In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.

-Theodore Roosevelt 1907

It is unfortunate, I think, that this quote from Theodore Roosevelt is being forwarded without any kind of discussion or close interpretation. It does not simply stand in support of immigration reform (and I only guess that was what the forwarders’ intended) – if interpreted as appropriate for modern times, as I doubt it should be, it has much stronger implications for all modern American people.

How would you identify someone that was “in every facet” an American by Roosevelt’s definition – one with no divided allegiance and complete loyalty to the American people? Would they buy only American products, speak and think only in English (do you get to pick the language you think in?), invest only in American companies, burn their family heirlooms wherever another flag was present, disassociate themselves with their family history – for, seemingly, these are Roosevelt’s prescriptions.

And if that is what it took… then how many Americans would Roosevelt commend – certainly not the foreign-product-buying kind, employees of or investors in Toyota, Sony, et al., or even customers of American companies that outsourced jobs to reduce costs for the America consumption-addiction. All of these actions, and others, ingrained in modern American life, are certainly highly suspect for anyone claiming to be a Roosevelt-approved American loyalist.

Of course, we must ask ourselves, how many of these (apparently loyalty-subverting) activities were even possibilities over 100 years ago when Roosevelt spoke these words? The answer, certainly, is “very few of them”. The world has changed and America has changed with it. Looking to hundred-year-old quotes for normative advice can only go so far.

If you found these words to be compelling instructions, I am afraid it was only because you did not realize that they do more work against all supposed “actual Americans” than they do in support of tougher immigration laws. If you, in fact, did realize that broader implication, then I am sure you see we have much bigger issues in modern America than how to think about immigration.

I, personally, think that the quote is only worth interpreting within its own time – which leaves it normatively neutered and of simply historical value.

–
Andrew D. Anderson

http://www.AndrewDAnderson.com

The people would be taxed using a flat sales tax for necessary government services, but extra projects would be funded by inflation-indexed rate-capped government bonds. This way debt would be more fine-tuned by individual communities – and the nation would have less chance of overspending (especially on a national level).

Because communities would own patents collectively (granted by the national government), to foster innovation and productivity, large one-time cash awards and honors should be given to innovators. Say 10x the median income. This would ensure people were still excited about innovating, but prevent multi-billion dollar entities, groups, or people from concentrating power. Because local governments and people would benefit from innovators, they would be highly sought after. The local governments would set wages accordingly to keep and attract promising people. This would ensure that mediocrity didn’t run rampant.

Everyone would own arms, and participate in government/community at some level (even if it was just picking up trash in the park). This would make people feel connected with their community, and likely lead to more voluntary government involvement. Decisions at the local level would be made via direct democracy. State and national decisions would be made via representations. The overarching system would be a republic.

Governments would not be able to turn people away, but they could have policies in place to provide very low wages to new members of the community. Children would also become new members of the community when they were able to vote (which should require some type of national test, rather than an age requirement). This should lead to relatively normalized living conditions, and starting wages would not go too low (to deter new members) if people knew it would also affect their children.

I think that under a system like this, people would be guaranteed basic wages, but innovation would still be highly prized. Communities would become meaningful and cohesive, and people would not be making as many decisions while being removed from the effects of those decisions. Power would be with the people – political and economic power, both.

Certainly there are no shortage of biological possibilities for explanation (at least while assuming the more popular man-woman coupling). Biology equips us with a desire, so the story goes, to spread our genetic material. So, we desire a mate. Fair enough, seems sensible – most have felt biological effects that can reasonable be attributed to this assumed desire. But, why then does it stop at one partner? Perhaps it makes more sense in the short-term, human children are frail, and it does no good to spread your genetic material if you’ll not bother to ensure it survives. The couple endures to rear their young. But, could there not be one man and two women? Would it be much more difficult for the man to protect/provide for two children from different women than two children from a single woman (twins)? Why not diversify your portfolio of genetic successors? Which leads to the next wonder… why does the ideal biological union linger for a lifetime?

The answers may very well not lead us out of the biological woods just yet. Blame it on biologically-inspired jealousy. You’re not simply equipped with the desire to spread your genetic material, but to do so more successfully than your peers. It is easier for me to justify jealousy on behalf of a woman than a man. The woman is vulnerable during her pregnancy, she needs her partner’s undivided attention to ensure he provides optimally for her needs – thus ensuring a healthy child. If the man won’t commit – well, he just wont be spreading his genetic material. He commits, because he must. Of course, we now jealousy isn’t a one-sided ordeal. Many men are jealous. It could be that this jealousy is simple a restrained version of – kill your opposition. I suppose it is not too far-fetched.

However, I’m still not convinced this accounts for long term unions. It seems to me that these explanations of jealousy would mostly dissolve after the short-term child rearing. Based purely on biological motivations – the couple should separate and try numerous other genetic combinations.

And, well, we can’t pretend biology answers most of the aspects of this couple setup. What about the couples that don’t ever have (or want) children, and the same-sex partnerships, or the kids that talk about getting married long before they ever hit puberty? What can biology say of these? What advantage here does the two-person organization provide?

Financial stability would likely be better ensured by much larger groups, so too would entertainment value. Intimacy might suffer with groups that get too large, but not in smaller three or four person configurations. Are there social constraints? Sure – four people can’t get legally married – but marriage rates in many countries are slumping, and social constraints were not strong enough to suppress same-sex unions. I doubt they could overcome a strong desire for alternative social units.

What can we make of it? Simply some desire to emulate our parents, or the parents of pop-culture? Might society one day fill itself with groups of four or five partners – or will couples linger? And if they do, to what can we owe their success?

I’ve a few more thoughts on this subject… but they’ll have to wait. Until next time…

As long as I have been alive, and for as long as my uncle before me, the United States has been infatuated with capitalism – and Americans have benefited from it. We have been the winners, and the people making our cheap products have been the losers (at least arguably, and for a time). After being thoroughly exploited, most of these countries have gone on to have their own economic expansions, and so, perhaps capitalism actually helped them along. At any rate, capitalism is all about this cheap “stuff” we  seem to so enjoy. It has always required human labor, and in many cases that labor has been cheaper outside the USA.

That’s all well and good, and most of that last paragraph isn’t too debatable. Capitalism, in pioneering new stuff (new technologies, too) has made the world a much less “boring” place. In the hunter-gatherer society I discussed in a previous post, you’d likely have a lot more time on your hands… but you would have far fewer ways to spend that free time. Maybe this is why capitalism and industrialization have made hunter-gathering an obsolete way of life. Maybe, among other things, people were just too bored.

All I really want to say about the relationship between hunter-gathering and capitalism is that the transformation from the former to the latter has been evolutionary. At some point in history, hunter-gathering seemed like a stellar social system, and out of it led agricultural systems… and eventually we had capitalism. (More free time breeds less free time, go figure… although it seems the trend hat been reversing in the past few centuries.) Now, few people would consider (or do consider) non-industrialized ways of life preffered ways of life.

Ok, so here is the issue a I have with capitalism. It has invented technologies that are on the verge of reinventing themselves. Artificial intelligence, robotics, computing in general – these areas emerged from a capitalistic system. (For which we should all be very grateful to capitalism.) However, once these technologies become relatively self-evolving, capitalism has a real issue on its hands. Namely, there will be very few jobs. Almost everything will be benefit from new technologies that can work faster and smarter than humans. Massive unemployment… not simply single digit, but high double digits. Then what?

Capitalism is very poor, in my opinion, at dealing with unemployment. Which is perhaps why socialistic legislation gets passed when unemployment gets too high. At any rate, capitalism’s success is going to cause real issues. Not just for the worker, but for the capitalist. The technology will be so cheap that it would make little sense for anyone NOT to have their own machines working for them. Every man a capitalists, every machine a laborer – errr, capital.

Some new system will have to emerge to deal with this. The system will have to deal with the sky-high unemployment, the serious possibility of resource depletion caused by an exponential increase in output, the social issues that will emerge (after all, this setup looks a bit like a new form of slavery). I posit that system is going is going to look a little more egalitarian than capitalism – dare I say, a bit more communistic or socialistic.

Machines will be exploited rather than people, and what’s so wrong with that? It is hard to comprehend now (for some people), but so too was our capitalistic system to the hunter-gatherers that necessarily came before us.

Some day, capitalism may look as disagreeable as picking berries six hours a day – but it will be remembered as a stepping stone. A system that bred technologies capable of furthering social evolution. Bravo!

On the verge of such a change we need not hold on so tightly to the system in which most of us are comfortable. Thank capitalism, and lets move on.

This man has few constraints. He requires food and water. To obtain these things it costs him significantly fewer than eight hours a day. With his free time he may do whatever he pleases, granted his options are somewhat limited. Since he is on his own schedule, he can dry enough meat in one month to live for a few months, or he can hunt more often. He answers only to himself, works only for himself… and I think he has the purest form of freedom.

Now, this man must have learned to hunt, or what vegetation is edible. In some sense, this man starts of with a sense of obligation. He owes his parents or his teachers for his knowledge, and so he may wish to take care of them in their old age. He acquires more constraints. The elderly cannot move too often, so the man builds more stable shelters and procures more food. Still, this can be done in fewer than eight hours a day. He cannot move as often, but otherwise he is free to do what he wishes.

We may realistically assume that the man does not know how long he will live. He knows that when he is elderly he will have a harder time procuring food, and so he takes out an insurance policy – he has children to care for him in his old age. In so doing he must aquire a few more constraints – a woman and a child. Still, he can feed all of his dependants with not much more work. Emotional constraints are bound to emerge – and the man’s free time will likely not be quite as discretionary. He will be somewhat obligated to spend time with these people. Which, given the few other options he has, may actually enhance his free time.

At any rate… this small group is relatively flexible. They enjoy a freedom that is absolutely unobtainable in our society.

We are not born into a world where we can wander the land (there are property rights), and if we want land to wander upon we must have money (we must satisfy the wants of others) and we must continue to have money to pay taxes. The way in which we can use our land is often restricted as well, and should we not abide by these laws it will cost us more money. At every turn we must procure money, so we must satisfy the wants of others. What’s more is that we do not have a few hand-picked and personal dependents, we have a whole number of them that we do not know (funding welfare programs).

How, or why, is this system better than the the one that came so many years before? Why did it emerge, and for what reason does it linger? If freedome is the ideal, for what have we sacrificed so much of it? Is our technological system completly opposed to this free system? Could the two somehow merge?

I’d like to investigate answers to these questions.

I have not read that condensed anti-autobiography in many years. But I’ve been having a desire to do so lately. So, for the purpose of comparison, I am going to use that technique to describe myself today. So let me begin: I am not sure where to start.

You find yourself in a loud room with lots of people around you and smell some type of alcohol… I am not there. You imagine that someone avoids these type of gatherings because he/she is very dry, shy, or too busy. None of those apply.

Sometime else, someone is sitting in the park with their feet dangling over the water and a book in their hands – it is not me either. You will not find me in a coffee shop making small-talk with strangers. You will not find me acting on emotion unless you are directly related to the action at hand and have made me smile at some point in time.

You may look at me, and I may smile at you; you almost never induced the smile. Smiles are quite rarely an unconscious decision.

Something about you is truly hideous… I am not in your company. I do not spend time with ugly artwork. I do not loath time spent with interesting people. I do not find projections interesting; transparency is the most interesting complexity.

I do not smoke, I do not drink, I do not attempt to escape reality, I do not run from anything (I do not NOT run towards somethings.), I do not value anyone simply because they exist. I am not convinced you do exist.

You think I am looking at you, but I am usually looking beyond you. You think you go unnoticed, but I am aware of you. I am no drowning my mind in noise and images and fantasies when you might see me.

I am not a hopeless romantic. anymore. I am not going to proclaim that love is dead. I will not pretend you are special. I am not you, as far as you know.

I do not sleep with stupid women. Even if they are gorgeous. anymore. I do not think small. I do not act gently. I do not hide anything. anymore.

I am not dead. I have never been dead. I am not opposed to logic. I am not opposed to beauty. I am not opposed to love, or ideas, or the dark. I do not like anger, or weakness, or fear. I will not watch you bear those things. I am not opposed to taking them for you, or carrying your luggage if I am in the mood. I will not, however, mindlessly heed your demands.

I do not like to swim. anymore. I do not think you are a genius because you can recite others’ ideas. never have. I do not respect authority without personal investigation and approval.

I cannot stand humidity.

I make few guarantees. I make fewer promises. I never fail a promise. I think it is impossible to fail yourself. I do not watch network television. I do not like commercials. I do not require myself to speak to anyone.

I do not forget what is important. I do not remember what is unimportant. I do not pretend interest. I am not impatient.

I am not. I am not. I am not.

I am not, more or less than I am. anymore. yet.

Perhaps spurred by my own self-doubt over the past few days, I’ve been contemplating originality. What it means to make something new. What must be in place before the thought of creation can even be entertained. How many contributors are involved in something as simple as this sentence.

I write for myself here, using borrowed words and shapes from centuries of inherited forms of communication. I type on technology perfected by at least thousands of minds. To some extent, I think it must be the case, my thoughts are bound by an environment that has surrounded me. How I write, what I write, in what form I publish those writings. They are not mine. The thoughts – I feel I make them – but perhaps I only pull them from some prefabricated knowledge store. A librarian for the ideas of others – organizing, distributing, gazing upon them – so familiar with some of them I take subconscious possession.

You too, certainly? Every author I’ve read. Every quote I adore. Not mine, not theirs. I detest the notion that man is some innately social creature – but how can I escape assigning true ownership of anything to anyone but “us”?

I painted last quarter – charcoal, paints, graphite, paper, marker, gel ink – I made marks. But now I wonder if I did not steal them. I took some-one’s line, shape, color – I took them and threw them down and called them all mine based on the way they fell. It bothers me slightly.

But, there is no escape. It must always be this way. I have tried to tame raw thoughts – wordless, shapeless, soundless mental activity. My own – but overwhelming. Unintelligible. Headache inducing. Nearly maddening.

I don’t know how to relate my frustration here. Lend me your thoughts… I need to put them on the shelf.

Today is your day to take front-and-center. Which is funny, because I thought I saw you do that yesterday. You have that really confounding habit of being at once so unique and too generic, so I can’t really be sure if it was you or not. I mean, I remember a smile…

Regardless, today is your day. And I’m cooking for you; well, me and millions of others. We are glad to do it! (I’ll refrain from mentioning the millions of others that are starving today.) I doubt you’ll be joining me for dinner directly, but that’s fine. It’s the thought that counts.

I’d like to take this day, your day, Thankful, to thank you. For being so optimistic, fun-loving, and cheap. Aside from today’s preparation costs, which are usually needlessly over-the-top, you don’t cost a whole lot to keep around. I mean, you’re just as happy today, with all the extravagance, as you were yesterday. Heck, I could have you over any day, and you’d just be grinning away. Tickled with life. That’s what I love about you.

I mean, that is something much easier said than done. Overlooking any bumps in the road, appreciative that you’re on the road to begin with. Glad simply remembering how you got to where you are. Chuckling, never fretting, at the memories that knocked you down. An attitude like that really enlightens others, too. Thank you for being pleasant.

Let us not, of course, forget your humility. While quick to acknowledge your fortune, your never impose it on others. You never make them feel less successful or less fortunate than you. That kind of humbleness is hard to come by. It’s probably what makes us all keep mimicking you annually.

I could carry on – about your wisdom, your thoughtfulness, your sensitivity, and your own ability to whip up an impressive meal, but I’ll stop here. I can see you’re already inching your way to the door – never one to take all the attention for too long…

I just want to say – thank you, Thankful, for being you. Not just today, but everyday. You’ve really set the bar high for the rest of us, and I could not be more thankful for that.

I have a problem with the way people run this country and the way many people run their lives. I dislike indirect democracy, taxation, and the idea that all people are equal (created – yes, existing – no). I have big problems with chemically altered states of being (I don’t even like aspirin), dense people reproducing, and structured education. I’d rather not talk about government licensing, land ownership, or five-day-a-week jobs — but I can’t stand any of those things either.

Now, I’m not one for idle complaints – let me be the first to rock the boat, or take problems straight to the top. Problem is, for many of the things I’d like to see be fixed, even those that realistically could be fixed, there is no one to address. Ask anyone where the problem comes from – and you’ll hear “them” – “they” are the bastards. Problem is, “they” can’t be identified. “They” have been abstracted away.

I’m left with solutions in an envelope, and no mailing address. But, this post isn’t about what I’m going to do about that – had us both fooled, didn’t he! [WHAT?!]

I hear it over and over again, that this world is not about what you know, its about who you know. I hope not. I don’t like many people well enough to get to know them.

It seems to me, that used to have to be the world. I mean, you wanted to find a good hairdresser, you had to ask your mom. Then came the phone book, more importantly – then came the Internet. Suddenly, information was there in front of you faster than you could call your grandmother. As an employer, I have many more options now for finding truly skilled workers. It’s more difficult for me to be misled by Frank, the guy in IT, recommending his brother-in-law Bill for that empty position that I know nothing about.

For one, I can Google Bill. For two, I can easily become more familiar with the open position by asking question in an objective forum. On top of all that, I don’t just have Frank for recommendations, I have monster.com. In short: I have much more information for any decision I will ever make than my grandfather ever had access to. Suddenly, any single person’s input becomes much less important.

Obviously, the employee and the consumer are benefiting from more information too.

And that information continues to expand – “transparent” organizational operations, open software, free books, Wikipedia. Things are becoming more decentralized and accessible. There are fewer unrevealed abstractions. And at the same time, things are becoming more communal.

How long before “they” have to show themselves, or vanish? It would seem that the gatekeepers’ and all their fancy tricks, are finally running out of time. Goodbye copyrights, see you later IRS, now, how about that direct democracy?!

Maybe I’m way off. Maybe I will not live to see any sweeping changes in the way people live and think about the world and the people in it. Maybe their will always be a “they” because there may always be some invisible force of society. Perhaps you’ll always call your mom for the name of her hairdresser instead or reading 28k reviews online. Maybe you weight Frank’s advice as one million times more important than what anyone else can tell you.

In that case, can you forward my resume to your highest-paying associate? Because I’m going to need a job.

And therein we isolate the problem.

I knew exactly what I was doing: risking my money; you did not risk my money. If I lost it all at the casino, I would not expect you to reimburse me. If I maxed out my credit cards, I would not expect you to reimburse me. If I ate out every day, bought cigarettes and alcohol, drove expensive cars and never used public transportation, and then opened my bank account to find I was in the red… I would not expect you to reimburse me.

On top of that, if I became a multi millionaire tomorrow, because of risks I took years ago when others were too risk averse – I certainly would not expect you to have your hand out. I’d already be pissed that I had to pay ridiculously high taxes on money I risked to build companies you work for.

You see, I may be young, but it seems obvious enough to me… Your money should be yours, my money should be mine, and we should be able to do with it as we please. (Whoa, almost beginning to sound like a free market.) You buy hamburgers with your five dollars of discretionary income every week, I buy stocks with mine. You go broke: your problem. I go broke: my problem.

Now, being the humanitarian I am, I may decide to help you, but I certainly would not want to be forced to. If I were forced to, I would consider it to be robbery.

So, there are a few million of us. We risk our money, we lose our money: yeah, our problem. The fact that we have less money may impact your life, you may want to do something about it. But it should be your choice, you know, how to use your money.

And if we team up, and make excuses for each other, and convince ourselves that it is OK to rob you, well then, what have we learned? Not much. But you, well, you have learned to take your money and run. You certainly should not ever let it happen again. Of course, something else happens too: we destroy the free market. We tell you what to do with your money, and all of us lose.

So, there are millions of us. Group us under common names: call us corporations. When we go busted, because of our own decisions – if you have money, and if you have sense, take your money and run. We’ll all be better off. Hell, some other group of people might come along, under a different name, and they might take our place. They may even be better. They may even be foreign.

Us… we’ll muddle through. We’ll get jobs if there are any. If any of you bailer-outers were dense enough to stick around, maybe you can pay us to do something. Maybe we’ll pay off our own debt. Maybe we’ll stop making excuses when we realize no one is listening. Maybe we’ll take responsibility for what we’ve done and what we’ll do.

Oh, the possibilites, when I control my money and you control yours. So take yours and run, while you still have yours.

Unfortunately (IMHO), change is almost debilitating to some. Lack of control, uncertainty about the future, a reluctance to surrender the past – for whatever reason some people have a terrible time carrying on when everything changes. They walk backwards into the future, with visible reluctance at every step. It is nearly as painful to watch as it is to perform.

The last few days have startled me into a realization that I don’t really know what’s coming next – for myself. Much less for  anyone else. And I’m fine with that. In all honesty, I’m intrigued by it.

I set out with a point, but I’ll leave this open-ended. It’s more interesting that way.

“Only a new president can renew the promise of America — the idea that if you work hard you can count on the health care, education, and retirement security that you need to raise your family. These are the basic values of America that are under attack from this administration every day,” [Hillary Clinton] said. here

Alright, frankly, I am not a huge fan of politics. I don’t involve myself too often because it makes me sick. It divides the country and allows it to war against itself rather than work together. However, when I read this… I was afraid someone might actually believe it. So, I have to write about it… even though I don’t want to.

The first really unsettling aspect of this quote is that Hillary mentions this “promise of America”. I don’t recall that the revolution was over health care, education, or retirement security. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever read a “promise” in any text book that has ever covered the USA. America, not to say it has a wonderful governing strategy, only promised freedom. Increasing taxes to cover these false “promises” is not freedom – it is taking away money from those already poor, who would like to believe in this promise. One might argue that by taking away more money from the hands of the people, those services are opposed to freedom.

Secondly, the idea that you must “work hard” is sick. For how long, Hillary, must one work hard to enjoy these propositions of yours? Retirement age is already past the half-way mark of the average human life. Work, work, work… and then you are old – you have sacrificed your youth “working hard” so that your government could help you. So many “hard working” people should have been able to help themselves.

Hillary assumes you will have a family. The real question is, why would you? She is addressing those reliant on the government for retirement and health care, presumably YOU, perhaps someone in such a state should refrain from procreation before they can be self-reliant.

I wonder why Hilary Clinton does not push for American citizens not to “work hard”, but to make others work hard for them. Instead of promoting the employee side of things, the real workhorse side, why doesn’t she promote a not-so-difficult life of invention, technology, and management? Rather than assuming you will be dependent on government intervention for retirement and health care, why isn’t she touting the need for personal responsibility? Instead of allowing the government to control these programs with your money, why wouldn’t you want to do it yourself? Who is Hillary Clinton to impose this “promise” on a system of freedom that should obviously be about personal choices and less dependent citizens?

Hillary closes with an attack of the Bush administration. That is the only legitimate aspect of her statement… and my four-year-old brother could have easily done the same, considering almost everyone in America is whining about the same thing.

I’ll be the first to agree, America needs something new. We are obviously going to get “a new president”. However, it would be detrimental to foster Hillary Clinton’s ideas of governmental dependence and workhorse employment. Next.

I thought I was upset today by rules. It turned out I was upset by the mindlessness of the enforcement. I felt sorry for the enforcer. To believe that one posses the power to dictate the actions of others… why, that is laughable. It leaves one in quite a quagmire. So focused on others that they become counter-productive and quite stale.

Let them try to enforce; I may not even expel energy to “disobey”. In the end – they are bound by others – I am free to live and choose my reality.