Oh Parsimony, you are a Cruel Mistress

I have made several posts on Parsimony, this one will be focused on Race and its role in the current election. General Colin Powell has endorsed Obama for reelection. A close Romney adviser has suggested this is due to race and not due to issues. Of course Obama supporters have jumped on him for being racist, this much is to be expected. However I think we're overlooking the part Parsimony plays in this discourse. It has be said even beyond the level of Ad Nauseum that those who oppose Obama are mostly racist, and do not infact oppose his policies.

This position attempts to use Ockham's razor to shave away parsimonious distinctions in relation to peoples opposition to the president. It attempts to say that; given both racism and ideological differences, Racism is a more accurate and simple explanation for people's dislike of the president, therefore we can shave other reasons, like ideology, away and disregard them. The problem with this use of the razor is it opens up a parallel argument to be constructed in the reverse position:

Given both racial affinity and ideological agreement in support of the president, racial affinity is simpler and more accurate. Therefore we can shave away more parsimonious distinctions, such as ideological agreement.

In other words, the only reason people vote for Obama is because he's black and they're black, or else they feel some reason to support him based on race, either white guilt, or because they  are also minorities. This is essentially what the Romney advisor said about Powell. Why is he so attacked when its a logically identical position to so many of Obama's supporters? Why are they not attacked? I think we should all use this as a clear example of why Race shouldn't even be mentioned in our political arena. We are all americans, no longer try to label yourself black, white, asian, etc. These distinctions only divide us. I hope we can rise above this at the ballot box this year.

I think He forgot.....

 In the third and final presidential debate that occurred this past Monday, the main topic was supposed to be foreign policy. However, when given the chance, both candidates switched to talking domestic economic policy. This is to be expected as that is the hot button issue of this presidential race. One topic that stood out to me was the issue of the auto industry and the bailout they received from the gov't that Obama supported. Romney stated emphatically that he believed the best way to solve that problem was to have the companies (GM and Chrysler) go through managed bankruptcy with gov't guarantees. He stated that he did not approve of gov't support in the form of bailouts or stock purchases. Obama seemed to focus on the 'no gov't  help' part to attempt to paint Romney as a 'flip flopper' on the issue because Romney has stated he was in favour of gov't guarantees. This is a strawman argument of course, because it misstates Romney's position. Guarantees are not bailouts, nor are they stock purchases, however this demarcation was lost on the leader of our nation.

The more important issue to me was the seemingly untouched assertion that somehow the auto industry is doing well and that the bailout assisted to that end in any way. It has been hinted at in several speeches given by the president himself and the vice president as well that somehow they 'Saved Detroit'. To me this is a straight up lie. I offer that the bailout only served to preserve the labour practices of the UAW despite these practices and Legacy costs contributing to the collapse of their employers, and that the bailout achieved nothing in the way of saving the companies from bankruptcy, as Chrysler did file for bankruptcy and GM is still not out from under the monetary aid of the federal Gov't.

The labour practices of the UAW are in place to serve the interests of the union members. The sad fact of this is that the interests of the employee are not always the interests of the employer. However there is one common interest: the existence of the employer. If an employer goes under, there are no employees. This to me seems lost on members of the UAW. The chief concern of the members should be preservation of their employer to ensure holistic job security for their industry. It doesn't take long to realize that the japanese auto makers are far and away out competing the american auto makers. The common thing they share: No union contracts. This should give pause to any member of the UAW. If other auto companies are out competing you without labour contracts, doesn't that tell you something about how your 'rights' or 'interests' affect your company? Oh wait, thats right, if your company goes under the gov't will just bail them out! Nothing to see here!

The more interesting thing is the state of both companies today. The 'bailout' supposedly saved both companies, but at what cost? Chrysler was on the road to bankruptcy, so we gave them billions of dollars and allowed the UAW to own some of their stock. What happened? They file bankruptcy anyways! On top of that Italian automaker Fiat buys them out. Result of the bailout: Bankruptcy and foreign ownership; that definitely sounds like its worth billions!!

Now consider GM. The gov't gave them a loan and purchased some of their stock. Purchasing the stock was a way for the gov't to give money to GM without it being a 'loan'. The common thing for supporters of this form of a bailout is to say "well they payed back the loan!!". Well yes, however the Gov't still spent $25 billion on stock, valuing it at around $53 per share. The current share price is around $23. So we haven't even come close to getting our money back on that one. That 'loan' is hardly repaid. They also filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy on top of that! Result of bailout: Bankruptcy, a repaid loan, and billions not recovered in stock purchases. That's definitely worth billions as well!! Obama has managed our money with masterful adeptation!

So as you can see, the auto industry was far from 'saved' but we did give some money to the UAW, who support Obama. So if you like buying votes with the taxpayers money. I guess we succeded!!

Immutability and Parsimony

If you have read or followed this blog, you've seen my piece on Ockham’s razor and parsimony. If you also study any kind of critical thinking or philosophy, you'll also know one should be aware of the far reaching applications of Ockham’s razor and how to look out for parsimonious situations that can be shaved by it. I will propose another one not often thought of in modern thought.

It seems to be a somewhat cause celebre these days to support absolute rights to everything, for everyone. Whether or not these rights are justified or even exist is an entirely different discussion even than what these rights apply to. What am I speaking of? I speak of the movement to grant absolute rights in almost all manners, and prohibit discrimination of any kind, to something known as Immutable characteristics.

An Immutable characteristic is a characteristic that cannot be changed through act of will. Note that this doesn't mean the characteristic cannot be changed, just that it cannot be changed by an act of will, no matter how great. Consider one’s hair color. This is not an immutable  characteristic for you might change your hair color through dying it. By simply willing to do so and having the appropriate means, this characteristic can be changed and thus bears no special status. There’s not a  “blue hair history month” or a “blue hair awareness month” because its not an immutable characteristic. But why do these characteristics receive such special treatment?

The logic behind creating protected classes based on immutable characteristics is that someone shouldn't be punished for what they can’t change. The most commonly agreed on immutable characteristics are: Age, Gender, race, and sexual orientation. There seems to be another that is being called an immutable characteristic that I feel creates parsimonious distinctions and is also an incoherent concept in itself. That is the characteristic known as Gender identity.

The concept of gender identity holds that a person has an identity based in a gender concept that itself is immutable. That is to say, someone ‘feels’ or identifies themselves with a certain gender and this identity is an immutable characteristic. Someone who has such an identity might say “I might be a man, but I’m a woman on the inside” this is often used to justify and build support for Transgender operations and the transgender community in general. The focus of my analysis will not be on the rightness or wrongness of this concept but rather its coherency and potential parsimonious distinctions.

First let us consider the incoherence of gender identity. A person’s gender, by definition, is a physical distinction. There’s no reason to think any ‘ insideness’ or personality traits must be held by a specific gender. What makes you a man is your physical body, what makes you a woman is your physical body. Gender is inherently a physical distinction and should only be viewed through physical concerns. The fact that you like to wear sequins dresses and high heels doesn't make you a woman. Having a uterus does. So to this end I find the concept of gender identity to be incoherent. You can’t be a man but a “woman on the inside” because nothing about your inside makes you a woman. Only the characteristics of your outside make you one. Thusly, transgender surgery should be seen as a purely elective procedure owing none of its reasons to an immutable characteristic.

Secondly, We should address the issue of parsimonious distinctions. Based partly in the fact that gender is a strictly physical trait just like, height and proportions, the concept of gender identity can be considered parsimonious. That is to say, we could describe a person equally or more accurately by simply ignoring there gender identity or ‘shaving it away’ with Ockham’s razor. Suppose someone said “I’m a man but I feel like a woman on the inside” If I then said “ You're a man” would I be wrong? You might say this doesn't solve the problem of feeling like a woman. I would say perhaps you're correct, but the fact remains that they are a man, adding the way they feel on the inside doesn't change that so such a distinction is parsimonious. They might feel that way, but that characteristic in know way exists actionably than any other feeling and thus should not be a protected class. There is also the problem that gender identity combines even more parsimoniously with the other immutable characteristics. Consider the characteristic of Sexual orientation. If we take this characteristic to be immutable then we create a parsimonious situation when combined with gender identity. Suppose I say that “I’m a lesbian woman trapped in a man’s body”.  How is that any different than a straight man? Why even draw that distinction? The simple answer is obviously that such a distinction does not exist in any way, homosexual or not. Some lesbian women even feel that they are “a man trapped in a woman’s body” such that they want to become a man. If I’m a lesbian woman trapped in a man’s body aren't I already there? The idea becomes absurd at this point.

So we have seen how the concept of Gender identity is incoherent and parsimonious. This gives us firm justification for rejecting as an immutable characteristic and as a characteristic in general.

Deontology has no legs

Most of modern philosophical research revolves around the questions of ethics. It’s no surprise either, for the questions of what is morally good, and why we should do those things have profound impacts on our day to day lives. Within the discussion of ethics, there are several different “schools” and categories of though. Probably two of the biggest of these categories are deontology and consequentialism. Deontology comes from the Greek root deon, which means ‘duty’. Deontology holds that the moral value or standing of an action comes from the action itself, not from its consequences. Consequentialism on the other hand states that the moral value of an action comes from its consequences and moral context. I believe that Deontology has no way to actually be put into practice. Deontological frameworks often actually include moral context and consequences and thus are not deontological. Any context they might choose to include are merely arbitrary and have no grounds in the very deontological framework they seem to be supporting. Let’s take a look at a few examples and see how deontology has no legs to carry its view, and how no moral system can be justified on its grounds.

Suppose I told you that I punched someone. Is that a morally right or wrong action? You might say you need to know more than that in order to make the judgment. This however, is not deontology. Even if I added that the person I punched was a criminal in the process of robbing an old lady, this is moral context and consequence, in this case such a judgment based on the moral context in not deontological in nature. A deontologist might say that, ‘well you said you punched a person and punching a person violates their being so we can judge it as wrong’. Well, even in this extreme case adding an object to the verb of an action is really adding context. Saying, I punched X, whatever that X is constitutes moral context. So on a pure deontological foundation all you could examine is the fact that I punched. Try to answer that question without any appeal to context: is it right or wrong to punch? This seems like an absurd question to ask but one that you must ask in order to be a deontologist.

Let’s take it one step further and add some context, assuming that’s compatible with deontology, which I feel it isn’t, and see how deontology would judge it. Suppose I told you that I punched and knocked out a little girl who was only six years old. Now at first glance this seems like it would be easy to judge on deontology. A six year old girl should never be knocked out by a grown man! In fact, we have a word for that, child abuse! Even though this is an extreme example, I feel it shows the faults in deontology very well. Suppose the six year old in question was about to push a push a button on their vest that would detonate a bomb that would kill millions of people. Is it still wrong that I punched and knocked out the child? In a perfect world we wouldn’t ever want to have to punch a child but it seems intuitive to me that the lives of millions are worth a good wallop to the head of a child. On deontology however, you could not factor in these consequences and would have to judge the action itself. This to me shows a very large void of power in deontology to judge things morally and I Hope others see this too.

Its like Coupons

On October 3rd  2012 Mitt Romney and Barack Obama had their first presidential debate. Whether or not you like either one of them you can’t really deny the fact that who becomes president has a large impact on our lives and our country. It would also be hard to deny that the policies either of them would employ could at least potentially have a large impact on our lives. I will be addressing a single aspect of the debate and that is Tax policy. I feel there is entirely to much misunderstanding regarding it and this leads to both unintentional and intentional Straw man arguments. A straw man argument is a formal fallacy where an opponent of an argument or position, misstates or mischaracterizes the argument in a way that allows them to easily defeat it. Think of it like talking to a child. Imagine a child said “mommy I’m hungry!!” and the mom replied “you just ate a few minuets ago you don’t need food right now” and then the child said “you must want me to starve!!”

Now the mother certainly doesn’t want the child to starve, but by characterizing it in this way the child bypasses the mothers argument in favor of one (the starving one) that’s easy to defeat or cast doubt on. In this way I feel the tax policy of Mitt Romney is being mischaracterized and results in a large amount of misinformation, and it just might, mislead some voters who would otherwise agree with it. The main crux of it is the fact that people attack only the part of it that would result in a weakness without dealing with the holistic aspects that make a robust and sound policy.

In the current fiscal environment of Washington, the deficit is out of control. There seems to be a consensus belief on how to reduce it: increase revenue to the federal government and reduce the spending of the federal government. One of the main attacks towards Romney’s plan is that it doesn’t effectively achieve this. He certainly is clear that he wants to cut spending, however he wants to cut taxes as well, and without increasing revenue how will he pay down the deficit?

The answer is simple; his plan to cut taxes is being mischaracterized and the key parts that would increase revenue are being ignored in order to make his plan look bad. His plan has two main parts: Reduce the rates, and reduce Deductions. The part where he reduces the rates is the part where he wants to ‘cut’ taxes and is attacked for not raising revenue. The part where he reduces deductions is the part being ignored.

Imagine that the revenue to the federal government worked like a large super market. In this supermarket you have various products at various prices (tax brackets). The store raises and lowers the price of these products to attempt to raise their revenue. However, there exist these special coupon’s that customers can use (deductions) these coupons have no limit and there is not tie in or special by that you have to do to get them, if you have them, you get the discount. So people who by the more expensive items (the rich) get more benefit out of the coupons. The problem arises when the company is losing money to all these coupons. Then imagine someone said “hey lets just raise the prices!” well this doesn’t solve anything because all of the coupons that people can just use. If you raise the price, they can just use more coupons. Then imagine that say, Romney, begins managing the store. His plan would be to eliminate the coupons, and to compensate for that, he would lower the prices some. So while the prices are lower, people are actually paying the prices. This is very analogous to our current tax system in place.

People complain about the rich not paying taxes, but the problem isn’t the rate of the taxes. The rich, due to the fact that they own more property, have more income, etc; have access to more tax ‘coupons’. Romney’s plan is to lower their rate a bit, but get rid of these coupons. This will actually raise revenue while making the math a lot easier when filing your taxes. There won’t be as many weird forms to fill out to get the full refund, and the rich won’t be able to wiggle out of taxes by taking large deductions. This is balanced by the fact that the rate will be lower, but it will actually get paid instead of skirted through loopholes and deductions.