One Law

Re-thinking governance. We only need one law - the Non-Aggression Principle - the foundation of libertarianism - to maximize justice, peace, and prosperity.

by

The Internet, AI, You and a Lot More Lawyers

The Internet, AI, You and a Lot More Lawyers

As the Internet has grown and now with the advent of AI, the line between true and false, fact and fiction, real and deepfake, will likely become even hazier.

We already knew the truth was in the eye the beholder, but the choices and possibilities for believing and justifying whatever one desires could approach infinity. I hope this is not the beginning of Kurzweil’s Singularity!

What will this mean for how we each think, decide, and act?

How will we know what is actually right or wrong?

How will we know if our personal and professional relationships are sound?

How will this added uncertainty change us?

How will we know ourselves?

Maybe chop wood, carry water?

I don’t have the answers to any of these questions, but I’m fairly certain that we are going to spend more time determining the legitimacy of many things that we previously took for granted. It would seem that making important decisions may slow in an ever-increasing avalanche of data. I hope I’m wrong.

Endless research and squabbling about who has the better facts would not seem to be the answer, but that is all we hear: data, data, data.

As my statistics professor once said, give me the right data and I can make the numbers support anything you like. Will that data be yours, someone else’s, or AI’s?

His takeaway? The statistical conclusions should always resonate with your gut. If they don’t, take a another pass. Maybe more importantly, it brings us full circle. Listen and trust yourself.

Then, will burning a lot of time determining the legitimacy of information create an environment or an incentive for people to return to using principles to help gauge the accuracy and nature of a situation, and how to predict or anticipate the future?

Again, I don’t have the answers, but from a libertarian’s perspective, it is tantalizing to think of the possibilities because this pending cosmic confusion could drown an otherwise effective and efficient means of communicating, interacting, and transacting via the Internet.

What would these principles be?

How would they be used, enforced?

Once again, I don’t have the answers, but I’m fairly certain there would be a competition of ideas and the better principles will rest on consistency and transparency in supporting social and economic activity.

That would suggest that the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) would be a leading contender in creating an open broad-based expansion of justice for promoting long-term peace and prosperity – what comes from cooperative human activity.

Murray Rothbard stated the nonaggression principle (NAP) in this way: No one may threaten or commit violence (“aggress”) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a non-aggressor.[1]

Interestingly, libertarianism is the only “ism” that is based upon a single principle that can effectively fairly resolve any disagreement at any level in society. It would alleviate the need for millions of pages of contradicting and unenforceable positive law enacted, the associated special interests, graft, waste, not to mention the entire edifice of governance based on taxation.

Wow! …but there are no free lunches. We will need millions of more lawyers to facilitate and create voluntary contracts, mediate, arbitrate and litigate disputes, and otherwise prevent and more justly and locally resolve a wide variety of social and economic disputes that can all be solved by applying this one true rule of law.

Lawyers would be common craftsmen in this realm, helping people realize their social and economic potential in a world legally based on the NAP. Lawyers would be practicing at the highest moral and legal level of the law, clearly proving Shakespeare got it wrong.

Note: The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.

Source: SC Striebeck for One Law

Video/Image Source:  Custom Direct Inc.

[1] https://mises.org/mises-wire/what-aggression#:~:text=Murray%20Rothbard%20stated%20the%20nonaggression,the%20aggressive%20violence%20of%20another.

by

Entrepreneurs Can Break The Vicious Cycle in Healthcare

Entrepreneurs Can Break The Vicious Cycle in Healthcare

Indiana, as well as the nation, is definitely caught in a vicious cycle in public healthcare, but not for the reasons cited in last Sunday’s “Your Turn” segment.

https://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/2023/08/23/indianas-shortage-of-public-health-care-workers-creates-vicious-cycle/70613052007/

Although there is a shortage of workers, funding, infrastructure, and promotion for healthier lifestyles, the real problem is more basic and cannot be solved by gubernatorial fiat and raising taxes.

The real shortage is in basic economic knowledge which is not the economics most of us were taught in high school or college. More of us need to discover real economic principles that are consistent with human nature and more accurately explain all economic activity without artificial qualifications.

With this greater understanding of how we literally work together in society and create value for each other, we can see that our re-investments into healthcare, education, and security should be made directly to entrepreneurs and not through the middlemen in government and affiliated interests.

If past performance is the best indicator of future performance, then our continuing to double down on governmental reliance after decades of failure seems extraordinarily unwise.

A true entrepreneurial approach would not result in more public healthcare, but more individual healthcare, and in sum, the public better served.

Note: The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.

Source: SC Striebeck for Wisdom of Anarchy, critiquing the Your Turn segment “Let’s break state’s vicious cycle in public health care” by John Macy and Kerrey Thomson, The Indianapolis Star, 7F August 27, 2023.

Video/Image Source:  Mykal McEldowney/IndyStar

by

Is More Regulation Over Employee Salaries Good for Employees?

Is More Regulation Over Employee Salaries Good for Employees?

https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/advocates-push-for-more-pay-transparency-in-indiana-new-salary-range-disclosure-history-ban-laws-becoming-more-popular-in-u-s#comments

“In Indiana, employers aren’t required by law to provide a wage range when they post a job ad, something pay equity advocates like Rep. Sue Errington, D-Muncie (Indiana), say they think could be a big boost to reducing the gender wage and wage disparities that impact people of color.”

Before we can assess whether it would be beneficial to have a law that would require employers to provide this information, we should first ask ourselves why there may be gender wage gaps and wage disparities that impact all sorts of different people, not just women or people of color.

Many persons, particularly those who lack experience in entrepreneurial endeavors or running a business cannot fully appreciate the innumerable factors which an employer must consider when hiring an individual, even for the simplest of jobs.

Remember, for businesses unconnected to special interests or regulatory barriers to entry, the consensual market is the most unforgiving economic environment. Typically, there is not as much protection and job security relative to positions in nonprofit organizations, governmental bureaucracy, or political office.

When the sole gauge of success is how well you satisfy your customers, knowing that they can instantly exchange your service for that of another, the room for mistakes is very little. It pays to be value-minded in the short and long term. Like it or not, the market, being the sum of individual decisions, may be reflecting that women are not as productive as men over the course of their professional careers, all else being equal.

This is not because they are individually less productive or less intelligent than men in any given moment or as to any task or skill, but perhaps because many may become or are currently mothers that will generally tend to spend more of their lives bearing and raising children compared to most fathers.

As such, they may not be quite as available and present as their male counterparts in their professional roles; thus, their risk profile is different and the value of their services will not be identical. Yes, most entrepreneurs consciously or unconsciously sense these differences and many others and price them into their decision-making.

Similarly, the same may be a reflection that for some minorities in some locales who have been more negatively affected by the relentless failure of public education. It is not because anyone is inherently dumb, but rather what value can a particular person help create in an enterprise. Obviously, education and experience is a huge factor. Each interaction between employer and employee is personal. It cannot be objectified. To micromanage this analysis and decision-making is shortsighted.

Of course, many will find this rationale absolutely sexist, racist, and utterly outrageous. But strictly speaking, historically and logically, from an economic and moral perspective, these considerations and others like them are justifiable without resorting to an assumption of prejudice against gender or race. It is just the reality of subjective economic reasoning in maximizing value to the consumer.

To be sure, there are and will always be at least a few circumstances where prejudice is in play. The good news is: prejudice has always been bad for business, but any good businessman knows to exploit his competitor’s ignorance. There is little room for personal and petty distastes when you are working in a competitive market environment.

However, how does one separate the action of legitimate market considerations from prejudicial behavior? Unfortunately, without being in the heart and mind of each employer, we cannot make this determination. While creating such a law may be well intended, it is totally unenforceable.

When we enact such legislation, we are doing more harm than good by creating a chilling effect on going concerns and entrepreneurs attempting to create jobs and value for consumers. We dampen economic activity. We do not boost it. That is a counterproductive policy. Less employer subjectivity, adaptability, and choice in creating job offerings means less and reduced diversity in available jobs and fewer choices for consumers.

Note: The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.

Source: SC Striebeck for Wisdom of Anarchy, critiquing “Advocates push for more transparency in Indiana” by Daniel Carson, Indiana Lawyer, theindianalawyer.com, August 16-29, 2023.

Video/Image Source:  Indiana Lawyer and IL Research

by

The Truth About Society & Fueling the Polarization of Culture?

The Truth About Society & Fueling the Polarization of Culture?

When we use the word “society” to convey some truth or opinion we commit a grave error.

Statements such as society thinks:

  • Murder is wrong.
  • Love is good.
  • You should help people in need.
  • You shouldn’t lie.
  • You should brush your teeth.
  • You should be nice to people.
  • Giving is better than receiving.
  • Stealing is bad, etc.

are false. Neither because of the subject matter nor because they are bad people, but because society is essentially everybody.

Society is usually defined as “a body of individuals living as members of a community” or ” [a] community”.

And of course, we do not actually speak for everybody or even some majority of everybody, and everybody does not believe these statements — not to mention all the interpretations, qualifications, and exceptions that could be attached to these ideas. Then, people often say one thing, but do the complete opposite. And of course, only individual human beings think, decide and act.

That is a lot of misinformation for just two words followed by a statement, and a reminder that generalization is the death of anything important. Yet we hear politicians, media pundits, teachers, and people everywhere continuously commit this simple error.

This may sound like nitpicking and quibbling, but when conveying or arguing important ideas, precision is necessary. Unfortunately, detailed explanations require more time than a sound bite. In a world of ever-shortening time preferences, important details are increasingly lost.

Argumentation through gross generalization, if not patent falsehoods, and claiming or insinuating total societal support probably does not qualify as active listening. Rather it contributes to the setting of heels instead of having a more critical discussion and search for “mutual truths” (à la Ray Dalio); this failure fuels the fire of cultural polarizations.

The slowing of conversation may be the first step to opening space for more listening and the exploration of underlying principles and reasons for anyone’s assertion of a societal view.

Note: The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.

Source: SC Striebeck for Wisdom of Anarchy, borrowing heavily from assorted writings by Murray N. Rothbard and Frank Choderov.

Video/Image Source: OpenVerse; courtesy of WordPress.org

by

So What if TikTok is a National Security Risk

So What if TikTok is a National Security Risk

************

The following article, “Is TikTok a National Security Risk?”, was originally published by the Wall Street Journal, Dec. 13, 2022 as answers from adult students to the question posed in the article’s title. See here. The author’s commentary on various excerpts is in blue or otherwise in the larger font.

************

Despite the hysteria about China and the CCP infiltrating the world and in particular the U.S.A., there is a far greater contagion infecting the hearts and minds of western culture — a disconnection between how many would like the world to be and reasonable means to achieve it, not to mention whether these goals are even possible or worthy.

The dogma that underlies many of the answers endangers the “can-do” American culture that has significantly contributed to, if not propelled and perpetuated, the arc of modern history in the Americas and in other parts of the world. Although many Americans are proud of this legacy, it is not wholly ours.

Centuries before the creation of the U.S. government, what was to become the Americas became a refuge. Immigrants came here for many reasons, but a change from their particular status quo was the common denominator. Many risked everything to gain the freedom to take greater responsibility for their futures. Regardless of their origin, they were the seeds if not the standard bearers of “rugged individualism” and “American exceptionalism” — before these notions were co-opted by those in the American government and used as an excuse for a litany of hegemonic efforts — they were simply entrepreneurs.

Both conservatives and progressives are trading the very essence, the fundamental principles, of what was good about the evolution of these identities for the illusion of protection by the government, in this case from technological innovation that we are only just beginning to understand — think Sam Bankman-Fried. Oh yes, many are calling for more regulation, but there will always be fraudsters, and the government will always be one step behind. Just like Enron, Madoff, and now SBF.

Once this charade, this sophisticated Wizard of Oz-like dynamic, is recognized and appreciated for its impossibilities by a critical mass of persons, then culturally we can move forward with addressing any threat in a far more responsive, adaptable, and cost-effective manner through the unbridled principles of entrepreneurialism bounded only by the non-aggression principle.

So in a free society, if the government cannot protect us from ourselves, from what we view and what we allow our children to view, whether it’s TikTok as a trojan horse, Twitter censorship, Google data theft — the Enrons-of-today — then who will?

The short answer is each of us. It starts with the individual. Sovereignty is in the individual, not some arbitrary nation-state. If we cannot manage or we lack individually, then through delegation to entrepreneurs seeking to serve that demand. Only then, can we grow individually and by sum as a society.

Each of us always has a choice. In every moment, we can consciously witness all the choices before us. We can consider how making each possible choice affects ourselves, those, and the environment around us. Then pause. Which ones resonate in logic? In intuition? Most importantly, which one resonates in the heart? If not, back up and re-examine the options. The alignment of logic, intuition, and the heart is about as good as it gets.

What does this process, this extra effort in critical thinking and greater self-awareness give us? Wisdom. It is earned, never granted, and never easy. It is an investment in the self. We grow in unforeseen ways. We advance best practices for any solution whether we solve them directly or indirectly by casting our votes with entrepreneurs who have skin in the game.

As we grow individually, we create market forces that inspire and ignite curiosity and creativity in others to specialize and solve any problem far more effectively than any government official or bureaucrat could possibly dream — not due to lesser intelligence, but a better alignment of incentives and greater appreciation for risks; both of which, fail to exist within the political class and its immediate environment — not just with the U.S. government, but all governments.

And most ironically, the yielding of choice or power to our government plays perfectly for the CCP in that our government becomes a little more like it — I cannot think of a better example of a race to the bottom.

Note: The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.

Source: SC Striebeck for Wisdom of Anarchy, borrowing heavily from assorted writings by Murray N. Rothbard and Deepak Chopra summarizing Vedic philosophy in the Seven Spiritual Laws of Sucess in commenting on “Is TikTok a National Security Risk?”, as originally published by the Wall Street Journal, Dec. 13, 2022 5:59 pm ET

Video/Image Source: Martin Bureau/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images