Andrew Colclough

Web Design & Dev., Liberty, Economics, Football

Why we need the rich: A message to Americans – and our leaders in Washington DC – on wealth creation by a wealth creator.

It has an often repeated axiom that a person can learn a whole lot about a society by how it treats its poor. But just as much can be learned by looking at how that society treats its rich. Indeed, the economic future of the poor – and our nation – will be determined in the coming decades by how we treat the people in this country who create great wealth. It will be determined by our understanding of the so-called rich. And our ability to protect this minority.

It is an unpopular thing to say, I know. Rich people need help? Rich people need to be protected? Rich people a minority? Give me a break. They just seem to keep getting richer!  Regrettably, too many Americans, and far too many intellectuals and politicians, don’t understand these people we call “the rich.” And how it is they got rich in the first place.

Because most of us don’t actually know any of these rich people, we instead experience them in the abstract, through policy debates and statistics, and always through the prism of our own ideological lens. We look at the raw data to state our case either against or for the richest among us. In the end, our view of the rich has much to do about how all of us view "capitalism" itself. Indeed, in that respect, our opinions about the rich are a sort of Rorsach test, revealing more about ourselves than anything else.

To those on The Left who think capitalism creates unfair outcomes, they have statistics to confirm their outlook. It seems absurd on its face that the top 1% of American families own 90% of the nation's wealth.

Wouldn't it be possible to contrive an economy that is just as prosperous but with a fairer distribution of wealth? Couldn’t we cap the earnings of the rich at $50 million? Or even $100 million? 

Most defenders of capitalism and free markets say no. They contend that the bizarre inequalities we see are an indispensable part of the processes that create wealth. They imply capitalism doesn't make sense, morally or rationally, but it makes wealth. So don't knock it.

What nonsense it all is!  And how little to do with the reality of the rich. And how sad that defenders of the rich – or the rich themselves - can’t come up with a better economic or moral case! Quoting Adam Smith and supply side economists just doesn’t cut it.

So who are the so called rich? As someone who is rich (and would love to be even richer), and has spent a lifetime working with people who create wealth, I thought I’d explain who they are, where they come from, and why we should care about their wealth – and their desire to hold on to it.

To begin, it is not exactly a list of the Who’s Who and Most Likely to Succeed in high school or college, this group of Americans called the rich. They are certainly not the best looking. They didn’t get the highest SAT or ACT scores in high school, they probably weren’t voted most likely to succeed in any yearbook, and they certainly didn’t get where they got through the force of their personalities, charisma or celebrity.

A great number of the richest among us never finished high school, and many who went to college never managed to graduate. That’s because the rich in this country are chosen not by blood, credentials, education, or services to the establishment. The rich are chosen for performance, and for their relentless desire to serve consumers.

The entrepreneurial knowledge that is the crux of wealth creation has little to do with glamorous work, or with the certified expertise of advanced degrees. Great wealth usually comes from doing what other people consider insufferably boring.

The treacherous intricacies of building codes or garbage routes or software languages or groceries, the mechanics of butchering sheep and pigs or frying and freezing potatoes, the murky lore of petroleum leases or housing deeds, the ways and means of pushing pizzas or insurance policies or hawking hosiery or pet supplies or scrounging for pennies in fast-food unit sales, all of those tasks are deemed tedious and trivial.

In short, our rich – America’s best entrepreneurs - perform work that most others spurn.

You need to read the rest of this article -> blackhawkpartners.com

Very important article.

Filed under  //   capitalism   equality   liberty   social justice   wealth   work  

Awakening From The Collective Dream « Doctor Zero

[...]

The mythology of wise and compassionate government is drowning in a mixture of oil bubbling up from the Gulf of Mexico, and sleaze pouring out of Washington.  The government has many vital duties to perform, but as it grows in size, it becomes less interested in performing them.  Its own ambitions take priority over its responsibilities to a private sector it increasingly comes to view as an adversary since the State must both demonize the private sector to conceal its own failures, and use compulsive force to extract resources from workers and businesses.  No one should harbor any further misconceptions about maintaining the transparency of the State as it swells in size.

All of collectivism’s dreams are crumbling to dust before the eyes of people who spent their whole lives clinging to them out of desperation, or arrogance.  The alternative to ambition and commerce is not “social justice,” but widespread poverty.  The absence of growth brings collapse, not sustainability.  The Constitutional rights of free people cannot exist alongside “positive rights” provided through redistribution.  Abandoning the security of our borders does not produce a melting pot of happy immigrants.  The government cannot repeal the laws of supply and demand.  The freedom to vote does not render all other freedoms inconsequential.  Prosperity for millions cannot be designed by a central committee. Social justice cannot be created by administering controlled viral doses of injustice.

Waking up from these dreams is not easy.  Every conservative must have the patience and humor of a good teacher.  I believe Big Government is fundamentally immoral, but as Dr. Sowell pointed out, the simple fact that it doesn’t work cannot be overstated.  The collectivist fantasy can end in a relatively controlled manner, with a widespread rediscovery of how freedom and prosperity are inextricably linked… or it can end with the bloody violence of Greece, as angry dependents strip the last measure of their unsustainable benefits from the hide of the middle class.  One way or the other, it is ending.  Twilight falls upon the empty dream of the twentieth century: to sanctify a brilliant elite through the sacred ritual of the vote, and be ruled wisely.

Follow the link above and read the whole piece. Without specifically naming them, the author clearly illustrates the core Conflict of Visions between those who value liberty, and those who advocate Statism.

Filed under  //   collectivism   fail   human rights   liberty   social justice  

NPR Show Host Explains Ayn Rand

Podcast here. Skip to 35:37...

..."Dictatorship" you say? Interesting. Are you sure it was Ayn Rand you were reading? Are you sure it wasn't just...Nothing?  Here are some of Rand's actual words, Lynne Rossetto Kasper from NPR:

 

The greatest threat to mankind and civilization is the spread of the totalitarian philosophy. Its best ally is not the devotion of its followers but the confusion of its enemies. To fight it, we must understand it.

Totalitarianism is collectivism. Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group — whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.´´

Throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing “the common good.´´ Napoleon “served the common good´´ of France. Hitler is “serving the common good´´ of Germany. Horrors which no man would dare consider for his own selfish sake are perpetrated with a clear conscience by “altruists´´ who justify themselves by-the common good.

No tyrant has ever lasted long by force of arms alone. Men have been enslaved primarily by spiritual weapons. And the greatest of these is the collectivist doctrine that the supremacy of the state over the individual constitutes the common good. No dictator could rise if men held as a sacred faith the conviction that they have inalienable rights of which they cannot be deprived for any cause whatsoever, by any man whatsoever, neither by evildoer nor supposed benefactor.

This is the basic tenet of individualism, as opposed to collectivism. Individualism holds that man is an independent entity with an inalienable right to the pursuit of his own happiness in a society where men deal with one another as equals.

The American system is founded on individualism. If it is to survive, we must understand the principles of individualism and hold them as our standard in any public question, in every issue we face. We must have a positive credo, a clear consistent faith.

We must learn to reject as total evil the conception that the common good is served by the abolition of individual rights. General happiness cannot be created out of general suffering and self-immolation. The only happy society is one of happy individuals. One cannot have a healthy forest made up of rotten trees.

The power of society must always be limited by the basic, inalienable rights of the individual.

The right of liberty means man’s right to individual action, individual choice, individual initiative and individual property. Without the right to private property no independent action is possible....

Excerpt from The Only Path To Tomorrow, by Ayn Rand [emphasis added]

 

Filed under  //   NPR   ayn rand   dictatorship   fail   liberty   lynne rossetto kasper   moron   objectivity  

Economics of Liberty: Introduction - by Walter E. Williams

A brief intro of the basic principals of economic liberty. 

Filed under  //   capitalism   economics   liberty   walter e williams  

What’s a Libertarian? (aka. Classic-Liberal, or Anti-Statist)

The first video covers the so-called culture wars, including gay marriage, abortion and immigration:

More videos after the jump.

In the second video they discuss the role of government in providing aid to the poor:

In the third video, the panelists discuss libertarian views of war. Should the United States leave Afghanistan and Iraq? What should we do about Iran? Watch:

Some interesting and varying opinions on a wide range of issues.

Filed under  //   economics   john stossel   libertarianism   liberty   social issues  

Government, by Frederick Bastiat

I wish some one would offer a prize for a good, simple, and intelligent definition of the word "Government."

What an immense service it would confer on society !

The Government! what is it? where is it? what does it do? what ought it to do? All we know is, that it is a mysterious personage; and, assuredly, it is the most solicited, the most tormented, the most overwhelmed, the most admired, the most accused, the most invoked, and the most provoked of any personage in the world.

I have not the pleasure of knowing my reader but I would stake ten to one that for six months he has been making Utopias, and if so, that he is looking to Government for the realization of them.

And should the reader happen to be a lady: I have no doubt that she is sincerely desirous of seeing all the evils of suffering humanity remedied, and that she thinks this might easily be done, if Government would only undertake it.

But, alas! that poor unfortunate personage, like Figaro, knows not to whom to listen, nor where to turn. The hundred thousand mouths of the press and of the platform cry out all at once -

"Organize labor and workmen." 
"Repress insolence and the tyranny of capital." 
"Make experiments upon manure and eggs." 
"Cover the country with railways." 
"Irrigate the plains." 
"Plant the hills." 
"Make model farms." 
"Found social workshops." 
"Nurture children." 
"Instruct the youth." 
"Assist the aged." 
"Send the inhabitants of towns into the country." 
"Equalize the profits of all trades." 
"Lend money without interest to all who wish to borrow." 
"Emancipate oppressed people everywhere." 
"Rear and perfect the saddle-horse." 
"Encourage the arts, and provide us musicians, painters, and architects." 
"Restrict commerce, and at the same time create a merchant navy." 
"Discover truth, and put a grain of reason into our heads. The mission of Government is to enlighten, to develop, to extend, to fortify, to spiritualize, and to sanctify the soul of the people."

"Do have a little patience, gentlemen" says Government, in a beseeching tone. "I will do what I can to satisfy you, but for this I must have resources. I have been preparing plans for five or six taxes, which are quite new, and not at all oppressive. You will see how willingly people will pay them."

Then comes a great exclamation: - "No! indeed! where is the merit of doing a thing with resources? Why, it does not deserve the name of a Government!

So far from loading us with fresh taxes, we would have you withdraw the old ones. You ought to suppress 
"The tobacco tax." 
"The tax on liquors." 
"The tax on letters." 
"Custom-house duties." 
"Patents."

In the midst of this tumult, and now that the country has again and again changed the administration, for not having satisfied all its demands, I wanted to show that they were contradictory. But, what could I have been thinking about? Could I not keep this unfortunate observation to myself!

I have lost my character forever! I am looked upon as a man without heart and without feeling - a dry philosopher, an individualist, a plebeian - in a word, an economist of the practical school. But, pardon me, sublime writers, who stop at nothing, not even at contradictions. I am wrong, without a doubt, and I would willingly retract. I should be glad enough, you may be sure, if you had really discovered a beneficent and inexhaustible being, calling itself the Government, which has bread for all mouths, work for all hands, capital for all enterprises, credit for all projects, oil for all wounds, balm for all sufferings, advice for all perplexities, solutions for all doubts, truths for all intellects, diversions for all who want them, milk for infancy, and wine for old age - which can provide for all our wants, satisfy all our curiosity, correct all our errors, repair all our faults, and exempt us henceforth from the necessity for foresight, prudence, judgment, sagacity, experience, order, economy, temperance, and activity.

What reason could I have for not desiring to see such a discovery made? Indeed, the more I reflect upon it, the more do I see that nothing could be more convenient than that we should all of us have within our reach an inexhaustible source of wealth and enlightenment - a universal physician, an unlimited treasure, and an infallible counselor, such as you describe Government to be. Therefore it is that I want to have it pointed out and defined, and that a prize should be offered to the first discoverer of the phoenix. For no one would think of asserting that this precious discovery has yet been made, since up to this time everything presenting itself under the name of the Government has at some time been overturned by the people, precisely because it does not fulfill the rather contradictory conditions of the programme.

I will venture to say that I fear we are, in this respect, the dupes of one of the strangest illusions which have ever taken possession of the human mind.

Man recoils from trouble - from suffering; and yet he is condemned by nature to the suffering of privation, if he does not take the trouble to work. He has to choose, then, between these two evils. What means can he adopt to avoid both? There remains now, and there will remain, only one way, which is, to enjoy the labor of others. Such a course of conduct prevents the trouble and the satisfaction from preserving their natural proportion, and causes all the trouble to become the lot of one set of persons, and all the satisfaction that of another. This is the origin of slavery and of plunder, whatever its form may be - whether that of wars, imposition, violence, restrictions, frauds, &c. - monstrous abuses, but consistent with the thought which has given them birth. Oppression should be detested and resisted - it can hardly be called absurd.

Slavery is disappearing, thank heaven! and, on the other hand, our disposition to defend our property prevents direct and open plunder from being easy.

One thing, however, remains - it is the original inclination which exists in all men to divide the lot of life into two parts, throwing the trouble upon others, and keeping the satisfaction for themselves. It remains to be shown under what new form this sad tendency is manifesting itself.

The oppressor no longer acts directly and with his own powers upon his victim. No, our conscience has become too sensitive for that. The tyrant and his victim are still present, but there is an intermediate person between them, which is the Government - that is, the Law itself. What can be better calculated to silence our scruples, and, which is perhaps better appreciated, to overcome all resistance? We all therefore, put in our claim, under some pretext or other, and apply to Government. We say to it, " I am dissatisfied at the proportion between my labor and my enjoyments. I should like, for the sake of restoring the desired equilibrium, to take a part of the possessions of others. But this would be dangerous. Could not you facilitate the thing for me? Could you not find me a good place? or check the industry of my competitors? or, perhaps, lend me gratuitously some capital which, you may take from its possessor? Could you not bring up my children at the public expense? or grant me some prizes? or secure me a competence when I have attained my fiftieth year? By this mean I shall gain my end with an easy conscience, for the law will have acted for me, and I shall have all the advantages of plunder, without its risk or its disgrace!"

As it is certain, on the one hand, that we are all making some similar request to the Government; and as, on the other, it is proved that Government cannot satisfy one party without adding to the labor of the others, until I can obtain another definition of the word Government I feel authorized to give it my own. Who knows but it may obtain the prize? Here it is:

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

For now, as formerly, every one is, more or less, for profiting by the labors of others. No one would dare to profess such a sentiment; he even hides it from himself; and then what is done? A medium is thought of; Government is applied to, and every class in its turn comes to it, and says, "You, who can take justifiably and honestly, take from the public, and we will partake." Alas! Government is only too much disposed to follow this diabolical advice, for it is composed of ministers and officials - of men, in short, who, like all other men, desire in their hearts, and always seize every opportunity with eagerness, to increase their wealth and influence. Government is not slow to perceive the advantages it may derive from the part which is entrusted to it by the public. It is glad to be the judge and the master of the destinies of all; it will take much, for then a large share will remain for itself; it will multiply the number of its agents; it will enlarge the circle of its privileges; it will end by appropriating a ruinous proportion.

Read the rest of this post »

Filed under  //   Frédéric Bastiat   government   liberty  

A couple gems from Krugman's -> Closing Arguments on Health Care - NYTimes

Whenever you read Paul Krugman, it is always helpful to remember that this man won a Nobel Peace Prize in Economics. It might as well have been for Pushing Water Uphill. Here are a couple remarkable statements from his latest New York times column. That's right...THE New York Times - where The Vision of the Anointed is valued above any rational thought:

Beyond that, this is a story that could happen only in America. In every other advanced nation, insurance coverage is available to everyone regardless of medical history. Our system is unique in its cruelty.

[...]

So you end up with a tripartite policy: elimination of medical discrimination, mandated coverage, and premium subsidies.

Above, Krugman is referencing the much lauded "pre-existing conditions" angle. Now, in a tiny way, I actually agree that often insurance companies can be extremely harsh in their restrictions regarding people who have pre-existing conditions. However, the problem here is the screwy way some companies define "pre-existing." That should draw Krugman's ire - not the fact that any pre-existing condition must be ignored. The latter concept is lunacy. What would be the incentive to purchase insurance, if you were guaranteed coverage regardless of any pre-existing conditions? The whole point of insurance being that you are paying someone else to pool the risk that you may or may not require healthcare. It is not "discrimination" to willfully take on exorbitant risk.

So what of Krugman's solution: 1) Force insurance providers not to "discriminate." Coercing and removing the risk for mortgage lenders to make less "discriminatory" loans sure worked out really well for the mortgage industry. 2) Mandate everyone purchase insurance to increase the risk pool. Good idea...except that the poor are immediately and totally screwed. His solution for that - subsidize the poor. His solution to pay for that subsidy - you guessed it - taxing other groups of people. This is a fine strategy, if you endorse using the law to plunder various arbitrary groups of individuals. Since the law's sole purpose is to provide justice by defending a man's life, liberty, and property, you should be able to see the obvious contradiction. In short - Krugman solution is practicing injustice to promote justice

Also, with regard to his, "every other advanced nation...," statement; massive entitlement programs are exactly why most of these nations are going broke. Apparently, in Krugman's mind, it is considered "advanced" to not only be fiscally irresponsible, but also to proclaim that A is not A.

Next quote:

Can you imagine a better reform? Sure. If Harry Truman had managed to add health care to Social Security back in 1947, we’d have a better, cheaper system than the one whose fate now hangs in the balance.

Yes, nobel laureate Paul Krugman just referenced Social Security in the same sentence with "better" and "cheaper." Anyone who grasps mathematics knows that Social Security is careening at breakneck speed into the abyss of insolvency. Furthermore - it is a textbook Ponzi Scheme,requiring an ever expanding population of people who pay into the system. (For the record - the current population growth in America is 2.1, a number which includes massive latino immigration rates. In order for a population to maintain itself, the absolute lowest-low population growth rate must be 2.11 children per family.) Krugman's statement above relies on demonstratively ludicrous political platitude that Social Security is a trust fund.

The point I am trying to make here is not that I am a better economist than Paul Krugman. I am not. Rather, our basic assumptions about economics and law are fundamentally different. Paul Krugman's flaw, is not a lack of intelligence -- quite the opposite is true. His problems arise from the rather obvious flaws in his foundational assumptions. 

For instance, Krugman's appeals to the "cruelty" of our system. Surprise, cruelty exists on earth - but in Paul Krugman's mind, only in our health system, and the only solution to this cruelty - is to reject the most basic principal of economics: scarcity. It may be cruel to view healthcare as a scarce resource, but this is an unalterable fact. Again, it is a fact that cruelty exists in our system, but only in a childish fantasy world can you assume this cruelty will be eliminated through the right government program. There will still be the very same amount of healthcare regardless of any program. The cost of healthcare is in direct relationship to its supply and demand, and some inherent inefficiencies within the current system. There may be things we can do to weed out these inefficiencies, but it is nearly a complete denial of human history to believe that a government system will be more efficient. The real cruelty here is perpetrated by the New York Times, by propping up a man who promotes such a Disney-movie level view of economics.

As much as he might try to hide it, Krugman holds firm to Keynesian economic theory, and is a classic purveyor of The Vision of the Anointed. These ideas aren't directly expressed, but can be easily derived from his writings. Take for instance - his vision of law expressed above. Though he doesn't state it directly, it can be determined by simply extending his arguments to their logical conclusion. It is clear that Krugman does not hold that the law is an instrument of justice alone, but that it may also be employed to correct certain economic inequalities within a society. The concept of "economic justice" is based on the simplistic and clearly false notion that all people have the same wants, needs, and drive.

The Vision of the Anointed is complicated, but can be summed up in the idea that broad and complex decisions are best made by "experts" or "intellectuals", rather than individual persons. It assumes that if the right constraints are removed, human dispositions can be improved. Thus, the real key to societal advancement is to install the very best and brightest people to positions in which they have the power to make these decisions. This idea is really at the heart of Keynesian economic theory; that an empowered group is required to manage and provide direction to the vast economic forces within a nation. In other words - The Vision of the Anointed is the belief that an enlightened group of men can make people or society better.

I reject this vision. I tend to follow the Austrian School of economics which is essentially focused on liberty and understanding Human Action. I define law as Frederick Bastiat did:

The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.  
In that statement, I find the proper definition and function of government - a tool, or an extension of individual rights. I acknowledge the depressing, yet true fact that health insurance and health care are scarce resources, and do not exist purely because of my desire for their existence. In my opinion - Krugman bends or discards these facts to serve his vision. His view of the law perverts the law's only function, by legalizing plunder, and preforming actions which would be unlawful if practiced by any individual. Visions ought to be based on facts of nature, rather than attempts to bend nature to fit a vision. The same can be said for economics.

Be sure to read Krugman's entire column here: nytimes.com

Filed under  //   Keynes   austrian school   economics   government   health care   human action   justice   law   liberty   new york times   paul krugman   worldview  

Does the Health Care Reform Bill (without respect of persons) increase, or decrease individual liberty?

 

To whom it may concern,

Here are several brief, though vital, questions when considering a vote on this, or any health care reform action from the federal level:

  • Does the bill give ANY special government sponsored privilege to a private company, which could hinder open and fair competition?
  • Does it make the real costs of medical treatment more transparent for individuals, empowering them to make better decisions, or does it remove or obscure this information?
  • Does the bill benefit one "class" or group of people, at the obligated expense of another?
  • Can the bill be easily removed or revoked in the case that it fails to achieve it's proposed results?
  • Similarly, does this bill create a program which individuals could easily become dependent upon for existence, and would thus be obligated to support?
  • Is the bill tailored to address the specific individual needs, circumstances, and choices of each person it effects, or does it focus on broader generalized groups?
  • Finally, does the bill force any action upon individuals - which does not increase or protect their life, liberty, or property?

Whether or not you should vote 'Yes' or 'No' on the current Health Care Reform Bill, can be summarized in one relatively simple question:

Does the bill in question (without respect of persons) increase, or decrease individual liberty?

If this bill results in a gain of personal responsibility, individual knowledge, cost-price-value transparency, more and freer choice, and/or fairer, more open market competition - WITHOUT sacrificing any of the above, than you should vote 'Yes'.

If it does not, than I must urge you as an American, to vote against such a measure.

This is the only right, just, and prudent course of action.

Thank you.

No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic. Until the day of my death, I shall proclaim this principle with all the force of my lungs (which alas! is all too inadequate).

-Frédéric Bastiat, 1801-1850

Filed under  //   health care   human rights   letter   liberty   reform   vote  

F. A. Hayek, Mark Steyn, and Ayn Rand on the decline of civilization

"Of couse, six years of socialist government in England have not produced anything resembling a totalitarian state. But those who argue that this has disproved the thesis of The Road to Serfdom have really missed one of its main points: that the most important change which extensive government control produces is a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people. This is necessarily a slow affair, a process which extends not over a few years but perhaps over one or two generations..."

-Friedrich A. von Hayek

But forget the money, the deficit, the debt, the big numbers with the 12 zeroes on the end of them. So-called fiscal conservatives often miss the point. The problem isn’t the cost. These programs would still be wrong even if Bill Gates wrote a check to cover them each month. They’re wrong because they deform the relationship between the citizen and the state. Even if there were no financial consequences, the moral and even spiritual consequences would still be fatal. That's the stage where Europe is.

America is just beginning this process...

[...]

“Give people plenty and security, and they will fall into spiritual torpor,” wrote Charles Murray in In Our Hands. “When life becomes an extended picnic, with nothing of importance to do, ideas of greatness become an irritant. Such is the nature of the Europe syndrome.”

The key word here is “give.” When the state “gives” you plenty—when it takes care of your health, takes cares of your kids, takes care of your elderly parents, takes care of every primary responsibility of adulthood—it’s not surprising that the citizenry cease to function as adults: Life becomes a kind of extended adolescence—literally...

[...]

When governments annex a huge chunk of the economy, they also annex a huge chunk of individual liberty. You fundamentally change the relationship between the citizen and the state into something closer to that of junkie and pusher—and you make it very difficult ever to change back. Americans face a choice: They can rediscover the animating principles of the American idea—of limited government, a self-reliant citizenry, and the opportunities to exploit your talents to the fullest—or they can join most of the rest of the Western world in terminal decline. To rekindle the spark of liberty once it dies is very difficult.

Live Free, or Die - Mark Steyn

From the beginning of history, two antagonists have stood face to face, two opposite types of men: the Active and the Passive. The Active Man is the producer, the creator, the originator, the individualist. His basic need is independence — in order to think and work. He neither needs nor seeks power over other men — nor can he be made to work under any form of compulsion. Every type of good work — from laying bricks to writing a symphony — is done by the Active Man. Degrees of human ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man's independence and initiative determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man.

The Passive Man is found on every level of society, in mansions and in slums, and his identification mark is his dread of independence. He is a parasite who expects to be taken care of by others, who wishes to be given directives, to obey, to submit, to be regulated, to be told. He welcomes collectivism, which eliminates any chance that he might have to think or act on his own initiative.

When a society is based on the needs of the Passive Man it destroys the Active; but when the Active is destroyed, the Passive can no longer be cared for. When a society is based on the needs of the Active Man, he carries the Passive ones along on his energy and raises them as he rises, as the whole society rises. This has been the pattern of all human progress.

Some humanitarians demand a collective state because of their pity for the incompetent or Passive Man. For his sake they wish to harness the Active. But the Active Man cannot function in harness. And once he is destroyed, the destruction of the Passive Man follows automatically. So if pity is the humanitarians' first consideration, then in the name of pity, if nothing else, they should leave the Active Man free to function, in order to help the Passive. There is no other way to help him in the long run.

The Only Path To Tomorrow - Ayn Rand

All emphasis added.

Filed under  //   F.A. Hayek   ayn rand   citizen   liberty   mark steyn   paternalism   socialism   statism  

iPad - Sans Disneyfication...

Media_httpimgskitchco_gegid

Honestly, I really don't have much opinion about the iPad. My main beef with it revolves around the absolutely pitiful, Disney promo, marketing copy that Apple came up with for it. For instance - the script of their promotional video comes across as sickiningly self-congratulatory. Consider the first sentence:

"You know, it's true, when something exceeds your ability to understand how it works, it sort of becomes magical."

-Jonu Ive

Really? Because, I think that just means you need to increase your ability to understand computers. Or here's an even better gem which can only be fully appreciated when it is accompanied with a dramatic pause in background music (I'm not joking, watch the video - 2:13 mark...)

"It's completely natural...You don't even think about it... You just...Do..."

-Scott Forstall

Of course that's totally subjective. I guess it's a layman's way to describe a good user interface and user experience. But, at this point, that fairly well describes a mouse and keyboard for most people also... Then there's this:

"If you vote for me, all of your wildest dreams will come true."

-Pedro Sanchez

Ok, so that last quote is from Napoleon Dynamite... But seriously, "Magical and revolutionary?" Talk about over-the-top glittering generalities. Does it cure world hunger? Will it provide maps for, such as, the Iraq and the Asian countries, everywhere like such as?

Like I said, I think the iPad is an interesting product, but not OMGTehBestEvar!!!1!, or absolute garbage. I think it will be a good step towards "whatever is next" as far as computers go, even if I think it has some rather obvious flaws. There have been some good articles written about it though. Alex Payne's thoughtful piece, for instance:

 

The thing that bothers me most about the iPad is this: if I had an iPad rather than a real computer as a kid, I’d never be a programmer today. I’d never have had the ability to run whatever stupid, potentially harmful, hugely educational programs I could download or write. I wouldn’t have been able to fire up ResEdit and edit out the Mac startup sound so I could tinker on the computer at all hours without waking my parents. The iPad may be a boon to traditional eduction, insofar as it allows for multimedia textbooks and such, but in its current form, it’s a detriment to the sort of hacker culture that has propelled the digital economy.

Perhaps the iPad signals an end to the “hacker era” of digital history. Now that consumers and traditional media understand the digital world, maybe there’s proportionally less need for freewheeling technological experimentation and platforms that allow for the same. Maybe the hypothetical mom doesn’t need a real computer. As long as real computers stick around for people who do need them, maybe there’s no harm in that.

Wherever we stand in digital history, the iPad leaves me with the feeling that Apple’s interests and values going forward are deeply divergent from my own. There’s nothing wrong with that; people make consumer decisions every day based on their values. If I don’t like the product that the iPad turns out to be once released, I’m free to simply not buy it. These things have a way of evolving, and I won’t preclude the possibility that Apple eventually addresses concerns about the openness of the device.

For now, though, I remain disturbed. The future of personal computing that the iPad shows us is both seductive and dystopian. It’s not a future I want to bring into my home.

Good thoughts, to which he later appended:

 

I’ll close with this: if I didn’t think the iPad was an important device, I wouldn’t be bothering to criticize its politics. Like Steven Frank, I think this a new world, a new era, and I’m not interested in hanging on to the past. Like Joe Hewitt, I’m excited to develop for the iPad, and to use what others develop for it as well.

As I said at the top of this post, I’ve been waiting for years for what comes after the PC, and I truly believe that Apple has shown it to us. That’s why it matters so crucially that this next leg of the computer revolution gets off on the right path, one that embraces openness rather than abhors it. We have the technology and the incentive to build the future of computing in an open way. The only reason not to is greed, laziness, and hubris.

Be sure to grab his whole article. Did you catch the underlying argument for liberty? Totally agree -> although, pending strong competition, "greed" may actually force Apple to move towards openness.

For me, I am interested in the UI developments. I think Multi-touch is a fascinating technology, but it's application to software will really require a total rethinking of user interface and design. Plus, the iPad is just one device, and will no doubt kick off a myriad of competitor products, all with their own different takes on the direction of computer hardware and software interaction. Whether or not the iPad is "the right way" things should go, the ensuing competition, will ultimately be a win for all of us.

 

Filed under  //   UI   alex payne   apple   competition   computers   disney   ipad   liberty   marketing   multi-touch   programming