Writing is Thinking

It is often said that you don’t truly understand something until you have to explain it to someone else. This is true, I think, for two reasons. The first is simply self-awareness. Clearly, it is difficult to understand what you don’t know, and it is difficult to be aware of your own level of ignorance until your “student” asks a question that you cannot even begin to answer. This self-awareness is generated not only by the inquiries of others, but through your own preparation. Planning for a presentation, anticipating the questions that others will ask and preparing to answer them in a way that they will understand requires you to automatically focus your own studying on the most confusing parts of the material.

The more fundamental reason that true understanding comes through teaching is that you cannot fully understand an idea until you can fully articulate it. Indeed, the articulation of thoughts is the only process by which thoughts are actually completed. Stuck in your head, the concepts you grapple with and the conclusions you come to, along with the intervening analysis, is loose and sloppy and incomplete. To expose these thoughts to the real world, to draw them out and have them stand on their own requires much refinement and supporting elaboration, a process that doesn’t occur without the necessity for it, such as when the thoughts are allowed to remain in your mind.

We think that we know what we think. But, in fact, we really only think the first part of our thoughts. The rest is left incomplete. We don’t realize this until we need to complete the thought. We don’t realize that we never finish our thoughts in our own head until the thought leaves our head. To complete every thought would be too cumbersome, too time-consuming. And, for most thoughts, completion isn’t necessary. It’s much easier for us to let the thought trail off into a general assumption that we know what we think. We do this for all of our thoughts; in the safety and comfort of our own minds, we never bother completing them.

Consider, for example, a mathematical proof. We are, all of us, capable of amazing mathematical calculations in our heads. These calculations seem simple, fast, even obvious. But, when required by our geometry teachers to write out every step of the process that led from the problem presented to us to our offered solution, it becomes clear that quite a bit of thinking went into forming our answer. We don’t realize this when doing the math in our heads because our brain speeds through the intervening steps; it barely begins a thought before moving onto the next one. Again, the full articulation of one’s thinking process is not always necessary. But, as I’m sure your math teachers have explained, the mathematical proof is inquantifiably more defensible and respected than a simple assertion that the answer is X. Moreover, if there is an error in your thinking, only the proof can reveal the mistake; the formless mass of your mental processes is not subject to critical evaluation. But mathematical proofs are useful for more than comparing your answer with a colleague’s. They’re important because it is only by writing out the proof that you become aware of the thinking that actually went into your intuition. We know a line is crooked because we know what’s straight. But it’s not until you are forced to explain yourself that you come to understand what straight really is.

This is why I stress the importance of writing. Writing is thinking. There will be opportunities during this program to present your findings and teach others what you have learned. These will be opportunities to solidify your own understanding of the problem you face, the information you find, and the solution you come to. However, you shouldn’t wait for such a moment. Playing with your problem, recording your findings, and crafting a solution, when done through writing, requires you to fully articulate your thinking on the topic and forces you to understand what you’re saying just as effectively as teaching the material to another person would. 

This project is about thinking and, more specifically, developing your thinking faculties. The best way to do this is to write. A certain number of journals will be required of you; there’s no need to limit yourself to that number. Every piece of writing you do will help your thinking progress and reinforce your understanding of what you’re learning. Moreover, you will be able to discover things and develop your ideas in ways that wouldn’t be possible if your thoughts were contained in the formless soup of your cranium. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve actually realized (learned) something about a topic while writing about it. Actually, I can: every time. Writing is the greatest tool available to you in your studies, and you will be amazed at what a tool it can be.

How The Free Market Provides Better Solutions Than The Government, With Special Reference To Education

*Originally written 09/08/2016*

In discussions of the educational system, libertarians fervently and consistently call for privatization. By this we do not mean marginal steps toward privatization, such as the commissioning of more charter schools or the institution of a voucher system, but rather the complete eradication of government influence from the education process. Indeed, this is the libertarian position on most, if not all, government functions. Now, upon hearing us repeat our standard line, “Let the free market handle it,” our opponents often accuse us of having no real plan or of being naive to believe that the free-market-way is always the best way. Of course, privatization is a plan, unless by “plan” they actually mean “policy-proposal,” in which case they would be absolutely correct. However, the charge of naivete, at least, is radically misplaced. The free market will always provide a better solution to any social issue than the government ever would.

I will freely admit that I do not know, with absolute certainty, what the best way of organizing our education system would be. I can, with some confidence, however, predict a few changes from our current system that would characterize a free market in education. For example, the government’s emphasis on treating all children alike and, more significantly, attempting to make all children alike would be completely abandoned. It is obvious that all children are different, with different abilities, interests, aptitudes, and rates of comprehension. However, the government operates under the assumption that, if all children are taught in the same way, they will all learn at the same pace and end up at the same place. The government also assumes that its standardized curriculum is equally relevant and useful to all students. In contrast, in a free market the focus would be on the individual child. With no higher motive but to serve the consumer, I foresee education firms specializing to an incredible degree. I believe that different schools would be available to children depending on their academic abilities, interests, learning styles, and life goals. More importantly, enrollment at any particular school would be completely voluntary, incentivizing schools to constantly improve themselves in an effort to attract students away from their competition.

In truth, however, I don’t know exactly what a free market in education would look like, nor do I have any comprehensive vision of what it should look like. This does not, however, make my support of privatization an act of naivete or blind faith. On the contrary, it makes my support of privatization an act of wisdom and humility. You see, to support the free market is not to support a specific plan; it is to support the freedom of every individual to try his own plan.

Despite rhetoric to the contrary, the market cannot magically solve all of our problems. Only people can. The market is simply a process through which millions of people with different knowledge and abilities can contribute their ideas and efforts toward solving any social problem. To support the market is to support a system that allows for many competing experiments and then, through profit and loss, naturally discovers the solutions appropriate to every set of circumstances. To support the market is actually an acknowledgement of one’s inability to solve society’s problems by oneself. It is a call for all members of society to try every possible solution and discover the best solution together. As my friend Louis Rouanet puts it, “Markets are the solution to the problem of finding solutions.”

In light of this exposition, it should be evident that the government, which can only attempt one possible solution at a time and, without economic calculation, cannot even rationally evaluate the results of its attempt, can not hope to compete with the free market in finding ways to improve our school system. This also applies to all other areas of our life that are subject to government intervention. When libertarians advocate for privatization, we are not claiming to know a better method of educating children than the government or other reformers. Rather, we are simply asserting that there is a better method, and that it can only be found if we have the freedom to search for it.

J3 - Beginning the Research

Since I plan on focusing a large part of my project on providing a proper elucidation of economic concepts, I’ve decided to begin my research my making sure that I have a solid grasp of these concepts myself. I have a degree in economics, but any monkey could get one of those. I’ve taught economics on the college level, which is something that a monkey would probably not be able to do, but that doesn’t unreservedly qualify me as an expert in economic matters. I know a lot, but there’s always more to learn. For example, while preparing to deliver a lecture on the business cycle to some high school classes, I learned that the price of consumer goods is what is imputed backwards and determines the price of the producer goods, rather than the value of the consumer goods, as I had believed. Upon discovering this new information, I found that it made perfect sense to me; nevertheless, I had been mistaken about the process by which producer goods are appraised. Moreover, I’ve just spent a year in law school, which force-fed me so much information that quite a bit of what I once knew has been pushed out of my head. A refresher course is in order.

Therefore, I’m beginning my project by reading Human Action by Ludwig von Mises, a brilliant treatise on economics. To be honest, this is a little cheating on my part; I’m actually reading Human Action in preparation for an economics symposium I’m participating in next week. Still, this reading will be not only useful but critical to the success of my project. Mises was perhaps the greatest economist the world has ever seen, and Human Action is his magnum opus. There are more complete treatments of economics available (for example, Rothbard’s Man, Economy, and State), but none of them focus on the parts I’d like to focus on for my project: the solid grounding and unbelievably thorough explanation of the most fundamental principles. Therefore, I think it’s fortunate that I’m already reading this book, as it is the most appropriate choice for a solid foundation for further research and for the project as a whole.

J2 - A Choice Is Made

I’ve chosen Market Environmentalism as the focus of my project. I feel like it offers the neatest path to a solid destination while also providing many opportunities for branching off and exploring other ideas. Also, while this topic isn’t as useful for my career as the Intellectual Property topic, it’s not totally irrelevant; I’m sure I can find a way to use the knowledge I gain through this project to apply to legal matters in the future. Half of this project can be fueled by knowledge that I already have, but it will also require plenty of information that I’ll need to get. This is optimal, I think, because it will allow me to interpret and analyze the information I gain in light of what I already know. If I was starting out on a completely unknown topic, such as the use of supercomputers to create new protein structures that attack cancer cells, I wouldn’t be able to evaluate the information I acquired as well.

A great portion of my project will focus on general economic principles, I think, because without them my audience will not fully understand the ideas I’m trying to convey or the position I’m advocating for. One thing I’m always interested in is definitions and etymology. Every word actually represents a concept, and oftentimes there is much more to the concept than the word can fully convey. We use words without fully appreciating them, and then their full meanings are lost, little by little. This leads a) to a lack of diversity in language, and b) misconceptualizations. The word “passion,” for example, means in colloquial language “strong emotion,” but actually traces itself back to the crucifixion of Christ, and originally meant “suffering.” It was Hobbes who gave “passion” its current meaning, when he used the word to describe “the inner motions” of man in “the Deliberation.” But the word “compassion,” suffering caused by the suffering of others, still refers to the older meaning. Providing a proper understanding of important concepts, therefore, will be one of the main goals of my project.

I might as well begin this practice of elaborating on seemingly straightforward concepts now, by briefly commenting on the idea of “choice.” And I think this is appropriate because Mises has actually characterized economics as a “general theory of human choice.” 

Economics is the study of human action (purposeful behavior) under conditions of scarcity. “Action means the employment of means for the attainment of ends.” But, because we live in a world of scarcity, not all of our ends can be attained. There’s simply not enough resources to satisfy all of our desires. When we employ our scarce means for the attainment of one end, we cannot also employ them for the attainment of a different end. Every action, therefore, involves a choice. We cannot accomplish all of our goals; we must necessarily choose which to pursue and which to leave unfulfilled. “Action therefore always involves both taking and renunciation.”

Embedded in the concept of choice is the concept of value. Why do we choose the ends we choose? Because we prefer them; we value them more than the other possible ends. It should be obvious how important the concept of value is to economic science. However, value is subjective, and it is immeasurable. We cannot study value without reference to the actions that make known one’s valuations. It is not value that forms the core of economic theory, but value expressed through choice. 

Every action, therefore, is a choice. And every choice is action. The two are one and the same. And this fact should make clear how important choice is to man and to society. Every purposeful thing man does is the result of a choice. “To live is for man the outcome of a choice, of a judgment of value.” Man must always make a choice, in everything he does. The common objection “I didn’t have a choice!” is therefore nonsensical. Man always has a choice, and it cannot be taken from him. Outside forces may influence the costs and benefits of an action, and thereby change man’s valuation of a certain action, but the choice remains his. Man’s will, therefore, is inalienable, and we can know this because every choice he faces remains his to make. 

The idea of choice is at the core of economics, then. It is the root of all change in the universe attributable to man. And it is support for the ideas of individualism and self-ownership. This one concept, underappreciated precisely because of its omnipresence, is of the utmost importance. It is the beginning of this and every other project.

J1 - First Considerations

I currently have a number of ideas for what I’d like to do my project on:

My first idea was to circle back to and complete a paper that I had considered using as my Senior Thesis in college. The working title was “Familial Socialism: The Economics of Sibling Rivalry,” and it’s purpose was essentially to explore the implications of the fact that clearly-defined property rights are lacking inside family units. If the institution of private property was developed by society as a solution to interpersonal conflicts over scarce resources, and if the family unit is a relatively property-less entity, then it stands to reason that conflicts within families, especially, but not exclusively, between siblings, is due to a lack of property rights that could resolve these conflicts. However, this paper would be highly deductive, and would not be the type of sustained research project that this program contemplates.

My second idea was to explore the debate over intellectual property that rages throughout the libertarian intellectual community. This is an issue that’s largely ignored by everyone else, but the libertarians who argue both sides of this issue are, as always, quite passionate. Those who believe that there should not be intellectual property rights point to the fact that ideas are not scarce; when I give you information, I do not lose that information. Those who believe that there should be intellectual property rights argue that scarcity isn’t necessarily the determining factor; intellectual property is undeniably valuable, and people are willing to pay to obtain it. And then, of course, there’s all the standard arguments about encouraging innovation by rewarding inventors. 

My third idea, which just occurred to me, is to offer a defense of the Confederacy that might slow down the destruction of civil war monuments in the South. Contrary to what children learn in school, the War Between the States was not fought over slavery, the Southern armies were not entirely composed of racists, and the North was not inherently the “good” side of the war. The reason we had a war in the 1860s was because Lincoln sent armies into the southern states to collect his taxes and kill everyone who refused to pay. And the men of the South, like any other Americans, chose to fight rather than die. When you view the Confederate soldiers as they truly were, men fighting to defend their homes, it becomes much harder to justify tearing down monuments honoring their sacrifice. However, I don’t know how much I can offer that would truly be original, and I think that this sort of fight lends itself more to popular articles aimed at specific attempts at desecration than scholarly articles fueled by heavy research.

My last idea was to explore the idea of Market Environmentalism. Capitalists and libertarians (and lay-conservatives) often say that the fight against global warming is best left to the private sector. And I have to agree with them; if the world is gonna change radically, I’d trust a capitalist to see me through the change way more than I’d trust a government bureaucrat. Similarly, most economists would advise that the most effective solution for saving endangered species, conserving scarce resources, and reducing pollution is through the free market. Again, I’d agree. However, I think that this line of argument admits too much. The libertarians and economists who argue that the best way to save the environment is through the free market are also, implicitly, admitting that the environment should be saved, preserved, or even be returned to a past state. I think that we should be arguing instead that the best way to improve our environment, the only way to change it for the better, is through the free market. So I’d be interested in doing a project on how the market can change our environment, rather than contribute to the literature on how the market can save our environment.

Whatever idea I pick (which I’ll have to do soon), I know that my end product is going to focus on education, rather than reform. I guess that the most obvious path to propagating and instituting my ideas is to appeal to a government body, but the imposition of my ideas through government force would be antithetical to the core of the philosophy that I’m advocating for. Besides, nothing good comes out of government anyway. If I want change, I have to start by changing minds. 

What is the best way for me to change these minds? Well, I’m not a very good artist right now, and, although I do want to become a better musician this summer, I don’t know if I’ll have enough time to hone my piano skills to give a good presentation for my project. I am pretty good at public speaking, but I’d need to attract some listeners before that could become a real option. My real gift is, and always has been, writing. However, I don’t want to do something boring like a paper, so I’m not sure how I’ll employ my writing skills to create a final product.

While I’m here, I think I should take a moment to realistically evaluate my ability to work on this project this summer. I will be working two jobs during this time; interning at the SUNY Research Foundation during the day and auditing freight at night. This means that I will have very little time during the week to do research or write. Additionally, I’m training for a marathon and a bike-ride across the state. This training might allow me some time to think, but it will also further subtract from the time I have to create something concrete. So, while I think that I’ll definitely have time to do a whole project, I harbor no delusion that it will be as impressive as the projects of the students who will have a whole year to work on them.

Why E=mc2

When I was five years old I attended Kindergarten at Pine Bush Elementary. My memories from those days are, obviously, more than a decade and a half old. Still, I’ve managed to hang on to a few of them. I remember how I met my best friend (he was picking his nose under the teacher’s desk and I promised not to tell anyone), I remember the games we used to play (a quite sophisticated version of cops and robbers), and I remember how I learned the first of life’s lessons (for example, that the proper response to an apology is to offer forgiveness, not absolution). 

One memory in particular stands out in my mind, for it was one of the defining moments of my life. We were learning about object properties. Each student was given a bag of objects: a plastic spoon, a little bag of goo, a feather, a metal ball, etc. With these examples in front of us, we learned that some objects are soft and others are hard, that some objects are weak and others are strong, that some objects are smooth and others are rough. Things were going smoothly until we got to the metal ball. We had just learned that the plastic spoon was breakable, and the teacher intended to contrast the spoon with the metal ball, which was “unbreakable.” 

Except, of course, that the metal ball was breakable. 

I raised my hand and said as much. The teacher just looked at me for a moment, and then repeated that the ball couldn’t be broken. Again, I protested that it could. “Oh, really?” she said. “Show us.” And I, the foolish five-year-old that I was, stood up from the circle we were sitting in, placed the ball on the ground, and stomped on it. It did not break. I tried again. The ball ignored my efforts. The other students started to laugh. “See?” the teacher asked. “It doesn’t break.” At this point I was embarrassed, so, instead of continuing to argue, I mumbled something about dropping a truck on the ball and sat back down, my face red.

I was right, it turns out. You can break metal balls. I’ve done it, multiple times, in multiple ways. And a moment of reflection would bring one to the realization that the teacher must have known that the ball was, in fact, breakable. By her words, she meant that we, five-year-old children without proper tools, could not break the metal balls like we could break the plastic spoons. But those aren’t the words she used. And, when confronted, instead of correcting herself, and perhaps explaining how this seemingly unbreakable object could be broken, she shamed the student who dared to question her teaching and repeated her erroneous statement.

That was the moment when I realized that school was not the glorious institution of learning that it was made out to be. I was five years old. By fifth grade I had lost all faith in the system, and had stopped caring about how I fared in it. Yes, my report card was still the envy of the try-hards, but I certainly wouldn’t’ve been considered a “good student.” If I handed in my homework, it was copied. If I studied, it was during passing time. If I spoke up in class, it was to argue with the teacher. I graduated early from high school, but I saw it as merely a means of escape. I was widely regarded as one of the “smartest” kids in town, but I hated school with a passion that was startling.

When Mr. Bott approached me, then, about an independent-research program that would attempt to save students from the school system and allow them to actually learn about things that interested them, I knew that it was something that I wanted to be involved in. School, as it exists today, fosters more self-hatred then intellectual growth, and I want to help change that. If I can help some students rekindle their curiosity, creativity, and individuality, if I can help some students reignite their love of learning and sharpen their questioning into an actual skill, if I can help some students further develop their critical thinking abilities, then I consider it a duty to do so. 

By contributing to the success of this program and of the students it was created for, it’s clear to me that I’m not just saving some students from the misery of sterile classrooms and propaganda-parroting; I’m saving the world from a future of unthinking conformity and widespread ignorance.