The Proper Size of Gubmint

What is the proper size of government? If you answered small or big you’re a damn fool. My hypothesis is that contrary to what a neoclassical economist or labor union representative might tell you, the question of government’s proper size is only partially normative. The size of government is largely a function of geography, population demographics, and economic variables influenced mostly by human nature and institutional inertia and minimally by the political party in power. In other words, you can vote for whomever you like, but until you address the abovementioned variables – and good luck with that – the size of government is a mathematical function out of your control.

If we’re measuring government debt/deficit/revevnues as a percentage of GDP or as the proportion of U.S. government employees relative to the U.S. population, then by definition these other variables determine the size of government. If we’re measuring government by the number of laws or regulations in place, and I think this is how most people think of government, then we’ve again exposed to the relationship between population, geography and the size of government. Find a small population of indigenous people in Peru and you’ll see many norms; travel to Chicago and you’ll see many more norms in addition to laws, rules and regulations; go to the moon and you’ll find no such rules to guide social interaction. Human interaction and the frequency and manner in which it occurs dictate the level of social oversight regardless of any formal government or political party. Call it what you will, but it is human nature to form social coordination. The geography variable, or the density of individuals in a given location, only increases the chances that humans will interact. I suspect that if you measure the size of government by the number of formal laws, and compare NYC to Omaha, NE, NYC would come out on top. In turn, some might see NYC as having a big, liberal government and Omaha as having a more conservative and small government. Chalk it up to the political differences if you wish, but I would argue it’s the number of people and density of people that hold the explainatory power. Also, NYC has had more time to accumulate laws.

The interesting aspect of this hypothesis is what it says about where government is and where it might be going. We currently have hundreds of thousands of laws in place and these have developed along with population growth – I suspect we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to new laws dealing with international trade and travel (global interaction) and the internet (cyber interaction). So I anticipate government will grow and refuse to fight it. Evoking the constitution to say that government should be constant and small for all of eternity is ridiculous - people will develop norms and laws outside the constitution to cope with the increasing interactions in the population that so frequently (and ironically) result in a violation of individual rights. Defend the constitution as you will, but understand, that when it was written, it reflected a world that minimally understand the upper bounds of geography and population. The final lesson would be that to truly shrink the size of government, don’t become politically engaged, just have fewer children.

Minus Quantum Mechanics- A Fun Theory on Immortality

Here is the theory: Given a powerful enough computer, one may be able to duplicate the algorithms of the brain and essentially create artificial human brains out of silicon. Assuming there is no transcendental soul, all we amount to are billions of atoms. Those atoms make up molecules, and those molecules then make up our brains. Our brains function as a result of billions of atomic algorithms. Put simply, if we duplicate those algorithms, we can duplicate a person’s brain.

Imagine plugging these algorithms into a computer, one should be able to put a copy of a person on a computer. On a computer, your thoughts and emotions will be free from a human body. There would be complete mind/body separation. You would exist in the buzz of a hard drive. Imagine further that you could be placed into a virtual world much like the matrix, or that you could construct a robot that was capable of moving in new and fascinating ways. Your body could be as strong and as unique as you’d like.

One question immediately surfaces: Does that mean I could live forever? The answer is maybe, but not if I was “copied.” A hypothetical illuminates this point. Much like the 2006 film “The Prestige,” where Hugh Jackman goes into the magic box and is copied, imagine that you enter into a magic copying box. Three, two, one, a flash and a copy of yourself stands right outside the box. He is an exact replica of every atom in your body at the moment the flash went off. You now stand outside the box starring at each other. Which one are YOU? YOU would be the original, right? You never went anywhere. A copy was made of you, but it wasn’t you. Applying this reasoning to my theory about downloading your atomic algorithms and you get the same outcome, computer you isn’t YOU.

However, immortality isn’t that far off. While “copying” would not do the trick, “integration” might. Integration would involve a medical procedure wherein your brain is slowly replaced piece by piece with the silicon parts that carry out the YOU algorithms. Imagine a procedure that could take place while one maintained consciousness, ensuring the stream of thought was uninterrupted and the YOU is still you. The procedure of integration may provide much more assurance that YOU would still be YOU, though now existing in a computer.

One last point. While you may actually die at some point if integration didn’t work, to those around you, a computer “copy” would suffice. Given sufficient technology, computer-you might find himself a nice squeezable human-like android to occupy. To your loved ones, you’d still be alive. Imagine the creation of “back-up yous.” There appears to be two types of death: your death, and your death in the eyes of others.

I highly recommend “Unready to Wear,” a short story by Kurt Vonnegut published in 1953. You can find it in Welcome to the Monkey House.