guajalote
8d ago
It should not be legal to shoot someone on the subway except to defend against deadly force. But the deterrent effect of guns extends beyond these situations. People have broad incentives to respect others' boundaries when it's unclear who has a gun and under what circumstances they might be willing to use it. I never carry a gun, but I look like I could be carrying one, and that by itself changes the way people treat me and others in public.
I can't conclusively prove causation, but the observable correlations are so strong it should at least give you pause to consider they might be causal.
The places in the US with high rates of homelessness (e.g. San Francisco) are places with restrictive gun laws and restrictive housing and building regulations. The places with liberal gun laws and liberal housing regulations have low rates of homelessness. It's very consistent.
Houston's housing first policies are good, but they only work because the baseline rate of homelessness is already extremely low. This is mostly due to cheap housing. When the lowest tiers of housing are so affordable that someone with drug and mental health problems can afford to live there, you end up with far fewer homeless people. You also avoid negative feedback loops where, once someone becomes homeless, their lives tend to spiral and their issues get worse. When housing is attainable for even the lowest income people, it provides a sort of "ladder" people can climb to get their lives in order.
Also, just to clarify, I am not arguing that liberal gun laws reduce homelessness. I'm arguing they make homeless people far less likely to hassle or assault people because you never know who's packing heat. For example, you will see some homeless people on public transit in Houston, but I have literally never seen one approach other riders to ask for money, make a bunch of noise, or threaten anyone, all of which are common behaviors in other cities.
guajalote
8d ago
Houston's homelessness rate is about 30 per 100K. Denmark's homelessness rate is about 112 per 100K.
guajalote
9d ago
I am focused on empirical evidence rather than theory. Houston, with no zoning and few impediments to building housing, has a homelessness rate of around 30 people per 100k residents. Canada as a whole has an average homelessness rate of at least 90 per 100k residents. Vancouver appears to be something like 728 per 100k with 4,821 homeless and a population of 662k.
guajalote
9d ago
I have to disagree with the premise that too much liberalism created the problem. The solution is more liberalism: legalize gun ownership and deregulate housing. This approach has proven itself effective in the real world, it doesn't cost anything, and it doesn't require an authoritarian state.
guajalote
10d ago
My wife and in-laws are Mexican and I've come to learn that Mexicans love to toast all forms of bread and find it a bit weird to eat untoasted bread. It seems like basically all forms of bread taste good toasted, but I still prefer sourdough and good french breads untoasted to preserve their chewy texture.
guajalote
13d ago
Richard Feynman's memoir "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" describes his relationships with his parents, his wife, his colleagues and friends, etc. and I would describe all of those relationships as basically functional and healthy.
guajalote
16d ago
I agree with what you're saying but I also agree with cjet79's central point that "if someone is going to make a claim contradicting [most people's common sense about medicine] they need to have a lot of evidence and some damn good explanations."
I think this is true in general, not just in medicine. If you're going to make claims that contradict peoples' common sense, then you need to be prepared to carry a heavy burden of persuasion, and you should empathize with (rather than attack or belittle) those people who are unpersuaded and trust their (perhaps incorrect) common sense. This is where the medical establishment really messed up. Even on issues where I think the establishment is correct (e.g., the covid vaccines are effective, adults should be allowed to medically transition) I still think the establishment has done a horrible job of messaging, and has blamed its failures on the people it failed to convince.
guajalote
18d ago
I think they mean "Her fiancé gets a license to keep selling his soul to big corporations for money while they retain their virtue in their social circles." But personally I doubt this. Most top lawyers run in elite blue-tribe social circles where "selling one's soul" to corporations is not really frowned upon to begin with.
guajalote
23d ago
Yeah there are a bunch of jobs where hiring works the "normal" way. I work at an IP litigation firm. If someone emails me their resume I look at it to see if they meet the qualifications we're looking for. If they do I circulate it to the other partners and recommend an interview. Then we have an interview and if we like the person we hire them.
guajalote
30d ago
Public statements of support for organizations (including bad ones) are protected by the First Amendment. I can't see how this would survive a constitutional challenge unless he did something more substantial than "express support" for Hamas.
Regardless, I am not aware of a real-world situation where a federal judge has been consistently "wrong" while otherwise doing his job (i.e. showing up for hearings and issuing orders in a timely fashion). For example, a federal district judge ignoring a direct order from the circuit court would be shocking. Perhaps some examples of this exist, but I am not aware of any, and presumably it would be grounds for disciplinary proceedings.
guajalote
1mo ago
The process is generally used for criminal/corrupt behavior or failing to do the job (like failing to show up to court, failing to issue opinions, failing to resign when no longer mentally competent for the job). The complete set of arcane procedures are here, I believe.
I don't know whether the process is ever invoked for judges who are "wrong as a matter of law frequently." Often this is the result of a political or philosophical disagreement rather than a failure to do one's job. For example, imagine a conservative district judge pre-Dobbs who consistently holds that Roe was wrongly decided and is not good law, and therefore keeps getting reversed. It may seem that this judge is constantly getting the law "wrong," but in fact he is getting the law "right" and will later be vindicated by Dobbs.
guajalote
1mo ago
I don't know whether the data exists, but my understanding is the vast majority voluntarily resign, probably over 90%.
guajalote
1mo ago
Judges are almost never impeached because the federal judiciary has an internal process where if a judge is found to have done something bad after an investigation, the judiciary will recommend that the judge voluntarily resign. The judge will almost always comply with the resignation "suggestion," because if he does not, the judiciary will recommend impeachment to congress. Such a recommendation carries a great deal of weight when your own colleagues in the judiciary think you deserve to be impeached. So the impeachment rate is low because there is an internal process that pushes judges who would otherwise get impeached to voluntarily step down.
guajalote
1mo ago
Banning all travel to and from places millions of Americans visit each year would be costly to the economy so while it might be cheaper for the government it would surely be more expensive for the country. Also, I want freedom to travel where I please. We shouldn't impose travel bans that aren't actually necessary.
guajalote
2mo ago
If you're going to invest in the stock market, put the money in an index fund as suggested. I've been making around 10% annual returns doing this. You're not going to beat the market making risky bets because you don't have better information than the market. Trying to pick stocks is just gambling.
If you are truly dead set on out-performing index funds, then you need to invest in something that you have more direct control over, like a business you own or a property you manage.
guajalote
2mo ago
In addition to the "no step on snek" crowd, many evangelicals consider a federal ID to be the biblically prophesied "mark of the beast." There has been a strong consensus among the republican voting base for a long time that a federal ID would be one of the worst things that could possibly happen, and I don't see that changing soon.
guajalote
2mo ago
Wokeness only appealed to a segment of the elites and was unappealing to most non-elites. So wokeness gained power quickly but ran out of steam because it lacked any grassroots support. On the other hand, Christianity started out as a religion of the proletariat and by the time it trickled up to the elite of Roman society it had massive grassroots support. I think that's a key difference.
guajalote
3mo ago
I am pro-choice, but it seems like pro-lifers have a number of easy retorts to this argument:
-
Most pro-life people do care about and help prisoners, immigrants, the sick, the poor, etc.
-
Why would it make sense to prioritize the wellbeing of "morally uncomplicated" unborn children lower than the wellbeing of "morally complicated" people (i.e. people who bear a non-zero amount of responsibility for their circumstances)? Shouldn't the former be a higher priority, or at least an equal priority?
-
He is making an apples-and-oranges comparison. It is already well-established and widely agreed that it is wrong to kill prisoners, immigrants, the sick, the poor, etc. Pro-lifers simply seek to extend these protections to unborn children. If the law permitted the killing of immigrants or poor people without due process, I am sure pro-lifers would be just as upset about this as abortion, if not more so.
guajalote
3mo ago
You can make this argument about anything. Many men would prefer an educated wife, therefore they would benefit from society shaming women who choose not to pursue an education. Does that mean women who do not pursue an education are "cheating the social contract?"
guajalote
3mo ago
Because if it were, you would have no problem with people becoming addicted to drugs and other substances.
I have no problem with people becoming addicted to drugs and other substances. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but I have no problem with it because it's none of my business how they choose to live their lives.
A jury decides self-defense cases. If you can convince even one person out of eight that you credibly feared for your life or the life of another, you are not guilty.
Even a very addled person can understand "Lots of people around here have guns and there's no way to tell who. I had better not cause trouble (like swinging a makeshift halberd at people) or I might get shot."
Observably, this is what we see. The homeless objectively behave differently in places with guns versus places without.
Houston's government is entirely run by Democrats and vagrancy is not punished. The police force is smaller and less active than most comparable cities. Houston's police force is 5,300 (pop. 2.3 million) versus 11,000 in Chicago (pop. 2.6 million).
More options
Context Copy link