The Cleft of Reality

Human instinct does not calculate risk reward well. Relevantly, it’s bad at additive collection. Humans tend to judge a series of risks based on how many of those work out well.

 IE- When given a choice between two stock lists, wherein, on list A each stock gives a steady 6% return with almost no failures, and list B offers stocks wherein 90% fail completely and 10% give a 1000% return, people gravitate towards A even though B is much better.

 This affects politics on several levels. A large amount of our policies are built around encouraging a low failure environment.

 A low failure environment is not a low risk environment. It is simply an environment with a low rate of failure. This is an important distinction. The market is designed to naturally balance risk against return. Market interventions mostly raise risk while reducing the rate of failure. Most of what appears to be a market failure, is in fact, a feature of the market, a place where market calculation exceeds the abilities of human intelligence.

Thus does Keynesianism sound good. Thus does it give an appearance of working. However, the constant meddling and endless inflation results in sharp recessions, as bad ideas have to be liquidated all at once, whenever the market is no longer sufficiently productive so as to cover its obligations.

Similarly, gun control helps to reduce the chances that someone will open fire in a drunken fury, or come to work next Monday with murderous intent. However, it also insures that if a man does arrive with a machine gun, he'll be able to kill as many people as he so chooses.

Terrorists are also susceptible to failure aversion. Perhaps even more so than investors. A terrorist normally only has one shot. He wants his name to go down as a success. There's nothing more mortifying than blowing yourself up in your own lab without taking down a single enemy.

Guns are not the best terrorist weapon. Discouraging guns is very bad. It lets their minds wander, it lets thoughts of bombs and planes, and even bio weaponry drift into their heads. It discourages attacks with a short time horizon, and forces them to plan for months or years.

It should be noted here, that this is why gun control advocates keep citing the rate of shootings, and sometimes the amount of gun violence, ignoring total deaths by violence.

Of course, statistics aren't as easy as they look. Confounding factors abound.

Pure empiricism is a constant dream of many who seek to prove their argument through objective logic. People keep imagining that they can gather some data, present it, and let the data speak for itself.

Reason is not so forgiving. Apriori affects posteriori. Logical framework dictates the collection and organization of facts. In fact, any set of facts can be mapped to any set of conclusions.

Thoughts have a reality axis. The reality axis functions as a sort of compiler for the brain. It transforms input into data. Data is transformed into experience using theory, which is judged against declaration. The interaction between these forces constitutes the qualia. The qualia is distinct to its holder. In order that an argument be convincing, the two sides must first determine the alignment of their reality axis.

Even with an understanding of the parties' angle of reality, many arguments fail to account for difference of declaration. In other words, even if you manage to make two parties agree that action A results in result A, and B in B, two qualia do not necessarily align regarding to which result is preferable.

The lack of understanding regarding the qualia has created a bitter political environment. When people present facts to their opponent and fail to elicit a desired response, they assume the other party is bigoted. When the other party proffers facts that do not align with the listener's the listener is likely to assume the other party is ignorant, or a liar.

Prejudice and ignorance are both concepts of data collection. Normally, this does not differ to the degree that data synthesis does. In other words, the facts actually tend to be well known. Arguments normally fail to be convincing because they are irrelevant.

In other words, the number of mass shootings is only relevant to the need for gun control when the target already believes that gun control reduces mass shootings, and that a reduction in mass shootings is desirable. Of course, the same dynamics can be seen in appeals for tolerance, or equality.

Most disagreements exist because of forces much more fundamental than people imagine. We hear time and time again how the latest terrorist attack, the latest shooting, the latest drug overdose or whatever proves X, Y or Z. The speaker grows more and more frustrated as he presents X and then Y and he repeats "How many children need to die?".

The problem is, no matter how many children are killed, this doesn't prove their case. In fact, it doesn't even provide evidence for their case. More likely, they're providing evidence AGAINST their case.

So, should we just give up on getting along?

Kind of. The key to good policy is not compromise. It's capitalism. Capitalism is the process of listening to everyone and accounting for everyone's preferences. Capitalism is the process of inputting each party's preference data and holding an instant runoff vote. It is calculation of utility.

Language is not an ideal form of communication. Most linguistic arguments reach some form of fallacy, and then the two parties are forced into a petty exchange of insults. Imagining that we can talk out our differences is absurd. Words cannot bridge the gap between progressives and conservatives, between libertarians and fascists, between nationalists and globalists. Only capitalism is capable of doing such a thing.

So, does this infer a one world government with respect for capital as its only law?

No.

Law itself is just another asset. It should be calculated in the same way as any other asset.

So should law be bought and traded on the open market?

Not exactly. Such a system fails to even compile. The rich will simply buy laws that favor them, squeeze the government for cash and win everything at no cost.

It is the nature of capital, that it is mobile. Market calculation is based entirely upon the ability of multiple parties to exchange capital. It is this mobility that allows multiple parties to determine mutually satisfactory paths forward.

So long as two nations engage in trade, capital will naturally flow from poorly governed nations to well governed nations. This is, itself, the essence of calculating a proper government. To allow multiple models to compete, and to empower the ones that are worthwhile while discarding the ones that are worthless.

The answer then, as usual, is to just let people do what they want.

The reason for the failures of the modern day, the reasons for the failures of countless generations throughout history, is projection. Constantly, people imagine that dissimilar qualia exist on the same axis. In turn, they insist on correcting the other party's actions, on forcing them to make the right choice.

Two different beings should not expect each other to act towards the same purpose. If one party sees the other as blasphemy, then they must fight. Otherwise, they should show the other party respect, and understanding. Not the respect and understanding born of vapid slogans and words, but of calculation and trade.

Does this mean that language is worthless?

Not exactly. Language is very useful for conveying information at low cost, and in forms that are not easily grasped from actions.

Does this mean that arguments do not have correct answers?

Not exactly. In particular, given a reality axis, one party will be superior. Setting aside issues of utility, arguments differ in level of structure. Some arguments quickly descend to fallacy, contradiction or irrelevance whilst others last longer and fail in more subtle manners.

The latest presidential campaign, the race between Trump and Hillary, has provided an interesting case study in multiparty fallacy. Trump is a sociopath. Hillary is a criminal.

Half the election rests on which of those traits voters find more offensive. The remainder relies mostly on confirmation bias. Republicans get angry when their candidate is insulted, and vice versa. People are less invested in the other side's candidate. As a result, each party tends to have a much more fair view of the opposing candidate than their own. In sum, basically, all of the insults being flung around are correct.

Basically speaking, neither trait has much bearing on how they'll influence the government. No matter how many people Hillary murders, it's a drop in the bucket compared to national crime rates. And even if a candidate is fluffy and caring like Obama, all he can do is redistribute from those who are beneath his notice to those of whom he is more aware.

Observers must remember that Hillary voted for the border wall. That Trump funded her campaign. Neither side is presenting an honest portrayal of their policy preferences. Importantly, neither side really even cares about their policies.

Trump does, technically, dislike Mexicans. However, he still likes cheap labor as much as the next man. Most illegal immigrants enter the country legally. Strangely, then, Trump is shamming the nation into thinking a policy designed to be hard on drugs is actually an answer for illegal immigration. With the drug trade taking center stage on Trump's campaign platform, hilariously, it barely comes up in the national debate. Of course, his plans are so absurd, that should he ever actually take office, they'll all be "negotiated". The result of these negotiations is up to the reader to imagine. This allows Trump's supporters to confirmation bias whatever he says into whatever they want to hear.

Meanwhile, Hillary is focusing her campaign on promising special favors to blacks and women. She has no chance of getting any of this through congress, and there's very little chance she would even try. After all, she never supported any of this in the past. Her record mostly revolves around war mongering and pandering towards whoever funds her. Any fair review of her personal beliefs finds a worldview much closer to the republican establishment than democratic multiculturalists. However, blacks and women tend to care more about tone than content. So every election revolves around advertising about how caring the democratic candidate will be, using funds raised by bribing bankers and foreign governments.

What has failed us today, is the media, the political parties, the nomination process, but, above everything else, it's representative democracy.

We are offered a vote between Hitler and Mussolini. It's stupid. It didn't have to be this way. The answer isn't the lesser evil. It's a constitutional referendum, followed by a total rewrite of the code of law.

If this isn't good enough evidence for the merits of direct democracy, then we could at least establish instant runoff voting, so that tiny pluralities can no longer dictate to the rest of the nation.

And if even that can't be pushed through, then we could at least discard the old and decrepit machines that run our elections, by bringing in third parties, by switching out our failed news agencies with alternate sources, and by getting rid of the electoral college.

Until we change the system, we shouldn't expect a change to the results. The election is a farce. It always has been and will continue to be so. Trump is an establishment candidate. Hillary is an elitist. Anyone hoping Trump will fight corruption, or that Hillary thinks that black lives matter, has been duped.