Agent Rationality, Scarcity, the Price System

When economics gets derailed --- and folks it often does due to factors such as philosophical fads and fashions, or political expediency in public policy debates --- usually the culprit is one of 3 things: (1) a denial of agent rationality, (2) a denial of scarcity, and (3) a denial of how the price system works to help us cope with scarcity by aiding us in the negotiation of the trade-offs we all must face. This denial can come in sophisticated form --- e.g., Keynes --- or it can come in an unsophisticated form --- e.g., man on the street. But make no mistake about it, the denial has the same impact on the "laws" of economics as the denial of the "laws" of physics would by a man about to jump off the top of building would on the inevitable impact. All his denials will not mean much when he hits the pavement.
http://www.coordinationproblem.org/2013/07/econ-101-is-what-is-needed-most.html

This structure can be used to reduce just about every argument for tyranny.

Elvis - "That's Alright Mama"

How Much Did We Spend? We Don't Know

Pay errors are part of a larger phenomenon that Reuters will explore in a series of articles: the Defense Department's endemic failure to keep track of its money - how much it has, how much it pays out and how much is lost or stolen.

The department's authorized 2013 budget, after sequester, totals $565.8 billion - by far the largest chunk of the annual federal budget approved by Congress. Yet the Pentagon is literally unable to account for itself. As proof, consider that a law in effect since 1992 requires annual audits of all federal agencies - and the Pentagon alone has never complied. It annually reports to Congress that its books are in such disarray that an audit is impossible.

In this series, Reuters will delve into how an organization that fields the most sophisticated technology in the world to fight wars and spy on enemies has come to rely on an accounting system of antiquated, error-prone computers; how these thousands of duplicative and inefficient systems cost billions of dollars to staff and maintain; how efforts to replace these systems with better ones have ended in costly failures; and how it all adds up to billions of taxpayer dollars a year in losses to mismanagement, theft and fraud.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/09/us-usa-pentagon-payerrors-special-report-idUSBRE96818I20130709

Unbelievable.

Responding to the Questions

The author's article, linked here, is very good. I've considered his questions, answers are below.

"So, by extension, the conversation is about whether each of us has a moral responsibility - laws notwithstanding - to do all we can to prevent a tragedy like the one that occurred in Sanford. Regardless of who initiated the physical altercation between Martin and Zimmerman, the two never had to come into close contact. If Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle and not pursued the teenager, Martin would have made it home for the second half of the N.B.A. All-Star Game he had been watching and today he would be one year older."
**We do have that responsibility, mostly to make sure our children are safe. Not that I'm suggesting we shouldn't care for the children of others, but the effect we can have on the children of others is only a minute fraction of what we can for our own.

For the record, I think his presumption - that if GZ had stayed in his car TM would have "had time" to make it home - is incorrect. Based on my review of the evidence the state has presented, TM had the time he needed to get home, but he chose not to, which allowed GZ to get close enough for TM to assault him. We can only guess why he made that choice. Based on the physical evidence, it was that choice and his choice to attack GZ, and keep on attacking him, punching him not once but many, many times, that led to his death. It appears possible, even likely, that if at any time prior to being shot he had stopped trying to injure GZ, he would be alive today. I could be wrong in believing that - perhaps GZ would have been mad and injured enough to shoot TM just because he could; but I have not seen any reason to think that's what would have happened. TM texted about his excitement of hitting people. He told a friend his girlfriend left him because she was afraid of the fights TM got into. GZ had a longer period of time to demonstrate any such tendency but he had none, perhaps just because he wasn't a good enough athlete.

In other words, it appears that GZ shot TM because he felt like he was out of options - he called for help, but got none. He maneuvered off of the sidewalk to stop TM from cracking his skull on it, only to have TM try to stop him from breathing by covering his nose and mouth. What was left for a man who was scared, struggling to breath, was completely physically dominated, and was unsure what TM would do after promising to kill him?

I know many will disagree with my interpretation of the evidence. That is an inevitable fact of human experience.

"Technically, only Zimmerman is on trial, but in the broader debate, particularly among people who think Zimmerman innocent, is Martin also on trial? And if so, does that mean that all teens who look and behave similarly to Martin are also on trial? What precedent, if any, would a not-guilty verdict set?"
***I don't think Martin is "on trial", at least in the sense that Martin at this point has nothing to lose, and no rights to defend. GZ's rights are at stake. One need not believe that TM was a monster to have been the aggressor; he was a 17 year old boy in much pain with a taste for fighting. He made bad choices that led to bad outcomes, horrible outcomes. Many of us have made choices as bad but were luckier. However, any teen that attacks a person for "following them" will be as criminally and morally wrong as TM was for attacking GZ. The same physical evidence that is being used to defend GZ could easily be the physical evidence that would have been used to try TM had he survived the evening. Aggravated assault charges would have been easy to make.

"Even if you believe that the teenager at some point during the night's events did something wrong - the defense contends that he "sucker punched" Zimmerman, banged his head on cement and pummeled his face - that teenager is now paying the ultimate price for those alleged mistakes. Does that mean that the person who shot him is guiltless and deserving of no legal punishment?"
***This is an interesting question. Were I in George's shoes, I think I might be filled with regret and pain about the young man's death, even if I felt very, very angry that I was attacked for no reason by the same young man. His punishment is the fear that he and his family will live with from now on. I don't believe the state need provide punishment for a person to suffer punishment for their choices.

"Should "not guilty" as charged (if that were to be the verdict) be read the same as "without guilt" in general? Is there some moral space in which Martin can, as the defense contends, be solely responsible for his own death?"
***This is like a trial of a man who, on a foggy morning, drove at normal speeds through a red light and killed the 21 year old son of the priest at my parents' church. The man was acquitted at trial. In this case, the son who was killed bears zero culpability, the killer all of it. These things happen, and they are not always about race. They may never be about race. This GZ and TM issue only became a matter of race after the fact.

I believe the right to own a gun and carry it is a natural right, conferred by birth. The existence of cars means that most of our lives have been enhanced, but some of our lives are broken or taken by cars. Warplanes mean that we live in peace, but those who operate them are killed, and many civilians have been killed because the planes were used in war to defeat an enemy. Guns are the same - an estimated 500,000 times each year, a person uses a gun for self defense without ever having to fire a shot. TM is dead, though, because GZ chose to have a gun. If the gun weren't present, perhaps GZ would have stayed in his car, or perhaps GZ would have been killed by TM. We don't know what would have happened, we only know what would not have happened.

"The conversation is about people's emotional investment in a version of events and a particular verdict, and why that investment has racial and ideological leanings. It's about the likelihood of one verdict over another. The bar for finding of guilt is particularly high here. The defense doesn't need the jury to see its client as completely innocent, just not completely guilty."
***This is quite true. Based on the articles I have read, the conversations I have had, it is nearly universal - those who most identify with the 17 year old young man strongly believe in GZ's guilt. "He should not have gotten out of the car", "He shouldn't have followed TM." Those who most identify with GZ are horrified that GZ has been charged for murder when he was clearly attacked and severely beaten, apparently without provocation. Sadly, it is doubtful that these two sides will understand each other's perspective, or consider that a perspective other than their own may be valid.

Good Questions to Ponder

"Even if you believe that the teenager at some point during the night's events did something wrong - the defense contends that he "sucker punched" Zimmerman, banged his head on cement and pummeled his face - that teenager is now paying the ultimate price for those alleged mistakes. Does that mean that the person who shot him is guiltless and deserving of no legal punishment?

"Should "not guilty" as charged (if that were to be the verdict) be read the same as "without guilt" in general? Is there some moral space in which Martin can, as the defense contends, be solely responsible for his own death?

"The conversation is about people's emotional investment in a version of events and a particular verdict, and why that investment has racial and ideological leanings. It's about the likelihood of one verdict over another. The bar for finding of guilt is particularly high here. The defense doesn't need the jury to see its client as completely innocent, just not completely guilty."
chblow@nytimes.com.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/11/opinion/blow-beyond-the-courtroom.html?_r=0

Hear the Screams? That's Logic Being Tortured

Drink deep from the well of knowledge. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

What, then, do you think about this person's tortured logic?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/opinion/francis-zimmerman-trial/index.html

As far as "stand your ground" goes, you can't just punch someone in the face for following you and then dialing 911 on their phone when you confront them.

Did TM have to go back to his place of residence when he found himself being observed by GZ? No. Did that justify his (apparently felonious) aggravated assault on GZ? No. Can you claim "self defense" after you knock someone to the ground and punch them out? No, once they are no longer a threat, it's no longer self defense to punch them.

The Affidavit

In April 2012, the office of Florida State Attorney Angela Corey drew up an affidavit http://bit.ly/IzCstN of probable cause against George Zimmerman for the second-degree murder of Trayvon Martin.

The affidavit was loaded. Martin was walking back to the townhouse "where he was living" when Zimmerman "profiled" him. Zimmerman "assumed Martin was a criminal." He called the police. The affidavit cited Martin's phone "friend" to attest, "Martin was scared because he was being followed by an unknown male and didn't know why." Again, according to the affidavit (and this was critical): "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued." Martin's mother then "identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon Martin's." Zimmerman admitted shooting Martin, and that apparently was good enough for the prosecutors.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/ten_aha_moments_in_the_zimmerman_trial_to_date.html#ixzz2Yf9TN89o

This affidavit is telling in how weak the state's case is against GZ. GZ profiled him? How would that be proved one way or the other? He called in as a neighborhood watch captain because he saw someone walking in the rain that he did not recognize, and tried to maintain visual contact with that person. The implication is that GZ was a madman or racist with an axe to grind, but every other aspect of GZ's life that has been introduced into this trial paints the picture of a guy who is anything but a racist or hot head.

TM was scared? TM walked up to GZ's car, and walked around it, while GZ was on the phone with the police department.

GZ "confronted" TM? According to what evidence? There is none. TM had plenty of time to get to his residence if what he wanted to do was to get away from GZ. It's not clear why he did not do that, but claiming that TM was afraid is in conflict with the fact that he could have gone home with time to spare before GZ and he crossed paths.

In the struggle that ensued when the two met, GZ was injured, and the testimony indicates that GZ was being beaten up by TM, with TM on top of GZ in a position referred to in MMA fighting as "the mount". The mounted position is dominant, and makes an untrained opponent very vulnerable to the kinds of injuries GZ received from TM.

The statement that TM's mom identified the phone call screams as being those of her son might be the only factual statement in the affidavit - but since she's the only one to do so, that is not a particularly compelling "fact" no matter how horrifying it may be to think of a mom suffering through such an event.

Here's what I see. Just like people don't want to see the JFK murder as the act of a crazy ex-marine with a $12 mail order rifle, there are many who just cannot accept that TM died for no reason. There were no monsters in this affair. TM was a typical, aggressive, athletic 17 year old male, who liked to fight and thought he could take down GZ - and he was right. He just wasn't used to fighting armed opponents, and made a major mis-calculation.

GZ was also no monster - he may not be a saint, and he perhaps should have been able to defend himself without killing the 17 year old - but he did what most of us would do in that situation: broken nose, likely concussed, bloody mucous flowing back into his throat making breathing very difficult, the recipient of multiple punches and having had his head slammed into a concrete sidewalk, having yelled for help over and over (after which TM tried to cover his nose and mouth and threatened to kill him), and with no prospect for a way to end the pain and fear and confusion - he defended himself the only way he could. The circumstance was monstrous but the choice was human.

TM's assault on GZ was not justified. GZ legally defending himself. It was tragic for both of them, and for those who love them. The defense was right - there are no non-political monsters here.

The choices made by those wielding the power of the state, however, have been monstrous.