Us, Me, or We?

Our desire for a particular political ideology is highly driven by our self esteem.  

He is just better than everyone else

Those who think they are better than every one else tend to want no holds barred competition.  Those who are less sure of themselves want to be apart of a group.

From a political perspective, timid humans trend toward communism while egocentric people trend toward anarchy. 

Communists tend to be altruistic and Libertarians tend to be selfish.  

It is more dangerous on the norm to be surrounded by Libertarians than Communists.

The optimal utility for society will most probably be a mixture of these two extremes

Thought Experiment

Pretend for a moment you secretly think you are better than everyone else.  Your natural talents, current resources, and/or knowledge make you a better human being than most of the people around you.

What kind of political system/structure would you want to exist in?

     a) everyone on a big team

     b) lots of small teams 

     c) every man for  himself 

Now pretend that you think your just normal/average, a little bit less educated, do not have so many resources and/or are lacking in some natural talents.

Look at that list again.  What kind of political system/structure would you want to exist in?

People who think they have an advantage will be less likely to want to be on a team.  They tend to believe their personal merit will allow them to do better in a competitive situation on their own.  Given the chance to compete one-on-one, they think they will win.

People who think they are less capable want to have the infrastructure of a team.  They hope their lack of personal merit will be supported by others who have different strengths and weaknesses.  Given the chance to be on a team, they think they will win.

Safety in Numbers

We Are Together

Communism and Socialism are examples of society as a big team.  

Examine from the lens of self esteem, "communism" is about spreading all the skills evenly so no one has unfair advantage.  All skills are normalized in value toward the benefit of the team.

From this perspective "socialism" can be seen as a team which spreads risk but is configured for more personal advantage to be allowed, as long as it benefits all.

The Uber Man

Cream Rise On Up

On the other end of the spectrum we have Anarchism and Libertarianism as trending individualistic political structures.

“Anarchy” systems are generally focused on individuals, have minimal formal rules and eschew systematized political teams.

While allowing for more interconnectedness through transactional systems, "libertarianism" is also very focus on individual merit and achievement.

A fundamental part of both these theories is that the best/fittest individuals should be able to rise to positions of strength and power.

We Can Do It

In between these two extremes of anarchy and communism lie a great many flavors of political formulation.  Oligarchy, monarchy, democratic, republic, federalism and others are based on larger or smaller teams of people working in concert and competition toward an end.  

 

Many competing teams in the whole

These in between political structures for this discussion are grouped together because they share in common a limited interdependence and a since of shared risk and reward among group members.  There may be a supreme leader or not.  There may be regular transfer of power or not.  

The in between political structures are different means for those with more perceived merit to have some more independence of action and those of less perceived merit to be more controlled.  All attempt to setup a situation that allows the cream to rise to the top for the good of many.

Analysis

The link between political affinity and self esteem is not an absolute.  It is a trend.

If you take any one individual who thinks to become a communist, they may not have low self esteem.  In large groups however, the trend toward lower self esteem and desire for being the member of a protective grouping is clear.

Likewise, not every anarchists and libertarians will be selfish ego-maniacs. Like with many fluid natural systems, the attraction to self aggrandizement will trend more people in that direction.

There is clear data about self esteem and team participation.   There was no clear quantifiable data that I could find showing the exact distribution of self esteem to political persuasion.   

My understanding is that self esteem is self reported and the results are skewed in most surveys about political persuasion because of the nature of question being asked.

My hypothesis is that we would look for bell curve like distribution models of self esteem based on group dependency/inter-dependency beliefs in direct correspondence with political persuasion.

Individuals who are surrounded by altruistic actors will have a competitive advantage over those surrounded by the selfish actors.

Gaming theory studies on competitive versus cooperative behavior patterns in nature show a clear advantage toward the cooperative individual’s survival.  

There are some systems that thrive on pure competition; however their ecological stability is much harder to maintain making them rare and often fragile ecosystems.

Examples of this stability of cooperation exist within in plants and individual cells.  The cell groups that cooperate in a plant have proven very successful evolutionary.  Even individual cell organisms are collections of parts in cooperation.  Life itself evolves to those systems of cooperators because of the specific advantages spread risk and shared power brings.

Conclusion

Libertarians trend to have more self worth, self regard, self respect, self integrity and be more self centered and selfish.

Communist trend to have low self worth, self regard, self respect, self integrity and be more group oriented and selfless.

Any one individual who is surrounded by self centered and selfish people will be more apt to fail.

Any one individual who is surrounded by selfless and altruistic people will be more apt to succeed.

Notes

Here are some relevant papers worth reading if you’re interested in exploring these ideas more deeply

"Psychological Sources of Political Belief: Self-Esteem and Isolationist Attitudes"

"Understanding Party Identification: A social identity approach"

"Evolutionary Algorithms in Theory and Practice"

"The Effects of Biased Self-Perception in Teams"

"Overconfidence and team-performance"

"Belbin Team Role Theory"

Is the US Becoming Despotic?

"Avoid the comfortable idea that the mere form of government can of itself safeguard a nation against despotism." ~ Harold Laswell, PHD of Yale University in 1946

Democracy and Despotism

At the end of World War II, Encyclopedia Britannica's film division produced a film exploring how societies and nations rank on the spectrum from democracy to despotism.

Having fought such a violent struggle against fascism, there was much thought given to what had happened and how it might be avoided in future.

Reflecting upon their experience, the warning signs of despotism were noted:

1. Concentration of power into a few hands
2. Fewer people considered worthy of respect

These cautions operate in our current era.  They also suggest we should keep power divided and respect other's right to hold different viewpoints.


Concentration of Government Power

We have divided government today.  The supreme court and congress are not concentrations of power at this time.

Divided power

The supreme court is often divided in its decisions with none getting their way all the time.  Most decisions are split and few unanimous. Debate and dissension seems standard operating procedure.

Congress is divided between the left and right; the Senate is Democrat controlled and the House Republican.  Divisions within parties even constantly struggle to gain tactical advantage.  A push and pull between competing ideas is a daily battle which unfolds before us.

Many individual states trend toward one ideology or another.  Many other states have divided ideologies.  There is no clear concentration of political power across the states, although a few states may not be divided.

Distribution of U.S. wealth

Concentration of Economic Power

There appear to be business, individuals or other interests that have concentrated power.

Economic power has become very concentrated.  Fewer and fewer people control the wealth of the land.  This slanting of the distribution of wealth allows hidden political power to accumulate.  While voting may continue, the laws are drafted by those with money to influence more often than the those who represent the electorate.

Over the past 50 years, economic power has become concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.

A strong middle class would be a good counter balance to coalescing economic interests.  Taxes, law and purchasing power can be used to counter balance those whose economic interests attempt to control the people.

The idea that only a few of us should have earned the wealth of the land is warning sign that despots could be near.  I do think there is some secret plot, rather fear a trend that puts our democracy at risk.

I am also not advocating socialism as a solution.  An equal playing field for all citizens to compete fairly will allow wealth and incomes to remain unconcentrated.  Capitalism must be regulated, greed should not be the means for political power.


Worthy of Respect

In the arena of respect however, our society may be at a higher risk of becoming despotic.  People of strong views are often not listening to one another.  We tend to group together in insulated bubbles of ideology.

Respectful?

With many options in media, people flock to political identity groups.  In doing so, we have begun to regularly disrespect one another.

Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh would be examples of voices that frequently show disdain for their opponents on the right.  How they speak to others illustrates incivility.  Using disdain,  interruption, and ridicule as tactics; their lack of esteem for others as human beings is easily heard.

On the left we have examples in Steven Colbert and Huffington Post.  Frequent coarseness, flippancy, and impiety are used to present their political opponents as being less than human.  Often cloaked in humor, the negative impacts can be devastating to persons rather than ideas.

Of course all humans are within their rights to be biased.  It is not the bias that leads to despotism.  It is the lack of respect for others that can do so.

Casting political stones

Mental Violence

While it may be fun to use Ad Hominem (to the person) attacks, they are dangerous when they become the standard means of communicating with each other.

Ridicule, dismissal, disdain, interruption, rudeness, and impoliteness are not tactics that mature, reasoned adults should use in discourse.  Verbal abuse is a form of mental violence.  Allowing constant and frequent verbal abuse leads to devaluing human beings.

Despots thrive in an environment of hate.


What Not To Do

One should not question the moral character of a person who disagrees with us.  Actions  and opinions can be found immoral by one or many of us.  Holding an idea by itself is not immoral.  It is our duty to help others become moral, not dismiss or persecute them as unworthy of morality.  

When a person's circumstances are used to define their views by others, it is a sign of lack of respect. Saying "They only passed that law to gain votes" or "only the uneducated listen to that idea" are disrespectful means of attacking a person rather than an idea.

Guilt by association is another frequent way of disrespecting other people.  This fallacy says "This person thinks a thing and another person we all know is evil thinks the same thing, therefore they both must be evil."  These arguments devalue the person rather than the idea.


Disagreement is Normal

No one has perfect morality, circumstance or association.  We all fail at somethings.  People who claim perfection are acting dishonestly.

Every man is a sinner

When we are all made to agree with one opinion, we risk despotism.  Disagreement is healthy for all of us to learn better ways of thinking and being.  Dissent is healthy and required for a democracy to thrive.

Divided political power is a strength of democracy.  Dictators can not control divided power.  Kings do not prosper when people contend for different views.  It may not be a pretty form of government, it is the best we have found so far.

Divided economic power is also a strength that keeps away despotism.  A strong, vibrant middle class is necessary in order to not allow one or a few to control the land and its laws.

Ridiculing people rather than ideas demeans us all.  Disagree, debate, and vote.
Do not demean people for their ideas, good or bad.

Prioritizing Freedoms

Illusion of Freedom

Are we free?  Can we be free?  Is freedom a given?  Or perhaps freedom is only an illusion?  Can any freedom not come at a cost to another?

One view of freedom

High above a police drone flies, camera pointing down upon a young couple as they skinny dip in a secluded park.

Buying a pack of cigarettes at the local gas station, purchase data is analyzed for poor health choices and insurance coverage denied.

Attending the start of school, a child’s hand is placed on heart and pledge recited while peers and teacher watch, ensuring compliance to accepted behavior.

Pushing a broom on Saturday, the Jewish laborer knows there will be no future employment for him if he does not.

Another view of freedom

Blowing his nose, the old man wishes he was free from the pain of allergy.

We use the word “freedom” frequently in our culture to mean that we are able to act on our will.  Our expectation of deeds without restraint leads us to believe we are at liberty to live our lives.

The reality is we are only free in part.  Actions have consequence.  Freedoms are not equal. 

Each thinking person finds their own view of how to live their lives.  Each living person is driven by causes beyond their control.  Freedom is a goal that may never be fully reached by all people, all the time.

Assumed Freedom

Our culture assumes we have some degree of free action.  Custom holds us responsible for deciding what we do.  Fate and destiny are assumed to be generated, at least in part, by each person.

We expect economic freedom to make contracts, buy and sell, and keep the money we earn.

We desire the freedom to worship or not as we choose.

We want to move freely about without interference.

We expect privacy in our persons and homes.

We demand freedom from harm; to protect ourselves, loved ones, and property.

We aspire to freely choose government and laws it creates and enforces.

We wish to make free choices for ourselves so long as no one else is hurt.

We insist upon speaking freely, to express our views, and join the public debate.

In all these cases, the independence of action, the ability to express our individual will is taken for granted.

Freedoms Conflict

Freedom during war is different

Each freedom does not exist alone.  They are co-dependent and conflict with each other.  The price of one freedom is often the limit upon another.

Our desire for protection causes us to desire police.  Giving police the tools they need to protect us limits our freedom of movement, our freedom of choice, and cost part of our economic freedom.

Our desire for pleasure has consequences on others. Smoking, gambling or drinking have a cost in resources beyond our own persons.  We limit our movement and privacy to ensure our pleasures do not harm others.

Our desire for lawful governance costs money taking away our economic freedom.  We give up our free movement to ensure regulated transport.  Our desire for protection from government means giving up privacy.  We limit our choices in order to allow the whole to prosper.

Our desire for freedom of speech allows bad ideas to be aired.  People with foolish thought or hostile intent can harm us all.  We limit our speech when it causes the society to suffer. 

Freedom in the Balance

Our balances of freedoms are the result of choices we make as a society.

We prioritize one freedom over another. 

Freedom during peace is different

Screaming “FIRE” in a crowded theater when there is none is forbidden.  Such speech is prohibited so that fear does not cause a stampede of injury.  Freedom of speech is sometimes limited for freedom of protection.

Unwarranted searches of our homes are not allowed so that we can maintain the privacy of our lives.  We sometimes value freedom of privacy more than freedom of security.

Not paying transportation tax is prohibited so that we can move more freely.  Moving about freely has a cost we sometimes value more than economic freedom.

We choose freedoms differently with circumstance. 

At one time we thought limiting the vice of alcohol was necessary for other freedoms to endure. 

Feeling our security was threatened in time of war, we limited economic freedom so that money and material could be directed to the soldiers and battles.

Freedom Struggles

Any one freedom can trump the others.  Each of us has a different view of how we prioritize freedom at any time.  When enough of us want one freedom to override another we can collectively make it so. 

Struggling to define the next freedom balance

The balance between freedoms is under constant change.  First one type of freedom will dominate then another.  Later a different freedom will become more important to us.  War, disaster, or even our dreams of the future change our perspectives and thereby our priorities of freedom.

At no time will freedoms be equal.  Trade-offs are searched for in each time and place. 

We use our politics and government to move the balance between freedoms.

Freedom is not an absolute.  Freedom is a balance between competing desires and needs.

Next time you say you are “free”, stop and consider what you mean by it.  Is “free” what you meant before?  Is “free” what you will mean again?  What new balance of “free” are you willing to make?


Be sure to subscribe to Philomeme!

Give and Take

Where tax money gets spent by government matters.  Some states take in  more dollars in federal spending than their citizens pay out in taxes.

Good citizens pay their taxes to the federal government. Other citizens in greater need  receive distributions from  central treasuries.  Taxes are also spent on more generic services like  highways, military, and science research benefiting us all.  

Being a curious sort of fellow, I decided to go look at raw data and see who was taking and who was giving.  Below are documented the results of my quest.


Top 10's

The top 10 states that give more than they take from our common coffers are largely Democratic states.  Nebraska and Texas are the only two Republican leaning states in the top 10 whose citizens are net givers to other states. 

The division between those states who take the most per person does not fall into party lines.  Taker states seem to be largely rural, poor, or remote.


Total Contributions

When the total contributions by Republican and Democratic states is added together and average, there are some startling results.

The data shows that, in total, Democratic states give more in taxes than they receive in benefits.  

States that are Republican controlled states take much more benefits all together than they pay in taxes.  

Neutral states are those that have less than a 25% majority Democrat or Republican.  These states are also net takers, but less so than Republican states.

Democratic states tend to be more populous than Republican states, thus the bars are not identical in size.

Nationally, Democrats gave each spent $1,114 more in taxes than they received in benefits and services.  Republicans took $1,540 each on average.  States with Neutral party affiliation took an extra $1,467 per person.

States that Lean Heavily Democratic

Democrats Divisions

Heavily Democratic states are a mixed bag of givers and takers.  

I could find no clear trend in the most Democratic states were takers rather than givers when considered along party lines.  

The data indicates there is a broader trend for states leaning Democratic to pay more even though the most Democratic states do not always give more.

States that Lean Heavily Republican

Republican Takers

Heavily Republican states were much more likely to take more from the taxes than they gave in.  

These states are often rural or poor.  Of course not all rural and poor states are Republican. 

These taker states tend to be in the south and west.  

It is telling that there is a lack of major east and west coast states from the taker lists.  

Givers and Takers

In the chart below, the states are ranked by how much they contribute or take from the general federal taxes by large green and red bars.  The thin blue (Democratic) and thin red (Republican) bars indicated the strength of the part in each state.  Clicking on the graphic will provide an expanded view.

Conclusions 

Pundits have been saying that Democrats are a nation of 'takers' while Republicans are 'givers' whom Democrats take from.  Even Presidential candidates have used this idea as campaign strategy.  

The Givers and takers argument has become a center of our economic debate.  It now seems common wisdom that some people give more and other people take more and that they can be divided upon party lines.  

The facts, however, disagree.  It turns out that on average Democrats give more taxes per person and Republicans take more benefits per person.  Perhaps it is time to change the common wisdom?


Be sure to subscribe to Philomeme for more articles like these.



Methods and Sources

First came taxes and spending divided by how many people are in each state.  This yielded an average giving or taking by person allowing apples-to-apples comparisons.  

Next was counting the political parties of state and federally elected officials, including Governors.   Averaging Democrats and Republicans Congressmen at a state and federal level gave a % Party Factor. A reasonable means to indicate if a state leaned heavily to one party or another.

Sequester the Future

The looming sequester is a cynical political game. Shrinking government is hard to do. Across the board cuts will bring pain and trauma. After them Congress will make itself to be our heroic saviors as they put band-aids on the most bloody parts of the spending cuts.

It is common wisdom that governments fund boondoggles. Examples are given that can make some of us angry. We do not always like the ways our government spends our taxes. Fury and fist shaking abound as we feel that our money is misspent. Obsolete programs, misunderstood research, and failed institutions are paid for with tax money and borrowing.

The Budget

A huge chunk of our federal spending is on social programs. Medicare, Medicaid and safety net programs like unemployment compensation, food stamps and housing assistance make up the majority of expenditures.

United States Federal Spending

Defense is our single largest category of spending. 

Our military budget is larger than China, Russia, England, France and the next ten countries combined.

The 'everything else' part of the chart includes the rest of government.  It counts education, science, NASA, energy, natural resources, Justice, agriculture, FBI, FDA, border security, National Parks, Coast Guard, highways and all the many programs the federal government has.

The interest on the debt is large, but not yet unmanageable.  Its growth is still relatively small compared to the size of the budgetary pie.

Election Fight

Last August, Congress decided to wait until after the election to deal with budget issues. They gave themselves a 'fiscal cliff' so they would not run over it like lemmings. The 8% shrinking of military spending and 5% across the board cuts to all other kinds has become known as 'sequestration'.

Sequestration Cuts

The sequestration idea was to make across the board cuts to most government spending if no other law was enacted. The theory was that if they made the alternative really bad, a compromise would be found.

The Republicans were convinced they would win the Presidency and control the government. They reasoned that after winning they would be able act as they wished. Having lost the election, they found themselves unable to work their will.

The Democrats pressed their electoral advantage. The Republicans feeling their back against the wall are standing firm to not let the Democrats have their way. So here, my friends, comes the austerity!

Immediate Consequences

Funding for many programs we depend upon will be arbitrarily cut. Spending on wildfire fighting to aircraft carrier maintenance is effected. Air travel will be disrupted by less controllers being available and less guards on duty to process passengers through security. Inspection of the food and drug supply will slow down.

There will be less prison guards on duty. Over half a million women and children will lose nutrition assistance. The disabled will be receive less support, financial and otherwise.

Furloughs will happen to FBI agents, Defense Department employees, and Border Patrol agents. U.S. Attorneys will take 2,600 few cases. Training for veterans, small business loans, National Parks, and Nuclear cleanup will all suffer.

Cynical Congress

Some pundits taking the Chicken Little view saying the sky is falling. Others are being Pollyanna about the cuts thinking all will be wonderful.

It is clear that there will be pain for some, especially the most needy. Most will at least be inconvenienced by lack of or slower services. All will be threatened by a weaker military.

After the cuts, the federal government will be in the position of having to spend money to fill in the holes left by the sequestration. Those places where the most pain is felt, or at least that have the squeakiest wheels, will have new funds made available.

I want to be your hero!

It is always easier to add new spending than to cut. This is just human nature. Our system of constant elections makes politicians aware that they must bring home the bacon for their local districts. Cutting the bacon is bad for their re-election chances.

Fixing what Congress broke will allow them to make believe they are heroes, come to save the day from the previous Congress. Spending money to strengthen ailing systems will look good in the press. The fact they are mostly the ones who broke it in the first place will be forgotten in two years when election time comes.

Austerity Is Bad Idea

I am not convinced that this is the right time for austerity. The world wide global recession has been going for almost five years now and no end is in sight. Cutting government spending means shrinking the economy in the short run. Spending less money slows the economy.

There will be no savings to taxes, so no more money will be spent by other sectors like business or consumers. Cutting government spending will shrink the economy, not grow it.

A strong middle class could
help pay down the debt.

Those countries that have cut their spending are hurting worse than those who have not. Austerity, budget cut backs, are going to hurt us.

Government spending does need to be cut in the long term. The level of spending is unsustainable.

We must find ways to get our middle class wages growing again. The engine of the U.S. economy is consumer spending by the middle class. These tax payers are hurting. Less middle class income means less middle class taxes. Cutting government spending will not help the middle class.

Many citizens confuse their personal experience of microeconomics with societies practice of macroeconomics. The rules for these two spheres of economy are different. Balanced budgets are good for microeconomics but not as wise in macroeconomics.

Deficit spending in recessions has a long track record of being beneficial in the long run.

Austerity in recessions has a long track record of being disastrous in the short run.

Given Congress's current direction to make austerity real, we are in for a bumpy ride.

Numbers for the charts were gathered from the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office.

Be sure to subscribe so you don't miss a story!

Equal Elite?

In every society, there is a group of people who lead it. There may be a king, a parliament or a even a democracy. The reality is that only a few people have the power to make things happen. Let's call these people 'the elite'.  They are not a conspiracy, rather a group of people, often men, who have the reigns.

The Kennedy brothers had special advantages.

The great political theorists of history, Plato, Hobbes, Locke, Nietzsche, and even Lenin, acknowledged that society has elites of one kind or another. The United States is no different from any other human society that has existed.

Launching Point

Before World War II, Ivy league schools (Yale, Harvard, Dartmouth, MIT, Columbia, etc.) publicly admitted that their students were largely from the New England elites. Names of graduates from these schools fill positions of power through out our society, (Kennedy, Bush, Rockefeller, Roosevelt, Murdoch, Clinton, Adams, Proctor, Gates, Merck, Dole, Heinz, du Pont, Sachs) reading like a who's who of power and wealth in the country.

Poison "Ivy League"?
Probably not.

Before the world war, chiefly the old family elite were permitted entrance to the training that would give them positions of power. After the war, this started to change and a new kind of merit admittance started. The path has remained the same, but the pool of eligibility has gradually widened.  It is still highly limited, not many gain access to the pathways to power.

We all know the story, go to a top school secure a job in one of a few companies and rise up to the crest of society. Rarely do we see the people who take positions of power not come from the Ivy League.  These schools are the 'elite manufacturing centers' of our nation. Tuition is high and access to the education provided is controlled. Opportunities abound for only a few.

Web of Power

Some of these people are truly the best and brightest. Many others are there by family or fortune. Building networks amongst people with power is more important than excelling at a field through brilliance of mind, action, or will.

Belonging to the same fraternities and societies within these schools like the Skull and Bones, the Scroll and Key, or Wolf's Head, gives one access to families and people already in power.

Kerry and Bush both belonged to the
Skull and Bones society.

The elites fill the ranks of both political parties, Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative alike. The top non-elected positions in government, from the Cabinet level on down, are populated with these elites.  The Federal Reserve, the top military brass, the Supreme Court and more come from these same institutions.

Sitting on the boards of long established corporations or even leading them is another path taken by the elites. Many hold multiple seats as directors on Fortune 500 companies. They are a web of familiar faces that make decisions across industries and borders. The median is that single person will be a director for 7 different Fortune 500 firms.  A small number of elites control the wealth of the nation.

Conspiracies are fun to imagine,
but too complex to pull off.

Not a Conspiracy

Having similar educations, these members of the elites tend to think alike. There is a homogeneity to what they are exposed to and therefore who they can become.

Human nature is to seek out people like ourselves. Those who think like us and act like us, attract us.

There need be no secret conspiracy of power for an elite to form. It is just the way humans are.

Leveraging family, contacts and existing wealth by individuals tend to build a cadre of elites.  If you could, wouldn't you give your children this opportunity by tilting the scales of opportunity in their favor?

Ethical Entitlement

Rockefeller boys with their father.
All inherited great wealth.

The Untied States envisions itself as a place where you can rise to the top though hard work. This Protestant Work Ethic tells us that frugality and effort will lead us to prosperity. Some even think it is a sign of God's blessing when we achieve success in this way.

This ethic also tells us that once you have 'made it' you deserve to be there. Your wealth and power are an indication of your personal superiority. The people who did not make it, failed due to their own personal limitations.

Any head start you may have been given is taken as inconsequential. There are very, very few who make it own their own, yet they are held up as the examples of all of those in power. There many more who came from a few families in these groups of power than those who made it on their own. Yet we take people like Abe Lincoln or Steve Jobs as the standard by which all climb to powerful positions.

Surrounding themselves with people like themselves, they live in an echo chamber that reflects back their own merit and entitlement to their power. The elite tend to not understand the issues, struggles or inequalities suffered by 'the little people'. These failed little people are thought simply not good enough to make the 'big time'.

Reality

Look around at the people you know. We each could name a dozen or more people that have worked hard, been frugal, and have done their best. We can also name several who did not work hard, were lazy and failed.

Hard worker with
little opportunity.

The non-elites are the ones who design the software, work in the factory, administer the medicine, and coach the little league team. They are good people who do the best they can with what they have.

The difference between the elite and those we know who worked hard is not one of effort. The difference is the resource of opportunity. Most of the elite do not start off poor. Most of the elite do not come from broken homes. Most of the elite do not have to work two jobs to support an ailing family member or face unemployment when the local factory shuts down.

The non-elite do not attend private schools with great educations. They pay off student loans over 20 years. The non-elite do not get inside knowledge on the next big economic opportunity, they are at the whim of the big company's plans. The non-elite can not martial the capital, resources, lawyers, or political power to realize their potential and accomplish their goals.

The difference between the 'little guy' who works hard and the 'little guy' who is lazy pales in comparison to the lazy and hard-working elite. The elite have huge advantages in money, education, and resources. These advantages are the true source of their power, generation after generation.

The people who call themselves the 'job creators' are actually often the elite in a new mask. Believing they 'know better' they demand a greater share of the common resources, pay less taxes, and make decisions that effect all our lives with out our input.

Conclusion

We will always have an elite in our society. It's just the way things are.

The elite should not forget their advantage and spread the knowledge and resources so that more have opportunity.  

More people of merit should be allowed to become elites, especially by non-traditional means.

The non-elite need to setup infrastructure and institutions that will enable more of the little people to rise to positions of power.

If both the elite and non-elite fail at these tasks, in a few generations we will all become weaker.

Wham BAM Thank You, Man!

We now have the technology to make a digital model of the human brain. We need but to will it to happen. If we do not, someone else will. Sooner than you may think. Scientists have devised a practical plan to do accomplish this amazing feat. We must fund them.

From humble beginnings in 1987, scientists began to model the human genome. They wanted to make map of the entire sequence of genes that make a human being. With government funding starting in 1990, the project was expected to take 15 years. They accomplished the project in 2003 with international assistance from scientists in the Europe and Asia.

Calling the project Brain Activity Map (BAM) the scientists propose to step-by-step build models of the human brain using software. They would start with a simple worm brain and work up through increasingly complex creatures until they can model a human brain. Brain mapping is sometimes also know by the term “connectome”.

The Science

Imaging techniques would be used to see what is happening with individual molecules in the brain's cells. This imaging technology already exists. Computer manufactures believe they can continue their decades long exponential growth in machine processing power using Moore's Law. This means the hardware to run the imaged brain models will be available before the brain model is completed.

Existing technology to image the brain at the molecular level

The well understood C. Elegans

The plan involves five major stages. Each stage attempts a more complex brain. The plan allows five years for each stage in order to image and model larger and larger brains. Several “brain observatories” would be constructed to allow for competition between research teams.

The first phase would start with C.Elegans, a simple worm that has already been under study for decades. The worm has 302 neurons with about 7,000 connections between them.

The humble Fruit Fly

Scaling up from the worm brain model, the scientists would then attempt a Fruit Fly (Drosophila) next. The Fruit brain has about 135,000 neurons. Current computer hardware is capable of this feat already, the scientists need only do the imaging to make the model.

Depending upon what is learned with the first two phases, the third phase would attempt either the common home aquarium zebrafish brain, a section of the human brain called the hippocampus or perhaps both. Both of these brains have just under a million neurons to image, model, and put into software.

The fourth stage would be to model the entire brain of an awake mouse. This would provide a brain model that could be tested in real time against live beings. Then the project would go on to the fifth stage to map and model an entire, working human brain. The 25 year estimate to finish this entire project is very conservative.  If structured smartly, competition could work for like it did for the human genome project and results could be achieved even sooner.

Costs

The plan calls for a mix of private and public funding in the order of about $300 million a year. Over the proposed 20 years of of the project it would cost about $6 billion to accomplish. This is on the same scale as was the Human Genome project. Even if the real costs double, it will be cheap at the price.

A billion dollars seems like a lot. To understand the scale of this investment, consider that just to build a single aircraft carrier costs almost $27 billion. We have 11 of these ships. The Transportation Security Administration has a budget of $8 billion annually. The Hubble Space Telescope costs $10 billion over its lifetime.

Putting in the Golden Spike

The Payoff

The human genome project has had staggering economic benefits. The under $4 billion invested over 13 years on research returned $796 billion in economic activity. The genome investment generated 310,000 jobs. It also launched a revolution in the bio-sciences that will be felt for generations to come.

The return on investment for mapping the human brain could be much, much greater. There is no accurate way to predict just how many jobs or how much new economic activity this project could generate. Even if the Brain Activity Mapping project were to only break-even in financial terms, the benefits to our knowledge, medicine, and computers will be far reaching.

A man, a plan, a canal: Panama.

Knowledge of how the brain works will have many impacts we know about and more we can only guess at. Understanding how mental illness works. Scientists believe that they can model the effects of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, schizophrenia and autism in the brain leading to better treatments and perhaps even cures.

Advances in artificial intelligence could boost our information processing capabilities. Understanding how consciousness emerges from the brain would allow to understand what we humans are even better. We may even be able to build our own new kinds of minds.



Just Do It

As when we decided to put a man on the moon, connect the Pacific Atlantic oceans by rail, and build the interstate system; this project must be done. The benefits to our country and mankind are too great to turn away from.

Already the European Union is funding similar research in Switzerland. We should not give up on this research like we did with the Superconducting Super Collider.  We should lead the world, not follow it into this new frontier.

We should ensure our children and grandchildren benefit. It is a small investment. We should fund this now.