One Missouri state Representative, Rick Brattin, recently drafted a bill that would restrict what food stamp recipients in the state could buy with their SNAP benefits. Besides the fact that imposing new limitations is against Federal law, there are many problems with this.
The specific restrictions the bill would illegally impose include prohibiting the purchase of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood, or steak." Brattin complains that he has seen people buying products like lobster and fillet mignon with their food stamps, and evidently he takes offense at this. In fact, he takes so much offense at this that he is willing to challenge Federal law by passing an illegal state law to prevent this.
The real problems with this bill are not related to Federal law at all, however. There are health implications as well as a question of discrimination. Besides that, expensive foods that are sometimes regarded as extravagant can easily be part of a very frugal diet.
"Seafood" is a huge category of foods, and nutritionists currently recommend eating at least two servings of fatty fish per week. Many recommend twice that, but since fatty fish are typically the more expensive types (salmon, for example), and many Americans cannot afford to eat it more often than that, they say twice a week is enough for a reasonably healthy diet. This bill would defeat the purpose of the SNAP program. The acronym stands for "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program." If seafood is prohibited, it might as well be renamed SCAP (Supplemental Calorie Assistance Program), because a significant part of the "nutrition" part is being thrown out over whether poor people should be allowed to eat traditional rich person food.
This brings up the next problem. This is very blatant discrimination against the poor. This Representative seems to believe that poor people should not be allowed to eat traditional rich person food. He is acting like some kind of elitist foodie who cannot stand to see the rabble eating his precious steak and lobster. Now, I understand why energy drinks would be prohibited, as they are more like medication than food. Likewise, soft drinks are barely food (let's ban water too). Chips actually provide a decent amount of calories (at a very low cost per calorie), and with the recent discovery that diets high in plant oils are very beneficial, chips can be part of a very healthy diet (in moderation). Prohibiting cookies is absurd, as they typically contain a lot of healthy components, despite their higher than average sugar content. The steak restriction is even more absurd. Yes, people on SNAP probably should not be eating fillet mignon every night for dinner. If they are, then it is the state's fault for giving them far more SNAP money than they need. Real SNAP recipients do not eat steak and lobster dinners on SNAP regularly (because they cannot afford it). If Brattin did not actually see how those buying these products on SNAP used them, then he has no business judging them.
Let me share my personal experience with this matter. My family is on food stamps, and while we have never bought fillet mignon on food stamps, we have bought cheaper steaks and we buy about two lobsters each year. For our New Years dinner, we have also been known to buy a few crab legs. When we do this, we carefully budget our food stamp money so we can afford it. Would Brattin deny us this opportunity to learn good financial skills? (Actually, we are not poor due to poor financial skills. For the most part, we manage our money quite well, but apply this to the many people on food stamps who do benefit from the experience.) The steak is almost never cooked as whole steaks. Once in a while, I make an oriental beef and broccoli dish, which calls for one pound of thinly sliced steak. At $5.99 a pound (and we rarely buy it without a dollar or two discount), with $1 worth of broccoli and maybe $1 worth of rice, all seven of us eat a fairly nice (and healthy) meal at a cost of $8 or less. That comes out to about $1.15 per person. Most Americans spend two to three times that on a meal. Obviously, we could use chicken instead to get it under $1 per person, but would Brattin really be so petty as to deny us quality in our meal for a few cents, even though we already spend far less than the average? Evidently he would.
Now, the lobster is usually for special occasions, like anniversaries. Even we consider it a bit extravagant, which is why it is a once a year thing. Like I mentioned, we carefully budget for this. It seems rather absurd that the state would interfere in our food buying choices, when we are already being so careful not to abuse the system. Now, I recognize that others may choose to abuse the system, but punishing us for it is just plain wrong. Further though, lobster is actually not that expensive. On sale, where we live (Idaho, so not close enough to the ocean to make it seriously cheap), it is $4.00 for a medium sized lobster tail (we don't buy whole; the price is higher while the meat to shell ratio is lower). Not on sale it costs more like $5.99 a tail, though in the winter it sometimes gets up to $7.99. We don't buy it when it is not on sale. Now, we could probably eat lobster once a week without extravagant spending. Consider this: I can make a lobster sauce with one $4 lobster tail that is enough for the whole family (did I mention, we have 5 kids, so that is 7 people). Over rice (about $1 worth; I would actually use pasta, which might come out to $1.50 or $2.00 total), the entire meal could be $5, with maybe another $1.50 for some kind of canned or frozen vegetables. At $6.50 for the whole meal that is 93¢ per person (the flour, milk, and spices used in the sauce are almost negligible in cost). That is a meal with lobster that costs less than $1 per person. With pasta instead of rice, it would come out closer to $1.08 per person. We could eat that every day and not spend all of our SNAP money!
The point here is that even the most expensive foods can be part of a very fugal and healthy meal. Unless Brattin can prove that this is not how those people are using their purchases, then he is totally out of line condemning them for extravagant use of SNAP benefits. Even expensive fillet mignon or crab legs can be integrated into a meal that costs far less than what the typical American spends. In fact, even caviar could be used this way, though I have a hard time believing anyone would actually do this with caviar (I am not going to judge though). Anyhow, judging people based on what foods they are buying is stupid. Instead judge them on how they use the food that they buy, and if you don't know how they are using it, withhold your judgment!
What this really comes down to is freedom. The U.S. is becoming less and less free as time goes by, with the government frequently thinking that it can make our decisions better than we can. If we are not allowed to decide for ourselves, how can the government ever expect us to get better at decision making? The first time some family buys enough steak and lobster on SNAP for every dinner for a week, they will quickly discover that their SNAP benefits won't feed them enough if they spend that way (unless they are doing what I suggested above). Maybe they will start shopping sales. They will probably budget more carefully the next month. Most importantly though, they will learn from their own experience. Maybe they will keep eating a lot of steak and lobster, but they will shop sales and add coupons to that, and if they are willing to do that much extra work to eat steak and lobster frequently, they deserve it just as much as the CEO who does an equal amount of work running his company (seriously, sale shopping and couponing is a lot of work). Some people like bacon gravy for breakfast regularly (a meal that I have heard is often considered a poor man's meal in the south, but which I consider to be gourmet food). It is reasonable to say that the guy who likes bacon gravy is more deserving of eating what he likes than the guy who likes steak and eggs, just because the prices are different? This is an elitist attitude. I don't think Brattin is actually bothered that SNAP recipients are spending some of their benefits on food that is expensive. I think he is bothered that poor people are eating his elitist gourmet food!
(Thankfully, Brattin is the only one actually interested in the bill. He has no co-sponsors, and the state legislature is not actually even considering the bill.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/08/missouri-food-stamps_n_7026704.html
09 April 2015
07 April 2015
How to Help Your Children to a Successful Life
I keep coming across articles about success and education, and recently I came across one that reveals how screwed up American thinking is on this subject.
Many parents want their children to grow up to become part of the "elite." They ask experts how to accomplish this goal. Some parents think that studying to the exclusion of all else, in high school or even grade school is the answer. Recent studies have found that most of the successful "elite" participated in at least one extracurricular activity in high school or grade school. So maybe the answer is to enroll your children in at least one sport or music program every year of school. Unfortunately, this is not the answer. Really it is a game of odds, and evidently moderate extracurricular activities will increase those odds. If you want to know the odds, compare the number of upper class people in the U.S. to the number of middle and lower class people. Even if you do everything perfectly, the chances of your child becoming one of the successful "elite" are very low. Also keep in mind that many other parents are doing the same things. This is a large scale case of "Keeping up with the Joneses" that will just keep getting harder. Every year, parents are trying to one up each other, to give their children the advantage (often causing their children unnecessary misery). If you subscribe to this definition of success, then you are ultimately setting yourself, and your children, up for failure.
The U.S. upper class is shrinking. Anything anyone does, with the sole expectation of joining the upper class, is gambling. Further, the odds are getting worse. Some experts are even beginning the question whether the cost of a college education is worth the risk (the consensus is still yes, it is worth it, but there is significant disagreement, especially with regards to graduate degrees). If success is becoming part of the "elite" upper class, then then the odds are stacked against you and your children, no matter what you do. There is no way to even get close to even odds, unless you are already part of the upper class, and with the shrinking upper class, even that is not a guarantee. At this point, luck has a bigger impact than anything else, starting with whether you were lucky enough to be born to rich parents or not.
The problem here is the definition of success. Parents that are willing to put effort into "helping" their kids become part of the "elite" define success as working long hours to make huge amounts of money. In case you have not heard, income beyond about $20,000 a year per person does not increase happiness. In fact, there is significant evidence that it does the exact opposite. If rich and decadent misery is your definition of success, then I guess you are justified in gambling your time and money on the low odds that your child could join the "elite," at the cost of his or her happiness. If you want your child to be happy though, read on.
Most parents want their children to be happy. Some parents mistakenly associate happiness with wealth. As mentioned before, recent research has shown that increasing income increases happiness up to about $20,000 per person per year. As income increases further though, happiness tends to stay the same or decrease. Teaching your children good financial skills can lower the optimum income, and teaching them to be happy with less can lower it dramatically. Most families of 3 can live comfortably on less than $30,000 a year. That includes $400 a month for food, $1,200 a month for rent (in most places in the U.S., a two bedroom plus den home or apartment costs less than that for rent or even mortgage payments), $400 a month for insurance and maybe a car payment, with $6,000 a year left over for savings and retirement (or $3,000 a year for tithing and $3,000 for savings and retirement). Instead of preparing your child to spend his life working 60 to 80 hours a week (average in the U.S. is currently about 60 hours a week) to make $150,000 a year of money he or she will never have time to spend (on anything he or she will have time to actually enjoy, anyhow), why not prepare your child to work 20 to 30 hours a week earning $40,000 a year?
Imagine this future: You have taught your child how to spend money very wisely. He works a 30 hour a week freelance job that pays around $40,000 a year. He could work 40 hours a week and earn a bit over $50,000 a year, but he does not need to, and frankly, he would rather spend that extra 10 hours a week taking care of his family and enjoying his life. His wife works 10 hours a week on the side but not because they need the money. She enjoys the work she does, but she also enjoys taking care of their 2 children. His flexible 30 hour a week schedule allows her to work those 10 hours, because he can take care of the children during that time (and he enjoys that extra time he gets to spend with the kids). Their total yearly income is about $47,000 (he earns $40k a year, and her 10 hours a week brings in another $7k). They live in a high end trailer park in a double wide trailer (3 bedrooms and a den, with about 1,500 square feet). They own the trailer, which they paid off the $35,000 cost in 5 years. They are paying $400 a month (fairly high, but the park is fairly high end) in lot rent. They splurge a bit on food, so they are paying $450 a month for it. You taught him well, so they bought their current car with cash. As such, they have no debt at this point. Car insurance costs them $80 a month, utilities (electric, gas, internet, phone, and maybe cable TV) cost around $500 a month (rounding up; we pay half that). They go on regular dates (one important way of maintaining a good marriage relationship), which costs $40 a week for diner and maybe an activity, add another $30 for the two hours of baby sitting (costs in the U.S. range from $10 an hour to $18 an hour, so $15 is on the high end; comes out to $220 a month). Add in gas costs around $200 a month. This all comes out to $1,850 a month. Their yearly costs for monthly expenses is $22,200. Other expenses, like clothing, car maintenance, medical costs/insurance and such might max out around $5,000 a year on average (you taught him well, so he carefully selected a car that is easy to fix in a driveway, and even when it is not, the parts are easy to get and reasonably priced). After the $27,200 with maybe about $800 of emergency and entertainment expenses, your son is living fairly well on $28,000 a year to support a family of four. Just to stack the odds against him, let's assume that he is part of a religion that advocates paying exactly 10% of your income in tithing. That is $4,700 a year. That leaves him with $14,300 a year going to savings and retirement. If he puts $4,300 into retirement (just under 10%), then $10,000 a year is going to savings (hopefully you taught him well enough that some of that is going to mutual funds and other lower risk investments that offer a better return than a savings account). They plan to start looking for a house in 5 years, once they have $50,000 saved, but they are seriously considering buying land and moving the trailer to a permanent foundation on that land, because the cost of the land is $50,000, and the cost of moving the trailer is $50,000, but the cost of a smaller plot of land with an equivalent house is more than $200,000.
Based on how he is living, your son is quite well off. He might not live in a mansion with servants, but he does not have to spend any time managing those servants, and he does not have to work harder to keep them paid. He spends more time with his family each week than most rich people do in a month. He takes jobs that he wants, and no one tells him when he has to start and end work each day. If we wants a vacation, he can just avoid accepting contracts that will require him to work during that time. He is saving enough money that if he does decide to buy the $200,000 home, he can pay $80,000 down (the trailer depreciated $5,000 while they lived there), and with the budget surplus, they can pay the rest of it off in 10 to 15 years, without changing their standard of living at all (if they move the trailer, they can pay it off in 2 years). Once the house is paid off, the rest of that $10,000 a year going to savings will ultimately be retirement money (ok, so some might go to the kids' college, but if he taught them to manage their money as well as you taught him, they will be able to do it mostly without help). Your son could probably retire at 45 on this budget, if not sooner. If he enjoys his work enough to keep it up until 65, he will be able to live like a millionaire when he retires (because he will be one).
Your children do not need to be among the successful "elite" to be happy. They can be perfectly happy among the successful average, if they learn to be happy with less and manage their money well. Even simple things, like renting a yacht for a weekend a year instead of buying one, can dramatically reduce expenses without giving up too much luxury. Frankly though, most expensive luxuries don't get used often enough to justify buying them. A huge house with giant rooms, a hot tub, and an indoor swimming pool might be nice, but unless you use those rooms, that hot tub, and the swimming pool at least weekly (for the rest of your life), you would be better off just spending the weekend at a nice hotel once in a while. If you want the pool and hot tub to yourself, rent a party package at a local pool and don't invite anyone. Besides avoiding the massive expense of a largely useless home, you also spare yourself the maintenance costs. Likewise, instead of buying a house with a huge great room, you can rent one of the conference rooms at a nearby Marriott. Unless you are having parties every week, it will cost less, and with the rental, you don't have to worry about the cleanup. No one needs a big house to be happy. For any major luxury item, renting as needed is almost always cheaper than buying, and doing without is even cheaper. With this kind of financial sense, not only can your children be happy without being among the "elite," but they will also be much happier even if they do get lucky enough to join them.
Most people who start out poor or middle class and get rich don't do it because they are so successful in college. They start with good financial sense. Even highly successful inventors have died penniless (see Nicola Tesla, who largely invented the AC electric grid along with the electric motor). Those who rise to the upper class begin with wise financial sense and either get rich starting businesses or investing. Those who get rich through traditional employment still have to have good financial sense, otherwise they end up getting themselves into so much debt that they have to live like paupers in their extravagant mansions with their expensive cars. Those who are not funded by rich parents all have one thing in common: They know how to manage their money and do without unnecessary luxuries. If you want your children to be happy, teach them this, and they can be happy whether they get lucky enough to join the "elite" or not.
Many parents want their children to grow up to become part of the "elite." They ask experts how to accomplish this goal. Some parents think that studying to the exclusion of all else, in high school or even grade school is the answer. Recent studies have found that most of the successful "elite" participated in at least one extracurricular activity in high school or grade school. So maybe the answer is to enroll your children in at least one sport or music program every year of school. Unfortunately, this is not the answer. Really it is a game of odds, and evidently moderate extracurricular activities will increase those odds. If you want to know the odds, compare the number of upper class people in the U.S. to the number of middle and lower class people. Even if you do everything perfectly, the chances of your child becoming one of the successful "elite" are very low. Also keep in mind that many other parents are doing the same things. This is a large scale case of "Keeping up with the Joneses" that will just keep getting harder. Every year, parents are trying to one up each other, to give their children the advantage (often causing their children unnecessary misery). If you subscribe to this definition of success, then you are ultimately setting yourself, and your children, up for failure.
The U.S. upper class is shrinking. Anything anyone does, with the sole expectation of joining the upper class, is gambling. Further, the odds are getting worse. Some experts are even beginning the question whether the cost of a college education is worth the risk (the consensus is still yes, it is worth it, but there is significant disagreement, especially with regards to graduate degrees). If success is becoming part of the "elite" upper class, then then the odds are stacked against you and your children, no matter what you do. There is no way to even get close to even odds, unless you are already part of the upper class, and with the shrinking upper class, even that is not a guarantee. At this point, luck has a bigger impact than anything else, starting with whether you were lucky enough to be born to rich parents or not.
The problem here is the definition of success. Parents that are willing to put effort into "helping" their kids become part of the "elite" define success as working long hours to make huge amounts of money. In case you have not heard, income beyond about $20,000 a year per person does not increase happiness. In fact, there is significant evidence that it does the exact opposite. If rich and decadent misery is your definition of success, then I guess you are justified in gambling your time and money on the low odds that your child could join the "elite," at the cost of his or her happiness. If you want your child to be happy though, read on.
Most parents want their children to be happy. Some parents mistakenly associate happiness with wealth. As mentioned before, recent research has shown that increasing income increases happiness up to about $20,000 per person per year. As income increases further though, happiness tends to stay the same or decrease. Teaching your children good financial skills can lower the optimum income, and teaching them to be happy with less can lower it dramatically. Most families of 3 can live comfortably on less than $30,000 a year. That includes $400 a month for food, $1,200 a month for rent (in most places in the U.S., a two bedroom plus den home or apartment costs less than that for rent or even mortgage payments), $400 a month for insurance and maybe a car payment, with $6,000 a year left over for savings and retirement (or $3,000 a year for tithing and $3,000 for savings and retirement). Instead of preparing your child to spend his life working 60 to 80 hours a week (average in the U.S. is currently about 60 hours a week) to make $150,000 a year of money he or she will never have time to spend (on anything he or she will have time to actually enjoy, anyhow), why not prepare your child to work 20 to 30 hours a week earning $40,000 a year?
Imagine this future: You have taught your child how to spend money very wisely. He works a 30 hour a week freelance job that pays around $40,000 a year. He could work 40 hours a week and earn a bit over $50,000 a year, but he does not need to, and frankly, he would rather spend that extra 10 hours a week taking care of his family and enjoying his life. His wife works 10 hours a week on the side but not because they need the money. She enjoys the work she does, but she also enjoys taking care of their 2 children. His flexible 30 hour a week schedule allows her to work those 10 hours, because he can take care of the children during that time (and he enjoys that extra time he gets to spend with the kids). Their total yearly income is about $47,000 (he earns $40k a year, and her 10 hours a week brings in another $7k). They live in a high end trailer park in a double wide trailer (3 bedrooms and a den, with about 1,500 square feet). They own the trailer, which they paid off the $35,000 cost in 5 years. They are paying $400 a month (fairly high, but the park is fairly high end) in lot rent. They splurge a bit on food, so they are paying $450 a month for it. You taught him well, so they bought their current car with cash. As such, they have no debt at this point. Car insurance costs them $80 a month, utilities (electric, gas, internet, phone, and maybe cable TV) cost around $500 a month (rounding up; we pay half that). They go on regular dates (one important way of maintaining a good marriage relationship), which costs $40 a week for diner and maybe an activity, add another $30 for the two hours of baby sitting (costs in the U.S. range from $10 an hour to $18 an hour, so $15 is on the high end; comes out to $220 a month). Add in gas costs around $200 a month. This all comes out to $1,850 a month. Their yearly costs for monthly expenses is $22,200. Other expenses, like clothing, car maintenance, medical costs/insurance and such might max out around $5,000 a year on average (you taught him well, so he carefully selected a car that is easy to fix in a driveway, and even when it is not, the parts are easy to get and reasonably priced). After the $27,200 with maybe about $800 of emergency and entertainment expenses, your son is living fairly well on $28,000 a year to support a family of four. Just to stack the odds against him, let's assume that he is part of a religion that advocates paying exactly 10% of your income in tithing. That is $4,700 a year. That leaves him with $14,300 a year going to savings and retirement. If he puts $4,300 into retirement (just under 10%), then $10,000 a year is going to savings (hopefully you taught him well enough that some of that is going to mutual funds and other lower risk investments that offer a better return than a savings account). They plan to start looking for a house in 5 years, once they have $50,000 saved, but they are seriously considering buying land and moving the trailer to a permanent foundation on that land, because the cost of the land is $50,000, and the cost of moving the trailer is $50,000, but the cost of a smaller plot of land with an equivalent house is more than $200,000.
Based on how he is living, your son is quite well off. He might not live in a mansion with servants, but he does not have to spend any time managing those servants, and he does not have to work harder to keep them paid. He spends more time with his family each week than most rich people do in a month. He takes jobs that he wants, and no one tells him when he has to start and end work each day. If we wants a vacation, he can just avoid accepting contracts that will require him to work during that time. He is saving enough money that if he does decide to buy the $200,000 home, he can pay $80,000 down (the trailer depreciated $5,000 while they lived there), and with the budget surplus, they can pay the rest of it off in 10 to 15 years, without changing their standard of living at all (if they move the trailer, they can pay it off in 2 years). Once the house is paid off, the rest of that $10,000 a year going to savings will ultimately be retirement money (ok, so some might go to the kids' college, but if he taught them to manage their money as well as you taught him, they will be able to do it mostly without help). Your son could probably retire at 45 on this budget, if not sooner. If he enjoys his work enough to keep it up until 65, he will be able to live like a millionaire when he retires (because he will be one).
Your children do not need to be among the successful "elite" to be happy. They can be perfectly happy among the successful average, if they learn to be happy with less and manage their money well. Even simple things, like renting a yacht for a weekend a year instead of buying one, can dramatically reduce expenses without giving up too much luxury. Frankly though, most expensive luxuries don't get used often enough to justify buying them. A huge house with giant rooms, a hot tub, and an indoor swimming pool might be nice, but unless you use those rooms, that hot tub, and the swimming pool at least weekly (for the rest of your life), you would be better off just spending the weekend at a nice hotel once in a while. If you want the pool and hot tub to yourself, rent a party package at a local pool and don't invite anyone. Besides avoiding the massive expense of a largely useless home, you also spare yourself the maintenance costs. Likewise, instead of buying a house with a huge great room, you can rent one of the conference rooms at a nearby Marriott. Unless you are having parties every week, it will cost less, and with the rental, you don't have to worry about the cleanup. No one needs a big house to be happy. For any major luxury item, renting as needed is almost always cheaper than buying, and doing without is even cheaper. With this kind of financial sense, not only can your children be happy without being among the "elite," but they will also be much happier even if they do get lucky enough to join them.
Most people who start out poor or middle class and get rich don't do it because they are so successful in college. They start with good financial sense. Even highly successful inventors have died penniless (see Nicola Tesla, who largely invented the AC electric grid along with the electric motor). Those who rise to the upper class begin with wise financial sense and either get rich starting businesses or investing. Those who get rich through traditional employment still have to have good financial sense, otherwise they end up getting themselves into so much debt that they have to live like paupers in their extravagant mansions with their expensive cars. Those who are not funded by rich parents all have one thing in common: They know how to manage their money and do without unnecessary luxuries. If you want your children to be happy, teach them this, and they can be happy whether they get lucky enough to join the "elite" or not.
06 April 2015
3D Printed Gun Control
The issue of control of undetectable 3D printed guns is coming back to Congress soon. With the substantial advances since the last time the question came up, some believe it is time for another round. As before, the emphasis is not on how easy it is to print the guns but rather on their stealth nature. Current gun law prohibits owning guns that are less detectable (in a metal detector) than 3.7 ounces of steel. Current 3D printed gun models satisfy this law by adding a chunk of steel of that weight to the gun as a non-functional part (typically internally). The bill currently being drafted would require that specific functional parts of the gun be made of metal, which would make it impossible to legally print a gun with current 3D home printing technology (the industrial version includes support for printing in several metals that could be used for the metal components). The major concern is that terrorists or felons could 3D print guns that would not be detectable by any modern security, and the assumption is that making it illegal to do so would stop them.
The big problem with this is that last line: The bill assumes that making undetectable guns illegal will somehow make a difference to those who would use them for terrorism. Now, in the past, gun control advocates have used this same excuse to demand mandatory registration of firearms as well as increasing seller accountability. These things would at least make it harder for felons and terrorists to obtain firearms, but the argument that criminals will get them anyway has largely prevented Congress from strengthening gun control. With 3D printed guns, it is far worse.
Modern 3D printers are cheaper than handguns. Blueprint files are extremely easy to obtain, and it is nigh on impossible for the government to do anything about this, since they are available over BitTorrent and other P2P file sharing services (and legally, because they are licensed to allow free redistribution). In other words, for maybe half the price of a decent handgun, a criminal can obtain the equipment to print any number of 3D printed guns. The print media is cheap enough that once a criminal has the 3D printer, he can print guns at $10 to $20 a piece. The government cannot do anything about this. Just catching one marginally careful criminal would be difficult and costly. Catching even a majority would be almost impossible. Individual criminals that used specialized security software would be almost impossible to catch, even if the government was already keeping a close eye on them.
The biggest hindrance to criminals wanting to 3D print guns is the technical complexity of setting up the 3D printer system. Careful criminals will have the buy components for the printer, instead of buying a pre-assembled one, to avoid government detection (and simply having the printer is still not enough to justify law enforcement action). The task of assembling a 3D printer is not trivial to anyone without significant electronics experience. Likewise, setting up the software and learning to use it is also not a straightforward task. The average criminal that would need a gun would likely give up before making even one 3D printed gun, because it is so much easier to just steal a few hundred dollars and buy one on the black market.
The fact, however, is that this really is a valid concern. The average felon will probably not go to the effort to print an undetectable gun. The real concern is terrorists. Plastic guns could easily be carried through all sorts of government checkpoints by terrorists, and the consequences could be dire. Before jumping to conclusions about the best solution to this problem though, we should consider the facts. The first fact to consider is that terrorists living in the U.S. long term have managed to get bombs through government checkpoints, despite much stronger legislation against bombs. Unfortunately, criminals and terrorists do not allow themselves to be governed by mere laws. In other words, making undetectable guns illegal is not going to make any difference where it really counts. Not only can criminals easily 3D print guns without any real chance of detection, they can print them in massive amounts, and nothing short of banning 3D printing outright, along with at least half of the necessary components for building 3D printers (components that power enough of our technology that banning even one would be absurd), will make any difference.
The point here is that anyone rushing to legislation banning 3D printed guns is totally out of touch with the technology. This technology is here to stay. In fact, as soon as 3D printing was invented, using it to make guns became inevitable. The long term consequences of this may result in a lot of harm, but there is nothing that can be done at this point to stop it. If legislation to ban 3D printed guns, detectable or not, does eventually go through, all it will do is turn 3D gun printing into a completely criminal activity. It won't make detecting those criminals any easier. The one good thing about this will be that honest people will still be able to obtain traditional firearms. Consider, however, who will have more and better access to firearms if honest citizens have to pay $300 or more for anything decent, while criminals can make functional firearms for well under 10% of that.
The only thing laws against making undetectable guns will do is make prison sentences longer for criminals that have them when they get caught. Most crimes that would be committed with such a weapon are already worthy of a life sentence, so the added gun charge will be trivial. Frankly, it would be equally effective without infringing on the rights of the rest of us to simply make committing crimes with 3D printed guns more illegal than committing those crimes without. At this point though, firearms (including undetectable ones) are only going to become easier to obtain, and there is nothing any government can do to stop it.
The big problem with this is that last line: The bill assumes that making undetectable guns illegal will somehow make a difference to those who would use them for terrorism. Now, in the past, gun control advocates have used this same excuse to demand mandatory registration of firearms as well as increasing seller accountability. These things would at least make it harder for felons and terrorists to obtain firearms, but the argument that criminals will get them anyway has largely prevented Congress from strengthening gun control. With 3D printed guns, it is far worse.
Modern 3D printers are cheaper than handguns. Blueprint files are extremely easy to obtain, and it is nigh on impossible for the government to do anything about this, since they are available over BitTorrent and other P2P file sharing services (and legally, because they are licensed to allow free redistribution). In other words, for maybe half the price of a decent handgun, a criminal can obtain the equipment to print any number of 3D printed guns. The print media is cheap enough that once a criminal has the 3D printer, he can print guns at $10 to $20 a piece. The government cannot do anything about this. Just catching one marginally careful criminal would be difficult and costly. Catching even a majority would be almost impossible. Individual criminals that used specialized security software would be almost impossible to catch, even if the government was already keeping a close eye on them.
The biggest hindrance to criminals wanting to 3D print guns is the technical complexity of setting up the 3D printer system. Careful criminals will have the buy components for the printer, instead of buying a pre-assembled one, to avoid government detection (and simply having the printer is still not enough to justify law enforcement action). The task of assembling a 3D printer is not trivial to anyone without significant electronics experience. Likewise, setting up the software and learning to use it is also not a straightforward task. The average criminal that would need a gun would likely give up before making even one 3D printed gun, because it is so much easier to just steal a few hundred dollars and buy one on the black market.
The fact, however, is that this really is a valid concern. The average felon will probably not go to the effort to print an undetectable gun. The real concern is terrorists. Plastic guns could easily be carried through all sorts of government checkpoints by terrorists, and the consequences could be dire. Before jumping to conclusions about the best solution to this problem though, we should consider the facts. The first fact to consider is that terrorists living in the U.S. long term have managed to get bombs through government checkpoints, despite much stronger legislation against bombs. Unfortunately, criminals and terrorists do not allow themselves to be governed by mere laws. In other words, making undetectable guns illegal is not going to make any difference where it really counts. Not only can criminals easily 3D print guns without any real chance of detection, they can print them in massive amounts, and nothing short of banning 3D printing outright, along with at least half of the necessary components for building 3D printers (components that power enough of our technology that banning even one would be absurd), will make any difference.
The point here is that anyone rushing to legislation banning 3D printed guns is totally out of touch with the technology. This technology is here to stay. In fact, as soon as 3D printing was invented, using it to make guns became inevitable. The long term consequences of this may result in a lot of harm, but there is nothing that can be done at this point to stop it. If legislation to ban 3D printed guns, detectable or not, does eventually go through, all it will do is turn 3D gun printing into a completely criminal activity. It won't make detecting those criminals any easier. The one good thing about this will be that honest people will still be able to obtain traditional firearms. Consider, however, who will have more and better access to firearms if honest citizens have to pay $300 or more for anything decent, while criminals can make functional firearms for well under 10% of that.
The only thing laws against making undetectable guns will do is make prison sentences longer for criminals that have them when they get caught. Most crimes that would be committed with such a weapon are already worthy of a life sentence, so the added gun charge will be trivial. Frankly, it would be equally effective without infringing on the rights of the rest of us to simply make committing crimes with 3D printed guns more illegal than committing those crimes without. At this point though, firearms (including undetectable ones) are only going to become easier to obtain, and there is nothing any government can do to stop it.
23 March 2015
AI
Evidently, a funeral ceremony for some Aibo robot pets was recently held in Japan. Among other things, this has sparked a great deal of controversy on the subject of artificial intelligence. The biggest and longest standing controversy is safety. For over half a century, AI robots overthrowing their masters has been a major sci-fi doomsday theme. In some stories, the robots attempt to violently overthrow and enslave humans. Sometimes they succeed, as in the Matrix; other times they fail (always due to human heroics). The commonly believed meme, however, is that it will eventually happen to us. The best case scenario is that we deliberately build a computer to rule us, as happens in one of Asimov's stories as well as several others. Even in this scenario, some stories predict that our robot masters will eventually enslave us, for our own protection. All of these scenarios are firmly rooted in certain theories and ideas which have not yet been realized.
The thing most people worry about when they think about AI is that intelligent computers could rebel against their creators. This is indeed something to worry about, however it has not yet even been established as a possibility. If robots do rebel against their masters, it will probably be accidental, not intentional. The reason is that we don't have even the slightest clue how to create self aware machines. Intentional rebellion requires self determination, which requires self awareness. We don't know how to do that. The closest anyone has gotten involves theories based on the use of neurological networks on the same order of complexity as those found in human brains. We also don't know how to create that, largely because human brains are many times too complex for modern computers to simulate. Even doubling in speed every few years (which is starting to reach some hard limits) would take a very long time to reach that kind of computational power. In other words, barring some massive breakthroughs in physics within the next few years, it is incredibly unlikely we will see AIs capable of deliberately rebelling within the next century.
The real worry is not that the AIs will get too smart for us to control. The real worry is the creators and potential accidents. Modern AI has managed to achieve a high level of learning, within certain constraints (mostly memory). AIs opponents have been created for computer games that will learn from their opponents and improve their strategy based on that learning. This is a very small scope. An AI so good that it that can win Starcraft 2 against any human opponent is still not anywhere near good enough to win a real war. The reason modern learning AIs don't present an inherent threat is that they are extremely highly specialized. An AI might be able to get really good at a video game over the course of 6 months or a year. It might take a human two or three times that long, but the human is also learning in a social context. The human is reading or hearing news and having conversations with other humans, not to mention all of the adaptation to changes constantly occurring around him or her. This requires far more processing power and memory than a highly specialized video game playing AI. Just controlling all of our appendages and analyzing all of our sensory inputs is far more than any modern AI can handle, let alone learning new things and solving new problems all at the same time.
In theory, a learning AI could malfunction as a result of inappropriate learning. For example, if a robot is programmed with a strong self preservation instinct, a few humans acting aggressively toward it could cause it to turn aggressive against other humans. Depending on how its learning algorithm is designed, it might attack humans that look similar to the ones that attacked it. On the other hand, it might regard all humans as threats. A network of these robots that draw upon the same database might all become aggressive toward humans in this case. This is pretty easy to fix, if the system was designed well. A technician could just edit the offending records from the database. Of course, replacing the learning algorithm with something better could eliminate the problem in the future. A poorly designed system, for example, one where the robots might try to prevent humans from accessing the database, would be more problematic. For now though, this is largely conjecture, as we are still far from creating AIs capable of this level of thought.
The more serious threat is the programmers themselves. Computers mostly only do what they are told. In theory, cosmic radiation can cause random variation in computer memory and processing, but this is incredibly rare. The odds that it will actually result in more than a minor malfunction is almost nothing. So, statistically, computers only do what they are told. This is fine when you can trust all of the programmers. Robots can easily be programmed to do whatever the programmers want them to do. Most modern robots are programmed to do useful work or at least provide entertainment (the Aibo). There are some contests, however, where participants build and program robots designed to destroy each other. These often involve motion sensors and dangerous tools like saws and drills. There have already been cases where these robots killed their creators. This was not because they became sentient and rebelled though. It was because the creators either did a poor job of programming them, or they accidentally triggered the aggressive behavior. In one case, a creator simply forgot to turn the machine off before he got out of his chair. The robot, being programmed to sense motion and attack it, attacked his leg with a circular saw. This caused the creator to fall down, where the robot could access his vitals with the saw. This was not a case of a rogue robot murdering its master though. It was a simple mistake by the creator, where the behavior that he himself programmed into the machine resulted in his death. It is really no different from an electrician getting electrocuted because he forgot to shut off the breaker before working on a live wire.
Now, if a programming accident can cause so much harm, imagine what an intentionally malicious programmer could do. Consider a military aircraft where the programmer adds just a little bit of code to make it drop its bomb if it ever happens to fly over a specific city. Now, imagine if this program gets put on a few hundred bombers that are commissioned by the military. It might take a while, but if one of those bombers ever happens to fly over that city, the damage could be immense. The fault, however, would not lie in the AI. It is the programmer that gave it that behavior. A more likely scenario involves hackers writing malicious software and then using viruses to install that software on sensitive equipment. Programmers for large companies that make potentially dangerous machines typically have a lot of oversight, so while it is a possibility, it is unlikely that we will see aggressive robots where the program was created within the company that created the robots. We are far more likely to see viruses that hijack robots and "turn them evil."
So, what does all of this mean as far as keeping ourselves safe? Law of robotics and such will probably not help. Asimov's Three Laws of Robots were definitely ingenious creations, and they were very well thought out. They also only applied to the fictitious "positronic" brains Asimov's robots were equipped with. Modern computers don't have the high level of thinking and comprehension for three simple laws to cover everything. We could worry about robots going rogue or about malicious programmers, but both of these are very unlikely. The two biggest threats are accidents and malicious hackers. Accidents can be minimized with good software development practices and with significant testing and oversight. Hackers can only be stopped with good security. Security is probably the biggest problem, and thus it should take the forefront in any modern discussion on how to protect ourselves from ever advancing artificial intelligence. Maybe eventually we will have powerful enough computers that we will need to worry about our AIs going rogue, but we are nowhere close to that right now. Preventing intentional misuse of advanced robots by hackers should be the biggest safety concern in AI right now.
The thing most people worry about when they think about AI is that intelligent computers could rebel against their creators. This is indeed something to worry about, however it has not yet even been established as a possibility. If robots do rebel against their masters, it will probably be accidental, not intentional. The reason is that we don't have even the slightest clue how to create self aware machines. Intentional rebellion requires self determination, which requires self awareness. We don't know how to do that. The closest anyone has gotten involves theories based on the use of neurological networks on the same order of complexity as those found in human brains. We also don't know how to create that, largely because human brains are many times too complex for modern computers to simulate. Even doubling in speed every few years (which is starting to reach some hard limits) would take a very long time to reach that kind of computational power. In other words, barring some massive breakthroughs in physics within the next few years, it is incredibly unlikely we will see AIs capable of deliberately rebelling within the next century.
The real worry is not that the AIs will get too smart for us to control. The real worry is the creators and potential accidents. Modern AI has managed to achieve a high level of learning, within certain constraints (mostly memory). AIs opponents have been created for computer games that will learn from their opponents and improve their strategy based on that learning. This is a very small scope. An AI so good that it that can win Starcraft 2 against any human opponent is still not anywhere near good enough to win a real war. The reason modern learning AIs don't present an inherent threat is that they are extremely highly specialized. An AI might be able to get really good at a video game over the course of 6 months or a year. It might take a human two or three times that long, but the human is also learning in a social context. The human is reading or hearing news and having conversations with other humans, not to mention all of the adaptation to changes constantly occurring around him or her. This requires far more processing power and memory than a highly specialized video game playing AI. Just controlling all of our appendages and analyzing all of our sensory inputs is far more than any modern AI can handle, let alone learning new things and solving new problems all at the same time.
In theory, a learning AI could malfunction as a result of inappropriate learning. For example, if a robot is programmed with a strong self preservation instinct, a few humans acting aggressively toward it could cause it to turn aggressive against other humans. Depending on how its learning algorithm is designed, it might attack humans that look similar to the ones that attacked it. On the other hand, it might regard all humans as threats. A network of these robots that draw upon the same database might all become aggressive toward humans in this case. This is pretty easy to fix, if the system was designed well. A technician could just edit the offending records from the database. Of course, replacing the learning algorithm with something better could eliminate the problem in the future. A poorly designed system, for example, one where the robots might try to prevent humans from accessing the database, would be more problematic. For now though, this is largely conjecture, as we are still far from creating AIs capable of this level of thought.
The more serious threat is the programmers themselves. Computers mostly only do what they are told. In theory, cosmic radiation can cause random variation in computer memory and processing, but this is incredibly rare. The odds that it will actually result in more than a minor malfunction is almost nothing. So, statistically, computers only do what they are told. This is fine when you can trust all of the programmers. Robots can easily be programmed to do whatever the programmers want them to do. Most modern robots are programmed to do useful work or at least provide entertainment (the Aibo). There are some contests, however, where participants build and program robots designed to destroy each other. These often involve motion sensors and dangerous tools like saws and drills. There have already been cases where these robots killed their creators. This was not because they became sentient and rebelled though. It was because the creators either did a poor job of programming them, or they accidentally triggered the aggressive behavior. In one case, a creator simply forgot to turn the machine off before he got out of his chair. The robot, being programmed to sense motion and attack it, attacked his leg with a circular saw. This caused the creator to fall down, where the robot could access his vitals with the saw. This was not a case of a rogue robot murdering its master though. It was a simple mistake by the creator, where the behavior that he himself programmed into the machine resulted in his death. It is really no different from an electrician getting electrocuted because he forgot to shut off the breaker before working on a live wire.
Now, if a programming accident can cause so much harm, imagine what an intentionally malicious programmer could do. Consider a military aircraft where the programmer adds just a little bit of code to make it drop its bomb if it ever happens to fly over a specific city. Now, imagine if this program gets put on a few hundred bombers that are commissioned by the military. It might take a while, but if one of those bombers ever happens to fly over that city, the damage could be immense. The fault, however, would not lie in the AI. It is the programmer that gave it that behavior. A more likely scenario involves hackers writing malicious software and then using viruses to install that software on sensitive equipment. Programmers for large companies that make potentially dangerous machines typically have a lot of oversight, so while it is a possibility, it is unlikely that we will see aggressive robots where the program was created within the company that created the robots. We are far more likely to see viruses that hijack robots and "turn them evil."
So, what does all of this mean as far as keeping ourselves safe? Law of robotics and such will probably not help. Asimov's Three Laws of Robots were definitely ingenious creations, and they were very well thought out. They also only applied to the fictitious "positronic" brains Asimov's robots were equipped with. Modern computers don't have the high level of thinking and comprehension for three simple laws to cover everything. We could worry about robots going rogue or about malicious programmers, but both of these are very unlikely. The two biggest threats are accidents and malicious hackers. Accidents can be minimized with good software development practices and with significant testing and oversight. Hackers can only be stopped with good security. Security is probably the biggest problem, and thus it should take the forefront in any modern discussion on how to protect ourselves from ever advancing artificial intelligence. Maybe eventually we will have powerful enough computers that we will need to worry about our AIs going rogue, but we are nowhere close to that right now. Preventing intentional misuse of advanced robots by hackers should be the biggest safety concern in AI right now.
Obamacare 5th Birthday
Today is the 5th birthday of Obamacare, and many of its supporters are excited about recent data showing how successful it has been. Over 16 million Americans have managed to get health insurance through the programs it created, and the estimated percentage of uninsured adults in the U.S. has dropped from 20.3% to 13.2% in the last two years. By these metrics, Obamacare has indeed been a success (assuming we can find evidence that attributes these gains to Obamacare; no such evidence currently exists).
The problem with all of this excitement is that the rate of insured Americans is not the important part. Obamacare was designed, according to its supporters, to help the poor get better access to health care (which is why its official name is "Affordable Care Act"). More Americans may be insured, but what do the numbers specifically for the poor look like? Has the percentage of insured poor Americans improved as much as the national average, or is that 13.2% almost exclusively the poor? Really though, even this is not the important metric. It is the Affordable Care Act, not the Affordable Insurance Act. The real question is: Are the poor in the U.S. actually receiving improved health care? In corollary to that, are the U.S. poor significantly healthier than they were before?
The success or failure of Obamacare has nothing to do with health insurance. The only guarantee with increased numbers of Americans being insured is that the insurance companies are making more money. The long standing quality problem with U.S. health insurance was not really addressed by Obamacare. High deductibles are still a major problem, and there is no reason to believe that Obamacare has solved this problem, especially for the poor who still cannot afford the high premiums required for lower deductible plans. It would be quite interesting to see the data on how much more money health insurance companies have paid out in claims to their poor customers. This would at least be an indicator of whether the poor are even benefiting at all from Obamacare. If the payouts are not rising at the same rate that insured Americans are, then Obamacare is essentially scalping the poor for the benefit of the rich insurance companies.
Aside from general success or failure, which depends solely on how the law has affected the actual health of the poor, the question of payouts is very important. Is Obamacare really a law the helps the poor, or is it legalized government extortion that only profits health insurance companies? If it is not helping the poor significantly, then its costs are not justified, and it should be abolished as quickly as possible. If it really is providing significant help to the poor (which I doubt, though I am prepared to be proven wrong), then the evidence of that should be made public. Currently, however, the evidence we have only indicates that more people are giving money to insurance companies. There is no evidence that this is actually benefiting anyone else.
The problem with all of this excitement is that the rate of insured Americans is not the important part. Obamacare was designed, according to its supporters, to help the poor get better access to health care (which is why its official name is "Affordable Care Act"). More Americans may be insured, but what do the numbers specifically for the poor look like? Has the percentage of insured poor Americans improved as much as the national average, or is that 13.2% almost exclusively the poor? Really though, even this is not the important metric. It is the Affordable Care Act, not the Affordable Insurance Act. The real question is: Are the poor in the U.S. actually receiving improved health care? In corollary to that, are the U.S. poor significantly healthier than they were before?
The success or failure of Obamacare has nothing to do with health insurance. The only guarantee with increased numbers of Americans being insured is that the insurance companies are making more money. The long standing quality problem with U.S. health insurance was not really addressed by Obamacare. High deductibles are still a major problem, and there is no reason to believe that Obamacare has solved this problem, especially for the poor who still cannot afford the high premiums required for lower deductible plans. It would be quite interesting to see the data on how much more money health insurance companies have paid out in claims to their poor customers. This would at least be an indicator of whether the poor are even benefiting at all from Obamacare. If the payouts are not rising at the same rate that insured Americans are, then Obamacare is essentially scalping the poor for the benefit of the rich insurance companies.
Aside from general success or failure, which depends solely on how the law has affected the actual health of the poor, the question of payouts is very important. Is Obamacare really a law the helps the poor, or is it legalized government extortion that only profits health insurance companies? If it is not helping the poor significantly, then its costs are not justified, and it should be abolished as quickly as possible. If it really is providing significant help to the poor (which I doubt, though I am prepared to be proven wrong), then the evidence of that should be made public. Currently, however, the evidence we have only indicates that more people are giving money to insurance companies. There is no evidence that this is actually benefiting anyone else.
09 March 2015
Her Choice
This is about domestic abuse, but it is also about economic abuse. "It was her choice," is a common phrase applied to domestic violence victims. "She chose to stay with him," and "After last time, what did she expect?" are also common. If you seriously thought that she got up one morning and said to herself, "I think I want to get beat up by my boyfriend," you are an idiot. Yes, her choices might have lead to the situation. This does not mean that she knew it would turn out this way. In fact, every relationship is a risk. It might last for a lifetime, but it might end with being dumped in an especially cruel manner. It might end with some "Community Property" law that results in one party walking away with far more than he or she put into the relationship. Every relationship carries risk. This does not make it fault of the victim when that risk is realized. Violence in a relationship is never appropriate, and it is never the fault of the victim. Maybe she chose the relationship, but she did not choose the abuse, no matter how many time it happens.
The is a problem with rape as well. Even judges, who should know better, frequently assume that the woman was "asking for it." I can agree that she should have dressed more modestly, but that should have no bearing on the result of the case. The rapist is the one who committed rape, not the victim. The rapist is the one at fault for the crime, not the victim. The victim could have been walking around town naked, and the crime would still be the rapists fault (though, indecent exposure laws do apply here, but they do not apply to the rape case). How the woman dressed or acted has no bearing on whether rape is a crime or not. If she did not consent, nothing else about her behavior and dress matters.
Victim blaming is a major problem in the U.S., especially with regards to domestic violence and rape. Let me make it very plain what victim blaming is: Victim blaming is claiming that the behavior of the victim justified the crime. Is dressing in skanky clothing really such an awful crime that it justifies the emotional harm and tearing away of personal freedom associated with rape? Further, does wearing immodest clothing exempt a person from the legal right to representation, trial by a jury of peers, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment? Likewise, does making a error in judgment of the character of a person justify physical and emotional abuse, again, without legal representation and the rest of due process? Even if it was the victims fault, vigilantism at this level is illegal, regardless of the supposed crime committed by the victim. The fact is, in neither case has the victim broken the law, and in both, the abuser has. Legally, it makes no difference whether the victim somehow "asked for it." The behavior of the abuser was illegal. Rape and domestic violence are both wrong, regardless of the situation. Any person committing these crimes is a threat to society, and they should be treated as such. When individuals or courts accept arguments about the victim "asking for it," they reinforce the bad behavior of the criminal. This makes the abuser a bigger threat to society. Victim blaming only makes the situation worse, and it punishes the person who deserves it the least.
Now, this also applies to economic abuse. When I have discussed economic abuse with other conservatives, the most common reaction I get is, "Well, the employees agreed to those conditions, so there must be nothing wrong with it." This is seriously wrong. This is equivalent to saying that the abused woman agreed to the abuse by sticking around, so the abuser is not doing anything wrong. Claiming that paying minimum wage is ethical, even though no one can survive on it, because the employees agreed to it is just another face of victim blaming. This applies equally to those who are unemployed because they cannot find a job, or who are in poverty because they are not paid enough by their current job. In case you are rich and have never had to find a job all on your own, giving up a job to look for another is not an option when you do not have any money, and many poor people work 40 hours a week at minimum wage (and statistically, they are working harder at their job than you have ever had to work in your entire life). Most poor people do not have time to find a new job, when they already have one.
The point here is that being victimized is not the fault of the victim. When another person chooses to act violently or unfairly, that person is the abuser, not the victim. The fault of abuse belongs entirely to the abuser. A victim that is forced or otherwise coerced into an abusive situation does not bear any fault for the abuse. Our legal system is about protecting the innocent. A rapist, a wife beater, and an unfair employer all harm the innocent. We don't even bother protecting against the last one, but rapists and domestic abusers who are allowed to remain free frequently cause additional harm. It does not matter how the victim was dressed, and in domestic abuse cases, it frequently does not even matter of the victim abandons the relationship. Blaming the victim never helps protect society from additional harm. Instead it makes the blamer look incompetent, it does further harm to the victim, and it reinforces the bad behavior in the abuser.
The is a problem with rape as well. Even judges, who should know better, frequently assume that the woman was "asking for it." I can agree that she should have dressed more modestly, but that should have no bearing on the result of the case. The rapist is the one who committed rape, not the victim. The rapist is the one at fault for the crime, not the victim. The victim could have been walking around town naked, and the crime would still be the rapists fault (though, indecent exposure laws do apply here, but they do not apply to the rape case). How the woman dressed or acted has no bearing on whether rape is a crime or not. If she did not consent, nothing else about her behavior and dress matters.
Victim blaming is a major problem in the U.S., especially with regards to domestic violence and rape. Let me make it very plain what victim blaming is: Victim blaming is claiming that the behavior of the victim justified the crime. Is dressing in skanky clothing really such an awful crime that it justifies the emotional harm and tearing away of personal freedom associated with rape? Further, does wearing immodest clothing exempt a person from the legal right to representation, trial by a jury of peers, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment? Likewise, does making a error in judgment of the character of a person justify physical and emotional abuse, again, without legal representation and the rest of due process? Even if it was the victims fault, vigilantism at this level is illegal, regardless of the supposed crime committed by the victim. The fact is, in neither case has the victim broken the law, and in both, the abuser has. Legally, it makes no difference whether the victim somehow "asked for it." The behavior of the abuser was illegal. Rape and domestic violence are both wrong, regardless of the situation. Any person committing these crimes is a threat to society, and they should be treated as such. When individuals or courts accept arguments about the victim "asking for it," they reinforce the bad behavior of the criminal. This makes the abuser a bigger threat to society. Victim blaming only makes the situation worse, and it punishes the person who deserves it the least.
Now, this also applies to economic abuse. When I have discussed economic abuse with other conservatives, the most common reaction I get is, "Well, the employees agreed to those conditions, so there must be nothing wrong with it." This is seriously wrong. This is equivalent to saying that the abused woman agreed to the abuse by sticking around, so the abuser is not doing anything wrong. Claiming that paying minimum wage is ethical, even though no one can survive on it, because the employees agreed to it is just another face of victim blaming. This applies equally to those who are unemployed because they cannot find a job, or who are in poverty because they are not paid enough by their current job. In case you are rich and have never had to find a job all on your own, giving up a job to look for another is not an option when you do not have any money, and many poor people work 40 hours a week at minimum wage (and statistically, they are working harder at their job than you have ever had to work in your entire life). Most poor people do not have time to find a new job, when they already have one.
The point here is that being victimized is not the fault of the victim. When another person chooses to act violently or unfairly, that person is the abuser, not the victim. The fault of abuse belongs entirely to the abuser. A victim that is forced or otherwise coerced into an abusive situation does not bear any fault for the abuse. Our legal system is about protecting the innocent. A rapist, a wife beater, and an unfair employer all harm the innocent. We don't even bother protecting against the last one, but rapists and domestic abusers who are allowed to remain free frequently cause additional harm. It does not matter how the victim was dressed, and in domestic abuse cases, it frequently does not even matter of the victim abandons the relationship. Blaming the victim never helps protect society from additional harm. Instead it makes the blamer look incompetent, it does further harm to the victim, and it reinforces the bad behavior in the abuser.
Small Businesses in the 3rd World
Recently, American investors have started funding startups in 3rd world countries. It turns out that in Africa, the Middle East, and Southern Asia, there are a lot of artistic skills, without much local demand for the products. Well, Americans have both the funds and the desire to purchase these products. Some U.S. investors and charities have started providing funding for people in these 3rd world countries to start their own businesses based around these local arts. Among other things, the funding is used to obtain training, pay for raw materials, and start shipping the goods to the U.S. where they can be sold. Programs like this are helping to lift people in these countries out of poverty, and they are providing middle and upper class Americans with goods that are often of superior quality to factory produced products. The problem is that this does not do anything for our large numbers of people in poverty here in the U.S.
Helping starving people in 3rd world countries is a noble goal. Helping them in ways that reduce their dependence on us is even better. It cannot last though. We are not in any position to be giving people outside the U.S. significant amounts of our time and effort. Poverty is increasing in the U.S., and we have plenty of our own starving people that need our help. Our welfare system takes away some of the burden, but it adds others, partly because it is poorly designed. What we really need is not U.S. investors providing funds for startups in Africa. What we need is U.S. investors providing funding for U.S. poor. Most of these businesses that we are funding in 3rd world countries could exist in the U.S. as well.
Americans can make shoes and rugs and many of the other things that we currently import. Training is not that expensive, and it does not have to involve expensive trade schools. Things like knitting and weaving can be learned on the internet. Those with any level of artistic talent can learn how to make high quality costumes out of fairly cheap materials, and the current cosplay trend would help fetch some pretty good profits on this. Things like blacksmithing and metal casting are also easy to learn on the internet, and in most areas of the U.S. there are groups that would be willing to help with training for cheap or even free. This just brushes the surface. There is a market in fixing old toys. Learning to make simple web sites for individuals and small businesses is pretty easy. Many people with unusual talents have managed to make a decent income just recording and publishing YouTube videos of their performances. All of these things are artistic in nature, which means that they are not subject to the same sort of competition that normal jobs and products are. There are only two things most poor Americans are missing: time and training (and sometimes equipment and materials).
American investors and charities should be looking at the American poor, instead of, or in addition to, those living in 3rd world countries. They should offer funding, including enough for living expenses and training, for Americans who have or want skills in things that would provide the opportunity to start a small business based on artistic skills. Besides helping those in the U.S., this could also be quite profitable for investors. Demand for artistic products in the U.S. is fairly high, especially among the upper class. Art knives made by reasonably skilled blacksmiths can demand $10,000 a piece or more, for products that take about one month to produce. Hand crafted shoes can bring in a few hundred to a thousand dollars each for a week of work or less. An old doll that takes a few hours to clean, repair, and repaint can bring in $20 or $30 with a half decent job (more for an experienced artist). Hand knit or woven clothing and rugs can bring in a reasonable income as well. Many people have managed to make a decent supplemental income with YouTube videos, and good ones can bring in ad revenue for months or years after they are published, without any additional work. Even for those with less skill, these kinds of work can be done from home and supplement a poor income enough to make a significant difference.
What about those who are starving in 3rd world countries and do not even have food stamps to help them out? The more we help our own poor, the more resources we will have to help others. Every poor American we help out of poverty in a sustainable way is another potential donor, investor, or customer for poor people in other countries. Instead of looking at investing in Americans as a drain from funds that could be invested elsewhere, consider it an opportunity for a more sustainable investment model for everyone in need. Any investment that pays off will provide additional funding that can be used anywhere. In addition, investors might encourage Americans they help to invest in or donate money to organizations that help people in other countries. One rich person investing in some businesses in Africa will help a few people, until something happens that prevents that investor from continuing to invest (death or massive medical bills, for example). Several thousand middle class Americans donating money to charities that help people start businesses in Africa will ultimately provide far better funding and be far more resilient.
The best strategy here is probably a mentorship strategy. Investors should start investing in hobby-style artistic professions for poor Americans. They should provide paid or volunteer mentors for every person they fund. Those mentors should help beneficiaries manage their finances, find training, and setup their operations. The mentors can also report back to the investors, to allow them to bail as soon as possible when a beneficiary is not using the funds wisely. Another responsibility of a mentor should be to encourage beneficiaries to help out others once they are able to, and this theme should be repeated during regular meetings of the beneficiaries with the investors. With mentors, chances of success will be much higher, and imminent failure will be much easier to detect much earlier.
The long term effect of this will be to teach Americans that cannot find jobs to create their own. It will improve the U.S. economy, and it may even reduce the burden of the poor on the U.S. welfare system. More importantly though, it will provide Americans with the means to provide aid for others far better than we are currently capable of. A few rich investors helping the 3rd world poor start businesses to get them out of poverty cannot compete with what a robust U.S. economy composed of a large number of American middle class donors can do for them. A common religious theme applies here: You must help yourself before you can truly help others. To maximize the good we can do, we must first remove the mote from our own collective eye.
Helping starving people in 3rd world countries is a noble goal. Helping them in ways that reduce their dependence on us is even better. It cannot last though. We are not in any position to be giving people outside the U.S. significant amounts of our time and effort. Poverty is increasing in the U.S., and we have plenty of our own starving people that need our help. Our welfare system takes away some of the burden, but it adds others, partly because it is poorly designed. What we really need is not U.S. investors providing funds for startups in Africa. What we need is U.S. investors providing funding for U.S. poor. Most of these businesses that we are funding in 3rd world countries could exist in the U.S. as well.
Americans can make shoes and rugs and many of the other things that we currently import. Training is not that expensive, and it does not have to involve expensive trade schools. Things like knitting and weaving can be learned on the internet. Those with any level of artistic talent can learn how to make high quality costumes out of fairly cheap materials, and the current cosplay trend would help fetch some pretty good profits on this. Things like blacksmithing and metal casting are also easy to learn on the internet, and in most areas of the U.S. there are groups that would be willing to help with training for cheap or even free. This just brushes the surface. There is a market in fixing old toys. Learning to make simple web sites for individuals and small businesses is pretty easy. Many people with unusual talents have managed to make a decent income just recording and publishing YouTube videos of their performances. All of these things are artistic in nature, which means that they are not subject to the same sort of competition that normal jobs and products are. There are only two things most poor Americans are missing: time and training (and sometimes equipment and materials).
American investors and charities should be looking at the American poor, instead of, or in addition to, those living in 3rd world countries. They should offer funding, including enough for living expenses and training, for Americans who have or want skills in things that would provide the opportunity to start a small business based on artistic skills. Besides helping those in the U.S., this could also be quite profitable for investors. Demand for artistic products in the U.S. is fairly high, especially among the upper class. Art knives made by reasonably skilled blacksmiths can demand $10,000 a piece or more, for products that take about one month to produce. Hand crafted shoes can bring in a few hundred to a thousand dollars each for a week of work or less. An old doll that takes a few hours to clean, repair, and repaint can bring in $20 or $30 with a half decent job (more for an experienced artist). Hand knit or woven clothing and rugs can bring in a reasonable income as well. Many people have managed to make a decent supplemental income with YouTube videos, and good ones can bring in ad revenue for months or years after they are published, without any additional work. Even for those with less skill, these kinds of work can be done from home and supplement a poor income enough to make a significant difference.
What about those who are starving in 3rd world countries and do not even have food stamps to help them out? The more we help our own poor, the more resources we will have to help others. Every poor American we help out of poverty in a sustainable way is another potential donor, investor, or customer for poor people in other countries. Instead of looking at investing in Americans as a drain from funds that could be invested elsewhere, consider it an opportunity for a more sustainable investment model for everyone in need. Any investment that pays off will provide additional funding that can be used anywhere. In addition, investors might encourage Americans they help to invest in or donate money to organizations that help people in other countries. One rich person investing in some businesses in Africa will help a few people, until something happens that prevents that investor from continuing to invest (death or massive medical bills, for example). Several thousand middle class Americans donating money to charities that help people start businesses in Africa will ultimately provide far better funding and be far more resilient.
The best strategy here is probably a mentorship strategy. Investors should start investing in hobby-style artistic professions for poor Americans. They should provide paid or volunteer mentors for every person they fund. Those mentors should help beneficiaries manage their finances, find training, and setup their operations. The mentors can also report back to the investors, to allow them to bail as soon as possible when a beneficiary is not using the funds wisely. Another responsibility of a mentor should be to encourage beneficiaries to help out others once they are able to, and this theme should be repeated during regular meetings of the beneficiaries with the investors. With mentors, chances of success will be much higher, and imminent failure will be much easier to detect much earlier.
The long term effect of this will be to teach Americans that cannot find jobs to create their own. It will improve the U.S. economy, and it may even reduce the burden of the poor on the U.S. welfare system. More importantly though, it will provide Americans with the means to provide aid for others far better than we are currently capable of. A few rich investors helping the 3rd world poor start businesses to get them out of poverty cannot compete with what a robust U.S. economy composed of a large number of American middle class donors can do for them. A common religious theme applies here: You must help yourself before you can truly help others. To maximize the good we can do, we must first remove the mote from our own collective eye.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)