The collectivist ball and chain?

(side note: as a mere student of Objectivism, I will explicitly make the claim that this is not vetted nor reviewed by any of the Objectivists I know, so might be seriously at odds with Rand's views)

The ball and chain was used both as a restraint against escape and a punishment. By various web accounts, the ball weighed between 12 and 30 pounds. Definitely not something anyone would want to drag behind them.

Is it at least partially a collectivist viewpoint to insist that government do what's good for the collective, or in the words from a comment on this post: what's good for "the health of Americans as a whole"? The commenter included a reason why:

most people are stupid and have blind trust in the government to save them from
things that are bad because they don't have the time to look out for themselves
or just aren't smart enough to realize that they are killing themselves

The net of this line of argument was that one reason government exists is to protect the health and presumably welfare of its citizens who are too stupid, inattentive, or lazy to protect their own health and welfare.

Before slipping on that shackle, let me ask, how much protection is enough? Do you know all 4,000 federal laws, or those of you in Colorado, all 30,000 laws? At what cost are these laws created, and maintained? What services is the government providing us for the roughly 18% of our GDP they take? Is 18% enough of a ball and chain for our economy?

Going one step more, I've seen argued elsewhere that as gene-bearing animals, we are better at distributing our genes when we protect the "weaker" among us with social programs. If you must take this biologically based collectivist position ("tax one for the benefit of all") consider this: how much healthier a species we would be if every member of the herd was strong, healthy, independent, rational, and attentive to the world around themselves? Which collective is thriving best, the one with the resources of 1 in 5 people directed by government directive (force) to inefficient and wasteful programs, or the one with strong healthy individuals trading to meet their needs in a competitive free market?

That ball and chain is so tempting, because, after all, it's "free" money. It isn't free -- we pay for every penny of it and then some. Freedom for the individual is good for the health of the herd.

rootie

Life's little lessons #4807

I had the occasion this past week to be out biking just at sunset. It was a wonderful enjoyable ride, the setting sun bright orange, the air cooling from the day's heat, and me zooming down the trail on my bike, weaving quickly through the brush.

We interrupt the blog post for a brief pause to enjoy the scene... wheee! Whoosh! Aahhhh... aaackkk...cough...cough. Ew!

This little post brought to you as a reminder, that swarms of small insects also enjoy the cool evening air, and said swarms may linger at head level over cross-country trails.

There are certain advantages to not breathing through your mouth at this time of day. :-P

rootie

my 300 virtual slaves working around the clock

Why is it that we have the life that we do? Houses and yards suitable to be an estates, fancy cars, every imaginable electrical convenience and distraction (even battery operated, portable!), modern medical science cures for diseases that have killed millions.

I'll chalk my wonderful life up to the 300 people who are working around the clock to be sure that I am successful. This figure comes from the Mineral Information Institute, each American consumes energy roughly the equivalent to 300 people working around the clock to support their lives.

While I am sure you can find all sorts of minor quibbles over the accuracy of the numbers, the difference between equivalent energy of 200 and 400 people doesn't change the result that we use energy, and lots of it, to improve our lives, to make them better than they were even as recently 200 years ago.

I'm not sure I agree with the 12 pounds of salt per person per year...I don't think I eat that much ice cream. *yum*

rootie

The difference between speeds and gear ratios :)

Assuming there are no repeated gear ratios, (I haven't checked) my mountain bike has 24 combinations of front and rear sprockets for faster and slower riding conditions. In my experience, my bike really has only four speeds:

1. Pant, pant, pant -- what brainiac had the idea to ride up this friggin hill?



2. Ahhh, this is nice.



3. Wahoo!



4. Ohshitohshitohshit!!!

I recently had the chance to ride partway up the trail towards the Bench Lakes, where all of the above speeds were attained, sometimes in rapid succession. This trail is what I would consider a "technical" mountain bike trail, and I've heard the term "rock garden" applied in similar contexts. Here's a view of a smooth part (from my photo archive):

Note the 10" tall rock center frame, now imagine 2 miles of them scattered in 1-10 foot intervals, randomly separated by tree roots and the occasional pile of horse droppings.

I had set out with the goal to find a close viewpoint to Mt Heyburn suitable for future sunrise photography. Unfortunately, speeds #1 and #4 dominated the ride, and so I ran out of time and had to return before finding a good view.

After spending 4-5 miles struggling to keep my balance over and around the many obstacles, I noticed later that day that I was better able to stop and balance when my son suddenly stopped unexpectedly on his tricycle. It would appear that the practice balancing on and around rocks helped. Now if I can just figure out a way to get paid for the practice!

happy pedaling!

rootie