The Economics of Buddhism

I am reading a Buddhist book about meditations, Meditations 1: the Dhamma Talks, and this one section jumps out at me as an essential truth:

"The whole idea that happiness has to consist either in doing things only for your own selfish motives or for other people to the sacrifice of yourself — the dichotomy between the two — is something very Western, but it's antithetical to the Buddha's teachings. According to the Buddha's teachings, true happiness is something that, by its nature, gets spread around. By working for your own true benefit, you're working for the benefit of others. And by working for the benefit of others, you're working for your own. In the act of giving to others you gain rewards. In the act of holding fast to the precepts, holding fast to your principles, protecting others from your unskillful behavior, you gain as well. You gain in mindfulness; you gain in your own sense of worth as a person, your own self-esteem. You protect yourself."

The idea that we are successful through serving others is a core tenant of free market economics: the spirit of entrepreneurship. We attain happiness through that service. Service itself is the reward, not material wealth. And society as a whole benefits.

Philosophy and Human Transcendence

"So who am I? Since I am constantly changing, am I just a pattern? What if someone copies that pattern? Am I the original and/or the copy? Perhaps I am this stuff here—that is, the both ordered and chaotic collection of molecules that make up my body and brain."

Ray Kurzweil asks this question in The Singularity is Near. A classic metaphor, the Ship of Theseus, makes one wonder of we are who we were yesterday, or even last week.

"But there's a problem with this position. The specific set of particles that my body and brain comprise are in fact completely different from the atoms and molecules that I comprised only a short while ago. We know that most of our cells are turned over in a matter of weeks, and even our neurons, which persist as distinct cells for a relatively long time, nonetheless change all of their constituent molecules within a month.14 The half-life of a microtubule (a protein filament that provides the structure of a neuron) is about ten minutes. The actin filaments in dendrites are replaced about every forty seconds. The proteins that power the synapses are replaced about every hour. NMDA receptors in synapses stick around for a relatively long five days."

So will it be that unexpected when we merge with our technology to become God's? Arthur C. Clarke said that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."  Rest assured that what we may do someday would look like magic to us today.

Sherlock Holmes on Discrimination

From Doyle's story A Case of Identity, reminding us that to discriminate is simply the act of making reasoned, informed decisions:

"I have seen those symptoms before," said Holmes, throwing his cigarette into the fire. "Oscillation upon the pavement always means an affaire de coeur. She would like advice, but is not sure that the matter is not too delicate for communication. And yet even here we may discriminate. When a woman has been seriously wronged by a man she no longer oscillates, and the usual symptom is a broken bell wire. Here we may take it that there is a love matter, but that the maiden is not so much angry as perplexed, or grieved. But here she comes in person to resolve our doubts."

Another great book focusing more on the act of making reasoned decisions is professor Walter Block's the Case for Discrimination, available from Mises.org. 

Discrimination and Property Rights

Conceivably, all of these decisions may be “justified.” Perhaps employers are more powerful or have better bargaining power than employees.145 Even if this is so, this is unrelated to racial or gender discrimination. If this is legally offensive, per se, then mere wealth should be irrelevant. After all, the rapist cannot defend his actions on the ground that his victim is richer than himself. In any case, it is the customer, not the owner of the restaurant, “who is always right.” If there is any imbalance of power in that scenario, it presumably cuts in precisely the opposite direction. For example, since the patron of an eating establishment holds a thumbs up or thumbs down vote, then it should be, if anyone, the owner and not the customer who would have the right to freely pick and choose.

This court’s finding is also philosophically flawed in that it ignores the fact that private property rights are in effect a license to exclude. The entire point of such rights is to draw a line between “mine” and “thine.” If a man cannot exclude others from his premises, then there is a strong sense in which they are not his premises at all.

From Walter Block's book, The Case for Discrimination.

The Strength, and Weakness, of the State

"A government strong enough to act in defiance of public feeling may disregard the plausible heresy that prevention is better than punishment, for it is able to punish. But a government entirely dependent on opinion looks for some security what that opinion shall be, strives for the control of the forces that shape it, and is fearful of suffering the people to be educated in sentiments hostile to its institutions."

Lord Acton, Freedom and Power

Give up and Live

You have to give up. You have to accept that someday you will die, and until you do, you are useless. What you do in life might not matter, and you might not leave evidence of your existence when you go. Or maybe you might. Either way, make your mark on the world and on time. Say something worth saying, do something worth following. Champion logic and morality at once. Seek truth. Be an inspiration to our children.

Don't Get Out the Vote, It Makes You Look Ignorant

Stop voting, it doesn't show you can think rationally, but only through groupthink. Sheldon Richman says it shows a lack of individual responsibility:

"A mass democratic system encourages voter irresponsibility, says Sheldon Richman. Because the consequence of any single vote is negligible, individuals have an incentive to vote on some basis other than an understanding of current issues — which would require, among other things, the costly acquisition of a grasp of basic economics. Voters, then, are free to vote their biases. This voter mentality is known as rational ignorance."

More:
http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/16/sheldon-richman-says-dont-get-out-the-vo