The Santa Cruz Flats Inquirer

Tuesday, April 28, 2020

If It Saves One Life . . .

Speaking of anti-coronavirus measures, New York governor Andrew Cuomo has been quoted as saying "if everything we do saves just one life, I'll be happy."
And, to give equal time, Vice-President Pence said "As the President said, if your actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking."
Although politicians have a natural aversion to stating anything in its extreme form, the above statements are evidence that attention is being paid to quite a bold statement: there is a moral imperative to save a life that trumps all other considerations. What are the implications of such a statement?

"Five-thousand Americans die each year from choking on solid food. We could save every one of those lives by mandating that all meals be pureed. Pureed food isn’t appetizing, but if it saves just one life, it must be worth doing." ~Antony Davies, James R. Harrigan

To this can be added:
---35,000 Americans die each year in motor-vehicle-related accidents. We could save every one of those lives by banning motor vehicle travel. Sure, the division of labor and the economy would break down from lack of transportation, but if it saved just one life, it must be worth doing. (If anyone was thinking that we could replace motor vehicle transport with animal transport, think again. About 100 people a year die in riding or animal-drawn vehicle accidents.)

---About 250 people are killed by trains each year. We could save every one of those lives by closing down the railroads. Sure, the division of labor would break down from lack of transportation, but if it saved just one life, it must be worth doing.

---4,000 Americans die each year from drowning. We could save every one of those lives by filling in swimming pools and forbidding people to go near bodies of water over 3" deep. Sure, we'd have to give up seafood, water-borne transport, and the benefits of swimming as exercise, but if it saved just one life, it must be worth doing.

---500 Americans die each year from causes related to machinery. We could save every one of those lives by destroying all machines. Sure, we'd have to go back to subsistence agriculture, but if it saved just one life, it must be worth doing.

---2000 Americans are murdered each year with knives. We could save every one of those lives by a manufacturing ban and a program to collect and destroy knives. Sure, you'd have to eat most of your food raw (cutting food into pieces suitable for cooking is an integral part of the cooking process, in case you aren't familiar with the art of cooking), but if it saved just one life, it must be worth doing.

By now, you probably get the picture and could make up your own examples. The point is that the argument that begins "If it saves just one life . . ." is a ridiculous argument.

It's truly dismaying that politicians feel they have to cater to this low common denominator. Hopefully, they are overestimating the number of voters who would be swayed by such an argument, but I'm not optimistic!

Saturday, April 25, 2020

The Boy Who Cried "Wolf"

". . . when we are alarmed with imaginary dangers in respect of the public, till the cry grows quite stale and threadbare, how can it be expected we should know when to guard ourselves against real ones?" ~Samuel Croxall (c. 1690 – 1752)

Aesop's Fable #210 is about a boy who, in his capacity as a shepherd guarding his sheep from wolves, amused himself by crying "wolf." Hearing the cry, the villagers ran to his assistance, only to be laughed at as fools for responding to a false alarm. However, when one day the boy's sheep actually were attacked by wolves, his cries no longer served to summon aid from the villagers, as they had by that time formed the impression that he was attempting to trick them as usual.
The enduring popularity of this fable and its adoption into language as a well-known idiom (to "cry wolf," meaning to assert vociferously that there is danger when in reality there is none) attests to its power to represent a very general aspect of human life in society, and also says something about communication.
But one aspect of the fable that is perhaps not often examined is the economic aspect. Why, for example, were the villagers unwilling to come to the boy's aid after being deceived so many times? Were they just angry at being made fools of? Perhaps. But the fact that they had been willing to come to the boy's aid in the first place might suggest a more complex explanation.
Although such details are not reported in the fable, what was the economy of the village like?
Were the sheep common property of the village, in which case having them devoured by wolves would probably represent a severe loss to the village as a whole, or were they owned by a certain individual? Given the antiquity of the fable and certain assumptions that seem to be made, I would guess the former. The boy then, had been entrusted with guarding the village's sheep.
If the sheep belonged to the village as a whole, then every villager could be expected to have a strong interest in guarding them. Yet, they acquiesced in entrusting this important task to an unreliable agent---the boy who cried "wolf" when there were none. And according to the fable, after multiple such false alarms, the boy still continued in his role as shepherd; he wasn't fired!
There could be various explanations for this. One that seems likely to me is that the village was so close to subsistence that they couldn't afford to replace the boy with a more reliable shepherd. In agricultural societies, it's typical for young children to do the work of shepherding while older children and adults engage in the more physically demanding work of agriculture.
What can be overlooked in the simple understanding of the fable as a cautionary tale against mendacity is that the response of the villagers to the boy's crying "wolf" represented a significant economic cost to the village. If it were not so, the boy's crying "wolf" would not have enraged the villagers to such an extent. But it can be assumed that the meadow where the sheep grazed was a significant distance from the cultivated fields (this is typically so) and that the villagers lost a significant amount of time and energy in responding to the false alarms which manifested itself in lower productivity and perhaps even starvation. Agricultural production in a subsistence economy is a serious matter.
Like the boy who cried wolf, epidemic modelers may someday produce an accurate epidemic model. But in the meantime, responding to their inaccurate models will come at a cost.

Friday, April 17, 2020

COVID-19---The Moral Arguments

Amidst all the hoopla of COVID-19 are lurking some moral arguments. "Morality" in this case refers to the question of what one should or should not be allowed to do that affects another person. A more precise word is "justice."

1. Rules of Justice Abrogated in Existential Crisis

First of all, it has to be admitted that rules of justice are laid aside in an existential crisis. This has to do with the genetically-inherited will to survive which predates civilization. An existential crisis could be a military invasion, a global environmental catastrophe, or an epidemic such as the Black Death whose transmission mechanism is not understood (in the 14th century). The point about an existential crisis is that not enough is known to enable logical responses to be formulated, and so any course of action may be tried, including violating individual rights as "collateral damage." However, COVID-19 is not such a crisis. Enough is understood about the virus such that it does not constitute an existential threat and rules of justice don't need to be abrogated, even on a temporary basis.

2. Does the State Have the Right to Determine What Everyone's Assumption of Risk Should Be?

Many activities that human beings engage in are risky. Activities such as driving a car, engaging in certain activities or occupations, traveling by air, etc., are avoidable risks that most (but not all) people are willing to assume according to their own personal risk-reward assessments.
The argument goes, however, that allowing people to choose their own risk levels during an epidemic forces everyone to assume the same (minimal) level of caution.
While this might be of concern in epidemics that cause an existential crisis, it's not true for COVID-19. Data on the COVID-19 virus suggest that 1) most infected people are asymptomatic or recover, and 2) most at-risk people can be identified in advance. Therefore, it's possible for individuals to assess their own personal level of risk without forcing other people to assume a potentially deadly level of risk.

3. Should a Person Be Held Responsible for Transmitting a Disease to Another Person?

Can a person ever be held responsible for transmitting a disease to another person? Legal tradition holds that individuals are not responsible for Acts of Nature as such phenomena are held to be out of our control.
On the other hand, if an individual A were to knowingly, either out of malice or negligence, transmit a disease to an individual B, there should be a prima facie case against A. B would however, have to prove that 1) he or she had suffered objective harm (tort), and 2) that A was responsible.

4. Should the State Proactively Prevent Possible Tortious Transmissions of Disease?

If there is a chance that an individual could harm another, should the State act preemptively to prevent the possibility? Many would say "yes." However, if this principle were followed consistently, engaging in all potentially harmful activities would have to be banned. Suffice it to say that proponents of such measures never advocate that they be applied consistently, only on an arbitrary, case-by-case basis. This obviously collides with standards for just social rules (universalizability).
Another problem with this attitude is that it's application would violate one of the basic principles of traditional Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence: that an individual is innocent until proven guilty.

5. Property and Choice of Risk Levels

Like all questions pertaining to justice, choosing risk-levels can most logically be based on the concept of property. Each property owner can create a risk-level policy for his or her own property. Individuals can decide which properties they want to enter (or not) based on the various risk-level policies.
The question becomes, of course, muddied for "public" property. Although it's based on the injustice of forcibly-appropriated resources, bureaucrats and politicians as "property managers" can and do assume the risk-level policy creation function, since, to some extent, they always do exercise some ownership rights over public property.

COVID-19 Links

Recently the COVID-19 virus has been getting a lot of attention in the press which in turn has led politicians to implement draconian public health measures and restrictions. Here, I will post some resources for understanding the argument that the response of politicians as advised by their public health advisors has almost certainly been disproportionate to the danger.

Prof. Marc Lipsitch---the only proven factor in the eradication or suppression of a virus is herd immunity:https://ccdd.hsph.harvard.edu/will-covid-19-go-away-on-its-own-in-warmer-weather/

Dr. Knut Wittkowski interview and draft of scientific paper---lockdowns have different effects on an epidemiological curve depending on when they are instituted. If successful, fatalities in the early phase may be delayed until a later phase with no difference in total fatalities. https://ratical.org/PerspectivesOnPandemic-II.html

Prof. Isaac Ben-Israel---strict lockdowns in various countries have not resulted in statistical differences when compared with countries where less severe measures were instituted. https://www.timesofisrael.com/top-israeli-prof-claims-simple-stats-show-virus-plays-itself-out-after-70-days/

Ioaniddis vs. Lipsitch---while many epidemiologists recommend lockdown on the subjective principle that in lieu of data, better to be safe at all costs, not all scientists agree. https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/coronavirus-covid-pandemic-response-scientists-1.5502423

Dr. John Ioaniddis---authorities, statisticians, and epidemiologists are drawing conclusions and making recommendations based on too little data: https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/

https://www.aier.org/article/open-up-society-now-say-dr-dan-erickson-and-dr-artin-massihi/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=xfLVxx_lBLU&feature=emb_logo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb6j7o1pLBw

Dr. Katz interviewed by Bill Maher
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=96&v=Lze-rMYLf2E&feature=emb_logo

Death certificate corruption
https://fee.org/articles/physicians-say-hospitals-are-pressuring-er-docs-to-list-covid-19-on-death-certificates-here-s-why/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=FEEDaily

Historian Phillip Magness examines ICL statistical data
https://www.aier.org/article/imperial-college-model-applied-to-sweden-yields-preposterous-results/

Mathematician Wesley Pegden asks MSM to honestly present the effects of flattening the curve:
https://medium.com/@wpegden/a-call-to-honesty-in-pandemic-modeling-5c156686a64b

The temptation to base research on faulty protocols may make it more difficult to develop a vaccine
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6490/476

Dr. Michael Levitt, structural biologist and Nobel Prize winner, calls indiscriminate lockdown "a huge mistake."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl-sZdfLcEk

German virologist actually does a study and finds IFR of 0.24-0.36%., much lower than Ferguson's 0.8-0.9%.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrL9QKGQrWk

Dr. Steven Shaprio: time to open up
https://inside.upmc.com/shapiro-economy-roundtable/

Dr. Ioaniddis in interview with Greek TV
https://fee.org/articles/modelers-were-astronomically-wrong-in-covid-19-predictions-says-leading-epidemiologist-and-the-world-is-paying-the-price/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2020_FEEDaily

An open letter from various Canadian health authorities cautioning against the goal of trying to eradicate the COVID-19 virus.
http://balancedresponse.ca/

A study that has been claimed to prove that wearing masks (and other protective measures) reduces infections. But the study's methodology is a Patient Reported Outcome survey (patients say what they experienced) which is one of the weakest study designs, with no collaboration by medical evidence or medical staff.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6923e4.htm

A great essay that touches on methodological problems in epidemiology and economics.
https://www.aier.org/article/what-economists-can-teach-epidemiologists/

A recent assessment of models related to COVID-19
https://www.aier.org/article/the-models-were-wildly-wrong-about-reopening-too/

A skeptical examination of the science behind wearing masks:

https://mises.org/wire/when-it-comes-masks-there-no-settled-science?utm_source=feedotorg&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fee_partners&fbclid=IwAR1AGF6sy4cbKCEQJfBLPwYQ8RAYiBE_YLxsy0HKaL-XbYLAp0t-MflmUp4

"Hygiene Theater" from the Atlantic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/scourge-hygiene-theater/614599/

Fact-checking Fauci (Magness)

https://www.aier.org/article/fact-checking-fauci/

The Cognitive Biases Behind the Response to COVID-19

https://fee.org/articles/the-cognitive-biases-behind-societys-response-to-covid-19/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2020_FEEDaily

Lockdown statistics

https://www.aier.org/article/a-closer-look-at-the-states-that-stayed-open/

NPI effectiveness

https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-and-mask-mandates-do-not-lead-to-reduced-covid-transmission-rates-or-deaths-new-study-suggests/

Summary of Difference Between Sweden and other Nordic Countries

https://www.aier.org/article/swedens-high-covid-death-rates-among-the-nordics-dry-tinder-and-other-important-factors/

The Masque of Red Death as allegory for COVID-19

https://www.aier.org/article/how-the-virus-penetrated-fortress-new-zealand/

This list will be updated when and if new information comes to my attention.

Sunday, March 29, 2020

Gouging and Hoarding

If there's one thing that makes people mad these days, it's hoarding. Certain necessary (or at least inconvenient not to have) goods are simply not available at any store. Why?

I have no inclination to delve into the murky motivations that are causing these shortages. However, I'd like to review what economics tells us about the situation. These goods that are flying off the shelves as soon as they're stocked all have prices. Producers have determined that they can maximize their profit at a certain price, selling a certain quantity. Consumers have demonstrated that they're willing to buy a certain quantity at a certain price. Now, all of a sudden, demand has sky-rocketed, and customers are buying more. According to the law of supply and demand, when demand increases and supply remains the same, price will rise. The rise in price and consequent rise in ROI is a signal for producers to devote more resources to the production of the good in question until the ROI falls back to the average level. Assuming no other changes, this causes the price to fall back to the pre-crisis level as well.

Enter the prejudice against gouging. Gouging is thought to be immoral (though no one has ever explained why), and there is strong feeling against gougers, such that most store owners are not willing to raise prices.

This unwillingness to raise prices has two bad effects:

1. Hoarders can continue to pursue their anti-social activities at a lower cost to themselves. Economics tells us that even the hoarder's demand must fall off at some price. Not raising prices in the face of increased demand enables hoarding.

2. Higher prices defray the producers' costs of ramping up production. Without the higher prices, producers may be looking at a loss on faster production. This loss will inevitably be borne by the producers: stockholders, managers, and employees. Ergo producers are not incentivized to increase production.

As a result of these two bad effects, consumers will fall into two classes: 1. The lucky or clever who manage to buy up all of the product at the pre-crisis price. 2. The unlucky who can't find the product for sale anywhere.

Stores, responding to complaints by their customers, have instituted rationing for some goods. However, this policy does not necessarily prevent shortages, unless the store is willing to keep track of the identities of all its customers and verify that they are not purchasing more than their fair share of product (if a "fair share" can be determined). Furthermore, a hoarder can hoard by visiting several stores at a time.

Tuesday, September 3, 2019

Kill Zones and How to Avoid Them

Recent news reports have made the topic of mass shootings into a "teachable moment." Specifically, I'm referring to Walmart's enactment of a policy of asking its customers to refrain from open carrying in Walmart stores. Apparently, Walmart thinks that customers are upset by the sight of openly carried weapons (while concealed carry is "out of sight, out of mind.")
Walmart aside, one can see "No guns allowed" signs at various establishments around where I live. What are the implications of "No guns allowed?"
A responsible gun owner that respected others' property rights would obey such signs.
However, are we to believe that a depraved individual on a shooting rampage would be deterred by a "No guns allowed" sign? There is no reason to think that a rampage shooter would obey such a request. Therefore, establishments that display "No guns allowed" signs could potentially be convenient kill zones for rampage shooters.
What should the property rights-respecting persons in Arizona (or the average person in other states) do to avoid danger from random mass shootings?
My recommendations are based on the following assumptions. A random shooter will tend to . . .
1. Not obey "No Guns Allowed" signs.
2. Choose a target-rich kill zone so as to rack up a higher body count.
3. Choose a time of day when the target-rich kill zone is most crowded.
4. Choose a kill zone that is lightly-defended or undefended in order to rack up a larger number of
kills before he himself is killed.
Recommendations:
1. First of all, keep in mind that the number of people who are killed by rampage shooters is still small compared to other forms of death, accidental and purposely inflicted (as per Neil Degrasse Tyson's recent tweet).
2. Avoid going to establishments that post signs "No Guns Allowed" without backing up their policy with further actions such as installing metal detectors or hiring armed security guards. If you must enter such an establishment, spend as little time there as possible.
3. Only go to "no-gun" establishments during hours when there are few customers or avoid establishments (like Walmart) that attract large numbers of people.
4. When shopping at kill zones, be sure to know where the nearest exits are and have a plan for what you will do in case of an emergency (situational awareness).
Finally, I'd like to establish a rating system for how much stores or other establishments care about their customers' safety. From highest to lowest:
1. Establishments with metal detectors and/or armed security guards are the most solicitous of their customers' safety. Of course, such measures add to the cost of their products.
2. Establishments that have no policy with regards to customers carrying firearms at least do not hinder the customer from making provision for his or her own safety.
3. Establishments that merely post "No Guns Allowed" signs without any further measures show the least concern for the safety of their customers.

Friday, April 12, 2019

Solution to Carroll's Paradox

[Lewis] Carroll's Paradox (or "What the Tortoise Said to Achilles") is a logical conundrum that purports to show that modus ponens results in regressio ad infinitum.
(references:
https://friendsoflibertylogic.blogspot.com/2008/12/carrolls-paradox.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles)

Below, I try to show that if the Tortoise is claiming that his discovery that modus ponens results in regressio ad infinitum proves that modus ponens can't result in a sound conclusion, he would contradict himself.
Thanks to Hans-Hermann Hoppe!

Achilles returned to his tent and threw open the flap.

"Briseis," he shouted; "I'm home."

"Hello, dear," sang Briseis, as she tripped into the anteroom of their tent with a basin of floral water for bathing Achilles' feet. "How did your day go?"

"That cursed Tortoise," said Achilles; "He proved to me that the modus ponens must inevitably result in an infinite regression. That's the second time he's used that trick on me."
"Oh, I'm sorry dear. But how ever did he manage to do that?"
"Well, you see, he started with the premise A that 'things that are equal to the same thing are equal to each other.' Why, everyone knows this to be true. So how could I have suspected a trap? Then, he added the premise B 'the two sides of a certain triangle are equal to the same."
"Who could possibly object to that?" said Briseis.
"Well, that's what I thought," continued Achilles, "but then the Tortoise asked me if I believed that the conclusion C, 'the two sides of this certain triangle are equal to each other,' was a valid conclusion."
"Seems valid to me!" said Briseis.
"Well, of course, who wouldn't think so? But then he pointed out that I need a third premise that says that A and B lead to the conclusion C."
"No! He didn't!"
"Yes, he did. And furthermore, even when I produced such a premise, he made me produce another premise that justified the third premise and so on, ad infinitum." Achilles was near tears.
"Now, now, dear; no need to get upset. How did the Tortoise's argument end?"
"Eh? End? What do you mean 'end?' That was it---regression ad infinitum.
"But dear, was there a claim?"
"Claim? Why, of course there was. The regressio was the claim."
"But dear, did the Tortoise claim that the regression proves anything?"
"But can't you see? There was a regressio---to infinity!"
"Yes, dear, but if there was no claim, then there can be no argument. Without an argument, nothing's been proven.
"Wha-, why, pflub . . . of course something was proven. Of course it was. Why, the regressio was proven. I guess I know when something's been proven. Sure, it was." Achilles put his chin on his hand. "Wasn't it?"
"Well," said Briseis, "if something has been proven, then there must have been an argument---a conclusion based on true premises."
"Well, it may not have been stated in so many words, but there was an implicit argument."
"An implicit argument?"
"Yes, certainly."
"And how did this implicit argument run?" asked Briseis.
"Er... well, it must have been something like 'A. An infinite regression invalidates an argument. B. Modus ponens results in an infinite regression; therefore C. Arguments founded on modus ponens are invalid.'"
"I see. Well, if that was how the argument went, then might there not be a slight problem?"
"Not that I can see," said Achilles, doubtfully.
"The implied argument you gave was a modus ponens argument.
Achilles stared blankly for a moment.
"By Zeus, so it was. That means, what; circularity?"
"Perhaps, dear, but more importantly, doesn't that constitute a pragmatic contradiction?"
"A what?"
"A pragmatic (or performative) contradiction. It means 'when the statement of an argument contradicts its claim.'"
"When the statement of an argument contradicts its . . . why, bless my myrmidons, so it does! That cursed Tortoise foiled me with a pragmatic contradiction, and I didn't even notice it! Why, why . . . that scoundrel! That blackguard . . ." Achilles leapt to his feet and dashed for the tent entrance, yelling over his should: "By all the gods and goddesses, I'll wring that impudent Tortoise's neck, and we'll have turtle soup for dinner tonight!"
"Yes, dear," said Briseis, and as Achilles ran off in search of the Tortoise, she repaired to the meat safe to see if there were any ox steaks on hand.