Liberty by IP

Luddism Infused Socialist Ideology.

2025-06-08T06:58:00.000-07:00

The modern narrative that “scary AI is taking people’s jobs” operates like a new wave of Luddism infused with socialist ideology. It stokes fear in less-educated populations to advance state-led solutions, like AI regulation and Universal Basic Income (UBI), which ultimately centralize power and risk transforming AI into a tool for government control over the populace.

I wrote a thesis, clearly demonstrating that AI will lead us to full employment. Yet, despite a clear evidence that no jobs are taken by AI, the scaremongering continues.

Let’s examine why.

Historical Parallel: Luddites vs. Modern Tech Anxiety

Luddism (1811–16) was a movement where skilled artisans destroyed textile machinery to protect their livelihoods. Although their concerns were driven by genuine fears about economic insecurity rather than pure technophobia, the fundamental flaw in Luddite thinking was their belief that halting technological advancement could preserve employment. History repeatedly demonstrates that technology ultimately creates more jobs, higher productivity, and increased prosperity, disproving the core Luddite assumption that innovation inherently threatens economic security.

Just as Luddites reacted to mechanization threatening wages, today’s “neo-Luddites” criticize AI disrupting employment and social structures.

Socialist Foundations: Linking Worker Rights to Collective Solutions

Post-Luddism, figures like Robert Owen argued that machinery, if mismanaged, exacerbated inequality. Socialists believed automation under collective control could eliminate unsafe labor and improve lives. Core socialist ideology promotes collective ownership and systems to redistribute gains from productivity, addressing inequality arising from mechanization.

However, socialist experiments, most notably the Soviet Union, Eastern European communist states, and Cuba, have consistently demonstrated systemic failures, leading to economic collapse, widespread poverty, and suppressed innovation. Despite socialist ideology promoting collective ownership and redistribution mechanisms such as Universal Basic Income (UBI), history has shown these models do not sustainably resolve inequality, instead stifling individual initiative and economic prosperity.

UBI, despite its intent to provide economic stability, risks causing significant inflationary pressures similar to those observed with minimum wage increases. When the government distributes unconditional cash payments, demand for goods and services increases without a corresponding rise in productivity or supply. As consumer purchasing power artificially inflates, businesses respond by raising prices, creating a self-reinforcing inflationary spiral. Over time, continuous money injection without productivity gains undermines currency value, eroding purchasing power and economic stability. Ultimately, unchecked inflation driven by policies such as UBI could destabilize monetary systems, diminishing savings, discouraging investment and triggering economic collapse.

AI-Fueled Fear as Political Strategy

The fact that 70–88% of the UK public supports AI regulation underscores a dangerous phenomenon: policymakers harnessing widespread fears of job displacement and bias to justify expansive governmental intervention. This strategy exploits anxiety to shift power from individual autonomy and free markets to centralized regulatory bodies. Compounding the issue, prominent tech figures such as Sam Altman and Elon Musk advocate for UBI under the guise of distributing the benefits of AI-driven productivity. Critics argue this approach disguises a troubling centralization of economic and political power, effectively placing the populace in a state of dependency on government or corporate elites. Consequently, society risks losing individual agency, ceding control to regulators and influential technocrats who, under the premise of fairness and safety, could wield AI as an unprecedented tool for population control and economic manipulation.

Regulation to Centralization: Government by Algorithm

Algorithmic governance represents a profound shift beyond traditional regulatory oversight, transforming AI into a direct instrument of government control. Under AI regulations, governments gain unprecedented capabilities to manage and shape societal behavior, economic transactions, and access to critical services through sophisticated AI-driven systems. This transition fundamentally alters the nature of governance, moving from representative democracy and decentralized markets toward centralized, algorithmically enforced decision-making.

Framing these regulations as protective measures against job loss, discrimination, and misinformation exploits widespread technology anxiety to legitimize expanded governmental authority. However, this protective narrative obscures the deeper consequence of regulatory overreach: increased dependency on the state. As AI regulation intensifies, market-driven innovation and individual autonomy diminish, replaced by centralized control structures. Citizens and businesses become increasingly reliant on government-approved AI platforms and algorithms, which effectively centralize data collection, surveillance, economic management, and social oversight into the hands of a few technocratic elites.

Such centralization erodes the dynamic adaptability inherent in free-market systems, potentially stifling innovation, diminishing economic freedom, and reducing individual agency. Ultimately, algorithmic governance may lead to a form of digital authoritarianism, where government-controlled AI algorithms invisibly shape and restrict personal choices, market interactions, and societal norms—transforming protective intentions into profound threats to liberty and democracy.

UBI as Trojan Horse

UBI is increasingly presented by its advocates as an essential response to the imminent threat of AI-driven job displacement. While seemingly compassionate, this narrative operates as a Trojan Horse to introduce a radical restructuring of society that carries profound risks.

Rather than empowering individuals, UBI entrenches widespread economic dependency, reducing incentives to innovate, work, and engage productively in society. By creating guaranteed financial reliance on government payments, it fundamentally reshapes individual relationships with the state, shifting them from independent actors into passive recipients of state-sponsored welfare.

Furthermore, this dependency opens pathways to unprecedented state intervention into personal decisions, consumption habits, and economic behavior. As UBI recipients increasingly rely on government stipends, authorities gain substantial leverage over citizens, able to influence behavior through conditional distributions, selective adjustments, or algorithmic oversight tied to social credit systems. In this scenario, the state wields direct economic influence over individuals, creating a society vulnerable to subtle yet pervasive social control.

Ultimately, UBI serves as a vehicle for expanding governmental power, reducing personal autonomy, and institutionalizing economic passivity. Instead of liberating individuals, UBI will const a deeply centralized, economically dependent society, one that prioritizes governmental authority over individual initiative and freedom, with profound consequences for personal liberty and economic dynamism.

We’ve been there. This approach will bankrupt and destroy us all.

Counter-Arguments & Safeguards

Substantial evidence demonstrates that AI will likely generate more employment opportunities than it displaces. Historically, technological revolutions, from mechanized agriculture to computing, consistently led to new industries and increased employment. Current studies reinforce this, including forecasts from the World Economic Forum, predicting a net gain of millions of jobs due to emerging sectors such as AI-assisted healthcare, precision agriculture, and personalized technology services.

Central to ensuring this positive outcome is preserving a dynamic, free-market economy. Market-driven systems adapt rapidly, fostering innovation, entrepreneurship, and competition. Those are essential conditions for creating jobs and enhancing overall prosperity. Unlike centrally planned systems, which struggle with responsiveness and adaptability, free markets allow decentralized actors, from freelancers and small businesses to startups, to leverage AI tools effectively, driving widespread economic growth and shared prosperity.

Rather than resorting to universal income transfers or centralized control mechanisms, effective safeguards focus on re-skilling and up-skilling displaced workers, facilitating their transition into new industries. Flexible, temporary safety nets linked to training programs maintain incentives for economic participation without fostering dependency. Policies encouraging entrepreneurship and reducing barriers to market entry further strengthen economic resilience. Ultimately, embracing AI within an open, market-oriented framework offers the best path toward improving collective wealth and individual well-being, avoiding pitfalls of dependency and governmental overreach.

Conclusion

The convergence of AI-driven employment anxieties with socialist narratives, infused by modern neo-Luddite fears, creates fertile conditions for increased regulatory capture and expansive governmental authority. By repurposing historical labor anxieties into contemporary technological threats, proponents of central planning harness emotional narratives to legitimize far-reaching policies. These top-down, collective solutions, such as universal basic income and stringent AI regulation, obscure their true implications, deepening dependence on state mechanisms and undermining individual autonomy.

Unchecked, this trajectory risks transforming into algorithmic governance, where AI technologies become extensions of centralized power, capable of subtly yet profoundly reshaping societal norms, personal behaviors, and economic freedoms. However, historical and economic evidence underscores that innovation typically generates more jobs and opportunities than it eliminates, provided markets remain flexible and open. A robust defense against creeping regulatory expansion lies not in state-dependence or restrictive oversight but in promoting market-driven innovation, workforce adaptability, and individual empowerment. Preserving these principles ensures AI remains a force for prosperity and freedom rather than an instrument for state control and economic stagnation.

Connect with me on www.igorportugal.com

Help with book cover review please!

2023-08-19T18:17:00.004-07:00

Greetings, fellow adventurers! I am trying to update the front book cover for "The Planet Fortht: Enslaving Freedom.” again!

Below are a few ideas. None of them are final but I am keen on feedback on which direction I should keep exploring.

Please review and let me know which you prefer in the comments (#1 - #9):

Current Cover:

Cover designed by my friend Jay:

Me wanting to emphasize “Enslaving Freedom” over “Fortht”:

Another attempt at “Enslaving Freedom”:

Moving away from Jay’s concept:

Another Concept:

So which is better #1 or #2 or #3 or #4 or #5 or #6 or #7 or #8 or #9?

Please leave a comment.

Money Matters

2023-08-04T18:07:00.003-07:00

Money, as a means of exchange, has undergone a fascinating journey throughout human history. The concept of money has continuously evolved to meet the needs of societies, from primitive bartering systems to sophisticated cryptocurrencies. In our current era, dominated by fiat currencies, we face significant challenges caused by high inflation rates. One thing that is important is to recognise the source of current inflation. The global response to COVID-19 lockdowns was universal. Print money. This is the root cause of current inflation and a significant contributor to the economic turmoil. It is curious to see governments trying to find scapegoats. One such scapegoat is technology, including artificial intelligence.

In my upcoming novel, ‘The Planet Fortht: Enslaving Freedom', the society described on Planet Fortht uses decentralised stable cryptocurrency. I demonstrate how it works well in everyday life. This concept is not new. There are many proponents of a stable cryptocurrency, a term called stablecoin.

In this article, I will delve into the historical perspective of money, explore the issues associated with high inflation, and discuss the proposal to implement stablecoin as a path towards economic stability. ‘The Planet Fortht: Enslaving Freedom' serves as a demonstration of how a society can function in such a setting.

The Historical Journey of Money

The concept of money emerged in ancient times when societies transitioned from bartering to using objects with intrinsic value. Those objects included food items with long shelf life like salt and pepper and later precious metals such as gold and silver. Those were mediums of exchange. Gradually, precious metals gave way to government-issued fiat currencies, backed by trust in the issuing authority. The shift from tangible assets to paper money marked a significant turning point in the history of money, with financial systems evolving rapidly in the modern age.

The Challenges of High Inflation

In recent times, high inflation rates have emerged as a critical concern for economies worldwide. In response to COVID-19 lockdowns, governments universally increased the money supply. There was more money printed in response to COVID than the global wars.

Inflation, fueled by excessive money supply, erodes the value of currencies. This is leading to rising consumer prices, decreased purchasing power, and uncertainty in financial markets. Governments and central banks often grapple with the delicate balance between stimulating economic growth and containing inflation, and the consequences can be dire for citizens and businesses alike. It is those consequences that we are now experiencing globally.

Diminishing Marginal Utility

The law of diminishing marginal utility plays a crucial role in understanding why individuals pay different prices for goods. Economists use this law to explain the declining satisfaction or utility derived from consuming additional units of a particular good. As individuals rank their needs and goals based on importance, the value of a good is determined by its usefulness in fulfilling these priorities. For instance, consider John the baker, who allocates his four loaves of bread to different ends, ranking them according to their importance. The loaf of bread serving the least important goal sets the standard of valuation for the entire supply of bread. This is demonstrated well in this article here.

Stablecoins: A Viable Solution

To address the challenges posed by inflation and its consequences, a new digital asset class has gained momentum - stablecoins. These cryptocurrencies are designed to offer price stability by being pegged to a basket of goods and services. The underlying blockchain technology ensures transparency, security, and decentralization, making stablecoins an attractive alternative to traditional fiat currencies.

This makes it a true token of exchange, honouring the original need to have money.

Stablecoins would provide several advantages in today's economic landscape. First and foremost, their value stability shields individuals and businesses from the fluctuations experienced in traditional cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum. This stability fosters confidence in transactions and mitigates the risk of significant losses due to market volatility. Additionally, the borderless nature of stablecoins facilitates seamless cross-border transactions, fostering greater global economic integration.

The concept of diminishing marginal utility is also relevant to the discussion of stablecoins and inflation. Stablecoins, designed to maintain price stability by being pegged to a basket of goods and services, align with the principles of diminishing marginal utility. As the supply of stablecoins is managed to keep their value steady, individuals can confidently transact without fear of significant price fluctuations, ensuring that their needs and priorities are met consistently.

Unlike traditional cryptocurrencies, stablecoins offer a reliable means of exchange, aligning with the notion that a good's usefulness to secure one's ends gives it value. By embracing stablecoins, we move away from the need for complex mathematical models to determine total utility and marginal utility and instead create a more stable and efficient economic system. In the face of inflationary pressures, stablecoins provide a promising path towards economic stability, honouring the fundamental principles of utility and value in a rapidly evolving financial landscape.

The Impact on Society

My depiction of the impact of stable currency as well as the widespread use of AI can be found in my upcoming novel, ‘The Planet Fortht: Enslaving Freedom’. In the meantime, think about how our society can implement and embrace stable currency, independent of governments. What would be the impact? Drop your thoughts in the comments.

To receive a notification when the book is published, please click on this link and subscribe to notifications in the “Notify Me” box.

Letter from the Mars mission.

2023-07-17T20:05:00.008-07:00

Dear Reader,

As I sit here in this spacecraft flying through space, I find solace in the knowledge that my words will reach you. I want to share with you the profound mix of emotions and thoughts that swirl within me as we make this historic journey to Mars.

The path that led me to this moment has been a tumultuous one. As a father to two beautiful children, I became increasingly concerned about the political situation in the world that can lead to a global conflict and the threats of changing climate.

As a soldier and Air Force pilot who served a decade in Afghanistan, I witnessed firsthand the devastating consequences of war. The destruction and loss of life are etched deep into my soul. The harrowing experiences I endured gave me a unique perspective on the fragility of our world and the dire consequences of global conflict.

Humans must do something to avert the disaster. In my quest for solutions and hope, I stumbled upon a number of thought leaders, such as Stephen Petranek, Elon Musk, and Buzz Aldrin, advocating that humanity should explore Mars.

Their arguments resonated with me deeply. Mars, the most Earth-like planet in our Solar System, offers an ideal destination for exploration and possible colonization. By studying Mars' geological features, we can gain insights into the formation of our own planet and the other celestial bodies in the Solar System. Mars' atmosphere holds a variety of gases, some of which could be utilized for human life support. The unique perspective on the universe that Mars provides allows us to observe the Solar System from a different angle. The study of Mars can drive the development of new technologies and expand our capabilities as a species. And ultimately, Mars could serve as an alternative habitat for the human race, ensuring our survival in the face of adversity.

These reasons ignited a flame of interest in my heart. I saw in Mars a potential refuge, a new frontier where humanity could thrive and safeguard its future. This realization compelled me to embrace the possibility of this mission, to push the boundaries of what we know and strive for something greater.

Now, as we approach Mars, a mix of excitement and trepidation fills my heart. The realization that I am about to set foot on a planet that has captivated the human imagination for centuries is overwhelming. I cannot help but think of the pioneers who came before me. Those who dared to dream and push the boundaries of what is possible.

Yet, I am not blind to the risks that lie ahead. Mars is a harsh and unforgiving world, and the unknown awaits us.

But it is precisely in the face of these challenges that we find our greatest strength and resilience. It is in the pursuit of the unknown that we discover the depths of our human potential.

As I gaze out at the stars that twinkle in the eternal darkness, I am reminded of the collective journey we are on. We are explorers, dreamers, and seekers of knowledge. We are bound by the threads of human curiosity and the relentless pursuit of a better tomorrow. Together, we are connected across time and space, united in our quest to unravel the mysteries of the universe.

So, dear reader, as I continue this remarkable journey to Mars, I implore you to join me and rally behind the mission that holds the key to our collective future. Your support and encouragement are not just words; they are the fuel that propels us forward. Together, let us make this mission count, not only for ourselves but for the entire human race. Spread the word, inspire others, and advocate for the Mars mission. Together, let us ensure that humanity's reach extends far beyond the confines of Earth.

Thank you for being a part of this journey, for lending me your ear and for sharing in my hopes and fears. Though we may be separated by unimaginable distances, know that we are connected by the bonds of curiosity and the human spirit. Together, we will continue to reach for the stars.

With gratitude and a sense of purpose,

Robert Nadie

Protagonist, The Planet Fortht: Enslaving Freedom.

To learn about Robert Nadie's journey subscribe to notifications on the The Planet Fortht: Enslaving Freedom website

For more resources about Mars visit:

NASA Mars Exploration Site

The Mars Society website

Why AI regulation is a bad idea

2023-05-31T04:17:00.008-07:00

Lately, the conversation surrounding the need to regulate Artificial Intelligence (AI) has reached a fever pitch. The question seems straightforward enough, but the potential implications are anything but. Let's take a deep dive into this multifaceted issue.

Various arguments for AI regulation include the weaponization of disinformation through technologies like deep fakes, the invasion of privacy, misuse of private information, copyright infringement with generative AI, and the potential creation of autonomous killing machines. On top of these concerns, the displacement of jobs and the threat of AI "going rogue" and destroying humanity are often mentioned.

In my upcoming novel The Planet Fortht: Enslaving Freedom I created a utopian world where AI and other advanced technologies safeguard individuals, uphold justice, and deter crime. Nobody is above the law, and justice is administered to anyone who causes harm to another human being.

While the publishing process is slow, I feel compelled to speak up and share my thesis on the topic of AI regulation in this blog post.

I addressed the topic of job displacement by AI in my thesis, demonstrating how AI can usher us towards full employment. For this to become reality, I argue that AI needs the freedom to develop. I'll delve deeper into this as we go along.

The concept of AI "going rogue" has been a mainstay of science fiction and alarmist theories. For this scenario to materialize, an Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) engine would need to be developed and then unleashed without human oversight. This hypothetical engine would need to be the only AI in existence at that time, or a far superior one, capable of outmaneuvering all other AI technologies. This notion is not just apocalyptic but seems far removed from our current reality.

The idea of an AGI engine being more fantasy than fact aligns with the views of philosopher Hubert Dreyfus. For an in-depth understanding, I recommend checking out Dreyfus's extensive work on artificial intelligence, which remains relevant despite advancements in AI.

But even if AGI was not a relic of the romantic dreams of technologists, let's consider this. People who work on AI aim to create value. Unleashing uncontrollable AI onto the world doesn't serve this purpose. Even in a hypothetical scenario where AI is weaponized, it's reasonable to assume safeguards would be put in place to protect friendly populations and their own military.

I’ve been working in the software development industry for over three decades. I have never seen a software developer creating software that they can’t control. They always create a "back door” of some kind, fundamentally for testing and development, if there is no other need.

Software developers are like all human beings imperfect and we make mistakes. We create software with bugs and we know it all too well. Some examples of costly bugs include the "Knight Capital on Wallstreet” and the Y2K bug.

The foundational block of architecture in each software is the ability to start and stop it and access data that affects software behaviour. When we build software, we go through thousands of iterations of starting and stopping it and debugging the results. We are therefore unable to build software without the ability to control it.

It is therefore beyond any doubt, if you can’t control it, you can’t create it, because you can't test it and iterate on the mistakes you will inevitably make as a software developer. Creating software you can’t control is impossible.

But the critics would say we can’t predict what AI will respond with and therefore we can’t control it. What they are describing is not control. What they are describing is the lack of predictability of software output. All software has an element of that. A basic example is random number generators. They are specifically designed to give unpredictable output. A more complex example is the weather forecasting model. Humans don't directly comprehend the vast amount of data processed by weather forecasting models, which is why we rely on software to make predictions. We don’t know what the prediction will be, but we are in control of how that software functions. Stock market analysis tools are another example. Financial analysts use complex algorithms and models to predict stock market movements. They have control over the parameters and data they input, but the stock market is inherently unpredictable. This serves as an example of having control over the process but not necessarily the outcomes, similar to how you can control AI parameters but not always predict its responses. In fact, all algorithms used for simulating various environments produce outputs that are unpredictable to humans.

We’ve been using such software for years and there is nothing wrong with creating software with unpredictable output. The point I am making is that we are fully in control of the software through control of the underlying code.

Some say if we can’t control the output, we can’t control the “behaviour". Using the term “behaviour” is very misleading. When applied to a human or an animal, the term “behaviour” includes the creatures’ initiative that arises from instincts and feelings. It assumes that creature is fully in control of their actions, body and mind. This is what people often assume when the term “behaviour” is applied to a machine. But those machines have neither instincts and feelings nor their own initiative. The initiative is given to them by humans. And humans are in control, as I demonstrated by explaining how software development is even possible.

If, based on my above arguments, AI (or AGI) going rogue is impossible, why are we debating the regulation of something that doesn't exist and will never exist? Instead, let's shift our focus towards tangible threats.

Disinformation, privacy invasion, copyright infringement, and autonomous killing machines are valid concerns. They are also very scary. But we need to see those tools for what they are: weapons that are built to harm others.

Those employing AI as weapons to harm others should be held accountable. The need for a legal framework to deter such misuse and ensure justice is paramount. For street thugs and corporations, this needs to transpire as a punishment. Those who harm other people must be held to account by society. Along with any weapons, the invasion of privacy and misuse of people’s private information can cause harm. Ditto for copyright infringement. Any personal or company property that has been stolen needs to be returned and the thief needs to be brought to justice. This is the only place where lawmakers' job is important.

However, we also need to consider those beyond the reach of the law, such as rogue states or the international criminal underworld. The only way to combat those is to equip both governments and regular people with the same technology so they can protect themselves.

This brings us to a crucial point - much of the AI technology currently in use is based on open-source software. It's free to use and modify, making it a hotbed for innovation and collaboration.

This also means other than large data models, the actual tech right now is not owned by anyone. And it can not be owned by anyone unless it is regulated. This, in turn, is the very thing that gives us the safety net - the only thing that gives us the safety net. Right now, we can protect ourselves from both the criminal underworld and the rogue state.

Leaked internal Google document already admits that Open Source AI will outcompete Google and OpenAI.

This open nature will change if any regulations are enforced. This is the perfect way to disarm all of us in the face of real threats.

Corporations want to regulate AI to protect their monopoly. Regulation will push AI out of the hands of the open-source community and give monopoly power to large corporations and rogue states.

Imagine living in a world where the only people controlling AI are people like Elon Musk, Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un. Now imagine those are the people who can use AI to weaponise disinformation and create autonomous killing machines. Actually, you don’t have to imagine - they already have the basics and the foundation to do this. Regulation will thwart the progress of AI innovation in the Western world and give the upper hand to our adversaries. What it will also do is equip monopoly holders to extract super profits at everyday persons' expense.

To that extent, regulation like licensing or patenting AI will have a disastrous effect on us. The regulation will disarm us, regular people, from being able to both earn a living and protect ourselves.

Regulatory restrictions on AI development seem ill-advised. However, what we do need is legislation to ensure a human is always liable for an AI’s actions. Accountability must lie with a human. And if someone harms another human being, be it negligence, a rogue actor, a corporate entity, or even a state. If harm occurs, someone must be held responsible.

What we should vehemently reject is the introduction of “licensing”, “patenting” or any other compliance regulation that increases the barriers to entry for entrepreneurs in the AI market, consequently leading to monopolies over this technology.

While regulation seems like a quick fix, it will lead to an unwanted concentration of power and stifle the democratization of AI.

By harnessing the power of accessible and open-source AI technology, we can pave the way for a safer and more prosperous society, as depicted in the utopian world of "The Planet Fortht”.

To receive a notification when the book is published, please click on this link and subscribe to notifications in the “Notify Me” box.

Debunking the Doomsday AI Predictions: How AI can lead us to full employment and create more fulfilling lives.

2023-04-21T22:19:00.005-07:00

There has been much debate in recent months about the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on jobs and the economy. Some people fear that AI will replace human workers and lead to mass unemployment. I am in a camp that sees it as a tool for increasing productivity and innovation. With the recent release of ChatGPT, these debates have been fueled further, with some calling for government regulation and a halt to AI research.

In my upcoming novel The Planet Fortht: Enslaving Freedom I paint a picture of a utopian world where AI has helped to create full employment for the whole of society and create more fulfilling work for people. In this world, everyone enjoys the opportunity to either be employed or create their own business and be an entrepreneur. AI helps more people be their own bosses. While this world is utopian, I believe all the principles described in the world of Fortht are achievable in our own world. All we need to do is let the technology thrive and adopt some of the political principles described in my novel.

While the publishing process is slow, I wanted to share some of my thoughts and theories on the topic of AI and employment in this blog post.

First, let's address the fear of job displacement. It's understandable that some people worry that AI will replace human workers and leave many people without jobs. This is fuelled by celebrities like Elon Musk and Max Tegmark who use their position to fuel misinformation and instil fear in people who don’t necessarily understand the technology. For example, Max Tegmark proposes that AI is an alien mind. He completely ignores the fact that AI is created and controlled by humans and has been trained on the data produced by humans. The proposal that this is an alien mind is both factually incorrect and is designed to instil fear in the minds of people. People might believe him because he is a “researcher”. However, this kind of statement is the essence of misinformation.

I propose that both historic data and the mechanics of the way we implement technology suggest that AI will help improve and increase overall employment. Technology has a pretty clear and well-known role in that regard. However, what's not so obvious is the way it impacts knowledge-based and knowledge-using sectors, such as medicine, education, business, communication, and professional services. The interesting thing is that technology actually increases employment in these areas over time, which is why it's no surprise that the top fastest-growing occupations around the world have been in the services sector since 1880. You can check out the chart below for more information, which is based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis-US Department of Commerce.

This logic is also supported by the results of a 2015 study by Deloitte economists into the relationship between jobs and the raise of technology since 1871. The study has shown a clear increase in the number of jobs created as a result of the rise of technology and innovation. You can find the findings by clicking here.

If you look at the employment trend, below is the U.S. Bureau of labor statistics employment graph tells the picture of continuously rising employment rates.

and below is the global trend over the last three decades, where the technology has been advancing quite rapidly:

Also, Amazon is the poster child for the company that automates jobs. Yet in the last decade, despite automation, its workforce grew:

AI will certainly change the way we work. However, the change will be slow enough so people will use AI to adjust the way they work and invent new ways of working in the process. This is due to the fact that it is people who are currently employed who will be implementing the new AI tools. Those people will both use AI to assist themselves in their own work and invent those new ways to do the job. The people will also invent new jobs.

It is important to define what we mean when we talk about jobs or work. A job is a means by which individuals create value to improve their lives, and its value is determined by the amount of value it creates, whether that be in the form of tangible goods or services, or in the form of intangible benefits such as innovation or progress. This value is established by both the producer of the value and the consumer of the value. For example, when you cook your own dinner, you are both the producer and the consumer of value, so you are the one establishing what it is worth. When you work as a chef at a restaurant, however, the value is negotiated between you and your customers. In this scenario, customers also have to offer something of value to you as the chef.

The “doomsday" AI predictions completely ignore the mechanics of the creation of value and the nature of money. Money is merely a tool of exchange, dependent on the presence of goods and those who can produce them. It represents the idea that individuals engaged in trade must provide value in return for value received. When you receive money for your labour, it's with the belief that you'll use it to acquire the fruits of other people's labour.

As such, therefore, the creation of value is a trade between people, the mechanic of the market that assumes both parties to the transaction produce value for each other and therefore are employed. You can’t trade with a person who produces no value.

Initially, the value of AI lies in the research, computing power, and other resources that people have invested in it. On its own, AI does not offer any value. The value that AI provides is attributed to the people who invested in its existence. As with any capital asset, the value attributed to AI will gradually diminish, and the value that people add will increase relative to AI's contribution to any task. This is similar to the value attributed to a crane lifting 2 tons of concrete slab and placing it on the 10th story of a building compared to people carrying furniture of the same weight to the same height. People still receive relatively higher pay for the entire job than the crane. However, the crane operator earns more money per hour than people manually carrying furniture up.

In the future, people will increasingly take on roles where they direct and drive AI towards a desired outcome. This includes programmers, artists, and photographers, among others. While AI will do most of the hard work, the value created will be mostly attributed to the person driving it, not to the AI itself. This shift will enable people who are currently unable to work due to a disability or lack of education to gain employment or create value in other ways. Automation and the reduction in effort required to produce value will allow everyone to contribute to value creation. The need for value production will persist as long as there are people who need to consume the values, such as food, clothes, shelter, and entertainment. As more value is produced, the need for employment will increase, leading to full employment where anyone who wants to work can find a job or create a business.

There are already many examples of jobs that are being created or enhanced by AI. Data analysts, AI trainers, and virtual assistants are just a few examples. Prompt engineers are the latest. These jobs require human input and creativity, and they can provide more meaningful and rewarding work than some of the jobs that are currently being automated.

To conclude, while there are fears that AI will lead to mass unemployment, historic data and the mechanics of technology implementation suggest otherwise. Instead, AI has the potential to increase overall employment, especially in knowledge-based and knowledge-using sectors such as medicine, education, business, communication, and professional services. This is due to the slow and gradual implementation of AI and the fact that people will use AI to adjust the way they work, invent new ways of working, and even create new jobs. Furthermore, the value that AI itself produces will diminish over time, and the value that people add will increase. Eventually, AI will enable everyone to participate in value creation chain and will lead us to full employment.

Ultimately, AI can create more fulfilling work and more opportunities for people to be employed or create their own businesses, as demonstrated in Enslaving Freedom, The Libertarian Utopia of Planet Fortht.

To receive a notification when the book is published, please click on this link and subscribe to notifications in the “Notify Me” box.

Connect with me on www.igorportugal.com

The front book cover for The Planet Fortht: Enslaving Freedom

2023-04-15T04:34:00.005-07:00

Greetings, fellow adventurers! I am trying to update the front book cover for "The Planet Fortht: Enslaving Freedom.”

A friend told me that the girl at the top right looks unnatural and the part of her dress that is showing on the cover looks like a “slave colour” which was not intentional.

Please review and let me know what you think in the comments:

Do you like the original cover design (1):

Or prefer the new cover design (2):

Or should I remove the girl from the cover altogether (3)?

So which is better (1) or (2) or (3)?

Please leave a comment.

The back book cover for The Planet Fortht: Enslaving Freedom

2023-04-07T04:28:00.006-07:00

Greetings, fellow adventurers! I am trying to design the back book cover for "The Planet Fortht: Enslaving Freedom.”

Please review and let me know what you think in the comments:

Do you like the below cover design (1):

Or prefer the below cover design (2):

So which is better (1) or (2)? Please leave a comment.

Embarking on an Intergalactic Adventure: My Upcoming Sci-Fi Novel, 'The Planet Fortht: Enslaving Freedom'

2023-03-31T03:38:00.006-07:00

Greetings, fellow adventurers! I am thrilled to announce that I am in the process of writing a science fiction novel titled "The Planet Fortht: Enslaving Freedom." The idea for this book first took root in my mind back in 2010, stemming from engaging debates I had with friends on social media. Fast forward to today, and I have just completed the second draft of the manuscript and am actively seeking a publisher to bring this futuristic world to life.

A Glimpse into the World of The Planet Fourtht

Prepare to be transported to a world where technology has advanced beyond our wildest dreams. This utopian society is free from violence, and its inhabitants enjoy a quality of life enhanced by highly developed artificial intelligence. But this is not just a story of shiny gadgets and impressive engineering feats. The Planet Fortht is a world where society has evolved and adapted to these technological advancements, giving rise to new political and philosophical ideas that challenge our current beliefs and values.

Join Our Protagonist on a Thought-Provoking Adventure

As you follow the journey of our protagonist, a man from Earth who finds himself in this freedom-loving society, you will be immersed in a narrative that combines romance, controversy, and action. You will witness how this world's inhabitants navigate their lives with the help of AI and ponder the possibilities of what our own world could become.

A Story That Goes Beyond Science Fiction

"The Planet Fortht: Enslaving Freedom" is not just about the excitement of exploring a futuristic utopia. It invites you to consider the potential impact of technology on our own society and how it could shape our future in a positive way. The novel explores the benefits that technology can bring and poses thought-provoking questions that will linger long after you have turned the last page.

Embark on a Journey of Imagination

Whether you are a devoted fan of science fiction or simply curious about the possibilities of the future, I believe that "The Planet Fortht: Enslaving Freedom" has something for you. I invite you to join me on this intergalactic journey, where the only limits are those of our own imagination. Together, let's dive into this new world and unleash the power of our boundless creativity.

Share with the World

I am eager to share "The Planet Fortht: Enslaving Freedom" with you all and am currently searching for a publisher who shares my vision for this captivating story. If you know a publisher or a literary agent, please introduce them to me. As I continue on this exciting journey, I hope you will follow along and let your imagination run wild as we explore the fascinating world of The Planet Fortht. Stay tuned for more updates on my novel's progress and prepare to embark on an unforgettable adventure!

To stay tuned, visit "The Planet Fortht: Enslaving Freedom” website and leave your email address in the “Notify Me” box.

Don’t fear the AI - embrace it!

2017-07-01T05:30:00.000-07:00

In 2017, Artificial Intelligence is here in our world. Tools such as Google's DeepMind and IBM’s Watson starting to gain real world application. We are starting to use AI to automate many tasks and alter the way we work.

There has been much debate in recent years around what Artificial Intelligence is likely to bring. Some people fear that AI will replace human workers and there will be mass unemployment. Other people fear that the machines will become so intelligent that they will take over the world.

Let me point out that all of this is just speculation, albeit some of it is an educated guess but much of it is science fiction. There is absolutely no evidence to many of the claims. However, unfortunately, some of those claims are made by some of the smartest people on the planet. This makes us all take notice. Another unfortunate scenario is that those people are now asking government to respond to this as a threat, in a similar fashion as there are calls to respond to climate change. The governments are asked to spend our taxpayers money to combat some speculative future that was dreamt up by some smart people. Now this is a cause for alarm. Not everyone has subscribed to this new mass hysteria though, there are voices of reason out there that include many scientists. This alarm inspired me to spend my time and write this blog in order to add perhaps a small extra drop of logic to those voices of reason.

I am not a scientist researching AI, not a politician or a super wealthy entrepreneur. I have been trained in computer science and did work as software developer for many years so I do understand technology. I also created a number of businesses and helped hundreds of businesses implement technology so this gives me an idea of how jobs are created and how business operates.

But the main point I want to convey is that I am not creating any new ideas here. I am simply applying some logic and common sense to the information that is in public domain.

Below are some of the myths that particularly cause me to be alarmed. I will offer some thoughts by way of “dispelling the myths"

Myth #1:

There will be mass unemployment and hardship.

Artificial Intelligence will make many jobs redundant. I have no doubt about that. However, I believe they will be replaced with better jobs.

There are some big mathematical and logical issues with the gloom predictions which most predictors ignore. First one is that people are in control of implementing the AI. They are the ones paying for it, either as consumers, as decision makers who write cheques in larger organisations or as business owners.

So let me ask you a question: What is it that you like in your own job? Would you buy technology to replace a job you like? I personally don’t know anyone working on technology that would replace a job they (or someone else) enjoys doing. And if someone did - that business would be unsustainable. Most efforts are going into assisting with the mundane, boring or physically difficult parts of jobs. This logic is also supported by results of 2015 study by Deloitte economists into the relationship between jobs and raise of technology since 1871. The study has shown a clear increase in the number of jobs created as the result of the rise of technology and innovation. You can find the findings by clicking here.
However, there are smart people like Peter Hinssen who tell us to not extrapolate what we know today to try and explain tomorrow. What Peter really means is not to extrapolate data trends into the future.

Peter has shown us graphs where Telecommunications providers were looking at the up take of SMS in 2010.

And if you looked at that graph and extrapolated the future you would see exponential growth in SMS usage. However new social media based messaging systems arrived and spoiled the predictions.

Peter’s example serves a great warning to anyone who uses pure statistical data to arrive at conclusions. I certainly never agreed with statistics as explanation for everything and fully agree with Peter on this count.
However, this doesn’t mean that we should also throw away a-priori logic and everything we know. After all, Peter himself uses logic and what he knows today to paint a picture of the future.

So the logic that I propose is this: While there are plenty of professions that used to exist and no longer do, to date we have seen no evidence of technology causing mass unemployment. Fact is that to date there has been more jobs created as the result of technological progress than we ever had before.

The mechanisms by which humans implement new technology only support implementation and ratification of new technology as new jobs are created. The more people have money to spend the more new products and services are created which in turn fuels the research to make them faster and smarter. Those same mechanisms in play will also slow down technological advancement when old jobs are automated.

If people were becoming unemployed “En masse", the first thing that will happen is economic downturn. That causes companies to stop, or substantially slow down investing in technology. I witnessed this with the GFC. As soon as unemployment increased by a few percentage points, chequebooks closed and companies stopped investing in new technology. This may sound counter-intuitive, but this did happen, and if you think about it for a bit, it makes sense. When people are unable to earn money, they turn to producing the basic necessities by themselves. Same with companies - when there is a business downturn, they try and get their staff to do more in-house than outsource or invest in capital purchases. In other terms, if people don’t have money to pay for the AI delivered products and services, then they will not use those products or services and perform the work manually for themselves instead. This will in turn cause companies implementing AI to go out of business or stop investing in AI.

This means that when workers loose their jobs the economy and rate of technological progress slows down. It will slow down enough to let those workers re-tool and get back into employment.

This means that "mass unemployment and hardship” with “people unable to earn money” is impossible as a result of technological progress. The a-priori logical conclusion here is that the technology advancement goes hand-in-hand with increased or full employment.

So in that case what likely impact will technological progress make on jobs?

Let’s consider the car industry, and dispel another myth while we are at it.

Myth #2:

Autonomous Vehicles will make anyone who is earning money driving unemployed and unemployable.

When talking about mass unemployment the doomsday advocates often refer to the taxi and logistics industry. They say thousands of taxi drivers and truck drivers will loose their jobs overnight and will be unable to recover and retrain for years. Those predictions could not be further from the truth or reality. Here is one opinion that supports me in saying "Driverless Cars Will Create New Jobs, Not Destroy Them". Let me explore why in my own words.

Before we look at the future, let’s have a quick look at the recent past and the major disruption in the taxi industry caused by Uber. Uber managed to lower the costs of taxis by implementing technology that allows drivers to deliver better service to their customers at a lower price. This caused some taxi companies to loose market share. What did the drivers do? Most of them comfortably transitioned from being employees to becoming business owners. They bought a car and use that as a cab and use Uber technology to provide marketing, sales and billing. Very clever.

We all know that no driverless car has been approved or put into the general population consumption anywhere in the world as autonomous vehicle. That is because approving that kind of technology require cutting through a lot of government red tape and takes time. Let’s say a manufacturer (for example, Tesla) creates a fully autonomous vehicle that is starting to go through government approval to allow it to go on the road. What happens next? One type of vehicle gets approved. Let’s say it is a light passenger carrying vehicle. If a taxi company will then decide to invest into such vehicle, will they change from cars with drivers to driverless overnight? Highly unlikely! What they are likely to do is buy a small test run of vehicles to try. This trial likely to last six-twlve months. Uber is also unlikely to invest in a global fleet of vehicles overnight. People more likely to jump in ‘boots and all” are the uber drivers. All they need to do is buy one vehicle and they are sorted. Why would Uber even contemplate investing in a fleet of driverless vehicles, when their traditionally disruptive model relies on the drivers to invest in global fleet available to Uber? By letting drivers invest, Uber can become a global force dominating driverless vehicle industry almost overnight. And what will happen to the jobs? There will not be “thousands unemployed” as the drivers who used to be behind the wheel now will enjoy the cars doing the job for them. All they need to do is administer the business. Will they need to retrain? Eventually yes, but not immediately. They already made the transition from employees to “independent business owners” - so now the journey will begin to learn not only how to manage one vehicle, but how to grow their business and add more to their fleet. And nobody is in a better position to do that then those drivers as they already know their area, know their customers, understand the industry very well.

As the prices will start sharply falling for the taxi rides a couple things will happen:

People will stop buying cars.

Why would you own one if you can get a driverless uber instantly at your door taking you to your destination for less money than owning a car yourself?
This in turn will increase demand and let more people put more driverless cars on the road. This in turn will increase the employment in the sector as those drivers will start hiring administrators, marketers, sales people, software developers...

People will start using cars for new purposes

Why go to the supermarket, when the delivery of your shopping costs you the same as the cost of driving yourself to the supermarket and back? We will see more things couriered where they were not before.

All of that will create more jobs in the taxi industry. Sure enough, the “drivers” will need to re-train. But like many start-up owners, they can mostly re-train “on the job”

A similar model of disruption and change can be built for any other industry.

The industry will change with AI, the way the job is performed will change and perhaps even what we call each role will change too. While the mundane and boring parts of the professions will be automated, the interesting and human parts will not. Also newer technology is more user friendly, easier to use and requires less training. This means that as the jobs change, they will often favour a more mature workforce with industry knowledge and soft skills.

Myth #3:

Machines will eventually be able to do every single job, humans will be fully “redundant” and people will be unable to earn money.

Before examining wether or not people will be able to earn money, let’s examine what “earning money” really means.

We, humans, trade fruits of our (human!) labour with each other by exchanging goods and services. When the other doesn't have the exact product or service we need right now, we use money as the store of value for human labour. So money represents human labour.

We use tools to make our jobs easier, however the tools are in themselves a store of value of the labour that went into their invention and production. Eventually that depreciates and the impact of tools on value we produce is a race to zero.

No matter how smart the machines are at doing our jobs, they are at the end of the day mere assets of humans. The cost for products and services “provided” by machines, in a competitive world, will be a race to zero.

If the machines could do everything, than everything we need ultimately will be provided for free and we will have a life where we don’t have to do anything and have everything.

However, machines will not do everything. This is not because I said so, but because by definition, some of the tasks will not be able to be performed by anyone other than humans.

Machine is not capable of performing human-to-human contact because definition of such activity is based on human participation.

Right now service industry is experiencing labour shortages and in order to satisfy demand that industry will have no other choice but to implement AI of some kind - sooner or later.

I am certain that AI will fill in superbly and many, if not all, currently available service jobs will include an AI of some kind.

However, humans do biologically crave human-to-human interaction. I don’t believe we will ever be satisfied without human interaction. This mean there will be a need for some kind of human-to-human interaction services. As such, by definition, those service will be performed by humans.

So if you look at it mathematically and extrapolate the numbers, the cost of AI / machine workers is a race to zero. Human-to-human service will always bare a cost, that is infinitely higher than the cost of AI service. However, as AI is unable to replace human in those circumstances “by definition!” then the demand for the service will always be there. The demand will eventually grow to fill the available supply. Since we will get all the AI services for free (or nearly free), we will be happy to spend "all our money" on the human services.

Also, at the flip side of it, money is by definition is a store of value of human labour. Trade is by definition a human-to-human value exchange. Now before you start telling me that there are machines trading equity and so on, please consider that all the ownership of value ultimately is stored with humans. This means those machines are acting on behalf of their human masters and are simply the “tools” of the job performed by humans.

Another, very important part that machine does not do is - it does not have initiative to innovate or explore new human frontiers.

Inovation in the humanity space and exploration of the new human frontiers is again, by default are human actions and can not, by definition, be replaced with AI.

Since we will always require human interaction, there will always be jobs for humans. If humans didn’t need to do anything else but just that, it will be enough to keep everyone employed.

Myth #4:

Machines will rule the world and will quash us if we get in their way.

All machine code is written by humans. The technology is sponsored by someone.

Will you, or anyone you know, fund a machine that has in it’s algorithms somewhere a capability to destroy human life?

Perhaps if the machine is created for military purpose, yes, maybe. However, we already created military technology that is capable of destroying all life on earth. So far we are able to keep it “in check”, but who knows what the future brings. The point is, wether it is military AI or Nuclear Bombs - if it gets into the wrong hands we are all doomed. If there is one thing I fear, it is the autonomous AI driven machines that are given the mandate to kill humans.

However, can you conceivably imagine a commercial company funding development of such machine, without a military chequebook? I can’t.

Conclusion

No matter how smart AI gets, there will always be something for people to do. MIT recently published a research paper that also agrees with this thesis. You can find a link to that paper here. While industry definitely needs to take notice, on a citizen level there is nothing to fear. There is certainly no need for governments to spend money. I am not saying governments should take no notice of the situation. There will be plenty of moral and ethical dilemmas to consider, including AI in military applications. The legislation will need to be adjusted to deal with those. But that is nothing more than “business as usual” for the governments.

One solution: How to increase New Zealand's R&D spending and stop educated people from leaving the country

2011-07-06T04:49:00.000-07:00

I've engaged in an interesting debate with TUANZ Chief Executive, Paul Brislen (@paulbrislen) on Twitter. Paul asked this country's politicians:

"NZ has some of the lowest R&D spend in the OECD. What will you do to fix that?"

My response to Paul is that I don't believe that the statistics are accurate. New Zealand companies don't have an incentive to account for R&D. In fact there is a big disincentive to account for it. If you hired someone or purchased something and your intention is R&D, that means that it is a capital expense. Capital expenditure is not immediately tax deductible. You have to capitalize and depreciate it. This means that not only you are out of pocket for investing into something that doesn't bring you any immediate return, but you also can't claim it as tax deductible expense. I believe that the way New Zealand businesses structured is to ensure that their efforts are considered operational expenses and not R&D. This is why the statistic Paul refers to is inaccurate and meaningless.

To this, Paul responded:

"not according to the OECD and that means investors looking for new stuff pass us by." "... if you're looking around the world for centres of innovation what do you look for? R&D spend. If we hide ours..."

I don't believe it works like that with investors. I believe investors are looking for returns on their investment, not centres of innovation. Technology investors, in particular, are looking for two things: (a) Availability of talented people to perform the R&D and (b) Markets to sell the resulting products. In New Zealand we are short on both.

Paul's latest comment was:

"I'm talking about the angel investor funds and the like. If all it takes to get on the radar is an accounting change, why not?"

That comment has prompted me to write this blog, as I don't think 140 characters is enough for this important subject. It is not as simple as an accounting change, as I described earlier, as people will loose real money. However, even if it wasn't for that, some government statistic is still not enough incentive for businesses to change their accounting practices.

Last government's answer to the problem was to introduce tax rebates for R&D. That policy was a complete failure and didn't achieve the desired result. The definition of R&D was too narrow and didn't cover any real commercial R&D. However, being a "tax credit" - translation, "cash handout", if you made the definition any broader, anyone and everyone who's business relates in any way to any technology will be asking government for cash. I applaude the current government for dumping that tax credit scheme.

The problem of trying to drive R&D through other company tax incentives is that by its nature, R&D doesn't produce any immediate income, therefore there is no tax to pay. So what can you do?

I believe I have an answer to this problem. Here are a simple two step solution:

Step 1. Make all R&D related expenses 100% tax deductible, same as operating expenses.

This step will remove the accounting disincentive. However, in itself it is not enough.

Step 2. Redice the income tax burden for all employees that are engaged in Research & Development activities. Make it so the higher the qualification, the lower the tax burden.

This will achieve many goals desired by the people of New Zealand:

It will be more attractive for people with higher education that can be applied to R&D (scientists, engineers, programmers etc...) to stay in New Zealand - they've just got a pay raise!
In fact, educated people from overseas will want to come and work here so they can earn more
It will be more attractive for investors to set up shop in New Zealand - they will have happier staff earning more money without themselves having to shell out extra.
It will be more attractive for business people to account for R&D appropriately - their staff will earn more so will be happier to stay
It will be more attractive for young people to pay for higher education - your student loan is no longer such a burden, it will be paid for by the tax break
You will have young people more interested in science and engineering than arts and law
You will have larger pool of talent so international technology investors will be interested in coming here to set up shop.

And this policy is not too expensive to implement. According to that OECD report there isn't much R&D accounted for in New Zealand, so there will be minimal revenue loss to the government. They will pay in tax breaks to the researchers, however that will be made up by other activity of the companies doing R&D. Also, the ratio of research to other staff in those companies is pretty small.

It will also be a very minor cost to businesses - we already have a system of PAYE tax codes, so all that needs to be implemented here is a new code.

So, would any political party like to adopt this policy? You'll have my vote!

And, to top it all, this policy is really easy to sell to New Zealand public. At the end of the day you are not giving any money to someone as extra profit. You are leaving more money for the worker - the researcher and the engineer.

New Zealand software innovators overwhelmingly support software patent exclusion

2011-06-10T16:13:00.000-07:00

Matt Adams posted yesterday an opinion about the software patent exclusion:

Opinion: Innovators reject software patent exclusion

Matt posted this on a closed Linked in group, so I thought I'd open the debate to public by posting my response here:

Matt,

Your statement is rather misleading. A correct statement is:

New Zealand software innovators overwhelmingly support the draft legislation to exclude software from being a patentable invention.

We understand that a software patent system is only damaging to our ability to innovate. A patent is not a property right, it is a monopoly right managed by a government. History has proven that monopoly rights primarily responsible for:

Reduction of innovation
Increase in pricing
Reduction in supply of product or service that also leads to
Reduction of job availability that also leads to
Abuse of worker's rights

There is no evidence to suggest that monopoly rights (or patents for that matter), specifically in the software industry, lead to any kind of increase in investment into research and development. As a matter of fact, the opposite is true.

The list of companies you give can hardly be included as the representation of the software industry. I am sure they all are doing great work as far as software development goes and they do develop good software, however lets examine the the company interests here:

Airways Corporation

Airways is a State-owned Enterprise (SOE), a fully-owned subsidiary of the NZ Government. It is in the interest of any government body to support government control of business. Ditto – granting monopoly rights.

Air New Zealand

Not a software development company – they fly planes! Again, largely government owned.

Plant and Food Research Limited and Geological and Nuclear Science Limited

Again, both CRI, government organizations, who's focus is not software but, as their name suggests, Plant and Food Research and Geological and Nuclear Science research.

Hardly representatives of software industry who are primarily affected by the legislation.

Auckland UniServices

A vehicle to turn (largely) government funded university research into commercial (patented!) products

Fisher & Paykel Appliances

A hardware manufacturer, whose submission focuses firmly on embedded software. I believe the legislation as drafted specifically excludes software that runs inside embedded hardware from being a non-patentable. Also, the hardware widget itself is patentable.

The so-called industry bodies you quote do not represent New Zealand software companies, instead are largely funded by international organizations, some of whom have been known to abuse their monopoly power. Is it them that you propose our government should be granting monopoly rights?

Matt, the organizations you mention were invited to participate in the public debate on this matter, here is the video:

http://liberty-by-ip.blogspot.com/2010/10/public-software-patents-debate.html

They have either declined or withdrawn their participation in the last minute. This felt like either cowardly behavior to me or an admission of support for our views.

I do welcome your courage to start this public conversation. However, opening with the debate with a misleading statement – come on!

Modern solution to crime - punish the victim again!

2010-11-14T02:23:00.000-08:00

In our modern society the only solution we have to crime is to punish the victim twice. First, the perpetrator of the crime harms their victim or their property. Then, to add insult to injury, the government takes more of the victim's money out of their taxes, and wastes it on the perpetrator.

Where is the justice in that system? Can anybody explain to me why we all tolerate this?

What is wrong with the following:

- Keep the laws outlining the punishment for each crime, the crime must be punished
- Create another law that says that the perpetrator must return to the victim the financial equivalent of whatever was taken from the victim: that is real justice!
- Ensure that both the punishment and reparation is paid for by the perpetrator.

This would be real justice, would it not be? Also, it will not cost the taxpayer as much, if anything, so the criminal doesn't get to rob us twice.

Now, can anybody tell me why is our justice system so unjust? Why are we being punished twice, as if the governments tells us "don't you dare to be a crime victim - that is the real crime!"

Liberty vs. Socialism Debate

2010-10-30T00:48:00.000-07:00

In the question of Liberty vs. Socialism I choose Liberty! What will you choose? Does Ayn convince you like she convinced me?

This is a debate between me and Emil Ostrovski, a relative from united states, that happened over the following link that I posted on my Facebook account:

Emil is a student studying Philosophy. His political views are, as described on his page: Independent, but I lean left on most issues.

Here is Emil's reply to my initial post:

Emil Ostrovski:

She was a smart lady, but I'm not convinced. She says herself that we are moving in the general direction of socialism as a result of our "altruist morality." What she has to prove, then, is not just that she feels the result of this morality (full collectivism ) will be bad because it compromises liberty, but that an altruist morality in and of itself is bad.
If she only proves the result will be bad, then we can simply dispute whether the result will ever actually be brought about. There is also the question of whether the world she proposes will be any better, even with regard to her fundamental pillar of liberty.

All we have to do is look at America and Europe in the nineteenth century/industrial revolution period to see that laissez-faire capitalism is hardly the champion of individual liberty Rand wants us to believe it is, despite the way she tries to skirt the topic (certainly not all abuses were due to legislation.) A mixed-economy may not be a perfect system, but, as pointed out, it evolved due to the failures of the previous system (laissez-faire). Even a fairly conservative western democracy like America has many socialist elements. Yet, it is important to note, we are very far from full collectivism. What socialist elements do we have? Well, take social security. Why do I have to pay my hard earned dollars to support some old fart who didn't have the sense to plan ahead for his retirement? Well, because under the laissez-faire model, older folk in greater and greater numbers were put in situations where they were starving and homeless and their families who, according to laissez-faire, again, would ideally have taken them in, were not always doing such a good job at that (especially during periods of economic hardship. It is not a coincidence that Social Security legislation sprang up during the Great Depression.)

So the question became, is it necessary, in order to pursue the preservation of human life, to ask our citizens to pay for a program which everyone will be able to make use of, and in the process, make life better for older generations? Yes, it is a sacrifice of liberty in the sense that it is compulsory, but the alternative is sacrificing life itself.

My response to Emil was:

Igor Portugal:

Dear Emil,

I believe that in her numerous works Ayn was proving exactly that "altruist morality" in itself is actually immoral.

I personally can see nothing wrong in giving to others and deriving satisfaction from giving. I've done that plenty of time in my life and will hopefully do more. However, it is way too often demanded from people that they give to others and people's property is taken away from them by force in the name of altruism. That is when altruism itself is bad.

There is no question at all if the world she proposes is better than the alternative simply because it offers personal liberty as the fundamental right. Liberty is better than being enslaved, no matter what the motive is for the enslavement.

Laissez-faire capitalism is the only champion for individual liberty, by its definition. It is the only system derived from liberty – you can't derive any system from any imposition on personal freedom by a government, and call it “liberty”. The definition of personal liberty is that the person is free to do what they want with their life and their property, as long as they don't initiate force on other's or take other's property. The minute you bring a regulation in place, you take the liberty away.

The abuse of liberty can only stem therefore from a government body, based on legislation. Any abuse that comes from a non-government organization or a person is simply braking the law, and should be prosecuted. Do people ever break the law? Of course they do, in every society. Those who break the law should be prosecuted – that is the only proper function of government.

The point is, governments, like all people, will abuse power. Only there is no-one to prosecute them – law enforcement is the function of government.

Neither America nor Europe ever had fully implemented laissez-faire capitalism, it was always mixed system at best. The mixed economy did not grow from laissez-faire capitalism, but from government's and people's desire to control other people. Each new legislation was imposed to remedy badly drafted old legislation. Bad legislation is when one group of people gets unfair economic privileges over another group of people and exercises the unfair right to their benefit and other's detriment. Instead of removing the unfair advantage from the original lot, people prefer to demand an unfair legislation that favors them instead. They always do it in the name of altruism – they find a “poor person” to whom we all have to “give” and guilt-trip everyone into agreeing with yet another enslaving law. This is why altruism is bad.

As for the old folk – they haven't been dying in droves in the economies like Singapore and Hong Kong where there is no social security for them – none whatsoever. However, I have seen old folk struggling very hard in the economies where the governments taxed them up to their ears, promising to look after them in their retirement, and than neglecting to deliver. This is when usually those governments also blame the situation on capitalism - “I didn't mismanage the economy, it failed … hrm... laissez-faire!”

And many periods of economic hardship, as is very well documented, are delivered to us by undue government controls imposed on the economy. The great depression is the greatest example of all – was a direct result of paper money and centralized reserve banking. So is the recent recession, contrary to what governments want us to believe. This kind of economic hardship just doesn't happen if there was no centralized reserve, if money were a gold or a silver standard, and if fractional reserve banking was treated appropriately by the enforcement agencies – as a fraud.

So here is a prime example of what I was describing earlier – government went ahead and created a legislation to favor an elite group of bankers so they “government” could “stimulate” the “growth” in the economy. Than when their experiment failed, they blamed it on the bankers (not the government, of course, they had only … tried to stimulate the economy....mmmm... do good , eh?) Than, instead of removing failed legislation, they go and introduce legislation to “help” those affected by that government failure, the poor unemployed. They take away the money from everyone else, and give it … to the unemployed... wonderful idea – rob everybody to fix your own screwup. The fact that the particular unemployed didn't really exist before that original legislation was introduced... well... everybody conveniently forgotten about that.

In a society where your liberty is respected you can always find something to do. Nobody guarantees full employment, but, if you are struggling, you can always find yourself a piece of land and work it for it to provide you with the basic necessities (metaphorically speaking....)

So, is it ever necessary to rob people and steal their property? Only if you are an evil person who likes power over people and take joy at their suffering.

I am not like that.

Emil responded:

Emil Ostrovski:

Igor, sorry it took so long to get back to you. With school about to start up again (we had a week-long break) I figure I better respond lest I not have another chance! Ha.

“There is no question at all if the world she proposes is better than the alternative simply because it offers personal liberty as the fundamental right. Liberty is better than being enslaved, no matter what the motive is for the enslavement.”

Ah, but organized society is all about curtailing liberty. I think social contract theorists like Locke had it right. We give up certain rights, under the assumption that everyone will give up certain rights, and that the society as a whole will be better off. An example of this would be murder. I do not have the liberty to kill anyone. I give up that liberty, under the assumption that everyone else in my society gives it up as well. Now, it is possible to argue, I think, that a world of complete liberty, aka, anarchy, is the best of all possible worlds, because the good that exists in that world is of the very highest, purest order.

What I mean by this is simple. Let’s imagine an anarchic world in which our friend, Bill lives his life doing everything in his power never to hurt or harm anyone else. There is something incredible in that. Bill is something of a Saint, because he performs good (Or at the very least, refrains from bad) without any guarantee of reciprocation. Without entering into any kind of social contract. He is something of a martyr, a hero. Whereas in the modern day world, with our social contracts, there is very little we find extraordinary in a man who tries not to harm others. In fact, we all think of ourselves, more or less, as such men.

You could argue that the goodness that arises from a system of limitation, curtailment, control, and social contracts is an artificial sort of goodness, and if you wanted, you could apply this to taxes vs giving to charities (taxes are required, thus, you are forced to be good, whereas charity is given freely.) I would be sympathetic to this view. However, when it comes to practicality (yes, a philosophy major is about to get practical), the simple fact is that I would not want to live in an anarchic world, and I would not wish such a world on anyone. Why? Because we know from social psychology that situations greatly influence peoples’ actions.

If there is nothing that compels people to be good, then there will be a lot less good in the world. True, the good in the anarchic world, on average, will be of a purer, more natural sort than in our controlled society. But the anarchic society, on the whole, will be a much uglier place than our controlled society, because the majority of people will not go out of their way to do good, if there exists nothing to compel them to do so. And so, the reality is, unless we want to live in a world where rape, murder, robbery, etc are commonplace, we need, and for this reason have developed, systems which curtail our natural liberty.

We see this in other animals, as well. A wolf pack, for example, has a very specific hierarchy, and by virtue of this hierarchy, a very specific set of rules that all the wolves must follow. To put it bluntly, in order for any animal to live socially, it must give up certain liberties. A wolf pack cannot function, cannot cooperate if each wolf does not know its place. I cannot have a friend, if the friend thinks at any moment I may try and murder him.

So what we really want is a system which curtails our liberty yet allows us to remain as individuals. We are looking for a happy medium between a society of robots and anarchy. To champion individual liberty over the good of the society is to advocate for anarchy. What we should champion instead, is mediation. Individual liberty within certain limits. So yes, Igor, I support your right to free enterprise.

I support your right to have a company, to make your own money on the basis of your hard work, etc etc. AS LONG AS you are not employing your workers in dangerous conditions (see industrial revolution.) As long as you’re paying equal pay for equal work. As long as you’re paying your full time workers enough so that they can actually afford, at the very least, the bare necessities. Etc.

A democratic government, far from being the tentacled monstrosity conservatives like to paint it as, is the only organ that is intended to serve the interests of the entire society. It is not a perfect system, but a government striving for democracy will always serve the interests of society better than a bunch of businessmen who are only interested in profit (again, we saw this with factory owners in the industrial revolution.)

True, America and Europe never had full laissez faire capitalism (though they were certainly far more laissez faire than they/we are now), but that’s because full laissez faire capitalism is as much of an ideal as Marx’s vision of communism.

Here’s what would happen if we had complete laissez faire capitalism. Over time, oligopolies and monopolies would emerge, and the country would be run completely by them. Instead of looking to politicians as the most powerful men in our country, those who can effect change, we would be looking to the businessmen. And unlike politicians, businessmen are not interested in serving their constituents. They are interested in maximizing profit.

Eventually, people would grow discontent and 1) look to government for some kind of intervention 2) look to change the system, aka, revolt (Marx did not come up with communism in a vacuum, it was a response to the abuses that he saw perpetrated on a daily basis in the time of the Industrial Revolution.

The businessmen, in response, or perhaps preemptively, would look to infiltrate the government (or establish a new one themselves) that would allow them to maintain their power.

Regarding old folk. Bringing in new examples does not refute old examples. In an America during the great depression, when unemployment was 20-25% and where there were virtually no safety nets for older folk, YES, older folk were starving. Still, a quick internet search showed that not everyone views the situation of the elderly in those countries in the same way you do. http://www.littlespeck.com/content/people/CTrendsPeople-070304.htm
http://catscarpediem.blogspot.com/2010/02/homeless-in-singapore-real-story.html
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/homeless-people-are-defective-needs-rehabilitation/
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/01/31/mcys-increase-in-number-of-homeless-people-in-singapore-not-linked-to-financial-crisis/

You take a look at the elderly in countries like Britain, Sweden, Canada, etc—none of them are struggling the way it seems some of the elderly in Singapore are, doing menial labor into their seventies and possibly beyond.

I can’t comment much on the Great Depression, because I just don’t know enough about economics to discuss it intelligently. I will say, however, that if there’s one thing I’ve learned from a lot of my classes, it’s that no one thinker/writer manages to get the whole truth right. If there are a sizeable chunk of people arguing against you, then the chance is better than not that they have at least a few grains of truth to what they’re saying.

Ultimately, I believe in the search for the happy medium between two extremes. I think that compelling people to be good (to a certain extent) is preferable to allowing them to be bad, and unless you want to advocate for complete anarchy, that’s something you’ll have to swallow. Once you’ve swallowed it, then it makes no sense not to adopt a system which looks out for all the people, the entire demos. In order to look out for the entire demos, regulations are necessary. As James Madison, one of America’s founders, wrote in the Federalist Papers, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

My response to that was:

Igor Portugal:

Dear Emil,

Thank you for the time taken to research and reply - I am enjoying this.

From Wikipedia (yes, I know, not the best source for making assumptions, however a good quick reference point): Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:

1. "No rulership or enforced authority."
2. "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."
3. "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."
4. "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."
5. "Acting without waiting for instructions or official permission... The root of anarchism is the single impulse to do it yourself: everything else follows from this."

When you are referring to word “anarchy”, which of the above are you referring to? My understanding that the anarchy you are referring to is "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."

I don't advocate lawlessness – I absolutely advocate law and obedience to the law. In my view, however, the authority's powers should be limited to enforcing property rights and stopping violence and aggression. That, in my books, is NOT the “anarchy” you are painting.

You say that the organized society is all about curtailing liberty. That is a misconception that has absolutely no foundation, and quite the opposite is true. An organized society functions perfectly well without curtailing people's liberty - provided that you don't consider violence against another person or another person's property as liberty.

All your examples of why liberties should be given up are based on examples of violence. What you are advocating for is that society is based on the premise that violence is a liberty. The society you are advocating for is therefore based on violence! That is worse than the “evil of anarchy” that you are painting and are scared of – it is institutionalized, legalized violence, lawlessness and theft. I don't want to live in such a society – been there (USSR), done that, got the t-short, had enough!

Unleashing evil on the world in order to force people to “be good” is an oxymoron and doesn't achieve any good at all. If you fall for that kind of line, you are naïve and opening yourself up for being taken advantage of by people, wanting to control you and use you for their own purposes, in their own interests and potentially against your interests.

What is good for one person is often evil for another, so for the society as a whole “being good” should not be the rule, as it is an impossible goal to achieve. One must find good in themselves for the benefit of themselves and their loved ones and practice it for the benefit of themselves and their loved ones. That is the only kind of good I recognize.

However, when someone wants to harm me in the name of “good” for somebody else I must question their intentions, and if indeed that “good” is any good at all, or is it a wolf in sheep's clothing – and when you dig deeper it almost always is!

When you compare humans to other animals you fail to recognize the basic difference between humans and other animals. We, humans, have the capability of turning the produce of this earth into more useful goods for ourselves. We apply our labour in order to sustain and improve our lives. We can survive, adopt, and provide for ourselves. We are not parasites living of whatever has been fed to us by nature ready to eat. We will not die if we are not spoon fed. A human is perfectly capable of producing enough goods to sustain their life. What we have recognized however, long time ago, is that if we specialize, we can produce a lot more and infinitely improve our quality of life and increase our power. When you specialize you are dependent on other people producing things that you need and want. That is why we need to live socially. However, all those relationships are perfectly well guided by entering into voluntary contracts between people to trade their labour.

When I look at the pack of wolves I see a pack of parasites – roaming the world, murdering and eating their prey; dying, when there is nobody else to murder and eat. This is the society you are advocating for – a society of parasites who don't want to produce and prey (slaves) who are forced to produce. That society is unsustainable, because eventually the prey realize that it is better to be a parasite and stop producing.

I will refuse to produce for the benefit of parasites. I refuse to have a company where I have to provide employment for parasites – I would rather go on strike and do nothing at all. Thankfully, I live in reasonably free society, so I don't have to.

I will only have a company which employs free people, who agreed, in contract, uncompelled, based on free choice, to trade their labour for the company's money. It is up to them to decide if the money is enough – not me, or some third party who has no business sticking their nose into our relationship. It is up to them to decide and participate in ensuring the environment is safe.

I want to work with free, responsible people – I don't want to have slaves or be enslaved by others.

The industrial revolution began as a good thing, and produced lots of advantages for our lifestyle. However, it is the legislation, that given some industrial tycoons unlimited powers and brought enslavement to workers, that is at fault in the examples that you are providing. Don't confuse government sponsored slavery with the free market! Capitalists who seek government protection of their monopoly are taking away the liberty of the workers – that is not the world I am advocating for at all, so please don't confuse liberty and slavery.

Yes, it is true, that some times throughout the history America and Europe had more laissez faire than other times. It is also true, that the economic and lifestyle improvements we enjoy now, came from those laissez faire times. So we need more laissez faire not less.

Governments always blame laissez faire for each of their monumental failures to govern. Those failures and blame is good for the government as it gives them the ability to strengthen their power even further as people fall for that blame game.

The fact that oligopolies and monopolies emerge in a laissez faire society is a fallacy that has no single example in history of man kind. In fact the opposite is true – all oligopolies and monopolies that ever existed were created by government sanction or legislation. Of course when the government enslaves people like that at a barrel of a gun, otherwise known as legislation, the only way for people to respond is rebellion and revolt. This is exactly what happens to create the environment you and Marx describe as leading to revolution.

The problem is that every time people revolt, their leaders, now in power, undertake identical abuses against which they revolted in the first place – often even worst abuses.

Ditto – your old folk examples. The great depression which was caused by government regulation of the blood of free society – money – is the great example that proves my points above. Guess what happens when people like me get enslaved and stop working – there is no production, food and people are dying, and the weakest, the elderly get hurt first. That is the exact scenario of a world you are advocating – a world where the liberties are given up in the name of “good”.

And if you look at the examples of stories that you've provided around Singapore, they all claim that increase in homelessness “not linked to financial crisis”??? A thinking man has to wonder.

How many homeless people has America produced out of the financial crisis? How many homeless people who struggles in Europe that were created by the crisis?

That is another example of government regulating money supply, hurting people – exactly what economists like Hayek and Mises predicted. And what is the result? The usual – the governments blame laissez faire.

How do they get away with it? Simple: most people don't understand and don't want to understand economics. Laissez faire is counter intuitive – to understand that laissez faire and liberty is the best option for people you need to understand economics.

So, your statement “I just don’t know enough about economics” is representative of what is going on in the world. You are building a whole opinion and philosophical framework about how the economics of the world should work without the understanding of economics!

There are no “two extremes” here. There is liberty, and than there are evil people that want to take it away from us by manipulating us into believing how bad the world is, by creating devils that don't exist. If you understand economics, you understand that there is nothing to fear in laissez faire economy.

And when you understand that there is nothing to fear, you will see that liberty is the happiest medium!

1 Nov. 2010

There was a response from Emil. Unfortunately it is too long for the comments below, so here it is:

Emil Ostrovski:

“Thank you for the time taken to research and reply - I am enjoying this.”

Likewise, thanks to you, Igor, for having this dialogue with me, and thanks to all readers and commenters. Bob and Another day in Paradise, I apologize for not being able to address you specifically, but this response will be lengthy as it is.

Before I begin, I’d like to point out something I should’ve pointed out a while ago. This really is not a debate of socialism vs liberty. This is more of a debate between laissez-faire and any kind of regulation. The way Rand has framed it is misleading, purposefully incendiary, and part of a long tradition of conservatives calling everything they disagree “Socialism.” Socialism, I will remind you (according to dictionary.com) is “a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.”

Nothing I’ve said here, and nothing Rand’s interviewer said, is advocating for the adopting of a socialist system.

Regarding anarchy. I suppose I should have been clearer. What I meant was closest to "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder),” except without that last bit in the quotes. Anarchists feel there will not be disorder, because social relations/relations of reciprocity will develop naturally, in an un-coerced manner, within an ungoverned state.
The example I was making, for the purpose of our argument, was a sort of “absolute anarchy,” in which there are no reciprocal relations (this is an ideal state, and obviously impossible to actually achieve. It was meant to be taken primarily in an illustrative sense.)

“I don't advocate lawlessness – I absolutely advocate law and obedience to the law. In my view, however, the authority's powers should be limited to enforcing property rights and stopping violence and aggression. That, in my books, is NOT the “anarchy” you are painting.”
So then, you are not making liberty foundation at all. Rather, you are advocating constraining liberty via law, for the purpose of something more foundational than liberty (which is basically what I said myself.)

Now, I already know you will protest this characterization, because you go on to protest that liberty is only ever a good thing, and express indignation at my calling the ability to do violence a liberty. So before we can progress, we must tackle that roadblock.
We’re going to tackle it in the Socratic tradition. By asking questions.

What is liberty?

My answer is that liberty is the ability to act and think of one’s own accord.

For me, having liberty is having freedom (to act, think), and freedom from constraints (on acting, thinking.) To be free, autonomous, have free will. This conception of liberty is not by any means new, and is largely agreed upon.

Dictionary.com includes a number of definitions for liberty, including “freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.” NOTE, nowhere does it talk about reciprocity.

Now, you seem to define liberty as such: The ability to live, own property, and act and think of one’s own accord, *as long as one does not infringe upon someone else’s life, property, or ability to act and think of their own accord.*

The highlighted part is a qualification. The part you are qualifying is “The ability to act and think of one’s own accord,” and you are qualifying it in such a way so that it constitutes a reciprocal relationship.
Now, it’s worth it here to take the time to state, explicitly, that the difference between us, so far, is that I argue for qualifying liberty (freedom of action, thought) through law, whereas you enclose within the definition of liberty itself, something that qualifies it.

================================================
Before we go on, here’s something for you to consider. This is mostly an aside, and not 100% necessary to my actual argument. What would you call “the ability to act and think of one’s own accord?” What word would you use to describe this? Freedom? Autonomy? Whatever word you would use, that is the word that is more foundational than your version of liberty, because whatever word it is, you have to make it reciprocal in order to get your version of liberty. In other words, what you’re calling Freedom, or autonomy, or (insert word here) I’m calling liberty. This is a debate of semantics.
================================================

The next question then, is, WHY are we both qualifying liberty (you are doing it internally within its definition, I am doing it externally via law)?

The answer that I actually should’ve given you before, but didn’t, and the answer that I think you’ll agree with, is that a world that does not qualify liberty (either internally or externally) is an immoral world. THAT is the real reason why we don’t want to live in such a world.

The next question is, why is such a world immoral?

We can answer this by restating what we’ve established already: “This world is immoral, because liberty is not made reciprocal.”

But WHY must liberty be reciprocal, in a moral world?

Because we believe all humans have an equal right to life, liberty, and property.

Why do all human beings have an equal right to life, liberty, and property?

Because human beings are all rational, intelligent beings, who have autonomy/free will, and in making the conscious decision to accept/respect the autonomy of other rational intelligent beings, we are doing what no other animals can, and thus affirming our humanity. To be moral, then, is to be human. To be immoral, to act in an animalistic fashion, is to act, as you say, like a “parasite.”

Now the question is, how do we ensure that every member of the society’s rights life, liberty, and property are equally protected? (note, when I say everyone has an equal right to property, I’m NOT saying everyone should own everything/advocating for communism/socialism.)

Well, we do this through our social contracts and our laws.

Up to this point, we should largely be in agreement. As I said before, the main point of disagreement seems to me to have been on the level of semantics.

So the point at which we diverge is the next question, which is, “What constitutes a violation on someone’s equal right to life, equal right to liberty, and/or equal right to property?”

I believe that having a system where the quality of healthcare available to its citizens varies according to how much a given citizen makes, is a violation of an equal right to life. Such a system seems, rather, to give those who are more financially endowed a higher right to life than those less financially endowed.

I believe that having a system in which the employer is not required to provide (reasonably) safe working conditions does not make due on the promise of an equal respect for life. If the owners in some of these industrial age factories had to spend one day a week working in their own factories, I bet you all my money that safety conditions would have been on a much higher level.

Your claim that the abuses of the industrialists all stemmed from government regulation is off-base to say the least. There was no legislation that said, “It is okay for an employer to put the worker in needlessly dangerous conditions if the worker is desperate enough to agree to it.” Rather, the problem was that there wasn’t enough legislation to protect the worker. There was no regulation that said, “It is okay to pay women half of what you pay men.” Rather, the problem was, there was no regulation that said, “Equal pay for equal work.”

I believe that having a system in which a company saves money by polluting indiscriminately violates the equal rights to liberty, life, and property of the people living in the affected region. The company GE, General Electronics, over the years dumped tons and tons of chemicals into our local Hudson River, with little regard to the consequences, and even after it was discovered that the chemicals they were dumping were a “probable cause of cancer,” they didn’t stop until the government made them.

“For 30 years, General Electric dumped PCBs into New York's Hudson River from two plants that made electrical capacitors. In 1976, when PCBs were found to be a probable cause of cancer, GE didn't stop the dumping - until ordered to do so by the federal government in 1977.” http://www.sierraclub.org/planet/200103/hudson.asp

I believe that there needs to be a federal public education system, and that this system should strive to provide all students throughout the country with an equal level/quality of education (the higher the quality, the better, of course.) Because to have poor schools in poor regions and rich schools in rich regions, is not to give all students the same opportunities to succeed, but rather to privilege students on the basis of their economic situation. And at the point at which you give some students opportunities while denying other students those same opportunities, simply on the basis of how much their parents make, you are not treating them equally.

I can go on, of course.

Regarding the Great Depression. I have a friend who is a senior economics major, vice president of some economics/business club, applying to Grad School to study economics and/or political economy. I asked him what caused the Great Depression. He told me

1. The contraction of the money supply by the Fed
2. The failure of the banks, which came about as a result of people withdrawing their money when the stock market crashed and the fed’s contraction of the money supply.

So, fair enough. But nowhere did I say that the Federal Government should have the power to play with the money supply. All I said is that it must enact regulations that allow for the equal right to life, liberty, and property. So you have a point. It's just not one that I intended to contest.

Unfortunately, then you go and say this. “Guess what happens when people like me get enslaved and stop working – there is no production, food and people are dying, and the weakest, the elderly get hurt first.”

This is just kind of silly, Igor. People didn’t stop working in some great act of rebellion against their enslavement via government regulation. People stopped working, because there weren’t enough jobs. And at the time, the country was completely unprepared to deal with the social ramifications of an economic failure of such a magnitude, and did not have the safety nets in place to prevent widespread suffering.

I’d recommend you read the novel, The Grapes of Wrath, by John Steinbeck. It’s perhaps my favorite novel, and it deals with an average family from Oklahoma and how they navigate the Depression. It is NOT a partisan novel. It merely gives you an idea of what was going on.

All this said, I also asked my economics major friend the following.

Me: What do economists attribute the rise/existence of oligopolies to in our modern day, mixed economy?

Him: Natural competitiveness. Oligopolies arise out of collusion. It’s easier to make a buck with a few companies all fixing prices together.

Me: And why wouldn’t this happen in a hypothetical, modern day laissez faire economy?
Him: It would.

Regarding Singapore.

First you say there is no homelessness problem in Singapore.

When I show you there is, you change your tune a bit, and say, well, the homelessness is not linked to the financial crisis. I just want to clarify that this is a point you’re ceding me.

Now, my response is, well, from what I understand, Singapore, broadly speaking, has been relatively unaffected by the financial crisis. So, if Singapore as a country was largely unaffected, why would we expect their homelessness rates to be affected? In the event that Singapore suffers a major economic meltdown, you can bet homelessness rates will be affected.

“So, your statement “I just don’t know enough about economics” is representative of what is going on in the world. You are building a whole opinion and philosophical framework about how the economics of the world should work without the understanding of economics!”

I am building a philosophical framework on how to have a moral society, and applying that to the economic field (among others), yes.

I’m not saying that the economy should be controlled by the state. All I’m saying is essentially what you’re saying, that the equal rights to life, liberty, and property must be respected. The difference is, you’re making all regulation out to be evil, which is simply not the case. It’s a vast oversimplification and highly misleading.

And here is my response:

Igor Portugal:

Dear Emil,

This last reply of yours is excellent and your discussion on definition of liberty is a masterpiece, I must admit I really enjoyed your philosophical argument about liberty. Unfortunately your conclusions from that argument are not so logical and the facts you present later are incorrect. Let me explain.

Before I do, I will attempt to reply to your philosophical discussion on definition of Liberty (naturally, I disagree with your logic. However, unlike you, I haven't studied philosophy, so you are actually giving my brain a workout – I love that, thank you!)

Your logic somehow goes against some of the greatest thinkers in history on what Liberty is. According to John Stuart Mill, on Liberty:

“The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.”

Perhaps he got it wrong?

Another great thinker, Frédéric Bastiat talks about Liberty:

"In short, is not liberty the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so?"

Perhaps he got it wrong too?

So, excuse my inexperience, but others before me had fallen into the same trap.

A definition is a kind of a limiting thing. When you define something, you are qualifying what it is, and what it isn't. If you have to go on qualifying it externally, the definition is incomplete. If you need a process to keep adjusting your definition – you haven't defined anything at all!

If your definition of liberty requires a government to continue passing laws to qualify what it is, then it is not a definition. I fully agree with your assessment of the morality of the world that you are advocating to build, based on your definition of liberty – it is immoral. As I previously argued, it is also violent.

I will stand by my definition of liberty, for the purposes of this debate, unless you can come up with a complete one, that does not require further qualification - a definition upon which we both can agree. At the end of the day, you replied to my statement that uses the term “Liberty” - so you must abide by my definition of the word for the purposes of the debate, unless you can show that there is a universal definition accepted by everyone.

You agreed with me that I don't advocate for anarchy. Great, lets leave it at that.

It is funny, however, you should try to distance this debate away from socialism, “a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.”. There is a certain stigma about it in the world, as the history unequivocally has proven to us that economically socialism doesn't work – it brings about poverty. Politically, it brings oppression.

One must replace “community as a whole” in the above definition with “government” - I hope you agree with me on this minor alteration of your definition as being synonymous. So if you argue for “ vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in government” than you are arguing for socialism (that is what you seem to say)

When you are talking about purely philosophical matters, I grant it to you, I can't relate what you are talking about to socialism. However, every single argument and example you bring on practical implementation of your philosophy absolutely falls under the definition of socialism you yourself adopted.

Also, without much explanation or philosophical foundation you suddenly work a notion of “equal rights” into this debate. The “rights” you are talking about are usually a “right” for one and a “wrong” for another. Do I need to go into the history books and find you the count of how many buckets of blood was spilled in the name of “equal rights”? Nobody has a right to help themselves to my property or my liberty or my life. I don't recognize that right.
“Equal rights” are the primary motto of socialists.

An “equal right” to healthcare means government equally dishing out healthcare, means “ vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution “ of healthcare in government – that is socialism according to your definition, as advocated by you.

A system whereby government bureaucrat decides what is safe and what isn't safe in a workplace is, again, vesting control of production in government – falls perfectly under your own definition of socialism.

You advocate for a federal public education system, thus “vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution “ of education in government... no matter how sound your argument and logic is, you are still advocating for socialism.

So this is absolutely a debate of Socialism vs. Liberty, and you are advocating for Socialism time and time again.

The proof for my claim that abuses by the industrialists stemmed from government regulation can be found in history. The nature of what the conditions of workers during industrial revolution were was studied and described by Ludwig von Mises in his book “Human Action: The Scholar's Edition” (excerpt can be found here: http://mises.org/daily/4604)

Of course nobody explicitly passed a legislation to put workers in “needlessly dangerous conditions” - just like people didn't explicitly call for murder while advocating for “equal rights”.

It is the legislation that granted to privileged few a monopoly over production, that has led to scarcity of work, was fully responsible in the creation of the conditions of abuse.
Is a company by polluting indiscriminately violates the property of the people living in the affected region? Sue the bastards! Get them to repair the damage to the property! Why can't you sue? Because the government legislated against that! In New Zealand, for example, we have legislation on ACC – a universal government “insurance” - that stops people from suing any business for accidents happening from neglect to provide safe environment. In other terms, the government protecting industrial negligence. Under that pretense they also given themselves the right to regulate and police workplace safety. So when they fail to police good workplace safety practices, the impacted worker has no right to ask “the industrialist” to repair the damage. All done in the name of “equal rights” and “protection for workers” - now, how is that logical?
In the US it was the so called “public nuisance laws” that were used to stop people from suing industrialists. Why? Because government wanted industry to develop, to increase GDP, so they “induced” the development of industry by stopping people from defending their liberties.

“For 30 years, General Electric dumped PCBs into New York's Hudson River from...” - ditto – how many years did General Electric and its businesses enjoy government protection, laws that given it monopoly rights?
Here is at least one example where government is trying to undo its own doing – a patent GE had on making lightbulbs apparently makes them a monopoly... dohhhh:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,718128,00.html

When PCBs were found to be a probable cause of cancer, why could the people affected not seek compensation for their health? Or could they? If it was in New Zealand they wouldn't be able to – based on that ACC legislation.

Fact is that governments around the globe control the money supply. Fact that it affects business, often destroys it, thus affecting jobs everywhere! I am glad you are not advocating for that to continue. I hope you can also see how governments created banking oligarchies (or the oligarchies bought governments?) - well, whichever point of view you take, the banking oligarchies enjoy government protection of their monopoly position. Ditto – problems with jobs and plunging some people into poverty.

You say “People didn’t stop working in some great act of rebellion against their enslavement via government regulation.” - metaphorically speaking, they did in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged – a great novel, I would recommend anyone to read it who hasn't.

In reality – of course they do! Don't be silly – if my business gets regulated out of existence, I will not carry on risking everything I have for the greater moral good. I'll shut it down and either go work for someone else, government if I have to, or perhaps collect social security benefit. The only reason I'll need the benefit is because government regulated the business out of existence in the first place.

“People stopped working, because there weren’t enough jobs” - not enough jobs? what an absurd concept! Why is there not enough jobs? There is always plenty to do! Who do you think is creating jobs? We are! By us, I don't mean me, I mean all of us, people. The only reason there isn't enough jobs is because government regulated jobs out of existence.

There is very good scientific proof offered by many modern economists that existence of monopolies and oligopolies is impossible in laissez faire economy. Here is one:
“One of the worst fallacies in the field of economics—propagated by Karl Marx and accepted by almost everyone today, including many businessmen—is that the development of monopolies is an inescapable and intrinsic result of the operation of a free, unregulated economy. In fact, the exact opposite is true. It is a free market that makes monopolies impossible.”
Read more here:
http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/question_of_monopolies.html

So, I am afraid, IMHO, in this particular matter your student friend doesn't really know what he is talking about.

Don't get me wrong – businessmen are often as much to blame for influencing protectionist legislation to grant them monopolies. That is done to shut down competition – and because of the natural competitiveness. But it is only possible because the rest of the public advocates for government controlled economy. It is impossible in laissez faire environment.

I never said anything about homelessness in Singapore. We were talking about the old folk, and I simply pointed out a surface theme of the articles that you provided, without doing much further research. So your last comment is not very relevant to the discussion – perhaps neither is my earlier statement.

I am advocating, and agreeing with you that rights to life, liberty, and property must be respected – and protected by government!

I just don't like the word “equal”. That word is loaded and it justifies all sorts of nasty behavior. By perceived inequality bloodshed and oppression are justified.

To me “equal rights”=“ultimate evil”.

“The difference is, you’re making all regulation out to be evil” - no, I don't. Only the regulation that takes life, liberty or property away from people who did not violate other person's life, liberty or property. All other regulation is good.

“I’m not saying that the economy should be controlled by the state.”

Alleluia! We finally agree – our Facebook dream come true!

If there is a reply, I will publish it.

To the reader, whoever you are, if you are reading this, feel free to join the debate by posting a comment below.

Like lambs to slaughter - climate change enthusiasts are feeding us to the forces of nature

2010-10-23T03:42:00.001-07:00

Climate is changing, it has always changed and it always will. Thanks to advances in technology people can now deal better with natural disasters. According to Dr. Keith Lockitch, disasters like hurricane Katrina are taking less lives than similar disasters used to.

However we are now facing a real threat. The environmentalists, in the name of man made climate change, are advocating the world to arrest the development of technological advancements that help us survive. They want us, under the banner that the climate change is perhaps man made, to completely disarm ourselves against nature. They want people to slow down industrial advances, stop producing and go back to the time when natural disasters have taken thousands of lives. They are taking us like lambs to the slaughter....

Dr. Keith Lockitch provides a valuable insite into the climate Policy in a Free Society

Global Financial Crisis - who is the guilty party?

2010-10-21T04:11:00.000-07:00

Every failure gives us a golden opportunity to learn what went wrong and improve our systems.

Global Financial Crisis was a failure of the financial system on a global scale. Unfortunately while we all suffered from the crisis, our leaders are depriving us of the golden opportunity that the crisis has presented to us in return for our suffering. So they are robing us twice.

Why?

Because they are the guilty party.

Here is some analysis to support that view:

From The Wall Street Journal:

How Government Created the Financial Crisis

The classic explanation of financial crises is that they are caused by excesses — frequently monetary excesses — which lead to a boom and an inevitable bust. This crisis was no different: A housing boom followed by a bust led to defaults, the implosion of mortgages and mortgage-related securities at financial institutions, and resulting financial turmoil.

…Other government actions were at play: The government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were encouraged to expand and buy mortgage-backed securities, including those formed with the risky subprime mortgages.

Government action also helped prolong the crisis. Consider that the financial crisis became acute on Aug. 9 and 10, 2007, when money-market interest rates rose dramatically. Interest rate spreads, such as the difference between three-month and overnight interbank loans, jumped to unprecedented levels.

Yes, it is the mismanagement of the financial system by central banks, not the free market that brought about the failure. It is government's responsibility.

The Global Financial Crisis events were unfolding exactly like events from Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged.

This is why the book is becoming more popular:

Ayn Rand and the Financial Crisis:

In this time of financial crisis and the Democrats' irrational response to it, Americans are showing a growing interest in Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Increasing sales of her masterpiece, Atlas Shrugged, have been reported around the United States.

“One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary.” —Ayn Rand, 1975

That is exactly what happened to the financial industry.

Are our leaders out to destroy our freedom and enslave us all under the pretense that free market (and therefore personal freedom) has failed? I hope not. I am certainly not the one to believe in conspiracy theories.

On the other hand our leaders have done this once in the 1917 Russia...are we witnessing an attempt to repeat this history? I sincerely hope not.

However, in order for that history not to be repeated itself, there need to be more voices in defense of personal freedom. This is why I started this blog. I love freedom. Freedom has my voice.

It is about time our leaders acknowledged the failure and shared the benefits of that golden opportunity with all of us.

Thank you for reading. I hope you find the links posted here useful. Feel free to comment and follow my blog.

The Public Software Patents Debate

2010-10-19T04:47:00.000-07:00

Here is the video of the public software patents debate, organized by the IEEE, held in the University of Auckland on the 15th October 2010 :

Part 1, Peter Harrison, case against software patents:

Part 2, Mitchell Cooper, case for software patents:

Part 3, Igor Portugal, case against software patents:

Part 4, Brett Roberts, case for software patents:

Part 5, Peter Harrison, case against software patents:

Part 6, Ben Milsom, case for software patents:

Part 7, Mitchell Cooper, case for software patents:

Part 8, Igor Portugal, case against software patents:

Learning economics

2010-10-19T04:30:00.000-07:00

I've spent much of my leisure time last year listening to lectures on economics to fill the gaps in my overall knowledge.

Learning economics reinforced and underscored the set beliefs that have been shaped throughout my life by my parents, the environment around me that I grew up in, the books I've read and the studies I've undertaken, the paths I've traveled in life and the conclusions I've made.

I discovered that economics is an exceptionally interesting field.

Talking to people about what I've learned, I also discovered how few people around me actually know economics. This means that the majority of people make economic decisions for themselves and often others without any background knowledge.

Knowledge of economics will not give you any get-reach-quick schemes. However it will give you the understanding of how the world around us works from the economics point of view. It will also equip you with understanding of how to avoid get-poor-quick traps or loose-money-quick schemes.

Here are the links I found to self-learning resources on-line:

A good set of lectures that I found on iTunes on the basics of economics:

The Ludwig von Mises Institute has many interesting lectures on economics in the tradition of the Austrian School of Economics:

mises.org

The EconTalk podcast features interviews with leading economists, giving excellent resource to understand what is happening in the world around us:

EconTalk.org

Also, if you found good resources on the net - you are welcome to post links here in comments. No spammers, though, please. I do reserve the right to remove any links I dont believe belong here...

I will publish more links here too. Please check back.