What's the difference between the theory of Diminished Returns and that of Limitless Extremes?
Graphically speaking,
Diminished Return is represented by a bell curve. Limitless Extreme is represented
by a curve that can be a vector pointing in an upward direction or one that's
pointing in a downward direction.
Most everything in life, be it
natural or artificial, obeys the law of Diminished Returns. The most famous
example is that of eating. We must eat because it gives us the energy we need
to function and stay alive. Up to a certain maximum, the more we eat, the more
energy we acquire with which we fulfill the various functions we assign to
ourselves, as well as stay alive.
But when we go past the eating
limit that's required by our genetic make-up, we become obese and develop
diseases that diminish our ability to fulfill our functions. Hence the theory
of diminishing returns. This is illustrated by the bell curve whose rising left
half says that the more we eat, the higher goes our energy level. But once we
reach the top of the curve, the more we eat, the more our performance level
diminishes as shown by the right half of the curve.
As to the theory of Limitless
Extremes, it is mostly an artificial conception that's dedicated to fulfilling
constructive purposes some of the time, or destructive ones some other times.
For example, a savings plan in which the dividend is plowed back into the
account, earns a compounded interest that increases the value of the portfolio
exponentially with the passage of time. This is usually thought of as a
virtuous cycle.
But there can also be a
vicious cycle. For example, if a pandemic gets out of hand, the more people
become infected, the faster they infect others. A cycle of this kind is seen as
vicious because it will take a society into a downward spiral; one that can
lead to a death trap in which the entire population might be annihilated. In
fact, this happened to native tribes in the new world when the European
explorers brought to them the measles; an infection against which the natives
had no immunity.
Why is this important to know?
It is important because it equips you with a perspective that can be useful
when you encounter a work like the one that came under the title: “Finding the
good news in government gridlock,” written by Gary Anderson, and published on
February 1, 2021 in The Washington Times. What follows is a condensed version
of what Gary Anderson had to say on the subject:
“If any good comes out of the
current impeachment imbroglio, it will be that the Congress will not do very
much in the next month. That is good news, gridlock is good. The kind of
government that the Founders envisioned will likely continue to function as
planned. Nothing will get done, and that is as it should be. This means that
real congressional action on universal health care, climate change, abolishing
student debt and immigration reform are likely dead in the water. It could not
happen to a nicer agenda. Mr. Trump will terrify the Republicans with threats
of a third party if key tenets of his agenda are abandoned. This is a sure
recipe for blessed congressional inaction. Given the politics of personal
destruction on both sides of the aisle, we may see inaction. A few scandals
here and there mixed with other crises, and before you know it, it's 2022”.
This is an example of
limitless extremes. It is so because, instead of advocating the elimination of
the Congress and replacing it with something else, or with nothing at all,
Anderson would maintain the symbol of “America's democracy” to avoid being
called a bad name such as “authoritarian,” for example. But he wants the
Congress to sit pretty and do nothing. To justify his unusual wish, he falsely
reports that it is what the Founders of the Republic wanted in the first place.
He then betrays himself by inadvertently demonstrating that it is his wish, and
by telling why he so wishes.
Gary Anderson does that by
gloating about the prospect of the opponents' agenda failing to be processed
and adopted. He especially relishes seeing gridlock defeat the following items
in the agenda of the Democratic party: Universal health care, climate change,
abolishing student debt and immigration reform.
Because the Democratic Party
has a very slim majority, and might have a difficult time passing the
legislation it wants, Anderson fantasizes about the Republican Party doing all
it can to get in the way of the Democrats. But how will this come about? Here
is how, says Anderson: “Mr. Trump will terrify the Republicans with threats of
a third party if key tenets of his agenda are abandoned. This is a sure recipe
for blessed congressional inaction”.
He goes on to fantasize about
scandals and crises that will maintain the gridlock till the electoral cycle
brings them to the midterm of 2022 where the fantasy continues with the promise
that the Republicans will win the Congress and pass their own agenda.
Nothing can be more extreme
than these fantasies; the reason why they are collectively referred to as
Theory of the Limitless Extremes.
So then, what’s the moral of this story? It is that civilized societies function based on the Law of Diminished Returns whereas societies beginning to lose their moral compass, function based on the Law of Limitless Extremes.