbage. The people earned their money. Don’t they have a right to keep it and do with it what they wish?
I don’t have a problem with foreign aid. I have a problem with government operated foreign aid. Once again, the wealth-creators are the people who should decide how to use their own money.
”
Businesses are saved by ingenuity. It takes effective management, not just money, to ensure economic success in the long-run. The reason citizens are upset is because their money is being thrown around to whoever makes the most noise in Washington or has the most influence in Congress. To me, the big picture looks like more infringements on individual rights with politicians’ “good intentions.” And I’m really straining my eyes to see something good.
June 16, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Alamanach
How much wealth are we looking to lose in this current down turn? I suppose it might be in the trillions of dollars. I don’t know what the number is, but trillions seems plausible. If not trillions, I think it must at least be many billions. It is a huge amount of money.
Self-interest got us to the point where we have trillions to lose in the first place. After we lose it, we will still be way better off than we once were. Capitalism is an unsteady system and it will suffer dramatic setbacks. But while it is unsteady, it is not unstable. No matter what happens to it, it keeps moving forward.
So, this spot that self-interest has gotten the world economies into is a good spot to be. It is a lot better than conditions during, say, the eighteenth century. It’s a worse spot than where we were two years ago, but that’s just temporary. Give people time to rearrange what they are doing and we’ll be better than ever before you know it.
This depends a lot on what that nosedive is happening. Is corruption causing it through unjust market manipulation? That would need to be stopped. Is it taking a nosedive because innovation has introduced something better? That must be left alone. The collapse of GM, Chrysler, and the newspapers are probably closer to the latter case. Japanese automakers have been outperforming GM for more than 20 years and GM hasn’t adapted to the competition. Frankly, Toyota deserves to win. Ford does too– It has managed to keep itself together through all this. By stepping in to “save” GM and Chrysler, we are preserving outdated methodologies. The car companies of the 50s and 60s are no longer what America needs. We are being saddled with them anyway, when resources ought to be going to the more effective teams at Ford and Toyota. Those guys are better at making cars than GM and Chrysler.
I like Chrysler, but we shouldn’t throw good money after bad.
I’m glad you explained how those html tags work, I’d long wondered how you were doing that. Now I can substitue BOLD FONTS as a SUBSTITUTE for GOOD WRITING!!! I can also pretend to be a typical internet troll. Ha ha!!! pwned!!!!! FAIL!!!!!!!
June 17, 2009 at 12:01 am
samantha
Hey there, do you mind please shooting me an email? I am hoping to publish some of your stuff, with appropriate credit of course!
Thank you
June 18, 2009 at 11:54 pm
xenlogic
You guys crack me up. I love this.
Hey Dalton, do you mind if I add you to my blogroll?I just popped back over from reading the stuff on your site, and it seems like pretty solid material. I’d stick a link to your blog right next to Alamanach there. Keep the solid foundations going. Know what I mean?
With that said, I think you’ve almost gotten the complete hang of the HTML bit. Wrap a pair of <strong> </strong> tags around the username to make it bold inside the <blockquote> </blockquote> tags. This makes the “who said it” and the “what was said” parts very distinguished from each other. Nicely done though.
Al seems to have nailed it right the first time (then again, Al is a genius of Biblical proportions). So clap yourself dude.
Great going guys!
Ok, on to some comments:
I agree with you. But there will be some fallout. I’ve got a question for both of you:
Do you think you’d be saying the same thing if you owned a business that was in operation for decades that suddenly ran the risk of bankruptcy, not because of any failure on your part, but because of the larger economic downturn?
I’m not certain it’s that cut and dry. I think there were significant conditions attached to that stimulus money. That’s why some entities have outright refused it.
Fair enough. It’s unfortunate however, that most people are nowhere near being that objective about things.
I’m glad you said that. I agree wholeheartedly. You seem to be one of the few people in the world (Al, included) who truly understands the relationship between Gov’t and the people. I admit that my views are slightly different however, when it comes to such issues.
I think to a great extent, that any president, Democrat or Republican, who did nothing to act would be committing a great deal of political suicide. They would be seen as being aloof, and disconnected from the interests of the people. I find that it’s predominantly the people who aren’t suffering in particular who are of this view. While I’m not suffering by any measure, I would have to lack some heart to see this whole thing from the hard, cold, mathematical position that you guys do – even though in theory, you guys are right.
I agree with you that the economy can take care of itself (eventually). I don’t think the President is Superman and so is not liable for saving anybody. But what about the large majority of people who lack this level of intuition? Al said something to me several posts back, that the large majority of the people in the world are simply not intelligent enough to figure stuff out for themselves. They have nowhere near this capacity for independent thought and so they operate like a herd with a view to protect as many of them as possible.
The trouble is that to a great extent, herd logic is equally as destructive as it is constructive. Certainly something must be doable to prevent economic implosion resulting from mob physics. Do we simply leave the people to their own stampede and let natural selection weed out the stupidity? Wouldn’t this necessitate rebuilding from scratch to a great extent even for the smarter lot of us who remain after the dust has settled? What say ye?
Am I being too sympathetic?
Are you insinuating that Capitalism is by nature completely immune to implosion?
Fair enough. I actually agree with you about Toyota. I’ve always been of the opinion that American cars were monstrosities born out of a false sense of security in excess. I’ve never looked at an American car and gone “wow” though. I’ve always been an import tuner from the get go. Honda, Nissan, Toyota, Mitsubishi – almost anything that validates the Japanese fan boy in me will always get my vote.
In fact, I’m more along the lines of: Japanese, European and then American (maybe). This is not the first time the auto companies have taken a beating. The BMW almost tanked GM and Chrysler back in the 70’s…
The Newspaper has been dead to me for more than 10 years now. Just like how video almost killed radio, the Internet killed the Newspaper. Who needs news that is over 24 hours old? I see a future where 24 hour online news networks replace the paper, and blogs completely replace editorials and magazines. Besides, it’s usually a good thing when we don’t have to sacrifice trees to share information.
In fact, I cant tell when last I’ve read a comic book in hard copy. Such a waste of space! All that paper is asking for termites!
June 18, 2009 at 11:58 pm
xenlogic
Hey Samantha,
Thanks for writing in. Check your e-mail.
Cheers!
June 19, 2009 at 2:33 am
Alamanach
Whether the failure was my fault or not, I might be singing a different tune if I thought doing so would save my business. People have interests and they will work to advance them. It would be intellectualy dishonest of me to start preaching the virtues of government intervention when doing so brings me financial gain, but personal interest has a way of clouding people’s judgment.
This clouding of judgment is one of the reasons why government intervention ought to be avoided. People won’t accept government intervention because it is good and right, they will accept it because they perceive personal benefit. But what is beneficial for one individual may be generally detrimental to the larger society, and a distortion of reality. Such distortion usually has its roots in some form of injustice.
(At the same time, I am in Afghanistan, and I could die tomorrow. I’d like to think that I, personally, am man enough to face the fact that unfair stuff will happen in life, and I shouldn’t count on some government or other outside force to set my misfortunes right for me.)
I don’t recall the comment. In the context of something as complex as an economy, I would argue that there isn’t anybody intelligent enough to figure it all out. People do, however, have the capacity to put their own affairs in order and to manage the opportunities and advantages that come their way.
No, because I am trying to speak as plainly as I can. Also, capitalism does experience setbacks that we might warrant as severe enough to call implosions. But the thing about capitalism is that it can function from any starting condition. Reduce the United States (or Jamaica) to rubble and laissez-faire capitalism will begin the rebuilding right away. You don’t need a government to tell you how to improve your own immediate situation, you do that all the time by yourself. Start collaborating and trading with the others around you and there’s your economy. This process thrives all by itself. When the guy with the monopoly on the legitimate use of force turns up and starts imposing rules on your collaboration and trade, it’s a drag on everybody.
June 19, 2009 at 9:54 am
xenlogic
We were talking about lemmings and religion. Anyway, I appreciate your honesty on this issue. I just wanted to see if we both agree that there’s a flipside to everything.
June 20, 2009 at 8:04 am
Dalton
Sure, that would be great. Do you mind if I add you to mine as well?
Yes, I do think so. Even though I’d be going bankrupt through no fault of my own, I’d have a hard time accepting money from the government. This is because it is not the taxpayers’ fault for the economic downturn either. I’d feel like I was taking their money. If people want to help me out with their own money and on their own terms, that would be so much better. I could also try getting a bank loan. If I can prove how well I run my business, I’m sure a bank would grant me a loan.
I agree completely; a president that doesn’t seem to care about his people will be voted out of office. This is why America will not vote in a Libertarian president anytime soon. I think many people are almost afraid of freedom. They think if some powers are taken away from the government, America will turn into anarchy. This an unjustifiable point of view. When individual rights are ensured, there is no reason to be afraid. Each person will have complete control over her own life and money. Who better to decide what to do with money than the person who earned it? And I do have heart. I love to help people get back on their feet; I just believe that help should come from private organizations and individuals.
I don’t really understand your question… The people that aren’t able to see the benefits of capitalism will still be granted freedom. They are still individuals even if they engage in herd logic. It is important that the herd isn’t granted control over the country.
People should be free to have their own opinions and attitudes towards government, but if their actions infringe upon individual rights, they should be punished. So as long as their stampede is in the middle of nowhere, let them stampede. When they start causing damage, they need to be stopped. We wouldn’t have to rebuild from scratch, because we would keep the country’s infrastructure in place.
June 20, 2009 at 2:11 pm
xenlogic
Great stuff Dalton. I thought this was a most insightful discussion, guys. We should do this more often. Thanks again for your insights.
BTW Dalton, you can go ahead and add me. I’m adding you as we speak…
June 25, 2009 at 5:11 pm
X
This insert confused me a bit. I’m unsure about your opinion regarding this matter as you seem to contradict yourself here with an early blog of yours titled “Idiocracy”. Maybe I’m missing something(sarcasm perhaps), maybe you’ve had a change of opinion?
June 26, 2009 at 6:12 pm
xenlogic
Idiocracy was sarcasm all the way. I have not had a change of opinion. I use that technique around here a lot.
July 2, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen « The World According to Xenocrates
[...] I need to see it without an audience to gain objectivity. Maybe I’ll like the movie less. Herd logic has a funny way of skewing one’s capacity for [...]
July 14, 2009 at 4:27 pm
LoneWolf
Some of those conspiracy theories can actually stand up to some amount of scrutiny. For instance, the New World Order theory. At this point in time I accept that something must be planned, they are actually working on a global system, I don’t know if its going to be as sinister as the theorist makes it sound, maybe it will actually be a good thing, but obviously something is being implemented in the background. World leaders are speaking of it freely now, Gordon Brown used the exact words and Obama alludes to it all the time and of course no one will forget George Bush senior’s New World Order rant.
Have you taken a look at the EU parliament building? At first glance you say “damn, this is wickedly cool architecture”, at least that’s what I thought when I first saw it. Now take a look on the official EU promotion poster. I think it was actually pulled by the EU because people started complaining. Just google EU Poster, look on that and tell me what that looks like to you. Why on earth would they use something like that to promote the EU. Now look back on the EU Parliament building and tell me if you don’t see similarities between the poster and the actual building.
Another thing, are you sure you aren’t jumping unto an Obama band wagon? Do you really think for one second that Obama in of him self can fix the economy?
Just as how you allude to 80% of the population being drones, don’t you think that some of the remaining 20% elite will try to control the drones, through religion, money and indoctrination? I think your herd logic assertions actually fit perfectly with some of these conspiracy theories.
Yea its true, the 80% drones have basically been drowned and indoctrinated into what to believe, especially in terms of religion but the funny thing is that a lot of the 20% elite believe some weird stuff too, I mean seriously? What’s up with that?
I don’t readily swallow conspiracy theories but seriously, sometimes you really got to wonder about the weird crap that’s going on, seriously.
September 13, 2009 at 1:31 am
Why is being Biracial an issue? « The World According to Xenocrates
[...] to instinctively value group membership more than group purpose. It’s a redundant function of herd logic that in today’s global village tends to do more harm than good. This is what ultimately [...]
October 18, 2009 at 9:14 am
The Truth About The Truth « The World According to Xenocrates
[...] a while, they’ll eventually start to believe it. People are animals that instinctively trust herd logic – whether or not it pans out for the greater good or not. Thus if you were to constantly [...]