Thursday, February 04, 2016

Toward a Universal Moral System

Unethical actions are impossible to commit against someone whom you consider a fellow human being. If one considers some other individual to be a fellow human being, it is impossible to even want to murder, assault and battery, rape, steal, or defraud them. One can only do these things against an individual whom one has dehumanized, or perhaps never considered human in the first place.

The truly ethical move, then, is to consider more and more people as fellow human beings. The truly unethical move, then, is to consider fewer and fewer people as fellow human beings. The man who is abusive to women does not consider women to be fellow human beings. The man who rapes a woman does not consider that woman to be a fellow human being. Even the woman who, coming home to find her husband having sex with another woman, kills her husband has not killed her husband, but has killed a "cheater," and cheaters are not fully human. They are a dehumanized ideal.

It is easiest to treat one's own family morally, though the existence of familial murder, assault and battery, rape, theft, and lying demonstrates that there are even those who can and will dehumanize their own family members, at least on occasion. Sometimes all the time.

The sociopath never considers anyone else a fellow human being.

Morals expand as one includes more and more people in the group of "fellow human beings." Morals regress if one excludes a person or group one previously considered fellow human beings.

If you consider any group as "inferior" or less human than yourself or your group, you are immoral. Certainly less moral than someone who is inclusive. Since only human beings can act morally or immorally in this way, to point out that someone is behaving immorally is not to dehumanize them, but to fully humanize them. To insist that a person or group should be excused for immoral behavior is to dehumanize that person or group.

You can dehumanize someone based on any number of group memberships: sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, class, income, occupation, IQ, neural architecture, etc. Dehumanizing someone based on sex is sexism. Dehumanizing someone based on race is racism. Dehumanizing someone based on class is classism. All are equally immoral, as all are dehumanizing in nature. If you hate someone because of their income, that is identical to hating them because of their race. You hate them because of some quality they have, and hatred is dehumanizing. Fear and hatred lead to immorality.

Criticizing some aspect of culture is not immoral. Criticizing some aspect of a religion is not immoral. Criticizing some particular behavior is not immoral. Dehumanizing someone because of their cultural or religious affiliation or behavior is immoral. Failing to criticize a culture for doing something you would criticize a member of your own culture for doing is dehumanizing to the members of that culture, and is immoral.

As one's moral sphere grows, one's morality grows. Those of us who consider all members of Homo sapiens as fellow human beings are more moral than past generations who did not. At the same time, we should not make the mistake of imposing our own moral narrative on that past, on people who could not have possibly known what we know. We are more moral because we are more knowledgeable. If the fault is ignorance, the goal, then, must be education.

When you do not know, and you act on that ignorance, and the outcomes is bad, your action is bad. When you do know and act on it, you are good. When you do know and do not act on it, or act against it, you are evil.

Are you knowledgeable or ignorant of building bridges? If you are knowledgeable and build a bridge that stands up, you are a good bridge builder. If you are ignorant and build a bridge that falls, you are a bad bridge builder. If you are knowledgeable and purposefully build a bridge that falls, you are an evil bridge builder. But do you even try to build bridges? If you're not trying to build a bridge, you're not a bad bridge builder, because you're not a bridge builder at all. You know what you don't know, and don't try to do what you don't know how to do. Refusing to act out of ignorance also makes you a good person. Good intentions don't count, other than to reduce your sentence. 

We must keep in mind that there is relevant and irrelevant knowledge when it comes to a given action. Now, it may be possible that one necessarily must act in ignorance. the consequences of biotechnology, for example. But one will necessarily act in less ignorance the second time around. One is obliged to use whatever relevant knowledge one can prudently attain, or one discovers. If one acts, and the action has bad consequences, one must attempt to correct future action by learning why is it the action failed. Failing to expand one's sphere of knowledge in order to ensure one's actions improve in the future is itself a moral failing.

Vice is easier than virtue. Dehumanizing is easier than humanizing. 

If you read this, you know. Now you have no excuses.

Monday, February 01, 2016

The Top 20%

In complex dynamic processes, power laws are almost inevitably exhibited. At its broadest, we find the 20:80 ratio. In market economies, we find that generally the wealthiest 20% have 80% of the wealth, for example. When it comes to altruism, we find a similar pattern, though it breaks up in interesting ways. From one perspective, we find that about 20% of the population are perfect altruists, meaning they are willing to give to people no matter how they act, meaning about 80% are not "perfect altruists"; from another perspective, we find that about 20% are "cheaters," meaning they will avoid being generous when at all possible, meaning they are almost perfectly selfish. Relative to the first group, we have 20% perfect altruists, 80% selfish; relative to the second group, we have 20% perfectly selfish, and 80% altruistic. This means that there is a middle group of about 60% who are generous with conditions. This same group is also willing to personally lose to punish cheaters (the 20% perfectly selfish), while the perfect altruists are never willing to punish cheaters.

From a social standpoint, the perfect altruists are "suckers," while the perfectly selfish are "cheaters." The middle group are a sort of golden mean, demanding just actions  from everyone, that everyone behave in a pro-social manner. At the same time, I'm willing to bet that the perfect altruists, after a while, get sick of being suckers -- may it not be these people who end up embracing socialism at the most extreme, or at least welfare statism, as a way to ensure everyone be socially generous?

I am also willing to bet that we find this ratio in many other aspects of human behavior. And it may be that it is this 20-60-20 ratio again.

For example, there are studies that suggest that humans are primarily copiers. Humans are superb copiers, which is why our cultures are so incredibly strong and dominant in our lives. This keeps tradition strong. While creativity is also an element of our species, I would argue that it's rarer than we would often like to admit.

I would argue that only about 20% of the population are creative. The other 80% are not creative.

Now, that doesn't mean that people aren't sometimes creative. But let's take a look at the ratios again. It is likely that about 20% of the population are perfect copiers and are never creative; about 60% are almost always copiers, and are only sometimes creative; and about 20% are our most creative people, doing about 80% of the creative work in the world (the other 20% being done by the other 80%).

All of this is, of course, on a certain spectrum. There are a handful of extreme creatives, more high creatives, more still moderate creatives, many more occasional creatives, and a significant percentage who aren't creative.

The vast majority copiers are absolutely necessary if we are going to have a stable society/culture. Too many creatives, and too much is happening too fast. Equally, too many copiers, and you have stagnation. It would not surprise anyone, I suppose, if the perfect copiers were the most socially conservative people in the world, not thinking that change is necessary or even desired. The most creative would be the most liberal in the world, thinking change is a natural and necessary part of the world. The correlation, especially in the middle 60%, is perhaps not perfect, but it would surprise me if it weren't there.

This certainly has implications for social evolution. This means that revolution is a bad idea, and would only be preferred by a small minority (who would likely disagree on the direction, since there are a variety of liberalisms), while evolution would be greatly preferred as a way of both allowing for stability for the conservatives/copiers, and change for the creatives/liberals. This is similar to the patterns of early adopters of new technologies, etc. Ironically, many of the copiers might very well be early adopters since they will be copying certain people.

It seems to me that these patterns are the kinds social scientists ought to be interested in investigating.

Sunday, January 31, 2016

Virtue Aims at The Beautiful, but What IS The Beautiful?

In the Nicomachian Ethics, Aristotle makes the famous argument that virtue aims at the good. The word translated as "the good" is to kalon, which is more accurately translated as "the beautiful," though "the good" is certainly a not unreasonable translation. The Greek language thus makes a certain equation between "the good" and "the beautiful." If we then also take Keats' equation that "beauty is truth, truth beauty" (said, perhaps not surprisingly, by the ode on the Grecian urn), when we find that the trinity of the good, the true, and the beautiful are in fact one.To which we can add justice as well, since the just is the fair, and "fair" in English is another word for "beautiful."

Since virtue aims at the beautiful, the good, the true and the just, it perhaps behooves us to come to understand what "the beautiful" is. A good place to start, I think, is with the Scottish philosopher Francis Hutcheson, who argues that something is beautiful if it demonstrates unity in variety and variety in unity. We see this equation of balance throughout philosophy, in a variety of forms. We can begin, again, with Aristotle, who argues that virtuous actions exist in the golden mean between unvirtuous actions. The virtue of courage, for example, exists between the vices of cowardice and rashness.

Aristotle also argues that the virtues exist in the golden mean between the two vices. The golden mean, known in his time, is the ratio 0.618:1, which is the same as the ratio of 1: 1.6.18 (the only ratio that exhibits this balance). Beautiful architecture typically exhibits this ratio. The great buildings of ancient Greece certainly did. The aim was of course to achieve this ideal ratio, and only by aiming at achieving it could one create an actually good building.

As in architecture and the other arts, so too in nature. The golden mean ratio is found everywhere in nature, from the spirals of galaxies, the spirals of sea shells, limb ratios in animals, leaf ratios in plants, etc. Beautiful faces exhibit the golden mean ratio in a variety of ways, from length and width of the face, to eye placement, etc. For the Greeks, the virtues of nature should be emulated in human societies -- to put it in Greek terms, nomos ought to map well onto physis. The virtuous society would find its true nature in emulating nature -- if, perhaps, at a higher degree of complexity. Thus, the arts, human actions of all kinds, social structures, etc. found their true natures in coming as close to the golden mean ratio as possible.

The balance between two extremes is found throughout nature. We have found that nature is neither orderly nor disorderly, but more typically on the edge of both, known as "criticality." Certainly when nature is at its most creative, it is necessarily in this realm of orderly chaos/chaotic order. Creativity, virtue, justice are not in the realms of either order nor, certainly complete disorder, but rather within the realm of balance between the two. In the realm of justice, pure orderly justice would grind us all to dust, while forgiveness of everything would result in criminal chaos -- rather, we need justice tempered with mercy, and mercy tempered with justice, so the wronged are made right, and yet we have the freedom to make mistakes and correct them ourselves. One is not creative by sticking with what has been always done, but neither is one creative by doing what nobody could possibly understand -- the golden mean is in that realm between the two, where one is rooted in what was, while one places a blaze with one's work, that opens the future.

But I will not argue that living on this knife's edge is anything but difficult at times. Vice is easier than virtue. Doing what everyone else has done (or arguing that you just don't understand my brilliance when you don't understand the strange thing I've made or done) is easier than creativity. Iron fists and libertinism are easier than justice and liberty. This is why so many seek order, seek someone who will create order, and go with whatever is easiest. Virtue is difficult. Creativity is difficult. Being just is difficult. But things which are difficult are the things worth doing. This doesn't mean that the best of us don't slip into the easy, as they all, we all, do. But not every aim is true.

Given the definition of beauty as unity in variety and variety in unity, we can come to another conclusion about beauty. Knowledge is always various in form. Knowledge is fragmented, pursued by different people in different fields, often in isolation from each other. These Modern times (including these post-modern times) are the Age of Knowledge. Wisdom, on the other hand, exhibits unity of form. Wisdom is holistic, unified, seeks to see how everything comes together as a whole. The Ancient World was the Age of Wisdom. And yet, if beauty is the unity of variety and unity, we must conclude from this that beauty is the unity of wisdom and knowledge. Are we open to an Age of Beauty? To have an Age of Truth, Goodness, and Justice, I think we must. For if virtue aims at the beautiful, it must aim at both wisdom and knowledge. We cannot do with either without the other. Not if we wish to act in a virtuous manner in all things.

From this, we can see that there are various vices with golden mean virtues in the world:

order -- criticality -- disorder
cowardice -- courage -- rashness
copying -- creativity -- confusion
known -- discovery --lost
unforgiving -- justice -- license
collectivism -- social -- atomistic individualism
homogeneity -- society -- heterogeneity
control -- liberty --chaos
legislation -- law -- libertinism
certainty -- truth -- unknowability
cooperation only -- cooperative competition as a discovery process -- zero sum competition
fundamentalism -- knowledge -- lies
monism -- wisdom -- fragmentism
unity -- beauty -- variety
wisdom -- beauty -- knowledge

What? Wisdom and knowledge as vices? Relative to the virtue of beauty, yes.

One may also note that we have on one side many of the elements of religious funamentalism, and on the other side many of the elements of postmodernism. The former may be wisdom taken to its religious conclusion, and the latter may be knowledge taken to its religious conclusion.

Now that I have brought up religion, one might also then wonder about the nature of the divine. If the divine is (and ought to be) our model for living, and virtue aims at the beautiful, one must surmise that the divine exhibits unity in variety and variety in unity -- if God is indeed beautiful (and if God is Good, then God is beautiful).

Further, these elements must also be the case for every element of every spontaneous order, and of spontaneous orders themselves. There must be order and disorder at the same time, giving rise to criticality. There must be scale-free networks and hierarchical networks (as we find in nature, in cells in their regulatory apparatus within the scale-free networks of the cells proper). There must be unity and variety. There must be the elements of creativity and discovery and justice. They must be exhibited in the natural unfolding of these processes. And if we fail to find them, we discover an unbeautiful, injust, vicious order (or disorder).

To take an example perhaps no one would think of (which is why I choose it), the monetary/financial order would be healthiest, best, most beautiful if it exhibited these balances within it. Central planning of the monetary order to create a more rigid order in fact creates vicious circles -- boom-bust cycles, for example. Something more like free banking, in which there is a monetary network of co-discoverers of what constitutes good money, would give rise to the kind of monetary order that would smooth out many economic cycles. On the other hand, ensuring that there was only competition among the banks and that there could be no cooperating among them would cause fragmentation and prevent economic coordination across large areas.

The same is true of artistic creation, technological invention, scientific discovery, scholarly production, economic activity, democratic governance, etc. If we are going to be the best within each of these realms, or even across the realms (civil society is the unity of the variety of spontaneous orders), we must aim at the beautiful within and across each. We must work well within each realm, and not mistake one for the other. What is a virtue in one realm may well be a vice in another. Part of what we must do is make these discoveries of what constitutes the beautiful within each spontaneous order so we can exhibit virtue in each one. As we each do so, the orders themselves will discover their highest beauty, and they will in turn interact to create a beautiful civil society as well.

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Evolution, Not Revolution

Revolution is not an option. Revolutions are pretty universally disastrous. One has to start from where one is currently and encourage people to move in the right direction.

Aristotle argued that virtue aims at "to kalon." To kalon can be translated as "the good" or "the beautiful." You aim at the good, understanding that you cannot (and should not) actually hit what you're aiming at (since you are aiming high) so that you can in fact hit the target. Gravity always drags you down. That's why you have to aim high.Also, one should be grounded in reality -- another true drag on the arrow. After all, one misses the mark if one aims too high as well. One has to be balanced between the ideal and the real -- a golden mean that helps you hit the mark.

The purpose of ideals is to provide the good/beautiful at which one should aim. Knowing what the best is helps one to achieve realistic goals.

One purpose of literature -- literature at its best -- is to provide beautiful models. Coincidentally, preachy works are typically unbeautiful. At the same time, one shouldn't mistake the use of long speeches in epics, for example, for being "preachy." Indeed, epics are very often the exemplary form for showing realizable ideals. They are always about establishing a polis, a new way of coexisting. We need more beautiful epics.

So if you run into someone whose ideals seem "unrealistic," I would argue that they need to be at least somewhat unrealistic, otherwise they won't ever actually hit the mark. They'll fall short. At the same time, those ideals must be rooted in reality, otherwise you will miss the mark as well. There must be both. There must be a golden mean in order to achieve virtue.

And that golden mean also means revolution is not an option. There must be balance between the reality of the now and the future into which you are trying to push. Tragic art is always about those people who push ahead, into the future, just a little too far without having made their blaze in the right place. The tragedy takes place when the person is punished for going out too far ahead. They are often perceived as gadflies, social misfits, troublemakers. Of course, society then follows the trailblazer into the future he already discovered. And that's when the tragic figure turns into the tragic hero.

Evolution, not revolution -- this means understanding that you must deal with tradition, whatever that tradition may be. You have to understand there are path dependencies, flow channels that cannot be abruptly changed. You may cause a disastrous flood if you try. Marxism, for example, was a disaster everywhere people tried to implement it in a revolutionary form; the U.S. took an evolutionary approach, adopting practically every aspect of the 10 Goals (9 of the 10), and while I don't think the society that was created as a result is anyone's ideal, it wasn't the mass-murderous disaster we saw in the places where it was implemented in a revolutionary fashion.

The path out of the policial-economic-social situation we find ourselves in will be via the pathways already established. Small evolutionary changes, understanding the pathways taken, and the pathways we can take. The ideal is a guide star, but we have to work our way toward it starting from the known, blazing the trail along the way.

Thursday, December 03, 2015

On Our Increasing Political Violence

The latest mass shooting, in San Bernardino, CA, should draw our attention to the fact that there has been an overall increase in mass shootings in the U.S. over the past several years -- even as gun violence overall has been decreasing. The answer in the case of this latest shooting seems obvious -- a radicalized Muslim couple is now known to be responsible -- but the rest are not so simple. Neither, by the way, is this one.

I have written previously about Peter Turchin's thesis of 50 year cycles, which he discusses in light of mass shootings in Evonomics. But I haven't really done so in light of some of the specifics we are beginning to see.

One thing Turchin predicts is a rise of political violence. What that means can vary. It doesn't necessarily mean assassinations of politicians, though in the late 1960s and 1970s it certainly did mean that. It doesn't necessarily mean the targeting of obviously political/governmental targets, either. What it can and often does mean is the targeting of institutions which the individuals in question consider to be responsible for their situation. It is telling that universities, colleges, and schools seem to be high on the list of targeted institutions.

We see a lot of "unrest" at our colleges. Adjuncts are pushing for reforms in employment. Left-wing students are increasingly pushing their P.C. agenda, demanding the end of free speech, including the silencing of critics and even the media. Many of them are essentially victims in search of oppressors -- they have been told for so long by teachers and professors that they are victims, they now believe it. The only problem is, there are no real oppressors around. Whatever racists there are, they mostly keep their mouths shut. Unless provoked. The P.C. left have discovered that if they want oppressors, they have to provoke the racists into exposing themselves. So they first fabricate an incident, protest against their own fabrication, provoke the racists to expose themselves, then protest the racists' words and actions. Rather than trying to build bridges and tear down the residual racism in America, they seek to create deeper divisions, just so they can justify their own ideology. It is a tactic which is ultimately self-destructive, but in the meantime it's socially destructive, being intended to trigger hatred. Among the beneficiaries of this will be the professors who have radicalized their students and are using them to make reforms within the universities. Politicians will also benefit, as they will be able to use the unrest to centralize power more and more and try to disarm the public.

In the meantime, we see increased militarization of the police and increased police brutality, even as we see fewer police harmed in the line of duty. Those who protest the police the most ironically want only the police to be armed, and they also want the police to have even more laws to enforce. This will lead to more and more police killings, which will only increase political violence. We are seeing this with more and more protests against police shootings.

And let's be honest, what happened in San Bernardino was a case of political violence. As is all terrorism. We should expect to see more and more mass shootings from all sorts of political actors, left and right, religious and secular. This is due to increasing alienation in our society, alienation created by our government, whose actions at home and overseas are designed to dissolve social cohesion and trust in order to centralize power more and more. There is a web of economic policies that keep us working longer and longer hours, discourage entrepreneurship, and protect political cronies -- policies supported by both parties -- and thus alienate us more and more from friends and family we can't see because we work long hours, and alienate us from the places where we work as we blame our employers for our situation (seen vs. the unseen). We should expect to see people reacting violently against our government's policies, foreign and domestic, and targeting anything but the government itself, since targeting the government is even more of a suicide mission than hitting softer targets. Thus the tendency to hit gun-free zones and avoid direct government targets.

Much of the violence we have been seeing and will be seeing involve race and other kinds of differences, like religion and ideology. People of different races make for an easy scapegoat, while the people actually responsible for the situation we find ourselves in are safely tucked away in government buildings. Worse, we should expect our politicians to use race, religion, and ideology to direct people's attention away from the polities in question. In fact, we are already seeing this happening in the Presidential nomination races. The most obvious offenders are Trump and Sanders, but they all do it in more or less subtle ways.

Over the next few years, political violence will continue to increase. Will it become more overtly political over the years? Perhaps. If and when it does, we'll begin to see more direct solutions proposed. Will they solve the problem? In the short term, perhaps. It's amazing what a few carrots will get you, even as you continue to ensure everything remains mostly the same. But people won't remain fooled for long. Then the violence will return.

What needs to happen? A true revolution. There are too many path dependent problems in our political environment, economy, culture, and society. Unfortunately, history shows that most political revolutions turn out terrible. But the revolution doesn't have to be political in the way most of us think; rather, it can be a change in culture, society, philosophy, art, literature, thinking, economy. The best revolution would be one that completely bypasses politics as practiced, leaving the politicians within nothing and no one to rule. The best revolution would be a psychosocial revolution. It can be realized, but it will require a revolution in our thinking about revolutions themselves.

Saturday, October 03, 2015

Civil Rights and Mental Differences

Differences in thinking is the next area in which there needs to be social reform. We insist that people accept women, racial and ethnic minorities, gays, transgendered people, and cultural differences, but people continue to insist that everyone think exactly the same way.

I am not talking about ideology here (though there is a case to be made for more ideological heterogeneity in many situations, such as the social sciences and the humanities). No, I am talking about truly different ways of thinking -- what we all too often call mental disabilities.

Of course, we once considered homosexuality as a mental illness. Sexual orientation has since been normalized. We need to do the same with a variety of mental differences, and ceasing to call them mental disabilities is a step in that direction. Of course, mental differences result in differences in behavior, the same way that differences in sexual orientation result in differences in sexual behavior. A person who has autism is going to behave differently from someone who is neurotypical, yet everyone expects people with autism to behave like everyone else, and to respond in the same way as everyone else. But those are completely unrealistic expectations.

Of course, there are degrees of autism. There are people you may not suspect of being on the spectrum (I present myself as Exhibit A), but who clearly are if you fully understand the features of autism, the behaviors that result, and the interactions with others as a result (which very few do). These -- people with Asperger's or who are mildly or moderately autistic -- are people who could contribute in fantastic ways to society if just given the chance. But too many are not given the chance. Or, given a momentary chance, find themselves without a job without understanding why. And given all of the barriers our governments create to prevent people from starting new businesses (and given the fact that people on the spectrum are easily discouraged), alternatives to working for others are all too often far out of reach.

I understand this first-hand. I have had a difficult time keeping a job. On paper I look great (except to those who do not understand what they are seeing when they view my C.V.), and yet I have a hard time keeping a job. I never quite understood why, until I read a book about work and having Asperger's. That book was practically a catalog of all the problems I had in every job I ever had. All to often I found myself without a job without understanding what happened. But now I know. Now, you would think that knowing would help, but as it turns out, knowing you do certain things and being able to do something about it are quite different things. This is why it's important to have workplaces where people are prepared to deal with and interact with people on the spectrum.

This is important not just because only about a fourth of people on the spectrum are even working and only a fourth of those working are working full time or because people on the spectrum are almost twice as likely to get fired from a job as anyone else, but because they bring traits that ought to be of great value to a business. I have some recommendations along these lines on my autism blog, An Intense World.

People on the spectrum have a lot to offer the world, and it's a real shame that the rest of the world is almost completely unaware of that fact. Part of it is because people are truly afraid of people who think differently than they do. It is the last allowed and allowable prejudice -- to such a degree that if you tell your boss you have something like Asperger's, you can find yourself let go. And the person won't think anything of it. They would never fire someone because of their sex or race or sexual orientation, but if they find out you are on the spectrum, you could in fact get fired. But at the same time, if you don't say anything, you could end up getting fired anyway because of your differences in social behavior, learning, and thinking.

We hear a lot of lip service about the importance of different kinds of thinking, of creative thinking in the work place. We need more "diverse" work places to ensure we have a more creative environment. But in fact the vast majority of businesses want nothing but identical ways of thinking, so they hire people who will fit in perfectly, provide the same ways of thinking, and not rock the boat at all. This would be fine if we did not have laws on the books that enforce this prejudice throughout society. That they target what could be some of the most intelligent, most creative people in society -- in no small part because they are too often labeled as mentally disabled -- is all the more shameful and harmful to society.

While I have talked mostly about autism, since I know most about it, this is also applicable to many other mental differences, from dyslexia to bipolar to schizophrenia. Many such people could be contributing members of society, if only people accepted their eccentricities more. True, at the most extreme, help (like medication may be needed by many of the kinds of people I've discussed here, but at the same time, one has to wonder how much better many of these people's lives would be if we simply accepted them as they were and accepted them into society, cherishing their different ways of thinking. How many of their problems with living in society would disappear if the stigma associated with their differences in thinking were no longer stigmatized?

This is a civil rights issue. And we who are heterogeneous thinkers need to make it a civil rights issue. Like others who were Others before us, we need to stand up for ourselves and insist that we be treated like fellow human beings -- albeit differently-thinking human beings. We have much to offer, and there is nothing more shameful than the fact that practically everyone keeps rejecting the gifts we offer.

Saturday, September 19, 2015

New Podcast on Spontaneous Orders

There is a new podcast hosted by Kevin Rollins in which I participate. Well, I participate as much as my technology would let me. The microphone in my computer wouldn't work, and then for some reason, after I switched to my phone, they couldn't hear me on my phone. After I got that fixed, I eventually ran out of charge, and I tried to get back on the computer -- where the microphone was still not working. In any case, I may have managed to say something amongst all the technological interruptions.