on dating & economics

  The intricate dance within a romantic relationship can be compared to the efforts of economists struggling to contain erratic market fluctuations. In either situation, the party that responds to the sweeping changes taking place in his counterpart will find himself on the losing side, forever racing to keep up, forever implementing new methods to bring to heel the unfathomable maelstrom he thinks he has the capacity to control. Whether this unfathomable maelstrom be the mind of a woman or the global crude-oil market, the economist, an outside observer inherently blind to the vast and incalculable influences that shape the mood of his counterpart, will enact measures he hopes will soothe the fury of that which he holds dear, often sacrificing long-term stability for the brief elation of short-term gain.
  I have learned one thing about relationships, one truth I have had to relearn time and again: the less you try to control your counterpart, the better off you both will be. When done with patient persistence, attempts to fathom your lover and to steer him in a direction you think best can indeed effect change; the nature of this change, however, will likely range from intensive introspection, over increased volatility, culminating in full-blown systemic meltdown. It is impossible to predict accurately how your counterpart will react to the pressures you have applied – any action will have an appropriate and equal reaction, but its full scope will forever remain known only to the reactive party.
  Imagine for a moment your closest friend, the innumerable events and countless little decisions that helped to mold him into the person you (think you) know today, the environmental and gentic forces that influence continuously the shaping of his being. Now imagine hundreds, thousands, millions of individuals of similar complexity who by going about their daily rounds become what we call markets, with every act shifting the fortunes of various businesses, with each transaction affecting the cycles of supply and demand, their every decision impacting and being impacted upon by unique and innumerable forces. It is all but impossible to know the mind of your closest friend – how could anyone claim to know the minds of thousands of strangers in thousands of different locations across the globe?
  Controlling your lover is a Sisyphean struggle full of complications that subside one day only to reappear the next, a cruel practice that will gut your lover's soul, leaving behind a mindless and docile golem content to do your bidding, within her no room for independent thought, no capacity for abiding Happiness, the dark promise of future abuse her only constant. The controlling lover exhibits deep insecurity and persistent self-loathing every time he endeavors to bend another to his will; the controlling economist exhibits appalling arrogance and damnable small-mindedness every time she endeavors to shape the course of markets influenced by forces far beyond her ability to reckon.
  Just as in dating, attempts to control the market are bound to cause unforeseen complications, new trials that slither forth from the stumps of those just severed, new issues that reduce the economist to the point of mindless docility, her energies sapped by the despair that comes with the realization that, as a single piece of an enormous, shifting puzzle, her actions are unlikely to have the desired affect. In a romantic relationship, the supposedly dominant party can achieve an approximation of control, whereas in the economic arena, a market will defy all attempts at subjugation, the sheer number of influencing factors contributing to its enduring volatility.
  Every economic theory, be it that of John Keynes or Adam Smith, Milton Friedman or Joan Robinson, has proven incapable of condensing the markets into manageable and predictable entities – invariably, each falls short of stabilizing that which cannot be stabilized, causing long term damage greater than the short term benefits with which it is credited. In the romantic as well as in the economic relationship, the method that promises the greatest liberty to the individual is that which disposes of all restrictions on thought and deed, the one that allows for the unfettered fluctuation of markets, the one preferred by humanity since we stood upright and learned to use our thumbs: anarcho-capitalism.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

everything you read

  On two separate occasions in the past few weeks, individuals responded to links I posted or blogposts I wrote with the phrase, “Don't believe everything you read on the internet.” This seems to be a phrase used frequently in sloppy attempts to disqualify or to otherwise call into doubt the veracity of the posted material, as I have seen it used to this purpose on other sites throughout the interwebs.

  While it is true that one should use caution when accessing the Terrestrial Interconnectivity Matrix, and that one should be critical of anything found thereon, I would like to ammend the aforementioned phrase to read thus: “Don't believe everything you read.” Just because something is printed on a physical medium does not mean it is true, unbiased, or based on solid and irrefutable evidence. Having studied statistics in college, I know that numbers can be skewed in most any direction to support most any sort of point. Having argued often with religious and social conservatives, I know that opinions are shaped by a myriad of influences from all types of media, and that opinions based on Fear Of The Unknown are more dangerous to the wellbeing of society than those based on rational and open-minded contemplation.

  The most effective way to foster open-mindedness and rational thinking is to read a breadth of differing opinions about a given subject, doubt the veracity of all those differing opinions, and then form one's own conclusions about the subject at hand based on the subtle truths that the mind inherently gleans from exposure to the differing viewpoints. No subject is completely black-or-white, and anyone attempting to portray it as such is likely trying to obfuscate certain aspects of that subject with which he or she agrees by damning those aspects with which he or she does not agree, so as to gain power or advantage.

  Throughout the millenia, strategists from unconnected regions and different time-periods have all pointed to one fundamental truth of warfare, or struggle: “Know your opponent” (see here, here). Refusing to read a book written by a presidential candidate because one cannot stomach that candidate's viewpoints, or dismissing an argument off-hand because one does not understand the argument, violates the fundamental rule of Knowing One's Opponent. To underestimate another person's viewpoints or opinions is to set oneself up for disaster, as one's personal biases will invariably fog up the mind and prohibit the effective application of one's own forces.

  Read everything avaiable, but doubt it all. No person and no organization is infallible, and nothing is set in stone.

  Open the mind. Defend liberty. Fight injustice.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

on political correctness

  Sometime in the 1990s, the practice of political correctness gained widespread traction in American society. According to the theory of political correctness, nothing should be said publicly that might offend someone who may be listening. Additionally, anyone who feels offended after hearing something someone else said has the right to complain about what was said, forcing the utterer of the offending remark to apologize publicly for her (perceived) transgressions and to make grand pronouncements regarding her steadfast and perpetual love and respect for the person or group that has decided to consider itself maligned. Political correctness at best forces people to be conscious of the feelings of others; at worst, it drives inherently racist and discriminatory opinions (which all but the most disciplined and enlightened among us have) below the surface, where they invariably fester, and grow. Allowing the free expression of racist and discriminatory opinions does two things: it makes racists easier to spot, and to thus avoid; and it grants the individual who harbors discriminatory opinions the ability to vent his or her feelings of hatred verbally, before the venting process turns physical.
  In my opinion, political correctness has hamstrung life in America. Instead of confronting our true feelings and voicing those feelings in public where they can be challenged and counter-acted, we now play nice, pretending to be best friends while making no progress on our stated mission (found on the back of every single dollar bill in circulation) of crafting One out of Many.
  Political correctness is counter-productive also because it implies that, as a speaker in public, I am somehow responsible for the emotional well-being of my audience. If I say something offensive, it is the choice of the listener to be offended by what I have said. The offended party can just as easily decide not to be offended by what I have said, and go on with her day. Too often, however, that person calls for my censorship because she has decided to be offended by what I have said. The theory of political correctness demands that a person complain if they have decided to be offended by someone else's comment; it reduces the likelihood that the offender will voice his true and honest opinion, thus encouraging him to lie, to practice deceit. (I consider the replacement of our desire for truthfulness with socially-acceptable deceitfulness a symptom of the greed and individualistic self-aggrandizement inherent to capitalism.)
  So, next time you are offended by what someone else has said or done, remember: you can always look away, leave the offender's vicinity, or simply consider, in your own mind, their opinion silly, false, or just plain stupid. No one is forcing you to be offended by the actions of another - your bruised feelings are your choice alone, your burden to bear. So please, keep your feelings honest, voice your discriminatory feelings loudly and proudly, and help stamp out the scourge of political correctness.
  Honesty will again prevail in this country, but only if we can first be honest with ourselves, voicing our feelings and opinions freely and in the knowledge that they will be greeted by those seeking, not their own self-satisfaction, but, through open and lively discourse, the betterment of those among us who have been blinded to the equality of all persons (as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence).

(For a perfect example of the doctrine of political non-correctness, watch Clint Eastwood's movie, Gran Torino.)

Stand up. Speak out. Spread freedom.
JPR

on rational thinking - short

The cornerstone of rational thinking is the decision to assume everything is wrong before seeking the truth.

being nice can kill you dead

a new study indicates that containing your feelings after an argument can lead to an early death. to sum up: the nicer and more accommodating you are, the more you are tolerated in the short run, but the more you damage yourself in the long run. I will hazard that a number of factors have led to an increase in niceness, and thereby premature death, in our society, but the most damaging of those factors is the Political Correctness (PC) movement that started in the late nineteen eighties.

I cannot provide hard data to directly back this up, but it would be reasonable to assume that PC has led to increases in lying and dying in this country, as people resort to PC standards rather than expose their true feelings. I am convinced it has also led to more men being pussy-whipped and to men dying younger (for, if my hazy memory of the summary of the study is correct, men are more likely to swallow their true feelings during a fight, especially in the corporate world). recently, following the maxims of Brutal Honesty and other philosophies that trounce PC and champion Truth, I have experimented with freely telling the people around me what I really think, not what I think they think I think they think I should be thinking.

the result? after an initial shock, people tended to more directly address my concerns, they spoke to me as an actual, unique person, and they seemed to have more respect for what I had to say, even if, like most things that escape my lips, what I was saying was churlish balderdash.

niceness is a sickness. too much niceness, like too much sugar, can kill you. I hereby motion to designate one day out of the year, preferably in winter when everyone is cranky anyway, as Angry Day, Trouble Time, or Day of the Flagrant Asshole. the name has to be catchy and, especially, marketable, so that marketers can market the crap out of not being nice and convince a million people to pin a frowny-face on their lapels. just look at AIDS awareness day, or autism awareness day. the people making the stop-AIDS t-shirts and teddy bears with tiny stop-autism t-shirts on them are making big, big money. there are nationalized events, 5k's, telethons and sit-ins (well, no sit-ins, but you get the point). sickness is business, baby.

it is important that we study the negative effects of niceness, and encourage Americans to be less nice going forward. join me, John Paul Roggenkamp, in my quest to spread awareness of the dangers of Mandated Societal Niceness. together, we can repeal the negative effects of Political Correctness. together, we can transform America back into the honest, dreadful, hard-scrabble, speak-your-mind-freely place it once was.

do your part; make the effort to be not-nice to someone today. once you get started, it's hard to stop. it wasn't so long ago that people dueled to the death over words. hey, at the least we would have fewer idiots to have to listen to.

virtuously,

JP

p.s. I'm not a doctor, but you're just going to have to trust me.