In relentless pursuit of freedom.
Can you combine liberal arts and work experience? Can you combine virtual and real-world? That’s what Praxis is all about and what I discuss with Blake Boles on this episode of his Real Education Podcast.
Blake is an author and pioneer in the world of self-directed learning. He’s got his hand in numerous projects and programs and his podcast is one of my new favorites. Give a listen to the episode, and check out Blake’s stuff at his website.
[Note: I’ve made episodes 1-6 live on SoundCloud, iTunes, and Stitcher just to front-load the podcast to get started. I’ll be sharing individual posts about each episode this week, and then back to the every Monday schedule for new episodes.]
TK comes back to the show to discuss the self-help genre, respond to objections to sports, and share lies that he believes and why. I am not a fan of self-help generally, and TK loves it. We discuss what it is, the good and the bad, and what can be gleaned from it. I play devil’s advocate and ask him why he’d indulge in irrational biases and waste time and energy on sports.
In the 1980’s if I told you for only a few hundred dollars anyone could have a $1 million asset in their pocket you’d call me crazy. But here we are.
The chart above (actually a picture of a chart taken with my iPhone and uploaded to this blog with an app to further emphasize the point) is from the book Bold: How to Go Big, Create Wealth and Impact the World
The above chart only scratches the surface. It’s hard to comprehend just how much wealth (not income) we have today compared to 20, 30, or 50 years ago, let alone a century or two ago. Anyone who complains that income gaps are growing misses the miracle under their nose of wealth exploding, and more accessible to individuals at any income level than ever before in human history. 50 years ago, it could take a hefty sum to launch and run a basic advocacy organization, for example. You would need a secretary, long-distance phone line, office space, filing cabinets, a travel agent, a print shop that you’d have to visit to approve runs of literature (at least several thousand at a time), space to store them, shipping cost, etc. ad nauseum. Today you can setup a WordPress website, bid out for design work on Fiverr or 99 Designs, get VistaPrint to run a few hundred after proofing a digital copy, book your own travel, store your own files, run email campaigns with MailChimp, etc. ad nauseum for a few hundred bucks.
Anyone can write and record songs, publish books, start businesses, sell goods and services, learn anything in the world, or meet people across the globe for free or close to it with a phone and some WiFi. These things are equally accessible to rich and poor. Wealth – as measured in opportunities and fulfilled desires, the real end of money – is greater than ever and flatter than ever.
The biggest obstacles are those erected by the wealthy to stymie competition from upstarts taking advantage of all this accessible capital. Licensing requirements, regulations, wage laws, tax laws, immigration restrictions, intellectual monopoly status on non-scarce resources, and subsidized education and idleness are the biggest hurdles to the poor seizing the newly available wealth and creating a better life. It’s not about income or even net worth. It’s about what you can do and the value you can create and consume. The chart above and the world around us indicate that there has never been a more broad and deep spread of wealth.
GDP doesn’t matter. Neither does income. Opportunity matters. Value matters. Times have never been better across the board, which is exactly what most threatens those precariously perched at the perceived top. Don’t worry about them. Let the doomsayers and wannabe warriors of equality clamber for an illusive goal that doesn’t make anyone better off. Take advantage of the exponential growth in opportunity all around you.
[Note: I’ve made episodes 1-6 live on SoundCloud, iTunes, and Stitcher just to front-load the podcast to get started. I’ll be sharing individual posts about each episode this week, and then back to the every Monday schedule for new episodes.]
Steve Patterson is a philosopher and author without official credentials. He knew he wanted to do philosophy and write about it, but he was turned off by the hoops and credentialism of the academic system. He set out on his own as an independent intellectual. We discuss his journey, his book What’s the Big Deal About Bitcoin?
A friend worked at a company that instituted a no cell phone policy during meetings. Apparently too many people were on their phones instead of paying attention.
If you look at it from an authoritarian standpoint as an organizer, the cause for lack of engagement was cell phone use. But put yourself in the shoes of an attendee and you see that cell phones were not the cause of the problem, but the cure for it. The problem was boredom. The cause was too many or too long or not interesting enough meetings.
We see cures blamed as causes everywhere. Schools routinely blame whatever form of escape, entertainment, distraction, or even real learning that kids conceive to cope with the rigid soul-sucking structure of the system. From a top-down, black-and-white rulers standpoint, the answer is always more bans and more rules.
What would happen instead if we assumed rationality and no malintent on the part of the cell phone users or students? What might their behavior reveal about the system or process? If you run a business you can get mad at customers who don’t do what you want all you like, but attacking or placing restrictions on them is not a long term strategy for success in a competitive market. You must try to understand why they aren’t doing what you want and adapt your offerings.
When people are looking for an escape don’t block the exit. Instead try to learn why they want out in the first place.
I don’t find anything at all distasteful about profit. Profit seeking behavior is as natural and inescapable in humans as breathing, and deserves no moral censure. When placed in an open and voluntary institutional setting profit is an indicator of value created for others. Still, a great many people find profit disturbing and wish to curb it. If that is you, you have no practical choice but the full-fledged support of free-markets.
Competition exerts a relentless downward pressure on profit. Open markets invite competition and power positions in the market are never secure. It is for this reason that those in the temporary position of high profit-earners are most likely to be the ones lobbying for new rules and regulations. They don’t want to compete, they want to monopolize.
The only true monopoly is government monopoly. All other applications of the term are illusory and not to be feared. Peter Thiel has famously advocated for monopoly, but he uses the word to represent a business that creates a product so unique it is all but impossible to be replicated by competitors for a long period of time. That is not the same as the textbook description of monopoly with all of its attendant dangers. The only true and dangerous form is government monopoly. It eliminates not only present competition, but potential competition.
Unlike competition, monopoly exerts no downward pressure on profit. Indeed, its sole purpose is to suppress competition so that profit can balloon, without any corresponding increase in value creation. In this sense, the critique that, “There is too much profit in X industry”, or, “The profit motive corrupts Y good or service”, is correct. In a truly monopolized industry, the profit motive is terrible. Again, not because of the motive itself, which is ever-present in all humans, but because of the institutional setting which prevents all of the incentives to curb and corral profit motive towards value creation and away from plunder.
In monopolized industries the profit motive is very destructive. Do not be fooled by tax designations or accounting terminology. Governments and “non-profits” are also profit driven. It is here where profit is the most dangerous and often deadly. The justice and law enforcement industry is all-but entirely monopolized by the state. Because it faces no real competition there is no downward pressure on profits. It is therefore one of the most profit-driven enterprise imaginable, only it needn’t create value to profit.
An ever growing number of laws and regulations ensure that more and more people are guilty of crimes. This is a highly profitable state of affairs for the justice system. Law enforcement routinely harass and abuse and give out tickets for violations of no practical importance. They find or plant illegal substances for the sole purpose of seizing assets of the accused. Prosecutors, medical examiners, judges and law enforcement regularly lie, exaggerate, and falsely convict. The profit motive is what drives them. They have a monopoly on the administration of justice, so they invent whatever means they can of increasing the profitability of the enterprise. The greater the number of crimes, the greater the receipts. Indeed, the origin of government monopolized police and courts attest to the revenue-enhancing motive at their core.
We cannot wish away the profit motive, or hope to elect or appoint people who magically do not possess it. (How would they win an election or appointment without it?) We can, however, realize the danger of granting monopoly status to any profit-seeking enterprise, including governments. If it is profit that is driving the corruption and abuse among police, courts, and other sectors, the surest way to suppress the ability to generate more profit is to open it up to competition.
[Note: I’ve made episodes 1-6 live on SoundCloud, iTunes, and Stitcher just to front-load the podcast to get started. I’ll be sharing individual posts about each episode this week, and then back to the every Monday schedule for new episodes.]
Zak Slayback joins me for a discussion primarily on education and how it differs from schooling. Zak talks about his own story and how he went from top achiever in the schooling system to a major critic of it. We also touch on Zak’s love of aviation and what’s wrong with the industry and whether or not we can expect to see major innovations there.
Sometimes people say, “If you didn’t vote, don’t complain.” Nonsense. Everyone can complain. Complaining about pompous politicians and oppressive regulations doesn’t require participation in popularity lotteries. In fact, if one were to stipulate who has less reason to complain, it would be those who do vote, not those who ignore the charade.
To the extent that voting is a kind of ascent to the political process, those who do it are implicitly agreeing to abide by the outcome. I don’t really think voters can’t complain or that voting means you submit to any outcome of politics, but for many who believe in the process, the ritual is an attempt to cleanse oneself of guilt. Your show of support for thug A means you can feel self-righteous when nearly identical thug B advocates bad things. Yet it’s the process, the institutional setting itself not those elected within it, that creates the bad things.
Voting is not the way to cleanse yourself from guilt or attempt to achieve social objectives. Many people argue that voting shows you are civic-minded and highly engaged. This is a lot of horse manure. Voting makes you less engaged, less humane, less civic-minded, and less effective at creating the kind of world you want to live in. There are three primary reasons voting is problematic:
1) Sometimes it works. If your candidate wins and implements the policy you like, you might feel good because now people will be told to do things the way you prefer. But consider what this really means. It means violence. It means your preferred social change is being generated by force. That’s an ugly reality any decent person should want to distance themselves from. If you can’t get there peacefully, maybe you shouldn’t try to get there at all.
2) Whether or not it works, it has side-effects. If your person or policy wins or loses, whatever political ploys are put into practice have myriad deleterious effects on the world. Well-meaning minimum wage laws make the poor less employable. Well-meaning environmental laws encourage waste, fraud, abuse, and price the poor out of many markets. The list goes on. You probably don’t know enough about the complex world to know the unintended consequences of top-down enforcement of any policy. Let the more dynamic, adaptable, open social process figure out the trade-offs instead of a zero-sum either/or ballot box.
3) It reduces the incentive to engage in civil society. When you vote for something you relieve the pressure to do something more meaningful. Voting offers just enough satiation for your heart and mind so you can return to your regularly scheduled programming. It makes people self-righteous and annoying. It incentivizes signalling you care instead of figuring out how to really care enough to bring about change. It turns friends into enemies. It saps creativity by offering a brute, ham-fisted quick-fix. If you get a bunch of kids together and they disagree about toys or rules of a game they’re less likely to find a creative solution if you also give them a magic authority hat that anyone who wins a vote can wear, thereby conferring the power to dictate all rules and dole out punishments and favors. Voting makes us little barbarians.
Don’t let people tell you a good citizen must vote. Quite the opposite. Abstain, and get busy building your own life and world in a positive, productive, cooperative, and civilized manner.
There’s a lot of ruckus over laws that either require or don’t require businesses and individuals to interact with each other. Most of the discussion is focused on the identity of various parties in favor or opposed to the laws – gay couples, Christians opposed to gay marriage, liberal or conservative activists, etc. It’s an ugly debate to watch. Everyone is battling for control over the laws that determine who should associate with whom and under what conditions. The real problem is not which people like and dislike which other people. The real problem is the acceptance of forced association as a concept.
Forced association is any kind of social, civil, or commercial interaction that is hemmed in by force rather than choice. It demands inclusion and exclusion based on rules passed down from authorities, rather than the free interplay of autonomous individuals. Immigration restrictions are a form of forced association (in this case dis-association). So are most anti-discrimination laws. The idea that your social network must be determined for you is destructive of genuine community, and breeds hatred. Everyone is left fighting over the rules and calling names instead of simply choosing to interact or not interact with whomever they wish. How do you manage your Facebook friends? Imagine if there were laws dictating certain people you were not allowed to friend, or certain pages you had to follow, or that you must treat all friend requests equally no matter who they came from? A terrible recipe for genuine and meaningful interaction, friendship, and exchange of ideas.
Yet in society at large nobody seems to question forced association. And why should they? After all, most people have been conditioned since age 5 to accept a social scene tightly dictated by authority figures, not chosen by themselves. School is forced association. You must be with people the same age and zip code all day every day. You can’t freely wander the halls and pop in and out of classes. You can’t shop for teachers or friends or mentors across the entire community. You get your cinder block cell with your pre-assigned seat and social group. Better hope you find someone to get along with.
Bullying is a phenomenon borne almost entirely out of age-restricted groupings. The response is never to allow kids to exit the cohort, or class, or school district, or school altogether. That would work. But it would mean free association. Free association is too dangerous. What if kids don’t become the widgets we want to fashion them into? Instead efforts to stop bullying are just like the absurd efforts to curb rudeness in society with laws of forced association. It’s a battle over who gets to define the bully, the victim, the reporting process, the burden of proof, the new rules, the banned items and words, the sensitivity training, the punishments, and who gets to be the ruler of the forced association.
Forced association is ugly, inhumane, and barbaric in all its forms. As long as people are raised in environments of forced association it should come as no surprise that when they encounter a jerk they immediately begin a debate over what rules should force the jerk to behave differently and why. Debates over who the real victim is erupt. Some side with the jerk, some side with the others. Crowdfunding campaigns and public debates and interviews and one-upsmanship and absurd hypothetical and real court cases emerge. The whole spectacle is dirty, rude, vicious, and pernicious.
No one needs to make rules for who can or must associate with whom and in what way. Free association can and will do a better job of sorting out all the conflicting beliefs and behaviors of members of society than any plan or rule. Break from the mentality you’ve been raised with. Apply the mentality you use on Facebook. Forced association is never the answer.
I hate rules that come from arbitrary authority, but I love giving them to myself. One of the best ways to experiment and find ways to get more productive and happy is through testing various rules. It’s also a great way to learn about yourself. Here are a few rules I have. I sometimes break them, and sometimes temporarily suspend them, but for the most part I value and stick to them.
Making this list has been a really fun exercise. I have more rules than I thought, and I’m sure I have others. One interesting observation about this list is that there’s nothing here that just comes naturally as a part of my personality. Every one of these things takes conscious effort, and they were all developed for specific reasons and continued because they are working for me. I suppose things we do naturally without much effort don’t require rules.
This list also reminds me of the value of self-created structure, and the danger of other-imposed structure. Most of these things may be useless to most other people, but they’re indispensable for me.
TK joins me for a conversation on the problems with criticism and how it can sap creative power. The main insight is that criticism is not so bad for society or creators, but that it can have a negative effect on the critic herself.
I did a pretty poor job with the intro on this episode. I never really gave a bio for TK and I opened with a long statement rather than a question. But hey, I’ll just tune out the critics anyway, right?
TK’s bio is here, as well as some of his writings and lectures. He’s probably the most relentlessly curious person I know, with a seemingly limitless capacity for new ideas. I hope to have him join me regularly on the show. If you listen to the end you’ll even get to hear him do his best Stephen A. Smith take-down of me. Here’s the app I referenced a few times in the episode.
Episodes are also available for streaming or download on SoundCloud, iTunes, and Stitcher.
The cloud-cover seemed constant but it was probably less than half the time. Or maybe more. I tried estimating from memory how many days were actually overcast, but it seemed impossible to get a realistic number because each overcast day felt like five. If I cared enough for accuracy I’d record the days without sun, but the truth is I cared more about how it made me feel than what was going on in the atmosphere. Besides, what would knowing do? There wasn’t anyplace reachable with a higher likelihood of sunshine, at least not without other drawbacks that made it worse. I was here. We were here.
Here was a planet that consisted primarily of two things: rain and dust. You might imagine the one would put an end to the other, but it didn’t. They both flourished and little else did. We lived here, but we didn’t flourish in the way old books use the word. At least not yet. This planet was the cradle of human life in the universe. Then it nearly put an end to it. Now we’re back – some of us anyway – to reclaim our ancestral orb. It’s different than the pictures from ancient human history. But it’s also different from accounts of its apocalyptic end. This murderous ball of mineral, plant, and animal matter has its cycles just like the rest of us. The rage is over and a new calm has emerged. I feel a bit like I imagine tenants of the Ark felt stepping foot onto an unrecognizable land, cleansed of its previous inhabitants by an ill-tempered earth. It’s familiar, but not by sight.
Unlike Noah and his family, the human species hasn’t been floating aimlessly during the tempest. We’re comfortably settled on three planets in a distant system, evolving and progressing as always. After brief but painful pioneering and adapting there was an exponential boom that rivaled earth’s industrial revolution. Humans as a species have never been better. So what are we doing – what am I doing – back on the planet of origin, so long unfairly criticized and unrealistically romanticized? I’m not entirely sure.
You could call it archaeology, though traces of our former occupation are all but non-existent. You could call it research. You could call it curiosity. It is all of these things but with more attendant apathy than the words evoke. It’s mostly restlessness and boredom that drove me here, and the bizarre human obsession with connecting the future to the past by way of the present.
A few hundred of us came. We’ve been here for almost an earth year. We have the resources to return to our system if need be, but we came to stay. We followed that most human and inexplicable impulse; the mythical journey home.
I sometimes hear people say things like, “If science supports X policy, it should be enacted.” Hiding behind the word science for your moral or political beliefs is a bad idea, because science doesn’t exist as something that can be accountable or take responsibility.
Of course there is a method of inquiry called the scientific method. It is particularly useful in the study of physical objects, forces, and relationships – what we call the physical sciences. But science doesn’t say anything, and it certainly can’t do or enforce anything. Science isn’t a person with positions on issues or an ability to clearly articulate and act on them. It’s a tool and a way of thinking. It’s a process that helps people test and falsify and eliminate possibilities and make better theories.
Even if smart people using the scientific process arrive at a theory about the physical world and say they believe certain policies should be enacted, it’s not a trump card to then say that science demands legal action. Science can’t demand anything. Scientists can demand legal action, but they almost always do so based on a romanticized view of the political process.
Putting aside the fact that there is no such thing as “settled” science – indeed, it is an open and ongoing process, not a body of accumulating, unchanging facts – even when research reveals certain relationships it does not follow that policies imagined by scientists should be enacted. Political-made law is not like the laws of science. People with incentives having nothing to do with the facts or the outcome must posture and pontificate and make deals before passage. The end result only passes if it sates the appetites of enough rent-seeking interests, regardless of whether it resembles what high-minded scientists imagined. Enforcement is even worse. Carried out by unaccountable armies of bureaucrats (some armed, all dangerous), laws are a cudgel used selectively by those in power to further cement it.
When you hear people loudly demanding political action based on ‘settled science’ don’t give them a pass. If a theory about the physical world is really sound, there’s a built-in incentive to adapt to it without resorting to force. It may happen imperfectly and slower than some experts would like, but ten times out of ten I’d trust the market process more than the political one to discover the best trade-offs.
A little clip from Praxis on one easy way to get better at writing, thinking, creating, and confidence.
When you start to find your groove and get a lot of stuff done you will be in high demand. You’ll compile a network of interesting people. You’ll have no shortage of projects. Inevitably, a phenomenal opportunity will be presented to you. One that would be a no-brainer for anyone to jump on. Except you.
One of your defining moments is likely to be the day you say no to an opportunity that almost everyone else would and should say yes to. If you spend your life doing the sensible thing that everyone else is trying to do, and taking every opportunity that others say they’d kill for, at some point you will stop being you. You’ll be the sum of “good” decisions in the aggregate.
This doesn’t mean you should turn down every good thing that comes your way just to be different. You’d probably better take most of them. But there will be rare moments when you know in your gut it’s not for you, even though everything about it seems amazing. A simple but effective test is to let yourself really and fully imagine saying yes. Imagine how it plays out, how it feels, how it challenges you and makes you grow. Then imagine yourself saying no. How does it feel to say it, and how does it feel to live without doing the thing? Which one resonates with you more? Which one aligns with who you are and makes you feel more at peace?
When others would freak out to discover you said no to it, but you know for sure it’s not right for you, you’re probably on the path to your sweet spot.