Compatibilism and Divine Determinism

The Consequence Argument is one of the main reasons that compatibilism (the idea that determinism and free will are compatible) is almost dead in the realm of philosophy. Here is a simple, non-technical version of the argument. Let's assume determinism is true:

1. No one has power over the facts of the past and the laws of nature (and perhaps the decree of God).
2. No one has power over the fact that the facts of the past and the laws of nature (and perhaps the decree of God) entail every fact of the future (i.e., determinism is true).
3. Therefore, no one has power over the facts of the future.

This argument has nearly killed compatibilism, because without being able to assert that we have power over the future, a compatibilist has no basis upon which to draw a distinction between a free act and an unfree act.

Hence, divine determinism is not compatible with free will.

Psychology and Autopilot

People misunderstand Psychology and Neuroscience, thinking that it shows human behavior to be deterministic. We make thousands of decisions each day, such as whether to start walking with the left or right foot. We put most of these decisions on autopilot. What Psychology and Neuroscience do is help us understand how this autopilot works.

A Fun Platitude

When the going gets difficult, the difficult get going.

Customer Service

At our organization, we give customers better than they deserve.

Anti-Poverty Social Programs

In Ronald Nash's book Poverty and Wealth, he gives statistics on the per capita expense of United States anti-poverty programs.

In 1982, the total U.S. welfare bill at all levels of government (federal, state, and local) came to 403 billion dollars. If we take figures from the Bureau of the Census (August 1984) which state that the number of people living in poverty in the U.S. was 15.2 percent of the population, or 35.3 million people, an amazing fact emerges. Had we simply divided the 403 billion dollars this nation spent on poverty at every level of government among the estimated number of poor people, each poor person could have received $11,133. For a family of four, this would have totaled $44,532. Since the official poverty level per family for that year was $9,287, it is clear that America's fight against poverty involves enormous overhead costs. Most of the tax dollars collected to fight poverty end up, Thomas Sowell notes, "in the pockets of highly paid administrators, consultants, and staff as well as higher-income recipients of benefits from programs advertised as anti-poverty efforts." Clearly, the bucket used to carry money from the pockets of the taxpayer to the poor is leaking badly. Many think the real beneficiaries of liberal social programs are not the poor and disadvantaged but the members of the governmental bureaucracy who administer the program.

Today's statistics are not much different. $591 billion per year (on the Federal level alone) spent on 39.8 million impoverished equates to $14,849 per person, or $59,396 for a family of four. We spend a lot of money on anti-poverty programs, and it sure isn't helping.

Explaining the United States Debt Limit

Our country is going through a crisis right now, going even deeper into debt. This video helps to explain just how we got into this situation, and how we might be able to get out.

A Fatal Flaw in the Keynesian Model

When I took macroeconomics at Kent State University, I think the primary flaw in Keynes' economic system is its assumption that the price of labor exists only relative to the price of goods, and vice versa. In other words, take the price of a certain bundle of goods and ask "how many hours of work will it take the average laborer to earn this?" That is how Keynes defined price.

Because of this paradigm, Keynesians suggest altering the labor to goods price ratio to solve economic problems. Because labor costs do not change quickly, a rapid change in the cost of goods can temporarily alter the labor to goods price ratio in one direction or another, and hence ramp up or cool off the economy.

For example, an economy in recession, according to the Keynesian, has a high labor to goods ratio, which means higher unemployment and a weaker economy. The way a Keynesian would fix this is to increase government spending while cutting taxes (this is called fiscal policy) in order to increase the money supply. The increase in the money supply will drive up the cost of goods, but it will take time for labor costs (such as labor contracts) to adjust to this. Hence, we get a temporary decrease in the labor to goods price ratio, and a stronger economy. For those of you wondering why the government is increasing spending while we are already in debt, this is the reason.

Such a system cannot account for situations where the economy as a whole becomes stronger (e.g. technological improvement). If some rapid advance in technology came overnight, and everyone was able to produce twice the amount of goods that they produce today, the price of labor would then double relative to the price of goods.

Fair enough, but what if instead of technological advancement, something changed overnight in human biology or our social situation that would cut our hours available for work in half. The price of labor would again double relative to the price of goods.

Clearly, the former situation would lead to increased prosperity and reduced poverty, as it would double our resources for providing food, clothing, shelter, and transportation. The latter would reduce the availability of essential services such as firefighting, police services, and medical care. Yet the Keynesian model cannot distinguish between the two!