Just sent in a letter to TODAY newspaper.

Dear Sir/Mdm,

I refer to the question Mr Eric Sng asked in his letter, “Can cabbies refuse customers?”. Regardless of the authorities’ position, I believe the answer is obvious if we ask a  more general question: Can people refuse a job offer?

A taxi driver offers a service for a price. In certain cases, the metered fare the cabby expects to receive is simply not enough to justify his perceived opportunity costs. Perhaps he is rushing home to see his children before bedtime, or perhaps he wants to maximize his earnings to better provide for his family. In any case, the cabby has judged that it is not in his interest to offer his services. Who are we to force him to do so?

When we go to the market, do we expect the meat seller to sell us his wares at a price lower than his costs? Do we expect our contractors to work at a loss?

While I sympathize with Mr Sng’s difficulty in getting a cab that night, the solution would be to offer additional payment to the driver, or to make a booking instead.  Alternatively, he could wait for a taxi driver who decides that the benefits of the job outweigh its costs and voluntarily accepts it as a mutually advantageous exchange.

Yours Sincerely,
Daryl Yong

Of course I’m hoping that they’ll publish it. I think there’s a chance: It’s far less controversial than my last letter and they published that.

While it may seem like a trivial issue, I certainly don’t think so. The issue is really about whether we have a right to our own bodies: whether we have the autonomy to decide where to invest our labour. And it is this right that is so powerfully and disgustingly violated by National Service Slavery. But that, I think, deserves a post of its own.

UPDATE: My letter was published in full in the Nov 12 issue. How fun, haha.

Since I’ve had a fair bit of time on my hands for these few days, I’ve had the time to think a little about my life so far, as well as do a little reading plus catch up on Grey’s Anatomy.

And really, Grey’s makes being a hardcore badass absolutely cool.

To be dedicated, have a clear purpose, and succeed.

If Nature had a shape, it would be a circle. The circle of life, the water cycle, the nitrogen cycle, it goes on and on.

We have also always liked the idea of circles. From the ancient Greeks for whom the Circle was holy, to Buddhists who believe in reincarnation, the Circle is seen as a perfect shape.

But perhaps Man is  better represented by a  line.

A clear starting point, a direction, and an end. Roads, skycrappers, cables.

Pretty good metaphor from Rand, in my opinion.

To be a hardcore badass chiongster is to draw your own line, and extend it as far as possible within our finite lifetimes.

Haha, I just realized how I have somehow managed to internalize and use a word that I’ve only heard used in the army.

Anyway, with uni tantalizingly far away, all I can do when I hear about the girls talk about uni is to swear to myself that I’m gonna be a hardcore badass during uni and chiong all the way.

Haha.

Of course, talking is really easy, since it’s so far away.

Looking at my past records, I wouldn’t really consider myself as someone who can really chase a goal with a long, sustained, dedicated burst of energy.

I mean, looking at people like Yi Ci study and work their asses off is inspiring, but something I’ve never been able to do despite fantasizing of it numerous times.

I guess my natural state is one where I am relaxed and kinda slacking.

But I can totally imagine loving Law School and having actual fun when studying, just as I used to in IP.

I mean, JC was fun but it wasn’t fun mugging for the A Levels.

Argh, I am still more than a year away from that life.

So how’s that for an advanced New Year’s Resolution for the year 2011? To be a hardcore badass chiongster in uni. Hahaha.

My goodness.

I often get really tired of reading boring rants on The Online Citizen. I mean, I was quite excited about the site when I heard about it, only to find that it is mostly just a bunch of disgruntled people who often don’t make much sense.

I quote this article I recently read:

The power of efficiency, so sterile, so clinical, so enticing, has arguably been the bedrock of our economic transformation. It will also be the impediment to our national identity – a nation does not grow with GDP, a nation does not live in skyscrapers: a nation is only born when it has a soul. As long as we remain predicated and fixated upon material and technocratic concerns, Peter Schoppert will affirm that “Singapore is about routes, not roots”. Our national soul however requires roots.

Okay seriously, this paragraph to me represents what is just wrong about much of the opposition voice in Singapore. It takes something as wondrous as efficiency, and tries to make it sound like something evil. It uses warm and fuzzy concepts like soul and no one really knows what those concepts mean, except that it is warm and fuzzy.

Bullshit. A nation does not grow with GDP? Are skyscrapers not better places to live in than rubbish dumps?

Efficiency is about getting maximum output for minimum input. Anyone who argues that efficiency has made us “souless” just doesn’t make sense.

I am very disillusioned with opposition voices in Singapore, which may shock some who know my past inclinations. I have yet to see many credible opposition voices other than Yawning Bread.

But then, on the other side, we have our dear Young PAP. I mean, I seldom read their site but this post absolutely made me puke.

We, as Citizens of Singapore, are the best to judge which system of governance suits our Nation best in terms of advancing the well-being of our people. And no, we should not be so arrogant as not to want to look closely at other successful systems of governance with a view to adapting aspects of those systems to our benefit.

The observation has been made that it is those countries in the West, who were former colonisers of countries in Asia, and who robbed lands belonging to others, suppressing the native inhabitants of the lands they conquered, and stealing their valuable resources to fuel their own industrialization now condescendingly want to teach us how to govern ourselves following their model wholesale.

These were also the countries that once lorded over the great ancient civilization of India, and who also derided China [another great ancient civilization] as the ’sick man of Asia’. And these were also the nations that, at the height of their imperialism, imposed, by sheer brute force, the ‘right’ of extra-territoriality upon the countries they had subjected. And now, they are crusading for Freedom and Human Rights in their former colonies as well as the other countries of Asia.

Okay, so after the first paragraph of the section I just quoted, I kinda thought that the guy was going to analyze why “Western” models of governance are unsuccessful. Instead, he just goes on rant after rant, rhetoric after rhetoric about Colonialism. Seriously, the anti-West knee jerk reaction is just getting old.

By the way, can you imagine if what our island would be like if we were not colonized? Would we still have a Sultan like Thailand has a King? Seriously, colonialism was one of the best things that happened to Singapore.

Anyway, I’m just disappointed at how few great sites on Singaporean issues there are. Which really tempts me to start one but… I don’t think I’d be able to do it alone and everyone else is so busy with everything else.

Besides, I can’t think of a good name for such a site.

Hahaha, how I wish I could start a Wave on this and see what my other friends think about it.

I guess the title of this post is pretty misleading, since I am writing this after reading the book, plus reading a couple of stuff online about the book and Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy.

I guess my true initial thoughts on the book was: awesome! And I still think it was absolute fun to read.

But now, I guess I’m trying to understand the ideas espoused in her books a little better.

Rand’s Objectivist philosophy is an attempt to have an integrated, consistent philosophy that explains her views on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics. The idea of an integrated philosophy is one that seems really interesting to me: I’ve always thought about whether there were any underlying principles that guided me on my beliefs with regards to everything I believe in. In other words, could I reduce all my beliefs and opinions to a certain number of axioms that form the bases of all my beliefs?

Rand’s philosophy may indeed prove a fruitful starting point for that search.

The thing that struck me when looking at material online was how hard it was to find a comprehensive and well considered criticism of Objectivism. I mean, all I seemed to be able to find were criticisms that don’t seem very strong to me at first glance. I quote from a website:

As to be expected, Rand’s original system of thought has not gone without criticism. A few of the most common criticisms are discussed below.

Rand claims that all of a man’s knowledge of reality comes through the senses. She also takes for granted the validity and objectivity of the senses. Nowhere does she disprove that knowledge can be gained through and/or enhanced by other sources such as revelation by God, existential encounters, mystical experiences, and the human emotions. Knowledge that comes through a man’s senses varies with respect to its accuracy. Concepts are abstractions and are not equal to their referents. Not only are man’s senses and brain fallible, he is also limited by his own subjectivity and perspective – alone he may be able to perceive some aspect of reality, but very seldom can he see the whole picture. In those cases in which he does perceive reality accurately, he cannot totally prove it since if, as Rand maintains, the senses and the brain are the only means by which we know reality, there is no way to compare reality with perceptions created by the brain.

Rand contends there are no reasons to believe in God. For her, the idea of God is offensive and humiliating to man since it would mean that man is not the highest being in the world. Her position is that without God it is up to man alone to pursue his own happiness and create his own values. Freedom for Rand means the non-existence of a Creator. Nowhere, however, does she attempt to refute arguments for the existence of God such as Aristotle’s unmoved mover, Aquinas’ five proofs, Anselm’s ontological argument, and James’ argument from mystical experience.

Rand’s repudiation of altruism seems to be due to the unusual way that she defines the term. Her idea of altruism is that man must selflessly place the welfare of others above his own. A more common idea, however, is that altruism is a man’s concern for or dedication to others’ interests in addition to his own. Charity, compassion, and the desire to give pleasure to others can have their place in human relationships as long as they do not playa principal, determining role, or are accomplished through the involuntary redistribution of individuals’ wealth.

Okay, I quote this from a article that was fairly sympathetic to Rand so it is possible that these are just strawmen that its citing but if these are the “main” criticisms of Rand, then I’m a little underwhelmed given how her ideas are so frequently (on the net) rejected out of hand.

I mean, okay, you can criticize her use of “altruism” as being different from how others use it, but to me it seems to make sense. For an act to be considered non-trivially altruistic, it has to benefit others at your expense. It may not be how people like to use it, but at least she uses it in an intelligible and reasonable manner.

And of course, the criticism quoted that she didn’t bother arguing against the existence of God doesn’t really move me since I have plenty of those arguements on my own.

So yeah, I seem to see mostly hysterical (“Omg you don’t care about the poor things in the world”) criticisms online. Hopefully I’ll find better in the days to come. Unfortunately, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, my first go-to site on all things philosophy related, doesn’t seem to have an article on Rand.

(Which, incidentally, does far more damage to her credibility in my mind than reading any criticism cause my mind automatically asks, “What is it that makes a great site like SEP not recognize Rand as worthy of an article?”)

Anyway, I am most struck by this line in Atlas Shrugged:

To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason, purpose and self esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge. Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve. Self esteem as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living.

I mean, clearly, I’m not yet going into the epistemological basis of her philosophy, but as a philosophy of life, as a philosophy for living, reason, purpose, and self esteem strike a particular chord with me.

Which really brings me to all sorts of conclusions about my life as I am living now.

A moral life is one where one is a trader: trading openly and honestly, value for value.

It makes me wonder, what sort of sacrifices have I knowingly made. Whether I expect my payment to be something I value, or in the form of suffering that I will wear as a badge of honor or matyrdom.

Ultimately, one has to ask, have I been conditioned to enjoy pain and suffering? Have I been deluded into thinking that to suffer is to be moral? Did I decide somewhere along the way that the sympathetic attention from being a martyr was a wondrous feeling?

To love being a martyr is to love death.

What makes Atlas Shrugged such an optimistic book for me, one that might provide me insights as to how to live my life in a more fruitful way, is that in all its cynicism, it is a profoundly life affirming book.

After all, there is only one life that I control, one life that I can truly understand, one life that I can truly take care of.

And I choose to live it.

It seems that nowadays my blog posts mostly consists of weightless, fleeting thoughts.

Today will probably be no different.

I’ve not been reading much fiction since this year, but reading Atlas Shrugged has made me recall what it’s like to read a book that simply resonates and speaks to you.

And it makes me remember that great line from Possibility of an Island.

“What do you call the fat around the vagina?”

“The woman.”

I think I’m gonna add that into my favorite quotes on my facebook page.

Along with this quote from House:

“Religion is not the opiate of the masses; It is the placebo of the masses.”

I guess what I feel now is that everything seems to be a prelude to something else.

A quiet build-up to something.

Though the uncertainty as to what that thing is is rather unsettling.

Things have been going along the lines of what I have forseen.

Hmm.

I am now thinking that perhaps the best way to articulate the many random thoughts in my head is to list them out, complete with a numerical order.

Might make for a more coherent post than one that just rambles on.

Okay, so here goes the list of my random thoughts for the day.

1. Grey’s Anatomy is awesome. “You can’t pray away the gay.” Hahaha, Singapore is so not going to show Grey’s anymore.

2. It disgusts me that our government is still so prudish about the things we watch. Like seriously. I’m starting to think that there are two types of people in government. The first, think of how to make money. The other, think about how to control how people spend their money. Come on, don’t kill my new found liking for our government by reminding me of all the stupid, senseless, illogical restrictions on our freedoms.

3. And that brings me to: Atlas Shrugged is an awesome book. Think I’m gonna write a couple of serious posts inspired by it some time soon. As soon as I finish the book and then go read a couple of reviews/commentaries, I guess. Haha.

4. There are certain things I think I should re-evaluate. Partly inspired by Atlas Shrugged, I am now beginning to think that I should stop playing a part in faking realities that I do not even want to be true.

5. I am also thinking that when it comes down to it, marriage and kids are really really expensive. I mean, how many adults do you know can really think of what they have spent and say that it’s really worth it. I, for one, am starting to think that marriage and kids are seriously overrated. Do I really want my life to be about the pleasure and feelings of others? Do I really want to spend 80% of my money on other people?

6. Did I mention that Grey’s Anatomy is awesome? Hahaha.

I guess all I can say about my life now is that I’m satisfied. Not really good, of course, but I’m satisfied. And I’m trying to see if there are certain things that I can live without. Because come one day, I may not have a choice.

The quiet point where the mind does not have to do anything, and yet has to do something.

The searching for something to do, for something of meaning, can be incredibly light, and yet weigh heavily on the mind.

The touching of this keyboard, deliberate yet careless, like playing the piano, running of fingers producing music.

Producing song.

Perhaps, but there are such things as poor music, meaningless song.

The consolidation of facts, of things that are only becoming increasingly apparent, brings only a small degree of comfort.

The comfort that I am experiencing, a form of bliss, is also a form of inertia.

Yet perhaps it is not up to me to move.

The waiting: waiting on, waiting for, just brings to mind how there is no guarantee of anything.

The music plays on, its rhythm unchanging, its melody smoothly running along its pre-written, predestined path.

Here I am, watching as it moves.

But no, it fluctuates, like a sudden crash of symbals, the abrupt smashing of drums. It explodes, like an unpredictable thunderstorm.

How can one whistle along to a tune that changes keys, tones and tempo seemingly without cause.

Where is the meaning in music without motifs.

Why I am surprised; no. Why do I seem surprise, when I am actually not.

Meaningless tunes can be recognized.

Meaningless tunes can be discarded, thrown away, removed, torn up, replaced.

Yet meaningless tunes can bring bliss.

And the hope that the music will have meaning one day.

It is this that is the ultimate irresistable poison.

It is said that the truth sets one free, that the light of scrutinity will turn away the musky stench of decaying lies.

I do not know, and I cannot know.

The music plays on, and I cannot interpret it.

I can only listen, hear it move along.

Moving along the lines, one note following the next.

Where is it headed, where is it going, where is the finale, the climax.

We cannot expect one, not from a meaningless song that defies expectations.

Senseless questions are those questions that are even asked.

Better to remain blissful at that quiet point where the mind does not have to do anything, and thus chooses to do exactly that.

Nothing. Blissful nothing.

Meeting the debaters on Saturday after such a long time was great fun. A group that  can swing from full gear intellectual topics to nonsensical gossip is not easy to find, and is really quite fun.

Anyway, seeing Kristi and Cheryl just totally made me jealous of them being in Law School right now!  I learnt something vitally important from them: That when you read off names of court cases, the “v.” is actually pronounced “and”, not “v” or “versus”. So, Roe v. Wade is pronounced “Roe and Wade”. Except when it’s a criminal case, then you read it as “against”.

So, this means that I’ve to really really be careful when I talk about law related stuff. Since I’ve friends actually studying law, I hope I keep noob comments to a minimum so as to prevent myself from being whacked. Or, as we used to call it in debates, “intellectually raped”. I guess it’s sort of a “mind blow” too.

As an aside,  I just remembered the Big Bang Theory episode I just watched where Stuart, the comic book store guy told Sheldon that the new comic book was “mind blowing”, to which Sheldon replied, “Excuuse me, spoiler alert! You told me it’s mind blowing. So my mind is going into it pre-blown. Once a mind is pre-blown, it cannot be re-blown”. Oh man, everyone has got to watch Big Bang Theory.

Anyway, we were just randomly talking, and we came onto the topic of racial discrimination. The question was, if we hire people based on looks (we were talking about host clubs and maid bars in Japan, prior to this), why can we not hire people based on race? The example I gave was, if you had to hire a salesman to sell stuff to a white, bigoted neighbourhood, surely you can explicitly hire based on race?

Ultimately, we boiled this down to a question of freedom versus equality. Freedom and equality often have an inverse relationship. I remember that awesome question during the Lang Arts exam which presented this idea to me, and I was totally amazed at the observation of such an inverse relationship.

To illustrate such a relationship, the Lang Arts question presented a scenario. Imagine a society, where half the people were blind, and the other half had perfect eye sight. If you were in government, would you order take an eye from everyone who could see, and give one each to all the blind people? In such a case, equality is achieved because, well, everyone’s equal. Everyone can see with one eye. But freedom is clearly compromised: surely not all the people with perfect eyesight would have been willing to give up an eye just like that.

So yes, there is an inverse relationship between freedom and equality. So where do you draw the line? That’s ultimately the question we came down to, and I guess we just concluded that whereever the line is drawn, it was either a) a personal preference, or b) based on some other ethical theory which (I would argue) would amount to a personal preference.

So yes. I guess this topic warrants a much deeper discussion than I am prepared to go into right now. The purpose of me writing this post is actually to talk about yet another interesting thing that wasn’t discussed during my outing with the debaters.

I consider myself a Libertarian, and I say so openly on my facebook page. So, the question then becomes, “What’s the difference between a libertarian and a liberal?”

Both terms have been used differently over time, of course. It’s hard to find a proper definition of either one of the terms. So, I’m writing today based on how I think the words are commonly used and understood today.

Libertarians are often said to be “left wing on social issues, right wing on economic issues”. Liberals, on the other hand, are “left wing on social issues, and left wing on economic issues”.  Here’s a short description from this website:

Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market and defend civil liberties.

Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded “safety net” to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

I would like to make a hypothesis:  libertarians are more concerned with freedom, liberals are more concerned with equality.

Let us see how this might be true.

Consider a social issue that libertarians and liberals largely agree on: gay rights. Both groups often advocate for gay rights.  But libertarians support gay rights because individuals should be free to have whatever consenting relations they want.  Liberals support gay rights because gays should be given equal treatment as straights.

Of course, both reasons are valid ones. But I realize that whenever I discuss this issue, I always give much more focus on the freedom argument; The equality argument is most of the time omitted.

Here, coincidentally, you can see an issue whereby a policy of allowing gay marriage would increase both freedom and equality, thus showing that one does not always have to come at the expense of the other.

Hmm, so I’m thinking that this is a pretty neat explanation of the difference between libertarians and liberals.

So, what do you guys think? Are you a liberal or a libertarian? Freedom or equality?

Today could be memorable for several reasons. Interesting things happen when there are lots of things going on at the same time. Simple maths:  Expected no. of interesting events= Probability of interesting events X Total no. of events.

But I just want to note this particular interesting thing that happened today because it was so brief and yet brought a well needed smile.

If you’ve known me long enough, you’d know that I have this “mode” where I unleash and speak on an issue that I feel something for. This mode where I go on and on, being argumentative and somewhat aggressive (and perhaps annoying). I also make analogies that can be anything from funny, ironic, provokative, or just plain lame.

And that is me, in one of my most natural forms.

Today, I guess I’ve come very much to terms that this form has not many opportunities to manifest itself in my current life in the army.

Well, I love to argue and feel that I’m on the right side of an argument. I like feeling logical, if you’d forgive such an oxymoronic statement.

And of course, I love challenging someone else’s view that I disagree with, provided that it is somewhat socially acceptable for me to do so. Haha, even though some might say that I have quite a loose standard of “socially acceptable”, I just attribute that to the fact that I care substantially less than other people about what other people might think of me.

So, I guess I shall just have to entertain myself with little tidbits of logic that I read and think about for now.

Well, recently, due to so many of my friends taking a business or business related degree in university, I’ve been reminded about Milton Friedman’s brilliant statement on the ethics of doing business: T he social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.

Read the article, my friends. It is absolutely brilliant. There are many strange, convoluted, fluffy and feel-good ideas about business ethics, but few are as incisive, simple, and eloquently explained.

Which reminds me of a short comment I once posted on some guy’s note on Facebook. Don’t really know the guy though, just that he’s from VJ. What I said was this:

Companies do not care about your “inner happiness” or sense of self achievement, except when it visibly affects their bottom-line. They do not care about your passion, only your productivity. The two, though linked, are distinct. I do not think this sad. The role of firms is to make profits, that is, to create value for society by making a product that is more valuable than what its made of. Firms are firms, not charities or feel-good associations.

Clearly, I am making some generalizations here, and simplifying alot of things. But that one sentence in that comment simply captures why I think that profit making businesses, in a free market environment, is such a force for good, generally speaking.

Well, the Facebook note is here, if you’re interested.

Well, speaking of Facebook notes, I also recall a time when I posted this on a Facebook note that Mark (Heng) wrote.

1. Either it is true that “Nothing is impossible” or it is not.

2. Assume “Nothing is impossible” is true.

3. If “Nothing is impossible” is true, then it is impossible for something to be impossible.

4. Therefore, something is impossible.

Reductio Ad Absurdum,

“Nothing is impossible” is false.

Hahaha felt a little mean posting something so cynical on a somewhat cheerful note, but that’s what I mean. Whacking pieces of feel-good fluff in good nature is really quite fun. Can’t find the old Facebook page though, but I remember what I wrote.

Well, those are the little tidbits that I think most of you guys would probably not know, since they took place in some nebulous part of Facebook that people don’t really bother to look at.

Of course, other moments when I wrote logically passionately include other blog posts, including the one about weareveryhappy. To me, the high point of that discussion was when I finally formalized to myself (in a comment to other comments) why I think religious claims just simply false.

Another thing I remember was when A11 had this discussion about dogs, resulting in me making this blogpost. Basically, I suggested (after PE, I remember) that since we allow sterilization of pet dogs, when don’t we remove their salivary glands as well since I find it somewhat annoying when dogs slobber all over me.

And of course, A11 being A11, had quite an interesting discussion. Hahaha, I remember the days.

Hmm, so I guess this post has turned out to be a little trip down memory lane.

More recently though, I’ve been thinking about how some people just don’t get thought experiments. I recall when Cheryl used to complain to me about people not getting thought experiements/hypothetical analogies in GP class. Basically, the teacher asked the class whether if a perfect copy of Mona Lisa was made, should it be considered art. And people were arguing that… A perfect copy was impossible.

Argh! And that basically led me to say something about thought experiments that has been captured in this photo.

And that kinda brings me to a more contentious point. You know how in uni where they give you a “scenario” of sorts and you’re to work out certain questions? I think those are sort of like thought experiments. But I guess schools might see it differently, or looking out for different things. Haha.

So I guess I like to try my best to keep things my thoughts neat (heh, my things on the other hand, are very messy), and in an untidy, chaotic world, logical coherence is one way to do so. And as much as I am passionately anal, I also strive to be passionately logical.

All this has me thinking about my future. You know, I don’t get into the “mode” sometimes in debates. Perhaps I’m not familiar enough with the issue in an impromtu debate, or perhaps I’m nervous in a competition, or perhaps I just don’t believe the side that I’m arguing for. But I guess I shouldn’t expect to feel passionately logical when I argue stuff if I go into litigation in the future.

School, on the other hand, will be an absolute blast. I can totally imagine the fun whacking other people, and getting whacked too. Totally can’t wait for it.

Haha.

I guess this has been a first proper post in some time; the last was more of a ramble, as I said.

Here, I recall my past and I excitedly anticipate my future.

In the present meantime, I am trying desperately to remember who I am.

And, trying to get a little sip of that joy when I am in that mode I call “passionate logic”.