In Defense of the Y’all

January 28th, 2010 by Rakeela

The word “you” used to be plural. To refer to an individual one would use “thou” or a form thereof. I regret that we’ve lost that distinction. It really isn’t possible in present culture to reestablish it. While I myself understand the various forms of the word “thou”, most people are given pause by them. More importantly, confusion results when I try to use “you” as a plural.

Now I use “y’all”. It’s never misunderstood. I say “you” to individuals and “y’all” to groups (or individuals representing groups). I pronounce it as “yawl”. I don’t think anyone even notices. If I’m in company where I believe that it won’t pass without notice (particularly where such notice would negatively impact what I’m saying), I explicitly break it back apart into “you all”. By conscious decision I never use “you” as a plural anymore.

The problem here is that our language needs this distinction. For some unknown reason, we dropped the word that otherwise clarified it. While I feel that “thou” and its forms have a better poetic sound, “y’all” is understood better. Communication would be clearer without sacrificing speech flow if we just accepted “y’all” as a proper word.

Tags:
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Another Thing We Don’t Have

January 16th, 2010 by Rakeela

Subtitle: Another thing to blame the government for.

Some of us may have been around to see when futurists sincerely believed that jetpacks would become common and popular. A common joke today is to complain, “Okay, it’s the future. Now where’s my jetpack?” It’s 2010, right? This was supposed to be a year of tremendously advanced technology. In fairness, it is. Many predictions simply proved infeasible. Consumer jetpacks are likely never to be a reality.

Today though, I was reading one of those old predictions. It can be found through this link. It was published in 1961 on July 22nd and it is entitled “Will Life Be Worth Living in 2,000 AD?” As per usual for many of these things, the predictions tend to be wrong. It predicts jetpacks also. A few things though it gets right. “Mail and newspapers will be reproduced instantly anywhere in the world by facsimile” stands out as a pretty good description of the internet. “There will be machines doing the work of clerks, shorthand writers and translators. Machines will “talk” to each other” is another one that I feel we can say has come true, and had come true as of 2000 (though in a less refined form).

What really jumped out at me though was a prediction that didn’t come true, though it could have. “There will be moving plastic-covered pavements, individual hoppicopters, and 200 m.p.h. monorail trains operating in all large cities,” boasts the article. I don’t know what hoppicopters are, but we could have had moving pavements and monorails easily. Monorails especially. Moving pavements always seemed a little clumsy to me. I know an airport or two that has implemented them and… yeah, rather clumsy things. But monorails, we could have had. We have the technology. It’s expensive, but not unthinkably so. Many environmentalist groups are advocating for government funding. I want to present a little exercise in an alternative present.

Imagine if the government didn’t fund the highway systems so extensively, leaving them up to the states, and likely having many of them fall into disrepair. Trains would still be popular. Downtown areas would still have thriving centers around train depots like they used to. Trains are much more efficient than cars. It wouldn’t require massive government subsidies to prop up what little rail travel we have. (It doesn’t require that now; those rails should be allowed to live or die on the markets, but I digress.) And if rail travel was a way that people really got around, there’d be demand to improve it. Without so much money going to the highways, billions of dollars more would have been in the hands of the private market over the many years since the various highway expansion programs, billions of dollars that would have helped develop our capital structure over the years, making us richer. With the profits of the railway systems and a desire to ensure that they stayed competitive against each other and against alternative transit methods it seems very probable that we would have monorails. The technology would be farther along today than it is. It would be cheaper. It would be wider used. It would be better tested. And indeed, it would be faster. All of this without a cent of government money. Better for the environment, better for the economy, better for the American people.

We don’t have those nice things today. There are many other nice things we don’t have because government, bureaucracy, central planning, and make-work projects ate our money and gave us nothing useful in return. Shall we continue doing this, wasting the resources of today and tomorrow, that our children should be disappointed the same way? I hope not.

Posted in Government, Politics, Spending, Technology | No Comments »

Healthcare Innovation

January 15th, 2010 by Rakeela

It is a common thought that increasing innovation in healthcare drives increasing prices in healthcare. On the surface this seems reasonable. The construction, implementation, and usage of advanced scanning equipment is expensive. If one is going to use it one has to pay for it.  It is considered true throughout Europe, where most single-payer systems also have cost-control mechanisms designed to reduce healthcare innovation and ration the deployment of new ideas which prove to be considered necessary.

However, one finds aberrations when considering this logically and when comparing it to other industries. In no other industry does innovation lead to higher costs. Innovation typically leads to lower costs. New procedures, methods, and devices will in all other industries lead to higher efficiency or better outcomes. That is a major reason why governments worry so much about ‘high tech industries’. It isn’t the fact that those industries are new and recent. It is the fact that those industries are sources of innovation both in themselves and to the surrounding economy. And of course it goes without saying that this concern is the reason why wise governments look at their economy from the viewpoint of how well it encourages new ideas to be thought of, tested, and implemented. Even ‘low-tech’ industry sees benefits from new ideas and new equipment.

Furthermore, many medical innovations represent a significant lengthening in the capital structure of medical care, and should represent a concomitant increase in specialization. Increasing specialization and distribution of labor is another area in which most industries find increasing efficiency. Where demand is sufficient to sustain the higher output levels, having two factories where one produces only tires and the other produces the rest of the car is more efficient than only having one factory and having it produce the entire car. In practice, car production is a field sufficiently in demand* that the labor is usually split between many factories, with separately produced component being brought together to a plant which specializes not in car production so much as car assembly.  In the field of medicine, the specialization represents taking load off of doctors and refining the specificity of diagnosis.   It reduces or should reduce the cost of training doctors while improving outcomes, and more specific diagnoses should reduce the costs and risks of treatment.  Thus we see improved efficiency… or we should.  Especially we should since there is little question over whether or not there is demand sufficient in healthcare to support a highly specialized system.

Yet the argument is made that we don’t.  The conventional wisdom is that diagnostic hardware is used defensively to avoid lawsuits.  Worse, some argue that such equipment is used explicitly to run up costs and justify higher prices.  I don’t know the source of this hearsay.  Perhaps it stems from legitimate points and there is some valid difference between healthcare and automobile production.  I suspect, but cannot prove, that if there is such a valid difference, it stems from the fact that even in this age of nationalized automobile plants, the provision of healthcare is more harshly restricted by the government than is the provision of automotives.

This is unfortunately the present limit of my knowledge on this topic.  I will continue to study the matter, and of course, I will report on my findings with links to informational sources as I find them.  Until then, I urge everyone to look at news on healthcare topics skeptically.  There are a great many problems with government healthcare control systems.  The risk that they will squash innovation is one of them and it is a very strong one.  It is quite likely that the government will consider healthcare innovation to be a cost-risk and that they will not consider the matter much more deeply than that.  Even if it is true that present technologies cost more than their value, will that be true of later technologies as well?  And what if the conventional wisdom is wrong?

I would be grateful to anyone who offered information and links.

*The fact that healthcare is so necessary and unavoidable should also have it sufficiently in demand to drive as many kinds of specialization and capital investment as humanity can come up with. In other industries, that kind of persistent demand has traditionally lead to great efficiency. Brickmaking, for instance, mechanized earlier and faster than most industries because bricks have historically been a good with steady demand and large volumes required. A similar story exists for clothing, especially ‘work-type’ clothes worn during strenuous activities.

Posted in Economics, Government, Healthcare, Politics | No Comments »

Libertarian Folding@Home

January 14th, 2010 by Rakeela

Recently I’ve come back to the Folding@Home project after a long absence. It’s a fascinating project, but participation costs electricity and uses up one entire core on a processor. I’ve returned because I’m presently using a four-core CPU; whereas before on a two-core CPU I often had performance issues due to extensive multitasking, on this four-core CPU running Folding@Home costs me no performance. The electrical cost is not very noticable.

Folding@Home is a project to study the way that proteins in the body assemble themselves by simulating the process in depth. The processor-intensive work of simulation is spread across a great many different computers. It’s an alternative to renting time with a supercomputer. Illnesses that they are studying include Alzheimer’s Disease, cancer, cystic fibrosis, and Parkinson’s Disease, to name just a few.

The reason I would use this blog-space to highlight the Folding@Home project is because there’s a Libertarian Volunteers group in it. The Libertarian Volunteers group for Folding@Home is presently ranked 1150 out of 172436 groups, and between its 31 different participants has completed 4468 work units, 22 of them contributed by myself. Further help to the Libertarian Volunteers would be great and would raise the team ranking. This both helps a good cause and in a small way increases the prominence of the party. For anyone who wishes to join, the team number is 11402.

Posted in Healthcare, Technology | 1 Comment »

Distance

January 13th, 2010 by Rakeela

I don’t update nearly as much as I could. My most recent post was how long ago? Nor was it as good as it could possibly have been. There are three things that keep me from updating the blog.
The first one is easily the silliest. I’m intimidated by the name I chose! It’s accurate. My ‘big issues’ are largely about economic liberty. I really should simply consider myself fortunate that I chose a name which can easily be found from search engines. I feel very presumptuous writing under that tagline.
The second one is frustration and, I must admit, apathy. It often seems that the only way that people will ever understand that economic liberty forms the only economy both stable and desirable, is when their other forms come crashing down about their ears, or worse become dystopic. Looking at things in this light is demoralizing. I really shouldn’t succumb to such.
The third one is simple distractability. There’s no deep thoughts here besides a note to myself that I should write multiple drafts ahead of time and then have them saved for later release. That would make signing on more productive when writing is easy and a joy when writing is hard.

There might be a fourth as well. I’m quite adept at thinking about political issues in an economic light, but I well remember the times when I would search the web fruitlessly for some ‘up to date’ news story to analyze. The rest of the media is simply not an easy source. I’m not sure what method I should be using to generate source material, and I would welcome suggestions.

Posted in General | No Comments »

Three Chairs

February 5th, 2009 by Rakeela

I live in an apartment. I share it with someone else. We have three chairs for use with the computers. They are all passably decent, but I dislike one of them. My roommate dislikes a different one of them. We have precisely mirrored tastes. The one he dislikes is my favorite. The one I dislike is his favorite.

If you gave us a list of the chairs and had us ‘pick two’, there would be one vote for the chair I like, one vote for the chair he likes, and two votes for the chair we both tolerate. In spite of this, it is the chair we tolerate that we end up not using. Our appreciation of our respective favorite chairs outweighs our agreement on the compromise chair.

I want to read a political analogy into this. I am having trouble making it fit. After all, there are two of us, and thus we pick two chairs. We don’t vote on it, we just each pick (and get) our favorite. If we had to pick one chair, we would likely go with the compromise chair, but that would be silly. There is no reason for two people to limit themselves to one chair.

We put the third chair into the corner and forgot about it.

Posted in General | No Comments »

Apologies for Absence

May 19th, 2008 by Rakeela

I would like to state my sincerest apologies for being so long quiet. My understanding of political ethics has been on rocky ground lately. I’m currently involved in a process of integrating things into my political worldview and reconstructing some of the axioms by which I view politics and economics; it has made it difficult to write confidently about some matters. As one might guess by the title of this blog (Economic Libertarian!), those things are also the ones which relate most closely to the topic at hand.

I have accumulated a number of half-written posts which I simply didn’t feel adequate. I may try to rework those and use them as fodder for further postings. For now, and mainly for the sake of having some content on this post, I’ll revisit a news affair: The Lakota Secessionists.

As we might recall, the Republic of Lakotah website can be found here. There are a few changes since the last time we looked at it, though. The most prominent and noticable is at the top of the page. There is now a warning against a solicitor! The warning reads as follows, “Caution: Duane Martin, Sr. aka “Canupa Gluha Mani” represents ONLY himself and is known for soliciting funds for himself. He is not affiliated with Republic of Lakotah.”

A bit of digging reveals that Canupa Gluha Mani is a Lakotah secessionist himself. In fact, some sources claim that he’s central to the secessionist movement. Another item I found revealed claims that Russel Means “hijacked” the secessionist movement! Props to the Wikinews project for their journalism, by the way. Since these pages are archived (check under link for wikinews policy page regarding archives), they should remain static and unaltered.

My opinion of the Lakotah Secession gambit is that it’s a publicity stunt which was broadly misinterpretted. The tactics being used by the people involved are classic nonviolent resistance. A showy press conference, a website full of information, efforts to organize outside of the state, provision of services to those associated with the group, hand-delivery of letters to important officials. From the point of view of a movement it’s actually rather exciting. It’s important that people realize that Russel Means isn’t the movement though. He’s only a member of it. Although an effective member, he also seems to be a rogue member.

The above, mind you, is conjecture based on limited information. I would particularly like to know what Mr. Mahi did which prompted the warning on the web page. I couldn’t find any information. Means may not be the only rogue member, in which case the real deal of what’s going on is that the movement is alive but splintered.

I think it would take someone closer to the Lakotah Secession movement to unravel all that’s happening. In the meanwhile, I’ll be checking back occasionally. It fascinates me.

Posted in General, Lakota | 1 Comment »

WOW for Ron Paul

January 1st, 2008 by Rakeela

Ron Paul WOW March

This is one of the more ridiculous things I’ve seen done in support of Ron Paul, but hey. No complaining here. Support is support. Take a look at it. And if any World of Warcraft players are reading this, consider taking part.

The event is taking place at 8:30PM tonight on the Whisperwind Server, and starts from IronForge. More information can be found on the link. Whisperwind is a No-PV server.

This isn’t really my cup of tea, but it’s still neat. The Revolution is a creative beast, that’s for sure. What will the grassroots think up next?

Posted in Politics, Republicans, Ron Paul | No Comments »

Our Culture is Odd

January 1st, 2008 by Rakeela
  • I regard as my primary obligation the welfare of the White individual, White family, and White community and will engage in action for improving social conditions.
  • I give precedence to this mission over my personal interest.
  • I adopt the concept of a White extended family and embrace all White people as my brothers and sisters, making no distinction between their destiny and my own.
  • I hold myself responsible for the quality and extent of service I perform and the quality and extent of service performed by the agency or organization in which I am employed, as it relates to the White community.
  • I accept the responsibility to protect the White community against unethical and hypocritical practice by any individual or organizations engaged in social welfare activities.
  • I stand ready to supplement my paid or professional advocacy with voluntary service in the White public interest.
  • I will consciously use my skills, and my whole being as an instrument for social change, with particular attention directed to the establishment of White social institutions.

This is Satire. Sadly, I’m referring to my post, rather than the link.

  1. stopping unnecessary out-of-home placements;
  2. reunification of children with parents;
  3. placing children of European ancestry with relatives or unrelated families of the same face and culture for adoption;
  4. addressing the barriers that prevent or discourage persons of European American ancestry from adopting;
  5. promoting culturally relevant agency practices;
  6. emphasizing that ‘transracial adoption of a European American child should only be considered after documented evidence of unsuccessful same race placements has been reviewed and supported by appropriate representatives of the European American community’

Once again, my post is Satire. Find what I’m satirizing under the link.

I’m sure the NABSW is very sincere in their efforts. They also seem a bit bigoted. Our culture is very odd indeed… Why such fixation on skin color and ancestry?

Posted in General | No Comments »

Ron Paul Earmarks

December 31st, 2007 by Rakeela

I’ve covered this issue before, but for those of who you who are still worrying about Ron Paul’s actions regarding earmarks for his constituency,thiswouldbegoodreading. It’s an article from Lew Rockwell’s website. Eric Phillips is the author of the piece. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you:

In Defense of Ron Paul’s Earmarks.

Posted in Government, Politics, Republicans, Ron Paul, Spending | No Comments »

« Older Entries