100 Pushups
I want to be able to do 100 pushups continuously. So I've been doing sets of 100 pushups, taking breaks if I need to, but trying to get to 100 as quickly as possible. If I keep doing this eventually I will be doing them so fast it will be continuous. According to the data so far, and assuming my progress is somewhat linear, I can achieve my goal by mid-December:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8190939.stm
An example of how gov't intervention made our lives worse: 1. The British government passes terrorist legislation to freeze terrorist accounts:
2. Icelanders get their assets frozen abroad because of the actions of a private bank in iceland (it made lots of bad loans).
3. So to appease the british government the icelandic government has to promise to pay bank british depositors to the icelandic bank (why would the government post hoc guarantee an insolvent bank??)
4. This way the icelandic government hopes to get british government aid and their accounts unfrozen!
What started the problem here? The chancellor of the exchequer was ever given the power to freeze innocent people's accounts to begin with, through the terrorist legislation.
This is pretty sad:
The original BBC article is here. The basic principle of liberty is to allow others to do what they want provided it does no harm to others. Under this principle, ignoring her age, we should let her do it.
Why would we not let her? Because we think she’s not capable of thinking through her decisions yet, and so her decisions should not be respected. Normally it would be enough to simply let the parent delimit a child’s decisions using their guidance.
In this case, however, the parents are supposedly not properly delimiting the decisions of the child. So someone else must step in. I think the case for overruling parents’ authority over their children is valid in principle – imagine a parent who has convinced their child to kill themselves “voluntarily”, or some other sufficiently odious behaviour.
So where and how do we draw the line? Let’s consider the general case of a child who “wants” to do a dangerous activity (that would cause no harm to others). The parents support the child. Should the state intervene?
We need to consider:
1. The state of development of the child (a 6-year-old’s decisions should be respected less than a 13-year-old’s.)
2. The extent to which the parents are influencing the decisions of the child (if the parent is very manipulative or if they are letting the child make their own decisions)
3. The danger to the child (crossing the street alone vs. playing in a volcano alone)
We would have to bring these three variables together and decide subjectively if we think it crosses the line. In the sailing case I have the first two variables well measured but I don’t fully understand the magnitude of the third. Perhaps there is a way to mitigate the danger? With GPS or with the parents following closely behind?
My final judgement is that if it’s not too dangerous, the state should not intervene.
