Magnus

This book highlights the difference between a gift and a payment. A payment is something you earn. It occurs when 2 people negotiate with one another as equals. Payments are earned -- when one side performs, reciprocal performance is mandatory. Withholding it is unethical. Gifts are not. "Rewarding" someone implicitly establishes that the recipient is inferior. It implies that the reward may be legitimately withheld. The reason children underperform when given gold stars in school is that the existence of a system of gold stars carries the meta-message that the child should strive to please the teacher and curry her favor. It changes the motivation from the child's personal gain to one of supplication. Similarly, a truly free market is not built on rewards and incentives. It's built on profit (i.e., gain or benefit) and loss. People will always naturally pursue what they deem to be a benefit.

G'day, hombre! Welcome to the group. The video that blew me away was the one about us living on a "tax farm" -- "The Story of Your Enslavement." I'm a sucker for a good story, but that one hit me square between the eyes. Also, I prefer to spy on Stef with a telephoto lens and a laser microphone. It just seems more respectful. But to each his own.

The monarchical rulers of Europe were a private form of government. They owned land and other resources, and used that income to pay the cost of their government out of their own pockets. They also taxed people lower down the food chain, ostensibly to pay for extraordinary expenses (wars), but in practice these levies were also used for routine expenses (bureaucrats). These households were replaced by corporately-organized facsimiles of aristocratic families, and thus became states. So, you are 100% correct -- the current states either nationalized existing industries, or inherited property that was once owned by someone.

Like American Express, casinos and insurance companies, universities are investment clubs. They use classrooms as the front-of-house operation, to generate the cash, which they then float in various investments. The athletic programs are there as circuses, to keep the parents sending their kids there.

Have you tried any of the places that offer a "CrossFit" style of exercise? CrossFit is a brand, but there are a lot of gyms springing up that offer a similar service, often under the name "boot camp." You typically go to these gyms at a specific time (usually on the hour), and you work out in a group, on the workout of the day. It consists of a randomized set of exercises, consisting of body-weight movements, some with weights, combined with short runs (200-1600 meters), and plyometric movements like jumping on and off boxes. It lasts about 30-40 minutes. It produces a very well-rounded physique, with a great deal of functional strength. It's also a lot of fun. The exercises leave you feeling stimulated, not a worn-out dish rag. The experience is much different (and much more enjoyable) than merely grunting out the usual reps-and-sets at a normal lifting gym. I believe the reason it is more fulfilling and enjoyable because these randomized movements are closer to the pattern of exertion that humans evolved to be able to do.

Obama is putting children on stage with him as he announces his latest anti-gun proposal. The White House claims that the children had written letters to Obama asking for stricter gun laws. Gee, that doesn't sound coached at all. All eight year-olds talk like that. I sometimes think that I'm beyond being shocked at the depths a politician will sink to, and then one of them goes and does something like this.

From Patterico's Pontifications: Prosecutors were seeking a prison sentence of approximately 7-8 years, out of a maximum of more than 30 years, for the alleged crime of downloading academic articles, in a grand scheme to give them away for free. (Incidentally, the blog article linked to, describing this instance of prosecutorial overreaching and abuse, is written by John Patrick Frey, whose day job is an assistant LA County prosecutor.)

Here's a common ethical proposition -- "It is not unethical for the agents of the State to levy taxes on the populace." How does it hold up to the rigorous demands of universality?

The fact that these regions haven't collapsed into a Mad Max wasteland is not the proper metric for economic success. What matters is what would have occurred had the State not destroyed various markets for the last several hundred years. Compared to the world that would have been, the current situation is a filthy sewer pit. As for the perfect information issue, what source of economic information is superior to markets? Markets are just people voluntarily trading goods. What could, other than voluntary trade, supply superior information about consumer preferences and productive capacity? There are no externalities. There are property rights violations. Markets that tolerate the violation of property rights are not free. If there are no property rights violated, then it's not a problem. Externalities is an illusion, a non-issue. Likewise, markets cannot fail. They either are free, in which case people are voluntarily trading property, or they are not free. Markets have no purpose, other than to allow consumers and producers to find one another. What statists mean by "market failure" is that voluntary trade does not produce the results that a small, powerful segment of the population wants. So they violate property rights (i.e., aggress on others) to achieve those results, and then labels anyone who dares to complain as "selfish" or "unpatriotic" or some other nonsense.

Phones can't cause errors of thought. They're inanimate. It was my sloppy thinking that produced my error. But it's good to see that you're beginning to at least consider why people say what they say, and what they hope to accomplish by their manner and mode of communication. I hope you find that line of inquiry to be more productive than trying to force people to stay on your preferred topic, and becoming irritated when they don't. You can be sure, however, that I wasn't testing you -- posting in a way just to see how you respond. My error was sincere.

I was in error. The reason for my error was that I was typing on my phone, and didn't think it out properly. What I wrote is erroneous. That part was a bit of a brain fart. When Monty makes his reveal, it appears (falsely) to be a 50-50 chance that the other door holds the prize, since there are now 2 remaining doors, and one holds a prize. But it's not 50-50, because believing it's 50-50 ignores the events that occurred earlier in the game. Your initial guess has influenced Monty's choice about which door to reveal -- he can never reveal the one you have chosen. Furthermore, your initial choice (when it is wrong) dictates Monty's behavior -- he can only open the one remaining wrong door.

I was thoroughly unclear. Yes, a switching strategy wins, overall, 2/3 times. The underlying reason, I believe, is that your initial random guess, when wrong, constrains the host's options. 2/3 of the time, this initial pick will be wrong, which leaves only one door for the host to reveal -- not your pick, and not the winner. Under these circumstances, the remaining one must hold the prize.

Yes, switch. The host's act of opening one door after you pick is not random. It's done with full knowledge. The host will never open (a) the door you picked or (b) the winning door. He always eliminates one of the two losing doors. Therefore, switching to the only remaining unopened door has a 50-50 chance of being the winner. Your initial pick remains only a 1/3 chance of winning.