I've been reading more about Warren G. Harding. The Man is often listed by Historians, as being "The Worst President in the history of the US" Lately I have been wondering if he was really all that bad.
Then I hear this great economist talk about the Warren Presidency:
He's really good at explaining economics to people who haven't spent the last two years reading about it.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
The nature of Rights
I have often said "Rights are not "given" they are fundamental constants of the universe which prevent large populations of humans from being controlled by a small group of people"
I would like to clarify that statement. When it comes to the theory of rights and their origin, there are usually two different arguments to be made. Either one thinks that rights are "given to us by the government" or one thinks that rights are "given to us by our creator" and therefore "unalienable"
I'm more inclined to agree with the latter than the former, but i would rather not agree with either statement, because I don't think rights are "Given" to us at all.
In physics, we have certain numbers that never change, such as "The Gravitational Constant or the Electro-Magnetic Constant these variables have had the same value since the creation of the universe (however you choose to believe it came about). No matter how much money you have, no matter how much power, you cannot change the Graviational Constant.
In my view, there is a fundamental "Human Agreability Constant" which expresses the maximum percentage of people you can get to agree on any one decision at one time. For instance, if I am with three friends at a restaurant and I wish for all of us to get up and go to the nearest theatre for a movie, I can probably convince my friends to do so with relative ease. If I am sitting at a restaurant with five or six friends, it will be harder to convince them all to do as I wish. The more people I wish to do as I want, the harder it will become for me to enforce my will. If I want the ENTIRE restaurant to go to the theatre, i will most likely be unable to do so unless I use force.
The same is true for government. The more people a government exercises it's authority over, the less likely it can enforce it. At the far extreme with large populations and extremely large governments, it becomes impossible for the government to enforce it's will. Even today, in the United States, the government is unable to enforce it's will. We have banned the sale of Marijuanna, yet it continues to be bought and sold. We boycott goods from Cuba, yet they continue to make their way here. It is because the government is UNABLE to enforce these things due to a fundamental constant of human nature that we have rights.
We have the right to bear arms, not because god gave us that right, but because the Government is unable to eliminate their use, and cannot track the purchase of every weapon in it's borders.
We have the right to free speech because no government can effectively stop it's citizens from speaking their mind.
We have the right to be safe in our own homes because no government can monitor every house in the nation.
Even if Governments *could* do these things, morality tells us they shouldn't.
So that is why i do not believe rights are "given" from anyone or anything. They are simple part of the great mathematical equation that has described the universe since it's inception. Governments cannot "take away" these rights any more than they can "take away" gravity. To accomplish such a feat is impossible, and to attempt it is folly.
I would like to clarify that statement. When it comes to the theory of rights and their origin, there are usually two different arguments to be made. Either one thinks that rights are "given to us by the government" or one thinks that rights are "given to us by our creator" and therefore "unalienable"
I'm more inclined to agree with the latter than the former, but i would rather not agree with either statement, because I don't think rights are "Given" to us at all.
In physics, we have certain numbers that never change, such as "The Gravitational Constant or the Electro-Magnetic Constant these variables have had the same value since the creation of the universe (however you choose to believe it came about). No matter how much money you have, no matter how much power, you cannot change the Graviational Constant.
In my view, there is a fundamental "Human Agreability Constant" which expresses the maximum percentage of people you can get to agree on any one decision at one time. For instance, if I am with three friends at a restaurant and I wish for all of us to get up and go to the nearest theatre for a movie, I can probably convince my friends to do so with relative ease. If I am sitting at a restaurant with five or six friends, it will be harder to convince them all to do as I wish. The more people I wish to do as I want, the harder it will become for me to enforce my will. If I want the ENTIRE restaurant to go to the theatre, i will most likely be unable to do so unless I use force.
The same is true for government. The more people a government exercises it's authority over, the less likely it can enforce it. At the far extreme with large populations and extremely large governments, it becomes impossible for the government to enforce it's will. Even today, in the United States, the government is unable to enforce it's will. We have banned the sale of Marijuanna, yet it continues to be bought and sold. We boycott goods from Cuba, yet they continue to make their way here. It is because the government is UNABLE to enforce these things due to a fundamental constant of human nature that we have rights.
We have the right to bear arms, not because god gave us that right, but because the Government is unable to eliminate their use, and cannot track the purchase of every weapon in it's borders.
We have the right to free speech because no government can effectively stop it's citizens from speaking their mind.
We have the right to be safe in our own homes because no government can monitor every house in the nation.
Even if Governments *could* do these things, morality tells us they shouldn't.
So that is why i do not believe rights are "given" from anyone or anything. They are simple part of the great mathematical equation that has described the universe since it's inception. Governments cannot "take away" these rights any more than they can "take away" gravity. To accomplish such a feat is impossible, and to attempt it is folly.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Rough Day
Work was really tough today. We have to send a build of our game to Microsoft for their Approval. I use big 'A' in Approval because the process is so convoluted and a royal pain in the capitol 'A'. So the office was really hectic today.
I think I can finally tell everyone what game I am working on:
http://www.joinsection8.com/
I don't know if I'll be able to join an "End the Fed" rally tomorrow. I really hope there is another one in Houston this year. But it's so close to the Tea Parties, I don't know if there is enough steam in April for another big protest.
I think I can finally tell everyone what game I am working on:
http://www.joinsection8.com/
I don't know if I'll be able to join an "End the Fed" rally tomorrow. I really hope there is another one in Houston this year. But it's so close to the Tea Parties, I don't know if there is enough steam in April for another big protest.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
The Economics of Software Piracy
In the last year I have read an astonishing number of books on the subject of economics. I've found myself studying the Austrian economists in particular. As a game developer it bothers me to hear other game developers and gamers talk about software piracy in a negative light. The worst part is when webscites like Gamasutra post an article about how piracy is hurting the video game industry.
On the contrary, Piracy is good for the video game industry as it is forcing gaming companies to compete in ways they have never thought of before. The companies that are loosing money today because of piracy are doing so because of their inability to adapt in the new marketplace created by the internet. Those that are adapting are already finding thier pocketbooks full of fat dollar bills.
I will not delve into the Morals of piracy, because that is a topic for another blog. For now we can consider morality's effects on the market to be insignificant.
What piracy does is force the gaming publishers to compete in an area they have never had to compete before. For the first time they must compete in terms of service instead of price or quality.
You see, publishers have rarely competed in terms of price. The licensing costs of development kits from the platform holders (sony, nintendo, microsoft) as well as the price of human labor in software development have largely forced the game makers to sell their products at the same price across platforms. Every now and then you get a niche "budget title" like Katamari Damacy, that is sold for a reduced price. This is usually because the quality of a budget title is perceived as lower than that of a regularly priced title.
That is the other factor that game companies are used to competing for, quality. With the price of new titles in the market mostly set in stone the developers where forced to compete in terms of quality. He who makes the best quality game, gets the most money. This was, and is, good, it means our games keep getting better and better, this competition fosters improvement and we gamers all get to reap the benefits.
Enter Piracy. When you pirate a video game, you are sacrificing service for price. You are sacrificing service because a pirated game comes with no instruction manual, no technical support, no patches, upgrades, or downloadable content. If you are lucky your pirated game will come with a readme.txt file that may or may not have been written in english. Why do people pirate then? It's simple, a pirated game has the best price: free. The video game publishers can't offer their products at a better price. The publishers are now suffering because they cannot compete in this new market.
That is probably the most important point in this post. Piracy has changed the market. This is permanent and the industry needs to learn how to deal with it. There is no law in the world that could stop internet piracy, no new invention will be created to stop it. Google tried, it didn't work. The market has changed for good, and gaming companies need to adapt in order to survive.
Many companies are already doing just that. Valve has totally turned the industry around with their Steam Service. If I where to attempt to install Half-life using the disc that was shipped in 1998 on the PC I use today, it would be an epic failure. (I have actually tried this recently) but if I use Steam I can download the game for a nominal price and start playing it with little to no problems on my top-of-the-line PC. For too long the gaming publishers have been used to completely abandoning products after they ship for retail. Re-releases, re-makes, and ports of video games are relatively new inventions (introduced to the market within the last 5 years) created by the old industry struggling to give the market what it wanted: Games that could be played several years after release.
With piracy, and the conventional boxed-goods retail service used by game publishers, your game is not likely to work after several years. If you are lucky, a publisher will release a remake or port that works on modern systems, otherwise you have no option but to play the game on the platform it was developed for.
This is the message I want publishers and developers to hear the most: Stop abandoning your games. Pursue alternate distribution models after release. The longer you continue to provide support for your game, the less money you will "lose" from piracy.
On the contrary, Piracy is good for the video game industry as it is forcing gaming companies to compete in ways they have never thought of before. The companies that are loosing money today because of piracy are doing so because of their inability to adapt in the new marketplace created by the internet. Those that are adapting are already finding thier pocketbooks full of fat dollar bills.
I will not delve into the Morals of piracy, because that is a topic for another blog. For now we can consider morality's effects on the market to be insignificant.
What piracy does is force the gaming publishers to compete in an area they have never had to compete before. For the first time they must compete in terms of service instead of price or quality.
You see, publishers have rarely competed in terms of price. The licensing costs of development kits from the platform holders (sony, nintendo, microsoft) as well as the price of human labor in software development have largely forced the game makers to sell their products at the same price across platforms. Every now and then you get a niche "budget title" like Katamari Damacy, that is sold for a reduced price. This is usually because the quality of a budget title is perceived as lower than that of a regularly priced title.
That is the other factor that game companies are used to competing for, quality. With the price of new titles in the market mostly set in stone the developers where forced to compete in terms of quality. He who makes the best quality game, gets the most money. This was, and is, good, it means our games keep getting better and better, this competition fosters improvement and we gamers all get to reap the benefits.
Enter Piracy. When you pirate a video game, you are sacrificing service for price. You are sacrificing service because a pirated game comes with no instruction manual, no technical support, no patches, upgrades, or downloadable content. If you are lucky your pirated game will come with a readme.txt file that may or may not have been written in english. Why do people pirate then? It's simple, a pirated game has the best price: free. The video game publishers can't offer their products at a better price. The publishers are now suffering because they cannot compete in this new market.
That is probably the most important point in this post. Piracy has changed the market. This is permanent and the industry needs to learn how to deal with it. There is no law in the world that could stop internet piracy, no new invention will be created to stop it. Google tried, it didn't work. The market has changed for good, and gaming companies need to adapt in order to survive.
Many companies are already doing just that. Valve has totally turned the industry around with their Steam Service. If I where to attempt to install Half-life using the disc that was shipped in 1998 on the PC I use today, it would be an epic failure. (I have actually tried this recently) but if I use Steam I can download the game for a nominal price and start playing it with little to no problems on my top-of-the-line PC. For too long the gaming publishers have been used to completely abandoning products after they ship for retail. Re-releases, re-makes, and ports of video games are relatively new inventions (introduced to the market within the last 5 years) created by the old industry struggling to give the market what it wanted: Games that could be played several years after release.
With piracy, and the conventional boxed-goods retail service used by game publishers, your game is not likely to work after several years. If you are lucky, a publisher will release a remake or port that works on modern systems, otherwise you have no option but to play the game on the platform it was developed for.
This is the message I want publishers and developers to hear the most: Stop abandoning your games. Pursue alternate distribution models after release. The longer you continue to provide support for your game, the less money you will "lose" from piracy.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
A letter to my mother
Lately I have been finding myself more and more libertarian as I find a place for a constitutionalist within the Ron-Paul sect of the Republican Party. This is a very hard transition for someone raised by a very left-wing socialist democratic mother. The following is a letter i wrote to my mother regarding this subject:
Dear Mother,
Over the past few weeks I have been struggling to resolve my newest learnings of libertarianism, the constitution, and democracy with my socialist upbringing that you have endowed me with.
First, a matter of definition. I am reminded of a quote you told me, which i am sure you read from Time Magazine, that stated, "capitalism is inherently at odds with democracy. The fight between free markets and regulation continues between these forces"
I would like to first clarify the erroneous observation made in the above quote. For it is not democracy, which this country was founded on, that struggles against capitalism, but rather it is socialistic ideas within the democracy which are inherently at odds with capitalism.
First I shall address the problems of our country today. I believe we are in agreement that Americas problems come from those who are in power. Rich industrialists, using their power in Washington, have corrupted our government and conspired against the common man to achieve their nefarious goals. I do not think there is a man in America today who does not feel within their heart that the owners of our biggest corporations have more of a say in our government than the common man does. Where you and I differ, is in how we deal with these evils in our society.
I had long thought that it was capitalism that was the source of our countries problems. For it was capitalism which generated these wealthy businessmen, and we believed that capitalism was the evil which we must fight, it's opponent, our savior was socialism.
I have come to reject these ideas. Ludwig von Mises has convinced me that capitalism is the ultimate form of economic democracy. Where every consumer is voting on the means of production with their wallet when they go to the market to make a purchase. Therefore, I was left wondering what could be the source of our societies ills if not capitalism? The answer: Corporatism, A.K.A. Fascism.
Robert Kennedy defined communism simply as "The takeover of private buisness by government " and fascism as "The takeover of government by private business" This is what has happened to our government today, it has been taken over by the corporate elite. The head of the E.P.A. is a former CEO of a coal company. The head of the dept. of Energy once worked for Enron. The examples are endless, our bureaucracies have been taken over by the very corporations they pretend to regulate.
And what do we do in return? We cry to the government, "Please, please, enact more legislation! Protect us from these evil corporations!" Is this not asking the fox to guard the hen house? We need to realize that these companies have acquired power (and in many cases huge profits) from the expansion of government. Often it is the companies themselves, fearing competition, who ask for regulation. The housing crisis of today was formed by the housing regulation of yesterday, and so we ask for more regulation to fix it?
No, this is where I break with the "Liberal" philosophy that you have raised me with. It is only by taking a sword to these bureaucracies and cutting them down, like serpents, one by one, that we will destroy the source of the corporate conglomerates power. Only then will freedom be restored to our people. It will be very difficult however. The corporate media will tell us again and again, that regulation is needed for our safety. They will never cease in their attempt to steer this country towards fascism, like they have for several years. They will create every conceivable argument possible to convince us that capitalism is evil and that we must look to the government for protection, but we must resist them, steadily, over the course of several years. For our government is very slow by design, and only with an intellectual shift spanning several decades will we be able to save our country from tyranny.
I look forward to discussing these ideas with you in the future.
Sincerely,
Your Son.
Dear Mother,
Over the past few weeks I have been struggling to resolve my newest learnings of libertarianism, the constitution, and democracy with my socialist upbringing that you have endowed me with.
First, a matter of definition. I am reminded of a quote you told me, which i am sure you read from Time Magazine, that stated, "capitalism is inherently at odds with democracy. The fight between free markets and regulation continues between these forces"
I would like to first clarify the erroneous observation made in the above quote. For it is not democracy, which this country was founded on, that struggles against capitalism, but rather it is socialistic ideas within the democracy which are inherently at odds with capitalism.
First I shall address the problems of our country today. I believe we are in agreement that Americas problems come from those who are in power. Rich industrialists, using their power in Washington, have corrupted our government and conspired against the common man to achieve their nefarious goals. I do not think there is a man in America today who does not feel within their heart that the owners of our biggest corporations have more of a say in our government than the common man does. Where you and I differ, is in how we deal with these evils in our society.
I had long thought that it was capitalism that was the source of our countries problems. For it was capitalism which generated these wealthy businessmen, and we believed that capitalism was the evil which we must fight, it's opponent, our savior was socialism.
I have come to reject these ideas. Ludwig von Mises has convinced me that capitalism is the ultimate form of economic democracy. Where every consumer is voting on the means of production with their wallet when they go to the market to make a purchase. Therefore, I was left wondering what could be the source of our societies ills if not capitalism? The answer: Corporatism, A.K.A. Fascism.
Robert Kennedy defined communism simply as "The takeover of private buisness by government " and fascism as "The takeover of government by private business" This is what has happened to our government today, it has been taken over by the corporate elite. The head of the E.P.A. is a former CEO of a coal company. The head of the dept. of Energy once worked for Enron. The examples are endless, our bureaucracies have been taken over by the very corporations they pretend to regulate.
And what do we do in return? We cry to the government, "Please, please, enact more legislation! Protect us from these evil corporations!" Is this not asking the fox to guard the hen house? We need to realize that these companies have acquired power (and in many cases huge profits) from the expansion of government. Often it is the companies themselves, fearing competition, who ask for regulation. The housing crisis of today was formed by the housing regulation of yesterday, and so we ask for more regulation to fix it?
No, this is where I break with the "Liberal" philosophy that you have raised me with. It is only by taking a sword to these bureaucracies and cutting them down, like serpents, one by one, that we will destroy the source of the corporate conglomerates power. Only then will freedom be restored to our people. It will be very difficult however. The corporate media will tell us again and again, that regulation is needed for our safety. They will never cease in their attempt to steer this country towards fascism, like they have for several years. They will create every conceivable argument possible to convince us that capitalism is evil and that we must look to the government for protection, but we must resist them, steadily, over the course of several years. For our government is very slow by design, and only with an intellectual shift spanning several decades will we be able to save our country from tyranny.
I look forward to discussing these ideas with you in the future.
Sincerely,
Your Son.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Constitutional Law
So i needed to take a class for a free elective this summer. I decided constitutional law would be fun. Call me a dork, but i enjoy political science subjects.
So I walk into class on the first day, I'm immediately excited because there are several girls in this class. When you're an engineering major, you don't see many women in your classes. So i take a seat at the front of the class, waiting for it to begin. Feeling talkative, i turn around to face my fellow students and ask:
"Hey, anyone else here taking this class as an elective? Anyone, Anyone? No? Just me?"
Apparently everyone else is there for something called, "Poly-sci" I haven't yet deciphered what that means.
So even though i made a total geek of myself, at least the class is enjoyable. All we do is read supreme court cases and discuss them. I would be even happier if the teacher made us prepare speeches concurring or dissenting with the case decisions.
Then again, I am a total geek.
So I walk into class on the first day, I'm immediately excited because there are several girls in this class. When you're an engineering major, you don't see many women in your classes. So i take a seat at the front of the class, waiting for it to begin. Feeling talkative, i turn around to face my fellow students and ask:
"Hey, anyone else here taking this class as an elective? Anyone, Anyone? No? Just me?"
Apparently everyone else is there for something called, "Poly-sci" I haven't yet deciphered what that means.
So even though i made a total geek of myself, at least the class is enjoyable. All we do is read supreme court cases and discuss them. I would be even happier if the teacher made us prepare speeches concurring or dissenting with the case decisions.
Then again, I am a total geek.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
So finals week is upon me again. Uhg, i totally hate this stuff. It doesn't help that ever since 4/20 i've been apathetic as hell. I'm trying to study, but it seems like a distraction is lurking in every corner.
I just got Ron Paul's new book The Revolution: A Manifesto
I'm not done with it yet, but i find it infinitely fascinating.
I think most Americans could feel like something was wrong with this country. I myself have often felt like something sinister was occurring at our nations capitol but i could never put my finger on it, i was always grasping for an expert to let me in on the situation. Unfortunately, with today's media, there was no way I was going to find the answers on TV.
Enter Ron Paul, this congressman talks about political maneuvers occurring in washington that i have never been aware of, things the political establishment doesn't want you to be aware of. Things that will make your hairs stand on end. His 30 years of experience gives him a unique perspective on our country that allows him to compare the government's mistakes of yesterday to the downright failures of today. I'm still not done with it, so i'll save my final analysis for when i am. I just hope i can put off reading this excellent book until i finish my studies for finals!
I just got Ron Paul's new book The Revolution: A Manifesto
I'm not done with it yet, but i find it infinitely fascinating.
I think most Americans could feel like something was wrong with this country. I myself have often felt like something sinister was occurring at our nations capitol but i could never put my finger on it, i was always grasping for an expert to let me in on the situation. Unfortunately, with today's media, there was no way I was going to find the answers on TV.
Enter Ron Paul, this congressman talks about political maneuvers occurring in washington that i have never been aware of, things the political establishment doesn't want you to be aware of. Things that will make your hairs stand on end. His 30 years of experience gives him a unique perspective on our country that allows him to compare the government's mistakes of yesterday to the downright failures of today. I'm still not done with it, so i'll save my final analysis for when i am. I just hope i can put off reading this excellent book until i finish my studies for finals!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
