I'm currently reading The Black Swan, by Nicholas Taleb (which I highly recommend simply for its thought-provoking ideas). In the book, Taleb makes the argument that what we don't know is far more important than what we do know (a little over-simplified, read the book to get the full concept), which leads to an interesting idea which can be of comfort to some and disheartening to others. The men and women studied in history are people who did great things, but what of the people whose little actions have a huge, yet indiscernible, impact? If a Boeing employee proposed higher safety and hijack-prevention standards for their planes in early 2001, 9/11 may have been avoided. Yet no one would ever thank this man, nor call him a "hero" for preventing a terrible attack, because no one would ever be able to comprehend the impact of his actions. 9/11 is referred to by Taleb as a Black Swan; it was something that could not be expected, had a large impact, and forced people to look at and analyze the "what ifs."

You may never be remembered for great things, but a small action of your own doing could have a great impact. You could be an "unsung hero."

A Voice Lost Among the Crowd

Free speech is a wonderful thing to have. The Founders, in their wisdom, granted this right unto all citizens of our proud nation. Too bad we abuse it. James Madison wrote that, although all people should be equal under the law, politics should be saved for only the educated few, as the "common man" at the time would have no comprehension of national politics. However, with the rise of the media, people now can easily voice their opinions in editorials and blogs (which then become regurgitated by the masses) even when they are, to put it lightly, incorrect. The age old adage should be considered at all times, "do not speak unless you know what you're talking about" (often referred to by parents as, "don't open your mouth without thinking first"). The "common voice" is a great concept and all, but all too often the voice of the people drowns out the voice of reason.

The Media, Free Speech, and the Westboro Baptist Church

The media is a plague in our society. I think we can all agree with that. The media, everyday, focuses on the morbid, the frightening, and the celebrities (or was that redundant?). Charlie Sheen's highly-publicized meltdown has garnered millions of hits on Youtube, and dragged millions of viewers to otherwise boring talk-shows that have invited him. Yes, his quotes are hilarious (go look up one of his interviews if you haven't yet) but is this REALLY what the media should be focused on, over-paid celebrities whose jobs are to entertain us, not have us worship them?

The media is, in essence, an economic institution, albeit a large one. To understand the media, we must analyze it from an economist's perspective. Media companies, like any other, are formed and maneuvered to maximize profit, not to benefit society. What they choose to bring to the market by airing on t.v. (SUPPLY) is what we as a people want (DEMAND). While we can be angry that the media focuses on the "gloom and doom," we have only ourselves to blame, for we, as a society, will watch the dramatic and frightening, which will make the media MORE MONEY.

This demand stems from what novelist Joseph Conrad referred to as the "fascination of the abomination," which stated simply that humanity has an inherent, morbid curiosity. Though, as an enlightened individual, you believe this is disgusting, it applies very accurately to society as a whole.

Let's look at some examples that portray the evils that these concepts bring about. Number one? Terrorism. Like it's namesake, terrorism is not about purely killing, but inspiring fear, and nothing does that better than murder. However, if a terrorist kills someone in a forest, and no one is around to see it, does it reverberate across America? NO. The media's focus on 9/11, for instance, spread fear across the nation, something which could have been easily controlled by limiting its publicity. Our media, therefore, can act as an instrument for terrorists across the world. Why does the media publicize 9/11, then? Because it's a HUGE NEWS STORY, and brought in BILLIONS, because that's what people wanted to read about, and you can't fault them for that. And that is why terrorism works.

Another example is the recently decided Westboro court case, in which Westboro won (8-1), allowing them to continue protesting at soldiers' funerals (they believe that a soldier's death is God's punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuals). There is another reason they picket at military funerals, however, and that's publicity. By demonstrating at these big events, they can spread their message across the nation (via media coverage) and inspire hatred, fear, and even some support. They are obviously less effective than terrorists (most people understand they're just whack jobs), but it satisfies what they want, and so they continue to slander our nation's finest. Again, because society demands it, the media brings it.

The tough question is, can we resolve this? Blocking the media would inhibit freedom of the press. Blocking Westboro (according to the Supreme Court) precludes free speech. The media also has some societal benefits, so a tax/subsidy to correct an externality wouldn't work. The best we can do, right now, is inform the public of consequences of their thirst, and that's why I've taken the time to write this.

The Great Invisible Fence

In an exercise of the practice of limited-government, I feel I should take some time to address and explore an absurd problem and an even more absurd solution. Drug trafficking has endangered the lives of countless Americans, not to mention millions of South Americans, and is seemingly unaffected by its title of illegality. Crime will always occur on Earth, there is no doubt. It seems, then, that the most effective way to lower crime rates is to reduce the list of actions we consider to be crimes! If everything were legal, there would be no crime! This sounds inane, yes, and would not work at such an extreme, but there is truth to be found in it. Laws are established to help guide, but can never fully enforce. For something as large as international drug trade, then, these "guidelines" are reduced to mere "suggestions."

The only solution, then, is to consider more drugs "legal" in America. Now, precautions

must be taken for this to work. To legalize drugs would mean to give people easier access to

drugs, and lower the skyrocketing demand that makes South American drug trade so profitable

and irresistible. In this way, we can lower the amount of smugglers entering the country. Still,

however, we'd have a whole basketful of druggies, which is an obvious health problem waiting

to happen. What to do? Sin tax. Allow people to apply for licenses to sell drugs under

government inspection, and charge a HUGE tax (but still low enough to keep people from

reverting to underground trade. Money will cause people to buy less, and what they do buy will

aid the government (and hopefully end income tax). Drug trade without a license will be illegal,

still, and the drug business will function much like the gun business now (with the bugs fixed?).

Since only drug TRAFFICKING will be illegal, then, it will be much easier for police forces to

hunt down suppliers, instead of every speck of cocaine in America. Finally, our government,

who seems to have the DESIRE to choke the economy in its grip, will have a business under

their control, more or less, and can keep an even tighter reign on it that with tobacco, making

these drugs even more harmless to society AS A WHOLE, in a sense.

And boom. Less smuggling from below the border, less crime in the States, more money

for our massively in-debt government. And a Great Invisible Fence shall protect our people.

You're welcome, world.

New Year's Eve

Tomorrow, when I wake up, I expect a rush of freedom and lightheartedness. Failing that, I shall see 2010 as a continuation of time, rather than a "New Year," which implies a sense of starting and stopping; of discontinuous time. Happy New Year, and welcome 2010.

A Little Q&A

Some say there's an answer to every question, and I wholeheartedly agree. If a question can be proposed, the government can sure develop a BS answer. The saying loses credibility if you are actually looking for a GOOD answer, however.

Dealing with Chickens

Chickens are interesting creatures. There are currently more chickens than humans. Chickens have also become the focus of some of humankind's most philosophically-challenging questions. For example, which came first? The chicken, or the egg? And why did the chicken cross the road to get to the other side?

Starting with the latter, I have chosen to interpret this "joke" as indicative of the importance that "progress" plays in our society. The chicken crosses the road to move forward, the get to the other side so that it may continue its journey.

The former question is a little tougher. If you tried to explain it with evolution, you would have to define the exact moment the bird-ancestor evolved into the modern-day chicken. In a more abstract sense, the question would be one of a person's foundation (constructed from morals and beliefs). This question would be more personal, then, and not have a correct answer for the general society.