A New Universal Speed Limit?

Tonight I'm going to take a break from the political world and write about something about which I know even less...

I'm by no stretch of the imagination a scientist or for that matter a physicist. I enjoy, however, reading what I call the "executive summaries" of scientific theories; they capture my imagination and remind me how little we know. Ben Folds puts it best with his lyric, "the more you know, you know you don't know shit..." I'll pass along what I understand to be the potential implications of the study...

A recent study at the Gran Sasso research facility in Italy may show this to be true regarding the axiom of the speed of light being our universal speed limit. The findings suggest there are subatomic particles, called neutrinos, which travel faster than light. I recently read Why Does E=mc2 (I recommend you check it out) and it helped me gain a simple and basic understanding of the famous equation. The important thing you need to know is the "c" stands for the speed of light. This potential discovery could be a simple re-calibration of the universal speed limit ,which is currently 299,792,458 meters per second, to a revised 299,798,454....(I know, right!?)...and this is probably the least sexy implication.

Another axiom potentially at risk is causality; meaning cause always comes before effect. This is the same core concept which makes travelling backwards in time impossible. So the good news is, we may not have to throw away our flux-capacitors! November 5th, 1955 may still be within our reach! The bad news is, if the principle understanding of causality is proven to be false, it is back to the drawing board in every sense of the word.

Other possible good news, if causality holds its ground, is this potential discovery could be the break through some physicists need in their continued quest towards a "theory of everything." Einstein was said to be working towards a unified theory until his death. Could this be the key he was missing? We may find out soon enough...

If this does wreck everything physicists have held to be true, I guess another Ben Folds lyric from the same song may provide some comfort: "It's okay if you don't know everything..."

Fundamentals

I think it is important when approaching politics to clarify your view on the fundamental purpose of government. It is my opinion that government's role should be limited and I believe the architects of our government believed this, as well. This percieved need for limited government in a free society is precisely why they chose to enumerate the limited role of government in our Constitution. Due to the myriad of complex economic and moral issues we have faced and will face, it is paramount to throw shackles on the state as it relates to its role in any remedy. Otherwise it will (and has) overstep its bounds. The Bill of Rights are 10 such shackles and were designed to protect the rights of the individual from his/her government.

Regarding the fundamental purpose of government, I view its main functions should be (in order) 1) ensure and defend individual property rights, 2) ensure the individual's right to pursue happiness, 3) provide a military to defend against foreign powers, 4) negotiate trade agreements with foreign nations, and 5) provide infrastructure for water/sewer needs and transportation. I also believe all people have a right to their own pursuit of happiness and should have no legal obligation to support or otherwise fund others pursuit of happiness. As such, no government should physically and/or economically force its citizens to surrender their individual property rights for another citizen (this is one principal of Ayn Rand's with which I agree).

This does not mean people shouldn't engage in their respective communities and leverage their property, skills, and abilities to collectively improve their lives. I simply hold this engagement should be voluntary and no individual should be burdened with legal obligations to their government/communities outside of the five main functions I listed above. 

An example of government overstepping its bounds is mandating all those earning an income (with few exceptions) to pay 6.2% (temporarily 4.2% and originally 1%) to Social Security. Social Security was certainly born from noble intent. I also believe the idea of paying into a program designed to fund your retirement or help support your family in the even you become disabled is a good idea - it really is. Unfortunately, the program's issues with solvency are well documented and nearly all modifications have been to the detriment of the individual (tax increases, increased retirement age). It is my opinion the forced participation is at the heart of the problem.

In my view, SS is essentially an investment option, and therefore individuals should be allowed to opt in and out of the program. If this were the reality, the program would be subject to free market forces and officials managing the program would be incented to ensure its solvency and competitiveness vs. other investments. Since the fund revenues are secured by law, no such incentive exists. As a result, individuals are forced to pay into a poorly managed program and sacrifice their return on investment, which in turn limits their ability to pursue their own happiness. 

The challenge is, how do we correct this? Addressing the imbalance of SS is no easy task and I certainly do not advocate a "pull the plug" approach. Individuals have made life decisions based on the promises our government made and it would be unjust to simply deny payment. A phased approach should be developed which will mitigate the losses of those nearing retirement while at the same time removing the use of force to ensure participation. 

Fiat Currency

Ever wonder why our money has value? Is it backed by anything like gold, silver, etc. which makes it "legal tender" as it states on the our paper money? The only reason our money has value in our economy is simply because our government says so - we have what is called a fiat currency.

Ron Paul and others hold that a fiat currency is unconstitutional and they point to Article I Section 10, which says, "no state shall...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts..."

However, Article I Section 8 grants Congress the power "to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standar of Weights and Measures."

At the very least, this may be a contradiction, but I don't take the leap that it is unconstitutional. That being said, there are good reasons to be concerned for our economy being based on a fiat currency,

The first concern is the inconvenient fact that no fiat based currency has ever lasted. Each example ends with the money being devalued and its economy collapsing. The Roman empire is one such example. The dollar has only been a fiat cuurency for 40 years...Not long enough to conclude it has stood the test of time. In fact, since we abandoned the remaining ties to a gold standard in 1971, the dollar has been declining in value when compared to other currencies. Are we witnessing history repeating itself, as it it most obnoxiously tends to do?

Why does this happen? The best and most logical reason I understand is it perpetuates government spending and debt. Most examples of fiat currency collapse throughout history all have a similar theme. The governments over-reach and accunulate massive amounts of debt due things like endless wars and corruption. To combat the debt, more money is printed, devaluing it even more.

The question is are recent strategies employed by the Federal Reserve, such as quantitative  easing, the bank bailouts, and the War on Terror examples of history repeating itself. I honestly do not know for sure, but I'm certainly a little worried...

Ayn Rand: Altruism

Recently, I've been reading about Ayn Rand's philosophy Objectivism. I'm also currently reading her most famous novel, Atlas Shrugged. I intend to share my thoughts on several pieces of Objectivism and Atlas Shrugged, but tonight I'm going to focus on what Rand may call the antithesis of objectivism: altruism.

Altruism is defined by Merriam-Webster as the following: the principal or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others.

Rand's philosophy rejects altruism as moral behavior and she also feels it is at the heart of today's moral code and she regards it as evil. To put it another way, we are not our brothers' keeper (sounds a little less harsh than "evil", eh?).


Below is an interview with Rand by Mike Wallace in which she articulates fairly clearly her morality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viGkAZR-x8s&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL4DB1244D417EADC2

There is certainly much to respond to in this interview. But again, I'm going to focus on her issue with altruism.

In reading arguments for and against objectivism, I think many misinterpret what Rand is taking to task. She is specifically challenging a person's or a society's decision to sacrifice their own happiness for another. Certainly, one's definition of happiness is unique and there is not a one-size-fits all version. If it makes an individual happy to give/sacrifice their time, their property, etc. to make another happy, namely their child, friend, etc., this type of behavior is not what she challenges.She is not even challenging the idea of charity given voluntarily, as many have interpreted. Instead, she is challenging the notion that an individual works, earns a wage, or generally lives for the happiness of others. Specifically, her morality challenges government sponsored welfare (corporate and personal) or redistribution of wealth.

To understand the issue with government redistributing wealth, one has to understand a key point: government does not have wealth, namely money, of its own to redistribute. In order to do so, government must take money from others (by force) and give to those it deems in need of other peoples' money. It is also important to recognize taxation as a form of force. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking that since the first step in collecting taxes does not include officials showing up at your door with guns, taxation is not force. Stop voluntarily paying your taxes, and rest assured, your money and property will be taken from you.

What does this have to do with altruism? My interpretation is government's redistribution of wealth is an example of many people being forced to sacrifice their property, a key asset in their pursuit of their own happiness, for the happiness of others. Even though many of the people and some businesses receiving the money may have been truly in need, the unfortunate fact remains many of the people who's money was taken did not have a choice. Even more unfortunate, in most cases, the fact the recipient may have used the money for rational purposes has little to no bearing on the happiness of the original owner. In fact, I believe it to be fair to suggest the transaction limited the original owners' ability to pursue their own happiness.

The challenge is there are people truly in need. Ideally, those people in need of assistance will be helped voluntarily, instead of being forced to do so. For the question of whether or not altruism is evil or immoral...I have to say no. I do not hold altruism in itself to be immoral or evil. It is the the forced redistribution of wealth in the name of altruism I reject.

Commence: My Political Revelation

This is my first entry. It's 10:53pm EST on September 20th, 2011.

I'm not entirely sure where this blog going to take me. I'd like to think I'm going to write about politics, philosophy, money, etc., but we'll see...

I've been spending a lot of time lately reading, watching videos, etc. about politics and all things related. I've always felt the left vs. right, Republican vs. Democrat, rhetoric in media is a distraction. From what? - I've never been entirely sure. Over the past 60 days or so, I feel as though I'm finally gaining some semblance of clarity on the subject. I'm not going to try to fully articulate the clarity I feel to be gaining, this evening, but I will try to in the coming days, weeks, months...Tonight, I'd like to discuss a somewhat painful revelation I've had...

The role of government seems to be at the heart of the debate these days. Those on the "right" SAY government should be small; the "left" SAY government has an obligation to help the poor, protect those in need, etc., which typically means bigger government. Those generalities being said, the biggest joke, in my opinion, of today's political theater is the current leadership of the Republican party. I'll provide some examples...

The Republicans say they want small government, but the size of the federal government grew under George W. Bush. Homeland Security, TSA, Department of Education, as well as an expensive prescription drug plan were added...how is that smaller government?

The Republicans say they are the fiscally responsible party....but the above additions to the federal government, including two very expensive wars, came with tax cuts. How is increasing expenses while at the same time reducing revenues (income) remotely fiscally responsible?

I could provide more examples, but I'll stop there. I feel they are sufficient enough because they highlight the disappointing fact that the actions of the Republican party over the past decade do not agree with their rhetoric or even what they define as their two key principals. Unfortunately, their actions are the exact opposite of their words.

In the interest of not rambling, I'm going to end the post with a summary of my revelation: Both parties want big government. The Republicans want it in the form of a  military-state and the Democrats want it in the form of a welfare state. I reject both.