Why death?

Sometimes I worry about death. Nobody especially close to me has died, but I wonder if that makes it even more ominous. Once at work, I was dusting and just started worrying so much that my wife would get in a car accident or something that I started to cry (it didn't help that I was listening to the song "How Can I Live Without You?"). On other occasions I may not be worried about the imminent future, but I realize that we'll all die someday and that's enough to make today not so great.

Loss and Grief by Patrick Emerson

But as I have learned with all opposition (I sort of hate admitting this, because I'm still not a fan of opposition), there is a lot that I can learn from it. If there were no death, then I don't think I would value people as much; I would take them for granted. The idea of a person dying makes that person vividly real and important to me.

You can estimate the economic value of a life. Look at two jobs which are similar in every regard except 1) pay and 2) risk of death. Next, multiply the hourly wage difference by 1 over the difference in the percentage chance of death. Multiply that number by the number of hours they would otherwise live. That gives you an estimation of their life's economic value according to what they demand in compensation for reduced safety. If it takes 5 dollars more an hour for a person to take a riskier job, all else equal, then that difference in safety during that hour is valued at 5 dollars, and that information can be extrapolated to estimate how much a person values the rest of their life.

This calculation bothers some people. Why? I think because we recognize that there is a value in people beyond this life, evidenced in part by the pain associated with the death of loved ones.

The depth of our feelings also indicates that there is an afterlife. I experience non-physical feelings, spiritual feelings, when I am with my family and/or talking about God and His plan for our families.  I have felt such happy and tender emotions towards my family that I don't think that the death of my body could make those spiritual feelings go away.

Perhaps my greatest comfort with regard to death is my overall testimony of God. I know that He lives and loves us, that He answers our prayers and has a plan for our eternal selves. While I still worry a lot, I know that I can find joy by anxiously serving God in this life and in that way, I can find a fullness of joy in the next life.

My Political Weighted Points

Sometimes when we make decisions we think about possible outcomes but we don't think about how likely those outcomes actually are.

I am going to write out the potential differentiating costs and differentiating benefits of each candidate, multiplied by how likely that cost or benefit is to occur/have a real effect. The cost and benefit numbers represent how big of a deal I think those attributes are, assuming that they happen. By "differentiating", I mean things that are unique to each candidate. (For example, I won't talk about the benefits of them being U.S. citizens, since all of them are. Also, rather than giving negative points to Clinton and Johnson for being pro-choice, I give Trump positive points for being pro-life.)

I realize that the cost and benefit numbers and the probabilities are not founded in data or anything besides my own impulse, so just try to use what I'm doing as one option for how to think about analyze more specifics of your own opinions.

key: bold=benefit, red=cost, blue=results

Donald Trump: directness (50*.8) + said people who are happy are family people (100*.2) + pro-life (300*.4)  + Mexican wall (-125*.5) + his concerns about unfair trade (-50*.6) + not aiming to reduce number of prisoners (-15*.9) + wants to keep out Muslims (-125*.2)
positives/benefits: 180
negatives/costs: -131
total: 49

Hillary Clinton: foreign affairs knowledge (100*.9) + religious (150*.6) + predictable (90*.8) + wants to help people (60*.85) + pro-gmo (60*.85) + email issue (-10*.1) + doesn't want to reduce regulation on businesses (-100*.9) + would appoint liberal judges (-100*.8)
positives/benefits: 303
negatives/costs:  -171
total:  132

Gary Johnson: wants to reduce the role of the Federal Government in education (125*.95) + will veto unbalanced budgets (150*.8) + talks about the constitution (150*.9) + won't win (-100*.99)
positives/benefits: 373.75
negatives/costs: -99
total: 274.75

You'll see that Gary Johnson only had one negative/cost item listed. It isn't that I think Gary Johnson is perfect besides not winning, it is just that his flaws that I see happen to be shared with another candidate. Thus, this is his only differentiating cost.

And now for my huge list of disclaimers. I have done this post as a fun way to take into account everything I think about them. I feel a little uncomfortable giving Hillary Clinton points for religiosity, because I don't think there should be a systematic religious test for government officials. Nonetheless, my number one criteria for a presidential candidate is that he or she be just, honest, and good (Doctrine and Covenants 98:10). While religious people do not always meet those requirements, religion helps, and it especially helps with not being antagonistic against religion.

I'm also hesitant to take points from Johnson for not winning, because sometimes it is good to support a less heard voice. But I suppose that votes for him are less well publicized and hence will make a smaller impact.

I understand that I am mixing a quantitative approach with my qualitative feelings, which doesn't lead to accuracy. It might be better to use dollar estimates of the efficiency gains and losses of each candidate, but that would require more data and brains than I have. And perhaps a nice drawing would better depict their qualitative characteristics, but I'm not that artistic. But hopefully you can still be inspired to think hard about the candidates by seeing these topics next to fairly arbitrary numbers ; )

If any cost or benefit mentioned here sparks your interest or disagreement, please comment so that I can research it more and do another post on that topic!

How do Law, Economics, and God make us free?

The Rule of Law creates stability, meaning it creates a society in which your actions will have reasonably predictable consequences. Without the Rule of Law, or without the laws of a country following predictable and non-discriminatory principles, people live in fear of the government and are hardly able to focus on their own goals.

A lack of the Rule of Law could explain the chaos and lack of development in some parts of Africa. Likewise, a lack of the Rule of Law can lead to the rule of tyrants or dictators, like Pol Pot in Cambodia who targeted people who were educated. Both of these examples demonstrate how a a lack of the Rule of Law leads to a lack of stability. In turn, this unstable system reduces an individual's incentive to invest in education or other pursuits since their investment won't be able to develop.

So Law gives a stable platform from which people can set and pursue their own goals.

Economics is a platform to understand how scarce resources can be allocated to help us pursue our goals. Economic efficiency maximizes the goods and services available for society to use. More bread, gasoline, cleaning services and everything else that has a price can help us achieve our goals if we use them right. Food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and administering programs all require work. Hopefully we enjoy some aspects of the work, but that doesn't change the fact that we'd like to accomplish some of this mundane work with less time and resources so that we have more for other things. A good economic system will produce the goods and services we need and want for the lowest cost possible. This is done through creating optimal personal incentives (rewarding people's hard work) along with allowing specialization (allowing trade).

So basically, economics lets us do things like produce food, and thus we are free to live and do something besides be dead.

While I do believe that God expects us to learn a lot about freedom from academic fields, when we turn to Him, His love supersedes the principles of law and economics as we normally think of them.

"Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay. But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world." (Alma 34:11-12)

To me this means that though I'm not good enough to be saved by my own adherence to righteous laws, the Savior loves me so much that He will still save me, if I follow His path of faith and repentance.

God also overcomes typical economic problems. He told his Apostles to "Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. . . Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. . . even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these." (Matthew 6:25-29)

I have seen blessings in my own life that are evidence that God is taking care of me, forgiving me even when I don't deserve it and providing what I need to keep pursuing my dreams.

Understanding how good principles of law and economics function has helped me to understand some of God's dealings, and to better appreciate the miracles that He performs which I don't fully understand.