GBRK
2mo ago
For example, looking specifically at that patent page, do you really believe that innovation from 2010 to 2020 was 2x or 3x the innovation between 1870 and 1990?
Plausibly yes. The impact of innovation might be on a logistic curve as we vacuum up all the low-hanging fruit, but the patent numbers are sufficient to demonstrate that immigration rates don't have an effect on people having ideas. I can anticipate your objections, but before making them first remember that the most important word in my argument was "anti-correlate". Even if patents granted becomes an increasingly-bad measure of what you would consider important about innovation, there should still be some identifiable correlation not lost in confounding because immigration rate isn't asymptotically increasing over the span of America's existence. Also, if you doubt America's numbers specifically, you can look elsewhere for confirmation-- we're both proposing general rules that should hold cross-culturally. You should be able to eyeball patent rates and immigration figures in any given country to see if rate of innovation (or rate of growth in innovation) falls after immigration spikes.
Your modus ponens is my modus tollens, though: if the vibes don't match the stats, then either the vibes are wrong or the stats are wrong/irrelevant.
Skill issue. Overcome your cognitive biases and find some better vibes. Or don't, I guess. I'm pretty convinced that relying on statistical techniques over faulty human wiring as a general principle overperforms in the aggregate, but maybe I'm wrong. If we're lucky we can compare life trajectories 50 years from now and hash it all out.
GBRK
2mo ago
GDP as an idea is like a belief that doesn't pay rent. It doesn't tell you whether a country is good, a benefit in raising it is not found in evidence. Given otherwise equal choices among westerners, >95% would rather spend their lives in #39 Switzerland or #105 Iceland over #1 China or #3 India.
I didn't cite GDP, I cited GDP per capita. Critical difference. And while I wouldn't use GDP per capita to prove that any particular country is good, but I can use it to make statements about the general trend of increased goodness because it's very strongly correlated with a lot of measure of goodness like e.g. life expectancy that everyone agrees on.
civilization development factor C
Not well defined. Give me empirical data or give me death.
Economics is a pseudoscience
You're using no science whatsoever. I'll take "psuedoscience" over that.
Abundant plastic garbage... Millions of foreigners
You're trying to make an a priori argument but I reject this comparison on it's face and also empirically. Go look at a graph of utility patents granted in the united states: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2023/08/utility-patents-granted-calendar.html . It doesn't anti-correlate with graphs of "immigrants as a share of US residents." so I'm pretty damn confident that if you want to track down a graph of "noneuropean immigrants as a share of US residents" it's not going to anticorrelate with that either. It just correlates to graphs of US population growth. More people means more innovation.
Your argument is entirely based on vibes. That's cool, but I've got statistics.
GBRK
2mo ago
What I said was that with "over-exclusion is worse then over-inclusion" approach, you will turn the category of the nation useless.
The irony of this is that the whole idea of a "nation" is an over-inclusion: an 18/19th century fabrication intended to artificially bond disparate ethnic-linguistic-cultural groups together. Before people were White they were French, German, British... they were Occitan, Cornish, Bavarian... they were loyal to their tribes, villages, clans...
Every framework to unite ingroups into outgroups makes the previous ingroup identities less powerful and useful. That's the whole point!
Well... do you mind providing some details? General rules as to what kind of transgressions would meet with what kind of sanctions? Examples?
General rule: people have the right to allocate the use of their excludable property
Weak sanction: if some dumb kids tresspass on your land to use your fishing hold it's fine to yell at them
Strong sanction: if someone steals your TV they go to prison.
You're really not making this easy... What is? My description of your views, or the statement that I misunderstood something? If the latter, could you put some effort into bridging the inferential gap? Where do you think I've gone wrong?
Sorry, I meant that your description of my views was accurate.
And if it can be shown that a mosque is a proper church, with similar advantages for individuals and their communities, you'd be ok with that, and you'd enforce your rule by forcing people to go to EITHER a mosque OR a Catholic church?
For someone to show that to me they would have to convince me that muslims have an equivalent chance of getting into heaven as catholics. If hypothetically I was ever convinced of that, then sure-- church, mosque, either is fine. Ceding that would basically require they convince me to stop being a catholic though.
What was the point of the "truth is an asymmetric weapon" thing then?
If it's true that my beliefs are beneficial, then that truth is asymmetric. Also some beliefs contain the sub-belief that they're guaranteed to be beneficial if [and sometimes only if] they're true. So long as I'm confident in the meta-belief that I'm maximising personal benefit, those beliefs have an asymmetric power over me (so long as they're true.)
GBRK
2mo ago
Zoning laws. I hate, hate, hate them. They're also mostly a Democrat thing, so there's an example of me being appropriately mad at "my side" for acting against my interests.
Aside from that--
Other tariffs. Excessive FDA regulatory burden. The existence of patent law. The Jones Act.
I could go on.
GBRK
2mo ago
Nah, they're 100% okay with it, they just use a distinction that's largely orthogonal to the conservative civic nationalist one. Look at the hysteria about "gentrifiers", for example.
GBRK
2mo ago
It's fair to identify particular values of particular creedal societies as being problematic. But as a trivial proof, an ideal creedal society is always better than an ideal ancestral society because the ideal creedal society can just capture whatever makes an ancestry "good" without the intermediary layer. It's like this: if you want the most law-abiding people in your society, you can admit people based on some proxy for law-abidingness, e.g., good SAT scores-- but that's always going to end up being less effective than just admitting them based on their actual history of abiding by the law. That applies ESPECIALLY if you take a strongly hereditarian position. If your entrance mechanism is looking for common descent, that actually relatively disadvantages the pro-social traits you assume are correlated with the descent.
GBRK
2mo ago
, we can begin right now
Unironically yes. Go for it. I don't think the net result is going to be any different from what's already happened. The Court's current disposition is a compromise between republicans, not a compromise with democrats.
GBRK
2mo ago
How's that relevant to anything I said?
Reference to the sororitas paradox. "Coherent" isn't a well-defined idea. You can come up with a definition to make anything coherent or incoherent. I'd rather speak in terms of degrees-- accepting that any social target is going to have to be fuzzy, and working to keep it useful over trying to define hard boundaries.
What happens to people who stray outside these overton windows?
The same thing that currently happens. Escalating levels of social sanctions followed by criminal punishments.
Have I misunderstood something?
That's accurate.
Correct. Catholics aren't known for just letting it go, because they're confident the truth will win out in the end. They are known for a highly organized church, a highly formalized dogma, and putting significant resources into their maintenance, and proselytization. It's like that quip from Star Control "peaceful missions through the cosmos rarely require weapons large enough to punch holes through a small moon".
Being confident in God isn't incompatible with working hard toward virtuous ends. "Faith without works..." etcetera etcetera.
Yes. It's not the only one though, and the other ones might have the advantage depending on the situation. You wouldn't be considering forcing people to go to church otherwise.
It's not about being afraid of muslims, it's about, it's that going to (a proper) church is a strictly good thing, for both the individual and the community. Rather than impose it because I'm afraid of an enemy group, I'd impose it because "getting people to do good things" is one of the main purposes of a community. And yes, as a consequence, it would keep out bad people and bring in good people. My beliefs are the best; that's exactly what I'd expect them to do.
Huh? If you're wrong about the truth winning out in the general cosmic sense, you should have no fear of being set right? Wouldn't that be your absolute worst case scenario? If you actually had the truth, but it lost, because you refused to fight for it?
If I'm wrong about having the best (most beneficial) beliefs, then I have no fear of adopting better beliefs. You're missing the point by focusing on "truth" here. Of course, I also believe that my beliefs are true, but that's noncentral.
GBRK
2mo ago
I don't see how I'm doing this
You're setting the threshold of "norm" precisely at, "taking control of the supreme court by refusing to confirm qualified appointees was Fine but taking control of the supreme court by adding more justices would be Bad." One heap is bigger than the other, but they're both heaps.
So let's a stop with this nonsense, because muh norms.
When did I start? Orange man bad (for me) because he opposes my interests and my ingroup. Whether or not he breaks norms doesn't matter.
GBRK
2mo ago
If extremely illiberal Muslims are supposed to be in our ingroup,
extremely illiberal muslims shouldn't be in our ingroup (by default; I'd make attempts to convert them and bring them in). I'm very pro-coherent-definition. I'm happy with making an us/them distinction. I just want to make it on the basis of adhering to a particular creed, rather than arbitrarily assigning it via ancestry.
GBRK
2mo ago
but the idea this was breaking some norm is absurd.
You're clearly defining "norm" in a way that benefits your political interests. Symmetrically, it should be fine for your enemies to do the same. That's why this whole "norms" business is pointless in the first place. It's just a useless definition game. Similarly, "court-packing" has no objective definition. Republicans have used purely legal means to ensure that the the court rules in their favor. Democrats aren't currently capable of doing the same-- but if they were to gain that capability, there's no objective reason they shouldn't do the same. There might be practical reasons, and I would encourage the democrats to consider them, but if they decide that swaying the supreme court to their side is a good idea, I don't see why "norms" should be any barrier.
GBRK
2mo ago
Okay, so your argument is that:
- I claim I don't like trump because I don't like his policies because I think his policies are bad.
- Obamacare is bad.
- ... consequently, I should dislike obamacare
- ... consequently, I should dislike the people who passed obamacare as much as I dislike trump
- But I don't.
- Therefore 1 is in contradiction with 4.
- Therefore I am not accurately representing why I dislike trump.
I have two counterarguments.
#1: Narrow
Point #2 is wrong. Obamacare is good. Therefore 3 and 4 are wrong, and there's no contradiction.
#2: Broad
Even if I were to admit that obamacare was bad, that would not be sufficient to demonstrate a contradiction in my position, because my position rests on the particular degree of trump's badness, and also on the utility of opposing him.
Consider this non-political example:
- Bob murders his family and then hangs himself. I find out about this only after it happens.
- My coworker, Jim, kicks puppies every chance he gets. Right now, he's winding up to hit a daschund.
Bob is clearly worse than Jim, no question. But it would be more rational for me to be emotionally motivated to oppose Jim. No amount of anger and hatred would reverse bob's actions, or even be particularly likely to deter future Bobs. But the right emotional reaction to seeing Jim about to kick a puppy might let me intervene in time to stop him, and perhaps even deter future puppy-kickers from doing what they want.
Consider this second example:
- Jim kicks puppies.
- Joe kicks babies.
Jim is clearly bad. But if Jim is willing to get angry with me about Joe, it's politically expedient for me to join Jim in his anger so we can intervene against Joe together than to be angry at Jim first.
GBRK
2mo ago
It's great in the aggregate, but not for every individual in particular. I recognize that there are people rationally opposed to immigration. But I have no reason to prioritize their interests over the interests of either myself or the (immigrant-inclusive) collective.
but there's no mechanism for excluding them or making them comply.
What makes you think I'm against compliance mechanisms? I believe the government has a duty and an interest in enforcing prosocial behavior. That's the entire point of creedal citizenship! You can say that it's a problem that people might defect against shared values and I'd agree with you, but it's crazy talk to identify the shared values as the problem, rather than the defection. A society built on-- for example-- shared ancestry, doesn't even get to the starting line!
Best as in most beneficial to hold, or best as in most able to propagate in a competitive environment? Because a belief that is the one may not also be the other.
For every belief I have, if I thought there was a more beneficial belief to posses, I would believe that instead. Therefore I can rationally conclude that I have the most-beneficial beliefs. My meta-confidence isn't 100%, since I could imagine learning reasons to swap out my beliefs again-- but for that exact reason it makes sense to bring in people with competing beliefs, so that I can either convert them, dominate them, or assimilate their more-adaptive traits.
GBRK
2mo ago
A rare return from the field of economics is the fact known for >200 years that increasing the supply of labor literally only ever benefits the ownership class.
All your objections are empirically wrong. HDI has risen over time, coinciding with the greatest increase in labor supply in the history of the planet. And in general, GDP is correlated with population growth
The more laborers you have, the greater the economies of scale, the more innovations you can sustain, the more surplus you generate.
GBRK
2mo ago
I don't know that a creedal nation can stay coherent,
How many grains of sand does it take to form a heap?
"Coherent" is, ironically, an incoherent target. Rather than create a few hard rules, it makes more sense to define a number of overton windows and accept that they're going to shift over time... but within a self-correcting framework that advantages particular kinds of evolution.
I think I disagree. If you have a nation that's 98% Catholic, facing the importation of a sizeable population of Muslims, with some Middle-Eastern Christians sprinkled in, that seems like a clear example of excluding people who share your creed being to your benefit.
Assuming I had a creedal nation like I wanted, there would be particular mechanisms in place to enforce that creed, which people against that creed would likely be unable to tolerate. but if muslims really want to come to a country where you have to attend church on sundays to be able to vote, then I'll take the win with grace, and welcome all the soon-to-be-converts.
(apply this to your capitalist/communist objection too.)
It's particularly strange to hear it from a Catholic.
???
I think God is willing to personally intervene on behalf of my religious community... and you think it's strange that I'm confident? I think it would be stranger if I wasn't! The truth is an asymmetric weapon. If I'm right, then I should be confident that I'll win. Not in the short term, maybe, but in a general, cosmic sense. And if I'm wrong... then I should have no fear of being set right!
GBRK
2mo ago
Instead of psychoanalyzing me, tell me how proving "who started it" would actually have any bearing on the logic of my argument. You want to make this a discussion about "who started it." I'm pointing out that that would be pointless because-- among other reasons-- you are not even attempting to accurately describe events. If you truly thought the question was central you would acknowledge what actually happened, that gives rise to your opposition's counterarguments-- and then dismiss those counterarguments by establishing why a particular framework to decide "who started it" is generally useful. But, spoiler alert, that wouldn't work-- because I'm glad norms are being destroyed, and I don't care who took the first step up the escalation ladder.
GBRK
2mo ago
They might not conceive of their position as such, but in practice they're in favor of letting in every refugee who claims to be part of the alphabet. Meanwhile, they're mostly in favor of taking away the privileges of citizenship from groups like, for example, nazis. (They might not want to change their citizenship status on paper, but the powers citizenship confers are more important than the actual accounting value.)
Again, I don't believe in their creed, but I agree with them that in principle, someone with the right creed should be allowed the privileges of citizenship (after some time spent proving themselves) regardless of ancestry, and that people granted the privileges of citizenship should be inculcated with particular values.
GBRK
2mo ago
And which location is that?
[Generic Midwestern City]. Founded by fur traders interacting with native americans, then settled by an admixture of english-descended and german-descended immigrants (who were definitely not a homogenous culture at that time), then settled again in successive waves by the great (african american) migration, by the italian and irish migrations, by latin american migrations, and now most recently by an indian migration. We've been what you call "Multikulti" for pretty much our entire existence. And that's essentially ordinary for anywhere that isn't some podunk town in the middle of nowhere.
GBRK
2mo ago
Sure. Basically I think the purpose of a state is to be a back-scratching club: designate an ingroup, and then work to benefit them. The question, then, is what makes the ingroup-- and the answer, as with all back-scratching clubs, is people who agree to mutually benefit each other. That shared self-interest creates the first, and deepest, common value, on top of which all others are built on. Nations built on ethnicity, language, region, or skin color, are just Schelling points for applying that self-interest. But while those things can serve as unifying elements, they're not intrinsically helpful for scratching backs. But culture, and religion, are both adaptive-- they're collections of traits that help perpetuate the groups that bear them. Therefore it makes perfect sense to center a nation around them.
To be clear, as a catholic, I disagree pretty heavily with many liberals and virtually every leftist about what "creed" the nation should be based on, and how the government should contribute to its enforcement. But I think by far the bigger threat is a government that excludes people who indisputably share my creed, versus a government that would try and promote another creed. By the very virtue of me believing the things I believe, I should rationally think they're the best beliefs, and that they're guaranteed to eventually win. The benefits of pulling in allies therefore massively outweighs the risk of allowing in enemies.
GBRK
2mo ago
I live in a location with tons of migrants-- both internationally (from latin america, and india) and internally (colleges nearby). It's great. Tons of services, no discernable effect on crime, plenty of new capital moving in to energize the local economy.
I sincerely don't care about how immigration hurts conservatives, and I mean that in every sense. I'm not encouraging it just to hurt you... but if it does, tough luck, buttercup. I'm pro-immigration because cheap labor is awesome, and network effects make it even better. I would probably be more anti-immigration if it was my labor being cheapened... but as a software engineer that works remote, my field is already at the upper end of globalization. You cannot threaten me with immigrants taking my job. If they could, indians in bangalore would already be doing it.
GBRK
2mo ago
That is not an accurate description of how the Republicans got their supreme court majority. But whatever-- there's no point in fighting about who started it. Ultimately, both parties have proven that they don't care about norms, except as a way to complain about things that get in their way. So why not just go mask off? Appealing to "norms" is basically a logical fallacy. If something is good, do it. If something is bad... hell, try it anyways, and get punished when you fail.
GBRK
2mo ago
Why would I be big mad about Obamacare? I liked obamacare. I think the benefits were worth the costs, regardless of the change to the business environment. I don't understand why I have to be mad about obamacare to be mad about tariffs, which are more disruptive and have no such benefits.
GBRK
2mo ago
Mob rule is preferable to minority rule. Plus, it's not like Trump's supreme court let anything like "norms" or "precedent" prevent them from overturning Roe vs. Wade. And that's a good thing! Both on the object level (abortion is bad) and on the meta level (people living today shouldn't be beholden to the whims of voters decades in the past.) Remember: the constitutional framers expected frequent amendments. Our ossified norms are the cause of our political dysfunction; they let disputes simmer instead of forcing action. They're a big part of why our political parties are so corrupt, and so entrenched.
Anyways, we would still have the senate.
(Also we should eliminate social security.)
Having them is necessary. Enforcing them isn't. At the very minimum Imagine a regulatory framework that has a shall-issue mandate on any kind of permit, but then your local community can sue you if you end up violating codes.
Consider this: if adding poor people makes things worse, why not take them away instead? Just bulldoze the houses of the poorest 10% and kick them out every year. With each decimation your schools and infrastructure would get even better!
Possible counterargument: the town is in a state of economic equilibrium, such that it can't spare even one garbage man without providing fewer services per dollar.
counter-counterargument: if the system is already in economic equilibrium, no one new will be incentivized to move in.
I don't feel like it's unfair that my boss can't abuse me. If workers in other countries want to die on the job and deal with arsenic-rivers then more power to them, though. In fact I view it as pretty much a strict good that we've outsourced the most polluting industries to other nations. Why would I want a lithium mine poisoning our rivers, when with the magic of globalization I can get bolivians to poison their own rivers instead?
All intellectual property law should be abolished with the exception of trademarks. If a sufficiently liquid free market demands a particular good, the free market will find a way to fund that good. Maybe at one point the market wasn't liquid enough, thanks to travel times and difficulty with communication, but thanks to modern technology we no longer live in such a benighted age. Intellectual property law doesn't encourage innovation, it just provides for a class of middlemen that can financialize and profit off of ideas. For example: The vast majority of J.K. Rowling's wealth doesn't come from sales of Harry Potter, it comes from her monopoly over the Harry Potter universe, which she uses to extract rent from the creative efforts of product designers, screenwriters, filmmakers, actors, cover-art designers, etcetera.
Trademarks are cool though.
More options
Context Copy link