If a robot is conscious, is it OK to turn it off?

In response to receiving, via email, a link to the article, If a robot is conscious, is it OK to turn it off?, I wrote the following:

For me, feeling pain and suffering does not lead to a claim to moral standing, whatever that is. The killing of fellow human beings has come to be frowned upon because of its disruption to the social order. People who are killed have families, friends, allies, etc. who will be affected negatively by their deaths, and they will likely seek to balance the scales à la Hatfields and McCoys. The institution of the state has endeavored to defuse the seeking of revenge, short-circuiting the tit-for-tat by spreading the responsibility for the execution or long-term incarceration of the perpetrator.

The reality of this situation leads many murderers to choose victims who are without family and friends and, frequently, without the protection of the law. In addition, we can see that in cases where the wholesale killing of groups will not only lead to no (foreseen) costs, but potential benefits (like in the cases of native Americans, the Kulaks, the Jews (that may have lost the war for Germany), Armenians, etc.), there is little problem in carrying out a program to achieve that end. This latter scenario generally requires a state, which is the modern method of marshalling the forces of mass killing.

When we subtract out the state, private killing is a tiny blip. Yes, horrifying when someone shoots up a high school.a music event, or a movie theater, but hardly on the scale of death and destruction of even a small conflict like we see in Yemen.

So, as I see it, killing is a trial-and-error learning process—the only process by which we can discover an "objective" (as Popper would have called it) morality. Killing animals by the millions leads to benefits, like meat on the table, while killing humans on a private scale tends to create problems. When we have a world where an Adolf Hitler or a George W. Bush cannot direct the resources of an entire nation towards the destruction of another without suffering the costs, we may have a chance as a species.

I expected my response to generate a flurry of replies, criticizing and or decrying my position, but as yet I have received none.

“Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato”—Benito Mussolini

 Mussolini's fascist slogan, translated as "everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state," is the underlying theme of an article published by Mariana Mazzucato on Time Magazine's Web site as It's 2023. Here's How We Fixed the Global Economy.

This utopia, straight out of the fascist playbooks of the 1920s and 1930s, and possibly even owing an intellectual debt to Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward, will have its own Albert Speers bringing forth the next generation of fascist architecture. One wonders why this splendid utopia has not been brought forth in the past, as Bellamy's book projected; and why so many of the attempts to achieve heaven-on-earth have succeeded primarily in bringing hell-on-earth to the world in addition to the domestic population.

We only need to look to California, our own little laboratory of utopian social engineering, to observe the results of efforts that Mazzucato would endorse. Escalating homelessness, a failing high-speed rail project, and a power grid, due to an emphasis on renewables, that is inadequate to meet demand are just the high points for a state that is losing large numbers of businesses and citizens due to high costs, taxes, and regulations.

It leads one to wonder, who is it that really ignores empirical data? How is it that success stories like Hong Kong (created by John Cowperthwaite and described by Milton Friedman) and post-World-War-2 Germany (the German Wirtschaftswunder, heavily influenced by the economic liberal and Mont Pelerin Society member Ludwig Erhard) are ignored. And why is it that failures like Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, the Soviet Union, North Korea, etc. are also ignored. At this moment, I believe it is due to our imaginations—our imaginations that make it possible to believe in a return to the Garden of Eden.

A Guess at Our Future

 This morning, in his introductory remarks on Bloomberg's Wall Street Week, David Westin, the host, said the following:

As the polls continue to move in the Democrats' direction, markets seem to get more comfortable with a Biden win; especially if it's quick and it's clean.

This statement, especially the idea that markets are "comfortable" with a win by someone who clearly advocates a regime of higher taxation and regulation, made me wonder. Viewing stock market activity, it is clear that it is true, but why? Perhaps, as in 1930s Germany, the so-called capitalists are banking on support for the party of corporatism to preserve their status.

Prior to that moment I had been thinking that Trump's random interventionism was preferable to Biden's program of systematic, all-encompassing interventionism. But that is clearly not the attitude of Wall Street, corporate America, or the deep (that is bureaucratic, unaccountable) state.

It seems that the consistent national socialism, or fascism, on offer from the Democrat nominee is being embraced by a majority of the nation (over 50% in national polls at the moment), and there is a clear consensus growing that more and more of daily life should be centrally planned. After all, it appears that many experts deride the lack of a national plan in the face of varying responses by states in the U.S. to the COVID-19 pandemic. Where is all this heading?

My view at the moment is that the goal is first, national socialism—an end to federalism and a dramatic shift of power to regulate daily life to the federal government. But this cannot be the end game as many who favor international governance, like George Soros through the Open Society Foundations (OSF), the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the World Economic Forum (WEF) are also clearly supporting Biden—the "reasonable" nominee.

I am generally not attracted to conspiracy theories, but there is no doubt that these organizations have agendas and the attention of the political and intellectual elites. I believe that they have the best of intentions, seeking to save the world through international governance; or, as has been said in the past, "one-world government." This objective is to be achieved through the gradual centralization of governance from one level to the next, national governance being the step required before regional or international governance. The method is through the gradual undermining of individualism through the discrediting of non-credentialed expert opinion and, if required, the suppression of voices of dissent. Donald Trump, an individual unschooled in this program is a definite bump in the road. However, to believe, as QAnon adherents apparently do, that Trump can save us from this powerful force, is naïve, as Trump clearly lacks the knowledge to do so.

Unlike in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, actual war is no longer required to unite the masses in supporting the programs of the state. Now, it is clear that wars against conditions or ideas will suffice: the "War on Poverty," the "War on Drugs," the "War on Terrorism," the "War on COVID-19," the "War on Climate Change," and who knows what next? All that is needed is a "war" that cannot be won and exists in perpetuity, or at least long enough that some new boogeyman can be placed before the public.  

This constructivist program is hubris on steroids—the belief that an elite that governs every detail of the lives of humanity will produce a result better than the evolutionary processes that have governed us for thousands of years. It will eliminate competitive markets and impose a one-size-fits-all regime that will hamper the development of comparative advantage and stifle capital accumulation that is supportive of innovative products and business plans. It is clearly a eugenics for society, and will produce the same catastrophic results.

The Great Reset

During the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing hysterical response imposed by the government and enthusiastically supported by the media, I have been wondering "what the hell is going on?" It seems to me that the mist is starting to clear, and the direction all this is heading is becoming apparent: Introducing the 'Great Reset,' world leaders' radical plan to transform the economy

Climate change was not getting the traction "they" needed to impose worldwide central planning, so the pandemic was an opportunity to push the accelerator all the way to the floor to create the conditions required.

To answer the question of "who are 'they'?", "they" are the people who think it is their responsibility to save the species from itself by imposing the governance they believe is required.

Will this break out into an armed struggle? I'm not sure, as the instigators will have control of a great deal of infrastructure and each step they take may seem "reasonable," weakening the strength of the opposition. It's all very worrisome, and no amount of preparation may suffice. 

Experiment shows that giving people money reduces psychological stress!

An article in the New Yorker trumpets the promising results of a citywide basic income experiment. A few paragraphs into the article we find this statement of the study's objectives:

The study set out to prove that a basic income could, according to the research plan, “lead to reductions in monthly income volatility and provide greater income sufficiency, which will in turn lead to reduced psychological stress and improved physical functioning.”

Of course, in our world of empiricism, we have to give money to people to see if that will lead to the hoped-for results.

Well, if your income is low, then $500/month has to lead to less volatility. I think that the math basically guarantees it. And, if your income is low, does having a guaranteed $500/month reduce your psychological stress? Let me tell you, my income is greater than the people participating in this study, and $500/month would even reduce my psychological stress!

Of course, this result comes in an economics environment which produces a Nobel Prize (actually, the The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel) for finding that:

Making the schoolwork more relevant to students, working closely with the neediest students and holding teachers accountable — by putting them on short-term contracts, for example — were more effective in countries where teachers often don’t bother showing up for work.

Another amazing result, that making schoolwork relevant and teachers accountable led to improvements. No economist in the Austrian school would have thought to bother testing for these obvious outcomes. No wonder Israel Kirzner has not received the prize!

As a final comment on the Stockton experiment, I quote Benjamin Franklin, who said:

I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

These observations were also made by Alexis de Tocqueville in his Memoir On Pauperism: Does public charity produce an idle and dependant class of society?.

Is there a place for thinking in today's economics? It seems doubtful.

Liberalism has not failed

Jonah Goldberg, conservative pundit, has written Liberalism has not failed, a response to Patrick Deneen's book, Why Liberalism Failed. While I generally have a warm spot in my heart for Goldberg, he makes an unnecessary concession:

America's troubles today are inextricably linked with the breakdown of the family, local institutions, communities, organized religion and social trust. Such deterioration is driven, at least in part, by the relentless individualistic logic of Liberalism and the market (Joseph Schumpeter made this point about markets as far back as the 1940s).

I think that is baloney. It's primarily driven by the steady elimination of consequences that teach people that they have made mistakes. This elimination has taken place primarily through government programs like unemployment insurance, Social Security, and the galaxy of welfare programs that make ill-advised behavior bearable. On top of that, the steady erosion of religion by the forces of rationality has eliminated consequences in the afterlife. These things have nothing to do with the "relentless individualistic logic of Liberalism" and everything to do with the state's increasing position as a universal problem solver.

Joe Rogan Experience #1494 - Bret Weinstein

Today, after seeing John Deming's share of it on Facebook, I listened to Joe Rogan Experience #1494 - Bret Weinstein. In Rogan and Weinstein we clearly have two people of good will attempting to examine the situation that is now unfolding after the death of George Floyd, although Weinstein has past experience that led him to believe something of this nature was in the future.

I think that Weinstein gets the analysis of what is going on right, but some of his solutions seem to be off the mark, reminding me of my impression of Noam Chomsky. I have a few remarks and criticisms; but it will not be a complete summary and I encourage everyone to listen to the podcast.

Weinstein worries that we are headed for civil war. I have this worry as well. The winner-take-all, zero-sum-game of politics has gotten so divided and the stakes have gotten so high that the two sides (recognizing that there are more than two political sides who simply manifest themselves through one or other of the largest two parties) cannot be happily reconciled. Reparations as a remedy for injustices inflicted on black Americans that resulted in poverty and desperation is a controversial topic. Weinstein believes that some adjustments must be made, while disagreeing that reparations are the appropriate the vehicle.

Weinstein, as most progressives, fails to look very deeply into history to identify the source of the problem of black poverty. Yes, there's slavery, and that is over 150 years in the past; but he dates the current deterioration to the Clinton administration, in which he claims Democrats abandoned the position of defending the common man and adopted the Republican model of influence peddling to businesses, albeit "other businesses." This claim ignores the fact that black poverty was declining prior to the War on Poverty but has not had an appreciable improvement since shortly after that legislation was enacted. Ignoring this fact prevents him from offering the possible explanation that incentives for poor people have changed in a way that reduces or even prevents progress. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."

Weinstein exhibits a kind of oppression mentality, arguing the "police brutality is a feature, not a bug" in the sense that powerful elites must use the police to keep the lid on the people who have been cast into misery. Such an idea creates a direct link between the elite and the masses that I doubt exists. Those who work for the state and have "qualified immunity" have little incentive to behave in a civil manner, as a server would toward a customer. I believe the brutality of our system has more to do with perverse incentives than the purposeful oppression of the downtrodden.

Weinstein argues that blacks and Native Americans have been deprived of their software—the culture that guided their lives prior to the devastating experiences of slavery and decimation, respectively. But humans are very flexible, and adapt quite quickly to new environments. Blacks made steady progress over almost a century after slavery, but then became enmeshed in a culture of victimhood and subsidies that were meant to elevate them but largely increased their dependence. Native Americans, on the other hand, were sequestered in reservations that are run in an environment of pure communism. It's no wonder that, while some individuals from both groups have been quite successful, the majority have achieved far less than they might have. It must be emphasized that the problem is not the race or moral fiber of those who are suffering that is the cause—they do not deserve it—the culture, the software, created as a result of the incentive structure, is at fault.

Approaching the halfway point, Weinstein makes a claim that I have never heard before—that black men are leaving their children fatherless because the number of black men in prison produces promiscuity in those remaining. First, he says that when men are in high demand sexually, they tend to be worse actors, which I find plausible. That coupled with the incarceration rate of black men leads to male promiscuity, which I find plausible, and to abandoning their children, which I find less plausible. I think the abandoning occurs because their children are not only shielded from bad outcomes by welfare programs, but may have also be benefited, as these programs may provide income and benefits unavailable to a family that is working poor.

Moving on, Weinstein characterizes the system as "so politically corrupt it's not interested in doing what has to be done." His remedy is to draft two individuals, one center-left and one center-right, and who are "patriotic," "courageous," and "highly capable," run as a team for President and Vice President. The plan is that they will govern by deciding on actions to take together, with the President having override power in case disagreement. This is politics with romance—the idea that we can just pick the right people to be at the top of this massive, intrusive bureaucracy and everything will be fine. In The Open Society and Its Enemies (4th ed., vol 1, p 121), Karl Popper suggests that the proper approach is not to ask "Who should rule?" but to ask "How can we so organize political institutions that bad or incompetent rulers can be prevented from doing too much damage?" Clearly, Weinstein is not asking the question Popper believes is more important. Weinstein goes on to suggest his center-right and center-left picks, Admiral William McRaven (former Navy SEAL and former Chancellor of the University of Texas) and Andrew Yang (former Democrat Presidential candidate and supporter of Universal Basic Income). I will refrain from commenting on these two—two people I would definitely not want to be at the helm when we have political institutions that will not prevent them "from doing too much damage."

A real surprise comes when Weinstein supports the conjecture that SARS-COV-2 leaked from the Chinese virology lab in Wuhan. He was initially persuaded that the virus had occurred naturally, and was transmitted via bats in the Wuhan wet market. However, on investigation Weinstein became skeptical and now believes in the "strong possibility" that the virus was enhanced in the lab. I have to point out that this is the mark of a real scientist—the fact that he changed his mind upon investigating the fit between the theory and the facts.

Finally, Weinstein discusses the corruption of science, including his own experience in trying to bring his findings to the attention of the general scientific community. These findings would jeopardize the protocols used in testing drugs, and it is crystal clear why they would be resisted. The pharmaceutical companies operate under a protective umbrella provided by the FDA, which infuses perverse incentives in the system. Weinstein's findings would jeopardize previous FDA approvals and probably cost the industry billions. Of course, the FDA, arguably a real culprit in this process, would be immune from the consequences, but we can be sure that the political pressure to continue the process as-is is tremendous. If drugs were approved by insurance companies or some institution funded by insurance companies, Weinstein's findings would be of immediate consequence, as endangering policyholders' health and welfare is the last thing an insurance company wants to do.

Bret Weinstein is like so many leftists, including Noam Chomsky, who are great at identifying problems, and so bad at proposing solutions, which generally are compatible with the theme of more government intervention. They are completely insensitive to economic theory, and the data that cries out for more evolutionary learning and less heavy-handed, top-down, one-size-fits-all "solutions" to problems. However, he seems to be thoughtful—a real scientist—and someone who might, someday, abandon both the left and right and consequently politics with romance.

The Society Most Conducive to Problem Solving

The Independent Review,  "A Journal of Political Economy," has published my essay "The Society Most Conducive to Problem Solving: Karl Popper and Piecemeal Social Engineering."

The paper was presented first at the 2014 Symposium on Karl Popper & the Open Society held at Lebanon Valley College, Annville, PA (video of the presentation may be found at the symposium link) followed by the presentation of an expanded version at the 2015 Austrian Economics Research Conference at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, AL. Subsequently, the paper was further expanded and revised to address referees' comments and criticisms before final publication.

At this time the article is only available for purchase in the context of the complete issue. Within 9 months or so it should be available as an individual pdf.

Please feel free to comment below.

Edit: A pdf of the article is now available here!