What Is Wrong-Doing?

The Miami Herald's report on Lois Lerner's testimony to Congress contains this rather insightful excerpt.

"I have done nothing wrong," said a stern-looking Lerner, sitting next to three other witnesses and reading from a written statement. "I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations and I have not provided false information to this or any other committee."

Lerner reasons that, because she has not broken any laws, violated IRS rules or regulations, or provided false information to "this or any other committee," then she has therefore done nothing wrong.

I do not know what extent Lerner committed any actual wrongdoing, but I will remark that ethical determinations do not end at the question of whether or not one has broken any governmental rules or regulations. It is not at all illegal for me to tease a young child, for example, to the point of tears, but no one would argue that I would "have done nothing wrong," were I to do so.

Such faulty reasoning is one of the core features of statism. If right and wrong is determined by what the rules are, then whoever makes the rules gets to determine what is right and what is wrong. There is no room for personal virtue in this equation. There are no separate concepts of "personal responsibility" versus "social responsibility."

Conflating laws with ethics has been central to the statist ethos since the time of Marx. I don't expect it to change any time soon. However, sometimes we get such a clear window into the minds of our regulators that it merits emphasizing.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/21/3409314/irs-official-to-take-the-5th-at.html#storylink=cpy

My Last Post On Bleeding Heart Libertarians

One of the reasons this issue is of such interest to me is the fact that it is so emblematic of many of the things I frequently discuss here. I have already indicated that much of the problem with so-called "Bleeding Heart Libertarianism" is that it is only accessible at the vaguest level, and is thus a shotgun theory.

To that end, David Friedman's many prescient critiques of BHLism are exactly on the money. Indeed, one of the great strengths of Friedman as a thinker is his ability to accept nuance as nuance, and to accept the shortcomings of an otherwise good theory as shortcomings, acknowledge them, and attempt to solve them as best you can. That, too, with the understanding that perhaps we cannot ever satisfactorily solve them within our lifetimes.

Epistemological Problems Of Bleeding Heart Libertarianism
Attentive readers will note that I am praising Friedman for displaying one of the great characteristics I have attributed to Classical Antiquity. The reason it is important to mention here relates to a couple of comments I made recently at the BHL blog. As I said there:

It is quite clear in The Republic that the participants of the discussion are attempting to arrive at a satisfactory definition of the word justice by exploring various conceptions of it. They do not succeed in defining it, but it is nonetheless the goal of the discussion. The very reason I brought it up here is that [Jason Brennan's] objective seems to be the exact opposite: to avoid giving definitions and specifics in hopes of facilitating a discussion about the conceptions of social justice, moral knowledge, etc.

That is, it seems to me that, when confronted with difficult questions about what exactly they stand for, BHLers would rather put the cart before the horse: The appear to want to skip the difficult part of defining what they are talking about so that they can instead focus on the implications of their beliefs.

This is not at all uncommon. In fact, my experience has been that, during political conversations of any kind, it is most often the case that people prefer to simply state their opinions and discuss the ratification of their chosen policies than to spend their time establishing the philosophical validity of their positions. The principle difference here being that it is not typically academic thinkers who do this sort of thing. Academics do not usually avoid the responsibility of justifying their particulars before moving on to exploring the implications. So, at the risk of offending some, I have to say that BHLism occasionally feels amateurish to me. (That observation, too, coming from an amateur. Yes, I fully recognize this.)

Getting back to Classical Antiquity, Plato's The Republic is an excellent example of how philosophical issues were explored back then. The usual course of action was to agree on a set of logical assumptions, and trace their implications if those assumptions hold true. As in The Republic, sometimes the assumptions must be readdressed, modified, and so on. But for any given set of assumptions, the discourse reveals a set of valid logical conditions. We may agree or disagree with the underlying assumptions, but the logic must remain valid at all times. (Note that valid logic need not necessarily be true.)

This is the way philosophical discourse typically proceeds, and this is the way it should proceed, in my opinion. BHLers, on the other hand, appear to prefer skipping the task of (clearly) defining their assumptions entirely, favoring instead to let their logic proceed however it may.

The problem here is that the audience must then take on the responsibility of defining the assumptions (whether or not they are conscious of this step) in order to make sense of their claims. Some do so automatically, and either write the BHLers off as "statists" or vehemently agree with their rationale under the belief that the BHLers and their audience do in fact share the same assumptions. (Note that until those assumptions are articulated, this is not a foregone conclusion.)

But others, like David Friedman, choose to clarify the assumptions before deciding whether or not they will agree with the BHLers. Confronted by requests for greater specificity, the BHLers have proven highly evasive. Brennan has even gone so far as to claim that knowledge need not be articulable in order to be knowledge!

Thus, the BHLers have exposed a highly problematic epistemological shortcoming: They have started with their conclusions, and have sought to articulate a logical system that justifies it. The result of this is that, when their beliefs are questioned, they either re-define their beliefs, or they re-define their assumptions. Their core conclusions are the only things that never seem to change.

Or, Do Their Conclusions Change?
David Friedman notes that Jason Brennan and Matt Zwolinski, both of whom are Bleeding Heart Libertarians, have extremely different definitions for the term "social justice." Today, fellow BHLer Kevin Vallier offers yet other definition for that term, one that appears to be at odds with the previous two.

It borders on being comical. What all Bleeding Heart Libertarians share in common is a special concern for social justice. What they do not share in common is a unanimous understanding of what the term "social justice" even means. The more of them that attempt to define it, the more unique definitions that appear.

It is worth remembering at this point that the current discussion of what BHLers actually think "social justice" is originated with Jason Brennan's criticism of those he deemed "cartoon libertarians." As I wrote right off the bat, Brennan's attack on other libertarians was little more than conceited dismissal of those who disagree with him. The great irony is that Brennan likely does not even share the beliefs of his fellow BHLers on many of the issues he dealt with in that initial post. But while he may call non-BHLers "cartoons," those who profess to be BHLers are apparently not.

Excepting, of course, the fact that the complete inability of Bleeding Heart Libertarians to agree on the definition of one of their core, unifying beliefs is itself reaching the point of being cartoonish.

Conclusion
I leave it to the BHLers to address anything I have said here. While I was initially interested in figuring out exactly what the BHLers think and stand for, as the days, weeks, and months press on I am left only with the impression that they don't know. It is not really my place or my interest to help others determine what it is that they think. I have a hard enough time figuring out what I myself think! Stationary Waves is my forum for doing so. I now leave the BHLers their forum for figuring out their own beliefs.

As for me, I'm on to other topics for the next little while.

Quote Of The Day

I don't really do "quotes of the day," so I guess this is technically just "Quote." But at any rate, today's quote comes from the great David Friedman:

One consequence of using a term with very unclear meaning is that you can attribute it to practically anything you want to. I don't think that's a virtue.

See also: shotgun theory.

A Matter Of Perspective

Here's a chart that Robert Murphy posted on his blog:

What kills me about this is the third recession from the right, the recession that began in 1991 or '92. I remember this recession vividly. In fact, it is the first recession I was ever really conscious of a person who thinks about the economy. I remember the news reports and the way people were so jaded and disgusted by "Reaganomics" and the GWH Bush administration. I remember the stories about the many unemployed people, and the many people living hand-to-mouth.

But just look at the size of it. It was tiny. By modern standards, it was hardly a blip.

Stunning.

Who Said That?

Here's a blast from the past:

"That is the true genius of America, a faith... a faith in simple dreams, an insistence on small miracles; that we can tuck in our children at night and know that they are fed and clothed and safe from harm; that we can say what we think, write what we think, without hearing a sudden knock on the door; that we can have an idea and start our own business without paying a bribe; that we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution; and that our votes will be counted -- or at least, most of the time."

Weirdly apropos. Read the whole thing.

Some Links

I love economics news like this, because it is economic and yet completely unrelated to policy. What a fascinating discovery!

Hat tip to my mother, of all people: In what could be astounding news, researchers claim to have discovered an immune protein that could cure type 1 diabetes. Over the years, I have learned to be highly skeptical of the many annual claims that a cure has been found; but this one seems promising.

Daniel Kuehn proves that agreeing with me makes you a good economist... unless you actually are me, in which case it makes you "weak." Sigh.

For the record, I do not actually know whether the Mises Institute guys have this one wrong. Thomas Sowell might be criticizing the persistence of false ideas, or he might simply be criticizing the so-called intellectual elite. All I know is that the first thing that popped into my mind was the name Billy Ray Valentine. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

It is always kind of sad when the music industry starts to discard its puppet, and the puppet does not yet understand that it is happening.

I didn't actually need another reason to drink coffee, but here you go.

In Defense Of Cartoons

The following started out as a comment on David Friedman's blog post, but the further along I got, the more I realized that (a) posting my thoughts there would detract from the otherwise civil discourse Friedman manages to attract, and (b) it's grown so lengthy that it is effectively a blog post of its own. So here it goes:


I think the most astounding aspect of this whole "cartoon libertarians" fiasco is that the BHLers are willing to defend what is obviously character malignment.

It's the same with the phrase "internet Austrians." It's a term cooked up to denigrate people who agree with Austrian-School economists, but who lack sufficient academic background to do so with full academic rigor. Likewise, what are "cartoon libertarians," if not people who share the BHLers' policy objectives but lack sufficient scholastic achievement to argue the BHLers' case flawlessly?

My question is, Why on Earth would BHLers want to do this? Is obliterating libertarianism actually what they have in mind? Because I'm not sure there is any other benefit to taking aim at the people who are attempting to learn from the Brennans of the world, but who also have things like day jobs and family responsibilities that keep us from engaging in academic research to the point of having an airtight argument.

It's hard not to take offense, frankly, and I'm not even sure I qualify as a "cartoon libertarian." But what Brennan wrote makes me want to qualify, just so that I can disagree with him.

Let me accept the label "cartoon libertarian." Heck, I'll be the Speedy Gonzales of libertarianism!

(For those of you a bit slow on the uptake, I'm choosing Speedy Gonzales in order to deliberately offend the sensibilities of people like Brennan, who I can only assume recognize the racist undertones of Speedy but fail to recognize that his many positive character traits actually imply something positive, not negative, about Mexican culture. In other words, Speedy Gonzales is exactly the kind of character that would offend the BHLers for being insufficiently touchy-feely while remaining adequately heroic to the rest of us.... Okay, having said that, I can now proceed to: Get it? Get it? Speedy Gonzales? Get it?)

Having accepted by assumption the fact that I am probably one of those horrible internet Austrians or bleeding heart austerians or crew-members of Battlestar Catallaxica or cartoon libertarian or whatever, I will now proceed in silence as Jason Brennan and all the real libertarians go ahead and engage in civil debate without me. I'll let them decide what I'm supposed to think. Go ahead, guys. The mic's all yours...

Music As Art

For most people, the name Jennifer Batten doesn't ring any bells. That's unfortunate.

For most of the balance of us, the name Jennifer Batten is associated with the spiked hair and gawdy outfits of a "no-name" female guitarist seen on stage with Michael Jackson, a gig she maintained for about ten years, between 1987 and 1997. We may have seen her play the "Beat It" solo on various live Michael Jackson, but other than that, let's face it: Michael Jackson was never known for writing great guitar music.

Still, he was an artist with the kind of stature that can demand only the best in terms of side musicians, and Batten's on-stage persona was so captivating that curious guitarists growing up at the time, like me, couldn't help but look her up on a then-budding internet. The information we found was sparse, but with the help of some well-placed print ads in the back of guitar magazines, I was able to gather that Jennifer Batten had an interesting solo album out called Momentum, which was only available via mail order, and that she had appeared on a few of those "great guitar player" compilation CDs.

When I finally did hear the recording that made her reputation among guitar players - not the Momentum album, but rather a rock-guitar version of "Flight of the Bumblebee" - I was less than impressed. For one thing, did anyone really need to hear another rock guitar version of "Flight of the Bumblebee?" (I found out later that Batten's version was among the first.) For another thing, I was already knee-deep in the flat-picked stylings of Steve Vai and John Petrucci. Some chick playing gimmicky two-hand tapping stuff just didn't do it for a young musical idiot like myself. So, for years, I figured she was just some woman who managed to get the Michael Jackson gig because female rock guitar players were rare.

Looking back on all this today, I feel stupid, ignorant, and immature.

My favorite guitar player at that time was another 80s rock icon, one who had also recorded a "Bumblebee" song: Nuno Bettencourt. I was fairly obsessed with him, to the point that I dreamed of one day owning his signature guitar: a Washburn N4. Boy, did I ever want one of those.

One day, I went to the local music store and saw that they were selling a rare padauk N4 for a little more than $700. The salesman made a great pitch, and I almost bought it. (To this day, I kick myself for not having done so.) But I was extremely budget conscious and decided to go with something more in my price range. Looking around the showroom, my eyes honed in on another Washburn guitar, the BT-10 Maverick. It had a carved, flamed maple cap on an alder body with a maple neck and a rosewood fretboard. It had dot inlays, but they were off-centered on the fretboard, making them look extra cool. The guitar also featured a Floyd Rose whammy bar and cream binding. What a beauty! And at $400, it was exactly what I was looking for. I bought it in a cherry finish.

The BT-10 would serve as my next exposure to the world of Jennifer Batten. When I got home, I discovered that it was her signature axe. My chauvinistic pride took a hit (I bought a girl's guitar!), but after a while it didn't matter. The guitar was eye-catching and played really well. I took to it quickly, and it served me faithfully as my main guitar for the next five years. I still own it today, and it serves its purpose as my only tremolo-equipped instrument.

So, how could a mere girl, one whose only claims to fame were a gig with Michael Jackson and a two-hand-tapping version of "Flight of the Bumblebee", have her own signature guitar? Worse, how could she have one that I really liked? It didn't make sense to me. From time to time, I'd scan the internet for more information, only to once again discover little more than a link to her Momentum album.

One day, I came across a video of a live performance by guitar legend Jeff Beck playing a cover of "A Day in the Life." In the background was a woman with long blonde hair playing a guitar that looked familiar. Hey, I thought, she's playing a Washburn BT! That's my guitar! Then I realized that I was looking at Jennifer Batten. How did the Michael Jackson guitarist land a gig with one of the greatest musicians of the 20th Century?

I quickly opened up a new browser window and searched for all the information I could find about Jennifer Batten: two-hand-tapping wizard, acclaimed guitarist for the Michael Jackson band, with a successful solo career, currently touring with Jeff Beck. It was right about then that I got over my stupid "girls can't play the guitar" mentality and started letting my ears be the final arbiter.

What I soon discovered was a musician with such a stunning level of expressiveness on the instrument, such remarkable virtuosity, but more. Her notes sang, laughed, cried, while each song undulated with a funky mix of jazz, rock, world beat, and clever experimentation. Jennifer Batten's musical world proved to be one marked with an artistry that, frankly, few of even the best players can match.

Suddenly it no longer seemed surprising that this was the artist who had been hand-picked by Jeff Beck for his touring band. Suddenly it was no longer surprising that this was the guitar player who supported the most successful recording artist of all time. Suddenly, it was all obvious. Not to mention the fact that my guitar was suddenly one hundred times cooler than it was mere moments ago.

Batten's music features the kind of maturity to which we all aspire. What I mean by that is that her note choice is impeccable: it's surprising, provocative, powerful, and emotional. Like Jeff Beck, Batten prefers injecting each and every note with an overdose of emotional power to flooding the eardrums with a flurry of shredding. Also like Beck, Batten can produce a flurry of shredding that will blow your head off. If you're looking for an artist who is equally at ease playing fast and slow, one for whom every note is meaningful and important, one who can make every bend and every arpeggio tell a story of its own, look no further than Jennifer Batten.

Stylistically, Batten brings a lot to the table. Casual listeners will immediately notice the heavy dose of modern rock/fusion that serves as the backbone to her material. Comparisons to Greg Howe or Brett Garsed could easily be made. But where those artists tend to draw neatly (and brilliantly) inside the lines, Batten likes to slip and slide along the fretboard, bending and yanking the whammy bar. Because of this, a more attentive listener may draw parallels to Steve Vai, and that influence is certainly palpable on her first record, Above & Beyond. But the truth is that there is more Jeff Beck there than Steve Vai, and this was obvious long before she landed the Beck touring gig. Her subsequent albums are replete with that crying, diving, whammy bar emotion that Beck first made popular. Batten takes it to a whole new level.

For most artists, this would be more than enough ingredients to build a strong body of musical art. Jennifer Batten pushes things further still. Here, the comparisons depart from the masters of instrumental music to the more cutting edge and avante garde guitarists that so seldom make the top of the "best guitarists" lists. Throughout her solo albums, Jennifer Batten peppers her material with sound samples from movies, world music, sample libraries, hip hop beats, and so on. The millennial generation will be inclined to compare that aspect of her music to Buckethead, but the influence actually works in the reverse. Batten's use of samples and guitar special effects draws closer comparisons to Reeves Gabrels, Vernon Reid, Adrian Belew, and Warren Cuccurullo.

As strong as that list of innovators is, the thing that sets Jennifer Batten apart from them is her emphasis on the pure beauty of music. She stops short of cramming too many samples or foreign sounds into her work, favoring masterful clean-toned rhythm guitar tracks that can at times sound like keyboards or organs. Where the others might hover too long on a foreign sound (I once saw Adrian Belew play a guitar synthesizer configured to produce piano sounds, improvising for a good 20 minutes), Batten hints at strangeness just long enough to make the listener fall in love with sound before it gently fades away, only to be replaced by her signature tone and a flurry of virtuosic lead guitar.

The electric guitar was invented in 1931. Since then, it has become the primary musical instrument of the modern world. For better or for worse, the instrument has been so thoroughly explored that it is nearly impossible for anyone in this day and age to sound unique. Despite the odds, a few players have managed to do it through the strength of their imagination, creativity, and virtuosity. There is absolutely no question that Jennifer Batten is one of those players.

Kindly do yourselves the favor of familiarizing yourself with her music. I have selected a YouTube video at random to get you started.

Laugh, And The World Laughs With You

Cry, and you cry alone.

An Interesting Concept Came Up In Conversation Last Night
We had family over at our place last night, and the conversation inevitably turned toward diet, exercise, fitness, and health in general. I say "inevitably" because any time you fill a room full of people who are either health nuts, diabetics, foodies, and fuddy-duddies, the conversation will turn to health. In my case, I happen to meet all four criteria, as do some of our family members, so there you have it.

During the discussion, one person noted that whenever she exercises regularly, she finds she also eats healthy food; whenever she eats healthy food, she finds she exercises regularly. The point was that she wasn't sure which way the causality went. Do we exercise when we eat well, or do we eat well when we exercise?

Some fitness gurus have suggested that whenever we engage in a lot of physical exercise, our bodies naturally crave the proper fuel we need to keep exercising. Under this theory, the harder you exercise, the less you crave pizza and hamburgers and the more you crave chicken Caesar salads and low-sodium sushi. I certainly can't speak for everyone, but I can say that in my own personal experience, the exact opposite is true. The harder I exercise, the more I crave calories of any kind; anything will do, and the more of it, the better. Fast food is cheap and plentiful, and burgers are delicious. The more I work out, the more I crave greasy, carby, inflammatory junk food.

Another person suggested that it happens together because whenever one is engaged in eating well, one is "looking after oneself," and so the inclination to exercise regularly is a natural compliment. And vice-versa, of course: when one exercises, one also feels an inclination to look after one's diet. Her point was that neither exercise nor eating right was the causal factor so much as the internal desire to take care of oneself.

An Underlying Culture Of Activity
This plays into a concept I often discuss in conversation, but to my recollection have never blogged about. I call this concept "fostering a culture of activity" in your life. I use that term to describe a proclivity some of us have to move our bodies around a bit despite technological conveniences that might render it unnecessary.

In other words, some people walk to the grocery store. Some people bike downtown to run some errands. These folks aren't usually viewing such activities as a "workout." They walk or bike because walking and biking are time-tested, reliable, and convenient modes of transportation. Where other people will just drive because it's fast, comfortable, and air conditioned, other people honestly wouldn't think about it. They wouldn't because in their minds "cars" are associated with long(er)-distance travel, packing up, etc. Bikes and shoes are associated with short, nearby errands.

The difference between these two groups of people is neither "laziness" nor "healthiness." It truly is a matter of perspective, psychology, or "culture." I was raised in an area where the nearest grocery store was a little less than a mile away, along a very safe street. When we needed something from the grocery store and time wasn't an issue, we walked or rode a bicycle.

Until I was in my 20s, it had never occurred to me that riding a bike was a workout. Honestly! And I considered driving distances as short as a mile to be an extreme hassle, not a convenience. Again, this is not because I am some health obsessed whack job or fitness superman who considers sedentary life to be a negative thing. It is simply a result of my parents' having "fostered a culture of activity" in my family.

Ryan Does Everything Right... Right?
Eventually, the conversation wound its way to individual comparisons: This person eats too few vegetables, that person eats too many sweets, this one over here does not spend too much time thinking about what to eat, but tries to have everything in moderation, that one over there eats fine but exercises too little, while the other one exercises regularly but does not eat enough. And so on, and so forth. We covered the full spectrum of diet and exercise behavior, including all extremes. Of course, in that crowd, I played the role of the one who exercises regularly and eats flawlessly.

To be clear, I certainly don't feel this way about myself. I have a tendency to eat Tex-Mex food. I have a tendency to drink beer. I have lazy days on which I can't be bothered to work out. I eat a lot of cheese. I often feel as though I could stand to work out a little harder, and I certainly feel that I could walk to the grocery store more often than I drive.

But these concepts are relative. If a person cannot stand the taste of vegetables, than a person like myself - who loves them - will appear to be extremely healthy. In fact, I remember one time in school a classmate gave an oral report on the State of Hawaii, and passed out slices of pineapple as a visual aid. Many of my fellow students didn't want their pineapple, so I happily suggested they give me their slices, and they readily complied. One classmate (WT, who may in fact be a faithful Stationary Waves reader - Hello, WT!) remarked that I was "so healthy." I hadn't really considered that. I was just enjoying my pineapple slices.

Meanwhile, my sister bikes everywhere, is always engaged in some kind of gardening or home-improvement project, goes on a lengthy mountain bike excursion nearly every weekend, camps often, goes to the gym regularly, watches her diet well, is a bit of a Crossfit aficionado, and so on... In my mind, whatever level of health I enjoy pales in comparison to her herculean ability to squeeze physical activity into nearly every waking moment of her existence. It's truly impressive.

...And yet, I can recall more than one occasion during which she has recounted to me a description of someone she knows who is even fitter than she is.

Odd, For A Hunter-Gatherer Like Yourself
They sure do spend a lot of time warning us of the dangers of a so-called "Western diet," and making recommendations as to the proper amount of daily physical activity we should all be getting. It might all be true, too, but I have always felt that such messages completely miss the mark.

Why? Because they take us back to the start of last night's conversation: Do we "westerners" eat hamburgers because we're fat and lazy, or does the fact that we're fat and lazy make us want to eat hamburgers?

(Somewhere in the far reaches of cyberspace, a Mark-Sisson-wannabe is writing a treatise about how unhealthy foods are literally addictive, that science proves this, and that only by doing Crossfit and eating bacon-lettuce wraps can we return to the halcyon days of our paleolithic ubermensch predecessors.)

Stop, take a backwards step, and look at the whole picture. We're not "addicted" to food any more than we're addicted to oxygen and working for a living. Eating, breathing, and working are necessary parts of the human experience. You can't Crossfit your way back to the paleolithic era. We're no longer the tribal cave-dwellers that we once were. Sure, we biologically resemble those hirsute great-grandparents who hunted ox so that we can enjoy desk jobs, but modern human life is altogether different than it was back then.

You do not spend eighteen hours a day foraging for grubs and berries, and roasting the occasional rodent over an open fire. You might think you're "fostering a culture of activity" by getting a gym membership and drinking seven yolks a day, but remember what I said above: It's all relative.

Even working out twice a day is insufficient to deliver the kind of physical exertion that was typical among the cave men. Aboriginal Australians, for example, wandered the desert ceaselessly - literally continuously - in search of roots, grubs, and lizards to eat. They paused only to sleep through the night. I know it feels like serious exertion to do 45 minutes of calisthenics at the gym, but compare that to 18 hours of constant motion in the raw elements of nature and the truth rears its powerful head.

We have to foster a culture of activity. A few short generations ago, human beings just lived it, and that was all. There was no such thing as sedentary.

So when studies come out saying that we eat too much pizza and do too few HIIT repeats, the bigger picture is overlooked. I'm not convinced grubs and lizards are healthier for the human diet than pizza, nor am I convinced that HIIT will protect you from diabetes. (It certainly didn't protect me!)

What makes more sense is the fact that, over time, human beings have gained access to ever-more-impressive technologies that have provided us with an astounding level of modern convenience. We can get anywhere and do anything with hardly any effort at all; most of the "hard stuff" involves intellectual, not physical effort. Mark Sisson's "Grok" had to wander the plains for a full day to gain access to 1500 calories. All it takes me is a single trip to McDonald's.

Conclusion
No, it's not diet or insufficient exercise that's killing us. Life has changed for human beings. It's not a bad thing. But we must learn to deal with it if we want to be healthy.

Part of this is learning that, unless we want our bodies to atrophy and rot, we must engage in physical exercise to compensate for the fact that we do not spend all day wandering the Serengeti. Everyone flinches and shakes their head when they see new pictures of Jason Becker or Stephen Hawking, both of whose bodies have been ravaged by Lou Gherig's disease - but no one flinches at all when they see that very same process happening to their own bodies over the course of the decades that occur after age 21.

The human body is "use it or lose it." Those who find little to offer their health after enjoying the fast metabolisms that came with the youth and drug use and bare necessity of their younger years will suffer a long deterioration that will ultimately end in death.

I, too, will die, but will likely be active and mobile until the end. How do you want to spend your final years? In a wheelchair, with bedsores, or on your feet? To me, it is not even a question.

Do you eat junk food because you're not exercising, or are you not exercising because you're eating junk food? Neither. We all have access to the same crap, be it french fries or television programs. It is not an act of iron will to say "no" to free pizza. It is a choice, based on how you feel. The first question is, "Am I even hungry?" The subsequent questions involve what kind of culture you're choosing to foster in your own life.

If you exercise regularly and eat a sane diet, then who cares about even multiple slices of free pizza? The lifestyle you foster will more than compensate for a few measly slices of pizza. If you don't exercise ever, then each slice is taking you further down into a pit, and the further down you go, the further you have to climb to come back out again.

To a great extent, it comes down to culture.

Virtue Versus Policy

Somehow I overlooked this Tyler Cowen post, a comparison between "the culture" of guns to "the culture" of alcohol.

It is interesting to readers of Stationary Waves readers first because it further highlights what I have previously identified (here and here) as a growing temperance movement in America. Given all the favorable things Cowen has to say about Mormons (and, indeed, he does it again in this post), I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to discover that he opposes alcohol consumption, but surprised I was, nonetheless.

Being a fairly harsh critic of recreational drug use (and all other aspects of Whore Culture) myself, one might expect me to agree with Cowen here. I do not. The original temperance movement in the United States was thoroughly discredited when its policies failed on all fronts. Not only did the ban fail to prevent alcohol consumption, it caused both violent crime and accidental death; the net effects of temperance were much worse than the effects of a nation of drinkers. Of course, the failures of temperance don't validate alcohol consumption, they merely demonstrate that temperance is self-refuting.

In truth, I suspect that any activity that is such a ubiquitous part of the human experience is something that we must all live with. It's true that alcohol causes a lot of misery. It's also true that red wine improves insulin sensitivity, lowers blood pressure, improves heart health, and can alleviate stress if consumed in moderation. Cowen acknowledges that there is such a thing as responsible alcohol consumption (and gun ownership):

Guns, like alcohol, have many legitimate uses, and they are enjoyed by many people in a responsible manner.  In both cases, there is an elite which has absolutely no problems handling the institution in question, but still there is the question of whether the nation really can have such bifurcated social norms, namely one set of standards for the elite and another set for everybody else.

I have to question his implied preference, however. The solution to our having "bifurcated social norms" is not to legally mandate a third set of norms that force everyone into sub-optimality. Similarly, that some children play well with others while other children do not is certainly no argument against socializing children.

More importantly, why does Cowen consider it more viable to promote temperance among 100% of the population than to promote more responsible drinking among 50% of the population?

***

On a more positive note, Cowen does acknowledge the fact that an outright ban was not a productive way of dealing with alcohol. He writes, "It is obvious to me that alcohol is one of the great social evils and when I read the writings of the prohibitionists, while I don’t agree with their legal remedies, their arguments make sense to me."

This is the second aspect of the post that makes it of interest to readers of Stationary Waves. Cowen's proposed solution to such problems exists outside the scope of governmental policy. He would like to see society tackle certain problems, but he does not want society to do so with new laws.

So, while I might quibble with Cowen about his thoughts on the demerits of alcohol, I have no objection to his solution. This is how decent people can coexist despite their having strong disagreements with each other. When we resist the urge to bring the heavy arm of government down on our adversaries, we foster a live-and-let-live environment of persuasive dialogue. There is no doubt in my mind that Cowen and I could calmly and rationally discuss guns or alcohol face-to-face over a cup of something Cowen does drink. We would not walk away hating each other.

On a similar note, I have a friend and faithful reader, DA, who is happy and capable of discussing any political issue with me calmly and rationally. Together, we build a sense of mutual respect even when discussing the things about which we are most passionate. How is this possible? Well, thus far neither of us has called the cops on the other...

Ayn Rand wrote that "morality ends where a gun begins." I doubt that even the most passionate leftist would disagree with her there.

The point is simply this: In a world were people prefer to debate and persuade, human relationships are rich and mostly positive. By contrast, a world in which all philosophical disagreements are settled by Johnny Long-Arm, we are all deeply resentful of each other. Paul resents Peter because the Peters of the world made it impossible for Paul to get a drink. Peter resents Paul because the Pauls of the world made it impossible for Peter to own a gun. Jack resents Jimmy because Jimmy supported an increase in Jack's taxes. Jimmy resents Jack because Jack supported a decrease in Jimmy's welfare check. And so on...

As I have already noted, on average, we oppose everything. That has a greater impact on human relationships than it does on individual liberty. Or perhaps a better way to say that is that our obsession with passing ever-more laws to address social problems has the effect of undermining both personal freedom and the social order.

***

Thus, I believe government overreach is a problem for both individualists and collectivists. Incredibly, the optimal solution is precisely the one Tyler Cowen overlooked in his blog post. Confronted with a bifurcated society that has opposing standards, the optimum is not reached by promoting a solution that nullifies both standards. Rather, the solution is calmly relax, step back, and acknowledge the simple truths that permeate all moral issues:

Despite the awesome power of government, we cannot ultimately prevent unethical behavior or punish it in such away that everyone walks away satisfied.

Allowing people the autonomy to make their own decisions, even when we disagree, creates an environment of mutual respect.

Some disagreements - especially moral ones - can never be "solved" with a single, one-size-fits-all solution.

Above all, life is complex.

The Dumps

As much as we would all like to be happy all the time, from time to time, everyone gets down in the dumps. It is a natural part of life. Perhaps calling it "healthy" is a bit of a stretch, but if it's not healthy, it is at least normal.

There are a lot of things to feel bad about. Maybe the world's political tide isn't going your way. Maybe you haven't achieved everything you hoped you would achieve. Maybe you have made your many attempts at greatness, only to remain as average as the average Joe. Maybe you're under-appreciated for what you are. Maybe you've never had a chance to really prove yourself. Maybe you missed out on a good opportunity. Maybe an act of nature prevented you from ever having an opportunity. Maybe you're just unlucky.

The problem with having a good imagination is that the person who has one can conceive of a virtually infinite array of possibilities - things that could have happened in life, but did not happen; things that could yet happen in life, but do not appear to be getting any closer.

You Made The Whole Thing Up
When you're in the dumps, it's important to remember that the many alternate realities in which you are successful and happy in infinitely many ways exist solely because you invented them. You imagined a false scenario, you made the whole thing up. The point of comparison seems worse because you're really good at thinking up imaginary things that might make you happier than you are now.

So the next time you're feeling down about something, consider the possibility that the alternative and more pleasant scenario might actually be pure fiction. You may have made the whole thing up.

Labels

You may notice some changes in the way I label my blog posts. These changes will be semi-enforced retroactively. My growing list of post labels is getting a little out-of-hand, and so I want to consolidate some labels and change the way I talk about others. This will be an ongoing process, and I apologize for any inconvenience you might experience, especially if you really loved a particular label that may have been removed or consolidated. No offense to all you label-lubbers out there.

Hunting For Clues

Here are some excerpts from the Wikipedia article on human growth hormone. All emphases are mine; bold text is used for emphasis, while bold highlighted text is a major emphasis. I have also added comments to the excerpts.

On the function of HGH:

In addition to increasing height in children and adolescents, growth hormone has many other effects on the body:

• Increases calcium retention, [sound familiar? - ed.] and strengthens and increases the mineralization of bone

• Increases muscle mass through sarcomere hypertrophy

• Promotes lipolysis

• Increases protein synthesis

• Stimulates the growth of all internal organs excluding the brain

• Plays a role in homeostasis

• Reduces liver uptake of glucose

• Promotes gluconeogenesis in the liver^[32]

• Contributes to the maintenance and function of pancreatic islets

• Stimulates the immune system

On the secretion of HGH in general:

Secretion of growth hormone (GH) in the pituitary is regulated by the neurosecretory nuclei of the hypothalamus. These cells release the peptides Growth hormone-releasing hormone (GHRH orsomatocrinin) and Growth hormone-inhibiting hormone (GHIH or somatostatin) into the hypophyseal portal venous blood surrounding the pituitary. GH release in the pituitary is primarily determined by the balance of these two peptides, which in turn is affected by many physiological stimulators (e.g., exercise, nutrition, sleep) and inhibitors (e.g., free fatty acids) of GH secretion.

Stimulators and inhibitors of HGH:

A number of factors are known to affect GH secretion, such as age, gender, diet, exercise, stress, and other hormones.^[1] Young adolescents secrete GH at the rate of about 700 μg/day, while healthy adults secrete GH at the rate of about 400 μg/day.^[16] Sleep deprivation generally supresses GH release, particularly after early adulthood.^[17] 

Stimulators of growth hormone (GH) secretion include:

• peptide hormones

• GHRH (somatocrinin) through binding to the growth hormone-releasing hormone receptor (GHRHR)^[18]

• ghrelin through binding to growth hormone secretagogue receptors (GHSR)^[19]

• sex hormones^[20]

• increased androgen secretion during puberty (in males from testis and in females from adrenal cortex)

• estrogen

• clonidine and L-DOPA by stimulating GHRH release^[21]

• hypoglycemia, arginine^[22] and propranolol by inhibiting somatostatin release^[21]

• deep sleep^[23]

• niacin as nicotinic acid (Vitamin B3)^[24]

• fasting^[25]

• vigorous exercise ^[26] 

Inhibitors of GH secretion include:

• GHIH (somatostatin) from the periventricular nucleus ^[27]

• circulating concentrations of GH and IGF-1 [Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 - ed.] (negative feedback on the pituitary and hypothalamus)^[1]

• hyperglycemia^[21]

• glucocorticoids^[28]

• dihydrotestosterone

Sidenote, from the article on Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 as a therapeutic agent:

Several companies have evaluated IGF-1 in clinical trials for a variety of additional indications, including type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS aka "Lou Gehrig's Disease"),^[26] severe burn injury and myotonic muscular dystrophy (MMD). Results of clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of IGF-1 in type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes showed great promise in reducing hemoglobin A1C levels, as well as daily insulin consumption. However, the sponsor, Genentech, discontinued the program due to an exacerbation of diabetic retinopathy^[27] in patients coupled with a shift in corporate focus towards oncology.

Back to the HGH article, on clinically relevant excess levels of HGH:

Prolonged GH excess thickens the bones of the jaw, fingers and toes. Resulting heaviness of the jaw and increased size of digits is referred to as acromegaly. Accompanying problems can include sweating, pressure on nerves (e.g., carpal tunnel syndrome), muscle weakness, excess sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), insulin resistance or even a rare form of type 2 diabetes, and reduced sexual function.

The article also notes side-effects of therapeutic HGH treatment: "More rarely, patients can experience joint swelling, joint pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, and an increased risk of diabetes.^[36] In some cases, the patient can produce an immune response against GH."

Some Links

The Circle Bastiat continues its downward spiral by highlighting and subsequently attempting to substantiate Ludwig von Mises' outlandish claim that Milton Friedman wasn't an economist. This sort of attempt by some Austrian School scholars to attempt to live in a lexicographic world asunder from the rest of us is highly disappointing. Any such choice is a false dichotomy. It is possible to learn economics from studying Mises or Friedman, and very preferably from studying them both, along with many others.

The LvMIC, which seems to have become a superior repository for Austrian School economic analysis expresses skepticism of the tenure of Stephen Poloz. I sympathize with their cynicism, but think Poloz is a really great economist, so I'm hoping for the best.

Marginal Revolution highlights the prevalence and efficacy of private schools in developing countries. This is relevant here because it's important to remember that the United States is merely one set of conditions that can come to exist from a given set of policy outcomes. That is, if the USA's private education market expanded, we might also see many favorable results. Supporters of public education too often dwell on the negatives.

I found this report about as ground-breaking as the recent stories about how milk curdles when you leave it on the counter and that 2+2 still equals 4.

I humbly direct your attention to a man who is pushing himself to increasingly impressive levels of physical fitness, and who - thanks to his YouTube channel - has graciously agreed to bring the rest of us along for the ride. Looking for some new workout ideas? Start with this one: