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.)
GBRK
2mo ago
Doesn't everyone
You must live inside the most well-fortified filter bubble known to man. Do you seriously believe no one is pro-immigration? Are you such a mistake theorist that you think literally every leftist/liberal is simply ignorant of the downsides?
For myself, I understand that not everyone benefits from immigration. I understand why people in particular cultural-economic positions might rationally want to reduce the number of migrants. But I am not one those people. Immigrants directly benefit me and my ingroup. We want more of them.
GBRK
2mo ago
Tarrifs and fewer immigrants increase cost of living. Plus he's personally annoying, and that counts.
If you can show me an approximately equal amount of outrage about the passage and implementation of Obamacare
Were you born after 2008? because people were definitely Big Mad. The outrage reduced over time, but only because Obamacare is actually decent policy. (And if you want to argue that, explain why even Trump still hadn't gotten rid of it.)
Anyways, if you want to make a 1-to-1 comparison the outrage about Obamacare is definitely bigger than the outrage over tarrifs. Immigration and healthcare are flamewar lightning rods, but barely anyone actually cares to discuss trade policy.
Was your work nonpartisan?
I'm a government contractor. I believe my work is relatively nonpartisan, though if I doxxed myself maybe you would find a reason to disagree. But apparently the trump administration doesn't, because the contract I'm on got renewed... just, after a whole lot of time-and-money-wasting nonsense.
GBRK
2mo ago
Illegal immigration is good and is supported. Laws do not matter.
The laws are stupid. They're a bad compromise that makes no one happy. Leftists are mad that there are too few immigrants, rightists are mad that immigrants get too many benefits. I'm willing to cut the gordian knot and say that benefits are bad but immigrants are good. An ideal system of laws would recognize what the defacto state of affairs already does.
They can't even fathom how one could compromise on immigration.
The compromise is that we're more aggressive about punishing immigrants that prove feckless or criminal. (Up to and including forced labor, since deporting them removes the chance for justice and keeping them imprisoned just costs taxpayer money.) But rightists believe in crazy falsehoods like "immigrants are more likely to commit crimes," and leftists believe in crazy falsehoods like "welfare has no impact on market efficiency." So unfortunately it's up to liberals to do the most effective thing despite political and legal headwinds.
GBRK
2mo ago
The filibuster is a bad thing. I say that knowing perfectly well that trump is in office and he would pass things I hate. congress should be forced to make decisions, and face the consequences thereof, instead of endlessly grandstanding about how hypothetically they would be awesome if only they weren't getting filibustered.
Also, why not pack the supreme court? We should have a thousand justices. Maybe a hundred thousand. We should have so many justices they're actually a representative sample of the American population. Then the returns on lobbying justices would be basically nil; instead of being bound to support a political coalition, every justice could just vote their conscience.
GBRK
2mo ago
when they had the power to do so.
They made their best effort. DACA, Dreamers, etcetera. Democrats have had a government trifecta extremely rarely over the past few decades.
Anyways, illegal immigration is better than legal immigration. I'm a neolib, not a leftist; anyone who wants to live here can come, but if they want to stay here they shouldn't ask for welfare.
That inability to make a deal with the rest of the country
What deal? Republicans view immigration as a capital-t Threat. Look at any thread on this site and you will see that there are plenty of near-single-issue anti-immigration voters. Democrats couldn't have made any deal that didn't hurt more than it helped.
It's difficult to say.
It's not difficult at all. Illegal immigration is a good thing. I want as much of it as possible.
But a side doesn't get to claim it's some unique badness
don't twist my words. I'm not claiming trump is uniquely 'bad' in some objective sense. I'm claiming trump is uniquely placed to oppose my values and interests. Sure, clinton is also a rapist and I admit I don't feel nearly as much vitriol against him. But as much as everyone on the epstein list deserves to be taken down, I think it's perfectly rational to motivate my ingroup to focus on specifically the biggest threat to our interests. Call that Trump Derangement Syndrome if you want, but emotions are part of motivation and motivation is a part of political change, so it's perfectly rational for us to be "deranged."
GBRK
2mo ago
I don't like trump because he's made my situation materially worse and is likely to continue to do so. I don't like trump because he profits the outgroup at the expense of the ingroup. I don't like trump because I'm ideologically and morally opposed to his positions. I don't like trump because I think he is, personally, a very immoral individual.
In principle, you could convince me that any particular complaint is overblown. There are plenty of immoral, harmful, outgroup people I don't feel nearly the vitriol for. But Trump is the perfect storm; He's not just a villain, he's a villain that gratuitously kicks puppies. Sure, the media environment contributes to what you call "terror", but that's strictly adaptive. Everyone on my "side" would agree, sober-minded, that Trump is the single most important political figure to oppose. Adding a component of emotional motivation increases the time and pleasure in doing so. Consider any ideological cause leftists and liberals are interested in: creedal citizenship, wealth redistribution, climate change, alphabet people, etcetera. Assuming conflict theory, it's obvious that "Depose Donald Trump" is the first step in promoting any of them. The only reason to do anything else is if you believe in mistake theory instead-- but Donald Trump is congenitally incapable of admitting mistakes (except in the "fifty stalins" sense) which means any attempt to find common ground just gets ran over by his conflict theory instead.
By forming an orthogonal coalition with other people willing to press the "cooperate" button. "Orthogonal" meaning you cluster around a set of self-consistent values that are split between the current political coalitions. For example, if I had the charisma and moral fortitude, I'd try and pull together a movement that concedes to the left-wing economics of the liberation theology catholics but promotes the right-wing moral culture of the tradcaths. We'd advocate something like an open-borders welfare state, but with brutal enforcement of moral orthodoxy to discourage leeches from coming here. (I'm a morally spineless neoliberal currently, but compromise means being willing to give stuff up.)
Subsidies don't have to lose money if they have a positive multiplier.
They do if the government can't effectively recoup their investment via tax revenue-- which is what happens when money goes to tax-avoiding corporations.
Because in that case, that's the government owning a Treasury issued by the government.
Yes, that's the problem. Treasuries are essentially just an investment in the government's future ability to raise revenue, but that comes with the obvious moral hazard that when growth fails to cover the interest, "raise revenue" ends up becoming "raise taxes". I do agree with you on the "managed investments" bit-- and also the competent, professional team bit. With reference to...
I would like to reiterate that the executive branch borderline randomly scooping up equity stakes in flavor of the month companies is not this.
You won't find me arguing in favor of the implementation. Trump is definitely not the president I trust to do this. But the fact of the matter is, the government helicopters loads of money into flavor-of-the-month causes literally all the time, regardless of party or president. So why not set the standard that the government will get equity in return? And with reference to price discovery-- the government committing money into a sector is a truthful signal that the government is interested in promoting it, and that the government will become self-interested in making favorable regulations toward it. Obviously there are moral hazards associated, but price discovery, of all things, is not going to suffer.
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.
The same thing that currently happens. Escalating levels of social sanctions followed by criminal punishments.
That's accurate.
Being confident in God isn't incompatible with working hard toward virtuous ends. "Faith without works..." etcetera etcetera.
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link