New Take on the Fermi Paradox

Ted:

"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." — Professor Bernardo de la Paz on the subject of taxes.

Thought experiment. Imagine we had the option to fill out a Long Long Form 1040, and 'vote' where our taxes went. We would 'vote' only for things that 'we wanted,' and allocate our taxes.

Folks would have the option to fill out this form, or not, and use the present system of representative gladhanding cronyism. I mean, let Congress hash it out.

So, some of the budget was funded 'directly', and some of the budget was funded via the present chocolate pudding wrestling match.

Congress, in its wisdom, would allocate the non-directed taxes to smooth out the rough edges.

In the end...the budget looks pretty much as it would have anyway. So, some in Congress decide to just secretly throw away all those Long Long 1040s, and pretend to follow them, to save time.

A thrifty watchdog taxpayers group gets wind of this, and is about to revolt, but then realizes that it is a good way to save some money and time, by not having to print out and handle all those Long Long Form 1040s. So, they end up just asking folks to pretend that they were filling it out and sending it in, because it was the same bottom line.

When you or I pay our taxes, what is to prevent us individually from believing that we are paying only for those things that the government does that we want?

I admit this isn't perfect; some people claim to want 'nothing,' even as they irrationally enjoy the benefit of living in an expensively defended political context. I think this is called 'mooching.'

That is my criticism of Ayn Rand's AS, and her assertion that Midas Mulligan had 'paid' for his little resort complex.

Incomplete: in her alternate world, she brushes aside the reality of competing totalitarian alternatives. He 'paid' for it inside of a political context. True, in the story, inside of a totally out of all control political context with tribalism running amok, while closer to our actual reality, it would be a situation more like a nation half our present size borrowing the equivalent of $3T in todays dollars, putting 16 million Americans in uniform, and leaving 400,000 in a meatgrinder in WWII that 'paid' for our current imperfect political context.

In reality, Hitler was not going to be faced down by a sharp shooting pirate and six of his closest friends, funded purely by boat ramp use fees.

In reality, virulent meat eating fascism was faced down by our version of soft fascism, and the only other alternatives were pure speculative hypotheticals, never proven.

Our soft version of fascism needs to be paid for while we struggle to stand up something other than soft fascism. Until we do, we are all collectively accepting benefit from our version of soft fascism and have an obligation to pay for that benefit.

It is one thing to ethically fight against soft fascism from outside of its benefits; it is another thing to do so from within.

If we can afford the luxury of defending our own political context, then there is always:

http://www.privateislandsonline.com/

If not, then our inability is not a claim to subsidy, in exactly the same manner that our inability to grow our own wheat and build our own bakeries is not a claim to walk into the 7-11 and take away bread for free.

If we realize benefit from the expensively baked freedom bread, then the bread needs to paid for.

regards,
Fred

Post 81

Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 11:47am

Mindy, as you may know, there is also the evidence of spectral analysis. Each unique chemical substance has its own characteristic light spectrum. helium was discovered in the sun before it was found on earth not by direct sampling but by analysis of the sun's spectral fingerprint. The fact that far away stars have the same sort of spectra as near ones shows that the makeup of the universe is consistent across space and through time.

Post 82

Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 11:47am

Fred:

You lost me. Can you summarize the main point(s) you are making here in a sentence or two? Thanks.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 83

Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 11:56am

Fred, at times your posts are quite entertaining... and certainly unique. But too often, whatever point you are making is lost to me amongst the many metaphors (and sometimes it seems like you may be making many, many points). Your baked good is so filled with nuts and fruits that the cake intended to hold them all together no longer has a discernible flavor. I yearn for a post with less imagery and more direct assertions and supporting statements.

Post 84

Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 12:23pm

that's why they call it a 'fruitcake', with the usual reprobated view going to it... ;-)

Post 85

Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 6:33pm

Steve, you know that every religion has all kinds of silly baggage. Buddhism for example, which is derived from Hinduism, has all kinds of sects that contradict each other in many respects, especially when you get down to the level of the peasant farmer and all the displays, etc., that are used to entice belief for the uneducated. I'm not defending the Hindu mythos, and especially not the various ethical beliefs taken by Hindus or Buddhists or any other religion. I'm quite a hard-core disbeliever from the late '60's on.

Usually, however, you will find, if you look seriously, that each of these belief systems has an intelligencia who sometimes appear to honestly challenge their own beliefs, or at least recognize that they have to hang together with consistency and logic. You doubtless recall that we went through a long period of argument and discussion here on RoR (which could easilly be restarted) on the issue of a Christian Apologetic argument from first causes, presented mainly by G. Brady Leonardos.

The Hindus basically have a choice of what Gods to worship, because these various Gods are understood by them to simply be aspects of the divine. Their religious behavior is not so much dominated by the Christian sin/guilt kind of attitude, but rather the idea that one performs rituals and mental exercises, such as yoga or meditation, in order to progress a little towards Godhood.

What I find so interesting about the core beliefs of the Hindus, in particular, is that their ontology might actually approximate the truth, whatever the errors in their derivative and secondary beliefs, especially those aimed at the mass audience.

How DO you answer the issue that they make on the infinite duration of the metaverse? Do you try to claim that our "universe" - our space time continuum - is actually ALL there is. I don't hear very many - in fact, none - cosmologists trying to make that claim. And if the universe or metaverse is infinite in duration, then certainly whatever can evolve has evolved, right? Or certainly, one would think that in such a span, a close approximation of the most intelligence possible would have been achieved a LONG time ago.

What then would such an entity's motives and purposes be? If such an entity essentially "used up" the available resources in its particular space-time continuum, such that there was only room for it, then the argument again makes sense that it would of epistemological necessity have to divide itself somehow in order to avoid madness from the inherent possibility - in fact, probably inevitability - of positive feedback loops. And there you are at the core Hindu cosmology.

What you quoted actually makes perfect sense to me, although I don't agree with it. One can, however, drop the references to a "soul," which is NOT equivalent in the Hindu mythos, BTW, to the Judeo/Muslim/Christian concept, and to literal reincarnation as both the mass-market Hindu and the non-Hindus like to portray it. Leave all that theocratic marketing behind, in order to focus on the philosophical core. Is there a natural end of evolution? If so, what is it? And if time is the factor, or some such dimension of duration and causality in the metaverse, then what would happen if evolution ran on to infinity?

Post 86

Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 7:59pm

Phil,

I don't sign-on to any religious positions that arise from scripture. I call for reason and evidence, not faith and revelation. Are you implying that there is some mystical awareness that ancient Hindu prophets had that revealed for them the truth to the cosmological questions? Are you suggesting that those who want answers to what I would call science type of questions should turn to Hindu holy books?

You said, "What then would such an entity's motives and purposes be? If such an entity essentially "used up" the available resources in its particular space-time continuum, such that there was only room for it, then the argument again makes sense that it would of epistemological necessity have to divide itself somehow in order to avoid madness from the inherent possibility - in fact, probably inevitability - of positive feedback loops. And there you are at the core Hindu cosmology." I don't even know what to say. You are so far from any rational discourse I recognize as to be in a world by yourself.

Post 87

Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 8:23pm

Our universe is all that exists.

Post 88

Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 8:30pm

Well, then let me rephrase:
Consciousness begins with sensations, integrated over time as a learned process to perceptions. However, if you became so personally powerful - or so isolated, as in extreme solitary confinement or as depicted in the Tom Hanks movie, "Cast Away," then at some point you would start talking to yourself - and answering. This is what I'm referring to as a "positive feedback loop," leading to a descent into chaos, mathematically speaking. Sensory perceptual deprivation leads to hallucinations, for example.
If you suddenly became God, then, like Hitler, you would find yourself in an epistemological dilemna of the same sort. The ability to control everything would mean a descent into madness, as you would no longer have real perceptions, unmediated reference points to reality.
So, if something on the order of a God - not supernatural, but so extraordinarily powerful and smart that he would appear that way to us - is a possible outcome of ultimate evolution, then such a being would be faced with this very problem.

Post 89

Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 9:07pm

Phil, I can't really see any part of what you are writing as being tethered to reality. You are going on in rushes of jumbled, logically disconnected thoughts that apparently have a reality for you, but don't for me. The disconnect seems to be psychological rather than ideological or rhetorical.

You jump from the observation that man developmentally learns to integrate sensations into perceptions, to a statement about becoming so personally powerful or so completely isolated that one talks to them self. You don't have any explanation of what "personally powerful" means, or any connection between that statement and talking to ones self or why talking to ones self leads to chaos or where mathematics comes into things. You jump from there to saying if one became god (which in this case is somehow like Hitler) you would have some kind of epistemological dilema (which seems to be a description of what was written above, but doesn't track). You say "the ability to control everything" which is an impossible condition based upon everything we know, would lead to madness (why not just control things so as to not go mad?) which is not even loosely related to sensory deprivation except in some fuzzy fashion in your mind. "something on the order of God - but not supernatural" is a phrase that contradicts itself.

The best thing to do would be to persist in a slower, less rushed chain of thoughts and to fill in the blanks with connections that will hold up. It is like some vision is pulling you forward so urgently that you don't have time to ask any questions in your mind that would give back good connections. It is as if you have chosen to let the subconscious fill in with quasi-logical connections.

I don't have any interest in Hinduism, or the cosmological positions, or epistemological processes imputed to god-like beings. I just find myself wondering if you might find yourself in a position to take better control of your processes. I know that I have seen posts of yours in the past that are not scattered like these last ones have been.

Post 90

Friday, January 30, 2009 - 12:01pm

I apologize.

Is it possible to pay our individual taxes to a government that does many things, and regard them as paying only for things we want and agree with?

If not, then why not?

regards,
Fred

Post 91

Friday, January 30, 2009 - 1:48pm

Fred, the way you phrased your question above, it is the same as saying, "Is it possible that people might agree with what government does with its taxes (even if it does many things)?"

Clearly, the answer is yes, it might be possible, but that doesn't mean anything, since the people could just share the beliefs that their politicians have. That is, the population and politicians are all minarchists, or both groups are advocates of a particular form of socialism. The question is really just "is it possible for some group of people to all agree?"

I'm still not getting what you are trying to say.

Post 92

Friday, January 30, 2009 - 2:41pm

Fred, I think I understand where you are going with that, and I would have to say no. Our taxes pay for a myriad of programs, and if the rhetoric is to believed, they go in equally. You pay for the a percentage of ALL federal programs with your taxes, even if the percentage that goes to each one is small. Technically, you're not even paying for current programs, but the programs of yesteryear. The argument that you might consider ALL of your taxes to be going to a program you value is an evasion of the fact that you have no choice in the matter. Its a rationalization to get you to accept a package deal. It makes a person feel better about the process, but it doesn't change what happened or the truth of what your money was taken to support. An example would be a person is robbed at gunpoint. The victim later finds that the assailant also robbed ten other people. He also learns that the assailant spent half of the money gained on crack and the other half paying tuition for his child to attend an Objectivist workshop. If the victim chooses to believe that HIS stolen money went to the betterment of a child, while the other poor bastards were robbed to fund a drug habit, that doesn't change what actually happened or any of the issues involved. What it does is allows a victim to administer his own bromide. To blunt his own outrage at a crime.
(Edited by Ryan Keith Roper on 1/30, 2:41pm)

Post 93

Friday, January 30, 2009 - 2:51pm

Ryan, please remind your daughter I have TWO betrothable nephews.

Post 94

Friday, January 30, 2009 - 9:51pm

Wow, Ted! I think the Yoda kid takes after your side of the family. Adorable.

Post 95

Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 9:08am

LOL!

Would that be the westerly heading when everyone else is heading north? Really cute. I like the serious look, brains are engaged.

Post 96

Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 9:41am

Ryan:

WARNING: THREAD ABUSE IN PROGRESS

This tax discussion should probably be on a different thread, and I apologize for the thread abuse, but I've never been very anal about absolute thread purity. It's just not in me to worry about 'thread purity.' Thinking of more than one thing at a time is a pleasure, and it is not nearly necessary that everyone enjoy the same pleasures in life.

So, I'm going to permit myself this abuse, and still manage to sleep at night, because the topic was introduced in the context of paying for things related to the Fermi Paradox.

"(Ryan)Our taxes pay for a myriad of programs, and if the rhetoric is to believed, they go in equally. You pay for the a percentage of ALL federal programs with your taxes, even if the percentage that goes to each one is small."

That's an assertion, not a 'why?' To me, it's just as arbitrary to regard my pooled tax dollars as being theoretically uniformly distributed among all programs as opposed to directed at specific programs. That was the purpose of my meandering hypothetical, the 'Long Long Form 1040.' My argument, although it may not have been clear, is in the end of that hypothetical (where some of us do take the time to fill out the long long form 1040 and explicitly direct our tax dollars) we end up exactly where we are today, except that we've made the administration of common government more expensive, so why do it?

"(Ryan)Technically, you're not even paying for current programs, but the programs of yesteryear."

OK, then my also assertion remains; why can't I regard my taxes as applying to the programs of yesteryear that I agree with and want and benefited from?

"(Ryan)The argument that you might consider ALL of your taxes to be going to a program you value is an evasion of the fact that you have no choice in the matter."

I have no choice in the matter for as long as I am a dependent child. When I am an adult, if I continue to accede to the local political context that I draw benefit from, then I've made a choice as a capable adult in this world. It is not an excuse that "I can't afford to grow my own wheat and build my own bakery, therefore, I am entitled to free bread at the 7/11." It is also not an excuse that "I can't afford to buy myself a private island and defend it at www.privateislands.com, therefore, I am entitled to benefit from the freedom bread without paying for its expensive maintenance."

As adults, we have only so many ethical choices when we continue to benefit from an expensively maintained political context, even as we do not individually get to be emperors and have 100% of our wishes met, meaning, we agree with everything the local political context does.

On any given issue or set of issues that we disagree with, we either work politically to change them--and continue to pay our bill for benefits received(including, our ability to freely work to change them), or we accede to them, or we withdraw our consent and pay our own way in this world, as it is. The above are the 'ethical' choices, for as long as we as adults continually knowingly receive benefit from the expensively created and maintained and defended political context we find ourselves in.

If we believe we find ourselves in a totally tyrannical political context, then there is another ethical choice, and that is, to megapolitically overthrow it, and what determines the outcome is primarily winning the conflict. But our political ethical choices do not include, as adults, 'continue to accept benefit, but disavow the ethical obligation to pay for those benefits.' This is rationalized in most instances by disavowing that those benefits even exist.

The reality is, 'not paying my taxes' is not a choice in the current political context. Indeed, we have no choice. My argument is, we also have no ethical choice but to pay for the benefits we knowingly continue to accept, as adults. However, within that political context, there is still plenty of 'choice.' Including, how to arrange our affairs, how much taxes/subsidy we end up throwing at the state, and how we personally regard the taxes we do end up throwing at the state. I can pay them, shout out 'these are unfair' and be eaten alive with the injustice of 'where my tax dollars are going.' Or, I can pay them, and never give them a second thought, because I have minimized them to a level that I can justify. Or, I can go visit www.privateislands.com and do my adult calculus.

Or I can revolt in other than plain sight as in 'duck;' dodge the constructivist fork, let Obama and endless rounds of 'pump priming' do it, prove their case, or let them fail miserably and finally. What are we afraid of? That Obama et al are right about all this 'The Economy' running?

If we truly do not accede to our current political context, then we should be openly revolting. But within it, there are yet plenty of ethical choices. Other than in fantasies, it's currently the best shot we have on this earth. It permits, quite readily, the ability to 'hide in plain site,' to abstain, and my argument is, even when doing that, it can be ethically done.

regards,
Fred

Post 97

Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 9:44am

Sorry, but this 'freedom bread' argument is nothing but an extension of the 'it takes a village' mindset...

Post 98

Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 10:35am

Robert:

Village?

To face down Hitler, here is what it factually took in a nation half our present size:

1] They put 16 million in uniform.
2] They borrowed $3T in today's dollars, war bonds, to ramp up our own soft fascism, the Arsenal of Democracy
3] They left 400,000 of themselves in the meatgrinder.

That is factually what it took to actually create every 'free world' economic opportunity that came afterwards, and the imperfect consequence was, our own soft fascist beast remained and transitioned seamlessly to the Cold War, and has never stood down since.

In purely romantic, utopic hypotheticals, a sharp shooting pirate and six of his buddies was going to face down Hitler. There are plenty of coulda, shoulda, woulda arguments of how meat eating totalitarian alternatives in the world might have been faced down, and all of them are nowhere in evidence in the real world.

Please. In the world, as it is, it objectively took much more then 'a village.' Had that collective generation not done that, and Hitler et all had shown up outside of 'Galt's Gulch', only in romantic fantasies was that factual meat eating virulent fascist mob going to stop and say "Wait a minute, these folks can make the air wiggle above their happy little valley and they have a deed to this land. Sorry, our mistake." That is great romantic fiction, but to align it with reality requires some serious propeller head nonsense.

Midas Mulligan might have 'paid' for the deed to the land, but Midas Mulligan did not 'pay' for the expensively maintained political context he found himself in, there in Colorado. Rand had to turn herself inside out conjecturing magic rays and whatnot to imagine a world where 30 people were going to face down a million marching raving lunatics in boots and keep them from tearing them to shreds.

It is impossible to live inside of the comfy confines of the imperfect American political context, and not receive benefit from it, even as it imperfectly yet defends the paradox of freedom.

Look, I get Rand. She had seen the insanity of an imperfectly unfettered state, came to our imperfectly fettered state, and started screaming at the top of her lungs, waving us off, 'Don't go there.' She painted with a giant crayon, letters 100 feet tall, couldn't miss her point if you tried. She considered herself in a tug of war, with her on one side and several billion slobbering lunatics on the other side, pulling her back towards the abyss she had already seen.

She pulled damn well, and she had to. But she was neither God nor Goddess, and I thought I heard her rather clearly: "One skin, one driver." A corollary of which is, "Give up your mind to no other, not even me."

She argued strenuously against lots of things, including cognitive dissonance, 'the big blank.' And yet, that is pretty much what Rand herself does when she attempts to 'blink away' the existence of the mob.

We can't do that. We can blink all we want, and Marx's state remains. Marx's 'state' will always be the biggest slobbering beast in the jungle, no matter how many times we try to blink it away. As either Marxists or freedom loving objectivists or laissez faire captialists, mankind is never going to spontaneously align itself and become a single minded utopic bee colony marching behind the One True Fasce, no matter what the One True Fasce is, including 'Galt's Speech.'

So, the best we can strive for in reality is a mutually fettered state. As in, if you want to self educate your child, as opposed to send him to the village school house for Hillary's indoctrination, then do so, and in fact, in the current expensively defended political context, you yet have that expensively defended right. Spend 15 minutes in places like 'Bangladesh' if you want to see what an unfettered state is, one truly over-run by the True Believer religious crazies. The nominally secular civil authorities are regulary beat over the head with murdering Hartals there, in spite of their urgings to '
modern up.' Freedom from the slobbering dark ages mob costs, and if you truly believe there is a real world political context where freedom yet has a better shot, then that is the one you (and I) should be supporting.

Rand's romantic art/philosophy is beneficial in striving for that fettered state, but is useless in blinking the state away.

regards,
Fred

Post 99

Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 11:32am