On Global Warming

Addressing global warming, the first step is to break the question down into two separate questions-

A- Is the Earth's surface temperature going to be enough higher due to anthropogenic influences to be important?

B- What influence does anthropogenic increases in global average temperature impart upon a baseline course of action?

Note that I am looking at global warming as a series of predictions. Whether the Earth has already warmed due to anthropogenic influence is not relevant beyond the extent to which it evidences further warming to come.

Note the word important. Strangely, even if global average temperatures increase 10 degrees, this would not be important if the increase occurred entirely in the Sahara, Antarctica and a series of other carefully chosen spots where the temperature increase would be unimportant. Similarly, if global average temperatures increase by 1 degree, but the increase is focused entirely in Australia, that would be important.

In other words, global warming is not simply an assertion that human action will increase global temperatures. The model goes beyond this assertion and asserts additionally that the temperature increases will have significant ramifications. IE- Global warming is true only to the extent that temperatures increase due to anthropogenic causes produce results such as rising sea levels, natural disasters and decreased farm yields.

Projections that accept the general principles of global warming predict over the next 85 or so years we will see a temperature increase of 2 to 11 degrees F. 2 degrees is an unrealistic scenario wherein we stop emitting greenhouse gasses tomorrow. 11 degrees is unlikely and would require such geometric increases in emissions that we would have to overturn modern physics and come up with more than a few new sources of fossil fuel. (Of course, by "overturn modern physics", I don't mean anything beyond the sort of changes we've made multiple times in the last century.)

Given that the models being used are accurate, we will not see a temperature increase outside the range of 2 to 11 degrees.

Most of the energy available on the Earth comes from the sun. As such, if humankind proceeds forward on a path of technological and industrial expansion it will inevitably adopt solar at some point. I do not believe it is reasonable to expect both geometric population growth, and an expansion of per capita fuel use. As such, the maximum line I'm willing to accept follows a steadily decreasing acceleration wherein populations rise drastically but each new unit adds less than the previous. The carbon output curve should have a shape resembling sqrt(x)=y.

If we really do discover a new and cheap way to produce more emissions, and population continues to expand geometrically, then it will most likely be neither possible nor desirable to limit emissions. In other words, for scenarios beyond the root curve presented, reducing emissions would cause mass blackouts if not mass starvation. Since either could serve as a trigger for thermonuclear war, such scenarios constitute true out of control global warming, and the only policy initiative that should be pursued to mitigate them is space colonization.

So, returning to the root curve, this follows a similar to modern curve until around 2050 but plateaus before 2100. I'm now working with a maximum at about 60% of the accepted maximum. (which follows an accelerating square curve.) of course, that's 60% carbon output not temperature. Anyway, that places us at 600 ppm as our maximum peak carbon dioxide, which should result in a temperature disparity of around 6 degrees Fahrenheit. This is somewhat low compared to mainstream but not incredibly.

It is unrealistic to assume immediate worldwide political revolution. At the least, we should assume that carbon output will be maintained for the next decade. A minimum of 4 degrees increase should be expected if the science behind global warming is at all accurate.

In other words, any project designed to reduce carbon emissions is trying to move us from the future increase of 6 to the future increase of 4. This is generally not sufficiently addressed by proponents of global warming prevention, who try to make out the future as being far more malleable than it is.

With that said, accepting the basic models, and accepting that a program is capable of achieving the future of 4 over 6, the proposed program must cost less than the resulting expenses from the two degree gap.

Of course, it's not exactly easy to project expenses. Liberals like throwing various numbers out, mostly by relying on complicated mathematical simulations. Actually, that's how they invented global warming to begin with.

That said, if we fail to upgrade a building today it could collapse tomorrow. If we do upgrade it today, resources can be freed to feed the homeless and educate the ambitious tomorrow. In other words, opportunity cost is exponential and huge beyond comprehension. It's not even reasonable to think in terms of cost benefit, so much as world line.

Of course, any particular world line is mutually exclusive to any other. The future is always orders of magnitude larger than the past. So, rather than trying to say, X policy will cost Y but reward Z, it's more reasonable to compare X model to Y model.

It would be easy for me to present models wherein global warming is eliminated without affecting critical elements of a baseline world line. However, this is unrealistic. We cannot expect that all the funding for our programs will come from waste spending, nor can we expect scientists to invent anything we can imagine on demand. I insist that any comparison of world lines follow normal paths comparable to past events.

That's not to say that the future will necessarily or even probably follow an easily understandable standard world line. However, unpredictable factors will likely fall into one of two categories:

A- Completely overrides the world line, voiding all previous predictions. IE, a singularity scenario such as the extinction of mankind following our replacement by transcendent ai beings.

B- Variable neutral. Or rather, we can expect that the world line will be drawn severely off course by random factors, but that these factors will be sufficiently unpredictable that any attempt to take them into account will have a probabilistic cost above expected return.

With this said, we now reach an issue, wherein global warming prevention enthusiasts share a major overlap with supporters of popular Keynesian economics.

To be particular, they are not supporters of Keynesian economics per se (only a true Keynesian economist such as Paul Krugman can fit into this category.) but of the popular version which predominates liberal ideology. Or, to phrase my statement differently- Politicians, economists and climatologists are three separate groups, none of which understand the other at an advanced level, yet to address global warming through a government program, all three fields of thought must be used in concert.

The idea I want to take note of in this regards is basically-

"So long as resources remain unemployed forcibly increasing consumption will not result in significant costs."

That said, while senators with a nobel prize in economics and a seat on the UN climate advisory board are hard to find, a CEO within that group is even more difficult to locate.

Most people are not entrepreneurs. We are not brimming with ideas that we can implement. In fact, even entrepreneurs only have a narrow and well defined set of thoughts and goals. Ellis Wyatt's ability to produce torches cannot be used to produce railroads, engines or music. Heck, Thomas Edison's talent with DC power and Nikola Tesla's talents with AC power neared mutual exclusivity.

I won't go so far as to entirely dismiss G, but people are not one dimensional entities that fare equally across all environments, and this effect is amplified many times over when a truly ambitious man dedicates himself to a particular field of thought.

As such, under the above concept any idea that is both productive and scalable becomes precious. In the modern day, our road network is strong enough that additional expansion tends to provide highly questionable benefits. The same can be said of everything skyscrapers to medicine. Roads go unused, buildings are left empty, and lifespans remain unfazed after significant projects to improve them.

Thus, the green energy movement. Any number of solar panels can be built, and all of them reduce demand for carbon. To replace our entire energy grid would take decades, and trillions of dollars. In other words, for the immediate future, solving global warming has presented itself as a scalable project that can be significantly and reliably influenced by spending.

The green energy movement stands atop these three models-

Model A- Carbon emissions lead to increased temperatures, lead to natural disasters and/or other meaningful harm.

Model B- Arbitrary spending increases lead to increased employment, leads to increased worker skill and economic stability, leads to general increases across the entire economy, which then results in meaningful improvement of general quality of life.

Model C- Reduction in carbon output will displace spending from cheaper fossil fuels to more expensive renewables, thus creating an increase in consumption, leading to an increase in quality of life exceeding that of alternative world lines.

I dislike all three models.

Model C is wrong for the simple reason that many Americans are not securely in possession of food, housing, electricity, transportation, computation and access to information. All of these things are worth dying over. It is nearly insulting to even suggest spending on something outside of these categories.

No one is really suggesting that a few hurricanes, bigger and larger dikes, better air conditioners, and other answers to global warming that can be implemented in the future rather than the present will have costs exceeding our productivity. Only Hollywood is willing to suggest that global warming is an existential threat.

Rather, Model C relies upon a further model-

Model 甲- Engagement in the economy gives a public gain at a private cost. Individuals are able to view only a small portion of the utility they produce, and thus are unwilling to work for the sake of the utility they produce. In turn, they will never do as much work as they should. Instead, people will only do the minimal amount of work to obtain their minimum demands of society. For an average person the minimum standard of what a human should have to obtain a net positive utility is a significant portion of what they will be willing to work for to acquire. Thus, any substantial increase in a person's personal wealth beyond that which is afforded by the current environment will result in a greater loss of utility than gain.

In other words, Model 甲 states that while benefits that people don't need increase utility, benefits that people do need will, unless they come with stringent conditions attached, result in a net decrease in utility. In turn, people advocate a 'balanced' approach wherein people are given jobs to produce unneeded but desirable public goods.

Model 甲 and Model B share the same fundamental flaw. Public good does not inevitably exceed private good. Doing more work does not insure higher utility. In fact, work, when avoided, will almost always result in a higher overall utility. If a person can find a way to live happily while doing less work, he should normally take it.

If work were productive, then charting out nations based on work done should produce some correlation between work and productivity. Korea, Russia and Estonia do not share any of the characteristics that pro-workers continually espouse. And, of course, Germany, Denmark and Netherlands are not the pits of the earth. Rather, the hardest working nations and the most lazy nations are distributed fairly randomly across the spectrum of respectable to reprehensible nations.

Another thing to note is- working consists of suborning yourself to others, so that, in return, others will suborn themselves to you. A good example of work's benefits would be when an electrician rewires a plumbers house while the plumber cleans the electrician's pipes. With this, it's almost as if the electrician understood pipes and the plumber understood wires. Similarly, a farmer can manage a farm, and then buy a tractor, making it as if the farmer could teleport to a factory, assemble a tractor and then timeleap back on time to fly his crop duster.

The workload isn't exactly reduced, but people can more easily mitigate issues such as organization, learning and talent.

However, it also means that we have to set aside the things we actually desire, in return for things that aren't quite what we want. To put it differently-

If you were a master car designer working with a 3d printer capable of creating a wide range of cars, would you prefer to leave your car to some other designer while you worked, or would you design your car yourself? (spending a period of time equal to the amount it would take to earn the money for the alternate design.) 

The things we do for ourselves are more specific and more meaningful than the things we do for others. A job must be done to a substantially higher quality or lower cost to merit a trade.

To put it yet another way, every time a trade is done, information is lost. If people are capable of achieving all of their objectives without doing anything they do not wish to, they will be better able to achieve their true purpose.

Which in turn reaches the question of a person's true purpose. Under many models we reach a stumbling block here, wherein work is reintroduced specifically to cull people from their desires.

I think this is wrong. When people have the chance, they have been known to rape and slaughter, to become fat and decadent, and to degenerate in many ways, but much more of human history has been characterized by people who desire something above themselves rather than below. Or rather, those that care not for beauty center their lives upon themselves, and abandon the world. They fall to the wayside and vanish, uncaring and uncared for. But those that see something greater than themselves shine brilliantly and become a light which illuminates the world.

In other words, Dhong Zhou is remembered by many but revered by few. His entire existence has been reduced to a memory of barbaric lust. But Socrates is admired and glorified, and his existence has now expanded into something surpassing the man himself, and even the world in which he lived.

People are weak. They are easily lead astray by stupidity lies and greed. As such, people will use freedom for evil. But, that does not force them to admire evil. So long as, in the end, they see that which is right, they accept that which is good, they can proceed down the right path. In turn, it is not simply a person's direct path which dominates him, but the existence of light itself which will determine his destiny.

The darkness isn't something that ensnares and consumes. A man can always choose to walk in the light.

In turn, it is allowing good to exist which results in a beautiful future. When a single man is able to walk forward, that is all the guidance needed for humanity itself to proceed down the correct path. As such, it is wrong to stifle a man's possibilities, and force him to travel a predetermined journey.

Now, to address Model A, which in turn addresses Question A. To repeat-

Is the Earth's surface temperature going to be enough higher due to anthropogenic influences to be important?

Regarding this, climatologists are basically in agreement. So the question that follows is-

Are the beliefs of climatologists reliably related to the truth?

Secondly-

Why are the beliefs held by climatologists treated as if they were significant?

Being an expert, being mainstream, holding the same beliefs as your peers and calling your beliefs scientific do not mean that you are correct. In fact, the four concepts are basically different ways to say the same thing. In turn, even if 97% say X and 3% say Y, that information is insufficient to declare with any real degree of certainty whether X or Y is more reasonable.

With that said, we need to ask-

Why are the beliefs of any scientist in any field treated is if they were significant?

Here we finally reach accessible answers.

Physicists provide us with computers and machines, and if I refuse to accept the Higgs boson they're able to explain exactly what that would mean and how physics would work without it. Physics is analyzed by string theorists and engineers, businessmen and entertainers, all of whom find it meaningful and important. We know physics works. We can see examples of it working all around us.

The same can be said of many fields, from chemists to mathematicians, biologists and even historians.

I don't believe in science because of peer review and the scientific method. Everyone has methods and peers. That's nonsense. Real science is when you say something, and the people who listen are able to build upon what you say and create something larger. Real science is when an idea grows from a seed into a flower, finally expanding to create an entire sea of blossoms.

Of course, even that seed, unrefined and unused, is part of science. It's wrong to be overly dismissive. Or, to put it in another way, if only nobel prize winners were listened to, no one would be able to obtain the title to begin with.

Even so, I don't have to show scientists who hide away in ivory towers fiddling with simulations that are impossible to verify in any substantial way (peer review does not count as being substantial.) with the same respect I have for those that explore the depths of nature and logic, and return with theories that can be used for a million purposes.

I dislike this new method of science, wherein arcane (and often secretive) models are mounted one atop another, and through some strange ritual, selected and gathered around.

Typically speaking, a model is judged by its ability to, given some portion of available historical data, produce the remainder.

There are several fundamental flaws to this plan-

A- Correlation is not causation. It is not even evidence for causation. For any set of points, an infinite amount of lines can be graphed which fit the points. Empiricism is fundamentally wrong. As for the rest, this is a debate as old as philosophy, so I won't address it further.

B- Historical data is only as accurate as the instruments used. In general terms, modern record keeping has existed for about half a century. Anything further than that is basically just speculation. To make matters worse, different models will give different meanings to the same instrument readings.

C- This method is totally incapable of isolating variables. Often times many variables are controlled by a single overriding variable. Just looking at the data, it can give an appearance that any number of variables influence each-other when they are all controlled by a much greater force.

D- This method is totally incapable of handling complex relationships. Or, to put it otherwise, if you throw a baseball against a brick wall at 80 miles per hour, it will ricochet off at around 80 miles per hour. If you throw a baseball against a brick wall at 50% of the speed of light, it will annihilate the wall, and quite a bit else besides. If you throw at 110% of the speed of light, it will pass through the wall without affecting it.

The real world doesn't follow the simplistic and direct relationships that models rely on. Even if a model fits the data available, that only makes it reliable under the conditions in which the data was derived.

Some of the science used by global warming alarmists is based on physics and other fields, and can thus be accepted. However, the bulk of the modern liberal drive to reduce carbon emissions is groundless. Complicated feedback loops are espoused and defended with irrelevant Newtonian physics. Dire predictions are made of events, that, should they happen, would cost us very little. Humanity's ability to prepare for a wide range of futures, while taking action in the present world against present threats is dismissed, alongside all hopes and expectations that a hundred years from now we will have the science and infrastructure to easily handle a slightly more hostile planet.

Children and Objectivity

I've heard the term consenting adults too many times put forward as a term in arguments supposedly based upon a priori logic. Rarely, if ever, is any attempt to define the term adult made. Instead, a magical definition of being of eighteen years of age is used.

Let me be clear. In any objective morality, a 7 year old who looks, acts and thinks exactly like an average 18 year old should be treated exactly like an average 18 year old. That is the very meaning of objectivity. If you wish to say that someone should be treated differently, you must give a reason why his looks, actions or thoughts should cause that person to be treated differently.

An objective society is, normally, a fair society. IE- in general, objective morality judges people based on their actions, not on looks or even methodology of thought. Only the result of their thought process matters. IE, actions.

With that said, I'd like to throw some numbers out. If you disagree with them, fine. It's extremely hard to find good data, so I'm likely not actually correct. I do hold that these numbers are something like the real numbers.

Average IQ as defined as the expected result the user will achieve on an IQ test for adults, by age:
4- 40
8- 60
13-80
16-100

I came to these numbers through a lot of rounding, math, and varied sources of data, most of them correlated to IQ, but not themselves numbers from IQ tests. What I found interesting, is that percent of average height attainment and average IQ attainment look rather similar when graphed. This goes to a more general declaration that growth/development is rather similar across the board. It also suggests some other possibilities such as the idea that females reach full development sooner than males. Development between races might also be different. IE, effective age between various groups by sex and race should not be equivalent. With that in mind, people with different sex and race should not be forced into the same classes and forced to learn the same materials.

At the age of 16, there's a 50% chance that you'll have at least an average IQ (this is almost by definition.)
At the age of 13, there's a 30% chance that you'll have at least an average IQ
At the age of 8, there's a 15% chance that you'll have at least an average IQ

That said, objectively, something akin to 30% of 8 year olds should be given full rights and 16 year olds should be treated in the same fashion as 18 year olds (there's very little difference between them. Discrimination against 16 year olds in an objective world almost requires discrimination against people older than 40.) In other words, the age of 18 is a very arbitrary number. It should have no moral implications.

With that said, any sort of moral system should give a reason why we treat animals and humans differently. To be clear, fundamentally, we're all just particles. If certain arrangements of atoms are better than other arrangements, they must be better for a reason. Once a reason is given, it will almost certainly either be correlated to IQ or be absurd.

With that said, the idea of "first user" is absurd, for the simple reason that the first users are the elementary particles making up every object in the universe, which by definition control everything. In order to "homestead" humans must steal control from a lower entity and give it to themselves. This is less obvious in terms of rocks or the like, but most advocates of homesteading allow the homesteading of animals, so... If this is morally acceptable, an entity yet higher than a human should be able to seize a human's property and use it for himself. Indeed, any utilitarian system will inevitably rule out property rights, or any other form of absolute right, because rights don't work.

To go further, the very idea of a priori rights violates the basic rules of logic. A priori cannot say ANYTHING. BY DEFINITION. A priori is only allowed to say "If X then Y", anything else and you have reached posteriori logic.

Okay, with that out of the way, we can go back to the treatment of children-
Namely, the difference in rights between children and adults in modern society. As a rule, children are required by law to obey their parent's orders. The parent's orders are limited by law, but they can, and do, send their children to school. In other words, the majority of children in America are threatened into attending school. School generally lasts something like eight hours a day, which will tend to be over half of a student's waking hours. The number increases significantly with homework and studying. In other words, quality of school life is highly correlated to overall quality of life, simply because that's where children spend their time. (I admit this ignores vacations, which might be sufficient to counterbalance homework/etc. but I don't think it even does that much.)

Now, we reach a multitude of moral problems in an instant-
First off, very little exists in terms of systems dedicated to checking whether the child should attend the classes the child is forced into taking. Given the numbers on IQ, something like 5% of 13 year olds should be in college. Since this isn't even close to true, we can assume that vast numbers of children are studying material far below them. Phrased differently, the difference between the IQ of a gifted child and a child in a normal class is something like two common deviations. To make matters worse, schools generally treat normal children as if they were a deviation below where they actually are. In other words, anyone who is three common deviations beyond those who are one common deviation below average is receiving education tailored below their intellect. This is something like 25% of the population which is entirely ignored. Furthermore, people with very low IQ are given materials beyond their ability. That's an additional population of around 10%. So, 35% of the population are ignored by our two tier system of normal+gifted classes.

To be clear, studying material above or below your level is not pleasant. These people are hurt by our actions.

Next off, we have to take into account that not all people think in a manner that can be considered normal. People who are autistic, psychopathic, schizophrenic, etc. add up to a large percentage of the population. In other words, people with extreme repulsions to particular activities that others find normal, exist in large numbers. Most people who display autistic or psychopathic tendencies are neither crippled nor diagnosed. However, just because someone obtains a large income or what have you, does not mean that person lead a good life. As it stands, we have so little understanding of psychology that any attempt to sort children based on their psychology, except ones based on freedom, will fail. We don't even make any real attempts, outside of complete misfits who cannot be forced to fit in no matter how much you threaten and hurt them. Without using freedom, we simply have no access to information that the children have but we don't. An activity could be as unpleasant as a daily whipping, and we wouldn't even notice.

In any case, most people sort of assume that school is a wonderful place that all children love to be in. This isn't the case, at least for large numbers of children. There is a high price that is paid to achieve full schooling of our population, not just by adults who pay taxes but by the children themselves.

Since we're looking at things from a utility standpoint, we must follow up by comparing the benefits.

Most of the time, people take a quick shortcut to full societal collapse. This is silly and not worth talking about. We would, at worst, fall back to society on level with past societies that lacked for any form of education.

However, this does not seem realistic either. First off, without mandatory schooling, some percentage of children would choose of their own will, to attend school.

Second off, it is not impossible to learn math/history/etc at a later age. In fact, it's easier in general. In other words, an 18 year old with no education at all can reach a full education in at most 20 years. IE, by 38. If nobody entered the workforce until the age of 38, (because a phd is needed for ALL jobs...) workforce participation would be reduced by something like 40%.

in other words, the least needed 40% of jobs would be scrapped. The result would be better than spending nothing on healthcare, half as much on transportation and food, and half as much on the military. In other words, the benefits of forcing people to attend school are below that of, fancy cars, fancy food, a military twice the size of any other nation, and seven years of life.

Ending public schooling is not an end of the world scenario unless you use arbitrary vague ideas that can neither be supported nor opposed by evidence. For instance, declaring that people need to learn "work habits" (People are as capable of learning such things late in life as early in life. Rather, 24 year olds are not less capable of learning than 10 year olds, even in regards to learning general habits and the like.)

To go further on just how terrible the treatment of children in America is, we should compare the lack of rights, and the effects thereof that children in America face. The lack of one right often leads to lack of others, so the effects of lacking each right should not be directly added together. IE: The reason why not being allowed to vote hurts children, is that they then are banned from forming contracts.

The most obvious, is that children are not able to obtain jobs, are unable to own property and cannot form contracts. These rights are all completely central to an adult's life. A child is therefore, basically a complete cripple who has to depend on others for anything and everything. Being a child is like being a sickly old man in a home for the elderly. Only, they're totally healthy, so it's insulting and degrading in addition to the troubles that the very old must deal with. Regarding the idea that children might be tricked into contracts that a more mature person would avoid, such contracts should be, and generally are, illegal. Besides law codes that protect people from malicious contracts, tools such as bankruptcy exist. In other words, we're already trying to make a world where contracts can't corner you into bad conditions, so it's really not an issue.

Children are not allowed to vote. This means that the law code will automatically be geared against them. Symptoms that are likely related to this are not just laws that directly discriminate based on age, but things such as extreme government financing through debt and social security obligations, which are layered upon people while they represent an economic resource but are helpless to defend themselves. (Yes, children represent an immediate economic resource. Children will, in general, eventually produce a positive amount of money. Like a paycheck that will be received in a month, a government can cash in on its children by promising to tax them once they pay off their presence. The net positive sum can thus be converted to an immediate economic boon, through debt. IE, children immediately pay for their presence in the nation, so long as outsiders are willing to provide additional debt (IE so long as Malthusian limits don't kick in.)) I'm really not sure why children aren't allowed to vote (except that it might hurt our school system, which I've already stated is evil. As for parents forcing their children to vote poorly, we have secret ballots already, and they deal with the issue just fine.) I really doubt they would ruin our election results, especially considering that likely turnout would be low.

Children are not allowed to drink alcohol. Alcoholic drinks are the main weapon humans have developed in order to escape the experience of life. It is what saved the Soviet Union from existing, and it could help multitudes of children who seek an escape from America. As mentioned before, some people will hate their lives no matter how good things are, that's just how genetics works. As such, people must always have outs, even for life itself. (and no, most people cannot commit suicide even if they want to, so it's not an answer.)

Child sex laws exist. Let me be clear, rape is rape. Rapists should be executed. That said, consensual sex is not rape. In general, this effects children from the age of 13 to 17, mostly 16 to 17 (there are very few cases of consensual sex below that age range, so they can be ignored for now.). Love is important, many people would even go so far as to state it as the most important aspect of life. When people love each-other, they have a natural desire to partake in sex. It happens. It should be allowed. It's not a problem, and it definitely is not rape. In any case, there are couples where one member was convicted of statutory rape, and at the end of the prison term, the two got married and lived normally. Such things do not occur in real rape scenarios.

Of course, child sex laws include not only statutory rape, but child pornography and prostitution.
To examine these laws it's important to consider why adults participate in both fields. The answer is, generally, money. The fields give a lot of it too. This would be most beneficial for children who are desperate for money, namely those who already become prostitutes despite what the law says. Also, drug dealers. Even so, perhaps we should ban prostitution altogether. However I don't think the effects of being a prostitute are so different for a child compared to an adult. At least, if child prostitution were legal it would help drive out child slavery, and would result in much better living conditions for the prostitutes, who would receive vast fortunes and wouldn't be tortured, threatened or infected while they worked. As for child pornography, the standard argument for the laws is just silly. Law enforcement is an effective answer to violence. If some group tries to go about forcing children into sexually provocative acts, they should be, and would be, eliminated through already existing legal codes. Crime rates, worldwide, are low. We don't have to be terrified of criminals, nor do we need to have extra laws that reduce immoral criminal acts below the level reached just through punishing people who directly engage in said acts.

Children are not just animals that can be herded around for our benefit. Even four year olds are vastly more intelligent than dogs, and by eight most children are easily as intelligent as the lower IQ brackets of general society. Treating children poorly is just as bad as treating blacks or women poorly. This is the next civil rights issue. It is not some minor problem. It is the greatest evil existent in modern America. And, like slavery before it, it's currently a well accepted and generally unopposed system. That doesn't mean, and isn't even evidence, that it's not morally reprehensible.

Ignorance is a Sin

Premise A- That, any course of action can be justified, if unknown information is ignored.
IE- Imagine that a foreign nation has been handling the interrogation of prisoners, and because they are effective, you don't ask any questions about how they go about accomplishing the intelligence gathering. Are you different from a country that openly condones the use of torture?

Imagine that you, as president, want a war, so you go to the FBI and ask for one. One month later, a major landmark within your country is destroyed in a terrorist attack. The war begins, and the FBI agents who were tasked with starting it are all awarded promotions. Are you superior to a president who directly orders an attack on a major landmark within your country?


It's easy to imagine scenarios where I can accomplish practically any deed without knowing the cost I paid to accomplish it. Willful avoidance of knowledge can easily dodge any moral question. The issue becomes a little less blatant when knowledge is not as readily acquired, but the principle remains the same.

IE- Should a job be done by the person best capable of accomplishing the job at the highest quality and the lowest cost?
The answer, should be by definition yes. If the answer given was not yes, then the job is being carried out for some purpose other than the completion of the objective of the work. In other words, the stated objective of the work is simply a cover for the true objective of the work, or at the least, there a exists another objective for the work that is not the stated objective.
The stated objective of work should always be the actual and complete objective of the work. This is because concepts can seem correct, until they become preposterous upon being stated. This doesn't mean that the stated objective of work must be public knowledge, only that those who decide to create work must have an understanding of what they are doing and why.

That said, the question posed of who should receive a job has some very interesting implications. First off, there is nothing that gives merit to someone's work outside of his ability to accomplish the work. In other words, the definition of work, is the payment of a price to receive a benefit. A high benefit at a low cost is always the measurement of a job well done. Putting the right people in the right job is thus superior to putting the wrong person in the same position. Any decision of job placement, is a question with the same moral implications as condoning attacks on your own territory, or torturing prisoners. Of course, who is placed in what job isn't an issue faced merely by management or recruiters. Decisions about employment are caused by factors such as direct political pressure, economic legal structure, cultural pressure, generally accepted theories, etc. For the same reasons that torturing someone is not okay based on a lack of knowledge that your actions led to the torture, firing a competent employee is not okay based on a lack of knowledge that you were doing so.

This means that no-one acts in a purely moral manner, because everyone is ignorant of the full implications of his actions. However, some of us are more ignorant than others. This ignorance is thence translated directly into evil action.

People who use the tools available to them to acquire what knowledge they can are superior to those who don't. Information gathering is therefore one of the most central requirements of moral society. In other words, a moral society requires that, as possible, all decisions be made using all available information related to the decision. A society that is better able to accomplish this goal is superior to society that cannot achieve this goal.

This presents two major issues- A method to categorize giant amounts of information such that the person who needs the information, knows that he needs it, and a method of gathering all of the information in the first place. In general, the best system we have come up with, for the purpose of controlling the flow of goods and services, is the price system. Anything that hampers the price system's effectiveness reduces the flow of information pertaining to those fields and is thus evil. It must not be forgotten that information gathering is not society's sole objective, that other objectives can sometimes take precedent. The core objectives of any society is of course, the achievement of desire. All other objectives are fractions of the whole, broken down so as to allow the viewing of issues pertaining to them. With that said, achieving any objective at the cost of another objective at an equal level, will not allow you to move forward. You will only achieve a string of pyrrhic victories.

The price system, as such, must not be distorted. Any action taken to modify the state of the environment must be taken in such a way that information is not lost.

Humans have a habit, of deciding that a certain amount of information is good enough. With this, they assume that any belief that is close enough to correct is equal to any other belief within the same circle. Once people stop considering how a decision should be made, the only relevant issue is that a decision be made. Hence, we place people in authority and treat their decisions as the best and most reasonable regardless of what decisions they make, or how they come to them. As structures of authority grow, the decisions become more distant from its effects, which in turn discards information pertaining to the decision.

The universe exists within the eye of the beholder. As a corollary, the specific nature of a given action can be known only to the actor himself. Forcing someone to take action, therefore discards this information. It cannot be known how much suffering was paid compared to the benefits received from an action unless the actor decides to take action to achieve a benefit. If the actor takes action to avoid another cost, the only known information is that the cost that wasn't paid is higher than the one that was. IE- that X>Y. Given the cost X was artificially created to force the actor into motion, and the benefit was Z there is no way to know whether the decision to pay Y in order to receive Z was the correct decision. In reverse, forcing someone not to receive a benefit also discards information.


This leads once again to the principle of distortion. A government, wherein everyone acts exactly as if the government did not exist, would by definition be an anarchy. By definition, an anarchy has no cost. IE- something that does not exist cannot cost anything. A government that caused no changes besides the creation of opportunity, IE a government that managed somehow, for everyone to do exactly what they would have done, except that the people had access to an infinite amount of electrical power would also be non-distorting. (note: I am not describing a government that subsidizes electricity. The government conjures it out of thin air.) This is because the government is not discarding any form of information.

The price of government is thus, distortion, or information discard. The design of every form of governmental action should thus be, the minimization of distortion and the maximization of results. To achieve this function, a well made law code requires as few forced actions as possible to achieve the same result. At this point it becomes important to focus on what results should be achieved. Specific results tend to be petty and stupid. For instance-
Having a child attend a series of classes and do particular homework.
Such a result has created a value system that determines that good is measured against whether the child goes to class and does homework. This value system is pathetic compared to one that measures whether the child is happy now and in the future.

School, as a concept, must be measured against the results of the schooling. To do so, it requires that the taker of the measurements have some idea of the cost of the schooling and the benefits. It therefore becomes important that the people who are taught must decide that they wish to participate in the classes. Ignoring this, will discard all of the involved information. You cannot assume that a nation is morally sound while discarding all information on the damage done to around a fourth of the nation's population. As a corollary you can assume that nation is immoral, simply because it lacks the ability to make moral decisions. The same can be said of any society in which each of its citizens is expected to partake in a series of premeditated actions before being treated as a source of information. Every separate entity has information unique to itself, by definition, and if that information is ignored it is lost.

Any system that achieves the same results without losing that information is superior. Every decision must be made based on the results of those decisions, and the results must be inferred from basic values. The decision must come at as low a cost as possible with as high a benefit as possible. Costs cannot be ignored, and results cannot be inferred to exist just because we want them. Everything about a moral society must be decided based on careful and complete measurement of the applicable variables.

Culture and Morality

Scenario A- You have sure knowledge of a bio weapon system that is going to be deployed on your home town a day from now. The weapon system shows no signs of its existence from the day it is deployed (tomorrow) until 10 days have passed. After the 10 days are up, anyone who has been within 30 miles of the site at which the bio weapon was used during the period of 10 days, regardless of the length of time, will die. You have no usable evidence to support your claims, and attempts warn the public are futile at best. However, there is a female who you are fond of and you would like to ensure her survival. Knowing her, convincing her to leave the city is futile. As such, the only way to save her is to abduct her, and keep her prisoner for 10 days.

Condoning the course of action described requires an admittance that rights exist to protect ideals, and that beliefs are morally neutral. In other words, a harmonious course of action is selected not based on what two individuals agree to, but is selected by choosing the optimal path within the set activities that would be condoned by both parties from the vantage point of knowledgeable observers looking back on the course of events.

Scenario B- The Earth is currently populated by a transcendent race of humanity. Unfortunately, humanity is still haunted by its past, which includes the mass scale use of super weapons, and is going to go extinct. Every day the amount of usable land remaining on earth shrinks as ecophage populations rise, and at this point civilization is no longer in a state wherein a solution can be reached before the entire Earth is converted into radioactive wastes, unapproachable even by super humans. However, as all hope seems to be lost, a meteor formed of exotic elements falls upon the Earth- elements that enable the creation of a spaceship and terraforming platform. However, the people who own the land upon which the meteor fell are early generation transcendentals, who were designed on a different basis than the later generations. These people believe that the only meaningful activities are things such as farming, or scientific research for the sake of improved tools. They look down on activities such as watching movies or playing games. Because of their culture, reproductive rates are incredible and whenever any one's earnings rise high enough that he can support another person he multiplies. It can be stated that if events are allowed to unfold without interference, the people who escape the Earth will slowly devolve themselves into machines, and will eventually consume the entire universe without any feeling left within them. In order to reach a future wherein people can go to the stars and seek more ephemeral realities, wherein people take action so as to laugh and cry rather than merely to exist, in order for life to continue being alive for more than a few generations- it is necessary to eliminate the first users of the meteor and claim it for the purposes of your superior group. Let's even add that your group has been pushed by the ecophages so hard that the only way for your group to reach the stars, is to wait for the group that originally got the meteor to build a spaceship for their own use, and then kill them in a surprise attack at the last possible moment.

Condoning the course of action described requires an admittance that morality is based on creating value, that a course of action is decided upon based on what the results of the actions are.

Scenario C- If your neighbor were to die, you would obtain his property by contractual agreement. You have learned of a ritual, that, if performed would enrage your neighbor to the point that he would come charging into your house with an ax and would then try to kill you. There is no conceivable reason why you would perform the ritual except so as to enrage your neighbor, nor is your neighbor different from other people in any other way except for his irrational hatred of this particular ritual. If you were to perform the ritual, you could easily shoot your neighbor when he broke in your door, and everybody would consider it self defense, and you would in turn obtain his property.

Rejecting this course of action requires an admittance that a course of actions can be viewed in terms of the results of the initiation of action, or, that a plan is judged from the difference in the universe between when the plan is initiated and completed. In other words, taking specific action in order to make someone try to kill you, and then killing him, is equivalent to using a perfect scheme in which you kill someone and then make it look like it was self defense. You start with an above average person who doesn't drive drunk or vote for communist governors, and who's slight flaws are obscure enough to make him less dangerous than anyone who has driven a car while not being sober- and you convert this person into a corpse, thus causing the world to have a higher proportion of below average people compared to those above the average, and instilling a certain amount of fear in the world. It's just theft and murder, and the initiation of violence was done by the same party in either version.

As such, violence cannot be constrained to such a simple heading as the redistribution of resources without consent, nor is it possible to build a working moral framework simply by maintaining the ownership of property. The moral use of resources must achieve a series of objectives, including-
A- The resources must, as best as is possible, be used to create idealized worlds.
B- There exists ideals that are superior to the ideals of others. The idealized world that must be created should be in accordance with what is truly valuable.
C- The framework of resource distribution must judge people by the purpose of their actions and by the correlation between the actor's beliefs, and reality.

Given this, the definition of violence which holds violence as a set of activities that in the eye of an observer, moves the world toward a less ideal state functions. A definition wherein violence is limited to actions that redistribute resources from their owner, as decided by first user or by consent of transfer, fails, at such a time as an action that requires a reaction, is the origin of the reaction. Since people are obligated to take actions that can include use of lethal force in order to protect their ideals, taking any hostile action against someone's ideal is equivalent to creating the required reaction yourself.

The fact that the creation of violence is evil is valid. More specifically, the more effort that is spent trying to destroy other humans, the weaker humanity becomes overall. A perfect human race would act in a completely harmonious manner. By not acting in such a manner, it is proven that humanity is not perfect. By definition, an imperfect existence does not act in a completely moral manner. It is because of our imperfection, that we must act in a violent manner, even though we would prefer to exist in a world wherein there was no violence. Or, put another way, in a world wherein nobody believed that anybody was actively reducing the value of the world, it is highly probable that the value of the world is not being reduced. In reverse, in a world wherein people believe that the people around them are reducing the value of the world, there is a high probability that the value of the world is being reduced.

Nonetheless, violence is itself merely a symptom of problems existing at yet lower levels. When a patient is burning from fever the doctor does not throw him in a lake- he tries to reduce the temperature by addressing the underlying problems. A philosopher who simply states that a disease would not exist if the symptoms were not present is being both cowardly and lazy. It is impossible to eliminate violence by opposing violence, just as it is impossible to eliminate a waterfall by placing obstacles in the path of the falling water.

In order to create the idealized world, what we need are not groundless rituals and rules, nor strings of connotation that allow us to skirt subjects we find unsavory. Morality in itself does not imply any rules, nor does it answer what we should or should not do. Morality exists in order to judge value- in order to state that X is better than Y and that Y is inferior to X. Assuming that a grasp of morality would allow you to construct a moral society is like assuming that a grasp of physics would allow you to describe the properties of meitnerium as if you knew it as well as you did iron. It's just arrogance. Morality exists to give us measurements. Physics cannot tell us the ideal alloy with which to build a bridge. It can, however, give us measurements that prove that some new alloy is better than the one we're currently using. The organization of society should be treated similarly, with multiple experiments running at all times, and with a recollection of what models have been attempted, and what they did. As such this insinuates a methodology through which societies branch off into multiple diverse groups which are then measured against each-other, with the most valuable societies being used as a basis for the creation of the next generation of societies.

Fortunately, nature has, so far, been favorable. Morally well designed societies have, throughout history, fostered superior understanding of technology. Dissenters within these societies have periodically used these technologies to populate new frontiers before the dissenters within inferior societies were able to reach them. However, this process, being natural and not artificial is fragile, in that is based only upon the particulars of the environment. IE- there exists no reason to ensure that the process described will function on an indefinite basis. Since it has worked so far, and there exists no pressing reason to alter it, it becomes reasonable to ensure the process continues to function through artificial means. This means using methods that nullify the most visible threats.

These scenarios would cause a breakdown of the natural process-
If frontiers could be populated by inferior societies.
If existing societies could expand into frontiers at a rate equal to the speed at which the frontiers were opened up.

The technological prowess needed to enter new frontiers will for the foreseeable future be exclusive to valuable societies. However, the use of these technologies may, over time, become available to inferior societies, allowing dissenters to populate their newly claimed territories using the residents of less moral societies, which would inevitably start using the newly claimed land for their own ends as the land was terraformed into forms that require less technological prowess for minimal use. This scenario has been seen in the past, with societies importing large quantities of slaves into frontier land, but has not generated catastrophic results so far due to logistical issues. However, if a single American colony on Mars could support many times its numbers in Chinese, we could eventually reach a universe wherein the majority of humans lived under tyranny for the convenience of a few groups that were similar to a morally sound society, but supported the continued existence of the tyrannies by providing the necessary body of scientific data and economic calculations to maintain civilization.

America had to fight a war with Britain in order to populate its frontiers. In theory, as technology improves, transportation becomes easier and geographic barriers both to force and to communication break down. It may be that the moon will have to fight a war for its independence. Or worse, that such a war could not be won, and as such, it would be impossible to continue to use frontiers as locations upon which radical and unpopular beliefs could be implemented. The reason the Protestants were able to participate in activities that the rest of Europe saw as unsavory and wrong was distance. However, what used to be a powerful barrier requiring months to overcome can now be crossed in a matter of hours. If future frontiers are opened not by a difficult journey, but by the removal of the barriers to that journey, then the people who are supportive of the majority views of society no longer have any incentive to not colonize. This in turn cuts down on mutation rates, and thus stops evolution.

As such, neither a peaceful tolerance of evil, nor an acceptance of empire is acceptable. It is not possible to conquer all those you hold as evil without creating an empire. As such, the alternative is simple- to obtain resources for superior societies and deny them to inferior societies. Trade is rational, in that at the end of any trade, both parties are superior to how they used to be, but when an inferior society lays first claim to a resource, the inferior society grows to encompass that resource, which in turns reduces the average quality of societies. This is why it is necessary to build nations- and why it is necessary for those nations to have borders.

Distinct nations allow for the existence of distinct societies, which in turn allows us to have measurements on the results produced by the societies. Fundamental alteration of currently active nations is not necessary. In fact, since the fundamental alteration of a nation by its nature, requires the replacement of one existing framework by another existing framework, it almost always consists of the conversion of one nation into another nation, in other words, expansion of nations through unscientific means. The goals of political activity then, is just to allow the fundamental precepts of a culture to express themselves. This does not exclude the possibility of reconstruction of governments, or other such possibilities- after all modern cultures are written in polymorphic code, and the top levels must adapt to match the lower levels. What it does mean is that a government should be consistent with the culture underneath it, and the actions on top should be taken with regards to the foundation underneath.

Law and Violence

An economist is to an economy what a physicist is to a Large Hadron Collider. The economy is a tool, a set of devices used to measure a set of objects. Now, in one sense the economy is an illusion- a non-existent structure layered above the world but not part of it, similar to math. However, it must be noted, that all things that exist are, by definition, real- and thus have some sort of reality that exists within this world. Although the vast majority of economic activity doesn't actually exist (or to put it in another sense, exists only when measured, and is in fact data about the world above that is retrieved by measuring the parts of the economy that do exist and extrapolating from there.) it is implied within the frame of what does exist.

Most of the physical basis for the economy is built using spontaneous donations of brain based cpu cycles. This is how the economy can perform extremely complicated calculations, and come up with advanced information without breaking the second law of thermodynamics. However, spontaneous events don't normally just happen in succession in a particular direction, by definition. In order to create spontaneous direction, there are two requirements- the first is Brownian motion, easily satisfied using the human brain, an extremely complicated object that essentially functions as a giant magnifying glass that picks up on low level chaotic activity and aligns large scale structured activity with the generated random seed data. The second requirement is a way to insure that travel in one direction is possible, while travel in the other direction is not. For nano particles, a moving magnetic field can achieve this task. For humans, we use law.

So, the physical basis of humans and their brains is easily identified. Since all known methods of intelligence are chaos based, economics should work fine with most alien species as well. However, law is, in general, yet another virtual construct, so must also be broken down into a physical basis.

Law is not government- it can exist in anarchy. Government is a tool designed to organize violence. Imagine an anarchist society wherein it is illegal for women to wear clothes more revealing than burqas. (IE, women seen outside without burqas will be spontaneously stoned.) One day someone decides that the burqa law is stupid- ideally he will simply stop enforcing it, but it may be that his peers will think badly of him if he doesn't participate in the stonings. Due to its lack of free speech, and inability to accept political activism, the majority of this anarchy's people could oppose the law, and yet the law could still stand unquestioned. With a government, it would be possible to support your positions without taking personal risk, through having intermediaries take the risk onto themselves. In a sense, this is the main purpose of government, to act as a figure head, that officially does everything, so that humans can go about their lives without directly taking hostile action against their neighbors. The important facts following from this, are thus- that law is a consequence of human action and/or inaction, and that government is simply a result of underlying forces. Law is not generated through such a simplistic mechanism as the edicts of one person. Rather, a policeman is able to arrest a thief because people have already classified the policeman and the thief into two different groups. If people did not recognize the authenticity of the police force, the entire organization would collapse within a day. In other words, the physical basis of government is the recognition granted it by its people.

Although all governments are, in essence, the same, the particulars vary widely. The main difference from one government to the next, is the level of recognition supplied to the government. If no recognition is given to the government, then law enforcement, and creation, is totally distributed. As such, law avoidance, and elimination, is also totally distributed. Therefore, violence is totally distributed. The distribution of violence has some major ramifications. For instance, the target of violence is known ahead of time if violence is not distributed. If we have a police force, we know that most shoot outs with law enforcement will involve that force. This doesn't give us much advantage in terms of defeating the criminals- however, it means that the criminals will have to use either a focused power surge that overwhelms deploy-able forces (thus avoiding direct combat due to the results of combat being obvious.) or to sufficiently obscure their actions so as to not be detectable, once more avoiding direct combat. If we have a military, a revolution can end when that military is defeated, so entire cities don't actually have to fight it out in bloodbaths in the streets in order to determine a winner. The military is about as hard to defeat as all the people who support it, (after all, it's just a conglomeration of donations from its supporters.) but destroying it doesn't even kill everyone inside of it. Another important angle is that the government supplies people with a tool with which to do violence. Say some super genius hates nuclear power plants- in an anarchy, he would have to go on a rampage in order to leverage his vast fortunes into usable political power. However, in a democracy he can just become a special interests lobby and ban nuclear power plants in a manner that causes no collateral damage. Violence is much more limited if it is only used to accomplish the goals which the source set out to accomplish, so it is best to keep all violent activity organized. Government is designed to accomplish this feat, by creating targets for militaries to attack, political power accessible to the unscrupulous, and incentives to keep criminals focused on their core objective and avoid causing extraneous damage when they partake in crime.

The other end of the governmental spectrum is a fully recognized government, or one in which all activity is government approved. Now, since we already know that all government is violence, and that all benefits of government emerge from the replacement of certain violent activities with other violent activities, we can instantly see that a fully recognized government can only exist in a fully violent society, and the blatant absurdity of this system stands out. Of course, such a society could exist, and even be profitable as part of a larger world that included less recognized governments (imagine an army-state that acted as mercenaries and was paid by the major powers to prevent military invasions of foreign territory. It could be that such a state could act in lieu of the major states' militaries, and by acting as a deterrent, cause the more ruthless nation states to avoid starting an arms race, causing one standing military to exist, rather than requiring the maintenance of several.) However, as a basis for civilization as a whole, violence is not viable.

So how much recognition should we give our governments? The answer is, this scales to how violent we wish to be. And so, it becomes important to actually explore just what violence is- Violence is the set of all activities that decrease the total value of the universe, from the perspective of any existing viewer. Looking at it this way it at first seems impossible to partake in non-violent activities. Technically, it IS impossible to partake in non-violent activity, but we can change degrees of violence- ie we can reduce the overlay between existing activity and violent activity. This can be accomplished in two manners. The first is obvious- achieve desired ends using methods that involve less violence. If it is equally difficult for a person to get his food by raising it himself or by stealing it, society can easily convince him to raise it himself, which causes overall civilization to flourish. The second method is to aggregate activities. For instance, imagine a person who wants bread, and has an infinite supply of fish. He is a master of misdirection and disguise, so from his perspective stealing bread is free. If he is completely selfish we can expect him to steal bread- but if we look at the situation closely we realize that having an infinite supply of fish, he can still act in a completely selfish manner while leaving fish to replace all the bread he steals. Now, he can achieve the same goals, but does so in a much less violent manner.

Most people would quickly claim that they would support a completely non-violent society. Since we already know that this is absurd, the second level we can jump to is a minimally violent society. This makes a lot more sense but introduces an extremely complicated word into the mix- "minimally" doesn't actually mean anything on its own. The best answer is that we want to be violent enough that our values succeed and flourish. We are not willing to allow others to stand in a position of violence to our core principles, and must be violent to the extent necessary to eliminate such groups. Since the world is composed entirely of accidents, inevitabilities, and the things people do, the course of history is fatalistic. As such, it is a natural objective to create a framework through which people can take action, and then discover the results of their actions. In other words, a framework wherein depending on the nature of undiscovered accidents or misunderstood inevitabilities, the probability of victory or defeat will not be hampered, but, regardless of who wins or loses, at the point at which that data becomes accessible, to a maximum extent, all the things that people do should result in support for the winner. Thus the ideal violent activity is the collection of power. As large a percent of violence as possible should be used to become more powerful.

In turn, this means that we need to avoid people committing violence to become more secure, given that the difficulty of the objectives are equivalent. (note that if someone profits from a method of violence in a manner that lacks a nearly equal opportunity cost, it is by nature impossible for society to stop him from using that method. Society is not godlike, it is only capable of creating a minor weight formed from sanction that can be added where chosen. The extreme impact of society emerges based on the fact that the majority of objectives can be approached by a near infinite amount of angles, a multitude of which will be nearly equal in cost.) Security, by its nature, forces results into the present. IE, security causes the accidents and inevitabilities of the future to occur all at once. This means the loser cannot be phased out- he will necessarily have to be blotted out in a bloody war. Therefore, in an ideal society, the members will peaceably coexist regardless of how opposite their viewpoints, and engage each-other on a battlefield composed of geometric effects such as arguments and reproduction, while building up a wealth of capital that can be exploited both by the current generation and by those deep in the future.

However, we are not in an ideal society, and our government must not just account for how violent we wish to be, but also for how violent idiots who can't understand what we're telling them want to be. Although our instincts may make us want to just smash such groups, the fact of the matter is that that would be trying to advance our agenda through becoming more secure. Of course, if they insist on acting in such a manner that we cannot ignore them (for instance, by trying to secure their values by shutting down research into fields that scare them, but that we find necessary.) we must take direct action- but failing that, we need to integrate them into some sort of system. Fortunately, after we step back a bit, we realize that people are, on the whole, very congenial towards focusing on power, and can normally be discouraged from the opposite with relative ease.

This is because of law. The physical basis for law is a set of mental routines within the brain's source code. Namely, the brain includes two important functions- Save and load. The brain saves data about its circumstances and environment, keeping track of its current state and its past state. When the current state falls below any given past state, the brain automatically activates its load routines. The load routines are a set of calculations that describe the inevitabilities required reach the previous state, which are then used so as to take the actions required if those inevitabilities exist. These routines serve as the magnetic field that sits eternally just behind civilization, transferring heat into information. Through such a simple program, as long as sufficient energy in inserted, indefinite amounts of information can be created from the energy. As such, law is a compilation of information that exists due to a incredibly vast sea of calculations using Brownian logic gates, that cannot dissipate, because every time it weakens, we load to a state wherein it was stronger. So why is it that law is always good? The answer is simple- by definition. Law is the sum total of the calculations we performed moving from lower states to higher states.
Due to the benefits conferred in a society wherein people build up large sums of wealth in order to accomplish their purposes, our calculations repeatedly advance such a society, and thus, said society is naturally accepted over time.

In sum, government should expand until it has achieved a maximum amount of conflict resolution and no further. So, that said, what are some practical implications thereof? First off, if there is no conflict, then there is no need for government intervention. This immediately debases all attempts to improve the overall economy through governmental economic activity. It also debases all hostile activity deployed against foreign nations that does not address hostilities existing within those nations. Furthermore, given equal opportunity costs, and giving preference to power, we also know that it is better to become stronger than to prevent foreigners from becoming stronger. This becomes an even easier decision when we realize that hostilities between any two factions gives a relative advantage to all third parties, so if there are any enemies not targeted by your hostilities, you may well be putting yourself in a worse position than you started in, even after a complete and easy victory. It's also unnecessary to ensure that people properly seek their own self interest. This is because people will advance their values naturally, so the very idea of internal conflict is silly. Understand that advancing one's values isn't just about succeeding in life, or becoming rich, or any other such nonsense. All it requires is that your inherent nature align with morality. As an extension, any activity that includes only members that support the activity need not be meddled with. In general, the negative implications of the nature of government, are that governments should not expand violence into fields that would otherwise have been non-violent.

So what are some violent activities that government should be in control of? The most obvious examples are things like regulating the activities of thieves, lobbyists, rapists, lawyers, politicians, and murderers. However, the secret, and most important field of regulation is known as homesteading, which is the act of seizing resources that are not currently owned and causing them to be owned. IE, of turning unclaimed resources into claimed resources. This is very much an inherently violent act. Where once there was oil in the ground that anyone could partake of freely, now there are guns that will shoot you if you seek to make use of the oil. Method A (avoiding violent activities) is not a viable solution to this act of violence (for the obvious reason that simply leaving the oil in the ground is blatantly idiotic.) As such, Method B (combining the violence with an opposite activity that causes the overall action to be non-violent) is the best approach. One important method of achieving Method B is simple- taxes. However, another method is to limit the group of people eligible for the benefits of the homesteading to a set of people who will have the lowest overall levels of violence. In other words, to have a group of people who have expanded rights and entitlements which distributes the country's natural wealth to them- and perhaps a special title to go with these privileges. (This special title being citizen.) However, since the special privileged class is now strictly superior to their unprivileged rivals, it becomes reasonable to ensure that your country is composed with as large a percentage of special privileged class as possible (current experiments indicate a percentage of 100% is the maximum, not including tourists and temporary occupants located for non-resource base related purposes (such as studying in a more centralized college)) In other words, all immigrants seek to undermine our ability to generate power, in order to expand their own power. Since we are better aligned with our values than foreigners, we would prefer that we have a greater portion of this world's available wealth. It is a natural and reasonable violent activity to homestead as much as possible, and to prefer power for ourselves over power held by neighbors. After all, we ARE in a violent conflict over the end nature of life, the universe, and everything- the war may be engaged using economics and literature, but the conflict is very real and the stakes are huge. Securing ourselves against others claiming resources is a malinvestment, but becoming more powerful individually, even if the total power level of humanity is hampered as an opportunity cost, (note that, in reality, security IS good. It's just not how law is promoted, not how economics functions and not what government should focus on. As such increasing our relative power (even if we don't increase our absolute power) is actually a good thing, in so far as other humans are the greatest threats to our values.) is perfectly reasonable.

Another important role of government is this, that at times, a natural end loser of history will become inevitable given that the loser does not take action to prevent this. In general this action will consist of immediate hostilities against another group (note that such hostilities don't have to be riots, or warfare. Much more likely, it will consist of villainization, lobbying and other "acceptable" but no less dangerous, attacks.), generally a group that will, even if it "wins" the conflict, also become an inevitable loser at the end of the conflict, due to the competitive advantage attained by third parties. Thus it is up to government to insure that nature doesn't take its course, and to insure that nobody loses without having a fair capacity to make his arguments and collect resources. In other words, government must insure that all major factions capable of enacting violence on those that the government services are as best as possible, discouraged from doing so. Redistributing resources from the group that will be attacked, to the group that would implement the attack, is not just doing a favor to the faction that the wealth is given to. It also serves the faction that the wealth is taken away from. To understand, imagine a game of Risk. One of the players has conquered all of Asia, and, if ignored he will obviously win. Ordinarily the players on his borders would all instantly attack him, suffering major losses to themselves, but obliterating the Asian player. In turn the player not involved (South America) would have a huge advantage and probably turn out as the winner of the game. As the position stands, the Asian player will definitely lose, and everyone but the South American player is at a major disadvantage. However, if the Asian player is trustworthy and is allowed to talk, he might be able to salvage his position, say by agreeing to engage in unreasonable battles every turn, chosen in such a manner that his strength doesn't grow faster than anyone else and no-one profits or is hurt from his actions in a relative sense. Now the board is rebalanced such that everyone has an about equal shot at winning again. Besides South America, everyone is better off. (Note that the reason we, in a utilitarian sense, desire to stall the final battle, is that wealth naturally expands itself. By their nature, apocalypses are expensive, so when armageddon occurs, we lose all the future capital we would have gotten by investing the wealth that ends up consumed in fire and ice. Needless to say, with higher technology and a more advanced civilization, it will be easier to clean up the seas that have turned to blood, and to replace any moons that end up being devoured.)
An easy way to accomplish this is to make enough resources available that victory is still possible even under most worst case scenarios. That way, no matter how badly off a group is, it has food, knowledge and communications, so it can still build better arguments for its positions, which may in turn allow it to win in the far future, when present environments have shifted, and the keys to wealth production have changed hands.

Finally, I should address some common counter arguments, that actually counter the wrong premises and thus aren't actually related to the argument-

A- The free market is by definition a set of calculations done using unviolent methods. The vast majority (if not all) of big businesses are connected to the government. Microsoft makes its vast fortunes by exploiting copyright laws. (Yes, creating something that only has value because it is standardized, then using the standardization in order to level a tax on all computers used for standard activities is MOST DEFINITELY an exploit. A standard was inevitable from the start, Microsoft only produces wealth in so far as it gives us a high quality standard in an early timeframe. That's not saying that Microsoft doesn't give us anything (Windows 7 is actually a very good product) but that by siphoning too much of the economy to Microsoft, we have malinvested too heavily into creating good operating systems, paying an invisible opportunity cost distributed across all other fields.) The free market has already tried to kill GM several times. Practically all banks receive regular doses of free government cash... the list goes on, but in short, the road to being a big business is almost always through leveraging government support.

B- America's government meddles in medicine MORE than most of the rest of the 1st world. Our spending is slighty above average, our regulations on who can be a doctor, who can run a hospital, etc. is highly above average, and our regulations involving what you can and cannot sell is WAY above average (the FDA is famously one of THE hardest governmental regulatory agencies to get drugs and operational methods through. European countries often have had life saving drugs with no drawbacks for ten years before those drugs are legal in America. In turn, this forces American hospitals to give patients either riskier or more expensive treatment.) The entire debate over whether we should provide socialist or capitalist medical treatment is bogus, much like the rest of the Republican party.

Anarchy

What defines an anarchy? It could be called an environment in which all rights are granted. When people think of such a list of rights, they normally notice immediately such rights as the right to murder or steal, however, these are not actually threats to anarchy and are balanced by the right to self defense and the right to vengeance. The one right that particularly threatens anarchy on a fundamental basis, is the right to form a government, and thus, the right to restrict rights. As such, an environment in which all people have all rights, is, by its nature a low entropy state.

So, how else can one define an anarchy? The other definition that comes up is simpler: any populace lacking a government. It is theoretically possible, that such a populace could be raised with principles designed to protect themselves and their anarchy. Thieves could be dealt with more easily without trials and courts to protect them, and murderers would be kept in line by the heavily armed population. Giant armies would emerge from out of the population to strike down threatening governments whether foreign or domestic. Such a society could generate law without government, and maintain all the trappings of civilization. However, looking at such a society one must realize that it's just a system, albeit a weird one. In such an anarchy, it is possible that anyone who doesn't conform to societal norms will be killed on the spot, or that giant witch hunts will be undertaken by a paranoid populace. IE, an anarchy CAN BE a tyranny. Most governments, (or any other system of organization of a populace.) try to justify themselves with some form of divine righteousness. Once you realize that an anarchy can be tailored to build any societal model, it becomes a system like any other, acceptable only upon the merits of its abilities.

So, given that you make an anarchy, what is different from another government, the same in respects separate from systematical factors? First off, in an anarchy, activities must be popular- basically, passing a "bill" in an anarchy, is equivalent to passing a constitutional amendment in a democracy. Such changes to "law" would have no official ceremony- the nation would just evolve over time. What's most important here is- war. An anarchy would be capable of starting a war, only after a rather extreme event managed to raise extreme support. The nature of this event, is, dynamic, in that it depends on what the populace thinks of as an act of war. In this way, anarchy resembles democracy, but requires generally bigger events than an equivalent democracy. However, just starting a war isn't enough in anarchy. After all, in an anarchy, the army can, literally, just pack up and leave at any time. As such, for an anarchy to engage in war, the war must be popular throughout. This leads to a fork in how an anarchy operates-
In a military anarchy, an army would always exist, and invading and conquering foreign nations would be seen as the norm. Alternatively the anarchy could form a army only when invaded, defending itself from foreigners but rarely fighting frivolously. In-between systems are too complicated, and thus, difficult to manage in an anarchy.

One should not make the mistake that an anarchy would not have leaders. In any system, certain people stand out, and are listened to. While anarchist leaders would not dare judge criminals directly, or issue ultimatums (for fear of a anti-government crowd labeling them a start up government, and executing them on the spot.) national policy would be very dependent on these people. Given that there is no system of turnover, it is likely that these people would be very established, and would wield their power for life (though many would fade in and out of the spotlight in the flow of time.)

To maintain an anarchy, certain factors are necessary, chief amongst them- homogeneity. Amongst multiple cultures, a clash is inevitable, as well as a power struggle. This power struggle is almost certain to include a government. Therefore, either the anarchists must ethnic cleanse the opposition, or the nation ceases to be an anarchy. What is most interesting, is that an anarchy must thence have strict border control, especially assuming its neighbors are all living under, and supporters of, governments. Even anarchist neighbors could be living under a vastly different anarchy, and would therefore, start enforcing vastly different laws. Given that in an anarchy just living in the country makes you a full citizen capable of taking the laws into your own hand, it is imperative that immigration be controlled, lest your country dissipate.

Evolution and Desire

What does a rock desire? What is it thinking? A standard answer to this would be to say "nothing". That it is simply a physical manifestation of the laws governing our environment. However, a rock is, in fact, the end result of incredibly complicated interactions, the very ability to sit still becomes incredible when one looks at quark physics. And yet it is so- that small underlying probabilities on a low level lead to stable realities on upper levels. In this manner rocks are identical to humans- that it is a manifestation of an underlying yearning, that SOMETHING WANTED SOMETHING. To declare anything else requires an arbitrary line, wherein at one point something is alive and thinking but at an arbitrarily similar point it isn't. Like trying to draw lines with RNA on one side and viruses on the other. The very definitions of thought and life only work as properties, similar to heat or velocity. An absolute zero life reality would have to have zero information content.

That said, humans are obviously more alive than rocks are. So are algae and spaghetti. The question then arises as to what delineates higher levels of life from lower levels of life. A standard snap reply would be "intellect". A somewhat more advanced reply would be "morality". Since we are currently just playing games with the English language (which, like math, is not actually the basis of the universe around us, no matter how much we wish it were.) both answers are correct, as is any other answer. However, amongst those correct answers there is one that I would point out as a very interesting angle from which to view the world- "desire". While quarks have hardly any desires and just run around as they please, electrons insist on finding protons. DNA wishes to reproduce, which is far beyond simple magnetism, whilst fungi wish to grow. The definition is fully scalable and works for any interaction. What makes a human more alive than a cow? The fact that the human wants to build houses, share experiences and make inventions, while the cow just wants eat grass and lay down facing power lines. If the cattle just had the desire to improve their environment they could be human. This works for IQ as well- in that a stupid thug merely wants his next fix, whereas if he wanted to carefully annotate the exact actions of a slowly titrated chemical he would in fact BE a brilliant scientist. Note China, who had gunpowder, all the IQ they could ask for, but just didn't WANT to shoot anybody. It was lack of lifeforce, not calculation capacity that held them back. While it might be argued that the Chinese really DID want to shoot people but just didn't think of it, this argument doesn't work, once we realize that monkeys and mocking birds want to imitate the actions of those around them, but do not have any higher desires. The desire to replicate the actions of others is not equivalent to a desire to take independent action.

IE- to be a higher life form, all that is necessary is to desire the correct things. However, by applying previous knowledge of the definitions leading here, desires are not customizable (IE a thug really can't just want to goto college and memorize the periodic table.) and have a physical basis. The more interesting implications don't revolve around how to reach a level of life but in what a higher level of life IS. We note already the line of desire from a quark to a human, but it is important to note the trends inherent in these goals- That a quark, desiring to be in its correct triplet has an infinitely easier objective than any human objective- IE a more obtainable objective. Whilst our objectives are complicated and hard to achieve, a quark can just teleport to its objective. Rocks have a far higher chance of sitting still than DNA does of replicating, and a cow is more likely to eat the grass in front of it than the chance that a human will put a house on that grass. IE, the goals of higher lifeforms are perpetually less realistic than those of lower lifeforms. In fact, they are not only more difficult, but due to growing pattern overlaps, the goals of higher lifeforms steadily become mutually exclusive. Whilst the rocks can live in perfect harmony, humans must always be in conflict, whether through war, or through various advertisements drawing customers away from one product and to another.

If we move on to yet higher lifeforms, we find angels and demons, beings aspiring to ultimate power. (Demons through force-ably integrating all reality with their objective, and angels through convincing all reality to integrate. Either way the end result is the same.) So what happens if one such being achieves its objective and becomes omnipotent? It must then become a god. For that is the driving force of evolution, that once a lifeform has achieved its desire in fullness, the next frame MUST include a higher lifeform. This is because, the universe is information. It is a slide-show OF information. In order to change slides, the information contained MUST change. The next slide IS the difference in information. There are of course two other possibilities, ones that always exist- A- the projector is turned off, and the slide-show ends and B- a new slidereel is loaded, and the show is fundamentally changed.

However, our show is evolution, and our next slide will always contain a higher lifeform. So then, what does a god desire? What does the demon who has slain all opposition now want? What does the angel who has rallied all desire to one point want? The answer relates to the same thing that every form of life has always attempted- to replicate. A god however, being omnipotent, cannot simply create another god. Why? Because, being omnipotent, everything within the universe is simply an extension of himself. Creating an exact copy of himself would merely cause him to become more massive. To create a new god, it becomes necessary to reproduce not only the form, but the core nature that IS a god, IE the quality of understanding that the god has obtained- but this understanding must be formed entirely independently of the god's original experience, lest reproduction falter, and the infant be rendered simply an additional limb. It is therefore a god's duty, nay, nature, to create a new universe. Any lesser desire, and the supposed god is instead just a extremely powerful demon. What lies beyond godhood then? Is evolution an indefinite progression?