Math Conundrum

In this meme presenting a sentiment from F. A. Hayek, one of the reasons why no two individuals are alike is that each has an infinite number of characteristics which have values, as well as an infinite number of relationships among those characteristics. 

If I were to begin to tell you how A was a distinct individual when compared to B, I would never complete the task of identifying all the differences.  Most characteristics are not atomic, ie. Broken down to its smallest component, an indivisible piece.  Most characteristics are complexes of systems and subsystems.

For instance, no two sets of fingerprints, irises, retina, or dna are the same.  The differences for slow-motion mankind are infinite, not to include the complexity that each object must occupy its own exclusive location in space/time/probability.

Given the profundity of these differences, how could you devise rules that would separate two uniquely born creatures for purposes of making one a master and the other a slave?  How do you decide that the person with the redder skin must forfeit land to the person with less red skin?  Color itself, if not infinitely variable, has as many possibilites as there are living individuals on the Earth.

Let's say for the sake of argument, that all human characteristics are equal and each can have only one value, out of two -- black or white.  Now, posit that there are only two characteristics, hair color and skin color.  With an individual there are 4 possible combinations.  A has black hair, black skin or white hair, black skin or white hair, white skin or black hair, white skin.

For two individuals, there are 4 chances to be alike, but 12 chances to be different.  With only 3 individuals or 3 characteristics, the numbers get out of hand very quickly.  Of course, there are billions of individuals and likely an infinite number of characteristics, some of which can have an infinite number of values.  Where to begin to make rules (legal fictions) which can separate one individual from another.

We normally stoop to the practical measure of declaring one or a few characteristerics to be more important than other combinations.  But how do we do that?  Is height more important than width.  Maybe.  Is age more wise than youth?  Maybe.  Is experience worth more than intelligence, or is a combination of the two worth more than either alone?  What are the scoring rules?

What combination of characteristics gives us an effective probability of identifying the better master compared to the better slave?  Is there a combination of tweaks or random generators that will magically refine the results?

Many of us cite Ockham's Razor, which we believe says "Keep it simple, stupid -- KISS," but this heuristic rather says "Make it complete -- don't omit the necessary, but don't attach the unnecessary."  How do we guage the "necessary."

We have recently seen Congress tie itself in knots trying to please a POTUS who has no idea what he wants, who is at a loss as to which values belong to which characteristics of which yearnings.  This is to say nothing about the arcane rules of procedure and counting that confound a determination of truth in any concrete way.

Sometimes, it appears that we do things to hedge against results.  If our procedure is kinky enough, it can explain away all of the unforeseen consequences.  And we are left with excuses to try even more ridiculous flights of stairs in buildings other than the one we would hope to climb.

Is 'Too Nice' a Problem?

Nobody asked but ...

POTUS recently exhorted a gathering of LEOs to not be "too nice."  Why do cops misperceive that when they please politicians it is entirely removed from pleasing the public except for its authoritarians.  Politicians play to the authoritarians, who in turn are happy to tell everyone not only how to vote, but how to worship wielders of violence, and, well, how to do everything.

-- Kilgore Forelle

Smoking at the Skunk Works

Nobody asked but ...

What possible difference could it make that Musk and Zuckerberg don't see eye to eye on artificial intelligence.  Their repartee has plenty of artificiality and no intelligence.  Has there been a news flash that I missed?  Has humankind ever successfully regulated anything?  Do tell.  Markets?  Religion?  Freedom?  Weather?  Come on boys, for you are wound too tight for your own good.  AI will eventuate much as probability will have it, the opinions of Zuckerberg and/or Musk notwithstanding.

-- Kilgore Forelle

Words Poorly Used #95 -- Obligation

In a recent Socrates Cafe of Louisville, we voted to deliberate the old chestnut, "can there be a just war?"  Why we did this, I don't know.  Maybe we hoped this time would be different, wherein we would come up with a no nonsense answer.  Foiled again.  One of the reasons this attempt was abortive, however, was that we kept getting into the tall weeds of what an individual might be obligated to do.  Is a person obligated to save a drowning offspring?  Well, what does that have to do with war?  "Obligation" is every bit as abstract as is "just."  Trying to graft these words onto other concepts such as humane action or war or war excused by humane action just makes them more murky.  We decided nothing in our deliberations.  Surely we didn't hope to do otherwise.  We didn't even come close to defining a workable model for an obligation.  We did end in being dissatisfied, disappointed, and disgruntled.

 -- Kilgore Forelle

An Aircraft Carrier

Nobody asked but ...

On July 22, POTUS dedicated an aircraft carrier, USS Gerald Ford, the final cost of which will exceed the entire military budget of Iran.  Yet we are in no legitimate wars at present.  We are in no legitimate wars where an aircraft carrier gives us any particular advantage over the passel of ground bases we maintain around the world.  What is happening here?  Have the merchants of death gathered at the water for one long, last draft at the trough?  Is the water without limit?  How long can we survive having our financial stability sucked away?

-- Kilgore Forelle

Words Poorly Used #94 -- Excuses

Why is it that when there is a cop-involved killing that a 1000 experts and eyewitnesses, mostly incognito, are everywhere.  Cop apologists have a kit bag full of one size fits all excuses.  The victim is posited to bear the blame for any injudicious critical thinking.  Make all the excuses, use all the hindsight -- this is still unacceptable.  Someone died, and at the very least, guilty or not, was denied due process.

-- Kilgore Forelle

But What About ... ?

Nobody asked but ...

The purpose of citing past pecadillos is always to take the bloom off of good that someone did.  This is a composition fallacy.   After a human has died, the two steams must make their independent way.  Which will become the greater stream?  Will they have confluence again?  Which one will overwhelm the other?  Will Shakespeare wrote "the good is oft interrèd with their bones."  But the consequences of the good go on.  It is now apart from the deceased.  The Declaration of Independence stands whether its authors held slaves or not.

-- Kilgore Forelle

A Dynamic Agreement

Nobody asked but ...

The motto in the graphic, when two words are changed, makes a good approximation for Voluntaryism -- "voluntaryism" is the new subject, and substitute "anyone" for "someone."

The hope expressed, however, is likely impossible -- no one exists who can accept everything of what another really is.

This puts impossible pressure on the other person in a relationship.

The true goal is to find someone who values more of you than they reject, and that their expression of rejection is not toxic.

The responsibilities for maintaining this delicate balance lie with both partipants in any voluntary association.

-- Kilgore Forelle

Critical Thinking

Nobody asked but ...

The nation, the USA, are getting dangerously close to the point that proof must be shown that it can save itself from a fatal machination of its own organization.  H. L. Mencken predicted the situation long ago when he wrote:

 All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.

The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

But he did not say what should be done to escape the consequence.  Several times before the USA have failed at this brink.  Surely it is not just a matter of going into hibernation until the next casting of lots.  One of these days, patience will fail, and the tin can may no longer be dribbled along the asphalt.

 -- Kilgore Forelle

VEEP -- A Rental

Nobody asked but ...

The current VPOTUS, on his perpetual public relations tour, is coming today to the Bluegrass.  The irony is that he will be speaking at a local rental store, ... the ultimate human rental, VEEP, holding forth at a rental venue.

-- Kilgore Forelle

Words Poorly Used #93 -- Legal/Moral

The term "legal" is most often miscarried when it has not been put in the light of a moral origin.  This relationship is the first puzzle of humanity.  Morals are abstract and difficult to pin down.  Artificial laws (legislation) are more or less successful attempts to make instances of moral behavior concrete.  I make a distinction between "artificial" and "natural" law.  Morals and natural laws co-exist.  Workable morals arise from natural law.  For example, when A kills B, B no longer participates.  There is no natural law for deciding who "should" participate.  There is only natural law for determining who, what, where, when, and how.  Therefore, no person can, by artifice, determine who "should" kill whom.

-- Kilgore Forelle

Legality, Beside the Point

Nobody asked but. ..

The pundit cosmos queries, "Is it illegal?" A considerate homo sapiens counters, "Is it moral?"  A proper society, a nation of laws, arises because humans desire moral order.  A "legality" process, diverted to lesser uses, often confounds the only useful goal.  (NB -- Here, we define "useful" as  serving a distinct, unique purpose with a minimum of undesired consequences.  "Net usefulness" is not a useful notion.)  Restating Ockham's Razor -- the laws that most closely attain a true moral outcome are the laws that are most likely just.

-- Kilgore Forelle

POTUS Medius Ocris

Nobody asked but ...

I have opined for a very long time that there have been no above average POTUS'es.  The scorecard reads 45 incumbents, 45 ho-hummers.  Even great Americans, such as Jefferson, Cleveland, Coolidge, and Eisenhower barely got out of the office without serious repair work required on their reputations.  In 41 other cases, excellence never enters the picture.  Do you doubt that there are thousands of real estate minds, just in NYC, that exceed the wrestling promoter/reality show clown that serves as the current, most mediocre, resident of the Whitehouse.  Of course he is making the media look bad.  That's no extraordinary behavior.  That should be entertaining for a day or two, max.

-- Kilgore Forelle

Brand X

Nobody asked but ...

Why is it that authoritarians, sycophants, and jingoists think that the only genuine brands of patriotism are authoritarianism, sycophantism, and jingoism.  Make mine Brand X.  And still if I were to list all the places and things I love about the USA, we would all be here until some 4th of July well beyond 2017.

 -- Kilgore Forelle

Paper Fail

Nobody asked but ...

One of the oldest lawyer dodges is to hit somebody with a masive demand for a document dump.  It is obfuscation!  POTUS opened his mouth and inserted foot about voter fraud some time ago.  When asked to put up or shut up, the response was to appoint a commission to bury the inquiry (at taxpayer expense), then the commission made an onerous data request (which locally would cause 50-fold taxpayer expense).  The commission knew that most states would not, probably could not, comply with the demand.  Therefore, they have a perfect set of excuses for all the politicos involved -- others failed to cooperate.

-- Kilgore Forelle

Save Us from the Voters

Nobody asked but ...

Even worse than the if-you-don't-vote crowd are the it's-your-duty bunch.  And then you have the voting-should-be-compulsory mavens (and what a fine premise for the land of the free [irony alert]!)  Acknowledging that any state or local vote is irrelevent to countrywide representation, here is what you get:
-- 1 vote every 4 years for POTUS,
-- 1 vote every 2 years for HOROTUS, and
-- 2 votes every 6 years for SOTUS.
That's it!  As POTUS may say, "that's a bad deal for us."  People say that voters are ignorant.  The above calculus confirms that, but what kind of education would fix this stupidity?

-- Kilgore Forelle

Explanations

Nobody asked but ...

Almost any idiosyncrasy can be explained by knowing markets.  Any bad consequences can be explained by knowing about statism.

-- Kilgore Forelle