::::: : the wood : davidrobins.net

My name is David Robins: Christian, lead developer (resume), writer, photographer, runner, libertarian (voluntaryist), and student.

This is also my son David Geoffrey Robins' site.

Government, enemy of adoption

Political ·Sunday May 17, 2009 @ 02:03 EDT (link)

My wife and I were walking around the neighborhood in Duvall today and a thought came to me (probably from something we were talking about): governments—at least, socialistic welfare states like the US—have no incentive to support adoption.

If a single mother who is unable to care for a child adopts it out, the state loses in several ways:

The welfare rolls lose the mother (since she can now work, or at least go to school and become productive later on: and if she has the intelligence to give up a child for which she cannot care, she probably has the motivation to do so). Government programs hate to lose clientele, because it could reduce their budget and influence. Statists like people to be dependent, because they will vote for more theft to feed their addiction to Other People's Money. If someone joins the civil society as a productive member, they will not look kindly upon redistributionist theft of what they worked to earn.
Other welfare departments lose the child, or child benefits, from their rolls. Their influence, power, and budget also takes a hit.
The child will go into foster care or likely a state-run orphanage; if the child from there is adopted into a family that can care for him, the foster care system will also lose power and prestige: if they stay in the system, the department and the state will be able to justify taking more from the people.
Since having a single parent is the largest predictor of juvenile delinquency, crime, and other failures in life (including ending up on welfare), adoption to a stable home breaks the cycle of dependency. (And given this fact, it is not heroic for a single mother to keep the child: it is in fact cruel.)

(As an aside, what a disgusting creation is this welfare government that depends and relies on increased human misery for its existence and propagation? Consider the entrenched autocrats of these fiefdoms, whose increase requires that the people of the United States become yet more and more miserable, that they depend on government theft to feed and clothe them: how miserable and twisted are their souls, as they strive and grasp to handle, skim, and give away yet more of the American worker's labor!)

This is why fees for adoption are high: it is not due to some sort of "You value something if you pay for it" lesson—bringing up the child will be cost enough, but most adoptive parents will pay it gladly. It is to discourage good, honest people from attempting to adopt a child and stop a cycle of governmental dependence which they use to justify robbing hard-working taxpayers. It is not to ensure people can afford a child: the finances of adoptive couples are scoured already; their lives are examined far more closely than birth parents ever suffer (unless they incur the wrath of the local child services bureaucracy). No wonder would-be adoptive parents go to foreign countries to look to obtain a child: those countries usually aren't rich or foolish enough to subsidize out of wedlock births, and look upon relief of the burden of more uncared-for children as a positive, since there is no opportunity there to rob the people to subsidize dependency.

How would a libertarian society handle teen or out of wedlock pregnancies? There would be no welfare state or redistribution, so a parent (or couple) unable to handle a child would not profit from keeping the child: they would in many ways ruin their lives and the child's (but it would be their option as long as the child was safe—libertarian government will prevent harm—and they could do it given a good support network). Private organizations would handle adoption: either charitable organizations, or organizations funded by placements. In either case, adopting out more people to good homes would benefit them, and they would be accountable to their donors/shareholders, to the adoptive parents, and to the children if placement caused harm.

For charities that did choose to support single mothers, no cycle of dependency can be entered, because these charities will be narrowly tailored (it's not one government behemoth; for example a charity may choose to support only single mothers with infants, so it doesn't profit them any if the child becomes a juvenile delinquent—they don't get any more power if more people go to jail—so insofar as they can, they would want to help the mother raise a good citizen), can do far better means testing than government (the previous charity could choose to sponsor someone only if the mother has no other income, passes drug tests, and consents to periodic home inspections: the government can't do this, but a private charity could require this contract or take its money elsewhere), and if the donors are unhappy with a charity's work they stop their support or replace the board of directors.

Returning again to the parents that cannot care for a child and want to adopt it out: since adoption is a contract, and they could choose among several private agencies, they could find an agency and contract that specified open or closed adoption, or even had a provision for them to re-adopt the child at a later date (so perhaps more foster care than adoption), all parties consenting.

Books finished: Liberty and Tyranny.

Photos from the University of Washington

News, School ·Thursday May 14, 2009 @ 21:49 EDT (link)

On Tuesday when I got to school I took a few photos while walking from the central parking garage (C5, under the Central Plaza, a.k.a. Red Square) near Gerberding down to the Drumheller Fountain to the Allen Center (Paul G. Allen Center for Computer Science and Engineering); I also took a few inside and a few of the classroom in the Electrical Engineering basement (EEB 037).

The past few weeks the cherry trees were blossoming and the sun was shining and the mountain was visible; but of course, I didn't have my camera then. Regardless, these are a few shots of the small piece of the school I see on my way to class; when I get to school I sit in one of the lounges of the Allen Center and set up my laptop and VPN into work until class (using the UW or CS&E wireless network); in class, I also set up my laptop so I can ~~surf the web~~ take notes using OneNote and look at the slides.

Every alias is the geek alias!

Technical, Work ·Wednesday May 13, 2009 @ 23:21 EDT (link)

A thread in a political forum (alias) morphed into a Star Trek thread; someone asked:

"I thought this was CLAMS, did I accidentally join the geek alias?"

In response, JD replied:

"You work at Microsoft. Every alias is the geek alias!"

It's true. Some days I see more code, pseudo-XML, algorithms, and technical arguments (and bad puns) in the non-technical aliases than the technical ones. But that's one of the reasons I'm here. It's good to be among fellow hackers, people that get it, that think in code and breathe mathematics and algorithms.

Books finished: A Brief History of Time, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.

GoodReads: old books

Technical ·Tuesday May 12, 2009 @ 22:17 EDT (link)

I did some more hacking on my perl GoodReads interface, making it easier to add a book read at an unknown (null) date; I have a lot of old books I'd eventually like to catalog in my system and on GoodReads. Had to alter my database schema and make allowances for null/undef/false parameters a few places that (intentionally) didn't used to allow it.

The GoodReads API seems more stable now; it used to have a lot more random OAuth failures; I haven't seen one for a while now. It may even be safe to call the GoodReads add from my web-based update code, rather than (for example) queuing a request to a daemon to ensure that the data isn't lost if GoodReads' API fails.

Watch battery

News ·Monday May 11, 2009 @ 20:40 EDT (link)

Honey picked up a watch battery for me today, since my watch was making dying motions, and I installed it, since Fred Meyer didn't do installations. I didn't have a small enough Phillips driver, so had to use a same-size flat head.

Celebrity Apprentice: Annie was robbed

News, Media ·Monday May 11, 2009 @ 00:14 EDT (link)

Honestly, did the audience, judges, and Trump not watch the show? Let facts be submitted to a candid world!

Annie never lost her cool in the boardroom, while Joan flung personal insults all the time, e.g. "Would spit and drown her mother in it" "Worse than Hitler" and accused her poker-playing friends of being "mafia".
Joan absolutely caused the designer to quit. She badgered him and brought in her own expert until he left and refused to work with Celebrity Apprentice, which left Annie hanging since his company was doing both sides of the hall. While it was unprofessional of him to quit, Joan's actions definitely drove him to it.
Outside the boardroom, Joan was much worse behaved than Annie. She held a grudge; Annie did not. Annie tried to reconcile with her in the last show; Joan refused to talk. She badmouthed Annie and her profession ("trash") whenever she had a chance. Annie only ever had a few insults outside the boardroom ("I hope she dies" is about as bad as she got, and that immediately after a "Joan-caused disaster"). In business, it's important to be under control; Joan was not.
As everyone admitted, Annie was far more intelligent than Joan. Intelligence is a great asset in a business.
You can't claim Annie wasn't personable: look at all the friends she had and how many were willing to donate money for her charity. Joan, for all her age and experience in the business, could only come up with about one third of the money Annie raised.
Presumably Joan is some sort of New York City icon: that explains the indiscriminate adoration of the crowd; it doesn't explain Trump and the other judges.
Annie won on the objective categories: she had signs for her charity and, as mentioned, raised three times the money. On the fuzzy, fudgable criteria, Joan won, which looks a bit biased from here. (I initially thought there were just four, and Trump was giving two points to each to draw out the final decision, which would have been dodgy but understandable.)

In all, given how well she did as a project manager, in remaining professional in the face of a catty mother-daughter team, and in fund-raising throughout the show, Annie should have been the Celebrity Apprentice, and only preconceived bias would say otherwise. I thought Trump was better than that.

Government tantrums: "Perception of a legitimate deficiency"

News ·Sunday May 10, 2009 @ 00:46 EDT (link)

Many Contra Costa crooks won't be prosecuted: "Misdemeanors such as assaults, thefts and burglaries will no longer be prosecuted in Contra Costa County because of budget cuts, the county's top prosecutor said Tuesday." Pertinent comment from LiveJournal Libertarians:

For the sake of argument, let's assume for a minute that there were legitimate and desirable functions performed by this department. The ones I spotted are shoplifting/trespass/vandalism, so focus on those.

This kind of [stuff] will make your blood boil if you think about it for too long. Basically, any time a government department has to allocate resources during a period of "cuts" (or more realistically these days, "no increases" or "increases less than expected") the resources will always be denied to the areas that most crucially need them so as to create the perception of a legitimate deficiency. These childish antics are precisely why no amount of money can seem to fix the public education system. When increases are less than expected, the department will throw a tantrum; pay raises for teachers and administrators within the bureaucracy will simply be fed first (allocated a greater share of the pool) and money for books, buildings, etc. will be last. Why? Because mom and dad can see the effects of crumbling buildings and 1980's textbooks but couldn't give a rat's ass about the teacher's new car. Same thing with infrastructure and transportation. If you're in charge of the highway department and facing a cut, the last thing y ou want to do is start fixing pot holes. You want to allocate resources as inefficiently as possible so as to guarantee the perception of deficiency.

So see if you spot the irony: a 35 year veteran prosecutor (want to take a stab at his salary?) is complaining about budget cuts that, by his account, will force his office to become redundant. Read that again until you get it. In the private sector this would be the equivalent of occupational suicide. It's a catch 22: either you fire some staff and take some other sane efficiency measures, or you can throw a toddler's temper tantrum and effectively cut off your nose to spite your face. The latter is only a viable tactic in the good old boy zero accountability land of the government.

Well said, sir, well said. Just another tactic big government uses to perpetuate and propagate itself, even in times where private enterprise, not being able to steal from the taxpayer but dependent upon voluntary contracts and satisfying customer demand, has to make tough and deep cuts.

This ties in well with the book I just read, In Pursuit: of Happiness and Good Government (link below), where Murray examines the effect of throwing money at a cause, and how it is usually a net negative due to various psychological and sociological factors. (He makes this case based on the happiness of all concerned, without needing to appeal to libertarian principles of personal freedom and (severely) limited government, which not everyone will embrace, although I submit that those that don't must either desire power, beneficial income transfers, or are mentally defective.)

Books finished: Trading Chaos, In Pursuit: of Happiness and Good Government.

A symbiotic dream world

Political ·Monday May 4, 2009 @ 00:09 EDT (link)

A thought came to me while watching Glenn Beck's Tea Parties: Media Lies Exposed show (link goes to first of five): the liberal media provides the service to liberals of perpetuating their dream world. In this dream world, they are the brave victims, conservatives are racists, conservative protests are bankrolled by Fox News, and more government is the solution to everything. It's symbiotic: the liberal media gives watchers a cozy reassuring fantasy world and keeps out unkind reality, and they watch it and raise its ratings and advertising revenues.

(It's possible that the conservative minority—some shows on Fox (forget talk radio, it's opinion and doesn't pretend to be news)—is guilty of the same thing, but if so, it's far less obvious, and less heinous coming from a minority of sources or a single source; and I'm also pointing out a particular case here where the attack machine either tried to ignore an event that would be noteworthy to an unbiased observer, or ground into full smear mode.)

Ack. I hate silly disclaimers.

There really is no compulsion in this religion

Political, Theology ·Sunday May 3, 2009 @ 23:28 EDT (link)

The reason there is no compulsion in worship in the United States Constitution is because Christianity is about free will. This is well stated in this post (not mine) to the Christians at Microsoft list:

People who read the constitution and view the absence of God as a reflection of the "secularness" of our founders miss the point. The reason our constitution is absent from any hint of compulsion to worship in any specified manner is a direct result of the religious beliefs of the founders and those they represented. They believed in an almighty God, but that the only acceptable worship of Him must be of free will. To try and force a man to worship God against his will would be a violation of God's own law.

This nation was indeed founded on Christian principles. Let me ask, when was this nation founded? When the constitution was signed in 1787? Or rather when we declared ourselves free on Independence Day: July 4, 1776? This declaration of independence does not attempt to define all the laws by which we should govern ourselves but it certainly outlines the reasons for the founding of our nation. These reasons are largely based on the Christian beliefs of the founders and those whom they represented:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands… the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness….

With a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Their sense of this "God of nature", "equality", the one who gives all men "unalienable Rights" which no government can take away, and their "reliance on the protection of Divine Providence" came from nowhere else but their religious beliefs, which happened to be Christian. Even their sense of justice was immensely influenced by this. Our laws are based on this sense of justice which came from their Christian beliefs.

Don't get me wrong, they wanted nothing to do with a church/state theocracy as that was the type of system they had just freed themselves of, but they had no qualms about religious expression even in government. I think it was D. Prager who said "this country was founded to be free, not secular."

Re: Jefferson as a Deist. I never understood this claim, but I am admittedly not an expert. A Deist is one who believes in an impersonal God, like a watchmaker who wound up creation and left it to operate on its own. They do not believe in the personal interaction of God in the affairs of men. With this in mind, I am unable to fathom how a Deist could make comments such as this:

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event." (Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.)

Perhaps he changed his opinion during some other time in his life, but it seems impossible for a deist to make such a statement unless he does so without belief in his own words. He also said this:

"I am a real Christian - that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ." (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.)

Sunday shooting at SVRC

News ·Sunday May 3, 2009 @ 19:58 EDT (link)

Yesterday I ran two miles on the treadmill—got some blisters; it had been a while.

Today we went shooting at SVRC. We arrived near the end of the Black Powder group's event (as planned—I was curious as to what those events entailed); they were mostly packing up to leave as we arrived. One other person (Chris from Amazon) was shooting a Ruger 10/22 in the pistol pit; I shot a few magazines of 9mm in both the Glock 34 and Springfield EMP there and then we both shot the AR-15 in the rifle area. I tried earplugs (instead of normal outside "headphone" style ear protection); they were great; the other ear protection gets in the way when firing a rifle. After Chris left, we had the place to ourselves, which was surprising, since it was a beautiful day. We shot several magazines and then packed up and left, stopping to eat at Pickle Time in Duvall on the way home.

I ran a bore-snake through the AR when we got home, and then mixed up some lawn weed and crabgrass killer so I could spray tomorrow.