Lorenzo Dow Turner taping informants in Africa. Turner set up his recording machine wherever he could.

Source: Lorenzo Dow Turner Papers, Anacostia Community Museum Archives, Smithsonian Institution.

]]> http://iwampum.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/ever-since-parallax/feed/ 0 rrachmat . http://iwampum.wordpress.com/2011/12/23/the-human-condition-compr/ http://iwampum.wordpress.com/2011/12/23/the-human-condition-compr/#comments Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:04:46 +0000 Rizqi Rachmat http://iwampum.wordpress.com/2011/12/23/the-human-condition-compr/ The human condition comprehends more than the conditions under which life has been given to man. Men are conditioned beings because everything they come in contact with turns immediately into a condition of their existence. The world in which the vita activa spends itself consists of things produced by human activities; but the things that owe their existence exclusively to men nevertheless constantly condition their human makers. In addition to the conditions under which life is given to man on earth, and partly out of them, men constantly create their own, self-made conditions, which, their human origin and their variability notwithstanding, possess the same conditioning power as natural things. Whatever touches or enters into a sustained relationship with human life immediately assumes the character of a condition of human existence. This is why men, no matter what they do, are always conditioned beings. Whatever enters the human world of its own accord or is drawn into it by human effort becomes part of the human condition. The impact of the world's reality upon human existence is felt and received as a conditioning force. The objectivity of the world- its object- or thing-character -and the human condition supplement each other; because human existence is conditional existence, it would be impossible without things, and things would be a heap of unrelated articles, a non-world, if they were not the conditioners of human existence. To avoid misunderstanding: the human condition is not the same as human nature, and the sum total of human activities and capabilities which correspond to the human condition does not constitute anything like human nature. For neither those that we discuss here nor those we leave out, like thought and reason, and not even the most meticulous enumeration of them all, constitute essential characteristics of human existence in the sense that without them this existence would no longer be human. The most radical change in the human condition we can imagine would be an emigration of men from the earth to some other planet... Yet even these hypothetical wanderers from the earth would still be human but the only statement we could make regarding their "nature" is that they still are conditioned beings, even though their condition is now self-made to a considerable extent. Hannah Arendt (1958) The Human Condition.(p.9)]]>

The human condition comprehends more than the conditions under which life has been given to man. Men are conditioned beings because everything they come in contact with turns immediately into a condition of their existence. The world in which the vita activa spends itself consists of things produced by human activities; but the things that owe their existence exclusively to men nevertheless constantly condition their human makers. In addition to the conditions under which life is given to man on earth, and partly out of them, men constantly create their own, self-made conditions, which, their human origin and their variability notwithstanding, possess the same conditioning power as natural things. Whatever touches or enters into a sustained relationship with human life immediately assumes the character of a condition of human existence. This is why men, no matter what they do, are always conditioned beings. Whatever enters the human world of its own accord or is drawn into it by human effort becomes part of the human condition. The impact of the world’s reality upon human existence is felt and received as a conditioning force. The objectivity of the world- its object- or thing-character -and the human condition supplement each other; because human existence is conditional existence, it would be impossible without things, and things would be a heap of unrelated articles, a non-world, if they were not the conditioners of human existence.

To avoid misunderstanding: the human condition is not the same as human nature, and the sum total of human activities and capabilities which correspond to the human condition does not constitute anything like human nature. For neither those that we discuss here nor those we leave out, like thought and reason, and not even the most meticulous enumeration of them all, constitute essential characteristics of human existence in the sense that without them this existence would no longer be human. The most radical change in the human condition we can imagine would be an emigration of men from the earth to some other planet…

Yet even these hypothetical wanderers from the earth would still be human but the only statement we could make regarding their “nature” is that they still are conditioned beings, even though their condition is now self-made to a considerable extent.

Hannah Arendt (1958), The Human Condition. (p.9)

Artwork by Alex Fischer

And Yemeni Mountiains.

Ah, life is a gate, a way, a path to Paradise anyway, why not live for fun and joy and love or some sort of girl by a fireside, why not go to your desire and LAUGH…

For a fraction of a second, as always seemed to be the case, I found myself divided between my two competing roles. I didn’t know whether to ask him for an interview or cross the avenue to express my unqualified admiration for him. But with either proposition, I faced the same great inconvenience. At the time, I spoke the same rudimentary English that I still speak now, and I wasn’t very sure about his bullfighter’s Spanish. And so I didn’t do either of the things that could have spoiled that moment, but instead cupped both hands over my mouth and, like Tarzan in the jungle, yelled from one sidewalk to the other: ”Maaaeeestro!” Ernest Hemingway understood that there could be no other master amid the multitude of students, and he turned, raised his hand and shouted to me in Castillian in a very childish voice, ”Adiooos, amigo!” It was the only time I saw him.

- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, 30 years ago, on seeing Ernest Hemingway in Paris

What is interesting in this presentation is each slide takes on an alternative hypothesis and offers evidence countering that hypothesis. To economists such as myself, this presents a very good challenge. What alternative evidence would I provide to show that it is “regime uncertainty”, or “hampering of the free market adjustment process through government regulations”, or “excessive government spending”, etc.?

What argument or evidence would persuade the author of the presentation to the opposite of his position on insufficient credit creation? What argument or evidence would persuade me that it is not government impediments to the market process?

-Peter J. Boettke, 2011

There is no substitute for truth, but certainly many ways to disguise it.

Everyday. I try to think of better ways to communicate my ideas. Thinking to myself  ”how can I make my arguments more convincing, than yesterday’s?”

The convincing arguments of today are not guaranteed to possess the same level of convincing power tomorrow. We cannot solely rely on the insights of those that come before us. And frankly, we cannot afford to ignore their ideas and methods as well.

Miyamoto Musashi, in the Book of Five Rings, explains that the Way of the warrior is resolute acceptance of death. I see Mushashi’s sentiment fitting to the way certain ideas and cultures of learning are adopted, advanced, and/or overlooked. Should intellectuals and public figures take up a similar strategy in how to further impact their communities of learning?

In a post, by the Ideas Matter Blog (by the Free to Choose Network) this aspect of possessing the willingness to accept the “Sisyphean” or tiresome road one must face in the world of ideas (especially having to do with economics) is expressed tastefully:

How do you explain to people that prosperity comes from people working and often cooperating to serve others? You have two award-winning economists – one with a Nobel Prize – and neither can figure out how to communicate effectively to the layman that wealth must be created through productive activity and exchange. Well, it’s not so much that they can’t communicate it effectively, it’s that the message doesn’t seem to get very far.

This is an uphill battle, one requiring constant attention. And in many respects it’s is the sort of thing that is supposed to be our job here at Free To Choose Network. But dispelling the zero-sum fallacy is not easy. Not only are you going against people’s intuitions on the matter, but against pervasive campaigns to perpetuate the fallacy. And while each new generation must learn it anew, they’re getting very little of the truth. So the job is Sisyphean.

I hope that the way of the scholar is nothing short of such resolute acceptance of the death of unproductive and ineffective ideas.

Source of Images: Anja Garbarek and Leanne Biank

In the course of our conversation, I raised a point that Don Lavoie used to make all the time:  much of Marx’s critique of capitalism is like a photographic negative of what he imagines the socialist world will look like.  In other words, the reason that exploitation and alienation areproblems of capitalism is that Marx can envision a world in which neither one exists.  Specifically, if the participatory but still unified planning of all economic activity (and the elimination of exchange/markets/prices/commodity production) is possible, we will eliminate alienation and exploitation.  The particulars of the argument aren’t that relevant here, but this is,in my view, a plausible reading of Marx. [Emphasis added]

Steven Horwitz, What you see depends on where you stand

Vanishing Point from Takuya Hosogane on Vimeo.

Foleyroom from StilikonDesign on Vimeo.

Exactly. To see if they get the concept, I ask my students: “Market failure” occurs when markets fail to do what? Answer: fail to achieve perfect efficiency, aka Pareto Optimality, aka Walrasian GE. By this definition, real-world markets always “fail.”

Lawrence H. White | August 29, 2011 at 09:43 PM

[Source: Artwork by Jack Addis ; Residual is sourced accordingly. This post is inspired by this man's story of seeing numbers as shapes and colors. I hope we continue to take the time to understand Walras and Pareto. And take just as much time to see Menger and Basquiat (yes, not Bastiat). SAMO Lives!]

The fiscal status of the U.S. is undeniably on a tight rope. Whether it’s high or low – the level of the U.S. debt ceiling and its recent raise, does nothing to effectively address the U.S. deficit (spending) problems that drive U.S. debt.

Only a few weeks ago key policy questions were focused on the deficit reduction packages for raising the debt ceiling. In my opinion, much of this discussion was focused more on the advantages of political ends, rather than economic ends (e.g. how will this really impact the deficit?). Now that Congress has raised the debt ceiling, the more relevant question is “what next?” What does Obama mean when he speaks of a ‘balanced budget’ approach? Will the Joint Selection Committee be effective at resolving our debt spending problem? Are tax cuts or spending increases a better recipe for reductions in debt to GDP ratio? I will, in a series of forthcoming posts, attempt to shed perspectives on these questions surrounding the U.S. deficit/debt problem.

Fortunately, the U.S. is not the first country to experience problems with deficits and debt; we can learn from history.  Alesina and Ardagna have collected data on episodes of large deficit reduction efforts in OECD countries from 1970 to 2007:

Source: Mercatus Center

They find that fiscal adjustments based on spending cuts and no tax increases are more likely to reduce deficits and debt over GDP ratios than those based upon tax increases. In addition, adjustments on the spending side rather than on the tax side are less likely to create recessions. They also note that fiscal stimuli based upon tax cuts are more likely to increase growth than those based upon spending increases.

Although there’s widespread evidence showing the actual impacts of various deficit reduction programs, the real U.S. deficit problem has less to do with whether we know what the policy solution is and more so whether there is sufficient political will to implement those solutions. Obama said it best in 2006:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills.

Without institutional reform, constitutional amendments constraining spending, or reforms to entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, etc.), our efforts to successfully address U.S. deficit/debt will continue to create barriers to true economic growth.

On the same note, Janelle Monet’s TIGHTROPE conveys my sentiments towards this issue better than any administrative speech or academic paper. But everyone has their own way of understanding and seeing.

See I’m not walkin’ on it
Or tryin’ to run around it
This ain’t no acrobatics
You either follow or you lead, yeah
I’m talkin’ bout you,
I’ll keep on blaming the machine, yeah
I’m talkin’ bout it,
T-t-t-talkin’ bout it
I can’t complain about it
I gotta keep my balance
And just keep dancin on it

You gotta keep your balance
Or you fall into the gap
It’s a challenge but I manage
Cause I’m cautious with the strap
Doing damage to your canvas that a doctor cannot patch
See why you don’t want no friction
Like the back of a matchbook
That I pass as I will forward you
And your MacBook
Clothes shows will shut you down
Before we go-go backwards
Act up, and whether we high or low
We gonna get back up
Like the Dow Jones and NASDAQ

What are you morally required to do for a stranger?

Even if he seems hungry and asks you for food, you’re probably within your rights to refuse.  If you’ve ever been in a large city, you’ve refused to help the homeless on more than one occasion.  And even if you think you broke your moral obligation to give, your moral obligation wasn’t strong enough to let the beggar justifiably mug you.

Notice: These common-sense ethics regarding strangers, ethics that almost everyone admits, are unequivocally libertarian.  Yes, you have an obligation to leave strangers alone, but charity is optional.

These are two questions that can help us think about how we act in the face of a needy stranger. The legitimacy of programs that are designed to help the poor, needy, local small businesses, etc…welfare and state-sponsored aid, are no different (on moral grounds), other than the fact that you have no choice (tax dollars) but to support those you may not be willing to, or are simply financially incapable. Not only do most of these programs have detrimental unintended consequences, but the moral principles of such programs, may go against your intuitive actions when faced with helping a poor man on the street, or letting your kids ride home with a stranger from the mall. In a recent post, Bryan Caplan gives great food for thought on this issue, as he is always finding ways to communicate on many pressing issues of our time; and is widely known for his insights on immigration. You can find his post “The Stranger” here, and click on sub-links within the post to link to other related topics. The following excerpts were taken from his post.

One last question: What fraction of your “fellow citizens” have you actually met?  Virtually zero.  The vast majority of your countrymen are, in fact, utter strangers to you.    When you tell your kid “Don’t take rides from strangers,” you don’t make an exception for anyone who happens to share your citizenship.  Modern government – and most of political philosophy – is just a massive effort to pretend otherwise.

…if a homeless man announced, “Give me my money!” instead of asking “Spare change?”  After all, the beggar is a stranger.  All the libertarian is pointing out is that your other “fellow citizens” are strangers, too.  You’re not cold and cruel when you refuse to help; they’re being pushy and totalitarian when they refuse to take no for an answer.

This would be bad enough if modern governments focused on forcing rich strangers to give to poor strangers.  But it’s outrageous when the direction of coercion reverses.  The most egregious example, of course, is restrictions on immigration. People in the Third World are strangers, but we still have a moral obligation to leave them in peace. Instead, we pass draconian laws forbidding these strangers to work for other complete strangers.  And for what?  To fulfill our fantastical obligation to maintain the wages of fellow citizens we don’t trust enough to give our kids a ride.