http://wired.com/…

1. A reduction of scarcity in electrical energy would be far far more significant then storage capacity or computing power. Increased computing power may help lead to new inventions, new ways to grow crops, etc. but it does not provide the means to do those things. Even with a major reduction in the cost of electrical energy there would still be lots of other components in life which would be scarce. All things being equal… even if my energy costs were zero you’d still have the costs of labor, rent, etc. and those are of greater cost.
2. Egalitarianism is “You know what’s best”? Since when? Every egalitarian philosophy and political theory is paternalistic in practice and often in theory. Egalitarianism is almost always collectivist and tends to remove responsibility from individuals for the supposed betterment of society.
3. Ultimately, humans act because of scarcity. When combined with libertarian property rights you do have a “Everything is forbidden unless it is permitted” system, more or less. But that’s a good thing. History and analysis of human behavior shows that such a system leads to less conflict. Communistic, “Everything is permitted” as in “everything is everyones”,  systems almost always fail due to conflict of interest and asymmetric desires which ultimately lower productivity and therefore per capita wealth.
4. Private property theory and the free market, which exist due to scarcity, is bottom-up. There can never be a post scarcity scenario as described… only greatly reduced scarcity in particular areas of the economy. So if you have a free market the decision process will always be bottom-up and ordered chaos. Only statism is “top-down” and “command and control”in any significant manner.
5. Craigslist and Wikipedia are not gift economies any more then this blog is or any other not for profit. Craigslist and Wikipedia actively request donations which is contrary to the fundamentals of a gift economy. Besides… they aren’t closed loops and therefore not an isolated economy but part of the greater world economy which is fascistic.
6. Mr. Anderson makes several references to “waste.” That nature is wasteful. It isn’t. That YouTube is filled with “waste.” It isn’t. Waste is a subjective evaluation. Animals of simpler structure and lesser ability to protect offspring naturally play the statistics game. Those fit enough, ie those who produced more offspring thereby providing a greater chance of survival, have survived. There is no waste… just a different yet equally sufficient method of continuing the species. It is completely different for YouTube. There is no waste because it is what the customers desire. Only from another’s perspective can one’s property be considered ill used. He even makes mention of this fact yet still calls them ‘crap” and “waste.” It seems to me that he’s just being contradictive in his language and not intent but it’s frustrating none the less.
7. He makes reference to the prime-time broadcast schedule being a scarce resource. That’s only because of government intervention. The FCC has held back radio technology since it’s inception. Rather then allowing the industry to run it’s natural course, much like the digital tech industry he likes to use in comparison, the FCC has regulated the life out of the industries using the radio spectrum. The cost of running a transmitter and even getting the basic equipment to film a TV or radio show isn’t that expensive. (And it would have been less so if it wasn’t regulated.) If individuals were free to transmit content as they saw fit and the government just enforced property rights regarding the homesteading of the radio frequencies there would have been more content and far lower “real costs.”

Seems to me Chris Anderson needs a lesson in economic theory. Appears his book is available for free. Perhaps when I’m done with a few other audiobooks I’ll check out his.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

Three full months after GOP-Libertarian candidate Ron Paul announced his presidential campaign would be “winding down”, he’s actually throwing in the towel for real. Yes, the man who spent over a year pledging to dismantle the United States military has finally ended his quest to be elected its Commander in Chief. Often times portrayed as “crazy”, “batshit crazy” and “absolutely freaking nuts”, Paul marched to the beat of his own drummer. A drummer that supported building a 700 mile fence along the Mexican border because immigrants are the cause of all our welfare problems.

Ron Paul never did get his chance to abolish the IRS, but his hilarious cranky old man antics certainly did abolish a little bit of the sadness in all our lives. Let’s take a look back at the magical year we shared together.

I understand that 23/6 is a satirical site. However, while some may disagree, The Huffington Post isn’t. Do a search for Ron Paul on huffingtonpost.com and you’ll find this supposedly satirical story along with legit news. At least Google News has the decency to include a “satire” tag on all sites which are. This is nothing more than a pot shot and an obvious one at that. For being the only anti-war candidate to make it this far you’d think they’d at least show some support. I suppose their desire for more powerful centeralized government overtakes their supposed wish not to kill innocent individuals who posed no threat to any of us and any idea of individual freedom.

They could have at least been factual in their smear. He does not support building a fence. He supports ending welfare, for everyone in the long run and illegal immigrants in the short term, to remove any basis for blame on them for the ailing welfare state and then allowing far easier means to cross the border. Anyone who paid any attention to his dialog noticed he treaded lightly on the subject in order to pander to both sides. Did it bother me he kept his position a bit ambiguous in order to pick up support? Yes. But that doesn’t change the fact his true position was pro-immigration.

The most recent political book I’ve read is Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches: The Riddles of Culture on loan from Blog of Bile’s very own xyz.  It is a collection of short essays in the field of anthropology and sociology.  Each essay attempts to shatter preconceived notions and explain in greater detail human actions which the author has deemed befuddling.  Amongst the topics discussed are cows as sacred animals, pig lovers and haters, primitive warfare, the idea of an aggressive male, extreme consumption and extreme donation, cargo cults, a history of messiahs, the violent origins of Christianity, early witchcraft and witch trials, and the contemporary resurgence of disdain for objectivity.

The book is a relatively easy and quick read, only slowing down at the end where the author feels it necessary to defend himself from the hordes of sandal-wearing druggies that are going to attack him.  The author is selling his theories as to why certain anomalies in culture exist.  Unfortunately due to the imperfect nature of his science the results are quite subjective.  Despite Mr. Harris’ ardent pleas for objectivity at the end of the book I find some of his explanations to be lacking in sufficient evidence to support his claims of causation.

On a positive note, he does an excellent job of introducing the history surrounding these topics.  There is a lot of good information in the book, mostly revolving around things that are not easily disputed such as recorded history.  This book is an excellent catalyst for debate.

Rather than go through each topic, here are some of the highlights that stick in my mind:

• A good analysis of childbirth and war are used to attempt to explain why males are dominant in most of our societies.
• Some interesting history of egalitarianism, reciprocity and “the big man” in primitive societies.
• A decent early history of Christianity, including the movements leading up to it and Paul’s initial reformation of the church following the death of Jesus.
• A scathing essay on the futility of modern movements attempting to change society by changing individual consciousness.  Scathing is an understatement, perhaps scalding, blistering or even face-melting would be more appropriate.  I think this is the essay bile would enjoy most.

Here are some problems I had with the book:

• He starts with a good premise, “I hope to present probable and reasonable solutions, not certainties.”  But by the end of the book he is so wrapped up in defending himself he comes across like an early evangelical minister telling “God’s honest truth”.
• Don’t quote the King James translation of the bible when entering into debate over the origins of Christianity.  Sometimes Mr. Harris addresses the original Aramaic, but at other times he seems to disregard the translation process that led to the quotes he chooses to use.  This part of the book could use bolstering.

From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -Friedrich August Hayek

A society that puts equality… ahead of freedom will end up with neither. -Milton Friedman

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/…

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what’s happening on Wall Street and how business is going.

Sounds like Christian socialism to me. At least Marxists believe that socialism will raise efficiency and the standard of living of the people. This guy just wants equality. Suffering is fine as long as it’s equally distributed among the population. I’m not sure you can even have a discussion with someone like that. They have no concern for earthly comforts. This kind of belief is a short step away from Mother Teresa’s beliefs that human suffering brings us closer to God.