yes, a sift within the sift. i feel some snobbery coming on.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
maybe we should all form some kind of coalition. a coalition of cool sifters.

In reply to this comment by guessandcheck:
eklek is another that comes to mind. great sifters all around.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
you'll probably like a lot of what Farhad sifts, too (in case you havn't dug around in his archives yet)... I messenged him about that Grizzly Bear video right when I promoted it and he replied how he was actually listening to them a bunch these past couple of days as well.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Doves-Sea-Song

yes, hilarious

love the fang pics too.. looks like their grinnin

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
ever see this site? http://upsidedowndogs.com/

all the floppy dogs are the best.

Well, the talk was given in feb 2003 - the Human Genome Project had only just finished the "complete" map of human dna. Also, I think the main thrust of the talk was about reprogramming. It seems epigenetics would be only tangentially relevant as a modulator of code, not the code itself. But I don't really know that much about it. Anyway, hope you liked it.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
Has some good lines at 10min.

What about epigenetics? Its 2008, not 1998; its weird to talk about the importance of genetics and barely mention the next level of complication.

Nice - listening to Dr. Dog now

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
I came to Fleet Foxes via a deep love for Dr. Dog. Saw them both this summer, and both were inspiring-ly awesome live bands.

In reply to this comment by berticus:
my favourite musical discovery of 2008!

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
"It does get at your point pretty well, but its not just what right do you have to kill another human, but who gave you the right to live?"

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. The "right to life" is derived from the law of identity: A is A. In other words, a living being is a living being. A living being has but one way to exist as a living being: it must sustain itself through self-generated action. And the only way to achieve this in a social context is to have the right to sustain ones own life through self-generated action, i.e. to have "the right to life".

"This is the problem of infinite regression. You are not answering the question, you are merely creating a new entity to cover your bases. Where does your family, friends, or culture get their morals from?"

No, its definitely finite, just beyond anything comparable to the time human civilization has been around and recording how we act as communities. Why do certain animals groups fight one another but preserve and help those in their groups? Seriously man, you're making this far more complicated and principled than it needs to be.


"I'm not looking for "innate principles" I already provided you a firm, clear, answer for the basis of my philosophy: "the right to life" which I explicitly defined. It is not innate, it was developed with reason and logic. Why is it not possible for you to provide me with the same?"

Woah, okay,... I see now. So you're not even an individualist. You're applying a very significant moral standard that was just made up, in order to limit individual choice. Well. I feel like I wasted a lot of time.


"If collectivism and individualism are polar opposites why is it that my philosophy provides a clear moral guide, whereas yours provides none?"

I described how we are at two different places on a spectrum of individualism vs. collectivism, and I went into a huge amount of detail describing what I mean and why I'm further over towards one side than you. This detail included what the far collectivist side offers for morality, namely that sacrificing individual interests for the benefit of the group is a moral obligation, and in return the group distributes benefits... again I'm going to reiterate that I'm not a strict collectivist, I'm in the middle, so my morality is PERSONALLY from family, friends, experience, etc...

I mean, if you simply want me to make up some bullshit and call it the principle I base my philosophy of human life on, how about this, "sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but lets all try to be civil about it".


*This is the last one sided answering session; you have to go back and answer the ONE question I asked you in the last response.



In reply to this comment by imstellar28:

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
1) I get my morality from my family, my friends, my culture and my experiences. It was obvious in your last reply that you want me to agree to some overarching, innate principles that guide all humanity to value life and freedom, but, sorry, not gonna happen.

This is the problem of infinite regression. You are not answering the question, you are merely creating a new entity to cover your bases. Where does your family, friends, or culture get their morals from?

I'm not looking for "innate principles" I already provided you a firm, clear, answer for the basis of my philosophy: "the right to life" which I explicitly defined. It is not innate, it was developed with reason and logic. Why is it not possible for you to provide me with the same? If collectivism and individualism are polar opposites why is it that my philosophy provides a clear moral guide, whereas yours provides none?

Your philosophy advocates slavery, murder, and when a majority decision cannot be reached, results in absolute anarchy. What kind of philosophy is that to build a society upon?

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:

As an individual I think slavery is wrong. I can not see myself agreeing with a community decision to designate one class of people in a community as the servants to another class. Why? Because I not only have empathy for other individuals but I recognize that individuals should be free to work primarily in their own self interest.

You are evading the root of the question though.
1. Why do you have empathy for other individuals, and why do you recognize that individuals should be free to work primarily in their own self interest? On what principle do you derive your empathy and recognition?

If a community can't form a consensus on a problem, well, typically that community simply doesn't solve that problem. In your example this could result in the individuals dissolving their community and not relying on one another when it comes to food, or one could conceivably enslave the other against his will. Its up to them how it goes down, not up to some law of fate.

If the only rules are the rules created by the community--and the community can't come to an agreement, what rules are there? If, as in my example, there are two people (mike and john) on an island and mike wants to kill john, but john doesn't want to be killed. As a community it appears there is a bit of a stalemate here.
Now suppose: Mike kills John.
2. Is this wrong? If so, why?
3. If you say it is wrong, then you condemn mike's choice to kill john. If you say it is not wrong, then you condemn john's choice to not be killed. How can you explain this inconsistency?

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:

That example would be a terribly unfair community, but some communities are terribly unfair! The United States had slavery for a hundred years, where half the population in some places literally made food and grew crops, etc. for the other half. I'm not condoning this; I'm describing to you how communities work, not how they should work in some ultimately fair society.

1. By what process do you determine what is "fair"?

You seem to think that there are, naturally, sacred laws that need to be followed, either ones that apply to individuals or communities. I'm saying this unfortunately isn't the case.

2. Do you think slavery is wrong, and if so, why?

So, essentially we're arguing now about what we think is a successful way to run a community; is it that individuals have a high degree of choice, or is it that the community has a high degree of choice.

3. How do you define whether a community is successful?
4. Does a master and a slave form a community?
5. When the community is comprised of only two people, say on an island, and each demand that the other produce food for them, who is to produce food? Is this resolved by adding a third person?

But I also recognize where the other side can lead; more individualism can lead to weaker community structure

6. What does "weaker community structure" mean, and how do you determine it?

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
1) The community determines the selection/initiation/ceremony process, of course. That was an easy one!

2) There is no fundamental community guaranteed right; its all up to the group. Why must there be one? ... we're talking about humans here; humans do some crazy shit.

So let me try to apply your system. We are in a town, population 100. Everyone is hungry, so they decide to have a meeting to determine how they should get food. One of the citizens suggests that they should have one person dedicated to providing food for everyone else. One guy in town is a bit of an outcast, and when they take a vote it comes out 99-1. 99 votes for the outcast to make the food, and 1 vote against. The outcast spends the rest of his life in slavery making food for the rest of the town.

This is what your system results in, the "right to enslave" !

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:

YES! I very much do disagree! If you took 9.9million from this dude with 10 million dollars he's still got 100,000 bucks! If you take 9,900 from a dude with 10,000 bucks, that guy is going to have a much, much harder time then that dude who lost a lot more but had a lot more to lose. You see what I'm saying? Again this is oversimplifying the situation to such a degree that its not worth arguing about, but I'm not comfortable leaving my position unclear on this point.

What person is going to be okay with losing 9.9 million dollars or 99% of their wealth? Why would anyone risk losing 99% of their total wealth when they can protect it by paying a mere 7% on their annual income? My guess is that everyone would donate to police and national defense because no one wants to lose 99% of their money. My point was that even if all the poor people didn't contribute the rich people would pay for it in its entirety because given the choice between 7% of their income or 100% of their wealth, any economically minded person is going to choose the former!

One however, can take it to the extreme to show that your logic breaks down. Imagine an example where one man has $1 trillion and another has $1 dollar. Who benefits most from a police/national defense system? if you take away 99% from each man, does your argument still work? How can changing the dollar amounts possibly change the principle? All that matters is those who have more, have more to lose, and thus benefit most from protection of what they have.

What you're really saying is that the millionaire is a better target, thus he would want to have better defense of his assets. But why couldn't he do this privately? Buy some guns, some dogs, some fences, some security guards. And what neighborhoods are the most crime-ridden? I'll give you a hint, ... no I'll just tell you answer; its poor neighborhoods. So maybe now you have a grasp as to why I thought this was the most outrageous of your claims.

How are the fences and security guards going to help him when China invades, or when 1000 poor people form a mob and storm his house? How much would you have to pay a security guard, in a system of anarchy, to guard $10 million? How will he live a normal life when everyone knows who he is and how much money he has? How can he walk down the street? Is he to remain in his fortress, if so what kind of life is that? This is the point I was making--everyone benefits from a police system and national defense, but the rich people benefit the most precisely because they have the most to fear, and the most to lose.

Maybe what you're referring to are Non-Governmental Organization, and not Non-Profit Organizations? Non-profits are not able to compete with private businesses if their funding/property/assets/operations are taxed. There would be absolutely no point to have a non-profit company if there was no tax incentive to do so. If there were no taxes on any businesses then nonprofits would not exist as they do today... their entire structure is based around being tax exempt. So,... um... yeah! Sorry to break the news to you!

Thats just not true. The majority of todays non-profits were formed in the 19th century (red cross, salvation army, art museums, etc.) when there was no income tax, and taxes were a very small portion of peoples income, and there was little to no regulation in the economy. If you think that people only donate blood, or only appreciate art, or only listen to operas, or only donate clothes, food, or help the homeless because of tax incentives, then you really have a sad view of humanity.

A person strictly interested in their individual choices would by necessity disregard the choices of everyone else! There are not individual rights in strict individualism, because there is no community to guarantee these rights. Its every man for himself.

Thats not what "the right to life" is about. Did you read my definition on my bio? It clearly says this: "As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights." It specifically says you cannot violate the rights of others.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:

That is complete nonsense. Its such a nonsensical statement that the opposite argument is much more compelling to my ear (though still a wild oversimplification), that poor people who don't have the ability to replace stolen goods, repair damages, file lawsuits or pay for insurance, would be more concerned with funding collective security, as they could be wiped out completely by a single incident.

I am saying that someone with $10 million has more to lose than someone with $10,000. You disagree? If china invades tomorrow and loots the entire country, who loses more? If there are no police who is more likely to be kidnapped for ransom--the millionaire or the pauper? With no legal system, whose house will be the first to be burglarized, the mansion on the hill or the one bedroom apartment in the city?

Do you know why people form nonprofits? Because you don't pay taxes on things related to the organization, but in-turn all the money you generate can only be spent to benefit the nonprofit. The whole point of your column here was you want to make taxes voluntary... so, uh, yeah, I think what you mean instead of 'nonprofit' is 'board', or 'committee'... and those things we already have.

If your argument is true, that people only give to charity for tax breaks, or only form charity organizations for tax shelter, we are a sorry lot indeed, and the community most definitely should not be trusted.

Anyhow, I'm not going to go through and bust your balls on everything that makes no sense in this... strict individualists are by definition anarchists while strict collectivists are communists...

I would argue that anyone who is an anarchist is not an individualist, as there can be no law in anarchy, and without law, there are no individual rights.

I respect that you're trying to find your position towards the individualist side of the spectrum, but as a general statement I think you're system is all over the place, with individuals being selfish but not that selfish and on and on...

That is how the "invisible hand" works. Even though people are acting in their own selfish interest, they end up benefiting the community at large. It is one of the most important principles of the market. Just look at the quote in my bio:
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chuses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow citizens."
—Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

The butcher ends up providing dinner for thousands of people--do you think he does that out of the goodness of his heart? No, he does it for the selfish reason that he gets paid. Same thing with the doctor. Do you think the doctor spends 8 years in medical school and 60 hours a week because he wants everyone to be healthy? No, he does it because he gets paid well. Part of him likely enjoys helping others, but that too is a selfish interest.

Here is my attempt to derive a political system from "the right to life", using only market concepts and voluntary cooperation.

This is our current system in action in 2007:
........................................(billions).............(%)
national defense...............$552.................19%
education.........................$91...................3%
health...............................$266.................9%
medicare...........................$375................13%
income security.................$365................13%
social security....................$596................21%
veterans benefits...............$72..................3%
environment......................$31..................1%
transportation....................$72..................3%
community development....$54.................2%
international affairs.............$29.................1%
general science...................$23.................1%
agriculture......................... $25.................1%
admistration of justice.........$41................ 1%
general government............$18.................1%
interest...............................$226...............8%
total....................................$2836

If we use pre-occupation levels, we spent $275 billion on national defense. This places the cost of a government functioning only to ensure "the right to life" at 275+41+18=$334 billion. If we are generous and keep in education, transportation, and the environment that adds an extra 91+31+72=$194.

The national income as reported for 2007 was about $14,000 billion dollars. To finance a government whose annual budget is $334 billion, 300 million people would have to donate $1,113 each or 2.38%, on average. If you take the median income in 2007 of $50,233, this represents a 2.22% all-inclusive tax rate. For the poorest, who make only $12,000 a year, this represents 9.26%―higher, but roughly half the level of taxation they currently endure.

In 2007, the census reported the bottom 20% of Americans made $19,178 or less, while the top 20% made over $100,000, and the top 6.78% held over 1/3 of the national income―or around $4.66 trillion dollars. If only the top 80% paid taxes, their fair share would rise to $1,390―and the poorest 40 million Americans would get a free ride. If only the top 6.78% paid taxes, they would only have to donate 6.9%--an amount almost equal to our current sales tax alone. Despite shouldering the entire financial burden of the country, the income of the top 6.78% would rise by over 40% current levels.

However, if the only moral system of taxation in a free society is a voluntary one, why would anyone be motivated to pay taxes? The answer comes from property rights. Property is secured by the police, national defense, fire department, and the legal system. Police can be dispatched to prevent or stop acts of vandalism, burglaries, riots, and violent crime. The army provides a defense against invasion from foreign entities, and the resulting occupation and looting. The fire department suppresses destructive property fires triggered by arson, carelessness, or natural causes. And the legal system prosecutes violations of individual/property rights.

The successful entrepreneur, who has amassed great wealth, has a lot to lose from the violations of these rights. A working family struggling to make ends meet, however, has much less capital to lose. Thus, the wealthiest individuals will have a large incentive to voluntarily subject themselves to taxation―for the selfish reason of securing their wealth. The lower and middle class will be motivated as well, but to a lesser extent―one that, as for the wealthy individual, is proportional to the sum of their assets. To some degree, the wealthy will rely on private security in safeguarding their assets, but even the wealthiest individual cannot finance a private security force capable of repelling a foreign invasion by a modern army, nor could they maintain their high standard of living while surrounded in anarchy―where the lack of a public police force and legal consequence would present little resistance for those willing to violate the rights of others. In this way, the wealthy minority will voluntarily fund the basic roles of government, while the majority benefit at little to no cost.

So what about social services such as education, transportation, healthcare, and unemployment insurance? There are many ways to achieve these on the free market―either through private businesses or non-profit organizations. The implementation and management of a privately funded business and a publicly funded state program are really quite similar―both are funded by large groups of people (shareholders or voters), and both have concentrated leadership which is democratically elected (CE0/board or president/congress). The difference arises when business is bad: a private organization which does not provide a service in demand, or provides it inefficiently will go bankrupt, while a state program which does the same will likely result in increased taxation or national debt. If the government is forbidden from forced taxation―all differences between the two vanish. Thus, it is possible to have a privately funded non-profit organization which provides education, transportation, healthcare, or unemployment insurance―regardless of whether its leadership is elected through the state. And by making financial information public, the organization can ensure a healthy supply of donations―if the service it provides is in demand.

Let's apply the same analysis to a public service: say, education. Most Americans believe in providing an education for all those who desire to pursue it. However, the top tier of society is already donating 6.9% of their income in taxes, and may not find any additional benefit in educating the poor―after all they have the police and army which is what they really need to protect their property. The lower 80% of America is different―they are not yet wealthy, so they can see the benefit of a public education which can be used to generate wealth-- the bottom 20% even more so―although they cannot afford to donate much. We are thus left with 60% of America, or the 180 million Americans that make up the middle class. If every member of the class donates a mere $1000 a year towards education, or 2% of their median $50,233 income (of which they are paying no taxes so far), together they could pool about $180 billion―twice the $91 billion spent on education in our current system.

Now enter the teachers. Teachers can't teach without students, so in the selfish interest of providing themselves with an income, a group of teachers may form a non-profit organization called the United Teachers For America, whose goal is to provide a quality education free of charge. Their annual budget is $91 billion―but we have already shown that by donating a mere 2% of their income, middle-class America alone could provide up to $180 billion. Since they are operating on donations, which may vary from year to year, the UTFA may decide to maintain a surplus―in order to sustain operations for several years with below-average donations. This same strategy has been successfully adopted by private companies who keep cash on hand to protect against a downturn. Then, by making their financial information public, the leadership can solicit extra donations during below-average years--analogous to the spike in donations local blood drives receive after a crisis. The UTFA, competing in the free market, receive income (in this case donations) based on the quality of service they provide. This creates a strong motivation to provide efficient, high quality education―not only to sustain operations, but also to provide competitive wages for the teachers they employ. Likewise, there will also be a thriving private sector, which through competitive action in the free market, will offer a multitude of degree and tuition options--at a much lower cost than exists today. Similar arguments can be made for any number of public services such as transportation, healthcare, unemployment insurance, etc.

The departure from forced taxation alone will impact the lowest-income families in the following ways: income will increase 15-23%, prices of goods and services will decrease up to 8%, housing costs will decrease by up to 5%, heating/fuel costs will decrease by up to 12.5%--resulting in an effective increase in wages by ~20-35%. When one compounds the action of a free market, where income has also increased by up to 40%, and harmful regulations are lifted―the effective increase in wages could be as high as 60-75%. Low-income families will be free of taxation, have increased wages, and not only have access to cheaper goods and services, but access to goods and services that were previously unavailable.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:


'Rights' and laws are guaranteed by a group of individuals, otherwise they're just ideas in one person's head. Even the right to life! Genocide, slavery, ritual human sacrifice,... even disparity in healthcare based on your wealth... these are all community decisions that place limits on the comparative 'right to life' of individuals.

So, by my thinking, individual rights are always subordinate to the community that chooses to guarantee or not guarantee specific individual rights. By extension the modified free market capitalism we have in place was a group choice, and is subordinate to any plans the group feels like putting into place in the future.

So we both agree that by definition rights must involve two people, or a "community". So a few questions to help me understand your viewpoint better
1. What process do individuals use enter into certain communities
2. Can you define the fundamental "community right" which is analogous to the fundamental "individual right" that I provided. So far I have inferred this to be "that everyone must do what is in the interest of the majority" but I am not sure if that is correct.

There are different markets that a group can choose to operate under, including the polar opposite of a 'free market', where leaders make all trade and barter decision for the community. Now, the point I'm making is that we have a modified form of the free market concept precisely because communities, especially enormous ones, in guaranteeing rights and laws will always run into situations where guaranteeing those rights and laws requires not only doling out punishment but developing and encouraging activities in the community's interest. That last sentence may again be a point where you disagree, which is fine, but recognize I'm referring to problems that not only effect the individual, but the group of individuals forming the community... health, education, defense, etc..


It sounds that like me, you do not want the polar opposite of what I am providing--i.e. dictatorship. Rather, you want a sort of "compromise" aka something in the middle.
3. What services or benefits are available in a mixed system that are not available in a free market?
4. If a dictatorship is bad, why would moving in the opposite direction be undesirable?


I'm not sure I follow you; my interpretation of what you disliked in the first place was Bill Clinton wanting to spend our community money to selectively subsidize some private companies but not others, and develop laws that would make it harder for some companies to operate. So now I'm lost as to where you didn't like the original clip.

I do not agree that one person (even the government) has the right to initiate force on another, and I believe Bill Clinton, as he proposed it in the video, would be initiating force on another. He is funding his incentives from the taxpayer--that is, he is removing their choice to on whether to fund solar energy. Here is an example: A worker has a family of three and can barely make ends meet. His entire livelihood depends on his job at a local oil rig. It would be bad enough that he will eventually lose his job when the oil rig shuts down in competition from a solar manufacturer--but to make matters worse the government is going to force him to invest, in effect, to increasing the likelihood of him losing his job.

Its fine that many people would like to invest in the solar industry, and its fine that the solar industry, through the the market, drives other companies out of business- However, I cannot endorse forcing people to invest in an industry that they would otherwise not invest in.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
Aha! You feel that the role of government is solely to protect the individual, while I feel that the purpose is not even individuals first, it is the community first. Its a huge philosophical difference, and I can see now why we disagree so strongly about what Bill was talking about.

Precisely. I derive my entire philosophy from "the right to life" (defined in my bio)--be it my stance on free market economics or my stance on a limited government and voluntary taxation. So at its core, that is the fundamental difference between our viewpoints.

A problem facing a community naturally requires a community's choice (investing collected funds into updating national power grids), while a problem facing an individual requires an individual's choice (changing from Duke-Cinergy to Green Mountain Energy).

So given that statement, I can see why you are placing an emphasis on the community--but how does that mesh with individual rights in cases where the community at large is not involved? Or is this bypassed by the notion that rights must always be an agreement between two men (and thus always form a community, in effect)?

You give the role of delivering justice to the group of individuals,... a strict individualist would argue that laws would naturally be a byproduct of a free market.
I am a strict individualist, but I derive it the other way around--I view the free market as being a byproduct of individual rights. That is, each person's individual right to choose to buy and sell goods, and thus enter into voluntary cooperation and trade with others is what forms for basis of the free market. Likewise, laws are derived from the principle of individual rights which forbids the initiation of physical force on others (theft, fraud, assault, murder, vandalism).

You concede your point here, as you recognize that individual human beings will make choices that contradict what other individuals may otherwise prefer happen and see how a group of individuals can sort out these problems without waiting for the problem to become economically problematic to the individuals causing a ruckus. You go so far as to say that the group of individuals restricting the amount of smog a power plant can put out to 'dirty your shirt' (which I read as "poison your lungs and environment") is compatible with a free market economy! BUT, for whatever reason that is as far as you're willing to recognize that we are a group of a few hundred million people with a shared problem that should be solved with shared solutions.

You are correct in your interpretation of the phrase "dirty your shirt". If you look at pollution from the perspective of individual rights, you see that one group is initiating force on another--that is, they are imposing costs (lung cancer, dirty shirts, etc.) which both parties did not agree to. Now, normally when one person initiates force on another they would take it to court, but it is almost impossible to determine just who is affected and to what extent by a company emitting pollution 10, 100, or even 1000 miles away. Nor is to practical to have millions of people filing civil suits for impossible-to-determine sums against each polluter. For this reason, it becomes necessary for the government to impose the costs directly when and where they are emitted--hence my suggestion of an effluent tax. However, as with the cases above the basis for this is in an individual's "right to life."


Again, my take-home-point here was that a free market economy is how a group of individuals chooses to engage in trade;

I agree with you there

its not the United Free Market of America, we are more than our goods and services, we are more than our laws, we are more than our individuals, we are a community of individuals who agree to be governed by very specific rules and regulations, agreed upon locally by vote or by representatives of sub-communities, and more broadly by general rules set forth a few hundred years ago by some rather spectacular community representatives.

I think I agree here, but I am a little confused. In the system I envision there would still be congress, a president, and a judicial system. There would still be a national defense, fire fighters, police force, and legal system. Fraud, theft, rape, murder, vandalism, and assault would all be illegal and strictly enforced. However, the distinction I make is that the government has no right to initiate the use of force--only to respond to the initiation of the use of force (e.g. arresting a burglar). I agree there is a role for government, and even a role for government in the market--but I firmly believe that no human, government official or otherwise, has the right to initiate force against another human.