My politics

25/10/12 13:21 [Thursday]
I have been thinking about politics and economics. I ask myself what the reason is I regard myself as Conservative and whether I still should be Conservative, considering the situation I am in of being unable to support myself in work and therefore relying on State handouts. Some of the people I follow on Twitter are likewise unable to work for reasons of mental illness and those who declare themselves are very much against the present Conservative Government because the policy is to save money by cutting State handouts this leading (especially under the system run by ATOS the assessors for the DWP) to seemingly harsh decisions requiring people to try to work who declare they are unfit for work.
The reason I regard myself as Conservative is that my brain wiring inclines me to prefer the individual over the collective. Some animals - for example tigers - are by nature solitary, while others - for example lions - are in their nature herd animals. As in many aspects, human beings vary a lot among themselves and some are more solitary and others more gregarious. The existence of language creates a semblance in the eyes of some that humans are naturally social animals, but in fact language can be used by an individual on his own and is not just for communication. It’s true that language would not have developed outside of groups of communicating persons and equally it is true that people are initially in the society of their family. Even individuals who are by nature solitary are going to acquire language (almost all of them) on the basis that enough people in the past have been of the society from which language emerged. Mrs Thatcher believed in the family but not in society.
Socialists are in favour of the collective imposing itself. If healthcare or education are provided free by the State (they could be provided free through charity but not in the way the State can guarantee them) then taxes are imposed to pay for them. You cannot escape the fact that freedom of the individual is associated with Capitalism (to use that term as better defined than the term Conservative for the more Capitalist party in British politics) and not with Socialism. I suppose there are people who are freer under Socialism - those subject to State handouts have more money - but overall there is less freedom. I interject here what I have said before that Socialism is in vogue these days because people in general are so well off (from economies of scale with such a large population density) that they can afford without trouble to subsidise people who need or otherwise take State handouts.
I have been thinking of an example policy of the Labour Party in Britain which means something to me, that is the policy of making train fares the same whether you book online or at the booking office. What this policy does is remove the incentive for people to seek out cheap fares and book online: they will tend to leave it to the formally employed booking clerk. As things stand people doing things for themselves online are saving the provider cost and - if they are allowed a reduced charge - profiting themselves. This helps even unemployed people like myself, by allowing us to help ourselves. Of course under the Labour scheme there would be more employment for formally employed booking clerks, but they would work less hard (at finding the ideal fare, in this specific instance) than the individual helping himself.
The generalisation from this is that Socialism is associated with larger and easier employment, but to the marginal disadvantage of those remaining unemployed. The way of compensating those who have to be unemployed even if there is full employment - a lot of the long-term sick and disabled - is to give them larger State handouts. What this means is that even those necessarily unemployed who could do things to benefit themselves outside of work are deprived of the opportunity and rendered inert with more State assistance. I’m not sure that this is specifically true of the British Labour Party but on the whole Socialism would be more associated with putting old people in collective homes and less with allowing them to remain in their own home. This is the basis of why my politics are as they are: I prefer to have an active mind (even without much bodily activity) - this being helped along by the provision of opportunities for benefiting myself through doing things myself (online the way technology is in the present) - rather than to sit inert all day in front of a television in an old people’s home.
Of course in my case - at the age I am now - it would more likely be a lunatic asylum than an old people’s home, and I mention here that a few months back when I was more inclined to favour being shut away in an asylum the reason was that the level of medication I was on was preventing me having an active mind.
Something I have asked myself in thinking about these matters is whether global resources are used faster if there are a lot of people in employment but not working very hard, or faster if there are fewer people in employment but a lot of motivation for those in and out of employment to do things for themselves. The presumption behind this question is that it is better not to consume resources quickly, because then human civilisation will continue over a longer period. It is possible to doubt this presumption on the basis that we are talking about such a long period into the future that it makes no odds: what does it matter whether my cousins many generations down the line have more or fewer children of their own surviving to an old age, or whether the line dies out? For the record my guess is that resources are used faster if there is full employment (which I suppose is obvious anyway because those not in employment however hard they try to do things for themselves are not going to get as much done which consumes resources as those in employment even if those in employment laze about a lot).
I must say the Conservative Party does not say that its policy is to keep unemployment high to provide better motivation and to reduce the rate of depletion of the world’s resources: what is said (or was said when Mrs Thatcher was in power) is that the motivation provided out of less subsidisation (for the unemployed, specifically) will let market forces operate more flexibly which should in time improve the economy and improve the rate of employment. From history one would expect in fact that less State intervention would lead to a more pronounced cycle of a better then worse then better again economy.
To summarise again: the reason I am Conservative is that less State intervention provides motivation (and indeed the possibility at all) of doing things for myself (even if I am not in employment: so long as things are not so difficult that I starve, of course).
Taking up the point in parentheses there: if things are not too easy for me I acquire more information (there are learning opportunities, to put it more conventionally) and a significant part of human progression through life is acquisition and processing of information - more significant to some than others, of course, depending on ‘personality’ and brain wiring. Also, where there is variety there is more beautiful information, so it suits those of us who adhere to certain aesthetics for there not to be too much equalisation. On reflection the people I follow on Twitter who believe in palling up with others and demanding a more equal society can’t genuinely be schizophrenic: either they are mis-diagnosed or their medication is turning them.

The development of teamwork

14/10/12 15:53 [Sunday]
I have been pondering various things the pondering originating from the question why the letters of the alphabet are in the order they are in. I interject here (in my introspective way) that it gives me great pleasure to ponder, pleasure I was deprived of for decades on high dosages of dopamine-blocking drugs.
Where my pondering led me was to the realisation that modern society is a great success (to use that way of describing it) because of the existence of structures in society which allow ends to be achieved through teamwork instead of through the efforts of rare geniuses. Johannes Kepler published the first two laws of planetary motion in Astronomia Nova in 1609 but Isaac Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica in which was expounded the theory of gravitation deriving from more basic principles Kepler's laws was not published till 1687. In other words scientific progress occurred until recent years only through fits and starts as very clever people came into being and found themselves with a position in life to make their contribution. An example nowadays of the teamwork I am referring to is to be found in programming computers. The way computer languages like Visual Basic are structured latterly allows for less clever people to combine together and as a team come up with a program - in quick time too - to do whatever is required, that is whatever will find a market.
This fact of modern life goes hand-in-hand with the wide spread of democratic socialism which without a doubt arises from the high population density. Instead of a top-down originally feudal structure to society in which ways which are right and ways which are wrong are defined by edict according to the will - except in occasional cases of the Caligula type the fair-minded because disinterested will - of those higher-up the ladder: instead of that we now have the policy of letting everyone have their say to contribute to the mob decision. A lot of the explanation why this policy is now preferred comes down to improved communications technology. So instead of record company executives taking quiet decisions which bands to hire and which to exclude we have the X-Factor shows where artistes with some experience they can share (but originally record company executives still, but in public) pass comment only the ultimate decision is by plebiscite. You'd think this would work because the statistical difference between the paying public and the voting public is little, but I have to remark that the basis on which people vote is not identical to how they decide to spend their money.
Another example of mob sharing of ideas and (more easily measured for theorising) language comes in the internet. Instead of writing a book (of essays, say) and submitting it to a publisher who would do an initial short-listing to decide what to put before the public and for items put before the public edit the publication to make it conform to standards of grammar tried and tested over centuries: instead of that people publish themselves in sometimes shorter and sometimes longer formats but without the vetting and conformation to standards which publishing through a house imply. What this results in is the written language which anyone who thinks will agree should (or certainly did in its origination) closely follow rules taught in schools: the written language coming to be used in the democratic manner the spoken language naturally follows. The thing is that the spoken language does not need rules because it derives, without any effort or intention on the part of the learner if it is his mother-tongue, from the way neural networks in mammalian systems (or probably any systems of synapses) are structured. To use the written language merely to mirror the spoken language risks - as I said the other day on 'their' versus 'they're' written without reflection on the etymology and meaning - making a complex mish-mash without it on the surface - to the native speaker - appearing a complex mish-mash.
Well I believe in freedom of speech and democracy because they protect from oppression - that is if there is free WiFi in McDonalds in China or Syria oppressive measures gain world-wide publicity - but on the other hand I cannot approve of using the written language in a way which muddies meanings and makes things much more difficult for non-native speakers. What does it mean then? What it means I think is teaching the written language rigorously in schools (in countries which approve freedom and democracy) so that a great majority of users send texts and issue blog updates which convey accurately what they say and say what they convey and which can be read by an international audience.
More generally what it means is subjecting preadolescents to a top-down almost feudal régime so that they can live in a free world as adults.
---
Because I was an only child and an individualist indeed a loner until recent years what fits better with my nature is the importance of individual freedom not interacting a lot with other people for example before deciding to do things or in doing things. So I have asked myself what the good is of Society at all. An answer I have come up with recently takes as its example refuse disposal. Only through disposing regularly through schemes of collection of household trash can people live in such proximity in cities. What this means is that mankind has done so well in terms of multiplication of numbers because of arrangements made by minds agreeing together in concert. It doesn't in itself explain how it comes about that minds can make agreements together but they have been able to through recent centuries starting from joint-stock companies originating out of bands of merchant navigators sailing the seas developing into governmental and lately intergovernmental acts funded by taxing, borrowing and property-rating.
The evolution from being able to communicate in spoken language to being able to build cities and roads and spacecraft through large-scale organisation and co-operation is the same I was on about earlier speaking of bands of less clever people teaming up to do things previously assigned to small numbers of more clever people. The possibility of it has something to do with the enjoyment people including the cleverer get from the talking-shop (deriving indeed from the evolutionary advantage of sharing experience) and the proportionate increase in numbers of less clever people and their increased influence with the economies of scale accompanying the increasing population. Because life is easier (from economies of scale) there is less pressure on people to perform (eg children in State schools) but things carry on (the population continues to increase) through teamwork (which includes the breakdown of the tradition of lifelong monogamous relationships).
Reflecting further: you can see the advantages from teamwork that is the multidisciplinary approach. One person does not need to have expertise in all the various disciplines and does not need to hold all factors in mind all at once. All I need to be able to explain is why the structures needed for a team to intercommunicate effectively and retain what has been achieved as it is achieved through the lifetime of a project (à la teamwork Visual Basic): why these things necessarily came to be as people lived in closer and closer density. One thinks of things like local filing systems which large numbers of 'colleagues' have access to plus ancillary requirements such as defence against loss through fire and other catastrophe (protection against a fire like that at Alexandria) from having the fire-brigade within local reach. These factors more significant really than increasingly large organisational structures unified by (still now to a degree and certainly widely so until recent decades) a top-down hierarchy depending from boards of directors (but since the commencement of joint-stock companies the directors answerable to a proportional democracy of shareholders and more and more so lately a simple democracy of 'users' of all descriptions). These top-down hierarchies themselves rely on the ability to communicate directives (and report-back upwards) and the ability of companies of electors to come together in other words until recent telecommunications advances (and before that preliminary sorts of transport and communications improvements) on the proximity of personnel.
In summary the reason teamwork and democratic socialism have taken over is fundamentally the reason cities were a success from the outset. People in close congregation enjoy providing mutual help, whether because they do it through paid custom - getting something tangible in return - or because they can afford to get pleasure from identifying with those they help.

Phase 1 may bore but try Phase 2

09/10/12 13:08 [Tuesday]
(Phase 1)
A few months ago I exposed the power switch on an old laptop I possess by cutting a hole in the case using a Stanley knife. My objective was to automate the turning-on of the computer by connecting it up to a mains-powered timer such as you buy to turn table lamps and what-not on and off according to a schedule. I got as far as soldering a wire to the power side of the push-button and making a connection to the earth side getting at that via a USB port (because it was too fiddly, certainly using the soldering-iron I had, to connect to the earth side of the power switch directly). This worked, in that making a link between the two connections simulated closing the power switch so that the computer turned on.
As I say, matters stood like that for a number of months. But yesterday and this morning I have completed the project (but for actually testing the automatic turning-on of the mains-powered timer, which I have set to occur at 5 am). The mains-powered timer has a transformer plug plugged into it this driving a 12V relay whose contacts make the link between the power side of the computer on-off and the earth side. More than this: because the mains-powered timer stays ‘on’ for a quarter of an hour minimum I have rigged a 5V relay to a USB port from the computer this relay breaking the power to the 12V relay once the USB port becomes live. I have tested this set-up by switching on the mains-powered timer using its manual switch, and the laptop starts up correctly.
I now have the pleasure of writing a VB program to fire up when the computer turns on, initially simply recording (in a log file written to the hard disk) the time the computer has switched on and, probably, a note every minute that it is still switched on. My hope is at the next stage to get the program to shut the computer down (although the API call in VB6 to do this doesn’t work I find on modern operating system versions).
(Phase 2)
Something that has been in my mind on and off since I was at university is the nature of error. I have in a sudden inspiration got further this morning with my thoughts on the nature of error than I have previously (which I take to mean the Risperdal at the present dosage is helping me to think clearly).
I tie this idea of what error is in with my ideas on democracy. That is, it is possible for a majority of people to believe something or accept something or do something and it still be in error. This is proved by the existence of mistakes of fact in Wikipedia, or almost proved (because a majority of people might know the facts are wrong but never bother to correct them).
Specifically this morning I have considered mistakes in grammar. The modern trend in language theory is to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, but you still can’t get away from the fact that some usages are in error. If I say, ‘Their coming at 5 o’clock,’ when what I mean is, ‘They’re coming at 5 o’clock,’ it is an error. Supposing there were some similar construction which was used by a majority of English-speakers it would still be erroneous (but what is found in practice I imagine is that people using grammar erroneously are not consistent one with another, so that there is no democratically agreed mistaken construction).
I’m still working on how I can be certain that ‘Their coming at 5 o’clock’ is erroneous but it is something related to the unnecessary complexity of presuming that one meaning of ‘their’ is a possessive pronoun but another is an alternative contraction of ‘they’re’. The difficulty with that is the fact that in English (especially British English) there are unnecessary irregularities, for example doubling a consonant sometimes after an unstressed syllable when the usual rule is to double if the syllable is stressed (‘marvellous’ in British English). I seem to be arriving at the idea that unnecessary complexities are correct and not erroneous if they are democratically elected by majority usage over a period of time, not simply in the current period.
I must say this ties in rather well with my notions of what is ‘good music’. Modern popular music may be democratically chosen over a short present period, but surely I must be right to think music by Beethoven is better: because Beethoven has been democratically chosen on the moving average of votes over a number of centuries (and over a number of jurisdictions).
In mathematics it is possible to say with certainty that some structures are erroneous the reason being they are self-contradictory. It is possible for mistaken proofs to be accepted for a period, but in this case too they get found out by the passage of time (as far as I can assess).
I’m almost coming to the question of hesitancy versus confidence here. ‘I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.’

Twitter

I have turned my twitterings into a diary and uploaded it at colinbrough.co.uk/Twitter2012Sep.html.