Who Are You?

Each of us has multiple allegiances. As social animals, this is to be expected. We are members of our family, our community, our nation, our religion, our heritage, our work family, our trade partners. We are supporters of sports teams, followers of people, interests and hobbies.

When it gets down to our core, we have our most important allegiances, our core identities. Our prime self definitions.

If you were forced to choose between identities, which would be the most important? Which ones would trump all the rest?

In a world that has become unkind to the concept of nation, where do you place your loyalty? Many people consider the concept of nation passe. Indeed, in the US we have the federal government more concerned about cultural injustice than closing a porous border. We have dropped trade barriers between nations, and have a president to declares all nations to be equal, none superior to another. In Europe, the European Union has begun to blur the national identities, and in the Middle East the concept of religious identity as the essential social glue is on the rise.

What would a post-national world look like? The idealistic see it as one less barrier to world unification, but I wonder if it would just open us to more divisiveness. If nations are not worth defending, what is?

The most important allegiances are those that dignify our lives, add a degree of divinity to our otherwise worldly existence. This is usually summarized as "God and country". With country out of the picture, we are left with God.

Will it be possible for all to agree that God is a personal choice, that religion should not be the cause of conflict? Fundamentalists of each religion have tried to impose their will on others within and without their religion.

The horror of the Holocaust has, at least for now, put a damper on active anti-Jewish actions by Christians. Many religions are by their nature peaceful. This leaves Islam as the wild card. Fundamental Islamic teaching is no different than other fundamentalism, with strict control of the adherents and a convert or die approach to the heathens or infidels. Other religions seem for now to have moved past that hatred.

The uprisings in the Middle East will tell us quite a bit about the next 100 years. Hopefully, freedom is not another word for jihad. How wonderful it will be if the newly liberated masses in the Middle East embrace national pride that allows all citizens to public office and equality, no matter what their religious leanings.

Practically bankrupt

There was a game called Doom. It was the original first person shooter. You had a gun, went from room to room shooting zombies. At the end of the series of rooms was a master villain. You had to shoot the villain many times to kill it. Many shots were required before you saw any damage. Some showed no damage until they just died, so you had no way of knowing how much impact you had on the villain until it died. The only clue you had was that if you played it perfectly and ran out of bullets and the villain was still alive, you probably did something wrong.

Progressives have told us for years that the social problems in America are like the Doom villains. We throw money and resources at the problems, with no apparent significant change, but the problem is that we just haven't done enough. We are now nearly out of dollars and as of yet see no evidence that the problems are improving. In addition, we have strong data from experimental psychology that progressives might be approaching this problem wrongly. Is it possible that Progressivism is wrong? That the goals they desire are not reachable by their strategy and tactics with the resources available?

What if the only way to succeed requires personal effort? What if inequality of outcomes is actually a good thing? What if too much government stifles innovation and economic growth? What if there are better and worse lifestyles, as measured by the advancement of the human condition on earth? What if there are better and worse belief systems, also as measured by the advancement of the human condition on earth? What if we should trust the great thinkers of the past rather than the silver tongued self promoters of today?

Put down the gun. Pull the conservative lever, and that villain may just fall through the trap door.

How to win an argument

This is actually a trick question, since arguments are based on at least one three fundamental disagreements:

1. Different information Each of you may have different information, so you will each reach different conclusions. If you pull 4 socks from a drawer and they are all black and the other person pulls 4 socks from the same drawer and they are all white, you will each have a different perspective of what is in the drawer. Only by opening the drawer and looking at the contents will you both come to an agreement.
2. Different beliefs. It is common to see what we believe, to have our beliefs color our perspective of what is true. You will find that information will have different meaning to people with different beliefs.
3. Different trusts. Who you trust will definitely color your opinion. If you have information and a belief system both pulling you in one direction and a trusted source pulls you in a different direction, you are likely to follow the trusted source.

There are also 3 types of people who will disagree with you:

1. The uninformed (who do not have complete information). These people just need more information.
2. The opinionated (who have beliefs and trusts other than yours). These people can not be won to your side with information. They are positive they are right and will resist the impact of information. Indeed, unless the information comes from a trusted source or is in keeping with their beliefs, they will not believe it, or will accept it as true but irrelevant.
3. The boorish, who are just rude and insensitive, much like a bully or a brutish animal.

It is always possible that you might be in the wrong, so an argument should approach the topic as follows:

• Is the person a boor? If so, don't bother, as agreement is not possible
• Is the person very strongly opinionated, and is that opinion based on different trusts or different beliefs? If so, the chance of convincing that person of their error is quite low. The way to approach these people is to ask what leads them to trust that person or why do they feel their beliefs are correct. You will likely get circular thinking ("I trust him because he is always right") or an internal defense of beliefs ("It feels right to me"). You might ask for external confirmation. "Why do you think that good people might not have the same trusts or beliefs as you?" A person who declares that all who do not see things his way are not good people should be challenged with the knowledge argument (so, good people accept blindly. How is that different than any other blind belief?). Can you think of any data that might suggest that your beliefs and/or trusts might be wrong or too strong? Why do you think that I don't have the same beliefs or trusts as you? (watch for ad hominem attacks against you at this point).
• Is the person open to other beliefs and trusts, but just has different information? If so, you have an opportunity to come to an agreement by convincing the other person through information and alternative beliefs and trusts.

In summary, it is easiest to find common ground with those who share your trusts and beliefs. It is much harder to do so when beliefs and trusts are not shared. Facts do not change the minds of those with belief systems different from yours. Shared beliefs will not change minds of those who trust others to lead them.

Most would accept that drinking cyanide is unhealthy for the body (a fact) and many would agree that socialism is the ultimate enlightenment (a belief), but few would drink the kool aid without the command of the trusted leader.

The art of war on poverty

Sun Tzu applied for position as general of King Wu's army. As a test, King Wu had 180 beautiful women sent to be soldiers under Sun Tzu's command. Two women, favorites of the King, were placed in charge of the others, with Sun Tzu as the supreme leader. He told them and demonstrated to them how to march and act as soldiers. When he ordered them to action, they laughed and did not do as they were told. He assumed that he did not give the orders clearly and again instructed and demonstrated what was expected of the women. He then commanded them into action, but again they laughed and did not obey. He then decided that they were on their own volition disobeying his orders and therefore by extension the will of the King. He had the two women leaders beheaded. From then on, the women did all that he asked of them.

This is the story of Sun Tzu and how he made an army out of women. We have many poor people in America. Are there ways to escape poverty? Some would argue that good parenting, school attendance, a focus on achievement and not on excuses, and respect for one's own dignity all lead to people marching out of poverty. So, why not a poverty army? With instruction in good parenting, mandatory school attendance, and focus on achievement? Remedial courses for those who just can't get their acts together. And then, harsh punishment for those who do not get and stay with the program. If courtesans can be made to march through fire, then the poor can be made to dignify their own lives and advance those of their children.

Gold

DocBrain did some googling and arithmetic and came up with these amazing facts.

1910 2005 2010

World Population (in billions) 1.75 6.512

Total troy oz gold in world 1.33 5.3

oz gold per person 0.76 0.814

Dollar value of 1 oz gold 21 444.75 1362

Dollar value of world's gold (in billions) 27.93 2357.18 7218.60

Total US money supply (in billions) 13.31 6674.1

Value of gold as percent of money supply 210 35

The total amount of gold in the world is 4 times what it was in 1910, but the dollar value of that gold was 84 times greater in 2005 and 260 times greater in 2010.

The dollar value of each oz was 21 times more in 2005 and 65 times more in 2010. So, gold is not any rarer than it was in 1910 (oz/person is about the same) but has escalated against the dollar, indicating a depreciation in the buying power of one dollar.

While some would claim that gold is passe as a standard for determining the value of money and others claim that gold is speculated and is actually worth a lot fewer dollars than its selling price, facts are facts. So, is gold undervalued or overvalued? One thing is certain. There is more wealth in terms of dollars and in terms of purchasing power now as compared to 1910. For those who believe that wealth is a zero sum game, this is proof positive of the fallacy of that premise.