An educator I know is apparently a leftist, or should I say “conservatively challenged?” Being of the left is completely normal and maybe even expected, for he is a full tenured professor. For understandable reasons, people most concerned about injustice are likely to enter certain professions, including teaching, journalism, law, and the clergy.

Anyway, I asked him to read my recent article on Cooperative Learning and he responded by suggesting I read Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire. This book is helpfully published without charge on the Marxists Internet Archive, owner of the Marx.org Internet domain. Or I should say “manager” rather than “owner” since these are communists and ownership is a crime.

I did read much of the book, and it suggests different issues than those my acquaintance may have had in mind. Freire’s work is clearly Marxist, but that just makes it political opinion, extreme but defensible, right? I beg to disagree. Reading this screed brings new vividness to gory reality of communism’s failure.

Singer illustrates this objection by example. When we all freely choose to commute by car, a traffic jam may result, making us less happy and more tardy than if we had all taken a bus. Yet we have no incentive to take the bus, since buses are also slowed by the congestion of automobiles. He writes, “The solution, obviously, is for us all to get together and make a collective decision.” He concludes there are cases where the common good overrides individual freedom, where collective thinking should prevail over individualism. I’ll call this Singer’s Paradox, cases where individual freedom seemingly makes us less happy.

Does Singer have a good point, a fatal flaw in capitalism? I find it amusing that his example really illustrates the failure of socialism rather than capitalism.

But does capitalism always work? Being a libertarian, I’d certainly like to think so. Imagine my surprise on seeing a possible flaw, a case where capitalism appears to blow up, what physicists call a singularity. One example of a singularity is a black hole, a point so heavy that it collapses all nearby matter. No one likes natural laws with singularities, just as no one wants to live near a black hole or travel among land mines. I’m no economist, so I may have this wrong. But it seems to me that Google could blow up the economy, at least in theory, just by succeeding in the free market. I think Google exposes a potential singularity in capitalism.

In classical terms, a comedy need not be funny, it just needs a happy ending. In Shakespeare’s day, everything that was not a tragedy was a comedy. If I’m correct about the misunderstanding driving our growing political divide, then maybe honest discussion of our core political ideals and motivations might reveal misconceptions and reunite our nation toward continued prosperity and happiness.

Discussion Questions:

1. Do you think the author is being sarcastic here?

2. Can you think of any potential problems with cooperative learning?

3. What can possibly be wrong with helping each other and working things out together?

4. Why are fewer students studying science and engineering?

Why this article probably does not matter is spreading the word about Goldberg’s excellent book, since approximately no one visits this site. If you are reading this, you pretty much do not exist. My readership is confined to 1) my wife, 2) people searching for images, and 3) a very few people who Google has failed to persuade to read elsewhere. Google’s page rank for Unpopular Ideas (an automated judge of site “quality”) is just 2 out of 10, probably because virtually no one links here. It’s as if most readers assume “unpopular” means “untouchable”, or at least “unlinkable”. If you disagree and have some kind of relevant web presence, please promote Unpopular Ideas with link. Thanks!

In any case, read on to find out why “unpopular” and “fascist” are pretty much opposites and why left-wing popular opinion owes a lot to supposedly right-wing fascism. I’ll also explain why the continuing existence of hidden fascism today argues for my own radical conception: a constitutional government without laws.

Avatar is a wonderful in the true sense of the word because more than ever before, it immerses us with wonder in a new world. The experience was like my first viewing of Star Wars in 1977, another wonder for its time. Cameron’s masterpiece combines amazingly realistic computer animation, 3D projection, science fiction, a morality play, a war, and of course, a love story. I was especially impressed with the awe inspiring scale and detail of Avatar’s forest world. 3D viewing adds a third dimension, but Avatar’s imaginary world adds yet another dimension of the vertical, with immense trees, branch-bound paths, and floating mountains.

The simple plot includes moral editorial on environmentalism and colonialism, with earth folk, and specifically a large avaricious corporation, wearing the black hat. There is nothing wrong with art that makes a strong moral statement, even if it is not the statement I would choose. That is the prerogative of the artist. Starkly dividing good from evil probably helps immerse us in Avatar’s world by alienating us from our own. So I am not criticizing the artist here.

The point I’ll make is that we viewers must exercise care, since morality plays, even if good art, can influence us in not-so-good ways. Stories with a moral are fiction. When we internalize a fictional morality without some reality checking, I think we are more prone to real world evil. So read on for my moralizing on the possibly morale consequences of morality fiction. Also, for any who are interested, I’ll end with a short summary of cinematic 3D technology.

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I know of human fads,
I think the experts are all mad.
Especially those who hold with fire,
Because their email shows they’re liars.

Is global warming real or is it a religion? If you believe, it is very real and something must be done. The solution requires that we all make sacrifices, not just true believers. So if your beliefs are wrong, the results could be evil, or at least expensive.

This is the second of three articles on fanaticism and morality. In Conservation and Conservatism, I argued that art can distort our view of reality, causing “religious” beliefs that allow good people to harm others. Here, I’ll explain why we are prone to irrational beliefs and why “Global Warming” might be more religion than reality.

People really get mad when you accuse them of doing wrong, especially if the criticism has some ring of truth. So I’m going to start with a little humor to lighten things up. That way, y’all think I’m just a regular folksy kind of guy and may be marginally less likely to mail me letter bombs and/or throw me into some deep dungeon.

Q. How many liberals does it take to screw up a light bulb?

A. A majority in Congress.

Q. Steve, it is clear to me that you are onto something. I mean, a future with free music and movies sounds dreadful, not to mention all the poor starving software engineers. Whatever shall we do?

A. What is needed are wise elite thinkers such as myself, who can step in and set things right. People with compassion for the underdog, liberal humanitarians with the best interests of all mankind (and of course womankind too) at heart, those with a keen understanding of the problems and how we can fix them through benign government administration and incentives. Yea, an entirely new and thoroughly modern dictatorship of the proletariat (with a few humble administrators like myself).

Q. Great idea, Steve! Why didn’t I think of that?

A. Such things are best left to intellectuals. Fortunately, I am here to serve, wisely advancing the interests of all you little people.

Q. And how should we address your excellency?

A. Wise Helpful Operator Of Public Systems. WHOOPS for short.

As you probably guessed, I will not argue we should scrap capitalism. While I see some possibly bad consequences that capitalism has in store for people, it is still a far better system that any alternative I know. For one thing, you may not share my values so and so a future constructed in my best interests probably would not be in your best interests. But even if our interests align, never forget that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Give anyone enough power, even someone as obviously kind, thoughtful and fair as myself, and you are in deep trouble. Put anyone in charge of the economy, no matter how intelligent and well meaning, and they will inevitably if unconsciously squander a good portion of your wealth.

What I will argue is that market forces are working to lessen the value of at least some creative pursuits. It is possible to predict things heading down that road, but it is probably impossible to predict whether we will reach some new equilibrium before we reach the the apparent destination. Economic dictatorship cannot help us, but possible future changes in public values and opinions might eventually restore some economic power to creators of digital content. Along the way, I will also describe how some anti-piracy software works and explain why it does not work very well.

This has been happening for years, so it may not be the result of our current economic downturn. Something else is probably going on and there are numerous possibilities. It might be my unpopular ideas, though how would most potential employers know? It might be because I have basically been unemployed for decades, for I have been running my own companies since 1983. It might be that I am unqualified for contemporary software engineering jobs. Though I like to think a degree from MIT with a perfect GPA should count for something, even if it was thirty years ago. It might even be that I am over qualified for most software positions, because I also have a Harvard MBA and most MBA’s aspire to manage. It might be few managers can envision themselves working with some smart aleck who bandies about terms like Harvard, MIT and perfect grades. Finally, it might be age discrimination, since I am 53 years old when almost all programmers are in their twenties or maybe thirties.

I have a feeling that age discrimination is at least a contributing factor, but not the way you might assume. My theory is that the law against age discrimination is the problem. Ironically, age discrimination may be the unintended consequence of laws against age discrimination.

In modern usage, liberal and conservative are opposites. Liberals are for change, conservatives are not. Liberals favor helping the less fortunate while conservatives work for their own self interest. Liberals are intelligent and open to new ideas, being a strong majority in universities and other intellectual circles. Conservative circles include the Ku Klux Klan and those who disbelieve the theory of evolution. Sounds like the liberals win, right?

Brace yourself, for I will argue that liberals can be hypocrites that reduce freedoms and harm others for their own gain. Of course they are mostly unconscious of this and mostly have the best of intentions. But changing the world usually has unintended consequences and the unintended consequence of liberalism can be slavery in some degree.